Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

He Bought Dinner. I Was Bored. He'll Do The Chores. The Unromantic Truth About Why Women Sleep With Men

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-...-sleep-men.html

Not long ago, I was talking to a single friend about her recent conquest.

'To be honest, I only slept with him out of politeness,' she admitted. I was not surprised - as women's labyrinthine reasons for having sex go, that's pretty basic, stock-in-trade stuff.

Perhaps men will find that a little shocking, depressing even. But they shouldn't. Indeed, they wouldn't if we hadn't all been fed a Utopian myth that men and women have sex purely because they're crazed with lust for each other - or, in a long-term partnership, because they still adore each other.

Any woman past the age of 16 knows what idealistic nonsense this is - and finally, there's research to prove it. As the Mail reported yesterday, in a new book, Why Women Have Sex, 1,000 women were interviewed about their real reasons for saying 'Yes' when they could have said 'No'. Boredom, winning favours and to get rid of a headache were high up the list.

These results suggest that comparing the intricate physiological and emotional strata of the female sex drive with the blunt male urge to

'Just do it' is like comparing a tin opener with the Large Hadron Collider. For most women, passionate desire languishes in the lower reaches of the list, somewhere below 'to get presents from him,' 'to shut him up' and even 'for fun'.

(It's striking that there's no mention of 'Because I was drunk', yet millions of men would testify to the fact that their chances sky rocket when a woman has had a few glasses of wine.)

Given a choice, girls prefer tall men with symmetrical features and deep voices - which suggests the female sex drive is, above all, evolutionary, because they believe such men will provide them with healthy children.

But once we've realised he's lacking in other areas or the passion has ebbed away, the reasons to have sex become far more mundane, or even acquisitive, such as 'So he'll take the rubbish out' or 'Because he took me for a meal'. The key finding of the book is that men are, on some level, physically attracted to most women, yet women are left sexually cold by most men.

In this light, feminism's eagerness to persuade women to have sex only when we experience knee-trembling desire seems naive. Endless books and articles have been written extolling our right to enjoy earth-shaking orgasms amid a whirring Rolodex of thrilling positions.

Any woman past the age of 16 knows what idealistic nonsense this is - and finally, there's research to prove it. As the Mail reported yesterday, in a new book, Why Women Have Sex, 1,000 women were interviewed about their real reasons for saying 'Yes' when they could have said 'No'. Boredom, winning favours and to get rid of a headache were high up the list.

These results suggest that comparing the intricate physiological and emotional strata of the female sex drive with the blunt male urge to

'Just do it' is like comparing a tin opener with the Large Hadron Collider. For most women, passionate desire languishes in the lower reaches of the list, somewhere below 'to get presents from him,' 'to shut him up' and even 'for fun'.

(It's striking that there's no mention of 'Because I was drunk', yet millions of men would testify to the fact that their chances sky rocket when a woman has had a few glasses of wine.)

Given a choice, girls prefer tall men with symmetrical features and deep voices - which suggests the female sex drive is, above all, evolutionary, because they believe such men will provide them with healthy children.

But once we've realised he's lacking in other areas or the passion has ebbed away, the reasons to have sex become far more mundane, or even acquisitive, such as 'So he'll take the rubbish out' or 'Because he took me for a meal'. The key finding of the book is that men are, on some level, physically attracted to most women, yet women are left sexually cold by most men.

In this light, feminism's eagerness to persuade women to have sex only when we experience knee-trembling desire seems naive. Endless books and articles have been written extolling our right to enjoy earth-shaking orgasms amid a whirring Rolodex of thrilling positions.

And who said romance and love was dead.

Take out the trash and get sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
Who gives a f*ck as long as we get a f*ck

East to see why most women aren't exactly over the moon about sex. Being aware - as many are - that they are just seen as better than a hand job, what's to get excited over? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
East to see why most women aren't exactly over the moon about sex. Being aware - as many are - that they are just seen as better than a hand job, what's to get excited over? :huh:

So it can't be enough in itself then? You seem to view it as a transaction that the woman gets something for either directly or indirectly. Or basically that all women are whoring when they have sex. So the woman sees the man as a punter and the man sees the woman as a warm sex aid.

There is some truth in it, that would be the basis on which I would sleep with Jordan (and vice versa), but to say that many women think men see them as being just better than a hand job is a fairly bleak worldview.

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
East to see why most women aren't exactly over the moon about sex. Being aware - as many are - that they are just seen as better than a hand job, what's to get excited over? :huh:

Just so you know

The expression "making love" wasnt coined by a bloke!

however "good hard shag" was :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KingCharles1st

Well, the last three women I had sex with- two were arranging the wedding half way through, and the last was I think doing it as revenge sex. Of the previous ones- I think they were just horny bitches :rolleyes:

Really, I think women want a friend who is caring and chats a lot, makes them laugh, and has a cokc- preferably large. if he can take out the trash and cook meals, even better.

But why do most women state "Quiet night in with a bottle of wine and dvd?" Is that code for "Night of absolute sexual depravity?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another day, another dozen Daily Mail stories from Interestrateripoff.

Saves buying it.

I am taking a sabbatical from posting Sun stories as people were complaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
So it can't be enough in itself then? You seem to view it as a transaction that the woman gets something for either directly or indirectly. Or basically that all women are whoring when they have sex. So the woman sees the man as a punter and the man sees the woman as a warm sex aid.

There is some truth in it, that would be the basis on which I would sleep with Jordan (and vice versa), but to say that many women think men see them as being just better than a hand job is a fairly bleak worldview.

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your post.

You have misunderstood my post completely. I have had insight/access to quite a few women's views on this subject and many are disappointed romantics. Not erroneously it would seem, when you read a good many of the posts about women that frequent this forum.

I have also known men who are disappointed too, that their wives/OHs see them as a meal ticket, but am hardly likely to air THAT view on here, where so many males seem to be only too ready to castigate women in general - based on some media-hyped tale. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
Just so you know

The expression "making love" wasnt coined by a bloke!

however "good hard shag" was :)

And you are nothing if not a bloke-y bloke, it seems.

Did anyone ever tell you that you get out of life what you put into it, and when you don't - you move on? :rolleyes:

You will always get just a shag, as that is all you want, as you so freely admit.

Don't wonder why the 'clientele' group you get to choose from, gets less salubrious, hon, will you? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have misunderstood my post completely. I have had insight/access to quite a few women's views on this subject and many are disappointed romantics. Not erroneously it would seem, when you read a good many of the posts about women that frequent this forum.

I have also known men who are disappointed too, that their wives/OHs see them as a meal ticket, but am hardly likely to air THAT view on here, where so many males seem to be only too ready to castigate women in general - based on some media-hyped tale. <_<

Completely? Aren't you saying that I'm right but it's men's fault that women think like that?

I would turn it around and say that women are disappointed romantics because young women go for men on looks (or character which they ascribe to looks - "bit of a rogue, twinkle in his eye"), and expect the personality to go with the looks, when generally it doesn't. Most men on here will have been at their best-looking between the ages of, say, 18-25 and that is when men do have that single-track mind (I did, my mates did). So if women go for them that's what they will get and that is why they will be disappointed.

Though heard less often these days the phrase "all men are bastards" springs to mind, well for men aged 18-25 it is probably right. But it is the women who do the choosing. If they were consistently choosing men 10 years older than themselves they could be perpetual romantics, but the sex would be less energetic.

The single-track mind attitude does persist long beyond that age range when it comes to viewing celebrities who are basically just selling their looks, so that is what they are judged upon. Hence you will see comments on boards such as "Keira Knightley - I would" (well I would) but that doesn't extend to a real-world view of women for most men of 30+ AFAIK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol::lol:

Me too.

And, (never mind lust of males for females), I can understand why many women dont get sexually excited about your typical bloke: An overweight, badly turned-out, fugly, drunk, footy-(but only as a couch potato spectator) obsessed boring boor.

Of course, that wouldnt apply to any of us on here ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
I can understand why many women dont get sexually excited about your typical bloke: An overweight, badly turned-out, fugly, drunk, footy-(but only as a couch potato spectator) obsessed boring boor.

I am NOT footy-obsessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
Completely? Aren't you saying that I'm right but it's men's fault that women think like that?

I would turn it around and say that women are disappointed romantics because young women go for men on looks (or character which they ascribe to looks - "bit of a rogue, twinkle in his eye"), and expect the personality to go with the looks, when generally it doesn't. Most men on here will have been at their best-looking between the ages of, say, 18-25 and that is when men do have that single-track mind (I did, my mates did). So if women go for them that's what they will get and that is why they will be disappointed.

Though heard less often these days the phrase "all men are bastards" springs to mind, well for men aged 18-25 it is probably right. But it is the women who do the choosing. If they were consistently choosing men 10 years older than themselves they could be perpetual romantics, but the sex would be less energetic.

The single-track mind attitude does persist long beyond that age range when it comes to viewing celebrities who are basically just selling their looks, so that is what they are judged upon. Hence you will see comments on boards such as "Keira Knightley - I would" (well I would) but that doesn't extend to a real-world view of women for most men of 30+ AFAIK.

I did choose a man 10 years older than myself, for the reasons you outlined. :D I always found lads my own age really childish and boring. I have to admit that he was physically more appealing than many of the same-age guys, with the added bonus of having a mature personality.

The only downside for gals who do what I did, is that you lose a partner late on in life - one way or another - when there is little chance of finding another. As a female mate of mine observed as she perused the 'dating ads', men in their 80's asking for females of 50 - 55 to meet up with. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did choose a man 10 years older than myself, for the reasons you outlined. :D I always found lads my own age really childish and boring. I have to admit that he was physically more appealing than many of the same-age guys, with the added bonus of having a mature personality.

The only downside for gals who do what I did, is that you lose a partner late on in life - one way or another - when there is little chance of finding another. As a female mate of mine observed as she perused the 'dating ads', men in their 80's asking for females of 50 - 55 to meet up with. :o

Sounds like we agree then Aunt Jess.

Or have I misunderstood you completely ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am NOT footy-obsessed.

My sin is the badly turned out one: Working from home, on my own, I sometimes go for days without a shave and doss around in old hiking shorts and a T shirt. Combine that with the old banger I drive and my 'self-reliant' personality and I find that, when it comes to most of the mums waiting at the school gate, I am invisible. Interesting to note though, that one of the hotter mums has actually started talking to me now after the school vicar let slip something about me that revealed that there is quite a bit more to me than meets the eye. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My sin is the badly turned out one: Working from home, on my own, I sometimes go for days without a shave and doss around in old hiking shorts and a T shirt. Combine that with the old banger I drive and my 'self-reliant' personality and I find that, when it comes to most of the mums waiting at the school gate, I am invisible. Interesting to note though, that one of the hotter mums has actually started talking to me now after the school vicar let slip something about me that revealed that there is quite a bit more to me than meets the eye. ;)

Go on.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go on.........

Nothing to report. I'm happily married, if thats what you mean. I just find it amusing that I was an invisible loser and now I'm worth talking to. All because of some remark.*

Put it into the 'helping sick kids in Africa' category and leave it at that. If I told you more specific details, that might enable someone to identify me, if they were so inclined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would turn it around and say that women are disappointed romantics because young women go for men on looks (or character which they ascribe to looks - "bit of a rogue, twinkle in his eye"), and expect the personality to go with the looks, when generally it doesn't.

Not only the women. Men who go for men almost always start on the basis of looks, and many end there.

Of course, it could be said that the compartmentalisation and commodification of the modern gay scene is curiously well adapted to supplying and answer to the usual mismatch between appearance and character. If you especially like men that go for days without a shave and doss around in old hiking shorts and a T shirt you can find a whole club/website of them and search that for the personality you want.

It's like the mediaeval habit of having all the butchers, bakers or fishmongers in one street...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.