I don't undestand this quote, obvious it doesn't work in real life, but this is a fantasy game. And women are very visual creatures, show to women a Naked Thor or Henry Canvill and see their reactions.
Yeah I know, that's why I said at the start:"I know it's fantasy." As for the other thing, no women aren't. Researchers have done tests on the subject. Generally the rule was women would not be aroused by a shirtless hunk but would be if they saw a couple having a sexual interaction. Whereas men would get turned on by any attractive lady. We are just built differently. Good looks definitely help a guy but good looks alone will not get you a woman, whereas men will have sex based on looks alone.
Last edited:
I can already tell your information on the subject is purely anecdotal. Believe it or not but researchers have studied behavioral differences in men and women and there are differences. To cite one example below:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
- Apr 15, 2020
- 718
- 1,435
You coming here because of frequent notifications making you believe there's a new update coming: 
You finding out it's just a heated debate about mating preferences and differences between the way females and males respond to sexual stimuli:
You finding out it's just a heated debate about mating preferences and differences between the way females and males respond to sexual stimuli:
- Apr 15, 2020
- 718
- 1,435
While I partly agree with your overall point based on my personal experience/anecdotal evidence, (women often assess looks in a way more rational, standardised and logical way than men do, where they'll scrutinize even small facial or bodily features and hold men up to quite exact social or personal beauty standards that they rank them on, very similar to how they assess the looks of other women even if they are straight, whereas straight men especially very rarely do that and 99% of the time just instantly feel attracted to someone on instict alone - to be fair I would actually call women more visual than men though, as they can very much get the same 'looks orgasm' as we guys do from someone they find really hot, but they will be a lot more conscious and observant about the specifics of what they like, including crap like jawline, convex facial profile, nose bridge, or other tiny details that definitely also factor into what straight men find attractive about one woman or another, but that we never really conscientize on a rational level...) I think this study could be bogus science because of 2 reasons:
1. It assumes that just because a separate group that was also equally split among the 2 sexes picked the images, they would be equally appealing to the people of either sex from the tested group, when in fact it could be that the picked images were only found attractive by the group that selected them because of reasons unrelated to their biological sex, but more related to either beauty standards or erotic fantasies they personally had, which could potentially be shared by people from the second group because of cultural/upbringing/life experience reasons for example, not because of their sex. Basically, I think this study both had a tiny sample size of just 28 and also failed to account for external biases well.
2. This
yet again seems dubious scientifically, because neurology is a very nascent science (humanity barely understands the most basic facts about how the brain works and has no idea how something as complex as consciousness arises) and therefore using neurological research to directly create psychologic therapeutic meassures for anything seems like an extremely optimistic and unlikely goal... People also often credit psychologists with having a way better understanding of the human psyche than they actually do, as I have someone in my family with a quite severe form of complex PTSD, who was originally wrongly diagnosed by 4 therapists as only having a "mild/moderate anxiety" disorder, was made worse by their sessions and on a few occasions driven close to suicide. I talked with her several times about it and there are some things therapists do that wouldn't fly in more established exact sciences and would even be considered pseudoscientific! (or malpraxis)
This devolved into a rant but my point here is that far more than one study with a small sample size should be needed to make absolute statements like "men are more visual creatures and women less so", or in general to draw any conclusion about how attraction universally works differently based on sex. I already outlined above that I tend to agree men are more emotional and instictual about it and women more rational and analytical about it, but that's just personal opinion based on my interactions with women, not something I hold as a conviction or backed by science.
Last edited:
No need to make things personal. It's a well established theory that men are more visual than women. You need only to look at the sexual marketing strategies targeted towards men in society. Men like porno mags, men like strip clubs, men like hentai, men in really traditional society insist women "cover up" so they won't be "tempted". You can argue that it's a stereotype based on your own anecdotal evidence but stereotypes are usually based in a modicum of truth. You even admit that there are studies on the subject which indicate that may be the case. That's not to say women don't look at an attractive man and find him attractive, not saying that at all. The research is mostly about how male and female relationship strategies are different and exploring those differences. Which is something we see in the animal kingdom all the time. I'm not sure why having an interest in behavioral and biological science means that "I'm insecure with women." Isn't freaking out about the very idea that women might actually have differences to men, not be more the insecure reaction? Like how people used to burn someone on the stake for saying that the Earth is round? (Which it is by the way)
Putting that aside I think you're looking too deep into this. I just saw an opportunity to discuss a topic I was interested in and took it. I even acknowledged at the start of the conversation that: "I know it's fantasy" so like the rule of cool it doesn't need to make sense because it is a porn game. So just calm down bro.
- Apr 3, 2018
- 71
- 58
Yes, the creator alternates between this and another game about once every 2 or 3 months
- Sep 17, 2019
- 346
- 827
Is there any news about the exact said date (day), or the at least aimed for week that the next update is schedule for its release, yet???
Cause if my knowledge is still anywhere close to being right on this game's whereabouts, then I'm sure that I know that its supposed be some time this month.,
N if that's still the n fact case then I'm very much really hoping that it's closer than sooner/later!!? (Or n other words, I'm hoping that its within this months first 2 weeks, at least..)
Cause if my knowledge is still anywhere close to being right on this game's whereabouts, then I'm sure that I know that its supposed be some time this month.,
N if that's still the n fact case then I'm very much really hoping that it's closer than sooner/later!!? (Or n other words, I'm hoping that its within this months first 2 weeks, at least..)
- Sep 17, 2019
- 346
- 827
- Sep 2, 2017
- 665
- 2,108
It will be this month, but closer to the end than the beginning.
I've played several games of this author and I can vouch that this game is the best of all of them. This game is a must play and support game!
- Sep 2, 2017
- 665
- 2,108
A little bit less than a week for the patreon release, and then a week after that for the public release.
Tbh, with the game quality and cast (an asian dom not in ntr but instead wholesome dom, that's goddamn rare), I hope it's not 75% already
- Sep 2, 2017
- 665
- 2,108