What's with the men's long legs fetish?

There is one thing about men I've been thinking about a lot and just can't understand:

Why is it that men fancy long legs?

In works of fiction and non-fiction, I have over many years (as we all have) read countless praising descriptions of one or another woman's looks. Time and again, I have seen a writer admiringly state that the woman had long legs. Long legs are without doubt applauded far more often than, say, smooth skin or firm buttocks. And whenever a man describes a woman's legs, it's almost never about how straight or curved they are, how thick or thin they are, how firm or flabby they are, how hairy or hairless they are. The focus is always on their length, as if that was more important than anything else.

Now, it is perfectly understandable why a man would prefer large breasts over small breasts, or small breasts over large breasts, or a slim figure, or a stout one, and so on. I'm sure most of us have a personal preference concerning women's skin color, hairstyle or pubic hair. Surely there are very few men in the world who don't dislike cellulitis. But, for the life of me, I can't see how the LENGTH of a woman's legs should influence her attractiveness one way or another. I mean, it makes perfect sense when a man doesn't like legs that are too thick, or too muscular, or too bony, or too scarred, or whatever. But what in Heaven's name has the legs' length got to do with anything?

I can understand pretty much everything else about men (and women, for that matter). That's why it's driving me crazy that I can't figure that long legs thing out. Every male writer seems to think that every male reader understand why long legs are better than short legs. This is a clear indication that the long legs fetish must be very widespread. The impossibility of finding even the slightest attempt of explanation to this phenomenon is therefore perplexing beyond words.

Some time ago I found a forum which seemed suitable for openly talking about such topics, and posted this question. In no time my thread was hijacked by complete and utter morons who began discussing the question whether or not the beauty standards "imposed by the society" were justified or not, posting photos of ancient statues to illustrate their points which I must say escaped me completely. In hindsight I realise I should have known that the overwhelming majority of men don't have the slightest capability of, nor interest in, putting themselves into another person's head. For them the question "what goes on in the mind of a man who likes long legs" could just as well have been written in Swahili. Such men are only able to discuss things like how much is the type of women generally held beatiful in this day and age different from that in Ancient Greece, Araby or China. What I need is something completely different. I want to be able to imagine what a man feels when he looks at a woman and finds her attractive because her legs are long.

I'm at the end of my wits. I no longer know whom to ask. So, on a remote chance that someone who reads this is able to help me even a tiny bit closer to the answer, I am posting this article.

Please resists your urge to tell me platitudes such as:

"I don't know why, I just find long legs sexy."

"Not all men like long legs."

"Men like many things, not just long legs."

I am asking you to share your insights as to what goes on in the heads of the men who are aroused by long legs.

To bring you an analogy, there are several possible reasons why some men find large breasts arousing and some men find small breasts arousing.

When a man prefers large breasts over small breasts, the most likely explanation is that we have genetically inherited the preference for large breasts because large breasts can produce more milk and thus increase the chances for our children's survival – meaning, men whose genes program them to get aroused by large breasts have, on average, slightly more surviving offspring, and thus the large-breasts-are-arousing gene spreads better. This is not the only possible reason, though. For some men large breasts might be subconsciously associated with the safety and closeness provided to us by our mother.

When a man prefers small breasts over large breasts, it may be because he generally preferes petite women – maybe because he is relatively short and weak and therefore doesn't feel confident around larger women. Or maybe he is repulsed by the whorish behaviour of women in our time, and petiteness associates in his subconscious mind with youth and youth associates with innocence. Or maybe he likes boyish-looking women because he subconsciously wishes to actually fuck a young man.

This is what I'm looking for here: an understanding of what inner motives might move a man to adore long legs or, for that matter, attribute any importance whatsoever to the length of a woman's legs.

I pray to God whom I don't believe that at least some of you will be intelligent enough to understand my question, because I can't explain it any more clearly than this.

What's with the women's guitar fetish?

 

When I try very hard, I can somewhat understand the women's flower fetish.

When I try really very very extremely hard, there are moments when I can vaguely begin to understand the women's shoe fetish.

But try as I might, I can't understand the women's guitar fetish.

Every woman whom I have asked why women are crazy about men who play the guitar has replied: "I'm not crazy about men who play the guitar." But whenever there is a man playing the guitar, most of the women present have a look on their faces that tells they're ready to strip naked and spread their legs this instant.

It doesn't matter if the man is the most pathetic dork in the world. Neither has the style of music any importance whatsoever. As long as a man plays the guitar, he just can't fail to get women wet.

I understand that the guitar is a phallic symbol, but there are many long and thin objects in the world. What's so special about the guitar?

One female psychologist said, answering my question, that women are generally aroused by a man doing something. But that doesn't explain why groupies despise bass guitar players. Honestly, I wouldn't trust most women to have enough brains to tell a lead guitar from a bass guitar, but strangely enough a man who plays the lead guitar is a god to the women while a man who plays the bass guitar is a nobody.

This fake news story sums it up brilliantly.

It's a joke, of course. But the joke clearly reflects the prevailing mindset – bass guitar players are far less desirable than lead guitar players. I have seen other reports to the same effect. Of course, I don't think the bass players can't get laid at all, but the mind-blowing difference between the lead guitarists' and bass guitarists' general desirability is rather undisputed.

Anyway, the crucial question is not why do women prefer lead guitar players over bass guitar players. The crucial question is why is guitar playing causing such incredible arousal in women. Why, in heaven's name, the guitar?

I would really be very grateful if someone could give me at least some insight as to why do women get so horny over men who play the lead guitar, as this is pretty much the last thing remaining I just don't understand about women at all.

Superb unintended entertainment in Phuket

Yesterday, I was sitting on my hotel room balcony. In the hotel opposite, there were small clothes drying racks on the balconies. On one balcony, a young Farang woman was hanging up small pieces of clothing to dry. She took what appeared to be a bikini bottom. Then she turned it one way and other way, folded and unfolded it, smoothed out folds here and there with her fingers... She did literally dozens of little adjustments to the garment before she was finally satisfied and hung it up to dry. Then she took the next piece and repeated the whole process, and I just watched and laughed. It was like Inspector Clouseau getting out of the elevator. Only better.

Do men like sex?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

One of the meanest things women do

When I see an attractive woman, I feel like fucking her, and when I see her again 1 hour later, I will still feel like fucking her, and when I see her again 1 day later, I will still feel like fucking her, and when I see her again 1 week later, I will still feel like fucking her, and when I see her again 1 year later, I will still feel like fucking her.

The women are quite different. You have had an awesomely successful evening. You have gotten her so horny that she looks like she'll let you stick it anywhere you want. The only problem is that one of you has to leave (I mean, like, really has to), or, more likely, you simply have no access to a private place. You think "no big deal", because she so obviously desires you that you are convinced that there is an agreement between you that you will tear off each other's clothes and devour each other's bodies the moment you'll get the chance.

But when you meet her the next day or a few days later, and you're like "well, your place this evening?", she'll be like "look, maybe you misunderstood me".

In other words, you, like, have her seduced 95%, but a day or two later, you can't go on from that 95%, or even 90 or 80 or 70% – you're back to something like 10%. Your brilliant achievement the other night was for nothing. You'll have to do all the work again.

When I was made a fool like that for the third time, I finally realised that that's just what women do. That is, intellectually realised. Emotionally, I don't think I can never understand this kind of mind-blowing, earth-shattering insincerity and untrustworthiness of women. And need I say that yet another chunk of my heart (a rather large one this time) turned from flesh to stone?

To try to look at the bright side – getting abused like that helps one get over any scruples about taking advantage of women whenever one can. I mean, those creatures deserve no honesty or fairness whatsoever. It's hard to imagine anything (anything legal, that is) I could do to a woman that would be as mean as that.

Women of Power [ROTFL]

Want to have a good laugh at the expence of feminists celebrating any woman who can accomplish something as proof that women are equal to men in every respect? Read this very short article:

In pictures: South Africa's 'women of power' 

Real men don't hit women ;-)

Can you get any more woman than that?

This article is about a woman who wrote a supposedly true WW2 memoire which apparently became rather popular (I had never heard of it, though), but now she admits she made it all up.

So, what's extraordinary about a woman being found out lying, you may ask. Well, nothing – usually. But this article contains one line that really left me speechless.

"It's not actual reality, but it was my reality," she told Le Soir.

No, she wasn't hallucinating. (That would have been a justification.) She actually made it up and knew she was making it up, and still claimed it was a true story, in order for the book to sell better.

That's a woman for you – as woman as a woman can get. They seem to be born with certain skills we can never hope to even understand, let alone acquire. Finding excuses for one's dishonesty and being 100 percent cool about it is clearly one of them.

How many women are actually attractive?

Every now and then, I hear myself say that I would fuck every second woman whom I encounter in the street. One day, I began to wonder if it's an exaggerating metaphor or is it actually true. I certainly see women every day whom I would fuck without a second of hesitation, but what is actually the percentage of women whom I would consider as sex objects?

Now, how could that be found out, I asked myself. The most obvious way is, of course, to stand somewhere in the street, choose a point nearby, and count every woman who passes by that point – like, by dividing a sheet of paper in two and making a dash on the left side when the woman is desirable and on the right side when she isn't. After counting a certain number of women, like 100 or 1000, one could calculate the percentage of desirable ones.

I was, however, at home, and too lazy to go out and do such an experiment. So I thought: would there be a faster and easier way? Indeed there was.

I thought about every female person employed by my employer. There was 34 of them. I divided them into 4 categories (and by a lucky coincidence the calculations resulted in nice round percentages):

1. Repulsive. If I saw such a woman approach me naked, I would run away. Approximately 30% of all women fell into this category.

2. Bearable. If I were offered an opportunity to fuck such a woman, I would refuse, but if she would stand naked at my door and beg me to fuck her, I might be able to do it. That category also included approximately 30% of all women.

3. Acceptable. If I were offered an opportunity to fuck such a woman, I would fuck her, but I wouldn't be willing to make any effort to seduce her, and I would rather prefer not to be seen with her in public, and I would be reluctant to show her to the world as my intimate partner. Approximately 20% of all women belonged to this category.

4. Desirable. That's the kind of woman I really very badly want to fuck and I am willing to put up considerable effort to achieve that. That was the remaining 20%.

Thus, it would turn out that the percentage of women whom I would fuck is closer to one third than a half, but in rough approximation, the above metaphor stands. Of course, my colleagues aren't probably representative of the entire population, but still I hoped that this mental survey wasn't too much off the reality.

Later, I confirmed the results by counting real women in the city. I didn't actually stand on the street with a pen and paper. I just counted women mentally when I had to stand somewhere and kill time (like wait for a bus). I would count only a couple of women on one day, and a dozen on another day. "Women" means I excluded children but didn't exclude the elderly. During a period of 4 months, I ended up counting 1290 women and then I decided it would be enough.

The results were such:

Repulsive: 43%

Bearable: 20%

Acceptable: 21%

Desirable: 16%

As you see, a thorough survey turned up roughly the same result as the quick colleague count: I would fuck approximately one woman out of three, and really desire one out of six.

Who's oppressing whom?

Model 1

According to a wide-spread belief, societies are ruled by the men. Even though men and women have equal rights according to the letter of the law, women are actually oppressed. Our societies are built up like this:

♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂

♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀

This seems to be the belief of most people, not just feminists. Also, men, as well as women in many parts of the world (e.g. Japan) tend to have the opinion that that's how things should be.

Evidence for this theory is not hard to find. Indeed, an overwhelming majority of heads of state, members of governments and parliaments and such have been in the past and still are men, regardless of the political system in one or another country. Men's average salary is significantly higher than women's. In most parts of the world, domestic tasks are still considered to be women's job and the man is considered the head of the family. Last but not least, men are clearly stronger and more aggressive than women, while women are more acquiescent.

Claims of women having been oppressed by men throughout millennia are something each one of us has heard countless times ever since our childhood, and we encounter them virtually every day whenever we read a newspaper or watch television.

Model 2

However, Model 1 has fatal flaws. Let's look at the two most obvious.

In most countries of the world, men have, upon reaching a certain age (usually 18), the obligation to serve as the government's slaves for a significant period of time – usually around a year, sometimes several years. They are separated from their homes, families and activities, deprived of contact with women in their most virile age, submitted to a uniform prison-like routine and harsh discipline, and forced to perform a variety of hard and often dangerous or demeaning tasks while having to endure any humiliation which the supposedly superior personnel chooses to subject them to.

That grave violation of human dignity is being justified with the need to defend the country from a possible military attack – a task for which women are too weak.

It remains unclear, though, how it's then possible that some of the men (the so-called conscientious objectors) are being freed from the military slavery. That fact seems to suggest that it's not inevitable for the national defence to enslave ALL young men. How many slave soldiers are necessary then? I don't think the proponents of male slavery (who rant about the military service being every "real" man's "honourable duty", or even the very experience that turns a boy into a man) are asking themselves that question very often. More strangely, they seem to turn deaf when confronted with the well-known fact that the strongest military powers in the world (like the USA) can not only defend themselves but conquer other countries without even having a slave army.

Secondly, for some bizarre reason, men who are excempted from the military slavery for "ethical" reasons, are not set free. They still have to serve the same (or sometimes a slightly different) amount of time as slaves in the so-called community service (sometimes referred to in English with the German term "Zivildienst"). What would be the overwhelming national interest to justify that?

Thirdly, even admitting that we can't make women shoot rifles and dig trenches, it remains unclear why can't they be forced to serve a certain time in community service, like male conscientious objectors are.

Those three contradictions seem to suggest that, apart from national defence, mandatory military service is also (or perhaps even mainly) motivated by the society's desire to enslave their young men. (I have some ideas as to why, but that would require a separate article.)

Fourthly, feminists insist that women's physical weakness is the result of gender discrimination, and it will disappear as soon as the discrimination disappears. If that is so, shouldn't the society try to help that process by forcing women into military service, so that they could overcome their oppression-induced unnatural disadvantages? No, this is the point where feminists turn deaf. That is clearly the part of equality they are not interested in.

The purpose of this article is not to discuss whether or not military slavery is good or bad. The point is: even if we disagree with the feminists and hold that warfare is men's job, as women are simply not up to it, there remains the question: if men have the duty of military slavery and women have no obligation even remotely comparable to it, how can anybody seriously claim that men and women are legally equal, or even have the nerve to suggest that women are being oppressed?

Another screaming obvious rebuttal of Model 1 (which applies even to societies which have abolished military slavery) is everything that is related to having and raising children.

In spite of the lip service paid to the parents' supposedly equal rights, having or not having a child is entirely the mother's decision. If a pregnant woman does not want the child, she has the right to have an abortion without the consent of the child's father. When he doesn't want the child, though, he has no legal means to force her to have an abortion. To bring an extreme example: a woman can take a condom that has been thrown into a trash can, stuff the sperm in it into her vagina and get pregnant, and the man whose sperm it is is still going to be obliged to pay child support to her, even though he did everything he reasonably could to avoid pregnancy. In the case of divorce, it is routine practice to give custody to the woman and oblige the man to pay child support. The child's father will have to hand a significant part of his income over to the woman, even when she has a new husband or boyfriend, and even when he himself has a new family to support.

And let's not forget the other side of the coin – a woman can give birth to a child and raise it without ever even telling about it to the child's father.

One could ask: why on Earth should one person be responsible for something that happens in another person's body, as a result of that person's voluntary and informed choice? But that is not the point of this article. The point is: even if we agree with the feminist theory that the system of child support payments is there for the child's and not the woman's benefit, it is still undisputable that, for all practical purposes, the rights concerning the child belong mostly to the mother, and the obligations mostly to the father. The claim of parents' equal rights and obligations is one of the most blatant, absurd, shameless, outrageous lies of our times.

There are numerous other examples of men's being discriminated in various countries' legislation and legal practice, but the above ought to be enough to crush the myth of women's being the oppressed gender – at least as far as Western countries are concerned.

Of course, I am nowhere near the first one to draw attention to those things. Indeed, the existence of obvious proof of blatant massive legal discrimination against men has long ago prompted men's rights activists to come up with the theory that it's women who actually rule our societies and men are the ones that are oppressed. The masculists argue that our societies are built up like this:

♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀

♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂

According to that theory, the means with which women enforce their rule over men is their sexual attractiveness. As almost every male reader knows (and as hardly any woman is ever capable of understanding), men suffer horribly from the lack of sex, and a man who hasn't had sex for a long time, is usually willing to do virtually anything to get it. Any woman who isn't very ugly has the power to free him of that suffering. All she has to do is to take off some of her clothes, lie down and spread her legs. The benefit to the man would be huge, the cost to the woman is near zero. But she doesn't have to do it if she doesn't want to. That legal right gives women a near-absolute power over men.

The apparent male dominance in the government, in business and at home is, according to this theory, an illusion. Men who hold formal power positions, are nothing more than their sex partners' puppets. The latter actually rule the former with the threat of refusing sex. One can be sure that the overwhelming majority of women, even in the feminist Western countries, would much rather be the president's wife than the president. As "first ladies" they would get all the luxury and fame without having to do any work apart from looking good at official receptions. Same thing with members of parliament, corporate executives and so on. The women would even have the option of enforcing their own political ideas, should they have any. If an MP's wife inists that he vote in a certain way, there is a good chance he will obey rather that risk being left without sex for some time. (This may be different in those democracies where party discipline is extremely strong, but then the men who make party policies have also wives.)

Confusion

I think Model 2 has one huge flaw. It fails to answer this simple question: How can a woman refuse sex?

Suppose that a man and a woman are together, alone, and the man is determined to have sex with the woman. What on Earth can she do to prevent him? Fewest women are capable of defending themselves with physical force. I would estimate that in an unarmed combat, an average man could defeat three or four average women. So I've been asking: "how can a woman refuse sex?" and I'm still waiting for an answer.

Leaving aside the exceptional cases when the woman is unusually strong or skilled, or the man is unusually weak, or very drunk or something, the woman seems to have only two defences.

Firstly, she can scream for help and hope that someone strong enough (in the best case, several men) will come to her help.

Secondly, she can threaten the man that if he forces her to have sex with him, she will file a rape complaint with the police, which is almost certain to result in the police officers (usually several strong armed men) coming to him, forcefully taking him to the jail and locking him up for a very long time.

Imagining other conflict situations that can occur between a man and a woman, will lead us to the same conclusion. The only practical way a woman can force her will (like, not having sex) upon a man is by finding (or threatening to find) other men who would use violence against him. In the overwhelming majority of real-life situations, it is easy. After all, most men are more than happy to damage another, weaker man when a woman asks them to. (The reason why they do it is their hope of making the woman like them, and so increasing the chances of her agreeing to have sex with them someday.)

This insight reveals the main principle of the women's so-called power: a woman can exercise her power over a man only by finding other men who will enforce it for her. Now, what kind of a power is that? If there is no one to defend her, and if the man is too excited to reasonably consider legal consequences, or too desperate to care, the woman is completely helpless. All her sexual "power" is worth nothing.

Thus, Model 2 explains why a woman would have the power over a man in a one-on-one situation or in a small group, but it fails to explain how can all the world's women as a group have the power over all the world's men as a group.

Model 3

So, we are left confused. On the one hand, men's power over women seems much more real than women's power over men. On the other hand, men's military slavery and fathers' servitude still obviously exist. In other words: theoretically, men should have the power, in practice, women seem to have it. Which one of the Models 1 and 2 is right, then?

I say: neither. Those who have the power are men, and those who are oppressed are men. Our societies are built up like this:

                   ♂ ♂ ♂

♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀ ♀

      ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂

The society is, of course, ruled by men. It can't be ruled by women, as women have no force to rule with. However, the men who rule societies are relatively few in number. (Less in absolute monarchies, more in modern democracies, but still a rather small minority.)

The primary goal of rulers is to remain in power. As they are a minority, they can't rule with brute force. All the men could subdue all the women with force, but a minority of men can't subdue the majority of men with force. Therefore, in every society thoughout history, the rulers have had to use some kinds of deception tactics, to keep the ruled population from directing their force against them. (This is, by the way, not my discovery.)

One of the historically most used tactics is religion. The peasants are made afraid that if they challenge the power of the nobility, they would go to Hell after death. In modern times, though, religion has lost nearly all its influence and is therefore being increasingly replaced by other tactics. One of them, very efficient as well as sneaky, is to grant privileges to weaker groups of the population, like racial and national minorities, women, children, cripples, the poor. The purpose is to make the stronger group experience discrimination and thus feel embitterment towards the weaker group, and at the same time to make the weaker group feel that they still haven't got enough, and feel embitterment towards the stronger group. When the rulers are clever enough creating enmity between parts of the population, nearly all of the ruled people's aggressive energy is directed against other groups of ruled people, not against the rulers.

A special case of that strategy is to create privileges for women, while continuing to tell women that they are still being oppressed and need even more privileges. Men, in turn, experience the actual oppression and feel anger towards the privileged ones – women. I am convinced that there are very few men in the world who realise that the oppression of men is not women's fault, and that the rulers want men to hate women, so that they won't hate the rulers. (I mean, look at the masculist websites. I don't think I have ever seen one masculist writer who realises that our enemy is not the women.)

Of course, the rulers can't make sexual discimination selective. A law that states that women are to be treated favourably in one or another situation can't make an excemption for a small group of powerful men. That is, on paper. In reality, the rulers can use their ruling status to largely or entirely avoid the effects of discriminating laws.

For instance, the rulers can pass legislation that enforces monogamy and prohibits prostitution. That will greatly decrease most men's access to new sex partners, but the ruling minority will retain access to plentiful women who desire them because of their powerful status, or are simply paid with the money politicians appropriate from the public coffers.

The rulers can oblige other men to take up arms and risk their life and limb in war, but excempt themselves from most or all of the danger and hardship – after all, somebody needs to plan and lead the war.

The rulers can enforce the law that public offices or even private enterprises have to employ equal numbers of men and women, without regard of the competence, but of course that doesn't apply to the members of the government, or party leaders who actually determine the country's politics.

The rulers can rule that women have to be paid as much as men, no matter if they are actually capable of producing as much value, but of course if doesn't affect the rulers themselves, as they have the entire nation's resources at their disposal anyway.

Needless to say, the above is taking place in pretty much all societies, no matter what the social order. Women's legal privileges in the former Soviet Union were somewhat different from those in the USA, but the general principle was the same. And I believe that the only reason why there isn't blatant legal feminism in Islamic countries, is simply because religion is still so strong there that rulers don't need to rely on sexual discrimination to keep men from challenging the system.

Now let's make things a little more intriguing

At this moment, I can see no flaw in Model 3. However, there is a different theory which is also plausible. The book "The Art of Seduction" offers a hypothesis that could justify Model 2 after all. The theory is that women's power is not based on their ability to refuse sex (which they clearly don't have), but their seductiveness – their ability to provide something hugely valuable that can't be taken by force. In simpler words, she can't actually refuse sex, but she can do things that make you feel so good that you want her to do it, but you can't beat her into doing it like you could beat her into stripping and spreading her legs.

The book is not about power relations between sexes. It touches upon it very briefly in the introduction and moves then on to describing different types of seducers (both male and female). However, the ideas in that introduction would enable one to make a very strong case for Model 2.

Now, one could argue that not many women are hugely seductive, and there are also men who are very seductive to women, but I don't think that would invalidate the arguments in that book. The thing is, seductiveness as described in "The Art of Seduction" is merely a special case of psychological manipulation. A woman can use a variety of means of making a man do what she wants, apart from making him feel so good that he's willing to do anything to get more. And I think it's undisputable that most women's skill of psychological manipulation greatly exceeds that of most men.

So it seems a plausible hypothesis that women do rule societies – by their superior skill of sneakily leading men's minds. They let men have external, formal power positions, because they (the women) don't care about them anyway, but they make sure that the men, while believing to be the masters, actually spend most of their energy on taking care of the women.

To put it bluntly – maybe the woman, being weaker but cleverer than the man, has succeeded in making him work for her, just like man, being weaker but cleverer than the horse, has succeeded in making it work for him. It's a horrible thought, but it's totally possible.

Conclusion

It would seem that Model 3 and the revised Model 2 are both theoretically justifiable, and it's not difficult to see (if you know what to look at) them both working in the real life. At this moment, I am not sure which of the two is the dominant one. My money is on Model 3, but there is still much to be figured out and I would greatly appreciate intelligent insights from my readers.