-- Modified on 8/16/2003 10:49:40 AM

men need sex in order to feel love ... women need love in order to "feel" sex

i don't know where i came across THIS aphorism (might've been computer-generated for all i know!) ... it does sound trite like one of those Men/Mars/Women/Venus cliches or something you'd read in the pages of "The Rules" ... heck for all i know i could've dreamt it up myself (seriously, if someone knows the proper attribution do let me know, i drop this one every chance i get

BUT ... [deep breath] ... there's truth to it, undeniably!

(sex).  Even in this modern days, women are told to dream big dreams (be a singer, model, actress, live in a big house, live happily ever after.), that is why they like to have verbal/symbolic reassurance (expression of love, long talks, etc.).

Just another quick and simplistic analysis from yours truly.

Prudes are disgusted by what they consider the "animalistic" nature of sex.  People like this think of sex with a spouse as a duty rather than a pleasure.  Actually, she reminds me of no one so much as John Ashcroft.

-- Modified on 8/16/2003 11:57:06 PM

Given the nature of the male/female relationships that TER itself is proof of, posting this article on DB somewhat resembles to mental masturbation.  However, it thankfully has already begun to give way to posts of substance.

I am going to abstain from making my usual longwinded psychological rant here about how damaging generalizations like all of this are and how irrelevant they can be when it comes down to establishing a one on one relationship, which has many motivations that are outside of (and often greater than) our biological needs.  No, I am going to target that article, instead, because it irritated me, and I think the author is not only hypocritical (by ridiculing people doing studies "obvious" like these and yet writing an article basically stating nothing more useful, just her viewpoint as some sort of revelation) but also sexually regressive and guilty of propogating negativity towads men.

What The Heck makes a valid point in that the article almost sneered at the male physiological sexual state and its "voracious" needs.  How well would an article written (by a man) about the need many women feel to bear children or "biological clocks" that states that they need to overcome their instinctual urges for the good of an overpopulted planet go over?  Additionally, Spectator fairly related sociological influence to male/female sexual behavior, which the author
only did to support her traditionalist viewpoints...and did not do at all when she was slamming modern society as overly selfish, without mentioning any other factors as to why society might be more oriented towards self gratification, like a massive increase in media and marketing, for one.

It goes without saying that the male psyche and female psyche are not interchangable regarding sexual needs and methods of stimulus.  It is documented that males are aroused and can perform more frequently if a variety of sexual partners is introduced, and not just the human males... several specials of mammals and birds respond this way as well.

If this is the case, why is it such accepted practice to refer to this behavior as inherantly negative, thereby implying that men are less advanced than women because of their indigenous biological cravings?  Are women referred to as "dogs" because they feel the need to bear children?  No, it is just that this biological need is more sociologically acceptable.  If anything, monogamous men should be congradulated on overcoming their biological needs and assimilating into societies which frown upon multiple partners.  

I am sure this idea may not float with some of the ladies out there, but I, for one, do not see the need to ridicule men for simply having these urges.  We should recognize the effort that males undergo to adjust to monogamy, encourage and reward it (as we punish indiscretion), and not look at men having natural feelings as a weakness to be scorned and condescnded to.  Ridiculing men for something that is part of their normal psychological makeup amounts to coercion through humiliation, and should not be part of any progressive society.

in the last couple of weeks. Magazines of all types are sporting this subject, all the same, about how men are 'wired' this way and not really 'able' to be faithful, and 'here's' the reason why: their 'genetic programming'.
While I think these articles can have a positive impact on the Hobby, I think you can figure where this can go..

I've heard that feel/need cliche before, and I do agree that it can represent the current truth of American society. But I disagree that ALL men or ALL women are or were ALWAYS like that. Again, as we've discussed here on these boards, the Biological Determinism (otherwise known as Evolutionary Psychology) which has wrapped itself up in the false trappings of "science" comes up with an unproved conclusion, then says it proved it. What it proved, was that the author was hopelessly mired in contemporary assumptions, and unable to stretch his mind to a context that stood outside of, and different from, the Kankakee asphalt recovery plant (or, as this case seems to be, a Birmingham small arms factcory). It's not "science," it's speculation, because its evidence can't be found and its conclusions therefore can't be based on evidence. It IS representative of bad thinking, and of the common thinking of our time and place.

So, I agree with the aphorism to that extent. We have a rather anti-sexual society right now (many cultures are like that) in which females are discouraged from exploring their own bodies, much less their own physical responses, until (officially) after marriage. Disney tells them some stranger will "make it all better" when they have their first true-love-kiss, and that otherwise thinking about getting good at sex is like thinking about getting good at cleaning the sewer -- dirty, and for "other" people. Men, as well, are encouraged to participate in this mythology by trying to fulfill the Prince Charming stereotype.

I think the reason we have so many women in the USA who "need" love to feel sexual, is because mostly their sexual drives, self-understandings, and general awarenesses, are almost pre-pubescent because of their lack of investigation. The women I've known who grew up in more sexually friendly, or less "romantically blinkered," atmospheres were practically "just like men" in their ability to distinguish between orgasm and commitment.

So, although the aphorism seems useful for a current snapshot of the way things are done, I'd heartily remind everyone that the way things are currently done is a limited, and probably dysfunctional, way to do things. Especially in the context of the many other cultures and possibilities throughout the march of history and across the globe ... a temporal and geographical span this "science" can only pretend to cover.

The author asserts the following:

"Women, for instance, once acted as a brake on men's sometimes voracious promiscuity. "You want to sleep with me? Marry me and help me raise our children, ignore those promiscuous urges, and stay faithful," was essentially the case she made."

This is untrue. The view that "before now" everything was different from now, but monolithically exactly the same until right about now, is a markedly unhistorical view. There have been scads of manners in which promiscuity and limitation were negotiated. In ancient Greece, for example, men had sex with boys as often as with women; in Georgian England, the young man was warned to avoid the company of women because of their voracious sexual appetites which would "deplete" him; in some pre-Classical Mediterranean societies the prime "life giving" deity was a female fertility Goddess, and some males were expected to pay ovation to her in the exhaustive currency of gallons of sperm, milked from them like from a bull; in modern conservative Muslim cultures, the presence of a woman is considered "corrupting" not only because of the potential for male temptations toward promiscuity (that which the author berates) but also because of the potential for FEMALE discovery of sexual pleasure (which the author seems to forget EXISTS at all).

"Unfortunately, far fewer women make that case any more, leaving men much freer to satisfy, or at least try to satisfy, their appetites."

If it is indeed true that the only benefit a male has from sexuality, is orgasm; and the only benefit a female does, is money; then why do I suspect she'd probably not want to be called a "whore" in polite company? Yet she does expect payment for it.

"This is NOT to leave men off the moral hook"

Did she just say "moral"? Hmm ...

(cont'd in next post)


-- Modified on 8/16/2003 7:23:57 PM

"This is NOT to leave men off the moral hook"

Did she just say "moral"? Hmm ...

" - it is just to recognize that in the days when we understood that "hardwired" appetites could, and often should, be restrained and tamed, the usually different sexual behavior of women was typically a wholesome civilizing influence on men and by extension the community."

This presumes two things. First (as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread) it presumes that it's the MALE appetites that need be curtailed. Why not curtail a female's "need" for babies (the world is overpopulated) or material wealth (barely above the poverty line in North America is more money than 99% of all humans who have ever existed in all the history of mankind) or "respect" (nature doesn't promise that at all; how did this become on par with a "biological drive"?). So it presumes it's OK for the women to get what they want at a man's expense but not vice versa.

And second, it presumes things have come to a better conclusion than they would have otherwise. If men fucked and women didn't restrain, she implies, things would be much worse than they are now. Isn't it possible that the reason we have so many wars, so much strife, and such a poorly organized distribution of wealth in the richest country in the world, is BECAUSE women limit male access to sexuality so much? If only they'd PUT OUT more, couldn't it be the case that we'd be MUCH BETTER OFF? The men would relax, the pent-up frustration of the right-wingers and their Bible-thumping wives would alleviate a bit; the National Security Council might stop dropping bombs on innocents for a while.

Rather, she seems to think civilization is a "wholesome" influence. Again, she assumes "the way things are" is the way things are best. It's the inevitable conclusion of all Evolutionary Psychology -- that the current assumptions are the natural ones. Funny that she derides that very logical fallacy earlier in her own piece. Panglossian is the word for it, after Doctor Pangloss ("all things glossy"), although she probably doesn't have the education to recognize "Candide", or probably even Voltaire. She uses the strangely uninformative term "naturalist fallacy" for it, showing her allegiance with the nomenclaturists over the TRUE naturists.

"that supposition has a name - the "naturalist fallacy." That is, whatever is natural is the way things should be. But of course much of the time nature isn't so great. "

At this point in her piece, she is riddling the (obviously fallacious) argument that if a male is "hard-wired" to do something, that he should do that thing. But her own description could be applied to her own thinking, in the (also obviously fallacious) argument that her own 21st-Century Midwestern perception of sexual commerce is the only appropriate perception of it.

These simpletons need a good lesson in what Psychologists (the REAL Social Scientists) call "projecting": the capacity to put themselves in the place of people radically different from themselves. It's considered dysfunctional if you do it at a time when it's not appropriate; but if you "project" when you're engaging in acts of imaginative fancy, you can learn the tricks of "emotional empahty" and "walking a mile in their moccasins." Which the author hasn't done. And the moccasins would be a WOMAN'S, a woman free to love and fuck in a positive way without the need for some kind of monetary reassurance that what she was doing was "right." Less insecure, more open.

My personal thoughts about what "really" causes the current power disparity, lead to much less feminism. First, I'd recommend we all learn our bodies better -- male and female. That can be fun. But then, I'd suggest that the rampant materialism inherent in any argument that insists females must prostitute themselves for allowing access to sexual gratification, is not a function of female sexual nature, it's a function of our rampantly materialist society. Or to put not too fine a point on it, it's capitalism that's done it.

Materialism and, more specifically, free-market capitalism, require a perception of scarcity for for the potential of profit. In a world of plenty, there's no buying and selling. But there's pussy everywhere. It's in plenty, not scarcity. Half the human population has automatic free access to it. So, quite by accident (IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY! nobody designed it, it has only as many benefits as detriments, the alternatives aren't evil), a society has sprung up that causes a perception of scarcity even among those things which are not scarce.

For a clear example of scarcity-thinking: how many of you have bought a bottle of "natural" water for a buck at the convenience store rather than asking if you could fill your water bottle in the restroom? And how many of you know that nearly all North American cities' "free" (although supported by taxation and very low fees) water supply is actually MUCH better regulated, and cleaner, than the bottled waters on the market? Likewise with pussy, our society has decided it needs to be scarce even if it isn't. It teaches women not to touch it, and thus increases the perception of limited access. It teaches women to prevent men from touching it, and thus decreases the real access even more.

It's no surprise to me that our Judeo-Christian sexual mores come mostly from a bargaining culture, a land where merchants and trade routes dominated the consciousness and the political landscape. Sharing wasn't a virtue, in a society where haggling was a necessity. Add to that a rebellion against "backwards" (so perceived at the time) fertility religions, and you have a recipe for constraining pussies, and the females attached to them, and then -- as our simpleton insists -- being convinced it was the "natural" thing to do in the first place.

But it's not necessarily natural. The male American plains natives, springing from a largely communist culture, shared "their" women with the members of the Lewis and Clark expedition. What a capitalist way to describe it, "their" women. The way one of those natives would have put it, would have been that the women chose to enjoy life with the new visiting lighter-skinned men. That the Whites thought of it as novel, would have been viewed as a pity, a crying shame, by the less frustrated native men, and there wouldn't have been any "their" or "our" wrapped up in it. Likewise, check out the Canela tribe of Brazil. There's a good documentary on their "share" culture, you might catch it on the Discovery channel some day. The advent of Western-style currency and the decline of communal sex nights all came in the same generation. Coincidence? I think not ...

You can go further with these sorts of arguments, even to the degree that you start describing sexual politics the world over in terms of economic systems. But I think that misses the point a bit. Really, it makes much more sense to describe economic systems in terms of sexual politics. (I'm reminded of learned professor Bloom, who suggests he would never want to do a Freudian reading of Shakespeare, but he'd love to do a Shakespearian reading of Freud.) For really, isn't it the case that economies are the invention of man, and therefore come well after sexuality, the invention of nature? What we buy, trade, give, keep, sell, restrict, deliver, barter, share, is all about who we are as individuals within this species. But whether or not we want to fuck? Mother Nature took care of that long before we were born.

Imagine a world where sex seemed natural, and taking pleasure in it in some way or other paralleled your own worldly, and emotional, success in life: your overall happiness. More children, happier homes, a more balanced personal emotional quotient, less stress. And that's just for the women! Well, that's what some natives had, before us dumb Europeans conquered them and taught them the "right" way to do things.


-- Modified on 8/16/2003 7:16:09 PM

Good generalizations. I like it when you can think outside the old box and come up with a plausible new matrix.

How's this one ...

For the most part, females are incapable of admitting to themselves how emotionally meaningful an orgasm is for them, so they subconsciously deliberately resist having one. That men aren't so controlled by their subconscious, frightens the women, for they think of the universe as a set of bridled and limited powers, and they recognize a male's capacity to strike out into the unknown with abandon -- and to fuck with abandon -- as a dangerous power. So, females invented over the long term a manner of limiting male power in order to keep them shackled and less frightening.



Just an exercise in sophistry.

accept personal responsibility for their actions.  We often criticize the right wing and fundamentalist Christian groups for their beliefs and trying to make everyone follow them.  However at least in general they advocate taking personal responsibility for their actions.

As I said above in another post in this thread, I like it when people go about changing the matrix and coming up with other valid generalizations. I do see the relation between the spate of "anti-male" and "anti-sexual" posturing, and the "victim" society we've created.

But I don't generally see neo-Right people advocating personal responsibility, at least not in terms of sexual politics. They are all over responsibility as an antidote to political correctness, I agree with you there. Stop whining? But they really kind of seem to me, to prefer NO sex, not responsible sex; and certainly not DIFFERENT sex, not for themselves OR for other people who aren't even in their bedrooms. I wonder if that's "taking too much responsibility"? Hmm ...

Having read thru what you have written in response to the above
thread leaves me not much to say, why? because you have said so
much in a nut shell. But if I may be so bold as to add to what
you have stated, In the theme of control. Women have evolved to
the point of using the dirty little secret of using sex to have
some power over man, there was a previous post here about a poll
taken where for the large part that it was amitted by many
women that they used sex more as a tool to control men ( gain
access to having there desires met) I am not as well versed in
these matters as many who post here are, but in the real world,
the here and now! it all boils down to secutity issues for men
and women alike, and sex is only one of many tools used by
women to have some greater control over men. ( you did happen to
state that in your post) all in all I cannot think of anything
else to add to this post. I do have to commend you on your post
and say well said my friend!

Ok I'll buy into the idea that human males have been hardwired to "spread" their seed.
  I have also read articles about how happily married men are more likely to live longer than bachelors.
(maybe we do like commitment after all)
  It seems that to be a truly happy & fulfilled human male one needs a loving wife who lets you hobby or stray occasionally.

lets-see; A wife, a mistress and a girlfriend.  
Gee!! I've heard of that formula before.

-- Modified on 8/16/2003 9:04:23 PM

Let me clarify what I was trying to say.  I am not saying that you necessarily should have the same beliefs as the Christians but that in general they take responsibility for their actions even in the sexual arena.  They do have restrictive beliefs as to when it is proper to have sex.  And yes I have run into a few extremists who believe in sex only for procreation purposes.  If you only have sex four times in your life and have three children  you too can earn the nickname of Sure Shot Orr. LOL.

In general Christians believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin.  They also believe in free will.  So a devout Christian male who had sex with someone other than his wife would tend to say that he had sinned of his own free will.  Even if he believed that he has was born with much stronger sexual impulses than his wife he would feel that he could have resisted those impulses.  He would not tend to blame his wife for not having sex often enough or the pretty young girl for seducing him.

Even if we do not agree with their beliefs in this area, I would call that taking responsibility for your actions.

Yes, I understand how that can be wrapped up into "taking responsibility." It's true that the standard American victim cry isn't heard as often from the Christian Right, not even when Osama bombed us basically by aiming at them. But couldn't that be not so much because of the whole "free will" thing, as because they're in power and mostly a majority, at least in terms of "moral" (if not political) control of the country? So, if you're the perceived oppressOR rather than the perceived oppressEE ... you're a little less likely to cry wolf, no?

Just a possibility. I'm not sure how it all boils down. I know my personal opinion is that religion never really did anyone any good if he (or she) took it "too seriously," but that in small doses it could be (but currently isn't?) a good way to get people together to chat about important topics once a week or so.

Just my two cents Gentlemen, I was formally married to a woman
who had these strong christian beleifs and who felt that sex was
dirty, with the exception of having sex for the purpose of
having children. I do consider muself to be a christian also!
But I tend to balance things out! Sex is not dirty and it is
alright for a man to lust for his wife, mate lover ect,
As far as me having sex as a single man, Well as long as both
parties are in agreement then what is the problem?
I am wired to want sex and I do enjoy sex and I will continue
to seek sex from wonderful women! and if that presents a problem
to someone else then that's to bad. Its there problem not mine!
these posts that you others have posted are all right on the
mark. As far as me paying for sex? Well in some ways I do have
a problem with that, but it is my problem and not the provider's.
for me it poises the situation of my own selfworth. As in I am
worth it for someone to want to have share with me in having sex
and not putting a price on it, I say this because I am a good
sex partner, but I do not want all of the other baggage that
comes with having a relationship. that is why I hobby and that
is why I still continue to pay. It comes down to me having my
needs met without all the other B.S. dumped in my lap.
I am willing to share and enter into a relationship with a
compatable female when I have met her, that has not occured
just yet so until then I live with my views and I don't look
to judge others for there's I guess it all comes down to what
may be right for me is not right for everyone else?
thanks for the great posts ladies and gents! and thanks to TER
for being here to allow for all of this to happen.
Just my .02 cents                 Trooper

sex sells.  In addition, controversy sells, and categorizing and building an "us/them" framework regarding issues usually sells issues like these even better than they sell themselves.

It is common knowledge that many people in this country don't want to really look at substantive
issues (remember 51% thought that Iraq had "nukuler" weapons), so "write what they read" journalism (like "Men are horndogs and always will be that way...but if they know what is good for 'em, they'll get in line!") is common.  When you are working two jobs to make your budget, who has time to think about why?  Besides, who wants to think about depressing things like government or the environment or social equality or gender relations when "American Idol" or "For Love or Money?" is on?

To deny that humans are animals is the falacy.     We have a few thousand years of civilization on top of millions of years of genetic imperatives ... and at times that's a very thin veneer.

We DO have the intellect to rise above it, of course.   Just because we HAVE an urge doesn't mean we HAVE to act on it.

But by an large .. society would be better off if more men would get in touch with their "inner pig" and use the intellect to smooth off the animalistic edges ... not deny it completely.

Ladies ... there ARE men out there that are warm, sensitive, caring and not afraid to cry.   They're called "homosexuals"

-- Modified on 8/18/2003 2:50:39 PM

There's always money to be made telling people what they want to hear.  Tell it to the general public and you'll get a best seller.  Tell it to funding agencies like NSF or HIH (who are hardly immune to the political and social pressures around them) and your research will be generously funded.

Anyone remember the Human Genome Project?  Actually, it's still going on, but it's long since vanished from the headlines.  Before their first major report, this was hot news.  Then it turned out that there is no "criminal gene" (so we could what?  abort them?  have them under police surveillance from infancy?  Well, do SOMETHING about crime!), no "genius gene", no "this one's got what it takes to be a CEO gene".  

With dazzling rapidity the politicians and the uneducated completely lost interest.

In the Oedipus Cycle, Oedipus lived for a time as a woman.  When asked whether sex was better as a man or as a woman, he said sex was much better as a woman.  

This makes sense from an evolutionary point of view.  If all but a few men are indifferent to sex, one man can impregnate many woman and the race continues.  If most woman are indifferent to sex, the population declines.

Maybe the guys on this board are just exceptionally attracted to sexual activity (compared to the "normal" population of men).  Could be...