PDA

View Full Version : Sexual Consent



Pages : [1] 2

gameover
12-29-2006, 08:32 AM
http://www.glumbert.com/media/consent

mr_punk
12-29-2006, 06:15 PM
funny..although, i remember reading something similar in a book (i can't recall the title at the moment). still, i would have fought long and hard over DATY for 10 minutes myself. 10 whole minutes? i could get tounge cramps.

gameover
12-30-2006, 08:56 AM
funny..although, i remember reading something similar in a book (i can't recall the title at the moment). still, i would have fought long and hard over DATY for 10 minutes myself. 10 whole minutes? i could get tounge cramps.

Hey, call me sick but i like DATY :)

Jenny
12-30-2006, 10:05 AM
Hey, call me sick but i like DATY :)I wouldn't call that sick.

FBR
12-30-2006, 10:16 AM
His attorney should have put Article 20 on the table first and negotiated down from there }:D

FBR

mr_punk
12-30-2006, 10:59 AM
Hey, call me sick but i like DATYsick? no. it's just too much work for me. although, i might settle for 5 minutes of DATY and 5 minutes of tossing the salad (it's less wear and tear on the tounge). however, it comes with the stipulation of no touching or grabbing of my hair and shoving my face deeper between her asscheeks. i'm not into asphyxiation or trying to figure out whether she had a gordita or flame-broiled whopper for lunch.

xdamage
12-30-2006, 01:00 PM
Hey, call me sick but i like DATY :)

Nah, DATY can be a major turn-on, with the stipulations that the girl is clean, and disease free, hence it's not something I'd do with a stranger. Too bad my SO is all uptight about oral sex. Oh well, guess we can't have everything.

FBR
12-30-2006, 01:16 PM
Nah, DATY can be a major turn-on, with the stipulations that the girl is clean, and disease free, hence it's not something I'd do with a stranger. Too bad my SO is all uptight about oral sex. Oh well, guess we can't have everything.

X, you dont have to answer...not getting into your personal business. Was just curious if its a mental/emotional thing with her (ie: ugggg putting your mouth on someones genitals, even someone you care about...is nastyyyy) or a physical thing. From experience, Miss D's clit is super sensitive. I can get her off orally one time only. And I have to be judicious at that in terms of where I lick and so forth. After that pop she can't stand any more attention there. OTOH, we've come up with other ways where she can multi with the best of em. Back massages while playing around in the general area of her pussy, humping my wood on her lubed up asscrack, anal fingering and so forth.

FBR

xdamage
12-30-2006, 05:25 PM
Was just curious if its a mental/emotional thing with her

Well, like a lot of women she'll give, but not for long enough. Actually Mr. P is correct in that some perceive it as work after a short while, and you know how it is for us over 40 guys. Takes us a lot longer to get off.

As for receiving, she's always had a mental thing about it, and she has explained why (I'll protect her privacy as to the details). I respect it, although if I had my preference she'd enjoy it as much as I like doing it. I've found other non-standard things to do with which she is agreeable to add some variety ;)

FBR
01-01-2007, 01:31 PM
Well, like a lot of women she'll give, but not for long enough. Actually Mr. P is correct in that some perceive it as work after a short while, and you know how it is for us over 40 guys. Takes us a lot longer to get off.

As for receiving, she's always had a mental thing about it, and she has explained why (I'll protect her privacy as to the details). I respect it, although if I had my preference she'd enjoy it as much as I like doing it. I've found other non-standard things to do with which she is agreeable to add some variety ;)

X LOL I hear ya about taking longer because of age. And due to my parents overzealous circumcision approval back in the '50's, "longer" is actually lonnnggggerrrr >:( Takes a special woman with a lot of patience and a very fit and tireless mouth to get me off orally ::)

Non standard is good. I want my woman to have as much or more fun than I am having. If that requires me to put forth some additional effort, so be it. Kind of "snaggy" :P (I'd never heard of that term before) but her mpops are a rush for me. So while that may actually make it all about me in the sense that I get off on her getting off, she's not complaining.

FBR

yoda57us
01-01-2007, 05:14 PM
I'm only good for one "pop" during a session these days and it takes some time and imagination to get me there. Fortunately I've found a couple of extremely creative ladies who have no objection to me getting them off three or four times to my one. I love DATY...let me say it again I LOVE DATY. Over the course of two hours I will easily spend two or three fifteen to twenty minute sessions south of the border using tongue, fingers and the occasional toe to accomplish my goal. Neither of these ladies are shy about letting me know when I'm hitting just the right spot and experiencing their O's is just an amazing experience.

Jenny
01-01-2007, 05:21 PM
Okay, I've confessed to being inhibited and repressed, so I am not embarassed to ask - toes?

I find most heterosexual guys are like that - I mean, more interested in their partner's pleasure than their own. Or, derive their pleasure almost principally from the pleasure of their partner. I have met very few heterosexual women like that, though. I mean, I know many heterosexual women who take pleasure in their partner's pleasure but not with the same intensity or meaning. What do you think that means? Any thoughts?

FBR
01-01-2007, 05:23 PM
Yoda, we are starting to sound like an exerpt from "True Confessions" LOL

FBR

FBR
01-01-2007, 05:30 PM
Yoda LOL give it up bud. You said "toe" not "toes". Which one is your WMD ;)

FBR

FBR
01-01-2007, 06:17 PM
I find most heterosexual guys are like that - I mean, more interested in their partner's pleasure than their own. Or, derive their pleasure almost principally from the pleasure of their partner. I have met very few heterosexual women like that, though. I mean, I know many heterosexual women who take pleasure in their partner's pleasure but not with the same intensity or meaning. What do you think that means? Any thoughts?

Women know they have what men want. Maybe guys think they have to compete for it and thus the extra effort? Pretty soon the extra effort becomes the norm? Hell, I dunno. Never thought about it before.

FBR

Katrine
01-01-2007, 09:18 PM
Toe...hmmm, I have a sick fantasy about a store dressing room, another women, and some toes. It was inspired by a Belladonna video, but I added my own creativity to it. But its only masterbation fodder, never been done.

Yes, I've noticed that pretty much every man I've been with just loves DATY. I'm neutral about it unless he's really, really good, which is rare.

xdamage
01-01-2007, 09:21 PM
I'm guessing FBR is on the right track. Also, if the guy really likes the girl sexually, there is no rush to end the session - may as well indulge ourselves in her body and orgasms for a while.

yoda57us
01-02-2007, 05:51 AM
Yoda LOL give it up bud. You said "toe" not "toes". Which one is your WMD ;)

FBR

My appendage of choice is the big toe on my left foot...
It always happens by accident when the lady is headed south to perform oral.
I've never caused an "O" with my toe....but it's a cute distraction and always good for a few laughs.

yoda57us
01-02-2007, 05:52 AM
Toe...hmmm, I have a sick fantasy about a store dressing room, another women, and some toes. It was inspired by a Belladonna video, but I added my own creativity to it. But its only masterbation fodder, never been done.

Yes, I've noticed that pretty much every man I've been with just loves DATY. I'm neutral about it unless he's really, really good, which is rare.

Hmmmmm.....sounds like a challenge...}:D

yoda57us
01-02-2007, 06:22 AM
I find most heterosexual guys are like that - I mean, more interested in their partner's pleasure than their own. Or, derive their pleasure almost principally from the pleasure of their partner. I have met very few heterosexual women like that, though. I mean, I know many heterosexual women who take pleasure in their partner's pleasure but not with the same intensity or meaning. What do you think that means? Any thoughts?

:soapbox: Well Jenny, since you asked....

Most North American women of the last two three generations are victims of the sexual revolution and the women's movement of the late sixties and early seventies. Now, before all of you start setting your bras on fire and throwing them at me let me explain...

The women's liberation movement accomplished many great things but it also brow-beat women into believing that embracing their sexuality was a bad thing. Equality is all well and good but the differences between men and women are what makes sex good. Many of the American women that I have been with over the past thirty or so years have been so wrapped up in trying not to be sex objects that they have forgotten how to truly give pleasure and how to truly be pleasured. Most of the time it's ten minutes of BJ, maybe ten minutes of DATY and then pound away to completion.

Women from many other parts of the world that missed the boat on the whole late sixties sexual revolution are actually way ahead of the game when it comes to mutual bedroom fun. My preference for Brazilian women, Eastern Euros and more recently Filippina's stems completely from the fact that they are not afraid of their sexuality. It is not something that they feel the need to repress in order to feel equal to men. In fact these women understand that there sexuality is, in many ways, their strength, their power.

I'll never forget the words of one the first non-American women that I was with..."If it's good for you, it's good for me". That mantra is born out of upbringing that celebrates the differences between men and women and honors them rather than trying to deny them.

Please understand I'm not trying to indict the entire North American female population as being frigid. I'm merely putting forward an opinion based on my experiences and on conversations I've had with many first generation immigrants in between orgasms...

Jenny
01-02-2007, 07:37 AM
Yoda, I've always been curious - what aspect of the women's movement do you think taught women to deny their sexuality? I was obviously not sexually functional in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but nothing I've read says "repress your sexuality".

And, for that matter - what are the "differences" - besides the obvious biological ones - that make sex good? I ask because generally when people say that about anything else (conversation, for example) it is because they are fetishizing deeply ingrained inequalities. I mean, same sex couples have good sex without these "differences" (note, I actually specifically referenced heterosexuality). I'm really not leaping on you - I'm interested.

xdamage
01-02-2007, 08:56 AM
My preference for Brazilian women, Eastern Euros and more recently Filippina's stems completely from the fact that they are not afraid of their sexuality. It is not something that they feel the need to repress in order to feel equal to men. In fact these women understand that there sexuality is, in many ways, their strength, their power.

I'll never forget the words of one the first non-American women that I was with..."If it's good for you, it's good for me". That mantra is born out of upbringing that celebrates the differences between men and women and honors them rather than trying to deny them.


Interesting. I've heard similar from strippers (e.g., Brazilian, Eastern European, and Peurtorican) that they felt they were better lovers then American women (in general of course) and that also believed (another generalization) that more American men were seeking non-American women then ever before. When I asked why they thought this, I've heard various answers along the lines of, ...because we enjoy being women... by which I believe they meant, they are saying they enjoy the feminine/masculine differences in the sex.

Jenny asks 'what's the difference besides the obvious biological ones' but I think that's a misguided question (although I understand it is a popular viewpoint) it's sort of like saying, what's the difference between monkeys and humans, besides the obvious biological ones? And to the later question the average person would say huh? But modern dogma is that men and women are identical, and so it's PC to start with the assumption that the biological differences mean nothing.

However I'd say they are inseparable. Humans are biological creatures first, just like every other animal on the planet, more evolved yes, but still different. In fact we see differences in behavior between the male and female half of the species in the animal world and nobody thinks anything of it. Yet for some reason modern dogma is that when it comes to humans, we are above such differences (and of course I strongly believe we are not, we are just lest adept at seeing our own behavioral differences objectively then we are at seeing the behavior of simpler animals).

The big difference though between men and women is that women are the child bearing half of the species. That's not an insignificant biological difference. Roll back history less than 100 years, or step out of our modern culture, and think about what that means to be a woman in a world where there is no birth control, no safe abortion option, and no DNA testing, and the result of sex (i.e., casual sex with a stranger) will be a child, a child that requires care for the next 14-18 years. And while a man can deny that the child is his (pre-dna testing there was no way to prove otherwise, although young men still commonly deny accountability today), a woman cannot because it's clear to the whole world she is the mother. From that difference follows a lot that explains the differences between men and women and their attitudes about sex, particularly casual sex which can dramatically alter a woman's life if she ends up pregnant.

All that said, women obviously enjoy sex, but I guess it comes down to which is better sex. Sex between two equals, or sex between a people with a good sense of masculine and feminine roles. If I had to guess, I'd say equality appeals intellectually*, but the strong masculine/feminine roles appeals biologically/chemically. Biology wins when it comes to sheer intensity of experience.

p.s. *Intellect probably isn't the best word but I couldn't think of how to describe it. Put another way, people can have orgasms with things like dildos, masturbating, the same sex even if they are not homosexual, with animals, etc., and get off. They could also have sex then between females and males and get off, keep it all very equal, and intellectual. Or they could have sex where they let go, don't think so much, and let their multi-billion year old genetic drives take over. And clearly females and males have developed behaviors that transcend cultures to attract mates (again, the same in the animal world). I guess I'm saying, really great sex can turn into mediocre sex by "thinking too much" and trying to be equal, rather then letting go, and indulging in our male and female attractors.

yoda57us
01-02-2007, 09:26 AM
Jenny, all of your questions are valid but I don't really have a lot of answers for you, only my opinions. I should qualify my opinions by saying that I was raised by a single parent who made her own way in life long before the women's movement told her that it was OK to do so.

For the record, the damage was done in the late sixties and early seventies. I was dealing with it in the late 70's and early 80' while trying to get laid....

I was in my early teens when it all started and I wasn't taking notes so I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on how the women's movement effected female sexuality. My perception is that the one of the beliefs of the early women's movement was that a woman should not rely solely on her pussy to get what she wants. While I see value in that opinion I feel that the unintentional upshot of that theory led the more radical feminists of the time to believe that you shouldn't rely on your pussy AT ALL and that to do so was a sign of weakness. I'm quite certain nobody ever wrote anywhere that a woman SHOULD repress her sexuality. I am just saying that, in the climate of the times back then, it happened. Again, I'm theorizing here but I didn't arrive at these conclusions on my own.

Men and women are two biologically different creatures. Different things make us tick, different things give us pleasure. When going faster may work for me going slower may work better for a woman. The mere fact that a woman can have three or four orgasms in 20 minutes while most men can only have one in the same time frame highlights the fact that there are differences. As far as same sex couples go, I'm sure they are having great sex, maybe for them it is the similarities that make it work. For that matter, the differences may be exactly why heterosexuality doesn't work for them.

All I have are my opinions based on my experiences with women from both North America and all over the world over roughly three decades of sexual activity. I doubt most of the women posting here are old enough to remember when all of the stuff I am bitching about started. Honestly, viewing from a female perspective,
I would expect most North American females to dismiss my opinions as being pure BS. In all honesty, I didn't really figure out that any of it bothered me until about Fifteen years ago. The differences that I am talking about are very subtle. If had never spent any quality time with a woman from another part of the world I would probably never have figured any of this out.

Jenny
01-02-2007, 10:07 AM
Jenny, all of your questions are valid but I don't really have a lot of answers for you, only my opinions.
That was understood. Your opinion and thoughts were what I was asking.


I should qualify my opinions by saying that I was raised by a single parent who made her own way in life long before the women's movement told her that it was OK to do so.
Word. Actually the past 4 generations of my family (on my mother's side) were raised by single women. From me to my great grandmother. Working class backgrounds = bit a different perspective on women in the workforce.


I was in my early teens when it all started and I wasn't taking notes so I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on how the women's movement effected female sexuality. My perception is that the one of the beliefs of the early women's movement was that a woman should not rely solely on her pussy to get what she wants. While I see value in that opinion I feel that the unintentional upshot of that theory led the more radical feminists of the time to believe that you shouldn't rely on your pussy AT ALL and that to do so was a sign of weakness.
I think this is an interesting choice of words; I'm not sure if you were just collapsing for stylistic repitition or not - I'm assuming not. But the word "rely" is an interesting choice. I mean, besides the obvious penis-goes-into-vagina during most heterosexual sex, in what way is "reliance" on the vagina exactly constructed? How should women be "relying" on their pussies that they are not (in your opinion, of course)? You'll have to forgive me - I can accept nuance on nuance, but I am quite exacting in fleshing out definitions, so "relying on pussy at all" seems vague (I've been told I'm very ungirly that way. I'm also a problem solver not an empathizer; when I try to empathize I just make a mess). My understanding, based on what I've read is that the idea that women COULD rely on their vaginas was artificial; the whole "any woman who thinks she is running the world through the power of pussy is dreaming" school of thought. It had nothing to do with the pussy has a physical, sexual entity.


Men and women are two biologically different creatures. Different things make us tick, different things give us pleasure. When going faster may work for me going slower may work better for a woman.
Certainly; but this is a) just back to the basic issue of penis and vagina in heterosexual sex. Men have one, women have the other and one tends to go into the other, etc. That is what I meant by basic biological difference. Surely these western women you speak of are not trying to fuck you with their navels? For the rest - I would have some concern that you are generalizing; some men like fast and some like slow, and the same goes for women. The acknowledgement (such as it is) of the importance and healthiness of the female orgasm are, in large part, the product of first and second wave feminism. Because I've also read books on sex written before 1980; that shit freaks me out.


All I have are my opinions based on my experiences with women from both North America and all over the world over roughly three decades of sexual activity.
No need to be defensive, Yoda. I was asking for your opinion, both in the initial and the followup post. I also wasn't thinking that you were a medical expert - your lay opinion on the matter is fine.


I doubt most of the women posting here are old enough to remember when all of the stuff I am bitching about started. Honestly, viewing from a female perspective, I would expect most North American females to dismiss my opinions as being pure BS.
Honestly? Yeah, I kind of always was like "oh, another guy fetishizing woman-dependent-on-man cultures for sexual satisfaction. Whatever, how unusual, we all have our blindspots." But that is why I asked - you also seem to be a bit of an anomaly insofar as you seem kind of "rah rah political/social feminism" but then its like "political and social feminism is fine for my mum and sisters, but for my girlfriend I'd prefer a socially regressive culture." I'm sure that my understanding is flawed in some way here - that's why I'm asking.


In all honesty, I didn't really figure out that any of it bothered me until about Fifteen years ago. The differences that I am talking about are very subtle. If had never spent any quality time with a woman from another part of the world I would probably never have figured any of this out.I'm still not really clear on what exactly bothers you. I mean you've posted this kind of thing quite a lot, so you've obviously considered it in some detail, so maybe I'm not asking the right kinds of questions.

Jenny
01-02-2007, 10:19 AM
JBeing open about being horny and wanting sex does not necessarily translate into wanting to completely give yourself to your partner and IMHO, that's what separates good sex or even great sex from amazing sex.
That's actually really interesting, and kind of goes back to my initial question - which is that why men seem to derive pleasure principally from giving pleasure. Most men, contrary to stereotype (and for that matter, the video that started this thread) are more into giving than receiving oral, for example (in my experience). This actually came up for me recently because I was talking to a guy about it, and he told me that he was much more into my pleasure than getting off, and I said something to the effect of "Every guy says that" - and most of them seem to mean it. Again - I don't know any women who are not into their partner's pleasure, but I also don't know any who internalize it to the same degree. So when you say "giving yourself" (and I suppose I'm assuming it is a woman "giving herself" to a man - did you mean it mutually? See? Stereotypes! Raising their ugly heads!) it actually feeds directly into that. Like, are we talking about a woman "surrendering" herself to the guy?

Further, I've posted before that men don't know how to have one night stands, which is why I gave them up (except for the exceptions). That essentially they only know how to have mechanical, bragging-rights sex unless it is in the context of a relationship, madonna-whore, blah, blah, blah you've heard this all before. How do you think that fits in (assuming that it is true, or somewhat true and my experience is not wholly anomalous)?


The women most certainly are entitled to their share but there are different approaches to achieving that goal. The intimidation factor may well be the pink elephant in the room more often than some men want to admit. The best sex is always a two way street. "What's good for you is good for me" works a lot better than "You are not getting yours until I get mine".Okay - so you're positing that the genuineness I simply accepted above is flawed? That men are not really as into their partner's pleasure as they claim? Well, it is definitely an answer. I'm not sure how I would absorb that into my experience - like it doesn't SEEM true; but they could just be really good fakers.

xdamage
01-02-2007, 10:34 AM
Men have one, women have the other and one tends to go into the other, etc. That is what I meant by basic biological difference.

When you ask a kid what's the difference between men and women, they may say a boy has a penis, and a girl has a vagina. That's the least of their biological differences though, it just happens to be the most obvious to a kid. The big biological differences are what matter, and they are:

o Women have a uterus, and men do not. This difference is 100x more important then the penis vs vagina difference.

o Men and women are statistically very different when it comes to overall body strength, and size. This difference plays a huge factor when discussing matters like, the ability to physically overwhelm and oppress the other half the species.

o Men and women have statistically different brain sizes, and different areas of the brain develop differently (this is becoming more apparent thanks to MRIs and other new tools).

o Men tend to (stastically) have higher levels of testosterone, women higher levels of estrogen. Again, studies are showing us that these chemicals have dramatic impact on the way people feel, think, and behave.

There are other biological differences as well, but the least of our differences is penis vs vagina.

xdamage
01-02-2007, 11:01 AM
I would expect most North American females to dismiss my opinions as being pure BS. In all honesty, I didn't really figure out that any of it bothered me until about Fifteen years ago. The differences that I am talking about are very subtle. If had never spent any quality time with a woman from another part of the world I would probably never have figured any of this out.

I agree completely, though good luck not causing an uproar with this message.

I listed several very significant biological differences between men and women in a previous message. I think the main problem that people have with it is this (flawed) notion that differences means "not equal". In the big picture though, different just means different, but inter-dependent, like two halves of the same coin. And nobody thinks the head or tail of a coin is any less or more equal - it's a flawed question/notion. Men and women are just different aspects of being human. One can't exist without the other, but clearly men and women are not biologically the same (like I said, for far more important reasons then one has a vagina, and one has a penis).

Even better still, there are people making attempts at scientific blind, and double blind tests to prove/disprove the belief that men and women experience sex in different ways. So far the evidence I've read clearly show it's so, but the jury is still out.

Katrine
01-02-2007, 12:25 PM
Men like to do it because it reflects upon their own virility and effectiveness. They have "solved the case." Its pretty simple, not need to overanalyze.

And for the most part, yoda being exception, Western men seek out non-Western women because of their own physical/mental/social deficiences, yet monetary adequacy. Men still hate women all over the world, but at least we are feared here in the West.

yoda57us
01-02-2007, 12:38 PM
Jenny,

I don't have any sisters and my mom never really embraced the women's movement.

I'm also quite certain that I haven't read nearly as much about feminism as you have...since I haven't read anything. That being said, I'm not really capable or interested in getting any deeper into theory than I already have. I'm smart enough to know what I don't know.

I'm probably doing a lousy job of explaining it here but what I'm talking about has nothing to do with any "woman depending on man" sort of culture and I honestly don't see anywhere here that I've even hinted at that.

The reason I enjoy the women that I enjoy is because they are intelligent, strong and self-confident without being annoying about it. The fact that they are either immigrants or first generation American born is not a coincidence. Sorry, that's the best I can do...

yoda57us
01-02-2007, 12:42 PM
Men like to do it because it reflects upon their own virility and effectiveness. They have "solved the case." Its pretty simple, not need to overanalyze.

Excellent point Kat. Men are, by nature, problem solvers...


And for the most part, yoda being exception, Western men seek out non-Western women because of their own physical/mental/social deficiences, yet monetary adequacy. Men still hate women all over the world, but at least we are feared here in the West.

Thanks Kat for recognizing the difference between me and Mark45y.

yoda57us
01-02-2007, 12:46 PM
I agree completely, though good luck not causing an uproar with this message.


That's the difference between Pink and Blue X.
I'll take heat from the ladies down here because they don't rely on "your not a woman or a stripper so you couldn't possibly understand" logic to present their arguments.

yoda57us
01-02-2007, 02:03 PM
That's actually really interesting, and kind of goes back to my initial question - which is that why men seem to derive pleasure principally from giving pleasure. Most men, contrary to stereotype (and for that matter, the video that started this thread) are more into giving than receiving oral, for example (in my experience). This actually came up for me recently because I was talking to a guy about it, and he told me that he was much more into my pleasure than getting off, and I said something to the effect of "Every guy says that" - and most of them seem to mean it. Again - I don't know any women who are not into their partner's pleasure, but I also don't know any who internalize it to the same degree. So when you say "giving yourself" (and I suppose I'm assuming it is a woman "giving herself" to a man - did you mean it mutually? See? Stereotypes! Raising their ugly heads!) it actually feeds directly into that. Like, are we talking about a woman "surrendering" herself to the guy?

I am always talking in mutual terms Jenny. I'm definitely NOT talking about a woman surrendering herself to a guy. To me that sounds like she's just gonna lay there and make me do all the work...that's the last thing I want. I probably should have said "giving yourselves".

For the record I enjoy being pleasured orally as much as anybody and for as long as possible. Between the Viagra and my BP meds nothing happens in a hurry when I'm in the sack. Intercourse gets tiring after a while....


Further, I've posted before that men don't know how to have one night stands, which is why I gave them up (except for the exceptions). That essentially they only know how to have mechanical, bragging-rights sex unless it is in the context of a relationship, madonna-whore, blah, blah, blah you've heard this all before. How do you think that fits in (assuming that it is true, or somewhat true and my experience is not wholly anomalous)?

Well, I can only answer based on the fact that about 95 percent of my "one night stands" have involved cash. It's really not the same. I will say that I repeat with the ladies that create a non-mechanical experience and not with the ones who don't. Maybe part of the reason that one night stand sex is so mechanical is because the guys are afraid to give themselves totally to a stranger. As far as bragging rights....only here on SCJ

xdamage
01-02-2007, 06:42 PM
Okay - so you're positing that the genuineness I simply accepted above is flawed? That men are not really as into their partner's pleasure as they claim?

Uhm, again this raises red flags and alarm bells in my head.

As I've said before, I don't see people as being particularly altruistic (as much as they like to believe they are), except when it comes to others who are closely gene related (e.g., their own children). As much people like to imagine themselves as givers, when they really think about what motivates them they'll likely find they are getting something out of the giving, even if it's just it strokes their own egos to feel like they are givers, that's still something.

When people talk about enjoying their partner's pleasure, that doesn't imply a black and white pure giving soul, only concerned with another. Real people simply can't live up on such a high pedestal of expectations.

It just means that they derive sexual or psychological pleasure (for various reasons) in turning on their partner. If it was painful or neutral they wouldn't do it any longer then necessary if at all. They get something out of it for sure. That's all one can expect from others for the most part. That our mutual interests and desires coincide, or that we can come to some compromises that benefit both of us, making for a better deal for both of us then working for our own goals only.

Like I said, altruism gets more complex when you're talking about something like a mothers relationship to her children, but then that's not surprising really. It's what works. Genes that result in mothers treating their kids neutrally are far less likely to succeed then genes that have mothers treating their kids with extra care.

I know that pops the "I'm a good person bubble", but hey, I'm just honest in what I think. It's not my job to agree with everyones delusion ;)

Seriously, guys get something out of a woman's pleasure because it's pleasurable for them. You're going to find no realistic meaning if you try to find a pure selfless soul in understanding that. There is no such thing. Yoda basically has the right idea though - what's good for you is good for me and vice versa - we both benefit, and so we both give more because it's a two way benefit.

Katrine
01-02-2007, 08:29 PM
Well, I can only answer based on the fact that about 95 percent of my "one night stands" have involved cash. It's really not the same. I will say that I repeat with the ladies that create a non-mechanical experience and not with the ones who don't. Maybe part of the reason that one night stand sex is so mechanical is because the guys are afraid to give themselves totally to a stranger. As far as bragging rights....only here on SCJ

No. One-night stands are extremely hot and passionate. Two strangers can go at it with abandon. I've had some great one-night stands that never lived up to later, or that I never spoke to again (vacation strange rules!)

xdamage
01-02-2007, 08:38 PM
No. One-night stands are extremely hot and passionate. Two strangers can go at it with abandon.

!!! Now the conversation suddenly got interesting !!!

Smokeless
01-02-2007, 10:47 PM
Yoda, I've always been curious - what aspect of the women's movement do you think taught women to deny their sexuality? I was obviously not sexually functional in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but nothing I've read says "repress your sexuality".
A simple Google search for "women's liberation and sexuality" will find a huge array of articles, both of denial and embrace, but first article in the first citation from a Duke University special collection is an article by Dana Densmore, "On Celibacy" from No More Fun and Games. It is not unique, but it is representative of one point of view. My personal experience suggests that at least some number of American women, including I should add, my wife, have a reaction of rage to certain patriarchal male-oriented norms. That sometimes results in denial of sexuality as an expression of that rage. Needless to say, this is not universal, but widespread enough to have resulted in Yoda's experience, my own, and perhaps sufficient other men's experiences to be significant.

!!! Now the conversation suddenly got interesting !!!
Sorry, X, to get scholarly on you. Now back to our regularly scheduled conversation.

Jenny
01-02-2007, 11:08 PM
That's actually a really interesting article; I suppose I don't really need to say that it doesn't reflect my personal anecdotal experience. It is especially interesting though, in the context of the question I asked which assumes, pretty strongly that women ARE sexually satisfied and that men are really deeply invested in satisfying them. Also, I would say that there are some aspects that are diametrically opposed to most of the tenets of second wave feminism - namely that "the power of pussy" (not to be confused with "pussy power") is imaginary, and that men are perfectly capable of respecting women if they choose to. So I'm not sure how accurate it is as ascribe it as a widespread position

I also think there are some things in it that are... well, right. Having sex to prove that you are attractive and desirable is a futile, miserable enterprise. Having sex with people who look down on you is a futile, miserable enterprise. You can live, happily, without sex (contrary to what we imagine); and personally I would far rather go without sex and the validation that is apparently so rigourously attached to it than (for example) try to convince a guy that Western women are worthwhile lovers because they want social and political equality; and moreover, I think that is a good, positive and wise decision on my part.

xdamage
01-02-2007, 11:11 PM
Sorry, X, to get scholarly on you. Now back to our regularly scheduled conversation.

LMAO!!!

FWIW, my personal feeling is I really don't know, although if someone is wandering around and basically dislikes the opposite sex, well yea, you probably suck as a lover.

Now personally, I really (and I mean really) don't want to have sex with my "equal" if that means having sex with a guy with boobs and a vagina.

I really (and again I mean really) do want to have sex with a woman, soft, sensual, long hair, emotional, smells like a woman, tastes like a woman, whispers female fantasies in my ear while we fuck.

Equality is fine in business and among friends, but when it comes to what happens in bed, thank you, I'm all in favor of the male and female differences. So shoot me fuckers if you don't like it :)

p.s. None of that means I want a woman that is an emotional child, needy, incapable of thinking for herself, or incapable of supporting herself, but I also don't want her to be a fucking a guy with tits.

yoda57us
01-03-2007, 05:33 AM
No. One-night stands are extremely hot and passionate. Two strangers can go at it with abandon. I've had some great one-night stands that never lived up to later, or that I never spoke to again (vacation strange rules!)

Actually Kat I agree with you. My response was to Jenny's comment that men only seem to be capable of mechanical sex when it comes to one night stands. I was merely floating a theory. Some of my best experiences have been one night stands (hell, some them I didn't even have to pay for!).

yoda57us
01-03-2007, 05:40 AM
You can live, happily, without sex (contrary to what we imagine); and personally I would far rather go without sex and the validation that is apparently so rigourously attached to it than (for example) try to convince a guy that Western women are worthwhile lovers because they want social and political equality; and moreover, I think that is a good, positive and wise decision on my part.

Jen, I've had some great western women as lovers. What I have been talking about here is a personal preference. It's not a damnation of western women or political and social equality.

Jenny
01-03-2007, 08:42 AM
Jen, I've had some great western women as lovers. What I have been talking about here is a personal preference. It's not a damnation of western women or political and social equality.
It was nothing personal Yoda - it was just using an example from the thread to explicate a point in the opinion piece that Smokeless posted.

yoda57us
01-03-2007, 10:32 AM
It was nothing personal Yoda - it was just using an example from the thread to explicate a point in the opinion piece that Smokeless posted.

That's what I get for skimming....

mr_punk
01-05-2007, 08:27 PM
My personal experience suggests that at least some number of American women, including I should add, my wife, have a reaction of rage to certain patriarchal male-oriented norms.LOL...no shit. hell, you can find plenty of examples around here. anyway, i've read more recent articles in a similar vein. however, what's interesting about this article is it's publication date of 1968. obviously, long before "girls gone wild", the flashing of shaved beavers and c-section scars to the paparazzi for mass consumption. now, that's funny.

Nicolina
01-06-2007, 01:20 PM
Most North American women of the last two three generations are victims of the sexual revolution and the women's movement of the late sixties and early seventies. Now, before all of you start setting your bras on fire and throwing them at me let me explain...

The women's liberation movement accomplished many great things but it also brow-beat women into believing that embracing their sexuality was a bad thing. Equality is all well and good but the differences between men and women are what makes sex good. Many of the American women that I have been with over the past thirty or so years have been so wrapped up in trying not to be sex objects that they have forgotten how to truly give pleasure and how to truly be pleasured. Most of the time it's ten minutes of BJ, maybe ten minutes of DATY and then pound away to completion.

Hi, Yoda. :)

This is an interesting assertion, and maybe you explained what you meant a little more clearly in subsequent posts.

But my experience is this: My mom was born in the 40’s and was a bona-fide women’s libber in the 60’s and 70’s: consciousness-raising groups, marches on Washington, the whole nine yards.

However, BOTH of my parents made a concerted effort to instill in me a belief that sex was natural and good—that it should be a source of pleasure, and never a source of shame. I never ever got the sense that “embracing my sexuality” was “a bad thing.” Quite the contrary.

I also never got the sense that being viewed as a “sex object” was something to be avoided at all costs. Maybe because my mom was comfortable with her own sexuality, she never bad-mouthed women who presented themselves as sexy or openly sexual.

There was always porn to be found under mattresses in the house, and I gladly partook. My parents weren’t thrilled when I started working as a stripper, but they didn’t condemn me, either—they didn’t tell me I was a shameful whore OR that I was playing into the hands of the evil patriarchy by degrading myself as a sex object.

In my early twenties, I rejected Dworkin-type feminism in favor of the whole “sex-positive feminist” thing. This included the idea that women could enjoy porn and explore sexuality and work in the sex industry without betraying or harming their sisteren—and also that they shouldn’t feel bad if images of female submission and male domination got them off.

Though I believe that there are cultural differences among women in their attitudes toward sex, I also think that you are overlooking a lot of individual variability here….


I'll never forget the words of one the first non-American women that I was with..."If it's good for you, it's good for me". That mantra is born out of upbringing that celebrates the differences between men and women and honors them rather than trying to deny them.

For instance, I find it hard to believe that you don’t find more American women who feel this way. I feel like this is less a cultural trait and more an individual, personality-based trait. But then, I can’t tell you that you haven’t had the experiences that you’ve had. Maybe you just haven’t stumbled across the right American girls....

Nicolina
01-06-2007, 01:37 PM
Humans are biological creatures first, just like every other animal on the planet, more evolved yes, but still different.


Humans are absolutely NOT "more evolved" than other animals.

Nobody with a solid knowledge of evolutionary biology would ever say such a thing.

Nicolina
01-06-2007, 02:46 PM
I find most heterosexual guys are like that - I mean, more interested in their partner's pleasure than their own. Or, derive their pleasure almost principally from the pleasure of their partner. I have met very few heterosexual women like that, though. I mean, I know many heterosexual women who take pleasure in their partner's pleasure but not with the same intensity or meaning.

This is also interesting, Jenny.

I agree that a LOT of heterosexual men (quite possibly the majority) are like that....(though they all seem to think that all OTHER men are incredibly selfish in bed. Do you find that, too?)

I also agree with Kat's succinct explainer. As ever, she breaks it down for us in her inimitable way.

However, I'm surprised by your comment about heterosexual women. I sort of feel like some people are more comfortable giving sexually, while others are more comfortable receiving. I feel like it's an individual thing...

I always have this problem:

Him: "Baby, I just want to make you happy."
Me: "No, I just want to make YOU happy."
Him: "No, I just want to make YOU happy."
Me: "LET ME MAKE YOU HAPPY GODDAMMIT!!"

Or something like that. What does this mean? Am I even weirder than I thought??

Jenny
01-06-2007, 03:04 PM
This is also interesting, Jenny.

I agree that a LOT of heterosexual men (quite possibly the majority) are like that....(though they all seem to think that all OTHER men are incredibly selfish in bed. Do you find that, too?)
Yes I do. Like for some reason every guy thinks that every other guy really has to have an arm twisted into giving oral sex.


I also agree with Kat's succinct explainer. As ever, she breaks it down for us in her inimitable way.
Certainly the best one I've heard so far. Although I will admit that I did expect something in line with "sperm is cheap and eggs are expensive". Oh, I'm kidding. I will insert multiple winky faces: ;););)


Or something like that. What does this mean? Am I even weirder than I thought??
Yes you are. Or maybe I am unusually selfish. Or maybe it is a product of the simple fact that a lot more men hit on me than women. For example: imagine men paying to give oral sex. Now imagine women paying to give oral sex. Taking into account the vast disparity in the consumer base (that is I realize that A LOT more men are out there purchasing sex acts in various form), do you think that men are a) just as likely to pay for the privilege of gratifying their partner orally b) much less likely to pay for the privilege of gratifying their partner orally or c) much more likely to pay for the privilege of gratifying their partner orally? This is not to say that women don't enjoy gratifying their partners or that women don't enjoy oral sex, just that the investment is not really the same. Like when guys at work are talking dirty to me (and note: they realize I'm being paid so they don't really need to seduce me) it tends to delineate around "I could eat you until you pass out"; "I want to make you cum so hard that you chip a tooth"; "You have no idea what I could do to you" etc., and not around "I'd really love it if you sucked me off right now." There are guys who pay me to masturbate, because it is evidently just what they like to see - like a lot of guys, not a niche fetish market. It's common. Do you think women would generally be as gratified watching men masturbate? I didn't intend to say that women don't care about their partner's gratification, just that there seems (to me) to be a different investment.

By the way - did I say:
Nicolina's back! Eeeee!

xdamage
01-06-2007, 03:40 PM
Humans are absolutely NOT "more evolved" than other animals.


Poorly written on my part... human intelligence has evolved more then other animals. Where other animal's intelligence has stagnated, brain size stopped growing, our's has continued to grow.

p.s. My patience for writing on these forums if limited to writing out the gist of my point quickly, not perfectly, and moving on.



Nobody with a solid knowledge of evolutionary biology would ever say such a thing.

You score no points for using the throw the baby out with the bath water tactic. This is the technique where someone entirely tosses an argument aside because of a small flaw. This too can be another example of all or nothing think... if everything is not perfect, nothing is of value.

xdamage
01-06-2007, 04:00 PM
I always have this problem:

Him: "Baby, I just want to make you happy."
Me: "No, I just want to make YOU happy."
Him: "No, I just want to make YOU happy."
Me: "LET ME MAKE YOU HAPPY GODDAMMIT!!"

Or something like that. What does this mean? Am I even weirder than I thought??

Let me throw out two possibilities.

Possibility #1:

You like men, you like having sex with men, and so you enjoy the giving as much as the men do. Maybe Jenny doesn't like men as much, and so while she has sex with them, she doesn't have the same strong passion to try and please them.

Possibility #2:

Not all people are equally passionate in bed when it comes to wanting giving pleasure. You like giving, and so do the men you tend to pick for sex. Maybe Jenny doesn't giving as much, while the men she picks does.

Either of those possibilities does not require a generalization to heterosexual women. However if Jenny is right, and there is something to the generalization, I'd say try to ask the question in terms of how have men and women evolved differently.

Nicolina
01-06-2007, 04:08 PM
^X, I didn't say that your argument was invalid. To be honest, I didn't even read the whole thing.

I was just kind of shocked to see someone who often uses arguments from biology--and even seems to have some background in the subject--making such an egregiously erroneous (though commonly perpetuated) assertion.

Also, I don't think I'd say that our intelligence, even, is "more evolved." I'd say that, for various reasons, we've evolved extremely large brains--maladaptively large, I might even argue. We've evolved consciousness and language, which allow us to conceive of concepts like intelligence and sexuality and stripclub ettiquette, and pontificate thereon.

However, all extant species are highly evolved and extraordinarily well-adapted to their ecological niches. It seems to me that humans, being a more recent addition to the planet, are actually probably "less evolved" than hagfish or dragonflies or archaebacteria or other more ancient species.

(Sorry, now I'll get back to the sex...)