Men. Men. Men.

[mankytoes]

32 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think this is incredibly based on generations and learning. If you said this to women ages 18-25 in the US they'd laugh at you. 

A lot of the reason that this might be the case for your generation is that men have been allowed to show sexual aggression, and women have been discouraged from doing so. That is much less of the case now.

When you're talking about mitigating it the same way you'd talk about breastfeeding an infant or taking a shit, you're excusing it. There are a lot of reasons to not encourage frequent jerking off in the workplace, which is precisely what @litechick advocated.

This must be the first time ever I've been criticised for basing my opinions on learning... What do you base your worldview on?

That's an interesting conclusion, because you've taken a statement purely about sexuality, and related it to "sexual aggression".

But I don't view masturbation as a "sexual offense", I don't think we should be ashmed of it, as I say. We all get breaks at work. At my old job, if we got upset or angered by something, we were encouraged to spend a few minutes in the break room, cool off, relax, etc. I know it's ridiculous in our society, but what if we just treated sexual emotions like any other, to be dealt with, so we can move on with a clear head?

And this does apply to women as well. I've been advised by some women that their sexual desire can vary a lot between days.

[Toth]

I'm just going to focus on one issue I actually want to talk about, because this whole 'wanking off' thing is just a ridiculous subject to debate about. I'm also fairly certain that when you can't concentrate because you want to hump your co-workers, masturbating while imagining your co-workers won't help at all. It will just reinforce your goddamn fantasies about your co-workers because you are fooling your body.

Heck, if I'd ever catch myself wanking off while imagining any of my acquintances, I would just feel like a miserable creep, nothing else.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

In general, women are better at being on task than men are - but that doesn't appear to have anything to do with sexual thoughts. Women have in general longer attention spans, better attention to detail and more ability to multitask than men do.

Mmh... statistically, I cannot help but agree, but could also easily present some of my female students as clear counter-examples. Hormones do influence attention, but then again, when comparing boys with attention disorders and girls with attention disorders, I have come to see the exact same symptoms, the same wandering eye movement, the same inability to stay focused no matter how hard they try. Completely unrelated to whether I was dealing with a girl or a boy. The only (definitely not representative) difference I could observe, was that the boys had the additional barrier of not wanting to concentrate while girls were failing despite their best efforts.

... all I'm saying is, that there is a strong individual factor involved here. Everyone is different when it comes to their work morale. There certainly are statistical differences (especially when we turn back to the subject of why boys 'fail' at school) and testosterone may be an issue to some degree, but I usually approach from the assumption that society always has a far stronger effect. There are a lot of factors working against boys when it comes to internalizing a stronger working morale (which is kind of a precondition for focusing on stuff): Lack of role models, pressure from peers and family to value sports over education, a dismissive 'boys are just like that' attitude in vast contrast to the corrective attitude people have towards girls failing in school. All of this creates an atmosphere in which boys easily come to the conclusion that they don't need to be good in school to feel valued and accepted, thoroughly skewering their priorities. This cliché of boys being too jumpy for classroom situations due to testerone isn't something that I've been able to observe in practice at all and I've been in this business for quite a few years by now.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

This must be the first time ever I've been criticised for basing my opinions on learning... What do you base your worldview on?

Sorry, that was shorthand. I'm saying that this behavior of women not exhibiting sexual aggression is a learned behavior; it is not innate to women biologically, and is not even innate to Western culture. 

3 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

That's an interesting conclusion, because you've taken a statement purely about sexuality, and related it to "sexual aggression".

Again, shorthand, used previously by litechick. It simply means being the aggressor in sexual encounters or propositions. 

3 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

But I don't view masturbation as a "sexual offense", I don't think we should be ashmed of it, as I say. We all get breaks at work. At my old job, if we got upset or angered by something, we were encouraged to spend a few minutes in the break room, cool off, relax, etc. I know it's ridiculous in our society, but what if we just treated sexual emotions like any other, to be dealt with, so we can move on with a clear head?

Well, part of the problem is that it's pretty unhygenic for men, unless you're proposing some disposable sock based system. There's pretty good evidence it happens anyway; something like 39% of office workers admitted to masturbating at work. 

Masturbating by itself isn't a sexual offense, anyway; it's the idea that your lust is so uncontrollable that you have to jerk off in order to control it, and (as Louis CK does) apparently need to do it in front of women, against their will. If you want to make the case that people should get off more, okay, but don't equate it with the NEED to do it which apparently cannot be quenched. 

3 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

And this does apply to women as well. I've been advised by some women that their sexual desire can vary a lot between days.

I feel like everyone needs to watch this.

 

[litechick]

6 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Those who suffer migraines are encouraged to seek out medical help because migraines aren't normal.

Yes!  Finally a shred of hope of being understood.  I suggested a medical solution in my first post but acknowledged that there would be resistance to that idea.

How can we help people who suffer from this condition for their benefit and the benefit of all when a reduction in sexual desire is not considered a desirable outcome?

In other news, I compared sexual release to breastfeeding, migraines, asthma, blindness, and depression.  I don't have any of these issues but that does not excuse me from giving consideration to the needs of people who do.

"A small minority related to sexual deviancy" Where have I heard that argument before?

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, litechick said:

Yes!  Finally a shred of hope of being understood.  I suggested a medical solution in my first post but acknowledged that there would be resistance to that idea.

How can we help people who suffer from this condition for their benefit and the benefit of all when a reduction in sexual desire is not considered a desirable outcome?

I don't think giving them a wank room is the right option unless this is significantly more understated as a problem than data suggests.

Again, you suggested that literally you could not possibly understand male sexual desire and that it was so far beyond your ken that you couldn't grasp it, implying that it was basically every man and that it was uncontrollable. You've since walked back on that, but you get how this was on you, right?

6 minutes ago, litechick said:

In other news, I compared sexual release to breastfeeding, migraines, asthma, blindness, and depression.  I don't have any of these issues but that does not excuse me from giving consideration to the needs of people who do.

Sexual release is not a malady. Perhaps you meant involuntary need to sexually release? And in that case, well, we DO give both criminal and medical consideration to those people. They're just incredibly rare, and we don't normalize it. 

6 minutes ago, litechick said:

"A small minority related to sexual deviancy" Where have I heard that argument before?

I honestly have no idea. That said, there is very little sign of people outside of sociopaths and sexual addicts needing to masturbate in front of women who don't want them to do it. The idea that this is even a 1% of the male population appears to be entirely at odds with data that we have. 

[mankytoes]

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sorry, that was shorthand. I'm saying that this behavior of women not exhibiting sexual aggression is a learned behavior; it is not innate to women biologically, and is not even innate to Western culture. 

Again, shorthand, used previously by litechick. It simply means being the aggressor in sexual encounters or propositions. 

Well, part of the problem is that it's pretty unhygenic for men, unless you're proposing some disposable sock based system. There's pretty good evidence it happens anyway; something like 39% of office workers admitted to masturbating at work. 

Masturbating by itself isn't a sexual offense, anyway; it's the idea that your lust is so uncontrollable that you have to jerk off in order to control it, and (as Louis CK does) apparently need to do it in front of women, against their will. If you want to make the case that people should get off more, okay, but don't equate it with the NEED to do it which apparently cannot be quenched.

But I still didn't saying anything about being "aggressive" in any way. You seem to assume being horny automatically implies being aggressive. I'm not saying there is no link at all, but I don't think there's an inherent connection. For me personally, I don't think when I'm horny at work I'm more sexually aggressive, I just think I'm distracted.

Well I've never quite understood why anyone would use a sock over a tissue, but yeah, some kind of hygenic area.

Doesn't that stat work in my favour? People are doing this anyway. But they're having to be all sneaky. Don't get my wrong, I know this is never going to happen in practise, I just think that says a lot about our view of sex.

Let me be clear- I'm not talking about about doing it in front of men or women against their will. That's a pretty big leap. If I said I wanted to go for a shit at work, I don't think you'd start asking if I wanted to do it in the middle of the floor.

I don't think I've said anything about having "uncontrollable lust" here. Simple utilitarianism- having sexual release will make me more happy and relaxed. Thus I will be a nicer person to work with, making things better for my co-workers, and a more productive worker, making things better for the company as a whole. It won't harm anyone.

It's so odd to me that you have capitalised NEED, when I didn't say the word "need" once. You've quoted me, but I don't really feel like you're arguing against what I've said. I don't know if you've mixed my posts up with litechicks?

[Eggegg]

1 hour ago, Toth said:

I'm just going to focus on one issue I actually want to talk about, because this whole 'wanking off' thing is just a ridiculous subject to debate about. I'm also fairly certain that when you can't concentrate because you want to hump your co-workers, masturbating while imagining your co-workers won't help at all. It will just reinforce your goddamn fantasies about your co-workers because you are fooling your body.

Heck, if I'd ever catch myself wanking off while imagining any of my acquintances, I would just feel like a miserable creep, nothing else.

Mmh... statistically, I cannot help but agree, but could also easily present some of my female students as clear counter-examples. Hormones do influence attention, but then again, when comparing boys with attention disorders and girls with attention disorders, I have come to see the exact same symptoms, the same wandering eye movement, the same inability to stay focused no matter how hard they try. Completely unrelated to whether I was dealing with a girl or a boy. The only (definitely not representative) difference I could observe, was that the boys had the additional barrier of not wanting to concentrate while girls were failing despite their best efforts.

... all I'm saying is, that there is a strong individual factor involved here. Everyone is different when it comes to their work morale. There certainly are statistical differences (especially when we turn back to the subject of why boys 'fail' at school) and testosterone may be an issue to some degree, but I usually approach from the assumption that society always has a far stronger effect. There are a lot of factors working against boys when it comes to internalizing a stronger working morale (which is kind of a precondition for focusing on stuff): Lack of role models, pressure from peers and family to value sports over education, a dismissive 'boys are just like that' attitude in vast contrast to the corrective attitude people have towards girls failing in school. All of this creates an atmosphere in which boys easily come to the conclusion that they don't need to be good in school to feel valued and accepted, thoroughly skewering their priorities. This cliché of boys being too jumpy for classroom situations due to testerone isn't something that I've been able to observe in practice at all and I've been in this business for quite a few years by now.

Yes I'm not sure why the wanking topic has carried on, seeing as it seems to have started from a hyperbolic over reaction to a joke. But there you go. 

I think your topic is far better. I also agree that society plays a big issue on boys in school. But the lack of expectation doesn't seem to apply to everyone, Asian students for instance don't appear to have much of a problem where white and black ones do. Culturally there seems to be a problem that boys don't really see the value of learning when the keys to success come from sport or music, or roles which are deemed cool. Getting a good job or career is less of a winning strategy these days as jobs are so insecure, education so expensive.

My surprise is more that more girls aren't following suit and losing interest in education and careers. I do feel like the feminist drive to get women to compete in the job market has succeeded in galvanising females and there isn't a comparable drive for men to push them, instead there are counter factors pushing them to try less hard.

[litechick]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I don't think giving them a wank room is the right option unless this is significantly more understated as a problem than data suggests.

Again, you suggested that literally you could not possibly understand male sexual desire and that it was so far beyond your ken that you couldn't grasp it, implying that it was basically every man and that it was uncontrollable. You've since walked back on that, but you get how this was on you, right?

Sexual release is not a malady. Perhaps you meant involuntary need to sexually release? And in that case, well, we DO give both criminal and medical consideration to those people. They're just incredibly rare, and we don't normalize it. 

I honestly have no idea. That said, there is very little sign of people outside of sociopaths and sexual addicts needing to masturbate in front of women who don't want them to do it. The idea that this is even a 1% of the male population appears to be entirely at odds with data that we have. 

I don't want to keep sparring with you because I understand that your mind is closed to what I am trying to say but I can't help myself.  Poor impulse control, I am also guilty.

You don't have to give them a wank room.  They will find a way.  If they need it, they will have it no matter the consequences.  It's more a question of asking what impact it has on the greater population and what (if anything) should be done about it.

Because I can't grasp it, it must apply to every man?  WTF?  I did not say that or imply it.  You fabricated that and attributed it to me.  You are saying more about your mind than mine right now.

From my experience and observation, I wouldn't say it is a majority problem but I would say that it is not uncommon.  I'm not talking about the 1%, I'm talking about the 20%. I won't bog the thread down with examples.  You have your own examples if you are honest.

Having said that, the thread wants to move on and I don't want to stop it.  We can move it to PM or just let it go.  You get the last word.

[baxus]

17 hours ago, Eggegg said:

Do I find it a bit odd that a woman is trying to womansplain what its like to be a man.. to a man? Yes I do in fact as she has zero personal experience of what its like to have a cock. I wouldn't presume to explain to her what the experience of having a period is like either.

There are also plenty of us who do have cocks and disagree with you rather strongly on what it's like to be a man.

For one, most of us don't share you view that having a cock is such an overwhelming feeling as you try to make it.

[Luzifer's right hand]

One of my coworkers once told me that he asked his doctor for medication to reduce his sex drive. I dunno if he ever got it though.

He is the kind of guy that seems to lose half of his brain when a women he finds attractive enters the room.  

Maybe its because I work in a male only environment as plant operator on shift but that kind of guy is not that uncommon.

A former superior of mine avoided women for that reason (once his superior reprimanded him because he had not done something he was supposed to do on a regular basis because he would have come in contact with a female trainee if he did it...).  

Those guys can control themselves... at least when they are sober.

But it certainly reduces their effectiveness at the workplace significantly if women are involved. 

Maybe shift work In chemistry planets attracts such people because they can avoid women there most of the time? 

Or maybe guys with a predisposition to such behavior get worse if they work in a field in which they interact with next to no women. 

I find such behavior alien at times as I have a pretty low sex drive but I realize that it exists. 

[baxus]

Those guys are an exception rather than the rule, even if we buy the whole "high sex drive is the cause for this", which I don't. I'd rather say that they have some psychological issue or that at the very least they haven't mastered the basic social skills required to function in society.

The "they can control themselves when they're sober" thing stinks to high heaven, too. It seems more likely to me that they see alcohol as a valid excuse for unacceptable behavior.

[Eggegg]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

There are also plenty of us who do have cocks and disagree with you rather strongly on what it's like to be a man.

For one, most of us don't share you view that having a cock is such an overwhelming feeling as you try to make it.

Well fair enough, you are a man so I'd suggest your opinion on the matter was probably more valid. Either way I'm not sure what it is you think I was saying on the subject but I didn't say that all men's brains are controlled by their cocks or whatever nonsense some people are peddling. I don't think men have an inability to control themselves in the vast majority of cases and I don't think its any sort of excuse for inappropriate behaviour. 

Having said that, I do think men are highly motivated by sex l, especially at younger ages, and more so than women in general. Its hard to measure it, but I guess looking at the huge differences in porn consumption between men and women is one way to see the difference. Men are looking at porn more than 6X as often as women and spend more time looking at it. Look at the way men use online dating, mostly badly, hunting around to try and get some cheap easy sex. 
 

[baxus]

29 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Well fair enough, you are a man so I'd suggest your opinion on the matter was probably more valid.

I still don't understand what your issue with validity of women's opinions on men is. You don't have to be X to understand and/or know things about X. I mean, you can be a gynecologist or urologist regardless of your gender just the same as you can be a psychologist or psychiatrist. If you want a silly example to drive the point home, here's one - you don't need to be a cat to be a veterinarian.

Just to point out, that's not saying that you need a professional training and formal education to understand and know things about members of opposite sex. We all have siblings, cousins, friends and family of opposite sex so we do have more than enough info to join a discussion such as this one.

[Eggegg]

6 minutes ago, baxus said:

I still don't understand what your issue with validity of women's opinions on men is. You don't have to be X to understand and/or know things about X. I mean, you can be a gynecologist or urologist regardless of your gender just the same as you can be a psychologist or psychiatrist. If you want a silly example to drive the point home, here's one - you don't need to be a cat to be a veterinarian.

Just to point out, that's not saying that you need a professional training and formal education to understand and know things about members of opposite sex. We all have siblings, cousins, friends and family of opposite sex so we do have more than enough info to join a discussion such as this one.

As a man I wouldn't expect to tell a woman what the experience of being a woman is. Why should the reverse be true?

[baxus]

As stated previously, a whole lot of us dick-having persons agreed with an opinion voiced by a dick-not-having* person, so the dick-not-having* person must not have been that wrong in the first place.

And there's a lot more to the experience of being a man than having a dick, as glorious as that might be.  

*Or is it dick-less? Dick-challenged? I'm really struggling with the terminology here, as you can see.

[Eggegg]

6 minutes ago, baxus said:

As stated previously, a whole lot of us dick-having persons agreed with an opinion voiced by a dick-not-having* person, so the dick-not-having* person must not have been that wrong in the first place.

And there's a lot more to the experience of being a man than having a dick, as glorious as that might be.  

*Or is it dick-less? Dick-challenged? I'm really struggling with the terminology here, as you can see.

That doesn't really address the point I was making. 

[Week]

1 hour ago, Eggegg said:

As a man I wouldn't expect to tell a woman what the experience of being a woman is. Why should the reverse be true?

It's the empowered (men/majority) telling a woman what the experience of the disempowered (women/minorities) is. The power dynamics of men telling women their experience is insulting, demeaning, and - typically - incorrect. It's easier and more appropriate to discuss the experience of those who culture, government, and society cater to because we've all internalized that power structure which, by and large, have men in power.

[Eggegg]

7 minutes ago, Week said:

Patriarchy.

I wouldn't tell a woman what its like to be a woman, because as a man I cannot possibly know, no matter how many people I ask or what links I post. So why would a woman try and tell a man what its like to be a man? 

 

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Eggegg said:

I wouldn't tell a woman what its like to be a woman, because as a man I cannot possibly know, no matter how many people I ask or what links I post. So why would a woman try and tell a man what its like to be a man? 

 

I imagine that if a woman says something stupid and verifiably wrong - like, say, babies are born through our ears - you'd probably find it reasonable to speak up and say "um, no, babies are born from vaginas and sometimes incisions in the belly." 

 

[Eggegg]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I imagine that if a woman says something stupid and verifiably wrong - like, say, babies are born through our ears - you'd probably find it reasonable to speak up and say "um, no, babies are born from vaginas and sometimes incisions in the belly." 

 

Completely different. It would be more like me womansplaining to you what it feels like to have a baby.