Emerald

I didn't mean necessarily from a dating perspective... I meant from a collective identity perspective. Sometimes, it can be a bit of an ego boost to believe that one belongs to a superior group and that superiority is ensured if you belong to that group... even by no personal merit of your own. So, you may not have ever hunted in your life. But perhaps the belief that, "No matter what, I'm a man and can always best almost all women at these kinds of tasks" is something that's part of how you build up a sense of superior identity. But I would agree that there are tasks that men are better equipped for than women... Pretty much anything that requires a lot of upper body strength and/or speed is going to be men's forte. But apropos of this discussion, endurance hunting doesn't require either of those things, as you're not running the animal down with speed and you're not wrestling it with your bare hands. That's why the idea that nomadic women were commonly endurance hunters doesn't strike me as an outlandish hypothesis. Plus, hunting was also described in a pretty easeful way in some descriptions where even elders and kids would get involved in the hunt and chase an animal off of a cliff or into a trap. So, hunting isn't always some knock-down drag out brawl with a Siberian Tiger and a strong manly man with a spear. Hunting is also just tracking a deer until it's too weak to fight back. So, I'm sure hunting wasn't always a difficult survival task... when the opportunity to hunt actually arose. But when it comes to truly difficult survival tasks that require strength and speed, men would certainly have a strong advantage because of their muscle mass and testosterone.

Women are optimized for mothering of course. And men are also optimized for fathering. But you're very protective of the idea that men are the primary providers... when history doesn't actually bear out such a strong delineation in who provides until relatively recently in human history. That's especially true since the majority of the calories in nomadic times were foraged and not hunted. So, to the degree that there was a gender delineation in tasks, women were bringing in more of the foraged food. Then in agrarian times, it was usually a man, his wife, and like 10 kids all having a hand in producing the food. That's really what a traditional Stage Blue family dynamic actually looks like. And it just wouldn't be accurate to say that the man is more valuable to the farm than the wife is. The farm is a joint family project. The issue is that industrialization skewed our perception of what traditional divisions of labor actually looked like. For a couple decades of industrial economic prosperity, men went out to work in factories for money... which broke from the old farming model. And women stayed home with kids to tend to domestic duties and weren't allowed to work in many roles outside of the house for a period of time. This cemented the idea of man as provider... and woman as the one provided for. But that's modern... and not traditional at all. And this period in the 1940s and 50s, cemented the idea of the middle class working man and the woman who doesn't work... when that was only available to the very wealthy before. And we tend to think of "Leave it to Beaver" when we think of a traditional couple... when there's nothing traditional about that set up at all. So, if you really look at traditional families now and in the past, everyone is contributing calories and resources to the group... and everyone has to contribute calories and resources to the group to survive. I feel like your perspective may be based in two things... Your resistance to community... and wanting to feel like your maleness optimizes you to be a sole provider who has no need to be provided back for. A romanticized but false notion of men's roles in women's lives and society in human history (believing in a mythologized past, where men were men and women were women... and where men were hands-down the most valuable people in the society).

The study was over 100+ different burial regions in the Americas... which is a very large land mass. It's like a quarter of the world's total land mass. So, it wasn't a small area that was studied. And the cannibalism and hunting comparison doesn't match. Those are apples and oranges. First off, I don't think that cannibalism was ever gender-delineated. So, it's not like we have historical narratives like, "Men were the cannibals and women were the non-cannibals." Then, that gets debunked and we discovered, "Oh! Even though men in most cultures were the primary cannibals... women often partook in cannibalism too." Secondly, hunting was a component of the vast majority of cultures... if not every culture. And cannibalism was not. So, cannibalism itself is less relevant to the understand of how the majority of human cultures functioned compared to the topic of hunting. So, saying that the answer to the question of, "How many societies had women in the role of hunter?" is just as insignificant as "How many societies had female cannibals?" is just dishonest. And you're just looking for a way to maintain your worldview in the face of opposing evidence... which is very human of you.

Damn! Her lung capacity is amazing to be able to win an ultra-marathon whilst nagging the whole way.

Sure... I don't deny that a lot of Sociologists have that bias. And I guess Archaeologists could have that bias as well... though it's harder to fudge that data. How in your opinion, did they rig up the study where they found a bunch of female skeletons buried across a variety of regions in the Americas with game-hunting tool kits? And how did they rig up the study where most foraging societies have woman doing some portion of the hunting duties? At a certain point, you have to recognize when your modern ideas about historical gender roles don't match the reality of how humans have historically operated.

Sure, there's a lefty agenda. I just don't think that the hypothesis that many pre-agrarian women were likely good big game hunters is some far-fetched lefty agenda. It seems pretty well supported and not even very surprising. It's been well-known for a long time that gender roles weren't as strongly delineated in pre-agrarian times as we once thought they were... and that men sometimes foraged and women sometimes hunted. And there's plenty of evidence to this effect. So, the idea of "Men only hunting... and women only gathering" was something that I learned was debunked when I was a freshman in college (almost 20 years ago). And I just looked it up, and more recent DNA studies on the remains of nomadic big game hunters in the Americas, it was revealed that 30-50% of the remains belonged to women... with variations depending on the site where the remains were tested. There's also a recent ethnographic study of modern foraging societies. And in that study it revealed that women hunt in 79% of hunter-gatherer societies... and engage in large game hunting in 36% of those societies. And unless there's something fundamentally different about those foraging societies compared to historical foraging societies, we can likely gather some clues about how foraging societies have historically operated. So, there's pretty strong evidence that women have historically engaged in the act of hunting... even if that wasn't their primary task. There's also strong evidence that women do very well with endurance over long-distances... with women sometimes even being the outright winners of ultra-marathons when competing with men and other women. There's also strong evidence that big game hunts were largely feats of endurance, where humans would track a very fast animal down until it's too tired and weak to run away or fight back. And the tools used to kill the large game didn't require a ton of upper-body strength. So, the idea that women may have an advantage with big game endurance hunting isn't an insane hypothesis... nor does it seem like a leftist plot.

That is the challenging part about deepening the level of intimacy. One way to mitigate some of the risk is by being pickier about the women you're willing to escalate things with. Though, I know that runs a bit counter to the plan of going out and having a wild time and hooking up randomly. But if you can get a spidey sense of how emotionally mature the woman is before becoming intimate, that might help you feel more open and less judged. Sex is a vulnerable thing to do. There's no getting around that. Of course, many may tell you to just suck it up and be willing to be rejected based from a more vulnerable state... or simply to become less vulnerable. And there is some wise ways to go about those ideas... but also some very unwise ways to go about them. So, I'm not saying that "Suck it up and be willing to be rejected" or "become less vulnerable" are inherently bad ideas, if they're approached wisely. But before doing either of those things, I would at least challenge the notion that your hesitation to sleep with a woman you don't yet trust to handle your vulnerabilities with care is anything other than a very normal human thing. And you certainly don't have to escalate with a woman you don't feel open to in that way yet.

100% There are a lot of men who viscerally feel like they're below women and powerless to women. And they often value women more than they value themselves, and see women as the arbiters of their sense of worth. So, a guy in this psychological position is always going to be competing with women and trying to frame women as lesser in a variety of ways. The same thing is true of any other kind of group identity... like race. There's that quote from Lyndon Johnson that illustrates this... “If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” Only men who struggle with feeling inferior to women will find comfort in narratives and ideologies where the lowest man is better than the highest woman. And it's a comforting narrative. But if that comforting narrative is disturbed by scientific findings... they'll just toss out the science and call it ideology. And it's been known for a long time that gender roles weren't as rigid in pre-agrarian human groups... where women would sometimes hunt and men would sometimes gather. I learned that like 19 years ago as a freshman in college taking art history classes. It's somewhat new (I think) the studies on male versus female walking endurance. But if women can walk for a slightly longer time without tuckering out, it makes good sense that we'd be pretty decent at endurance hunting... which is how humans hunted large game. Also, there are women today in various parts of the world having to walk miles and miles to get water with a baby tied to them in a sling. So, women with babies and children have historically worked very hard... and the children too. Even pregnant women in most cultures tended to be very active with their chores and work through most stages of pregnancy. But I suppose the information that women can walk SLIGHTLY further than men without getting tired was too much for their self-esteem to bear.

I think it probably is cooler in their eyes. They may semi-consciously see it as a higher form of manhood to impregnate a bunch of women (and not think much about the resulting children)... compared to actually being a mature dedicated father that plays an active role in family life. So, this bias might tend to inform their conception of manhood and cause them to devalue the role of father and over-value more immature archetypes of manhood... like the playboy or the romanticized lone hunter.

I think it's because fatherhood doesn't sound as sexy to them as some hyper-Masculine myth of the lone male hunter. It also seems like the scientific findings from the article maybe undermined their worldview a bit. So, they had to call it "Stage Green nonsense" to save the worldview upon which they base their identity as men. So, it may be a similar thing where fatherhood doesn't really compute with their identity and worldview framework around what makes a man valuable to society. They may associate fatherhood with being some ordinary guy who exists in a society... and not outside of it or above it. And the guys on this forum like to believe themselves above belonging in a social context. So, there's a lot of romanticization of a lone male... when there's no historical precedent for that. Also, they seem to prefer to think... Women's only role is having babies and child rearing AND men were doing everything else. This positions men as the only force in society contributing to survival, whilst women are the only force in society contributing to reproduction which requires the survival resources from the man. And in that framing, it gives an ego-boost where men can see themselves as superior and as more integral to survival than women... and as the sole foundation upon which women were surviving. I think it boils down to a lot of men having low self-esteem... and feeling like things would be better to go back to "the way things used to be". But if "the way things used to be" doesn't involve a sharp contrast in power, it takes away some of what they're using to soothe themselves. So, for men who think that way and build their identities that way, they can't tolerate the idea that women were contributing equal value to society throughout the entirety of human history.

But the vast majority of men didn't typically impregnate 100s of women and leave the kids to rot... unless he was a warlord like Ghengis Kahn or something. In most societies, the majority of men had one wife and played an active role in their children's lives. So, active fatherhood is one of the core functions of men throughout the duration of the human species.

Here's some information that I Googled... What I typed into Google... "roles of a nomadic man versus woman" In traditional nomadic and pastoral societies, gender roles were complementary rather than rigidly hierarchical. Men primarily handled large-scale herding, defense, external diplomacy, and hunting, while women managed mobile housing assembly, livestock care (milking and small stock), child-rearing, domestic trade, and often shared in community councils or defense. Nomadic Men's Roles Herding and Livestock: Guided and managed large grazing animals over long distances. Defense and Warfare: Acted as frontline protectors, scouts, and warriors against rival groups or predators. External Relations: Represented the household or clan in trade, diplomacy, and political assemblies with other tribes. Hunting: Tracked and harvested wild game to supplement the pastoral diet. Nomadic Women's Roles Camp and Shelter: Erected, dismantled, and repaired portable dwellings like yurts or tipis. Subsistence and Economy: Handled milking, food preparation, hide processing, and managed local or inter-tribal trade. Child-Rearing and Education: Raised children while passing down survival skills, crafts, and cultural heritage. Leadership and Governance: Exercised high personal independence, owned property (such as yurts or livestock), and occasionally served as political advisors, co-rulers (Khatuns), or warriors. Would you like to focus on a specific nomadic culture (such as Central Asian steppe pastoralists, Plains Native Americans, or the Sámi) for more detailed historical context? Then I typed this into Google: "What about before agriculture?" Before the advent of agriculture (the Paleolithic era), humans lived as hunter-gatherers. For decades, the dominant scientific theory was the "Man the Hunter, Woman the Gatherer" model, which assumed a strict sexual division of labor. However, modern archaeological discoveries and ethnographic studies of surviving foraging societies show that pre-agricultural gender roles were highly flexible, egalitarian, and overlapping. The Shared Division of Labor Contrary to the traditional view that men exclusively hunted large game while women only gathered plants, labor in pre-agricultural societies was highly cooperative: Women as Big-Game Hunters: Recent archaeological evidence, such as the discovery of a 9,000-year-old female hunter burial in Peru, shows that early women regularly participated in big-game hunting. Analysis of global burial data suggests that in many early societies, hunting was non-gendered, or women made up a significant portion of big-game hunters. Men as Gatherers: Men frequently participated in gathering plants, eggs, shellfish, and small game when large animals were scarce. In most foraging environments, gathered calories made up 60% to 80% of the group's diet, making "gathering" the primary and most reliable survival strategy for everyone. Cooperative Hunting: Many hunting strategies required the entire community. Women, children, and the elderly participated in "communal drives"—creatively driving herds of animals into enclosures, nets, or off cliffs, where they could be easily dispatched. The Traditional "Man the Hunter" Myth vs Modern Archaeological Consensus Big-Game Hunting Myth: Exclusively a male activity; defined male status. Reality: Varied by culture; women frequently hunted large game using tools adapted for skill rather than brute force. Dietary Contribution Myth: Meat from male hunting was the primary food source. Reality: Gathered plant foods (mostly by women) provided the vast majority of daily calories in most climates. Childcare & Mobility Myth: Women stayed near base camps due to the physical burdens of pregnancy and childcare. Reality: Mothers were highly mobile, using slings and wraps to carry infants on long gathering and hunting trips, often supported by community "alloparenting" (shared childcare). Social Structure Myth: Patriarchal; men held dominant political power through hunting prowess. Reality: Highly egalitarian; decisions were made by group consensus, and food was shared collectively regardless of who acquired it. Why Roles Were More Flexible Before Agriculture Survival Required All Hands: In small, mobile bands of 20 to 50 people, a rigid division of labor was a liability. If the men were injured or unsuccessful, the group relied on women's gathering; if an opportunity to take down a large animal arose, the group needed every capable adult to help. The Nature of Early Weaponry: The invention of tools like the atlatl (spear-thrower) and later the bow and arrow leveled the playing field. These weapons relied on leverage, distance, and precision rather than upper-body strength, allowing women and adolescents to hunt large game effectively. No Private Property: Without land ownership, permanent settlements, or accumulated wealth—all products of the agricultural revolution—there was no structural basis for one gender to dominate or control the other.

I think it's because men tend to have a bit of a fantasy of being some kind of lone wolf type that's untied from social support and social roles, when that's never been the case at any point in history. So, I notice that men are more likely to have a sexy romanticized hyper-Masculine image of some lone hunter out in the wild. But really... it was just ye olde husbands/fathers in a tribe playing one of a variety of social roles. And most men's main social role was probably to be a father and to play some other role in the tribe... like a hunter, farmer, herder, trader, or warrior. Similar to how women's main social roles were mother and doing her role in the tribe... probably dealing with cooking, farming, teaching children, or managing resources. Honestly, the most traditional set-up after agriculture was discovered is mom and pop farms with a ton of kids. And everyone was working on a role on the farm.

I'm sure that men may have historically been more likely to hunt than women... though it's not as binary as was once thought. But women tend to endure for slightly longer on walking journeys than men do. And humans largely have been endurance hunters, where we just keep slowly tracking an animal for days and days until it's exhausted. So, it's not so unreasonable to think that women could have been great endurance hunters. It takes more endurance than it does strength because the animal is exhausted by the time it's time to attack.

So, it seems like there's a fear of being seen... and a fear that you'll be seen as not enough or undeserving in some way. It could be that the way that you're learning to increase your attractiveness might further make you feel that you're not enough as you are to be attractive to a woman. When in reality, the strategies are just getting you used to being bolder and more social... but aren't fundamentally increasing your level of attractiveness on the being level. I think that's one of the downsides of learning attraction strategies. It can feel like, "Without these strategies, women won't find me attractive." When in reality, the strategies' main benefit is just getting you out of your comfort zone and talking to women. It's like Dumbo's magic feather... where he believes he can't fly without his magic feather. But the power to fly had nothing to do with the feather. The reality is that most women are attracted to men. And if you're a relatively normal guy (and you seem so), you will be attractive to some women just because you exist as you do. And it hasn't got much to do with strategies... other than that the strategy was to talk to women. So, when it comes to getting closer physically or emotionally with a woman... there's a sense that you can't use a strategy to seemingly increase your attractiveness like you would with approaching. Instead, it's just yourself. And that might feel vulnerable because, if you're rejected while you're doing a strategy... it's just "Oh well. The strategy didn't work." But if you're rejected while you're not doing a strategy and just being yourself, it feels like it means something about you. And perhaps there are even beliefs that women won't be interested in a guy who isn't constantly performing a certain version of Masculinity. But that's not true. I don't know if this will resonate or fit with your exact concerns. But it's something to think about.

It's your choice.

You have the power over deciding what things mean to you. So, you get to choose whether or not to continue making your relationship with casual sex the basis of your identity or not. The meanings that you're projecting onto sex (and onto your identity) aren't something that reality is imposing on you that you're simply subject to. You have the power to make whatever meanings you want to make in life. If you want to maintain a sense of sexual shame as the foundation of your identity... you can choose to keep making the meaning that sex is shameful. But if you don't want to make sexual shame the foundation of your identity, you have the power to change that. Like, when I was a teenager, I got really ego-inflated around being someone who would only ever be with one guy. And I was very attached to that identity. And I felt all kind of superiority to specifically other young women who were more promiscuous. Then when that relationship fell through when I was 20, I was lonely and had poor boundaries... and I ended up being invited to hang out by guys. And I would say yes, and rationalize to myself that I'll just say no if they try to get physical. But whenever they'd go to escalate, I either wouldn't say no... or I'd say no and they'd keep trying and I'd eventually give in. And I ended up having quite a bit of casual sex in a short period of time... like 6 guys in a 2 month span of time. And because I had this denial/shame identity dynamic going on with sex and added all kinds of extra meanings, it created this feeling of being out of control of my sexual drive. Because of my sexual shame, I had this denial that any part of me wanted to at all (when a part of me did and a part of me didn't)... which caused me to be able to rationalize my way into situations where sex may happen whilst thinking that "I'll just say no." And every time I had casual sex during that time, I felt like I was on the chopping block of my own judgments that were forming the basis of my teenage identity... and my sense of superiority over other women (and men too, to a lesser degree). And I felt like I was permanently lessening my existential value. But that's the way shame identities of superiority tend to operate. Because I felt superior on the basis of my chastity... my chastity identity got dashed on the rocks. And it needed to be dashed on the rocks in order for me to grow past my judgements and superior identities. In fact, every single time I've built my identity on the basis of moral superiority (which is multiple times)... my morally superior identities have always been dashed on the rocks. And I'm eternally grateful for that.. even though it's a really mini-ego death in the moment. Remember... "Those who exalt themselves will be humbled" and it will be a mercy.

You're projecting a whole lot of extra baggage onto sex that need not be there... and it's creating a sense of sexual shame for you. You probably even feel guilty and ashamed when you have sexual feelings with the intensity of the meanings you project onto sex. And what worse is that you've built your entire identity and sense of superiority off of the basis of sexual shame and judgment. That means, if you ever transgress that boundary, it's game over. And you're going to be right on the chopping block of your own absolute judgments. And because you believe it to be so, you will carry sexual shame for the rest of your life... because that was an identity rule that you projected onto sex. The issue is that ironically, you make casual sex mean way too much about who you fundamentally are as a person... and your sense of existential value. And you project those same arbitrary value judgments onto other people. What I recommend is to stop projecting all these extra meanings onto sex that aren't there, like... It's a shame you carry the rest of your life (That's only true if you decide that it's true. The power of meaning sits with you) It imprints a memory on you body/mind/soul and will disrupt all future relationships (This is magical thinking) You cheated on your beloved that you haven't met yet (If your beloved sees it that way, they're immature and insecure. Don't get involved with that person.) You just have to recognize that what you're believing is truth is actually just a projection of meaning that isn't inherently there. And right now, your relationship with casual sex is serving as the foundation of your identity and sense of meaning in life. I recommend removing casual sex from your identity altogether.

I'm going to ask a few questions to see what it might be? 1. Is there a concern that escalating to something physical is or will perceived as bad/unethical/predatory? Or is there a fear that it is bad/unethical/predatory? (This one can come up relative to the drama triangle (hero, villain, victim) when someone sees themselves as the villain and others as the victim.) 2. Is there a concern that escalating will cause her to suddenly "uno reverse" you and be like, "Wtf are you doing?" even if she's shown tons of overt interest? 3. Is there an avoidance of steps you don't have a lot of experience with? Like, you know how to approach and spark attraction? But maybe you're fuzzy on how to actually go in for a kiss? 4. Are the women you're attracting women you genuinely want something physical with? Are you avoiding getting physical because you don't actually want to? 5. Do you have body insecurities... like fears of having your body seen by a woman? Similarly, do you have performance insecurities? 6. Is there a fear of losing the shield of surface-level interactions.. and having something that gets closer to intimacy and being seen for who you are? 7. Are there fears of pregnancy or STDs? 8. Is it an identity thing? Like, "I'm not the kind of person who does this." 9. Is there a sense that you have to "earn" sex or physical affection from a woman? And maybe you feel like you haven't done enough to deserve it... or there's something undeserving about you? (Note: Earning/deserving aren't even real. Women's attractions are never earned. They just happen because feelings arise.) There are probably some others I could ask. But let me know if any of these resonate.

100% The reality is that the majority of the value a woman sees in a man comes from who he fundamentally is as a person... which is who he is as an ordinary person.

Casual sex definitely isn't my cup of tea, personally. And it can certainly be unhealthy. That said, I'm glad that I've had the experience of casual sex in the past, as I learned a lot about myself from it. And I learned a lot about men that I didn't understand before. I noticed that they were very lonely... and I didn't realize that before. So, I would never be so black and white as to say, "Casual sex is always wrong." That's a very moralistic judgment that doesn't line up with people's actual motivations and experiences of it. The reality is that it's just an experience. And you can make it mean whatever you want to make it mean. Personally, I think that if I had never had casual sex, I'd have a lot of incorrect notions and fantasies about it. And I would always feel like I had missed out. And that sense of missing out on sowing my wild oats might cause me to feel very conflicted about a longterm marriage with just one person... as it would mean sacrificing the capacity to get to know that side of myself for my entire life. So, the casual sex wasn't meaningful to me in terms of the connection itself. But it was meaningful to me as an experience that I'm glad that I've had at some point in my life. And it helped me realize that I'm genuinely not very interested in it... as the fantasy in my head was better than the reality. And sometimes it's important just to be able to say, "I've been there and done that. And I understand it now." My sense is that your moralization and black and white thinking causes you to misunderstand what actually motivates people towards casual sex. And it's pretty obvious that there's both a dearth of experience and a sense of moral superiority over those who have more lived experience than you. And you're building your identity as, "The morally superior person" based on your dearth of experience. And you seem to be getting an ego boost out of judging people and moralizing at them.

It's important to know that ordinariness is the foundation of human connection. As long as you try to be special or impressive to women... you can never connect with them, as connection requires being your ordinary self. It also seems like you might tend to put women up on a pedestal. So, you don't see women as ordinary. That's also a barrier to connection. Basically, let go of your attachment to specialness and extraordinariness... and just let yourself be ordinary and also recognize that women are ordinary.

How do you know?

I can see that similarity between us. Whenever I've taken the MBTI, I always get scores akin to the following... 70% Intoversion 99% Intuitive 55% Feeling 51% Judging So, I'm solidly Introverted, EXTREMELY Intuitive. Then, I'm pretty close together with my Feeling and Thinking function. (10% difference) And I'm VERY close together with my Judging and Perceiving function. (2% difference) Do you recall your proportions?

I personally, have been more open to sharing my sexual desires and past experiences with men that I'm genuinely interested in. I see it as a way to build intimacy and connection. With guys who I've truly had casual sex with, the intimacy and connection just hasn't been there. I've tried to spark up those discussions but there's less interest in depth there from both parties. I would also ask.. Are you sure that the women you had casual sex with actually saw their relationship with you as a casual? Sometimes, when a woman likes a guy, she'll convince herself that she's okay with something casual. But she actually has feelings for him. Also, if there's a spicy power dynamic like a boss and the secretary... that woman probably isn't turned on by bosses in general. She's interested in her particular boss and the particular power dynamic they're engaged in. So, I wouldn't characterize that kind of fantasy as casual. Those dynamics tend to really pull at women's heart-strings... which is why the sexual drive is so intense. It's all about the meaning and context of the sex, which I that the passion and heart connection was so intense that professional boundaries were breached. But the thing that confuses me (as a woman who has had casual sex before) is the question of, "How does a woman actually find pleasure and satisfaction in genuinely casual sex?" For me, the pleasure and satisfaction from sex is probably 90% emotional and 10% physical. And the physical bit itself isn't that motivating. Like, having orgasms is nice... but it's not very motivating in and of itself as it only stimulates the loins and not the heart. So, anytime I've had casual sex, it's been physically stimulating... but not emotionally stimulating at all. My experience is that my heart has to be open and stimulated first in order for me to even access the deepest levels of arousal. Otherwise, it's just a shallow porny level of arousal... and that's not gratifying to me. And again, I suspect that I operate this way because I'm a woman. And I assume women also that same physiological situation and need heart-stimulation in order to access the deepest levels of arousal and sexual satisfaction.