Female sexuality and the impact on our lives

That isn't what I am saying at all Susan. I was very surprised that it appeared in the animal research. We are animals. We are mammals. We are subject to animal instincts. Not all things reflected in animal behavior appear in human behavior but we often look for human behaviors in animals. When found they can indicate that a behavior is instinctive or at least very basic. We don't use animal behavior to justify human behavior because we are creatures of reason. It just plays a factor in understanding the behavior. 

I was very taken with the idea of chimpanzees, monkeys and penquins attempting to gain favor with the female of the species. It made me laugh. It seems they prefer willing partners.

Adélie penguins need rocks to build their nests, and some females—though they already had a mating partner—would have sex with a single male while away and then take some of his stones.

Do penquins go on business trips? Do any notice the extra rocks lying around when they get back? 

When an exchange becomes prostitution is very fuzzy and I am not really concerned about that distinction in this thread. 

This thread for me is about exploring what female sexuality has looked like over the centuries. I don't expect it to lead to a conclusion. 

I do hope we can reference this thread from the other topics rather than continuously rehashing the "is sex an activity just like any other" argument. Obviously it isn't an activity like any other. It is far more intimate. Equally obviously women have bestowed sexual favors in exchange for material goods throughout history.

Both of these things are true. Neither in and of themselves leads to a conclusion. 

Susan, I deleted my previous messsage because it wasn't friendly. We are on the opposite sides of this issue but Oprah managed to have a KKK grand master on her talk show. 

Please reread my posts. They genuinely don't mean what you think they do. They mean the exact opposite. I was going out of my way to say there is no one way all women experience sex. That our sex drives vary widely. That we choose one night stands and reject slut-shaming. 

I 100% accept that some sex workers are happy in their work and feel as much pride and satisfaction in it as anyone else might who is enthusiastic about their work. Not everyone feels that way but that is true of any job. 

This thread will among other things illustrate the long history of prostitution but it will also address the long history of monogamy and maybe even matriarchal systems. The various ways our sexuality has been controlled by religion is a massive topic all its own. 

Just explore it all with me.

I feel like no one is actually reading what I am saying.

I think the duality of sex arousal and repulsion goes some way to explaining why women vary so much in their attitudes towards sex and why it can change due to life experience.

The study referred to possible applications in treating sexual dysfunction when arousal isn't high enough to overcome revulsion. The first thing that occurred to me is that the arousal level may be fine. The problem could be at the other end, a too sensitive "ick" response. If that is the case then sexual dysfunction might be reduced by desensitization in the same way  a new parent has to quickly get over any ick response to diaper changes. The study measured ick response by doing things like putting a fake bug in a beverage. Women who were more aroused were more comfortable drinking the beverage with a fake bug than those who were not.

I don't want to immediately relate everything to prostitution but if we must it suggests to me that sex workers may just have a much lower "ick" response either naturally or due to life events. There isn't anything wrong with having a lower ick response that I can think of.  Apparently it protects us from poisons or something or other but as we no longer live in the wilds it doesn't seem useful. Whether or not you are a sex worker it means you will be aroused more easily with a low ick response or have less of an issue even if you are not aroused. The ick factor is all about being turned off by bodily fluids not sex.

In terms of vulnerability to men, I finished by saying: It’s an emotion that can vary greatly from woman to woman. There is no one way that all women experience sex.

Sex workers can still be raped. It isn’t all about ick factor or physical injury. It’s about being overpowered and entered against our will, the intense helplessness to prevent it. It’s not like being forced to give someone a back rub. It matters deeply even if it is your husband. I don’t know why that is the case but it is. That is why sex workers still experience rape as rape, not theft.

I'm never going to agree that sex is like a back rub. It's not. It's a stupid analogy. It would be equally stupid to say prostitution is entirely against our nature. Or that it isn't gendered. 

I don’t want to debate in an adversarial manner in this thread. I don’t want us to have to agree or disagree or come to any conclusions about anything. I don’t want to trick anyone into saying something I can use in a different thread. Of course we may discover something here that helps build our respective arguments but I would hope it wouldn’t be used in an under-handed manner or inappropriately. If it is we should call each other out. Go for the jugular.

Laine and Susan, I appreciate your participation in the thread. Talking by myself just wouldn’t be the same. If I make you feel defensive tell me. Take my side if you think I am being unfairly attacked. If the amount I am posting isn't giving you a chance to respond tell me and I will pause. 

Let's just give it a shot. Can't be worse than what we have been doing so far. 

I intended to but in a different post after putting more thought into it. I too have had experiences but I didn't want to compare emotional reactions or events. I reread the chest of drawers explanation and it was an excellent way to explain it. I am happy you had such wise adults that could step in when your mother failed you.  I am sorry you felt slighted by my not responding to that aspect of your post first. I worked throught it from top to bottom and the last section was your personal experience. 

I'm glad you gave me the chance to explain myself and I hope you no longer judge me as lacking in compassion. 

For a second there I thought you actually entered the thread in good faith. Now I just realized you have attacked me in every single post you have addressed me in through misrepresenting my views.

Now I don't even know if I can believe you or if I am just being a sucker again. Stupid me thinking you were being sincere.

No, I do know. You just came in to bait me. I don't have to be religious to thank god I didn't share my own personal experiences because unlike you I was impacted. I am so glad you weren't traumatized so you could use your experience to attack me assuming it even happened.

I must admit you got me laine. I was feeling so confident that I could catch the troll attacks coming my way but you got a really great shot it. I could never have imagined you would use an account of sexual abuse as a weapon.

I am such an idiot prattling along with my thank you so much for coming laine.

I was going to eat but I’m sick to my stomach. I’m so grateful I didn’t share any personal experiences you could have weaponized.

deleted

You're full of shit. That's your excuse every time. There must have been something I said. 

There was nothing I said. Not in this post. Not in any of the other posts you responded to. It's your technique.  

Were you saying this,... were you saying that,... I thought there was an under current,.... it seemed like you were saying.

It seems like you have had lots of practice. 

No problem laine. I kept them for you.

For the record, yes, I have suffered very seriously at the hands of men multiple times, even while 8 months pregnant. I was traumatized. I was scarred. Then I married my late husband who was the kindest most non-violent man you could ever meet. He had a scar across his nose from stepping in to stop a man from attacking another woman at a party he was at. He wasn't weak or a coward. He was a man of peace who could be violent when called upon.

Men are both loving and violent. I don't condemn a man for having these human qualities. Women are also both loving and violent. We are more alike than we are different. Men are just physically stronger because that is the power nature bestows on them at puberty.

Women were given the power to, with seed, create an entire human being within us. It is something I cherish. It was magical for me. That isn't the case for all women depending on their personal circumstances but I think many women have shared my reaction to it.  When my baby cried my milk "let down". I am an animal. Nature gave me a particular role to play in the survival of the species. I am subjected to hormones that induce me to behave in certain ways. 

As a human I have free will and the ability to reason. I can reject aspects of my nature if what it is urging me to do is counter to my individual interests in the moment.  The survival of the species is not my priority in terms of reproduction. Because of reason I know the greatest threat to our survival is climate change not me producing a maximum number of babies. 

Human nature isn't a get out of jail free card for following whatever we imagine our human instincts are guiding us to do. At the same time we can't deny their influence. 

 Men and women are not better or worse than one another, we are more alike than we are different, but our different biological roles heavily impacted history. It makes sense for women to "man" the home front and for man to go do whatever needed doing. To some extent biology was destiny. We had reproductive roles to play.

I particulary want to explore female sexuality and the impact it has had on our lives but I also find myself thinking more about men and what reactions nature has prompted them to have through hormones or some other means.

Nature definitely intended for men to stick around and do their part for the survival of the species not just to drop off sperm. 

susan davis wrote:

...and i agree that nature intended some men to "nest" if you will and help with raising children... 

That isn't anything I said.

susan davis wrote:

.. but some nature intended to sow their seed as far and wide as possible... that is why we are successful as a species.... Alpha females seek the Alpha sperm for the strongest possible outcome.... and then may choose a Beta for more sperm but the added bonus of help with raising the children of both... many men are raising children who are not their own...

I disagree with the notion that alpha males are off impregnating a bunch of women while beta males are getting suckered into raising their children. It's true that some men end up raising the children of other men unknowingly but in the past and present many men step up and raise the children of other men and love them as they would their own because they are generous of heart.

I think nature gave man the instinct to protect infants of their species regardless of whether or not they came from their seed. If we go back to the earliest days of man we lived in tribes. Many men and women would have died young. To survive the tribe wouldn't just ditch babies whose mothers died in childbirth. Women can breastfeed each other's babies and would or could breastfeed children as old as 4. Even now in the north of Canada indigenous men go hunting and bring back meat which they share with the entire community not just a nuclear family.  I'm sure women do that too, we are more alike than different, but it is a more typically male behavior within those communities. The men don't have any expectations beyond the natural gratitude and happiness of the community. Women get together to finish butchering and prepare cuts for cooking. Everyone just does their part without any quid pro quo. 

I think the whole "alpha male" theory is twisted and used to justify anti-social behaviors like greed. The powerful men in our world are mainly there because of inherited wealth or lying, cheating or stealing their way to the top. That is what represents today’s “alpha” male.

We live in a world in which “alpha” males and females think they are better than the rest of us because they are hoarding more marbles. It doesn’t mean they are right.

I enjoy talking with other people but I am okay with thinking out loud by myself. I’m usually not starting with an end goal beyond exploring a topic even if I have ideas I have settled on. I think people’s opinions, including my own, are more likely to be modified rather than changed in some dramatic way. The goal doesn’t have to be changing people’s minds or reaching some overarching truth that explains everything. Just sharing ideas can be good. 

I have a ton of ideas I would like to explore but next up will be patriarchy and penquins.

The women of Iran are not enforcing the system. Religion is a tool of the patriarchy. 

The fact that our biological destiny is determined at birth has a profound influence over women's lives everywhere in the world. We are groomed from birth to give birth. We aren't all able to. We don't all choose to. Most of us do follow the path to motherhood but now we are choosing to have fewer babies. We are choosing freedom. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/15/millions-of-missing-women-...

“The declining birthrates seem to be irreversible, but the government does not have a gameplan,” Dr Ye Liu, a senior lecturer in international development at King’s College London says. “It’s all about the power of men over women and utilisation of women’s bodies as economic means. In short, men make policies for women. In the recent party congress, there were many promises made but none for women. Women are ‘invisible’.”

Chinese scholars campaigned to scrap the one-child policy for more than a decade, on the grounds that the country’s total fertility rate was worryingly behind the replacement rate. In the 1970s, the total fertility rate (births per woman) fell from 5.8 in 1970 to 2.75 in 1979. In the 1980s, the rate hovered above the replacement level of 2.1 that would allow the population to replace itself, but since the 1990s, it has declined to below the replacement level. The 2010 and 2020 censuses yielded total fertility rates of 1.18 and 1.30 respectively. This further fell to an alarming 1.15 in 2021, according to figures from the National Bureau of Statistics....

“The government’s long history of restricting women’s reproduction rights through abusive and sometimes violent means has created massive trauma for women and instilled a deep fear and suspicion. Given all this, the question is less why these recent methods to raise births didn’t work, and more – how could it possibly?” Fong says.

Fong noted the one-child policy also exacerbated a traditional preference for male children, leading to a huge gender gap. “How can the country now shore up birthrates, with millions of missing women?”

Missing women is part of it but not the trauma. Women can satisfy their maternal instincts with one child. Shorter break from work means less damage to professional advancement. one child is easier to blend into life. 

It's happening in Canada too. 

The other thing that has changed dramatically is the prevalence of single parent families. While that increases the professional cost it is an option open to women should they choose it. 

I have lots of good men in my world thanks much. Specifically traditional feminists, the anti-porn kind, get little support. You paint us as man-haters. I'm talking about how having vaginas, our sexuality, impacted women's lives throughout history and into the present. You're giving relationship advice. 

Thanks much don't need it.