Pornhub logo






© Pornhub.com, 2024
RTA

You are now leaving Pornhub.com

NO MORE ADS.
JUST ALL THE PREMIUM
PORN YOU CAN HANDLE
WELCOME TO
THE BEST PORN
EXPERIENCE. EVER.
FINALLY,
THE PORN EXPERIENCE
YOU DESERVE.
No Ads

Exclusive
Content
High Quality
HD
Cancel
Anytime

Offering exclusive content not available on Pornhub.com. Super affordable at only €9.99/month.

Start Free Week of Pornhub Premium
Go Back

You are now leaving Pornhub.com

Offering exclusive content not available on Pornhub.com

User cover image
User avatar
Login or Sign Up now to post!
This post is pinned
wrote a post

Breast Men Vs, Ass men

Back in 1968, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published a study that investigated the relationship between a man’s personality and his preference for certain female body shapes.           
The study was conducted by Jerry S. Wiggins, Nancy Wiggins, and Judith Cohen Conger of the University of Illinois.     
      In the study, Wiggins and his colleagues recruited 95 male undergraduate college students from a psychology course. These students were shown a series of 105 pairs of nude female silhouettes and “required to indicate which of the two figures they preferred.”    
       The silhouettes were based on a standard figure, but all had variations in the size of their breasts, buttocks, and legs. “Each of the three dimensions could assume the value of the standard (0), or could be moderately large (+1), large (+2), moderately small (-1), or small (-2),” as Wiggins and his colleagues explained.      
     After rating the 105 pairs of silhouettes, the participants in the study were asked to return again in two weeks to participant in a second unrelated study. During this second study, the participants completed a number of questionnaires to assess their personality traits and life goals.   The purpose of the study, as Wiggins and his colleagues explain, was to test the common belief that the “preference for specific body parts is associated with personality and background characteristics,” noting that men often refer to themselves as “breast men” or “ass men.”  
 From their findings, it seems that a man who prefers big breasts is a gregarious “guy’s guy,” in which they recorded the following in their report.   “Also characterizing large-breast preference was a tendency to date frequently, to have masculine interests, and to read sports magazines. Further, large-breast preference was related to a need for heterosexual contact and for exhibitionism (saying witty things and being the center of attention). In social relations, men who preferred the large breasts tend to be non-nurturant and independent. This latter result gives support to Scodel’s (1957) finding of a lack of fantasy dependence among college men who preferred large-breasted figures. In the present study, preference for large breasts was positively correlated with smoking and negatively correlated with endurance (perseverance in work habits).” 
   On the other side, men who prefer small breasts are friendly and unpretentious. It seems they are the conservatives of the group.  “Those who preferred small breasts tend to hold fundamentalist religious beliefs and to be mildly depressed. In contrast to those who preferred large breasts, those who preferred small breasts are nurturant in their relations with others. They are not cynical about authority and come from large, nonworking-class families. They are lacking in achievement motivation and are indefinite about career plans. As a group, they tend to be engineering rather than business majors.”  
  Now onward to butts. From Wiggin’s study, men who like large butts are organized and orderly. However, they might be needy and negative.  “Preference for the very large buttocks was characterized by a need for order (neatness, organization, orderliness)… Those who preferred the largest buttocks figure tend to be business majors (accounting?) and tend not to be psychologically minded… In social situations, they are dependent and given to self-abasement (guilty, self-blaming). Their value orientation tends not to be stoic in nature.”    
Finally, Wiggins has concluded those who prefer small butts do not lower or humble themselves. They are persistent and don’t need anyone’s approval.  “Unlike those who preferred large buttocks, those who preferred small buttocks tend not to be self-abasing. They tend to persevere in the completion of their work and do not feel the need to be the center of attention. As a group they tend not to be education majors and their reading interests do not include sports magazines.”    
Though the study is unique and well-executed, it was done almost fifty years ago. With that in mind, to all you men who read this article, do the results Wiggins found through their scientific study show a direct correlation with your preferences and characteristics?
  • 20
unlocked a new achievement: "The Duke"
  • 0
unlocked a new achievement: "The Squire"
  • 0
unlocked a new achievement: "10 year old account"
  • 0
unlocked a new achievement: "7 year old account"
  • 1
subscribed to 1 users
subscribed to 12 users
subscribed to 4 users
unlocked a new achievement: "6 year old account"
  • 0
unlocked a new achievement: "5 year old account"
  • 0
unlocked a new achievement: "The Hand Held"
  • 0
unlocked a new achievement: "The Prophet"
  • 0
subscribed to 1 users
subscribed to 1 users
unlocked a new achievement: "4 year old account"
  • 0
This post is pinned
wrote a post

The female libido

Low female libido—“hypoactive sexual desire disorder” as its been medicalized—has been the subject of hand-wringing for decades. It’s the Where’s Waldo?of scientific research, as drug companies desperately seek a “female Viagra.” There’s big money to be made: a 2005 study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal claimed between 35 and 40 per cent of women have low libido—which suggests “low” is in fact closer to “average.” Ellwood-Clayton spells out the problem in Sex Drive:“Once in a secure relationship, women’s sex drive begins to plummet,” she writes. The Canadian-born sexual anthropologist cites a German study that found that into a relationship, less than half of 30-year-old women wanted regular sex with their partners. After 20 years of marriage only 20 per cent of women did. Men’s libidos, on the other hand, remained pretty constant.
The issue, we’ve long thought, is that women just aren’t interested; female desire is simply weaker, and stoked by intimacy and familiarity. But scientists are now wondering whether commitment itself might be the problem. In other words, it’s not a libido deficit, it’s monogamy—an unspoken itch. As Bergner puts it, the female drug we’re really seeking is “monogamy’s cure.”

Female desire is a relatively new field of research. Until the late 1970s, the male-dominated field of sexology focused on documenting male behaviour and performance. The more complex, discrete mechanisms of female lust were inconsequential. Anatomical drawings of female rats didn’t bother to include the clitoris, Bergner reports. Even today, a peep-show stigma remains attached to sexology in academe, particularly in the U.S., which is why many of the scientists he interviews are Canadian.
Psychologist Lori Brotto of the University of British Columbia cuts to the chase: “Sometimes I wonder whether [low female desire] isn’t so much about libido as it is about boredom,” she says. Ken Wallen, a psychologist and neuroendrocrinologist whose work at Emerson University outside Atlanta has revealed that female rhesus monkeys are the sexual aggressors, echoes the sentiment: “The idea that monogamy serves the natural sexuality of women may not be accurate,” he says. Bergner also cites an Australian study of women over age 40 that correlated low female desire to the length of time a woman had been with her partner, not hormonal changes. Once those women were with new partners, libido returned.

American psychologist Marta Meana routinely sees women whose white-hot lust for their partner has turned to ash. She theorizes that, within monogamy, women’s narcissistic need to feel desired is not being met: they feel their partners are trapped and that “a choice—the lust-propelled selection of her—was no longer being made.” One of the women interviewed in In What Do Woman Want?, Sophie, reveals how she compensates to summon lust for her husband: by fantasizing about being ravaged by Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter.
The “you complete me,” best-friends model held as the marital ideal and routinely joked about as a turn-off for men may actually be even more so for women, says Meana: “There has to be an ‘other’ for there to be sexiness.”

The idea that women might be ill-suited for monogamy flies in the face of entrenched thinking that women use sex to bond while men use intimacy for sex, as enshrined in the “intimacy-based sex-response cycle” pioneered by Rosemary Basson, a professor of psychiatry at UBC. It also upends the “parental investment theory,” the notion that men’s seemingly limitless reproductive capacity is why they fling seed far and wide, while women maximize limited reproductive resources by being choosy. Societies have long used the low-libido explanation to maintain order: it discourages female infidelity and has freed women’s energy to focus on home and .

But that doesn’t jibe with the new thinking that a big part of what triggers female desire is to be desired. Some of this is conditioned: the idea that women—or “good” women—must be pursued and coaxed into sex. But women also expend a lot of energy on the hunt, Elwood-Clayton points out—much of that also focused on being desired. The stakes are even higher for women in the current hypersexualized culture, she writes: “Our desire to appear desirable exceeds desire itself. Jim Pfaus, a Concordia University psychologist and neurobiologist, sees the double standard surrounding female sexuality rooted in fear: “We men are afraid that if we open the box, open her control, we’re opening ourselves to being cuckolded. We’re afraid of what’s inside.” A glimpse of the box’s contents was provided by Natalie Angier’s 1999 book , which describes the clitoris as the only organ designed purely for pleasure; it has 8,000 nerve fibres—twice the number in the penis. “Who needs a handgun when you’ve got a semiautomatic?” Angier writes.
At Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., psychologist Meredith Chivers is working to expose the “animal truth” of female desire. Her research, which uses a plethysmograph, a miniature bulb and light sensor placed in the vagina, suggests women’s desire is as omnivorous as men’s; they’re equally aroused by a range of pornography and are far more responsive to stories involving strangers than long-time lovers. Yet when asked to rate their arousal, women downplay it, particularly when the stimuli aren’t socially acceptable.

Chivers’s findings suggest that women buy into the zipped-up model of their own sexuality. Yet as Katherine Angel makes clear in her sexual memoir, Unmastered, female desire is a tangle of complex, often contradictory impulses fed by the mind, the heart, the images we see, things we’ve read and been told. Angel, a post-doctoral fellow at the Centre for the History of Medicine at Warwick University, writes of processing her first erotic impulses: “The words I would have put this into, had I felt the urge—the words I still put this into—are these: ‘I feel like a man.’ ” She understood, even then, that as a woman she had to tamp those impulses down.

Fittingly, Angel’s lyrical, explicit meditation on her own desire, a “ferocious and vulnerable” thing, defies traditional narrative structure. She weaves trenchant social observation throughout the book, exploring seeming contradictions like being a feminist who enjoys sexual submission. She calls porn “misogynistic, , tacky,” but, like Chivers’s subjects, can be turned on by it: “I imagine sex with her—or is it me?—through his eyes. I see myself as he might. I allow myself desire for her through my desire for him.” Awareness of her capacity for pleasure feeds her desire, she writes.

Pfaus believes the new spotlight on female sexuality will make way for a revolution among women in the next generation: “We’re going to see more supposedly male-like behaviour, more women picking up men, more women getting laid and leaving, having sex without wanting to bond, more girls up in their rooms clicking on their computer and masturbating before they get started on their homework.” It’s a tableaux destined to horrify many. But, paradoxically, it could also pave the way to more aware, realistic marital expectations—and that includes new ways of scratching the itch.
  • 1
This post is pinned
wrote a post

What women REALLY want: To marry a rich man and stay at home with the ***s

Most women still prefer to marry a man who earns more money than they do and would stay at home with their chil***n if they could afford it, according to a survey published yesterday.  Despite years of equality campaigning and advances for women in the workplace, 64 per cent said they aspire to find a husband who brings home a larger pay packet than they do. None wanted to marry a man who earned less. And 69 per cent said they would prefer to stay at home to look after their chil***n if money were not an issue. Only 19 per cent wanted their other half to be better educated than they are. Instead 62 per cent said they wanted a man to have the same level of intellect.   Thirty-one per cent thought they were better educated than their other halves, while 19 per cent thought their husbands were better educated. The survey follows controversial research published last week by Dr Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics, which claimed more women are choosing to ‘marry up’ by picking wealthy men for their spouse than in the 1940s. In her report, published by the Centre for Policy Studies think-tank, she said men dominate the top positions because women do not want careers in business.   She also criticised David Cameron for backing the idea of quotas to ensure that leading companies appointed more women to their boards. The research, which drew on existing data from Britain and Spain, showed that 20 per cent of British women married husbands with a significantly better education than their own in 1949.   By the 1990s, the percentage of women deciding to ‘marry up’ had climbed to 38 per cent – with a similar pattern repeated in the rest of Europe, the U.S. and Australia. The report concluded that equal roles in the family, where husband and wife shared employment, childcare and housework, was ‘not the ideal sought by most couples’.   Now a YouGov survey of 922 women, aged between 18 and 65, which was conducted for the Sunday Times last week, has backed Dr Hakim’s claims.   It comes after a series of measures announced by the Coalition intended to decrease the pay difference between women and men. Of the women polled by YouGov, 62 per cent said their husbands earned more than them. Only 16 per cent earned more than their husbands while 18 per cent earned the same. Four per cent said they didn’t know what their husbands earned.    For better or worse: But the percentage of women wanting to ‘marry up’ has risen    Fifty-nine per cent said they felt pressurised by society to go out to work.   More than a third – 37 per cent – said they disagreed with the Prime Minister’s plans to force businesses to appoint a ‘quota’ of women onto their boards.   Dr Hakim said: ‘Research evidence consistently shows that most husbands are the main bread winners in their family and that most mothers would prefer not to have competing demands of family work and paid jobs.‘   Mostly women like raising k**s and mostly fathers are not that keen on doing it full-time. Social, structural and cultural forces are in place that mean if a man doesn’t have a full-time job he’ll have people looking down on him.’   But some experts disagree and instead claim financial constraints dictate that most women cannot afford the luxury of choosing, as Dr Hakim suggests, between work and raising their chil***n.   Professor Jude Browne, director of Cambridge University’s Centre for Gender Studies, added: ‘For most families seeking to balance childcare and work there is no real choice unless you are very wealthy.   ‘We do need more policy provision and it should be focused on, for example, adequately paid parental leave (as opposed to just maternity leave) and more affordable childcare.   The story goes deeper than marriage: women are especially wounded by a reckless sexual culture. Sex unconnected from commitment does not lead to long run happiness for either sex, but men derive more satisfaction and less pain than women from these indiscretions. Ross Douthat argued recently, citing studies: “In our sexual culture, the male preference gets treated as normative even by women who don’t share it, and whose own comfort level with sex outside a committed relationship is actually substantially lower.” Even if we do not insist on marriage, women would probably benefit from a “somewhat more conservative sexual culture,” Douthat argues.    Women’s happiness is also more affected by instability in domestic life than is men’s. This is perhaps tied to higher female risk aversion.     Feminism made women miserable.     This, anyway, seems to be the most popular takeaway from “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” a recent study by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, which purports to show that women have become steadily unhappier since 1972.     First, since 1972, women’s overall level of happiness has dropped, both relative to where they were forty years ago, and relative to men. You find this drop in happiness in women regardless of whether they have k**s, how many k**s they have, how much money they make, how healthy they are, what job they hold, whether they are married, single or divorced, how old they are, or what race they are. (The one and only exception: African-American women are now slightly happier than they were back in 1972, although they remain less happy than African American men.)    But it all adds up: Due to societal change, our conceptions about women’s roles have changed. This, in turn, led to rising expectations from women towards their own lives. The modern woman does not only want to be a good mother, but also strives to excel at her job(workplace equality and sexual liberation). When these aspirations are not fully realized, these women feel disappointed and as a result unhappy.
  • 1
This post is pinned
wrote a post

Multiple Orgasms Exist to Encourage Freaky Group Sex

We’ve previously speculated that the female orgasm was strictly a leftover of evolution, that the clitoris is wired to feel good during sex because it’s really a pre-penis. But there are other theories about the purpose of the female orgasm out there as well. Such as the one about how orgasms are merely an award for getting freaky with multiple partners. And why would a woman want multiple partners? So none of them would her babies. 
According to one anthropologist, and also anyone with sexual experience, the female climax is a completely different animal from the male’s. For one thing, it’s harder to achieve. And for another, lots of women can have lots of them at once … just over and over again. Men can’t do that.
So Dr. Sarah Hrdy speculates that the orgasm was once an incentive for women to keep on mating once their first, or second, or third partner was done with his business. Because if she mated with lots of guys at once, none of them would know who had fathered her . Which meant that off your rival’s was impossible – because they could be your . You Game of Thronesfans know what we’re talking about here
Dr. Orgasm’s theory is backed up by observations in the animal kingdom. Langur monkeys are relatively (for monkeys) monogamous, and dominant males are all about infanticide in order to secure their rank as alpha male, and also to make the mom stop producing milk so she can mate again. And also because adult langur monkeys are monsters. 
But you don’t find that behavior among macaques and chimpanzees, or at least not nearly as much. And sure enough, the difference is that macaques and chimpanzee females bone lots of different dudes. So, the female orgasm may very well be evolution’s reward to women for hosting nasty ape sex parties. 
  • 1
About

I'm just a young optimist that's interested in sex, a lot of sex. I'm a hopeless romantic with a dirty mind. BTW... MY BLOGS/POSTS AND A FEW OF MY PHOTO-ALBUMS ARE FAIRLY EDUCATIONAL FOR MEN.... AND WOMEN

Last Login:
3 years ago
Profile Views:
45,946
Videos Watched:
1,245
Non-Consensual Content Policy<\/a> or\n Child Sexual Abuse Material Policy<\/a>. If you believe a user's profile violates these policies or is\n otherwise inappropriate, you can use the flagging feature to have the user's profile reviewed by Pornhub staff.","next":"\/content-removal"},{"key":"underage","value":"User appears to be underage","popup":"We are committed to user and child safety, and Pornhub's Terms of Service<\/a> requires users to be at least 18 years of age\n or the age of majority in the jurisdiction where the website is accessed. If you believe this user is underage, please use the flagging feature to have the user reviewed by Pornhub staff."},{"key":"comments","value":"User is posting inappropriate or objectionable comments"},{"key":"spammer","value":"User is spamming"}]" flag-for="user" submit-url="https://www.pornhub.com/user/flag?id=3855922&token=MTczMTU1MjE3OKdtQyS7aMgy-Q6NHTlxMsT8LYFcySrEvQF6y6wj2LuEabzyswoAHtGsZeIoRLGAFWJYBunQJ6t1oGMYZJ68UQI." item-id="3855922">
© Pornhub.com, 2024
RTA
Pornhub logo

This website is only intended for users over the age of 18.