Live fast...die young

[swears]

Obviously my ideal would be someone physically attractive and intelligent, I'm just saying it's a shame I'm so bound to physical attraction at all.

 

[nomadologist]

physical attractiveness is completely subjective, i think the thing with males is they get hung up on wanting girls based on how attractive they think OTHER males find them, because women are supposed to confer status to men who "conquer" them based on how coveted they are as objects. instead of letting nature run its course by getting involved with lots of people in psychological ways and then seeing how far you can take it physically from there. people need to experiment more and stop watching TV and movies. porn is another thing, oh boy. makes men so terrible in bed when all they do is watch porn and have no real experience. guhh.

older women could show most men a thing or two about a thing or two, in summary

 

[the undisputed truth]

oh to be pretty and rich to even get a shot at the trophy women as status symbol...

...truth is, drunk enough and horny enough, a man will shag anything that moves. Young, old fat, ugly, non human

sometimes they don't even have to move...

...when it comes to breeding though, some of us are quite selective

the deal clincher though is, she gotta like pr0n...

 

[nomadologist]

yeah, Undisputed, more reasons why men are so superattractive. I think I may turn lesbian for good at some point when I lose all patience for them. and move to venus or start an island where men aren't allowed to live. hell, i should probably just kick everyone off but me while i'm at it...

 

[Guybrush]

I promise to write a more in depth explanation of what I mean in the new year (Happy New Year!), but for now I would like to point out that I was not criticising middle-aged women or them having a sex drive. Rather, I was questioning the attractiveness of middle-aged women behaving like they are nineteen years old, intellectually, not in their approach to lewdness (which I don't care for). When I wrote ‘winsome naïveté’ I was not thinking of some feigned cluelessness, but of the contagious joie de vivre that comes with having not yet experienced life's downsides. I think the first paragraphs of Rob Horning's ‘ “Poptimism”, the death of pop criticism’ neatly sum up what state of mind I am striving to describe:

I always suspect people are being disingenuous when they foreground their alleged optimism. It seems like the kind of thing that would never occur to you to remark upon if you actually lived it. Real optimists are grounded in an instinctual self-reliance that isn’t pricked by the complaints and doubts of others. These people don’t need their hopefulness ratified at the expense of others. They seem to be completely secure in their own significance and can thus project an aura of unself-consciousness that directs energy out at others and tends to lift the moods of everyone around them.

That’s not the case for the self-professed optimists though. In the hands of these reactionaries, optimism is invoked to bash the nattering nabobs of negativism who have the annoying habit of questioning the status quo, of expecting more from the institutions that hedge individuals in, of seeking to resist culture-industry manipulation when it’s so much more pleasant and pleasing to simply give in. Self-proclaimed optimists want to shine the light on people who resist and humiliate them—they’d prefer to direct the tanks that rolled into Tiananmen than be the guy getting run over by them, and who can really blame them. (I’m sorry; I know that comparison is way over the top.) Naysayers always try to encourage people to ask more questions about what they are doing, to analyze one’s own motives, and that is admittedly irritating. Better to simply enjoy what has been made for us to enjoy rather than to ask why it sells our aesthetic capabilities so short. Why not just forget pride or any high-falutin’ notions of dignity and have fun, the fun you’re told to have? Optimism is a dogma to such people, an anti-critical code committed to finding the least-resistant path through the official culture being promulgated by the big media, big government, etc.

Eh, it's not entirely related, but it is a nice enough text. The ‘natural’ optimism he describes is exactly what I mean by ‘winsome naïveté’—I would think it is almost impossible to fake.

 

[nomadologist]

still sounds weird, guybrush.

 

[Guybrush]

First of all, I think we are digressing immensely since I contest Nomadologist’s view that:

Maybe for males sexual attractiveness and ageism have little to do with one another, but for women those things are completely intertwine.

All but one of Edith Stein’s examples of negative ageism, cited in the Berkeley report I linked to earlier, seem to be disengaged from the sexual realm:

Older persons falter for a moment because they are unsure of themselves and are immediately charged with being 'infirm.'
Older persons are constantly "protected" and their thoughts interpreted.
Older persons forget someone's name and are charged with senility and patronized.
Older persons are expected to 'accept' the 'facts of aging.'
Older persons miss a word or fail to hear a sentence and they are charged with 'getting old,' not with a hearing difficulty.
Older persons are called 'dirty' because they show sexual feelings or affection to one of either sex.
Older persons are called 'cranky' when they are expressing a legitimate distaste with life as so many young do.
Older persons are charged with being 'like a child' even after society has ensured that they are as dependent, helpless, and powerless as children.

But to continue the discussíon about attractiveness, I find this view remarkably retrogressive:

It's one thing for a 24-year-old male to be attracted to 18-25 year olds. It's another for a 40-year-old to prefer the fantasy of sleeping with 18-25 year olds to a real sexual relationship with a psychological peer. Being unhealthy in your sexuality is just as bad for your offspring as being physically unhealthy is, I'm sure. We just can't measure how bad, yet.

Why do you have to be psychologically compatible to engage in a sexual relationship with someone (assuming that both participants are fully developed and over the age of consent)? Moreover, what exactly is ‘unhealthy’ about it?

This thread is shock full of hair-raising generalisations, this one, in particular, defies my experience:

physical attractiveness is completely subjective, i think the thing with males is they get hung up on wanting girls based on how attractive they think OTHER males find them, because women are supposed to confer status to men who "conquer" them based on how coveted they are as objects.

Oh, and lest we not forget:

 

[nomadologist]

Ummm...of course it's full of "generalizations". That's what everyone talks in when they talk about sexuality and personal experience, unless they're being clinically scientific or psychiatric or psychological. Are you talking about clinical psychology? Nope. And psychological "compatibility" was never an issue I brought up. Psychological health in relationships is what I mentioned. I would say, in general, psychologists agree that it is more likely that you will be able to maintain a healthy relationship with someone in your age range, someone with whom you share at least some common experiences. You don't *have* to be "psychologically compatible" to engage in a sexual relationship. But you do have to be psychologically healthy in your attitudes toward sex in order to engage in a psychologically healthy emotional relationship.

Also: I never said ageism and sexism were the same thing, just that women face much harsher social consequences of ageism. These, along with the intensifying sexism women can expect to encounter as a consequence of aging, make the process more jarring for women (IN GENERAL, OF COURSE) than it is for men (who tend to be seen as "older and wiser and matured" as they age.)

Is Edith Stein the only authority on ageism? Pff.

 

[nomadologist]

But to continue the discussíon about attractiveness, I find this view remarkably retrogressive:
Why do you have to be psychologically compatible to engage in a sexual relationship with someone (assuming that both participants are fully developed and over the age of consent)? Moreover, what exactly is ‘unhealthy’ about it?

Do I need to tell you what would tend to be unhealthy about someone over age 40 sleeping with an 18-year-old? The power dynamic would tend to be enormously skewed toward the older party so it would be highly likely that the younger party would be being used or taken advantage of in some way. Of course, it can happen in a perfectly healthy way, I'm sure. In my personal life I've had no problem sleeping with people some would consider "too old" for me. But very few 18-year-olds have the emotional maturity to be in a peer relationship with a 40+-year-old.

Of course, we're not talking in literal prohibitions here, but if you're at all into the Freudian model, it seems strange to object to this sort of general observation.

If you have never experienced women being treated as objects and desired based on the fact that sleeping with a women who is considered a highly desirable object among lots of males confers status then you live in some kind of Utopia, Guybrush.

 

[Guybrush]

Also: I never said ageism and sexism were the same thing, just that women face much harsher social consequences of ageism. These, along with the intensifying sexism women can expect to encounter as a consequence of aging, make the process more jarring for women (IN GENERAL, OF COURSE) than it is for men (who tend to be seen as "older and wiser and matured" as they age.)

I never mentioned the word sexism, actually, I only use that term to describe ‘discrimination and/or hatred against people based on their sex rather than their individual merits.’ I think where we differ is that I believe that ageism is almost entirely disconnected from sexuality, that it is a separate phenomenon, this depends on how you delimit the word, though; everyone is free to define it differently if they think it facilitates lucid thinking.

 

[nomadologist]

I know you didn't mention the word sexism: I did. It is essential to the way women are treated as they age. Women are considered "past their prime" far earlier than men are in terms of literal age. This means that sex or gender is a factor in ageism-- which is, simply, discrimination based on age. Ageism's victims are considered "old." Women are considered "old" much earlier than men.

How could sexuality be disconnected from ageism? Part of the reason old people are seen as less "worthwhile", or a burden on society is because they are no longer fertile or virile, no longer attractive, no longer aesthetically pleasing...

 

[Guybrush]

Of course, we're not talking in literal prohibitions here, but if you're at all into the Freudian model, it seems strange to object to this sort of general observation.

If you have never experienced women being treated as objects and desired based on the fact that sleeping with a women who is considered a highly desirable object among lots of males confers status then you live in some kind of Utopia, Guybrush.

I have not heard about the Freudian model, but I will gladely read about it if given a link. I object to that observation because I think every relationship (actually, most any situation)ought to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Obviously, I have experienced the situation you describe in the second paragraph, but it is far from common among my friends.

 

[nomadologist]

It may not be common among your friends, but is it common in society? It is common in American society.

The Freudian model is long and complex. Have you read any Freud? I can summarize by saying Freud's psychological ideal for humans is health, which he understands (roughly) as the ability to deeply love and have "functional" relationships with others (in particular, a lover in a monogamous or at least a "committed" or "devoted" way).

 

[Guybrush]

A few articles which reference him and a short psychological course in high school notwithstanding, no I have not. It sounds reasonable enough, though.

I have to go to bed, but let me summarise my objection:

i think the thing with males is they get hung up on wanting girls based on how attractive they think OTHER males find them, because women are supposed to confer status to men who "conquer" them based on how coveted they are as objects.

I think this is too pessimistic a view. My prolix wanderings earlier where all attempts to show that there are legitimate reasons for a forty year old man to be more attracted to a twenty year old than women (or men) of his own age, it all boils down to preferences. Yes, some men treat their partners as trophys, but far from all, and even those who do view her ‘trophyc’ qualities as subordinate, I think. Other qualities are vastly more important.

 

[the undisputed truth]

in polynesian custom it was widespread for the aged 'chief' to take a younger wife...

...ain't nothing wrong with 40 yr olds shagging 18-20 yr olds if they're up for it

at least they'd get a better ride than some quickshooting teenager or twenty something just getting to grips with his piece...

 

[nomadologist]

What if I were to ogle a 13-year-old boy on the subway? Would that be weird? Maybe my view is pessimistic in your mind, Guybrush, because you're male, right? You're probably one of the few decent males on earth, so you assume other men are decent, but they're not. Heh. I'm being realistic according to my experience.

do you know this from experience with men, Undisputed? hehe. because from experience--and counting the experiences of every girl i've talked to at length about this--older men aren't necessarily better in bed because they have more experience. you would think so, but you'd have a good chance of being wrong. the generation gap is such that a lot of guys 35 + were brought up with insane virgin/whore complexes and are terrible lovers accordingly. it's really a crap shoot for girls.

the only correlation i've noticed between one trait and good sex is that the guys who fit in least with heteronorms in terms of "straightness" and "masculinity" are best in bed. just in case you wondered.

 

[the undisputed truth]

if the 13 yr old was pimped out with a come hither look I'd be hard pressed to tell their age and surely they're gagging to be looked such that it'd be shame and a disservice not too...

...all i know is I get better with age or maybe it's cos halfbred kiwi polynesian guys just do it better

 

[the undisputed truth]

well actually if you reach around to the small of the back when shes climaxing and theres not a patch of sweat there then shes probably faking it...

...and I'd imagine many a 13 yr old boy was the muse to some of the greatest art in history

 

[the undisputed truth]

you ever felt a girls back while shes coming or can you fake perspiration as well as a good moan ???

all i know is what i've experienced so exactly how many girls have you climaxed ???

...tell you what, go rub one out now and just when you're coming, feel the small of your back

 

[ripley]

hey. what's the point of this?

what's the point of this discussion? what are you trying to prove?

edited to add: if I were the moderator I'd ban you for that last one, undisputed.