Men and women think differently.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-04-1999
Men and women think differently.
173
Wed, 12-14-2005 - 7:19am

There's an ad on TV that I've seen several times recently. It's for a national jewelry store chain. It starts with a woman sitting alone in her home on Christmas Eve. She was phoned by her man to inform her that a major snow storm might prevent him from getting home tonight. She hears the sound of a vehicle, and it turns out to be a snowplow that stops in front of her house. She looks out the window, and the man descends from the plow, having obviously moved heaven and earth to get home to her. They embrace, she looks at him with loving eyes, he gives her a gift of jewelry, and they hug again.

I'll bet most women think: "How romantic." As a guy, I was thinking: "He's going to get laid tonight!" Am I right, or do some of you think differently from what I expect for your gender?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-23-2004
Mon, 12-26-2005 - 5:39pm

Rice is not an infamous troll, just a guy that finds it hard to believe that there are sexual women in the world due to his past experiences.


bounxh0a-1.gif picture by dillbyrd

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-26-2004
Mon, 12-26-2005 - 5:51pm

Well....you seem to contradict yourself. In one sentence you say that you don't believe that many people think about sex CONSTANTLY, and then you say that someone who is obsessed with something(chess in your example) is "more into" it than someone who isn't. So what is it? Is thinking about something constantly, an obsession or is it not?

"There's no controversy there. Someone who is obsessed with chess is more into chess than someone who enjoys it in moderation"

Well...I think that's where the problem lies--you assume that just because someone isn't constantly thinking about it(obsessed with it), that they ONLY enjoy it in moderation. Thinking about sex doesn't make me a more sexual person. What makes me a sexual person has nothing to do with how often I daydream or fantasize about it, or even think about it. What makes me sexual is how sexy I feel, every minute of every day. It's how I carry myself and conduct myself within everyday situations. I don't need to think about sex when it's inappropriate(like in the middle of a business meeting) to make me a more sexual person. I don't think that John Doe who is constantly, obsessively thinking about sex and whacking off in the public restroom three times a day is more sexual than me, who might have sex with my husband at 5:00 am., get up for work, have a crazy busy day at work(therefore not think about sex), come home, unwind, have a hot bath and have sex again before bed. That's ridiculous.

"Nevertheless, offers of casual sex will be accepted by men more readily then women."

That's why I said in a prior post that men MAY be the less discretional sex, but THAT ALONE doesn't make them MORE sexual. Just because a man will engage in ten one-night-stands with ten different women in one week, doesn't mean that he's a more sexual person than a woman who wouldn't. Or are you trying to convince me that a woman who has sex ten times in one week with the same man she's been dating a year is less sexual than said man, who screws random women?

"And finally, it's true that I don't know Rice's history and he may well be an infamous troll. But it seems he (and a good plenty of other fellows) merely wishes (more) women had the same attitude towards casual (or loosely committed) sex as (many? most?) men do --again, not very controversial"

But why? Are you saying that it makes for better sex than non-casual sex? Silly. Again, just because a man may want casual sex, does not make him a more sexual person, than someone who doesn't.

Imagination is more important than knowledge." (Albert Einstein )
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-18-2002
Mon, 12-26-2005 - 6:01pm

"Well....you seem to contradict yourself. In one sentence you say that you don't believe that many people think about sex CONSTANTLY, and then you say that someone who is obsessed with something(chess in your example) is "more into" it than someone who isn't. So what is it? Is thinking about something constantly, an obsession or is it not?"

I think relatively few people are obsessed with sex. But someone who is obsessed with sex is "more into" sex than you and I. No contradiction. My point has nothing to do with how obsessed one has to be to be called obsessed.

"Well...I think that's where the problem lies--you assume that just because someone isn't constantly thinking about it(obsessed with it), that they ONLY enjoy it in moderation."

Shall we bore everyone else and split hairs and discuss subtle gradations between "obsessed" and "moderation"? Will that really help us understand each other?

"I don't think that John Doe who is constantly, obsessively thinking about sex and whacking off in the public restroom three times a day is more sexual than me, who might have sex with my husband at 5:00 am., get up for work, have a crazy busy day at work(therefore not think about sex), come home, unwind, have a hot bath and have sex again before bed. That's ridiculous."

So your definition of "sexual" doesn't reflect how often someone actually thinks about sex? That's pretty profound. I confess I'm at a bit of a loss to respond.

Why are you offended at the idea that anyone could be more sexual than you?

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-26-2004
Mon, 12-26-2005 - 6:45pm

"Shall we bore everyone else and split hairs and discuss subtle gradations between "obsessed" and "moderation"? Will that really help us understand each other?"

Well...my point is that, even if someone "thinks" about sex a lot(even if they're obsessed), that alone doesn't make them a MORE sexual person, it may make them think about sex more, but it doesn't make them more sexual. Just as just because A man has casual sex with ten women in one week, doesn't make him more sexual than a woman who doesn't have a partner, who masturbates ten times instead. Or I'll even go further than that, and even if she doesn't have a partner and as a result, doesn't think about it at all in one week(while the man at the same time is having it ten times). Using your logic, should we also suggest that a couple who engage in vanilla sex is less sexual than another one who's into kinky sex?

"So your definition of "sexual" doesn't reflect how often someone actually thinks about sex? That's pretty profound. I confess I'm at a bit of a loss to respond."

Nope, it doesn't.

"Why are you offended at the idea that anyone could be more sexual than you?"

I'm not. I just think the defnitions of "sexual" need clarifying--so here I am! ;-)

Imagination is more important than knowledge." (Albert Einstein )
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-26-2001
Mon, 12-26-2005 - 7:40pm

"We are all are aware of his history with women and his feelings that women should behave like men when it comes to sex."

I really wish that you wouldn't put words in my mouth. I don't believe that I have ever said that I believe that women SHOULD behave like men with regard to sex. I will admit that there have been times when I (and I'm guessing most men) have wished that, in the words of Professor Henry Higgins, "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" What I have done is look for outward evidence of a female sex drive, but I am limited by the only point of reference that I am familiar with, the male one. I simply pointed out several male behaviors as outward manifestations of their strong sex drive and observed that those behaviors are generally missing in women. You tell me that my logic is flawed and that I can't expect women to outwardly express their sexuality the same way as men. OK, I can accept that, because, as I said, I never expected women to act just like men. Still, what can you offer as an alternative? So far I've all been given is antidotal evidence and assertions of "Trust me, they are" when I question whether women, as a group, are as interested in sex as men, as a group.

This whole discussion suggests to me the difference between an evolutionist and a creationist. The evolutionist requires observable phenomena in order to build a system of beliefs, while the creationist requires only faith in the correctness of their beliefs. Is that what you're asking me, to be a sexual creationist when it comes to women? ;-)

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-26-2004
Mon, 12-26-2005 - 7:49pm

"OK, I can accept that, because, as I said, I never expected women to act just like men. Still, what can you offer as an alternative? So far I've all been given is antidotal evidence and assertions of "Trust me, they are" when I question whether women, as a group, are as interested in sex as men, as a group."

Well...what about the vast amount romance novel sales; and the vast amount of dildos and vibrators used by women? That's at least some proof that women are as interested in sex as men are. ;-)

Imagination is more important than knowledge." (Albert Einstein )
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-26-2001
Mon, 12-26-2005 - 8:09pm
You know, the possibility of the roles being reversed hadn't occurred to me, but I think you make a very good point. A woman going to those extremes to see a man, and especially to bring him an expensive gift, would probably be viewed as very strange by most people. In addition, I'm guessing that most women would view her actions not as being romantic but as 'desperate' and showing a 'lack of self-esteem', LOL.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-26-2004
Mon, 12-26-2005 - 8:20pm

"He's supposed to climb the highest mountains, swim the deepest seas, and slay dragons in a glorified quest for a piece of booty."

You see....women are more than just a "piece of booty"--they're whole people made up of much that is worthy. I mean...how silly is it to think that a man would go through all of that danger and give his life, just for sex. Men and women are better than that! It's insulting to think otherwise.




Edited 12/26/2005 8:23 pm ET by rain_dancer_iam
Imagination is more important than knowledge." (Albert Einstein )
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-26-2001
Mon, 12-26-2005 - 8:22pm

You make a good point, in that the sales of dildos and vibrators is evidence that SOME women have an internally-motivated desire for sex. Still, I would question whether the amount of those sales would qualify as 'vast', especially when compared to the sales of porn to men. Without any hard data (sorry about that), I guess there's no way to resolve our difference of opinion on how strong the evidence really is.

As far as romance novels, the women here keep saying that romance novels aren't the same as porn and that men can't use women reading romance novels as a justification their looking at porn. Which is it, ladies? ;-)

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-26-2004
Mon, 12-26-2005 - 8:36pm

Well...if this board is any indication...most of the women and mens' SOs own one or more. But, again, it was just an observation. Owning one though, is still not any indication of a woman's sexual desires--I didn't own one until recently. I'll keep thinking...there's bound to be something. However, even though it may not be a clear indicator of women's sexuality, maybe someone will take the time to do the research to show just how big the sales TO WOMEN is. I'll bet it's high! ;-)

As far as romance novels, it brings us back to women and their preference for fantasy. These books supply the very type of fantasies that she herself often conjures up. You can compare romance novels to porn because they both arouse, but I think that many women don't compare them to porn because a man in a book is imaginary, and the women in porn aren't. Flawed logic, I suppose. ;-) Truth be told, Rice....the romance novel business makes up for half of all of the fiction sold--that's a vast amount!




Edited 12/26/2005 8:55 pm ET by rain_dancer_iam
Imagination is more important than knowledge." (Albert Einstein )

Pages