Men: Are you "Good Will Humping?" - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 11-02-2007, 04:02 AM

*Notices the dust settle (a little bit)*

Hey, guys, can we now talk about the difference between "I would fuck" and "I want to fuck"?

kutulu · 11-02-2007, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

*Notices the dust settle (a little bit)*

Hey, guys, can we now talk about the difference between "I would fuck" and "I want to fuck"?

The first expression means the girl meets you bare minimum standards for attractiveness and therefore you would fuck her if given the opportunity. The second is for a girl that is higher up on the scale, likely someone you would brag about to your buddies.

xxxafterglow · 11-02-2007, 02:22 PM

Huh... how do you guys know you weren't the one getting pity fucked?

I feel the anger from the ladies (and really hope MixedMedia hasn't left cuz I like her) - it's directed at the male gaze's way of sizing up women based on physical attributes. The OP's post makes it clear that "ugly" means appearances.

Unfortunately for a lot of women, this kind of objectification translates into lower wages, the glass ceiling, less opportunities, etc. than men. It's judging someone's value based on superficial qualities ergo seeing them as an object, where women are lumped into 9s, 10s, 5s, 12s, whatever. Pretty dehumanizing... but it makes it easier to justify poor treatment.

So I feel the anger. We're sensitive about it because we have to deal with this bs every day.

By the way, the same girl/boy can elicit "I would fuck" and "I want to fuck" - depends on how badly you want to fuck 'em at the time (are you drunk, are you horny, are you dating someone, are you wanting to prove yourself to your buddies). And I think that's universal.

Baraka_Guru · 11-02-2007, 02:41 PM

See, I don't view "I would fuck" as "She passes; I would sleep with her when given the opportunity." I view it as: "I would sleep with her, but I won't necessarily, for various reasons (i.e. I'm in a relationship)."

The "I want to fuck" is entirely different.

The distinction between the two isn't good looks/great looks. It's a judgement call depending on the circumstances.

kutulu · 11-02-2007, 03:11 PM

Fair enough. It's all fantasy for me anyways because I'm married and I don't plan on cheating. Therefore, the categories are Can Fuck (my wife), Can't but Would Fuck, and Can't but Want to Fuck.

highthief · 11-03-2007, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

*Notices the dust settle (a little bit)*

Hey, guys, can we now talk about the difference between "I would fuck" and "I want to fuck"?

I guess that is as close to reframing the OP as you can get; as the original phrasing was a bit vague.

Anyway, I'd probably go so far as to say that of women between the ages of 18-45, I'd likely be tempted, in the right situation (i.e., being relaxed in a bar or on holidays, etc), to fuck 30-35%. We all have our turn ons and turns off, and it's nothing for anyone to get angry about, although inevitably people do and many take it personally. Witness several earlier posts.

For me, a woman needs to be height-weight proportionate (more than about 20 pounds over that mark would probably be too much for me) and have a reasonably pretty face - although what I regard as pretty maybe the next person wouldn't - to qualify for that 35% number.

How many I'd actually strongly pursue because I was REALLY attracted to them - the number probably drops to 10%.

Those 10% are not neccesarily classic "10s" - just the 10% of the population that appeal to me as an individual. Petite is great, athletic is great, brunette as 1st choice, blond as 2nd, Oriental or European gets extra marks, nice legs and butt, pretty face - these are the obvious, surface qualities that turn my head.

ubertuber · 11-03-2007, 08:31 AM

This thread sort of makes it difficult to tell women that men see them as more than sex objects.

Ustwo · 11-03-2007, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

This thread sort of makes it difficult to tell women that men see them as more than sex objects.

Its best to not allow people to have unrealistic expectations.

If a guy meets a girl at a party/bar/where ever, and they have sex, she is being used as a sexual object. So is he, but that doesn't matter, guys don't care.

The trick is not being offended because women have been taught thats somehow wrong.

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its best to not allow people to have unrealistic expectations.

If a guy meets a girl at a party/bar/where ever, and they have sex, she is being used as a sexual object. So is he, but that doesn't matter, guys don't care.

The trick is not being offended because women have been taught thats somehow wrong.

I appreciate your input on this thread, UsTwo, but you have this part wrong.

It's not being viewed as a sex object. Many women enjoy being viewed as a sex object, including myself. In fact, I love it. Very much.

It is the disrespect that comes along with this from many man (not all, thank god) that is what gets under the skin of women like abaya and myself. The generalizations, the stereotypes, the debasing of our motivations, the childish whining...these are what motivates me to speak as I have on this thread and others.

Oh, and the other folks on this thread who have tried to decipher the obvious intent of my attitude towards certain people on this thread have it wrong, too. If anyone is being 'defensive because they know they are wrong' it's certainly not myself.

Willravel · 11-03-2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxafterglow

Huh... how do you guys know you weren't the one getting pity fucked?

Women don't have to pity fuck, so they do it a lot less often. Some settle on something less than what they want, of course, but it's a lot different than a pity fuck.

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 09:16 AM

Fucking is fucking. Maybe a guy's tendency to compartmentalize his sexual experiences is part of the problem.

Willravel · 11-03-2007, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Fucking is fucking. Maybe a guy's tendency to compartmentalize his sexual experiences is part of the problem.

Intent is a part of experience. I think that most can agree that love, for example, is not always a factor in sex. Sometimes it's infatuation or attraction.

In the case specifically addressed in this thread it's the "get your gun off, and help her out" reasoning. It's not particularly sensitive, but it's not such a bad thing, really. The reality is that otherwise, some women may not be able to make a physical connection with a certain caliber of man (just like some men will never make a connection with a certain caliber of woman). Whereas this is normally hopeless for some men, women have the benefit of being a member of the gender that more often controls sexuality. It's easier for a 10 man to have sex with a 2 woman than it is for a 10 woman to have sex with a 2 man. I can't make it any clearer.

Ustwo · 11-03-2007, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's easier for a 10 man to have sex with a 2 woman than it is for a 10 woman to have sex with a 2 man. I can't make it any clearer.

I think you said this backwards.

Willravel · 11-03-2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I think you said this backwards.

1-10 being ratings in ascending order for attractiveness, no I think I got it right. As someone who falls between 6-8, I'd have very little qualms about shagging a woman who was below a 5. Being a relationship? I dunno, the figures may switch.

Ustwo · 11-03-2007, 10:00 AM

I'd say its easier for a 2 woman to have sex with a 10 man than a 2 man to have sex with a 10 woman.

A 10 woman can get a 2 man any day of the week.

Which is why I think you said it backwards.

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Intent is a part of experience. I think that most can agree that love, for example, is not always a factor in sex. Sometimes it's infatuation or attraction.

In the case specifically addressed in this thread it's the "get your gun off, and help her out" reasoning. It's not particularly sensitive, but it's not such a bad thing, really. The reality is that otherwise, some women may not be able to make a physical connection with a certain caliber of man (just like some men will never make a connection with a certain caliber of woman). Whereas this is normally hopeless for some men, women have the benefit of being a member of the gender that more often controls sexuality. It's easier for a 10 man to have sex with a 2 woman than it is for a 10 woman to have sex with a 2 man. I can't make it any clearer.

So you're saying that it is somehow helpful for a woman to be used for sex by someone who is telling themselves that they are 1. providing a sort of 'public service' for ugly women and 2. they might be able to profit from it due to the 'eagerness' in bed of said such ugly woman?

Ever consider a career in advertising?

Ustwo · 11-03-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

So you're saying that it is somehow helpful for a woman to be used for sex by someone who is telling themselves that they are 1. providing a sort of 'public service' for ugly women and 2. they might be able to profit from it due to the 'eagerness' in bed of said such ugly woman?

Ever consider a career in advertising?

As a man, if a very attractive woman felt sorry for me being alone at a party and then suggested we go have sex that night, I would not be offended. My ego would be hurt if I found out, but not hurt enough to say no.

Odds are I'd be very eager in bed as well.

Such is the difference between men and women.

I'd also point out that we are talking casual sex here. Its been known that the criteria we pick for recreational sex are different than the ones we pick for a relationship.

For recreational sex, women act a lot like men, for relationships, things change.

DeathProof · 11-03-2007, 10:43 AM

I find there to be some people who are plain and after getting to know them become more attractive, if they have a nice personality that is.

Is that just me?

Willravel · 11-03-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

So you're saying that it is somehow helpful for a woman to be used for sex by someone who is telling themselves that they are 1. providing a sort of 'public service' for ugly women and 2. they might be able to profit from it due to the 'eagerness' in bed of said such ugly woman?

Ever consider a career in advertising?

Used for sex? There are two consenting adults who each get something from the experience. It's mutually beneficial. I apologize for the following question, but ask yourself if you've ever slept with someone you're not attracted to. If the answer is yes, then you either found other redeeming qualities (such as those outlined in the OP) or you didn't. If the answer is no, then you support my theory that women do this less often than men.

As for the public service, as I said there is mutuality in the experience. The profit is mutual. The experience is mutual. The pleasure is mutual. The man benefits, and the woman benefits.

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Used for sex? There are two consenting adults who each get something from the experience. It's mutually beneficial. I apologize for the following question, but ask yourself if you've ever slept with someone you're not attracted to. If the answer is yes, then you either found other redeeming qualities (such as those outlined in the OP) or you didn't. If the answer is no, then you support my theory that women do this less often than men.

As for the public service, as I said there is mutuality in the experience. The profit is mutual. The experience is mutual. The pleasure is mutual. The man benefits, and the woman benefits.

I am referring back again to the attitude professed in the OP combined with your assertion that somehow physical appearance necessarily enhances the sexual experience. Especially for people who are popularly deemed to be unattractive.

And to answer your question, the only people I have slept with who I deem to be 'unattractive' were not physically unattractive. I found them to be dull and uninteresting people who I just happened to end up with because they wanted me and I was mentally available. Consequently, I have most often had sex with men who are thought to be 'unattractive' - and, in those cases, with much enthusiasm.

And I was never commenting on whether men or women do this more often.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

As a man, if a very attractive woman felt sorry for me being alone at a party and then suggested we go have sex that night, I would not be offended. My ego would be hurt if I found out, but not hurt enough to say no.

Odds are I'd be very eager in bed as well.

Such is the difference between men and women.

I'd also point out that we are talking casual sex here. Its been known that the criteria we pick for recreational sex are different than the ones we pick for a relationship.

For recreational sex, women act a lot like men, for relationships, things change.

I'm not saying that the woman might be offended.

I am objecting (and bear with me, because I am figuring all this out while I type) to the attitudes about how physical appearance enhances the sexual experience. I think it is a myth that has been thoroughly absorbed into popular attitudes...and the avenues for an acceptable 'level of attractiveness' are being narrowed by our increasing pre-occupation with appearance. Thereby making exclusion from these avenues something to be pitied and primary to any other attributes that person may have - besides what they might be able to 'bring to the bed' with them in the way of eagerness to please that kind, benevolent beautiful person.

As with most subjects I get into these heightened discussions about, it always comes back to my disillusionment with the increasing shallowness of modern society -oh, and most significantly, the arrogant justifications of that shallowness.

Ustwo · 11-03-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I am referring back again to the attitude professed in the OP combined with your assertion that somehow physical appearance necessarily enhances the sexual experience. Especially for people who are popularly deemed to be unattractive.

I can't say how it works for women, or other men, but only myself. For me the physical appearance of my partner does enhance the sexual experience. Not necessarily HER sexual experience, as if I am highly attracted to the female I may well be a bit quicker the first time than I'd like to be for her sake. If the physical appearance didn't matter to me, then I'd have casual sex with anyone and thats not the case, if anything I'm more picky than average. Not because its a conscious decision, but a visceral one. I've often thought how much more fun casual sex would be if my standards on appearance were lower, but unfortunately I can't control those. This is also unrelated to my own personal attractiveness. Physically I put myself on that big 'average' boat, most of what makes me attractive to females is in the relationship category, and we are talking casual sex. We're I single I could marry a woman far more attractive than one who would want me for a single night of sex.

I'm also not sure what you mean by Especially for people who are popularly deemed to be unattractive. . Do you mean that those who are considered unattractive are perceived as having a much better experience with an 'attractive' partner over someone their 'level'?

Quote:

I am objecting (and bear with me, because I am figuring all this out while I type) to the attitudes about how physical appearance enhances the sexual experience. I think it is a myth that has been thoroughly absorbed into popular attitudes...and the avenues for an acceptable 'level of attractiveness' are being narrowed by our increasing pre-occupation with appearance. Thereby making exclusion from these avenues something to be pitied and primary to any other attributes that person may have - besides what they might be able to 'bring to the bed' with them in the way of eagerness to please that kind, benevolent beautiful person.

This implies their was a time when attractiveness as compared to others wasn't important, and I can't think of such a time in historic times. Cleopatra was known for her beauty, (even though their has been an effort to change that) and Helen's face launched a thousand ships.

Even what is attractive has only changed slightly from age to age, at least in the western world. I know Ruben's work is often used to show how somehow 'thin' wasn't always in, but I think thats a misinterpretation of his work. Ruben's painted all body types of all extremes, from grossly fat to extremely muscular, it was the variety of the human form that he liked to paint.

But take a look at the idealized greek, roman, and renaissance sculpture. The women are all thin and attractive by todays standards unless you consider the emaciated Paris model to be a 'standard'. I think the bar only moves slightly up or down on whats attractive in any generation.

As for the concept of the 'pity fuck' well undoubtedly there are those that do it and even think they are somehow being kind. Such is not my personality so understanding the motivations is hard. My personal stance is there is no such thing as a pity fuck, just some guys want an excuse for their actions.

As for the second part of that, the eagerness in bed, thats part of a long standing belief, which may or may not be a myth that the less attractive you are the more attentive you are to your partner. You will often hear how men with big dicks are bad in bed because they just assume its all they need. Its that same type of thinking. I can't say if its true or not, but I could see how it might be for some.

Quote:

As with most subjects I get into these heightened discussions about, it always comes back to my disillusionment with the increasing shallowness of modern society -oh, and most significantly, the arrogant justifications of that shallowness.

Again, its not modern society. Its humanity thats like this, for all time. Shallowness isn't increasing, we have always been shallow, looking for traits which are external as well as internal. Perhaps the main difference is now you can be exposed to beautiful people far easier than the past. Whereas 100 years ago, the most beautiful woman in your village was your bench mark, now you have the most beautiful women by the 1000's naked on the internet as your benchmark. Humanity hasn't changed, but the village is a hell of a lot bigger, even if its virtual.

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I can't say how it works for women, or other men, but only myself. For me the physical appearance of my partner does enhance the sexual experience. Not necessarily HER sexual experience, as if I am highly attracted to the female I may well be a bit quicker the first time than I'd like to be for her sake. If the physical appearance didn't matter to me, then I'd have casual sex with anyone and thats not the case, if anything I'm more picky than average. Not because its a conscious decision, but a visceral one. I've often thought how much more fun casual sex would be if my standards on appearance were lower, but unfortunately I can't control those. This is also unrelated to my own personal attractiveness. Physically I put myself on that big 'average' boat, most of what makes me attractive to females is in the relationship category, and we are talking casual sex. We're I single I could marry a woman far more attractive than one who would want me for a single night of sex.

I'm also not sure what you mean by Especially for people who are popularly deemed to be unattractive. . Do you mean that those who are considered unattractive are perceived as having a much better experience with an 'attractive' partner over someone their 'level'?

This implies their was a time when attractiveness as compared to others wasn't important, and I can't think of such a time in historic times. Cleopatra was known for her beauty, (even though their has been an effort to change that) and Helen's face launched a thousand ships.

Even what is attractive has only changed slightly from age to age, at least in the western world. I know Ruben's work is often used to show how somehow 'thin' wasn't always in, but I think thats a misinterpretation of his work. Ruben's painted all body types of all extremes, from grossly fat to extremely muscular, it was the variety of the human form that he liked to paint.

But take a look at the idealized greek, roman, and renaissance sculpture. The women are all thin and attractive by todays standards unless you consider the emaciated Paris model to be a 'standard'. I think the bar only moves slightly up or down on whats attractive in any generation.

As for the concept of the 'pity fuck' well undoubtedly there are those that do it and even think they are somehow being kind. Such is not my personality so understanding the motivations is hard. My personal stance is there is no such thing as a pity fuck, just some guys want an excuse for their actions.

As for the second part of that, the eagerness in bed, thats part of a long standing belief, which may or may not be a myth that the less attractive you are the more attentive you are to your partner. You will often hear how men with big dicks are bad in bed because they just assume its all they need. Its that same type of thinking. I can't say if its true or not, but I could see how it might be for some.

Again, its not modern society. Its humanity thats like this, for all time. Shallowness isn't increasing, we have always been shallow, looking for traits which are external as well as internal. Perhaps the main difference is now you can be exposed to beautiful people far easier than the past. Whereas 100 years ago, the most beautiful woman in your village was your bench mark, now you have the most beautiful women by the 1000's naked on the internet as your benchmark. Humanity hasn't changed, but the village is a hell of a lot bigger, even if its virtual.

Could it be that physical appearance only enhances your perception of prospective sexual experience?

If there were two women available to you, both of whom you had had sex with before...

one very attractive, but not very responsive in bed

the other, plain or even fairly unattractive (according to your mind) but a very sexually stimulating lover

Are you telling me that you would choose the more attractive woman?

I think your last observation is very valid. But I believe it has contributed to the legitimacy of my own observation about our modern-day values.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UsTwo

I'm also not sure what you mean by Especially for people who are popularly deemed to be unattractive. . Do you mean that those who are considered unattractive are perceived as having a much better experience with an 'attractive' partner over someone their 'level'?

oops, I forgot this.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. It presumes a lot - and seemingly from a very narrow perspective.

Plan9 · 11-03-2007, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

This thread sort of makes it difficult to tell women that men see them as more than sex objects.

For casual sex? Hot tip: DUH.

...

I don't think men compartmentalize sex... I think we treat it like kids treat those chicken McNuggets.

Sure, we like them... but we have others to eat so we don't make it too personal.

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

For casual sex? Hot tip: DUH.

...

I don't think men compartmentalize sex... I think we treat it like kids treat those chicken McNuggets.

Sure, we like them... but we have others to eat so we don't make it too personal.

As long as you persist in this attitude, the longer you will keep running into the situations that cause your attitude to persist.

You blame it on women. But you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Willravel · 11-03-2007, 01:23 PM

Blaming women? Sounds like a strawman.

telekinetic · 11-03-2007, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

You blame it on women. But you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Blame? Who said anything about blame, espcially blaming women? Certainly not Crompsin. Blame implies there was wrongdoing.

edit: Haha, too slow. Damn my human fingers!

Plan9 · 11-03-2007, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

As long as you persist in this attitude, the longer you will keep running into the situations that cause your attitude to persist.

You blame it on women. But you have no one to blame but yourselves.

You quoted me / men for blaming women? I'm at a loss. Why? We don't blame anybody. We might stereotype or dehumanize the carnal spearing, but we don't blame women for anything. Do explain.

I had placed casual in italics for a reason. It is the category of sex discussed here. This entire thread has to do with casual sex and "standards" related to it. I didn't wanna piss off anybody but I suppose anything that introduces a self-serving gender bias will stir the pot and put a stick up an ass or two. Not that sticks are a bad thing either, as long as it is consensual.

C'mon, MM... work with me here.

Casual encounters with people outside your normal target area. The sex where last names aren't really that important in comparison to the hands on your hips, the breath on your neck. Novelty over quality. The sex based on a quick spark of interest and a too-small dorm bed or futon. Just do them because they are there. The sex where the physical need outweighs the physical appearance and where the only connection that matters is the connection with the erection. The sex where you don't care about this person as a viable option for the future, that you don't think about how they keep their sock drawer organized or if they wash their hands after they pee. The kind of rabid badger monkey sex that is good for right now, needs to happen immediately, and has an unwritten expiration date that involves a sunrise.

(shrugs)

I haven't had sex in well over a year. Blame anybody? Not at all.

...

...

...

Ergh, except maybe my barber. Shitty haircuts at times.

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 02:11 PM

Strawman? This is one thread in a series of threads that is based around the trouble guys are having getting laid and rather than question themselves, their perceptions of themselves, their attitudes and their own actions, they blame women for the choices that they make.

Did someone say strawman?

Plan9 · 11-03-2007, 02:16 PM

Jesus Na-Na-Na-Hey-Jude Christ!

This isn't about guys having troubled getting laid... this is thread about guys getting laid with women they normally wouldn't have engaged in such an activity with due to their physical appearance / social stature / etc. There is totally supposed to be all sorts of boner slippage mentioned here.

"I'm not evil, I'm horny."

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedmosaic

Damn my human fingers!

We can get other kinds?! Where do I sign up?

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 02:20 PM

This thread has taken several avenues...but I suppose threads like the Ladder Theory and the Perceptions of Women thread (and others of the past) have colored my participation with some of the same people on this thread. It's difficult to remain compartmentalized when you are aware of some of the other overwhelming attitudes towards women that have been expressed here.

Plan9 · 11-03-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

This thread has taken several avenues...but I suppose threads like the Ladder Theory and the Perceptions of Women thread (and others of the past) have colored my participation with some of the same people on this thread. It's difficult to remain compartmentalized when you are aware of some of the other overwhelming attitudes towards women that have been expressed here.

I understand. Makes you feel like a piece of meat, makes you feel hollow, makes you feel like you're not all that into the life purpose that everybody else seems to be crusading hardcore. Turns out everybody feels like that.

How we mostly play victim to ourselves. How do you think guys feel when they realize that they're "under par" in comparison to their peers? Sucks to be the retard who can't get a number, let alone any kind of physical intimacy.

Do we make it difficult or is it just innately difficult?

You might say that woman are being treated as sex objects... but what does that say for men? What title and persona am I supposed to assume to be desirable? How can I make myself worthy enough to utilize you as a sex object? Is this the game? I suppose it is. Too much bullshit.

...

I wish I was still married. That made life easier. Happy to be stuck to another person fo-eva.

I don't at all regret the hot-hot antelope sex with various women that weren't my type, though. The feel of their moist skin on mine as I slept through those nights helped me survive those years without caving to the insanity of physical desire. The beating of the heart, the hand on my chest... that shit was real and while you might be able to buy it, you can't fake it.

Hot-hot consensual badger-style crotch-slamming with someone who needed a fix of carnal humanity, too.

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 02:32 PM

Oh, and for myself on the carnal fly, I'd just as soon fuck a short, balding, overweight, perhaps even slightly trollish looking man than a buff, young Greek god-looking stud. But what it would really come down to is the one who can make the hair stand up on my arms when they look into my eyes. And that doesn't have anything to do with looks or 'niceness.' It has to do with presence. Vital, visceral presence. Just being able to insert penis into vagina just ain't enough. I'd just as soon go home and masturbate.

Plan9 · 11-03-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I'd just as soon go home and masturbate.

Some of the guys here on this board do it at least half a dozen times a day, I'd reckon. Orgasm isn't the fix.

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

I understand. Makes you feel like a piece of meat, makes you feel hollow, makes you feel like you're not all that into the life purpose that everybody else seems to be crusading hardcore. Turns out everybody feels like that.

How we mostly play victim to ourselves. How do you think guys feel when they realize that they're "under par" in comparison to their peers? Sucks to be the retard who can't get a number, let alone any kind of physical intimacy.

Do we make it difficult or is it just innately difficult?

You might say that woman are being treated as sex objects... but what does that say for men? What title and persona am I supposed to assume to be desirable? How can I make myself worthy enough to utilize you as a sex object? Is this the game? I suppose it is. Too much bullshit.

...

I wish I was still married. That made life easier. Happy to be stuck to another person fo-eva.

I don't at all regret the hot-hot antelope sex with various women that weren't my type, though. The feel of their moist skin on mine as I slept through those nights helped me survive those years without caving to the insanity of physical desire. The beating of the heart, the hand on my chest... that shit was real and while you might be able to buy it, you can't fake it.

Hot-hot consensual badger-style crotch-slamming with someone who needed a fix of carnal humanity, too.

This is a very nice post, Crompsin, thanks.

But it doesn't make me feel like a piece of meat. I'll be absolutely honest, though, and tell you that it makes me feel hesitant to share certain things about myself here. But I don't feel victimized by it. It's not possible to victimize me. I make my own choices and I deal with those myself. I'm not about to start taking on the consequences of the actions of others. I will stand up and say what I think is right on the behalf of others, though.

I think it kind of sucks to feel inadequate and incapable under any circumstances, but 99% of the time those feelings are manifested and perpetuated with the self. That goes for men and women. And games and role-playing are eventually nothing but lies. Maybe you get that temporary gratification that you're looking for with them, but in the end it will always be meaningless. And then what happens when you actually meet someone that you really like and you are pretending to be someone you're not? I don't see the point or the benefit in going to such extents for casual sex. I would think it would be more economical, mentally and otherwise, to hire a prostitute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Some of the guys here on this board do it at least half a dozen times a day, I'd reckon. Orgasm isn't the fix.

Then maybe you are looking for more than just casual sex.

canuckguy · 11-03-2007, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Oh, and for myself on the carnal fly, I'd just as soon fuck a short, balding, overweight, perhaps even slightly trollish looking man than a buff, young Greek god-looking stud. But what it would really come down to is the one who can make the hair stand up on my arms when they look into my eyes. And that doesn't have anything to do with looks or 'niceness.' It has to do with presence. Vital, visceral presence. Just being able to insert penis into vagina just ain't enough. I'd just as soon go home and masturbate.

Please i am not calling bullshit on this i swear, i wish there were more women like you who felt this way. I don't think i've ever met a girl like this or heard a story 3rd person who knew someone who knew someone like that. Just like all these men who posted they would rather have sex with a girl who is ugly but has fantastic personality than a hot chick who is riding the short bus. that is why i love the net, it brings me in contact with people who break the mold that 99.9999% of the people fall into.

sorry forgot to add that.....

i date based purely on personality now. after being in a long term relationship with a girl who was beautiful but a mental midget i will never trade looks for personality.

looks may get me to sample the product, but it is the ingredients that will keep me coming back for more.

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian1975

sorry forgot to add that.....

i date based purely on personality now. after being in a long term relationship with a girl who was beautiful but a mental midget i will never trade looks for personality.

looks may get me to sample the product, but it is the ingredients that will keep me coming back for more.

I think when people reach this point, is when they start to finally have really great sex.

Sure, people have always glorified physical beauty, and it should be glorified and appreciated. But it is not the be all and end all to a sexual experience. And very often has no part in it at all.

Myself, I just prefer a person who is curious and adventurous and uninhibited and liberated. Like me, but with a cock.

Willravel · 11-03-2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Strawman? This is one thread in a series of threads that is based around the trouble guys are having getting laid and rather than question themselves, their perceptions of themselves, their attitudes and their own actions, they blame women for the choices that they make.

Did someone say strawman?

This thread is about 'pity fucks', it has nothing to do with blame.

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 03:52 PM

I've already stated my reasons for getting off track, will. Care to address any of my other responses to you which were indeed on topic?

Willravel · 11-03-2007, 03:59 PM

So it was a compartmentalization issue.

I hope you find yourself with a male reproductive organ soon.

mixedmedia · 11-03-2007, 04:18 PM

I'll take that as a no.

11-02-2007, 04:02 AM	#81 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Notices the dust settle (a little bit) Hey, guys, can we now talk about the difference between "I would fuck" and "I want to fuck"? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

11-02-2007, 02:22 PM	#83 (permalink)
xxxafterglow Crazy Location: Berlin	Huh... how do you guys know you weren't the one getting pity fucked? I feel the anger from the ladies (and really hope MixedMedia hasn't left cuz I like her) - it's directed at the male gaze's way of sizing up women based on physical attributes. The OP's post makes it clear that "ugly" means appearances. Unfortunately for a lot of women, this kind of objectification translates into lower wages, the glass ceiling, less opportunities, etc. than men. It's judging someone's value based on superficial qualities ergo seeing them as an object, where women are lumped into 9s, 10s, 5s, 12s, whatever. Pretty dehumanizing... but it makes it easier to justify poor treatment. So I feel the anger. We're sensitive about it because we have to deal with this bs every day. By the way, the same girl/boy can elicit "I would fuck" and "I want to fuck" - depends on how badly you want to fuck 'em at the time (are you drunk, are you horny, are you dating someone, are you wanting to prove yourself to your buddies). And I think that's universal. __________________ Uh huh her. Last edited by xxxafterglow; 11-02-2007 at 02:46 PM..

11-02-2007, 02:41 PM	#84 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	See, I don't view "I would fuck" as "She passes; I would sleep with her when given the opportunity." I view it as: "I would sleep with her, but I won't necessarily, for various reasons (i.e. I'm in a relationship)." The "I want to fuck" is entirely different. The distinction between the two isn't good looks/great looks. It's a judgement call depending on the circumstances. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

11-03-2007, 08:31 AM	#87 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	This thread sort of makes it difficult to tell women that men see them as more than sex objects. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

11-03-2007, 09:16 AM	#91 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Fucking is fucking. Maybe a guy's tendency to compartmentalize his sexual experiences is part of the problem. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

11-02-2007, 03:11 PM	#85 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Fair enough. It's all fantasy for me anyways because I'm married and I don't plan on cheating. Therefore, the categories are Can Fuck (my wife), Can't but Would Fuck, and Can't but Want to Fuck.

11-03-2007, 10:00 AM	#95 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I'd say its easier for a 2 woman to have sex with a 10 man than a 2 man to have sex with a 10 woman. A 10 woman can get a 2 man any day of the week. Which is why I think you said it backwards. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-03-2007, 10:43 AM	#98 (permalink)
DeathProof Upright	I find there to be some people who are plain and after getting to know them become more attractive, if they have a nice personality that is. Is that just me?

11-03-2007, 01:23 PM	#105 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Blaming women? Sounds like a strawman.

11-03-2007, 02:11 PM	#108 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Strawman? This is one thread in a series of threads that is based around the trouble guys are having getting laid and rather than question themselves, their perceptions of themselves, their attitudes and their own actions, they blame women for the choices that they make. Did someone say strawman? __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

11-03-2007, 02:20 PM	#110 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	This thread has taken several avenues...but I suppose threads like the Ladder Theory and the Perceptions of Women thread (and others of the past) have colored my participation with some of the same people on this thread. It's difficult to remain compartmentalized when you are aware of some of the other overwhelming attitudes towards women that have been expressed here. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

11-03-2007, 02:32 PM	#112 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Oh, and for myself on the carnal fly, I'd just as soon fuck a short, balding, overweight, perhaps even slightly trollish looking man than a buff, young Greek god-looking stud. But what it would really come down to is the one who can make the hair stand up on my arms when they look into my eyes. And that doesn't have anything to do with looks or 'niceness.' It has to do with presence. Vital, visceral presence. Just being able to insert penis into vagina just ain't enough. I'd just as soon go home and masturbate. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

11-03-2007, 03:52 PM	#118 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I've already stated my reasons for getting off track, will. Care to address any of my other responses to you which were indeed on topic? __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

11-03-2007, 03:59 PM	#119 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	So it was a compartmentalization issue. I hope you find yourself with a male reproductive organ soon.

11-03-2007, 04:18 PM	#120 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I'll take that as a no. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce