Monday, June 21, 2010

All women like chocolate

Main

Whahaha!!!! I came across a forum about asexuality. What one person says is so true!!!! I laughed my ass off, and I want to share it with the rest of the world (I have to watch out that my blog doesn't turn into an anti-sexuality blog by the way). Now the quote (emphases mine):
Something doesnt make sense to me. If women are lustful for sex, why arent they going around trying to get it like how guys do??

I did an experiment, I put pictures of an attractive male and an attractive female on a site. And the female got lots of different guys sending messages, some were quite straight to the point about wanting sex, others appeared more into small talk. The male got no messages.

I see and hear about the same thing going on in person with people

And times have changed, and women seem to be admired for being independant, so why arent alot of women going around trying to get different people to have sex, like how alot of guys do?

They say that they only enjoy the sex when its with someone whom they love and trust. So do they like the sex or do they like the love and trust? do they simply love the guy so much that they like making him happy with sex??

It just seems odd for someone to say they're sexual and then not be persuing it. Its like someone saying they like chocolate and then going to the store and saying "Im just gona stand around here and wait for someone to give me chocolate, but im only gona eat the chocolate if I love and trust that person."

so is it just the love and care they're after?? are all women asexual??
Absolutely!!!

This is what I'm wondering lately too!!!!

Actually, I have to admit that regarding prostitution in the Netherlands it is starting to become groundhog day. There is very little news. It also seems as if the notorious evil human traffickers are starting to disappear!! Surely, there are some news items about brothel owners getting arrested and some individual men and women who are denounced by prostitutes. But it all seems to be about conflicts between prostitutes and their lovers or friends getting out of hand. However, the Foundation Against Trafficking in Women (Comensha now) is still publishing numbers. Here are the latest numbers. Some highlights are that still many women forced in prostitution are Dutch and that still many women forced in prostitution work in regulated brothels. Still, I'm beginning to doubt these numbers. Anyone can call Comensha and say that he or she met a forced prostitute who worked in ...... at ......... . There is no evidence.

I'm becoming a human trafficking sceptic like Laura Agustin. There is no human trafficking. Prostitution is a noble profession, much more humane and a lot safer than other professions. Women who say they are forced simply say that because they are ashamed. And then they press charges against their innocent (boy)friends or managers, who then are put in jail because the judges don't dare to challenge innocent victims. It is the taboo surrounding that really is the problem. Women who work in prostitution who are ashamed only have themselves to blame. They should fight their own inhibitions and learn that the things that men do to them are perfectly natural and well-intended.

( .... cynical .... )

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Women and men are different. Haven't you noticed it yet?
I must admit that I don't understand male sexuality and I probably never will. Also, not all women are the same, just as not all men are the same.
There are probably women with a man-like attitude to sex and men with a more woman-like attitude to sex.
Women don't have testes that produce sperm that are near bursting point if there's no ejaculation within a certain period of time, so in that sense women are a-sexual. Women have no pressing physical necessity to have sex. Women have the luxury of being able to critically decide if they will be in the mood for sex. Since I heard about Teun's campaign against (non-fair trade) chocolate, I have drastically reduced my chocolate intake (and I do love chocolate.) But I can mentally decide/remember that it's a bad idea, and my longing dissipates. A woman's greatest sexual organ is her brain. We don't all just respond to pretty faces. In fact even a non-pretty face can be sexually attractive for an average woman, if he can appeal to her mind. The average woman is not as shallow as the average man. Perhaps the men who know this are the confident, successful ones.

Anonymous said...

I had a quick look at that forum and there was one post that got me thinking...
It was a post about women who watched photographs of men. They mentioned that some of the women were taking hormones. It made me wonder whether taking the pill is radically influencing women's sexual behaviour. Please see this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1044174/Taking-Pill-stop-women-sniffing-perfect-partner.html
I am one of the rare women who don't like men wearing deodorant, and I've never been on the pill.
It makes me wonder whether there'd be more people like me, if less women were on the pill.

Donkey said...

Yes, but I have to stress, the person I quoted exactly hit the jackpot. So, women like sex only with "the man they love" and trust. Yeah, duh. It sounds so sentimental. So contrived.

I think the pleasure that women have for sex lies perhaps in the joy of seeing their lover happy. Exactly like the person I quoted told. So, in a way women like sex.

Anonymous said...

You wrote:
"So, women like sex only with "the man they love" and trust. Yeah, duh. It sounds so sentimental. So contrived."
Exactly. It's a generalisation, but a true one. I don't know why you find it contrived. That's what makes men and women so very different. Women don't stand around waiting for someone to give them chocolate, they enjoy the "gezelligheid" of sharing chocolate (to use your given analogy.)
It seems to be the men that are constantly on alert for someone to have sex with, are the ones in search of chocolate. For men who visit prostitutes, the sharing is just a necessary evil.

Donkey said...

It is an interesting subject. I can give the discussion another direction. I expanded my post about why women don't like sex anymore than 10-year old boys do:
http://fleshtrade.blogspot.com/2010/04/women-dont-like-sex-any-more-than-young.html

(I added interesting features about a female-to-male transsexual who took testosterone and who acquired a skyrocketing sex drive, and the discovery that lesbian couples have sex on a far lower frequency than heterosexual and male gay couples do. And by the way, did you know that lesbian and gay couples are as violent as heterosexual couples?)

I can give more food to the thought that sexuality is essentially masculine. What I learned by reading about prostitution in the past (I mean nineteenth centurty, sixteenth century, early twentieth century), is that people at that time didn't have any other kind of sex than: man on top, women at the bottom. So that means, the missionary position. Also, people didn't have oral sex at that time.

The vastly expanded sexual repertoire that many couples use today has only one origin: pornography, an industry completely created and dictated by men. For instance, that so many couples perform deep throat is mainly due to the film of that name, before that hardly anyone did it. But it is an origin that women don't like. Women don't like pornography. But if you look at what people do in bed, that is pornography. SEXUALITY IS PORNOGRAPHY. Women don't like pornography. Women don't like sex.

:P

(I like discussing :) )

Anonymous said...

I'm no historian, but there's a lot of conflicting evidence.
I have a feeling that every couple are quite individualistic in their private behaviour, and this is how it always has been. I doubt that you could generalize about this. For example, there are ancient erotic temple drawings/carvings in India: so sexual variety has existed before, and yet a couple of hundred years ago there are also writings that indicate that people didn't even get naked in front of their partners.
Similarly nowadays you might get the impression that most people are "doing it" a lot, but that's not necessarily true.
I think people "do it" less than you would imagine. But this doesn't mean that there's less love in those relationships, or less satisfaction. Not all men watch pornography. People who try to act out pornography that they have seen must have the worst relationships imho. If a man made those sorts of suggestions, I would feel horrible. It's like he's selfishly acting out a fantasy instead of seeing the real me. It's a barrier to real intimacy.

Donkey said...

All men watch pornograhphy, see this article about a researcher who couldn't find men who didn't watch pornography:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/all-men-watch-porn-and-it-is-not-bad-for-them-1833949.html

But I don't agree with what the researcher ( Simon Louis Lajeunesse) says about porn being harmless because men don't emulate what they see in porn videos. In reality what people do in bed nowadays in almost completely inspired by porn. For instance, Most women shave their vaginas, most couples have oral sex and most couples nowadays also experiment with anal sex. Sexuality and pornography are the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Donkey, a sample of twenty male college students is hardly representative of the male population at large. You can hardly draw reliable conclusions about all men on that basis.

I know that there are men who won't look at porn.

Anonymous said...

Maybe as an average, women tend to be less driven by sex in their daily lives, but of course there are big differences between individual women. To say women are asexual is nonsense. :)

I was interested to see you say the ‘notorious human traffickers are starting to disappear.’ It certainly seems to be the direction of opinion at the moment.

Where once the press would trumpet the arrest of brothel owners and individual men and women denounced by prostitutes as the “tip of the iceberg” of a horrific and widespread problem, now they are dismissed as lover’s squabbles which got out of hand, a practical step to keep the immigration service at bay or as a way out of feeling ashamed for women who have worked as prostitutes and been discovered.

We live in a world led by marketing, a process which seeks to put a price on everything and to deliver any service to a customer who can pay. No thought is given to individual consequences: there is no money in that. Individuals can take charge of their own lives, and this freedom can be a heartless process.

Truth too, is a consumer product. Once it was fashionable to label all prostitutes as slaves, particularly if they were foreign, with no thought for the poverty the women endeavoured to escape, or why their often recently impoverished home countries were so poor.
This was a big story - a truly horrifying scandal, and reputations were made on it, both by academics and journalists. Newspapers are sold and academic papers are read when the victims number in the many tens of thousands.
And now we are to believe there are none, and that trafficking does not exist: another scandal is born, another line of academic enquiry begins, now investigating trafficking’s exaggeration. Another set of reputations are made when this exaggeration is exposed.

The existence, nature and prevalence of trafficking is so politicised now, partly because it is so emotive, and also because it is a central issue in the battle over whether or not prostitution should be legalised, how it should be controlled, and whether it should be controlled at all. This has caused so much distortion it seems to me impossible now to determine the truth.

Both sides of this debate have their facts and figures, all disputed of course, and all seem subject to significant subjectivity and shortcomings of technique. Just as when you ask your MP, “have you ever fiddled your expenses?” he will reply “no,” whether he has or not.
Large numbers of studies have been made; often they contradict each other. Great credence is placed on individual reports which are often in reality only a doctoral thesis written by a student whose parameters have been conceived in order to demonstrate a particular point of view and reach a pre determined outcome, often a controversial one which will be noticed (trafficking does not exist, or it s almost everywhere – even on your own high street.)
Such reports must be treated with caution, since their methodology is often flawed, seem to serve predetermined ends and are written in non neutral language which is at times deliberately obscure and laced with academic jargon.

I believe that there probably are women working as prostitutes in the Netherlands, or Great Britain or wherever, who do so against their will. Some of these will also have been “traditionally trafficked”. How many they number and even their identity will be virtually impossible to discover.
I also believe that the number of these truly forced women has probably been exaggerated - that many more are simply working in prostitution as a job, entirely willingly or at least compelled by circumstance rather than violence, though that is not to say they find it in any way enjoyable.

Donkey said...

I think that the researcher first tried to find men who didn't watch porn, which he couldn't find, and then he selected those twenty men.

That last point you mentioned is an issue for me. So, there are many prostitutes who don't like their work. Which is bad. So it is bad for men to visit prostitutes. But, there are many women who don't like sex with their husbands! Which is bad. Or is it okay because it is consensual? If it is okay to have sex with your wife who doesn't like sex, it is also okay to have sex with a prostitute who doesn't like sex. The situation is almost exactly the same, same problems and issues. Only, the prostitute is often anonymous.

(you write very well, you should become a columnist ;) )

Anonymous said...

If you were a husband, would you want your wife to have sex when she wasn't in the mood?

A decent man won't do that, and a decent man won't visit prostitutes, imho simply because sex shouldn't be a commodity, just as children shouldn't be commodities.

Anonymous said...

Donkey, read the article again. He couldn't find people to take part in the survey (fullstop) NOT that he couldn't find men who didn't use porn. He only got 20 men.

Donkey said...

Yes, I read it again, and you are right. A sample of only 20 men is too low to draw such conclusions.

But there's another article on The Sun (66% of women watch porn, By DULCIE PEARCE, Published: 02 Apr 2009).

It says that 88% of men and 66% of women watch porn. Okay, 12% of men say they don't. But it tells us how big the influence of pornography must be. It is surprising that women watch pornography, they probably watch the horrendous anal ATM porn too, watching their sisters being brutalized. Perhaps they do it to find out how to satisfy their lovers.

I think a decent man, if the theory is right that women are asexual and that this decent man knows this, wouldn't have sex with his wife in the first place because he knows she is never in the mood. If his wife takes the initiative in having sex he will politely refuse and say that he finds pornography degrading and that he respects women. But just a kiss and a hug would be okay. :)

Hey, I find your column so nice that I decided to post it on my blog, so everybody who visits my blog will see it.

Anonymous said...

donkey, you are comparing apples with pears. The male sex drive operates under different conditions than the female sex drive. The male sex drive is also stronger than the female sex drive. Both male and female sex drives exist. You interpret the difference as asexuality. But women are not asexual, they have a lower and different sort of libido.
As for other statistics, I doubt if most women shave off their pubic hair . I also doubt if heterosexual people have anal sex en masse. How the hell would anyone know? Lots of these so called statistics should be taken with a pinch of salt.
As for the hair shaving thing: would men shave off their chest hair if a woman asked them to? Then why do men think it's okay? I think any woman who has the misfortune to date a man who asks her to shave off any of her bodily hair, is dating a misogynist. I know that they exist, but I don't know how many women pander to those fools. Those fools don't know what a real woman is. A woman is more than her body. It's like eating food without tasting it. Their existence is a shadow of what it could be.
The eloquent post, by the way, was from another anonymous (not me.)

Donkey said...

Okay, I thought you were the same anonymous. Lots of people named Anonymous.

But, it feels good that you agree that women have a lower libido :) .

However, about the pubic hair: that most women nowadays shave off their pubic hair is confirmed by several doctors and gynaecologists who see a lot of naked women.

Anonymous said...

That shocks me, if it's true. Do you have sources for that or is it hearsay from your own doctor?

Shaving your legs is one thing, but shaving that area: it's sheer madness! What's wrong with those women who do that? What the hell are they thinking? Do they want to emulate being a pre-pubescent girl? Is that a healthy or desirable thing?

Sometimes it's as if the world is going backwards instead of progressing....

Donkey said...

Here I have the resources, but I'll quote from another post of mine where I summed up the evidence, I do have to say that I am also surprised that many young men also shave their pubic hair, because I don't, the prostitutes I visited must have been totally shocked!:
(the quote)
This is confirmed by a dermatologist in Santa Monica California USA. "I do full body exams to check for skin cancer, and I can think of almost no female patients who come in with natural pubic hair. Either they have nothing left, or they have a small patch that is two inches by half an inch, but the trend is toward having it all gone." (Skin Deep, The revisited Birthday Suit, The New York Times, by Natasha Singer, September 1, 2005). This is also confirmed by the Dutch family doctor Sylvie Lo Fo Wong who says that below the age group 30-35 nobody has hair in their pubic area, neither male nor female (Niemand wil nog schaamhaar, AD, June 19th 2009). And according to the same source the Dutch gynaecologist Carina Hilders says she rarely sees any woman who has full pubic hair, even the older women.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your reply.
The mind boggles. I read about how there was a hugely successful marketing campaign around the time of the 1st world war, in a shaving time-line, which convinced women that armpit hair was unhygienic and unfeminine.
In the middle ages there were wealthy women who shaved off their eyelashes, eyebrows and all hair on their head. It just shows how crazy people can be. Stone age people even filed their teeth.
It's bizarre for me to imagine that it's so wide spread. I believe you that pornography probably influences women's behaviour in getting that done.
It's sad, imho.

Anonymous said...

Ik heb net het AD artikel gelezen. Ongelofelijk!
Ik ben wel een beetje opgelucht dat andere mensen mee eens zijn dat het afscheren van je schaamhaar ook een slechte ontwikkeling is.

Anonymous said...

You are full of shit.  What an absurd rationalization.

-Sex Worker

Donkey said...

A sex worker said to me (he/she erased the comment):
You are full of shit. What an absurd rationalization.
-Sex Worker


I think you mean that all women like chocolate. Actually I changed my mind, I believe men and women are the same, like a study by Janet Shibley Hyde shows.
The Gender Similarities Hypothesis (Janet Shibley Hyde, American Psychologist, September 2005)

She says men and women come from the same planet after all, that they have far more in common than that they differ. Except for physical strength, aggression and sexuality. For the last two it can be argued that this is caused by social conditioning.