T
The_Bucket
Guest
Pretty sure that this is a stereotype that women help perpetuate as well. That said, it’s not a valid excuse whatsoever.
- Status
M
mommamaree
Guest
Thank you, thank you, thank you, mt_gooseberry, for saying all the things that needed to be said. You are so courageous to lay out the facts so boldly. Thank you.
I know that a few honest women stand no chance of being able to change people’s minds when they don’t want to be changed, but standing up for the truth, with boldness and clarity, is even more important when no one wants to hear us.
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
Very good post, well said! I think more women are just afraid to talk about these things because of past teaching where women were taught to not talk about or think about sex etc. Lots of women masturbate that’s why there are so many tools and toys made for women. And so true about women feeling the uncomfortable pressure if things aren’t finished for her. Women in the past were taught more strongly about staying a virgin till marriage more so than men, in the past it was more accepted for men to sleep around but women who had many partners was labelled negatively. Also concerning the idea that men are turned on more by visuals I think it has more to do with the fact that men are stimulated more with visuals. You always see pictures of naked women in books or TV etc and just about all movies or TV with nudity has only female nudity to stimulate men, but if there was more male nudity, women would be stimulated by it. Every woman is stimulated when she sees a nude male period. Men should just realize that the vagina is an inverted penis and women feel things just as strongly as men. Think of an outy belly button vs an innie belly button.
A lot of the misunderstanding comes from how society taught women to think of sex and their sexuality.
N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
This is what I think, and you’re all entitled to mock me.
Ever since I was interested in this topic (high school and on) my observation has been that women control who has sexual relations (with them) and who doesn’t. When I was young, I didn’t have time to worry about how strong a girl’s sex drive was; I was trying to get a girl to *notice *me and hopefully give me a kiss. I was Catholic all of that time, and I must admit that I wasn’t worried so much about *not *having sex as wondering if sex with me was even a possibility. Could I get a girl? Whether or not they masturbated had not crossed my mind.
Now as a grown man, I know differently. I’m a father, hence, I *did *get a girl and she *did *have sex with me. I actually managed to have sex with two (2) women in my life (one I was engaged to, and the other I married). With both I fell into the err that “Well, we’re going to be married, so…” But my soon-to-be ex wife always claimed that before we were married that ***I ***was the one always trying to initiate, while she was the one trying not to have sex. This brings me back to my original point that women control who gets sex or not, because I am by no means seductive. Every time that she said “Let’s wait till we’re married” I said “Okay.” And then neither of us could find our convictions while we were, let’s just say, “power cuddling.”
Am I blaming my soon-to-be ex? No! But I believe that she was never able (even now that we’re going through a divorce) to admit to herself that she had/has a powerful sex drive, even after we were married. If she read this post, she’d be mad at me, probably saying “How dare you act like I was initiating!” You see, I know that she initiated, because I’m a putz! I could never “close the deal” (as in getting phone numbers, flirting, etc.) My only success with women has been with those girls whose idea it was to date me. It was *their *idea!
I’m going to stop typing now. I feel like I might have made a point, but I can’t be sure.
Ever since I was interested in this topic (high school and on) my observation has been that women control who has sexual relations (with them) and who doesn’t. When I was young, I didn’t have time to worry about how strong a girl’s sex drive was; I was trying to get a girl to *notice *me and hopefully give me a kiss. I was Catholic all of that time, and I must admit that I wasn’t worried so much about *not *having sex as wondering if sex with me was even a possibility. Could I get a girl? Whether or not they masturbated had not crossed my mind.
Now as a grown man, I know differently. I’m a father, hence, I *did *get a girl and she *did *have sex with me. I actually managed to have sex with two (2) women in my life (one I was engaged to, and the other I married). With both I fell into the err that “Well, we’re going to be married, so…” But my soon-to-be ex wife always claimed that before we were married that ***I ***was the one always trying to initiate, while she was the one trying not to have sex. This brings me back to my original point that women control who gets sex or not, because I am by no means seductive. Every time that she said “Let’s wait till we’re married” I said “Okay.” And then neither of us could find our convictions while we were, let’s just say, “power cuddling.”
Am I blaming my soon-to-be ex? No! But I believe that she was never able (even now that we’re going through a divorce) to admit to herself that she had/has a powerful sex drive, even after we were married. If she read this post, she’d be mad at me, probably saying “How dare you act like I was initiating!” You see, I know that she initiated, because I’m a putz! I could never “close the deal” (as in getting phone numbers, flirting, etc.) My only success with women has been with those girls whose idea it was to date me. It was *their *idea!
I’m going to stop typing now. I feel like I might have made a point, but I can’t be sure.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
That isn’t necessarily so VP. With Catholic men I think failures in sexual control (masturbation as opposed to promiscuity) is of more concern psychologically for a number of reasons that women might find strange - e.g. simply “loss of control” or “you can’t attract a woman.”
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Hmmmn, experience may vary considerably. I believe only a small number of males (and young ones at that) would be in this tragic category
.
V
ValPal
Guest
I just used an example on this forum; it’s not unique to this forum in any way, shape, or form to Catholics.
V
ValPal
Guest
It does vary; some more, some less. Obviously teens and those in their early 20s have a much higher drive to hormone levels, so it can be higher for them. It’s lower for those that are older; it’s about every three days for someone like me. It’s not just my opinion either; just search on the internet and see the general pattern.Hmmmn, experience may vary considerably. I believe only a small number of males (and young ones at that) would be in this tragic category
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Sorry VP, I don’t really understand your comment?
I agree with your stats (whether Catholic forums or not).
But I am saying there may be multiple reasons for those skewed stats and it may be more than just indicative of a stronger male sex drive pure and simple.
It may be that men are much more concerned about masturbation as a problem or/and they find it easier to discuss (at least anonymously!).
It would be interesting to see if christian forums show a higher incidence of male% than secular one’s (I suspect this is true) but as this is pretty much anecdotal that may be hard to guage.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
VP this is a gross generalisation. That its based on “the Internet” doesn’t really advance your opinion much further. Significant numbers of males do not consciously experience the roughly 3 day “biological pressure” you speak of at all. I do not believe all young males are as helplessly in the thrall of biology as this observation might suggest.
In the absence of solid data I suggest the safer assumption, as in many things human, is that the experience you speak of is on a psycho/biological continuum. That is, biology (which varies tremedously according to genes and age and diet) and psychology (which means upbringing, religion/education, and present stress levels due to environment) both are causative. Most people will be influenced relatively equally by both factors. Significant numbers may lie at either end where one causal factor strongly predominates.
Kinseys studies (1960s?) showed that only 20% of a population has sexual orientation fixed from birth which environmment appears unable to change (10% will always be heterosexual, 10% will always be homosexual). The other 80% have varying degrees of malleability dependent on upbringing/environment before it “solidifies” during teenage years. Some may never “solidify”. I think these findings are still mostly valid.
Studies about 10 years ago appear to show, surprisdingly, that 5% of the population are really “neuters”. They have no sex drive either way. Lucky them (or maybe not so lucky). They often get socialised into the boy-girl marriage thing but don’t really have a clue what the attraction is. Presumably they don’t suffer from the “pressure” you speak of at all - though I haven’t really looked into it.
L
lerapt78
Guest
What about nature, specifically?Nature, of course.
I tend to think it’s nurture (societal mores), and not nature, which leads to this assumption.
Not to disregard your experiences, as I’m sure they are true and therefore valid in shaping your opinion, but I think anecdotal evidence can be employed to argue many different conclusions. I for one know of women whose sex drives have diminished greatly, as have you, so I would certainly agree these cases exist. However I also know of post-menopausal women who experience a newfound anticipation toward their sexuality because they no longer fear a pregnancy. I also know of post-menopausal women who continue to feel sexual desire toward their husbands and become very concerned when their husbands’ physiological changes cause a decrease in their intimate lives. (There’s a reason Viagra is a multi-billion dollar industry)
(Not that I go around asking women about their sex lives - I’m just familiar with quite a few situations because I’m involved in the health care field
)I’m not sure I understand the last sentence - there has been a dramatic increase in female promiscuity over the past 50 decades precisely because contraception has allowed women to separate sex from procreation.
Oh-my-gosh-I-can’t-believe-you-just-said-that!!!
(Not attempting to make light of the Church’s teaching on masturbation, but just to underscore your point - women face these same struggles, and the reason we don’t read about it is because of the perceived shame/embarassment many of them feel. Even in today’s permissive society, any company that advertises female sex toys will strongly emphasize “anonymous shipping” and “discreet packaging”.)
Women as well as men can benefit from healthy Catholic teaching and advice pertaining to sexual desire, but it is a teaching that needs to address the real and fundamental struggles they face, not only how it relates to their future husbands and procreation.
Indeed. Despite the fact that we have very few historical texts written from a female sexual perspective, there’s a reason only eunuchs were employed in harems, and phallic sex toys have been mentioned in the earliest of writings. It was during Victorian times (when “ladies” were not supposed to enjoy sex) that the vibrator was invented as a way to relieve the workload of physicians who had to cure case after case of female “hysteria”. “Hysteria” referring to the extreme moodiness, anxiety, and ill-temperament that drove women to seek out medical assistance. As the treatment of choice was “hysterical paroxysm”, which was indeed an orgasm (though it was conducted in a very clinical and non-sexual way), it’s now understood that the cause of hysteria was sexual deprivation. I think it’s sad that instead of encouraging healthy intimate relations between husbands and wives, female desire was seen as a problem that needed to be cured or controlled, while it was perfectly acceptable for any man of means to secure a mistress.
Interesting. . . . so much focus on controlling and influencing a woman’s sexual appetite when (according to popular consensus) it’s supposedly of such low and inconsequential levels to begin with.
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
Good post all good points made.What about nature, specifically?
Not to disregard your experiences, as I’m sure they are true and therefore valid in shaping your opinion, but I think anecdotal evidence can be employed to argue many different conclusions. I for one know of women whose sex drives have diminished greatly, as have you, so I would certainly agree these cases exist. However I also know of post-menopausal women who experience a newfound anticipation toward their sexuality because they no longer fear a pregnancy. I also know of post-menopausal women who continue to feel sexual desire toward their husbands and become very concerned when their husbands’ physiological changes cause a decrease in their intimate lives. (There’s a reason Viagra is a multi-billion dollar industry)
(Not that I go around asking women about their sex lives - I’m just familiar with quite a few situations because I’m involved in the health care field
I’m not sure I understand the last sentence - there has been a dramatic increase in female promiscuity over the past 50 decades precisely because contraception has allowed women to separate sex from procreation.
Oh-my-gosh-I-can’t-believe-you-just-said-that!!!
(Not attempting to make light of the Church’s teaching on masturbation, but just to underscore your point - women face these same struggles, and the reason we don’t read about it is because of the perceived shame/embarassment many of them feel. Even in today’s permissive society, any company that advertises female sex toys will strongly emphasize “anonymous shipping” and “discreet packaging”.)
Women as well as men can benefit from healthy Catholic teaching and advice pertaining to sexual desire, but it is a teaching that needs to address the real and fundamental struggles they face, not only how it relates to their future husbands and procreation.
Indeed. Despite the fact that we have very few historical texts written from a female sexual perspective, there’s a reason only eunuchs were employed in harems, and phallic sex toys have been mentioned in the earliest of writings. It was during Victorian times (when “ladies” were not supposed to enjoy sex) that the vibrator was invented as a way to relieve the workload of physicians who had to cure case after case of female “hysteria”. “Hysteria” referring to the extreme moodiness, anxiety, and ill-temperament that drove women to seek out medical assistance. As the treatment of choice was “hysterical paroxysm”, which was indeed an orgasm (though it was conducted in a very clinical and non-sexual way), it’s now understood that the cause of hysteria was sexual deprivation. I think it’s sad that instead of encouraging healthy intimate relations between husbands and wives, female desire was seen as a problem that needed to be cured or controlled, while it was perfectly acceptable for any man of means to secure a mistress.
Interesting. . . . so much focus on controlling and influencing a woman’s sexual appetite when (according to popular consensus) it’s supposedly of such low and inconsequential levels to begin with.
I do know plenty of women over 50 who didn’t lose anything as far as sex drive is concerned I know it by how a lot of them talk when no men are around. 
I was just having a womanly talk with my 62yr old neighbor and ummm she didn’t lose any of her drive. Look at how many women remarry or get into relationships after 50. Why would they bother at that age if their sex drive had diminished. While it does happen for some women I don’t think it happens for most women. And true there are plenty of men who need viagra after 50 but is it all men no, just like it’s not all women.And that was also sad but true about the Victorian women and the things they went through because of having no sexual release. I also remember reading that they did that for some women who had chronic back aches and how for some the treatment/cure was clinical orgasms. That’s another good point about why has society in the past worked so hard to stifle women’s sexuality if it was supposed so low. This thread is interesting because these are the things lots of women are too embarrassed to talk about or discuss. But it’s good to discuss these things so people can learn.
V
ValPal
Guest
Just view it from it’s most primitive level. If the female of the species has no sex drive, it doesn’t matter; the species survives. If the male has no sex drive, and thus can’t perform, the species dies out. That’s nature, and it’s by design.What about nature, specifically?
V
ValPal
Guest
The internet is simply a resource that includes opinions and links to actual research. When the results from all sources point to the same conclusion, it is likely to be the correct conclusion.
We obviously hang around with very different people.
I disagree. Biology predominates. Just try not eating for a week. It’s certainly not going to cause you harm, and you can train yourself to do it, but you’ll be vigorously fighting the natural tendency to eat the whole time.
L
lerapt78
Guest
I think I understand the point you’re trying to make ValPal, but isn’t performance determined by arousal, rather than drive?
When you say “primitive level”, it makes me think of animals - is that what you’re referring to? Because interestingly, it is only when female animals are in heat that the males will attempt to copulate (generally speaking), or in other words if the females aren’t sending out the signals the males are more interested in eating, sleeping and guarding territory than in reproduction. The human sex drive is obviously different, but I’m not sure that it evolved in a way that made the male/female differences move along polar lines. It just doesn’t make sense to me, for if it were true all constraints and suppressions should have been forced upon the “higher” sex-driven gender, no?
I agree, Skye_Ariel. And while I appreciate the compliments, I think you have to thank Jade Tiger - she’s the one who started a thread I would have been to “embarassed” to create.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
OK, provide the links to actual research instead of generalising please.
Which is exactly the point I am making, you are generalising an all encompassing global rule from your own limited experience. My experience is limited as well, however I obviously only need to have experienced even one example to the contrary to show that your “all young males have a roughly 3 day cycle” view is no more than an unproven generalisation that really requires good research.We obviously hang around with very different people.
I cannot believe you find this a respectable argument for your case
.
V
ValPal
Guest
I think were getting into semantics here that are confusing the issue. If there is no sex drive, why would their be arousal?
This is true in most animals, though some higher species of mammals also have sex for recreational purposes.When you say “primitive level”, it makes me think of animals - is that what you’re referring to? Because interestingly, it is only when female animals are in heat that the males will attempt to copulate (generally speaking), or in other words if the females aren’t sending out the signals the males are more interested in eating, sleeping and guarding territory than in reproduction. The human sex drive is obviously different, but I’m not sure that it evolved in a way that made the male/female differences move along polar lines. It just doesn’t make sense to me, for if it were true all constraints and suppressions should have been forced upon the “higher” sex-driven gender, no?
V
ValPal
Guest
I expect people to live by their own standard. Start citing scientific studies that conclude women have higher sex drive.
So far you’ve cited one study, which in fact proves the effects of nature and nuture are not equal.
It’s not limited by my “own limited experience.” Read up on seminal vesicles and note how long they take to fill up. Woman have no such equivalent.
I’ve noted you can’t disprove my point. Interestingly enough though, after doing further research, I’ve noted that others used that very same analogyI cannot believe you find this a respectable argument for your case
J
Jade_Tiger
Guest
Wow, all the replies! I’m so glad to hear that I’m not alone.
So, since the majority of us agree that there is more to female desire and chastity than is commonly believed, does anyone know of any good Catholic/Christian resources that deal with this?
And to those gentlemen who are arguing that male desire is indeed stronger: Unfortunately, we do not have any Tiresias who can settle the debate once and for all: it must surely be enough to note that many women do experience similar struggles with lust and/or easy visual stimulation, and that it would be excellent if some of the wise and Christian experts on chastity would consider this and formulate some much-needed advice.
So, since the majority of us agree that there is more to female desire and chastity than is commonly believed, does anyone know of any good Catholic/Christian resources that deal with this?
And to those gentlemen who are arguing that male desire is indeed stronger: Unfortunately, we do not have any Tiresias who can settle the debate once and for all: it must surely be enough to note that many women do experience similar struggles with lust and/or easy visual stimulation, and that it would be excellent if some of the wise and Christian experts on chastity would consider this and formulate some much-needed advice.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
So in the end your strong universalised view of your own limited experience is backed up by…nothing solid you are prepared to source and obectively debate.I expect people to live by their own standard. Start citing scientific studies that conclude women have higher sex drive.
So far you’ve cited one study, which in fact proves the effects of nature and nuture are not equal.
It’s not limited by my “own limited experience.” Read up on seminal vesicles and note how long they take to fill up. Woman have no such equivalent.
I’ve noted you can’t disprove my point. Interestingly enough though, after doing further research, I’ve noted that others used that very same analogy
To make my case I see no need to prove anything more other than to observe that my own equally valid (and equally limited) experience/understanding differs considerably from yours.
This is because I am not the one trying to universalise my limited experience. This issue is far more complicated than your pure biology thesis allows for.
- Status