Asking for sex

Post Reply New Topic

I think he should have been shirtless. The girl in the other video was wearing far less clothing. I think women MAY have responded yes if he was as sexually dressed as her. I can't be certain, though,

What debate ?

I think it's well-known that a lot of random guys will have sex with anybody who looks "hot", that mostguys get aroused much more quickly than women, and that many guys don't really care what a potential sexual partner's personality is like, or about getting to know them a bit before getting down to business, or whether she might have STDs.... it's why female prostitution is such big business, after all, compared to male prostitution (even when that happens, it's aimed at gay guys a lot).

Given that women tend to be physically weaker than men, and are infinitely more likely to get pregnant, and are generally more cautious about STDs, then I'd say it makes a lot of sense for them to be more cautious about who they leap into bed with.... even if they're not fussy about their sexual partners' personalities, which many women are.

I notice that even with his ridiculous and lazy "ask a whole group of people all at once" approach, and even though he asked a number of gay women as part of his 100 total, and a vast number of people who had boyfriends (a lot of whom were even with the women at the time) , then the guy could still have had a bit of a roll in the sack if he'd wanted it.... that brown guy who he asked seemed very eager. Just saying...

Contrary to popular belief, guys don't want sex all the time.



Wrong, it takes the female genitals just as long to become physically aroused as it it takes for a guy to get an erection. This has been proven by a particular study where the researchers asked both men and women subjects to watch pornography, while monitoring the temperature of their genital areas. It took both the men and women average of ten minutes to become physically aroused:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10213#.UfoeERZkLHM



Wrong again. Obviously, if the guy only wants sex but no relationship, like a one night stand, then he probably wouldn't care about her personality but there are some women who do that too. However, if guy wants a girlfriend, he most definitely would want to know what her personality is like, usually.



I don't know, I would probably care about whether she STD's because I wouldn't want to catch any myself.

Ladywoofwoof, I think a lot of your points are myths.

Last edited by Jono on 01 Aug 2013, 4:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

She's describing only a portion of guys while calling them 'guys': club rats.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 01 Aug 2013, 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Pretty much.

If Jono seriously thinks that the guy in the video gave the impression of looking for a girlfriend (rather than a quick shag) from his approach, then hooboy.... what can I even say to that ?

He might be looking to start a squabble, but I'm not falling for it.

You were describing 50% of guys, according the video.

Did you think all of those guys were thinking "my, she looks like she would make a good long-term girlfriend... she looks like she has a fine personality and would be free of STDs" , or more something along the lines of "yay - time for a quick, easy, free shag with a hottie" ?

This whole thing reminds me of another social experiment, which I read about a long time ago.

The experimenters got two models (one male and one female) then had them go about at a night-club, asking people of the opposite gender whether they would like "to come out to my car for some oral sex." .... a lot of the guys agreed to the woman's request, while none of the women agreed to the guy's request.

I didn't find the results to be especially surprising.

That guy, no. I thought you were talking about the other video, where the girl was asking all those guys for sex. The guys in that video would be a different story.

I can only re-state :

Ok, but my point is that the guys in that video would turn down such an offer of sex from a strange girl if would of preferred to have a girlfriend rather than a quick shag from someone. In fact, you can see this from the response of at least one of guys who said "no". Obviously, the ones who answered "yes" to her were just wanting a shag.

If you just skim read what people write before replying, then you won't take in what they're saying properly.

So... whose points are myths ?

That particular study proves very little.

First problem - No mention is made of who the subjects of the testing are.
Do they all come from the Pornography Lovers' Fan Club ?
There is no way of knowing.

Second Problem - no mention is made of what sort of pornography it is.
Does it take several minutes of "storyline" before the action starts ?
Who knows.

Is it bestiality porn ? S&M porn ? Gay porn featuring men ? Or mainstream porn which treates women as sex toys ?
Who knows.

Third problem - There were no other group/s tested.
Ideally, they would have tested a selection of different groups.

Fourth problem -
They seem to define "peak sexual arousal" as having the highest crotch temperature.
Which I regard as being a questionable way to define it.

I think that a great many women would not reach "peak sexual arousal" after watching ten minutes of sitting and watching a typical porn video... even if they didn't have a weird laboratory setting. Once again, I have to wonder who one earth these test subjects are....

Clue - sex isn't a reward or a trophy. It isn't something you strive towards like a goal. It's a part of chemistry.

Now, how would you feel if black people kept saying it's ok call whites racist, that isn't a double standard to do so and you're stupid, because they have it so much harder than you, and white people in general?
Yeah, didn't think so mate.

That article didn't give all the details of the study because it is just an article in a science magazine, not the original published paper in a journal. Do you really want me to track down the original paper? I've found it here but I can't access it:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00399.x/abstract

There, that abstract at least should answer some of your problems and it looks like a valid scientific methodology to me. And as for your fourth problem, "highest crotch temperature" is actually valid measure of physical arousal with the method they are using, considering that blood is supposed travel to the genital area when one is aroused. Note that many of the women in the study didn't actually know that they were aroused. So, one legitimate problem could be that physical arousal may not necessarily equate to psychological arousal but it's still a valid measure of physical arousal.

(shrug) The abstract really doesn't cover the points which I made properly, or prove very much at all.

I would say that if somebody were in a state of genuine "peak sexual arousal" then they would surely know about it.

All the study shows is that non-descript "healthy" people (of both genders), who watched non-specific porn clips, got slightly hotter crotch temperatures than they did while watching horror or comedy clips ; which may, or may not, indicate genuine arousal on a meaningful level - ie, in a way which relates to anything we were saying before you mentioned the study.