The fear of female sexuality

Sort by date Most Liked Posts
Drifterwood said:
I am financially capable of having ten wives, having children as often as they like. Should these facts cut across our constructs?

If one leaves, let her take a tenth. If I have one, she takes half. Seems like a shit deal to me.
Click to expand...

That's because under our current legal system(s), you are only supposed to have one at a time. :rolleyes:

I also notice that it takes far lesss paperwork to get married than it does to get un-married. :mad:
 
helgaleena said:
That's because under our current legal system(s), you are only supposed to have one at a time. :rolleyes:

I also notice that it takes far lesss paperwork to get married than it does to get un-married. :mad:
Click to expand...

Actually, the only problem in our legal system is getting married in the first place. If you don't, you can pretty much do what the hell you like. :cool:
 
To respond to Bliss's original post, I think it had something to do with maternity/paternity. With property inheritance, it's good to know whose brat you're passing down the castle/cave/cattle to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drifterwood
female sexuality freaks men out because they always feel they will never be able to "keep up" whether it's anxiety about penis size, or anxiety about premature ejaculation, or anxiety about ED or being able to "give" a partner enough (or high enough quality) orgasm, or frequency of sex, or just trying to keep things interesting there's always the lurking fear that their (our) best will not be good enough.

if you think about the best known practices of patriarchal culture seeks to manage female sexuality and lower expectations. virginity: she will never compare you with any previous lover. purdah: keeping her away from other men. female circumcision: destroying any ability for self-pleasure, honor killings: killing any woman who may be accused of enjoying sex. the list goes on.

two books that should be must reading about "unrestrained female sexuality" are Carol Groneman's NYMPHOMANIA: A HISTORY and Rachel Maines' THE TECHNOLOGY OF ORGASM

Amazon.com: The Technology of Orgasm: "Hysteria," the Vibrator, and Women's Sexual Satisfaction (Johns Hopkins Studies in the History of Technology) (9780801866463): Rachel P. Maines: Books

Amazon.com: Nymphomania: A History (9780393048384): Carol Groneman: Books
 
Last edited:
I think this really goes back to the old question why is a guy who gets around a stud and a woman who gets around a slut...

Because it takes no damn effort at all on a woman's part if she want's to get laid 30 times a month by 30 different guys even an ugly gal can do that!

If a guy want's to do the same thing it's gonna take some effort on his part and there are damn few in any given city that could pull it off.

Sorry ladies... no one is afraid of your sexuality in fact bring it on
 
mercurialbliss said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I know one way in which this subject has impacted my life is that when I was single, I would generally act on my sexual impulses with the only limiting factors being that I must protect myself from pregnancy and disease. However, whenever I was interested in a man for more than sex, I witheld all sexual contact until there was mutual exclusivity. I found that the appearance of chastity was more likely to lead to commitment of some kind. There are many men who still want a woman to be a slut, but who will only love her if she can also be "pure".
 
Scalawag said:
female sexuality freaks men out because they always feel they will never be able to "keep up" ... there's always the lurking fear that their (our) best will not be good enough.

if you think about the best known practices of patriarchal culture seeks to manage female sexuality and lower expectations. virginity: she will never compare you with any previous lover. purdah: keeping her away from other men. female circumcision: destroying any ability for self-pleasure, honor killings: killing any woman who may be accused of enjoying sex. the list goes on.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting perspective, however all of the above practices can also be understood as techniques to ensure paternity. With a virgin, obviously, a male committing to her can be certain that any child born will be his; Purdah limits female contact with other males, so as to prevent any of them from making her pregnant; female circumcision reduces the female ability to enjoy sex, so that she is less likely to cheat or sleep around.

So there is a strong case to be made that these practices are attempts to ensure the certainty of paternity, rather than compensations for male concerns about not being 'good enough'. Certainly, it appears that men in the past were much less concerned about sexually satisfying women than they are today. However, this too can be seen from an evolutionary perspective; i.e. men may be chiefly concerned about their ability to perform, only because they unconsciously fear their partner may leave or cheat on them if they are experienced as inadequate, and she (and possibly he) may end up raising another man's child instead.
 
A woman's virginity or otherwise is of no relevance as to whether she conceives your child when she is with you.

Mutilating a woman to reduce her sexual pleasure will equally have no bearing on whether she wishes to become pregnant by a different man. She has an eye for the genes of her child in this respect and whether she enjoys the shagging part is of no consequence to the goal.

Most researchers are in broad agreement that the rate of "bastards", as it were, is about 10% and has been for most of human history.

When a woman wants to concentrate on raising a family is probably the least complicated, in terms of fear, time of her sexual life IMO. The 10% cheating rate is way below the overall 33 to 50% cheating rate at other times.

But then I am not sure that the cheating side is what we "fear" about female sexuality.
 
Drifterwood said:
A woman's virginity or otherwise is of no relevance as to whether she conceives your child when she is with you.
Click to expand...

If a male can be sure to be her first, and can prevent her from seeing other men, then of course virginity ensures that any child conceived belongs to that male. I would have thought it obvious that virginity is perhaps the no.1 insurance that the child is yours.

Drifterwood said:
Mutilating a woman to reduce her sexual pleasure will equally have no bearing on whether she wishes to become pregnant by a different man. She has an eye for the genes of her child in this respect and whether she enjoys the shagging part is of no consequence to the goal.
Click to expand...

Possibly true, but these measures aren't usually implemented alone. The same countries that implement female circumcision also stone women for adultery.

Drifterwood said:
Most researchers are in broad agreement that the rate of "bastards", as it were, is about 10% and has been for most of human history.
Click to expand...

This rate is contended by many researchers, and ranges from 2% to 30%.

Drifterwood said:
But then I am not sure that the cheating side is what we "fear" about female sexuality.
Click to expand...

So what is? Please expand.
 
Last edited:
Scalawag said:
female sexuality freaks men out because they always feel they will never be able to "keep up" whether it's anxiety about penis size, or anxiety about premature ejaculation, or anxiety about ED or being able to "give" a partner enough (or high enough quality) orgasm, or frequency of sex, or just trying to keep things interesting there's always the lurking fear that their (our) best will not be good enough.
Click to expand...
I think this fear is less about female sexuality and more about male sexuality. Most women will enjoy sex and have orgasms when they are comfortable with their partners and at some point they will be the focus of the act. When men experience performance anxiety the focus is less on the woman and the act and more on the self. I'm not denying the anxieties men face during sexual encounters but those fears often stem from something other than the female partner.

if you think about the best known practices of patriarchal culture seeks to manage female sexuality and lower expectations. virginity: she will never compare you with any previous lover. purdah: keeping her away from other men. female circumcision: destroying any ability for self-pleasure, honor killings: killing any woman who may be accused of enjoying sex. the list goes on.
Click to expand...
In other words, a woman's sexuality is so powerful she can destroy any man if she were allowed to fully embrace it? The next question would be how and why.


Drifterwood said:
But then I am not sure that the cheating side is what we "fear" about female sexuality.
Click to expand...

See above. Studies show that women are supposedly more unforgiving of "emotional" cheating while men are more threatened by sexual indiscretion. Barring evolutionary theories, are we simply following a formula or is there something to this?
 
JacKNight said:
Because it takes no damn effort at all on a woman's part if she want's to get laid 30 times a month by 30 different guys even an ugly gal can do that!
Click to expand...

I fucking hate this misconception. It's stupid. Anyone - regardless of sex or sexuality can get laid pretty much whenever IF he or she is will to lower his or her standards. You could go out and fuck some sad, washed up old bar fly with droopy tits and crotch rot any night of the week you wanted to. But would you? No? So the idea that a woman can go fuck some bloke who (for example) she doesn't fancy and who maybe she feels will just be using her as a cum receptacle any night of the week is fucking stupid.

JacKNight said:
Sorry ladies... no one is afraid of your sexuality in fact bring it on
Click to expand...

We don't want men to be afraid of female sexuality - men usually react to fear with aggression. That's not good.

AlteredEgo said:
I know one way in which this subject has impacted my life is that when I was single, I would generally act on my sexual impulses with the only limiting factors being that I must protect myself from pregnancy and disease. However, whenever I was interested in a man for more than sex, I witheld all sexual contact until there was mutual exclusivity. I found that the appearance of chastity was more likely to lead to commitment of some kind. There are many men who still want a woman to be a slut, but who will only love her if she can also be "pure".
Click to expand...

But why the hell would you want a man who wants you to be something you're not? I had the same experience as you - except I didn't modify my behaviour if I was interested in a guy. I expect you had more committed relationships than I did, but with guys who didn't accept your sexual side as it was. That may not be a problem for you, I'm not trying to be critical of you, but it would have been a problem for me.
 
mercurialbliss said:
In other words, a woman's sexuality is so powerful she can destroy any man if she were allowed to fully embrace it? The next question would be how and why.
Click to expand...

Why do you think this? In what way does female sexuality 'destroy' men? Why are you even interested in destroying men?

Previously you attacked evolutionary theories as pandering to the 'male ego' (when in fact it seemed more the case that you did not understand the nature of the theory - that they are in fact solely concerned with successful evolutionary strategies, i.e. what behaviors can be seen to increase survival chances.) Now you are talking in terms of 'destroying' men, and how and why this should be done...

You are increasingly coming across misandrist, mercurialbliss. Is this a fair statement?

Misandry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
darkhorse2008uk said:
Why do you think this? In what way does female sexuality 'destroy' men? Why are you even interested in destroying men?
Click to expand...

:chairfall:

Don't worry, i'm not interested in destroying men (still laughing). I like and enjoy them tremendously. I chose this word because it seems as though the cultures the previous poster described do what they can to shroud or inhibit a woman's sexual nature because they're threatened by it. Why else would a culture be threatened unless they see female sexuality as something destructive? I don't claim to know the answers which is why I posted the thread. I wanted to know what others thought. Is that so terrible?


darkhorse2008uk said:
Previously you attacked evolutionary theories as pandering to the 'male ego' (when in fact it seemed more the case that you did not understand the nature of the theory - that they are in fact solely concerned with successful evolutionary strategies, i.e. what behaviors can be seen to increase survival chances.) Now you are talking in terms of 'destroying' men, and how and why this should be done...

You are increasingly coming across misandrist, mercurialbliss. Is this a fair statement?

Misandry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I never questioned the validity of the evolutionary theories posted but as to the further development of said theories in our culture. As I mentioned previously evolution isn't stagnant when it comes to humans. We no longer need to struggle to survive as we once did so it would be natural to see a changing progression in our goals and how we interact with one another.

No, i'm not misandrist. You are reading too much in my posts. I like to play devil's advocate because I prefer to consider as many perspectives as possible in any discussion. I was thinking "out loud" in my previous post and not declaring war on the male gender. :tongue:
 
Last edited:
darkhorse2008uk said:
Why do you think this? In what way does female sexuality 'destroy' men? Why are you even interested in destroying men?

Previously you attacked evolutionary theories as pandering to the 'male ego' (when in fact it seemed more the case that you did not understand the nature of the theory - that they are in fact solely concerned with successful evolutionary strategies, i.e. what behaviors can be seen to increase survival chances.) Now you are talking in terms of 'destroying' men, and how and why this should be done...

You are increasingly coming across misandrist, mercurialbliss. Is this a fair statement?

Misandry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

She was reacting to a particular statement by a previous poster with sarcasm, is my reading of that. Manlybanisters caught the misogyny of that poster as well and responded to it too.

I'd like to address the performance anxiety aspect of the responses to 'what exactly is so frightening'. If we are tactlessly blunt as usual, we may say that it's possible to get the act done to minimal impregnation standards as long as the male is aroused, whether the female is or not.

It's a lot easier for males to rape females than the other way around and get offspring out of it. Hence the ancient 'loot, rape, pillage' formula for decimating an enemy group in warfare. Planting your side's seed in the rival territory is both humiliating and demoralizing, and brings up a generation of mixed genes that may be less hostile to your own.

If a female's opinion is valued in a sexual context, she is going to want to be at ease enough to lubricate at the very least! If a male has insufficient amorous skills to reach that stage, he may feel a bit anxious I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
For the love of Jake
Replies
0
Views
213
Erotic Stories
IdeaOfOrder
I
maxdenozo
Sexuality: Who's your exception? Your 1%?
Replies
1
Views
472
General Sexual Discussion
2021697rm
2021697rm
H
Adult Theaters in Las Vegas (And my awakening): PART 1
Replies
1
Views
476
Sex Toy Talk
ActionBuddy
ActionBuddy
R
The Full-time assistant. MM - CMNM
Replies
13
Views
3K
Erotic Stories
rigus
R
D
What is the deal with him?
Replies
1
Views
880
Relationships, Discrimination, and Jealousy
MileyEras
M
Remove Ads
Top Bottom