[HoosierDaddy]

Quote

/thread. i feel ikky

You should you big old pervert!

[frookenhauer]

Carry on...

[Illuyankas]

Most men, maybe, but good luck googling bears with Safe Search off, buddy.

[Cold Iron]

Illuyankas, on Feb 4 2009, 09:30 AM, said:

Most men, maybe, but good luck googling bears with Safe Search off, buddy.

Therefore the irrational seeming fear and immature seeming prejudice. There is a seduction to submission that we know we must fight.

...seriously /thread please

[Terez]

Cold Iron, on Feb 3 2009, 04:23 PM, said:

Terez, on Feb 3 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

You think that's because lesbians are somehow inherently more appealing? I'm sure that makes sense to a hetero guy that isn't using the right head, but come on...

Men and women have different appeal. The appeal of men is strength and the physical ability to dominate. Most men do not feel attracted to and are intimidated by the thought of physical intimacy with someone who appears strong. Women's bodies have less hair and are more soft and supple and they are generally smaller in stature and their facial features are more childlike.

This is why lesbians are more appealing to YOU, and why men are not appealing to YOU. It shouldn't have anything to do with other guys being attracted to each other. There's no good reason that should freak anyone out, unless you have a lurking attraction to men (perhaps a desire to be dominated?) that you are scared to face (reading your next post, it seems that might be the case).

Seriously guys...if you have such buried needs, just face them. In fact, tell your woman about them. She'll go wild, I promise.

[Terez]

Well, "Vegeta" is kinda like "vegetable", which kinda fits with the hair - it's like the bits of vegetable that you see growing above the ground. And "Kakarot" is kinda like "carrot", and also kinda like "cock", hence the orange suit and rooster hair.

[HoosierDaddy]

Okay. Now I'm confused. To whom and what are you explaining?

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Feb 4 2009, 09:49 AM, said:

This is why lesbians are more appealing to YOU, and why men are not appealing to YOU. It shouldn't have anything to do with other guys being attracted to each other. There's no good reason that should freak anyone out, unless you have a lurking attraction to men (perhaps a desire to be dominated?) that you are scared to face (reading your next post, it seems that might be the case).

Seriously guys...if you have such buried needs, just face them. In fact, tell your woman about them. She'll go wild, I promise.

I feel I am a good enough representation of the average male and average human to generalise. The seduction of domination is not specific to me. I have faced this, I have no problem with burrying it again.

[Terez]

Cold Iron, on Feb 3 2009, 05:38 PM, said:

I feel I am a good enough representation of the average male and average human to generalise.

You are a decent representation of the average male (though some might beg to differ). There are a lot of guys that don't really have this strong reaction, or just keep it to themselves, but most guys react similar to you.

CI said:

The seduction of domination is not specific to me. I have faced this, I have no problem with burrying it again.

Good for you - but why do you still react so strongly to it? All of this /thread stuff is a bit dramatic, don't you think?

Also, I don't think that the *squick* reaction is all about an underlying need to be dominated. It's also about the allure of dominating another man. Because, let's face it, most women are pretty easy to dominate in bed, and not just because we're generally weaker. All you have to do to dominate is take initiative, and for most women, nothing turns us off more than a guy who needs to be guided through the whole process. We want you to dominate because we require that you show us you know how. That's thousands of years' worth of socialization stemming from that simple fact of general differences in physical strength between the genders.

But the idea dominating another man....that's something special, isn't it? For a man or a women, the idea has seduction. For a woman, the attraction is obvious - it's a reversal of the natural roles. But if you remove the difference of gender, then all of a sudden the basic rules of domination are unclear. It becomes a contest.


*Thanks Illy...I'm learning all sorts of new words.

[Terez]

It was just a general explanation. If it was in response to anything in particular, it would be the inference of chicken porn.

[Stalker]

<---- is dramatic!

/thread. ROFLSKYKEEP!!

This post has been edited by Stalker: 04 February 2009 - 12:41 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

Since this is the way this thread has gone... Have gender roles have created a haven for effeminate men in drama class/theater? Don't answer.

<------ far more dramatic than anyone here.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 04 February 2009 - 12:44 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

Ok. But, I don't think "chicken porn" really necessitated a response.

[RodeoRanch]

This one damned strange thread. For simplicity's sake, shall I merge it with "Terez's thread" and someone can start a "sexual roles and dynamics" thread in the Discussions forum?

[HoosierDaddy]

See? I'm not the only one who thinks it might be discussion area topic.

<-------- Doesn't have a concussion to the head or balls.

[Stalker]

Rodeo has a good point. The two threads are both talking about the same not fun stuff.

Did you know that Native Americans had a 3rd gender role called Berdache? See what college teaches you?

[HoosierDaddy]

College taught me how to semi-function while drunk, how to more quickly recover from being hungover, and that women are just as freaky as men. Enhance your education Stalker.

[Stalker]

Wow, now I feel bad about myself.

That triva was something I picked up for a paper last week.

[RodeoRanch]

I'm just going to do it. If anyone is saddened by this, PM me and I'll sad with you.

[HoosierDaddy]

Don't feel bad. Get drunk, it makes you feel better.

Post thread edit: I'm one part relieved, two parts bittersweet.

This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 04 February 2009 - 12:53 AM