[tor]

Just watched the One on One thing on ABC for womens week (I think).

They had a guy talking about mensheds which I must admit actually sounded pretty cool, if I was not lazy and had any skills to impart I might consider it. Of course the problem is that probably most people with skills don't realise they have them til they stop using them, if they think they have skills they are either wrong or are too busy using them to pass them on I guess. He complained about old guys trying to rule the roost.

Then they had a lady talking about sticking up for male sexuality and how stable partnerships chicks tend to no longer want sex (she had crazy stuff like guys that hadn't had sex in 20 years when they were 40). She was also talking about how guys won't talk about stuff and chicks learn they have power to deny sex and it causes them problems when they always feel they are saying no.

I think that when chicks were 20 they had power through saying no but then when they got into real life relationships they lost that power because obviously someone that can go without sex for 20 years you don't really have a lot of power over by saying "no sex tonight". They didn't work out a new control mechanism though. I think also that males in long term relationships get pissed at the insult that sex is so important that they would degrade themselves and beg for it; they will either have affairs or teach themselves that sex is unimportant, in that case they go do other stuff to feel happy (like the shed thing).

I do appreciate what both of these people are trying to do but I think they miss some points. They both talk about power in relationships but they are obviously not actually any good at wielding power so they come off as somewhat weak.

Anyone else see it and have thoughts?

[urchin]

I don't know about questions of power - it sounds like the experts are complicating something relatively simple in order to justify their position as experts. The most logical and simplest explanation, I think, is simply that one or both of the people in the relationship have come to the conclusion that they don't like the partner "in that way" any more. That doesn't necessarily mean that they dislike one another, only that they don't have particularly strong romantic feelings for one another. It may be that a number of other things (kids being the most likely) keep them together or it might be that one/both really do detest the other person but for whatever reason have decided to put up with it rather than split.

I don't really see why "power" has to be brought into the equation at all...

[Ruffian]

I'm not sure it is about power exactly, either.

People - male or female - just want their own way a lot of the time, regardless. We are built like that as a species.

So, in a long-term relationship where the bloke wants more sex/less chat and the girl wants more chat/less sex (generalising here for the sake of the argument, don't shoot me anyone!) the person with the strongest personality is likely to hold sway IF - and it is a big if - they don't have the sort of relationship where they consciously try to accommodate each other.

People who go without sex for 20 years don't have a power imbalance, they have a huge mutual dysfunction in their relationship, but obviously not so huge they can't deal with it, or they would have been gone.
The vast majority of people would bail long before 20 years were up - unless they are getting some other thing which is extremely useful (to them personally) from the relationship.
Something possibly more useful than sex? - maybe security of a very fundamental kind? Reinforcement of their self image? I don't know.

But I am very glad I'm not them...

[tor]

Caveat here: I view all relationships in terms of power, my definition of power is maybe a little more broad than most.

Also I had just watched Louis CK standup routine where he was talking about his wife giving him a handjob which was hilarious but was not erotic.

urchin, on 05 March 2011 - 01:41 AM, said:

I don't know about questions of power - it sounds like the experts are complicating something relatively simple in order to justify their position as experts. The most logical and simplest explanation, I think, is simply that one or both of the people in the relationship have come to the conclusion that they don't like the partner "in that way" any more.

If both people felt the same way about sex at the same time then there would be no power issue. Otherwise one is obviously subsuming their interest in some kind of self beneficial manner (or just good old peer pressure, momentum etc). To be honest I can't see both people losing their interest in sex at the same time.

Having one person try to kill their sexual desire in an attempt to maintain a relationship that offers many other benefits seems ridiculously dangerous for the person who has lost sexual desire. Sexual function is a pretty base level deal. It is not like the desire for a new playstation or car or something.

Best case scenario you end up with a platonic relationship which works. Anything less seems pretty awful on the surface to me, worst case you end up with a slave who will remove all their desires from the relationship.

urchin, on 05 March 2011 - 01:41 AM, said:

That doesn't necessarily mean that they dislike one another, only that they don't have particularly strong romantic feelings for one another. It may be that a number of other things (kids being the most likely) keep them together or it might be that one/both really do detest the other person but for whatever reason have decided to put up with it rather than split.

I don't really see why "power" has to be brought into the equation at all...

Kids would count for inertia but again that seems like a pretty sub par lifestyle "I don't have sex because I have kids that need two parents" - in this I differentiate completely between "we are, one or both, too damn tired to have sex because we are looking after the kids" and "my partner won't have sex with me but I won't leave because of the kids". The latter is definitely a power situation.

Ruffian, on 06 March 2011 - 02:14 AM, said:

I'm not sure it is about power exactly, either.

People - male or female - just want their own way a lot of the time, regardless. We are built like that as a species.

Yes but I rarely hear of the sexual thing being done in a "I don't really want to but I will because s/he wants to". All I ever hear is humiliating situations for both people; hookers, sex diaries, affairs, celibacy, date nights. None of these appeal to me as a relationship I would like to be in.

If we can normally work out most of other selfish stuff why does sex seem to be some weird area that there is little negotiation done? Or maybe I am just sheltered from what grown ups do and only see the comedians and the males bitching at the pub.

Ruffian, on 06 March 2011 - 02:14 AM, said:

So, in a long-term relationship where the bloke wants more sex/less chat and the girl wants more chat/less sex (generalising here for the sake of the argument, don't shoot me anyone!) the person with the strongest personality is likely to hold sway IF - and it is a big if - they don't have the sort of relationship where they consciously try to accommodate each other.

Which would be a power issue. And I rarely hear about any kind of compromise which looks reasonable. Most of them seem to be ritualistic sex (which I would probably avoid) or sex with people outside the relationship (which again seems a tad dodgy).

Ruffian, on 06 March 2011 - 02:14 AM, said:

People who go without sex for 20 years don't have a power imbalance, they have a huge mutual dysfunction in their relationship, but obviously not so huge they can't deal with it, or they would have been gone.
The vast majority of people would bail long before 20 years were up - unless they are getting some other thing which is extremely useful (to them personally) from the relationship.
Something possibly more useful than sex? - maybe security of a very fundamental kind? Reinforcement of their self image? I don't know.

But I am very glad I'm not them...

Agreed that is a massively dysfunctional situation if he goes without it for 20 years and then complains to a journalist. But I would find it hard to believe someone complains about something and has not had that annoyance occurring every day which would, to me, imply a power imbalance. As for dealing with it, lots of people deal with lots of stuff and just leech a gradual disharmony into the world.

Regarding the "more useful than sex" I don't see why they are mutually incompatible. You would have to find sex disturbing in some way to not do it for the sake of it once in a while to balance a scenario.

I dunno, it worries me a bit that these things are happening in the world and that comedians, including just vanilla workmates at the pub, can make these jokes about marriage meaning no sex ever and so on.

I think the ramifications are probably quite bad. Means lots of angry people in the world.

[ummester]

Interesting thread - I should look in the off topic section more often.

I think our sexuallity is closely tied into our biological functioning and the sexual dimorphism that exists between us.

For men it is traditionally about protectionism, competition and dominance. For women nuturing, seduction and manipulation. Not power as such, more paternal and maternal but closely related to power. This is why it is easier to accept something like lesbianity in hetro women than it is to accept homosexuallity in hetro men. Lesbianity works within the confines of traditional female traits.

Of course social standards and sexual role models have diverged a bit from our traditional behavious now and there is a fair deal of confusion about it all. I still think our biology underlines it all though.

Think about cliche male fantasy - two women at once, the women knowing her place (which is where and when he wants her) and so on. They tie into the need to compete within the gene pool, dominate the opposition and provide for what a man puts his claim on.

Female fantasy - being taken hard but loved at the same time, having everyone desire her but that one perfect lover complete her and so on. They tie into the need to be a source of reproductive nuturing within the gene pool.

Old sayings like 'relationships hold together so long as both parties don't fall out of love at the same time' ring true. The hard bit is working out where lust ends and love begins. Personally, I think that in a relationship that stands the test of time, love naturally overwhelms lust as a matter of course (our bodies become less flexible anyway:)).

Hey tor, did you read Desicrated Desires yet? Male sexuality is very much at the centre of that story - from erectile malfunction, through to dominance. As is a meagre understanding of female sexuality:)

[zaph]

Quote

Interesting thread - I should look in the off topic section more often.

yes you should drop by more often, it's quite interesting and we don't discuss houses much.

Quote

For men it is traditionally about protectionism, competition and dominance. For women nuturing, seduction and manipulation. Not power as such, more paternal and maternal but closely related to power. This is why it is easier to accept something like lesbianity in hetro women than it is to accept homosexuallity in hetro men. Lesbianity works within the confines of traditional female traits.

Of course social standards and sexual role models have diverged a bit from our traditional behavious now and there is a fair deal of confusion about it all. I still think our biology underlines it all though.

Think about cliche male fantasy - two women at once, the women knowing her place (which is where and when he wants her) and so on. They tie into the need to compete within the gene pool, dominate the opposition and provide for what a man puts his claim on.

Female fantasy - being taken hard but loved at the same time, having everyone desire her but that one perfect lover complete her and so on. They tie into the need to be a source of reproductive nuturing within the gene pool.

As the only gay left in the village (vale plonk) i don't think women behave or think like that, well maybe a bit. men will procreate with anything that has a pulse; and if it doesn't...

Quote

Old sayings like 'relationships hold together so long as both parties don't fall out of love at the same time' ring true

.

it only takes one partner that's not in love to end the relationship.

[ummester]

zaph, on 11 March 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

As the only gay left in the village (vale plonk) i don't think women behave or think like that, well maybe a bit. men will procreate with anything that has a pulse; and if it doesn't...

Gay man or woman?

Which bit don't they behave or think like?

I think the standard male likes to think they would procreate with anything with a pulse (and push the dead ones) but the reality is that they feel it because of a basic biological drive to reproduce and it is just their minds interpreting the biology.

There is this other old saying about men needing sex to feel love and women needing to feel love to have sex. I think this is only true on a simple level.

Lust and love are kind of mental constructs that become real because our minds make them so. Not to belittle them or say that it isn't worth experiencing them. Just that they exist as a thought process on top of instinct.

I'd go out on a limb and say that most women, in my experience anyway, actually want sex more than men because they want it for deeper underlying instincts. Men want to procreate - spread the seed, so to speak, (which may manifest in the modern world as having lotsa money) but they don't actually want sex (or intimate human contact) as such. The odd thing is that it looks on the surface like women want love and men want sex.

zaph, on 11 March 2011 - 09:48 AM, said:

it only takes one partner that's not in love to end the relationship.

I think only if they other is undecided about the strength of their love (or their mental construction of it:)).

[tor]

ummester, on 11 March 2011 - 01:48 AM, said:

Interesting thread - I should look in the off topic section more often.

Off topic is generally more fun

ummester, on 11 March 2011 - 01:48 AM, said:

Old sayings like 'relationships hold together so long as both parties don't fall out of love at the same time' ring true. The hard bit is working out where lust ends and love begins. Personally, I think that in a relationship that stands the test of time, love naturally overwhelms lust as a matter of course (our bodies become less flexible anyway:)).

I am not sure I believe in love as a real thing, seems to be more of just a catch all word actually means a bunch of other things like responsibility, compromise and so on.

ummester, on 11 March 2011 - 01:48 AM, said:

Hey tor, did you read Desicrated Desires yet? Male sexuality is very much at the centre of that story - from erectile malfunction, through to dominance. As is a meagre understanding of female sexuality:)

Read a few chapters, got busy, stopped reading, put the file on my desktop to remind me to read it some more. I have made a conscious decision to remove computers from my upstairs life though (which is where I am not working) as I will always get distracted by work when I am supposed to be not working. As a result I should print it out and read it.


Edit: I should probably point out I have never really thought through the whole relationship thing enough to actually know what I believe, hence not much in substance from me yet

This post has been edited by tor: 12 March 2011 - 12:49 AM

[Ruffian]

tor, on 12 March 2011 - 12:47 AM, said:

I am not sure I believe in love as a real thing, seems to be more of just a catch all word actually means a bunch of other things like responsibility, compromise and so on.

OK, can't let that one go by. I have no idea what love is, but I have no doubt that it exists as a real thing. How is expressed is pretty variable, tho. ;-)

Speaking from experience - I have loved deeply and profoundly, both eros and agape - It exists.

Love is a profound motivator of human behaviour, but it does happen to be a bit out of fashion at the moment.

I also tend to think that men are more prone to deeper, purer love than women. (Women, despite Mills and Boon's finest, never quite forget themselves entirely. There is, I think, always a small pragmatic core which remains, possibly due to a need to keep an eye on the future of her kids. This is not necessarily a good or a bad thing, it just is - pure love can be a very driven and sometimes destructive thing.)

Love has motivated several western cultures (They were not called the french romantics for nothing... and the Greeks had a bit to say about it, too). Even now there is nothing more romantic than a teenage boy. (Stop laughing and think about it for a minute - you'll see I'm right.)

Love has, at it's heart, very little about it of responsibility or compromise. That is, perhaps, part of what makes it so compelling.

[Ruffian]

ummester, on 11 March 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:

I'd go out on a limb and say that most women, in my experience anyway, actually want sex more than men because they want it for deeper underlying instincts. Men want to procreate - spread the seed, so to speak, (which may manifest in the modern world as having lotsa money) but they don't actually want sex (or intimate human contact) as such.

Almost the exact opposite in my experience.

ummester, on 11 March 2011 - 10:27 AM, said:

I think only if they other is undecided about the strength of their love (or their mental construction of it:)).

Again, have to agree with Zaph, it only takes one to 'fall out of love' and blow the whole thing to hell and gone.

[ummester]

Ruffian, on 12 March 2011 - 04:06 AM, said:

I also tend to think that men are more prone to deeper, purer love than women. (Women, despite Mills and Boon's finest, never quite forget themselves entirely. There is, I think, always a small pragmatic core which remains, possibly due to a need to keep an eye on the future of her kids. This is not necessarily a good or a bad thing, it just is - pure love can be a very driven and sometimes destructive thing.)

To quote SK (again, I know) - 'the soil of a man's heart is stonier'.

Like I mentioned earlier, the line between lust and love has a big grey area in the middle. Sex is more an instrument of lust but can also be an instrument of love - with both sexes.

I think that men are prone to sterner, more solid senses of commitment (stonier soil) and will lock onto a target in an unrelenting manner that women seldom do. This also ties in with the need to dominate, control and protect. But what I am trying to get at is that men desire sex for less personal and pratical reasons than women. It's hard to word. The simplest way I guess is that women have an inate biological drive to get something tangible growing in their bodies from sexual experience - men will never have that. Men only have a detatched concept of it. But men's hearts lock onto women in a protective manner that women's hearts never feel for their men (only their offspring).

A woman at work told me a story about her third pregnancy. The doctor warned it could take her life. She said let me die and let the child live. Her husband thought the opposite. From the way our biology and therefore emotional hearts work, this seems perfectly reasonable.

Primate males protect the harem and the harem protect the young. As really deep thinking primates, human males love their women with the conviction their women love the offspring - it's the way it's meant to be.

None of this should be confused with the sex drive, which I think is strong in men to achieve and strong in women to feel. Therefore women want it in a way that has more depth than men do. Sex, not love, don't forget.

But, there's a catch. When a man has sex for love, to show love or with someone he loves, then yes, he can feel the emotional bonds of sex as strongly, if not stronger, than the women he's with.

This bit from Rob Roy kind of sums up what I am trying to say about love, I think:

SON: What is honor?
ROB ROY: Honor is.. what no man can give ye, and no one can take away. Honor is a man’s gift to himself.
SON: Do women have it?
ROB ROY: Women are the heart of honor - and we cherish and protect it in them.

There is no honour in the way a woman loves a man, or treats a man. But there doesn't have to be. It's not the way it's suppossed to work. Doesn't mean a man should let a woman walk over him or anything - just that the hearts are wired differently when it comes to love.

This post has been edited by ummester: 12 March 2011 - 05:14 AM

[ummester]

Ruffian, on 12 March 2011 - 04:16 AM, said:

Almost the exact opposite in my experience.

Really? Sex has always been on your terms? You've always done the seducing and the instigating?

Consider a BJ - men love them but I recon they are the greatest scam human females have pulled on human males. They have all the sexual 'power' as tor would put it. They don't even have to get undressed or expose socially intimate parts. They just suck, get good at it, and let men walk around thinking 'i'm the man, coz she gave me a good BJ'. Utter rubbish. Go down on her, take control back, I say. Be the one who gives the most pleasure and then have the greatest level of sexual control.

Ruffian, on 12 March 2011 - 04:16 AM, said:

Again, have to agree with Zaph, it only takes one to 'fall out of love' and blow the whole thing to hell and gone.

It ain't worth it if you don't have to fight for it:) The more you fight, the more it's worth.

[tor]

ummester, on 12 March 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

Really? Sex has always been on your terms? You've always done the seducing and the instigating?

Ruffian is an ex chef I believe and so this would not be surprising, they are angry angry people

ummester, on 12 March 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

Consider a BJ - men love them but I recon they are the greatest scam human females have pulled on human males. They have all the sexual 'power' as tor would put it. They don't even have to get undressed or expose socially intimate parts. They just suck, get good at it, and let men walk around thinking 'i'm the man, coz she gave me a good BJ'. Utter rubbish. Go down on her, take control back, I say. Be the one who gives the most pleasure and then have the greatest level of sexual control.

This is the only reason I posted really. I am not sure where I stand but it was funny and written in a way to make me giggle.

ummester, on 12 March 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

It ain't worth it if you don't have to fight for it:) The more you fight, the more it's worth.

Again not sure where I stand but that would certainly be one interpretation of my romantic life. Admittedly probably one given by someone that is likely to say "pussy whipped" in the next sentence but possibly valid[1].

[1] He was a dick all night about it and so I bit his nose which really made him sad and threaten lawsuits. Valid does not equal "safe to say" in real life if you are a dick about it. Talking sh*t about someones girlfriend is probably time to leave the party.

[ummester]

tor, on 12 March 2011 - 05:42 AM, said:

Ruffian is an ex chef I believe and so this would not be surprising, they are angry angry people

Images of Gordon Ramsey giving sexual orders fill my head now:) You want a nice meal, then blow I tell's ya! Blow until I can't blow no more!

tor, on 12 March 2011 - 05:42 AM, said:

This is the only reason I posted really. I am not sure where I stand but it was funny and written in a way to make me giggle.

Glad you got something out of it:)

tor, on 12 March 2011 - 05:42 AM, said:

Again not sure where I stand but that would certainly be one interpretation of my romantic life. Admittedly probably one given by someone that is likely to say "pussy whipped" in the next sentence but possibly valid[1].

[1] He was a dick all night about it and so I bit his nose which really made him sad and threaten lawsuits. Valid does not equal "safe to say" in real life if you are a dick about it. Talking sh*t about someones girlfriend is probably time to leave the party.

Being 'pussy whipped' is another misguided thing about how men view sex I recon. There's is absolutely nothing wrong with finding a vagina is an extremely comfortable fit and behaving in a manner that gets you plenty of it. It's a very pleasurable, cost effective arrangement - so long as the owner of the vagina doesn't require copious amounts of money spent on them:) Best still, once you find that vagina, make it crave the orgasms you give it as much as you crave those it give's you. That's the lust part of human sexuality done and dusted [1].

Being pussy whipped without getting any pussy, that's a different thing. That's just silly:)

[1] from a hetro perspective. I've only vaguely experimented with homosexual so don't know what the best arrangement would be.

See, I consider your behaviour very honourable tor. Men should protect their women - to hell with equal rights and political correctness. Provide dependable strength and be rewarded with sex, love, emotional security and all that.

Not sure if nose biting is the most honourable form of retribution against the offending male though:) Punching is equally effective and a tad more masculine.

[ummester]

tor, on 12 March 2011 - 12:47 AM, said:

I am not sure I believe in love as a real thing, seems to be more of just a catch all word actually means a bunch of other things like responsibility, compromise and so on.

Sure, it is that. I guess it's just a way to express an ultimate form of attatchment to another human being, a simple way of describing how important that human is to you.

My father always told me that love grows in a man, the longer he stands by his woman. I tend to agree with that now.

[tor]

ummester, on 12 March 2011 - 06:06 AM, said:

Being 'pussy whipped' is another misguided thing about how men view sex I recon. There's is absolutely nothing wrong with finding a vagina is an extremely comfortable fit and behaving in a manner that gets you plenty of it. It's a very pleasurable, cost effective arrangement - so long as the owner of the vagina doesn't require copious amounts of money spent on them:) Best still, once you find that vagina, make it crave the orgasms you give it as much as you crave those it give's you. That's the lust part of human sexuality done and dusted [1].

Being pussy whipped without getting any pussy, that's a different thing. That's just silly:)

I am not sure I agree with the way you seem to be looking at it. If ones partner is not into sex it doesn't really matter how good you are at it. I am fairly sure I am at least acceptable in my bedroom skills but in the morning when I have dragon breath and am only just awake and therefore somewhat uncoordinated I can understand why someone might not be so into it

I have had a relationship where my girlfriend of the time had many excellent attributes but enjoyment of physical activity was not one of them. I was majorly into her for lots of other reasons (she was one of the first people to ever actually spend the time to figure out how and why I acted and thought rather than just tell me to get my sh*t together when I got nervous) and could quite easily have been classed as "pussy whipped without getting any". I think it was definitely the type of relationship that fell into the area that ruffian and urchin intimate above.

Being the kind of person I am I just looked at it as a weakness in my control over myself in that why would I get fixated on a lack of sex if I can happily go without food for 3 or 4 days with no physical problems. It was embarrassing to have a simple physical thing adjust my mental processes.

In retrospect I suspect the relationship might have lasted if she had been smart enough to see that I was actually not so happy with the relationship as a physical component of intimacy is required for me to maintain that level of affection. Or of course if I was smart enough to have been able to talk about it. In that case I think she was inadvertently using her power of withholding physical intimacy to achieve her goals but they did eventually cause the relationship to fall apart (in other words I couldn't actually control my body anywhere near as well as I thought I could and it became what some would call a festering sore).

After that I did spend a fair bit of time fixated on having as much sex as I could get (and weirdly enough she became a fairly regular sexual partner at the time) but without the emotional stability of someone to help me get through life I eventually stopped that lifestyle. I believe I have now achieved about the best tradeoff I am likely to get but sexual activity is definitely not in the volumes which I would regard as what I want. Funnily enough the girlfriend is actually one of the other girls that during my period of "sex at all costs" was also paying fairly regular visits to my place for that reason (although we did go out for a year some 20 years ago as well).

My opinion switches backwards and forwards between the meaning of why people like to have lots of sex with me when I am not their boyfriend but less when I am. When I see programs like the One on One thing I get kind of interested. When I see comedians making jokes about how they have no sex in relationships I am reminded of the previous relationship where to have sex I had to grovel and so would refuse to have sex as it became a statement of pride.

ummester, on 12 March 2011 - 06:06 AM, said:

See, I consider your behaviour very honourable tor. Men should protect their women - to hell with equal rights and political correctness. Provide dependable strength and be rewarded with sex, love, emotional security and all that.

Not sure if nose biting is the most honourable form of retribution against the offending male though:) Punching is equally effective and a tad more masculine.

Nose biting is a very clear statement. If someone can get up and walk over and bite you on the nose there is no way in the world you will get up and fight that person. In martial arts it is called seme (attacking spirit) where you have psychologically and physically stopped all fighting with a single action effectively by making the other person so scared that they are rabbits in headlights.

Using that kind of technique avoids causing real damage to anyone and so is preferable in situations where I am not sure if what I am doing is right.

Punching someone is such an ineffective form of fighting that it can lead to bad situations in that the other person fights back. Once a fight starts in that way you will find that it takes too long and can also have accidental consequences. Better to metaphorically hold a gun against someone's head and tell them to sit down.

[Ruffian]

ummester, on 12 March 2011 - 05:06 AM, said:

Really? Sex has always been on your terms? You've always done the seducing and the instigating?

Dear God No! The part I was referring to was this -

...but they (men) don't actually want sex (or intimate human contact) as such.

This has been fairly clearly contradicted by observations in my life. Most men seem to me to be more than willing to be petted and cuddled by the woman of their choice - in private, when their guard is down.


Also, not so much with the angry chef. I've always been more of a lover than a fighter (much more fun for starters), and I am a firm believer in Tor's theory of seme. I'd rather scare the crap out of someone any day. Saves on problems later.
But, in an other direction, food and sex are both bodily appetites and there are links between them. I would have trouble spending much time with a lover who didn't also have a fairly thorough appreciation of food.




I'm not sure I follow all of your arguments, Um. I didn't realise someone (other than a certain brand of feminist) could intellectualise the politics of oral sex quite so far.

And, what the hell do you mean by there being no honour in the way a woman loves a man?



Tor, aside from one specific girl*, your story seems to boil down to lots of sex when you were young, not so much now you are older... isn't that pretty much everybodies story? Particularly if you are in a stable relationship.
Like it or not, the female sex drive does seem to decline faster than the males. It is the basis of a thousand sour jokes - which takes us back to the start of this thread. Doesn't Bettina Arndt tell women to 'just do it'? - Implying it's an issue for pretty much the whole nation. (Excluding teenagers and those in new relationships!)

Also I have to wonder how much sex it would take (again assuming a stable relationship, not an endless supply of new prospects) to make the average guy admit he has had enough? A fair bit, I think, meaning that women might have their work cut out for them.

*Edit - must have been quite a specific girl, no-one should have to grovel for sex on a regular basis**.

**Altho it can be fun on certain (rare) occasions...

This post has been edited by Ruffian: 12 March 2011 - 11:19 AM

[urchin]

Ruffian, on 12 March 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

Also I have to wonder how much sex it would take (again assuming a stable relationship, not an endless supply of new prospects) to make the average guy admit he has had enough? A fair bit, I think, meaning that women might have their work cut out for them.

hahaha, that bit brought back some memories. i do remember a specific occasion a score or so of years past when i was waving the white flag of defeat--please god, no more--it's going to fall off! lord, i feel so old! (perhaps because i am)

[tor]

Ruffian, on 12 March 2011 - 11:11 AM, said:

Tor, aside from one specific girl*, your story seems to boil down to lots of sex when you were young, not so much now you are older... isn't that pretty much everybodies story? Particularly if you are in a stable relationship.
Like it or not, the female sex drive does seem to decline faster than the males. It is the basis of a thousand sour jokes - which takes us back to the start of this thread. Doesn't Bettina Arndt tell women to 'just do it'? - Implying it's an issue for pretty much the whole nation. (Excluding teenagers and those in new relationships!)

Also I have to wonder how much sex it would take (again assuming a stable relationship, not an endless supply of new prospects) to make the average guy admit he has had enough? A fair bit, I think, meaning that women might have their work cut out for them.

*Edit - must have been quite a specific girl, no-one should have to grovel for sex on a regular basis**.

**Altho it can be fun on certain (rare) occasions...

For me the lots of sex only started when I was about 27. Prior to that I had been way too involved in my stuff (skateboarding and flair barwork) to actually spend time with anyone, let alone waste time with them[1]. I also was fairly sure that girls didn't find me attractive so assumed a female talking to me was some kind of pity thing[2].

Keep in mind no one knew who tony hawk was until the late nineties. Even he wasn't getting laid much in the early nineties - my half brother still remembers the day a limo pulled up outside our crappy house with hawk asking where the f*ck I was[4]. Also keep in mind that throwing bottles in a bar only gets you chicks if you are actually the type of person that should be throwing bottles in a bar. If you are a technical type that spends hours working out various ways to throw bottles in a bar you will not have much female attention

In my experience the female sex drive is just different to the male one. Males generally will accept crap sex. Females seem to take longer to get into it but if you make a whole afternoon thing then they are completely down. Like there is no drive for females to just blow a load and guys have a bad habit of thinking that blowing a load is good enough.

I suspect that the reason I got to have lots of sex at one point in my life was because I put in the effort to make the sex thing a half day experience (also I am told that my general assumption that anyone would want to have sex rather than sit around bored was a naive and somehow compelling argument). I have to admit that a threesome with a gay guy and a lesbian in retrospect was probably a pretty daft idea and yet we all had fun.

Which is sort of my issue with the whole "get married don't have sex" joke. Surely (problems aside) sex is relatively nice for almost everyone. I can only view a lack of sex as being people that can't work out how to compromise. The idea that "going for a date" for married people will save their sexual life seems bizarre as I can't see either party really being into that kind of humiliation. The idea that "we are married so I will have affairs" also seems wrong, I understand the justification but I can't see fun sex being conducive to a stable relationship unless the two people in the relationship are _really_ happy with each other (which I doubt occurs in a "no sex" type of relationship).

I accept it is a joke but it seems so damn vindictive that it really bothers me currently[6]. I am not sure that the "do it for england" thing is the answer but I am also sure that the "this is your one position of power" thing works either.

As I have said I think all relationships are power based and so I think possibly teaching females that sex is not the only way of having power is probably a good idea.

Anyhoo I am full of alcohol and pain killers and probably making little sense. Plus I just got a body crash which has slowed me down so I will hit post.

[1] I certainly believed sex was a waste of time when I could be practising. Before that was ballet where of course I was gay and so not interested in females, let me tell you that is a grand way to be 15.

[2]I get told now of course that all the girls at TAFE were seriously hot for me and the current girlfriend couldn't believe I asked her out[3]

[3] Of course I didn't actually ask her out, I chased her after class and asked if she wanted to go get food sometime. Then said I was leaving the country for a few weeks (for a skateboarding thing in hawaii).

[4] Fun things you learn at funerals are how other people view you.

[6] Who's counting remember I found free will to be bothersome also so take this diatribe in the same context.

[ummester]

Perhaps I am taking the descriptor 'pussy whipped' too literally. Seems like your experiences are more 'love whipped' than pussy whipped - which there is absolutely nothing wrong with. But if another male accused me of being pussy whipped when I was in love, I guess I would just say it's more than the pussy now and I am whipped by something deeper than you are insuating. If nothing else, it would throw them entirely.

Perhaps I have also had a majority of partners that have been into sex and my perspective may be skewed. I had a girlfriend once that had cervical cancer and she did not have a high sex drive - but there was a very logical reason why. I recall that realtionship as having very little to do with sexuality, though and more about compassion.

Ruffian, I really enjoy intellectualising sex. I think it is so bizzare that something that exists at such a base level of our existance is so rarely spoken about openly and bluntly. I did clarify that when a man is in love, what they want out of sex and their partner is different to when they are not. It's hard to stay on the topic of 'male sexuality' without enterring into the area of male emotions and love, isn't it? Yet I think there is a difference between a male wanting to be adored, appreciated or loved after or around sex than a male wanting something intimate out of the experience itself. I meant wanting something intimate out of the experience itself.

From interactions I have had with others I don't think sexual aspects of myself are totally standard male. I don't understand the whole getting off on feeling powerful, or thinking that as long as you have been correctly serviced it is all that matters. I reason that is perhaps an unpowerful position to be in. I have even been accused of worrying too much about what my partner is feeling or wants and not enough about what I want. Most other males I have spoken to claim to be more focussed on themselves during the act, making sure they achieve the particular thing they are after at the time. To me this represents a lack of sexual intimacy on their behalf, unless they are just being intimate with their own desires.

A big downside with the way I view it is that it is hard to totally let yourself go and take entirely what you want from a sexual interaction, unless, of course, the thing I want most is female orgasm and not my own - which may well be the case.

Fear not, I can also inellectualise this. The basic reason for a male orgasm is to inject one part of human creation, right? The basic reason for a female orgasm is to provide that injection with safe passage. Wether you are trying to create life or not, the most satisfying conclusion for the function should logically be joint orgasm, shouldn't it? Don't freak out and think I am some kind of sexual fundamentalist. I am all for experimentation and variation. I just haven't heard many males claim they actually think about what the body (or bodies) entwined with them need(s) at the time. Perhaps they are all FOS and worry about getting her off as much as I do but social convention stops them from admitting it:)

I stand by thinking there is no honour in the way a woman loves a man. It's not too different to say, a woman in a boardroom argument. I have never experienced a hetrosexual woman that is above using her feminitiy to achieve something in the company of men - though I have experienced lesbian coppers that were more than happy to play exactly like the boys.

Of course, like the rest of you, I am older now and sex is not half as phsyically intense as it used to be. And it takes so long to reload now:)

Perhaps what I am trying to say is that sexually most men seem happy to be cast as the takers and think of women as the givers - it's an in/out thing, I suppose. We knock and they let us in. Giving seems to me a more intimate part of a transaction than taking. So, as long as we always try to give something on the way in and leave a pleasant sensation on the way out (of whichever door we use), we are also giving and thus making the interaction as intimate as it must be to a woman by default. How many men think like that though?