This continues from our conversation in the Objectification thread. I think an entirely separate thread is a good idea.
I think it is important to note that, at least from my perspective, women in Western society CAN remain interested in sex just as much as the beginning of the relationship if they are in a healthy relationship, maintain a decent and healthy lifestyle, and have decent mental health.
I personally feel that part of the problem with why women lose their libido is the men don't seem to try as much in the relationship.
Lemme give you a specific example:
I hear and read, all the time, from dudes that say something similar to the following: "Don't marry her, dude! Do you want the BJs to stop? Once you marry her, she won't give you BJs!" Well...on further inspection of the relationship, they also stop with the random surprise gifts (could be anything...not just a physical object but a surprise romantic picnic and so forth...gift is very ambiguous in this use, here). Research also says they give far fewer compliments. Basically, it looks like they don't try very much in the relationship, anymore. And they wonder why their female companions are not motivated to give them BJs? A relationship works much better when both parties are actively reciprocating love and affection for each other: not one side unilaterally demanding from the other (as I often see my male friends and acquaintances in Oklahoma doing...but Oklahoman males seem to be...a bit behind and archaic in their view of women).
Anyway, while I find that study's results to be interesting, I think the study's results at least partially reflect societal issues and not just evolution-stuff.
What are you thoughts on this study?
What are your thoughts on the conclusions they state in the article regarding the study?
What are you thoughts on my commentary (am I wrong in my perspectives, does my position need to be matured a bit, am I spot-on, etc.) regarding this study?
I'm very interested, especially, in the thoughts from our female posters. Maybe you have some anecdotes or experiences that confirm or contradict the study?
Is there perhaps a correlation between womens' decreasing libido and their decreasing fertility? Women are at peak fertility from ~15-25, after which point it begins a steady decline. Men on the other hand can stay potent until the day they die, disorders and shit aside, and their libido matches that duration.
It seems logical to me that as the ability to procreate decreases, the body responds by toning down the drive to try.
I read your post, but not the link. That aside, I think it's definitely a given that the psychology of a relationship can effect sex drive, but I dunno which has a higher impact between nature and nurture.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on Jul 23rd, 2014 at 03:38 AM
I can't look at any of the links atm, but has any connection been found between the deceased libido of the younger women specifically, and a dissatisfaction with their relationship?
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
I don't know. That article mentions the birthcontrol we are using as being at least part of the problem with decreased libido in our young women.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that my wife experienced that. It took about 2 months for her to adjust but then she was back to normal. I'm not surprised that some women don't ever adjust.
Girls want affection. Guys take it the wrong way and make it nasty.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Are you implying that throwing a girl onto your bed, pinning her down and taking her from behind with no lube while snarling into her hair isn't affectionate?
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Real men, with shaved heads and cut physiques, think cuddling is awkward, not ****ing.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
There are sites dedicated to teaching men to do just that.
I couldn't feel fulfilled in a relationship like that. That's because I value intelligence and free-thinking in romantic relationships. Some people like there to be a power-differential (see Pentecostals). I don't.
Yeah, I've heard of and glimpsed at that MGTOW site for a few moments. The impression I left with was: 'A bunch on men hating and complaining about women because they can't get laid.' I found it both laughable and sad.
When your sex-drive is like mine, you'll understand.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
I don't know if I can really get behind this. Reduced intimacy or women wishing to have less consistent amounts of sex could just be a large portion of these relationships evolving and/or adapting into some sort of variance, which isn't necessarily bad.
I want to get into that but I have another issue and that's the presentation of sex within society, particularly what you just said. We treat sex as a substance or like it's subject to bartering. For me, I personally view sex as more than a goods exchange. I think it's even problematic for this viewpoint to be adopted by those who have casual sex or aren't in relationships.
Men are often taught that they must earn the affection of women, particularly with gifts and/or any other assortment of bravado. Women are taught that they should and must be desired by men and that their body and sexuality is a prize.
I'm going to, at the risk of looking silly, compare this to economics. We learn, in economics, that the more abundant a resource is, the less value it contains. This is a portion of why women view having a lot of sex as having "little worth" or "being lesser." Women are influenced to abstain from sexual desire because it would make male desire more valuable, which would devalue female "desire."
I think this is why terms like "slut" and "whore" are so prevalent. A woman who is viewed as one that is "promiscuous" or just "has sex casually" is essentially lowering the value of the "resource." So, a man would not give up any specific "resource" when other assets are being offered for nothing. Think about it; Would you go buy gas for your car if there were gas stations that provided gas for no cost? The remaining participants within the "market" (the women who don't "give sex for free") gather and tarnish the image of these gas stations (women who do give it willingly and freely), devaluing the "free" gas and make them feel bad for giving precious gas away to potential consumers for free.
This is what a lot of "classy" women do to "slutty free" women. It's common and I don't think fault necessarily lies with the women themselves. Men view sex differently but the problem is quite similar. Men feel they need to buy flowers and give gifts because their offering of sexual pleasure is not seen as even REMOTELY as valuable because women shouldn't want it.
Women design their self worth around their bodies and the want of men. Men design their worth around how successful they are at gaining the attention and adoration of women. It's unfortunate because it's pretty basic shit. Women want to fuck. That's it. There has been research to suggest that women have plain old sexual desires, which is a massive contradiction to the broken system that is in place and is in practice. For men, they often don't look at themselves as worth the cost that is needed, which increases insecurity because they feel they must carry this image and "power" to sway women, traditionally.
Human sex is, by definition, a specific emotional and physical interaction that's has been mutually consented to. This is how sex should be viewed. I believe women may bear less interest in sex later on because this system is a competitive, mentally taxing one. I'm not saying it is the only issue alone but I think it's a thorn in the side of female sexuality. With men who sustain their desires, I think it's because they think they've "done it" or finally made it, like passing a course. They now have access to what they've sought for so long so they utilize that "resource." Some men may feel like it is the pinnacle of their worth.
Again, same thing for men. I don't think that's the only reason but it's one of them. To summarize, I think viewing sex as this exchange of goods or a "trading post" of sorts is quite harmful and adds to the malformed state of sex in developed society. Sex is malformed enough in developing society/countries. Why should ours still be in such a horrendous bind?
__________________
"Evil will hold."
Last edited by The Gravelord on Aug 6th, 2014 at 08:53 AM
I get I it..,some'times it makes me wonder....,does love drive passion or does inspiration calculate reality? If you have that "ONE" if you found that "ONE" do everything you can to win THAT"love because it doesn't come around in very often. Stop trying to write papers and change the world...,go live.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
Last edited by jinXed by JaNx on Aug 6th, 2014 at 09:29 AM
The only difference is that some individuals have a higher libido.
Others can restrain their sexual desires, whilst those who can't are labeled "sluts" only because society dictates they are.
__________________
"Farewell, Damos... Ash, Pikachu... And you. All of my beloved." -- Arceus
Basically, women desire sex less after staying in a long-term relationship. Most of the time, the men do not lose their desire for sex (meaning, frequency of desire stays roughly the same). Women do desire sex, but just not as often as men, in those long-term relationships.
I still think part of the problem is how some men treat their relationships: they do not do the "typical woman duties." But, the survey says that men and women are equalizing in homes, these days (not older couples, but the newer couples). That's good news, imo. I like that. So, should we see a slight to moderate increase in sexual desire from women, in America, due to this? Possibly. I dunno. I'd have to look.
Maybe it is just the compliments and affection? Or maybe it is purely biological and women are programmed to desire less sex after being in a stable relationship?
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Sep 2nd, 2014 at 03:19 AM
KMC Community Forums
Jul 23rd, 2014 02:57 AM
