I like that comment.

Maybe that is why Disneyland and Disney World are so popular even with adults. It is OK to let your child come forth; even easier I guess when you have kids and take them, or grand kids. I by choice made sure I did not add to the world's population.

A great unfairness about life seems to be that we are all forced to have a great

chibifish (imported) wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:25 am post-pubescent need for romantic companionship,

yet those who are very unattractive, poor, etc, have a very low chance of having this need fulfilled. Even if the sexual imbalances between males and females are sorted out by having more gay men and/or more men castrated (or just chemically so), we still have the issue of companionship. I think that it's a good idea for many 'lesser' (non alpha) males to have their sex drive reduced, but that still doesn't solve the issue of general lonliness in a companionship sense. And the companionship thing does appear to effect everyone fairly equally. Humans can be very different in how social they are (extroverted/introverted), but I don't think that humans that are more socially in 'need' to be around others are therefore needier in an emotional companionship wanting sense. As an example I am very introverted and have even lived overseas for almost five months in one period (away from family and friends) without really missing people a great deal, but I feel that I need a 'companion' just as much as anyone else.

The need for companionship forces us to play certain games whether we want to or not.

I'm not sure if there's a drug that can reduce the desire for companionship!

I like the point about even the so called attractive and rich people aren't necessarily happy. That's right. Part of this is perhaps due to a regular questioning of just why others are interested in them, and that this isn't genuine enough, etc (and sometimes it isn't). To some degree we just need to acknowledge that we are all in some way vane and get over it. To be a little vane doesn't mean that you're a horrible person. For me, I definitely find some women much more attractive than others, but the level of this doesn't matter too much (in wanting a relationship)......so long as they are at least a certain level of attractiveness.

I don't think that makes me a horrible person (there might be some other things that do!), but where does it leave say, the 10% most unattractive women of society? I think that's where life is most unfair.

The lead article in this thread uses credible documentation to support the proposition that puberty is a negative development in a persons life. But much of this 'critique' of puberty centers around negative social attitudes toward sex, i.e. 'socially forbidden', and 'socially suspect' behaviors associated with puberty and its aftermath, and even contains a specific list of these - thirty of them, by my count.

That is a cop out, pure and simple. If the dominant social morality condemns post-pubertal behavior then society be damned, not puberty! I just watched a documentary film called 'The Stonewall Uprising', in which the 'gay community' finally, in 1969, rose up and fought back against the dominant moral prohibition of their 'lifestyle'. Denial of and/or discrediting of puberty based on social approbations attendent thereunto is merely to meekly yield to the kinds of social pressures that the courageous people of 'Stonewall' fought back against, and successfully so.

Puberty is a natural physiological event, a progression in the development of the human body, like growing adult teeth. It is not, and should not be regarded as, a manifestation of the intrinsically evil heart of human nature as this analysis implies.

I've attempted to post this response in different ways before. Let's see if this one survives the censors knife.

......

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:39 pm . Even if the sexual imbalances between males and females are sorted out by having more gay men and/or more men castrated (or just chemically so), we still have the issue of companionship. I think that it's a good idea for many 'lesser' (non alpha) males to have their sex drive reduced, but that still doesn't solve the issue of general lonliness in a companionship sense.........

I'm not sure if there's a drug that can reduce the desire for companionship!.................



I definitely find some women much more attractive than others, but the level of this doesn't matter too much......so long as they are at least a certain level of attractiveness.......

But where does tha

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:39 pm t leave say, the 10% most unattractive women of society? I think that's where life is most unfair.

You seem to be a really nice guy Greg, but some of these comments are pretty scary, to me anyway. Who, exactly, do you envision carrying out this process of 'having more gay men, or more men castrated' in order even up the 'sexual imbalances' between men and women? Or is this a natural process that you think might take place on it's own over time due to the prevailing imbalances? And what do you mean by 'sexual imbalances' anyway? Do you mean that males are disproportionately sexual? Or do you mean that the numbers of males vs females is disproportionate? If so is this disproportionate because we don't need as many males as females to propagate the species? Is that why you think it's a good idea for non-alpha

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:39 pm males to have their sex drive reduced,

perhaps by chemical castration? Scary stuff man! It almost sounds like the ultra-feminist screeds I recall from the late 1980's and 1990's. Are you anti-male? Do you loathe your own gender?

I mean, really! Is it really Ok to use drugs to reduce sex drive so long as we also have one to

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:39 pm reduce the desire for companionship

as well? Give me a break!

On a lighter note, where it 'leaves the 10% of most unattractive women in society' is just where it leaves the 10% most unattractive men - they hook up with each other! Seriously, 'attractive' and 'unattractive' are not characteristics that can be rigorously and universally defined. Your 'attractive' and my 'unattractive' are almost certainly vastly different standards from one another. The woman you might reject as totally unattractive might be just the one I've been looking for. Proof if this can be seen in the vastly different standards of female beauty reflected in paintings, and even photographs, of different era's. So don't worry about the 'unattractive' women. They can take care of themselves. What you should worry about are the 'attractive' ones who can't settle for any particular man because the next guy around the corner might be cuter and more worthy of her than the guy standing right next to her.

Sorry everybody, but I agree 150% with sensenbender on this one.

Life and problems are made by how we we react to incidents and the circumstances of life, not what those circumstances and incidents happen to be.

We make our own way in this life, and our decisions are never easy.

You can no more blame a failed life on PUBERTY than you can on the sunrise.

At the end of the day, everyone must accept responsibility for their own life and how they choose to live it. You cannot choose what happens to you. But you DID choose how you have reacted to it.

Sorry Sensenbender, I didn't mean that we should have a process forcefully carried out where certain men are forced to be castrated. I just like to point out that there is a sexual imbalance. Well isn't there? It was on another thread that A-1 and you spoke about women wanting sex less (no sex after marriage). So okay, it was said with some good humour (though I think that your 35 year relationship is nice and good that you both still get along well), but there's a lot of truth to women 'needing' sex less than men. Yet there are about as many men as women on Earth and not too many of them are gay (8-10% I can quote from the EA in regards to men....perhaps similar with women), so the result of this has to be some sort of sexual imbalance.

I doubt that the sexual imbalances will be naturally evened up. I was just rambling!

My !!!!!!'s are usually to emphasise humour, rather than to shout out a point. I often don't take myself too seriously which is probably just as well.

I did say elsewhere that I would start writing HAHA's, but this just isn't really my style!

I will stick with the exclamation marks.

I think it is a good idea for some males to be on medication that reduces their sex drive....WHILE they are single. When you are single (or at least while I have been...which has been in a way forever) I think it can only be a negative to have your 100% sex drive as a man. I think that masturbation is bad for our self-esteem (at least it is for me). Personally I wish to do this less and I'm sure that a lot of other single guys would feel the same way if they thought a little more about it.

I am not anti-male, but I have certainly had a lot of self-esteem issues with myself. To some extent if I'm not fucking (which I'm not and never have) then I think it's a negative having my sex drive. I know that I say some silly things, but I think that this makes some sense.

In regards to the beauty is in the eye of the beholder subject: Straight guys will often act in certain ways and say certain things to be a part of the crowd. There is no doubt about that. But even taking this into account I am pretty certain that straight guys feel 'essentially' the same from woman to woman. There is perhaps some sort of horribleness with being a straight guy in this sense. I'm not sure. I think that a lot of people just like to say that they happen to find so and so attractive. Unfortunately for straight men (I would like to get the opinions of other straight guys on the EA) we are colour blind.....it's all pretty black and white with who's attractive. There are of course slight differences though. I think that if you were to rate a woman solely physically and get their average rating out of 10 by all straight guys, then the greatest difference between the average won't be much more than a point. A woman who rates an 8 will rate between a 7 and a 9. Cases outside of this would exist, but they are extremely rare!

Women seem to differ a little more on what they view as attractive in regards to men. Perhaps a man who rates an average of a 7 for appearance might be anything from a 5 to a 9 for a woman. And so maybe this is similar with how gay men view men?

On your final point. Are there really attractive women like this?!

I would doubt so, but even if there are, couldn't your in vane attempts to court them still be a positive if they got you to make improvements to yourself?

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:54 pm Sorry Sensenbender, I didn't mean that we should have a process forcefully carried out where certain men are forced to be castrated. I just like to point out that there is a sexual imbalance. Well isn't there? It was on another thread that A-1 and you spoke about women wanting sex less (no sex after marriage). So okay, it was said with some good humour (though I think that your 35 year relationship is nice and good that you both still get along well), but there's a lot of truth to women 'needing' sex less than men. Yet there are about as many men as women on Earth and not too many of them are gay (8-10% I can quote from the EA in regards to men....perhaps similar with women), so the result of this has to be some sort of sexual imbalance.

Being no longer married and living with a woman, I'm getting a lot more sex (queer sex), and have a hieghtened interest in porn (gay porn). I've noticed incredible numbers of guys of all shapes and sizes, college types, buff athletic types, gay types, straight types, all types, old, young, every type you can think of, having sex with men and cleary, repeat CLEARLY enjoying themselves tremendously in the process. So I still say guy on guy sex is a good substitute for sex with women when she's not interested, i.e. to fill in for the 'imbalance' to which you refer.

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:54 pm I doubt that the sexual imbalances will be naturally evened up. I was just rambling! See above.

My !!!!!!'s are usually to emphasise humour, rather than to shout out a point. I often don't take myself too seriously which is probably just as well.

I did say elsewhere that I would start writing HAHA's, but this just isn't really my style!

I will stick with the exclamation marks.

I think it is a good idea for some males to be on medication that reduces their sex drive....WHILE they are single. When you are single (or at least while I have been...which has been in a way forever) I think it can only be a negative to have your 100% sex drive as a man. I think that masturbation is bad for our self-esteem (at least it is for me). Personally I wish to do this less and I'm sure that a lot of other single guys would feel the same way if they thought a little more about it. I

would never propose to put myself in your shoes, but I can't understand why masturbation can be bad for self esteem. Wetting the bed maybe, but masturbation! Never. Dogs mastubate, chimps masturbate, priests masturbate or they'd go crazy - or attack a choir boy. I strongy recommend masturbating instead of taking siterone like some others on this site.

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:54 pm I am not anti-male, but I have certainly had a lot of self-esteem issues with myself. To some extent if I'm not fucking (which I'm not and never have) then I think it's a negative having my sex drive. I know that I say some silly things, but I think that this makes some sense.

Not to me. Fantasy and masturbation was my only sexual outlet for 35 years after I got married. Now that I'm not I have sex pretty regularly, mostly being fucked by other guys, of course, but I wouldn't relinquish my sex drive for anything, before or after my divorce.

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:54 pm In regards to the beauty is in the eye of the beholder subject: Straight guys will often act in certain ways and say certain things to be a part of the crowd. There is no doubt about that. But even taking this into account I am pretty certain that straight guys feel 'essentially' the same from woman to woman. There is perhaps some sort of horribleness with being a straight guy in this sense. I'm not sure. I think that a lot of people just like to say that they happen to find so and so attractive. Unfortunately for straight men (I would like to get the opinions of other straight guys on the EA) we are colour blind.....it's all pretty black and white with who's attractive. There are of course slight differences though. I think that if you were to rate a woman solely physically and get their average rating out of 10 by all straight guys, then the greatest difference between the average won't be much more than a point. A woman who rates an 8 will rate between a 7 and a 9. Cases outside of this would exist, but they are extremely rare!

I think you're right about male standards of beauty, but they change from era to era (think Renoir's softig women!), so if men can change standards from era to era, why not within an era? Probably due to ego and competition issues and not wanting to be seen with a pig, etc. (which is the ego issue).

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:54 pm Women seem to differ a little more on what they view as attractive in regards to men. Perhaps a man who rates an average of a 7 for appearance might be anything from a 5 to a 9 for a woman. And so maybe this is similar with how gay men view men?

I've seen extremely 'beautiful' women with blatantly ugly men, think Danny DeVito, and Hugh Hefner. Women like power more than beauty.

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:54 pm On your final point. Are there really attractive women like this?!

Kim Kardashian, Tiger Woods Ex, Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Aniston, the list goes on.

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:54 pm I would doubt so, but even if there are, couldn't your in va

in attempts to court them (not me!)

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:54 pm still be a positive if they got you to make improvements to yourself?

See above.

Sensenbender, thanks for your replies.

You seem to be saying that straight men need to simply try out gay sex and they will enjoy it. I'm sorry, but that's a little far fetched. But you may have stumbled onto an idea for one of the funniest comedy shows ever. Wives are refusing to put out all over the country, but that's okay. "No problem love, I'll just head over to my best mate Bob for a quickie!"

Something like that.

The imbalance is probably more so in the fact that women are attracted to a lot of power/money, which results in things such as Tiger Woods sleeping with 30 women. It's doubtful that there are many female versions of Tiger Woods who are sleeping with 30 men. Some men are obviously missing out as a result.

I'm a bit busy at the moment. I'll reply to the rest later.

There was something that I came up with the other day (though I'm sure it's been said many times before) that I thought was really spot on.

Women need to feel good about themselves to be in a relationship, while men need to be in a relationship to feel good about themselves.

That's my one bit of intelligent conversation for these message boards!

But seriously, there is never a wrong time for a guy to be in a relationship, but often the woman will say, "I'm just not ready right now." Though this of course is also to sometimes tell the guy that they're not interested.

What if the women that I've loved the most are really undateable? What if they're never ready? The woman that I love the most hasn't been in a relationship for about four years. The woman that I love the second most hasn't been in one for at least six years.

So at least it's not JUST me then!

The sexual imbalance is quite easy to explain. In my perfect world there would not be any prostitution, pornography and (perhaps) masturbation. But there is plenty of all three of these things. All of them mostly involve men, so the sexual imbalance (or is it inbalance?) is on the male side. How many women pay for sex and/or view prostitution. Not a lot. Certainly a much lesser number than men. And they don't masturbate as much either.

I think that society would be better off without p & p. Sure, women (and some men) can make good money out of them, but these days the good thing is that women don't have to rely on their bodies to make a quid. I want to be able to move us forward into getting more women to value themselves for more than their vag value. This would be made much easier without p & p.

In regards to men trying out gay sex and finding it a suitable substitute for women closing their doors:

Even if this was possible (that all men could gain great physical pleasure out of such activity) then it still wouldn't solve the main issue which is companionship. As a straight guy I have one male friend who I'm reasonably close to, in the sense that I jokingly say that I'd turn gay for him. And he is a nice, sensitive guy which some consider me to be too. Occasionally I will have a reasonable discussion with him (though not on stuff like all of this that is so direct and might be considered harsh) on some aspects of life and this is nice enough. The thing is though, is that I can't get from him (and never could) the special feelings that women give me. It's not just a sex thing, and this is difficult to explain. My mate himself knows this well (he is 'normal' and has been in heaps of relationships with women.....not that he sleeps around or anything.....he gets trampled on sometimes because he's too nice) and has tried to explain it.....of how just being around a woman is something much more. Actually he told me this before I'd even had any sort of relationship from/with a woman. I really had no idea what he was talking about!

But now I do. At least a little.

My interacting with women is extremely rare (I'm a hermit), but I did have a really nice night out with a terrific woman this year. It wasn't planned or anything. I just went out to a place and we met up and hit it off pretty well (I wasn't going to do anything since I'm waiting for my dream girl). After the gig I asked if she'd like to get a bite to eat which she was more than happy to do, then I had to put an end to proceedings (though I'm confident enough that she would have liked me to have partied on with her in the city). Anyway, I was really happy during the brief time that we spent together. And no man can ever make me feel like that (though I haven't tried gay sex so I can't guarantee that I wouldn't like it!).

Why would I care if I was seen with a so called pig (if I found her to be stunningly beautiful)? I'm sure that I'd be totally over the moon if every guy on the planet found Natalie Portman to look pigish and then she reluctantly just had to take me on as her lover and I could look into her beautiful face nightly! What a weird and wonderful world that would me!

I'm half joking you know. I don't know what Natalie Portman is like as a real person. It's unlikely, but she could be a real pig!

I'm realising that I've got a real bias against the animal pig. This I must change. They are very clean animals. Plus they give us ham, bacon, pork chops.

Yes, they all come from the same magical animal.