explicit nudes in art

[Carl G]

till later, dickrub.

[Philosophaster]

What does "tl;dr" mean?

"Too long, didn't read."

[Shahrazad]

E:What does "tl;dr" mean?

Philo: "Too long, didn't read."

Huh? Nordicus, whose posts are never less than 5000 words, is accusing Carl of making long posts? How hypocritical.

.

[Carl G]

Too long, didn't read? Yah, I think the wolf pup just got winded writing those epics to Cory and me, and decided to blow it off.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cory: No, but it is not uncommon for a man, getting undressed in front of his friends, to be concerned about what his friends think of his penis size. I had a friend who was already well hung to begin with, but before standing up to get in the shower(after hockey) he would more than subtly jerk himself off to get the blood flowing, to make it seem bigger. Eventually he was made fun of for doing this. And then of course there were a few guys who refused to shower naked publically, out of an anxiety of being naked in front of other guys.

Nord: So, now you're "blaming" this on men?

No, I don't blame. It's an irrational thing to do.

Or are you looking into, if this is true (and I'm still not convinced it is), why this might be? Where'd they get this from? Obviously, the insecure males in your scenario are so from male joking and such

I wouldn't skim over 'the joking' too lightly. Human laughter is generally rooted in malice, directed at an object that deviates from what instinctively feels normal.

---but why are those males behaving that way? Where---or who---did they get that from? In my experiences, everything has a cause...

I agree the expressed values of women are a part of it. But another factor is that humans malice (often expressed in laughter) and an aversion for the object of laughter and disdain, tends to emerge when the 'sufficently normal individuals' percieve what they instinctively feel is too much variation in a minority group, or a particular individual. I think this is simply because we have innate compeitive mechanisms that cause us to be pleased by uniformity, and displeased by too much variation.

To borrow from an example that I've used in other posts: I once witnessed a caterpillar fall dead center into a pool of water populated by water skippers. The water skippers surrounded the caterpillar and started ramming it, apparently trying to injure it.

This competitive mechanism is in all creatures. Dolphins have been known to collectively murder a particular individual, often because of percieved weakness in that individual.

So likewise, humans in general tend to avoid, despise and laugh at other humans simply for being too different from the norm - whether too ugly, too pretty, too fat, too skinny, too short, too tall, too stupid, too smart, or for having too small penises.

Even in that documentary, private dicks, there was a guy intereviewed who claimed that his massive penis caused him to be percieved as a freak by his fellow school mates who avoided him and laughed at him.

Humans who deviate from the norm too much, naturally fail to get as much respect, or at least not as easily. To ensure that they get equal attention and respect, people who are 'different' in some way, often have to develop special talents, often out of insecurity, and this is in order to compensate for whatever deficiencies they feel they have. It's not simply because of external values imposed upon us by women that men become insecure about whatever characterisitc they are lacking in, including penis size. It's the fact that an individual instinctively wants to identify and be uniform with his peers, and also, he is often instinctively treated differently and with less respect simply for being different.

Women are a significant part influencing mans concern with his penis size, but a more ingrained factor is the human tendency to despise too much variation when it is percieved as inferiority, and to seek comfort and identity in a sense of normality, which is often a notion of superiority.

Cory: Well yeah, I know approx. how big my penis is because one time in highschool my first girlfriend, while jerking me off, suddenly got the bright idea to go and grab a ruler, and excitedly she measured me. She didnt seem exuberant that I came in at 15cm - - as I think she was a bit of a narcisist who always needed to have the best of everything rather than average. She was very spoiled. I think that, when it comes to a girls concern with penis size these days, especially with a girl who has the goods to get almost anyman she wants, there's alot of status anxiety more than anything - - especially in the narcisitic, individualistic, *I'm more special* feminine age we live in. Woman want to be proud that they are above average, special, and since they identify with the achievements and characterisitcs of their partner, they have status anxiety about his characteristics. An average size penis should give more than enough pleasure, but unfortunatley for women it's often about being and having the best.

Nord: That mostly makes sense, though it's really the shape that matters more to them---and many don't even realize this:
a five-inch penis (average) with the right curve or girth can give more pleasure than a straight seven-incher. G-spot and such.

I would say at first, a women is going to enjoy her first sexual experience much more if the man's girth is even a bit below average. But for women who are highly sexual, have had sufficient experience and have lots of choice before them, greater girth is craved and eventually becomes something that matters most - - and if they are really slutty, then they even get fussy about the aerodynamics of the penis shape. I think overall, they want to be as overwhelmed and impressed as possible from their partner, so aside from eventually craving girth, they look for greater length too, even if it's for their own good to keep it shorter. They just need to feel like they are in possesion of the most powerful objects that can be possessed. Now, not all women are focused on sex to this degree of course, and some of them, especialy those who are humbly endowed themselves (in othe words, many women), value his other talents, like his ability to make money, that he is cooperative and wanting to have kids, etc. It's only the bomb-shell women who really get hung up about penises, and often they live exceptionally stupid, abusive lives compared to the other women who are smart enough to value more intellectual and moral achievements. For instance, like David Suzuki's wife. I honestly don't believe she is 'that' concerned with his penis size. Probably not 'primarily' at all. She's proud of his nobility, percieved courage, reputation, fame, and scientific and moral achievements.

Suzuki claims that he had a tremendous inferiority complex about his physical image as a youngster, and it gave him a great deal of drive to seek security and self worth in intellectual achievements - which apparently helped him secure a good wife (as good as a wife can be - cooperative, admiring, loyal, etc) and family.

[Carl G]

Hey Cory, you wrote 752 words, and I only wrote 417. If you get a response from wolf boy I'm going to be pissed.

[Shahrazad]

Don't take it personal, Carl. Perhaps wolf boy has a preference for younguns like Cory.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Nordicvs,

I'm curious, do woman generally think that size matters?

What's your opinion on that?

Definitely.

No, not generally. There are some, but unless it is very out of the norm, it doesn't matter. By "very out of the norm" I mean 2 inches (or 5 cm) or something so big that she's going to be afraid that he's going to hurt her with that.

The more they blame us for being preoccupied with penis size, the more we can de-code that into meaning that they're extremely preoccupied with it.

No, the reason is primarily because guys talk about the size of their penis so much - especially if they think they have a big one. The guys that are insecure about their penis size - which is most of them - will often apologize for the size/shape of their penis, and state something about it not being the length or girth, but what you do with it that counts. And basically that's true - although to be more accurate, it is the overall experience that counts, not just what he does just with his penis.

(Almost everything most women say has to be run through some sort of bizarro bullshit-o-meter,

At least you recognize that your bullshit-o-meter is bizarre.

the more they blame men for something, the more it means it has to do with them, and not men. This must be what results from untold centuries of taking absolutely no responsibility for anything.)

So how does this correlate to men blaming women for being preoccupied with how they look?

We don't even have to de-code it, really; reason suffices: what's more likely...that a straight man would be concerned with his dick length in the context of other men or in the context of women? From whom would he need "approval" anyway? How many men do you know that regularly compare penis size with other men to see who the 'winner' is? How many men do you know that talk about dicks or even care about the subject in any way? To whom would a larger penis really matter more to: another straight male or a straight female, a potential lover? Who's more likely to see his package? Who's more likely to see it and comment on it, creating some possible "complex?"

Well, other men see it more often, as men are frequently comparing size in the showers or at the urinals. Apparently, men are more likely to give a spontaneous comment on it, but men usually ask lovers for a comment on their penis (which IMO is just as annoying of a question as the traditional female question of asking if a particular outfit makes her butt look too big).

Anyway, I'm still not certain of the factuality of blacks having larger penises. (I mean: has there been some sort of survey, or medical study, or is this going by what men claim, what comedians claim, or what?) I'm not doubting it---it *seems* to be the case, according to popular opinion...but that's precisely why I'm unconvinced.

When I was a nursing assistant, I changed a lot of adult diapers - and I didn't see any difference based on race. Someone posted a link (I think on here) awhile ago to an article talking about the difference between "growers" and "showers" where some penises get bigger with an erection and others just go from flaccid to stiff. The ones that go from flaccid to stiff look bigger when flaccid, but both end up about the same size when erect. Black guys may more commonly have the kind that just go from flaccid to stiff, and that may have been a climate-related evolutionary thing. When most guys get in cold water, their penises retract inside their bodies. I imagine it would be the same in just really cold air. Having a retractable penis would be of benefit to those in colder climates, but wouldn't make as much difference in warmer climates.

After a few thousand years of seeing their young men and boys sexually mutilated for fertility cults, then for farm goddesses, female deities---religion---and observing wars and all the decadence and social decay and mass-misery, it prompted men to start rethinking things, and eventually they countered with their own religion in places (with male gods---and eventually only one male "God"---the so-called "patriarchy") as well as what some around here call "spirituality."

You said you've studied on both genders - what about the cultures that perform clitorectomies?

in evolutionary terms (back when we did actually evolve), one's penis would only need to be as big as would be the hole into which it was destined to go, no? Thus, big dick = big hole.

Oh, my. For those virgin guys out there, the hole closes up when not in use. Furthermore, the hole can get big enough to pass a baby through.

A fucking Environment Wisdom Quotient. ("Wisdom" meaning a natural and necessary intelligence, set of skills, knowledge and even beliefs, enabling a tribe or group to survive not at the expense of either Nature or another tribe or group, efficiently handed down generationally---the less words and more experiential learning involved, the more effiecient.)

I would say we are working on that, but it is slow progress. At least enough advances have been made to start to reduce the hole in the ozone layer.
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

1. Men by far do the bulk of the work during intercourse and by far get the least out of it---for example, pleasure or even meaning.

Good grief. If you hear about someone faking an orgasm, are you thinking it's a male or a female? And the reason the guy tends to do most of the work during intercourse is because he wants it done a certain way so he can achieve an orgasm and to ejaculate. He controls the angle and speed to facilitate his pleasure. He may, during part of it, try to angle things for her pleasure as well, but mostly it is about meeting his needs.

2. Men give women children; women create nothing on their own. (They don't "create" life.)

Men don't give children any more than women do. both contribute have the genetics.

3. Nature divided up these tasks---women have to house the baby for nine months and then push it out, and they have all sorts of natural chemicals, pain relievers, stress reducing hormones, et cetera, to make this as easy as possible; and now, with various techniques and men inventing even more pain-killers, they hardly suffer compared to a few hundred years back, and really, need not even be conscious during the birthing process. And men? Instead of birthing, they did almost everything else, all the real work, and sacrificed their health, sanity, and very lives defending the women and children in every possible way from every possible danger---or later, every possible discomfort either might face. And still it's unbalanced---a lifetime of fulltime work for men compared to 9 months of "labour" for women...?

(My grandmother, one of the few women I respect, had 11 children and worked fulltime for the first half of her adult life, and understood sacrifice; here's a female who genuinely deserves respect for her part. [/quote]

So which definition of "women" are you using here? If you are using QRS definition of women and leaving off all those females who do work during pregnancy (unless advised by a doctor not to) and do contribute a great deal to the raising of the children and making the life of the husband as comfortable as possible so all he has to do is go to work and come home to just relax (and maybe mow the lawn and open jars where the lid is too tight). And if you are discounting the females of such characteristics, why did you refer to your grandmother as a woman?

4. Pregnant women are treated very much like royalty; working men are treated like dogs.

Usually, although spousal abuse tends to increase or be more likely during pregnancy. Furthermore, all the extra attention that was on the pregnant woman suddenly gets transferred to the baby when it is born, meanwhile she gets only about 20 minutes of sleep at a time because by the time the baby is fed and burped, it isn't long before the diaper needs to be changed, then by the time the baby is tucked in and the mother has gotten settled in bed, it isn't long before the baby is hungry again.

Nowadays, especially if both parents work (provided it is not a single mother), I understand the guys do take on some of the feeding/diaper duty - but traditionally females had round-the-clock duty both to the baby and to make sure the husband had hot meals, a clean house, and females were to make themselves pretty just before the man got home from work so he would have a pretty wife to come home to (or else he'd just stay at work with the secretary). The men, meanwhile, just had to put in their work day and go home to where they were king of their castle.

(*** ---I'm still undecided on the point of consciousness (...) to determine whether or not the feminine itself is barely conscious, or if it's merely a matter of "consciousness atrophy"

Without females being feminine, males feel less masculine - and generally females know this. I can't count how many times I have seen a thinking woman act like a brainless twit around a man - especially her husband - and I've had to ask why. Generally it's "to make him feel like a man." I doubt that most men have seen the full mental capacity of most women.
.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

he claimed to be a happy middled aged fellow who was long married to a wife who claimed to be sexually satisfied. But I bet she wasn't exactly a sex pot, and probably had some exceptional deficiency herself.

Hunted just mentioned not too long ago about an unattractive blind professor whose female life partner was quite beautiful. In adults, I have often seen unattractive guys with bombshell women, and heard of even more. With the very young, it seems that only the most attractive go out with the most attractive, and the unattractive most often don't date - but most people grow out of that.

Whereas women amongst each other in the change room? As far as I know, they hide from each other to a much greater degree.

A few do, especially the heavier females, but most don't seem to care.

Well yeah, I know approx. how big my penis is because one time in highschool my first girlfriend, while jerking me off, suddenly got the bright idea to go and grab a ruler, and excitedly she measured me.

That is one of the rudest things I have ever heard of.
.

[Carl G]

I don't know, Elizabeth, that's nearly a hundred words longer than mine to wolfie. Don't be surprised if you get a "tl;dr" on that.

[Carl G]

Well yeah, I know approx. how big my penis is because one time in highschool my first girlfriend, while jerking me off, suddenly got the bright idea to go and grab a ruler, and excitedly she measured me.

That is one of the rudest things I have ever heard of.
.

Ugh, that was rude.

Maybe we should think of it as art. You know, explicit nudes in art, like the thread title? The craft of retelling sexual escapades in public, it's called....Locker Room Art. Yeah, it's the baddest and raddest. And our very own Corey, he's fixing to become the Michaelangelo of the genre. Gonna make millions, get a commission from the Pope, to spatter the Sistine Chapel, and everything.

[BMcGilly07]

Elizabeth,

A resource I find conducive to staying hip to the ever growing lexicon of internet jargon can be found here:

Urban Dictionary

Not for the easily offended.

[Nordicvs]

What does "tl;dr" mean?

"Too long, didn't read."

Bingo. I was making a point.

Carl,

I doubt you're seriously interested in discussing things intelligently, which is why I'm here. If you want to go to some other forum so we can poke each other in the eye, post a link or I could suggest one. (I'm not one to back away from the chance to flatten some arrogant schmuck's swollen head.)

So, if you want your ego pissed on some more, let me know, but I'm done with that in this thread (you got your little digs in and so did I, so that's just funky), and am going to ignore you here as well.

[Nordicvs]

No, I don't blame. It's an irrational thing to do.

Sounds good.

I wouldn't skim over 'the joking' too lightly. Human laughter is generally rooted in malice, directed at an object that deviates from what instinctively feels normal.

True. It's sometimes exactly that---most sarcasm is just polite malice, disgest reversed into 'teh funny'---but at times humour is a laugh or cry situation; one can feel deep sorrow over something and express it through humour (black and Jewish comedians are prime examples of this), too.

[This must go back to and must be related to how "smiling" came about---all other mammals who bare their teeth mean business, not pleasantness, friendiness, or humour (here once more humans are completely backwards).]

Seems to me that those with smaller members would be more inclined to make fun of other's.

I agree the expressed values of women are a part of it. But another factor is that humans malice (often expressed in laughter) and an aversion for the object of laughter and disdain, tends to emerge when the 'sufficently normal individuals' percieve what they instinctively feel is too much variation in a minority group, or a particular individual. I think this is simply because we have innate compeitive mechanisms that cause us to be pleased by uniformity, and displeased by too much variation.

To borrow from an example that I've used in other posts: I once witnessed a caterpillar fall dead center into a pool of water populated by water skippers. The water skippers surrounded the caterpillar and started ramming it, apparently trying to injure it.

This competitive mechanism is in all creatures. Dolphins have been known to collectively murder a particular individual, often because of percieved weakness in that individual.

So likewise, humans in general tend to avoid, despise and laugh at other humans simply for being too different from the norm - whether too ugly, too pretty, too fat, too skinny, too short, too tall, too stupid, too smart, or for having too small penises.

Even in that documentary, private dicks, there was a guy intereviewed who claimed that his massive penis caused him to be percieved as a freak by his fellow school mates who avoided him and laughed at him.

All true.

However, it is largely cultural---there are many peoples who do not engage in any form of this penile comparison...which makes me wonder where all this originated and how. (And slams the case that all men do it.)

I mean, we don't see women comparing each other's clitoral lengths and girths, do we? Why not? Because men don't really care about those.

Breasts are their control devices and primary sex symbols, where men are most often drawn (again, in our culture), thus here's where their species of competition is fixated. I think breast-size obsession among women is quite similar to penis-size obsession among men, with similar manifestations but different origins.

Humans who deviate from the norm too much, naturally fail to get as much respect, or at least not as easily. To ensure that they get equal attention and respect, people who are 'different' in some way, often have to develop special talents, often out of insecurity, and this is in order to compensate for whatever deficiencies they feel they have. It's not simply because of external values imposed upon us by women that men become insecure about whatever characterisitc they are lacking in, including penis size. It's the fact that an individual instinctively wants to identify and be uniform with his peers, and also, he is often instinctively treated differently and with less respect simply for being different.

Women are a significant part influencing mans concern with his penis size, but a more ingrained factor is the human tendency to despise too much variation when it is percieved as inferiority, and to seek comfort and identity in a sense of normality, which is often a notion of superiority.

Yes, again, though, this is very cultural, and cannot thusly be any "male characteristic." If some form of it was found in every culture throughout history, then it definitely would be a male trait. But many have no such insecurities or such focus on sexual organs.

As far as I know, Romans were similar; larger penis = better. So, the "ingrained factor" must go back further, over 2500 years at least, in European culture.

I would say at first, a women is going to enjoy her first sexual experience much more if the man's girth is even a bit below average. But for women who are highly sexual, have had sufficient experience and have lots of choice before them, greater girth is craved and eventually becomes something that matters most - - and if they are really slutty, then they even get fussy about the aerodynamics of the penis shape. I think overall, they want to be as overwhelmed and impressed as possible from their partner, so aside from eventually craving girth, they look for greater length too, even if it's for their own good to keep it shorter. They just need to feel like they are in possesion of the most powerful objects that can be possessed. Now, not all women are focused on sex to this degree of course, and some of them, especialy those who are humbly endowed themselves (in othe words, many women), value his other talents, like his ability to make money, that he is cooperative and wanting to have kids, etc. It's only the bomb-shell women who really get hung up about penises, and often they live exceptionally stupid, abusive lives compared to the other women who are smart enough to value more intellectual and moral achievements. For instance, like David Suzuki's wife. I honestly don't believe she is 'that' concerned with his penis size. Probably not 'primarily' at all. She's proud of his nobility, percieved courage, reputation, fame, and scientific and moral achievements.

Suzuki claims that he had a tremendous inferiority complex about his physical image as a youngster, and it gave him a great deal of drive to seek security and self worth in intellectual achievements - which apparently helped him secure a good wife (as good as a wife can be - cooperative, admiring, loyal, etc) and family.

All good points.

I wouldn't call it "fussy" though about the shape---maybe it seems that way, but it is subconscious. It's the shape that gives them more pleasure (it's difficult to give her a great orgasm with a straight penis), but most are unaware and instinctively go for the bigger because that's what felt good last time (or the smaller one didn't). Say, for example, they then get an eight-incher with a slightly reversed curve and have to find a reverse position to make it work.

Strictly speaking, a guy with no technique, stamina, or proper curve isn't going to please her no matter how big it is.

About Suzuki, I hadn't heard that. Interesting. There was one chick I banged that I was "too big" for; the curve was right, but different from so many girlfriends, I couldn't go very deep---it hurt her, and she wasn't the type to enjoy the pain mixed with her intercourse in which so many delight. Maybe this is what happened with Suzuki and his wife---"they just fit."

[Nordicvs]

No, not generally. There are some, but unless it is very out of the norm, it doesn't matter. By "very out of the norm" I mean 2 inches (or 5 cm) or something so big that she's going to be afraid that he's going to hurt her with that.

How do you know this?

No, the reason is primarily because guys talk about the size of their penis so much - especially if they think they have a big one. The guys that are insecure about their penis size - which is most of them - will often apologize for the size/shape of their penis, and state something about it not being the length or girth, but what you do with it that counts. And basically that's true - although to be more accurate, it is the overall experience that counts, not just what he does just with his penis.

I disagree---it's the smaller ones that are more preoccupied, because they have more reason to be (and tend to overcompensate and fuel the very shame that got it started for them in the first place). Men confident with themselves tend to be those above or around average and those who've never been shamed by females or other guys, acting like women.

Penile obsession is a two way issue, much like breast size obsession---every argument that is made about men and their dicks can be made about females and their breasts ("But men are obsessed about tits!!"---and women are obsessed with cock for the same reason; "But big boobs are what men want!!"---and big dicks are what women want); "But! But!"---yeah, butts too; yadda, yadda, back and forth, tit for tat, until we're all arguing about who has the most marshmellows in their hot chocolate. Bored now.

Both sides feed off and fuel each other's insecurities.

So how does this correlate to men blaming women for being preoccupied with how they look?

Blaming or observing? Or looking at how much North American women spend on make-up...?

Again, as much as females claiming males are sex-obsessed, males can equally claim that females are sexy-obsessed.

(If you'd like to get really anal about which is 51% and which is 49%, in some attempt to "prove" some better-worse thing regarding gender, feel free, but I'm satisfied that both sides have their issues with sex and their organs, and each go about it differently.)

Well, other men see it more often, as men are frequently comparing size in the showers or at the urinals.

How do you know?

Apparently, men are more likely to give a spontaneous comment on it, but men usually ask lovers for a comment on their penis (which IMO is just as annoying of a question as the traditional female question of asking if a particular outfit makes her butt look too big).

I'd agree---both of it is ego fluffing.

When I was a nursing assistant, I changed a lot of adult diapers - and I didn't see any difference based on race.

Hmmm. And yet you took the time to not only look but take mental inventory, as well as judge size based on race...? ... ;)

If I were immature, I'd say something like, "gotcha!" but I'm not so instead I'll ask, how aware were you that you were doing this?

Someone posted a link (I think on here) awhile ago to an article talking about the difference between "growers" and "showers" where some penises get bigger with an erection and others just go from flaccid to stiff. The ones that go from flaccid to stiff look bigger when flaccid, but both end up about the same size when erect. Black guys may more commonly have the kind that just go from flaccid to stiff, and that may have been a climate-related evolutionary thing. When most guys get in cold water, their penises retract inside their bodies. I imagine it would be the same in just really cold air. Having a retractable penis would be of benefit to those in colder climates, but wouldn't make as much difference in warmer climates.

Maybe. Interesting about the retractable bit, too; never thought of it like that before.

You said you've studied on both genders - what about the cultures that perform clitorectomies?

What about them? They're so few and far between, and historically insignificant, that I hardly saw the need to get into that much. If you have a link that shows historical instances of clits being lobbed off for male fertility or war gods, by all means post it.

(All forms of baby mutilation are unethical in my opinion and reasoning. But if the parents, for whatever weird reason, have an agreement---without the infant's consent obviously---to torture and slice up their daughters and sons' sexual organs, which any thinking person would agree should just be left the fuck alone, and the Law is on their side, there's nothing I can do about it.)

Oh, my. For those virgin guys out there, the hole closes up when not in use. Furthermore, the hole can get big enough to pass a baby through.

Okay, good point.

I would say we are working on that, but it is slow progress. At least enough advances have been made to start to reduce the hole in the ozone layer.

And the "progress" and advances will create more problems than they solve, as they always do, so this is a moot point for me. Nature can't be controlled and organized and diced up into grids, and every time we try, we fuck things up. We are not yet wise enough and far too arrogant to leave things be and trust in something far greater than we could ever hope to be; and this has and will remain our undoing.

Good grief. If you hear about someone faking an orgasm, are you thinking it's a male or a female?

What does that have to do with work?

What do women say, "Fuck me all night long?" And then they lay there and get fucked (astonishing how a man will pay hundreds of dollars or more just for the exclusive right of working his ass off for an hour or two or three or more all for a (that's one) puny two-minute orgasm). The fact that they can't openly discuss sex and have a system that doesn't cause the passive and deceptive act of "faking orgasms" has nothing to do with who works his ass off pleasing her (or trying hard to).

And the reason the guy tends to do most of the work during intercourse is because he wants it done a certain way so he can achieve an orgasm and to ejaculate. He controls the angle and speed to facilitate his pleasure. He may, during part of it, try to angle things for her pleasure as well, but mostly it is about meeting his needs.

Puh. (You read male minds now?) Rubbish. A guy doesn't hump and thrust away, concentrating on how deep he's going, how fast, how hard, not to mention rhythm and angle and position and trying not to blow his load too soon, et cetera, enduring leg cramps and ass cramps and soaking sweat, all "because he wants it done a certain way so he can achieve an orgasm and to ejaculate."

Gimme a break. A guy can use his hand for a fraction of the effort (and time, and cost, and odour factor, and headache factor, and difficulty factor, not to mention the risk of being suckered into 18 years of child support if she didn't feel like taking her pill or missed it on purpose---which is the manner in which I was conceived into the world----or the fact that now she can charge him with rape weeks or months later by reversing her consent even though both had been drinking based on her having a couple drinks prior to letting him into her room and pants----and all of the other strings attached and crap) and can climax in a matter of minutes if that's all he really wants.

He does the rest for her benefit. Woman's pleasure is always paramount among men---that's how he measures themselves as a man, not the act, not penis size, not getting off, not scoring, but rather his ability to please her and satisfy her; it's why they feel really bad and inadequate when they find out she lies about her orgasms. Most guys are too noble to say it though (or keep score with "orgasm equity" systems---if that's even possible the way women lie about it; it takes a trained 'feel' to know when they actually do climax), so women scarsely know this, or care to know.

Men don't give children any more than women do. (*) both contribute have the genetics.

His seed is deposited in her; unless she gets him drunk, jerks him off and steals it (which happens), there's no other way for her to get it, other than a sperm bank, and men give for that to take place as well. In the same way that one says "Women create life," I can say "Men give women children," which equally makes as much sense [ (*) that was my point.]

So which definition of "women" are you using here? If you are using QRS definition of women and leaving off all those females who do work during pregnancy (unless advised by a doctor not to) and do contribute a great deal to the raising of the children and making the life of the husband as comfortable as possible so all he has to do is go to work and come home to just relax (and maybe mow the lawn and open jars where the lid is too tight). And if you are discounting the females of such characteristics, why did you refer to your grandmother as a woman?

I still consider her mainly "Woman" because she wasn't very "masculine," my definition, lacking many key factors; but as far as females go, she's one I respect; she certainly had conservative traits and could be very aggressive in her manner and words, the way English women seem to be in common, and indeed she was Grand Matriarch in our clan, holding the whole works together (after she died, the family fell apart, factioning off into petty alliances and shit, with the Aunts carving up the remains of her empire; it's been constant bickering and backstabbing for seven years; my grandfather died the following year, so all the brats took right over), even though she was very slight in stature. She wore the pants in the family, and everyone knew it, and yet wasn't a "bitch" about it; she was also devoted, giving, caring and loving, using common terms here I recognized growing up.

(And I admit that I might be biased with her, since when my mother was hospitalized for long stretches or gone off with other men, it was mainly my grandmother who raised us kids. Thus, she was a second mother to me and as such I acknowledge that this might be in part misplaced "mommy approval" coming out here, especially after how hard it was seeing her that last time as she lay in a hospital bed, dying. I have considered this, but I doubt it; she faced cancer with her usual strength, as well, and never complained. Brave, is another attribute I must use when describing her. But then again, a lot of English women toughened up during the Nazi assault on England during WWII, and were forced to live like poor men did, and they were pretty fierce before that in that old grin-n-bear it sort of way. Modern Woman is a joke by comparison.)

Usually, although spousal abuse tends to increase or be more likely during pregnancy.

Now that I really doubt. You know what I'm going to ask for on this point, right...? You know what it can kiss otherwise, right?

Furthermore, (1) all the extra attention that was on the pregnant woman suddenly gets transferred to the baby when it is born, (2) meanwhile she gets only about 20 minutes of sleep at a time because by the time the baby is fed and burped, it isn't long before the diaper needs to be changed, then by the time the baby is tucked in and the mother has gotten settled in bed, it isn't long before the baby is hungry again.

1. I guess that's true. What's also true is that the husband, formerly "number one" in her life, becomes "number two." Which he usually doesn't mind, but which can cause subconscious jealousy towards the kid ("Hey, it gets those boobies now! And she used to hold me like that!" et cetera).

2. I really wouldn't attempt to go this route (this working mother hero stuff) with me, if I were you. I've lived with a newborn and his mother for nearly a year and can attest to the ease of caring for an infant. I really thought it was going to be tough, the way everyone whines and moans about it. Pff. Piece of cake.

[Yes, he cried a lot and it took a bit to figure out what he wanted; yes, my sleep was interrupted; in spite of that, after a few months, I got up with him in the mornings, and a little later, I did most of the work with him (never minded at all---wasn't work at all; it was great---I figured out a way I could work on my art and play with him at the same time); and yes, he got difficult when he was teething and trickier as he began moving around faster and on his feet. Dirty diapers? How hard is that? If you get shit on your hand, it washes off. Plus, I've babysat dozens and dozens of kids of all ages.]

And I've seen dads do a lot of this stuff, too. With today's modern appliances and all manner of crap, hearing that taking care of a baby is work is absurd pissing and moaning. (Christ, my grandmother had 11, before microwaves and handy daycares and super vacuums---plus, she worked fulltime through it---and never bitched about it or wanted some golden badge of honour like modern mothers do. My grandma worked the day shift as a nurse and took care of the kids at night, and my grandpa worked the night shift as a janitor and got the kids ready for school, made them breakfast, took them there, then worked ten or more hours; when my dad was 10 years old, he basically became a second father to everyone, and his older sister was a second mother. Anyway, they both worked very hard.)

Nowadays, especially if both parents work (provided it is not a single mother), I understand the guys do take on some of the feeding/diaper duty - but traditionally females had round-the-clock duty both to the baby and to make sure the husband had hot meals, a clean house, and females were to make themselves pretty just before the man got home from work so he would have a pretty wife to come home to (or else he'd just stay at work with the secretary). The men, meanwhile, just had to put in their work day and go home to where they were king of their castle.

Where do you get these views on history? Where's your sources for all this?

"Just" put in his work day? Whuh? You're not talking about all families, just lower classes (middle-to-upperclass women hired nannies, and always have, and hardly did anything, let alone work). Even a century ago, lowerclass men worked very dangerous jobs, often outdoors no matter the weather, risking their lives and health on a daily basis.

You're American---who built all those railroad tracks across the country? Females? Nope. Mostly Chinese grunts---males---paid meager amounts and suffering unbelieveable conditions, not to mention racism (as well as Anti-Chinese organizations), and their wives outlived them because of this by a decade, getting their husbands entire savings after a life of relative ease and comfort inside warm, safe (and no doubt shabby, compared to whites') houses.

I really could go on for hours giving examples, but I'm not going to (below, in parenthesis, why); I understand you insisting you weren't pampered, but that's inordinately the exception---at no other point in human history has there been "minority group," which makes up the population's voting majority in almost every country, that, as in your nation, owns nearly 90% of all personal wealth and does the least amount of work for its country and has the least amount of responsibility and gets the most protection and special consideration solely due to its sex; there's never been an aristocracy so stupidly convinced it's a slave class. It's the biggest clusterfuck this planet has ever seen...

(Sometimes I'm not sure, so I'll ask: are you yanking my chain here or do you really buy this "the patriarchy has oppressed women since the dawn of time" bullshit? I mean, you seem petty bright. I've debunked point after point, myth after myth, you've made or brought up hinting at this silly and unproven notion and yet you come back with something else, every single time, another "yeah, but what about this." You are simply intent on doing this, and I'm really starting to wonder why. Is victimhood that appealing? Is it the pity, sympathy, or just prospect for attention that feeds this?

Anyway: women/girls/females have never been oppressed by men/boys/males, nor are they now. Quite the opposite---despite your personal experiences with a few men that faciliate your belief in that. Start a thread on it and I'll prove it. Or stop reading propaganda that feeds your ego and sense of personal injustice in your previous relationships and look into this stuff yourself. You appear to have the brains for, but not the interest in, arriving at the truth.)

Without females being feminine, males feel less masculine - and generally females know this. I can't count how many times I have seen a thinking woman act like a brainless twit around a man - especially her husband - and I've had to ask why. Generally it's "to make him feel like a man." I doubt that most men have seen the full mental capacity of most women.

That's accurate---for our western culture. However, what men view as masculine is just their skewed interpretation of it---it's really an impersonation and hence feminine in essence and function (acting like something instead of being it).

[Carl G]

What does "tl;dr" mean?

"Too long, didn't read."

Bingo. I was making a point.

Carl,

I doubt you're seriously interested in discussing things intelligently, which is why I'm here. If you want to go to some other forum so we can poke each other in the eye, post a link or I could suggest one. (I'm not one to back away from the chance to flatten some arrogant schmuck's swollen head.)

So, if you want your ego pissed on some more, let me know, but I'm done with that in this thread (you got your little digs in and so did I, so that's just funky), and am going to ignore you here as well.

Wolf Boy,

Your diatribes bore me, so that's just fine.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

A guy can use his hand for a fraction of the effort (and time, and cost, and odour factor, and headache factor, and...

If that's they way men feel, then these oh-so-brighter-than-women males should just use their hands.

she didn't feel like taking her pill or missed it on purpose---which is the manner in which I was conceived into the world

Looks like you're projecting your mother onto females in general.

What does that have to do with work?

Your comment was that the woman enjoys sex far more than the man does. That is what it was in reference to. All that I said having to do with the work of sex was that guys want to do the work because with it comes the control over their own sexual experience.

Regarding the adult diapers, seeing genitals covered in feces was certainly not sexual in any way. Actually, I'm not sure how anyone can have an erotic thought even when they go home when they have a job like that. As for assessments, part of the job was to note if there was anything unusual that needed to be reported, and to figure out what was unusual, one had to know what was usual. Trying to make something sexual out of that is really immature.

I gave the link to the previous thread about circumcisions in the S&E forum thread on males and females.

You requested a link supporting my claim about domestic violence during pregnancy. Here's one that lists homocide as the number one cause of death during pregnancy, and that one in five women is abused during pregnancy.

do you really buy this "the patriarchy has oppressed women since the dawn of time" bullshit? (...) You appear to have the brains for, but not the interest in, arriving at the truth.

All I have been doing is trying to get at and show the truth. Here's the completed last paragraph as started in S&E: This is getting tedious. I've gone through a lot of points, and I have said that things are unfair for both sides - and shown this repeatedly. Although at times you have seen some of this, you are insisting on playing the role of the poor put-upon male.

This whole line of discussion has gone further from discussing the aspects of the male and female psyches, and has gone down the road of the history of societal oppression.

Is victimhood that appealing? Is it the pity, sympathy, or just prospect for attention that feeds this?

Earlier you mentioned that the more someone accuses someone else of something, the more that that you think that it is actually has something to do with them. These questions seem more appropriate for you, as my attempts to illustrate that both sides got bad deals does not indicate victimhood. You have been attempting to show that males are solely victims of females. There could also be an inferred correlation between the length of your posts and "prospect for attention."

Before you put in another 5 pages, I'll let you know that I'm ready to bail out of this one just on exhaustion.
.

[Nordicvs]

Wolf Boy,

Your diatribes bore me, so that's just fine.

Sure they do---that's why you hung around with the fucking browser open for so long and had been checking endlessly, hour after hour, while posting here and there your little sniffs and pouts and snide remarks; you either wanted revenge for the massive trauma to that great slattern Pig God of an ego of yours (not even pretending to follow the bloody contents of the thread) or you wanted Big "Wolf" Daddy to come back and put you back in your box. Lippy prats like you always need that---the manner of discipline you never got as a child, no doubt, and crave so badly now.

Come, share and tell us all about it. We're listening....

[Tomas]

Nordicvs wrote:

[Now awaiting the kiddies to enter this thread with their effeminate prattle, their irrational civilio-defensiveness, tech-fellating or egotistical garbage---"but they was conkerred and stuff lol hahah---owie, i hurt my wittle tummy waughing, owie owie, mommy, hold me!!!'. Oh well, I suppose it is inevitable.]

Insults in advance. How funny after wading through your six pages of He-man frontier twaddle. Actually I didn't wade through it so much as skip across it like a rock over a stagnant pool. Some highlights:

The more they blame us for being preoccupied with penis size

You're blaming women for blaming men for being preoccupied? Ugh, how do you keep all your claiming and blaming straight?

This must be what results from untold centuries of [women] taking absolutely no responsibility for anything.

Like, for example, child rearing? Right, guys do all the work there, while the gals just play.

I'm not following you here---what value is there in civilization? It is the single most destructive force the planet has ever been subjected to---like a tediously slow-motion 100 gigaton thermonuclear detotantion, stretching across ten millennia to finish its obliteration of the natural world.

Whoops, another tiresome dig at all things not having to do with running au naturel with the wolves, in Alaska. Only thing missing is a heartful lionization of the Noble Red Man.

That's like saying North American Natives sitting on reservations, drinking Lysol and hoping for a casino some day, after being conquered by women, are "better off" somehow, "enlightened"---now with no dignity, culture, tradition, hope, spirituality, watching their once fertile, sacred hunting lands of green trees and rivers turned to smog-belching factory complexes and strip malls, cement tombs.

They used to be masculine, pure, strong, living in harmony with their environment,

Check that, I spoke too soon.

men didn't decide in the Levantine, Anatolia, Mesopotamia and Egypt, 15-10 millennia ago, to suddenly stop wearing pants, and instead put on dresses, jewels, shave and groom and perfume themselves, act and look like women, do their work for them, cater to every whim like pussy-whipped servants, abandon male culture (hunting---halting all of their art and sacred caves and male initiation, and concentrating on little titty dolls and images of twats) in favour of a completely feminine system, leaving these domesticated sad-sack husbands with nothing but alcohol and sports

Rant, rant. Such anger at women. Get it out. That's right, it must be cleasned out before the real work can begin.

In order to view any remote fragment of what is truly masculine we must go back way before the farming shit, before the spread of fertility cults that led to it, before the feminine took over---20 thousand years ago at least; that's when the Deep Masculine was still alive (in Eurasia) and doing well.

And such anger at modern life. Well, shit, go back to your tundra, running naked, fire in your eyes, your foam-flecked tongue flapping in the wind, where you're free, free to be the man you want to be.

This is sure to rub people the wrong way here, but I don't care: a sweet-smelling, smooth-skinned she-male sitting in a box thinking up cool shit is not a 'genius,' 'wise,' or anything else, not in terms of masculinity; many people here see "the masculine" as some mental or intellectual invention that abruptly popped up in written form in Greece or in Tibet---ridiculous; it's not an invention, it's not sold in stores, it's not a bunch of words on paper written by some repressed walking dildo trying to be at peace with his slavery or intellectualize it away with riddles and flowery cryptic tripe until he doesn't feel like he's actually serving females---and they believe, before this so-called wisdom, men were knuckle-dragging grunting gorillas

And free from the Internet, where all the girly-men hang out, and write their pussy nonsense, and call themselves Genius.

Such anger at the Geniuses as well. So much that it is worth stopping by the occasional Eskimo village to beg yourself online at one of the civilized homes (fuck those people for turning their backs on their heritage) and rant at the insanity of it all. Before gathering a few supplies, maybe matches, some flour, and fishooks, before heading out again, into the blindingly beautiful (and, fuckin' A, completely natural Northern Lights. Now that's a man's life. And his wife).

And any "man" who sits on his pasty ass all day with his nice clean nose in books, convincing himself he's discovered the secret of Nature (when his idea of Nature is a farm or ranch or English fucking garden; the guy's never hunted, never survived in the wild, never faced his physical, emotional, and intellectual limits, never faced his own death, never risked his life for his convinctions, never drifted or wandered along the edge of civilization in utter poverty, getting rid of every possession he's ever had as well as his ego, never caught his own food or built his own shelter, never experienced full, true, utter indepedence, never suffered pain or solitude or fasting or waiting---patience---et cetera), well, 'he' is just another woman with a dick who's rationalizing his addictions and slavery to his own ego

"Yup, and did I mention I run naked with wolves? No shoes even. Just a small pack swinging in the wind. Matches, some flour, and fishooks. Tiny little frying pan. And a mean assed knife. I repeat, no Internet most of the time. None."

Very good, Carl..

You win a cookie!




Tomas


7

.

[Shahrazad]

You just bumped a thread that hasn't been touched in ten months, with nothing better to say than "very good, Carl". Great.

[Carl G]

Pshaw, Sher. I'll take my kudos when and where I can get them.

[Shahrazad]

Tomas,

Best you go back in your corner and count your money and landed properties.

Why would I want to do that? It's not like they're going anywhere.

No wonder only the Latin boys leer you.

I live in Latinland, duh. And I work indoors, and go outdoors as little as possible.

You are mighty touchy today, aren't you? What, is your blow-up doll not keeping you satisfied?

And yes, I really am old. Got a problem with it?

-

[Shahrazad]

Great, you deleted the post I already responded to. Now nobody will ever know what you said. Very sly.