Regarding handjobs: I think the reason men like them is because it's so visually interesting to see a woman's hand where your own so often is. Plus you're probably using a nice lube instead of something more everyday like soap or hand cream or nothing.
What I'm finding neat in the women's thread is the diversity of interests described. There seems to be a very wide variety of likes and dislikes being discussed. Certainly, there is no one size fits all when it comes to sexual turn on's (and off's).
As for the men's thread, it seems like living up to cultural ideals of male sexuality is much tougher for us guys than most of us realize or admit (except for me, of course, who has never, ever even once underperformed ... well, unless you count that time I was way too drunk ... or that I other time it took too long ... or ... ok, so I've been very far from perfect too - like every other honest guy alive).
In all seriousness, the candor being displayed in all 3 threads - despite being online - is quite impressive. I think it's great that such an intellectual discussion can take place about such a private subject without fear of too much judgement from others.
spiritrover, that. Plus, it just feels completely different when it's not your own hand. No other way to say it.
the candor being displayed in all 3 threads - despite being online - is quite impressive.
I actually think it's a lot easier for people to talk about stuff like this online. It's one of the things I like about teh internets.
This one is hard for me to talk about. Some commenters in the other threads are contemplating resuming sex after a long hiatus, due to illness, childbirth, or other reasons. We took a long break due to a series of surgeries and chemotherapy for breast cancer. These are some things that worked for us, starting back up again:
1) I knocked off the passive-aggressive complaining about not having sex, once she got better. How fucking stupid was that? Yet I did it. The combination of shame on my part (for nagging) and stress on hers (for being nagged) was the ultimate antiaphrodesiac.
2) I worked hard on giving great massages without a quid pro quo. When she reads this comment she will laugh and ask how the hell I got the quid pro quo going again.
3) We got to talking and laughing again, and we remembered why we liked each other.
4) Our regular babysitter came back from college.
5) We started small. We didn't expect to get that time back all in one day.
6) The estrogen suppositories recommended by her doctor helped a ton with post-menopausal vaginal atrophy.
Thanks for having the guts to talk about that, spiritrover.
Funny. These posts you have written are very interesting. I couldn't resist writing a longish comment but I thought it was too off topic.
Brief summary of non-existent comment (or at least I hope to God it's non-existent). I hope this isn't off topic but it seems like you've opened up the topic now:
I prefer not to talk about the nitty gritty details of sex. There are different ways to experience sexuality. For some people, there is an achievement aspect. A bit like tourism. The countries you went to, the exotic happenings, the courage when faced with danger, the chutzpah or daring you showed.
For some people, sex isn't like this. Sex is a private almost aesthetic kind of experience and/or sex is too personal to describe or discuss. Or maybe they even see it as holy or sacred or meaningful in some way that would be interfered with by too much talk. For myself, sex is not a part of my public persona. Since most of the friends I've had are not like this (just the opposite--I even had friends who were in the light porn industry), this was always read as prudishness, deep repression (maybe that old cow of 'frigidity'), perhaps a traumatic childhood. I had one, so these accusations were a little confusing when I was young and didn't understand myself well. They seem silly now.
Sometimes the pressure to live and experience sexuality in the way my friends do--in the way some people here might--has been a bit oppressive. Not so much as I get older. If I read the comments here I think: Well, I've done many of those things. I've liked those things. But for me, sex is not about doing things.
It's a bit like the way I hate to go to some place of breathtaking sublime natural beauty and then TALK about the beauty. I rarely talk pictures of anything. I prefer to just have the experience. I like memory alone to be the record. Maybe the intermediate interpretation is what makes the talking ruin it. I don't know. The privacy, the silence, the interiority of it enhances it. It also seems appropriate to the situation to avoid commentary.
I'm very talky about many other things. Most other things.
I have talked about sex with people sometimes but I always have a twinge of regret whenever I do.
OK, that wasn't a very brief summary. Upshot is--When you find someone who doesn't want to talk about sex or doesn't seem to experience it as you do you are probably going to be wrong when you assume they are like a person who never leaves Indiana simply because they don't have slides of their trips.
But the gay men are going to have to write their own thread somewhere else. Tough shit. I don't care about gay men. Anyway, you guys have Dan Savage.
i only bring this up because talking to my brother and his partner (yes, they are gay) helped me immeasurably when my husband and i began navigating the waters of an "open" relationship. at least with the sex part, b/c they eschew emotional attachments outside their dyad.
which brings up another point -- bitch, thanks so much for being open about your relationships -- your posts on the topic of polyamory have been like light buoys for my husband and me. they don't mark a set path, but they do indicate navigable waters.
I thought NFW brought up a good point on the male thread. The judging of our thoughts/fantasies often keeps us from really being able to express our desires. He doesn't feel safe to share his desire with his parter, and the response to his post proved him right. It took me a long time to come to the point with my partner where I could accept that the only rules that existed with regards to sex were those we made ourselves.
When I got over my need to conform to sexual norms, it allowed our relationship to grow because nothing was automatically off limits. We could begin to discuss our desires and ways to fulfill them that both of us are comfortable with.
I hope that NFW is one day able to come to the point where expressing desire is not taboo in and of itself. I think he is bravely admiting to something that many people feel, but are afraid to admit.
Furthermore, dominance play doesn't mean punching your partner in the face, or going in any way beyond previously agreed upon limits. It can be very freeing to allow one partner to lose control and the other to be in control. Just because it is rough doesn't make it rape.
A couple of the guys seemed to pick up on my (and others') comments about wanting a lover who's psychic in a way that made it sound like we were being unreasonable in wanting that, so, of course, I wanted to clarify:
It's not that I expect my lovers to be psychic, and I know that if he doesn't know what to do to get me off, it's largely (though not always all) my fault for not communicating it. I mean, come on, do we not all have unrealistic fantasies about our lovers? Not only is he psychic, but he's always eager to fuck when I want to fuck, never when I don't, he loves to give me footrubs and cook me gourmet meals, always smells good, is strong enough to carry me all over the house, sensitive enough never to hurt my feelings, thoughtful enough to remember anniversaries that I don't even think of and doesn't mind that I'm a flake!
Please. Of course I know that a) that's a fantasy and b) even if every one of those things were true, it still wouldn't be perfect because, no doubt, I'd end up feeling like I wasn't being a good partner, and who the heck wants that?
CC - I read those complaints as going to the fact that some people - regardless of gender - measure love in that way. In other words, to such people, they only feel loved if their needs and wants are anticipated without them having to ask for anything. I think this is different from wanting a degree of closeness and intimacy that allows one to often anticipate needs; these complaints were as to something more pathological, along the lines of "I shouldn't have to say anything - if you loved me you'd know already." That kind of unrealistic expectation dooms the other party to inevitably fail in some way. In a strictly sexual context it leads to hurt feelings all around. So I saw the thread as talking about two different things (or very different degrees of the same thing).
The most challenging thing for me on the straight women's has been how widespread and common the desire to be taken or forced is, and the desire is not only not limited to the passive or traditional but seems on the contrary to be at least as typical of the most aggressive and self-assured. A number have made that connection themselves, explicitly, suggesting it may be a form of compensation.
This goes against everything I have wanted to believe, trained myself to feel, and wanted to act on. It frankly leaves me feeling like a sort of chump, for having tried to carry a respectfulness into the bedroom when there now seems on this evidence to have been good reason to act otherwise, with the very women I want most to connect with. When this "educated incapacity" on my part is combined with the very common reticence to ask or suggest otherwise, once again by the most surprising people, I'm left thunderstruck.
I would have described my sexual experiences as good. But I am confronting the real possibility that they may have been deeply unsatisfactory, for reasons my partners had no capacity or desire to explain. I'm wondering how much better off we might all have been if I had been more "asshole-ish." Now, I know that overstates it, and is not the same thing. And I know that I have not completely failed to show ardor and will and urgency, and have been well-received. But I do not think I am constructing a strawman argument here; I really do feel to some extent disabused of notions that feminism at least as I understood it, had led me to try to live by.
And I'm afraid, I feel a bit humiliated by the degree, with however many nuances and qualifications, the "She wants it..." line of discourse, which I have set myself against for years, has been verified.
I don't pay, I see what you mean, and the comments in the women's thread have disturbed me as well, but for entirely different reasons. I (a female) have been horrified by the idea of being hit, slapped, choked, etc., that some other women have found enjoyable. I wouldn't ever presume to tell them that they're wrong--they like what they like, and it's not my place to say what's right.
But please don't presume that "she wants it" applies to every woman every time. Even those who said they enjoyed rough sex were sometimes ambivalent about it, and there are many, like myself, who wouldn't even entertain the idea.
I think the point of these threads is to show the diversity of likes and dislikes and to show that talking about sex can be liberating. So, you know, bringing up the idea of rougher play or bondage or whatever with your partner is a great idea. Slapping them around unexpectedly is probably not.
In the male thread, MaxPolun said that men are taught that their bodies are disgusting. Could MP or someone else say more about that? I never heard of such a thing. It's certainly not true of my husband. But wait. What if it is and he's hiding it? See why I want to know more? TIA.
Something about the men's thread was really upsetting to me. I used to be involved in BDSM play but have since moved past that after really examining the reasons behind that desire and now that I'm out of that, it's kind of shocking to me that there are so many men who go for that sort of thing. When I was into BDSM I guess I just thought that I was lucky, that every boyfriend I had just so happened to be into it too.
But that wasn't all that was upsetting. Someone in that threat mentioned it, that there's always an undercurrent of macho posturing and in some cases, thinly veiled hostility towards women. It makes me nervous, you know?
Of course my reaction to that thread is probably heavily colored by the fact that I'm in a sexual relationship that is seriously fucked up and is causing me to project my enormous discomfort with sex onto everything around me, so I may just be a hypocrite.
blech. I wrote a whole comment in response to IDP and Haloscan ate it. Always control c!
IDP, I don't conceive of rape and mutually consented to rough sex with someone else in control as remotely the same thing. The latter is related to feelings about and experience with the former, but that's it. It's not useful to say, "she wants it" unless you're clear what "it" is and who "she" is. She is probably a minority of women, and it is certainly not to be raped. You're not a chump for approaching sex respectfully and carefully and patiently and inquiringly. For that matter, a good dom is all of those things. People who call themselves doms and don't have those qualities are big fat assholes. Sometimes they're rapists. I would be totally pissed if anyone did the things I want without having good reason to know that I'd want to first. Whenever anyone responds to my sub ISO dom personal ad with any variation of "deep down, all women want..." I delete it but quick. I don't think you have any reason to believe that your lovers have been unsatisfied because you weren't aggressive. Of course lots of het guys find any hint of violence in their sex disturbing and gross and unerotic. There are many, many women who are happy to have happy vanilla (or vanilla + anal, or whatever) sex with them. It's by no stretch of the imagination a bad thing to be. The best thing to do, I think, is to create an environment with your lover where it's okay to confess really crazy fantasies, and also okay to say no to acting them out, so that no doesn't come off like shaming or personal rejection.
Interesting...
Sometimes I think that I would like to be in a more aggressive sexual relatinship in which I were more passive, but I have found that there is a real distinction in my head between the idea of agression, and having it play out in reality.
That is to say that *for me* I think that any attraction to greater passivity on my part is an attraction to not having to be responsible -- to fall into a place of being a "good girl" who follows rather than leads.
I don't like that idea *for me*. In fact, every very aggressive lover or almost lover I've had has totally blown it with me by being too aggressive. I don't like going to a place where I feel that I have lost choice, autonomy and control.
What I do like very much, and I've sometimes extended this beyond sex and into experiments of a few days woth, is to shut the fuck up during sex. I like the complete, absolute silence in which bodies have a visceral discussion. This is only possible *for me* in a situation of absolute trust.
Like I said, I've sometimes put brief moratoria on talking -- 2-3 days... just silence. Kinda like convent or monastary practice, or yogic practice... and the idea is just to communicate without the distraction of words. It can be exhausting, but also extremely refreshing.
I think I'm getting at somethng about sex as communication, and communication as something beyond language, in excess of language...
I also wanted to say that one of the reasons why I've probably had far fewer women lovers than men, even though I'm far ore physically attracted to women is that *every* woman I have been with has had a completely arrogant attitude about "knowing what a woman wants" and it's always ended up just sucking for me. I've had crappy male lovers, and great ones... and the difference is always that the great ones don't start with the assumption that they know what button to hit to amke it all happen. They begin with a "show me" attitude, and are willing to be patient.
I don't pay: As one of the women you mention in your first paragraph, I gotta say that "she wants it" is realllllllly glib and problematic. I want *my Boy* to fuck the holy hell out of me, yes. I have asked him to do just that.
I feel his/your weirdness about tapping into your inner caveman, but "she wants it" is the offensive justification for the objectification/dehumanization of women. I *don't* want to be objectified or dehumanized. What I really want is to let my sexual guard down in a safe and loving environment.
I don't want my Boy to be "asshole-ish," and carrying respect into the bedroom does NOT mean you can't play with power. The only way I can feel good about "unequal" sex is because I am certain that it is couched in a larger environment of respect and love. And I credit that healthy environment to feminism--mine and his.
I also feel very comforted by the number of women saying openly that giving head isn't their idea of a great time.
For those who find that it's a wonderful thing (for whatever reason -- that's great)...
It's just that I have long had this hunch that I'm not the only person who finds it disgusting at best, and potentially terrifying, and just weird that anyone would tell me that I have to train myself out of a life-saving reflex.
So... I'll stick to giving nice, safe hand-jobs (though I've learned not to do that too much in one week after getting a serious ganglion back in the day when as young lovers I and spouse were kinda perpetaully up to something!).
In my experience I haven't met too many men who have body image issues where they think they look bad. Rather, they have body image issues where they think they look fine. And I think this is a good thing.
I, for example, think I look just fine, but I actually look like 240 pounds of chewed gum. My nod to this reality is to wear baggy swim trunks, but it doesn't stop me from swimming.
Folks, I'm speaking rhetorically here. Of course I know the difference, and could not approach it differently if I knew for certain, which I never do, that it was a likely desire. I am saying that the contradiction, or at the very least, lack of nuance, in the nature of desire when coupled with reticence, or even a cultivated silence, seems to me a recipe for bitterness and misunderstanding. By all means, if there is understanding, if there is consent, than there is no harm.
My response was aimed at two things: the incongruity between respectfulness, desire for agression, and reticence, and the rhetorical consequences of admitting that the bottom line is indeed, however unpleasant it is to state it baldly, that the assholes look to have had more right on their side than I was encouraged to admit. You all say there must be trust, understanding, consent. Fine. While many admitted ambivalence, many others, it seems to me, wanted this to be understood, despite or maybe because, it so went against the grain.
IDP: You're absolutely right to approach sex respectfully, and I say that as a woman who likes kinky powerplay. I've never yet been attracted to someone who really pulls out all the asshole stops and acts like what I want doesn't matter. Consensual power play is a whole different thing from rape or coercive sex, and only an asshole (which you, very happily, have avoided being) would assume that because a) some women like power play, b) all women like it and therefore c) you can just dive into being pushy and aggressive without talking about it.
While I have a hard time talking about specifics of what I want ("No, move your fingers like this, not like that."), I love talking about the sorts of things I like in the bedroom ("Hold my hands down while you fuck me.") and if I hadn't had a conversation like that with a guy, I would be deeply disturbed if he dove right into getting rough and pushy.
If you're interested in power play, the thing to do isn't feel like a chump because you've avoided it in the past, but just talk about it with partners in the future. One of the great things about modern sexuality is that it's okay to talk about what we like, even if we have to dance around it a bit.
In the male thread, MaxPolun said that men are taught that their bodies are disgusting. Could MP or someone else say more about that?
There's a tremendous discomfort in American culture with any male expression of aesthetic regard for male bodies. This applies to men admiring other men's bodies, of course, but it also applies to men finding sensual pleasure in their own appearance or physicality. Where male bodies are on display for straight men --- and where straight men put their bodies on display unabashedly --- the context is almost always macho aggression or athletic competition. (Or, of course, both.) The idea that a guy might properly think of his own body as sexy is almost entirely absent from our culture.
Beyond that, and more specifically relevant to this thread, a lot of guys go through a period of self-loathing when they're coming to terms with feminism, and that self-loathing often expresses itself as disgust for, or shame about, male sexuality.
All this ties back into the Great Blowjob Fracas in important ways, I think, but I'll save my musings on that subject for another post.
Am I correct in interpreting the "men's bodies are disgusting" thing to be more about "semen is disgusting"?
Cuz here's the thing *for me*... I sometimes shorthand as "semen is disgusting", but in reality, it's not, in and of itself disgusting... but it may be a symbolically powerfully abject(ed) thing (see Kristeva on "The power of Horror" for a longer explication of the hows and the whys of body fuilds and abjection).
What I am actually talking about with that short-hand is that I don't like a combination of a kind of unpredictable geiser and potentially bad manners. I happen to have a very powerful sense of the abject, and the last thing I want is someone to spurt on my face -- though other places can be ok with warning (and with a person you know well the body gives its own announcements).
I do know someone who, when she was very young, thought that men's bodies were broken -- that their insides were falling out, and thought her dad needed medical attention *right now*, but other than that kind of thing I've never known anyone to suggest that male bodies are inherently gross.
I did notice, however, that in typical puritanical style, Apollo is "covered up" at Grand Central Station in a way that Apollo would never, ever be covered up if found in a classical setting. (For more on that discussion, see Mary Russo on "The Female Grotesque". So I wonder if with all those very pointedly modest statues, plus the strategic loincloth on the otherwise incredibly uncovered and totally eroticised body of Christ, Norht American men would have interpellated a more negative view of self -- if the self is measured by 1% of body surface.
Just wondering...
Another thought for IDP-- I think a lot of what's being described in the women's thread is what we like. Not necessarily what everyone does. (What some people do, for sure, but again, everyone seems to be different here).
I fantasize about BDSM situations. Love the idea. Love to think about them. In the real world, when I've been in situations to act that out, it's completely creeped me out and it trips over too many childhood demons and feels simply humiliating and not hot. So I don't do it. I think about it. Sometimes "bondage lite" is fun where a partner holds my hands lightly down-- because I can have that fantasy in my head without any of the real risk-- a part of me always knows I can get out of there with a twist. And for me, that's a critical part of the fun.
We're all different. Going forward with a theory about what all women want (other than a safe space to be our own sexual selves) could very well be ruinous to good fun in bed.
My response was aimed at two things: the incongruity between respectfulness, desire for agression, and reticence, and the rhetorical consequences of admitting that the bottom line is indeed, however unpleasant it is to state it baldly, that the assholes look to have had more right on their side than I was encouraged to admit.
I still don't understand what you're saying. No asshole has any kind of right on his side.
Serious, intractable reticence is imcompatible with simultaneous desires for respect and aggression. I don't think anyone here misunderstands that.
> In the male thread, MaxPolun said
> that men are taught that their
> bodies are disgusting. Could MP or
> someone else say more about that?
Brooklynite said it pretty well. Perhaps disgusting is not the right word, perhaps it is rather that men are taught to be ashamed of their bodies. Society says to men: stay clothed, cover up all the time, no one wants to see your body. Many (straight) women will even say that they find the female body more aesthetically pleasing.
> Am I correct in interpreting
> the "men's bodies are disgusting"
> thing to be more about "semen is
> disgusting"?
I didn't intend it that way, but that may be part of it. There is a strong aversion to semen among men.
I don't want rough stuff; I want a robust, consistent rhetoric of desire, compatible with what people actually want, accomodating the vast differences in women's desires. Who could have missed how often one person's pleasure would have caused another's disgust or rage? What I as a man am asking for is a way to approach this, not because I am looking for new partners or experiences, but because we must judge others — and are sometimes asked to comment on how a date has gone, and who was right and who was wrong, something I am likely to do with much less self-confidence that I have any competence at all at from here on out — and try to establish norms.
Or to put it concretely, what do I tell my son? I am much less sure than I would have been yesterday.
I'm not a parent, just one woman-- but
I have a younger sister, and here's the version of what we talk about.
- Waiting isn't about the "magic virginity" but about waiting for a time when you feel safe and you're with someone who you care about and who cares about you.
- Sex should be pleasurable for both parties.
- Don't do anything you don't really want to do, and anyone who you've recetly met who pushes you into one activity or another isn't really acting in a way that's respectful of you.
- In other words, Respect. Sex is about respecting yourself, your body, and the person you're sharing it with.
- There is no right way to have sex. People are into lots of different things out there, and part of there being a safe space is being non-judgemental enough to hear what someone else wants.
- Hearing what they want doesn't necessarily mean going along with it. Just like getting up the courage to tell someone else what you want doesn't necessarily mean they're going to go along with it.
- Men aren't psychic. Just like they don't always know who you expect to pay for the first date, they don't always know what will make you feel good. The better you get at letting them know (in a way that is comfortable for you), the happier you are likely to be.
- While most women have some sort of self-consciousness, the reality is that anyone who is in bed with you is likely there because they *love* your body-- the more comfortable you are in your own skin and the less you are trying to be aware of "covering" things, the happier you are likely to be.
(I am, apparently, a somewhat naggy big sister, but heck-- if she asks and I can indoctrinate some positive ideas and save her some grief-- so much the better!)
Maybe it's just that men's bodies are funny-looking: as one of my friends put it, "It's like they made the genitalia out of extra skin from the elbow or something."
I'm not sure men are taught their bodies are disgusting, though, and that comment surprised me. Men can go outside with their shirts off. (If I did that it would cause a stir.) Sitcoms are of fat dumb-but-funny dads with thin hot moms who are hot for the men. Men's clothing is generally more forgiving when it comes to a few extra pounds. Eating disorders are more prevalent among women, and body-image problems seem to be, too.
Is it just that men's clothing is more covering (aside from the shirt thing) that is leading to this conclusion?
IDP--
I think that question of what you'd tell your son is actually kind of fascinating.
Can I ask-- Before this conversation, what is it you think you would tell him? And what part of that do you think is no longer ok to say based on what you've read here?
In my experience, most men do have serious body-image problems; not, perhaps, as fucked up as the more fucked up women, but more fucked up than the most healthy women w/r/t this stuff. It comes out in jokey ways, too: the way guys will jokingly say that all men are pigs, or that women's bodies are way more attractive to look at, or whatever. It can be hard for guys to think of themselves as desireable.
Which is sad.
What's with bitching about Camille Paglia. She certainly is the only person with that voice. Shouldn't it be heard?
In my experience, most men do have serious body-image problems; not, perhaps, as fucked up as the more fucked up women
Yes, yes we do. But, not to the same degree plus we're not supposed to talk about them. That is, we're conditioned as men to believe money, wealth, status, power, etc. are more attractive to women than our bodies. But, as more women attain power in their own right, this is not nearly as true.
I think that women are taught to think their bodies have the capacity for being desirable...and to feel embarrassed if they don't live up to that capacity.
Whereas most men rarely consider that their bodies could ever have the capacity for being desirable. This leads to their not being pressured to look sexy, so it's not all bad.
I agree that heterosexual US men don't specifically display their bodies as aesthetic objects. I agree that heterosexual US men don't appreciate the aesthetic beauty of men's bodies. But I disagree that any of the above means that heterosexual US men are taught to be ashamed of their bodies.
I believe that heterosexual US men are taught to fear any hint of teh gay, and they consider the display or the appreciation of the display of male bodies to be teh gay. This is a different problem than body image. If you ask them if they think they look OK, they're going to shrug and say "sure." And they'll pretty much mean it.
Mmm, I'm not sure, B. No data on this, of course, but just watching my relatively normal family & friends, the guys seem to have a much wider range of say, what's considered an attractive weight or an attractive way of dressing.
E.g., my dad's not much to look at but he teases my mom about her weight and it's like, dude, mirror, now you ain't no Richard Gere here. Or the heavyset philosophers with the teeny wives. I bitch about my damn thighs a lot more than my boyfriend worries about his gut and if we were sitting down and figuring out things rationally, I should shut up and he should eat more salads.
Then again, it might just manifest differently. I have a friend who wanted to start working out but didn't because he couldn't bench much and didn't want to be humiliated benching a light weight. But that doesn't strike me as being taught that men's bodies are disgusting.
Cala, I was actually thinking about the sitcom dads when I wrote my comment. Can it be a coincidence that virtually all sitcom wives are beautiful, while virtually none of their sitcom husbands are?
I think the message is that the generic woman is beautiful and the generic man is not. Men don't watch those shows and think, "that guy's sexy, and he looks like me, so I guess I'm not so bad myself." It's more like, "that guy's not sexy, and he's got a beautiful wife, so I guess women don't care about looks."
A man can think his body is ugly and still imagine that he is desirable to women. But a man who holds those two ideas in his head simultaneously probably isn't going to wind up with a particularly healthy sense of himself, or of straight women.
A lot of men have body issues. (I felt really guilty about being dissatisfied recently with a small penis because I know men with small penises probably don't like it either, and I wanted to feel that everything was just fine, and it didn't make a difference. But it did.) They have issues about their penises, their wrinkles, and their weight and lots of other things.
All that stuff Another Anon said sounds good for what to tell your son, IDP. I guess I'd add never to try to take what isn't freely and enthusiastically given, to be accepting and loving (whatever kind of love is appropriate for the stage in your relationship) of your partner and not to accept anything less from them, and to let them know when you feel you're not getting it, and to listen to them when they say they're not getting it from you, and that the bravery of honest, unaffected self revelation will often be rewarded in kind.
Ah, okay. I'll agree that it's bad for straight women: we like hot guys, and yes, women are turned on physically by physical characteristics. I bring as witness my sister and her obsessing over the muscled cast of Lost.
On the other hand I'm not sure how pernicious that is for men. Sort of liberating, isn't it? It's not saying, your body is ugly, just your body isn't all that important to her, see, hot woman wants the chubby balding guy, you can get the hot woman, too. If you're the hot young doctor on TV, you get the hot women too. If you're anyone on Lost, you get all the women if my sister's a good measure.
It's totally wrong, since we like physical things, too, but doesn't that add up to a relatively neutral body image? Your body doesn't have to be anything in order to get laid, says the TV. The TV tells me that I can't be desirable unless I first X, Y, Z.
I hadn't prepared a speech, or anything, that would be preposterous. It's more that my confidence that I'm in any position to advise, that my practice has been informed or even aware, has been shaken.
What I'm stuck on is the degree to which people some of whom I felt familiar with, many others who seem similar by their way of expressing themselves: strong, forceful independent women, exactly the kind I would be most attracted to, most anxious to please, showed a far higher tendency to want to be passive, to be dominated, and perhaps because of ambivalence, not wanting to ask for it, than I would have expected. That this desire should sometimes occur does not surprise me; I am not a kid. What does surprise me is that this "compensating" desire was almost a theme in the comments of women must inclined to be assertive and aggressive.
Were I not able to respond to such a preference, did it not jive with desires of my own, than this tendency would be of merely academic interest to me, like sex among hyenas. But I've very seldom felt free to act this way, and the shear strength of the chorus for this suggests to me that I must have misjudged situations I have been in, for this is precisely the sort of woman, really the only sort, to whom I have been attracted.
Michael Vassar, get over it. By saying that Camille Paglia is not cool, I am not saying that the woman should be muzzled. I love the way people think they're being all righteous when they interpret flippant dismissal of stupid ideas as some kind of censorship. Puhleeze.
Can it be a coincidence that virtually all sitcom wives are beautiful, while virtually none of their sitcom husbands are?
Depends on your definition of beautiful. To me, most of the sitcom wives are way to thin.
IDP, maybe I'm being a bit dense, but I don't entirely see the problem. Even if a lot of women you'd be interested in are interested in sex acts that you don't like (which I suspect is an oversimplification), you don't have to have sex with "most" women. There are plenty of women (in that thread, even!) who aren't into bdsm.
Do you think the whole dominant female/submissive sex partner thing might also be about admiring little-noticed traits of the person? Reminds me a little of the old saying "tell pretty girls they're smart and smart girls they're pretty". If a woman is in the dominant role all the time, it could be kind of nice to sit back and have someone "take over" and cater to them without them having to work at it.
Again, this by all means wouldn't apply to all women, at all.
IDP:
I think if there's any sort of general lesson to take away from the other thread is that you have to talk about what you want, and you have to work on making it feel comfortable for your partner to talk about what she wants (and she, obviously, has to do the same). I think the expressed desire for mindreading which a couple of women came forward with (in a clearly stated 'wouldn't it be nice', rather than seriously expecting it kind of way)has a lot to do with fear of slutshaming; expressing a desire that's unexpectedly kinky or something your partner isn't up for is scary for a lot of women (and I'm sure for men too -- I'm just calling it from this side of the fence).
I really don't think there's an untapped desire for more aggression, or for more asshole-ish behavior out there. What you see sound more to me like unmet needs to communicate better, and fantasies about having the sex you want without having to communicate about it first.
What you see sound more to me like unmet needs to communicate better, and fantasies about having the sex you want without having to communicate about it first.
Do you think this stems from a fear of rejection (if they suddenly think we're weird) by that person who's opinions we care most about? I know it took my wife and I several years to get to the point we could actually tell each other our most secret fantasies, whether we ever hope to have them all fulfilled or not. But, after doing so, it brought us much closer, even if some of hers are not mine and vice versa. Some, we came to find out, we both share, which was neat. Now, if could just rekindle that passion we had early in our marriage pre-kids!
Sure, the TV says guys can get laid no matter what they look like, but it also says, sometimes explicitly, that the male body (unlike the female body) is inherently unattractive. You know that Seinfeld episode where Elaine says, "The female body is a work of art; the male body is just a bunch of stuff"? That kind of thing. It really is all over the place.
The first time I talked about domination fantasies with a man, it was hard for me to get it out. He asked me if I was shy because I was worried he'd think I was sick or weird. And I said, no, that I was worried I'd seem cliched.
(teo, we make bad echoes of each other if you disagree with me. hehe.)
Is that 'taught that it's disgusting?' I'm being annoying, I know. I was just very surprised by that comment because I see shaming about, say, one's breast size to be an experience of women and was curious about the equivalent for men.
But this discussion does bring out an interesting point. A lot of discussion of women's body issues seems to focus on, "if we could get body type to be unimportant, [just like it is for men]", and maybe that's not a good way to go.
Do you think this stems from a fear of rejection (if they suddenly think we're weird) by that person who's opinions we care most about?
Yup, pretty much exactly.
Or just not wanting to seem demanding. My experience is all within the context of relatively serious relationships (yeah, calaprude!), but part of the problem with speaking up in bed is that in other areas of our relationship quite a lot of communication is unspoken, or at least not repeatedly spoken.
To take a stupid example, I know if he'll enjoy a TV show without asking, and isn't sex supposed to be more intimate? I know whether the new restaurant would be a good date or a waste of time. He has a good sense of my taste in jewelry or clothes. How can we know all that and still have to request stuff in bed?
Retarded, but there's a strong presumption on both sides that intimacy means mind-reading.
I do understand, LB, and I've perhaps caused confusion by mixing two complaints. The "assholish," part is caused by my indignation at what I see as hypocracy, in asking for a standard of behavior at least superficially inconsistent with actual desires. Can we not concede that the stereotyped male discourse, "she wants it...," has been shown to have at least some truth, and that in context this may be embarrassing, to such as me? Years ago, Susan Sontag outraged a public meeting in New York, at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, by saying that there were important truths about Soviet Communism anyone might have learned from The Reader's Digest, but that are never mentioned in The Nation. I am saying that this thread reveals that there are facts of women's desire that are common currency of locker rooms, bull sessions and frathouses that are very seldom openly addressed in such feminist discouse as I see.
And B, no I don't want to have sex with "most" women. But as you picked up on, I would in fact have no problem with this preference. I believe I've had a happy, satisfying, communicative sex life by-and-large. But I can't help but wonder about unacknowledged and unmet needs, about "the one(s) who got away", and what it just now occurs to me might have been going on.
IDP, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not interpreting your comments to mean that you wish you'd done more S&M. If I read you correctly, your issue is that you haven't been as direct, or as aggressive (is there a better word?) during sex as you might have otherwise been, out of your sense of respect for your partner as a woman, and your desire to treat her according to feminist principals. I hope that's not too awkwardly put.
So, if I'm reading you right, I don't think you have to change your worldview so much as add to it. Keep the consideration and the respect, but add the freedom to drive toward and show your own enjoyment. Remember that you give a hell of a lot of enjoyment to your partner when you're clearly enjoying yourself.
Can we not concede that the stereotyped male discourse, "she wants it...," has been shown to have at least some truth, and that in context this may be embarrassing, to such as me?
Um, no. Or at least not in a manner that is not completely obvious on the face of normal human interaction. Some women, at some times, have sexual desires that they don't fully communicate to their partners. So do some men. And sometimes they wish that those desires could be fulfilled without having to communicate them, because communication is often scary and tense and filled with the fear of rejection or freaking people out.
To the extent that I understand the stereotypical male discourse you refer to, it's not "Maybe she really wants it [for whatever value of 'it' we're talking about], and so it's worth finding out if she does in some mutually acceptable way," which would be fine, and is a sensible and caring way to approach people. The stereotypical male discourse I think you're talking about is "She really wants it even if she objects, or lies there stoically when she can't get out of it, or gives in after I nag and berate her," and that's still crap -- your lifelong belief that it was crap was right, and shouldn't be shaken by this conversation. The two positions aren't closely connected.
I'm not sure why you're hung up on the word "disgusting," Cala. I don't think "disgusting" and "ugly" and "unappealing" and "funny-looking" are mutually exclusive concepts. The underlying point is that many men see their bodies as unattractive --- and not just their own bodies, but men's bodies in general.
As for perniciousness, think about it this way: If men's bodies are intrinsically ugly, then how are we to make sense of women who have sex with them? Maybe they're deceitful whores, pretending to like it in order to gain advantage. Maybe they enjoy being debased. Maybe they're asexual, and they do it out of a sense of obligation. (And of course men who have sex with men are from this perspective the most disgusting creatures of all.)
The idea that men's bodies are ugly is at its heart a profoundly misogynist idea, and one that plays directly into many of the most damaging male myths about female sexuality. It's kind of a big deal, I think.
Way back at the beginning of the blowjob brouhaha, I posted a couple of lines of Whitman in the comments at Twisty's place:
Without shame the man I like knows and avows the deliciousness of his sex,
Without shame the woman I like knows and avows hers.
I'm with Walt.
In real life I am staring at the "File->New->Project" dialog box in Visual C++ and I just can't click OK.
About the men's body image discussion: Is it the case that some of you are including the penis as part of the body for purposes of this discussion? 'Cause I am not; penis size is an issue all its own.
@ Cala and Karen:
Within the more onerous circles of Catholic life young boys are often that their bodies are disgusting and their desires are sinful. See Matthew 5:27-30 for the gospel origins. Much of what Paul and his imitators wrote dealt with this also, prior to the writing of the gospels.
I recall as a young boy in Sunday school being given multiple pamphlets over many years on the evils of touching oneself. This was 1980s Catholicism; I can't imagine what went on before.
...part of the problem with speaking up in bed is that in other areas of our relationship quite a lot of communication is unspoken, or at least not repeatedly spoken.
But people who know each other intimately still talk about what they want for dinner, or the wine they'd enjoy. Sex is like that, it's different everytime. I don't see it as similar to TV preferences or jewelry.
The "assholish," part is caused by my indignation at what I see as hypocracy, in asking for a standard of behavior at least superficially inconsistent with actual desires. Can we not concede that the stereotyped male discourse, "she wants it...," has been shown to have at least some truth, and that in context this may be embarrassing, to such as me?
IDP, in all honesty I feel like people here are generally being careful with distinctions, but you are not. And the way you are being careless with them, although you may not see that you're being careless, is harmful. As far as I can see, no one here is asking for a standard of behavior inconsistent, superficially or deeply, with expressed desires. I'd like you to point to something specific you're responding to. I see no hypocrisy at all, whatsoever. The stereotyped male discourse you're referring to is a way of rationalizing not asking a woman what she wants, so a man can pretend she wants whatever he does, and feel entitled to treat her however he'd like. *No one* wants that. The stereotyped "she wants it" is not about rough sex or BDSM or whatever you want to call it.
This distinction is very, very important to me because it clarifies for the men I might be fucking exactly how they should and should not treat me. It disinvites them from using some kind of BDSM sticker to cover up the fact that they're an asshole (it doesn't cover very much).
I am saying that this thread reveals that there are facts of women's desire that are common currency of locker rooms, bull sessions and frathouses that are very seldom openly addressed in such feminist discouse as I see.
I don't know where you're looking. The feminism I'm familiar with acknowledges BDSM (or whatever you want to call it). Sometimes it's actively disparaging of it, sometimes it's accepting. But I don't know who is frankly talking about sex and pretending BDSM doesn't exist.
Spiritrover, I think men's attitudes toward their penises are very much a part of this larger question of body image. In fact, I think the way you framed the question demonstrates it: "penis size is an issue all its own." Not "the attractiveness of the penis," not "whether penises are sexy," just "penis size."
It's not inconsistent for a man to think that penises are disgusting and at the same time believe that women are turned on by big ones. And if penises are disgusting, and women are turned on by them, then doesn't it follow that the point of having a large penis is to dominate a woman with it? Think of all the porn that fetishizes the penis as an instrument of debasement or punishment. Think of the theme of defilement of white women by huge black cocks.
Most men who wish they had big dicks don't think big dicks are beautiful.
I don't pay says Can we not concede that the stereotyped male discourse, "she wants it...," has been shown to have at least some truth
What you're probably missing in the "she wants it" line of thinking is "she wants it how she wants it from who she wants it". Just because she likes it a little rough sometimes, for example, doesn't imply she wants it rough from just anybody all the time. Moreover, maybe it's just not in guy A's personality to do that sort of thing genuinely well for her. Maybe he does things softer that she also enjoys too? Maybe guy B could do things for her that guy A doesn't and vice versa. Afterall, everybody has different personalities. It doesn't make you a failure to not be everything she might possibly desire.
Where does the 'men's bodies are disgusting (or unattractive, or funny-looking, or whatever)' stuff come from? Enough people have gotten the message that I believe that it's out there, but I don't see where it comes from.
Where does the 'men's bodies are disgusting (or unattractive, or funny-looking, or whatever)' stuff come from?
Personally, I've never heard of the notion that men's bodies are disgusting; in fact, we're supposed to work on ours too (be strong, lean, etc.). But, it seems there's definitly less of a focus on our bodies versus on women's bodies, which are seen as beautiful and believed to be more important in the role of attraction - whether actually true or not.
About giving head:
I love to give head. I like the texture and the temperature, the taste and sensation of a nice clean cock. (Emphasis on clean. More than once, I've asked for a quick wash-up before going down; I extend the same courtesy)
I am enthusiastic about it, and I enjoy doing it, but I'm the first to admit that it doesn't get me off. I do it for my partner's pleasure, and I don't find anything demeaning about trying to satisfy someone I care about. It's not an obligation, it's not even a sense of quid pro quo.
That being said, for the love of god and little oysters, give me feedback. I don't have a cock. I don't know what feels good at any given time. I read several comments in the men's thread that they didn't like oral because their partners were too fast or too hard or too timid or whatever.
If you aren't enjoying what I'm doing to you, I am failing. I would much rather succeed than fail - my ego is not going to be utterly shattered if you indicate things that would increase your enjoyment of the act. Note that the goal is not necessarily to bring my partner to orgasm, simply for them to enjoy the act, either as part of a greater foreplay or on it's own merits.
I guess this does go back to the "lots of people want their partners to be psychic." You're afraid to speak up for what you want because you're afraid that your partner will be hurt or disgusted by a frank expression of what they like and what they don't.
In my experience, it's worked best to discuss sexual needs & desires outside of the bedroom, when both partners are awake and non-aroused, so it's their brains that are communicating and not just the gonads.
That, certainly. But what Brooklynite said:
As for perniciousness, think about it this way: If men's bodies are intrinsically ugly, then how are we to make sense of women who have sex with them? Maybe they're deceitful whores, pretending to like it in order to gain advantage. Maybe they enjoy being debased. Maybe they're asexual, and they do it out of a sense of obligation. (And of course men who have sex with men are from this perspective the most disgusting creatures of all.)
was different. I'll believe that men have this sort of belief that their bodies are disgusting,or whatever, if it sounds familiar to people I take seriously, but I found it surprising.
I'm hung-up on 'disgusting' because I haven't seen evidence of men being taught their bodies are 'ugly, disgusting, or unappealing.'
I see a fair amount of 'no matter how I look -- hot Lost guy or chubby sitcom dad -- I get hot women' and I can sort of stretch that to 'my looks aren't important to my sexual desirability.' But that's a lot different from 'all men are ugly' as a dominant cultural meme. So, like LB, I ask, whence the disgusting?
Where does the 'men's bodies are disgusting (or unattractive, or funny-looking, or whatever)' stuff come from? Enough people have gotten the message that I believe that it's out there, but I don't see where it comes from.
In my experience, an unclothed male body in media images is usually a joke and milked for its hideousness, unless it's a male model with a six-pack. The default male physique is considered unattractive. In fact, although the gauge of a man's "value" is definitely not nearly as concerned with looks, the standard for male physical attractiveness in media is actually slightly more unrealistic than that of females IMHO.
It's strange, because there's this general message that not only as physical attractiveness less important for a man - which might be seen as liberating to some degree, of course - but that it's actively unmasculine for a man to think about his attractiveness. However, this doesn't kill the slight twinge of inadequacy one may occasionally feel when, say, overhearing one's girlfriend speak of how hot actor X looked in a movie.
Cala gets it right.
In response to IDP's comments:
Think of what goes on in the bedroom as theatre. Many women like to play different roles, but many are conflicted and make value judgements about their own desire to play certain roles. (Like an actress questioning whether she wants to take on a stripper role.)
The bedroom play takes place in the context of the real world, in which the need to feel safe and in control of one's reproductive resources is of utmost importance, a fundamental evolutionary trait.
So teaching your son to respect women and help them feel safe is still lesson #1. BDSM and aggressive play is quite a way up the learning curve, after he's learned communication and how to talk about fantasies and why we might be ashamed of them and whether we would actually want to act any of them out.
anonymouslicious is also right, especially the second paragraph, IMHO.
Fascinating threads, bitchphd. Wish I had more time to enter them...
... I will add, to IDP, thought I think Tia has really nailed it about what you are missing.
Intention & respect is at least as important as specific acts. I understand where your reluctance is coming from, I think. A long time ago a friend sorted that out with me when we had a *great* conversation about sex, which included the difference between what she `wanted done to her' and what she wanted *me* to do with her. Really not the same thing at all.
Can I also chime in and say that in my experience people really really don't talk about this stuff enough, or freely enough. For whatever reason, it became easy for me at some point. I've had fascinating conversations about sex with individuals or groups of a decent sampling of every orientation and (sexual) life situation you can imagine. Fascinating! More than once we've reached a `oh my god, why didn't I have this conversatin ten years ago' moments, but of course it isn't always so serious. It is also refreshing to have a very open conversation about the more ridiculous aspects of the whole thing....
I also find it interesting the way that the potentiality of sex can (but not always) change or shape discussions. If, for whatever reason, it is absolutely clear that the participants in the discussion would never concievably have any form of sex, it can change the dynamics a lot, I've found.
a post script: about openness with respect to talking about sex. I have found, with certain partners (and only partners) that their reluctance to talk about it makes me reluctant. Some weird throwback to social programming as a child, I guess, which I haven't always successfully countered.
strange.
On the disgustingness of the male body, consider the fact that gay male sex --- sex acts that involve male bodies exclusively --- is commonly taken to be not merely morally repellent but physically repulsive. This response is common not only in straight men but also in straight women. Lesbian sex, on the other hand, is assumed to be erotic for men, and for many straight women.
In fact, although the gauge of a man's "value" is definitely not nearly as concerned with looks, the standard for male physical attractiveness in media is actually slightly more unrealistic than that of females IMHO.
I do have to say that I think this is nonsense. Women in the media are two things (a) much prettier than average, and (b) much, much skinnier than average. They are almost universally the same highly unusually delicate body type.
Men in the media are certainly often more attractive and fitter and lower-body-fat than the average man, but you don't get the same sort of thing where they're all a particular body type that's far, far removed from the average.
ok, one more, that's it for now, promise!
Here's a question that belongs in this mixed thread. Those of you who aren't bi, how do you feel about, react to being approached by members of the `wrong' orientation?
I think this is incredibly hard for het men in the US. I had a friend who was thrown into a major identity crisis after being hit on by a drunk queer guy. That was a hard conversation, because my first reaction was `wait, this is funny. you're kidding, right?'. It wasn't even that he was questioning his own sexuality, he was then questioning what everyone else though. fear of teh gay, indeed.
How about all the other permutations? Can you accept it as flattering to get the `wrong' sort of attention, or does it get your back up? I'm sure there are a lot of gender politics involved for some people....
"the standard for male physical attractiveness in media is actually slightly more unrealistic than that of females IMHO."
I do have to say that I think this is nonsense.
OK, you're right; I instantly regretted that particular line after I posted it. It's an overstatement. But in terms of physique and body type, I do think the average guy isn't much closer to the airbrushed shot of Brad Pitt than the average woman is to the airbrushed shot of Angelina Jolie.
Add to that that men in the media are allowed to get older and still be considered "hot." Women in media appear to (on average) have an expiration date of sorts-- unless news about them is accompanied by how amazingly young they look.
Lesbian sex, on the other hand, is assumed to be erotic for men, and for many straight women.
Do I have to link to every straight-woman-created slash site on the internet to point out that gay male sex is often found to be erotic by straight women (and gay women, if you check out the thread below)?
Anonymouslicious-
Fair enough, and you're right that men are certainly presented with difficult images to compete with.
No, Brooklynite is just talking nonsense. Anyone who's actually looked at the issue knows that a significant number bi/stright women find 2 (or more) men going at it to be hot. I don't think anyone's ever done any studies, or at least none that I've seen. But still, if you pay attention, you'll notive large numbers of women who like male/male homoeritic images.
I also find it interesting the way that the potentiality of sex can (but not always) change or shape discussions. If, for whatever reason, it is absolutely clear that the participants in the discussion would never concievably have any form of sex, it can change the dynamics a lot, I've found.
This is very true. If you're discussing sex with someone you would like to sleep with, the words stop being an abstract discussion and become a form of provocation. You don't want to scare a potential partner, nor do you want your words to come back to bite you in the ass (figuratively speaking).
As a bi girl, I sometimes have trouble talking about sex with women who know I'm queer, out of some misquided fear that they think I'm hitting on them or thinking about them as I'm talking and are getting creeped out. (irrational, I know.) But around girls who don't know, I can talk about anything, everything, the filthiest details without the slightest compunction.
About the body image thing, my take:
It's got nothing to do with semen. It's not liberating AT ALL it sucks. It's not because our bodies look funny (that's really like saying that sexual harrasment is because women are pretty). There is no need to reduce it to a mysogynist idea, it's not. It's got nothing to do with penis size.
We don't need to be shamed about it in public because it's a constant undercurrent. Like with most of these constant backdrops it's so constant you might not even see it, and men like to play over it. We are free to take our shirts of because it's ugly anyways so it doesn't matter.
It makes it impossible to take up the idea that women and men are somehow face to face in establishing a relationship because a priori "there's no way she could want me". (IMHO there's nothing that would help sexual equality in terms of dating/relationships better then women openly expressing their purely physical desire for men, whistle after them, make snide comments about wanting to grab their ass...)
About IDP's point, I was a lot more extreme in my youth I had this notion in my head that all sex was inherently abusive of women and wondered how brainwashed women must be to ever want sex. (And as far as I can tell I came up with this myself!)
It sounds to me like you had the notion in your head that ultimately everything should come down to equality in the sense of symmetry instead of in the sense of equal respect for each others desires. Of course in the feminist discourse there have always been currents and narratives which consider many (male) desires to be oppressive, disgusting or unacceptable.
I hold (though I don't feel yet) that no desire is unacceptable, nor is any fantasy or thought. Acting them out can be, pushing for them beyond a level that is respectfull to the other person can be.
I have been told explicitly that I am not "aggressive" enough in terms of a) dating, b) relationships, c) sex. By aggressive self confident women. Some of whom have told me that this doesn't really square with their feminist ideas, but it's what they want.
Bottom line, some feminist ideologies are in sharp disagreement with reality; reality wins. Let's start by accepting who we are, and what we want, and come to a common understanding how we can get what we want from each other.
(Oh and, on a different note, can we vote to abolish subtle signals and replace them with clearly readable thought bubbles above our heads?)
But Brad Pitt's the exception of most male body types portrayed in the media, no? Angelina Jolie is one of several thin-delicate-but-big-boobied starlets.
Sitcom dad guy is not uncommon. Hmm. Young guys in teenagey sorts of shows -- fit, but lots of different body types from wiry to muscled. Male leads on Desperate Housewives contrasted with female leads. Male half of Friends vs. female half. Sean Connery as a sex symbol into his 60s. Hugh Laurie as a sex symbol on House with teensy female leads.
Lizard, I didn't say that revulsion toward gay male sex was universal among straight women, just that it was "common." You'd agree, wouldn't you, that women are more likely to be grossed out by displays of male-male sexuality than men are by female-female displays?
I think it's worth noting as well that for all slash's popularity, it hasn't been appropriated by the mass media, even in media outlets that are targeted exclusively toward women. Women and gay men presumably made up the overwhelming majority of the audience for Will and Grace, for instance --- why wasn't there more male sexuality on display in that show?
And just so I'm not posting every five minutes, here's another couple of thoughts:
When men see a naked male body onscreen, they often respond with revulsion, even if the actor is handsome, and even if there's no suggestion of homosexuality in the depiction. Women rarely if ever have such a response to the depiction of a naked woman onscreen.
If the message of family sitcoms was that male attractiveness is a non-issue for an ordinary man, one would expect to see a range of appearances among the male leads. Instead, there's a marked consistency --- they're nearly all depicted as unattractive. The generic man is thus an ugly one, and the handsome man a (threatening, and suspect) exception.
Mmmm. Hugh Laurie. (Sorry, got distracted there.)
A big distinction for some of us is between being assertive (re sex play) and aggressive, between firm and rough. I make a lot of the decisions in my relationship, setting the tone, making plans, executing things, and my wonderful boyfriend is happy with this (also feels comfortable chiming in when he disagrees). And, I crave not being in that kind of control during sex, where he makes decisions and sets the tone, plans, etc. Not all the time but sometimes. I think that is an entirely different thing than being rough, or a caveman, or the whole "she wants is" thing. Just doing something, being in control for him for a while not me. I don´t think feminism is advocating guys just giving up assertiveness and control, in that kind of mutually understanding situation. Like taking turns driving.
When a partner doesn´t ever tke control, even in sex, it gets to be like chewing oatmeal.
But to Brooklynite:
Well, I can't think of a network sitcom with more lesbian sexuality than Will & Grace had gay male sexuality. Lesbian sex is a commonplace of porn, not non-porn entertainment, targeted at straight men; gay male sex is a commonplace of a genre of porn targeted at straight women.
What you're talking about here (straight men's expressed disgust at an exposed male body) sounds to me more like cultural homophobia -- the idea of male/male sex, or of a man being presented as sexually appealing, is threatening to straight men in our culture in a manner that lesbian sex or the sexual objectification of women isn't threatening to straight women. I suppose that could spill over into straight men viewing themselves as inherently unsexual -- I'll have to think about it some more.
Cala -
But Brad Pitt's the exception of most male body types portrayed in the media, no? Angelina Jolie is one of several thin-delicate-but-big-boobied starlets.
Yes and no. There is, I think, a distinct partition of male body types in the media into ripped, lantern-jawed hunks of testosterone and jolly, lovable ugly guys - i.e. everyone else. A similar partition exists with women, but there's far, fat more of the "hot" class because women are judged more frequently on aesthetics alone, while guys can be seen as interesting for other reasons (which is why Sean Connery and such can still be regarded as desirable). However, in both cases the "average" body is seen as physically unattractive.
Did I really just say "lantern-jawed"? I don't think that was what I meant. Try "square jawed".
Yeesh, I need some coffee badly.
Indeed, LB. I don't know why I find that annoying character so hot, but mmm, Hugh Laurie.
However, in both cases the "average" body is seen as physically unattractive.
I'm not sure about unattractive, but the "average" male body (old, fat, whatever) is presented as fuckable -- while you're right that actors can be divided into sexy eye-candy and the rest, the rest generally get laid. Jack Black ends up having girlfriends in the movies he's in.
IDP, talking more, rather than less, is the answer. Just because lots of assertive, feminist women want to engage in some BDSM or power play, absolutely does not give rise to the inference that you should ask less and push more. That, in fact, is a recipe for disaster. Topping is an act of intense focus; it involves reading partners and delivering the experiences they seek. The more information that is available, the more successful that's going to be.
I read you as saying that you have had experiences in the past that leave you wondering if you should have pushed more. I can say with some certainty that you should not. If those women could not talk frankly with you about what they wanted, then they were not ready to jump in head first and have you try to blindly grope for the scene they were looking for. If they were ready to talk frankly about it, and you didn't ask the right questions, then your problem was that you asked too little, not too much.
IME, it is when women feel safe and settled in a relationship that they are ready and willing to explore their fantasies (I don't make the same claim about men -- in patriarchy, we are differently situated, and I know men gay, straight and bi who figured out what they wanted and went looking for a partner to give it to them; I know very few women whose personal evolution followed that course). I have a son, and if he is interested in female sex partners, I intend to tell him not to ever presume that he knows better what they want than they do.
Quick discussion here.
Where does it come from? I don't think it's a media stereotype so much, it goes back longer then that.
Josh, Ms. Lizard, the one study about this I remember did come precisely to the conclusion brooklynite talked about, female homoerotic sex is considered significantly more acceptable, attractive and aesthetic by both genders. I can't for the life of mine remember any details so consider it anecdotal.
It's a notion deeply ingrained in culture. Beauty (ever since helenistic times at least) is female. And male and female are the antithetic. The female is the object of desire, the male the pursuer. The pursuer is not desired, is not desirable (otherwise no pursuit). It's all part of the hierarchy. Baudrillard writes about seduction (which presupposes female desire) as the ultimate subversive act.
Of course, as always, some don't actually experience the culture as such, but it's definately something that's present.
I think as opposed to the female body image problems this is different in so far as it's NOT "The female body is in principle beautiful it's just you that's ugly and don't look like those pretty girls on TV".
Soubzriquet, I am flattered by the attention of gay and bi men; I find it only happens when I'm in shape and it makes me feel attractive. When I was younger I was on the receiving end of some gropey advances, but only when I was in space where there was some reason to assume I fucked men, so I didn't get upset over it. I can shove a guy's hand off my package and tell him I'm not interested without it ruining my day. The only advances that make me uncomfortable are when I feel bad for the guy -- shy and/or closeted guys who are lonely and are interested but are not quite up to coming right out and hitting on me, so that I risk hurting their feelings by cutting to the chase and saying I'm not interested.
LizardBreath writes: "I can't think of a network sitcom with more lesbian sexuality than Will & Grace had gay male sexuality."
Well, there's "Will and Grace," for starters. Karen and Grace kissed several times on that show, and if memory serves they each kissed another woman at least once.
The "girl-girl" kiss has become a tv staple in recent years. It's not lesbian sexuality, for the most part, but it's extremely common.
I'm not sure about unattractive, but the "average" male body (old, fat, whatever) is presented as fuckable -- while you're right that actors can be divided into sexy eye-candy and the rest, the rest generally get laid. Jack Black ends up having girlfriends in the movies he's in.
Oh, no doubt - I'm talking strictly about the attitude towards the physical body here, not the view of the overall character. If you saw Jack Black in his tighty-whities in that same movie, it'd be part of a gag.
The "girl-girl" kiss has become a tv staple in recent years. It's not lesbian sexuality, for the most part, but it's extremely common.
Certainly true. I'd tend to explain this by assuming that porn aimed at straight men has been more mainstreamed than porn aimed at women or gay men, because straight men still have more social power than other groups do, but I haven't got more than my own sense of things to back that up.
I haven't read through all of the threads, but I do have a question about BDSM, one that I'm too embarassed to ask about in real life.
A lot of people have talked about women who want to be submissive. Has anyone said anything about men who want to be dominated?
FWIW, I once worked at a video store that rented mostly family-action-comedy stuff, but also had a room in the back for adult films. The owner paid willing employees $0.50 per film to screen each porno before it was put on the shelf to make sure it did not violate any of our state laws--i.e. no non-consensual sex, no actors under 18, no animals, etc.
I was one such willing employee who screened films (in the privacy of my own home), and was the only woman who did so. When the owner decided to try putting up homosexual pornos as well as the traditional type (and by homosexual, I mean man-on-man, as woman-on-woman was already considered "traditional"), I was the only employee willing to screen them. The guys all balked at the notion.
I watched a couple of dozen such films, and I these are my very unscientific findings:
1) Men in homosexual porn are VERY ATTRACTIVE. I mean, o!my!god! attractive. Unrealistically so, I guess, but no less realistic than the women in het porn. In fact, less unrealistic, because none of these men had surgically altered their bodies (as far as I could tell) in the same way female porn stars almost always do.
In fact, I'll won't be buying that "men are as/more likely to find their bodies unattractive as women" line until I see men actively cutting their body parts off and/or stitching new parts in at a rate equal to or exceeding the rate that women do.
As long as Ron Jeremy (a sincerely unattractive man) continues to get laid on film, I don't see how men continue to get the notion that anything about their appearance (exceping, of course, penis size) matters at all to a female.
2) Because the men in these films were so pretty, I found them erotic as hell. At first. Eventually the sexiness waned for me because, well, the only benefit of porno (to me) is to provide new fantasy material for my own life. And in these pornos, there was no woman onto whom I could project my own image. In traditional porn, there's a woman there--I might not look like her in the slightest, but she is the stand-in for ME. Without a ME in the film, I tended to lose interest.
3) The homosexual pornos were more violent than I expected, more so than the het pornos *that I screened* (not talking about het porn in general, which I'm sure is extremely violent). Maybe it was because two beefy guys can do more damage/be more physical with each other than a big man and a tiny woman. Maybe because men will fight back, whereas women in pornos just take what they're given.
The rape fantasy stuff was also very prevalent in these films. I suppose the idea that both women and gay men get from our patriarchical society is that "you shouldn't want this or like this" about sex. So the idea of being "forced" takes away the guilt of having liked or wanted it. I'm not sure, but there were lots of homosexual guys "converting" their straight roommates in decidely aggressive fashion in these films. And a lot of BDSM, leather, chains, etc. I "failed" a lot of the films on that criteria, assuming that violence was a no-go regardless of the type of porn.
4) There was MUCH more kissing in the homosexual porn. Outlandish, deep, lasting kisses. That was the VERY BEST PART about it, and I coulda watched those bits for hours.
In discussing these "findings" with other women, I found many many of them found the idea and the image of two guys making out to be outrageously sexy. Once the penises come out, some women will find it sexy and others will not, depending on their personal preference. But even among those, it was a "ewwww" factor re: penises. It was similar to my reaction: "Where are the boobies?"
Read the men's thread -- there's at least one comment near the end from a submissive guy.
Crap. I meant it was NOT an "ewww" factor re: penises. It was NOT that women don't find penises attractive. They just wanted more than penis-only action.
You know, I may be wrong about women's attitudes to male-male eroticism. Perhaps it's only men's revulsion that keeps it from being more culturally prominent.
I did some digging, and though I only found one poll that broke down attitudes toward homosexuality by both the gender of the respondent and the gender of the couple being asked about, that poll found that women's attitudes toward gay men and lesbians were almost identical. It's only one datapoint, but there it is.
"how do you feel about, react to being approached by members of the `wrong' orientation?"
I've never been approached by a woman, but I'd be flattered, as I am if/when a guy asks me out.
"In fact, I'll won't be buying that "men are as/more likely to find their bodies unattractive as women" line until I see men actively cutting their body parts off and/or stitching new parts in at a rate equal to or exceeding the rate that women do."
As I said above, for men it's not "In principle your body is pretty but you in particular are ugly" but "In principle you are unattractive and ugly, there are some particular men who are pretty but they are to be distrusted anyways".
The bad image of our bodies does NOT manifest itself by us trying to make our bodies more attractive (which we consider pretty much impossible anyways, since male bodies are inherently not attractive).
For the record, I wouldn't mind watching two hot guys making out 
I am flattered when I am hit on or asked out by women.
The bad image of our bodies does NOT manifest itself by us trying to make our bodies more attractive (which we consider pretty much impossible anyways, since male bodies are inherently not attractive).
Exactly. It's not as we men are being subtly urged to get a six-pack to prove our "value"; we are permitted and expected, far more so than women, to show it in other ways. It's just that the basic message, to both genders, is still that your body is inherently gross and funny-looking unless loads of effort is put into it.
I may very well be mistaken in my interpretation of the thread, or of the trend, anyway. I am surprised at the vehemence of Tia's response precisely because she so plainly requires explicitness and understanding, and consent. I was addressing a far less distinct, but I thought concrete desire, for male dominance, which would be better and more fun if not asked for and not discussed. For Tia and her acknowledged, explicit and negotiated needs I have the utmost respect. The prototype of what I was reacting to was JW's 2nd post, of 1:09 p.m. Let me concede immediately that she raised the issues herself. A number of people then chimed in to agree with her, that this was a desire of theirs.
I may have been conflating the number of people who confessed to this desire, Megan and Diyad amplified it somewhat, with what people said about not being able to communicate. I presume that those who have actually been tied, such as Diyad and CC, of course consented explicitly. As I scroll through, I find comments such as Joolya's of 3:43, which acknowledges the desire, but implies it is at least talked about between her and her partner. Hannah, at 3:48, likes it but is conflicted, and likes her boyfriend for not liking it. Anon orama, at 6:37, has decided that it is only a fantasy, and has not admitted it to her husband. ABDmom at 10:29 picks up the "compensation" theme, but the fact that her husband has difficulty with the concept, implies communication. And so forth.
On the whole, I concede my reaction to the desire for rough sex, without being asked, was misguided and overblown. Believe me, no one could be happier to find himself on the same page with you as I am. That desire to be dominated is there, but most everybody is dealing with it either by consigning it to unrealizable fantasies, or by talking it out, with varying degrees of success.
I do, probably, have issues with my own passivity, with a morbid desire not to assert or dominate, incongruous though that may be with my physical presence, general articulateness and capabilities. This makes me hyper-sensitive on the question of whether I may be frustrating people who want aggression from me and feel free to assume it's just naturally going to be forthcoming. Thanks for everyone's indulgence.
I wanna respond to this on the men's thread:
As to blowjobs, there are definitely both good and bad. I really wish women would get over their fascination with the head of the penis. It's sensitive as hell and all of that mibbling and rubbing on it is never going to get us where we want to go.
If there is anything that these threads should have taught us (and thank you, B, again, for creating this space) it is to not universalize our preferences. I can assure you that there are men who like lots of attention to the heads of their penis during oral (though maybe not bare-toothed nibbling).
I've never been hit on by a woman, but I think it would make me uncomfortable in the same way that I'd be uncomfortable being hit on by a man I didn't want to date. That is, it wouldn't be because she's a woman, it would be because I don't know how to say "no" nicely and not hurt anyone's feelings. And because I know several lesbians, I envision such an offer to come from one of them, thus making the rejection personal. As opposed to random rejection in a bar, or something.
But never would I be offended; I'd be flattered, just stuck for an appropriate reply.
And I find girl-on-girl action in porno to be Teh Sex, btw. Even though I don't want to do it myself. I find it extremely erotic, maybe because they seem so much gentler with each other than the men are with the women, and that's what gets my proverbial rocks off. Oh, and there's more kissing among the women, I think. And kissing is Teh Sex, as well.
I've never heard a woman say she's disgusted by male homosexual sex. I have heard a woman say she's disgusted because in her experience with 2-male menages a trois, the men won't get near each other.
I present this information as the absolute pinnacle of scientific analysis.
I may very well be mistaken in my interpretation of the thread, or of the trend, anyway. I am surprised at the vehemence of Tia's response precisely because she so plainly requires explicitness and understanding, and consent. I was addressing a far less distinct, but I thought concrete desire, for male dominance, which would be better and more fun if not asked for and not discussed.
Looking back over the comments you point to, I think your interpretation went astray when you thought people were expressing a desire for rough sex "which would be better and more fun if not asked for and not discussed." I don't think that latter point -- actively valuing a lack of discussion -- was present in the comments you cite.
Wrenae said: "I don't know how to say "no" nicely and not hurt anyone's feelings."
Am I the only one who doesn't get why women worry so much about not hurting mens' feelings? Are we so weak that women have to compensate for it by holding our hands even while not holding them? Or are women just socialized not to hurt anyone's feelings generally?
i.e., why, when someone's advance makes you uncomfortable, would you even remotely consider their their comfort in your reply? It's not bad manners to say "piss off!"
Brooklynite, fh and anonymouslicious have made most of the points I would about the unattractiveness of male bodies. I don't think it's really comparable at all to women's body issues; the message isn't "your particular body fails to meet the standards of attractiveness and must be improved" but "male bodies are inherently unattractive, full stop." As for where it comes from, well, in what sense? I quoted a line from Seinfeld upthread that sums it up perfectly, and I'm sure I've heard the exact same thing elsewhere in the media. It's practically a commonplace. If you mean where does it ultimately come from, dunno.
For what it's worth regarding the grossness of male parts I am under the impression that in Italian (I don't actually speak it) when something good happens people of both genders and all ages will respond with the Italian version of "pussy" while anything bad is "cock".
I am not generally turned on by other people kissing, whatever the combination of mouths and genders, but it's certainly not disgusting or unsettling.
I'd be flattered if a woman asked me out but probably surprised as I've been told I give off incredibly femme straight girl vibes by a former roommate (bi).
LB: I agree. As I say, the reticence and desire were conflated by me, and the examples I go on to cite don't make the connection between them. I stated the part you quoted first, as what I thought I had seen, then proceeded to read over the thread, with the results I quoted, which led to my rather different conclusion.
Do I try to make too many points in every comment, or is my writing hard to understand?
As for where it comes from, well, in what sense?
I guess I mean, how is it so powerful? The women's body image stuff is all about the media -- if you don't look like the image, you're either absent from the media or explicitly unfuckable. Men's bodies as inherently unattractive doesn't seem universal in that sense -- I work next to a building with an attractive male nude perched on top; they're all over Rockefeller Center; Brad Pitt, Hugh Jackman, etc. have careers based on personifying the attractive male body; athletes are photographed like sides of beef.... I can't put all of this together and get "In our society, the male body is perceived as inherently unattractive."
I remember the line from Seinfeld, and if people feel this way, I can't argue with them -- I just don't follow the mechanism that makes a line like that more powerful than all of the celebration of male beauty (less, clearly than the amount of celebration of female beauty) in our society.
LB: I agree. As I say, the reticence and desire were conflated by me, and the examples I go on to cite don't make the connection between them.
I misunderstood you -- I thought you were pointing at those comments to justify your reading, rather than to explain what confused you. Sorry about the misreading; you must be feeling rather piled on.
just a thought about the male body image thing:
among men it is an insult to be called a "pretty boy". Thoughts?
oh, and I never meant to say that men have worse body image problems than women, we just have different body image problems.
LB: There's definitely tension with the glorification of male bodies you mention, but I don't think they really enter into the issue (that is, I think all this Brad Pitt etc. stuff is mostly a red herring). I don't think it really has anything to do with the media at all. I guess it mainly gets transmitted informally, by word of mouth, in forms much like the Seinfeld line (i.e., explicitly, rather than through framing or enforcing norms). I can't really say for sure. It apparently doesn't affect all men, since there have been some in this thread denying it, but it sure seems widespread to me.
LB: Thanks, I've liked everything you've said on these threads, even when I thought you weren't seeing what I was (which of course wasn't there).
I've joked with someone — and typically, didn't get a reply — that my comments tend to be of the form: A! which is similar to, but not quite the same as B!, which reminds me of C!
And the replies are usually an answer to A!, sometimes a huh? to B!, and no reply at all to C!, which suggests the reader never got that far. Always trying to say too much.
About the body image discussion; I agree it is men in general that are viewed as ugly more than just men's bodies. Most of my life I've been conventionally handsom without having to work to hard at it, yet I still viewed myself as unappealing overall as a man. Growing up I heard from the girls: 'Boys are smelly', 'Boys are gross'. The catholic nuns & priests reinforced it with 'all bodies are unclean' & 'sexual desire is sinful'. Now that I think about it, several teachers in early grades were of the option that girls were all clean sweetness while boys were disgusting hellions. As a young man I heard 'all men are pigs' and variations of that both joking and serious.
I internalized that to a great degree. I've thought, "A woman would have to be crazy to want me" so often I was sick of myself for thinking it because part of me knew I was just being an insecure twerp. I had to do some mental gymnastics since I could tell by looking in a mirror that I was handsome enough (even though my brother is better looking). I expressed this same type of self-loathing as thinking I had a boring personality, weird interests, too poor, too "female" of an outlook, etc. Eventually I realized that laying the blame fully on myself for relationship/sex problems is as much of a cop out as fully blaming others. I wasn't being honest with myself by denying I was desirable to some. And only by being honest could I become better and even more desirable.
Maybe this just speaks top our different experiences, but much of what's described in this subthread rings true for me even though it isn’t a body image thing for me so much as an overall self-image.
On other topics –
I have one group of male friends from high school that I can talk frankly, seriously and amusingly about sex. I think I’m lucky this way. I’ve also got several women, including a sister with whom I talk the same way about sex.
While mostly I wish I had gotten my attitude problems fixed at a much younger age, I’m glad I was mostly able to avoid having to say no to more than a couple women who liked things I didn’t like.
Getting hit on by men runs from sweet & flattering to crude and obnoxious. Mostly it is OK. Before I was married it was frustrating because I’d usually be thinking ‘why can’t you be a woman’.
Okay, I'm coming in late--these threads took some time to read--but I have set of questions for both genders regarding the desireability of the male body.
Let's leave the media out of it for a moment. How many women feel that their specific partner should compliment and respond to their specific bodies? How many men feel their their specific partner should compliment and respond to their specific bodies?
I'm guessing that women generally hope for and manage more often to get the compliments and that men might hope for compliments but more often think that they shouldn't need them.
I'm for lascivious complimenting all around. Sometimes, my partners have surprised me with their responses to compliments--"you like that? I've always been terribly self-conscious about it"--which can lead to good conversations, as well as, I think, healthy expressions of lust.
A couple of random thoughts, Lizard:
First, images of female beauty are presented as normative. Images of male beauty aren't. Women who don't conform to beauty ideals are invisible --- or at least hugely underrepresented --- while men who don't conform are ubiquitous.
Second, conformity to beauty ideals is presented to women as a means to an end, and to men much less so. There's far less pressure on men to beautify themselves to get a woman or a job or whatever.
Somebody brought up herpes disclosure in the women's thread. I've had to go through this myself (quite conscientious, since the guy who gave it to me was not), but it always terrifies me. And I've never known how I would react, if I'd been given the choice. To those of you who have been on the receiving end of a disclosure like this: What goes through your mind when you hear it? What makes the risk (un)acceptable?
IDP at 4:39: hey, was that me? I remember you saying that. I hope my lack of response wasn't taken offense at. I think some of what you say does tend to be convoluted sometimes, but always substantive, and I like that about your writing a lot. It's just that you pack a lot of stuff in and it's often difficult to parse.
On the general issue of the "men's bodies are inherently ugly," I've thought about this a lot. I think it's related, though I'm not sure how, with the concept of the male gaze. Men tend to be uncomfortable with their bodies being really, really looked it, because they just don't see it as an object to be desired, which is probably something someone already said.
Reading over this thread, I've wanted to agree with something that IDP was trying to say, but fh said it better:
About IDP's point, I was a lot more extreme in my youth I had this notion in my head that all sex was inherently abusive of women and wondered how brainwashed women must be to ever want sex.
This colored a lot of my early sexual experiences. I went into them knowing that I wanted something, but assuming that that must just be me. Only when my partner was able to be very explicit about what she wanted did we get past that point. Since that's difficult for a bunch of other reasons, there was a lot of frustration going around. This is a communication issue, or more precisely, it's a problem that we often expect to not need communication.
Perhaps more directly on IDP's point, I have had partners who have expressed that they wanted me to be more agressive, and to generally assume that I had their consent unless they told me otherwise, but that's been hard to reconcile with the still-present idea that wanting to have sex is just me being freaky and exploitative of privelege.
I don't really have an idea what to "blame" for this attitude, but I wish I didn't have it and I would like to prevent my kids from getting it.
S/l: thanks, I thought that fact that the post explaining why my posts are hard to parse would be hard to parse might strike someone as funny.
And in case you're wondering, I don't have any issues with your sex/prefs, and think you're an admirably explicit person.
But I bet I'd have frustrated you no end, were our young selves to meet in some other dimension, and you'd probably have clobbered me with a frying pan.
Another non-BDSM post: Penis size!
For me, at least, bigger is not necessarily better. A penis constantly slamming into my cervix, guys, is sort of like getting repeatedly hit in the head with a volleyball -- bam! bam! bam! An overly energetic thrust or two happens sometimes, but more than a few hits, and I just want the whole thing to be over. You've lost me.
Of course, your female partners are going to have different internal dimensions, too. So big guys, do us all a favor: go slow the first time, and figure out when enough is enough.
I'm now bracing for barrage of "but I *like* being slammed up against!" posts. Fine. To each her own. But for my part: ouchie; knock it off.
WRT body image...even women's magazines are full of naked or semi-naked women pictures, and I'm not talking just Cosmo either. I seem to remember a quote about naked women bodies being beautiful and naked men bodies being lumpy and hairy.
Personally, I enjoy my husband's naked body. I'd rather look at his than mine. I suppose it's because we're just comfortable with each other by now.
Oh ok, reading your first few posts on this thread, I felt like it was directed at Tia and I, since you [know] us both, and we are strong, forceful blah blah blah, but are into submission as well, and this perturbed you. But now I see I was mistaken.
And in general, much as I have a lot of weird little preferences, I never, never hold it against someone for not taking the initiative and doing it without my asking. In fact, a few months ago I was with someone where he was forceful in a way that I would have been wild about with someone I loved and trusted, and had asked for it from, but it was like "dude, you don't even know me. Knock it off."
When I was in grad school, I was a total size queen. I liked my cocks big, fat, and uncut. If you were under 8 inches, don't bother to apply. But now, as an assistant professor, I find myself in a relationship with two academics (at different universities) who both possess miniscule penises. I find that their minds are doing it for me, and not their tiny willies.
Is there something wrong with me, bitch?
It's like Colbert the other day (quoting from memory): June 21st, the longest day of the year. But the important question is, how thick is it?
When I was in grad school, I was a total size queen. I liked my cocks big, fat, and uncut. If you were under 8 inches, don't bother to apply. But now, as an assistant professor, I find myself in a relationship with two academics (at different universities) who both possess miniscule penises. I find that their minds are doing it for me, and not their tiny willies.
What do they say when you tell them this?
Jackmormon: How many men feel their their specific partner should compliment and respond to their specific bodies?
This was huge for me; I'd been idly complimented in ways that felt insincere for all of adulthood-- too much from family, none from MoS. When my girlfriend called me handsome and was specific, it really shook up my defeatist thinking.
MaxPolon: among men it is an insult to be called a "pretty boy". Thoughts?
Mostly because pretty = homosexual. Being handsome (masculine, studly, etc.) is great, being "pretty" is dimunitive, 'girl like', and gay.
"how do you feel about, react to being approached by members of the `wrong' orientation?"
Flattered. Due to the insecurity I mentioned above, it was nice to hear someone say it. I was brusque in turning it aside, but I'll blame that on youth and inexperience.
I have never, in my life, thought of men's bodies as ugly. Specific bodies, sure, but not many of them. About the only kind that bother me are the body builder types that have those veins that look like under the skin worms. Even then they have to be really extreme which I've never seen in real life, probably the effect that I dislike comes from the pumping up and straining that they do when they pose.
A man's naked body has either made me horny or tender or both. You're beautiful guys and it amazes me that you didn't know that!
My man's fortysomething body (in whole and in its parts) is beautiful to me, but he gets embarassed when I tell him so -- he seems to be really uncomfortable with me complementing him. I've learned not to say anything, but it makes me sad.
I find the whole male-bodies-disgusting/not under-as-extreme-cultural-pressures-as-women debate very interesting.
I think it is about "the male gaze" and the traditional power relations of the act of looking. I would argue that it's not so much that society sees male bodies as ugly or disgusting as that they are supposed to be invisible. Men are traditionally disembodied while women are over-embodied; men are the souls, the brains, the selves, the holders of identities and caster of votes while women are beautiful works of art to look at and have sex with. There's a quote by Emerson where he describes "the transparent, omniscient eyeball" ---- this notion that Man is doing the looking and knowing while Woman is being looked at ---- the notion of "reversing the gaze" and looking back at the man is so subversive and uncomfortable because it reminds him that he has a body. This is also the theory behind late nineteenth-century clothing changes: women are meant to display their husbands' wealth with elaborate and brightly-colored clothing while men gradually adopted the uniform of the plain black suit (and people who know how to do tailoring have pointed out to me how much a suit standardizes male body types and hides a multitude of sins, er, imperfections.).
Now, before you jump all over the fact that my theory is wildly inconsistent with the facts on the ground today, let me point out that all of my examples have been 19th century ones. Something happened around the 30s or so where the male body became much more included in notions of spectacle and visibility, and I think a second shift, of magnitude if not direction, has happened again in the last 10 years or so. This means that we're in a definite moment of transition ---- I see both more display of stereotypically attractive male bodies in society today (not just in gay-oriented forums) and the holdover of "don't look at men/don't male aesthetic judgments of their bodies." I agree with the people who have found evidence of "male bodies are disgusting"; I recently had a conversation with a group of guys where I mentioned that the penis, while fun, is a bit silly-looking, and everyone totally jumped to agree with me, with one guy even saying he was so glad women liked having sex with men because male body parts were just gross. I've also seen guys get really disgusted or really offended by people posting up a picture of David's Michelangelo, or something on their office door. Granted this could just be posturing to assert their heterosexuality but I think, in that "jokey" way Dr B. points out, there is a deep level of uncomfortableness (is that a word?) with the male body being seen and viewed and appraised.
I never came this idea that male bodies are "inherently" disgusting until this thread.
What seems more to the point is that with all these thin chicks as the beauty standard on TV, there's a cultural idea out there that average women's bodies are "inherently" disgusting.
I find that only black men's magazines tell the truth -- that women with huge asses are beautiful and sexy.
Personally I'd rather fuck an average body-type woman with some meat on her bones than these starving media types. Most of them don't look big enough to have any room to stick a dick in.
Both my husband and my lover have bodies that are very far from average, and also very far from the idealized version we see all over the magazines (and hey, the internet too, at least during the World Cup). And although they have both managed to have satisfactory sex lives, they both (it turns out) have always felt that they lacked somehow of being as attractive as they might be. I have always tried to make it clear to men that I found their bodies attractive, and what in particular I found attractive in each case, but I've heard some odd responses. Oh, maybe not so odd at that. Probably a lot like mine. I'm no beauty, never have been, and I know that, so it has always been a little weird to get compliments on my physical attractiveness. I just try to remember that what he means is the same as what I mean, that it's attractive *to him,* and that's what counts anyway. But I think guys are more into comparing themselves to some ideal, and thinking it's less acceptable for guys to do that. So then they feel bad about not measuring up, and about even looking at the measurement.
Right now, they both look a lot better than I do. I look like my body has melted and run down my torso --eeyyuck. I can't see why anyone would even want to look at me. But at least I have the taste and decency not to say so.
Penis size: Size matters, but not to the exclusion of all else, and when it does matter, it's fit that matters really. Probably more people have heard of the Kama Sutra than have read any of it; the writer (writers?) makes much of the importance of matching big with big and small with small, and I think it is important, to some extent. But more important is the love. Or the kindness and consideration, if love isn't the issue. And the technique. And the Kama Sutra mentions those also.
Hey, you know what's really interesting? That at nearly 70, I am still learning stuff, and that it feels exactly the same as learning stuff did 50 years ago. When do I get to be grown up, anyway?
I'm with deecee. All my het partners have had much to recommend them in my eyes. I've dated model-like hunky men who became unattractive once I got to really know them, and average looking men who became Pitt-like over time. Not every penis was beautiful (though the majority have been at least pretty so far), nor have they all been a perfect fit, but half the fun is the exploration to accomodate, to find ways to please each other, isn't it?
As for penis size mattering--I think we've been culturally fooled into believing a big one will always do the trick. Doesn't this minimize the co-responsibility of the people involved--and the fact that it's necessary for women to be proactive in creating their own orgasms? The reality is that some men with large cocks can get lazy, may not be interested enough in foreplay, or don't really know how to just have fun with sex, or still feel his cock is just not big enough. So, no, I don't believe actual size matters so much, but the idea that size matters certainly has real consequences (a nod to W.I Thomas).
As for the notion of simultaneous orgasms, I wonder if they truly exist. I've never experienced one since I get so caught up in my own orgasm I don't really have the capacity to care what my partner is experiencing in that exact moment. Hell, I imagine I wouldn't care if someone set the bed on fire, or the world ended--at that precise moment--I'd just be too out of it. It seems to me that when one really loses rational thought in the midst of orgasm, how can said person be able to consciously focus on helping their partner to achieve orgasm? It also seems to me that the simultaneous falling away from conscious rationality to pure physical experience precludes anything but accidental, pure chance, co-orgasming. So, I wonder if the notion of simultaneous orgasms is just a cultural ideal, a myth? I've also read that a lot of women have trouble coming to orgasm because they have trouble with so-called "selfishly" focusing on self, but that this focus is a prereq for orgasm. So anyway, on the chance that simultaneous orgasms are not a myth, can someone explain how it happens and why it's supposed to be so great? I'm willing to keep an open mind and experiment.
Yeah, I mostly just wanted to thank Bphd for starting these threads, because they've been really pleasant to read, even if I'm not sure that I can contribute much. On thing that did confuse me from Lolita though:
When I was in grad school, I was a total size queen. I liked my cocks big, fat, and uncut. If you were under 8 inches, don't bother to apply.
How do girls manage to find all these big guys? I mean, an 8 inch penis is only around on less than 1% of guys (at least according to the few studies that have been medically measured). Do you bring in line-ups for inspection or something?
Size matters not; circumference is everything.
Ahem. It's not like we go around measuring. (and we must, as the unfoggedariat claim, respect the shower/grower distinction.)
I don't think it's so much length or girth as technique. i.e., he is large and she is small, it may not be pleasant if everyone's not aware of that. Lots of women can't orgasm through intercourse anyway.
OK, this may be taking things in a quite different direction, but it's something that's been bothering me for a while. Something about fat women really turns me off. And not fat in the sense that Renee Zellweger was fat as Bridget Jones--that's actually still hot, but people with BMIs of 28 and up. (My own is 23.)
And this actually makes me feel really bad, because, as I believe, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being fat. I don't blame people for not dieting or exercising or anything. And fat people are just as likely to have attractive personalities as anyone else (well, except that they have to deal with a lot of prejudice and sexual rejection, which can sometimes make them bitter, through no fault of their own).
And I don't know if I should feel bad about it, or work on changing this, or if I could become sexually attracted to a fat person once I got to know them. But it does make me feel bad, a little.
I don't think it's so much length or girth as technique. i.e., he is large and she is small, it may not be pleasant if everyone's not aware of that.
Having been through I am large and she is small, I am aware of that. Thus the large cock is not the across the board winner one would hope. Upside: this helps men who are less endowed. Downside: Nobody really realizes this.
max
['Next.']
M: Furthermore, dominance play doesn't mean punching your partner in the face, or going in any way beyond previously agreed upon limits.
Ah, and
Of course lots of het guys find any hint of violence in their sex disturbing and gross and unerotic. There are many, many women who are happy to have happy vanilla (or vanilla + anal, or whatever) sex with them. It's by no stretch of the imagination a bad thing to be.
I don't know what else anyone else is talking about, but I wasn't necessarily talking about B&D.
Simple B (no, you're not simple B) can be fun (I haven't had that experience) as can simple D. What I was talking about was the stuff that is, essentially, abusive, whether consented to or not. Basically, outside of good hard sex, if there's some pain involved, I think that's abusive. Another way: whether a guy (or a woman) wants to do that stuff to a woman (or a man, there are quite a few of those) or a woman (or a man) wants someone to do it to them, at best you're into neurosis land, depending on how rough we're talking.
What I was describing was experiences with someone who wanted me to get, well, nasty with them. I reluctantly went along (but never did any seriously hard shit). I went along because I was operating under the rule of please your partner. She wanted it, it turns out, because of her deeply rooted self-loathing (not caused by me, thank).
So, yeah: don't do that. If someone is addicted to heroin, you still don't give it them, even if that might make them feel better. Likewise, if someone is addicted to the rough stuff, they should get help, just like somebody with a heroin problem.
ANYTHING goes, is going too far.
Even better: don't date people with personality disorders, or at least BPD!
max
['That's that.']
pdf23ds- I had a boyfriend gain about 40 pounds in the course of dating him, and he wasn't exactly thin to begin with either! Although I really loved him, I couldn't help but notice and become far less attracted to him. I think the issue with someone being overweight, or in this case, gaining serious amounts of weight, is that it represents other things to us. The guy I was seeing was also becoming a very destructive alcoholic and ate nothing but Taco Bell! It just felt irresponsible, lazy, and indulgent, not to mention completely unhealthy and opposed to a lot of the vegetarian, organic, hippie standards that I enforced on myself.
I wonder, however, if people would feel this same way about anorexics? Men often say to me that they like to have something to hold on to, etc., but is it really about the lifestyle/ health/ principles that we associate with that body type?
Anyway... to answer your post, I think I *could* become attracted to someone who was overweight, if I knew them well enough to know that they defied all the stereotypes that I attach to overweightness. However, many people I know who are overweight really are also unhealthy, alcoholic, meateating, and unactive. Not that they don't also have quite charming lovable personalities, but I just don't think I could marry someone with these qualities or mesh their lifestyle with mine enough to be really close or live together. But, man, that would have been hot if my ex had gotten his act together and quit the excessive drinking and fast food, no matter what he weighed. I wouldn't dump someone on account of their weight, but probably I would hold on only with the secret hope that they wouldn't believe me when I (lied and) said they looked fine and then made some sweeping life changes.
Not only is he psychic, but he's always eager to fuck when I want to fuck, never when I don't, he loves to give me footrubs and cook me gourmet meals, always smells good, is strong enough to carry me all over the house, sensitive enough never to hurt my feelings, thoughtful enough to remember anniversaries that I don't even think of and doesn't mind that I'm a flake!
Damn, coach, I tried! They was too big for me. }:>
even if every one of those things were true, it still wouldn't be perfect because, no doubt, I'd end up feeling like I wasn't being a good partner, and who the heck wants that?
Yeah, I think it is maybe like the too large (or in my case, too wide) cock problem.
Too much is more than enough.
max
['Sucks to be me!']
Okay. So, I only have a few minutes before I have to head off to work. A couple of thoughts though. This past year, I moved abroad and I'm surprised at some of the body image differences/issues here and would like to hear some responses about the cultural basis of male/female beauty. First off, I love that fact that, here, "nudity is natural". One of my friends pointed that out to me. It's on magazine covers (men and woman; although no crotch shots--apparently that's the limit on displays), TV, metro posters, etc. No wonder that they think the US is prudish; for the most part I think American culture views nudity as pornography/something not done if it can be helped--and then only in the dark or illicitly.
Also, part of that may be the fact that school children, from a young age, are exposed to nudity as something normal. Think Ashcroft covering Justice's breast in the US with a curtain vs. first graders at the Lourve/French museums where most of the art has nude men and women.
So, question: how much do you think that being exposed to male and female nudity in art/everyday life impacts the perception of physical beauty? Or appreciation of the naked body?
Women as well as men here don't seem as concerned with many aspects of body image (or so it seems to me, not speaking enough of the language). France (as well as other countries) are portrayed as being thin, thin, thin. It's not; like anywhere else there is a range; however you tend to see less morbidly obsese women or men. I haven't come across many ads for weight loss, although they are still there and mostly directed at women.
I was more shocked to realize how judgmental I was (perhaps that American upbringing?) whenever I saw women (never the men) wearing something that in the US would never fly (at least in my opinion) I would find myself mentally berating her. How could she NOT know how awful such-and-such looks. I'm trying to get away from that now, it's a characterisitc that I find distateful in myself but appears somewhat ingrained.
Second, MEN and women here seriously care about their appearences--at least in terms of fashion. (Things I find unattractive and, unfortunately extremely common here, bad teeth and smoking). For the most part, people here of both sexes are well dressed. REALLY, well dressed.
So here's an anecdotal story. Someone was telling me how a male relative went to Canada for an internship (I know, not US but close!). The first day he wore teh suit, which included a pink shirt he apparently adored. Similar to here, he was always well dressed. Months later, he complained to a friend that he was striking out with the ladies to which she responded, "but, we all thought you were gay!" Shocked when he asked why, she basically answered because he dressed so well, not to mention wore PINK.
Okay. I would love to write more but I'm already all over the place in this reply not to mention late, late, late!
Hi, couple of questions...
How common among women is the desire to have their partners shave etc. their body/pubic hair?
Accepting that how well things fit is more important than penis size, what are people's thoughts on cocks that are curved?
I am a physically insecure male.
One thing that I don't think has been pointed out in this thread is that regardless of which sex is more insecure, I think women are often more secure in their insecurity, whereas men are often insecure about their insecurity.
I think women have less trouble identifying and talking about their insecurities. They are less ashamed about them.
"You're beautiful guys and it amazes me that you didn't know that!"
Thanks for telling
LizardBreath, I wanted to respond to the precise point about media in this you keep making. I think it's not a media issue, it's a cultural issue that is present in many things.
My first intuition would be that, in our good christian tradition, we are from a culture that is inherently negatively predisposed towards our physique. The body is evil, disgusting, needs to be punished and controlled and eventually overcome.
The female body eventually became aestheticised but the male body much less so. The male body is a weapon (consider the stereotype of the trenchcoat exhibitionist attacking/harrassing women by doing nothing but showing them his body).
I think the media is actually changing this culture today by displaying men as more and more desireable.
In one of the latest playboys (which I only picked up because it was free on the flight, I swear! And the articles actually are great! I saw an ad for L'Oreal for men showing a guy with wrinkles around his eyes and the text "He thinks it adds unresistible character, she thinks it looks prematurely aged."
Oh and Playboy now includes a men's fashion section?
I think equality is finally within reach.
Oh, I forgot, I wanted to close with a quote for general amusement:
"Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex."
- Arthur Schopenhauer
A couple of thoughts:
I think overall, confidence is sexy, and I think developing a sophisticated language for communicating with your partner is a great way of building confidence. I've met incredibly hot couples who ain't pictures in the looks dept, but are really sexy.
I also think these forums are valuable because although sex is a private thing, so much of our expectations are structured by media and most of it is pretty bad. To just share real experiences is very liberating and empowering.
Genuine respect is the hottest thing going. Couple it with a sense of adventure and you have a hot lover in my books, regardless of their physical package.
So, yeah: don't do that. If someone is addicted to heroin, you still don't give it them, even if that might make them feel better. Likewise, if someone is addicted to the rough stuff, they should get help, just like somebody with a heroin problem.
I wasn’t talking to you, max, but to IDP, who at the time seemed to me to be expressing some kind of anxiety that his lovers were secretly wanting sex differently than they had it, and pointing out that since tons, probably most, women, don’t want their sex that way, he needn’t be concerned.
But this is silly. You measure pathology by its impairment of actual life functioning. (And even when something rises to pathology by this standard it’s worthwhile to examine whether the external circumstances of someone’s life are reasonable to adapt to.) If you don’t stick to impairment as a measure of pathology then you’re left with objections that are, in the end, nothing but aesthetic. There’s no analogy to addiction if someone doesn’t behave like an addict--doesn’t need thing X to function, doesn’t behave in a way that damages their work or friendships or romantic relationships or physical health. You’re drawing an arbitrary line between sex you think is okay (some B and D is fine) and sex you think is gross, or upsets you, and thus is wrong.
Speaking from my own experience, I get along just fine if I haven’t had my domination fix, and if I were only ever allowed to have vanilla sex ever again, all that would happen is I would be sexually frustrated, like tons of other people in the world. I would nominate my last, still sorta continuing, relationship to compete in the Love! Respect! Honesty! Communication! Mutual Regard! Smackdown! any day and I think it would do pretty well. I will cheerfully cop to being neurotic in some ways, and further concede that BDSM is frequently (always?) a response to a past trauma (for an expansive definition of “trauma”). It’s just not a pathological response per se. Something has to harm you to be pathological. I don’t think loving, exploratory, sometimes ecstatic sex constitutes a harm.
However, this isn’t to say that there aren’t self-loathing subs in the world. There are, and people complain about them. There are abusive people who call themselves doms, too. It’s easy to know and feel the difference quickly between one thing and the other. I think you’re over generalizing from limited experience, max, and like I said above, the one thing these threads ought to have taught us not to do it that.
Personally, I prefer a medium sized penis. Big penises stretch me out so that I can't comfortably masturbate during PIV sex. I'm not sure whether a short but thick penis would be good for me, since the penis I was recently dissatisfied with was short and thin. Curvy and straight penises are nice.
pdf23s, I think it's cool to be attracted to who you're attracted to, provided that your range is not so narrow that you won't find anyone to date who wants to date you. I don't know from BMI, but while I don't mind 20-30 lbs. of extra weight on an attractively big, strong man, I've never been attracted to someone I thought was really fat. It's not like there aren't people in the world who are attracted to fat people, so I don't think you have to try to psych yourself into feeling something you don't feel. I'm somewhat curvy, and I'd way rather be with someone who just naturally thought that was hot than someone who was trying to talk himself into it.
TIA well said about BDSM, pathology et al.
I certainly don't think it always comes from trauma.
Yet what max says I think touches upon what some women in the other thread said, they wondered whether their desires were compatible with their other values. If you take that values very serious the consequence is that you should get help if you're desiring these things. I think that dilemma between desires and values, is very real, in sex even moreso then elsewhere.
And I continue to think think that is, important, and I took it seriously because they did. Several women on that thread, early on, spoke of desiring domination, trying to make sense of how incongruous that desire was with the rest of their lives, and how often their lovers were uncomfortable with it. Other women, not I realize usually the same ones, had real trouble expressing any kind of direction or preference. That was what bothered me, although I was obviously unclear about it. No agreed practice at all bothered me in the slightest; their being unable to say anything useful during sex disturbed me profoundly.
"Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex."
And you wonder why everyone has some kind of hangup about what kind of bodies they have with 'male intellect jokes'.
*not amused*
Here's something I found amusing. It took me most of this discussion to figure out that PIV meant penis in vagina. I thought it was just one more kind of sex I wasn't having.
Socdoc,
Id have answered your question about simultaneous orgasm sooner, but I was writing like a lunatic yesterday and will have to start again today presently.
Anyway, short answer: yes it happens.
In my life with Spouse it happens pretty regularly.
I think I can attribute it to a kind of reflexive reciprocity in which each person's satisfaction is gratified by (maybe ego oriented) knowledge that the other person is having a good time. It's kind of like just being completely in-synch in a kayak and knowing which direction to paddle together, how to lean into the water or away from it etc. And it's not like one needs to think about it in a really conscious way -- which is why I'd characterize it as a kind of reflexive act.
I've never had an orgasm with anyone else in my life, and I dated a shit-whack of people before I met spouse. I tried both flavours of people and had no particular prejudices about size, race, class or ethnicity. The buffet was pretty generous. But the sex, while incredibly acrobatic, often involving going way past boundaries I thought might have been better for me because I was trying to be more"bohemenian" (like a good intellectual), was lousy, lousy, lousy. It was all about proving how "free" one could be, without really knowing what on earth we meant by being sexually "free" i.e., not surprised it sucked so much.
So I can attribute the satisfaction of my sexual life with Spouse (nearly 2 decades) to his unusual interest in encouraging me to find out what worked for me when we were together, in not making me feel ashamed... and to the way that he still will suck in his breath when he comes around the corner and spies me in a state of deshabillement. The first time I ever stepped out of clothing, he sucked in his breath like that... and I felt like I was home. I'm 3 sizes bigger than I was when we met, but I had a BMI of 17 then (um, don't ask)... and he still thinks I'm attractive.
Age and comparative prosperity have changed his body size too, but I actually find him more handsome now than I did years ago.
The point I'm making, and people make think it shmarmy, is that emotional attachment, trust etc., this things can be instrumental in good sex.
But none of that is to say that I regrete my buffet years. I also think it could be possible to have "good sex" on a casual basis. I think one can have trust and a kind of attachment, and still be a one-time thing...
For clarity, by "expansive definition of trauma", I meant basically any experience of pain or fear, no matter how small, that's come to affect you and, in this case, your approach to sex.
If it's important ideologically to some women not to enact domination fantasies, then I respect that. I'm glad that my ideology allows me the flexibility to reenact a power dynamic in order to explore it emotionally without endorsing the social forces that originally created it, because I think sex like that is teh hott and I'd be sad if I couldn't have it the way I liked it. I'm a little bit dubious that therapy will change the nature of anyone's sexual fantasies (maybe I'm wrong). I'm sure it can be extremely useful in examining where they come from and what they can teach us about ourselves, and accepting the fact that even if we think things that hurt us have structured what we fantasize about, we don't have to blame ourselves for fantasizing.
Canuckdoc: Am I right in remembering you as someone defending the space for non-verbal communication, and therefore of that which need not be said, to the point of reticence? If so, then you're the person I should be engaging.
I was very upset that Tia thought I was talking about her. What she describes would be impossible without explicit verbal communication at virtually every stage.
Max, it sounds like you are saying that all pain play stems from self-loathing. That's not true of many of us. My wife kicks me in the testicles, play-pierces my scrotum and beats me with a cane. I do not hate myself, and my sexuality does not interfere with the rest of my life. I do what I do because it's hot, and more importantly, because it is intimate for my wife and I. Your speculation does not fit my experience (or those of others here, obviously). If you are saying what I read you to be saying, you should rethink your assumptions.
Canuckdoc: 17 is really, really thin. (I'm sure you already know this.) Three sizes bigger is still pretty slim, and probably better looking to most people, so it's not too surprising that your husband didn't object to the change.
I'm trying to find a rough visual guide to BMI, say with pictures of different people at various points, but it's proving surprisingly difficult to google.
Thomas, would you say your enjoyment of that sort of thing is associated with the feelings of letting go of control, of being being submissive? Are there people who enjoy pain play without the submissive aspects?
The thing about simultaneous orgasms is that they do happen fairly commonly, but IME it doesn't work to set out with that as the goal. Too much pressure, that.
I totally agree with canuckdoc that it's a partner-sync thing. That sync can occur after couples suss out an activity in which her orgasm occurs when his is close; then her orgasm triggers his. Perhaps for you it can work the other way, too, where his orgasm triggers hers.
I have lurked through the last 4 threads, arguing and assenting, getting hot and getting annoyed.
In short, good threads.
Male body image: it depends. My own experience was of a gangly adolescent all-too-aware that the early-maturing jock types would have greater access to the "hotties" of my school. At 145 and 6' at graduation, I was lean and not willing to go shirtless.
Now, I like the cool breeze and sun-on-skin. At mid-30's with a bit more heft (200 lbs-ish), my body image actions--which is an important data point--indicate more acceptance and freedom. That and a long-term, monogamous relationship. I am no longer looking to hook-up, which takes off a lot of pressure. I am also not so worried about the jerky comments, and there are always jerky comments no matter the body configuration. Jerks find a way.
What makes for good sex? Communication--and I don't mean talking, necessarily. Think of the best seductions on film (or if you are lucky, your own experience). Nuance and subtlety predominate—words can, horror-horror, get in the way. But a well placed frown, nudge, nod or groan goes a long way.
Sex with strangers is completely different than sex with a steady. Dating sex is fraught with "will this actually happen" and "I hope (s)he likes me" worries. I shy away from commenting much on that mine-field.
Confession: I secretly like that size matters. It works to my advantage. Not that I got more dates (I didn't), but I know that I have greater cultural currency. I can always say to myself, "so…I'm bigger" even without any real knowledge that this is true.
Larger size, though, has downsizes. There are positions that we cannot always perform (horrible is the guilt of causing a bruised cervix). It makes oral more awkward as well. A sore jaw (or, god forbid, TMJ) worry takes away the fun.
Okay, I've only gotten through half the comments so far, so forgive me if someone already covered this. But with respect to IDP's questions above, I think it comes down to figuring out just the right balance of assertiveness, tenderness, etc. On the one hand, IDP seems to feel he may have erred a bit too much on the side of deference with past lovers who may have been waiting for, well, more of a caveman. On the other hand, as many women have pointed out, to just launch into a caveman bit could really piss other lovers off. What to do?
I think this is really, really hard becuase even when we're trying to openly talk about this stuff, it's pretty damn hard to actually articulate it. Eg., I once whispered to a guy in what I thought a rather promising moment that I wanted him to "dominate" me. In my mental dictionary, that meant something like, "Take charge, ravish me, drive me crazy." In his head it apparently meant, "Oh good, I can go ahead and just take care of myself without having to worry about satisfying her anymore." Uh, suffice it to say, not a satisfying result.
The problem in that relationship, and it sounds like the thing IDP is cogitating about, was finding that happy middle place between him waiting for me to direct his every move and him ignoring me entirely. I don't want to lay there saying, "Apply X psi of force in a circular motion to point A." I want him to respond to moans, groans, and general body language so maybe he can pick up an a cue or two without my having to constantly verbalize specific feedback in the heat of the moment. I want him to "take control" in the sense that I want him to read the signals for himself without having to be told.
Again, apologies if I've veered off track or repeated something someone already said. But this point really resonates.
Yes pdf23ds, I was underfed, had a sizable appetite for injectables at the time, made my money as a cage dancer and didn't have a permanent address.
I'm a "normal" (medically normative statistical range) size now, even though I've become "top-heavy" in a way I dislike and never would have predicted, but for my age group, I'm pretty happy. Especially for a "bum-in-chair" professional.
Since recovering from an ulcer that had me seriously underweight in my early 30's my body has insisted on keeping a little "buffer".
And you are right... though Spouse was very attracted to me back in the first days, he readily admits that he knew I was unwell then, and that as soon as I sabilized and got healthier, he liked me *better*, so I try to recall that what he likes now is that I am healthy, fit, strong...
Those feelings go a long way to makign for a good intimate life.
All of which reminds me that I should tell him more often how handsome he is to me.
PDF, the answer to the second question is yes. There are plenty of people who like pain play without any sort of submissive aspect (in fact, some people who feel this way do not identify as BDSMers at all, especially if they enjoy pain in the context of getting a tattoo or playing sports). Pain produces a cocktail of chemicals including endorphins, enkephalids and adrenaline that produce a high.
What I find fulfilling in my own BDSM play is partly what you've identified, the giving up of control. For me, to cede to a partner control over whether I'll orgasm or not, feel pain or not, etc., is powerful. There's another principal component, which is the shared violation of social norms. It was very hard for my wife, for example, to kick me in the testicles at first. She wanted to do it, and I wanted her to do it, but all the social programming that said she should never kick a guy in the balls intervened mid-swing, causing her to hold back. It took work for her to get past that. There was an arbitrary, socially constructed rule keeping us from doing an act of intimacy in the way that we wanted; we defeated that, and we celebrate that victory a little bit every time.
Okay, I've only gotten through half the comments so far, so forgive me if someone already covered this. But with respect to IDP's questions above, I think it comes down to figuring out just the right balance of assertiveness, tenderness, etc. On the one hand, IDP seems to feel he may have erred a bit too much on the side of deference with past lovers who may have been waiting for, well, more of a caveman. On the other hand, as many women have pointed out, to just launch into a caveman bit could really piss other lovers off. What to do?
I think this is really, really hard becuase even when we're trying to openly talk about this stuff, it's pretty damn hard to actually articulate it. Eg., I once whispered to a guy in what I thought a rather promising moment that I wanted him to "dominate" me. In my mental dictionary, that meant something like, "Take charge, ravish me, drive me crazy." In his head it apparently meant, "Oh good, I can go ahead and just take care of myself without having to worry about satisfying her anymore." Uh, suffice it to say, not a satisfying result.
The problem in that relationship, and it sounds like the thing IDP is cogitating about, was finding that happy middle place between him waiting for me to direct his every move and him ignoring me entirely. I don't want to lay there saying, "Apply X psi of force in a circular motion to point A." I want him to respond to moans, groans, and general body language so maybe he can pick up an a cue or two without my having to constantly verbalize specific feedback in the heat of the moment. I want him to "take control" in the sense that I want him to read the signals for himself without having to be told.
Again, apologies if I've veered off track or repeated something someone already said. But this point really resonates.
Yes, IDP, I do advocate not talking things to death. But I'm not advocating reticence. I'm saying that I believe that there is such a thing as paying attention to non-verbal communication, and that verbal communication can be lazy and imprecise, as well as being potentially incendiary.
I'm not advocating poor communication. I'm saying that if someone were to say to me "Do you like this? Can I do this? I want to do that" Let's do..." and if everything needed to be consulted on, post-mortemed etc. that I'd never feel safe sexually with them. I'd feel interrogated.
An example:
I once went into a women's sex positive sex store to browse around. Within abut 3 minutes the owner came over and greeted me -- which became quickly a "What are you here for? You should have this, and this, and this and do this, and try this..." set of commands. I had barely said more than my name...
I was so miffed by the whole situation that I left immediately because I'd not been able to explore my way through the books, merch and so forth...
Now my strategy is to go to such stores only with my very chatty old ex (from over 20 years ago) who's only too happy to get into those conversations. He does the aggressive chat while I get to browse around, and because *we* absolutely aren't in a sexual relationship, there's no pressure on me to do anything about what I see, or buy.
I helped him through his chemo treatments, and he provides a decoy strategy while I shop. Seems like a true friendship to me.
And we don't chat about it all later.
I should have just waited for Canuckdoc to say it -- what I meant to say, only better. =)
I don't think all communication is verbal. Once I know someone, I can communicate non verbally and accurately about even a lot of d/s stuff. It's not so much that every sex act is constantly in the process of verbal negotiation, but that we have conversations in between.
Di Kotimy: Yes, this is exactly what I was getting at. And it is so not about BDSM because that just requires specificity. The cases I wonder about were the ones where the women were chastising themselves about not being able to speak up, even when things could be clearly improved. It seems to me the situation you and I are talking about almost always occurs in the context of "vanilla" sex. And on reflection, particularly in a relationship where I was conscious of being more experienced as well as older, I led and dominated in just that way, with great success.
With equals and superiors, though, I've been very bashful. And I've been chagrined to realize, via the women's thread, that personal and intellectual assertiveness may not at all have been translatable into sexual. That realization has been what's eating me; I assumed a more direct correlation than may have existed, by common accounts. Damn!
Very helpful threads.
Going back to the 'dry spell' phenomenon, particularly in lactating mothers, not to mention hypothyroid folks of either gender and those on certain medications, there is often a very simple physiologic explanation. It's a hormone called prolactin. While it PROmotes LACtation, it also suppresses libido like crazy. Regretably, this is not a widely distributed fact. First child was born when I was a medical student. I thought lack of interest on my wife's part was 'mind' rather than 'body'. Then got introduced to prolactin and recognized bio-evolutionary issue was also in effect. Men are also quite familiar with the effects of this hormone, since it spikes with male orgasm and results in that nearly universal post-ejaculatory 'refractory period' during which further penetrative sex is both improbable and unappealing, no matter how interested and appealing my partner may be.
Good news is - it usually wears off.
The "you can't expect your partner to be psychic" thing has been bothering me for some time, and I have finally put my finger on why. While no one is psychic, many people are observant. Those who are not observant can learn to be. The same skill which allows you to notice that your partner always keeps Wed night free to watch his/her fav TV show will allow you to notice that your partner always grabs your hand when you kiss his/her neck (for example). Wishing that a partner could learn to be observant and learn your cues is not expecting that person to be psychic. Claiming that you don't know how to make your partner happy b/c he (or she; awkward, inclusive constructions now at an end) won't tell you is a cop out. He is telling you.
Another thing- your partner may not know what he likes. If his prior sexual experiences consisted solely of partners asking "what do you want me to do?" and not actually trying anything, then he has no good experience to call on. Or maybe nothing that has been done to him has floated his boat enough to make him ask for it again. Instead of giving up b/c you are not psychic, try making a suggestion.
Interesting that a comment complaining about "expecting your partner to be psychic", and insisting observation and attentiveness should carry the weight, ends by suggesting, a suggestion!
Obviously some sort of balance is needed. I don't think this addresses my issue at all. Observation and responsiveness have been easy for me, when we're on the same page. What's been freaking me out is the possibility I've been blinded, unable to respond to what were probably clear ques — I don't know, I admit they may never have existed — by a misconception.
And that misconception was about the inherent dynamic of the relationship, that a woman's assertiveness would carry straight through. That the opposite might be true never occured to me.
IDP: While I'm not very experienced, I would imagine that if a person were the type to have trouble articulating certain of their sexual desires, then if you ever asked them a question about their desires, their discomfort would be quite obvious. People may hide their desires and fantasies, but they don't hide the fact that they're hiding them. (Maybe.) So it might be that you don't have to worry about having missed these cues.
Thinking about those times that I consider to be the best sex I've ever had, talking and laughter figure pretty prominently in the enjoyment. Beyond just being fun, it occurs to me that talking about lots of stuff during sex lets you talk about the sex itself without falling into an interrogation. And when you're both laughing, the give & take of communication doesn't feel like the asking/granting of formal permission. I'd rather be more casual.
I hate to quibble with PDF, especially since that comment was (and was surely intended to be) in such a reassuring tone. But, as the type of woman I think I hear IDP describing, I'm going to have to say, yeah, there's a good chance you missed some cues. Hell, unless you are psychic, you certainly missed at least *some*.
PDF -- having difficulty articulating ones desires is not necessarily only about being uncomfortable articulating it. It could be a pure matter of poor spatial-visualization skills, i.e., I know so-and-so dis something down there that I really rather liked, but I couldn't tell you if it was a circular motion, spiral, linear, whether to describe it as medium, soft, hard pressure, fast, slow... Just know it was pleasant.
Could also be what Canuckdoc was saying -- not that I am awkward discussing sexuality but thatproviding a detailed owner's manual, particularly during, is rather tedious and a bit of a turn-off.
IDP, I think it's interesting that you break it down into a superiority/equality issue. I think I've had that problem -- I tend to be fairly assertive (in and out of the bedroom) and kind of like the misinterpretation with the "dominate me" comment, my assertiveness has been misread by my partner as some sort of power thing -- like only one of us can be "the assertive one" or something. I however, would kind of like it if me and my partner were *both* assertive -- but there seems to be this perception that one person or the other has to be dominant and stick to that role. I want the right to be assertive, but not the responsibility of being "in charge," if that makes any sense. (And this really winds up being an analysis of far more than my sex life... )
IDP: I wasn't specifically addressing you. I was responding to all the commentors who mentioned the lack of psychic powers in one's sex partner. Read carefully and parse who I suggested should make the suggestions: NOT the partner being asked what they like. It is the partner who is asking "what do you like?" that I was addressing. If you, or anyone, isn't getting answers to that question, follow up with "I'd like to try x on you." Of course, that can be loaded. If x is something which many people find objectionable, you might want to start the discussion before you get naked.
Di Kotimy: You do seem to be getting what I'm saying. Honestly, mutual or shared or alternated assertiveness has been something I've often experienced and what I would always have been looking for.
It's the "dominate me" wish/request, particularly if unarticulated — since I don't remember being asked, and while thrilled would have been damned attentive if I had — that I'm hung up on.
Nothing much to add this late in the game, except bravo to those who brought up (Re: male body issues) the anti-physicality of most Christian religion. I mean, getting told throughout your life that Masturbation Is Bad but You'll Do It Anyway because Your Body Is Uncontrollable can't be good for the psyche.
Also, I prescribe more World Cup coverage. If little boys are supposed to aspire to be football or baseball players (with the extra heft and/or drug abuse that requires) then no wonder they think all male bodies are gross!
An aside, Re: fantasies of domination held by alpha women... as I mentioned in the other thread these are strictly fantasies for me. I know my current partner wouldn't enjoy them, and to be honest sex is about sex-with-my-partner. My fantasies are always about an anonymous male, and the minute I imagine any I've ever known or even met in them they become Teh Ick.
IDP -- I'm a little hung up on the "dominate me" wish/request myself. It's probably a good thing (maybe a shame?!) this conversation is occurring in cyberspace and not a bar. I think the magical solution is finding a partner on the same wave-length who can appreciate the nuance of what you mean by assertiveness/dominance/etc. without the icy cold shower of 12 hours analysis.
To the extent finding that partner is a matter of pure karma, I really, really want to know what I did in a past life to screw up mine. But, truthfully, I think alot of it has to due with what frumious b said above about being observant and learning your partner's cues. So when you asked what to teach your son way, way up-thread, that's probably it. Teach him -- especially if he's still little enough that it can become a matter of pure instinct -- how to tune in, read non-verbal cues, become a master of empathy.
Ado: That's what I would have expected. And DiKot's request would have inspired me, because of my perception of what an act of trust it was. When I knew "domination" was appropriate, such as when a girl confessed her virginity to me, I was both thrilled and filled with a sense of responsibility. I'm happy about most of my sexual congresses, but I'm proud of that one, because it worked out well.
I'm already proud of my son in just that way. He's thirteen, and while attractive, is taken seriously and confided in by girls in his very-advanced class to a degree I couldn't have imagined at his age.
Part of it is the sense he and his classmates have of being equals. He went to our local for elementary, where he was clearly the smartest kid in sight. For middle school, with its anxieties, I'm glad he's in a magnet program.
All--Thanks for your many comments, questions, and provocations. While no one "solved" my problem (that is, how do I convince Boy that a little powerplay in our particular bed isn't monstrous), you've given me new ways of looking at/thinking about it. I am grateful.
Di Kotimy & IDP--I suppose it IS mutual assertiveness that I'm looking for, but I articulate it as MY desire for HIM to be more aggressive (I guess so as to "match" me). I feel like I'm the one always driving the bus, in and out of bed, which is tiresome and makes sex feel like another job, rather than the release that I really want and need it to be.
I'm being light-hearted here, but I can't help noticing you refer to him as Boy...
Seriously, try coyness, if it's not too ridiculous. A sort of "I could be pursuaded..." might work.
Do you mean if you asked just like Di Kotimy did above, during foreplay, he wouldn't respond? Jeez, my whole issue has been based on a misunderstanding if so.
A general question for the group: How taboo is ass play? It seems like in the woman's thread, many have tried anal as well as anal play--both giving and receiving (I recall at least one instance of pegging). Conversely, in the guy's thread, there seems to be little mention of it.
In my limited experience, there's not much that will get a guy to roll over with cheeks clenched and/or jump out of bed faster than if a hand strayed too close to his anus. The reasoning: straight guys don't and/or shouldn't like that.
IDP: I take your comment in the spirit in which it was given, but to be clear, I call him Boy (and Monkey, and a host of other affectionate things), and he calls me Girl(etc.). But maybe I *should* try "Man" instead...who knows? Can't hurt.
I don't think I've ever just said "dominate me" during foreplay (I'll add that to the "to do" list, too) but we have had maaaaany discussions about it in our years together, and although sometimes he's in the right mood, it's rare, and it's after we're well into whatever we're doing. He has said that he's usually not comfortable with it, but where the discomfort comes from (his own sense of shame about sex/his body/whatever, concern with offending me, or the idea that "feminist men don't"), he's not been able to articulate.
I shared a fantasy with him that basically gave him a script (this happens, and you say this, and I do that, and...), and he seemed to like the *idea* as much as I did (and do), but he's never done anything like what I described.
I sure didn't mean to blow your whole theory there. And I don't think it matters, anyway, because its valuable to realize that feminist women are just as varied in their desires as those who don't claim that proud title, and it's never a mistake to communicate (in all the various ways one can) with your partner.
Conversely, in the guy's thread, there seems to be little mention of it.
I get fucked all the time. It feels wonderful, and together with a hand on my cock, I come super-hard with something in my ass. My favorite toy is an inflatable dildo. I've found that a mid-sized, very cylindrical and smooth silicone dildo is the most comfortable. If I'm in the mood to be pushed, Babeland sells a short-but-thick size queen dildo that I can take with a lot of warm-up and a fair amount of pain. Once in, it makes me feel very, very full.
My wife can orgasm from the base of the dildo pressing into her public mound and putting pressure on her clitoris. Also, when she's fucking me, I make rhythmic grunting noises that I don't in other contexts, and that really turn her on. So it works out for both of us.
I'm loving the conversation about "who's in charge"... What Di Kotimy and others are saying really resonates here. I'm in charge in most of my life and my day job and everything else. I make things run, I make plans, I make things happen.
Sometimes I want to just get into bed and not have to plan that too! (Other times I have plans on my mind and I'm more than happy to take charge.) Unfortunately, I think my husband's default is often similar. It's not that I haven't expressed the wish, it's that naturally we both have more passive tendencies.
Aftera relatively short dry spell we got into one of these conversations about Where did the Sex Go? I was finally able to figure out how to articulate what was going on. He wanted to make advances, but didn't want to be rejected... so he didn't. I wanted to make advances, but then didn't want to be responsible for all the action, so I didn't. I was going through a very stressful time at work and really at that point that just meant that I didn't initiate *anything* that meant more work.
So I told him in effect that I could be persuaded. I'm not very likely to turn him down-- generally we have a great time. But I'm MORE likely to say yes if I know that he's really into the whole thing and knows what he wants.
It's not perfect... but he's more assertive, we have more sex... and his face still lights up like Christmas when I'm in the mood to take charge of the situation.
As for ass play-- the only guy I ever tried it with was my husband, so I don't have a large sample size. He wasn't very experienced when we started dating, and I'd say a year or so later on a long weekend I included some with a fabulous massage (and a blindfold for him). We hadn't talked about it, but everything was moving very slowly so that he could back out any time he wanted to, and I think because it wasn't a sudden move on my part, he just went with what felt good. (More on words-- I wanted to try it with him, but I could never have asked-- so I just made plans and figured we'd see where we got.)
Well, you were exhibit A, and now I'm not putting myself in this picture at all.
That is a different issue from mine altogether, because there has been a great deal more attempted communication than I took from your first post. Got me into hot water battling a phantasm.
Honestly, I wish I knew how to help. Try behavior mod? praise the aggression and stretch contentedly like Scarlett O'Hara?
IDP-- I can't speak for any other of the Type A ladies out there-- but for myself... I may not have the words to fully express what I mean or what I want, but I'm not going to keep getting into bed with someone, frustrated about the dynamic, and not try *something* to change it.
(As for my relationship, I actually think that discussion went a long way. Personality traits are personality traits though, and we're only 4 years into marriage-- I figure we have lots of time to explore where things take us.)
Anal stimulation is awesome. Looking past the obvious issues of it being a hard subject to bring up, some people think it's dirty, some people think it's gay, when you try it, take it easy! This isn't the continental army and neither of you are loading a musket.
Getting started, forget the whole "ass-fucking" thing, just try showering together and soaping everywhere, see how that goes. If that's cool, try a slick finger just around the outside. If that's cool, lube and progress slowly.
Clean, small, slick and slow is the ticket 'til you know more what y'all want. Then on the 2nd date,* watch "Bend Over Boyfriend" together.
*I kid about the number of dates this takes.
Another Anon, that was for JW. You're doing fine, and that bit with the anal introduction is beautiful.
JW -- Interesting re: the script. I've never quite tried that approach, but somehow it seems to me in my mind that, were I to try that, and were he to complay, I'd be thinking in the back of my head, "He's just doing exactly what I told him to do, which basically means I'm still the one taking charge of everything." I.e. if he takes charge because I expalin to him how to take charge he's not really taking charge.
I really overthink this shit, don't I?
"Complay" is a very graceful typo. Did you mean it? We ought to save that one.
No, Di, you're not, because I have that in the back of my head, too, but jesus, it would be better than the alternative, which is me doing most of the heavy lifting in the moment, rather than in advance with a guarantee of some time off in the future.
Re: "script": I'm a theatre academic through and through--can't keep the lingo out the bedroom. Unfortunately, I can't get my script to function performatively; it remains a constantive, theatrical, unfulfilled wish. Damn.
So IDP, I'm confused: what is your issue? Forgive me for not sifting thorugh 200+ posts to try to suss it out from what you've already said.
My issue was the notion that a number of take-charge women were confessing a desire to be taken that they were not able to express in any way to their lovers, but just wished they could somehow inspire. This was based on a misreading of yours and other posts, and conflating the dominance and reticence issues.
I think it doesn't apply because you've made it plain enough to have given me the go ahead. Thinking about my own practice has led to me reconsidering where I fit in all this, and while I think your issue is real, I wouldn't need that kind of encouragement.
So when you asked what to teach your son way, way up-thread, that's probably it. Teach him -- especially if he's still little enough that it can become a matter of pure instinct -- how to tune in, read non-verbal cues, become a master of empathy.
Children already do this; that's how they survive. The way to "teach" them to do it is to not unteach them. If your kid asks why you're angry, don't try to reassure him by saying you're not; validate his ability to read your body language or tone of voice, and admit it (then say that it's okay, you'll calm down soon). When a child is angry or upset, don't tell them not to feel that way: acknowledge how they feel, and then tell them that there are acceptable and unacceptable ways of expressing that.
I think a reason why a lot of men aren't good with non-verbal cues is because a lot of boys are, or used to be taught, to ignore their feelings and to ignore the feelings of others. Play with the kids physically, in rough-and-tumble and affectionate, caressing ways. Teach them that if wrestling goes too far and someone says stop, that it stops. Cuddle with them.
I think that's how you teach kids to be good at that sort of stuff.
JW -- Is it a casting problem then? Maybe you just need to bring in an understudy. (Just kidding... )
Until a few months before he died, I never touched my father. My son often spontaneously hugs me, and has always let me kiss him. A startling change in one generation, encouraged by my wife. Very gratifying it is, too.
Just came back to this blog after a week or so of busyness (business?). I just wanted to say how interesting the various threads were and how much I've learned from them (particularly the women's thread!). I saw some women with (maybe) the same preferences and dislikes as lovers I have had. I saw some with completely different likes/dislikes. What I found most interesting, though, was the variety. I hear a lot of people say "variety of the spice of life" and "different strokes for different folks" (pun unavoidable), but as in so many things: it is one thing to believe this in principal and quite another to see it "in practice" (or even discuss the variety of practice).
I would also like to give a shout out of thanks to everyone who contributed from a very real place. As a "young" man (turning 29 this year) I think I can safely say I learned a lot and I hope and expect that future lovers will have you all, in part, to thank for it.
Di Kotimy,
You might try, instead of telling your parter what to do, telling them only what *not* to do (what's seriously out of bounds), and giving them free reign to be creative within those bounds. And, of course, a safeword. Perhaps, point them to some stories or instructions on the web with various ideas about what they could do, without being specific.
Good tips on "empathy training" for kids, Dr. B. You're right -- the kids who are cuddled and interacted with seem to have/acquire these skill naturally.
Any thoughts on "remedial education" for grown-ups (and I include myself here at times) who were "untaught" or otherwise never acquired those skills? As my comments today may suggest, I think it would do wonders for the love life if I could re-train my partner to respond empathically to my cues, and probably if I could learn empathically how to provide better signals!
Children already do this; that's how they survive. The way to "teach" them to do it is to not unteach them.
Yep!
PDF23DS -- Thanks for the suggestion. I think maybe I need to find a way to do that, but more empathically than I have. Frankly, that had been more or less my approach forever, but then he complained that only telling him what not to do didn't really give him enough guidance and kind of created some performance anxieties. Catch-22. If I tell him what *not* to do, he feels rejected. If I have to tell him what *to* do, I feel bored and/or burdened.
To the extent it's a gendered thing, I'd welcome any suggestions from the guys on how to communicate suggestions, requests, etc. without it coming off as a performance review...
I've been reading the comments on wanting one's partner to be more assertive/dominant in the sex arena and I'm both saddened and happy to find that I'm not the only one with this problem. My (ex)girlfriend and I tried to work through this problem for several years to different degrees of success. It was complicated by the fact that we're both women. She's definately butch and I'm just sort of a normal girl--sporty and a little tomboyish, but definately not butch. Actually, being with her made me enjoy being more femme. It was fun to be girly and know that someone appreciates it in the right way. I never felt that way with a man. It always felt like they would see right through me when I put on a skirt. With her, the skirt was just part of the whole package of me and she loved it.
Okay, sorry, that got partially off topic. The point is, I could never figure out how to express to her what I wanted. Reading Di Kotimy's posts is like reading my own thoughts written by a better author. We ended up rarely having sex because we both got too nervous and hung up about it. It just faded away. I think a part of it is how much stress I was under at the time. I guess it made me need to take the back seat even more during sex. I didn't have the energy to *try*, I just wanted her to take control and drive me crazy. I didn't realize straight couples had this problem, too. I thought it was just because she didn't know how to act like that, part of being raised as a girl or something.
Now I wish I could try again, but it's too late. Man, she was good, though, when she did have confidence. I realize now how confused I was with all the gender roles. I think she ended up feeling like she wasn't good enough, even though I didn't think that.
So, if the men y'all are talking about are *really* good sometimes, I suggest telling them then and telling them how good it felt. Sometimes it's easier to give positive feedback when it does go right. It's so hard to get someone to be dominant by asking/telling them to be. It's just all backwards. Instead, if you praise them when they are more assertive, then perhaps it will give confidence to be so more often.
Oh, I'm so sad. I miss her so...
Thanks for reading
People. Buy the book lilnked in the post. Seriously.
In the meantime, I think saying "don't do that" isn't so hot (unless it actually hurts or something). Saying, "mm, that's nice" or "that feels gooood" helps, obviously. Of course, ideally your partner is paying attention to your body language (I think, as someone already said, that this is a big part of the whole "I wish he could read my mind" thing--partners who aren't good at this). For specific stuff you haven't tried ("I'd like to X"), you have to just get up the guts to communicate it--get drunk and talk about it or something. Or write it down and get your partner to do the same and then trade the letters. Or play a game where you take, say, an hour or an evening or whatever and forbid intercourse. One partner has to be the passive one, and the other one gets to explore however/wherever and watch what the reactions are. Passive partner, of course, can give verbal feedback. Then you do it the next night or the next weekend, and switch roles.
I think I have an issue similar to that of "I don't pay", but I want to
use different words to describe it, and it isn't limited to just the sex
portion of relationships, but the entire relationship. fh also comments
on roughly the same thing, as does agic.
The basic problem is between two words -- initiative and aggression.
Sam-I-am says "teaching your son to respect women and help them feel
safe is still lesson #1."
There is a standard femininist narrative of male sexuality being
threatening. If a guy wants sex, what is he willing to do in order to
get it? I have heard complaints about guys assuming they deserve sex,
are *entitled* to it. I have friends that say the feel uncomfortable
when a guy they're not intersted in:;sks them out or hits on them. (And
that's been repeated here). I don't want to harass people or make them
uncomfortable.
Clearly, the opposite of deserving sex is actively not deserving it.
How good would your sex life be if you constantly absorbed the message
that you didn't deserve it?
Combine this with the standard puritan culture "sex is sinful and
wrong" and any sort of hitting on a woman seems disrespectful, if not
harrassing. And since this society is highly sexualized, dating is
pretty much a proxy for sex. I expect any two random people "dating" to
be having sex shortly after they start dating, if not before.
This tends to make me very passive. I end up presenting a completely
sexless front, showing no interest. Or, I'll get frustrated, say "fuck
it", and proceed to do something actually offensive, rather than the
imaginary offenses I wasn trying to avoid. Or perhaps I'll slip into
some passive-aggressive bullshit behavior.
Passive dosen't work well. In our society men *are* expected to take
the initiave and actively pursue women. I certainly appreciate it when
a woman is willing to risk rejection and ask me out. And yet, it is
quite unusual for women to do so. It is violating a social convention.
And, well, of my relationships tha have started that way, in the greater
majority, my partner had some really serious issues. I'd like to think
that wasn't a prerequisite for being attracted to me, but...
Anyways, I understand that these are my issues I need to work through,
but they didn't develop in a vaccuum.
That sounds like a tough nut of an issue, Di Kotimy. Maybe this: figure out what sort of subjective experience you're going for, in general terms. On the level of this sort of thing: "I want to feel like I have no way to escape, and somewhat scared that you might do something bad, but still be able to trust you. I want to feel like you're being firm and controlling, but not that you have no regard for what I'm feeling."
If he's really not into this a lot, he might find it to hard to work from specifications that general. Does he enjoy it when he tries? If not, it could be that he doesn't *get it*--he doesn't understand what you find appealing about it--and so he's not able to use his empathy to work from abstract instructions like those above. Is he good with empathy in other circumstances?
If that's the problem, then maybe reading a lot of BDSM stories could help him be familiar enough with the emotional dynamics to not need such specific instruction.
Ok, question here for people who have been married for a long time, how do you keep an active sex life going without it becoming boring and routine? My wife and I love each other 100% but sex has become very infrequent and not very thrilling anymore the rare times we do do it anymore. We both like sex and neither of us have any physical problems (i.e. we have no problem getting off indivdually), it just never seems to never happen anymore and almost feels like a chore. I'm sure being around each other almost every waking hour (I work from home) probably doesn't help. But, the excitement basically left us somewhere in between having kid #1 and kid #2. Yet, like I said, we still love each other very much and we don't see lack of sex as symptomatic of some larger relationship problem (like you sometimes hear about). Of course, it'd be nice to be like when we first got married and did it several times a week. But, is this realistic? How many other married people out there have seen their sex live fizzle despite still being very much in love?
TD, do you still enjoy non-sexual physical contact, like hugs and cuddling? Is kissing also boring? Did you read the comments about thyroid problems?
Anon2 -- You brought a tear to my eye. At least in your loss it sounds like you've gained some insight. May it serve you well when Ms. Right comes along...
This is a pure tangent now, but I just have to say it. (I'm feeling especially verbal today, I guess.) It struck me when you said my words felt like someone expressing your thoughts, and that you never knew straight couples had these issues.
As a younger girl, I had my conflicted thoughts on GLBT issues. Lots of apathy, a born-again phase of (I'm sorry to say) mean-spirited homophobia, and some thoughtful struggles with, damn it, I just don't know what I think of it all. Then one day, walking out of class with a lesbian classmate whose girlfrined was returning in a short time from a semester abroad, it all changed.
She was talking about her anticipation of the reunion, how much she'd missed her, how she never, ever wanted to be so far apart again. I, fortuitously, was also in a long-distance relationship at the time and I saw that light in her eyes as she talked about her girlfriend and it struck me, "Holy crap, that's exactly how I feel." And it seems almost naive to me now, but at the time the realization was a gigantic epiphany that love is love is love whether its girl-girl or girl-guy. (Probably guy-guy, too, but men are still such a mystery to me!) It's so cool to me that we've all really got so much in common. Certainly changed my worldview!
The way to "teach" them to do it is to not unteach them.
If you are really good with the unteaching avoidance, your kid will also grow up to be a really perceptive lover.
btw, B, why does the blockquote tag make everything red?
TD, do you still enjoy non-sexual physical contact, like hugs and cuddling? Is kissing also boring? Did you read the comments about thyroid problems?
We still hug and touch each other in playful ways alot. Kissing not so much (this one is probably more my fault, I'm not a big fan of kissing for too long). I did read the comments regarding thyroid and lactation, which actually does apply in our case because I have hypothyroidism (been taking sytnthroid for about 7 years) and she's been nursing off & on for about that long too. But, what's funny (not haha funny), is we can both get off no problem (me 1-2 times per day and her 4-5 times per week), but sex itself between us has lost it's thrill. On the one hand, we're frustrated because would like to spice it up but on the other hand don't see it as the end of the world either, so nothing seems to improve.
Hey, TD, have you tried anything as corny as taking a weekend vacation? Kids are fabulous, but with the work of work and the work of kids plus all the other stuff one does everyday, it's easy to be too harried to fool around.
I don't know if you've got the babysitting around to allow it, but getting away somewhere nice for just a few days kinda recharges us, maybe it would work for you.
For example, every couple of years we get Grandma & Grandpa to watch the kids, then we take the ferry up to Victoria, BC to watch hotel porn in a room at the Empress. Hilarity ensues, and as I like to say, we remember why we like each other. And Johnny Walker Black!
But it doesn't have to be that elaborate. Is it possible somehow to reduce the everyday pressure of kids & housework & work? That's the kind of thing that works for us.
Yah, TD: dates with your spouse. Makes you remember why you fell in love in the first place. Plus, after you get back in the swing of things, you know you're always gonna score.
What a very interesting set of threads! I've learned a lot from all of this though I will put some comments into the women's thread.
But one general comment I want to make here is that much of all this may be cultural. I didn't grow up in the United States and my hangups seem to be a little different.
spiritover,
hjs are no joke i trust you will take them more seriously in your no doubt numerous, future thread posts.
--dirk
spiritrover & No Fricking Way, that's good advice and one we have been talking about (getting away with no kids!). Hopefully, that will help.
Not sure where the appropriate place to put this comment is, since the original quote comes from the lesbian posting, but this seems as good a place as any:
"But the gay men are going to have to write their own thread somewhere else. Tough shit. I don't care about gay men. Anyway, you guys have Dan Savage."
Because, y'know, gay men aren't feminists. And what gay men enjoy or don't enjoy sexually has nothing to do with patriarchy, feminism, or structures of power that are set up along gender roles.
Jeff, that was a joke. Hyperbole. Camp. Chill.
TD, I've been married for 20 years and sometimes the sex has been great and sometimes not so great (you could probably tell if you could put together my comments) but my experience is that even when I'm not really up for sex if we start making love I get into it about 80% of the time enough that I'm really glad we did. The other 20% is divided between times when my husband enjoys himself and is grateful that we did it and times when we stop because it's just not working. In other words, I think it can really pay off when you try making love half-heartedly and wait to see if your sex drive wakes up.
My thoughts on AD's lament from last evening are divided. There are times in life when everything seems to work, perhaps because of a self-forgetfulness that sometimes takes our edges off, and makes us attractive as we inevitably never are when we most wish to be.
But of course these times do not last, and we are back to ourselves: wanting, desiring, and somehow making ourselves intolerable seemingly in proportion to our need and desire. The smoke from our offering curls back toward the ground. Perhaps there is consolation in knowing we are not alone. What you say seems to me to describe the human condition as it is experienced much of the time by thoughtful men, and I see no possibility of any permanent solution.
Ah, camp. I get it. Thanks. Quite funny. Dan Savage and all that.
(Erm, yet...no post (yet?) for gay men to put their two cents in. Maybe it's not necessary or even wanted by the gay men who read your blog...just seemed like a strange place to draw a line.)
My favorite sex practice is rather unusual and deviant. I like to lie on top of a woman, my hips between her legs, and stick my penis in her vagina, and then I like to move it up and down inside her until she and I come.
I know this might scare and trouble many of the commentators on this thread, but hey, some of us just don't go for all that conventional stuff like jimmying our spouses in the ass with a dildo, or slapping each other hard in the face.
TD,
You say you both get yourselves off every week. Have you tried doing that together? Maybe even make it a rule that you can't touch each other, but arrange things so you watch each other?
From my armchair in teh internets it sounds a bit to me like you are both tired and under those circumstances sex is hard work (pleasing the other person) whereas pleasing yourself is easy and satisfying, even if less satisfying than great sex. A first step would be to get you doing it together, even while still taking the easy route. Watching someone else get off is hot.
You say you both get yourselves off every week. Have you tried doing that together?
Indeed we have done a little bit of this lately and has been kinda fun.
To add to the conversation about the male body: I have also seen that quote about the male body being "hairy and lumpy and should not see the light of day," though I can't for the life of me remember the context.
I happen to be close to some serious slash writers (my sister and her roommate - their blogs, on which they frequently discuss slash, etc., are linked from mine), and it certainly seems that the taste for watching men get it on with each other is fairly widespread among straight women. In constrast to the poster above who felt unable to connect to scenes with only men because there was no woman to identify with, my sister has remarked that she likes male-only scenarios because she feels that another woman "gets in the way" by taking the place of the female viewer. My sister is also big on reclaiming the gaze.
As far as cock in movies ... I have become proverbial in my family for demanding, as a feminist principle, "more cock in my everyday moviegoing experience". It is SO annoying when one is presented with images of "nude" men with their naughty bits artistically hidden. Hello, I can see that much on the beach!! And also, it makes them look castrated and/or weirdly female, which is NOT sexy.
After all this sexy reading (for the last week, every spare moment I've continued what bits and pieces I could read at a time!) I started to really feel like one of my main problems was the fact that I've never really masturbated- at least not to the point of climax, and never more than a dozen times at all. So how would I ever be able to even enter into the debate of whether to tell my partner what I like or don't like, if I really have no idea what gets me off? I'm glad to tell the group that I just gave myself my first solo orgasm through the use of my vibrator,(WOW!) and it was so exciting I can't wait to tell my partner when he gets home. I'm hoping he'll enjoy watching me try it again. This could get fun!
WRT the penis size issue. I've never really understod the desire for very long ones, since I'm also one who dislikes not being able to take it all in (either to mouth or vagina). I have had boyfriends with both. More important to me would be width, because being able to actually feel him inside me is big. I have also had both in this regard. One boyfriend who I unfortunately couldn't tell when he was inside me (I never told him that! Luckily he must have known and made it his compensation to be very good at oral) and the other who was so wide we could never quite pull it off, except once (short relationship). Neither exreme is a very good thing.
I just wanted to add my voice to the male-body-image thing. I (male) feel that way -- very strongly, even though less than I used to. I know other men who did too. In fact, I felt (probably inappropriately) threatened by the manifest disbelief of several women here that men could feel that way, given media, etc.
I think that men and women feel badly about their bodies differently. My feelings were captured fairly well earlier in the thread (by Brooklinite, I think, don't recall). But much of the evidence that some women have cited in disbelief that men might feel this way is, I think, part of what tells us that men -- all men, every man -- is repulsive. Men can go with their shirts off because no one could conceivably find that sexy. Men on TV aren't sexy because men aren't sexy (or only gay men are). Women on TV are sexy because the culture says they should be (and they feel bad if they feel like they're not); men feel like they couldn't possibly be -- not that they individually aren't, but that men in general aren't.
How does this fit with images of men getting sex? To some degree it simply doesn't: culture is complex and contains contradictory threads. But to some degree it goes along with the idea that women sleep with men for reasons other than sexual attraction: wanting something practical, or simply love (the 'I do that because I like to give him pleasure but I could never possibly enjoy it' notion that came up in the other blowjob threads elsewhere, simply extended to *all* sex everywhere.)
It took nearly a decade of (blissfully happy, monogamous) marriage before I began to feel that my wife could possibly feel attracted to me (really, and not just want non-sexual intimacy). Not sure I fully feel that way now; or ever will.
Sorry if this isn't very coherent or is repetitive; rarely talked to anyone but my wife (and a little bit my therapist) about this. (Occasional talk with other men, but in a glancing, often jokey way.)
Re the body image issue: while it's been obvious ever since I've had women friends that women can find men physically attractive, it has always seemed to me that a much smaller percentage of men are attractive than women. I realize this is mostly bias, but it's there. I don't know anyone who expresses attraction to people who look like me. And while I know many women say the same thing, most of them seem plenty attractive to me.
Re the "take charge" issue-the problem for me is that I will ALWAYS err on the side of inaction-I will not do anything that I don't know is acceptable. There's plenty I'm willing to do, but I'm not comfortable doing any of it without asking or being asked (or at least given a blanket permission with some agreed upon way of letting me know what's unwanted). This has annoyed a couple of former lovers who wanted to not have to articulate what they wanted, and it made me feel inadequate at the time for not being what they wanted. Now, thinking back on it, it just makes me annoyed.
Commenting by HaloScan
