>>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.