A discussion of the “biology” of sex, by gender

[Jon Osterman]

What skills do you believe a man need have in order to be good at sex, and how easy are they to develop?
What skills do you believe a woman need have in order to be good at sex, and how easy are they to develop?

I don't claim to be an expert on sex. But his(?) suggestion that all men need from a woman is "a hole that's preferably moist into which [they] can thrust" is very offensive. You must see that?

 

[prideandfall]

What skills do you believe a man need have in order to be good at sex, and how easy are they to develop?
What skills do you believe a woman need have in order to be good at sex, and how easy are they to develop?

I don't claim to be an expert on sex. But his(?) suggestion that all men need from a woman is "a hole that's preferably moist into which [they] can thrust" is very offensive. You must see that?

except for the part where that's not even remotely close to what i said.

what i said was:
all women need to do in order to be good at sex on a physical level is to have a hole, preferably moist, into which we can thrust repeatedly.

that is objectively and demonstrably true (well, obviously leaving room for discussion on what constitutes "good" but in this case i'm defining it as "feels pleasurable in a way that induces an orgasm in relatively short order) for probably near 99% of men.

 

[Jon Osterman]

I don't claim to be an expert on sex. But his(?) suggestion that all men need from a woman is "a hole that's preferably moist into which [they] can thrust" is very offensive. You must see that?

except for the part where that's not even remotely close to what i said.

what i said was:
all women need to do in order to be good at sex on a physical level is to have a hole, preferably moist, into which we can thrust repeatedly.

that is objectively and demonstrably true (well, obviously leaving room for discussion on what constitutes "good" but in this case i'm defining it as "feels pleasurable in a way that induces an orgasm in relatively short order) for probably near 99% of men.

So, it's exactly as I said. Your claim is that this "property" is all that men require in a woman to have "good" sex. Bullshit and offensive.

 

[southernhybrid]

Still enjoying the thread. Hope it's ok to post another dodgy joke while waiting for more substantive posts.

Did you hear about the Irish guy who went to live in New York? He would ask American women that he met in a bar if they had any Irish in them and if not would they like some?

Okay, I have one that may not be that funny, but it's true. It's true.

A young nursing student asked her 90 year old female patient at what age she lost interest in sex. The older lady looked at the student and said, "Sorry honey, you'll have to ask someone a lot older than me for the answer."

As someone who worked as a nurse for over 4 decades, mostly caring for older adults, I can promise you that there are a lot of older women that still want sex. Last year, two of them told me that the male partners who pursued them couldn't "get an erection." Although, they did enjoy some "heavy petting." That's not a joke. My former patients told me a lot of things that they would never tell anyone else. I'm pretty sure that Medicare drug plans no longer pay for Viagra and that stuff is expensive. It no longer pays for HRT either, which I often refer to as Viagra for ladies. I'm not sure how my pharmacy convinced my drug plan to pay for over half of my cost, but whatever they said worked. Another important part of sex pleasure for older women is having a very high quality lube. I personally recommend Pjur. It's expensive but well worth it. Finally, Natalie Angier wrote a book called, "Woman, An Intimate Geography." The book is almost 20 years old now, so it may be out of print, but I still have a copy. She suggests that older women smoke a little weed prior to sex. Just sayin'.

Maybe we need a thread about sex in old age, since quite a few of us contributing to this thread are over 50. And, I realize that there are a small percentage of people that are asexual and have no desire for sex. I respect the fact that sexual desire and orientation are not the same for all of us.

 

[prideandfall]

I don't claim to be an expert on sex. But his(?) suggestion that all men need from a woman is "a hole that's preferably moist into which [they] can thrust" is very offensive. You must see that?

except for the part where that's not even remotely close to what i said.

what i said was:
all women need to do in order to be good at sex on a physical level is to have a hole, preferably moist, into which we can thrust repeatedly.

that is objectively and demonstrably true (well, obviously leaving room for discussion on what constitutes "good" but in this case i'm defining it as "feels pleasurable in a way that induces an orgasm in relatively short order) for probably near 99% of men.

So, it's exactly as I said. Your claim is that this "property" is all that men require in a woman to have "good" sex. Bullshit and offensive.

.... are you being intentionally obtuse here and misreading this on purpose, or did you take the interactive tour of the head injury factory this week?

i'll give you one opportunity to take the benefit of the doubt that you're simply confused and make this so blisteringly clear that even a hamster could understand it:
from the content and context of my post i would have thought it obvious that "good at sex on a purely physical level" simply means "capable of stimulating the genitals sufficiently to induce orgasm" - and unless you're trying to argue that the overwhelmingly vast majority of males require nothing else than moderate levels of stimulating to achieve orgasm, that is a factually accurate statement all around.

i have no idea from what end of who's ass you're pulling "all men need from a woman" or "all women are good for" crap, but i'm speaking in strictly physical terms here, not relating to human value nor to the broader topic of sexuality which is distinctly different from the mechanical process of inducing an orgasm.
"all men need is a hole to stick it in to achieve orgasm" is a functionally identical statement to "all your stomach needs is a digestible material your digestive system can break down into usable parts to achieve nutrients"

 

[TSwizzle]

what i said was:
all women need to do in order to be good at sex on a physical level is to have a hole, preferably moist, into which we can thrust repeatedly.

that is objectively and demonstrably true (well, obviously leaving room for discussion on what constitutes "good" but in this case i'm defining it as "feels pleasurable in a way that induces an orgasm in relatively short order) for probably near 99% of men.

Crude and I doubt demonstrably true. And changing the definition of "good sex" to "feels pleasurable" is a cop out.

 

[prideandfall]

Crude and I doubt demonstrably true.

i disagree that it's crude, it's just apt.

and not demonstrably true? are you serious?
do i even need to bother with mentioning the list of things commonly held to be male genital stimulation aids?
from hands to towels to socks to water-filled balloons to bits of rubber... from animals to couch cushions to fridge doors... from faces to asses to feet to cleavage... if there's a place a man can stick it that will rub his dick, he'll stick it there and damn well like it.

there's certainly a percentage of men who are atypical and have a physical need for a finger up their ass or a rubber band around their balls or their wife trilling about what a meaty black cock they have in order to even get an erection much less do anything with it, but those men are a sadly tragic (for them i mean) off-shoot of the nominal male physiology that basically just need about 3/4th of their dick's circumference to be enveloped and a minimal amount of friction applied in order to attain orgasm within a few minutes.

And changing the definition of "good sex" to "feels pleasurable" is a cop out.

well firstly i think there's a valid argument to be made that the two terms are pretty much interchangeable for a vast majority of men, but secondly... i didn't change it, i clarified what i meant. it's called conceding that my wording may have been insufficient to properly express what i was intending, and trying to do better at explaining it.

 

[Jon Osterman]

.... are you being intentionally obtuse here and misreading this on purpose, or did you take the interactive tour of the head injury factory this week?

Let's leave the ad hominem attacks aside...

from the content and context of my post i would have thought it obvious that "good at sex on a purely physical level" simply means "capable of stimulating the genitals sufficiently to induce orgasm" - and unless you're trying to argue that the overwhelmingly vast majority of males require nothing else than moderate levels of stimulating to achieve orgasm, that is a factually accurate statement all around.

...And again, no, "a hole that's preferably moist into which we can thrust repeatedly" is not the requirement for "good at sex on a physical level". These are direct quotes from your post! I note you have changed it to "capable of stimulating the genitals sufficiently to induce orgasm", with fake quotation marks to make to seem like that was your statement, and while this is a slight bit better, it is still pretty awful.

"all men need is a hole to stick it in to achieve orgasm" is a functionally identical statement to "all your stomach needs is a digestible material your digestive system can break down into usable parts to achieve nutrients"

No it isn't. A better analogy would be saying that "good food" is anything your stomach can digest. Again, it isn't. Your initial statement was moronic and your attempts to justify yourself since are pathetic.

 

[prideandfall]

Let's leave the ad hominem attacks aside...

it's not an ad hom when it's true, which your replies below tend to suggest that it is.

"a hole that's preferably moist into which we can thrust repeatedly" is not the requirement for "good at sex on a physical level".

i never said it was, so i have no idea what the hell you're on about.

These are direct quotes from your post!

no, actually, it isn't. it's a direct and obvious distortion of what i said for reasons i can't begin to fathom.

I note you have changed it to "capable of stimulating the genitals sufficiently to induce orgasm", with fake quotation marks to make to seem like that was your statement, and while this is a slight bit better, it is still pretty awful.

i didn't change anything, i clarified.

No it isn't.

yes it is.

 

[TSwizzle]

what i said was:
all women need to do in order to be good at sex on a physical level is to have a hole, preferably moist, into which we can thrust repeatedly.

that is objectively and demonstrably true (well, obviously leaving room for discussion on what constitutes "good" but in this case i'm defining it as "feels pleasurable in a way that induces an orgasm in relatively short order) for probably near 99% of men.

Crude and I doubt demonstrably true. And changing the definition of "good sex" to "feels pleasurable" is a cop out.

well firstly i think there's a valid argument to be made that the two terms are pretty much interchangeable from a vast majority of men,

I think that is highly unlikely.

but secondly... i didn't change it, i clarified what i meant. it's called conceding that my wording may have been insufficient to properly express what i was intending, and trying to do better at explaining it.

Fair enough but I think most people and men in particular see that there is a difference between the two. I certainly do. I could use artificial stimulation (a sex toy that has a moist/lubricated hole for example) and reach orgasm but I would not regard the experience as good sex, pleasurable certainly. And so it goes on, an enthusiastic and willing partner that does all sorts of stuff is different (good sex) to a passive partner who lies on their back and watches the TV while you thrust away for a minute to reach orgasm I would not regard that experience as good sex.

 

[prideandfall]

I could use artificial stimulation (a sex toy that has a moist/lubricated hole for example) and reach orgasm but I would not regard the experience as good sex, pleasurable certainly.

oh absolutely... which is why a couple posts back i made a point of saying that i wasn't referring to sexuality, which is a whole other thing and obviously is way more complicated than that.

and again since there still seems to be some confusion, i'm not saying that a good feeling hole is good sex, i'm saying a good feeling hole is all that's necessary to induce a man to orgasm, and that when it comes to the broader point being raised in the OP (because let's not forget there is an OP in this thread that was talking about something specifically and which was the context for my original post that kicked off this side conversation) that being able to have your genitals feel good and have an orgasm is something men kind of take for granted because it's so easy for us.
which is back to the OP, because taking into consideration male pleasure with sex vs. female discomfort, you have to consider what is physically required in order to stimulate each gender to induce pleasure and orgasm.

And so it goes on, an enthusiastic and willing partner that does all sorts of stuff is different (good sex) to a passive partner who lies on their back and watches the TV while you thrust away for a minute to reach orgasm I would not regard that experience as good sex.

which is fine because, and i can't believe i'm having to say this for like the 50th time, i never said that was good sex.

 

[TSwizzle]

which is fine because, and i can't believe i'm having to say this for like the 50th time, i never said that was good sex.

But it was pleasurable so it must have been good sex, the terms are interchangeable.

 

[prideandfall]

But it was pleasurable so it must have been good sex, the terms are interchangeable.

i assume that was an attempt at being biting by mentioning half of a quote of mine from a page ago?
if so that's both cute and kind of sad, since absent the context or the rest of the sentence it loses a lot.

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe we need a thread about sex in old age, since quite a few of us contributing to this thread are over 50.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'm not embarrassed to admit it's probably my favourite subject. Plus my wife doesn't check my posts here, as far as I know. Not that I would ever be indiscreet enough to say anything she might object to me saying. I hope.

 

[ruby sparks]

What skills do you believe a man need have in order to be good at sex, and how easy are they to develop?
What skills do you believe a woman need have in order to be good at sex, and how easy are they to develop?

Whatever the answers are to that, imo a lot of the right ones would be the same or very similar in both cases. I'm not saying all. And it's just my opinion. I'm not sure how true it would be for sub/dom.

And then there's the compatibility factor, where if two people in a particular relationship agree on the same answers......or agree that different answers are just the ticket, well, they've struck it lucky.

 

[Jon Osterman]

to be "good at sex" for a man on a physical level you need a hole that's preferably moist into which we can thrust repeatedly.

Followed by...

"a hole that's preferably moist into which we can thrust repeatedly" is not the requirement for "good at sex on a physical level".

i never said it was, so i have no idea what the hell you're on about.

These are direct quotes from your post!

no, actually, it isn't.

I must admit, I am rather stunned by your balls to contradict the evidence that is right in front of you, documented in this thread. Amazing!

Wait a minute... are you Trump?

 

[Emily Lake]

What skills do you believe a man need have in order to be good at sex, and how easy are they to develop?
What skills do you believe a woman need have in order to be good at sex, and how easy are they to develop?

I don't claim to be an expert on sex. But his(?) suggestion that all men need from a woman is "a hole that's preferably moist into which [they] can thrust" is very offensive. You must see that?

Offensive, sure I can see that. I'm not questioning that.

But you also claimed that it was 'utter bullshit'. That's the part I'm questioning. Do you mind responding to the questions I asked?

 

[Emily Lake]

I personally recommend Pjur. It's expensive but well worth it.

Seconded. There's another one that I have, but I can't recall the name offhand. Very natural feeling, not oily, but also doesn't evaporate right away, and doesn't get sticky.

She suggests that older women smoke a little weed prior to sex. Just sayin'.

Yeah... I suggest that women of any age at all should smoke a little weed about 20 minutes prior to sex. Since it's been legalized, I've been a bit astonished at the effect it has on my libido. I don't recall that particular side effect from when I was younger... but it is definitely there!

Maybe we need a thread about sex in old age, since quite a few of us contributing to this thread are over 50.

Probably not a bad idea. I'm not over 50 yet, but menopause runs early in my family, and some medical complications have contributed.

 

[prideandfall]

I must admit, I am rather stunned by your balls to contradict the evidence that is right in front of you, documented in this thread. Amazing!

when i said "good at sex on a physical level" i meant "able to stimulate the genitals of the other person enough to induce orgasm" and several people blatantly didn't understand that.
i have attempted repeatedly to clarify so that those of you who don't seem to grasp how words work can get the point i'm attempting to make instead of posting repeatedly about straw men based on your misunderstanding of my meaning.
(or, conversely, i worded my thoughts extremely badly to a degree where understanding was hampered, and have since made an effort to better express myself)
in response to this, you have decided to continually attack a straw man that is no way connected to the actual point that i was making, and an invention of your own imaginings.

so congratulations on expressing the extent to which you fail at communication. have fun with that.

 

[ruby sparks]

Maybe we need a thread about sex in old age, since quite a few of us contributing to this thread are over 50.

Probably not a bad idea. I'm not over 50 yet, but menopause runs early in my family, and some medical complications have contributed.

No sooner said than done.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?13072-Sex-and-the-older-person&p=505309#post505309