What's your definition of a cool girfriend?

[Hero]

I know a girl who bought a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Calendar for her boyfriend for Christmas. I thought that was totally awesome of her, considering that lots of girls would get pissed at their bf if he owned one. What are some other things that show that a gf is totally cool?

[kai1275]

That shit is lame. A real girlfriend would not encourage shit like that. What did she look like?

[Hero]

That shit is lame. A real girlfriend would not encourage shit like that. What did she look like?

Whaaat? Why is it lame? She was very pretty and sexy. And her actions show that she's very secure as well.

[kai1275]

That shit is lame. A real girlfriend would not encourage shit like that. What did she look like?

Whaaat? Why is it lame? She was very pretty and sexy. And her actions show that she's very secure as well.

That is usually something fat or ugly women do. A smart woman keeps her man hungry for her own goods. If he bought it, and she wasn't threatened by it is one thing. Buying it for him and encouraging it is another thing. You could even get more deeper into it discussing feminism and how it encourages homosexuality, but maybe someone else can flesh that out.

Something like this is far far worse than the football/sports crazy girlfriend/wife.

[Hero]

That shit is lame. A real girlfriend would not encourage shit like that. What did she look like?

Whaaat? Why is it lame? She was very pretty and sexy. And her actions show that she's very secure as well.

That is usually something fat or ugly women do. A smart woman keeps her man hungry for her own goods. If he bought it, and she wasn't threatened by it is one thing. Buying it for him and encouraging it is another thing. You could even get more deeper into it discussing feminism and how it encourages homosexuality, but maybe someone else can flesh that out.

Something like this is far far worse than the football/sports crazy girlfriend/wife.

Nah, I don't agree. The guy who gets turned on by the calendar will be hungry for his own woman's goods as a result. You know that they say, any port in a storm.

[kai1275]

That shit is lame. A real girlfriend would not encourage shit like that. What did she look like?

Whaaat? Why is it lame? She was very pretty and sexy. And her actions show that she's very secure as well.

That is usually something fat or ugly women do. A smart woman keeps her man hungry for her own goods. If he bought it, and she wasn't threatened by it is one thing. Buying it for him and encouraging it is another thing. You could even get more deeper into it discussing feminism and how it encourages homosexuality, but maybe someone else can flesh that out.

Something like this is far far worse than the football/sports crazy girlfriend/wife.

Nah, I don't agree. The guy who gets turned on by the calendar will be hungry for his own woman's goods as a result. You know that they say, any port in a storm.

Check out this great article from Henry Makow. Even if ya can't agree with 100% of everything he says, he makes scathing points. I bolded the best parts.

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

(originally posted in Feb. 2006)

In 2004, a woman revealed details of Hugh Hefner's sex life.

If the Playboy founder is any indication, a life dedicated to porn and promiscuity leads to homosexuality and impotence. The 60's icon of suave masculinity is, in old age, a grotesque self-parody.

Hefner, 82, pays a bevy of whores $2000 a week to be his girlfriends and have sex with him every Wednesday and Friday. He uses Viagra and watches male gay porn to stay erect while as many as ten concubines mount him in succession. The other girls simulate lesbian sex to arouse him.

"He doesn't really do anything," says Jill Anne Spaulding, author of the book "Upstairs." He just lies there with his Viagra erection. It's just a fake erection, and each girl gets on top of him for two minutes while the girls in the background try to keep him excited. They'll yell things like, "F-k her daddy, f-k her daddy!" There's a lot of cheerleader going on!"

No one becomes a playmate without having intercourse with Hefner. The "girl next door" is now a whore; and Hefner's maudlin example of arrested development is a fitting epitaph for his Playboy Philosophy.

Playboy was not a spontaneous phenomenon. It was social engineering designed to foster homosexuality and family breakdown. See my "Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution." This is why Spaulding's revelations got so little publicity.


DEFINING HOMOSEXUAL AND HETEROSEXUAL


The "establishment" agenda is to destabilize and neuter us by encouraging homosexual behavior. This ensures we don't propagate since homosexuals have sex but don't have children.

They redefine "homosexual" as a "sexual preference" or "lifestyle choice" rather than a developmental disorder so as to entrap us. Never mind that the vast majority of homosexuals come from dysfunctional families or suffered sexual abuse as youths. Our reluctance to embrace homosexuality is considered "bigotry."

In response, let's take liberties with these definitions ourselves. Having the right paradigm is the key to healthy behavior.

Forget about what you normally think of gay or straight (same-sex , opposite sex attraction etc.) Think of heterosexuality as monogamous and dedicated to rearing children; homosexuality as promiscuous and concerned with sex for its own sake.

Heterosexuality involves bonding permanently with a member of the opposite sex for love and usually procreation. It is participating in the natural life cycle, in the intrinsic meaning of life. Personal and societal health depend on heterosexuality.

Homosexuality is a form of arrested development caused by an inability to form a heterosexual bond. As a result, homosexuals compensate using sex as a surrogate for love.

In these terms, society has become more homosexual because, due to social engineering (i.e. the "sexual revolution," feminism) many heterosexuals now fail to permanently bond. Normally, happily married heterosexuals can put sex in perspective and move on to more important things.

A perceptive reader recently wrote me: "If heterosexual sex outside of marriage is acceptable, if we eliminate the procreative aspect from sex, are heterosexuals any different from homosexuals in regards to the sexual activity?"

Exactly. I know these definitions are not "politically correct." PC is propaganda, social engineering and mind control. PC is an old Communist Party (i.e. Illuminati) term.

I do not disparage gays. According to my definitions, the vast majority of homosexuals are really "heterosexuals" like Hugh Hefner. And a small minority of homosexuals are monogamous and partake in some heterosexual values.


HOW SEX BECAME AN ACT OF HATE


Last year I wrote: "Throughout modern history Illuminati bankers have used "sexual liberation" to subvert society and establish their subtle tyranny. As Masonic revolutionary Giuseppe Mazzini said, "we corrupt in order to rule."

The Illuminati bankers need to introduce "world government" to translate their unjust monopoly over credit into total world control.

They realized that they couldn't take control until they destroyed the family. This was a main plank of the Communist Manifesto in 1848, along with the creation of a private central bank.

Every major "revolution" in modern history has increased Illuminati banker control and the sexual revolution is no exception.

The Illuminati used Hugh Hefner's "Playboy" to divorce sex from love, marriage and family. They own the major cartels and control the media through advertising.

The movies are very effective in fostering homosexuality. Sex is often something reserved for your enemies. Recently I saw "Dr. No" (1962) again. The fashionable James Bond has sex with a woman even after he realizes she is involved in an attempt to kill him. After they have sex, Bond has her imprisoned.

In the movie Munich (2006), the Israeli assassins confront an attractive woman who killed their colleague. She displays her goods and suggests her death would be "a waste of talent." She thinks they might have sex with a woman they intend to kill.

Human beings are malleable and take their standards from movies. There is nothing so destructive to human society as the separation of sex and love. It reduces men to dogs, and women to fire hydrants.

The Illuminati wishes to harness sex in the interests of hate. Love is the enemy of hate and must be destroyed.

ALL PORN IS GAY


According to our definition of homosexuality, (i.e. promiscuity outside of love and/or procreation), all pornography is gay. The porn consumer is engaged in a promiscuous masturbatory fantasy. He is not focused on his marriage and progeny.

From what I have said, it should be clear that homosexuality is incompatible with heterosexuality, just as promiscuity is incompatible with monogamy. Gay activists admit their goal is to destroy heterosexuality.

Pornography is poisoning heterosexuality. There is a place for tasteful nudity as a stopgap while seeking marriage.
(See my "Managing the Male Sex Drive" ) But as you know, pornography has reached epidemic proportions. "Adult Video News" predicts revenue of $12.6 billion this year. The Internet has literally thousands of porn sites. TV and pop music increasingly are pornographic.

Pornography warps the way a man sees all women and girls. Many sites include girls as young as 14. See "Erototoxins"

Young females think they are useful for one thing only. Thousands in the porn industry display what everyone has instead of cultivating what is rare and valuable: femininity.

I hate to burst the bubble on a billion dollar industry: Young naked women are practically identical. They have identical equipment. Boobs and bush. Symmetrical faces. Do men need to see literally thousands of examples?

There is something addictive here. Why don't men get sick of it? Why don't they suffer from gynecologist's fatigue? The plethora of breasts and splayed legs takes the wonder out of sex and causes contempt for women and impotence. Maybe this is the point: new drugs keep people running on empty. (See "The Porn Pharma Complex")

Sexual attraction is mostly a function of a woman's fertility. Women are designed to marry and procreate when they are young and most attractive. Marriage ensured that men would have to commit if they wanted sex. By undermining marriage, occult social engineers have turned a critical social and reproductive activity into a lifetime obsession, better to divert, degrade and control the masses.


FINALLY

We were not prepared for the attack on our humanity by "sexual liberation" and porn. We didn't know our leadership had been subverted by the Illuminati.

Marriage and family are the essential building blocks of society. Family ensures that each new generation is properly nurtured and prepared for life.

Most people receive values, purpose, identity and love from their family roles.

Heterosexuality provides life with profound meaning. There is no greater potential for love than marriage and parenthood.

Raising a child is the supreme act of devotion and faith in God and is practiced and tested every day.

Homosexual social engineering is gradually destroying these sources of happiness and health, personal and societal.

- See more at: http://henrymakow.com/001421.html#sthash.oMdgwwjF.dpuf

[/quote]

[Hero]

Wow, all that bad shit is gonna happen just because a girl buys her bf a Swimsuit calendar???

[kai1275]

Wow, all that bad shit is gonna happen just because a girl buys her bf a Swimsuit calendar???

It's the mentality. Now if she is just a f**k-buddy, whatever. If she hopes to be a good wife for him, consistent things like cooking and bringing him a beer is better than trash like that. A calendar like that is borderline pornography. She is telling him it is okay to fantasize and replace her with others in his mind. In stead of taking initiative by becoming a good matriarch/wife, by eliminating competing elements she is encouraging it.

If she fosters a desire in him to fawn over airbrushed unrealistic women, she is openly telling him that is okay to not love what he has or be unrealistic. If she comes home early and finds him jacking off to ladyboys or naked Night Elves in World of Warcraft, does she have a right to get upset?

Open relationship shit doesn't work.
Swinging doesn't work.
Porn addictions in marriage doesn't work.

A cool gf is one that completely satisfies sexually, emotionally, and physically. Anything less is sub par and not worth the time and money wasted in most cases.

[Tsar]

Open relationship shit doesn't work.
Swinging doesn't work.
p**n addictions in marriage doesn't work.

A cool gf is one that completely satisfies sexually, emotionally, and physically. Anything less is sub par and not worth the time and money wasted in most cases.

I am completely against open relationships and swinging. A girl needs to be a virgin for her man and only be with her man.

I'm not sure why porn is a bad thing in a relationship? Lot's of men watch porn and sometimes couples watch it together?

[kai1275]

Open relationship shit doesn't work.
Swinging doesn't work.
p**n addictions in marriage doesn't work.

A cool gf is one that completely satisfies sexually, emotionally, and physically. Anything less is sub par and not worth the time and money wasted in most cases.

I am completely against open relationships and swinging. A girl needs to be a virgin for her man and only be with her man.

I'm not sure why p**n is a bad thing in a relationship? Lot's of men watch p**n and sometimes couples watch it together?

Porn changes the way your brain works chemically. It's pretty dangerous stuff! In fact there was new brain research showing the problems. Here is a link inside Henry's article pointing to one back in 2004

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives ... commi.html

Senate Subcommittee Hears Experts on Pornography Toxicity

By Jan LaRue, Chief Counsel
December 2, 2004
[links updated June 2011]

Mental health professionals say porn not only affects the mind and behavior, it alters brain chemistry.

On November 18, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) chaired a hearing of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space on "The Science Behind Pornography Addiction."

Four experts in the fields of mental health and communication testified:

Judith Reisman, Ph.D., President of The Institute for Media Education, Scientific Advisor to the California Protective Parents Association and the Subcommittee on Junk Science for The American Legislative Exchange Council's April 2004 report [testimony];

Jeffrey Satinover, M.S., M.D., Psychiatrist and Professor at Princeton University [testimony];

Mary Anne Layden, Ph.D., Co-Director, Sexual Trauma and Psychopathology Program, Center for Cognitive Therapy, University of Pennsylvania [testimony]; and

Dr. James B. Weaver III, Professor, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Communication, Shanks Hall (0311), Blacksburg, Virginia [testimony].

Dr. Reisman specializes in the communication effects of images on the brain, mind and memory; fraud in the human sexuality field; and the addictive properties of sexually explicit images, commonly called pornography. She emphasized how pornography not only influences behavior but also actually alters brain chemistry, making children most vulnerable to its toxic imagery:

Thanks to the latest advances in neuroscience, we now know that emotionally arousing images imprint and alter the brain, triggering an instant, involuntary, but lasting, biochemical memory trail.
This applies to so-called "soft-core" and "hard-core" pornography, which may, arguably, subvert the First Amendment by overriding the cognitive speech process.

Once our neurochemical pathways are established they are difficult or impossible to delete. Erotic images also commonly trigger the viewer's "fight or flight" sex hormones producing intense arousal states that appear to fuse the conscious state of libidinous arousal with unconscious emotions of fear, shame, anger and hostility.

These media erotic fantasies become deeply imbedded, commonly coarsening, confusing, motivating and addicting many of those exposed.

How does this "brain sabotage" occur? Brain scientists tell us that "in 3/10 of a second a visual image passes from the eye through the brain, and whether or not one wants to, the brain is structurally changed and memories are created'we literally 'grow new brain' with each visual experience."

Children and others who cannot read can instantly decode and experience images ... . In fact, erotic (any highly arousing) images commonly subvert left hemisphere cognition. [Emphasis in original.]
Dr. Satinover emphasized that modern science debunks the dangerous illusion that pornography is merely "_expression in the trivial sense that a fall from the Empire State Building is a mere stumble--since it's hitting the ground that's fatal. Or, that cigarettes don't cause cancer, it's the burning smoke that's the problem."

Here is what I mean: Like cigarettes, that particular form of _expression we call pornography, unlike all other forms of _expression, is a delivery system that has a distinct and powerful effect upon the human brain and nervous system. Exactly like cigarettes, and unlike any other form of _expression, this effect is to cause a powerful addiction. Like any other addiction, the addiction is both to the delivery system itself--the pornography--and to the chemicals that the delivery system delivers. [Emphasis in original.]
It may seem surprising that, at this juncture, I should speak of "chemicals," when one might be thinking instead of "sex." But, in fact, modern science allows us to understand that the underlying nature of an addiction to pornography is chemically nearly identical to a heroin addiction: Only the delivery system is different, and the sequence of steps. That is why heroin addicts in particular give up sex and routinely compare their "rushes" to "orgasms."

The pornography addict soon forgets about everything and everyone else in favor of an ever more elusive sexual jolt. He will eventually be able to find it only among other "junkies" like himself, and he will place at risk his career, his friends, his family. He will indulge his habit anywhere and everywhere, at any time. No one, no matter how highly placed, is immune. And like all other addicts, the pornography addict will lie to cover it up, heedless of risk or cost to himself or to others.

Dr. Layden included the anti-social effects of pornography consumption in her testimony:

Those who use pornography have also been shown to be more likely to engage in illegal behavior as well. Research indicates and my clinical experience supports that those who use pornography are more likely to go to prostitutes, engage in domestic violence, stranger rape, date rape and incest. These behaviors should not be surprising since pornographic videos containing all of these themes are readily available and the permission-giving beliefs of these pornographic videos reinforced by the orgasm say that all these behaviors are normal, acceptable, common and don't hurt anyone.
Dr. Weaver acknowledged that while "research directly assessing the impact of pornography addiction on fami1ies and communities is limited, ... there is a large body of social science research evidence that can inform our discussion." It reveals: "The manifest content of pornography has been extensively examined, for example, revealing that (1) pornography's dominant theme is one of unrestrained human sexual promiscuity and (2) it's devoid of coercion and violent action. ... Further, the findings of numerous studies suggest that pornography consumption promotes sexual deviancy, sexual perpetration and adverse sexual attitudes.

CWA constituents can rest assured that we will continue to make combatting pornography through public education and law enforcement a priority. For more information see our articles here.

Concerned Women for America
1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 488-7000
Fax: (202) 488-0806

[kai1275]

Found the Guardian article just now.


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ual-tastes

Brain scans of porn addicts: what's wrong with this picture?
Scan images show that watching online 'adult' sites can alter our grey matter, which may lead to a change in sexual tastes
Share 983


6
inShare
9
Email
Norman Doidge
Norman Doidge
The Guardian, Thursday 26 September 2013 13.29 EDT
Jump to comments (674)
heroin addict brain scans
A doctor looks at a heroin addict's brain scans. New research shows men who say they are addicted to porn … develop changes in the same area – the reward centre – that changes in drug addicts.' Photograph: Don McPhee for the Guardian
The Cambridge University neuropsychiatrist Dr Valerie Voon has recently shown that men who describe themselves as addicted to porn (and who lost relationships because of it) develop changes in the same brain area – the reward centre – that changes in drug addicts. The study, not yet published, is featured next week in the Channel 4 TV show Porn on the Brain. Neurosceptics may argue that pictures of the brain lighting up in addicts tell us nothing new – we already know they are addicted. But they do help: knowing the reward centre is changed explains some porn paradoxes.

In the mid-1990s I, and other psychiatrists, began to notice the following. An adult male, in a happy relationship, being seen for some non-romantic issue, might describe getting curious about porn on the burgeoning internet. Most sites bored him, but he soon noticed several that fascinated him to the point he was craving them. The more he used the porn, the more he wanted to.

Yet, though he craved it, he didn't like it (porn paradox 1). The cravings were so intense, he might feel them while thinking about his computer (paradox 2). The patient would also report that, far from getting more turned on by the idea of sex with his partner, he was less attracted to her (paradox 3). Through porn he acquired new sexual tastes.

We often talk about addicts as though they simply have "quantitative problems". They "use too much", and should "cut back". But porn addictions also have a qualitative component: they change sexual taste. Here's how.

Until recently, scientists believed our brains were fixed, their circuits formed and finalised in childhood, or "hardwired". Now we know the brain is "neuroplastic", and not only can it change, but that it works by changing its structure in response to repeated mental experience.

One key driver of plastic change is the reward centre, which normally fires as we accomplish a goal. A brain chemical, dopamine, is released, giving us the thrill that goes with accomplishment. It also consolidates the connections between neurons in the brain that helped us accomplish that goal. As well, dopamine is secreted at moments of sexual excitement and novelty. Porn scenes, filled with novel sexual "partners", fire the reward centre. The images get reinforced, altering the user's sexual tastes.

Many abused substances directly trigger dopamine secretion – without us having to work to accomplish a goal. This can damage the dopamine reward system. In porn, we get "sex" without the work of courtship. Now, scans show that porn can alter the reward centre too.

Once the reward centre is altered, a person will compulsively seek out the activity or place that triggered the dopamine discharge. (Like addicts who get excited passing the alley where they first tried cocaine, the patients got excited thinking about their computers.) They crave despite negative consequences. (This is why those patients could crave porn without liking it.) Worse, over time, a damaged dopamine system makes one more "tolerant" to the activity and needing more stimulation, to get the rush and quiet the craving. "Tolerance" drives a search for ramped-up stimulation, and this can drive the change in sexual tastes towards the extreme.

The most obvious change in porn is how sex is so laced with aggression and sadomasochism. As tolerance to sexual excitement develops, it no longer satisfies; only by releasing a second drive, the aggressive drive, can the addict be excited. And so – for people psychologically predisposed – there are scenes of angry sex, men ejaculating insultingly on women's faces, angry anal penetration, etc. Porn sites are also filled with the complexes Freud described: "Milf" ("mothers I'd like to f**k") sites show us the Oedipus complex is alive; spanking sites sexualise a childhood trauma; and many other oral and anal fixations. All these features indicate that porn's dirty little secret is that what distinguishes "adult sites" is how "infantile," they are, in terms of how much power they derive from our infantile complexes and forms of sexuality and aggression. Porn doesn't "cause" these complexes, but it can strengthen them, by wiring them into the reward system. The porn triggers a "neo-sexuality" – an interplay between the pornographer's fantasies, and the viewer's.

Of all our instincts, sexuality is perhaps the most plastic, appearing to have broken free of its primary evolutionary aim, reproduction, even though a certain naive biological narrative depicts our sexual tastes as hardwired and unchanging, and insists we are all always drawn to the same, biologically fit, symmetrical features and attributes which indicate "this person will produce fit offspring". But clearly we are not all attracted to the same type, or person.

Sexual tastes change from era to era: the sexual goddesses painted by Rubens are corpulent by modern standards. Sexual tastes also change from individual to individual: different people have different romantic "types". Types tend to be caricatures: the free spirit, the artistic type, the bad boy, the strong silent type, the devoted woman, and so on. We learn that types are related to plasticity, when we discover the individual's history. The woman attracted to "the unavailable man", often lost her father in childhood; the man attracted to the "ice queen" had a distant critical mother. There is little hardwired about the specifics of these attractions. But the ultimate sign that sexual desire need not be hardwired into reproduction is the fetishist, more attracted to a shoe than its wearer.

Sexual tastes change over the course of our individual lives; not all love is love at first sight, based on looks; we may not notice someone as especially attractive, until we fall in love with them and feel such pleasure in their presence, that we soon "awaken" to their charms. And successfully monogamous couples, who love and feel attraction to each other over decades, slowly change their sexual tastes, as their partners age and look different. Sometimes change comes quickly, but no changes are as rapid or radical as those occurring in teenagers, who go from having limited, to all consuming attractions.

Teenagers' brains are especially plastic. Now, 24/7 access to internet porn is laying the foundation of their sexual tastes. In Beeban Kidron's InRealLife, a gripping film about the effects of the internet on teenagers, a 15-year-old boy of extraordinary honesty and courage articulates what is going on in the lives of millions of teen boys. He shows her the porn images that excite him and his friends, and describes how they have moulded their "real life" sexual activity. He says: "You'd try out a girl and get a perfect image of what you've watched on the internet … you'd want her to be exactly like the one you saw on the internet … I'm highly thankful to whoever made these websites, and that they're free, but in other senses it's ruined the whole sense of love. It hurts me because I find now it's so hard for me to actually find a connection to a girl."

The sexual tastes and the romantic longings of these boys have become dissociated from each other. Meanwhile, the girls have "downloaded" on to them the expectation that they play roles written by pornographers. Once, porn was used by teens to explore, prepare and relieve sexual tension, in anticipation of a real sexual relationship. Today, it supplants it.

In her book, Bunny Tales: Behind Closed Doors at the Playboy Mansion, Izabella St James, who was one of Hugh Hefner's former "official girlfriends", described sex with Hef. Hef, in his late 70s, would have sex twice a week, sometimes with four or more of his girlfriends at once, St James among them. He had novelty, variety, multiplicity and women willing to do what he pleased. At the end of the happy orgy, wrote St James, came "the grand finale: he masturbated while watching porn".

Here, the man who could actually live out the ultimate porn fantasy, with real porn stars, instead turned from their real flesh and touch, to the image on the screen. Now, I ask you, "what is wrong with this picture?".

• This article was corrected on 27 September. The Channel 4 programme Porn on the Brain was incorrectly called Porn and the Teenage Brain

[/img]

[Hero]

It's the mentality. Now if she is just a f**k-buddy, whatever. If she hopes to be a good wife for him, consistent things like cooking and bringing him a beer is better than trash like that. A calendar like that is borderline p***. She is telling him it is okay to fantasize and replace her with others in his mind. In stead of taking initiative by becoming a good matriarch/wife, by eliminating competing elements she is encouraging it.

If she fosters a desire in him to fawn over airbrushed unrealistic women, she is openly telling him that is okay to not love what he has or be unrealistic. If she comes home early and finds him jacking off to ladyboys or naked Night Elves in World of Warcraft, does she have a right to get upset?

Open relationship shit doesn't work.
Swinging doesn't work.
p**n addictions in marriage doesn't work.

A cool gf is one that completely satisfies sexually, emotionally, and physically. Anything less is sub par and not worth the time and money wasted in most cases.

Dude! You're blowing all of this way out of proportion. First of all, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is nowhere near porn. There's nothing evil about the female form. Second of all, there's a big distance between looking at swimsuit models and jacking off to ladyboys. Chill out, man.

[kai1275]

It's the mentality. Now if she is just a f**k-buddy, whatever. If she hopes to be a good wife for him, consistent things like cooking and bringing him a beer is better than trash like that. A calendar like that is borderline p***. She is telling him it is okay to fantasize and replace her with others in his mind. In stead of taking initiative by becoming a good matriarch/wife, by eliminating competing elements she is encouraging it.

If she fosters a desire in him to fawn over airbrushed unrealistic women, she is openly telling him that is okay to not love what he has or be unrealistic. If she comes home early and finds him jacking off to ladyboys or naked Night Elves in World of Warcraft, does she have a right to get upset?

Open relationship shit doesn't work.
Swinging doesn't work.
p**n addictions in marriage doesn't work.

A cool gf is one that completely satisfies sexually, emotionally, and physically. Anything less is sub par and not worth the time and money wasted in most cases.

Dude! You're blowing all of this way out of proportion. First of all, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is nowhere near p**n. There's nothing evil about the female form. Second of all, there's a big distance between looking at swimsuit models and jacking off to ladyboys. Chill out, man.

If you cannot see the point I was trying to make, too bad for you. I am not upset or excited. Still your life, your decision. I don't have a perfect answer for porn, but it is a fact it alters the brain. A stupid calendar is no exception either. If you watch hardcore S&M then a calendar is nothing. There might be a guy around here that has not seen anything that hardcore, so he thinks in a way much different than you.

Regardless of if you think porn is harmless or not, my opinion still stands. A "cool" gf to me would not perpetuate those kinds of things. She would be trying to keep the focus on herself instead, and satisfy all of my needs.

[OTB]

@Tsar

I'm not sure why p**n is a bad thing in a relationship?

Tsar? I'm shocked you would asked something like that. This is another outlet that men or women can use for their sexual fantasies which infringes on the sanctity of marriage. I wouldn't be cool with my wife rubbing herself to two people having sex nor should she be comfortable with me getting aroused by two people having sex. The eroticism should only come from being with your spouse. [/quote]