The companies of the capital, from the development of the Cultural Industry, created two standardized types and ideals of men and women, even if somewhat paradoxical in themselves as, for example: 1- The men who, at the same time, are rich, intelligent, ' imagery, elegant, faithful to their beloved, smoochy, parents, etc., i.e., the perfect fictional representations of the princes delighted; 2-The women who, at the same time, are called the type of family, Debrett, faithful, housewives, mothers of the family and, in another way, the dictates sexual slaves, seductive, etc. As you can see, these two ideals so-called perfect for men and women are paradoxical and, therefore, do not exist in the real world. Or is, in the real world, outside of fiction, men so-called rich (stereotypes of prince charmed), so-called beautiful, ' imagery, elegant, etc., with rare exceptions, are not in search of a single woman for relationships, but several, using them as disposable products and, in this sense, are also not looking for being parents of family. That is, the men, in these conditions, do not love: they, with rare exceptions, are only, by many women, loved and idealized as a solution to their lives. On The other hand, the female, it is the same: "Many women who seek, at all costs - making bands, classes intense of academy, putting prostheses silicone, etc. -, investing massively in search of beauty, trying to, thus, entering the default said of beauty, do not do so in order to be able to love, but to be loved and/or desired by not only one, but by many men." In other words, you want to say is that, all those who, on a voluntary basis and/or unintentionally end up being framed within the standards of aesthetic beauty defined by cultural industry, naturally become also, such as products, into objects of consumption of all others, inside or outside of the standard and, in this sense, they are treated as disposable human being. In other words, men and women who find themselves within these patterns, psychosocial terms are also placed, even if unconsciously, only to be desired and/or beloved, as objects of consumption, and not for love and/or wish. This might explain why it is that there is, in these societies, a multitude of men and women who are, in the popular "turning from hand to hand," in search of their so-called peers and/or ideal partners. In other words, what you want and that we must also say that: "The men (the stereotyped princes), in capitalist societies post-modern, are trained to want women said easy, said experienced sexual, for the realization of their satisfactions and sexual exploits." However, at the time of getting married, they prefer those who have been no and/or even very few sexual experiences and, in addition, that demonstrate be with them not by what they have, by money that may have, but by feelings (covert) still that they may come to cultivate for them. The prejudice of man in relation to the few sexual experiences on the part of the woman is precisely linked to the question of the size of the penis and the issue of virginity, regarding the establishment, in his mind, two myths, respectively: 1- Among the men there is the myth that the woman who, supposedly, has had many sexual experiences, just having the vagina "enlarged," weary beyond the mind, always feeling the desire to continue with these experiences, in a ceaseless quest for a penis great that satisfies, never being her, however, fully satisfied, even after being married, which will lead, supposedly, for them, to commit possible adulteries. 2-Among men is also disseminated the idea, the myth that the man with whom the woman loses virginity is never totally forgotten by it, and that even he is replaced by eternal powers of seduction on it. These two cases, for the men (of type princes), with rare exceptions, are what prevent them from even cogitate the possibility to marry with the women that they only "174-5," especially those in which he and