Angry..do you see this as ok?

Gingham_R

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Please stop using txt speaky!

I've said both are normal already, the fact I believe many times more men would use !!!!!! if they could, is based upon my experience on this earth and if I may say so, is probably a little more reliable than most women.

I'd guess that fewer men watch !!!!!! than other men think.
More men watch !!!!!! than most women think.
And more women watch !!!!!! than either men or women think.

scooby088

!!!!!! is a mean to an ends really, if there wasn't a market for it then I doubt it would be produced but once you have seen one you have seen them all. Same as prostitution really if there was no need then it wouldn't happen, sex is a basic need but you can learn to live without it.

For me personally watching !!!!!! is boring and I hope that my imagination isn't limited by images on a screen or book.

Gingham_R

Lotus-eater wrote: »

You think the persona's you see in !!!!!! films are real?.

Personas, no. People, yes.

Lotus-eater

Gingham_R wrote: »

1) she may or may not be enjoying it
2) she may or may not have been coerced or forced into it
3) she is not acting like she's having sex - she IS having sex

3.:rotfl: Well of course she's having sex, but she's still acting. Do you think acting can only be non sexual?
2. Bored with this one now. Highly unlikely.
1. Well of course, that's why they are actors.

MeganKate

determined_new_ms wrote: »

Mk u.have shown urself to be of a lower level of maturity nd I actually feel a little sorry for u that u don't have the kind of rrlation where u can openly discuss ur needs with.ur partnernd finf a compromise nd u have relationships with men that u can't trust he would.act on decisionsu had mutually agreed on

I dont fully understand what you are saying (the use of ur and u are a little difficult to read), but I am not immature, I have a full adult understanding of sex and the needs of both men and women. Life is about compromise and fair enough if it works for you, but I think you do need to be a little more open minded about people (both men and women) with high sex drives

Lotus-eater

Gingham_R wrote: »

Personas, no. People, yes.

For fu*k sake, the people you see in Eastenders are REAL, does that mean it's real?

Lunar_Eclipse

MeganKate wrote: »

I didnt say anything like a woman should be servcing her man to keep him

I think you did.

Alternatively, I'm not sure what you meant by being prepared to have sex 5 times a day with them to ensure they don't stray - which they (all) will. (paraphrased but go back and have a read if you still think you didn't say/imply this.)

Whilst I agree with Lotus Eater's point about men and sex drive to a degree, it does slow down with less sex. Isn't there a saying about the more men have sex (orgasm) the more they want it, but the more women have it, the less they do? I also think now is an opportune time to bring religion into this hot debate, because self control is advocated in the Bible. :rotfl:

janninew

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I don't understand your point, is a character on Eastenders a real person? Of course not, so why should anyone in a !!!!!! film be any different?

You think the persona's you see in !!!!!! films are real? Very very rarely. I think you are a bit bizarre tbh.

Why the need to insult me? Because I believe that people in !!!!!! are real? You've even said people in !!!!!! 'are mostly real people in it, with real reactions and actions.' I except that some acting takes place, especially in big budget productions, but what about amateur !!!!!! which is very readily available? Aren't these just normal couples who film themselves and put it on the internet to be viewed? I just don't understand how they can be classed as 'not real people.'

Lotus-eater

Gingham_R wrote: »

I'd guess that fewer men watch !!!!!! than other men think.
More men watch !!!!!! than most women think.
And more women watch !!!!!! than either men or women think.

1. Very very doubtful, as most men think most other men watch !!!!!!.
2. I've no idea
3. I've no idea.

Gingham_R

Lotus-eater wrote: »

For fu*k sake, the people you see in Eastenders are REAL, does that mean it's real?

Don't swear at me. I'm not disagreeing with you. The sex is real, the people are real, their excitement/pleasure/the circumstances are not real.

I'm objecting to people saying that the people in !!!!!! aren't real. They are. I'm objecting to people saying the women are turned on - they're probably not, as you seem to agree. I'm pointing out that there is coercion and abuse within the industry. This is not new knowledge, nor does it mean that all the women, or even most of them are forced into it. Nor did I imply otherwise.

Nor am I coming down on either side of the fence. I'm simply pointing out some of the issues and some flaws in some people's arguments.