How many people is it acceptable to have.....

It looks like you are confusing sex with foreplay.

Maybe to give her pause for thought.

Why? It would be the same for everybody surely.

What other conclusion is there? That's the naked lunch. Isn't it? Have I missed something?

Yes but few men can do it for the cameras. Women don't need to get an erection you see. It is a crucial factor.

Communication is difficult without labels.

I've no problems with labels

Yes she did. It was almost mystical. I had a lump in my throat. He held my finger like Tom Jones did when he blew Mr Allworthy's brains. What a book Tom Jones is. It isn't famous for nothing. The kid was fast asleep though. I put my finger in his mitt and I could swear he squeezed. And how light he was. He commanded the whole pub. Hairy arsed navvies were blubbering.

Surely you put yourself there?

That means nothing Becks.

If misogyny is seen that way it is a positive thing. Expressing indignation at the follies of women is an attempt to reform them. It does not write them off as basket cases.

What critics of misogynists do is to confirm the follies resulting in no reform. They are indulging in flatteries and everybody knows the motive of flattery. Weak willed greaseballing by supplicants.

If misogyny is seen that way it is a positive thing. Expressing indignation at the follies of women is an attempt to reform them. It does not write them off as basket cases.

Of course! It is only a woman capable of making a folly, their weak nature making them open to committing silly acts under a torrent of emotion. All women need a good, strong, rational man to put them in their place.

Well, if you're travellin' in the north country fair,
Where the winds hit heavy on the borderline,
Remember me to one who lives there.
She once was a true love of mine.

Expressing indignation at the follies of women is an attempt to reform them. It does not write them off as basket cases.

Not so much to put them in their place. They are in a place. They need somebody to explain that place to them and it needn't be a man. I often quote Germaine Greer. I've been known to quote Nancy Mitford. I've quoted Philippa Pullar a bit recently and Sarah Pomeroy.

All women, and all men, need a good strong, rational person to clear their heads which are bombarded constantly with salespersons.

I have to go out. That's not strictly true of course. I don't have to. I am doing. I'll see you later hopefully.

This is just a more polite way of doing to me what you say Farmerman is doing to you on the ID thread: avoiding the down and dirty questions that you don't have an answer for.
(Although it was very honest and polite- thanks for that at least).

Spendius - could you be any more insulting and paternalistic?

So when a woman says she appreciates and enjoys masculine traits in men- do you believe she's indulging in flatteries and being a weak willed greaseballing supplicant?

Or do you attribute enough positives to your own gender to accept that she's stating her true feelings or opinion.

What is so wrong with woman that you'd believe women are so folly-filled that they need reformation.

what would your version of the reformation of the feminine psyche involve?
What exactly would you change and how would you change it?

In what ways does the feminine psyche need to be reformed?

(I'm not interested in Germaine
Greer's ideas or anyone elses-

(a) you seriously do not see that men have been instrumental in creating
who women have become (in fact, I believe the primary agent)

(4) Do you see women has having less strong and integrated sexual urges
than men?

In fact your statement there betrays a problem I think you have. Oversensitivity. I wouldn't go so far as low level paranoia but that I should think of that word signifies something.

In a way you have pointed to two qualities of women that some people consider to be "follies". Impatience and insecurity.

You had a lacuna yesterday but I didn't come on complaining about it.

I am prepared to await your pleasure and I have no concern that you might be ignoring me because if I had you would have power over me and I only concede that to ladies under certain attenuated circumstances. I quite like impatience in ladies.

I suppose this is a part of how misogyny develops- a man is under social pressure to appear strong, decisive, aggressor. Women are not under this burden, and are allowed to talk to friends, allowed to express regret or whatever, which is interpreted as 'weakness.' The more the standards are upheld the more they enforce the ideology.

No, I was just thinking I'd stumped you, and I was trying to rub it in by adding insult to injury (in a playful way) by pretending I believed you were skulking away somewhere with your tail between your legs.

That must have been when I went to the library and grocery shopping.

I wouldn't ignore you though - I think ignoring someone who speaks directly to you is the height of rudeness. I just wouldn't do it

Humility, as I said. Give more emphasis to society rather than individuality. Many already do but such types are not attracted to internet posting.

I'm not interested in Germaine
Greer's ideas or anyone elses-

What can I say about that. I'd try to reform that sort of sentiment for a start. Ms Greer doesn't deal in ideas. She deals in facts.

You obviously disagree with Darwin's sexual selection process then. Wasn't that at work in the club Queenie was in? Didn't she choose him rather than the other way round?

Women have much more to lose.

The nature of the female
One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man's without being essentially happier or unhappier.

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.

Natural weapons
In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.

Female truth
The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. " But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.

Feminine charms
Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

All I know is that I could sit and have my eye on someone and pine and pine, but I wasn't supposed to show any sign of having chosen him until he indicated he'd chosen me first.

And even if a female does choose someone she can't very well act on anything unless the guy is also amenable and chooses her back.

Which would indicate that if/when they do go for it- the physical or biological urge might indeed be even stronger if it supercedes all the cultural and societal forces that should be holding them back.