Dust Posted February 3, 2012 Posted February 3, 2012 Well it's not like I make it obvious, I always make sure they're not looking. I'm not even sure if I do stare fixedly at them. But I guess I will repeatedly look, just like how women supposedly do when they see a guy who they think is hot. Am I being creepy? I don't know. I've never felt like I am. I mean, to see a woman who has the type of body and/or face that I really like, it would just feel unnatural to suddenly look away and to try and blank the sexual thoughts/the fact that I think she looks hot out of my mind. Do most guys actually do this? Just be yourself. Don't overthink all this stuff. Get out there and slap some asses with your mind... then your hand... then your dick!
Author Ross MwcFan Posted February 3, 2012 Author Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) Just be yourself. Don't overthink all this stuff. Get out there and slap some asses with your mind... then your hand... then your dick! I'm just wondering what other people's views are/how other guys are. I'm still gonna continue being myself, it's not like I'm trying to think of how I should be. Edited February 3, 2012 by Ross MwcFan
ThaWholigan Posted February 3, 2012 Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) He's set the tone with the thread title. "Do you women not want to be seen as sex objects?" He then goes on to describe how, when he's with a woman he finds attractive, he thinks about her naked breasts, having sex with her etc. I imagine how this would look in practice, and the vision I get is of a woman chatting about where she's going on holiday, while Ross stares fixedly at her breasts going "Uhuh. Mmmhmm." Which wouldn't be light-hearted flirtation. It would just be creepy and rude. Sexual objectification...and there are men who behave as boorishly as that with women. When I'm talking to a man whose giving off a vibe of sexual interest in a way I find attractive, there'll be a sense that he's thinking on various levels at once. That there's a sexual undertone, but that he's nonetheless focused on the non sexual conversation we're having. That, in other words, he doesn't have a one track mind, but has a mind where thoughts can run on several tracks at once. I think that Ross' wording betrayed his message in this regard. I know what he was trying to say, but he used the wrong term IMO. Personally I think that we as men need to learn how to use our sexuality to their advantage instead of letting it control us. I don't think Ross stares at boobs while chatting (been there, done that , grown out of that in late teens), but being able to convey interest without being creepy is actually a lot harder than women seem to think it is . It will come with experience, just need to talk to more women and have fun doing it instead of expecting an outcome. Dust, as always, seems to be on the ball with how he explains it. Ross is in a position that I have been in all my life, and it is good that he is asking these questions. I promised I would PM you those torrent links, I will do so once I amass them once again, so expect a PM from me. Edited February 3, 2012 by ThaWholigan sounded harsh when I wrote it
gaius Posted February 3, 2012 Posted February 3, 2012 Why do you keep doing this Dust? I'm not asking for advice here. When I ask questions, feel free to answer. But in posts like this, it's just annoying. He has to alpha someone, and you get the honor I guess. Just looking is creepy ross. It's the fine art of mixing your sexual attraction to them in casual conversation that they like. It's hard to explain, it's more of an instinctual art. I know I was talking to one woman I just met for under 60 seconds and I could tell by the end of the conversation that I liked her and she liked me.
Author Ross MwcFan Posted February 3, 2012 Author Posted February 3, 2012 Nah, of course I wouldn't stare at a womans tits while I'm talkng to her, she'd obviously notice and I'd feel too awkward.
Author Ross MwcFan Posted February 3, 2012 Author Posted February 3, 2012 Btw everyone, in my OP, when I was talking about sexual creatures, I didn't mean as in women having sexual desire, I ment women being physically sexually desirable. I think maybe some people thought I ment the former, which has probably caused some of the confusion in this topic. So I'm sorry about that, my mistake.
serial muse Posted February 3, 2012 Posted February 3, 2012 Btw everyone, in my OP, when I was talking about sexual creatures, I didn't mean as in women having sexual desire, I ment women being physically sexually desirable. I think maybe some people thought I ment the former, which has probably caused some of the confusion in this topic. So I'm sorry about that, my mistake. This is a very interesting thing you said, which to me kind of gets to the heart of the matter. I do think that (most?) women want to be seen as sexual creatures, which includes BOTH being sexually desirable AND having sexual desire. Can't speak for all, of course, but what I've gleaned from this thread at least is that the majority of women here agree with me on this. But what you're asking is based on an idea that those two things are somehow separate and unconnected...it's a false dichotomy between being an object of desire vs. the one doing the desiring. And I guess that's kind of the point that's been made several times - that's what I think a lot of women object to. The reason this pushes buttons for so many women is that we are very used to it: It's long been OK to be an object of desire, but not to express one's own sexuality. All I'm saying is that it's probably really worth it to think about what the women here are telling you - that they want to be both, at the same time. Women absolutely want to be sexually desirable - absolutely. But we don't want that same desirability to inherently require not having personalities or desires of our own. That's why the word object, perhaps meaningless on the face of it, really is a loaded word.
Author Ross MwcFan Posted February 3, 2012 Author Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) This is a very interesting thing you said, which to me kind of gets to the heart of the matter. I do think that (most?) women want to be seen as sexual creatures, which includes BOTH being sexually desirable AND having sexual desire. Can't speak for all, of course, but what I've gleaned from this thread at least is that the majority of women here agree with me on this. But what you're asking is based on an idea that those two things are somehow separate and unconnected...it's a false dichotomy between being an object of desire vs. the one doing the desiring. And I guess that's kind of the point that's been made several times - that's what I think a lot of women object to. The reason this pushes buttons for so many women is that we are very used to it: It's long been OK to be an object of desire, but not to express one's own sexuality. All I'm saying is that it's probably really worth it to think about what the women here are telling you - that they want to be both, at the same time. Women absolutely want to be sexually desirable - absolutely. But we don't want that same desirability to inherently require not having personalities or desires of our own. That's why the word object, perhaps meaningless on the face of it, really is a loaded word. So it's only okay for me to sexually desire a woman physically, as long as I sexually desire her personality at the same time? It's hard to do that when you don't actually know a woman, but of course, I know they're still a person, and that they will have sexual desires themselves (just that their sexual desires will be for other guys and not me) Edited February 3, 2012 by Ross MwcFan
florence of suburbia Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 What Dust is trying to get at (I think) is you have to learn this stuff through trial and error by doing it. Someone could explain step by step how to swim but it wouldn't help you if you'd never been in the water.
betterdeal Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 So it's only okay for me to sexually desire a woman physically, as long as I sexually desire her personality at the same time? It's hard to do that when you don't actually know a woman, but of course, I know they're still a person, and that they will have sexual desires themselves (just that their sexual desires will be for other guys and not me) Mate, it's okay to desire anything. And feeling sexually aroused by a sexy body is no big deal. The more you suppress that feeling, the more it amplifies. It doesn't mean anything other than you find her physically attractive. You like the look of her. If that's a crime, I'm guilty as charged. You may find that sex and sexy bodies are the tip of the iceberg. That there's so much more to be gained from connecting with a woman. You might not. You might become Peter Stringfellow and, as long as he likes what he's doing, and the women he gets it on with like what they are doing, and there's no coercion, then that's their business; their pursuit of happiness. Do what you want to do.
Taramere Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 I think that Ross' wording betrayed his message in this regard. I know what he was trying to say, but he used the wrong term IMO. I'm not sure it did. Like serial muse, I was struck by Ross's addendum that when he talks about a sexual woman he doesn't mean a woman who enjoys sex. He means a woman who he regards as sexually desirable. This is a very interesting thing you said, which to me kind of gets to the heart of the matter. I do think that (most?) women want to be seen as sexual creatures, which includes BOTH being sexually desirable AND having sexual desire. Can't speak for all, of course, but what I've gleaned from this thread at least is that the majority of women here agree with me on this. But what you're asking is based on an idea that those two things are somehow separate and unconnected...it's a false dichotomy between being an object of desire vs. the one doing the desiring. And I guess that's kind of the point that's been made several times - that's what I think a lot of women object to. The reason this pushes buttons for so many women is that we are very used to it: It's long been OK to be an object of desire, but not to express one's own sexuality. Totally agree. This issue confronted me in a way I didn't want to be confronted some years ago. I'd been on a professional training course which involved a lot of role play, and when I returned home from it I sort of had the performing bug. I put on a strip show for my then bf and this triggered several days of role playing. His fantasies, then my fantasies, then his fantasies. Every single one of my fantasies involved me taking the seductress role. His fantasies involved me taking a very passive role. The one I enjoyed least was that of 15 year old schoolgirl getting raped by her headmaster. I lay there feeling genuinely stressed, uncomfortable and just wanting it to be over. He, on the other hand, thought it was great. That was me at his most favourite. Lying there like a block of wood, looking cute but not enjoying myself one iota. You could tell that when I was talking about my fantasies he was disappointed that it involved being a seductress rather than a rape victim. During role play leading up to sex, when I was being a sexual predator he was responding in a hostile way. When I slipped into victim mode he'd "reward" me. It showed me that all his claims about liking strong, confident women was just for show. Who he felt he should be (as somebody who generally portrayed himself as a Sensitive New Age Guy) rather than who he actually was. Our relationship ended very soon after that - partly because he disclosed that he'd cheated on me (with a woman who had anorexia, several suicide attempts behind her and was the polar opposite of being a strong, confident woman), but I think those role playing sessions highlighted aspects of both of us that the other really didn't like/relate to. I struggled with it for a long time. Is it better to just content yourself with being an object of desire, even if it results in a brand of sex that you really don't enjoy? I don't think so. For one thing, it results in huge pressure to lose your own identity, sense of self, as you get consumed with the business of trying to be what the other person wants. Which is what objectification is all about. Also I don't think women tend to subscribe to the view that bad sex is better than no sex. I think for a lot of us, bad sex where we're expected to just lie there in a quiet, dutiful state while sex is done to us, is a great deal worse than no sex.
zengirl Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 But what you're asking is based on an idea that those two things are somehow separate and unconnected...it's a false dichotomy between being an object of desire vs. the one doing the desiring. And I guess that's kind of the point that's been made several times - that's what I think a lot of women object to. The reason this pushes buttons for so many women is that we are very used to it: It's long been OK to be an object of desire, but not to express one's own sexuality. All I'm saying is that it's probably really worth it to think about what the women here are telling you - that they want to be both, at the same time. Women absolutely want to be sexually desirable - absolutely. But we don't want that same desirability to inherently require not having personalities or desires of our own. That's why the word object, perhaps meaningless on the face of it, really is a loaded word. Right. Women want to be sexualized and seen as sexual beings, to be desired and be free to desire, but they don't want to be ONLY that and they don't want to be objects. This is a great breakdown! So it's only okay for me to sexually desire a woman physically, as long as I sexually desire her personality at the same time? It's hard to do that when you don't actually know a woman, but of course, I know they're still a person, and that they will have sexual desires themselves (just that their sexual desires will be for other guys and not me) No, no, no, no, no . . . no one is saying that. Instead, I'd say: it's okay to sexually desire anyone you like, as long as you are respectful and understand that she is a person (whether you KNOW her as a person or not or LIKE her as a person or not is irrelevant; you can still understand that all women are people), not an object. You may never get to know the person, and that's okay. There's no reason to feel guilty about desire --- it's a natural reaction that just occurs. The desire itself is absolutely fine; it's what you do with it that will determine if you're acting appropriately or not.
Author Ross MwcFan Posted February 4, 2012 Author Posted February 4, 2012 (edited) Well I'm always aware that the women I desire are people. Same goes for women in porn too. Edited February 4, 2012 by Ross MwcFan
florence of suburbia Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Does it strike no one else that Ross is discussing all this from a completely hypothetical stance? As is SomeDude. Seems like trying to understand theoretical calculus when you're still learning your times tables. I just think Ross needs to practice talking to women rather than worrying about all this other stuff at this stage. Seems like rabbit trails to me or a way of stalling. Edited February 5, 2012 by florence of suburbia
Author Ross MwcFan Posted February 5, 2012 Author Posted February 5, 2012 Does it strike no one else that Ross is discussing all this from a completely hypothetical stance? As is SomeDude. Seems like trying to understand theoretical calculus when you're still learning your times tables. I just think Ross needs to practice talking to women rather than worrying about all this other stuff at this stage. Seems like rabbit trails to me or a way of stalling. I'm not worrying at all.
alphamale Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 I hear so many times, from guys, that when you're with a woman you find attractive, you're supposed to look at them in a sexual way, ie thinking how much you would like to **** her, imagining her naked, thinking about how her breasts look great. I know that I've always naturally done this anyway. Supposedly this will show in your body language, and you will be more likely to act as though you find her sexually attractive, you will give of the right 'vibes'. So obviously this will be important if you want to attract a woman/hook up with a woman. So, ladies, would you really want guys to not look at you in that way, to not look at you as a sexual creature, and for them to not behave like they're sexual creatures? Would you really rather them not think in that way about you, and wonder about your personality instead, like a neutered nice guy? Would that really turn you on/attract you to him? they want to be seen as sex objects but only by the right men
somedude81 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Does it strike no one else that Ross is discussing all this from a completely hypothetical stance? As is SomeDude. Seems like trying to understand theoretical calculus when you're still learning your times tables. I just think Ross needs to practice talking to women rather than worrying about all this other stuff at this stage. Seems like rabbit trails to me or a way of stalling. One thing that I noticed, is that if I want to look at a women sexually, I have to force myself to do so. Those thoughts don't come naturally. But once it starts going, I can feel myself getting horny and I quickly need to change gears and think of something else or I'll just embarrass myself. I was actually practicing this at work with a coworker. It was working, but difficult to keep under control.
florence of suburbia Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 I was actually practicing this at work with a coworker. It was working, but difficult to keep under control. Great idea. It will get easier with time. Be patient with yourself.
Recommended Posts