Page 9 of 13
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 8:41 am
by Gwalchmai
Originally posted by Vivien:
<STRONG>Because if he's married, his thoughts regarding sex should have his wife somewhere in there.</STRONG>
No, his
actions regarding sex should involve only his wife.
<STRONG>I am not a sexual fantasy, I am a human being.</STRONG>
*cough* *splutter* Darn! I spilled my coffee!
<STRONG>Am I making sense at all? I'm being very honest here, it makes me uncomfortable when an older married man ogles. Looking is fine. Leering is not.</STRONG>
*whistles inocently*
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 8:44 am
by Saigo
Vivien, I
never betray my wife in thought or deed, yet women are well worth looking at.
Evolution (or the deity of your choice) has seen to that. We are supposed to look and to like what we see.
And why is it that women (in general) dress to accentuate their best features if they don't want us to notice them?
Still, once she has my attention, I am most interested in how she thinks.
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 8:44 am
by Weasel
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking is fine. Leering is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I was doing...looking
How do you define leering?
If I look for...5 seconds. Looking?
If I look for...10 seconds. Looking?
If I look for...30 seconds. Leering?
What if I look three times (at 10 seconds each time) Looking?
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 8:51 am
by Saigo
Originally posted by Vivien:
<STRONG>Georgi:
You're right you know. Women do not look at men as much. Why is that? Are women more attractive?</STRONG>
Yes, women
are more attractive than men.
As to why women don't look at men the same way, I believe it's because the attractors are different. Natural Selectionally speaking, women look for the best provider. Before women realized that they were more than equal, the prime concern was the well being of her children. You guys look at his clothes and his car for your signals!
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 8:53 am
by Vivien
Weasel: Well YOU'RE a special case. Some women don't mind small furry animals looking at them, others do.
But in general it's not length of time. It's how long his eyes rest on certain body parts, if an evil gleam comes into his eyes, or if he drools.
Gwalchmai: Rofl
Saigo: We're dressing for other women too you know
So, do you know why men look at women more than women look at men? Is it the extra bumps women have?
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 8:53 am
by Saigo
Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking is fine. Leering is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's what I was doing...looking
How do you define leering?
If I look for...5 seconds. Looking?
If I look for...10 seconds. Looking?
If I look for...30 seconds. Leering?
What if I look three times (at 10 seconds each time) Looking?</STRONG>
I think it has more to do with the volume of drool!
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 8:57 am
by dragon wench
You guys look at his clothes and his car for your signals!
I think that some women do this, but there are many that do not. What's is the point of being with a well-dressed guy in a nice car if he's a worthless human being? A flashy car and expensive clothing can also indicate a preoccupation with oneself, this is not (IMHO) an attractive quality.
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 8:58 am
by Weasel
Originally posted by Vivien:
<STRONG>
But in general it's not length of time. It's how long his eyes rest on certain body parts, if an evil gleam comes into his eyes, or if he drools.
</STRONG>
1.Length of time on certain area's... (Weasel's self test....failed
)
2.evil gleam....
(Weasel's self test....failed
)
3.drools....
(Weasel's self test....failed
)
Now I'm a Tyrant Leer-er
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 8:59 am
by Saigo
Originally posted by Vivien:
<STRONG>
Saigo: We're dressing for other women too you know
So, do you know why men look at women more than women look at men? Is it the extra bumps women have?</STRONG>
I read a theory about the "bumps," once. It went something like this: in the beginning (no I'm not going there) humans did it doggie-style. Therefore the sight of butt cleavage was arousing. The women who got the most attention were the ones whose breasts most resembled the globes of the gluteus (they were attractive coming and going).
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:01 am
by Gwalchmai
So...
If I'm looking for 30 seconds - looking?
If I am staring, wide-eyed and slack-jawed even after you have left - looking?
If I can't take my eyes off of that jelly stain on your blouse - looking?
If I stare for a full minute at a small tree branch stuck in you hair - looking?
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:02 am
by Saigo
Originally posted by dragon wench:
<STRONG>I think that some women do this, but there are many that do not. What's is the point of being with a well-dressed guy in a nice car if he's a worthless human being? A flashy car and expensive clothing can also indicate a preoccupation with oneself, this is not (IMHO) an attractive quality.</STRONG>
I agree, dw! Those are
examples of women's
attractors, but we know that it's what's inside that that will make us stay!
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:03 am
by Weasel
Originally posted by Saigo:
<STRONG>
I think it has more to do with the volume of drool!
</STRONG>
I'm working on this problem
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:05 am
by Saigo
Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>I'm working on this problem
</STRONG>
Work harder!
Um, wipe your chin...
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:07 am
by Gwalchmai
Originally posted by Saigo:
<STRONG>I read a theory about the "bumps," once. It went something like this: in the beginning (no I'm not going there) humans did it doggie-style. Therefore the sight of butt cleavage was arousing. The women who got the most attention were the ones whose breasts most resembled the globes of the gluteus (they were attractive coming and going).</STRONG>
Actually, those who study Human Evolution generally agree that there may have been
some sexual selection for the female, er... bumps. Just like bright tail feathers in some male birds... So, once again, the men can be blamed....
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:21 am
by Saigo
Gone to lunch -- back soon.
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 9:46 am
by Vivien
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
<STRONG>Actually, those who study Human Evolution generally agree that there may have been
some sexual selection for the female, er... bumps. Just like bright tail feathers in some male birds... So, once again, the men can be blamed....
</STRONG>
You men try to come up with all sorts of silly explanations for your attraction. It's making me laugh
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 10:03 am
by dragon wench
You men try to come up with all sorts of silly explanations for your attraction. It's making me laugh
So I take it then that us women don't need any excuses?
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 10:24 am
by Gwalchmai
Originally posted by Vivien:
<STRONG>
You men try to come up with all sorts of silly explanations for your attraction. It's making me laugh
</STRONG>
Actually, it was my
female biological anthropology professor who suggested I do a paper on sexual selection and the human female bumps. I ended up declining, and doing a paper on something else.
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 10:35 am
by Katie
Are you saying that people still dont do it doggy style? Why just last night I......
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2001 10:42 am
by Mr Sleep
Originally posted by Astafas:
<STRONG>you women </STRONG>
This lad has a lot to learn.....