- My age:
- I am 70
- Sexual identity:
- Color of my eyes:
- Big gray eyes
- What is my Sign of the zodiac:
- What is my figure features:
- I'm skinny
- I like to listen:
- I have piercing:
Orgasms can help reduce stress, improve your skin, and make you feel, well, great. However, for many women, orgasms — especially those achieved through penetration — can be just as elusive as the mysterious G spot. In fact, according to a study, only about 18 percent of women achieve orgasm through penetration alone — meaning no hands, mouth, or toys needed. More often than not, clitoral stimulation is required, or at least beneficial, when it comes to orgasming during sex.
The world is disturbingly comfortable with the fact that women sometimes leave a sexual encounter in tears.
When Babe. Her repeated objections and pleas that they "slow down" were all well and good, but they did not square with the fact that she eventually gave Ansari oral sex. Finally, crucially, she was free to leave. Why didn't she just get out of there as soon as she felt uncomfortable? It's a rich question, and there are plenty of possible answers. But if you're asking in good faith, if you really want to think through why someone might have acted as she did, the most important one is this: Women are enculturated to be uncomfortable most of the time.
And to ignore their discomfort.
1. educate yourself
This is so baked into our society I feel like we forget it's there. To steal from David Foster Wallace, this is the water we swim in. The Aziz Ansari case hit a nerve because, as I've long feared, we're only comfortable with movements like MeToo so long as the men in question are absolute monsters we can easily separate from the pack. Once we move past the "few bad apples" argument and start to suspect that this is more a trend than a blip, our instinct is to normalize.
To insist that this is is just how men are, and how sex is.
This is what Andrew Sullivan basically proposed in his latest, startlingly unscientific column. MeToo has gone too far, he argues, by refusing to confront the biological realities of maleness.
Feminism, he says, has refused to give men their due and denied the role "nature" must play in these discussions. Ladies, he writes, if you keep denying biology, you'll watch men get defensive, react, and "fight back. This is beyond vapid. Not only is Sullivan bafflingly confused about nature and its realities, as Colin Dickey notes in this instructive Twitter threadhe's being appallingly conventional. Sullivan claims he came to "understand the sheer and immense natural difference between being a man and being a woman" thanks to a testosterone injection he received.
That is to say, he imagines maleness can be isolated to an injectable hormone and doesn't bother to imagine femaleness at all. If you want an encapsulation of the habits of mind that made MeToo necessary, there it is.
Sullivan, that would-be contrarian, is utterly representative. The real problem isn't that we — as a culture — don't sufficiently consider men's biological reality.
The problem is rather that theirs is literally the only biological reality we ever bother to consider. So let's actually talk bodies. Let's take bodies and the facts of sex seriously for a change.
And let's allow some women back into the equation, shall we? Because if you're going to wax poetic about male pleasure, you had better be ready to talk about its secret, unpleasant, ubiquitous cousin: female pain. Research shows that 30 percent of women report pain during vaginal sex, 72 percent report pain during anal sex, and "large proportions" don't tell their partners when sex hurts. That matters, because nowhere is our lack of practice at thinking about non-male biological realities more evident than when we talk about "bad sex.
The studies on this are few.
A casual survey of forums where people discuss "bad sex" suggests that men tend to use the term to describe a passive partner or a boring experience. Here's a very unscientific Twitter poll I did that found just that. But when most women talk about "bad sex," they tend to mean coercion, or emotional discomfort or, even more commonly, physical pain.
As for bad sex, University of Michigan Professor Sara McClelland, another one of the few scholars who has done rigorous work on this issue, discovered in the course of her research on how young men and women rate sexual satisfaction that "men and women imagined a very different low end of the sexual satisfaction scale. While women imagined the low end to include the potential for extremely negative feelings and the potential for pain, men imagined the low end to represent the potential for less satisfying sexual outcomes, but they never imagined harmful or damaging outcomes for themselves.
Once you've absorbed how horrifying this is, you might reasonably conclude that our "reckoning" over sexual assault and harassment has suffered because men and women have entirely different rating scales. An 8 on a man's Bad Sex scale is like a 1 on a woman's. This tendency for men and women to use the same term — bad sex — to describe experiences an objective observer would characterize as vastly different is the flip side of a known psychological phenomenon called "relative deprivation," by which disenfranchised groups, having been trained to expect little, tend paradoxically to report the same levels of satisfaction as their better-treated, more privileged peers.
When a woman says "I'm uncomfortable" and leaves a sexual encounter in tears, then, maybe she's not being a fragile flower with no tolerance for discomfort. And maybe we could stand to think a little harder about the biological realities a lot of women deal with, because unfortunately, painful sex isn't the exceptional outlier we like to pretend it is.
It's pretty damn common. In considering Sullivan's proposal, we might also, provisionally, and just as a thought experiment, accept that biology — or "nature" — coexists with history and sometimes replicates the lopsided biases of its time. This is certainly true of medicine. Back in the 17th century, the conventional wisdom was that women were the ones with the rampant, undisciplined sexual appetites.
That things have changed doesn't mean they're necessarily better. These days, a man can walk out of his doctor's office with a prescription for Viagra based on little but a self-report, but it still takes a woman, on average, 9. By that time, many find that not just sex but everyday existence has become a life-deforming challenge. That's a blunt biological reality if ever there was one. Or, since sex is the subject here, what about how our society's scientific community has treated female dyspareunia — the severe physical pain some women experience during sex — vs.
PubMed has clinical trials studying dyspareunia. That's right: PubMed has almost five times as many clinical trials on male sexual pleasure as it has on female sexual pain. And why? Because we live in a culture that sees female pain as normal and male pleasure as a right. This bizarre sexual astigmatism structures so much in our culture that it's hard to gauge the extent to which our vision of things is skewed. Take how our health system compensates doctors for male vs.
Result: Guess who gets the fanciest doctors? Or consider how routinely many women are condescended to and dismissed by their own physicians.
2. respect that your partner is unique
Yet here's a direct quote from a scientific article about how contra their reputation for complaining and avoiding discomfort women are worryingly tough: "Everyone who regularly encounters the complaint of dyspareunia knows that women are inclined to continue with coitus, if necessary, with their teeth tightly clenched.
If you asked yourself why "Grace" didn't leave Ansari's apartment as soon as she felt "uncomfortable," you should be asking the same question here. If sex hurt, why didn't she stop? Why is this happening? Why are women enduring excruciating pain to make sure men have orgasms? The answer isn't separable from our current discussion about how women have been routinely harassed, abused, and dismissed because men wanted to have erections in the workplace.
It boggles the mind that Sullivan thinks we don't sufficiently consider men's biological reality when our entire society has agreed to organize itself around the pursuit of the straight male orgasm. This quest has been granted total cultural centrality — with unfortunate consequences for our understanding of bodies, and pleasure, and pain.
Around 50 per cent of women in relationships have a back-up partner in mind in case they separate from their current partner, as per a study.
Per Sullivan's request, I'm talking about biology. I'm speaking, specifically, about the physical sensations most women are socialized to ignore in their pursuit of sexual pleasure. Women are constantly and specifically trained out of noticing or responding to their bodily discomfort, particularly if they want to be sexually "viable. High heels?
These are things deed to wrench bodies. Men can be appealing in comfy clothes. They walk in shoes that don't shorten their Achilles tendons. They don't need to get the hair ripped off their genitals or take needles to the face to be perceived as "conventionally" attractive.
More than 6 million men & women are sex dating tonight!
They can — just as women can — opt out of all this, but the baseline expectations are simply differentand it's ludicrous to pretend they aren't. The old implied social bargain between women and men which Andrew Sullivan calls "natural" is that one side will endure a great deal of discomfort and pain for the other's pleasure and delight.
And we've all agreed to act like that's normal, and just how the world works. This is why it was transformative when Jane Fonda posted a picture of herself looking exhausted next to one of her looking glammed up. This isn't just an exhausting way to live; it's also a mindset that's pretty hard to shake. To be clear, I'm not even objecting to our absurd beauty standards right now. My only objective here is to explore how the training women receive can help us understand what "Grace" did and did not do.
Women are supposed to perform comfort and pleasure they do not feel under conditions that make genuine comfort almost impossible. Next time you see a woman breezily laughing in a complicated and revealing gown that requires her not to eat or drink for hours, know a that you are witnessing the work of a consummate illusionist acting her heart out and b that you have been trained to see that extraordinary, Oscar-worthy performance as merely routine. Whymen wonder, do women fake orgasms? It seems so counterproductive?