The Gaming Den

Saying that virginity isn't desirable in a wife is fucking insane. There's a gigantic market for hymen restoration surgery for women all over the world, and in every society except modern western society, a preference for virginal brides is expressed. And in western society, we still have denigration of "sluts" and "whores"/women who are promiscuous and have lots of sex.

Now guys really don't find sluts that unattractive for a one off encounter. Why would they? If you see an attractive girl and discover that she's willing to go all the way on the first day, you're not going to start "slut shaming" her then and there. But you sure as hell aren't going to get into a long term relationship with her. This doesn't apply to women, of course, but it does for men. There is a noted preference for virginity in every culture except modern western culture, where there is a preference for low number of past sexual encounters(presumably because we have a lot more premarital sex and finding a woman with no prior partners is really fucking hard and saying that men prefer virgins would insult something like 90 percent of women out there).

And again, social norms do not affect gender roles. Men commit far more crime than women in every society ever, and the types of crimes they commit are different as well. You will find men at the top of almost every single power structure, because men have a much greater drive to take risks and attempt to reach the top position in a given organisation. Point out to me a society where women reach the top echelons of power, commit far more crime than men, and value virginity in men when considering marriage. I guarantee that you will not find a society where this is the case(there is actually one country in the world where women are arrested more than men, but that actually has little to do with the crimes committed).

Vnonymous wrote:There is a noted preference for virginity in every culture except modern western culture, where there is a preference for low number of past sexual encounters(presumably because we have a lot more premarital sex and finding a woman with no prior partners is really fucking hard and saying that men prefer virgins would insult something like 90 percent of women out there).

I doubt it's that complicated. My working hypothesis: the norm in Modern Western Society, for both genders, is serial monogamy with a lowish but steadily increasing number of lifetime partners. As such, people in the 2-5 range are considered "normal" and everyone else is considered "weird." In fact, there's a lot of social stigma against marrying your first partner, in liberal areas. You're really supposed to have a high school or college SO that is replaced by your spouse.

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.

I know at least 1 woman couldn't possibly have been faking. The rest might have been, but one was a psychopath and wasn't even able to comprehend that faking would make her partner feel better (and didn't put any importance on my self-esteem in any case), and the one I'm with would probably tell me if that was the case.

Again, I didn't polygraph these women, but they would say that (b) is more likely to be correct.

Also, I suggest we ignore vnonymous's rantings and post about making women climax. Seems like a more enjoyable topic than, whatever it is that Vnonymous is trying to express, whatever that may be.

A big issue about the making-women-climax thing being studied by medical science or psychologists or anyone else in that vicinity is that professionals do not agree as to the existence of the g-spot. Now, you can tell me that it doesn't if you want, but I will say that it does (boy howdy), it is a source of pleasure, and that even if you don't think the g-spot exists you should not ignore what it represents, which is the extension of pleasure nerves (such as ones in proximity of or part of the clitoris) into the vicinity of the vagina. It is MUCH easier for penetration to stimulate this area, than to directly stimulate any surface structures of the clitoris on the outside of the vulva.

Now, for some women the pleasure may be much more intense on the clitoris as it pokes out from the vulva, but whether that is a good thing varies, oddly. If intense pleasure leaves someone overstimulated inside five minutes, that's not as fun as going for a while. The other issue is that while g-spot stimulation alone is sufficient for orgasm in many women, it also "feels wrong" and almost all women have been trained to hold back in that area. Even though having an orgasm which provokes female ejaculation will result in almost no urine, it is unfortunately close in source to the urethra, so most women will "shut off" their orgasm so that they don't make the embarrassing mistake of urinating on their partner. In reality they are not about to do this, any more than a guy who is about to orgasm would, but the action still kills their orgasm. So education about periurethral ducts (where female ejaculate comes from), and some sensible precautions (like using the restroom beforehand), can help with this.

I will admit I am not a professional, this is just what I've learned cavorting around in bed. And in sex ed classes.

Actually, scientists don't think the g-spot doesn't exist, but they have come to the conclusion that there is no analogous physical feature that correlates with a g spot. (Which in fact would also correlate with my personal experience).

Not according to the lastest scientic material I have been reading count. Although calling it a "spot" might me a little misleading. There is also, apparently evidence of a complex array of nerve endings all around the female uthera just above the vagina. That has a whole lot of implications as well.

Of course it all comes down to the old joke; that is the largest sex organ in the human body? Why the brain, naturally. The most advanced, finely tuned sports car is crap if you keep grinding the gears. Hangups are probably the worst problems there are.

Vnonymous' Study wrote: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.

I'm calling bullshit on this experiment until I see the actual methodologies.

The newborn thing...? Babies can barely focus their eyes clearly after a week - their vision is all blurry. So there's way more to it than what's reported.

As to the second, in my personal experience, people that look like people, but aren't quite people, freak kids out - especially by not-happy expressions frozen in place. Hence kids being freaked out by wrinkly grandmas with constant frowns on their faces, masks, and clowns.

I would be interested in seeing whether the experiment involved faces similar to the parents' in any way. I suspect that since moms and dads are generally the first sights a child has to stare at and focus on, the proximity of a face to those of the parents' is what actually matters.

Almaz wrote:A big issue about the making-women-climax thing being studied by medical science or psychologists or anyone else in that vicinity is that professionals do not agree as to the existence of the g-spot.

You know, I decided that those people who think the g-spot doesn't exist are stupid dumbfucks when I learned that the clitoris extends into the body by a significant amount and sort of wraps around everything in there. It makes perfect sense - to me at least - that when you aim for the g-spot, you're bumping up against the internal part of the clitoris.

And it's stuff like that that really highlights the fact that with all our science, female physiology is still mysterious, and it sucks.

Anyone who believes that the G-Spot doesn't exist has never had a long term sexual relationship with a woman

sabs wrote:Anyone who believes that the G-Spot doesn't exist has never had a long term sexual relationship with a woman

I have reasonable anecdotal evidence that female trigger points are not consistently in the same place, thus making their categorization as "a" spot rather problematic.

-Username17

Question: What if you are a male who is only emotionally attracted to women, but you ascribe to the "there is not gay, if its pretty, fuck it!" mentality? Is that bisexual or straight?

Strung Nether wrote:Question: What if you are a male who is only emotionally attracted to women, but you ascribe to the "there is not gay, if its pretty, fuck it!" mentality? Is that bisexual or straight?

The working definition in this thread seems to be 'if you (are prepared to) suck cock, congratulations, you are bisexual.'

Works for me.

I would enjoy fucking a guy in the ass, but i don't think I would enjoy giving a guy head. I don't actually enjoy giving oral to women ether, but they like it, and I like it when someone I cares about is liking something. Straight or Bi?

Maj wrote: As to the second, in my personal experience, people that look like people, but aren't quite people, freak kids out - especially by not-happy expressions frozen in place. Hence kids being freaked out by wrinkly grandmas with constant frowns on their faces, masks, and clowns.

Well, that helps explains why my nephews and niece are freaked out by me, I guess. Constant frown + beard + bald/short hair = terror, appparently.

FrankTrollman wrote:

sabs wrote:Anyone who believes that the G-Spot doesn't exist has never had a long term sexual relationship with a woman

I have reasonable anecdotal evidence that female trigger points are not consistently in the same place, thus making their categorization as "a" spot rather problematic.

-Username17

To expand on this, I have been with women who had multiple sensitive spots. And some that didn't have any.

I'm thinking the reason why it's "mysterious" down there is because a lot is due to personal preference. Like how one of my friends loves to eat onion and yellow mustard sandwiches while the idea of eating anything with onions makes me want to barf.

It's not too hard for me to understand when put in that perspective.

My opinions on Strung's questions:

1. I think anyone who screws anyone regardless of gender has the sexuality of "whore".

2. If we were Roman, that'd be considered straight. Asking that question though makes you gay.

Gnosticism Is A Hoot wrote:The working definition in this thread seems to be 'if you (are prepared to) suck cock, congratulations, you are bisexual.'

I think you are missing a key point in your definition. Otherwise you might incorrectly classify some women out there.

tzor wrote:

Gnosticism Is A Hoot wrote:The working definition in this thread seems to be 'if you (are prepared to) suck cock, congratulations, you are bisexual.'

I think you are missing a key point in your definition. Otherwise you might incorrectly classify some women out there.

I totally missed that.

Goodness me.

I guess my wife's not bisexual!


Just kidding.

If you can handle a bi woman, more power to you. Myself, I already am well-stocked on crazy, I don't need any from an outside source. (It is no accident that my current GF is not by in the least).

Actually I think the biggest problem is that "bi" implies more than one; which, if you are refering to your spouse means you and someone else. It's the someone else that might be hardest part; the gender of that other person may be secondary ... unless you have an interest in that someone else as well in which case ... well that's interesting.

I've known more monogamous bi people than ones that weren't. that of course might be that I consider people that have sex with anyone as having the sexuality of "whore". That being said, of my completely non-scientific sampling where n<30, the bi women were invariably severely mentally ill, liked teasing but didn't like sex, and tended towards epic selfishness. (although after compiling data from other sources, the selfishness issue seems to be endemic with humans in general and it may not be quite fair to single out bi women for that flaw).

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:If you can handle a bi woman, more power to you. Myself, I already am well-stocked on crazy, I don't need any from an outside source. (It is no accident that my current GF is not by in the least).

I don't know if this was directed at me or not, but I was joking about my wife being bi. It was based on Gnosticism's definition of bi that only took men into account, implying my wife doesn't give head.


I was joking, or course.

Count, what is with your constant "slut-shaming" behavior?

RobbyPants wrote:

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:If you can handle a bi woman, more power to you. Myself, I already am well-stocked on crazy, I don't need any from an outside source. (It is no accident that my current GF is not by in the least).

I don't know if this was directed at me or not, but I was joking about my wife being bi. It was based on Gnosticism's definition of bi that only took men into account, implying my wife doesn't give head.


I was joking, or course.

Ah, sorry. the joke went right over my head. My apologies, I tend to be thick-headed.