Search this blog

Thursday, 27 July 2017

First Year at ACM: Reflection

This is going to be one of those posts where I self-indulge and talk about myself. For some spectacular reason, my controversial posts are the ones that generate the most views. This probably won’t get looked at as much as something on feminism or black lives matter or gay people would (cursed identity politics). It’s not going to be heart-wrenchingly emotional like the post where I talk about a traumatic sexual experience.. But what the hell; every now and then we’ve got to reflect.

I didn't like school much. One of the scariest things for me has always been other people my age. The idea of mixing with young people in AA freaked me out. Other young people think I’m a weirdo, laugh at me, don’t understand me or simply don’t like me. But in AA, everyone is like me. Everyone’s had a shitty past, internally and externally on some levels. Everyone’s wanted to kill themselves or felt out of place or tried to change the way they feel. Everyone’s had a drink/drug addiction. And everyone’s felt unsettled around their peers.

Primary school taught me to be assertive and not get walked all over by others. Secondary school taught me to believe in myself and shoot for my dreams. Sixth form taught me the dangers of putting too much pressure on myself. York uni taught me to pursue what I really wanted. Now ACM has taught me to accept myself.

My degree course is Songwriting and Creative Artistry: 2 Years. It’s an accelerated degree; three years within two. ACM stands for ‘Academy of Contemporary Music’, and it’s in Guildford, Surrey. At the start of the year I was broken; I’d had a pretty miserable summer of breaking up with a bad boyfriend, getting fired from a boring job, spending two months trying to quit drinking which failed and resulted in an 8 jack and coke binge plus cigarettes, and felt empty. My fresher’s week at ACM was nothing like my fresher’s at York. I’d spent most of York getting drunk, and most of ACM trying to get sober. I asked the receptionist if there was any help from the uni for alcohol addiction and she said the words ‘there is an AA...’ That’s all I heard. I’d known about a year prior to that that I was probably going to have to go to AA. But it takes people a long time. Even though I knew within months of isolated drinking that I was heading for the rooms, it took me another year to get there. It takes some people ten, twenty or fifty years, and many never make it.

Getting sober (and clean) has been a big part of ACM for me. (Currently 5 months sober). It’s also made socialising very difficult. At York, most of my socialising revolved around alcohol. The only thing that made me truly happy that I did sober was looking for musicians to jam on my songs with and form a band. My flatmates were sad to see me leave, but heartily pleased that I was going to do what I really enjoyed.

First term of ACM was hard. I kept skipping lectures. I did/do get along with my housemates and managed to make a few friends here and there. But during my first term at I got in trouble with the police; smashed up a lot of bottles, was put on antidepressants, started the 12 step program, kept whining about the awful ex and sending him lame messages as well writing an awful post about him on Facebook (long deleted), and self-harmed a lot. I saw a wonderful counsellor at ACM; I’ve had a lot of counsellors and she was my favourite. 

Second term things got a bit better. I became close with a few more people, and I was making progress with the band. I began working with a new drummer - we jammed a lot together on my stuff which was fun - as well as a keyboard player. Not to mention I started channeling my anger into drumming instead; now I have a third (after guitar and voice) instrument and a great skill.

Then things went pear shaped; I started having recurring panic attacks. I had them a bit in the first term, but second term they got so frequent to the point of being more than once a day. I couldn’t go to lectures or AA meetings; heck I could barely leave my room. I also relapsed, and decided with my sponsor to stay off alcohol and weed, even though weed wasn’t my main problem. Those panic attacks were fucking up my plans to get gigs with my newly formed band. For a couple months they pretty much controlled my life.

Around May they calmed down; I had some CBT at uni, and worked on breathing exercises and resumed meditation (I say resume because before I drank I used to meditate a lot, then decided I had booze to ‘relax’ instead. Sometimes I tried to meditate whilst drunk or high, but mostly was just kidding myself). My antidepressant dosage was also upped, and my sponsor gave me a brown paper bag to carry around to breathe into.

Then I felt shit again; my keyboardist and drummer discovered they couldn’t commit to my band as they had other commitments, and I had also thought having a set band had been too stressful for me and it would be easier to work with backing instrumentalists rotating as they would. I did a photoshoot, made a facebook page, found a great new boyfriend, and I’m currently working with my good mate who’s a bassist and another dude who’s a sick drummer and in a couple of bands.

I guess I’ve been frustrated because I haven’t gigged this first uni year, but I've had to deal with a lot of shit. Panic attacks are a bitch, and recovery is not an easy thing to do. I definitely feel like my artistry has improved, and I’ve found my voice musically. Sassy, punky, funky, upbeat and full of attitude. I bought an electric guitar in the second term as recommended by my dad and several others. I feel like I’m where I’ve always wanted to be musically.

Working with others has been a big thing for me this year. I’m approaching the end of the third term now and I’m sure next year (i.e. September – academic years are weird) I’ll be gigging. If you’d like to check out my music please click on the tab on my blog marked ‘Music: EPK’ for some sample stuff. I have stuff on YouTube and Soundcloud. My brother recently produced and recorded a demo track for me. I've also had a lot of fun with my elective module Music Journalism, and made a tumblr blog to submit for my summative which I'll link here. 

Edit: Several months later (now writing this bit in March 2018) and I have a different backing band and have been gigging. My website is:
Panic attacks have improved a lot. I've actually found uni to be not all it's cracked up to be, but nevermind. Finish in a few months. I'm currently 6 months sober after a brief relapse back in September, and determined to keep it going. 


  1. I'm sorry to say this but I think it's important that I do, I don't think you should refer to that incident that you link to as "sexual assault". I do think it was brave that you talked about what happened and why it happened that way but I don't think it's proper to mislabel it, especially with a crime (since sexual assault is illegal and what happened between you two was not illegal). You consented to have sex with him and even if you didn't like his methods, he didn't assault you and when you couldn't take it anymore, he didn't fight/force you. You also consented to all of the subsequent times you guys tried, so he never once did anything against your consent. I know you felt pressured into those situations but that still doesn't make it sexual assault and I just don't want people to get the wrong message about what sexual assault really is, as it's a very serious thing.

    I'm sorry to hear about your panic attacks and I hope those days are behind you and music helps you heal. :)

    1. Thank you, music always helps. Yeah that's the thing, I'm not sure how to label it. Coercion is the best way I would describe it. Hence why the post is called 'how do you define sexual assault?' My counsellor told me the labelling is less important and what's important is how I felt at the time. I would say I'm past it now.

    2. I changed it to 'a bad sexual experience' as that probably makes more sense.

    3. Whenever I had hard times as a kid, I remember turning on my radio or CD walkman and using music as an escape. Music can be pretty powerful and healing.

      I think "bad sexual experience" is more accurate. I wasn't trying to be nit picky or anything, I just think it's important not to mislabel it with a crime as that's a much bigger problem than linguistics. I see too many young men having their lives thrown away over false or exaggerated accusations and I just think it's important we don't blur that line. Not only could innocent males face severe consequences but it doesn't do any justice to young females to make them believe they were victims when they were not.

      According to the facts as you wrote them in your blog post, it wasn't coercion (or sexual assault) as he never forced or threatened you. He never threatened to hurt you or restrained you against your will etc. Him saying he wouldn't be with you without sex isn't considered coercion, he was just being honest with you about what he needed you to provide. Young males at his age really need a release. Usually guys at that age will actually lie to women to try to get them to have sex or just cheat on them, so it was actually decent that he was open with you about it. Actually, if you don't mind letting me know, I'm not really sure what part of that whole thing you consider to be sexual assault or coercion?

      If you believe you are a victim in a situation and therefore could not have done anything differently, isn't that more dangerous than knowing that it was your choice, so that at least now you know to maybe not make that choice again? I always thought empowering women meant showing them where their power is, not by hiding it and letting them think they are victims if they are not. It's like suppressing Wonder Woman by making her believe she's just Diana Prince, a simple nurse, rather than the wondrous superhero. By not giving the whole truth, it becomes limiting rather than empowering.

  2. I'm sorry but I disagree with this. Telling your partner you'll break up with them if they don't sleep with you within a few weeks is manipulation. There are plenty of guys that will wait until their girlfriend is ready. My current boyfriend never pressured me into sex and we did it after about a month of dating. Pressuring someone into sex is coercion because it's manipulating them into doing something they're uncomfortable with.

    1. So do you disagree with the definition of coerce, assault &/or manipulation then, because manipulation has nothing to do with coercion or assault? Coercion and assault both require threats and/or force. Manipulation can be using someone else's disadvantages to your advantage or your own advantages against someone else, or it can be as simple as just influencing someone by being the more experienced person or less experienced, older, younger, richer, poorer etc. People don't go to jail for manipulation or we'd have to lock up every single person who has ever "manipulated" another at any point in their life - and what would be the parameters for manipulation? As admitted by the perpetrator or as perceived by the victim?

      Pressuring someone into sex is not the same as coercion because coercion is the use of force or threats. It's not a threat to say that "I can't be with you without sex", it's a reality - albeit uncomfortable and/or harsh one.

      Why do you think telling your partner that you need sex and can't be in a relationship without it, is manipulation instead of honesty? Most adult men can't be in a relationship without sex and shouldn't be, as it's very bad for their health and could likely lead to prostate cancer for them - among other health issues.

      Manipulation would be more like if he was with you and kept telling you that he wanted to marry you just so you'd have sex with him, even though he didn't really have intentions to marry you and was manipulating you into getting what he wanted from you.

      Yes, there are plenty of guys who are willing to wait, but what does that have to do with this? Other than the fact that if a girl wants to wait, she should choose the guys who are willing to wait over the ones who can't or don't want to?

    2. I don't really know how to answer this tbh. It sounds like you're saying that what happened to me was my fault because I didn't sleep with him when he wanted me to.

    3. I'm sorry that it sounds that way to you, but that's not what I'm trying to say. I am simply trying to say that we shouldn't call something that was not a *crime*, a "crime", as that is dangerous in itself.

      If you call it sexual assault/coercion then you're saying a **crime** happened and I was just trying to ask you how it's a crime, since what you explained in your post doesn't add up to a "crime".

      Also for you, if you claim it was a "crime" in your post, that guy could potentially sue you for slander because legally it was not a crime.

      I'm confused by what you said about something happening to you because you didn't sleep with him when he wanted you to? I thought the whole point of your post was that you did sleep with him, but mostly only because he wanted you to?

      If you say "manipulation" should be a *crime*, then every woman who wears make-up or a push-up bra or lies about their age etc. would have to go to jail for manipulating men into giving them attention, money, commitment, or having sex with them etc. Furthermore, any woman that withheld sex from her boyfriend/husband unless he met certain requirements or did what she wanted, would also be an act of manipulation and "sexual coercion" under your definition (not the dictionary or legal definitions).

      You are saying he manipulated you, but the only "evidence" you have presented for that so far, is that when he gave you a choice as to whether you wanted to give him the sex that he told you he needed to have or move on, you didn't choose to move on. Yet if he gave you the choice, then how is it manipulation or coercion?

      The thing is, if the situation were reversed and you told him that if he didn't stop pushing for sex with you, you wouldn't be with him anymore, would that be coercion or manipulation from you to modify his behavior into getting what you wanted from him - or would it just be you being honest about where you draw your line in relationships?

      This is the thing, young males going through sexual maturity (primarily about age 15-25) are experiencing a peak where they need sex more than at any other time in their life. In countries where we do not give these young males a "professional" option for a release, such as legalized prostitution, the young males are forced to bug the young females around them for a release instead. Well, most young females don't want to take on the role of "prostitute" for them, they want the role of "girlfriend" as they want to be more special than a 1-night stand. So then what do you get? A bunch of young males having to either manipulate young females into helping them get a release or they have to be painfully honest and tell the young females that they can't commit to them without the assurance of getting a release.

      This is why I keep asking you, how do you know he was manipulating you rather than just being honest? I do think it sucks that we live in a society where this kind of thing happens. If you do want to know where I personally think the blame really lies, it's here:
      1. No legalized prostitution.
      2. Not enough proper education to young females about the differences between them and young males - particularly where things related to sex are concerned.

      So I'm not trying to blame you or him, I just want to do what I figured you wanted to do - which was to use that personal anecdote to show other young females how a situation like that can happen, so they can try to prevent it themselves. (Not because it was a crime but because you seemed to have regretted the choices you made in that situation?)

    4. Thanks for clearing that up Stepford. No I don't think what happened was a crime or should be classed as one. I don't think manipulation should be a crime either, because of course if that happened then everyone would be in prison.

      Oh when I said 'I didn't sleep with him when he wanted me to' I meant that he wanted me to at x time and I didn't because I wasn't ready and then I did do it because he pressured me into it. I meant I didn't do it on his immediate terms.
      I think if roles were reversed it would be exactly the same, manipulation and coercion. I think if you're pushing someone into something they don't want to do that's manipulative and callous. (But no, it doesn't require legal attention). I did say to him many times that I was unhappy because I wanted to go out more but I never said 'if you don't take me out I'm gonna move on, and that's a shame cos I'd like to be in a relationship with you' which is exactly what he said regarding sex.

      Erm, as you can see it was a very unhealthy relationship XD

      I think regarding manipulation vs honesty it was a bit of both. Yes, he was being honest about needing sex, but he was also being manipulative because he kept trying to make me feel sorry for him due to his past and using his problems as an excuse to why he wouldn't go out. Like he'd drop the 'no one's ever understood me' or 'I'm just a poor boy I need no sympathy' cards. And I'd go there there, I'll suck your dick.

      We have to be clear though, what he did was not ok at all. I don't think you should pressure someone into sex or threaten to leave them otherwise. I wanted to sleep with him but I didn't like the way he treated me or made me feel. I think that if a guy genuinely cares for a girl and is a good person he will wait till she's ready, whether that's a few weeks or a month or three months. My current boyfriend has never pestered me about sex or tried to push me into it. Even the first time we did it it hurt a bit because it had been a while for me and he asked if he should stop. He didn't say 'stop wailing' or 'you're not making my job any easier.'

      I agree, I support legalised prostitution as well and don't think sex should be a punishable offence. (If you look at my 'age of consent' post there's a funny clip from the sopranos which touches on this.) And absolutely sex education does not prepare young people for sex. My experiences of sex ed was 'this is what an std looks like' and 'you have to take precautions else you'll get pregnant.'

      I think the best way to prevent something like that from happening is to see the warning signs clearly and realise that if you're boyfriend is treating you like that, you shouldn't stay with them.

    5. Our conversation here is a good example as to why open communication is so important. We don’t all think alike and we don’t all have the same experiences/information. So when we can’t openly discuss things with each other, it often hurts us and leads to tons of misinterpretations etc. So thank you for being open to the discussion, for questioning anything you don’t understand or agree with (from my side) and being willing to talk this out. I find that a lot of people online and a lot of younger people (under 30), aren’t always so open to hearing “the other side” of things if they perceive any kind of offense or inconvenience etc. So it’s always nice to encounter people who are above that kind of attitude/behavior. :) (So thank you.)

      I just get worried about the “sexual assault” and “rape” labels in general because as we talked about before, too many Feminists manipulate these things to make men always the “perpetrator” (in need of “punishment”) and women always the “victim” (never told what they could’ve done differently to help avoid things – regardless of “blame”). The best example is when a young couple is drinking and have sex, but the young female regrets it and we blame the young male for “rape” or “date rape” or any other form of “sexual assault” because she had more alcohol in her system at the time than he did - yet BOTH of them had alcohol. Also, we *never* prosecute a young female for “raping” a young male if he had more alcohol in his system at the time than she did but we will with the reverse. These kinds of sexist proclivities push the belief and attitude in society that women are lesser/weaker/etc. than men, much in the same way that society acknowledges kids as being lesser/weaker/etc. than adults and therefore not responsible for their own actions in situations etc.

      Again, there is an important distinction between manipulation and coercion. You have a chance to make the case that he “manipulated” you, but you have no semblance of a case to make that he “coerced” you as he never threatened you with physical violence or physically blocked your “exit” etc. Again, “coercion” is where it becomes a crime because it involves a physical threat whereas “manipulation” is not a crime.

      I think it’s important in relationships for both partners to know what each other’s needs and boundaries are, and I don’t see how that immediately correlates with manipulation and certainly not coercion to be upfront about those things from the get-go. Furthermore, you are comparing your want vs. his need. He didn’t just want sex, he needed sex as a young male who is still developing. You didn’t *need* him to go out more with you, you just really wanted it (or you needed it for a successful relationship but you didn’t need it for health reasons like him). So I don’t think it’s a fair comparison to make between your want to go out more and his need to have a release. (Again, this goes back to the education to young females and males about their inherent differences etc.)

      How do you know that it was manipulation and not honesty about him not wanting to go out more?

      Going back to the inherent differences between males and females: most young females “pressure” young males into taking them on dates etc. or they usually withhold sex from them, because they know how effective it is since young males need sex in a way that most young females do not. Do you think that’s wrong and women shouldn’t do that?

    6. I can’t say that I agree that what he did was “not ok at all”. As I said before, it was much more decent of him to be honest about what he needed rather than to cheat on you with some girl who had no qualms about “giving him what he needed”. My point being, to say “not ok at all” seems a little extreme to me compared to what he chose to do. Did you want him to have kept it to himself and silently took the pain that young males feel from having to hold it for long? Do you realize that when young males have this on their brain all of the time and are tempted by being around a young female they want to do it with but can’t, that it can have a huge negative impact on them as they are in a “fragile” state at this time? It can even make it harder for them to concentrate. So I think you’re greatly underestimating what you were asking him to do by waiting. And please don’t take that as I think you shouldn’t have waited as long as you wanted to – I think every person should wait until they are certain they are ready; My point is that the timing and “sexual maturity” isn’t always compatible between any/all young males and females.

      This is also part of why “sluts” get a reputation and get referred to as such, as young males like to know which young women are “easy” and don’t require commitment. It’s usually young women who are more against “slut-shaming” because they often feel “uneasy” when they know there is a “slut” around who would be willing to give that guy you like a release without asking him for the same commitment that you’re asking for from him. “Slut-shaming” is more of a woman-on-woman thing for competitive reasons; not really a man-on-woman thing. When men want a release, they look for “sluts”; when they want a committed relationship, they steer clear of “sluts”. (Thought I’d explain that since the subject came up before and it was relevant to the whole sex dynamic we’re talking about.)

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but is your current boyfriend also older than the guy you had that incident with?

      Most Western women are against legalized prostitution, you and I are not in the majority on this issue. I think our sex education etc. is a big part of that and my sex ed classes were pretty much the same thing including “this is how a baby comes out” which I opted out of watching.

      I agree with you that the best way to prevent something like that from happening is to see the warning signs early. If a guy is pressuring you to have sex in a way that makes you uncomfortable and you have already told him you’re not ready, you should definitely walk away. (Or tell him to stop bothering you or you will walk away. I don’t see that as manipulation, I see it as drawing your line and making your boundaries clear while giving him a chance to choose.)

    7. Yeah my current boyfriend is older than me; I'm 20 and he'll be 24 in September, whereas the guy I was with last year was the same age as me. And yeah he was pretty emotionally immature which probably had a lot to do with his past and upbringing.

      Of course pressuring a guy to take you out and withholding sex from him on purpose isn't right. I think both parties need to put in effort and listen to each other. I'm still getting used to relationships - I don't know how long me and the guy I'm with will be together but even if we break up tomorrow it'll be the best relationship I've had so far.

      I guess it's about perspective. Some people I've spoken to regarding the incident were very sympathetic and said what he did was horrible and not fair or loving at all. I don't think it was just about him 'needing' sex, I think overall he just wasn't a very nice person. All guys need sex (and girls!) but don't all push for it in that way. Also with all due respect you weren't there, you've read what happened but you weren't actually in the situation.

      However, I do get what you mean about sex being a clinical need for young men, and I think the way he approached it was horrible, but he was being truthful. And probably he wasn't trying to be fundamentally cruel, just honest about his needs.

      Yes I like our conversations too Stepford, it teaches me a lot and I like that we can be intellectually mature without slagging each other off.

      Very true that women are more likely to call each other sluts. However, I'd like to point out this 'dilemma' which will also be discussed in future posts - if a woman had sex once a month for a year with a different guy she's a slut, but if another woman has sex every week for a year with the same guy it's ok. She's having more sex but it's with the same guy, yet society doesn't look down on her. I find that pretty weird. (N.B: don't think either of them should be looked down upon, it's their business. I know we've talked about this before).

    8. That makes sense about the ages. I don’t know if you know this but relationships and marriages between men and women who are about the same age don’t have as high of a success rate as when the man is at least 2 years older up to about 20 years older, and a lot of that has to do with the difference in maturity “stages” for men and women.

      The thing is, it’s a natural part of evolution for men to present evidence of capability to provide (dating in modern terms) and for women to present evidence of capability to reproduce (this is two-fold: (1) the more attracted a man is to a woman he has sex with, the more likely he is to impregnate her when they have sex & (2) women who are merely “in shape” - as in not anorexic or overweight, have a better chance of successful pregnancy and birthing than those who are anorexic or overweight). So having a date before having sex is a natural thing to do; it’s the opposite of rape outside of “one-night stands”. Furthermore, a woman expecting a guy to go on a few dates before sex is also a natural thing because she’s going to want to be comfortable enough with him to let him inside of her body; She wants him to earn that right and men respect that. They don’t see it (in itself) as “pressure” or “manipulation” etc. The “pressure” or “manipulation” comes when a woman is doing it to exploit him, rather than actually getting to know him etc. So, like anything in life, it’s a balance.

      That being said, you are right that both parties need to put in effort and listen to each other. Congratulations on your current relationship by the way, I’m happy to hear about how happy you are in it. :)

      Of course different people have different opinions; A Feminist would've said it was all his fault and an MRA would've said it was all your fault. I try to be as objective, accurate and balanced in my opinions as possible. Also, I’m not saying other people lied to you or anything, so please don’t take it that way, but I do want to say that I am far more blunt than most people – especially in the Western world. Part of my Asian genetics come out in my straight-forward linguistics. I find that I am far more willing to “confront” people about things than most others. My closest friends (and husband), are so (close to me), because they are the few people I know who are similar in their dispositions about honesty vs. feelings and emotions etc. (among other things). If I were to ask them “does this make me look fat?”, I want them to tell me the truth; I don’t ask them just to reinforce some delusion etc.

      I think what he did as far as telling you that he “needed sex” wasn’t horrible; I had a somewhat similar situation just after high school. I was dating a guy a little older who was already sexually active and I was still a virgin. So I told him that I was so he wouldn’t expect it so soon and he told me that he wanted/needed it so he expected it at some point. Well, we dated for a while (a couple months I think) and he started getting pushy about it. I realized that I didn’t want to and wasn’t going to be ready to when he needed me to, so I ended up breaking up with him. I never thought his “pushing” me was wrong, objectively or personally, I appreciated his honesty. He could’ve just cheated on me and not bugged me about it but he didn’t do that so I wanted to do the right thing in return by breaking up with him instead of forcing him to wait for something that probably wasn’t ever going to happen.

    9. That being said, I think the way you described your friend’s behavior while trying to have sex wasn’t horrible, but definitely immature and inconsiderate. That was definitely not in a loving way as he was more worried about successfully having sex than successfully making you comfortable with it. This is the thing: The way he acted while having sex with you showed that he cared more about the sex he needed than your feelings about it – which was wrong for a positive relationship. However, the way he was honest with you and gave you the choice; rather than just cheating on you or breaking up with you, might not have been the best thing a guy could do but certainly wasn’t the worst either. That choice (over the others) was kind of average or a little above. Most young guys under the age of 25 aren’t very suave, mature, considerate or sometimes even honest. Sort of like how young girls under the age of 25 aren’t very down-to-earth, mature, considerate or sometimes even honest; They tend to use more hyperboles and gossip and be more self-centered. The same is true of guys under 25, they tend to be more sexually-obsessed, immature, irresponsible or sometimes even reckless.

      As far as him not being a very nice person overall, I wouldn’t be able to tell you just from those few events you wrote about. Big-picture he seemed considerate of you but when it came to the details, he seemed to be more self-centered. You also said there were more complicated factors involved in your post like mental illness and traumatic background so I don’t know how much that played a role etc.

      I’m sorry but girls do not need sex the way guys do, scientifically. Even “slutty” women still don’t fully understand the way guys need sex and while there are more “slutty” women now than 50 years ago, they’re still in the small minority. Most guys need sex in a way that most girls will never truly understand. The vast majority of females will never experience an *involuntary* sexual response the way the vast majority of males do at some point in their lives.

      With all due respect, what does it matter if I wasn’t in your exact situation? What makes you mention that, in reference to our conversation?

      How is that a dilemma? The problem was never about the sex, it was always about the amount of partners. The more sexual partners a woman has, the more likely she is to catch an STD (and potentially give it), get pregnant out of wedlock and commit paternity fraud, as well as get cervical cancer. These things have a negative impact on society. A woman who has sex every day with her husband only has a positive impact on society as her husband is very happy and healthy and therefore more likely to work harder and be nicer. Where’s the “dilemma”? Why is that weird?

      (Personally, it’s a case-by-case basis for me. If a “slut” gets STDs and doesn’t tell any of her partners about it, passing it about society - or specifically targeting married men because she gets a "thrill" out of stealing another woman's man, then yes I will judge her for that. If a “slut” is being safe, is only having sex with single men and isn’t getting pregnant then I have no reason to judge her.)

    10. It's true about age and for friendships as well; my best friend is six years older than me and me and her have the best relationship I've ever had with a girl. I generally feel more comfortable with people older than me than people exactly my age, which naturally is due to maturity (esp as I've always been very mature for my age, particularly intellectually - never did me much favours in school, sigh).

      I know you're being objective and we're discussing this rationally which I like but I meant that it affected me really badly, like the situation really upset me and I'm more or less over it now but at the time when I wrote the post I was emotionally in a lot of pain. I'm sure you acknowledged that, I just want that to be clear. It's also a case of the guy not having bad intentions, but behaving selfishly without being aware of it. And yes emotionally he was quite immature. There are other factors that I can see now played a role in what happened but I'd rather not discuss them for the sake of discretion.

      I still think it isn't right for guys to push girls into sex. There's a difference between hinting and pressuring. I think you did the right thing by breaking up with him. Sexual compatibility is so important in a relationship (something I've only just realised) and clearly at that time because you weren't ready you were not sexually compatible.

      Yeah it's true that sex is more physical for males in terms of 'involuntary responses.' But there is also research that shows female sex drives are not that much lower than male sex drives. I think the reason why women have always been seen to not want sex as much as men is to repress female sexuality and because society has always looked down on very sexually free women. That's just my view. I'm not a promiscuous woman (though that could change when I get older) due to me being a very emotional and somewhat guarded person. However, I love sex as much as the next person and I don't dress 'conservatively' cos I like showing my body off, esp when it's hot.

      What about men who have a lot of sexual partners? There's that double standard. Why is a sexually promiscuous woman judged more than a sexually promiscuous man? Also if you're practicing safe sex there's no reason you'll catch an STD, and people can still get STDs even if they have few sexual partners. I don't think you need to be married to have kids and if you get pregnant from sleeping around then that's your own fault but I don't see that as society's business. Besides, you can have an abortion and should really be on birth control if you're sexually active and don't want kids.

      Yeah I agree a person who is practicing safe sex (male or female) and isn't stealing other people's partners is not hurting anyone. It's the classic liberal 'do what you like as long as you don't harm anyone' scenario. Sex and the city changed my view on this a lot (have you seen that show?) because the women are all successful career women and sexually free and have great personalities, and in the end they all settle down with great men. I think it's a very empowering show about womanhood.
      This one talks about how women and men view sex differently.
      This is all stuff I've heard and I agree with most of it.

    11. Also I am curious to ask; did you take your husband's name or keep your own? What is your view on women changing their surnames? Personally I would either leave mine as is or make it double-barrel, and the only reason I'd make it double-barrel is because I would want the children to take their dad's name, unless he had a really obscure surname.

      My uncle has the surname 'Pretty' and he wanted the kids to take my auntie's name (they're not together anymore) so they didn't get picked on or feel the stigma of having an embarrassing surname. I think the name-changing thing is outdated and this is where I agree with feminism; it is patriarchal and just makes a wife seem like a man's property rather than a person of her own. But for the sake of children it's easier for them to take one name, though I suppose it would be nice for them to take both. My mum made hers double-barrel out of respect to her late father.

      Also cos it's been such a long-going tradition I feel like most guys would prefer their woman to take their name or make it double-barrel and pass it on to their kids - or maybe they wouldn't really care either way. Only exception I'd say would be if I were a single parent (which hopefully won't happen); then obvi it makes sense to give the kid my name.

      God, all this name-changing stuff is darn complicated...

    12. The age difference I am talking about is about romantic success though, not friendly success. Age is less of a factor in friendships than in romantic relationships. (It has to do with *intimately* growing old/maturing together.)

      Yes, I know you had a lot of emotions about the situation but I don’t personally believe that it’s helpful in any way to let people become victimized by their emotions. It’s sort of like when you have a kid and they get hurt. If you baby them and say “oh you poor thing!” and create an atmosphere that “rewards victims” then you give those people incentive to be emotionally weaker when it comes to tackling the tough stuff in life. They’ll always need a “feel better parade”. By contrast, if you tell the kid “get over it” and show no sympathy, you create an atmosphere that gives those people incentive to be very cold, stoic and emotionless. They may even end up exploding from bottling it in for so long. This is yet another example of why *balance* is one of the most important concepts in life to me (if not the most important).

      Since I have an outside and more objective perspective, I can see that you are hurt but I can also see the bigger picture that it seems worse in the moment (as well as right after) than it actually is, and I try to respond in a more balanced, “let me see that. You’re going to be ok but this is how you avoid this in the future and this is what you need to do to learn/heal from this situation” kind of response (rather than “you poor thing” or “get over it”). And perhaps looking back through our conversation, you will see that I had a pretty good handle of what happened big-picture (and some details) from the get-go, and was trying to discuss it with you while also respecting your emotions on the subject. For example, you started off more from a position that this guy did this to you personally because he had bad intentions towards you and proactively tried to coerce you; yet as we’ve talked this out and discussed things in a way that I’m sure most people never did with you, you are seeing things a little more objectively that he was more “behaving selfishly without being aware of it. And yes emotionally he was quite immature.” as well as the other factors that you mentioned. And again, none of this is meant to disrespect your feelings, I am only trying to give you my 3rd person perspective because I believe in the golden rule. When I talk to my husband about something that happened to me, part of the reason is venting but another part of the reason is getting that outside perspective and getting the “insight” that I might miss from being “too close to the situation” etc.

      I guess I would say it’s equally right/wrong for a guy to push a girl into sex as a girl to push a guy for a commitment (boyfriend/girlfriend title, proposal, marriage, kid, etc.).

      The thing about sexual compatibility, is that it’s not that tough to find and usually matches up when all other compatibilities match up. Rarely is it ever something that breaks up a couple but the most common way that it does is when the women just don’t like having sex which is unbearable for the men as they need sex (and women physically don’t like men do).

      There is no research that shows that female sex drives are equal or higher than male sex drives. The idea that women are less sexual because of society is a Feminist manipulation. Yes, women’s attitudes about sex are more tied to society’s views but no, that doesn’t prove that women are anywhere near as close to men when it comes to sex drives; In fact, it proves the opposite, showing just how biologically inherent it is for men, as their attitudes aren’t at all affected by society’s views – only their actions are affected by the law (i.e. men frequent prostitutes more if it’s legal as there is less chance for consequence). Just look at the statistics for today:

      "Men are more than 543% more likely to look at porn than women" (

    13. "Men also seem to be more attentive than women to all kinds of physiological signals, not just sexual ones, says Janssen." (

      "Men had higher ratings compared to women for all of the [erotic] videos, but had their highest ratings for male-chosen films. Women reported lower levels of sexual arousal across all of the films than did men" (

      "Study after study shows that men's sex drives are not only stronger than women's, but much more straightforward... Men think more about sex... Men seek sex more avidly...
      *Women are more influenced by the attitudes of their peer group in their decisions about sex*... Women were more likely than men to show inconsistency between their expressed values about sexual activities such as premarital sex and their actual behavior... (i.e. Say they want sex as much as men do but not actually wanting to have sex as much as men do)
      Among men who are part of a couple, 75% say they always have an orgasm, as opposed to 26% of the women... (So they’re also clearly enjoying sex more, again going to their inherent nature of needing it.)
      the women's male partners said they believed their female partners had orgasms 45% of the time (was it because the females were lying/faking since they don't enjoy sex as much as their male partners do?)

      "After months of reading and compiling results, the answer was clear. There is a substantial difference, and men have a much stronger sex drive than women. To be sure, there are some women who have frequent, intense desires for sex, and there are some men who don't, but on average the men want it more. Every marker we could think of pointed to the same conclusion. Men think about sex more often than women do. Men have more sexual fantasies, and these encompass more different acts and more different partners."

      "Drawing from a series of international sex surveys, she argues: “Male sexual desire is manifested at least twice as often as female desire, and men would like to have sex twice as often as women."

    14. It’s been many decades since the Sexual Revolution, our TV and media portray sexually loose women as a positive thing without any consequences (i.e. Sex and the City) and women choose to “flaunt what they’ve got” and make money for it on a daily basis. All of that being said, the facts remain: Men buy more porn than women, they pay for prostitutes more than women and they go to strip clubs more than women. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that men are more sexual in their desires than women, objectively not subjectively: follow the money.

      Also, all people usually get less promiscuous as they get older as their sex drives go down with age.

      You can say double standard or more objectively, you can say gender differences/preferences. What about all of the women who don’t need to have a job in order to get a date with a man compared to all of the men who need to have a job in order to get a date with a woman? What about all of the men who can’t get dates because they’re too short; whereas it’s very rare for women not to get dates because they’re too short?

      Why is it more of a preference for women to have men who are sexually experienced rather than virgins? Women just tend to prefer men who “know what they’re doing”. Most women don’t care about marrying a man who’s never been with another woman. In fact, most women will actually rate a man based on the women he’s been with previously and will look down on him if he hasn’t been with a woman before. They see it as “why wasn’t he good enough to get a woman by now?”.

      Why is it more of a preference for men to have women who are virgins rather than sexually experienced? Men just tend to prefer women who “haven’t been soiled by another man”. Most men just appreciate being the only man that a woman has ever been with. This is why most men will actually rate a woman based on the amount of men she’s been with previously and will look down on her if she gave such a “privilege” to a ton of men – especially random strangers. They see it as “why wasn’t she good enough to make men wait/work for it?”. The fact of the matter is, when women LEAD with sex, it’s usually a sign that they have nothing else to offer – another reason why it’s such a turn off to men. It goes to the inherent difference of sex drives in men and women because men see it for what it (often) is: “She knows I need sex and is trying to use that to get/keep me”. There is also the concern of paternity fraud. If a woman sleeps with multiple men in the same week, how will she know which one is the father?

      As far as not needing to be married to have kids, all studies show that the kid is far more likely to be successful, happy and healthy when the parents are married. Furthermore, if you’re not willing to legally commit to each other then why would you create a life to be committed to for the next 18 years legally? That’s so reckless and irresponsible.

      I’m sorry to say but “Sex and the city” is one of the most unrealistic shows ever put on Television. It damaged a lot of women who watched it and believed it. It’s a total Feminist-propaganda show. It was very fantasy-based, not fact-based. I don’t see that show as empowering at all, I see it as very harmful to women for telling them such lies – but that is the power of the Television and you should know that there are many Feminists in power who work in the media. In fact, one guy wrote a book about how the news has to check their stories with Feminists to make sure they don’t say anything that offends them. Feminism is a very powerful lobbyist group in America – not by their numbers of “followers” (which is extremely low) but by the positions of power that they hold (which are very powerful – especially in the TV world). (

      I’m not going to go into the details but the 10 sex myths article you linked is almost completely false and you’ll notice they link no research to prove their claims.

    15. I kept my husband’s name because I believe in marriage and family and everything that comes with it. Feminists once pushed women to keep their own last names or hyphenate their names and a lot of women listened – and then a lot of those women ended up divorced as a result. Marriage is about give and take as well as uniting as one. The reason why women take their husband’s name is because women are the ones who give birth. The origins go back to paternity fraud/ownership. The child gets the father’s name (credit) and the woman gets her husband’s name for unity/consistency. Studies show that when a woman getting married doesn’t take her husband’s name, they are more likely to end up divorced. It shows that from the get-go the woman isn’t willing to make any sacrifices; despite the fact that most people acknowledge marriage itself as a “sacrifice” or “burden” on men since they take all financial responsibility for the woman. Even in modern marriages where the women aren’t housewives and work, they still usually get alimony and child support from the men if they divorce – as well as primary custody of the children so for men, getting married is a big sacrifice especially today considering no-fault divorce laws etc. Many men are targeted if they make a lot of money and women marry them and have a kid with them just so they can get his money and divorce him and never have to work again. It’s really sad, and sometimes those men don’t get to have relationships with their children as a result.

      Most guys do prefer their wives to take their last name as a sign of loyalty, respect and unity. Most men don’t really appreciate the hyphenated last names. And men especially prefer their kids to have their last name. I don’t think it’s complicated. Why shouldn’t fathers get the last name? Must women have everything, all of the time at the expense of men, just because they don’t like the gender differences between men and women? Men are constantly asked to submit to women and their values on a daily basis while at the same time, women are calling to get rid of their own reciprocated submissions to men. This is part of the attack that men are facing all of the time: They keep being asked to give more while women keep asking to take more.

    16. Men orgasm more not because they enjoy sex more, but because the female orgasm is more complicated and women are more likely to orgasm from clitoral stimulation rather than penetration. This is why lesbians often orgasm way more than straight women.

      Men do have higher sex drives than women but I don't think women's sex drives are as low as we've been conditioned to believe. Like one of those studies mentions 'influence by attitudes from peer groups' showing that it's more to do with how women are socialised to think about sex. Like not trying to be funny or anything but I watch porn, I masturbate usually daily, I enjoy sex, and from speaking to other girls I think because girls are conditioned to feel more guilt around sex or to 'wait' or whatever it leads to sexual repression. This is more anecdotal I guess cos that's how I felt growing up and it was actually really sad and made me feel pissed off, so this is why I feel pretty strongly about it. I want women to see sex as not just something done to please men but also something they can gain pleasure from too, and if that means having a lot of sex with multiple partners then good for you; if it means waiting to have lots of good sex with one man you care for then good for you.

      But of course men have stronger drives and it's also to do with the male organ; the male organ is on the outside whereas the female organ is on the inside and for a man it's putting it 'in' something whereas for a woman it's having a 'foreign object' enter you. Then there's oxytocin that women have more of which makes them more attached to a guy they sleep with whereas it's easier for a man to just sleep with a woman and feel no emotional connection whatsoever.

      So I don't think it's about men liking sex more than women, just about sex being different for both genders so I agree with you in that sense.

      As for name-changing I disagree but that's fair enough. I hope to get married someday (if not there's always cats) and probably will hyphenate as a compromise and because it's easier for the kids to take one name. I would hope the kind of guy I would marry wouldn't care so much and would appreciate hyphenating when I could have just kept it my own. My dad is conservative in some aspects but clearly didn't object to my mum hyphenating though of course I explained why she did it.

    17. Also I'm glad you've been very objective on what happened and it's true that that is better which brings us back to the 'tough love' thing in your name. Where necessary it's good to have tough love rather than 'there there.' I would say my parents raised me in an authoritive way rather than authoritarian/libertarian; they were firm but fair and high in affection but also high in discipline. I would hope to raise my kids like that.

      I think regarding the other stuff you mentioned I responded to that more on my 'slut shaming' post.

      P.S Sex and the city is one of my favourite shows and Samantha Jones is one of my fav characters XD but none taken; of course it's unrealistic that's what TV is about lol

    18. The female orgasm is more complicated and women are more likely to orgasm from clitoral stimulation rather than penetration because they don’t like sex as much as men. Gay men have more orgasms and sex than lesbian women AND straight couples. Gay men have much more sex than lesbian women and more casually because when you remove women from the equation, there is no “gate keeper”.

      Maybe in the past you could say that women's sex drives weren’t as low as we'd been conditioned to believe but in modern times, with all of the manipulations and myths pushed by Feminists, we are hitting a point where women’s sex drives are *lower* than we’re being conditioned to believe – primarily where people are told that “women’s sex drives are the same or even just close to men’s”.

      Exactly. For women, it’s more about their environment and peers because it’s not an inherent need for them like it is for men. For men, it’s a biological/chemical NEED that most women just cannot understand and often underrate. Men don’t need to check with other men to see how they feel about sex themselves because it’s an inherent thing for them. Since women aren’t at all nearly as sexual though, they are more easily influenced by outside factors such as what other people think who aren’t even involved.

      Perhaps most of the girls you know grew up in very religious upbringings, because those are usually the only women who end up “sexually repressed”, statistically, because their parents and authority figures (priests and nuns etc) show sex to be a “sin” and very evil thing that they almost shouldn’t *ever* think about. The vast majority of women (especially in the Western world) will never experience sexual repression though. In fact, most women in the Western world feel sexually pressured and like society is too sexually-obsessed and sexually-casual, using sex to sell anything and everything.

      “But of course men have stronger drives and it's also to do with the male organ; the male organ is on the outside whereas the female organ is on the inside and for a man it's putting it 'in' something whereas for a woman it's having a 'foreign object' enter you.” Exactly. Evolution. Men evolved as the pursuers and women evolved as the gate keepers; Hence, men feel the need to go out and pursue sex in a way that the vast majority of women don’t; Whereas women feel the need to protect themselves sexually and be more discerning in a way that the vast majority of men don’t. Natural, biological sex differences affect our perspective of sex. That’s why sex is more emotional for a woman than a man. The vast majority of women NEED an emotional connection in order to have/enjoy sex whereas the vast majority of men need a sexual attraction in order to have/enjoy sex.

      So the fact of the matter is that men liking sex more than women, is just another part of sex being different for both genders and sex differences in general.

      As for name-changing, you should know that I just told you how most men feel about it. Most men would never see it as “you could have just kept your own name” as he could have just not ever married you and married any other woman who does love him enough to take his name. It’s also very symbolic, why would you want to keep your father’s name over your husband’s name, when now your husband is supposed to be the main man in your life, not your father anymore?

    19. Also as I said to you before, Feminism already tried this concept and it failed miserably – not only romantically but in the workplace as well. Even female bosses hired women employees with hyphenated names LESS than women without hyphenated names because of what it says psychologically, behaviorally and statistically. Women with hyphenated names tend to be more aggressive and combative and less cooperative, not working well with others. They are more likely to have workplace drama and more likely to sue (whether for workplace violations or sexual harassment etc.). They tend to be more extremist in their outlooks – such as claiming innocent jokes are sexist etc. - and the hyphenated name psychologically shows that they aren’t really fully committed to their choices. In addition, women with hyphenated names also tend to make less money. So even with other women/outside of romance, the hyphenated name fails, which is why Feminists don’t bring it up and push it anymore.

      Furthermore, you should know that the kind of guy who wouldn’t care about a hyphenated name (let alone “appreciate” it) tends to be very submissive, less masculine and grew up with a domineering mom and/or no father in the home or they are gay men who don’t care because the wife is just a “beard” (cover) anyways. These types of guys are usually not the types of guys that most women want but I don’t know your preferences in men; So just giving you a heads up. [Again not saying all men here, just most men, as we’re not talking in absolutes but clear majorities.] Also, do you really know if your dad ever objected at all or how he really feels about it? Have you ever asked him about it alone, away from your mother? Would he tell you even if he did object it, as it might not come off so positive? (I’m not pretending to know the answers to these questions, just raising the questions as something to think about.)

      It sounds like you had great parents and I’m very happy for you. :) It’s not good to be too loose or strict with your child(ren) and balance is most important in one’s childhood while they are still developing etc.

      P.S. I just got worried because even though it’s very unrealistic, you did say that the show changed your view “because the women are all successful career women and sexually free and have great personalities, and in the end they all settle down with great men.” So I just don’t want you to falsely believe the nonsense of that show and actually let it change your views because it’s based on a fantasy and not reality. You had said before about Disney movies bothering you because of setting unrealistic expectations for women but then consistently you should really hate sex and the city for setting even more unrealistic expectations for women. In real life, Samantha Jones would’ve gotten an STD at some point and/or likely have gotten cervical cancer.

      You also called the show “empowering” but I don’t think lying to women and manipulating them into believing completely unrealistic fantasies is “empowering” at all; I actually think it’s kind of cruel.

    20. Whoa, women don't like sex as much as men? What gave you that idea lol? Just because women don't crave sex in the same way men do doesn't mean they don't enjoy it as much as men.
      Women are more likely to orgasm from clitoral stimulation because babies come out of the vagina, and if it had too many sexually stimulated nerve endings it would be too sensitive for children to come through. Hence we've evolved to have the female sex organ (or female penis) above the vagina instead so it doesn't get in the way during childbirth. Can't remember where I read that but I promise I didn't make it up!

      I'm not a fan of generalisation, maybe my sex drive is 'higher' than most women my age (only around 3% of women in my age range are said to masturbate more than 4 times a week; of course you never know with studies because they can only really be applied to the people who took part in the study) but I dunno. This is why I try to say it's better to look at things on a person to person basis and people should just do what they're cool with, rather than say 'women are like this' and 'men are like that.'

      Again, I don't think that's because women 'aren't as sexual.' Women by nature are more conversational and more likely to talk about stuff with their girlfriends. Men will discuss sex in more simplistic terms with their friends, whereas women will discuss sex from all angles - emotional, psychological, physical etc.

      This was more a comment from me on other girls feeling guilt around sex. I never had any really religious friends growing up and even if they were religious it wasn't 'enforced.' I spoke to a GP about this topic about a year ago and she said it's definitely there subconsciously, like female sexuality is this big confusing thing rather than just being able to be let be. An example of this is 'the length of the skirt.' If it's too long you're a prude, if it's too short you're a slut, if it's medium you're a tease. I always saw girls judging each other on how they dressed in secondary school and it used to get on my nerves and I'd think 'why do they give a shit?'

      I think society just doesn't have a balanced attitude about sex. It's hyper-sexualised but then sex is still this 'hush hush taboo.' I feel like there's no balance. (This is just my opinion). Everyone's either having too much sex, too little, not enough; anything can be classed as 'assault', when people do actually commit assault victims are too scared to speak up, girls feel pressured to have sex, but then when they want to they feel bad like they're doing something wrong...
      again, all heresay, just based on observation. I just want to live in a world where everyone feels comfortable with their sexuality and society doesn't under or over-compensate. Maybe also this is just my way of internalising certain things and trying to piece together where my sexual insecurities in the past have come from. I think a lot of it is to do with fear of intimacy (this is partly why some people become addicted to porn and masturbating. Not saying that's happened to me, but it can happen and be very isolating).

    21. Again, it's not about men 'liking' sex more than women, it's about different attitudes surrounding sex. P.S you can have an emotional connection but of course you need to be sexually attracted to to sleep with someone.

      I did ask my dad about my mum making her name double-barrel. He said when you get married you're so much in love that it doesn't matter. (He's certainly not a beta male either). He said it's up to the individual and some married women who use their name as part of their branding (Zadie Smith, Frieda Kahlo, Mariah Carey, Beyonce Knowles, Angelina Jolie etc) kept their name. If I become established in the field of writing and music in some way then I would probably find it easier to keep my name the way it is, or make it double barrel for the sake of children.

      Also asked my brother's opinion (he's 18) and he said he's in favour of women making their names double barrel as it's keeping part of your identity. Also said he doesn't think guys really care about it, but this is just one person's opinion.
      I don't see it as keeping your father's name; it's your name, by law. You don't 'belong' to your father or husband. A name is how people identify you as, and if you've been identified as that name all your life, why should you change it if you would prefer not to? I think it's just a thing of wanting to keep your identity rather than not wanting to be wholesome in your marriage.
      I thought what you said about name changing affecting women in such an extreme way to be pretty ridiculous. But I get that you're looking at the psychological part of it seeming like the woman is being 'stubborn' and it as a more symbolic thing of her not wanting to make compromises. Fair enough, but I don't really think people divorce over something as small as a name. Again, just one person's example; when my sister got married a few years ago she took her husband's name and now they're separated and probably going to divorce. Probably there are additional factors.

      Of course I'm aware that SATC is unrealistic just like Disney films are unrealistic. But that doesn't mean I don't find elements of them empowering as that's what fantasy does. In real life Carrie wouldn't be able to afford her lifestyle just from writing a weekly column unless she was a very well-known columnist. Few people have sex with several people every week, male or female, and have such a colourful dating life. It's meant to be fantastical. But I still think it's a pro-women show in that it talks a lot about female insecurities and worries and sexuality and career and motherhood. It doesn't belittle men and it highlights the importance of friendship. So to me that is empowering.

    22. Also I remember on another post we were talking about 'sluts' and you were saying that a women sleeping around a lot is a potential harm to society (agreed if she is sleeping with married men and not using protection, though I see that as more her problem) but a woman who has sex with her husband everyday is making her husband happy. I noticed you didn't mention her happiness? Sex is not something women do just to please men, it's something two people of whichever gender do together to please each other. Women aren't here to be men's personal sex toys. Well, we are in a way (lol) but not if you see what I mean. Like, sex is a two person (or five person) thing. Some guys can be selfish and not go down on their girlfriend or not care about her finishing, and just use it as a way for them to 'bust a nut' (that's what the ex my post is about did, or at least that's how it felt to me). It's important we realise sex isn't just this thing women do for men, it's also something the woman should enjoy. Plus guys generally want their partner to enjoy it too, that's why they make such a big deal about getting a woman to come.

    23. I’m not sure what you found to be funny about my comment but it’s pretty general knowledge that women don’t like sex as much as men. What ever gave you the idea that it was any other way? If women don’t crave sex as much as men then how can they like it more? That’s like saying just because you love ice cream in the moment you eat it, means you love ice cream just as much as the people who seek out ice cream every day. That’s such an invalid argument. Yes, we all love food in the moment that we are hungry and satiating that hunger, but we don’t all love food equally and we certainly don’t all seek it out at the same rate. The people who really love food, tend to eat food a lot more than most other people unless they are proactively dieting and trying to abstain. You can’t honestly and seriously say that just because a kid loves the adrenaline while **on the roller coaster** that it means they love adrenaline as much as the adults who go out and seek sky diving and bunjee jumping on a regular basis etc.

      Furthermore, you do realize that women don’t masturbate as much as men, they don’t watch as much porn as men and they don’t go to as many strippers OR prostitutes as men, right? Also, did you know that women feel sexual attraction less than - and less often than - men do? As well as less women are comfortable with a 1 night stand of sex than men? And if women liked sex as much as men, then why do women need a commitment to engage in sex more than men – when that holds up sex and makes it occur less often and less soon?

      And as far as your clitoral argument: that still doesn’t explain why gay males have the most sex and lesbian women have the least sex – with straight couples being in the middle - if women liked sex as much as or even close to as much as men do. (It also doesn’t explain why men seek sexual stimulation more than women do when they are in the privacy of their own homes.)

      All of that being said, I will grant you that Black women are the only women who come close to desiring and seeking out sex as much as men do in general. Studies show that Black women do like sex more than all of their other female peers and they also talk the most openly and forwardly about sex than women of other races.

      If you’re not “a fan of generalization” then can you please explain your inconsistency? You never mentioned any problem with generalization in all of the posts and comments where you made generalizations yourself, especially regarding gender etc. I’m just trying to understand why you don’t mind generalizing that “women like sex as much as men”, that “girls fall out with each other over petty things” and are “cruel to each other”, that “sluts don’t like/deserve to be ‘slut-shamed’”, that “Disney movies give negative/unrealistic expectations of love/romance”, that “there are too many positive songs about love (since you didn’t count negative/break-up songs as being about love)”, that the occupation of singer/dancer is “about having people look at you/looking attractive”, that “men don’t care about the sexual history of their partners” that “sex education does not prepare people (properly) for sex” and that guys “want their partner to enjoy it too” yet suddenly the “generalization” (or statistical fact/mathematical pattern proving) that “(most) men like sex more than (most) women” is somehow presenting a problem for you – enough to suddenly change your opinion/stance on generalizations, in general? It’s just weird to me that you make so many generalizations, and agree to so many, yet suddenly say you are “not a fan” of them anymore. I’m not trying to upset you or anything, I’m just really confused about your complete 180 change in opinion/perspective regarding generalizations?

    24. [Also, didn’t we have an entire conversation where you agreed that people make judgments (which are very similar to and/or often based on generalizations) every day, as that is a part of life, and it’s silly when people say “nobody should judge” because of this very fact that we do have to make judgments every day? (I could be wrong here but I could’ve sworn I remembered us talking about that in one of our past discussions.)]

      Your sex drive most likely IS higher than most women, based on what you’ve described etc.

      Generalizations are not at all exclusive to looking at people or things on a case-by-case basis. There’s always an exception to the rule and there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging the rule and leaving “room” for the exception. Also, what does generalizations or case-by-case basis have **anything** to do with someone not doing what they’re cool with or anything like that? I don’t see how you’ve related the 2 things?

      I can’t imagine it really bothers you to say 'women are like this' and 'men are like that.' since you do that a lot in your posts. I’d also like to make the distinction that I almost never say that “all women/men are like this/that”. I just tell you what statistically MOST or MANY (majority) women/men are like in a specific area. Maybe you don’t agree but I believe knowledge is empowering – including inconvenient truths. If we ignored all “generalizations” that we didn’t like or agree with, then we’d have a lot more problems and a lot less understanding. Obviously bigotry is not empowering and it’s counter-productive to never acknowledge “exceptions” to the “rules”, but it’s even more damaging to never acknowledge the “rules” and only focus on “exceptions”. (In fact, that’s how a lot of women end up single etc. and this concept was brilliantly executed in the film “He’s Just Not That Into You” - showing how too many women were so obsessed with the “exception” over the “rule”, that it did more damage to their love lives than help.)

      Now you’re talking about something differently though. We were talking about sexual repression, not guilt, which are 2 completely separate things. Women feel sexually repressed usually when raised in religious households that have very prudent views of sex. Women feel guilt about sex usually when they have sex for the wrong reasons (peer pressure from others, trying to manipulate the guy into a relationship, trying to make a friend jealous, rebelling against parents, rebounding from a break-up, etc.).

      I don’t know what a “GP” is. The reason why girls “give a shit” about what other girls dress like is because of the standard/bar it sets for all of the other women around. When one woman is dressing in a sexually provocative manner, it makes the other women feel they have to “match those standards” or they won’t get the same amount of male attention which then makes them fear they will not find a mate in time to have children etc.

      Another reason is tied to insecurity with a prime example being "body shaming". When women see what other women "have", they tend to compare themselves physically and it makes them very depressed and upset etc.

    25. Perhaps the 'hush hush taboo.' stuff around sex is more of an English thing. In America, only male sexuality is really a “hush hush taboo”. As far as the imbalance of sex though, that definitely occurs in America, and a large part of the problem is as I said to you before: Lack of proper sex education. When we don’t teach women about men’s sexuality (and the way they see women etc.) it only hurts women. On the flip side, we’ve been forcing men to understand and accommodate women’s sexuality for decades, if not centuries. This is why even though women are notoriously and undoubtedly more complicated than men, in general, men tend to understand women better than women understand men *especially nowadays.* For example: If more females knew about the “whore/non-whore” dichotomy in men, a lot less females would feel so pressured to be sexual before they’re ready. They’d feel more confident about waiting because they’d know they have a lot less to lose than they think by waiting.

      I still can’t understand what makes you think “it's not about men liking sex more than women” other than that you still just don’t understand how different men and women truly are when it comes to sex. It seems to me like you keep thinking that men are more similar to women than they actually are. They’re not “just women with penises instead of vaginas”; the differences go WAY beyond that.

      Most men DON’T need or desire an emotional connection just to have sex with someone yet most women DO need or desire an emotional connection just to have sex with someone – yes, **because men like sex more than women and don’t need other factors to make sex desirable enough to engage in.** Their different attitudes surrounding sex are directly connected to their liking of sex and biological/chemical wiring in regards to sex.

      P.S. Most women DON’T need to be sexually attracted to sleep with someone, they become sexually attracted to someone based on their feelings about the person; whereas men DO need to be sexually attracted to sleep with someone, regardless of their feelings about them. This is why it’s far more common to see a man “dating/sleeping with” a woman who is “beautiful” but very stupid, rather than seeing a woman “dating/sleeping with” a man who is “handsome” but very stupid; And also why it’s far more common to see a woman “dating/sleeping with” a man who is unattractive but makes good money, rather than seeing a man “dating/sleeping with” a woman who is unattractive but makes good money.

      It’s simple gender preferences. Men and women do not seek the same things in each other; They have different wants and needs (because they *are* different).

      Consider your father an “exception” to the rule when it comes to the hyphenated names then – your mom was lucky. Most men find it very emasculating and disrespectful. And in case I didn’t mention it before, you should also be warned that women with hyphenated names are more likely to be cheated on by their husbands than women who took their husband’s name. (Not saying your dad cheats/cheated on your mom, just giving you the statistics.) And by the way, yes, it’s true that some women don’t change their name for careerist reasons but there are also some women who put their marriage before/above their careers and change their name anyways because their relationship is more important than fame/money/etc. (Also, sometimes the careerist women don’t change their names because they’re under contract and not allowed to change their name without great cost.)

    26. I would advise you to never take seriously any guy’s opinion about marriage if he’s under 25 - 30 years old. Your brother is so far from legitimately understanding marriage and long-term relationships that his point on the subject doesn’t hold much weight. It’s like asking a 9 year old girl what she thinks about being a mother. It doesn’t mean she’ll automatically be wrong but chances are 99% that she doesn’t actually fully comprehend the subject you’re asking her about. Your father is going to be a much more reliable source on what MEN think, than your brother who still hasn’t transitioned into being a man yet. Young guys and men do not think the same way or see things in similar perspectives, primarily where sex and romance are concerned. It’s not surprising at all that your 18 yr old brother doesn’t think guys care about that stuff because most guys his age really don’t care about anything related to marriage. Furthermore, as I said before: if a man grew up with a hyphenated name/mother’s name, then of course he is going to normalize it more than men who didn’t.

      What does your father’s name have anything to do with **your** identity? You’re not changing your 1st name which is the name that uniquely identifies YOU, you’re potentially changing the name that your father gave you, that was his father’s name etc. So that name really has nothing to do with *your* identity but your father’s identity as your paternal parent. It’s kind of amazing to me that you would fight so hard to hold onto your father’s name to identify with, but not want to identify with your husband’s name even though you chose your husband and you didn’t get to choose your dad.

      By law, you DO 'belong' to your father (and mother) until you become a legal adult yourself.

      You’re right though, it’s definitely a self-centered action of wanting to be “independent” rather than wanting to fully unite and commit to your husband and marriage.

      Factually and statistically, the name change does affect women in extreme ways in both the workplace and romantic relationships. That has nothing to do with my personal opinion. Female Feminists and careerists see the hyphenated names and acknowledge the statistics associated with it – which include being less likely to compromise and more combative etc. - and they hire women with hyphenated names less. That's why Feminism doesn't push it anymore, because even careerist Feminists reject it and hold it against women.

      People have definitely divorced at least partly over the name change but it’s not as “small” as you’re thinking of it. You keep looking at the detail rather than the concept. Detail-wise it doesn’t seem like much, but conceptually it speaks to a much larger issue of commitment and loyalty and give-and-take, etc.

      Are you saying that your sister separated from her husband because she took his name? I don't understand the connection you're trying to make here? Most people who take hyphenated names end up divorced; most people who don't take hyphenated names don't end up divorced. I never said these were "absolute truths" though.

      We’ll have to agree to disagree about Sex and The City because I will never think it’s empowering to lie to women. Disney films don’t lie to women, they don’t pretend to be “real”; they are animated cartoons telling fairy tale stories that have been around for hundreds of years. Sex and the City is meant to change people’s minds and manipulate them into thinking unrealistic things rather than being honest and empowering them to deal with realistic situations etc. I just don’t believe in or agree with, lying to women for financial gain.

      Why would I mention her happiness though? I didn’t mention the woman’s happiness because you never asked about happiness and our discussion had nothing to do with feelings. Also, it seemed implied that the slut is happy to service multiple men whereas the wife is happy to service her husband.

    27. Well yeah, I’ve tried to tell you this many times, but young guys are just looking to 'bust a nut'. When females have sex with a guy who is under the age of 25 – 30, they usually are doing the pleasuring and not getting any/much pleasure themselves – especially if the guy sees them as a “whore”. Married women and women in committed relationships are much more likely to be "pleasured" during sex than "whores" or "sluts". (Especially "whores" who are paid to pleasure him, and not expected to be pleasured themselves.)

    28. Apologies for these inconsistencies. After a while during a discussion I tend to trip up on myself and perhaps it is coming across as hypocritical. Of course we all generalise; that in itself is a generalisation. In terms of sexual activity women in theory do enjoy it as much as men, but you're analogy about ice-cream/rollercoasters makes sense. A person can enjoy a rollercoaster but it doesn't mean they want it all the time in the same way someone who constantly wants to go on a rollercoaster does. And yes you are right about the judgments too.

      I think because I'm talking more from opinion/emotion here rather than fact. I don't think women should have to feel 'embarrassed' or 'guilty' for wanting sex or masturbating and feel like they have to repress their sex drives if they want multiple partners.

      GP: General Practitioner. They don't have it in the US. It's a doctor that is part of the NHS.

      That is interesting that you said black women crave sex almost as much as men. I will look more into that.

      I don't see the surname as your 'father's name', because as you grow up it becomes your name. I mean with that in mind then technically no one's last name is 'their' name as it was always given to them by someone else.

      What's wrong with wanting to be independent though? Marriage isn't about changing a name. Maybe I just don't see the name changing thing as a big deal I can't imagine how it would have such a massive impact. I would think making it double barrel would be a compromise between keeping a part of yourself (or your family, if you like) and also accepting your new family.

      I wasn't saying my sister separated from her husband because she took her name, I was just saying that she did take his name but they still separated anyway. But yeah of course it doesn't mean every woman who keeps her own name is going to separate and every woman who changes her name is going to stay together. From a traditional perspective you could say that the man gets the woman a ring; in exchange she takes his name. But I don't see how it really matters.
      This article gives two sides of it:

      I would say it's just down to the individual though. Like I said my mum hyphenated hers because her dad died when she was my age so she wanted to pay homage to him. Hopefully the kind of guy I marry would be someone who wouldn't be so bothered about it. I still think double barrel is a fair compromise.

      I don't see sex as a 'service to your husband', it's something two people do because they want each other whereas that be emotionally, physically or both.

      If a young guy is in a relationship and cares about his girlfriend then it isn't just about busting a nut. If it is just casual sex or a one night stand then of course he's not going to care because he only cares about the sex, but if he cares about the woman he'll want to please her needs as well as his own.

    29. Also (this is me being anecdotal) but I think I've always had a high sex drive I just felt embarrassed about it in my teens and wanted to wait for the right guy because emotionally I didn't feel ready. My sexuality is something I've only recently become comfortable with. I think having sex with a partner feels a lot better than with a stranger, which is something most people male and female would agree on anyway because you get the emotional and physical. I don't know where the 'guilt' or 'embarrassment' came from but that's basically why I'm trying to advocate against things like slut-shaming or a woman just openly talking about how much she enjoys sex. I think women are socialised to feel like we can't talk about it as much and of course men think about it more but that doesn't mean women don't think about it either. I think too much emphasis is placed on 'waiting' and 'saving it'; of course you should do it when you're ready but some women just don't care as much about it or see it as much of a big deal or they're ready earlier. At the end of the day sex is not equivalent to self-worth or value, it's just about choice and comfortability and preference. Some people prefer to wait till their married or in love or in a significant relationship, others aren't so bothered about it. And then some men just use their girlfriends for their bodies (as you said) which makes women feel further ashamed and miss out on the joys of sex.

    30. Moreover, in terms of generalisation, we make generalisations because it's impossible to ask every single person who falls into said category how they feel. Not every girl is going to like pink, not every boy likes blue, but the reason businesses make toys using these colours is because it fits the overall public demand. Generalisations and categorising is used to help us understand something. I know you know this and I am sort of going back on myself here, but just putting it down anyway.

    31. Actually going back to the rollercoaster analogy; a person can enjoy rollercoasters but just not want to go on them all the time, but it doesn't mean they like them any less, they just don't feel a need to do it all the time. So they enjoy the activity but don't need it as frequently as someone else might. (So women enjoy sex as much as men, but don't 'need' it in the same way due to the way we're wired).

    32. I just thought it was really weird that you said you weren’t a fan of generalizations because I would have never guessed that by the ton of generalizations that you’ve made yourself – both both before and after this “fan” statement. I really didn’t understand what point you were trying to make nor why you changed your position on that subject (and out of nowhere).

      Yes, while you and I are both a little more “masculine” than most women (who tend to be very feminine “girly-girls”), I am still even more “masculine” than you are. I RARELY talk in terms of opinion/emotion and usually speak about facts, statistics and patterns. I don’t believe that my personal feelings and opinions about things can help you more than the facts and statistics about things would – and I usually only really give my personal feelings and opinions when they are specifically asked for.

      Most women do not have high sex drives at all and most men would be very elated if their wives did have higher sex drives. It’s become a cliché that men are always asking for sex while women are always giving excuses to not have sex (i.e. headache, tired, etc.).

      I don’t have any idea why you’d feel like women “have to repress their sex drives” if they want multiple partners. That doesn’t really make any sense to me. If a woman wants to be a “slut” or “whore” and have many partners, why would she need to repress that? Do you mean because some societies still won’t legalize prostitution and let her do that “publicly”?

      I can’t say that black women crave sex “almost as much as men” depending on how close you might be thinking. But I can say that certainly, most black women crave sex more than most asian women, white women and native american women, etc.

      So just to get this straight: Even though the name specifically and directly comes from your father, you don’t see it as your father’s name? Technically, your last name is NOT your own individual name, that’s right, because it’s supposed to be your “family” name. Your first name is your “individual” name that belongs solely to you and your last name is your “family” name which belongs to your family.

      If you want to be independent though, then why are you getting married? Getting married IS about becoming a family, so why would you reject the family name? You say “marriage isn’t about changing a name” but most people agree that “marriage isn’t about claiming ‘independence’”. It just shows the wrong mindset for marriage. If you care that much about not uniting with your family and sticking on your own, then why even kid everyone by getting married? Perhaps you just don’t see the impact because you just don’t want to. Whether you personally agree or disagree with it, you should still be able to see the concept and logic behind it. (There are plenty of things a person can see and “understand” but not agree with or adhere to.) Perhaps you’re just looking at it too emotionally to see beyond the surface of it. It’s only a “compromise” to hyphenate the name if you are coming from the position of not wanting to change it to begin with. Most women who are truly in love with their partner and put them first, don’t see it as any “compromise” at all, because they can’t wait to take their husband’s name. (Also, why do you personally put that much stock into a mere name, that you would actually equate it with holding onto your own identity? Why do you think that your “identity” is derived from your last name? It’s extreme to see it as “losing yourself” just by changing your “family” name – even though you are changing families.)

      That’s not really a traditional perspective to say that just because a woman gets a ring, the man gets her name. That’s a very superficial and materialistic way to look at it. I already gave you the real traditional perspective, which is that the woman gives birth to the “family” so the man gets the “family” name.

    33. (You should also take note that most women’s magazines don’t have your best interests at heart whatsoever, and they get paid by making you believe that you have problems, that they can solve, by buying their magazine – and they usually never give you many real solutions etc. because then they would go out of business after they “solved your problems”. So women’s magazines are some of the most harmful reading material out there for women and are constantly lying to them or telling them half-truths.)

      Of course it’s up to the individual, but that doesn’t change the fact that most guys – especially “good” guys who treat women well and are successful in life – do not appreciate the hyphenated name. It was very lucky for your mom to find your dad, as he is very rare as far as hyphenated names go. Even with your mom losing her dad, most men would think that was a manipulative thing to go to, since all adults lose their mom and dad at some point. (NOT saying your mom was being manipulative, just letting you know how most men would take that.) So it was really nice that your dad let it go and accepted it and everything. And I’m not saying you can’t ask for that in a relationship as well. I just think that you deserve to know that MOST guys are not like your dad and will be bothered by it because of the psychological context to it etc. and will expect you to give them something extra in return for not taking their name. The “hyphenate” is not going to suffice as a “compromise” to most men – especially if they have options with other women who are more than willing to take his name without any problems. I just wouldn’t want to lie to you and say something like “oh yeah, don’t worry, you’ll find that no problem” because that’s not true and I don’t believe in lying to women just because it makes them feel better in the short-term; I’d rather tell them the truth so they’re not hurt (or disappointed or confused etc.) in the long-term.

      Well, no one ever claimed that sex has to be a “service to your husband” so I’m not really sure where this argument is even coming from. It’s weird to me that in the statement that “a wife is happy to serve her husband with sex” the same way “a slut is happy to serve multiple men with sex”, you picked out the wife analogy to equate with “sex” in general and completely ignored the slut analogy. It seems to me like you have some really big hang-up about marriage that sometimes clouds your “vision” when it comes to sex and romance etc. I’m still trying to figure out how we ever got here, since no one ever even said that “sex” was an act of “service” or making “men happy” to begin with. I think you took my trivial remark about “a woman who has sex with her husband everyday is making her husband happy” and ran off with it, too fast and too far. I was never saying that sex existed “for women to make men happy” or **anything** like that; I was very simply just stating that men who get sex from their wives everyday, are happy to get sex that often from their wives. I still don’t really know how we got from that to the things that you are saying regarding this now. It’s all very confusing to me and it seems like it roots from your personal feelings about marriage, as that’s what you chose to isolate, and also where it seemed to go off-course.

    34. You are mostly correct except that you seem to be making a false black and white dichotomy that if a young guy is not having casual sex or a 1 night stand outside of a relationship, then he must be in a relationship and must care about her and her pleasure/comfortability in sex etc. Sometimes young guys only enter relationships so that they can “bust a nut”, not because they actually care about her and **want** to be tied down at this point in life. When women force a commitment to get sex, men will often follow suit – especially since there is no alternative option like legalized prostitution (going back to women wanting to keep that power/control/manipulation) over men. That was the main problem of it going too far in the 1950s before the Sexual Revolution, as most women would force a man to MARRY them – not just commit as bf/gf – just to have sex for the 1st time, which is also why so many of those people jumped on “no fault divorce” (as back then a lot of men were only getting married so that they could have sex). It’s also why so many people at that time got married so young, as men needed sex much earlier than women did and women have always been open to “romance” at early ages.

      Do you know what the joke is for men, about why they pay prostitutes? It’s not for the sex; It’s so she’ll LEAVE after he finishes. So, when you say “most males would agree on sex being better with a partner than stranger because you get the emotional and physical”, where are you getting this stuff from? I have to tell you, a lot of the views that you share – especially in regards to men and women – sound a lot like the Feminist rhetoric in the USA in the 1990s. So I have to ask you, have you seen a lot of American shows and films etc. from 1990 – 2005 (especially Lifetime movies)? I wouldn’t ask except that the vast majority of things that you say, also just so happen to be common beliefs in America in the 90s and early 00s, until they were debunked starting in 2005.

      So… you’re trying to advocate against things like slut-shaming because you think that women should be treated specially and never allowed to feel any ‘guilt’ or ‘embarrassment’ for their own choices? I’m sorry, but I don’t really understand… Are you saying that society shouldn’t have any standards of maturity or proper social etiquette; or just that they should change to accommodate women more; or something else?

      I think it’s crude for a woman OR man to “just openly talk about how much they enjoy sex” and I do believe that there are proper times and places for certain things. I don’t believe that just because you “can” or “want” to do something, means you “should” etc. I think that’s a very self-centered way of looking at things and doesn’t really show respect for other people. People in society used to acknowledge the differences between “personal/private” with “public” more, as well as adhering more to a collective “social etiquette”, but we’ve lost a lot of that with the younger “ME” generations. (For example, older generations think it’s socially uncouth to hang out with someone and spend the entire time looking down at your phone but younger generations don’t care as much – particularly because they’re always in violation of it.) Too many “kids” today think of “ladies and gentlemen” or overall “etiquette” as a negative thing, whereas it used to just be a mature, polite and sophisticated thing.

    35. It’s so weird that you point out that “women are socialized to feel like [they can’t talk about sex]” when in reality, it’s actually men who are the ones that are socialized to feel like they can’t talk about sex – even though they definitely think about it more than women. I’d love to know where it is you’re talking about, where you find that women are more censored about their opinions regarding sex than men. Most men are socialized not to talk about it because women don’t like to hear it and don’t want to have to hear it (at least in the USA and many other Western countries). Most men and women in general though, did not talk about it because it was considered uncultured/crude to discuss such intimate, private and personal things so publicly.

      Maybe you just see sex as too casual in general and you don’t appreciate the intimacy that sex can have. When people actually acknowledge and respect the intimate nature of sex, it has A LOT to do with self-worth and value, because you’re giving the most precious thing you have – your most intimate self – to another human being. So maybe for you personally it has nothing to do with self-worth and value but for the vast majority of people, it has a lot to do with that. Furthermore, when women regret the sexual encounters they chose (so rape etc. doesn’t count), they usually regret it because in retrospect, they say that they either gave an undeserving guy too much of them or that they were selling themselves short and not fully respecting themselves and what they had to offer etc. Also, the more you “respect” and “value” yourself, the more you tend to “protect” yourself. It’s a cliché example but also an accurate one: a woman sexually is a lot like a car; the more miles on a car (aka sex partners a woman has had), the less value it holds. This is also why men do respect women who have better discernment skills and don’t fall for “bad boys” etc.

      Also, for some odd reason, you keep ignoring the fact that MOST women don’t even like sex that much, or even at all. Many women lie about being more comfortable with sex than they actually are. It’s more common to find women who hate sex the opposite of men’s love for it, than it is to find women who love sex as much as men do. It’s notorious that men’s biggest worry about marriage, is that once a woman gets that commitment, she’ll stop giving sex and start making up excuses not to have it anymore.

      Yes, we make generalizations because we’re intellectual creatures who seek to better understand the world around us. That’s also why we have a far more sophisticated language than animals do. Generalizations and labels are quick and easy ways to assess the majority and/or what’s most likely etc. If we spent all of our time harping on “exceptions” over “generalizations”, then we’d be wasting a lot of time being more wrong than right.

      The reason why businesses and marketing companies use certain colors is because of the psychological impacts that those colors have. They wouldn’t use the colors if they didn’t work towards the end goal they are seeking. (And they spend thousands of dollars finding out which colors and symbols etc. will have the biggest impacts on you and get them what they want – your money.)

      Actually, if a person enjoys roller coasters but “doesn’t feel the need to do it all the time” then 9x out of 10, they DON’T love roller coasters as much as the person who “feels the need to do it all the time”. There’s a big difference between someone who likes or even loves something and someone who is obsessed with something. Some women might really like or even love sex, but most women are not obsessed with sex in the same way that men are. So they don’t really enjoy the activity as much and that’s why they don’t try to relive it as much as those who “can’t get enough of it”.

    36. (You may note that when some people REALLY LOVE something, they will often say "I'm obsessed with X".)

      You’re trying really hard to find something to stretch out into the argument that “women enjoy sex as much as men” (which should already tell you something) even though the vast majority of professional studies, as well as most real life examples, disprove that. (The most telling one being that: Gay men have more sex, more often and with more partners, than lesbian women.) Why are you so obsessed with trying to make it seem as though “women enjoy sex as much as men”, even though there’s absolutely NO data to prove that? Not only do most women not enjoy sex as much as most men, but most women don’t even like sex and don’t want to have sex. (Remember the cliché of wives making up excuses to get OUT of it?) So why do you keep trying to pretend that they do? What are you trying to gain by pushing this false theory? Do you think that if you say it enough, it’ll eventually come true or something? (I’m just really confused and trying to understand because you haven’t given any logical arguments or evidence to this theory, nor have you debunked the countless arguments and data that proves the opposite. So this seems like it’s really personal to you, since you’re so adamant about wanting to believe it, despite all evidence to the contrary?)

    37. You said the woman giving birth means the man takes the family name, but by that logic wouldn't it make more sense for the man to take the woman's name if she gave birth to the kids? Or is this about the man being the overall provider, hence why his name is taken?

      Yeah some guys do enter relationships to 'bust a nut', example; ex boyfriend pretty much just used me for sex (although he'll claim that's not true), and now ex-bf certainly did not and cared about me emotionally and sexually.

      Yeah I have seen a lot of American shows and films from that time period. I don't know if that affects my thinking - probably does, but maybe I'm just unaware of it.

      I think you're clearly just more conservative than me, which is fine. I'm not really into 'social ettiquette' or whatever because I generally don't care so much about what others think; the only thing stopping me from saying exactly what I think all the time is because other people make a fuss or look at me weirdly. For those reasons I try and avoid cursing in front of my mother (although it's really hard because I curse a lot), and only talk about sex or make dark/inappropriate jokes around friends who'll appreciate that sort of thing. 'Ladies' and 'gentlemen' to me is overrated; as long as you're not a general cunt who beats people up or insults people for no reason and tries to be nice to people then it's fine. I don't really know what those terms mean anymore; to me a 'gentleman' is simply a guy who treats me with some level of respect and kindness, which is what my ex did. Maybe to you I would come across as rude, although that is never my intention; I'm just very blunt and outlandish, but that is just how I am. But yes if I'm around say my family I'll talk differently to how I am around friends, and if I'm around male friends I'll talk differently to how I am with certain females etc. It's all about context and understanding how others will respond so I agree with that. In an ideal world I would just say whatever I want when I want but everything has consequences, and that is selfish thing to do in modern society.

      I view sex as physically pleasing and emotionally stimulating, and a great way to connect with someone you care for or just a fun act with someone you may not necessarily have emotional feelings towards. I don't view it as a measure of 'value.' I had really low self-esteem in my teens and probably didn't value myself at all, I thought I was a piece of shit, but I wasn't sexually promiscuous.

      I'm not trying to sound obsessive, I just thought it's sexist to say men like sex more than women or women don't like sex as much. If it's a fact that you have researched then fine, but at the end of the day it all comes down to the individual.

    38. I know that last statement is a cop-out but I don't know what else to say. I guess you can't argue with facts.

    39. Not that it “means” that, but that it’s part of the trade-off within the family unit. The mother gives birth to the child so the child takes the father’s name. Remember, marriage is about give and take, as well as partnership. So if the mother gives birth AND provides the name, then what does the father get to contribute to the “family unit” in that aspect? And as I said before, it also has to do with paternity assurance. We all know who the mother is because she carried and birthed the child, but without the father’s name, how would we know who the father is? The role of provider can be another aspect, especially since the name does usually go from father to husband but it’s not limited to that factor.

      I’m not surprised that you would be familiar with media from that time period; I am too, I grew up with it. I would just advise you to be careful with what you allow to influence you and how much. Even though we all know that the TV and movies etc. aren’t real, we still often take it’s content for granted. When we see certain values or situations being constantly repeated, we start to think they are more common in the real world, not just common in the TV/movie world and that kind of thinking helps blur the line between fantasy and reality. It’s a “slippery slope” as they say.

      Having manners, being polite and adhering to “social etiquette” has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. There are plenty of liberal people who have manners and plenty of conservatives who don’t, etc. Honestly, social etiquette has more to do with having maturity and not being so selfish/self-centered. If all you think and care about is yourself, then you’re less likely to adhere to social etiquette because you have no consideration for other people. I wasn’t raised with money or entitlement; I didn’t grow up always getting my way or bossing people around. I grew up with other people who were entitled though and those people disgusted me. (Just for clarification sake, I know I told you about my sisters before and how even though they grew up living paycheck-to-paycheck, they were still taught to be spoiled, selfish and entitled. These are the kinds of people that I find abhorrent.)

      I can certainly appreciate individuality over conformity but that’s completely different and separate from being polite and considerate. And yes, those things can go too far; Greatest example being the “politically correct” culture where people think they are entitled to never “feel bad” about anything, ever. I will say this to you though, if you reject “social etiquette” too much, you will limit yourself to other people who also aren’t considerate of others (including you) and most jobs certainly don’t appreciate people who can’t adhere to social etiquette (granted the world of arts is more lenient with that stuff, as they tend to have less boundaries etc. in general). One of the best lessons any person can learn – especially in their youth – is that there is a time and place for everything and not everything fits in any time and place. (i.e. Like you said, you don’t talk to your family the same way you do with your friends.) It’s not just about being considerate of other people and respecting them, but also having maturity: learning to pick your battles, when to speak out, when to go with the flow, etc. People who understand these things tend to go father in life, because they deal with situations more appropriately and therefore get better results overall.

    40. 'Ladies' and 'gentlemen' are “traditional” terms but they really represent maturity and respect above all else. (i.e. A gentleman keeps his word/doesn’t lie; A lady should always be treated with respect, etc.) That ex you had an encounter with is most likely not fitting of the term “gentleman” but your most recent ex would be. A gentleman wouldn’t treat you with just “some” level of respect and kindness but will often go out of his way to treat you with respect and kindness, even if you’re not showing the same in return because hey, he’s a gentleman. (Not to be confused with a doormat though.) Same with a “lady”. A “gentleman” and a “lady” will pretty much always treat you with respect and consideration, unless you do something really bad to not deserve it.

      I wouldn’t say that you come across as “rude” to me, that thought never occurred to me. I’m incredibly blunt and straightforward myself, though I’ve been working on being more considerate of other people in the last few years. I try to find a balance between being myself but being courteous of others. For example, when I talk to you, I don’t just say things as curtly as possible; I try to be honest but still respect your feelings/thoughts/opinions on the subject as much as possible as well. (This is also why I tend to get along better with males than females, as most females don’t like such candidness and often need things said to them in a very specific manner or they take it super personally and have a very big, uncalled for emotional reaction. Women tend to care more about HOW you say something rather than WHAT you’re saying and WHY; whereas men are more of the reverse, not really caring how you say it but caring more about what and why. For these reasons, I often find talking to women to be very draining because you have to walk on eggshells and protect their emotions when you speak or they just lash out on you. It’s a very tough job. haha)

      Sex is only one aspect of “value”, it’s not the only factor or way to measure it. Whether you are casual with it or picky about it, it is an intimate act. Just like commitment is of great value (in general) to women and they seek it out; Sex is of great value (in general) to men and they seek it out too. The equivalent of a woman having a lot of sexual partners to a man is more like a man having a lot of ex-wives to a woman.

    41. It’s a very extremist view to think of natural biological differences as “sexist” and it’s part of what hurts Feminists so much. It’s not “sexist” to say that men like sex more than women or women don’t like sex as much as men, any more than saying that women like fashion and shopping more than men or men like sports and cars more than women. Of course it doesn’t mean that all men like sports more than all women etc etc. That’s the problem with modern society, primarily where Feminism and such identity politics are concerned. Stating a fact – even if it’s a generalization – is not sexist or racist etc. Saying that Asians like rice more than other races isn’t racist, it’s a fact. Our society **claims** to care about diversity etc. yet when we acknowledge how certain people are different, many often cry “sexism” or “racism” and it usually comes down to their feelings – as they just don’t like it. As I’ve said many times before, of course there is plenty of room to acknowledge an exception to the rule (individual difference) but that doesn’t make acknowledging the rule/pattern/statistic anything negative or with negative intent. With this logic, you might as well say that it’s sexist to say that men are born with penises more often than women. It’s just crazy talk to think that way. It’s very narrow-minded and usually based more on feelings and emotions rather than evidence, logic and/or reason. Feel free to look that stuff up but I promise you, men do like sex more than women – in general – and it’s notorious that women only use sex to get what they want and once they get it, they often look for excuses not to have sex anymore. Again, of course not ALL women are this way, but more women are this way as opposed to not being this way. (It’s part of what scares men so much about marriage, as usually women give “frequent” sex until they get a ring and then once they get it, they start cutting him off from sex or only rarely giving it.)

    42. Thank you for all the clarification. Ah, that makes sense about the name, about contributing to the family. I would still personally prefer to go double-barrel simply because if I become successful in my field as an artist/writer/columnist whatever, then I would feel it's more practical to add the man's name to my own by law as opposed to change it completely. That said, I can understand people's reasons for changing completely, or not changing at all. And of course when I actually do get married my view on it may completely change.

      I think I'm just a little harsh on myself. I do generally try to be as polite and good-natured as possible. I think I was associating 'ladies' and 'gentlemen' with stereotypes. Simply put, as you said they're about how you treat people, not what social class you come from.

      It is true what you said about men and women and men in general seem to care less or are less bothered about hurt feelings. This is why in school girls will fall out with each other every other day over nonsense whereas guys will laugh it off or punch it out or simply not care.

      Speaking of generalisations, this is something (from my favourite show the sopranos) that made me laugh:
      basically Tony Soprano (the main character) had indian food the night before and was really sick and lying in bed. His daughter asked what was wrong and his mother said he had indian food and his daughter went 'that is so racist!' Actually it wasn't racist at all; indian food is very strong flavoured and spicy and can be tough on the stomach if you're not used to it. So I would agree that sometimes generalisations are factual, as long as they actually are based on fact as opposed for being said for the sake of it. Also, I would say even 'facts' are subjective as there's no way of knowing ANYTHING for sure unless you were to ask everyone's individual opinion on the planet. When scientists or psychologists or whatever conduct research they are limited to a certain population sample, and have to generalise it to the wider population, but it's impossible to apply that to every single person. Nevertheless, when writing about sociological issues it's easier to generalise (like writing about gender or race) simply because you go with what's most applicable to make sense of something.

    43. Also it's a bit simplistic to just say 'men like sex more than women' and makes more sense to say 'men and women view sex differently.' Yes, men have higher sex drives and higher levels of arousal, but women are also more likely to have stronger and multiple orgasms. I wouldn't say women orgasm more because they 'like' it more, it's just the way our bodies are and doesn't mean men don't enjoy orgasm. Men view sex more straightforwardly whereas women generally need the emotional connection and prefer it in the context to a romantic relationship rather than physical gratification. This doesn't mean they don't 'like it as much', just view it in a different way. It's like someone who plays drums and someone who plays guitar; they both like music, they just play different instruments that require different skills.

      Also men are less likely to want sex when they feel stressed or depressed or feel negative about themselves (but then I guess that goes for most people).
      'It's not that women don't like sex or men don't want to talk, it's that these respective desires differ in their intensity.'
      Moreover, our sex drives are tied to our physiology, and it's because of the way we're made that determine how we react to some things. Like an alcoholic is the way they are because of the way they're wired, not because they 'chose' to be like that. Testosterone is what wires men to be more aggressive and crave sex more, and women have less of that but we have estrogen which makes us more 'emotional.' So in that respect I would argue it's not to do with 'liking' but just because of how we're made.

    44. Also, to be subjective, I would LOVE to have sex everyday or at least three times a week if I was married (or even just in a committed relationship). Isn't regular sex a benefit of marriage? Lol.

    45. Ladies and gentlemen definitely has more to do with integrity, maturity and consideration than social class. It's just that those who tend to be higher on the scale of social class also tend to care about manners and stuff like that more; whereas those who tend to be lower on the scale of social class tend to not care about manners and stuff like that. An argument could be made that, that's part of their problem but that's a completely different discussion. (As I said to you before, those who are more considerate and polite do tend to be more successful in life.)

      I don't see what the Sopranos examples has anything to do with generalizations. That was a very specific example that the daughter just overreacted to. It doesn't have to do with generalizations? It wasn't saying all Indian food makes you sick or that most sickness is attributed to Indian food; It was just saying that he was sick this time specifically due to Indian food.

      Well actually facts aren't subjective, that's what makes them facts. Math is a basic rule of the universe and math accounts for rules/patterns and exceptions. As diverse as people are in some ways, when it comes to behavior and stuff like that, we're not so different. If you have all of the right factors accounted for, you could mathematically predict a person's behavior and reaction to things. "Generalizations" are basically following that pattern and acknowledging the answer that comes up the vast majority of the time. For example, I generalized that you were familiar with lots of American 90s media based on the patterns of your comments on things. I knew that *most likely* you were familiar with that stuff and if you weren't, it would've been a crazy coincidence because so much matched up. The problem with generalizations is that some people don't understand the nuance of most vs. all and they tend to go too far with generalizations and allow it to justify their bigoted opinions; rather than letting it be a flexible guide.

      Honestly, it seems like you're just over-complicating it because you personally don't like it and/or don't agree with it. Most men like sex a la carte whereas most women don't. So it's like saying that women like mashed potatoes as much as men even though they need gravy in order to eat the mashed potatoes, yet men love mashed potatoes so much, they don't need the gravy. (Gravy = emotional attachment; Mashed potatoes = sex.)

      Instead of trying to devalue yourself by insisting that it's somehow not true that most women don't like sex as much as men (even though all evidence goes against that); Why aren't you looking at the positive, that this information gives you - personally - more value to a man as you are a rarer find, since you clearly do like sex more than the average woman? That only increases your value to a man, so I'm confused as to why you're so adamant about lessening that. Do you realize how much men would LOVE to find a wife that actually wanted to have sex with them more than just once a week, let alone every day? They'd basically consider that hitting the jackpot. (Kind of like finding a virgin nowadays is also like winning the lottery to them. Rare finds have TONS of value.)


If you enjoy my posts check out my novel Every Last Psycho. Available to purchase on Amazon: