Day at home

[jay]

Strep hasn't knocked me down -- no fever or other symptoms -- but I felt not-right this morning, enough that I stayed home from work to try to pre-empt the bug. A telecon including hopeforyou (who was also offsite at her place) went well. Later, bad news about the air traffic project I presented in DC last week... the local NASA management group that has been putting together a new program for FY05, and using us as its poster-child for marketing purposes, is now going to reduce our part of the budget to ten percent of the total while warping our purpose into being basically just computing infrastructure support for things in which they're more interested.

Otherwise, I fixed a door closer and a balky lock, rested, and took Kevin to the park and tried to throw toy boomerangs with him. We were laughable. That's perfectly OK. ;-)

This evening, I talked with patgreene, including a lively discussion regarding whether women actually ever wanted sex for its own sake, or just went along with it in order to gain things that they valued more (like cuddling, or attention, or building emotional ties). There was no verdict... maybe more in a future post.

Comments

[oceansedge.livejournal.com]

whether women actually ever wanted sex for its own sake, or just went along with it in order to gain things that they valued more (like cuddling, or attention, or building emotional ties).
Hurmmmm.... I think perhaps the thing here is not that women don't want sex for its own sake. Myself I've never met a healthy adult woman who didn't enjoy / want sex. I think the difference is in perhaps how that desire manifests itself. I once had a friend comment that its pretty obvious when a guy is cruising a woman he finds attractive, but women are a lot more subtle about it. And YES we do it... I had an english professor once.. *whew*... that was a great class. The other thing is that socially, while a woman may find a man attractive, and she may very well have the desire, women are still less likely (although by no means always), to have sex just for sex's sake. There's a subtle difference here, more men than women, see sex as an end onto itself, and thus more often would say, have intimate relations with a woman they didn't even like, solely for the purpose of having sex. More often than men and again these are general trends, not carved in stone rules, women want or need some emotional attachment and involvement to act on the physical desire we're ALL born with. (its a genetic survival of the species thing). Thus perhaps the perception that women use sex to get to the other stuff, I don't think so. She wants the SEX and the OTHER STUFF both.
I think the person who mentioned the visuals thing was also on to something here. Men do tend to be more stimulated visually, so an attractive woman starts the hormones flowing, women responding to more verbal and tactile stimuli have the other stuff that gets their motors running.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

women are a lot more subtle about it. And YES we do it

Hmmm. I accept that it happens... and I'd probably not notice if a given woman were cruising a given person in my vicinity, given the subtlety. Maybe even just mistake it for ordinary friendliness.

she may very well have the desire, women are still less likely (although by no means always), to have sex just for sex's sake

I think that that's what I've noticed, over the years. Being attracted is different, I think, from feeling compelled to act on the attraction. My read has been that women generally see sex as a pleasant side effect of emotional attachment and involvement, while men are more likely to see them inverted, relatively-speaking. With exceptions on both sides, granted.

[oceansedge.livejournal.com]

Actually, I sort of meant this the other way around (grins). Rather than a pleasant side effect of emotional attachment. I think women want need desire sex just as much and as often as a man does, but is less inclined to ACT on that without the their being an emotional bond of some kind.

'Fer instance.... I've been single, and unattached, for a fairly goodly period of time, as have a number of friends. As grown mature women with full and busy lives, it would be NICE to have someone in our lives, but it's not per se a nessecity, And yes, you do miss the physicallity of touching, cuddling and the like. But there are many other times, no less frequent, when you're just plain downright horny. For some of us, that has occassionally lead to purely sexual relationships... FWB's (friends w/benefits) or one night stands, or polyamorous relationships. It DOES scratch the itch, and is frequently very physically satisfying. We (and in this case I mean myself and some of the women I know, not our gender as a whole) tend to wander away, bore, of these kinds of relationships fairly quickly because of the lack of emotional satisfaction. But I think the same is true of men. While they may more readily become involved in these kinds of relationships, they too tend to wander away from them fairly quickly (hence the appearance that men are tom cats), because I think just as women are, men too are looking for emotional satisfaction in their relationships, they're simply less apt to articulate that.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

desire sex just as much and as often as a man does, but is less inclined to ACT

Ah. But as a man, and without telepathy, women's internal motivations aren't apparent. All I see is a reluctance to act, unless other favorable conditions exist, which in turn implies a linkage and relative priority.

the same is true of men

Agreed, I think that's a good analysis of at least one dynamic behind love-them-and-leave-them or tom-cattery (no connection to dot_cattiness ;).

other times, no less frequent, when you're just plain downright horny

That's a hard thing for me to imagine, frankly... it must be subtle, or well-hidden.

[oceansedge.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure subtle or well hidden, just manifested differently. A woman is less apt to discuss her state of horniness in mixed company. Just as men have their locker-room talk. So do women. Being a heterosexual man you're probably more exposed to the former rather than the later. For some reason homosexual men seem to get included in this intimate girlfriend's talk. LOL I remember vividly having this really wild chat with a gay friend online one day about who umm sucked better cock. (/TMI).

I think perhaps, women are less inclined to share this publically than men, in part as someone mentioned earlier, the societal perception that a woman in heat is wanton, a harlot, etc. Much the same as I'm loathe to walk into a bar for a cold one alone, I'll gladly go with girlfriends but a woman in a bar alone is still percieved to be 'on the hunt'.

Its not that women don't have the same urges, they simply express them differently, or more accurately in different, less open circumstances than men, in large part because of the still very deeply ingrained societal differences in perception of men and women's sexuality and the pressures on them thereof.

This is not alas a disadvantage only to women, but to men too. A man is free to admit publically his baser needs. But I don't know many men who have friendships close enough, or secure enough with other men that they feel they can admit their needs for emotional comfort, cuddling, and nurturing.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Hmm... I don't know about the locker-room talk equivalent. Personally, I was (and am) still mistrustful of my own gender, and avoided all-male social groupings. But I wouldn't admit in a group of men my needs for emotional comfort, granted...