The Sex Thread

[Lyinginbedmon]

Males: Attractive by being healthy and strong
Females: Attractive by being able to provide and raise children
Males are demonstrable by hunting prowess and musculature, women require far more aesthetic elements such as large breasts and wide hips, in addition to the extant "healthy" characteristics of clear skin, average weight, etc. (because otherwise you'd have to mate with them before determining they were a good mate)

If I must reduce it to a small handful of sentences, THAT is my point.

[Theremin]

So, your original statement was wrong.

[Lyinginbedmon]

No, my original statement was misinterpreted and, I'll admit, mildly mis-worded.

[Theremin]

Ah, of course it was. Of course it was.

[theDreamer]

"Men really aren't the gender that's supposed to be attractive."

That's what you said. You're now back pedaling, because it is demonstrably false, and you know it.

And just because in my example, each man brought a boar back, doesn't mean that's what they did.

I'm no anthropologist. I don't know ancient mating rituals.

Also ideas like "clear skin" and "average weight" mean nothing from an evolutionary standpoint.

Those are simply your, modern, interpretations.

Unless, of course, you're honestly going to tell me acne was an issue in a time when you probably died at 20, if you were lucky.

...God I regret posting this...Stop trying to have the last word, me, dammit! I hate to delete things, so I'm spoilering it to not get in the way of sexy times.

[Lyinginbedmon]

As I said, mis-worded and then appropriately misinterpreted. And it has yet to be disproven for humans here, which is the species I was originally referring to.

If there is an anthropologist around, I'd be very glad to hear their thoughts on the matter.

And also clear skin doesn't just apply to acne, boils, discoloration, and other skin effects can be indicative of poor health and diet.

Sexy times: Favourite condom sort? Personally I'm preferable to extra-thick, since I figure why take chances and I have bad luck anyway, but I can understand objections to it based on sensitivity.

[AlexanderDitto]

As I said, mis-worded and then appropriately misinterpreted.

That, to me, sounds like the very definition of a statement which is wrong. It's OK, Lying! We're not attacking you, we're just having a friendly discussion. It's OK to be wrong sometimes.

The reason we're (or at least I'm) very adamant about correcting you is that you're opinion is stereotypical of a straight male, and belittles the value of every other gender and sexual preference.

And it has yet to be disproven for humans here, which is the species I was originally referring to.

That is extremely silly. You say your original statement was mis-worded, and then insist that it's still valid!

We have demonstrably proven that your original statement, "Men really aren't the gender that's supposed to be attractive," is completely absurd, even in humans.

Forget everything else. Think about two phrases in your statement: "supposed to be" and "attractive."

What does "attractive" mean? It means appealing, causing attraction.

"Supposed to be," in this context, we're assuming you actually meant "evolutionary compelled to be."

Men who cause attraction in the opposite sex garner more attention from members of the opposite sex, produce more offspring, and "succeed" evolutionarily. Therefore, natural selection DOES pressure men to be attractive.

What you're getting hung up on is that you don't understand how men could be attractive beyond being "healthy and strong," and pin "aesthetics" on women:

Males are demonstrable by hunting prowess and musculature, women require far more aesthetic elements such as large breasts and wide hips, in addition to the extant "healthy" characteristics...

What you fail to consider is that large breasts and wide hips are not aesthetic elements: they are ancient harbingers of functional indications of child-rearing capability. What you also fail to consider is if you turn the mirror around, the "hunting prowess and musculature" could be said to be largely aesthetic as well: muscle size and definition, wide shoulders, big arms, etc are aesthetic elements that are deemed "attractive" because they are ancient harbingers of functional indications of strength or whatever. Today, that's not worth shit: I could break an Abercrombie and Fitch model in half, but I'm still not deemed as "attractive" as they are, because my body fat is over 3%.

In addition, males have features that are almost entirely aesthetic as well: facial/body hair, for example, or facial structures. In other species there are plenty of other manifestations of this. Lion manes, bird plumage, and body sizes in many species reflect natural selection pressures for "attractiveness" in males.

Which means your original statement is not just mis-worded, it's wrong.

Also, characterizing things as "males get the pick of the litter" when it comes to selecting females is backwardly patriarchal, doesn't reflect biology (very often it is the other way around!), and is frankly kind of offensive if applied to humans.

---

Or, if you think all that is a load of rubbish, you need to talk to more non-heterosexual men, who find other males plenty attractive.

[TheRocket]

Just so you know Lying, the thin condoms have to go through the same usage and breakage tests as thick ones. Unless you are doing anal, being SUPER rough, or have premature ejaculation issues, using an extra thick condom is not necessary. I mean, go for it if it makes you feel better. The biggest issue with broken condoms is one being used improperly and not using enough lube. Dryness and friction = broken condom.

Wraith and I are limited to pretty much one brand/type of condom so we don't get a choice. Thank goodness that particular brand is fantastic for fit and feeling. No fun condoms for me, but really, it's not needed. I did have a dream a couple nights ago where the condom company we used came out with glow in the dark condoms.

[theDreamer]

Durex Sensi-Cream.

They work fine every time.

[Lyinginbedmon]

Just so you know Lying, the thin condoms have to go through the same usage and breakage tests as thick ones. Unless you are doing anal, being SUPER rough, or have premature ejaculation issues, using an extra thick condom is not necessary. I mean, go for it if it makes you feel better. The biggest issue with broken condoms is one being used improperly and not using enough lube. Dryness and friction = broken condom.

I know they go through the same testing before dissemination, but at the end of the day the thinner condom is always going to take less punishment than the thicker one. Given that the thinner condom is thinner than the regular condom, I consider it a greater risk, however minimally-so next to the regular thickness.

[2stepz]

Lying - you're so blatantly wrong in so many areas of this thread I have no clue where to start. Luckily the ever-intelligent Ditto basically said what I wanted to in his last response. Your problem is in your poor definition of "attractive" as effimate. Masculinity is attractive, too.

On condoms - I want to send you to a materials engineering class to prove that thickness is NOT equal to strength. Thicker rubber is actually more prone to cracks and breaks. What you should be concerned with is the elasticity of the material, which is often much better in the thinner materials. Like old strong thick trees versus young trees in a windstorm; the thinner more flexible trees are strong enough to bend.

[goat]

I did have a dream a couple nights ago where the condom company we used came out with glow in the dark condoms.

*obligatory lightsaber noises*

[theDreamer]

I did have a dream a couple nights ago where the condom company we used came out with glow in the dark condoms.

*obligatory lightsaber noises*

...

...

...

*runs off to a novelty shop*

[TheRocket]

I did have a dream a couple nights ago where the condom company we used came out with glow in the dark condoms.

*obligatory lightsaber noises*

Now I wish I had a penis

[Lyinginbedmon]

On condoms - I want to send you to a materials engineering class to prove that thickness is NOT equal to strength. Thicker rubber is actually more prone to cracks and breaks. What you should be concerned with is the elasticity of the material, which is often much better in the thinner materials. Like old strong thick trees versus young trees in a windstorm; the thinner more flexible trees are strong enough to bend.

I was not aware of that property of rubber, but I think I'll stick to extra-thick personally. Admittedly more out of preference than reason with that revelation.

[TheRocket]

If you do some research on condoms it's commonly stated. Not knocking your choice, beacause I really don't care. Just thinking maybe you should do some research before making statements like that, or putting your faith in it.

[madrak_the_red]

No offense lying, but you seem to be commonly making statements that are false. Maybe more research is a good idea?

Re: condoms; I have no idea, I've never had need to put one on. Hooray.

[Elomin Sha]

Using a balloon for invasive measures. That's a new one.

[TomBrend]

I used to only use spermicidal lubricant condoms, until I googled them a bit and found that they break much more often and there isn't enough spermacide to make a difference. The WHO doesn't recommend them. I switched to Trojan-ENZ, which are basically standard lubricated condoms.

At some point I picked up a Durex pleasure pack and had good results, though a similar Trojan pack was much less pleasant. We now usually use Durex ultra sensitive, though we also had good results with the durex her pleasure.

The pleasure pack comes with a lot more flavored condoms than we wanted, as we found the flavors didn't rub off as much as we had hoped, and the lubricant was mediocre at best. Durex condoms leave a much less unpleasant flavor than trojan, though the packaging is damn near impossible to tear open. I frequently have to tear the corner with my teeth before I can rip the package off.

[theDreamer]

Durex condoms leave a much less unpleasant flavor than trojan, though the packaging is damn near impossible to tear open. I frequently have to tear the corner with my teeth before I can rip the package off.

You're doing it wrong.

No, I'm serious here.

Durex WILL NOT RIP if you don't rip from the perforations down.

If you try and rip it from the side, you look like a weak fool.

It happens nearly every time I try and open one.

[TomBrend]

I rip from the perforations down and it doesn't rip unless my hands are dry... which is not often.

[theDreamer]

Odd, because it's easy enough for me.

Though I guess it depends on how dry you consider "dry" to be.

[Lyinginbedmon]

No offense lying, but you seem to be commonly making statements that are false. Maybe more research is a good idea?

On two vastly separate topics? Not really, my knowledge base is pretty huge but I don't know everything, certainly not about the characteristics of materials used in contraception. The only thing that makes it seem "common" is that there've been two instances in relatively close proximity.

[Duckay]

I don't use condoms often enough to have many strongly developed opinions, but I really don't like the flavoured ones I've tried. I'd rather just have the taste of latex than fake strawberry mixed with latex.

[goat]

I prefer durex, even though I think their lube smells a little funny. I've found them to be all around better for me over trojan (admittedly the only two brands I've tried).