Men's "needs"

[DtPeabodysLoosePants]

I'm prone to pondering ruminating obsessively sometimes when anxious about past events/conversations and something I read earlier triggered some memories.

This m

Dervel
Where to start? First off all it’s bs that women’s sex drives are any lesser than men’s.

That's simply not true, according to every woman I know. In the natural order of things, from the most primitive times women would always have had to be more choosy and more careful about sex, as being pregnant is a huge investment in energy and resources, and makes you vulnerable. Men have a biological urge to impregnate as many women as possible, women - just like all animals - need to look to the health of possible offspring and the best chance of their survival.

Do you class yourself as a feminist even? I ask that genuinely as I see a lot of denial of the patriarchy in your posts.

I don't really subscribe to the theory of the patriarchy - I don't think the vast majority of women do either. My issue is that it's based on class analysis which doesn't always make sense.

For example, a 'class' comprising Bill Gates and 49 homeless men would be seen as more privileged than a class of 50 comfortably wealthy female execs, solely because the many millions owned by BG would make the group wealthier as a whole. This is a fair reflection of our society IMO, where women earn more until they reach the approximate age of motherhood but a very small percentage of elite men hold much more wealth than anybody else (which the other 99% of men don't benefit from).

Oh dear lord what the actual fuck is this....

Wtf @BjornAgain81 ?

Sudden urge to attend a Bunbury picnic...

Sudden urge to attend a Bunbury picnic...

Is it in the woods, and will there be bears?

I can pretty much guarantee the non-attendance of Bill Gates, if that helps?

I've got a brand new picnic blanket, large flask and some babybels I'm happy to share. But could someone please explain Bunbury to me as I've not been around long enough to know too busy on the brexit threads and got too stressed with the unisex loos st my daughters school and left FWR for a while.

Lamaha that all sounds very involved

The other option of course and in general is that men can just have a wank rather than insisting on a human body (usually female) being readily available whenever they feel frisky.

The idea that men can't masturbate without viewing porn is bizarre as well and comes from a similar place I think

Yes. I’m curious about the Bunbury picnic too....

FWIW I fully agree with you OP.
It’s the expectations that men just can’t cope with an erection and then not having an orgasm to relieve it. But also that it’s ok for women to be there to do that. That if they aren’t keen/unavailable then they should give them a BJ or a handjob, basically reducing women to a receptacle, a very passive role (and men have the active role with the ejaculation of course).
My take on that is that it stems from the idea that, in sex, men are active (they are the ones to seek sex, have the release, have ‘needs’ etc...) whereas women have the passive role (so they arent as keen in sex, don’t normally take the initiative, are a receptacle —or a hole in crude porn terms— and of course it works with the image of subdued woman/wife image too).
That’s also why I hate this idea that it’s ok to tell women they need to make an effort for men to have sex for the sake of the relationship.

@Lamaha, I like your comment about India. I think it’s an interesting way of looking at things and certainly shows it is POSSIBLE for men to control those ‘urges’. It’s just that they have been socialised not to in our societies.

My last boyfriend was as described in the OP. I used to say his bollocks were the third person in the relationship.

Never again.

In the natural order of things, from the most primitive times women would always have had to be more choosy and more careful about sex,

While it's true that sex is much, much more risky for women than for men, that doesn't mean that women want it less. Indeed, you could say that the mere fact that women do want sex at all - given the much greater risks it poses for them for men, for whom it usually poses very little if any risk - indicates that the desire for sex is very powerful in many women.

Men have a biological urge to impregnate as many women as possible

Even if this is true, I don't neccessarily think that wanting frequent sex with random partners means you want 'it' more than wanting satisfying sex which is going to bring you pleasure. Women have a lot to risk and often very little to gain from one night stands, whereas the opposite is true for men.

So I guess I'm saying it's not a competiion - the contexts in which men and women seek sex are very different for many reasons, so impossible to directly compare. Not that it really matters. Neither men nor women 'need' sex. They may want it, very much, but they do not 'need' it.

@IcedPurple The thing is that we are not forced to be at the beck and call of our sex drive. It can be lower or higher, encouraged or discouraged, and it is in our hands to do so -- no pun intended. It's not a static thing. We don't have to be beholden to our libido (which is the whole point of that Brahmacharya teaching I described earlier).

I suppose a woman could have a libido so strong as to be constantly wanting "it", daily, and with just about any man who passed her way the way many men seem able to operate but is that realistic?

Our biology forced us, in the days before reliable birth control, to be careful and discriminating; it was in our own interest. That remains as our legacy, now that we do have bc, and it's a good thing imo.

Lamaha it was interesting reading your earlier post about India although I agree that rape is a horrendous issue there and so might not be available or useful to all. However I was thinking that we could do with something similar here-a kind of national service period for channeling sexual energy and taming one's libido
Porn has definitely got a lot to answer for and I never really considered it beyond face value until reading threads on here.
There seems to be so much aggression in people today too-male and female. The groups of teenagers and young adults I see behaving in ways that wouldn't have been tolerated a couple of decades ago. Gaming, drugs, alcohol, the internet and the 24:7 access to everything wanted rather than needed. It all feeds in to a society that is very entitled these days and men feeling entitled to sex is a particularly nasty part of that. So many factors at play. I think we have become lost. It's going to take some doing to undo all that socialisation. I just hope things improve for future generations before the planet is wiped out.

The thing is that we are not forced to be at the beck and call of our sex drive. It can be lower or higher, encouraged or discouraged, and it is in our hands to do so -- no pun intended. It's not a static thing. We don't have to be beholden to our libido (which is the whole point of that Brahmacharya teaching I described earlier)

Well yes. That was kind of my point. Nobody - male or female - 'needs' sex. It's a want, not a need.

I suppose a woman could have a libido so strong as to be constantly wanting "it", daily, and with just about any man who passed her way the way many men seem able to operate but is that realistic?

I'm not convinced that the above is in fact true of 'many men', but in any case, you're missing my point. Like I said above, a casual encounter with a random man poses many risks and few benefits for women, while the opposite is true for men. However, there's more to sex than random casual couplings. A woman may desire sex with a certain partner, in certain circumstances, very very much.

To equate sex to random rutting is a very male way to look at it, I think.

I apologise for referencing you IcedPurple. I was still, in my mind, referring to the earlier quote First off all it’s bs that women’s sex drives are any lesser than men’s.

This would imply that we are just as open to sex for the sake of sex, ie with almost anyone, as many (not all!!!!) men.

Men are socialised to be like that about sex. The result is an abnormal obsession and entitlement.

I would agree with this. There's evidence to suggest that, prior to the Georgian period, cultural perceptions of lustfulness were very much about female sexuality. Men, on the other hand, were much more passive and encouraged to put up with sex for reproductive reasons.

This makes a lot of sense when you consider the cultural impact of Puritanism, and the legacy of the medieval church and its attitude to male sexuality, considering, in particular, the connection between the church and male positions of power.

In this context, women are "lusty" because they desire pregnancy, their "wombs drive them." Men, however, must separate themselves from bodily feelings in order to get closer to God.

It's only in the late 17th century that this starts to shift. And even then the full reversal doesn't peak until the Victorian period.

My gut says it's something to do with economic change, urbanisation and industrialisation.

Don't fancy full sex? Ok, give me a hand job/blow job instead.

I absolutely hate this. Luckily DH does not go on like that, but ex did. Anytime I was feeling too tired or just didn't want to shag, he thought he was entitled to a BJ/wank/ Like, theres nothing at all in it for me giving you a handjob, so if I CBA having sex, I CBA with that either. Have a wank solo.

Oh, also a charming reply to me turning down sex (from different man this time, unfortunately they seem everywhere..), was 'I will make sure its really quick, you just need to lie there'

@BatShite you must have been with my exH. Grim.