Naturally unfaithful women.

Kimia

scanlas wrote: »

I fail to see how this thread is ridiculous. This is the problem when discussing any topic where words like "sluts" are involved. People get defensive. How does one otherwise explain why it's so common across cultures for women to consistently bitch about "sluts". What's wrong with a woman having sex for her own pleasure and not needing something in return like wining and dining etc.

It's seems plausible to me that it's because these so called "sluts" are tampering with the market price for sex, that being commitment.

Feel free to post alternative suggestions.....

Scanlas, your comment about women's 'dirty' minds gave me pause. That is why I am not treating you seriously. It seems to me that you are rubbing your hands gleefully together while thinking of 'dirty girls' in a Father Jack fashion, loving the 'fact' that all women will give it to their biological 'slutty' urges if they find a worthy man to provide them with food. You have food, I imagine?

Don't generalise about an entire gender. We are more than animals you know.

The Corinthian

Kimia wrote: »

Don't generalise about an entire gender. We are more than animals you know.

I'd agree with this, although it should not be a reason to dismiss the entire topic.

Additionally, both men and women are influenced by biology. Some more than others; I've known women who don't appear to suffer from PMT at all and others who go positively psycho too. However, you are right that you cannot lump everyone into a general category and the reasons for paternity fraud, as with anything else, can vary wildly.

scanlas

Kimia wrote: »

Scanlas, your comment about women's 'dirty' minds gave me pause. That is why I am not treating you seriously. It seems to me that you are rubbing your hands gleefully together while thinking of 'dirty girls' in a Father Jack fashion, loving the 'fact' that all women will give it to their biological 'slutty' urges if they find a worthy man to provide them with food. You have food, I imagine?

Don't generalise about an entire gender. We are more than animals you know.

Maybe "dirty" was the wrong word to use. I was trying to get the point across how sexual women's minds are.

I don't think it's wise not to take the text I wrote seriously because of a few details. I read books all the time where I find ideas I don't agree with. It doesn't mean I should dismiss everything the author has to say.

You say we are more than animals, we are animals, I don't consider myself or humans to be superior or inferior to any animal. I think that idea is egotisical. We are different to animals, they can do things we can't and we can do things they can. There doesn't need to be a judgment about who or what ranks above or below. I believe those ideas cause hatred and violence.

There is a core essence to being a human female, there are core urges and drives which seem to be common amongst the vast majority of females. I was addressing those. I wouldn't call that generalisation.

If you were to ask women if they thought their friends and family would be surprised by their sexual thoughts and they answered honestly I think the majority would say yes.

To make it clear, when I say a worthy man, I mean a man who has options with women. Women are great at reading the men who have options with women and who doesn't, on average ( I say on average so not to risk generalisation accusations). There are subtle signals women can read from a man's behaviours. A man who has had sex with 300 women will radiate these signals without knowing it. It's like women have radar's which are always scanning men for these signals. I find it fascinating.

lynsalot

Hi Scanlas
I just read that 60% of men and 40% of women are involved in an extramarital affair. This doesn't include those in a relationship without being married.

This kinda sounds like pop culture to be honest. It would be great if we could believe everything we read and draw conclusions but you can't generalise so much.

We evolved from animals - we are the most complex creatures living on this earth in terms of development, emotion, intellect etc. We may have urges (Sexual thoughts and desires that i have actually discussed with my friends and husband and while it's often gotten a few laughs it's never shocked lol)

I think the word slut is just a slag (Edit slang how ironic) word used by ppl to describe a woman they perceive as "sleeping around." Perception is a great thing but can't be relied upon. I'm female, I have had many sexual experiences in my past, I'm monogamous now. Tt's a choice I made because my emotions.

Oh just another thing. men think about sex every 6 seconds apparently so get your head out of the gutter and stop thinking of me in sexy underwear lol ha! I think I'll go and post a thread about how much I idolise Hitler and sit back and let the commotion begin....

Ickle Magoo

Well, it's a bit simplistic but it seems perfectly plausible for the most part. There are many children borne to married men's lover's, I don't know why it shouldn't be the same with married women - they just have the added issue of compounding their infidelity with fraudulently claiming their spouse is the father.

I'd take the

scanlas wrote: »

When a woman is in estrus " in heat" she seeks to mate with as many sexworthy men (alpha types) as possible

as being a little outdated by a couple of millennia for the majority but there's no denying some women find ugly, successful and wealthy men more attractive than their poor yet better looking contemporaries.

I'm not sure what you mean by this tho:

scanlas wrote: »

There is a core essence to being a human female, there are core urges and drives which seem to be common amongst the vast majority of females.

scanlas

scanlas wrote:

There is a core essence to being a human female, there are core urges and drives which seem to be common amongst the vast majority of females

I think this may have been true a few centuries ago, but social conditioning has changed many aspects of peoples behavior. While there are a few drives that remain, like the desire to have children (shown by many women approaching their late 20's), other behaviors have been tempered over the years. There are many stereotypes which are applied to men and women which just don't have the same effect anymore.

For myself, its like the comment about men thinking about sex every 6 seconds. I feel I have a fairly average sex drive, but I certainly don't think about sex every 6 seconds. A few times an hour, but not that much. I feel that many of these kind of stereotypes about peoples behavior have been tempered.

They still do exist in us, but not to the degree of the past. Sure, there are people out there that do exhibit the more extreme edge, but there are exceptions to everything.

scanlas

"as being a little outdated by a couple of millennia for the majority but there's no denying some women find ugly, successful and wealthy men more attractive than their poor yet better looking contemporaries."


Don't be confused by wealth, wealth doesn't make a man sexworhty, though it does make a man provider worthy. A man's personality and behaviours are primarily what makes him sexworthy. Women are very inclined to cheat on a man who is provider worthy and less so for a man who is sexworthy.
That's why you often hear about wives married to rich men or any men who try to avoid sex and it becomes a chore for her, reason being a provider worthy man doesn't turn her on like a sexworthy man does.

lynsalot

scanlas wrote: »

Women are very inclined to cheat on a man who is provider worthy and less so for a man who is sexworthy.

I find this so incredibly silly. Where are you getting this "fact" lol Have you actually checked with "women" as in all the women in the world?

Where do you get the word sexworthy from? I studied anthropology by the way and these theories are based on nothing but popular psychology.

To state that this is based on anthroplogy or anthropological beliefs means you've studied the culture. Culture in itself is completely separated from society. Which culture is this based on? Are you trying to tell us that even though there are millions of cultures around the world but every woman acts the same way lol - have u just read freud on a book review and taken the shortcut to a conclusion? Or are you just trying to get a reaction from people? One thing i'm curious about... did your mother act this way? Given she's a woman?

Ickle Magoo

scanlas wrote: »

Don't be confused by wealth, wealth doesn't make a man sexworhty, though it does make a man provider worthy.

Oh I disagree with that. Wealth does indeed make a man more attractive to a lot of women. Wealth, power, success all make men sexier & therefore more "sexworthy" ()

scanlas wrote: »

A man's personality and behaviours are primarily what makes him sexworthy.

I disagree, I've known some complete idiots that the girls love because they look good, they have a reputation as being a demon in the sack & they flash the cash.

scanlas wrote: »

Women are very inclined to cheat on a man who is provider worthy and less so for a man who is sexworthy.

Why are they "very inclined" to cheat at all? If women are in a happy relationship getting all needs met then they tend to stay faithful, that's the responsibility of both parties - infidelity is not down to some kind of genetic pre-disposition by one-half of the population, it's down to lousy relationships, opportunity and lack of self-control.

scanlas wrote: »

That's why you often hear about wives married to rich men or any men who try to avoid sex and it becomes a chore for her, reason being a provider worthy man doesn't turn her on like a sexworthy man does.

That's not limited to wives of rich men btw - men of all demographics can be crap in the sack or have wives with low or non-existent libidos.

I think you're harbouring under the illusion that some men have some kind of magical quality that turns all women on. I don't agree. Some men are attractive to a lot of women, some not. That's down to a million & one things & only one of those is women's drive to procreate.

Most women like sex, good sex - if she's in a less than satisfactory relationship having less than satisfactory sex then she'll be more inclined to cheat - & she'll find anyone more "sexworthy" than her partner, regardless of how good or lousy a "provider" he is.

Are you a woman btw? As you seem to know so much about how they tick....not. :eek:

scanlas

Social conditioning has us believing wealthy men are sexier.

A wealthy man in his environment of being higher status will attract more women. In that position he can give orders and gets situational confidence which does make him more attractive to women in that environment.

A sexworthy man has those behavours in all situations. Have you notice how amongst your friends you have an interesting fun personality but amongst strangers you don't. A sexworthy man has access to his cool personality all the time. What matters is how you make a woman feel.

Take a wealthy man out of his comfortable environment where he has power and into an unfamiliar environment and he tends to lose his cool personality. Sometimes a wealthy man is a sexworthy man of course. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I've chatted up hundreds of different women from different cultures, the mechanices of the pick up are the same across cultures. The women respond to the same things. Italian, French, Irish, English, Scottish, Zimbabwaen, Australian, American, Colombian, Brazilian: all the same to name some of the nationalities I've chatted up from the top of my head.

They all respond to the same things, there are only minor differences which may be cause by different cultures, at core level they are the behave the same.

Women will tend to flock to wealthier men which is more of a status attraction, not a deep sexual attraction. A man's fearlessness, dominance, confidence, masculinity, thinking from first hand perspective, playfulness and social skills subcommunications of sexuality are what causes sexual attraction. Most men spend their lives either trying to be rich to get women or blaming thier lack of wealth or looks for not having choice with women,little do they know they don't need any of that stuff, sure it helps, but it's not at the core of what gives a man choice with women.

Ickle Magoo

scanlas wrote: »

Social conditioning has us believing wealthy men are sexier.

A wealthy man in his environment of being higher status will attract more women. In that position he can give orders and gets situational confidence which does make him more attractive to women in that environment.

No, money makes people more attractive because they can provide a more attractive life-style, can have better dental care, education, life experiences, etc. Having money can actually make people sexier; to look at, to speak to, as well as make their company generally a more attractive proposition.

scanlas wrote: »

A sexworthy man has those behavours in all situations. Have you notice how amongst your friends you have an interesting fun personality but amongst strangers you don't. A sexworthy man has access to his cool personality all the time. What matters is how you make a woman feel.

What? Who says I don't have a fun personality amongst strangers? I don't think my personality changes whether I'm with friends or not, I'm still me. Cool personality? I don't think there is such a thing tbh. Some guys get on with & attract some women, there will always be other women that don't like them & aren't impressed regardless.

scanlas wrote: »

Take a wealthy man out of his comfortable environment where he has power and into an unfamiliar environment and he tends to lose his cool personality. Sometimes a wealthy man is a sexworthy man of course. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Sexuality is a hugely personal thing. As above, no one is fancied or attractive to everyone else regardless of personality or finance. I don't think there is such a thing as a "sexworthy" man in general. Maybe just a man whom a particular woman find sexually attractive at a particular time in her life for a multitude of reasons - none of which are exclusive to him nor her.

scanlas wrote: »

I've chatted up hundreds of different women from different cultures, the mechanices of the pick up are the same across cultures. The women respond to the same things. Italian, French, Irish, English, Scottish, Zimbabwaen, Australian, American, Colombian, Brazilian: all the same to mane some of the nationalities I've chatted up from the top of my head.

They all respond the same to a loud deep voice.
They all respond the same to leaning back.
They all respond the same to playfullness and teasing.
They all respond the same to strong eye contact.
They all respond the same to getting them to do things for you, more attraction.
They all smile and look into your eyes in the same way as they get more attracted.
They all resond the same way when you do something unattractive such as ask them two or three questions in a row, especially early on.
They all respond emotionally to illogicallity, ie walking up and saying I carried a watermelon to one girl, then to friend say You look like a teacher, then switch to friend and say I have a toothache. They all seem to enjoy it if I'm enjoying it. Ie they feel what you feel, If you feel good they tend to feel good, if you feel nervous and bad they tend to feel nervous and bad. This is casued by mirror neurons in the womans brain. They also allow women to empathise better than men.

We behave socially at a fundamental level very similarly across the world.

I'd write more but my fingers are starting to hurt.

My head is hurting...quotes from Dirty Dancing, hundreds of chat up lines across the globe and every woman behaved in precisely the same manner? Oh dear.

Could it just be how women react with you as opposed to how all women react with all men? And I still don't understand how the above tells you that women in general are naturally unfaithful.

It tells you that certain signals are interpreted in certain ways & may illicit similar responses ie a clumsy guy saying something out the box is less attractive than one who is trying to give the impression of finding you attractive - that's not rocket science. It doesn't say that once in a long-term relationship the woman would automatically be unfaithful.

Ickle Magoo

Sorry, I answered before you had time to edit.

scanlas wrote: »

They all respond to the same things, there are only minor differences which may be cause by different cultures, at core level they are the behave the same.

Women will tend to flock to wealthier men which is more of a status attraction, not a deep sexual attraction. A man's fearlessness, dominance, confidence, masculinity, thinking from first hand perspective, playfulness and social skills subcommunications of sexuality are what causes sexual attraction. Most men spend their lives either trying to be rich to get women or blaming thier lack of wealth or looks for not having choice with women,little do they know they don't need any of that stuff, sure it helps, but it's not at the core of what gives a man choice with women.

Are you saying that it's not just wealth or good looks that get men laid? That it's about how you talk to women & behave infront of them that is a major contributing factor in them finding men attractive...is that not fairly obvious? It also works with men for women & still doesn't explain why women would be naturally unfaithful.

scanlas

It's apparently not obvious to most men that your behavours around women attract them, I keep telling my average looking friends that the reason you can't "pull" the hottest women is caused by your beliefs. They believe they are not good enough for the hottest women, as a result of this they don't know what to say when approaching them,ie their brain doesn't give them access to their best personality. When they approach women who they believe are on par or below them the problem of not knowing what to say magically disappears and their behaviours change without them realising it,ie they loosen up.

I have one trick I use to hook a woman's attention real quick. When I'm amongst a group of men and women I'll say something unusual like tell a story randomly about peeling potatoes or sing a stupid song. Something that most men wuld be embarrased of and would glance at the women to seek their approval.Women notice this, they have peripheral vision, they can see when you are staring at her in the corner of her eye. What I do is smile and make sure not to look at the women and continue talking happily and unphased to one of the men. The women then remarkably engage me in converastion and/or touch me. Reason being I subcommunicated I don't believe they are above me. You don't scan a kid's reaction when you say something stupid.

The not scanning a woman's face for approval is a behavour amongst thousands most men don't know about that attracts women. Also if I do look at her and she gives me a weird look I won't be effected emotionally because I don't believe she is above me and she will be attracted by my unreactivity.

Just an example of the invisible to most men behavours that attract women. Then the woman says, there something about him, I don't know what it is. You don't need to be rich for these behavours, you just need the right mindset and there is a process to go through which can give you the right mindset. Wealth,looks etc are factors but alot less so than people think.

By the way if you are a demon in bed, your behavours will probably reflect that and women will detect those behavours. It's as if they have radars constatnly on the lookout for these invisible behavours.

As for why women cheat, it makes sense for the propogation of their DNA.

I was watching the moment of truth the other day where a wife admitted to cheating, straight away there were comments of women in the room calling her a slapper. The men didn't call her a slapper.

My original post gives a good reason why women are so quick to call women slappers, sluts etc. I've yet to hear another suggestion.

Ickle Magoo

I thought the OP was quite interesting but this is starting to look like a platform to spout how great your pick-up technique is, which is a bit icky tbh.

On the whole, it's a very simplistic outlook to a very complicated subject. I think over-generalising both the behaviours that attract them and women themselves is pretty disingenuous. I know men who like to think they have the measure of women and what women want, I don't know any who actually do - they tend just to be able to ignore and justify their rejections better.

As for why women call others sluts, it's an interesting point - bearing in mind it was men who perpetuated the notion that it was unacceptable for women to enjoy the same sexual freedoms, why do some women still cling to that idea? I think it's much like a man being called a prick or other sexual reference used as insult. It's an easy, lazy way of conjuring up a negative image about sex & the enjoyment of, a topic that is still quite taboo - even unacceptable - to the more traditional.

Women don't need to cheat to propagate their DNA, I still don't get the link.

scanlas

scanlas wrote: »

It's apparently not obvious to most men that your behavours around women attract them, I keep telling my average looking friends that the reason you can't "pull" the hottest women is caused by your beliefs. They believe they are not good enough for the hottest women, as a result of this they don't know what to say when approaching them,ie their brain doesn't give them access to their best personality. When they approach women who they believe are on par or below them the problem of not knowing what to say magically disappears and their behaviours change without them realising it,ie they loosen up.

Its two things. One, your own male beliefs. Or rather limiting beliefs, which prevent most guys from speaking to women without any hangups. Society has neutered most men by making them believe that they need to put on another persona to be successful with women. That wealth, power, sexyness (bad boy appeal), etc are necessary. When in fact, all men have it within them to meet women on an equal playing field and be treated with respect. Unfortunately women have had to deal with inept boys for so long, that all men are painted with the same stereotype. Except for "bad boys".

Secondly, its the personality of the woman herself, and what she is thinking of at that given moment. All women (just as men do) having different personalities (despite the desire by many people to stereotype) will react to different ways of approaches. They've (women) been checked out, flattered and approached since they hit puberty, and by the time they're 20, will have been approached by literally hundreds of guys. (My future wife says she's approached at least 10 times a day, and I've seen this happen quite a few times) They've seen most of the corny & trashy pickup combination's thrown out by men, and won't be impressed by them. Instead, they tend to look to how they feel in a guys presence. Whether they feel a nervous tension which might make that encounter unique. Lastly, a lot of guys approach a girl, and don't get the desired response. They never think that the girl wasn't paying her full attention to you, because she might have her own troubles. Many women have said that they've missed on lovely guys simply because their attention was elsewhere, they replied on autopilot, and the guy disappeared too quickly thereafter.

I have one trick I use to hook a woman's attention real quick. When I'm amongst a group of men and women I'll say something unusual like tell a story randomly about peeling potatoes or sing a stupid song. Something that most men wuld be embarrased of and would glance at the women to seek their approval.Women notice this, they have peripheral vision, they can see when you are staring at her in the corner of her eye. What I do is smile and make sure not to look at the women and continue talking happily and unphased to one of the men. The women then remarkably engage me in converastion and/or touch me. Reason being I subcommunicated I don't believe they are above me. You don't scan a kid's reaction when you say something stupid.

I don't bother with any of that anymore. Well, actually its because I have met my special girl.

But I used to just talk to women, and let them decide if they want to be with me or not. I know that I can find someone easily enough, and women pick up on that. Women have trained themselves to pick up on mens body signals. They learn when they're trying to convince daddy to let them go to a concert, or if they need extra pocket money. Women know that they can manipulate men, and most will learn how to do so.

Its very easy for guys to use that against women, if they just display some confidence and self-worth.

The not scanning a woman's face for approval is a behavour amongst thousands most men don't know about that attracts women. Also if I do look at her and she gives me a weird look I won't be effected emotionally because I don't believe she is above me and she will be attracted by my unreactivity.

Women are attracted by confidence. Not arrogance. Confidence. They want a guy that will make them feel safe, but can also offer some degree of excitement to their lives. They want a guy that makes them feel... both emotionally and physically. Seems a reasonable request. Unfortuently most guys focus on one or the other. They want to have sex, or they act like friends. Try both at the same time.

By the way if you are a demon in bed, your behavours will probably reflect that and women will detect those behavours. It's as if they have radars constatnly on the lookout for these invisible behavours.

Just say you're a whirl in business, and still rubbish in bed. You have confidence in your business abilities, and don't really care about your physical abilities. Women will pick up on your confidence regardless of where it comes from, and find it to be a good sign. Confidence is sexy.

As for why women cheat, it makes sense for the propogation of their DNA.

Women cheat for the same reasons men cheat. In many relationships, both partners initially look after each other well, but after a few years, their attention wanes. they expect their partner to stay interested even though they themselves are unwilling to invest as much "effort" as before. For men, it might be that their wife has had a child and has no interest in sex anymore, or for the woman her husband is off working all the time leaving her alone. There's are generalisations & stereotypes but they do show a common thread in failed relationships. Dissatisfaction. If people continued seeking to attract each other as they did when they first met, then most people wouldn't look for external pleasures.

Its nothing to do with DNA. Its psychology.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

As for why women call others sluts, it's an interesting point - bearing in mind it was men who perpetuated the notion that it was unacceptable for women to enjoy the same sexual freedoms, why do some women still cling to that idea?

Can you prove that it was men that perpetuated that notion? It just that its always said but never really backed up.

Women have always had influence over men. While not quite so openly in the past, but children were raised my their mothers or other women, who instilled certain ideals into them while growing up. Its only in the last few decades that many mothers have moved away from raising their children, and joining men in the workplace. Men in the past, didn't have as much influence in the raising of children as they do now.

Also many Religions used to place great emphasis on female infidelity and temptation usually was placed at the feet of women. While the Catholic church was predominately male in power, many women encouraged those beliefs from their convents and nunneries....

I'd say both sexes promoted such a view for many reasons, and men get the blame because its easy to accuse us of such.

Women don't need to cheat to propagate their DNA, I still don't get the link.

Ditto.

Ickle Magoo

There's always been huge emphasis put on women & their lack of sexual contact with other men; purity, virgins, chastity belts, etc, etc. None of these were given to women by other women.

scanlas

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I thought the OP was quite interesting but this is starting to look like a platform to spout how great your pick-up technique is, which is a bit icky tbh.

On the whole, it's a very simplistic outlook to a very complicated subject. I think over-generalising both the behaviours that attract them and women themselves is pretty disingenuous. I know men who like to think they have the measure of women and what women want, I don't know any who actually do - they tend just to be able to ignore and justify their rejections better.

As for why women call others sluts, it's an interesting point - bearing in mind it was men who perpetuated the notion that it was unacceptable for women to enjoy the same sexual freedoms, why do some women still cling to that idea? I think it's much like a man being called a prick or other sexual reference used as insult. It's an easy, lazy way of conjuring up a negative image about sex & the enjoyment of, a topic that is still quite taboo - even unacceptable - to the more traditional.

Women don't need to cheat to propagate their DNA, I still don't get the link.

To clarify, succesfully chatting up women is a mutually beneficial experience where both parties are on the same team enjoying the experience of bouncing their personalities off each other.That's my take on it anyway. Mainstream media gives the idea that you need to "trick the woman into bed". Complete rubbish.

The slut topic: Men began treating women as property when agriculture began. They invented marriage and religion (thou shalt not commit adultery etc.) so women could be kept as property and give birth to children that was their's, that's why women were supposed to be virgin's on their wedding day, so men are 100% sure the baby is their's. But this was unnatural for women. Of course womens sexuality was alot different than what men thought. You have to remember men controlled everything. Women therefore had to keep quiet about thier sexuality or risk not getting a husband to provide for her. They had to try to repress their sexuality and keep it secret about the fantasies etc that went through their heads. If a woman was found to cheat or be overly interested in sex she must be ridiculed to protect the secret and how much more likely they are to cheat than men think.

That's why women love hanging around with a guy who doesn't judge them, she can loosen up and enjoy expressing herself without fear of judgement.

So the reason women call women sluts is to maintain the secret, and their's nothing wrong with that, they want to live an enjoyable life like anyone else and have families. Their helping men in a way as well by keeping the secret because alot of men can't deal with the truth of female sexuality.

bigeasyeah

Is this supposed to be a revelation?

Ickle Magoo

scanlas wrote: »

To clarify, succesfully chatting up women is a mutually beneficial experience where both parties are on the same team enjoying the experience of bouncing their personalities off each other.That's my take on it anyway. Mainstream media gives the idea that you need to "trick the woman into bed". Complete rubbish.

If you didn't need to trick a woman into bed, you wouldn't require a particular technique. You'd just be completely yourself & the women who are interested in who you are would let you know. This idea that men must strut like modern day peacocks with lingering looks or unusual stories to get women "hooked" is just as ridiculous, frankly.

scanlas wrote: »

The slut topic: Men began treating women as property when agriculture began. They invented marriage and religion (thou shalt not commit adultery etc.) so women could be kept as property and give birth to children that was their's, that's why women were supposed to be virgin's on their wedding day, so men are 100% sure the baby is their's. But this was unnatural for women. Of course womens sexuality was alot different than what men thought. You have to remember men controlled everything. Women therefore had to keep quiet about thier sexuality or risk not getting a husband to provide for her. They had to try to repress their sexuality and keep it secret about the fantasies etc that went through thier head. If a woman was found to cheat or be everly interested in sex she mst be ridiculed to protect the secret.

So the reason women call women sluts is to maintain the secret.

Sorry? Women today call other women sluts to maintain a secret that is no longer a secret?

scanlas

I think the secret still exists, we'll have to agree to disagree. Why was my friend so shocked when he first had sex recently with a girl he was seeing. She seemed like a quiet nice "good girl" type but then started telling him to call her a whore and hit her during sex. He got freaked out and had to leave. If the secret of female sexuality was common knowledge he would have known that some girls have things like that that turn them on and wouldn't have gotten freaked out.

By the way, saying something unusual is not a trick, by defintion only a confident man do it under social pressure, it's just a way of speeding up the interaction and letting a woman know your confident from the start instead of 5 minutes later when she realises that you have balls of steel. Dancing on an empty dance floor sober doing your own special embarrassing dance and enjoying yourself could be called a technique, but you aren't tricking anyone because you are that confident.

As for "techniqies" to chat up women, you should get to a place where you can just be yourself and express youself authentically without fear of judgment, but for a shy person with little experience techniques can get the ball rolling to get to a place where you can drop the techniques.

You can call leaning back a technique, but naturally confident people do that anyway. You are learning to become a person who does this naturally. It takes time and isn't easy to become confident.

I feel my original post is a revelation to most, maybe I'm right or maybe I'm wrong but that's what I think and I don't choose what conclusions i come to. The conclusions choose me if that makes sense, maybe not.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There's always been huge emphasis put on women & their lack of sexual contact with other men; purity, virgins, chastity belts, etc, etc. None of these were given to women by other women.

Really? You're excusing women from any responsibility for these concepts? Women have been in places of power before and didn't change these concepts. Don't you think you're ignoring the influence of women on men over the last few hundred years?

Ickle Magoo

scanlas wrote: »

I think the secret still exists, we'll have to agree to disagree. Why was my friend so shocked when he first had sex recently with a girl he was seeing. She seemed like a quiet nice "good girl" type but then started telling him to call her a whore and hit her during sex. He got freaked out and had to leave. If the secret of female sexuality was common knowledge he would have known that some girls have things like that that turn them on and wouldn't have gotten freaked out.

I imagine that's got more to do with his lack of experience with women & ignorance of sex/sexuality in general than any great effort by womankind to keep their love of getting down & dirty a secret from the world. I think most people would be aware that women are willing participants, if not instigators of all manner of sexual activities.

scanlas wrote: »

By the way, saying something unusual is not a trick, by defintion only a confident man do it under social pressure, it's just a way of speeding up the interaction and letting a woman know your confident from the start instead of 5 minutes later when she realises that you have balls of steel. Dancing on an empty dance floor sober doing your own special embarrassing dance and enjoying yourself could be called a technique, but you aren't tricking anyone because you are that confident.

I think if you have to force yourself to do something you wouldn't ordinarily do then you're not being completely honest about who you are and it just doesn't sit right. I also think there's a world of obvious difference between doing something that you genuinely feel no embarassment about doing because it makes you happy or gives you pleasure - & forcing yourself to do something purely because you wish other people to view you a particular way. Let's face it, naturally confident people don't second guess themselves or want other people to think they have balls of steel, they just do it.

scanlas wrote: »

As for "techniqies" to chat up women, you should get to a place where you can just be yourself and express youself authentically without fear of judgment, but for a shy person with little experience techniques can get the ball rolling to get to a place where you can drop the techniques.

You can call leaning back a technique, but naturally confident people do that anyway. You are learning to become a person who does this naturally. It takes time and isn't easy to become confident.

Naturally confident people are just naturally confident. They don't behave a particular way, they are just confident where they put their limbs and what they say, there is no way to fake that. Trust me, men who try to act really cocky & man about town when they are bricking inside just look really foolish and unless they are also a fabulous actor, it's pretty transparent.

scanlas wrote: »

I feel my original post is a revelation to most, maybe I'm right or maybe I'm wrong but that's what I think and I don't choose what conclusions i come to. The conclusions choose me if that makes sense, maybe not.

No revelations for me, I can't speak for anyone else & no, still not making any sense, sorry.

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? You're excusing women from any responsibility for these concepts?

Absolutely not, women have perpetuated the idea that women's sexuality is something to be repressed, I don't think anyone can argue with that. I don't think it's a concept that women came up with tho, was my point. The way people view woman's sexuality has only changed relatively recently in terms of the historic time line and many even of my generation still think the whole women's sexual liberation thing was a bad idea - along with the suffragette movement & general demands for equality.

Deleted User wrote: »

Women have been in places of power before and didn't change these concepts. Don't you think you're ignoring the influence of women on men over the last few hundred years?

The last few hundred years?! It's going to take more than that to get over the centuries of social conditioning that women are responsible for original sin and are the property of their husbands and witches, and a whole host of other negative imagery often of a sexual nature. It takes a momentous shift in public thinking to actually give women the same sexual freedoms as men, long after it's declared to be so. I can't imagine many women whispering to their children about the reality of female sexuality in the 1800's, either, especially when it's frowned upon in society in general - that's gradually changing now, I'm sure my mother was much more open with me than her mother was with her & so on.

scanlas

Be in the here and now(ie egoless) and self amuse, and throw in a dash of intent. It's what it boils down to.

Who you are never changes, you can choose any action or belief in the moment and you remain in the same person, if you enjoy "pulling" women and know how to do it you are taking action, taking the steps necessary to make it happen and doing what you want to do, not to make anyone view you in a particular way but to move in the direction of an outcome you desire, but if that outcome doesn't happen it doesn't bother you either way.First commandment of being confident is not caring what people think.

If you want to pull a particular woman you can't just float around being confident, you have to take action and walk over to her.
Walking over to her is a tactical decision even if a simple one. It doesn't mean you are not being you. From your logic you could say the man that walks over to her is trying to make her view him in a particular way. He's just doing what he wants to do. You have to take responsiblity and take the steps necessary to achieve what you want to achieve. A confident man doesn't care what anyone thinks but he still has to take the steps necessary to achieve his goal in that moment.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Absolutely not, women have perpetuated the idea that women's sexuality is something to be repressed, I don't think anyone can argue with that. I don't think it's a concept that women came up with tho, was my point.

Why? We're talking about something that has been part of human civilisation for thousands of years... It could easily have been a female initiative to increase their value in the eyes of men, giving themselves more power... since they wouldn't have been able to compete physically.

It any case, either would be an assumption. Its unlikely to be able to be proven in either case, and different societies throughout the centuries would have had different viewpoints. Modern society is drawn from a myriad of cultures and histories.

But you stated it as a fact, rather than as an opinion. That is my main objection.

The way people view woman's sexuality has only changed relatively recently in terms of the historic time line and many even of my generation still think the whole women's sexual liberation thing was a bad idea - along with the suffragette movement & general demands for equality.

The nature of women's sexuality has been known for thousands of years. Depending on the culture you're talking about, some have repressed the public showing of that sexuality, while others have flaunted it. Its a part of every culture's history.

As for equality, many women are questioning it because they're realising they can't have their cake and eat it too. Many that sought equality, didn't want complete equality. They didn't want to face the same responsibilities and risks of men, but rather to just gain the benefits. The problem with equality is that it can't be one-sided.. which is unfortunate for those women who want it all.

But TBH, the true victims of modern "equality" are the men... Nowadays, women are legally equal, and yet are still perceived as being weaker. That it is still a man's responsibility to protect them, even though they are supposed to be our equals in everything. In family courts, rulings will generally rule in the favor of the woman both regarding the children, and maintenance. In many countries, if a boy & girl have sex before their majority, the boy will be arrested for rape, and the girl will be comforted. That businesses and government sectors now have quota's that require women to be hired, because they are women rather than basing it on their ability. Never mind the numbers of false accusations of sexual harassment brought against men in the last two decades, which ruined men's careers...

Ahh, isn't equality wonderful? :rolleyes:

The last few hundred years?! It's going to take more than that to get over the centuries of social conditioning that women are responsible for original sin and are the property of their husbands and witches, and a whole host of other negative imagery often of a sexual nature. It takes a momentous shift in public thinking to actually give women the same sexual freedoms as men, long after it's declared to be so.

Interesting.. you quote me, and then speak about something else... But I actually agree with you in part. It will take a long time for many of these perceptions to recede from society, although there are a rather large amount of people that have already had that shift in thinking.

I can't imagine many women whispering to their children about the reality of female sexuality in the 1800's, either, especially when it's frowned upon in society in general - that's gradually changing now, I'm sure my mother was much more open with me than her mother was with her & so on.

And that's part of my point. Women themselves in Western society encouraged the repression of female sexuality as a public point of reference. They themselves encouraged the perception that women should be weak, and not show public signs of pleasure. Sure, men have had a definite influence in this also, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge the huge amount of influence that women had in the raising and educating of the children. Considering the past, where the men were out working and the women were at home raising the families, can't you agree that women would have had more direct control in guiding children about certain beliefs. Especially when it came to mothers raising their daughters...

Ickle Magoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Why? We're talking about something that has been part of human civilisation for thousands of years... It could easily have been a female initiative to increase their value in the eyes of men, giving themselves more power... since they wouldn't have been able to compete physically.

Woman suppressed their own sexuality to give themselves more power? I'm not sure how that works - or why it would change if women preferred it that way or it benefited them in any way.

Deleted User wrote: »

It any case, either would be an assumption. Its unlikely to be able to be proven in either case, and different societies throughout the centuries would have had different viewpoints. Modern society is drawn from a myriad of cultures and histories.

But you stated it as a fact, rather than as an opinion. That is my main objection.

Fair enough, I just can't imagine anyone would choose to have their sexuality repressed, choose to be someone else's possession, choose to be uneducated or choose to have no say in what happens in their society. I can't prove it but I can't see any logic in it.

Deleted User wrote: »

The nature of women's sexuality has been known for thousands of years. Depending on the culture you're talking about, some have repressed the public showing of that sexuality, while others have flaunted it. Its a part of every culture's history.

Some cultures celebrate women, others feared them. I think they went for the latter in Ireland and the UK & we are still living with the repercussions.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for equality, many women are questioning it because they're realising they can't have their cake and eat it too. Many that sought equality, didn't want complete equality. They didn't want to face the same responsibilities and risks of men, but rather to just gain the benefits. The problem with equality is that it can't be one-sided.. which is unfortunate for those women who want it all.

I'm not sure who's questioning equality, or anyone who doesn't want it all, in an ideal world it wouldn't be an issue. The main problem I can see is we're still a long way from being an equal society & appreciating what each of the sexes can do both as equals and individually. That said, I think an undercurrent of opprobrium and support of patriarchal society still exists in many quarters make true equality an impossibility - that drives an often anti-male feminism & round we go again.

Deleted User wrote: »

But TBH, the true victims of modern "equality" are the men...

I think they are, in some ways. It's terribly unfair that men today are labelled and punished for the wilful ignorance and misogyny of their forefathers but at the same time if it wasn't still an issue, even only of a small minority, many of the protective legislations would be moot.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nowadays, women are legally equal, and yet are still perceived as being weaker. That it is still a man's responsibility to protect them, even though they are supposed to be our equals in everything. In family courts, rulings will generally rule in the favor of the woman both regarding the children, and maintenance. In many countries, if a boy & girl have sex before their majority, the boy will be arrested for rape, and the girl will be comforted. That businesses and government sectors now have quota's that require women to be hired, because they are women rather than basing it on their ability. Never mind the numbers of false accusations of sexual harassment brought against men in the last two decades, which ruined men's careers...

Ahh, isn't equality wonderful? :rolleyes:

If there was true equality then women's roles as mothers would be widely recognised and wouldn't have to be fought for in court, there wouldn't need to be legislation protecting women's rights in the workplace, and male/female rape legislation is there to protect people from an act that is notoriously difficult to prove and statistically at least, usually perpetrated by men - I'm not saying I agree with all the legislation out there but it exists because there are still husbands who see their children and ex-spouses destitute, would volunteer no maintenance towards their children and employers who would refuse to hire women based on that fact alone and there are men or boys who would rape or abuse females. There are times I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way but I have hopes that in time, it will swing back towards the middle ground.

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting.. you quote me, and then speak about something else... But I actually agree with you in part. It will take a long time for many of these perceptions to recede from society, although there are a rather large amount of people that have already had that shift in thinking.

I don't think I was speaking about something else, I thought you were saying women should have been making some kind of effort to spread the word of their sexuality? Despite largely being excluded from running society and centuries of being told their sexuality was a dirty thing best kept secret and I don't think that's really possible. I think that kind of liberated attitude is only really possible in societies that celebrate women and their role in society and at least accept, if not revel, in women's sexuality.

Deleted User wrote: »

And that's part of my point. Women themselves in Western society encouraged the repression of female sexuality as a public point of reference. They themselves encouraged the perception that women should be weak, and not show public signs of pleasure. Sure, men have had a definite influence in this also, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge the huge amount of influence that women had in the raising and educating of the children. Considering the past, where the men were out working and the women were at home raising the families, can't you agree that women would have had more direct control in guiding children about certain beliefs. Especially when it came to mothers raising their daughters...

I do see where you are coming from & it's an interesting question and I don't know enough about western anthropology to form a proper argument. I just don't think it's particularly easy to force public opinion or even private opinion when you aren't even afforded the vote or can't hold a position of influence in employment or aren't even allowed to go to school to get a basic education, & so on. You can't shout very loudly if you aren't given a voice.

lynsalot

This thread is ridiculous. Scanlas - when's the last time you actually had a shag - or a meaningful relationship? You still haven't answered my question about your mother btw. Doesn't it fit in with your ridiculous theories?

2 stroke

Hello everyone, my first time visiting humanities, I find this thread fascinating and resolve to read the whole thread tomorrow.
Looking back on my womanising days I'd say that approx 9 out of 10 females are faithful most of the time.

scanlas

Hey Lynsalot,

I like to keep my sex life private, as for my mother, she is a female so she has the characteristics of a female I would guess.

If you think the thread is ridiculous then don't read it.

Ickle Magoo

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Woman suppressed their own sexuality to give themselves more power? I'm not sure how that works - or why it would change if women preferred it that way or it benefited them in any way.

You don't think that by placing value on the things that only women seem to have, they were increasing their own power? Virginity becoming so important could have been a device to reduce the chance of rape.

Fair enough, I just can't imagine anyone would choose to have their sexuality repressed, choose to be someone else's possession, choose to be uneducated or choose to have no say in what happens in their society. I can't prove it but I can't see any logic in it.

People do stupid things. Better yet, our ancestors have developed a society that borders on the insane at times for both sexes. The circumstances of the past have changed due to the changes in technology, and general psychological developments. Its nigh on impossible to understand the answers that previous generations sought, when compared with the relative safety and comfort we enjoy today. Especially when you're talking about a base factor like sexuality, which has been developing since year zero.

Some cultures celebrate women, others feared them. I think they went for the latter in Ireland and the UK & we are still living with the repercussions.

I didn't say fear. Its curious that you would change what I said to introduce "fear of women"..

I'm not sure who's questioning equality, or anyone who doesn't want it all, in an ideal world it wouldn't be an issue. The main problem I can see is we're still a long way from being an equal society & appreciating what each of the sexes can do both as equals and individually. That said, I think an undercurrent of opprobrium and support of patriarchal society still exists in many quarters make true equality an impossibility - that drives an often anti-male feminism & round we go again.

I guess its not worth mentioning the areas of society and work which are dominated by women, and resist the influence of males? Nah, that wouldn't support the need of equality for women. But its not really equality that many women want. Its dominance.

I think they are, in some ways. It's terribly unfair that men today are labelled and punished for the wilful ignorance and misogyny of their forefathers but at the same time if it wasn't still an issue, even only of a small minority, many of the protective legislations would be moot.

Hardly moot since men will receive the full brunt of the law for any transgressions, whereas women generally receive lighter sentences... Unless they're being judged by other women, that is. You talk about it being unfair for men to be judged by others actions, but most women will be happy to continue judging us this way. If on the other hand, the same rule is applied to women, then its a form of discrimination.

If there was true equality then women's roles as mothers would be widely recognised and wouldn't have to be fought for in court, there wouldn't need to be legislation protecting women's rights in the workplace, and male/female rape legislation is there to protect people from an act that is notoriously difficult to prove and statistically at least, usually perpetrated by men - I'm not saying I agree with all the legislation out there but it exists because there are still husbands who see their children and ex-spouses destitute, would volunteer no maintenance towards their children and employers who would refuse to hire women based on that fact alone and there are men or boys who would rape or abuse females.

haha.. Women's roles as mothers are not widely recognised? where do you get that from. No the true issue is recognising that women should be mothers, and still expect to reach the heights of their chosen profession. The problem with equality is that women would have to face the same standards as men. The choice to become a mother, shouldn't change that equality, and it would be natural that a woman wouldn't be able to compete with other people who have more time to focus on their work..

I don't think I was speaking about something else, I thought you were saying women should have been making some kind of effort to spread the word of their sexuality? Despite largely being excluded from running society and centuries of being told their sexuality was a dirty thing best kept secret and I don't think that's really possible. I think that kind of liberated attitude is only really possible in societies that celebrate women and their role in society and at least accept, if not revel, in women's sexuality.

Well, no. I believe that women had their own responsibility to shape society, and pretty much opted out, letting men shape it instead. At least, on the surface. Women chose to shape society from the shadows, influencing men rather than standing out in the open, and choosing for themselves. Women of the past wanted to be protected, they didn't want to take the risks that the world presented to them. So they chose to be protected, and sacrificed many freedoms. It was a choice. They have always had the ability to change it back, as long as they were willing to step up and shoulder the same responsibilities as men.

I do see where you are coming from & it's an interesting question and I don't know enough about western anthropology to form a proper argument. I just don't think it's particularly easy to force public opinion or even private opinion when you aren't even afforded the vote or can't hold a position of influence in employment or aren't even allowed to go to school to get a basic education, & so on. You can't shout very loudly if you aren't given a voice.

You can't shout very loudly if you don't really want to be heard. When you stand to lose all your privileges and protections, a certain ideal needs more than just a few nice thoughts backing it. Human history has shown that with the backing of enough people, momentum builds up, causing change in society. Women could have done this previously if they really wanted it, they just chose not to. Of course, certain men blocked such movements, as did plenty of women not wanting to lose their lifestyles.