The Ethics of PUA

Reward Hunter

Wibbs wrote: »

FYI "Firstly, don't you condescend to me, woman." while inaccurate, is pretty clear in it's intent. Always a bad plan to backtrack when one is called on something. Best to stand by ones guns and ride it out. Quite unseemly otherwise. If you were being facetious, may I respectfully suggest more practice in the art to get that intent across?
Is this some internal fantasy running mayhap? Hey maybe I'm getting this wrong. Though it's such a fantasy meme of some men, so you can see my confusion?

*sigh*

No, as regards my rebuttal of your patronizing tone - about that I was serious.
As regards calling you a woman, that's where I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. Watches and timepieces? Not to mention your extreme white knight attitude... now you understand?

Man you really seem to have fallen for and on the lower slopes of the PUA mountain.
Try researching beyond the PUA world and your own internal worldview on the various stats. It's not even close to a third. No really. It's not. Look you're a guy who earlier in the thread stated that there are no true lesbians. Like I said you pretty much lost me at that, since that point it's been more a scant and lazy inquiry on my part to see how you think about other concepts. So far it's been interesting and plays more into the idea that PUA can end up in an uninformed place with some.

What's this you keep banging on about "true lesbians"?
Do you take every statement entirely at face value and instantly assume every piece of conjecture has been delivered with 100% conviction?

It's pretty obvious your using that statement as a means to undermine any further assertion I have made, not to mention the fact that you continuously deliver your own points of view without any logical backing...

"I don't agree...no really, that's not true"

That alone doesn't really hold water in an argumentative situation.

As regards the actual subject up for debate here, the point I was making was that (as regards the number of men unknowingly fathering the child of another man), when a man becomes involved with a woman with whom he has only a shallow sense of chemistry and sexual attraction, despite having perhaps a good sense of companionship with her, it increases drastically the chances of her seeking sexual fulfillment outside said relationship.

Not only is this dictated by fact, but it's pretty logical by nature that such an occurrence is more likely given the aforementioned circumstances.

Reward Hunter

Just as regards some other comments above - IMO - if a woman isn't reacting to you with some, at least minor degree, of belligerence - it means your not doing it right.
She's putting you in the friend zone, and if you do happen to get laid, it's out of pity more than anything else.

This reference as to how women are attracted to "bastards"?

The belligerent attitude is a response to her actually finding a man sexually appealing, as it incites some degree of insecurity (loss of control), and by undermining said man, she feels she can perhaps regain this.

Many women will class a man as a "bastard", and others may perceive him him as so, but oftentimes his "bastard" attitude is simply a response and counter to her belligerence toward him.

White knights and "nice guys" will choose not to accept the aforementioned, but while they may often have the company of women (cause they're in the friend zone), they're not the type that will incite any form of chemistry, and therefore, not relationship material - unless they want to end up in this category somewhere...

*****
According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

Source: http://www.divorcerate.org/
*****

It's sort of counter-intuitive in one sense, as the more standoffish and belligerent a woman seems toward a man, the more she actually finds him attractive.

Wibbs

Reward Hunter wrote: »

No, as regards my rebuttal of your patronizing tone - about that I was serious.
As regards calling you a woman, that's where I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek. Watches and timepieces? Not to mention your extreme white knight attitude... now you understand?

:pac: Watches are feminine now? And I've a "white knight attitude"? The accusation of whiteknightism is the often first response of the dodgier end of PUA/Men with notions. It's not unlike calling "troll" on a forum, it tends to avoid the actual debate.

What's this you keep banging on about "true lesbians"?
Do you take every statement entirely at face value and instantly assume every piece of conjecture has been delivered with 100% conviction?

You stated and I quote:

your good self wrote:

We all know there's no such thing as a true lesbian.

Seems chock full of conviction to me. I've read some left field notions on the interweb in my time, but that takes one of the top prizes, hence my genuine puzzlement. Eh no we don't "all know" any such thing. A horde of "true" lesbians(a phrase I thought I'd never type) would disagree with you. So called "bedroom death" also happens quite often with straight couples and gay men too. BTW you have avoided any backup of that "fact" among others you've been debated on. I know web forums can be hotbeds of opinions masquerading as fact, but it does help to know the difference.

It's pretty obvious your using that statement as a means to undermine any further assertion I have made,

Simply because as a statement IMHO it's ill informed and not a little daft. If it wasn't no questioning of your opinion would be required. Then we had the "monkey study" and the non biological father stats to name two others. You may also note I agreed with some of your assertions. No "undermining" required, so you don't need a defensive debate mode.

not to mention the fact that you continuously deliver your own points of view without any logical backing...

OK rather than suggesting I do so, maybe trot out a few examples of this and debate them "logically". I can link to actual research to back up my contentions, can you do the same?

As regards the actual subject up for debate here, the point I was making was that (as regards the number of men unknowingly fathering the child of another man), when a man becomes involved with a woman with whom he has only a shallow sense of chemistry and sexual attraction, despite having perhaps a good sense of companionship with her, it increases drastically the chances of her seeking sexual fulfillment outside said relationship.

While this point is debatable, the problem is your premise is entirely predicated on incorrect statistics. I mean how ill informed would one have to be to believe that according to you nigh on one third of men are unknowingly parenting children that aren't their own? Seriously?

OK actual statistics on this:
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviours/aabb.htm Bald stats need to be examined and understood. Numbero uno for what reason are the tests being sought? In the cases where the test is sought because of real doubts expressed by the father and legal ramifications that may spring from that the 30% stat is more in line(though that's the highest figure, it's more like 20%). This is NOT a general population statistic and even in that case of real and legal doubt it still means over two thirds of the men are the biological fathers. In the general population it's significantly lower(as one would expect). More like 1 to 2% http://sexualhealth.e-healthsource.com/index.php?p=news1&id=532176

This "surprise father/women are duplicitous bitches, you know" notion trotted out by paranoid men and oft trotted out by some in the larger PUA community(always using the legal paternity stats) is completely, utterly and demonstrably false.

Not only is this dictated by fact, but it's pretty logical by nature that such an occurrence is more likely given the aforementioned circumstances.

Cloaking this opinion in pseud rhetoric doesn't make it a fact. See above on your start point for this "fact". And personally speaking now(so opinion BTW), having been the "other man" at times. A fair bit more than once actually, I have personally found that while sex is part of it, it's nowhere near the top reason. Not even close. I found it to be a symptom of the malaise in the primary relationship, not the cause. That's my subjective experience though.

Just as regards some other comments above - IMO - if a woman isn't reacting to you with some, at least minor degree, of belligerence - it means your not doing it right.
She's putting you in the friend zone, and if you do happen to get laid, it's out of pity more than anything else.

Minor belligerence? You can't be serious. How many women do you actually know? While some women are ditzy idiots in this respect, the vast majority of women are not IME. I know it's a notion taught in the opening salvos of PUA theory, but it's very simplistic. When I read of this notion the only conclusion I could come to given it was outside my experiences was that it was a sideways(and quite clever TBH) method of getting more socially passive men to keep ploughing on and believe they were safe to do so.

Generally speaking and again IME the women in question doesn't usually label the guy a bastard/bad boy until after the fact. Her friends might, other men not being equally successful might, but the woman not so much. "I thought he was nice, but he turned out to be a using bastard" kinda thing. I'll put good money any women who read this will largely agree with me on this score. Women with unhealthy emotional histories would differ though.

White knights and "nice guys" will choose not to accept the aforementioned, but while they may often have the company of women (cause they're in the friend zone), they're not the type that will incite any form of chemistry, and therefore, not relationship material - unless they want to end up in this category somewhere...

Apparently I'm one of these "white knights". I have and have had good women mates, mostly women I've not been interested in in that way in the first place with a smattering of exes(shorttermer fling exes), I avoid belligerence as much as possible and I haven't been in the friendzone since I was 17. Now to be fair maybe that's just my experience, but this is why many of the "facts" trotted out by some of the PUA stuff out there just don't ring true for me or for my experience.

According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

Source: http://www.divorcerate.org/

An interesting statistic to bounce a debate from alright, but how is it relevant to your points? Maybe I'm missing something? Meh common enough to be fair.

leggo

Reward Hunter, in fairness, you're making some good points then casually tossing in wild claims with no backing behind them that are leaving you open to the 'white knight' coming in and beheading you.

Unfortunately, I have to take Wibbs' side on this. It shows the dangers of several gurus spreading their theories as fact and people getting behind these theories because earlier on they used facts to support an entirely different point. Our brain short-circuits and assumes that everything coming out of their mouth is proven by research. It's an old con trick and one that is another unfortunate downfall of the community in general.

A theory is just that: a calculated guess that could explain something pending further research. Wibbs is an awful man for doing this, himself, in fairness (in the context of this debate, I dunno about elsewhere tbh). It's what is open for discussion. But you also have to leave yourself open to accept others' theories because if you claim it as fact, all of a sudden you're open to being wrong. At least Wibbs says 'a theory of mine...' beforehand.

Even saying that belligerence is necessary is misinformed. I mean, I see where you're coming from (part of my shtick was that even hate is an 'IOI', in theory, because you've created an emotional investment, a perception, and can then work on turning that around)...but it's far from all-encompassing. In fact, a completely pleasant interaction for all parties is without a doubt the ideal circumstance. The only time there should even be a hint of belligerence from her to you is if she forces your hand and you need to assert yourself through negs, disqualifiers etc. Belligerence is preferable to apathy but not the ideal by any means.

In short, take it easy dude. This is a debate about whether PUA is an ethical guide for assisting men who are struggling in their personal lives. And that's a fair question. But trying to push unproven theories down people's throats is only going to create a hostile environment and re-enforce people's pre-existing (and, in my opinion, wrong) notions about the practice.

K-9

I was extremely dubious of that 30% figure as well, I've seen it pop up a few times in debates but never with any back up for it, it seems there is none or rather some have taken the figure and completely misrepresented it. I had heard of figures anywhere from 1-2 up to 10% in the UK, based on the general population.

The "bastard" reference was as Wibbs explained after the fact, they don't get a belligerent attitude at the time at all, the opposite in fact. I'd say it is a phase many younger women go through but also often it's a phrase thrown out by more immature women who get dumped for their behaviour, it's just a term thrown out that doesn't really mean much.

I think Wibbs is coming from a view that finds it relatively easy to attract women and sees no need for the more passive aggressive crap spouted. As somebody who has read some of the stuff I'd have the same view, I'd have no time for that side of it at all and would take the more positive, fun aspects of it, tends to be my personality anyway. Maybe it's because I'd tend to be confident and have a "presence" with women anyway, the "there's something about him" quality that women refer to so I don't have to rely on that side of it. The PUA stuff just helped me realise that again after a long term relationship.

@klaz, you seem to have made the most of the PUA stuff and are past the more superficial side of it and onto more personal development stuff. You seem to be a good example of how it can lead to bigger and better things and can't say there's anything wrong with that!

Reward Hunter

lol - okay wibbs, I fold my cards on this one.

Please, allow me to clarify.

Originally Posted by my good self
We all know there's no such thing as a true lesbian.

A slightly outlandish theory that I have, is as follows. And may I clarify that I'm by no means claiming it to be gospel. In fact, on an intuitive level, it's almost certain to be nothing more than conjecture, but allow me to outline the basis for this theory.

I'm going to postulate, that there is no such thing as a "true lesbian".

This theory is predicated on the fact that, in a male homosexual relationship, sexual chemistry can be sustained on an indefinite basis.
That is to say, even after years with the same person, and into a state of "old age", sexual arousal can still be achieved and sustained.

With homosexual females however, after a certain time period together, the state of sexual arousal becomes more elusive, and eventually it becomes negated entirely.
This is what's known as "bedroom death" - referring specifically to a female homosexual relationship.

The reason for this, I personally speculate, is due to the fact that - I believe - with testosterone effectively being the "aggressive" or "pro-active" hormone, it's actually responsible for the initiation of a sense of "chemistry" between two people.

This would dictate that (again, personal speculation) on a natural level - as nature intended, shall we say - true and long lasting intimate relationships between females was not something nature intended to allow manifest itself.

The reason I speculate upon this situation, is that - it is my belief - that for a sense of chemistry to exist between a man and a woman, there must initially be a very perceivable desire for sex, on the part of the man.

Upon sensing this, it can in turn trigger the females sexual hunger, but without it - in other words, an apathy for sex on the part of the male - effectively negates any possibly chemistry on the part of the female.

For example (once again, personal speculation), this may be one reason that the human female breasts stay in a constant state of enlargement - as oppose to our closest relatives, apes etc - as was previously expounded upon.
As we know, the breasts are perceived by men as a sexual stimulants, in a sense.

Perhaps this was natures way of instigating sexual hunger on the part of the man, and thus allowing for the initiation of said sexual chemistry.


I reference this as a means to support my initial statement/opinion/theory, that for sexual chemistry to be present between a male and female, one (among many, of which I have previously given my personal point of view on) of the crucial initial factors, is a strong sexual desire on the part of the male.

Reward Hunter

Hmmm, on second thought also, I think perhaps I've been slightly ambivalent as regards the cause for what I referred to as something which could be construed as a slightly "belligerent" attitude on the part of the female, toward a male, when referring to attraction.

Previously, I think that my description may have been construed as meaning that this "belligerence" is brought about if the female finds the male sexually appealing, and it's a part of the process, in a sense.

I think what I meant to convey, is as follows (all of the following is obviously and simply my own opinion, just to clarify - to save me punctuating every sentence with, IMO etc)


Referencing my claim that females have a strong desire for a sense of empowerment - their means for empowerment effectively stems from their sexual leverage.

They use approaches such as tease and denial tactics and false indifference as a means to heighten this sense of themselves.

I refer again to it as "egotism", as, in my view, what it does is it serves as a means to create a delusion of empowerment, oftentimes by undermining others and therefore heightening there own sense of themselves - it's ego - a belief, a will to inflate their ego.

As we know however, egotism does serve as a means to make one feel good and strong and confident about themselves, even if it's only "inflated" ego, that is, achieved through false means.
Perhaps this type of aforementioned behavior is comparable to the stereotypical "alpha males", which I referenced my view of earlier.

In that, their behavior and airs of superiority and basic "alphaness", is nothing more than a means of self assertion and ultimately, I believe, a compensatory method for insecurity or lack of fulfillment in some regard - or simply highly juvenile.


As regards the "belligerency" that I spoke of, I believe - perhaps contradictory to my initial postulation - that it stems from a case where, by nature, there's a strong sexual attraction toward the male, yet no reciprocation of desire from him.

To use a very simplistic analogy; like a case of "I want you, but you don't want me, so I'm going to act out a little bit" - act in a slightly "belligerent" fashion.

This "acting out", I believe, as regards this situation, would stem from the desire for empowerment, yet inability to achieve it.

So yeah, I guess it doesn't pertain to the actual instigation of a relationship between a man and a woman, but more so the bad attitude carried by allot of these "egotistical/power hungry" women in general, that, let's face it, aren't exactly uncommon in society now-a-days.

Wibbs

It's an interesting take alright. testosterone is(among other things) the "aggression" hormone and the sexual aggression/drive hormone. Women too have smaller amounts of the hormone and a lack of it due to pathology or genetics does affect sexual response. They're far more sensitive to it's effects so the amount in of itself isn't as important. Kinda like men prone to baldness. The old wives tale of bald men having more testosterone is well a bit of an old wives tale. Bald men have average test levels, they may even present with low levels, just their hair follicles are overly sensitive to the hormone so the amount they have is enough to trigger slapheaditis. Eunuchs in India show this effect as they age. The ones with the bald gene still lose their hair, albeit much more slowly and they've had their clockweights cut off in their youth. Bit of a wade but interesting in reference to how too low a level in women and how hormone therapy could help with low libido(among other things) http://www.hisandherhealth.com/womens-sexual-health/female-sexual-dysfunction/234-female-sexual-dysfunction?showall=1

I remember years back wondering why so many women have libido problems when on the pill. An ex went onto it about six months into the relationship and within a month odd of that, her libido went to hell with a corresponding over reliance on Palm and her sisters on my part. She came off it after a further six months and it was back to me needing viagra, lollypop sticks, a bucket of ice and a back brace. At the time I figured it was because the pill broadly mimics pregnancy(more correctly mimics the "you've already ovulated, so not fertile anymore), but then pregnant women can be very sexually receptive. It seems though the pill reduces the availability of testosterone in the blood http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/35663.php Pregnancy doesn't by comparison. The effect may be longterm or even permanent. Something most women(and their partners) may not even think about. Fit women, especially those doing weight bearing exercise have more test and in a personal straw poll on my part I've found them noticeably more sexual.

Other hormones in women affect their sexual response too. They appear to be more a symphony orchestra of triggers, whereas men are more a four piece band. With drums.

I would also agree that sexual desire in the man is hugely important. It's where IMHO so called "rape" fantasies have much of their origin. It's very badly named and has absolutely nada to do with rape. It's to do with overwhelming desire in the man that triggers her desire and lets her get "carried away". That said I wouldn't agree that it's present in the early stages in most cases. Or that it's a constant need. It's more just one of the instruments in that psychological/hormonal/emotional orchestra. It's very important in longtermers though and one of the hardest to sustain. Familiarity doesn't breed contempt as much as boredom I suppose.

Add in that in very longterm relationships mens test levels drop, by comparison to single men their own age. One theory being it may make them less aggressive and dangerous around their children. Indeed polygamous men have the lowest levels of all(and the most amount of kids) so there may well be something to that. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-Married-Men-Have-Lower-Sex-Drive-68727.shtml Add in even more, such as fertile women depending on their fertility condition select men of lower or higher test levels accordingly. Ovulating women are more aroused by and select photos of high testosterone men(and prefer their smell), yet on either side of that and while pregnant or nursing instead pick more low test men in smell and looks(the smell actually puts them off). It seems that their body at least is whispering have kids with high test men, but raise those kids with low test men. This happens over the 28 day cycle and in the same woman. Where this gets interesting is going back to the pill. It mimics the hormonal state where a woman may pick a low test guy and may lead her to pick the wrong guy. This has all sorts of low level implications. IE low libido in some women may not just be about low test ect, it may be because on the pill the guy may not be her choice anymore. Or a woman who meets and selects a guy while on the pill, who then stops taking it, may go off the guy for the same reason. Some stats may back the latter up. Separation and divorce is statistically higher after a woman comes off long term pill use. Quite a big stat diff too. Sadly I can't find a full link for that one so we'll have to run on trust. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=birth-control-pills-affect-womens-taste it's a pay site I'm on, but the first page makes the point.

The main weirdness I'd have with the constant state of breast enlargement in humans as a sexual trigger is that it shouldn't be, yet it is*. Like I say it's basically signalling to the male that she's infertile, or at least it's what it would signal to every other great ape(and monkey) out there. Something changed for us somewhere in our evolution. Ditto with hidden ovulation. Something, somewhere changed and radically so that there was a very strong selection pressure on human females to deliberately hide their fertility state. Overtly at least. Subconsciously it's still there. A study found that strippers on the pill(mimicking pregnancy/infertility, therefore "off the market") get noticeably fewer tips from male punters. Which makes this even odder. Evolution selected for women to overtly hide fertility, yet subconsciously display it. The explanation that it's because of our longer gestation and breastfeeding times doesn't quite explain it for me anyway. In any event it's some complex shít going on, hence RH I tend to baulk a little at the "dumbing it down" that I have read in a lot of the PUA stuff. Now it's early days in the movement in the science bit anyway, but they do tend to latch onto one piece of the jigsaw puzzle as an explanation for the whole picture.

And complex it can be. Women more than men have a bigger "checklist" and a wider range of triggers as a gender, never mind as individuals. Men do have a checklist but it's smaller and narrower in focus. It also means or may mean(and personal experience would tend to bear this out) that men have to walk more of a tightrope to keep that checklist up to date in long term relationships. As an aged uncle of mine commented, getting a woman is the easy part, keeping a woman is harder and keeping a woman happy to be with you the hardest. Simplistic I grant you, but he had something IMHO. So techniques of sarging and pickup and the like in PUA may work for all sorts of reasons(and I'd say we'd be only in very partial agreement why they work), but that's in the "getting" part. What Klaz described as the whole self improvement package has to be in place to keep them and to make that advantageous for both.




Jaysus that was a long one even for me. :pac: Read it later when you need to get a nice nights sleep...

*or at least it is in our culture. For many cultures who expose the breasts as a matter of course they're not nearly as sexual a trigger. They still are to a degree, so this signal is still weird, but culture plays a part in it.

Reward Hunter

Originally posted by Wibbs - I would also agree that sexual desire in the man is hugely important. It's where IMHO so called "rape" fantasies have much of their origin. It's very badly named and has absolutely nada to do with rape. It's to do with overwhelming desire in the man that triggers her desire and lets her get "carried away".

.

lol - this made me laugh quite a bit for some reason.

I guess somewhere in there it also ties in with this "empowerment desire" hypothesis.

Say for example, a woman does indeed have this huge sense of egotism - not referring the "putting her on a pedestal" scenario, but simply a conveyance of sexual desire, without compromising ones own integrity* - would that not in itself satisfy this empowerment desire, while also triggering the sexual chemistry brought about by that hunger on the part of the male.

That is to say, when she senses the male has a strong sexual desire for her, that does in fact give her that sense of empowerment over him, thus satisfying her craving for it.

One can read all the time, about guys complaining their girl shows no enthusiasm in bed, or no will to instigate sexual foreplay.
I'm sure there are a number of reasons as why this situation is brought about; or not brought about, as the case may be.

But perhaps one, is a failure - for whatever reason - on the part of the man to convey that intense sexual desire.
Of course he doesn't want to come across like some kind of desperate horny stumble bum.
But one would imagine that if the male can maintain his sense of self assertion* while also giving the impression at least, of this desire, this would perhaps lend itself to a reciprocated sense of desire from the female - going on the fact that the initial hypothesis stated, does in fact hold water.


PS - what I mean by this sense of self assertion, is the mans own will to impose his sexual desire (which is something most females appreciate, as far as I'm aware - submission to the male etc), and not simply succumb to the will of the female, simply because he has a strong desire for her.

Reward Hunter

Also, maybe it's worth mentioning here, but as regards the subject of "empowerment desire" and egotism, I've always been curious of the psychology behind multiple partners, or "threesomes", whatever - as they're popularly known.

On the part of a woman, for example - her desire for sex with more than one man.

The first conclusion that one may jump to, is that it takes more than one man to satisfy her, such is her sexual appetite.

On the other hand however, one can't ignore the fact that, unless she's a mutant or something, she only has one primarily sexual organ through which actual sexual fulfillment can be attained.

Would it be possible that the hunger for sex with multiple partners is actually relative in some way to this "egotism" that's been mentioned?
The desire to feel desired, in a more intense way?
The desire to experience that sense of empowerment over more than one man?
As oppose to actual physical pleasure.

As has been mentioned on this thread, one school of thought is that it's actually more difficult for a woman to experience sexual climax - with one poster claiming that some women have "never" experienced this, or it's certainly more elusive and difficult to achieve, and occurs on an irregular basis.

For example, I'm aware that there's a school of thought that clitoral stimulation is necessary oftentimes, and an exclusively vaginal orgasm may be a rarity.

I'm not sure where all the pieces tie in, but to refer back to my opinion that sex and it's "quality", shall we say, can largely depend on mental aspects, such as the psycho-sexual perception, perception of degree of feeling or regard of one person to the other, and as we've just spoke of, the degree of desire or hunger for sex (excluding there, perception and opinion of the person themselves - but this is not something that cannot be controlled, within that immediate time frame at least).

When one or more of the above is lacking, or a woman has an inability (for whatever reason) to attain a partner who can fulfill the aforementioned, she seeks gratification through other channels - which, as I've hypothesized upon, may be as such, egotistical, as actually sexual itself?

Reward Hunter

Originally posted by Reward Hunter - ...perception of degree of feeling or regard of one person to the other...

Finally, just as regards this statement, this may be a little flamboyant of me, but in reference to my assertion that "deception", in one sense, can be beneficial and exist without any real negative angles - this sort of reinforces my opinion in this regard.

Straight from the mouth of a woman.

http://youtu.be/trByUZSwlZ8

(dunno how to embed)

I'm simply of the opinion that, one of the major factors that can influence sexual enjoyment, is when one feels they are held in high regard by their sexual partner - even if it is say, something that's intended by both parties to be a fleeting encounter; that is to say, they don't know each other well enough for any real sense of regard for each other to actually exist.
It puts them more at ease, increase the sense of relaxation and trust, and therefore allows their bodies to be more responsive.

Deception, but not of the person, rather of nature - to the benefit of both parties concerned, IMO.
This is something women are more apt at, almost naturally, IMO. But something most men need to improve upon quite a bit, again, IMO.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

There's been talk in the thread of a "slut defence" in women. I'd say it's more of a "bastard defence" going on K. For all sorts of reasons.

Which is all very resonable when applied to the creeps and bastards. Alas from my experience such a defence can be turned on all the time towards every guy that approaches them.

Everything else you said I pretty much agree with (as usual )

average hero

Excellent thread everybody who contributed. I have read bits and pieces of PUA material and I believe that it is a force for good. As with everything it can be used for a more sinister intent. PUA teaches the basics of a body language and tips for men to become more attractive to women. I don't think that there is anything wrong in that. If a woman wants to have sex with a man, she will have sex with him. I dispute that PUA teaches manipulation of anyone, male or female.

Nobody asks about the ethics of a push-up bra.

Once again, great thread.

Reward Hunter

lol - I'm on a roll today, with the posting.

Just two quick question that I'd really like peoples perspectives and feedback on - I don't mean to entirely deviate from the thread topic - hope I'm not hijacking or anything, but it's definitely relative to the general subject.

1) As regards chemistry on the part of the female, how important - aside from the above points, do you feel that the male having the "body" is?
"The body", meaning a good, in shape, muscular physique.

Let's face it. It's probably the primary reason guys go to the gym at all.
I know for a fact that even top level athletes use this as a motive to perform that high level of gym work.

If I was to compare it to females; their having an in shape body is a major turn on, so I'm guessing it's not all that different for males?

2) How elusive do you feel the orgasm is to/for females?

Allot of women claim they enjoy the "closeness" and intimacy of sex. Achieving an orgasm seems to be secondary almost.

Is it true that seemingly, quite a few females don't regularly experience orgasm - at least not one induced by their partner?

I'd be particularly curious from the point of view of those that have partaken in the "one night stand" situations, and those who are in healthy long term committed relationships.

What do you feel, or are you aware of, what the defining aspects were as regards reaching/making her reach, that orgasm?

I guess it's gonna be different for different folk.

But some feed back might be interesting, and food for thought.

average hero

average hero wrote: »

Excellent thread everybody who contributed. I have read bits and pieces of PUA material and I believe that it is a force for good. As with everything it can be used for a more sinister intent. PUA teaches the basics of a body language and tips for men to become more attractive to women. I don't think that there is anything wrong in that. If a woman wants to have sex with a man, she will have sex with him. I dispute that PUA teaches manipulation of anyone, male or female.

Nobody asks about the ethics of a push-up bra.

Once again, great thread.

As much as I support the learning of PUA, it does provide the tools for manipulation. Well, actually mainstream PUA doesn't... but once you start seriously exploring, learning and applying aspects of NLP, kino, body language, etc it can lead to the ability to manipulate with far greater success than before.

But then TBH when i studied marketing in college I was given some insights into the same and could have looked further if I wished. Its funny really. ALL of the tools that people ascribe to PUA in regrds to manipulation are sourced from legitimate pschological research.. I don't see too many people calling for these research papers and info to be destroyed.

Manipulation is seen as a dirty and powerful word, and yet from a PUA users pov, the tools available to us are not quite so powerful. OH, some people can use these tools in amazing ways, but they were naturals to begin with and the tools just enhance their original gifts.

Frankly speaking, there are very few PUA followers capable of using these more advanced tools effectively. I used them in work as part of being a credit controller every day for 7 years, and I'm still a novice. So, i'd suggest that anyone seeking to cry manipulation about PUA show a bit of common sense. Alas people lie, and some people on the receiving end want to believe the lies. If thats manipulation, so be it, although I wouldn't rule out plain stupidity.

gargleblaster

Alas people lie, and some people on the receiving end want to believe the lies. If thats manipulation, so be it, although I wouldn't rule out plain stupidity.

Ah, that old classic. Nobody is even arguing with you anymore yet not only have the protestations not stopped - we now get victim blaming as well.

Anyone who is lied to either believes the liar because they're stupid or they want to believe lies.

Charming, really. Also very logical and completely fair.

leggo

gargleblaster wrote: »

Ah, that old classic. Nobody is even arguing with you anymore yet not only have the protestations not stopped - we now get victim blaming as well.

Anyone who is lied to either believes the liar because they're stupid or they want to believe lies.

Charming, really. Also very logical and completely fair.

I'd side with this more than the quoted text. Though I hope RH can clarify, it does sound like you're excusing liars...which is a worrying standpoint, for me, especially since you're pro-PUA.

I remember I explained to one girl when I was on a first date with her: "I could tell you tonight I'm a multi-millionaire, have never cheated in my life and help little old ladies across the road. And why wouldn't you believe me until proven otherwise? But then, by seeing you as important enough to lie to impress, if you found out it wasn't true, I'd lose. So what would be the point?"

Lying and manipulation isn't a skill, a plus, or excusable. It's not even an inexcusable act (though its consequences can lead it to be). Lying and manipulation are coping mechanisms to deal with insecurity. If you didn't need to cover a perceived flaw up, you wouldn't need to lie or manipulate. We all tell white lies but to try and excuse it as a whole is wrong.

Scanlas The 2nd

leggo wrote: »

I'd side with this more than the quoted text. Though I hope RH can clarify, it does sound like you're excusing liars...which is a worrying standpoint, for me, especially since you're pro-PUA.

I remember I explained to one girl when I was on a first date with her: "I could tell you tonight I'm a multi-millionaire, have never cheated in my life and help little old ladies across the road. And why wouldn't you believe me until proven otherwise? But then, by seeing you as important enough to lie to impress, if you found out it wasn't true, I'd lose. So what would be the point?"

Lying and manipulation isn't a skill, a plus, or excusable. It's not even an inexcusable act (though its consequences can lead it to be). Lying and manipulation are coping mechanisms to deal with insecurity. If you didn't need to cover a perceived flaw up, you wouldn't need to lie or manipulate. We all tell white lies but to try and excuse it as a whole is wrong.

I find when you tell a girl you're not boyfriend material she gets more attracted. I'd say things like you wouldn't want to go out with me, I'd lie all the time and I'd cheat on you with your best friends....not to mention forgetting your birthday.

Manipulate is one of those words that has taken on a negative meaning even though it can also be a postive. The word "Natural" is the opposite. It's assumed to be postive even though it can be negative. Bullying is natural but that doesn't mean it's good.

gargleblaster

gargleblaster wrote: »

Ah, that old classic. Nobody is even arguing with you anymore yet not only have the protestations not stopped - we now get victim blaming as well.

Anyone who is lied to either believes the liar because they're stupid or they want to believe lies.

This wasn't even in response to anything you said... since you didn't respond much to what I did direct at you, you choose to respond to this? Fine.

Throughout this thread there are plenty of examples of people making excuses for the defences that women put up to stop the bastards, weirdo's etc. and yet, when something does go wrong suddenly the women are helpless victims. We all have to lie test what people say to us every day, because people lie. Its that simple. People make little lies all the time. Often to themselves, and then to others. So.. we have to... be on the look out for the lies that others make with us.

And so, I wonder at this victim blaming routine.. Why does the victim (although I hesitate to use the word considering the circumstances) lose all responsibility to lie test some guy/girl they have met? Throwing out the term manipulation makes it all reasonable that the person doesn't test the lies properly, and loses all responsibility in the situation.

Charming, really. Also very logical and completely fair.

Yes, It is actually. But then I do believe in being fair. Not just fair when it suits me.

leggo

leggo wrote: »

I'd side with this more than the quoted text. Though I hope RH can clarify, it does sound like you're excusing liars...which is a worrying standpoint, for me, especially since you're pro-PUA.

I'm going to assume you mean me, since it's my quoted piece not RH.

I'm not excusing liars. They have a responsibility in their actions. In consciously choosing to lie to someone with some aim in mind. Not good by any standard. But I don't excuse the person that was lied to either. As I say above, we have a responsibility ourselves to check if people are lying to us. Most of us do this automatically..

I remember I explained to one girl when I was on a first date with her: "I could tell you tonight I'm a multi-millionaire, have never cheated in my life and help little old ladies across the road. And why wouldn't you believe me until proven otherwise? But then, by seeing you as important enough to lie to impress, if you found out it wasn't true, I'd lose. So what would be the point?"

Based on my initial persception of you, the standards that I place on people, and the chance (based on past experience) of it being true, I would call bull****, although perhaps believing the last two as being possible. Most of the girls I know wouldn't say outright that you're a lying muppet, but it would serve as a indicator for the rest of the date.

The really interesting thing about all of this is that suddenly women are vulnerable to lies. I mean, when did this happen. Stereotypically its us men, that are unsubtle, and its women that can think without bringing emotions into the equation. etc etc etc. And then, there's the aspect of the way that women interact socially with each other. Even when friendships exist there are levels of (I'll dare to say the word) manipulation, even worse when they're enemies.

So... why all of a sudden are women victims of being manipulated by men? Because they made a mistake. Its really that simple. Hopefully they'll learn from it (like most of us have to do), and move on with their lives.

Lying and manipulation isn't a skill, a plus, or excusable. It's not even an inexcusable act (though its consequences can lead it to be). Lying and manipulation are coping mechanisms to deal with insecurity. If you didn't need to cover a perceived flaw up, you wouldn't need to lie or manipulate.

Of course they're skills. It just depends on where they are applied. I got paid better money as a credit controller than some of my colleagues because I was better at reading people. I could see when customers were lying, and better yet, I could convince them that paying my company was in their best interests, and that they should be happy about it. Thats not high skilled manipulation, but it was still manipulation... and it is definitely a skill.

We all tell white lies but to try and excuse it as a whole is wrong.

Just as to blame as a whole is wrong. I havn't sought to excuse it as a whole. I've asked why victims lose the responibility to have checked the lies, and if wrong, deal with it like anyone else in another circumstance?

Reward Hunter

leggo wrote: »

I'd side with this more than the quoted text. Though I hope RH can clarify, it does sound like you're excusing liars...which is a worrying standpoint, for me, especially since you're pro-PUA.

I remember I explained to one girl when I was on a first date with her: "I could tell you tonight I'm a multi-millionaire, have never cheated in my life and help little old ladies across the road. And why wouldn't you believe me until proven otherwise? But then, by seeing you as important enough to lie to impress, if you found out it wasn't true, I'd lose. So what would be the point?"

Lying and manipulation isn't a skill, a plus, or excusable. It's not even an inexcusable act (though its consequences can lead it to be). Lying and manipulation are coping mechanisms to deal with insecurity. If you didn't need to cover a perceived flaw up, you wouldn't need to lie or manipulate. We all tell white lies but to try and excuse it as a whole is wrong.

lol - what's up bro?

Your not going down "white knight" path are you?

Go out, hit on a few girls, get cut down, then come back and tell us how "wrong" it ease to engage in a little deception and manipulation - whatever you wanna call it.


In my HUMBLE (and believe me, it is) opinion, women generally perceive men who approach them WITHOUT this deception, with the intent of eventually instigating a sexual situation, as being scum and disgusting.

The catch 22 is, IMO and experience, approaching a woman without their ability to perceive your sexual desire for them, is like walking into say, a barber and telling him he gives terrible hair cuts (pardon me if that metaphor isn't to your taste).

Women LIVE for the recognition their sexuality brings to them.
To ignore them in this regard is the best way to create genuinely bad feeling on their part, for you.

It's necessary to incorporate this deception, IMHO.

If you got a moral objection with that, as I said, go try hit on a few broads without it, and see where your moral compass points after that.

In case I'm ruffling any feathers with my bold conjecture, please allow me to clarify, once again, these are only my THEORIES AND OPINIONS.

Peace.

Scanlas The 2nd

Reward Hunter wrote: »

lol - what's up bro?

Your not going down "white knight" path are you?

Go out, hit on a few girls, get cut down, then come back and tell us how "wrong" it ease to engage in a little deception and manipulation - whatever you wanna call it.


In my HUMBLE (and believe me, it is) opinion, women generally perceive men who approach them WITHOUT this deception, with the intent of eventually instigating a sexual situation, as being scum and disgusting.

The catch 22 is, IMO and experience, approaching a woman without their ability to perceive your sexual desire for them, is like walking into say, a barber and telling him he gives terrible hair cuts (pardon me if that metaphor isn't to your taste).

Women LIVE for the recognition their sexuality brings to them.
To ignore them in this regard is the best way to create genuinely bad feeling on their part, for you.

It's necessary to incorporate this deception, IMHO.

If you got a moral objection with that, as I said, go try hit on a few broads without it, and see where your moral compass points after that.

In case I'm ruffling any feathers with my bold conjecture, please allow me to clarify, once again, these are only my THEORIES AND OPINIONS.

Peace.

I don't think there is deception going on really, women know you want to fcuk them most of the time. it's part of the game by not acknowledging it straight away, it enhances the sexual tension. I agree completely with your point on showing how turned on by the woman you are. IMO one of the best lines to use mid chat up when it's going well with a woman is " stop doing that....you are turning me on WAY to much". I find this really ignites a woman sexually.

leggo

My apologies, I don't even know why I typed RH there when I knew it wasn't him! I guess I'm used to disagreeing with some of his posts even though they're pro-PUA haha. Freudian slip, again apologies.

I'm in work so will reply properly later, but just a quick point to keep the discussion moving.

Of COURSE lying and manipulation are skills. But context is key here: we're talking about seduction and romance here. If I was an undercover CIA agent trying to infiltrate a terrorist cell, lying would be essential towards my survival! That's not what we're discussing though...

If you need to lie to a woman in the context of wooing her, then the only purpose it has is to deceive her into believing you're something you're not. And the only excuse for doing that is that you're ashamed of who you are. Plus the truth will always out, one way or another, even if you 'get away with it' once or twice.

midlandsmissus

Mens be crazy, I'm absolutely gobsmacked at Reward Hunter's discussion on the female orgasm. Are you serious? For a man who seems to scientifically study the female species to the last nth, it's crazy you could be so clueless about the female orgasm. There are no nerve endings in the vagina. The only way a woman will have an orgasm vaginally is with clitoral stimulation first. The VAST majority of women will not orgasm during intercourse. Orgasm IS much harder to reach than male orgasm.
I dont get all your 'there's a school of thought'. It is the way it is.

Reward Hunter

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Mens be crazy, I'm absolutely gobsmacked at Reward Hunter's discussion on the female orgasm. Are you serious? For a man who seems to scientifically study the female species to the last nth, it's crazy you could be so clueless about the female orgasm. There are no nerve endings in the vagina. The only way a woman will have an orgasm vaginally is with clitoral stimulation first. The VAST majority of women will not orgasm during intercourse. Orgasm IS much harder to reach than male orgasm.
I dont get all your 'there's a school of thought'. It is the way it is.

Reward Hunter

...but if you are, feel free to elaborate further.

I'm a female orgasm blank slate.

To try and avoid this particular sub-topic of conversation going down the "male-ego" route, or descending into something sordid, I think it's best to refer to any examples from a neutral perspective.

The vast majority of women don't orgasm during intercourse

Fill me in.

What's the point of their having sex in that case?

gargleblaster

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Mens be crazy, I'm absolutely gobsmacked at Reward Hunter's discussion on the female orgasm. Are you serious? For a man who seems to scientifically study the female species to the last nth, it's crazy you could be so clueless about the female orgasm. There are no nerve endings in the vagina. The only way a woman will have an orgasm vaginally is with clitoral stimulation first. The VAST majority of women will not orgasm during intercourse. Orgasm IS much harder to reach than male orgasm.
I dont get all your 'there's a school of thought'. It is the way it is.

That really does put a whole new (and extremely unflattering) perspective on this entire thread.

I am similarly gobsmacked that that comment sat so long unaddressed, in a thread overwhelmingly dominated by men who study women to the nth degree. That would be a very telling omission from said studies. Very telling.

Reward Hunter

gargleblaster wrote: »

That really does put a whole new (and extremely unflattering) perspective on this entire thread.

I am similarly gobsmacked that that comment sat so long unaddressed, in a thread overwhelmingly dominated by men who study women to the nth degree. That would be a very telling omission from said studies. Very telling.

hahaha - very telling indeed!!

But as regards the bolded text, good point.

IMO, that's what allot of it (attraction) is going to boil down to also.

From the initiation of contact between a male and female, the first "hello etc", the ultimate intent, in a sense, is to have sex.

Whether or not that male can induce a female orgasm would surely dictate to some degree, the magnitude of attraction, right? (question is not rhetorical)

Or perhaps the degree to which she finds said man attractive, will determine potential for climax inducing coitus?

Perhaps they're both interdependent, in a sense (I'm speculating), and both encapsulate a host of various factors, the likes of which have been discussed already?

gargleblaster

One would think that being successful at pleasing her in bed would be related to attraction for second meetings for sex, yes. However, that leaves out the fact that many women never have orgasms with a partner at all, so they'd be less inclined to hold that against any man, no matter how attractive he is. But no, I don't think his attractiveness has anything to do with the possibility of acheieving orgasm. It's usually physiological or psychological on her part, or a combination of the two.

midlandsmissus

Reward Hunter wrote: »

...but if you are, feel free to elaborate further.

I'm a female orgasm blank slate.

To try and avoid this particular sub-topic of conversation going down the "male-ego" route, or descending into something sordid, I think it's best to refer to any examples from a neutral perspective.



Fill me in.

What's the point of their having sex in that case?

Allow me to explain in a graphic nerve ending way. . When a man has intercourse, the nerve endings in the head of his penis are clenched and stimulated by the vaginal muscles making him nearly 100 guaranteed to orgasm. There are NO nerve endings in the vagina, trying to get a woman to orgasm from sticking your penis or finger into her vagina, is like her rubbing your back to get you to orgasm. It is NOT possible,there are no nerve endings there. What we feel during intercourse is a pleasant, full feeling really, and that's it. It takes direct manual stimulation of the clitoris (higher up you know!), for a woman to orgasm. End of lesson 1 on female sex! I really think alot of men don't know these things, mainly because porn that they see could not be further from the truth about women. Happy to help!

gargleblaster

Sorry midlandsmissus but I have to disagree with you there.

Don't want to get to detailed about it, but let's just say that different physiological factors involving the woman's parts can make it possible for some women to reach orgasm from vaginal stimulation. Not the same kind of orgasm, but an orgasm nonetheless.

Reward Hunter

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Allow me to explain in a graphic nerve ending way. . When a man has intercourse, the nerve endings in the head of his penis are clenched and stimulated by the vaginal muscles making him nearly 100 guaranteed to orgasm. There are NO nerve endings in the vagina, trying to get a woman to orgasm from sticking your penis or finger into her vagina, is like her rubbing your back to get you to orgasm. It is NOT possible,there are no nerve endings there. What we feel during intercourse is a pleasant, full feeling really, and that's it. It takes direct manual stimulation of the clitoris (higher up you know!), for a woman to orgasm. End of lesson 1 on female sex! I really think alot of men don't know these things, mainly because porn that they see could not be further from the truth about women. Happy to help!

Woah woah...

Porno's not real??

Well, I get it's not actually real - but your claiming people don't actually have sex like this?

Maybe YOU don't have sex like this!

In fact, the fact that your so happy to "help" is making me suspicious.


But to quote the above poster, on the part of males posting here, it's curious this has not been addressed sooner/already.

PS - to reiterate, I often believe trust plays a big part in female orgasm.
Trust, IMO, comes in acceptance, but I also believe the more hungry a man for sex - on an instinctive level - maybe it contributes to trust also??

What you think?

What increases male hunger for sex?

I know there's almost always "hunger for sex", but when there's a real chemistry in the air, that's something different.

What makes the chemistry?

Bit of a puzzle...

midlandsmissus

gargleblaster wrote: »

Sorry midlandsmissus but I have to disagree with you there.

Don't want to get to detailed about it, but let's just say that different physiological factors involving the woman's parts can make it possible for some women to reach orgasm from vaginal stimulation. Not the same kind of orgasm, but an orgasm nonetheless.

No I agree, it is not impossible. Some women have the ability due to luck of positioning and things being able to be stimulated from inside. But the vast majority are unable to. I think current studies have put it at 80/20 unable/ able to.

midlandsmissus

Reward Hunter wrote: »

Woah woah...

Porno's not real??

Well, I get it's not actually real - but your claiming people don't actually have sex like this?

Maybe YOU don't have sex like this!

In fact, the fact that your so happy to "help" is making me suspicious.


But to quote the above poster, on the part of males posting here, it's curious this has not been addressed sooner/already.

PS - to reiterate, I often believe trust plays a big part in female orgasm.
Trust, IMO, comes in acceptance, but I also believe the more hungry a man for sex - on an instinctive level - maybe it contributes to trust also??

What you think?

What increases male hunger for sex?

I know there's almost always "hunger for sex", but when there's a real chemistry in the air, that's something different.

What makes the chemistry?

Bit of a puzzle...

Is it me or does your way of speaking make anyone else's brain hurt? It's like conversing with some-one not human but has seen them in practice and wants to do a detailed elaborate study on them.

Wibbs

midlandsmissus wrote:

There are no nerve endings in the vagina.

Untrue. There are nerve endings in the vagina, particularly in the first inch of two. They respond to both stretching pressure and touch to a lesser extent. Deeper in there are also nerve endings, particularly on the back wall of the vagina. The clitoris itself is like an iceberg, the majority of it is hidden. "legs" come down either side of the vulva which can stimulate an orgasm.

The only way a woman will have an orgasm vaginally is with clitoral stimulation first.

Untrue, or rather untrue for many women who can and do have vaginal orgasms. Of course mostly it's a package deal and the clitoris is involved, but women can and do have vaginal orgasms during sexual intercourse. Indeed there are even women out there who find it harder by comparison to orgasm just clitorally on it's own.

The VAST majority of women will not orgasm during intercourse

Again untrue, or partially true. As much as in the past where men assumed women could and women who could spoke for all, nowadays there seems to be a swing the other way and women who can't currently assume this is the case for all (or the vast majority of)other women. Forgetting my own personal experience with partners in the past(and I'm no great shakes in the leaba) close women mates appear to have a slightly different take on this for the most part. A few are guaranteed such every time a couple can't or very rarely but the rest can and do. I'd break it into thirds. The other thing I've noted is women who couldn't at say 22, regularly do at 32.

Orgasm IS much harder to reach than male orgasm

I'd generally agree with that.

Reward Hunter wrote:

What's the point of their having sex in that case?

Cos they're not reward hunters sexually? Joking aside, I'd say as a very general thing, men are more aimed at the destination, women enjoy the trip even if they never reach the destination. Getting there is great, brilliant, Oh god there goes fireworks, just like men, but they enjoy the ride(pun intended). This is hard for some men to fathom as the they can tend to see that as the preamble. For all sorts of reasons, maybe adaptive and biological. A man needs to bond, but impregnation is a big part of it. Orgasm is required for that. In women it's not. They need the bond, even if it's transitory. There's an interesting aspect of human sexual biology in women that differs from our closest rellies in the ape world. The so called migrating clitoris. In apes the clitoris is directly stimulated in intercourse. It's closer to the action. In women it's not. One idea is that this is an adaptation so that women can screen better mates, more compatible and selfless mates that will attend to her pleasure as well as their own outside of the act of impregnation. Makes sense if women have a longer gestation period in and outside the womb. A man willing to make this effort at point zero is more likely to make the effort 5, 9, 18 months hence. There is some research that suggests that if a woman orgasms she's more likely to get pregnant, which would play into this, but IMH that's too vague.

gargleblaster

midlandsmissus wrote: »

No I agree, it is not impossible. Some women have the ability due to luck of positioning and things being able to be stimulated from inside. But the vast majority are unable to. I think current studies have put it at 80/20 unable/ able to.

Yes you're right, it's all luck of positioning and proportion. And, thanks - I hadn't read about those numbers.

gargleblaster

Wibbs wrote: »

Again untrue, or partially true. As much as in the past where men assumed women could and women who could spoke for all, nowadays there seems to be a swing the other way and women who can't currently assume this is the case for all (or the vast majority of)other women.

The overwhelming majority of women cannot climax from vaginal stimulation alone. That's with toys, partners, their hands, anything.

No assuming necessary - hard data backs that up.

Reward Hunter

gargleblaster wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of men don't know how to make their women climax from vaginal stimulation alone.

Fixed.

midlandsmissus

To Wibbs: I can't quote as I'm on mobile. No, YOU'RE wrong. Yes you have nerve endings in the front of your vagina,but the same way that you have on nerve endings on your back. I.e you'll feel touch but there's no
Way you have enough nerve endings to orgasm. The only orgasmic nerve endings in the female body are in the clitoris, same as in the penis head. A very few women have the clitoris arranged so that it can be stimulated from inside but this is the VERY exception not the norm. It actually astounds me how many men do not understand this fundamental part of sex with women. I talk about sex with friends and Ive yet to meet anyone who could orgasm from intercourse. It's not like 'if I do it this way she might come' in most women it is not possible. Again I would describe the feeling of rubbing your back, the set up of nerve ending intensity is just not there for women. I think numerous recent scientific studies across the board have shown women who can't orgasm through intercourse to be about 80%.

midlandsmissus

Reward Hunter wrote: »

Fixed.

Sigh. I blame porn's fault for showing women screaming in ecstacy the second they stick it in. Young men are shown that bull.
12 inchers you know they're exagerated reality, well so are the women's reactions!

midlandsmissus

Reward Hunter wrote: »

Fixed.

Sigh. I blame porn's fault for showing women screaming in ecstacy the second they stick it in. Young men are shown that bull.
12 inchers you know they're exagerated reality, well so are the women's reactions! I.e women don't orgasm that way!

midlandsmissus

Apologies for double posts mods, I'm on mobile and can't erase.

K-9

midlandsmissus wrote: »

To Wibbs: I can't quote as I'm on mobile. No, YOU'RE wrong. Yes you have nerve endings in the front of your vagina,but the same way that you have on nerve endings on your back. I.e you'll feel touch but there's no
Way you have enough nerve endings to orgasm. The only orgasmic nerve endings in the female body are in the clitoris, same as in the penis head. A very few women have the clitoris arranged so that it can be stimulated from inside but this is the VERY exception not the norm. It actually astounds me how many men do not understand this fundamental part of sex with women. I talk about sex with friends and Ive yet to meet anyone who could orgasm from intercourse. It's not like 'if I do it this way she might come' in most women it is not possible. Again I would describe the feeling of rubbing your back, the set up of nerve ending intensity is just not there for women. I think numerous recent scientific studies across the board have shown women who can't orgasm through intercourse to be about 80%.

Not a believer in the G Spot then?

gargleblaster

Reward Hunter wrote: »

Fixed.

No, it really is physiology in most cases. Where it's not, it's as much due to the woman's psychological state (relaxing, being comfortable with her body, etc.) as the man's prowess.

K-9 wrote: »

Not a believer in the G Spot then?

I think that's what she's referring to. Only 20% of women have one.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

It actually astounds me how many men do not understand this fundamental part of sex with women. I talk about sex with friends and Ive yet to meet anyone who could orgasm from intercourse. It's not like 'if I do it this way she might come' in most women it is not possible. Again I would describe the feeling of rubbing your back, the set up of nerve ending intensity is just not there for women. I think numerous recent scientific studies across the board have shown women who can't orgasm through intercourse to be about 80%.

I'm not so astounded usually, due to porn and the number of women who fake it.

However, in a thread which is about supposed experts on women - well that is kinda shocking. I would have thought that sexually pleasing these women you want to pick up would be pretty high up on the list of priorities. I guess not.

Reward Hunter

K-9 wrote: »

Not a believer in the G Spot then?

Also the deep spot/cervix.

Listen, why would porno show them things like women getting crazy etc, if they were unattainable?

Hate on me if you want for saying this, but I truly believe there's a huge ignorance among men as regards how to satisfy a woman sexually (especially muslims)
Some guys actually believe all their "alpha male" bravado is actually sexually appealing.

Surely the number one priority is to make the woman feel at ease so the body can be responsive, and with all that false persona bull****, the opposite affect will be had.
No wonder it's the metrosexuals that are getting all the girls now-a-days.

I might not be in the know entirely as regards what I'm referring to, but I refuse to stay in a state of ignorance for fear of offending some delicate egos, upon articulating my points of view.

Wibbs

midlandsmissus wrote:

I can't quote as I'm on mobile. No, YOU'RE wrong. Yes you have nerve endings in the front of your vagina,but the same way that you have on nerve endings on your back. I.e you'll feel touch but there's no
Way you have enough nerve endings to orgasm.

No you're extrapolating your personal experience to cover all women. Even by your dubious stats 20% of women do have enough nerve endings to orgasm by this means. Like I said previously I'd up that to a third(at least) of women in general across different age groups. And that's not involving the all over clit/vaginal feelings that lead to orgasm through sexual intercourse*. I've had a woman tell me the exact same thing, only to say it happened for her with one guy(and subsequently) and happened quite a bit and it was nada to do with me as she's a non sexual mate of mine for two decades. For the record and too much info etc , as a man I can get there without the head being touched.

gargleblaster wrote: »

No assuming necessary - hard data backs that up.

Actually hard data it isn't. It's mostly small surveys with equally small cohorts and often with agendas thrown in for good measure. Do not get me started on Shere Hite's "surveys". I suppose it depends on what one defines as hard data. 9 outa 10 cats prefer it/here comes the science bit doesn't really make the grade.

I think that's what she's referring to. Only 20% of women have found one at their sexual experience at the time.

FYP. BTW no male member required, ask the gay ladies on this score. Do all women have a G spot? No. Do more women have one than they may think? Yes.

Reward Hunter wrote: »

Listen, why would porno show them things like women getting crazy etc, if they were unattainable?

Hate on me if you want for saying this, but I truly believe there's a huge ignorance among men as regards how to satisfy a woman sexually (especially muslims)
Some guys actually believe all their "alpha male" bravado is actually sexually appealing.

Surely the number one priority is to make the woman feel at ease so the body can be responsive, and with all that false persona bull****, the opposite affect will be had.
No wonder it's the metrosexuals that are getting all the girls now-a-days.

I might not be in the know entirely as regards what I'm referring to, but I refuse to stay in a state of ignorance for fear of offending some delicate egos, upon articulating my points of view.

Oh god.



*all sorts of things can effect the effect so to speak. Things like age, sexual experience, different medications(anti depressants/the pill), emotional state at the time, trust, technique and yea(sorry guys) the size of the man's penis, but the effect is still there.

midlandsmissus

I'm not extrapolating my personal experience. You could say you're extrapolating your experience with your exes onto all women. It's fact, wibbs, fact. Find me any study that has asked women if they feel anything vaginally and the answers are always the same 70/80 percent-no, 20/30 percent-yes. The majority cannot feel a thing, the minority can.
I think men find it hard to accept this because they want to think their penis equals explosive tool of pleasure when this is not the case and more effort is required.

Reward Hunter

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh god.

What's up bro?

You know what I really think the problem is?

Men are too pussified now-a-days.

Men gotta own their women, make them succumb to them, ravage them.
From an ego stand point, they (women) might not like it.
In fact, when a man develops the sense of character to do this, he's prone to actually making other, more pussified men, feel insecure around him too - so, it's like there's an active ingredient in society to prevent this development.

I'm not sure (I'm only hypothesizing here anyway) was it due partly to the feminist revolution, the strengthening of the position of women in society, or what's up.

But a study showed (check it on google) that married couples are considerably less active, sexually, than they were in the 1940's.

Anyways, wibbs - if you got beef, let's hear it!

Or even better, come see me...











(jking, obviously - so don't piss your pants)

leggo

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm not extrapolating my personal experience. You could say you're extrapolating your experience with your exes onto all women. It's fact, wibbs, fact. Find me any study that has asked women if they feel anything vaginally and the answers are always the same 70/80 percent-no, 20/30 percent-yes. The majority cannot feel a thing, the minority can.
I think men find it hard to accept this because they want to think their penis equals explosive tool of pleasure when this is not the case and more effort is required.

Leaving all ego and personal experience to the side, I can't find one study that supports the percentage you've quoted. A lot of online forums with women asking is theirs 'broke', but that's about it. Feel free to find any of the studies you're thinking of and confirm your assertion though.

What I have read, many times, is that the majority find it difficult or impossible to achieve climax through vaginal stimulation alone. Are you sure that's not what you mean?

And how the hell did we get onto this anyway?!?

Scanlas The 2nd

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm not extrapolating my personal experience. You could say you're extrapolating your experience with your exes onto all women. It's fact, wibbs, fact. Find me any study that has asked women if they feel anything vaginally and the answers are always the same 70/80 percent-no, 20/30 percent-yes. The majority cannot feel a thing, the minority can.
I think men find it hard to accept this because they want to think their penis equals explosive tool of pleasure when this is not the case and more effort is required.

Asking people is hardly reliable. Also even if what they answered is 100% true it only means they haven't been able to orgasm thus far it doesn't mean it is impossible. There were studies dones were men and women were shown videos of animals having sex with devices attached to their genitals to record their arousal. The women were more aroused ( fact as recorded by devices) by watching animals having sex but when asked they said they weren't aroused. If only a survey was done we would conclude that women are less aroused by wacthing animals have sex than men when the truth is they are more aroused.