|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 56 responses total. |
jazz
|
|
response 27 of 56:
| 
Feb 7 18:08 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
morwen
|
|
response 28 of 56:
|
Feb 7 19:20 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 29 of 56:
|
Feb 8 04:18 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
jazz
|
|
response 30 of 56:
|
Feb 8 16:54 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
phenix
|
|
response 31 of 56:
|
Feb 8 18:53 UTC 2002 |
actually..cybersex is a usefull tool...you don't talk about the fantisy you
kind of do it
|
oval
|
|
response 32 of 56:
|
Feb 8 20:37 UTC 2002 |
my partners not always horny at the same time i am, but i know how to change
that.
|
phenix
|
|
response 33 of 56:
|
Feb 8 21:06 UTC 2002 |
well. is your partner a man.
|
oval
|
|
response 34 of 56:
|
Feb 8 23:35 UTC 2002 |
maybe.
|
phenix
|
|
response 35 of 56:
|
Feb 9 17:15 UTC 2002 |
then it shouldn't be very hard to swing him over
|
oval
|
|
response 36 of 56:
|
Feb 9 22:41 UTC 2002 |
are you callin my man a ho?!?
|
phenix
|
|
response 37 of 56:
|
Feb 10 02:26 UTC 2002 |
nope. jut a man
|
morwen
|
|
response 38 of 56:
|
Feb 10 19:12 UTC 2002 |
<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.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 39 of 56:
|
Feb 11 01:01 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
jazz
|
|
response 40 of 56:
|
Feb 11 04:29 UTC 2002 |
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. ;)
|
morwen
|
|
response 41 of 56:
|
Feb 11 18:31 UTC 2002 |
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~
|
morwen
|
|
response 42 of 56:
|
Feb 11 18:32 UTC 2002 |
Not that I would WANT it that way. I'm rather happy with the way
males and females dovetail, thanks.
|
jazz
|
|
response 43 of 56:
|
Feb 11 18:54 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
phenix
|
|
response 44 of 56:
|
Feb 11 20:19 UTC 2002 |
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
|
oval
|
|
response 45 of 56:
|
Feb 11 21:00 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
phenix
|
|
response 46 of 56:
|
Feb 11 23:59 UTC 2002 |
which, oddly enough was my point. generally everything except vaginal
conditions is sociologically affected, and even that can be
changed by mood, etc.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 47 of 56:
|
Feb 12 00:03 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 48 of 56:
|
Feb 12 01:03 UTC 2002 |
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)
|
phenix
|
|
response 49 of 56:
|
Feb 12 01:34 UTC 2002 |
type III ann arbor honies;)
|
jazz
|
|
response 50 of 56:
|
Feb 12 02:57 UTC 2002 |
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.
|
jazz
|
|
response 51 of 56:
|
Feb 12 03:02 UTC 2002 |
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.
|