Jorgunmandr
Kaosgirl
Jorgunmandr
Kaosgirl
Jorgunmandr
I've shortened my responses. I don't think anyone would appreciate the long versions as that would require you to listen.
Riviera de la Mancha
Just because breasts are aesthetics to you doesnt mean that its not very important for other people. If a guy cant get aroused because his chick has mosquito bites, then that is certainly a tangible issue.
The topic is the mechanics of sexual intercourse within relation to the p***s. The topic is not physical attraction. Your example is simply void.
I dunno, flaccid and floppy seems like it would fail to satisfy regardless of size. And isn't that what you get when the guy's not getting turned on? Physical attraction certainly seems to have a part in the process.
Not at all. Male sexual response can even be spontaneous. The body does not really differentiate. Female attractiveness being so horrid as to keep an erection down is nothing I've ever heard of when her v****a is exposed ( in a welcoming manner ) and isn't beyond a certain point of hygiene. It's why males are attributed to "******** anything". Instincts dictate that's true.
You could have just said "I endorse the myth of the male pig as gospel truth," and saved yourself a fair bit of typing.
Not at all. Physical responses of the body to erotic stimuli may have absolutely nothing to do with attractions or interest in all humans. It isn't that humans, males specifically, are loose and morally deficient from a psychological vantage point ( we are more than our instincts ) but for the most part is it medically true that males do not have the mental ability to just call forth or deny their own erections. Stimuli unrelated to the the direct control of the p***s, much the same for the v****a actually, is usually required.
All of which is actually a confirmation of my position: that there is more to the question than just the physical mechanics involved.
Jorgunmandr
I suppose the only difference is who chooses and who is chosen in the process that creates this mythological disparity.
Such sexism is of course expected of you.
You're the one trying to rationalize and justify a sexist myth. I'm just pointing out what you're doing, in case it wasn't your intention to be doing that.
Jorgunmandr
Quote:
Not entirely. Not all vaginas feel the same so males are just as ... "condemned" if you will. It's why breast size is not comparable.
Contradictory to your previous claims that it makes no difference to men, since (by your words) their instincts are geared so they'll ******** anything, and can even respond spontaneously.
It isn't contradictory.
It is contradictory to where the goalposts were originally located. If you move them in order to escape the contradiction, then obviously it will cease to be contradictory.
Jorgunmandr
The propensity to inseminate as many females as possible in animals has nothing to do with pleasure.
Can the same legitimately be said of the tendency towards preferential decisions regarding which females to inseminate, or - more relevantly to the actual topic at hand - of female preferences (where in existence) regarding which male(s) they allow to inseminate them?
Or are we relying on arbitrary assumptions and questionable extrapolations to do so?
Jorgunmandr
If we were looking at this issue from a pleasure based vantage point focusing on males there's no
external way to gauge a v****a's fit to your p***s; the unfortunate truth is that males are even more in the dark since at least you can look at and gauge any given external organ no matter how you manage to do it.
And yet, this uncertainty has had no effect on the male sex drive; leading the conclusion that male preferences are most likely derived from a source other than vaginal tightness.
Jorgunmandr
There is a distinct separation between sensation and biological drive.
That was my point. I'm glad to see you caught on to it, but I still wonder if you understand the implications.
Jorgunmandr
Quote:
Quote:
No humans sexual response is entirely physical.
It has long been believed to be so for males, and whether that much is true or not I can't really say.
Was the last book you picked up from 50 years ago or something?
About 10 years, IIRC, and it was questioning this assumption. Which is why I initially characterized it as a ''bias" - it's something that was believed as true by many, not something confirmed as true by objective sources.
The issue I drew was that you seemed to be extending that bias from the male population, to which it was initially applied, onto the female population - to which it was always questionable in application. 1800's philosophy held that (good) women derived no pleasure from the act of sex, either physical or emotional, and offered it only in exchange for the affections of a man. Around the sexual revolution of the 1960's, we changed our thinking to the assumption that women were no different from men in their sexual desires, only that they were societally repressed from expressing themselves in the same way.
I think it was around the mid 1990's that the idea of neither extreme being an accurate depiction of female sexuality picked up in popularity, but I'm sort of guessing on the timeframe for that one.
That said, I may have misread what you initially wrote. Were you asserting that the human sexual response is entirely physical, or were you asserting that it's not entirely physical for
anyone? If the latter, then I do not disagree and apologize for the mis-read.
Jorgunmandr
Quote:
But regardless, the context here is female sexuality. And female sexual response has never been believed to be "entirely physical" by... well, anyone reputable that I'm aware of.
This is not to say that the physical component is irrelevant. Only that the assertion that it is the
only thing of relevance is patently false.
Good thing no one said it was the only thing relevant to the totality of the sexual experience. However the topic
is the physical response making the other elements tangents and not relevant to the point.
No, actually it's not. This particular tangent is me challenging your attempts to redefine it as such.
Jorgunmandr
This has got to be the fifth or sixth time I have said this across four or five different people. Wow, anything to divert.
Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks you've got the wrong idea on what the topic is
razz
Jorgunmandr
Quote:
Failure to account for variables that
do have a plausible influence on the subject leads straight into the field of faulty causation fallacies.
http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html
Good thing this is not a problem as I'm posing a basic explanation not an argument.
Since neither form of rationale is immune to that subtype of error, bringing up that distinction is irrelevant.
Jorgunmandr
Kaosgirl
Or they may have just looked at the topic title, noted that it said "preference," and decided that narrowing the discussion down to pure physical sensation was an excessively reductionist move on the grounds that there is *far* more involved in both the quality of sex and the weighting of aesthetic preferences than just the purely physical sensations involved.
If one read the whole title and OP one would realize that they are not broadening the subject by bringing in two things:
1. Emotional / Mental sexual response.
2. Specifications on personal experiences. "His d**k was too big for me at 2000000 inches." is not actually on topic nor is "The best sex I ever had was with an avg guy who was caring vs. a man with a humungous d**k who was mean!" as both of these have extensive numbers of variable that have beyond countless implications.
That's what I said in the first place: that taking these factors into account is
not broadening the subject at all. I did so implicitly, by arguing that eliminating these factors is narrowing the topic.
Jorgunmandr
More than one claim has been made that p***s size is at best minor in this thread and not one person has proven it from the physical vantage point. It has always been using things externally to prove another issue which is like your poem actually about blind things and elephants.
People contest basic anatomical fact in order to show ... what?
That having a small trunk does not make an elephant less of an elephant.
And it's not the 'basic anatomical facts' being questioned; it's the assumptions about their relevance.
200
100
200
300
100
100
250
50
200
50
100
100
