If you religiously oppose masterbation... - Page 9 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-30-2007, 01:12 AM
 
ChasingPeace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Engaging in Subversive Motherhood
Posts: 2,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
But where in the gospel does it say one shouldn't masturbate? I'm pretty sure nowhere in the New Testament. In the Roman Catholic Church (which doesn't rely only on Scripture for doctrine), any sexual act that doesn't have the potential to result in procreating life is sinful. This leaves out a whole bunch of good things, including masturbation.
ChasingPeace is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-30-2007, 01:16 AM
 
holyhelianthus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: the Southern California desert
Posts: 8,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasingPeace View Post
But where in the gospel does it say one shouldn't masturbate? I'm pretty sure nowhere in the New Testament. In the Roman Catholic Church (which doesn't rely only on Scripture for doctrine), any sexual act that doesn't have the potential to result in procreating life is sinful. This leaves out a whole bunch of good things, including masturbation.
with Katie and i's religion there is more than just scriptual text to go by, as well. if you were even directing that question towards us.

Maggie, blissfully married mama of 5 little ladies on my own little path. homeschool.gif gd.gifRainbow.gif
holyhelianthus is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:17 AM
 
Aura_Kitten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Down by the River...
Posts: 6,832
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by klg47 View Post
You say that as though it is some huge burden. It really wasn't Cross my heart and hope to die, honest. And dh didn't change his technique after our son was born. Something in me changed.
whoa honey, please speak only for yourself here and do NOT use your own experiences to try to sway others toward non-masturbation.

i would (like others here) be very, very distressed without it.


and i'm also extremely disturbed at the idea of relying on a MAN to 1) satisfy my needs, and 2) have any idea HOW to satisfy me.
Aura_Kitten is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:19 AM
 
Brigianna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: who knows?
Posts: 7,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
About whether women can have "good sex" only with their husbands, I think it depends on what you think is important about sex. In my own opinion, good sex is sex that is a manifestation of strong love. It is about the relationship, not the physical act itself (although the physical act is fun). This is a recurring issue I've noticed in dialogues between people of these differing views about sexuality, that people of one view tend to focus almost exclusively on the physical act, while people of the other view tend to focus much more on the relationship. From the point of view that the physical act is what it's all about, I can certainly understand why it would seem silly or repressive to believe in having sex only with one's spouse, but from the other view, it's perfectly logical.
Brigianna is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:21 AM
 
ChasingPeace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Engaging in Subversive Motherhood
Posts: 2,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by magstphil View Post
with Katie and i's religion there is more than just scriptual text to go by, as well. if you were even directing that question towards us.
Oh I was responding to the post right before mine (about the gospel) and also responding to the question someone raised about whether any religions prohibit sexual acts beyond penile penetration vaginal intercourse.
ChasingPeace is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:23 AM
 
holyhelianthus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: the Southern California desert
Posts: 8,823
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasingPeace View Post
Oh I was responding to the post right before mine (about the gospel) and also responding to the question someone raised about whether any religions prohibit sexual acts beyond penile penetration vaginal intercourse.
ohhhhhhh... that's so not what i thought you were asking.

Maggie, blissfully married mama of 5 little ladies on my own little path. homeschool.gif gd.gifRainbow.gif
holyhelianthus is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:29 AM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna View Post
About whether women can have "good sex" only with their husbands, I think it depends on what you think is important about sex. In my own opinion, good sex is sex that is a manifestation of strong love. It is about the relationship, not the physical act itself (although the physical act is fun). This is a recurring issue I've noticed in dialogues between people of these differing views about sexuality, that people of one view tend to focus almost exclusively on the physical act, while people of the other view tend to focus much more on the relationship. From the point of view that the physical act is what it's all about, I can certainly understand why it would seem silly or repressive to believe in having sex only with one's spouse, but from the other view, it's perfectly logical.
Yikes, dude. I'd bet dollars to donuts that most pro-masturbation people here feel that there is a hell of a lot more to a loving sexual relationship than just "the act."

I just think that this whole doctrine encourages women to suppress their sexuality for the sake of male-approved "spirituality" while men get to be both properly spiritual and reliably physically satisfied.

Glad it works out for them, but hey, they wrote the script.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:37 AM
 
klg47's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
See, it would be, for me. I would be maximally pissed to have gotten pregnant and given birth TWICE from someone else's orgasms, while I just got to lay there and be frustrated.

Yes, that would annoy me greatly.

Hey, and what if you hadn't internally changed? Would you still be stuck in a dry spell?
I know I'm making assumptions here, but it sounds like you're saying that pregnancy was a dreaded consequence you had to deal with because of a man. I realize that's probably not what you meant. Regardless, I wanted to be pregnant. Pregnancy and birth have nothing to do with someone else's orgasms in my mind.

Most of the time I wasn't frustrated. Brigianna's comment (which I've quoted below) helps explain the majority of the reason why I wasn't. Though I didn't get to the very pinnacle of orgasm, I *very much* enjoyed the feelings of foreplay and intercourse. And even more than that I enjoyed the love expressed.

If I hadn't changed, then yeah, I guess I still wouldn't have orgasmed. (I wouldn't call it a dry spell, because I'd still be having very pleasurable and fulfilling sexual experiences.) Dh's techniques worked for other girls before me, so I'm not exactly sure what the difficulty was. Besides, who cares if I had to wait 3 years? I've got the rest of eternity to enjoy it now! Even if someone has to wait until the next life for their first time, eternity will make up for it

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasingPeace View Post
But where in the gospel does it say one shouldn't masturbate? I'm pretty sure nowhere in the New Testament.
She was referring to her religion, which also happens to be LDS. Other than Brigianna, it looks like the others of us on the defense are all LDS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aura_Kitten View Post
whoa honey, please speak only for yourself here and do NOT use your own experiences to try to sway others toward non-masturbation.
I don't think any of us on either side are trying to sway anyone else. I've seen a lot of good conversation, some debating, some immaturity (me), but no swaying

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aura_Kitten View Post
and i'm also extremely disturbed at the idea of relying on a MAN to 1) satisfy my needs, and 2) have any idea HOW to satisfy me.
I love relying on my man to satisfy my desires/needs I know you weren't asking for a detailed answer to #2, but here's mine anyway: You tell him! Speak up if something feels good. Ask him to move his hand a different way. Put your hand down there too and show him what to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna View Post
About whether women can have "good sex" only with their husbands, I think it depends on what you think is important about sex. In my own opinion, good sex is sex that is a manifestation of strong love. It is about the relationship, not the physical act itself (although the physical act is fun). This is a recurring issue I've noticed in dialogues between people of these differing views about sexuality, that people of one view tend to focus almost exclusively on the physical act, while people of the other view tend to focus much more on the relationship. From the point of view that the physical act is what it's all about, I can certainly understand why it would seem silly or repressive to believe in having sex only with one's spouse, but from the other view, it's perfectly logical.
: (x 1,000,000!)
klg47 is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:38 AM
 
Brigianna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: who knows?
Posts: 7,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
Yikes, dude. I'd bet dollars to donuts that most pro-masturbation people here feel that there is a hell of a lot more to a loving sexual relationship than just "the act."

I just think that this whole doctrine encourages women to suppress their sexuality for the sake of male-approved "spirituality" while men get to be both properly spiritual and reliably physically satisfied.

Glad it works out for them, but hey, they wrote the script.
But men and women alike are taught to avoid masturbation, wait until marriage, and be faithful, so what is the difference?
Brigianna is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:40 AM
 
klg47's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
men get to be both properly spiritual and reliably physically satisfied.

Glad it works out for them, but hey, they wrote the script.
I don't think that really makes sense. Your argument seems to be with biology, not religion. Biology seems to have made it easier for men to orgasm.

Also, why would a man agree to a prohibition on masturbation, knowing there's a chance he may not get married? And women can be reliably physically satisfied without masturbation.
klg47 is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:48 AM
 
ChasingPeace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Engaging in Subversive Motherhood
Posts: 2,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna View Post
But men and women alike are taught to avoid masturbation, wait until marriage, and be faithful, so what is the difference?
THe difference is (IMO) that men have no trouble having orgasms. Women often have to learn. Women (again IMO) are hurt more by the prohibition on masturbation.

What if a woman (or man, for that matter) was unable to laugh? Laughing isn't necessary but it's enjoyable, and I think we would all feel sad for someone who was not able to laugh, and would encourage them to do all they can to experience laughter . I feel the same way for women who are physically unable to have orgasms and I just think patriarchal religious rules unfairly rob women of a wonderful human experience.
ChasingPeace is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:50 AM
 
ChasingPeace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Engaging in Subversive Motherhood
Posts: 2,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by klg47 View Post
I don't think that really makes sense. Your argument seems to be with biology, not religion. Biology seems to have made it easier for men to orgasm.

Also, why would a man agree to a prohibition on masturbation, knowing there's a chance he may not get married? And women can be reliably physically satisfied without masturbation.
Men have nocturnal emissions without masturbating. They still get a release, with or without masturbation.
ChasingPeace is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:51 AM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna View Post
But men and women alike are taught to avoid masturbation, wait until marriage, and be faithful, so what is the difference?
That men are actually a heck of a lot likelier (statistically speaking) to find sexual fulfillment in marriage than women are. 'Tisn't a secret.

And hey, everyone enjoys the loving feelings of non-orgasmic sex. But three freakin' year (or a lifetime) of never *quite* getting there is really rather masochistic. Not something men are ever forced to endure, and something tells me that our cultural and religious landscape would look quite a lot different if marriage wasn't almost infallibly satisfying for men right off the bat.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:54 AM
 
klg47's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasingPeace View Post
THe difference is (IMO) that men have no trouble having orgasms. Women often have to learn. Women (again IMO) are hurt more by the prohibition on masturbation.

I just think patriarchal religious rules unfairly rob women of a wonderful human experience.
But you're still assuming that masturbation is required for a woman to learn to orgasm. It simply isn't true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasingPeace View Post
Men have nocturnal emissions without masturbating. They still get a release, with or without masturbation.
Good point. But do women have the same need for the release? The release is more necessary for men because they are continually producing sperm. Do women have a similar biological need for a release?
klg47 is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:55 AM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by klg47 View Post
Biology seems to have made it easier for men to orgasm.
.
Nope. Biology makes it easier for men to orgasm during vaginal intercourse. Not in general.

Women have a whole host of ways to do that, but they aren't enshrined in our religio-cultural landscape as being romantic or proper. They're portrayed as being animalistic or "impure." Or as being a favor done by the man.

I think it's no mistake that PIV intercourse is seen both culturally and religiously as the most important, meaningful, authentic, loving kind. Because it's the kind that benefits men the most.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:56 AM
 
klg47's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Also, can you guys just quit posting already? I really need to get some work done (to make up for the time earlier today when I was on this thread!) and I can't pull myself away!!
klg47 is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:58 AM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by klg47 View Post
But you're still assuming that masturbation is required for a woman to learn to orgasm. It simply isn't true.
Yeah, actually, for a lot of women, it is absolutely true. Sex therapists have known this for a long time now.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:59 AM
 
klg47's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
I think it's no mistake that PIV intercourse is seen both culturally and religiously as the most important, meaningful, authentic, loving kind. Because it's the kind that benefits men the most.
What are your resources or reasons for saying this? I'm not trying to be accusatory; it's just not something I've come across before. I've been American (culture) and LDS (religion) my whole life, so if this is true, I should have been exposed to it by now.
klg47 is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 01:59 AM
 
ChasingPeace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Engaging in Subversive Motherhood
Posts: 2,418
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OK, one last post. Some stats:

Quote:
Thirty-three to 50 percent of women experience orgasm infrequently and are dissatisfied with how often they reach orgasm.

Performance anxiety is believed to be the most common cause of orgasm problems, and 90 percent of orgasm problems appear to be psychological in nature.
-- Orgasmic Dysfunction, Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia, September 2002.

Quote:
Ten to 15 percent of American women have never experienced an orgasm.

Only 35 percent of the female population will orgasm during intercourse.

Reasons for failure to climax include: sexual ignorance, sexual anxiety, and fear of letting go.

A sexual response is a complex blend of many physical and psychological variables.

What a woman expects, how she believes she should respond, and how she thinks she should act, will all impact how she experiences, behaves during, and reports her orgasmic event.
-- Pathways to Pleasure, Robert W. Birch, Ph.D., Sexologist and Adult Sexuality Educator, 2000.

From http://www.drphil.com/articles/article/371

I feel so strongly about this because I couldn't have an orgasm until I taught myself how.
ChasingPeace is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 02:01 AM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by klg47 View Post
Good point. But do women have the same need for the release? The release is more necessary for men because they are continually producing sperm. Do women have a similar biological need for a release?
And this I don't know. I do wonder why we've shifted from "but there's more to it than just the Act! It's right to share loving feelings!" from "well, women don't NEED it, really..."

See? When it comes to women's sexual needs, we're so dismissive of anything more than barebones reproductive necessity.

When it comes to men's, we're so anxious to make sure they get what they require.

"Same old story, same old song and dance, my friend * 80 rocking out* "
eightyferrettoes is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 02:01 AM
 
klg47's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
Yeah, actually, for a lot of women, it is absolutely true. Sex therapists have known this for a long time now.
Men's fingers work the same way women's do. I just don't see how it could possibly be required. If a woman doesn't trust her partner or can't allow herself to release when she's with her partner, yeah, she's probably not going to orgasm with him. But that still doesn't mean that masturbation is required. I'd bet that an LDS sex therapist (or one of another religion that doesn't permit masturbation) could help a couple figure it out without masturbation
klg47 is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 02:02 AM
 
Brigianna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: who knows?
Posts: 7,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasingPeace View Post
THe difference is (IMO) that men have no trouble having orgasms. Women often have to learn. Women (again IMO) are hurt more by the prohibition on masturbation.

What if a woman (or man, for that matter) was unable to laugh? Laughing isn't necessary but it's enjoyable, and I think we would all feel sad for someone who was not able to laugh, and would encourage them to do all they can to experience laughter . I feel the same way for women who are physically unable to have orgasms and I just think patriarchal religious rules unfairly rob women of a wonderful human experience.
I don't know; I would be hesitant to say that a person who didn't laugh had any worse quality of life than anyone else. But if a woman is physically unable to orgasm, I don't see how a religious belief is going to affect that one way or the other...
Brigianna is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 02:05 AM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by klg47 View Post
What are your resources or reasons for saying this? I'm not trying to be accusatory; it's just not something I've come across before. I've been American (culture) and LDS (religion) my whole life, so if this is true, I should have been exposed to it by now.
When was the last time you saw a loving portrayal of a man giving a woman oral pleasure, for instance? Romantic movie portrayals of loving sexual unions are almost invariably PIV intercourse. When we talk about teen sex, we tend to talk in terms of PIV intercourse. Almost all references to sex in the culture are flat-out assumed to mean PIV-- it occupies a very privileged place in our sexual discourse.

Actually, I imagine that's a big part of hetero privilege, but that's neither here nor there.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 02:06 AM
 
klg47's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChasingPeace View Post
Some stats:

I feel so strongly about this because I couldn't have an orgasm until I taught myself how.
But nothing in there implied that masturbation is the key. Issues with the woman's partner seemed to be the biggest problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
I do wonder why we've shifted from "but there's more to it than just the Act! It's right to share loving feelings!" from "well, women don't NEED it, really..."

See? When it comes to women's sexual needs, we're so dismissive of anything more than barebones reproductive necessity.
Because it's a conversation, lol! Just because the topic drifts back and forth doesn't mean that suddenly everything that was said in the last 12 pages is totally negated
klg47 is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 02:08 AM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by klg47 View Post
Men's fingers work the same way women's do. I just don't see how it could possibly be required. If a woman doesn't trust her partner or can't allow herself to release when she's with her partner, yeah, she's probably not going to orgasm with him. But that still doesn't mean that masturbation is required. I'd bet that an LDS sex therapist (or one of another religion that doesn't permit masturbation) could help a couple figure it out without masturbation
Actually, no, I don't think most men know how to work their fingers just right. Not without a heck of a lot of previous on-the-job training, anyway.

God bless brazen ex-girlfriends.

And IS there such a thing as an LDS sex therapist?
eightyferrettoes is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 02:10 AM
 
klg47's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
When was the last time you saw a loving portrayal of a man giving a woman oral pleasure, for instance? Romantic movie portrayals of loving sexual unions are almost invariably PIV intercourse.
I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear this, but I try to stay away from movies that show either of those I get the point though I agree that PIV intercourse is the most often spoken of and portrayed, but I don't think that means that culturally it is considered to be the most important, meaningful, authentic, and loving. Just my opinion though!
klg47 is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 02:11 AM
 
klg47's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,551
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
And IS there such a thing as an LDS sex therapist?
Sure there are
klg47 is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 02:12 AM
 
Brigianna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: who knows?
Posts: 7,939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
That men are actually a heck of a lot likelier (statistically speaking) to find sexual fulfillment in marriage than women are. 'Tisn't a secret.

And hey, everyone enjoys the loving feelings of non-orgasmic sex. But three freakin' year (or a lifetime) of never *quite* getting there is really rather masochistic. Not something men are ever forced to endure, and something tells me that our cultural and religious landscape would look quite a lot different if marriage wasn't almost infallibly satisfying for men right off the bat.
Is marriage really satisfying for men right off the bat? I think men have just as many marriage and sexuality-related problems as women, just manifested in different ways. Viagra sales figures would indicate that men do have sexual performance problems, within marriage and otherwise. And divorce rates would indicate that people of both sexes do have marriage problems. I don't think it's so much easier for men.



Quote:
Originally Posted by eightyferrettoes View Post
Nope. Biology makes it easier for men to orgasm during vaginal intercourse. Not in general.

Women have a whole host of ways to do that, but they aren't enshrined in our religio-cultural landscape as being romantic or proper. They're portrayed as being animalistic or "impure." Or as being a favor done by the man.

I think it's no mistake that PIV intercourse is seen both culturally and religiously as the most important, meaningful, authentic, loving kind. Because it's the kind that benefits men the most.
Or because it's the kind that can lead to children.
Brigianna is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 02:13 AM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigianna View Post
I don't know; I would be hesitant to say that a person who didn't laugh had any worse quality of life than anyone else. But if a woman is physically unable to orgasm, I don't see how a religious belief is going to affect that one way or the other...
It's not simply a problem of physicality. There we go again, assuming that it's the woman's fault. Always the woman's fault.

The link points out that inability to orgasm is linked to cultural expectations of how sex works-- if you are saturated in the idea that one particular way of sexual congress with one particular person is the only way to HAVE sex, you're not apt to break out and try other things. You might have a vague idea that something's not quite right... but how long are you going to hang on the status quo?

Kind of like birth positions-- the positions and techniques that really work for women only come naturally if you don't come from a culture that tells you the Right Way To Do It is laying flat on your back with a man in charge of the situation.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
Old 03-30-2007, 02:16 AM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I think the Viagra sales figures are a compensation for a culture that cuts baby boys up, not a universal statement about the condition of human sexuality.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off