Posted by alexandra_k on July 31, 2005, at 23:36:31
In reply to Re: Sex and other stuff I know nothin about (boring) » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on July 31, 2005, at 22:57:13
> > But do you ever wonder...
> > About how for guys the aim is for the guy to have the big o.
> And I think the problem is that when people talk about sex they mean the thing that happens when a man puts his penis inside a woman and thrusts till he comes, as if the woman were a mere receptacle.Yes, that was what I was getting at. I just didn't want to have to say it ;-)
> > And the guys aim is taken to be the crucial one. The important one. The 'proper function'. It takes precedence over the girls...
> OK, I do think there’s a theological/historical point to be made. In the history of western culture, sex was perceived as sinful. It was permissible only for procreation. Therefore the man had to ejaculate; without ejaculation, procreation wasn’t possible and sex without the possibility of procreation was considered unnatural. But the sexual pleasure involved was the means by which Original Sin was transmitted. A woman’s pleasure was unnecessary for procreation and therefore of no use in sexual activity. And although those ideas are no longer current in western culture, I think they have informed the way in which our attitudes to sexual behaviour have developed.Thats really interesting. I haven't really thought about that before. It would account for why women are more likely to feel that their sexual urges / desires are 'unnatural' or 'evil' or 'unhealthy' or whatever. Sometimes the reasons aren't so prevalent but the attitudes remain...
I think in terms of evolution / biology too... The notion of a 'proper function'. Sex has been passed down through the generations because procreation was successful. You can get rid of everything to do with sex and so long as that thing that you wrote about so articulately happens then that gets passed down to another generation...
>In gay and lesbian relationships people can feel dirty and used.Yes. I hear you.
>I think it’s more likely that people will feel dirty during/after sex if they feel they are dirty or unnatural to begin with (of course I am not saying that homosexuality is unnatural, but that sometimes people are brought up believing that it is unnatural).
Yes, that seems right. But then I think there is a little more to it as well... I don't think there is anything unnatural or dirty or shameful about my desires. Really. But I have felt used after sexual encounters. Mostly when things go along the lines of what you outlined...
> I know my point of view is a wee bit feminist,I'll try not to hold that against you LOL!
> but I do think that women’s bodies are not really considered normal. An example is the difficulty diagnosing heart attack in female patients. The research was done on male patients and the symptoms that doctors looked for were those symptoms most people can identify: pain in chest and left arm etc. But in women the symptoms are often different. Many women present with symptoms akin to indigestion and are not considered to be having heart attacks. As a result more women than men are likely to die of heart attacks and men tend to get quicker treatment and therefore recover better than women. It’s changing now, happily, but that situation was true for a long time. Men’s bodies were normalised and people who didn’t have the normal symptoms missed out, even if their symptoms were normal for women. I think in general male is ‘normal’ and female is not.
Yeah. Freud comes in here too... Males are the standard for the species. Females are males who have to discover they are already castrated :-( So female anatomy is considered to be the lack of a penis. And female sexuality is about a woman feeling literally 'incomplete' without a penis inside of her, because the vagina is considered to be just an empty space.
> The thing about a guy holding off his urges a little makes sense if the couple are having sex according to Bill Clinton’s definition.Yup. Thats what I meant.
>But if instead we think of sex as something broader than mere penetration I don’t think that time is really a factor. If both partners aim to please each other in various ways before penetration begins (or without penetration at all), there’s not necessarily any need for the guy to hold off.
I agree. I just wonder whether most people tend to think of sex along the lines of the 'Bill Clinton' definition... LOL! Is that really what that was about! I didn't know that!
> > And so because of these differences...
> > Its too easy for a girl to end up feeling like her needs preferences etc have just been fairly much disregarded in order for the guy to do what the guy needs to do...
> Well, if he’s not a very imaginative lover, that would be true!Yeah... Still thinking along the lines of what you were saying before...
> I think there’s a powerful myth that sex is all about penetration (which is embarrassingly heteronormative, but I’ll save my lesbian rant for another time). Like you say, the ‘proper function’. It seems unfortunate to me that people think of sex in that way. I hate the word ‘foreplay’ because it seems to suggest that it’s an hoop through which to jump before you get the real thing. In Italian the word for foreplay is preliminari (the preliminaries)!yes yes yes.
:-)
> Oops, I’ve gone off on a rant again. I’d better go to bed. By myself, sadly.:-(
me too...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:534819
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/relate/20050724/msgs/536249.html