Artist/Painter
Two Pears Studio
Posts: 3632
Wilmington, Delaware, US
Top of the page... Jules NYC wrote:
![https://photostand.co.za/images/tdbb6quooisw37tabkw5.jpg]() my teacher/mentor/friend had sex at least five times a week until he was 90 then he tapered off to three times a week. Sex eventually killed him at 95. Not in the act, but his 88 year old wife put him in a home because she didn't want sex anymore... and he slipped in the bathroom and hit his head. He had a dnr so they let him die at the hospital.
So this cartoon may be an average, but not the whole truth... just like the op's question... nothing besides death is truth for all people.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
 All I know is the guy that can't laugh would probably have boring crusty sex and not with me:)
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
On a serious note, this was written beautifully:
“Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a person's sexual choice is the result and sum of their fundamental convictions. Tell me what a person finds sexually attractive and I will tell you their entire philosophy of life. Show me the person they sleep with and I will tell you their valuation of themselves. No matter what corruption they're taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which they cannot perform for any motive but their own enjoyment - just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity! - an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exultation, only on the confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces them to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and accept their real ego as their standard of value. They will always be attracted to the person who reflects their deepest vision of themselves, the person whose surrender permits them to experience - or to fake - a sense of self-esteem .. Love is our response to our highest values - and can be nothing else.”
― Ayn Rand
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
Jules NYC wrote:
"Show me the person they sleep with and I will tell you their valuation of themselves." What does it say about somebody when they would rather be celibate than "settle"?
Is that the height of egotism, or just plain stupid? 
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Model
Russian Katarina II
Posts: 2515
London, England, United Kingdom
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
What does it say about somebody when they would rather be celibate than "settle"?
Is that the height of egotism, or just plain stupid?
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com It's best not to dwell on the minutiae of Ayn Rand's philosophy too much. 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25319
Bath, England, United Kingdom
Russian Katarina II wrote:
It's best not to dwell on the minutiae of Ayn Rand's philosophy too much. So... "stupid" then?
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com
Model
Russian Katarina II
Posts: 2515
London, England, United Kingdom
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
So... "stupid" then?
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com Any concept of selflessness simply isn't part of Rand's universe, so "stupid" is as good a term as any.
Model
Damianne
Posts: 15978
Austin, Texas, US
Russian Katarina II wrote:
Any concept of selflessness simply isn't part of Rand's universe, so "stupid" is as good a term as any. I don't believe in selflessness, but I think it only results in Rand's outlook if you're kind of a shitty person.
I'm not stupid.
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Jules NYC wrote:
![https://forthoseabouttoshop.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Cosmo-cover.jpg]() This is wonderful.
Model
Damianne
Posts: 15978
Austin, Texas, US
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Photographer
Rays Fine Art
Posts: 7504
New York, New York, US
FWIW my guess would be that the ability of a woman to fulfill a man's fantasy is mostly dependent on the ability of the man to immerse himself in the fantasy.
It doesn't matter what the fantasy is, whether it's a performance by an opera singer or an actor or your lover, if you stand outside the experience and analyze it, your fantasy can't be fulfilled because you're an observer, not a participant. But if you can put yourself into the fantasy, it will be fulfilling.
To paraphrase, "Ask not what your lover can do for you, ask what you can do for your lover!"
IMHO as always, of course.
Model
Russian Katarina II
Posts: 2515
London, England, United Kingdom
Damianne wrote:
I don't believe in selflessness, but I think it only results in Rand's outlook if you're kind of a shitty person.
I'm not stupid. I actually thought of you and our discussion a few weeks ago, when I read that Rand quote. You could have written that.
Photographer
Mad Hatter Imagery
Posts: 1669
Buffalo, New York, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Would have sworn I saw you listed as a Female when I checked your profile a long time ago.
I checked it when I kept seeing a trend of questions that provoked me to see who was asking them:) I'm so flattered I was able to provoke you. lol.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Koryn Locke wrote:
This is wonderful.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Photographer
Mad Hatter Imagery
Posts: 1669
Buffalo, New York, US
Koryn Locke wrote:
When I don't feel like my partner wants sex with me, or wants it frequently, I start to feel like I am unattractive to them, and then it is hard to maintain interest in someone whom I cannot seem to excite desire in, or please. You find those attractive that find you sexually appealing at all times? So by the time they respect you enough for your mind that they can control their urges you have already lost interest in them? lol.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
-B-R-U-N-E-S-C-I- wrote:
What does it say about somebody when they would rather be celibate than "settle"?
Is that the height of egotism, or just plain stupid?
Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com That passage, only applicable to the lovers you deem worthy.
That's my take on it.
In fact, an air of discernment is wise.
Quality
😉
Photographer
Mad Hatter Imagery
Posts: 1669
Buffalo, New York, US
Russian Katarina wrote:
Women need to be loved, men need to be respected.
That is the most primal need in most marriages.
Women have a tendency to emasculate and control men that is just a deeply embedded part of our biological blueprint. It's a tough habit to break because it comes so natural to us. Eros (sexual power) is owned by women, not by men. Many women have no idea what to do with all that power.
I've found that a man who is empowered by his woman gets a boost of energy that translates to more attention and affection he's able to devote to her, as well as better game in his other endeavours, like his career. There's a reason for the saying that there's a strong woman behind every strong man.
There's no greater sexual turn-off than a man who is a doormat. That's a dismal thought. And why don't women get credit when they are standing behind a total fuck up? lol.
Photographer
Mad Hatter Imagery
Posts: 1669
Buffalo, New York, US
jesse paulk wrote:
fuck this thread and everyone answering this dbag's stupid shit
the only proper reply is, "yourE a moron OP" And yet you took the effort to write as far down as page 3. God bless. 
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Mad Hatter Imagery wrote:
Is there an inverse relationship between women that are faithful, and those that can and are willing to fulfill a guy's every fantasy? lol. It seems like the only women that any guys say are good in bed and frisky and creative are the ones that they fully expect have cheated on them. And those of women that are quite boring and under experienced sexually, and have no strong desire to be more sexual are the ones that are generally completely faithful. Are there too many women that are the best of both worlds, or are we talking total mutual exclusivity? Dan Savage pretty much coined it: Good, Giving and Game.
Regardless of age, gender, experience, orientation, or faithfulness, it's a pretty reliable standard.
Model
Cole Morrison
Posts: 3958
Portland, Oregon, US
And what about women having their fantasies fulfilled? I guess women don't matter unless we're fucking a dude in every way he wants.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Mad Hatter Imagery wrote:
I'm so flattered I was able to provoke you. lol. You get people talking.
Have to admit.
Photographer
r T p
Posts: 3511
Los Angeles, California, US
Cole Morrison wrote:
And what about women having their fantasies fulfilled? I guess women don't matter unless we're fucking a dude in every way he wants.
isnt that what the 70% off store-wide sales are for?
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Mad Hatter Imagery wrote:
You find those attractive that find you sexually appealing at all times? So by the time they respect you enough for your mind that they can control their urges you have already lost interest in them? lol. No. That is not what I'm saying.
Would you want to stay with someone who doesn't seem to want you anymore?
Think about it for a minute.
It is very hurtful when your partner loses interest in having sex with you, for whatever reasons.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Koryn Locke wrote:
No. That is not what I'm saying.
Would you want to stay with someone who doesn't seem to want you anymore?
Think about it for a minute.
It is very hurtful when your partner loses interest in having sex with you, for whatever reasons. As hurtful as someone who lusts for you and doesn't want to be close through the heart and mind. Be it a pre-meditated refusal or simply incapable of emotional intimacy, it hurts just the same.
Model
E e v a
Posts: 1724
Nashville, Tennessee, US
Mad Hatter Imagery wrote:
Is there an inverse relationship between women that are faithful, and those that can and are willing to fulfill a guy's every fantasy? lol. It seems like the only women that any guys say are good in bed and frisky and creative are the ones that they fully expect have cheated on them. And those of women that are quite boring and under experienced sexually, and have no strong desire to be more sexual are the ones that are generally completely faithful. Are there too many women that are the best of both worlds, or are we talking total mutual exclusivity? Not true. I'm not vanilla in the sack, and i do whip out some kinky shit in bed with the husband. Never cheated on him. If he's willing to let me explore my creativity and please myself, why do I need to seek it from someone else?
Model
Damianne
Posts: 15978
Austin, Texas, US
Russian Katarina II wrote:
I actually thought of you and our discussion a few weeks ago, when I read that Rand quote. You could have written that. Kind of, but Rand completely ignores the possibility of virtue in having someone else's joy make you happy, and I don't.
She also puts the entire world, including in that quote, on a tier system where the crappier you treat others and the less compassionate you are, the further up you get to be and the more people you get to treat like shit.
I agree, sex and love is about finding someone that makes you happy and feels worthwhile to you, and when you see someone dating "beneath" them (maybe in maturity, maybe just someone they can't respect even if it's not legitimate to you), it's usually a raging self esteem problem.
However the rest of the shit Rand spews, I'm really not on board with.
It's like Libertarianism, it starts off totally reasonable and then divebombs into crazytown in the blink of an eye.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
It's interesting how individuals interpret passages with different meanings, yet that is what ideas are about.
Model
Cait Chan
Posts: 6272
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Mad Hatter Imagery wrote:
Because some people value sex far less. Which isn't a terrible thing in and of itself, but I can see there being at least a mild incentive to not work that hard in the bed room once you've already "got somone" in a relationship that one considers pretty well sealed in. Then ( no offense) you do not know what it means to maintain a healthy relationship.
How old are you? If I may ask
Photographer
Mad Hatter Imagery
Posts: 1669
Buffalo, New York, US
cy be rea n wrote:
isnt that what the 70% off store-wide sales are for? huh. lol.
Photographer
Mad Hatter Imagery
Posts: 1669
Buffalo, New York, US
Koryn Locke wrote:
No. That is not what I'm saying.
Would you want to stay with someone who doesn't seem to want you anymore?
Think about it for a minute.
It is very hurtful when your partner loses interest in having sex with you, for whatever reasons. I wouldn't take their lack of interest in sex in particular to mean she lost interest in me so long as she's not seeking it with other people. As far as physicial beauty is concerned I wouldn't say I'm a catch. If someone respects me for my mind and I can make them laugh that is usually good enough for me. If I can tickle her fancy as well that is simply a bonus. lol.
Photographer
Mad Hatter Imagery
Posts: 1669
Buffalo, New York, US
Cait Chan wrote:
Then ( no offense) you do not know what it means to maintain a healthy relationship.
How old are you? If I may ask I'm 32 years old. Which makes me nearly a decade older than you dear. lol.
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Mad Hatter Imagery wrote:
I wouldn't take their lack of interest in sex in particular to mean she lost interest in me so long as she's not seeking it with other people. As far as physicial beauty is concerned I wouldn't say I'm a catch. If someone respects me for my mind and I can make them laugh that is usually good enough for me. If I can tickle her fancy as well that is simply a bonus. lol. Even if you find someone who is sexually very appealing to you? Imagine walking around with a hard-on constantly, every time your girlfriend is around, but she seemingly has no interest in resolving... things. That wouldn't be too pleasant after awhile. Actually, it would become frustrating, disappointing, and negatively influence your self-esteem.
Model
Retiredmodel
Posts: 7884
Monmouth, Wales, United Kingdom
Damianne wrote:
I think you're using your own ideas about "right" and "wrong" as it applies to sexuality to decide that someone that does one will do anything inside of that group.
Being vanilla in the sack doesn't mean you're more likely to be faithful.
Being more open to exploration doesn't mean you're more likely to cheat.
I'm a little offended by the implications, like if I like a little light choking or don't mind exploring a partner's fantasies, I'm a liar and a cheater.
Ugh, or even that if someone has had limited partners they're going to be shit in bed.
Seriously, your entire OP is completely insulting. Well put.
I think the problem is often male insecurity generally when it comes to adventurous women. We rarely hear the criticism when applied to men.
I'd like to add that within the confines of a secure relationship one is more likely to loose one's inhibitions and explore on a deeper level. Otherwise it can be a lot of showmanship and not much substance. I think that goes for both sexes.
Photographer
Mad Hatter Imagery
Posts: 1669
Buffalo, New York, US
Koryn Locke wrote:
Even if you find someone who is sexually very appealing to you? Imagine walking around with a hard-on constantly, every time your girlfriend is around, but she seemingly has no interest in resolving... things. That wouldn't be too pleasant after awhile. Actually, it would become frustrating, disappointing, and negatively influence your self-esteem. So you're saying I should date only ugly women that never make me hard? lol.
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Mad Hatter Imagery wrote:
So you're saying I should date only ugly women that never make me hard? lol. No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
Every point I've tried to make has either just flown right over your head, or you're trying to read far more into it than what is there.
All I'm saying is, it's disappointing and hurtful when you want your partner physically, and they do not seem to share that level of physical excitement with you. That's all I'm saying.
Model
Damianne
Posts: 15978
Austin, Texas, US
Mad Hatter Imagery wrote:
I'm 32 years old. Which makes me nearly a decade older than you dear. lol. Makes your emotional development comparatively pathetic, dear. lol.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Koryn Locke wrote:
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
Every point I've tried to make has either just flown right over your head, or you're trying to read far more into it than what is there.
All I'm saying is, it's disappointing and hurtful when you want your partner physically, and they do not seem to share that level of physical excitement with you. That's all I'm saying. Add the same line with "emotional excitement with you".
Both hurt equally (and reason why people have emotional affairs).
P.S. you deserve so much better...
Everyone does.
That is why it is imperative to find the right person to satisfy you:)
Not easy.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
... and if I may add,
One's age has nothing to do with their emotional maturity.
I'm impressed when I see such great maturity with younger people.
It shows.
|
