Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think he has some points, but NOT for the reasons he offers as support.
First off, he doesn't seem to know very much about sex itself. SEX was always about two people getting each other off. It isn't always solely about that, but the core itself remains inviolate. Sex is about release, about satisfaction -- and IF you are the right kind of person, and IF you are fortunate enough to have the right partner, then sex becomes more than the pursuit of orgasm.
It's not surprising that someone with such a disapproving scowl as the author idealizes the nature of Romance and assigns it to sex, especially when he describes a woman on top as "empowered" by virtue of her position in coito while describing the man as an object rather than a participant. I can practically hear him harrumphing -- harrumph! HARRUMPH, I say! -- during that description of what it seems he is alleging as sex's downfall. "If he can last long enough, she can get off and think he is a fantastic lover."
Pal, we've all been there, had trouble holding back and lasting; but if you're thinking about baseball scores, taxes or landing a sailfish in order to be a better lover you are doing it WRONG!
Second, he cites Ashley Madison and points out the "have an affair" site as representative of people for whom sex is only about getting off.
I would dare venture that while getting off may be a big part of the point, more often it's about trying to find what seems to be missing in one's own little slice of the world.
Sex is great; but sex without connection becomes, feels, seems to be, IS just bland and eventually pointless.
Two anecdotes:
1. Years ago I saw a letter to Dear Abby, from a wife complaining that her husband was likely having an affair. She voiced the question: What does she have that I don't have?
Ms. Van Buren responded "Don't ask what she has that you don't have. The answer is NOTHING. Instead, ask yourself what does she do that you don't do?"
Some might sniff at this, pinching their lips and turning their gaze sidewise -- but it has merit. Not necessarily sexual merit, but emotional, connective merit. Think about it, and try to do so without thinking of men as depraved, otherwise insensate sexual predators.
2. Some years ago I was in touch with a woman on another forum. We struck up quite a friendship and conversed very frequently. During our time talking, it came out that she'd spent time as an escort during college. She was from New York and said she was quite fortunate to be nice-looking enough to work in a more discreet, higher-quality service.
She said there were obviously men whose object was sex, and it happened plenty. What surprised her, however, was an astounding number of men who actually wanted companionship, how many "dates" ended with dinner, dancing and a good night. "Far, far from ALL," she told me, "But definitely enough to make me really stop and reconsider the nature of men who seek attention outside of marriage." She estimated it to be around 40-45 percent.
Even more astounding, according to her, was the frequency of men who wanted to talk about their wives, whether complaining OR seeking advice. It was enough that she had to make a "no discussing the wife" rule during her outings because it both made her feel guilty and tended to kill any pleasant mood, diminishing a return-customer base.
I believe many are coming to view sex as an activity rather than a connection. I think it's sad because something precious and beautiful is being slowly worn away from our unrealistic society where the family unit is disintegrating and people are becoming disposable.
I think we have too much Hollywood, where men are deluded by bombshell bodies while women are deluded by ready-to-wear athletic bodies and flip-the-switch girlfriends-with-dongs, who on-screen make love like an Adonis-bodied Casanova then fetch fresh muffins and braid hair. It breeds unrealistic expectations, and when those aren't met, we blame the union itself.
It goes further, into the realm of evaluation and how it is differentiated between men and women. Ladies, DON'T get the idea it's all unjust for women and men have it made; it is SIMPLY NOT TRUE and a silly way of thinking. But there are inequities enough for both sexes and all the genders, all 'round, it's true, and that can be discouraging and breed a kind of numb lack of hope.
He could just save himself the trouble of kvetching about everyone else's sexual proclivities and just update his profile: missionary only, no balloons, pubic hair preferred.
Seriously though, sex doesn't have to follow a specific format in order to be fulfilling, and I think the best partners are the ones who are capable of switching things up. There's a time for the long, drawn out, romantic stuff, just as there is a time for devouring eachother like a couple of animals in heat.
He could just save himself the trouble of kvetching about everyone else's sexual proclivities and just update his profile: missionary only, no balloons, pubic hair preferred.
Seriously though, sex doesn't have to follow a specific format in order to be fulfilling, and I think the best partners are the ones who are capable of switching things up. There's a time for the long, drawn out, romantic stuff, just as there is a time for devouring eachother like a couple of animals in heat.
I have to spread Reputation before I can give it to you again.
I'd prefer to think of it as "spread the LOOOOVE".
He killed all the potential points he could have made by short-sight harping on sex itself.
"Why, in MY day we didn't even HAVE homosexuality! That was made up during the 70's. And sex was a DUTY we did whether we liked it or not! Kissin' wasn't about fun, it was about love and contractual obligation, consarn it! Now... I'm a tad more forward than most guys my age. I've heard of the clt and even seen one -- swear to Gord-a'mighty! So I KNOWs what I's TALKIN' 'bout!"
I knew coming from the Institute for Political Economy I would probably disagree with this, but read it anyway. "Today sex is about two people (or more) getting each other off." And what exactly is wrong with that? As long as it is consensual and nobody is getting hurt who cares? Not everyone wants a "traditional" type of relationship. This is just another article pushing sex for procreation only drivel. Next.
Yep.
A bunch of deluded, puritanical nonsense harping on the glory days of yesteryear that is nothing but a fantasy.
I have to spread Reputation before I can give it to you again.
I'd prefer to think of it as "spread the LOOOOVE".
He killed all the potential points he could have made by short-sight harping on sex itself.
"Why, in MY day we didn't even HAVE homosexuality! That was made up during the 70's. And sex was a DUTY we did whether we liked it or not! Kissin' wasn't about fun, it was about love and contractual obligation, consarn it! Now... I'm a tad more forward than most guys my age. I've heard of the clt and even seen one -- swear to Gord-a'mighty! So I KNOWs what I's TALKIN' 'bout!"
Probably one of those dudes who doesn't cope well with change or deviations from the script. It's a shame really; half the fun is in unpredictability and never being quite sure what comes next on the repertoire.
How dare women have sex on top and have an orgasm!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I knew coming from the Institute for Political Economy I would probably disagree with this, but read it anyway. "Today sex is about two people (or more) getting each other off." And what exactly is wrong with that? As long as it is consensual and nobody is getting hurt who cares? Not everyone wants a "traditional" type of relationship. This is just another article pushing sex for procreation only drivel. Next.
