Ahem!

Titan's picture
Submitted by Titan on Fri, 2005-12-09 01:26

So why are so many men turned on when they see two women together?


( categories: )

How the HELL did I miss this thread??

Boaz the Boor's picture

>women are not (wouldn't you know it) as sexually agressive as men

>Pfft...lies, all lies.

Jennifer, you're hilarious. Smiling

I'll admit that I've never sat down and actually tried to answer the question "Why are men into watching two women." I just plead "guilty" and move on.

Yeah, I'm into lezbo heat. I'm also into ice cream. Anyone care to explain that?

If I thought men were sexually attractive, I would probably enjoy watching two of them being aggressive with each other. Healthy aggression should be had by all.

Where I might have had sex

Prima Donna's picture

Where I might have had sex twice a day for around a half hour before, now I have sex every other day for 3 or 4 hours.

Either way, nicely done. Smiling


-- The Gilded Fork

Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

Love the one you're with

Ashley's picture

>women are not (wouldn't you know it) as sexually agressive as men

Ha, Jen, I had the same reaction when I read it... but then I kept thinking about it. There is obviously an enormous range of individual differences that are not accounted for in a statement like that. And, being familiar with scientific research, I also wonder who was studied, in what set of circumstances, with what specific types of "sexually aggressive" behaviors being measured...but anyway.

I see similar statements as well, about the frequency of lesbian sex compared to het or gay male relationships. I don't feel defensive or threatened or upset to hear that I might have a less sexually aggressive partner or that we aren't having sex as often as in other relationships. What matters to me is that we are having sex often enough to make us both happy.

I do have sex less frequently than I have in hetero relationships. I think it is a matter of perspective and preference, though. Where I might have had sex twice a day for around a half hour before, now I have sex every other day for 3 or 4 hours. I hate to break it down in such an unromantic way, but it is about the same *amount* of sexual activity overall.

I don't really think any of it matters. Each person has a unique way that they prefer to be turned on. Maybe it's a man, maybe it's a woman, maybe it's once an hour, day, or week. Who's to say that it could be better or worse? If I showed you empirical evidence that you looked best in black shirts but you wanted to wear orange because you like it better, you'd wear orange. Good on ya.

women are not (wouldn't you

Prima Donna's picture

women are not (wouldn't you know it) as sexually agressive as men

Pfft...lies, all lies. Smiling


-- The Gilded Fork

Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

Smile big

Lanza Morio's picture

The way to a good woman's, uh, heart is to smile big, make her laugh and accept her for who she is.

Male sexuality involves

JoeM's picture

Male sexuality involves strength and dominance, and that totally clashes with you put two guys together.

Clashes? That's part of the fun...Eye

Men: Read Ashley's Comments!

Penelope's picture

I don't think it is a given that men want more sex than women. I think women want it just as much, but they are far more particular and sensitive in the way they need to be approached for it. As a woman with a woman, I know what I have to do to get sex, and so does she, and so we live in a way (most of the time) that keeps us ready to go. When men and women are together, the man is trying to figure out how to get sex a lot of the time and the woman is trying to figure out how to get the man to do the things she needs to get sex. She does want it! But she has a harder time being receptive unless the situation is right. Even very evolved women who understand all this (like me) can have a hard time getting over it and just fucking for the fun of it.

Very very very true, although actually I read somewhere that lesbians have less sex then hetero couples because women are not (wouldn't you know it) as sexually agressive as men. It's funny, but I'm sure so many boys go home from dates disappointed they didn't "score" but what they don't realize is we are just as disappointed! If only they knew how to flip the right switches! Everyone would be so much better off.

To add to the discussion, I think it's worth noting that it isn't just men who find the idea of two women together arousing...a lot of girls do too. A lot of straigggggt girls even. So my theory is...

Male sexuality involves strength and dominance, and that totally clashes with you put two guys together. But female sexuality doesn't inherently conflict...it's just...um...missing something. Smiling

Two Guys

User hidden's picture

That turns me on too, as long as the guys are masculine and not big fairies.

Kelly

You know, Titan,

Chris Cathcart's picture

that's a very good question.

Third prong / false trichotomy

Andrew Bates's picture

You would have seen a third something if you'd been to SOLOC4 and met Phil.

As for me - two chicks means two pussies, four tits, four effeminate hands, two beautiful faces ...

And that night I stayed on your couch - it's a good thing I went to sleep drunk as a skunk without any consideration for what was going on next door. (Guys - Ash's g/f is *hot* too. Sweet dreams.)

Of Course!!! Cheers to Mz

Robert Malcom's picture

Of Course!!! Cheers to Mz Obviouswoman...

Pentaprong!

Wes's picture

Pentaprong is good. And if you ever decide to write something up on why its fun to watch women use "marital aids" you could call it mechaprong.

Or if you require a sillier suggestion:
"5 Reasons for the Funny Feeling in My Pants: Exploring the lust for lesbians"

Pentaprong?!

Ed's picture

Love it.

Ed

Pentaprong

Ashley's picture

Pentaprong

Wes & stormyeyes made good points

Ed's picture

Wes' dominance/submission theory (Prong3.1v) likely plays a role, and stormyeyes' performance anxiety theory (PAT) seems highly plausible as well. If y'all don't mind, I'd like to incorporate these into an upgraded, 5-pronged version. I don't know what to call it though. I'm counting on your creative, oft-perversive minds here. Any suggestions?

Ed

"Sorry about riding on your coattails Ed."

Ed's picture

No problemo -- but please, don't step on my prong!

Smiling

You know, you guys (and you too, Ash) can be just so damn sick & wrong at times -- and I really get a kick out of that. I raise my prong to salute you all.

Ed

Is That A Prong In Your Pocket...?

Ashley's picture

"How do you feel about Ed's third prong, Ash?"

I feel about it with curiosity and vigour. I've never met a man with a third prong before.

Ok. As an explanation for why het males are fascinated with homo girls, I think all three are workable. You asked specifically about point number three, the raging libido theory. I am trying to work out whether I believe there is any truth to it, or whether it matters because we are talking about the MALE'S perception and why he is interested.

I think it is actually sort of true, and in other ways not. No relationship is primarily about sex, for men or for women in a het or homo partnership. Even the relationships that start out primarily about sex turn into something else. I don't think it is a given that men want more sex than women. I think women want it just as much, but they are far more particular and sensitive in the way they need to be approached for it. As a woman with a woman, I know what I have to do to get sex, and so does she, and so we live in a way (most of the time) that keeps us ready to go. When men and women are together, the man is trying to figure out how to get sex a lot of the time and the woman is trying to figure out how to get the man to do the things she needs to get sex. She does want it! But she has a harder time being receptive unless the situation is right. Even very evolved women who understand all this (like me) can have a hard time getting over it and just fucking for the fun of it.

I have more to say but there's a snowstorm out and I need to fill up the woodbox.

That's what SOLO Thrust is

stormyeyes's picture

That's what SOLO Thrust is for. Personally, I get hard when I see two girls together because I know there's no pressure on me to please them. They can please each other, and I can either jerk off or join in. No pressure, either way.

Prong 3.1Dominant v

Wes's picture

Prong 3.1
Dominant v Submissive displays. They're aggressive enough to pursue sex but submissive enough to be taken by a woman. Either one's good for a guy.

I know this isn't entirely true; it’s a matter of perception.

(Sorry about riding on your coattails Ed.)

How do you feel about Ed's

Ross Elliot's picture

How do you feel about Ed's third prong, Ash?

Got any merit?

Ciro nailed it.

Jody Gomez's picture

Ciro nailed it.

Robert Malcom. Yes, and

Titan's picture

Robert Malcom. Yes, and those idiets hav messd up my curear in kreaytiv wrioting.

It's in their jeans

Ed's picture

This topic came up about a month or 2 ago. I had stated my theory, one with robust explanatory power. I will restate ...

:The 3-pronged evolutionary explanation of the hetero fascination with "no-pronged" sexual engagement":

Prong 1
[crass] "2 chicks are better than one" -- the simple additive effect. Males make enough sperm to impregnate hundreds of females. It just stands to reason that natural selection would have favored those who desired to do this (there was selective genetic pressure for this). We are simply born playboys.

Prong 2
Gals getting it on, indicates the absence of males -- and fear of other males is the strongest way to temper the impulse from Prong 1. Anxiety over fighting males was the strongest reason for males to check which chicks to chase.

Prong 3
Gals getting it on, is circumstantial evidence of libido. The energy cost of chasing chicks -- without foreknowledge of whether they'd be responsive -- can make or break a man's reproductive fitness. If gals are horny in the absences of males, then they got libido coming out of their ears.

Hmf!

Ed

Went ta public skool,

Robert Malcom's picture

Went ta public skool, dintya...

I think what we need here is

Titan's picture

I think what we need here is a SOLO for men who like hot bi-sexual women. We could call it MWAHBiSOLOW; Men Who Appreciate Hot Bisexual Sense of Life Objectivist Women.

Laughed so much my sides hurt

Titan's picture

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Ross, I couldn't stop laughing when I saw you're post reply! Eye need two lern how too chek my speling.

Twice as Nice

milesian's picture

It is because women are sex objects. Reinterpret that or your view of it anyway you want, but from a man's view, women are objects of desire. And allow that this might describe "most" men (however defined) but not all men. The fact remains that Erik said it and no one contradicted.

Compare and contrast: Do most women feel the same way about watching two men make out? No. Why? (Rhetorical why.)

How do most people of both genders feel about watching two people of both genders making out? See? Weak preference with many averse. Why? (Rhetorical, again.)

Start with two half dressed women, and you could have a hit television series, especially if you set the action in the mythical Bronze Age.

________________________________________________________
"I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
and danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings."

Ash, may I be so bold as to

Ross Elliot's picture

Ash, may I be so bold as to suggest that *you* and all other women will never understand what makes men tick. Not really. Even butch chicks with crewcuts & boilersuits who've changed their names to Chuck, are only play-acting Smiling

Two Chicks Walk Into A Bar...

Ashley's picture

I would love to know the answer to this question. I am alternately intrigued and weirded out by the effect it has when Meg and I walk into a bar. If we are in a place we know, people immediately start buying us drinks. For no reason that is apparent; they don't talk to us, don't look at us, nothing. But once in a while, someone who is not a regular of the places we go will catch on and buy a drink for us and then start being weird - staring, gesturing, or asking us intrusive questions. I always wonder if they are thinking we will get drunk and start making out or something.

On that note, I'm out to the bar.

Christ, Ciro, why don't you

Ross Elliot's picture

Christ, Ciro, why don't you tell us what you're really thinking!

Erik asked:

Ross Elliot's picture

Erik asked:

"...when we so two women together?"

You mean: sew two women together?

I don't. I think that's cruel. Unless you knocked them out first. Then you could have some real fun Smiling

because you would like to

Ciro D Agostino's picture

because you would like to screw them both. Smiling

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.