Are you now or have you ever known a post-sex shower sprinter?
No.
Certainly no-one you've known biblically, Teo. But you might be acquainted with post-sex shower sprinters.
On one occasion I wanted to be a post-sex shower sprinter.
But I was too polite. I don't think she figured out how much I wanted to run, not walk, to the shower. (After a while I politely suggested we both shower, and then, oh dear, it turned out we both wouldn't fit, so I diplomatically suggested that she go first while I make coffee. Or perhaps it was tea. Anyway, it was a good excuse.)
It wasn't actually anything to do with personal cleanliness. It was just a soggy, gradual realisation, gathering during sex for a crumpled anti-climax that being involved with this person in any way at all had been a horrid mistake.
I can't remember exactly when we split up after that, but it was fairly soon: it was the first time I'd ever formally split up with anyone, and doubtless I did it very badly, but, well.
Wow, that was more than 20 years ago. I'm so glad I'm not that age any more.
I sprint to the shower on artificial legs. Does that qualify?
And I'm not talking about a one-time thing but people who feel the need to shower after sex every time. Do they really exist or are they only in movies?
Never seen this in real life. A fastidious and considerate individual would shower beforehand, though.
And I'm not talking about a one-time thing but people who feel the need to shower after sex every time. Do they really exist
I think it depends on whether the wife's out of town or not.
Yeah, sometimes you have to get back to work. But otherwise, it makes no sense. How are you going to take a shower if you're sound asleep?
In what movies do people hop into the shower after sex every time?
Are you asking just about men or women too? (the answer is still no, just curious)
But I would like to add that I really don't understand those women in movies/TV (okay maybe just in Cosmo) that say they will wear the same underwear all day. That's just gross and screams UTI.
11: In Sex and the City Miranda had a Catholic-guilty boyfriend who would sprint to the shower immediately post-orgasm.
In my house my delusional dreams, you don't shower after sex, sex showers after you.
A more common instance: people who want to rinse out their mouth immediately after oral sex? This can apply to either men or women BTW.
I'm not judging it, just noting it.
13: You change your underwear at lunch?
How are you going to take a shower if you're sound asleep?
This would be my biggest WTF. Why would you take a shower? Showers wake you up! Sex makes you delightfully sleepy!
I'll change underwear up to twice in the course of a day: one pair to work (that looks better under clothes), one for the gym (that gets all sweaty), and one to bed (comfy type). I change underwear based on activity. I won't change underwear just for the sake of changing it, though.
A friend of mine comments on being a post-sex showerer, simply because they sweat easily and don't like drowsing while sweaty. It's not really a full-on shower, apparently, so much as a good all-over rinsing at moderate temperature. Makes sense to me.
Showers are for before sex. After sex is for sleeping or doing other things.
After sex is for…
writing dissertations. Or is that in lieu of sex?
Or is that in lieu of sex?
Before. How else can you get excited?
Certainly no-one you've known biblically, Teo. But you might be acquainted with post-sex shower sprinters.
True, and I did consider this possibility. Perhaps "not that I know of" would be a better answer.
After sex is for...
...disposing of the body.
same underwear all day
Christ, when did this get forbidden? I have to do *more* fucking laundry?
Showering after sex - only if it's in the morning. Showering before sex - that would involve planning and forethought, not just the sudden realisation that we're both in the same place, awake, and there are no children in the room.
After sex is for disposing of the body.
Might we then caveat that sprinting to the shower after sex is acceptable if your partner is dead & you are covered in their blood?
OK, I want to judge it: compulsive rinsing after oral sex -- obnoxious or not? I say: maybe a little.
Underwear? Showers? Sex?
29--Fairly obnoxious. I think it'd give me a complex.--As in, if it's so horrible, why bother?
29: Are we talking about leisurely getting a drink of water after some sweaty romping or leaping out of bed to gargle?
But I would like to add that I really don't understand those women in movies/TV (okay maybe just in Cosmo) that say they will wear the same underwear all day. That's just gross and screams UTI.
What? My guess for the percentage of women who wear the same underwear all day would have been around 95%, not counting exercise. This is also true for men.
What am I missing here?
What's the question again? Habitually showering after sex? Never encountered that, but there are people who shower two and even three times a day (morning, after work, before bed) as a matter of course, so jumping into the shower just seems natural to them. Fresh!
As for the rinsing the mouth out thing -- what? I can see drinking some water.
I'm not sure. If she's talking about sex->no shower->same underwear and go on with the rest of your day, that'd be gross, but I don't conventionally change underwear in the middle of the day either.
a post-coital soapy scrub down of the crotch could reduce the chance of VSTIDs from a random hookup
I had a girlfriend who did the listerine gargle. Obnoxious.
I had a girlfriend who did the listerine gargle.
You should have made it easier for her by eating nothing but mint leaves.
I don't understand 36. Or rather, I understand why the "no shower" thing might be problematic if this were the middle of the day, but I don't understand why putting on the old underwear (assuming it was removed during sex) vs. getting a new pair would be gross.
I had a girlfriend who did the listerine gargle.
Funny. I don't think I'd be able to put up with that for very long.
40: Depends on the circumstances under which the previous underwear was removed, I suppose.
Yeah. Funny the things I find myself too embarrassed to go into detail about.
42: I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Or, rather, to the extent I think I might understand what you're getting at, I would ask: do you think it gross not to change one's underwear if one becomes sexually aroused for some reason during the course of a day (without any intervening sex)?
A dorm-mate of my first husband was a post-coital sprinter. We always knew when he'd got laid...
So which of Becks's recent threads were among those she said in Gah were too inane to post?
AFTER WE MAKE LOVE OSCAR ALWAYS STRAPS HIS CHEETAH ON AND LOPES AWAY
Has there been an answer to the multiple pairs of underwear in one day?
Weird.
No shower after sex. Shower before sex. Sometimes.
Sex is supposed to be dirty and messy.
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
Buck makes LB ruin panties, Brock.
For his own health, I hope Ogged is still reading the blog.
Funny the things I find myself too embarrassed to go into detail about.
That's the price you pay for having met people in person.
Hang on, Mrs Brock's pregnant, isn't she? Brock doesn't use condoms either. Hmmmm ... Brock has dry semen? Is this another symptom?
What the hell does 54 have to do with anything? I don't use condoms either. Again, we're stipulating that the underwear come off during the sex. If you're worried about post-coital ruin, I don't see how ruining a new pair helps anything.
Hmmmm ... Brock has dry semen? Is this another symptom?
Technically it's the instant variety. Just add wate.
Clearly I'm going to need to ask my wife a few pointed questions when I get home tonight.
that's a bum strategy, Brock. Of course she's going to tell you it's yours, no matter the truth.
I dated a post-coital sprinter. He was a pretty lousy lay though, so I usually ended up finishing myself off under the covers while he'd go and soap up.
Needless to say, it did not last long.
I was always more concerned about the guy who gave himself a whore's bath before getting down to it every time.
1) Love is making out with someone after you've blown a load on his/her face.
(2) You know you're in love when you're eating breakfast in a restaurant together the morning after he/she blew a load on your face and you suddenly realize that you didn't wash your face when you got out of bed that morning and you don't care.
(3) You know he/she is the one when he/she realizes that you've just realized that you're eating breakfast in a restaurant the morning after he/she blew a load on your face and you didn't wash your face when you got out of bed that morning and he/she smiles, leans over the table, and gives you a kiss.
30 must be the only dirty fucking hippie who isn't having a ridiculous amount of sex. Underwear, showers ... sure; but sex? not buying it.
Lauren's 13 was:
But I would like to add that I really don't understand those women in movies/TV (okay maybe just in Cosmo) that say they will wear the same underwear all day. That's just gross and screams UTI.
Apparently these women who actually *say* -- in movies/TV and in magazines -- that they wear the same underwear all day are suggesting something in particular. Something naughty, I assume. Lauren reads or hears about this naughtiness and is puzzled.
I wear four pairs of underwear at a time and only change the outermost pair in any given clothes-changing event. All the others get bumped up a notch.
Topologically intriguing, or, if not, completely pointless.
62: Love is admitting you'd like to wash your face eventually.
Naturally I remove the other three pairs in order to put a new innermost pair on, but since I then put them back on in the same order, I don't consider that changing them.
I wear four pairs of underwear at a time and only change the outermost pair in any given clothes-changing event. All the others get bumped up a notch.
Hawt.
I'm allergic to semen. Mine or others'. Yes, it's possible to be allergic to one's own semen.
So if I get a lot of it on me during the act, a shower shortly afterward is indicated. Not an every-time thing though.
72:
I can only hope that one day I can use that allergy in a trial to convince a judge of another's fault.
How allergic are we talking?
His penis swells to enormous proportions whenever it is near.
Unpleasant sinus congestion the next morning is the usual symptom, Becks, nothing life-threatening.
77: Oh, Hamilton. Such low hanging fruit, and you went with the straight answer.
29 (not to single you out, PGD) gets to why all the sexual norming around here bugs me—specifically, the intolerance of intolerance.
My girlfriend, for instance, prefers that I don't finish during oral. I could tell her that the norms of Unfogged and Dan Savage declared this obnoxious, but I wouldn't have much of a response when she told me that citing the norms of random strangers as a counterpoint to her preferences is even more obnoxious.
78, I knew people like will in 76 would take care of it.
Unpleasant sinus congestion
Don't snort it, Ham.
Hamilton, if you're getting semen in your sinuses, you're probably doing it wrong.
82:
Next on Oprah, better than a neti pot?
79: It's like talking about street prices for drugs consumer electronics, destroyer. Any given vendor/girlfriend can offer any price/service they like, but it's going to be common knowledge if the bulk of the competition has something cheaper/sleazier on offer.
||
As of 8:47 PM, Giuliani is tied with "uncommitted".
prefers that I don't finish during oral
Don't finish what?
81, 82: This exact same conversation was seen on alt.humor.best-of-usenet many years ago.
85: I understand that the norms of Unfogged are what the average sexual adult will be asked to do. I just don't like them being norms—as if there were a code of sexual obligation, existent beyond a negotiation between two partners' desires.
Not quite on topic, but I remain surprised that American society seems so dedicated to the morning shower rather than the evening or nighttime shower. I admit to being more charitably inclined to people who want to wash the day's grime off before bed -- regardless of activities to follow.
But I think I'll have to move to Thailand or someplace if I want to live in a place where bath habits are reversed.
88 was me, don't know what happened to my byline.
destroyer, for what it's worth, yes, there's a great deal of annoying norming around here,
but I think most people know perfectly well that where sex is concerned, anything that works, works.
My stupid fucking roommate of last year was a post-coital showerer. He was a pre-coital showerer as well, but he seemed to leap out of his room once the thumping ceased. Christ, he must have been a selfish lover.
I am kind of with Witt about showering before bed.
97 - I'm creating a separate thread for that. I don't want your Romney in my sex thread.
destroyer: I would add to 94 that it's a bit more understandable that there are so many norming conversations among a group of younger, more likely to be single people.
Relative youth and inexperience often give you less of a sense of your own priorities and preferences, and it can be helpful to understand where the bell curve is located. That doesn't mean you should attempt to place yourself in the middle of it (although the conversations here sometimes seem to deteriorate or default to implying that one should).
shivbunny would probably win a post-sex cigarette sprint.
The idea of a post-sex cigarette seems unimaginably archaic to me. You're in bed! With all kinds of flammable material! Don't smoke!
I agree with Becks about the smoking seeming odd. I also think that the idea of sprinting anywhere after sex is odd. If you have that much energy left, you are not doing it correctly. (yes, destroyer, I am being normative.)
He sprints because he's only allowed to smoke in the apartment if he's leaning out of the window in the other room. So it's not exactly the archaic classic model. (I should point out the sprint, if not the cigarettes, are fine with me because I'm not huge on the cuddling afterwards.)
shivbunny sprints due to cala's feet shoving him out of the bed once she is done with him.
The shared shower after sex is fun, especially if this is morning or afternoon sex, and going right to sleep is not an option.
the idea of sprinting anywhere after sex is odd.
Will, will, how long's it been since you were in your 20s or 30s?
(I know.)
105: Fortunately the IOC has determined that being shoved by your wife does not count as an artificial enhancement.
107:
I somewhat vaguely remember not being an adult and sprinting to avoid being caught by adults.
post-sex cigarette seems unimaginably archaic to me
God oh God, how I miss the after-sex cigarette.
105: just think the speeds he could achieve if Cala was using Cheetas.
When I was in my 20s "after sex" was a very vague boundary, because there was always the reasonable hope for working up for another round. And sadly this energy level disappeared before I met my wife.
showering is a bit much. but i do sprint to pee immediately.
Cala and shiv's neighbors probably laugh every time Shiv is leaning out the window smoking. "Must have just finished up."
Yea, my gf does the same thing as Sybil.
Fortunately, since she is up, she will usually bring me some water.
I bring water too. I also usually toss a t-shirt in his direction, which eliminates the need for showering. I am nice.
113, 115: But there's a reason for that. It's not just personal preference; it's a monumental pain to get a UTI.
Sprinting to pee (for ladies, at least) is necessary if you want to avoid a nasty UTI.
I don't know, I kind of like the idea of springing (not sprinting) up -- not instantly, mind you -- to make coffee or shower or get an extra blanket or something. I'm thinking it means that sex is a very regular occurrence. I think laughter would be involved.
Clearly the Michigan primary results are weighing heavily on my mind.
yes, the UTI issue makes it functional, but the shower is functional too, right? I mean, if you are committed to it, you surely don't think of it as a quirk. Anyway, I generally absolutely *have* to pee. I would go even if I were UTI-proof. And if that were possible, it would constitute an unfair performance advantage.
Not only it is a monumental pain to get a UTI, it's a monumental pain to deal with your giggling mother who knows why you got a UTI two months after your wedding, teehee!
In my experience, all women always have to urinate as soon as possible after having an orgasm. n=3.
This is why the "she comes first" principle is so destructive. No no no, then she's just laying there for a while having to pee.
it would constitute an unfair performance advantage.
Well, not on the level of a spring-loaded urethra.
come to think of it, I've never had a UTI. I may have a spring loaded urethra.
I bring water too. I also usually toss a t-shirt in his direction, which eliminates the need for showering. I am nice.
What?!? No snack?
spring-loaded urethra
Rare, but you usually find one with the other.
God oh God, how I miss the after-sex cigarette.
Apo, you're still quits with cigarettes? Woohoo! (I get to say this, knowing how terribly tough it is. Not trying to be all judgy of the smokers.)
Woops. Sorry. On the upside, sex outdoors and problem solved.
Of course, the problem of the P-C sprint could be solved by [drum roll] having sex in the shower.
I stopped smoking, oh 14 years ago or so - but yeah, a shared post-coital cigarette was such a nice thing...
Maybe you should be having more sex outdoors, Apo.
Geez a man tries to take his time and this is what he gets for it.
I really don't read into things enough. I think I have been in relationships with compulsive showerers, but I've just assumed it was because they like showering or whatever. Some people are just Warmduschers, man.
I wear the same underpants all day. THAT'S RIGHT! You heard it here first.
The possibility of changing underpants during a day when one is not changing other clothes (gym, night out, etc.) is one I had not heard of. Some people are particularly prone to UTIs and YIs, perhaps because they are washing themselves with soap?
There was once this relationship that I was in--quite a good one, actually--and you see, I was living in an apartment right next to the stop for the bus to Object's apartment. A bus that stopped running at about 10:45pm. Many, many were the nights when Object made a mad post-coital dash not for the shower but for the last bus, looking all mis-buttoned and disheveled. It was pretty hilarious, especially because Object was so apologetic.
(For several reasons--including my own poverty and resultant twin-bed-sized futon--there wasn't much sleeping over at my place.)
Also, vis-a-vis the earlier discussion of norming conversations--good for you, destroyer. And boo for Dan Savage the great norming force, who renders what used to be fun/transgressive/interesting/odd into one more kind of homework to be performed properly.
Wait a minute! We're not supposed to use soap?
perhaps because they are washing themselves with soap?
What's the other option? Sweat lodge then rolling around in the snow?
Maybe she means soap, but not water? Or... I dunno.
If you get soap all up in you, it can throw off your vaginal pH and make things funky.
No soap on the vulva, people. It cleans itself.
What's the other option?
Pumice stone.
What the fox said. Don't wash internally.
It's all good until peeing hurts, though, right?
There was pH-neutral soap in the hostel I stayed at in Spain. Would that American hotels were so considerate!
RFTSwned. Seriously, I had passing-clots-of-flesh-bad UTIs until I realized soap should not be allowed anywhere near there. I haven't had any kind of yeast or urinary infection since I figured that out.
Seriously, I had passing-clots-of-flesh-bad UTIs
Excuse me while I go weep in the corner. Christ.
151: Ouch. Mine turned out to be resistant to penicillin, thought about invading my kidneys, and made me feel like I had to pee ALL the time for about three weeks, but never had to pass clots-of-flesh. Ouch ouch ouch.
152: Nuh-uh. Can't remember which book contained the immortal guidance: Like a self-cleaning oven.
Priceless.
It's all good until peeing hurts
Luckily, the pain was so horrible my mother handed me a full bottle of Vicodin and put me back on the plane to college. Upside of passing clots of flesh? A month-long narcotic addiction! Thanks, Mom! I wasn't doing anything that semester anyway.
Like a self-cleaning oven.
Yeah, a self cleaning oven that gets infected and sloughs off chunks of flesh.
It only gets infected if you get in the way of it doing its special thing. Cleanliness in the soap-and-water sense is really overrated.
I'm starting to get the impression here that the after sex shower is not the norm. Two out of three of my ex's bolted straight for the shower every time. The first one would also steadfastly refuse to sleep naked and was horribly terrified of her own privates.
I honestly thought this was normal (well the shower part anyway. The first ex was a bowl of nuts.) And yes they were all Catholic. But I always thought the whole Catholic guilt thing was overblown.
N=3 is too small a sample to say anything from.
Holy crap. There's some things I didn't know. Then again, the whole "clean outside, not inside" is pretty good gender-neutral advice.
161 to 160, but apparently also 123
the whole "clean outside, not inside" is pretty good gender-neutral advice.
What dude seriously needs to be told not to put objects up his urethra?
What dude seriously needs to be told not to put objects up his urethra?
Repulsive link from apo in 5... 4... 3... 2...
I heard that pandas stick stuff up their urethras all the time!
No showers after, never been with someone compulsive about it. But I'm one of those weirdo boys that likes the snuggletime.
I don't mind employing a towel to mitigate wet spots, though. Not a requirement, if we're not thinking that far ahead, but an unfortunately lightly colored chair does have a stain that I can't get out. Thankfully, my current partners have never asked about it. (I'm probably overestimating its visibility, due to admittedly fond memories.)
What dude seriously needs to be told not to put objects up his urethra?
Dammit, gswift, have you not considered what kind of photo apo will be provoked to post? Or, worse yet, video!
161: So I'm just an unlucky bastard then? Somehow that doesn't make me feel any better.
Enough spots on your chair and it'll pass as an abstract pattern. Just saying.
I've giving Apo a challenge. Gotta keep him sharp.
OK, how many besides oudemia wrap your underwear around muenster cheese?
171: Hard to say. You may be suffering from sample bias, or may be just insufficient samples. Come back if it hasn't sorted itself out by roughly N=30
I've giving Apo a challenge. Gotta keep him sharp.
'Sharp" strikes me as a somewhat unfortunate word choice in the context of this particular challenge...
Did we ever figure out who was saying women had to change underwear three times a day? Because that opens up the never-before considered possibility that on average, people are changing their underwear daily.
176: I never said N=3. I said 2 out of 3... Oh who am I kidding?
Since I'm completely paranoid now, can I ask a related question? Is the never sleeping without underwear thing - even after sex - normal?
Journal of the American Association of Physicians Assistants:
Various case reports describe unusual and seemingly dangerous objects in the urethra. The objects identified have included nuts, bolts, pens, pencils, toothbrushes, pocket batteries, fishhooks, shards of glass, pistachio shells, and animal parts (see Table 1).1,2 In one particularly unusual case, an 89-year-old man developed urinary retention for 5 days due to a lobster tentacle impacted in his urethra.3
Some case reports describe patients who have inserted multiple objects into the urethra at the same time. In one report, a 94-year-old man with dementia was found to have multiple foreign bodies in the urethra. These were removed and identified as a 10-cm ballpoint pen cartridge, a 10-cm metal rod, an 8-cm razor brush, a 7.4-cm plastic rod, a 4-cm broken rubber band, and a paper clip.4
"lobster tentacle"?
180: I haven't encountered it and it's not for me, but I wouldn't call it abnormal.
Because that opens up the never-before considered possibility that on average, people are changing their underwear daily.
How does one average when factoring in people who don't wear underwear? Seems like a divide by zero problem, but I'm sure there's an epidemiologist that can explain.
Enough spots on your chair and it'll pass as an abstract pattern.
I clearly need to either settle down with one person, up my game a lot, or perhaps buy a commercial steam cleaner. Not that all of those are mutually exclusive.
180: I'm not sure why you're paranoid, but I also don't know the answer. I don't like to sleep naked, but surely something like sleep preferences doesn't have to say something deep about one's character?
("I'm wearing these pj pants ironically.")
I only sleep with underwear after I've obtained clear oral consent.
Merely verbal consent doesn't cut it with me. I demand oral.
Underwear is pretty normal sleepwear. I can go either way but always wearing underwear to bed seems well within the range of normal.
I'm wearing these pj pants ironically.
Those are the ones with the bunnies and ducks, right?
In college, I had a three-way, though a mild, kissy one. I had enough pairs of pajamas for everyone after; in fact, that was part of the lure.
180 -- Clothes make you feel less vulnerable. Way-myopic chicks like me feel awfully vulnerable at night anyway. Being naked AND blind if somebody breaks in? Not a pleasant thought.
With someone else in the house - never mind in the bedroom - that vulnerability decreases dramatically. Ergo, sleeping solo = undies on, for sure. Not...well, not.
Those are the ones with the bunnies and ducks, right?
It depends on how you look at it.
185: I was just checking to see if there was anything else abnormal about my relationships before I end up with the realization that I have an unconscious attraction to serial killers or something. I'm sure its just sample bias as suggested. I encourage everyone to get more samples.
Being naked AND blind? Not a pleasant thought.
It is, however, a Rumsfeld-approved interrogation technique.
Holy carp, Juicy Lurker may have fallen into the clutches of the underwear killer!
But seriously, Juicy, I'd guess not terribly common but not so unusual, either. And, as someone noted, definitely context dependent.
It depends on how you look at it.
One must distinguish between the "continuous seeing" of pajamas and the "dawning" of pajamas.
And so the drawing-on of pajamas seems to be a clothing and a thinking.
197: Well I was more concerned about the underwear after sex specifically as opposed to sleeping with underwear in general (as I do that myself). For instance, say that after sex the partner normally goes straight for the shower. If shower is unavailable the underwear goes straight on, despite queries, protestations or the cleanliness of the underwear in question. Does that sound normal?
not terribly common
Kinda depends on whether you're including people with small children, people living in close quarters with non-family-members, or even menstrual-age women, though. I mean, if you're young, and rich enough to have your own place, and single enough to be choosy about which nights of the month you're going to spend with your partner, okay, probably less common. The entire rest of the human race, probably not so uncommon.
Oops, unnecessary pedantry. My cue for bed.
201 before 200. Not speaking to the same issue, obv.
Witt, iirc, I'd heard long ago that there's a blue collar/white collar split on showering morning or evening.
200: It doesn't sound abnormal, to me anyway. People are comfortable how they are comfortable. Me, I find sleeping (or doing anything else in bed) with socks on annoying as hell.
203: Huh. Now that sounds plausible. Certainly seems logical.
203: I just got out of the shower -- does this make me blue collar or white collar?
206: Probably pink collar for a bit, depending how hot your shower was.
I think the divide is white collar == morning showers blue collar == evening (i.e. after work, when you're dirty)
Oh and 201 -- yeah, that's what the `context dependent' bit after meant.
I sometimes shower morning and evening.
for that matter, aiui daily showers is somewhat a north american thing, regardless of what end of the day.
204: Fair enough. The shower thing just always felt at least a little insulting (though I never said anything). I just wondered if the underwear thing was somehow related via some obsessive-compulsive-cleanliness thread.
I'd like to put my toe in the waters for defending "what is normal in sex" conversations, for two main purposes.
(1) Feeling free to talk about what happens in the bedroom (i.e., something hurts or makes me uncomfortable, and is that normal?) is really important for people who do not know what their limits are or whether their partners are abusive. The "everything's okay and normal" language can discourage actual narration and description between friends that could either find ways to make what's happening feel safer or more comfortable or encourage someone to say, "This isn't okay and I want it to stop."
(2) Letting someone know that the thing they're into requires a little explanation or conversation is not a bad thing.
Of course, these conversations would ideally happen among friends who wouldn't just shame you out of whatever it is you want or do, but, especially for people who are figuring things out about their dating patterns or their own desires (which I'd rather we not merely associate with the "young"--people of all ages come to these realizations, or even change), feeling like you have friends you can ask questions of about relative normality is important.
As someone who spends much more of my life than I'd like on the MTA, I'd happily pay extra for a shower car.
I, too, spend much more of fishbane's life on the MTA than I'd like to.
212: That sounds about right AWB. Talking about things that made me uncomfortable like the showering-after-sex thing around my friends would be a whole bag of shame. I've learnt not to ask.
I've never had a problem talking about sex with friends, even about some fairly racy stuff. That may reflect more on my friends than anything else, and I understand that not everyone out there is as libertine as me. But starting slowly, one can introduce the topic, and even make it easier for others to talk about things with you, which will cascade.
Not to be too hippy, but caution, trust and empathy rule.
That's disgusting and shameful, fb.
215: My problem now is the opposite. All my friends are perverts and respond to just about anything I say with, "That sounds totally hot."
AWB, I'm not arguing against conversations about what does and doesn't happen in sex generally—just the tone they tend to take here.
I'd say more, but I need to go watch the Cool Kids rap to a bunch of white kids drunk on terrible free beer.
AWB: I don't want to presuppose anything, but that sounds like an off the cuff comment that I can imagine myself making, or people I know making, before realizing that you're invested in the conversation. I have no idea if this is the case or not, so smack me if I'm wrong. Context does matter, though, and it can be hard to communicate this sort of thing while being nervous about the response.
Yeah, I know, destroyer. This sometimes seems like the place for those conversations, and it's really not, because it ends up being about how everyone here and everyone they've ever dated are repulsive psychopaths.
Ooh! I'm not a repulsive psychopath! Pick me pick me!
222: I don't mind it, and I tend to agree with them, but I just mean they're no good for figuring out what's normal to non-perverts. That's why I hang out with the pearl-clutchers here, just to get a little balance on the other side.
I'm a psychopath, but I'm not repulsive. I've been told that I'm really a charming one, in fact. And I've only dated one person whom I consider a sociopath, something very different.
it ends up being about how everyone here and everyone they've ever dated are repulsive psychopaths.
Just the depraved New Yorkers. The rest of us are angels of purity and virtue.
203: From Russo's Nobody's Fool:
He[Sully] had the laborer's habit of bathing after his day's work was done instead of in the morning,
I've just caught on that it may be unwise to be asking for normative advice. Sorry about that. destroyer and AWB both bring up good points.
Even though the ex showering habits made me feel uncomfortable and more than a little dejected, I guess I was also given the impression that it was normal. I suppose that is why characterizing norms like that can be dangerous.
Of course, if I'd ever taken the opportunity to talk about it with others (who may have told me that that behaviour is not normal) I may have received a better perspective on the situation.
I don't know. Stuff it. I'm never having sex again.
Stuff it. I'm never having sex again.
So this is like a last-chance offer?
I would only suggest that it is more important to normalize for yourself. This may involve figuring out that the pervs you hang with do things that you don't want to, and ditto on the other side. However, I'm pretty sure that the "alternative lifestyle" people you know consider themselves "normal", for slightly different values thereof. (I do know a few people who fetishize being extreme or marginal, and generally don't find them that interesting.)
Put another way, scratch a non-pervert, and you'll generally find someone who has at least had a fantasy.
I agree with AWB and destroyer! I know I've raised a thing or two here that I was squeamish about (presidentially, I think, 'cause I'm all shy like that) and found the collective input -- whether "don't worry so much, it's normal" or "whoa, that is bad news, no wonder you're squeamish" -- very helpful.
On the other hand, I've also had the sense destroyer seems to be describing of sexual "norms" being described as if there were something wrong with anyone who is getting it less often or less adventurously or whatever. (I don't mean that quite so dramatically as the sentence reads to me, but I'm not sure how else to express it.)
I've also had the sense destroyer seems to be describing of sexual "norms" being described as if there were something wrong with anyone who is getting it less often or less adventurously or whatever
Yeah I know. This made me cry:
171: You may be suffering from sample bias, or may be just insufficient samples. Come back if it hasn't sorted itself out by roughly N=30.
Last year, I went through a phase of going out with people who seemed a lot more emotionally put-together than the people I usually date, upon realizing there were certain patterns in my attractions that were abnormal. So I think I was invested, for a while, in trying to figure out how not to weird out nice, normal dudes. This was a gigantic failure for obvious reasons, not the least of which was the fact that I brought out a lot of latent weird in those people---latent weird that caused them a great deal of emotional trauma to face---and I ended up feeling really shitty about it. Having the "So I've Never Done That Before, Ever" conversation several times in six months is a fucking downer.
So the question became, "Why am I so attracted to people who are so fucking weird to begin with?" Great happiness blossomed around me when I realized, no, it was me who was crazy all along! And I was happier before, when I was making "bad choices"!
Norming fucked up my impulse to find people I'm compatible with, but it also showed me that I need to be conscious of ways in which I don't fit other people's norms.
Why anybody would take a shower after buttsex is completely beyond me. Of all the fifteen hundred+ partners I've had buttsex with, nobody has ever done that. I can say absolutely for sure that anybody prone to running off to the shower after buttsex is a commie or a racist.
White-collar folks have buttsex in the morning.
Beefo Meaty is Catherine Millet!
Or, perhaps, Toni Bentley. Further research is necessary.
I just looked up Catherine Millet on Wikipedia. Is that normal?
Looking someone up on wikipedia's pretty normal, yeah.
Bentley's the one who's all about the buttsex, I believe. Millet is more into orgies.
Not that buttsex and orgies are mutually exclusive, of course.
Thanks Ben. I was just about to call my therapist :P
Before recently, I've been in more of the commit for a long period of time sort, and have been through 2 multiyear relationships that might have ended in something resembling marriage. Both of them ended poorly, for different reasons. The first one was with someone who enjoyed some of the edgier stuff I do, but was very buttoned down, otherwise. We had a difference of opinion about my career choices, which eventually killed things. The other one was almost the opposite - someone who enjoyed very edgy display and didn't mind someone who took risky opportunities, but was very buttoned down in the sack. This relationship didn't end quite so badly, in that we're still friends, but there was a lot of damage done.
I'm now not looking for any sort of commitment beyond "friends with benefits", and it works for me, at least for now. I think that's the real trick - finding what works. Playing around in the swinger scene has made me actually enjoy dating - so much less pressure. I regularly see folks I met that way around, and we have fun hanging out, even absent a romantic interest.
That said, I am circling someone who I think feels the same way, but we're both cautious, and I doubt we'll be exclusive even if we manage to admit deeper feelings to each other. I expect it to go either really well or fall apart by August.
I'm dating this girl for 3 months now. She likes to go down on me but won't let my face comes even close to her pelvic region. I'm bummed b/c I like to go down :(. It doesn't seem like she just doesn't like it - she seems terrified of it. I can even feel her tense if it appears that I'm headed for that region even when I'm not.
Any comments? Does anyone here have a similar experience?
she seems terrified of it. I can even feel her tense if it appears that I'm headed for that region
Something in her past I'm guessing. But having the oral situation one sided in your favor ain't so bad.
246: I've had the exact same problem in the past with a previous relationship. Terrified is the operative word.
248: Unfortunately, I've never much liked having the situation one sided in my favor. So in retrospect the whole enterprise was rather disappointing. Oh well, it was only 2 whole years of disappointment.
Wish I could be more helpful.
246: A couple thoughts short of assuming some horrible trauma in her past.
It's sensitive down there. I find too much direct clitoral stimulation can be downright painful for me personally and if the guy was unable for whatever reason to adjust, then I'd prefer he just steered clear. I can imagine I would tense up, because, well, ouch.
Of course, the easiest answer is "Ask her." Seriously, don't start inventing some fantasy in your head about "something in her past" without talking to her about it.
She might just not like it and be terrified of telling you, thinking you might take it personally. In whatever case, there's no reason not to ask her about it, if it's a conversation that interests you.
Pwned by Betsy. I'm slow. But yeah, it's kinda obnoxious when it's assumed that every reaction a woman has to sex must be from some imagined traumatic past. If you want to ask her why she doesn't like something, and she tells you, "Oh, I have this really traumatic past with oral sex," that's one thing. I'm not saying anyone here does this individually all the time in any way I've noticed, but there's a way that collective conversations about women and sex can assume that all women's sexual preferences are just the products of various traumas, and not, like, you know, preferences.
IME, sure, some people have trauma-based sexual hangups, but even more have hangups about communicating about what they want, having had partners who took that kind of conversation way too personally. Just ask her.
I'm not trying to be the harbringer of trauma or anything, I'm just guessing that based off of the use of "terrified".
I've been away and haven't ready this thread fully, but I'm pretty sure my (married) roommates just pre- and post-coitally showered. WEIRD.
Oh, and by "WEIRD", I mean: I never noticed this double showering before. I'm not a part of their sex lives at all. Thanks for making me aware, Mineshaft!
I have actually not performed oral sex on her. I attempted and she said no. I asked if she just doesn't feel like receiving it that particular time or in general and she replied it's the latter. And I haven't made an attempt since then. The things is, even though I like to go down, it's not a deal breaker for me. The reason it's stayed in my mind is her subsequent reactions when it seems like I'm attempting go there. I probably would have asked her why she specifically doesn't it but the nature of her reaction makes me think that it's not a question of too much direct stimilulation. And besides, she does not mind me using my fingers - she actually enjoys that.
While Gswift may have been a little hasty going for the trauma-in-the-past explanation, I think that's more likely. Given that hunch, I wouldn't want to probe too much but rather wait until she is comfortable in discussing the issue in detail.
I guess what I really wanted to see from this post is whether others have experiences similar to her.
Speaking of deviant sexuality, the ACLU is backing Larry Craig (and Bitch) with an argument that Larry has an expectation of privacy while he has gay sex in a public bathroom.
http://www.startribune.com/13817377.html
This thread has inspired me to go and ask the internets why I don't like receiving cunnilingus that much. I mean, it feels nice and all, but not as SUPER AMAZING NICE relative to all other sexual acts as it is allegedly meant to be. And while a partner has their face between my legs I can't touch them (barring 69ing, which is kind of logistically difficult unless we happen to be the same height, and I guess there's always threesomes), which tends to make me retreat into my head and either worry about it not being fun enough or start mentally wandering off entirely. Orgasms seldom result, and I'm not anorgasmic in general.
The internets say that the only reason women ever don't like receiving cunnilingus is that either we once had a sexual partner whose technique approximated being hit by a bus with a very powerful tongue, or that we are terrified of our own genitals in a way that requires a three hour seduction process and a pep talk from our enlightened sisters, and it just all seems a bit serious for me. I mean, I'm willing to buy being the victim of less than stellar technique, but, you know, they had what seem to be the basics down.
So there you go. I wouldn't say I'm "terrified", but according to conventional wisdom, I also don't exist.
While Gswift may have been a little hasty going for the trauma-in-the-past explanation, I think that's more likely. Given that hunch, I wouldn't want to probe too much but rather wait until she is comfortable in discussing the issue in detail.
I guess what I really wanted to see from this post is whether others have experiences similar to her.
Hmm. I've arguably had "experiences similar to her" in that I was with a guy for awhile who had apparently had a hunch that I had some "trauma-in-the-past" (not, I hasten to add, for the sake of the public record, based on any sort of aversion to oral sex!) and, like AWB put it above, it was obnoxious. He thought he was being a sensitive guy, and I assume your intentions are similarly noble, but as the girl in that scenario, I found it insulting/humiliating/infuriating. Maybe my perspective on it isn't universal, but I personally cannot stand being treated like some fragile, damaged thing, like I've got some sort of "handle with care" warning stamped across my forehead.
I don't know that you need to have a conversation with her about it, but unless you do and unless she tells you that she is traumatized, I think you are really better off assuming that it is just a matter of preference.
Di, there's a lot of rage out there against guys who don't honor "handle with care" signs, so rage against guys who do honor them, or honor them in the wrong way, makes the dating field seem very uninviting.
My own anti-dating anti-relationship message is hyperbole, mostly a conversational schtick, but dating does seem like a minefield to me -- a high stakes / low odds gamble. People seem to pick and choose between so many contradictory imperatives and demands (from diverse traditional and contemporary sources) that the chances of two people being on the same page is not large.
I often think that, bad as it often is, conventional uniformity of some type might be easier to negotiate. When everyone customizes their own needs and taboos, and some things are explicit and some tacit, and often the tacit and the explicit aren't quite in synch, success and happiness become unlikely. or so it seems.
In my own life dating / relationships has certainly been the area within which the happiness / pain ratio has been worst. Political activity has been equally unsuccessful, but that hasn't been as painful because in politics I always knew I was fighting against powerful evildoers who wanted to do harm.
Yeah, this is nice guy stuff all over again.
I don't think anyone's raging against men who are overzealous about the 'handle with care' possibility, just, you know, pointing out that overzealousness does happen, and that there's a real population of women who are unenthusiastic about oral sex for non-trauma related reasons.
Sexual relationships really are something where you need to be working out your own individual needs to at least a certain extent. Trying to make communication of those needs as open as possible without offense is what it sounds like people (Bear, Di, Pineapple) are advocating here.
Di, there's a lot of rage out there against guys who don't honor "handle with care" signs, so rage against guys who do honor them, or honor them in the wrong way, makes the dating field seem very uninviting.
While I can see what John is saying, I think there's a difference between reactions during the dating dance, and reactions once you're in the relationship. Di's seems like an inside relationship reaction, and suggests less about the fraught dating scene.
That said, LB is clearly wrong. The only possible explanation for a woman with an aversion to oral sex is trauma. I recommend behavioral therapy.
BTW, I love it when I read only the last three comments of an endless thread and feel like I have something to say. I'm sure others' reactions to this phenomenon are not so positive.
Perhaps an electroshock based conditioning regimen. "Admit you like getting head!" BZZZT "Admit it!"
(Actually, Di does sound as if she was substantially pissed at her old relationship, but it also sounds as if she was trying to communicate and he just wouldn't listen. That's not raging at someone for trying to be sensitive, that's raging at someone for not listening to you. Banned analogy follows: Getting furious with a man for carrying your bag because you're a committed feminist? Overly tense. Getting furious with a man for carrying your bag and loading it on the wrong plane over your protests? Perfectly reasonable.)
I certainly wouldn't say "raging." It just seems to me that both overzealousness and underzealousness about handling with care reflect a certain disrespect. In the former case, it strikes me as not respecting the strength or competence or something like that, a form of condescending. The latter suggests not respecting the value of the person as someone not to be handled recklessly. It's not always an easy balance to find, I'll admit, but no more fraught than any other relationship IMO.
But just because some guys are underzealous does not strike me as a good justification for not being able to also point out the problems with being overzealous. I'm not being articulate about this. Just trust me -- what I'm trying to say is profound and makes very good sense.
Actually, Di does sound as if she was substantially pissed at her old relationship
Truthfully, Di just sounds as if she was up half the night working on a stupid brief -- I come off as very cranky when I'm tired...
I come off as very cranky when I'm tired...
Typical woman. Probably some kind of sleep-related trauma at the root of that.
I have thought at times that men shouldn't be listening when women talk about men, and vice versa. Grumbling is completely normal, but perhaps it shouldn't all be shared with everyone. By now I have heard about a myriad of large and small ways that (some) men infuriate (some) women, and I don't know how helpful it has been. Some of it probably is just venting, for example. Some of it is actually a very minority reaction, even though women who didn't share the reaction kindly sympathized with the friend who expressed it. If you hear too much of this stuff, and I did, you do end up thinking of relationships primarily as a fertile source of grievances. (Or perhaps I was always just a mess.)
266: In this case they both stem from the same thing, trying to make assumptions without actually talking to one's partner. The assumptions sound more sensitive (O, the fragile doll!), but they aren't.
The only possible explanation for a woman with an aversion to oral sex is trauma she hasn't received it from me.
That assumes that talking things out and making them explicit works. Does it? because "insensitivity" is often thought of as failure to read body language and pick up tacit signs. If this guy had asked, would that have helped? Maybe he wasn't go at explicit communication either.
Maybe this was just the wrong guy for Di. Or maybe for anyone.
246, 248, 256, and 259 seem like they're building up to a general theory, whereas maybe they're just 3 or 4 individual cases.
Well, yeah, but they're three or four individual cases offered in opposition to the general theory that a woman who identifies a distaste for oral sex has some trauma about it that shouldn't be probed into. If we're not offering general theories, we shouldn't offer general theories.
MvB, could it be that she simply doesn't enjoy oral sex much, for no better reason than that we're all different, and that might be part of who she is.
More generally, everybody from Cosmo to the pornocracy has spent the last generation haranguing us that we all have to think receiving oral is the best thing ever, giving it not so much. My name is not Kinsey, but I very much doubt this. I would guess a lot of people are pretty indifferent at best to oral, and just as many prefer giving it to receiving it (men and women). So analysing peoples' preferences in this area is probably at best self defeating and regarding those whose tastes differ from the editorial line of Marie Claire as having a problem is not a good thing.
270: JE, this seems perilously close to nice guy territory here. Women shouldn't talk about there problems with other women within earshot of other men because it isn't helpful to men?
273: I can't speak for Di, but as a general rule, not conflating "sensitivity" with "inventing a fantasy in my head about how my girlfriend was horribly traumatized" is probably a good start.
This thread has convinced me -- or would have done, had I not already believed -- that men and women should never talk about anything. Certainly not while naked.
I've been perilously close to nice guy territory the whole time, Cala. I usually keep my mouth shut.
re: 277.1
There can be an asymmetry at work, though. I'm emphatically not a 'nice guy' in the canonical sense -- I'm an arrogant fuck by that standard.
But, even I sometimes feel that there's a double standard at work in conversions on Unfogged and elsewhere where those conversations explicitly involve the behaviour of partners in romantic/sexual relationships.
Also, MvB is being sensitive. He's paying attention to notice that she tenses when he moves a certain way, and he's respecting her wishes. Beyond that isn't really 'paying subtle attention to non-verbal cues' territory.
280: I can see how there could be an asymmetry. I'm only committed to the point that women talking to women about their problems/hangups/partners isn't really about the man in earshot.
I'm only committed to the point that women talking to women about their problems/hangups/partners isn't really about the man in earshot.
Yeah, but it's not as simple as that. It's pretty easy, as a man, to pick up the impression -- from listening to all your female friends continually discussing men's inadequacies -- that women don't really rate men very highly and to assume [unless you are bolstered by a nice fat ego] that they probably don't rate you very highly either.
That asymmetry is real and 'it isn't really about the man in earshot' isn't really adequate as a response. It's exactly the same response that sexist men would give to some woman who called them out on their 'bitches and sluts' rhetoric. "I don't mean nice girls like you" would be rightly mocked.
I don't want to get too hyperbolic, lots of the time it's not like that, but some of the time it really is.
Weighing in on the oral sex question, you know, there are also other explanations between "trauma in her past" and "just a preference." People have lots of experience that create a certain proclivity that don't amount to "trauma." For example, there's a lot of pressure, as mentioned above, to think that oral sex is the greatest thing ever and also have it produce mind-blowing orgasms. I'm sure that back in the day before oral sex had ever produced an orgasm for me, noting that someone was headed for that region I may have subconsciously tensed up, thinking, oh here we go again with 20 minutes of this and then me having to soothe the poor guy's ego that he's not a terrible head-giver just 'cause he can't make me come. I mean, at the time, it felt nice, but it was still a semi-stressful situation.
Now, it works just as well as anything else, that old chestnut*, but I don't really prefer it or think it's particularly great. In fact, given the choice I'd choose something else almost every time (although I do request it once in a great while).
Like everyone else said, ask her.
*I tried to link this to the comment I'm referring to, but I couldn't find it. This website is too big now.
282: I think you're glossing over the difference between simply slagging on the opposite sex and trying to figure out what's 'normal' and what works and what doesn't, (hence "grumbling" not "namecalling.") It's not 'not about the man in earshot' in the sense of 'I hate all sluts, but not you sweetie' as in 'hey, when I'm worried about whether I'm having a problem in my relationship, I'm not talking about your and your problems in your relationship.'
282: This is perfectly true, but it's a reason not to be unkind about men generally, not to stay away from talking about particular issues. I can't see it applying to the conversation particularly in this thread.
I can't speak for Di...
Sure you can, Cala! You have managed to say everything I was trying to, but more clearly and more effectively. Come to think of it, you aren't by any chance in the mood to express some thoughts about, oh, say, zoning and taxation of property undergoing development? Maybe just a couple of pages... ?
This thread has convinced me -- or would have done, had I not already believed -- that men and women should never talk about anything. Certainly not while naked.
Agreed.
I really want to find the Dilbert strip where a couple is in front of a marriage counselor. They ask, "Should we try to talk with each other more?"
The counselor responds, "no, no, no. dont be silly. Better off to pretend to be other people."
re: 284
No, no I'm not. Because, to all intents and purposes, some of the time, there's very little difference between 'slagging' the opposite sex, and 'trying to figure out what's 'normal'' if every discussion of 'normality' hinges on the ways on which men fail to live up to the appropriate standard of normality.
As I said, I'm trying not be hyperbolic, a lot of the time that blurring between 'slagging' and 'healthy discussion' isn't happening and much of the time it does read as healthy discussion. But sometimes it really doesn't, and I think even those of us who aren't pearl-grabbingly sensitive about this stuff pick up on that vibe sometimes, and that vibe is what Emerson is responding to above.
285 is right, but I think there can, sometimes, be a cumulative effect. If some of the time the tack taken was that 'men kind of suck in this arena' and some of the time 'and women kind of suck in this one' then it'd all balance out in the long run and the cumulative effect would be 'all good'.
However, there is an asymmetry at work, some of the time. And the cumulative effect of many discussions -- none of particularly objectionable on their own -- can be to make some men a bit gun-shy about some topics.
As I said, I'm not trying to make some 'all women are hatin on menz' claim. But I don't think that those who can be a bit sensitive about this stuff are completely misguided, either.
286 made me laugh. If you are on a roll Cala, I wouldnt ming you speaking about jurisdiction.
276. Hear, hear. OFE gets right to the heart of what annoys/bothers me about so many of these discussions among the "enlightened". The counter-hegemonic hegemonic narrative of what the attitudes of the "liberated" should be about various aspects of sexual behavior. It derails almost any discussion of more subtle points about gender roles etc. Everyone should go read them some Kinsey, maybe for different reasons than it needed to be read in the '50s.
Rank ordering of useful places to learn about the sexuality of "strangers" (without actually having sex with them).
1) Actual careful studies of sexuality.
big gap.
2) Unfogged and other forums of relatively like-minded people.
small gap
3) Playground/alley way.
4) Modern literature, especially those written by heterosexual men.
I don't even know where to rank the comedic underpinnings of hundreds of mainstream teen to young adult movies. Nearly as damaging as the prudishness they purport to rebel against.
I don't want to make too much of this. But by this time of my life I've heard hundreds of hours on what's wrong with guys, and sometimes it's just one guy but often it's generalized to types (the "nice guy") and sometimes, not so much nowadays, generalized to most men. And anything you happen to overhear gets tossed into the mix, even if it was an individual reaction to a specific situation being shared with friends.
Meanwhile, in most of the groups I've belonged to in the last few decades (all except the groups of single men drinking), men have learned not to grumble about women, either as individuals or as types, much less in general.
289: I'm going to keep on pushing back here, gently. Of course you're right that topics like these are sensitive, and feeling sensitive about them isn't misguided. But where the intent (and the literal content of the specific conversation), isn't generalizingly hostile about all men, the fact that listening to stories of women being dissatisfied or unhappy with elements of their particular sexual relationships can be uncomfortable or disturbing for men really isn't a reason to stay away from the topic.
(And to be clear, you haven't said anyone should stay away from the topic. This comment is driven by the fact that we're having a meta-discussion about a particular conversation where a man asked "what's up with my girlfriend", another man answered "sounds like she's been traumatized", the first man agreed "that sounds right to me", and a couple of women came in with "there are non-trauma explanations for the given behavior, and I have been irritated in the past by men going straight for the trauma explanation in contexts where it's incorrect." I don't know who's right or wrong about MvB's girlfriend -- no one does but her. But there can't be anything wrong about women offering this sort of input in response to a man asking about what a woman's likely to be feeling, can there?)
re: 292
But where the intent (and the literal content of the specific conversation), isn't generalizingly hostile about all men, the fact that listening to stories of women being dissatisfied or unhappy with elements of their particular sexual relationships can be uncomfortable or disturbing for men really isn't a reason to stay away from the topic.
Sure, but that wasn't my point, as you note. I'm not interested in shutting down discussion at all.
My point is that these discussions aren't symmetrical, so the cumulative effect goes one way. Every single woman talking about her shitty ex can be completely sincere and their intentions honourable, but the net result can still be a lot of women talking about how shitty men are and men feeling defensive.
there's very little difference between 'slagging' the opposite sex, and 'trying to figure out what's 'normal'' if every discussion of 'normality' hinges on the ways on which men fail to live up to the appropriate standard of normality.
I don't see that any of the discussion here has hinged on how all men fail to live up to the appropriate standard. In fact, the women you seem to be responding to in this thread (though I'm not entirely sure, actually, that you are intending to respond to anything in particular?) all are talking principally about "how I do and don't like to be treated," and how, in the position of MvB's girlfriend they imagine they'd like to be treated, not how men all inadequate.
I know, I know. When a woman says she doesn't like being treated a particular way (e.g. like a fragile doll) she is implicitly criticizing the men who treat her that way. In all due respect, the fellas that are sensitive about that (assuming the criticism is expressed politely, of course) need to skirt up and cope with the fact that, yes, even "nice" guys sometimes do things that are hurtful. The alternative -- and I feel confident this is not where you wanted to go ttaM -- is to say that women shouldn't speak up when they don't like how they are being treated because it might hurt a nice man's feelings.
[Still tired -- please adjust crankiness level of the tone of the above comment to taste.]
294 = me, if the cranky wasn't enough to give that away...
I'm also not entirely convinced of the asymmetrical charge, though the only specific thread I can think of involving a man griping about women is the "mental whateverness" thread.
I'd just like to note for posterity that I remain thoroughly confused--offended, actually--by 36.
In all due respect, the fellas that are sensitive about that (assuming the criticism is expressed politely, of course) need to skirt up and cope with the fact that, yes, even "nice" guys sometimes do things that are hurtful.
No shit. We know this.
Jesus, there are lots of fucking shitty boyfriends out there, and lots of really shitty girlfriends, and nice boyfriends who sometimes do stupid shit, and nice girlfriends who sometimes do stupid shit, and sometimes the people doing stupid shit don't realize they are doing stupid shit and sometimes it helps some or all of the people involved to learn about the stupid shit that people sometimes do and the ways in which that shit is stupid.
This is all a given.
Also, again, to repeat, that's not what I am talking about. You're not reading what I wrote. It's not the fact of the token instances of discussion that's a problem. It's the fact that those discussions only tend to go one way.
And if you don't buy the asymmetry charge, I don't know what to say. It's transparently obvious here and elsewhere.
Again, most of the time, I couldn't give a fuck about it. But I do understand where Emerson is coming from with his 291 and what he's saying isn't totally groundless.
re: 295
Also, I'm pretty cranky myself. Having recently stopped smoking, and gone on a diet. So I am bastard hungry ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
I was going to carp at the 'asymmetry' as well. I can think of a fair number of men around here who've bitched about exes and relationships. Not, to be clear, wrongfully as a whole, but I'm not getting a sense that there's a rule that "Women can say bad things about men, but men can't say bad things about women" if what you mean by 'bad things' includes the conversation in this thread.
(To be clear: I think there is somewhat of a double standard in that someone literally generalizing about the opposite sex is going to get a harsher reaction if they're a man than a woman. A man saying "Women all suck" is more likely to be told "That's incredibly sexist", a woman saying "Men all suck" is more likely to be asked "Aw, bad day? What happened?" But I can picture a pretty tight equivalent to this conversation happening with the sexes flipped: "My boyfriend deesn't like getting head, what is he, gay?" "Sounds like it to me." "Actually, laydeez, some men just aren't into receiving oral sex, and the questioning-his-orientation based on one facet of what he likes in bed is not a great idea -- I had a girlfriend do this to me once, and it irritated the crap out of me." I don't think the above would make anyone turn a hair.)
Perhaps part of the double standard comes from the sentiment "you should have known what I meant/wanted" being more typically female than male. I know that there are women who never say this, women who say what they mean and mean what they say subject to normal human frailty, etc. But it is at least a pattern in pop culture, and IME with some ladies in real life.
Once stung by this stance, men will only gradually accept that a particular woman means what she says + says what she means.
Of course, men have ways to be passive-aggressive about how they talk also, but they're different from this one.
300 crossed with 298. Like I said, I'm not denying there are conversational double standards, some of which are harsher on men than on women (I've brought them up in the past.) I just can't see categorizing this class of conversation as part of a problem.
(And seriously, if I did think there was a double standard applying to this class of conversation, I'd very strongly believe that the solution was to loosen up men's felt inhibitions on talking about this stuff, or remove the social penalties for it, whichever is necessary. Not for women to stop talking about it.)
re: 300
Nah, I think asymmetry is real. It can be exaggerated, but it's there. Both at the level of generalization, as you say, and at the level of concrete specifics.
It doesn't go as far as "Women can say bad things about men, but men can't say bad things about women" but it does go as far as 'men who say bad things about women can expect to be forced to back what they say up and justify themselves as non-sexist much more than in the converse situation'. So it's no an absolute prohibition or anything, but it's there. There's also a tendency towards 'least charitable interpretation of negative things said by men about women'.
I don't think I have a history of being sensitive about this stuff, here, or a history of chucking around sexist generalizations, or whatever. And I'm generally pretty chilled out about people saying bad things about people [of either gender]. But I'm pretty sure I'm not wrong that an asymmetry exists.
Back to the problem at hand, it could be some sort of shame issue, is she ok with you looking at her genitals, or does that also get a flinch?
men's felt inhibitions on talking about this stuff
I assert that this is the primary reason for any asymmetry that exist.
The secondary reason being the foolish notion that if a dude talks about his sex life with his male friends, he is "disrespecting" his girlfriend/wife, a view promulgated by both men and women which is dumb.
And seriously, if I did think there was a double standard applying to this class of conversation, I'd very strongly believe that the solution was to loosen up men's felt inhibitions on talking about this stuff
You're doing it yourself. Now. The immediate response to a potential problem* is that 'here's a way in which men need to change their behaviour, because the problem is men and their felt inhibitions'.
* which I know you're not conceding is real
or remove the social penalties for it, whichever is necessary.
To be fair, she said the above. Of course, the social penalties are often women.
I would have to go back upthread, but I think this conversation started because someone (cala?) was insinuating that Emerson shouldnt have said what he said.
That is hardly encouraging discussion of this issues and much closer to attempting to inhibit men's discussion of these issues.
I'm confused by 306. Are you saying that there's no felt inhibitions, or that stating that the inhibitions are the problem is ipso facto a demonstration of the asymmetry? Because if it's true, it's true. It's not like this is the very first time that LB has contemplated this issue.
Yeah, good point. I didn't properly read what LB wrote.
305: You had to crop that sentence pretty severely to make it look onesided, no?
Yeah, good point. I didn't properly read what LB wrote.
NattarG is dismissive of things written by women.
The pissy response in 310 crossed with 309, and is therefore retracted. Consider it unsaid.
Asymmetrity in conversation is the only reasonable result when you're dealing with asymmetrical situations. Men and women, as groups, ain't in the same situation.
That really isn't a substantive response to ttaM, because even after acknowledging the necessity of asymmetry, one can object to the specifics in how that asymmetry plays out. But I just wanted to put that on the record.
I would have to go back upthread, but I think this conversation started because someone (cala?) was insinuating that Emerson shouldnt have said what he said.
I'd start this facet of the conversation at Emerson's 270: I have thought at times that men shouldn't be listening when women talk about men, and vice versa. Grumbling is completely normal, but perhaps it shouldn't all be shared with everyone.
re: 308
I'm sure there are inhibitions. I'm just uncomfortable about the problem being characterized as being one of men and their inhibitions. You could equally well characterize it as one of women and their hostility to criticism.*
The accusation of asymmetry stems from the fact that the tendency is to reach for the first type of characterization over the second in discussions that range over gender relations.
* N.B: I'm not saying either is perfectly correct.
303: You're not wrong about the asymmetry, ttaM, but I think we're talking about two different things (which I realized at the gym.) I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that Emerson was talking about the sorts of 'is this normal? because this pissed me off' conversations that women have about their partners, and not 'all men are evil', mostly because he used the word 'helpful.' And I think there, it's right to say, 'you're not the object of the intended help.' And I think that holds up for both genders; if I wander in and complain that the advice to MvB upthreador to teo generally isn't helpful to me, I'm on the wrong page.
As to whether there's a double standard as to what point that slagging on women vs. slagging on men is met with 'dude, get over yourself' vs. sympathy, yes, it exists. But I think the source of the double standard is found in the rest of our sexist culture. It's easier not to care about whether someone's slagging on you, or regard it as painfully amusing, when you're the one with the power. (There's an analogy here with comedy and why it's funny for Dave Chappelle to do impersonations of white guys and why it's offensive the other way around, but it's a much smaller scale.)
299: Well, fuck, you should be cranky, then! Sending positive thoughts!!
315: Well, if the problem is "there is an asymmetry in how much men and women grumble about members of the opposite sex in relationships", I don't see how "women are hostile to criticism" is an explanation, if we're talking about intra-gender grumbling.
You know what? Everyone is hostile to the "all men/women do x" claims.
I hadn't noticed this asymmetry before, and while at first I was thinking that ttaM was overstating it, I now think it's more that lw and Cala are right that the asymmetry is there, to some extent, but that it reflects larger societal asymmetries in the other direction and therefore isn't such a big problem.
As to whether there's a double standard as to what point that slagging on women vs. slagging on men is met with 'dude, get over yourself' vs. sympathy, yes, it exists. But I think the source of the double standard is found in the rest of our sexist culture.
Sure, I get that. I think that's probably right as an account of the etiology of a certain type of behaviour and the way in which these discussions pan out.
I'm pretty sure that we've reached the point where it's increasingly pernicious, though. I get increasingly uncomfortable about it, I'm generally not sensitive to this stuff, and I'm pretty politically aware when it comes to gender politics.
I think another reason to feel uncomfortable about it is, is that power relations in society in general and power relations in individual relationships don't mirror each other.* And some of what goes on looks more like bullying than it does like 'the powerless venting against the powerful'.
* somewhat tritely, I know the personal is the political is an old slogan but it doesn't run the opposite way.
Anyway, I'm kind of grumpy, so probably making a stronger case than I really want to.
power relations in society in general and power relations in individual relationships don't mirror each other
Of course you're right about this, but I dare you to find afeminist (man or woman) who's looked at their relationship and hasn't seen their partner trading on their status as a man or woman for some particular privilege or benefit.
What I meant to say is, it's not a perfect mirror, but gender roles do pop up in individual relationships to varying degrees. Sometimes a lot, sometimes only every now and again. And so examining behaviors within larger contexts can be helpful.
re: 322
What I meant to say is, it's not a perfect mirror, but gender roles do pop up in individual relationships to varying degrees. Sometimes a lot, sometimes only every now and again. And so examining behaviors within larger contexts can be helpful.
Sure, I totally agree. And it's certainly been helpful to me to realize that some of the ways I am behaving are pretty definitely a product of sexism [either my own or society's in general].
I'm pretty sure that we've reached the point where it's increasingly pernicious, though. I get increasingly uncomfortable about it, I'm generally not sensitive to this stuff, and I'm pretty politically aware when it comes to gender politics.
This may just be a function of my inexperience (in that it means I don't take any of this relationship discussion personally), but I really don't see this at all. Do you mean just here at Unfogged, or in society more generally?
cor, these birds don't half give you the earache, eh ttaM mate? (I am currently making the international "yackety yack" symbol with both hands)
Also, for Emerson the problem wasn't with the grumbling, but with the grumbling around him. Suggested a different sort of problem than flat-out sexism to me.
And thinking about it that way, it seems the tension is mixing the classic 'women vent about their men to each other because they can't do anything about it' with contemporary 'I have male friends.' Still, that women shouldn't talk about their problems because it might make someone else insecure just seems like a bad solution to me.
Couple of things that may be confusing the discussion -- sex/gender stuff seems really fairly different in the UK. I might be more receptive to your argument if I shared your experiences -- I don't know that that's behind the conflict here, but I wouldn't write it off.
The other thing is that my back is up a bit because this conversation, about MvB's girlfriend, seems generally useful and, while sensitive, unexceptionable to me. I think I'd be a lot more sympathetic if we were coming into the meta discussion from the point of view of defending a man who'd said nothing more objectionable than what the women in this conversation said, but nonetheless got unfairly attacked for it.
re: 324
Both. I suspect my grumpiness about it stems partly from real life [i.e. not Unfogged] as there have been long periods when I've had large circles of female friends and been 'token male'.
327 re: UK/US differences might also be true. I wouldn't know.
re: 325
What is the collective noun for a group of lactation consultants, anyway?
Still, that women shouldn't talk about their problems because it might make someone else insecure just seems like a bad solution to me.
Not my solution. My solution would be, 'vent all you like, but be a bit less hostile when you receive some venting in return'.
What is the collective noun for a group of lactation consultants, anyway?
A rack?
258: in my experience a fair number of women don't like having guys go down on them. It's not uncommon. Lots of reasons -- less intimate (not face to face), clit too sensitive for direct stimulation, prefer penetration, concern about cleanliness, whatever. And before you ask, Sifu, no, my technique does not belong on that list.
by the way, since the entire fucking paradiddle was set off by some bloke moping "ooh dear, nirky narky noo, she doesn't seem to like it when I go down on herrrr, I wonder if there's a problem", I think that the idea that the big solution involves blokes being more inclined to blah on about their fucking relaaaaayshunships like the fucking Cosmo Girl advice page, is counterintuitive to say the least. This was a situation which merited a shrug of the shoulders and a mental "there's odd for you" then carry on with the old life, not an hour's agonised soul-searching. See also "oh I always make sure that the laydeeee comes first", absurd self-regarding fucking preening about, sensitive new age guy phenomenon.
sex/gender stuff seems really fairly different in the UK
I've been wondering about this too. In my IRL experience it is at least not obviously the case that women complaining about their boyfriends in mixed company are given an easier time than men complaining about their girlfriends in similar circumstances.
vent all you like, but be a bit less hostile when you receive some venting in return
I think we can all get behind that.
In fairness, though, I think it's good to try to take these things as a whole. One time, my [male] best friend got pissed at me when he was complaining about something his girlfriend did and I was like "you are totally wrong." I finally had to go through and catalogue all the other times when he complained and I was like "wow, that is bullshit and totally sucks" before he realized that I wasn't just being I-am-feminist-must-defend-all-women.
And for the record, in healthy friendships women do this too. There have been times when I've complained about something my boyfriend did and gotten sympathy from my female friends, and other times when they defended his behavior and told me I needed to chill out. So.
326- I think we should consider that those groups women or men that speak about their sex lives in public, let alone within earshot of opposite sex, may not be a great point of reference.
cor
Andy Capp. Thurber wrote "The Middle-Aged Man on the Flying Trapeze" during a divorce, it's a bit pessimistic, but it's a fantastic and very funny take on male-female relationships. Dawn Powell, writing at about the same time, is really good too.
less intimate (not face to face)
This is opposite to the opinion of several women I know, fwiw.
I love the title "Right Honourable." Very Bill and Tedish.
We may be talking about different conversations, too, because the sorts of conversations I'm thinking of (slagging on s.o.) I've had with both male and female friends, and there isn't an asymmetry most of the time, just sympathy and sometimes suggestions.
re: 331
Actually, it was partly the whole lactation consultant thing of the other day that got me thinking about it. I couldn't really give two fucks about this particular instance.
yeah, but you've got to let the birds have their little moan to each other, otherwise you know their old man's going to get it in the neck when he gets home.
I think we're getting a bit afield, though, of the topic at hand. Which is, of course, when Cala is going to get to my brief (and possibly will's jurisdictional argument).
Back up to m. leblanc's 283: This is my experience, too. Sometimes, I'm in the mood for oral sex, and it's awesome, and sometimes, I'm not, and I know it's not going to result in orgasm, and it's tedious as hell.
I seem to find myself representing an usurer -- Cala, while you're up, a memo on that?
331: The ghost of George MacDonald Frasier didn't stay away long.
As long as it doesn't have to be on topic.
Sometimes, I'm in the mood for oral sex [...] sometime's I'm not
me too. I can tell when I'm in the mood for it because I'm conscious and don't have any wounds requiring immediate attention.
don't have any wounds requiring immediate attention.
Given the general tenor of your conversation, this can't be often.
Yeah I know. This made me cry:
171: You may be suffering from sample bias, or may be just insufficient samples. Come back if it hasn't sorted itself out by roughly N=30.
Juicy, for what it's worth, that totally isn't the way I meant it but I perhaps should have been careful (or I'm misreading the sincerity of above).
It was an offhand way of pointing out that while you may have seen sampling bias, if you are dealing with smallish numbers you really aren't going to be able to tell the difference.
There is nothing wrong with small numbers or large numbers but trying to extrapolate from N=3 is going to be more problematic than extrapolating from N=300.
Not that assuming you know much about population norms with *any* N is a good idea, as we all (obviously) have a sampling bias.
Thinking about all this stuff normatively is just a really bad idea, as far as I can see.
348: yes and tonight's the night!
(I am soooooooo fucking dead).
348 may be the best thing I have read on Unfogged.
Having said that, I am certain that dsquared is not the alpha dog at his house.
I've only run into one, and she was kinda generally freaked out her own genitalia. That pairing didn't last long.
Caught up with the thread...for what it's worth, I agree with ttaM and others that there is a double standard. To some extent in casual conversation, but even more in the culture in general (how many oafish men vs. oafish women do you see in TV commercials?). Compare what reactions would be on, say, a talk show to a husband saying that his wife is insensitive because she has let herself go physically and no longer makes herself attractive to him, vs. a wife saying essentially the same thing about her husband.
My take on it would be that the battle of the sexes is essentially a fairly even one now. But for a wide variety of reasons (ranging from some versions of political feminism on the left to traditionalist conceptions of women as the purer, weaker, and more virtuous sex on the right) there is an acceptance of the idea that women are more frequently victimized than men, and this belief changes the way people react to women's complaints vs. mens.
The underlying problem is the battle itself, not really either side in it. Love is the only answer. But love is difficult and risky (says the aging single guy).
I wonder how gay people talk about this, since they can't blame the disappointments and sacrifices in intimacy on supposed differences between the sexes.
Also, proving yet again that there are no absolute differences between the sexes: I don't particularly like oral sex on me unless it's done exactly right, and if I feel like that won't be to the other persons tastes I'd just rather not bother.
the battle of the sexes is essentially a fairly even one now.
I can pretty much tell you that this is wrong.
in my experience ... And before you ask, Sifu, no, my technique does not belong on that list.
How would you know?
unless it's done exactly right
PGD clearly needs to get flexible enough to auto-fellate.
won't be to the other persons tastes
Ahem.
My take on it would be that the battle of the sexes is essentially a fairly even one now.
My take is that this is a fairly easy thing for a guy to say.
Ogged is rejoicing RIGHT NOW that this thread requires nothing of him.
347: seriously. There are plenty of times when I'm not especially motivated to seek oral sex, but that's about as far as things go. I can think of few daily activities that wouldn't be improved by a blowjob.
To some extent in casual conversation, but even more in the culture in general (how many oafish men vs. oafish women do you see in TV commercials?)
This is idiotic. The "oafish woman" runs counter to stereotype. How about the nagging bitch who won't let her husband grab a beer with the boys?
the battle of the sexes is essentially a fairly even one now.
I honestly have no idea where you get this from.
the battle of the sexes is essentially a fairly even one now
I think the battle of the sexes varies wildly between individual pairs of people. Sometimes she has more power, sometimes he has more power.
357: yeah, I know. Let's agree to disagree.
I can think of few daily activities that wouldn't be improved by a blowjob.
Urination.
354: On the other hand, there's the stereotype where the man can be plump and dumb and land an intelligent hottie who smiles fondly at all the stupid things he does. The battle of the sexes is a little more complicated than it looks like at first, but it's not really equal.
366 is right.
In terms of wider society, of course, in terms of who controls the economic and political power, it's very much NOT won.
366: That's why we need a system of handicaps.
I think the battle of the sexes is about to take a sharp swing in women's favor. Once Carla Bruni rules us all, things are going to be different and much better. She is starting her empire in France. I, for one, welcome our new supermodel overlord.
Reading Unfogged always makes me want to vote for Hillary Clinton. And then I watch debates and I am like "duh, I am voting for Obama." And then I come back to this website again.
re: 373
It's unfortunate that her first album is also really really great.
I think the battle of the sexes varies wildly between individual pairs of people. Sometimes she has more power, sometimes he has more power.
Yes, I agree completely. My claim was on average, it's obviously not a matter of each sex having just the same advantages, and disadvantages in each situation.
374: Edwards is a perfect compromise for you! He's as good as Obama on the issues, but he's womanly.
Why is that unfortunate? I love her first album. I'm so pleased that Sarkozy created a music room for her in the presidential residence.
367:
Then again, let's not. In an individual couple, as heebie-geebie points out you may see any sort of balance. If that's all you meant, fine. In general though, you really don't even begin to have a leg to stand on.
re: 378
Because one person shouldn't have everything. It's just more evidence that there are aliens among us.
Seriously, that album is lovely.
How would you know?
who can ever know? Just trying in vain to pre-empt the inevitable response. I choose to preserve the belief that I am perfectly delightful in all areas.
Carla Bruni is sort of the European version of your own multi-talented heiress, Paris Hilton.
381: fair enough
380: Kind of makes you wonder what sort of deep, dark flaw she has, doesn't it?
whereas the Welsh version of both of them is probably Cerys Matthews, good christ.
Kind of makes you wonder what sort of deep, dark flaw she has, doesn't it?
Doesn't like oral sex? Keeps her retainer in her mouth during oral sex? Doesnt laugh at LB's jokes? Races to the shower after sex?
Races to the shower after LB's jokes? Keeps her retainer in her mouth in the shower?
Could be anything.
her subsequent reactions when it seems like I'm attempting go there
It seems important for you to tell her that you won't go there if she doesn't want you to, even if it appears you're headed there, so she won't get anxious about it, which I'm sure diminishes her overall enjoyment.
Sorry if pwned. I can't read the whole thread as I've got to actually do some work.
352: yeah, by "don't like" I didn't mean an active dislike, just that it was generally not high on the priority list when other options were available, or needed to be combined with other things to be really fun.
In my IRL experience it is at least not obviously the case that women complaining about their boyfriends in mixed company are given an easier time than men complaining about their girlfriends in similar circumstances.
This hasn't been my experience. I think it's vastly more likely that a woman will get the benefit of the doubt if she's reported as performing some undesirable or bizarre act, with the explanation being that she's under a lot of stress, or she's going through an emotional time, or she is probably that way because of some sort of trauma. For a man to get that kind of sympathy he has to either be a combat wounded veteran or be the kind of obviously unstable weirdo who rarely has girlfriends anyway.
Of course this is also a symptom of women being given less credit for agency over their own situation in our still-paternalist society. But it benefits women in this case, as in so many other cases where a person might receive sympathy.
Also I guess we have more sympathy for people whose behavior approaches insanity or evil if they are unlikely to seriously injure us if they freak out. This benefits smaller and less muscular people.
usurer
Time belongs only to God, I forget if usury is taking his name in vain or theft from him.
391: Huh? Usury is charging excessively high interest on a loan.
389: I don't really agree. For one, I have seen plenty of men excused for bizarre or undesirable behavior for reasons like "he's been under alot of stress at work" and it's treated like some understandable, transitory fluke. When a woman's behavior is explained based on stress, it tends to be treated with either pity or contempt, not "she had a bad day" but "she's an emotional nutjob."
In fact, there was a post at B's and I think here as well awhile back about the study showing that women are judged (and compensated) much less forgivingly for getting angry at work. I mean, maybe she gets a "poor dear, the job must be so very demanding" but if that's in exchange for being thought less competent, it's hardly a net gain.
392: Not according to Aquinas, who let himself go.
Or "this proves that women shouldn't be allowed in this high-stakes business." There's a tendency to treat a man who loses his shit due to stress as an individual who lost his shit. I get the sense that due to the presence of the stereotype, a woman who did so would end up confirming a lot of biases about women as a class.
393: Mmm, not IME. I've seen lots of women cry at work and nobody thinks anything about it. If a man cried at work, though, it would be freak people out and be the topic of whispering for days on end.
In fact, there was a post at B's and I think here as well awhile back about the study showing that women are judged (and compensated) much less forgivingly for getting angry at work.
Today the registrar mistakenly put two different classes in the same classroom. The psychology professor was furious, and was going to let them have it but good. (First off, it's probably an honest mistake, so I wasn't actually angry at all.) But it struck me how uncomfortable I would have been to head into the registrar and let them have it, even on something justified.
Probably not a gender thing. I can't see Teo storming into the registrar either. They'd be like, "Why on earth are you in Texas?"
393/396: Again I think this is more a matter of conforming to stereotypes than a matter of difference. People get a pass when they conform to expected ways of losing their shit. So a guy freaks out and breaks something, or a girl freaks out and cries all over someone, and it's mostly ok. Switch the roles though, and it shakes everyone up.
I can't see Teo storming into the registrar either.
Me neither.
They'd be like, "Why on earth are you in Texas?"
And I'd be like, "Is that where I am? Damn, I've got to get home."
I get the sense that due to the presence of the stereotype, a woman who did so would end up confirming a lot of biases about women as a class.
And people's biases get confirmed, but they don't lose any respect for her personally.
I was thinking more in terms of when someone hears a story second-hand. Either among friends or in an anonymous advice-giving situation.
"Dear Friends, My boyfriend did bizarre thing X, and I can't figure out why. It seems so out of character."
"You should probably be afraid of him. Tell him to get some therapy and then see if you can move on with your life."
"Dear Friends, My girlfriend did bizarre thing X, and I can't figure out why. It seems so out of character."
"You should probably be gentle to her. Tell her to get some therapy and try to be supportive."
So a guy freaks out and breaks something [...] and it's mostly ok
Maybe this is just my workplace, but I feel confident that the only people here who could break things and not get fired or sent to mandatory counseling are all on the Board of Directors.
396: But do these sobbing women advance as rapidly and are they as highly paid as the stoic men? Simply saying "nobody thinks anything about it" doesn't really contradict my point, because (as Cala's comment suggests) it's quite possible that nobody thinks anything of it because it is just confirming a pre-existing bias that women are weak, unstable little creatures.
The flip side, too, is how often do you see men at work lose their temper -- screaming at support staff or an opponent or whomever -- and no one thinks anything of it whereas the same angry outburst by a woman would lead to whispering for weeks.
While it has its disadvantages, being a white male, on the whole, seems like a pretty darn good deal to me. White males who think otherwise strike me as whiny.
401: It's your workplace. Or at least, I've worked in places where this was entirely commonplace.
401: It's your workplace. Or at least, I've worked in places where this was entirely commonplace.
402: I'm starting to think that your workplaces are all very different from mine. I've only ever heard female managers scream at other employees, and suspect that any male manager who did so would get the axe due to the implied threat of violence.
whups, sorry.
but apo, feel free to replace `break something' with `yell'
apostropher: anything I say about this should probably be taken in the context that I suspect my work history is a bit different than many here.
When I say commonplace, I'm including trades, construction, demolition, scrap, etc. oh, and kitchens.
Also, my workplace is probably 70-30 female to male, so that may be an asterisk on my anecdata.
Pwned by everyone.
400: This just doesn't describe my experience at all. Me personally, I back the person who is my friend and trash the partner, regardless of gender. But when I hear people talking about this kind of stuff, I really do not hear women getting more leeway than men.
411: Yeah, I wouldn't trade it.
I think its pretty clear from his comments that apostropher works in a brothel.
403/411: Definite advantages. I think you're allowed to acknowledge that it's unfair, all the while enjoying the advantages; that's not necc. whinging.
Sort of a noblesse oblige.
re: 409
Yeah, my experience in mostly female workplaces has been similar to yours.
But I have worked in more male-dominated places where there was the occasional voice-raiser, too.
*I* lost my temper once in a workplace [mostly all women but I lost my temper with a male colleague] and it was the subject of whispering of ages. In my defense, I was *much* younger, it was in the face of extreme provocation,* and I did defuse the situation by walking away.
* this colleagues bullying was sufficiently bad that after this incident he was demoted and had his management position taken off him.
otoh, apo, I've never worked in a majority female workplace. Not even close, I think.
re@ 403
Yes, but it IS important to recognize that while white males, as a group, have advantages, individual white males [really poor ones] do not. It's just that their disadvantage is qua poor, rather than qua white male.
417 is true, and can be particularly hard on white males who are seriously poor and outside a natural family or support group. Everybody, including govt/social workers, and people in the same financial straights can tend to think: wtf is wrong with you you can't make it?
406: IMX that's true but my N is small. I've only run into one screamer in all the years I've been working. She was just plain nuts in other ways too.
particularly hard on white males
White men with hard ons make me uncomfortable at the work-place.
White men with hard ons make me uncomfortable at the work-place.
As a professor with young men in your class, surely you have gotten used to this issue?
Sprinting to a shower can be bad form indeed but I usually allow for moderate psychosis in a willing partner. Myself, I enjoy a washing ritual before I dress but gain reward from the effusial souvenir should I neglect same. But one has to be careful longterm. Smegma is not just a funny word.
421: Where do you think she developed the "like eating an artichoke" blowjob technique?
420/421
priapism is no joke, people.
I didn't mean to start a fight. Sorry guys. If we take out the language of "men" and "women," my reaction is really about the ways that people can be really invested in things they have done well in bed with other people, and when a future partner doesn't like it or doesn't want it, they assume that person is damaged goods, or fucked up in some way.
In my pretty limited experience, men give pretty specific instructions, and a woman is supposed to be enact those instructions, not introducing her "new special thing" that worked on her last boyfriend. This works out pretty well for me, because I don't really have any special moves that I'm invested in and I take direction without a lot of hubbub.
OTOH, as a woman, I've met a lot of guys who are super-invested in their special thing that they do, and if I'm not wild about it, it's assumed there's something wrong with me. He's not asking me what I want, or doing things that arise in the moment---he's using sex to teach me what I'm supposed to like, and if I don't like it, it must be because I'm ashamed of my body or traumatized or something.
I'm aware that these situations are probably reversed for lots of guys here. My sexual experience with girls is not the same as being a guy sleeping with a lot of girls, so your sample of the population may reflect a lot of women who want to teach you their special thing and don't take direction in bed.
huh. That's interesting, AWB. My experience differs from yours, as you suspected.
I suspect there is a more general, perhaps gender correlated (or not, i dunno) division between people who think about sex from the point of view of what they themselves are doing, vs. people who think of it collaboratively, for want of better terms.
425 sounds right to me.
I don't want to develop all these skills using Girlfriend 1.0 and then have them be obsolete on Girlfriend 1.1, dammit! Maybe if I just kludge some things, it'll work again! But I have to overcome these feelings.
And when I hear about women who supposedly have great BJ technique, I can't really believe that it's equally successful with every partner.
I've met a lot of guys who are super-invested in their special thing that they do
Hmmph! That's pretty much every guy about damned near everything they do no matter how unspecial it really is. It's a hold-over from childhood. "Mommy! Mommy! Watch me download this document into a NEW FOLDER!"
I'll add that the "body shame" thing is particularly annoying to me because I'm overweight and perfectly content with that. I've only been in this situation when very young and with young guys, but imagine not liking something your partner is doing to you, and trying to encourage him to do something else, and then he says, "Oh, you don't want my face down there because you're ashamed of being fat, aren't you? You're beautiful to me, honey!" That's a mood-killer, my friends.
And when I hear about women who supposedly have great BJ technique, I can't really believe that it's equally successful with every partner.
Teh true. Blowjobs are really difficult, and no one likes the same things, so you're constantly having to modify your approach.
But the skills you gained from GF 1.0 aren't totally obsolete, in that the learning curve with a new partner gets shorter every time. It's not that people who are good in bed have a lot of great moves or something; it's that they adapt really quickly to new demands.
John Emerson is wrong. Gee, I never thought I'd ever say that. About men overhearing women's complaint's about men, I mean. What better time to make the "I'm not like those other guys" argument? You know, undermine the competition. We really are a hopeless sex and if I score a few points by undermining my fellow man I'm sure Darwin would approve.
It's not that people who are good in bed have a lot of great moves or something; it's that they adapt really quickly to new demands.
"Is that one of the kids crying in their room?"
"No, no, don't be silly. Must be the dog. Keep going."
430: Like learning one romance language makes the others much easier, or something.
AWB reminds us again that you can say any number of nice things to somebody, but it can all be counterproductive if you assume you know what they are thinking and turn out to be wrong.
It's not that people who are good in bed have a lot of great moves or something; it's that they adapt really quickly to new demands.
But watching "The Move" episode of seinfeld was such a formative experience for me! Oh well.
Upon further investigation that episode was "The Fusilli Jerry". That's what makes Seinfeld great, that every good episode is also another good episode that you didn't realize was the same one.
You're just taking advantage of Ogged being on hiatus to talk approvingly about Seinfeld, aren't you?
Not Seinfeld, Seinfeld. I don't like Seinfeld that much, although I respect his steadfast refusal to play any part other than himself.
taking advantage of Ogged being on hiatus
fart fart fart fart fart fart fart.
429- I think that's right. A guy can have a sense that he's 'gotten it', making him better than all those dorks whom women complain about. And a woman who doesn't reinforce that has something wrong with her.
taking advantage of Ogged being on hiatus
Analogous to when you get the substitute teacher in grade school... :-P
IMO, Class and race generally trump gender. Being a middle class white American is a good deal, period, whether you're male or female.
In our society the genders are born into similar social classes, so there is no systematic class disadvantage as one sees e.g. between the races. That's a big reason for women's phenomenal educational and labor market rise since the early 70s, there wasn't a class divide to overcome.
their disadvantage is qua poor, rather than qua white male.
the poor white male will live a shorter life, be 10-15 times more likely to serve time in jail (not sure of the stats for whites only there, but the gap is big), be more likely to be a victim of crime, be more likely to be injured in the workplace or by accidents, etc. Those are all related to the interaction of gender and social class.
Granted, a lot of those problems are "his fault" in some sense, but I think there are gender disadvantages as well. Testosterone can be a dangerous drug to be on.
Granted, a lot of those problems are "his fault" in some sense, but I think there are gender disadvantages as well.
misstated this -- I was saying that problems that are "his fault" could also a part of the gender disadvantage, if you think young men are predisposed to greater levels of physically risky behavior.
438: If we're going that route, let's go all out.
Speaking of hiatus, kudos to the Labs-Becks 4-4 tie on keeping things lively. LB, ben, apo, meet tia, unf, alameida.
Was there ever really a Bob?
Young women can do some pretty incredibly risky stuff, too, of course, but it's probably less likely to be the drag-race-at-midnight type.
443: That's pretty fucking funny. Especially:
*Did the fart a fart of fart fart's "fart"? No, but it fart fart' fart of "fart fart fart fart." **fart is fart.
444: I've actually been mostly on hiatus, posting-wise, for a couple of months now. No one's noticed because I comment so much. If I get this job I'm hoping for, I'll cut way back on the commenting, but I'll start posting again.
How soon do you think you'll hear?
446: I'm rather fond of the post titles "Land Of The Free, Home Of The fart" and "How to help: fart on fire".
the poor white male will live a shorter life, be 10-15 times more likely to serve time in jail (not sure of the stats for whites only there, but the gap is big), be more likely to be a victim of crime, be more likely to be injured in the workplace or by accidents, etc. Those are all related to the interaction of gender and social class.
While men as a group may have an advantage over women as a group, this comes along with a much broader distribution of fortunes among men than among women. Men are disproportionately billionaires and also disproportionately homeless or in prison.
1: I've met a lot of guys who are super-invested in their special thing that they do
2:Hmmph! That's pretty much every guy about damned near everything they do no matter how unspecial it really is.
See, that's how guys are supposed to be. Don't people always say that one of the keys to dating is "confidence"?
448: Couldn't rightly tell you. On Friday, I got the impression that it would be fairly brisk, but (a) this is from people who originally interviewed in, I believe, July, so who can tell and (b) it's Wednesday already, so clearly not that brisk.
451: I've even noticed this in my classes' grade distributions. White males tend to fall on either end of the grade spectrum, while women and non-white males tend to fall across the middle. Reading their papers, it's obvious that white men take more risks, either for good or for ill. It's a small-scale version of the same thing, but people who feel safer, socially, will be more likely to gamble with their future.
452: No, it's competence. People confuse the two pretty often.
454: It's hard to underestimate the effect of the difference between growing up hearing `it will work out ok in the end' and `if you make but one mistake, you're screwed'
455 is true in both directions.
people who feel safer, socially, will be more likely to gamble with their future.
if people are safe, it's not really gambling (the trust fund kid who takes a "risk" on starting up a company, knowing he can just go to law school if it fails).
There's another effect, which is that people who think that they are screwed no matter what are more likely to take a "live fast, die young" approach to life. If you don't think you're going to college anyway, you won't care as much about risking your future prospects.
452: No, it's competence. People confuse the two pretty often.
What you hear is "confidence". "Competence" is often denigrated.
Confidence is an integral element of competence. It is should not be confused with arrogance, but often is.
As a professor with young men in your class, surely you have gotten used to this issue?
Heebie, that's when you're supposed to call on them to stand up and do a problem at the chalkboard. That's what my teachers seemed to do, anyway.
349: Juicy, for what it's worth, that totally isn't the way I meant it but I perhaps should have been careful (or I'm misreading the sincerity of above).
Thanks for the apology Soup Biscuit. It wasn't necessary. I knew that wasn't the way you meant it. I was just a little horrified of the prospect of having 30 sexual partners. Dating for me is unfortunately an extremely long and tedious process. But I'm quite comfortable with 3 at the mo.
But your point on thinking about anything like this in the normative sense being bad is duly noted. What's normal anyway?
I disagree somewhat with 463. While I agree that competence often leads to confidence, that's not the only thing going on. First, there are plenty of competent people who aren't (yet?) confident of their abilities, and sell themselves short. Secondly, having absorbed the `women like confident men' idea, many men will work on projecting confidence rather than anything underlying it. Similar perhaps to arrogance, but not the same thing.
Confidence, unlike arrogance, has a real benefit -- but the value of competence vastly outweighs it. From the outside though, it can be pretty hard to tell the difference, which I think is (part of?) what AWB was getting at.
Does anyone here actually have "moves"? I like to think I'm no slouch in the boudoir department, but I can't think of anything particularly awesome I do that my current partner didn't ask me to do.
The one thing I thought was pretty cool that came ready-made into my sex life was Max's genius for sexual positions. It wasn't a "move" exactly, but he'd obviously tried some of these things before. It's not like they were, like, mind-blowingly stimulating or anything, but they were often really disorienting, which is always fun.
Is 463 directed specifically to the dating context? If so, I don't have a quarrel with it. If meant more generally, I think there exist extremely competent but also extremely insecure people -- often competent in a very specialized field of endeavor. (And that insecurity, in this context, is not at all inconsistent with arrogance.)
Does anyone here actually have "moves"?
No. I want to say: good lord, I hope nobody does! But it's true I've encountered men who seem to think they have a "move," which is usually kind of silly and doesn't work at all.
It's possible some people have moves they're so good at, i.e. sensitive enough to know when the right time to apply them is, that they don't come across as moves. In which case one would never know.
Does anyone here actually have "moves"?
I press X, Y, A, XXY for a six-hit combo plus finishing move in which my penis strikes from across the room, it's a guaranteed instant orgasm if you get the timing right.
Hit enter, then the cheat code: all your orgasm are belong to us
I think a lot of us end up having what become recurring "moves". We just have to accept that they only function in one relationship.
Those credits don't transfer, so to speak.
474: What happens if you hit Ctrl-Alt-Del then?
I used to have the Game Genie. Starting a level with maximum game was nice, but the option to kill any character just by jumping on them got inconvenient.
Those credits don't transfer, so to speak across platforms.
474: It brings up the Task Manager, where you can choose to end certain process that are not functioning.
479: Could you also bring up the performance indicators tab? I'd wanna see what my usage history and my commit charge is.
Could you also bring up the performance indicators tab?
I don't know, but if you play your cards right you might get root access.
you might get root access
Not with those cookies, mister.
Does anyone here actually have "moves"?
Twist her nipples like a stuck radio dial, then an earsplitting rebel yell! YEEE-HAW!
Punch your lover in the head right when you're about to come*.
* not if they're going down on you
