Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Ifat Glassman

Why are men's clothing so boring?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

LOL, could you clarify this?
Ok, I thought I had with proceeding sentence. To state it differently, I personally like clothing for a variety of reasons, including the feel of different material against my skin and because I also like colors, but in the grand scheme of things clothing and fashion is not very important and, like I said, not nearly as important as my physique.

Also, I think What Not To Wear maybe is good for someone who has never given a second thought about what they wear, but the hosts' clothing preferences are very boring, very similar from show to show, and very uninspired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not mean to imply that aesthetics serve no purpose. In fact I hold aesthetics in very high esteem. However, I think they should be based on utilitarian needs first. A tie has never served a utilitarian purpose, and so if you want to look taller or leaner, I think there are better ways to accomplish that besides hanging a piece of cloth from the center of your neck. It is an unnecessary nuisance.

The problem is that you are creating a false alternative. When discussing clothing the choice is not between the utilitarian and the aethetic. Clothing by its nature has to have an aethetic component, the only choice is what aethetic statement you choose to make. In part this is because clothes are social signals to the other people you interact with.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any article of clothing which is purely utilitarian. If you can think of one, I would love to hear what it is. Since all clothing has an aethetic element, the idea of a purely aethetic article of clothing doesn't really matter at all. For example, you would probably agree that a shirt has a utilitarian purpose. What if a shirt was made with a tie permanently attached to it? The tie-shirt would have a utilitarian purpose (as a shirt) but also an aethetic component (the tie.) Under your rationale, the tie part would then be OK because it is part of something utilitarian rather than being purely aethetic.

I haven't given it much thought, but I don't think something can exist solely for its aesthetic appeal.

Not a big fan of art then, I take it?

Of course, one can always just wear objectivist boots:

http://www.zappos.com/n/p/dp/2248695.html

94396-d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, if I saw anyone dressed in the same clothes from the 30s like in that link, I would have to contain my laughter. Rediculous.

I wear t-shirts all the time. I look damn good in them too. Where do I wear them? To school, hanging with friends, and at home. That means that if I'm going to the store I'll wear the same thing.

It's a waste of time and money for me to wear a suit or something to school. Most I have to get tailored because they don't even fit muscular men. Dress clothes are hot and they need to be dry cleaned or washed specially. I find a t-shirt, Dickies and Lugz very appropriate for sitting in on a lecture. You mostly wear clothes to attract the opposite sex at college anyway. Wearing a suit would be as much shock value as wearing gothic clothes.

I absolutely do not feel any more respect for someone wearing a suit over a t-shirt excepting office situations and formal events like banquets and weddings. I also don't see how they're showing more respect to me. Keep yourself clean cut with good hygeine, and don't wear sweatpants or shorts or something and it's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, if I saw anyone dressed in the same clothes from the 30s like in that link, I would have to contain my laughter. Rediculous.

It's ok, I try to contain my laughter when I see someone wearing a wifebeater, dickies and lugz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's ok, I try to contain my laughter when I see someone wearing a wifebeater, dickies and lugz.

If instead of wife beater, you mean "t-shirt", then you must have pretty rough days of trying to contain your laughter at everyone you see. Half of the men walking around wear a t-shirt and pants like that.

On the other hand, dressing up in some rediculous costume from the 30s is close to the equivalent of wearing medieval tights. That train has blown by about a century ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, if I saw anyone dressed in the same clothes from the 30s like in that link, I would have to contain my laughter. Rediculous.

Then I guess you would have to contain your laughter if you ever met several of my friends. And if you were not capable of containing your laughter, they would probably give you a disgusted look - and having better manners than those which were displayed towards them, my guess is they would keep their opinions about the way you dress to themselves.

You mostly wear clothes to attract the opposite sex at college anyway. Wearing a suit would be as much shock value as wearing gothic clothes.

I guess it all just depends on exactly what sort of member of the opposite sex one is seeking to attract, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the other hand, dressing up in some rediculous costume from the 30s is close to the equivalent of wearing medieval tights. That train has blown by about a century ago.
And who the hell knows why it was popular to begin with. Edited by JASKN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If instead of wife beater, you mean "t-shirt", then you must have pretty rough days of trying to contain your laughter at everyone you see. Half of the men walking around wear a t-shirt and pants like that.

Indeed, I do find it amusing.

On the other hand, dressing up in some rediculous costume from the 30s is close to the equivalent of wearing medieval tights. That train has blown by about a century ago.

On the contrary, every article of clothing in both the picture and my wardrobe is within the limits of current acceptable mens clothing. Medieval hosery, of course, is not, unless you live in San Francisco.

Too, my style allows me to go anywhere and I will always be properly dressed. I can go from my job at federal court to any restaurant I please to any business meeting or occassion without changing a thing. Try getting a table at a good restaurant wearing dickies. Ironically though it would perhaps be appropriate in federal court, at least if you plan to appear as a criminal defendant and not as an attorney.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then I guess you would have to contain your laughter if you ever met several of my friends. And if you were not capable of containing your laughter, they would probably give you a disgusted look - and having better manners than those which were displayed towards them, my guess is they would keep their opinions about the way you dress to themselves.

Wow, that imaginary situation that you created sure played out poorly for me. :lol:

I think you're right. My friends and I are so disenchanted with the nihilistic styles of todays clothing that we have to return to a better age. I think I'm going to start dressing up like during the Renaissance, the rebirth of reason.

greatsword_1825_51728731.gif

Dressing in a costume from another time is the only way I can show that I respect myself. There certainly aren't nice, conservative, yet normal clothes from todays time that I could wear.

:pimp:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess it all just depends on exactly what sort of member of the opposite sex one is seeking to attract, doesn't it?
It certainly does. So if I want to attract either a 1930s fetishist or someone middle aged to senior citizen, I'll be sure to wear my three-piece suit and tie, slick my hair back, slide on my loafers, pop my bowler off of my hat stand, grab my cane and stroll on down to the talkies to see if tonight might be my lucky night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To sum up, yes, I would like to live in a world where the aesthetic justification for things is utilitarian.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your taste and if that is what makes you happy - well, more power to you as such things are not that difficult to find in today's world.

A styrofoam cup is most certainly utilitarian. It is also inexpensive and very convenient in that one does not need to bother with having to wash it. Such a cup is just as able to hold a beverage as any other cup in the word - in some cases better as it keeps in both warmth and cold. Styrofoam cups are wonderful - when one is on a picnic, at the office and ordering drinks at a drive through or fast food joint.

There are certain occasions, however, when I would prefer to drink certain beverages from something nicer than a styrofoam cup. If others feel differently - no problem. There are plenty of styrofoam cups available in this world.

Personally, a world devoid of style, elegance and glamour would be pretty miserable. Unfortunately, I am not able to financially afford the level of style, elegance and glamour in all of the areas of my life in which I would like to. But even so - the fact that such things exist in this world and the sight of watching those who are able to afford such things be able to experience and enjoy them makes my life richer nevertheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed, I do find it amusing.

On the contrary, every article of clothing in both the picture and my wardrobe is within the limits of current acceptable mens clothing.

QM_Mojave_Hem.jpg

Too, my style allows me to go anywhere and I will always be properly dressed. I can go from my job at federal court to any restaurant I please to any business meeting or occassion without changing a thing. Try getting a table at a good restaurant wearing dickies.

This is boring. My post had the context in which I wear my clothes. I don't work in a US federal court, and I specifically noted that I find it more respectable to wear a suit in office situations. Of course I was talking about a suit made for today though. Not wearing something to be different for different's sake.

QM_Dan_Lauren1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, a world devoid of style, elegance and glamour would be pretty miserable.
It's nice how you've ignored half of my posts in order to make your point.

As I said, I place aesthetics in high esteem, but I prefer to base them on a utilitarian function.

Also, my idea of glamor is obviously different from yours. Perhaps you liked my description; I could have included "over-cupped."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It certainly does. So if I want to attract either a 1930s fetishist or someone middle aged to senior citizen,

Actually, all middle aged people and the vast majority of today's senior citizens were young during the era of the hippie generation or the aftermath. So it is NOT likely that such people would be attracted by 1930s clothing as they were youngsters during that very period in which the popular culture held style and elegance in contempt - and many them probably championed the lowest common denominator egalitarianism exemplified by the way the hippies dressed.

The people who are rediscovering the popular culture and aesthetics of the early 1900s decades are, for the most part, young people seeking an alternative to and something more than the sterile post 1960s popular culture they grew up in.

I'll be sure to wear my three-piece suit and tie, slick my hair back, slide on my loafers, pop my bowler off of my hat stand, grab my cane and stroll on down to the talkies to see if tonight might be my lucky night.

Maybe it will be your lucky night - perhaps you will run into a young lady who finds the sight of someone who does not dress like everybody else does to be interesting and intriguing and will wish to get to know you better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, yes, people in the 1930s did indeed wear grubby work clothes - when they were working. But they didn't wear those clothes to theatres, or to church or even to ball games.

My late Grandfather-in-law wore a suit and tie on vacation - even to the beach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's nice how you've ignored half of my posts in order to make your point.

As I said, I place aesthetics in high esteem, but I prefer to base them on a utilitarian function.

Also, my idea of glamor is obviously different from yours. Perhaps you liked my description; I could have included "over-cupped."

No, I did not ignore any of your posting.

Let's just keep it at this: You and I very obviously disagree about exactly what constitutes elegance and glamour in very fundamental ways. Since this is not a moral issue, I don't choose to argue with you about it. Nor would it be proper for me to do so. You are entitled to your personal tastes - as I am to mine. For me to engage in criticism of your personal tastes would be very rude.

I will state my own personal tastes and I will criticize cultural trends which I disagree with or hold in contempt . If someone disagrees with the case I lay down for my own personal tastes, that should NOT be interpreted as an attack on ANYONE. I have known many people who dress like total slobs and have what I consider to be VERY bad taste in clothes and aesthetics in general whom I have considered to be extremely moral people and thought the world of. Taste is not a moral issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, a world devoid of style, elegance and glamour would be pretty miserable.

I agree.

I take great care in my appearance.

I am one of those women who can 'gain a pound just by looking at food' so it takes a lot more effort for me to keep a slim figure. I have to excercise a lot more than most (I purchased a treadmil so I can do it every morning before work as that is the only time I have time for it and I lift very heavy weights once a week - 30 min session). I also have to always be aware of how much food I am consuming (incidentaly I am a very good cook - which does not help!). I do not deprive myself of any particular food - I just eat in moderation.

I consider clothes an investment. I tend to buy good quality timeless pieces - meaning classic styles and then occasionaly I add to that something "very this season". It does not take a lot of money to look good if you put some thought and planning to it. Hair and little makeup (mascara mostly) takes me about 30 min in the morning but make a huge difference when it comes to my appearance.

This discussion shows that you can share similar values (as a fellow Objectivist) and have a very different 'sense of life'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, if I saw anyone dressed in the same clothes from the 30s like in that link, I would have to contain my laughter. Rediculous.

Hm, as someone who likes vintage clothes myself (as well as some new clothes, too), I think you're being a little unfair. For one thing, in the '30s (for example), people would have a tailor who would fit their clothes especially for them. And they would have an endless variety of authentic '30s clothes to choose from because it was the '30s. Nowadays, if you want to wear these clothes-- your selection is more limited. You have to forage through resale shop bins overstocked with hundreds of articles of clothes from every era in American history (probably mostly '60s and '70s) and hope you find something 1) from the era you like 2) that you happen to like in particular 3) that fits you 4) that's still in good shape, etc etc. In my experience of looking for vintage clothes, it is rare i will find even one article of clothing from a particular era that is pre-'50s, and the chances of it fitting the other criteria I mentioned as well are slimmer than slim. So most people I know that wear vintage clothes mix something vintage with newer clothes in whatever combinations look good.

But that particular link, as I understood from the description at the site, was photos from a specifically period costume party. So I would imagine the participants there scoured their wardrobe to put together exclusively '30s outfits, to wear to the event. Some of them didn't look so hot-- not because the clothes are dated, but because they didn't match the shape and color of the person, or didn't even match themselves, or were horribly the wrong size. But other people in the pictures looked pretty good.

Even if it had been the case that everyone at that particular site looked like a clown, that wouldn't mean that wearing vintage clothes is necessarily tacky or ridiculous. People can wear vintage outfits that look perfectly appropriate and attractive. It's not necessarily shocking, if done right. Depending on where you live, and if you ever watch TV, you probably see people wearing vintage style clothes all the time without even noticing it. Certain celebrities love vintage designs, and ask their favorite designers to make them new clothes in a similar style. It comes and goes with fads.

Wow, that imaginary situation that you created sure played out poorly for me.

Well, you kind of deserved it. You were being an imaginary jerk to those people. :pimp:

Edited by Bold Standard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is boring. My post had the context in which I wear my clothes.

Yet you find it appropriate to wear a T-shirt, dickies and lugz to a lecture at, I assume, some sort of college?

Clothes are a sign of respect, both to yourself and to others. A T-shirt, dickies and lugz are not appropriate to wear to a college lecture, regardless of what your contemporaries may believe. I don't care if people dress to my taste or not, but I do care about the level of formality they dress to in certain situations. For example, would you want a guest at your wedding to show up in lugz? Would you show up in lugz to a job interview?

Just because you can wear certain clothes in certain places and not get arrested doesn't mean that is the appropriate attire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clothes are a sign of respect, both to yourself and to others. A T-shirt, dickies and lugz are not appropriate to wear to a college lecture, regardless of what your contemporaries may believe.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, I suspect the notion that clothes can and should somehow convey respect never even occurs to many moderns. It is not that I think they mean to show disrespect but rather that it is something which is utterly foreign to the dominant popular culture that they and their peers grew up in.

The nihilists of the 1960s impugned, denigrated and laughed off the cultural landscape a great many things besides just elegance and glamour. Among them was the notion that one should show respect. Respect for what? Respect for anything - be it one's self, other people or most especially people who are in positions of authority or leadership. The hippies did not merely rebel against showing respect for some particular group of people that they felt were unworthy of it. Their rebellion was against respect, as such. Show respect to your teachers? How quaint, old fashioned and stodgy. People who rise to positions of authority are to be dissed precisely because they are in positions of authority. Isn't that one of the main things that the hippies proclaimed the "cultural revolution" to be all about? "Never trust anyone over 30" was one of their chants.

Since, up to that time, clothing was widely used and understood as a form of communicating and projecting things such as elegance, glamour, respect and dignity - all of which, as nihilists, the hippies were against - it was only natural that they were hostile towards such use of fashion and ridiculed it off the cultural landscape as well. What the hippies advocated in its place was a lowest common denominator type of egalitarianism in both dress and in the way in which people interact with one another - and judging by the way the hippies dressed and the manner in which they behaved, that common denominator was very low indeed. Manners was another thing that went out of the window with the 1960s - as Ayn Rand and many other civilized commentators of the time noted.

Since that time, whenever someone has taken a public stand in favor of dressing nicely, he is frequently met with hostility and ridicule - as Vladimir and I have both been - and, therefore, few people even bother to express such sentiments except perhaps as private laments for fear of being branded as "old fashioned" or "oppressive." As a result, a couple of generations have now grown up completely aware of certain things which were once commonly understood prior to the "counterculture" about how clothing was once used to project and communicate certain mindsets and sentiments.

I don't think that most of today's slovenly college students intend to diss their teachers. Nor do I think most teachers feel dissed as they, too, are a product of the post 1960s counterculture world. The clothes people wear today are certainly not as ugly as what the 1960s and 1970s hippies wore. Some of today's clothes I actually consider to be attractive. I could very easily go to Wal-mart and put together for very little money a wardrobe that I would consider to be perfectly respectable for most everyday informal situations. What I think is foreign to many people, however, is the notion that some contexts and circumstances quite properly require higher standards of dress and etiquette than others. The tentacles of the 1960s counterculture are deeply entrenched in all corners of our popular culture and it will require a counter-counterculture revolution - i.e. it will require a cultural revolution - before the last one is uprooted and finally eradicated. I am optimistic that this will eventually happen. I just hope it will happen in my lifetime and that I will still be young enough to enjoy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know... have you heard the crap that comes out of colleges, lately?

That's an accurate observation.

I would suggest that the decline in academic standards and the decline of of standards in popular aesthetics and public etiquette share the same root cause. When the 1960s nihilists gutted our popular culture they certainly did not spare academia - which actually is where the movement mostly originated from.

I faced the dilemma you mention back when I was a kid and had a teacher who had no business being a teacher and for whom I had zero respect. My mother visited the school and came to the same conclusion that I did. Actually, this ultimately ended up being the case with more than one teacher. What she told me was that my teachers, like everybody else, had to earn my respect as a person. However, if I came to the conclusion that one of my teachers was not worthy of respect as a person, I was still expected to show respect for their position as the teacher in charge of the class and that I would be in trouble if I ever failed to show that proper respect. I think that was appropriate approach to such situations.

Do students still refer to their teachers as "Mr. Such and Such" or "Professor Such and Such?" Or has that, too, all gone on a first name basis in the name of egalitarianism?

Today, people have little difficulty showing respect for those that they respect as people. Doing so is largely a matter of common sense. But, in the aftermath of the 1960s counterculture, many people have never been taught the importance of showing the proper respect for certain positions of authority or even to random strangers - and, as a result, they have no idea how they should display such respect and are often not aware when they are, in fact, displaying the opposite.

A good example of this was Ayn Rand's late 1970s appearance on the Donahue program for those who have seen a videotape of the program. Some typical 1970s era modern began her question to Ayn Rand with something along the lines of: "When I was young, I admired your philosophy, however, now that I have grown up...." Ayn Rand refused to answer the lady's question (and invited someone else to ask it) on grounds that it was rude and that she refused to "sanction impoliteness." Donahue and the audience which, by this time was booing, was completely unable to grasp why the question was rude.

Now, I will openly admit that the first time I saw that video, I too, had difficulty understanding what Ayn Rand was talking about and why she refused to answer the question. I was also brought up in a post 1960s world and by the time I saw that video in the 1990s one would expect as a matter of course to be confronted with questions much ruder than that if one were to field questions from a general audience about controversial topics. Being constantly bombarded with today's widespread lack of manners ultimately makes one numb to it and one no longer notices - and that is exactly how nihilism works to undermine and eliminate the more refined aspects of our cultural life. At some point, one is no longer able to be shocked and offended and takes such behavior as the given. Eventually, people grow up not knowing that anything else ever existed - making the nihilists' victory complete.

Ayn Rand was rare in that she did not "go with the flow" when the culture fell into the sewer in the 1960s and she did not dismiss what she saw happening with "well, I guess times change" or "I'm getting old" or "that's progress" as a great many of her contemporaries from a better era did. My guess is part of the reason is that Ayn Rand, unlike most people whose standards in such areas are based entirely on convention, was probably able to provide a full and complete philosophical justification as to why she adhered to certain standards of public behavior - and thus, when the popular culture began to collapse, unlike her contemporaries, she knew exactly what was going on.

Someone who is in a position to know once told me that when Ayn Rand met strangers she was extremely polite in a formal, almost Victorian sort of way. Observe how she insisted on being referred to by strangers as "Miss Rand." Something like that would seem very odd to most people today. 80 years ago, most people would have done so as a matter of course.

Today, I consider Ayn Rand's behavior on that Donahue program not as odd but rather as an example for me to look up to and to follow. Here she was on national television in a room full of sneering moderns - and she refused to budge one inch from the standards that she knew were correct and valid no matter how much such people might ridicule or laugh at her or call her a "fuddyduddy." Her contempt for the behavior of certain people in that audience was quite obvious by her facial expressions and the last thing she was going to do was "go with the flow" in the name of "keeping up with the times."

I have a similar attitude towards the hostility, scorn and ridicule I encounter on increasingly rare occasions (in recent years, more and more younger people think it is "cool") for my interest in the early 1900s decades, most especially the popular music from that era. As a result of my love for and familiarity with that era, I have very high standards in terms of things such as aesthetics and, increasingly as my knowledge of the era grows, for things such as manners. People can laugh and sneer all they want - I refuse to budge one single inch because I know the validity of my position and the fact that a bunch of filthy hippies in the 1960s had contempt for such things and large numbers of people who have grown up since then have never had the opportunity to discover and learn about such things is NOT a valid reason for me to "go with the flow" and "be like everyone else" and "keep up with the times."

In some areas, such as technology and the communications revolution made possible by computers and the Internet, we live in the most wonderful and marvelous periods of history - and that constitutes the one aspect of today's popular culture that I enjoy and try to keep up with. But in many, many areas I find today's culture to be, at best, bland and emotionally sanitized and, at worst, disgustingly nihilistic. Since life is short, I simply refuse to participate in those less than desirable aspects - and if that makes me "old fashioned" well, then that is exactly what I am. To me, the future worth fighting for is a high-tech version of the early 1900s decades - a world with the very best aspects of today (mostly technological) combined with the very best aspects of back then (mostly aesthetic and cultural) with the undesirable aspects of both eras having been fully eradicated from the face of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do students still refer to their teachers as "Mr. Such and Such" or "Professor Such and Such?" Or has that, too, all gone on a first name basis in the name of egalitarianism?
It varies, of course. However, having gone to public American high schools, I was astonished how students talked to teachers. It wasn't even leveled, very often it was to the point of zero-respect for the teacher (most teachers I saw were worth some respect, so this was bad).

Some teachers did establish the rules and enforced them with whatever authority school gave them (which was enough). The level of such environment varied across teachers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ties do serve a purpose, however. Perhaps you just meant they serve only an aesthetic purpose, not a utilitarian one. For instance, wearing a sweater because it is cold outside is utilitarian. Wearing a sweater which is green is aesthetic.

Ties serve the aesthetic purpose of adding color to an ensemble, largely to draw attention to the face-area. Also they serve to stress the vertical line of the body, adding to the appearance of height. Certain ties also visually signify things to others, like belonging to a certain military regiment, school or club.

Saying clothing is ridiculous because it serves an aesthetic purpose means everybody might just as well wear grey sweatpants all of the time.

Of course, aesthetics is essential to clothing and not at all ridiculous, just as aesthetics is essential to architecture. In each case, the skill is blending the utilitarian requirements with the aesthetic goal in a way which maximizes both.

What makes clothing aesthetic?

First of all, the beauty of a piece of clothing has to come from the shape of the body who is wearing it, and from the purpose it is meant to serve. For example: I find shirts with no sleeves to be very beautiful, mainly because they allow much greater freedom of movement to the arms.

My belief is that clothes should be designed to emphasize the beauty of the human figure. For example, for women, clothing should emphasize the narrowness of the waist. For men it should emphasize the width of the chest and shoulders. All clothes should emphasize the "tallness" of the human body.

Clothes should also be designed for maximum comfort. The most beautiful clothes are the ones that allow a person to act in the most efficient way. A suit and tie do not answer this criterion. I'm not a man, so I cant say for sure, but it looks like it would be very hard for someone in a suit to raise his arms and try to catch something, or to try and reach out an arm far from the body. The suit seems highly uncomfortable, and it also doesn't emphasize the male shape very well, in my opinion. It seems more like the man in it has to adjust himself to the suit, and not vice-versa.

Now, I agree with what Vladimir said that the tie's only purpose is aesthetic: by adding color and emphasizing the height, BUT, it has no other purpose, which, in my eyes, makes it unnecessary and not pretty. And the only reason it is required because suits are usually in very boring and unified colors.

It doesn't mean that I like shirts in "Hawaii" style.... but an all brown, all blue, all black clothes are very boring to me.

Women on the other hand have about a hundred types of skirts, in different lengths and shapes and patterns, lots of different types of shirts, and dresses, and pants....

I think the reason for the difference in the variety is because women are thought to be of beautiful figure, while men are thought of as having a boring figure. Or perhaps the reasons is that men tend to give more sexual attention to women than women to men. Of course I may be wrong about this, and I don't know of any researches on the subject... just speculating.

Edited by GreedyCapitalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×