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

[brooksmoses]

FWIW, I know strep can be contagous but asymptomatic -- there was one winter when my brother and I were much much younger, and we kept getting strep and going to the doctor. Eventually, our doctor, being a very wise and good doctor, decided to give my parents strep tests as well, even though they weren't showing symptoms. They did in fact have it, though, and so he gave all of us medication for it and that time it didn't come back.

[wordweaverlynn.livejournal.com]

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).

Any medievalist can tell you that in those days, women's superior and voracious sex drive was widely recognized.

I can't speak of women in the abstract. But the women I know are horny.

[runeshower.livejournal.com]

And what was the verdict?

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

I can't tell you about all women, but I certainly can tell you about me.

[archway.livejournal.com]

The more interesting question is what perks of having sex men value. I would think direct confirmation of desirability, increased self esteem, and tactile reassurance of personal status with the chosen partner would come into play.

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

Why is that the more interesting question?

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

This woman wants sex for its own sake (those other things are acheivable without sex). Wants it, like, a *lot*. </TMI>

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Thanks... I'll call my doctor's office and ask for their advice, rather than just ignore it.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

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

Embrace the power of 'and' Brian. I often "go along with it" (though for us, it's more of a conscious choice and gift--speaking Akien's love language, which is touch). But there ARE times when I just want sex for sex (though Akien undoubtedly feels that's not often enough!).

Sorry to hear about the research politics. :^P

And it also sounds like it's a good thing we skipped lunch, if you came down with anything that might be "proto-strep." Well, here's best wishes for a speedy "recovery" (or near-miss--whichever!).

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

I would think perhaps because it's been asked less often. (Personally, I think they're both interesting questions.)

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Okay... I've met women who got aroused, but generally only after some time/effort was invested by a third party. Left to themselves, they could take-it-or-leave-it... "it's fun, but not important. I can live without it -- like living without chocolate-chip brownies" was a quote from last night.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

No verdict, per se... it was a friendly, slightly-humorous chat.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(nods) the dangers of over-generalization... I would be glad to listen to your opinion. Presumably off-line...

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

Not sure that's true, but I guess it's a possible reason.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Those things are all valid, IMO... but for me, there's also an underlying physical drive, like hunger. I've watched other men pursue women in social settings who were (I've later found) motivated by a need for self-validation or confirmation of desirability... sometimes leaving their given partner for another one, once they had collected their validation ticket-punch.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(raised eyebrow) that's interesting... I wouldn't have guessed, based just upon personal observations. So presumably the same could be true of others... maybe women just hide their interest better? Since so much energy is spent deflecting unwanted suitors, actual interest may be more subtle.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Thanks, and I agree (much as I hate missing the opportunity, which may be rare this month) that skipping Monday lunch was a good idea. I wouldn't want to expose anyone... and you have enough household issues right now! Sigh...

How does Akien know when you want sex for its own sake? Or does he assume that you're still "going along" even when you're actually turned-on?

I always thank my own partners afterwards, because I figure that they've sacrificed or been inconvenienced on my behalf -- given me a gift.

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

I really can't speak for others, but I would say that (a) I don't make any secret of loving sex, and wanting lots of it, and (b) I don't spend much energy deflecting unwanted suitors, especially since my breakup with the person who hated that I was poly.

Perhaps it's a vibe I give off, but I only seem to get expressions of interest from people I'm already interested in and/or friends with and/or involved with.

(Re: sex, often around our house, sogwife will say to me and someotherguy: "Surely you two must have *something* else you want to do!" -- I have to say that now that I am in relationships with stonebender and someotherguy, I have finally found people whose libidos match my own (or at least come close), and I am happy about it.)

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I'm glad that that's well-matched for you, libido-wise. And you certainly sound different in your approach than any of my other friends, let alone past or present partners... maybe I've just led a sheltered life ;-).

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

*grin* Some day, dear, it will sink in for you that everyone is just different.

[archway.livejournal.com]

There is also a myriad of other factors here, not the least of which is time with the selected partner. IMO, new lovers tend to have sex for sex. It is simply a "can't keep their hands off each other" sort of thing. Then it evolves into more for good or for ill. (BTW, aside from personal observation, I cannot support this...~S~)

The dynamics of long term lovers is much more interesting to me.

[wordweaverlynn.livejournal.com]

Okay... I've met women who got aroused, but generally only after some time/effort was invested by a third party.

Umm, at least for me, polyamory doesn't include getting a third person in to handle the, ummm, fluffing. [G]


Left to themselves, they could take-it-or-leave-it...

I think what you're saying here is that their sexual desire is primarily manifested in response, as opposed to as initiation. Yes?

And the fancy language is important -- "manifested" is different from experienced.

I'm reminded of the old studies that "proved" only men were turned on by visual stimuli. Women said they were indifferent to it. Later on those studies were redone using scientific equipment to check who was getting turned on. Women were, too. They just didn't realize it. Were they so alienated from their bodies that they didn't know? Or was socialization keeping them from admitting their desire? Or both?

Now, I am not saying all women have the voracious sexual appetite that my lover and I have (not to mention my sisters). I know I'm at the high end of the sexual scale. But I also know I am not alone up there.

Is intense sex (particularly BDSM play) easier to achieve when I take a weekend with my lover? Sure. It's wonderful to take the time to really focus on each other, and hard play demands a buildup. But even the day-to-day desire is powerful and almost omnipresent. I look at my lover and want her. I wake her in the night to fuck. I cannot get enough of her. Most days that urgent desire is expressed only by quickies. But those keep the fire stoked.

Approach matters, yes. There are plenty of people with whom I would soon freeze up sexually, and I'm really clear on what I want, how I want it, and with whom. If I had a couple of kids and a job and a load of housework to do, and my partner helped with none of them, or treated me condescendingly, or never talked with me, I would soon lose interest in my partner. Not in sex, but in him/her. But I can make that distinction because I am sexually very aware and experienced.

The only two times in my life I've lost interest in sex were after the breakups of two long relationships. Back in the early 1980s, I left my lover, my job, my state, and the life I knew; I went into transplant shock and didn't even masturbate for about 3 months. After the end of my marriage three years ago (I married the next guy I dated after that experience), I went through a lot of changes. There was a stretch of a year or so there where I had no desire to be fucked -- to fuck, yes, to take delight in my lover's body, to play hard, all of that, but I couldn't open myself to be touched or caressed. It was damned hard for both of us, but my sex drive came back with a roar and I am back to my old insatiability. There was a slight relapse when I heard about the layoff, alas. It's hard for me to reach out when I'm doing that level of serious internal processing. But that was just a brief pause.

Remember that I'm a Domme and sadist, and my lover is a masochhist and my submissive, so I do get to dictate exactly what kind of sex I want. Although I have nothing against candlelight and roses, that's not my primary sexual mode. Passionate, loving, tender, hard, deep, silly, ferocious, and often.

[bdot.livejournal.com]

women actually ever wanted sex for its own sake

i love sex. in my marriages, there were some problems with intimacy and sex, but i think that since then, i have discovered how much i really enjoy the sexual act.

i recently broke up with the only person that i have been with that actually approached the same level of libido that i have. unfortunately, that means i have been very undersexed! sex, to me, is actually less intimate than kissing and i have several "playmates" that i actually don't kiss. i just love sex!

[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.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

It is often difficult for him to tell. In fact, one of the things we are working on at the moment is trying to shift this very dynamic. How I put it last week is that he usually assumes I don't want him. And that for the optimal functioning of this aspect of our relationship, it would work better if he would assume that I want him. This is a hard shift, because we have years of "evidence" to support the first position.

While I think it's great to thank one's partner, I would caution you against assuming that they've "sacrificed or been inconvenienced." Being in a state of gratitude is great, especially when the feeling is mutual. But the way you've described it, it could easily end up with a skewed power dynamic--you perceive your partner as having all the power (they get to choose whether or not to make the 'sacrifice'), and in fact are to some degree *forcing* the responsibility on them. By placing yourself in the "lower" position, if you will, you force them into the "higher" one. Is this at all clear? It seems a bit muddy even to me. Anyhow, it's my opinion that sex works best when it's a sharing of equals, a mutual exploration. Which doesn't mean that you can't mutually agree that one person will give a gift to the other. You just can't assume that the other person's reason for having sex is purely altruistic, or that they might not have chosen it on their own, anyway.