# Why one-night stands don't work for women



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Main jist of article per the author's opinion:

Women just aren't designed for one-night stands. Society encourages women to feel proud about sharing their body with strangers. When it comes to uncommitted sex, women are playing a game they can’t win. Feeling “used,” or like a “booty call,” is the most common experience of women who engage in casual sex, or “hookups,” whether they’re teenagers or grown women. That just isn’t the case for most men.

“My parents’ generation: dating, marriage, sex. My generation: dating, sex, marriage. Now: sex, dating, marriage (maybe).”

Discuss, do you believe there is any merit to the Author's opinion?



> Does the culture have the same influence on women's sex lives as it does on their dating lives?
> 
> That was the question posed to me in an email by a woman who had read an article of mine on the importance of being a "satisficer," or not comparing one's relationship to other people's relationships, which is difficult to do in a social media culture where other people's lives are a constant presence. She wanted to alert me to a new study entitled "Navigating One-Night Stands" that asked 990 women and men who had a one-night stand in the past year how often they had them, who they had them with, and what concerns they had about them.
> 
> ...


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/why-one-night-stands-dont-work-for-women


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

So I knew this guy in college that was always bragging about tapping that ass of anyone attractive. So this one woman seduced him for exactly that! He told me:



> We got back to her place, she opened a drawer full of condoms, had her way with me, and then told me to go home after we were done!


Afterwards HE cried endlessly for feeling so used!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Pffft The idea that "society" encourages women to "share their bodies" is absurd. Even the language is absurd. Do men feel something about how they are or are not supposed to "share" their bodies and that society is telling them such?


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

badsanta said:


> So I knew this guy in college that was always bragging about tapping that ass of anyone attractive. So this one woman seduced him for exactly that! He told me:
> 
> 
> 
> Afterwards HE cried endlessly for feeling so used!


When I was dating this would have been the perfect end to a date.
Have sex and leave. 
What’s not to like?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Andy1001 said:


> When I was dating this would have been the perfect end to a date.
> Have sex and leave.
> What’s not to like?


Depends who it is. I'd be down with it if it that were all we were into.


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

lol should have known it would be Suzanne Venker


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Tiggy! said:


> lol should have known it would be Suzanne Venker



{Slaps forehead} The name sounded familiar. She an anti feminist author and activist. Her aunt was the Phyllis Schlafly.

The opinion piece makes way more sense now. Lol


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

Lila said:


> {Slaps forehead} The name sounded familiar. She an anti feminist author and activist. Her aunt was the Phyllis Schlafly.
> 
> The opinion piece makes way more sense now. Lol


Both made careers about telling women they belong in the home and whining about feminism while taking full advantage of everything feminism afforded them (you seriously couldn't make it up).


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Tiggy! said:


> Both made careers about telling women they belong in the home and whining about feminism while taking full advantage of everything feminism afforded them (you seriously couldn't make it up).


Honestly never heard of her, just saw the article come up on my feed b/c there is a quote there from Peterson (who I do follow).

As someone who has never engaged in a one night stand, I can't really comment on the merits of how men/women handle (which is why I posted since i thought it would be an interesting discussion)


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

People treat sex like it’s casual. It’s not. Sex is unbelievably complicated. It’s dangerous. It involves emotions. It involves pregnancy. It involves illness. It involves betrayal. It reaches right down into the roots of someone. You don’t play with something like that casually. Well, you can, but you’ll pay for it.
Indeed. And it is women who pay the most.​Wow. As if none of those things would affect a guy? This isn't a gender thing. Heck, what about the song "Maggie Mae" by Rod Stewart?


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

I call the person who has multiple partners a SEXUAL SOCIALIST. Society cannot logically be more permissive of one gender that another since men have sex with women and vice versa. If men are permitted, it follows that women are also permitted. My opinion says that each person is responsible for their own sexual behaviour and fate as long as the person informs the the person they decide to marry later. They should also inform on any STIs they might have had in the past. That person the sexual socialist eventually decides to marry is the actual victim. It is now known that women who have non-barrier sex with more than 5 men, increase they chances of cervical cancer. There again there is no need to have non-barrier sex with strangers. 

But all said, it is an individual's choice what they do with their bodies as long as nobody is committing a crime. The fact that i prefer it if I never have to have a second partner is totally besides the point. My opinion is as valid as anyone else's and We should allow people to choose. A lady at work who likes sex with strangers says once you have had about three, what difference does it make if you have another 15 or 50? I do't know what difference it makes apart from the danger of being attacked or STIs, But there again you can catch an STI off your spouse who is not that experienced.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

I've never had a one night stand. As a women, I'd say that if I were to choose to have a one night stand, I would not feel used because honestly, we'd both be using each other but we'd be doing it with our eyes wide open. I'd never do that with someone who I thought for even a second wanted a relationship with me or had feelings for me. That is using someone and it's a horrible thing to do to a person. But two people who just want to scratch a biological itch with each other and then move on...I see no problem with it. I wouldn't ever do it though. Not my style. But I don't judge others who are into it. 

I don't believe that only women pay for casual sex. There are many men who take sex just as seriously as I do and aren't into the casual thing. There are many women who enjoy casual sex. The trick is for people to match up with people with the same beliefs so nobody gets hurt. In a perfect world I guess that's how it would happen. Unfortunately the world is not perfect.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

EllisRedding said:


> Main jist of article per the author's opinion:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As long as there are women that take ‘equality’ literally, there will always be men that will take advantage of it. Of course ONSs don’t work for women. Even casual sex. (Wait for someone to start accusing me of **** shaming).
That doesn’t mean I believe in sex after marriage. But there’s middle ground somewhere. 
Like a bit of anal play on the third date 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Depends who it is. I'd be down with it if it that were all we were into.



No woman can possibly be ‘into it’!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Eh, I equate women who rack up as many casual partners as possible to the adolescent girl who rebels against her parents by getting a tattoo and a punk haircut lol


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

InMyPrime said:


> As long as there are women that take ‘equality’ literally, there will always be men that will take advantage of it.* Of course ONSs don’t work for women. Even casual sex. *(Wait for someone to start accusing me of **** shaming).
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Per the bolded, do you believe the same for men, or are you saying you see a difference in how ONSs work based on gender (in general, assuming we are going with the more traditional 2 genders lol)?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Nah...the most common way a guy pays for casual sex is through a cab ride fare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

EllisRedding said:


> Per the bolded, do you believe the same for men, or are you saying you see a difference in how ONSs work based on gender (in general, assuming we are going with the more traditional 2 genders lol)?



How can it be otherwise? Men ‘pursue’ sex, women ‘allow’ or ‘disallow’ it. To deny it is to completely lack an understanding of how genders are wired and ignore millions of years of evolution.
Ok with birth control, things are less complicated for women but still. 
Note how women will say ‘it is perfectly fine if both agree and understand the conditions but *I personally* would never do it’. 
It means the same thing in practice what I am saying. Sure, if both like something, anything’s fine but let’s not be disingenuous: know any women that would rather keep ONSing than be in a committed relationship?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> No woman can possibly be ‘into it’!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No true Scotsman - of course!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> How can it be otherwise? Men ‘pursue’ sex, women ‘allow’ or ‘disallow’ it. To deny it is to completely lack an understanding of how genders are wired and ignore millions of years of evolution.
> Ok with birth control, things are less complicated for women but still.
> Note how women will say ‘it is perfectly fine if both agree and understand the conditions but *I personally* would never do it’.
> It means the same thing in practice what I am saying. Sure, if both like something, anything’s fine but let’s not be disingenuous: know any women that would rather keep ONSing than be in a committed relationship?
> ...


Who are all these men having one night stands WITH? Plenty of women like sex, and want it whether or not they are currently interested in a committed relationship. Since you, yourself, only ever had sex with your wife, I know you don't have much experience with this. But even back when I was a young woman, alllllll those years ago, it was done. We never told potential boyfriends for reals, or god forbid our mothers. Thankfully, many people these days, rightly, understand what a load of crap that is. And they find men who think of them as people - like them! Who love sex and sometimes want to partake.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> Honestly never heard of her, just saw the article come up on my feed b/c there is a quote there from Peterson (who I do follow).
> 
> As someone who has never engaged in a one night stand, I can't really comment on the merits of how men/women handle (which is why I posted since i thought it would be an interesting discussion)


Everyone has different rolls, of course! I can promise you that if I ever found myself without, I would be availing myself of one night stands.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

personofinterest said:


> Eh, I equate women who rack up as many casual partners as possible to the adolescent girl who rebels against her parents by getting a tattoo and a punk haircut lol


Of course racking up partner numbers is not the point.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

InMyPrime said:


> know any women that would rather keep ONSing than be in a committed relationship?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I’ve known lots of them and had sex with quite a few. >
You appear to have been with the same woman for a long time,since you both were teenagers actually. That’s worked for you but it’s not what I (when I was younger) or millions of other people want.
Some people don’t want relationships until they are older and some people never feel the need to settle down with one partner. 
Doesn’t make them wrong.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

InMyPrime said:


> How can it be otherwise? Men ‘pursue’ sex, women ‘allow’ or ‘disallow’ it. To deny it is to completely lack an understanding of how genders are wired and ignore millions of years of evolution.
> Ok with birth control, things are less complicated for women but still.
> Note how women will say ‘it is perfectly fine if both agree and understand the conditions but *I personally* would never do it’.
> It means the same thing in practice what I am saying. Sure, if both like something, anything’s fine but let’s not be disingenuous: know any women that would rather keep ONSing than be in a committed relationship?
> ...


I work with a woman who is very into ONS's. She has been divorced for a few years and has no desire to get into another relationship, at least not right now. To quote her "we all have biological urges...I bring men home to satisfy mine, but I don't want them hanging around. They have to leave when we're done." 

I do agree that most women (at least in my circles) don't look at sex that way, I know I don't. I fit your description. I don't judge others, like this coworker, but it's not for me. Sharing my body means more to me than that. It just does. I think many women who end up in ONS's are hoping it will turn into something else. Sometimes they get lucky but usually not. Just my opinion of course. 

Sometimes I wish I could think that way. Celibacy gets old pretty fast.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> Everyone has different rolls, of course! I can promise you that if I ever found myself without, I would be availing myself of one night stands.


From a fantasy standpoint I can understand the appeal of a ONS, but outside of that, just not something that really appeals to me for a variety of reasons.

I do wonder though I do hear frequently women complaining about getting used (i.e. he pulled out the stops to get in my pants, and once that was accomplished he moved on). On the other side, only a very few times have I heard guys with the same complaint. Now, I am not saying there aren't guys who wouldn't feel that way, and maybe they don't speak up b/c it is not the "manly" thing to do, IDK. Obviously this is not a scientific study on my part, just what I have heard or I have seen from friends of mine.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> From a fantasy standpoint I can understand the appeal of a ONS, but outside of that, just not something that really appeals to me for a variety of reasons.


And that's cool. You do you! 



> I do wonder though I do hear frequently women complaining about getting used (i.e. he pulled out the stops to get in my pants, and once that was accomplished he moved on).


Some people are jerks and LIE.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

notmyjamie said:


> I work with a woman who is very into ONS's. She has been divorced for a few years and has no desire to get into another relationship, at least not right now. To quote her "we all have biological urges...I bring men home to satisfy mine, but I don't want them hanging around. They have to leave when we're done."
> 
> I do agree that most women (at least in my circles) don't look at sex that way, I know I don't. I fit your description. I don't judge others, like this coworker, but it's not for me. Sharing my body means more to me than that. It just does. I think many women who end up in ONS's are hoping it will turn into something else. Sometimes they get lucky but usually not. Just my opinion of course.
> 
> Sometimes I wish I could think that way. Celibacy gets old pretty fast.


There’s a quote that is often (wrongly) attributed to Julia Robert’s character in the movie “Pretty Woman. 
“Men don’t pay hookers for sex, they pay them to leave afterwards”.
This works for both sexes.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

notmyjamie said:


> I work with a woman who is very into ONS's. She has been divorced for a few years and has no desire to get into another relationship, at least not right now. To quote her "we all have biological urges...I bring men home to satisfy mine, but I don't want them hanging around. They have to leave when we're done."
> 
> I do agree that most women (at least in my circles) don't look at sex that way, I know I don't. I fit your description. I don't judge others, like this coworker, but it's not for me. Sharing my body means more to me than that. It just does. I think many women who end up in ONS's are hoping it will turn into something else. Sometimes they get lucky but usually not. Just my opinion of course.
> 
> Sometimes I wish I could think that way. Celibacy gets old pretty fast.


So maybe it is a matter of different people having different definitions of ONSs. You have your co worker, who simply wants to get laid and nothing else. However, you then mention thinking many women who end up in ONSs are hoping it turns into something more (I have found this as well). Same scenario, two completely different outcomes.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Andy1001 said:


> I’ve known lots of them and had sex with quite a few. >


Yup. Me too. Well known lots of them. I don't think I have ever had a one night stand with a woman!



> You appear to have been with the same woman for a long time,since you both were teenagers actually. That’s worked for you but it’s not what I (when I was younger) or millions of other people want.
> Some people don’t want relationships until they are older and some people never feel the need to settle down with one partner.
> Doesn’t make them wrong.


Yup. The shame game is a game that people are starting to be more and more unwilling to play.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

EllisRedding said:


> So maybe it is a matter of different people having different definitions of ONSs. You have your co worker, who simply wants to get laid and nothing else. However, you then mention thinking many women who end up in ONSs are hoping it turns into something more (I have found this as well). Same scenario, two completely different outcomes.


To me, a one night stand means you have sex and go your separate ways. I know woman who have gone home with a guy thinking they'll sleep with him, lure him in with sex and then he'll be theirs forever. Except he never calls and it really was just a one night stand. Those women feel used I'd bet because they thought the night meant more to him than it really did. To that I say, when you're having sex with someone you'd better go in with your eyes wide open and your romantic fantasies in check or you're going to get hurt. And that can happen to both men and women.

In the movies a couple starts off as a one night stand and then realizes that the heavens have aligned and sex is so much more magical with each other than with anyone else and so they can never be apart from each other ever again. In real life, not so much.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

notmyjamie said:


> To me, a one night stand means you have sex and go your separate ways. I know woman who have gone home with a guy thinking they'll sleep with him, lure him in with sex and then he'll be theirs forever. Except he never calls and it really was just a one night stand. Those women feel used I'd bet because they thought the night meant more to him than it really did. To that I say, when you're having sex with someone you'd better go in with your eyes wide open and your romantic fantasies in check or you're going to get hurt. And that can happen to both men and women.
> 
> In the movies a couple starts off as a one night stand and then realizes that the heavens have aligned and sex is so much more magical with each other than with anyone else and so they can never be apart from each other ever again. In real life, not so much.


I REALLY wonder how many people think this way for real. I mean, sure there are dopey women in the world, just like their are dopey men. But I would hardly call this common.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

NobodySpecial said:


> I REALLY wonder how many people think this way for real. I mean, sure there are dopey women in the world, just like their are dopey men. But I would hardly call this common.


Do you mean how many women think sleeping with a guy will help her snag him or how many women believe the movie fairty tale version of life? 

I think, sadly, the answer to both is a lot of women. Maybe not so much at my age anymore as they've learned but when I was young I was surrounded by women who thought both of these things. They acted like something was wrong with me because I was more realistic. I was often accused of being more like a man and not having a sense of romance and adventure. Not being young anymore, I have no idea how young women feel now. But 30 years ago this type of thinking was all around me.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

notmyjamie said:


> Do you mean how many women think sleeping with a guy will help her snag him or how many women believe the movie fairty tale version of life?


Both.



> I think, sadly, the answer to both is a lot of women. Maybe not so much at my age anymore as they've learned but when I was young I was surrounded by women who thought both of these things. They acted like something was wrong with me because I was more realistic. I was often accused of being more like a man and not having a sense of romance and adventure. Not being young anymore, I have no idea how young women feel now. But 30 years ago this type of thinking was all around me.


Oy vay.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

NobodySpecial said:


> Oy vay.


That about sums it up. And I guess I should have hung out with a different crowd LOL


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

NobodySpecial said:


> I REALLY wonder how many people think this way for real. I mean, sure there are dopey women in the world, just like their are dopey men. But I would hardly call this common.


I had it happen quite a bit but I also had a lot of gals that just wanted some fun and later wanted more.

There was a small percentage that just wanted a roll in the sack with nothing else.

I went out of my way to only bed women that seemed to fit that category as well.

There were still very few who actually only wanted some NSA sex after the fact.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> I had it happen quite a bit but I also had a lot of gals that just wanted some fun and later wanted more.
> 
> There was a small percentage that just wanted a roll in the sack with nothing else.
> 
> ...


Right? Some people want this, some what that and some want the other.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Who are all these men having one night stands WITH? Plenty of women like sex, and want it whether or not they are currently interested in a committed relationship. Since you, yourself, only ever had sex with your wife, I know you don't have much experience with this. But even back when I was a young woman, alllllll those years ago, it was done. We never told potential boyfriends for reals, or god forbid our mothers. Thankfully, many people these days, rightly, understand what a load of crap that is. And they find men who think of them as people - like them! Who love sex and sometimes want to partake.



Why would I need experience with one night stands to understand how a WOMAN would feel after one 
I know how men think. I can even imagine how women _feel _, believe it or not.

Of course men will cheer you on, because it is in their interest that the likes of you* continue to advertise ONSs as the ‘cool’ or ‘fun’ thing to do. 

(*can I say it like this, without it sounding offensive?)

Tell me, where is the fun for the woman to have a random guy screw you and never call you back? What kind of sex would be worth it?

I have been to parties where I had MANY chances to sleep with girls. I couldn’t go through with it because I felt bad for them. I had virgins throwing themselves at me and I couldn’t sleep with them, because I didn’t feel I loved them. I know it’s old fashioned and maybe idiotic. Maybe I was over-thinking it but I instinctively never felt sex with an actual person is just like scratching an itch. And i don’t think both genders get the same out of it, in an ONS.

Would you be happy for your daughter to have a bunch ONSs, because she thought she ‘felt’ like it? I know I would be devastated if mine had this attitude.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

InMyPrime said:


> Why would I need experience with one night stands to understand how a WOMAN would feel after one
> I know how men think. I can even imagine how women _feel _, believe it or not.





> Of course men will cheer you on, because it is in their interest that the likes of you* continue to advertise ONSs as the ‘cool’ or ‘fun’ thing to do.
> 
> (*can I say it like this, without it sounding offensive?)


What does it matter what men do are don't say?



> Tell me, where is the fun for the woman to have a random guy screw you and never call you back? What kind of sex would be worth it?


Do you not think the act of sex is fun for women?



> I have been to parties where I had MANY chances to sleep with girls. I couldn’t go through with it because I felt bad for them.* I had virgins throwing themselves at me a*nd I couldn’t sleep with them, because I didn’t feel I loved them. I know it’s old fashioned and maybe idiotic. Maybe I was over-thinking it but I instinctively never felt sex with an actual person is just like scratching an itch. And i don’t think both genders get the same out of it, in an ONS.


Literally?













Would you be happy for your daughter to have a bunch ONSs, because she thought she ‘felt’ like it? I know I would be devastated if mine had this attitude.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> I’ve known lots of them and had sex with quite a few. >
> You appear to have been with the same woman for a long time,since you both were teenagers actually. That’s worked for you but it’s not what I (when I was younger) or millions of other people want.
> Some people don’t want relationships until they are older and some people never feel the need to settle down with one partner.
> Doesn’t make them wrong.




We are specifically talking about ONSs, not relationships or even casual relationships or relationships that don’t work out. I am completely not against relationships that don’t last. But that is something you can’t foresee. I however don’t see the point (for a woman especially) going into a sexual encounter for the sake of an orgasm. It seems too much of a bother. 
I consider myself extremely lucky (and abnormal) that it worked for me the first(ish) time around. I can keep telling myself that i was very ‘skilled’ at picking a partner but I think i would be fooling myself. I think 50% was luck.

However if I had several relationships (and had sex with the girls) before I found The One, I wouldn’t have thought that was ‘wrong’ either. 
It’s probably better to actually take the time and effort to make sure you find the right person before diving into a serious relationship or marriage.

I don’t think one should always marry the person you ****. But one should not **** the person if you know in that moment that you are definitely never going to end up with them.

Also it is not possible for you to know whether the girls had no regrets after the ONSs....You are not supposed to see them again afterwards  unless they weren’t ONSs.

In any case, instead of relying on anecdotes (and own ego), why don’t people just look at studies, of which there are plenty: 

https://m.mid-day.com/articles/rela...and-casual-sex-study-research-norway/17934163

I don’t really have a dog in this fight. Just amuses me to read people actually seriously debating this topic as if there is actually anything to debate 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

notmyjamie said:


> I think many women who end up in ONS's are hoping it will turn into something else.



Or the guys are good at ‘selling’ an ONS as if it might turn into something else...

I think your colleague is an exception rather than the rule...She must have gone through a traumatic experience with her divorce and it’s a way (that she thinks) she can numb that pain.

Most women that ‘start out’ being women, don’t start out from her position, if you know what I mean. I am sure that will get pretty old pretty fast for her soon too. Nobody wants to stay alone forever.

There are other women who will pretend to be all Uber-sexual and love ONSs, to get attention from guys and life them in, but they won’t actually be going through with the ONS, until they have some form of commitment...There are just way too many cases that are unique. I am simply talking about the Average woman: and for the average woman (not for ALL women), an ONS is a sh1tty deal. The more experienced a woman, the more she knows that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

EllisRedding said:


> From a fantasy standpoint I can understand the appeal of a ONS, but outside of that, just not something that really appeals to me for a variety of reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> I do wonder though I do hear frequently women complaining about getting used (i.e. he pulled out the stops to get in my pants, and once that was accomplished he moved on). On the other side, only a very few times have I heard guys with the same complaint. Now, I am not saying there aren't guys who wouldn't feel that way, and maybe they don't speak up b/c it is not the "manly" thing to do, IDK. Obviously this is not a scientific study on my part, just what I have heard or I have seen from friends of mine.



Let’s put it this way; if my son came to me and said that a woman had ‘used’ him for her sexual gratification and even pushed him to have sex with her, I would laugh in his face.

If my daughter said the same about a guy, my heart would be broken.

I have no idea why I would feel this way, I just would.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> There’s a quote that is often (wrongly) attributed to Julia Robert’s character in the movie “Pretty Woman.
> 
> “Men don’t pay hookers for sex, they pay them to leave afterwards”.
> 
> This works for both sexes.



And I would have absolutely no problem with a woman paying me for sex 
(If I wasn’t married; even then, if the female equivalent of Robert Redford offered me a million to have sex with me, my wife would understand...).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

EllisRedding said:


> So maybe it is a matter of different people having different definitions of ONSs. You have your co worker, who simply wants to get laid and nothing else. However, you then mention thinking many women who end up in ONSs are hoping it turns into something more (I have found this as well). Same scenario, two completely different outcomes.



Because two people who meet don’t ever say to each other as a first thing: ‘you know what, let’s **** and never see each other again’.
And actually if a woman came up and said that to me, I would not believe her. I would probably think she is one of those who would bite off my **** and cook it for breakfast the next day together with my wife’s bunny rabbit, because there is some kind of an agenda....
There’s rarely ‘free sex’.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Yup. The shame game is a game that people are starting to be more and more unwilling to play.



Oh I would never shame them. I feel bad for them, yes. I am simply expressing my (strong) feelings about this issue. Are you saying that my feelings are invalid? 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I've never had a ONS and don't plan to....sex isn't casual to me.

We don't have to be making marriage plans but we need some kind of relationship.

But I only claim to speak for myself.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I know at least one woman who enjoyed a ONS. I know at least one man who didn't want ONSs. Beyond that, it seems it would take a real study to figure out whether there is a statistically significant difference, and a far more difficult study to figure out the causes for any difference that might be there. 

I don't have any problem with people of either gender engaging in ONSs as long as there is no deception involved. Even if I were not in a relationship, I wouldn't really be interested in a ONS, though its possible in the right situation I might do it. I tend to feel attached to someone if we have sex, so I wouldn't want a situation where they just went away. 

If it works for other people, that't great.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

notmyjamie said:


> Do you mean how many women think sleeping with a guy will help her snag him or how many women believe the movie fairty tale version of life?
> 
> 
> 
> I think, sadly, the answer to both is a lot of women. Maybe not so much at my age anymore as they've learned but when I was young I was surrounded by women who thought both of these things. They acted like something was wrong with me because I was more realistic. I was often accused of being more like a man and not having a sense of romance and adventure. Not being young anymore, I have no idea how young women feel now. But 30 years ago this type of thinking was all around me.



Exactly. And I will also add this: literally EVERYTHING a man does, evolutionary speaking, whether it’s wooing a woman, his career ambitions, writing a poem, composing a piece of music, making a new discovery, flying to the moon etc etc has literally just one purpose: increasing his chances ending up and discharging inside a woman’s vajayjay. The higher his status, the higher the chance of successful insemination. A lot of it is subconscious of course. (Because there will be somebody in the last row to shout ‘not true, I already have a vajayjay that I can enter whenever I want! Why do I continue to enjoy my work?’ Well, the drive doesn’t die straight away even once you have found The V that you love).

I don’t like it when men are dishonest about it. Ok it’s maybe not 100% the reason but a very big part of it.

I am not going to write about what dictates a (typical) woman’s thinking overwhelmingly because I will be accused of ‘mansplaining’ but you can work it out. And it is NOT to do with finding the least reliable partner (of which an ONS is the best way to achieve that).

We shouldn’t deny our biology. Instead we should understand it and learn to cope with it better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Right? Some people want this, some what that and some want the other.




I want cocaine, doesn’t mean it’s good for me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Tiggy! said:


> What does it matter what men do are don't say?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think it can be A LOT of fun but in a SAFE environment. I don’t consider an ONS to be a safe environment.





Tiggy! said:


> Literally?



Haha, almost. There was one where I would wake up almost every morning for several weeks with my **** in her mouth, to my horror, (it was a boarding school and we didn’t have locks on our doors, for safety reasons). Sometimes with her sitting on my face. I think she tried everything to have sex with me (and was a virgin). And I felt very strongly that it was WRONG. I liked her a lot, as a friend, but knew I would never be with someone like that. (By ‘that’ I mean that we were too similar, not because she was sexually too forward).

There were a few other girls that were extremely forward, which would, under current norms, perhaps be perceived more as sexual harassment or ‘quasi-rape’. There weren’t that many (perhaps 4 or 5, only 2 virgins, as far as I knew) as I did get to know my wife soon after that and this non sense stopped.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tiggy! (Sep 9, 2016)

InMyPrime said:


> I think it can be A LOT of fun but in a SAFE environment. I don’t consider an ONS to be a safe environment.


A relationship isn't automatically a safe environment.




> Haha, almost. There was one where I would wake up almost every morning for several weeks with my **** in her mouth, to my horror, (it was a boarding school and we didn’t have locks on our doors, for safety reasons). Sometimes with her sitting on my face. I think she tried everything to have sex with me (and was a virgin). And I felt very strongly that it was WRONG. I liked her a lot, as a friend, but knew I would never be with someone like that. (By ‘that’ I mean that we were too similar, not because she was sexually too forward).


:|





> There were a few other girls that were extremely forward, which would, under current norms, perhaps be perceived more as sexual harassment or ‘quasi-rape’. There weren’t that many (perhaps 4 or 5, only 2 virgins, as far as I knew) as I did get to know my wife soon after that and this non sense stopped.


Do you know if these girls were also doing this with other boys?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

That isn't true in many cases. 

There are many ways in which I could increase the frequency with which which I have sex. I don't know how you measure "higher status" woman - but I could certainly divorce my wife today and have more sex with someone else. Heck I could probably afford to impregnate a significant number of women, paying child support for each. 

The great majority of my time is spent doing things that will in no way increase my chances of having sex. 

Evolution is complex, and part of that is evolution to protect kin as well as offspring. In addition humans are just not that strongly evolutionarily driven. 

Wealthy men do not in general try to get as many women pregnant as they can. 

Then on the other side there are men who are gay, or asexual, or have fetishes that don't involve actions that generate pregnancy. 


Similarly many women are just not looking for high status men to impregnate them and care for their children. 


I'm sure some men and women are driven as you describe, but it is far from universal. 





InMyPrime said:


> Exactly. And I will also add this: literally EVERYTHING a man does, evolutionary speaking, whether it’s wooing a woman, his career ambitions, writing a poem, composing a piece of music, making a new discovery, flying to the moon etc etc has literally just one purpose: increasing his chances ending up and discharging inside a woman’s vajayjay. The higher his status, the higher the chance of successful insemination. A lot of it is subconscious of course. (Because there will be somebody in the last row to shout ‘not true, I already have a vajayjay that I can enter whenever I want! Why do I continue to enjoy my work?’ Well, the drive doesn’t die straight away even once you have found The V that you love).
> 
> I don’t like it when men are dishonest about it. Ok it’s maybe not 100% the reason but a very big part of it.
> 
> ...


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

[=Tiggy!;19865023]A relationship isn't automatically a safe environment. [/QUOTE]



No, but surely it is safER than a blind encounter?





[=Tiggy!;19865023]

Do you know if these girls were also doing this with other boys?[/QUOTE]


Some were, some weren’t. I know one girl was so ‘traumatised’ that I turned her down, she went and ****ed a friend of mine in the next room. I felt like I needed a shower just hearing about it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

uhtred said:


> That isn't true in many cases.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I mean a man will strive for ‘higher status’ (whether through his career or through his looks by working out in gym or whatever) in order to (subconsciously) be more desirable mate. Same principle as with the male peacock . 

Evolution is not always to be taken literally. I mean there are also gay peacocks I am sure who will still try to impress. A lot of this stuff is ‘automatic’/subconscious.

I disagree about humans not being strongly by evolution. I used to think like you but the longer I live, the more I notice how much of our behaviour is programmed. 
It doesn’t mean we can’t control ourselves, just that the primary drive is evolutionary. And it’s pretty evident to me. 

I mean my job does involve trying to impress people with stuff, and I often make jokes for the same reasons: it doesn’t mean I ‘consciously’ want to impregnate everyone around me, but that drive is there. The drive has no ‘brain’ it just is. My brain can control my behaviour and my feelings (for the most part) but it doesn’t mean that it will always align and agree with my biological drive.

So my brain will say that ‘ONS is not a good idea’ while my biological drive of course thinks it’s brilliant. I do tend to give my brain more credence...as much as I can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

uhtred said:


> I know at least one woman who enjoyed a ONS. I know at least one man who didn't want ONSs. Beyond that, it seems it would take a real study to figure out whether there is a statistically significant difference, and a far more difficult study to figure out the causes for any difference that might be there.
> 
> *I don't have any problem with people of either gender engaging in ONSs as long as there is no deception involved.* Even if I were not in a relationship, I wouldn't really be interested in a ONS, though its possible in the right situation I might do it. I tend to feel attached to someone if we have sex, so I wouldn't want a situation where they just went away.
> 
> If it works for other people, that't great.


Don't get me wrong, I am not one for lying just to get into someone's pants. However, if someone is going to smooth talk you into sleeping with them the first time you meet them, then quite honestly I don't feel bad for you if they ditch you right after when you were hoping for something more.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I would feel sorry for them. Its easy to manipulate people with lies, and all of us pay the price in the lack of trust in humanity it generates.



EllisRedding said:


> Don't get me wrong, I am not one for lying just to get into someone's pants. However, if someone is going to smooth talk you into sleeping with them the first time you meet them, then quite honestly I don't feel bad for you if they ditch you right after when you were hoping for something more.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I we want to take a scientific approach: what would disprove this theory? If any behavior can be described as driven by evolutionary pressure, then the theory has no predictive power. 

Most men (and women) strive for something. What sorts of things don't count as higher status 

My view is that status is not measurable because ones status depends on the observer. Put a supreme court judge, an astronaut, a Nobel laureate, a sports star, a rock star and a billionaire in a room. What is the right status order? I think there would be great disagreement depending on what the observer values. There would be great differences in opinion on which one is a better mate. 

Then there are people who don't appear to strive for anything - even though they could. People who are content with what they have and make no effort to improve their status. 








InMyPrime said:


> I mean a man will strive for ‘higher status’ (whether through his career or through his looks by working out in gym or whatever) in order to (subconsciously) be more desirable mate. Same principle as with the male peacock .
> 
> Evolution is not always to be taken literally. I mean there are also gay peacocks I am sure who will still try to impress. A lot of this stuff is ‘automatic’/subconscious.
> 
> ...


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

uhtred said:


> I would feel sorry for them. Its easy to manipulate people with lies, and all of us pay the price in the lack of trust in humanity it generates.


Why, what is so difficult about keeping your pants on with a stranger??? I mean, if you are there strictly for a ONS, that is one thing. If you aren't but let yourself get smooth talked into, honestly no one to blame but yourself if you get hurt afterwards.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

InMyPrime said:


> Exactly. And I will also add this: literally EVERYTHING a man does, evolutionary speaking, whether it’s wooing a woman, his career ambitions, writing a poem, composing a piece of music, making a new discovery, flying to the moon etc etc has literally just one purpose: increasing his chances ending up and discharging inside a woman’s vajayjay.


So you're posting this just to get laid? And I'm posting _this_ just to get laid?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> Why would I need experience with one night stands to understand how a WOMAN would feel after one
> I know how men think. I can even imagine how women _feel _, believe it or not.
> 
> Of course men will cheer you on, because it is in their interest that the likes of you* continue to advertise ONSs as the ‘cool’ or ‘fun’ thing to do.


You know, I think you really do believe this.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> Exactly. And I will also add this: literally EVERYTHING a man does, evolutionary speaking, whether it’s wooing a woman,


Well if your entire argument is evo-psych, then your argument is not worth much. People have evolved past mere evolutionary thinking.


Haaaa I just saw what I did there.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

uhtred said:


> I we want to take a scientific approach: what would disprove this theory?


A sample set of one. There are sample sets of much greater than one. As you observe.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

If men could just get it into their heads that women enjoy sex as much as men,this would be a good starting point. 
Yes guys, your wives, your girlfriends,your daughters,your sisters, even your mom all enjoy or enjoyed sex just as much as you do.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Andy1001 said:


> If men could just get it into their heads that women enjoy sex as much as men,this would be a good starting point.
> Yes guys, your wives, your girlfriends,your daughters,your sisters, even your mom all enjoy or enjoyed sex just as much as you do.


And that their bodies, thoughts and desires are THEIRS and needn't be attached to some guy's morality to be valid.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Well if your entire argument is evo-psych, then your argument is not worth much. People have evolved past mere evolutionary thinking.
> 
> 
> Haaaa I just saw what I did there.




We live in constant struggle between our minds and our evolutionary drives. It’s not black or white. How is this not obvious?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> If men could just get it into their heads that women enjoy sex as much as men,this would be a good starting point.
> Yes guys, your wives, your girlfriends,your daughters,your sisters, even your mom all enjoy or enjoyed sex just as much as you do.



And I never claimed they don’t! You are changing my argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Andy1001 said:


> If men could just get it into their heads that women enjoy sex as much as men,this would be a good starting point.
> Yes guys, your wives, your girlfriends,your daughters,your sisters, even your mom all enjoy or enjoyed sex just as much as you do.


In the context of the article posted here, I don't believe anywhere does it state that women don't enjoy sex, and i don't think anyone here has implied that either.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> (*can I say it like this, without it sounding offensive?)


haaaa Probably not. 



> Tell me, where is the fun for the woman to have a random guy screw you and never call you back? What kind of sex would be worth it?





> I have been to parties where I had MANY chances to sleep with girls. I couldn’t go through with it because I felt bad for them. I had virgins throwing themselves at me and I couldn’t sleep with them, because I didn’t feel I loved them. I know it’s old fashioned and maybe idiotic. Maybe I was over-thinking it but I instinctively never felt sex with an actual person is just like scratching an itch. And i don’t think both genders get the same out of it, in an ONS.
> 
> Would you be happy for your daughter to have a bunch ONSs, because she thought she ‘felt’ like it? I know I would be devastated if mine had this attitude.


I can't see why I would have a problem with this, and I think it is sadder that you would be devastated by it. You say elsewhere that you would laugh in the face of your son's feelings, and I think that is also incredibly sad. Given the likelihood that your son absorbs your teaching, in fact, your son would be one of the people my daughter would avoid like the plague. The guys seek sex at all costs mantra is just wrong and far more insidious than sex itself. She and I both have met and know many, many men with sex positive views that don't share these weird moralistic rules and are happy for it! 

If she does chose a life long mate, hopefully many years from now, I am grateful that she won't have the notion that it is the one and only route to sex as part of the decision making process. 

My biggest concern for them would be as it always is, are they being kind, safe, and true to themselves and their health. I would be righteously pissed if my daughter pressured someone else into sex. Because she looks to me to raise her, and that is very unkind. I would hold her if she were upset by a poor choice, as they do occur. Then we'd dust off her knees and get back up and move along. But if she chose to have sex in one of its many good expressions? Hell no. I would not be upset with her. Or them, as we talk about both children. 

What remains a persistent thought for me is how little value the idea that men and women think in the same ways as each other of their gender is so incredibly unhelpful.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> We love in constant struggle between our minds and our evolutionary drives. It’s not black or white. How is this not obvious?


Because many of us see and feel stronger operating drives every day of our lives. And it is NOT a struggle over these drives for us. As I am trying to lose weight now, for instance, I feel hunger. Meh it's temporary. My new eating habits will be recognized by my body soon enough. We were built to eat what is available when it is available because soon it will be scarce. But food is NOT scarce for us. Ever. Thankfully I can make choices and have mental tools to do what needs to be done, without struggle. That drive is but one of the operating parameters in my head. And it does not over ride the others.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

Laurentium said:


> So you're posting this just to get laid? And I'm posting _this_ just to get laid?



Well, now I just feel taken advantage of for posting in this thread. :laugh:




Andy1001 said:


> If men could just get it into their heads that women enjoy sex as much as men,this would be a good starting point.
> Yes guys, your wives, your girlfriends,your daughters,your sisters, even your mom all enjoy or enjoyed sex just as much as you do.


Of course they do. Evolution demands it. If the purpose of sex is to procreate and continue the species it would not make sense for the model to include one partner who loves it and one who hates it.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> In the context of the article posted here, I don't believe anywhere does it state that women don't enjoy sex, and i don't think anyone here has implied that either.


So what then, would be the motive to only desire sex within certain parameters that operate so differently than men, supposedly? The need to take care that the sperm donor can provide is no longer necessary. That was a very sensible reason to take care with sexuality because at the end of the day, the woman is the one who gets a child inside her. Absent that, aside from morality foisted upon them, what would be the motivation to abstain?


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

NobodySpecial said:


> What remains a persistent thought for me is how little value the idea that men and women think in the same ways as each other of their gender is so incredibly unhelpful.


I'm struggling - could you have another go at that sentence?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> So what then, would be the motive to only desire sex within certain parameters that operate so differently than men, supposedly? The need to take care that the sperm donor can provide is no longer necessary. That was a very sensible reason to take care with sexuality because at the end of the day, the woman is the one who gets a child inside her. Absent that, aside from morality foisted upon them, what would be the motivation to abstain?


I think my post was very clear. Nowhere does it state women dont enjoy sex, and nowhere has anyone here stated as such. The author is going by the basis that men and women treat sex differently, in particular in the context of a ONS. That is what has been discussed here, not that women don't enjoy sex.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> I think my post was very clear. Nowhere does it state women dont enjoy sex, and nowhere has anyone here stated as such. The author is going by the basis that men and women treat sex differently, in particular in the context of a ONS. That is what has been discussed here, not that women don't enjoy sex.


Ok. But I do see where the inference could rightly be made that one would have to not enjoy sex to seek not to have it.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

NobodySpecial said:


> Because many of us see and feel stronger operating drives every day of our lives. And it is NOT a struggle over these drives for us. As I am trying to lose weight now, for instance, I feel hunger. Meh it's temporary. My new eating habits will be recognized by my body soon enough. We were built to eat what is available when it is available because soon it will be scarce. But food is NOT scarce for us. Ever. Thankfully I can make choices and have mental tools to do what needs to be done, without struggle. That drive is but one of the operating parameters in my head. And it does not over ride the others.


Then you are very fortunate. Many people are unable, in one sphere or another, to override those drives. 



NobodySpecial said:


> People have evolved past mere evolutionary thinking.
> 
> 
> Haaaa I just saw what I did there.


Hmm. It looks to me like the rational part of your brain (saying "this will just cause trouble") got overridden by the primal part (saying "make a joke! make a joke!") :wink2:


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Laurentium said:


> So you're posting this just to get laid? And I'm posting _this_ just to get laid?



Maybe not quite so crude...I would change it to: everything that we instinctively want to do boils down to ensuring our genes can continue.

Keyword here is ‘instinctively’. We have evolved to control and also try and go against the instinct. But the primary driver is basically that.

We strive to get a good education in order to ensure we get a good job later and be financially secure. We need this in order to ensure we can provide and take care of our offspring. 

It doesn’t mean we can’t find meaning within little things. There is always meaning within a meaning within a meaning ad infinitum....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Laurentium said:


> Then you are very fortunate. Many people are unable, in one sphere or another, to override those drives.


What if. Just what if, there is nothing WRONG with those drives that require struggling against? 



> Hmm. It looks to me like the rational part of your brain (saying "this will just cause trouble") got overridden by the primal part (saying "make a joke! make a joke!") :wink2:


Or maybe I used the word evolved to describe how evolution is less applicable.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

NobodySpecial said:


> What if. Just what if, there is nothing WRONG with those drives that require struggling against?


Indeed! 

I am coming from a (perhaps more radical) religious position that says that the concept of "right" versus "wrong" is generally undefined.

You said something about "moralistic rules" earlier. I was hoping that what Inmyprime had said about his daughter was not the product of a moralistic *rule*, but simply from a wish that she should not get hurt.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Ok. But I do see where the inference could rightly be made that one would have to not enjoy sex to seek not to have it.




Nope. Because of I am against rape, it doesn’t mean that I think people don’t enjoy sex. (Since sex is always so enjoyable right?) Also I don’t think ONSs are like rapes...Though some can become bit like one..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> What if. Just what if, there is nothing WRONG with those drives that require struggling against?



If there wasn’t then there would be a lot less women complaining feeling ****ty and dirty after a drunken ONS. 
While men almost never complain. Have you looked at figures or are you just arguing for the fun of it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Laurentium said:


> Indeed!
> 
> I am coming from a (perhaps more radical) religious position that says that the concept of "right" versus "wrong" is generally undefined.
> 
> You said something about "moralistic rules" earlier. I was hoping that what Inmyprime had said about his daughter was not the product of a moralistic *rule*, but simply from a wish that she should not get hurt.



I suppose you can hope that. I hope that too! I would not wish hurt on anyone.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> If there wasn’t then there would be a lot less women complaining feeling ****ty and dirty after a drunken ONS.
> While men almost never complain. Have you looked at figures or are you just arguing for the fun of it?


Many people follow the rules that are set out for them without thinking too hard. I feel more badly that they feel dirty.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Many people follow the rules that are set out for them without thinking too hard. I feel more badly that they feel dirty.




Which tends to happen when someone is not thinking too hard...(regret)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> Which tends to happen when someone is not thinking too hard...(regret)


The regret often stems from acceptance of the rules as laid out by a puritanical ethos. There ARE negative consequences to being labeled a ****. But none of them are rooted in nature.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

NobodySpecial said:


> Many people follow the rules that are set out for them without thinking too hard. I feel more badly that they feel dirty.


Is God a Taoist?


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

Laurentium said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> > Many people follow the rules that are set out for them without thinking too hard. I feel more badly that they feel dirty.
> ...


No, that's Winnie the Pooh lol


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

personofinterest said:


> No, that's Winnie the Pooh lol


I've seen that on the shelves, but never been tempted to read it.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Laurentium said:


> Is God a Taoist?


This God dude sounds pretty sensible. It is the human that is messed up.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

"This God dude sounds pretty sensible. It is the human that is messed up."

And once again, an atheist seems to have a better grasp of things than many christians.


----------



## Laurentium (May 21, 2017)

NobodySpecial said:


> This God dude sounds pretty sensible. It is the human that is messed up.


At points it reads like one of these forum conversations....


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

personofinterest said:


> "This God dude sounds pretty sensible. It is the human that is messed up."
> 
> And once again, an atheist seems to have a better grasp of things than many christians.


You bring up something that is curious to me. Why do people (you can only speak for you) sometimes use the quote feature and sometimes not?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

notmyjamie said:


> Well, now I just feel taken advantage of for posting in this thread. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And actually I should clarify my thinking (for @uhtred etc). It’s not so much a competition of how many offspring one can produce or how many vaginas one can ejaculate into (though some men make it into this kind of competition too) but ensuring offsprings’ survival/wellbeing means that you have allocated enough resources towards those offspring. This can include many things of how you set up your life, including choice of friends, where you decide to move, choice of school etc etc.

And having too much offspring may not be the optimal to continue your genes (so that argument for wealthy people to donate all their spleen doesn’t necessarily hold water) . And women seem to be able to judge this much better than men (abortions etc).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

NobodySpecial said:


> personofinterest said:
> 
> 
> > "This God dude sounds pretty sensible. It is the human that is messed up."
> ...


 OK, I realize as I say this that I am outing myself for some badd behavior. I spend more time than I would like to in standstill traffic in the morning. So sometimes I reply using my phone and talk to text. And when I do that, if it is a multiple quote I use" s when I don't want to quote all of it and only want to " a portion of it.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

personofinterest said:


> OK, I realize as I say this that I am outing myself for some badd behavior. I spend more time than I would like to in standstill traffic in the morning. So sometimes I reply using my phone and talk to text. And when I do that, if it is a multiple quote I use" s when I don't want to quote all of it and only want to " a portion of it.


I wondered. Your "typos" can be pretty cute.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

InMyPrime said:


> As long as there are women that take ‘equality’ literally, there will always be men that will take advantage of it. Of course ONSs don’t work for women. Even casual sex. (Wait for someone to start accusing me of **** shaming).
> That doesn’t mean I believe in sex after marriage. But there’s middle ground somewhere.
> Like a bit of anal play on the third date


I won't accuse you of **** shaming, because you really didn't phrase it in a **** shaming type way, but you do phrase things in a way that fails to take into account a woman's full, autonomous, independent, adulthood. "Take advantage of", FFS, as if a grown woman isn't capable of understanding how the world, dating, and mating, operate. Both genders occasionally "get taken advantage of" in sex and relationships. Women aren't any more or less susceptible than men. It's an individual thing, not a gender thing.



InMyPrime said:


> Why would I need experience with one night stands to understand how a WOMAN would feel after one
> I know how men think. I can even imagine how women _feel _, believe it or not.


Imagining is, more or less, speculation. In this thread actual women are explaining to you that there really isn't that much of a difference between the genders when it comes to casual sex. Some men and women are into it, some aren't.



InMyPrime said:


> Of course men will cheer you on, because it is in their interest that the likes of you* continue to advertise ONSs as the ‘cool’ or ‘fun’ thing to do.


For the first part, casual sex is often in the woman's interest, too. For example, when I was young and not ready to settle down, I wanted male companionship and a lot of sex, but I did NOT want emotional entanglements or to be at risk for emotional entanglements with a FWB who might "catch feelings". 

For the second bit, I've never been much concerned with being "cool". I can't speak to that. But fun? I had a lot of fun.



InMyPrime said:


> Tell me, where is the fun for the woman to have a random guy screw you and never call you back? What kind of sex would be worth it?


If you really want to understand, you'd have to approach from a different angle. Change the way you're thinking.

Why would you assume the woman would be upset he never called her back? What kind of sex would be worth...what? If you're trying to understand what a woman gets out of a ONS, pretty much the same thing a man gets. Charming company and physical pleasure. A shared sexual experience without baggage. Variety. New knowledge of self and others. Pleasant escape from the daily grind. A lot of fairly well documented physical benefits, too, like reduced stress, lower blood pressure, better circulation, etc.





InMyPrime said:


> Would you be happy for your daughter to have a bunch ONSs, because she thought she ‘felt’ like it? I know I would be devastated if mine had this attitude.


That's hyperbole, right? I'd reserve devastated for something a lot more serious than a daughter had a few consensual casual sex experiences.

My daughters have always openly discussed their sexuality and I know they've both engaged in ONS at some point or other. I also know they've had FWB relationships. I'm neither happy or upset about it. They're in their 20's, don't live at home, they've been educated on safer sex practices, it's their bodies, they have the right to do as they please. It's not my business. I only know what I know because they tend to speak freely around me and seem to take a fiendish delight in watching me run screaming "TMI! TMI!!"


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

In the now decimated altruistic cultures there were 50-80 per community, withholding was considered being stingy and against the norm which included sex.

With 80 per community there would be roughly 20 males and 20 adult females.

Each would have "known" every opposite sex person in the biblical sense so in a way there were no one night stands In the modern sense as the other was still around to interact with daily. 

Then a few times a year they had larger gatherings which allowed visiting others they had interacted with sexually.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> I won't accuse you of **** shaming, because you really didn't phrase it in a **** shaming type way, but you do phrase things in a way that fails to take into account a woman's full, autonomous, independent, adulthood. "Take advantage of", FFS, as if a grown woman isn't capable of understanding how the world, dating, and mating, operate. Both genders occasionally "get taken advantage of" in sex and relationships. Women aren't any more or less susceptible than men. It's an individual thing, not a gender thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This post is lovely.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> I won't accuse you of **** shaming, because you really didn't phrase it in a **** shaming type way, but you do phrase things in a way that fails to take into account a woman's full, autonomous, independent, adulthood. "Take advantage of", FFS, as if a grown woman isn't capable of understanding how the world, dating, and mating, operate. Both genders occasionally "get taken advantage of" in sex and relationships. Women aren't any more or less susceptible than men. It's an individual thing, not a gender thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes I understand what you are saying. I think there’s a danger of perhaps exaggerating what the other one is trying to say. 
I’m not saying casual sex or ONS is ALWAYS a horrible thing for a woman. 
What I personally see as the risks for my kids: i want to prevent my sons having their hearts ripped apart and my daughter being taken advantage of, physically. It could of course happen the other way around too but I see it as more likely, given the odds, that ONSs are still a worse deal for a woman than for a man, on average. It doesn’t mean a woman should never have an ONS and obviously anyone can do as they please, this is not meant to sound like preaching by a grandpa!




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> I won't accuse you of **** shaming, because you really didn't phrase it in a **** shaming type way, but you do phrase things in a way that fails to take into account a woman's full, autonomous, independent, adulthood. "Take advantage of", FFS, as if a grown woman isn't capable of understanding how the world, dating, and mating, operate. Both genders occasionally "get taken advantage of" in sex and relationships. Women aren't any more or less susceptible than men. It's an individual thing, not a gender thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Out of curiously, have you asked your daughters how the FELT about their experiences and whether they would change anything, if they could?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

People are easy to manipulate if you pretend to offer what they most want. 

I have strong objections to all lairs because they erode the trust in everyone.I have a lot of sympathy for trusting people who want to believe the best of humanity. 






EllisRedding said:


> Why, what is so difficult about keeping your pants on with a stranger??? I mean, if you are there strictly for a ONS, that is one thing. If you aren't but let yourself get smooth talked into, honestly no one to blame but yourself if you get hurt afterwards.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

For many people sex is *fun*. Why not have sex with an attractive person of your preferred gender?

Many people are not into casual sex, but its not surprising that some are 



InMyPrime said:


> snip
> Tell me, where is the fun for the woman to have a random guy screw you and never call you back? What kind of sex would be worth it?
> snip


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

How *is* it obvious?

When I look around I see lots of behavior that doesn't have a direct evolutionary cause. Its possible to create arguments to claim evolution causes everything but that seems to have no predictive power. 



InMyPrime said:


> We live in constant struggle between our minds and our evolutionary drives. It’s not black or white. How is this not obvious?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

uhtred said:


> How *is* it obvious?
> 
> 
> 
> When I look around I see lots of behavior that doesn't have a direct evolutionary cause. Its possible to create arguments to claim evolution causes everything but that seems to have no predictive power.



Because the evolutionary influence (rather than cause) is INDIRECT. But it is always there.

What do you find not predictive about it?

I predict that if you put 100 single men together with 100 single women into a big room together, there will be much more men willing to have an ONS with those women than women with those men.

I also predict that more women have regrets after an ONS than men.

Seems pretty straightforward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

uhtred said:


> For many people sex is *fun*. Why not have sex with an attractive person of your preferred gender?
> 
> Many people are not into casual sex, but its not surprising that some are


I don't get what is so hard about this concept unless there is a bit of pedestal nonsense around women. WHat women get out of it? A red hot hottie with crazy vibes and mad skills. No strings attached. How is that hard? Right?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> Because the evolutionary influence (rather than cause) is INDIRECT. But it is always there.
> 
> What do you find not predictive about it?
> 
> I predict that if you put 100 single men together with 100 single women into a big room together, there will be much more men willing to have an ONS with those women than women with those men.


Logic 101 was not your favorite course, huh? That in no way demonstrates evolutionary influence as the cause.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Logic 101 was not your favorite course, huh? That in no way demonstrates evolutionary influence as the cause.



Haha, you are adorable 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Demands? Evolution doesn't demand anything. Evolution just means that inheritable characteristics that increase the survival of a gene will become more common. (note that many of the genes involved are not even human - gut bacteria have impact on human behavior). Human behavior is not controlled in a fine-grained way by evolution, DNA doesn't store enough information for that (its a thumb-drive's worth), it just provides some modification of overall behavior characteristics.

Likely evolution also favors a lot of variation in behavior - since in different situations different behavior is optimal. In a high-food, low disease situation, having lots of sex is great. In the opposite situation being very selective in sexual partners is an advantage. So its not surprising from an evolutionary perspective that there is a wide range in behaviors. 








notmyjamie said:


> Well, now I just feel taken advantage of for posting in this thread. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

uhtred said:


> People are easy to manipulate if you pretend to offer what they most want.
> 
> *I have strong objections to all lairs because they erode the trust in everyone.I have a lot of sympathy for trusting people who want to believe the best of humanity*.


Trust me, I am in no way advocating dishonesty. However, I think it is a stretch to imply that an inability to keep your pants on is b/c you want to believe the best in humanity :wink2:


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> Haha, you are adorable


Diminutive response ... but none that actually can address the comment. I wonder if you even know how often you do this.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Lets try a prediction then. 

I am very likely to get a job offer for more money that I make now, will net including risk mean more money for me under better working conditions. Does evolution say that I will take that job?

An attractive woman at work hinted that an affair was a possibility. I would have near zero chance of being caught. What would evolution say I should do?

I have the option to take a vacation by myself, either to visit friends in a safe city setting, or go to a dangerous wilderness environment. Which does evolution want me to do?

Before I was married, on trip with a group of friends a woman I barely knew slipped into my bed. Did evolution cause me to have sex with her? Why did evolution cause her to do that?




Its always possible to explain things after the fact based on almost any theory you can imagine. 







InMyPrime said:


> Because the evolutionary influence (rather than cause) is INDIRECT. But it is always there.
> 
> What do you find not predictive about it?
> 
> ...


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

You are once again being too literal with this but ok, let’s play...



uhtred said:


> Lets try a prediction then.
> 
> 
> 
> I am very likely to get a job offer for more money that I make now, will net including risk mean more money for me under better working conditions. Does evolution say that I will take that job?


People who are more ambitious tend to aim higher and recognise opportunities when they present themselves. Evolution seems to favour them. But you have to weigh up risk vs reward before making a decision. Not a lot of info to go by but I would say if you are one of those people, you are more likely to take the job (if the risk is not ridiculous). 




uhtred said:


> An attractive woman at work hinted that an affair was a possibility. I would have near zero chance of being caught. What would evolution say I should do?


Let’s be realistic. There is NEVER a zero chance to be caught. Even if there was, being promiscuous can actually mean that you are going to be an unreliable partner and provider to your offspring meaning that your offspring (that are already born, as those typically take precedence over those not born yet) will be at a disadvantage.
A lot of morals stem from evolution (not only natural but also societal).





uhtred said:


> I have the option to take a vacation by myself, either to visit friends in a safe city setting, or go to a dangerous wilderness environment. Which does evolution want me to do?


I don’t know what you consider a ‘safe’ city setting but there is no such thing. I went to a safari for my honey moon and felt much safer than in any city. 





uhtred said:


> Before I was married, on trip with a group of friends a woman I barely knew slipped into my bed. Did evolution cause me to have sex with her? Why did evolution cause her to do that?


It’s a choice you made. I had this happen too but I took a different choice. Being influenced by evolution doesn’t mean you have no choices! With regards to her...we would have to ask her...
But are you saying that women are not allowed to get horny anymore? 





uhtred said:


> Its always possible to explain things after the fact based on almost any theory you can imagine.



You usually just take the simplest explanation. 
It seems simpler to me than ‘God did it/told me to do it’ anyway...

Like I said, the ‘optimal behaviour’ does not necessarily mean to have sex and inseminate as many people as possible to ensure survival of your genes.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

uhtred said:


> Lets try a prediction then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just to add, in case i make evolution sound like a religion...

I am simply referring to the various instincts that we possess, that are ingrained in us (via evolutionary processes), that are automatic and subconscious and not necessarily all thought out and arrived at via analytical thinking (‘the hamster’ ). And that I find interesting to analyse because some of them are puzzling and definitely not ‘learnt’ but inherited (some are learnt). It’s complicated. To reduce it into one post or even a thread is impossible. I just like to listen more to my ‘animal’ self more and more. That way I can ensure that i am a bit more in sync with what’s going on around me. (And try to be honest about it).

I am pretty sure my strong response in this thread is due to the fact that my paternal instincts are probably kicking in. I probably wouldn’t have responded that way before I had a daughter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

InMyPrime said:


> Because the evolutionary influence (rather than cause) is INDIRECT. But it is always there.
> 
> What do you find not predictive about it?
> 
> ...


Buddy I have the greatest of respect for you (except for your jokes lol) but in this thread you don’t know what you’re talking about. 
You haven’t been there, haven’t done it and definitely didn’t buy the T-shirt.
Can you not see how vainglorious you sound telling women how they should feel about casual sex.You yourself have never experienced it as a man but you feel qualified to tell a woman how it should make her feel.
You are coming across as very self-righteous.
Or are you trolling?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Andy1001 said:


> Buddy I have the greatest of respect for you (except for your jokes lol) but in this thread you don’t know what you’re talking about.
> You haven’t been there, haven’t done it and definitely didn’t buy the T-shirt.
> Can you not see how *vainglorious* you sound telling women how they should feel about casual sex.You yourself have never experienced it as a man but you feel qualified to tell a woman how it should make her feel.
> You are coming across as very self-righteous.
> Or are you trolling?


OOOO! Good word! I could not remember what it meant and had to look it up. I feel educated. Thanks!


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> Buddy I have the greatest of respect for you (except for your jokes lol) but in this thread you don’t know what you’re talking about.
> 
> You haven’t been there, haven’t done it and definitely didn’t buy the T-shirt.
> 
> ...



Hey man, read my posts first before you give me a beating 
It’s frustrating to take the time to write a bunch of **** when somebody barges in and craps all over it, because they only read one paragraph from it and decided for themselves what they want it to mean. Oh well never mind.
Please tell me more, master 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

uhtred said:


> Lets try a prediction then.
> 
> I am very likely to get a job offer for more money that I make now, will net including risk mean more money for me under better working conditions. Does evolution say that I will take that job?
> 
> ...



Evolution would say you take her home.>


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

InMyPrime said:


> Hey man, read my posts first before you give me a beating
> It’s frustrating to take the time to write a bunch of **** when somebody barges in and craps all over it, because they only read one paragraph from it and decided for themselves what they want it to mean. Oh well never mind.
> Please tell me more, master
> 
> ...


Oh I’ve read them. 
Believe me I’ve read them. :rofl:


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> Hey man, read my posts first before you give me a beating
> It’s frustrating to take the time to write a bunch of **** when somebody barges in and craps all over it, because they only read one paragraph from it and decided for themselves what they want it to mean. Oh well never mind.
> Please tell me more, master
> 
> ...


Vainglorious is a good word. It would be maybe a motivation for assuming someone did not read your posts rather than that they think what they think.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> Oh I’ve read them.
> 
> Believe me I’ve read them. :rofl:



Then I am sorry to have burst your little bubble then 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

red oak said:


> Evolution would say you take her home.>


I can almost hear evolution's voice!


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

OK, so maybe to dial it back a bit towards the original article. If I understand correctly, the author's main premise is that women (in general) are less likely to have favorable ONS vs males (in general). So with this:

- No one is saying women don't enjoy sex, or that they don't enjoy sex to the same extent that men do
- No one is saying that women are incapable of having a true ONS
- No one is saying that all men are capable of having a true ONS

So really the question then comes back to, are men (in general) more capable of having no strings attached ONS versus females (in general), whether it be biological or other? Since i have never had a ONS I can't comment on exactly how I would respond (although knowing my personality and how easy I detach from people, I don't "think" it would be an issue). However, I still think there is something to be said that I have heard with much more frequency women feeling used after a ONS (the expectation that it would lead to more) but rarely hear this from guys.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> OK, so maybe to dial it back a bit towards the original article. If I understand correctly, the author's main premise is that women (in general) are less likely to have favorable ONS vs males (in general). So with this:
> 
> - No one is saying women don't enjoy sex, or that they don't enjoy sex to the same extent that men do
> - No one is saying that women are incapable of having a true ONS
> ...


How was MJeans’s answer for you? Seems like hers was the most comprehensive. 

You’ve also heard from a few now who feel the opposite and that sex is sacred and only between marrieds.

Between hers and the other responses, you kind of have the spectrum of answers.

Some people regret ONS, some don’t.

But also, please don’t forget the point made by some women already....the artilce was written by a woman whose agenda is to shame feminists for anything and everything.

So do you want opinions about the article, or about our actual experiences with ONS?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

EllisRedding said:


> OK, so maybe to dial it back a bit towards the original article. If I understand correctly, the author's main premise is that women (in general) are less likely to have favorable ONS vs males (in general). So with this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What do you mean by ‘more capable’?
I think anyone is ‘capable’ of having an ONS. Isn’t what you are trying to ask, who has them more and whether there are any differences in the ramifications? 
Do you think women who had and regret them, are less or more likely to respond here? 

And is there any reason to completely ignore the data that points to a VERY CLEAR answer to those questions?

But it’s useful to have people like Andy to make sure everyone knows how amazing ONSs are for EVERYONE in equal measure. Just like Communism (sorry Andy, I will put my **** away now ).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

All the evolutionary imperative aside, there are some reasons that a lower percentage of women than men like ONS.

I think it general women are more at risk of attack by men than men are by women. There is some physical danger associated with being in an isolated location with a stranger. 

I think that the physical differences in sex between women and men means that a woman is more likely to have a negative experience of sex with a bad partner than a man is. It can happen to both, but I think more men can enjoy sex with a boring or unskilled partner, than women can. 

The above by no means is suggesting that there are not significant numbers of women who greatly enjoy ONSs,


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

uhtred said:


> All the evolutionary imperative aside, there are some reasons that a lower percentage of women than men like ONS.
> 
> I think it general women are more at risk of attack by men than men are by women. There is some physical danger associated with being in an isolated location with a stranger.
> 
> ...


And there is great societal pressure to keep the gate.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

EllisRedding said:


> OK, so maybe to dial it back a bit towards the original article. If I understand correctly, the author's main premise is that women (in general) are less likely to have favorable ONS vs males (in general). So with this:
> 
> - No one is saying women don't enjoy sex, or that they don't enjoy sex to the same extent that men do
> - No one is saying that women are incapable of having a true ONS
> ...


What is a "true" ONS vs a fake one?

I think there are soooo many social factors at work that it would be reasonable be reasonable to think that it would tip the scale. The pressures are different for men and women.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> How was MJeans’s answer for you? Seems like hers was the most comprehensive.
> 
> You’ve also heard from a few now who feel the opposite and that sex is sacred and only between marrieds.
> 
> ...


Yes, I saw MJeans post and thought it was great. However, is she more of the outlier, IDK?

In terms of who the article was written by, several posters here were quick to dismiss without bothering to address anything in the actual article.

Well, since I posted an article, it would seem reasonable for opinions on the article lol. As well, experience adds to it. SO why can't it be both???


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

InMyPrime said:


> What do you mean by ‘more capable’?
> I think anyone is ‘capable’ of having an ONS. Isn’t what you are trying to ask, who has them more and whether there are any differences in the ramifications?
> Do you think women who had and regret them, are less or more likely to respond here?
> 
> ...


When I said more capable, I was thinking more along the lines of those who could have a no strings attached ONS vs. those who think they can (but then once done that was not the case for whatever reason).

My only point in my last post, I felt like this thread was starting to get off course a little and making assumptions that weren't said (so not to ignore data points, but I also don't think they are simply yes/no answers)


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

EllisRedding said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > How was MJeans’s answer for you? Seems like hers was the most comprehensive.
> ...


Here is a thought I have about the article that also relates to my own level of sexual desire and my feelings about sex.

I am HD and always have been. After self examination, lots of self education about how things are for others, and lots of study about sexuality in general and women in particular, I can say that the main reason my sexuality was able to flourish is because no one shamed me about it in a lasting, on going way. Therefore I was able to just simply find out for myself what I like about sex and what works and what doesn’t. I didn’t have to wonder if my soul would burn in hell. I didn’t have to worry that I would be thrown out of my parents house. I didn’t think that adults would call me a ***** and so forth. It was never put into my mind that sex itself was shameful, nor that I was doing anything wrong by having sexual feelings and curiosity. They did try to talk to me about facts, they also may have been worried about me. But they recognized I wasn’t actually doing anything wrong. They worried about the possible dangers to my body or psyche, but they did not assume those dangers would come to pass. They had normal parental worries without trying to shame me.

I know that many people don’t understand what shaming is and why it is a problem. Excessive shaming also harms men’s sex drives. The article is shamed based. Sorry, it just is.

Men seem to recognize when they are being man shamed. But not always when we are being **** shamed.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Here is a thought I have about the article that also relates to my own level of sexual desire and my feelings about sex.
> 
> I am HD and always have been. After self examination, lots of self education about how things are for others, and lots of study about sexuality in general and women in particular, I can say that the main reason my sexuality was able to flourish is because no one shamed me about it in a lasting, on going way.


This is one of the things I continue to cherish about my husband, and is a direct and polar opposite to my mother. Amen and alleluia! I wish I did not have to bust those chains of upbringing.



> Therefore I was able to just simply find out for myself what I like about sex and what works and what doesn’t. I didn’t have to wonder if my soul would burn in hell. I didn’t have to worry that I would be thrown out of my parents house. I didn’t think that adults would call me a ***** and so forth. It was never put into my mind that sex itself was shameful, nor that I was doing anything wrong by having sexual feelings and curiosity. They did try to talk to me about facts, they also may have been worried about me. But they recognized I wasn’t actually doing anything wrong. They worried about the possible dangers to my body or psyche, but they did not assume those dangers would come to pass. They had normal parental worries without trying to shame me.


I want to be your parents if I ever grow up.



> I know that many people don’t understand what shaming is and why it is a problem. Excessive shaming also harms men’s sex drives. The article is shamed based. Sorry, it just is.
> 
> Men seem to recognize when they are being man shamed. But not always when we are being **** shamed.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a thought I have about the article that also relates to my own level of sexual desire and my feelings about sex.
> ...


I was able to do pretty well with my own kids, too! They are happy sexually well adjusted adults now. Sad that so many parents can’t be adults about it when it comes to sex talks and kids. Many parents are still dealing with their own shame about sex and therefore can’t effectively educate their kids without passing the shame down too.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I was able to do pretty well with my own kids, too! They are happy sexually well adjusted adults now. Sad that so many parents can’t be adults about it when it comes to sex talks and kids.* Many parents are still dealing with their own shame about sex and therefore can’t effectively educate their kids without passing the shame down too.*


Bingo. Must be the front row.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

InMyPrime said:


> Out of curiously, have you asked your daughters how they FELT about their experiences and whether they would change anything, if they could?


I can't say anything for sure because no one truly knows what another person is feeling, but I've never heard either of them express any regrets. 



InMyPrime said:


> What I personally see as the risks for my kids: i want to prevent my sons having their hearts ripped apart and my daughter being taken advantage of, physically.


The worry for your sons hearts is not really a thing unless they're the kind of guys who think they're in love when they talk to a lady for moe than 5 minutes, lol. Otherwise, the whole point of casual sex is casual. No strings. No involvement. No worries of hurt feelings because feelings aren't involved.

I understand worrying your daughters could be physically assaulted, but that's separate from ONS. It's more a universal worry. The ugly reality is your daughter could be assaulted by a known young man as easily as a random fella she picked up out clubbing.



EllisRedding said:


> Yes, I saw MJeans post and thought it was great. However, is she more of the outlier, IDK?


Am I the outlier? Not among my friends and family, but then birds of a feather tend to flock together.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> I can't say anything for sure because no one truly knows what another person is feeling, but I've never heard either of them express any regrets.


But have you asked them how they actually felt about it? Don’t mean to harp on about it but I guess it’s possible to talk about these things with kids without having to go into any kinds of (sexual) details. I was always quite open with my parents about those things (my mother in particular). People found it weird that we could talk about sex so openly.





MJJEAN said:


> The worry for your sons hearts is not really a thing unless they're the kind of guys who think they're in love when they talk to a lady for moe than 5 minutes, lol. Otherwise, the whole point of casual sex is casual. No strings. No involvement. No worries of hurt feelings because feelings aren't involved.


Well when I was a boy it could take quite a bit less than 5 minutes to convince myself that I could be in love with someone, so non LOLs here that I can especially relate to .

It was only later, and in fact after talks with my mother that I realised how important it is to ‘protect your heart’. It only needs to be damaged once and you can ‘break’ it for life...



MJJEAN said:


> I understand worrying your daughters could be physically assaulted, but that's separate from ONS. It's more a universal worry. The ugly reality is your daughter could be assaulted by a known young man as easily as a random fella she picked up out clubbing.



I didn’t mean physical assault (although that’s a bigger worry for a girl too, rather than for a guy). 
I meant that I would naturally be more concerned for her being physically taken advantage of, rather than my sons being physically taken advantage of by a girl, which sounds rather ridiculous but maybe it happens too.... While for my sons, I would be more concerned for their hearts being ripped out.

I have no idea why being concerned for your kids’ wellbeing has anything to do with ****-shaming but never mind (not referring to you). I completely agree with the article; there’s nothing really one can reasonably disagree with, unless one doesn’t believe in the whole ‘facts and figures’ idea out of principle....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think the below may be the case for more people (men and women) than want to admit it. The 5 minutes is exaggerating of course, but there are people who find it easy to fall in love - and that makes them easy to hurt. 








MJJEAN said:


> snip
> The worry for your sons hearts is not really a thing unless they're the kind of guys who think they're in love when they talk to a lady for moe than 5 minutes, lol. Otherwise, the whole point of casual sex is casual. No strings. No involvement. No worries of hurt feelings because feelings aren't involved.
> snip
> .


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> Here is a thought I have about the article that also relates to my own level of sexual desire and my feelings about sex.
> 
> I am HD and always have been. After self examination, lots of self education about how things are for others, and lots of study about sexuality in general and women in particular, I can say that the main reason my sexuality was able to flourish is because no one shamed me about it in a lasting, on going way. Therefore I was able to just simply find out for myself what I like about sex and what works and what doesn’t. I didn’t have to wonder if my soul would burn in hell. I didn’t have to worry that I would be thrown out of my parents house. I didn’t think that adults would call me a ***** and so forth. It was never put into my mind that sex itself was shameful, nor that I was doing anything wrong by having sexual feelings and curiosity. They did try to talk to me about facts, they also may have been worried about me. But they recognized I wasn’t actually doing anything wrong. They worried about the possible dangers to my body or psyche, but they did not assume those dangers would come to pass. They had normal parental worries without trying to shame me.
> 
> ...


 :iagree:

Being free from shaming has much to do with ones ability to enjoy life.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

red oak said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a thought I have about the article that also relates to my own level of sexual desire and my feelings about sex.
> ...


Yeah. Shameless. Hee!

ETA: I feel I was able to explore my own sexuality without being told any of it was shameful. I was told some of it may be unwanted, not fun, or physically or emotionally damaging in some situations. But no one ever told me this is ok but this is not or this particular thing is the line that makes what you want “shameful”.

What is shameful sexually is a thing that churches and other establishments make for their own rules of behavior. If a person decides for themselves what is or isn’t shameful based on what they feel and experience, a whole different world of non shameful sexual things opens up.

Our ideas about what we might want to try are definitely affected by the attitude we hold by the time we are ready to try things.

I wanted to try many many things. It took me awhile to start checking them off, but I can say in retrospect, nothing I wanted to try was anything I would worry about my own kids getting up to. They are just sex acts. What difference does it make which part of whose body is doing what, as far as “shame” is concerned (that’s the opinion I had then and still have now).

As far as do I want to do this or that based on my own real experience and self awareness, there are things I don’t want to do. Shame is not the reason.

Ellis, when you said something like “if a woman gets talked into it on the first date” you don’t have any pity for her. Ok, fair. But I also have no pity for these young guys who literally can’t **** their way out of a bag and get dumped by decent girls because of it. Because that happens too. Sorry young, immature guys who have no experience. I have no pity for you. You are probably so dumb that you think porn is real and you can’t work out how to handle a real woman’s body. 

See the shaming?


----------



## SpinyNorman (Jan 24, 2018)

EllisRedding said:


> Main jist of article per the author's opinion:
> 
> Women just aren't designed for one-night stands.


I believe women just aren't designed. I think they evolved.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

There's the most obvious possibility.....

I've seen data that reports on the rate of women achieving orgasms in ONS's vs short term relationships and long term relationships.

I'm pretty confident that general opinion on this site (woke & unwoke alike) is that reaching orgasm is more difficult for women than it is for men. 

Men have orgasms in ONSs pretty much every time. Women, not so much.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> There's the most obvious possibility.....
> 
> I've seen data that reports on the rate of women achieving orgasms in ONS's vs short term relationships and long term relationships.
> 
> ...


This would be why I don’t do it, but not for lack of O’s. Just lack of time spent vetting him for compatibility. Not only will he not give me O’s, he also may not even know how to touch a breast with any mojo. 

If I wasn’t so fussy I would have been all over ONS’s many times. But knowing what meh (or worse) sex is like, I am not willing to take that chance. 

However, give me a good make out or two and I know enough to know if I want to proceed or not.


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Buddy400 said:


> There's the most obvious possibility.....
> 
> I've seen data that reports on the rate of women achieving orgasms in ONS's vs short term relationships and long term relationships.
> 
> ...


Wonder why that is.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

red oak said:


> Wonder why that is.


Because we only give the handbook to the top 20% and the other 80% we tell them to mow the lawn.

(sorry so snarky, not directed at you personally)


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Because we only give the handbook to the top 20% and the other 80% we tell them to mow the lawn.
> 
> (sorry so snarky, not directed at you personally)


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> There's the most obvious possibility.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, so apparently ONSs are not fun, not always safe, most women on this thread personally won’t engage in them (for whatever reasons), but pointing it out that this is how the majority feels and thinks (which is the same in the real world,’given the numbers) is still somehow considered shameful and...untrue? Should we lie about it for the sake of being...’woke’ or some other reason?

I liked the quote from the article by JB quite a lot and felt exactly like this about sex:

“People treat sex like it’s casual. It’s not. Sex is unbelievably complicated. It’s dangerous. It involves emotions. It involves pregnancy. It involves illness. It involves betrayal. It reaches right down into the roots of someone. You don’t play with something like that casually. Well, you can, but you’ll pay for it.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Given the likelihood that your son absorbs your teaching, in fact, your son would be one of the people my daughter would avoid like the plague.


Why you so mean to ma boy? 
You would teach your daughter to avoid boys that don't feel like they are entitled to **** anything that has a vagina and instead treat them with respect? Or do you consider turning down an ONS 'disrespectful'? We got ourselves into a bit of a pretzel there again, haven't we.
[/QUOTE]



NobodySpecial said:


> The guys seek sex at all costs mantra is just wrong and far more insidious than sex itself. She and I both have met and know many, many men with sex positive views that don't share these weird moralistic rules and are happy for it!


You go girl! :wink2:



NobodySpecial said:


> If she does chose a life long mate, hopefully many years from now, I am grateful that she won't have the notion that it is the one and only route to sex as part of the decision making process.


Nobody said that there is only one route to sex.



NobodySpecial said:


> My biggest concern for them would be as it always is, are they being kind, safe, and true to themselves and their health. I would be righteously pissed if my daughter pressured someone else into sex. Because she looks to me to raise her, and that is very unkind. I would hold her if she were upset by a poor choice, as they do occur. Then we'd dust off her knees and get back up and move along. But if she chose to have sex in one of its many good expressions? Hell no. I would not be upset with her. Or them, as we talk about both children.
> 
> What remains a persistent thought for me is how little value the idea that men and women think in the same ways as each other of their gender is so incredibly unhelpful.


They may think the same (or similar) however they don't always act the same.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> Why you so mean to ma boy?
> You would teach your daughter to avoid boys that don't feel like they are entitled to **** anything that has a vagina and instead treat them with respect? Or do you consider turning down an ONS 'disrespectful'? We got ourselves into a bit of a pretzel there again, haven't we.


The package of your view lacks an understanding a woman's sexual agency and their own ownership of their bodies, minds and sexuality. The erroneous evo-psych is a pile of back handed entitled poo.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> The package of your view lacks an understanding a woman's sexual agency and their own ownership of their bodies, minds and sexuality. The erroneous evo-psych is a pile of back handed entitled poo.


That 'package' is entirely a creation in your own imagination of what you want it to be so that it can fit inside your feminist narrative stereotype conveniently, because that's all you see around you. But it's ok, I will just have to try and engage with people who actually understand what I write, even if they disagree with it. :wink2:


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> This would be why I don’t do it, but not for lack of O’s. Just lack of time spent vetting him for compatibility. Not only will he not give me O’s, he also may not even know how to touch a breast with any mojo.
> 
> If I wasn’t so fussy I would have been all over ONS’s many times. But knowing what meh (or worse) sex is like, I am not willing to take that chance.
> 
> However, give me a good make out or two and I know enough to know if I want to proceed or not.


I have certainly never looked for it, possibly for the reasons you mention, though I never gave it much thought. The times it did happen there were sparky, sparks. The head was flying. I did not sit there and evaluate the likelihood of Os! I am picturing making a spreadsheet so I could graph the Os with ONS partners and long term relationships. tee hee.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> That 'package' is entirely a creation in your own imagination of what you want it to be so that it can fit inside your feminist narrative stereotype conveniently, because that's all you see around you. But it's ok, I will just have to try and engage with people who actually understand what I write, even if they disagree with it. :wink2:


lol. Ok. The winky is cute.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> There's the most obvious possibility.....
> 
> I've seen data that reports on the rate of women achieving orgasms in ONS's vs short term relationships and long term relationships.
> 
> ...


One thing I would note, this site is not even remotely representative of the experience of men OR women at large. It is a tiny representation of what goes on. 

That said, I think reaching orgasm IS harder for many women... it is not something that most of us were taught was important At All.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> One thing I would note, this site is not even remotely representative of the experience of men OR women at large. It is a tiny representation of what goes on.
> 
> That said, I think reaching orgasm IS harder for many women... it is not something that most of us were taught was important At All.


And that's nothing to do with teaching of course. It's biology. I don't believe somebody *taught* you to get aroused from nipple play?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> And that's nothing to do with teaching of course. It's biology. I don't believe somebody *taught* you to get aroused from nipple play?


Someone DID teach me NOT to be aroused at all.

I am not aroused by nipple play.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> I have certainly never looked for it, possibly for the reasons you mention, though I never gave it much thought. The times it did happen there were sparky, sparks. The head was flying. I did not sit there and evaluate the likelihood of Os! I am picturing making a spreadsheet so I could graph the Os with ONS partners and long term relationships. tee hee.


Yes, those unexpected sparky sparks that make things all sparkly. Yummm! I have had that and then it turns into a make out sesh, but I never let it go beyond that right then and there. Mainly because we are usually in a car or standing outside a restaurant. 

But I have had such sparky sparks, made out at the end of the date, and then gone back to his place for more. It’s just that it was not a ONS, it was on going. It was definitely casual however, as we had nothing more in common than the sparky stuff. Which is sometimes kinda fun, because it’s like “oh hey that was fun, ok so same time Thursday?” and no fuss about anything else.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Someone DID teach me NOT to be aroused at all.



Who was that? Mr Patriarchenstein?

(Ok, if it was some kind of abuse thing, this will make me look like an ******* so I’m just going to hedge my bets...)

You can’t help what you are and what you are NOT aroused by...unless there was some kind of trauma. But that’s different from society or anyone ‘teaching’ one anything. The way you phrased it is confusing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, those unexpected sparky sparks that make things all sparkly. Yummm! I have had that and then it turns into a make out sesh, but I never let it go beyond that right then and there. Mainly because we are usually in a car or standing outside a restaurant.


One of my fondest memories is being so jazzed we stumbled through the door but did not make it up the stairs. I had rug burn on my back that took a while to heal. 



> But I have had such sparky sparks, made out at the end of the date, and then gone back to his place for more. It’s just that it was not a ONS, it was on going. It was definitely casual however, as we had nothing more in common than the sparky stuff. Which is sometimes kinda fun, because it’s like “oh hey that was fun, ok so same time Thursday?” and no fuss about anything else.


I have had that happen. Also had ... cheers, see ya! as well.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> Who was that? Mr Patriarchenstein?


My mother. My church. The nuns at my school. 




> (Ok, if it was some kind of abuse thing, this will make me look like an ******* so I’m just going to hedge my bets...)
> 
> You can’t help what you are and what you are NOT aroused by...unless there was some kind of trauma. But that’s different from society or anyone ‘teaching’ one anything. The way you phrased it is confusing.


Why would I want to HELP it? It is not broken.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> My mother. My church. The nuns at my school.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You claimed that not reaching an orgasm is something that was taught.
I’m calling BS on this. It doesn’t mean that a crappy lover is going to make it any easier for a woman to reach an orgasm...but your claim is far beyond that as to be pretty ridiculous.

Let’s put again 100 men and women in the same room (yes, I’m obsessed with orgies...). They each give each other a hand job for no more than 5 minutes (I dunno what you call it when a man does it to a woman: finger joy?). 

Do you think more men or more women are going to come in this time?

Do you think the result will be because of ‘social conditioning’ or biology?

What do we learn from this experiment? 

Oh and by the way, a lot more boys were being discouraged from masturbation than girls...(bad eyesight etc...that’s why most of us wear glasses and look smart ).





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> You claimed that not reaching an orgasm is something that was taught.


I did not claim that. I think you ought to roll with your seeking convo from others.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

InMyPrime said:


> You claimed that not reaching an orgasm is something that was taught.
> I’m calling BS on this. It doesn’t mean that a crappy lover is going to make it any easier for a woman to reach an orgasm...but your claim is far beyond that as to be pretty ridiculous.
> 
> Let’s put again 100 men and women in the same room (yes, I’m obsessed with orgies...). They each give each other a hand job for no more than 5 minutes (I dunno what you call it when a man does it to a woman: finger joy?).
> ...


You are determined to keep this thread going dude.
When it comes to orgasms I can bring my wife to O within five minutes no problem. I’ve never “came” in less than half an hour in my life and I’m including my first time.
About half the time I have sex with my wife I don’t come at all,doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I prefer the journey rather than the destination. 
I still think you are trying to tell women how they should feel about sex, you can use as many funny emojis as you want but the underlying message is still there.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> I did not claim that. I think you ought to roll with your seeking convo from others.



This: 



NobodySpecial said:


> That said, I think reaching orgasm IS harder for many women... it is not something that most of us were taught was important At All.



Meaning what exactly? 
My apologies if I misunderstood you but saying this within the context of this discussion sounds like placing blame on something external.

Perhaps you can clarify what you meant then.

Do you agree then that the difference in the speed of reaching an orgasm is mostly down to differences in biology?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> This:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Meaning exactly what. That most of us were not taught that reaching orgasm was important at all.



> My apologies if I misunderstood you but saying this within the context of this discussion sounds like placing blame on something external.


I do not, and never have, cared one whit about blame.


> Perhaps you can clarify what you meant then.
> 
> Do you agree then that the difference in the speed of reaching an orgasm is mostly down to differences in biology?


No.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> When it comes to orgasms I can bring my wife to O within five minutes no problem. I’ve never “came” in less than half an hour in my life and I’m including my first time.














Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Andy1001 said:


> You are determined to keep this thread going dude.
> When it comes to orgasms I can bring my wife to O within five minutes no problem. I’ve never “came” in less than half an hour in my life and I’m including my first time.
> About half the time I have sex with my wife I don’t come at all,doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I prefer the journey rather than the destination.
> I still think you are trying to tell women how they should feel about sex, you can use as many funny emojis as you want but the underlying message is still there.


I guess SOMEBODY thinks that the emojis are funny rather than just a passive aggressive maneuver!


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> No.



Colour me confused then. But I think you need to first resolve that cognitive dissonance malarkey here before it will make sense for me to reply...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> Colour me confused then. But I think you need to first resolve that cognitive dissonance malarkey here before it will make sense for me to reply...


You keep trying to guess my motives without attempting to understand at all. Cheers to you.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Andy1001 said:


> You are determined to keep this thread going dude.
> When it comes to orgasms I can bring my wife to O within five minutes no problem. I’ve never “came” in less than half an hour in my life and I’m including my first time.
> About half the time I have sex with my wife I don’t come at all,doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I prefer the journey rather than the destination.
> I still think you are trying to tell women how they should feel about sex, you can use as many funny emojis as you want but the underlying message is still there.


Interesting. I’ve known some men (platonically) who also describe what you did about orgasms. Thank you for speaking up, I think it’s more common than some people think (but irrelevant to them if it doesn’t involve their own sex life, so why would they know?)

Also, the guys who I’ve been with who were the best lovers weren’t focused on either of our orgasms. They were focused on the ongoing, unfolding, unique joy of the experience. O’s happen or they don’t. Either way, yay, sex!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Interesting. I’ve known some men (platonically) who also describe what you did about orgasms. Thank you for speaking up, I think it’s more common than some people think (but irrelevant to them if it doesn’t involve their own sex life, so why would they know?)
> 
> Also, the guys who I’ve been with who were the best lovers weren’t focused on either of our orgasms. *They were focused on the ongoing, unfolding, unique joy of the experience. O’s happen or they don’t. Either way, yay, sex!*


For myself, I have experienced inability to orgasm as well as the crazy experience (won't call it ability since it is not a skill or something) of being quickly, crazily multi-orgasmic. What you describe is the difference for me.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> You are determined to keep this thread going dude.
> 
> When it comes to orgasms I can bring my wife to O within five minutes no problem. I’ve never “came” in less than half an hour in my life and I’m including my first time.



To be fair, with me, delaying orgasm happens by choice rather than involuntary (which I think is more the norm?) it was more difficult to delay when I was much younger though. But I read that this ‘ability’ seems to crop up more with age.

Ok, you don’t mind if you don’t come, fair enough. Does your wife mind? Because mine would make quite a big deal out of it. (Probably because it happens so rarely that I don’t come - perhaps if it was the norm, she would calm down).

I did have a friend he had this condition (not being able to come) because of the medication he was on. His gf loved it though (I think).



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. I’ve known some men (platonically) who also describe what you did about orgasms. Thank you for speaking up, I think it’s more common than some people think (but irrelevant to them if it doesn’t involve their own sex life, so why would they know?)
> ...


I’m glad I never came to feel that sex was about orgasms. For me, orgasms are lovely cherries on top. But if I had to have one or else I would feel sexually unfulfilled in any given encounter, that would suck. In no way am I saying that O’s aren’t important to whoever they are important to. Just that for those people who have to have one or else they are left hanging, I just am glad I don’t feel that way.

I want to focus on the banging and the intimacy and the fondling and the licking and the tenderness or the roughness and the tingles and the sparkles. If they lead to an O, great! If they don’t, I already got what I was after.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m glad I never came to feel that sex was about orgasms. For me, orgasms are lovely cherries on top. But if I had to have one or else I would feel sexually unfulfilled in any given encounter, that would suck


YUP. Worse is when a dude gets his ego stroked by "giving" them. 



> . In no way am I saying that O’s aren’t important to whoever they are important to. Just that for those people who have to have one or else they are left hanging, I just am glad I don’t feel that way.
> 
> I want to focus on the banging and the intimacy and the fondling and the licking and the tenderness or the roughness and the tingles and the sparkles. If they lead to an O, great! If they don’t, I already got what I was after.


Licking!


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> YUP. Worse is when a dude gets his ego stroked by "giving" them.


I do think there's something weird about the phrasing 'giving my wife an orgasm' or 'make my wife come in 5 minutes'. She either experiences them or she doesn't, the guy is only half responsible for that (if that at all). 

I think part of the problem is also that women _know _how much it means to some guys that they 'make their woman come' and the women end up under a lot of pressure, which is counterproductive and it starts a psychological vicious circle (of not coming). That is why it works best (in my experience, which Andy will point out is extremely limited I am sure) if you *don't* actually focus on the woman all that much (not explicitly anyway), to give out the impression as if they arise by themselves (which they kind of do anyway).

In our case though, if I had to pull some stats...it just happens that both of us come 99% of the time (and wife sometimes twice). This wasn't always like this with her. I am under no illusions to assign this gift to my skills though. I do think women become much more comfortable with age in terms of knowing and understanding what they want and what they (and their bodies) like.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> I do think there's something weird about the phrasing 'giving my wife an orgasm' or 'make my wife come in 5 minutes'. She either experiences them or she doesn't, the guy is only half responsible for that (if that at all).
> 
> I think part of the problem is also that women _know _how much it means to some guys that they 'make their woman come' and the women end up under a lot of pressure, which is counterproductive and starts a psychological vicious circle (of not coming).
> 
> In our case though, if I had to pull some stats...it just happens that both of us come 99% of the time (and wife sometimes twice). This wasn't always like this with her. I am under no illusions to assign this gift to my skills though. I do think women become much more comfortable with age in terms of knowing and understanding what they want and what they (and their bodies) like.


I think FW has it nailed. Age has nothing to do with it. Self awareness does.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> I think FW has it nailed. Age has nothing to do with it. Self awareness does.


And self awareness comes with....?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> And self awareness comes with....?


Openness. Experience. Honesty. I can honestly say that my 15 year old is more self aware than most so-called grown ups that I know. The mental struggle to defend and protect oneself can very much lead to lack of self awareness regardless of how much time has passed.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> I think FW has it nailed. *Age has nothing to do with it.* Self awareness does.


I am not sure why you are so hell-bent on arguing with every sentence I write but ok. 
Just in case it wasn't clear, I don't think self awareness has nothing to do with the ability to orgasm easier. It just happens that a lot of women become more self aware (and more experienced) as they age. Maybe it's coincidence I don't know and I don't think it matters.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> I am not sure why you are so hell-bent on arguing with every sentence I write but ok.


I am no more hell bent on arguing on your posts than you are mine. My job is boring in the extreme. So I post. I just happen to disagree with pretty much everything you write. I most often don't even realize it was you I replied to until after I have replied.



> Just in case it wasn't clear, I don't think self awareness has nothing to do with the ability to orgasm easier. It just happens that a lot of women become more self aware (and more experienced) as they age. Maybe it's coincidence I don't know and I don't think it matters.


Mmmm. Ok. Of course, that has nothing to do with what I said.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> I am no more hell bent on arguing on your posts than you are mine. My job is boring in the extreme. So I post. I just happen to disagree with pretty much everything you write. I most often don't even realize it was you I replied to until after I have replied.


Sorry your job is boring. Do you reckon if we all had exciting jobs we would argue less?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> I just happen to disagree with pretty much everything you write.


You don't actually. You agree with pretty much everything I write, you just don't always know it. :grin2: (can you tell what my job is like yet?)
Ok I *really* need to go now...


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)




----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

InMyPrime said:


> Andy1001 said:
> 
> 
> > You are determined to keep this thread going dude.
> ...


When I say I don’t come it’s because I choose not to,nothing to do with medication or age,it’s just practice. 
All those ons you see. 😈


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

InMyPrime said:


> But have you asked them how they actually felt about it?


Of course. We've been talking about sex since my oldest was literally 5. She asked where babies come from while I hugely uncomfortably pregnant with her sister, in a bit of a hurry, and driving. Cuz that's the best time to surprise your mom with a serious question that requires a somewhat lengthy explanation.

I think you're asking a question expecting an answer that really doesn't exist. 

I raised my girls without religion, for the most part. They knew the concept of God, but didn't go to church other than a few times they went with friends when they were young and again much later when my DH returned to the Church and the kids came with us for Mass. We went to a Jesuit parish that was more liberal and concerned with social justice issues than sex.

At home, among friends and family, sex was openly discussed, often joked about, and any questions asked were honestly answered. They knew long before the hormones kicked in that, someday, they'd have the urge to be physical with another young man or woman (I figured they were too young to know yet if they were gay or not, so best cover all bases) and that those urges were perfectly natural, normal, and when/where/how they acted on those urges was entirely up to them. Once they were a bit older and the hormones were beginning to flow, they got more details regarding the pro's and cons of birth control methods, STD prevention, and age of consent laws where we live. 

We also had the "sex produces bonding hormones, so don't mistake a good romp for Mr or Ms Right." talk.

Sex was a big deal, but not a big deal, if that makes any sense. Kind of like getting a drivers license. It's fun and almost everyone around wants to do it ASAP, but it does come with responsibilities and mistakes can be life altering, so use sense.

Because of how they (and most people I know) view sex, I don't think the answer you're looking for exists for us. I get the impression you're asking about, like, _feelings_. The only answers I can give you I am not sure you will understand. Partially because I may be explaining badly and partially because it's just so far outside of what I think you have experienced of sex and women.

It's like a bird trying to explain flight to a fish. If the bird says "It's kind of like swimming, but through the air." the fish might have an inkling, but the fish doesn't really _get it_. In fact, the fish might even be over-complicating the whole thing.

The girls and I have had this discussion and the best way to explain their feelings about ONS and/or FWB situations I can think of is massage. Say you're stressed and tense. You very much want to remedy this situation, so you book a massage. You go to the location, chit chat with the masseuse, have a nice vibe, and you very much enjoy the physical sensation of the massage. After the massage is over, you leave feeling relaxed and sleepy or relaxed and energized, depending, and then you go about your life. Maybe you meet friends for dinner or make plans to go hiking this weekend. You don't have any specific feelings about the massage. It was just a massage.




InMyPrime said:


> Well when I was a boy it could take quite a bit less than 5 minutes to convince myself that I could be in love with someone, so non LOLs here that I can especially relate to .
> 
> It was only later, and in fact after talks with my mother that I realised how important it is to ‘protect your heart’. It only needs to be damaged once and you can ‘break’ it for life...


I think most people, through dating and break up experiences in HS, get over the whole 5 minutes and I'm in love thing. Those that don't definitely should avoid casual sex. As lovely as ONS and FWB's can be, casual sex isn't for everyone.





InMyPrime said:


> I didn’t mean physical assault (although that’s a bigger worry for a girl too, rather than for a guy).
> I meant that I would naturally be more concerned for her being physically taken advantage of..


If you didn't mean you were worried your daughter would be physically assaulted, than what "taking advantage of" are you worried about should said daughter find herself in a ONS situation? Remember, the premise here is that the sex would be consensual. If she's in a situation where she is consenting to sex, than what are you concerned about? 

I suspect you have the idea that women are passive. Receptive. Creatures of responsive desire, but not independently lustful. Not aggressive. Not initiators. Not lusty sexual creatures independent of a man's influence. I think it was you said something upthread like "Men pursue sex, women allow it"? 

If you want to understand what casual sex is like for some women, you have to understand that some women certainly are more passive. Some women, however, aren't sexually passive at all. Some go out and pursue sex simply for the sake of having sex because it's an enjoyable physical activity. 



uhtred said:


> I think the below may be the case for more people (men and women) than want to admit it. The 5 minutes is exaggerating of course, but there are people who find it easy to fall in love - and that makes them easy to hurt.


Like I said to InMyPrime, those folks would do well to avoid casual sex. It's not for everyone.



InMyPrime said:


> Ok, so apparently ONSs are not fun, not always safe, most women on this thread personally won’t engage in them (for whatever reasons), but pointing it out that this is how the majority feels and thinks (which is the same in the real world,’given the numbers) is still somehow considered shameful and...untrue? Should we lie about it for the sake of being...’woke’ or some other reason?


ONS aren't always fun. Sometimes, the sex is bad or "meh". Just like anything else, YMMV. 

Personally, I had very few "meh" experiences and more bad sex in my first marriage than I ever did with ONS. Mostly because I avoided guys who seemed nervous or unsure, headed in the opposite direction of guys who seemed desperate or emotionally needy, and had no problem bringing proceedings to a halt if I felt the fellow in question wouldn't be a good lover because he lacked skill or had an incompatible sexual style.

ONS aren't always safe. Of course, nothing is safe. Everything we do comes with risk. It's a matter of weighing risk vs reward.

This is a marriage forum. Sure, we talk about other subjects and other relationships, but this site primarily caters to those who are married or in marriage-like relationships. You're not likely to find very many ONS friendly women here.




InMyPrime said:


> I liked the quote from the article by JB quite a lot and felt exactly like this about sex:
> 
> “People treat sex like it’s casual. It’s not. Sex is unbelievably complicated. It’s dangerous. It involves emotions. It involves pregnancy. It involves illness. It involves betrayal. It reaches right down into the roots of someone. You don’t play with something like that casually. Well, you can, but you’ll pay for it.”


People treat sex like it's casual because, for them, it is or can be, depending on specific situation.

Sex is only complicated for those who make it that way. For others, it's the simplest and easiest thing outside breathing.

Sex can be dangerous, but so can anything else we do. Again, risk vs reward.

Sex doesn't always involve emotions.

The vast majority of sex doesn't result in pregnancy.

Sex can involve illness (STD's), so reasonable precautions should be taken.

Sex can involve betrayal, so don't be a jerk. If you're in a relationship, don't stray without permission. If you're single, don't fool around with people who admit to or show signs of being in a relationship.

Sex doesn't always reach to the root of someone. It has the potential to, under the right circumstances, but otherwise..no.

If you're the kind of person who sees sex as some BIG DEAL, then you shouldn't play casually with it. But understand that, for others, it's basically a recreational sport.



InMyPrime said:


> Why you so mean to ma boy?
> You would teach your daughter to avoid boys that don't feel like they are entitled to **** anything that has a vagina and instead treat them with respect? Or do you consider turning down an ONS 'disrespectful'? We got ourselves into a bit of a pretzel there again, haven't we.


I also warned my girls away from boys like yours. I'm sure they're lovely young men, but they're not suitable for gals out on the prowl. Feelings get involved, things get messy, drama isn't fun. Relationship minded young men are best avoided until you're also looking for a relationship.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> ... if you *don't* actually focus on the woman all that much (not explicitly anyway), to give out the impression as if they arise by themselves (which they kind of do anyway).


Are you saying their is some kind of equivalence between focusing on your (in your example female) partner and focusing on orgasm?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> You don't actually. You agree with pretty much everything I write, you just don't always know it. :grin2: (can you tell what my job is like yet?)


I just keep thinking of "vainglorious". Brilliant.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> Of course. We've been talking about sex since my oldest was literally 5. She asked where babies come from while I hugely uncomfortably pregnant with her sister, in a bit of a hurry, and driving. Cuz that's the best time to surprise your mom with a serious question that requires a somewhat lengthy explanation.
> 
> I think you're asking a question expecting an answer that really doesn't exist.
> 
> ...


Wow, can you please come and talk to my kids? 'cos I am honestly freaking out how I am supposed to approach it!

When do I bring up the red pill, bait and switch, 180, VARs and all these other lovely terms that fill me with absolute terror...(ok that wasn't serious. The terror is though).

But I think me and my wife slightly disagree how to approach the whole topic: I feel like unless they know how the 'game' works, they will be played...(and reading TAM just makes everything worse). Yet at the same time I want them to experience 'love as it comes', because there is also something beautiful about being receptive, open minded, impressionable and even slightly naive (in a good sense) about those things. I have seen heartbroken people: some are broken forever. I also have seen the 'forever skeptical' lot, they don't know what love is. What do you do!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

andy1001 said:


> when i say i don’t come it’s because i choose not to,nothing to do with medication or age,it’s just practice.
> All those ons you see. 😈


lolol!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> Of course. We've been talking about sex since my oldest was literally 5. She asked where babies come from while I hugely uncomfortably pregnant with her sister, in a bit of a hurry, and driving. Cuz that's the best time to surprise your mom with a serious question that requires a somewhat lengthy explanation.
> 
> I think you're asking a question expecting an answer that really doesn't exist.
> 
> ...


I love you. When are you writing a book?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

OK take your example: Imagine that you take 100 straight men, and have either a woman or a man give them a HJ. Don't you think the ones stimulated by women are more likely to O? Psychology is very important for sex. 

Its likely that women who were taught not to enjoy sexuality are less likely to have an O.

Also, while I agree that on average men can get an O faster, on average women can get one more often in an evening, so its not clear which way the balance goes





InMyPrime said:


> You claimed that not reaching an orgasm is something that was taught.
> I’m calling BS on this. It doesn’t mean that a crappy lover is going to make it any easier for a woman to reach an orgasm...but your claim is far beyond that as to be pretty ridiculous.
> 
> Let’s put again 100 men and women in the same room (yes, I’m obsessed with orgies...). They each give each other a hand job for no more than 5 minutes (I dunno what you call it when a man does it to a woman: finger joy?).
> ...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Hmm, I wonder if it really is true that most women are slower to O than most men. My wife is also much faster to O than I am. 

Science suggests a set of experiments :wink2:

I completely agree though that while Os for everyone are part of good sex, they are not the main goal. 




Faithful Wife said:


> Interesting. I’ve known some men (platonically) who also describe what you did about orgasms. Thank you for speaking up, I think it’s more common than some people think (but irrelevant to them if it doesn’t involve their own sex life, so why would they know?)
> 
> Also, the guys who I’ve been with who were the best lovers weren’t focused on either of our orgasms. They were focused on the ongoing, unfolding, unique joy of the experience. O’s happen or they don’t. Either way, yay, sex!


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> If you didn't mean you were worried your daughter would be physically assaulted, than what "taking advantage of" are you worried about should said daughter find herself in a ONS situation? Remember, the premise here is that the sex would be consensual. *If she's in a situation where she is consenting to sex, than what are you concerned about?*


Perhaps it is now my turn to try and explain to a bird how to swim  but what I am concerned about is pretty simple: it is a mismatch of expectations i*n practice*. I do understand the theory of it pretty well and how it could be 'lovely for both'. It's just the data I look at, doesn't bear this out. 

I also think we should separate older, 'self aware' and experienced women (like yourself) and the majority of women who will be experiencing sex early on and perhaps even for the first time, then perhaps our differences will not seem all that great. I don't believe the majority of people actually talk about whether the next 2 hours or so are going to be casual or not (I am again talking about young people, when they hook up). Of course I agree that if both have exactly the same understanding and identical expectations of what they want out of it, and what is about to happen, then the risks are minimal however in practice, this is more often than not, not the case. Perhaps a better question is: how do you ensure that both people are exactly on the same page? And are the risks worth the fun for both, in equal measure?

Maybe you are right and I have always had a 'skewed' view of women. Maybe because I never really was after casual sex, I also didn't believe that the women who were looking for casual sex with we, that they were 100% honest. Perhaps I felt that they would somehow 'trap' me into something more (or that i end up trapping myself with them and couldn't 'untrap'). Or maybe I am just more old fashioned. I just find it hard to embrace this new 'casual sex' culture (ok not that new), because in practice, it is very early days still to make a definitive judgement whether there is a net benefit overall or not (for the average woman).



MJJEAN said:


> I suspect you have the idea that women are passive. Receptive. Creatures of responsive desire, but not independently lustful. Not aggressive. Not initiators. Not lusty sexual creatures independent of a man's influence. I think it was you said something upthread like "Men pursue sex, women allow it"?
> 
> If you want to understand what casual sex is like for some women, you have to understand that some women certainly are more passive. Some women, however, aren't sexually passive at all. Some go out and pursue sex simply for the sake of having sex because it's an enjoyable physical activity.


Agreed, I am just arguing that this is not *the majority*.




MJJEAN said:


> This is a marriage forum. Sure, we talk about other subjects and other relationships, but this site primarily caters to those who are married or in marriage-like relationships. You're not likely to find very many ONS friendly women here.


Where *would* you find ONS-friendly women?



MJJEAN said:


> People treat sex like it's casual because, for them, it is or can be, depending on specific situation.
> 
> Sex is only complicated for those who make it that way. For others, it's the simplest and easiest thing outside breathing.


Yes, and for others, sex encapsulates emotional bonding, and expression of love and closeness, safety and trust. I understand *exactly* what you are saying (I am a guy, after all), i am again arguing what is the exception and what is the norm.



MJJEAN said:


> I also warned my girls away from boys like yours. I'm sure they're lovely young men, but they're not suitable for gals out on the prowl. Feelings get involved, things get messy, drama isn't fun. Relationship minded young men are best avoided until you're also looking for a relationship.


What *are* my boys supposed to be like? (They are 3 and 5, and the 3 year old can barely speak yet in recognisable manner, though the other day, he was proud that he kissed a girl on the lips at nursery, so I am just collecting information how to handle this ordeal without getting the police involved....). 
I can't figure out why people are giving them such a tough time...


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

uhtred said:


> OK take your example: Imagine that you take 100 straight men, and have either a woman or a man give them a HJ. Don't you think the ones stimulated by women are more likely to O?


I am not sure actually...I couldn't possibly answer without running the experiment first...



uhtred said:


> Its likely that women who were taught not to enjoy sexuality are less likely to have an O.


One could turn 'shame' into a role playing game, then everybody wins...(and comes).

I think there are plenty of women who were 'brainwashed' that sex was a taboo. However they still find ways to enjoy it and perhaps go overboard sometimes (JustTheWife?), because fo all this built up repression. You can be 'taught' anything but if your body *needs* sex (or* needs* an orgasm), it will find a way to get it and get the mind to justify it afterwards.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

uhtred said:


> Hmm, I wonder if it really is true that most women are slower to O than most men. My wife is also much faster to O than I am.
> 
> Science suggests a set of experiments :wink2:
> 
> I completely agree though that while Os for everyone are part of good sex, they are not the main goal.


I would say that for women they are certainly less of a goal than for men *on average* (with exceptions). Again, there are evolutionary reasons for it....but i promised to shut up about it. Andy doesn't like it. :wink2:


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> When I say I don’t come it’s because I choose not to,nothing to do with medication or age,it’s just practice.
> All those ons you see.


Ok, sorry if I misread then. It didn't sound like a choice because you wrote you NEVER came in less than half hour and I though it's maybe because you couldn't...

Ok so how abouts a competition: 

who comes first: ready, steady...

sorry, can we go again? 













Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

InMyPrime said:


> Andy1001 said:
> 
> 
> > When I say I don’t come it’s because I choose not to,nothing to do with medication or age,it’s just practice.
> ...


Is your nickname the “Greyhound”


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> One thing I would note, this site is not even remotely representative of the experience of men OR women at large. It is a tiny representation of what goes on.


Of course. I only noted opinion on this site because I prefer to start with generally accepted principles and was hoping that even here, the idea that orgasms were more difficult to achieve than for men was a given. With the general public, I think I could have easily assumed that few would dispute it. 

Here, if one makes *any* generalization about women, it's usually disputed.



NobodySpecial said:


> That said, I think reaching orgasm IS harder for many women... it is not something that most of us were taught was important At All.


I don't see this as a sign of misogyny, the patriarchy or a bias against women having sex. 

Men don't have more success achieving orgasms because of what we were "taught". It just sort of happens on it's own.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> Of course. I only noted opinion on this site because I prefer to start with generally accepted principles and was hoping that even here, the idea that orgasms were more difficult to achieve than for men was a given. With the general public, I think I could have easily assumed that few would dispute it.
> 
> Here, if one makes *any* generalization about women, it's usually disputed.


At least I am even handed. I think the generalizations about men are poo on here as well.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> Of course. I only noted opinion on this site because I prefer to start with generally accepted principles and was hoping that even here, the idea that orgasms were more difficult to achieve than for men was a given. With the general public, I think I could have easily assumed that few would dispute it.
> 
> Here, if one makes *any* generalization about women, it's usually disputed.
> 
> ...


Oooops. I think women DON'T often because of what they were "taught".


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

uhtred said:


> Hmm, I wonder if it really is true that most women are slower to O than most men. My wife is also much faster to O than I am.
> 
> Science suggests a set of experiments :wink2:


Surely these experiments have been done, right?

Has nothing regarding this been published?


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

Buddy400 said:


> Surely these experiments have been done, right?
> 
> Has nothing regarding this been published?


I just sent my W a text that I won't be coming home tonight b/c I need to test out a theory for TAM...


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> Surely these experiments have been done, right?
> 
> Has nothing regarding this been published?


I think it just depends. My Mrs. has had a hair trigger at times and blown up almost immediately. Most of the time I can get there a little faster than her if I wanted to.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> Oooops. I think women DON'T often because of what they were "taught".



Is it maybe your phrasing that makes it sound ridiculous? Or is it perhaps listening to Feminism Radio and mistakenly agreing with them while you misunderstand what it is they are saying? I can’t work out which.

Are you perhaps trying to say: women often feel orgasms SHOULD not matter because of how they were brought up?

Because I can kind of see what you mean if you put it like this.

But if you say: “women don’t orgasm easily because of what they were taught” that makes it sound like you can somehow teach or influence involuntary reflexes, which is clearly in la-la land.

Can you actually clarify which way you mean it?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

EllisRedding said:


> I just sent my W a text that I won't be coming home tonight b/c I need to test out a theory for TAM...




Way ahead of you dude...I am ‘publishing’ as we speak...Just a few final touches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> Is it maybe your phrasing that makes it sound ridiculous? Or is it perhaps listening to Feminism Radio and mistakenly agreing with them while you misunderstand what it is they are saying? I can’t work out which.
> 
> Are you perhaps trying to say: women often feel orgasms SHOULD not matter because of how they were brought up?
> 
> ...


No. You know why? You keep telling me how you don't want to converse with me. You attribute motives to me that are not mine as if I live according to some mindless feminist manifesto, and then tell me I am ridculous. No one else fails to understand me. You are not interested in conversation. This is clear.


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Buddy400 said:


> Of course. I only noted opinion on this site because I prefer to start with generally accepted principles and was hoping that even here, the *idea that orgasms were more difficult to achieve than for men was a given.* With the general public, I think I could have easily assumed that few would dispute it.
> 
> Here, if one makes *any* generalization about women, it's usually disputed.
> 
> ...


The question is what makes us think it's a given rather than pavlovian conditioning?

Cases in point: 
I've been with women who say it takes a while for them to orgasm yet with very little sexual play have had what they've considered premature orgasms, i.e. at beginning of insertion. Which shocks them to their core.

Those who say they are one orgasm and done yet end up having multiples. Which also shocks them.

Every one considers it to be true without questioning why there are women who say its true for them yet many of wh8at sone point in their life may actually experience ease of orgasm in certain situations.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

red oak said:


> The question is what makes us think it's a given rather than pavlovian conditioning?


What do you mean by "given"? And where did Pavlovian specific conditioning come in? 




> Cases in point:
> I've been with women who say it takes a while for them to orgasm yet with very little sexual play have had what they've considered *premature orgasms*, i.e. at beginning of insertion.


What does that mean, premature orgasm? You have really had more than one woman say that to you? 

I am having a hard time with what you mean here. If you feel like clarifying, great!


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> No. You know why? You keep telling me how you don't want to converse with me. You attribute motives to me that are not mine as if I live according to some mindless feminist manifesto, and then tell me I am ridculous. No one else fails to understand me. You are not interested in conversation. This is clear.


Sorry sorry, it was meant light-heartedly...I wasn't saying *you* are ridiculous, I was saying that perhaps you made a mistake and wrote something that appeared a little bit more ridiculous than you intended.... 
I don't mean to sound like a jerk or make you feel stupid. It's a complex subject. Plus I like conversing with you. Don't be mad at me!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

InMyPrime said:


> Sorry sorry, it was meant light-heartedly...I wasn't saying *you* are ridiculous, I was saying that perhaps you made a mistake and wrote something that appeared a little bit more ridiculous than you intended....
> I don't mean to sound like a jerk or make you feel stupid. It's a complex subject. Plus I like conversing with you. Don't be mad at me!


I wrote what I meant. I meant what I wrote. It was not ridiculous. It was what I meant. You can stuff your cutsie, superiority up your you know what.


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

NobodySpecial said:


> What do you mean by "given"? And where did Pavlovian specific conditioning come in?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


On your first question many consider it harder for women to orgasm than men.

Not going to get into the second question to avoid long, drawn out, psychological correlations.

On premature orgasm just means at beginning of insertion, or perhaps within seconds thereafter. I just relate to premature ejaculation in a man as the similarities in the way they talked about it. Second time it happened with one she actually called it a premature orgasm. 
As @ConanHub called it above a hair trigger. 
Yea a few. 1 of which was my XW and another being my current wife. One it actually happened with was pissed off at first because she thought she was a one orgasm and done type woman. Didn't happen everytime. 

I still get tickled when I think of my wifes reaction the first time it happened eith her, the look on her face, and what she said. :laugh:

Eta: caveat is it will most often, not always happen in 1st 3-4 years of a relationship before all previous baggage has been picked back up.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> Buddy400 said:
> 
> 
> > Surely these experiments have been done, right?
> ...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Just on that one point, I do understand it. My wife is one-and-done, she almost never wants a second O in a day. So it can be sub-optimal if she finishes too quickly early on.





NobodySpecial said:


> snip
> 
> What does that mean, premature orgasm? You have really had more than one woman say that to you?
> 
> snip


----------

