J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
I never said, suggested or implied any of that.
- Status
M
marymary1975
Guest
I know.you didn’t say that and I know that you didn’t suggest it. In fact you probably didn’t even think.about it. But reading the idea objectively, eliminating what the intention.was, just reading in.abstract form, that is what it can.be concluded and it can be used as a great argument for the premise that it is a learned conduct.
D
dangerousdyls
Guest
Thanks Joie, I wanted to make sure we differed. For me, it’s limited between a man and a woman, and both genitalia need to be involved.
But going along with your defintion, when you say that woman-woman sex is “way better” than what a woman gets with a man, it seems from the study you cited you’re discounting the 62% of women who do experience an orgasm with another man.
I don’t see a measure of pleasure in the study, only if orgasm occured.
So your original statement was:
woman-woman sex is (always) way better than woman-man sex for a woman
But I think it’s more accurate to say:
woman-woman sex is better more often than woman-man sex for a woman.
Do you see the difference? The research prioritizes the frequency of better sex over measuring the quality of the sex. There’s no variant for pleasure derived between man-man, man-woman, or woman-woman. “Good sex” results in orgasm, “bad sex” doesn’t. According to the study, If I engage in sex and me and the woman both have an orgasm, it’s not any worse quality sex than if that woman had sex with another woman and they both had an orgasm.
But I haven’t actually read the full reasearch article, so if there’s more in there that refutes that, let me know.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Could you please explain how it works? I mean, I understand how I explained that heterosexual women could be made to enjoy lesbian sex, I don’t understand how it means lesbians don’t really exist. Mostly dildos are used because they are roughly the right shape for stimulating the g-spot
Sex can still be good without orgasm. What I said didn’t contradict “woman-woman sex is better more often than woman-man sex for a woman.”
D
dangerousdyls
Guest
It didn’t contradict it, but it’s not supported by the research you cited. I thought that was important.
M
marymary1975
Guest
I am.going.to try to break the statement in points.so you can see where my idea comes.from.as I am not sure if I can.explain.it in a.clear way (and.sorry if I sound convoluted):
- First says that “Boils down to women knowing women better than men knowing.women`s bodies”
So if Joe is married to.Jane, there is.no way in the world (per the above) that John can know Jane`s body better than Lucy, a lesbian who does not even know Jane. The problem.is that this is not an objective truth. It is only a subjective statement based on.someone else’s bad experiences. First all.women are different and what one.likes the other may not like. Second.a woman who has a successful relationship.with a husband has taken the time the explain to her man what she likes, how and when and where she likes it and when a women does that the man.is going to know his woman’s body much better than any other woman. Any woman that has a successful relationship.with her man knows that is not true that women.know.her body better than her man. However, if a woman does.not.have a good relationship with her man.he is definitely not.going to know her body. If the relationship is a.selfish relationship then he won’t.even care what she likes or.wants. So under that premise…a bad relationship with men… is where it becomes true that any other woman knows her body better as the odds of having someone.with a similar body to like something similar to you are way better than someone.who does.not.care.about you or your body is going to know.you.
So if you put all that together, and.given that that is what ultimately lesbian sex is (boils down) then.lesbians can’t have successful relationships with men because they think that another woman.can know.her body better.(when that is.not.true)
2…“Women caring about their partners… much more than men do”. Again, is the same premise I spoke above, according to thus lesbian view no men in the world cares about their partner getting off. Basically here it says all.men are.selfish and.do mot care about their partners
3.Women not rolling.over and going to sleep…like men.do". Again, what an.awful.partners all.men.in the world.are. At.this point only from these statements I am.wondering what kind.of.men these women.hang around that they are.So.selfish and egocentric.and.bad.
4.“Like men do instead of.enjoy spooning”. So no man in this world spoons with his woman.or.has ever spooned with his woman. All these are a ton of false generalizations that come.because some.men.are.selfish on.some.relationship. In conclusion.lesbian.sex.boils.down to a bunch of.false generalizations.resulting out of the fact that some.men are awful.people.
That is why I say that looking.At the statement objectively it suggests that lesbians have lesbians sex.based on bad experiences.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
I made a general statement, not a sweeping generalisation; you are putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
M
marymary1975
Guest
A general statement is a generalization. If I say “dogs bark” that means “all dogs bark”. If I.want to.say that not all.dogs barks I have to say, the majority of dogs bark. Otherwise is a generalization as well as with using men and women. That is why in writing people.need to be careful.with general.statements. Again I know.you did not intend to say that but in an objective way the way it was written that is what it can be concluded. The statement did not say it was not a sweeping.generalization neither you used any wording to sometimes, some,.maybe etc. the words you choose.are used for generalizations. So while you maybe did.not.intend to do a generalization the statement objectively makes a generalization.
And even if you say that you.we’re thinking on general terms.is problematic because it.means that you are thinking that the vast majority of men fall into these statements. That is not true either because there is a huge.number.of.men that none of the premises you mentioned relate to them. So again someone who holds a perspective in general terms like that is probably because is surrounded by bad men and has a negative subjective perspective on men, not an objective view of reality. This would also makes someone.think that if a lesbian is a lesbian solely for these reason she just has been surrounded by bad men and those bad men have caused her to have a negative perspective view on all men.
This is very similar to when you hear a woman that has been cheated on saying that men are cheaters. She has a negative.subjective view of men because of her bad experience. This is a very similar situation.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You probably need to re-think your definition of sex.
Do you want to restate what you believe sex to be, so you include more than 2 people?
Or do you feel that it’s not actually sex if it has more than 2 people?
If so, why is that?
What makes it sex with 2 people but not 3?
And what makes it sex with 2 people, but not 1 person and an animal?
P
Padres1969
Guest
I’ll just throw out a list I’ve created from life experience.
1 It’s prohibitively expensive emotionally. Remember that, marriage and relationships are hard line people often spout… it’s true. Now double or even triple it. It’s a non-realistic goal.
- It’s expensive financially. Relationships in the modern world are not cheap. Again, now double or triple that if you intend to treat all parties “right”… good luck funding that unless you’re independently wealthy.
- The biggie however, one partner will always be devalued in favor of the other, particularly in one sided polyamory where only one side is partaking in the poly portion of the relationship (think M-F-M or F-M-F). Any claims to the contrary are the parties deluding themselves. You have one or more persons giving their all to another, while the second person is only giving 50% at best. Not a balanced relationship and not fair to the parties giving their all.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Really?
Using 987mk’s logic, we must conclude that this is also true:
Lung cancer from smoking is proof positive that we are not to inhale tobacco and meant to inhale nitrous oxide.
P
PRmerger
Guest
What a peculiar thing to say.
One need not have to view the act on film or print to know it exists.
I have a complete lack of exposure to movies by Jared Leto. But I do know he’s an actor.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
Chesterton gives what I think is one of the best arguments for patronymics his book “Irish Impressions”. In chapter three, he speaks about how the Irish identity is so bound up in last names, and how this really produces the antidote to aristocracy, which keeps people poor and crushes the poor.
The whole thing is an interesting read.
The whole thing is an interesting read.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
“Jimmy, what sound do dogs make?”
“Dogs bark”
“No Jimmy, that is a fallacious generalisation, the correct answer is some dogs make sounds that some people describe as barking”
“Sally, what color is the sky?”
“The sky is blue”
“No Sally, sometimes the sky is blue, sometimes it isn’t, sometimes part of the sky is blue, sometimes it is azure, or lavender, sometimes it has hints of red, orange or crimson or iridescent sometimes in L.A., sometimes you can’t see the sky, but really the sky looks whatever color it looks based upon those colors”
Informal spoken English just doesn’t work that way.
There are sweeping generalisations “The sky is blue”, hasty generalisations “having seen the sky twice I conclude the sky is blue” and just plain general statements “the sky is blue”. In a legal document or a scientific paper high levels of precision are important, in informal English we don’t have to make absolutely unequivocal statements all the time to be understood.
I think that sex is a line between two points, a threesome is like a triangle with three different lines and each of the lines is sex. A and B can be having sex with each other, and B might be engaging in sex with C, that said there is nothing saying that C and A are directly engaging in sex.
If consent is lacking from one party it isn’t sex, it is rape.
Now that I have done research on what a threesome is, I think it is two people engaging in sex with each other and another person may be engaging in sex with either or both of the previously mentioned people.What a peculiar thing to say.
One need not have to view the act on film or print to know it exists.
I have a complete lack of exposure to movies by Jared Leto. But I do know he’s an actor.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I am sorry–but what are you trying to say here?
Now *here *you are correct.
I actually didn’t mention threesomes.
I said with more than 2 people.
So you still need to address what it’s called if there’s 4 or 5 people, as well as if there’s not a human person involved as the other party.
You seem to think it’s not sex unless there’s 2 people.
Why is that? Why isn’t it sex if there’s 3 or 4 or 5?
Or, the more obvious answer is that you didn’t really think through your definition very thoroughly and it would be better if you retracted your original def.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
If there are four or five people there are multiple instances sex going on. It isn’t not sex if there are more than two people, it is just there is more than one case of sex going on.I am sorry–but what are you trying to say here?
Now *here *you are correct.
I actually didn’t mention threesomes.
I said with more than 2 people.
So you still need to address what it’s called if there’s 4 or 5 people, as well as if there’s not a human person involved as the other party.
You seem to think it’s not sex unless there’s 2 people.
Why is that? Why isn’t it sex if there’s 3 or 4 or 5?
Or, the more obvious answer is that you didn’t really think through your definition very thoroughly and it would be better if you retracted your original def.
V
Verdandi
Guest
The most easy case against polyamory is economic unsustainability.
I would invite people to observe the state of the Mormon colonies while they still practiced polygamy and indeed what still happens today within the FLDS. Men were murdered to “free up” wives for marriage, the genetic diversity of these colonies nosedived and genetic disorders from inbreeding became a problem in some quarters.
Even for homosexual groups one could still make an appeal to economic viability; most of humanity finds comfort and fulfillment in finding a mate. One each makes it sustainable and viable as a system to ensure that the maximum number of people attain this intimacy that many crave, upsetting this balance could breed resentment as it has many times in Mormon dominated areas across history where many men have simply been unable to find partners due to there being a top tier of men with anywhere between ten to thirty wives.
I would invite people to observe the state of the Mormon colonies while they still practiced polygamy and indeed what still happens today within the FLDS. Men were murdered to “free up” wives for marriage, the genetic diversity of these colonies nosedived and genetic disorders from inbreeding became a problem in some quarters.
Even for homosexual groups one could still make an appeal to economic viability; most of humanity finds comfort and fulfillment in finding a mate. One each makes it sustainable and viable as a system to ensure that the maximum number of people attain this intimacy that many crave, upsetting this balance could breed resentment as it has many times in Mormon dominated areas across history where many men have simply been unable to find partners due to there being a top tier of men with anywhere between ten to thirty wives.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Another concern I have about these types of “poly” relationships (certainly polygamy) is the abuse of minors and/or prevalence of incest.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Them trying really hard to not be gay
- Status