The Gaming Den

Prak_Anima wrote:

Orion wrote:I dunno. Orgasm, for instance, happens basically every time for almost all men and most women, if you do it right. Children? happen very occasionally. Remind me which one is the primary purpose?

Actually, most women don't experience orgasm from penetration, and most people don't really know this.

FrankTrollman wrote:As is often true, SMBC has the best answer. As for sex's "purpose", that's a stupid argument. Sex has no purpose. The reason that sex happens is because it more rapidly and efficiently reassembles genetic material than the prior and more strictly energetically efficient system of clonal division. That gives sexual creatures an advantage in their ability to obtain and preserve resistance traits and gives the species a selective advantage.

But even that is not sex's purpose. That's just the explanation for why sex exists. An explanation is not a purpose. Water flows down hill because of gravity. But it is not "for" gravity. That's not water's purpose. Water wasn't designed to fill a vital hill-flowing niche, it's just fucking water. And sex is just fucking sex.

Sex isn't for procreation. It's not even good at procreation. If we wanted to be good at procreation, we'd have old people explode into babies when their time came. Sex is around because it's good at genetic re-assortment. Which is actually the whole other end of the scale from systems that are even halfway good at replicating the creature doing it. For fuck's sake, when you reproduce sexually, the offspring is less than half you direct genetic copy. You contribute half the genes, and there's mutation. Cloning is better than 99% reproduction and less work. And we don't do that, because reproduction is stupid.

-Username17

tzor wrote:

Prak_Anima wrote:

Orion wrote:I dunno. Orgasm, for instance, happens basically every time for almost all men and most women, if you do it right. Children? happen very occasionally. Remind me which one is the primary purpose?

Actually, most women don't experience orgasm from penetration, and most people don't really know this.

Most people don't really know the details of the female anatomy; heck, most doctors don't really know because a lot of the details is glossed over in anatomy class. The uthera and vagina need to be considered as a single unit (sort of like those old vacumm cleaners with the electronic brushes where the vacumm hose had a electric cord on top of it). Nerves are located around the uthera, the same place as is located the glands that normally form the prostrate gland in the male.

Add to that the effect of stimulation of the glans clitoris and the current state of all voluntary and involutary muscles at any given point in time and ...

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Prak_Anima wrote:

Orion wrote:I dunno. Orgasm, for instance, happens basically every time for almost all men and most women, if you do it right. Children? happen very occasionally. Remind me which one is the primary purpose?

Actually, most women don't experience orgasm from penetration, and most people don't really know this.

That does not jive up with personal experience. Granted, my testing process was far from scientifically rigorous, but I have a 100% rate of women achieving orgasm from penetration, and a nonzero number of women that only had an orgasm from penetration.

PoliteNewb wrote:

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:

Prak_Anima wrote:Actually, most women don't experience orgasm from penetration, and most people don't really know this.

That does not jive up with personal experience. Granted, my testing process was far from scientifically rigorous, but I have a 100% rate of women achieving orgasm from penetration, and a nonzero number of women that only had an orgasm from penetration.

While I don't know your sample size, either a.) you have been extremely lucky in sexual partners, b.) you are some kind of penis-god, or c.) some of your partners have faked sometimes. C is the most likely, and it's far from a rare occurrence.

Almaz wrote:

PoliteNewb wrote:

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:
That does not jive up with personal experience. Granted, my testing process was far from scientifically rigorous, but I have a 100% rate of women achieving orgasm from penetration, and a nonzero number of women that only had an orgasm from penetration.

While I don't know your sample size, either a.) you have been extremely lucky in sexual partners, b.) you are some kind of penis-god, or c.) some of your partners have faked sometimes. C is the most likely, and it's far from a rare occurrence.

Judging by personal experience, men not being able to bring their partners to orgasm with penetration is simply a lack of experience, or simply random chance... it's very hard to get me off, for instance, but that applies to ANY stimulation whatsoever. But if it's going to happen, penetration can do it just fine.

Of course, it depends on how you define orgasm. If you mean direct, clitoral orgasm, then fuck no. If you accept orgasm from g-spot stimulation, however, which ties into the entire neural complex down there, then yes. The penis does it. Personally, I do.

Orion wrote:Everyone is assuming I'm talking about coitus. I said "sex."

Kaelik wrote:

Orion wrote:Everyone is assuming I'm talking about coitus. I said "sex."

Technically, you didn't say the word sex. But you are correct in that the topic of discussion was sex when you made your comment about orgasms. So Prak should is 100% wrong.

Psychic Robot wrote:The dumbest part of all of this is that the Bioware developer started whining about white, heterosexual privilege.

Psychic Robot wrote:How the hell is that trolling.

Prak_Anima wrote:

Psychic Robot wrote:How the hell is that trolling.

How the hell is this a flame war?

In the most recent version of this experiment, newborn babies less than one week old show significantly greater preference for faces that adults judge to be attractive. Another study shows that 12-month-old infants exhibit more observable pleasure, more play involvement, less distress, and less withdrawal when interacting with strangers wearing attractive masks than when interacting with strangers wearing unattractive masks. They also play significantly longer with facially attractive dolls than with facially unattractive dolls. The findings of these studies are consistent with the personal experiences and observations of many parents of small children, who find that their children are much better behaved when their babysitters are physically attractive than when they are not.

Even the most ardent proponents of the traditional view that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” must admit that one week (or even a few months) is not nearly enough time for infants to have learned and internalized the (supposedly arbitrary) cultural standards of beauty through socialization and media exposure. These studies instead strongly suggest that the broad standards of beauty might be innate, not learned or acquired through socialization. The balance of evidence indicates that beauty is decidedly not in the eye of the beholder, but might instead be part of universal human nature.

For any given scientific generalization, it is always easy to recall an anecdote or example that is contrary to the general pattern, such as “I know a man who...” or “I know a woman who....” As I explain in an earlier post, science is empirical, not logical, which is why there is no such thing as a scientific proof. The existence of exceptions and counterexamples, which invalidate mathematical proofs, do not invalidate scientific conclusions and empirical generalizations. You may know a man who finds elderly, obese women sexually attractive, but that does not invalidate the conclusion that men in general find young women with low waist-to-hip ratios sexually attractive.

Vnonymous wrote: Can you seriously point to a culture where, when it comes to marriage, people don't expect/want a virginal bride?

PhoneLobster wrote:

Vnonymous wrote: Can you seriously point to a culture where, when it comes to marriage, people don't expect/want a virginal bride?

This one. The "modern western society". The one we are a part of.

Marrying as virgins in modern western society makes you some sort of fundamentalist weirdo instead of a normal person.

I have no part in the rest of this debate, but I DO so like to point out hilarious oversights of the absolutely ridiculously obvious.

Vnonymous wrote:

PhoneLobster wrote:

Vnonymous wrote: Can you seriously point to a culture where, when it comes to marriage, people don't expect/want a virginal bride?

This one. The "modern western society". The one we are a part of.

Marrying as virgins in modern western society makes you some sort of fundamentalist weirdo instead of a normal person.

I have no part in the rest of this debate, but I DO so like to point out hilarious oversights of the absolutely ridiculously obvious.

Are you seriously going to suggest that men do not take the sexual history of women they are planning on marrying into account when making that decision?

That men are just as happy marrying old prostitutes as they are marrying 20 year old girls who've had one boyfriend before them?

Guys care about that sort of stuff in modern society too. Not to the extent of ensuring virginity, but you can bet that guys take that into account.

Vnonymous wrote:If you can't see the connection between the general statement that men prefer virgins when marrying and men preferring not to get into relationships with women with high notch counts then I have no fucking idea what your deal is.

Society not having an effect on gender roles is an aside that doesn't come close to changing the original claim, either. While certain environments and times can (women will take to the battlefield in desperate times/onnabugeisha etc), society does not.

I'm used to posting on rpg.net, where you can be as passive-aggressive as you like, but any hint of directness counts as flaming. TGD seems to work the other way around, which is rather refreshing.