Sexual urges of men and women

[AndreL]

"I never have quite figured out why the sexual urges of men and women differ so much. And I never have figured out the whole Venus and Mars thing. And I never figured out why men think with their head and women think with their heart. And I never yet have figured out how the sexual desire gene gets thrown into a state of turmoil when it hears the words "I do."


One evening last week, my wife and I were getting into bed. Well, the passion starts to heat up, and she eventually says, "I don't feel like it. I just want you to hold me." I said, "WHAT???"


So she says the words that I and every husband on the planet dread. She explains that I must not be in tune with her emotional needs as a woman. I'm thinking, "What was her first clue?" I finally realize that nothing was going to happen that night, so I went to sleep.


The very next day, we went shopping at a big, unnamed department store. I walked around with her while she tried on three different, very expensive outfits. She could not decide which one to take, so I told her to take all three of them. She then tells me that she wants matching shoes worth $200.00 a pair to which I say OK. And then we go to the jewellery department where she gets a pair of diamond earrings.


Let me tell you. She was so excited. She must have thought that I was one wave short of a shipwreck, but I don't think she cared. I think she was testing me when she asked for a tennis bracelet because she does not even play tennis. I think I threw her for a loop when I told her that it was OK. She was almost sexually excited from all of this, and you should have seen her face when she said, "I'm ready to go to the cash register."


I could hardly contain myself when I blurted out, "No, honey, I don't feel like buying all this stuff now." You should have seen her face. It went completely blank. I then said, "Really, honey, I just want you to HOLD this stuff for a while."
And just when she had this look like she was going to kill me, I added, "You must not be in tune with my financial needs as a man."


I figure that I won't be having sex again until some time after the Spring of 2008 but godammit it was worth it."


Author unknown

[Lavene]

:tongue:
That's where it really pays off being gay... as lesbian I'm totally in tune with my partner's needs as a woman... by default :smiley2:

Tina

[AndreL]

:tongue: :smiley4: :smiley8:

[danieldk]

Tina: some people say being bisexual and polygamic is even handier. :) (No, I am not :p.)

[Lavene]

Tina: some people say being bisexual and polygamic is even handier. :) (No, I am not :p.)

Yes... some really know how to have their cake and eat it too! (No, not you :p )
:smiley8:

Tina

[morgoth]

My thoughts - men are primative creatures, designed to be highly visual, and are pre-programmed with a strong genetic instruction set to propogate the species. This results in the high male sex drive, and the general inability to stay faithful to the partner imho. Nature has programmed females differently, to find a strong mate, and to try and hold onto him as best as possible, and as long as possible for the benefit of the offspring. Females as a general rule, from my experience, relate more to tactile touch, than overtly sexual touch, whereas men are the complete opposite. A man's worth is nothing if he cannot 'sexually perform', simply hugging or cuddling is not a manly thing in his eyes. I don't think that a person being gay really resolves these issues.

Furthermore, my life experiences have taught me that men are not good multitaskers, usually they are very linear in their tasks, start a task, complete it, start the next task. Women are usually the complete opposite, quite often doing multiple tasks, all at the same time, and keeping them completely on track. This again is basic on genetic programming, with our ancestors (males) solely concerned about the hunt - find prey, kill it, take it home, protect family. The woman had to make sure that everyone was OK (children & partner), keep the home living area OK, prepare food, care for the ill etc. Her eyes had to be everyone, and her fingers in more than one pie at once. Millions of years of evolution have altered the two sexes.

I'm not even going to touch the hormonal side of things, we're balanced, but unbalanced (talk about a paradox).

Dave

[DebiusDrew]

From the reading and observations I've done, it seems to me that the "differences" that western society recognizes between genders are a result of socialization, not genetic difference. As children boys are given a different set of social boundaries then girls based on the roles we're expected to fulfill in society.



I'm not going to make a judgment on whether this is right or wrong (at this forum anyway), but I have struggled with this issue in my own life. I don't really fit in with most men that I have met. Obviously I can only speak for myself at this point, but I've never felt the need to "propagate my species" (I enjoy sex, but it isn't my primary motivator). I have felt odd about lacking that desire, but only when other people (both men and women) reacted strangely to me confessing my feelings. It wasn't until I took a few sociology classes that I realized there was nothing unnatural about my focus on other pursuits, just my expressing those thoughts violated the cultural norms of my suburban mid-west surroundings.



By extension I think it isn't that men are tolerated for being sexually driven while emotionally distant, it's that we are expected to be sexually driven and emotionally distant. When we behave otherwise people react negatively to us which enforces us behaving in a sexually driven way.



At least, that's how I see it.

[bhobjj]

From the reading and observations I've done, it seems to me that the "differences" that western society recognizes between genders are a result of socialization, not genetic difference.

I used to think that, until I had children and realized how different they can be with the same environment.

A couple good books:

re: The role of genetics
Genome by Matt Ridley (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-3593219-7260758?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=genome+matt+ridley&Go.x=10&Go.y=10&Go=Go)

re: the role or hormones and endrocine disrupters
Our Stolen Future by Theo Colborn, et al (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-3593219-7260758?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=%22our+stolen+future%22&Go.x=9&Go.y=14&Go=Go)

[morgoth]

I can see what you're saying Drew - not all men have huge sex drives, or a necessity to have a partner etc. I've been single for quite a while now, and not really interested in having a partner. A casual sex partner with no responsibilities would suit my physical needs, but emotionally and mentally I'm not even interested in a relationship with a woman. I personally couldn't really give a hoot for women, my drive just doesn't interest me in them enough to go playing silly buggers chasing them and acting like a blinded idiot.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the real reason for the drop in population in western developed countries is not because of contraception or sex education but the fact that modern, western women are just fussy and far too demanding on what they want in a partner. They want a perfect partner, someone who's physically beautiful, well endowed and able to use it, financial secure (owns on house, has fancy car and large bank accounts) and also someone that can be worn your arm and showed off to the rest of the female populace like "look what I've got". I don't have time to stuff with that shite, women can take it, shove it where it fits and leave me alone if they can't accept me for what and who I am. It's amazing how many women will say "you're a really nice guy but I only want to be friends". It's amazing how many friends say that, but when you ask them if they have single friends that they can hook you up with on a date, they umm and arr and say "I don't think they'd be interested". The mating game these days is not mating, it's a pretty sight seeing tour which I'm happy to do without.

Furthermore, since my personal and religious theologies indicate that this world is seriously fucked up, I'm not going to even consider bringing a child into such a messed up world - that would be beyond being cruel.

Dave

[Lavene]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the real reason for the drop in population in western developed countries is not because of contraception or sex education but the fact that modern, western women are just fussy and far too demanding on what they want in a partner.

:tongue: Now there is a showcase of male thinking: If you can't find a partner... blame the women!

Tina

[morgoth]

:tongue: Now there is a showcase of male thinking: If you can't find a partner... blame the women!

Tina

I'm simply stating a fact as I see it from my experiences. Maybe women aren't as fussy in Norway, I'm not sure. But in Australia, women seem to want the 'perfect' male with everything. If he's only 80% good, that's not good enough.

The number of women choosing to remain single, or the number of women choosing to not have children because of the expense and time/social impact is growing. The number of women choosing not to have a regular partner, but sleep around to suit their sexual needs is vastly growing. I put this directly to the blame of the feminine revolution and it WILL have dire effects on society.

As an example, take the pill. This allows women to have unabated sex, with little fear of pregnancy. Whilst this, from a sexual point of view is great for the woman, it means that a the modern woman can simply have as much fun as she likes. This sexual freedom is now readily prevalent, women, from what I see/hear/read enjoy this freedom, and so are loathe to lose it [by settling down with a long term partner]. Before you scoff at what I've said, sit down and think about it. Think about the decreasing marriage rate, the increasing number of couples deciding not to have children. Those couples that do decide to have children are limiting it to one child more and more often. This means an aging population, one that financially is not supportable. Our whole financial system is based on X amount of people paying X amount of taxes as part of their employment. This leads to X amount of money supporting necessary services such as health, education etc. With the increase in older people, and the decrease in younger people, the number of active workers will decrease, and the amount of taxes collected will also decrease. This means either people have to:

1. Work longer before they 'retire', perhaps work until they drop
2. Pay more taxes - this would reduce the standard of living to the point of slavery. This is now evident in many developed countries empowering the employer and decreasing the rights of the employee, resulting in a loss of standards.
3. A combination of both 1 & 2.

As the health system fails, more and more health issues will arise, and the population will naturally decrease. With a decreasing population, that will mean less workers and this will spiral out of control. At the moment we will not notice it for some time, as the effect of decreasing birth rate in most developed countries is still not far enough gone for some of the ills to become apparent. But, it will manifest itself.

Of course, if scientists get their way, they'll suddenly figure out how to make humans live to 200 years or age or so. I find that morally and theologically and ideologically wrong.

As Angie said to me the other day when we were talking about this, perhaps this is natures way of dealing with our overpopulating of the Earth. Perhaps this is the way that our population will decline, and things will be put in balance again. One cannot deny that we overpopulate the Earth, probably by a facter of a 1000-2000%, if not more.

This overpopulation has a dire effect on every other part of the ecological structure, and in all honesty I think the chain reaction has been set in place and the damage is done and it's too late to reverse that damage. So, my ideology is that by choosing not to actively pursue a partner and mate and having offspring, I'm my bit for nature.

In the end, an average male like myself is no longer seen as desirable by the average woman. I'm not deemed attractive enough, sexy enough, financially well off enough and so on. Before you chastise my thoughts, go out and talk to the average single male, between the ages of 25-35 and see what he privately thinks. From my experience, nearly every single male in that age bracket that I know thinks what I'm saying. They're afraid to say it, because they do not want to be seen as being 'sexist'. I couldn't really give a rats arse about being called sexist, I call things as I see them. My experience tells me that I'm 100% correct, just that many won't accept it.

Dave

[Lavene]

Dave! Know what? I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying!

I find todays career-before-children thing horrible. Simply because women, by nature, are best fit to get children in their early twenties. They also have the energy it takes to actually take care of an infant... which is *a lot* of work. And it's work they can not 'outsource'. I know I have the womens lib against me on this, but I really think a child need his *mother* more than anything in the early years. Being a mother is, and rightly should be, a full time job.

I don't have children, I'm about to hit the big four-o, and I know one thing for certain: I would not manage an infant full time now... I'm simply too old. Twenty years ago it would not have been a problem.

I do however think you are wrong about women valuing their sexual freedom more than having a family. Sex is not that important to most women. The sexual freedom is actually more a symptom of what I say above. The ability to 'slut a round' for a few years is more of a bonus of the social pressure to put family plans on hold while building a career. Of course there would not be possible for a woman to slut around if men wasn't doing it too...

It is ironic though, that I have found the woman in my life and are happily 'married' while an astonishing number of men at my age have not succeeded in doing the same *lol*

Tina

[fos]

I am a firm believer that it takes a partnership to raise children. I have just about raised five children. I can't immagine how I would have raised only one of them by myself, even if with the necessary financial resources.

fos....

[morgoth]

Tina, not all men are sex savoring idiots. Not all men must shag every single woman that walks. Maybe I'm different to other men, but I just don't have that desire. I'm seeing it as very common now for women to sleep around, much more so than men do. I'm seeing a reversal of roles, with the male trying to find a permanent partner ASAP. Modern women these days don't want that, it's cloying and they find it limits their freedoms. It just seems to be the norm. For years the male has been told he needs to be more sensitive to a womans needs, needs to be less macho, more caring. Modern man is heading that way ever so slowly, but the female is now going in a completely opposite direction. I read a report now that it's not uncommon for younger teenage girls to perform oral sex on guys in a group because it's fun, and they're showing the power of feminity, their control over the men. Like a guy at a disco? Don't tell him you like him, drag him into the girls toilets and give him a blowjob, it's cool, and he'll really appreciate it more than you saying, "hey, I like you!". Many younger females going to university are now happy to have sex with multiple partners - threesomes, are not very uncommon these days. It's all a part of the "fun". Ever heard the term 'spitroast'. Do a google image search on it with safety measures turned off and you'll see what I mean. Apparently, it's all the rage these days. Condoms can piss off, they remove the womans enjoyment of sex ("sorry, it just doesn't feel right inside of me" is a common comment). Is it any wonder that STDs are on the rise? Massively. 1 in 10 people have Herpes now, that's a figure that's up on years ago.

Compare this to 40 odd years ago, the man a woman lost her virginity too in a lot of places was usually the man that she ended up marrying, and staying married for 40 or 50 years, happily raising children. If a couple has an argument these days, they get divorced. Quick and simple. In the old days, you worked at the problem and actually fixed it. Ever wondered why the divorce rate is so high, and people are getting divorced earlier and earlier on in the marriage? If we got rid of the pill, and made divorce illegal, we'd end up resolving a lot of issues I feel. Australia is currently offering first time mothers a one off payment of $4,000. A lot of younger teenage girls are having sex deliberately to get this money, and then neglecting the child (or adopting it out). What sort of society is this? Plans like this should be made illegal, not endorsed by the government. IVF? Get rid of it. There's so many children there waiting to be adopted, and yet people greedily want to have their own "genetic" child. Sorry, if nature meant you couldn't naturally reproduce, bloody well deal with it - you're not going to have naturally genetic children. Give a orphan a loving home. Abortion? Ban it - it's horrific and I firmly believe that its murder. That's not a religious viewpoint either. It's a humanity viewpoint. Abortion (or the day after pill) gives a woman the power to happily sleep around without worry, or a care for their behaviour. Allow abortion for things like if the mother to be is not fit to have a child (mentally), or the unborn child is endangering her health, or if the unwanted pregnancy is the result of rape etc. So many things, so much common sense, none of it even given a second thought. We seem to take the easy and convenient way out.

All of these factors have resulted in our modern problems imho. I don't think like society, I'm not programmed like society wants me to be, so I'll always stand out like a sore thumb. That's fine by me. I call things as I see them, and quite honestly, I think society doesn't want to look at the problems. I'll take a sidestep here - the growing emergence of mental illness. Society doesn't care about these people, we're just a nuisance to them. We don't want to care for them, or help them, we just want to push them away in a nice dark corner and not have to look at them again. Why are most medicines for mentally ill patients very expensive, and (at least in Australia) generally not covered by government medical funding? People criticise these people who commit mass murders. I say that society is now repaing what it sows. You ignore/hurt/ridicule these people long enough, and they'll snap and bite you on the bum. That is what is happening now. Look at the Columbine mass murders - the guys were shunned by the rest of their year, called 'freaks', abused, tormented. It's OK for society to do this, but not to reap the results of that pent up frustration for X amount of years/months/decades? I call a spade a spade, if you treat people like shit, sooner or later that shit will hit the fan. I'm not agreeing with what these boys did, don't get me wrong, but I can empathise with them, and I feel sorry for them, that society had to be so wrong and force them into what they felt was no other option. A caring society wouldn't have treated them like shit in the first place. Think about that.

Dave

[DebiusDrew]

Oh, I'm not blind to the role physiology plays in shaping personality, but I've found that people are quick to focus on that particular role over socialization. I don't know anyone's home life, so once again I'll use an example from my own. My niece and nephews are still in their formative ages and are raised in the same environment, which is to say my brother works all day and mom and the grandparents do most of the child rearing. This hasn't changed through three births in the last three years, and as bhobjj points out the children are different people. The mistake is to think that the children are treated the same way within that environment.


My mother (the children's grandmother) will probably tell you that she only treats the kids differently based on age (which is good, despite less then a year between each child they each have very different needs). But I watch the way she treats the children and she does take very gendered approaches to the way she interacts with them. While both children were praised for being "smart" when they learn new things, they are praised for different acts in other areas of life. The oldest boy is constantly described as "strong" or "big" while his sister is encouraged to cuddle, or not to roughhouse. Both of the children's personalities reflect this difference (in my observation anyway).


But yeah, it's important to look at the whole picture. Genetics and environment have a role to play.

[muskrat]

:tongue: Now there is a showcase of male thinking: If you can't find a partner... blame the women!

Tina

I don't think he said he was looking, he was explaining why he wasn't looking. I feel the same way now after 10 years married. Where expectation meets reality is a great disappointment. If I had it to do over I wouldn't marry. I'd stay single and have my expectations.

[Lavene]

I'll take a sidestep here - the growing emergence of mental illness. Society doesn't care about these people, we're just a nuisance to them. We don't want to care for them, or help them, we just want to push them away in a nice dark corner and not have to look at them again. Why are most medicines for mentally ill patients very expensive, and (at least in Australia) generally not covered by government medical funding? People criticise these people who commit mass murders. I say that society is now repaing what it sows.

First let me say that I don't recognize this here in Norway. And I know what I'm talking about unfortunately (without going into details I spent nine months as an inpatient after something horrible happened in my life). The meds is covered here just like all other necessary prescription medicine which means that they are basically free. So here the system mostly work. I have to say 'mostly' though because every now and then it fails miserably. Just now a guy that was dismissed by the hospital killed his entire family.

As for the 'society' I have one thing to say to all who keep blaming it for everything: You are part of it! Take part and do something! If you don't, you are no better than the rest of the apathetic crowd. Expecting 'someone' to do 'something' doesn't work. If you want change, that 'someone' have to be YOU!

Tina

[jjmac]

morgoth wrote:
>>
the growing emergence of mental illness
>>

Just a point, i don't think there is actually an incidence increase. The rate per population tends to have been consistant over time. And with respect to culture. There are fluctuations that will move with economic fluctuations. But the awarness has certainly increased. Likely due to the increase in access to various media outlets/technologies in current days. Unfortunatly this can, and has been erronously proported to represent an increase in the actual occurances.


jm

[danieldk]

I used to think that, until I had children and realized how different they can be with the same environment.

After having seen how much influence "the environment" has over my mind, I tend to believe that the influence of genetics and hormones are overrated. Some times I have intensively done insight (vipassana) meditation over the course of a few weeks. This meditation is focused on getting awareness of perceptions, emotions, thoughts, etc. The idea is to develop insight in consciousness, and how mental states arise and decline through cause and effect (sorry for giving a bad description as a very unexperienced meditator :)).

In that time I have seen how much influence choosing good food (in the widest sense: nutrition, television, books, etc.) has on the mind. If I watched programs of a 'bad quality' (e.g. violent or superficial) this resulted in many thoughts/emotions that involved hatred, jelousy, etc. over the course of a few days. While 'beautiful programs' result in a lot of positive thoughs, ideas, energy, etc. Even if simple things like a billboard or television program can have such an influence (although in a subtle manner), I am convinced that the wider environment certainly will. I have also seen some people in my environment who meditate a lot more/longer than I do (though in other traditions) become very calm and gentle people, who seem to have only very few traces of hatred and fear left.

Action leads to reaction. I think that a lot of mental reactions lead to physical reactions, which is what science can easily study.

At any rate, when it comes to children being different, I believe that's cause and effect resulting from previous lives. Though that's not an explanation that is generally accepted in the West :).

[jjmac]

danieldk wrote:
>>
After having seen how much influence "the environment" has over my mind, I tend to believe that the influence of genetics and hormones are overrated.
>>

In other words ... your saying that nature can be governed through training ... all things being equal.

Circumstance can get in the way though. And depending on the 'strength' of the nature being delt with, various results.


jm

[AndreL]

This thread goes to show how far can "a little joke" can go sometimes... :)