How to explain

Given the ... fact that women are not visually aroused nearly as much as men are...
@nycindie: Really? Do you know who denounced it, or where their study is? I can't find it, and I am interested in human sexuality so I would appreciate the link.
I think that its rather odd to call it a FACT that women don't visually desire men. Its all I can do to keep my eyes of men and women. Why does there need to be a study of some kind to prove this if I already know it about my self. I am a woman after all.

Maybe SOME women are not as visually inclined but I take offense over the assumption that ALL are as a FACT. I think its important to be careful of assumptions and the words you use liberumcredo. I doubt you want to offend, but by not being careful you might do so without meaning to.
 
Clarification

@Redpepper:
True, true. What I said, ("women are not as visually aroused as men") was a general statement about the usual state of affairs. It was not intended to be an absolute, to apply to all cases, or to imply that women don't appreciate the visual aesthetic. As always, it is dangerous to make general statements generalizing a group of people, especially when speaking to / about specific people.

As a related side note, while arguing about this my wife would tell me "I am not attracted to other men, so why are you attracted to other women?" This ended up being a combination of her being more emotionally attracted to people, and also the fact that she was more attracted to women than men, and being in denial about it. I don't think this is the norm for what is really going on when this argument is used, but it is what was going on in my own personal situation.
 
And here is my language issue: by "sleeping with," you mean fucking - right?
Yes, sleeping with is colloquial for someone who you're fucking on a regular basis, although without any implication to the commitment.
I know what it means, dear. "Sleeping with" someone has nothing to do with fucking them "on a regular basis" It just is a euphemism for having sex whether just once or regularly. I was pointing out that you were taking issue with his use of language while you yourself were using a silly and inaccurate euphemism instead of coming right out and saying what it meant. Sheesh.
 
I know what it means, dear. "Sleeping with" someone has nothing to do with fucking them "on a regular basis" It just is a euphemism for having sex whether just once or regularly. I was pointing out that you were taking issue with his use of language while you yourself were using a silly and inaccurate euphemism instead of coming right out and saying what it meant. Sheesh.

I wasn't trying to "take issue" with his use of language, just he said that English wasn't his first language so I wanted to make sure that he meant seeing as in "catching sight of" rather than "sleeping with/fucking/having sex with" since that's important to his story. I have no problem with him using "seeing" instead of "fucking" or any other word he cares to use, I was merely seeking clairification. If you'll notice, I then offered two thoughts, one based on the literal meaning of seeing, the other based on the slang, since I didn't know which one he meant. He then confirmed he meant looking or catching sight of.

Because it was just clarification for me, I totally didn't realise you were calling me out on using a euphamism. Two communication errors on my part :eek:

As an aside, where I'm from the phrase "sleeping with" DOES imply an ongoing arrangement rather than a one-time deal, just one of those things I guess.
 
Well, there are a few of us here who generally don't like euphemisms for sex, but basically I was only teasing you, and it was meant to be lighthearted. But I guess it went over like a lead balloon and didn't come across as intended. Whoops!
Oh man if I had a dollar for every time thats happened to me in writing. :D Especially on here. I've given up really at this point. For me its better to remain flat than attempt to joke. :p Go getem NYCindie! ;)
 
Back
Top