posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually think that everyone generally likes to have that, but men had the power to make it happen.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Well... not they I want sabotoage our efforts but women can accomlish these things on their own.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you could if you tried. I have great faith in human beings ability to do what they really want to do.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'll come back when this has reached three pages, it doesn't feel like anything interesting will happen till then.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.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?
