\"\"
Piano Forum logo

Do pianists have more/better sex? (Read 8870 times)

Offline anonvisits

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Do pianists have more/better sex?
« on: January 08, 2014, 08:10:31 AM »
I always wondered this, because typically pianists are more sensitive/passionate. Does anyone care to reply, from experience?

Offline kakeithewolf

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 556
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #1 on: January 08, 2014, 06:16:21 PM »
Well, I can't really see how that'd make sense. Their area of expertise is their fingers, which aren't really all that involved in coital sex.

As for experience? I'm not much of a pianist, but I can tell you for sure that "passion" doesn't mean anything. Sex is entirely based on the release of endorphins and a few other chemicals from the hypothalamus; the emotional connotations are manufactured illusions. If you damage the emotion parts of the mind, sex is unaffected.

But if you were to apply something along the lines of a bilateral lesion upon the medial preoptic nucleus of the medial area of the anterior region of the hypothalmus or damaged the arcuate nucleus of the medial area of the tuberal region of the hypothalamus, you'd completely eliminate any sexual potency. Although, you probably would not want damage to the arcuate nucleus, because that causes damage to dopamine production, which would lead to chronic depression.

In short, the answer is "not really". There just isn't a real correlation between the level of pleasure in mating and a pianist's skill. It is pretty much moot point, though, as sex is completely useless outside of procreation anyway, and I'm dead sure playing piano doesn't make your potency in that department rise. If it did, fertility specialists would be replaced by piano teachers.
Per novitatem, artium est renascatur.

Finished with making music for quite a long time.

Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #2 on: January 08, 2014, 06:39:47 PM »
Well, I can't really see how that'd make sense. Their area of expertise is their fingers, which aren't really all that involved in coital sex.

As for experience? I'm not much of a pianist, but I can tell you for sure that "passion" doesn't mean anything. Sex is entirely based on the release of endorphins and a few other chemicals from the hypothalamus; the emotional connotations are manufactured illusions. If you damage the emotion parts of the mind, sex is unaffected.

But if you were to apply something along the lines of a bilateral lesion upon the medial preoptic nucleus of the medial area of the anterior region of the hypothalmus or damaged the arcuate nucleus of the medial area of the tuberal region of the hypothalamus, you'd completely eliminate any sexual potency. Although, you probably would not want damage to the arcuate nucleus, because that causes damage to dopamine production, which would lead to chronic depression.

In short, the answer is "not really". There just isn't a real correlation between the level of pleasure in mating and a pianist's skill. It is pretty much moot point, though, as sex is completely useless outside of procreation anyway, and I'm dead sure playing piano doesn't make your potency in that department rise. If it did, fertility specialists would be replaced by piano teachers.

Surely that's subjective? It's well known that women are turned on as much by mental issues as physical ones. Even men have a balance between both aspects. If an attractive woman played like Horowitz it would be a big turn on. Even if a moderately attractive woman played that way, it might swing it. If she was ugly then it's tough luck for her though, sorry.

Anyway, there are women who can orgasm from purely mental stimulation. I used to go out with one. That doesn't mean the whole of the ordinary world will be turned on by pianists, but there are doubtless women out there who would go for something so specific and who could very well be easier to please, if you're a good pianist.

Offline kakeithewolf

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 556
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #3 on: January 08, 2014, 06:48:59 PM »
Surely that's subjective? It's well known that women are turned on as much by mental issues as physical ones. Even men have a balance between both aspects. If an attractive woman played like Horowitz it would be a big turn on. Even if a moderately attractive woman played that way, it might swing it. If she was ugly then it's tough luck for her though, sorry.

Anyway, there are women who can orgasm from purely mental stimulation. I used to go out with one. That doesn't mean the whole of the ordinary world will be turned on by pianists, but there are doubtless women out there who would go for something so specific and who could very well be easier to please, if you're a good pianist.

Last I checked, biology isn't subjective. Unlike many in society wish, we can't just use willpower to mold our brains into whatever we wish. What you're describing as "turn ons" are simply where people use positive association as a way to consciously choose to activate endorphin rushes. It's not exactly a hard thing to do, either.

Biologically, people need enormous incentive and analgesia to be goaded into mating. The process of mating is, in fact, extraordinarily painful without endorphins. If people couldn't feel endorphin rushes, I can pretty much guarantee you that they wouldn't have sex. Whatever reward and dosage of chemicals is required to get people to copulate, the brain will gladly supply so our species doesn't die.

Sure, piano can be a turn on. But pretty much anything can be a turn on. Stating that the mere fact this can be a turn on necessitates it being indicative of enhanced sexual prowess, however, is going a tad far.
Per novitatem, artium est renascatur.

Finished with making music for quite a long time.

Offline senanserat

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 672
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #4 on: January 08, 2014, 07:10:31 PM »
Well, I can't really see how that'd make sense. Their area of expertise is their fingers, which aren't really all that involved in coital sex.

That is not that she said ;D, I can vouch that the fingers play a very important part in foreplay, not that I have that much experience (I am chaste at heart) but for what is worth it is a nice extra, how else would you explain Bach's hordes of children? The dude was probably a beast in the sack.

Now while I agree that the piano isn't exactly the turn on like say, very good looks (refer to my other thread) it could help to impress the subject of your affection, much like how the bird sing or the peacocks get their pompadours on a ruffle, it depends on the person naturally so woman (for example) may find the piano boring and prefer a mechanic with oil stains, in which case they're unfit to be even be considered as possible bearers of my genes.

Ol'Grand Pops had a saying, if you go to a girl's house and she doesn't have books don't F-(un) her. 
"The thousand years of raindrops summoned by my song are my tears, the thunder that strikes the earth is my anger!"

Offline senanserat

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 672
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #5 on: January 08, 2014, 07:11:13 PM »
I always wondered this, because typically pianists are more sensitive/passionate. Does anyone care to reply, from experience?

By the way being very sensitive can be a drawback, better be able to hold your unicorns if ye follow.
"The thousand years of raindrops summoned by my song are my tears, the thunder that strikes the earth is my anger!"

Offline eric0773

  • PS Silver Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 38
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #6 on: January 08, 2014, 07:19:38 PM »
Regarding attractivity, I do not believe so. Many pianists, including myself, never play in a band and very rarely in public. And because it is so polyvalent, the piano is often self-sufficient and does not need other instruments or other people. Therefore, little incentive to go out.

Besides, "sounding good" on piano requires a tremendous amount of practice. There are a couple other instruments were proficiency is just as difficult to achieve, but where a beginner can more easily produce pleasing sounds or familiar tunes that girls/women already know and like (guitar, harmonica, singing, etc). For a similar result, piano practice takes tons of time and is done alone. It often encourages introversion (in my humble opinion).

Also, I think that many of the advanced pieces that are loved by pianists leave indifferent many strangers, since that taste often takes time to develop. I did not enjoy Brahms or Liszt the first time I listened to them, and now I love them both.

And as regard to the emotions created by some well-known and well-loved famous Nocturnes or Etudes by Chopin, I do not think that what is often felt by a general audience when listening to them (frequently nostalgia, melancholia, etc) will make one any closer to intimate relationships.

I may be wrong but this is how I feel :-)

Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #7 on: January 08, 2014, 07:37:11 PM »
Last I checked, biology isn't subjective. Unlike many in society wish, we can't just use willpower to mold our brains into whatever we wish. What you're describing as "turn ons" are simply where people use positive association as a way to consciously choose to activate endorphin rushes. It's not exactly a hard thing to do, either.

Biologically, people need enormous incentive and analgesia to be goaded into mating. The process of mating is, in fact, extraordinarily painful without endorphins. If people couldn't feel endorphin rushes, I can pretty much guarantee you that they wouldn't have sex. Whatever reward and dosage of chemicals is required to get people to copulate, the brain will gladly supply so our species doesn't die.

Sure, piano can be a turn on. But pretty much anything can be a turn on. Stating that the mere fact this can be a turn on necessitates it being indicative of enhanced sexual prowess, however, is going a tad far.

None of that makes any sense. Choosing? Who chooses to be attracted to someone? It's like the idea that being gay is a choice. Often the most resistant women end up being extraordinarily turned on by someone they told to *** off earlier in the conversation. That's not choice. I suppose you can say there's a choice about whether to fight attraction but the attraction itself is not a choice. Whether to act on it is the choice.

It's well known that the female orgasm is most easily triggered when mental issues, particularly attraction issues, are right- rather than merely by the correct form of physical stimulation. You seem to be implying that it's all down to physical issues? In the right conditions, a male can do a relatively ordinary job yet get better results due to mental stimulation. If a woman happens to be extremely attracted to a man for his piano playing, he doesn't need to put in anywhere near as good a performance as someone she's less attracted to, to make a better impression.

Women are also much more susceptible to external issues to looks than men, which is how the small bald man Neil Strauss came be a successful "gamer".

Offline outin

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8029
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #8 on: January 08, 2014, 07:41:19 PM »
Surely that's subjective? It's well known that women are turned on as much by mental issues as physical ones. Even men have a balance between both aspects. If an attractive woman played like Horowitz it would be a big turn on. Even if a moderately attractive woman played that way, it might swing it. If she was ugly then it's tough luck for her though, sorry.

Anyway, there are women who can orgasm from purely mental stimulation. I used to go out with one. That doesn't mean the whole of the ordinary world will be turned on by pianists, but there are doubtless women out there who would go for something so specific and who could very well be easier to please, if you're a good pianist.
Actually it's not about women necessarily needing more or different kind of mental stimulation than men, because not all of them do and individual sexuality is formed by nurture as well, not just nature. Many women simply have the ability to physically stimulate themselves internally. Female organs are situated so, that it is possible to induce orgasm without outer stimulation with almost unnoticeable internal muscle movements. Obviously men are different in this aspect.

If men don't need mental stimulation as well to be turned on, why do we have the porn industry?

Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #9 on: January 08, 2014, 07:54:02 PM »
Actually it's not about women necessarily needing more or different kind of mental stimulation than men, because not all of them do and individual sexuality is formed by nurture as well, not just nature. Many women simply have the ability to physically stimulate themselves internally. Female organs are situated so, that it is possible to induce orgasm without outer stimulation with almost unnoticeable internal muscle movements. Obviously men are different in this aspect.

If men don't need mental stimulation as well to be turned on, why do we have the porn industry?


I mean mean issues other than the sight of naked flesh. Although I didn't say men don't need mental stimulation too. Quite the opposite. A woman who might be of no interest with a boring personality might appear a good deal more attractive if she's interesting. It's interesting to meet people from dating websites. Some are infinitely more attractive than their photos suggested. Others are a big disappointment. Of course, some of that can be due to carefully selected photos, but it's also down to the fact that how someone looks to us is subjectively interpreted in relation to other issues. You don't get that from reading their profile, but from a lot of more subconscious things about their body language and how they move and talk etc- which can give a very different
impression to a static photo.

But I'm not talking about self induced orgasms. I heard some story about a French philosopher whose party trick was to lie back on a table and orgasm without touching himself. The woman in question orgasmed ludicrously easily when in the right mood. When she wasn't, she couldn't orgasm at all. Whatever the corresponding physical process might be, the difference came from mental issues.

Offline kakeithewolf

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 556
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #10 on: January 08, 2014, 08:14:35 PM »
None of that makes any sense. Choosing? Who chooses to be attracted to someone? It's like the idea that being gay is a choice. Often the most resistant women end up being extraordinarily turned on by someone they told to *** off earlier in the conversation. That's not choice. I suppose you can say there's a choice about whether to fight attraction but the attraction itself is not a choice. Whether to act on it is the choice.

It's well known that the female orgasm is most easily triggered when mental issues, particularly attraction issues, are right- rather than merely by the correct form of physical stimulation. You seem to be implying that it's all down to physical issues? In the right conditions, a male can do a relatively ordinary job yet get better results due to mental stimulation. If a woman happens to be extremely attracted to a man for his piano playing, he doesn't need to put in anywhere near as good a performance as someone she's less attracted to, to make a better impression.

Women are also much more susceptible to external issues to looks than men, which is how the small bald man Neil Strauss came be a successful "gamer".

Well, for one, I am a person who chooses that. Because, if there is one area where animals have humans definitively beat, it is correctly choosing mates for optimal progeny. Unfortunately, I have loads of stuff that shouldn't be passed on through the gene pool, so I'll just have to settle for someone who I'd logically want to spend my time with. However, it is nice to see that I'm not the only human being on this planet who realizes acting on attraction is a choice.

As I stated earlier, mental stimulation still works along the same pathways as any other MO that one may choose for attraction. Arguing aesthetics is rather pointless as well, as the intended reason for that has essentially been bred out of the common population due to the imprudent notion that "true love conquers all", or whatever swill by dime store romance novel writers of past ages of antiquity that people choose to hold dear. Everything is chemical by nature, people are just blind fools in the face of it.
Per novitatem, artium est renascatur.

Finished with making music for quite a long time.

Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #11 on: January 08, 2014, 08:34:51 PM »
Well, for one, I am a person who chooses that. Because, if there is one area where animals have humans definitively beat, it is correctly choosing mates for optimal progeny. Unfortunately, I have loads of stuff that shouldn't be passed on through the gene pool, so I'll just have to settle for someone who I'd logically want to spend my time with. However, it is nice to see that I'm not the only human being on this planet who realizes acting on attraction is a choice.

As I stated earlier, mental stimulation still works along the same pathways as any other MO that one may choose for attraction. Arguing aesthetics is rather pointless as well, as the intended reason for that has essentially been bred out of the common population due to the imprudent notion that "true love conquers all", or whatever swill by dime store romance novel writers of past ages of antiquity that people choose to hold dear. Everything is chemical by nature, people are just blind fools in the face of it.

Sorry, but you don't "choose" anything regarding attraction. You choose whether to act on it and that's it. Attraction just exists or doesn't. That said, it usually becomes all the more powerful when people try to choose not to find someone attractive. Women who "choose" who to be attracted to via rational contemplation rather than through genuine attraction are typically the ones who get comprehensively bored of their husbands within months and then either lead a boring and unfulfilled marriage that often ends in divorce or consists of plenty of infidelity (when the woman realises that attraction is not a choice after all and wants something more interesting). The Woody Allen film Vicky Christina Barcelona is an extremely astute exploration of this type of common scenario. I actually got a message from a woman on a dating website once, detailing exactly that type of thing. Pretty baffling that someone would set about cheating on her husband for the first time through a dating website, but people are certainly odd.

I'm not saying it's as simple as choosing a partner based purely on raw impulsive emotions, but it'd simply objectively inaccurate to refer to any level of "choice " behind attraction. Acting on it or not is the only choice. You might as well argue that someone in a relationship can choose never to find anyone else attractive. They can't. They can choose not to act on attractions to anyone else. Some are so hardwired to devoting themself to one person that they may genuinely experience little attraction. But you can't "choose" to be that way. For most, attraction to others continues and the only thing available via free will is the choice not to act on it.

Offline outin

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8029
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #12 on: January 08, 2014, 09:24:27 PM »

But I'm not talking about self induced orgasms. I heard some story about a French philosopher whose party trick was to lie back on a table and orgasm without touching himself. The woman in question orgasmed ludicrously easily when in the right mood. When she wasn't, she couldn't orgasm at all. Whatever the corresponding physical process might be, the difference came from mental issues.

That would be quite logical, since it's impossible to completely separate the mental process and the physical process, whether male or female. It is quite common for men to not be able to perform due to mental issues as well. I still find some of the things you wrote more consistent with myths and stereotypes about female sexuality than facts.

What you have been observing are differences in sexual behavior of individuals. It's much more difficult to actually study biological differences between men and women, since no-one developes their sexuality in a vacuum. It is only possible to study the end result, which is a complicated product of nature and nurture.

The observation that women tend to behave differently cannot be satisfactorily explained by some persistent biological difference. Differences between individuals are high in both sexes. Hormone levels do not alone explain the variation in libido. It may seem like women have a lower libido by nature and they therefore need something that men don't to be able to increase it. But it is just as possible that they simply are mentally more prone and more able to control their sex drive, both consiously and unconsciously. When boys come to puberty their major concern is how and where to get it. Girls on the other hand are from the beginning aware of both the risk of getting pregnant and the cultural norms imposed on them. They begin early on to develope mental models that inhibit the natural process of sexual behavior. These models will not just disappear later when the situation is more favorable to sexual behavior. But that does not mean that the models are universal or that all women are effected by them in the same way. There are women who find it just as hard as many men do to control their sex drive and don't need anything special to turn them on. There are also men who are very difficult to turn on.

And to the original question I would say that pianists are likely to have less sex, unless they have found a way to do it while practicing...


Offline kalirren

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #13 on: January 08, 2014, 09:40:17 PM »
An actual exchange, several years ago:

A: So tell me about your boyfriend, what does he do besides work?
B: Well, he's a pianist.
A: Oh, he must be good with his fingers, then.
B: *smirk* Uh-huh.

Seriously, there are some people even in these typing-filled days who don't use their hands independently of their fingers, and don't use the fingers on one hand to do different things...
Beethoven: An die Ferne Geliebte
Franck: Sonata in A Major
Vieuxtemps: Sonata in Bb Major for Viola
Prokofiev: Sonata for Flute in D Major

Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #14 on: January 08, 2014, 10:10:17 PM »
That would be quite logical, since it's impossible to completely separate the mental process and the physical process, whether male or female. It is quite common for men to not be able to perform due to mental issues as well. I still find some of the things you wrote more consistent with myths and stereotypes about female sexuality than facts.

What you have been observing are differences in sexual behavior of individuals. It's much more difficult to actually study biological differences between men and women, since no-one developes their sexuality in a vacuum. It is only possible to study the end result, which is a complicated product of nature and nurture.

The observation that women tend to behave differently cannot be satisfactorily explained by some persistent biological difference. Differences between individuals are high in both sexes. Hormone levels do not alone explain the variation in libido. It may seem like women have a lower libido by nature and they therefore need something that men don't to be able to increase it. But it is just as possible that they simply are mentally more prone and more able to control their sex drive, both consiously and unconsciously. When boys come to puberty their major concern is how and where to get it. Girls on the other hand are from the beginning aware of both the risk of getting pregnant and the cultural norms imposed on them. They begin early on to develope mental models that inhibit the natural process of sexual behavior. These models will not just disappear later when the situation is more favorable to sexual behavior. But that does not mean that the models are universal or that all women are effected by them in the same way. There are women who find it just as hard as many men do to control their sex drive and don't need anything special to turn them on. There are also men who are very difficult to turn on.

And to the original question I would say that pianists are likely to have less sex, unless they have found a way to do it while practicing...


.

What parts do you feel are stereotypes or myths? It's no myth that women are statistically more reserved. It doesn't matter whether it's nature or nurture. It's just an identifiable fact regardless of the cause. I heard of an experiment where an attractive woman had to go up men and offer sex. And a physically attractive man had to go up to women and do the same. A fair percentage of men accepted. Not one of the women did, despite his traditional good looks. On a similar note, did you know that women don't generally change their standards of attraction when drunk? Men are more willing to sleep with a woman they'd not normally find attractive. They'll take someone just to get to have sex. However, women are merely more likely to go with the flow of attraction when drunk. They don't experience a notable change in what they find attractive, or drop their standards for attraction. They won't sleep with someone just because they're drunk unless a level of attraction actually would have existed while sober.

There's an abundance of evidence that shows that women are turned on more by mental issues than men are and that it's mental issues that determine how likely they are to choose to have sex with someone.

Offline kakeithewolf

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 556
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #15 on: January 08, 2014, 10:31:32 PM »
Sorry, but you don't "choose" anything regarding attraction. You choose whether to act on it and that's it. Attraction just exists or doesn't. That said, it usually becomes all the more powerful when people try to choose not to find someone attractive. Women who "choose" who to be attracted to via rational contemplation rather than through genuine attraction are typically the ones who get comprehensively bored of their husbands within months and then either lead a boring and unfulfilled marriage that often ends in divorce or consists of plenty of infidelity (when the woman realises that attraction is not a choice after all and wants something more interesting). The Woody Allen film Vicky Christina Barcelona is an extremely astute exploration of this type of common scenario. I actually got a message from a woman on a dating website once, detailing exactly that type of thing. Pretty baffling that someone would set about cheating on her husband for the first time through a dating website, but people are certainly odd.

I'm not saying it's as simple as choosing a partner based purely on raw impulsive emotions, but it'd simply objectively inaccurate to refer to any level of "choice " behind attraction. Acting on it or not is the only choice. You might as well argue that someone in a relationship can choose never to find anyone else attractive. They can't. They can choose not to act on attractions to anyone else. Some are so hardwired to devoting themself to one person that they may genuinely experience little attraction. But you can't "choose" to be that way. For most, attraction to others continues and the only thing available via free will is the choice not to act on it.

Your first paragraph had promise, but you ruined it by making a Woody Allen movie the foundation. It's much like buying a Bösendorfer Imperial, playing Chopin on it, and then lighting it on fire.

And it's not objectively inaccurate to say there is choice behind attraction. If it was inaccurate, I'd be an aberration of nature. And, as I noted earlier, it's not a particularly difficult thing to do (provided you actually decide at some point to NOT let your hypothalamus rule you like a slave). Attraction based on emotion may be harder to restrain, but it's still possible. If you use logic to determine, on the other hand, it's very, very simple to control it, because you base your attraction based on what is the most logical and rational course of action with the information available.

Everything in our minds is a matter of matter and energy, electrical signals and chemicals. All things, even things like attraction, have a basis in chemicals. Deny someone GnRH, damage one of the nuclei I mentioned earlier, or shift testosterone and estrogen, and even the most stalwart defender of your argument will experience a radical shift in sense of attraction. This, however, is assuming that that person is addicted to such chemicals and hasn't overcome such trivialities. The hypothalamus is the most primitive part of the brain. It is easy to overcome and force into submission. Once you have that controlled, you will find you can be attracted to whomever you please at any given time.
Per novitatem, artium est renascatur.

Finished with making music for quite a long time.

Offline senanserat

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 672
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #16 on: January 08, 2014, 10:52:02 PM »
Your first paragraph had promise, but you ruined it by making a Woody Allen movie the foundation. It's much like buying a Bösendorfer Imperial, playing Chopin on it, and then lighting it on fire.

And it's not objectively inaccurate to say there is choice behind attraction. If it was inaccurate, I'd be an aberration of nature. And, as I noted earlier, it's not a particularly difficult thing to do (provided you actually decide at some point to NOT let your hypothalamus rule you like a slave). Attraction based on emotion may be harder to restrain, but it's still possible. If you use logic to determine, on the other hand, it's very, very simple to control it, because you base your attraction based on what is the most logical and rational course of action with the information available.

Everything in our minds is a matter of matter and energy, electrical signals and chemicals. All things, even things like attraction, have a basis in chemicals. Deny someone GnRH, damage one of the nuclei I mentioned earlier, or shift testosterone and estrogen, and even the most stalwart defender of your argument will experience a radical shift in sense of attraction. This, however, is assuming that that person is addicted to such chemicals and hasn't overcome such trivialities. The hypothalamus is the most primitive part of the brain. It is easy to overcome and force into submission. Once you have that controlled, you will find you can be attracted to whomever you please at any given time.

That sounds scary, it means I could (God forbid) fall in love with a bimbo
"The thousand years of raindrops summoned by my song are my tears, the thunder that strikes the earth is my anger!"

Offline kakeithewolf

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 556
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #17 on: January 08, 2014, 11:11:40 PM »
That sounds scary, it means I could (God forbid) fall in love with a bimbo

Only if you want to. The question is, do you?
Per novitatem, artium est renascatur.

Finished with making music for quite a long time.

Offline senanserat

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 672
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #18 on: January 08, 2014, 11:15:50 PM »
Only if you want to. The question is, do you?

Depends if she is rich or not...joking!

I get your point but I am also a bit of a romantic deeeep down so... I'll come with an argument nice I have more free time.
"The thousand years of raindrops summoned by my song are my tears, the thunder that strikes the earth is my anger!"

Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #19 on: January 08, 2014, 11:22:32 PM »
Your first paragraph had promise, but you ruined it by making a Woody Allen movie the foundation. It's much like buying a Bösendorfer Imperial, playing Chopin on it, and then lighting it on fire.

And it's not objectively inaccurate to say there is choice behind attraction. If it was inaccurate, I'd be an aberration of nature. And, as I noted earlier, it's not a particularly difficult thing to do (provided you actually decide at some point to NOT let your hypothalamus rule you like a slave). Attraction based on emotion may be harder to restrain, but it's still possible. If you use logic to determine, on the other hand, it's very, very simple to control it, because you base your attraction based on what is the most logical and rational course of action with the information available.

Everything in our minds is a matter of matter and energy, electrical signals and chemicals. All things, even things like attraction, have a basis in chemicals. Deny someone GnRH, damage one of the nuclei I mentioned earlier, or shift testosterone and estrogen, and even the most stalwart defender of your argument will experience a radical shift in sense of attraction. This, however, is assuming that that person is addicted to such chemicals and hasn't overcome such trivialities. The hypothalamus is the most primitive part of the brain. It is easy to overcome and force into submission. Once you have that controlled, you will find you can be attracted to whomever you please at any given time.

Umm, I'm afraid that if you select someone to be attracted on a rational basis and then decide to order your brain to become attracted to them, you're definitely out of the ordinary. Good luck with it. It's certainly not outright impossible that attraction could evolve in such circumstances, as it's something that can grow. But I sure as hell wouldn't bank on it. If this is your idea of being normal, then small wonder that you don't respond to woody allen's extremely good depictions of human nature. It wasnt a "foundation" but a passing reference to an excellent fictional depiction of what happens in the real world. That said, I can imagine that he'd find an interesting film out of the idea of a male who uses snippets of brain research to persuade himself that he can choose a female based on logic and then programme himself to find her attractive based on pure willpower. Sounds like an excellent plot for a quirky black comedy about self-delusion.

Also, women don't tend to respond much to being chosen on "logical" grounds. I wouldn't bank on any especially mind blowing sex from that starting position, if it even gets to that point. Personally, I'll stick with women who I actually start by being attracted to and restrict any rationalisations to what comes after that starter requirement. The fact that extreme lust isn't necessarily the basis for a long relationship doesn't imply that you should pursue one with someone who you felt no attraction to until making a bizarre conscious decision to force yourself to feel something.

Offline kakeithewolf

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 556
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #20 on: January 08, 2014, 11:40:44 PM »
Umm, I'm afraid that if you select someone to be attracted on a rational basis and then decide to order your brain to become attracted to them, you're definitely out of the ordinary. Good luck with it. It's certainly not outright impossible that attraction could evolve in such circumstances, as it's something that can grow. But I sure as hell wouldn't bank on it. If this is your idea of being normal, then small wonder that you don't respond to woody allen's extremely good depictions of human nature. It wasnt a "foundation" but a passing reference to an excellent fictional depiction of what happens in the real world. That said, I can imagine that he'd find an interesting film out of the idea of a male who uses snippets of brain research to persuade himself that he can choose a female based on logic and then programme himself to find her attractive based on pure willpower. Sounds like an excellent plot for a quirky black comedy about self-delusion.

Also, women don't tend to respond especially to being chosen on "logical" grounds. I wouldn't bank on any especially mind blowing sex from that starting position. Personally, I'll stick with women who I actually start by being attracted to and restrict any rationalisations to what comes after that starter requirement. The fact that extreme lust isn't necessarily the basis for a long relationship doesn't imply that you should pursue one with someone who you felt no attraction to until making a bizarre conscious decision.

Occam's Razor states that it is more likely that everyone has the ability and simply doesn't use it than it is for me to be some superhuman. And, I might note, you should avoid your Woody Allen argument here, as you're arguing objectivity whilst describing Woody Allen's works subjectively. I also find it interesting that your assumed I was male and straight (you're right on only one on them: I'm currently without attraction). It also is unwise to state in a backhanded way that I am delusional, as that would be ad hominem.

It is true, women don't like being chosen on logical grounds. But, then again, I'm not exactly going to use that as an icebreaker, and it completely defeats the point of properly manufactured love. You also might want to keep in mind that, even if I was some aberration of humanity, black swan blindness does state that it is possible the same exists in the opposite gender, and that a relationship can be formed on logical choice.

As for your rather crass comment on "mind-blowing sex", it's safe to say I should never expect that, as I not only am unaffected by opiates, but I'm getting a castration in not too long. So I wouldn't be able to receive or give "mind-blowing sex". Not that I was ever particularly interested in swapping genital fluids with someone in the first place.
Per novitatem, artium est renascatur.

Finished with making music for quite a long time.

Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #21 on: January 09, 2014, 12:19:02 AM »
Occam's Razor states that it is more likely that everyone has the ability and simply doesn't use it than it is for me to be some superhuman. And, I might note, you should avoid your Woody Allen argument here, as you're arguing objectivity whilst describing Woody Allen's works subjectively. I also find it interesting that your assumed I was male and straight (you're right on only one on them: I'm currently without attraction). It also is unwise to state in a backhanded way that I am delusional, as that would be ad hominem.

It is true, women don't like being chosen on logical grounds. But, then again, I'm not exactly going to use that as an icebreaker, and it completely defeats the point of properly manufactured love. You also might want to keep in mind that, even if I was some aberration of humanity, black swan blindness does state that it is possible the same exists in the opposite gender, and that a relationship can be formed on logical choice.

As for your rather crass comment on "mind-blowing sex", it's safe to say I should never expect that, as I not only am unaffected by opiates, but I'm getting a castration in not too long. So I wouldn't be able to receive or give "mind-blowing sex". Not that I was ever particularly interested in swapping genital fluids with someone in the first place.

No, I pointed out that the film REFLECTS something seen over and over in reality. People would be shocked if they realised how common infidelity is- especially after someone makes a decision based on the logic of what material gains they get through a wealthy partner, rather than marry out of love for the person themself.

In citing Occams razor, you casually ignore that a loveless relationship can stay together for many reasons with no real attraction. It's not about leaping to unfounded and irrational conclusions. As soon as two people are together there are issues of convenience, dependence, obligation etc. Not to mention the fear of not finding anyone else. Many marriages exist in an unhappy way after attraction dies, possibly because there had not been enough to start with. You won't disprove the reality of human nature via superficial logic that ignores inconvenient factors.

Anyway, I won't pry, but do you realise that having no interest in sex actually excludes your situation from the topic under discussion? You're speaking of companionship and not a sexual relationship. Thus attraction is not the issue behind what you seek. No regular sexual relationship, however, will function without a starting point of attraction. I'm stunned that anyone would seriously feel this would be normal, when the world as a whole clearly doesn't work like that. I won't ask about why you're being castrated, but you do appreciate that this makes your case just a little unusual surely? We can hardly apply such out of the ordinary circumstances and make a construct that the whole of world works this way, or think that your attitudes have any relevance to how to build a regular sexual relationship. A man can't just decide to to get a hard on for someone he finds physically repulsive because logic told him to be attracted.

Offline kakeithewolf

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 556
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #22 on: January 09, 2014, 12:52:52 AM »
No, I pointed out that the film REFLECTS something seen over and over in reality. People would be shocked if they realised how common infidelity is- especially after someone makes a decision based on the logic of what material gains they get through a wealthy partner, rather than marry out of love for the person themself.

In citing Occams razor, you casually ignore that a loveless relationship can stay together for many reasons with no real attraction. It's not about leaping to unfounded and irrational conclusions. As soon as two people are together there are issues of convenience, dependence, obligation etc. Not to mention the fear of not finding anyone else. You won't disprove the reality of human nature via superficial logic that ignores inconvenient factors.

Anyway, I won't pry, but do you realise that having no interest in sex actually excludes your situation from the topic under discussion? You're speaking of companionship and not a sexual relationship. Thus attraction is not the issue behind what you seek. No regular sexual relationship, however, will function without a starting point of attraction. I'm stunned that anyone would seriously feel this would be normal, when the world as a whole clearly doesn't work like that. I won't ask about why you're being castrated, but you do appreciate that this makes your case just a little unusual surely? We can hardly apply such out of the ordinary circumstances and make a construct that the whole of world works this as, or that your attitudes have any relevance to how to build a regular sexual relationship. A man can't just decide to to get a hard on for someone he finds physically repulsive because logic told him to be attracted.


Considering what I know of humanity, I'm surprised it isn't far, far more common. It is often said that people think with ten percent of their brains, and I'm quite convicted at least nine of that is with the hypothalamus. People seek what they seek when they seek it, and "attraction" is often just a mask for more taboo incentive.

Occam's Razor is meant to elucidate the matter that your statement that my simple ability to control my attraction would necessitate me being extraordinary is logically improbable, not that I intended it to use the philosophy to circumvent a point. To address that point, I would state that, whilst human nature causes gravitation, it does not enforce coercion: you can lead a horse to water, you cannot make it drink.

As for the point of sex, I will state that my reasons for disinterest are logic based (sanitation, bad genes, impotency, et cetera). Your statement on sexual relationships requiring attraction is also incorrect (unless ED medication suddenly doesn't work anymore).

Normal is also terribly subjective, as (for example), an atheist would see atheism as normal, and 95% of the world would disagree. People convince themselves that THEIR normal is THE normal, as you can observe from the mentally ill who see no wrong in worlds of vast inconsistency and delusion.

If you must pry into my castration, it's being done to cure a disease I have. So, sorry for having a disease that I didn't ask for. It's not my fault, and I want a decent quality of life, so I need to sever these fairly useless balls of fluid from my body.

As for your last point, you can't really use erection as a good point for attraction. All an erection happens to be is hypervasodilation of the capillaries within the penis. And, I cannot stress this point enough, penises are extremely stupid. They aren't sentient, and don't know what they are in, what gender of person they are interacting with, and they don't even know the gender of the person they are stuck to. They are fed hormones and blindly do remedial tasks associated with those hormones. As well, I can personally attest to it being an inaccurate indicator, as I can have an erection when I'm VERY turned off, and not have one when I'm VERY turned on (though it has been a while, I haven't really felt like being turned on for a while).

And for your argument that the way it is for most is the correct way? That's argumentum ad populum. Truth isn't so because any given person believes it. Truth is whatever it happens to be based on the fact that it simply is true. Now, all I've been handed by you is emotionally charged subjectivity and not an ounce of science backing it up. All I've been talking about is logic and science. Either present proof or lose by the matter that you're relying heavily on opus probandii.
Per novitatem, artium est renascatur.

Finished with making music for quite a long time.

Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #23 on: January 09, 2014, 12:55:19 AM »
I should stress by the way that I'm not trying to call you "abnormal" or judging in any respect. However, from an objective point of view, you are not coming from a typical position or even one that actually corresponds to what we were referring to. People with an active sex drive are simply not going to behave in the same way an as asexual person and neither will they be capable of easily settling for a relationship that is built upon "logic" if they feel unfulfilled by it.

Offline kakeithewolf

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 556
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #24 on: January 09, 2014, 01:05:33 AM »
I should stress by the way that I'm not trying to call you "abnormal" or judging in any respect. However, from an objective point of view, you are not coming from a typical position or even one that actually corresponds to what we were referring to. People with an active sex drive are simply not going to behave in the same way an as asexual person and neither will they be capable of easily settling for a relationship that is built upon "logic" if they feel unfulfilled by it.

Don't consider me asexual. Just consider my sex drive "on hold". I'll eventually resume it, when there is actually a point in resuming it. No sense having a sex drive if I'm completely alone. And, remember, the logical route is the only route that should be fulfilling. There's nothing that CAN be fulfilling in an irrational route, because it has no basis. Sure, the illusion of satisfaction can be gained there, but at the cost of what is optimal for oneself and all affected and involved. No rational person would make that sacrifice. And attraction is rational, with sets of standards, rules, and guidelines. You're confusing illogical love with logical attraction. Never make that mistake.
Per novitatem, artium est renascatur.

Finished with making music for quite a long time.

Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #25 on: January 09, 2014, 01:06:14 AM »
Considering what I know of humanity, I'm surprised it isn't far, far more common. It is often said that people think with ten percent of their brains, and I'm quite convicted at least nine of that is with the hypothalamus. People seek what they seek when they seek it, and "attraction" is often just a mask for more taboo incentive.

Occam's Razor is meant to elucidate the matter that your statement that my simple ability to control my attraction would necessitate me being extraordinary is logically improbable, not that I intended it to use the philosophy to circumvent a point. To address that point, I would state that, whilst human nature causes gravitation, it does not enforce coercion: you can lead a horse to water, you cannot make it drink.

As for the point of sex, I will state that my reasons for disinterest are logic based (sanitation, bad genes, impotency, et cetera). Your statement on sexual relationships requiring attraction is also incorrect (unless ED medication suddenly doesn't work anymore).

Normal is also terribly subjective, as (for example), an atheist would see atheism as normal, and 95% of the world would disagree. People convince themselves that THEIR normal is THE normal, as you can observe from the mentally ill who see no wrong in worlds of vast inconsistency and delusion.

If you must pry into my castration, it's being done to cure a disease I have. So, sorry for having a disease that I didn't ask for. It's not my fault, and I want a decent quality of life, so I need to sever these fairly useless balls of fluid from my body.

As for your last point, you can't really use erection as a good point for attraction. All an erection happens to be is hypervasodilation of the capillaries within the penis. And, I cannot stress this point enough, penises are extremely stupid. They aren't sentient, and don't know what they are in, what gender of person they are interacting with, and they don't even know the gender of the person they are stuck to. They are fed hormones and blindly do remedial tasks associated with those hormones. As well, I can personally attest to it being an inaccurate indicator, as I can have an erection when I'm VERY turned off, and not have one when I'm VERY turned on (though it has been a while, I haven't really felt like being turned on for a while).

And for your argument that the way it is for most is the correct way? That's argumentum ad populum. Truth isn't so because any given person believes it. Truth is whatever it happens to be based on the fact that it simply is true. Now, all I've been handed by you is emotionally charged subjectivity and not an ounce of science backing it up. All I've been talking about is logic and science. Either present proof or lose by the matter that you're relying heavily on opus probandii.

Anyway, there's no point trying to discuss this. Sorry, but the concept of some guy stocking up on Viagra simply so he can *** someone who he's never felt a shred of a attraction for in the first place is just too funny and too silly. There's no possibility of trying to have a meaningful debate, when you mean that sincerely rather than in jest.

I assure you that there's no judgment but your circumstances mean you're just not on the same page. Fair play for being an individual, but most people aren't like you and you can't speak for them. It's not about popular being right. It's about the fact that most people are closer to the norm so you can't speak for most people. You cannot assert that because you, with no interest in sex, have decided to find a logical relationship, people with a sex drive would be best off doing the same. If you're not even already in a successful one you can't even be used as evidence that it will work for you, never mind for someone whose ordered a massive stack of Viagra ready for his wife who he doesn't fancy on any emotional level but finds rationally appealing. It's bad enough when people get trapped in a loveless marriage by accident. But the thought of engineering a marriage on logic, minus any genuine feeling? It doesn't bear contemplation.

PS Viagra actually requires the user to be turned on by something, so it wouldn't even work if there was no attraction there.

Offline Bob

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15828
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #26 on: January 09, 2014, 02:44:56 AM »
Wouldn't musicians in general be too busy to really focus on too much else?
Favorite new teacher quote -- "You found the only possible wrong answer."

Offline j_menz

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10150
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #27 on: January 09, 2014, 02:51:17 AM »
Wouldn't musicians in general be too busy to really focus on too much else?

Just ask, what would Liszt do?
"What the world needs is more geniuses with humility. There are so few of us left" -- Oscar Levant

Offline Bob

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15828
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #28 on: January 09, 2014, 02:54:27 AM »
Transcend?
Favorite new teacher quote -- "You found the only possible wrong answer."

Offline j_menz

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10150
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #29 on: January 09, 2014, 03:01:00 AM »
Transcend?

LOL. I doubt he invented the groupie for anything so high minded.
"What the world needs is more geniuses with humility. There are so few of us left" -- Oscar Levant

Offline Bob

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 15828
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #30 on: January 09, 2014, 03:02:00 AM »
*Bob is confused.*















Oh, wait.   Ok.  Got it now.
Favorite new teacher quote -- "You found the only possible wrong answer."

Offline senanserat

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 672
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #31 on: January 09, 2014, 04:02:47 AM »
Nah I still regard Bach as the ultimate Pimp followed closely by Chopin, but yet again I haven't read in detail about many other artist
"The thousand years of raindrops summoned by my song are my tears, the thunder that strikes the earth is my anger!"

Offline swagmaster420x

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 959
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #32 on: January 09, 2014, 04:08:08 AM »
Transcend?
lMFAO

but anywayz, apparently artists e.g. poets n shet are more likely to have tortured souls and be super sensual/sensitive and have lots of passion. i think theres a study that shows that artists usually tend to have more sex... i'm pretty sure this would apply to pianists, as well, if the study were true

Offline senanserat

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 672
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #33 on: January 09, 2014, 04:10:31 AM »
lMFAO

but anywayz, apparently artists e.g. poets n shet are more likely to have tortured souls and be super sensual/sensitive and have lots of passion. i think theres a study that shows that artists usually tend to have more sex... i'm pretty sure this would apply to pianists, as well, if the study were true

Passion...I call it being kinky facks. Also the advantage of some of them not having regular jobs,occupations frees some time for a quickie in the bushes with eh Duke's daughter.
"The thousand years of raindrops summoned by my song are my tears, the thunder that strikes the earth is my anger!"

Offline kakeithewolf

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 556
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #34 on: January 09, 2014, 04:31:49 AM »
Just ask, what would Liszt do?

The moment I saw this, I thought, "what would Sorabji do?".
Per novitatem, artium est renascatur.

Finished with making music for quite a long time.

Offline outin

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8029
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #35 on: January 09, 2014, 05:19:39 AM »
.

What parts do you feel are stereotypes or myths?
Much of what you write below actually. What you write about the effects of alcohol seems just plain absurd. Women are often a bit more careful in their actions and don't traditionally get as drunk as men, but when they do they become quite unselective as well. Trust me on this one, where I come from both sexes show excessive drinking habits, so I've had plenty of opportunities to observe...and experiment  :P

It's no myth that women are statistically more reserved. It doesn't matter whether it's nature or nurture. It's just an identifiable fact regardless of the cause. I heard of an experiment where an attractive woman had to go up men and offer sex. And a physically attractive man had to go up to women and do the same. A fair percentage of men accepted. Not one of the women did, despite his traditional good looks. On a similar note, did you know that women don't generally change their standards of attraction when drunk? Men are more willing to sleep with a woman they'd not normally find attractive. They'll take someone just to get to have sex. However, women are merely more likely to go with the flow of attraction when drunk. They don't experience a notable change in what they find attractive, or drop their standards for attraction. They won't sleep with someone just because they're drunk unless a level of attraction actually would have existed while sober.

There's an abundance of evidence that shows that women are turned on more by mental issues than men are and that it's mental issues that determine how likely they are to choose to have sex with someone.

There's also evidence that suggests otherwise. Majority of the research done on female sexuality was based on assumptions which seriously limit its validity. When stripped from these assumptions that were based on myths and stereotypes, there's very little actual evidence left. The kind of experiments you write about do not even study sexuality, just behavior in a certain situation that is dependant on many other factors than the subject's inner response to the offer.

But this is not a topic that I want to start discussing more in depth on this forum, so you are welcome to believe as you do.

It would be good for all you guys to remember that there's a difference between being reserved (as not being turned on easily) and being turned off because of the circumstances. It is unfortunately very common for that to happen due to lack of skill when it comes to other party. Many women are so used to it that they do not expect much, so seem to be reserved and not that focused on sex. Female sexuality is not complex and mystical, but it is often not expressed freely.

There is an analogy to piano playing: A satisfactory performance requires a skillful touch and good rhythmic skills and those are unfortunately very often lacking. Both sensitivity and practice is needed. Keep working on it, it will pay off!

I will do some piano practice instead :)

Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #36 on: January 09, 2014, 01:12:29 PM »
Much of what you write below actually. What you write about the effects of alcohol seems just plain absurd. Women are often a bit more careful in their actions and don't traditionally get as drunk as men, but when they do they become quite unselective as well. Trust me on this one, where I come from both sexes show excessive drinking habits, so I've had plenty of opportunities to observe...and experiment  :P

There's also evidence that suggests otherwise. Majority of the research done on female sexuality was based on assumptions which seriously limit its validity. When stripped from these assumptions that were based on myths and stereotypes, there's very little actual evidence left. The kind of experiments you write about do not even study sexuality, just behavior in a certain situation that is dependant on many other factors than the subject's inner response to the offer.

But this is not a topic that I want to start discussing more in depth on this forum, so you are welcome to believe as you do.

It would be good for all you guys to remember that there's a difference between being reserved (as not being turned on easily) and being turned off because of the circumstances. It is unfortunately very common for that to happen due to lack of skill when it comes to other party. Many women are so used to it that they do not expect much, so seem to be reserved and not that focused on sex. Female sexuality is not complex and mystical, but it is often not expressed freely.

There is an analogy to piano playing: A satisfactory performance requires a skillful touch and good rhythmic skills and those are unfortunately very often lacking. Both sensitivity and practice is needed. Keep working on it, it will pay off!

I will do some piano practice instead :)

You didn't read what I actually said. Most of what you wrote agrees with me, even if you didn't realise it.

Women don't accept instant offers of sex from strangers often if ever. Men do if they are attractive, not as a rule but regularly. That's not a myth. Forget trying to attach judgments to what is merely an objectively accurate observations of nature. Then appreciate that this simple fact alone proves that women require more mental stimulation to become interested in sex than men do. Put the assumptions of subjective judgments aside and simply consider the reality and truth of that.

Also, regarding your assumptions of judgment, I didn't define reserved in the way you attribute to me. Nobody is calling women frigid here. However, It's an objective fact that women put more barriers between sex than men do. Even when attracted, issues of reserve prevent them acting as readily as men do. They require more psychological stimulation and for more specific conditions to be in place in order to go ahead. That is absolutely not in question as an overwhelming statistical trend.

Offline outin

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8029
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #37 on: January 09, 2014, 02:09:30 PM »
You didn't read what I actually said. Most of what you wrote agrees with me, even if you didn't realise it.


I read everything you wrote, promise. There's also nothing wrong with my understanding of written English. You wrote what you wrote and I cannot agree based on what I know about this subject. I still don't after this post of yours. I'm not saying that what you write is not true in many cases in certain environments and to some extend, but it is only a very narrow view of a much more variant reality and it is also changing.

Women don't accept instant offers of sex from strangers often if ever.

Oh, but they do nowdays...Just go out and experiment yourself!
Of course an average woman is more attractive than an average man (due to the fact that women try their best) so it's not that common for a really attractive man to offer sex...


Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #38 on: January 09, 2014, 02:58:57 PM »

I read everything you wrote, promise. There's also nothing wrong with my understanding of written English. You wrote what you wrote and I cannot agree based on what I know about this subject. I still don't after this post of yours. I'm not saying that what you write is not true in many cases in certain environments and to some extend, but it is only a very narrow view of a much more variant reality and it is also changing.

Oh, but they do nowdays...Just go out and experiment yourself!
Of course an average woman is more attractive than an average man (due to the fact that women try their best) so it's not that common for a really attractive man to offer sex...



I have a friend who certainly would consider it, but it literally has to be instant. I know that it's perfectly possible to talk women into it surprisingly quickly, but talk is the key word. It's the talking and preparation that it hinges on. The talking builds the mental attraction. Skip that and it doesn't work. Men just don't need that talking or mental preparation if an astoundingly beautiful woman offers sex with no preparation. And it remains true that the vast majority of women will be turned off by someone that they found attractive making "fancy a shag?" their first line. Women look for reasons to exclude whereas men look for reasons to accept.

It's a simple matter of evolution. Women have to be more selective because they take 9 months off if they get pregnant. If a man gets a woman pregnant, he can go round with another in the same night if he so wishes. The survival instincts have not faded. Women needed to be more selective than men, for the best chance of their genes surviving into future generations. Plenty of men were ready and willing but they had to turn plenty down or get lumbered with a genetically weak baby and no dad around to feed it. Even strong statistical trends have exceptions, but that does not make them any less true. There's a reason why there are so many books training men to chat up women. It's because it's actually difficult to  be good at it. Even traditionally extremely handsome and successful men are often so crap at it that they end up signing on to these courses. It's not all for spotty dwarves.

Did you know at around 10 percent of men are responsible for around 90 percent of the sex women have? Many of the most successful are not even physically attractive. They just know how to do the mental side better.

Offline outin

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8029
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #39 on: January 09, 2014, 04:10:04 PM »
I know that it's perfectly possible to talk women into it surprisingly quickly, but talk is the key word. It's the talking and preparation that it hinges on. The talking builds the mental attraction. Skip that and it doesn't work.

That is one of the myths. It may seem like that to the man, but I can assure that it is not often the case. Too much verbal courting will often have the opposite effect. Of course you also present a very narrow view of men, many men seem to get turned on by conversation. Dispite the popular belief they also don't seem to prefer women who act brainless...

The problem is that it is so accepted for men to show their intentions about sex in social situations, that they don't realize what goes on in women's heads who are not as open about it. So it's easy to make false assumptions observing the behavior only. But this is also gradually changing.

Offline outin

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8029
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #40 on: January 09, 2014, 04:18:33 PM »
Did you know at around 10 percent of men are responsible for around 90 percent of the sex women have? Many of the most successful are not even physically attractive. They just know how to do the mental side better.

I have my doubts about your statistics, but lets assume it is so.
Because people tend to have sex more than once with the same partner, the amount of sex men get doesn't have to correlate with their looks or their courting skills, but their ability to satisfy their partner, which is a skill.   

Offline ahinton

  • PS Gold Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11893
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #41 on: January 09, 2014, 04:38:06 PM »
Transcend?
No; fantasise (operatically)

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline ahinton

  • PS Gold Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11893
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #42 on: January 09, 2014, 04:39:16 PM »
The moment I saw this, I thought, "what would Sorabji do?".
Why so? And to what conclusions, if any, did you come?

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline ahinton

  • PS Gold Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11893
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #43 on: January 09, 2014, 05:30:50 PM »
After all this stuff, let's try returning to the OP which, in case anyone's accidentally or wilfully forgotten, is the question "Do pianists have more/better sex?".

The first question that this raises is "more/better" than whom? Everyone else? If the initial premise is indeed purportedly based upon the idea of some kind of physical "sensitivity" (as suggesed by the OP), why pianists and not violinists, cellists, bassoonists, saxophonist, organists, singers, conductors? I know that this is a piano form, of course, but this thread's been running for more than 50 posts yet no one appears yet to have thought to ask that question!

Second question. I am reminded of Cole Porter's song Just One of Those Things and its opening words "As Dorothy Parker once said...", the origin of which was her response when told of the death of President Calvin Coolidge, "how could they tell?". I digress not; how could they - i.e. anyone - tell whether pianists of whatever sexual predilection/s have "more/better sex" than non-pianists? Has anyone conducted - or, for that matter, could anyone possibly conduct - a reliable and serious research poll on the subject with the aim of proving or disproving such a premise? One can no more tell whether pianists as a category of people have "more/better sex" than other musicians or non-musicians than one can determine the sex of a composer of a work simply by listening to it!

I should perhaps end by adding that none of the above has been prompted to any degree by the fact that I am not myself a pianist...

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline outin

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8029
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #44 on: January 09, 2014, 05:36:48 PM »
After all this stuff, let's try returning to the OP which, in case anyone's accidentally or wilfully forgotten, is the question "Do pianists have more/better sex?".

The first question that this raises is "more/better" than whom? Everyone else? If the initial premise is indeed purportedly based upon the idea of some kind of physical "sensitivity" (as suggesed by the OP), why pianists and not violinists, cellists, bassoonists, saxophonist, organists, singers, conductors? I know that this is a piano form, of course, but this thread's been running for more than 50 posts yet no one appears yet to have thought to ask that question!

Second question. I am reminded of Cole Porter's song Just One of Those Things and its opening words "As Dorothy Parker once said...", the origin of which was her response when told of the death of President Calvin Coolidge, "how could they tell?". I digress not; how could they - i.e. anyone - tell whether pianists of whatever sexual predilection/s have "more/better sex" than non-pianists? Has anyone conducted - or, for that matter, could anyone possibly conduct - a reliable and serious research poll on the subject with the aim of proving or disproving such a premise? One can no more tell whether pianists as a category of people have "more/better sex" than other musicians or non-musicians than one can determine the sex of a composer of a work simply by listening to it!


Those questions were quite obvious, so  I'm sure the original question was so soon forgotten because it makes so little sense to ask it...

Offline kakeithewolf

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 556
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #45 on: January 09, 2014, 05:39:07 PM »
Why so? And to what conclusions, if any, did you come?

Best,

Alistair

Frankly, I don't know. It just popped in my head randomly. Though, considering how complicated his approach to music is, I do wonder exactly how that would translate...
Per novitatem, artium est renascatur.

Finished with making music for quite a long time.

Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #46 on: January 09, 2014, 05:53:26 PM »
I have my doubts about your statistics, but lets assume it is so.
Because people tend to have sex more than once with the same partner, the amount of sex men get doesn't have to correlate with their looks or their courting skills, but their ability to satisfy their partner, which is a skill.  


Apologies, I think I should have said sex outside of long term ongoing relationships, in order to the be accurate. It would be a little troubling if such figures included marriages. But the figures don't actually surprise me that much. Think about how few men are actually reliably good at getting one night stands on a regular basis. And consider that women are more attracted to sexually active men and actively put off by an impression that other women are observed to be uninterested in a guy.

If you don't believe me on that then research preselection. Remember that these are not rules but extremely strong statistical trends. The figures are overwhelming and do not lie, regardless of what idealism anyone wishes to find in the world.

Offline nyiregyhazi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4267
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #47 on: January 09, 2014, 06:14:53 PM »
That is one of the myths. It may seem like that to the man, but I can assure that it is not often the case. Too much verbal courting will often have the opposite effect. Of course you also present a very narrow view of men, many men seem to get turned on by conversation. Dispite the popular belief they also don't seem to prefer women who act brainless...

The problem is that it is so accepted for men to show their intentions about sex in social situations, that they don't realize what goes on in women's heads who are not as open about it. So it's easy to make false assumptions observing the behavior only. But this is also gradually changing.

You're arguing from a place of idealism, not from a place of accurate observations. I know plenty of people in the swingers community. It doesn't get much more open than that. Most women (certainly not all) even in the world of swingers want to get to known men first.

Take men and prostitutes. Do men normally need to form an emotional relationship first? A few shy men might feel more comfortable after talking, but most men would simply want an attractive woman and to get started . How many women hire a gigolo purely on looks and only want sex, without some kind of emotional warm up? It's virtually unheard of. Women aren't men and men aren't women. There are people who are uncharacteristically far along the spectrum for their sex, but they do not speak for the tendencies of their sex as a whole.

There are exceptions to anything that is a trend rather than a rule, but the trends are simply overwhelming on these issues. You're trying to sculpt reality to match some kind of idealism, not looking at it objectively. Evolution couldn't have happened as it did unless women became more selective than men. They'd have had genetically weak babies and the genes would not survive. Women look either for strength or for emotional commitment (or both) so the baby is either physically strong without a father. Or physically weaker but with a good chance of a supporting parent being their to aid survival. Or, in cases of cheating, physically strong (thanks to her secretly *** a big guy with a beard who has various women on the go and pissed right off again) and helped by a poor loser who got roped in to providing but wasn't the dad after all. The unconscious developed to go for whatever aids survival. *** the first guy who asks for some, for quick pleasure, didn't do much to aid survival of genes in our origins.

There's a movement of directness in the pickup industry where men really do approach strangers and ask for sex. I've heard interviews about it. What they said is that that key is in the followup. Strong women perform "sh*t test" to weed out fake confidence. Apparently, the direct approach is surprisingly successful if backed up by a followup performance that shows strength and confidence. But starting to apologise or be weak ends it. I can imagine confident Scandinavian women could respond to such an opener, but they'd respond with aggressive tests of confidence. Not by saying sure, let's go round the back. The mental side is paramount again. The man has to turn her on by behaving as an alpha male, or its no go.

You can deny it all you like, but all factors show that men and women exist with a different balance. Less usual behaviour patterns in some situations do not negate powerful trends.

Offline timothy42b

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3102
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #48 on: January 09, 2014, 06:15:57 PM »
Quote from: nyiregyhazi
. Think about how few men are actually reliably good at getting one night stands on a regular basis.

But the OP didn't ask an absolute question, but a relative one, even though he only specified one side of the equation.

Do pianists have more (no way to determine better, but we can certainly quantify more) than...........

Than what?

Than oboe players?  Than football players?  Than movie stars?  

And if the numbers are low, why?  Because they don't devote time to the pursuit?  Or because they aren't perceived to be "hot?"  

Some musicians have groupies.  Pianists, not so much!  

Pianists put enormous effort into a solitary occupation/avocation, put very little effort in developing social skills, and in general are perceived to be at the geeky or nerdy end of the continuum.  They may have a high degree of skill, and that can be impressive when demonstrated, but this is hardly ever possible in a social setting.

Watch a TV interview with any athlete, and you'll note how poised and articulate they are, even if it's a second string college football lineman, basketball player, etc.  Try the same with the second viola from any major symphony and see what happens!  
Tim

Offline pianoman53

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1152
Re: Do pianists have more/better sex?
«Reply #49 on: January 09, 2014, 06:18:36 PM »
Omfg N! This thread is probably not the most serious thread in the history of pianostreet. Yet, you manage to bring your made up statistics into it. I don't know what kind of sex your into, but maybe you should let someone look in your behind, there seem to be a big stick stuck there.