Sexual novelty

[Melkor]

 

[BigApplePi]

Being nekkid can ruin an evening when I want to initiate a game of strip poker. Nevertheless it's valuable when I hop into the shower.

 

[kantor1003]

And how often is that if I dare ask?
I wish I had played more strip poker as a kid. Now days I'm not sure how keen people would be to play that game. I'm not sure how keen I would be either. Postpubertal bodies can be quite repulsive to look at.

 

[crippli]

Clothed. Even when I was a kid in +30 degrees I was covered up. I've considered buying a hijab outfit, even if I am nothing like a Muslim. I am slightly worried they might take offence. And there is also the liberation to take into consideration.

I'd consider cheating in strip poker to avoid loosing.

 

[BigApplePi]

And how often is that if I dare ask?
I wish I had played more strip poker as a kid. Now days I'm not sure how keen people would be to play that game. I'm not sure how keen I would be either. Postpubertal bodies can be quite repulsive to look at.

Re: poker. One must choose carefully with whom one wishes to play.

Partnering in the shower is optional but carries with it an element of novelty as I usually shower alone.

 

[Particle]

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be hard to get the showering done due to space constraints? It always seems like it's hard enough to get good water coverage even when it's one person.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Showering together is irritating. I'd rather just get in and get back out.

 

[shoeless]

i enjoy being naked. i also enjoy seeing other people naked. it's crazy, innit?
but i bet you i'd enjoy it less if everyone was naked all the time.
plus it's not very fun to picture somebody naked if you already know what they look like.

also, showering together can be fun in the right context. it's only irritating when you argue about the temperature of the water.

 

[BigApplePi]

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't it be hard to get the showering done due to space constraints? It always seems like it's hard enough to get good water coverage even when it's one person.

Good point. That's why it's important to keep the position rotating.

 

[Melllvar]

[bimgx=600]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/strip_games.png[/bimgx]

How about we get some strip prisoner's dilemma going on...?

Showering together is irritating. I'd rather just get in and get back out.

I can no longer trust your opinion on what qualifies as sexy-time and what does not.

 

[BigApplePi]

i enjoy being naked. i also enjoy seeing other people naked. it's crazy, innit?
but i bet you i'd enjoy it less if everyone was naked all the time.
plus it's not very fun to picture somebody naked if you already know what they look like.

also, showering together can be fun in the right context. it's only irritating when you argue about the temperature of the water.

I may foolishly not be getting my point across. The experience is not being naked, but getting naked. You do not know if your partner will cooperate or not. The idea is not exactly a mutual wash, but a sexual surprise. Sure it's crowded and inefficient if cleanup is the sole object ... this is a sexual novelty thread and I'm just pointing out spontaneity and the unknown is the object. I haven't tried it in a long time.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I can no longer trust your opinion on what qualifies as sexy-time and what does not.

It was sexy a decade ago. Now, I remember how the natural lubricants get washed away and the water either gets you too hot, or doesn't allow you to get hot enough. Incidentally, I doubt we agree much on what's sexy besides "boobies".

 

[Dimensional Transition]

Being naked used to be awesome as a little kid. I have no idea why I have stopped running around in the nude around the house every once in a while...

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Nuppp...

I'm the sort to wear as much clothes as possible whenever possible.

Right? I feel exposed also with just a shirt and shorts. I stay away from loud colors and text. I frequently wear jackets, but I can go without them if I get into a good mood or set into a habit.

also, showering together can be fun in the right context. it's only irritating when you argue about the temperature of the water.

It's supposed to be hot. Cold water would ruin it.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Being naked used to be awesome as a little kid. I have no idea why I have stopped running around in the nude around the house every once in a while...

It's not against the rules, now? It's a choice you make instead of your parents? Now that you have the freedom, you realize there's no joy in doing it.

 

[xbox]

It means you always look good. If you stop being sexy, it means you don't look good. To men, there is no difference between a woman looking pretty, and a woman looking "hot". That's an invention of women. If we say a woman is "beautiful", we're also saying "she's hot", and vice verse.

Oh, and making sense totally is sex related, or else women would do it more. (this line of our conversation is primarily a joke).

Really? I thought there was a difference

Isn't "hot" used in more of a sexual way. I've heard phrases such as "hot body, but ugly face".

"Pretty" in reference to femininity, especially facial features, without having to do with the body?

 

[Lobstrich]

I remember when I was young, simply being naked seemed sexy. Not because I thought I was attractive, but because I was naked, and I had access to my sex parts unlike that I normally had, and it was out there, right in the open. Now that I'm older, I'm generally naked as much as I can be. Not because of any sexual thrill, but because I'm simply comfortable that way. Clothes, no matter how thin or comfortable, are never as comfortable as being naked. I'm naked right now, if you don't count my blanket. I'm curious if anyone else has had a development like this. Perhaps some people never even get this far. It seems many people associate nudity with sex, hence censoring and societal laws on the subject. Thoughts?

Yep, being naked is pretty cool, it always have been!

 

[mynystry]

there is no difference between a woman looking pretty, and a woman looking "hot". That's an invention of women. If we say a woman is "beautiful", we're also saying "she's hot", and vice verse.

I must disagree on this. For example there are old women that to my eyes they seem beautiful. They may have wrinkles, white hair and a body very different to that of Pamela Anderson, but yes, sometimes I see beauty on them too, without any sexual connotation.

About nudity I think it is just personal preference. I think clothing has many purposes: as protection for weather, activities, looks, etc. But also as an extension of one's preferences, fashion, personality, etc. I think wearing cloths is both: necessary and also something that may be fun to do.

I even think some clothing is exciting and add spice too sexual relations. Depending of weather I enjoy to wear warm clothing or light, but usually at least i keep my underpants on, they are really comfortable, 100% cotton, and even if they are not g-string I find them not that 'unsexy' to be passion killers, hehe

 

[Kuu]

(The discussion about jokes/insults has been split to this thread)

 

[persuedsmile612]

There is a link between exposed flesh and sex.

I have to disagree, Spring is mating season and that's when its warmer so we have more sex. I don't believe its because we show more skin, rather because it makes more sense to conceive during summer months.

On topic, nudity is a wonderful thing. As for fantasies, if we could ever get over all our insecurities with our partners I don't think they would be needed.

And the only reason more people don't see me naked is because I guess they would be upset.

 

[persuedsmile612]

Isn't "hot" used in more of a sexual way. I've heard phrases such as "hot body, but ugly face".

Slang: Butterface

As in: She's hot But-her-face.

Most amusing!! XD

 

[Moocow]

I have to disagree, Spring is mating season and that's when its warmer so we have more sex. I don't believe its because we show more skin, rather because it makes more sense to conceive during summer months.

On topic, nudity is a wonderful thing. As for fantasies, if we could ever get over all our insecurities with our partners I don't think they would be needed.

And the only reason more people don't see me naked is because I guess they would be upset.

Humans don't have an estrous cycle.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I must disagree on this. For example there are old women that to my eyes they seem beautiful. They may have wrinkles, white hair and a body very different to that of Pamela Anderson, but yes, sometimes I see beauty on them too, without any sexual connotation.

About nudity I think it is just personal preference. I think clothing has many purposes: as protection for weather, activities, looks, etc. But also as an extension of one's preferences, fashion, personality, etc. I think wearing cloths is both: necessary and also something that may be fun to do.

I even think some clothing is exciting and add spice too sexual relations. Depending of weather I enjoy to wear warm clothing or light, but usually at least i keep my underpants on, they are really comfortable, 100% cotton, and even if they are not g-string I find them not that 'unsexy' to be passion killers, hehe

I do not find old women beautiful. But still, I'd liken that to the same kind of beauty as Mountains. Yes, beautiful, but not sexy. With sexually attractive women, they're beautiful for the same reasons they're hot.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Humans don't have an estrous cycle.

Sunshine effects human biochemistry and makes them more energetic/happier. When there's more sun-shine, people are more active. When people are more active, they do more of the stuff they like. People like sex.

 

[Yet]

people also have more sex when there's not a lot else to do

 

[persuedsmile612]

Humans don't have an estrous cycle.

I'm not saying they do, it just makes more sense to conceive during spring/summer months. Non INTP's know this by instinct.

 

[Yet]

that so?

most conceptions in 2009 were in november (and births in 2010 in august)

 

[SpaceYeti]

people also have more sex when there's not a lot else to do

Perhaps couples do, but I'm not sure your typical single person has sex out of boredom. 45% of adults in the US are unmarried. Only 40% of births are to unmarried women, but 41% of those births are to cohabiting couples.

 

[cheese]

I do not find old women beautiful. But still, I'd liken that to the same kind of beauty as Mountains. Yes, beautiful, but not sexy. With sexually attractive women, they're beautiful for the same reasons they're hot.

Pear Chan has a really beautiful face and not-so-beautiful body. What is she classified as? Her face is beautiful-hot but her body is conventionally not.

(ED's down and this is the best I found - under Usage on 4chan: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/myspace-angles)

I think having more words allows us to say what we mean with more precision. Just like there are different ways to love someone, there are different ways you can find someone appealing.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I never said beautiful cannot apply, only that it's either a synonym for "hot", or it's not. And within context, if it's not a synonym for "hot", I doubt a woman would take it as a compliment. If she knew what you were really saying, would she like it?

"Listen, baby, I think you're really beautiful... but like a mountain range, I don't want to touch you with my penis."

Women want to be sexually appealing, that's why I find it all ridiculous. They want to be found "beautiful" in a sexy way, but they don't like being called "hot".

And what about pear chan? At certain angles, with certain lighting, and with the application of make-up, she can make her face sexually attractive. Normally, she is not attractive.

 

[cheese]

(You wouldn't touch a mountain range with your penis? I could understand if you were talking about a grizzly bear, but a mountain range? You wouldn't want to have sex with it, I suppose.)

I consider Pear Chan's face always attractive. Anyway, she was just an example of people who can have very attractive faces and unattractive bodies. And I doubt that all women want to be sexually attractive, all the time. The main goal is probably social currency, which can be achieved through several means. Beautiful children, who are appealing and attractive to more than just pedophiles, have currency. Ugly women have less. Beautiful women have more, regardless of whether they induce sexual responses on a regular basis. Of course most people want to be sexually desirable but that isn't the only reason for wanting to look attractive. I think there *is* a difference, for humans, between being appealing and inciting sexual attraction. Non-physically-hot people are sometimes considered sexy (not just by their partners, but by a large number of people) because of some other aspect of their self. Again, they've gained currency but not through their aesthetic appeal.

Being appealing in several areas is useful. Being appealing sexually is dependent upon more than aesthetic appeal. Hence the difference in usage between 'hot' and 'beautiful' (and even between 'beautiful' and 'pretty', even if both ascribed equal appeal - I think 'beautiful' tends to be used for more striking, more womanly, and more defined/masculinised features). I think almost every guy I know uses that distinction. It's why you can say things like "a beautiful woman I had absolutely no interest in bonking". I talk about women and their attractiveness a lot with friends. We also distinguish between 'hot' and 'personally attractive' (I might see that someone is what-would-be-seen-as-sexually-attractive, ie hot, but not be sexually attracted to them personally). These distinctions come very naturally and have only rarely been questioned because based on personal experience, these differences exist. For those who don't bother categorising this way, it's usually because they only consider attractiveness along one axis - the sexual appeal to themselves, personally.

There's also some stigma attached to the word 'hot', and to those who use it. It has negative connotations (including 'slutty' dressing). Being called 'beautiful' instead of 'hot', even if both really do only imply sexual appeal, also increases social currency (because generally women are still expected not to be promiscuous). Being called 'hot' may reflect either a 'bad' crowd (men that assume she's promiscuous and who will therefore not respect her because of the stigma of promiscuity) or that something about her is socially 'off'.

Women might also be disappointed when called 'beautiful but not sexy' or 'beautiful but not hot' (as you implied they would be, if they found out that by 'beautiful' I didn't mean 'sexually attractive' or that I was sexually attracted to them) because it represents another loss in currency along one axis. If you called her 'ugly but sexy' she'd probably be disappointed and offended as well.

 

[mynystry]

And I doubt that all women want to be sexually attractive, all the time

I think most people would like to be beautiful in every aspect. A woman between certain age limits, if she has a healthy body (trying to rationalize what makes a body to be beautiful), she will be naturally sexually appealing to heterosexual men, and therefore she will be cosidered 'hot' or 'sexy'.

There's also some stigma attached to the word 'hot', and to those who use it. It has negative connotations

I think this is why many girls don't like to be called like that, because they perceive the sentence "you are hot" as "i would like to fuck you". Which is certainly not very polite and makes women to feel downgraded from a human being to a sexual object. The word 'beautiful' sublimes physical, mental and spiritual perfection. At least this is the way I perceive it my mother language, I'm not completely sure if it is the same in English language.

I think sometimes we men forget about how many girls are raped by others who are unable to control their primitive instics and aggression. I think there are good reasons why many women don't like to be considered as sexual targets.

 

[^_\\]

It's only subtle because there's this invented disconnect between the two words. If you say "beautiful" it somehow means more than a word that has the same implication, even though it means the same basic thing.

Then, I also don't really find anything "beautiful" except sexy women. Still, I don't see how a woman can be attractive and not sexually appealing. Maybe "beautiful" is presumed to be less sexually charged than "hot" because a mountain range can be "beautiful", but it can't be "hot" (following the context). The word means more stuff in other contexts, so it's presumed to mean more within context as well.

What about "pretty"?
Also, "beautiful goal, catch, shot, jump, etc etc"

Beautfiul=aesthetically appealing. Hot has a vaguely leering element, also has connotations that the usually a girl in question is steamy, sexual etc.

This may be different outside of England but generally when someone is saying "she's hot" they mean "I'd like to fuck her" (I'm using fuck as opposed to have sex with on purpose.)

 

[SpaceYeti]

An aesthetically appealing woman is hot. I've already agreed that "beautiful" was a more diverse word, but that you typical lady would probably dislike being the kind of beautiful where you're not sexually appealing.

 

[MissQuote]

Of course women want to be found beautiful in a sexy way, but unless we are talking about a very shallow female with no other good attributes besides her looks, the the typical woman (I would assume) wishes to be seen as sexy for more than just her looks.

Hypothetically speaking, I'd be far more turned on myself if I were to overwhelm someone with sexual desire by saying something they found thought provoking, causing them to embrace me and tell me how beautiful I am, than if I were to overwhelm them by bending over in front of them causing them to grab me and tell me how hot I am.

I never said beautiful cannot apply, only that it's either a synonym for "hot", or it's not. And within context, if it's not a synonym for "hot", I doubt a woman would take it as a compliment. If she knew what you were really saying, would she like it?

"Listen, baby, I think you're really beautiful... but like a mountain range, I don't want to touch you with my penis."

Women want to be sexually appealing, that's why I find it all ridiculous. They want to be found "beautiful" in a sexy way, but they don't like being called "hot".

I'm sorry, but I have to comment on this.

Because a woman really likes it when a guy says "Listen baby, I think you're hot, I'd really like to touch you with my penis." ?


Unless you are already to a place of intimacy where sex is likely to happen, you probably aren't going to be saying anything so blunt either way.

 

[BigApplePi]

Next time you see a girl you think is "hot", ask her. She might be flattered or might even take offense. It is not quite that she is particularly hot herself. She is just she. It YOU who are thinking hot. It's a projection.

 

[Cavallier]

"She is just she."

That simple statement is surprisingly complex. It seems to encompass the whole argument while outlining a very plain truth.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Of course women want to be found beautiful in a sexy way, but unless we are talking about a very shallow female with no other good attributes besides her looks, the the typical woman (I would assume) wishes to be seen as sexy for more than just her looks.

Duh. Personality and intellect can also be hot.

Hypothetically speaking, I'd be far more turned on myself if I were to overwhelm someone with sexual desire by saying something they found thought provoking, causing them to embrace me and tell me how beautiful I am, than if I were to overwhelm them by bending over in front of them causing them to grab me and tell me how hot I am.

I'd be more turned on by you. The point is moot.

Because a woman really likes it when a guy says "Listen baby, I think you're hot, I'd really like to touch you with my penis." ?

Obviously it was an exaggerated paraphrase.

Unless you are already to a place of intimacy where sex is likely to happen, you probably aren't going to be saying anything so blunt either way.

You don't know me very well.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Next time you see a girl you think is "hot", ask her. She might be flattered or might even take offense. It is not quite that she is particularly hot herself. She is just she. It YOU who are thinking hot. It's a projection.

It's kinda strange to do stuff like that now that I'm married.

 

[Moocow]

"She is just she."

That simple statement is surprisingly complex. It seems to encompass the whole argument while outlining a very plain truth.

Weasel words.

The same can be said of any statement.

 

[Bird]

As I was reading this thread I had a childhood memory
spring up on me. When I was a little girl I loved climbing
trees. I would spend hours every day climbing trees.
I wore dresses a lot. Once I climbed up a tree and went
to jump down (I don't know why I aways jumped down)
and my dress got caught on a branch and I was dangling
there from a branch by my dress. All I could think about
was how much trouble I would get in if I ruined another
dress so I quickly managed to get the dress off of my body
and then I climbed back up the tree, got my dress and
jumped back down and put it on. Afterwards, I looked
across the street and my neighbour was watching me.


Shame and guilt. It's hard to say when you start being
taught that as a female sex is some kind of wrong.
It starts early with being taught about rape and how
no one is supposed to see or touch your sexual organs
unless it's a medical professional or something.

This is an ad:

It's obviously targeted towards females in
their late teens/early twenties to much later
in life. This is applicable to quite a few generations.
The ad is being directed at females, telling you
not to take unbooked minicabs not discouraging
people from raping/hurting/what have you
someone. You are taught that the only one that
can protect you from horrible things is yourself
so you better make wise decisions. Walking
around with yourself exposed is quite a temptation
to some. Danger. Danger. Danger.

 

[Cavallier]

Egads that ad is horrifying. "Don't take other cabs because you'll get raped" is a sick way to discourage people from using the competition.

I keep thinking about people in tribal communities in warm climates who go around naked all the time or at least with very little clothing on. Nakedness in and of itself isn't necessarily sexual. In my culture a come hither sign of sexual openness is being displayed when a woman (or a man for that matter) wears less clothing. Though the required amount of skin displayed to portray this idea varies from region to region, from year to year, and from age to age. This isn't true for every culture obviously. Actually, I think it's mostly not true for many major cultures throughout history.

Weasel words.

The same can be said of any statement.

True that. I guess I just found them meaningful in the context of my own experiences. Don't worry, I'm not suddenly seeing the Applepi way of life.

We attribute sexiness to a person sometimes regardless of how they personally feel or display their sexiness. Not always of course but there have been times when I did not want sexual attention but was forced to contend with it anyway. I just wanted to be Cavallier shopping for groceries or Cavallier reading a book in the library. When instead I was Cavallier looks hot in sweat pants and I must hit on her. (What about baggy sweat pants and an over-sized sweatshirt says sexy?) I just wanted to be Cavallier being Cavallier without people placing sexuality on top of that. I suppose being young, healthy, and clean is in and of itself an unavoidable sign of being sexy regardless of receptiveness.

I don't think I'm explaining myself well. I'm not going off on a rant. I'm just attempting to ferret out the difference between being perceived as sexually available, not being perceived as such, and nakedness.

 

[Puffy]

:/

I think too many people would like to point to human nature for their behaviour, but really it's just a way of shifting responsibility from themselves. I don't believe the condition of man is so severe that if they see flesh they are forcibly inclined to convert it into action or make a spectacle of the other person.

That said I think in general people feel ashamed of their animal side. Society feels inclined to convert animal behaviour into civility. In previous generations, for example, there was greater emphasis on table manners and ettiquette, making the natural process of eating into an abstracted expression of politeness. The body is often a form inspired and expressed in art; converting it into an abstraction.

As a guy growing up you become accustomed to associate lust with shame as well though. Many of my guy friends, myself included, would usually masturbate the night before any PE lessons as it made it less likely you would get a boner throughout the day (it is not only skin, when you are young it can be really sporadic). Fortunately I never remember being caught, but one unfortunate got his shorts pulled down in PE and I know he was upset about that for a little while.

Even today I feel very inhibited when with girls I find attractive, like is it polite to look at their body or would it be seen as innappropriate, likewise I find it difficult to look people I find attractive in the eyes for too long before I have to avert my gaze. I reckon a lot of it is conditioned habitual memory; the body and how you act is one of the surest signs.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I think too many people would like to point to human nature for their behaviour, but really it's just a way of shifting responsibility from themselves.

... But they're human... how does doing stuff humans do not make them responsible for it?

 

[Puffy]

No offence, you may have taken it out of context, but if a guy told me he raped a girl because she was teasing or such, I would not respond "bah, you're human, you can't be responsible, right?"

I guess the irony is that, at least where I am from, rape offences are hardly prosecuted..

 

[Bird]

EIGHT PERCENT OF COLLEGE MEN HAVE EITHER ATTEMPTED OR SUCCESSFULLY RAPED. THIRTY PERCENT SAY THEY WOULD RAPE IF THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT. WHEN THE WORDING WAS CHANGED TO “FORCE A WOMAN TO HAVE SEX,” THE NUMBER JUMPED TO 58%. WORSE STILL, 83.5% ARGUE THAT “SOME WOMEN LOOK LIKE THEY ARE JUST ASKING TO BE RAPED.

- Margo Paine, Ph.D. (Body Wars)

 

[snafupants]

As I was reading this thread I had a childhood memory
spring up on me. When I was a little girl I loved climbing
trees. I would spend hours every day climbing trees.
I wore dresses a lot. Once I climbed up a tree and went
to jump down (I don't know why I aways jumped down)
and my dress got caught on a branch and I was dangling
there from a branch by my dress. All I could think about
was how much trouble I would get in if I ruined another
dress so I quickly managed to get the dress off of my body
and then I climbed back up the tree, got my dress and
jumped back down and put it on. Afterwards, I looked
across the street and my neighbour was watching me.


Shame and guilt. It's hard to say when you start being
taught that as a female sex is some kind of wrong.
It starts early with being taught about rape and how
no one is supposed to see or touch your sexual organs
unless it's a medical professional or something.

This is an ad:

It's obviously targeted towards females in
their late teens/early twenties to much later
in life. This is applicable to quite a few generations.
The ad is being directed at females, telling you
not to take unbooked minicabs not discouraging
people from raping/hurting/what have you
someone. You are taught that the only one that
can protect you from horrible things is yourself
so you better make wise decisions. Walking
around with yourself exposed is quite a temptation
to some. Danger. Danger. Danger.

To be fair, that tree climbing scenario is rather odd. Even if you were male, and the neighbor was straight, that scene of the tree stealing your (in this example) trousers is aberrant enough to warrant a double take. Unless he was rubbing one out, who's to say that was sexual? And as a rule of thumb, I dismiss ads intended to produce severe anxiety/fear responses.

 

[Bird]

To be fair, that tree climbing scenario is rather odd. Even if you were male, and the neighbor was straight, that scene of the tree stealing your (in this example) trousers is aberrant enough to warrant a double take. Unless he was rubbing one out, who's to say that was sexual? And as a rule of thumb, I dismiss ads intended to produce severe anxiety/fear responses.

Hm. I think you may be right. I never thought
how odd that sight of watching a little girl
lose her dress to a tree might be.


You mismiss ads intended to produce severe
anxiety/fear, most do not. I was getting at
the point that were made in the first place.

 

[Melllvar]

EIGHT PERCENT OF COLLEGE MEN HAVE EITHER ATTEMPTED OR SUCCESSFULLY RAPED. THIRTY PERCENT SAY THEY WOULD RAPE IF THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT. WHEN THE WORDING WAS CHANGED TO “FORCE A WOMAN TO HAVE SEX,” THE NUMBER JUMPED TO 58%. WORSE STILL, 83.5% ARGUE THAT “SOME WOMEN LOOK LIKE THEY ARE JUST ASKING TO BE RAPED.

Not surprised. I'm 99% certain that, when I first went to college and was living in the dorms, one of my three roommates went and fucked one of my friends while she was passed out drunk. Exactly how "forceful" he was about it I'll never know, as I couldn't get her to tell me, but the part I am 100% certain about is that she started fucking him regularly a few months later anyway.

Anyhow, that experience definitely changed the way I look at humanity. Although I've later found that rape fantasies seem to be among the most common for both men and women (wiki link), so hey, maybe she was ok with it. At the time I remember really, really wanting to kick the living shit out of him.

Also, considering the high occurrence of rape fantasies I'm not really sure how to interpret the quoted statistics. Example, when 30% say they would rape if they could get away with it, does that mean they'd do it whenever if they knew they wouldn't get caught, or that they'd desire to if they thought it'd be "ok" on some level with the other party?

 

[BigApplePi]

"WORSE STILL, 83.5% ARGUE THAT “SOME WOMEN LOOK LIKE THEY ARE JUST ASKING TO BE RAPED."
Statistics can be misleading. Does that mean

1. 83.5% imagine having sex with some women completely disregarding their desires as is want in fantasy?
2. 83.5% imagine having sex with some women if they were openly reciprocating?
3. 83.5% imagine having sex with some women after they declined to do so?