h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Az
I like you're example about the male appendage thingy, as a possible reason for men being able to disassociate their feelings from the sexual act.

From talking to SoRB further on the subject, I do reckon that it is much more of a brain/ego thing than a physical one. Ie. Am I attractive? Can I still pull? But they do not have any qualms about leaving it at that and not continuing the liaison further. Unless they fancy it.

If they were dead set on having sex that night, they could go to a club and keeping asking until someone said yes. But they (Alf anf SoRB) wouldn't do that. Partly because the ego trip would diminish with every time they were turned down and of course they are too lazy.


Alex.

PS Az. Thank god you one something here. I was losing.

<>

Seemed to me you were giving up, not losing.


az

I would not say there was a dissociation of feelings exactly from the act. I would certainly say that from a woman’s point of view there is a more personal ‘invasive’ angle to sex.

As the males basic role in life was to impregnate a female that base urge is still there. However, as has been described above there is a certain amount of rationalisation and boundaries about performing the act. Even though there is no way of getting the female pregnant with the correct protection the urge to fulfil the act of insemination is still there.

The urge is different in some men to others in the same way that some women just want to be baby machines and love being pregnant whereas some wouldn’t go near a baby with a barge pole.

Some men just do not even bother rationalising do I or don’t I boff this person they just jump at the chance of getting there end away. Of course, for these I am sure the ego thing plays a part in it and the total lack of guilt etc helps that could of course be a throw back. You wouldn’t want chimpanzees getting guilty about trying to have as many females as possible. (I get an image of a chimpanzee in glasses and talking like Woody Alan and nervously smoking a cheroot there for some reason – a sketch in there somewhere.)




And I suppose that starts to separate us from the beasts: the intellectualisation of sex and interactions. There are lots of people who do not do this and quite possibly that is showing a stratification in the values of different social classes however that is probably more to do with their situation in life rather than a throwback thing.




Thhpppttttt!!!!!

And, of course, I bruise very easily and the type of girl who would say yes to some one going up to them and asking "sh@g?" is definitely not the type of girl I would put my appendage anywhere near. Which brings us back to the first comment that women are fussy about what gets stuck inside them and to a degree so are men - though some possibly less fussy than others.

Very well reasoned Alf.

And I can't believe I spelt won as 'one'. What was I thinking?


Alex.

az's use of the word invasion is correct.

In contemporary society we do call congress a conquest when spoken about from the male perspective.

But arent these both cultural perspectives.

What if we said that the male appendage was captured?

Or veiwed females getting men to give into their animal urges as a defeat for male abstinance?

I just because I dont express the same "ubbersexual" thoughts as Alf and SoRB doesnt mean I dont share them. For the most part I do. Yes I try to think about other issues especially if the woman is someone I already know and have some level of friendship with. However there comes a point where with enough seduction/persausion if there are no negative consequences for me and a woman can "light my fire" where I will let it be a case of if she wants it....Regardless of negative consequences for her. Purely out of self interest and in the spirit of it it wasnt me then someone else would be saying yes.

Society has a lot of double standards one of them is that if a woman takes advantage of a mans urges in a way that's bad for the man then she's a minx, if a man lets his libido lead him into something bad for a WILLING woman then he's a bastard.

one love

And if a woman sleeps with a lot of men she is a slapper (probably from a blokes and womans point of view).

And if a bloke sleeps with a lot of women he is a stud(from a blokes point of view and a sneaky slimy bastard from a womans point of view).

Always puzzled me that one and it does come down to cultural perspectives.

Possibly it could be due to the impression that a woman can get sex when ever she wants to and hence actually getting sex alot is easy for a woman. A bloke has to work hard to get a sh@g (in general) and hence a bloke who can has a certain something about him and other blokes are both jealous and proud at the same time and women feel embarrassed and angry because he has got some power of them to want to get down and do the dirty with him.

<> (Alfster)

Wow, that's some impression. We *are* talking about planet earth, aren't we?

I've never actually done this. Meaning, just gone out to get shagged. I suppose if I sat at the Irish pub long enough on my own some bloke might make advances . . . I guess I just can't imagine ever doing this, or even wanting to do it.

<> (blicky)

Well, it's rather difficult to fake a hard-on, isn't it? Though I also know that a sexual reaction to a situation (either hard-on or getting wet) doesn't need to mean the person actually *wants* sex.

Is it still true that sexually predacious men and women are still referred to as either 'studs' or 'slappers'? How pathetic.


az