Oh I got my comments wrong way around in the latter paragraph about accepting invitations for sex, the Daffy old fuddy duddy me thinks women more discriminating in accepting offers or requests for sex from men. I have no idea if women respond differently to offers from women.

Good old SEX, think how much human behaviour is influenced by sexual desires, fears et al ??? Surely sex is one of the most powerful primal urges in humans as well as many other species.
Being a Daffy old fuddy duddy after reading the posts in this thread, I had to log out & do some internet thingy research on "incels", of whom I might say appear to be a noisy minority of mysogynists; & then return to post a contribution.
So I think it's clear that these self identifying "incels" do not represent the majority of individuals who have unsatisfying sexual relationships or no satisfying sexual relationships. I'm thinking of many individuals in long term partnerships with relationship problems as well as "singles".
I think it's a naive utopian notion to think that we are ALL ENTITLED to enjoy entirely satisfying sexual relationships. Or that we will have entirely satisfying sexual relationships ( except perhaps the few happy onanists, LoL )
How a person persuades another person to become a sexual partner in an ethically, morally virtuous manner in this brave new world is indeed challenging, as it always has been.
Is "All fair in Love, as in War ?" Violence is obviously expected in War, but unnaceptable as a technique for seduction. Less clear for me is what is, or is not acceptable in the deception/guile/cunning spectrum of behaviours linked to seduction.
Might I suggest there is a similarly complex spectrum of socially unnaceptable and acceptable behaviours that might be called those of the sexual predator/hunter. I won't dwell on the unnaceptable, but give an example of the socially acceptable, the gentle pursuit of fair maiden by eager chap using flowers, poetry & conversation, picnips & theatre, or the eager young maiden pretending an interest in football, cricket or fishing & shooting to accompany the chap to such events as part of her pursuit of him.

Are there similarities between "Diplomacy game diplomacy" & Real life "sexual Diplomacy" ? Do the top few hundred WebDiplomacy players by Ghost rating have more success in real life sexual Diplomacy than those of us languishing on pitiful positions in the Ghost ratings ?

I would make the observation that in my experience few hetero sexually orientated bachelor chaps will refuse an invitation, offer or even hint from a woman they regard as sexually attractive, particularly if alcohol is added to the ego & testorerone mix. I would suggest that the "acceptance rate of invitations" in this regard is lower amongst women than it is amongst men. Or is this an innacurate stereotypical myth ?

I don't think these "incel" blighters of the noisy mysogynist type are going to solve their problems with violence or whining loudly. Which is rather reassuring... Oops, Ponto is barking, have to go.

One day at a time.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:22 pm

Sounds like bollocks to me. There are loads of chaps with horrible personalities who have active sex lives.

There’s a few people here who seem to have active sec lives and I wonder continuously how they managed it.

So I dont know wtf this thread is talking about but I could really go for some key lime pie

Valis2501 wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 28, 2018 8:35 pm

Politician: Half the members of the opposition are crooks.
House of Commons Speaker: Please retract.
Politician: OK. Half the members of the opposition are not crooks.

Give "politician" some credit - it was Dennis Skinner MP.

peterlund wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 28, 2018 8:29 pm

So you only retract the use of the word "little" and not the other words you used to refer to me? Octavious, because of this I must ask you: Do *you* ever get laid?

Octavious, the subtleties of an English sense of humor may be lost here.

Politician: Half the members of the opposition are crooks.
House of Commons Speaker: Please retract.
Politician: OK. Half the members of the opposition are not crooks.

I'm flattered and all, Peter, but I don't swing that way.

So you only retract the use of the word "little" and not the other words you used to refer to me? Octavious, because of this I must ask you: Do *you* ever get laid?

My apologies, Peter. I confess to having no reason to refer to you as little, and withdraw that comment.

It is you that is calling me names like "pitiable little gobshite" and "malodorous little worm". It is not I that attack you in this despicable manner!

I seemed to have labeled you correctly as a "nationalist", and you do not deny it either. This is a political label, not the low level name calling as you seem to subscribe to. Please, get back on the civilized track again.

I am irritated by the sort of malodorous little worm who considers it appropriate to attack other members who aren't even here. If you define a nationalist as someone who recognises and values nations, of course I am. As for who represents a nation, we all do. Although I suspect that you must secretly be Norwegian considering the effort you go to to muddy the reputation of Sweden.

peterlund wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 28, 2018 7:15 pm

Do those Trump voters ever get laid?

Seemingly yes, and more frequently than Democrats.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/20/study ... democrats/

"Independents are 22 percent more likely to have weekly sex than Democrats, while Republicans are 11 percent more likely after controlling for age, sex, ethnicity and year the survey was taken."

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 28, 2018 7:34 pm

No. It doesn't even sound like the sort of pitiable little gobshite who dedicates his evenings to attacking people of other nations.

Ooh sorry Octavious! Did you feel offended by this? Poor you. I am so sorry.

And there you are go wrong AGAIN. Who cares about "nations"? I believe only nationalists do. Are you a nationalist Octavious, caring so much about what "nation" a person live in or belong to? What the f--- is a "nation" by the way? I discuss politics with people and individuals. Do you discuss with "nations" Oct? Who is able to represent a whole nation, whatever that shit is? The only thing that is important, is that the system the individual live in, give him or her the freedom to express his or her views.

peterlund wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 28, 2018 7:15 pm

"repulsive" and "losers"!

Doesn't this sound like a very accurate description of a Trump voter like ND or anyone else voting Trump like him? Do those Trump voters ever get laid? Are Trump voters angry at women because of this? Is this the reason Trump voters hated Hillary so much, because she represents the sex that make them so unlaid and such big loosers?

No. It doesn't even sound like the sort of pitiable little gobshite who dedicates his evenings to attacking people of other nations.

Ogion wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:20 pm

Isn't this just a politically correct name for guys who are so repulsive they can't get laid? Back in the day we just called them "losers." Actually, I think maybe we still do!

"repulsive" and "losers"!

Doesn't this sound like a very accurate description of a Trump voter like ND or anyone else voting Trump like him? Do those Trump voters ever get laid? Are Trump voters angry at women because of this? Is this the reason Trump voters hated Hillary so much, because she represents the sex that make them so unlaid and such big loosers?

Historically monogamy had more to do with ensuring women bore YOUR children and not anyone else's. If you look at marriage laws in Assyria for example both parties are required to be faithful to each other but the husband may have a different legal spouse in other legal territories and sex with that spouse does not count as infidelity. This law did not extended to their wives.

Plus if monogamy was a measure designed to ensure what I guess can only be called an 'adequate supply' of women then the flaunting of it by social elites would have been much more of an issue than it seems to have been.

The phenomenon of incels makes me think about the emergence of monogamy as a cultural norm. In early social groups (pre-monogamy), there would have been a lot of incels (possibly the majority?). They would have been a powerful (and discontented) group. I imagine that monogamy arose as a result of a "deal" between religious leaders and pre-history incels. Emerging religious leaders preached monogamy in return for the political support of incels. The result was monogamy and the social cohesion necessary for urbanization and empire.

Thoughts?

It's being used as an excuse for mowing down people with a vehicle in Canada.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/24/us/toron ... t-we-know/

There isn't a right that someone has to have sex with you. Although Trump implied in his Access Hollywood interview when you are rich and famous you can get it with anyone. It's just poor losers that have troubles.