I'm getting more and more wound up about this.

I've just trawled through a discussion about monogamy and yet again picked up a thread of assumptions about men and women, which seem to be wearily accepted by women and worn with chest busting pride by men.

You know it well. We could almost put it to music. 

Men have aaaall this sperm and women have just the one egg per month. Therefore men are sooo much more sexed up and biologically designed to (chests out guys!) SPREAD THEIR SEED and women are biologically designed to hopelessly, desperately, try and pair bond, in that desperate, girly, pleading way they have, whilst denying those robust, obviously superior, goddamn it, life-affirming urges of men,  just so these marginal female creatures, (without women-no men-full stop,-and I'm exaggerating for effect by the way) don't have to spend the entirety of their lives knee deep in nappies and caring for others. (Hasn't worked has it?) Which of course we are so conveniently programmed to do according to the now seriously discredited gender studies. What a surprise!!

And the prevailing social programming is that we women would be best served (not), by understanding the male sex urge (so big, so urgent!!) and doing our wifely jobs. (Oh you're all so manly!!)

I say it's time men understood our urges. As well as doing the right thing.

Work out the maths. (I'm in the UK, I don't say math - which my Microsoft browser has just highlighted as a misspelling, curiously). As I was saying. I know, all that spermatozoa. It must be meant for someone mustn't it? Except...if men only had one or two sperm per 'issue', hardly anyone would get pregnant would they? It's not hard to understand that you aren't meant to use every sperm to impregnate an egg. It's a bit hit and miss. Kind of like leafleting an area. Only in this case it's one person. Chuck some leaflets through as many doors as possible and maybe you'll get a one or two percent response. Makes sense.

But, on the other hand, those people who get leafletted, well, it takes a lot of leaflets to respond to just one doesn't it? How many get thrown in the bin?

On the first model, with no follow up, all children will grow up poor and women will have lives of hardship. Human children have the longest childhood of all the mammals. It seems we may be designed to pair bond for at least part of our lives. Sex, as we know, releases a hormone which causes us to bond. Biologically, and for the purposes of survival, we must, unless we rapidly create some new communal ways of living which isn't going to happen any time soon, due to our patriarchal, hierarchical, possessive familial structures.

But here's the thing, who are these seed-spreading men meant to be having sex with? Has nature really designed a species in which one gender is programmed to have lots and lots of sex and lots and lots of partners, and the other gender is fighting to create monogamy, from (according to the propaganda) a desire to pair bond and have some help with the child rearing? Wouldn't nature put survivalist child rearing first?  (Dump the offspring on men and see how fast they 'pair bond' We'd last a generation). 

Or, or, is it true that nature has designed the Madonna/Whore dichotomy for real? There are the women you spread your seed around with - the whores - and the women you settle down with, the Madonnas? Do you want this to be true? So - you're having sex with all of us? Or if not, you're having sex with the hard working 'whores'. (Not my word.) And settling down with prudish Madonnas. Which in practice means you may be rearing children who are not biologically yours. And having an unexciting sex life.

My theory.

A story: Two years ago I was at a picnic for the London Atheist Meetup group. I got into a debate with a scientist, a geneticist. He spouted all the stuff about men being programmed for spreading their seed, women designed for nest-building etc. (so convenient for ALL of men's needs!!). I could not get him to answer the question of who the men were meant to 'spread their seed' with. Were men just wank machines? (Has 'wank' crossed the Atlantic yet?!-means masturbate). Which is not in nature's interest anyway.

I was surprised at my cheek in fighting my corner with a geneticist. And his later dismissal of our discussion. I thought I had a point.

I suggested to him that female sexual response is slower to heat up and slower to cool down. And, as many women know, after a man's orgasm, you may as well be lying next to a dead person. Women's sexual desire doesn't have a neat full stop. It tails off. Sometimes agonisingly slowly. Women often have multiple orgasms which don't have a full stop. There just comes a point where it's too tiring to try for the next one. Leaving you with a nagging sense of incompletion.

A few years ago I read a couple of scientific studies about sperm competition in humans and then a documentary on TV. This seemed to tie some things up. Several animal and bird species have sperm competition. I.E. If the female has sex with several different partners, at the time she was most fertile, there is more chance of pregnancy because the different sperm will compete to reach the egg. The studies I read about clearly stated humans also had sperm competition.

My theory, which seems to be somewhat confirmed by a recent book Sex at Dawn, is that women have just as much reason, biologically speaking, to have multiple partners, as men. I think it makes as much sense for women to have a polyandrous existence as for men the opposite.

It's interesting that among swingers nowadays it's become the thing to describe oneself as bisexual. ( When the correct term might be 'sexually liberal'.) Or a couple who want other couples or a single woman, for whom the wife is so conveniently bisexual. This may or may not reflect the well known polysexuality of women (showing films of men, women and animals having sex, women are very specifically turned on by all types. Men not so.) Or, maybe it's a woman wanting to please her man again with a display of lesbo sex. There are many reports of women saying they're 'bi' but being reluctant to indulge in certain activities. Or maybe, heresy!! women have a broader, more experimental sex drive. Babies will interrupt things, and the menopause might, but it amazing how different each person is.

I have come across several men who aren't as sexual as me and I have many female friends who have the same experience. Or want to get married in no time at all. (Men have the freedom to say that. We women live in fear of being called 'bunny-boilers'.) Let me guess. First thought, you guys think it's our fault? You haven't met us. I'll say no more. Men labour under this idea that most men are muuuch more sexual than women. You're wrong.

I'm sick of the pretence.

We are all BOTH of the above. As in wanting a bond. A sense of home. But also wanting excitement. Novelty. 

We are chemically/biologically designed to pair bond. (Are all these men dragged down the aisle - who traditionally ask to get married?? Something is motivating them. Maybe it's just having a housekeeper? And maybe, in my experience, and to assume men have some depth, it's more profound than that.)

But we are also designed to 'put ourselves about'. maybe all our lives, maybe parts of it. Maybe none of it. Passionate love becomes explosive with exclusivity, and having children kicks into our desire to create loyal family units, not to mention the necessity of such a set up, at least for a period.

Beyond that there is some evidence that couples who successfully negotiate 'open' relationships or swinger lifestyles are more 'emotionally' committed and have happier sex lives with each other, not to mention lower divorce rates than the rest of the population.

I've heard men on this forum trash loyalty. I would suggest emotional loyalty is the thing that matters. Try living without it. I can also come up with heart attack statistics for men with no deep emotional or communal bonds.

The truth is, with our history of religious sexual shame (which we are nowhere near shaking off), and the association of that with women particularly, no-one, NO-ONE, has a clue what women's sexuality looks like. But it's not like THAT.

Gender is so sensitive to priming and suggestion that we don't know what men are truly like either. What fun there could be finding out! What if we resisted all our gender affectations? Who are you really?

Tell you what, why don't WE call the shots for a change? C'mon women, what do WE want? Or ok, men. No gender stereotypes need apply. We know what those are!! Underneath. What's underneath???

Views: 327

Replies to This Discussion

I've also heard of sperm that "assasinate" other sperm. And I think Sean's point was to add to the idea that perhaps we ARE typically promiscuous, hence the assassin sperm. I almost said "meant to be", but I don't like using the word "meant" when talking about evolution.

I did agree that some sperm do obliterate other sperm, although I used the term assassinate semi-humorously!

I was saying that, from what I've read, sperm competition is simply that. A race for the stronger ones to reach the egg.

You may be right and I misunderstood Sean's point.

A quick reply to Eduardo's story. (Sorry, I can't do the Brother thing!)

There is a theory that some men will back up anecdotally, that when their female partner has just had sex with someone else, especially if they can watch, they become fiercely turned on. Again, this would work well for many women, and also reproductively it adds up, if sperm competition in humans is true.

I will say though that when I'm attracted to someone I fantasise not just about him and me, but about watching him with others, male or female. And I've noticed in open relationships in the past there is an urge, more on the part of the man, to talk to me immediately after an encounter. Not to talk particularly about stuff he's just done. But, it seems, just to check in. To keep a connecting loop. Which I find sweet.

Once a more traditional boyfriend I had who lived in Ireland called to 'confess' to having drunkenly slept with an ex-girlfriend the night before. His contrition was long and full of upset. I hadn't the heart to tell him I didn't mind. I felt he would have been hurt at my lack of hurt. 

Although I think in the throes of first passion, jealousy can be painful and some possessiveness and insecurity rear their heads, on both sides,(this also seems understandable in terms of reproduction and bonding) later on I think emotional loyalty is the crucial bond. More happily achieved if people can be themselves and not keep secrets.

Not as quick as I thought!

 

Emotional loyalty.  I like that. 

 

 

There are apparently sperm cells that lack the ability to reproduce, themselves.  They're these big bruisers, on a cellular level, which lock onto sperm that doesn't match that of their creator, and try to bash them into oblivion.  I'm pretty sure that's what Sean was referring to.

That's on top of the simple the-one-that-gets-there-first-fertilizes-the-egg competition.

I can definitely see what you're saying about frigidity.

I have a friend who has only slept with one guy so far.  He was the no-foreplay, two-minutes-and-he's-done, roll-over-and-go-to-sleep sort of guy.  She had sex with him 15 or 20 times, apparently never even coming close to arousal, never mind orgasm.

I can imagine that if she had married him without having sex, as her religious beliefs dictate she should have done, she'd have been pretty damned sick of it, after a year or two.  She'd probably have gone completely frigid on him, while masturbating multiple times a day on her own (she's a very sexual creature, despite her previous, horrible, sexual experiences).  I dunno, maybe she could have trained him better, eventually ... but she chucked him because he was an asshole, so maybe not.

 

Heh, and good lord, not Tantric sex.  The last thing I need is to make it take longer for me to achieve orgasm.  It already takes more than 20 minutes, sometimes.  I usually get thrown off my stride multiple times, while my partner has an orgasm and seizes/clenches up, and I have to work myself back up from close to the beginning again.

No, I'm pretty sure Tantric sex would not benefit you! I have an Indian friend - in India - who can stay up (he says) for 8 hours. Not sure how useful that is really. But what would I know, men I've known last 5 minutes on average.

An aside - I sometimes rue the fact I used my real name on here! Don't care what friends read but having to keep my fingers crossed some family members don't Google me! It's easy to use my own name tho' as no-one else seems to have it and I believe I shouldn't have to be ashamed of any aspect of who I am.

On the well known Greta Christina blog she has an article based on a very sad problem page letter about a woman who wasn't a virgin but became a born-again Xtian and met a man with the same beliefs. They decided to wait till their wedding night to have sex. She was very excited and thought all the waiting was heightening that. The night was disastrous and she discovered her husband, in his own words, wasn't very sexual. It had become a struggle to do it even infrequently. Her faith allows her no let out and she was desolate at the thought of her arid future.

The stupidities of religion. 

 

Yeah, eight hours would be kind of silly.  Women don't last anywhere near that long.  Unless you've got several women lined up, what would be the freaking point?

Besides, you're starting to do damage to the tissues, after four.  That's why Viagra and similar products have that warning.  There's something about some sort of necrosis, if I'm remembering it correctly ... which is never a fun word, in reference to your genitals.

Also, isn't Tantric sex essentially sex without orgasm?  I have several orgasms, spread out over a few hours (or at least I would, if girls didn't call for breaks after an hour or so), and girls have many times that number, during the same span.  Tantric sex seems quite inferior.

 

You can change your displayed name at any time.  Just hover your mouse over the 'My Page' link at the top of any page on here, then select 'My Settings' from that drop-down menu.  The options are on that page.  Just change your 'full name'.

I clipped my last name for the same Google reasons, just worrying more about prospective employers Googling me.  I don't care what my family knows.  My full name will go back up once I don't have to worry about working a 9-5 anymore.

 

And yeah, that sort of thing is why I think not having sex before marriage is asinine.  Sex is an important part of the whole package.  It's nowhere near as important as other parts of the relationship, but it's a factor, particularly if someone has a significant libido.

If I was going to marry someone who only wanted sex once a month or less frequently than that, then I would need to have the right to sleep with other women written into the prenuptial ... or something.  I dunno.

Never mind if I had a wife like Rich Lyon's first wife.  Less than 10 sexual encounters in 19 years of marriage ... I don't think so.  I know religion can kill sexual desire in women, but Christ.  She had to have something going on besides that.

 

So, err, why is a Born-Again Christian writing to Greta Christina?  I'm confused.

Your reply got me curious for a better definition of Tantric sex. Actually Joseph it might benefit you, having read your description of yourself as somewhat 'hyper'! Apparently, you can achieve full body orgasms which last a looong time. But I think you have to do a lot of practising. Apparently JFK junior was into it. Here's a copy/paste -

"To many, it conjures only vague images of hippies impossibly contorting themselves into weird sexual positions. But the truth is you don’t have to be a Taoist from the Far East to take advantage of Tantra’s teachings.

“A lot of people are interested in Tantra, it kind of blows my mind,” Suzie Heumann, founder of Tantra.com, notes.

In Tantric Secrets for Men, Kerry and Diane Riley define Tantra as meaning “to expand, to be free, to be liberated".

“One of my favourite things about Tantra is how it treats sex as something sacred, not just two people bumping uglies.”

It even uses different language. Tantra uses the Sanskrit word yoni (pronounced yoh-nee) for both the vagina and vulva, while lingam (pronounced ling-gum) is used for the penis.

Tantra also teaches sex should be a celebrated union between two people, rather than something taboo or sinful. It’s a way of opening the flow of energy between partners and showing how the role of the mind, body and spirit are all equally important for the sexual experience.

Before you roll your eyes, understand if you take this seriously, you will experience sex like never before; We’re talking multi-level orgasms — full body convulsions for both men and women. It’ll also change your daily life — you’ll see the world through different eyes.

Tantric sex is about channeling your energies. Next time you’re “in the act,” focus on the sensation in your genitals and try to move it throughout your body. It is helpful to imagine it in your head — picture the energy coursing up and down each leg, across your torso, even into your head.

By gaining control over your energy, you are no longer passive to your sexual urges. This can change your life forever — from helping men who pre-ejaculate to allowing both men and women to reach full body orgasms.

Heumann described an amazing technique for massages, where one partner focuses on his or her sexual energy and moves it to his or her fingertips.

“If they can erotize their own fingertips, their partner is having a fucking good time,” Heumann points out.

But Tantric sex isn’t only about neat stunts.

While Heumann admits the neat sexual techniques and positions in Tantric sex can be great, she explains, “The technique is there to learn and then forget.”

When you’ve been practising Tantra for a long time, the techniques meld into your normal sex routine so easily, it’s difficult to remember what old sex used to feel like.

On the other hand, there are awkward moments when you’re first learning. You’ll be sitting naked with your partner, trying to figure out whose foot goes where and how, but if you trust each other and you communicate, it shouldn’t be a problem.

Couples can benefit greatly from Tantra. The level of intimacy partners can reach just from simple positions is astounding.

“If you spend five minutes just gazing into [one another’s eyes], just in silence … that’s an opening of vulnerability that breaks down a lot of barriers,” Heumann explains.

Even those who choose not to have sex can benefit from the teachings of Tantra. Heumann recalled how some people have achieved spontaneous orgasm without even taking off their clothes. Just focusing on breathing, eye gazing and moving sexual energy while sitting in the yab-yum position can be enough.

“There’s a lot there no matter what your situation is,” Heumann notes.

The single male or female can also benefit from Tantra.

Heumann suggested masturbation as a technique for learning more about your body and how it responds.

Focusing on and directing your sexual energy while self-pleasuring, or even sitting and gazing into your own eyes in front of a mirror can increase your love for and comfort with yourself.

A person’s sex life will be heightened by practising Tantra, but your daily life will be altered as well.

In Western culture, people often exist in the past or future, but rarely take the time to focus on the present. Especially in university, where our lives are shaped by the next assignment or exam, we forget to live in the moment.

Heumann explains Tantra acts as a vehicle to help you to fall out of this pattern. Instead of working only for the final moment of ecstasy, in Tantric sex you learn to get pleasure from the build-up as well.

“You’re building your own Chi, your own energy. That fills out in all of your life, your attitude and your presence with everyone ... It’s a life booster,” she says.

And she’s not lying.

When you stop focusing on only the gold at the end of the rainbow, but also take the time for the journey there as well, your sex will never be the same, and neither will your life."

Sounds kinda nice doesn't it?! I'm a bit allergic to 'spiritual' allusions tho'. But definitely the journey is often better than arrival. Christmas as a child taught me that! I resolved that when I reached adulthood I would make everyday like Christmas Eve. "Cough". Still working on that. I think I'm stuck in October.

The Greta Christina thing - she was talking about the letter having read it somewhere else, to write about the dangers of not knowing how sexually suited you are before marriage.

And my name....I do want to start an atheist/feminist blog myself and think it would be a waste of a (so far as I know) unique name, not to put my name with my observations etc., plus I try and stick by the motto 'you are as sick as you are secret'. I have usernames for strictly private things but when it comes to my thoughts and opinions, I don't have any boss or workmates to worry about, working in an artistic world. And being an atheist isn't an issue. Everyone knows that about me. But though my family would'nt be condemnatory, they probably don't care to know about sexual details. Funnily enough, my now dead mother wouldn't have worried me at all. She had no qualms about talking about her sexual experiences starting when I was 13, telling me some of her problem when she was entering the menopause, (no mum, stop!!). When she came across some erotic pictures of me taken with a boyfriend at art college, for the purpose of a tutor's painting, she looked at them and simply said, "Oh he's Jewish then is he?" (She thought he looked it.) Ah, I miss her.
I'll think about the name change. I don't think many people Google me, if any. And damn it, I'm a grown up!
Ah, you can have sex in a conversation, with eye contact, in your thoughts, making dinner, going for a walk. Sorry, no excuses!

Nerd, for once I agree with you :p

If sex is everything then sex is nothing!

I dunno, most of the stuff you quoted sounds like it's directed at people who need remedial sex instruction, to bring them above the emotional level of a 12 year-old.  "Bumping uglies"?  Seriously?  Heh.

 

Yes, enjoying your partner's mind and personage, in addition to her body ... enjoying her whole body and not just jumping in and having intercourse.  Foreplay, in other words.  I realize that some men still need to be taught this sort of thing, but seriously?

 

I'm not sure I'd benefit from this kind of thing.  I think I already do half of it, judging from that intro.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service