What Do Women Want?

[Grallon]

Fan Fic is a cesspool of immorality.

...

Once I came across a peice of fanfiction with Tolkien's High Elves and fisting in it...   




G.

[Cecil]

Fan Fic is a cesspool of immorality.

...

Once I came across a peice of fanfiction with Tolkien's High Elves and fisting in it...   




G.

For some reason that made me laugh.

[DontSayBanana]

Once I came across a peice of fanfiction with Tolkien's High Elves and fisting in it...  

G.

For some reason that made me laugh.

Ditto. Somehow I immediately thought of Hugo Weaving as Elrond getting fisted and burst into fits of giggles.

[Drakken]

IHMO, It shows that women, in fact, do want to get laid and that their arousal stem from imagination and fantasies, and not physical images per se (like men). So, seeing bonobos screwing one another, they could fantasize about the act of mating itself and be aroused without focusing on who's fucking what, like we males do.

It's like infamous "watch porn" experience made years ago. Both men and women were made to watch porn movies while being both surveyed by interviewers afterwards, while their physical reactions, like heart rates and lubrification, were monitored.

The test demontrated that, despite having similar reactions of sexual stimulations, males were far, far, far more likely to admit their were aroused by watching porn that their women counterparts. In fact, many women stated that they were not aroused at all, while all the physical monitoring showed otherwise. So it is either that women are more capable of disconnecting their mental arousal from their physical reactions, or social stigmas make women far less likely to admit their arousal and pass up as a slut, while in fact they indeed get horny from watching porn.

[Malthus]

Fan Fic is a cesspool of immorality.

...

Once I came across a peice of fanfiction with Tolkien's High Elves and fisting in it...   




G.

The important thing is - did they get the Tolkeineque language and atmosphere just right?

[Berkut]

IHMO, It shows that women, in fact, do want to get laid and that their arousal stem from imagination and fantasies, and not physical images per se (like men). So, seeing bonobos screwing one another, they could fantasize about the act of mating itself and be aroused without focusing on who's fucking what, like we males do.

It's like infamous "watch porn" experience made years ago. Both men and women were made to watch porn movies while being both surveyed by interviewers afterwards, while their physical reactions, like heart rates and lubrification, were monitored.

The test demontrated that, despite having similar reactions of sexual stimulations, males were far, far, far more likely to admit their were aroused by watching porn that their women counterparts. In fact, many women stated that they were not aroused at all, while all the physical monitoring showed otherwise. So it is either that women are more capable of disconnecting their mental arousal from their physical reactions, or social stigmas make women far less likely to admit their arousal and pass up as a slut, while in fact they indeed get horny from watching porn.

The article made mention of this. While it may be that women are lying, when they looked at women who didn't seem to have any reason to lie (for example, they were comfortable talking about and admitting that they were sexually aroused under various circumstances) the effect was still seen - women would subjectively say they were not aroused, while the objective measures pointed to them being aroused.

One theory was that physical "arousal", ie lubrication, increased blood flow, etc., could be a purely subconscious response to any sexual stimulus as a physical defense against potenital injury associated with sex. In other words, women may get physically receptive even if they are not actually aroused or mentally receptive, since in fact it was possible that they may end up having sex (consensual or not) whether they were actually interested or not.

This would explain why women evidence objective physical arousal, even to images that are sexual but not particularly stimulating (the bonobos) in actuality.

Like I said earlier, it seems like the current research is really creating more questions than it answers. The idea that there is this disconnect between mental and physical arousal is pretty interesting.

[Caliga]

That makes sense.  Isn't it assumed that alot of sex among early Homo sapiens was in fact non-consensual?

[garbon]

One theory was that physical "arousal", ie lubrication, increased blood flow, etc., could be a purely subconscious response to any sexual stimulus as a physical defense against potenital injury associated with sex. In other words, women may get physically receptive even if they are not actually aroused or mentally receptive, since in fact it was possible that they may end up having sex (consensual or not) whether they were actually interested or not.

Yeah it seems a little more convoluted to suggest that women are ashamed or simply unware of when they are actually sexually aroused/interested.

[Ideologue]

That makes sense.  Isn't it assumed that alot of sex among early Homo sapiens was in fact non-consensual?

Early = pre 20th century.

[The Brain]

Women do get aroused by the sight of bonbons.

[Malthus]

That makes sense.  Isn't it assumed that alot of sex among early Homo sapiens was in fact non-consensual?

Or, apparently, with bonobos.

[jimmy olsen]

That makes sense.  Isn't it assumed that alot of sex among early Homo sapiens was in fact non-consensual?

Or, apparently, with bonobos.

To paraphrase Caliga, a cock is a cock.

[The Brain]

That makes sense.  Isn't it assumed that alot of sex among early Homo sapiens was in fact non-consensual?

Or, apparently, with bonobos.

To paraphrase Caliga, a cock is a cock.

[DGuller]

Could it be that women found the plastic probe inside their vaginas to be arousing in itself?

[swallow]

Women do not want Bonobos.  OK?