Men do not control sex. Women control it completely.
Any hetero consensual sex that takes place takes place because of the woman. She decides. Always.
I'd say you need to move up into the 21st century, but really, it appears you need to come into the 20th century first.
I do hope you realize I was responding to a member who posted a belief in an attitude that is archaic and has very long ago been dispelled by clearly thinking people.
And back to the subject at hand...
In 1981 writer Gay Talese published a novel, "Thy Neighbor's Wife" which covered the many shifting sexual attitudes of American sexuality. Of course, also covering the swinging/swapping culture of the late '60's into the '70's. In one related story(from gathered interviews with actual participants) one man finally convinced his wife to participate in the wife swapping scene and she accompanied him to another couple's home and after a few drinks he managed to get himself alone with the other man's wife in an adjoining room. It at first seemed his wife was somewhat reluctant to participate in such activity. But once the man completed his sexual union with the other man's wife, he got up off the bed and walked into the other room to freshen his drink and walked in on the other man energetically copulating with his wife. And seeing the man's shiny penis sliding in and out of his wife and simultaneously hearing her groans of pleasure was such an unsettling shock to the man he simply sat down on the floor and started weeping. Seems the man was OK with the swapping thing when it came to his pleasure, but that his wife would find equal pleasure was something his sensibilities couldn't accept and handle.
I do hope you realize I was responding to a member who posted a belief in an attitude that is archaic and has very long ago been dispelled by clearly thinking people.
Sepiatone
You still don't get it. While you and I (and I assume the vast majority of users here), believe the "attitude" in question is archaic, people are entitled to having such a POV. Thus, the question becomes why you feel the need to keep challenging this "attitude" especially given the known fact that the odds of getting anyone with such an attitude to change their mind is one in a million.
I do hope you realize I was responding to a member who posted a belief in an attitude that is archaic and has very long ago been dispelled by clearly thinking people.
Sepiatone
You still don't get it. While you and I (and I assume the vast majority of users here), believe the "attitude" in question is archaic, people are entitled to having such a POV. Thus, the question becomes why you feel the need to keep challenging this "attitude" especially given the known fact that the odds of getting anyone with such an attitude to change their mind is one in a million.
YEP! And with the poor ol' hardheaded Rick who as I said earlier in this thing continues to refuse to listen to my wise counsel when it comes to the sport of tennis, being just ONE example of those millions out there who refuse to change their damn attitude, DAMN IT!!!
LOL
(...btw, I suppose I must give credit to Shep, another player in our group, with pulling me aside yesterday and finally getting it through my head that Rick was just a lost cause...I'm gonna pick up his tab for lunch tomorrow after our matches...seems the least I could do, RIGHT?!)
LOL
Last edited by Dargo on August 2nd, 2023, 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
I do hope you realize I was responding to a member who posted a belief in an attitude that is archaic and has very long ago been dispelled by clearly thinking people.
Sepiatone
You still don't get it. While you and I (and I assume the vast majority of users here), believe the "attitude" in question is archaic, people are entitled to having such a POV. Thus, the question becomes why you feel the need to keep challenging this "attitude" especially given the known fact that the odds of getting anyone with such an attitude to change their mind is one in a million.
YEP! And with the poor ol' hardheaded Rick who as I said earlier in this thing continues to refuse to listen to my wise counsel when it comes to the sport of tennis, being just ONE example of those millions out there who refuse to change their damn attitude, DAMN IT!!!
LOL
As for Rick are you sure that in the moment doing it his-way results in a better turnout for him? (Again, in the moment). I ask because something similar happened while playing guitar with a guy I have played with for over 30 years now. We were playing Paul's song Honey Pie. I use only bar chords while he uses a mix of open string chords and bar chords, which causes him to have to move his wrist up and down the next, and thus results in a choppy rhythm. He got kind of upset when I corrected him, so I just shut up and played. When we were done, I said I was sorry, and he said he was also but that having to make such a change in the moment was just too much to ask. So, he asked me to show him what I was doing so he could practice it that way. The next time we got together he had it down pat!
You still don't get it. While you and I (and I assume the vast majority of users here), believe the "attitude" in question is archaic, people are entitled to having such a POV. Thus, the question becomes why you feel the need to keep challenging this "attitude" especially given the known fact that the odds of getting anyone with such an attitude to change their mind is one in a million.
YEP! And with the poor ol' hardheaded Rick who as I said earlier in this thing continues to refuse to listen to my wise counsel when it comes to the sport of tennis, being just ONE example of those millions out there who refuse to change their damn attitude, DAMN IT!!!
LOL
As for Rick are you sure that in the moment doing it his-way results in a better turnout for him? (Again, in the moment). I ask because something similar happened while playing guitar with a guy I have played with for over 30 years now. We were playing Paul's song Honey Pie. I use only bar chords while he uses a mix of open string chords and bar chords, which causes him to have to move his wrist up and down the next, and thus results in a choppy rhythm. He got kind of upset when I corrected him, so I just shut up and played. When we were done, I said I was sorry, and he said he was also but that having to make such a change in the moment was just too much to ask. So, he asked me to show him what I was doing so he could practice it that way. The next time we got together he had it down pat!
So are you sayin' if maybe while I'm tellin' the guy to move his freakin' feet earlier and react sooner and as the other guy across the net hits the ball and stop waiting to move his damn feet until after the ball has already crossed over the net and all those other things I earlier mentioned (and btw, I never do this during the point, but only after the point is over or between games in a set) that I sing this bit of info to him to the tune of some Beatles song?
Nope, ya see James, the difference between YOUR story here and mine is that your guitar playin' buddy was amenable to your suggestion and then attempted to do it, and whereas ol' hardheaded, set-in-his-ways and unwilling to change his "attitude" RICK...
I do hope you realize I was responding to a member who posted a belief in an attitude that is archaic and has very long ago been dispelled by clearly thinking people.
Sepiatone
You still don't get it. While you and I (and I assume the vast majority of users here), believe the "attitude" in question is archaic, people are entitled to having such a POV. Thus, the question becomes why you feel the need to keep challenging this "attitude" especially given the known fact that the odds of getting anyone with such an attitude to change their mind is one in a million.
I disagree with the position but do not consider it “archaic.” I consider it purely biologically driven. The male of each species is biologically driven to impregnate as many women as possible to spread his genetics. This is simple fact and not a moral statement. Now, where I disagree is the idea that we have to follow whatever our natural genetics say and we should be enslaved to them. I have spoken against the idea of marriage in general on the old forum so I don’t need to get into it again but I will say for those that choose the option of marriage they should stay faithful lest they become hypocrites.
You still don't get it. While you and I (and I assume the vast majority of users here), believe the "attitude" in question is archaic, people are entitled to having such a POV. Thus, the question becomes why you feel the need to keep challenging this "attitude" especially given the known fact that the odds of getting anyone with such an attitude to change their mind is one in a million.
YEP! And with the poor ol' hardheaded Rick who as I said earlier in this thing continues to refuse to listen to my wise counsel when it comes to the sport of tennis, being just ONE example of those millions out there who refuse to change their damn attitude, DAMN IT!!!
LOL
As for Rick are you sure that in the moment doing it his-way results in a better turnout for him? (Again, in the moment). I ask because something similar happened while playing guitar with a guy I have played with for over 30 years now. We were playing Paul's song Honey Pie. I use only bar chords while he uses a mix of open string chords and bar chords, which causes him to have to move his wrist up and down the next, and thus results in a choppy rhythm. He got kind of upset when I corrected him, so I just shut up and played. When we were done, I said I was sorry, and he said he was also but that having to make such a change in the moment was just too much to ask. So, he asked me to show him what I was doing so he could practice it that way. The next time we got together he had it down pat!
The entire story is likely made up/ a joke. Rick is darkblue’s real name. I feel like a punk for saying that in another thread because I am actually not sure he wanted people here to know that piece of information. I just said it so it was less confusing when people kept calling him DB/ 37kitties/ sad panda and using old forum names over here.
CinemaInternational wrote: ↑August 1st, 2023, 7:25 pm
I saw it several years ago. Cannon and Gould are excellent, but the premise unnerved me a bit, and the near orgy ending was one of the most uncomfortable things I have ever seen.
The ending was incredibly awkward. Ted and Alice weren't really into it, but went as far as to get undressed with Bob and Carol. I think Bob and Carol reconsidered being swingers when they actually watched their partners kissing someone else. I have to think that this almost orgy caused irreparable harm to the two couples' friendship. The awkwardness would be difficult to overcome.
The awkwardness in the final scene of the movie was almost palpable. All four of the actors did an excellent job making that scene seem so real.
I do hope you realize I was responding to a member who posted a belief in an attitude that is archaic and has very long ago been dispelled by clearly thinking people.
Sepiatone
You still don't get it. While you and I (and I assume the vast majority of users here), believe the "attitude" in question is archaic, people are entitled to having such a POV. Thus, the question becomes why you feel the need to keep challenging this "attitude" especially given the known fact that the odds of getting anyone with such an attitude to change their mind is one in a million.
I disagree with the position but do not consider it “archaic.” I consider it purely biologically driven. The male of each species is biologically driven to impregnate as many women as possible to spread his genetics. This is simple fact and not a moral statement. Now, where I disagree is the idea that we have to follow whatever our natural genetics say and we should be enslaved to them. I have spoken against the idea of marriage in general on the old forum so I don’t need to get into it again but I will say for those that choose the option of marriage they should stay faithful lest they become hypocrites.
Thanks for adding nuance to the discussion. Note that the attitude position that I believe is archaic is one where the male can claim to be faithful, but not be, and back up their hypocrisy by blaming it on genetics. If one knows it will be impossible for them to be monogamist, then don't get married.
While I agree with your position about marriage here LH, then by use of simple HUMAN (the operative word here) logic, could it then not be said that by using what is essentially "the law of the jungle" type of argument in defense of this "spead your seed" rationale, one is then accepting the thought that there is no real difference between man and beast, and that there has been no real evolvement of the human race since his "archaic" origins?
(...and thus, the very reason why I think the whole idea of this sort of thing being used as a rationale for the continuation of the "double standard" IS in fact "archaic" by its very definition)
Last edited by Dargo on August 2nd, 2023, 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
LostHorizons wrote: ↑August 2nd, 2023, 1:45 pm
I disagree with the position but do not consider it “archaic.” I consider it purely biologically driven. The male of each species is biologically driven to impregnate as many women as possible to spread his genetics. This is simple fact and not a moral statement. Now, where I disagree is the idea that we have to follow whatever our natural genetics say and we should be enslaved to them. I have spoken against the idea of marriage in general on the old forum so I don’t need to get into it again but I will say for those that choose the option of marriage they should stay faithful lest they become hypocrites.
And yet we now know that more women cheat on their partners than do men cheat on theirs. This in spite of your "biologically driven" thesis regarding the "male species".
When it comes to certain facts of life, men tend to be very slow learners. Mostly it's because they don't want to know.
I could only find stats for 1991 - 2018. Maybe they have changed since then.
According to extramarital affairs statistics published in the Current Research Journal of Social Sciences (2020), about 17.64% of married Americans engage in extramarital sex. (2)
Married Couples
U.S. Extramarital Sex
1991-2018
Total 17.64%
Males 22.90%
Females 13.82%
Ages 18-40 14.70%
Ages 41-54 20.68%
Ages 55-64 21.46%
Ages 65+ 14.79%
