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

[geekchick]

given that women usually want it less/less often

On what are you basing that generalization?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Hmm... social stereotypes, I guess, combined with personal experience and observations. Neither is unimpeachable, granted. But as a social default assumption, it does tend to place women as gatekeepers, deciding if/when any sexual activity will take place.

[geekchick]

social stereotypes, I guess, combined with personal experience and observations

It is as much a stereotype as the idea that men are tomcats who just want to get laid as often as possible, with probably about as much of a grain of truth in it. As with so many other things, that statement about levels of desire is true in lots of cases and not true in lots of others, and it can even change over time for individuals. TMI: (boy, I wish the cut tag would work in comments) When I was not having the health issues I am now, I'd say that my levels of desire were consistently higher than any of my partners and I would often, when between relationships, go out looking just to hook up for an evening. (This is not an invitation to reopen the standard "number of past partners" argument again.) I suppose that in your obsessive data-collection framework this just means I cancel myself out. =)

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

probably about as much of a grain of truth in it

True, but those are the underlying assumptions which govern male-female dynamics in this culture... men are expected to initiate or pursue, women are expected to deflect or filter. This doesn't just reflect relative libido, I think, but other factors... many women abstain during their periods (which reduces their "uptime" relative to males) and women are at higher risk (STDs, pregnancy, bruises) in any penetrative sexual activity (unless she's wearing a strap-on with someone else ;). So I think that even if libido was the same, the greater relative risks would still cast women in control of the process, in the general role of gatekeepers.

my levels of desire were consistently higher than any of my partners

Hmm. Hard to imagine, but I didn't know you back then.

go out looking just to hook up for an evening
You've mentioned your wild, wayward past before (smile) so there's no sense in reopening that discussion. Not that I can imagine doing likewise myself, but that's just your history, part of the "package deal", so to speak. I'm slightly squirmy at the thought, probably like your reaction towards "grateful" on my side.

this just means I cancel myself out

Regarding women-in-general yes, but not in my *personal* experience files (since I never saw you in your previous mode, and am unlikely to in the future).