So I was looking through my textbook in Ancient Law, reading the chapter on women and the law. There were a few lines in particular that caught my attention. When I go back out to my car in a bit, I'll grab the text and quote them all word-for-word, but the first thing that caught my eye was that the author stated that women are not subject to the same strong sexual urges as men, which is why many laws in the past have placed blame solely on the woman in cases of adultery and such.
I was wondering what kinds of thoughts you guys had on this issue, especially considering some of the reactions to the prostitution thread. I don't know that I believe that women have any more control over their sexual urges than men do, but I think that it's been more acceptable in many cultures for men to indulge their urges than it has been for women, which could have led to the, "Oh, well, men just can't help themselves" attitude.
-pH
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Well you may be right, but mens brains are programed both insticually and enviromentally to spread our genes as far as possible during our life times.
I am not trying to excuse my sex, many of us (or at least I'd like to believe so) still learn to change our thinking and stay with one partner through our whole lives. And many of us are plenty happy in that kind of enviroment. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think there are differences in the way men and women experience attraction. Some of these differences are probably biological, some social, and some psychological. I think it's hard for anyone to talk about what urges the opposite sex feels, so it's hard to tell specifically which of these differences is influenced more by biology and which by culture or psychology.
In my experience, however, I'd agree that most women don't seem to have the same degree of physical imperative toward sex as men do. I think evidence of this would be studies that show many women do not regularly experience orgasm even when having sex regularly. I don't think there are any men* who have sex without orgasm being the ultimate result (if not also the primary motivation.) My 2 cents, FWIW.
*any men meaning a sampling large enough for such a situation to be anything less than a pathology.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I don't know about that Karl, I tend to be very empathic towards the desires of my partner (or at least I was with my ex).
But certain studys do point towards a more outward show of such emotions in men. Though the same were present in women, the study showed that they did not show as much of an outward expresion of these emotions.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I could be mistaken, but I thought I recently read a study that said the biological differences between men and women are surprisingly few and that most of those differences are caused by society.
It's not a biological issue so much as a sociological one.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I may have more info on this topic by Fri. Thats when I attend my Human Sexuallity (Psychology) course.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: I don't know about that Karl, I tend to be very empathic towards the desires of my partner (or at least I was with my ex).
But certain studys do point towards a more outward show of such emotions in men. Though the same were present in women, the study showed that they did not show as much of an outward expresion of these emotions.
I'm not sure exactly what emotions you're talking about in the second paragraph. However, what I was talking about had nothing to do with a man's desire to bring his partner pleasure (or lack of it). I'm saying only that men in general (so general that the exception is probably a vanishingly small minority) have sex expecting and getting orgasm (except in cases of pathology, like impotence) and I'm not at all sure the same is true of women. I've heard countless stories of women who've never had an orgasm, yet have had regular sex. Stories, fiction and non, frequently deal with women who are left unsatisfied (meaning not having acheived orgasm). It's almost a cliche in some circles.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I meant arrousal, I just didn't want to make anyone any more uncomfortable by saying it.
And yes, sadly my kind are a diminishing minority, though I wish it wasn't so. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
At the same time, there is also a glorification of men who DO give women orgasms. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, though.
But I have heard that the number of women who report experiencing orgasm has a lot to do with the attitude of the society towards sex. As in, in cultures that are more open, women experience orgasm a lot more often.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I could be mistaken, but I thought I recently read a study that said the biological differences between men and women are surprisingly few and that most of those differences are caused by society.
It's not a biological issue so much as a sociological one.
I seem to remember reading something similar, but I could also be mistaken.
Regardless of where the "men are hornier" profile originated, it's still ridiculous to claim that women are more responsible for adultery than men are. That's like claiming that it's the woman's responsibility to use contraceptives, 'cause, you know, it's HER uterus.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:As in, in cultures that are more open, women experience orgasm a lot more often.
That's interesting - so we should be seeing a huge surge in orgasmic women in the U.S., given the direction of our sexual attitudes.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
True pH, but I have a question for you. You don't have to anwser.
Have you ever experienced orgasm with your partner? And if so then why do you feel that you may be a minority?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I'm not so sure ero, after all we may flaunt our sexuallity more openly here in the states, but that does not mean that a majority of us are willing to change our methods.
Try to remember that the goal here in the states to glorification of the female body, but geared towards male plessure. Not the other way around.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:In my experience, however, I'd agree that most women don't seem to have the same degree of physical imperative toward sex as men do. I think evidence of this would be studies that show many women do not regularly experience orgasm even when having sex regularly. I don't think there are any men* who have sex without orgasm being the ultimate result (if not also the primary motivation.)
The first sentence may be true, but your second sentence doesn't prove it. Women are trickier, they take a bit more effort and a bit more knowledge to "finish". For men it's almost a given - it'd take some effort for a man to have sex without an orgasm, whereas it takes effort for a woman to achieve it. That doesn't mean the women have any less desire.
Imagine, as a man, regularly having a physical desire to have sex, but when you actually had sex it was not fulfilled (i.e. you didn't reach orgasm), and yet you continue to have this urge to have sex. What would you do? Would you stop having sex and just try to "turn off" your desire? Would you consider it a flaw in yourself? Would you make your partner try harder? Would you give up and just enjoy the closeness that comes from intimacy? Different women respond to the problem in different ways.
I'll admit many women don't seem to have the same constant drive men do; whether because they've given up and forced themselves to ignore it, or because it's biological, or because they just wear themselves out and have no energy for it, I don't know. But I will give one example: I think because it takes no effort for a man to finish but takes more work for a woman, my hubby and I view sex differently. He considers it a way to relax at the end of the day. I consider it like someone asked me to run a mile to the ice cream parlor. Probably worth the reward if I'd do it, but when I'm exhausted, it seems to require too much energy to get there.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:And if so then why do you feel that you may be a minority?
<warning: explicit>
There are a ton of varying statistics on this, but there is a small (but surprisingly large) percentage of women who are physically incapable of having orgasms, and an even larger percentage who can only experience orgasm either vaginally or clitorally, but not the other.
The same studies also point out that women tend to be much more psychologically involved in orgasms - if sexual conditions aren't ideal, it doesn't matter if the physiological requirements are being met, orgasm just won't happen. This occurs in men, too, but supposedly to a much smaller extent.
At least, that's what these periodically surfacing studies keep claiming. Whether that's all true or not is certainly debateable. But from personal anecdote alone, I can tell you that roughly 1/3 of the girls I've talked to about sex in an intimate fashion have either never had an orgasm or are unsure if they've ever had one (read: they haven't). Guys, on the other hand...they're batting 1000.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: True pH, but I have a question for you. You don't have to anwser.
Have you ever experienced orgasm with your partner? And if so then why do you feel that you may be a minority?
Some more pertinent (though no less intrusive) questions for women might be, "Do you regularly experience orgasm with your partner?" and "Do you expect orgasm from sex?" and "Do you enjoy non-orgasmic sex?"
I'd hazard a guess that nearly 100 percent of men would answer "yes" to the first two questions, and an only slightly smaller number would answer "what's that?" to the last one. I'd also guess that the answers from women would be remarkably more varied.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
hahahah... sorry I just thought was a funny,b ut truthful example.
But yes it is true that it is far more easily accomplished by men than it is for women. This however does not mean that a majority of men simply find it as a way to relax.
In fact their are actually exercies that both men and women can perform to strengthen the genitals so that more pleasure is attained by both.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Try to remember that the goal here in the states to glorification of the female body, but geared towards male plessure. Not the other way around.
While I think this used to be true, I think we've rapidly begun to change direction. It is becoming increasingly okay for women to explore their sexuality, and to not be ashamed of enjoying sex.
Even magazines like Maxim, which are geared entirely toward pampering the chauvinist male in us all, regularly feature anecdotes and articles on women who enjoy sex, their methodology, and how to help men make their sex better. The motivation is different - "get better at sex so the girls all want to do you" - but we're acknowledging that women have orgasms, and enjoy them.
quote:I think because it takes no effort for a man to finish but takes more work for a woman, my hubby and I view sex differently. He considers it a way to relax at the end of the day. I consider it like someone asked me to run a mile to the ice cream parlor. Probably worth the reward if I'd do it, but when I'm exhausted, it seems to require too much energy to get there.
quote:Different women respond to the problem in different ways.
w0rd.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Without going into detail, Advent, I would like to say that in my experience you are dead wrong about being in a minority.
As I am at work, and because of the fact that this is a family forum, I am not going to answer any personal questions you may have for me at this time.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:This however does not mean that a majority of men simply find it as a way to relax.
ALSO true. Those of us males who actually give a damn about whether sex is an enjoyable activity for our partners find that there's an ENORMOUS amount of performance pressure. In that sense, it's an exercise for the man, too.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
If anyone wants the info on how to do Kegel exerscises just ask and I'll email them.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:The first sentence may be true, but your second sentence doesn't prove it. Women are trickier, they take a bit more effort and a bit more knowledge to "finish". For men it's almost a given - it'd take some effort for a man to have sex without an orgasm, whereas it takes effort for a woman to achieve it. That doesn't mean the women have any less desire.
I never claimed to prove it. I still think it is evidence of my point, though.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
erosomniac, maybe you as a conserned partner would be willing to perform the Kegel Exercises.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:If anyone wants the info on how to do Kegel exerscises just ask and I'll email them
Advent, you're making the mistake again of assuming that you possess exclusive knowledge of something that is actually fairly commonly known.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I'm not saying I do, I just figure that if more people preformed them then there would not be as many problems during intercourse.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: But from personal anecdote alone, I can tell you that roughly 1/3 of the girls I've talked to about sex in an intimate fashion have either never had an orgasm or are unsure if they've ever had one (read: they haven't).
The idea that if a woman can't tell if she's had an orgasm that means she hasn't is incredibly untrue and hurtful. We don't have the obvious signs that you guys have, all we have to go on are our feelings. And orgasm feels weird, it doesn't really feel like anything else, and it doesn't always feel good, especially the first time. It's very easy to be confused.
And then someone asks if you've ever had an orgasm and you say you're not sure. They tell that means you haven't. So that feeling you had that you're not sure was an orgasm is automatically labeled as "not-orgasm" in your head and you keep on waiting for something more to happen, and wondering what's wrong with you when it doesn't.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Advent,
quote:This however does not mean that a majority of men simply find it as a way to relax.
Please don't misunderstand me, I didn't mean he looked at it just as a way to relax. I meant that no matter how tired he is at the end of the day, he's not too tired for that. Because it requires less work for him and he's guaranteed a "reward", and the reward relaxes him.
Whereas I, on the other hand, have to get mentally ready, as eros said, and that takes more effort when I'm tired than the actual physical act does. And, as has been pointed out, there's no guarantee of the "reward". (Although it becomes more likely with every passing year. )
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Hey, practice makes perfect. Or at least what they say. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:The idea that if a woman can't tell if she's had an orgasm that means she hasn't is incredibly untrue and hurtful. We don't have the obvious signs that you guys have, all we have to go on are our feelings. And orgasm feels weird, it doesn't really feel like anything else, and it doesn't always feel good, especially the first time. It's very easy to be confused.
I'm sorry. I obviously do not know from a firsthand perspective what a woman's orgasm feels like - and my attitude towards it might be symptomatic of another serious problem in sexual attitudes amongst men. Again, sorry, I didn't mean to be dismissive or hurtful.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:(Although it becomes more likely with every passing year. )
My aunt (?!) always tells me, "Enjoy yourself while you're young, but married sex is the best sex."
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Don't worry about it eros, I think that she was just putting that out there so that we could better understand, not because she was angry at our comments.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Regardless of sexual desire, I do NOT believe that the adultery laws were structured because of different perceptions of desire.
I'm not sure of the real reasons:
1. Because of competition to be the father, and a woman can only get pregnant every nine months? 2. Because women were property and therefore granted less autonomy over their actions? 3. Because women had less power and were therefor easier to punish?
Maybe it is as simple as men made the rules, so they structured the law so they could do whatever they wanted and the women, who were generally more vulnerable, paid the consequences.
Even better, that way when they did do something crappy like commit adultery, they could say that the devil in the form of the woman made them do it. A little bit of "I'll hurt you for making me want you."
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
YOUR AUNT SAID THAT?!?!?! Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
You should read some of the ancient laws of Chin (what is now China) were if either member commited adultry they would be beheaded in the local market.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I'm with katharina on this one, especially regarding the second point.
Did you know that in South Carolina (at least, I'm 90% certain it was South Carolina) it is impossible for a man to rape his wife? That's right. It doesn't matter what he does; it's not rape.
Until recently I believe six other states had similar laws.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Here's the exact quote, which was actually referring to laws governing rape:
quote:It is not easy to see the reason why the laws should have been worded so as to seem to penalise the woman when both man and woman were guilty except in terms, previously mentioned, of an imperious sex urge which propels men with a force quite different from anything experienced by women.
Emphasis mine.
-pH
Edit: I speel rael gud.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
pH, just wondering, what are you quoting?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But it is easy. I came up with three reasons off the top of my head.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
As I said in my first post, it's a passage from my Ancient Law text that caught my eye as I was flipping through the chapter concerning women and the law. It's Ancient Laws and Modern Problems by John Sassoon.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Without seeing the quote in context, I can't tell if they're talking about an "imperious sex urge" that arises biologically, psychologically, sociologically or some combination of the three.
If the opinion was formulated based on sociological factors, I'd have to agree that there IS an imperious sex urge experienced by men that is not, generally speaking, shared by women. The disparity has already been covered, partly, by this thread.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Just curious but what are we trying to accomplish in this thread? Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Practice can, in fact, ensure that both of you are hitting close to 1000. I'll vouch for that. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
To clarify that, erosomniac:
quote:If the ancient laws were in fact recognising the existence of such a force, then a man could not be held wholly responsible for the consequences of an imbalance in nature; and the imbalance of nature precedes the imbalance in the law.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
We are speculating as to why the laws may have been structured so the woman bore the brunt of the consequences. One of the theories is that women have less of a sex drive, and that contention is being debated. Other theories include the general powerlessness of women made them an easy target, and that since women once impregnated were procreationally occupied for nine months, their sexual behavior was seen as having more consequences and abberations were punished more severely.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Its good to see that there are others like me and erosomniac who actually try to make it pleasurable on both sides. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:then a man could not be held wholly responsible for the consequences of an imbalance in nature;
Is the book actually supporting this theory?
I don't like your book, pH.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Its good to see that there are others like me and erosomniac who actually try to make it pleasurable on both sides.
Um, where do you get the idea that you're basically the only ones that care?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: In fact their are actually exercies that both men and women can perform to strengthen the genitals so that more pleasure is attained by both.
I wish I could find a link to that little cartoon in Johnny Dangerously called 'Your Testes and You.' Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:an imperious sex urge which propels men with a force quite different from anything experienced by women.
Even if this were true, that still shouldn't excuse responsibility.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I don't know, its just after hanging with my real world friends it starts to feel that way. But I certainly would be glad that I'm wrong on such a point.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I would say the reason for such laws is that men like to have a guilt-free, consequence-free environment in which to sow their oats.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Its good to see that there are others like me and erosomniac who actually try to make it pleasurable on both sides.
Well, yes, if we're building a roster, you can add me to that list. However, I didn't specifically state that way back at the beginning because I was never making any claims about men wanting or not wanting to pleasure their partners. I was talking of the difference between sexes (albeit historically) in viewing orgasm as a necessary end result. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Practice can, in fact, ensure that both of you are hitting close to 1000. I'll vouch for that.
Assuming, of course, that the woman in question is physically capable of having orgasms, and has no psychological roadblocks (e.g. body insecurity).
quote:If the ancient laws were in fact recognising the existence of such a force, then a man could not be held wholly responsible for the consequences of an imbalance in nature; and the imbalance of nature precedes the imbalance in the law.
Ugh.
It's one thing to recognize imbalance; it's another entirely to use it as an excuse.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I actually think that everyone generally likes to have that, but men had the power to make it happen.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Is my book supporting that idea, kat? I don't think so. I think it's more trying to explain the attitudes of the time. But the author also spends a while going on about how women actually enjoyed a lot of freedom in these societies despite the fact that they were considered property. But they WERE able to manage businesses and properties.
Here's another thing: If women were considered property, wouldn't it still be a crime for one man to sleep with another man's wife? And wouldn't it be the MAN's crime? I mean, if a burglar steals my television, I don't beat the electronic device with a golf club.
-pH
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Exactly, kat. IMO, it's not much more complicated than that.
erosomniac, that's why I used "can" instead of "will."
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Well... not they I want sabotoage our efforts but women can accomlish these things on their own.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: So I was looking through my textbook in Ancient Law, reading the chapter on women and the law. There were a few lines in particular that caught my attention. When I go back out to my car in a bit, I'll grab the text and quote them all word-for-word, but the first thing that caught my eye was that the author stated that women are not subject to the same strong sexual urges as men, which is why many laws in the past have placed blame solely on the woman in cases of adultery and such.
I was wondering what kinds of thoughts you guys had on this issue, especially considering some of the reactions to the prostitution thread. I don't know that I believe that women have any more control over their sexual urges than men do, but I think that it's been more acceptable in many cultures for men to indulge their urges than it has been for women, which could have led to the, "Oh, well, men just can't help themselves" attitude.
-pH
Like any generalization, it's always going to be wrong in some specific cases, but like most generalizations, it isn't entirely unfounded. I don't think sex is a physiological need for women in the same way that it appears to be for men. Generally speaking, of course.
You know the old expression, "Men will do anything for sex; even love. Women will do anything for love; even sex." That one probably overgeneralizes in a lot of cases, but again, from what I've seen, it's not that far from the truth most of the time.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't really think of sex as a physiological need for either gender, though. There are plenty of people of both sexes who manage to remain celibate.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't think sex is a physiological need for women in the same way that it appears to be for men. Generally speaking, of course.
Is it physiological? I think it's largely sociological as well.
quote:You know the old expression, "Men will do anything for sex; even love. Women will do anything for love; even sex."
Or the old zinger, "When a man says 'I love you' in bed, he really means 'I love this.'"
Edited to add another quotation mark.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
No offence pH, I still think its got to be hard to go against thousands of years of instinct to do so. Which is why I deeply respect those who have that kind of will power. Because I know that I never had that kind of will power.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think you could if you tried. I have great faith in human beings ability to do what they really want to do.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Don't start giving away trade secrets ero... Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: But from personal anecdote alone, I can tell you that roughly 1/3 of the girls I've talked to about sex in an intimate fashion have either never had an orgasm or are unsure if they've ever had one (read: they haven't).
The idea that if a woman can't tell if she's had an orgasm that means she hasn't is incredibly untrue and hurtful. We don't have the obvious signs that you guys have, all we have to go on are our feelings. And orgasm feels weird, it doesn't really feel like anything else, and it doesn't always feel good, especially the first time. It's very easy to be confused.
Um. There are different levels of climaxing. Technically, even a wet firecracker of a climax counts as an orgasm (maybe). But I think the idea that an orgasm doesn't always feel good may have sprained my brain a bit. As does the idea that it's easily confusable. If you can put together a coherent sentence in the middle of it, it's not an orgasm.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Actually, I think any time people say 'I love you' in the first, what, six months of dating or so, they're saying it under the influence of powerful sexual hormones. Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:an imperious sex urge which propels men with a force quite different from anything experienced by women.
I don't know how ANYONE can ever know that. All of us are either one or the other, and will never really be able to compare. So, it goes back to the men being in power and not knowing what the women felt like, so they assumed we couldn't possibly feel like they do, or we wouldn't be able to control ourselves; and if people are expected to control their extra-marital sexual behavior, it's going to have to be up to the women to do it because heaven knows MEN can't be expected to control these urges. Women's must just be not as strong.
Sorry, a little sexist rant, there.... I know most men probably aren't like that. I just get so tired of the assumptions that no one can really test or prove, but they can make laws based on them.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
.......
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why six months, Stormy? What is it about six months that changes it to love instead of lust?
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
......
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Actually, I think any time people say 'I love you' in the first, what, six months of dating or so, they're saying it under the influence of powerful sexual hormones.
Funny, although I disagree.
quote:I don't know how ANYONE can ever know that. All of us are either one or the other, and will never really be able to compare. So, it goes back to the men being in power and not knowing what the women felt like, so they assumed we couldn't possibly feel like they do, or we wouldn't be able to control ourselves
This strikes me as the truest reasoning suggested so far for the laws in question.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's a discussion, not the Advent show. Put some content in your posts.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I can't remember how long the 'honeymoon period' of dating lasts specifically, Kat. I almost wanted to say three years. I do think that it's there, though. Certainly present in some respect during the lifetime of any relationship.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think it lasts until the first fight.
Why do I think this? Because most of my relationships end after the first fight because I don't consider it worth my time to stick around.
When I do want to stay, I consider it to be an indication of my real feelings.
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Lisa, although your comments may be true for you, I don't think you can make a blanket statement that they're true for all women. Everyone is different, everyone's bodies are different. You just can't know that.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
I think I'll come back when this has reached three pages, it doesn't feel like anything interesting will happen till then.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:an imperious sex urge which propels men with a force quite different from anything experienced by women.
I don't know how ANYONE can ever know that. All of us are either one or the other, and will never really be able to compare.
That's probably true. I imagine that even someone who has had a sex change wouldn't really know if the "before" experience was like it is for most people of that sex.
But while I know that everyone may have erotic dreams, I don't think that women have anything parallel to male "wet dreams". There does seem to be a physiological need to ejaculate for men.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
There are plenty of women who experience orgasm during erotic dreams.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
pH, that's interesting about the first fight. I didn't date anyone for longer than two months until I was 26.
I remember telling my freshman roommate that I wondered if she should wait until she'd had a fight her with boyfriend before deciding to get married - who knew how he'd act?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:But while I know that everyone may have erotic dreams, I don't think that women have anything parallel to male "wet dreams". There does seem to be a physiological need to ejaculate for men.
Well, compare the important physiological results of orgasm in men and women. In men, it's ejaculation. In women, it's repeated flexing of the cervix, designed to essentially dip it into a pool of waiting semen (yeah, great mental image, I apologize).
I can't remember the statistics on how much more frequent impregnation is if female orgasm occurs, but they're out there somewhere. It could be argued that this is the equivilant physiological "need" in women - although it is not necessary for pregnancy. Then again, neither is ejaculation.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: I think I'll come back when this has reached three pages, it doesn't feel like anything interesting will happen till then.
What exactly are you waiting for?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: pH, that's interesting about the first fight. I didn't date anyone for longer than two months until I was 26.
I remember telling my freshman roommate that I wondered if she should wait until she'd had a fight her with boyfriend before deciding to get married - who knew how he'd act?
I'm exactly the same way. Two months is about average for me. There have been two guys I've fought with and kept dating. One lasted four months, and the other lasted two and a half.
-pH
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Lisa, although your comments may be true for you, I don't think you can make a blanket statement that they're true for all women. Everyone is different, everyone's bodies are different. You just can't know that.
You're right, ElJay. I apologize, blacwolve. I've just never heard anyone say that before.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I think it lasts until the first fight.
Why do I think this? Because most of my relationships end after the first fight because I don't consider it worth my time to stick around.
When I do want to stay, I consider it to be an indication of my real feelings.
Interesting way of measuring. What happens if you never fight?
quote:What exactly are you waiting for?
Godot.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
NOBODY avoids fights forever.
And I'm a feisty one, anyway.
-pH
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:But while I know that everyone may have erotic dreams, I don't think that women have anything parallel to male "wet dreams".
I would have to happily disagree.
I think we get used to a certain frequency and when we miss it, our bodies find a way to get that release during our dreams. Which is a safe outlet that allows people to stay faithful to their spouses even when the spouse is away, or sick, or whatever. I think that kind of dream would be the same kind of physical release for women as for men - although neater.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
pH, I'm a solid supporter of that method. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: pH, I'm a solid supporter of that method.
Being feisty, or dumping him after the first fight?
I like 'em both. *cracks whip*
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:NOBODY avoids fights forever.
While I can't speak as to "forever," given the couples I know who have not had a fight, of any kind, EVER, are still alive - there ARE couples who go the duration of their long, loving relationships without fighting.
To clarify, I meant "What if you decide you love someone long before you've ever fought - and after your first fight, your opinion hasn't changed?" Or, "What if you fall in and then out of love with someone without ever having fought?" In the second situation, would you argue that they were never in love at all?
quote:And I'm a feisty one, anyway.
I wasn't going to say anything. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Thanks, Lisa. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I like 'em both. *cracks whip*
Whoa, you're into whips too?
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I don't know, fights are very different from disagreements. I've definitely gotten into disagreements, but, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think I've ever gotten into a full-blown fight and I don't think that means my relationships are less significant than other people's.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:To clarify, I meant "What if you decide you love someone long before you've ever fought - and after your first fight, your opinion hasn't changed?" Or, "What if you fall in and then out of love with someone without ever having fought?" In the second situation, would you argue that they were never in love at all?
For the latter, no. I don't think it means they were never in love. But for me, the real test is the fighting. And if I love someone before we fought and after the fight, my opinion hasn't changed, then I truly love him.
And I know you've heard plenty of examples of my feistiness.
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Both.
Stopping the fiesty just means that you're stifling yourself, and that's miserable. If he can't handle it, then he's not the right guy.
Dumping after the first fight isn't necessary, but leaving when you don't want to be there and it's still the early stages of dating is fine. That's what the early stages of dating are for - figuring out if you want to be there.
I've just dated two guys longer than two months now. One was a mistake - I should have left when I first wanted to, instead of thinking I could fix everything myself and it would be fine.
The other is Matt - who loves the fiestiness, and from whom I've never wanted to bolt. Definitely worth holding out for.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Stopping the fiesty just means that you're stifling yourself, and that's miserable. If he can't handle it, then he's not the right guy.
Definitely.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:For the latter, no. I don't think it means they were never in love. But for me, the real test is the fighting. And if I love someone before we fought and after the fight, my opinion hasn't changed, then I truly love him.
So in the first situation, you wouldn't be sure whether you truly loved him or not?
'Cause, wow, that kinda sucks. That it takes a fight for you to be sure, I mean.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Maybe I'd be sure. Maybe I wouldn't. But it's never happened, so I can't tell you one way or the other.
quote: What we know about love is still largely out of our control. For instance, infatuation. This is supposedly the first stage of falling in love, an unbearable attraction towards someone. This attraction causes a virtual explosion of nuerochemicals very similar to adrenalin. Assisted by Phenylethylamine (that speeds up the flow of information between cells), dopamine (that makes us glow and feel good), and norepinephrine (that stimulates the production of adrenalin), make our world go round, our eyes sparkle and our heart beat faster. Our entire existence then depends on the sight of the person who triggered these reactions to begin with, and as the addiction to the chemical grows stronger, our attraction becomes greater. At this stage we commit foolish mistakes which are the stuff puppy love stories are made of. Actually it is these three chemicals that combine to give us what we call infatuation. We feel we are energized, often floating on air…and the reason why people who are just falling in love can talk for hours on end… (the same person becomes boring at a later stage).
...
This period when our brain is awash with the love hormones lasts for different durations in different people, between six months to three years In most of us, it settles down after that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Ha!
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:The idea that if a woman can't tell if she's had an orgasm that means she hasn't is incredibly untrue and hurtful. We don't have the obvious signs that you guys have, all we have to go on are our feelings. And orgasm feels weird, it doesn't really feel like anything else, and it doesn't always feel good, especially the first time. It's very easy to be confused.
I'm sorry. I obviously do not know from a firsthand perspective what a woman's orgasm feels like - and my attitude towards it might be symptomatic of another serious problem in sexual attitudes amongst men. Again, sorry, I didn't mean to be dismissive or hurtful.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to jump on you. That's just a rather sensitive subject for me.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I wonder what that means for me, since I'm on medication to increase dopamine and norepinephrine to begin with.
everybody?
-pH
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Or no one, since you won't be dependent on interactions with people to get your fix.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I was going to mention the dopamine issue, but I see that it's already been addressed.
The other thing I wanted to mention is that in males, ejaculation and orgasm are not always co-requisites, which is a distinction I haven't seen anyone draw in this thread yet.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I noticed that, twinky.
I suppose I will just say that there are a lot of things my personal experience that make many of the "this is the way it is" posts in this thread soooo incredibly funny.
But I have to leave it that, because this thread is, in places, already dancing on the edge of not-so-family-friendly.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ditto what Olivet said, although I will say it is definitely possible for females to orgasm during erotic dreams.
AJ
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
This thread is indeed hilarious.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Hilarious but good too I think.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I saw that. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I decided I'd keep the snark to a minimum, however much deserved it might have been.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think the thread has been explicit enough that if the house shakes, your partner ends up with bloody nailmarks on his back, and you see waves crashing every time you have sex, you can say so.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Fair enough. I've erased-without-posting several things so far in this thread.
Added: Before kat's post! Before!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I think the thread has been explicit enough that if the house shakes, your partner ends up with bloody nailmarks on his back, and you see waves crashing every time you have sex, you can say so.
At this point, all the women should procure their hot, steamy anecdotes, filled with euphemisms for "penis." Then pH can change the title of the thread to Passion in the Fiery Distance, and we can sell the thread as a romance novel.
Edit, to ElJay: Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
ElJay, that gave me the first genuine laugh out loud of the day. Thank you. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, hey, I have no stories whatsoever.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Now do you kids really want to get me started?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I saw that, too!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm trying so hard to be good. All things considered, it shouldn't be this difficult. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*grin*
I feel like I used to when I'd see one of Sara's naughty comments before she edited it away.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I would just start getting all weepy and sentimental again.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not being naughty.
Sorry to de(re?)rail the discussion. Yes? We were talking about societal perceptions?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I know. But it's a question of degree, ya know? What's a little naughty from some people would be downright shocking from others.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm afraid what I did post would not live up to what it sounds like I might have posted. I'll remember that, though, and be careful. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Haven't had the nailmarks. I have the longest nails in the family, and I keep them trimmed fairly short.
Have felt my ribs bend, though.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I decline to comment concerning nail marks, bite marks, or hickeys.
And you can't prove anything.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:And you can't prove anything.
Chat logs don't lie.
I think the worst I've had is feeling like my neck was going to snap. Mispositioned my head at a bad time.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I've had my eyes roll in the back of my head. That was pretty freaky and,uh, awe inspiring.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Okay..... so is everyone sharing funny stories or what?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Or what.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
What is that supposed to mean?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That we are not sharing any explicit stories, and that we are sharing personal experience at all only insofar as it relates to the discussion at hand, which is about social perceptions. Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
hmmm, I guess that I can understand that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Back to the original subject of the thread:
I think that tougher punishments for women guilty of adultry are a natural consequence of the practice of property being handed down from parents to their (legitimate) children.
This is a very important social institution, and if it breaks down, it causes a lot of chaos.
If a man strays and fathers children, it doesn't make much of a difference for peaceful inheritance, since bastard children don't inherit anything.
But if a woman strays and this is known, then her children's inheritance is in doubt. Wars have been fought because a prince's paternity is in doubt because of his mother's affairs.
It's not fair, but infidelity by women had much more severe potential problems than similar infidelity by men, so it made a certain kind of sense for the punishment to be worse for women than for men.
[ February 02, 2006, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:since bastard children don't inherit anything.
I'll have to ask Dag to confirm this, but I'm almost positive this varies from state to state: I don't think California, for example, recognizes the concept of bastardry.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
California wasn't around when these "Ancient Laws" were created. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: . . .so it made a certain kind of sense for the punishment to be worse for women than for me.
Typo of the day!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ho ho! I didn't catch that one!
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Happy to bring it to your attention. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yeah, Bev is right. I'm thinking of back in the days of feudalism.
I'm not saying that the laws make any sense today, but that they served a real purpose back in the day.
Also, somtimes a typo is just a typo. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Ah - the way you phrased it made it sound like you were talking about the current world.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Again, the reason why stricter punishments on women for adultery don't make sense to me is BECAUSE of the nature of property laws. We punish those who take things unlawfully from us. We don't punish the things that are taken.
-pH
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Or the old zinger, "When a man says 'I love you' in bed, he really means 'I love this.'"
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I also think some of the reasoning lay with the view that virginity was a commodity.
This attitude meant that a woman's sexuality (or the act of sex) was valuable while a man's was not: so the only harm done in adultery etc was the harm to the woman's virtue/the property of that women's virtue.
While a lot of that is related to inheritance of property, I think it goes further than that to the more underlying view of women as property.
For example, there's no reason inheritance-wise why a woman would have to be a virgin before marriage (any children born before would be illegitimate and unable to inherit).
Ack. My post is worded badly but my brain won't fix it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:For example, there's no reason inheritance-wise why a woman would have to be a virgin before marriage (any children born before would be illegitimate and unable to inherit).
That's not true. If a woman was known to have a lover up to the marriage, and then had a honeymoon baby, that child's paternity would be in serious doubt. And potentially being the eldest child, that could cause serious problems.
Just the fact that she had taken a lover before marriage would raise doubts as to her children's paternity. After all, some people would reason, if she took a lover before, she's likely to have done it again.
After all, it's not the fact that the child is legitimate that was important -- it was the belief that the child was legitimate. As long as everybody believed it was legitimate, there weren't problems. But if people thought it very will might be a bastard, then there were potential problems.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Which is why matrilineal inheritance makes so much more sense.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
True blacwolve.
Porter, I hadn't thought of the whole "honeymoon" baby thing.
As regards to the taken a lover before more likely to take again I would suggest this attitude [Edit: and the censorious approach to such behavior] is linked more to a direct value placed on a woman's chastity and fidelity (as a object, not an attribute) rather than inheritance issues.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I wonder, though, could viewing a woman's chastity and fidelity as objects have grown out of inheritance issues? Which cultural concept came first?
I assume most people believe these days that societies started out more matriarchal and only became patriarchal as it was "discovered" that sex with a man is the only way to start the reproductive process.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Which is why matrilineal inheritance makes so much more sense.
Actually, I'm not convinced people should have the right to pass their estates down to their children at all. But I agree that matrilineal inheritance would have removed a lot of problems.
But then, there society needs to have some method of distributing the wealth of the deceased. I suppose that the children have as much innate right to it (none) as anybody else.
Beverly -- I doubt there has ever been a society of what we would consider humans that didn't already know how babies are made.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Actually, there's a tribe in New Guinea that for a time (up till the late 19th century, I believe) appeared to be ignorant of just that. I wish I could remember the name. However, there's no way to determine for sure what they believed, since the tribe has become "modernised."
EDIT: And the debate also entends to a particular group of Australian aborigines.
I'm really sorry I don't have details, we covered this in class on Tuesday but I was not paying close attention.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
(to Porter) Well, you and I believe that to be the case, certainly. But I have heard the idea put forward many times that the worship of the divine feminine began during a time when the connection between sex and birth was not understood, and that when the connection became clear, things moved more towards a patriarchal society. Maybe I'm wrong, though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't see why it's certain that I would believe that. At least, not on religious grounds.
I just have a hard time believing that a society of people that are sentient would realize that babies come from sex.
But the, Eaquae, I've been wrong before. The fact that I can't imagine something doesn't keep it from being true.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, I mean, it's not like they'd get pregnant every time they had sex. And on top of that, the rate of miscarriage was probably high, so maybe the woman wouldn't even realize she was pregnant.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Diamond said that nomadic cultures would sometimes control their birthrate (it's very difficult to have more than one child that has to be carried when you're a nomad) through abstinance.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
If people are having sex whenever with whomever, the connection might never come up. Especially when you bring infertility into the picture.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I guess that's possible.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I managed to track down the article we were discussing. "The Meaning of Paternity and the Virgin Birth Debate." Carol Delaney. Man, New Series, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Sept 1986) 494-513.
Australian Aborigines and Trobriand Islanders. Sorry, I can't copy-paste anything and the text is way too long to type out now. I'll see if I can't do it later.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I reckon everybody is wrong at least once a day. Today my turn was very public.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Actually, you may still be right. The problem is that the early anthropologists didn't ask the right questions, and it's too late now. So we'll never know.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Probably copyright issues with trying to stick the full text on the boards, but I'd be interested to see a key passage or two.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Copyright issues and the fact that it's 20 pages long. I'll see what I can do about posting a couple bits tomorrow, though.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
It's also quite possible that early anthropologists were having their collective legs pulled.
People without advanced technology are still fully people, with all the intelligence and playfulness that implies. The "simple country rube" has always enjoyed pulling the leg of the "sophistocated city guy" about local customs and conditions. The differences in culture can make for a great deal of miscommunication, too.
If some arrogant foreigner walked up to you and asked "Do you people understand where babies come from?" what do you suppose you might answer?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I remember hearing a story about an anthropologist among the natives asking about their beliefs regarding disease.
Anthropologist: What causes sickness and diseases? Native: Invisible beings. Anthropologist: You mean like spirits? Native: Yes, something like that. They get inside you then you get sick. Anthropologist: This is fascinating! Can you tell me more about it? Native: Sure! Come into the grass hut and I'll show you under the microscope. For example, these tiny little amoeba things that are invisible without special instruments get all over the food, then when you eat them they get inside you, and cause dysentary.
The natives had had prior contact with technological civilization.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Oh, quite likely, Tatiana. There's even some interview snippets where that seems like it might be what was going on. But no one followed up on it. Not the right questions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:And you can't prove anything.
Chat logs don't lie.
I think the worst I've had is feeling like my neck was going to snap. Mispositioned my head at a bad time.
That's what happens when you make love in the front seat of a truck, I..."cough"...hear.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Holy bat guano batman, this thread is huge! Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:That's what happens when you make love in the front seat of a truck, I..."cough"...hear.
...wait a minute.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
Oh, NOW he catches on..... Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:That's what happens when you make love in the front seat of a truck, I..."cough"...hear.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Funny, although I disagree. ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
everybody?![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I'm not being naughty. ![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)