[Ruffian]

ummester, on 12 March 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

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:)

Apart from the usual quota of dickheads, I think most decent men think about what their woman needs to be happy in bed. Many because they care about the woman, others because it is a reflection on their own ability/prowess. Sometime I think men (well, people in general to some extent) are like grains of sand on a beach, all separate but all a lot more similar than they think they are. Most men seem very reluctant to talk about this sort of stuff. Especially face to face.

ummester, on 12 March 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

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.

I just can't agree with this. In the areas I have worked, women just don't behave that way. A lot of my professional life is rural/agricultural, some is government, and with the exception of one verifiably unstable woman, none of them 'use their femininity'. Not at all as far as I can see - the chasteness of my working environment verges on disappointing. (The two affairs I know of have been carried out with absolute discretion, nary an eyelash flutter or knowing glance to give them away).

ummester, on 12 March 2011 - 01:39 PM, said:

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?

Don't both partners give? I've always thought so.



Thank you Um, for a thoughtful post. It gives me a totally different view on what I had assumed you were saying.

I, too, enjoy intellectualising these sorts of issues. I don't like politicising them much, though. Politics in the bedroom has always seemed to me to be a quick recipe for disaster.

[Ruffian]

tor, on 12 March 2011 - 12:34 PM, said:

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.

The 'going on a date' when you are married is secret code for 'the only time you can ditch the kids for a while'. Trust me on this, I have inside information.
Kids can swamp your relationship to the point that neither of you knows who the other is, and being on a date (ie away from the kids) can be a revelation, having your partner's attention back where it belongs (ie on me!) can be really, really good for a relationship. And not having the kids around is even better for your sex life.


I really, really don't think women (well most women) see sex as a particular point of power. Could it be that men are giving power to women by assuming they will use sex in that way? Because men are so sexually focussed? Surely most women in Australia don't use it as a ring through a man's nose? That attitude is much more prevalent in the US, I have witnessed the domestic prostitution that takes place there and it horrified me. ('I'll make you 'happy', if you give me a new Easter bonnet' ergh.) That's one of the reasons I came back here - sex relations are just so much more normal!

Most women need to make that emotional connection before they will happily go to bed a man. Even if it is someone they have a longstanding relationship with, they seem to want to know that they are not just an animate sex toy but valued for their individual self.


BTW, sk8r boi, I cannot believe the opportunities you must have missed. Girls back then just creamed over the whole 'I'll be the one to break him out of his obsessive little world' thing, and you probably counted on two fronts, the barwork and the skating. Jeez.

[tor]

Ruffian, on 13 March 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

The 'going on a date' when you are married is secret code for 'the only time you can ditch the kids for a while'. Trust me on this, I have inside information.
Kids can swamp your relationship to the point that neither of you knows who the other is, and being on a date (ie away from the kids) can be a revelation, having your partner's attention back where it belongs (ie on me!) can be really, really good for a relationship. And not having the kids around is even better for your sex life.

That would make sense. I never really understood the whole "let's go on a date" thing when you are already together. The mystery has gone. I guess if you have both been distracted by kids for a few years (and presumably changed a bit during that time due to the kid thing) a date does make more sense. I'd be nervous that she would realise I had changed badly and leave halfway through though

I have had a few occasions where girlfriends have asked me to do roleplay type stuff like pick them up at a pub. I have always sucked at those things as I don't think I have ever picked up a girl in my life. For one girlfriend in particular this was an issue, she told me to pretend I was good at it. She, like many of my ex's, was an actor and assumed I could act I guess. Needless to say that particular situation went about as well as can be imagined I have always suspected my love life has been more of an accidental thing more than anything else, certainly there has been no skill on my side in the initial phases. Some of the things I have done really do make me cringe in retrospect. I think the finest may have been standing in a bar with a girl that I did like having her harangue me because I had offered to teach her meditation (in a martial arts manner) and she had accepted and then I had taught her how we meditate. Apparently I was supposed to know that she did not come to my place to learn to meditate.

Ruffian, on 13 March 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

I really, really don't think women (well most women) see sex as a particular point of power. Could it be that men are giving power to women by assuming they will use sex in that way? Because men are so sexually focussed? Surely most women in Australia don't use it as a ring through a man's nose? That attitude is much more prevalent in the US, I have witnessed the domestic prostitution that takes place there and it horrified me. ('I'll make you 'happy', if you give me a new Easter bonnet' ergh.) That's one of the reasons I came back here - sex relations are just so much more normal!

I really have to disagree with that. The number of times a girlfriend has promised me various sexual favours in return for me doing stuff (to the point where one actually used time as a factor "I will do X for 5 minutes for each time you do Y") is quite astounding. Also really humiliating. That kind of thing makes me believe the girl is vehemently opposed to sex or trying to control me. Given that they have all had sex with me earlier in the relationship it becomes troublesome as I naturally backtrack the relationship and assume the previous sex was equally manipulative.

I do of course realise the blatantly obvious point that this is common to most of my relationships and I am the common factor so it is more likely to be my fault than some world wide female conspiracy. I expect it is my lack of emotional response that sours the deal.

Ruffian, on 13 March 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

Most women need to make that emotional connection before they will happily go to bed a man. Even if it is someone they have a longstanding relationship with, they seem to want to know that they are not just an animate sex toy but valued for their individual self.

I have a theory that girls that sleep with me feel like they are being naughty and that is great when I am not their boyfriend but when I am their boyfriend maybe it becomes a feeling of being degraded. Man that sounds like I think I am some kind of fantasy object for chicks sowing their wild oats.

Ruffian, on 13 March 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

BTW, sk8r boi, I cannot believe the opportunities you must have missed. Girls back then just creamed over the whole 'I'll be the one to break him out of his obsessive little world' thing, and you probably counted on two fronts, the barwork and the skating. Jeez.

Yeah I remember a chef (male) slapping me and asking what the hell was wrong with me. I was always very good at picking up on which customers were trying to get it on with which other customers (if you run a bar where people get laid you make more money) but sucked pretty bad at knowing when girls were interested in me. Given that I was relatively attractive in an androgynous way I should probably have had a lot more sex than I have had.

[Easy Tiger]

tor, on 06 March 2011 - 07:50 AM, said:

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.

[Ruffian]

Easy Tiger, on 13 March 2011 - 04:46 AM, said:

'...what a lovely couple. And so well suited to each other...'

[Ruffian]

tor, on 13 March 2011 - 02:21 AM, said:

I really have to disagree with that. The number of times a girlfriend has promised me various sexual favours in return for me doing stuff (to the point where one actually used time as a factor "I will do X for 5 minutes for each time you do Y") is quite astounding. Also really humiliating. That kind of thing makes me believe the girl is vehemently opposed to sex or trying to control me. Given that they have all had sex with me earlier in the relationship it becomes troublesome as I naturally backtrack the relationship and assume the previous sex was equally manipulative.

Under the circumstances it's a fair assumption. But I still don't think it is typical. I'm not sure I'd put up with it, but I haven't been in that situation so I don't know.

I was going to ask 'Did/does she want Y badly enough to give you a bit of leverage back?' but from there to terminal game-playing is a very short step, and the world is f*cked up enough without bringing that sort of drama home.

It might be that you are in fact 'uncontrollable'. Maybe if too many aspects of a relationship are non-negotiable, for whatever reason, a woman might turn to that type of behaviour as a last line of resort. But to me that would be less of an attempt to control someone and more a cry of despair.

tor, on 13 March 2011 - 02:21 AM, said:

I expect it is my lack of emotional response that sours the deal.

If you talk like you type, in fact if you even just type/text in the general direction of your woman, I don't think that's the problem. 'Loquacious' comes to mind. So does 'over-share', just a tad ;-). But as far as women are concerned that's all good. It's silence they hate.

[Easy Tiger]

Ruffian, on 13 March 2011 - 05:27 AM, said:

It's silence they hate.

"Why aren't you talking to me?"


Because I'm reading?



The other one was "You aren't talking to me!"


EDIT to add


Withholding sex isn't a threat. In fact any man who succumbs to the threat deserves to be made fun of period.


That's because it's f**king 4.30am and I'm still waking up to get ready for work



Tor

Quote

The number of times a girlfriend has promised me various sexual favours in return for me doing stuff (to the point where one actually used time as a factor "I will do X for 5 minutes for each time you do Y") is quite astounding.

I thought that was the definition of a prostitute only they are bartering not charging money.

This post has been edited by Easy Tiger: 13 March 2011 - 07:41 AM

[Ruffian]

Easy Tiger, on 13 March 2011 - 07:37 AM, said:

"Why aren't you talking to me?"


Because I'm reading?



The other one was "You aren't talking to me!"

You forgot the ever-popular 'What are you thinking?' with a rising inflection that lets you know you MUST have an acceptable answer in 5...4...3...2...

[wim]

http://www.theage.co...0310-1bo6i.html

Quote

IT IS what men have lost, rather than gained, during evolution that helps make humans unique, new research shows.

Men's penises lack the prickly spines found on the surface of the penises of many other mammals, including chimpanzees, due to the loss of a small chunk of DNA, scientists have found.

The spines increase sensitivity, and their absence in men is thought to have contributed to longer-lasting intercourse and monogamous relationships, underpinning a society where fathers help raise children.

"We often think of brain size and bipedalism as key characteristics of what makes us human," said Philip Reno, a member of the research team. "But another difference is our sexual behaviour."

He said chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, have quick intercourse because many males have sex with one or a few receptive females, in a competition to fertilise them.

Having tactile penile spines may enhance this rapid action, and "their loss in the human lineage may be associated with the longer duration of copulation in our species relative to chimpanzees," said Professor Reno, of Pennsylvania State University.

The same missing segment of DNA also explains why men do not have sensitive whiskers on their faces, like mice and cats, which also have penile spines.

Research on the Neanderthal genome shows these extinct relatives also lacked the DNA segment, he said. This meant the deletion occurred between 7 million years ago, when human ancestors split from chimpanzees, and 800,000 years ago, when human ancestors split from Neanderthals.

The results of the study are published in Nature.

The researchers compared the genomes of chimps and humans and identified 510 segments of DNA which are present in apes and other mammals, but completely missing in humans.

The hundreds of deletions are in stretches of the DNA code which regulate the action of nearby genes, by turning them on or off during development.

Another deletion that they discovered is thought to have allowed parts of the human brain to grow larger.

[ummester]

When I was young, I worked with theis guy from Malaysia. His name was Hi Ho - I kid you not. I used to pick him up and go 'it's off to work we go' which made him sh*tty, as did greeting him 'hi Hi'.

Anyways, Hi Ho told me about this thing he used to do before intercourse by threading fishing wire through the skin under his penis and tying it in a fashion that left little prickly bits poking out. Hi swore the ladies loved it. I thought he was a freak at the time. After wim's post, I realise he may have been onto something primal:)

Hi eventually got deported back to Malaysia - he was often in trouble with the law for various things. He was quite a character though.

Ruffian, seems to me you may be a little more sexually sensative than the average male. Although I agree that many like to gague their performance by way of female satisfaction, most I have spoken to would never sacrifice their own sexual enjoyment for a woman's. Unless they are all lying.

I have encountered this wierd thing about our bodies with sexual partners. There seem to be repeating patterns. You know, like the width of a persons arms when outstretched more or less equals their hieght and the length of a forearm (elbow to wrist) is equal to the length of a foot - on a given individual. Well, it seems that our hands are related to the size of our sexual organs (and my hands are average size so it isn't a brag or anything). The length from the thumb to the end of the middle finger (when stretched out) seems to be the length of an erection from base to tip. On a woman, this seems to be the length from the entrance to the end of the vaginal tube. This means that if your hands are a comfortable fit with a woman's (a little but not too much larger) you can generally reach that happy place [1] right at the end comfortably. Upside of this is that it can feel very nice for both without apply too much pressure for either. Wonder if their is some instinctual thing behind hand holding to find a sexually comfortable partner?

So if this is too open or brazen a form of sexuality inellectualizing - let me know and I'll stop.

[1] thought I'd clarify that that the happy place I mention isn't just the soft area that the fingers can reach inside and up but the ultra soft area up near the end. [2]
[2] Also should clarify that I have no idea what these things are called:)

This post has been edited by ummester: 13 March 2011 - 11:56 AM

[tor]

Ruffian, on 13 March 2011 - 05:27 AM, said:

Under the circumstances it's a fair assumption. But I still don't think it is typical. I'm not sure I'd put up with it, but I haven't been in that situation so I don't know.

I think people do for a time. Then they realise that they have to move on or become someone they would pity.

Ruffian, on 13 March 2011 - 05:27 AM, said:

It might be that you are in fact 'uncontrollable'. Maybe if too many aspects of a relationship are non-negotiable, for whatever reason, a woman might turn to that type of behaviour as a last line of resort. But to me that would be less of an attempt to control someone and more a cry of despair.

If you talk like you type, in fact if you even just type/text in the general direction of your woman, I don't think that's the problem. 'Loquacious' comes to mind. So does 'over-share', just a tad ;-). But as far as women are concerned that's all good. It's silence they hate.

heh I am currently blaming the drugs and the booze