I read this article today, what do you guys think?

[Anonymous]

10 reasons why in general the majority of women hate sex. And why women don't give a sh*t about men when it comes to sex. 1. The feeling of obligation. One does not feel "obligated" to do something that you LOVE doing. If there was a million dollars sitting in my driveway am I going to feel obligated to go cash the check? To go and spend the money? Maybe you would, but most people on the planet wouldn't. 2. They would rather do the dishes than make love. Women understand how important sex is for a man, they understand it only takes on average 10-15 minutes to please a man, which will last the rest of the day. They understand how NOTHING she does: doing the dishes, the laundry, cooking, Can add up to the happiness sex brings a man. But they don't care. They would rather spend HOURS doing things that they think will please a man INSTEAD of spending the 15 minutes a day to please him the whole day. 3. Not wanting to initiate sex. According to MSNBC 75% of women WORLDWIDE done with MILLIONS of women said that they NEVER initiate sex. (Even with their husbands) I have a dog and I can tell which dog food he likes by what he does. (You judge by ACTIONS, not words) I bought one kind of dog food that he will ONLY eat if I HAND FEED it to him. He ignores it if its in the bowl. I have another kind of dog food that if its in the bowl he actually goes up and eats it. I have yet ANOTHER kind where as soon as I open the drawer where it is, he starts barking. He jumps up and down before I even finish opening the door. Only an idiot can't figure out which one of these types of food this dog likes. See the correlation my friends? Sure women aren't dogs, but its funny how women come to me (im a psychologist) complaining when men don't initiate sex and how they feel like the man "must not like sex if he's not initiating it." 4. Caring about being "in the mood." Most guys aren't going to say "Ive got a headache." I have heard stores of men who push through severe fevers just to get laid. Wow this doesn't prove women hate sex, it does prove that men like it MORE than women. Sure its relative. But its a pretty BIG gap. 80% of men polled by MSNBC worldwide reported they NEVER refused their wife sex. 5. Looking at ONLY lesbian p*rn. 75% of women worldwide look at ONLY lesbian p*rn. Really? Your getting off to other women's bodies? Now this doesn't prove that women hate sex, what it does prove is women again don't give a sh*t about men. I hate to break this to you ladies, if you catch your man masturbating to Asian p*rn. HE LIKES ASIANS. Regardless of the lies he tells you he doesn't. 6. Women are attracted to indicators of power. Whens the last time money, confidence, humor and being successful translated into the bed? NEVER.

[Confucius16]

Okay, first of all, what sources are you using? Are they objective? Was the source peer reviewed? How did they arrive at their conclusions?

1. There is no feeling of obligation. If one person wants to do it, and the other person also wants to do it, then that's fine. If one person doesn't want to do it, then there needs to be compromise and patience. You can't force someone to do it when they don't feel like doing it.

2. Both men and women can wash the dishes. I can't be lazy and let a girlfriend or wife do that. If the woman really loves the man, then she will please him, both for herself and for him, not because she wants to make him feel satisfied and then forget about him. Doing housework has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with just doing the chores, so that the responsibilities get done.

3. Just because you're a psychologist does not mean that you are a good one, or that you understand what psychology is about. If someone wants to initiate sex, they should bring it up, and there will be sex if both partners agree to it. Your examples are not logical and you didn't explain it very well. So you say that both men and women don't initiate sex?

4. Men just happen to like to rut everywhere, all the time. They are too full of desire. Women have it too, but they also are emotionally involved. If you're sick, they you shouldn't be having sex. That is just weird, and why do something when you're not in the mood?

5. What? Not all people look at p***. So if a woman looks at lesbian p***, then she likes women, and if she likes non-lesbian p***, she'll get accused of cheating, for looking at guys? If the relationship is healthy and both people care about each other, and are getting what they need, they won't need to resort to watching that. So you're saying that women shouldn't like other women when they watch lesbian P***, but that men like Asians if they're watching Asian p***?

6. Some women are attracted to money, confidence, etc. because they want to ensure that their kids have a good family and house to grow up in. Not all women are like this though. Some women don't care about whether or not the man has power. Love is more important. And of course these things don't have a role to play in sex. But they do have a role to play in enabling the man to be with the woman, and that is a prerequisite to sex.

7. You say that women want to be seduced, and then you talk about men getting seduced, not talking about women at all. Your description doesn't match your topic. And it isn't that sex isn't as important to women as it is to men. It's just that women are emotionally, not just physically, invested.

8. Sex isn't always an accident. Sometimes it just happens, and that just happens to be how it gets worded. It just happened for the guy too. And women are more modest about it. Men can just have sex with so many women, and they treat it like it is an achievement, while women treat it more special, not always, but sometimes.

[Confucius16]

I don' t see what the first update has to do with anything. You make it sound like you're being accused that women are after power and wealth. Then you try to defend your position. Nobody said that all women are after wealth and power.

[Asker]

1. You act like the solution the other person has is "rape" and therefore it justifies the other persons feeling of obligation. The problem is the feeling of obligation, not the problem of rape. 2." If the woman really loves the man, then she will please him, both for herself and for him, " Yes and this is the problem with the feeling of obligation. 3. 75% of women on the planet don't initiate sex. A very small percentage of men dont.

[Asker]

4. Too full of desire? This is a huge problem with many American males. They feel apologetic about their sexual desires. Its very unbecoming of a man to be that way. Women on the other hand are not comparatively as sexual as men. If they were they would initiate sex more often in marriage. There is no societal hindrance when it comes to having sex with your husband. 5. He never said all women look at p*rn. Not all men do either. So what?

[Asker]

Its been proven that people who masturbate to whatever they watch in p*rn, they are attracted to it. So yes, she likes women. Plus the majority of women don't like it when their man watches p*rn, and feel threatened by it. What he's saying is it goes both ways. 6. Not all women are like this though" I'm sorry to break this to you hun, but deep down we are all like that. The ones that arent, are pushing their feelings down. like a gay man who refuses to come out of the closet.

[Asker]

7.If you understood how women work, you would know what he meant by it, so yes the description matches the topic. What he's saying is that men are the ones who are supposed to "woo" the woman into bed. Regardless of the emotional attachment it creates, it still proves that women require something "extra" in order to be sexually involved. Whereas men only require the physical. (in general)

[Asker]

"Sex isn't always an accident. Sometimes it just happens," "It just happens" is how you phrase an "accident". Or you wouldn't use those words. If you did you would be horrible at English. "It just happened for the guy too." No, if you understood how most guys get laid you wouldn't be saying that. Most guys get laid like this 1. They get lucky. (even in this case they are the aggressor) 2. They seduced the woman using learned tactics 3. They naturally got her. (using self taught tactics)

[Confucius16]

Exactly. Some women say "it just happened". Is there a problem with that? Those are just modest women. Yes, I know how women work, but nobody requires something extra. People should just do what comes naturally. Look, you act like there is an argument, and you're defending your side, without even making it clear what arguments you're defending. There is no feeling of obligation, and people wouldn't force themselves to do anything they don't want to. If they do, that's wrong.

[Asker]

There is a problem with that when you compare it to men. If you understood women its not always about modesty. "Yes, I know how women work, but nobody requires something extra" Um no you have already demonstrated that you dont. doing something naturally has nothing to do with requiring something more. " There is no feeling of obligation," Really? again. some women feel obligated to have sex with men. Saying that there isn't ANY is clearly wrong. You obviously don't know anything about women.

[Asker]

Women require feelings to be physical. (in general) Men do not. (in general)

[Confucius16]

Yes, some people will feel obligated, but that doesn't mean it's right. You're arguing from a position like I'm the one who says that women should feel obligated, when I support no such thing. If anyone feels obligated instead of it being natural, then that isn't right, but that's their choice.

[Asker]

of course it doesn't mean its right. That was the point.

[Confucius16]

Yes, that isn't right. But you're writing as if that is the accepted view, when it isn't.

[superdudeman]

Ok, this makes some sense but let me break this down for you.

I think the title is what's pissing most people off even though the rest of the meat of the article makes some sense.

Im going to argue the points however.

1. Women do like sex, the majority of women on the planet do. They have 8000 nerve endings, most of which are erotogenic. Which means that they are made up to physically enjoy it.

Hard to deny that. Now if they didn't have those nerve endings that are designed to physically enjoy the sensation of sex, THEN you might have something.

2. The obligation thing. I agree with. Although its hard to prove that most women feel obligations to have sex with their partner. I think the ones that do however would have issues with sex obviously.

3. Women don't initiate sex because they want the man to be a man. Its much sexier for a woman to be TAKEN.

Women WANT to be TAKEN, by a man. Its not the feminine role to be the aggressor.

Regardless of what other feminists may say. A lot of feminist rules go out the window when it comes to dating and relationships and especially sex.

4. This is true. BUT Mainly because the man isn't being a man. They don't feel attracted to him and thus she doesn't want to have sex with him. I guarantee you if you followed your masculine energy and lived in line with your purpose she wouldn't find excuses not to "put out".

5. I have to agree with this one. What does it say about female sexuality where they enjoy looking at other naked ladies instead of looking at naked men. I never understood this.

Perhaps it has to do something with the culture on how a woman's body is more revered as "sexy" than a mans is.

So they fall in line with the social narrative like men have and perhaps this influences that behavior.

6. I have to agree. those traits are not gender specific.

7. See argument #3

8. While I agree with this, there are plenty of times I've experienced where I didn't need ANY kind of excuse to have sex with a woman.

I think if you're genuine and she's attracted enough to you, that stuff really doesn't matter.

[Asker]

Yes women do physically enjoy sex, but what this article is talking about is from a comparison. Compared to men they hate it. Some women want to be taken, yes. But the question that the article arises is how do you know someone likes something if they never ask for it or at least attempt to get it themselves?

[why-makoto-kun]

LOL! Where did you find this article? It's so ridiculous. It's like they took statistics and twisted it to fit a strange, untrue concept.

Kudos for pointing out its ridiculousness, because I'm sure some guys still think that way (actually many on here do, saying that a girl is a "slut" when she puts out, and the guy "scores" because he works hard for it and she doesn't, as if women are the magical sex gatekeepers who withhold it to be controlling). Sure, women like sex, but they're not going to like it if they feel it's an obligation (e.g. having to do it if she's sick, or really has a bad migraine). A selfish partner is not a sexy partner, and attraction for said partner will die in time.

I think emotionally healthy, non-sociopathic women would care about their men's pleasure. However, I can imagine some women not caring if their partners are very selfish, degrading, verbally/physically abusive, etc. during intimacy. In that case, the women are entitled not to care anymore and leave.

In fact, I read a story in which one girl thought she didn't like sex. Later, it turned out that her then-boyfriend was just really bad at it (selfish, etc.). and it was way better with her second partner. "The more you know," lol.

[Robotic]

'A selfish partner is not a sexy partner, and attraction for said partner will die in time.' totally agree there!

[why-makoto-kun]

Thanks xD

[Asker]

what about the women who feel its an obligation even when they are not physically ill?

[Confucius16]

It shouldn't be an obligation. There should be willingness and ableness on the parts of both partners. Just because some women feel it is an obligation does not mean that all women think this way. There are happily married couples out there.

[why-makoto-kun]

If they feel sex is an obligation, the shouldn't be having sex, and should pair up with an asexual man instead (they exist).

[Confucius16]

Yes. And asexual? Could you clarify?

[why-makoto-kun]

Asexual is either not desiring sex at all (think someone who doesn't crave chocolate cake because they never had it, nor do they desire to try it), or only masturbating with no desire for a partner. Asexuals may, however, desire romance, even if there is no sexual aspect. I have an asexual friend, and I often envy him because he doesn't crave the drug we call "love."

[why-makoto-kun]

Actually, some asexual people do try sex but just aren't into it, even after exhausting different options, orientations, etc. I forgot to mention that.

[Confucius16]

Hm. I guess asexual doesn't work. In my religion, it is good if we can control desire, if that makes sense. I think it's okay for some people to not crave love, but it does feel great though. Without it, the people that are together would just be friends in a relationship or something.

[why-makoto-kun]

Yeah, it happens though. I'm not sure what the cause is.

[Confucius16]

This article seems like this woman is defending herself from some unseen point of view, and this woman is outrageously defending this point of view, like most people believe in something against her or something.

[why-makoto-kun]

Yeah, I'm not sure. :/

[china-blue]

I did take the time to read your entire post. I checked at MSNBC (since you mention them at one point) but found nothing there that mentions an article containing the "information" you shared here. I disagree with the 8 reasons you chose to share of the 10 reasons you mentioned in the opening. I find it interesting that your age is listed as 18-24 and you state you are a psychologist. I feel for the women that "come to you" to discuss their relationship problems. Hopefully as you mature, your thoughts about these issues concerning "why in general the majority of women" "don't give a sh*t about MEN" and "don't care about mens feelings". I believe you need to step back and look at your post and possibly reconsider your chosen profession, or at least restrict your patients load to men until your own feelings and issues with women are resolved.

[Robotic]

Bam!

[Asker]

" I find it interesting that your age is listed as 18-24 and you state you are a psychologist. " I find it interesting that you assume that I wrote the article when the first words are "I read this article today".

[Asker]

Since I didn't write the article your arguments about my being a psychologist are fraudulent. So wrong there.

Next. Oh you DID look at MSNBC? Well you didn't look very hard.

BAM!

link

[Confucius16]

QA, even if this answerer said that you wrote the article, which she didn't say, does not mean that you don't BELIEVE in these points that you made. That does not make all the points this answerer made fraudulent. As a person that is studying psychology, I must say these kinds of articles give a bad name to psychology.

[china-blue]

QA, in your posting, point number 3 you stated "women come to me (im a psychologist)". I quoted what you posted. And thanks Confucius16 for noting I didn't say the QA had written the article. Though the more I read, the more likely that seems to a possibility. ;-)

[Confucius16]

If she says she didn't write it, I believe her. But it is almost the same thing even if her husband wrote it.

[washize]

Wheres the part of women not reaching orgasms from their men?

Women enjoy sex, they just don't enjoy it if its a waste of time to them.

Why doesn't this article state the percentage of women who don't reach orgasms from men?

Where is the percentage of the article that states it can hurt a relationship if you bring up the inadequacy of a partner in bed?

Why doesn't this article state the amount of MEN AND WOMEN on medications for depression and other illnesses/issues that effect their sex drives?

If women hated sex so much they wouldn't cheat, and they wouldn't be swingers.

This article is just dumb.

[Asker]

i only had so much room. I couldn't post anymore. "Wheres the part of women not reaching orgasms from their men?" This has been brought up. But this just shows what my husband said in the article that women actually look at orgasm as "the mans job" Men dont. If sex was as important to women as it was to men, those women wouldn't have said that.

[Asker]

"Women enjoy sex, they just don't enjoy it if its a waste of time to them. " Its almost never a waste of time for men. Compared to women. "Where is the percentage of the article that states it can hurt a relationship if you bring up the inadequacy of a partner in bed? " No, what hurts is not being honest and communicating and working through your problems. "if women hated sex so much they wouldn't cheat, and they wouldn't be swingers. " The majority don't cheat and are not swingers.

[washize]

It should be a team effort. but If you're having sex, orgasms should be reached MOST of the time. Some men don't last longer than 3 minutes during sex, how are you supposed to reach orgasm that way. You also aren't taking into account the weight and health of everyone. If a woman doesn't get pleasure from having sex why would she want to have it with her partner, if she can get off by doing less work with a vibrator by herself? Your answer doesn't make any sense.

[why-makoto-kun]

Wise words.

[Asker]

i reach orgasm in under 5 minutes. I have friends under 30 seconds. But I'm not taking account to the majority of women, just like you arent.

[washize]

You aren't making any sense, what does you reaching orgasms have to do with women who don't reach them with their partners? It usually takes more than 5 minutes or 30 seconds for a womans cervix to even fully retract for sex. So WTF are you talking about?

[Robotic]

'Some men don't last longer than 3 minutes during sex, how are you supposed to reach orgasm that way.' Well the guy should finger her and give her oral to help her finish if that's the case

[Asker]

"Well the guy should finger her and give her oral to help her finish if that's the case" Exactly, but more importantly its not the mans job to make a woman orgasm. "If a woman doesn't get pleasure from having sex why would she want to have it with her partner, if she can get off by doing less work with a vibrator by herself? " This proves that you are among the majority of women he talks about in the article. The mere fact you are asking this question proves it.

[Confucius16]

What hurts is both bringing up inadequacy, AND not communicating and working through problems. This is some strange logic. This answerer asked a rhetorical question or something, and you, QA, take random quotes as "proof" that this answerer is wrong.

[Asker]

"This answerer asked a rhetorical question or something, and you, QA, take random quotes as "proof" that this answerer is wrong." "Strange logic" is often a label placed by someone who doesn't understand logic. "his answerer asked a rhetorical question or something, and you, QA, take random quotes as "proof" that this answerer is wrong." Its not proof that the answerer is wrong, its evidence that she is. Shame you don't know the difference.

[Confucius16]

You go around saying "shame you don't know the difference" or "I'm sorry you didn't know that". That is a personal attack, not to mention arrogant, to think that you're right and whatever anyone else says is wrong. Don't cherrypick only the facts that suit you.

[Asker]

Talking about 1+1+2 is like saying that what you are saying is true, based on the truth of that math equation. Way to try to prove your points." Truth is truth regardless of the topic. Its still the truth. And way to argue against truth.

[Confucius16]

You're setting yourself up like what you say is truth, and using a true math equation to back it up. You have to prove it's true, not say that it is true and everybody is arguing against truth.

[Asker]

1+1=2 does not require someone to prove its true.

[blackwaterhattie]

I'm supposed to believe a WOMAN posted this?

Hey, guess what. I don't. This is another tired post from some tired dude who is tired and makes me tired and this sh*t is so tired.

[why-makoto-kun]

I'm tired too.

[Asker]

A women posted it, a man wrote it. And I've never denied this.

[Robotic]

Well she is sadly mistaken then

[Confucius16]

A man wrote it. A woman posted it. The woman had to type this, thereby "writing" it. Still, just because you, QA, did not write it, does not mean you don't believe in it.

[blackwaterhattie]

Whatever- this broad sounds like that ambition guy- right down to "her" retorts. And I have no doubt that "she" believes this crap- after all, it was on MSNBC or some sh*t so it can't be wrong. TIRED.

[Asker]

I believe it because I support my husband which I'm sure if you ever had one, which I'm sure you wont, you wouldn't be able to do.

[blackwaterhattie]

NoH8, bro. I think gay marriage should be legalized everywhere.

[blackwaterhattie]

Also if you are a psychologist, then I am one of the Great Old Ones. (DIBS ON BEING CTHULU!) And when I rise from my slumber at the house of R'lyeh, I am gonna eat you LAST. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! You're lucky I speak Dumbass (took it as an elective, it's not my first language) because your pithy reply was for sh*t. And you mention your husband like he's how you get your validation. Physician, heal thyself!

[Asker]

wow you are speaking nonsense. blocked.

[iPood]

hey QA, as long as you're anonymous blocked people can still answer and comment...

[beastman88]

loooooooooool

[StephanieL]

troll. Give it a little more thought if you want us to believe you. What are you, 12?

[teasegirl]

lmao how dumb are you? I FCKING LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE FCKING! I can tell you right now my sex drive is way higher than guys I know.

I think this is a troll question, it has to be.

[JohnBelluci]

"reasons why the MAJORITY of women HATE sex"

ok... I stopped reading there...

"This is a very persuasive argument Its full of logical proofs"

Did you even ever had an ORGASM thanks to a man before talking ? ... lol...

[Blubb]

Ha!

[Alexias]

Lies, all lies! Starting with the title. I really want to find this article to see who it was written by.

[justincider]

One guess who posted this peace.love.hatred of men. Love all the women telling you how full of sh*t you are. Of course you will never listen though...

[Confucius16]

I doubt this is her. And you haven't addressed the topic.

[Asker]

I already addressed this article isn't something I wrote. I'm POSTING it.

[beastman88]

damn, obviously written by an angry feminist man hater

[AnonGuy]

Most of these don't even make sense. They are more about why MEN LOVE sex. Like #4. How does that translate into women hating sex?

[onlyaguy]

I call bullsh*t without a link.

In fact, I'd call bullsh*t even if there was a link.

[Robotic]

'10 reasons why in general the majority of women hate sex.'

Just based on that sentence alone I know this article is full of sh*t. girls DO like sex, they just aren't as vocal about it as men are. Where'd you dig this article from? cosmopolitan?

[why-makoto-kun]

LOL Cosmo. xD I often wonder how it still has so many readers.

[Asker]

Its from my husbands journal he posted with his other psychologists, whom all agree with his findings. If you would have read further he points out that its relative to men. Men like sex more. He probably should have wrote women like sex as much as eating a ham sandwich.

[Robotic]

So a man wrote this, and you agree with him?

[JohnBelluci]

Ok either that girl is retarded or it's a Troll.

[Asker]

I'm not the one who wrote this: "Did you even ever had an ORGASM thanks to a man before talking ?"

[Asker]

"So a man wrote this, and you agree with him?" I agree that most women are like this, yes. He never says all.

[Robotic]

Talk to me when you remove your head from your ass

[Confucius16]

Just because some psychologists found that doesn't mean it is true. Are they biased? Is it peer reviewed (not by friends)? What are your and your husbands (and his friends) credentials? Not all psychologists are good psychologists.

[Asker]

"ust because some psychologists found that doesn't mean it is true." Your right, it doesn't. It also doesn't mean its NOT true either. But the fact that you are using this argument proves your bias. " Are they biased? Is it peer reviewed (not by friends)? " Again, why should I answer this, because you already KNOW its false, and besides just because its peer reviewed doesn't mean its true... RIGHT? so what's the point? And yes its peer reviewed by people who aren't friends. But it doesn't matter.

[Asker]

" credentials? Not all psychologists are good psychologists." Credentials don't matter either. This is a stupid argument. Also a logical fallacy. Just because person A says something doesn't mean person B who says a contrary argument is automatically wrong.

[Asker]

Come back to me when you have a better argument.

[Robotic]

'Credentials don't matter either.' And this is why no one believes you.

[Confucius16]

QA: What? Credentials don't matter? You just threw out the whole basis of needing credentials. That is a logical fallacy for you to throw out an entire argument. Also, there is nothing that proves my bias. You're changing the topic by asking "what's the point?", thereby "proving" that you don't need to prove anything.

[Asker]

No, "requiring credentials" is a logical fallacy. Wow you are not very bright are you. its called (argumentum ad verecundiam), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority.

[Confucius16]

No one believes me? Why is that? You're calling one of us an idiot? Hm. Way to be insulting to the people that are answering your question. Very mature too. Credentials matter. Expertise matters. Otherwise random people can spout nonsense and there is no proof, no knowledge base for the people with credentials to draw on. That is why you need credentials. You need to show that you are an expert in your field.

[Asker]

You can't read. ill say it again. (argumentum ad verecundiam) Is a logical fallacy for a reason you dolt.

[beastman88]

lol dolt, who says that?

[Anonymous]

Ok, about the p*rn, I primarily watch lesbian p*rn because I am interested in breasts but I am not at all interested in vaginas or kissing girls. Watching doesn't mean I like them. I am Asian and

my lovers have all been Asian males but I don't watch Asian p*rn much.

Also, the importance that Americans give to humor bothers me. I'm not looking for that. I really do not care if anyone makes me laugh. Also, face is way more important than body.

[Asker]

Yes and I'm sure people don't buy paintings that they enjoy looking at.

[Opinion Owner]

can you say that in a less obscure way?

[Anonymous]

I don't think this article is true.

[Anonymous]

Well most of it sounds like a load of crap to me! The Majority of Women Hate Sex!? Where did they get their information for God's sake? We don't give a sh*t about men when it comes to sex? Isn't that the other way round mostly?

RATHER DO THE DISHES? WTF?

I don't watch lesbian p*rn EVER!

The only one I'd agree with is that we like to be seduced! But even then, sometimes we just want rough, dirty sex!

It's mostly complete rubbish!

[Anonymous]

This is wrong.

[Anonymous]

..so - you rather do dishes than than have sex?

The rest of points are flickering between making some sense and between "Are you serious?"

[Asker]

I wouldn't. But I'm not most women.

[Opinion Owner]

So how apparently none of women here are of that "most"?

[Asker]

Some are. And besides whens the last time you admitted you are a bad person?

[Opinion Owner]

I am not a bad person and I won't admit something what is not true. What kind of a question is it anyway?

[Anonymous]

QA you come across as really stupid. Most of your arguments don't make a whole lot of sense, you have a lot of non sequitar fallacies in your arguments, not to mention you kept generalizing women. MOST women DON'T hate sex. Actually, most women LIKE sex. It's pretty obvious since we KEEP HAVING IT!

[Asker]

Prostitutes keep having sex too, does that mean they also enjoy it? Talk about logical fallacy.

[Robotic]

some of the higher end prostitutes do enjoy it yes.

[Asker]

Still a logical fallacy to say that all of them do.

[Robotic]

Have you or your husband talked to and taken a poll from MOST women on this planet?

[Asker]

Ive read the polls, the studies, and talked with his colleagues. Ive spoken to friends who have sexual issues, I've had relationships and still have relationships with women who are like this. And yes, most of them are like this.

[Asker]

And by the way, you don't need to cut the head off a person and drain their blood to know that eventually they are going to die, that everyone on the planet is going to die. Yes this "study" was done by the nazis on the Jews. (experiments) ONE person (the smallest sample possible) which accounts for everyone on the planet. In other words, sometimes you don't need to ask EVERYONE to know something is true. I don't need to ask 7 billion people if 1+1=2 do you?

[Robotic]

in this case, yes you really do need to

[Confucius16]

QA, what do prostitutes have anything to do with this? It is strange to seek to disprove the points that this answerer and proving your own, by pointing out any logical fallacies that were made (and none were made). You don't need to ask everyone about this, but we wonder what kinds of questions were asked? What context was used? What bias did these people have? Where are the results of the studies? MSNBC is not objective. Go to CNN or THE WEEK.

[Asker]

"in this case, yes you really do need to" Wow dumb. Someone who needs to ask everyone on the planet to confirm 1+1=2. I don't think stupidity can be defined better than that.

[Asker]

MSNBC is a better source when it comes to female perspectives. If however I put FOX news it would be less because people think FOX news as conservatives and conservatives are labeled as hating women. However, YOUR example of CNN or THE WEEK are also bias. If you knew anything about siting sources you would know the best ones are when you use a source that typically is against a position but now is showing to be FOR that thing. WHY? Because EVERY source is bias.

[Asker]

Even if a source is OBJECTIVELY not bias. (which you can't prove, but just for the sake or argument) People will STILL claim that whatever source you are using is bias. ALso, its better to use a source that is normally against something that you are saying than even using an objective source. It would be like a republican site saying that democrats are awesome. Yes its a republican site, but its credibility is now GREATER than a "objective" website. Im sorry you didn't know that.

[Confucius16]

The Week uses many sources, and it gives both sides of an issue, before finally concluding. And in The Week, people critique each other, so everybody watches out for the bias from their own media source. That's about as objective as you can get. Talking about 1+1+2 is like saying that what you are saying is true, based on the truth of that math equation. Way to try to prove your points.

[Asker]

"That's about as objective as you can get" Again, people will claim its not even if it is. and again, going to a website that normally is bias AGAINST what you are saying is better proof than going to one who is supposedly "objective."

[Confucius16]

No, the objective source shows both points of views. It shows my side, and it shows the opposing side too, and let's the readers see it too. "That's about as objective as you can get." Of course people will claim that it is not even if it is. Are those people you? Are you speaking for those other people? Just because they claim it is so doesn't mean that it is a good claim.

[Asker]

"the objective source shows both points of views. It shows my side, and it shows the opposing side too, and let's the readers see it too." MSNBC and FOX news shows both sides too. The difference is that they spin it their way. Showing both sides without spin is a talent. Again, having fox news say something positive about liberals is FAR more convincing than showing both sides of an argument with objective perspective. Because only the GULLIBLE people believe ANYONE is being "objective."

[Opinion Owner]

You don't understand objectivity

[Asker]

You don't understand how to prove objectivity.

[Asker]

I like how stupid people are sometimes. How gullible people are too. They will goto their favorite website and make claims that just because they state X person said this and Y person said this in response to something it is therefore objective. And that there is no possible way that it has been edited, rewritten or taken out of context. It could be 100% worded exactly as they both said it too, but taken out of context. And many psychologists say that nothing and no one is 100% unbiased.

[Asker]

Everything people write, do and say are coming through a filter of each persons "world view" their "BIAS". Even if I'm making a factual statement like 1+1=2 I am still using this 1+1=2 to fortify a point. 1+1=2 might even be "objectively" true. But it doesn't change the fact that even NOW I'm using facts to make a bias point. If you think a republican website actually saying a good thing about Obama is LESS convincing than an objective website that just said "Obama did X" You're an idiot.

[Opinion Owner]

Lol

[Anonymous]

There isn't a thing you said that I agree with lol

Damn ha ha who would pick dishes over sex?

Any article with so many terms like "worldwide", "only", and "never" can never be true because people are individuals with individual thoughts, opinions, and feelings

[Asker]

"Any article with so many terms like "worldwide", "only", and "never" can never be true " You realize you are shooting down your own argument here? Its essentially saying this "people who say never can never be true." Well you just said NEVER

[Asker]

WORLDWIDE mathematics has shown that one apple plus one apple is two apples, it has NEVER been proven false, and ONLY the irrational people claim its not. What about that one? I think you need to rethink your argument.

[Opinion Owner]

For one thing I only said never once

[Asker]

btw this isn't me saying this, its an article that was written by my husband. Which everyone in his field so far has agreed with.

[Opinion Owner]

I didn't say people who say never can never be true because that sentence itself doesn't make sense

[Opinion Owner]

I'm saying a article that oversimplifies the topic so much with REPEATED use of words such as the three I listed above, can't apply to all

[Asker]

"ny article with so many terms like "worldwide", "only", and "never" can never be true " I didn't say people who say never can never be true

[Asker]

"Any article with so many terms like worldwide, only and never, can never be true." Is = to People who say never can never be true.

[Opinion Owner]

And you realize there are almost 7 billion people in the world right? So that's about 3.5 billion women. A few millions amongst 3.5 BILLION women doesn't mean a thing. Why don't you check. YOUR math

[Asker]

"And you realize there are almost 7 billion people in the world right?" No I didn't have any idea. "A few millions amongst 3.5 BILLION women doesn't mean a thing." It wouldn't mean a thing even if the article said it was 3.4 billion. Because it doesn't agree with your world view.

[Asker]

And by the way research shows the study actual accounts for a large enough sample to represent at least several billion because it shows a verifiable trend.

[Opinion Owner]

Alright well I don't agree with your husbands research And I repeat: what I meant when I wrote "any article with so many terms like worldwide, only, and never can never be true" is that you can't generalize 3.5 billion people based on reasearch looking at a few million. You might understand it differently but being the person who wrote that sentence I know what I meant writing it

[Opinion Owner]

Alright well if it's so verifiably true why are you asking about it on gag and why hasn't a single person agreed yet?

[Opinion Owner]

I study science, and at least within science, you can't do a single study on a minority within a group and determine a set of statements true based on the evidence accumulated from the one study

[Asker]

" is that you can't generalize 3.5 billion people based on reasearch looking at a few million" I think the article just did generalize that. The question inst whether or not it can be done, its whether its true or false. So lets see if this is true for YOU.

[Asker]

"Alright well if it's so verifiably true why are you asking about it on gag and why hasn't a single person agreed yet?" For fun. Because they didn't read it. Just like I'm suspecting you didn't.

[Asker]

Do you initiate sex? Can you achieve orgasms under 10 minutes? Will you have sex with a man whenever he wants it? (providing obviously in LTR or marriage)

[Asker]

" you can't do a single study on a minority within a group and determine a set of statements true based on the evidence accumulated from the one study" Yes you can. Ill prove one right now. If I came up with a study of ONE person could I prove it to be true for EVERYONE on the planet? You would say no And the answer I came up with you would say its ridiculous because no matter what I say you are going to disagree with and have no logical comeback to it. Do you think I have such an example?

[Opinion Owner]

Well like I said I don't agree with a bit of it and thus do not think its true at all I think when you're at a loss for what to say you go back to "you didn't read it" ha ha and anyways yes I did read that Yes I initiate sex, why wouldn't I? It's pretty damn awesome ha ha yes I have orgasmed under 10 minutes, not always but I have. Only time I've ever refused my man was because I was on my period and thatd just be gross Your last comment really doesn't make sense at all

[Opinion Owner]

I do have a logical response, which would be that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS DIFFERENT IN SOME WAY. Biologically, mentally, physically, etc. a study of one person would obviously never represent everyone else. You are the one lacking logic

[Asker]

" do have a logical response, which would be that EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS DIFFERENT IN SOME WAY. Biologically, mentally, physically, etc. a study of one person would obviously never represent everyone else." So your answer basically says "NO because we are all different therefore no one study can prove to be universally applicable to everyone." Is this what you are saying?

[Opinion Owner]

no study based on a small minority can be applied universally like your example of studying one person and applying the findings to everyone, which would never work

[Anonymous]

I could not disagree more with those points.

[Asker]

So you don't feel sex would ever be an obligation for you? And you initiate sex?

[Opinion Owner]

It hasn't ever felt like an obligation to me. If I don't feel like it then he can either wait or take care of it himself, but usually when I'm around him and we're alone I definitely want to do it. I have initiated before and I'd do it again if the situation called for it, though he usually beats me to it. Why does it say you are a woman when you clearly aren't?

[Asker]

Good for you. You aren't the majority of women. Neither am i. Apparently when I wake up in the morning and wash my boobs I must be hallucinating.

[Asker]

Btw ill say this again, I didn't write the article I'm posting it.

[Opinion Owner]

ah I see, well either way how in the hell does a man know anything about women's opinions of sex? The article is still garbage.

[Anonymous]

Biggest load of crap I've heard in a long time.

[Asker]

This is a very persuasive argument Its full of logical proofs, evidence, and no opinion. I can see why people agreed.

[Girlie8780]

Who agreed?

[Asker]

There is no way this guy read the whole thing. I wasn't even done posting the whole thing when he said this. I'm positive he read the premise of the argument first. (the first two lines) and figured, BAH its too long I won't read this and made his comment.

[Robotic]

Yo really don't even need to read the whole thing to know its garbage

[Asker]

Yes, just like I know the bible is fake from the cover. That proves that god doesn't exist.

[Robotic]

Not accurate. if there was a line on the cover that said. 'god exists, you can't deny this' then I would just toss it in a fire somewhere.

[Asker]

It doesn't have to be accurate to be stupid. The whole point was the fact that it was stupid.

[Robotic]

Well your point failed.

[Opinion Owner]

It's a freaking FACT of life that women in general enjoy sex just as much as men do. How much someone does or doesn't enjoy sex has got NOTHING to do with their gender. Period.

[Confucius16]

I'm not Christian, but I know that that is just disrespectful to another religion, to say that God doesn't exist, QA. It is the right thing to do to respect other religions, even though you don't agree with it.

[Asker]

"How much someone does or doesn't enjoy sex has got NOTHING to do with their gender. Period." Actually it does. Testosterone which is typically produced more in males and is generally considered to be a male hormone, has more sexual effects than estrogen. "In one study of women under the age of 40, 90 percent reported experiencing no change in sexual desire or functioning after sex hormone production was shut down because of the removal of both ovaries."

[Asker]

"In men, estrogens have no known function. An unusually high level, however, may reduce sexual appetite, cause erectile difficulties, produce some breast enlargement, and result in the loss of body hair in some men." Men typically have anywhere from 5 to 10 times more testosterone than women. Testosterone is also used to help women gain libido. It has also been theorized that its the cause of sexual desire. in both men and women. Therefore does it matter what gender you are? Yes it sure does.

[Confucius16]

Both men and women have desire. That's all there is to it.

[Opinion Owner]

QA, believe what you want to believe. But I can ASSURE you the majority of women have as many sexual desires as men. It is very obvious that you don't WANT to believ this. Well, then don't. But stop selling us this bullsh*t. Women can be sexual BEASTS, and I know more women who are than who aren't. It depends on the individual, regardless of their sex/gender. If you seriously belive in these extreme generalizations, sorry, but then you're simply not intelligent enough to understand the issue.

[Asker]

"the majority of women have as many sexual desires as men?"

LOL

" That study, by psychologists Russell Clark and Elaine Hatfield, found that when a female college student introduced herself to a male colleague and asked if he wanted to have sex with her, 69 to 75 percent of the guys said yes. When the genders not a single woman was interested."

link

[Asker]

"When the genders were reversed, not a single woman was interested." NOT A SINGLE WOMAN.

[Opinion Owner]

I'm not even going to try to explain to you how outrageously moronic your understanding of that study is. Just use your brain for once and think again about what this study has ACTUALLY "proved"...definitely nothing about either gender's sex drive. So some female college students in the 1970s (!) were proposed sex and they refused - this means their expectations differ from men's, not that their SEX DRIVE is any lower. Seriously, do you even know what sex drive means? lol