U.S. study: Two-thirds of women have sex-related stress
Women's Sexual Health Issues Hit Home; U.S. survey finds two-thirds have had sex-related stress, anxiety
Thursday, 25 June, 2009
Forbes.com (U.S.)
A new survey finds that 70 percent of American women have experienced a sexual health issue, and 22 percent felt very or extremely concerned about it.
The survey defined a sexual health issue as any one of the following conditions: lack of desire for sexual activity, inability to become sexually aroused, inability to have an orgasm, pain during intercourse, vaginal dryness, or excessive desire for sexual activity.
Women who reported a sexual health issue said it had an effect on their romantic relationships (44 percent), self-esteem (43 percent) and mental health (42 percent). Sexual health issues also caused stress and anxiety in 66 percent of those surveyed, and affected sleeping habits in 28 percent and weight in 25 percent, the researchers found.
When they wanted to get information about sexual health issues, 35 percent used the Internet and 32 percent turned to their partner. While many women said they'd be comfortable discussing a sexual health issue with a health-care provider, only 18 percent actually saw a health-care provider when they had a sexual health issue, the findings showed. (...)
Is "lack of desire for sexual activity" necessarily a "stress"? Or is it so in a culture that defines women in terms of sexual accessibility?
I wonder the same thing, Martin.
Well, it can be hard on a relationship when one partner doesn't want to have sex anymore, and that can result in significant stress for both partners. I don't think it matters whether that partner is female or not - or even if it's a heterosexual relationship or not.
I wonder if the survey was restricted to heterosexual women, and further whether it was restricted to heterosexual women in committed relationships.
I could imagine feeling a little concerned if everyone else seems to like and want sex, and you don't, and also to feel a bit more of that when you're in a relationship with a committed partner. I'm not sure I see the connection to "sexual accessibility".
I think there are probably women who think there's something "wrong with them" if they don't want sex as much as their partners do, especially when they get tired of putting out when they don't feel like it in order to keep the peace.
Okay, but loss of sexual desire sometimes is a symptom that indicates a health problem. I know I'd be concerned - less about how I measured up in terms of accessibility and more about my health, well-being and balanced life.
I have trusting friends who tell me they experience menopause as immensely liberating because they have stopped feeling "driven by their hormones" to impossible situations, where the pressure from partners is unmistakable, them using the desire she should be feeling as a cover for his will to have sex. But I see these women's experience raise a lot of eyebrows in what could be termed a compulsory-sex culture.
I think there are probably women who think there's something "wrong with them" if they don't want sex as much as their partners do, especially when they get tired of putting out when they don't feel like it in order to keep the peace.
...or to keep their partner from cheating in this culture that assumes men deserve sex anytime whenever they can get it.
That is part of objectification mentality Ghislaine and the male belief in interchangability, aka one vagina is as good as another!
yeah exactly. And now we have a "study" claiming that any woman who is not horny and available all of the time for her man has something wrong with her. Hopefully a pill is developped soon to market. Women and girls are clearly not feeling the pressure enough.
I have trusting friends who tell me they experience menopause as immensely liberating because they have stopped feeling "driven by their hormones" to impossible situations, where the pressure from partners is unmistakable, them using the desire she should be feeling as a cover for his will to have sex. But I see these women's experience raise a lot of eyebrows in what could be termed a compulsory-sex culture.
Personally, I think it's kind of sad that anybody sees having a sex drive as being "driven by their hormones". Sex is a normal, healthy human activity and sexual desire is part of that.
yeah exactly. And now we have a "study" claiming that any woman who is not horny and available all of the time for her man has something wrong with her. Hopefully a pill is developped soon to market. Women and girls are clearly not feeling the pressure enough.
I didn't read it that way at all. Bit mystified, actually. What the study said was that sexual health issues caused distress for women. It seems a lot like stating the obvious, but your reading of it seems to me to require accepting that a lack of sexual desire or response is normal. I don't think that's the case. True, women's sexual desire can decrease some with the onset of menopause, but men's sexual response and desire decreases with age as well. Anyway, the study said nothing about being "horny and available all the time" and actually also noted excessive desire as a concern for some women, so I think you're reading your own preconceived notions into it.
I just finished Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Freidman's book called Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape. One article in particular stuck out from the others, looking at sexual gender roles and how from youth men and women are sexually positioned in two ways: Men as predators and women as prey, meaning we live in a culture where men are expected to seek sex, while women play the passive role of being pursued.
That, along with many other points made in the book, make this study no surprise to me. If women are positioned to be prey/victim to men, in a society that seemingly supports rape culture, sexual anxiety is inevitable, possibly resulting in many of the conditions mentioned in this study.
In some cultures males are not considered real men unless they have a mistress on the side.
I think that what can be behind a less-than-normal sex drive for women, however, might be just the kind of pressure we're talking about though. I agree with you, Timebandit, that a sex drive is healthy and that it can be distressing to lose it. I was once on a medication that caused me to lose my sex drive almost completely, for quite a while, and it was not a good thing at all.
I think it's possible (having experienced it in past relationships) for a dynamic to build over time, where if you feel pressured into having sex when you don't feel like it (and I'm not talking about being forcibly raped, I'm talking just feeling pressured) then it can make you feel resentful over time and hardly ever in the mood. So many female friends have told me about (and I've experienced myself) partners who keep wheedling when they don't feel like it, etc. To the point where they don't want to be physically affectionate at all with their partners in case it gets misinterpreted as a prelude to sex, or in case their partner gets turned on and they find themselves in a situation where they don't feel like it.
There are all sorts of unhealthy dynamics between couples that could explain this "lack of sex drive" that women might be feeling. And I think a lot of women turn it in on themselves and believe they're somehow defective if they don't want it as much as their partners do - or if they start wanting it less and less because they feel like they're being pressured.
I know that for me, that has explained a number of periods of "low sex drive" that I've experienced over the years. Which is why I look under the surface for causes of such "sex-related stress".
Thx Michelle - you articulated what I was thinking perfectly.
I think it's kind of sad that anybody sees having a sex drive as being "driven by their hormones".
It's not an illusion, it is these women's experience where, even past the time they knew better, they found themselves driven into very problematic relationships (euphemism). And the link to hormones is very real since menopause ended the said drive, even if doctors would have been happy to prescribe hormones to kickstart it back.
Sex is a normal, healthy human activity and sexual desire is part of that.
I am sure you will agree that a lot of women are routinely pressured and raped by men who feel entitled to make this a norm and guilt them into consent.
I think it's kind of sad that anybody sees having a sex drive as being "driven by their hormones".
It's not an illusion, it is these women's experience where, even past the time they knew better, they found themselves driven into very problematic relationships (euphemism). And the link to hormones is very real since menopause ended the said drive, even if doctors would have been happy to prescribe hormones to kickstart it back.
Well, I call bullshit. We make choices, and suggesting that hooking up with a bad partner is all about your hormones is just one more way of reinforcing the Victorian notion that women and their constitutions are weak. Fuck that noise.
I've been in bad relationships and good ones. The difference was not whether my estrogen levels were up or down, but the level of maturity with which I was making my decisions and the amount of ownership I took in making them. I don't believe for an instant that any other woman out there is any different in this.
Sex is a normal, healthy human activity and sexual desire is part of that.
I am sure you will agree that a lot of women are routinely pressured and raped by men who feel entitled to make this a norm and guilt them into consent.
I don't necessarily accept that as a truism. Some women may, and that's unfortunate, but the majority? Probably not. I think there are also a lot of women out there who are attached to their sex drive and would be distressed to see it evaporate. I don't believe that's men making anything thing the norm, I think that's women being whole people instead of the idealized version you've got in your own head, martin. And I'd like to point out that version is every bit as sexist as the porn star fantasy that macho dudes indulge in.
I think that what can be behind a less-than-normal sex drive for women, however, might be just the kind of pressure we're talking about though. I agree with you, Timebandit, that a sex drive is healthy and that it can be distressing to lose it. I was once on a medication that caused me to lose my sex drive almost completely, for quite a while, and it was not a good thing at all.
I think it's possible (having experienced it in past relationships) for a dynamic to build over time, where if you feel pressured into having sex when you don't feel like it (and I'm not talking about being forcibly raped, I'm talking just feeling pressured) then it can make you feel resentful over time and hardly ever in the mood. So many female friends have told me about (and I've experienced myself) partners who keep wheedling when they don't feel like it, etc. To the point where they don't want to be physically affectionate at all with their partners in case it gets misinterpreted as a prelude to sex, or in case their partner gets turned on and they find themselves in a situation where they don't feel like it.
There are all sorts of unhealthy dynamics between couples that could explain this "lack of sex drive" that women might be feeling. And I think a lot of women turn it in on themselves and believe they're somehow defective if they don't want it as much as their partners do - or if they start wanting it less and less because they feel like they're being pressured.
I know that for me, that has explained a number of periods of "low sex drive" that I've experienced over the years. Which is why I look under the surface for causes of such "sex-related stress".
I'm not disagreeing with you, Michelle, I'm just pointing out that this isn't isolated for in the study itself. I don't think we can say it's one or the other based on the information we're given here. Could be combination of all of it and in varying degrees. If the cause is relationship problems, well, most women can self-identify that one. But the concern for me is that if it isn't relationship-based and we just say, well, it's perfectly normal to lose your sex drive, there may be women out there who are ignoring a symptom of a larger problem and putting themselves at risk of further harm. It isn't something that should be ignored on either level.
...the idealized version you've got in your own head, martin.
Timebandit, you know, it's really tiresome the way you try to scuttle every interesting and important discussion by slipping in a personal attack because the experiences I speak about seem out of bounds of your liberal book. Could you give me a break, please?
No, I don't think I can. No, that's not accurate, I could, but I won't. Because, see, I'd actually rather deal with an openly sexist macho dude than a guy like you, who sugar-coats his sexist notions by co-opting feminism. At least the macho dudes are up front with it and easy to nail down. You, you're more slippery - you couch the notion of women's inherent biological weakness in terms of women's experiences, naturally related to you as a sympathetic listener. Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth.
Trust me, you don't find what I do half as tiresome as I find what you do.
The experiences you enumerate aren't out of bounds, they're just cop-outs. Rather than respond to the argument, you've chosen to whine about me saying mean things to you. Maybe I could have sugar-coated it and said it in a nicer way, martin, but here's the thing - if you accept that hormones make women make bad choices in relationships, you can't think much of women. It seems to me that if women really are relating these experiences to you (which I wouldn't accept at face value), and they honestly believe this, they're in denial and avoiding responsibility for their own lives and that strikes me as far more anti-feminist than anything I've ever postulated.
So please, martin, do explain where I've got it wrong.
I wonder if rabble would be good enough to grant any of these women a babble account of their own, so they could discuss their experiences in the first person?
Some of us are here, discussing our experiences in the first person.
It's weird, isn't it, how Timebandit and I can be looking at this from different perspectives and yet still respect each other's experiences and viewpoints.
Some of us are here, discussing our experiences in the first person.
Of course. I just thought maybe if the women had accounts it would get Martin out of the role of middleman.
Well, I'll bow out if I'm such an aggravation: it is your issue. But I don't accept any of the characterizations Timebandit has tried to put in my mouth. And my friends' experiences remain, although I agree it's not for me to characterize them.
I have no issue with martin's statement about hormones driving girls and women actions, in fact, people do not have a problem with stating hormones drive boys and men, so why should it be any different for women? It is truth.
It's crap and a cop-out on both accounts. If we can say "The estrogen made me do it", then it's fair game for men to say "The testosterone made me do it". How many of us ever thought it was acceptable for men to write off their actions in this way? Haven't I heard the argument made here on babble that men need to be held accountable? I'm pretty sure I have. So don't women, too?
Or are we really inherently more weak-willed than men and this feminism business just so much clucking?
martin, instead of being huffy, refute it. From my perspective, the huff just means I nailed it.
OK. IMO, you are comparing apples and oranges. Abusive self-interested behaviour by rapists who blame hormones (or have ideologues do it for them) and submissive, self-destroying moves by women who, by their own recognizance (this is NOT any personal clichéed view of women talking), have often put themselves in impossible situations because they felt driven to have sex. And they hated it and themselves. These friends have told me that this pattern and the very real pain associated with it stopped abruptly after menopause and its hormonal change. You can insult them (or me) all you want, I think that experience needs to be taken into account if we are to move beyond a strictly voluntarist view. IMO, it's not Black or White, all or nothing: people can still be held accountable for their choices despite our acknowledging hormonal influences. Everything does NOT hinge strictly on individual will.
As to whatever you think you "nailed", frankly, I don't give a d.
Well, you couldn't expect them to cultivate a healthy relationship within which to have sex. Just couldn't, poor, weak little hormone-driven vessels that they are. Beyond their control.
Bullshit. It's every bit as self-serving as men who use physiology as an excuse. It's exactly the same. If it's your physiology, you aren't responsible. That's what it all boils down to.
Sure, we make decisions for all sorts of reasons, sometimes bad decisions for bad reasons. But they're still decisions, ultimately.
Well, you couldn't expect them to cultivate a healthy relationship within which to have sex. Just couldn't, poor, weak little hormone-driven vessels that they are. Beyond their control.
Yuk all you want, but have you envisioned that maybe they don't want that, maybe they don't think a relationship is that "healthy" if its only function is to allow one to have sex when the urge hits?
But I agree with your last paragraph.
The survey defined a sexual health issue as any one of the following conditions: lack of desire for sexual activity, inability to become sexually aroused, inability to have an orgasm, pain during intercourse, vaginal dryness, or excessive desire for sexual activity.
__________________________________________________________________
ok lets see lets say this a hetero relationship right.
lacc of desire, inability to be aroused, inability to have an orgasm, pain during intercourse, and vaginal dryness = Yall niggas need to put some work in goddam.K lets be real for a second this talking about sex righ women on this be real for a second and admit it ima ask this to str8 women cuz u know only know about that.
So if a man is making you cum every time yall have sex, multiple times, and making u feel sexy. Are you gonna have the above problems for the most part? I mean the most part it could be physical but for the most part u know.
In a culture where sexuality is repressed it also means aii this gonna be mostly white ppl right? So aint white dudes for the most part since little taught that like u gotta be nice and succ up to women(I aint sayin be a jerk n yall know exactly what I mean) and also that women dont actually like sex but just reward guys with it? So this also means that they dont know what to do most men dont period am I right? Cuz it aint talked about, so like I been saying looking at my POV a patriarchy is dum as shit because for one thing it repressing female sexuality which agen from my POV means u know less bangin n that never a good thing.
I rest my case.
Excessive desire to me is because of a culture that says women cant be sexual so it more of that then anything else.
edit- O btw every women can have a clitoral as well as a vaginal orgasm lets break it down for a sec why do orgasms feel good as well as sex whats the purpose.
Every women in fact can and there ways to do it that aint even hard if their trust, etc u can be at the point where u like yo ma ima count to 10 n u gonna cum. N guess what she will. there bare shit idk if we supposed to discuss this on babble but fucc it this is knowledge that needs to be passed around nigga.
For females
1. When she orgasms her cervix opens up and draws the semen in
2. It feels good so she'll want to do it more often
3. Itz addictive
Why it in mens interest from a male POV
1. Yall like to fucc too dont u?
2. If u trying to have kids nuff said
3. Yall like to fucc too dont u?
4. Cuz it makes her want it more reason for you to make her have an orgasm
edit - and women be honest real talk
k so aii tell me if im right I feel that if I know more im empowering her cuz u know she feels less inhibited too righ?or idk how to explain it
is this one part im right on? A women once told me women want a man who exciting but not reccless, domiant but not domineering, in control but not controlling, and considerate but not boring. And I know yall gonna break the code or w.e by admitting it but im pretty sure im right so u know pm if yall dont wanna put the info out hard lol
And yes im perfectly serious
Excessive desire to me is because of a culture that says women cant be sexual so it more of that then anything else.
Yeah, God forbid the problem lies with men's expectations... (rolling-eyes)
1. I don't need a man to make me feel sexy - I either do or I don't want to.
2. Women empower themeselves, men don't empower us sexually or otherwise. Feminism 101.
3. If a man tells me he's gonna make me cum I generally don't. It's kinda up to me actually and I'm always amazed at men's ego about their sexual prowess and their certainty they have control over what I get out of sex. I get out what I out in. Irritate me by thinking you control it through trust, or making me feel sexy or what ever other macho shit you can come up with and it's just going to annoy me.
4. All women can have vaginal or clitoral orgasms eh? I'm sure that'll be news to some. Please tell me all about the G spot will you.
5. I'm glad to know sex is addictive. Thank you. It's always nice to have man explain my sexuality to me.
6. Stop speaking for women, well white women anyway. Please and thank you.
edit- YO martin what did you mean? I just meant like it makes women feel ashamed of their sexuality no? Explain g
Martin Explained
...am I right?
I don't think so. But you're doing your best to offend, I'll give you that. Why don't you stop describing women as machines you are sooo competent at turning on and any failings of oh-so-wonderful het sex as being their problem? And women's responses to that shit as really not understanding you? It's pathetic.
...am I right?
I don't think so. But you're doing your best to offend, I'll give you that.
What I basically said was men need women, women need men for u know call it mating. In our culture that aint no fucced up observation it pretty obvious. Yall trippin man
women need men for u know call it mating
Beware of the obvious, you'll be surprised how easily it can make a fool of you.
Ya, you caught me. I wasn't at all referencing the fact that you are speaking about the sexuality of white women and our repressed sexual relationship. Nope. Instead I'm viewing women of colour as inferior to me by chosing not to speak for them. I wouldn't at all think they can speak for themselves. Thanks for calling me a racist before offering to educate me sexually.
I mean what would do without men!!! What about our lesbian sisters! Without a man to tell them what feels good they must be so lost.
Like I said guys who brag they can make me cum are annoying and arrogant. I'll pass on your generous offer. I don't think women come to babble so you can tell them they are sexually repressed but a 10 count with you will help them out. It's just a tad sexist.
That was a quick edit. Not quick enough though.
OK Im wrong this time Ill admit it still one thing I will stand by is that female sexuality is seen as something bad and is repressed.
I didnt even mean it like that still I was lol aii a 10 count with you will help them out. Aii I made myself look like a idiot I was giving an example tho n na I didnt even mean that a women needs a man to make her feel good I meant straight women dawg.
Still I was hyping I calmed down now still Im makin progress but im young u know lol I get like that sometimes
We still cool?
That was a quick edit. Not quick enough though.
I think it copied n pasted on the clipboard ill put it bacc if u want u know Im not even tryna hide what I said aii here ill put it bacc
edit- dam looks like I deleted it n never did cut if u still got it somehow jus put it in a post n ill copy it bacc into my old post
edit- well yo u still got the other post up to make me look like a idiot lol so u know
I don't see an real progress. You just stopped using "bitches" and "hos". You can't seem to stop speaking for women. And quite frankly I don't think you're young at all but that's a whole other story.
You called me a racist and offered to show me around my cervix. We weren't cool before and this sure didn't change my mind.
I don't see an real progress. You just stopped using "bitches" and "hos". You can't seem to stop speaking for women. And quite frankly I don't think you're young at all but that's a whole other story.
You called me a racist and offered to show me around my cervix. We weren't cool before and this sure didn't change my mind.
Yo Hold up edited Was gonna be nice fucc that.
1st of all Who THE Fucc are you tryna tell me my age. Lol yo In age na I aint old still born the year pac formed thug life go google that.
As for ur negativity towards me I think race and other shit aint got a small part to play in that why dont u just say why you seem to hate me so much? Just say it? Real talk I dont bare no ill will towards u except when u return the favor then it momentary It aint really a pressing issue for me wether Scout likes me or not but atm Im wondering cuz U aint ever had anything positive to say even when others have. I aint gonna go farther then that.
U are racist but I never offered to show u around ur cervix wtf? Real talk I always imagined u as a old lady so u know that doulbe wtf? Triple if you consider that for the most part I aint really attracted to white women...
But aii If u right ill accknowledge if u wanna sink to the lvl of always saying shit wether im right or not u know thats on u.
But as for the word thing Sayin this not just to u n ur proly gonna come out with a post about how u think im lying but I dont give a fucc anyway. I learned something from this wether u wanna believe it or not and I gained something from u know the shit I got on being sexist (rightly so tho). As u can clearly see I aint ever gave a fucc about language on this or in RL but the reason I dont use shit like bitch(still end up sometimes but not towards women still aint good), brainer, ho,etc. Is cuz I realized something dont know how to explain it ill try.
Like If ima have my fist up and do that shit then I aint being no dif then dem kluccies in that while fighting for one group im ignoring a group that I love hard too lol. So u know outa respect for my sistas, my momz, w.e I try I got hyphy but in the end I try. I know I cant understand how it is to be a women but u know I try to make it less painful when it is to the best of my knowledge or however u wanna say it and aint like I dont love women (which aint even got much relevance I know that). But shit I have trouble using words so u know I never get far in expressing myself online
Please don't hold back.
Snort.
I have. You just don't listen. You'd like it to be about race that would make it easy for you. You engage in sexist behavior over and over again. I don't have to tolerate that based on your age or your race. And no, not everyone has positive things to say about your behavior.
If I have engaged in racism point it out to a moderator and prove it. Otherwise your violating babble policy. You edited out what you said about how to get us grrls off and the part where you offered to help me out.
Well I don't think I'm old but then again I remember where I was when Biggie and Tupac were killed so compared to you I guess I might be old. But it's still utterly out of order to use that as an insult. Old ladies have sex too. And well I'm not attracted to assholes so I guess that makes us even though why you think it's appropriate to keep referencing having sex with me I'm not really sure. Oh maybe because your a sexist asshole?
What? Do you have some privilege that dictates I shut the fuck up and let you have the floor to pontificate about Feminism and female sexuality?
Bullshit. I call flat out bullshit. You only seem to have trouble with the few people who aren't kissing your ass. Then you go all victim and backpedal.
um no I can never fully express myself thru words just how it is. Call bullshit aint change the truth. I dont reference fuccin u yo I said go n prove me wrong I think n that meant go do that to urself. N I never said old ladies dont have sex I said I dont want to have sex with old ladies.
Privelege? When Im right admit when I aint call me for it? That cool?
Tell a moderator? LOl 1st of all I dont snitch, 2nd how would they handle it any better? Me running to the white moderators to report just reinforces shit n I aint ever been one to run to any1 else anyway. And there a big point of it aint what's said but what isn't or how it said.
I dont want to have sex with u lol dont even think that yo.
Basically yo if we were talking in real life on a lot of shit id still be wrong but ud get my point clearer because of the fact that I can use more then words. And also Idk how ur understanding a lot of shit im saying because rememember culture is shared meaning n we from different ones so Idk how ur taking it in and u dont know how I mean it fully.
N Who the fucc is kissing my ass? Victim? When Do I play victim? I call bullshit on that
Well 99% of what you actually said is gone now isn't it? It's an interesting attempt to reframe what you said without the full context.
You don't like it when your told your wrong and on most of the other things you post about I don't give a shit if your right or wrong. I give a shit about Feminism.
You don't just get to wander around babble making accusations of racism. You backing it up and you take it up with a mod. It's not optional.
I didn't actually think you want to have sex with me. I don't think that was ever really the point. I think you wanted to offend some prudish old lady so she'd go away and shut the fuck up and let you keep talking about how to please a women. Sadly your innuendos backfired. I'm not intimidated by a man who thinks he can talk sex.
You were explicitly clear when it came to describing how to handle a cervix so spare me. Like I said backpedal. Not to mention the culture you expounded on was that of white hetero sex so really? Maybe it's you who doesn't understand.
When you paint yourself into a corner and are asked to be accountable for the things you say you claim your young and that you can't communicate very well. That's your fall back answer every time you get hammered for utterly clear communcations that just hapen to be sexist in nature.
No one is forcing you to constantly stick your 2 cents in on the subject of Feminism or female sexuality, you just can't seem to shut up about it and that is a fucking problem.
Ill still admit where Im wrong Aii so tell me when Im right or wrong aii thatz cool then.
N No I dont snitch I Prove it myself. n na the point of it was I was right about the deep spot thing. I wasnt tryna intimidate but ye I went too far ima admit that lol.
Mayb I dont If I dont help no? Na Ill Still be accountable it just stands for any shit that is I got trouble expressing myself with words ima Right Brain person str8 up. I aint even saying they aint sexist n na I said I got hyphy cuz Im young never said it was right u know.
I say something n sometimes im right when Im not it a learning expierience but ima listen more n talk less.
Whoa. Ok, Rexdale_Punjabi, I'm gonna start by saying I don't in every instance know what the hell you're talking about, but I think I'm getting the gist here.
The problem seems to start with your first post in this thread where you go WAY beyond knowing what you're talking about, and you do so in a manner that's going to be pretty offensive to those who do. Also, I don't see where this could have anything to do with race. Also, your own views/experience in relationships aren't really relevant.
It goes downhill from there, and people are having understandable defensive reactions, and the thread is getting way off topic.
Please stay out of this thread now.
Here is the original press release concerning that survey, published by the National Women's Health Resource Center this week. An interesting finding was left out of the forbes.com article, one that can be interpreted a number of ways:
...three-quarters of the women surveyed believe they should have sex once a week or more to be considered sexually healthy (76%). Findings show, however, that only half actually had sex this often over the last four weeks (54%).
Are women not just getting any? Or could some of them be internalizing a social norm about how often they should perform?
Also given that this story is part of an "educational" campaign entitled "Sex and a Healthier You", created "with support from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.", can we already envision a new "miracle pill" about to be prescribed?
Gak. This thread has gone all wonky! I'll try to fix it, and if I can't, I'll close this and open a new continuation thread.
The formatting bugs with this software make me want to tear out my hair. Strand by strand.
Yay! I win!
It's really important to close your quote tags, folks. :)
I just finished Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Freidman's book called Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape. One article in particular stuck out from the others, looking at sexual gender roles and how from youth men and women are sexually positioned in two ways: Men as predators and women as prey, meaning we live in a culture where men are expected to seek sex, while women play the passive role of being pursued.
That, along with many other points made in the book, make this study no surprise to me. If women are positioned to be prey/victim to men, in a society that seemingly supports rape culture, sexual anxiety is inevitable, possibly resulting in many of the conditions mentioned in this study.
I don't know about this; it seems like an easy stereotype.
I remember being a teenaged hockey player, leaving the ice on the way to the dressing-room and having to pass by rows of girls with a distinctly predatory look in their eyes as they sized up me and my team-mates.
If anyone says that females don't pursue males they are either naive or lying.
yes, well get back to us, when females are raping and murdering men, the way that men are doing to women.
Stats now show that 1 out of 3, girls/women, experience violence against them by men, up from 1 out of 4, 10 years ago.
I remember being a teenaged hockey player, leaving the ice on the way to the dressing-room and having to pass by rows of girls with a distinctly predatory look in their eyes...
Interesting how any active sexual interest from women is immediately deemed predatory by Al-Q and his cronies. Women are supposed to sit, all ripe and ready to be plucked...
Also, maybe what they were eying was simply you guys' taken-for-granted right to non-mixed hockey teams... not to mention the best slots of the arena schedule...
:D
...more interesting how martin would never comment on a description of teenage boys as 'predatory', except to elaborate on their innate propensity to rape and misogyny.
I didn't say that. What I said, and what you are avoiding, is that females can be as predatory as males.
Of course they can. The salient point is that, by and large, they aren't.
...their innate propensity to rape and misogyny
Actually, no, I think it's cultural.
Sure, whatever.
But Patriarchy exists everywhere. It isn't specific to one culture.
If anyone says that females don't pursue males they are either naive or lying.
They do, but usually not in the same way as men pursue women. When that does happen, the man's often a bit freaked out at first.
It is interesting to me how the "sexual health issues" include both "lack of desire" and "excessive desire", while most of this debate is focused only on the "lack of desire" aspect.
From the press release on the study, I can't tell what percent of women had which issues. But perhaps many women are having the issue of wanting sex more often than their partner does, while the assumption here is automatically that the women have less desire and are being pressured into sex by their partners.
I'd also like to see studies like this talk to both sexes instead of just one. It is hard to come to any real conclusions without knowing if men have similar issues.
Presumably if some women feel they have "excessive sexual desire" then their male partner likely feels like in comparison he has a "lack of desire." So I don't think it is as simple as saying that we're "in a culture that defines women in terms of sexual accessibility."
Say, is there any male who doesn't have sex-related stress...pretty well every hour?
I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
Well, more than one thing can be true. Your last sentence is correct.
But there's tons of unanswered questions. Who defines what level of sexual desire is "excessive" and what is "lacking"? In general, in patriarchy, it's men (in general) who define this for women. Whether we accept this is another story.
But it makes sense to me, the point you raised, Dana, that comparing partners might give us more information, as there will often be one with a larger libido than the other, and in het couples the one with the higher sex drive is assumed to be the man, even though this isn't always the case.
As for why these studies aren't done on both men and women, well, women's sexuality is the one which patriachal society has deemed needs to be monitored and controlled.
I can also say, as a feminist, that men's sexuality is oppressive for men, no doubt about it. But monitored and controlled? No. Get it up whenever you want, perform like a bull in heat every time, always be in the mood and ready for action, that sounds pretty narrow and oppressive to me. Never mind that sex itself is so narrowly defined in the heteronormative ways that it is. Viagra is the "fix" for the only "problem" defined for men's sexuality, the inability to maintain an erection. What other problems could there be?
But women's "problems" with sex? They are often always presented in sexist ways. Not being sexual enough is defined by her partner's need for sex. Being "too sexual", again, is defined by her partner's sexual needs. If she has no partner, there's even more wiggle room (ha) for oppressive assumptions to be made about how sexual she is, with how many partners, etc.
This reminds me of the Woody Allen joke from Annie Hall. It's a split screen and they're both with their separate therapists, and each therapist asks them "How often do you have sex?" And she says "Oh god, all the time! 3 to 4 times a week!" And he says "Hardly ever. Maybe 3 to 4 times a week!" Yes, that's reiterating the myth, but it still makes me smile. It's also part of the problem of course.
Say, is there any male who doesn't have sex-related stress...pretty well every hour?
I don't think thinking about sex, wishing one had "more" or even having an erection qualifies as "stress". A lot of men are quite happy with state of tension.
That reminds me of another joke: A hard-on doesn't count as personal growth.
LTJ: ...their innate propensity to rape and misogyny
Actually, no, I think it's cultural.
LTJ (clarifying): Sure, whatever.
CMOT Dibbler: But Patriarchy exists everywhere. It isn't specific to one culture.
Yes, patriarchy seems to cut across most cultures. So that even in different cultures, men are taught different ways - some of them sexual - to keep women in their place, i.e. away from entitlement as subjects.
Your act is getting very, very stale.
Thank you for stepping into this thread and stating this very real state of being for women.
We can see, by how many males who have entered this thread, to have their say, or pissing matches over it, just how true it is.
And thanks for the jokes, made my day. :D
I don't think thinking about sex, wishing one had "more" or even having an erection qualifies as "stress". A lot of men are quite happy with state of tension.
You like being sexually frustrated?
Look, I can understand presenting masturbation as a viable alternative to sex. It's certainly helped me. I can even accept the arguement that some men are a sexual or have low sex drives, but to argue that many men are content to live in a state of constant sexual tension is just strange. The release usually has to happen some how, maybe not with women but definatly with a dishwasher or your right hand.
Yes, release has to happen somehow - and unless one is paralyzed from the neck down (as some people are, unfortunately, and I certainly don't belittle their predicament), it does, rather easily, if it's simply release you want. So there is no frustration UNLESS one has become convinced by dominant culture that release must come at the hands, mouth or other orifice of someone else, usually according to a hyper-codified scenario, inculcated through pornography.
If release is not necessarily the end-point desired - or if one can take time to smell the flowers along the way - I have found that a non-directive "soft-on", a state of semi-excited reverie, is quite pleasurable as is the unfocussec fooling around of necking.
As for "thinking about women" for men, this is IMO also more pleasurable than frustrating (otherwise men would rather think of hockey scores or something). I think this is because most men - myself included - get a masculine high from imagining women as sex partners even if they don't go therough the motions of getting one per se. This may or may not have an equivalent for women, I don't know.
Does this relate at all to your own experience?
I'm going to move this to the masculinity thread...
martin wtf are u talking about? Ur thinking is forgetting that mayb women like to have sex too? So ur whole thing about o release must come from sum1 else how about sex feels better and some men actually like being wit women?n vice-versa?
Too hard to understand? I cant understand 1/2 the shit ur saying but is ur thinking that to have sex with a women is opressing her so u dont? If that it LOL
Apparently sex is a form of oppression for women, or at least that's been martin's experience.
I've read some of the first and some of the last comments and all I have to say is this.
Is this a free discussion board, or a disdain with males - femine power complaint commity (I say this because you can see multiple posts together jumping on the bandwagon to blame and assault males)
&
I've witnessed so many failed relationships and marriages and it all boils down to one thing I believe.
Happiness on both sides.
No relationship is happy without sex and it the lack of sex causes confliction on both sides.
The tricky bit it seems though is that if you don't do everything your girlfriend/wife wishes and make her perfectly happy, your partner will emotionally shut down and sex for her will become a chore rather then a pleasure.
So the choices remaining for males are accept a life of no sex and mutuall unhappiness or live your life to do everything your partner wishes but don't expect she will have the same respect for you, I just recently saw a friends marriage fall apart because he was so whipped, he performed to the letter of her law, he got no sex though & she left him for a more "manly" guy.
Call me an idealist but I think that when it gets to that: sex as a commodity urgently needed by men (but not women in your book?) and denied in a form of backmail, then the relationship has already failed and it's just inappropriate o blame the women more than the man.
I can live with a world where sex is wanted for itself and because of affection for the other and people do make an effort to accommodate each other and be wanted as much as they want. When people can't achieve that, it's best to leave.
But one way to avoid that dire end seems to be to really listen to women's experience of sex (and the relationship in general), which is something men tend not to do enough because they are so invested in sex as the yardstick* of their identity and would rather take their "information" from pornography. Hence, higher sex-related stress for heterosexual women.
*I'm being generous...
Call me an idealist but I think that when it gets to that: sex as a commodity urgently needed by men (but not women in your book?) and denied in a form of backmail, then the relationship has already failed and it's just inappropriate o blame the women more than the man.
That said, I think young women are taught that sex IS a commodity in many ways from a very young age. We see it in abstinence-only education/the purity movement, where young women are told they have a "gift" to save for their future husband, and any pre-marital sex they might have throws away that gift. With that comes power -- a power that women have something that men desire and they are women are the gatekeeper of this commodified virginity.
It's a ridiculous concept, and even if schools aren't teaching abstinence-only education, the theory that men are after sex and women don't desire it, but have the power to control it is going to continue to exist. How can it not, with teen movies where young men are rushing to lose their virginity before graduation, while young women are trying to hold on to it. Add false headlines telling the world (using scare tactics) that "girls have gone wild," while at the same time reporting extensively on purity balls where girls pledge their virginity to their fathers until they are married.
These double standards are a huge part of the world young women grow up in -- taught almost as soon as they learn about the birds and the bees (if not before) that sex IS a commodity, and that women aren't supposed to LIKE sex. Women (especially young women) that like sex aren't the norm -- and if they're doing it, they're likely to have the words "slut" "whore", etc. tagged on to their names.
So, no wonder we feel anxiety.
All true. Yet wouldn't you agree that there is also a strong line being fed to women that - once they are "on the market" - they are supposed to like heterosex, that considering other options is sick, regardless of context or personal dispositions or choices? Such pressure could also go some way explaining sex-related stress, no?
Absolutely, and I think they're all related. I think from birth, young women are provided the discourse for a very narrow idea of sex. It's not that men don't receive some of this, but not to the same degree as women.
Fact is, in many discussions on female sexuality, especially in the media, it's not only a narrow definition of sex explored, but also a narrow description of women: Heterosexual, white, able-bodied, engageing in what some sex columnists call "vanilla" sex.
The problem is there are so many "lines" being delivered to women, most of which contradict one another.
The 'Perfect' Porn Vulva
http://www.alternet.org/sex/141479/the_'perfect'_porn_vulva%3A_more_women_demanding_cosmetic_genital_surgery/
"One of the newest wrinkles in the business of sex is the explosion of genital cosmetic surgery.."
if they were messin up niggas diccz you know that story would be bigger but...
why would you get that lol like itz all good as long as there's no warts or some shit on it lol
but really I never read far but someone saying spending money to cut up ur "hoo-ha" isnt going to fix what's wrong with you and that's probably the most important thing.
I need to nip this particular strain of thread drift in the bud. This has nothing to do with the OP, and despite some charming previous drift of men dominating the thread over how they see this issue, which is, guess what, not the point, this newer drift is over the top.
Thanks to all for your cooperation.
" Because, see, I'd actually rather deal with an openly sexist macho dude than a guy like you, who sugar-coats his sexist notions by co-opting feminism. At least the macho dudes are up front with it and easy to nail down. You, you're more slippery - you couch the notion of women's inherent biological weakness in terms of women's experiences, naturally related to you as a sympathetic listener. Butter wouldn't melt in your mouth." wrote Timebandit.
As a frequently accused sexist macho male, I think you have this Martin fella about sewed up, Timebandit. And I much appreciated the opportunity to read ya doing it.
Though he really is obvious enough.
Well, I used to have a lot of sex-related stress, then I discovered alcohol.
I like to play it safe. I'm in, I'm out a few times, and nobody gets hurt.
As a frequently accused sexist macho male, I think you have this Martin fella about sewed up, Timebandit. And I much appreciated the opportunity to read ya doing it.
Though he really is obvious enough.
Actually, I found Timebandit's instant defensiveness (and I mean literally 5 mins. after the OP was posted), to the point where she couldn't even hear what others were saying, painful to read. The initial comments were simply about reading a published study critically and being able to question marketed notions of healthy sexuality. And kind of strange that a newbie named Coyoteman would dredge this up over a year and a half later, complete with fake southern accent and asinine commentary.
This thread should have been in the feminism forum from the beginning.
jas, it was part an ongoing conversation that martin and I had been having over the course of a couple of years, in and out of various threads, so this thread in and of itself doesn't give you the whole context of that particular babble relationship. And I was not defensive at all - quite the opposite. I argued with the substance of his post and in the end put martin on the defensive. I'd also like to point out that I did think, and still do, that martin was generally well-meaning, but was still stuck on some essentialist ideas of male and female. Frequently. And, if you note in post #24, Michelle points out that, although we disagree on some points, there's a level of rescpect - mainly because she's telling me what her lived experience is, and not filtering someone else's through the male lens. Well, and because she's Michelle - hard not to get along with Michelle.
Now, as I recall, you're male, aren't you? I have a suggestion for you: Until you've put 40+ years into living as a woman (like I have), you might keep your opinions on whether I am allowed to rebut some guy's misguided notions of female experience to a minimum.
I've never declared any particular gender on babble. Some people assume I'm male; others have assumed I'm female. I'm not sure what that has to do with the thread topic.
Your very first post mentions the problems when "one partner" stops wanting sex, but that's not what the article and study was about. It's about women. In a society that endorses male sexual privilege, and where 1 in 3 girls are sexually abused, and where as high as 1 in 2 women will experience sexual assault or violence in their lifetime, do you think that defining certain naturally occurring characteristics of a woman's sexual life as a "health issue" might be problematic? How does a society define sexual health? For women? And why? For what purpose? I think that's what the topic is about. The article itself is a non-story.
I was responding to martin's comment following the quote in the article, which I found a bit of a jump to a conclusion. I was clear about my objections to his conclusions at the time.
Is there any particular reason you've decided to start deconstructing posts I made a year and a half ago?
I've never declared any particular gender on babble. Some people assume I'm male; others have assumed I'm female. I'm not sure what that has to do with the thread topic.
Gender is a huge factor here. Why wouldn't you reveal yours?
Is there any particular reason you've decided to start deconstructing posts I made a year and a half ago?
"Timebandit" clearly identifies you as a member of the inner circle of the Illuminati. Clearly, you're up to something.
It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.
It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.
It is! I was born a Bilderberg baby, that society raised me to be part of the Illuminati! I can't quite help if my NWO views aren't always respected...it's society's fault!
I was responding to martin's comment following the quote in the article, which I found a bit of a jump to a conclusion. I was clear about my objections to his conclusions at the time.
Is there any particular reason you've decided to start deconstructing posts I made a year and a half ago?
Have your conclusions changed since?
Martin was asking a question, not announcing a conclusion. I was interested in the discussion that was beginning and felt annoyed at your repeated interjections insisting that your experiences speak for all women, despite what the other women in the thread were posting, and that a study attempting to define "sexual health" for women, for no apparent reason, could not be anything other than pure, unbiased and thoroughly altruistic research, and that any kind of critical reading of it must be "bullshit".
That's all.
My apology for dragging you back to al this shit timebandit. I merely intended to compliment you for a fine bit of analysis re Martin. I didn't fully appreciate that there were all these other, what I assume to be dudes, waiting to hammer on you. (I'd actually decided that the politics and sensitivity issues withinin Rabble "community", "Rabble" clearly being a misnomer
, to say nothing of Rouser, were ill suited to my style type 
. I neglected however, to turn off "email me" below. And deleting my account, 'cause I don't like the idea of these folks having my info, turns out to be impossible.)
Anway, when I read of the "gender dubious" jas getting all "huffy" and shrill with you, I just wanted you to know that opening up this old wound was not my intent.
Besides, you're handling this blighter quite well by yourself anyway.
A good day, good woman.
Have your conclusions changed since?
Martin was asking a question, not announcing a conclusion. I was interested in the discussion that was beginning and felt annoyed at your repeated interjections insisting that your experiences speak for all women, despite what the other women in the thread were posting, and that a study attempting to define "sexual health" for women, for no apparent reason, could not be anything other than pure, unbiased and thoroughly altruistic research, and that any kind of critical reading of it must be "bullshit".
That's all.
Apparently you and I read martin's comments differently. If you were focusing only on the OP, you might have a point, but I wasn't. martin made a number of assertions withing the thread, I've already explained myself and that's enough. It's not your job to take me to task over a debate I had with someone else over 18 months ago.
At no time did I purport to speak for all women - nor would I, and I don't recall ever doing so on this board. I didn't assert any of what you're attributing to me here. I have no idea why, other than some alt med threads you may be carrying a grudge over, you would be bothering to pounce on me here.
And in the interests of gender equity, will we be seeing your critique of Snert, LTJ and Al Q (all of whom posted in disagreement with martin) anytime soon? Or is it only women you disagree with who merit your needling?
Huffy and Shrill ???
How did he know the names of my hamsters..!!?!!
And in the interests of gender equity, will we be seeing your critique of Snert, LTJ and Al Q (all of whom posted in disagreement with martin) anytime soon? Or is it only women you disagree with who merit your needling?
I stopped reading at Rexdale.
Closing for length, and foe oldness.