So I'm having an argument on another board about the psychological and emotional impact of female sexual dysfunction and whether it can be compared to erectile dysfunction. I've been surprised by the number of people who are arguing - vehemently - that it can't even be placed in the same category of experiences, and that there is no way for women to understand how traumatic erectile dysfunction is.
Another facet of the argument is whether women can have performance anxiety... because whether a woman is aroused or lubricated, she CAN still "perform"... after all, that hole's there whether she's aroused or not.
I guess it's how you define "perform". The hole is there, but if you're not ready to put anything in it, the experience can be uncomfortable. I wouldn't call that performing.
maybe counter argument with males being able to strap on or take a pill
and your stuck with witch doctor cures like Spanish fly or lube
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 03, 2010, 03:44:36 AM
Another facet of the argument is whether women can have performance anxiety... because whether a woman is aroused or lubricated, she CAN still "perform"... after all, that hole's there whether she's aroused or not.
guess the guy saying this doesn't mind fucking a dead fish. might as well use a blow up doll if you think that. take em down Nigel!
OBJECTION!! :argh!:
when a woman can't get wet, nobody brings up bob dole
I swear this never happens, baby
\
(http://truththroughaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/dole69viagra.jpg)
Cramulus: Well, that put a major record scratch in this discussion, eh? Hee hee hee, you're a funny guy...
Actually, it IS the same class of discussion. It's just crap from the guys who don't want to accept that we spent time in the womb as females until that shot of progesterone came through...
Quote from: Suu on June 03, 2010, 03:49:32 AM
I guess it's how you define "perform". The hole is there, but if you're not ready to put anything in it, the experience can be uncomfortable. I wouldn't call that performing.
And if you don't mind the other being comfortable and enjoying it, you could as well simply masturbate or fuck a hole in the wall.
I've been trying for a while to figure out how to tackle this thread. I'll give it a shot.
Erectile dysfunction would be wanting to have sex but not being able to because a flaccid penis isn't really going to be doing anyone much good (I guess unless you're a shower, not a grower maybe?). The frustration would arise from not being able to please yourself or your partner with your genitals. Yes, oral and digital stimulation is an option, but we all pretty much know they're way different experiences.
Female sexual dysfunction I'm a bit confused on. It would seem to me that it would be wanting to have sex but not being able to lubricate or climax, which is comparable in the male example in it's wanting to do it but not being able to, but when Suu said
Quote from: Suu on June 03, 2010, 03:49:32 AM
I guess it's how you define "perform". The hole is there, but if you're not ready to put anything in it, the experience can be uncomfortable. I wouldn't call that performing.
It sounds like they want to have the sex drive but aren't able to?
If it's the former and women have sex drive but can't get wet, the solution is an over the counter topical lubricant. It would presumably solve the problem of getting her partner off but she would be stuck unsatisfied, which is a more personal frustration. Men on the other hand need the prescription, and say what you like there's more of a stigma associated with getting a viagra prescription than applying a bit of k-y. That, though, comes with the solution of both sides being able to climax.
Now if it's more like the latter, where women can't summon the sex drive, that's a different kind of impact. Yes, the equipment is still usable, unlike the case of erectile dysfunction. So the option would still be present to please your partner even if you would derive no pleasure from it yourself. It obviously wouldn't be as good as normal, but it's not like it's unheard of for either men or women to choose to please their partner without any physical sensation in return.
So I guess what I'm saying is that they aren't exactly the same. The basics are similar, but they differ a lot not in the size of the personal impact but the type of personal impact.
Fuck it I should have stayed out of this shit.
Quote from: Eater of Clowns on June 03, 2010, 05:09:18 AM
I've been trying for a while to figure out how to tackle this thread. I'll give it a shot.
Erectile dysfunction would be wanting to have sex but not being able to because a flaccid penis isn't really going to be doing anyone much good (I guess unless you're a shower, not a grower maybe?). The frustration would arise from not being able to please yourself or your partner with your genitals. Yes, oral and digital stimulation is an option, but we all pretty much know they're way different experiences.
Female sexual dysfunction I'm a bit confused on. It would seem to me that it would be wanting to have sex but not being able to lubricate or climax, which is comparable in the male example in it's wanting to do it but not being able to, but when Suu said
Quote from: Suu on June 03, 2010, 03:49:32 AM
I guess it's how you define "perform". The hole is there, but if you're not ready to put anything in it, the experience can be uncomfortable. I wouldn't call that performing.
It sounds like they want to have the sex drive but aren't able to?
If it's the former and women have sex drive but can't get wet, the solution is an over the counter topical lubricant. It would presumably solve the problem of getting her partner off but she would be stuck unsatisfied, which is a more personal frustration. Men on the other hand need the prescription, and say what you like there's more of a stigma associated with getting a viagra prescription than applying a bit of k-y. That, though, comes with the solution of both sides being able to climax.
Now if it's more like the latter, where women can't summon the sex drive, that's a different kind of impact. Yes, the equipment is still usable, unlike the case of erectile dysfunction. So the option would still be present to please your partner even if you would derive no pleasure from it yourself. It obviously wouldn't be as good as normal, but it's not like it's unheard of for either men or women to choose to please their partner without any physical sensation in return.
So I guess what I'm saying is that they aren't exactly the same. The basics are similar, but they differ a lot not in the size of the personal impact but the type of personal impact.
Fuck it I should have stayed out of this shit.
I don't know dude, 45 years from now, if I need to pop a pill to get it on, I'll pop the pill, damage to virile self image be damned. Better to get it on with help than not at all.
As a side note, I may have missed it but was there a dichotomy of physical vs psychological root for the dysfunction, or is it just kind of a blanket thing.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 03, 2010, 05:19:59 AM
As a side note, I may have missed it but was there a dichotomy of physical vs psychological root for the dysfunction, or is it just kind of a blanket thing.
its both physical and mental. i know some men that can't get it up sometimes over anxiety to perform well, and the same with ladies. Or the people have a type of mental block when it comes to sex for one reason or another.
On the physical, there's getting old or just a "parts" problem. They want to have sex but shits just not functioning.
I'm not sure women can really understand some male issues, and vice versa.
Can white people ever really understand what it's like to be a racial minority in America?
Can a straight person ever really understand what it's like to be gay in America?
That said, I think there is a lot that can be understood, even if that understanding is imperfect.
I think the poor guy suffering from limpdick feels like women are invalidating his experience even though they probably are just trying to empathize.
Limpdick: don't minimize it.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 03, 2010, 05:26:18 AM
I'm not sure women can really understand some male issues, and vice versa.
Can white people ever really understand what it's like to be a racial minority in America?
Can a straight person ever really understand what it's like to be gay in America?
That said, I think there is a lot that can be understood, even if that understanding is imperfect.
I think the poor guy suffering from limpdick feels like women are invalidating his experience even though they probably are just trying to empathize.
Limpdick: don't minimize it.
Great points, though I don't think that Nigel was minimizing it (trying not to chuckle). I don't know, maybe it's a misunderstanding or something, but without actually seeing the thread I can't make that call.
How are they not comparable? Not being able to get aroused/off sucks, I'm sure, whether or not you have a penis.
When a woman is aroused her entire vulva becomes engorged with blood, her vagina changes shape, and her cervix moves to a different position. So it is entirely possible for a woman to have erectile dysfunction, it's just not as visible. And yeah, having sex before one is aroused enough can be really painful. I think they're comparable.
Quote from: LaughingOtter on June 03, 2010, 04:47:05 AM
Cramulus: Well, that put a major record scratch in this discussion, eh? Hee hee hee, you're a funny guy...
Actually, it IS the same class of discussion. It's just crap from the guys who don't want to accept that we spent time in the womb as females until that shot of progesterone came through...
But we didn't spend time in the womb as females. There's a split in the pathway, before sexual differentiation you can't really call the embryo male or female (aside from genetically). It's not that female parts turn into male parts, it's that precursor parts turn into male parts or female parts.
Also, I agree with Badge (and everybody who agrees with her).
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 03, 2010, 06:32:55 AM
When a woman is aroused her entire vulva becomes engorged with blood, her vagina changes shape, and her cervix moves to a different position. So it is entirely possible for a woman to have erectile dysfunction, it's just not as visible. And yeah, having sex before one is aroused enough can be really painful. I think they're comparable.
Yes, but a vagina is not a penis. They are fundamentally different organs. Would you also compare your vagina to someone who is intersex?
There are fundamentally different arousal patterns between men and women.
We place more stock in the visual and the sight of limpdick creates a vicious cycle.
Women tend to place more stock in the context and if you can't perform, you don't have this glaringly obvious visual evidence of it that both of you can see and feel.
When women can't perform there is no obvious visual reminder of it, which lessens the blow.
You're weirdly vehement about this. Having to tell someone no or suffer pain (ie not being able to perform) is pretty fucking rough. You, as a male, might think not having a visual cue isn't as bad, but it is. Having to say "this isn't happening right now" without any obvious proof when your partner is ready to go is an unpleasant conversation. The other option, gritting your teeth and hoping it'll be over fast, is even worse. Having a limp dick hurts your ego. Having unaroused sex hurts your vagina.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 03, 2010, 08:35:55 AM
You're weirdly vehement about this. Having to tell someone no or suffer pain (ie not being able to perform) is pretty fucking rough. You, as a male, might think not having a visual cue isn't as bad, but it is. Having to say "this isn't happening right now" without any obvious proof when your partner is ready to go is an unpleasant conversation. The other option, gritting your teeth and hoping it'll be over fast, is even worse. Having a limp dick hurts your ego. Having unaroused sex hurts your vagina.
It's an unpleasant conversation for both sexes, sure, but only one has the sad dangling little softie to reinforce the failure—a symbol incarnate of the powerless male.
If I were able to have sex with horrible pain when my penis wouldn't cooperate, I would have made that sacrifice. But there is no way to do that. That isn't even an option with limpdick. You can't just stuff it in anyway.
That's a hole in your argument that just won't be filled.
There is some commonality, I acknowledge that, but what I find strange is that even though you just posted a major difference, you're not acknowledging a major difference in experience.
It was never traumatic for me, because it happened only a few times and could be attributed to drugs. But if that was a chronic condition, it could be
very deflating in particular ways that more than likely do not translate to a female's experience with sexual dysfunction.
"Yeah, there are some things about the opposite sex that I can't fully understand, and that's ok." I don't see what's so hard about saying that.
I feel like Dimo and Badge have a pretty good handle on the matter. I struggled with female sexual arousal dysfunction for over ten years, to the point of being suicidal, so it is a very personal issue for me. I have taken part in many conversations in which the concept that having a hole should be enough (you have a hole, as well, gentlemen... if you can't get hard, clearly you should simply just succumb to penetration, so you can be whole) but there is a very pervasive idea, even in the medical field, that female sexual dysfunction simply lacks emotional and psychological repurcussion.
There is also the question of whether sex without female arousal is rape, which has certainly been proposed many times.
The female genitalia changes shape multiple times and in multiple places during intercourse.
The clitoris can become more stiff, especially when directly aroused as in the case of masturbation, fingering, or oral sex. If the clitoris cannot become aroused at all even when it should be stimulated, this makes the possibility for female orgasm very remote as this seems to be considered a (usually) necessary component of climaxing.
By the way, hyenas have a matriarchal society. The female queen has a clitoris that, when stiff, is as large as a penis, which the queen uses to rape its subjects. If the clitoris could not become stiff this way, preventing the queen from raping, well...the female wouldn't be queen in the first place.
The walls of the uterus at first moisten and loosen to allow the penis inside, but then as stimulation increases the walls close around the head of the penis to help prevent the penis from slipping out during the all-important ejaculation. This trait arose as an evolutionary necessity - the better the vagina is at letting a penis in and then keeping it in, the better it was at producing children.
So yeah, a female can still ENDURE sex even if it hurts, but if it's just enduring sex, how can you be so sure you would want it so badly? Reproduction, after all, is the first body processes that the body lets go in times of crisis. If you're feeling pain, if you're feeling sick, your body is just not going to be all that interested in making babies. It's only natural that at first you'll say "yes, I want sex, I have the sex drive" and then when you go at it and your dick feels like it's splitting open forcibly with each thrust, change your mind and say "this doesn't seem appealing anymore".
If we were to feel the exact same thing, we wouldn't want to make that sacrifice, because it just wouldn't be sex, just painful humping. When I have one of my several sexual dysfunctions (in this case, and rarely, delayed ejaculation) I end up just not wanting to have sex, even while I'm in the middle of having sex, even if I really do want sex, even if I do have an erection, because it is just not feeling good at all. I end up getting frustrated and sweaty and mad at myself.
So, the hole in the other side of the argument is that, as a guy with sexual dysfunctions, I am able to have sex without horrible pain when my penis doesn't cooperate, and I'm NEVER in the mood to make that sacrifice because it leaves me trembling and hot and tired and unsatisfied from taking so goddamn long.
But that's just me.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 03, 2010, 10:04:06 AM
I feel like Dimo and Badge have a pretty good handle on the matter. I struggled with female sexual arousal dysfunction for over ten years, to the point of being suicidal, so it is a very personal issue for me. I have taken part in many conversations in which the concept that having a hole should be enough (you have a hole, as well, gentlemen... if you can't get hard, clearly you should simply just succumb to penetration, so you can be whole) but there is a very pervasive idea, even in the medical field, that female sexual dysfunction simply lacks emotional and psychological repurcussion.
I'm certainly not trying to invalidate your experience either. Isn't it possible that sexual dysfunction can be horrible in different ways between the sexes? I think trying to compare very personal experiences like this is a fruitless pursuit.
I definitely don't think, "having a hole is enough." But I do think that having recourse to allowing sex even if it is painful serves as a kind of panic button. A shitty, shitty panic button sure, but it is an option a woman could choose. You may never press it, but knowing that you have that option could offer some relief. (I wouldn't call that rape, by the way)
For men, there is no panic button.* You're SOL. And you can't help but look at the pitiful thing. She can't help but look at it. He can't help but look at you looking at it. But, apparently there is pretty good treatment.
For women, it sounds like treatment isn't very good and you have to suffer with insulting medical types. I have no reference for that. There is no comparison, they are too different and too personal.
*I have offered my hindquarters on many occasions but my girlfriends were not interested. I'm not particularly interested, but I've always been game to doing whatever gets off the women I've been with.
I have limp dick. My wife has had all her parts removed. We both suffer from loss of sex drive and inability to perform. Once in a while we are able to have sex and sometimes it ends in climax and sometimes it doesn't. We were both very sexual people at one time and I will tell you all now that male or female it has an impact emotionally.
Whether it's a limp dick or a dry hole, there is no difference. I have seen my wife cry because of the loss of her sexuality.
So put your male ego back on the shelf for this topic.
edit; this came across as arrogant and rude, that is not the way I meant it to. My wife and I went from up to 10 times a day to 0. It's a rough ride.
If sex is making you panic, don't have sex.
Quote from: Regret on June 03, 2010, 11:10:13 AM
If sex is making you panic, don't have sex.
:facepalm:
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 03, 2010, 11:13:54 AM
Quote from: Regret on June 03, 2010, 11:10:13 AM
If sex is making you panic, don't have sex.
:facepalm:
Yeah, nice downplay. What Mrs. Hawk and I miss the most is the intimacy. We have found placebos for that but we still miss it.
?
I may not have a lot of sex experience, but i do know panic.
Panic is traumatizing.
Nothing is worth being in a constant state of panic over.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 03, 2010, 10:43:44 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 03, 2010, 10:04:06 AM
I feel like Dimo and Badge have a pretty good handle on the matter. I struggled with female sexual arousal dysfunction for over ten years, to the point of being suicidal, so it is a very personal issue for me. I have taken part in many conversations in which the concept that having a hole should be enough (you have a hole, as well, gentlemen... if you can't get hard, clearly you should simply just succumb to penetration, so you can be whole) but there is a very pervasive idea, even in the medical field, that female sexual dysfunction simply lacks emotional and psychological repurcussion.
I'm certainly not trying to invalidate your experience either. Isn't it possible that sexual dysfunction can be horrible in different ways between the sexes? I think trying to compare very personal experiences like this is a fruitless pursuit.
I definitely don't think, "having a hole is enough." But I do think that having recourse to allowing sex even if it is painful serves as a kind of panic button. A shitty, shitty panic button sure, but it is an option a woman could choose. You may never press it, but knowing that you have that option could offer some relief. (I wouldn't call that rape, by the way)
For men, there is no panic button.* You're SOL. And you can't help but look at the pitiful thing. She can't help but look at it. He can't help but look at you looking at it. But, apparently there is pretty good treatment.
For women, it sounds like treatment isn't very good and you have to suffer with insulting medical types. I have no reference for that. There is no comparison, they are too different and too personal.
*I have offered my hindquarters on many occasions but my girlfriends were not interested. I'm not particularly interested, but I've always been game to doing whatever gets off the women I've been with.
I agree with the "there's no way to fully understand someone else/difference between male and female problems" angle. I'm not going to understand menstruation and child birth. The mechanics, yes, the experience, nope.
The rest of it not so much. Nigel's not saying that female sexual dysfunction is worse. She's just saying that ED is not worse. This might be an extreme example, but it's kinda the same as a guy saying him being raped in the butt is more psychologically damaging and traumatic than a woman being raped. Well, no, both parties got raped. End of story. I think that's the sort of mentality that Nigel is arguing against. Bringing in her own experiences, I would be inclined to say that female sexual dysfunction is probably the worse of the two, since it's basically not taken seriously.
Quote from: Regret on June 03, 2010, 02:00:47 PM
I may not have a lot of sex experience
you make that abundantly clear almost every time you post.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 03, 2010, 10:43:44 AM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 03, 2010, 10:04:06 AM
I feel like Dimo and Badge have a pretty good handle on the matter. I struggled with female sexual arousal dysfunction for over ten years, to the point of being suicidal, so it is a very personal issue for me. I have taken part in many conversations in which the concept that having a hole should be enough (you have a hole, as well, gentlemen... if you can't get hard, clearly you should simply just succumb to penetration, so you can be whole) but there is a very pervasive idea, even in the medical field, that female sexual dysfunction simply lacks emotional and psychological repurcussion.
I'm certainly not trying to invalidate your experience either. Isn't it possible that sexual dysfunction can be horrible in different ways between the sexes? I think trying to compare very personal experiences like this is a fruitless pursuit.
I definitely don't think, "having a hole is enough." But I do think that having recourse to allowing sex even if it is painful serves as a kind of panic button. A shitty, shitty panic button sure, but it is an option a woman could choose. You may never press it, but knowing that you have that option could offer some relief. (I wouldn't call that rape, by the way)
For men, there is no panic button.* You're SOL. And you can't help but look at the pitiful thing. She can't help but look at it. He can't help but look at you looking at it. But, apparently there is pretty good treatment.
For women, it sounds like treatment isn't very good and you have to suffer with insulting medical types. I have no reference for that. There is no comparison, they are too different and too personal.
*I have offered my hindquarters on many occasions but my girlfriends were not interested. I'm not particularly interested, but I've always been game to doing whatever gets off the women I've been with.
having no personal experience or reference point on this subject (thank fucking god), my initial instinct is to agree with Net that while both are undoubtedly horrible and personally traumatizing, trying to compare them seems utterly pointless unless you're trolling someplace where this type of discussion is almost certain to devolve into mysogynist/misandrist idiocy. But since my agreement on the point is strictly academic, I'm reserving judgement until such time as I end up getting limpdick.
Yes, guys. Penises and vaginas are two different things. Buuuut, both men and women have BRAINS, where these sensations/lack thereof, are being processed, and emotions which may potentially lead to feelings of inadequacy. THAT is where the problems become very similar. The question is if they are comparable (not if they are the same). They are. EOT.
I was just saying that they're comparable, not that one is worse than the other. I've had a reasonable amount of experience with male erectile dysfunction (because I'm scary in bed :lulz: ) and I've had experience with my own occasional dysfunction. Mine isn't quite so tied to my ego but that doesn't stop me from feeling really bad, especially if I'm horny and I really want to get off and I can't.
Also, I forgot to point out the existence of vaginismus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginismus), for which there is no pill. Female sexual dysfunction is very poorly studied and there isn't really any medical recourse for it. At least men have the option of viagra, even if it hurts their pride to need it. Again, not that women have it worse.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 03, 2010, 05:30:16 PM
I was just saying that they're comparable, not that one is worse than the other. I've had a reasonable amount of experience with male erectile dysfunction (because I'm scary in bed :lulz: ) and I've had experience with my own occasional dysfunction. Mine isn't quite so tied to my ego but that doesn't stop me from feeling really bad, especially if I'm horny and I really want to get off and I can't.
Also, I forgot to point out the existence of vaginismus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginismus), for which there is no pill. Female sexual dysfunction is very poorly studied and there isn't really any medical recourse for it. At least men have the option of viagra, even if it hurts their pride to need it. Again, not that women have it worse.
It's true.Women frequently get the short end of the stick (lol) when it comes to sex research. For hundereds (thousands and thousands?) of years, any female sexual disfunctions were blamed on a "wandering uterus," so if you had a problem,well, you were screwed (lol). And, even as time goes by, there still is very little unbiased and objective studies about sex in general, let alone focused on women specifically. Soooo, if people really want to figure out "who has it worse," the only conclusion is that the women do. Like Badge said, at least men get a pill.
Quote from: dimo on June 03, 2010, 05:27:59 PM
Yes, guys. Penises and vaginas are two different things. Buuuut, both men and women have BRAINS, where these sensations/lack thereof, are being processed, and emotions which may potentially lead to feelings of inadequacy. THAT is where the problems become very similar. The question is if they are comparable (not if they are the same). They are. EOT.
Yeah, but womens' and mens' brains are as different as their genitals.
I don't understand what's so difficult about saying "yeah, they both suck but they're both also totally different and can't really be compared with each other".
Also, what kind of twat would be emabarrassed about having to take viagra? Hell, I've got a jar of the stuff on hand and I don't even need it, I just think it's an excellent addition to my recreational drug collection.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on June 03, 2010, 06:05:13 PM
I don't understand what's so difficult about saying "yeah, they both suck but they're both also totally different and can't really be compared with each other".
Also, what kind of twat would be emabarrassed about having to take viagra? Hell, I've got a jar of the stuff on hand and I don't even need it, I just think it's an excellent addition to my recreational drug collection.
Just guys who link their identity to their dicks.
I kinda feel sorry for them. What are they going to do with the other 30 years of their lives?
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on June 03, 2010, 06:36:02 PM
I kinda feel sorry for them. What are they going to do with the other 30 years of their lives?
Hurt babies.
Erectile dysfunction goes away, when you stop being so hard on yourself.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 03, 2010, 09:54:10 AM
If I were able to have sex with horrible pain when my penis wouldn't cooperate, I would have made that sacrifice.
PEANUT BUTTER
JELLY
:bsex:
All I know is that one side effect of my pills is a libido the size of the Goodyear blimp. With big jet engines.
I consider myself fortunate in this, and I honestly feel bad for anyone who isn't - for any reason - capable of having a good time in the sack.
Quote from: dimo on June 03, 2010, 05:27:59 PM
Yes, guys. Penises and vaginas are two different things. Buuuut, both men and women have BRAINS,
We men keep ours in our penises, and on vaginas, so to speak. :)
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 03, 2010, 10:05:32 AM
There is also the question of whether sex without female arousal is rape, which has certainly been proposed many times.
No. Although as far as physical evidence of rape it's going to be taken more seriously if there's no evidence of arousal.
If a woman chooses to have sex when she is not aroused that's no more rape than if a man chooses to offer oral or digital stimulation when he is not aroused, or to take it up the behind if his partner is male or has a strap on. Rape is sex without consent, not sex without arousal. Someone who gets raped can become aroused by the experience, that doesn't mean she has consented to the experience. That's pretty much common sense, the obverse, just because she's not aroused doesn't mean she hasn't consented, is just as true. Arousal and consent are distinct and although they may be related it's not a direct 1 to 1 relationship.
The main difference I see between the two is that male erectile dysfunction is immediately obvious. it can be seen and felt. Female is only apparent to the female.
That doesn't mean one or the other is worse or better, it does mean they are fundamentally different because the possible reactions are fundamentally different.
Also, I would say that chronic erectile function (male or female) is physically worse, but psychologically not as bad. Here's why
If you know that you are not likely to be able to get it up or get wet you are going to have measures on hand to deal with it and your partner is not going to take it personally because it is a regular thing. On the other hand, if you can usually get it up, or can usually get wet, but this one time you can't, you are much less likely to have viagra or lube on hand, and your partner is likely to take it personally, thinking that you are angry with them, or they are unattractive at the moment, or something of the sort.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 03, 2010, 10:05:32 AM
There is also the question of whether sex without female arousal is rape, which has certainly been proposed many times.
Um. I thought that was dictated by the consent or non-consent of the female, not biology.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on June 03, 2010, 06:05:13 PM
I don't understand what's so difficult about saying "yeah, they both suck but they're both also totally different and can't really be compared with each other".
yeah this.
I don't understand what's the whole disagreement about, anyway.
Female sexual dysfunction sucks, and male sexual dysfunction ALSO sucks.
And I'm okay with that I can never truly understand female sexual dysfunction, as they wouldn't ever be able to do the other way around vice versa. (But either party can try to be understanding.)
It's like comparing not having apples and not having oranges.
IMO,
This issue had something of a thinner line between acceptable and unacceptable up to a century or so ago, with the idea that women were supposed to spread for their husbands as a "conjugal duty" rather than a choice. That's where people seem to draw the lack of feminine arousal in sex to rape - in the state of the institution at that point, they didn't really have a choice in whether or not they were going to have sex. Today this is rape.
Rich, frustrated Edwardian women used to go to their Doctors to be treated for "Feminine Hysteria". Treatment involved the Doctor performing a therapuetic manual diddling of the Ladyparts, until said Lady achieved hysterical release. This was described in Medical journals as a kind of "pudendal sneeze" often accompanied by a "distinct groaning from the patient". Presumably this was the only occasion that Doctors of the time ever saw a female orgasm, hence the "sneeze" analogy.
I always found it pretty amazing that people denied female orgasm, especially women. I guess it was just weeded out of women. Now we men-folk have to work extra-hard to undo thousands of years of prudery.
That or thousands of years of inflated egos have left us lacking in the bedroom, and we have had to quickly learn to compensate by being, you know, emotionally intelligent.
Next thing you'll be telling us you've found a clitoris! :aaa:
The hell is that nonsense you're talking? Clitawhat?
Quote from: BadBeast on June 04, 2010, 04:13:49 AM
Next thing you'll be telling us you've found a clitoris! :aaa:
It exists, I saw one once.
Having a beer with Bigfoot!
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 04, 2010, 03:34:40 AM
I always found it pretty amazing that people denied female orgasm, especially women. I guess it was just weeded out of women. Now we men-folk have to work extra-hard to undo thousands of years of prudery.
That or thousands of years of inflated egos have left us lacking in the bedroom, and we have had to quickly learn to compensate by being, you know, emotionally intelligent.
Um dude, I've never had to work extra hard.
Just saying.
It's a bit like "phantom limb" syndrome, but confined to feminists and their ilk. A fictitious nubbin, the finding of which is supposed to produce the equally fictitious and mythical female organasm. (Beats me, too!)
The last few posts made me lol.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 03, 2010, 10:05:32 AM
There is also the question of whether sex without female arousal is rape, which has certainly been proposed many times.
If she wanted to try anyway, no.
Quote from: Professor Freeky on June 04, 2010, 05:08:19 AM
The last few posts made me lol.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 03, 2010, 10:05:32 AM
There is also the question of whether sex without female arousal is rape, which has certainly been proposed many times.
If she wanted to try anyway, no.
:lulz:
Like I said, just saying.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 04, 2010, 05:10:55 AM
Quote from: Professor Freeky on June 04, 2010, 05:08:19 AM
The last few posts made me lol.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 03, 2010, 10:05:32 AM
There is also the question of whether sex without female arousal is rape, which has certainly been proposed many times.
If she wanted to try anyway, no.
:lulz:
Like I said, just saying.
You best shut yer mouth, afore Freeky rapes yuo. :D :fap:
QuoteUm dude, I've never had to work extra hard.
Just saying.
True, the 70s worked wonders. I mean, consider the novel that is the reason this whole place exists. It is rife with non-prudish women, much to our delight!
It was the 80's that saw the last of the big scary muffs though, that was a major thing IMO.
Girl. "Why do you look so shocked, what is it?"
Boy "I dunno, but if you pass me that hammer, I'll help you kill it!"
Quote from: BadBeast on June 04, 2010, 05:29:11 AM
It was the 80's that saw the last of the big scary muffs though, that was a major thing IMO.
Girl. "Why do you look so shocked, what is it?"
Boy "I dunno, but if you pass me that hammer, I'll help you kill it!"
eh, shaved vulvas have gone in and out of fashion. I expect there will be another round of untrimmed muffs being the popular style at some point.
@Freeky- Normally would be welcome fought off weakly but I don't think my gf would be too keen on the concept. Nevermind that you live a couple of thousand miles away (presuming that I am correct in that you live in Arizona)
@Zyzyx and BadBeast- I was born in 1981...
You look very like a young Sir Patrick Stewart there.
Quote from: BadBeast on June 04, 2010, 07:01:33 AM
You look very like a young Sir Patrick Stewart there.
Patrick Stewart as Sejanus has hair still.
Granted in 10 years I will look more like Picard, but I'm not quite there yet.
He would never have made Captain with a dodgy Barnet like that anyway.
Quote from: BadBeast on June 04, 2010, 07:16:37 AM
He would never have made Captain with a dodgy Barnet like that anyway.
Maybe not Captain, but dude that was banging the Empress, oh yes.
Yeah but even Data had a go on her, she was hardly choosy, was she?
Oh, the other Empress, not the Borg Queen?
Quote from: BadBeast on June 04, 2010, 07:31:00 AM
Oh, the other Empress, not the Borg Queen?
Oh, yeah, I was referring to I, Claudius
I clavdivs?
Quote from: BadBeast on June 04, 2010, 07:44:54 AM
I clavdivs?
Sure, if you're a Roman (or from the other thread, a Welshman)
I'm sure Welshmen only speak in Welsh, when there's an Englishman in earshot, and even then, I'm not sure it's not a made up language, it's unpronounceable, to the normal human powers of vocalisation, and only good for rounding up the sheep, in the Valleys near Merthyr Tyddfyll, Boyo!
Quote from: BadBeast on June 04, 2010, 07:59:23 AM
I'm sure Welshmen only speak in Welsh, when there's an Englishman in earshot, and even then, I'm not sure it's not a made up language, it's unpronounceable, to the normal human powers of vocalisation, and only good for rounding up the sheep, in the Valleys near Merthyr Tyddfyll, Boyo!
:lulz:
They are really hard to understand. I passed through Swansea once, after the Welsh had a match with the Scots. And by god, I could understand the Scots much better. The waiter at the restaurant actually told me he couldn't understand me on account of my accent. I found that hysterical.
Oh, the Scots are far easier on the ear than the Welsh. And at least the Scots have a proper hard plant as a National symbol, and not a poncy yellow flower. The Scots are good neighbours. But you can tell how things are with the Welsh when you drive over the Severn Bridge. There is no charge for going into Wales, (quite frankly, no-one would pay it if there was) but there is a charge to get out again. Which people (even Welsh people) are happy to pay.
Quote from: BadBeast on June 04, 2010, 08:40:49 AM
Oh, the Scots are far easier on the ear than the Welsh. And at least the Scots have a proper hard plant as a National symbol, and not a poncy yellow flower. The Scots are good neighbours. But you can tell how things are with the Welsh when you drive over the Severn Bridge. There is no charge for going into Wales, (quite frankly, no-one would pay it if there was) but there is a charge to get out again. Which people (even Welsh people) are happy to pay.
Aww, man, just awesome. Don't know what else to say.
But in their favour, they have the strongest magic mushrooms I have ever had the dubious pleasure of going completely off my nut on. And they are more mushrooms than blades of grass on the top of Hay Bluff, in September. And they glow in the dark, like little greeny white blobs of greeny white light, for as far as the eye can see.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 03, 2010, 11:45:45 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 03, 2010, 10:05:32 AM
There is also the question of whether sex without female arousal is rape, which has certainly been proposed many times.
Um. I thought that was dictated by the consent or non-consent of the female, not biology.
I didn't say I was proposing it; I was just throwing it out there as something that has been proposed. An incendiary, if you will. I think that most reasonable people will agree that consent is where the key lies, not arousal. But that's still an extant notion, agree or disagree.
I have to say that I agree that men and women are different, but I also believe that they are far more similar than they are different, both mentally and physically. That's why we can understand each other and be friends.
I also want to make clear that I'm not saying that society doesn't punish men and women in different ways for sexual dysfunction, and I'm also not saying that one is worse than the other. Nor am I saying that one ISN'T worse than the other. Just for the record, the context in which the original conversation occurred was of a woman friend asking if she should be afraid of going on antidepressants for fear of losing her sexual response. As has happened in several such conversations I've been in, a man jumped in saying, essentially, that it's no big deal for women... already counterindicated by the fact that she was having that fear in the first place. It IS a big deal for women. He was intensely vehement about it. It may be a big deal in different ways, but I think that it's interesting how much it gets downplayed and how little it's studied. The difficulty men experience with it is in no way negated by the difficulty women experience with it, though it may be different in many ways, so I find it interesting how often people will become extremely defensive and insistent that it is in no way comparable.
There are some curious value judgements against women with sexual dysfunction; an impotent man is viewed as having had something awful forced on him by illness or medicine, whereas for a woman terms like "frigid bitch" and "ice queen" are social norms. There are also jokes, and plenty of them, about dry or loose vaginas. Also, all but the most wilfully imperceptive man can tell when a woman is not aroused... the difference between an aroused clitoris and vagina is miles and miles. How can any man fail to notice a soft clit? I mean, really. Take the man out of the equation entirely, and you may have a frustrated masturbator or a depressed lesbian partner. A lover who cannot be aroused, or who cannot reach climax, is hard on both partners.
I really appreciated Hawk's input in this, as a man who is very candid about his own experiences with his wife's and his own sexual dysfunction. Thank you, Hawk!
Quote from: BadBeast on June 04, 2010, 08:40:49 AM
Oh, the Scots are far easier on the ear than the Welsh. And at least the Scots have a proper hard plant as a National symbol, and not a poncy yellow flower. The Scots are good neighbours. But you can tell how things are with the Welsh when you drive over the Severn Bridge. There is no charge for going into Wales, (quite frankly, no-one would pay it if there was) but there is a charge to get out again. Which people (even Welsh people) are happy to pay.
Hey man. My Welsh brethren know what they're doing. Talk about life giving you lemons...
. Take the man out of the equation entirely, and you may have a frustrated masturbator or a depressed lesbian partner. A lover who cannot be aroused, or who cannot reach climax, is hard on both partners.
[/quote]
Couldn't help but notice the puerile comedic value of saying "hard on" in a post about sexual dysfunction!
(Even as I post this, a part of me is cringing in horrified mute self loathing)
:horrormirth:
I really must offer my most heartfelt apologies for my "evil twin" comment. There is no worthy excuse I can offer for being so horribly crass, save that It is my birthday today, and I tend to indulge my inner fuckwit on birthdays. Once again, my apologies for any offence caused. :oops: :fap:
Naw man, it's OK. That was the horrormirth face.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 04, 2010, 09:57:15 AM
Just for the record, the context in which the original conversation occurred was of a woman friend asking if she should be afraid of going on antidepressants for fear of losing her sexual response. As has happened in several such conversations I've been in, a man jumped in saying, essentially, that it's no big deal for women... already counterindicated by the fact that she was having that fear in the first place. It IS a big deal for women. He was intensely vehement about it.
Oh... You were talking to a knuckle-dragging moron. That explains a lot.
Quote from: LMNO on June 04, 2010, 01:47:07 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 04, 2010, 09:57:15 AM
Just for the record, the context in which the original conversation occurred was of a woman friend asking if she should be afraid of going on antidepressants for fear of losing her sexual response. As has happened in several such conversations I've been in, a man jumped in saying, essentially, that it's no big deal for women... already counterindicated by the fact that she was having that fear in the first place. It IS a big deal for women. He was intensely vehement about it.
Oh... You were talking to a knuckle-dragging moron. That explains a lot.
Funny thing is, usually he's not. The subject just sometimes elicits that reaction in otherwise perfectly reasonable, intelligent, rational people. Sort of like the guys who have (in past discussions) argued that women can't experience sexual performance anxiety; and in all cases, the argument has been that the visual cue is so powerfully significant that it removes male sexual dysfunction into a vastly different category.
Sometimes I think that people who lack adequate personal sexual experience should not be allowed to talk about stuff like this.
"women can't experience sexual performance anxiety"? More like, "you haven't been bothering to pay much attention, have you?"
I wouldn't want to have sex with a woman who wasn't both interested and enjoying it. If she can't get aroused it would be the same for me as if I was with a guy who couldn't get stiff.
The more research that is done on difference between sexes, the more it appears that our experiences are very different.
1. Some research indicates that men are far less spatially challenged than women. Due, not to stereotypes, but actual brain chemistry. The current theory is that men out hunting needed to find their way back home and passed on the good directional genes to their sons. One study of four year old's noted a 4:1 difference between boys that could process 3 dimensions to girls.
2. Some research indicates that women use more of their brain for smells and communication (by a large percent).
3. Some research indicates that the physical makeup of the male body has up to 10% more water than females.
4. Apparently women see colors better than men, since being able to process red is defined by the X chromosome.
(saw it on cracked.com so it must be true!)
In the end, I think science will eventually find that males and females are VERY different... not one better or worse... just very different. Trying to equate physical or psychological issues between the sexes seems like an exercise in futility to me. Hell, trying to equate one man's ED with another man's ED is probably not gonna work, because so much of what we 'feel' depends on our early childhood imprints. I agree with the post that siad this would make good flame fodder, but not much beyond that. In fact, I think its horrific that people with dysfunctions of any kind feel that they have to compare their problems with other people's to somehow legitimize their issues.
We have so many possible problems in our lives, either physical, psychological or environmental... trying to compete seems absurd to me.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 03, 2010, 11:45:45 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 03, 2010, 10:05:32 AM
There is also the question of whether sex without female arousal is rape, which has certainly been proposed many times.
Um. I thought that was dictated by the consent or non-consent of the female, not biology.
I sure hope so. Even though I usually quit when it becomes apparent, because when it's no fun for her, it's no fun for me either.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 04, 2010, 04:56:30 AM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 04, 2010, 03:34:40 AM
I always found it pretty amazing that people denied female orgasm, especially women. I guess it was just weeded out of women. Now we men-folk have to work extra-hard to undo thousands of years of prudery.
That or thousands of years of inflated egos have left us lacking in the bedroom, and we have had to quickly learn to compensate by being, you know, emotionally intelligent.
Um dude, I've never had to work extra hard.
Just saying.
Good for you :)
I really wonder though, if it depends on the skill of the man, or the woman in question. From what I heard from women, especially the ones that had (some) trouble achieving orgasm, it requires a great deal of concentration, no matter how hard the man tries.
Another thing that's different, I suppose. A skilled woman can make a man come, even if he doesn't desire to, but the other way around, not so much. As far as I have found, that is. Heavily depending on the woman in question.
Hm makes me think, I don't have experience with men, let alone multiple, so maybe the fact that a skilled woman can make
me come, regardless of whether I want to or not (unsure if that ever happened, btw), maybe doesn't hold for all men either.
Partly inspired by the long post Nigel made on the previous page, with which I agree wholeheartedly, I wonder, considering my two previous posts,
Maybe a big part of the problem here is sample size? I mean, a heterosexual man generally doesn't get to "sample" much about the male orgasm, except for his own. For the female orgasm, it depends, but may not be a very big sample either. And of course this holds vice versa for the heterosexual female and her perception of orgasms.
Possibly that (actively) bisexual people would be the best authority on these matters.
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 04, 2010, 05:19:54 PM
Partly inspired by the long post Nigel made on the previous page, with which I agree wholeheartedly, I wonder, considering my two previous posts,
Maybe a big part of the problem here is sample size? I mean, a heterosexual man generally doesn't get to "sample" much about the male orgasm, except for his own. For the female orgasm, it depends, but may not be a very big sample either. And of course this holds vice versa for the heterosexual female and her perception of orgasms.
Possibly that (actively) bisexual people would be the best authority on these matters.
Speaking as an actively bisexual person, the outward appearance is very different but the necessity of arousal is the same.
Huh I'm not entirely sure what you're saying?
It seems to me the only major difference between male and female sexual dysfunction is that stigma which is imposed by society. Society teaches us that a man that can't 'fuck bitches' is less of a man. Whereas a woman who is unable to get aroused is generally understood as an unfortunate but societally acceptable thing.
Conclusion: Modern western sexuality (at least from my own male perspective) is based almost entirely on ego. And where as it seems to me the female ego boost is derived from their partners desire to have sex with them, the male ego boost is derived much more from the act, the 'achievement'.
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2010, 05:00:41 PM
The more research that is done on difference between sexes, the more it appears that our experiences are very different.
1. Some research indicates that men are far less spatially challenged than women. Due, not to stereotypes, but actual brain chemistry. The current theory is that men out hunting needed to find their way back home and passed on the good directional genes to their sons. One study of four year old's noted a 4:1 difference between boys that could process 3 dimensions to girls.
2. Some research indicates that women use more of their brain for smells and communication (by a large percent).
3. Some research indicates that the physical makeup of the male body has up to 10% more water than females.
4. Apparently women see colors better than men, since being able to process red is defined by the X chromosome.
(saw it on cracked.com so it must be true!)
In the end, I think science will eventually find that males and females are VERY different... not one better or worse... just very different. Trying to equate physical or psychological issues between the sexes seems like an exercise in futility to me. Hell, trying to equate one man's ED with another man's ED is probably not gonna work, because so much of what we 'feel' depends on our early childhood imprints. I agree with the post that siad this would make good flame fodder, but not much beyond that. In fact, I think its horrific that people with dysfunctions of any kind feel that they have to compare their problems with other people's to somehow legitimize their issues.
We have so many possible problems in our lives, either physical, psychological or environmental... trying to compete seems absurd to me.
Or the differences could simply learned. Sounds like some pretty flawed studies to me. If a woman is taught to hunt I am sure that somewhere she could find the intelligence to find her way home again.
Women can see red better than men? :cn:
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 04, 2010, 05:30:17 PM
Huh I'm not entirely sure what you're saying?
The penis and vagina look very different (god that sounds so stupid to say), but the need for arousal to have a good time is the same.
Someone who can't "get it up" is as sad as someone who can't "get wet". The only reason anyone thinks differently is they a) aren't a very attentive lover b) don't have any experience or c) learned stupid things about sex, like that it's about making men happy, or that women are always ready because "the hole" is always present.
The former two just require more experience and active learning. The latter person needs to confine themself to masturbation till they get better. Or die. Whichever happens first.
Quote from: Kai on June 04, 2010, 05:50:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 04, 2010, 05:30:17 PM
Huh I'm not entirely sure what you're saying?
The penis and vagina look very different (god that sounds so stupid to say)
:lulz:
(okay, I get you now.)
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2010, 05:00:41 PM
The more research that is done on difference between sexes, the more it appears that our experiences are very different.
1. Some research indicates that men are far less spatially challenged than women. Due, not to stereotypes, but actual brain chemistry. The current theory is that men out hunting needed to find their way back home and passed on the good directional genes to their sons. One study of four year old's noted a 4:1 difference between boys that could process 3 dimensions to girls.
2. Some research indicates that women use more of their brain for smells and communication (by a large percent).
3. Some research indicates that the physical makeup of the male body has up to 10% more water than females.
4. Apparently women see colors better than men, since being able to process red is defined by the X chromosome.
(saw it on cracked.com so it must be true!)
Sounds a lot like evo-psych nonsense.
Oh, and women being able to see red better because it's on the X chromosome, that just strikes me as incredibly stupid. Only one X chromosome is even active per cell, males have the one and females inactivate one by storing it as a barr body.
Lets say, for instance your garden needs digging. If you really don't feel up to it, and can't rustle up the enthusiasm for it, your mind just puts it off, until tomorrow, or the next day. We don't say "I'm suffering from a "Gardening Dysfunction" or worry unduly about the garden not getting dug, to the extent that it becomes an all consuming issue.
Otherwise, when we did get off our arses, and go into the garden, all tooled up and ready to dig, we might start thinking "Oh no, what if I am unable to dig? what if I'm never going to be able to dig again?" do we develop "Digging related Performance anxiety", run back in the house, and look up the symptoms on the net? No, we just get digging. And the garden gets dug, with no surveys, or meds, or conditions, and it's not an issue. Same with sex.
People read too much into their ability to perform. (Whatever the fuck that really is about) Your neighbour has taken more time and effort into digging his garden, and it shows. His soil is finely dug, with no lumps, or stones. Do you decide to give up gardening, and Tarmac the fucking thing over, because you can't bear to see his lovely dug spud patch, and compare it to your pathetic effort at digging? No, you don't even pay it that much attention. Next time you pick up your spade, you might make a more concerted effort at digging it over better, you might not.
Either way, it's only a potato patch. We overcomplicate everything around us. We look for problems that aren't necessarily there, and if we look hard enough, we will find some, or invent some, or not bother doing anything at all, because, well, something is bound to come along to fuck everything up.
It's a good job that we have an instinctual sex drive, or the Human race would have died out before we even got out of the trees. In fact we would have stayed in the trees, because if we got down, on the ground something would be bound to come along and eat us.
It's only a matter of letting instinct take over for just a few minutes, then when everything starts responding, all that anxiety just melts away like morning mist.
And if it doesn't? Maybe you're just not attracted to the person you are trying to make the beast with?
How many people even give that any consideration? No, there's no room for that kind of speculation, I'm trying to perform here! Ferfuxake! Chillout, people, that's all it takes sometimes. There is even truth in the old idiom, "Lie back and think of England" Or any other fucking thing at all. Then, (presuming the other person has any smattering of experience) they should get you bump started. Then it's all plain sailing.
Either that, or I'm so totally wrong, in which case, we'll all be extinct in 100 years, from "Performance Anxiety"
Quote from: BadBeast on June 04, 2010, 06:24:15 PM
Lets say, for instance your garden needs digging. If you really don't feel up to it, and can't rustle up the enthusiasm for it, your mind just puts it off, until tomorrow, or the next day. We don't say "I'm suffering from a "Gardening Dysfunction" or worry unduly about the garden not getting dug, to the extent that it becomes an all consuming issue.
Otherwise, when we did get off our arses, and go into the garden, all tooled up and ready to dig, we might start thinking "Oh no, what if I am unable to dig? what if I'm never going to be able to dig again?" do we develop "Digging related Performance anxiety", run back in the house, and look up the symptoms on the net? No, we just get digging. And the garden gets dug, with no surveys, or meds, or conditions, and it's not an issue. Same with sex.
People read too much into their ability to perform. (Whatever the fuck that really is about) Your neighbour has taken more time and effort into digging his garden, and it shows. His soil is finely dug, with no lumps, or stones. Do you decide to give up gardening, and Tarmac the fucking thing over, because you can't bear to see his lovely dug spud patch, and compare it to your pathetic effort at digging? No, you don't even pay it that much attention. Next time you pick up your spade, you might make a more concerted effort at digging it over better, you might not.
Either way, it's only a potato patch. We overcomplicate everything around us. We look for problems that aren't necessarily there, and if we look hard enough, we will find some, or invent some, or not bother doing anything at all, because, well, something is bound to come along to fuck everything up.
It's a good job that we have an instinctual sex drive, or the Human race would have died out before we even got out of the trees. In fact we would have stayed in the trees, because if we got down, on the ground something would be bound to come along and eat us.
It's only a matter of letting instinct take over for just a few minutes, then when everything starts responding, all that anxiety just melts away like morning mist.
And if it doesn't? Maybe you're just not attracted to the person you are trying to make the beast with?
How many people even give that any consideration? No, there's no room for that kind of speculation, I'm trying to perform here! Ferfuxake! Chillout, people, that's all it takes sometimes. There is even truth in the old idiom, "Lie back and think of England" Or any other fucking thing at all. Then, (presuming the other person has any smattering of experience) they should get you bump started. Then it's all plain sailing.
Either that, or I'm so totally wrong, in which case, we'll all be extinct in 100 years, from "Performance Anxiety"
Swing and a miss there BB. My limpdick is caused by disease, age and medication. Mrs. Hawks was caused by a full hysterectomy.
Quote from: BadBeast on June 04, 2010, 06:24:15 PM
Lets say, for instance your garden needs digging. If you really don't feel up to it, and can't rustle up the enthusiasm for it, your mind just puts it off, until tomorrow, or the next day. We don't say "I'm suffering from a "Gardening Dysfunction" or worry unduly about the garden not getting dug, to the extent that it becomes an all consuming issue.
Otherwise, when we did get off our arses, and go into the garden, all tooled up and ready to dig, we might start thinking "Oh no, what if I am unable to dig? what if I'm never going to be able to dig again?" do we develop "Digging related Performance anxiety", run back in the house, and look up the symptoms on the net? No, we just get digging. And the garden gets dug, with no surveys, or meds, or conditions, and it's not an issue. Same with sex.
People read too much into their ability to perform. (Whatever the fuck that really is about) Your neighbour has taken more time and effort into digging his garden, and it shows. His soil is finely dug, with no lumps, or stones. Do you decide to give up gardening, and Tarmac the fucking thing over, because you can't bear to see his lovely dug spud patch, and compare it to your pathetic effort at digging? No, you don't even pay it that much attention. Next time you pick up your spade, you might make a more concerted effort at digging it over better, you might not.
Either way, it's only a potato patch. We overcomplicate everything around us. We look for problems that aren't necessarily there, and if we look hard enough, we will find some, or invent some, or not bother doing anything at all, because, well, something is bound to come along to fuck everything up.
It's a good job that we have an instinctual sex drive, or the Human race would have died out before we even got out of the trees. In fact we would have stayed in the trees, because if we got down, on the ground something would be bound to come along and eat us.
It's only a matter of letting instinct take over for just a few minutes, then when everything starts responding, all that anxiety just melts away like morning mist.
And if it doesn't? Maybe you're just not attracted to the person you are trying to make the beast with?
How many people even give that any consideration? No, there's no room for that kind of speculation, I'm trying to perform here! Ferfuxake! Chillout, people, that's all it takes sometimes. There is even truth in the old idiom, "Lie back and think of England" Or any other fucking thing at all. Then, (presuming the other person has any smattering of experience) they should get you bump started. Then it's all plain sailing.
Either that, or I'm so totally wrong, in which case, we'll all be extinct in 100 years, from "Performance Anxiety"
That's all well and good, except in the 99% of cases of sexual dysfunction due to biological malfunction.
99%? Really?
Quote from: noir on June 04, 2010, 05:43:31 PM
It seems to me the only major difference between male and female sexual dysfunction is that stigma which is imposed by society. Society teaches us that a man that can't 'fuck bitches' is less of a man. Whereas a woman who is unable to get aroused is generally understood as an unfortunate but societally acceptable thing.
Conclusion: Modern western sexuality (at least from my own male perspective) is based almost entirely on ego. And where as it seems to me the female ego boost is derived from their partners desire to have sex with them, the male ego boost is derived much more from the act, the 'achievement'.
Only 14 posts in, and noir wins an internets.
Sheeit, Them's tough breaks Hawk! Now I feel a little bit stupid, and a little bit sad. So before I go and dig my Old Man's garden, (that's where the analogy sprang from) I'm going to risk another assumption, that you both had plenty of fun before it got to this stage.
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2010, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2010, 05:00:41 PM
The more research that is done on difference between sexes, the more it appears that our experiences are very different.
1. Some research indicates that men are far less spatially challenged than women. Due, not to stereotypes, but actual brain chemistry. The current theory is that men out hunting needed to find their way back home and passed on the good directional genes to their sons. One study of four year old's noted a 4:1 difference between boys that could process 3 dimensions to girls.
2. Some research indicates that women use more of their brain for smells and communication (by a large percent).
3. Some research indicates that the physical makeup of the male body has up to 10% more water than females.
4. Apparently women see colors better than men, since being able to process red is defined by the X chromosome.
(saw it on cracked.com so it must be true!)
In the end, I think science will eventually find that males and females are VERY different... not one better or worse... just very different. Trying to equate physical or psychological issues between the sexes seems like an exercise in futility to me. Hell, trying to equate one man's ED with another man's ED is probably not gonna work, because so much of what we 'feel' depends on our early childhood imprints. I agree with the post that siad this would make good flame fodder, but not much beyond that. In fact, I think its horrific that people with dysfunctions of any kind feel that they have to compare their problems with other people's to somehow legitimize their issues.
We have so many possible problems in our lives, either physical, psychological or environmental... trying to compete seems absurd to me.
Or the differences could simply learned. Sounds like some pretty flawed studies to me. If a woman is taught to hunt I am sure that somewhere she could find the intelligence to find her way home again.
Women can see red better than men? :cn:
It's pretty well established that color blindness effects a significantly higher percentage of the male population than female. Source (http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b130.html)
Learned or not, there are significant differences between the straight male brain and the straight female brain. I can dig up sources on this as well.
That this leads to different experiences and ways to cope with it seems obvious. It doesn't mean that it's worse for one sex, but that the specific way it manifests varies for people and these differences shouldn't be glossed over in the name of political correctness about equality among the sexes.
I think there are a commonalities in people's experience in that it sucks, but I don't understand why people feel the need to ignore the differences.
Even if those differences come down cultural norms, as noir argues, why does that invalidate contrasting experiences?
Quote from: BadBeast on June 04, 2010, 07:34:19 PM
Sheeit, Them's tough breaks Hawk! Now I feel a little bit stupid, and a little bit sad. So before I go and dig my Old Man's garden, (that's where the analogy sprang from) I'm going to risk another assumption, that you both had plenty of fun before it got to this stage.
We almost fucked each other to death. Once we were having afternoon sex and there was construction going on next door with power tools, etc. I guess we got so loud they quit working until we were done and then they clapped and cheered.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 07:35:03 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2010, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2010, 05:00:41 PM
The more research that is done on difference between sexes, the more it appears that our experiences are very different.
1. Some research indicates that men are far less spatially challenged than women. Due, not to stereotypes, but actual brain chemistry. The current theory is that men out hunting needed to find their way back home and passed on the good directional genes to their sons. One study of four year old's noted a 4:1 difference between boys that could process 3 dimensions to girls.
2. Some research indicates that women use more of their brain for smells and communication (by a large percent).
3. Some research indicates that the physical makeup of the male body has up to 10% more water than females.
4. Apparently women see colors better than men, since being able to process red is defined by the X chromosome.
(saw it on cracked.com so it must be true!)
In the end, I think science will eventually find that males and females are VERY different... not one better or worse... just very different. Trying to equate physical or psychological issues between the sexes seems like an exercise in futility to me. Hell, trying to equate one man's ED with another man's ED is probably not gonna work, because so much of what we 'feel' depends on our early childhood imprints. I agree with the post that siad this would make good flame fodder, but not much beyond that. In fact, I think its horrific that people with dysfunctions of any kind feel that they have to compare their problems with other people's to somehow legitimize their issues.
We have so many possible problems in our lives, either physical, psychological or environmental... trying to compete seems absurd to me.
Or the differences could simply learned. Sounds like some pretty flawed studies to me. If a woman is taught to hunt I am sure that somewhere she could find the intelligence to find her way home again.
Women can see red better than men? :cn:
It's pretty well established that color blindness effects a significantly higher percentage of the male population than female. Source (http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b130.html)
Learned or not, there are significant differences between the straight male brain and the straight female brain. I can dig up sources on this as well.
That this leads to different experiences and ways to cope with it seems obvious. It doesn't mean that it's worse for one sex, but that the specific way it manifests varies for people and these differences shouldn't be glossed over in the name of political correctness about equality among the sexes.
I think there are a commonalities in people's experience in that it sucks, but I don't understand why people feel the need to ignore the differences.
Even if those differences come down cultural norms, as noir argues, why does that invalidate contrasting experiences?
Politically correct? Me?
People approach things from different angles. While there
may be differences in some perceptions I honestly think there is far more in common than there are differences.
As far as the source you provided it talked about the red/green gene and unless I missed it did not say women can see red better than men. I can see a hot woman in a little red dress just fine, for instance.
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2010, 05:49:15 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2010, 05:00:41 PM
The more research that is done on difference between sexes, the more it appears that our experiences are very different.
1. Some research indicates that men are far less spatially challenged than women. Due, not to stereotypes, but actual brain chemistry. The current theory is that men out hunting needed to find their way back home and passed on the good directional genes to their sons. One study of four year old's noted a 4:1 difference between boys that could process 3 dimensions to girls.
2. Some research indicates that women use more of their brain for smells and communication (by a large percent).
3. Some research indicates that the physical makeup of the male body has up to 10% more water than females.
4. Apparently women see colors better than men, since being able to process red is defined by the X chromosome.
(saw it on cracked.com so it must be true!)
In the end, I think science will eventually find that males and females are VERY different... not one better or worse... just very different. Trying to equate physical or psychological issues between the sexes seems like an exercise in futility to me. Hell, trying to equate one man's ED with another man's ED is probably not gonna work, because so much of what we 'feel' depends on our early childhood imprints. I agree with the post that siad this would make good flame fodder, but not much beyond that. In fact, I think its horrific that people with dysfunctions of any kind feel that they have to compare their problems with other people's to somehow legitimize their issues.
We have so many possible problems in our lives, either physical, psychological or environmental... trying to compete seems absurd to me.
Or the differences could simply learned. Sounds like some pretty flawed studies to me. If a woman is taught to hunt I am sure that somewhere she could find the intelligence to find her way home again.
Women can see red better than men? :cn:
As I said... cracked.com ;-) However:
Directions:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574402/Women-and-gay-men-are-worst-drivers.html
http://www.theprovince.com/cars/cars+make+more+manly+study+shows/1870063/there+reason+directions/1600793/story.html
http://www.zimbio.com/Spatial+Awareness+of+Men+Versus+Women/articles/3/can+men+find+their+way+around
Smelling:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1796447.stm
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090407-women-smell.html
Women Talking:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9041858
http://www.doctorhugo.org/brain4.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_2_99/ai_68648283/
Seeing Colors Better Than Men:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/09/02/4472.aspx
Difference in Water ratio = Difference in Alcohol consumption:
http://www.bloodalcohol.info/alcohol-in-men-versus-women.php
Not mentioned in my post but interesting nonetheless... women feel pain more acutely than men:
http://www.everydayhealth.com/pain-management/women-and-chronic-pain.aspx
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=proteins-may-be-key-to-pa
http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=brainBriefings_Gender_and_Pain
And of course, all of these are generalities about 'some but not all' women and men.
And the original Cracked.com article:http://www.cracked.com/article_18529_6-absurd-gender-stereotypes-that-science-says-are-true.html
There's also growing evidence that mainly women are far more likely to be true tetrachromats, so some unknown percentage of women CAN distinguish more color variation than men. Source 1 (http://www.klab.caltech.edu/cns186/papers/Jameson01.pdf) Source 2 (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06256/721190-114.stm).
The point is that there are genetically determined differences that are sex-linked and effect perception. Color perception is just one example. I see Ratatosk has more handy.
I can also dig up the sources on how straight men and straight women's brains are wired differently in relation to sex.
There's also pretty good evidence that men's sex drive is generally much stronger and straightforward than women whose arousal is based more on complex contextual cues.
It seems absurd to think these biological predispositions are not going to effect how each deals with sexual dysfunction.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:11:19 PM
There's also growing evidence that mainly women are far more likely to be true tetrachromats, so some unknown percentage of women CAN distinguish more color variation than men. Source 1 (http://www.klab.caltech.edu/cns186/papers/Jameson01.pdf) Source 2 (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06256/721190-114.stm).
The point is that there are genetically determined differences that are sex-linked and effect perception. Color perception is just one example. I see Ratatosk has more handy.
I can also dig up the sources on how straight men and straight women's brains are wired differently in relation to sex.
There's also pretty good evidence that men's sex drive is generally much stronger and straightforward than women whose arousal is based more on complex contextual cues.
It seems absurd to think these biological predispositions are not going to effect how each deals with sexual dysfunction.
I think what set me off about this is the 'women have a hole so being sexually dysfunctional can't bother them' mentality.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:11:19 PM
There's also pretty good evidence that men's sex drive is generally much stronger and straightforward than women whose arousal is based more on complex contextual cues.
I'm going have to say
FUCKING BULLSHIT to that line there. Some days I am in physical pain from having a sex drive that I can't seem to act on. Honestly, it doesn't matter, IMO, whether a women needs more cues than visual ones, it doesn't mean that it's less powerful.
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2010, 08:14:45 PM
I think what set me off about this is the 'women have a hole so being sexually dysfunctional can't bother them' mentality.
I think that's an abusive attitude towards women as well.
I hope my argument is not being construed as supporting that point of view.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:23:52 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2010, 08:14:45 PM
I think what set me off about this is the 'women have a hole so being sexually dysfunctional can't bother them' mentality.
I think that's an abusive attitude towards women as well.
I hope my argument is not being construed as supporting that point of view.
Of course I don't think you support that. I guess my problem with a lot of these studies is they seem to
start from the same old prejudices that have been proven false.
Men are superior.
Men hunt, women cook
Well, you get the idea.
Quote from: Professor Freeky on June 04, 2010, 08:19:20 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:11:19 PM
There's also pretty good evidence that men's sex drive is generally much stronger and straightforward than women whose arousal is based more on complex contextual cues.
I'm going have to say FUCKING BULLSHIT to that line there. Some days I am in physical pain from having a sex drive that I can't seem to act on. Honestly, it doesn't matter, IMO, whether a women needs more cues than visual ones, it doesn't mean that it's less powerful.
That doesn't mean some women's sex drives aren't much stronger than some men's.
In general and statistically, the evidence supports that men have the stronger sex drive though.
I don't think it's possible to say whether men's sex drive is stronger or more direct. Given that almost everything we know (scientifically) about desire and libido come from surveys, I would say that men and women may talk about their desires differently, but the fundamental desire to have sex isn't going to be weaker for half the population. That's just not evolutionarily sound.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 04, 2010, 08:28:05 PM
I don't think it's possible to say whether men's sex drive is stronger or more direct. Given that almost everything we know (scientifically) about desire and libido come from surveys, I would say that men and women may talk about their desires differently, but the fundamental desire to have sex isn't going to be weaker for half the population. That's just not evolutionarily sound.
Badge speaks Teh Troof.
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2010, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:23:52 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2010, 08:14:45 PM
I think what set me off about this is the 'women have a hole so being sexually dysfunctional can't bother them' mentality.
I think that's an abusive attitude towards women as well.
I hope my argument is not being construed as supporting that point of view.
Of course I don't think you support that. I guess my problem with a lot of these studies is they seem to start from the same old prejudices that have been proven false.
Men are superior.
Men hunt, women cook
Well, you get the idea.
Yeah, it's all to easy for people to jump from observing differences between the sexes to thinking these differences confer general superiority to one sex.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:27:12 PM
Quote from: Professor Freeky on June 04, 2010, 08:19:20 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:11:19 PM
There's also pretty good evidence that men's sex drive is generally much stronger and straightforward than women whose arousal is based more on complex contextual cues.
I'm going have to say FUCKING BULLSHIT to that line there. Some days I am in physical pain from having a sex drive that I can't seem to act on. Honestly, it doesn't matter, IMO, whether a women needs more cues than visual ones, it doesn't mean that it's less powerful.
That doesn't mean some women's sex drives aren't much stronger than some men's.
In general and statistically, the evidence supports that men have the stronger sex drive though.
Does it adjust for age? Men's libidos tend to go down over time, while women's stay constant or increase. If you're surveying a bunch of 18 year olds, yeah probably would look like that statistically.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 04, 2010, 08:28:05 PM
I don't think it's possible to say whether men's sex drive is stronger or more direct. Given that almost everything we know (scientifically) about desire and libido come from surveys, I would say that men and women may talk about their desires differently, but the fundamental desire to have sex isn't going to be weaker for half the population. That's just not evolutionarily sound.
I agree... I think 'weaker' is a poor word choice... What research there is (and some is now beyond just surveys) seems to indicaate fundamental differences in how/why/what is involved in arousal, what it takes to meet the needs etc... and beyond that (and far more importantly I think) is the individuals own life experiences that most strongly affect their sexual identity, experience and imprints.
It may be far more clear a century from now, when we've had all sexes liberated from their old hoary traditional roles and we've got maps of the brain and the human genome to pull some hard data from. Speaking of which, I need to go pull my hard data.
:lmnuendo:
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 04, 2010, 08:28:05 PM
I don't think it's possible to say whether men's sex drive is stronger or more direct. Given that almost everything we know (scientifically) about desire and libido come from surveys, I would say that men and women may talk about their desires differently, but the fundamental desire to have sex isn't going to be weaker for half the population. That's just not evolutionarily sound.
How is that necessarily not evolutionarily sound?
Men may have a greater predisposition to spread their seed as far as possible, resulting in a stronger sex drive.
Women may have a greater predisposition to select mates that will help take care of offspring resulting in a weaker sex drive.
The result is that in general, women need more convincing to get busy than men do, and I think in most people's experience this is true.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:37:38 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 04, 2010, 08:28:05 PM
I don't think it's possible to say whether men's sex drive is stronger or more direct. Given that almost everything we know (scientifically) about desire and libido come from surveys, I would say that men and women may talk about their desires differently, but the fundamental desire to have sex isn't going to be weaker for half the population. That's just not evolutionarily sound.
How is that necessarily not evolutionarily sound?
Men may have a greater predisposition to spread their seed as far as possible, resulting in a stronger sex drive.
Women may have a greater predisposition to select mates that will help take care of offspring resulting in a weaker sex drive.
The result is that in general, women need more convincing to get busy than men do, and I think in most people's experience this is true.
It's true... except for sluts.... they will fucking anything.
(please note the above is meant to be a joke based on stereotypes and does not actually reflect the views of Ratatosk).
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:37:38 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 04, 2010, 08:28:05 PM
I don't think it's possible to say whether men's sex drive is stronger or more direct. Given that almost everything we know (scientifically) about desire and libido come from surveys, I would say that men and women may talk about their desires differently, but the fundamental desire to have sex isn't going to be weaker for half the population. That's just not evolutionarily sound.
How is that necessarily not evolutionarily sound?
Men may have a greater predisposition to spread their seed as far as possible, resulting in a stronger sex drive.
Women may have a greater predisposition to select mates that will help take care of offspring resulting in a weaker sex drive.
The result is that in general, women need more convincing to get busy than men do, and I think in most people's experience this is true.
Um, no.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 04, 2010, 08:35:24 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:27:12 PM
Quote from: Professor Freeky on June 04, 2010, 08:19:20 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:11:19 PM
There's also pretty good evidence that men's sex drive is generally much stronger and straightforward than women whose arousal is based more on complex contextual cues.
I'm going have to say FUCKING BULLSHIT to that line there. Some days I am in physical pain from having a sex drive that I can't seem to act on. Honestly, it doesn't matter, IMO, whether a women needs more cues than visual ones, it doesn't mean that it's less powerful.
That doesn't mean some women's sex drives aren't much stronger than some men's.
In general and statistically, the evidence supports that men have the stronger sex drive though.
Does it adjust for age? Men's libidos tend to go down over time, while women's stay constant or increase. If you're surveying a bunch of 18 year olds, yeah probably would look like that statistically.
Not only does it adjust for age, it adjusts for culture. Source (http://psr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/5/3/242)
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:37:38 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 04, 2010, 08:28:05 PM
I don't think it's possible to say whether men's sex drive is stronger or more direct. Given that almost everything we know (scientifically) about desire and libido come from surveys, I would say that men and women may talk about their desires differently, but the fundamental desire to have sex isn't going to be weaker for half the population. That's just not evolutionarily sound.
How is that necessarily not evolutionarily sound?
Men may have a greater predisposition to spread their seed as far as possible, resulting in a stronger sex drive.
Women may have a greater predisposition to select mates that will help take care of offspring resulting in a weaker sex drive.
The result is that in general, women need more convincing to get busy than men do, and I think in most people's experience this is true.
:cn:
Quote from: Professor Freeky on June 04, 2010, 08:41:54 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:37:38 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 04, 2010, 08:28:05 PM
I don't think it's possible to say whether men's sex drive is stronger or more direct. Given that almost everything we know (scientifically) about desire and libido come from surveys, I would say that men and women may talk about their desires differently, but the fundamental desire to have sex isn't going to be weaker for half the population. That's just not evolutionarily sound.
How is that necessarily not evolutionarily sound?
Men may have a greater predisposition to spread their seed as far as possible, resulting in a stronger sex drive.
Women may have a greater predisposition to select mates that will help take care of offspring resulting in a weaker sex drive.
The result is that in general, women need more convincing to get busy than men do, and I think in most people's experience this is true.
:cn:
http://psr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/short/5/3/242
The :cn: is the whole caveman theory. I for one am fucking tired of it.
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2010, 05:00:41 PM
The more research that is done on difference between sexes, the more it appears that our experiences are very different.
1. Some research indicates that men are far less spatially challenged than women. Due, not to stereotypes, but actual brain chemistry. The current theory is that men out hunting needed to find their way back home and passed on the good directional genes to their sons. One study of four year old's noted a 4:1 difference between boys that could process 3 dimensions to girls.
2. Some research indicates that women use more of their brain for smells and communication (by a large percent).
3. Some research indicates that the physical makeup of the male body has up to 10% more water than females.
4. Apparently women see colors better than men, since being able to process red is defined by the X chromosome.
(saw it on cracked.com so it must be true!)
In the end, I think science will eventually find that males and females are VERY different... not one better or worse... just very different. Trying to equate physical or psychological issues between the sexes seems like an exercise in futility to me. Hell, trying to equate one man's ED with another man's ED is probably not gonna work, because so much of what we 'feel' depends on our early childhood imprints. I agree with the post that siad this would make good flame fodder, but not much beyond that. In fact, I think its horrific that people with dysfunctions of any kind feel that they have to compare their problems with other people's to somehow legitimize their issues.
We have so many possible problems in our lives, either physical, psychological or environmental... trying to compete seems absurd to me.
It's not a competition.
Also, keep in mind that "very different" is EXTREMELY relative. Are we as different from each other as we are from our next closest simian relative? No, of course not. What that means is that in the grand scheme of things, our differences are actually not so large. Distinct, yes. But the largest gender gap, IMO, is arguing over the gender gap.
Quote from: Professor Freeky on June 04, 2010, 08:19:20 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:11:19 PM
There's also pretty good evidence that men's sex drive is generally much stronger and straightforward than women whose arousal is based more on complex contextual cues.
I'm going have to say FUCKING BULLSHIT to that line there. Some days I am in physical pain from having a sex drive that I can't seem to act on. Honestly, it doesn't matter, IMO, whether a women needs more cues than visual ones, it doesn't mean that it's less powerful.
Yep, I'm going to call bullshit on this one, too. Especially as we get older, women's sex drives are far stronger than men's.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:37:38 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 04, 2010, 08:28:05 PM
I don't think it's possible to say whether men's sex drive is stronger or more direct. Given that almost everything we know (scientifically) about desire and libido come from surveys, I would say that men and women may talk about their desires differently, but the fundamental desire to have sex isn't going to be weaker for half the population. That's just not evolutionarily sound.
How is that necessarily not evolutionarily sound?
Men may have a greater predisposition to spread their seed as far as possible, resulting in a stronger sex drive.
Women may have a greater predisposition to select mates that will help take care of offspring resulting in a weaker sex drive.
The result is that in general, women need more convincing to get busy than men do, and I think in most people's experience this is true.
Recent studies on women's cheating patterns indicates that women have a drive to secure seed from promiscuous males, while securing love and protection from a single stable male.
Women also are more likely to lie about it, which is a social function and not an evolutionary one.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 04, 2010, 08:50:43 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on June 04, 2010, 05:00:41 PM
The more research that is done on difference between sexes, the more it appears that our experiences are very different.
1. Some research indicates that men are far less spatially challenged than women. Due, not to stereotypes, but actual brain chemistry. The current theory is that men out hunting needed to find their way back home and passed on the good directional genes to their sons. One study of four year old's noted a 4:1 difference between boys that could process 3 dimensions to girls.
2. Some research indicates that women use more of their brain for smells and communication (by a large percent).
3. Some research indicates that the physical makeup of the male body has up to 10% more water than females.
4. Apparently women see colors better than men, since being able to process red is defined by the X chromosome.
(saw it on cracked.com so it must be true!)
In the end, I think science will eventually find that males and females are VERY different... not one better or worse... just very different. Trying to equate physical or psychological issues between the sexes seems like an exercise in futility to me. Hell, trying to equate one man's ED with another man's ED is probably not gonna work, because so much of what we 'feel' depends on our early childhood imprints. I agree with the post that siad this would make good flame fodder, but not much beyond that. In fact, I think its horrific that people with dysfunctions of any kind feel that they have to compare their problems with other people's to somehow legitimize their issues.
We have so many possible problems in our lives, either physical, psychological or environmental... trying to compete seems absurd to me.
It's not a competition.
Also, keep in mind that "very different" is EXTREMELY relative. Are we as different from each other as we are from our next closest simian relative? No, of course not. What that means is that in the grand scheme of things, our differences are actually not so large. Distinct, yes. But the largest gender gap, IMO, is arguing over the gender gap.
Based on some of the studies I read a few years ago about Bonobo monkeys, their sex drive etc... there's some evidence that indicates males/females of their species and ours might be closer... I don't remember much of the study, but I do remember being surprised by that (mostly cause I still have a few bars in my BIP when it comes to evolution... hard to break 25 years of programming)...
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on June 04, 2010, 08:56:09 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:37:38 PM
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 04, 2010, 08:28:05 PM
I don't think it's possible to say whether men's sex drive is stronger or more direct. Given that almost everything we know (scientifically) about desire and libido come from surveys, I would say that men and women may talk about their desires differently, but the fundamental desire to have sex isn't going to be weaker for half the population. That's just not evolutionarily sound.
How is that necessarily not evolutionarily sound?
Men may have a greater predisposition to spread their seed as far as possible, resulting in a stronger sex drive.
Women may have a greater predisposition to select mates that will help take care of offspring resulting in a weaker sex drive.
The result is that in general, women need more convincing to get busy than men do, and I think in most people's experience this is true.
Recent studies on women's cheating patterns indicates that women have a drive to secure seed from promiscuous males, while securing love and protection from a single stable male.
Women also are more likely to lie about it, which is a social function and not an evolutionary one.
I recall reading that as well...
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on June 04, 2010, 08:46:15 PM
The :cn: is the whole caveman theory. I for one am fucking tired of it.
You mean you're not a fan of evo-psych nonsense? I, for one, am shocked and appalled.
Oh, and it's also in the male's interest to have a strong mate. Human males take part in raising children, the 9 month investment that a female gives that a male doesn't isn't much in comparison to 10-15 years of raising a child (now closer to 20-25 years). The 9 months of pregnancy mean even less when you consider that it's in the male's interests to take care of the female while she is pregnant. Humans don't use the reproductive strategy of making as many offspring as possible. Our strategy is to create a few and ensure they survive.
I supplied sources to back up my claims, so far it sounds like the opposition to male sex drives being stronger is unsubstantiated opinion based on a vague dislike of evolutionary psychology (which you brought up Badge).
The source I cited is based on social psychology, not evolutionary psychology, so do you also take issue with that school of thought?
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 10:41:16 PM
I supplied sources to back up my claims, so far it sounds like the opposition to male sex drives being stronger is unsubstantiated opinion based on a vague dislike of evolutionary psychology (which you brought up Badge).
The source I cited is based on social psychology, not evolutionary psychology, so do you also take issue with that school of thought?
But, psychologically speaking, might that have more to do with how males perceive sex through their cultural expectations? It was brought up earlier that men tend to view sex as an accomplishment. Maybe it's a chicken or the egg sort of thing.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 04, 2010, 10:44:24 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 10:41:16 PM
I supplied sources to back up my claims, so far it sounds like the opposition to male sex drives being stronger is unsubstantiated opinion based on a vague dislike of evolutionary psychology (which you brought up Badge).
The source I cited is based on social psychology, not evolutionary psychology, so do you also take issue with that school of thought?
But, psychologically speaking, might that have more to do with how males perceive sex through their cultural expectations? It was brought up earlier that men tend to view sex as an accomplishment. Maybe it's a chicken or the egg sort of thing.
The fact that it's confirmed across cultures suggests that it is based more in biology rather than social pressure.
Most of the stuff on the last four pages is so full of bullshit I can smell cowpies through my screen.
Anybody can google. How many of you so called experts have ever actually studied animal behavior?
If you HAD, you'd know that males and females are in a coevolutionary arms race, of which BOTH are looking to pass on their genes to the next generation. The key to understanding mating systems in an evolutionary context is parental investment. In some organisms, like many insects, females are choosy and males mate often. In other's, males are more choosy than the females. Why? Because the males in those cases provide significantly more energy investment towards individual offspring than the females do, either with parental care, or sperm package size and composition.
In humans, gestation period is long, parental care lasts years, and pairs tend to mate monogamously. Guess what that means?
BOTH MALE AND FEMALE HUMANS ARE CHOOSY. Got it? Theres none of this stupid caveman shit about spreading sperm far and wide with females being the passive receivers. It's not in the males best interest, because biology and culture requires extended parental care for his offspring, and it's definitely not in the females interest to be a passive receiver for the same reason. Both actively seek out and selectively choose mates. Both have a reason, because both have strong parental investments and both aim to get their genes into the next generation.
Are we done with this male/female stereotype bullshit now?
Quote from: Triple Zero on June 04, 2010, 05:13:41 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on June 04, 2010, 04:56:30 AM
Quote from: Zyzyx on June 04, 2010, 03:34:40 AM
I always found it pretty amazing that people denied female orgasm, especially women. I guess it was just weeded out of women. Now we men-folk have to work extra-hard to undo thousands of years of prudery.
That or thousands of years of inflated egos have left us lacking in the bedroom, and we have had to quickly learn to compensate by being, you know, emotionally intelligent.
Um dude, I've never had to work extra hard.
Just saying.
Good for you :)
I really wonder though, if it depends on the skill of the man, or the woman in question. From what I heard from women, especially the ones that had (some) trouble achieving orgasm, it requires a great deal of concentration, no matter how hard the man tries.
Another thing that's different, I suppose. A skilled woman can make a man come, even if he doesn't desire to, but the other way around, not so much. As far as I have found, that is. Heavily depending on the woman in question.
Hm makes me think, I don't have experience with men, let alone multiple, so maybe the fact that a skilled woman can make me come, regardless of whether I want to or not (unsure if that ever happened, btw), maybe doesn't hold for all men either.
No, this does not hold true for all men.
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2010, 08:26:17 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 04, 2010, 08:23:52 PM
Quote from: Hawk on June 04, 2010, 08:14:45 PM
I think what set me off about this is the 'women have a hole so being sexually dysfunctional can't bother them' mentality.
I think that's an abusive attitude towards women as well.
I hope my argument is not being construed as supporting that point of view.
Of course I don't think you support that. I guess my problem with a lot of these studies is they seem to start from the same old prejudices that have been proven false.
Men are superior.
Men hunt, women cook
Well, you get the idea.
Since when is hunting superior to cooking? Most studies show that at least 75% of hunter gatherer tribes calories came from gathering rather than hunting. If there were no men the tribe would survive, (well, aside from the whole breeding thing) with no women not only would they not have enoguh food what they had would be raw meat.
(http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1954/xyzaxes.gif) (http://img8.imageshack.us/i/xyzaxes.gif/)
"Women may have a greater predisposition to select mates that will help take care of offspring often ignoring their own sex drive."
FIX'T
Quote from: LMNO on June 04, 2010, 07:18:03 PM
Quote from: noir on June 04, 2010, 05:43:31 PM
It seems to me the only major difference between male and female sexual dysfunction is that stigma which is imposed by society. Society teaches us that a man that can't 'fuck bitches' is less of a man. Whereas a woman who is unable to get aroused is generally understood as an unfortunate but societally acceptable thing.
Conclusion: Modern western sexuality (at least from my own male perspective) is based almost entirely on ego. And where as it seems to me the female ego boost is derived from their partners desire to have sex with them, the male ego boost is derived much more from the act, the 'achievement'.
Only 14 posts in, and noir wins an internets.
+1 internets w00t
You know... I was going to comment further on this thread... but looking back... I have nothing more to say.
Kai wins thread
thank you Kai!
Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2010, 01:41:02 AM
Most of the stuff on the last four pages is so full of bullshit I can smell cowpies through my screen.
Anybody can google. How many of you so called experts have ever actually studied animal behavior?
If you HAD, you'd know that males and females are in a coevolutionary arms race, of which BOTH are looking to pass on their genes to the next generation. The key to understanding mating systems in an evolutionary context is parental investment. In some organisms, like many insects, females are choosy and males mate often. In other's, males are more choosy than the females. Why? Because the males in those cases provide significantly more energy investment towards individual offspring than the females do, either with parental care, or sperm package size and composition.
In humans, gestation period is long, parental care lasts years, and pairs tend to mate monogamously. Guess what that means?
BOTH MALE AND FEMALE HUMANS ARE CHOOSY. Got it? Theres none of this stupid caveman shit about spreading sperm far and wide with females being the passive receivers. It's not in the males best interest, because biology and culture requires extended parental care for his offspring, and it's definitely not in the females interest to be a passive receiver for the same reason. Both actively seek out and selectively choose mates. Both have a reason, because both have strong parental investments and both aim to get their genes into the next generation.
Are we done with this male/female stereotype bullshit now?
:cn:
ETA: Social science is about establishing
accurate stereotypes, not trying to indict an innate heuristic judgment that all humans are bound to.
Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2010, 01:41:02 AM
Most of the stuff on the last four pages is so full of bullshit I can smell cowpies through my screen.
Anybody can google. How many of you so called experts have ever actually studied animal behavior?
If you HAD, you'd know that males and females are in a coevolutionary arms race, of which BOTH are looking to pass on their genes to the next generation. The key to understanding mating systems in an evolutionary context is parental investment. In some organisms, like many insects, females are choosy and males mate often. In other's, males are more choosy than the females. Why? Because the males in those cases provide significantly more energy investment towards individual offspring than the females do, either with parental care, or sperm package size and composition.
In humans, gestation period is long, parental care lasts years, and pairs tend to mate monogamously. Guess what that means?
BOTH MALE AND FEMALE HUMANS ARE CHOOSY. Got it? Theres none of this stupid caveman shit about spreading sperm far and wide with females being the passive receivers. It's not in the males best interest, because biology and culture requires extended parental care for his offspring, and it's definitely not in the females interest to be a passive receiver for the same reason. Both actively seek out and selectively choose mates. Both have a reason, because both have strong parental investments and both aim to get their genes into the next generation.
Are we done with this male/female stereotype bullshit now?
:fap:
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 06, 2010, 07:48:48 AM
Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2010, 01:41:02 AM
Most of the stuff on the last four pages is so full of bullshit I can smell cowpies through my screen.
Anybody can google. How many of you so called experts have ever actually studied animal behavior?
If you HAD, you'd know that males and females are in a coevolutionary arms race, of which BOTH are looking to pass on their genes to the next generation. The key to understanding mating systems in an evolutionary context is parental investment. In some organisms, like many insects, females are choosy and males mate often. In other's, males are more choosy than the females. Why? Because the males in those cases provide significantly more energy investment towards individual offspring than the females do, either with parental care, or sperm package size and composition.
In humans, gestation period is long, parental care lasts years, and pairs tend to mate monogamously. Guess what that means?
BOTH MALE AND FEMALE HUMANS ARE CHOOSY. Got it? Theres none of this stupid caveman shit about spreading sperm far and wide with females being the passive receivers. It's not in the males best interest, because biology and culture requires extended parental care for his offspring, and it's definitely not in the females interest to be a passive receiver for the same reason. Both actively seek out and selectively choose mates. Both have a reason, because both have strong parental investments and both aim to get their genes into the next generation.
Are we done with this male/female stereotype bullshit now?
:cn:
ETA: Social science is about establishing accurate stereotypes, not trying to indict an innate heuristic judgment that all humans are bound to.
Don't bother. You're arguing religion.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on June 07, 2010, 12:22:23 AM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 06, 2010, 07:48:48 AM
Quote from: Kai on June 05, 2010, 01:41:02 AM
Most of the stuff on the last four pages is so full of bullshit I can smell cowpies through my screen.
Anybody can google. How many of you so called experts have ever actually studied animal behavior?
If you HAD, you'd know that males and females are in a coevolutionary arms race, of which BOTH are looking to pass on their genes to the next generation. The key to understanding mating systems in an evolutionary context is parental investment. In some organisms, like many insects, females are choosy and males mate often. In other's, males are more choosy than the females. Why? Because the males in those cases provide significantly more energy investment towards individual offspring than the females do, either with parental care, or sperm package size and composition.
In humans, gestation period is long, parental care lasts years, and pairs tend to mate monogamously. Guess what that means?
BOTH MALE AND FEMALE HUMANS ARE CHOOSY. Got it? Theres none of this stupid caveman shit about spreading sperm far and wide with females being the passive receivers. It's not in the males best interest, because biology and culture requires extended parental care for his offspring, and it's definitely not in the females interest to be a passive receiver for the same reason. Both actively seek out and selectively choose mates. Both have a reason, because both have strong parental investments and both aim to get their genes into the next generation.
Are we done with this male/female stereotype bullshit now?
:cn:
ETA: Social science is about establishing accurate stereotypes, not trying to indict an innate heuristic judgment that all humans are bound to.
Don't bother. You're arguing religion.
*whistle*
ECH gets a 15 yard penalty for unnecesary roughness. :lulz:
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on June 07, 2010, 06:51:26 PM
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on June 07, 2010, 12:22:23 AM
Don't bother. You're arguing religion.
:?
It means that no matter how correct your assertions are, they will never be
right.