state of nature

[dionysus]

Must watch Video on Sex, Love, Women and the future!

thanks nick.

[Gerard]

The submission of this woman's heart to all things scientific is rather disturbing.

[Gerard]

On the Wai site, the article "The medical need for orgasms in women" somewhat confounds me....

I have just reread it for the first time in quite awhile, and I cannot quite reconcile the part about the ideal encounters (over time) between two partners, male and female, where the female is satisfied and the two have joint, and gratifying, fantasies, and the idea that a male will always wish to be with another woman (after some brief amount of time with the above?)

In essence-- do the authors of this article/chapter mean that men are only briefly satisfied (even when all is well), OR they are never satisfied, even in a wonderful partnership (as in the above), where real love and friendship also exist, and are ever-present over time? In fact, in the above is it "not enough" for a male and "too much" (even as it continues to be wonderful) for a female? So then how can it be wonderful/ideal-- how can the man invest the time and feeling to love this woman and make it so very satisfying?

To sum up: I do not understand how the scenario of wonderful sex can be posited along with the idea that in fact this type of wonderful sex can never really happen, based on the limiting factors for men and women. It seems like two different article topics, where you must choose one or the other.

And, you know-- well-- ! before I bring in personal experience, I just wished to ask....

[RRM]

do the authors of this article/chapter mean that men are only briefly satisfied (even when all is well), OR they are never satisfied, even in a wonderful partnership (as in the above), where real love and friendship also exist, and are ever-present over time?

Of course there is physical and emotional satisfaction, and they may be somewhat intertwined.
Physically the satisfaction may last a few minutes, or even days.
But yes, after a while, the satisfaction is gone, and then, at some point we long for getting that satisfaction again.
Whether that can lastingly happen within a monogamous relationship, depends, of course, but i think that most men will have the urge to have sex with other attractive women at some point. Its how we are programmed; 'to spread our seeds', in as much as women are programmed to nurture.
If the relationship is filled with love and friendship, of course it will be easier to control your urges, and defy your program.

how can the man invest the time and feeling to love this woman and make it so very satisfying?

Because that is his reward. What greater pleasure is there than having sex with her and watching her getting intensifely satisfied?
All the rest is foreplay, and, as such, can be extremely pleasant.

I do not understand how the scenario of wonderful sex can be posited along with the idea that in fact this type of wonderful sex can never really happen, based on the limiting factors for men and women. It seems like two different article topics, where you must choose one or the other.

I think i dont understand, but do you mean that knowing that men eventually will have the urge to have sex with other attractive women destroys the trust that is required for women to have that wonderful sex?
If the woman choses to trust him for the moment, they can have that wonderful sex. Whether he may betray her later will not change that the wonderful sex has already happened.
Our society is based on illusions.

[Gerard]

This is excellent to read and of course I am not trying to disagree.... just get more a sense of what was meant.

Yes, I think the thing that puzzled me was that the article talks about how, in fact, most (the majority) of men are simply not willing (unwilling, not unable) to do what a woman really deeply enjoys the most....that is, they want intercourse mostly, on male terms, and to suit male desire for appropriation of the woman; for conquest, on top of the physical pleasure of this for the man...

But then, for the other men (that the women truly appreciate!!!) I could not understand what the argument would be that would a) make them more solicitous of women but then at some point simply not care to continue the relationship with the woman because it is simply not compelling for them.


It seems if there is utter love-- which is not that difficult to find in human beings-- and complete sexual satisfaction-- which it would seem the 'better' men for women are able to provide for themselves and women, at no real detriment to themselves.... then-- why would the woman who is thus satisfied be facing a bored/unsatisfied/unloving partner at some point?

I do rather understand what you are saying... I just don't feel it is such a mental or emotional cost to me to love my own beloved. I mean, I love to love her!!!!! No one else compares..... these many years.

I just cannot seem to hold in mind-- even to take the position of the article and completely absorb it-- that a man could learn what a woman needs/wants, be happy to do so, and then-- have it all turn so sour. It seems that his initial capacities in the first place for finding and expressing that love are strong indeed. ANd in truth I don't think he is such an exception. I do think a lot of other stuff-- economic position of women (dependent in many parts of the world, and not really their fault) would make women cling to men who are not their equal in love, and in fact are 'dogs' as the article terms some men..... But I see in many places where women are free in their being, and economically not dependent, and loving, whole human beings, there is not a lot to be dissatisfied with, for a man!

That being said, I do get the point of your response-- no need to clarify more... though more musings are always welcome. Indeed the article made me feel depressed for awhile; hopeless indeed, then I realized I really did not agree with it, and it seems to me it will always have that kind of contradictory point at its center.

[Gerard]

In other words, I understand completely why the male who does not even try to please a woman.... in other words, does not really love, nor even much care, for much besides himself, would eventually become dissatisfied....

But I do not understand why in real love--- which many, but not all, of the 'second type of man' may feel-- one would ever think of it as ending.

In truth, real love finds physical expression, but the real love comes first. And the second type of male is coming from a starting place utterly different from the first.

I just feel there is some biological determinism in the argument, as well as saying that unloving and loving men have a lot in common simply because they are men. But I find that loving human beings are mostly the same, regardless of many things about them (age, sex, etc.)...

[RRM]

But then, for the other men (that the women truly appreciate!!!) I could not understand what the argument would be that would a) make them more solicitous of women but then at some point simply not care to continue the relationship with the woman because it is simply not compelling for them.

Im sorry that i misunderstood your question/remark. I though that you meant that the contradictory aspect of the article was about monogamy and trust (monogamy required for trust, whereas men naturally arent programmed to be monogamous; hence men are dogs, and women cant trust them).
I didnt mean to say that men in general dont care to continue the relationship. I meant to say that for most men one woman is not enough. They want it all; the woman that they love already, and the attractive women that they 'spot'.

if there is utter love-- which is not that difficult to find in human beings-- and complete sexual satisfaction-- ... -- why would the woman who is thus satisfied be facing a bored/unsatisfied/unloving partner at some point?

Yes, i agree, no of course then the man doesnt find it boring to make love to her, but even then he would still love to have sex with other attractive women as well.

I just don't feel it is such a mental or emotional cost to me to love my own beloved.

No, not at all. Making love to the woman that you love and desire is always something you love to do, even when you lust for other attractive women as well.

[Gerard]

I think that is a much better statement of what was meant (and a sensitively-composed answer, for which I thank you.....)

[Oscar]

But I do not understand why in real love--- which many, but not all, of the 'second type of man' may feel-- one would ever think of it as ending.

The thing is, that real love doesn't end. The 'problem' is that real love is unconditional, and not restricted to one person. In it's most grandiose expression it would be for all that exists (has existed and will exist), so of course also for every other being on Earth.

Personal expression of this love towards a single partner is a (conscious or unconscious) choice, heavily influenced (not to say dictated) by tradition and society.

Sex is primarily meant for procreation. Personal expression of love by/during sex is again a personal choice (heavily influenced (not to say dictated) by tradition and society), but not a necessity.

[Gerard]

Indeed it does not always have to include physical expression (love, that is)....

It supersedes this biological discussion entirely.

It is amazing to find (at least (?)) one other person who-- perhaps because of circumstance or some overall pattern that will never be comprehended by the mind-- understands this as well. In fact, for me, this is what happened. Some people find a psychological version of this-- someone who seems to 'understand' them, but it is defined in purely psychological terms.

But if two persons can find the true understanding, and it includes a level of physical expression of love- even if their relationship seems to simulate a 'traditional,' society-dictated, one-on-one relationship-- it is profoundly different. ANd profoundly joyful, and amazing.

[Gerard]

Oscar--

It would also be excellent to include in that article on the site the reminder that not all societies in time subscribe to the 1-on-1, male-female model of the family (the modern "nuclear family").....

One forgets in reading the article on the site that in fact the modern world's model is one that is highly unusual given human activity over much of its history....


I've enjoyed Jean Liedloff's book, The Continuum Concept, for years. She looks at childraising within a traditional South American society.... writing that children do radically better in their development in such a large, well-knit-together group than in a small nuclear family with adults focusing overmuch on them all the time...It is a book with some profound observations.

[Oscar]

I agree Gerard. I'll write down that book.

[Gerard]

Please do.

Otherwise the article on the site has the potential to be completely depressing.

[Oscar]

Well, that article and quite a few others are on the list to be rewritten, but it goes slowly as we don't have that much time.

[summerwave]

You know, when you love someone there is no effort, and really, greatest and most amazing of all, no choice. The "I" disappears in love.

We are not slaves to physical impulse...

The current of love is amazing. I fear it is taken here (and in these articles) to mean that since it is unchosen, and not always confined to a specific person in a sentimental way, that it is part of a drive away from others, and toward random sexual activity.

But a couple always, if aware, starts in oneness, and there is no room for the personality.

I am not sure our relatives the chimps; gorillas; not-really-relatives the bonobo are conscious of their own consciousness...that is, they can never really be aware that they are aware.

But we have this potential, and true relationship can arise out of this oneness. Those I have met and helplessly, uncausally loved I still love and spend time with; it is all quite uncaused and beyond beautiful. There is no question of seeking others; of biological drives disrupting love, etc. Love is oneness, pure and simple; and very, very rich-- and humbling.