NationStates Jolt Archive

Right now, I think so, cuz from what I've learned about sex, you HAVE to be able to do this or that, like it or not, or else you will not be allowed in the world of sex.

Uhhhh....

Do you masturbate?

Then you're in. It's pretty equal opportunity.

pffft there is always someone you can screw always (though why anyone could be that bothered about getting sex is beyond me)

oooh why the thread anyways does someone needs lots of :fluffle:

Not really. There are paralyzed guys who can't get it up who have "sex" with their spouses. If they can get a woman off, what's stopping you?

Uhhhh....

Do you masturbate?

Then you're in. It's pretty equal opportunity.You win one intarweb. :D

Uhhhh....

Do you masturbate?

Then you're in. It's pretty equal opportunity.
I'm talking about sex with others, not with oneself.

I'm talking about sex with others, not with oneself.
Well, what do you mean with "you have to be able to do this or that, like it or not", then? :confused:

I'm talking about sex with others, not with oneself.

Well sheesh, you deliberately leave out one important sexual act, and expect me to know that? Alright then, how do you define sex with others?

The Unwritten Rule Of Life that led to Rule #34 applies here. Regardless of the kink, position, duration or quality of the sex, there is always someone who wants exactly that.

pffft there is always someone you can screw always (though why anyone could be that bothered about getting sex is beyond me)

oooh why the thread anyways does someone needs lots of :fluffle:
Sorry, shoulda been more clear.

I saw a thread on a myspace adult group (about boobies ;) ) where some random guy tried to call out the group owner (who's female), but failed, and one guy who came to her defence said something about being able to "handle a woman" and that got me thinking about it.

The Unwritten Rule Of Life that led to Rule #34 applies here. Regardless of the kink, position, duration or quality of the sex, there is always someone who wants exactly that.

Or will settle for that. Or will accept money for that.

Sorry, shoulda been more clear.

I saw a thread on a myspace adult group (about boobies ;) ) where some random guy tried to call out the group owner (who's female), but failed, and one guy who came to her defence said something about being able to "handle a woman" and that got me thinking about it.
:confused:

Well, what do you mean with "you have to be able to do this or that, like it or not", then? :confused:

Yeah, that. What aren't you willing to do that keeps you from having sex?

Sorry, shoulda been more clear.

I saw a thread on a myspace adult group (about boobies ;) ) where some random guy tried to call out the group owner (who's female), but failed, and one guy who came to her defence said something about being able to "handle a woman" and that got me thinking about it.

Phrases like "being able to handle a woman" are usually said next to large pick-up trucks while wearing gold chains and other compensatory objects, gestures and attitudes.

Or will settle for that. Or will accept money for that.

Dang, I always forget those bits.

:confused:
I'll quote what was said on that thread that got me thinking:

BWAHAHAHAH!! Now that was funny!

That dude wouldn't know what to do with **** even if she did play along.

No Sir..

It takes a special breed of man to step into the ring with ****. He would need to be :

Brave of Soul
Strong of Back
Hearty of Character
Faithfull as the Wind
Forcefull as the sea...

This man shall have Arms of Steel, a Heart of Gold, a Soul of Fire and a Job of no less then 50K!

There are men out there who can not only handle a Divine **** but comfort AND satisfy her and YOU SIR.. ( the guy that posted that crap)

ARE NOT ONE OF THESE MEN.

So piss off.
It wasn't said to me, it was to some guy that was being stupid. The bold part is what makes me think sex is elitist.

Also, i'm not trying to play the "wah wah poor me" thing. I'm just merely seeking answers and/or debate. :)

"handle a woman"

I think that might have something to do with getting pussy whipped and the obvious counter to that would be something to do with being a macho dick who hates women / knowing how to handle a women better than he ever will

Or will settle for that. Or will accept money for that.

or can be drugged one night and never remember a thing ;)

Right now, I think so, cuz from what I've learned about sex, you HAVE to be able to do this or that, like it or not, or else you will not be allowed in the world of sex.
Absolutely. If you're crap first time, your sex life is permanently affected, did you know?

And you're more likely to get chlamydia in later life.

So read up well - I recommend 'The joy of Sex' and some of the pages of the Karma Sutra (it's not all sex, you know!) before your first experience, lest that happen to you.
Note : May not actually be true

welp

thats kinda bullshit.

to get into the world of sex as you put it, you have to have someone willing to give you a go. that's it.

then, if you want to STAY in the world of sex, you have to be willing to put in the effort required to make your partner feel that it was a good idea to have sex with you.

over the course of time you do need to learn a few things and these days you need to be willing to try more things than were required in your great grandfathers day but no one expects you to know them right from the start.

that said, you might want to start on the "bunny slope" of sex and save the black diamond girls for when you are more experienced.
So sex is also actually more work than play?

*timewarp :mad:*

Sorry, shoulda been more clear.

I saw a thread on a myspace adult group (about boobies ;) ) where some random guy tried to call out the group owner (who's female), but failed, and one guy who came to her defence said something about being able to "handle a woman" and that got me thinking about it.

welp

thats kinda bullshit.

to get into the world of sex as you put it, you have to have someone willing to give you a go. that's it.

then, if you want to STAY in the world of sex, you have to be willing to put in the effort required to make your partner feel that it was a good idea to have sex with you.

over the course of time you do need to learn a few things and these days you need to be willing to try more things than were required in your great grandfathers day but no one expects you to know them right from the start.

that said, you might want to start on the "bunny slope" of sex and save the black diamond girls for when you are more experienced.

So sex is also actually more work than play?

*timewarp :mad:*

more like, well, skiing than work. it gets better with practice but is great even when youre just taking lessons.

Well, it's elitist in that not just anyone is going to have sex with you, but if you think about it, you're almost as picky.

I mean, you're not really going to strip down and go at it with just anybody, are you? I mean, locker room bravado aside, you're not just going to give it up for whoever comes a'callin'. So in that respect, technically speaking, you could be considered elitist.

I wouldn't phrase it that way, though. But like someone else already eloquently said, you find someone who wants to do the deed with you, and there are going to be more who don't than do no matter how good you look, and there you are. Every womans needs and wants are going to be unique, the most important distinction will be her being into you.

more like, well, skiing than work. it gets better with practice but is great even when youre just taking lessons.
Meh. I don't care much for sex anymore anyways.

:confused:

Seconded.

anymore?

you've tried it with someone else and it wasnt "all that"?
No, i'm still virgin. I simply had an epiphany.

No, i'm still virgin. I simply had an epiphany.

So you don't care for it anymore yet you've never had it? Don't knock it 'till you've tried it. It's fun and it's a confidence booster.

Meh. I don't care much for sex anymore anyways.

anymore?

you've tried it with someone else and it wasnt "all that"?

It's fairly simple. The only reason that you found somebody saying something that stupid was because you were on myspace. There's nothing elitist about sex. The person who posted that has probably never had sex, and is lying through their 2 inches.

Possibly even 2 centimetres.


It's just a jump to the left...

or can be drugged one night and never remember a thing ;)

Which brings us to...

Rule 35: It's possible that this has already happened.

Uhhhh....

Do you masturbate?

Then you're in. It's pretty equal opportunity.

No it isn't! It's discriminatory against quadruple amputees with poor flexibility!

It's fairly simple. The only reason that you found somebody saying something that stupid was because you were on myspace. There's nothing elitist about sex. The person who posted that has probably never had sex, and is lying through their 2 inches.

sex isn't elitist.

women are elitist. If you aren't attractive enough according to the mass-media produced new standard of male beauty, they won't consider sleeping with you. Unless you're wealthy, or have the right job, or hang out with the right people, drive the right kind of car, talk the right way, say the right things. Women are soulless monsters and it's a great irony of the age that women are held to be more sensitive, more emotional, more intellectual and less superficial.

Having a fat bag of cocaine works too with some of them.

sex isn't elitist.

women are elitist. If you aren't attractive enough according to the mass-media produced new standard of male beauty, they won't consider sleeping with you. Unless you're wealthy, or have the right job, or hang out with the right people, drive the right kind of car, talk the right way, say the right things. Women are soulless monsters and it's a great irony of the age that women are held to be more sensitive, more emotional, more intellectual and less superficial.
If this isn't sarcasm, I pity you.

Possibly even 2 centimetres.

Let's do the time warp AGAAAAAAIN!

Possibly their vagina. It's myspace. Who knows?

Stupid time warp. Why the hell does it do that, anyway?

Right now, I think so, cuz from what I've learned about sex, you HAVE to be able to do this or that, like it or not, or else you will not be allowed in the world of sex.
Maybe you should stop hunting for sex so fervently, and you might actually enjoy life more, relax and in the process find a girl that you like and who likes you. Do you live in an all-male community because for a 22 year old you have a lot of silly ideas about what women are like. (namely, the delusions that they are all similar, or that they are radically different from men)

epiphanies can be wrong.

nothing wrong with being a virgin but when you find a girl who wants to have sex with you and you with her youll likely change your mind about not caring for it.
Well, I thought his epiphany was more along the lines of not spending every waking second thinking about sex and getting mad at lesbians because "they steal all the women from him", so I'm all for it.

No, i'm still virgin. I simply had an epiphany.

epiphanies can be wrong.

nothing wrong with being a virgin but when you find a girl who wants to have sex with you and you with her youll likely change your mind about not caring for it.

Right now, I think so, cuz from what I've learned about sex, you HAVE to be able to do this or that, like it or not, or else you will not be allowed in the world of sex.

sex isn't elitist.

women are elitist. If you aren't attractive enough according to the mass-media produced new standard of male beauty, they won't consider sleeping with you. Unless you're wealthy, or have the right job, or hang out with the right people, drive the right kind of car, talk the right way, say the right things. Women are soulless monsters and it's a great irony of the age that women are held to be more sensitive, more emotional, more intellectual and less superficial.

women are elitist.
This is bollocks.

If you aren't attractive enough according to the mass-media produced new standard of male beauty, they won't consider sleeping with you.
The same is true for both sexes. Fortunately, most men and women who are worth one's time listen to their own minds rather than Hollywood.

Unless you're wealthy, or have the right job, or hang out with the right people, drive the right kind of car, talk the right way, say the right things.
WTF? Some women want these things, others don't.

Women are soulless monsters
This has to be joking.

Maybe you should stop hunting for sex so fervently, and you might actually enjoy life more, relax
I did. seriously. :)
and in the process find a girl that you like
Don't wanna.
and who likes you.
No such woman. :P
Do you live in an all-male community because for a 22 year old you have a lot of silly ideas about what women are like. (namely, the delusions that they are all similar, or that they are radically different from men)
No, not an all male. just a small, pathetic meth town of 4000, all of 'em bullies or prudes.
Well, I thought his epiphany was more along the lines of not spending every waking second thinking about sex and getting mad at lesbians because "they steal all the women from him", so I'm all for it.
No, the epiphany was that sex is more work than play (or seems like it) :P

anyhoo, less about me, and more debatin'! :D

This is bollocks.

Not really. Even amongst women there are clearly defined strata, mostly based on superficial qualities. They're elitists because unlike men, they can pick and choose from basically anyone who they want to be with. They're like wealthy shoppers at Tiffany's, casually browsing the fur coats, tossing aside the less worthy apparel.


Fortunately, most men and women who are worth one's time listen to their own minds rather than Hollywood.

And on what do you base this conclusion? The premise that if they base their decisions on superficiality, they must not be worth the time? If so that's a circular argument I can't disagree with.


WTF? Some women want these things, others don't.

Some women are honest, most aren't. Most people are not honest about what they want in a partner. But most people pretty solidly obey the laws of the social jungle.

...you HAVE to be able to do this or that, like it or not, or else you will not be allowed in the world of sex.

Yes Pluto, you will HAVE to learn how to talk to girls and stuff like that. It's not fair - but thems the rules.

it doesn't pay to listen to people who try to tell you what's "right and acceptable" in a consensual sex situation........

Not really. Even amongst women there are clearly defined strata, mostly based on superficial qualities. They're elitists because unlike men, they can pick and choose from basically anyone who they want to be with. They're like wealthy shoppers at Tiffany's, casually browsing the fur coats, tossing aside the less worthy apparel.
So can men. You think that men are unable to choose their partners? As far as I know most parts of the world have more or less equal male/female populations.

And on what do you base this conclusion? The premise that if they base their decisions on superficiality, they must not be worth the time? If so that's a circular argument I can't disagree with.
No, if they base their decisions on what Hollywood tells them to like, they aren't worth it.

Some women are honest, most aren't. Most people are not honest about what they want in a partner.
With who?

But most people pretty solidly obey the laws of the social jungle.
I don't understand this one at all.

Right now, I think so, cuz from what I've learned about sex, you HAVE to be able to do this or that, like it or not, or else you will not be allowed in the world of sex.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*inhale*

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh wait…you’re being serious? My apologies…

Basically Plutonian, I just had sex twice not over an hour with a girl who used to go to my highschool (her dad’s in the army) and recently moved back to my town to go to college. We talked on the phone once or twice, traded text messages, I went over there, we talked and connected, made out, then had sex. Game, set, match I’d say. We found a physical connection, and even better, a personal one…which sped up the process in my opinion.

As for “must be able to do this” or “must have this” well…you must have:

1. Reproductive Organs
2. Sexual Desire

Quite a short list, is it not? As for what you must be able to do…well…I don’t want to get banned…but here’s something to consider. Watch a porno, then watch some romantic film. Real sex is somewhere in-between. Not as ridiculous as porn, not as lovey-dovey as chick flicks.

The only thing you were really correct about was the “world of sex.” There is, truly a world of sex that you just need to grab your nuts, get some confidence, and jump into head first. Be safe and nothing bad will happen.

sex isn't elitist.

women are elitist. If you aren't attractive enough according to the mass-media produced new standard of male beauty, they won't consider sleeping with you. Unless you're wealthy, or have the right job, or hang out with the right people, drive the right kind of car, talk the right way, say the right things. Women are soulless monsters and it's a great irony of the age that women are held to be more sensitive, more emotional, more intellectual and less superficial.

Ironically, I know this to be mostly true.

Ironically, I know this to be mostly true.
*sighs*

No more elitist than men...

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c71/avogelman/BunnyPancake.jpg

Not really. Even amongst women there are clearly defined strata, mostly based on superficial qualities. They're elitists because unlike men, they can pick and choose from basically anyone who they want to be with. They're like wealthy shoppers at Tiffany's, casually browsing the fur coats, tossing aside the less worthy apparel.



ohforgodssake

most women have sex with men that they have a relationship of somesort with.

all people have criteria for people they have a relationship with.

ohforgodssake

most women have sex with men that they have a relationship of somesort with.

all people have criteria for people they have a relationship with.

Indeed. I require a pulse. *nod* :)

Indeed. I require a pulse. *nod* :)

Not a certain species however, apparently...lol

Indeed. I require a pulse. *nod* :)

I have photos contradicting this statement.

Not a certain species however, apparently...lol

Perhaps we should not discuss our sexual pecadilloes here. :)

So can men. You think that men are unable to choose their partners? As far as I know most parts of the world have more or less equal male/female populations.


By and large women have more choice because they are women. It has nothing to do with equality of population, it's a social and psychological thing. You'd have to be blind not to notice it.

No, if they base their decisions on what Hollywood tells them to like, they aren't worth it.

Then most people aren't worth it, because like it or not, standards of beauty ARE standards of beauty. It's not so simple as "Oh, Hollywood sayz so, must be true!" conscious thoughts. It's much more subtle, insidious and widespread.


With who?

With others, with themselves.

I don't understand this one at all.

Social preference is based on social laws. Groupthink, for example. Peer pressure. Group dynamics. Dating, relations are not solely a matter of an individual's unique and special personal tastes that exist in a vacuum. Otherwise, you'd be right.

I have photos contradicting this statement.

I was young and needed the work.

sex isn't elitist.

women are elitist. If you aren't attractive enough according to the mass-media produced new standard of male beauty, they won't consider sleeping with you.

Would you want to sleep with an ugly cow? I sure as hell wouldn't. Why should women be forced to have lower standards?

Unless you're wealthy, or have the right job,

There's a lot to be said for finacial security. You'd be amazed at the amount of stress it takes out of life.

or hang out with the right people, drive the right kind of car,

Cars and friends are fun, and both are often involved in "having a good time," as well as reflecting common interests.

talk the right way, say the right things.

Haha...you don't expect to have to talk to girls to get in their pants. It kinda grosses me out to think of girls who would give it up without at least a conversation beforehand.

Women are soulless monsters and it's a great irony of the age that women are held to be more sensitive, more emotional, more intellectual and less superficial.

Oh honestly. The real problem is the double standard in society. If a guy sleeps with two different girls in one night he's the man, or a pimp, or cool or whatever. If a girl sleeps with two guys in one night, she's a slut, a whore, dirty, etc. Girls are taught from a young age that sex is dirty and how classy girls don't sleep around, while guys are taught to chase tail 24/7. If that makes them soulless monster than so be it, but it's society's fault, and I'd much rather be with a "soulless monster" than my right hand...

I was young and needed the work.

We've all been there. Just ask Pedro.

Perhaps we should not discuss our sexual pecadilloes here. :)

I'm pretty old-school still as relaxed as I am. Women and Married Women are my only two real types...lol...and there is definately a difference hahahaha

Would you want to sleep with an ugly cow? I sure as hell wouldn't. Why should women be forced to have lower standards?



There's a lot to be said for finacial security. You'd be amazed at the amount of stress it takes out of life.



Cars and friends are fun, and both are often involved in "having a good time," as well as reflecting common interests.



Haha...you don't expect to have to talk to girls to get in their pants. It kinda grosses me out to think of girls who would give it up without at least a conversation beforehand.



Oh honestly. The real problem is the double standard in society. If a guy sleeps with two different girls in one night he's the man, or a pimp, or cool or whatever. If a girl sleeps with two guys in one night, she's a slut, a whore, dirty, etc. Girls are taught from a young age that sex is dirty and how classy girls don't sleep around, while guys are taught to chase tail 24/7. If that makes them soulless monster than so be it, but it's society's fault, and I'd much rather be with a "soulless monster" than my right hand...

Soulless monsters are way kinkier than ones with a soul.

Indeed. I require a pulse. *nod* :)

some people do have easier standards to meet than others

By and large women have more choice because they are women. It has nothing to do with equality of population, it's a social and psychological thing. You'd have to be blind not to notice it.
Urmm, not really.

There are men who women will find more or less sexually attractive, and the same goes in the opposite direction, too, if not more so.

Men generally find the same type of woman attractive - pretty and quite flirty. Women often have more broad tastes.

You might well be gutted that a woman you have found attractive has turned you or your mates down - but to be honest, such things should be to be expected. Get over it. Branch out a bit.

It's not women's fault that you're not appealing to them.

Soulless monsters are way kinkier than ones with a soul.

Granted there is little more fun than taking down someone who clings to "until marriage" values up until meeting you :D

Granted there is little more fun than taking down someone who clings to "until marriage" values up until meeting you :D

I would consider myself some kind of hero if I seduced someone into breaking their "Until marraige" promise. More so if they were wearing a silver ring at the time.

Would you want to sleep with an ugly cow? I sure as hell wouldn't. Why should women be forced to have lower standards?


I never said women should be forced to do anything. But women generally have higher standards.


Haha...you don't expect to have to talk to girls to get in their pants. It kinda grosses me out to think of girls who would give it up without at least a conversation beforehand.

Talking the "right" way is different from talking at all.

Oh honestly. The real problem is the double standard in society. If a guy sleeps with two different girls in one night he's the man, or a pimp, or cool or whatever. If a girl sleeps with two guys in one night, she's a slut, a whore, dirty, etc. Girls are taught from a young age that sex is dirty and how classy girls don't sleep around, while guys are taught to chase tail 24/7. If that makes them soulless monster than so be it, but it's society's fault, and I'd much rather be with a "soulless monster" than my right hand...

See, you equate women with your right hand. Apparently, they are only good for orgasm. That's their function.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I never said women should be forced to do anything. But women generally have higher standards.

That's impossible to prove. I know many a man who will only do stuff with a very specific type of girl and many a girl who will give it up to just about anyone. I have relatively high standards, "relative" due to the possibility of intoxication lol, and I've brushed off girl's advances before...just like I've been turned down before.

Talking the "right" way is different from talking at all.

It's really not hard to be nice..."smooth" isn't something to try to do...it's something that comes now and then

It would sound ridiculous if you tried

See, you equate women with your right hand. Apparently, they are only good for orgasm. That's their function.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh get off your high horse. We are talking about sex are we not? In sex their function is to get me to orgasm, as is mine to get them to orgasm. It's really not a complicated process, and one that is quite enjoyable at that.

Now, if you want to talk relationship and companionship, I'm more than willing to...but as for sex, I have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Maybe if you relaxed you'd get laid more.

There are men who women will find more or less sexually attractive, and the same goes in the opposite direction, too, if not more so.

The "more so" is my argument. So I don't know why you are disagreeing when you just wound up agreeing. There is a gender difference on this matter that could accurately be called "elitist." Though that's not the best choice of word.


You might well be gutted that a woman you have found attractive has turned you or your mates down - but to be honest, such things should be to be expected. Get over it. Branch out a bit.

It's not women's fault that you're not appealing to them.

Ad hominem, irrelevant to this discussion.

I have photos contradicting this statement.
I wouldn't talk if I were you!

By and large women have more choice because they are women. It has nothing to do with equality of population, it's a social and psychological thing. You'd have to be blind not to notice it.

This doesn't make any sense. For every woman who has a partner, by obvious necessity there's a man who has one too. And in the process of attaining that partner, both the man and the woman have implicitly or explicitly turned down others.

Your view is just so illogical, I can make no sense of it. You appear to think that all women have reams of men hitting on them, when in fact this is not at all the case.

Then most people aren't worth it, because like it or not, standards of beauty ARE standards of beauty. It's not so simple as "Oh, Hollywood sayz so, must be true!" conscious thoughts. It's much more subtle, insidious and widespread.
OK, now I understand. Yes, standards of beauty exist. They are not so narrow as the standard that Hollywood execs try to push, and most people live up to such standards IMO.

Dating, relations are not solely a matter of an individual's unique and special personal tastes that exist in a vacuum. Otherwise, you'd be right.
ummm, yes I agree, people are influenced by their culture.


Haha...you don't expect to have to talk to girls to get in their pants. It kinda grosses me out to think of girls who would give it up without at least a conversation beforehand.
Yes I agree... I cannot even see why one would want to sleep with a girl without sampling her personality.

I must admit that this thread in my inspiration lol: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=515065

It's really not hard to be nice..."smooth" isn't something to try to do...it's something that comes now and then
I believe the term is "smoove". :D

Oh get off your high horse. We are talking about sex are we not?
Trostia is a compulsive strawman-builder, unfortunately.

So they've made the choice. But women have more choices from which to make because most men have lower (i.e less "elitist") standards.

I don't think that. But more women have men hitting on them than the other way around.

Haha...not to toot more own horn more than usual or be unnecessarily mean...

But speak for yourself, brother. Just because you don't get hit on or can't recognize it when you do, doesn't mean men in general don't. I know how it is for me haha, and I can only imagine in awe how it must be fore say David Beckham or Brad Pitt who are exponentially better looking.

Ah! Time Travel!

This doesn't make any sense. For every woman who has a partner, by obvious necessity there's a man who has one too. And in the process of attaining that partner, both the man and the woman have implicitly or explicitly turned down others.

So they've made the choice. But women have more choices from which to make because most men have lower (i.e less "elitist") standards.

Your view is just so illogical, I can make no sense of it. You appear to think that all women have reams of men hitting on them, when in fact this is not at all the case.

I don't think that. But more women have men hitting on them than the other way around.

So they've made the choice. But women have more choices from which to make because most men have lower (i.e less "elitist") standards.
That's a stereotype that I wouldn't put much trust in.

I don't think that. But more women have men hitting on them than the other way around.
That's because it's untraditional for women to make the first move. A lot of people are afraid of breaking tradition, or too lazy to do so.

Just because I say that men don't get hit on as often as women doesn't mean I don't. Quit with the ad hominems already. Just because you can't make a decent argument doesn't mean you have to pull out the tired internet "LOL U R LOSER!" response.

"nice" and "smooth" are only two permutations of "talking the right way." The fact is, how you talk doesn't really matter, but it does because people are stupid and elitist when it comes to such things. Not just in determining sex partners either.

Ridiculous. Sex is not an orgasm machine.

Maybe if you stopped pulling ad hominems out of your ass I'd take more seriously your "words of wisdom" about this matter. But probably not.

What, exactly, are we arguing about again?

haha...and what is sex if not the process to orgasm, GT?

Haha...not to toot more own horn more than usual or be unnecessarily mean...

But speak for yourself, brother. Just because you don't get hit on or can't recognize it when you do, doesn't mean men in general don't. I know how it is for me haha, and I can only imagine in awe how it must be fore say David Beckham or Brad Pitt who are exponentially better looking.

Just because I say that men don't get hit on as often as women doesn't mean I don't. Quit with the ad hominems already. Just because you can't make a decent argument doesn't mean you have to pull out the tired internet "LOL U R LOSER!" response.

It's really not hard to be nice..."smooth" isn't something to try to do...it's something that comes now and then

It would sound ridiculous if you tried

"nice" and "smooth" are only two permutations of "talking the right way." The fact is, how you talk doesn't really matter, but it does because people are stupid and elitist when it comes to such things. Not just in determining sex partners either.

Oh get off your high horse. We are talking about sex are we not? In sex their function is to get me to orgasm, as is mine to get them to orgasm.

Ridiculous. Sex is not an orgasm machine.

Maybe if you relaxed you'd get laid more.

Maybe if you stopped pulling ad hominems out of your ass I'd take more seriously your "words of wisdom" about this matter. But probably not.

You mean I have to recap everything thats been said so far? I'm too lazy for that.

Huh. That's a tough one.

Answer me this while I ponder that; if sex is nothing but a process to orgasm, if the "function" of sex is nothing but climax, do you think the best sex is that which lasts the shortest amount of time and reaches the 'function' as soon as possible?

My point was that I really don't think we're arguing much...

And haven't you ever heard that the journey is more fun than the destination? Just because the function of something is one thing doesn't mean that it must be used only for that.

What, exactly, are we arguing about again?


You mean I have to recap everything thats been said so far? I'm too lazy for that.

haha...and what is sex if not the process to orgasm, GT?

Huh. That's a tough one.

Answer me this while I ponder that; if sex is nothing but a process to orgasm, if the "function" of sex is nothing but climax, do you think the best sex is that which lasts the shortest amount of time and reaches the 'function' as soon as possible?

sex isn't elitist.

women are elitist. If you aren't attractive enough according to the mass-media produced new standard of male beauty, they won't consider sleeping with you. Unless you're wealthy, or have the right job, or hang out with the right people, drive the right kind of car, talk the right way, say the right things. Women are soulless monsters and it's a great irony of the age that women are held to be more sensitive, more emotional, more intellectual and less superficial.

Ah Trostia. If I could, I'd come help you work out your angst in a marathon romp. Appearance means very little, as long as you aren't totally unkempt or smelling funky. The 'attractive men' according to media stereotypes are really no such thing...many of them open their mouths, show themselves for assholes, and turn off all but the most shallow of women. I have never once wanted to fuck a guy based on how he looked alone, there was simply no attraction there unless he showed himself to be interesting or sexy in some other way.

I'm totally souless and shallow when it comes to the women I'm attracted to though, I'll admit it.

I never said women should be forced to do anything. But women generally have higher standards.
You do your sex little credit if you are suggesting that men will sleep with anything that will let them.

Just because it's true, doesn't mean you should say it :P

You do your sex little credit if you are suggesting that men will sleep with anything that will let them.

Just because it's true, doesn't mean you should say it :P

Yeah, we're not supposed to tell teh wimminz about that. We'll have to dispatch the Bavarian Illuminati to make sure you never tell anyone.

Yes it does. "The function of X is Y." You are now contradicting yourself by saying, "Well, it's also Z."

Sex is to be enjoyable, orgasm is in that light incidental. Most anyone can get off, with or without a partner, but good sex is not a "functional" thing.



Thanks but I'm making an actual point here and not asking for pity. Christ, wtf is wrong with you people.

What is this alleged point?

And haven't you ever heard that the journey is more fun than the destination? Just because the function of something is one thing doesn't mean that it must be used only for that.

Yes it does. "The function of X is Y." You are now contradicting yourself by saying, "Well, it's also Z."

Sex is to be enjoyable, orgasm is in that light incidental. Most anyone can get off, with or without a partner, but good sex is not a "functional" thing.

Ah Trostia. If I could, I'd come help you work out your angst in a marathon romp.

Thanks but I'm making an actual point here and not asking for pity. Christ, wtf is wrong with you people.

Thanks but I'm making an actual point here and not asking for pity. Christ, wtf is wrong with you people.

Hahahaha, look at you! Turning down a pity fuck! And you ask what's wrong with us???

Look, it's supposedly harder for men to get laid than women...except women get called sluts if they do sleep with men, so it's hard for us too. Nontheless, plenty of people are out there, fucking their brains out, and they aren't all hotties. So odds are, this is irrelevant.

So I'm only going to add that people are stupid, regardless of gender.

QFT

What is this alleged point?

I guess i'm not making it very well since everyone here thinks it's one thing, like "only hotties can get laid," or "men are better," or "I can't get any sex" or just about everything besides what I've said.

So I'm only going to add that people are stupid, regardless of gender.

Hahahaha, look at you! Turning down a pity fuck! And you ask what's wrong with us???
That's kinda also why I gave up. Pity fucks are non-existent in real life. Its like that "driving slowly by the car crash" thing, you go "awww, poor people", then leave, when instead, you could just fucking stop to actually help, so, in my old case about "i'm a virgin, wah wah wah", quit just feeling sorry for me and actually fuck me!

[/rant]
[/hijack]

done. :p

This thread is stupid entirely. Look at the billions of people on this earth; does that make sex look elitist???

That's because it's untraditional for women to make the first move. A lot of people are afraid of breaking tradition, or too lazy to do so.

Indeed. It would be unbelievable awesome if some serious work was put towards destroying this social taboo.

Indeed. It would be unbelievable awesome if some serious work was put towards destroying this social taboo.

I'm a champion of this cause. Often I sit back and wait for her to pull my pants down.

I wish everyone was as great for humanity as me haha

Indeed. It would be unbelievable awesome if some serious work was put towards destroying this social taboo.
QFT
I'm a champion of this cause. Often I sit back and wait for her to pull my pants down.

I wish everyone was as great for humanity as me haha

i have a friend who is very beautiful and yet has made the first move on everyone she has slept with. another hero of the revolution ;)

Your question isn't really "is sex elitist?", but rather, "how come I'm the only person not getting laid on NS?"

Your question isn't really "is sex elitist?", but rather, "how come I'm the only person not getting laid on NS?"
Possibly, in which case, he is by no means the only one, and as for why he is not - I don't see how people who don't know him can possibly answer such a question.

Indeed. It would be unbelievable awesome if some serious work was put towards destroying this social taboo.

In my experience if a woman is interested in a guy, she will make a move. It may not be obvious, but she will. Also I've had more than one girl just blatantly ask me out, so there's that too.

In my experience if a woman is interested in a guy, she will make a move. It may not be obvious, but she will. Also I've had more than one girl just blatantly ask me out, so there's that too.

I've never seen or noticed a girl making a move on anyone. In my expierience i've always seen the guys have too make a move.

No girls flirting with a guy they like? Some things I've noticed have been twirling hair, being very quick to laugh, making eye contact than quickly looking away, arm or leg touching the guy's arm or leg. It might not be an obvious "move", but it's a way of trying to let the guy know that she might be interested.


Ah. I must be too busy playing my favorite band in concert through my mind...



(Im a sophmore in High School, and I suppose I have seen the quick too laugh kind of stuff, but nothing really promiscuous, or too noticeable)

I've never seen or noticed a girl making a move on anyone. In my expierience i've always seen the guys have too make a move.

No girls flirting with a guy they like? Some things I've noticed have been twirling hair, being very quick to laugh, making eye contact than quickly looking away, arm or leg touching the guy's arm or leg. It might not be an obvious "move", but it's a way of trying to let the guy know that she might be interested.

Ah. I must be too busy playing my favorite band in concert through my mind...


(Im a sophmore in High School, and I suppose I have seen the quick too laugh kind of stuff, but nothing really promiscuous, or too noticeable)

I didn't really pick up on it until my now ex-gf told me about it towards the end of junior year. She was one of the people who just strait out asked me. And I was in an extremely liberal and progressive environment which may have something to do with it.

No girls flirting with a guy they like? Some things I've noticed have been twirling hair, being very quick to laugh, making eye contact than quickly looking away, arm or leg touching the guy's arm or leg. It might not be an obvious "move", but it's a way of trying to let the guy know that she might be interested.
None of these things constitute a move at all, obvious or not.

So they've made the choice. But women have more choices from which to make because most men have lower (i.e less "elitist") standards.So does this mean that you are more elitist than the person who will sleep with literally anybody who offers? (Assuming you're not such a person.)

I women have "higher" standards (and I don't think that generalisation holds up to scrutiny) perhaps it's because sex is a much more risky activity for them than for men? Most men grow up without so much as imagining a negative sexual experience, let alone experiencing something like forced advances, pregnancy or rape.

You know what? I think sex IS elitist.
"I wont sleep with you because i'm a traditionalist catholic"
"I wont sleep with you because you used to date my best friend"
"I wont sleep with you because i have an STD"
Stupid elitist *******'s

Right now, I think so, cuz from what I've learned about sex, you HAVE to be able to do this or that, like it or not, or else you will not be allowed in the world of sex.

So? You have to have a sexual organ. Elitist my hairy ass.

Right now, I think so, cuz from what I've learned about sex, you HAVE to be able to do this or that, like it or not, or else you will not be allowed in the world of sex.
"Allowed into the world of sex"? What the hell are you on about?

Yes, it's true, having sex with another person is going to require that you consider what that person wants. Boo fucking hoo. If you are lousy in bed, then you aren't going to get many repeat customers.

You are not automatically entitled to use another person's body for your personal gratification. If you are honestly sad about that, then congratulations! You're a wanna-be rapist!

Unfortunately for those who may want to live under Sex Communism, we do not distribute sex to each person according to their need. It doesn't matter how much you want to fuck; if nobody wants to fuck you, then you're SOL. Quit yer bitchin' and lern 2 screw.

And for all the guys crying about how women are so damn uppity and actually have the nerve to refuse a good fucking...get over yourselves. Women like sex. A lot of women like sex with men. The fact that women don't want sex with YOU doesn't mean that women are all stuck-up bitches who need to be taught a lesson. It means that you are choosing to pursue women who aren't attracted to you. You may be pursuing women who are, frankly, out of your league. You may be using an approach that women tend to find unappealing. You may be choosing to associate with women who happen to be jerks. Whatever the reason, you are not going to get anywhere by blaming Womankind for your lack of sex. You'll just be providing entertainment for those of us who are quite happy to not be sleeping with you.

I've never seen or noticed a girl making a move on anyone. In my expierience i've always seen the guys have too make a move.
Then you are choosing to associate with the wrong girls. Get new friends.

sex is incredibly elitist, except for orgies which are all inclusive

I women have "higher" standards (and I don't think that generalisation holds up to scrutiny) perhaps it's because sex is a much more risky activity for them than for men? Most men grow up without so much as imagining a negative sexual experience, let alone experiencing something like forced advances, pregnancy or rape.
And it's not just rape that makes it more "risky."

Women are still viewed as losing value the moment they become sexually active. A man who is having sex is a stud, but a woman who has sex is a slut. Girls and women are still told that their future partners won't like them as much if they confess to having past sexual experience. Girls and women are still told that their future husband wouldn't like them to have been with other guys before him. Girls are still taught to remain "pure" and that their hymen is supposed to be a present that they give to their husband on their wedding night.

Even for girls who don't buy in to the stupid sex-phobic crap, they still are going to face a lot of shaming and guilt if they choose to have sex.

It makes me crack up when guys bitch about how girls are more reluctant to have sex, since so much of our culture revolves around shaming and punishing girls who choose to have sex. Fellows, if you want girls to be more comfortable having sex, then YOU should help work to fix the stupid double standards and sexism.

Sex is elitist because only between two and five hundred (that I've heard of), at a time, are allowed to participate in any one act, out of seven plus billion people.

Beyond that, all you need to "get some" is a sexual organ, the capacity and desire to use it, and a basic understanding of social skills. (I.e. you can't be sitting in your basement for your whole life, then wondering why you never get laid).

There's good food, there's great food, there's utterly crap food, but without food of some sort our entire species would die out.

There's good sex, there's great sex, and there's utterly crap sex, but without sex our entire species would die out.

sex is elitist in the same way eatting is elitist.

There's good food, there's great food, there's utterly crap food, but without food of some sort our entire species would die out.

There's good sex, there's great sex, and there's utterly crap sex, but without sex our entire species would die out.

sex is elitist in the same way eatting is elitist.
I think a lot of the problem with this thread is that people are misusing the term "elitist."

An elitist is someone who believes in rule by an elite group. Elitism is the practice of or belief in rule by an elite.

It is not "elitist" for somebody to decline to have sex with you. It is not "elitism" if everybody declines to have sex with you. Nobody is "ruling" you by declining to have sex with you. You are not entitled to anybody else's body, ever, so nobody is obliged to fuck you, ever.

If women, in general, show more restraint in when they choose to have sex, this is not "elitism." Women are not "ruling" men when they choose when and how they have sex; they are simply exercising control over their own bodies. Men who cannot grasp the difference are rapists or wanna-be rapists, and urgently need to get a clue before they hurt somebody.

If women, in general, show more restraint in when they choose to have sex, this is not "elitism." Women are not "ruling" men when they choose when and how they have sex; they are simply exercising control over their own bodies. Men who cannot grasp the difference are rapists or wanna-be rapists, and urgently need to get a clue before they hurt somebody.

I find this argument to be a tad disengenuous however. If I were to say "I don't do fat chicks" or "I only date blondes" or "I won't have sex with a woman over 25", would you consider that acceptable behavior, or would you call it sexist?

Now I am not saying that this is me, just that I have noticed somewhat of a predisposition of some (not you specifically, but some) to label women being selective with their sexual partners as "empowered" yet men being selective with their sexual partners as "sexist"

I find this argument to be a tad disengenuous however. If I were to say "I don't do fat chicks" or "I only date blondes" or "I won't have sex with a woman over 25", would you consider that acceptable behavior, or would you call it sexist?

If you are discriminating in your sexual partners on the basis of weight or age, that is not sexism.

I consider it 100% acceptable for you to use whatever standards you like in selecting the people you have sex with. Your body is your own. You are not, in any way, obligated to have sex with ANYBODY you don't want to have sex with. I may not share your personal standards, but that doesn't matter when it comes to your personal choices.

For instance, if you said that you would never consider sleeping with a black person, then you have a racist personal standard in your mate selection. However, I personally think that you have the right to be racist in your mate selection if that is what you want. I'm not, but I'm also not you.


Now I am not saying that this is me, just that I have noticed somewhat of a predisposition of some (not you specifically, but some) to label women being selective with their sexual partners as "empowered" yet men being selective with their sexual partners as "sexist"
I don't think that anybody says men are "sexist" simply for being selective about their mates. I think people say men are sexist when they have blatantly sexist standards for mate selection.

For instance, there are men who believe that all women are obligated to conform to traditional standards of beauty, and to do whatever it takes to make themselves physically pleasing to men, and they will refuse to date any woman who isn't willing to starve, pluck, and surgically alter herself to comply. That's sexist. There are men who say they would never date a woman who is "uppity" or assertive, because women are supposed to be submissive. That's sexist.

It's not the fact that the men are being selective that is sexist; it is the fact that they are choosing to use sexist standards when selecting their mates.

Women can use sexist standards, as well. There are women who expect their partner to support them simply because he's a man and she's a woman, and won't date any man who fails to support her. That's sexist.

Meanwhile, it is perfectly possible to be non-sexist and also selective, just like it's possible to be non-racist and also selective. There are plenty of men (and women) who do this.

Of course, all of this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Whether or not people are sexist or racist or selective for whatever reason, they are STILL not being "elitist" by choosing who they fuck. It doesn't matter what somebody's reason is...it's their choice to make. NOBODY is entitled to fuck anybody else.

Right now, I think so, cuz from what I've learned about sex, you HAVE to be able to do this or that, like it or not, or else you will not be allowed in the world of sex.

Keep enjoying your hand, mate. :p

<snip>
Yeh, sounds elitist to me.

Meh. I don't care anymore. I've got my computer to keep me happy.

Yeh, sounds elitist to me.

Mainly because you missed her entire point, and continue the word "elitist" wrongly.

Your whole argument that it was elitist was that disabled people can't do it, which isn't true and their are some activities which they can't do but that dosen't make them elitist either.

which still doesn't in any way approach the definition of elitisim.

Yeh, sounds elitist to me.



Your whole argument that it was elitist was that disabled people can't do it, which isn't true and their are some activities which they can't do but that dosen't make them elitist either.

Yeh, sounds elitist to me.

Meh. I don't care anymore. I've got my computer to keep me happy.

I don't want to think about that one for too long.

"Allowed into the world of sex"? What the hell are you on about?
The term is blatantly silly - the world of sex is pretty much, the world.

Unfortunately for those who may want to live under Sex Communism, we do not distribute sex to each person according to their need. It doesn't matter how much you want to fuck; if nobody wants to fuck you, then you're SOL. Quit yer bitchin' and lern 2 screw.
"Sex Communism", that's just such a great term!

It means that you are choosing to pursue women who aren't attracted to you.
Yes. Think about it Pluto, it's no coincidence that the human species is divided half and half. There are women out there who would like you.

You may be pursuing women who are, frankly, out of your league.
Do you honestly think that 'leagues' exist? Alphas and betas may exist among animals, but human culture has eliminated most of that.

Besides I get the impression that Pluto never really tried to pursue anyone at all.

A man who is having sex is a stud, but a woman who has sex is a slut.

Yeah I don't know what idiot came up with that one.

Girls and women are still told that their future husband wouldn't like them to have been with other guys before him. Girls are still taught to remain "pure" and that their hymen is supposed to be a present that they give to their husband on their wedding night.
Maybe in the US South and Italy, but I think this is mostly gone from the west.

It makes me crack up when guys bitch about how girls are more reluctant to have sex, since so much of our culture revolves around shaming and punishing girls who choose to have sex.
How does it crack you up? Do you think that people like Pluto agree with punishing and shaming girls who have sex?

Fellows, if you want girls to be more comfortable having sex, then YOU should help work to fix the stupid double standards and sexism.
By offering the opportunity to have sex to girls, for example?

Meh. I don't care anymore. I've got my computer to keep me happy.
Excessive use of your computer will never make you happy.

Do you honestly think that 'leagues' exist? Alphas and betas may exist among animals, but human culture has eliminated most of that.

Are you kidding me?

Yes, "leagues" exist. You can see them in action every time a flabby, socially-inept male whines about how it's not raining naked supermodels for him.

Most of the time, when you hear some guy complaining about how no girls will fuck him, what he really means is that no HAWT girls will fuck him. Never mind that he's not particularly physically attractive to said girls...he still expects that he will get to have sex with whomever HE is attracted to.

Besides I get the impression that Pluto never really tried to pursue anyone at all.

Possible. He comes across as the kind of person who expects sex to be provided for him whenever he wants it, and that attitude is not really conducive to courtship these days.


Maybe in the US South and Italy, but I think this is mostly gone from the west.

I wish. :(


How does it crack you up? Do you think that people like Pluto agree with punishing and shaming girls who have sex?

Absolutely. It cracks me up because they are so convinced that they can both treat women like shite and also have women serve them whenever and however they want. I giggle thinking about how much sex they will never, ever have.


By offering the opportunity to have sex to girls, for example?

Um, no. Hate to break it to you fellows, but you might have to put a bit more effort into it than trying to get laid. See, girls are shamed and guilted for having sex even though they are also constantly propositioned. What needs to change is how girls and women are treated AFTER they choose to have sex.

Yeh, sounds elitist to me.

Wow, so he's lazy, lacks reading comprehension, AND whines about how uppity womenz won't give up the goods. Don't all rush to fuck him at one time, ladies!

Wow, so he's lazy, lacks reading comprehension, AND whines about how uppity womenz won't give up the goods. Don't all rush to fuck him at one time, ladies!
WTF? I've done my best to make sure that this thread is NOT about me, and you seem to be making this thread about me anyway (e.g. THREADJACKING)
Also, i'm not trying to play the "wah wah poor me" thing. I'm just merely seeking answers and/or debate. :)
anyhoo, less about me, and more debatin'! :D

Is sex elitist? You're damned skippity it is. Sex definitely looks down on most other bodily or interpersonal functions. Do you think that when Sex sees shaking hands or coughing in the halls Sex says hello. Absolutely Freaking Not. Sex walks on by with it's nose in the air and ignores those suckers. Back when Sex was in high school Sex had a 4.0 GPA and was the captain of the basketball and soccer teams. Now that Sex is a successful rich entrepreneur, do you think Sex helps out at the community center, or worries about working class bodily functions like taking a crap. Hells no. Sex just enjoys it's high class goods and thinks those other activities deserve their poor positions in life. So yes, absolutely, positively, without question Sex is elitist.
You win the thread. :D

Is sex elitist? You're damned skippity it is. Sex definitely looks down on most other bodily or interpersonal functions. Do you think that when Sex sees shaking hands or coughing in the halls Sex says hello. Absolutely Freaking Not. Sex walks on by with it's nose in the air and ignores those suckers. Back when Sex was in high school Sex had a 4.0 GPA and was the captain of the basketball and soccer teams. Now that Sex is a successful rich entrepreneur, do you think Sex helps out at the community center, or worries about working class bodily functions like taking a crap. Hells no. Sex just enjoys it's high class goods and thinks those other activities deserve their poor positions in life. So yes, absolutely, positively, without question Sex is elitist.

This is made of win. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Is sex elitist? You're damned skippity it is. Sex definitely looks down on most other bodily or interpersonal functions. Do you think that when Sex sees shaking hands or coughing in the halls Sex says hello. Absolutely Freaking Not. Sex walks on by with it's nose in the air and ignores those suckers. Back when Sex was in high school Sex had a 4.0 GPA and was the captain of the basketball and soccer teams. Now that Sex is a successful rich entrepreneur, do you think Sex helps out at the community center, or worries about working class bodily functions like taking a crap. Hells no. Sex just enjoys it's high class goods and thinks those other activities deserve their poor positions in life. So yes, absolutely, positively, without question Sex is elitist.

Excessive use of your computer will never make you happy.

Actually the opposite. Using the computer for more than two hours at a time, on a regular basis, has been shown to have the following effects:

Headaches, nausea, seizures, blackouts, certain cancers, decreased sex drive, depression, anxiety, nervousness, paranoia, sleeping and eating patterns, carpal tunnel syndrome, osteoporosis, fevers, and the list goes on and on.

Computers emit electromagnetic radiation, and while US-based organisations would never admit it for fear they'll stop getting government money because the government will stop getting industry money, electromagnetic radiation can be highly dangerous in large enough quantities, interfering with practically every natural process. In fact, sitting at a computer for more than 24 hours at a time can start to boil the water molecules in your body, like microwaves do. Prolonged exposure over weeks or months to a computer screen and tower will have the same effect, or a close similarity, to an hour's walk in Hiroshima on August 7, 1945.

WTF? I've done my best to make sure that this thread is NOT about me, and you seem to be making this thread about me anyway (e.g. THREADJACKING)
OP: "Right now, I think so, cuz from what I've learned about sex, you HAVE to be able to do this or that, like it or not, or else you will not be allowed in the world of sex."

I am, and have been, responding to your OP.

Is sex elitist? You're damned skippity it is. Sex definitely looks down on most other bodily or interpersonal functions. Do you think that when Sex sees shaking hands or coughing in the halls Sex says hello. Absolutely Freaking Not. Sex walks on by with it's nose in the air and ignores those suckers. Back when Sex was in high school Sex had a 4.0 GPA and was the captain of the basketball and soccer teams. Now that Sex is a successful rich entrepreneur, do you think Sex helps out at the community center, or worries about working class bodily functions like taking a crap. Hells no. Sex just enjoys it's high class goods and thinks those other activities deserve their poor positions in life. So yes, absolutely, positively, without question Sex is elitist.

*awards point*

Are you kidding me?

Yes, "leagues" exist. You can see them in action every time a flabby, socially-inept male whines about how it's not raining naked supermodels for him.
Supermodels, how very media based. Sorry, but most people don't base their beliefs on who is attractive on what TV tells them.

Most of the time, when you hear some guy complaining about how no girls will fuck him, what he really means is that no HAWT girls will fuck him.
There are no "hot" people (even less "hawt" [sic]) people!) IMO. People are attracted to other people, and it is impossible to objectively rate attractiveness.

Possible. He comes across as the kind of person who expects sex to be provided for him whenever he wants it, and that attitude is not really conducive to courtship these days.
Yes. To think, every hour he spends on his computer doing useless crap (and before anyone jumps on this, I am doing college work concurrently and it's a fucking weeknight anyway!) could be spent out meeting new people.

I wish. :(
Maybe you are, as you put it, "choosing to associate with the wrong girls" (i.e. repressed ones).

Absolutely. It cracks me up because they are so convinced that they can both treat women like shite and also have women serve them whenever and however they want. I giggle thinking about how much sex they will never, ever have.
Let's not flame the OP. He has given no indication that he treats women like shite.

Um, no. Hate to break it to you fellows, but you might have to put a bit more effort into it than trying to get laid. See, girls are shamed and guilted for having sex even though they are also constantly propositioned.
Rofl.

What needs to change is how girls and women are treated AFTER they choose to have sex.
If I'm not mistaken, you are demanding that Pluto and his ilk need to treat their women better after they have sex with them, and until then, they will never deserve to have sex. :confused:

Is sex elitist? You're damned skippity it is. Sex definitely looks down on most other bodily or interpersonal functions. Do you think that when Sex sees shaking hands or coughing in the halls Sex says hello. Absolutely Freaking Not. Sex walks on by with it's nose in the air and ignores those suckers. Back when Sex was in high school Sex had a 4.0 GPA and was the captain of the basketball and soccer teams. Now that Sex is a successful rich entrepreneur, do you think Sex helps out at the community center, or worries about working class bodily functions like taking a crap. Hells no. Sex just enjoys it's high class goods and thinks those other activities deserve their poor positions in life. So yes, absolutely, positively, without question Sex is elitist.
*worships*

Is sex elitist? You're damned skippity it is. Sex definitely looks down on most other bodily or interpersonal functions. Do you think that when Sex sees shaking hands or coughing in the halls Sex says hello. Absolutely Freaking Not. Sex walks on by with it's nose in the air and ignores those suckers. Back when Sex was in high school Sex had a 4.0 GPA and was the captain of the basketball and soccer teams. Now that Sex is a successful rich entrepreneur, do you think Sex helps out at the community center, or worries about working class bodily functions like taking a crap. Hells no. Sex just enjoys it's high class goods and thinks those other activities deserve their poor positions in life. So yes, absolutely, positively, without question Sex is elitist.
*Bows to your wisdom*

sex isn't elitist.

women are elitist. If you aren't attractive enough according to the mass-media produced new standard of male beauty, they won't consider sleeping with you. Unless you're wealthy, or have the right job, or hang out with the right people, drive the right kind of car, talk the right way, say the right things. Women are soulless monsters and it's a great irony of the age that women are held to be more sensitive, more emotional, more intellectual and less superficial.
Assuming there is even a bit of truth to your diatribe, it serves us right after all those years of us imposing our standards of beauty on them exclusively.
No girls flirting with a guy they like? Some things I've noticed have been twirling hair, being very quick to laugh, making eye contact than quickly looking away, arm or leg touching the guy's arm or leg. It might not be an obvious "move", but it's a way of trying to let the guy know that she might be interested.
Eh? Chicks do that kind of stuff to me and I’m one of the most sexually unappealing creatures in the tri-county area. It’s because when I feel like it, I can be funny and entertaining. Those are just gestures that show a chick appreciates your company. Except the laughing. Most chicks just laugh way to fucking easy. In the end, they just want to fuck the cowboy.
Nothing wrong with that, though.
It makes me crack up when guys bitch about how girls are more reluctant to have sex, since so much of our culture revolves around shaming and punishing girls who choose to have sex. Fellows, if you want girls to be more comfortable having sex, then YOU should help work to fix the stupid double standards and sexism.
When I learn that a female friend of mine has had sex recently, I give her a high five and celebrate in the manner that guys generally do with each other when one of their buds gets laid. I’m breaking down barriers and, according to you, helping people get laid.:)

Assuming there is even a bit of truth to your diatribe, it serves us right after all those years of us imposing our standards of beauty on them exclusively.
You believe in collective punishment???

PS where have you been lately??

You believe in collective punishment???
Nah. Just my way of saying that the door swings both ways.
PS where have you been lately??
Just been busy. School, friends, the new Zelda game.

There are no "hot" people (even less "hawt" [sic]) people!) IMO. People are attracted to other people, and it is impossible to objectively rate attractiveness.

One thing here...

It may be impossible (thats a different can of worms) to determine a universal objective form of beauty, but it IS certainly possible to determine whether or not there are intersubjective concepts of beauty. This is mere empiricism at work; poll one hundred people. They will likely all say that these concepts are important to them in terms of beauty: symmetry, proportionality and fitness or appearance of general health. Maybe other qualifiers too.

You don't have the definite truth, but you do have a representative sampling of our population indicating that we, as a society, feel that these elements of form are important to beauty; an intersubjective standard of beauty.

On other matters...

I don't get laid, but I don't expect to get laid since I don't make much of an effort to get laid. I am social and meet plenty of people, I spend time with friends and their friends. I have no real interest in a relationship. I don't blame anybody, since there is no need to blame.

That said, in blue times I definitely feel like the world is out to get me, and most people probably have similar feelings or thoughts. Let's not harsh on the OP because frankly, you have no real idea about who he is or what he does. Besides, it doesn't matter much and as Trostia has noted (regardless of the rest of the arguments presented) ad hominems are just garbage used by people unwilling to engage situations or incapable of doing so.

Lastly...

The social world can be pretty nasty. I've been bit on the nose enough times that I don't feel seeking relationships or sex has been a particularly worthwhile venture. In that respect the social world is quite elitist, referring back to these intersubjective notions of beauty (that I do not conform too I assure you) amongst other things, and as a result of that it can seem that who gets laid and how often is an elitist club. I know in my group of friends some people get laid alot, and others (regardless of how great they are and how hard they try to meet all sorts of people) just don't get laid at all. It is completely unfair and as Bottle has said, it is also completely out of your power to decide who sleeps with who.

Unfortunately many people do promulgate the notion that you have to have certain characteristics to be attractive, and I am not talking about being nice, respectful, etc. While this may be bullshit, it often is the case that these people are operating within large social circles wherein those characteristics ARE necessary to your sexual life. The key is to avoid those social circle, which tend to be unfulfilling and disappointing anyway, and seek out people who are perhaps more capable of individual thought and personality. In other words, don't get disheartened by seeing and hearing one group (which may seem all-encompassing in size) spout supposed truths and acting successfully on them; they are in truth only a small minority of society, even if a vocal one, and ultimately count for very little unless you value the garbage floating around the airwaves, television signals, and computer networks of the world.

Wow, rambly and epic. What was that, twelve dollars?

Wow, rambly and epic. What was that, twelve dollars?
I liked it.:)

I liked it.:)

I aim to please.

I also tend to have that post that really kills the entire thread. I wonder if that will happen here?

I also tend to have that post that really kills the entire thread. I wonder if that will happen here?
Looks like it. Good job.

One thing here...

It may be impossible (thats a different can of worms) to determine a universal objective form of beauty, but it IS certainly possible to determine whether or not there are intersubjective concepts of beauty. This is mere empiricism at work; poll one hundred people. They will likely all say that these concepts are important to them in terms of beauty: symmetry, proportionality and fitness or appearance of general health. Maybe other qualifiers too.

You don't have the definite truth, but you do have a representative sampling of our population indicating that we, as a society, feel that these elements of form are important to beauty; an intersubjective standard of beauty.

Bingo.

It's been demonstrated time and again that many people (perhaps even most people) are influenced in their mate selection by what other people think about a potential mate. In plainer terms, people frequently date for status. Guys like to have a girlfriend who their friends will all agree is a hotty, because it increases their status to have a hot girl. Girls do this more and more as well, now, though for a long time the girl version has been to land a guy with financial or political status (think about the delight over a woman landing a doctor for a husband).


On other matters...

I don't get laid, but I don't expect to get laid since I don't make much of an effort to get laid. I am social and meet plenty of people, I spend time with friends and their friends. I have no real interest in a relationship. I don't blame anybody, since there is no need to blame.

Why, you sound almost...sane.


That said, in blue times I definitely feel like the world is out to get me, and most people probably have similar feelings or thoughts. Let's not harsh on the OP because frankly, you have no real idea about who he is or what he does.

I harsh on people when they fuck up in ways that decrease the quality of life for others. The OP has a lousy attitude and a bunch of bullshit ideas rattling around in his head, and the sooner he loses both the better (for him and for everybody else).

I can relate to how it feels when you want something that you can't have. I know how frustrating it is to want to get laid and not be able to. But there is no excuse for insulting and blaming other people for not catering to your desires at all times. That's infantile and unworthy of anybody old enough to be typing on this forum.


Besides, it doesn't matter much and as Trostia has noted (regardless of the rest of the arguments presented) ad hominems are just garbage used by people unwilling to engage situations or incapable of doing so.

Meh. I use ad hominems AND I engage situations. I've never found the two to be mutually exclusive. :D


The social world can be pretty nasty. I've been bit on the nose enough times that I don't feel seeking relationships or sex has been a particularly worthwhile venture. In that respect the social world is quite elitist, referring back to these intersubjective notions of beauty (that I do not conform too I assure you) amongst other things, and as a result of that it can seem that who gets laid and how often is an elitist club. I know in my group of friends some people get laid alot, and others (regardless of how great they are and how hard they try to meet all sorts of people) just don't get laid at all. It is completely unfair and as Bottle has said, it is also completely out of your power to decide who sleeps with who.

See, and this is what I have to disagree with. It's completely fair, because it is completely fair that each person gets to choose who they fuck.

I may feel sorry for a friend of mine who isn't getting laid (and who wants to), but I don't think it's "unfair" that they are not getting laid. It is completely fair. After all, I'm not fucking them, am I? I believe that I have the right to choose not to fuck them, for whatever reason, so why should I believe it is unfair for other people to make the same choice I am making?


Unfortunately many people do promulgate the notion that you have to have certain characteristics to be attractive, and I am not talking about being nice, respectful, etc. While this may be bullshit, it often is the case that these people are operating within large social circles wherein those characteristics ARE necessary to your sexual life. The key is to avoid those social circle, which tend to be unfulfilling and disappointing anyway, and seek out people who are perhaps more capable of individual thought and personality. In other words, don't get disheartened by seeing and hearing one group (which may seem all-encompassing in size) spout supposed truths and acting successfully on them; they are in truth only a small minority of society, even if a vocal one, and ultimately count for very little unless you value the garbage floating around the airwaves, television signals, and computer networks of the world.

The key is also to realize that you probably don't want to be fucking the kind of people who think like that anyhow, so you aren't losing anything by not getting laid with them. Don't be depressed about how many shallow, boring people you aren't sleeping with...be thankful!

yep. most things are elitist.

I harsh on people when they fuck up in ways that decrease the quality of life for others. The OP has a lousy attitude and a bunch of bullshit ideas rattling around in his head, and the sooner he loses both the better (for him and for everybody else).

I can relate to how it feels when you want something that you can't have. I know how frustrating it is to want to get laid and not be able to. But there is no excuse for insulting and blaming other people for not catering to your desires at all times. That's infantile and unworthy of anybody old enough to be typing on this forum.

Well perhaps, but I can see how the OP would end up with such notions without being as ridiculous and ignorant as that seems to indicate. Ultimately I am less concerned about what he does or who he is when discussing a topic that isn't him, and I feel it is somewhat irrelevant.

Yah, if push comes to shove I'll admit I am being overly generous since that attitude does seem lousy and won't get anybody anywhere, but I'd prefer to keep the thread focused on the questions at hand.

That said, aside from Trostia it seems to be mostly wrapped up, and they haven't said anything in a while.

See, and this is what I have to disagree with. It's completely fair, because it is completely fair that each person gets to choose who they fuck.

I may feel sorry for a friend of mine who isn't getting laid (and who wants to), but I don't think it's "unfair" that they are not getting laid. It is completely fair. After all, I'm not fucking them, am I? I believe that I have the right to choose not to fuck them, for whatever reason, so why should I believe it is unfair for other people to make the same choice I am making?

After typing that out, I just want to preface this with the fact that I have become cynical in some ways, and while I FEEL this to be true I also recognize it probably isn't a universal case. Perhaps its a 'pity me' thing, but I don't really share it so I think I tend to seek self-pity or something equally inane.

I guess it just depends from what perspective you are perceiving 'fair'. Seems you are using equal opportunity as a kind of basis, but that is hardly 'fair' since some people just look alot better than others, have in-born confidence (or lack of self-awareness perhaps), and/or have a variety of other characteristics somewhat independent of personal choice.

No matter what I cannot be 'X' (take a random arrogant but good looking bastard); yet quite likely 'X' gets laid quite a bit more than I do (and this includes when I was in the market). He is somewhat distasteful an individual but due to confidence and charisma has a steady stream of women; not the same for myself, I assure you. And most, if not all, of us have heard, know, have a friend who is, or are themselves this 'X'. I don't think 'X' is a strawman I've built just to hang my argument on.

So yah, it is unfair that this complete asshat gets to enjoy some finer elements of life while I, doing my best to be kind, understanding, gentlemanly, and respectful, get the short end of the stick (could that have been a pun or double-entendre, I don't even want to know). Bringing in the fact that all these people have personal choice doesn't really change the fact that by all accounts, this imbalance seems to be garbage.

I think it means that guys who are nice and decent do have expectations that they won't be left out in the cold. After all, how many people in this thread have said that all you need to be is a mature, responsible, and reasonable individual who actually goes out into the social world? It isn't that simple, but some of us (myself included) seem to have such bad luck no matter how hard we work or what we do that the world appears to be unfair.

See where I am going? I know you can just say you were barking up the wrong tree or something, but you don't know that for sure and while it might apply to some or many, I for one think it does not apply to myself. All of my girlfriends, to the very last, have cheated on me. What the fark is that? Why? And while in retrospect the fact that some did does not surprise me, the fact that the others did still does.

What then? Do I blame myself for the choices of others? Is it somehow my fault? That is quite the slippery slope. I can't think of anything I did wrong per se, and nobody ever expressed ANY unhappiness in ANY way. Perhaps if there was something wrong and they communicated it could have all been resolved or we could have gone our merry and separate ways. Instead I got shafted (*furrows brows*). If you want to attribute their choice to me or my actions you do open the door for people to say "She invited the rapist to attack her" since they aren't as far part removed as you might think.

I don't know. In that sense it is definitely unfair. Sure, it is fair that each person is not forced and gets to choose what they do with themselves, but there are plenty of events, dynamics, and relationships that form after that simple fact that are incredibly unfair and painful.

On the first page of this discussion there was a mention of a random guy challenging a chatroom master. Now I know nothing about chatroom masters but the thought of a "random guy" just struck me as funny. Could there be anything worse than being a "random guy"? What is a random guy? The thought of random people just makes me giggle. Maybe I need a cup of coffee.

I guess it just depends from what perspective you are perceiving 'fair'. Seems you are using equal opportunity as a kind of basis, but that is hardly 'fair' since some people just look alot better than others, have in-born confidence (or lack of self-awareness perhaps), and/or have a variety of other characteristics somewhat independent of personal choice.

Well, yeah, people aren't identical. That may be unfair. But then, isn't it completely fair for other people to consider your qualities and decide whether or not they want to be involved with you?

Put it another way: would it really be more "fair" if all people had "equal opportunity" to get laid, regardless of their personal characteristics? Would you want to be obligated to have sex with people you don't find attractive? Would you consider it "fair" for you to have to sleep with somebody you don't find appealing?


No matter what I cannot be 'X' (take a random arrogant but good looking bastard); yet quite likely 'X' gets laid quite a bit more than I do (and this includes when I was in the market). He is somewhat distasteful an individual but due to confidence and charisma has a steady stream of women; not the same for myself, I assure you. And most, if not all, of us have heard, know, have a friend who is, or are themselves this 'X'. I don't think 'X' is a strawman I've built just to hang my argument on.

Sure, that happens. Some people have qualities that make them more attractive to potential sexual partners. Some of these qualities are accidents of birth, while others are acquired abilities or traits.


So yah, it is unfair that this complete asshat gets to enjoy some finer elements of life while I, doing my best to be kind, understanding, gentlemanly, and respectful, get the short end of the stick (could that have been a pun or double-entendre, I don't even want to know).

That's where you go wrong. It is completely and totally fair that women choose to have sex with a person they find more appealing than you. Is it FUN for you? Perhaps not. But it's absolutely fair.

What would be unfair would be for you to expect women to have sex with you, even though you openly admit that you lack qualities they find appealing (or you have those qualities in lower amounts).

Maybe YOU don't think that this "asshat" deserves to get all the sex he's getting, but you aren't the one fucking him, are you? You may think that you are a better person than he is, but his sexual partners don't agree with you...and your opinion means bugger all when it comes to their sexual choices.

If you want to have more people choose to sleep with you, then the fair thing to do is to make yourself a more appealing choice to them. It is not fair to expect people to choose to sleep with you simply because you have qualities YOU like.


Bringing in the fact that all these people have personal choice doesn't really change the fact that by all accounts, this imbalance seems to be garbage.

Why is it garbage? So women may not always make the choices that you want them to make. Why is that garbage? Perhaps women don't all share your values when it comes to choosing a partner. Why should they?


I think it means that guys who are nice and decent do have expectations that they won't be left out in the cold.

A guy who thinks he deserves sex for being nice and decent isn't actually nice or decent. You aren't entitled to pussy just for being a decent human being. If you are nice and decent man who also happens to be physically unattractive, you shouldn't whine about the fact that women are less likely to pursue you than they are to pursue attractive men.

People like to have sex with those to whom they are attracted, and women are people. This is not rocket science.


After all, how many people in this thread have said that all you need to be is a mature, responsible, and reasonable individual who actually goes out into the social world? It isn't that simple, but some of us (myself included) seem to have such bad luck no matter how hard we work or what we do that the world appears to be unfair.

I think the problem is that people buy into the Hollywood BS that if you are a good person everything will work out for you in the end.

Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.

Lots of very nice, decent, respectful, responsible people have shitty luck. This doesn't make them bad people, nor does it mean that anybody else is to blame for their bad luck. It just means that being nice doesn't mean you will automatically get laid.


See where I am going? I know you can just say you were barking up the wrong tree or something, but you don't know that for sure and while it might apply to some or many, I for one think it does not apply to myself. All of my girlfriends, to the very last, have cheated on me. What the fark is that? Why?

Because you choose to date people who cheat on you. Perhaps you are missing something when you evaluate the quality of your partners. Perhaps your relationships are unsound in some way. Perhaps you travel in circles where people are lax about infidelity. Who knows. None of my girlfriends ever cheated on me.


What then? Do I blame myself for the choices of others? Is it somehow my fault?

It is not your fault that somebody else broke trust with you. However, if you see a continual pattern in your relationships, it is up to you to take a look at it if you want to figure out how to make that trend stop.

If every single girlfriend you have cheats on you, then perhaps you should look at the one constant in every equation: YOU.


That is quite the slippery slope. I can't think of anything I did wrong per se, and nobody ever expressed ANY unhappiness in ANY way. Perhaps if there was something wrong and they communicated it could have all been resolved or we could have gone our merry and separate ways. Instead I got shafted (*furrows brows*). If you want to attribute their choice to me or my actions you do open the door for people to say "She invited the rapist to attack her" since they aren't as far part removed as you might think.

I need to be very clear here: I do NOT believe that you are responsible for the individual choices that your partners have made. If your partner chooses to cheat on you, then THEY are the one breaking trust. They are the jackass, because dishonesty and breaking trust with a partner is a shitty thing to do. If they have a problem with you or the relationship then they should deal with it straight-out.

What I am saying is that if, as you say, ALL your girlfriends cheat on you, then you might want to look at why you keep ending up in relationships with people who cheat on you.

It's like how if a girl's boyfriend hits her that is NOT her fault, but if she keeps finding herself in abusive relationships then she needs to look at why she is seeking out boyfriends who hurt her. Not because it is her fault for getting hit, but because she is in control of who she dates and she should figure out how to avoid dating people who hurt her!


I don't know. In that sense it is definitely unfair. Sure, it is fair that each person is not forced and gets to choose what they do with themselves, but there are plenty of events, dynamics, and relationships that form after that simple fact that are incredibly unfair and painful.
Again, I'm just not seeing the 'unfair' to any of this. Can you name some of the "events, dynamics, and relationships" that you are talking about?

Uhhhh....

Do you masturbate?

Then you're in. It's pretty equal opportunity.


QFT

/thread

I think it means that guys who are nice and decent do have expectations that they won't be left out in the cold. After all, how many people in this thread have said that all you need to be is a mature, responsible, and reasonable individual who actually goes out into the social world? It isn't that simple, but some of us (myself included) seem to have such bad luck no matter how hard we work or what we do that the world appears to be unfair.Does this mean that you go for the mature, responsible, and reasonable women, regardless of what they look like?

Does this mean that you go for the mature, responsible, and reasonable women, regardless of what they look like?
I can't speak for anybody else, but I have many friends and coworkers who are mature, responsible, reasonable, and single, yet whom I am not sleeping with. I know it's unfair of me to deprive them of sex with me--because really, who can lead a full life without having sex with me?--but I just don't have the time or the stamina to fuck every mature, responsible, reasonable single person I encounter.

I can relate to how it feels when you want something that you can't have. I know how frustrating it is to want to get laid and not be able to.
Doesn't this contradict your claim that female humans are "constantly propositioned [for sex]"? (which isn't true, but you said it) You are female, after all, aren't you?

But there is no excuse for insulting and blaming other people for not catering to your desires at all times. That's infantile and unworthy of anybody old enough to be typing on this forum.
I didn't get that impression from Pluto and the other 'nice guy' types who periodically post threads like this (and periodically get the same harsh response from you). To me they sound more like "what am I doing wrong, I ain't getting no girls!!?"

I may feel sorry for a friend of mine who isn't getting laid (and who wants to), but I don't think it's "unfair" that they are not getting laid. It is completely fair. After all, I'm not fucking them, am I? I believe that I have the right to choose not to fuck them, for whatever reason, so why should I believe it is unfair for other people to make the same choice I am making?
You seem to be of the mistaken belief that people will always choose to do what is fair, and thus the results of people's choices are always fair.

The key is also to realize that you probably don't want to be fucking the kind of people who think like that anyhow, so you aren't losing anything by not getting laid with them. Don't be depressed about how many shallow, boring people you aren't sleeping with...be thankful!
If sex is only physical, I don't see why Pluto would particularly care that the people involved are shallow.

Well, yeah, people aren't identical. That may be unfair. But then, isn't it completely fair for other people to consider your qualities and decide whether or not they want to be involved with you?

Put it another way: would it really be more "fair" if all people had "equal opportunity" to get laid, regardless of their personal characteristics? Would you want to be obligated to have sex with people you don't find attractive? Would you consider it "fair" for you to have to sleep with somebody you don't find appealing?
Why waste your precious energy typing this? Nobody is ever going to advocate sex communism.

That's where you go wrong. It is completely and totally fair that women choose to have sex with a person they find more appealing than you. Is it FUN for you? Perhaps not. But it's absolutely fair.
Are you completely unable to see anything from his POV?

Why is it garbage? So women may not always make the choices that you want them to make. Why is that garbage? Perhaps women don't all share your values when it comes to choosing a partner. Why should they?
Because in our culture, characteristics like being kind, understanding, gentlemanly, and respectful (to quote him) as held in higher regard than the opposite. It would be logical to expect to live a happier life for embodying those characteristics.

A guy who thinks he deserves sex for being nice and decent isn't actually nice or decent.
Why not? All he wants is to be treated like a human being, and you think he's a wannabe-rapist?

You really are so smug. No doubt a self-styled "alpha female".

It is not your fault that somebody else broke trust with you. However, if you see a continual pattern in your relationships, it is up to you to take a look at it if you want to figure out how to make that trend stop.
If you stop rattling off your formula and actually read his post, because that's exactly what Dalioranium is asking.

Girls do this more and more as well, now, though for a long time the girl version has been to land a guy with financial or political status (think about the delight over a woman landing a doctor for a husband).

Reminds me of a conversation one of my friends in high school had with her grandmother:

Grandmother: "You should go to school for nursing, so you can meet and marry a doctor."

Girl: "Why don't I just become a doctor myself?"

Grandmother: "Yeah, that's a good way to meet a doctor, too...."

hehe

Actually the opposite. Using the computer for more than two hours at a time, on a regular basis, has been shown to have the following effects:

Headaches, nausea, seizures, blackouts, certain cancers, decreased sex drive, depression, anxiety, nervousness, paranoia, sleeping and eating patterns, carpal tunnel syndrome, osteoporosis, fevers, and the list goes on and on.

Computers emit electromagnetic radiation, and while US-based organisations would never admit it for fear they'll stop getting government money because the government will stop getting industry money, electromagnetic radiation can be highly dangerous in large enough quantities, interfering with practically every natural process. In fact, sitting at a computer for more than 24 hours at a time can start to boil the water molecules in your body, like microwaves do. Prolonged exposure over weeks or months to a computer screen and tower will have the same effect, or a close similarity, to an hour's walk in Hiroshima on August 7, 1945.
What? First of all, you emit electro-magnetic radiation. Everything does. Visible light is electro-magnetic radiation. Radiant heat is electro-magnetic radiation. Radio signals are electro-magnetic radiation.

Second, my computer is not putting out hard gammas. CRTs do produce a fair amount of X-Rays, but that's what the lead shielding is for (why do you think CRTs are so heavy?). LCD monitors have very low emissions (aside from the aforementioned visible light).