The first problem with the controversy reported here is it’s one-sidedly, taking mens’ subscription to porn for granted as purely sexual, rather than psychologically/socially complex. The other main problem is the article doesn't canvas the fundamental incompatibility between men and women. These two factors are connected. Marriage is a social contract that evolved for the sake of social cohesion and regeneration, but it seems hitherto to have been much more adapted to female sexuality, sensibility and security than male—even if it was patriarchy that projected inhibited sexuality onto women in denial of the lust that offended men's spiritual aspirations. Women tend to romanticise sex and are needy of affection, love and post-coital hugging, whereas male fantasy is more domineering and visceral, yet discontented* at the last and almost repulsed by the smothering that follows. Porn requites men uncomplicated gratification directly adapted to the rush of male fantasy. The pornographic surrogates are just as unreal in terms of male experience as they are women’s. The representation of insatiable, unsentimental, promiscuous woman directly contradicts reality. Indeed pornography offers an attractive alternative to romanticised sex and prudish, stifling monogamy.
The irony is that men wouldn’t want these sexual maenads for wives as with no escape they’d present a constant challenge to their masculinity, and because civilised, spiritual man is disgusted by primal, sexualised man*; his modest wife is both a constant reminder of his uprightness, and a foil for his emergent alter-ego.

*The expense of spirit in a waste of shame
Is lust in action: and till action, lust
Is perjur'd, murderous, bloody, full of blame,
Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust;
Enjoy'd no sooner but despised straight;
Past reason hunted; and no sooner had,
Past reason hated, as a swallow'd bait,
On purpose laid to make the taker mad:
Mad in pursuit and in possession so;
Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme;
A bliss in proof,— and prov'd, a very woe;
Before, a joy propos'd; behind a dream.
All this the world well knows; yet none knows well
To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.

–Shakespeare

As usual with feminists they connect the dots and get an answer that suits their agenda.

Can I pose an alternate one that that considers males as people rather than as adornments to women?

How about men need sex because that is how the human race manages to reproduce itself. Women on the other hand don't need sex and in fact in many instances don't even like it. What they like is the feeling of being sexual. hence, they spend lots of money, time and effort to look and feel sexual. So men=sex, women=sexual.

Perhaps in the past when women weren't feeling sexual all the time they may have actually wanted sex more. Who knows.

I have little sympathy for women who feel threatened by porn. Our society is so sexualised now that even music videos would have been considered porn just decades ago. Surely porn is just women expressing their sexuality. Isn't that what we hear everytime someone criticises the omniscience of sex?

And apparently it causes women to worry about the look of their labia. Well stop the presses. Don't women know that all men look like John Holmes when naked?

Another article that is really about neuroticism not porn.

...When pornography is simply one integral part of the overall sex industry, why not aim the source of the problem of women’s libido on the whole industry? After-all, is it not a commonly held opinion that the modern-day sex industry is a mark of achievement of progressive politics, in which homosexuality has recently been included in “in-tandem” in the Public mind as well, and demands universal acceptance as part of the overall unit of progress for sexuality and sexual desire, for that universal desire to be acceptably satisfied?

...The removal of the “Christian morality” argument, was the key weapon for achievements in open sexuality and its many parts, including pornography!

...To divorce morality from the argument, (as this article does), and weep only for the victims, (as women are), will not solve the social dilemma of unfettered sexuality in a progressive society going backwards morally!

"Dr Bella Ellwood-Clayton, resident anthropologist come sexpert..."

And what makes her a sexpert? Read a lot of books I suppose?

Pornography has a lot in common with fast food in that what you see is never quite what comes thru the window.
It's the same with news. Repetitive gloss, with every update marketed as something new. It so seldom is.
The resulting dissatisfaction gives rise to violence, a growth phenomenon if ever there was one.
We are becoming increasingly disconnected from reality, and yet reality is just that - reality.
Scary, really. Don't know where it's going.

I do agree that women's self image is a factor. A far bigger factor in declining libido is in my view the presence of children and possibly an element of staleness (monogamy works on a lot of levels but there are some aspects that don't do well in maintaining excitement).

Also agree that in some cases men may make adverse comparisons contributing to poor self image but I strongly suspect that in most cases poor self image has a lot more to do with what's portrayed in women's magazines, TV etc than the images in porn.

I think that in relation to porn and libido the author and others got the arrow heads the wrong way round when they joined the dot's. That a significant proportion of increased porn usage is driven by the combination of a partners declining libido as a relationship settles into routine and easier access than in the past rather than increased porn usage driving declining women's libido.

Porn is in my view generally a very poor substitute for the real thing, however for a lot of men the real thing is not a regular part of life.

The sexual needs of men and women do appear to be generally different as are the hurdles to getting sex happening.

R0bert

Two posts and already we have a more nuanced view.

'Another article that is really about neuroticism not porn.'

Indeed.

'The irony is that men wouldn’t want these sexual maenads for wives'

Pretty true really. My advise to women is to just ignore it. Like men ignore TV SOAPs. It's fantasy.

It is interesting the author doesn't even consider the possibility that a lot of the men are into porn because the wives are not into sex, rather than the reverse that she argues, and that they love their wives and wish to remain monogamous.

I dunno, I have seen a lot of porn in my time, but the descriptions of what most porn is I read from most feminists is nothing like that what I see out there. When I read feminist critique of porn I see the internal insecurities of women, like a woman obsessed by their partner's glance at a young blonde when the partner is really into Asian chicks. She doesn't notice he looks at Asian chicks because she is obsessed by her own fears.

In the end women just will never get porn, and I think they'd be better off not trying really. Squeers' attempt at explaining I think is pretty accurate. It does bug me that feminists just get it so wrong.

It's strange for feminism that it doesn't even question that women should be falling over themselves so much attempting to be what men want, and be all upset at men for wanting. It's like they think women have no agency, and no desire of their own, and no concept of independence, no inherent sense of aesthetics.

There is every body shape, every age, ever kink imaginable on the internet no matter how feminists deny this and talk about some 'narrow' beauty ideal. Men look for variety and are just happy to see ANY flesh that's on show, women look at clothes horses and put them on a pedestal and want to conform. This body image rubbish is all an internal neurosis as far as I can see that bemuses most men.

I must have missed it - where exactly does Ellwood-Clayton "join the dots" between porn and women's declining libido?

It all seems a little glib to me.

"The effects of this pornography flood are yet to be fully understood, but it inarguably harms female libido" argues Ellwood-Clayton."

Some evidence of it being "inarguable" would help. Instead, we get...

"She connects women's increasingly documented sense of physical inadequacy, exemplified by our huge and ever growing expenditure on beauty products and cosmetic surgery, as well as the relentless pursuit of diet and exercise, with our declining desires"

So, spending more on looking good is a result of "declining desires". And the physical inadequacy that drives those declining desires is... what? The availability of porn?

How so? After all, as the research shows, only a small proportion of women look at it, so the images that they presume to feel threatened by are ones they must conjure up themselves.

And what about the legion of women who feel themselves in competition, beauty-product-wise, with those images of smooth-skinned perfection in the TV ads - because "they're worth it"? Are they included in the author's perception of pornography?

"The real clincher, notes Ellwood-Clayton, is the disconnect between our minds and our bodies – we have come to perceive our bodies... through the filter of porn culture"

Sorry, I just don't find that at all convincing. When women invest in boosting their body image, it is far more likely to be as a result of the perceived threat to her relationship from his female co-workers, than a porn-star she has - apparently - never seen.

Squeers, RObert and Houellie, - excellent responses.

Petra,

I am constantly amazed how the feminist movement has promoted women's participation in the manic rampage that is consumer society, and how at the same time it fails to share responsibility for emergent forms like a blood red media which delivers all kinds of subterranean images to our "highly offended" sensibilities. All societies are part psychological construct providing a veneer over corporeal and carnal reality. Our society continues to blur the lines and reveal the absurd psychological incompatibility between rectitude and reality.

'disconnect between our minds and our bodies – we have come to perceive our bodies not as we feel and experience them, not as living breathing entities capable of menstruating with the moon and bringing forth new life'

This kinda stuff makes me wonder about women. I have never met a woman who would prescribe to this notion that women should be in some kind of perpetual Awe of their bodily rhythms and woman-ness. Maybe I don't hang around very many airy fairy women, but regardless of that do you ever hear men encouraged to perceive the awe of their body and it's rhythms. I mean a man appreciates a good solid morning turd I suppose, but why do women feel they should be feeling this mysticism and if they don't attribute responsibility for this to men or some other factor.

Sure the feminists will put all this down to some kind of reaction to oppression or something but do they ever consider the whole idea is a bit ridiculous. It all seems very self-centred and narcissistic or something to be wallowing in all this mind/body stuff. Haven't they got more weighty or even enjoyable things to agonise about?

This overly romantic celebration of womanhood I find quite amusing. I suppose some men go on about their athleticism but when they kiss their biceps it's more in fun really.

Do we worry about men who pay no mind to their biceps because he's a good little provider at the office? What a tragedy!

I trust a woman more who admits having periods and babies is a damned nuisance and doesn't see her womanly-ness as some higher plane. Except in the bedroom of course.

Who really sits around perceiving their body?

'Pornography has increased women's insecurity about their genitals'

How could it if it's primarily the guys watching the porn!? Guys seem to be able to navigate any 'size' issues, and that's a much more legitimate example of a 'narrow' beauty ideal:-)

Same with He-Man and super hero dolls. Boys aren't expected to agonise over the bulging muscles?

Well I tend to agree with most of what she (the author) says.

So here's the problem.

Women, generally speaking, find it much harder to 'get off' than men, so, as a caring man, you feel obligated to satisfy your woman, often before yourself.

Now while this may be great, it can also border on being 'a job' rather than the pleasure it is usually participated for.

Another problem of recent times is the amount of disposable income, many young guys have these days.

So, they may go out (singles that is), have fun and, if they don't pick up, it's off to the brothel on the way home, for less than half a days pay and, no strings attached.

So some guys will view porn as a means of wetting their appitite, while others see it as an easy alternative to that job after, or before work.

BTW, most women these days have a 'BOB' to fall back on.

They often prefer that to the real thing.

In fact, many guys feel intimidated by BOB, especially as age sets in and things don't work like they used to.

Hi,Very interesting reading But i would prefer to have sex with a older women.?

Well, I'm happy to give up porn when women give up romance novels, soap operas, chick flicks and celebrity-obsessed magazines, all of which seem to me to play just as large a role in raising unrealistic expectations about real life.

But I don't see that happening any time soon.

Perhaps Petra & Bella should get off their keyboards, & get on their bikes. Not to ride out of town, but the exercise type. A fitter body might not only allow them to enjoy sex more, but also attract the type of bloke who would help them enjoy it more. Very often this stuff comes from women who don't really like sex.

I think porn is encouraged by a lack of nudity, & sex in our lives today, not an excess. Many blokes have not seen a naked woman, or even a boob in daylight, since their honeymoon, & some not even then. Love making, if any, is conducted at night, in the dark. No wonder some of them want to have a look at what they might be missing.

Nudity in earlier times was part of life, & sex was not so much hidden behind closed doors. There is nothing like the sight or sounds of sex to turn many on.

This was highlighted to me one Christmas, long ago. I had taken my girl friend, & a mate & his wife to Broken bay on my yacht for a week at Christmas. An attractive mid 30 lady, his wife was a rather inhibited lady, whom I had never seen even in a swim suit. She stayed dressed even on the beach. My lady was no exhibitionist either, so no hanky panky was occurring in that close environment.

We met some old friends, & some new ones on other yachts, & formed a small fleet of 5 boats, with 7 couples. Someone suggested a bar b que at a small isolated beach, & we all followed. After a drink or 2 ashore, while gathering wood we discovered a small waterfall just behind the trees. After 3 days of swims & fresh water sponges, a shower was very desirable. There was not much waterfall, & only 2 could get wet at once, but people were moving in & out as they soaped up.

Continued.

Continued

A couple of the more adventurous ladies, who were already topless, were soon bottomless, as were some men. It was quite titillating I suppose, but I was amazed to see Jenny, my mate, Fred's wife, strip off & slip under the waterfall. An hour or so, & perhaps a few drinks, later they were making love on a blanket on the beach, as were a few others.

This was no orgy, no swapping of partners, but there was a fair bit of love making, in different parts of the beach & bush.

Months later Fred told me that at Jenny's suggestion, they had joined a nudist club, where they spent a lot of time, she often did housework in just high heels, & their life had changed dramatically. He could not thank me enough for setting the scene for this for them that Christmas. They had gone from never being naked together, in daylight, to being that way regularly, & enjoying it immensely.

This was not porn of course, but I think if there was more public nudity such as this, the market for porn would shrink quite markedly.

Secular theology has managed to putrify relationships, turn millions into perverts and increase child molestation to epidemic proportions. All so the few could feed their insatiable appetites for perversion. No wonder so many girls and boys are overdosing with pills and wondering what a sick world that the humanist have promoted shamelessly.

runner. Shame most of the child abuse comes from priests.
Rubbish article, good posts.
So men viewing porn has *direct* effects on women (via some sort of telepathic mechanism?)...whilst the fashion industry, constant advertising and TV "dramas" being beamed into their brains via TV has no impact?
I'd be more worried about violence porn (war/horror movies), emotional porn (Most soaps), and ignorant hate porn (Andrew Bolt) than the naked sexy variety.

Sounds to me like the author is trying to blame something, anything,
to justify some women's lack of libido.

I have a very different theory. Libido is very much influenced by
the endocrine system and in all of us, its a little different
and it varies at different stages of life.
I've met women with a very healthy libido and they claim thats
the way that they have always been. Others simply don't have that
same kind of drive, that is just how they are.

Now these women will want to blame something, somebody for how they
are, in this case its porn. Yet we know that if we stick a testosterone patch on their arm, away they go, libido jumps.

So perhaps any women who want to blame porn for their libido problem,
should simply try the testosterone patch and then see if its still fair
to blame porn or if its simply an endocrine system issue

Ozandy

'runner. Shame most of the child abuse comes from priests.'

As much as I am no fan of the Catholic church it is no surprise that you have fallen for the deceit of the secular god hating media. If the Catholic church did not employ homosexual priests the child abuse would of been almost non existant.

Runner, if the Catholic Church did not employ homosexual priests they would have had to shut up shop long ago. Fortunately most gay men now feel comfortable enough about their sexuality that they no longer have to hide it under a priest's robes. The problem for the church is not homosexuality but the celibacy rule, which keeps most sane men out of the priesthood and forces those priests who join into the kind of sexual activities which can -- or could -- be hidden from public view.

Jon J

I am not disagreeing with you. Although I doubt whether child molestion is any higher among Catholic Priests than scientists and doctors and piano teachers. The arts seem to have a very high abuse rates. Strangely enough the ABC and National Broadcasters that hate the Catholic church have certainly had their fair share of child molesters. No doubt all sectors doctor their figures. No honest person could deny the huge increase of child abuse by non biological fathers most of whom (ie abusers) I suspect strongly consume porn.

runner,
I just want to say I'm a huge fan and you've inseminated some great stuff into this thread. Be honest though, I bet you get some pretty risque images passing through the noodle while you're pounding away at the old wife.
Actually you do raise what is perhaps the most disturbing issue in the pornography debate, and that's the penchant a great many men seem to nurse for children, or teens. And the internet phenomenon could be said to be eroding those ancient taboos that have never prevented paedophilia but kept it salaciously underground. Internet porn and the simultaneous war against censorship might lend it a species of legitimacy. At the moment the war against child porn seems concerted enough, but as it appears to be more and more a staple in the fantasy world of a lot of men, one wonders how long social morality can prevail against libertarianism.

*No honest person could deny the huge increase of child abuse by non biological fathers most of whom (ie abusers) I suspect strongly consume porn.*

Not so, Runner. The difference is that today its exposed. It used
to all be swept under the carpet. Look at the Katanning case which
is in the news. Boy after boy complained, nobody believed them.

In my own case I attended a Baptist boarding school as a teenager.
One of the teachers, married with children, (who also preached to
us from the pulpit) was fiddling with some boys, including some of
my friends. Eventually some of them complained to the headmaster.
The teacher and his family were gone over a weekend, but the whole
thing was covered up, nobody was ever charged.

Then we have TV reports a couple of years ago or so, of huge cover
ups within the JWs, married men, fiddling with children.

So its going on amongst our most religious, they just cover it up
more.

Women are only really 'turned on' sexually and in other ways by powerful Alpha males.

Sadly for women, 30 years of feminism has so thinned the ranks of alpha males that many women can't find anybody to marry them except for a pathetic 'puppy-dog boy'.

Almost every man is lass 'masculine' and less 'alpha' in their behaviours than they were say 20 or 30 years ago. Or for that matter 100 years of 1,000 years ago. Men have been changed and millions of years of human and evolutionary history says that change is wrong.

Women's declining libido is one of many results of the feminist de-construction of man

Most of the Porn industry = sexual enslavement for women.It is crass, mechanical and mostly devoid of imagination and emotional depth.No woman of sane mind would want to debase themselves unless they had very few other options.

Reap what you sew.

Let's not only focus only on the decline of the female libido. The married male libido is also in a state of arrest as he tries to summon the fortitude to go through the laborious motions with images of his favourite teen or MLF fresh in his mind. Often the sex with the Mrs is just far too complicated for the struggling sensitive new age guy who can't stand the demands of the emotionally needy partner, her mood swings and her hyper-sensitive nipples and clitoris. The male libido is in crisis too but we don't talk about it because we're meant to be driven to distraction by the spouse's promise and we'll do anything for peace and quiet. It's more often a case of girding the loins than chortling to the mates "I'm on a promise"! Which is more likely than not attended with an unspoken "Oh Gawd!".
Most married men would rather have a dexterous had job an be left to their own imaginations than go through seven minutes of bad opera with the Mrs.
A poor male libido can probably be put down more often than not to the fact that he just had a good wank. What's the wife's excuse?

Q. What do you get when 20 porn addicts harass a feminist?
A. This comments session.
Is the online opinion website dominated by men or are you just the most vocal? Perhaps this opinion piece has hit some raw nerves. Hands up if you’ve even read Ellwood-Clayton’s book? Or even plan to? There seems to be a lot of “premature” participation here (maybe that’s why you’re all into porn in the first place). I read the book on the weekend and it is extremely rich with research and the author has a unique take on women’s sexuality. I do think Petra has minimalized the work somewhat, by picking and choosing quotes that fit with her own argument. The context is missing. You’ll find Sex Drive isn’t really about porn, in fact it barely rates a mention. I even think in one place Ellwood-Clayton mentions that porn is a commonly used aid used by sex therapists for low libido.

"What do you get when 20 porn addicts harass a feminist?"

People responding to an article and for the most part challenging it's assumptions and conclusions are accused of harassing. There seems to be very little by way of attacks on the author, about the roughest seems to be Hasbeens opening remarks which were relatively mild compared to a lot of online comments.

tooqie also manages to add "There seems to be a lot of “premature” participation here (maybe that’s why you’re all into porn in the first place)." so negative implications about the sex lives of those you disagree with does not seem to be the harassment issue.

R0bert

The posters here have got it all wrong about feminism and porn. Porn is actually one of the biggest dividers of feminism. Trust me ... I've come off several feminist blogsites over the years shaken to the core from self-proclaimed feminists screeching bloody murder at me that any criticism of porn is an affront to women's true sexual expression, an admission of overwhelming hatred of all men and a slippery slide into fascist totalitarian oppression.

Conversely, the male blogosphere reduces any criticism of porn to women's pathetic ignorance of men's real needs and desires as proudly passed down to them via evolutionary necessity. The thought that 99.99% of our evolution never had porn in it never seems to occur to them.

What it really comes down to is that, even with the juggernaut proliferation of porn and its infiltration of the mainstream (which will get a whole lot worse before it ever gets better), a large segment of the population of both sexes neither watch it nor need it. Porn is just lonliness pretending to be liberation.

@squeers

I also don't see a problem if many men want to watch porn and many women don't want to have sex.

Killarney

For 99% of human evolution we didn't have clothes either.

tooqei

Did that post come straight from your how to delegitimise men 101 class? First delegitimise by accusing all males who respond as porn addicts, then delegitimise their right to respond by claiming they 'dominate', then for the coup de grace make the demeaning sexual innuendo about 'premature'.

Having completely deligitimised men you can then go on to voice your superior, informed, opinion as having read the book.

I think that would be how you always imagined equality to work, wasn't it?

In any case, it was superb. I would say you must be a Women's Studies graduate but all men know women are born with an innate ability to destroy a man's ego. I think you women call it 'women's intuition' or 'wisdom'. Something like that anyway.

Of course men can do the same to a women's ego by uttering the words, 'I don't love you', or 'You've put on weight'. But while men may be more violent than women and hurt people physically, we don't usually go for the complete destruction of a person.

Good God It's finally come to this.

My only qualification is that I'm an old lothario. At 59ish I'm still single, chasing women and still having 'my conquests'.(Thank god for e harmony and RSVP)

Lol Now that'll set off all the sexless imbeciles amongst us.

I haven't found the libedo of very many women to be declining. In fact I've found the reverse... often.

Yep laugh ... I do ... much more often than you poor serious b......s.

What I have found is a common complaint ...

'Why don't men pay attention (read listen) to me ... like you do?'

I can tell you that statement, to an old lothario like me, is 'music in my ears' and an indication that ... I've a Flynn like expectation ... oh well this is a family programme.

Nothing to do with pornograpgy at all. It's all to do with adulthood and how people have learned to behave. That isn't something that has come from an increase in the avaliablity of porn. It's more to do with trying to change men from being men and women from being women.

And that my friends is where the feminist mantras of 'equality=sameness' and the attendant 'let's make everything safe' has taken us.

Are you all happy now?

I am ... friends there are so many women from 18 to 80 (Yep I'll date an 80 year old) that are simply looking for a man who will treat them like a desireable woman, and add the elewments of surprise, adventure and danger to their lives that... well suffice to say 'I'm found (myself) happily in heaven ...

And as the oldish song goes

'If you can't be with the one you love,
Then love the one you're with.'

It a basic truth that works ... if you treat, respect and understand women as women and men as men ... more often than not.

Are you by any chance old nutter, trying to suggest the old cliche is true?

That's the one that goes that you'll catch a lot more sex, chasing it around the street, than around a marriage bed.

Nice to know you're enjoying the quest.

There's an aspect of the anti-porn crusades that does not seem to get much air.

The idea that a relationship should provide control over the other parties sexual choices.

First let me start by stating that I think a legitimate relationship will include respect for the other parties needs and that the right's aspects indicate a deeper problem. Unfortunately not all relationships are perfect and sometimes will include areas that are less than ideal for both parties.

Having said that significant parts of the public debate have been in the rights area. It's covered in legislation and accepted by most that rape in marriage is not acceptable, being in a relationship with someone does not give the right to demand or force sex. Likewise coercion/pressure for sex pop's up in DV topics and depending on coercion is defined is generally considered to be a form of abuse.

Forcing a Yes when the answer is No is wrong in sexual relationship's.

At the same time there seems to be a mentality that say's that it's ok to force a No when the answer is Yes.

That someone who does not want to meet their partners sexual needs can insist that those need's go unmet in any form.

As I stated earlier, I don't think those issues are a sign of a healthy relationship but they are issues that a lot of couples seem to go through over time.

About time that all attempts to force sexual compliance amongst consenting adults was treated in a similar manner.

R0bert

This is just fantastic!

Is this true confessions squeers? Geez man too much info.

'Most married men would rather have a dexterous had job an be left to their own imaginations than go through seven minutes of bad opera with the Mrs. '

Man, are things really that bad? Ouch!

'At the moment the war against child porn seems concerted enough, but as it appears to be more and more a staple in the fantasy world of a lot of men'

Really? I don't reckon. Teen in internet porn parlance just means early 20s chicks that don't have 2 inches of make-up and don't look like they're jaded hookers with a heavy drug habit. Or even more correctly, women who smile. That's teen. Who would've though men like to see women smiling and enjoying themselves.

' 30 years of feminism has so thinned the ranks of alpha males that many women can't find anybody to marry them except for a pathetic 'puppy-dog boy'.'

That's a bit contradictory PTP, because if they were alpha males in the first place, they could hardly be turned into puppy dogs.

Killarney,

'Porn is just lonliness pretending to be liberation.'

The Whitlams agree, with a gun-totin' trigger-happy tranny named Kinky Rene.

But so is shopping. So is Mills and Boon. So is double chock chip muffins. So can casual sex and so can facebook.

Anything can be used as a comfort, but that doesn't mean that's all it is used for.

I think most women's objections to porn really stem from a loss of their traditional power base in a marriage. Squeers' wife's 'promise' is the trading card that is lost by porn. For a certain type of women the power dynamics change.

Even the feminist argument against porn really boils down to how dare he be gratified without my permission. Just ask MTR.

In the end we live in the most voyeuristic society ever and porn is but a part this voyeurism.

He still has a choice r0bert he can leave. I know it's not so simple with kids and mortgages and such but you cant really compare it to rape.

I get what you're saying, that there is a contract of monogamy, but the monogamous partner will not ever put out and really couldn't give a stuff how that affects her partner. In that case I always think of those movies where the impotent war veteran lets his wife get satisfied on the side, and I suppose traditionally women have sometimes turned a blind eye when they don't want to shag the guy any more but want the financial security he provides.

The very fact all this seems to be so much discussed and so emotively I reckon is that it is undeniable that men have a higher libido on average. I think it's more testosterone that conditioning too. I mean your average feminist will go on about entitlement, but to me that translates to reverse-entitlement in the MTR gratified without permission meme. They think the man feels entitled to her body, or any woman's body, but the guy just feels entitled to have a sex life, and he feels the woman thinks she's entitled to deny him that.

Gay guys seem to have a grand old time without any of this nonsense, hooking up in public toilets with random strangers.

I must be a hippy because I've generally had free love and matching needs and not many inhibitions. Makes me fear for the future reading you guys. Maybe I'm naive, but my partner and I are committed to a mutually enjoyable active sex life and we have 2 kids under 4.

one under wonders
[oh no i got krudisms now]

noting this topic allready has more replies..
than the next/or previous posts posted..on one page vieuw[20 posts]

anyhow..i feel i got the gist
men lie..they watch porn and spank the wankbank
more than they can admit..[cause its a comfort blanket]

go figure..here are these femails
doing things your feemale wont do

heck some are even smiling

how sick

but so much more is sick..that them who produce..
or feature in this hard work porn

i hear some get hundreds..other thousands..
for doing what many like doing..often only at ammateur status

but the professional real in the big bucks
[wives..that send men to mistreses]

i have noted even the most sexless feemale
yet needs to look normal...[hence the long suffering wankkklers on her arm]...this is one of them topics..where we come and we go

saying what our personum are expected to say
for me sex isnt a job..but for many its a well paying job

ya just gotta feel sorry
for them what never knew..they joys of giving freely

so much changed..in the 60's
because you allways had a lover
to help solve any problem...[who knew others]

its basic networking
love the one your with
with imagination and sensativity

give the mug a break
but dont breed with them

and con dumbs aint that dumb

QUOTE..""Hands up if you’ve even read Ellwood-Clayton’s book?"""

how did you think to know..
my hands were down?

but as for the book
if its got pictures..it would be a best seller

[if you want to prove your point..illistrate it..
cause so many wanklers are illiterate...ill bred
and unpleasent to look at

[let alone make love with]
seriously illistrate it

thats better than foercing our mind
to generate its own prejudgmental bias imagry

""You’ll find Sex Drive
isn’t really about porn,..in fact it barely rates a mention."'

lol
barely a wimper was to be heard
why the simple thought of it..no/no..thats quite absurd

""I even think in one place""
lol

""Ellwood-Clayton mentions that porn
is a commonly used aid used by sex therapists for low libido.""

and old/ugly/smelly
or needy/homey people?

next quote..""Porn..the biggest dividers of feminism.""

of course equal rights
means equality in everything

one size dont fit all

shopping ya top
adjusts..according to vanity
[or type]..

a hider hides..
thus wont get the support she really seeks..[in equity]

'"99.99% of our evolution
never had porn in it never seems to occur to them""

lol
they didnt need it
they had nakidness all arroubnd them

[they lived rough..ie
like hasbeen has described
in just 3 days..societies nicities break down].

TOP!..quote
""Porn is just lonliness
pretending to be liberation""

and end the lone-lyness
end the urge..to be a wank...

{ER}.

love the one your with

{WHERE IS THE LOVE?}

no really where
give me links!

lonelyness stinks
smokers only please

Houellebecq: <Man, are things really that bad? Ouch!>

I wasn't so much talking for myself as married men at large I reckon. My first marriage was a bit like that, but there wasn't internet porn back then. Personally, I've always been repulsed by the idea of the promise and have never been interested in sex unless the partner is too. Arousal's contagious and so is indifference.
I was really just reacting to this obsession with female libido, as if it was all the only factor. My argument above was that men and women are fundamentally incompatible domestically, and marriage usually destroys the only thing that does work between them; spontaneous sex, hence the honeymoon period, followed by boredom and/or serial adultery. Women who want to keep the marriage toiling along should be grateful that their men can commit virtual adultery these days rather than the real thing.

But really I am disturbed by the commercialisation of sex; it's always been the reality that whoever managed to commodify it would make a killing. And since amoral/entrepreneurial competition, innovation and dedication to market-demand are the dynamics of libertarianism, it follows that every predilection, however deviant, is catered for, indeed cultivated. Just as women are exploited for their obsession with the body beautiful, and retail in general, men are exploited for the obsession with sex. As Poirot suggests (and btw, tooqie, he's a her), the real problem isn't porn, it's a system that's geared to exploiting a weakness and bringing it to the fore. Women's poor libido is surely down to the utter artificiality of their sophisticated lives and a revulsion at getting down and dirty with their men. Libertarianism makes travesties, indeed perversions, of us all.

Well said, Squeers...I was just about to post this when I read yours, so I'll post it anyway.

The emergence o free-flowing porn is IMO derivative from a liberated culture. It emerges in tandem with women's emancipation and the loosening of the binds of religion and the accompanying societal morality existing therein. Above all, it is an eruption of pagan expression amid the constructs of a society that cloaks it's earth-bound reality in the psychology of the stark clean lines of technology and artificiality.

Why are men blamed for all of it, when it's women who chose to merrily jump on their bandwagon?

When you get right down to it, monogamy is the problem, it doesn't suit women at all.

She has much more chance of perpetuating her genes if her children are fathered by as many different men as possible. Men on the other hand want to know that the kids they are busting a gut to raise are from their own seed. Obviously the muslims have it right. It's female infidelity that endangers orderly society, not male.

The woman is conditioned, over thousands of years to seek out different seed. She gets bored with the same bloke, although probably has no idea why. You only have to look at the way many recently separated women spend months banging like a barn door in the wind to realise it was not sex she was sick of, it was him.

Ever noticed how often, in this new world where she can get most of his/hers/their assets so many blokes are surprised when she leaves a marriage he thought was happy, even if he wasn't getting much sex.

Truth be known the bloke is conditioned to look, [thus the saying, if you stop looking you're dead], where women are conditioned to try. This might explain why he likes a bit of porn, where she prefers a bit of sex on the side.

If the statistics are right, there are a small number of men having a lot of affairs, with a lot of different women. Looked at from the other side, this means a lot more women are having affairs, that there are men. Perhaps those blokes should get out of that magazine, or off the computer, & try the real thing.

Houellebecq "but you cant really compare it to rape. "
In most cases I'd agree but the definitions of rape can be broad and the tactics some people will use to control a partners sexuality can be quite extreme.

A demand for sex backed by a threat of violence or some other harm could reasonably be considered rape, why then not demands for sexual abstenance backed by similar tactics?

Neither should be relevant in a healthy relationship but as a society we've seen the need to deal with one side yet ignore the other despite it being clear that there are plenty of people around who use a variety of tactics to try and force partners into conforming to their expectations of abstenance.

In my view a significant amount of the anti-porn arguments are window dressing for attempts to justify that control.

The kind of long bows used to camoflage a fundamental belief that some people have that they should be able to control others sexuality which seem to crop up on most topics related to human sexuality.

Gay marriage will hurt the children, women who have abortions might experience some grief etc. Not the real reasons, just shallow justifications to push a more fundamental agenda.

R0bert

'Gay guys seem to have a grand old time without any of this nonsense, hooking up in public toilets with random strangers.'

Sure Houllie, no wonder disease is so rampart in this part of the community.

Hasbeen,

I think monogamy does suit women. In most non-consumer societies it is imperative that women have recourse to a stable, devoted partner so that she can nest and raise their offspring. Men are required to quest. They are driven to constantly project and they are the ones who are programmed to spread their seed as widely as possible. Women can pass on their genes just as well from one man as with many men.

I think the penchant for women in the modern West to change partners is simply because they can. At no other time in human development has the woman been able to get up and leave with the kids and the goods and have the resources to maintain them. Again, it's modern social democracy and consumer society that bestows this facility upon her.

I think squeers nailed it in the first post,

'The representation of insatiable, unsentimental, promiscuous woman directly contradicts reality. Indeed pornography offers an attractive alternative to romanticised sex and prudish, stifling monogamy.'

A close friend of mine revealed once that at one stage in her pregnancy she was flooded with hormones and suddenly for about a month or two became ridiculously horny. She found herself constantly and secretly searching the internet and her partners computer for the filthiest porn she could find, and kept it a secret as she couldn't believe she could be so perverted. She was a fairly uptight lass, but she reckons it gave her an appreciation of how guys go through life with these distracting urges and how it must play on their psyche to be constantly feel like and be told they're dirty perverts. She felt ashamed but couldn't help going back for more and more porn. I said just go with it and enjoy.

'My argument above was that men and women are fundamentally incompatible domestically, and marriage usually destroys the only thing that does work between them; spontaneous sex, hence the honeymoon period, followed by boredom and/or serial adultery.'

You must watch the same French movies I do. The French seem to accept this as the way of things, the English not so much.

'it follows that every predilection, however deviant, is catered for, indeed cultivated.'

Sounds good to me. Who is the moral guardian when it comes to this? Who decides what is deviant? Is not the consumer the king? What is to gain by giving people something they don' really want when you can just give them what they do want? Morality is then defined democratically by the market.

Sex is a weakness? It's a joy. Exploit me for all I'm worth!

I suppose perhaps I have options that the ugly and socially inept man may not, which is what my;-) books quite often discuss; The intrusion of free-market economics into human relationships and sexuality, making winners and losers.

'Above all, it is an eruption of pagan expression'
Sounds even better!

''Above all, it is an eruption of pagan expression''The truest thing Houliie has said. I dare say also to become what they call a sexpert you must first be a pervert.

I haven't read the book and I'm not inclined to take this author's interpretation of it as gospel.

I'm inclined to regard porn (in situations when it is a problem, which is not all situations by any means) as a symptom rather than a cause. If there is a "disconnect between our minds and bodies" I'd argue that porn is not the cause of that disconnect but one of many possible expressions of it. All the handwringing in the world about porn won't do anything to address the alleged disconnect, just as all the moralising about drugs hasn't done anything to reduce trafficking and addiction.

Yet the anti porn campaigners stubbornly resist any deeper analysis of the issues. One has to wonder why.

Ah Houellebecq,
I knew your agreement with my position of late was equivocal. You're definitely an anarchist, whereas I retain quaint overtones of the humanist, that we're our own "moral guardians", that is that we're repulsed by our unbridled passions--Shakespeare knew this, as I've shown. Wherefore this prudish sensibility that haunts us? Freud would have it it's the superego, implanted by the host culture to make us mad, but I think it's derivation is more mysterious.
Even putting aside my possible naivity, what about the enlightenment--the seminal thought that gave us an economic operating-system to worship and be our guide and inspiration--that posits the perfectibility of our race? And what of our social agenda? Are we to abandon it in favour in favour of hedonism and faith in the pointlessness of anything else? Perhaps it's for the best. But you're an evolved soul, Houellebecq, and most of us cling to our hopes of a purpose.
More to the point, where is the feminist consideration of such matters? They seem to be too busy powdering their noses to indulge a feminist philosophy.

Is it weird to be attracted to the steady disciplined hand of runner?

Oh runner, you don't know what you do to me!

Alas I cant take credit it was Poirot's quote.

Runner does raise a fair issue when he highlighted my earlier quote about gay hookup culture. I perceive this to be an example of the purely male sexual ideal uncluttered by the 'romanticising' influence of women. The raw indulgence in sex without all the social niceties and courting rituals.

Then again men do like all these things, wrote all those poems and such, but maybe if there weren't women to impress and woo, or women were different, that's what we'd have for courting rituals. Who knows, pubs would all have to have shagging rooms that would be more full than the toilets. The hookers would be out of a job surely and hotels would run at an hourly rate.

'Yet the anti porn campaigners stubbornly resist any deeper analysis of the issues. One has to wonder why.'

I dunno, the war against drugs lot believe it's working, and if there was no war we'd ALL be lying around on park benches on smack all day. Similarly, the anti-porn crusaders are all about the dreaded fearful testosterone that is flooding through every teenage boy. Lock up your daughters! Without the war against porn, society will end up like the Tool Shed!

Just say No! Mmmmkay.

Just ask runner.

Poirot the story as I read it was that by having different fathers to her brood, the woman had more chance of some being superior/successful in life.

Some statistics I read recently suggested that in families of 3 or more kids, at least one was not fathered by the husband in 16% of cases where DNA had been tested. You'd have to reckon that for that percentage of pregnancies to occur, a pretty level of promiscuity was going on in many families.

Houellebecq I have experienced that pregnancy hornyness of a woman. My lady was not one to initiate sexual activities all that often, except when pregnant, at which time she was insatiable. She was well aware of this herself, & I think enjoyed it.

I have read that this is very common, & believed to be a way women ensured that the men of a tribe would look after them at a time when they were less able to do so for themselves.

I think it is fair to say that we all have only a very thin veneer of civilisation over our basic instincts.

Aw...now I'm feeling a little left out. The only behaviour that affected me in my last pregnancy was a desire to cook and devour homemade puddings and the like. It was nothing for me to decide it "had" to be pumpkin scones - and twenty minutes later there "were" pumpkin scones. (although not for long)

Houellie,

Your point about gay guys doing it with abandon in the toilets is a good one. The object is sexual relief without all the ritual that goes on between men and women. I have to say that I've always been amazed that men can get a kick out of doing that. Perhaps it's the rawness and directness of such behaviour that I can't process, and maybe that's because I'm female. You're right about those romantic poets. Squeers has mentioned in the past that it was by and large men who were the romantics - same with the visual arts. I always get the impression that they were in some ways projecting an androgynous persona - something that attracts me to their work.

I reckon it's always going to be tough for humans - our biological imperatives will always collide with our constructed moralities.

Isn't there a contradiction between arguing that women's use of pornography is low (according to the Porn Report) and the authors' claims that it is still a major cause of dissatisfaction with their bodies? If they are not viewing the images of that often, how could it be effecting their self-image?
Yes the media creates unrealistic expectations of beauty, but why single out pornography and sexually explicit images when there is relatively greater diversity of women's bodies in these media?

An interesting thread indeed :)

I was wondering what the predominantly male contributors to this thread feel is an 'adequate' libido for a woman to have?

Does a woman have a 'good' libido if she agrees to have sex with you every time you ask for it?

Is she still 'good' if she agrees to sex once a day?
Three times a week?
Once a week?

The age old problem of men and women having 'different' libido's at different times will continue for all time.

I think that if you don't like the libido of the one you are with, then either work it out amicably, or move on and shut up!

"I was wondering what the predominantly male contributors to this thread feel is an 'adequate' libido for a woman to have?"

4 times a day but Houellebecq might be up for more. It's like the dishes, we should not have to ask, it should just be part of the relationship.

"I think that if you don't like the libido of the one you are with, then either work it out amicably, or move on and shut up!"

If that's addressed to the male contributors then the point is that for some working it out may involve a release using porn and that there are some women who are not very amicable about that.

Any kind of sexual activity on his part should only happen on her terms, oh and if he moves on then he's one of those bastard men who abandon wife and kids for another women and hell hath no fury like ....

R0bert

Suse,

Is that an example of your understanding bedside manner?

What is it with emancipated women that they slap men down if they dare pipe up and say, "this is how it is for us"?

On this thread we've been discussing the pros and cons because this is an opinion/discussion forum. I can see why so many of "these" threads end up as slanging matches full of acrimony instead of maybe being a venue to glean the other gender's point of view.

Our genders are supposed to be complementary to each other, after all.

Suseonline,

sorry, only time for a quick answer:

I don't know, I never ask for it..

*I was wondering what the predominantly male contributors to this thread feel is an 'adequate' libido for a woman to have?*

I think its about attitude as much as anything, Suze. One of the
advantages of divorce (mine was a very amicable affair btw) is
that you have some experience of what its all about, but then get
to meet a whole lot of other women and learn about their perspective
of the world, relationships and life.

There is clearly a huge variation out there, between both women and men.

Some women seem to be able to understand a male perspective, some
simply don't care. Now if you are a bloke, going to sleep with a
raging hard on, is not the easiest of things to do. I've met
women who say "well if I can give somebody that I love some pleasure,
why should I not do it?"

Others claim that by saying yes, they are becoming a sex object.
Some use sex as a weapon, to get what they want out of the relationship.

I know of married blokes who faithfully hand over the paycheque
at the end of the week, only to be told "don't you bring that thing
near me".

Personally I have far more respect for women who try and understand both
perspectives and try to come up with solutions that suit both
partners, rather then those who just take from their relationships.

So I don't think its about always saying yes, but about accepting
and understanding that blokes are indeed different and should be
considered too, not just her agenda.

Some women are wonderful in that regard, some not, the variation is
huge

Yabby well said.

R0bert

RObert <"4 times a day but Houellebecq might be up for more. It's like the dishes, we should not have to ask, it should just be part of the relationship."

Lol Robert! That sounds like something my husband would say. He never has any complaints anyway... :)

Poirot, strangely enough we don't discuss libido's at the patient's bedside as a rule, although if they did want to discuss it, and it was something to do with their physical or mental problems, I would certainly do so without any hesitation.

Poirot <"I can see why so many of "these" threads end up as slanging matches full of acrimony instead of maybe being a venue to glean the other gender's point of view."

This thread has so far been skewed towards the male point of view, and I know from experience that anything I have to offer from a woman's point of view will be shot down pretty quickly on this male-dominated forum.

You are right that it is an opinion forum, and I, like your good self, have the right to my opinions in the form of questions.
If the thread is about women's supposedly declining libido's, then is it too much of a stretch to ask the other posters what their idea of a 'normal' woman's libido is then?

As far as I am concerned, men never needed porn to have a healthy sex-drive, or to find ways to relieve any unrelieved tension, but as long as all parties consent to the porn activities, and it is not violent and all are adults, then it doesn't bother me whether any adult watches it or not.

Suzeonline, this is unfair:
"This thread has so far been skewed towards the male point of view, and I know from experience that anything I have to offer from a woman's point of view will be shot down pretty quickly on this male-dominated forum"
I've often taken the feminist perspective and I'd welcome anything you or any female has to say.
And why should you take the passive (missionary) role anyway? Can't you just as easily shoot down the male point of view?
So far I think the men have outmatched the author of the article in terms of thoughtful responses--sorry if we don't observe all the niceties.
Once again it's the ladies (excluding Poirot) who seem stuck for words, or something noteworthy to say, or are missing in action.
By all means shoot the men down! I'll even join in if you give me a lead.

Thanks Squeers :), but you mightn't always be on the thread I want to make a comment on!

I probably did overstate the problems as I see it, however, as much as I enjoy reading some of the opinions on this forum, I often feel that 'feminism' is trotted out too often as being the root of all evil (so to speak!).

I feel like it is understood that it is all the woman's fault that men 'have to' view porn because of this perceived 'declining libido' that women have now.

I very much doubt that any women have had a declining libido because of the actual porn their men have been watching. There would surely be other problems in the relationship as well.

Men in happy relationships look at porn too, so obviously we can't blame women's supposedly declining libido's for an increase in porn viewing, or vise versa

>>If the thread is about women's supposedly declining libido's, then is it too much of a stretch to ask the other posters what their idea of a 'normal' woman's libido is then?<<

Less than a man's. But so what? Women may have less desire for sexual activity than men, but men have absolutely no desire to watch crap romantic 'comedies' or the latest BBC bonnet drama. We do so anyway because we are such nice people who understand that relationships involve compromise. Even though we would rather stab ourselves in the eye with a spoon than watch another bloody Hugh Grant movie, we selflessly put the desires of our partner ahead of our own and submit ourselves to cruel and unusual cinematography. Why would we torture ourselves like this? Because it makes them happy: if you love them, I find that this is reason enough.

Sex usually doesn't last as long as a feature film. If men can put up with two hours of twee foppery what stops women from putting up with ten minutes of sweaty grunting? Can't they just lie back and think of England like men do during Hugh Grant movies?

Cheers,

Tony

This is one subject where it is probably quite fair to ask, in the words of the song, "how the hell would he know", or she in this case?

Many of us, like me, will have the close acquaintance with the libido of only one lady for many years, 36+ of them in my case.

If someone is trying to compare the libido of young ladies today, with those of 30 years ago, it is unlikely he has the material to stir the libido of young ladies today. Comparing that of the 20 year old ladies of his youth with even the same 50 year old ladies today is probably not too sound an indication either.

I did not believe the descriptions of the fantastic sexual exploits of most young men in my youth, & would similarly expect some embellishment from the young men of today. The answers to even a double blind study would probably be skewed by the length of time any respondent had been in a current relationship.

RObert I like, & subscribe to, the old ditty, "once a queen always a queen, but once a night is enough". This of course should not rule out regular morning glories, & the occasional afternoon delight

@Suze

I understand that you feel out-numbered, but if your arguments are too strong to refute, it doesn't matter.

Suse

'I feel like it is understood that it is all the woman's fault that men 'have to' view porn because of this perceived 'declining libido' that women have now.'

This is true. And the radicalism of this article is that it dares to flip this argument around to hypothesise the unthinkable - that the pornifying of the culture is a libido turn off for many women. I do think it's a hugely oversimplistic argument, but one that has more than a grain of truth.

I've never subscribed to the cultural belief that men's libidoes are much stronger than women's. There is just no evolutionary basis for this. If that were the case, then mother nature would have programmed the gender ratio to produce far more women than men.

Patriarchal cultures condition both men and women to believe that men are the proactive gender and women the reactive gender. And our sexuality is culturally programmed in this way. We are all conditioned from the cradle to belive that men are in a perpetual state of readiness for sex, and that women 'respond' to this by allowing or not allowing men to have sex with them. This is why so much of women's erotic energies go into being desired and why they become so obssessed with looking attractive. When you're conditioned to always think that sex is something that comes to you, there's little energy left over to fully develop as a proactive sexual being in your own right.

It's a bit like having parents who expect you to ring them every day and visit them every weekend. Because you are always having to react to their need for your company, you're never given the chance to miss them and actually want THEIR company.

(And PS. Anyone who seeks to derail this comment with all the usual crap interpretations that I think that all women are innocent victims of horrible men, or that I've just walked out of a Wimmenz Studies class will be actively ignored.)

briar rose

'Yet the anti porn campaigners stubbornly resist any deeper analysis of the issues. One has to wonder why.'

I fully agree with the rest of your post. But this particular sentence indicates to me that you may be the one who is resisting deeper analysis. You're conflating pornography with cultural pornification - which are two very separate issues.

Pornography is something that individuals choose to look at in private. And they have every right to full freedom of access to pornographic material.

Cultural pornification, on the other hand, is something that EVERYONE has to look at, or at the very least, have to actively try to avoid if they don't want to look at it. Just because some people 'don't see' anything wrong with pornified public imagery does not mean that those who do NOT want it in the public domain should have to lump it - especially when the jury is still out in terms of its effect on children and young people.

Campaigners against pornified advertising and pornified mass entertainment have as much right to lobby for change and regulation as any other acitivist group.

Truth be told 4 times a day might be stretching things for many of us.

Probably modelled around the working week, 5 times most weeks, some overtime and the odd pubic holiday and occasioanl sick leave (but no dodgy sickies please). Prefer annual leave to be taken in small chunks as getting in a temp to backfill is difficult all round (don't want to think about long service leave but it should wait until at least 10 years).

I've mentioned this before but I read a book last years called "365 Nights" where a woman in a relationship that was loosing some of the zest was was looking for a memorable 40th birthday present for her husband. From memory he missed new year's because of ill health and wanted a night off about 10 months in when he wasn't in the mood.\

It's an interesting read, it won't be every bodies perspective and some of the american christain family values stuff may be a little cringe worthy but it's still in my view a valuable look at the issue.

R0bert

killblarney/quote..""Patriarchal cultures..condition both men and women""

yes i agree
so as this libedo thingy..co-incides
a rise in the matriarchal empowerment...is there a link

who knows..men have noted power and powerfull looks
seem to turn many on..[the prety face/car/suit
the super body..fame/availability

even if pety...what turns us mentally
is what turns on our emotional quotant
so lets delve deeper into your wurds

""our sexuality..is culturally programmed..in this way.
..conditioned..from the cradle""
edited

""that men..are in a perpetual state
of readiness..and that women 'respond' to this""

not quite...just as men..got conditioned to accept mums/law/rules
men adapt to the other rules...wash bath/be super clean
all terms that conditionally affect the contact
with the con-tract

its not that men are ready
its that hope springs eternal
especially when the promise is internal
-entry..[of vairiable form and fun-ction]

the bloke wasnt ready
till the inyouendo got heady
and that nmeeds a sign that its might be a go

so the simpletom sends his symptom..up a notch
and a few more notches if not refuted..busting ego bubbles

""This is why so much of women's erotic energies go into being desired..and why...they..obssessed with looking attractive.""

its like putting up a promise{generally}
that never gets payed off..specificly..[individually]
looking hot/good..without looking cheap

""When you're conditioned..that sex
is something that comes..to you,..there's little energy
left over..to fully develop as a proactive sexual..being in your own right.""

as many a hand-some stud..has found
but also those..who learned no dont allways mean go
maybe it means not yet...or im training you to become a pet

you know..them friends
you love so much..except for their sex bits

""Because..you are always..having to react
to their need..for your company,..""

this must be a key

""you're never given the chance to miss them
and actually want THEIR company.""

i dont know..somehow i fel
they are getting..egsactly what they want
a tame bloke..who knows he will never be a lover
[or beloved..as a male..only as a mate..[equate to *not mating}

just being there...
for abuse not actual use
[the backup plan..or just 'a man'...
that on its outside..resembles normality]

just saying
not displaying

*I've never subscribed to the cultural belief that men's libidoes are much stronger than women's. There is just no evolutionary basis for this. If that were the case, then mother nature would have programmed the gender ratio to produce far more women than men.*

Not really, Killarney. If men did not have a stong libido wanting
sex, there really would be no good reason to stick around, pairbond
and feed the offspring. There would be another female ready to
go, somewhere else, without all that effort, so why bother?

Killarney,

"Patriarchal cultures condition both men and women to believe that men are the proactive gender and women are the reactive gender."

That's because human males are the proactive gender and females are the "receptive" gender.

"...a proactive sexual being."

While it's likely that women will sometimes overtly initiate sex, as a species phenomena it's usual for the male to take the lead. It seems now that emancipated woman has joined men in the "workplace", she now covets his sexual contingencies as well.

Here's Camille Paglia on this issue:

"Mythology's identification of woman and nature is correct. The male contribution to procreation is momentary and transient. conception is a pin-point in time.....Our lives as physical beings give rise to basic metaphors of apprehension, which may vary greatly between the sexes. Here there can be no equality. Man is sexually compartmentalised. Genitally, he is condemned to perpetual pattern of linearity, focus, aim, direction...the male genital metaphor is concentration and projection.....Man approaches woman in bursts of spasmodic concentration. This gives him the delusion of temporary control of the archetypal mysteries that brought him forth. It gives him courage to return. Women have no problem to solve by sex. Physically and psychologically, they are serenely self-contained..."

Suse,

You opened that post with a reasonable inquiry. You ended it, however, with a snide invitation to men to "move on or shut up."..all very well, of course, but let's not dress up provocative rhetoric as something it's not

'male genital metaphor is concentration and projection...Women have no problem to solve by sex. Physically and psychologically, they are serenely self-contained'

That's so well put. I remember identifying that concept in my late teens, but even now I cant put it into words that well. I have discussed in other gender threads the concept of 'penetration', and how nobody entertains the thought that women 'envelop' men. Even feminists don't. They are all about the predatory male and even some first wave feminists objected to male 'penetration' per se. I suppose all the other male mammals chase females around trying to stick their bits into holes.

It's even evidenced in that term that is always bandied about 'Patriarchy'. Basically a short-hand way of saying all men are bastards, but also a way of denying universally any female culpability for any aspect of society. This positions women as 'reactive' in every way, while conveniently rendering them the innocent victims in any situation. I even believe it is an expression of an exclusively male original sin; Every boy born is automatically guilty for the woe of all women throughout the ages and is never considered at a disadvantage to any individual woman (He's born into and lives with male privilege!).

'Cultural pornification, on the other hand, is something that EVERYONE has to look at, or at the very least, have to actively try to avoid if they don't want to look at it. '

Well, we are born without clothes, and perhaps nudity isn't something to be so afraid of. Perhaps sex isn't something to be afraid of either. Anyway as I said, it's the age of voyeurism in reality TV, natural disaster grief porn, celebrity scandal, facebook and twitter...

'It's like the dishes, we should not have to ask, it should just be part of the relationship.'

Careful r0bert, a statement of 'male entitlement to women's bodies' if ever I saw one! I've been burned on feminist forums for daring to suggest both myself and my partner are entitled to expect sex in our relationship.

@Killarney
I have no idea how you made the leap from porn to "cultural pornification" from reading my post. The anti porn campaigners I referred to are campaigners against pornography. If I'd meant those who protest "cultural pornification" I would have said so, because I think these are two separate issues.

I'm not even sure I agree with the "cultural pornification" thing anyway. Some peoples' boundaries are crossed by certain public displays - does this mean the displays are pornographic? I doubt I'd think so. I might think they were aesthetically crass, or boring, or stupid, or really good but pornographic? Probably not what I understand porn to be.

People can protest whatever they want to protest, did I ever say they couldn't? If I argue against a protest I'm not arguing for it to be silenced.

How can you be in a monogamous relationship and not feel entitled to a sexual life within it? Isn't that one of the core agreements?

If I was with a partner who decided they weren't interested in sex with me anymore I'd be devastated. You can't make someone want you when they don't, but I'm pretty sure I'd be negotiating agreements for me to have a sexual life with someone else. It may or may not mean the end of the primary relationship, but if one party changes the core agreements, the whole thing is up for re-negotiation isn't it?

Excellent point, briar rose.

Homo sapiens is such a complicated species with our huge neo-cortex and its accompanying intellect. We instinctively recognise the forces of nature, her cruelty and kindness, her indifference - and we shrink in awe.
Men recognise this power also in women.

Everything men have ever created has been in defiance of the power and mystery of women, and their state of bondage to her.

That's a difficult question Briar Rose. Deciding to have sex with another man because your partner doesn't want sex any more would have to involve a number of decisions.

Why doesn't he want to have sex?
Is it physical illness related, medication related, age related, or because of mental illness?
I would imagine that some women would stand by him if it was any of these problems.

If it was just because he didn't feel attracted to you any more, then I would leave that relationship before considering a physical relationship with another man.

I agree though, that it would be hard to remain in a relationship where a sexual component was missing for one partner or both.

"If it was just because he didn't feel attracted to you any more, then I would leave that relationship before considering a physical relationship with another man."

Fair call but imagine what that decisions like when you are on the wrong side of the gender divide for residency outcomes, property settlements, CSA Payer/payee formula's etc.

You risk losing large parts (or all) of your involvement in your children's lives, losing most of the assets you'd worked towards and most or all of your disposable income for years ahead if it turns out bad.

Your resulting poor financial situation and "issues" with the ex mark you as better to be avoided by a lot of potential partners who may not necessarily be money motivated but don't want those issues in their lives.

Issues over sex being used as a power tool by a partner or just way too infrequently because it's never prioritised over being social director for children take on a different light.

R0bert

Man r0bert she really never put out did she:-) You sound like a broken man, or someone who will never forget the injustice! You should have bought a mankini!

You lot have a very narrow definition of sex. If a guy cant get it up he can please a woman in a multitude of ways. Similarly if a woman can not bear penetration, there are infinite number of ways to get him off.

Is it really so hard? No pun intended, seriously. Yabby's post had the right attitude. If you love someone you want to give them pleasure. Simple as that if there is no more desire to even make an effort you might as well break up. Even if your partner was grotesque, I'm sure you could fetish-ise one passable part of their body. What about their voice? Anyway normally when you love someone you find them attractive.

If there is mismatching libido, well there is self love. And if a guy watching porn is so shattering to a woman's libido I cant have any faith in the emotional intelligence of women. I mean FFS guys seem to be able to handle women with their vibes, I'm yet to hear of a guy threatened by that? All this talk of 'unrealistic expectations' and 'impossible' standards, when the human tongue can only move so fast. But no, guys seem to be able to be adult about it.

I reckon, if a woman does not want to have sex, or even sexually please a man in any way ever, at some level she f*ckn hates him. Or else she's so self absorbed and it's a one-way relationship in every respect. Same for guys.

Now I want you all to go home and surprise your significant other with a massage that has a very happy ending!

Even if all else fails, get on the booze or Coke. Guaranteed leg-opener;-) Even the morning after a night on the disco biscuits has you so desperate for a serotonin hit you're guaranteed to be up for it.

>>nobody entertains the thought that women 'envelop' men.<<

Really? I must be some kind of freak. A few years ago I read a book called 'American Gods'. I could exhaust my word limit describing how awesome this book is and still not do it justice: it is unimaginably beautiful. One scene in particular often intrudes into my sexual phantasies: the one where the prostitute consumes a man through her vagina.

That was an amazingly bad summation, but the Gaiman fans will understand that nobody can beat the man in story-telling so it's best not to try. Those who aren't Gaiman fans can go fornicate themselves with an iron stick.

So yeah, I entertain the thought of woman enveloping me at least half the time I conduct myself in the solo symphony. Maybe I'm just sick...

>>It may or may not mean the end of the primary relationship, but if one party changes the core agreements, the whole thing is up for re-negotiation isn't it?<<

Only if there is a pre-nup stipulating agreements about sex. Beyond that it's up to the couple to negotiate or a judge to sort out. And Judges don't just wear dresses like Catholic priests: they wear girly wigs as well. It seems a bit suspect to me: probably best not to trust the judiciary.

Obviously, the only logical solution left is the Vulcan ritual of pon farr. Women only have to have sex once every seven years and the blokes get to murder somebody if they don't get to relieve their sexual tensions by getting a root. Makes perfect sense.

>>Everything men have ever created has been in defiance of the power and mystery of women, and their state of bondage to her.<<

>>I guess that explains the plethora of huge erections in His honour
'Coz we all know a steeple's just a sub-conscious compensatory manifestation of a huge stiff penis.<<
- Tim Minchin

Whilst simultaneously explaining why some men prefer to drive big, red, throbbing sports cars.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis,

You have to admit that men, the great architects and builders, the engineers of civilisation, etc., are rather fond of erecting large constructions pointing to the sky.....Why does Nelson stand on a column, I ask?
But, yes, it's nothing but spires and pointy things for miles in any direction in some places.

*But, yes, it's nothing but spires and pointy things for miles in any direction in some places.*

Sheesh, not to mention THAT building in Dubai... the Arabs want to
have the biggest one :)

Poirot

‘…women have recourse to a stable, devoted partner so that she can nest and raise their offspring. Men are required to quest.’

How can we be sure that this is a fact, rather than an outcome of thousands of years of patriarchal programming?

Throughout about 99% of our history – over which our evolutionary programming occurred – people lived in small, nomadic tribes, who collectively raised the children. It’s important for nomadic, tribal people to have fewer, rather than more, children – so as not to deplete the tribe's access to resources. This is why throughout pre-history, abortion (quaintly referred to by anthropologists as ‘secret women’s business’) was very common. So it’s not unreasonable to assume that women led sexually active lives. Also, in small tribal societies, if one man impregnates many women, it reduces the gene pool – which is bad news for evolution.

In short, there was virtually no physical or evolutionary reason for men to ‘quest’ or for women to ‘nest’.

And if men are supposedly wired to have stronger libidos than women, and to have sex with as many women as possible, what happens to all the other horny men who are missing out on access to all the females that this one guy is putting out of action by getting them all pregnant? If mother nature planned this, then she’s either totally stupid or playing a cruel joke on men.

briar rose

'The anti porn campaigners I referred to are campaigners against pornography. If I'd meant those who protest "cultural pornification" I would have said so, because I think these are two separate issues.'

You're right. I did misread that part of your post. Thanks for pointing it out.

Killarney,

"...patriarchal programming."

I note that that in order to come to that conclusion you are required to isolate human behaviour from common practice amongst other species. I watched a female manta ray, the other night, lead a string on interested males in a long and intricate dance in pursuit of her. (yes, I know you are not a manta ray)

Btw, the gender ratio at birth is around 100 boys to 105 girls. There are enough women for men obviously or the planet wouldn't be so overpopulated. In any case, it's all competitive. If some men don't get laid, it's because they are less attractive than their counterparts. Females are proactive in competing with other females for suitors - but suitors are "attracted" and from that point on, must vie with their rivals for the attention and acceptance of the female.

You only have to look at the biology of the male and his essential state to realise that he is required to quest, chase, crusade, pursue, project, etc....not only in his sexual exploits but in the whole paradigm that proceeds from him, as a primate, coming down from the trees and successfully evolving as a ranging hunter.

Killarney,

On the contrary, there is every physical and evolutionary reason reason to conclude that men "quest" and women "nest".

Primates usually exist in static communities with their food supply surrounding them. Humans, on the other hand, evolved into carnivorous hunters, here's an excerpt from zoologist and anthropologist, Desmond Morris's book "The Naked Ape":

"Because of the demands of his new way of life, he had to reduce his powerful primate urge never to leave the main body of the group...the hunting males also had to carry food supplies home for the nursing females and their slowly growing young. Paternal behaviour of this kind had to be a new development, for the general primate rule is that virtually all parental care comes from the mother...Because of the extremely long period of dependency of the young and the heavy demands made by them, the females found themselves almost perpetually confined to home base. In this respect the hunting apes new way of life threw up a special problem....the hunting parties, unlike those of "pure" carnivores had to become all-male groups. If anything was to go against primate grain it was this. For a virile primate to go off on a feeding trip an leave his females unprotected from the advances of other males that might happen by was unheard of.
The answer was the development of the pair bond. Male and female hunting apes had to fall in love and remain faithful to one another. This is a common tendency in many other groups of animals, but is rare amongst primates."

Come off it Poirot it's The Patriarchy! All men, in secret conspiracy, hating women, and loving it. Throughout the ages.

Secret meetings are every second Tuesday in the shed at the back of my house. I learned the secret handshake at 9 months, so was appointed head patriarch.

if only those pesky feminists didn't learn of our secret organisation and our secret hatred of all women.

As any proud terrorist organisation would do, we claim responsibility for all the ills of the world. Even bad hair days.

We decided it was best for us to teach women that even though they get that little tingle between their legs, that they don't really like sex as much as us. Then we would be forced to chase, coerce, write stupid poems that make us cringe even though they seem to like them, spend thousands on rings, and drinks at the pub, hang on... whose idea was this!

Houellebecq, you forgot responsibility for male controlled religions that ban sex outside marriage (and in some cases pretty much inside it as well).

What male would could not love all those rules about women covering up and not having sex for the fun of it?

R0bert

ah ha! Houellie and Robert,

You two need to read the first chapter of Camille Paglia's "Sexual Personae". It's titled "Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art". In it she proposes that all the male institutions like religion are buttresses against woman and nature....

"Civilised man conceals from himself the extent of his subordination to nature. The grandeur of culture, the consolation of religion absorb his attention and win his faith. But let nature shrug, and all is in ruin....Sexuality and eroticism are the intricate intersection of nature and culture. Feminists grossly oversimplify the problem of sex when they reduce it to a matter of social convention: readjust society, purify sex roles, and happiness and harmony will reign...sex is a far darker power than feminism has admitted....sex has always been girt round with taboo, irrespective of culture. Sex is the point of contact between man and nature, where morality and good intentions fall to primitive urges....Happy are those periods when marriage and religion are strong. System and order shelter us against sex and nature....but a critical point has been reached. With the rebirth of the gods in the massive idolatries of popular culture, with the eruption of sex and violence into every corner of the ubiquitous mass media. Judeo-Christianity is facing its most serious challenge since Europe's confrontation with Islam in the Middle Ages. The latent paganism of western culture has burst forth again in all its daemonic vitality."

Paglia's a big fan of male cultural achievement. It's men who fashioned sky religion and the rest of the civilised world. Strange how pagan expression is growing through the cracks in modern times.

Poirot

'The Naked Ape' was published in 1967, when women were still legally enshrined as second-class humans, a woman's place was in the home, and anthropology was still an almost exclusively male field of study. Desmond Morris' observations typically reflect this. For example:

“Because of the demands of his new way of life, he had to reduce his powerful primate urge never to leave the main body of the group...”

So what about the women? Didn’t they have to ‘reduce their powerful primate urge’ to travel long distances to find all those seeds and herbs and fruits and vegies - that made up 80% of the food needs of the group?

‘… the hunting males also had to carry food supplies home for the nursing females and their slowly growing young’

More than likely the nursing females and their slowly growing young had been collecting plenty of food to keep the group fed while the men were off hunting, or even doing some hunting of their own. Besides women weren’t pregnant and nursing all their lives and men weren’t hunting all their lives.

‘…for the general primate rule is that virtually all parental care comes from the mother...’

This guy obviously hasn’t seen all those nature documentaries of female primates charging all over the place killing prey and gathering food for the brood, while the males lie around in the sun.

‘For a virile primate to go off on a feeding trip an leave his females unprotected from the advances of other males that might happen by was unheard of.’

I doubt if those prehistoric males were as desperately insecure as Desmond Morris appears to be. This guy badly needs to watch a few episodes of Meerkat Manor.

Killarney,

I'm not sure what your point is - it seems a particular psychological perspective to enshrine oneself as a "second-class human" because one happens to be of female gender. I'm a female and I've loved having babies and nurturing them. It hasn't stopped me from embracing life.
Anyhooo....what's the big deal about The Naked Ape being published in 1967 - is all knowledge and theory tainted or devalued by the times in which they were published? We'd better go and toss out Darwin's Theory of Evolution (1857) and Einsteins Special and General Theories of Relativity (1905 and 1916 respectively) in that case...sheesh (as Yabby would say).

For a start, women did not range the distances that men did. They foraged relatively close to wherever home base happened to be. Men were required to range further and cooperate, to not only kill the larger prey, but to return home with it. Yes, women contributed greatly to the diet - they still do in traditional societies, but there's one point you overlook in man's evolution to a hunting carnivore and that was the concentrated nature of the protein diet.

From "Food and Evolution: Toward a theory of Food Habits" (Marvin Harris and Eric B. Ross):

"It has been postulated that meat played an important role in the development of homo sapiens. By consuming animals that live on plant foods, humans obtained a highly concentrated and complete form of protein that contains all the essential amino acids converted into animal protein. Animal protein is far more complete and concentrated than plant protein..."

I watched a troop of males from a contemporary, but traditional, tribe from Brazil called the Matis recently on "The Human Planet". The men went off with their poison darts, deep into the jungle, killed as many monkeys as the tribe needed and lugged them home - to the women and children.

*So what about the women? Didn’t they have to ‘reduce their powerful primate urge’ to travel long distances to find all those seeds and herbs and fruits and vegies - that made up 80% of the food needs of the group?*

I just love Killarney's attempts to reinterpret evolution theory,
through her feminist mindframe. Its highly amusing :)

*while the males lie around in the sun.*

Sheesh, we just had to throw that one in.... I guess there is not much
point in the males doing the hunting, unless there is some reason.

In chimps it is in fact the males that do most of the hunting and
the males who share their meat also are the ones who score the action,
when the females are in oesterus. Bonobo females swop sex for sugar
cane. Pairbonding really evolved in those species, where alot of resources
are required to feed the offspring, like humans.
Males will stick around and help feed the offpsring and given their
love of sex, its a good enough reason to do so. So its a win-win situation.

Food is just one reason, protection another. Given the savannah where
we evolved, having one of the kids or themselves eaten by leopards and
similar, would have been pretty common. Fire was one way to keep predators
away, so a campsite would have been required. Women with a 2 year old
out picking berries, would have been fair game as a snack.

Anthropoligst Helen Fisher thinks that most likely serial pairbonding
evolved, long enough to raise the kid, thus the average divorce time
of 4 years. Many other species do the same. The lifelong thing
only came about, with the advent of agriculture and the plow. Given the
increased investment by males, women thereafter were viewed more
as property.

Poirot, Yabby

OK guys. Sarcasm taken. Bullying intimidation noted. Exclusion obvious. Derailing successful.

I'll get out of your way and leave your pathetic closed minds to remain well and truly shut.

Oh my mind is very much open, Killarney. I just don't rely on
Meerkat Manor to understand evolution theory. If you are really
interested in all this, there is some great work that has been done
in primatology, its just not well known, but there for anyone interested.

Killarney,

"I'll get out of your way and leave your pathetic closed minds to remain well and truly shut."

Could you please point me to the bullying intimidation in my last response to you? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13323&page=0#230760

Yabby and I have clashed more times than I care to remember on this forum, he often out-debates me - but I've never accused him of bullying because he got the better of me or thought his mind was pathetic or closed.
Why is it some posters resort to shouting "bully" when they find themselves arguing up a one way street? I think your last post says more about you than it does about our point of view.

left the orgy..cause too much testeytosserterone
and now find the girls leaving

oh well timming is everything

[im noting on my other forum...there is an urge to talk
[about that thing..nice people
dont talk about[let alone
lord forbid..actually do]

what is it with saex
i done some of my best work showing off
to some frilly filly...its true we klike to bring home the meat

but then expect some meaty social intercourse
that recognises us as worthy..or at least not open con-tempt

oph well iwill have a hangover in the morning
but to parrot phrase church hill...i will in the moprning be sober madam

but you maan..will still be

be

be

oh bbc world service is on
gatta go

where did i put my track suit pants
[oh no sorry worse my one 0 one's]
or whatever...*cool people wear

just to throw it out there
bugger is a bad swear word...many use in ignorance

and scumbag..is a second use of a con dumb
[usually turned inside out...[with a mates dna
washed off it..with beer]

so be carefull re potty mouth
just trying to avoid..the acurate words
we cant use..and some abuse..[we should list them sometime]

be a great search honey trap

Returning to the premise of this article, Petra states at one point: "In previous eras, women had a better shot at meeting the ideal."

Although unrealistic ideals are ubiquitous in the modern media, I'm not sure that it points to the crux of the question of pornography in our society.

It seems to me that the very system which has allowed and encouraged the emancipation of women - given them "voice" - is the self-same system that has unleashed a tidal-wave of media expression. Ergo, the emancipation of women = the emancipation of expression, the transmission of ideas and images unfettered by the constraints of the past.

I'm wondering it the twin phenomena are irrevocably entwined - and why, if that is the case, it is overwhelmingly men who are targeted or "blamed" when it's modern consumer/technological society that has spawned these freedoms?

*Yabby and I have clashed more times than I care to remember on this forum*

Well that is why I have a high regard for your intellectual abilities,
Poirot. Surely good debate should be about examining various
pespectives. None of us know everything. Just because we sometimes
agree to disagree, does not make me think less of you, in fact
exactly the opposite.

What we do have on OLO is some posters coming along and stating
their case, and then when its challenged, they throw their rattle
out of the pram and leave.

Personally I think I'm a bit like yourself in that I have an
inquisitive mind, but I actually enjoy being challenged, because
it means that I have to rethink my position and be able to justify
it. I'm always interested in learning something new and I do,
nearly every day.

'Could you please point me to the bullying intimidation in my last response to you?'

I wrote that after picking my jaw up off the ground by yabby’s absolutely mind-blowing huffy that I dared to negatively criticise some male animals, for heaven’s sake! The reverence on these gender threads for the sacred male ego – even animal ones – gets downright pathological at times.

I shouldn’t have lumped you in with this. Sorry. I unfortunately read yabby’s post straight after reading yours and was already feeling exasperated that you were not really addressing any of my points. It just appeared to me that you were pushing an is-so-is-so-is-so agenda that was sending me round in circles.

I agree with a lot of your points about paganism and Earth Mother female empowerment, but there are many perspectives on gender evolution, other than the men-quest/women-nest paradigm that deserve a hearing. To paraphrase anthropologist, Henrietta Moore, even when carried out by women, anthropology tends to order the world into a male idiom, because researchers are either men, or women trained in a male oriented discipline.

Even so, a lot of the androcentric tropes and paradigms of traditional anthropology have been successfully challenged by female anthropologists like Margaret Mead, Maria Gimbutas, Riane Eisler and many others. They also copped a lot of flack for research interpretations that stepped outside of the traditional – and very limited – patriarchal norm that women’s sexuality is primarily monogamous and locked into the nurturing instinct

under one god

With respect, I wish I could understand your stream-of-consciousness style. I'd respond to your posts more if I had some idea of what you are saying. :)

Killarney,

Good to see you've returned. Don't underestimate the power of your own comments in the fact that you received robust responses....it's because you had something to say that struck a chord that we responded - it's all good : )

Unfortunately we're fairly limited for space on OLO to give appropriate depth to our musings - 'men quest and women nest' is undeniably simplistic in its expression of the complexities of the machinations between the sexes.

My take on things is pretty well summed up in my last post. In modern industrial society, women have in the main gravitated to men's constructs. Institutions now take up the roles that family and close community did in times (not so) long ago. Women have been freed of their past maternal obligations in large measure, and now seek to have a foot in both camps. However, I often ponder the fact that that instead of offering their own unique wisdom and practice to society, they have only sought to imitate men. Where in modern industrial society can we glean anything uniquely female - aside from the peripheral service of presenting themselves for the commercialisation of their sex and vanities?

Where is the imagination and foresight of women, and what can women offer to enhance our world that isn't formulated upon the existing paradigm?

*I wrote that after picking my jaw up off the ground by yabby’s absolutely mind-blowing huffy that I dared to negatively criticise some male animals, for heaven’s sake!*

No huffy Killarney, debate on OLO does not huff me. What's good for
the goose is good for the gander too however, so I just point these
things out.

In the end, much of the evolution story is driven by biological
urges and self interest. Now there are some variations between
species, but on the whole, a large majority of females have the
overwhelming urge to have offspring and an overwhelming majority
of men have an overwhelming urge to have sex. Swopping resources
to feed the offspring for sex, is extremely common in nature,
particularly in our species.

Killarney <"I wrote that after picking my jaw up off the ground by yabby’s absolutely mind-blowing huffy that I dared to negatively criticise some male animals, for heaven’s sake!"

Oh yes indeed I feel your' pain Killarney, it happens quite alot on this forum :p
I have dared to criticise some of the male animals at times too :)
Don't give up though, because you sound very wise to me.

Yabby <"Swopping (sic) resources to feed the offspring for sex, is extremely common in nature, particularly in our species."

I think you are mistaking modern day male and female humans for prehistoric humans Yabby. I would suggest we have moved on a little now, sexually.

Well, women have anyway.

The 'sexual revolution' has happened and most women want to, and often demand to, enjoy a healthy sex life.

I don't know about you, but the 'offspring' have left the nest at our home, and childbearing is finished, but an enjoyable sex life continues...

*I think you are mistaking modern day male and female humans for prehistoric human*

Not really Suze. How many women would find a husband, if there was
no sex involved?

*The 'sexual revolution' has happened and most women want to, and often demand to, enjoy a healthy sex life.*

Sex and money are still the two major points of argument in relationships,
according to marriage councellors etc. Just ask
Betina Arnt and similar, who study the subject.
The market proves my point. Just open the West in the classified
section and you'll find a couple of pages of women offering their
services, because there is demand from males, far larger then women
are offering to meet for free. Once again, women swapping sex for
resources.

Fact is that if you ask most women today, their kids and grandkids
are still the focus of their lives. Many work because they have to,
not because they want to. If they can do 3 days a week and earn
enough, that is exactly what they choose.

Snaring a rich husband or a bloke who earns 6 figures, is still
important to women. For they know that when they are nesting
the resources need to come from somewhere.

The thing is, there is nothing wrong with all this, its just how
nature is. Those trying to deny nature as she is, for their
own agenda, is what I find amusing.

Is Petra for real or was this article penned with tongue firmly planted in cheek?

I'd like to make several observations: Libido, male & female is quite heavily influenced by hormones as well as ones feelings about their partner and self. Male hormone levels tend to remain fairly steady, gradually waning with age. Female hormones are in a state of constant ebb and flow associated with the menstrual cycle, pregnancy and nursing and finally, menopause. In a general sense this helps explain the 'eveready' nature of the male and more 'specific' needs of the female.

A woman whose partner is obsessed with pornography or where his fantasies impact on their relationship in an unhappy way may have some well founded libido issues, but how common is this in the scheme of things?

In most caring relationships where hormonal influences are not to blame, the most likely causes of absent or lack lustre libido in the lady of the house are more likely to relate to health and well being issues than porn. A woman who is tired, stressed, run down is hardly likely to feel wildly sexy. Likewise the very overweight or underweight, those with chronic disease such as type 2 diabetes, arthritis or other painful complaints.

If all the above are ruled out, I'd suggest the woman may not be feeling the 'love' and needs some non-sexual attention to reassure her of her partners feelings and re-ignite the passion.

Heard it said and think it's pretty true: Women worry about what men think of their bodies. Men on the other hand, are usually just happy that a woman is taking off her clothes for them. Finally - a bird in the hand is worth much more than two in the bush ... or smutty mag/video/website. Go figure ..

Well divine-msn, at the risk of killing-off a female contributor here, you're being a bit patronising! So you think men don't have any worries about body-image? And the state of being "eveready" is no sweat?
Men are just as insecure about their body's--though maybe not quite so obsessed and neurotic. In the end we take a fatalistic stance; she'll either roll over or not, so f---it. As for "eveready"; do women have the faintest idea of the pressure of having an erection eveready, to inspire her? Ladies' sexual readiness can easily be faked (though they prefer to just whinge and wine about their libido), but men are supposed to be masters of the universe--or at least of their sexual potency. I went out with a highly-sexed female once who I actually found a little intimidating, so much so that she affected my performance for a time (there were other factors). Do you suppose I got an ounce of sympathy? Oh no, she was actually offended and took it personally that I wasn't "eveready" at her behest.
Women "should" worry about their bodies! Because frankly if it's too gross I'd be happier if she kept her clothes on!
I don't appreciate male sexuality being dumbed-down like this. The fact that men like online porn so much says something about the ladies in bed--and it's not that the men are eveready!

Dear Squeers - poor fellow you! The article was about FEMALE libido so that is what I commented on - given the limitations on space and reader attention.

The male is NOT of course, always EVEREADY, thankfully for the manufacturers of Viagra and other 'assistance'. The point I was making related to hormonal influence on the sex drive and the relatively stable state of male sex hormones, with males being receptive a higher proportion of the time GENERALLY. Like ON AVERAGE. Get it?

Yes I'm aware men have body issues too. Just not as prevalent. The same health and well being issues that may impact female libido will likewise affect the male.

The authors slant is that loss of desire is happening within relationships. Your take seems to be based on casual sex. Much more pressure to perform eh. Oh and little sincerity or genuine affection, let alone love and trust. Sorry, I am older and old fashioned. I hope you find a partner who you fall in love with and who loves you and with whom you can feel secure and comfortable.

divine_msn,
patronising and presumptuous still.
"Hormones" is indeed a popular excuse, that women are victim to and men favoured by, it seems. Sorry but it's hardly an exact science, such we can generalise about--like saying obesity's genetic.
As for me, the highly-sexed lady I allude to (one of a few I've known) was someone I fancied myself madly in love with, so much so I left my wife to be with her--though I was desperate to get away too! It was an extremely messy affair (the other factors I mentioned), my wife threatening suicide, and guilt and all that--but you'll be happy to know that my "hormones" have never let me down since, and I've never wanted for relationships either--though I've occasionally wished myself out of them. It seems to me there's much less pressure to perform in casual relationships, it comes naturally, whereas marriage seems calculated to kill the sex drive in both parties. What did Nietzsche say, "even concubinage has been corrupted, by marriage!"
Anyway, rather than blaming their hormones, perhaps the ladies should try being as robustly honest about relationships as men are wont to be, rather than talking crap about "falling in love". It happens to the best of us, but we really ought to grow out of it.
But the point ladies is you shouldn't take that erection for granted; it's a complicated business and the poor fellow's using all his nerve and sinew to keep it aloft! Whereas all you have to do is lie back and think of England.

Squeers - the article on which I made comment centred around the supposed effects of todays pornographic trends and ready availability on the FEMALE libido, suggesting porn was linked to loss of female desire.

I gave a differing viewpoint on that concept based on accumulated knowledge from a medical (scientific) background.

The story of your sex life along with various anxieties and neuroses quite frankly are not part of the subject. Cheers mate and goodnight.

divine-msn,
the first part of your first post was fair enough, but I think I had every right to take the last bit to task as I did:

<If all the above are ruled out, I'd suggest the woman may not be feeling the 'love' and needs some non-sexual attention to reassure her of her partners feelings and re-ignite the passion.

Heard it said and think it's pretty true: Women worry about what men think of their bodies. Men on the other hand, are usually just happy that a woman is taking off her clothes for them. Finally - a bird in the hand is worth much more than two in the bush ... or smutty mag/video/website. Go figure ..>

It amazes me that there are endless complexities to the female that men are supposed to respect and pander to, yet the female can blithely dismiss men and their sexuality in this ignorant fashion.

You're entitled to an alternative viewpoint and I'm entitled to challenge it.