Opinion of pornography

[Ban my account ffs!]

Heterosexual male sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. They have a dog in this fight too.

lol

Heterosexual female sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. 

This idea that we all orbit around straight male sexuality is kinda ridiculous.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This thread made me think of a famous quote.

Look at this thread, just look at it.  I feel physically ill.

[Kitteh]

It would be a boon to the people in this world who don't fit into such execrable construct, who outnumber and are as a group morally superior (since undeservedly oppressed, which can be redemptive) to those who do. This particular sort of slavering, bestial sexuality really isn't all that important to most people, or if it is it is so for all the wrong reasons.

Speak for yourself!

I really don't think heterosexual male sexuality as folks like you express it is terribly important in a positive way for most people, unless non-heterosexual-males are discounted as people.

Nathan basically has you in a statistical trap there Opebo. Since heterosexual men are obviously a minority, by definition "most people" don't have hetero male sexuality. The more interesting question is whether most hetero men have the particular type of sexuality in question here. That's not an easy question to answer and the validity of any results depend on to what extent cultural factors can influence someone's sexuality. I am 99% certain that the number of men who are sexual in the way that Opebo and others are describing in this thread is less than usually portrayed in pop culture though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This thread made me think of a famous quote.

Look at this thread, just look at it.  I feel physically ill.

I do too, but probably for the opposite reasons as Opebo.

[Gustaf]

This thread made me think of a famous quote.

Look at this thread, just look at it.  I feel physically ill.

I do too, but probably for the opposite reasons as Opebo.

^^^

What do you call those guys again? Negative betas. Something like that. Or cold betas.

[opebo]

And after all, what do you mean 'morally superior'?  Doesn't mean a thing to me.  Have you ever had your hormone levels checked?

I care as much about my hormone levels as you care about your moral standing.

You should care, buddy!  Could lead to lots of negative health effects if you have no testosterone at all.

Heterosexual male sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. They have a dog in this fight too.

Heterosexual female sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. 

This idea that we all orbit around straight male sexuality is kinda ridiculous.

Of course the great majority of heterosexual females orbit around male sexuality, as their own sexual desires, if any, are so minimal (whether naturally or culturally sublimated I cannot say) that what remains to them is gaining non-sexual benefits from catering (as parsimoniously as possible) to male sexuality.

[opebo]

This thread made me think of a famous quote.

Look at this thread, just look at it.  I feel physically ill.

I do too, but probably for the opposite reasons as Opebo.

^^^

What do you call those guys again? Negative betas. Something like that. Or cold betas.

Which guys? you mean Grumps, Nathan, me, or Antonio?

[Gustaf]

And after all, what do you mean 'morally superior'?  Doesn't mean a thing to me.  Have you ever had your hormone levels checked?

I care as much about my hormone levels as you care about your moral standing.

You should care, buddy!  Could lead to lots of negative health effects if you have no testosterone at all.

Heterosexual male sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. They have a dog in this fight too.

Heterosexual female sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. 

This idea that we all orbit around straight male sexuality is kinda ridiculous.

Of course the great majority of heterosexual females orbit around male sexuality, as their own sexual desires, if any, are so minimal (whether naturally or culturally sublimated I cannot say) that what remains to them is gaining non-sexual benefits from catering (as parsimoniously as possible) to male sexuality.

Say what. Women have minimal sexual desires? I really don't think that's true.

As for my other comment I was primarily thinking of HockeyDude and Memphis. Certainly not of Antonio or Nathan and not really of you or Grumps either.

The idea is that there are alpha males and beta males. And then there are nice ones and nasty ones. So cold or negative alpha males are classic bad boys. Negative betas are basically neurotic and geeky misogynists and I sense that we have a lot of those on Atlas.

[Frodo]

Heterosexual male sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. They have a dog in this fight too.

Heterosexual female sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. 

This idea that we all orbit around straight male sexuality is kinda ridiculous.

Of course the great majority of heterosexual females orbit around male sexuality, as their own sexual desires, if any, are so minimal (whether naturally or culturally sublimated I cannot say) that what remains to them is gaining non-sexual benefits from catering (as parsimoniously as possible) to male sexuality.

If you were a hooker, and having sex with a complete stranger is the difference between starving to death and finding your next meal, you wouldn't have much of a sexual appetite either.   I am sure you come across a lot of those....  

And I imagine a great many women who aren't prostitutes are cursed with partners who don't know (and, like you, don't give a damn) how to arouse them properly.  

[LastVoter]

International Posters Union is carefully monitoring the situation here, we are seeing that mods are trying to intimidate posters in here, which we don't find as an acceptable action.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And after all, what do you mean 'morally superior'?  Doesn't mean a thing to me.  Have you ever had your hormone levels checked?

I care as much about my hormone levels as you care about your moral standing.

You should care, buddy!  Could lead to lots of negative health effects if you have no testosterone at all.

I'm almost positive I have at least some testosterone. I think I'd know by now if I didn't.

[Gustaf]

International Posters Union is carefully monitoring the situation here, we are seeing that mods are trying to intimidate posters in here, which we don't find as an acceptable action.

Huh?

[Antonio the Sixth]

And after all, what do you mean 'morally superior'?  Doesn't mean a thing to me.  Have you ever had your hormone levels checked?

I care as much about my hormone levels as you care about your moral standing.

You should care, buddy!  Could lead to lots of negative health effects if you have no testosterone at all.

Heterosexual male sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. They have a dog in this fight too.

Heterosexual female sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. 

This idea that we all orbit around straight male sexuality is kinda ridiculous.

Of course the great majority of heterosexual females orbit around male sexuality, as their own sexual desires, if any, are so minimal (whether naturally or culturally sublimated I cannot say) that what remains to them is gaining non-sexual benefits from catering (as parsimoniously as possible) to male sexuality.

Say what. Women have minimal sexual desires? I really don't think that's true.

As for my other comment I was primarily thinking of HockeyDude and Memphis. Certainly not of Antonio or Nathan and not really of you or Grumps either.

The idea is that there are alpha males and beta males. And then there are nice ones and nasty ones. So cold or negative alpha males are classic bad boys. Negative betas are basically neurotic and geeky misogynists and I sense that we have a lot of those on Atlas.

I'm not exactly fond of this whole alpha/beta/whatever classification, since I like to think that, flawed as we are, we're not complete animals.

But yeah, "alphas" probably don't post on internet forums...

[Gustaf]

And after all, what do you mean 'morally superior'?  Doesn't mean a thing to me.  Have you ever had your hormone levels checked?

I care as much about my hormone levels as you care about your moral standing.

You should care, buddy!  Could lead to lots of negative health effects if you have no testosterone at all.

Heterosexual male sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. They have a dog in this fight too.

Heterosexual female sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. 

This idea that we all orbit around straight male sexuality is kinda ridiculous.

Of course the great majority of heterosexual females orbit around male sexuality, as their own sexual desires, if any, are so minimal (whether naturally or culturally sublimated I cannot say) that what remains to them is gaining non-sexual benefits from catering (as parsimoniously as possible) to male sexuality.

Say what. Women have minimal sexual desires? I really don't think that's true.

As for my other comment I was primarily thinking of HockeyDude and Memphis. Certainly not of Antonio or Nathan and not really of you or Grumps either.

The idea is that there are alpha males and beta males. And then there are nice ones and nasty ones. So cold or negative alpha males are classic bad boys. Negative betas are basically neurotic and geeky misogynists and I sense that we have a lot of those on Atlas.

I'm not exactly fond of this whole alpha/beta/whatever classification, since I like to think that, flawed as we are, we're not complete animals.

But yeah, "alphas" probably don't post on internet forums...

Oh, I have no reason to believe it either. I just wanted to make the general point that it's a bit creepy with sad misogynists.

[opebo]

Say what. Women have minimal sexual desires? I really don't think that's true.

Well, I'm afraid there's a good deal of evidence for it.

The idea is that there are alpha males and beta males. And then there are nice ones and nasty ones. So cold or negative alpha males are classic bad boys. Negative betas are basically neurotic and geeky misogynists and I sense that we have a lot of those on Atlas.

Yes I see, very good. 

And I imagine a great many women who aren't prostitutes are cursed with partners who don't know (and, like you, don't give a damn) how to arouse them properly.  

What the heck buddy?  That's terribly sexist of you - you think women are just passive receptacles for what your prowess?  As for myself, I think her satisfaction is her own responsibility - it is up to her.  (I admit I'm being a bit facetious - for a certain type of woman I'm the mote just - but generally speaking that's a woman who, older, experienced, and really knows what she's doing).

[Sbane]

And after all, what do you mean 'morally superior'?  Doesn't mean a thing to me.  Have you ever had your hormone levels checked?

I care as much about my hormone levels as you care about your moral standing.

You should care, buddy!  Could lead to lots of negative health effects if you have no testosterone at all.

Heterosexual male sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. They have a dog in this fight too.

Heterosexual female sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. 

This idea that we all orbit around straight male sexuality is kinda ridiculous.

Of course the great majority of heterosexual females orbit around male sexuality, as their own sexual desires, if any, are so minimal (whether naturally or culturally sublimated I cannot say) that what remains to them is gaining non-sexual benefits from catering (as parsimoniously as possible) to male sexuality.

Say what. Women have minimal sexual desires? I really don't think that's true.

As for my other comment I was primarily thinking of HockeyDude and Memphis. Certainly not of Antonio or Nathan and not really of you or Grumps either.

The idea is that there are alpha males and beta males. And then there are nice ones and nasty ones. So cold or negative alpha males are classic bad boys. Negative betas are basically neurotic and geeky misogynists and I sense that we have a lot of those on Atlas.

I'm not exactly fond of this whole alpha/beta/whatever classification, since I like to think that, flawed as we are, we're not complete animals.

But yeah, "alphas" probably don't post on internet forums...

You don't think humans are animals? Ugh...

Gustaf, are you trying to say women have the same level of sexual desire as men? I don't think that is true (doesn't mean they have no sexual desire), and neither is it true in most mammal species. Women also tend to be more nurturing of children, just like in most mammal species. This women=men argument you guys are making is ridiculous, though no doubt quite popular in your humanities classes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Obviously we do have a major animal component. That's after all, the reason why porn (and sex itself) exists. But I believe that we are more than mere animals, that our ability to think rationally and restrain our natural instincts through culture makes us impossible to rank in the same category.

[Frodo]

And after all, what do you mean 'morally superior'?  Doesn't mean a thing to me.  Have you ever had your hormone levels checked?

I care as much about my hormone levels as you care about your moral standing.

You should care, buddy!  Could lead to lots of negative health effects if you have no testosterone at all.

Heterosexual male sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. They have a dog in this fight too.

Heterosexual female sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. 

This idea that we all orbit around straight male sexuality is kinda ridiculous.

Of course the great majority of heterosexual females orbit around male sexuality, as their own sexual desires, if any, are so minimal (whether naturally or culturally sublimated I cannot say) that what remains to them is gaining non-sexual benefits from catering (as parsimoniously as possible) to male sexuality.

Say what. Women have minimal sexual desires? I really don't think that's true.

As for my other comment I was primarily thinking of HockeyDude and Memphis. Certainly not of Antonio or Nathan and not really of you or Grumps either.

The idea is that there are alpha males and beta males. And then there are nice ones and nasty ones. So cold or negative alpha males are classic bad boys. Negative betas are basically neurotic and geeky misogynists and I sense that we have a lot of those on Atlas.

I'm not exactly fond of this whole alpha/beta/whatever classification, since I like to think that, flawed as we are, we're not complete animals.

But yeah, "alphas" probably don't post on internet forums...

You don't think humans are animals? Ugh...

Gustaf, are you trying to say women have the same level of sexual desire as men? I don't think that is true (doesn't mean they have no sexual desire), and neither is it true in most mammal species. Women also tend to be more nurturing of children, just like in most mammal species. This women=men argument you guys are making is ridiculous, though no doubt quite popular in your humanities classes.

Women may be physiologically different (and therefore they can't get aroused the same as we do almost instantaneously), but it doesn't make their sexual desires any less voracious than ours.  Why do you think over history there have been so many constraints placed on them in so many societies and civilizations around the world?

And I imagine a great many women who aren't prostitutes are cursed with partners who don't know (and, like you, don't give a damn) how to arouse them properly.  

What the heck buddy?  That's terribly sexist of you - you think women are just passive receptacles for what your prowess?  As for myself, I think her satisfaction is her own responsibility - it is up to her.  (I admit I'm being a bit facetious - for a certain type of woman I'm the mote just - but generally speaking that's a woman who, older, experienced, and really knows what she's doing).

lolwut

[opebo]

And I imagine a great many women who aren't prostitutes are cursed with partners who don't know (and, like you, don't give a damn) how to arouse them properly.  

What the heck buddy?  That's terribly sexist of you - you think women are just passive receptacles for what your prowess?  As for myself, I think her satisfaction is her own responsibility - it is up to her. 

lolwut

Isn't the point obvious? - your assumption that the realization of the woman's sexuality is dependent upon the mans' 'skill' (that the man 'doesn't know how to make the woman have a pleasure') is the height of gender stereotyping. 

[Frodo]

And I imagine a great many women who aren't prostitutes are cursed with partners who don't know (and, like you, don't give a damn) how to arouse them properly.  

What the heck buddy?  That's terribly sexist of you - you think women are just passive receptacles for what your prowess?  As for myself, I think her satisfaction is her own responsibility - it is up to her. 

lolwut

Isn't the point obvious? - your assumption that the realization of the woman's sexuality is dependent upon the mans' 'skill' (that the man 'doesn't know how to make the woman have a pleasure') is the height of gender stereotyping. 

I cannot spend too much time with you since Christmas dinner (roasted beef) is almost ready, but I will say this:

I made no such assumption.  As I said earlier, the physiology of a woman is different from that of a man.  Therefore, she cannot get aroused as quickly as a man can.  And when you're in a relationship, it helps to know that.  You cannot rush into having sex -you have to get there slowly and gradually.  Since this board is moderated by Inks, I am obviously not going into specifics, but foreplay is a big part of it.

Now, this isn't to say that women need men to get aroused -why do you think they seem to always have 'toys' stashed away in their bedroom?  But when you're in an intimate relationship, you have to put her 'needs' above yours. 

But I cannot expect someone as selfish and self-centered as you to care about any of that.   

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

This thread explains why women don't post here.

[Frodo]

This thread explains why women don't post here.

Oh, do elaborate.  I like to think women are not so fragile as you seem to imply.   

[Antonio the Sixth]

This thread explains why women don't post here.

Oh, do elaborate.  I like to think women are not so fragile as you seem to imply.   

Not wanting to read Memphis', Hockeydude's or Opebo's crap is hardly a sign of "fragility".

[memphis]

This thread explains why women don't post here.

Oh, do elaborate.  I like to think women are not so fragile as you seem to imply.   

Not wanting to read Memphis', Hockeydude's or Opebo's crap is hardly a sign of "fragility".

Most women are aware that they are different than men, and it doesn't hurt their feelings one iota. They're not fragile, just more balanced. They have very little patience for is the 18th thread about which way an obscure county will trend.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Good god, this thread is an abortion.

And given how exploitative the sex industry is (Do I really need to post evidence of this?), I can't possibly see it as 'freedom entertainment'. But whatever gentleman... continue your obviously metaphorical wanking.