VisorCentral.com Pages (11): « First ... « 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Porn Module Idea (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=15303)

Posted by BobbyMike on 06-06-2001 07:45 PM:

Wow, an intelligent discussion on sex and gender roles. Without posturing and proselytizing. I'm not use to seeing this at work. (am lucky that my wife likes to talk "deep"). I appreciate the women's perspective also.

K.Cannon wrote:
"I'm not particularly interested in up-close and personal pictures of someone I don't know (read as: not my husband) and I am not really interested in watching some people I don't know have sex. Whether that stems from "nature" or "nurture," I don't know."

My wife recently said the same thing almost word for word. She says it's much more "sexy' and a "turn on" to get a backrub (from me) after I've cleaned out the garage and put the boys to bed while she had some time in the studio alone.

I, on the other hand (no pun intended), get aroused by the sound of my visor (Big Clock!) waking me up and pretty much stay that way until I fall asleep at night. That sounds like I'm aroused by my Visor (heh)! I guess I'm trying to say that I'm pretty much "ready to go" all my waking hours. And it's been over ten years since we got together. Probably why I feel that porn is a waste of time. I also think Viagra is useless. Chocolate, on the other hand, is indespensible.

dick-richardson wrote:
"Personally, I'm not happy unless I've wacked off at least 7-8 times a day."

Where do you find the time? (Well, I guess if people can find the time to smoke...)

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by K. Cannon on 06-06-2001 08:11 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by linguas

Couldn't the same argument be made for men's view of porn? (Although I am in no way implying that there is anything "better" about it.)


Good point. Although someone eating chocolate is not likely to hurt someone else's feelings...

Posted by dick-richardson on 06-06-2001 08:24 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike
dick-richardson wrote:
"Personally, I'm not happy unless I've wacked off at least 7-8 times a day."

Where do you find the time? (Well, I guess if people can find the time to smoke...)

It was an exaggeration. I thought it seemed to be an absurd amount, but I guess it's feasible. I'm more like the "60 minute man" (and did I tell you about my ocean-side property for sale?).

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by K. Cannon on 06-06-2001 08:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike
My wife recently said the same thing almost word for word. She says it's much more "sexy' and a "turn on" to get a backrub (from me) after I've cleaned out the garage and put the boys to bed while she had some time in the studio alone.


In a previous quote I gave couple of examples of things that put me in the mood (without trying to give too much info). After I posted that message, I realized that neither of them were "touchy-feely" (i.e. emotional) things. In fact, one was the way my husband smells and the other was the way he looks--both very non-emotional senses. (And I did previously admit to briefly lingering over the covers of his Men's Journal magazines with muscle-y men on them, so I'm not trying to say that I don't think anyone else is attractive, just that I have no desire to take the magazine off into some corner by myself...)

quote:
I guess I'm trying to say that I'm pretty much "ready to go" all my waking hours. And it's been over ten years since we got together.


I think that most men don't realize what a powerful turn-on it can be to a woman when their guy is turned on by them. Congrats on your 10 years! Keep it up!

quote:
Wow, an intelligent discussion on sex and gender roles. Without posturing and proselytizing.


Isn't it great! Although, I feel like I am the only woman participating and, therefore, trying to answer all y'all's questions and, basically talking too much. (Just like a woman! )In fact, I'll try to cut out my near-constant responses and thanks! to all of you for a mature discussion!

Posted by Yorick on 06-06-2001 08:29 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
I'm more like the "60 minute man" (and did I tell you about my ocean-side property for sale?).


TOO MUCH INFORMATION!!

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by K. Cannon on 06-06-2001 08:33 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
My sister, for one, actively collects them.


Which is great, if she likes them...but I'm a woman who doesn't really care to read how Kathleen, she with sea-green eyes and long black hair was ravished by Clive, the pirate with a heart of gold and a front tooth to match.

Which makes my point: Men and women are different...but men and men and women and women are different, too!

Okay, I've REALLY got to catch up on the last 2 day's work!

Posted by dick-richardson on 06-06-2001 08:34 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon


Good point. Although someone eating chocolate is not likely to hurt someone else's feelings...

Nor should masturbation. disclaimer: sweeping generalizations follow. Men will sleep with a wide variety of women and form serious relationships with few. A man could sleep with a good looking woman, that woman could get hit by a truck on her way out of his apartment, and the man would merely mourn the loss of a "nice ass." Very few women can do that, because sex goes hand in hand with emotional attachment. I think a man being monogomous in a relationship is a great gift that a woman doesn't necessarily understand because that's just part and parcel of being in a relationship. I'm not saying that the woman doesn't give as much, she gives differently.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Toby on 06-06-2001 08:47 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
Women may be thought to be more into the emotional/psychological side of the relationship, but sex is in and of itself a physical activity. No amount of emoting is going to bring a woman (or a man) sexual satisfaction.


Depending on one's definition of 'sexual satisfaction', two words could disprove this: 'wet dream'. The brain has more to do with it than people want to admit.

quote:
In a separate post:
Good point. Although someone eating chocolate is not likely to hurt someone else's feelings...


You don't think a woman telling her man that she is more satisfied by chocolate than by him could hurt his feelings?

quote:
Originally posted by linguas
Couldn't the same argument be made for men's view of porn? (Although I am in no way implying that there is anything "better" about it.)


Definitely. I actually considered making that very point (more as a prosecution of substituting chocolate for relationships rather than a defense for porn, though ).

Posted by K. Cannon on 06-06-2001 08:48 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Nor should masturbation.

My rather lengthy discussion of this topic has been limited to pornography only, not sole masturbation. Pornography + masturbation is not the same as masturbation alone. In fact, I agree with your earlier take on this particular point.

quote:
A man could sleep with a good looking woman, that woman could get hit by a truck on her way out of his apartment, and the man would merely mourn the loss of a "nice ass."

Oh, c'mon...now you would have me believe that men have no interest in human life??

quote:
because sex goes hand in hand with emotional attachment.

See my point above...crying/smiling/emoting just doesn't really take anyone all the way, dick-richardson. Physical contact is what does it. (If we're talking about pure sexual gratification and not implications of a relationship.)

quote:
I think a man being monogomous in a relationship is a great gift that a woman doesn't necessarily understand because that's just part and parcel of being in a relationship. I'm not saying that the woman doesn't give as much, she gives differently.


Well, then, I reckon I'm gonna have to go home and give my husband a great big ole Thank You. Hope he remembers that I like the physical stuff too and not just the romantical emoting!

Posted by Yorick on 06-06-2001 08:51 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Men will sleep with a wide variety of women and form serious relationships with few.

I think that sort of goes back to the biological/reproductive imperative, since a male is able to mate for reproduction frequently and without discretion, but the female is limited to when she's ovulating.
This, I think, would lead to the emotional attachment, or lack therof.

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by K. Cannon on 06-06-2001 08:56 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby


Depending on one's definition of 'sexual satisfaction', two words could disprove this: 'wet dream'. The brain has more to do with it than people want to admit.


Damn you, Toby, Damn you for always having evidence! Of course, the brain controls the entire body. Emotions and the brain are not exactly the same thing.

quote:
You don't think a woman telling her man that she is more satisfied by chocolate than by him could hurt his feelings?

LOL

Posted by dick-richardson on 06-06-2001 09:07 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
...Oh, c'mon...now you would have me believe that men have no interest in human life??...

Not at all. Trying to illustrate a general man's ability to have sex without emotional attachment. I picked a poor example.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 06-06-2001 09:21 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
See my point above...crying/smiling/emoting just doesn't really take anyone all the way, dick-richardson. Physical contact is what does it. (If we're talking about pure sexual gratification and not implications of a relationship.)

I disagree. I could sit here and rub myself all day without getting a hard on. My wife looks at me and I could drive nails. I've heard of women that can orgasm without any physical contact whatsoever. I'll do my damnedest to hunt down a link, but trying to phrase the search criteria will be tricky.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 06-06-2001 09:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
I'll do my damnedest to hunt down a link, but trying to phrase the search criteria will be tricky.


or at least educational....

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by linguas on 06-06-2001 09:29 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Definitely. I actually considered making that very point (more as a prosecution of substituting chocolate for relationships rather than a defense for porn, though ).
Actually, I didn't say this as a defense for porn, but rather to illustrate that many men may just see porn as a carefree, no-strings-attached pleasure.
Maybe too much is read into the fact that men enjoy porn - could it be that it isn't necessarily a substitute for a "real" relationship at all? (not now, honey, I just got the latest Penthouse! )

__________________
Eschew obfuscation!

Posted by K. Cannon on 06-06-2001 09:34 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
I disagree. I could sit here and rub myself all day without getting a hard on. My wife looks at me and I could drive nails.

My attempted point was that emotions only do not result in sexual gratification. You seem to now be making the point that you need emotion for sex...which is the opposite of the earlier point...or maybe I'm confused.

quote:
I've heard of women that can orgasm without any physical contact whatsoever. I'll do my damnedest to hunt down a link, but trying to phrase the search criteria will be tricky.


This sounds suspiciously like a male theory to take away any responsibility for sexually gratifying their woman...or perhaps I should quote:

Alotta Fagina: "In Japan, the men come first, and the women come second."
Austin Powers: "Or sometimes not at all..."
(I'll use any excuse to quote Austin Powers)

I'd be interested in that link...hell, maybe they give a seminar!!

Posted by dick-richardson on 06-06-2001 09:38 PM:

Oh, now this is conclusive.

quote:
Here's my theory. Both spontaneous orgasms of the two women without sexual contact must have something to do with soul memories. In other words, they must have something to do with possible past life connections of the two parties concerned. The meeting, the encounter, triggered a soul memory of something they must have been doing in their past life meetings with each other. The present encounter brought back those sexual sensations up to the point of climax on the part of the women.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by dick-richardson on 06-06-2001 09:39 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
This sounds suspiciously like a male theory to take away any responsibility for sexually gratifying their woman...or perhaps I should quote:

hahaha
I doubt it considering the prize men put on pleasing their woman. No, this was an actual article I read that described some women's ability to orgasm without physical contact. The search continues...

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by Toby on 06-06-2001 09:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by linguas
Actually, I didn't say this as a defense for porn,


FWIW, I realized that. I was merely trying to clarify what my intent would have been had I posted it.


quote:
but rather to illustrate that many men may just see porn as a carefree, no-strings-attached pleasure.
Maybe too much is read into the fact that men enjoy porn - could it be that it isn't necessarily a substitute for a "real" relationship at all? (not now, honey, I just got the latest Penthouse! )


I don't think that everyone uses porn as a subsitute for a real relationship. I'm sure that some people use it as a substitute for their own creativity.

Posted by dick-richardson on 06-06-2001 09:58 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
I don't think that everyone uses porn as a subsitute for a real relationship. I'm sure that some people use it as a substitute for their own creativity.

Maybe men who need porn just don't have enough "soul memories."

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 AM. Pages (11): « First ... « 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.4
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2016.