0
   

Sex with a partner is 400% better..

 
 
vid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 01:19 pm
I'm envisaging a male version of Miss Haversham?
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 03:11 pm
He probably is Laughing
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 03:21 pm
How I wish I was "pure and pristine".

From what I remember of that state before all these phony sentimentalists got to work is that it was wonderful. I can understand people holding on to it.

However, your assumptions do you proud folks. Your need to set up a contrast with yourselves is touching.

What exactly in the post I wrote are you making play with. You don't seem to have touched on any of it I'm afraid.

You all obviously have no sense of humour. I have a good idea what causes that but I'm not so ignorant as to lay it out for you.

It's no big deal.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 03:29 pm
Chill, pooper scooper. It's all good!

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 03:46 pm
What Lash said. We're just messing with you, spendius. Didn't
you see all the emoticons?
0 Replies
 
vid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 04:05 pm
spendius wrote:
How I wish I was "pure and pristine".

From what I remember of that state before all these phony sentimentalists got to work is that it was wonderful. I can understand people holding on to it.

However, your assumptions do you proud folks. Your need to set up a contrast with yourselves is touching.

What exactly in the post I wrote are you making play with. You don't seem to have touched on any of it I'm afraid.

You all obviously have no sense of humour. I have a good idea what causes that but I'm not so ignorant as to lay it out for you.

It's no big deal.



If it's no big deal to you, why did you go out of your way to make your post which, correct me if I'm wrong, set out to somehow cheapen or make shabby the idea that one could possibly enjoy sex much more within a relationship, as opposed to just having a wank, as you so delicately put it.

Your opening line was:
"Mr Philip Larkin, the famous English poet of blessed memory, had something to say on this very subject."


Well, if the blessed Mr Larkin, a famous English poet, likens the act of making love with a partner as something akin to "squealching", then I would say that he was either no good in bed and therefore failed to achieve a heightened state of orgasm, he was unlucky and just happened to pick the type of English ladies who chose to lay there like a sack of potatoes, he was unattractive to women in either looks or manner and was therefore sadly deprived of ever having a good relationship, he didn't find women attractive, preferring to either aim his attentions to any other blessed poets who were in the vicinity or stare resentfully from his closet, or he was just plain lazy and preferred to be a wanker in order to avoid any unnecessary physical exertion.

You then went to great pains to give, for reason that I can only assume to be a comparison, an example of how men have fallen into the trap of heroin addiction in persuit of satisfaction, and the ongoing cost and suffering they have borne because of it.

It was obvious to me that you were saying, in a very laboured and obtuse way, that the burden, cost and suffering of heroin addiction for a man was the same as he would no doubt experience by being in a long term relationship.

If I've got it wrong, I would suggest that you stop trying to blow smoke up everyone's ass by quoting blessed poets and just say what you mean in plain english.

If you are happier just wanking alone, why not come out and say it? Nothing to be ashamed of.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 04:34 pm
The first post on the thread was concerned with how best to satisfy oneself I think. That's a selfish idea it seems to me and what it has to do with relationships I cannot imagine.

vid- I go out of my way to make all my posts on A2K and I assume everyone else does. I thought that was the general idea of A2K.

If my intention was to cheapen and make shabby something it was that first post which someone went out of their way to open up a new thread on and in the Science forum. Had it been in the Relationships forum I would never have seen it.

I need no advice on relationships. Mine are ace. On a science forum we do not discuss ourselves or at least some of us don't. One has to wonder what drew you to the subject. I'm a regular on this forum and I look at everything on it that's current. That's my excuse. I never see the vast bulk of forums.

What caught your eye? Was your intention not to be scientific about the subject? It is a most interesting subject from a scientific point of view I can assure you. And it has been studied a lot and reported on with papers peer reviewed by civilised mankind for over three thousand years. Matters of "lurve" do not bear up to scientific scrutiny I'm afraid. At least not for those with sensitive dispositions. And if you have one of those I advise you to keep a hold on it but it is not appropriate to a science forum.

Alas I have to go to the pub now or I will die of thirst but I'll read your post more carefully when I've got my beer-specs on.

TTFN
0 Replies
 
vid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 04:50 pm
So you approached the thread because of the science factor, Spendius, and answered in a totally scientific way by first mentioning Philip Larkin, a poet, and then giving your personal views on heroin addiction.
Are you trying to tell me that you were not trying to denigrate the whole "benefit of partner/relationship" topic that had developed through the course of the thread?

Yeh, right.

If you entered this thread as a scientist who was responding to the first post only, you had a very strange way of doing it if you ask me. I reckon you enjoy stirring things up a bit, and will try to factor that into my future responses to you.

Have a nice boys evening. :wink:
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:20 pm
Boys!!!??? Boys?

That load of grumpy old codgers I booze with.

Boys indeed. They could all show you round the statue of liberty if they weren't so ugly and lazy.

Going back to your earlier post you wrote-

Quote:
he was just plain lazy and preferred to be a wanker in order to avoid any unnecessary physical exertion.


I think that is much the most likely explanation but I do understand that not running around after a woman is a behaviour pattern you not only deplore but have the uttermost contempt for.

I would probably think the same if I was you.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2007 03:34 am
spendius wrote:
I do understand that not running around after a woman is a behaviour pattern you not only deplore but have the uttermost contempt for.


That's where it connects to the object of this thread.

Behaviours and patterns tend follow the chemistry of the body.

The urge to satisfy the hypothalamus leads to those patterns.

People then think it's a moral choice.

And it is, when, like Spendi, you can get over the natural pattern..


spendius wrote:
I do understand that not running around after a woman is a behaviour...


It's much better the other way around! Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
vid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2007 04:47 am
spendius wrote:


I think that is much the most likely explanation but I do understand that not running around after a woman is a behaviour pattern you not only deplore but have the uttermost contempt for.


Whatever gave you that idea??

I was merely reacting to your post which indicated that you either had a dislike for relationships, or that you were in fear of getting into one, probably because you had been bitten by a big, bad nasty woman in the past. You then tried to denigrate the idea of relationships here on this thread. I simply wasn't having it. It doesn't bother me whether you "run around after women" or not. In fact, it's quite a comfort to me, knowing that no english women are having to put up with your cynical state of mind on a permanent basis. They have enough to put up with regarding their teeth and the rain, and you would probably be the final straw.

Try to have a better outlook on life, spendius. You may be missing out on something. :wink:
0 Replies
 
vid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2007 04:51 am
spendius wrote:


I think that is much the most likely explanation but I do understand that not running around after a woman is a behaviour pattern you not only deplore but have the uttermost contempt for.


Whatever gave you that idea??

I was merely reacting to your post which indicated that you either had a dislike for relationships, or that you were in fear of getting into one, probably because you had been bitten by a big, bad nasty woman in the past. You then tried to denigrate the idea of relationships here on this thread. I simply wasn't having it. It doesn't bother me whether you "run around after women" or not. In fact, it's quite a comfort to me, knowing that no english women are having to put up with your cynical state of mind on a permanent basis. They have enough to put up with regarding their teeth and the rain, and you would probably be the final straw.

Try to have a better outlook on life, spendius. You may be missing out on something. :wink:
0 Replies
 
vid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2007 04:57 am
spendius wrote:


I think that is much the most likely explanation but I do understand that not running around after a woman is a behaviour pattern you not only deplore but have the uttermost contempt for.


Whatever gave you that idea??

I was merely reacting to your post which indicated that you either had a dislike for relationships, or that you were in fear of getting into one, probably because you had been bitten by a big, bad nasty woman in the past. You then tried to denigrate the idea of relationships here on this thread. I simply wasn't having it. It doesn't bother me whether you "run around after women" or not. In fact, it's quite a comfort to me, knowing that no english women are having to put up with your cynical state of mind on a permanent basis. They have enough to put up with regarding their teeth and the rain, and you would probably be the final straw.

Try to have a better outlook on life, spendius. You may be missing out on something. :wink:
0 Replies
 
vid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2007 05:02 am
I have no idea what's happening here, but the last three times I tried to post a response to spendius, it wouldn't send. Yet, when I try again and look at the posts beneath the reply box, there are my posts! Look again on the thread itself, and they're not there.

??

Apologies for three identical posts in a row, if that is the case. Something wrong with this site, maybe?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2007 02:03 pm
vid wrote-

Quote:
Going back to your earlier post you wrote-

Quote:
he was just plain lazy and preferred to be a wanker in order to avoid any unnecessary physical exertion.


I didn't write that. You wrote that. All I said was that it is the likliest explnation of the ones you gave. Mr Larkin had 3 educated women on the go at the same time. There is an explanation based upon experience and knowledge of the world which you unfortunately overlooked.

I have read Mr Motion's Larkin biography and Mr Larkin's Collected Letters. I think that you ought to engage your mind on those before you start pumping out your own assumptions about him based on nothing but what is in your own head.

I also did not say that Mr Larkin likened the sexual act with a woman to "squelching" (sorry about the mis-spelling). Mr Waugh did that and he was quoting another source.

The comparison using heroin was merely in the service of showing that "satisfaction" can be looked at in the round. I could have used "Crack" but thought it a trifle blatant. Do you know the story of Ulysses and the Sirens?

Quote:
Are you trying to tell me that you were not trying to denigrate the whole "benefit of partner/relationship" topic that had developed through the course of the thread?


Not in the least. It is your idea not mine.
And I don't know what you mean by "developed through the course of the thread". This thread is still in nappies.

Quote:
he was unlucky and just happened to pick the type of English ladies who chose to lay there like a sack of potatoes,


There is a school of thought here which would have them eating a crispy apple as well.

Quote:
I was merely reacting to your post which indicated that you either had a dislike for relationships, or that you were in fear of getting into one, probably because you had been bitten by a big, bad nasty woman in the past. You then tried to denigrate the idea of relationships here on this thread. I simply wasn't having it. It doesn't bother me whether you "run around after women" or not. In fact, it's quite a comfort to me, knowing that no english women are having to put up with your cynical state of mind on a permanent basis. They have enough to put up with regarding their teeth and the rain, and you would probably be the final straw.

Try to have a better outlook on life, spendius. You may be missing out on something.


Your view of what I indicated is preposterous. Your subjectivity, which is patently self-serving, does not belong in a science forum. In all the successful long term relationships I know, and I know a good few, both parties bring a healthy degree of cynicism into the matter. Anything else seems to be the road to perdition.

I only miss out on what I choose to miss out on.

Have you read The Romantic Agony by Mario Praz? The "luvvie-duvvies" either quickly go bust or quite barmy.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2007 06:09 pm
Quote:
Sex with a partner is 400% better..


Could you describe the partner please?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2007 06:10 pm
Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2007 09:03 pm
spendius wrote:
Quote:
Sex with a partner is 400% better..


Could you describe the partner please?


You want Francis to describe his partner? Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
vid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Dec, 2007 11:13 pm
spendius wrote:
vid wrote-

Going back to your earlier post you wrote-

he was just plain lazy and preferred to be a wanker in order to avoid any unnecessary physical exertion.

I didn't write that. You wrote that. All I said was that it is the likliest explnation of the ones you gave. Mr Larkin had 3 educated women on the go at the same time. There is an explanation based upon experience and knowledge of the world which you unfortunately overlooked.

I have read Mr Motion's Larkin biography and Mr Larkin's Collected Letters. I think that you ought to engage your mind on those before you start pumping out your own assumptions about him based on nothing but what is in your own head.


Yet, in your opinion, this assumption was probably correct, according to your earlier reply. So I'm a good guesser, and you're a good reader of Larkin, so what? You tended to agree with me and now you're getting all uppity about it now you've had time to reflect down at your pub, I suspect. Sidenote: It would appear that you're either misquoting me, or you couldn't figure out how to use the quote option properly. The result is that it now appears out of context. To avoid me doing the same, I've put what I've previously said (in context) in red on this reply, OK? I never said that you were the one who wrote that Larkin preferred to be a wanker. I said it and you seemed to agree.

spendius wrote:
I also did not say that Mr Larkin likened the sexual act with a woman to "squelching" (sorry about the mis-spelling). Mr Waugh did that and he was quoting another source.


Yet you seemed to offer it as a view that should be considered, or even supported. You certainly didn't make your views known that you disagreed with this view. If you disagreed with it, why offer it at all in your post? Either you were just showing off about how bookish you were, or you admired the guy for saying it. Don't go backtracking now, spendius, as it won't help your credibility regarding this matter. Like I said before, if you attempt to blow smoke up people's asses by using these obtuse references and quotes, you can end up causing major confusion over what you actually mean. Or was/is that your intention all along? Use plain english in future, spendius, that's what I would recommend.

spendius wrote:
The comparison using heroin was merely in the service of showing that "satisfaction" can be looked at in the round. I could have used "Crack" but thought it a trifle blatant. Do you know the story of Ulysses and the Sirens?


There ya go again. Very Happy Don't try and sidetrack this with Ulysses, which would no doubt lead on to another one of the classics and then god knows where, as it will only derail from the subject and give you another opportunity to show us how clever you are.
Your example re. heroin and satisfaction was good, but then you went on to show your true intent by giving your view on how men have fallen into the abyss and how they've greatly suffered etc etc.
You know what you were trying to do. Don't go all chicken on it now, just because someone is challenging you.

spendius wrote:
Quote:
Are you trying to tell me that you were not trying to denigrate the whole "benefit of partner/relationship" topic that had developed through the course of the thread?


Not in the least. It is your idea not mine.
And I don't know what you mean by "developed through the course of the thread". This thread is still in nappies.


At that moment in time, you were trying to say that you were just purely responding to the original post, and no others. I call bulls*it. If you disagree with me on that, then fine. People can read the thread for themselves and judge whether you're right or not.

spendius wrote:
Quote:
he was unlucky and just happened to pick the type of English ladies who chose to lay there like a sack of potatoes,


There is a school of thought here which would have them eating a crispy apple as well.


What? With their teeth? Very Happy

spendius wrote:
Quote:
I was merely reacting to your post which indicated that you either had a dislike for relationships, or that you were in fear of getting into one, probably because you had been bitten by a big, bad nasty woman in the past. You then tried to denigrate the idea of relationships here on this thread. I simply wasn't having it. It doesn't bother me whether you "run around after women" or not. In fact, it's quite a comfort to me, knowing that no english women are having to put up with your cynical state of mind on a permanent basis. They have enough to put up with regarding their teeth and the rain, and you would probably be the final straw.

Try to have a better outlook on life, spendius. You may be missing out on something.


Your view of what I indicated is preposterous. Your subjectivity, which is patently self-serving, does not belong in a science forum. In all the successful long term relationships I know, and I know a good few, both parties bring a healthy degree of cynicism into the matter. Anything else seems to be the road to perdition.


Truth hurts sometimes, eh? :wink:

spendius wrote:
I only miss out on what I choose to miss out on.


Good for you, and good for english women, I say.

spendius wrote:
Have you read The Romantic Agony by Mario Praz? The "luvvie-duvvies" either quickly go bust or quite barmy.


Another book enquiry? You weren't Larkin's little library assistant in your youth, were you?

Oh, and here's a GB website that may come in handy, for anyone who may find it of use, of course. :wink:

Have a nice day over there!

Goodnight.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2007 01:24 am
spendius wrote:
Could you describe the partner please?


CalamityJane wrote:
You want Francis to describe his partner? Laughing Laughing



Were I to describe my partner, you would say it's 500% better(at least)..

Ah! The power of chemistry, but also of the physics...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 08:10:53