Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Sex talk post of the day
Cassandra is writing about sex again. That minx. And Bird Dog posted a most excellent picture of her.
Truth be told, if you are married, plan to get married, or were married and are trying to figure out how it went wrong, you really ought to read her post. Regardless of your gender.
15 Comments:
By 
Cassandra, at
Wed Dec 31, 11:10:00 AM:
OK, smart aleck. Now I am going to spend the rest of the holiday weekend trying to figure out how to get you for this :p
The Cycle of Violence continues...
Heh.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Dec 31, 11:12:00 AM:
By 
, at
Wed Dec 31, 11:30:00 AM:
Ay ay ay.
Getting Along with Men 101: If it takes 3,500 plus words (before the comment section!!)to say what could be summed up in a paragraph or two, most men will stop caring whether they get lucky or not!
By Mystery Meat, at
Wed Dec 31, 11:31:00 AM:
Years ago I was flipping through a "woman's" magazine at the dentist. There was an interview of Jerry Hall, who was Rolling Stone singer Mick Jagger's paramour at the time. The interviewer asked her, because of Jagger's popularity with the ladies, how she kept him faithful? She replied she tried to keep him too worn out to wander by performing oral sex on him three times a day. That would work for me, too.
Happy New Year everybody!
By , at
Wed Dec 31, 11:36:00 AM:
LOL, MM. That should cut down on the talking too. Everyone knows it's not polite to talk when your mouth is full.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Dec 31, 12:08:00 PM:
I like Prager, he's a smart guy.
I thought that the passage about point #2 was interesting because 1) while Cassandra wrote, "Wow. Worst. Argument. Ever to make to a woman," I thought it was clear and persuasive. Another gender difference!
2) "Is the wife who doesn't respond to the passes single and married men make at married women all the time (remember, women LOVE flirting, romance and attention of any kind - hey, we're animals! It's how we're made Mr. Prager: get over it) "heroic", too? Or is she just keeping her promise?"
completely underestimates the seriousness of the matter. Denying our 'sexual nature's desire for variety' isn't a matter of preference, fun, relaxation, or play. It's a matter of instinct. Every single time we meet new women (yeah, every time) we make a mental calculation about her value as a sexual partner and/or object of pursuit, and make a decision about whether to pursue. One single yes, one little act of indulgence, can wreck lives. And so for faithful married men that decision is consistently 'no.' And trust me, that 'no' can be painful, especially if there's unrest, distrust, or cold relations in your household at the time.
And what Mr. Prager said here, ("Deny him enough times and he may try to fill this need with another woman.") is spot on. Married men are already abandoning their instinctive drives for the sake of their spouse. To do that without having an outlet (maybe one is traveling or sick or injured) is worse, but such is life. But if you don't have an outlet because you are being rejected by your spouse... That's hard. It sucks. And it sucks in a way that women will never understand.
"Oh we understand, because we're expected not to sleep around too!"
No, you don't understand. How many times a day do women have to recommit themselves to monogamy and eschew instinctive drives that their inner nature repeatedly commands them to obey, especially when your one open, accepted avenue of relief has been deliberately cut off by someone who claims to love you?
We men hear constantly about we can never understand the horrible painful agony of childbirth (even though I've been there, and I have a pretty good idea) because it's a uniquely female experience.
Well sisters, that street goes both ways. Women will never understand the degrees of self-discipline men need and use to keep their instincts in check for *your* sakes (and sometimes our own, in polite society), especially as time passes and the inner instinct gets louder. Maybe this is why men are better at keeping their emotions in check... we've had to restrain ourselves on a daily basis since we were 13.
But anyway, I think it is wrong to trivialize this sacrifice and compare it to 'not flirting all the time.' That such a comparison was made demonstrates a lack of understanding.
An afterthought. This may have little or nothing to do with instinctive drives to mate and everything to do with psychology, but on the occasions where I've seen a woman actively pursue a man for sex and get shot down, they practically combusted. Either they got all sullen and teary and morose, or they flipped out and yelled and bitched or made accusations. "What, are you gay?" is common. Because that's the only reason a man would turn them down.
Hey, it's ok. I sympathize. They were excited and enjoying the thrill of a chase and thought they were closing in for the kill and it turned out that they were completely wrong. It's quite a disappointment. At least it's rare for ladies to get that way.
But you women try to imagine getting that way once a week. Or twice a week. Or three. Maybe more, for our young, virile population. And then suffer that disappointment from your spouse. Repeatedly. And see how long your fidelity remains strong.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Dec 31, 02:14:00 PM:
Every single time we meet new women (yeah, every time) we make a mental calculation about her value as a sexual partner and/or object of pursuit, and make a decision about whether to pursue.
I have a feeling I will regret this :p
Dawnfire, I've been married for nearly 30 years.
I'm not gorgeous, but I'm not bad looking either. Let me clue you in on something, because this seems to be the biggest single misconception men have about women and sex. Pretty much every time I meet an attractive man, the possibility of initiating sex with him crosses my mind.
During my marriage, I've spent three entire years away from my husband (translation: no sex) and have lived through countless deployments. Yet I've never cheated. Not once.
So while you're entirely correct that I don't know what it's like to be a man, I have some inkling of what Prager's talking about. Guess what?
If you want a woman to enjoy sex, it's not just you she'll think about. It's a double edged sword.
Men love the idea of women being interested.. in them only. But she'll think about having sex with other men. A lot. Just like you think about having sex with other women. A lot.
I've had this discussion with several female friends, and I'm not the only one who reacts that way to men . We just don't act out our thoughts. That I don't cheat is the best tribute I can imagine to my husband. He's a hell of a guy and I would never risk losing him. For anything.
Plus, I made a promise, and I don't break my promises.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Dec 31, 02:54:00 PM:
I have written several highly entertaining responses, Cass, and each time thought the better of it. Damn!
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Dec 31, 03:18:00 PM:
"the possibility of initiating sex with him crosses my mind"
You still don't get that there's a difference.
For one thing, it's not an acknowledgment of a possibility or a 'hey, it might be fun if...' It's a drive. An impulse. A primal command to acquire and conquer. It's something that has to be over-ridden, and it's something that women don't have.
For another, you said 'pretty much' and 'attractive,' both of which are limiting caveats that don't apply to the male instinct.
And yes, military separation sucks (remember, Dawnfire = wartime veteran) but that's not what he (or I) was talking about. He was talking about wives deliberately shutting off the one sexual vent a married man is allowed without concern for what that puts him through, and my issue was that you seemed to trivialize this and compared it flirting, of all things, mocking the idea that it was a serious sacrifice at all.
"If you want a woman to enjoy sex, it's not just you she'll think about. It's a double edged sword.
Men love the idea of women being interested.. in them only. But she'll think about having sex with other men. A lot. Just like you think about having sex with other women. A lot."
I have no idea where any of this came from.
By , at
Thu Jan 01, 12:46:00 AM:
Happy New Year Everyone!
Andrew
By Noumenon, at
Thu Jan 01, 05:52:00 AM:
For one thing, it's not an acknowledgment of a possibility or a 'hey, it might be fun if...' It's a drive. An impulse. A primal command to acquire and conquer. It's something that has to be over-ridden, and it's something that women don't have.
Please, speak for yourself. There's really no way to tell how unusual I am for a man, but it's not like this for me at all. I just fantasize a lot.
So to me, this just sounds like a cultural belief that people have. I've heard that it used to be women who were considered to have the overpowering sex drives (ca. 1800), and men had to put up a strong-willed defense or be seduced.
By Cassandra, at
Thu Jan 01, 02:18:00 PM:
First of all Dawnfire, I am happy to concede your points on my caveats re: 'cross my mind' and 'attractive'. However, I tend to agree with Noumenon.
I think in general men are probably more likely to act on their impulses than women because of the way they're 'wired' (if that's the way we want to put it), but I also think that not all men are that way, just as not all women fit the mold society tries to cram us into.
I also think there's a darned good reason Islam practices what they like to call 'female circumcision', Dawnfire.
And I think men fool themselves an awful lot about female sexuality. It is a woman's nature to be indirect, that's all. We have the same drives. We simply don't tend to be as direct or aggressive in their expression, but at the end of the day it takes two to tango, as they say. We can get what we want by attracting it to us rather than actively pursuing it. To think for one moment that means we don't desire it requires that one ignore a whole range of female behavior that inconveniently contradicts that premise :p
And I wasn't trivializing the damage it does when women deny sex to their husbands at ALL. I stated - several times - that women should not deny sex to their husbands, and further that I don't think they would if they understood how hurtful that is. The very point of the comparison is to put this hurt in terms women can understand - to say, "How would you feel if the man in your life dismissed your very real needs, simply because he doesn't feel them as strongly as you do?"
Which you have just done. And that only underscores my point about men and women not understanding each other very well at all.
By Cassandra, at
Thu Jan 01, 02:28:00 PM:
And also, I never mocked the idea that going without sex was a serious sacrifice.
You really, REALLY need to re-read my post if you think that, because that is not only completely off base, but diametrically opposed to what I actually said.
What I said was that Prager is right, but he made the wrong argument, and made it in a way calculated to anger women. He even angered many male bloggers who read his article.
The reason women shouldn't deny sex to their husbands is not because they "owe" it to them, but because if you love someone, you should want them to be happy and you ought to try to understand and accept them as they are, not as you want them to be (or to want them to be like you). This goes for both men and women and it's the biggest reason marriages fail, I think: people are selfish and stubborn. They think only their needs count and if they don't see the "need" for something, well darnitall they're not going to try and meet their spouse halfway.
Marriage is about compromise. It isn't a tit-for-tat, but at the end of the day if both parties don't get what they need from the relationship, how will a marriage survive? You have to balance your own needs with those of your partner, and that requires both a healthy ego and a good bit of altruism.
By Cassandra, at
Thu Jan 01, 02:38:00 PM:
Finally (jeez, have you ever met a woman who didn't have to try and get the last word in???) :p...
I have written several highly entertaining responses, Cass, and each time thought the better of it. Damn!
Yeah. I figured I'd pay for that :)
re: ...It's a drive. An impulse. A primal command to acquire and conquer. It's something that has to be over-ridden, and it's something that women don't have.
*sigh*
Dawnfire, I'm curious.
How on earth do you know how all woman feel?
I have no idea how men feel, and wouldn't presume to tell them. I put forward a few theories in my post, but also said, "Hey - I could be all wrong here."
This is the kind of thing that often drives women nuts. Being told.
Because the thing is, you really don't know, do you? You're not a woman, I don't think, and even if you were not all women are alike. Maybe you could entertain the possibility that there are few more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of...
blah, blah, blah... :)
I always enjoy your comments here at TH, but we'll have to agree to disagree here, though frankly I think it's mostly b/c you've misunderstood the point of my post and I'm not sure how that happened. Anyway, Happy New Year :)
By , at
Thu Jan 01, 03:33:00 PM:
Prager's article (and by extension Cassandra's three day exercise in stream of consciousness writing:~)) is that it assumes that sex is something to be given *to* men, that woman are less libidousness than men, and that men are incapable of sharing emotionally.
I beg to disagree strongly on all three points. I enjoy sex as much as my husband. Many times, I'm the one to initiate our lovemaking (after 18 years of marriage I hardly need to be coy as Cassandra's "attracting it to us"-yikes), and truth be told depending on his schedule sometimes he's the one who's not in the mood. For a spouse to assume his/her partner should just "lie back and think of England" when the other ain't in the mood is about as rewarding as trying to have a conversation with someone who doesn't feel like talking. Pretty dumb, too.
There are usually three reasons that a woman (or a man) gives up on sex: it hurts, she doesn't like her partner or she doesn't like herself. Mr. Prager et al might want to address those possibilities before dispensing archaic sexual advice about the need for wives to "put out." We're not in high school anymore folks.
