47 new of 56 responses total.
It's my understanding that while female-on-male domestic violence isn't
as common as male-on-female (and male-on-male and female-on-female being much
less common, though porportionally higher) it is severely underreported, and
is a significant problem, too.
to play the adversary's advocate: yha, but men deserve it for all the oppression of women seriously: there's the problem with a patriarchy that says men are stronger tougher etc. than women, and that's if a woman is stronger and tougher (at least in the viewer's eeys) than you, and said woman is not your mother or near kin, you are not lonly less of a man, you might as well just renounce your dick
Nobody deserves it. Period. And Greg just said what I was about to.
patriarchy? nah, damn, too many women buy into it.. I can remember morning talk shows where some hubby was being beat by his wife and the women couldn't believe it.. I mean, c'mon, patriarchy as far as a context like that? No. Morning talk shows are to a female audience.
Re: #5 I'd guess that you can imagine how much personal and social pain it would cause for millions of good Catholics if the Pope got into an intimate sexual relationship. It's a position with clear rules and he picked it for himself over nice alternatives - no excuses apply. I favor assisted suicide with constraints to insure that it really is voluntary & informed on the part of the wanna-be RIP. Such constraints are fairly incompatible with death via sexual experience. Suicide by HIV i'd rule out just on the basis of the difficulties & expense of the years the person takes to die. Re: #6 Um, are you aware of how the sex industry gets most of its serfs? Or how bad a horny scumball boss can make the alternative for a barely- scraping-by single mom who doesn't want to be his concubine? On the flip side, there's nothing to prevent two good people from having a sexual relationship across a very wide power/status gulf. With the understanding that the situation is (due to extremely frequent abuse) almost as suspect as a paving contractor giving $10,000 in cash as a personal gift to the Chairman of the County Road Commission. My impression is that F-on-M domestic violence is, in most places, de facto more legal than lynching an unrespectful black man was a few generations ago. But the black community treated that victim's family and friends *vastly* better than the male community treats F-on-M violence victims.
Well, that didn't come out well at all. ;)
I'm aware that people *can* abuse a relationship where they hold more
social or economic power. The average man is bigger and more aggressive than
the average woman, too, and has more experience with fighting, and it's both
possible and fairly common for people to abuse that imbalance of physical
power. However, it doesn't follow that because there is the potential for
abuse is abusive or even inherently problematic.
#13> Social effects don't just have an effect on one gender. So, yes, "patrairchy" as far as that. The underreporting of F>M violence is part of the same problem as the prevalence of M>F violence: Violence is seen as a solution because it proves who the stronger person is, and "might makes right."
I was talking about this issue with a woman who's studied extensively
under a therapist who specializes in the issue, and it came to me that the
average battering case I've heard of, if what I've heard is accurate, isn't
as simple as a power struggle. The average case includes an abuser who has
issues dealing with their emotions in one case or another (quite often it's
a "control issue", but that in and of itself is an oversimplification) and
when they lose control of their emotions they behave as most people do under
stress; following a pattern that has worked well for them in the past under
another context.
I think you could go too far by manipulating your partner into trying something he/she isn't interesting in. Anything from anal to BDSM is too far if you have to manipulate your partner into doing it with you. That's what I think.
where's manipulation stop and simple experinimentatoin begin
Experimentation is okey if both partners are willing. if you have to bring your partner around to your way of thinking, then you are treading the knife's edge, so to speak, of manipulation.
Experimentation is never simple, Greg. You know this!
I'm not so clear on the line you're drawing here, Julie, either. There
are a lot of things that people might initially have an aversion to that, as
long as it's not a strict aversion, they might well enjoy if they try it.
As long as there's no threatening, if one person talks another person into
something, or simply experiments with the understanding that in a healthy
relationship you can always ask your partner to stop, then what's the harm?
Where is the line you're drawing?
Personally, I've found that riding in between what a person knows that
they like, and what they've fantasized about, but perhaps never really
confronted, is the best place to be. You do have to be careful not to go into
really offensive or disturbing territory, but most of that has to do with
fetishism anyways, and assuming neither partner is a fetishist, you're
generally safe.
i know it' snot simple, mostly it was just a knee jerk reaction against julie's statments. i apologise, mostly because i currently have a prof who does nothing but tell us what not to be, but never shows us what is an ideal. if that makes sens e and i konw experimentation isn't easy, but let's face it, too many of us would spend our nights watching a movie we've already seen instead of going out and trying something new, and it can be quite a challenge to pull someone from a rutt.
I am assuming, of course, that the people will discuss the possibility first, especially in the realm of fantasy. The couple would have to agree that it was alright to say "no" or on a safe word so that if one partner began to feel uncomfortable they would both stop. All I'm saying is, just assuming that the person is just shy and trying to talk them over when they've already said no is, IMO, crossing the line. Jon and I have had this same discussion with regards to his occasional desires to have me be his Dom. I am not really into that. Jon is a gentleman and has not attempted to talk me around to doing it anyway. There have been times when I have suggested it myself jsut because I knew he liked it. So, I would think that, once the suggestion was on the rug, the reluctant partner would have the opportunity to consider it after having already said no and might, later, say yes.
Re: #19-23 If it's just "manipulating your partner into trying something he/she isn't interested in" (implying that he/she's already your sex partner and he/she has no stronger objection than "not interested in"), then i don't see any harm in it. Manipulating him/her into letting you eat peanut butter & jelly from between his/her toes is no worse than manipulating him/her into mowing the lawn. If you're pushing them into something that they'll regret later, then does it really matter if it's BDSM or changing his/her last name to match yours?
heh.
I concur with #25.
Moreover, in my experience, most people *don't* sit down and discuss
new things they'd like to try in bed. It's too cerebral. It's like trying
to convince someone they might like Thai food by describing how it's cooked
and what how the curries are made. Though most people don't experiment worth
a damn, those I know that have do so by ... just doing it, and generally
don't talk about it at all.
resp:25 I think that may have been what I was trying to say. Very well put. I just don't think people should be manipulated. And that goes for people you know as well as those you've just met, especially in the area of sex and regardless of whether its BDSM or eating peanut butter between their toes. You should at least talk about it and find out WHY they don't want to. Then you can make in roads towards settling their concerns. If that doesn't help, give up and do something else. That's my opinion.
Experimentation is good, but a little bit of planning can't hurt. Unless, instead, we are talking about mastering the art of nonverbal communication. Sex, in general, is rarely a spontaneous thing.. the odds that two people that are together will be horny at precisely the same time is a bit slim, and sex either needs to be planned out loud a little bit, or the two need to learn how to accurately read and ascertain the other's signals. In the case of experimentation, then, I think gradually introducing the 'kink' or whatever else you want to call it, is a good strategy, giving enough time for the parties to respond, albeit, not with words. Does this make sense, then, or am I spouting gibberish? I am applying what I have read regarding spontaneity in sex therapy/self-help to be more inclusive, and while I can't remember particular sources to cite, I believe it to be based somewhat on other's observations.
It makes sense, but it's ... outside my personal experience. Maybe
it has something to do with the people I've been with, but then again, it's
been fairly consistent with all of them.
I don't know about the odds of two people being horny at the same time,
but the odds of two people being convincable if their partner seems to be so,
seems to be fairly high. But, in thinking about it, it's difficult to be
absolutely sure, since many people are uncomfortable expressing sexual
interest in clear terms, and it's less common for one person to really clearly
initiate things in my book. But then, perhaps I've had a long string of
nymphomaniacs. I don't know.
actually..cybersex is a usefull tool...you don't talk about the fantisy you kind of do it
my partners not always horny at the same time i am, but i know how to change that.
well. is your partner a man.
maybe.
then it shouldn't be very hard to swing him over
are you callin my man a ho?!?
nope. jut a man
<laughs> Jon is fairly easy to swing over, too, oval. It has a lot to do with the way men are wired. If men were wired the way women are there would be lots less children and the human race would be a dying breed.
hmmm? I don't think that's 100% the case.. gender roles depend on the society. If one wants to be purely observant, well, I do believe men might behave differently if they bled out of their gential openings and bore children, part of the time. Hermaphrodism doesn't really count, since genetics doesn't seem to be truly split 50/50, i.e., I haven't heard of any scientific case of a human that could impregnate and be pregnant. So, obviously, since there are biological differences between men and women, it is not unreasonable that many societies often make some sort of gender roles. American society isn't free of them, and I think, from an anthropological/sociological point of view, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The rules will likely continue to grow and evolve depending on how the society structures itself. The society decides mores and folkways, too, which I believe, was the original focus of this discussion.
There are some pretty noticeable biological differences; the
development of the visual cortex, the development of the corpus callosum, the
flexibility and load-bearing characteristics of the spine. Male children and
female children - long before they're capable of language - react differently
to stress.
And yet a lot of things that we associate with male or female roles
are reversed in, say, traditional Iranian culture.
Hmm.
Okay, no point there. ;)
Whatever the cause is, if you're a "pursuer" then you're used to
motivating yourself, and it usually isn't a factor. If you're "pursued", one
of the indirect choices you have is when and where, and you're used to
unmotivating yourself.
The real fun starts when people realise the game can be reversed. ;)
That's not what I was talking about, you guys. I was talking about physical wiring. Women don't get horney, if I may be permitted to use the term here, as often or as easily as men do. Often a woman requires at leat a half an hour of work on the part of both partners before she is ready. This, at times, enables her to shunt it aside to accomplish other things. The man, on the other hand, can be ready in just a few minutes and, often, when he is horney it is very hard to ignore. If they were both wired like the woman, requiring several minutes to be aroused, perhaps lovemaking would take longer. Maybe they would both masturbate and never touch each other. You never know. Maybe relationships would become nigh-impossible. ~something to think about~
Not that I would WANT it that way. I'm rather happy with the way males and females dovetail, thanks.
I don't think your definition of 'horny' is the same as mine.
I'm going by Merriam-Webster here:
3 [horn erect penis + 1-y] a : desiring sexual gratification b : excited
sexually
I've seen women and men get sexually excited, or desire sexual
gratification, in seconds. You can measure it by pupil dilation as much as
penile erection - and get about as many false positives.
Now as to how much erotic stimulation it takes before a partner is
ready for penis-in-vagina intercourse, that's another story, but women are
perfectly capable of going from business to pleasure in a matter of seconds,
and engaging in activities that don't require immediate lubrication almost
immediately.
dude, it depends on the body type. warning, this is quite base and graphic. i've had the disctinct pleasure to sample a fair number of the fairer sexes hospitality, and well, i've got some field conclusions here. types of women: nervious and tight: this is your classic up tight prude, or even some of the more pragmatic or party girlies out there, but for some reason she's had bas sexual experinces (tendency to emit female ejaculate, or still suffering guilt/shame reactions) or outright sexual abuse. barring medical psychological conditions she can be dry, or tight from clencing up and is generally more of a foreplay/backrub gal. sometimes it's one of the rare women wired wrong (i.e. certian eroginus zones, well, arn't) example was a gf i had who's vagina wasn't sensative at all. it just did nothing, but her back and breasts were extra wired. she LOVED foreplay and backrubs, and intercourse was...well..pointless for her. type I willing but hard to get ready: this is your average unmolsted or fairly well adjusted teenage girl. she's ready and willing, but it can take a bit for her to get relaxed and or moist enough for da happy groove and generally is your average girlie. not much to be said except proceede with caution and don't ruin 'er. type II built for scruping: these are my personal favourites: always moist, never get's sore, always ready for more. these are the people that could make ron jeremy beg for a breather. gods i do love them so. i tell you they're men with vaginas type III noteble things of each? type I: usually very hard to orgasim, orgasims are "forced" because of psychological issues, usually becomes sore VERY quickly either due to lack of lubrication or being overly tight. sometimes it's because they require thearapy.. type II: can become one of the other two types depending on experinces, and physiology type III: dear gods if your a guy i hope you marry one like this if you can keep up:) trouble is they usually tend to be sensualists and VERY high maintinence. hope you've got more to offer than your bedroom skills, or she'll be moving on sooner or later
well that was __interesting. #41 i disagree, #43 i agree with. and not all people are the same all the time either, but i don't think there's generally that much difference between men and women when it comes to libido, and if there are - it's probably due to social conditioning.
which, oddly enough was my point. generally everything except vaginal conditions is sociologically affected, and even that can be changed by mood, etc.
I don't think we're considering *all* the factors, although it seems that the consensus is pointing towards the notion that sexual response is more psychological than anything, especially from the majority of things I've read and the observations I've made. even resp:44 seems to at least tacitly agree that psychology is part of it. resp:40 but more resp:43 by jazz nails more or less the studies I've read. First of all, I'm not sure where morwen got her ideas in resp:41, but noting that she's pregnant, I understand there are some chemical changes that might effect libido. She's in her 7th month. But on that point, I know she is thinking a lot about the pregnancy, and so perhaps many things about it are distractions away from sex. She gets the hangups on size we've mentioned here, not just because of body image (i.e., "How can pregnant be sexy?") but because, well, you're a bit more limited in your positions and you have to be rather careful, compared to say, if you were all gymnasts performing advanced kama sutra positions. Now that she has a new life coming in three months, I would expect she's mentally planning out the changes. There will be other things to take care of besides sex. For that matter, she's already been taking care of other things besides sex. The seed was planted, it germinated, so we're taking care of the fruit.
It's funny....I think that all of the women that I've discussed sex with have all been (according to Greg's scale) Type II, (with the notable exception of one who was molsested as a child, and incredibaly self concious to boot). What I've found is that most women can be any type....just depending on her mood, who's she's with, where she is in her period cycle (not a joke...it can make a huge difference), what's going on around here, and whether or not it's Tuesday. On the other hand, most of the women that I know seem to buck the normal sexual ideas of women. Enjoyment of visual porn, easily aroused (most of the time), willing to try new and exciting things...all of that and more! *grin* Whoops....I mistyped...I meant to say Type III. (sorry...I wasn't going back to fix it)
type III ann arbor honies;)
Interesting segueue about female ejaculation; it has really bothered
some people I've been with. They also tend to be the "noah and the flood"
type though, and it's hard to tell if it's the ejaculation, or of it's the
fact that any good sex tends to be really messy that they're worked up about.
I'd disagree with one part of #44: it's not the physiology, it's the
psychology that determines if someone's able to enjoy themselves. Well,
barring bad breast enlargement or reduction surgery (and that really does get
a bit strange at time, remembering that only one is sensitive). There is one
point of physiology that I haven't seen studied, though, that I've made
informal conclusions about ... the distance between the clitoris and vagina
seems to make a real difference in the woman's attitude about penetration.
The closer it is, the more enthusiasm there is for penetration over oral sex,
and the further, the reverse. Barring the whole self-conscious factor, that
is.
Oh, and another segueue. I think sexual response *is* more
psychological than anything. With men as well as women, though it really
isn't recognized as well with men, and a physical problem with a woman is more
likely to be misdiagnosed as a psychological one, and a psychological problem
with a man is more likely to be misdiagnosed as a physical one. Either way,
though, I believe that both men and women need to be mentally stimulated
before physical stimulation will really work, though mild physical stimulation
can accomplish that.
On a side note, the bit about men being more visually oriented than
women is a cultural myth. Pupil dilation studies have shown the same kind
of response among heterosexual women to pictures of attractive men as with
heterosexual men to pictures of attractive women. The big difference seems
to be that unmarried men don't tend to respond as well to pictures of babies.
Gee, I wonder why? :) It's funny how juices flow. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try, they just don't flow as much, while others it seems like no matter what you do, they're dripping down your legs. I think that it just kind of depends on physical things, like how hydrated you are. That was a big problem for me for awhile, before I went on thyroid medicine. When you have a low thyroid problem, you have a hard time staying hydrated, and that affects *everything*. Once I was on drugs, problem cleared up. I've also noticed that drinking more water vs. soda really helps too. (My sister in law also reported the same thing when she went on thyroid medicine...not that I had really wanted to hear about her and my brother's sex life :) John, On your "study" of distance between clitoris and vagina: Have you any guesses on distances? For instance, how far is "close" and how far is "far\"? Idle curiousity, really :)
A half-hour? I'd go crazy. I'm usually ready before he has his damn pants off.
I don't know....I'd be ready to go before him usually, but I *adore* long bouts of foreplay. However, I don't know that they get me any readier for sex. One of the things that kind of messed up my last relationship was the fact that I was a hell of a lot hornier than him. When we first started dating, we saw each other almost every day, and managed to have sex probably 2/3 of that. (depending on where we were). By the time we hit a little over two years, I had to work at getting him into bed....he just wasn't that interested. Kind of irritating when you are all ready to go, and he gives the "not tonight" speech. On the other hand, since I fully believe in anybody's right to say no at any time, I wasn't going to push it.
Ya know, if I'm going to go off and say something like that, I should
have some measurements. However it did seem terribly gauche to whip out a
ruler at the moment.
I'd estimate "close" was about an inch and a half. Seriously.
<blush> okay, I guess I'm the victim of my own standard. I've read that people tend to believe that everyone reacts the same as they would. Guess that makes me a classic case. I was abused sexually when I was ten. Type I. I'm in therapy for it, working on it. I guess Psychology than I thought it did. But I still think that the way people are made (ie the males having the penis in a visible spot) has at least _something_ to do with it.
You have several choices: