You don't want to know. So why presume they pretend?Trantor wrote:I don´t even want to.Razor One wrote:Oh? And you would know what women are thinking?
How so?But we are.Razor One wrote:But let's take the statement as a given. Since men and women are hardly all that different (despite the popular stereotypes) I suppose this can apply in reverse then?
This strikes me more as a massive assumption, to say nothing of it being a huge sweeping statement.As long as it is just about kissing you could even claim that it is the same issue with men and women - men also couldn´t stand a random guy kissing with the heroine.Razor One wrote:Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why this logic only applies to the female gender. Why is girl on girl considered hot by guys and can be taken at face value, but when it comes to guy on guy with regards to women, it's not a matter of it being hot but rather an issue of women projecting their insecurities and blanketing them over with a veneer of homosexuality?
But: Men are simple. While men are seeking for fun wthout thinking too deep, women are seeking for romance.
That´s why men have no problems with female homosexuality, men just peep and enjoy, even more if it comes to the next steps; 2 Girls kissing is cute, 2 Girls doing more is hot.
But women don´t think the same way. They´re not even considering the next "steps", they think into a romantic direction.
It also strikes me that it's sexist on both sides of the divide. Men are simple creatures that cannot grasp complex concepts. They watch and breathe heavily while imagining women doing it. Going further and assigning romance to female homosexual relationships would be "Unmanly". It further implies that women are either incapable or unwilling to take the same stance and breathe heavily as they imagine two guys having sex.
I don't doubt that there are women who dig male homosexual relationships because they're taking things in a romantic direction... but it's folly to think that all women aren't imagining the next "steps" and aren't getting hot and bothered while doing so.
There is no insult in a statement of fact. I will however clarify the position I took.Where´s the evidence for that insult?Razor One wrote:This is why there are no female members on this board. He's wrong on this point because his point is 100% sexist with no basis in reality.Fortiadis_110 isn´t wrong on that point. Otherwise there would be no "cattiness" or "bitchiness".
In German there´s a dedicated word for it, "Stutenbissigkeit", which derives from the pecking order of mares and imho fits perfect on those behaviour-patterns (it is of course a bit derogative).
No girls here because of Fortiadis_110´s opinion? AAAND he´s totally wrong? How easy, how convenient.
And on a broader scale: Why is there bitchiness/Stutenbissigkeit then?
I dare to say your "bonmot" is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché.
The reason there are no girls here is because of the general attitude displayed exemplified in your post when you brought up cattiness and bitchiness. What precisely prompted you to bring that up? I can't fathom why you'd even mention it given what was being discussed.
The only connection I can make out is that women were being discussed, so you brought up the topic of them being catty and bitchy.
And he is wrong. I already pointed out why
As to the broader question: Yes, there is bitchiness amongst women, just as there is bitchiness amongst men. Ditto for dickwaving on both sides of the divide.
I know! In some underprivileged corners of the internet, there are nerds who have never seen a real woman, let alone been within earshot of one! The way they talk about women is as though they're some kind of separate species! They make massive and wild assumptions to compensate for a lack of knowledge!No shit, Sherlock!Razor One wrote:I've talked to women. In person.
Yes, talk. But they think different.Razor One wrote:Some of them were even the ever so dreaded Yaoi fangirls. The way they talk about male homosexual relationships are practically carbon copies of the way guys talk about female homosexual relationships.
Just watch their behaviour patterns.
Those screams in the audience when Barrowman and Tennant kiss. They're the same screams you'll hear when the male strippers perform at a hens night.
Of course, I find it odd that you know what women are thinking when you profess to not want to know in the first place. This strikes me as a rather dissonant statement. Either you know what women are thinking and are withholding the methodology by which you came across such knowledge, or you're being facetious and presumptuous.
Very true, it'll be a long while before male homosexual relationships have anywhere near the same level of acceptance as female homosexual relationships let alone the general acceptance of heterosexual relationships.junk wrote:Not sure where people are digging that guy on guy is found buy a lot of women as unhot.
But it does certainly have a lot more social stigma than girl on girl. I'd say that that's probably because of two things. In a lot of cases girl on girl is just playing around and everyone knows it. Whereas guy on guy tends to usually be more indicative. Also when it came to digging for gays women where largely ignored. It was mostly male gays that were being targeted.
This place is very much a boys club. If we were to have an anonymous poll to determine the demographics of the forum, assuming we get honest votes, I'd not be at all surprised if the results were overwhelmingly male.Also why would there be no females on this board? There isn't any gender screening gate anywhere so for all we know half of the board is actually female and not coming forward.
My issue is not that there are individuals that think this way. That would be silly. My issue here is that the statement as originally posited is a sweeping one. If the statement were "Some women seek male/male relationships in their imagination..." with the same line of reasoning, I couldn't rightfully refute it as there are no doubt many such individuals in existence.Mayhem wrote:It does to an extent.Razor One wrote:But let's take the statement as a given. Since men and women are hardly all that different (despite the popular stereotypes) I suppose this can apply in reverse then?
Oh look. It doesn't.You do understand why the guys seek female/female relationships in their imagination don't you? They don't feel they are good enough to be their heroine's partner, and can't stand even imagining the competition of some hot guy they randomly set their heroine up with...
So they go for plan B, add another hot female who couldn't compete with their male charms, and off they go.
For a heterosexual man why might girl/girl be hotter than girl/guy?Are all valid contributory (but not exhaustive) reasons that might apply for a given individual.
- Girl/girl has 2 people to be attracted too not just 1.
- From a casual sex point of view the current partner does not necessarily restrict to choice of future partners
- There is no other male to subconsciously compare to/be threatened by
To put it simply saying "All men are misogynist pigs" is 100% sexist and has no basis in reality. Saying "Some men are misogynist pigs" is sadly true and something that I can't and won't refute.
You could say that my issue is in the nature of which such statements are made. Lumping all women or men together and saying that X applies to all of them denies the complexity of human nature, individual plurality and the wide spectrum of the (frequently distorted) human sexual compass.
This applies both ways.Also psychology tells us that people don't necessarily understand the real reasons why they like the things they do and subconsciously create false justifications for it when asked (externally or internally) which they then subsequently believe.