[ghostdog]

Is it for fun, or procreation?The manosphere hasn't decided.
If it's for fun, that fucks a lot of things up.

Is it wrong for females to have have sex with anybody they want if it's only for fun? They want the best orgasm and that's where the alpha comes in.

If a woman waits until marriage for sex, is there a detrimental effect on her body from not having frequent release of endorphins?

What are the health benefits of sex?

Is the clitoris just a pointless pleasure button?

Smarter animals like monkeys and dolphins have sex indiscriminately for fun when their females are not ovulating, so what does this say about us?

[Emancipator]

I've read many compelling essays that sex is about power.

Underwood in HoC says a monologue along the lines too.

[ghostdog]

before we had birth control, sex would result in impregnation

sex with birth control is a way to pretend you're succeeding at survival?

is all we are trying to get out of life that feeling of peak genetic value? is this state of being high our limit?

[Sailor]

(06-03-2013 08:16 AM)ghostdog Wrote:  

If a woman waits until marriage for sex, is there a detrimental effect on her body from not having frequent release of endorphins?

Not if she masturbates

[WesternCancer]

Sex is for pleasure, for power, to make money, and when you want it to reproduce.

Theres not just one function of it. People get different things out of sex.


"Is it wrong for females to have have sex with anybody they want if it's only for fun?"

No its not wrong. A woman can fuck whoever she wants. Most women don't want endless pump and dumps, they want a steady boyfriend that fulfills them emotionally as well as sexually.

[kosko]

Motivation for men

Incentive to procreate for both

"Power"(soft) for women

[Gallego2006]

Makin' Bacon

[Homo_Sapien]

Sex is primarily for the continuation of the species.

It may serve some value as pleasurable behaviour in the more intelligent of species, but that's just a by-product of evolution.

That being said, it's not wrong if we or any woman wants to have sex purely for pleasure. Morality is, again, a by-product of evolution.

[ghostdog]

(06-03-2013 12:30 PM)Homo_Sapien Wrote:  

Sex is primarily for the continuation of the species.

It may serve some value as pleasurable behaviour in the more intelligent of species, but that's just a by-product of evolution.

the feeling for both purposes is the same. it's one act, sex.
should fun in general take second priority to continuing the species?
fun supports the idea that you're here for finite time, continuing the species is about using your lifetime to work for the next generation.
which brings me to the next question... why do we have fun? as a reaction to knowing that we are going to die?

Quote:

That being said, it's not wrong if we or any woman wants to have sex purely for pleasure. Morality is, again, a by-product of evolution.

so anything goes? with nothing objective can we can only make a case against feminism for not continuing the species, not feminism being morally wrong?

[Walderschmidt]

Why We Have Sex:

Sex is not for reproduction or for pleasure - though the intense pleasure we feel having it is a feature to get us to do it more often.Sex is for survival. It's because each time we have sex and produce a child from it, our genes changes. That is to say, no two children, bar twins are exactly alike. This makes it hard for parasites and diseases to kill all of us.

If we reproduced the other way, asexually, we might have died out a long time ago. Once a virus is able to kill a member of a species that reproduces asexually, it can wipe out that entire species. Not so with ours. Every child is different. Every generation is different.

That is why we have sex.

On the Female Orgasm:

The female orgasm is no happy accident and is not useless. It serves two functions for the female.

1) Making it easier for her (alpha) lover to impregnate her.
2) Making it harder for her (beta) lover to impregnate her.

The way it works is that when a female orgasms, her cervix swoops down like an elephant trunk and scoops up the puddle of sperm. This only happens if she orgasms right after the man cums inside of her. Otherwise, she may orgasm long before hand, like during foreplay. After orgasm, her vaginal walls and mucus become more acidic, making it harder for invading sperm to survive, reach the cervix, and ultimately the eggs.

I believe good knowledge of how the clitoris works could better enable a man to decide when she orgasms instead of the female's body doing it for him.

Chemicals Released During Sex:

Men and women both release chemicals during sex. For women it is oxytocin and men it is vasopressin. These chemicals are bonding chemicals that make each sexual partner more bonded to one another. In women, each time they have sex with a new man, they release less and less oxytocin, until they point where would not be able to bond with any new man at all. Technically, women should not have sex with more than one guy for best results. But women are human; they want sex too.

Wald

[cardguy]

I was thinking about this today. As I sat in my favourite pizza restaurant reading a book on philosophy.

Imagine a world in which everyone of us had acess to a thousand supermodels who we could fuck as often as we want.

But at the same time - it is also a world where our diets were restricted to the very basics. Bread, water, vitamin pills and the occasional protein shake. Except for those who 'learned game', were born good looking or were rich/famous/powerful. Those people got access to the meals which could be as extravagent as they want.

I would imagine over time - people would obsess over food the way people do today over sex. Whilst at the same time - taking the sex they have access to for granted.

In many ways our obsession over food would be worse than any obsession over sex. Since (to quote Louis CK) there is no subsitute for eating a nice meal. Unlike with sex where jerking off is quite a good substitute.

I am not sure what point I am trying to make. Except that when thinking philosophically about sex - you have to separate the qualities associated with sex from the restricted supply of sex which conditions most people's relationship with it.

[ghostdog]

(06-03-2013 12:56 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

I was thinking about this today. As I sat in my favourite pizza restaurant reading a book on philosophy.

Imagine a world in which everyone of us had acess to a thousand supermodels who we could fuck as often as we want.

But at the same time - it is also a world where our diets were restricted to the very basics. Bread, water, vitamin pills and the occasional protein shake. Except for those who 'learned game', were born good looking or were rich/famous/powerful. Those people got access to the meals which could be as extravagent as they want.

I would imagine over time - people would obsess over food the way people do today over sex. Whilst at the same time - taking the sex they have access to for granted.

In many ways our obsession over food would be worse than any obsession over sex. Since (to quote Louis CK) there is no subsitute for eating a nice meal. Unlike with sex where jerking off is quite a good substitute.

I am not sure what point I am trying to make. Except that when thinking philosophically about sex - you have to separate the qualities associated with sex from the restricted supply of sex which conditions most people's relationship with it.

when the need for food replaces the need for sex, isn't that how obesity happens? abnormal amounts of salt, fat, carbs make the brain go crazy
or any addiction for that matter, same setup
the best way to get out of obesity or addiction is to look in the mirror and tell yourself youre not longer winning at sex, the pinnacle of survival
but if life is just about obtaining mental states and feelings, the orgasm can just be substituted with something else like a drug, detrimental to health, but health is about reproducing anyway
we are really fragile

[Homo_Sapien]

(06-03-2013 12:44 PM)ghostdog Wrote:  

the feeling for both purposes is the same. it's one act, sex.
should fun in general take second priority to continuing the species?
fun supports the idea that you're here for finite time, continuing the species is about using your lifetime to work for the next generation.
which brings me to the next question... why do we have fun? as a reaction to knowing that we are going to die?

It is not a question of 'should'. I simply stated the facts.

Humans have fun because they can. It is pleasurable to partake in fun activities, so we do.

(06-03-2013 12:44 PM)ghostdog Wrote:  

so anything goes? with nothing objective can we can only make a case against feminism for not continuing the species, not feminism being morally wrong?

In the grand scheme of things, yes, anything goes.

Feminism isn't wrong just like gang rape isn't wrong.

Moral absolutes exist only in the mind and culture of humans.

[Kingsley Davis]

(06-03-2013 12:50 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

Why We Have Sex:

Sex is not for reproduction or for pleasure - though the intense pleasure we feel having it is a feature to get us to do it more often.Sex is for survival. It's because each time we have sex and produce a child from it, our genes changes. That is to say, no two children, bar twins are exactly alike. This makes it hard for parasites and diseases to kill all of us.

If we reproduced the other way, asexually, we might have died out a long time ago. Once a virus is able to kill a member of a species that reproduces asexually, it can wipe out that entire species. Not so with ours. Every child is different. Every generation is different.

That is why we have sex.

On the Female Orgasm:

The female orgasm is no happy accident and is not useless. It serves two functions for the female.

1) Making it easier for her (alpha) lover to impregnate her.
2) Making it harder for her (beta) lover to impregnate her.

The way it works is that when a female orgasms, her cervix swoops down like an elephant trunk and scoops up the puddle of sperm. This only happens if she orgasms right after the man cums inside of her. Otherwise, she may orgasm long before hand, like during foreplay. After orgasm, her vaginal walls and mucus become more acidic, making it harder for invading sperm to survive, reach the cervix, and ultimately the eggs.

I believe good knowledge of how the clitoris works could better enable a man to decide when she orgasms instead of the female's body doing it for him.

Chemicals Released During Sex:

Men and women both release chemicals during sex. For women it is oxytocin and men it is vasopressin. These chemicals are bonding chemicals that make each sexual partner more bonded to one another. In women, each time they have sex with a new man, they release less and less oxytocin, until they point where would not be able to bond with any new man at all. Technically, women should not have sex with more than one guy for best results. But women are human; they want sex too.

Wald

Just posted your comment to this chick i used to hit who confessed to over 40 cocks in one year. I'll post her hamster riddled reply.

[Kingsley Davis]

(06-03-2013 12:50 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

Why We Have Sex:

Sex is not for reproduction or for pleasure - though the intense pleasure we feel having it is a feature to get us to do it more often.Sex is for survival. It's because each time we have sex and produce a child from it, our genes changes. That is to say, no two children, bar twins are exactly alike. This makes it hard for parasites and diseases to kill all of us.

If we reproduced the other way, asexually, we might have died out a long time ago. Once a virus is able to kill a member of a species that reproduces asexually, it can wipe out that entire species. Not so with ours. Every child is different. Every generation is different.

That is why we have sex.

On the Female Orgasm:

The female orgasm is no happy accident and is not useless. It serves two functions for the female.

1) Making it easier for her (alpha) lover to impregnate her.
2) Making it harder for her (beta) lover to impregnate her.

The way it works is that when a female orgasms, her cervix swoops down like an elephant trunk and scoops up the puddle of sperm. This only happens if she orgasms right after the man cums inside of her. Otherwise, she may orgasm long before hand, like during foreplay. After orgasm, her vaginal walls and mucus become more acidic, making it harder for invading sperm to survive, reach the cervix, and ultimately the eggs.

I believe good knowledge of how the clitoris works could better enable a man to decide when she orgasms instead of the female's body doing it for him.

Chemicals Released During Sex:

Men and women both release chemicals during sex. For women it is oxytocin and men it is vasopressin. These chemicals are bonding chemicals that make each sexual partner more bonded to one another. In women, each time they have sex with a new man, they release less and less oxytocin, until they point where would not be able to bond with any new man at all. Technically, women should not have sex with more than one guy for best results. But women are human; they want sex too.

Wald

Drum roll or better yet, hamster wheel roll. Here is Miss i fucked/sucked over 40 cocks a year reply. I'm not judging her actions because by not judging (they think so anyway) i was the fortunate recipient of the inner workings of whore logic.

"Lmao!!!! Now that's the most ridiculous one yet. I almost choked - it sounds like something catholic men wrote. Truly, lmao!

Sent from my iPhone 5"

[Kingsley Davis]

More hamster droppings on said topic, hee hee.

"Oh pleeeeease! You seriously feel women have less chance of orgasms/bonding if they have more partners??? Really? Seems like tailored science to me. But I'm used to the world finding ways to suppress women's sexuality. We can take on more partners and enjoy them all and bond more than men. This scares a lot of men. So the common literature is that women need to bond and can only do so with one man. C'mon!

Here's a free truth for you. No one man is ever enough for a woman. Many women just settle and go on being "in love" with that one guy. Truth is, we need different men for different purposes. Different sex tactics, different smells, different colors, penis sizes, arm sizes, hair color, age, but shapes, careers, you name it. We want, at any given time, at least 5 men. And the men change constantly. We get excited by the new, sometimes the forgotten, sometimes the familiar, sometimes the outright dangerous. So telling me that I can only achieve the height of experiences with fewer partners is jut bullcrap and laughable. Bit I can't blame you for believing it. We have been pretending to be this way for centuries.

Sent from my iPhone 5"

[Walderschmidt]

(06-03-2013 09:11 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

More hamster droppings on said topic, hee hee.

"Oh pleeeeease! You seriously feel women have less chance of orgasms/bonding if they have more partners??? Really? Seems like tailored science to me. But I'm used to the world finding ways to suppress women's sexuality. We can take on more partners and enjoy them all and bond more than men. This scares a lot of men. So the common literature is that women need to bond and can only do so with one man. C'mon!

Here's a free truth for you. No one man is ever enough for a woman. Many women just settle and go on being "in love" with that one guy. Truth is, we need different men for different purposes. Different sex tactics, different smells, different colors, penis sizes, arm sizes, hair color, age, but shapes, careers, you name it. We want, at any given time, at least 5 men. And the men change constantly. We get excited by the new, sometimes the forgotten, sometimes the familiar, sometimes the outright dangerous. So telling me that I can only achieve the height of experiences with fewer partners is jut bullcrap and laughable. Bit I can't blame you for believing it. We have been pretending to be this way for centuries.

Sent from my iPhone 5"

Hahahahaha. That's awesome.

Interesting how she immediately lumps orgasms with bonding because she knows through plenty of experience that she still feels orgasms.

The fact that she needs at least 5 different men at one time speaks volumes about how far gone she is.

You should ask her if she's got one, two, or three guys who got away.

Wald

P.S. I'd recommend her the book Sperm Wars by Robin Baker. Good book.

[Kingsley Davis]

(06-03-2013 09:33 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 09:11 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

More hamster droppings on said topic, hee hee.

"Oh pleeeeease! You seriously feel women have less chance of orgasms/bonding if they have more partners??? Really? Seems like tailored science to me. But I'm used to the world finding ways to suppress women's sexuality. We can take on more partners and enjoy them all and bond more than men. This scares a lot of men. So the common literature is that women need to bond and can only do so with one man. C'mon!

Here's a free truth for you. No one man is ever enough for a woman. Many women just settle and go on being "in love" with that one guy. Truth is, we need different men for different purposes. Different sex tactics, different smells, different colors, penis sizes, arm sizes, hair color, age, but shapes, careers, you name it. We want, at any given time, at least 5 men. And the men change constantly. We get excited by the new, sometimes the forgotten, sometimes the familiar, sometimes the outright dangerous. So telling me that I can only achieve the height of experiences with fewer partners is jut bullcrap and laughable. Bit I can't blame you for believing it. We have been pretending to be this way for centuries.

Sent from my iPhone 5"

Hahahahaha. That's awesome.

Interesting how she immediately lumps orgasms with bonding because she knows through plenty of experience that she still feels orgasms.

The fact that she needs at least 5 different men at one time speaks volumes about how far gone she is.

You should ask her if she's got one, two, or three guys who got away.

Wald

P.S. I'd recommend her the book Sperm Wars by Robin Baker. Good book.

You're hollering at the one who not only got away but ran far and fast the fuck away my good Sir, lolz.
Your book recommendation would be fodder for her hamster anyway.

[Walderschmidt]

(06-03-2013 09:42 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

You're hollering at the one who not only got away but ran far and fast the fuck away my good Sir, lolz.
Your book recommendation would be fodder for her hamster anyway.

That doesn't surprise me at all. But it would make her answer to said question even more interesting.

Wald

[Samseau]

People have always had sex for fun. In the old days, if a woman got preggo and she didn't want the child she'd just abandon it. Infanticide was as common as slavery.

It is only in today's world did we sterilize the word infanticide with "abortion."

[tiggaling]

http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Teachings-W...0892818689

Well, for the Taoists and white tigress's, sex is for rejuvination and maintaining health and gaining longevity.

[Matt3B]

(06-03-2013 09:11 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

More hamster droppings on said topic, hee hee.

"Oh pleeeeease! You seriously feel women have less chance of orgasms/bonding if they have more partners??? Really? Seems like tailored science to me. But I'm used to the world finding ways to suppress women's sexuality. We can take on more partners and enjoy them all and bond more than men. This scares a lot of men. So the common literature is that women need to bond and can only do so with one man. C'mon!

Here's a free truth for you. No one man is ever enough for a woman. Many women just settle and go on being "in love" with that one guy. Truth is, we need different men for different purposes. Different sex tactics, different smells, different colors, penis sizes, arm sizes, hair color, age, but shapes, careers, you name it. We want, at any given time, at least 5 men. And the men change constantly. We get excited by the new, sometimes the forgotten, sometimes the familiar, sometimes the outright dangerous. So telling me that I can only achieve the height of experiences with fewer partners is jut bullcrap and laughable. Bit I can't blame you for believing it. We have been pretending to be this way for centuries.

Sent from my iPhone 5"

Dude, that way of thinking is pulled straight from an article that wrote about women needing 5 different men at once to fulfil her different needs. There was a thread on it on here but I couldn't find it - anyone remember the one I'm on about?

There was also a thread about pornstars looking beautiful and full of life going into the industry, but soulless and empty after a few years of smoking cock. I'll try find them, unless someone else can beat me to it.

Not sure what it'll achieve with this girl though.

[WesternCancer]

(06-04-2013 02:31 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

People have always had sex for fun. In the old days, if a woman got preggo and she didn't want the child she'd just abandon it. Infanticide was as common as slavery.

It is only in today's world did we sterilize the word infanticide with "abortion."

This is a point tons of people don't realize. They think the old days were just some leave it to beaver fantasy world where people lost their virginity on their wedding nights and only the depraved would seek out whores.

People may have been less likely to have anonymous one night stands, but fucking still happened. all day, all night. The consequences could be disease, pregnancy, forced marriage etc, but people still fucked like rabbits.

You get two people horny enough and eventually they're going to bang and its been that way since the dawn of time.

[Clash1e]

It's about power and subjugating women to my every whim. Women are to be mounted like donkeys and shown who is boss. Their weak and inferior mind craves utter and humiliating domination by the dicktator.

We are just like monkeys. Promiscuous and wanting it in the ass. Evolution is a lie prepetuated by the church. Our sexual inclinations are no different then they were 6 million yrs ago.

The only benefit of sex I can think of is it feels good to cum and it's funny to watch girls cry.

And the clitoris? What is that shit. Sounds like something Hitler would have created.

[Que enspastic]

i can't believe people used to sleep with whores back in the days before protected sex. and if you look at old photos of whores circa 1800-1900 they are butt ugly 40 year old manish troglodytes. you'd be paying for an STI like syphilis that would likely kill you.