Male Ego or Male Emotion

[Bodington]

I have submitted a story, “Chloe’s Sex Lessons” in the novel section which Literotica is in the process of releasing one chapter per day. In the seventh chapter I describe where my heroine allows herself to be in a gang bang of 19 guys. One of the public comments to the chapter is and I quote: “Anyone really want this slut, I sure wouldn’t.”

I am bemused by this comment since it is a truly typical male reaction that logically is incomprehensible. I do deal with the issue somewhat in subsequent chapters. For the record I am male if you can not discern that from my writing.

Considering the angst a male has to go through in convincing an ordinary non “slut” woman to have sex with him it is IMHO incomprehensible for the male to denigrate the “slut” who is willing to meet that desire without too much effort on his part. Almost very male I know or have known would love to have a romp in the hay with no strings attached but by the same token would eschew any such willing female.

 

[jomar]

Welcome to the AH.

 

[3113]

Wow. Sexist much?

Almost very male I know or have known would love to have a romp in the hay with no strings attached but by the same token would eschew any such willing female.

It may well be true of every male you know, but that doesn't stop it being incredibly sexist of you to think that this means that no men have any discretion or taste when it comes to having sex with women. Some men, in fact, wouldn't have sex with such a woman because of just that reason--there are no strings attached, that nothing more will come of it, and anyone can have her as easily as they can. Of what value is sex with her if a dozen other men can and have had it with her and a dozen more will after they're done?

I know a few men who like to feel that their sexual prowess is special and their love making with a girl unique and wonderful. And while they may have enjoyed a romp in the hay here and there, most of these men I know would like a woman to be more than a carnival ride that you get on and get off of and that's all there is to her or to having sex with her.

I'm a woman, and the two things I'd say to you are this: (1) you need new and better buddies, (2) I'm appalled by your sexism toward your own sex.

 

[sr71plt]

Haven't read the story, but that "allows herself" speaks volumes to me--if it's accurate.

But then I don't see anything wrong with writing a story about slutish behavior, so there you go.

 

[TE999]

Some guys think there are two kinds of women; 'whores' and virgins. They screw the former, marry the latter, then return to the former after they've been married awhile.

If a woman in real life, or in a story, wants to pull a train that's her business, no one else's. That's not sexist if she consents and doesn't care what the guys think of her. She likes getting fucked...case closed. Besides, it's fiction...a fantasy...sheesh!

It sounds as if you've encountered some of the 'Loving Wives' comment crowd. Those folks have, at best, a tenuous hold on reality...it's a story dammit!

 

[3113]

If a woman in real life, or in a story, wants to pull a train that's her business, no one else's. That's not sexist if she consents and doesn't care what the guys think of her.

The story certainly is a male sexist fantasy, but that wasn't what I had an objection to or what I was calling "sexist." What I thought was sexist was the assumption that ALL MEN would love to have sex with such a woman.

I don't imagine your honor needs defending, TE, but I do think it wrong to pant all men with the same brush and assume that the criticism this story got from one guy is "protesting too much" and that no red-blooded male would ever feel that way when offered the chance to join in on a consensual gang rape.

I have this strange idea that there are guys out there that might find being #18 in a line of 19 guys to have a quickie with a vagina not their ultimate fantasy. The feedback the story got might have been obnoxious, rude, stupid or anything else you'd care to call it. But Bodington's assertion that it wasn't accurate because no man would ever say "no" to such a thing where it to happen in reality (as compared to fantasizing about it), his assertion that men never care who they're having sex with or what the circumstances are so long as it is free...that I found sexist.

But maybe I'm wrong in defending the males here against such calumny. Do you find that assessment of heterosexual men accurate and factual?

 

[Stella_Omega]

In my own extensive career *cough* I have certainly been turned down by men who have more exclusive taste than I did. And not in any sort of "train" circs-- just-- i slept around, and I didn't care who knew it. Some men would rather not know that.

I don't call the OP 'sexist" but I am not surprised that he got that comment.

And I like the "allows herself" without going so far as to actually read the story, yanno-- she allows herself. No one else is even in the consultation. Dunno if that's only my interpretation, but I like it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The story certainly is a male sexist fantasy, but that wasn't what I had an objection to or what I was calling "sexist." What I thought was sexist was the assumption that ALL MEN would love to have sex with such a woman.

I don't imagine your honor needs defending, TE, but I do think it wrong to pant all men with the same brush and assume that the criticism this story got from one guy is "protesting too much" and that no red-blooded male would ever feel that way when offered the chance to join in on a consensual gang rape.

I have this strange idea that there are guys out there that might find being #18 in a line of 19 guys to have a quickie with a vagina not their ultimate fantasy. The feedback the story got might have been obnoxious, rude, stupid or anything else you'd care to call it. But Bodington's assertion that it wasn't accurate because no man would ever say "no" to such a thing where it to happen in reality (as compared to fantasizing about it), his assertion that men never care who they're having sex with or what the circumstances are so long as it is free...that I found sexist.

But maybe I'm wrong in defending the males here against such calumny. Do you find that assessment of heterosexual men accurate and factual?

Yes and no. During my youth, I would have had no objection to being the 18th out of a train of 19 to use a woman's vagina. I never did, but I would have been willing, even eager to do so, either one right after another or one per day. To be honest, way back then, most women were unwilling to indulge in casual sex, and a willing partner was something to be treasured, even if she was a willing partner to half the guys in town.

I find it strange that you refer to this as a "sexist male fantasy." I would think an even hotter fantasy, for a guy, would be having sex with 19 women.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Having never been offered the possibility, I have no idea whether I'd like it or not. But then, I'm a rather sheltered bear . . .

 

[sr71plt]

I find it strange that you refer to this as a "sexist male fantasy." I would think an even hotter fantasy, for a guy, would be having sex with 19 women.

That's a pretty good point, I think.

 

[stephen55]

We all have our fantasies..

I've been told that one's first efforts at fiction often tell a lot about the author. But then, I heard that from a dentist and we all know what they are like.

Literotica...Literary and Erotic would be my guess.

From what I've read, the stories here are fiction.

One girl with nineteen guys....one guy with nineteen girls....sounds like fantasy to me. Some of us have arranged our lives to actually be able to live out such fantasy. My other guess is that it would take a serious mountain of money to do so. (Does that tell you anything about me?)

My so far unpublished stories are all about fantasy, which is to say, in my case, fiction. As a guy, would I want to be part of a one guy, nineteen girl reality? Yes, because that would be fantasy come true and no, because at my age, at least eighteen of the girls would be bored.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I knew a boy who got caught with his nose buried in his bird's stuffing....she was a prostitute, and we were hard on him for a long time.

 

[Bodington]

I want to thank 3113 for your interesting posting and I would like to reply as follows:

I looked up the meaning of “sexist” in my handy Webster Dictionary and find that the word is defined as:
(1) sexual prejudice or discrimination, especially against women;
(2) behavior or beliefs that perpetuate or encourage stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

I find this dictionary meaning is fraught with peril since it seems to me it indicts parents. I concede there might be some avant garde ultra liberal parents who do not sexually discriminate in raising their children but I think I am safe in saying that parents raise their sons differently than they raise their daughters.

It seems to me that labeling someone sexist usually flies in the face of common sense. You might be interested to know that Time magazine had a cover story published in Jan. 1992; entitled Men & Women are different. Of course that story does not concern itself about the physiological differences in the sexes, but rather it acknowledges the astonishing (astonishing that is to academics and feminists) fact that men & women act, think & emote differently. This astonishing discovery no doubt goes a long way to explain the existence of a double standard.

I do not decry the existence of the double standard nor am I arguing about the injustices of same. I am merely objecting to a universal male attitude as exhibited by the obvious male commentator to my story. Again I reiterate that I am not surprised by the reaction of the said commentator but suggest that it is an ignoble thought. You see the commentator ignores that my heroine is an aerospace engineer student so she is not a bimbo as the term slut would imply.

Let me suggest a real life example to explain where I am coming from. Ayn Rand is the quintessential philosopher of conservative political thinking. She wrote “Atlas Shrugged” fifty years ago which still is a most influential novel especially since Pres Obama has been elected. Her champions & her detractors would agree that she had a brilliant mind & was a truly significant person. However her sex life was licentious offending normal society mores. Yet her promiscuous behavior did not detract from the brilliance of her mind.

 

[sr71plt]

God, I'm sooo sorry I posted to this thread.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I think its very cool that your female hero is an engineer.

But Ayn Rand... Let's just say that not everybody agrees with your assessment of her "brilliant mind."

 

[Huckleman2000]

Ayn Rand again. WTF?

My opinion of her and her followers just keeps getting lower and lower...

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I think its very cool that your female hero is an engineer.

But Ayn Rand... Let's just say that not everybody agrees with your assessment of her "brilliant mind."

Lady, you just posted a mouthful. I'm not going to get any farther into that discussion but let be clearly stated that I find Ayn Rand's writings puerile and her philosophy tedious.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not all that sure this isn't a set up. Not going to stay around the thread to find out.

 

[Bodington]

not everybody agrees[/URL] with your assessment of her "brilliant mind."

..

Perhaps it is better for me to say that whether one agrees or disagrees with Ayn Rand’s views one can not deny that she was a very important & influential person. One can also assert that her unorthodox sex life had no bearing on her importance or her influence.

This gets back to my main point: just because a woman is a slut/& or a whore does not make her inconsequential.

 

[TE999]

The story certainly is a male sexist fantasy, but that wasn't what I had an objection to or what I was calling "sexist." What I thought was sexist was the assumption that ALL MEN would love to have sex with such a woman.

I don't imagine your honor needs defending, TE, but I do think it wrong to pant all men with the same brush and assume that the criticism this story got from one guy is "protesting too much" and that no red-blooded male would ever feel that way when offered the chance to join in on a consensual gang rape.

I have this strange idea that there are guys out there that might find being #18 in a line of 19 guys to have a quickie with a vagina not their ultimate fantasy. The feedback the story got might have been obnoxious, rude, stupid or anything else you'd care to call it. But Bodington's assertion that it wasn't accurate because no man would ever say "no" to such a thing where it to happen in reality (as compared to fantasizing about it), his assertion that men never care who they're having sex with or what the circumstances are so long as it is free...that I found sexist.

But maybe I'm wrong in defending the males here against such calumny. Do you find that assessment of heterosexual men accurate and factual?

Speaking from my own experiences, most guys between the ages of 17 and 25 wouldn't mind being #20 out of 20. They're only interested in gettin' their rocks off. It's not so much a male fantasy as it's a target of opportunity. Anyone, anywhere, anytime is their motto.

In most cases men become more discriminatory and territorial about their sex partners as they mature...some never do.

 

[sr71plt]

Speaking from my own experiences, most guys between the ages of 17 and 25 wouldn't mind being #20 out of 20. They're only interested in gettin' their rocks off. It's not so much a male fantasy as it's a target of opportunity. Anyone, anywhere, anytime is their motto.

In most cases men become more discriminatory and territorial about their sex partners as they mature...some never do.

Back to say that I don't really agree. They might say--and fantacize--that they didn't care about being #20, but I'll bet MOST guys would be put off about actually doing it. They'd enjoy watching it and they'd take care of themselves (which covers the inevitable getting their rocks off). But after about the third one, they'd be backing off from doing it themselves.

Time to get real.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Anytime I hear anyone place any importance whatsoever to that odious woman and her ridiculous "philosophy", all I hear is "I'm a complete douchebag."

Here's something funny:http://www.marriedtothesea.com/032906/do-it.gif

 

[TE999]

Back to say that I don't really agree. They might say--and fantacize--that they didn't care about being #20, but I'll bet MOST guys would be put off about actually doing it. They'd enjoy watching it and they'd take care of themselves (which covers the inevitable getting their rocks off). But after about the third one, they'd be backing off from doing it themselves.

Time to get real.

I don't know about that. Maybe I ran around with the wrong crowd, but the guys I've known wouldn't have thought twice about joining a train. We're talking about young dudes overdosing on testosterone and their libido hitting Mach 3. They'd fuck a woodpile if they thought a girl might be in there. Watching is for wimps.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr71plt
Back to say that I don't really agree. They might say--and fantacize--that they didn't care about being #20, but I'll bet MOST guys would be put off about actually doing it. They'd enjoy watching it and they'd take care of themselves (which covers the inevitable getting their rocks off). But after about the third one, they'd be backing off from doing it themselves.

Time to get real.

I don't know about that. Maybe I ran around with the wrong crowd, but the guys I've known wouldn't have thought twice about joining a train. We're talking about young dudes overdosing on testosterone and their libido hitting Mach 3. They'd fuck a woodpile if they thought a girl might be in there. Watching is for wimps.

Based on my own experience, I 100% agree with TE. Nobody under 17 ever has sex, of course, but single guys 18 up to their mid-twenties wouldn't have thought twice about joining in the train. They might or not might not have used condoms, but they would have been part of the gang-bang.

At the same time, I am harking back to the Fifties and early Sixties, when most women were reluctant to indulge in casual sex. Currently, if a guy has a steady girl, and they are getting it on regularly, he might eschew being part of the scene but, if his only alternatives are hookers or his own hand, he would very likely fuck her too.

 

[Verdad]

I'm torn between a lowly impulse to join this thread and a terrible premonition of doom.