Sexual Desire and Feedback Loops

[rousseau]

This is a bit of a softball thread, but I thought it might be interesting to shoot the shit about the physiological side of sex for a bit.

The way I figure, sexual desire, sexual activity, and sexual relationships are the result of positive feedback loops. I can't pretend to understand female sexuality as much, but obviously I get men's a little better.

Basically, for men, it goes something like this:
- for lack of a better term, as time goes by men have a greater and greater need for 'release', a positive feedback loop in itself. The likelihood of orgasm is directly proportional to the amount of time since the last one

- because of this basic physiological loop, as time goes by men are more likely to think about either women in general, or specific women (or whoever/whatever they're attracted to). In consequence they're more likely to want to be around either women in general, or specific women. This either feeds back into general sexual desire, or sexual desire for specific women. If someone they want to be with is always in their proximity, by nature the attraction is going to grow

- eventually this can all lead into a pretty intense desire to actually be with the object of their attraction, until sexual behaviour results

So I'd think something like this is happening pretty much all the time. The body is literally oriented to sense sexually attractive people and draw them in, all the time. So the only way to *not* make advances on someone you're attracted to is to consciously stop yourself from doing so. And this is likely why we see so many problems of sexual abuse, because people's craving for sex overrides the conscious stop-light.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'll dispute the contention that "men have a greater and greater need for 'release'" although I can understand why it would seem so, to a casual male observer.

The difference in the apparent need for release, between men and women, is easily explained if one considers the difference in potential risks. For the female, pregnancy is a significant investment in time and health. Beyond that, self preservation forces her to be selective when choosing a mate, because she will be disabled at the time of birth and for an undetermined period afterward. These priorities mean some men will not be well received, or rejected entirely, in favor of the man who appears to be good father material(whatever current conditions demand).

This sets in play a dynamic in which women must conceal their innate sexual desires from all men, except the superior Daddies, because most men see any display of sexual interest, as an interest in themselves. This can be seen in "cat calling" displays seen if a woman walks down the street in a tight short skirt with exposed cleavage. She maybe signaling sexual desire and availability, but not to the guy who's leaning against the wall outside the game store.

 

[repoman]

when you said feedback loop I was thinking about how people develop a stronger taste for what they saw (in media) or the type of person that they have already had an orgasm with. An orgasm is a strong reinforcer.

So, if you had a been with redhead that turned your gears well then you might develop a general interest in redheads. Attributing the good sex to hair color when it is not rationally related - though red hair can have an aesthetic charm admittedly.

But with all the porn around it would be funny if you looked for redheads and then leapfrogged through a couple different kinks.

 

[Bronzeage]

when you said feedback loop I was thinking about how people develop a stronger taste for what they saw (in media) or the type of person that they have already had an orgasm with. An orgasm is a strong reinforcer.

So, if you had a been with redhead that turned your gears well then you might develop a general interest in redheads. Attributing the good sex to hair color when it is not rationally related - though red hair can have an aesthetic charm admittedly.

But with all the porn around it would be funny if you looked for redheads and then leapfrogged through a couple different kinks.

My general (and specialized) interest in redheads predated my experience with one, by several years. As an aside, "Yes, it's true."

I will concede that what one sees in porn can have and effect on what is, and isn't, exciting. I draw on a limited body of data, namely my own experiences. The earliest of these experiences were before porn became so easily accessible. Without being too graphic, I had my first close up view of a vagina long before I ever saw a color photograph of one.

My other limited body of data comes from conversations with writers who asked for editing assistance. These are mostly young women who want to write erotic short stories. I know, some men have all the luck. It gave me a clinical view of not only their sexual fantasies, but also their sexual experience and knowledge. Their experience was generally limited and their knowledge and fantasies was provided, or at least inspired by on-line porn. It can get scary.

 

[rousseau]

I'll dispute the contention that "men have a greater and greater need for 'release'" although I can understand why it would seem so, to a casual male observer.

The difference in the apparent need for release, between men and women, is easily explained if one considers the difference in potential risks. For the female, pregnancy is a significant investment in time and health. Beyond that, self preservation forces her to be selective when choosing a mate, because she will be disabled at the time of birth and for an undetermined period afterward. These priorities mean some men will not be well received, or rejected entirely, in favor of the man who appears to be good father material(whatever current conditions demand).

This sets in play a dynamic in which women must conceal their innate sexual desires from all men, except the superior Daddies, because most men see any display of sexual interest, as an interest in themselves. This can be seen in "cat calling" displays seen if a woman walks down the street in a tight short skirt with exposed cleavage. She maybe signaling sexual desire and availability, but not to the guy who's leaning against the wall outside the game store.

By 'greater and greater' need for release I didn't mean greater than women, I meant over time the urge to get off gets worse and worse until it actually happens, in the same way the longer one goes without eating the hungrier they get.

Talking about female sexuality is interesting, though, because while I'm not clueless about it, I clearly don't have as intuitive of an understanding of it as I do about male sexuality. Everything you've said above makes enough sense, but I'd be interested to know to what extent women crave sex, compared to men. Is it exactly the same? Are there any differences? Do they experience it in different ways?

The only thing I've really gathered is what you've said above, and related to that, sex itself is sometimes a lot more emotional for women. Out of all the partners I've had, the sex has been best when there was a strong trusting, emotional bond between both of us. Until that happened, the women tended to be a bit nervous and restricted. Given I've also met a number of women who didn't give a shit and just wanted to get off (usually feminists).

 

[Bronzeage]

I'll dispute the contention that "men have a greater and greater need for 'release'" although I can understand why it would seem so, to a casual male observer.

The difference in the apparent need for release, between men and women, is easily explained if one considers the difference in potential risks. For the female, pregnancy is a significant investment in time and health. Beyond that, self preservation forces her to be selective when choosing a mate, because she will be disabled at the time of birth and for an undetermined period afterward. These priorities mean some men will not be well received, or rejected entirely, in favor of the man who appears to be good father material(whatever current conditions demand).

This sets in play a dynamic in which women must conceal their innate sexual desires from all men, except the superior Daddies, because most men see any display of sexual interest, as an interest in themselves. This can be seen in "cat calling" displays seen if a woman walks down the street in a tight short skirt with exposed cleavage. She maybe signaling sexual desire and availability, but not to the guy who's leaning against the wall outside the game store.

By 'greater and greater' need for release I didn't mean greater than women, I meant over time the urge to get off gets worse and worse until it actually happens, in the same way the longer one goes without eating the hungrier they get.

Talking about female sexuality is interesting, though, because while I'm not clueless about it, I clearly don't have as intuitive of an understanding of it as I do about male sexuality. Everything you've said above makes enough sense, but I'd be interested to know to what extent women crave sex, compared to men. Is it exactly the same? Are there any differences? Do they experience it in different ways?

The only thing I've really gathered is what you've said above, and related to that, sex itself is sometimes a lot more emotional for women. Out of all the partners I've had, the sex has been best when there was a strong trusting, emotional bond between both of us. Until that happened, the women tended to be a bit nervous and restricted. Given I've also met a number of women who didn't give a shit and just wanted to get off (usually feminists).

First, there is a very wide range of "urge to get off," in men. Some men think a day without an orgasm is some kind of waterboarding, while others can go and indefinite time. The same is true for women. Most men and women are somewhere in the middle.

In my experience, women crave sex like hungry beasts, if you know what to say. At that point, their political opinions seem irrelevant.

 

[rousseau]

By 'greater and greater' need for release I didn't mean greater than women, I meant over time the urge to get off gets worse and worse until it actually happens, in the same way the longer one goes without eating the hungrier they get.

Talking about female sexuality is interesting, though, because while I'm not clueless about it, I clearly don't have as intuitive of an understanding of it as I do about male sexuality. Everything you've said above makes enough sense, but I'd be interested to know to what extent women crave sex, compared to men. Is it exactly the same? Are there any differences? Do they experience it in different ways?

The only thing I've really gathered is what you've said above, and related to that, sex itself is sometimes a lot more emotional for women. Out of all the partners I've had, the sex has been best when there was a strong trusting, emotional bond between both of us. Until that happened, the women tended to be a bit nervous and restricted. Given I've also met a number of women who didn't give a shit and just wanted to get off (usually feminists).

First, there is a very wide range of "urge to get off," in men. Some men think a day without an orgasm is some kind of waterboarding, while others can go and indefinite time. The same is true for women. Most men and women are somewhere in the middle.

In my experience, women crave sex like hungry beasts, if you know what to say. At that point, their political opinions seem irrelevant.

Another big factor on both sides of the coin is 'will this relationship be socially acceptable to my friends and family'. If a man or woman gives someone enough rational reasons to not be with them, the relationship won't happen, whether it's a one night stand or long-term.

All of the relationships I've had happened because the circumstances were ideal at the time for the relationship to work:
- our experience levels were similar
- both single
- similar level of attractiveness
- good enough chemistry
- life situations melded
- and opportunity arose

Knowing what to say, as you say, is a huge part of it. Your character can only be discerned by what you say and what you do, and your character is the most important aspect of a relationship, especially for men as women seem to be very perceptive of that type of thing, whereas men are often not as choosy.

The big one that people get (stupidly) angsty about is money. Once you're out of adolescence you have to recognise that a big component of relationships is money. A partnership is about life support as much as it is sex and kids, and so if you can't support your potential partner, that's a big red flag.

 

[Toni]

First, there is a very wide range of "urge to get off," in men. Some men think a day without an orgasm is some kind of waterboarding, while others can go and indefinite time. The same is true for women. Most men and women are somewhere in the middle.

In my experience, women crave sex like hungry beasts, if you know what to say. At that point, their political opinions seem irrelevant.

Another big factor on both sides of the coin is 'will this relationship be socially acceptable to my friends and family'. If a man or woman gives someone enough rational reasons to not be with them, the relationship won't happen, whether it's a one night stand or long-term.

All of the relationships I've had happened because the circumstances were ideal at the time for the relationship to work:
- our experience levels were similar
- both single
- similar level of attractiveness
- good enough chemistry
- life situations melded
- and opportunity arose

Knowing what to say, as you say, is a huge part of it. Your character can only be discerned by what you say and what you do, and your character is the most important aspect of a relationship, especially for men as women seem to be very perceptive of that type of thing, whereas men are often not as choosy.

The big one that people get (stupidly) angsty about is money. Once you're out of adolescence you have to recognise that a big component of relationships is money. A partnership is about life support as much as it is sex and kids, and so if you can't support your potential partner, that's a big red flag.

Heh.

My experience is pretty contrary to yours.

My relationships have been with people of different levels of experience than mine, both sexually and general life experiences.

Level of attractiveness? A couple of the guys have been much more attractive than I am; a couple less attractive, at least in terms of physical appearance and ranked in terms of apparent interest generated by members of the opposite sex. I dated a couple of guys who were attractive enough that other women who were much more attractive than me gave me a pretty good stink eye: How did I rate him? I've mentioned a number of times that I have a few very beautiful friends who married guys who are wonderful people but who are physically far less attractive than the women. Long term marriages, very successful, happy after decades.

Chemistry? Do you mean physical chemistry or personal chemistry? I had a pretty intense relationship with someone with whom I shared a great deal of physical chemistry but the relationship didn't work out because of lack of other kinds of chemistry. Emotionally/socially/personalty wise, we were extremely unsuited and it all fell apart because there is only so much time that can be spent having sex before you have to talk and figure out you hold very incompatible attitudes and very incompatible temperaments. All discussions tended to become arguments and not in the good way. Normally, I approached relationships of all kinds much more rationally but the attraction/desire really took me by surprise. Him, too. We were not each other's types. And ultimately, that played out, too.

Life situation melding? I dunno. I entered into a relationship with my husband when my own personal life situation screamed: NO NO NO NO NO! I frankly had zero business dating anyone. I thought we could just be friends. His particular life circumstance was more stable in most respects but also on the brink of changing dramatically. It was, if not a bad idea, an entirely impractical one yet here we are, decades later, still together.

Opportunity? Well, opportunity can be fashioned out of almost any circumstance if the desire is there.

Desire can spring up quite unexpectedly. I knew the guy who became my husband was interested in a lot more than just trading books and recipes and I was trying to be very careful not to lead him on or to get involved. I wanted to be friends. I wanted to maintain a distance because I knew I had no business being in any kind of relationship. I was shocked to discover the level of desire I felt when I was sure we were just friends.

I've never entered/tried to enter a relationship from anything other than a single state and I've never entered into a relationship with anyone who wasn't similarly unencumbered, so that I agree with. But truthfully, I was quite happy to be single and didn't actively seek out a relationship, ever.

Money? We didn't have any when we got together and for the first five years or so of our marriage. But we always had the attitude that what was mine was ours; what was his was ours. We've pretty much never fought about money, whether we had virtually none or whether we were fairly flush. Oh, an odd argument once or twice but really: no. Support each other? Yes, always. Let me tell you: money is the least part of it.

As far as things that affect desire in women and in men:

It also includes levels of stress, types of stress, sleep and sleep quality, health, anger, time available, and many other things.

 

[Toni]

By 'greater and greater' need for release I didn't mean greater than women, I meant over time the urge to get off gets worse and worse until it actually happens, in the same way the longer one goes without eating the hungrier they get.

Talking about female sexuality is interesting, though, because while I'm not clueless about it, I clearly don't have as intuitive of an understanding of it as I do about male sexuality. Everything you've said above makes enough sense, but I'd be interested to know to what extent women crave sex, compared to men. Is it exactly the same? Are there any differences? Do they experience it in different ways?

The only thing I've really gathered is what you've said above, and related to that, sex itself is sometimes a lot more emotional for women. Out of all the partners I've had, the sex has been best when there was a strong trusting, emotional bond between both of us. Until that happened, the women tended to be a bit nervous and restricted. Given I've also met a number of women who didn't give a shit and just wanted to get off (usually feminists).

First, there is a very wide range of "urge to get off," in men. Some men think a day without an orgasm is some kind of waterboarding, while others can go and indefinite time. The same is true for women. Most men and women are somewhere in the middle.

In my experience, women crave sex like hungry beasts, if you know what to say. At that point, their political opinions seem irrelevant.

Uh, women crave sex like hungry beasts irrespective of what men say or do. Or some do.

Sure, what men say and more importantly, what men do can affect whether she craves sex with a particular man but women are sexual beings irrespective of an available man.

That's not even getting into women who are into chicks.

 

[credoconsolans]

First, there is a very wide range of "urge to get off," in men. Some men think a day without an orgasm is some kind of waterboarding, while others can go and indefinite time. The same is true for women. Most men and women are somewhere in the middle.

In my experience, women crave sex like hungry beasts, if you know what to say. At that point, their political opinions seem irrelevant.

Uh, women crave sex like hungry beasts irrespective of what men say or do. Or some do.

Sure, what men say and more importantly, what men do can affect whether she craves sex with a particular man but women are sexual beings irrespective of an available man.

That's not even getting into women who are into chicks.

This. But women tend to crave GOOD sex.

Sex for men - as the saying goes - is like pizza. Even when it's bad it's pretty good.

For women, bad sex is just bad. There is seldom anything good about it.

The reason women aren't quick to jump on the nearest guy when she's horny is because he may suck in bed, therefore having sex with him would be an exercise in frustration and futility.

 

[braces_for_impact]

This is a bit of a softball thread, but I thought it might be interesting to shoot the shit about the physiological side of sex for a bit.

The way I figure, sexual desire, sexual activity, and sexual relationships are the result of positive feedback loops. I can't pretend to understand female sexuality as much, but obviously I get men's a little better.

Basically, for men, it goes something like this:
- for lack of a better term, as time goes by men have a greater and greater need for 'release', a positive feedback loop in itself. The likelihood of orgasm is directly proportional to the amount of time since the last one

- because of this basic physiological loop, as time goes by men are more likely to think about either women in general, or specific women (or whoever/whatever they're attracted to). In consequence they're more likely to want to be around either women in general, or specific women. This either feeds back into general sexual desire, or sexual desire for specific women. If someone they want to be with is always in their proximity, by nature the attraction is going to grow

- eventually this can all lead into a pretty intense desire to actually be with the object of their attraction, until sexual behaviour results

So I'd think something like this is happening pretty much all the time. The body is literally oriented to sense sexually attractive people and draw them in, all the time. So the only way to *not* make advances on someone you're attracted to is to consciously stop yourself from doing so. And this is likely why we see so many problems of sexual abuse, because people's craving for sex overrides the conscious stop-light.

For some reason your description reminds me of this:

 

[rousseau]

Another big factor on both sides of the coin is 'will this relationship be socially acceptable to my friends and family'. If a man or woman gives someone enough rational reasons to not be with them, the relationship won't happen, whether it's a one night stand or long-term.

All of the relationships I've had happened because the circumstances were ideal at the time for the relationship to work:
- our experience levels were similar
- both single
- similar level of attractiveness
- good enough chemistry
- life situations melded
- and opportunity arose

Knowing what to say, as you say, is a huge part of it. Your character can only be discerned by what you say and what you do, and your character is the most important aspect of a relationship, especially for men as women seem to be very perceptive of that type of thing, whereas men are often not as choosy.

The big one that people get (stupidly) angsty about is money. Once you're out of adolescence you have to recognise that a big component of relationships is money. A partnership is about life support as much as it is sex and kids, and so if you can't support your potential partner, that's a big red flag.

Heh.

My experience is pretty contrary to yours.

My relationships have been with people of different levels of experience than mine, both sexually and general life experiences.

Level of attractiveness? A couple of the guys have been much more attractive than I am; a couple less attractive, at least in terms of physical appearance and ranked in terms of apparent interest generated by members of the opposite sex. I dated a couple of guys who were attractive enough that other women who were much more attractive than me gave me a pretty good stink eye: How did I rate him? I've mentioned a number of times that I have a few very beautiful friends who married guys who are wonderful people but who are physically far less attractive than the women. Long term marriages, very successful, happy after decades.

Yea this definitely seems like an area where more variability is possible. I do think if you found some studies done across large populations you'd discover that people tend to gravitate towards others in similar situations, attractiveness, socio-economic, etc etc. All things considered it's usually easier to attract someone, and more easy to be attracted to someone who's like you.

I do recall a study that was done by Ok Cupid, a dating site, that said something like this, although it was based on personality, and not physical appearance.

People are weird in the sense that, just when you discover a rule, there are tons of exceptions. Our behaviour is so fluid that statistical likelihood rarely equals 100% assurance.

Chemistry? Do you mean physical chemistry or personal chemistry? I had a pretty intense relationship with someone with whom I shared a great deal of physical chemistry but the relationship didn't work out because of lack of other kinds of chemistry. Emotionally/socially/personalty wise, we were extremely unsuited and it all fell apart because there is only so much time that can be spent having sex before you have to talk and figure out you hold very incompatible attitudes and very incompatible temperaments. All discussions tended to become arguments and not in the good way. Normally, I approached relationships of all kinds much more rationally but the attraction/desire really took me by surprise. Him, too. We were not each other's types. And ultimately, that played out, too.

I really mean any kind of chemistry, but the type of chemistry is going to have a different impact. If there is no chemistry at all, it's probably not going to happen unless it's a one night stand. If there's physical chemistry you might find something short-term, if there's emotional chemistry much more likely to last long-term. But the over-arching point is that to some extent you need to actually like each other.

Life situation melding? I dunno. I entered into a relationship with my husband when my own personal life situation screamed: NO NO NO NO NO! I frankly had zero business dating anyone. I thought we could just be friends. His particular life circumstance was more stable in most respects but also on the brink of changing dramatically. It was, if not a bad idea, an entirely impractical one yet here we are, decades later, still together.

I suspect this is another one of those things where there's a tendency, but also tons of exceptions.

Throughout my life I've met many women where life situation just didn't make it possible. I dated my first girlfriend on a study abroad in England, no way we could make it work. I met women at places I worked during years I was in transit. It wasn't really until I settled somewhere permanently that a long-term relationship was possible, and now I'm engaged.

So what I mean is that for a relationship to happen, it actually has to be possible in some respect. If it's literally impossible, it can't happen long-term. It sounds like you and your partner's relationship was improbable, but not impossible.

Opportunity? Well, opportunity can be fashioned out of almost any circumstance if the desire is there.

Desire can spring up quite unexpectedly. I knew the guy who became my husband was interested in a lot more than just trading books and recipes and I was trying to be very careful not to lead him on or to get involved. I wanted to be friends. I wanted to maintain a distance because I knew I had no business being in any kind of relationship. I was shocked to discover the level of desire I felt when I was sure we were just friends.

I've never entered/tried to enter a relationship from anything other than a single state and I've never entered into a relationship with anyone who wasn't similarly unencumbered, so that I agree with. But truthfully, I was quite happy to be single and didn't actively seek out a relationship, ever.

Money? We didn't have any when we got together and for the first five years or so of our marriage. But we always had the attitude that what was mine was ours; what was his was ours. We've pretty much never fought about money, whether we had virtually none or whether we were fairly flush. Oh, an odd argument once or twice but really: no. Support each other? Yes, always. Let me tell you: money is the least part of it.

As far as things that affect desire in women and in men:

It also includes levels of stress, types of stress, sleep and sleep quality, health, anger, time available, and many other things.

I guess it's one of those things that can be important, but isn't always everything.

The woman I dated before my current relationship, she hadn't held down a job in a while and was struggling to make it through school. All things considered it looked like she wouldn't have consistent employment throughout her life, and that just wasn't acceptable to me. Our lives would have been really hard.

Another friend of mine is a pretty cool guy but is making pretty close to minimum wage. Not impossible for him to find a relationship, but very hard. Retirement, car, house, travel, kids.. all of that stuff is really important to many people, and if it can't be provided you have a problem.