<p>
</p>
<p>Pretty weak argument considering I’ve seen things like ‘mouth watering male bods’ on the front page too.</p>
<p>It is an emotional arousal. They have sex stories and spiritual karma-sutra stuff. Men have photos. Same thing.</p>
<p>Wait, so then what is PlayGirl? Is that like a marketing mistake, because I obviously can’t find that arousing since I’m a woman and only emotionally stimulated.</p>
<p>Playgirl didn’t sell as many copies as twilight new moon did apparently.</p>
<p>Exactly. Playgirl is far, far less popular a periodical than Playboy. Again, you think what I am saying is a law that absolutely 100% of humans follow, when I said it is a tendency and a trend caused by basic biological differences.</p>
<p>Well almost 40 years and still in business, and it must be doing something right. I’m not arguing that it’s nearly as big as Playboy, it’s not, but it’s doing a darn good job. And you can’t say the gay community is it’s only push, because it’s clearly marketed toward heterosexual women.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What? Cosmopolitan has pretty much the same cover picture every month, a well-dressed female model. Have you ever read the articles inside? They are not pornographic, they more about dating and being attractive. If the article is titled something more provocative that is just to sell the magazine. Cosmopolitan is not the same kind of magazine as PlayBoy or PlayGirl.</p>
<p>^reminds me of an onion video: Cosmopolitan Magazine Completes 40-year study on how to Please Your Man</p>
<p>manhattan, you’re overgeneralising to the point of idiocy. </p>
<p>but Woofles, you seem to be handling this quire maturely. Your bf admitted to what he’s doing and that it’s a problem, and you believe he’s willing and capable of fixing it. you have no more need for people preaching to you here.</p>
<p>well no, you did refer to it as a fact.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone argues the idea that more men dabble in porn than women. But the whole cosmo is to women what playboy is to men is a little ridiculous. Please take a picture when you see a chick masturbating to a sex-advice article, and then maybe i’ll consider it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re ridiculous. Cosmo is all about sex. Playboy is all about sex. Where are you disconnecting here?</p>
<p>my 2 cents…</p>
<p>First off. I’m of the opinion that this problem is a big deal. There is a clear differance between chat rooms and pre-done porn. That has already been established and I agree 100%. Chat rooms is far more morally disturbing. and 3 hours a day! PROBLEMO</p>
<p>but the Manhattan argument… manhattan, I understand where your coming from. Men and women are simply hard wired differently. Porn, a visual “stimulant”, is simply more appealing to men overall because of the hard wiring. Does that justify porn for 3 hours a day? no. So does it make the boyfriend a total Dbag? Still, no. Point I’m making, and manhattan is trying to get across, is that you shouldn’t murder your boyfriend for it. Porn is more common amongst men than you may think (once again, it is a generalization. Not every guy watches porn) and that your boyfriend is indeed “normal” to SOME degree. The analogy manhattan used was that women, generally speaking of course, do the same principle. Women like to talk and express their feelings (where the therapists part comes in) as an outlet of sorts just like when men may watch porn. Obviously the comparison is a bit off because talking is “mentally/emotionally stimulating” while porn is purely physical. But the end result is still the same for both cases. They are release mechanisms that form from something that can not be described. We as humans are hard wired to like these various things. Men to porn as women to talking/expressing.
I don’t know if I completely agree with him on the cosmopolitan subject simply because I have never opened a magazine from them in my life but heres my stance on that. The undelying theme, from what I can tell, is still there. If cosmopolitan has articles about sexual stuff then that would be a written form of talking/expression which would appeal more so to women. Thus, a form of media that performs the same function as porn does for men. Implying that you cant judge the boyfriend to hard because women go through the same process of venting through some medium. Albeit talking/expressing is a different form of pleasure than porn’s physical nature.</p>
<p>And a little word of common sense. Manhattan’s whole argument is based on sterotypes of men liking porn and women liking discussion. Thats been established and for some reason or another you don’t like it. I understand stereotypes arent ALWAYS true (hince, playgirl is still around) but guess what? Typically, they are. They are excellent tools for life and should not be ignored.
Example: If some guy with a rough beard, tatoos every where, multiple piercings, pants sagging low, and a 3x shirt asked you to give him a ride would you do it? Probably not because you may consider him a thug, hoodlum, druggie, gangster or whatever word pops to your mind. THAT is a form of not one but two stereotypes. First, it is a stereotype that a thug or whatever word you used has these characteristics. Second, your using the stereotype that thugs are bad people who may do harm to you and that driving him could be dangerous. According to your previous statements it sounds you are fine with driving some thug named johnny because stereotypes aren’t always right. OK, fine. You take the risk all you want but I’m sure as hell using the stereotype to help my decision making in ensuring my safety. Stereotypes are perfectly fine as long as they aren’t abused.</p>
<p>SRY for the long post. In the end, yeah deal with his problem but don’t be too harsh(ie, leave him) because it is somewhat common. And BTW, I DONT think he is doing it because you are not providing in the relationship. You are not failing in your task as GF and there is no need to listen to the idiots who say your to blame. He simply has an addiction that needs to be throttled down.</p>
<p>lol, okay…</p>
<p>Cosmo is actually not all about sex. For instance, in this month’s edition: “5 ways to become famous”, “Health concerns about tanning”, “how to make the prettiest ponytail”, and my most arrousing article “Shocking statistic about STDs”… sooooo arrousing. </p>
<p>The magazine caters to a lot of the generalized daily interests and concerns of women, and <em>gasps</em> because we have sex, that’s gonna be in there too! Playboy is to masturbate and check out some boobs and vaginas. Oh but you know, because I’m ‘emotionally stimulated’, I am sexually satisfied by reading my horoscope in Cosmo. that’s ■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>Yeah. Newsflash Woofles: Playboy isn’t all about sex either. Now you get to be the ignorant one.</p>
<p>Make a value judgement. Porn isn’t a harmless occupation, nor is watching it. He’s not going to turn out well, and it’s best to cut your losses. This shouldn’t reflect on you or your relationship in any way, and anyone who says it does/should doesn’t get the dynamic.</p>
<p>Having said that, I would ask him to stop the interactive stuff “because it feels like cheating”. And it is.If he can’t then REALLY dump him.</p>
<p>oooohhhh buuurrrnnn!!!</p>
<p>Oh I dunno, I was just figuring since you buddy, schaden, said it was…</p>
<p>We never said Playboy was only explicitly about porn. Again, you choose to exaggerate what people say, unless you can show me where I stated that 100% of the content of playboy was pornography and the only reason people purchase it. Oh, you can’t? That’s right, you just love libel.</p>
<p>uhm…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah, totally exaggerating. I’m just going to agree to disagree 'cause I don’t think this is going anywhere.</p>
<p>Fair enough. I never said anything about it.</p>
<p>EDIT: I did say show me where I, personally, said something like that.</p>
<p>Uhhhh…Why? I never said you did… I was talking about schaden. Can’t you just give it up?</p>
<p>No, because I’m right. Schaden is mostly right. You’re clueless.</p>
<p>LOLOL WOW. good job sounding like a 10 year-old.
I have nothing more to say to you.</p>