I hope you had and still have support from family, friends or any other caring and good listener... — Amity

Huh, this is not a story I tell very often. I won't tell the whole thing here for sure, but thanks for the kind words, it is much appreciated.

I once told it to a girl, I mean a woman, a total stranger. This I can evoke here, it's a good and light memory of intimacy. It will help balance the other one. Sorry if I brag a little.

It was on a flight from Beijing to Bangkok. The flight had been delayed quite a bit and we had met at the odious buffet of a brutalist business lounge, a room without windows deep inside the immense airport. She was Chinese, thin like a reed, preppy in her business suit, round face, one eye a bit astray, not too much... There was something innocent in her, in that strange look, as if half of her was keeping track of the sky all the time. It gave her the face of an angel, somehow. I liked her, and more importantly, I trusted her, immediately. I could see she liked me too. I was in a suit too, preppy and all. Both in our thirties. We started chatting in the lounge, eating whatever we had picked.

I am a romantic bloke, but also a very shy guy. I don't do pick up lines. I don't do dates, they seem preordained and planned, lacking what I naively cherish in romance: surprise and spontaneity. But once in a long while, a woman has had the good sense of hitting on me.

She was not really hitting on me, not in any heavy or unladylike manner, but she was clearly interested. What was happening between us was more than just the boredom of two strangers, trying to keep each other company during a long wait, in an aggressively ugly place. We clicked, almost magically like in romance novels. The way I like it.

When the plane came we asked the steward if we could sit next to one another on these comfortable business class seats.

She was on her way back to Australia where she had come to study, and was now working in some consulting firm specialised in China. She was flying a lot in those planes. Her marriage (with an Australian) was unhappy, and without love. She had a way to say that... bowing her head, but still, in a low yet assertive, factual tone she said it, sure of her rights to sexual and romantic happiness as a young woman in this modern world.

She had been a child during the cultural revolution, she remembered a few things, first the hunger and the cold, then the violence, and the shame of her parents who were teachers, lambasted and beaten up by their students.

I told her many stories too, all real. And since back then the story of that other girl was recent, I found myself telling that one too. I emptied my soul to her, and like you guys, she forgave me and comforted me.

We kept talking of many things throughout the night. We had started to lean on one another to murmur our stories, not to wake up other travelers who had all dozed off. At some point our heads touched, and we both let them there. And then the rest of our bodies followed suit, in a progressive, timid at first then bolder and bolder exploration of one another.

All this time she was checking on the angels above with her left eye, or perhaps on God or on some Chinese equivalent. Whoever they were, I believe they were looking back upon us, because we both missed our connection in Bangkok and ended up in the same hotel room.

At some point I told her she was truly beautiful. She retorted categorically that she was not, that by Chinese standards she was ugly. She had a round face (which for some reason was bad), small tits and an eye checking on God. And yet to me, she looked like an angel.

She left the room first, without any fuss as the practical woman she really was, on her way to Sydney.

Well, I wouldn’t assume they didn’t want to be in the relationship, although I would agree that it’s a possibility. I was referring specifically here to an ongoing relationship. My point is that I don’t think people are necessarily aware of this structure of affect while they’re in a conceptual-level discussion. And if they are aware, they don’t necessarily think it should factor into the discussion. Which I think is fine as long as there is no ongoing relationship between affected positions, or any chance of actual interaction. — Possibility

Ah yes, the old, "I love you, but you're such an idiot/loser/slut!"

There are things that one just wouldn't say to someone one loves. If a person calls you names, calls you stupid, makes disparaging remarks about your character, and so on, then they just don't love you and aren't your friend, even if they claim otherwise.

Women do that to women as well. In fact, even more frequently than men, insofar a woman has more interactions with other women than with men.
— baker

Sort of. Hatred, yes. Violence, no.

By whom were you hit more often? By men or by women?

But that would either make an end to the power game, or take it to a whole new level.
— baker

I agree with the first part - that’s kind of the point. But what ‘whole new level’ are you referring to?

When the nature of the (desired) power relationship is clearly spelled out ("I bring home the money, so I have the say!"), the parties involved cannot deny or ignore it anymore, and it seeps into every communication, every interaction between them.

How can you tell whether some reasoning is false..........
— baker

By considering the premisses stated or implied and the conclusions purportedly derived from them.

......and some behavior is bad?
— baker

I can tell that it's wrong to rape a woman either because she refuses sex or indeed for any other supposed reason. You can do this too. You don't need to ask me how. You're already there.

I can give you deontology and utilitarianism and intuitionism if you need the philosophical bases. But for this thread topic it really is not necessary. — Cuthbert

You are forgetting the role of the power relationship between the parties involved. What is true and moral is decided by the one who has more power.

Rates of youth suicide and attempted youth suicide in Western societies are quite high. — Olivier5

Such is life in capitalist paradise. If a person cannot live up to a certain standard, then they should not live at all. It's what the whole pro-assisted suicide culture is telling us.

But women objectify themselves and other women in this same way. Pick up pretty much any "women's" magazine, book, tv show, seminar, webinar, and there it is: "see yourself as a piece of meat to be fucked".

It's a bit of a stretch to say that women do this because they are the poor victims of patriarchy.
— baker

I would agree that women, being people, have the capacity to make decisions. Bikini models choose to be bikini models, etc. Alcoholics choose to be alcoholics (60% of the revenue in the alcohol industry comes from alcoholics), etc.

But I think that it would be too shallow of an analysis to entirely put the blame for objectification on the women who choose to objectify themselves. — _db

The idea often put forward is that men objectify women and that women are innocent victims. I point out that this isn't the case, given that women are complicit in the objectification of women.
An abusive situation is complex and doesn't just emerge overnight. The objectification of women isn't solely the fault of men, nor of women, but both.

The objectification is marketed towards men - it is the male gaze that these women are attempting to satisfy. And by doing so there is the implicit message: that if you don't look like this, you aren't good enough.

This is a while back by now -- A man once told me that if I don't look like Claudia Schiffer (who was then in her prime as a model) then I shouldn't expect to be loved like her. But women are like that too. For example, in Jane Austen's and the Bronte's novels you can see characters say things like, "Oh, she's lucky she found a husband at all, given how plain she is!"

There is also a case to be made that the objectification of women reached new heights when women joined the workforce. After the feminine mystique was demolished in the first wave of feminism, there had to be a way to compensate for the economic loss that came with women leaving the kitchen. They weren't buying the household stuff that they usually did. The only thing left was to ramp up the body image ideal. More makeup, more clothes, more surgeries, more diets. It's all about the $ $ $ $ $ . It also happened to put an unfair double standard on women, who not only had to be professionals but also had to be beautiful (a fluid concept that cannot be pinned down).

I think it also has to do with women competing for men and for jobs with other women. Some say that women dress up and wear make up etc. for the sake of other women, to intimidate them and to chase them away.

I was a fan of Merkel, but not because she was a women. — Olivier5

A woman. Please.

Yes, suicide is often used to hurt others too. Sometimes, it is not just self-violence; rather it is meant to scar others permanently. And it does. The suicide of a loved one is not something one can forget. — Olivier5

You dumped her. She was not a "loved one" of yours.

In a matriarchal society would women end up being the nasty ones on account of having power or would the world be kinder on account of women being in charge? — Cuthbert

It's not clear why it would be kinder then.

Generally, I find men are kinder toward women than other women. If women would be in charge, that would possibly be better for men, but worse for women.

If love is a matter of goods, why would I have less of a right to them then you? — Tobias

Not only that, but also: You must have love, you must have sex. Sex is a status symbol, and also a symbol of psychological normalcy. It seems natural to resent everything that stands in one's way of obtaining status.

I still loved her but couldn't take the madness anymore.

Ah yes, the old, "I love you, but you're such an idiot/loser/slut!"

There are things that one just wouldn't say to someone one loves. If a person calls you names, calls you stupid, makes disparaging remarks about your character, and so on, then they just don't love you and aren't your friend, even if they claim otherwise. — baker

I’m not saying it’s acceptable, and I’m not saying they do love the person they’re fighting with - I’m saying that they could still be getting what they want from the relationship, and don’t recognise that they’re isolating that relationship in order to win an argument.

By whom were you hit more often? By men or by women? — baker

By men. Definitely men.

I still loved her but couldn't take the madness anymore. — Olivier5

I think the OP was pretty ridiculous, but I'll give you kudos for salvaging this thread with your compelling story of how you banged a girl cross eyed on the way to Bangkok (my spin).

But this last line above is what caught me. Hit home.

Ha ha. Thanks. Ok i was boasting a bit in that story, but as a matter of fact, i do not remember much of the banging, and it's not what the story is about. What I remember the most is the story-telling, this feeling of disclosing oneself to a total stranger, and of discovering sides of her too, approaching a life so different. We reached a place of natural, immediate intimacy. It was real nice and rare. These things do not happen, normally.

I firmly believe that sexual frustration is at the root of all wars started by men. — Amity

Based on what exactly? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I don’t really understand the obsession with the idea that sexual relations are somehow inextricably entwined with violence/war.

Hatred leads to violence quite often compared to anything else. Sexual relations are merely more add-ons than affecters surely?

War is more than likely started because people (men and women) often want a cause to throw themselves into. In life situations where people feel belittled and useless they crave more and more a cause to side with. War offers people an often overly simplistic way of siding with some perceived ‘good’ against an enemy.

If we look at the example of the conflict in the Ukraine we see a great many people wanting to help, and even fight and risk their lives to help. War is often brought about by a sense of higher nobility that supplants personal safety (a greater good). Sadly there don’t seem to be any black and white situations in such conflicts and inevitably the ‘noble’ cause can turn out to be tyrannical as a repercussion of investing in somethings wholeheartedly to the point where any actual ‘wrongs’ are viewed as ‘good’ again some enemy rather than measured against personal principles over the principles of the ‘cause’ being fought for (by whatever means).

Romance scams. When men do it, that's men being men. When women do it, ouch! :grimace:

I firmly believe that sexual frustration is at the root of all wars started by men.
— Amity

Based on what exactly? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I don’t really understand the obsession with the idea that sexual relations are somehow inextricably entwined with violence/war. — I like sushi

Ah, now you got me. As an absolutely firm believer, it is an absolute leap of faith; no evidence required.
Although...given my compulsive obsession...
I might just fly off on a world-wide tour; its leaders, past, present and future.
A close and careful encounter with heads and balls should do the trick. So I hear.
Yup. PhD in the post. Yes indeedy :nerd:

:party: :party: @Amity! That is a very joyous moment and an overwhelming feeling of freedom. It is off topic but may ask you what your PhD is about? I am interested. (Whether the subject matter is accessible to me depends of course, I tried reading a PhD on synthethic organic polimeres once and did not succeed, but those are exceptions).

Based on what exactly? That sounds utterly ridiculous and I don’t really understand the obsession with the idea that sexual relations are somehow inextricably entwined with violence/war. — I like sushi

I hold the opinion that sexual encounters are entwined with pretty much everything we endeavor in, so amity's claims seems modest to me actually.

Thank you, you are very kind. Honestly I failed her, but yes, in the end it was her choice. — Olivier5

It pains me to read that you feel like you failed her. I don't want to try and change your mind, I just want you to know, that you do not have to carry this as a failure on your part.

‘Everything’ … so then it not worthy of note.

How about starting a war for resources (the usual reason). They said it was the main reason, or one of them, I believe? You would have to do a better job of explaining why this is. I am not saying people are not driven to violence due to some ‘sexual malfunction’ or some such thing, just that I don’t see how it can be viewed as anything like a main reason for driving someone into war/violence.

I am open to a reasoned account of why this may be so (specifically as an item that majorly entwined with war/violence).

How about starting a war for resources (the usual reason). They said it was the main reason, or one of them, I believe? You would have to do a better job of explaining why this is. I am not saying people are not driven to violence due to some ‘sexual malfunction’ or some such thing, just that I don’t see how it can be viewed as anything like a main reason for driving someone into war/violence.

I am open to a reasoned account of why this may be so (specifically as an item that majorly entwined with war/violence). — I like sushi

Well, it would take a book probably and I am not going to venture it. Wars of course are fought over resources, however there is always more to it than that it seems. In war more is involved than cold calculation, but also pride, competition. The whole terminology of war is tinged with competition, victory, valour, etc. Remember the parades and the statues, the decorations, and the monuments to people who were usually ruthless killers. Now I think at the heart of all this drive for competition, the show and spectacle one makes of oneself, is to show ones virility, if not individually than socially. The language of war, the movements of its pieces, the dancing of the protagonists, are all sexually tinged metaphors.

It is off topic but may ask you what your PhD is about? I am interested — Tobias

Well, not to give the game away too much...
It includes: 1. quantitative and 2. qualitative analyses, concerning correlational coefficients and company.

My worldwide tour will be sponsored by Durex and Dulux and maybe another D, yet to be confirmed.
I do like my 3D's.

1. A cunting counting game of snakes and ladders.
The roll of a dice deciding direction of play and consequences.
Up/down. Short/ long. Bold/ bendy.
Until when...hmmm...dunno. I'm absolutely determined to be sexy flexi. With slow hands.

The nitty-gritty bits are coming along spicily, thanks.
* whispers, come in close.....no, CLOSER...*

Ingredients and Methodology

Poly-synthetic orgasmic Organic Orrific Polyfilla ( POOP) to smooth over polytishans cracks.
Sprayed with Luminol, a floating fluorescency will then highlight [ fill in the blanks ].

It is assumed that polytitians will be somewhat paranoid.
Steps taken to ensure the process is perfectly...hmmm...processed, include:
Beauty parlours, flight stimulators simulators, free freely spiked snorts shorts.
High-class masseurses doing the necessary with extras.
Last but not least - the Sunbed Solarium. The tube-y tantricksters telling the truth.

2. Quality street. A Global Event.
I will have direct 1:1 intimate intricate sexual relations serious discussions with a random sample of politicians, leaders, oligarchs...any old rich guy with beans to spill.
In-flight or otherwise. Hmmm. Space travel. Maybe.
Risquy recordings of...

Oh, hang on. Best stop there. I think I might have divulged too much already.
Hope I don't have to return my Durex and Dulux samples :scream:
Second-hand painted plastic for sale, anyone? :chin:

Should be a killer :wink:

The language of war, the movements of its pieces, the dancing of thr protagonists, are all sexually tinged metaphors. — Tobias

Yeah, baby :cool:
You got it :up: :party:

Now I think at the heart of all this drive for competition, the show and spectacle one makes of oneself, is to show ones virility, if not individually than socially — Tobias

How can anyone not see that :roll:
I read your 'show one's virility' as...
What philosophers are said to do.
No. Not navel-gazing.
'Willy-waving' :blush:

But all that's been said and done before too.
No PhD beckons there.

[replyWow! Okay[r I hope for your sake that is satire.

Well, not to give the game away too much... — Amity

Because of my line of work I am offered a PhD thesis, nicely bound and printed, quite often. They are usually an uneventful read, not limited to and most certainly including, my own. Literary quality or nail biting subject matter are just not high on the priority list in general. However, if every page is as poetic as the previous post, then a masterpiece looms and I just have to get my hands on your book Amity. Tomorrow I will dive deeper and see if I can put the pieces of the puzzle together and explore more of that triple D work.

What philosophers are said to do.
No. Not navel-gazing.
'Willy-waving' :blush: — Amity

Of course philosophy is nothing exceptional. It is just performed by people who hope the penis mightier than the sword, or more likely, who have no other option. The language of philosophy is tinged with sexual metaphor as well.

Fans of Carol Adams I assume?

@Amity @Tobias

I had to google her... I do not think she would take kindly to my steak loving ways.

I take more to Donna Harraway and Simone de Beauvoir. I should also still undertake a reading of Camille Paglia, but she is on my list for ages so do not know whether it will materialize.

I explained the cause of the Ukraine war to my daughter of six as the weakness of old men as being incapable of compromise.* I had to explain compromise but being able to give up on what we want in favour of what's better for everybody seems to be the core of wars to me, so I think I agree with the competition aspect. And there's an argument to be made that all competition arises from sexual competition.

I'm wondering though what place unadulterated fun has in competition. Some people just love what they do and become incredibly good at it. So they might like the competition but the only reason they can really compete is because they love archery, running, skating etc.

And it's not as if women don't compete, just in other ways. So I'm not convinced it's just a male thing (which is worrying if true, because that means there's no clear way to avoid wars).

*"volwassen mannen die te zwak zijn om een compromis te sluiten".

Maïa Mazaurette, French sex columnist and author, had something to say on male sexual misery.


According to a recent study, many men are venting about their sexual misery even as they ignore that of women, and without ever questioning their own stereotyped requirements.

One survey too many...

While consulting the latest Wyylde / Ifop survey published yesterday, I came across this data:

48% of French men would not accept to be in a couple with a woman who does not respect certain beauty standards
45% would refuse to sleep with a woman who has body hair (little reminder: all women have body hair...)
One man out of 3 discards all overweight women
One man in 5 doesn't want a taller or older woman
1 in 10 even refuse richer women...

Seriously guys, that's a lot to process.

Personally I have no problem with men having standards and sticking to them, it's heroic to have convictions. No, my problem is that then these same guys come crying about their sexual misery - poor little rabbits. Because that's the crazy situation we're in: men complaining about not sleeping with enough women when they themselves don't want to sleep with enough women.

In the United States, there is a word to describe this situation: entitlement. It means that we feel that good things are owed to us - a kind of spoiled child complex.

Luckily, a simple economic theory provides an answer! More precisely, the theory of supply and demand.

In sex, men describe, and lament, an asymmetry: they demand more sex than women are willing to give. Okay. Here we have two solutions:

The first: that demanders lower their level of demand because when you can't get what you want, you settle for what you can. Unfortunately, in the case of the sexual market, men prefer not to have anything at all (complain about it and bore us with their frustration).

Second solution: when the demand is higher than the supply, we could increase the supply, that is, increase the desire of women. To achieve this, it is very simple, men must make themselves more desirable or make us want to sleep with them more.

And here, how to say this nicely... Picky guys are already not very attractive. But the survey released yesterday shows that quite a few of these big guys are also bad in bed:

27% of French men would refuse to use a sextoy to make their partner cum more easily
Another 27% would refuse to learn how to make their partner cum

Allow me to summarize. When these men deign to have sex with a woman, they don't even want to give her pleasure. No wonder we live in anti-erotic times: when I hear that, I want to enter the orders...

Okay, that leaves us with a majority of potentially frequentable men, still. Nevertheless, if you take out a quarter of bad sexers, and half of the guys with unrealistic standards, then a lot of women get left out in the cold.

And for someone like me, it becomes very complicated. Three-quarters of men refuse open relationships, four out of five men refuse threesomes with two men. What am I going to do with my weekends?

What is crazy in this story is that men are always talking about their sexual misery, without ever realizing the misery they create in women. What do you think, guys? That we don't want to make love, that we don't want to be carried away by desire? Well, yes, we do! But men still have to make themselves worthy of it, somehow, and for that we have to progress on two axes: the desire they feel, and the desire they arouse.