Dr.Love = A 9 year old!?

[0ni0n]

it is my opinion that a guy's motivation for sex with women shouldn't be because he needs to stop being a virgin, but rather because he wants to have sex out of desire. it should really be something you do when you want to, not something you do or else your sexuality or gender gets questioned.

Men's desire to have sex is a biological impulse. The fact of whether he gets to or not and how many women he has slept with can be indicative of his social skills, status, among many qualities that attract women. Simply put, not wanting to stay a virgin is more than just fucking, it is also to show your friends that you have a wide range of abilities or whatnot that women desire.

[thatwasnifty]

That the concept according to what it's supposed to mean, when applied to men, is ridiculous, and i also contend that it's detrimental, because, it is my opinion that a guy's motivation for sex with women shouldn't be because he needs to stop being a virgin, but rather because he wants to have sex out of desire. I think it creates an unhealthy double standard and double moral, where, even though there is claim that we are sexually libertine, it sort of hazes the importance of sex by making it out to be a competition while saying it's of natural desire. It makes having sex an objective rather than a desire. So in a sense, it deflates sex of passion, and makes it just that, a thing of objects. It sort of goes hand in hand with the myth that men are sexually insatiable and incapable of control, which is a relatively recent notion.

To sum it up: too much pressure for men to have sex when it should really be something you do when you want to, not something you do or else your sexuality or gender gets questioned.

While I agree that there is a double standard in men and women sexuality in our culture, I don't think the use of the word "virgin" to refer to a man who hasn't had sex yet contributes to that. If anything, the word is considered kind of dirty for both sexually mature men and women because it implies being either a stuck-up prude or sexually repulsive.

[Kuya]

Are you serious?

As a teenage, you're biologically compelled to have sex, so you definitely would want to, probably all the time. Plus, most people aren't serious when they question your sexuality on the sole basis that you're not sexually active.

Am i serious about what? As for the last sentence, are you trying to tell me that masculinity is not tacitly related to whether you've had sex with women or not, or rather, how many you've slept with? That is, from the 20th to 21st century for reasons other than procreation.

How did you come to the conclusion that they aren't serious, by the way? Whomever this "they" is.

I don't think the use of the word "virgin" to refer to a man who hasn't had sex yet contributes to that

It doesn't contribute in so far as it's not the sole nor primary cause, it's just language that reflects a reality for some people and when repeated it reasserts that reality.

[0ni0n]

Am i serious about what? As for the last sentence, are you trying to tell me that masculinity is not tacitly related to whether you've had sex with women or not, or rather, how many you've slept with? That is, from the 20th to 21st century for reasons other than procreation.

How did you come to the conclusion that they aren't serious, by the way? Whomever this "they" is.

Sorry i made changes to my previous post. See below.

Men's desire to have sex is a biological impulse. The fact of whether he gets to or not and how many women he has slept with can be indicative of his social skills, status, among many qualities that attract women. Simply put, not wanting to stay a virgin is more than just fucking, it is also to show your friends that you have a wide range of abilities or whatnot that women desire.

The question is so what if they are serious? What's wrong with being gay? It's a legitimate question.

[Kuya]

Sorry i made changes to my previous post. See below.

Men's desire to have sex is a biological impulse. The fact of whether he gets to or not and how many women he has slept with can be indicative of his social skills, status, among many qualities that attract women. Simply put, not wanting to stay a virgin is more than just fucking, it is also to show your friends that you have a wide range of abilities or whatnot that women desire.

The question is so what if they are serious? What's wrong with being gay? It's a legitimate question.

I don't understand your post at all, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Furthermore, accusing a man of being a virgin carries the same connotations as being accused of being bent, or an infant, or even a woman. It implies demasculinization. The problem with "being gay" is not whether there's something inherently wrong with it; i don't know where you're getting at with that.

To reinstate my point, placing emphasis or tying too strongly the act of sex to masculinity (which can be defined in so many ways, as well as achived in so many ways) has the effect of devaluing sex out of desire, and deifying sex for social status and identity. I think it is both bad for men and women, because it often invokes having sex with women as an objective, which necessarily objectifies, and in the case of men, it places unnecessary pressure which is, considering the rates of suicide and depression, pressure they really need no more of. Evidently, we are centering ourselves on US American men around the age of 12 to 28.

[0ni0n]

I don't understand your post at all, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. Furthermore, accusing a man of being a virgin carries the same connotations as being accused of being bent, or an infant, or even a woman. It implies demasculinization. The problem with "being gay" is not whether there's something inherently wrong with it; i don't know where you're getting at with that.

To reinstate my point, placing emphasis or tying too strongly the act of sex to masculinity (which can be defined in so many ways, as well as achived in so many ways) has the effect of devaluing sex out of desire, and deifying sex for social status and identity. I think it is both bad for men and women, because it often invokes having sex with women as an objective, which necessarily objectifies, and in the case of men, it places unnecessary pressure which is, considering the rates of suicide and depression, pressure they really need no more of. Evidently, we are centering ourselves on US American men around the age of 12 to 28.

First, men's desire for sex is a given. That's no devaluing "sex out of desire" on the part of men. Women also have the desire, but they don't just have sex with random men without judging whether it's worthwhile (Does it feel good? Is he rich? Does he love me? Does he have good genes? They are all valid questions). That's how women are wired. It's natural selection. Historically, only about 40% of all men mated or had descendants, while 80% of women did. It's not objectification, it's a means for humanity make sure that good genes are passed down, such as that of masculinity.

[Kuya]

First, men's desire for sex is a given. That's no devaluing "sex out of desire" on the part of men. Women also have the desire, but they don't just have sex with random men without judging whether it's worthwhile (Does it feel good? Is he rich? Does he love me? Does he have good genes? They are all valid questions). That's how women are wired. It's natural selection. Historically, only about 40% of all men mated or had descendants, while 80% of women did. It's not objectification, it's a means for humanity make sure that good genes are passed down, such as that of masculinity.

When you say men's desire for sex, you mean men's desire for vaginal penetration? That is, sex means genital intercourse, so i presume what you're trying to tell me is that men specifically have an innate desire for penetrating a vagina with their penis. Now i want you to elaborate this thought: there exists only desire for sex? Men can't have erotic desires that extend beyond sex? When you say there's no devaluing of sex as desire, you may be right, but does the desire HAVE TO end in sex? Why does it need to involve sex? Are you saying a man is not happy if he's not penetrating a vagina? You're telling me that sex for desire is not devalued; alright. If a man says he does not want to have sex now, specifically a teenager, i'd assume that he might be ridiculed for it, perhaps you disagree, but this sort of transforms it into a given that any and all men must on a consistent basis have a desire for, not just any kind of erotic play, but erotic play that necessitates sex, that is, genital intercourse. Now, perhaps you might disagree with me and say that, no, people don't give more value to genital intercourse, even if a person may not desire it, that his desires aren't being devalued, because he does not want sex as a specific time nor a specific sort of sex, but you'd have to claim somehow that what i'm saying is false. But answer me this, is erotic desire (and i'm switching to say erotic now because i used sex in a catch all term, which is incorrect) and the desire to satisfy this desire, the same thing as engaging in erotic play with someone because it reasserts your identity as a male? I'm not denying that the two can't coexist, but i'm asserting that the existence of the latter is detrimental and takes away from the former.

Do you have proof that women are biologically inclined to desire a specific sort of eroticism? I've never seen proof for it, so what you're saying is really interesting. I, on the other hand, think you're confusing looking at reality and thinking that this reality has always been and will always be this way, but perhaps you have proof. You're last words, hmm. You're saying masculinity is genetic? I'm afraid you're going to have to find me causal proof of that, since according to anthropological studies there are different kinds of "masculinities" and not all define themselves in the same way, even if there are somewhat similar transcultural archetypes. You might do well do tell me what men and women desire, because at one point you tell me they desire genital intercourse and the next you tell me they desire procreation.

[Lordwafik]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Kuya shits up yet another thread with ambiguous sexuality stance.

Bravo.

[Kuya]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Kuya shits up yet another thread with ambiguous sexuality stance.

Bravo.

Ambiguous sexuality stance?

[0ni0n]

When you say men's desire for sex, you mean men's desire for vaginal penetration? That is, sex means genital intercourse, so i presume what you're trying to tell me is that men specifically have an innate desire for penetrating a vagina with their penis. Now i want you to elaborate this thought: there exists only desire for sex? Men can't have erotic desires that extend beyond sex? When you say there's no devaluing of sex as desire, you may be right, but does the desire HAVE TO end in sex? Why does it need to involve sex? Are you saying a man is not happy if he's not penetrating a vagina? You're telling me that sex for desire is not devalued; alright. If a man says he does not want to have sex now, specifically a teenager, i'd assume that he might be ridiculed for it, perhaps you disagree, but this sort of transforms it into a given that any and all men must on a consistent basis have a desire for, not just any kind of erotic play, but erotic play that necessitates sex, that is, genital intercourse. Now, perhaps you might disagree with me and say that, no, people don't give more value to genital intercourse, even if a person may not desire it, that his desires aren't being devalued, because he does not want sex as a specific time nor a specific sort of sex, but you'd have to claim somehow that what i'm saying is false. But answer me this, is erotic desire (and i'm switching to say erotic now because i used sex in a catch all term, which is incorrect) and the desire to satisfy this desire, the same thing as engaging in erotic play with someone because it reasserts your identity as a male? I'm not denying that the two can't coexist, but i'm asserting that the existence of the latter is detrimental and takes away from the former.

Do you have proof that women are biologically inclined to desire a specific sort of eroticism? I've never seen proof for it, so what you're saying is really interesting. I, on the other hand, think you're confusing looking at reality and thinking that this reality has always been and will always be this way, but perhaps you have proof. You're last words, hmm. You're saying masculinity is genetic? I'm afraid you're going to have to find me causal proof of that, since according to anthropological studies there are different kinds of "masculinities" and not all define themselves in the same way, even if there are somewhat similar transcultural archetypes. You might do well do tell me what men and women desire, because at one point you tell me they desire genital intercourse and the next you tell me they desire procreation.

When I said sex, I meant anything that's qualified as a sexual interaction, which include but not limited to oral, anal, vaginal, foreplay, perhaps even intimacy. It's biological that heterosexual men want to have sex with as many women as possible. That's not to say that men cannot overcome this underlying sexual impulse. Men who chose not to have sex when given the opportunity, are being ridiculed is because many believe that it is stupid because men are opportunistic when comes to sex. It's women's prerogative whether men get to have sex, more often than not.

"women are biologically inclined to desire a specific sort of eroticism"

I am not sure what you are trying to say. I never said they desire eroticism. Masculinity is genetic in that there are masculine features, such as big jaw, large muscle mass, certain facial features, favorable height, etc.

[Abraxas]

he means the desire to bust a fucking load.


why do you have to make this so complicated? you remind me of divisortheory

[Colenzo]

I don't know about you guys...but everytime I drink something, I have to fuck the shit out of it first.

[Kuya]

When I said sex, I meant anything that's qualified as a sexual interaction, which include but not limited to oral, anal, vaginal, foreplay, perhaps even intimacy. It's biological that heterosexual men want to have sex with as many women as possible. That's not to say that men cannot overcome this underlying sexual impulse. Men who chose not to have sex when given the opportunity, are being ridiculed is because many believe that it is stupid because men are opportunistic when comes to sex. It's women's prerogative whether men get to have sex, more often than not.

"women are biologically inclined to desire a specific sort of eroticism"

I am not sure what you are trying to say. I never said they desire eroticism. Masculinity is genetic in that there are masculine features, such as big jaw, large muscle mass, certain facial features, favorable height, etc.

Though this issue is different though not completely unrelated; heterosexuality is caused by genes/hormones?

You're saying that they're being ridiculed for not adhering to a cultural definition of masculinity that is relative to a given time and space, which, you're right, is not a devaluing of erotic desire because what's being ridiculed is a "lack" of it, whether that's justified or not is a somewhat different argument, but you did not answer whether any form of erotic act is legitimized or not, and further, you're conflating both the ideal of men having a stronger desire for sex than women, with men having sexual relationships with women as a pseudo initiation ceremony into manhood. They are both related in the sense that there is pressure to both demonstrate that one is very sexually active as a young male, and pressure to have sex with women to demonstrate one's masculinity which relate in so far as by one of the ways of demonstrating this increased libido is via sexual conquest, and as opposed to what you mentioned masculinity is gender, as in a social construction, what you're talking about is sex characteristics which is not what i'm referring to though they can also have different value depending on the culture and time.

Note that there is an importance to demonstrate this increased libido, and importance in so far as you assert your gender identity through it. It can be as little marked as a relatively quiet guy who keeps his sexual desires somewhat to himself and to whomever he's attracted to, to a frat guy who goes to great lengths to demonstrate that he possess all the qualities of what a man should be as per the culture he's being produced in as a person. But the idea that men are initiated into manhood via sexual intercourse with women, is something that i don't think, as you say, is just a joke. It's somewhat imperative for a man to do so in order to assert to others and himself that he's in fact a male (a link between being biologically a male, and being socially a male). Now if you'd like, i can post sources that demonstrate manhood being achieved by methods beyond sexual intercourse with women to further illustrate my point that this initiation and desire to demonstrate oneself as a male, is not some absolute concept, and that in fact, having erotic desires, demonstrating your erotic desires because it asserts your identity as a male, and having sex with women because it also forms part of your identity as a male are not exactly the same thing and they are three different motivations that can all exist at once.

[Omnipotent]

Look what I started!

[0ni0n]

heterosexuality is caused by genes/hormones?

Heterosexuality is the genetic default as opposed to homosexuality is the genetic mutation.

You need to sum up concisely the point you are trying make.

[Kuya]

Heterosexuality is the genetic default as opposed to homosexuality is the genetic mutation.

Well that explains the biological determinism.

You need to sum up concisely the point you are trying make.

I repeated it quite a lot. The point is that, in terms of seeking a stable relationship between the female and male sex, the pseudo initiation rights that are having sexual relationships with women in order to be considered truly masculine and therefore having arrived at manhood, constitute a detriment for it provides what is comparable to peer pressure to loose this concept of virginity that is product of a switch from a procreative imperative to a love/pleasure imperative that now rules liberal sex relationships. It is a detriment for it includes unnecessary pressure for men who wish to remain celibate until a given condition and are thus ostracized for it, and a detriment for women who do not "put out" because they do not offer their genitalia for intercourse, as it tends to be considered that a relationship is not truly consummated until genital intercourse is had, and the reason why genital intercourse is so important in a system that's supposed to be based upon pleasure and not procreation is because genital intercourse is, specifically for men, a sign of manhood.

I would also mention objectification, but you wanted concise and this would require a long and thorough explanation.

[guartz]

By Fox's standards this is a well researched book.


Zing

[0ni0n]

Well that explains the biological determinism.
I repeated it quite a lot. The point is that, in terms of seeking a stable relationship between the female and male sex, the pseudo initiation rights that are having sexual relationships with women in order to be considered truly masculine and therefore having arrived at manhood, constitute a detriment for it provides what is comparable to peer pressure to loose this concept of virginity that is product of a switch from a procreative imperative to a love/pleasure imperative that now rules liberal sex relationships. It is a detriment for it includes unnecessary pressure for men who wish to remain celibate until a given condition and are thus ostracized for it, and a detriment for women who do not "put out" because they do not offer their genitalia for intercourse, as it tends to be considered that a relationship is not truly consummated until genital intercourse is had, and the reason why genital intercourse is so important in a system that's supposed to be based upon pleasure and not procreation is because genital intercourse is, specifically for men, a sign of manhood.

I would also mention objectification, but you wanted concise and this would require a long and thorough explanation.

When one is of age, to have sex is to show one is not only fertile, or biologically capable, but also socially capable in convincing the opposite sex to have sex with you. I disagree that it is a detriment for men who have a conviction to remain celibate. They can do whatever as they please, especially in the US. Generally speaking, people just think restraining from sex is weird because it is fighting against your biological impulse and societal norm. Bluntly put, it's unnatural. There will always people judging you regarding sex. You're doing it too young, your partner is too old, your partner is the same sex. It's something you would have to ignore.

On the topic of men's objectification of women, that is the way it always has been. It used to be worse when men raided villages and captured women as rewards. You should be happy that we have come a long way and will continue to progress in the future.

[Ghost_Wheel22]

On the upside, clubbing and dragging women back to your cave required zero social skills.

Sex. So easy even an awkward nerdy caveman could do it?

[archibaldcrane]

Kuya, if we reject your definition of "virgin" in regards to sex to have anything to do with purity, and instead just having to do with lack of sexual activity (which is what I do), then is there a problem using it in the same manner for men and women?

I can't bring myself to plow through your walls of text having just happened upon this thread, but I think your island is the only place apparently where using the word "virgin" for a male is strange.