From the article:

“The price of sex is about how much one party has to do in order to entice the other into being sexual,”

Yes, it’s very expensive.  Why, Mr Cendare has to do things like… ask!  Or initiate non-sexual physical affection, and then see where it goes!  It’s a wonder he still has money left over to buy his lunch.

“More than 25% of young women report giving it up within the first week of dating. While researchers don’t have a baseline to compare it to, interviews they have conducted lead them to believe this is higher than before, which increases the pressure on other women and changes the expectations of men.”

Researchers? Sounds like lonely guys bitching about how long it’s been since they got a more-than-half-hearted blowjob.

I don’t think the expectations of men have changed, but the pressure on women is just the same as it’s always been: be slutty, but don’t be a slut. Same bad story. Same bad channel.

I like the part about women competing with online porn, for the Nypost it really is all about the O.

I fucking hate the term “giving it up.” It is indeed premised on the assumption that men like sex and women don’t, and furthermore assumes that when women have sex, they lose something while men gain. Which is why such “researchers” can’t imagine that maybe those young women who have sex within the first week of dating do so because they enjoy sex, and they have the advantage of living in a time and place where having sex in the first week of dating will not ruin their lives.

With gender equality, the Pill and the advent of Internet porn, women’s control of the meet market has been butchered.

Oh, I fucking love it.  Forty fucking years later and moral scolds are STILL wringing their hands over the goddamned pill!  They seriously cannot handle the idea of a woman who is not a slave to her biology.

And let me get this straight.  Women who do participate in the “traditional” arrangement where access to their bodies is monetized are terrible.  Women who do not participate in this arrangement and do not trade their bodies for social or material gain are also terrible.  I think I’m sensing a pattern here.  Women are terrible, regardless of what they do.

Bloody well said, Amanda.

If women effectively only had sex for money, then as soon as we were allowed jobs we would simply stop having it. The non-existence of huge cohorts of blissfully celibate career women disproves it. (Although if you look at the arguments of people supporting restrictions on women’s education or employment in decades past, it sounds remarkably like that’s what they were scared of.)

What I especially hate about evo psych is the assumption that women care about male attention, but not the other way around.  This is in fact the opposite of what we see in other species, where the males are the ones with flamboyant displays and the “make-up”, but the females are essentially the ones that hang around in old t-shirts and holey jeans.  From an evolutionary perspective, I can reproduce easily.  I could easily find some sperm within an hour if I really wanted to.  So why should I care about male attention if I have the resources to raise a child on my own?  And this is where the Nice Guys get mad.  Because I don’t need a man for myself and my offspring to survive, it turns the tables and now men are the ones that have to “compete” for me, rather than me “competing” for them.  In reality, I’d much prefer to have a great husband and father to share the workload, but technically I don’t need one.  And that’s scary for Nice Guys because suddenly they have to care about what I want and maybe admit to themselves that the world doesn’t revolve around them.  It would be far easier for them to just go back to a time when they could buy a wife from her father, rather than actually being a decent human being that a woman might actually want to be with.

#3 conflicts with #1 and #2.  If women have a right to say no and can get resources without saying yes, then feminism would result in less sex, not sluttiness.

Science Fail. Logic Fail.  Fail.

Link whoring misogyny. Awesome.

Women are terrible, regardless of what they do.

Well, yes. They make lonely, angry, unpleasant men feel vulnerable, and there should be a law against that.

This was a great post. It’s nice to see the irrationality of the anti-“slut” position spelled out for the slower and more stubborn members of the audience. Seriously, slow dudes, if women were less “slutty,” you’d have less chance of getting laid. That’s not what you claim to want.

Oceans of ink have been spilled to compare the eternal search for a piece of ass to a marketplace, a battlefield, a chess board.  But nope.  Human beings just enjoy sex.  It doesn’t need to be compared to anything else because it’s already awesome.

I’ve long held that Nice Guys™ would be much happier if they’d just learn to accept futility.  Some people* simply can’t be attractive (in any sense of the word), or at least appeal to such a small niche that they’re unlikely to meet anyone in it, and all of this whiny pseudo-science and internet trolling won’t change that.

*which includes myself, in case someone was going to claim ZOMG ALPHA ELITISM

“it’s really hard to explain away lesbians if you assume women live for male resources and attention”

I always thought they can just tell themselves Lesbians are freaks of nature that are unlike ‘proper’ women.

Actually they tell themselves lesbians don’t have sex.  You’ve never had references to “lesbian bed death” thrown at you with a self-satisfied smirk?  See, women don’t like sex, so when they get together they just eat tons of ice cream and watch romantic movies together.  He’s seen it on tv that one time.  And all the real life examples to the contrary, including personal testimony from women, can never be as valid to him.

Hooking Up Smart is a garbage nightmare. I think the people that write these sexual economics take ‘feminism’ to mean something different than it actually is. When we read feminism as ‘giving women power to pursue their own paths,’ taken together with their assertion that ‘women don’t like sex,’ it seems logically that feminism would result in less sex, not more. But to sexual economics boosters, feminism is women trying to unnaturally ape male behaviours and failing pathetically and meeting dire consequences. This seems to have been the view of anti-feminists from the suffragette era up to Philip Roth. So under feminism, women are DELUDED into thinking that they like sex, but all they’re doing is lowering their market value (and probably damaging their delicate ladypsyches in the process).

if you liked it back in the day, you really had to put a ring on it

BZZT! False!

The most cursory examination of birth and marriage records will show that plenty of people were always getting it on without getting married first - and that’s just the cases where there’s clear-cut documentary evidence.

I’m guessing the Nice Guy<TM> would explain lesbians liking sex because they are part man.  It seems they construct these elaborate theories to explain the differences between men and women when they would be better off to see there is not that much difference.  That there is a huge difference seems very important.  I suspect they want the same things they say women want but that would be so not Manly and we all know how important that is.

The question these guys want to ask more than anything is, “If women like sex so much, why aren’t they having it with me?” They just can’t bring themselves to say it outright, because that opens the door to the endless despair they’ve locked away.

every act of sex is a woman trying to extract resources

Since I know this comment thread is going to likely end up into some angst-ridden thing, here’s some comic relief (about 90 seconds in) to confirm this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0he-LZNzVg0

every act of sex is a woman trying to extract resources

Silly women.  Semen really only has about nine calories a shot.

Wow, #8, that link you posted is like a whole nother level of awful bullshit.

I think the evo psych “researchers” have really taken to heart the high school guidance counselor model of “find something you love to do and get paid for it.”  Except I suppose you have to become an embittered Nice Guy yourself to put out that garbage, which must be a stiff price.

Flaw #2: Men like sex more than women.
I quess its more like an combination of men wan’t to have sex more often, men are less picky and men are more forward coming.

Yes its impossible to tell for sure what the reasons behind this are but for an single invidual that hardly makes any difference.

Semen really only has about nine calories a shot.

OK, that just randomly cracked me up.

The question these guys want to ask more than anything is, “If women like sex so much, why aren’t they having it with me?”

Which I ask myself all the time when I am single or recently dumped. And it makes me sad. Then I get over it and realize there are any number of reasons at any given time and they are complicated, like humans, and I don’t make huge sweeping theories about men and women which are steeped in Evo Psych bullshit.

I also sometimes have a scotch, because it is yummy and I feel very film noir.

every act of sex is a woman trying to extract resources

I sense a very erotic Minecraft mod…

“Science for Choads” continues to be the greatest category tag in the entire history of blogging.

I’m amazed that “giving it up” can still be published in a maintstream newspapar in the 21st century.

But I would like to address a couple of points that Amanda made:
“Pretty much all research I’ve seen indicating men like sex “more” only indicates that men have more freedom and opportunities for sexual stimulation. “

I think this analysis is problematic. Is it really not true that women are sexually pickier than men? (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Talking to women, I’ve never had the impression that their sexual selectivity or relative disinterest in casual sex was due fear of rape, pregnancy etc. It had to do with more with feeling used by men, “making past mistakes”, and wanting an emotional connection with their partner. Again, nothing wrong with that. And I understand that it can be hard to disentangle the emotional hurt from slut shaming and other social indoctrination, but I’m inclined not to dismiss the words that women tell me just because they don’t conform to my ideals of sexual utopia.

So I guess it really depends on how you define “liking sex.” I can’t have multiple orgasms, but I can have enjoyable sex with lots of women without expecting or hoping for an emotional connection. And I’m sure there plenty of women for whom that’s true as well, and more power to them. But there are also plenty of women for whom this is far from true. Incidentally, I was just skimming thru Samhita Mukhopadhyay’s new book on dating and was impressed by the hurt she felt from her past open relationships and desire for more “emotional accountability” on the part of men. Which is to say, there clearly is a tension between feeling sexually liberated and owning up your authentic sexual and emotional desires (whatever they may be). I think this dynamic also leads to pathologizing men for enjoying casual sex with multiple partners without said “emotional accountability” and putting all blame on peer pressure (you got to admit that this reverse slut shaming is kind of ironic no?). Again, in my utopia we would all be whores, but what can you do.

“Many women out there could easily tell you about having far more sexual desire than male partners, for instance.  The theory that men like it more is torture for these women, by the way. It makes them feel like unattractive monsters—-after all, if men like it more, why do they have to beg for it, if not that it’s they’re extremely undesireable? “

While obviously some men have stronger libidos than others, it’s not as if my libido is a constant regardless of whom I happen to be partnered with. Some women excite me more than others. Doesn’t mean the less exciting women look like “monsters”, but my enthusiasm and desire for sex are a decent barometer for how much I dig my partner. So I think you should try and find someone who really digs you than to rationalize the lack of desire away. But really it’s a bit moot, because if you have to beg your partner for sex, regardless of gender, you should probably DTMFA anyways.

See, women don’t like sex, so when they get together they just eat tons of ice cream and watch romantic movies together. 

Don’t forget painting each other’s toenails.

I quess its more like an combination of men wan’t to have sex more often

Just because women wrinkle their noses and quickly back away stammering out something about a hair appointment when you try to talk to them, and stare at the ceiling sullenly waiting for it to be over when you have sex with them, does not mean your experience holds for everyone. 

men are less picky

They have no fear of being raped.

and men are more forward coming.

Projectile orgasms don’t really make that much of a difference, big guy.

@Comment #12: dopus dei on 09/29 at 10:45 AM

Oceans of ink have been spilled to compare the eternal search for a piece of ass to a marketplace, a battlefield, a chess board.  But nope.  Human beings just enjoy sex.  It doesn’t need to be compared to anything else because it’s already awesome.

WORD

#17 JilliefromChile starts a nice taxonomy of these arguments about feminism and sex:

Feminism = women pursuing what they want; they don’t want sex; therefore, frigid feminists.
Feminism = women trying to be like men; they don’t want sex; therefore, women having sex they regret.

Both of those are prevalent (and often held at the same time) among conservatives.  I’ve also seen one prevalent among self-described liberal men:

Feminism = fewer taboos against sex (plus reduced risk of pregnancy); women might not like it that much, but at least the risks are reduced; therefore, I get more action

It’s still a transaction/marketplace understanding of sex and a childish (at best) understanding of women.  It just sees as positive some of the things conservatives see as negative

The understanding promoted on this blog—that sex is a fun thing that some people sometimes like to do together and that feminism gives men and women equal agency in pursuing (or not pursuing) it—seems much more healthy.

Sorry if this is all Feminism 101.  I never took it, but I’m trying to teach it to my kids.

Is it really not true that women are sexually pickier than men?

That would certainly explain why men are expected to shave off all their body hair and wear makeup and elaborately sexy clothes while women aren’t.

OK I have a semi-serious question. Have the guys that write this sort of drivel never experienced turning a woman down for sex? Forget for a moment whether they were doing it for a good reason or not, have they actually never done that?

Because I can think of times I’ve done that, and other men that I’ve known have described turning women down too. Doesn’t this fact kinda put the kibosh on the whole, “Men are uncontrollable” thing? If we were, we would just jump all over any woman that offered.

Is it really not true that women are sexually pickier than men?

Yeah.  They’re just seen as pickier because they don’t have a right to say no without supplying reliable justification for their choice, preferably in the form of a 40 page graduate level thesis.

But a dude?  Having sex with an uggo?  Well obviously that’s not going to happen!

Oh, gag.  I just read the Hooking Up Smart site.  Susan Walsh acknowledges that “promiscuous” women do benefit from sex—not sexual pleasure so much, but short-term attention and validation from men who are more attractive and desirable than they are.  Her theory is that they are harming themselves and other women who don’t want to (ew “give it up”) for short-term gain. 

This woman is such an idiot.

@Comment #36: Gavel Down on 09/29 at 11:59 AM

Yeah.  They’re just seen as pickier because they don’t have a right to say no without supplying reliable justification for their choice, preferably in the form of a 40 page graduate level thesis.

But a dude?  Having sex with an uggo?  Well obviously that’s not going to happen!

The question, in other words, is not “why are women pickier”, the question is, “why can’t I get all the hot chicks”?

That would certainly explain why men are expected to shave off all their body hair and wear makeup and elaborately sexy clothes while women aren’t.

Win.

Pretty much any attempt to compare something that isn’t really a marketplace (and many things that are) to econ-101 simplifications of real marketplaces is going to be a politically-motivated disaster.  And it’s even worse if you have to admit that you didn’t do the parts of the “research” that could, y’know, confirm or disconfirm your hypothesis.

If you’re going to do transaction models, you should at least take into account the fact that sex is a time-sensitive commodity (i.e. someone who gets dressed up to go out to a bar will have wasted that money and effort unless they get laid) but also a substitutable one (having a good time without getting laid is better than having a lousy time with). and has a different utility for everyone, so that there’s actually no possible market in the traditional sense but rather a series of micro-markets. Oh, and is sometimes a rival good and sometimes a nonrival one. Oh, and sometimes can be priced accurately before purchase and sometimes can’t…

C’mon, if you’re going to have a crappy stupid sexist theory you might as well make it manly and rigorous.

Ok I have to go back to #25 for a second because the last line is….just great.

Yes its impossible to tell for sure what the reasons behind this are

Pretty sure they boil down to infinite variations on “every time you open your mouth my clitoris dies a little inside.”  But you could try asking.

Paul @40, I am looking forward to you analytical paper on the economics of transactional sex.  Maybe you can submit it to that guy who had the article about how “More sex is safer sex” where the argument was if more prudes just put out, the risk of contracting an STI would go down.

Sure, Ariel. Many women feel that way.

But so do men.

Since there’s really not a lot of gender difference there, and I was referring to actual gender differences, I think “fear of rape” is the major influencing factor here.  When it comes NSA sex, I really doubt women are more likely to fall in love. I think they are more worried about being seen as sluts, though.  What we fail to acknowledge when talking about women who fall in love after a hook-up is that this happens to men all the time.  Believe you and me.

I also find it amusing that guys who get into the whole PUA thing think that any/every sexual interaction is exactly and identically the same as strangers trying to find somebody to fuck for a night, and that all peopel behave like this in every venue - not just when prowling bars for drink and sex.

I saw one guy who was “citing research”, yet the research he cited would never be published in a public health journal (it was from some sociology journal known for lax peer review) because it didn’t address “selection effects” given age of those studied and their self-selection for the venue where they sought interactions (bars).

The fact is, the bar world is only one type of market for interaction - and was never my thing, but may work for others.  Walk into a cycling club or a kayak outing group and do that PUA shit and people WILL avoid you - offer to help someone with a derailleur or a dry bag, get launched, and then paddle or ride along side and something might happen on egalitarian terms.  I don’t have enough digits to count the weddings at this point.

America also seems to completely miss the *other* stereotype about women’s sexuality, that we are ravenous and insatiable and, therefore, our sexuality must be closely monitored and controlled.

Yet another flaw with all of these theories is that they’re profoundly ahistorical and assume that our modern stereotypes about gender have always been the norm.  They haven’t—they differ across time, place, and culture.  Women were once thought to the promiscuous, voracious sex who tempted innocent men which pretty much contradicts this bullshit about women not liking sex.  It reminds me of that ridiculous study that argued that women prefer pink because, as pre-historic berry pickers, their eyes were naturally predisposed to see red and pink.  This completely ignores that dressing boys in blue and girls in pink was something that was worked out amongst the major department stores in the early twentieth century and that many folks argued for dressing boys in pink because red was seen as a more masculine color.

I’m shocked it’s not widely accepted that women enjoy sex more (I’m a guy).  Clearly whatever feelings they have are several times as awesome as what I’m feeling, and I think sex rocks (duh).  A woman’s orgasm can be loud enough to freak me out, whole body rocking stuff, a man’s orgasm is simply not the same thing.  I don’t see how it’s even arguable that when a woman is enjoying sex, even short of an orgasm, she is having some awesome feelings that guys don’t have.  The whole body rocking, needing more, dear god thing just doesn’t happen to any guy I know.

This isn’t a compliant, heck I think it’s great.  I’m just dumbfounded that the common conception that woman like sex less exists.  There is no doubt in my mind women like sex MORE.  No one likes sex with someone they don’t want to have sex with.  It’s not a woman’s fault a guy has no appeal.  Heck 75% of women don’t appeal to me and they don’t seem to care.  It’s life, grow a d!ck and deal.  (Men.  women, please do not “grow a d!ck”).

I think another reason women may turn down casual sex in the ‘stranger asking’ scenario as well as in real life is that ‘sex’ is commonly understood as shorthand for ‘intercourse,’ which is a sex act that tends to favour male pleasure. In a society that tends to define sex as beginning and ending with penises, I think most women need confirmation that a man is somewhat attentive to her desires before she expects any sort of satisfying encounter. Leading with a request to cram a dick in her might a man’s chances to be perceived that way. I’d argue that some of the women Ariel might have spoken to might have had sexual encounters that were unsatisfying, er, sexually besides emotionally. Before having casual sex, I might try to establish an ‘emotional connection’ in that I have a conversation determining whether the fellow is passive-aggressive or selfish in a way that would likely make sex awful.

@Goat—thanks for articulating something I’ve been thinking.  Even ideas about ideal family structure—a nuclear family household in which man goes out to work, woman stays home and cares for children—is a recent invention.  Ideas about women’s capacities, proper roles, and desires have changed drastically over time (Sociological Images recently ran a great article from a 1967 issue of Cosmopolitan profiling female computer programmers and explaining why women were naturally suited to the job), across cultures, and among classes, as have ideas about what constituted proper masculinity, how marriages should be arranged and families should be structures, and the best way to raise children.  Almost always, any theory or explanation that starts with “women are like this” or “men are like this” is profoundly wrong, because it’s extrapolating a specific cultural norm across an entire gender and declaring it inherent to that gender.

I’ve long held that Nice Guys™ would be much happier if they’d just learn to accept futility.  Some people* simply can’t be attractive (in any sense of the word), or at least appeal to such a small niche that they’re unlikely to meet anyone in it, and all of this whiny pseudo-science and internet trolling won’t change that.

I disagree with that, but what Nice Guys need to acknowledge is that they and their shitty attitudes about women are the problem preventing them from getting laid, not women themselves. I mean yeah, it does seem easier for some people to get laid than for others - though in truth you don’t really know what the subjective experience of those people is - but the most unattractive aspect of a Nice Guy is his personality, and that’s changeable. It’s just that so few of them display the self-honesty or introspection necessary to change themselves, and what’s more they don’t feel they they should have to change themselves to get laid, because they’re dudes and those bitches are supposed to be worshiping their cock.

My basic rule of thumb is that you’re not unique. If you’re not finding anybody with whom you have things in common, you’re not looking hard enough or in the right places. So I don’t really think that anyone is inherently unfuckable unless they’re screwing their chances up by being unpleasant to be around (Nice Guys, natch).

@45:

You have to understand, these are guys whose sexual technique probably boils down to “thrust thrust thrust I’m done.” So they may have no experience with women enjoying sex. And rather than wondering if they’re the common factor there, they simply make a generalized rule about it and become misogynistic toads.

@Comment #46: JilliefromChile—Right.  Women might be explaining that NSA sex is unsatisfying because there wasn’t a connection, but some of the value of having a connection with your partner is that the sex is more likely to be enjoyable.  If you’ve only just met someone and you don’t know them very well, the odds are better that you are not comfortable talking about what you want, and you may feel more self-conscious about your body, neither of which is conducive to a good time between the sheets.  But it also means that you have limited information about whether this is someone who respects your boundaries and who is as interested in your pleasure as he is in his own.  You might find out that he’s willing to sleep with you, but thinks less of you for “giving it up.”  You might find out that he’s not willing to put a lot of effort into making sure that you enjoy yourself (which does not just mean having an orgasm). You might therefore come to the conclusion that NSA sex isn’t all that great, because you feel used and want a connection, but underlying that is the fact that the encounter wasn’t all that fun for you, the guy didn’t treat you very well during or afterwards.  I’ve never met a woman who felt “used” by a guy if she herself had had a rocking good time.

@46. Amen to that.  It’s not about wanting “love” it’s about wanting to know they’ll want to actually share pleasure. Which a lot of guys don’t want to do in that penis centric one nighter.

“It reminds me of that ridiculous study that argued that women prefer pink because, as pre-historic berry pickers, their eyes were naturally predisposed to see red and pink.  This completely ignores that dressing boys in blue and girls in pink was something that was worked out amongst the major department stores in the early twentieth century and that many folks argued for dressing boys in pink because red was seen as a more masculine color.”

Slightly OT—IT also ignores the fact that many berries are blue or purple.  I mean, really, not only do these people not know anything about women, they have apparently never eaten a blueberry.

Goat,

Boys were dressed in pink for a number of years for just that reason, which is Exhibit# 302,894 for the case that evo-psych arguments are bullshit.  If the blue/pink gender coding reversed next week, these hacks would turn on a dime and claim that women are disposed to like blue because their prehistoric male counterparts were always sending them to fetch water. 

When misogyny is both the starting pont and the destination, it doesn’t really matter how you get there.

What I don’t get is this: why do people seeking casual NSA sex with strangers ever complain about being rejected on superficial criteria?  When you are deciding whether or not to get a room with somebody you just met, isn’t that all you have time for?  (saying this as somebody who doesn’t do casual, but doesn’t fault people who do or even prefer it).

@Triplanetary:  Ahh fair enough.  I never considered myself a don juan but maybe the bar is low.  I’m a pro at clearing low bars.  I do think (hope?) there is a growing acceptance that women love sex as much as men, heck I thought this whole piece was old hat at this point. 

I have trouble giving up my belief that conservatives are losers.  I’ve got no research, pure belief based on anecdotes, and whenever I say that on my fave liberal sites all the folks who had a bad high school experience jump on me….....but I still think conservatives are mainly herbs and losers who can’t get laid.  I’m sorry for that belief, I can’t help it.  Some piece or event reinforces it every day.

What I don’t get is this: why do people seeking casual NSA sex with strangers ever complain about being rejected on superficial criteria?  When you are deciding whether or not to get a room with somebody you just met, isn’t that all you have time for?

No, see, when a guy sees a woman and thinks she’s hot, he should get to have sex with her. Who does that stuck-up bitch think she is turning him down?

...is basically the logic at work here.

Using an extremely simplistic reading of Darwin, shouldn’t every evo-psych study simply end with “since females want to propagate their genes across the generations and pick sexual partners to encourage that, the fact that they ignore Nice Guys is because Nice Guys are genetically inferior to all other males.”?

Yes, yes, I know things are more complicated than that (and you cannot reduce every human behavior to a simplistic, 4-box LL,Ll,Ll, ll diagram), but it uses their own conception of biology and a little Occam to basically end the crap right there. “Face it, dude, you are one of the losers in the DNA lottery and women can sense that massive chromosomal failure.  Yes, she is going to fuck that myopic, diabetic, dwarf with Downs Syndrome; but, obviously he has better genes than you.  It should be clear by now that you are the detritus of humanity - I would suggest suicide .”  There is no having to explain to the dimwits that there is actually an Econ 102 class with more developed ideas or anything like that; no arguments on the Pill; no having to explain why women might not be hip to being groped on the street by a stranger - just the explanation that they are dead-ends breeding-wise, and walking away as they try to digest the cold, hard fact that they suck at a molecular level.

I think “Flaw #1: Men like sex, but women don’t” has something to do with excusing the Nice Guys from thinking the woman’s experience has anything to do with what women think of sex. If they acknowledged that we like sex just fine when it’s good for us and with partners who respect us and treat us like human beings, then they’d have to face the question of what they have to offer women, which rather undermines the whole “shallow bitch won’t give me pussy just for asking” line of thought.

Being in a less than generous mood, I also suspect them of not wanting to trouble themselves to make sex about anything more than “stick dick in hole, thrust, repeat.”

@Comment Kit-Kat,JilliefromChile

That’s a very good point. For me, as I imagine for many other guys, sex is like pizza - great when it’s good, good even when it’s kind of bad (chemistry-wise). I’ve actually noticed that I reflect warmly some on sexual experiences that felt less than stellar to me at the time,  whereas good (not great) sex can be rather forgettable (great sex is always memorable). I think it’s some weird cognitive dissonance trick my mind plays on me. I wonder how prevalent that is.

I do wonder though, why not ask the guy about his sexual etiquette? If you really just want to get some, and the guy wants some, and he doesn’t seem threatening, why not engage in some sexual banter and see what his attitude to pleasuring you is? Either way the proof of the pudding (or rather vagina) is in the eating, so you won’t know what kind of lover your stranger mate is until you get down and dirty.

There was one study that was bandied around as proof positive, but it turned out that it was a study where random people were asked by a stranger of the opposite sex to have sex right then and there, and men were more likely to say “yes” than women (who basically all said no).  Of course, what that study measured was not actually sexual desire, but women’s fear of being raped, a fear that makes perfect sense in a world where rape rates are so incredibly high.

I recall what might or might not be a different, but similar, study, wherein heterosexual women had pretty much the same likelihood of saying yes to a female asker as a male asker, and the analysis had to do with perceptions of sex, wherein women figured the guy meant PIV sex (standard intercourse) with him getting off and her not all that likely to, but perceived the female askers as meaning a mutually enjoyable session where the askee had a good chance of getting off even if she wasn’t attracted to the person doing the asking. Both Yes rates were pretty low, but it definitely says something about what (presumed) respect and focus on the askee’s enjoyment of the sexual encounter will do for one’s rates of success.

@ #57: phalamir

I wish this site had an up-rate feature.  That is the best comment I’ve read on a blog this year.

“I think it’s high time we start asking if people who forward theories of sexual markets that have little to no real evidence behind them might themselves have an agenda. [...]  these theories might have a lot of emotional power that is clogging up their ability to be rational.”

YESSSSSS. Thank you!

I’m a lady who has experienced having a higher sex drive than my male SO. So according to the market theory that I am extracting resources from men for sex, wouldn’t my higher sex drive permit me to have a harem of men (and their resources) and amass a fortune? But wait, “sluts” are “worthless.” How does that work, again?

Whenever I read articles “explaining” the “sexual marketplace” it feels like a massive dose of, “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”

ArielNYC

I’d say for me, there is great sex and there is sex which mostly seems like a waste of time (for me). I’ve had encounters with men that were grade A prime pizza. Usually though, I had several dates that progressed along a sexual pathway letting me know that the ultimate ending would be good.

It’s hard to tell how good they will be unless I’ve spent some time making out, seeing if I desire them later when they are gone…and even so, the best sex happens (for me) after the second or third go round. Not the first night in the sack.

Bluntly, I think most men come during a one night stand and many women don’t. So for men, even bad pizza is still pizza. For me and I’m assuming other women, there have been moments where he had pizza and I got to see that he had pizza, smelling the potential pizza but not really getting any pizza. I would leave hungry. Why do that?

Add on top of that the whole disrespect thing that many women get after a one nighter, and the risk of pregnancy etc it’s not a high ROI.  Not for me.

I know two women who always come from penetration. Guess what. They really like one nighters much more than I do. Wonder why!

We like sex. We like good sex. We don’t like sloppy sex that leaves us feeling like we could have had more fun on our own. Which happens.

@Amanda Marcotte

“When it comes NSA sex, I really doubt women are more likely to fall in love. I think they are more worried about being seen as sluts, though.  What we fail to acknowledge when talking about women who fall in love after a hook-up is that this happens to men all the time.”

Where are the dating books demanding more emotional accountability from women in open relationships/NSA situations? Or advice column readers complaining that women use them for sex and won’t give them the emotional support they need? Ok I get that this is a rather glib analysis, and maybe there are hordes of men out there boiling in stoic rage about women who used them for a one night stand and who vowed to take it slow next time. But the impression I’m getting is that the boiling rage is mostly directed toward women who won’t sleep with Nice Guys TM.

I think the question to ask is whether hertero men and women who engage in open relationships/NSA sex come into it with symmetrical expectations.  When I read a book like Outdated that blames toxic masculinity for men being too promiscuous and emotionally ungiving,  as opposed to women getting into a low investment relationships with men who are just not that into them, I get the impression that there’s lots of willful denial going on.

Thinking about it, I guess there is actually a sexual marketplace but it is only one aspect of the culture of sex and honestly it’s a pretty small part. I don’t quite get why guys get stuck on this particular metaphor, maybe it is just the way Americans are obsessed by money in general.

@JulesAboutTown

“Add on top of that the whole disrespect thing that many women get after a one nighter”

Could you clarify that point? Disrespect because the guy didn’t call? Because he was rude and obnoxious and shaming?

“I would leave hungry. Why do that?”

Nothing ventured nothing gained? I’m just curious though whether your attitude would have been different if not for STIs, pregnancy risk etc. That is, would you be alright skipping straight to the main course and seeing if the pizza is up to snuff, or would you still need to see how the guy kneads the dough and if the mozzarella stick is any good? (ok this metaphor is getting a little bit tortured).

Seriously, slow dudes, if women were less “slutty,” you’d have less chance of getting laid. That’s not what you claim to want.

Well, no. Because these men are unfuckable as-is and steadfastly opposed to doing anything that would make them more fuckable. What less sluttiness accomplishes is making sure that all those actual-nice, attractive, interesting men stop getting the pussy ALSO.

I remember reading recently that in the 19th Century something like 15% of women, say 15-35 years old, were prostitutes. That’s a huge chunk of the population. Yes, there was a ‘market’ for extramarital sex then. It was not ‘metaphorical’ or figurative or whatever is proposed in the POST article.

But as the ‘free love’ notion that was born in the 19th Century finally is coming to fruition, we have ‘scientists’ doubling down on the ‘market’ theory of love.

It’s a wonderful thing that so few women (relative the 19th C) turn to prostitution now. It’s great that people are free to express their desires and fulfill them without all the baggage.

This story takes the fact of the ‘sex market’ melting away and just doubles down on the 19th Century.

It’s just weird. It’s 180 degrees away from what the facts are indicating.

Well, @arielnyc

My 20’s (on the pill and not too worried about STIs) had a fair share of venturing and not gaining much, so I think at this stage I’m far more cautious about my time and energy.  I don’t think I had a single one night stand in my 20’s that I can say, “Wow that was awesome.” More like, “Hey if getting laid was the goal, then yes that was accomplished.” Ironically, I’d get praise from my dates, but really it wasn’t good for me per se.

It’s a quality thing. The main course (penis in vagina) is not nearly as satisfying to me as other activities not likely in a one night stand. In my experience (and I hear anecdotally) most men do that other stuff quickly to get to the PIV has been my experience. Just get that out of the way to get to the main course.  The expectations are mismatched there.

As for the shaming stuff? Well, yeah like being friends prior, being told sex won’t change things, then having the sex and then the boy ignoring you from that point out.  Not cool. Or being told you take too long to come (WTF? You can’t spend an extra 10 minutes making me feel good?). That kind of thing. Why the hell do that on a Friday night?

Of course, where food is concerned? Bad pizza is not PIZZA. Good pizza is pizza. Bad pizza? I won’t eat it. I’d rather take time and sensuality and enjoyment in the things I place in my body. Because I like it more that way. My pleasure in the experience is important and my time is precious so why the fuck waste it?

If your experiences have been different good for you and the women you have sex with. But I don’t do things that I’m not pretty certain will be worth it for me, not at this point.

Now my first comment was an observation not my personal opinion.

They have no fear of being raped.

Obiviously this is one of the reasons but does not explain the big picture.

Projectile orgasms don’t really make that much of a difference, big guy.

Nah I meant the verbal part.

It should be clear that nobody is entitled to anybodys sexual interest but there has to be an reason for the general differences between the genders when it comes to sexual behavior.

@ArielNYC

When it’s the guy on the serious relationship side the assumption is that the relationship is in fact serious and the women is violating his trust or playing with his feelings if she continues to play the field. For women it’s “he’s not that into you” and for guys “it’s why’d she break up with/ cheat on me?”

Nothing ventured nothing gained? I’m just curious though whether your attitude would have been different if not for STIs, pregnancy risk etc. That is, would you be alright skipping straight to the main course and seeing if the pizza is up to snuff, or would you still need to see how the guy kneads the dough and if the mozzarella stick is any good? (ok this metaphor is getting a little bit tortured).

My pleasure in the experience is important and my time is precious so why the fuck waste it?
If your experiences have been different good for you and the women you have sex with. But I don’t do things that I’m not pretty certain will be worth it for me, not at this point.

I feel like the lesson of the past 3 days on Pandagon is: whoever you are, whatever you’re doing, someone is convinced that you are incapable of assessing your own priorities, risks, preferences, and trade-offs.

It should be clear that nobody is entitled to anybodys sexual interest but there has to be an reason for the general differences between the genders when it comes to sexual behavior.

Oh if only there were 30+ years of feminist scholarship devoted to exploring and answering exactly this question. If only.

@well what. Yeah. That’s true. I know what I like. Women usually know what they like!

Funny, @well what, this same thing often happens to me when I say I don’t like Blue Cheese, like at a party or something. I get tons of people saying OH BUT YOU SHOULD TRY THIS ONE! And I’m like, dudes. I’ve tried it once a year for the last 20 years and I hate it. Not gonna change.

@Comment #68: KingElvis on 09/29 at 02:18 PM

... It’s a wonderful thing that so few women (relative the 19th C) turn to prostitution now. It’s great that people are free to express their desires and fulfill them without all the baggage.

This story takes the fact of the ‘sex market’ melting away and just doubles down on the 19th Century.

It’s just weird. It’s 180 degrees away from what the facts are indicating.

Actually this is a really good point. What is one to make of this sort of mass delusion?

Maybe it is like Ron Paul fans who, when shown incontrovertible evidence of the corrupt nature of American capitalism circa 2011, decide that what we really need is an ultra-pure form of capitalism. It is a strange kind of doubling down. I guess that’s what you do when you have only one model, and that model ain’t working?

Ariel @64, it’s (at least in part) because in North America, books of almost any kind are for gurlz.  Publishers sell to a female market.  Same with magazine how-to: women get told to improve themselves and try harder, men get told to swagger more.  It’s a cultural rut—not some irreducible difference between two genders.

Some people have already noted that there is a picky gender but it’s men, not women.  I’d mention not just the orders to women that they must groom endlessly and spend a fortune (of their lower wage income) on their appearance but also the belief that a guy can say always no thanks without ever being called shallow or expected to give reasons—that 40 page dissertation mentioned upthread.  More phallocentrism: his penis wants what it wants and we all have to live with that. 

I think men call women picky, and are so furious about this pickiness, because getting to say yes or no to sex—in the 18-30 or so age range, for the hott minority of women—is the only decisionmaking power that women ever have over men.  Women usually aren’t men’s bosses on the job; they’re expected to defer to men in relationships; they have to do much more of the childcare shitwork.  One expression of choice and prerogative, usually very politely rendered, and the guys go nuts.

Gumiman:

It should be clear that nobody is entitled to anybodys sexual interest but there has to be an reason for the general differences between the genders when it comes to sexual behavior.

Why don’t you try scrolling up and reading the thread, genius? Because plenty of people, men and women alike, explained that “the general differences between the genders” are a matter of social construction, and there are anecdotes aplenty illustrating that women, in fact, do like sex.

I suspect, however, you’re ignoring anything posted by women. If we were to start bombarding you with links to citations, I imagine you’ll ignore those as well and continue to natter on about how “everybody knows” men want sex and women want relationships.

Ariel being obtuse again.  Why am I not suprised.

The disrespect is both individual and sociaetal, as you should very well know and are ignoring.  Other than the admission, in passing, of slut shaming. 

For women, the kneading the dough can be a big component in whether the pizza is worth anything at all, rather than just letting you smell and drool for it, but not actually get any.  Just in case that was a serious question, which I sincerely doubt.

Also:

Now my first comment was an observation not my personal opinion.

Both your observations and your personal opinion are seriously limited by your experience. Or did you also miss the comment mid-thread from the guy whose observation is that women like sex more than men do? An observation I’ve heard echoed by at least one other man.

Yeah, Ariel exists to mansplain to us wimmin that we’re not approaching sex the right way. Feh. Also, Ariel, you can spare me the inevitable comment about how you’re not actually doing this, but you’re so concerned that strange women on the internet don’t know how to handle their own sex lives.

“Nothing ventured nothing gained? I’m just curious though whether your attitude would have been different if not for STIs, pregnancy risk etc. That is, would you be alright skipping straight to the main course and seeing if the pizza is up to snuff, or would you still need to see how the guy kneads the dough and if the mozzarella stick is any good? (ok this metaphor is getting a little bit tortured).”

For *you,* the main course is PIV sex.  For a lot of women (and probably some men), it isn’t.  So, skipping ahead to the main course means not getting fed.  What a lot of men think of as foreplay is, in fact, the best part for a lot of women, and not necessarily because it’s about “getting her in the mood” of feeling all emotionally connected.  And this is why one-night stands are often disappointing—for you, it may very well be the case that just-okay sex is still okay.  For a lot of women, what you think of as just-okay sex is an utter waste of time.  And why waste your time? 

His concern is touching. Surely, I’ve just been going about it all the wrong way. If only I liked pizza more! With blue cheese!

Yeah Kit-kat, the foreplay IS sex. But I’ve known men who see that as some kind of toll they have to pay before getting to the “real” sex.

If #2 is true (men like sex more than women), then the whole “women have lowered their market value” bullshit is *still* not particularly valid.

Let’s extrapolate this out. Let’s say, for the sake of argument:

- Men want sex more than women.
- Women want sex, but not as much as men do.
- Women want love, validation and respect from men as much as, or more than, they want sex.
- Women are willing to trade sex for what they want from men, because the men want the sex more than the women do.
- Women have been known to trade sex for resources from men.

So:

In a world where women are not permitted to gather their own resources, women are forced to use the sexual marketplace to trade their sexuality for resources. This means that women cannot use the sexual marketplace to trade for what they really want, which is love, validation and respect from men, unless they are of such high “value” that they can get everything they want, and they certainly cannot expect to get good sex out of the deal.

In a world where women are permitted to gather their own resources, and are not demonized for having multiple sex partners, women do not need to trade sex for resources. They can trade sex for love, respect and validation. When they have sex with a man who does not give them love, sex and validation, they can simply DTMFA and move on to another man, whereas in the past, they would be economically tied to that man and they would be unmarriageable for being no longer virgins.

If the value of the women themselves has dropped, because more women are offering non-exclusive services, then men don’t need to “offer” such a high price for them. But the high price they were offering before was generally “I will support you for the rest of your life and also not have sex with any other women, or at least I won’t publicly admit to it.” This is a *really* high price. Naturally most men won’t want to pay that price without shopping around a little first.

But if women are *now* trading sex for “love, respect, validation, and a good sexual experience if I can get it with the other three”... well, that’s a lot more within the average man’s price range. All he has to do to be able to win sex with a woman is to either a. not despise her or b. be good at hiding it. All he has to do to *keep* winning sex with her is a. demonstrate ongoing love, respect and validation and b. provide good sex.

How about the man himself? What’s he in the market for? The fact that every single man in the world is not fucking an endless stream of one-night stands suggests that men are *also* in the market for love, respect and validation, provided they can get it from someone who offers them good sexual value.

(continued)

(continued from previous)
So:

If men want sex primarily, but secondarily they want love, respect and validation;
If women want love, respect and validation primarily, but secondarily they want sex;

Then the “price drop” caused by the fact that women are willing to shop around for what *they* want is favorable to both men and women. In the past, a man could lie and declare that he would offer love when all he wanted was sex, but then, he was stuck with someone he didn’t love, and he had to pay money to that person and support her, and probably the fact that he didn’t love her would eventually come out and kill her love for him, and then she’d feel no obligation to continue to have sex with him… so what did he just earn? The stereotypical “ball and chain”, the wife who doesn’t like you and doesn’t want sex with you but who you are stuck with.

On the other hand, consider that in that situation, the woman was lied to in the first place! The man “won” her as a wife by lying and offering love when he didn’t have it to give. So now she is married to a man who deceived and used her AND SHE IS STUCK. She can’t divorce him and marry someone else; she will *never* get the love, respect and validation she wanted. She’ll also never get good sex, but she probably didn’t even think that was an item available to her in the first place.

Now, imagine the situation. The man doesn’t need to offer eternal support and monogamy; all he has to do is convince the woman that he likes her and respects her. Great! So she has sex with him because she is looking for love, validation and respect, and he seems to have those on offer… and she’s trying him out to see if *his* goods are actually worth purchasing. Now, if he’s terrible in bed, she might continue to offer up sex if he seems really loving and nice, but if he really doesn’t love her, how long will he fake it? How long will he be willing to? He could easily move on to another woman if he *doesn’t* love this one; if all he’s getting from her is good sex, well, sex is a commodity you can get lots of places nowadays. Love is pretty specific, though, so if he’s in the market for love, he’ll leave her if he doesn’t love her and stay if he does.

SCORE! The woman wins. The man who only wants her for sex is only going to have sex with her for as long as it takes either her to figure out he doesn’t love her or for him to get tired of her; he’s not going to take up her whole life! Even if she married the asshat first, she can divorce him and end up with someone who *does* love her. Sure, she had to suffer the heartbreak of being used by someone she thought she loved… but in the past, she ran the *same* risk, except that once she found out the truth she’d have been trapped. Now she can “try before she buys” with the love she *really* wants, just as he can “try before he buys” with the sex he *really* wants. Everyone wins!

...none of this changes the fact that the fundamental concept that women sell sex for love is not a proven biological reality, and to the extent that it’s real it seems *heavily* culturally mediated. But, if it *is* real, women are still in a better place than before because when the thing you’re trading for is not “money and goods” but “love and respect”, you are not just a seller. You are a buyer, and you’re buying something really specific and hard to find, and now, if you find that you were sold bad goods, you have the power to move on and try to buy the real deal somewhere else.

See, here’s where this “sex is a marketplace” metaphor breaks down EVERY TIME the average shills for the patriarchy try to bloviate about it. *Sex* isn’t the marketplace, “heterosexual relationships” are the marketplace, and if no one is trading for money (a good that, by definition, it does not matter who you get it from), but are instead trading for intangibles that are very, very personal, then both parties are buyers. It makes as much sense to say “Women are trying to buy love with sex, and now that they have the ability to stop having sex with a guy as soon as they realize he doesn’t love them, the “love market” value of a man only exists so long as he genuinely *does* love them.” Why don’t they phrase this whole thing as “women are able to buy genuine love and men cannot deceive them with counterfeit articles nearly as often as in the past?” Oh, because of the fiction that if she was financially and socially unable to divorce him after they married, it’s exactly the same thing as if he loved her.

Women don’t want marriage. They want *love*. Marriage is a proxy for love, but a sham marriage would have been worse than no marriage, because it would have denied the woman the ability to ever get love. Now, women may not get marriage as often as in the past, but probably, they get love a whole lot more. And yeah, some women’s hearts get broken, but newsflash, they always did.

Nothing ventured nothing gained? I’m just curious though whether your attitude would have been different if not for STIs, pregnancy risk etc. That is, would you be alright skipping straight to the main course and seeing if the pizza is up to snuff, or would you still need to see how the guy kneads the dough and if the mozzarella stick is any good? (ok this metaphor is getting a little bit tortured).

How would JulesAboutTown even know the answer to this question necessarily? I mean I can dream about how I would act if I didn’t have to have a job, but I can’t really say with certainty.

When they get middle-aged, if they have some money, Nice Guys are so bitter and toxic that they travel to economically disadvantaged countries where the impoverished women will consider a marriage arrangement in which they’re, essentially, bought by older, unattractive, bitter men.

Often those women flee the marriages at the first opportunity, to the surprise of the Nice Guys, that their mail order brides don’t stay bought.

A percentage suffer in silence, and some of the marriages work, but a few of those women are battered or murdered by the men who hate women, and are bitter that they can’t buy a marriage of their convenience.

@ scrumby

“When it’s the guy on the serious relationship side the assumption is that the relationship is in fact serious and the women is violating his trust or playing with his feelings if she continues to play the field. For women it’s “he’s not that into you” and for guys “it’s why’d she break up with/ cheat on me?”

I think the woman is playing with his feelings if she doesn’t communicate her true intentions for the relationship. And same for the guy.

Anyways, the author of Outdated was in an open relationship.  As I understand it the problem wasn’t about cheating. It was about not getting enough “emotional accountability” from the guy. Which I take to mean she wanted more emotional investment than the guy was willing to give her. She admits that she has an attachment to unavailable men. but rather than doing any introspection she instead blames male promiscuity. Which I think is kind of self-defeating no?

I think it’s interesting that you hear about one guy-many girls poly relationships but not much vice versa. But either way, you should communicate to your partner what sort of relationship you want.

Ariel:

Instead of a pizza metaphor, I like to couch sex in a communication metaphor.  Sure, you can have really pleasant conversations which people that you just met and never expect to talk to again.  If the right set of social situations line up, you can even have really good conversations with that person. 

But to have *great* conversations you can’t just be talking to the person, you also have to have something that you want to say to them.  And there are infinite ways to do that.  There is rambling, all-night, feet first, getting to know you sex/communication.  And “I saw this thing and it made me think of you and I had to tell you right away” communication.  “I know you’re hurting and I just want to let you know that I am here for you, whatever you need” communication.  The shorthand communication that develops when jokes become so familiar you just have to say one word and you fall out laughing.  And “I know you enjoy thinking about things abstractly so I anticipated that you would like this idea” communication.  And on and on forever.

All of those take some kind of time to build, not necessarily a long time, but some.  And I don’t think the problem is that men enjoy sex that’s mediocre for women but that we have all, to some degree, been convinced that the mediocre sex that we have been having and have seen reflected back to us in popular culture and pornography or whatever, is what sex *is*.

If sex were pizza, then when someone comes up to a man and says, hey, let me make you a pizza, he’s thinking he can say great I want pepperoni and onion and definitely no anchovies, and if he didn’t like it, he could just leave.

While when someone comes up to a woman and says, hey, let me make you a pizza, she’s not even thinking she can specify what she wants on it, she’s thinking she has to take what is offered to her, and it may turn out to be pretty awful or inedible, but she’d be committed to eating it anyway.

@Kit-Kat

As a guy it really is hard for me to picture foreplay as the main course, and that colors my thinking.  That’s why arguing about gender attitudes to sex is so problematic, when there are such disparate notions about what exactly we mean by sex, what quality of sex makes sex worthwhile, what kind of partner makes sex worthwhile etc. Something to think about.

@JulesAboutTown

I’m not here to “raise concern.” As I said berfore I’m a full-throttle sexual utopianist. But thanks for sharing your experiences, it gave me much to reflect on.

I think it’s interesting that you hear about one guy-many girls poly relationships but not much vice versa. But either way, you should communicate to your partner what sort of relationship you want.
Comment #89: ArielNYC on 09/29 at 03:07 PM

The only poly relationship I currently know personally is one woman, more than one man.  When I was younger I was in an open relationship where I was way more active with other men (common) than he was with other women (rare).

You may hear more about one man, many women.  Probably because the other kind is “weird” or “disgusting.”  I honestly don’t think it’s significantly less common.

Comment #85: Alara J Rogers on 09/29 at 02:02 PM

Comment #86: Alara J Rogers on 09/29 at 02:03 PM

Yes, absolutely. Thanks for breaking it down like that Alara!

I just want to say thank you for your explanation on point 2.  This is something worth highlighting.  It’s been quite obvious to me for some time that it is much easier for a man to pursue casual sex without worrying about something bad happening.  Yeah, condoms don’t always work, your partner might be misleading you somehow and you end up with an undesired dependent or STD.  But you don’t have to be worried about being raped, feeling like you might be raped, almost raped and are much less likely to be stalked in the future.  I’m not sure what could be done to 100% rectify this situation because men will always have a physical advantage over women, but certainly if the incidence of rape was lower it would be a big help. 

I’ve gone home with women who didn’t know me in the past and I’ve always been slightly amazed that they were willing to do so.  But I guess it’s because the activity is so much fun for both parties that they’re willing to take the risk!  Anyhow, I think it would be great if it were safer for women to take those risks because then more fun could be had by all.

@arielnyc “As a guy it really is hard for me to picture foreplay as the main course, and that colors my thinking.  That’s why arguing about gender attitudes to sex is so problematic, when there are such disparate notions about what exactly we mean by sex, what quality of sex makes sex worthwhile, what kind of partner makes sex worthwhile etc. Something to think about. “

Well….duh, I hate to say. That right there is the attitude of most men. That the foreplay is just the fee you pay in order to get “to the good stuff.”  Which frankly makes me, and I’d imagine many women,  kind of turned off. And why then many men believe women don’t like sex. In a way, they are right. They don’t like THAT kind of sex. They like lots of other things men often don’t consider very important

You apparently have a body that functions within normal parameters (meaning your orgasm comes at the end of sexual penetration). What if it didn’t? What if you couldn’t come. Would you stop having sex at all? Stop pleasing your female partners? Cause you could still provide a lot of appetizers and enjoy the sensuality.  You seem to define “sex” as penetration resulting in climax.  Many of us think of it more buffet style, so to speak.  Or like the very nice communication example above.

I’m quite lucky that after my bout of one nighters I met a man who really digs the buffet. I won’t take a lover now unless I get a pretty clear idea that he or she is into pleasure for both of us and that there isn’t a “main course” per se.  May mean less sex, but much better sex.

Both your observations and your personal opinion are seriously limited by your experience. Or did you also miss the comment mid-thread from the guy whose observation is that women like sex more than men do? An observation I’ve heard echoed by at least one other man.

On an subconscious level yes ( An completely objective observer would be an computer. ) otherwise my personal experience does not really matter in this context.

From what little research has been done on the subject most of it suggests that there is more male sex available than female sex.
Whatever the reasons (biology, STDs, rapes, slut shaming, pregancies, ect) it does create an situation where women generally experience more sexual interest.
And now it has been proven that males also get pickier if they are subjected to several women initiating sexually.

While we can’t change biology we should at least remove cultural norms that shame humans for their sexual activity/desires.
And at least in Scandinavia this is happening.

Damn, Alara.  Nicely done.

What amuses/baffles/saddens the shit out of me with the concept of the sexual marketplace is how the guys complaining about it don’t understand their own complicity in the concept.  There is no market without buyers.  You get these guys venting about how they keep trying to impress women through this or that various method, but they just get used, and it’s like… listen, dippy, if you don’t want women to keep taking the four or five drinks you offer to buy and then leave the bar with a different guy at the end of the night, stop buying the fucking drinks!  It’s clearly not working for you, so stop crying about the fact some women will consider using your desperation as part of their rational self-interest and realize your own self-interest is turning yourself into a person someone might want to fuck, not throwing money around and whining when people don’t robotically follow it to the end you desire.

@ Ariel - how active are you in the poly community? It certainly has not been my experience that one man/multiple women is the most common form. OPP (One Penis Policy) arrangements do exist. But if anything, women often find it easier to have multiple partners than men do in a given poly community. OPP is one reason; if one guy has four women who aren’t allowed to date other men, that creates a female shortage which leaves more men for the other women in the community. But really there are so types of poly practiced that it’s hard to generalize.

And I’ll throw this in as a woman who really loves NSA sex: the reason I don’t have it that often is the social policing / slut-bashing that goes on, and the lack of appealing men. I see many women walking around who’ve made themselves visually attractive, but I rarely see men who make much of an effort. I’m so sick of men thinking “confidence” will get them laid and so their bad haircut and sweat-stained t-shirt doesn’t matter.

“the general differences between the genders” are a matter of social construction, and there are anecdotes aplenty illustrating that women, in fact, do like sex.

I quess you didn’t get it.
For the “Sexual market value theory” it does not matter why the supply does not meet the demand.
And obiviously this theory is for large masses not single inviduals.

Well I must be a man, because I love sex, think about it all the time and have a list of all the men I’d love to sleep with. I’m so very, very tired of this gender essentialist garbage. It’s insulting to all genders.

@JulesAboutTown   #96

Foreplay is good stuff! And I do treat sex as a buffet and I’ll pile my plate high.  Don’t get me wrong here. But yes foreplay without POV is a huge letdown, that’s all.

One issue not yet raised is that for many sex isnt a pizza, its a communion wafer.

For you. Here’s hoping you never experience dysfunction or that your partners never do,.

@Veronica

This is fascinating stuff. I’m not involved in poly community so I have to rely on things I read on the intertubes. I’m not sure though I understand the gender dynamics here. Are these women partnering up with multiple men who are sexaully exclusive with one woman? Or is it a many to many relationship? Otherwise I don’t see how it wouldn’t create shortages as with OPP.

As for your 2nd point, I like to cite the OKCupid study on how women think 80% of guys look below average. I think there’s a lof to unpack here, but that deserves a whole separate thread.

Since I’ve never been slut-shamed in my life, and probably never will be, I’d be interested to know what slut-shaming scenarios look like in practice. Is it a matter of college gossip? Co-workers? something else?

I already gave an example and you are being obtuse. Google it, arielnyc

@JulesAboutTown

I read Savage Love with There But the Grace of God Go I constantly under my breath.

Reminder to self:  Use large bin of kitty litter when “evolutionary psychologists” trot out their beliefs.

#103 Shiloruh:  That can be taken two ways: 

If you’re meaning the sex act is a sacrament, that in turn can be taken two ways:  Either you only want it with one particular partner, in which case the economic/scarcity model doesn’t apply; or you make of it a supreme experience, in which the partner’s (or partners’) desires are as important as your own, and every move is meant to bring greatest pleasure/satisfaction, in which case ev psych should repel you viscerally, because that’s not ev psych’s idea of a good time.

If you’re meaning that the pizza is filling to the stomach while the wafer is filling to the soul, you’re getting into metaphysics, which is always fun to discuss when you’re having sex.

Oh boy look! Another sex thread that is suddenly all about Ariel’s penis. Shocking.

Would you leave a partner who couldn’t piv it temporarily?

Ariel:

I’ve been in open relationships for almost the entirety of my adult life.  In all that I have been in and most that I have seen, the relationship has been open on both sides.  I’ve never met a man with the proverbial harem, and I’ve only met one man who I would say had “many” on going relationships with women.  He was an exception because that was the most important thing in his life and literally all he did with his free time. 

On the strength of my experience, if I met a man who said he was dating (in person) even several women and he also played video games, or read books, or spent a lot of time on the Internet, I would assume he was not telling the truth. In theory, this person might as well be a myth.

Have you never heard anyone say “if she sleeps with you on the first date, she’d sleep with anyone?”

I know I’ve heard that phrase dozens of times in my life and while it was never said to my face about me, as a girl who sleeps with dudes on the first date, they’re talking about me and attempting to shame me whether they know it or not.

I’ve also had to conceal the number of partners I’ve had from a boyfriend with whom I had a conversation that went something like, “How many guys have you slept with?” “I’m not telling.” “Is it more than 5 -insert horrified look here-.” “I already told you I’m not telling.”

@JulesAboutTown #106

I was asking for Veronica’s particular experience with slut shaming.

My impression was that you descibed disrepsct and poor relationship skills rather than slut shaming specifically. Venting that your partner is taking her time to get off is not the same as calling her a slut no?  Again I don’t know the details, but thats how it reads. Not all jerky behaviors are the same.

“As for the shaming stuff? Well, yeah like being friends prior, being told sex won’t change things, then having the sex and then the boy ignoring you from that point out.  Not cool. Or being told you take too long to come (WTF? You can’t spend an extra 10 minutes making me feel good?). That kind of thing. Why the hell do that on a Friday night?”

When someone stops talking to you at 21 after fucking once yeah that felt shaming, also fb and teen girls.its of.shaming tactics there, also everything denise said. You know better Ariel, you do.

@JulesAboutTown

“Would you leave a partner who couldn’t piv it temporarily?”

I would answer that except it would drive “Well, what?” bonkers.  I really don’t care sharing this information, but obviously some people take offense to this and think I’m derailing, so I’m not stepping into this trap again.

Eh fuck it. It really depends on the circumstances. If my partner says “hey I just found Jesus and I’m determined to be a born again virgin until marriage”, and I can’t see myself getting married any time soon with this partner,  sayonara.

@Veronica and @Ariel - I’d say that you’re likely to find a lot more couples stating interest in adding another woman to the relationship (the HBB, or hot bi babe, phenomenon in action) over actual practicing poly relationships. I was part of one of the couples above, with the associated ‘one penis policy’ and the attitude of ‘well it would just be weird to have my girlfriend being banged by another dude, but another chick would be hot for me and my girlfriend (and for me)!’ Yeah, last I heard my ex had found some kind of arrangement like that and is happy, so good for him, but there did seem to me a lot more couples looking for that without finding it. And there are all kinds of fun issues to unpack with that kind of attitude! With the current boyfriend, although we’re pretty much monogamous so it kind of isn’t a deal, I pretty much I stomped that idea down - “if it is cool for you to sleep with other women than it has to be cool for me to sleep with other guys” “Yeah, that makes sense.” Hoorah. I’d say in practice the poly arrangements ran the gamut, but definitely not dominated by the one-guy-multiple-women model.

@JulesAboutTown #114

As I said I don’t know the details, and I didn’t mean to dimish any hurt you felt. I was just trying to make a distinction, however unartfully, between different sorts of disrespect and abuse. Body shaming it bad. Slut shaming is bad. But body shaming is not slut shaming. Do men call women fat because they’re promiscuous? Or promiscuous because they are fat? I’m not denying these two issues interact in very pernicious ways, but we do understand them as two distinct concepts with their own particular dynamics.

Actually this is a really good point. What is one to make of this sort of mass delusion?

Maybe it is like Ron Paul fans who, when shown incontrovertible evidence of the corrupt nature of American capitalism circa 2011, decide that what we really need is an ultra-pure form of capitalism. It is a strange kind of doubling down. I guess that’s what you do when you have only one model, and that model ain’t working?
Comment #76: atheist on 09/29 at 02:50 PM

ATHEIST please pardon my hackneyed quoting, but yeah. It’s like fundies - the models of spirituality that go back to antiquity are proving less and less relevant to people’s lives. And yet instead of looking for some more nuanced or even *useful* form of spirituality, they just double down and start splitting hairs.

This is very much the Ron/Rand Paul “angels dancing on the head of a pin” libertarianism. These simplistic arguments about the gold standard are easy to grasp - as are Manichean notions of heaven and hell - but they are completely irrelevant and, if adopted would ruin the global economy.

But as we see the ‘market’ for prostitution melting away - at least in part because of the triumph of ‘free love’ - we keep hearing from the sexual ‘gold standard’ people that, in fact, the ‘market’ has simply gone from being literal to metaphorical.

Just a weird response to what the facts and people are telling them.

Not talking to some one you were friends with after you’ve had sex with them has or can have the effect of making them feel ashamed or hurt. I’m not hurt by yourcomment, it was 20 years ago and he was an ass. But it was good example of a man saying he wanted the.goodies and oh sure I respect you and then…..yeah no he doesn’t. Happens. Women learn and then don’t repeat the.same behaviors.

@Denise #112

Threre’s a great scene in the old movie Make Way for Tomorrow, where the prim old grandmother is questioning her granddaughter’s loose modern ways (this is 1937). “Don’t you know that men gossip?” asks the worried grandmother. “Sure they do!” responds the cheerful daughter, “and then they make a beeline to the one most talked about!”

@KingElvis you said, “But as we see the ‘market’ for prostitution melting away - at least in part because of the triumph of ‘free love’ - we keep hearing from the sexual ‘gold standard’ people that, in fact, the ‘market’ has simply gone from being literal to metaphorical.”

I think much of Craigslist Personals or “Other Services” proves you very, very wrong about that. 

Several years ago I was living in Italy on a grant and wanted NSA sex with Anglophone foreign men.  (Italian men didn’t work for me even though I spoke their language pretty well—Ariel Levy’s factoid that 95% of Italian men do not know how to operate a washing machine = truth!)  I planned to leave the country pretty soon; starting a relationship made no sense. 

I had the same experiences as Veronica.  Evidence of slut-shaming?  1.  Dudes describing other women as sluts.  Why would I rank any higher after we were done?  2.  What Denise said about being asked how many partners I’d had.  3.  The fellow who appeared shocked and offended when I pulled out an open box of condoms.  And yeah, same lack of attractive partners.  If it matters, these guys were mostly but not entirely American.

@Comment #117: AnonymousDog on 09/29 at 05:19 PM

Try living in a community where there are a lot of whichever gender you are attracted to available, then move to one where there are few. And then try and convince yourself that there aren’t any ‘market’ forces affecting gender relations.

Sure, that’s true. But I guess that ultimately I am not so much saying that market forces don’t affect relationships (obviously, they can and do), but that the metaphor “Market” only applies to relationships to a certain point. In other ways, relationships are unlike markets. But that it is a metaphor that certain people keep trying to apply to relationships even when the metaphor is clearly breaking down.

OK I have a semi-serious question. Have the guys that write this sort of drivel never experienced turning a woman down for sex? Forget for a moment whether they were doing it for a good reason or not, have they actually never done that?

I’ve never done this, and as far as I’ve known guys that would probably qualify as “Nice Guys”, I would guess the same.

Fuck, listen to them talk when they’re being homophobic, and it should be pretty clear they can’t even conceptualise turning down men for sex if it’s offered/asked for.

@Denise #112. “How many men have you slept with”  “Enough to know what I’m doing”

@Comment #122: GeekGirlsRule on 09/29 at 04:54 PM

I think much of Craigslist Personals or “Other Services” proves you very, very wrong about that.

Right, “melting away” is too strong. But if his earlier statistic was true, then the extent of the “market of sex” (which KingElvis was taking to explicitly mean prostitution) is at least diminished, and we have a different kind of “market”.

Oh, and in case someone thinks I am saying all women are prostitutes now, no, that’s not the point. The point is that we now have this situation (Alara Roberts described it well upthread) where men and women “trade” for sex, love, security, social position, money, and other things, that is sorta like a market.

@atheist You also have to remember that in the past, say England in the 1800s or Germany during the Weimar era, prostitutes had to register, so that an accurate count of them was closer to possible.  Now with prosititution forced underground here, I don’t think we really have an accurate count of prostitutes.  We have a fairly accurate count of prostitution arrests or citations, unless you consider that in Seattle when they instituted the 4 foot rule for strippers, any stripper who got closer to a customer than that or touched them was cited for prostitution.  I doubt we’re unique.

@ Unree

Gossiping about sluts is toolish, not much to add here. What I can say from my own experience, and this is not to condone slut shaming, but my impression is that the male psyche has a weird thing about corruption and seeing the male/female dichotomy as dirty/clean. We want to turn a madonna into a whore. Maybe it’s a thing about wantng to feel naughty, exciting, edgy, and if your partner is naughtier than you theres’ a feeling of disorientation. Maybe it’s the power of being more experienced than your partner and being able to impress her. So while being shocked that your partner has a storage of condons is oafish, I think the underlying dynamic is that men are attached to certain roles and that merely taking them away in the name of equality doesn’t necessarily provide an adequte replacement. So maybe our sexuality requires all sorts of white lies, omissions, hypocrisy,and mystery.

Ariel, regarding slut-shaming - I’ve been dealing it with it since I was a middle-school virgin known as a slut solely because I developed early. Rumors, gossip, degrading nicknames, teachers asking if I’m pregnant. As an adult, women in the office shunning me because they heard (wrongly) I fuck married men. Hooking up with guys who lose respect for me because they thought I was a Nice Girl and there I was fucking them on the first date! Having other guys decide I’m not dateable because they heard I sleep around, even though the people who advised them as such can’t actually name a single person. It’s just “known.” I could fill pages on this.

As for the poly thing… are you asking how OPP creates a shortage? Most poly communities are small. Say there’s 50 men/50 women, all straight, and 5 guys each have 4 women (20 total) who can’t date other men. That leaves 45 men and 30 women. The women not only have more to choose from, but straight poly women often find it easier to find men outside the community willing to accept their terms than straight poly men do. Again, this is just generalizing and you will find a jillion exceptions. But it can be a real issue.

Let’s assume women want sex as much as men.  But let’s assume that until 40 years or so ago, the cost of having sex, certainly outside, but also inside of marriage, was much, much higher for women than for men.  Wouldn’t it be likely that the resulting observable behavior would be that women would in fact be less inclined to actually have sex, whatever their inner desires, than men, and that perhaps they would act like they want sex less than men, and that perhaps social expectations would develop both by men of women, but also among women, that women shouldn’t be willing to have sex unless the cost to them, in both physical and social risk, was recompensed by men (traditionally by securing a marriage proposal, but subsequently by at least receiving gifts and meals etc.)?  I guess I am confused.  Do we deny that during these earlier times, 40+ years ago, the cost of sex was indeed much, much higher for women, and that these social expectations were the prevailing sexual attitudes in the culture?

Flash forward to today-ish.  Amanda herself says that the cost of sex has fallen.  Is there any doubt it has fallen much more for women?  If what we see is women choosing to have sex more because the cost is lower, obviously this coheres perfectly with a model in which they are indeed sexual people who seek out sex for pleasure, and can do it with less risk now, so they do it more.  But does this really change anything about the “economics” as described in the article?  It seems to me, most of that is more or less right - men have to do less than they used to have to do to get women to have sex with them.  Almost as if women always wanted to have sex but were disincentivized to do so because of real costs as well as socialization that (perhaps) was rooted in those costs.

Is this sluttiness?  I don’t know, but I think by definition, maybe…  It just also happens to be an extremely positive development, and the notion of “sluttiness” a completely out-of-date concept that was “needed” when the cost of sex created a need to socialize women to think they should not want it (despite wanting it), and to shame them into seeking sex only through

All things you all know.  But I guess my point is that I’m not really sure how much the economic analysis actually does ride on the ridiculous contention that women don’t actually “like” sex or don’t like it as much as men.  Things really have changed on the dating scene as a result of these changes, and that seems to be what the article was fundamentally describing.  It just also, in my view for no logical reason, happens to lean on outdated ideas about women’s sexuality that are not actually necessary to describe the changes in the economics of sex.  What rides analytically on these out-of-date views, in my view, are nothing but these out-of-date views themselves, that women don’t and shouldn’t want to have sex on their own volition, that they’re sluts if they do, etc.  These are out of date because they were based on an underlying reality in which sex was generally much more costly, more costly in particular for women, and women had far less ability to deal on their own with the consequences of sex without the help of men than they obviously do today.  But the fact that those costs have come down really has changed women’s sexual behavior so that it aligns more with their actual sexual inclinations (which is a good thing!), and that, along with changes in the make-up of the college population, and women’s advances in professional life and compensation, really has changed the fundamentals of the “market for sex.”

@MikeDrewWhat

End of third para: “only through” “...the accepted avenues,” I meant to finish.

@Comment #129: GeekGirlsRule on 09/29 at 06:24 PM

@atheist You also have to remember that in the past, say England in the 1800s or Germany during the Weimar era, prostitutes had to register, so that an accurate count of them was closer to possible.  Now with prosititution forced underground here, I don’t think we really have an accurate count of prostitutes.

Mmm yeah good point that. Now I don’t know what to think about it.

@Ariel

That whole “weird thing about corruption and seeing the male/female dichotomy as dirty/clean” isn’t some kind of inherent thing in the male brain. It’s misogyny and it’s an unacceptable, gross way to think.

@Comment #134 atheist

Yeah, the German authorities, after the legalization of prostitution in 1927 had an excellent record of how the numbers of prostitutes increased as the inflation did.  Voluptuous Panic is an excellent book on the sex workers of Weimar era Germany.

@Katniss

Is sex dirty? only if done right, so says the bard. I don’t disagree it’s gross. But lots of things about sex are gross, and yet we still enjoy them, sometimes precisely because of the kink/taboo factor.  On paper anything to do with the anus should be gross, yet plenty of people are turned on by that.  I don’t doubt S&M is gross for a lot people, but so what. Can a master/slave tell you why he or she is into domination other than “I like it?”

I’m impressed that you can diagram every piece of your sexuality and trace its source, but many can’t, including myself. Maybe it’s inherent in some brains. Maybe not in other brains. Beats me. I just know that repressing any expression of consensual sexuality that deviates from one strict ideal is silly.

Dear Amanda,

I agree with your assessment of the stupidity of this article. Would it be possible to read it without your constant sniping at “Nice Guys®”? Perhaps with a paying subscription or something…

I care because I happen to consider myself a nice guy, without the ® since I neither hold the stupid views you give them, nor make the arguments that you dismantle with the ease of a spear through a strawman. Furthermore, this is a very strange article to associate with Nice Guys® theories, which are based on the premise that sex is a market controlled by women.

Moving on. There is a point in your post that I think is especially important: the stupidity of the argumentless correlation between women’s rights and low sex value. If you assume that sex is something that men have to buy from women, how in the world does the fact that women are less dependent on men results in a falling price for sex? It should be even easier to hold a “cabal over the pussy” now.

On the other hand, I do not agree that this article somehow excuses rape: since sex is so cheap, there is no reason just to help yourself to the loads of women giving it up for free.

Anyways, thanks for taking these jokers to task. If you can find some time to try and discuss with reasonable nice guys, all for the best, but in the meantime, keep up the good work.

Sincerely yours,

Tirxu, nice guy who doesn’t get any, but amazingly knows that this is his fault and not the one of evil women who deserve to get raped because they sleep with other men than me.

@ArielNYC:

Many people have already addressed your questions about all the reasons women might not want sex as much as men, but what the hell, it’s something I’ve thought about a lot so I’ll give it a whirl.

1) There’s a reasonable chance, for a lot of us, that it won’t feel that great. Most of the time for many women, plain ol’ PIV isn’t enough to get us off. If it feels good, it still doesn’t feel as good as going home and using a vibrator and getting ourselves off. Sometimes, it doesn’t even feel good. Speaking for myself, PIV can hurt randomly - often at entry, and sometimes throughout! If PIV was the same for women as it is for men - meaning that it always feels wonderful and there’s barely any chance of pain - then I think a lot more women would be into it and seek it out in form of one-night stands. I know that I certainly would!

Women would also seek out sex more, IMO, if it was more centered around non-PIV activities that are pretty much guaranteed to feel good for them. Unfortunately, that’s often not the case even in relationships, because it’s been drilled into everyone that PIV is the only “real” sex. In a one-night stand, there’s even less of a chance of having activities focus on non-PIV stuff AND having the man be enthusiastic about that. There’s also a lower chance of having the man focus on making things pleasurable for you even during PIV.

2) See the part about how penetration sometimes hurts for me. I suspect that I’m not alone in that. I would definitely hesitate to have sex with someone random, because I don’t know whether I can trust them to stop if I tell them that it hurts too much. And if they don’t stop, want to guess how much sympathy I’m going to get after the fact about it? The prevailing attitude in our culture is, “Well, you went back there with him, you knew he was horny, you let him put it in you, and then you actually expected him to stop after a few strokes? That’s your fault.”

3) Slut-shaming. Slut-shaming is huge. Pretty much all women in our society have heard, from a young age, that girls who “give it up” too easily are worthless. One great example of this is available with just a click of your mouse - the NY Post article! Just personally, I’ve heard this message from my mother, my father, my other relatives, people I went to school with, people I’ve worked with, various friends, random people I’ve talked to, LOTS of dude-bros (including some who would say something nasty about girls who have casual sex, then who had the temerity to try and get me to sleep with them a few minutes later!), and pretty much EVERY branch of the media except for a few enlightened books and movies that I’ve only discovered in the past few years.

I know some women who have gotten past this and happily sleep with whomever they want. I envy them. Maybe someday, I’ll reach the point where I don’t give a fuck what anyone thinks of me, including the random guy I’m sleeping with. But to get past the hundreds of thousands of messages that have been thrown at me in my life about worthless sluts requires confidence and guts that I don’t have right now.

Also, it’s more than the countless social messages we get about how we’re worthless if we sleep with men we’re not seriously dating - it’s also that our potential male partners themselves are likely to slut-shame us for the very act of sleeping with them! I went a year of my life being celibate. Throughout this year, I became more and more horny and desperate for sex. It would certainly have been possible for me to have sex with a wide array of more or less random men, and I thought about it a lot. But I couldn’t get past the fact that there was a good chance I’d pick a partner who would consider me worthless for the very act of having sex with him. And how would I be able to tell? If quizzed before sex, he would of course say that he never slut-shames women in any form.

There you have it. That’s why women are more leery than men, in general, about having sex.

I care because I happen to consider myself a nice guy, without the ® since I neither hold the stupid views you give them, nor make the arguments that you dismantle with the ease of a spear through a strawman.

The point, sir, you have missed it.

@Ariel

My response to you had nothing to do with your sexual preferences. It was in response to how you think of women, and how you claim men are apparently hard-wired to think of women. Men who think women can only be virgins or whores or that women are somehow spoiled if they have a larger number of sexual partners are sexists, not guys who are just acting on “natural” thoughts.

“When it’s the guy on the serious relationship side the assumption is that the relationship is in fact serious and the women is violating his trust or playing with his feelings if she continues to play the field. For women it’s “he’s not that into you” and for guys “it’s why’d she break up with/ cheat on me?”

I think the woman is playing with his feelings if she doesn’t communicate her true intentions for the relationship. And same for the guy.

Your desires about how sexual and romantic interactions should go in a perfect world have no bearing on how they actually go in this world. If a guy and a girl are hooking up and she wants it to be more serious and he doesn’t, she’s the one at fault for expecting too much. If the guy wants it to be more serious and the girl doesn’t, she’s at fault for toying with him.

I think it’s interesting that you hear about one guy-many girls poly relationships but not much vice versa. But either way, you should communicate to your partner what sort of relationship you want.

I think it’s interesting how heteronormative your expectations are and by interesting I mean totally expected. Most poly-relationships outside of the old fashion polygyny of Sister Wives involve all participants boffing each other which invites questions about the social pressures against male homosexual behavior vs. female homosexual behavior. The same cultural pressure that dicourages women from risking a sexual encounter on a strange male also pushes most men away from anything even the slightest bit gay.

@savagebeard

Thank you for this. As a guy you can spend a lifetime not having a clue what kind of reality women face on a daily basis.  It’s very easy tp project your own relatively simple sexuality on women and then wonder what’s the deal with disparate gender attitudes. It’s good be to schooled.

@schism

The point, sir, you have missed it.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain it to me?

@ Katniss

Whoa there. Let’s not put words in anyone’s mouth. That the idea of sexual corruption turns me on has as much to do with my beliefs on gender equality as a woman CEO who’s into getting handcuffed.
It’s the difference between reality and fantasy. And dear lord, spoiled women? Really?

@arielnyc

two things-

1) As for your comment to savagebeard, it seems to me that many women in this thread have said most of what was said above. So really, we’ve all been letting you know. And if you really are spending a lifetime not having a clue, that might mean you are not asking the women in your life questions about their sexuality, their feelings about it and stepping out of your world view to consider others. I don’t think men’s sexuality is simple either. I think there is a lot of complexity that men feel, for whatever reason, like they can’t share for fear of being pussies or something. I hate that phrase.

2) “So maybe our sexuality requires all sorts of white lies, omissions, hypocrisy,and mystery.”  Only if you want to spend a lifetime not having a clue.

@scrumby

I did say “hear”, I didn’t claim to describe the reality of poly relationships. It just so happens that the feminist literature I’ve read involved women sharing men, and that’s what I commented on.

“Your desires about how sexual and romantic interactions should go in a perfect world have no bearing on how they actually go in this world. “

That’s a very astute observation. My desires doesn’t transform itself into energy rays that engluf the earth and reorder reality. Until then all I can say is I’m for not stringing anyone along and DTMFA if you’re not getting what you want, whatever your sex and gender.  You seem to ask for a lot in a thread post no?

@144 Tirxu

First off, you’re not a Nice Guy (r) the way Amanda means it and the way that Pandagonians have come to understand the term.  It is proprietary to this blog, in as much as all the other regular contributors here have agreed that when Amanda uses that term, she is referring specifically to the MRA/PUA sort of Nice Guy, with all the attendant qualities the words entail.  To grasp the context, I recommend reading archived posts, which are likely to flesh out this perspective with nuance, anecdote, and examples.  Totally different from your self-description, since you identified yourself as a nice guy.  Note the lack of capitalization, and we can move on from there.

@JulesAboutTown

“that might mean you are not asking the women in your life questions about their sexuality, their feelings about it and stepping out of your world view to consider others.”

You’ll be amazed to learn that not everyone, even people I’ve been romantically involved with, were totally down with sharing their sexual thoughts like an open book. Or telling me about street harassment. Or slut shaming. Or lots of other things. Could be due age, class, any lots of othe reasons.

“I don’t think men’s sexuality is simple either. I think there is a lot of complexity that men feel, for whatever reason, like they can’t share for fear of being pussies or something.”

Compared to what I’ve read here, my sexuality is as complicated as ice cream. I alluded to this before in regard to Outdated, there’s tendency to do reverse mansplaining and tell men what their autentic sexuality really is. As with women,  I’ll advise you to take men at their word as well.

I think what can be very complicated for men is showing empathy and trying to comfort someone in distress, especially when that someone is not super close to you. I’ve really struggled with this one. You want to be nurturing but you feel helpless to do anything. What to say? How to say it? Really hard stuff. But sex? easy as pie. To each their own.

Fair enough. But did you ask any of them? Cause sometimes, it takes asking. You asked here, we told you.

Your sexuality does sound very simple, ArielNYC and I don’t mean that as an insult. In a way, I envy you for just wanting to get it in and get it off. (yeahyeahyeah and get her off too, I presume)  If my sexuality was that straightforward I might have had better pizza in my 20’s. But then again, I’m absolutely happy with my sex life, sex response and partners now.

I"m great with empathy. It’s spreadsheets I freeze up and cry over.

@130 ArielNYC

So while being shocked that your partner has a storage of condons is oafish, I think the underlying dynamic is that men are attached to certain roles and that merely taking them away in the name of equality doesn’t necessarily provide an adequte replacement. So maybe our sexuality requires all sorts of white lies, omissions, hypocrisy,and mystery.

Okay, maybe I’d be down with that ... but I sense that you’re less willing to recognize what female heterosexuality “requires.”  For example, during my NSA period I don’t think anyone would think I had a right to be shocked or offended by a guy’s open box of condoms.  Nor could I insist on a low level of sexual experience.  All those white lies, omissions, etc. that you like have a whiff of dudely privilege.

Maybe I’m wrong.  So I’ll ask: Which demands are okay for a woman to make before rolling into bed with a man—demands that you think are acceptable, that won’t get her called shallow or worse, but also personal to her?  In other words, basic civility or respect isn’t what we’re looking for here.  I just want to know how much hetero-equality you think women have.

Which if you think about Unree, his desire for this mystery…maybe the whole “male psyche has a weird thing about corruption and seeing the male/female dichotomy as dirty/clean. We want to turn a madonna into a whore. Maybe it’s a thing about wantng to feel naughty, exciting, edgy, and if your partner is naughtier than you theres’ a feeling of disorientation.” is kind of….um…less simple than ArielNYC thinks? That’s kind of complicated if you ask me. Which you didn’t but well, I answered.

That’s kind of complicated if you ask me.

I agree. Some of the sexual psychodramas men have come up with are just fascinating.

I’d say humans, but I’m trying to be egalitarian. I figure everyone thinks their own sexuality is simple and easy to understand. It’s the other people who make it complicated amirite?

Well, I personally want to get laid as much as possible, but it disturbs me when my partners want to get laid too, especially if they have more experience than I do. I’m supposed to be the dirty one here.

@ Unree

“I don’t think anyone would think I had a right to be shocked or offended by a guy’s open box of condoms”

Hmm I must admit that it’s a bit of doozy. Part of me says anybody who gets offended by an open box of condoms should get over it. But part of me thinks that a bit of good ol’ Victorian discretion not to telegraph your active sex life to someone you just met, man or woman. Just like you shouldn’t talk about yor ex or hastily pull a bra away from the bed and then invite your woman to hop in. Basic good manners I guess… so maybe keep a couple of condoms handy away from your sexual cabinet?

“Nor could I insist on a low level of sexual experience.”
Hmm ever tried college freshmen? But honestly I’ve never thought of male inexperience as being particuarly valued.

“All those white lies, omissions, etc. that you like have a whiff of dudely privilege.”
Let’s just say that there’s a certain diplomatic finesse to attracting women. You don’t score by approaching strangers and telling them you think they’re really hot and you want to take home and bang them. That will either get you a beer on the face or a laugh.  There are rules, norms, and expectations. That’s why when I once read an a advice to men to be totally transparant and ask women for a one night stand, I shook my head in disbelief.

“Maybe I’m wrong.  So I’ll ask: Which demands are okay for a woman to make before rolling into bed with a man—demands that you think are acceptable, that won’t get her called shallow or worse, but also personal to her? “

The only “demands” I’ve heard from women is that no matter what I’d treat them with respect, so I can’t really give you an example of any unreaonable request.

Sorry to have skipped the thread, but man, I love these posts, Amanda. The bullshit is so deep, you need to keep on clearing away the smoke and mirrors and revealing the crap at the core of this patriarchal bullshit. (Well, you might not need to, but I can sure use a sarcastic, smart truth-teller like yourself.) When I think of the phrase ‘speaking truth to power’ - the core of truth in that phrase lies in posts like this.

You got an agenda? Who don’t got an agenda? Damn right you do, and I come here to read your blog because I agree with your agenda!

@JulesAboutTown ,junk science

I figured someone would take me to task for that. I’d say that there’s a big difference between X turns me on and I need X to enjoy sex.

A woman’s orgasm can be loud enough to freak me out, whole body rocking stuff, a man’s orgasm is simply not the same thing.  I don’t see how it’s even arguable that when a woman is enjoying sex, even short of an orgasm, she is having some awesome feelings that guys don’t have.  The whole body rocking, needing more, dear god thing just doesn’t happen to any guy I know.

Indeed. I’m incredibly jealous that I have to have orgasms like a man and my girlfriend gets to have them like a woman.

There’s the Greek myth of Tiresias, who struck a pair of copulating snakes with his staff and was transformed into a woman. Later, again coming upon a pair of snakes, struck them again and changed back. Zeus and Hera were arguing whether men or women enjoyed sex more, and brought in Tiresias as the only known expert witness. He said he enjoyed it more as a woman, and for that Hera struck him blind. Zeus compensated him with knowledge of the future, which is why Oedipus and Odysseus sought him out for advice.

Where are the dating books demanding more emotional accountability from women in open relationships/NSA situations? Or advice column readers complaining that women use them for sex and won’t give them the emotional support they need? ... the impression I’m getting is that the boiling rage is mostly directed toward women who won’t sleep with Nice Guys TM.

This is from way back in the thread, but the big reason is that women who can’t get laid don’t think they’re entitled to get laid. All women know ... if we can’t get laid, it’s because there’s something wrong with us!

On male sexuality being simple, it does sound, ArielNYC, like yours is, relatively speaking. I’m married to a man whose sexuality is complicated. Not in some deep, dark kinky way, but in a my-conservative-religious-upbringing-totally-fucked-me-up way. There’s individual differences and there’s cultural factors, but just because you’re a man and have a simple sexuality doesn’t mean that men have a simple sexuality.

Oh, and on the condom thing. It’s not just the big box. A friend of mine recently hooked up with a guy at a conference. After a bunch of messing around in his hotel room, he tried to enter her without a condom. She stopped him and asked if he had a condom. He didn’t, so she suggested they go to her room, where she had some in her suitcase. All of a sudden, he didn’t want to have sex anymore. The fact that she had brought condoms on her trip was too big a turn-off. He specifically told her later that he suspected it meant she had been with too many guys. Unbelievable.

Well then, ArielNYC @156, think about it.  Something a woman could require as a condition of sex that you’d think was a reasonable criterion for her—not too shallow, but not something universal either like respect.  I’m afraid “shallow” covers most of what women might demand: looks, height, weight, money, education.  Whereas if some guy is turned off by some omission, we don’t judge him.  That was my point.  Men get to have criteria for their hetero-sex partners without disapproval, women don’t. 

#155: junk science

Well, I personally want to get laid as much as possible, but it disturbs me when my partners want to get laid too, especially if they have more experience than I do. I’m supposed to be the dirty one here.

I am thinking to start dating and such comments just drive me into depression. And some men yet act surprised women behave differently and talk about “biology”. If woman’s enthusiasm is a turn off, women will fake not enthusiasm, or, understanding social mores, feel themselves less enthusiastic (and in my case angry and sad).

May I ask what exactly you mean in bolded part? That a woman should say “no” first? That she shouldn’t have condoms? That she shouldn’t enjoy what happens in bed as much as you?

I paid attention that even if a woman has less experience, her enthusiasm is a turn off. :(

Would a woman contacting somebody first on a dating site be a turn off too?

reader, that was sarcasm. I have no interest in unenthusiastic partners. I was trying to make fun of that mentality.

ArielNYC @149

. . . there’s tendency to do reverse mansplaining and tell men what their autentic sexuality really is.

You need to look up mansplaining.

And I’m not a man and don’t date men, so if women stopped making the first move, I would literally get nowhere.

@chigona there are so many things wrong with that story. Makes me sad. I think that must be what ArielNYC calls simple sexuality. The man in that case was simply focused on getting it in (and probably that she was “pure” in some way). When she actually communicated to him about the reality of the situation and how to make the evening better in general for HIM (for both of them), he balked at the complications to his pleasure and shamed her.
WTF?

I’m really tickled at this idea that male sexuality is so simple and women just love to complicate everything. I didn’t realize women were the ones who came up with the virgin/whore dichotomy, to begin with. Not to mention the stud/slut dichotomy.

I think that must be what ArielNYC calls simple sexuality. The man in that case was simply focused on getting it in

No, he was focused on “getting it in” as long as the situation fit his preconceptions. If he had been a simple, horny beast looking for a mutual good time, he would have put on the condom and let the good time happen. As it turned out, he was way too complicated for that, which led him to ruin everyone’s fun.

The girl’s motivation was simple. She wanted to get laid, and she was prepared in case the opportunity arose. The guy’s motivation was the opposite of simple.

Apparently-

Condoms =/ preparation and adult maturity around sex if the woman has them. 
Condoms=slutty slut mcslutterson

Why HE didn’t have any?

I understand that Junk Science. It was an early morning attempt at sarcasm.  Need coffee.

What was funny about it is that she’s not even that much of a casual sex person, much more of a serial monogamist-relationship sex person, but she’d been single for a while and figured she didn’t want to have to pass up an opportunity for lack of preparation. She travels a lot of work and keeps condoms in the bag that always goes in the suitcase, just in case. But once she realized what an ass he was, she certainly wasn’t about to reassure him that her “number” wasn’t *that* high, because, seriously, WTF?

The good thing is that she is mature and confidant enough to realize immediately that the problem was him, not her. At the same time, it’s hard to not feel at least a tiny bit of chagrin at having been naked and willing with someone who turned out to have such a low opinion of women.

Heh, got it, JulesAboutTown. I guess we’re running into Poe’s Law.

Junk Science @ 171: because he was an immature ass with sexual hang ups regarding madanna/whores?
And Ariel seems to have managed a complete derail of “explain to me” to jack off too yet again.  The same questions again?  Come on, dude, catch a clue or STFU already.

Sorry, Jules, not Junk, @ 171.

@ Unree

Sorry I misundertood the question. I don’t know, if I were to say “I love women with big boobs, a firm butt, and a hourglass shape”, I would be saying something very boring and conventional, but I imagine that some women would be annoyed by that. Because standards/preferenecs are annoying, especially when you feel they’re unattainable. But whatever. You can ask whatever you want. No shame in that, or at least there shouldn’t be.

I imagine that some women would be annoyed by that.

Unreasonable bitches. Don’t they realize that men, unlike women, are allowed to have standards?

because he was an immature ass with sexual hang ups regarding madanna/whores?

What I really love about such guys is that they believe that by having casual sex with women, they’re “defiling” or “degrading” said women, yet they want to do so anyway. But that’s just more indication of how little they think of women.

Chingona, your anecdote exemplifies why so many men are invested in the virgin/whore dichotomy; It is not the sex, but the validation (or the power trip) they want: Since your friend was supposed to be sleeping around, the man who was with her no longer felt super special for having made a difficult conquest.

Quite a few of the men who say they want NSA sex, want it with no strings attached on their side, but if they are with a woman who wants to get laid for fun, lose interest (Or get offended, or try to shame her) quickly. (Ariel, that´s how I read your wanting someone who is “cleaner” than you: In my book, if she´s less into sex, she must be there because she´s more into you.)

No one likes getting rejected, and this strategy does wonders for that: A man can chase after a woman because he is a lustful beast (Not because he likes her, of course!), if she is not interested in sex, he can tell himself she’s a prude, and he didn´t even like her that much. If she sleeps with him, he gets the whole society telling her she must date him (Even chase after him to get him to date her!) or she´s a slut. The way I see it, this whole mentality doesn´t lower the price of sex (for men), it lowers the price of relationships (for men).

Thankfully, as Alara says higher up, in developed countries, that no longer means you can be trapped (or ruined) for life if lust gets the best of you, but I still spent my twenties hearing “I have to give him another chance, now that I slept with him”, and seeing friends putting extra months (or in a case, years!) in a relationship to justify what would otherwise be a one nighter, or a short fling.

@junk science #169

“I’m really tickled at this idea that male sexuality is so simple and women just love to complicate everything.”

Please. Show me where I said that women “love to complicate.”

I think the question to ask is whether hertero men and women who engage in open relationships/NSA sex come into it with symmetrical expectations.

I can tell you from my personal experience as a woman in hook-up culture that men and women often do have unsymmetrical expectations, but not the way you think.  Too many have wanted something more than just sex, and then didn’t know how to deal with it when I didn’t give them what they wanted.  A lot of men expect the woman to be there emotionally if he wants/needs her to be and they are quite surprised when women don’t fit into their stereotype.  They’ve been told that every woman just wants a relationship and since plenty of men want that too but can’t admit it without diminishing their masculine status, they expect any woman they have sex with to provide for that need, even she said she didn’t want that going into it.  Not all men are like this, but plenty of them go into a hook-up expecting the woman to fulfill all roles.

@Triplanetary

“What I really love about such guys is that they believe that by having casual sex with women, they’re “defiling” or “degrading” said women, yet they want to do so anyway. But that’s just more indication of how little they think of women.”

What do you think about sexual role playing? S&M? Would it be better if I were to say that I like whipping women with the cat o’ nine tails? Can you play a certain role without thinking less of women? Can a woman CEO enjoy bondage without debasing all women?

ArielNYC: Trying to muddy the waters, or really this obtuse? Taking all bets.

@bananacat

Fair enough. I guess there’s just no cultural space for this phenomenon -  no books, articles, etc, so it doesn’t enter our popular consciousness.

As a guy it really is hard for me to picture foreplay as the main course,

Honestly, this is not normal.  I’ll go out on a limb and assume that I’ve hooked up with more men than you have.  There was one who was a technical virgin and we didn’t have PIV because I respect his choices.  He seemed to have plenty of fun just with foreplay.  I’ve known several men who take a really long time to ejaculate and we would often hook up without either of us orgasming, and yet it was fun enough that they kept doing it.  Way back when I still did oral, I knew plenty of men who preferred that over PIV.  Then there was another guy who really liked foreplay and the actual intercourse was almost an afterthought.  And all the men I’ve had marathon sex with enjoy foreplay in between while he’s waiting for his erection to regenerate.  I even knew one man who preferred foreplay because he had a hard time reaching orgasm with PIV, and he only did it because he felt like women expected it of him.  Things got much more fun when he was just honest with me and PIV wasn’t the ultimate goal of our sexual encounters.

So yeah, don’t generalize all men based on your experience.

Compared to what I’ve read here, my sexuality is as complicated as ice cream.
...
I think what can be very complicated for men is showing empathy and trying to comfort someone in distress, especially when that someone is not super close to you

Don’t you see the pattern? Men, unlike women, haven’t been shamed for their sexuality for centuries. Were I in this position from birth (I wish!), or even if I started seeing huge society change today, I would be able to be “simple” too. “Simple”, not simple, because women are just as simple (or “simple”) since there is nothing particularly complicated in scars religious & society shaming leaves. In fact, it’s very simple phenomenon.

RE difficulty in showing empathy, I am 100% sure its’ main cause is the upbringing boys get from birth, when empathy is coded feminine (“boys don’t cry”, etc.), even if it’s seen as a weak trait in women too and hurts them. Women are forced to play the role of more empathetic ones, even if many aren’t so. F.e. not promoted at work for not being deferential enough, but being deferential isn’t a leader’s trait, so it’s catch 22. Women are told to smile more than men since smiling is a sign of submission both in people and in many animal species.

reader, that was sarcasm. I have no interest in unenthusiastic partners. I was trying to make fun of that mentality

But how many men are really like that? I talk after age 25 and after college.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain it to me?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to Google it and/or LURK MOAR.  Laziness isn’t a very nice trait, especially when you are privileged enough to expect someone to drop everything s/he is doing to explain to you a concept that s/he has explained a hundred times before, even on this very blog.  Polite is not the same thing as nice, and you are not nearly as nice as you think you are.  And I’m pretty sure that even the politeness is a guise that wouldn’t be too hard to crack.

@Triplanetary

let’s unmuddy the waters then. Were you referring to the corruption concept I mentioned before? And if so did you construe it as meaning that I want women to be “pure” as a matter of Objective Reality? All I’m saying is that my comments before should be read in the sense of sexual role playing, not in the sense of trying to superimpose some metaphysical filth/purity dichotomy on reality itself. What you are in real life doesn’t have to be what you are in the bedroom.

Fair enough. I guess there’s just no cultural space for this phenomenon -  no books, articles, etc, so it doesn’t enter our popular consciousness.

Or perhaps you’re so privileged that you don’t bother to know anything unless someone explicitly tells you, and it feel like it’s unreasonable for people to expect you to know stuff before explaining to us how we’re all wrong.

ArielNYC:

I have some questions for you.  Do you realize that not all men are exactly like you?  Are you even aware that some men are capable of getting over their misogyny?  Do you realize that this implies that it is not in fact ingrained into the “male brain”?  Do you realize that the implication here is that it is possible for you and other men to stop having a misogynist, stereotypical view of sex, but that you continue with old ways out of either laziness, power, or convenience?

ArielNYC if the purity/conquest thing is actually a role play, then (in my experience with complex sexual/play negotiations) one could reasonably expect that it would be discussed prior to the act. Not assumed in one’s head and placed on the partner without her knowing about it, then shaming her for not living up to the unspoken expectations.

Like your example with BDSM. Those involve (or should) complex negotiations and communication.  So a CEO who likes bondage would tell her partner/dom/man prostitute whatever what she wants.  That’s a sight different than you saying earlier that….

“male psyche has a weird thing about corruption and seeing the male/female dichotomy as dirty/clean. We want to turn a madonna into a whore. Maybe it’s a thing about wantng to feel naughty, exciting, edgy, and if your partner is naughtier than you theres’ a feeling of disorientation.”

That weird thing about corruption, at least the way you phrased it, sounds like it’s in your own mind and if you come across a woman who reverses that, the kink doesn’t work for you.  It doesn’t sound like you negotiated a scene about corruption. 

The examples surrounding that had to do with pick up culture and men freaking out when a woman had condoms. That’s not a negotiated kink scene, that’s a construct in the man’s mind (yours? someones?) about “how women should be.”

Different animals. 

I think you can play certain roles without truly degrading each other. It’s when one is playing that role and not including the other that real degradation might be taking place. If the dude in Chigona’s example had had sex with the woman without a condom, he might have thought he got one over on the girl.  Her taking an active role in the negotiations apparently spoiled his fantasy that she was not party to.

@bananacat: We’ve all asked Ariel these questions approximately 100 times before. He considers this blog his enlightened spank mag. Don’t indulge him.

Holy shit, Ariel, this thread isn’t about you. I wasn’t referring to anything you had said before, because I generally forget your worthless posts three seconds after reading them.

“enlightened spank man” hahahahaha. That’s a great summation.

@ bananacat # #191:
“Do you realize that not all men are exactly like you…Do you realize that the implication here is that it is possible for you and other men to stop having a misogynist, stereotypical view of sex”

begging the question much?

First of all, no, I don’t think all men are alike sexually (mercifully). Secondly I do find it curious that you interpret “I want to be the naughty master in the bedroom” as meaning that I have a “misogynist, stereotypical view of sex.” You presume that I do not respect women because I enjoy a certain sexual attitude from my bed mates more so than others.

@ Triplanetary #194

I was too busy spanking to your enlightening posts to pay close attention. my bad.

don’t generalize all men based on your experience.

Or what other men have told you, as men will lie about their own experiences to conform to the ‘standard model’ of PIV as the be-all and end-all of having sex with a woman.

Secondly I do find it curious that you interpret “I want to be the naughty master in the bedroom” as meaning that I have a “misogynist, stereotypical view of sex.”

Do you remember writing this earlier?:

but my impression is that the male psyche has a weird thing about corruption and seeing the male/female dichotomy as dirty/clean. We want to turn a madonna into a whore. Maybe it’s a thing about wantng to feel naughty, exciting, edgy, and if your partner is naughtier than you theres’ a feeling of disorientation.Maybe it’s the power of being more experienced than your partner and being able to impress her. So while being shocked that your partner has a storage of condons is oafish, I think the underlying dynamic is that men are attached to certain roles and that merely taking them away in the name of equality doesn’t necessarily provide an adequte replacement.

That’s what you wrote earlier, so own it, ArielNYC.

Ai-ya!  You’re so passive-aggressive it’s hard to tell what you really think.

“While researchers don’t have a baseline to compare it to, interviews they have conducted lead them to believe this is higher than before”

Ooohh SCIENCE!!

Talk about “cheap”!

Dark Avenger, I’ve pointed it out. We’ve all pointed things out. He’s not really responding. Shifting and feinting like he does.

I’m not certain Ariel understands “spank mag” or other slang terms we are using either.  He seems to have a very limited understanding or exposure to anything beyond his immediate experience and other scenes’ and cultures’ slang may just be beyond his grasp. 
The idea anyone would base their opinion that he has a misogynist, stereotypical view of sex on a single comment rather than his history of purposeful obtuseness is laughable as well.  Though any single thread he comments on should do the trick easily enough.

I think he understands just fine, actually. He’s enjoying himself. He comes here enough and says the same things and acts all clueless and many of us respond, sometimes out of kindness but sometimes because it’s good to practice rebuttals.

I think he’s pretty clear on what’s going on.

As a guy it really is hard for me to picture foreplay as the main course

As a guy, your problem with this isn’t that you’re a guy.  It’s something else, and I heartily suggest a trained counselor to figure out what it is, because there’s no way this is the only place it’s holding you back.  Best of luck.

Ariel says his fetish is for defiling pure young things, but evidence suggests the real kink is for being told what a prick he is, over and over again, by legions of ball-busting feminists.

Alright breath.

I should be more careful about the way I discuss my own psyche and Men’s psyche. I don’t consider myself a super-special snowlake with a super-special sexuality, and coupled with how I see my own preferenes mirrored in the culture at large and in guys I talk to, I naturally make certain deductions. Which is not to say I think that all men are alike, not at all.  I was offering a potential expalanation for what could be motivating the behavior of other guys based on my own experience. I should though have phrased it more explicitly rather than conflate my psyche with all men’s psyche.

@Dark Avenger

” Men will lie about their own experiences to conform to the ‘standard model’ of PIV as the be-all and end-all of having sex with a woman”

Hmmm yeah I don’t really know what to say to that. I like PIV.  That doesn’t make me discount the numerous other aspects of sex. But at the same time I don’t pretend that I value foreplay just like I do PIV. If you think I’m a liar or a brainwashed peon of the Patriarchy, knock yourself out.

“That’s what you wrote earlier, so own it, ArielNYC.”
I think a patriarchal view of sex is that men literally defile women with their penises, at which point women lose their magical viriginity and are spoiled. This reminds me of a Dan Savage Q&A where he address the Madonna/Whore dichtomy and berates men for dividing women to have sex with and women to have serious relationships with. He concludes with saying that it’s ok to put a woman on a pedestal, then knock her off her pedestal, do all sorts of redacted nastiness, and then put her back on a pedestal. And that’s quite close to my thinking. I want a Madonna and a whore in one person. Nobody owes me one, but that’s what I’ve enjoyed in the past and that’s what my cumulative experience has pointed me to so far. Shrug.

I’m fine with the pedestals and such so long as everyone winds up on the same level and both people are discussing it. It’s role playing and should be communicated about. It’s not just “how it is” without talking about it.

@ Punditus Maximus #203

Daft concern trollying aside, I think it’s pretty amusing that you seem to believe that the average guy has a really easy time imagining what it’s like being a woman.

Never mind.

ArielNYC @207
Also look up concern troll.

All aboard the concern trolley.

“Daft concern trollying aside, I think it’s pretty amusing that you seem to believe that the average guy has a really easy time imagining what it’s like being a woman.”

Why don’t they?  I can imagine what it’s like to be an astronaut, and a dinosaur, and a warrior prince and/or princess in a fantasy novel.  Why do you think it should be monumentally difficult for 1/2 of the world to imagine what it’s like to be women?  They are surrounded by women all the time, they talk to them and see them living and stuff.  It’s not a huge leap.

Let me help you start:

When you see a lady, ask yourself what that lady is doing (ex. walking in high heels, waiting at the bus stop, etc.) Ask yourself what it would feel like to do that thing.  If necessary, try that thing out.  But don’t ask her, because she’s probably busy.

@ hideandseek

“Why don’t they?”

Suppose I were to say tha I see women and talk to women all the time, therefore I have a pretty good idea what what being a woman really feels like in our society. I’m sure I would get a standing ovation for being such a sensitive and modern man. Oh wait, no I wouldn’t.  You could count in nanoseconds how long it would take for veins to pop and a wave of fury to descend on this thread blasting me for my stupid know-nothing presumptions. Because people are different. Becuase communities differ. Because socioeconomic situations differ. Because not everyone is a feminist.  Because not everyone experiences blatant discrimination that they want to vent to you about. Because life is not a feminist discussion thread. Because seeing what’s life is like outside of white male privilege actually requires intent and cognizance.

On a lighter note, to bring back the foscus to the dread PIV, it’s like asking me to imagine beluga caviar that tastes like pizza and pizza that tastes like beluga caviar. Then I’ll know what foreplay and PIV feel like for men and women. I won’t know until I actually try these switcheroos, and likewise given that I won’t be a woman in this lifetime, I don’t presume to know what female sexuality really feals like.

I’ll end up by quoting the following:
“And if there’s one thing that coming out has taught me is that I don’t understand what it’s like to walk in other people’s shoes. I actually do have an inkling about male privilege, but I certainly don’t know what it’s like to not have white privilege, or to be older than 32, or to be physically disabled. But I have empathy. And ears. And eyes. And critical thinking skills.”

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/01/today-in-american-mythology.html

@ rain

Choo choo

If you think I’m a liar or a brainwashed peon of the Patriarchy, knock yourself out.

Nope, just that people will tell you what you want to hear, and that includes men.

@Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein

So what’s our epistemological method here? How do you know that these men are lying and that in fact their sexuality tracks closer what you think it is? And seriously, how do you know that these men’s sexuality is not WORSE than you think?

I rememeber an acquaintance who was asked whether he would be into penis in nostril sex if the human nose were big enough. He said yes. His gf flipped the fuck out.

Ariel:

That’s not what you said, you said, ” I think it’s pretty amusing that you seem to believe that the average guy has a really easy time imagining what it’s like being a woman.”

I’m sure there is a great difference between “imagining” being a dinosaur and “knowing what it’s like” to be a dinosaur, but I can “imagine” because I want to know more and I want to empathize.  If men can’t “imagine” what it’s like to be a woman, if people can’t “imagine” what it’s like to be different from themselves, it’s because they don’t want to or can’t be bothered, or they think that empathizing with other humans is such hard work because they would rather not. 

Suppose I were to say tha I see women and talk to women all the time, therefore I have a pretty good idea what what being a woman really feels like in our society. I’m sure I would get a standing ovation for being such a sensitive and modern man. Oh wait, no I wouldn’t. 

Wow, someone’s been spanked a little too hard.

There’s nothing wrong with men trying to empathize with women. You know, almost as if they thought women were human or something. The problem comes when men then decide they know what it’s like to be female better than actual women. An unfortunate effect of male privilege is that many men tend to overestimate their knowledge and authority on any given subject, and that’s what causes the irritation.

I rememeber an acquaintance who was asked whether he would be into penis in nostril sex if the human nose were big enough. He said yes. His gf flipped the fuck out.

Oh, mercy. Someone fetch the smelling salts.

How do you know that these men are lying and that in fact their sexuality tracks closer what you think it is? And seriously, how do you know that these men’s sexuality is not WORSE than you think?

People tell you what you want to hear, Ariel, that’s just a fact of life, and if you can’t understand why some men would lie about their sex life in order to appear more “normal”.

It’s like the statistics about church attendance, when instead of asking people how often they go to church, you actually study what % of the population attends church on Sunday morning, afternoon, etc., you find that the self-reported rate is much higher than the actual % of the population that are regular church goers.

Also, I find your ‘thoughts’ on the male psyche somewhat bizarre, so I do wonder about your sample size and the population you draw your samples from.

Well apparently he knows people that would stick their wangs in nostrils.  So there’s that.

I like the detail about the hysterical girlfriend. Silly women, it’s just so easy to blow their tiny minds.

Well, @junk science, truth be told, if a dude I was dating said he’d be happy to fuck my nostril I’d probably freak out a little myself.  Sounds like it would hurt terribly. Ever had to stick a qtip up there? Ick.

Also, I missed this.

But how many men are really like that? I talk after age 25 and after college.

I have no idea. I will say I’ve known a good number of loudly sexist men who seem to be able to drop their prejudices once they meet a woman they really like (and pick them up again once she dumps them). Like all reactionaries, they don’t really mean a lot of what they say. It’s very possible for them to be generous, loving partners in private and obnoxious douchewads in public.

Ultimately, I wouldn’t spend a lot of time worrying about statistics when you’re trying to meet people. Just take them one at a time, and don’t let the bad experiences get you down, because there are plenty of good ones to be had.

And, my imagination (which is legendary) is having a hard time wrapping my mind around the nostril-pronger in question wanting to prong the nostril out of love or devotion (yet another hole for me to love), but seeing it more like, “hey it’s wet and warm in there. that would be a fun place to put my wang!”

And that seems like the woman in question wouldn really need to be there, just the hole.  I mean, it could be that love and devotion and mutual sharing of pleasure were part of his fantasy-maybe the nostril would sneeze a lot in orgasmic fashion. But I doubt it. Then again, I’m cynical.

I was dating said he’d be happy to fuck my nostril I’d probably freak out a little myself.

Eh. It’s a little too “Look what a freak I am!” for my taste. Give me something a little more imaginative.

Yeah, it lacks creativity and finesse.

Yep.  Any dude who goes about loudly proclaiming his ambition to prong a nostril only makes me think to myself, “Attention whore.  Rachel should probably stay away from that loser.”

I would suggest using this as a template for writing about your sexual adventures as intriguingly as possible.

I rememeber an acquaintance who was asked whether he would be into penis in nostril sex if the human nose were big enough. He said yes. His gf flipped the fuck out.

Stuff like this is why I am eternally bemused when some right-wing bigot starts raving about “the way GEHZ R HAVING TEH SEXXORS!”.

As if there is much if anything two gay people can - or do - do that heterosexuals don’t do as well.

Nostrillasantorum?

@Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein

“Also, I find your ‘thoughts’ on the male psyche somewhat bizarre, so I do wonder about your sample size and the population you draw your samples from.”

Think of what kind of images you get in mainstream porn, which last time I checked is watched by 99.9999% of men. If you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you…

Think of what kind of images you get in mainstream porn, which last time I checked is watched by 99.9999% of men.

That’s not what I was referring to:

my impression is that the male psyche has a weird thing about corruption and seeing the male/female dichotomy as dirty/clean. We want to turn a madonna into a whore. Maybe it’s a thing about wantng to feel naughty, exciting, edgy, and if your partner is naughtier than you theres’ a feeling of disorientation.Maybe it’s the power of being more experienced than your partner and being able to impress her. So while being shocked that your partner has a storage of condons is oafish, I think the underlying dynamic is that men are attached to certain roles and that merely taking them away in the name of equality doesn’t necessarily provide an adequte replacement.

Got it?

:-D

Maybe it’s the power of being more experienced than your partner and being able to impress her...I think the underlying dynamic is that men are attached to certain roles and that merely taking them away in the name of equality doesn’t necessarily provide an adequte replacement.

How to protect your man’s delicate ego against the crushing weight of equality:

“Baby, of the literally thousands of cocks I’ve seen in my life, yours is definitely in the top 25%. Maybe even the top 20%.”
“Wow, I’ve never seen anyone do that before! Let’s take a picture of that and put it on the refrigerator!”
“You have ruined all other men for me. Ruined. If you don’t call me back, I will never have sex again.”

I think the key word there is “Power.” Men wanting it.

There’s all this stuff that comes to mind. Like if the man is more experienced then the woman won’t know how good or bad he is? Or what average length of PIV sustainability is?
Women, a great majority of them, can come many many times. Men can’t. Jealousy? Envy? Fear?
Christopher Ryan’s Sex at Dawn has some great things to say about women and their orgasmic and sexual capacity and their use of vocalizations during sex and intercourse, not due to pleasure necessarily, but to attract more mates and or encourage male orgasm.

Women’s sexuality is pretty powerful I think and sometimes I think that whole need to be first is nothing but some kind of really amazing insecurity that frankly I think men (in general) should learn to get over.

@ Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein

So you think you don’t see corruption in porn? Do yout think a man ejaculating on a woman’s face has nothing to do with corruption? Do you think that the infantilization of women in porn has nohing to do with corruption?

And to be clear, I’m not claiming to know 100% of my sexuality just because I can be casual and low maintenance about it. For all

Ooops line break. For all I know I’m into jezebels who will corrupt and pervert innocent me (I dunno, is there a doppelgangner of Clarisse Thorn out there?). I just don’t have experience with that kind of scenario. I do think these situations are somewhat rarer, especially in your 20s.

So you think you don’t see corruption in porn? Do yout think a man ejaculating on a woman’s face has nothing to do with corruption? Do you think that the infantilization of women in porn has nohing to do with corruption?

Corruption, no.

Any relationship to sex between two people who care for each other?

No.

It has to do with patriarchal values, which you seem to imply are ‘hard-wired’.

Hell, I figured out by 15 that Playboy had nothing to do with the way real women and men deal with their sexuality

But then, I certainly don’t get turned on by the kind of stuff you’re describing.

So sad that people like Soft Harem spend so much time trolling the internet instead of having either real lives or acquainting themselves with Google Scholar.

Soft, indeed.

@JulesAboutTown

“Women’s sexuality is pretty powerful I think and sometimes I think that whole need to be first is nothing but some kind of really amazing insecurity that frankly I think men (in general) should learn to get over.”

Are men insecure? Does the sun also rise? I don’t deny that sexuality is complex, even if many men can enjoy sex in a straightforward, casual way.

Let me me give you two scenarios: I once hooked up with a Catholic virgin (in her late 20s, God blwss) and I could hear her heart race in excitement in a way I hadn’t in some time. That excitement was exciting to me. Showing her things she’d never done was exciting to me.

In another time, I hooked up with a girl who got upset that I didn’t want “normal sex” as she defined it because all her past lovers were one way and I was another, and she felt like I was disparaging her sexual skills, even her attractiveness at large, by asking for certain oral activities rather than just being 100% content with what she’d always done. Things I’ve done with the Catholic girl that she enjoyed seemed strange and alien to another woman who’d had her share of sexual experience.
Likewise, while I was happy to comply with whatever the woman asked me to do, I also knew that it was a huge turn on me to be told what to do in bed. Which is not to shame anyone or discourage your sexual assertiveness. I just know that it’s not my perference, at least based on my experience.

So no, I don’t look for virgins, but I also know what kind of sexual attitudes I like more and less. Do doms and subs have insecurity issues? I’m sure many do. But you wouldn’t say thet have to get over it and accept a totally equal role in bed, would you?

@ArielNYC: No, I don’t.  That’s why I suggested counseling.  The average guy is brutally programmed by the Patriarchy to believe stupid false things that hurt them and the people they care about.

I know this, because I had these problems, got counseling, and am far, far happier as a result.

Soft Harem, I’d say it’s as likely that all primates, male and female alike, respond to acts of dominance. The response may be to fight back or it may be to subordinate oneself.  If men didn’t respond to dominance I doubt we’d have armies, fraternaties or a corporate model of management.

As to whether it turns women on? Maybe. Maybe physical but not mentally. Maybe mentally but not physically. Maybe “arousal” in women serves a few purposes like protecting her genitals through lubrication in case of sexual assault.  Fear is a kind of arousal and the nervous system may connect and reconnect in a variety of pathways. Being aroused is not always the same thing as being turned on.

@arielnyc “Showing her things she’d never done was exciting to me. ” Because you were “first” to “corrupt” or because her excitement and willingness was awesome and the situation was special in some way?

I can imagine being very excited by showing someone something new or being shown something new, but I don’t think I’d frame it from the corruption model. Mostly I’d be excited that one of us were gonna get an awesome experience and that we trusted each enough to share it.  Two sides of the same coin? Maybe, but I think my side is more egalitarian. 

And my point isn’t about having an equal role in bed. It’s about the mental model behind it.  Some people do D/S games in bed for the sensation of it, but each partner have no illusion that one person is a shy submissive virgin or something and the other a master in bed. Some folks are fine beginning as equals, negotiating as equals and then exchanging power, fantasy and so forth.

There are guys, like the ones mentioned before that had the frame of “I picked this girl up and that’s awesome and WHOA she’s got condoms! Slut! Ew!” kind of thing going on, to which you brought up the “about corruption and seeing the male/female dichotomy as dirty/clean.”  Which can be a fun game. But when it’s an actual mental frame of how a man sees a woman, that’s when I call that into question. 

Not the game or the role play. The assumption inside a man’s head that “women need to be/are like this.” If a woman having agency on a one night stand is enough to turn that man off cause, ew how many men have you fucked? He’s the one with the problem.

@Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein

“It has to do with patriarchal values, which you seem to imply are ‘hard-wired’.”

I suppose saying I like being in control in bed is a patriarchal statement, but so what? That’s what my experience has taught me that I prefer. Nobody owes me a subsmissive woman, and likewise I don’t owe anyone to not enjoy being with ones. If we all agree that we shouldn’t let Nice Guys TM shame and pressure women into liking men and male behaviors they don’t dig, how’s this any different? Would you be open the suggestion that what women like is not hard-wired so they should change their preferenes so more sad sacks can get laid?

“Hell, I figured out by 15 that Playboy had nothing to do with the way real women and men deal with their sexuality”

I can’t say what Playboy tried to teach me about male and female sexuality othar than to to make realize I like hot naked women.

“But then, I certainly don’t get turned on by the kind of stuff you’re describing.”

That’s fine, we all differ. But again lots of men do enjoy porn that can be perceived as pretty gross, including far nastier images than anything I’ve described. So you’re free to call my sexuality bizarre, but then you might as well diagnose Men as a whole as such.

@Punditus Maximus #244

“That’s why I suggested counseling.  The average guy is brutally programmed by the Patriarchy to believe stupid false things that hurt them and the people they care about.I know this, because I had these problems, got counseling, and am far, far happier as a result.”

Well I’m relieved that you think the vast majority of men should be in intensive therapy to get deprogrammed. Do you think women should join them as well? Or are they programmed just right? I’m sure lots of Nice Guys TM would love to deprogram women away from liking hot exciting men.

I suppose saying I like being in control in bed is a patriarchal statement, but so what?

No, that’s a personal preference, the guy next to you in the subway or elevator may feel the other way, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

If we all agree that we shouldn’t let Nice Guys TM shame and pressure women into liking men and male behaviors they don’t dig, how’s this any different?

Personal preference doesn’t translate into ‘how it should be’, you can’t make a general rule from individual preferences.

I can’t say what Playboy tried to teach me about male and female sexuality othar than to to make realize I like hot naked women.

Yes, it defines what hot naked women should look like. 

So, without seeing any hot naked women, you’d never figure it out that is your personal preference?

But again lots of men do enjoy porn that can be perceived as pretty gross, including far nastier images than anything I’ve described.

Porn produced in a patriarchal society degrades women.  Big discovery there on your part.

So you’re free to call my sexuality bizarre, but then you might as well diagnose Men as a whole as such.

I said your understanding is bizarre, or do you feel a need to degrade your partner in order to be assured that you’re in control when you have sex?

Wanting to be in control isn’t bizarre, feeling that you have to give a facial in order to be in control?

That’s something that should be looked into.

Alpha and Beta males.  Is this Brave New World or something?

I can sort of understand the “lamp post” sociology of studying simplistic scenarios with college students or looking at bar hookup culture, but it just doesn’t generalize to all age groups and situations.

In short, if you don’t want to be rejected and used, stay away from environments where the order of the day is to use and reject people - the NSA sexual economy of the bar hookup.  And, if you do want to play that scene, don’t complain that you get used and rejected when the whole point of playing the games that get played is, for BOTH GENDERS, to find someone to use.

@Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein

There’s a logical problem here.  You say my sexuality is bizarre. I point out to porn and say that you might as well tar all men as bizarre. Your respond that the Patriarchy is to blame that porn degrades women. But that’s not the point. The point is that men enjoy gross porn. But to you these men’s psyches are not bizarre.  You want to make a special pleading for millions of men who get off nasty images of degradation and point the finger at the Patriarchy instead, Because the Devil Made Them Do It. Because apparently nothing in their sexual psyches connects to the images they find arousing in porn.  Yet somehow when I say I get off a certain mental construct that’s really no worse than what you see in mainstream porn, it’s obvious that my psyche is bizarre. Think about it a little bit, maybe you’ll see why this makes no sense.

“Personal preference doesn’t translate into ‘how it should be’, you can’t make a general rule from individual preferences.”

Hmm then what are you arguing about? I’m not saying what anyone’s sexuality should be, you are the one who’s impugning mine.

“So, without seeing any hot naked women, you’d never figure it out that is your personal preference?”“

Well, in a world where a 12 year old would have no way of seeing naked women, I’d imagine the process of sexual discovery would be quite a bit slower. But you know what, yes, we don’t know what turns us on until we actually experience it. Heck, I spent years of my life not knowing that I get turned on by really muscular calves, until I dated a ballet dancer. Go figure.

“feeling that you have to give a facial in order to be in control?”
I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe you and Junk Science should make a pact to let go off the straw man.

You say my sexuality is bizarre.

No, your understanding of male sexuality, as your comment demonstrates is bizarre.

I point out to porn and say that you might as well tar all men as bizarre.

Porn is as to real-life sex as Hollywood films are to real life.  I don’t know why you can’t seem to grasp that concept.

You want to make a special pleading for millions of men who get off nasty images of degradation and point the finger at the Patriarchy instead, Because the Devil Made Them Do It.

See above.  Because women like to go see a Ashton Kutchner movie, that doesn’t mean they date men who are like him.

Hmm then what are you arguing about? I’m not saying what anyone’s sexuality should be, you are the one who’s impugning mine.

I’m impugning this:

my impression is that the male psyche has a weird thing about corruption and seeing the male/female dichotomy as dirty/clean. We want to turn a madonna into a whore.

If you have some sort of weird thing about corruption, that’s your business, but that’s what you wrote.

Own it.

Well, in a world where a 12 year old would have no way of seeing naked women, I’d imagine the process of sexual discovery would be quite a bit slower.

That’s why National Geographic pictorial of ‘exotic’ tribes were quite popular in the day.

But you know what, yes, we don’t know what turns us on until we actually experience it.

Nope, without Playboy, I’m sure you’d be quite clueless about women to this day.

“feeling that you have to give a facial in order to be in control?”

Then the corruption and making a madonna into a whore doesn’t enter into it when you have sex.

That’s progress of a sort, I suppose.

Will somebody please send the Spam Gamma back to the mines.

  Amanda Marcotte hates “Game”, which is really just applied evolutionary and social psychology, because it attacks the foundational premises of her ideology.

Those of us who write about, perform, and peer-review credible science for a living, with lots of nifty letters behind our names, hate this shit because it isn’t science, isn’t credible, and even when it is, it has nothing to do with life outside of a bar full of 20 somethings overrating themselves as playasss.

<i>Feminism skewed, maximized and “equalized” women’s limited resources to permit more the greatest return on their one monopoly resource:  Sex. </i

So sorry to hear that you were born without hands or an imagination.  I guess I shouldn’t make fun of your fundamental inability to grasp rigor, either.

There is the difference between pathos and logos.  Almost all feminist writing and argumentation relies on pathos….stirring emotions but completely devoid of logic and rationality.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! You are whining and spouting illogical, unscientific, misappopriated and misapplied research and saying this?

You are totally sad.  Your time should be spent on psychotherapy, not blathering here.  There are way too many scientists in this crowd to buy your pathos - especially when it is bullshitized as illogos.

Go look up the meaning of “lamp post” science.  The study of an extreme subeconomy cannot be generalized to a complex environment.  You learn that when you go to MIT and when you pursue higher degrees in the sciences.  Or you should ...

Better yet, perhaps you should head over to those hysterical and illogical folks that Amanda keeps tight company with at Pharyngula. I’m quite sure you could enlighten them about the rational underpinnings of your world view with science and logic, as they know nothing of these things at all.

@Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein

“No, your understanding of male sexuality, as your comment demonstrates is bizarre.”

Well your impression of the male psyche is that men are liars and so they’ll never let us all know how we’ve totally misunderstood them the entire time thru their words and actions. And apparently men are collectively strapped into chairs like Alex in Clockwork Orange and forced to watch nasty porn, the poor saps. 

“Because women like to go see a Ashton Kutchner movie, that doesn’t mean they date men who are like him.”

Just beccause I watch Jenna Jameson getting down and dirty doesn’t mean I date women who are like Jenna Jameson, so (I prefer brunettes myself) ? But I completely reject the bigger point that our culture doesn’t reflect our collective desires.  You seem to be treating Ashton Kutcher like a rape fantasy, something that women may have dark thoughts about but would never want to experience in real life. Well, guess what. In real life women do like Ashton Kutcher! Or Robert Pattinson, or whoever. In real life these guys can date the world’s most desired women, and god bless’m. Ask yourself, would the average woman would be more into a guy who resembled Robert Pattinson, or joe schmo?

“If you have some sort of weird thing about corruption, that’s your business, but that’s what you wrote.”
Again, you adamantly refuse to reflect on what hetero porn says on the male psyche. I own my words. You don’t seem to own men’s real-life behavior. Why is it not bizarre to enjoy images of women being degraded? Nobody is forcing men to watch this Patriarchy-produced movies.

You seem to want to make a distinction between what men enjoy on screen and what they enjoy in real life. Obviously some sex positions look good on screen but are rather awkward and silly when you try them in practice.  But generally speaking, do men not enjoy sex with hot women in real life? Do men not enjoy porn-star-worthy oral sex? do they not have a fascination with facials and anal sex?
Porn is sure an exaggeration, but it’s an exaggeration of desires that reflect our psyche. 

You also seem to confuse want with can. Threesomes seem to a perennial fantasy among men. Do you think that threesomes are like rape fantasies too? Men just think about them but would never want them?

I think the problem is “male psyche”.

There isn’t just one, you know.  And, when there is some uniformity, it is less “male” than it is “culturally programmed for males”.

Well your impression of the male psyche is that men are liars and so they’ll never let us all know how we’ve totally misunderstood them the entire time thru their words and actions. And apparently men are collectively strapped into chairs like Alex in Clockwork Orange and forced to watch nasty porn, the poor saps.

Nope, never said that.

But I completely reject the bigger point that our culture doesn’t reflect our collective desires.

And where I did I say that?

Again, you adamantly refuse to reflect on what hetero porn says on the male psyche.

Hereo porn differs from culture to culture, in German porn movies very often the women are very friendly and welcoming, does that imply some sort of truth about the German male psyche?

You seem to be treating Ashton Kutcher like a rape fantasy, something that women may have dark thoughts about but would never want to experience in real life.

Nope, I just point out that liking a movie with Ashton Kutcher doesn’t tell us anything about the female psyche.

You don’t seem to own men’s real-life behavior. Why is it not bizarre to enjoy images of women being degraded?

You haven’t demonstrated that the majority of men derive a sexual enjoyment from images of women being degraded. Some data, aside from an ‘appeal to porn’ would be helpful here.

And you know what, porn from the 60s is different from porn in the 70s, etc, so the lack of uniformity of porn in different decades demonstrate that it’s more a creature of ‘fashion’ than any insight into the male psyche.

But generally speaking, do men not enjoy sex with hot women in real life?

Men enjoy sex with all sorts of women, hot and otherwise, and a woman being ‘hot’ has little bearing about her bedroom skills.  “All cats are black in the dark.”

Do men not enjoy porn-star-worthy oral sex?

Yes, because obviously a womans’ body shape and face have a direct bearing on the quality of the oral sex she performs on men, just as women enjoy having oral sex more with an Ashton Kirchner/Fabio look-alike than a man who knows what he’s doing.

do they not have a fascination with facials and anal sex?

Demonstrate some numbers or statistics to demonstrate your contention.

You also seem to confuse want with can

You seem to confuse assertion as proof. 

What Ms. Kate said.

” German porn movies very often the women are very friendly and welcoming, does that imply some sort of truth about the German male psyche?”

You picked a pretty hilarious example. Germany is notorious for some insanely hardcore, puke-inducing porn. You often see the most puritanical/anal-retentive, cleaninlessp-obsessed cultures (e.g. Germany, Calvinist Netherlands, Japan) producing the greatest sexual backlash.

“‘But I completely reject the bigger point that our culture doesn’t reflect our collective desires.’
And where I did I say that?”
Hmm, in the very same post? —“I just point out that liking a movie with Ashton Kutcher doesn’t tell us anything about the female psyche.”

So, does a phenomenon such as Twilight tell us nothing about the female psyche? Women can be obsessed about a certain cultural artificat without it reflecting in the slightest bit on their psyche? It’s just a weird argument. Pray tell, what DOES illuminate the human psyche in your estimation?

“Men enjoy sex with all sorts of women, hot and otherwise, and a woman being ‘hot’ has little bearing about her bedroom skills.”

By this logic, the average woman would prefer Ron Jeremy over Robert Pattinson.

“You seem to confuse assertion as proof”
Ok let’s look at some numbers, shall we?

“Women also are about half as likely as men to say they’ve had sex in a threesome, unexpectedly with someone new, or at work; and they’re less likely to fantasize about these. A third of men have fantasized about a threesome” http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/PollVault/story?id=156921&page=3

30% of men fantasizing about threesomes tells me that threesome fantasies are very real (I’m pretty sure that a question like “would you be ok with trying a threesome?” would get a much higher response still).

Btw, I might as well point this out: men care much less about sexual skills than women. This follows directly from what other commenters have shared here. Men don’t need sexual expertise to get off like many women do. And while an expert BJ is nothing to sneeze at, at the end of the day you’re making love to more than just a mouth. Great sex requires enthusiasm, and enthusiasm requires attraction. You saying “All cats are black in the dark” makes me think of Eddie Murphy in Boomerang (Lights are turned off in the bedroom. Pause. “Can you make it darker?”). For real, find someone hot and turn the lights on.

CAN WE HAVE A THREAD WHERE WE DO NOT DISCUSS WHAT MAKES ARIELNYC HARD?

Because personally, I do.  not.  care.

You picked a pretty hilarious example. Germany is notorious for some insanely hardcore, puke-inducing porn.

Well, that’s different from the stuff they used to have in the 70s and what I’m describing, so that seems to bury your contention that porn somehow is an accurate reflection of the male psyche.

So, does a phenomenon such as Twilight tell us nothing about the female psyche? Women can be obsessed about a certain cultural artificat without it reflecting in the slightest bit on their psyche? It’s just a weird argument. Pray tell, what DOES illuminate the human psyche in your estimation?

Behavior.

If the women in question who were Twilight fans wanted men who loved them but wouldn’t have sex with them, that would be interesting, but they don’t.

By this logic, the average woman would prefer Ron Jeremy over Robert Pattinson.

See, Kissinger, Dr. Henry A,  he was famous in the 1960s and 1970s for being seen with good-looking women, and even then he made Ron Jeremy look like Robert Pattinson.

You really think you’ll get a stronger orgasm if you have Jenna Jameson doing something with or to you instead of a woman you’re having a sexual relationship with?

Women also are about half as likely as men to say they’ve had sex in a threesome, unexpectedly with someone new, or at work; and they’re less likely to fantasize about these. A third of men have fantasized about a threesome”

So what?  Women and men in this culture are taught different approaches to sexuality, so, big discovery.

Look, if you can’t sustain your ‘dominance/degradation’ theory about the male psyche, it’s no big deal.
It just shows that your brain power is probably concentrated south of your waist.

I might as well point this out: men care much less about sexual skills than women.

In that case they’re much less likely to want to have Jenna Jameson doing them than a woman they’re having sex with, which disproves your point about “MEN WANT HOT SEX WITH A REAL HOT LOOKING PORNO STAR!”

Men don’t need sexual expertise to get off like many women do.

Which is why it’s better when you have a blow job done by Jenna Jameson instead of Mary Middleton.

Thanks for allowing me to let you shoot holes in your logic.

Gavel Down, 14:

See, women don’t like sex, so when they get together they just eat tons of ice cream and watch romantic movies together.  He’s seen it on tv that one time.  And all the real life examples to the contrary, including personal testimony from women, can never be as valid to him.

Pics or ...

Ariel, 156:

But part of me thinks that a bit of good ol’ Victorian discretion not to telegraph your active sex life to someone you just met, man or woman.

I agree with you, but I’d make an exception for someone you’re fucking. At that point it’s a little silly to be coy about that sort of thing.

Ariel, 205:

I don’t consider myself a super-special snowlake with a super-special sexuality,

Except, you kinda are. Your sexuality, as you describe it, isn’t that much like mine, so at least one of us is unique. I suspect we both are.

I could probably surrouind myself with men who think like I do too. It’s selection bias.

@ Hershele

“I agree with you, but I’d make an exception for someone you’re fucking. At that point it’s a little silly to be coy about that sort of thing.”

Well let’s reverse the roles. Suppose a woman hooks up with a guy and sees that he has a large condom box that’s half empty. Would that be a turn on? a turn off? neutral? Anywaysm, I’m just thinking that maybe seeing one condom as opposed to 20 makes the hookup seem relatively elevated and unique than thinking of yourself as just another number in a series.

“Your sexuality, as you describe it, isn’t that much like mine, so at least one of us is unique. I suspect we both are.”
Someone should put on his or her Kinsey hat and unleash The Great Sexual Mindsets Survey

@ Dark Avenger

“If the women in question who were Twilight fans wanted men who loved them but wouldn’t have sex with them, that would be interesting, but they don’t.”

Hmmm. You’re right. Women don’t care at all for brooding, mysterious hot unavailable men.

“‘By this logic, the average woman would prefer Ron Jeremy over Robert Pattinson. ‘
See, Kissinger, Dr. Henry A,  he was famous in the 1960s and 1970s for being seen with good-looking women, and even then he made Ron Jeremy look like Robert Pattinson.”

Sure, women dig big jerks with swagger and the power to direct aerial bombings of third-world countries (Nice Guys cried). That has nothing to do with sexual expertise. So let’s focus on the question at hand: Do women really prefer Ron Jeremy over Robert Pattinson, because Ron Jeremy has a bick cock and has sexed 5000 women?

“if you can’t sustain your ‘dominance/degradation’ theory about the male psyche”
You still haven’t explained away this thing called hetero porn. You seem to be saying that the Patriarchy has brainwashed men into wanking to images that they wouldn’t find arousing in real life, which I find perplexing. The whole idea is to put yourself in the mind of the male porn star. So we’re at an impasse.

    “‘I might as well point this out: men care much less about sexual skills than women’
“In that case they’re much less likely to want to have Jenna Jameson doing them than a woman they’re having sex with, which disproves your point about “MEN WANT HOT SEX WITH A REAL HOT LOOKING PORNO STAR!””

Hmmm, you seem to ignoring the operative word HOT. Even if Jenna Jamesom had zero sexual skills, she would still be desirable to lots of men. The porn-star skills are the icing on the cake.

“Which is why it’s better when you have a blow job done by Jenna Jameson instead of Mary Middleton.”

I’m not sure how to address this without making Ismone’s head explode. But the bigger point is that my impression is that for a lot of men hotness is more important than having a good gag reflex. But if glory holes are your thing, god bless.

Well let’s reverse the roles. Suppose a woman hooks up with a guy and sees that he has a large condom box that’s half empty. Would that be a turn on? a turn off? neutral?

Whether she’s turned on or off or doesn’t care, she doesn’t have the privilege of slut-shaming a guy, so if she got grossed out and left, she’d just be called a prude. A guy who did the same would get much more sympathy.

I’m not sure how to address this without making Ismone’s head explode.

The more you flatter yourself like this, the more you remind us of a six-year-old running around with a towel for a Superman cape. Please. Your personal life just isn’t as interesting to strangers as it is to you and the people who actually know you. You’re as boring as a loser at a dinner party who thinks his jokes are funny. I hope that didn’t make your head explode.

Hmmm. You’re right. Women don’t care at all for brooding, mysterious hot unavailable men.

That’s like concluding a devotee of Barbara Cartland romances would want a man with at least the title of Sir before his name.

You seem to be saying that the Patriarchy has brainwashed men into wanking to images that they wouldn’t find arousing in real life

Nope, I never said that, just that the prevalence of certain types of porn tells us nothing about ‘mens’ psyches, as you seem to think it does.

As I pointed out, styles in porn change.  Does this reflect a change in mens’ psyches as well?

Hmmm, you seem to ignoring the operative word HOT. Even if Jenna Jamesom had zero sexual skills, she would still be desirable to lots of men. The porn-star skills are the icing on the cake.

Porn star skills are for the camera, not the participants.  JJ isn’t considered hot to a lot of men, even included some porn consumers, I’ve no doubt.

All you’ve done is a lot of pleading for your ‘understanding of the male psyche’, and nothing in the way of facts to demonstrate how it fits with reality, except for one ABC news article.

But the bigger point is that my impression is that for a lot of men hotness is more important than having a good gag reflex.

I really doubt they’d want a hot but incompetent partner(even if she’s HOT!!!!!!) than someone who knows what they’re doing in bed.

Also, in many cases, hotness is a subjective factor, what one man may find arousing, another man may find ‘not my type’.  You’re assuming hotness is an objective factor, like the radiation coming from an isotope of uranium,  when all the evidence points to the contrary.

Would an Australian Aborigine who has never experienced the products of Western culture find Jenna Jameson hot?

Why not?  Her porno films are designed for the ‘male psyche’, shouldn’t they work equally well for him, or a sheep-herding counterpart from Inner Mongolia,  or a Masai cattle baron, or a New Guinea tribesman?

Your attempt to find relevance in Western pornography in reading the male sexual psyche is amusing, but that’s all it is.

Although its a lot more work for a man to get laid than it is for a woman

Of course. Just like it’s a lot harder for a unicorn to find a pot of gold than a leprechaun, because a unicorn has to slay a dragon first.

I call the stick rule on soft harem.

“Well let’s reverse the roles. Suppose a woman hooks up with a guy and sees that he has a large condom box that’s half empty. Would that be a turn on? a turn off? neutral? Anywaysm, I’m just thinking that maybe seeing one condom as opposed to 20 makes the hookup seem relatively elevated and unique than thinking of yourself as just another number in a series. “

I suppose some people would prefer discretion (the one condom, oh golly I don’t do this very often), and some people wouldn’t place that much meaning in the box. Like, maybe he shops at costco and that indicates both responsibility sexually and fiscally.

Context can be dependent on the person. 

Do the people want illusion or honesty seems to be a bit of the argument here.  I’m pretty sure if I hook up with a random guy, there is a strong chance I’m not a special snowflake. If I see he’s using condoms that may make me feel like one of many, but at least I know he’s taking precautions against disease.

You need some context, Soft Harem, she wasn’t ‘slamming Tina Fey’s sex-positive agenda:

According to Fey, the plague of male cheating is caused by hot sluts who let your man have consensual sex with them. They are very bad people, these hot sluts! With their tattoos, and their large breasts that Tina Fey spends seriously about thirty seconds describing in the most hateful, detailed way possible, and so on and so forth! Also: The sex they had with your man was consensual? Unless they have special voodoo powers, or employed other means of coercion — in which case, the problem would not be that they had sex with your man, but that they were rapists – the cheating was very likely caused by the fact that your man consciously and willfully decided to insert certain of his body parts into a person who was not you. A man could literally be knee-deep in enthusiastic-consent-giving sexy ladies and not cheat on you, if he didn’t want to cheat on you. And, if he does want to cheat on you, nothing short of chaining him to the radiator is going to stop him. (ADVICE: Don’t chain your man to a radiator.) The same turns out to be true for ladies, in fact! If we don’t want to cheat, we don’t cheat, and if we do, then we do. It’s the cheater’s fault, pretty much always. But why hold Jesse James, or men, accountable for their own actions, when it’s so much easier to blame a girl? That’s what Tina Fey’s Feminism is going to do, anyway!

Also mentioned: The fact that the lady Jesse James cheated with is “into Nazi stuff.” This is cause for Tina Fey to tell Bombshell McGee that even Hitler would be on Sandra Bullock’s side, because she is so “likable,” which, yeah, is pretty funny. But check out who is missing from the joke, and is also apparently into Nazi stuff: Jesse James. He doesn’t get called out. I guess, maybe, because he’s not a terrible bad female whoreslut with large breasts?

But, whatever. Racism is way less important than cheating! At least, you would think so, from watching the sketch! And cheating, says Tina Fey’s Feminism, stems from the fact that “the world has always been full of whores.” By this point, we’re not even talking about Jesse James’s Nazi-sympathizing lady friend any more. (Who I have little interest in defending, simply because Let’s Defend The Racist is really not a game of which I ever intend to purchase the home version.) We’re just talking about sluts, sluts in general, and how they are all out to steal your man. It’s unclear whether these sluts have all actually slept with your man, in order to qualify for the title, or whether Tina Fey’s Feminism just thinks they’re subhuman because they work at Hooters and have unconventionally spelled names. “Wives,” Tina Fey’s Feminism says earnestly into the camera after it’s gotten some hoots and applause for the “whore” jokes, “you are not the losers in this scenario.” Who is the loser? Whores, duh! And she concludes, “the world is hard enough for women.”

Amanda’s conclusion is a reasonable summary of Tina Fey’s skit, why do you writhe so much at what she tweeted?

As Amanda said about the whole thing:

My other criticism of the criticism (God, I love blogging) is that Traister whipped out a straw man in defending the “whores” joke, by pointing out that Fey’s judgmental priggishness is nothing new. And hey, I’m all for judgmental priggishness used in service of making me laugh. The problem isn’t that Fey’s uptight about sex, though. The problem is that Fey is uptight about what she’d probably call lady-sex. It’s not priggishness that’s the problem when you blame the mistress for a man cheating on his wife. The problem is that you’re rocking a wicked double standard, in which men can’t be held accountable for their sexual behavior, so all the women of the world are required to do it for them. If you think that the men of the world are so weak-willed that they can’t be expected to perform a simple act of not sticking it in every tattooed neo-Nazi or Hooters waitress that’ll let them, then it’s only natural that the rest of us are going to look around and wonder what man in your life lowered your opinion of men so much.

@Comment #238: Soft Harem on 10/01 at 01:10 PM

The facade is crashing down all around Marcotte and her followers, and they stand around fiddling while Rome burns.  Well, no, actually, some of her followers are probably dropping their panties for the latest cad flavor of the month while honestly being completely unable to figure out why this 14th cad they’ve bedded won’t put rings on their fingers.

This metaphor is like a horse which, unable to decide between two buckets of oats, has expired from hunger.

@Comment #281: Soft Harem on 10/02 at 12:25 PM

and yes, the men of the world are led by women’s sexuality.  Women are the gatekeepers and in the West lately, the sex pozzies have brainwashed them to accept many keys.  Fortunately, Western women are less than 4% of the global female population.  But its still fun to mock these hilarious situtations

Your self-pity, on the other hand, is just tiresome.

Please don’t feed trolls. I’ll be banning Soft Harem for trolling.

@Comment #271: Amanda Marcotte on 10/02 at 01:21 PM

Please don’t feed trolls. I’ll be banning Soft Harem for trolling.

OK, sorry.

“Like, maybe he shops at costco and that indicates both responsibility sexually and fiscally.”

I love this, Jules. Thanks!

Things I’ve done with the Catholic girl that she enjoyed seemed strange and alien to another woman who’d had her share of sexual experience.

Gee, almost like different people like different things.  Or that being technically a virgin means inexperienced.  (FFS, no PIV sex does not = sexually inexperienced)

DAGCM - Ariel is reading you as female, so thinks you are arguing as a woman.  God, he’s really too stupid to understand (or can’t keep track of the fact that) several of the people who have corrected his “all men” and “male point of view” comments are other men.

@Helen

That virgin told me she was sexually inexperienced. And I believed her, go figure.

Also, see comment #205:

“Which is not to say I think that all men are alike, not at all.  I was offering a potential expalanation for what could be motivating the behavior of other guys based on my own experience. I should though have phrased it more explicitly rather than conflate my psyche with all men’s psyche.”

Speaking of tracking facts, I’m still curious to hear your explanation of why it’s so awesome that you can do pole dancing at your friend’s studio, but it’s totally debasing and patriarchal when other women pay money to take a pole dancing class. Just curious.

helen, I would’ve thought that my mentioning of Playboy would confirm my identity as male, as in Ariels’ world view there couldn’t possibly be a reason for a female to be perusing that infamous periodical.(Unless this falls under the category of a white lie   )

I think the underlying dynamic is that men are attached to certain roles and that merely taking them away in the name of equality doesn’t necessarily provide an adequte replacement. So maybe our sexuality requires all sorts of white lies, omissions, hypocrisy,and mystery.

So yeah, don’t generalize all men based on your experience.

So, we go back and forth, Ariel, that was bananacat @186, and now that you’ve discovered a male who thinks your ‘picture’ of the male psyche is rather odd, I’ll leave to you enjoy your exploding head in peace.

@ Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein

You still can’t bring yourself to laugh at the proposition that Ron Jeremy is considered a more desirable (shudder) sexual partner than Robert Pattinson. Odd indeed.

I’m amused that you think I should be troubled by your views on sex as a man when I just pointed out that I don’t think all men are the same. Your peculiar understanding of male and female sexuality, lights-off sex, and glory holes is your prerogative and doesn’t bother me in the least bit.

You still can’t bring yourself to laugh at the proposition that Ron Jeremy is considered a more desirable (shudder) sexual partner than Robert Pattinson. Odd indeed.

Guys that look like Ron Jeremy get laid all the time, and guys who look like Pattinson don’t get laid on the basis of their looks alone.  I’m sorry to upset your apple cart, but those are the facts.

you think I should be troubled by your views on sex as a man when I just pointed out that I don’t think all men are the same.

Nope, I’d just feel sorry to any woman who got married to you without knowing what you’re really all about.

Your peculiar understanding of male and female sexuality,

That’s a laugh, coming from the proponent of the ‘hard-wired Madonna/whore’ theory above

lights-off sex, and glory holes

Oh, I’ll gladly defer to your highly qualified expertise in the latter, and your lack of expertise in the former.

is your prerogative and doesn’t bother me in the least bit.

Look, I don’t care if you think that your penis is vital to your role as the Keymaster in opening the gate to Gozer, but you aren’t being honest either with us, yourself, or both from what you write here.

Good day, sir. 

Slut shaming is bad. But body shaming is not slut shaming. Do men call women fat because they’re promiscuous? Or promiscuous because they are fat?
Comment #118: ArielNYC on 09/29 at 05:21 PM

In fact they do.  Google the phrase “fat slut” and look at all the not-fat women it’s applied to.

This is not uncommon if a woman they’re attracted to turns them down, too.  They call them fat ugly sluts.

This is all in context of the woman’s BODY.  Sluttiness, fat, dirt, ugliness, they are all caused by corruption.  Virgins are pretty and skinny and clean.

Again, Ariel, the problem with the pole dancing in public was very clearly explained to you in the previous thread, by others so all I had to do was mention that, which I’m pretty sure I did.  Whether I did or not, you would not have paid any attention, so it hardly matters.

@Dark Avenger

Your understanding of sexuality and women is apparently so incredibly powerful that it drove you to specialize in lights-off sex. Have a splendid day.

@helen w. h

Sure, other commenters explained why didn’t like pole dancing, BUT they weren’t doing pole dancing while condemning it. Yo want to claim a special privilege to do pole dancing because you happen to have a pole-dancing friend with dance studio, and if other women don’t have this advantage then let them eat cake. All in defense of women, apparently. Nice work.

@oldfeminist

“This is all in context of the woman’s BODY.  Sluttiness, fat, dirt, ugliness, they are all caused by corruption.  Virgins are pretty and skinny and clean.”

You’re right. Both slut shaming and body shaming have links to our puritanical morality.

Your understanding of sexuality and women is apparently so incredibly powerful that it drove you to specialize in lights-off sex. Have a splendid day.

No, from what you’ve written here and on other threads, there’s enough material for at least 3 additional chapters, not to mention numerous revisions, of that famous work, Psychopathia Sexualis, although looking up the Latin for some of it will be a bit of a drag.

Thanks for the input.

See @helen? It doesn’t matter. You were right. Ariel, you don’t seem to actually be listening to DAGCM. 
And frankly? If I had to pick between Pattinson and Jeremy, I’d probably just become celibate. Both have problems. But. If forced? I’d pick Jeremy cause I"m damn sure he’d be a funny fun person. Pattinson looks weak willed and I absolutely HATE Twilight.

@Jules: Hum, yes, and an apartment living room with no room for a horizontal bar is now a dance studio.  The diference between public and private spaces is non-existant.  And I am a total hypocrit because I object not to pole dancing as excercise but as inappropriate as a public activity due to cutural connotation.  Yes, he is so bright and totally awesome in his ability to understand what people are saying.
As neither Jeremy nor Pattinson clicks for me, I’d go find someone who did myself.  I don’t have to chose between the two.

@JulesAboutTown
It’s like a guy saying that if given the choice between having sex with Megan Fox or Betty White, he’d rather choose White because at least she’s funny whereas Fox is obnoxious and vapid. It’s the kind of empty, feel-good bravado that would evaporate upon contact with reality, or indeed Ron Jeremy’s sweaty, hairy body.

@helen w. h.
It’s red herring eternal with you. I don’t care what you call your friend’s dance space. You have dancer friend with a dancing pole who can show you how to work it. And that you blieve gives you a special license to do pole dancing that other women don’t get.  If only all these silly women realized that they could just spend a lot more money and hire a private teacher and in so doing be properly hidden from society.

Yeah, because dancing in public in a class teaching sexual performance is exactly the same as being shown how to use a vertical pole in the same way as a horizontal pole in someone’s living room if there is any straying into anything that could be sexy.  Personal and public spaces are very different things.  Sorry that you are too stupid to follow that.

Ariel, as my mother used to say:

“It’s not enough to fuck them. You have to be able to talk to them afterwards.”

So for post-coital conversation, Ron Jeremy and Betty White would probably be better at it than Meagan Fox or Robert Pattinson.

that would evaporate upon contact with reality, or indeed Ron Jeremy’s sweaty, hairy body.

So, a hairless, sweaty body is better than a hairy, sweaty body?  I guess we won’t be seeing you at a furry convention at any time in the future.

And of course, sexual skills depend on the age and hotness of the individual involved, nothing else matters.

Thanks for demonstrating that you can’t tell the difference between exercise done in the home and that done in a public setting for entertainment of onlookers.

@helen w. h

Again, red herring. Your point wasn’t about how what you do is gymnastics and what other women do is pole dancing. You argued that your pole dancing was priviliged because it was done in a private space, to which I rejoinded that not all women can afford a private space for pole dancing and someone to instruct them. You never ONCE addressed the economics issue. That you don’t get how gaining access to a private space can be a priviliege is a true testatment to your entitled obliviousness.

You are not using red herring correctly.  class is a separate issue that compounds this one, but it does not negate it.  My pole dancing was less culturally problematic, not unproblematic for what it’s worth, because ti did not involve an audience beyond my control that would take my activities in a way I did not intend due to the cultural baggage tied up in the activity. 
Again, the context that matters is the cultural baggage as well as (and much more than) the difference between public and private spaces.  Since it was not my space, the person whose space it was is working class and immigrant, and I did not pay her for its use or her instruction, your classist mumbo jumbo is a bit grasping at the least.

@Dark Avenger

“I guess we won’t be seeing you at a furry convention at any time in the future”

But do go and have fun.

@helen w. h.

Shorter Helen: It’s not a privilege if I didn’t pay for it. Why can’t other people find working-class immigrants to teach them pole dancing for free? silly people.

Well, Ariel. One thing is for damn sure at this point. I’d take Ron Jeremy in bed instead of you any day. 
I’ve dated hairless sweatless jerks and hairy, balding awesome dudes. Yeah, I’d rather take the one that seemed like he’d be the most fun FOR ME IN BED.

Of the options mentioned? I’d take Betty White actually. Jesus, she’s awesome.

@JulesAboutTown

I’ll happily step aside so that you and Ron Jeremy and Betty White can all get down and dirty. let there be poetry.

Yes, your graciousness in the face of my heartbreaking rejection is impressive. 

I do find it hard to understand why you don’t believe those who tell you they’d pick the “less attractive” person over the “stereotypically hot” one. We get it that you’d not do that. That you’d take Megan Fox over Betty White, even if you liked and respected White more, but that’s because you’ve made it clear that the PIV and the hot brunettes are what motivate you.  But as you’ve asked us not to generalize about all men’s sexuality, so too you should realize that some of us just don’t respond well to that “hot” stereotype if there isn’t anything else to spark an erotic flame.

I mean I grew up in a town filled with “hot” frat and football types and nerdy hippies. I slept with both and the nerdy hippies were always 100 percent better in bed. So why date “hot” when it’s gonna be like eating plastic pizza. Not even real pizza.  Ron Jeremy vs Pattison? Have no fucking idea if either of them would be good in bed, though I am pretty damn sure Betty White would be.  I bet she’s had a full life of amazing sex and she’s goddamn awesome.

I’m married and not seeking, so I’ll couch this in terms of who I would like to have a beer and hang out and chat with - which has always been a minimum criteria for further action. 

I’d far rather have a beer with Ron Jeremy than with Pattison. Jeremy would be a blast to people watch with, if nothing else, and would be a hilarious time.

Pattison looks like a cardboard cutout of my son, only with too much makeup and cardboard boringness.  He’s too young, and looks plastic even without the lame glitter.  Maybe the real person is not so stylized and possibly erudite and charming.  Maybe not.  See also “too young”.

@Ms Kate

Oh, I was actually thinking the exact the same thing. I’d definitely rather have a beer with Ron Jeremy, and then head over to Robert Pattinson and have him to hook me up with Zooey Deschanel.

@JulesAboutTown

“I do find it hard to understand why you don’t believe those who tell you they’d pick the “less attractive” person over the “stereotypically hot” one.”

Because we’re all more superficial, ego-stroking, and weak-kneed when it comes to hotness and celebrity than we care to admit. But really, I don’t dispute that there’s a minority of people with all sorts of fetishes, special predilections, and sexual mindsets that are diamteric opposite of the mainstream, and more power to them.

I’m making up a little song in my head about how it doesn’t matter what anyone says in their comments, Ariel is always right.

I had no idea my desire for a mate who’d please me and be interesting and attractive to me on a number of levels (not just “hot” even if that meant vapid and plastic) gave me fetishes, special predilections and a minority sexual mindset.

Huh, I feel special now.

@JulesAboutTown

In all seriousness, if you were to guess, what percentage of women fantasizes about Robert Pattinson, and what percentage of women fantasizes about Ron Jeremy? And why is that?

I don’t know Ariel. I really don’t.  Western women? Indian? European? White women or black women? women under 45 or over 45? Teen girls who like Twilight or Teen girls who hate Twilight? Married or divorced?

Any of those variables could change the outcome of the statistics. You say “women” like there really is only one answer to that question. I have no doubt there are a lot of women who fantasize about fucking RP.  Or Tom Cruise, or Justin Timberlake, or other like that. I don’t. Yes, they are “hot” but something about them really turns me off.

We’ve established though that what people want in fantasy is often quite different than what we want in reality. I might fantasize about BEING Ron Jeremy for all anyone knows, but that doesn’t mean I want to really be him.

Fantasy is weird. It can act like an immediate trigger to the passions, it can symbolize what we want, are scared of, hate, want control of. From a Jungian perspective perhaps each character in the fantasy is a part of the dreamer.

Ever have a hot sex dream with someone you detest and find loathesome? What the hell is that about? The mind is complex. 

You’re the one whose missing out, ArielNYC.

@JulesAboutTown

So older women don’t like hot young guys like all those teen floozies do? I dunno, doesn’t our society shame older women for showing that kind of sexuality? Like you must grow out liking hotness too much, whereas men are free to be themselves?

“We’ve established though that what people want in fantasy is often quite different than what we want in reality.”
Yeah but not all fantasies are alike. A rape fantasy is not the same as fantasy sex with a hot celebrity.

I just said I didn’t know, Ariel. I’ve not talked to all women.  some older women probably get off to RP, sure. Some probably don’t.  I do not. I think he’s gross. I think the werewolf dude is gross too.  The dad is pretty hot but yeah he doesn’t really cross my mind.

And I think that actually those fantasies are more alike than you think.

A rape fantasy could be about giving up control, being desired, gaining control, etc but without the actual pain or horror. A celebrity fantasy might be about being desired, status and getting through the star, control, having something “special” and unique instead of suburban, but without the LA pressure and problems that seem to inevitably follow stars around.

Fucking or dating a star is different than fantasizing about them.  Rita Hayworth used to say, “People go to bed with Gilda, they wake up with me”

I think what we might be discussing here too is the difference in why people fantasize. My guess is, as a generalization, that men may be more likely to fantasize based on hotness. Some people are purely visual, some like a narrative.  A woman fantasizing about dating RP might include the hotness, but also the fame and the specialness of being chosen.  Not sure if that rings true, but thought Id’ throw it out there.

Jules - I find it interesting that I am the one who is classist when the thread about pole dancing included the offensive element of privileged middle class women taking pole dancing classes to be able to perform for their SO when they and society, by and large rather than specifically, denigrate people who do pole dancing for pay.  The premise from that post was not that pole dancing was evil or not a good way to excercise, but that due to its nature as sexualized performance and cultural baggage of being associated with sex work, taking classes in pole dancing was not empowering and could be seen as being the opposite.  But then, Ariel completely missed the point in that conversation, too.