Sorry if I made that hard to follow, the quotes were LJ, the hmm was about him.

Closer to arrogant, ignorant, chauvinistic, abusive and egotistical. but hey, close enough. I'm not saying what you want to hear, I'm telling you the truth whether you like it or not.

Very, very good meals are better than very, very bad sex but that's about the limit of it.

if you happen to be a praying mantis, you can do both!

You don't have to be a praying mantis. Just...messy. Depends on the food too, steaming hot stuff might be a bad idea.

Couldn't virtually any man have sex any time he wanted - provided he wasn't opposed to paying for it?

[posessed by bruce] doesn't every man pay for sex every time he has it in one way or another?:)[/posessed by bruce]

Except for the fact that what you've said isn't the truth and what I've said actually is. None of what I've said even remotely resembles any of your descriptions.

Better descriptions of what I've said include but aren't limited to: insightful, unbiased, logical, poignant, articulate, intelligent, accurate, clear, concise, and factual. This is the truth whether or not you choose to admit it. And that's not egotistical or arrogant; it's just the way it is.

Sorry if you're a female chauvinist and can't see past your own ignorance. Hopefully you'll open your eyes someday.

That's not the same thing at all and it perpetuates the fallacy that a woman is doing a favor for a man by having sex with him.

The discussion had to do with the fact that a woman can have sex anytime she wants and a man can not. Let's assume that a man and a woman are both totally and completely broke. All they own is the clothes on their back and each of them are 8,000 miles apart from each other. Each walks into a bar and says, "I want to have sex with anyone who is willing". Which one of them get's laid, and which gets thrown out of the bar, or ridiculed by the opposite sex?

*bows*
Case closed.

Amazing that you would close a case without proving anything. But hey, that's your style. I prefer to back up what I say with reason, logic, and facts.

I've proven my case, and you have proven nothing but your bad attitude, bitterness, ignorance, and bias.

Dang Radar, I tried what you said. I walked into a bar and announced that I wanted to get laid. They laughed and threw me out. Not one taker. What does that mean? I am too old and hideous? Was is a gay bar? Am I now able to appreciate sex like a man? (I settled for a basket of fries.)

(Speaking of Queso....and if your in Texas anyway...Check out Shady Grove's Green Chilie Cheese Fries. They rival lively foreplay for pleasure.)

Good food trumps a bad partner. But good sex makes you forget to eat.

what's that smell?


oh....i see....its bull:turd:

no, just queso. :)

I think I smell that too.

Yeah, what she said! :D

Well, ok. Here's my take on it.

I would say it depends on the person and how often they need/want sex. I have a friend who has rarely been without a man in her life, and she's getting it almost on a daily. She's somewhat of a sexaholic anyway (not saying that in a "bad" way, although she has gotten herself in plenty of trouble on more than one occasion because of this).

Food is something that people "need": sex is what most people "want". In other words, you need food to live, not sex (no matter what people may say, and no jokes please...please? Thanks).

I don't think you'll get a definitive answer here. Various people think differently about whether or not food is better than sex. Although, it seems to me that more people complain about their sex lives than food...;)

Sex is a physical NEED (at least for men)

Men genuinely need some physical release or they could become unstable. I don't mean this as a joke. It's a physical need every bit as much as eating, breathing, or going to the bathroom. The fact that we can go longer without sex doesn't make it any less of a need.