PDA

View Full Version : Are you an owl or a lark?



mixed_biscuits
21-02-2010, 08:55 PM
Early to bed, early to rise, or the opposite?

paolo
22-02-2010, 03:53 PM
Lark during the week

Owl at the weekend

baboon2004
22-02-2010, 04:03 PM
Always an owl, to my eternal chagrin (in a way). The hours between about 11 and 3 are just divine for get work done (with a good soundtrack, of course), if you're in the right mood. I remember listening to Tessio on repeat for about an hour last summer while watching the sun come up from my bedroom window. I like that kind of stuff.

Mr. Tea
22-02-2010, 04:16 PM
Haha, people who spend too much time on a music-oriented web forum tend overwhelmingly to be 'owls' - whoda thunkit? :cool:

PeteUM
23-02-2010, 09:34 AM
Bad habits keep me up late and responsibilities get me up early. I have no idea what my natural owl/lark tendencies are or if I have them. I like the idea of serenely getting up with the dawn but I suspect that given the chance I'd sleep until midday most days. Actually some days I do. :D

Lichen
23-02-2010, 09:54 AM
I'm the lonely lark.

I like the world before everyone joins it, not after they've gone.

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 10:10 AM
I went to the gym before work this morning, for the second time in my life, and I can report that that it is severely mentally disturbed behaviour. Activity before 10 is not natural.

four_five_one
23-02-2010, 10:30 AM
Definitely an owl - I mean, it seems acceptable to spend the whole night looking at pornography - but imagine doing that all day? Only a total loser would do that...

That aside, there's nothing better than being up early of a morning, 6am or something (without hangover). And you can happily relax for a few hours before you have to do anything, without worrying about doing anything productive. After all, you're already virtuous simply by being up at such a time.

But usually find myself going to bed at 3am for a while, which is fine but inevitably it creeps 'round until about 10am, and waking up at 6pm. Not a good schedule by any account. So then I have to 'reset', which seems to usually involve a few days of insomnia. I wish benzodiazepines were freely available in the UK, would take a lot of work out of the process.

matmustard
23-02-2010, 10:45 AM
Natural owl. Brings a benfit of becoming the part-time lark, thru bleeding eyes.
I enjoy and desire sex, but sincerely dislike porn. Off topic, but I view it as pain, rather than fulfillment. Interesting thread..

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 10:49 AM
porn itself makes a fascinating thread, you're right. Is there one on here already?

four_five_one
23-02-2010, 10:54 AM
I enjoy and desire sex, but sincerely dislike porn. Off topic, but I view it as pain, rather than fulfillment. Interesting thread..

I don't know. I think most people probably use it for pain relief. Masturbation releases endorphins (or something). Of course when you get really into it, it doesn't particularly matter what you're looking at: I mean on one hand it's of the utmost importance, but on the other it doesn't matter whether you actually desire anyone the images are showing.

The way I usually do it, not to get too vulgar, is to spend the 1st hour watching things I'd like to be involved with myself, with people who I consider desirable. The second hour I start going for 'weirdness', but doing it slowly so it's still enjoyable. So by the third hour I'm usually coming up on ladyboy 'golden shower' type stuff... (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. why repress?) seems to work well. But there are other variations I employ to keep things interesting.

matmustard
23-02-2010, 10:55 AM
I fear I would engage in a fight that would not satisfactorily conclude. My views are strong. Post, if you will, I'll engage..

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 11:05 AM
The way I usually do it, not to get too vulgar, is to spend the 1st hour watching things I'd like to be involved with myself, with people who I consider desirable. The second hour I start going for 'weirdness', but doing it slowly so it's still enjoyable. So by the third hour I'm usually coming up on ladyboy 'golden shower' type stuff... (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. why repress?) seems to work well. But there are other variations I employ to keep things interesting.

That's hysterical*, whether fabrication or reality. I like porn, but definitely pay more attention to it when I'm depressed.

* I don't mean this in a bad way, just that it's interesting!

four_five_one
23-02-2010, 11:06 AM
Seems to be that the thrill of 'transgression' might often have more of a role to play than any arousal from the acts depicted in themselves - if that makes sense. I assume most paraphillias/fetishes work in this way.

The question is: must pornography always be exploitative? And if yes, how do we approach it as consumers...

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 11:10 AM
Watching porn inevitably increasing the fetishistic nature of one's sexual being, I think, in that you realise you like/come to like (ahem) new things. But I think that can be destructive, although it needn't be.

As for transgression, there are certain things I like for this reason, but not too many, I must say. The problem with most of it is there's so little chemistry between the actors that it's dull.

As to exploitation...I really don't know enough about the industry. Financially, women have more clout than in many industries, that's all I know, but that doesn't stop it being exploitative.

four_five_one
23-02-2010, 11:11 AM
That's hysterical*, whether fabrication or reality. I like porn, but definitely pay more attention to it when I'm depressed.

Yeah, this is usually when I'm feeling slightly depressed (too depressed: not interested at all), when happy/content I'd rather use my imagination to come up with my own fantasies. I mean I've used it that way forever, except a brief period around the time of puberty, when I used it to teach me how to perform various sexual acts. When I'm actually having sex with a real person, I often imagine I'm in a porn film and sometimes 'play to the camera', does anyone else do this?

PeteUM
23-02-2010, 11:16 AM
I have two ambitions which I will never make the tiniest effort towards achieving. One is to make a really fucking brilliant porn film, and the other is to start a free school. Two things entirely seperate, of course.

Seriously though, pornography should be so much better than it is. Surely somebody could do it?

matmustard
23-02-2010, 01:09 PM
shit, one's gotta spare a thought for mixed biscuits here - posted a thread about sleeping patterns and it's been taken over by a discussion about the most banal (imo) function of the internet to date. for shame.. ;)
there are too many opinions listed above that i'd like to respond to..
wrt porn, my crux is that I refuse to let go of the image - how did the 'participant' arrive at this place? what is their, not background or story, but how did they end up there? it's also worth noting that my personal experience is of straight porn, i've not viewed gay and (maybe naively) feel that it may be somewhat different? (to me that may possibly be relevant?)
to be somwhat freudian for a moment, my 'initiation', if you will, was of one german girl with a number (5ish) of men - one in this hole, one in the other, etc , etc. after a few minutes the female noticeaby passes out, the 'film' jumps and then they're straight back into it. immediately this concerns me. this may be a 'hardcore' example, true, but we're dealing with a largely unregulated industry so it's relevant. i understand that drug use is quite obviously rife in the industry, but how horny can one feel when the subject of one's desire/lust, whatever, is comatose? i found it sickening and walked out to the usual cries of 'faggot'. please...
i hate the 'porn face' adopted by the majority of acresses i have seen, i generally see it as venomous - not in the least bit sexy. vulgar doesn't even come close..
talk of 'transgression' and 'chemistry' (ha!) is joke. explotation? duh, another no-brainer imo. i'm starting to feel angry... somebody pull me up on this one, please, i'd enjoy the opportunity to flex.
put simply, if one needs to watch paid whores (of any gender) to expand one's sexual experience then one is a miserable fucking lay. period.
no disrespect to anyone here, we're debating after all, i appreciate that, but is the time between you and your partner not enough? can you not explore your libido of your own free will? fuck's sake...
of course, if one is depressed - and therefore self-hateful, then of course it stands to reason one's feelings may be transposed. shit fuck, once more..

matmustard
23-02-2010, 01:13 PM
i'm really not having a go at anyone here, but to me porn is an absolute scourge, (mostly) bred of and reliant upon hate and misogyny

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 01:20 PM
put simply, if one needs to watch paid whores (of any gender) to expand one's sexual experience then one is a miserable fucking lay. period.
..

I was taking your post seriously until this. So all that moralising was just an excuse to boast about what a 'wonderful lay' you are?! Ffs.

I'll take the other stuff you said seriously (because you do make some good points), but this is just pure unfounded arrogance. So, none of the people you've ever slept with have watched porn. Oh sorry (assuming your sexuality here, so sorry about that), women don't watch porn, do they? You haven't met many women then, to be honest!

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 01:24 PM
As to the rest, it undoubtedly is misogynist, but there is a considerable portion of porn (I haven't watched the videos of German girls with 5 men....not my thing I'm afraid...) for which it seems more than a bit patronising and misogynist to automatically, without any interrogationtake the line that 'these girls don't know what they're doing'.

i think your line is at least as misogynist as the one you're criticising, to be honest. No-one here (as far as I can see) has said that exploitation doesn't exist in porn - it's just not the whole story.

matmustard
23-02-2010, 01:28 PM
oh baboon, you disappoint me. please point out the bit where i expressed anything to do with my sexual prowess...
i'll be waitng here a long time, you got NOTHING.

matmustard
23-02-2010, 01:29 PM
likewise my partners and their watching of porn?
NOTHING

matmustard
23-02-2010, 01:31 PM
your insinuation that film i found disturbing enough to walk out of being "my thing"
er...

matmustard
23-02-2010, 01:32 PM
IYou haven't met many women then, to be honest!

good work son, keep it up, you're making yourself a real martyr here

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 01:32 PM
Re-read your post!

And don't be a such a patronsiing cock, either.

My point is this - don't sanctimoniously moralise at others like you have done. I'm sure there're lots of aspects of your life that others might find not 100 per cent morally wonderful.

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 01:33 PM
good work son, keep it up, you're making yourself a real martyr here

you're just a moron. conversation over, 'son'.

matmustard
23-02-2010, 01:34 PM
i think your line is at least as misogynist as the one you're criticising, to be honest.

bring it then. expand.
the rest is absolute waste..

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 01:34 PM
oh god, i have expanded upon it. READ MY POST. You credit women with zero intelligence, and you speak about women as though they are objects with no free will of their own.

Waste. Of. Time. Talking. To. You. I genuinely do have better things to do.

matmustard
23-02-2010, 01:38 PM
I'm sure there're lots of aspects of your life that others might find not 100 per cent morally wonderful.

100% absolutley pathetic. joke. i know you're an intelligent being. what's offended you here?
seriously, i'd like to discuss, now that we've both had a chance to calm down.
i've made my point. i've re-read it, still unsure about yours...

matmustard
23-02-2010, 01:50 PM
put simply, if one needs to watch paid whores (of any gender) to expand one's sexual experience then one is a miserable fucking lay.


ok baboon. on reflection, that probably is worth picking up. too broad a comment to make. i stand corrected and you're correct there.
apologies.

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 01:53 PM
OK, what I had to do didn't turn out to be that much better :p

First off, why is that pathetic? You'll have to qualify that. I think my remark is perhaps a whole 'nother (long) conversation, but it's a critical one when someone is moralising to other people, especially when all the parties who are talking to each other know nothing at all about each other. If you don't think you were moralising, fine, but you'll have to explain how you think you weren't.

Point-by-point response to your original post upcoming!

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 01:54 PM
ok baboon. on reflection, that probably is worth picking up. too broad a comment to make. i stand corrected and you're correct there.
apologies.

yeah, I'm sorry too, went off at the deep end there. Thing is, I know nothing about you, and my venom was more directed at moralising in general (which I don't like too much), and not at you personally.

Mr. Tea
23-02-2010, 01:57 PM
This thread is officially derailed harder than a Belgian inter-city.

matmustard
23-02-2010, 01:58 PM
Re-read your post!

And don't be a such a patronsiing cock, either.

My point is this - don't sanctimoniously moralise at others like you have done. I'm sure there're lots of aspects of your life that others might find not 100 per cent morally wonderful.

patronising? hmm, not my intention. you got my back up, for sure. thing we just had a little scrap, which is fine in my book if we can now move on?
after fights at school we used to share a spliff at the bus stop, don't know how to manage this over the internet?
i respect your opinion and moreso your passion to back it up. of course the most stupid thing is i doubt we have very differing opinions. my hand's there to shake if you want it, just watch out for the left hook ;)

matmustard
23-02-2010, 02:00 PM
This thread is officially derailed harder than a Belgian inter-city.

don't stand too close tea, you may get hit by a stray one..!

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 02:03 PM
The example you gave is indeed horrendous (the German girl). But, firstly:

(1) Is all porn like that, and, morevoer does it have to be?
(2) Assuming that women in the porn industry are all malleable dolls, as many do (note, I'm not saying this is precisely what you were saying, but you didn't seem to give the women any agency in what you originally posted), is not an assumption I at all agree with.
(3) The women I've had proper relationships with have all watched porn to some extent. Definitely not as much as men, true, but I think men often 'defend' women on issues like this while not taking into account women's views (obviously this gets very complex). I realise that I've totally been doing this too, and men talking on behalf of women is not ideal (actually, I'm not sure if any women have posted here, so may be totally wrong on this score!).

Oh, I'm sure I had more points. But I'll post this anyways.

baboon2004
23-02-2010, 02:04 PM
patronising? hmm, not my intention. you got my back up, for sure. thing we just had a little scrap, which is fine in my book if we can now move on?
after fights at school we used to share a spliff at the bus stop, don't know how to manage this over the internet?
i respect your opinion and moreso your passion to back it up. of course the most stupid thing is i doubt we have very differing opinions. my hand's there to shake if you want it, just watch out for the left hook ;)

ha!

Yeah, you're right on the irony - I'm sure we do think much the same on this.

martin
23-02-2010, 02:06 PM
Problem with walking on this thread on page 2 and catching a pure porn argument, I thought owl and lark had just become slang words for some sort of sexual deviancy.

ie - "Get away from my kids, you filthy, fucking OWL"
"Yes sir, we do all services, but no anal - and certainly NO lark play"

STN
23-02-2010, 02:20 PM
I am a lark as it goes. An infuriatingly early riser.

I am very fond of owls though (the birds, not you lot) and am wearing a t-shirt with a picture of one on it now.

BareBones
23-02-2010, 02:22 PM
I like owls. But then i like larks as well. But which one is better? there's only one way to find out....

Mr. Tea
23-02-2010, 02:30 PM
Problem with walking on this thread on page 2 and catching a pure porn argument, I thought owl and lark had just become slang words for some sort of sexual deviancy.

ie - "Get away from my kids, you filthy, fucking OWL"
"Yes sir, we do all services, but no anal - and certainly NO lark play"

Hahaha...

Edit: 65% Of All Wildlife Now Used As A Homosexual Subculture Signifier (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/report_65_of_all_wildlife)

Bang Diddley
23-02-2010, 03:25 PM
Im becoming more and more lark like over time. I seem to wake up at about 7.00 by default. Doesn't matter if its a work day or the weekend. Even if i've been out and had one too many - 7.00 wide awake and its hangover hell when you know it make more sense to be asleep. Somedays i'm awake at 5 and i wonder what to do. Its a great time to listen to music on headphones tho'.

Every once in a while ill stay up late into the night on my own. Nice and easy vibe. Really is a good feeling just pottering about.

BareBones
23-02-2010, 03:52 PM
i often like to wake up at dawn and ferociously masturbate to bukkake porn

Mr. Tea
23-02-2010, 03:58 PM
I often like to wake Dawn up with some ferocious bukkake.


She's not so keen, but it gets her out of bed at least.

nomadthethird
23-02-2010, 05:20 PM
oh god, i have expanded upon it. READ MY POST. You credit women with zero intelligence, and you speak about women as though they are objects with no free will of their own.


This is what the anti-porn and anti-sex work zealots excel at--assuming that all women are delicate flowers who can't make rational decisions about their own lives, based on their own preferences, so they speak for them in every instance as if they are mute and mentally disabled.

Porn is no more or less exploitative or misogynistic or patriarchal than marriage is. Sex work is work, period. Just like housework is work. Or sex with your husband/boyfriend can be work. Relationships are labor, period.

The reason why men feel so guilty and conflicted about their enjoyment of porn is because of the schizoid split in their Judeo-Christian consciousness. The women whom they love (who get Madonnified) they can't defile with their deepest, darkest sexual desires and needs. So they project those desires onto the Whores in porn, and sex workers, and strippers, etc. Men can't romantically love women who actively participate in wild sex, the way porn actresses or sex workers do. But they do need to feel wanted and matched in terms of sexual appetite. But then they can't get that sense of being matched sexually from their girlfriends or wives, because the women chosen as girlfriends and wives are the women who are supposedly too "good" to have those feelings. (I think a lot of men really need to think that in part because it's too scary to think your girlfriend is capable of being a 3-D sexual person. That might mean she thinks about people other than yoooo. Oh no!)

Porn is fake, but so is sex with real people sometimes. Simulacra aren't just on screens, y'all.

And the idea that the sado-masochistic elements of porn *only* exist in porn, and not in real-life het sex, is just... ugh... where do you even start with that?

nomadthethird
23-02-2010, 05:37 PM
I don't know. I think most people probably use it for pain relief. Masturbation releases endorphins (or something). Of course when you get really into it, it doesn't particularly matter what you're looking at: I mean on one hand it's of the utmost importance, but on the other it doesn't matter whether you actually desire anyone the images are showing.

The way I usually do it, not to get too vulgar, is to spend the 1st hour watching things I'd like to be involved with myself, with people who I consider desirable. The second hour I start going for 'weirdness', but doing it slowly so it's still enjoyable. So by the third hour I'm usually coming up on ladyboy 'golden shower' type stuff... (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. why repress?) seems to work well. But there are other variations I employ to keep things interesting.

Just out of curiosity (you don't have to answer this if you don't want to): how long can you actually do this before you feel like you're satisfied or at least, done for the night?

It's funny, men are supposed to have this really long refractory period, but when there's this huge variety of porn around, that seems to go out the window.

I've never actually seen internet porn, besides 'two girls one cup' which my brother of all people sent me. I've seen lots more kinky porn than I have straight porn (which is campy on purpose) so I don't really know that much about straight porn. Except that what I have seen seems really funny, like laugh out loud funny. Everyone's always whining really loud and making really really weird faces.

I've noticed there's lots of shoving random objects into vaginas, which is mostly done for the visuals I guess. Like, the whole "female handjob" thing just looks torturous, why would that seem like a good idea?

Mr. Tea
23-02-2010, 05:39 PM
The women whom they love (who get Madonnified) they can't defile with their deepest, darkest sexual desires and needs.

I'd just like to say that this is not necessarily true (though probably sometimes true, I guess). I suppose it all depends on how well one's perversions match up with one's partners'.


Men can't romantically love women who actively participate in wild sex, the way porn actresses or sex workers do.

Definitely, definitely not true.


But I agree with you about the crypto-sexism in why a lot of men object to porn/prostitution.

nomadthethird
23-02-2010, 05:46 PM
I'd just like to say that this is not necessarily true (though probably sometimes true, I guess). I suppose it all depends on how well one's perversions match up with one's partners'.



Definitely, definitely not true.


But I agree with you about the crypto-sexism in why a lot of men object to porn/prostitution.

I don't think it's true in all cases, and I definitely think it's less true of younger guys than older ones. I notice a lot of men start out that way as teens then grow out of it as they get older. But it's a general trend. Also some of it is unconscious.

I think nowadays there's a lot more emphasis on finding partners with compatible kinks. Like I know of all these body mod people who are into hanging off hooks and getting mad piercings and shit. They all date each other. Seems like subcultures are sticking together more and you have less of a gap between the mainstream and the underground in sexual subcultures.

Tentative Andy
23-02-2010, 05:56 PM
There was already a porn thread, wasn't there? I think I got involved for about a minute and then devolved into making silly schoolboy jokes. :o

I'm 100% owl, btw.

nomadthethird
23-02-2010, 09:14 PM
There was already a porn thread, wasn't there? I think I got involved for about a minute and then devolved into making silly schoolboy jokes. :o

I'm 100% owl, btw.

First rule of Dissensus: there's only one thread on Dissensus.

four_five_one
23-02-2010, 10:09 PM
Just out of curiosity (you don't have to answer this if you don't want to): how long can you actually do this before you feel like you're satisfied or at least, done for the night?


Oh, it's interminable. I can think I'm finished, then start the whole process over half an hour later. I feel satisfied if I can end in stage one (i.e. looking at porn w/ppl I'd actually be attracted to), but if I've moved onto the 'weirdness', then I know it's going to be a long unsatisfying evening. This might be because of the mild trauma and guilt which starts to gnaw me after hour 3. Usually more along the times of 'why am i wasting my life?' more than anything to do with the porn.

I doubt getting a 'real partner' would remove the role porn plays in my life. Past partners and I have often watched porn together, though not to the exhaustive lengths I go to alone. I think it's got less to do with sex, more to do with a general satisfaction in yr life (which has a lot to do with sex), otherwise porn would probably be like a 5-10 minute thing.

I think toys are important because it's rare than an appendage would naturally be of such girth - and perhaps it's important to suggest that women (or men) will always want something bigger. This is why the penis enlargement advertising is usually shown to the right of the movie. But many women/men do love 'fisting', don't they? And I could imagine a fist is much larger than most dildos used. Anyway...

Had a thought earlier - that - since I'm against traditional gender roles and 'essentialism' (in this sense) and porn is really all about these stereotypes, playing these tired tropes over & over again... maybe this is the 'transgressive' thing for me. I enjoy it in porn lol, but still hope that people don't think people need be like that 'irl'.

Off to http://chatroulette.com/ now for some quick mutual j/o fun.

four_five_one
23-02-2010, 10:32 PM
talk of 'transgression' and 'chemistry' (ha!) is joke. explotation? duh, another no-brainer imo. i'm starting to feel angry... somebody pull me up on this one, please, i'd enjoy the opportunity to flex.
put simply, if one needs to watch paid whores (of any gender) to expand one's sexual experience then one is a miserable fucking lay. period.


A few years ago I suppose 'paid whores' were the only option if you wanted to do certain things (to 'expand' your sexual experience). But these days as Nomad said, there are groups on the internet where you can go to find a partner who is into exactly what you're into. (plus people just know about a greater range of things, thanks to porn)... might seem shallow to base a relationship solely on the fact that you both enjoy s & m, but aren't the best short term relationships terribly shallow anyway?

Plus, if yr particular scene is big enough, you have a good chance of finding someone with a nice/interesting personality too. I wonder what age you stop being interested in such things? Or maybe you don't but you're forced into retirement because of the shame of being old and still thinking about sex. Maybe the other group members ostracize you, or maybe they're chill with it as long as you're still in good shape.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 12:33 AM
Do straight people actually enjoy fisting? I'm clueless, most of the fisting I've heard of has always been in the context of pretty serious and deliberate pain play, so, idk.


A few years ago I suppose 'paid whores' were the only option if you wanted to do certain things (to 'expand' your sexual experience). But these days as Nomad said, there are groups on the internet where you can go to find a partner who is into exactly what you're into. (plus people just know about a greater range of things, thanks to porn)... might seem shallow to base a relationship solely on the fact that you both enjoy s & m, but aren't the best short term relationships terribly shallow anyway?

Plus, if yr particular scene is big enough, you have a good chance of finding someone with a nice/interesting personality too. I wonder what age you stop being interested in such things? Or maybe you don't but you're forced into retirement because of the shame of being old and still thinking about sex. Maybe the other group members ostracize you, or maybe they're chill with it as long as you're still in good shape.

Oh jeez...shallow? And it's not shallow to base a relationship on mutual love of long walks on the beach, or fine dining, or whatever? Please.

You're never too old, if the craigslist personals are any indication. I used to go to the Cock on Friday nights and there were always tons of old guys there-- and that's on the gay scene, which is notoriously hard on older people. Ditto for the leather bars in Chelsea. But I was token girl at most of those places you know... you could literally smell the testosterone in those places, it was unreal. You could cut through it with a knife. That's where I met a lot of "gay-for-pay" male go-go dancers. At first I didn't believe they were actually straight, but eventually I realized they really were, which helped them make even more money, because the gays love the unattainability of the straight guy who is pretending to be gay or something. It's really funny the things that get twisted up in those places. Like gay guys dressed like jocky frat boys pretending to be straight go-go dancers, dancing right next to the straight go-go dancers who are pretending to be gay, and so on.

Oh, the poor exploited mens! I hear violins.

matmustard
24-02-2010, 03:00 AM
quick owl post, whilst the larks lay sleeping.
i'm concerned at the misinterpretation of my post wrt female sex-workers - "zero intelligence" and "speak(ing) for them in every instance as if they are mute and mentally disabled" are serious and somewhat unfouded allegations considering that i deliberately used "participants" (non-gender specific) and "whores (of any gender)" to suggest otherwise. "any gender" was said explicitly to include transgender, which had been mentioned upthread.
to maintain that all sex workers are in the job for the love of it equally ludicrous, but nobody is actually saying that, are they??

Mr. Tea
24-02-2010, 11:03 AM
That's where I met a lot of "gay-for-pay" male go-go dancers. At first I didn't believe they were actually straight, but eventually I realized they really were, which helped them make even more money, because the gays love the unattainability of the straight guy who is pretending to be gay or something.

I gather that an unbelievable amount of gay porn revolves around the theme of an ostensibly straight young guy being 'turned' or discovering his true inner gayness with the assistance of a bunch of burly bikers/sailors/whatever the preferred stereotype is these days.


It's really funny the things that get twisted up in those places. Like gay guys dressed like jocky frat boys pretending to be straight go-go dancers, dancing right next to the straight go-go dancers who are pretending to be gay, and so on.

Sounds like one of those daft Shakespearian farces where you have a female character disguised as a boy/man...but of course, as it would have been staged ca. 1600, all the female characters would have been played by boys anyway... :rolleyes:

(Also, I love that the club you went to is called The Cock, there's a wonderful up-front-ness about the name.)

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 12:47 PM
quick owl post, whilst the larks lay sleeping.
i'm concerned at the misinterpretation of my post wrt female sex-workers - "zero intelligence" and "speak(ing) for them in every instance as if they are mute and mentally disabled" are serious and somewhat unfouded allegations considering that i deliberately used "participants" (non-gender specific) and "whores (of any gender)" to suggest otherwise. "any gender" was said explicitly to include transgender, which had been mentioned upthread.
to maintain that all sex workers are in the job for the love of it equally ludicrous, but nobody is actually saying that, are they??

You used words like "whores" in extremely derogatory and crass ways, words that only apply to women in the English language.
I love how men want the word "whore" to mean just anybody who has a lot of sex, conveniently, so they don't have to feel uncomfortable about using it. It doesn't mean that. It specifically refers to women who have sex for money, and it's been used as an insult and a way to control female sexuality for 1000s of years.

And beyond that, your concern troll post about the poor woman you claim to have seen who passed out in a film (you wouldn't know if this really happened, right? you'd be guessing...) didn't extend to the men in the scene. It was all about the woman. Group sex doesn't hurt men, it hurts women, in your mind, very clearly. Women can't handle rough, or strange, or kinky, or weird sex. Men, on the other hand, can.

The male "participants" in your German porn were largely invisible in your account. Although you'll probably try to arguely, lamely, that they weren't, but we'll all know better. Because we've seen your sorry brand of rehashed sexism a million times before.



to maintain that all sex workers are in the job for the love of it equally ludicrous, but nobody is actually saying that, are they??

Yeah, and everybody who pumps gas is just thrilled to be at the Sunoco station all day breathing in gasoline fumes. I'm glad you're so concerned about the laborers, buddy. They're really indebted to you forever.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 12:48 PM
I gather that an unbelievable amount of gay porn revolves around the theme of an ostensibly straight young guy being 'turned' or discovering his true inner gayness with the assistance of a bunch of burly bikers/sailors/whatever the preferred stereotype is these days.



Sounds like one of those daft Shakespearian farces where you have a female character disguised as a boy/man...but of course, as it would have been staged ca. 1600, all the female characters would have been played by boys anyway... :rolleyes:

(Also, I love that the club you went to is called The Cock, there's a wonderful up-front-ness about the name.)

I really haven't seen any about turning. Although there are some hilarious ones about "indie" guys, which are played by these really huge buff guys with bowl cuts and striped t-shirts.

Upfront, that's a good way to put it! ha

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 01:14 PM
Related - I was pretty impressed with Sasha Grey on Tyra Bank's programme, she gave the sanctimonious, hypocritical cunt a run for her money.

Don't think the 'men don't love girls who have fucked up sex' thing is true at all, from talking to people my age generally. Maybe back in the day, but I think the advent of widespread uptake of internet porn has basically done away with that.

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 01:14 PM
(Also, I love that the club you went to is called The Cock, there's a wonderful up-front-ness about the name.)'Rectum' :mad:

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 01:24 PM
Related - I was pretty impressed with Sasha Grey on Tyra Bank's programme, she gave the sanctimonious, hypocritical cunt a run for her money.

Don't think the 'men don't love girls who have fucked up sex' thing is true at all, from talking to people my age generally. Maybe back in the day, but I think the advent of widespread uptake of internet porn has basically done away with that.

I hope so!

Yeah, I saw Sasha Grey on Tyra. She did pretty well considering the panel was stacked against her. I usually like Dr. Drew, but he was just being a douche on that one. Sasha's gonna be just fine. She'll never be Donna Reed or June Cleaver, but OHWELLS.

I think a lot of guys *fetishize* women from porn or sex workers or whatever, but they're scared of or intimidated by them outside of the biz. Most of the female sex workers I knew did not have boyfriends, and the ones who did, had boyfriends who worked in the industry or were very chill interesting different kind of guys (lot of them from fetish communities).

But who knows, you never know, I do think younger generations are different from older ones in that regard.

Mr. Tea
24-02-2010, 02:00 PM
I love how men want the word "whore" to mean just anybody who has a lot of sex, conveniently, so they don't have to feel uncomfortable about using it.

Nomad, could you drop all this "men think [this]", "men want [that]", "men say [the other]" schtick? Believe it or not, Man A does not necessarily have exactly the same opinions, values and kinks as Man B. You'd have a fucking field day if one of us said "women think/want/say [whatever]".

It's a bit like this (http://xkcd.com/385/), except with 'math' replaced by 'sex/sexuality/relationships', and the genders reversed.

By all means take issue with matmustard's use of the word "whore" or whatever, but it's not really justified to use that an excuse to complain about some homogenous, undifferentiated 'Men', is it?

Mr. Tea
24-02-2010, 02:03 PM
Most of the female sex workers I knew did not have boyfriends

Does this strike you as odd? Most of the guys I know probably wouldn't want to go out with a girl who has sex with other men for a living.

This is probably because we're all secretly terrified of female sexuality, of course.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 02:32 PM
Nomad, could you drop all this "men think [this]", "men want [that]", "men say [the other]" schtick? Believe it or not, Man A does not necessarily have exactly the same opinions, values and kinks as Man B. You'd have a fucking field day if one of us said "women think/want/say [whatever]".

It's a bit like this (http://xkcd.com/385/), except with 'math' replaced by 'sex/sexuality/relationships', and the genders reversed.

By all means take issue with matmustard's use of the word "whore" or whatever, but it's not really justified to use that an excuse to complain about some homogenous, undifferentiated 'Men', is it?

Mr. Tea, obviously, not ALL men do anything, as if that needs to be stipulated at every turn. I did not say that all men did anything. But if I had a dime for every time a male used the word "whore" and then said "well, I meant alll types of whores" as if that word is gender neutral. It isn't a gender neutral term.

I have only ever seen men do this. Especially on here. I've seen it on here lots of times.

I've never once in my life heard a woman do this.

That was my point up there.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 02:34 PM
Does this strike you as odd? Most of the guys I know probably wouldn't want to go out with a girl who has sex with other men for a living.

This is probably because we're all secretly terrified of female sexuality, of course.

Actually, it does surprise me somewhat, at least in light of this thread, given how you and almost every other male here has insisted that love and women who have sex the way men fantasize about it aren't mutually exclusive in your minds.

But in reality, no, it does not surprise me. And not all sex workers have intercourse for a living, fwiw.

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 03:24 PM
Actually, it does surprise me somewhat, at least in light of this thread, given how you and almost every other male here has insisted that love and women who have sex the way men fantasize about it aren't mutually exclusive in your minds.

But in reality, no, it does not surprise me. And not all sex workers have intercourse for a living, fwiw.Do we fantisize about women having sex with loads of different people, or just with ourselves? I think there's a difference between being cool with your girlfriend sticking huge shit up her ass, and your girlfriend having sex with loads of other people...

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 03:29 PM
Should maybe note that if I'm watching porn I'm usually mentally placing myself in the position of whoevers doing the thing wot they be doing. The visuals are more just a spark for my flaccid imagination than anything else, the best chuggs are still homegrown, these occur with increasing rarity however...

Mr. Tea
24-02-2010, 03:34 PM
Actually, it does surprise me somewhat, at least in light of this thread, given how you and almost every other male here has insisted that love and women who have sex the way men fantasize about it aren't mutually exclusive in your minds.

Well hang on - having wild/crazy/kinky/'non-vanilla' sex with your actual partner is one thing; having sex (of whatever kind) with loads of different people, whether you're getting paid for it or not, is another. And there you go again: "the kind of sex men fantasise about". Well tell me, what do I fantasise about, seeing as you're apparently the expert? I can't say the idea of swinging/partner-swapping or group sex holds a huge appeal for me. That doesn't mean I think people who are into it are weird or wrong, it's just not my particular bag.

I just think it's a false dichotomy to say there's romantic-love-but-boring-vanilla-sex on the one hand, or having a porn star/prostitute/dominatrix for a girlfriend, on the other.


And not all sex workers have intercourse for a living, fwiw.

Obviously. But the thread went in this direction when someone mentioned porn (and someone else mentioned "whores"), and unless you're talking about softcore 'glamour model' stuff, being a porn model does tend to involve sex...

padraig (u.s.)
24-02-2010, 03:51 PM
being a porn model does tend to involve sex...

point of order - "sex worker" is a much broader category tho, including dominatrices, S & M and various other fetish things & so on, tho I'm not the man to break down the "so on" part - I've had a couple friends in this side of the sex business but I dunno too much about it really.

generally on nomad's side (the issue of sticky generalizations about "men" etc. aside), unfortunately don't have the time to contribute more.

& I've been a lark since I went back to school. that's what happens when you have classes in the morning 5 days a week, a brutal schedule & 2 jobs. not that I'm complaining, b/c I know people who do more and have kids, so hey.

matmustard
24-02-2010, 04:48 PM
paid whores (of any gender)


oh well, at least i now know what a scapegoat feels like :)

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 05:18 PM
I'm not trying to tell you what you fantasize about, T. But as a scientistical person yourself, you must realize that there are sexologsits and sex researchers who *have* studied men's fantasies, and specifically the fantasies of Western European and American men, and have discovered that there are trends in male fantasy. So there are men who are outliers, but also men who cluster around the mean. And some who fall a standard deviation or two around it, following the empirical rule. It's a bell curve.

What these researchers have found is that most men fantasize about having sex with a variety of partners, and in a variety of ways, not limited to the kind of softcore ecstatic love making you're going to find in an R-rated movie. As do most women, actually. (And in fact, women become more aroused while watching porn faster, but report much less arousal at watching porn then men do. Hmmm... I smell "gender expectations" data skew...)

I don't think there's any kind of dichotomy between anything. At all. I'm the one who thinks that missionary position straight vanilla-as-can-be sex is potentially the most sado-masochistic thing a person can do! It's people who think that straight, vanilla sex is somehow inherently moral and ethical while other kinds aren't that form the dichotomies.

I'm sorry if I haven't been wording my posts as carefully as possible, but like padraig, I'm in a pre-med program. I have an exam on Chemical Kinetics in 45 minutes and I have only popped in here with one eye on things.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 05:21 PM
oh well, at least i now know what a scapegoat feels like :)

What are you on about now?

Oh right, how persecuted you are? Er sumthing.

BareBones
24-02-2010, 05:33 PM
(Also, I love that the club you went to is called The Cock, there's a wonderful up-front-ness about the name.)

A friend of mine once told me about a gay club called "Manhole", which i thought was pretty excellent.

IdleRich
24-02-2010, 07:35 PM
"Definitely an owl - I mean, it seems acceptable to spend the whole night looking at pornography - but imagine doing that all day? Only a total loser would do that..."
Procrasturbating.


"I like porn, but definitely pay more attention to it when I'm depressed."
I read recently that three internet activities people are more likely to pursue when depressed are viewing pornography, gambling their money away at poker or whatever........ and going on networking sites/forums.


"Also, I love that the club you went to is called The Cock, there's a wonderful up-front-ness about the name"
Named for the bird of course if the sign was to be believed. (Apparently one mooted tagline for the film Cockfighter was "he walked into town with his cock in his hand and what he did with it was illegal in 49 states).


"I gather that an unbelievable amount of gay porn revolves around the theme of an ostensibly straight young guy being 'turned' or discovering his true inner gayness with the assistance of a bunch of burly bikers/sailors/whatever the preferred stereotype is these days."
Think a lot of porn relies on the "No I don't like... oh yes I do" kind of thing that you mention here. Hardly surprising, I knew a guy who was really into foot fetishism and he swore blind that all women secretly love people licking their feet even if they don't realise it. It's basically nice to think that everyone wants to do the precise thing that you want them to do - even those who seemingly don't.

I'm an owl.

mixed_biscuits
24-02-2010, 07:42 PM
I can post the most innocuous thing and it still ends up as a mass debate.

IdleRich
24-02-2010, 07:53 PM
You should get back to your specialist subject - maths debating.

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 07:57 PM
What these researchers have found is that most men fantasize about having sex with a variety of partners, and in a variety of ways, not limited to the kind of softcore ecstatic love making you're going to find in an R-rated movie. As do most women, actually.

But that's not what's being discussed is it? They don't fantasise about their partner having sex with multiple partners, do they?
I mean, to be able to be in love with a girl who likes fucked up sex does not instantly equate to feeling comfortable with the person who you choose as a partner going about and shagging loads of other people. Even if it forms the substance of fantasy for yourself, I'd certainly say it's only guys who are into cuckold shit who are turned on by the idea of their partner getting beefed by someone else. And, what is true in fantasy doesn't automatically mean that this is what's best for the person to be carrying out in daily life...

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 08:08 PM
Yup, the sign for the Cock is a a big neon lighted rooster.


I read recently that three internet activities people are more likely to pursue when depressed are viewing pornography, gambling their money away at poker or whatever........ and going on networking sites/forums.


Internet poker, dissensus, and three hours a night of shemale roman showers and pony training! A day in the life.


But that's not what's being discussed is it? They don't fantasise about their partner having sex with multiple partners, do they?
I mean, to be able to be in love with a girl who likes fucked up sex does not instantly equate to feeling comfortable with the person who you choose as a partner going about and shagging loads of other people. Even if it forms the substance of fantasy for yourself, I'd certainly say it's only guys who are into cuckold shit who are turned on by the idea of their partner getting beefed by someone else. And, what is true in fantasy doesn't automatically mean that this is what's best for the person to be carrying out in daily life...

EXACTLY. Is there something difficult about this?

A lot of men are hypocrites when it comes to sexuality. They think they should be having all this sex with all these people, or want to be, at least, but that the women they date/marry/whatever shouldn't. Like it's all fun and games while they're watching porn, but if their girlfriend were doing the same thing without them it would probably be a different story. Or even using a vibrator frequently.

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 08:13 PM
What? I'm sure most men would accept their partner having a sexual appetite for other men as a given. What they probably wouldn't take too kindly to would be if their partner actually followed through with this. And would accept similar distaste if they done the same. You're talking rubbish. Fantasising about having sex with someone other than your partner and simultaneously not wanting their partner to be actually having sex with a lot of other people does not make someone a hypocrite.
And I know that the porn bit is not true also.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 08:17 PM
What? I'm sure most men would accept their partner having a sexual appetite for other men as a given. What they probably wouldn't take too kindly to would be if their partner actually followed through with this. And would accept similar distaste if they done the same. You're talking rubbish. Fantasising about having sex with someone other than your partner and simultaneously not wanting their partner to be actually having sex with a lot of other people does not make someone a hypocrite.
And I know that the porn bit is not true also.

Yawn. Stretch.

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 08:21 PM
C'mon, I'd expect a reasonabley well considered reposte from you. If I'm talking shite spell it out...

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 08:21 PM
foot fetishism

These guys are great. I wish there was one here right now I could use a foot massage.

I knew this one who liked to lick ashes off peoples' feet. Like cigarette ashes. Or soot from the dirty rooftops.

I bet he was an owl, not a lark.

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 08:23 PM
These guys are great. I wish there was one here right now I could use a foot massage.
Yo I'm into feet, I'll be up for a bit of that, just let me get my outfit on.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1WaO1OGuwzI/SuUT4MqbV-I/AAAAAAAANJ8/ucjuc1uKMlw/s400/cybersex.jpg

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 08:25 PM
C'mon, I'd expect a reasonabley well considered reposte from you. If I'm talking shite spell it out...

There's already a thread about porn on dissensus; there about a thousand where people get really upset at me because I don't give much of a damn about partner fidelity or whatever. Sexual property rights, etc. Throw a rock in here and you'll hit a thread with that argument in it.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 08:27 PM
Yo I'm into feet, I'll be up for a bit of that, just let me get my outfit on.


I thought I had seen it all, but NOW I have seen it all.

The breast enlargement pumps are a nice touch.

Cybersex circa 2035

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 08:29 PM
That's fair enough, but you can see how that what I described isn't actually hypocritical. What happens in your brain is not the same as what happens in the world, so on that basis what we'ver been talking about here isn't hypocrisy, regardless of your opinion on 'sexual property'. Unrelatedly (and without expectation of a response) I'd say that ideas about partner fidelity are ones which stem from emotions, rather than any ideas of trying to own someone...

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 08:32 PM
I thought I had seen it all, but NOW I have seen it all.

The breast enlargement pumps are a nice touch.

Cybersex circa 2035

The guy has clearly put alot of thought and effort into it, I appreciate that shit, haha.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 08:35 PM
That's fair enough, but you can see how that what I described isn't actually hypocritical. What happens in your brain is not the same as what happens in the world, so on that basis what we'ver been talking about here isn't hypocrisy, regardless of your opinion on 'sexual property'. Unrelatedly (and without expectation of a response) I'd say that ideas about partner fidelity are ones which stem from emotions, rather than any ideas of trying to own someone...

Yup. We all exist as little islands of emotion that don't have any political significance or relevance whatsoever. There isn't a 10,000 year history of patriarchy. Marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with the patrilineal handing-down of property. Nothing about our personal emotions is structured by the history of our culture, or the economics of our daily lives.

What happens in your brain isn't the same as what happens in the world, nope. But survey a few hundred thousand Euro-American men, and you'll see that many of them have some very hypocritical attitudes regarding what's acceptable sexual behavior--they afford men much more latitude than they do women, in fantasy and reality.

Case in point: this thread.

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 08:41 PM
Yup. We all exist as little islands of emotion that don't have any political significance or relevance whatsoever. There isn't a 10,000 year history of patriarchy. Marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with the patrilineal handing-down of property. Nothing about our personal emotions is structured by the history of our culture, or the economics of our daily lives.

What happens in your brain isn't the same as what happens in the world, nope. But survey a few hundred thousand Euro-American men, and you'll see that many of them have some very hypocritical attitudes regarding what's acceptable sexual behavior--they afford men much more latitude than they do women, in fantasy and reality.

Case in point: this thread.
It's wild. Yeah I accept that our emotions are something which stem from political/social/economic ideas but that doesn't make them bunk or 'wrong'. It's difficult to just try and be as cold as possible in serving some abstract political notion which has less impact on your life than such and such cheating on you does at the time.

This thread? Is that general stab at guys in here who call some issue with you saying that 'men can't love freeakz'? Anyway...

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 08:48 PM
Emotions aren't the be all end all of existence. Sometimes it's better not to act on your most immediate emotions. Sometimes it's better to put some of them aside in order to achieve higher goals.

Not that I have some kind of "emotion" about people having a sexuality that doesn't necessarily include me me me all the time. I'm not an infant who thinks Mommy is the center of the universe and I'm a part of her.


This thread? Is that general stab at guys in here who call some issue with you saying that 'men can't love freeakz'? Anyway...

I'm not quite sure what this sentence means, since it's not grammatically structured, but erm no. I meant what I said, which is that this thread has some pretty good examples of how, if you dare suggest that property-holding relationships shouldn't necessarily be the "moral" default, you get the beat down quick.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 08:53 PM
The other case in point I had in mind was when that anti-porn guy brought up the example of the gang bang porn that traumatized him, but then he only seemed to have 'pity' and 'empathy' for the woman in it, as if women suffer from kinky sex but men don't. The men clearly didn't factor into his presumptions about teh badniss of multiple partner sex.

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 08:53 PM
Emotions aren't the be all end all of existence. Sometimes it's better not to act on your most immediate emotions. Sometimes it's better to put some of them aside in order to achieve higher goals.

Not that I have some kind of "emotion" about people having a sexuality that doesn't necessarily include me me me all the time. I'm not an infant who thinks Mommy is the center of the universe and I'm a part of her.
I think in your world sex would have primacy over emotion then really; multiple partners lacking any attachment. I'm not saying that's wrong I just think thats what it looks like. You may say you can have multiple romantic interests etc, I'm not sure how true it is without involving some level of deceit. Romantic love as a notion is one which is fairly recent historically anyway, what you talk about in patriarchy would have more in common with an arranged marriage system.

I'm not quite sure what this sentence means, since it's not grammatically structured, but erm no. I meant what I said, which is that this thread has some pretty good examples of how, if you dare suggest that property-holding relationships shouldn't necessarily be the "moral" default, you get the beat down quick.
To be fair it was just a missing word. Anyway, you know what i meant hahaha.

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 08:54 PM
The other case in point I had in mind was when that anti-porn guy brought up the example of the gang bang porn that traumatized him, but then he only seemed to have 'pity' and 'empathy' for the woman in it, as if women suffer from kinky sex but men don't. The men clearly didn't factor into his presumptions about teh badniss of multiple partner sex.That's fair enough.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 08:56 PM
I think in your world sex would have primacy over emotion then really, if multiple partners lacking any attachment. I'm not saying that's wrong I just think thats what it looks like. You may say you can have multiple romantic interests etc, I'm not sure how true it is without involving some level of deceit. Romantic love as a notion is one which is fairly recent historically anyway, what you talk about in patriarchy would have more in common with an arranged marriage system.
To be fair it was just a missing word. Anyway, you know what i meant hahaha.

What world do you people live in?

Where I live, people have sex with (it's called "hooking up" usually) all kinds of people, often more than one simultaneously. They sort of have parallel hook ups that develop at different rates. And I'm talking about the super vanilla straights, here, not the fetishists.

grizzleb
24-02-2010, 08:58 PM
What world do you people live in?

Where I live, people have sex with (it's called "hooking up" usually) all kinds of people, often more than one simultaneously. They sort of have parallel hook ups that develop at different rates. And I'm talking about the super vanilla straights, here, not the fetishists.
We weren't talking about casual relationships though really were we? You move the argument sideways quite a lot.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 09:11 PM
We weren't talking about casual relationships though really were we? You move the argument sideways quite a lot.

Oh, I forgot. Relationships deal in absolutes. Like the Kelvin scale.

scottdisco
24-02-2010, 10:12 PM
owl.


my 'initiation', if you will, was of one german girl with a number (5ish) of men - one in this hole, one in the other, etc , etc. after a few minutes the female noticeaby passes out, the 'film' jumps and then they're straight back into it.

nice.

for someone who sincerely dislikes porn, it sounds like you've watched enough of it...

Mr. Tea
24-02-2010, 10:15 PM
Oh, I forgot. Relationships deal in absolutes. Like the Kelvin scale.

Oh come on, that's lame - you're never slow to jump on zhao or whoever for changing the parameters of a debate or making sloppy arguments. There's clealy a distinction between the kind of thing you're talking and what most people mean when they talk about a 'relationship' - even if it's perhaps a difference in degree.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 10:48 PM
Oh come on, that's lame - you're never slow to jump on zhao or whoever for changing the parameters of a debate or making sloppy arguments. There's clealy a distinction between the kind of thing you're talking and what most people mean when they talk about a 'relationship' - even if it's perhaps a difference in degree.

Show me where I changed anything's parameters...

I don't think there's actually a difference. People just wish there was.

There's a difference like there's a heaven.

Mr. Tea
24-02-2010, 11:09 PM
Sigh...I guess there mustn't be a difference, if you say so. Silly me.

nomadthethird
24-02-2010, 11:41 PM
What "makes" the 'difference' in this instance? What exactly?

People don't own people sexually, whether they wish they did is irrelevant. Although some people do get into totally submissive slave relationships as a form of edgeplay, but that's very rare even among pervs.

grizzleb
25-02-2010, 06:57 AM
You're wrong, being in a loving relationship is not exactly the same as having a fuck buddy. It may have the same limitations; i.e you can directly penetrate the other persons experience, but they're not directly equivalent. I mean, when you reduce it as you do, then the role of a parent or sibling or friend is always lesser than the person I happen to be fucking. It's not always the case, and sex isn't the be-all and end-all of human interaction.

Mr. Tea
25-02-2010, 10:45 AM
What "makes" the 'difference' in this instance? What exactly?

There's no point arguing with you when you're being as dogmatic as this. The difference between a short, casual relationship and a long, exclusive one is that...one's short and casual and the other's long and exclusive. How can that not be different? Do you not feel different when you stop seeing someone you've slept with a couple of times vs. the break-up of a relationship of several years? I can almost tell you're ging to try and score some rhetorical point by saying "no", but even if it were true for you (which I doubt) I would hazard a guess that it's not true for most people.


People don't own people sexually, whether they wish they did is irrelevant. Although some people do get into totally submissive slave relationships as a form of edgeplay, but that's very rare even among pervs.

But you're just begging the question by assuming that being in an exclusive relationship = trying to "own someone sexually". Which I think is just a ridiculous distortion of how most people - certainly most young or young-ish people, today - feel about relationships. It's a kind of contract (which sounds weird when applied in that way, but that's nonetheless what it is), and if both partners enter into it willingly, how does that mean one is "owning" the other?

Put it this way: I don't "own" any of my housemates, but if one them starting stealing my stuff and wrecking the house, I'd be justified in telling them to leave, right? Or if one of my friends behaved appallingly, it wouldn't be out of order for me to tell them to sort themselves out and apologise, or to consider us no longer friends - doesn't imply any "ownership", does it?

If you want to be able to do your own thing and sleep with whoever you like, that's great, no-one here is knocking that (as much as it may flatter your prejudices to imagine that we're all frothing mad at the very idea...) - but to say that anyone who would rather be in an exclusive relationship (which, in any case, is highly unlikely to last forever) is desperately trying to "own" their partner is stupid. What if there is a mutual expectation of fidelity - does that mean then "own each other"? Anyone would think you were talking about forced marriages, FFS.

It's a further ridiculous distortion to imply that expectations of partner fidelity are only ever about a man not wanting his gf/wife to go around fucking other men, rather than the other way round.

baboon2004
25-02-2010, 11:35 AM
I think the idea of a mutual contract, though it's an awful word, is a pretty good one. The problem is, in my view, that this 'contract' relies upon certain assumed social norms, so that what one person expects from a relationship is not what the other expects...

And of course, it is completely correct that one person can end it anytime, anyplace, no warning. No ownership involved...

Mr. Tea
25-02-2010, 12:09 PM
And of course, it is completely correct that one person can end it anytime, anyplace, no warning. No ownership involved...

That's it exactly - nomad is talking about monogamy as if it's tantamount to slavery. A slave cannot generally say to himself "Hmm, I'm not sure I like being a slave" and walk out on his owner.

There is no right or wrong way to go about being in relationships or having sex, as long as one partner isn't abusing the trust of the other. I think that's basically the long and short of it. So by all means have an open or casual relationship, but don't start getting jealous and possessive over your partner because they're seeing other people...and by the same token, don't go fucking around behind your partner's back if there's an expectation of faithfulness. If you're not happy with the arrangement you're in, you can call it off and find someone who wants something closer to what you want, can't you?

martin
25-02-2010, 12:19 PM
Put it this way: I don't "own" any of my housemates, but if one them starting stealing my stuff and wrecking the house, I'd be justified in telling them to leave, right? Or if one of my friends behaved appallingly, it wouldn't be out of order for me to tell them to sort themselves out and apologise, or to consider us no longer friends - doesn't imply any "ownership", does it?

Well yeah, I think most people are more disappointed by betrayal of trust than enraged by patriarchal concepts of ownership being subverted. Like if someone told you they were your best mate and you could rely on them any time, and then contradicted themselves by their behaviour, you'd probably be more like, "Well, why did they bother saying all that?" than "The scum! How DARE they violate my new, improved 'Friendship Code'?"

Of course, you do get sad blokes who think that they're "in there" cos the girl at customer enquiries smiled at them, and who take an 'x' on the end of the text to mean they're going to be married to the sender forever and ever. And then bring up anything 'nice' they've done for an ex as proof she's a bitch, like there's some commodities trading standard involved. But they're normally jerks in all fields of life, and are just as selfish and pathetic towards friends, family, employees, shop assistants, etc

One question I've genuinely got for people in open relationships - do you not get a BIT jealous from time to time? Say you're a man/woman in a fivesome, and the other four all pop off for a weekend of mucky fun and don't invite you. Wouldn't your ego be chain-smoking and pacing up and down? Especially if you can't find anyone to fuck? And, even if on an unsentimental / non-romantic level, would you be thinking stuff like "Shit, does my arse look big? Why did June get asked along and not me? How can SHE be better at handjobs? Is Terry's cock thicker than mine?"

Mr. Tea
25-02-2010, 12:24 PM
How can SHE be better at handjobs? Is Terry's cock thicker than mine?

I find myself asking these questions all the time. :(

baboon2004
25-02-2010, 12:43 PM
Yeah, that Terry is hung like a giraffe's leg, I hear.

Hmm, difficulty is when people's expectations don't match. What is acceptable varies greatly between people, although I think this is one area where social norms are actually helpful to codify people's behaviour to a certain extent within different societies.

IdleRich
25-02-2010, 01:21 PM
Yeah, that Terry is hung like a giraffe's leg, I hear.
That's why Bridge has dropped out of the England team.

I've had open relationships but normally after a while they've either ended or we've got closer to each other and kinda mutually agreed to stop them being open because jealousy or something like was creeping in or might potentially creep in. I think that as long as everyone knows where they stand it's all cool. And if you don't like where you stand you can always opt out.

padraig (u.s.)
25-02-2010, 02:11 PM
Which I think is just a ridiculous distortion of how most people - certainly most young or young-ish people, today - feel about relationships.

dunno man, I think that's assuming a pretty liberated view of how "most" people view relationships. I suspect your views - & those of people likely to post here in general - might suffer from a selection bias, i.e. younger (raver dad phenomenon aside) and more liberal (or radical, as the case may be) in terms of social outlook or cultural values or whatever you want to call it. like, lots of the people I know have likely participated in open or at least are pretty open to the idea (both in a hooking up sense &/or in a more explicit rejecting monogamy sense), as well as to more nuanced outlooks on sexuality, gender, etc. but I would hardly extrapolate from that to the population at large. (nor, tbc, do I think it makes the kind of people I'm likely to hang around with "better" or smarter or something) monogamy is still the prevailing, almost hegemonic standard, at least for serious relationships; as in,there's hooking up & one-night stands & so on but usually an insistence on monogamy if things get serious - & if -both- parties are happy with that, great. personally I prefer relationships that are open - I find it actually makes things better b/c, for one, when the fruit isn't forbidden people are actually less interested, at least in my experience - but they're a tremendous amount of work.

the idea of a contract, I dunno, surely that's not how relationships work, they're so sticky and tangled up. there are all kinds of complicating factors that prevent people from "just walking out". I do agree that women can be just as jealous as men when fidelity is expected. however, there are still enormous double standards for cheating. when men do it, it's always about betraying the family, or possibly being a jerk, but there's also a kind of admiration, as in that dude can pull or whatever. when women do it they're, yunno, sluts or whatever analogous term you want to toss in there. that double standard is much mored distasteful than (healthy) monogomous relationships.

IdleRich
25-02-2010, 02:18 PM
"Related - I was pretty impressed with Sasha Grey on Tyra Bank's programme, she gave the sanctimonious, hypocritical cunt a run for her money."
Interview with existentialist porn star Sasha here

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/shot-by-kern/sasha-grey

Not safe for work unless you're in the same line as her.

Mr. Tea
25-02-2010, 03:54 PM
dunno man, I think that's assuming a pretty liberated view of how "most" people view relationships. I suspect your views - & those of people likely to post here in general - might suffer from a selection bias, i.e. younger (raver dad phenomenon aside) and more liberal (or radical, as the case may be) in terms of social outlook or cultural values or whatever you want to call it. like, lots of the people I know have likely participated in open or at least are pretty open to the idea (both in a hooking up sense &/or in a more explicit rejecting monogamy sense), as well as to more nuanced outlooks on sexuality, gender, etc. but I would hardly extrapolate from that to the population at large.

Well yeah, maybe - but then, I'm talking about the people I know and the people I'm likely to meet through those people. Young(ish), mainly educated, people, in London, in 2010. If you want to start talking about *everyone*, well hell, plenty of people think marriage is a sacred covenant sworn before God and that sexual activity outside that context is a heinous sin. Too bad for them, I guess. I was just trying to counter nomad's assertion that all straight men (or "most men" or "a lot of men", or whatever, since I pulled her up on "men [period]") secretly think they have the God-given right to go around sticking their cock here, there and everywhere but would throw a fit if they thought their gf/wife was so much as looking at another man. I mean sure, there are still some sexist old-fashioned dickheads who think like that, but I hardly think it's indicative of the prevailing attitude these days.



the idea of a contract, I dunno, surely that's not how relationships work, they're so sticky and tangled up. there are all kinds of complicating factors that prevent people from "just walking out".

Well yes, of course there are! These are the emotional ties that are the sine qua non of any long-term relationship - even an open one - aren't they? The kind of ties that generally aren't present, by definition, in a casual short-term fling, no matter how much 'chemistry' and great sex there may be. That's the difference I was talking about above; the difference nomad, for reasons best known to herself, would like to pretend doesn't exist. The kind of ties that, most of the time, mean you don't dump your partner of however many years because they did something that slightly annoyed you, because (shock horror) there is more to the relationship than having someone you can fuck at your convenience.

(To be clear, I'm talking still about young (for some value of 'young') people here, so I don't mean "complicating factors" like kids or shared ownership of a house.)


I do agree that women can be just as jealous as men when fidelity is expected. however, there are still enormous double standards for cheating. when men do it, it's always about betraying the family, or possibly being a jerk, but there's also a kind of admiration, as in that dude can pull or whatever. when women do it they're, yunno, sluts or whatever analogous term you want to toss in there. that double standard is much mored distasteful than (healthy) monogomous relationships.

Again, I think that would depend on what kind of social milieu you're talking about. Among people I know, I don't think a guy doing this would get any more of a lenient treatment than a woman doing the same thing, and I certainly can't imagine there being much "admiration" for the "achievement" of cheating on his girlfriend. Though you're probably right that there are still plenty of people who think like that, I guess.

massrock
25-02-2010, 05:21 PM
I seem to be both at the moment, but usually an owl when left to my own devices. Mornings are beautiful though.

nomadthethird
25-02-2010, 05:22 PM
This thread is like a strawman a minute! I wasn't talking about Mr. Tea's 20-year-old friends in this thread, at any point. I was talking about our society. And even then, I never said anything about the fact that people don't get more "tied up" when they live together for a long time versus just sleeping together a couple of times. Duuh.

The difference I don't think is exists is a hard and fast one where two people are suddenly "attached" and the world outside stops existing, so they're "together" and not just "casual" anymore.

People imagine that open relationships mean orgies every weekend.

Nope. It's a lot of hard work. Like any relationship.

Like Sasha says "it's a lot of hard fucking work!" It looks like she has A cup breast implants, which is actually kind of adorable if you think about it.

IdleRich
25-02-2010, 06:04 PM
"It looks like she has A cup breast implants, which is actually kind of adorable if you think about it."
That is sort of sweet I think for some reason - no idea how you can tell though.

Mr. Tea
25-02-2010, 06:06 PM
This thread is like a strawman a minute!

Oh, the irony... :rolleyes:


And even then, I never said anything about the fact that people don't get more "tied up" when they live together for a long time versus just sleeping together a couple of times. Duuh.

You said there was "no difference" between casual hook-ups and long-term relationships. But now apparently there is. So is there, or isn't there?



The difference I don't think is exists is a hard and fast one where two people are suddenly "attached" and the world outside stops existing, so they're "together" and not just "casual" anymore.

Sure, there are shades and gradations, I acknowledged that - but that's not the same thing as there being "no difference".

(And just out of interest, have you never been with someone and had the feeling that, as far as the two of you were concerned, the world outside the room might as well not exist? Obviously you can't be like that all the time, every day...but when it does happen, it's quite something. And I think it's certainly possible to feel "attached" like that - though of course you don't kid yourself that it's everlasting love or whatever. But this is just from my own experience, people are different of course.)



(And I heard people are more likely to get "tied up" when they visit bondage clubs, hur hur...)

nomadthethird
25-02-2010, 06:10 PM
That is sort of sweet I think for some reason - no idea how you can tell though.

Almost everyone in porn now has implants, and not even for size. Part of cosmetic surgery on breasts involves rounding out the bottom half and surgically lifting the nipple about an inch (maybe 10cm? I'm not sure). Which gives the appearance that you see on most pornstars of rounded breasts with nipples well above the absolute center of the breast.

I can tell she has them, although I'm not 100% certain, because of the distribution of the tissue toward the bottom of the breasts in an unnaturally "round" manner, along with the fact that she has about 5% body fat and a very small upper body. She was probably extremely flat chested before the surgery. But her doctors did a fantastic job, A+ all the way. They kept them natural looking and within the proportions of her body frame. I don't see any scars so they probably went in through the belly botton.

She looks like she may have very small ass implants as well, but that could just be loads of exercise.

don_quixote
25-02-2010, 06:11 PM
i am a lark btw

nomadthethird
25-02-2010, 06:17 PM
(And just out of interest, have you never been with someone and had the feeling that, as far as the two of you were concerned, the world outside the room might as well not exist?...)

"The relationship bubble"...

No, not really. I always have a lot on my mind.

padraig (u.s.)
25-02-2010, 10:07 PM
If you want to start talking about *everyone*

I'm just saying dude, well, two things:

1 - when you do talk "everyone" I think there's a hell of a lot more people, on the whole, who are pretty deadset about monogomy (with varying degrees of acceptance for other stuff), to the point where that has to be called the prevailing attitude. to the point where, even if you are someone with different views, you're kinda swimming against that thinking. albeit considerably less so than say, 50 or even 30 years ago. also depending on where you live & who you are you can sometimes find bubbles where more or even most people having thinking more in line with yours (the fetish communities Nomad brought up being rather extreme examples of that) but those are still mostly self-contained exceptions that prove the rule.

2 - some of the worst "sexist dickheads" I've ever known - myself included when I was younger - were also ardent, outspoken feminists (open relationships can be a great cover for good, old-fashioned skirt-chasing, tho admittedly the ladies (& various intergendered people, & so on) can get after it too in that regard). I don't think social milieu is really that much of a variable. a lot of stuff is just sexism - or whatever - expressed in different ways. not that everything's the same - certainly some things are better than others. also, there are plenty of genuinely good men out there.

as far as contracts, I didn't realize you meant the complicating factors were the contract, so to speak. but if that's the case, doesn't that imply that emotional "contracts" are precisely what keeps people -from- walking out, as opposed to encouraging them to? which isn't a bad thing, necessarily, it depends on the relationship I guess.

Mr. Tea
25-02-2010, 11:55 PM
2 - some of the worst "sexist dickheads" I've ever known - myself included when I was younger - were also ardent, outspoken feminists

Ha, reminds me of something I've noticed: that I've never met or spoken to a woman who thought Dworkin's ideas were worth two shits. The only people I've ever heard speak approvingly of her or attempt to use her in an argument have been guys wanting to prove their impeccable feminist credentials. Ho hum.

Edit: that's probably not what you were getting at exactly, but it seemed relevant. Also, I can't see where the assumption that it's "sexist" to be a "skirt-chaser" comes from - as long as you're not doing in an abusive way, what's wrong with being promiscuous, whether you're a man or a woman? You'd hardly accuse a woman who likes to sleep with lots of different guys of being a "man-hater", would you?



as far as contracts, I didn't realize you meant the complicating factors were the contract, so to speak...

Oh blimey, I didn't quite mean to equate the two - but there's certainly a bit connection or overlap. I'm too tired now to give it much detailed thought. All I say is, the course of true love never did run smooth...

nomadthethird
26-02-2010, 12:22 AM
Ha, reminds of something I've noticed: that I've never met or spoken to a woman who thought Dworkin's ideas were worth two shits. The only people I've ever heard speak approvingly of her or attempt to use her in an argument have been guys wanting to prove their impeccable feminist credentials. Ho hum.


Yeah, I've never heard any woman who isn't a lesbian promote the idea of abstaining from heterosexual intercourse as some kind of One True Path to political freedom for women, either.* I don't mind having sex with women. But I like having sex with men, too. And anyway, what is that supposed to achieve? Besides sexual frustration? It's so infantile. It's like the logic of the housewife who withholds sex passive-aggressively from her husband, in a desperate bid to gain some ground over him, and the result is just more strife and anger in the household, with the woman still in the economically disadvantaged position, with no power, stuck in various stunted, psychologically unhealthy and immature social behaviors. It also relies on the idea that men are all incapable of having sex the "right way", whatever that means, and on the notion that women are demeaned by sex with men, which they aren't. Although sexists love imaging so! It's their favorite pastime.

*With the possible exception of Julie Bindel, who has perhaps the worst case of flaming 'feminist misogyny', transphobia, and virulent hate not otherwise specified that I've ever countenanced in a self-proclaimed "radical".

nomadthethird
26-02-2010, 03:12 AM
I've just thought of a good analogy for what people telling women they should abstain from intercourse is like:

It would be like telling Rosa Parks that-- instead of refusing to give up her seat for the white person in exchange for one at back of the bus designated for blacks, after a long day of hard work, after long years of oppression and repression and prejudice and hatred and attack-- she should have gotten off the bus and walked home instead. It'd be like telling all black people in the segregationist south to walk instead of taking the bus, to avoid white people, and to never, ever marry or have sex with whites. That'll show them segregationists!

Except it won't, at all. It wouldn't do anything, except possibly contribute to the further vilification, segregation, and political ghetto-izatio/marginalization of blacks and their concerns.

grizzleb
26-02-2010, 06:02 AM
2 - some of the worst "sexist dickheads" I've ever known - myself included when I was younger - were also ardent, outspoken feminists (open relationships can be a great cover for good, old-fashioned skirt-chasing, tho admittedly the ladies (& various intergendered people, & so on) can get after it too in that regard). I don't think social milieu is really that much of a variable. a lot of stuff is just sexism - or whatever - expressed in different ways. not that everything's the same - certainly some things are better than others. also, there are plenty of genuinely good men out there.
Also worth pointing out that 'sexism is in the eye of the beholder' in a sense. For example a girl I know who I talk to about this stuff thinks I'm a complete misogynist because I think that prostitution should be legalized - my offhand remark that it's happened since for ever and it will continue to happen, is met with 'murder has happened since forever too, you don't legalise that' (??), and then I'll go and talk to another person who thinks my views on prostitution aren't radical enough at which point I again become a misogynist pig etc. It's a tightrope where because I've got a cock I'm always a dickhead (btw nomad I'm not asking for any pity before you mock me). It's always a worthwhile conversation to have.

IdleRich
26-02-2010, 09:44 AM
"She looks like she may have very small ass implants as well, but that could just be loads of exercise."
You learn something every day.... seems weird to spend so long "improving" a part of your body you can't even see but I guess she knows her business.


Yeah, I've never heard any woman who isn't a lesbian promote the idea of abstaining from heterosexual intercourse as some kind of One True Path to political freedom for women, either.*

*With the possible exception of Julie Bindel, who has perhaps the worst case of flaming 'feminist misogyny', transphobia, and virulent hate not otherwise specified that I've ever countenanced in a self-proclaimed "radical".
Bindel is a lesbian... and also a moron I fear. As far as I can tell her natural tastes lie towards women but she'd rather claim that she trained herself not to sleep with "the enemy" and so other women should be able to do that too and if they don't they are betraying their sex.
Heard other people make the transphobic claim as well, did she say something along the lines of "people who change their gender and have sex with people who are the same gender as they were previously are traitors to homosexuality"?

petergunn
26-02-2010, 10:49 AM
Interview with existentialist porn star Sasha here

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/shot-by-kern/sasha-grey

Not safe for work unless you're in the same line as her.

she's no dummy, but her accent/diction/way of speaking makes her sound dumbish... she's cute, tho... as afar as i can tell, her body is natural, but i have been fooled b4..........

baboon2004
26-02-2010, 10:58 AM
I kinda fancied her before she started talking.

IdleRich
26-02-2010, 11:03 AM
If it's the right person I think she is about to be or has just been in some mainstream Hollywood film. I read something with the director or whoever saying how bright she was and how when he started talking about Godard it turned out she had seen a load of his stuff - not that that means anything in itself but it's not necessarily what you expect from a porn star.

STN
26-02-2010, 11:20 AM
The film is The Girlfriend Experience I think it's out on DVD.

scottdisco
26-02-2010, 12:14 PM
With the possible exception of Julie Bindel, who has perhaps the worst case of flaming 'feminist misogyny', transphobia, and virulent hate not otherwise specified that I've ever countenanced in a self-proclaimed "radical".

yup.

nomadthethird
26-02-2010, 12:41 PM
I kinda fancied her before she started talking.

I don't think she sounds dumb, I think she sounds young.

I go to school with a bunch of 18-22yo right now, and compared to them, she sounds like a fucking rocket scientist.

grizzleb
26-02-2010, 12:43 PM
I don't think she sounds dumb, I think she sounds young.

I go to school with a bunch of 18-22yo right now, and compared to them, she sounds like a fucking rocket scientist.Yeah I just watched it there, I didn't think she sounded 'dumb' at all either. Her attitude is spot on anyway.

baboon2004
26-02-2010, 12:54 PM
I don't think she sounds dumb, I think she sounds young.

I go to school with a bunch of 18-22yo right now, and compared to them, she sounds like a fucking rocket scientist.

was only being flippant - I have no problem with what she says at all. I didn't mean i liked her less cos of the way she talks, ratherthat that particular generic diction/whatever I don't personally find attractive. Which is just a prejudice of mine, doesn't mean i think she's not lucid.

nomadthethird
27-02-2010, 03:02 PM
Uck, today I wake up to a gay man lecturing me about how the only truly feminist show would be "No Sex in the City" modelled after Andrea Dworkin's sex fascism.

Yeah, right. Meanwhile, he gets to have sex with the male oppressor whenever he wants. Something's fishy about all this...

nomadthethird
27-02-2010, 05:18 PM
"Wymin must provide an alternate view of everything, be different, be other, be elusive."

That was the next gem, I knew that was coming.

You know, if there's a hell, Dworkin's in it, I hope. She basically gave every male misogynist (and a lot of female misogynists) on earth a "feminist" viewpoint to hide behind. Basically, when men trot out Dworkin, they might as well be saying "well, you don't like patriarchy, eh? Well then, you shouldn't even be allowed to have sex or live in society with men. Take that! Oh, and you're a whore and a capitalist pig slut bag traitor if you do."

It reminds me of when Rush Limbaugh brings up Alan Keyes' views as proof that blacks really don't find Whitey oppressive, in a twisted sorta way. Like, there's always one you can find who will legitimize your sick views. And that one gets used for all they're worth.

benjybars
27-02-2010, 06:05 PM
I don't know. I think most people probably use it for pain relief. Masturbation releases endorphins (or something). Of course when you get really into it, it doesn't particularly matter what you're looking at: I mean on one hand it's of the utmost importance, but on the other it doesn't matter whether you actually desire anyone the images are showing.

The way I usually do it, not to get too vulgar, is to spend the 1st hour watching things I'd like to be involved with myself, with people who I consider desirable. The second hour I start going for 'weirdness', but doing it slowly so it's still enjoyable. So by the third hour I'm usually coming up on ladyboy 'golden shower' type stuff... (not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. why repress?) seems to work well. But there are other variations I employ to keep things interesting.

haha.. this thread needs more four_five_one

nomadthethird
28-02-2010, 04:52 PM
haha.. this thread needs more four_five_one

He's too busy with chatroulette, the latest trend in instant web communications and pr0n.

How can we compete with that?

swears
01-03-2010, 01:23 AM
Yo I'm into feet, I'll be up for a bit of that, just let me get my outfit on.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1WaO1OGuwzI/SuUT4MqbV-I/AAAAAAAANJ8/ucjuc1uKMlw/s400/cybersex.jpg

This is the greatest photo of all time. I'd like to think it was taken at a university's computer lab with a load of nerds in white coats standing round him ticking things off on clip boards.

swears
01-03-2010, 01:30 AM
This is what he can see through those goggles:

http://images.google.co.uk/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.badidea.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/lawnmower-man.jpg&usg=AFQjCNEfRZf8YlEbpWveSr5v-Rv6jz8qZQ

swears
01-03-2010, 01:37 AM
Anyways... yeah, well I'm an owl, obvs. One thing I always do is get plastered on the Friday and Saturday night, then sleep in really late on the Sunday morning (this "morning" I slept in until 2:30PM) and, round about now I'm up until 3 in the morning looking at 4 hours sleep before a full working day because my sleep patterns are all fucked.

On the subject of filth: The one thing that puts me off porn/strippers/prostitution is the fact that the attraction is all one way. I'm too vain! I need to be fancied back, the idea of paying for sex is horrifying. That's just a personal thing, though. Prostitution for all it's problems should be legalised, no good driving it underground.

grizzleb
01-03-2010, 08:53 AM
Anyways... yeah, well I'm an owl, obvs. One thing I always do is get plastered on the Friday and Saturday night, then sleep in really late on the Sunday morning (this "morning" I slept in until 2:30PM) and, round about now I'm up until 3 in the morning looking at 4 hours sleep before a full working day because my sleep patterns are all fucked.

On the subject of filth: The one thing that puts me off porn/strippers/prostitution is the fact that the attraction is all one way. I'm too vain! I need to be fancied back, the idea of paying for sex is horrifying. That's just a personal thing, though. Prostitution for all it's problems should be legalised, no good driving it underground.

I do that every weekend. (fuck my sleeping patterns I mean) When I'm off on holiday for long stretches I end up back where I started after taking the sleep out of phase.

petergunn
01-03-2010, 09:01 AM
He's too busy with chatroulette, the latest trend in instant web communications and pr0n.

How can we compete with that?

the english do love it!
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/chat4-480x467.jpg
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fag-480x570.jpg
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/chatroulteet-480x443.jpg
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/chat3-480x451.jpg
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/ro-480x351.jpg
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/hjkj-480x324.jpg
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/stareoff-480x384.jpg
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/known1-480x327.jpg
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/kid2.jpg
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/lf.jpg
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/gala-480x373.jpg
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/40-480x372.jpg
http://boston.3432.voxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/dfkjlf1.jpg

petergunn
01-03-2010, 09:05 AM
On the subject of filth: The one thing that puts me off porn/strippers/prostitution is the fact that the attraction is all one way. I'm too vain! I need to be fancied back, the idea of paying for sex is horrifying. That's just a personal thing, though. Prostitution for all it's problems should be legalised, no good driving it underground.

that is an interesting point... how much of hooking up is physical desire (i.e i am horny) and how much is ego gratification (i.e. make me feel special/attractive)?

PeteUM
01-03-2010, 12:14 PM
"I'll stare your ass into the ground"

Fantastic!

nomadthethird
01-03-2010, 01:16 PM
Heh where did you get those chats? That's hilarious.


that is an interesting point... how much of hooking up is physical desire (i.e i am horny) and how much is ego gratification (i.e. make me feel special/attractive)?

That's why when people who are anti-sex work get all righteous about it based on the imaginary fact that the men who see sex workers are all basically frat boys who entertain alarming sexist notion about women, I'm usually thinking, oh really? Most of those guys have no dignity or pride or self-confidence or social skills whatsoever. The stereotype of the guy who sees a sex worker is so off kilter from the reality: it's not a bunch of swaggering 18-year-old boys, it's usually really awkward 40-year-old men who are supremely grateful about it all in any case.

Of course, there is always the occasional delusional loon who thinks it's all real and the worker really wants him- which is, I think, a form of egotism and a defense mechanism on his end- but after enough times draining their bank account and still going home alone they'll tend to get the picture.

(Then they tend to get bitter: you spend all this money on women and they don't even want you back! What whores! Bingo, buddy. These are the guys who think that "getting a woman" should be as easy as paint-by-numbers chocolates and rose purchases, however. So they're bound to be disappointed in life and love.)

baboon2004
01-03-2010, 02:24 PM
I would have imagined (tho I don't know) that a lot of men who use prostitutes are married.

As to Swears' point, one-way desire is a major turn-off, agreed. As an addendum to that, so are cases where you know the attraction is based upon something false/fetishistic. Most people (everyone) get turned on by someone wanting them (whatever that actually means), which is, I think, why separating sex and affection is so complex. Which is why really good-looking people are often unhappy (hardly anyone can see past their looks).

Did anyone link to this?: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/15/why-men-use-prostitutes
Some of it is very interesting.

grizzleb
01-03-2010, 04:10 PM
Conversely, is there anything more of a turn off when a woman makes excessively clear that she's into you? Even if it's not just a physical thing but because they think they 'see something' in you?

baboon2004
01-03-2010, 04:15 PM
Converselty, is there anything more of a turn off when a woman makes excessively clear that she's into you?

What, by sucking one' s cock too vigorously? I know, I hate that.

But seriously, while it is true that some things can be excessive, I think often people aren't comfortable with someone who is excessively clear, because they don't think they are good enough to receive such overt attention. of course, it entirely depends what you are thinking of in terms of excessive clarity.

grizzleb
01-03-2010, 04:38 PM
What, by sucking one' s cock too vigorously? I know, I hate that.

But seriously, while it is true that some things can be excessive, I think often people aren't comfortable with someone who is excessively clear, because they don't think they are good enough to receive such overt attention. of course, it entirely depends what you are thinking of in terms of excessive clarity.Yeah that's what I mean. It's definitely to do with
a lack of self worth/esteem I think.

nomadthethird
01-03-2010, 07:02 PM
I would have imagined (tho I don't know) that a lot of men who use prostitutes are married.


Most men who see prostitutes are married, yes. But that doesn't mean they aren't socially awkward.

swears
01-03-2010, 07:30 PM
Which is why really good-looking people are often unhappy (hardly anyone can see past their looks).



Well, that's one idea that's cheered me up today.

grizzleb
01-03-2010, 07:58 PM
Heh where did you get those chats? That's hilarious.



That's why when people who are anti-sex work get all righteous about it based on the imaginary fact that the men who see sex workers are all basically frat boys who entertain alarming sexist notion about women, I'm usually thinking, oh really? Most of those guys have no dignity or pride or self-confidence or social skills whatsoever. The stereotype of the guy who sees a sex worker is so off kilter from the reality: it's not a bunch of swaggering 18-year-old boys, it's usually really awkward 40-year-old men who are supremely grateful about it all in any case.From my experience I think these are exactly the people that are expected to use sex workers by anti-sex work peeps. It's more a case of that's even worse for the woman that they are forced to have sex with these people who can't have sex 'normally' and so don't deserve to have it at all. It's from these people that the constant threat of immediate violence comes (when infact they're probably just painfully shy and horny). I think that's how it is viewed at any case.

nomadthethird
01-03-2010, 09:26 PM
Well, that's one idea that's cheered me up today.

No, it's true. My brother's fiancee is one of those ridiculously good looking people who gets slack-jawed stares wherever she goes. (She's Polish and Native American and has bright green eyes and very dark skin...she's like a prettier version of Lisa Edelstein) And she has the best body I've ever seen in my life. (My brother's this huge doofy obnoxious guy, I don't know how he ended up with her. She told me she likes him because he's smart! Which really made me chuckle. Anyway...)

Just from interacting with them and traveling with them and going on random outings with her, I can seriously say I'm glad I'm not a gorgeous person. I have never seen anyone get treated more like a subhuman piece of human trash than she does, and by people who don't know her in the least, men and women. Eventually she even started dressing really plainly and covering up and it still doesn't work so well for her. But then I can tell she feels pressure to *always* be the best looking person in the room. She's so used to being looked at I think she's always performing being superhot, without even really trying.


From my experience I think these are exactly the people that are expected to use sex workers by anti-sex work peeps. It's more a case of that's even worse for the woman that they are forced to have sex with these people who can't have sex 'normally' and so don't deserve to have it at all. It's from these people that the constant threat of immediate violence comes (when infact they're probably just painfully shy and horny). I think that's how it is viewed at any case.

Women are more likely to be sexually assaulted and/or raped and/or assaulted by their own husbands or boyfriends or friends or relatives than they are anyone else, I'm afraid. But anyway, there's a difference between strippers and hookers, when it comes to clientele. Strippers are less stigmatized than hookers, so it's a social activity that's partaken in by your average businessmen ex-frat boys, and just average guys of all types. The better targets are the ones who really need to go to hookers, though, because they're more likely to be "customers for life"...

grizzleb
01-03-2010, 09:45 PM
Women are more likely to be sexually assaulted and/or raped and/or assaulted by their own husbands or boyfriends or friends or relatives than they are anyone else, I'm afraid. But anyway, there's a difference between strippers and hookers, when it comes to clientele. Strippers are less stigmatized than hookers, so it's a social activity that's partaken in by your average businessmen ex-frat boys, and just average guys of all types. The better targets are the ones who really need to go to hookers, though, because they're more likely to be "customers for life"...
Yeah I agree, it wasn't my viewpoint - more just relating what I've heard from others. Edit - what do you mean by better targets? Genuine question btw, I'm probably not reading you correctly.

swears
01-03-2010, 09:47 PM
No, it's true. My brother's fiancee is one of those ridiculously good looking people who gets slack-jawed stares wherever she goes. (She's Polish and Native American and has bright green eyes and very dark skin...she's like a prettier version of Lisa Edelstein) And she has the best body I've ever seen in my life. (My brother's this huge doofy obnoxious guy, I don't know how he ended up with her. She told me she likes him because he's smart! Which really made me chuckle. Anyway...)



Hmmm... I always pretend like I haven't seen really pretty girls. I think it's because I want them to think I'm over it or something, haha.

grizzleb
01-03-2010, 09:48 PM
Also
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v213/lexehann/k3ocn7000x0400x549.jpg

grizzleb
01-03-2010, 09:49 PM
No, it's true. My brother's fiancee is one of those ridiculously good looking people who gets slack-jawed stares wherever she goes. (She's Polish and Native American and has bright green eyes and very dark skin...she's like a prettier version of Lisa Edelstein) And she has the best body I've ever seen in my life. (My brother's this huge doofy obnoxious guy, I don't know how he ended up with her. She told me she likes him because he's smart! Which really made me chuckle. Anyway...)

Just from interacting with them and traveling with them and going on random outings with her, I can seriously say I'm glad I'm not a gorgeous person. I have never seen anyone get treated more like a subhuman piece of human trash than she does, and by people who don't know her in the least, men and women. Eventually she even started dressing really plainly and covering up and it still doesn't work so well for her. But then I can tell she feels pressure to *always* be the best looking person in the room. She's so used to being looked at I think she's always performing being superhot, without even really trying.



Everyone has their cross to bear innit? Can say the same with loads of stuff which at first glance looks like 'luck'.

nomadthethird
01-03-2010, 09:52 PM
Edit - what do you mean by better targets? Genuine question btw, I'm probably not reading you correctly.

You can make more money off 'em if you're a sex worker.

baboon2004
01-03-2010, 11:14 PM
Well, that's one idea that's cheered me up today.

Yeah, it can be cheering! But, to be honest, some of them are my friends, and that's how I've come to know just how unhappy-making it can be, having loads of people worship you without even bothering to see you as you are. So that makes me sad.

Immryr
01-03-2010, 11:41 PM
Hmmm... I always pretend like I haven't seen really pretty girls. I think it's because I want them to think I'm over it or something, haha.

i think i often do that, it's probably just as obvious as staring in some ways when you're trying overly hard to not look at someone.

Mr. Tea
02-03-2010, 01:12 PM
I would have imagined (tho I don't know) that a lot of men who use prostitutes are married.


I can imagine this being the case - guys whose marriages are on the rocks, or who've recently got divorced, and are probably paying for a bit of intimacy and affection (even if it's ersatz affection) more than for the actual sex itself.

The other kind of case I can imagine is a young or young-ish guy with money who takes the reductive view that he can try and get into some woman's knickers by taking her to a fancy restaurant and then a swanky nightclub, splashing out on champagne, coke, whatever it takes...or just cut to the chase and simply find a woman who accepts cash for sex up front. I should think this kind of attitude is on the way out though, as more women get into well-paid professional roles, and I'm sure most of the women I know would hate to think of themselves as "gold-diggers". Then again, I'm not a hotshot banker or a Premiership footballer...

benjybars
02-03-2010, 01:58 PM
i think i often do that, it's probably just as obvious as staring in some ways when you're trying overly hard to not look at someone.

haha. it's true.

the constant dilemma of how to deal with beautiful people...

Mr. Tea
02-03-2010, 02:06 PM
the constant dilemma of how to deal with beautiful people...

Standing over them, visibly drooling and panting while pawing your crotch through your trousers, is generally recognised as correct social etiquette in this situation.

grizzleb
02-03-2010, 02:09 PM
Standing over them, visibly drooling and panting while pawing your crotch through your trousers, is generally recognised as correct social etiquette in this situation.
:D

It's cool to meet people who are visibly beautiful but also down to earth and kind. It would be easy to get a warped and superior mindset if you were in that situation. Mind you, a girl I know in school was always one of the 'outsiders' because she was gangly and goofy looking as a child. In her mid-teens she started to look like a supermodel, I don't think she has gotten quite used to the change. (if she's even fully aware of it)

four_five_one
02-03-2010, 02:42 PM
This is completely OT @ Nomad: I think yr blog is Anodyne Lite, right? Anyway, I loved the 'Naturalistic Fallacy' post -- have linked it to some friends (i.e. ppl that say to me 'James, you're not really depressed, you just need to strip away the extra layers and get back to some pure ontological core').

They were pretty shocked. I explained that the brain is just another organ and whatever yr philosophical position regarding the 'mind/body' is: the 'mind' is at least instantiated physically. Some people still seem unable to accept this though...

But regards what you wrote about depression, I keep reading lately that serotonin has little to do with it, and SSRIS are more likely to work by promoting neurogenesis (which depression suppresses): http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/02/prozac.php - this explains why non-depressed people might feel 'much better' on anti-depressants too.

nomadthethird
02-03-2010, 03:16 PM
This is completely OT @ Nomad: I think yr blog is Anodyne Lite, right? Anyway, I loved the 'Naturalistic Fallacy' post -- have linked it to some friends (i.e. ppl that say to me 'James, you're not really depressed, you just need to strip away the extra layers and get back to some pure ontological core').

They were pretty shocked. I explained that the brain is just another organ and whatever yr philosophical position regarding the 'mind/body' is: the 'mind' is at least instantiated physically. Some people still seem unable to accept this though...

But regards what you wrote about depression, I keep reading lately that serotonin has little to do with it, and SSRIS are more likely to work by promoting neurogenesis (which depression suppresses): http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/02/prozac.php - this explains why non-depressed people might feel 'much better' on anti-depressants too.

Yes, lengthy New York Times pieces aside, there's nothing fun about depression, and it's not an "ontological" problem. (Seems like the Times runs at least one really lame article per week about the "upside" of mental illness or autism or something once a week that's always supremely condescending...it's a fashionable, liberal opinion these days. Mental illness-- it's all relative, maaann. Designed to make their upper middle class readership feel good about its petty feelings of guilt and inadequacy, no doubt).

You're right that SSRIs really don't work by just "upping" serotonin levels, which is what most people think they do. It's really frustrating trying to explain how neurotransmitters work to people who, like journalists, insist on simplifying the process into a soundbite. If you have bipolar I or schizophrenia, you really shouldn't even be on SSRIs, since they can precipitate manic or psychotic episodes. The idea that all mentally ill people are just popping "uppers" that flood their brains with serotonin and give them an "easy answer" to their problems is just not true. Schizophrenics take anti-psychotics, which have very difficult side effects, and bipolar people usually take some combination of anti-convulsants, anti-psychotics, and anxiolytics. Not an easy answer-- believe me--unless you think kidney stones ripping through your urethra is "easy", and being 20 pounds underweight, and hair falling out, cavities in your teeth, and being unable to remember words and basic information, getting dizzy, constantly thirsty, nauseous, breakthrough migraines with aura, unable to focus, basically living in a fog. Still--better than the alternative. The next generation of anti-depressants work on both serotonin and norepinepherine channels.

nomadthethird
02-03-2010, 03:23 PM
Uck, that Newsweek article is ridiculous. It doesn't actually cite any numbers from any studies, just insists in passing that these numbers exist. It's flagrantly exaggerated BS.

Just because anti-depressants were overprescribed to people who probably didn't need them over the past decade or so doesn't mean that there's nobody who needs them.

Anti-depressants don't "work" any better than placebo in people who don't have MDD-- that is, people who are just experiencing a minor episode of depression related to life events. They do, however, work wonderfully, and much better than placebo, for people who actually have a brain disorder called MDD.

It's funny, but laypeople have this really strange inability to make these types of distinctions.(Just like they can't make a distinction between depressive disorders and other mood disorders.) Journalists are the worst about it.Journalists think that *one* study can topple an entire body of research. But it can't, unless its findings can be replicated. Over and over and over.

I'd like to see this "study" of Kirsch's that's supposedly going to contradict every other study that exists...oh please! Let's see it stand up to peer review first!

Journalists' idea of how science works is so fucked.

grizzleb
02-03-2010, 03:46 PM
Uck, that Newsweek article is ridiculous. It doesn't actually cite any numbers from any studies, just insists in passing that these numbers exist. It's flagrantly exaggerated BS.

Just because anti-depressants were overprescribed to people who probably didn't need them over the past decade or so doesn't mean that there's nobody who needs them.

Anti-depressants don't "work" any better than placebo in people who don't have MDD-- that is, people who are just experiencing a minor episode of depression related to life events. They do, however, work wonderfully, and much better than placebo, for people who actually have a brain disorder called MDD.

It's funny, but laypeople have this really strange inability to make these types of distinctions.(Just like they can't make a distinction between depressive disorders and other mood disorders.) Journalists are the worst about it.Journalists think that *one* study can topple an entire body of research. But it can't, unless its findings can be replicated. Over and over and over.

I'd like to see this "study" of Kirsch's that's supposedly going to contradict every other study that exists...oh please! Let's see it stand up to peer review first!

Journalists' idea of how science works is so fucked.

It's an easy way to sell newspapers and magazines though isn't it? Just make some spurious groundbreaking claims about this that or the other = sales. New Scientist is the worst for presenting some findings of a study as fact. They also think that the public can't handle being spoken to like an adult so they just fire out vague easy answers that only serve to confuse.

nomadthethird
02-03-2010, 03:48 PM
It's an easy way to sell newspapers and magazines though isn't it? Just make some spurious groundbreaking claims about this that or the other = sales. New Scientist is the worst for presenting some findings of a study as fact.

And of course, it's "groundbreaking news" with some faux-populism to it. We don't need no stinkin anti-depressants.

Well, yeah, it's unlikely that you do, you dumb fucks! Since something like ~5% of the population has MDD, possibly less.

It's a new Dark Age.

Mr. Tea
02-03-2010, 03:52 PM
Journalists' idea of how science works is so fucked.

Nomad, I'm sure you're aware of Ben Goldacre's Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/)blog (and fairly regular Guardian column, and book...) but just in case you aren't, you should check him out. He's a kind of crusading figure against terrible science (particularly medical/clinical) journalism - I expect he was walking around with a smile a foot wide just recently after the doctor who kicked off that whole spurious MMR/autism scare was officially disgraced and his 'findings' debunked - Goldacre was one of the first people to draw any serious attention to the flaws in the guy's methodology.

On the subject of psychiatric medicine, it might be good idea to have some pills with a name ending in -zepam handy if you check out Goldacre's blog - the current article is on a woman who was, er, cured of cancer by homeopathy... :mad:

nomadthethird
02-03-2010, 04:13 PM
Nomad, I'm sure you're aware of Ben Goldacre's Bad Science (http://www.badscience.net/)blog (and fairly regular Guardian column, and book...) but just in case you aren't, you should check him out. He's a kind of crusading figure against terrible science (particularly medical/clinical) journalism - I expect he was walking around with a smile a foot wide just recently after the doctor who kicked off that whole spurious MMR/autism scare was officially disgraced and his 'findings' debunked - Goldacre was one of the first people to draw any serious attention to the flaws in the guy's methodology.

On the subject of psychiatric medicine, it might be good idea to have some pills with a name ending in -zepam handy if you check out Goldacre's blog - the current article is on a woman who was, er, cured of cancer by homeopathy... :mad:

Thanks...I've heard of it, and I think read a couple of linked articles before, but I always forgot to save it...

It's getting more difficult all the time, but it's nice to see there are bloggers out there who are trying to stop the spread of false information through science journalism.

padraig (u.s.)
02-03-2010, 04:21 PM
Journalists' idea of how science works is so fucked.

well I dunno, at least as such a blanket condemnation. I don't think most non-scientists really have any idea "how science works", especially in a country like the U.S. where pre-college instruction in the sciences (& math) is generally atrocious. I certainly had very little idea about it until I got involved with research. as dude says, journalists are trying to find a hook for a story; even without the dense technical jargon & necessarily dry tone of a peer-reviewed journal article, it's pretty difficult, I think, to really express what scientific findings "mean" to laypeople in an accurate way. It's like trying to explain how a carburetor works to someone who's never heard of cars or internal combustion. plus I imagine many people have the wildest misconceptions of what science entails, like it's all CSI or something. xkcd has done more than a few strips on this theme.

I mean, I'm not denying there's a lot of terrible media coverage of science, because there is. but there are some exceptions; Scientific American & all the popular science magazines of that ilk (which, admittedly, are targeting at least a semi-educated audience). The NYT's Tuesday Science section is usually pretty good. I think generally the social sciences come off considerably worse than the physical sciences in news coverage which isn't surprising as they do studies on variables that are so much harder to quantify, e.g. the data is much "softer" & thus open to more interpretation. there was a pretty decent article in the NYT mag recently on antidepressents & anxiolytics. it took a more general view - usually a good call when writing about science, rather than focusing on 1 particular study - discussed general trends in drug prescription since the 50s & differing views within on psychiatry on the biological function of mental illness. unfortunately I can't find it on the web.

grizzleb
02-03-2010, 04:23 PM
I mean, I'm not denying there's a lot of terrible media coverage of science, because there is. but there are some exceptions; Scientific American & all the popular science magazines of that ilk (which, admittedly, are targeting at least a semi-educated audience). The NYT's Tuesday Science section is usually pretty good. I think generally the social sciences come off considerably worse than the physical sciences in news coverage which isn't surprising as they do studies on variables that are so much harder to quantify, e.g. the data is much "softer" & thus open to more interpretation. there was a pretty decent article in the NYT mag recently on antidepressents & anxiolytics. it took a more general view - usually a good call when writing about science, rather than focusing on 1 particular study - discussed general trends in drug prescription since the 50s & differing views within on psychiatry on the biological function of mental illness. unfortunately I can't find it on the web.
Hmm. I picked up a Scientific American one time (fuck knows why it was in an asian cornershop next to NUTS) an it was fully of the sensationalist and presumtive language that's just been described.

nomadthethird
02-03-2010, 04:34 PM
well I dunno, at least as such a blanket condemnation. I don't think most non-scientists really have any idea "how science works", especially in a country like the U.S. where pre-college instruction in the sciences (& math) is generally atrocious. I certainly had very little idea about it until I got involved with research. as dude says, journalists are trying to find a hook for a story; even without the dense technical jargon & necessarily dry tone of a peer-reviewed journal article, it's pretty difficult, I think, to really express what scientific findings "mean" to laypeople in an accurate way. It's like trying to explain how a carburetor works to someone who's never heard of cars or internal combustion. plus I imagine many people have the wildest misconceptions of what science entails, like it's all CSI or something. xkcd has done more than a few strips on this theme.

I mean, I'm not denying there's a lot of terrible media coverage of science, because there is. but there are some exceptions; Scientific American & all the popular science magazines of that ilk (which, admittedly, are targeting at least a semi-educated audience). The NYT's Tuesday Science section is usually pretty good. I think generally the social sciences come off considerably worse than the physical sciences in news coverage which isn't surprising as they do studies on variables that are so much harder to quantify, e.g. the data is much "softer" & thus open to more interpretation. there was a pretty decent article in the NYT mag recently on antidepressents & anxiolytics. it took a more general view - usually a good call when writing about science, rather than focusing on 1 particular study - discussed general trends in drug prescription since the 50s & differing views within on psychiatry on the biological function of mental illness. unfortunately I can't find it on the web.

I always read the NYT pieces, which is why I shouldn't really feel superior about myself. I read the whole damn thing, usually. For every decent "history" type of piece (I remember they had a really good one on Jung a while back) they publish, there are about 10 really stupid like Simon Baron-Cohen pieces that are purely speculative but that are dressed up as Dropping Some Science on Y'All.

Although, I really do sympathize with the writers...when I was writing biomedical grants, it was always really tough, trying to walk that line between getting the science accurate and precise, and just boiling very complex areas of research down to a few sentences that make a really good sell. In fact, when writing grants to the pharmaceutical companies, they preferred the big broad brushstroke type writing-- because, unsurprisingly, it's easier to fit all kinds of treatment rubrics under broader metaphors.

Yes, Big Pharma is disgusting for taking advantage of a loophole in medical ethics--the fact that GPs are still allowed to diagnose and treat mental illness, despite a sore lack of training in those areas-- in order to push Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil on a generation of people who largely didn't need any of those things. But the idea that anti-depressants don't actually *work* better than placebo for mental illness is not something that follows logically from this, and the journalists are writing as if it does.

nomadthethird
02-03-2010, 04:36 PM
Speaking of enjoyably bad science:

I can admit that I watch Mythbusters sometimes when I'm in a house that has a TV.

And that show is about as scientific as... Peewee's Playhouse.

padraig (u.s.)
02-03-2010, 05:14 PM
Hmm. I picked up a Scientific American one time (fuck knows why it was in an asian cornershop next to NUTS) an it was fully of the sensationalist and presumtive language that's just been described.

um, are you sure we're talking about the same thing? perhaps you should describe what you mean by "sensationalist & presumptive language". of course, it's a magazine, they don't use the same language as you'd find in a peer-reviewed journal article. the entire point is that they're getting science across to a popular audience w/some modicum of intelligence. every article, for example, cites peer-reviewed journal articles for people more interested in the topic. and it almost never, to my knowledge, "sensationalizes" scientific discoveries.

no offense, but I have the feeling you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

grizzleb
02-03-2010, 05:20 PM
um, are you sure we're talking about the same thing? perhaps you should describe what you mean by "sensationalist & presumptive language". of course, it's a magazine, they don't use the same language as you'd find in a peer-reviewed journal article. the entire point is that they're getting science across to a popular audience w/some modicum of intelligence. every article, for example, cites peer-reviewed journal articles for people more interested in the topic. and it almost never, to my knowledge, "sensationalizes" scientific discoveries.

no offense, but I have the feeling you don't know what the hell you're talking about.It was the 'brain' magazine, so maybe it's run by different people. Yeah of course they have to popularise it. What I mean is that they would make a claim that x and x means that this is the case, when it only suggests something, and there could be other possibilities. Of course, I never said that it was the same thing as a peer-reviewed journal, I guess I just have a dislike for science journalism generally I suppose. I don't know what the hell I'm talking about? Jeez, it's a magazine.

padraig (u.s.)
02-03-2010, 05:21 PM
Yes, Big Pharma is disgusting for taking advantage of a loophole in medical ethics--the fact that GPs are still allowed to diagnose and treat mental illness, despite a sore lack of training in those areas-- in order to push Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil on a generation of people who largely didn't need any of those things. But the idea that anti-depressants don't actually *work* better than placebo for mental illness is not something that follows logically from this, and the journalists are writing as if it does.

would never deny there have been some journalistic distortions, to various ends. just staying it's possible to write intelligently on the topic in a popular, non-peer reviewed format.

interestingly, as re: the GPs dishing out psychotropics, my mom (a psychologist) tells me that some psychologists in the U.S. are pushing for the right to prescribe drugs for just that reason. there's a petty furious debate over it right now among psychologists, she tells me - i.e. Dissensus style shite-flinging on list servs & the like. psychiatrists, of course, are totally incensed, as it would be a backdoor onto their turf w/o having to actually go to med school (though, tbc, any psychologist who wanted to prescribe would have to do some kind of training, be licensed, etc.)

padraig (u.s.)
02-03-2010, 05:29 PM
I don't know what the hell I'm talking about?

it kinda bespeaks a lack of familiarity with the peer-reviewed journal format & how wildly different that is from writing intended for a popular audience. personally I think anything that manages to interest people in science and maintain at least a bit of respectability in the process is to be applauded, which is why I'm generally a big fan of well-regarded popular science magazines.

you are, of course, free to keep your "dislike for science journalism".

grizzleb
02-03-2010, 05:32 PM
Surely I can criticise science magazines without making a living in, or being involved in academic science???

sufi
02-03-2010, 05:52 PM
um, are you sure we're talking about the same thing? perhaps you should describe what you mean by "sensationalist & presumptive language". of course, it's a magazine, they don't use the same language as you'd find in a peer-reviewed journal article. the entire point is that they're getting science across to a popular audience w/some modicum of intelligence. every article, for example, cites peer-reviewed journal articles for people more interested in the topic. and it almost never, to my knowledge, "sensationalizes" scientific discoveries.

wow we're off on another interesting but totally unrelated tangent (i thought we were talking about wanking on this thread?)

science mags - i have an issue:

what the fuck is with the astronomical subscriptions and the total lack of accessibility for people outside of academic organisations (i heard that joining the royal society of geographers or some such group only costs you £15 or so and can get you onto ingenta, athens and all that, but otherwise as an outsider i can't get access)

it's like a virtual ivory tower or something, totally blocking the free exchange of knowledge, and leaving us plebs with this sort of semi-digested rubbish in the mainstream press & at the mercy bad science from the corporates... :mad:

padraig (u.s.)
02-03-2010, 07:20 PM
Surely I can criticise science magazines without making a living in, or being involved in academic science???

the point is that peer-reviewed journals are totally, completely different from popular science magazines. something like SciAm & the Journal of Cell Biology (or whatever) have naught to do with each other except insomuch as any research must be published in a journal before it disseminates down to various strata of the media. peer-reviewed articles aren't "journalism". I'm perfectly fine with people making valid criticisms of the way science is reported on in the media - there are many, after all, to be made. I'm just against conflating "reporting on science" with peer-reviewed journals.

so, no, you can't really criticize peer-reviewed journals without being in academic science (of some kind, including the social sciences) & having familiarity w/them, but you can definitely criticize popular science magazines, if you like. I don't have to take your criticisms seriously, mind.


what the fuck is with the astronomical subscriptions and the total lack of accessibility for people outside of academic organisations

totally valid complaint. I dunno really know enough about it to say - the obv thing that comes to mind is the likely lack of general interest, I just can't see a wide swathe of the public clamoring to get access to academic journals (maybe I'm wrong though, who knows...)

grizzleb
02-03-2010, 07:28 PM
so, no, you can't really criticize peer-reviewed journals.

Was I doing that? I have read journals before too. Doesn't make you a fucking genius to do so...




I don't have to take your criticisms seriously, mind.


You also don't have to sound all condescending too, thanks.

grizzleb
02-03-2010, 07:34 PM
Here's what I'm talking about. It's maybe more to do with the kind of silly language that is used than anything else but I go onto the same mag I read's website

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-power-to-persuade

* Some people are masters of “supersuasion,” but the skill is not inborn; their techniques can be taught to anyone.
* Humor is the key, especially if it catches your listeners off guard, leaving them laughing and open to suggestion.
* Make people believe you have their best interests at heart, and you can persuade them to do almost anything.

It's just rubbish. 'Supersuasion'???

IdleRich
02-03-2010, 07:51 PM
"My brother's fiancee is one of those ridiculously good looking people who gets slack-jawed stares wherever she goes. (She's Polish and Native American and has bright green eyes and very dark skin...she's like a prettier version of Lisa Edelstein) And she has the best body I've ever seen in my life. (My brother's this huge doofy obnoxious guy, I don't know how he ended up with her. She told me she likes him because he's smart! Which really made me chuckle. Anyway...)"
Huge penis?

swears
02-03-2010, 08:25 PM
I should think this kind of attitude is on the way out though, as more women get into well-paid professional roles...

It's the women in well paid jobs who expect the gold card treatment the most.

I'm fucked if my gf gets a good position after uni. (Or not, as the case may be)

padraig (u.s.)
02-03-2010, 09:17 PM
It's just rubbish

well, clearly one article with a stupid word in it disqualifies the entire idea of popular science magazines. I stand corrected. I'm not surprised you picked a social psychology-type article to ridicule, being that's it a field often given over to an excess of silliness. however, if you take 5 minutes it's not very hard to find more serious entries on protein folding (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=scientists-observe-protein-folding-2010-02-28) or the biochemical processes affecting memory (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=not-merely-slipping-away-forgetting-2010-02-19). is there some rubbish? of course. and some silly titles. things are imperfect. in an ideal world it wouldn't be so difficult to communicate science to non-scientists in an interesting way that doesn't lose something in translation.

I'm pretty sure dudes like Carl Sagan & Richard Feynman (as well as, of course, your own David Attenbourough) would've disagreed with you about the importance of popular science but, again, you're entitled to your dislikes.

nomadthethird
02-03-2010, 09:18 PM
Was I doing that? I have read journals before too. Doesn't make you a fucking genius to do so...

Here's where I'm going to get snooty and say that, yeah, ok, maybe some of the general population is educated and has the knowledge basis necessary to interpret scientific journal articles. But the vast majority don't.

In fact, it's hard for most scientists to properly interpret stuff published in journals outside of their field of specialty.

Like, look up anything in the journal Plant Physiology or Molecular Genetics or Nuclear Medicine & Biology and tell me you have a damn clue what it's about, and I won't believe you for a second.


Huge penis?

I wouldn't know. But I have heard some legends.

padraig (u.s.)
02-03-2010, 09:24 PM
In fact, it's hard for most scientists to properly interpret stuff published in journals outside of their field of specialty.

this is a pretty key point. journals are niche even in the world of science. you actually do have to a fair bit of training to get through them. not a graduate degree or anything, but a solid grounding in whatever you're looking at. maybe not the social sciences quite as much. in my - limited - experience people pretty much stick to what's relevant to their own work when it comes to peer-reviewed journals.

grizzleb
02-03-2010, 09:31 PM
What I wasn't saying was that science journalism was pointless, just that it is quite often done very badly, that's what i was getting at when I said that popular science annoyed me. It's probably significant that the magazine I read was the 'MIND' one, where there's probably alot more fruity stuff in there. Also, yes, science journals are difficult and I don't read them before bed. Tbh I've only read a few articles about stuff I was actively interested in, so you're probably right.That doesn't mean that they are always off limits to a reasonably intelligent person who knows a bit about what they are reading, and can understand that everything doesn't have to come in neat little packages. Anyway, you two love feelin' good cause you're scientists haha. I'm just going to spit the dummy and go back to my origins of british welfare policy. :p

grizzleb
02-03-2010, 09:46 PM
I mean I'd rather read something and leave it thinking "I didn't quite understand this bit" rather than "why did they make these claims as if they were fact". It's really just a dislike for over-simplification and the idea that the common man can't rationally deal with things they don't fully understand. It's the paternalism I object to. Anyways....

Mr. Tea
03-03-2010, 12:18 AM
Huge penis?

No thanks, I've just had my dinner.

four_five_one
03-03-2010, 12:25 AM
for example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/genetics/article6990988.ece

nomadthethird
03-03-2010, 05:55 AM
for example: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/genetics/article6990988.ece

That one's particularly bad, but it's also really beligerently made up. Usually they contain some kernel of truth that makes it even more galling that they actually published such misleading crap.

Then you realize, this is probably the writer doing the best they can to interpret science with what they've got going on upstairs. And you can't really be angry, just disappointed.

Mr. Tea
03-03-2010, 10:21 AM
Haha, "This article is subject to a Press Complaints Commission complaint".

For a 'quality' paper, I've noticed before that the Times has particularly bad science reporting.

matt b
03-03-2010, 11:07 AM
Haha, "This article is subject to a Press Complaints Commission complaint".

For a 'quality' paper, I've noticed before that the Times has particularly bad science reporting.

the author of the research responds:

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/ResponseToTimes.html

Mr. Tea
03-03-2010, 11:46 AM
the author of the research responds:

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/ResponseToTimes.html

Wow - now there are comprehensive trashings, and then there are comprehensive trashings...

zhao
10-03-2010, 03:11 PM
that article is plainly false. we all know blondes are dumber than people with other hair color.

nomadthethird
10-03-2010, 03:26 PM
that article is plainly false. we all know blondes are dumber than people with other hair color.

Yeah, seeing as blondes are "self-selected" (since only about 2% of the world's adult population has naturally blond hair), this could be true. Provided that the people choosing to dye their hair blond are all stupid, of course.

zhao
10-03-2010, 04:11 PM
only 2%? didn't know that. perhaps some kind of economic law of rarity is somehow applicable in explaining the trait's desireability?

and above statement does not apply to my GF. who is a blonde redhead anyway.

Mr. Tea
10-03-2010, 04:13 PM
that article is plainly false. we all know blondes are dumber than people with other hair color.

There's no such thing as hair colour, except in the minds of hairists. It's all socially constructed.

zhao
10-03-2010, 04:26 PM
There's no such thing as hair colour, except in the minds of hairists. It's all socially constructed.

is your parody meant to ridicule the idea that "race" is socially constructed?

Mr. Tea
10-03-2010, 04:34 PM
No, it was a literal statement of fact.

nomadthethird
10-03-2010, 04:52 PM
Blonde hair is somewhat more common in northern Europeans due to founder effect. Finnish people are so similar genetically it's kinda gross to think about it.

Annyyway...As if phenotypes don't exist along continua.

There is no boundary line genetically that separates people on the basis of hair color.

There is no such thing genetically as a "brown-haired" set of phenotypes that can be used as the basis for essentializing brown-haired people.

zhao
10-03-2010, 04:52 PM
No, it was a literal statement of fact.

if that is the case, and i don't believe it is, the statement is false.

nomadthethird
10-03-2010, 04:54 PM
only 2%? didn't know that. perhaps some kind of economic law of rarity is somehow applicable in explaining the trait's desireability?

and above statement does not apply to my GF. who is a blonde redhead anyway.

Some scientists explain the appeal of blond hair as a form of paedomorphosis.

Men like blonde women because blonde women look more like children. It conveys youth and apparently pliability. Women show no preference for blonde men.

No joke.

Mr. Tea
10-03-2010, 05:22 PM
Some scientists explain the appeal of blond hair as a form of paedomorphosis.

Men like blonde women because blonde women look more like children. It conveys youth and apparently pliability. Women show no preference for blonde men.

No joke.

What do we mean by "children" here? A preference for young women is easily explained by evolutionary adaptation, but an attraction to pre-pubescents is clearly a non-starter in this respect.

I think making statements like "Men like blonde women because [reason]..." are a bit suspect because there's just so much cultural baggage to wade through before you even get close to a genetic/evolutionary explanation.

vimothy
10-03-2010, 05:29 PM
There's no such thing as hair colour, except in the minds of hairists. It's all socially constructed.

Ah, I have to post some Bruno Latour quotes when I get the chance. We're doing a Bourdieu reading group at work at tet moment, so I read Latour whenever I can as a kind of decompression chamber. The science wars stuff is really interesting and misunderstood. Constructivism vs. social constructivism and all that.

Mr. Tea
10-03-2010, 05:35 PM
if that is the case, and i don't believe it is, the statement is false.

*palm a la visage*

vimothy
10-03-2010, 05:37 PM
I really love Latour's machinic metaphor for truth instead of the generic ocular one.

nomadthethird
10-03-2010, 07:55 PM
I really love Latour's machinic metaphor for truth instead of the generic ocular one.

Me 2.

He's basically the only "philosopher" I can stomach anymore.

nomadthethird
10-03-2010, 07:56 PM
What do we mean by "children" here? A preference for young women is easily explained by evolutionary adaptation, but an attraction to pre-pubescents is clearly a non-starter in this respect.

I think making statements like "Men like blonde women because [reason]..." are a bit suspect because there's just so much cultural baggage to wade through before you even get close to a genetic/evolutionary explanation.

Nope, it's literally about children. Neoteny.

four_five_one
10-03-2010, 08:05 PM
Articles regarding what evolutionary psychologists have found are nearly always infuriating. Plus stuff like this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/10/men-sexual-tastes-broaden-stressed

"People are usually attracted to partners with similar facial features to their own..."

I find that difficult to believe based on personal experience. But then I could be unknowingly noticing similarities subconsciously I suppose.

nomadthethird
10-03-2010, 08:14 PM
Articles regarding what evolutionary psychologists have found are nearly always infuriating. Plus stuff like this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/10/men-sexual-tastes-broaden-stressed

"People are usually attracted to partners with similar facial features to their own..."

I find that difficult to believe based on personal experience. But then I could be unknowingly noticing similarities subconsciously I suppose.

Well, most studies have shown that people choose sexual partners that look more like them than unlike them. We're not talking about fantasy, fetishes for "exotics" in porn, or any of that, but the *actual* sex people have with others.

Of course, there may be several reasons for this--nobody really proposes any mechanism, the scientists merely suggest that, as the data demonstrates, stressed men make better "genetic" "choices".

It's better to reproduce with someone whose genes are as different as possible, from the standpoint of variability. (A more variable gene pool makes for healthier offspring.)

Africans (indigenous ones) have the most genetic diversity within their population group of any other on the planet. White people have the least. A white person's best bet, in terms of genetic viability and variability and health is to reproduce with a black person. From a purely theoretical pov.

four_five_one
10-03-2010, 08:28 PM
Hmm... seems I go for people that look 'unsimilar' to me and usually prefer to 'date out of my own race'. Maybe it's because subconsciously I find my background very 'white bread' and dull and am practicing some sort of orientalism.

I think it's just a rejection of this mainstream tendency or mechanism. But as I'm pretty much homosexual (tho I could make exceptions in times of 'stress' or maybe when drunk I think I could 'do the business' with a woman). So I doubt I'm selecting in order to have healthier offspring. Although it might be somehow useful on the level of 'group selection', rather than 'individual selection'.

nomadthethird
10-03-2010, 08:30 PM
Hmm... seems I go for people that look 'unsimilar' to me and usually prefer to 'date out of my own race'. Maybe it's because subconsciously I find my background very 'white bread' and dull and am practicing some sort of orientalism.

I think it's just a rejection of this mainstream tendency or mechanism. But as I'm pretty much homosexual (tho I could make exceptions in times of 'stress' or maybe when drunk I think I could 'do the business' with a woman). So I doubt I'm selecting in order to have healthier offspring. Although it might be somehow useful on the level of 'group selection', rather than 'individual selection'.

Yes, these studies are very heterocentric. It'd be interesting to see if you could replicate the results in homosexual populations. I seriously doubt it.

four_five_one
10-03-2010, 09:01 PM
Seems like it would be disturbing for most people to think about studies like this and about their own 'selections'. I think most people think they're choosing their sexual partner like it's some conscious aesthetic deliberation, like when they're assessing a painting or something. Or they think they're choosing for some 'rational reasons' like bank account, car & ability to be a 'provider'. Or then they might think they're not shallow and it's all about personality.

But most of these decisions are made anterior to any conscious thoughts we've had (this is why I believe in 'love at first sight'). Then any thoughts we do have are probably just justifying the choice we've already made. This might be why it's so hard to 'extricate' yourself from someone once you've realized it's all a big mistake. It's hard to accept that most of the agency here is exercised by something operating on a much bigger scale than us as individuals, something we can't even see.

Of course we're also fairly 'plastic' so evolution's not always the main driver of attraction, I mean - why is like this woman: http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/news/2007/09/10/nicole-bott-main_t325.jpg -- why is she the universal standard for beauty? We're still 'spoken by the Other' here.

nomadthethird
10-03-2010, 09:34 PM
Seems like it would be disturbing for most people to think about studies like this and about their own 'selections'. I think most people think they're choosing their sexual partner like it's some conscious aesthetic deliberation, like when they're assessing a painting or something. Or they think they're choosing for some 'rational reasons' like bank account, car & ability to be a 'provider'. Or then they might think they're not shallow and it's all about personality.

But most of these decisions are made anterior to any conscious thoughts we've had (this is why I believe in 'love at first sight'). Then any thoughts we do have are probably just justifying the choice we've already made. This might be why it's so hard to 'extricate' yourself from someone once you've realized it's all a big mistake. It's hard to accept that most of the agency here is exercised by something operating on a much bigger scale than us as individuals, something we can't even see.

Of course we're also fairly 'plastic' so evolution's not always the main driver of attraction, I mean - why is like this woman: http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/news/2007/09/10/nicole-bott-main_t325.jpg -- why is she the universal standard for beauty? We're still 'spoken by the Other' here.

Good points...the way we look and smell signals all sorts of things about our compatibility with someone (genetically/biochemically) . People who complain about the media portraying an unrealistic beauty standard don't understand that what the media portrays has very little to do with what people actually find attractive. What looks good in abstraction, as a sort of planar, two-dimensional image, is very different from what looks good to people in real life. If the media really had all kinds of power to shape erotic imaginations, the population would be much smaller than it is, and not growing exponentially.

That woman is flat busted if you ask me. She looks like a 12-year-old boy, which isn't always a bad thing, but here it definitely is. Many of the ultraslim, supertall runway models actually have androgen insensitivity syndrome. They're "freaks of nature", and they very often have fertility problems. What looks good in a Victoria's Secret ad is what the vast majority of straight men would find repulsive in real life.

nomadthethird
10-03-2010, 09:55 PM
Perceived attractiveness in females as a function of neoteny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness#Determinants_of_female_phy sical_attractiveness)
Mere exposure effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_exposure_effect)

mixed_biscuits
10-03-2010, 10:47 PM
"People are usually attracted to partners with similar facial features to their own..."

A fair amount of rather odd couples that I have known (odd in that one of the pair was far more attractive than the other) were 'explained' once I had noticed that they shared very similar bone structure (even though they may not have appeared similar at first glance). I would say that, given a mismatched couple (one fit, one minging), it is more likely than not that they have very similar fundamental features.


[Guardian article:] Men have a tendency to approach dissimilar mates and to rate these to be more pleasant when they are acutely stressed

By stress, I think the Guardian means 'pissed' - in both cases, one might be attracted to dissimilar people because looking at people who look like you reminds you of your own (unpleasant) predicament more than looking at those who don't: it's an ego-squashing tactic and means of escape. In the normal run of things, it is generally more comforting not to wish to escape one's own predicament and so one strengthens one's sense of self by seeking out the self-similar.

I think similar results would be obtained (a flight to the unfamiliar under stress) if the volunteers were asked to choose between familiar or unfamiliar inanimate objects after undergoing their harrowing ordeal with the bucket of ice.

Mr. Tea
11-03-2010, 12:15 AM
Nope, it's literally about children. Neoteny.

Why? Why would a man want to have sex with a child? What evolutionary purpose could this possibly serve?

Call me crazy, but I cling to this comforting fantasy that most men are not in fact depraved paedophilic rapists.

nomadthethird
11-03-2010, 05:10 AM
Why? Why would a man want to have sex with a child? What evolutionary purpose could this possibly serve?

Call me crazy, but I cling to this comforting fantasy that most men are not in fact depraved paedophilic rapists.

I don't know...why do some breeds of dogs look like fetal wolves?

Paedomorphosis is strange, but it's consistent along all sorts of species. In some species, it's not just a female thing. H. sapiens males also have neotenous characteristics. Some people think humans are all basically fetal apes.

Mr. Tea
11-03-2010, 11:54 AM
OK, I've heard of this, but the idea that men go for blonde women because they look child-like and therefore "pliable" rather flies in the face of this research that supposedly shows blondes are more assertive/ambitous/aggressive (which I guess is not so daft as it may sound, as it doesn't require a genetic basis: blondes could have been conditioned by being treated differently from childhood onwards, or may have bleached their hair so as to become blonde, rather than being born that way). Interesting, too, that blondness is purportedly linked with looking young; I mean, yeah, some people's hair gets darker as they age but plenty of people stay blonde their whole lives, at least until they go grey.

But it's kind of odd having this conversation, as my last girlfriend was blonde (I mean properly, golden blonde) and also petite and very young-looking - she's the same age as me and still occasionally gets ID'd when she buys a bottle of wine, and bear in mind the legal age to buy alcohol over here is 18. Though having said that, I typically find women with dark hair more attractive...of course, that doesn't necessarily make any given brunette better-looking than any given blonde.

IdleRich
11-03-2010, 12:03 PM
I was very blonde when I was a cihld, I think that I was cleverer then as well.

Mr. Tea
11-03-2010, 12:12 PM
My brother was also virtually blond as a small kid. Funny how people think it looks "angelic" - he was a right bolshy little shit. He's nearly as dark as me now and coincidentally a lot more reasonable.

nomadthethird
11-03-2010, 05:58 PM
OK, I've heard of this, but the idea that men go for blonde women because they look child-like and therefore "pliable" rather flies in the face of this research that supposedly shows blondes are more assertive/ambitous/aggressive (which I guess is not so daft as it may sound, as it doesn't require a genetic basis: blondes could have been conditioned by being treated differently from childhood onwards, or may have bleached their hair so as to become blonde, rather than being born that way). Interesting, too, that blondness is purportedly linked with looking young; I mean, yeah, some people's hair gets darker as they age but plenty of people stay blonde their whole lives, at least until they go grey.

But it's kind of odd having this conversation, as my last girlfriend was blonde (I mean properly, golden blonde) and also petite and very young-looking - she's the same age as me and still occasionally gets ID'd when she buys a bottle of wine, and bear in mind the legal age to buy alcohol over here is 18. Though having said that, I typically find women with dark hair more attractive...of course, that doesn't necessarily make any given brunette better-looking than any given blonde.

Maybe there are a lot of blondes in Northern Europe, but nowhere else on the planet...

Where is the research that says blondes are more aggressive?