I certainly don't think about sex every 3 minutes. Most of my mental time goes to rehashing old arguments and replaying moments when I wish I had held up my end better during a confrontation. Thinking about sex is a relief because it takes my mind off things like that.
guys really are far hornier and think about sex far more than you'd imagine, but it doesn't really get in the way when they need to do other things
That sounds about right for women, too, at least in my experience of being one. I would say that most of my mental free time goes to daydreaming (I file "thoughts of sex" under this, but it's not exclusively that), making up narratives about the people around me (including ones I don't know), and planning. Lots of planning. Including things I am going to write, say, or do.
I don't know where this notion that men are hornier than women comes from. Every single woman I've ever been friends has complained about not getting enough (or good enough) sex, whether she's single or involved, pretty much all the time. Maybe I just have abnormal friends, but I doubt it.
Certainly, when one is around women, one is aware of them as sexual. And "I wonder what it would be like to..." thoughts crop up pretty regularly in mixed company.
does this all apply to sex? Can we assume you sit around making up sexual narratives about the people around you and planning sexual things? Lots of sexual things? Including things you are going to write, say, and do, during said sexual things?
pervert.
I somewhat suspect the "guy's are much hornier" line sticks around because it makes guys more secure about their girls, and also makes them feel special when they turn their girls on. Of course, when their girls go to other pastures, it also makes the psychological destruction worse.
making up narratives about the people around me (including ones I don't know), and planning. Lots of planning. Including things I am going to write, say, or do.
To say that men are "hornier than you think" is not to say that women are less horny; particularly if, as I suspect, their horniness manifests in different ways.
The problems come when you're a dude, and the woman does want to do you, but you think, "I must be misinterpreting; women just aren't that interested in sex.".
Which is, what? The thing that Michael called you a pervert for? No, I pretty much do that, too. Albeit usually only with people I find attractive, not whatever male happens to be nearby, you pervert.
As to the original topic: Excepting a certain circumstance, I try not to think about sex, because it is frustrating. The special circumstance is if I want to pass time. If I'm bored while driving or sitting in class, then sex thoughts, which tend to caputre the attention, can help pass the time.
Behind their veils the women were like wild beasts. They thought of nothing but love-making, in the most natural way in the world, and they spoke of it with a license and simplicity of language that were astonishing. When you went by them on the street their black eyes stared at you, with a slanting downward glance as if to measure your virility, and behind your back you could hear them pass whispered judgments on your hidden charms. If you turned around they buried their faces in their hands and peered at you between their fingers. No real feeling went with this atmosphere of desire that oozed out of their eyes and seemed to permeate the village, except for one of enslavement to fate, to an inescapable higher power. Their love was blended, not with hope or enthusiasm, but with resignation. The occasion was fleeting and it should not be passed by; understanding was swift and worldless.
throwing my anecdotal weight behind silvana: my female friends with boyfriends pretty much unanimously want to be having sex more often than their boyfriends/husbands do. yes, it comes up.
Total agreement to 2, 9, and 11 (to the point where I was checking who posted each, wondering if I had been commenting in my sleep or something. Silvana -- do we know each other? If you're a first year English Lit grad student at Vanderbilt, I'm going to be very surprised.)
I don't know about every three minutes, but I'd say that I'm reasonably similar to ogged -- a thought that could be characterized as sexual drifts through my head multiple times an hour at least if I'm not doing anything absorbing, but not in a way that would distract me from something I was actually focusing on.
That "guys think about sex every three minutes" thing never made sense to me, and I suspect that I'm at least as horny as the average guy (if not, you guys are total perverts). Also, how does one even define "thinking about sex"? I assume the definition must be pretty expansive -- e.g., given that I'm straight, every time I look at an adult woman and think "she's pretty" or "she has (a) great ____" that qualifies as "thinking about sex." If "thinking about sex" entails actually thinking "I'd like to have sex with her," the number would be a lot lower, for me and I assume every straight guy.
Even if "thinking about sex" is defined in the expansive way I've suggested above, it still seems problematic. I assume that, given that I'm straight, if I look at a guy and think, "he's a handsome guy," that doesn't count as "thinking about sex" since I wouldn't have sex with him even if he asked and even if my being married were not an issue. But again, I assume that thinking essentially the same thought about an adult woman, "she's pretty," does qualify as "thinking about sex" since I'm straight and under appropriate circumstances have sex with adult women. But if I were bi, then would thinking the same thought, "he's handsome," about the guy count as "thinking about sex"? What if the "thinker" considers him/herself straight, but has at some point engaged in same-sex sex (maybe even currently does, since some people whose behavior is bisexual are in denial and insist that they're straight)? Does that person's every thought of "she's pretty" or "he's handsome" count as "thinking about sex" or not?
Not to be too gross, but what about children? Since I'm not a pedophile, if I see a child and think "that kid is really cute," surely doesn't qualify as "thinking about sex." Does the identical thought count as "thinking about sex" if the person thinking it is a pedophile? If someone exclusively a pedophile sees an adult and thinks "he's handsome" or "she's pretty," does that not count as "thinking about sex" because the person isn't interested in sex with adults?
And what's the age cutoff? If a straight, non-pedophilic man sees an eight-year-old and think "she's cute," that must not count as "thinking about sex." What if she's 16? 18? If the guy thinks "I would be willing to consider having sex with any woman above the age of consent," is thinking "she's pretty" about a girl the guy thinks is probably about 16 "thinking about sex" in State A where the age of consent is 16, but not "thinking about sex" in State B where it is 18? What if she's older or younger than he thinks -- does that make a difference? What if the person has previously had sex with someone below the age of consent? For instance, a boyfriend and girlfriend first have sex when they are both 14. Since both of them have had sex with 14-year-olds, does thinking a 14-year-old of the appropriate-to-them gender is cute thereafter count as "thinking about sex" for the rest of their lives?
What if anti-abortion zealot Neal Horsley sees a mule and thinks "that's a good-looking mule"? Does that count as "thinking about sex" since Neal by his own account had sex with mules when he was younger? What if he sees a sheep and thinks "that's a good-looking sheep," but he's never had sex with sheep? What if he hasn't done so, but would have done so if one had been available during his mule-fucking days? And what about guys who've fucked watermelons? If they think "that's a good-looking watermelon," does that qualify as "thinking about sex"?
This question is sort of wrongheaded; isn't that stat ('men think about sex every ten seconds') rather like the stats that say someone dies in a car crash/is a victim of sexual assault/has a heart attack every x minutes?
It doesn't literally mean that every three seconds someone dies in a car crash/is a victim of sexual assault/has a heart attack. ('You! In 2.5 seconds fall over dead, okay?') It means that if you take the frequency of those events and put it in a small time slice (as opposed to something more standard like chance out of a year), you get a shocking number. One woman raped every eight seconds? Or 500 women in a one hour period on a Friday night at a string of frat parties?
So, in that light, this stat isn't too surprising. Women think about sex, too. But I would bet that men think about it more during the day because it's socially acceptable for men in a way that it isn't for women.
If you average it out over a day you could get a shocking figure, but I'm betting the thoughts about sex are at the bar after work or at home watching TV.
I would agree with 36 that to get anything like the three minute figure, you have to include fleeting thoughts that someone is attractive, but disagree that it's internally impossible to distinguish between noting that someone is esthetically appealing in a non-sexual way, and noting that they are attractive in a way that includes an overtone of "I wouldn't kick him out of bed for eating crackers." A thought doesn't have to be terribly intense to be identifiable as sexual or not.
Once, in college, reading Civilization and Its Discontents, I became quite incensed when I came to the part about how women are less able to sublimate their sexual impulses than men, and thus are less productive and creative. "Fuck you, Freud, I muttered. I'm reading your book, and trust me, there are things I'd rather be doing, so I guess I can sublimate well enough." Ten minutes later I was masturbating. Freud 1, Tia 0.
I bet I don't think about sex as much as my boyfriend does, or as most guys I know do. Or I don't think about as purely, the sex I think about being more infused with emotion. I don't stand around imagining what all the men in my workplace would be like in the sack. (Even the idea: ick.)
I don't think I think about sex nearly as much, btw, in the interest of the survey; at least I'm not aware of any sexual thoughts while I'm doing normal work, not even things flitting around.
One side-effect of having lived in Mmf!'s faire cittie for a number of years is that I do pretty much instantly decide whether I'd sleep with a guy or not. (Actually, the categories are more like "maybe" and "no.") I don't know if that counts more as sexual ideation or self-defense.
This is an apples and oranges comparison. I believe that women, on average, like sex inside the relationship more than men do, or at least they do after some initial period. But I don't know any women who are seriously up for anonymous sex as a normal part of their daily lives; I know very few men whom I believe aren't interested in the idea.
I think we're measuring and comparing two different types of sex drives.
throwing my anecdotal weight behind silvana: my female friends with boyfriends pretty much unanimously want to be having sex more often than their boyfriends/husbands do. yes, it comes up.
This is only tangentially related, but in David Foster Wallace's new book of essays Consider the Lobster, he writes about attending a porn awards ceremony and hanging out in a hotel room with several porn stars (who were all wearing sweats and other deliberately non-sexy clothes, and watching Seinfeld). There are a few other people in the room as well, and Wallace describes having this (admittedly ridiculous) sense that at any moment, everyone was going to shed their clothes and start orging out. Perhaps with some "Can I borrow that towel?"-style dialogue. At this point, Wallace realizes that it's all in his head, and that porn does weird things to one's sense of expectations and boundaries. It's a pretty funny essay.
I think the "background hum" is a very apt term for it. It is omnipresent. It is like a default train of thought that will occupy my mind when it is not focusing on other matters. And for me, it will sometimes interfere with my attempts to focus on work activities (e.g., spreadsheets and such). Of course, ADD tendencies may play a role here.
And to add another anecdotal data point, I think about sex much, much, much more than my wife does.
There are a few other people in the room as well, and Wallace describes having this (admittedly ridiculous) sense that at any moment, everyone was going to shed their clothes and start orging out.
I would likely have the same thought (fantasy/hope). It would be an opportunity to, hopefully, join in. So, let's call it a hopeful fantasy.
Another interesting question that came to me because of 36: What if your observation about a member of the non-preferred sex is quasi-sexual? So, if I see a woman and think, "wow, those are some big tits," that's not sexual, but if a guy thinks that, it is? I call foul. I make observations (much to my chagrin, because I think the constant sizing up of other women is annoying) about other women's bodies all the time, and I think those are sexual. I think anytime you're making aesthetic judgments about other people's bodies it's at least quasi-sexual. So, sorry, Frederick. But don't worry, you're not gay.
On the general survey question, I'd say that it definitely depends on when I last has sex: if it's been awhile, then the fleeting glimpse of a cute (not even hot) girl in a passing car can get me distracted. But even when recently satisfied, it might only take a few passing strangers to get me thinking about it again.
RE: 36, I would say that my instantaneous, subconscious assessment of every passing nubile woman includes the sexual question, while the same is far from true with men. Even if I note that a guy is handsome, there's almost zero sexual content.
I might compare it to how I look at cars: I'm not a car guy as such, but I've paid a lot of attention since I was a teenager, and sometimes I'll spot an unfamiliar vehicle a couple blocks away. It totally catches my eye and attention - was that a new Chevy? Similarly, I'll gawk (usually subtly, I hope) at a woman who appears to be attractive from 75 yards. There's no real point to it, but it's almost compulsive.
Finally, about the comparison with women: my only speculation is that, while base levels of horniness may be comparable, women are, in fact, more likely to have horniness "blocked" by work, tiredness, other distractions. A sexy hug or kiss from my wife gets my attention no matter what else is going on, while the reverse is no longer true (it was before arrival of child). And I don't think it's just me.
On the general survey question, I'd say that it definitely depends on when I last has sex: if it's been awhile, then the fleeting glimpse of a cute (not even hot) girl in a passing car can get me distracted. But even when recently satisfied, it might only take a few passing strangers to get me thinking about it again.
The opposite is true for me. When I'm having sex regularly, my moment-to-moment sexual thoughts are multiplied.
silvana- I know you were responding to Frederick, not me, but my experience just doesn't square with what you describe. When I eye practically any woman, there's a very clear sexual judgement. There's no such assessment with men, just as there isn't with dogs (although I will certainly think, "That's a handsome dog."). I'm not worried about being gay - that's just how my brain is working. Indeed, I'd argue that that's part of the internal state of being one sexual orientation or another - are you eyeing potential partners, or looking at other people?
Indeed, when I was 18, a woman of, say, 40, would have to be actively hot for me to eye her the way I would every single woman between 15-25. Now that I'm in my 30s, the range is more like 18-50, because it's now imaginable with all those women.
I bet that similar internal self-limiting takes place along class and/or ethnic lines for many, if not all.
The opposite is true for me. When I'm having sex regularly, my moment-to-moment sexual thoughts are multiplied.
Both this and the opposite are true for me. If I've had a lot of sex recently, I think a lot about it. If it has been a long while since I've had sex, I think a lot about it. I think about sex the least in that intermediate period between "recently" and "a long while."
Hmm... maybe I need to elaborate. When I'm having sex "all the time," I do indeed think about it constantly. But, in more normal life, where it's every few days at best, it's more like hunger - really active thinking about sex is reduced for, say, a few hours to a half day after actually having some. But if it's been a week, I'll realize that I'm actually losing productivity because of it.
Ogged:A friend recently said that she was debating with her friend whether guys really think about sex "every three minutes." I gave her the answer below, and then said I'd ask the Unfoggetariat.
Is she hot?
Where's the envelope? Oh, yeah. Ok. Says here: all the fuckin' time except when I am sick, seriously distracted or being shot at. Ok, seriously ill. Seriously distracted unless there is a female around in which instance I tend to be seriously distracted from my serious distraction. But no thinking about sex while being shot at. That's right out.
'Thinking about sex' does not mean a porn video playing in my head. Thank you.
Why don't we refer to ladies as 'women'?
Ladies means I'm being formal in mixed company. Otherwise 'ladies' means pre-Alzheimer's Margaret Thatcher. Women, as a group, includes MY MOM. And I am not even going to think about that.
Silvana: Every single woman I've ever been friends has complained about not getting enough (or good enough) sex, whether she's single or involved, pretty much all the time. Maybe I just have abnormal friends, but I doubt it.
What planet are you on? How do I get tickets?
SCTM:But I don't know any women who are seriously up for anonymous sex as a normal part of their daily lives; I know very few men whom I believe aren't interested in the idea.
Silvana:So you're a woman, and dude doesn't want to do you, you think, "Shit! It's me! I must be really hideous! Guys will fuck anything that moves!"
Dear god. I don't think about anonymous sex. I think about UNanonymous sex. In the actual run-up to the practicing of actual UNanonymous sex, other considerations enter into play. For instance, being a guy, I am not real interested in being perceived as one of those dudes with lots of gold chains or one of those losers that emails every personal ad they see. That might be good for anonymous sex, but it is bad for unanonymous sex. Also, I like to have some assurance that I'm not going to be stabbed in the heart for being an evil rapist ('I came onto him and then he was willing to have sex with me, the bastard!').
When I have been hit on by females (yes, that has happened!), the hit tends to arrive with sledgehammer force, making it difficult to discern whether it is a genuine offer, or the ravings of a psycho, or an offer based on monetary exchange. Or one of those 'tests'.
It seems to me to be better to err on the side of caution. But then I when I have been rejected, I have always assumed that I was being rejected for being me (and not being some other guy) as opposed to being rejected because a woman was 'frigid'. Which is a kind of a pathetic thought.
Oh, and Joe's Foster reference in 48 reminds me of one of the funnier gags on Friends: somehow they're getting free porn on their cable, so it's on all the time (lest they lose it). One day, Chandler comes home and tells Joey, "I was just at the bank, and there was this really hot teller, and she didn't ask me to go do it with her in the vault." Joey responds, "Same kind of thing happened to me! Woman pizza delivery guy come over, gives me the pizza, takes the money, and leaves!"
I can see how all-porn, all the time would skew one's expectations of life.
ash, I should clarify. The thing that you quoted of me is a more general sentiment, rather than applied to particular women. The guys are horny/girls are not sentiment allows men, generally, to think that if they can't get laid it's because it's hard to get women to sleep with you, not because they're, you know, unattractive or uninteresting.
Here's the key difference, I guess, and a response to "send your women friends my way" &c, is that just because a woman is complaining about not having enough sex, doesn't mean that she will sleep with the first (or fifth) person who offers. I think that's why a lot of people are unwilling to proffer this point. Call it social conditioning, but no matter how sexually frustrated I am, I am not going to sleep with the the "hey baby, you're beautiful" guy on the street.
Are we talking "anonymous" sex as in, just someone you don't know at all? Walk into a room with a complete stranger and start going at it? Or, like, meet someone at a bar, flirt and talk all night, then go fuck? And would guys really be amenable to doing the former on a regular basis?
Walk into a room with a complete stranger and start going at it? Or, like, meet someone at a bar, flirt and talk all night, then go fuck? And would guys really be amenable to doing the former on a regular basis?
I think the bathhouse culture is evidence that the answer to this question is "yes".
The reason I think women are apparently less interested in anonymous sex, I think, doesn't have anything to do with the different nature of their sex drives. I think it has to do with the ambient culture of male dominance (rape, in this instance), that makes anonymous sex potentially very dangerous and not-fun for women, whereas for men it's very different.
75: I agree thoroughly. Also, I have been trying to parse this out in a way that makes sense, but I think another big difference is what factors in to whether woman A thinks "I want to have sex with man A." For me, looks are relevant, yes, but it's not really the most important thing. There's a whole subset of attractive men I wouldn't have sex with. Similarly, there's a whole subset of men who I really like personally who I wouldn't have sex with because of insufficient attractiveness. Frankly, I think it comes from a much less rigid view of what is attractive in men (societally imposed, of course). I think most men are at least moderately good-looking, but a much smaller set of those have the kind of personality that really catches my attention.
78: But I don't think that view is all that uncommon in men either, and those men aren't interested in anonymous sex. Though it probably is less common.
So, if I see a woman and think, "wow, those are some big tits," that's not sexual, but if a guy thinks that, it is? I call foul. I make observations (much to my chagrin, because I think the constant sizing up of other women is annoying) about other women's bodies all the time, and I think those are sexual. I think anytime you're making aesthetic judgments about other people's bodies it's at least quasi-sexual.
I dunno. What if you're from a culture where breasts aren't considered sexual body parts? (Think of your classic National Geographic photos of topless African women with their breasts sagging to their navels. I'm guessing those women, and men in their societies, don't think of breasts the same way Americans do.) What if you find large breasts in general, or these large breasts in particular, unattractive? What if the breasts in question belong to a family member? I might have the thought "she's hot" about a 16-year-old relative of my wife's, even though for many reasons I wouldn't act on that thought. My 15-year-old daughter has large breasts. Of course, I don't do anything weird with, or even think anything weird about, my daughter. But if I notice her breasts, does that nonetheless count as "thinking about sex" just because they're breasts?
who I wouldn't have sex with because of insufficient attractiveness
See, I don't really get this. Have they got harelips? prostheses? morbid obesity? Back when I was on the market I would not have said "That person is insufficiently hott for me ever to have sex with them." It didn't really cross my mind -- levels of attractiveness influenced who I came on to some; but if I were in a situation with someone who I found interesting and pleasant, them not fitting my expectations of "attractive" (or not fitting my stated gender preference FTM) would not have influenced the decision. Whatever. I am not really one to speak, not close to meeting our society's good looks template myself, and having slept with fewer than 10 people in my day.
Chipshot- Of course we're all on the bell curve. I think the interesting question is where the median falls on that bell curve, and how this differs by gender. The mean is also interesting. I'd like to know about the mode, too.
I think we are talking less about gender differentials, and more about our specific gender differences in our specific culture, where women are not as free to publicly enjoin in sexual discussions with men. maybe with each other, which skews things a bit. I would a proper gender discussion would have to look at cultures where women are more open about such things, that is, if they exist.
Osner, one thing we might want to consider is that 'interesting and pleasant' probably include some measure of physical attractiveness. What's an mildly annoying trait in a plain person might be an interesting quirk in a person one finds more physically attractive.
Certainly, the opposite seems to be true in my experience; someone who isn't terribly physically striking (but within a range of, 'meh, pleasant enough') will become more physically attractive to me given the presence of other, non-physical attractive qualities.
83: That number is really a pretty small number, just for very unfortunate-looking people. Although I supposed anything could be overcome, really.
Thinking about it, I can only recall a few, though on further examination there was probably something, too, other than their looks, that turned me off from them that I just never put my finger on.
And thinking about sex with your daughter is gross. Ew. Pervert.
Give me a break. I don't do that, as I said.
chipshot, I believe it's spelled say la vie.
c'est la vie
someone who isn't terribly physically striking (but within a range of, 'meh, pleasant enough') will become more physically attractive to me given the presence of other, non-physical attractive qualities.
Me, too. And conversely, if I come to dislike someone, she seems less physically attractive than she did initially.
I think anytime you're making aesthetic judgments about other people's bodies it's at least quasi-sexual.
I agree. I do this all the time. What's missing here, I think, is a sense that making these "quasi-sexual aesthetic judgments" can also provide a sort of thrill that doesn't need to lead anywhere else. Just because I think a woman (or a man) is hott doesn't mean I want to have sex with them. Sometimes the gaze is enough.
IMO (and maybe this contradicts conventional wisdom), women can remain attractive a lot longer than guys. Look at the hairlines of most guys in their 30's and 40's. It's not a pretty sight. I'm very happy that my hair is sticking around (I'm 45, but don't look it).
IMO (and maybe this contradicts conventional wisdom), women can remain attractive a lot longer than guys.
My ten-year high school reunion two weeks ago certainly confirmed your opinion. And you're right on another count: you probably shouldn't have mentioned your daughter in this thread.
Just because I think a woman (or a man) is hott doesn't mean I want to have sex with them. Sometimes the gaze is enough.
I understand and agree; but if that's the standard for 'thinking about sex' it seems awfully low.
The phrase 'thinking about sex' is really misleading (which is why the stat seems shocking; it's less shocking if it includes things like 'Pretty. Girl.').
As if now 'having sex' can be construed to mean 'talked with a person one found hott'. Men have sexual intercourse every three minutes!
98, 104: Maybe women just have more options for hiding aging; different cuts in clothing, generally a larger range of colors to choose from, more variance in hair styles, social acceptability of make-up.
But I don't know if I'd say in general that our culture finds older women more beautiful than older men; just judging from Unfogged, we women are all over the hill once we pass age 23. Most of the options women have for making themselves beautiful involve making themselves look younger.
Re: 45, 70, 72 -- I agree with 72, that the real difference in expressed desire for anonymous sex between men and women is a function of social pressure and safety issues, both perceived and real. While there isn't a women's 'bathhouse' culture, my understanding is that the the heterosexual swingers subculture is fairly gender balanced, and I wouldn't be surprised if more women are interested in participating in it because it's also percieved as physically safe.
Ash's 68 also plays into this -- he talks about being uncomfortable with women who made passes at him, because they seemed likely to be either nuts or motivated by something other than sexual desire. Enough people think that a woman who wants random sex is significantly deviant that expressing such desires doesn't get a lot of positive reinforcement.
"Large breasts" is so vulgar. Let us say instead that one is amply bosmotic.
There's always "buxom."
I believe this is an enforced rule, rather than a natural equilibrium.
That's probably right. My understanding is that Plato's Retreat (now defunct, I think?) would admit M/F couples or single women, but not single men, because then they'd end up with bazillions more men than women. (A female friend told me of a friend of hers who'd gone there with a guy. Later, the friend wanted to leave, but Plato's wouldn't let her leave without the guy.) BPhD's account of the gender ratios in sex chat rooms (overwhelmingly male) is also consistent with this.
Certainly likely -- my point was only that there is a non-negligible number of female participants in an anonymous sex subculture that's perceived as safe, while there isn't a gay-male-bathhouse style no-social-controls anonymous sex subculture that any number of women participate in (to my knowledge.)
114- I wonder how much social pressure or danger is internalized. Naomi Wolf (not perhaps the most reliable source) suggests in Promiscuities that most girls' first experience of the wider world of sex is likely to be a negative one. Flashers, leering older men, &c. That could easily blunt budding desires.
If we wanted to find out differences in sexual desire, we could ask everyont to imagine a perfect vacation, or heaven if that makes you feel less guilty. How often do you have sex, and is it monagamous? My suspicion is that gender wouldn't be a factor in the answer given.
I think some of the sex drive differences between men and women are hormonal. But, it is true that different cultures try to regulate women's sexuality; some in harsher forms than others.
most girls' first experience of the wider world of sex is likely to be a negative one. Flashers, leering older men, &c. That could easily blunt budding desires.
That, a bit, and I would say even more strongly that most girls' intial experience of expressing desire is likely to be a negative, or at least an unsuccessful one. There's a bit of a catch-22 for girls (which, I think, mostly gets resolved as everyone gets older and more socially adept, but still leaves marks): Because potential partners don't expect girls to be making sexual advances, anything subtle has a tendency to be ignored or misunderstood, while anything aggressive enough to be unambiguous gets perceived as freakish (see, again, ash's 68: "When I have been hit on by females (yes, that has happened!), the hit tends to arrive with sledgehammer force, making it difficult to discern whether it is a genuine offer, or the ravings of a psycho, or an offer based on monetary exchange.") Boys end up getting a lot of rejection, but there are at least socially acceptable ways for them to get their point across.
"My suspicion is that gender wouldn't be a factor in the answer given."
more interesting is what gender most people would choose to be in their sexual "heaven". Based on the female erotic nature of our culture, my guess is that it would skew to one side.
I also think a lot about sex. As in, haven't gotten dressed yet today and still smell like sex, which is kind of nice.
Actually, before urban capitalism and the resulting home / work division became standard in Europe, women were believed to be *far* more interested in sex than men. Hence chastity belts, the Wife of Bath, and etc.
Also, there's a fantastic lesbian bathhouse in Seattle. No, it's not a "bathhouse" in the "anonymous sex" way, but it is sexy.
Both men and women think about doing a lot of things they don't do and know that they would never do. Wasn't that the original survey topic: how much we think about sex, regardless of how we act on those thoughts?
Boys end up getting a lot of rejection, but there are at least socially acceptable ways for them to get their point across.
I assume that this just means that when a boy asks out a girl, even if he's rejected, he probably hasn't been rejected because the mere thought of him being bold enough to ask made the girl think he was psychotic.
Come on. "Golly, Sue, would you like to go see a movie with me sometime?", in context, is a socially acceptable way for a sixteen-year old boy to say "Among other things, I would like to have sex with you." That doesn't mean that it's likely to get an immediate, unambiguous answer, but a boy making social advances to a girl will generally be understood to be expressing sexual desire, and further communication between the two will be facilitated by that understanding.
The reversed situation: "Golly, Dave, do you want to go get a milkshake down at the malt shop?" doesn't successfully communicate the same subtext.
SCMTim's point about differences in sex drives could still stand, logical fallacy aside. Suppose men do have (empirically, testably, non-patriarchally biased) more sex thoughts per day than women. Does it follow that men are hornier than women?
I think not; aside from the problems in determining what counts as a sex thought, it may just be a bad determiner of intrinsic horniness. The two genders' sex drives just may be that different.
(In my limited experience, this seems to be the case; I seem to like sex as much as my boyfriend likes sex, and there isn't a 3/times a week vs. daily sort of mismatch, but he always seems to have it on the brain.)
On 134, I usually fantasize about movie stars and other people I'm not likely to meet, so my desires don't correspond to reality. I'm assuming this is different from unconsciously scanning every man around. If most men tend to do that, it would lead to more real-world encounters, or at least attempts.
if that's the standard for 'thinking about sex' it seems awfully low.
It is awfully low if "thinking about sex"="thinking about intercourse or intercourse-related-activities." Not so much, maybe, if "thinking about sex"="contemplating libidinally charged aesthetic judgements." The latter occupies a lot of my spare attention during the day; the former not as much. Which may just mean I need more IRAs in my life.
In mine, I would be able to switch back and forth at will.
So would I. Or be anything else that I chose. Angel sex! Hott!
I find it interesting the divide between our sexual fantasy life and the propriety of how we act in the real world. I don't know about women, but I believe that in most men's minds, the sexual fantasy extends into very anti social realms but that he would never in his life act upon. Most of us have a very solid and safe wall built between fantasy and real life, but would not give up either, no matter how much in conflict the two are.
I'm assuming this is different from unconsciously scanning every man around. If most men tend to do that, it would lead to more real-world encounters, or at least attempts.
Not necessarily. I am solidly monogamous and intend to remain so. But that has no impact on me viewing random women of all levels of attractiveness and wondering, "Hmm, what would it be like to . . ." even though I know full well I would never, ever act on such thoughts.
It is entirely possible that I'm just a low sexdrived freak; but I think I've had one libidinously charged thought all day. (And three meta-thoughts, um, four! about that thought.)
But anyway, Paul, I don't want to belabor the point. I submit, though, that if I say 'I think about sex all the time' most people probably include a narrower range of thoughts than 'I find many people sexually attractive in the course of an average day.'
I think this has been said already, but given that men have social incentives to overstate and women to understate their libidinousness, I would expect that most women would include a narrower range of thoughts under that rubric, but most men would define pretty much anything with any sexual content as 'thinking about sex'.
OK, quick test. Next time you're out for coffee or lunch or whatever, count the number of times you say to yourself, "I'd have sex with him him/her." Report back.
153: I'm rather strict in my definition of "sex." I would not consider thinking about anything that didn't involve nudity and physical interaction as thinking about sex.
What about thinking about having sex, but not thinking about having it with any particular person. That is, just thinking about sex itself, such thoughts not having been prompted by the sight of an attractive person or other external stimuli? I have such thoughts quite often. What say the female Unfoggetariat?
On 149, would you agree that what I suggested is an extra degree of distance? If you think sexual thoughts about your co-worker, and are around that person, you have to do some active separation between the two. If you mostly think about Brad Pitt, not so much.
Yes, but the separation between fantasy and reality is not necessarily something that needs to be actively maintained, as you seem to imply. Or rather, it often takes very little effort.
Michael has a point. I certainly check everyone out, thinking, that girl's got a pretty nice whatever, but there are lots of mental steps before that actual person is getting freaky with me in my mind. Thinking about actually getting freaky is not so common. Even when I'm, say, flirting with a girl I find really attractive, I'm not simultaneously fantasizing about what she would look like naked (because that would be waaay too distracting); my thought process is usually something more along the lines of, "Quick! Say something that will make her think I'm witty or mind-bendingly cool."
137: So if a sixteen-year-old boy expresses interest in hanging out with you one-on-one, that means he wants to do the nasty? What about a twenty-five-year-old boy? This is important!
145 / 146: I, for one, do think that I probably eventually wonder what it would be like to have sex with most of the men I know. And I also know that I do make an immediate first-impression judgment of whether I find the person physically attractive, even if doing so doesn't mean that I immediately leap to imaginging them naked.
I think there's a difference between saying "men think about sex more than women"--which may or may not be the case--and saying "men are intrinsically hornier than women." The original post was about the former, but as often happens, we seem to be conflating the two, implicitly and explicitly. I once read an article somewhere called something like "How to be as Horny as a Man" that made the point that men are exposed to sexual stimulation for maybe 70-80% of their waking moments: advertisements, literature, movies, clothing, etc. routinely represent women in a sexual light in ways that they don't represent men. The "what about the lesbians?" question may be relevant, as might the "are straight women sexually aroused by images of women?" question, of course--but underlying both questions we have to keep in mind that what's sexually arousing is, in part, the function of social conditioning, as someone pointed out way upthread about breasts not always being / having been eroticized. Hott woman = teh sexx, for everyone: that's what we've been taught. It would make sense, therefore, to hypothesize that given how omnipresent images of hott women are in our society, that on average, straight men--whose relationship to hott women is fairly unambiguous--would be more aroused/more aware of arousal/more likely to think about sex than straight women (for whom, let's say, sexual attraction to hott women isn't *intrinsic*) or lesbians (for whom sexual attraction to hott women presumably isn't untinged with an automatic awareness of the objectification involved, and/or who aren't the target audience of hott women TM, and who therefore might prefer other representations of female hottness than are generally available).
Oh, forgot to say that given that men are way more exposed to sexual stimuli aimed at them than women are, if women *do* think about sex as often as men do, or anywhere near as often as men do, it suggests that women are way *more* intrinsically horny--being as they don't seem to require constant stimulation to think about sex.
And speaking of socialization, it's worth noting at least that gay and lesbian sexual behavior doesn't exist in a vacuum either, and it's not clear to me that the gay culture of anonymous sex exists only because of male desire for anonymous sex; I think repression of gay sexuality probably has at least something to do with it.
I have no idea how much I think about sex. It's too hard to observe. As soon as I try some self-examination, I'm thinking about sex.
As men, do we think about women and sex more because everywhere we turn in society, there are gobs of erotic adverts exposing female flesh? or is it that because we are built to pursue women, and respond accordingly, that the advertisers dangle the carrots of female flesh before us to get our attention? and is it not done for women because traditionally we are the ones with the cash?
171 gets it exactly right. 170 makes me want to come up with some clever play on "bread and circuses" but substituting "pornography" for "circuses". But I am not clever so the statement of intent will have to do.
Would I, could I, should I? To elaborate on my comment in 54, the mental categories are: maybe tending yes, no tending maybe, and no tending no.
A drop-dead gorgeous former roommate of mine went through a male-model phase. The ones she brought home were cripplingly stupid. These I'd categorize for myself as maybe tending hell no. I couldn't even create a sexual fantasy involving someone so limitingly self-involved as these men were.
156: Sexual thoughts, per se, without stimulating factors, are not particularly frequent for me. I've had a few startlingly erotic dreams in my life, a few poorly thought-through sexual misadventures, but these have been relatively uncommon. Still: I'm no sociological median.
156: What counts as "external stimuli"? If I reflect on some past sexual experience I've had, or think on some possible future sexual experience with a particular person (who is not present), is that per se? Or are you talking about, like penes floating through my mental vision? Or thoughts of sex with a random and imagined person, but one with particular characteristics?
166: Well, the question is, sounding like Bridget Jones or something, is it a date-date (which can certainly be ambiguous, it's just that the man in question has socially acceptable ways of making it unambiguous.) If you're already buddies, you can't be sure; if he approached you with someting along the lines of "I don't know if you you remember me, but I've seen you in [context] and wondered if you want to hang out sometime," that's a clear 7 out of 10 that he has some interest in knocking boots with you.
I don't mean to be saying anything that isn't perfectly obvious, just that there's a lot of social code for a man to indicate that he's making a romantic, and therefore implicitly sexual, approach, and that that code doesn't, mostly, work as well for women.
i think the non verbal cues have always been code enough for me to get if a woman wants to "knock boots": the extended eye contact, the smile, the hips slanted forward. you sort of know when its happening. A woman usually doesn't have to come out and say it because a guys's antennae are usually always up.
a study in the NY Times a few months ago supposedly proved that a)men respond far more to visual stimuli than women, who respond to other things, and
b)when shown suggestive photos, straight men are aroused by pictures of hott women, but not usually by pictures of other men, whereas women get aroused by pictures of men, women, gay women, gay men, you name it.
i wonder if this is a biological thing, or if we all in this society including women have been conditioned to think: female body, hott.
It could always be a case of ogged's dilemma (too lazy to look it up) of wanting to hang out with someone but not wanting her to think he wants to date her, and thus deliberately ambiguous.
LB -- What I meant in 137 was, any time in my adolescence that I approached a gurl with such a subtle way of expressing my desire to sleep with her as, "would you like to go to the movies", it was always interpreted as a friendly invitation and never got me anywhere near where I was looking for it to. And when I was more direct, like "would you sleep with me", well that didn't seem to get me anywhere either though at least it wasn't misinterpreted. Clearly I was doing something wrong but to this day I don't know what. (In the first instance that is -- I'm pretty sure I understand what I was doing wrong in the second.)
Sexualized images of men have been on the rise since the late 1970s, because of advertising aimed at gay men. This had effects on the female gaze, giving a kind of permission to look at men in a more objectified/less romantic way.
This is not the first time this has happened to me! In college, this guy who I sort-of knew (we were both TAs in the math dept.) asked me if I wanted to hang out and "watch a movie or something." I totally thought it was a date-date, and psyched, because he was hott. I went over there, we watched a movie (with his roomates) had a few drinks, and... then I left. I hung out with him a couple more times (at least one of my initiation), with nothing happening, and then the last time I went over to his house, there was some other chick over there who I had seen around flirting with him. WTF? So it wasn't a date-date after all? Maybe it was, and he changed his mind about wanting to knock boots.
I've come to the conclusion that men my age are too intimidated by me to make some kind of sexual move.
Sexualized images of men have been on the rise since the late 1970s, because of advertising aimed at gay men. This had effects on the female gaze, giving a kind of permission to look at men in a more objectified/less romantic way.
One of my best friends (a gay male) told me that gay men have completely changed what (straight) women view as attractive these days. He said that because of the gay influence, there's a much greater emphasis on boyish, "twinkier" guys, making sex symbols out of everyone from Leonardo DiCaprio to Michael Pitt to Jake Gyllenhall.
Part of me has very little patience about arguments that certain biological properties must be intrinsic when those properties also have obvious social influences. As if saying something is 'intrinsic' makes the problem go away (or creates the problem).
Men may very well be hornier than women on some back-in-the-veldt sort of level; the smartest male mathematicians may be better than the smartest female mathematicians; and pound for pound, men may be stronger.
But generally, who the hell cares? I am stronger than a lot of men because they don't work out and I do; and it bothers me that intrinsic gendered differences are supposed to determine things for me.
That said, I don't find the possibility that my sex drive might be wired differently than my boyfriend's all that threatening. So what if it is? All that means is the same arousal/whatever strategies don't work in the same way on us.
I get at least one email a month from confused female friends with the subject line "Is this a date or not?!" asking for help to determine if an upcoming event is a date-date or a hanging-out-as-friends invitation. Obviously, many guys' intentions are not being conveyed as clearly as they think.
Actually I'm thinking now it was an ice-cream parlor. But didn't get to the point of hand holding -- I could not figure out how to get it there and she didn't seem to think (as I recall) that that was what we were there for, she was just having her ice cream and chatting and not making an opening for me to work my magic. Similar things happened on at least two other occasions, but I don't remember exactly what the venues were, I think one was a walk together. Had some nice friendships with gurls in HS and college but no satisfaction.
Hrm. Looking back at this, I don't seem to have successfully made the point that I meant to make. I don't mean that any approach from a guy is going to be unambiguous (silvana: that all sounds like my dreadful college dating career), or that guys necessarilly have dating easier in any way, just (a) that guys have more available social code to unambiguously convey sexual/romantic interest (by behaving in a conventionialized date-like manner) and (b) that they have more social leeway for making an unambiguous sexual approach in a manner that forces either acceptance or rejection without looking deviant than women do.
176: For me, "no external stimuli" could mean something such as sitting in the cubicle at work, with no other people in your field of vision, and gradually becoming aware of the fact that you are not devoting your full attention to what you are working on (which, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to do with sex) because your thoughts have drifted to thinking about how wonderful it would be to be engaging in a given sex act, without really giving much thought to the identity of the other person involved beyond the fact that they are of the desired gender.
183: Silvana, it would have been a date-date if you'd jumped him. I'm actually pretty serious about that, and I think we've talked about this before: given all the "don't force yourself on women" stuff that men hear, many of them are reluctant to make the first move, but if a woman just plants a kiss on a guy, fruit will be borne.
I don't 'failure to convey intentions' is the relevant standard here, though; and it's harder now that men and women can hang out in non-date contexts. (My mother assumes every one-on-one encounter with a male friend must be a date.) It's whether, failed conveyance or not, it creeps out the other person because one is acting outside the proscribed social roles.
There probably is some overlap; maybe the reason some men are creeped out by aggressive women is that the women haven't had a whole lot of practice at it and hence are uncomfortable and creepy. But I suspect that's a smaller part of it.
186- I mentioned the influence of gay ideas of beauty before, when we were talking about actors. I'm reluctant to link to my previous comment, however, because it's so similar to what I said in 182. Repeating myself here.
170- My first thought was that women probably had more romantic notions of sex when all they were allowed to have were romantic notions of sex. But perhaps that's too easy.
many of them are reluctant to make the first move, but if a woman just plants a kiss on a guy, fruit will be borne.
This would avoid most of the date-rape risks, but I don't think it would be a magic anti-awkwardness cure. I'm pretty sure it's the same situation for men as it is for women--there are fewer women I would like to date than women I would like to hang out with. So yes, this technique has a certain value in situations where the guy is excessively holding back, but do be warned that fruit will not be universally borne.
because your thoughts have drifted to thinking about how wonderful it would be to be engaging in a given sex act, without really giving much thought to the identity of the other person involved beyond the fact that they are of the desired gender.
I don't recall ever having thoughts along those lines; my fantasies are always person-specific.
Speaking as a woman who has always asked guys out (in fact, I think that most of my relationships were initiated by me), the problem of asking someone out and then having them "not get it" isn't just a problem men have. Or maybe it's as LB says, that women asking guys out just reads differently. My experience is that no one ever said "no"--I didn't have to worry about rejection per se--but that more than one person clearly said "yes" when they didn't really want to, and that the ensuing date was therefore really awkward and weird. My hypothesis is that perhaps men are so unused to the idea of being *asked* that they don't know what to do when it happens or how to say no gracefully.
I think that "fruit will be borne" advice is just terrible. I don't think anyone, man or woman, should kiss anyone they don't feel a decent signal from. There are lots of situations in which men want to hang out with women but do not, in fact, want to have sex.
My hypothesis is that perhaps men are so unused to the idea of being *asked* that they don't know what to do when it happens or how to say no gracefully.
A woman asked me out once and I asked if I could bring a friend along. So B is wrong.
I think that "fruit will be borne" advice is just terrible. I don't think anyone, man or woman, should kiss anyone they don't feel a decent signal from.
I think Ogged was saying that women who are into men, and who seem to be getting signals, needn't wait for men to make the move. Ogged only wants to empower!
206: yeah, more seriously, what I'm saying is that if you could have sworn it was a date, but the guy isn't making a move, probably he'll be receptive to you making a move. But don't sue me if you're charged with rape.
A woman asked my best friend out once, and he didn't know how to say "no" so he asked if he could bring a friend. She realized then that he didn't want to go out with her, but didn't know how to back out either at that point, so she brought a friend too. My friend brought me; she brought the woman who is now my wife. (That's how we met.) My friend and that other girl never went out again.
#210: So did you ask to bring a friend along b/c you were trying to communicate "I like you, but not in that way" or just b/c you were being clumsy? B/c the difference is what determines my wrongness (or not; Urple's #209 shows that I'm wrong, which is good).
#216: Again, I say "oh please." There are so totally signals. Admittedly, learning to read/send them is, well, a learned skill; and reacting to them (appropriately) takes courage. But (though I know you're joking) encouraging people to "jump or not; there is no signal" really *is* an invitation to harassment or rape.
219: I'm joking on all counts. I can't imagine a much clumsier response than "can Kitty Darfur come?" And of course there are signals (but women should still jump guys more often).
I also know that I do make an immediate first-impression judgment of whether I find the person physically attractive, even if doing so doesn't mean that I immediately leap to imaginging them naked.
but that more than one person clearly said "yes" when they didn't really want to, and that the ensuing date was therefore really awkward and weird.
I have totally had this happen. My impression was that the thought process, if spelled out, was along the lines of "Hey, a presentable woman is making a romantic approach. As a red-blooded male, I must be gagging for it at all times, how can I say no?" followed by a long unpleasant process of figuring out, during the date, that he had no actual interest. Grim.
SB, Panza had two kinsmen, renowned for their wine connoisseurship, who once tasted some from at some village, and declared its flavor flawed, as they detected notes of leather and iron. Everyone scoffed, but when the barrel was emptied, an old key on a leather thong was discovered.
How does Goldwasser avoid being poisonous? I thought heavy metals all were bad for you. Is it just that it's so little metal in the small amount of liquer you drink?
Whenever we get into discussions here about how men and women think, I have to wonder how representative the views of the female commenters here are of women in general. Considering the number of grade-skippers revealed in the previous thread, one has to wonder what other traits are disproportionately represented here. The trend in the comments of this thread seems to be that women think about sex as much as men but does that really mean that women in general think about sex as much as men or that women who think about sex as much as men are drawn to Unfogged?
I certainly don't think about sex every 3 minutes. Most of my mental time goes to rehashing old arguments and replaying moments when I wish I had held up my end better during a confrontation. Thinking about sex is a relief because it takes my mind off things like that.
Posted by Kyle | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 10:24 PM
guys really are far hornier and think about sex far more than you'd imagine, but it doesn't really get in the way when they need to do other things
That sounds about right for women, too, at least in my experience of being one. I would say that most of my mental free time goes to daydreaming (I file "thoughts of sex" under this, but it's not exclusively that), making up narratives about the people around me (including ones I don't know), and planning. Lots of planning. Including things I am going to write, say, or do.
I don't know where this notion that men are hornier than women comes from. Every single woman I've ever been friends has complained about not getting enough (or good enough) sex, whether she's single or involved, pretty much all the time. Maybe I just have abnormal friends, but I doubt it.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 10:36 PM
"friends with"
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 10:39 PM
Certainly, when one is around women, one is aware of them as sexual. And "I wonder what it would be like to..." thoughts crop up pretty regularly in mixed company.
Pervert!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 10:43 PM
I only think about sex once a day, between 6:45 am and 6:55 am. It's refreshing.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 10:57 PM
does this all apply to sex? Can we assume you sit around making up sexual narratives about the people around you and planning sexual things? Lots of sexual things? Including things you are going to write, say, and do, during said sexual things?
pervert.
I somewhat suspect the "guy's are much hornier" line sticks around because it makes guys more secure about their girls, and also makes them feel special when they turn their girls on. Of course, when their girls go to other pastures, it also makes the psychological destruction worse.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:00 PM
I meant to quote this in the above comment:
making up narratives about the people around me (including ones I don't know), and planning. Lots of planning. Including things I am going to write, say, or do.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:01 PM
Including things you are going to write, say, and do, during said sexual things?
Yeah, I totally like to stop mid-coitus: "excuse me, I have to write something down..."
I imagine that'd go over really well.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:03 PM
second part of 6: Ah, I see! It's just another, you know, tool of the patriarchy.
So you're a woman, and dude doesn't want to do you, you think, "Shit! It's me! I must be really hideous! Guys will fuck anything that moves!"
If you're a dude, and woman doesn't want to do you, you can think, "It's not me. Women just aren't that interested in sex."
Perfect.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:09 PM
To say that men are "hornier than you think" is not to say that women are less horny; particularly if, as I suspect, their horniness manifests in different ways.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:11 PM
The problems come when you're a dude, and the woman does want to do you, but you think, "I must be misinterpreting; women just aren't that interested in sex.".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:14 PM
The other problem, he revised, having read 9 again with more care.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:15 PM
their horniness manifests in different ways
Which is, what? The thing that Michael called you a pervert for? No, I pretty much do that, too. Albeit usually only with people I find attractive, not whatever male happens to be nearby, you pervert.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:19 PM
11 explains many things.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:22 PM
I see no need to speculate when the ladies of Unfogged will be filling these very comments in the bright morning.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:22 PM
And ben, I do not approve of your .".
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:23 PM
I imagine that'd go over really well.
It might!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:24 PM
Which is, what?
Sex toy parties where they rub warming liquid on each others' perky nipples!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:26 PM
Or, should I say, your ".".".
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:26 PM
Michael, we discussed your commenting drunk.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:28 PM
you're
I'm on medication, remember?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:29 PM
Shit. For some reason, I read "dissused" as "assumed". Dunno why.
And, we did? Was I drunk? What did we decide?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:30 PM
horniness manifests in different ways
Until someone discovers the hitherto unknown lesbian bathhouse culture, agree entirely.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:30 PM
SCMT, I thought we were comparing heterosexual men and heterosexual women, not homosexual men and homosexual women.
Look at me, being all heteronormative.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:32 PM
Look at me, being all heteronormative.
pervert.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:38 PM
ADIDAS.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:45 PM
As to the original topic: Excepting a certain circumstance, I try not to think about sex, because it is frustrating. The special circumstance is if I want to pass time. If I'm bored while driving or sitting in class, then sex thoughts, which tend to caputre the attention, can help pass the time.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:46 PM
I find they're also useful for falling asleep.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:52 PM
teo, are you a guy? I can't remember if you've announced.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 3-06 11:57 PM
I am.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:04 AM
Behind their veils the women were like wild beasts. They thought of nothing but love-making, in the most natural way in the world, and they spoke of it with a license and simplicity of language that were astonishing. When you went by them on the street their black eyes stared at you, with a slanting downward glance as if to measure your virility, and behind your back you could hear them pass whispered judgments on your hidden charms. If you turned around they buried their faces in their hands and peered at you between their fingers. No real feeling went with this atmosphere of desire that oozed out of their eyes and seemed to permeate the village, except for one of enslavement to fate, to an inescapable higher power. Their love was blended, not with hope or enthusiasm, but with resignation. The occasion was fleeting and it should not be passed by; understanding was swift and worldless.
Posted by Christ Stopped at Eboli | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:09 AM
31: Yeah, that's been my experience too.
Call me Dave Barry, but I think that women think about remodeling and redecorating much more than men do.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 4:49 AM
Why don't we refer to ladies as 'women'? Men are usually referred to as, well, 'men' and rarely as 'gentlemen' these days.
Posted by Geraldo | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 6:59 AM
throwing my anecdotal weight behind silvana: my female friends with boyfriends pretty much unanimously want to be having sex more often than their boyfriends/husbands do. yes, it comes up.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:32 AM
Total agreement to 2, 9, and 11 (to the point where I was checking who posted each, wondering if I had been commenting in my sleep or something. Silvana -- do we know each other? If you're a first year English Lit grad student at Vanderbilt, I'm going to be very surprised.)
I don't know about every three minutes, but I'd say that I'm reasonably similar to ogged -- a thought that could be characterized as sexual drifts through my head multiple times an hour at least if I'm not doing anything absorbing, but not in a way that would distract me from something I was actually focusing on.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:38 AM
That "guys think about sex every three minutes" thing never made sense to me, and I suspect that I'm at least as horny as the average guy (if not, you guys are total perverts). Also, how does one even define "thinking about sex"? I assume the definition must be pretty expansive -- e.g., given that I'm straight, every time I look at an adult woman and think "she's pretty" or "she has (a) great ____" that qualifies as "thinking about sex." If "thinking about sex" entails actually thinking "I'd like to have sex with her," the number would be a lot lower, for me and I assume every straight guy.
Even if "thinking about sex" is defined in the expansive way I've suggested above, it still seems problematic. I assume that, given that I'm straight, if I look at a guy and think, "he's a handsome guy," that doesn't count as "thinking about sex" since I wouldn't have sex with him even if he asked and even if my being married were not an issue. But again, I assume that thinking essentially the same thought about an adult woman, "she's pretty," does qualify as "thinking about sex" since I'm straight and under appropriate circumstances have sex with adult women. But if I were bi, then would thinking the same thought, "he's handsome," about the guy count as "thinking about sex"? What if the "thinker" considers him/herself straight, but has at some point engaged in same-sex sex (maybe even currently does, since some people whose behavior is bisexual are in denial and insist that they're straight)? Does that person's every thought of "she's pretty" or "he's handsome" count as "thinking about sex" or not?
Not to be too gross, but what about children? Since I'm not a pedophile, if I see a child and think "that kid is really cute," surely doesn't qualify as "thinking about sex." Does the identical thought count as "thinking about sex" if the person thinking it is a pedophile? If someone exclusively a pedophile sees an adult and thinks "he's handsome" or "she's pretty," does that not count as "thinking about sex" because the person isn't interested in sex with adults?
And what's the age cutoff? If a straight, non-pedophilic man sees an eight-year-old and think "she's cute," that must not count as "thinking about sex." What if she's 16? 18? If the guy thinks "I would be willing to consider having sex with any woman above the age of consent," is thinking "she's pretty" about a girl the guy thinks is probably about 16 "thinking about sex" in State A where the age of consent is 16, but not "thinking about sex" in State B where it is 18? What if she's older or younger than he thinks -- does that make a difference? What if the person has previously had sex with someone below the age of consent? For instance, a boyfriend and girlfriend first have sex when they are both 14. Since both of them have had sex with 14-year-olds, does thinking a 14-year-old of the appropriate-to-them gender is cute thereafter count as "thinking about sex" for the rest of their lives?
What if anti-abortion zealot Neal Horsley sees a mule and thinks "that's a good-looking mule"? Does that count as "thinking about sex" since Neal by his own account had sex with mules when he was younger? What if he sees a sheep and thinks "that's a good-looking sheep," but he's never had sex with sheep? What if he hasn't done so, but would have done so if one had been available during his mule-fucking days? And what about guys who've fucked watermelons? If they think "that's a good-looking watermelon," does that qualify as "thinking about sex"?
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:42 AM
This question is sort of wrongheaded; isn't that stat ('men think about sex every ten seconds') rather like the stats that say someone dies in a car crash/is a victim of sexual assault/has a heart attack every x minutes?
It doesn't literally mean that every three seconds someone dies in a car crash/is a victim of sexual assault/has a heart attack. ('You! In 2.5 seconds fall over dead, okay?') It means that if you take the frequency of those events and put it in a small time slice (as opposed to something more standard like chance out of a year), you get a shocking number. One woman raped every eight seconds? Or 500 women in a one hour period on a Friday night at a string of frat parties?
So, in that light, this stat isn't too surprising. Women think about sex, too. But I would bet that men think about it more during the day because it's socially acceptable for men in a way that it isn't for women.
If you average it out over a day you could get a shocking figure, but I'm betting the thoughts about sex are at the bar after work or at home watching TV.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:45 AM
I would agree with 36 that to get anything like the three minute figure, you have to include fleeting thoughts that someone is attractive, but disagree that it's internally impossible to distinguish between noting that someone is esthetically appealing in a non-sexual way, and noting that they are attractive in a way that includes an overtone of "I wouldn't kick him out of bed for eating crackers." A thought doesn't have to be terribly intense to be identifiable as sexual or not.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:54 AM
Once, in college, reading Civilization and Its Discontents, I became quite incensed when I came to the part about how women are less able to sublimate their sexual impulses than men, and thus are less productive and creative. "Fuck you, Freud, I muttered. I'm reading your book, and trust me, there are things I'd rather be doing, so I guess I can sublimate well enough." Ten minutes later I was masturbating. Freud 1, Tia 0.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:56 AM
That's hilarious, Tia.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:04 AM
I bet I don't think about sex as much as my boyfriend does, or as most guys I know do. Or I don't think about as purely, the sex I think about being more infused with emotion. I don't stand around imagining what all the men in my workplace would be like in the sack. (Even the idea: ick.)
Posted by ming | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:06 AM
I don't think I think about sex nearly as much, btw, in the interest of the survey; at least I'm not aware of any sexual thoughts while I'm doing normal work, not even things flitting around.
I suspect this is a side effect of grad school.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:06 AM
For science:
One side-effect of having lived in Mmf!'s faire cittie for a number of years is that I do pretty much instantly decide whether I'd sleep with a guy or not. (Actually, the categories are more like "maybe" and "no.") I don't know if that counts more as sexual ideation or self-defense.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:20 AM
Tia, what did you think of Freud's theory that weaving was discovered when envious women started weaving themselves tiny penises out of their pubes?
Details at my URL.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:22 AM
This is an apples and oranges comparison. I believe that women, on average, like sex inside the relationship more than men do, or at least they do after some initial period. But I don't know any women who are seriously up for anonymous sex as a normal part of their daily lives; I know very few men whom I believe aren't interested in the idea.
I think we're measuring and comparing two different types of sex drives.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:23 AM
Like Ogged, the vague hum is always there in my mind.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:25 AM
throwing my anecdotal weight behind silvana: my female friends with boyfriends pretty much unanimously want to be having sex more often than their boyfriends/husbands do. yes, it comes up.
OK. Send them my way and I'll take up the slack.
Posted by Praedor Atrebates | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:31 AM
This is only tangentially related, but in David Foster Wallace's new book of essays Consider the Lobster, he writes about attending a porn awards ceremony and hanging out in a hotel room with several porn stars (who were all wearing sweats and other deliberately non-sexy clothes, and watching Seinfeld). There are a few other people in the room as well, and Wallace describes having this (admittedly ridiculous) sense that at any moment, everyone was going to shed their clothes and start orging out. Perhaps with some "Can I borrow that towel?"-style dialogue. At this point, Wallace realizes that it's all in his head, and that porn does weird things to one's sense of expectations and boundaries. It's a pretty funny essay.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:34 AM
I think the "background hum" is a very apt term for it. It is omnipresent. It is like a default train of thought that will occupy my mind when it is not focusing on other matters. And for me, it will sometimes interfere with my attempts to focus on work activities (e.g., spreadsheets and such). Of course, ADD tendencies may play a role here.
And to add another anecdotal data point, I think about sex much, much, much more than my wife does.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:36 AM
There are a few other people in the room as well, and Wallace describes having this (admittedly ridiculous) sense that at any moment, everyone was going to shed their clothes and start orging out.
I would likely have the same thought (fantasy/hope). It would be an opportunity to, hopefully, join in. So, let's call it a hopeful fantasy.
Posted by Praedor Atrebates | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:41 AM
Like Ogged, the vague hum is always there in my mind.
It's all you can do not to call out his name inappropriately, I know.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:42 AM
I knew someone was going to pwn my grammatical fuckup. I never thought it would be you, though Bridgeplate. I never thought it would be you.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:44 AM
, though,
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:45 AM
ogged!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:54 AM
35: No, LB, I don't think we know each other. I am, sadly enough, a law student, not an English grad student.
Oh, and Tia, you're awesome.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:57 AM
Sorry Joe, you were saying?
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:59 AM
Another interesting question that came to me because of 36: What if your observation about a member of the non-preferred sex is quasi-sexual? So, if I see a woman and think, "wow, those are some big tits," that's not sexual, but if a guy thinks that, it is? I call foul. I make observations (much to my chagrin, because I think the constant sizing up of other women is annoying) about other women's bodies all the time, and I think those are sexual. I think anytime you're making aesthetic judgments about other people's bodies it's at least quasi-sexual. So, sorry, Frederick. But don't worry, you're not gay.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:03 AM
On the general survey question, I'd say that it definitely depends on when I last has sex: if it's been awhile, then the fleeting glimpse of a cute (not even hot) girl in a passing car can get me distracted. But even when recently satisfied, it might only take a few passing strangers to get me thinking about it again.
RE: 36, I would say that my instantaneous, subconscious assessment of every passing nubile woman includes the sexual question, while the same is far from true with men. Even if I note that a guy is handsome, there's almost zero sexual content.
I might compare it to how I look at cars: I'm not a car guy as such, but I've paid a lot of attention since I was a teenager, and sometimes I'll spot an unfamiliar vehicle a couple blocks away. It totally catches my eye and attention - was that a new Chevy? Similarly, I'll gawk (usually subtly, I hope) at a woman who appears to be attractive from 75 yards. There's no real point to it, but it's almost compulsive.
Finally, about the comparison with women: my only speculation is that, while base levels of horniness may be comparable, women are, in fact, more likely to have horniness "blocked" by work, tiredness, other distractions. A sexy hug or kiss from my wife gets my attention no matter what else is going on, while the reverse is no longer true (it was before arrival of child). And I don't think it's just me.
Posted by JRoth | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:04 AM
(Even the idea: ick.)
So you admit, you have considered it...
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:05 AM
On the general survey question, I'd say that it definitely depends on when I last has sex: if it's been awhile, then the fleeting glimpse of a cute (not even hot) girl in a passing car can get me distracted. But even when recently satisfied, it might only take a few passing strangers to get me thinking about it again.
The opposite is true for me. When I'm having sex regularly, my moment-to-moment sexual thoughts are multiplied.
I came twice while I was writing this.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:07 AM
The opposite is true for me. When I'm having sex regularly, my moment-to-moment sexual thoughts are multiplied.
Yeah, agreed.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:10 AM
Huh, I thought (per conventional wisdom) that that was supposed to be true for women, but not so for men.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:14 AM
silvana- I know you were responding to Frederick, not me, but my experience just doesn't square with what you describe. When I eye practically any woman, there's a very clear sexual judgement. There's no such assessment with men, just as there isn't with dogs (although I will certainly think, "That's a handsome dog."). I'm not worried about being gay - that's just how my brain is working. Indeed, I'd argue that that's part of the internal state of being one sexual orientation or another - are you eyeing potential partners, or looking at other people?
Indeed, when I was 18, a woman of, say, 40, would have to be actively hot for me to eye her the way I would every single woman between 15-25. Now that I'm in my 30s, the range is more like 18-50, because it's now imaginable with all those women.
I bet that similar internal self-limiting takes place along class and/or ethnic lines for many, if not all.
Posted by JRoth | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:14 AM
(Even the idea: ick.)
I admit this could be a reflection of the lack of hot men around here.
Posted by ming | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:15 AM
The opposite is true for me. When I'm having sex regularly, my moment-to-moment sexual thoughts are multiplied.
Both this and the opposite are true for me. If I've had a lot of sex recently, I think a lot about it. If it has been a long while since I've had sex, I think a lot about it. I think about sex the least in that intermediate period between "recently" and "a long while."
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:17 AM
Hmm... maybe I need to elaborate. When I'm having sex "all the time," I do indeed think about it constantly. But, in more normal life, where it's every few days at best, it's more like hunger - really active thinking about sex is reduced for, say, a few hours to a half day after actually having some. But if it's been a week, I'll realize that I'm actually losing productivity because of it.
Oh, and Joe, that was hilarious.
Posted by JRoth | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:20 AM
I admit this could be a reflection of the lack of hot men around here.
Ahem.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:20 AM
51 comments and no one has asked the obvious:
Ogged:A friend recently said that she was debating with her friend whether guys really think about sex "every three minutes." I gave her the answer below, and then said I'd ask the Unfoggetariat.
Is she hot?
Where's the envelope? Oh, yeah. Ok. Says here: all the fuckin' time except when I am sick, seriously distracted or being shot at. Ok, seriously ill. Seriously distracted unless there is a female around in which instance I tend to be seriously distracted from my serious distraction. But no thinking about sex while being shot at. That's right out.
'Thinking about sex' does not mean a porn video playing in my head. Thank you.
Why don't we refer to ladies as 'women'?
Ladies means I'm being formal in mixed company. Otherwise 'ladies' means pre-Alzheimer's Margaret Thatcher. Women, as a group, includes MY MOM. And I am not even going to think about that.
Silvana: Every single woman I've ever been friends has complained about not getting enough (or good enough) sex, whether she's single or involved, pretty much all the time. Maybe I just have abnormal friends, but I doubt it.
What planet are you on? How do I get tickets?
SCTM:But I don't know any women who are seriously up for anonymous sex as a normal part of their daily lives; I know very few men whom I believe aren't interested in the idea.
Silvana:So you're a woman, and dude doesn't want to do you, you think, "Shit! It's me! I must be really hideous! Guys will fuck anything that moves!"
Dear god. I don't think about anonymous sex. I think about UNanonymous sex. In the actual run-up to the practicing of actual UNanonymous sex, other considerations enter into play. For instance, being a guy, I am not real interested in being perceived as one of those dudes with lots of gold chains or one of those losers that emails every personal ad they see. That might be good for anonymous sex, but it is bad for unanonymous sex. Also, I like to have some assurance that I'm not going to be stabbed in the heart for being an evil rapist ('I came onto him and then he was willing to have sex with me, the bastard!').
When I have been hit on by females (yes, that has happened!), the hit tends to arrive with sledgehammer force, making it difficult to discern whether it is a genuine offer, or the ravings of a psycho, or an offer based on monetary exchange. Or one of those 'tests'.
It seems to me to be better to err on the side of caution. But then I when I have been rejected, I have always assumed that I was being rejected for being me (and not being some other guy) as opposed to being rejected because a woman was 'frigid'. Which is a kind of a pathetic thought.
ash
['There.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:32 AM
Oh, and Joe's Foster reference in 48 reminds me of one of the funnier gags on Friends: somehow they're getting free porn on their cable, so it's on all the time (lest they lose it). One day, Chandler comes home and tells Joey, "I was just at the bank, and there was this really hot teller, and she didn't ask me to go do it with her in the vault." Joey responds, "Same kind of thing happened to me! Woman pizza delivery guy come over, gives me the pizza, takes the money, and leaves!"
I can see how all-porn, all the time would skew one's expectations of life.
Posted by JRoth | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:41 AM
ash, I should clarify. The thing that you quoted of me is a more general sentiment, rather than applied to particular women. The guys are horny/girls are not sentiment allows men, generally, to think that if they can't get laid it's because it's hard to get women to sleep with you, not because they're, you know, unattractive or uninteresting.
Here's the key difference, I guess, and a response to "send your women friends my way" &c, is that just because a woman is complaining about not having enough sex, doesn't mean that she will sleep with the first (or fifth) person who offers. I think that's why a lot of people are unwilling to proffer this point. Call it social conditioning, but no matter how sexually frustrated I am, I am not going to sleep with the the "hey baby, you're beautiful" guy on the street.
Are we talking "anonymous" sex as in, just someone you don't know at all? Walk into a room with a complete stranger and start going at it? Or, like, meet someone at a bar, flirt and talk all night, then go fuck? And would guys really be amenable to doing the former on a regular basis?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:43 AM
Walk into a room with a complete stranger and start going at it? Or, like, meet someone at a bar, flirt and talk all night, then go fuck? And would guys really be amenable to doing the former on a regular basis?
I think the bathhouse culture is evidence that the answer to this question is "yes".
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:45 AM
The reason I think women are apparently less interested in anonymous sex, I think, doesn't have anything to do with the different nature of their sex drives. I think it has to do with the ambient culture of male dominance (rape, in this instance), that makes anonymous sex potentially very dangerous and not-fun for women, whereas for men it's very different.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:54 AM
And also, I rarely think about sex before lunch, or during work. Afterwards, much more.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:57 AM
But your average guy is also less attractive, less focused on his appearance, so less likely to make a big visual impression.
Posted by ming | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:00 AM
The reason I think women are apparently less interested in anonymous sex, I think...
To generalize wildly: it's easier for men to get off with an unfamiliar/inexperienced partner than it is for women.
Discuss.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:03 AM
Like Ogged, the vague hum is always there in my mind.
A buzzing, blooming, sexual confusion.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:05 AM
your average guy is also less attractive, less focused on his appearance, so less likely to make a big visual impression
Having just been in the jury assembly room with a fairly random sampling of my fellow citizens, I'm sure that generalization is false.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:08 AM
75: I agree thoroughly. Also, I have been trying to parse this out in a way that makes sense, but I think another big difference is what factors in to whether woman A thinks "I want to have sex with man A." For me, looks are relevant, yes, but it's not really the most important thing. There's a whole subset of attractive men I wouldn't have sex with. Similarly, there's a whole subset of men who I really like personally who I wouldn't have sex with because of insufficient attractiveness. Frankly, I think it comes from a much less rigid view of what is attractive in men (societally imposed, of course). I think most men are at least moderately good-looking, but a much smaller set of those have the kind of personality that really catches my attention.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:08 AM
78: But I don't think that view is all that uncommon in men either, and those men aren't interested in anonymous sex. Though it probably is less common.
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:16 AM
So, if I see a woman and think, "wow, those are some big tits," that's not sexual, but if a guy thinks that, it is? I call foul. I make observations (much to my chagrin, because I think the constant sizing up of other women is annoying) about other women's bodies all the time, and I think those are sexual. I think anytime you're making aesthetic judgments about other people's bodies it's at least quasi-sexual.
I dunno. What if you're from a culture where breasts aren't considered sexual body parts? (Think of your classic National Geographic photos of topless African women with their breasts sagging to their navels. I'm guessing those women, and men in their societies, don't think of breasts the same way Americans do.) What if you find large breasts in general, or these large breasts in particular, unattractive? What if the breasts in question belong to a family member? I might have the thought "she's hot" about a 16-year-old relative of my wife's, even though for many reasons I wouldn't act on that thought. My 15-year-old daughter has large breasts. Of course, I don't do anything weird with, or even think anything weird about, my daughter. But if I notice her breasts, does that nonetheless count as "thinking about sex" just because they're breasts?
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:20 AM
But if I notice her breasts, does that nonetheless count as "thinking about sex" just because they're breasts?
Frederick- Yes, it does count. And thinking about sex with your daughter is gross. Ew. Pervert.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:33 AM
No shit, Urple. Have you seen Frederick's daughter?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:34 AM
who I wouldn't have sex with because of insufficient attractiveness
See, I don't really get this. Have they got harelips? prostheses? morbid obesity? Back when I was on the market I would not have said "That person is insufficiently hott for me ever to have sex with them." It didn't really cross my mind -- levels of attractiveness influenced who I came on to some; but if I were in a situation with someone who I found interesting and pleasant, them not fitting my expectations of "attractive" (or not fitting my stated gender preference FTM) would not have influenced the decision. Whatever. I am not really one to speak, not close to meeting our society's good looks template myself, and having slept with fewer than 10 people in my day.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:34 AM
hey guys, we are all on the bell curve, no matter the gender. some of us are hornier than others is all. some think more about food. ce la vie.
Posted by chipshot | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:36 AM
ce la vie
chipshot, I believe it's spelled say la vie.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:38 AM
Chipshot- Of course we're all on the bell curve. I think the interesting question is where the median falls on that bell curve, and how this differs by gender. The mean is also interesting. I'd like to know about the mode, too.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:38 AM
Standard Deviation! Standard Deviation!
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:40 AM
I think we are talking less about gender differentials, and more about our specific gender differences in our specific culture, where women are not as free to publicly enjoin in sexual discussions with men. maybe with each other, which skews things a bit. I would a proper gender discussion would have to look at cultures where women are more open about such things, that is, if they exist.
Posted by chipshot | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:45 AM
hey guys, we are all on the bell curve
Erm. No kidding?
Osner, one thing we might want to consider is that 'interesting and pleasant' probably include some measure of physical attractiveness. What's an mildly annoying trait in a plain person might be an interesting quirk in a person one finds more physically attractive.
Certainly, the opposite seems to be true in my experience; someone who isn't terribly physically striking (but within a range of, 'meh, pleasant enough') will become more physically attractive to me given the presence of other, non-physical attractive qualities.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:45 AM
83: That number is really a pretty small number, just for very unfortunate-looking people. Although I supposed anything could be overcome, really.
Thinking about it, I can only recall a few, though on further examination there was probably something, too, other than their looks, that turned me off from them that I just never put my finger on.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:47 AM
What about the 90% undateable figure supplied to us by Larry David?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:48 AM
not as free to publicly enjoin in sexual discussions with men
I hadn't noticed. Whenever I am discussing sex with my dude friends/acquaintances, they seem to be the ones who are more uncomfortable about it.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:49 AM
I bet a lot of women might take that as a cue not to talk about sex, though, silvana; unconscious social pressure.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:53 AM
And thinking about sex with your daughter is gross. Ew. Pervert.
Give me a break. I don't do that, as I said.
chipshot, I believe it's spelled say la vie.
c'est la vie
someone who isn't terribly physically striking (but within a range of, 'meh, pleasant enough') will become more physically attractive to me given the presence of other, non-physical attractive qualities.
Me, too. And conversely, if I come to dislike someone, she seems less physically attractive than she did initially.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:56 AM
chipshot, I believe it's spelled say la vie.
c'est la vie
Dayum! Ya got me. I don't know what to ce.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:58 AM
Why does Frederick know that his daughter has large breasts? Because he's been looking at them, that's why. Pervert.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:00 AM
I think anytime you're making aesthetic judgments about other people's bodies it's at least quasi-sexual.
I agree. I do this all the time. What's missing here, I think, is a sense that making these "quasi-sexual aesthetic judgments" can also provide a sort of thrill that doesn't need to lead anywhere else. Just because I think a woman (or a man) is hott doesn't mean I want to have sex with them. Sometimes the gaze is enough.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:01 AM
IMO (and maybe this contradicts conventional wisdom), women can remain attractive a lot longer than guys. Look at the hairlines of most guys in their 30's and 40's. It's not a pretty sight. I'm very happy that my hair is sticking around (I'm 45, but don't look it).
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:01 AM
AMTF.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:01 AM
Ohmigod, I should never have mentioned my daughter. No, I have no idea if my daughter even has breasts.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:03 AM
Why does Frederick know that his daughter has large breasts?
Actually he just said he noticed she has breasts. However I think your comment is equally applicable with "large" omitted.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:03 AM
My 15-year-old daughter has large breasts.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:05 AM
ce la vie
say la vie
c'est la vie
Sélavy
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:05 AM
IMO (and maybe this contradicts conventional wisdom), women can remain attractive a lot longer than guys.
My ten-year high school reunion two weeks ago certainly confirmed your opinion. And you're right on another count: you probably shouldn't have mentioned your daughter in this thread.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:06 AM
My 15-year-old daughter has large breasts.
Frederick gets it exactly right.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:06 AM
Can we please not talk about a specific fifteen year old and her specific body parts? Please?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:08 AM
SCMT came twice while he was writing that.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:09 AM
Just because I think a woman (or a man) is hott doesn't mean I want to have sex with them. Sometimes the gaze is enough.
I understand and agree; but if that's the standard for 'thinking about sex' it seems awfully low.
The phrase 'thinking about sex' is really misleading (which is why the stat seems shocking; it's less shocking if it includes things like 'Pretty. Girl.').
As if now 'having sex' can be construed to mean 'talked with a person one found hott'. Men have sexual intercourse every three minutes!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:09 AM
Whoa, I couldn't have crossed the line more with 107.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:10 AM
Frederick gets it exactly right.
But hopefully from a different source.
(There, Joe, do you feel better now? I assumed the mantle.)
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:13 AM
102 -- D'oh!
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:14 AM
AMTF?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:14 AM
98, 104: Maybe women just have more options for hiding aging; different cuts in clothing, generally a larger range of colors to choose from, more variance in hair styles, social acceptability of make-up.
But I don't know if I'd say in general that our culture finds older women more beautiful than older men; just judging from Unfogged, we women are all over the hill once we pass age 23. Most of the options women have for making themselves beautiful involve making themselves look younger.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:14 AM
Re: 45, 70, 72 -- I agree with 72, that the real difference in expressed desire for anonymous sex between men and women is a function of social pressure and safety issues, both perceived and real. While there isn't a women's 'bathhouse' culture, my understanding is that the the heterosexual swingers subculture is fairly gender balanced, and I wouldn't be surprised if more women are interested in participating in it because it's also percieved as physically safe.
Ash's 68 also plays into this -- he talks about being uncomfortable with women who made passes at him, because they seemed likely to be either nuts or motivated by something other than sexual desire. Enough people think that a woman who wants random sex is significantly deviant that expressing such desires doesn't get a lot of positive reinforcement.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:14 AM
Can we please not talk about a specific fifteen year old and her specific body parts? Please?
Yes, please. This is getting a little weird and offensive.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:14 AM
"Large breasts" is so vulgar. Let us say instead that one is amply bosmotic.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:15 AM
my understanding is that the the heterosexual swingers subculture is fairly gender balanced
I believe this is an enforced rule, rather than a natural equilibrium.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:18 AM
Huh? It could be an enforced rule at individual gatherings or clubs, but that doesn't make sense when applied to a subculture as a whole.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:21 AM
I came twice while reading this thread.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:25 AM
"Large breasts" is so vulgar. Let us say instead that one is amply bosmotic.
There's always "buxom."
I believe this is an enforced rule, rather than a natural equilibrium.
That's probably right. My understanding is that Plato's Retreat (now defunct, I think?) would admit M/F couples or single women, but not single men, because then they'd end up with bazillions more men than women. (A female friend told me of a friend of hers who'd gone there with a guy. Later, the friend wanted to leave, but Plato's wouldn't let her leave without the guy.) BPhD's account of the gender ratios in sex chat rooms (overwhelmingly male) is also consistent with this.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:27 AM
117:
Certainly likely -- my point was only that there is a non-negligible number of female participants in an anonymous sex subculture that's perceived as safe, while there isn't a gay-male-bathhouse style no-social-controls anonymous sex subculture that any number of women participate in (to my knowledge.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:28 AM
amply bosmotic
Callimastian.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:29 AM
114- I wonder how much social pressure or danger is internalized. Naomi Wolf (not perhaps the most reliable source) suggests in Promiscuities that most girls' first experience of the wider world of sex is likely to be a negative one. Flashers, leering older men, &c. That could easily blunt budding desires.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:29 AM
If we wanted to find out differences in sexual desire, we could ask everyont to imagine a perfect vacation, or heaven if that makes you feel less guilty. How often do you have sex, and is it monagamous? My suspicion is that gender wouldn't be a factor in the answer given.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:31 AM
I think some of the sex drive differences between men and women are hormonal. But, it is true that different cultures try to regulate women's sexuality; some in harsher forms than others.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:35 AM
Of course, a callimastian person needn't have large breasts. Too bad "megakolpian" sounds so bad.
monagamous? My suspicion is that gender wouldn't be a factor in the answer given.
The straight women and gay men might prefer if the sex were mono- or polyandrous.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:37 AM
Ben -- 'gamos' means 'marriage', not 'woman'.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:43 AM
most girls' first experience of the wider world of sex is likely to be a negative one. Flashers, leering older men, &c. That could easily blunt budding desires.
That, a bit, and I would say even more strongly that most girls' intial experience of expressing desire is likely to be a negative, or at least an unsuccessful one. There's a bit of a catch-22 for girls (which, I think, mostly gets resolved as everyone gets older and more socially adept, but still leaves marks): Because potential partners don't expect girls to be making sexual advances, anything subtle has a tendency to be ignored or misunderstood, while anything aggressive enough to be unambiguous gets perceived as freakish (see, again, ash's 68: "When I have been hit on by females (yes, that has happened!), the hit tends to arrive with sledgehammer force, making it difficult to discern whether it is a genuine offer, or the ravings of a psycho, or an offer based on monetary exchange.") Boys end up getting a lot of rejection, but there are at least socially acceptable ways for them to get their point across.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:44 AM
"My suspicion is that gender wouldn't be a factor in the answer given."
more interesting is what gender most people would choose to be in their sexual "heaven". Based on the female erotic nature of our culture, my guess is that it would skew to one side.
Posted by chipshot | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:45 AM
Really? Fuck!
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:45 AM
I think a lot about things I should be doing.
I also think a lot about sex. As in, haven't gotten dressed yet today and still smell like sex, which is kind of nice.
Actually, before urban capitalism and the resulting home / work division became standard in Europe, women were believed to be *far* more interested in sex than men. Hence chastity belts, the Wife of Bath, and etc.
Also, there's a fantastic lesbian bathhouse in Seattle. No, it's not a "bathhouse" in the "anonymous sex" way, but it is sexy.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:50 AM
more interesting is what gender most people would choose to be in their sexual "heaven"
In mine, I would be able to switch back and forth at will.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:55 AM
haven't gotten dressed yet today and still smell like sex, which is kind of nice.
I always like how my mustache smells post-cunnilingually.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:57 AM
#45: Logical fallacy. Whether or not women *engage* in anonymous sex, they think about it a lot. At least, I do.
And the fact that men think about it doesn't mean they do it.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 11:58 AM
In mine, I would be able to switch back and forth at will.
That would be great. Of course, the late Pope said no one has sex in heaven. He's right, but not the way he thought.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:00 PM
My mustache doesn't have a nose.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:02 PM
but there are at least socially acceptable ways for them to get their point across.
See, this -- this is what I seem to have missed out on coming up. Was I absent that day?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:03 PM
Re: 134
Both men and women think about doing a lot of things they don't do and know that they would never do. Wasn't that the original survey topic: how much we think about sex, regardless of how we act on those thoughts?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:03 PM
Yes, that was my point exactly.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:06 PM
Boys end up getting a lot of rejection, but there are at least socially acceptable ways for them to get their point across.
I assume that this just means that when a boy asks out a girl, even if he's rejected, he probably hasn't been rejected because the mere thought of him being bold enough to ask made the girl think he was psychotic.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:06 PM
In that case, 134 gets it exactly right.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:07 PM
My mustache doesn't have a nose.
On the contrary, your mustache has notes of cherry, blackcurrant, and old leather.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:09 PM
Re: 137.
Come on. "Golly, Sue, would you like to go see a movie with me sometime?", in context, is a socially acceptable way for a sixteen-year old boy to say "Among other things, I would like to have sex with you." That doesn't mean that it's likely to get an immediate, unambiguous answer, but a boy making social advances to a girl will generally be understood to be expressing sexual desire, and further communication between the two will be facilitated by that understanding.
The reversed situation: "Golly, Dave, do you want to go get a milkshake down at the malt shop?" doesn't successfully communicate the same subtext.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:12 PM
140: Yup, that was what I meant.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:13 PM
SCMTim's point about differences in sex drives could still stand, logical fallacy aside. Suppose men do have (empirically, testably, non-patriarchally biased) more sex thoughts per day than women. Does it follow that men are hornier than women?
I think not; aside from the problems in determining what counts as a sex thought, it may just be a bad determiner of intrinsic horniness. The two genders' sex drives just may be that different.
(In my limited experience, this seems to be the case; I seem to like sex as much as my boyfriend likes sex, and there isn't a 3/times a week vs. daily sort of mismatch, but he always seems to have it on the brain.)
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:14 PM
On 134, I usually fantasize about movie stars and other people I'm not likely to meet, so my desires don't correspond to reality. I'm assuming this is different from unconsciously scanning every man around. If most men tend to do that, it would lead to more real-world encounters, or at least attempts.
Posted by ming | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:15 PM
if that's the standard for 'thinking about sex' it seems awfully low.
It is awfully low if "thinking about sex"="thinking about intercourse or intercourse-related-activities." Not so much, maybe, if "thinking about sex"="contemplating libidinally charged aesthetic judgements." The latter occupies a lot of my spare attention during the day; the former not as much. Which may just mean I need more IRAs in my life.
In mine, I would be able to switch back and forth at will.
So would I. Or be anything else that I chose. Angel sex! Hott!
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:19 PM
I find it interesting the divide between our sexual fantasy life and the propriety of how we act in the real world. I don't know about women, but I believe that in most men's minds, the sexual fantasy extends into very anti social realms but that he would never in his life act upon. Most of us have a very solid and safe wall built between fantasy and real life, but would not give up either, no matter how much in conflict the two are.
Posted by chipshot | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:20 PM
I'm assuming this is different from unconsciously scanning every man around. If most men tend to do that, it would lead to more real-world encounters, or at least attempts.
Not necessarily. I am solidly monogamous and intend to remain so. But that has no impact on me viewing random women of all levels of attractiveness and wondering, "Hmm, what would it be like to . . ." even though I know full well I would never, ever act on such thoughts.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:24 PM
I really don't understand how you can all be thinking about sex when we're only hours away from the Rose Bowl.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:24 PM
It is entirely possible that I'm just a low sexdrived freak; but I think I've had one libidinously charged thought all day. (And three meta-thoughts, um, four! about that thought.)
But anyway, Paul, I don't want to belabor the point. I submit, though, that if I say 'I think about sex all the time' most people probably include a narrower range of thoughts than 'I find many people sexually attractive in the course of an average day.'
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:29 PM
Certainly lots of people are thinking about sex during the Rose Bowl? All those big strapping men in tights playing with balls?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:30 PM
I think this has been said already, but given that men have social incentives to overstate and women to understate their libidinousness, I would expect that most women would include a narrower range of thoughts under that rubric, but most men would define pretty much anything with any sexual content as 'thinking about sex'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:32 PM
OK, quick test. Next time you're out for coffee or lunch or whatever, count the number of times you say to yourself, "I'd have sex with him him/her." Report back.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:34 PM
153: I'm rather strict in my definition of "sex." I would not consider thinking about anything that didn't involve nudity and physical interaction as thinking about sex.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:36 PM
What about thinking about having sex, but not thinking about having it with any particular person. That is, just thinking about sex itself, such thoughts not having been prompted by the sight of an attractive person or other external stimuli? I have such thoughts quite often. What say the female Unfoggetariat?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:36 PM
On 149, would you agree that what I suggested is an extra degree of distance? If you think sexual thoughts about your co-worker, and are around that person, you have to do some active separation between the two. If you mostly think about Brad Pitt, not so much.
Posted by ming | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:37 PM
155 -- so thinking about clothed frottage doesn't count?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:46 PM
Re: 157
Yes, but the separation between fantasy and reality is not necessarily something that needs to be actively maintained, as you seem to imply. Or rather, it often takes very little effort.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 12:53 PM
Or rather, it often takes very little effort.
Assuming for the nonce one is not drinking heavily.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 1:02 PM
158. I suppose if someone had arousing daydreams involving clothed frottage, then it would count.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 1:12 PM
Michael has a point. I certainly check everyone out, thinking, that girl's got a pretty nice whatever, but there are lots of mental steps before that actual person is getting freaky with me in my mind. Thinking about actually getting freaky is not so common. Even when I'm, say, flirting with a girl I find really attractive, I'm not simultaneously fantasizing about what she would look like naked (because that would be waaay too distracting); my thought process is usually something more along the lines of, "Quick! Say something that will make her think I'm witty or mind-bendingly cool."
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 1:14 PM
Michael -- I am given to understand that there are entire websites devoted to fantasies involving clothed frottage.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 1:21 PM
Joe -- with you I should think it goes without saying. All you really need to do is be in the room, right?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 1:24 PM
Flattery will get you everywhere, Osner.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 1:32 PM
137: So if a sixteen-year-old boy expresses interest in hanging out with you one-on-one, that means he wants to do the nasty? What about a twenty-five-year-old boy? This is important!
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 1:52 PM
145 / 146: I, for one, do think that I probably eventually wonder what it would be like to have sex with most of the men I know. And I also know that I do make an immediate first-impression judgment of whether I find the person physically attractive, even if doing so doesn't mean that I immediately leap to imaginging them naked.
I think there's a difference between saying "men think about sex more than women"--which may or may not be the case--and saying "men are intrinsically hornier than women." The original post was about the former, but as often happens, we seem to be conflating the two, implicitly and explicitly. I once read an article somewhere called something like "How to be as Horny as a Man" that made the point that men are exposed to sexual stimulation for maybe 70-80% of their waking moments: advertisements, literature, movies, clothing, etc. routinely represent women in a sexual light in ways that they don't represent men. The "what about the lesbians?" question may be relevant, as might the "are straight women sexually aroused by images of women?" question, of course--but underlying both questions we have to keep in mind that what's sexually arousing is, in part, the function of social conditioning, as someone pointed out way upthread about breasts not always being / having been eroticized. Hott woman = teh sexx, for everyone: that's what we've been taught. It would make sense, therefore, to hypothesize that given how omnipresent images of hott women are in our society, that on average, straight men--whose relationship to hott women is fairly unambiguous--would be more aroused/more aware of arousal/more likely to think about sex than straight women (for whom, let's say, sexual attraction to hott women isn't *intrinsic*) or lesbians (for whom sexual attraction to hott women presumably isn't untinged with an automatic awareness of the objectification involved, and/or who aren't the target audience of hott women TM, and who therefore might prefer other representations of female hottness than are generally available).
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 1:53 PM
silvana, are we talking about emo boys? If not, then same rules apply.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 1:54 PM
This is important!
But is it directed me-wards? I wrote 137 but I don't see where you're going with it.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 1:55 PM
Oh, forgot to say that given that men are way more exposed to sexual stimuli aimed at them than women are, if women *do* think about sex as often as men do, or anywhere near as often as men do, it suggests that women are way *more* intrinsically horny--being as they don't seem to require constant stimulation to think about sex.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 1:57 PM
Oops. I meant 143.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 1:57 PM
And speaking of socialization, it's worth noting at least that gay and lesbian sexual behavior doesn't exist in a vacuum either, and it's not clear to me that the gay culture of anonymous sex exists only because of male desire for anonymous sex; I think repression of gay sexuality probably has at least something to do with it.
I have no idea how much I think about sex. It's too hard to observe. As soon as I try some self-examination, I'm thinking about sex.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:00 PM
sounds chicken and the egg to me.
As men, do we think about women and sex more because everywhere we turn in society, there are gobs of erotic adverts exposing female flesh? or is it that because we are built to pursue women, and respond accordingly, that the advertisers dangle the carrots of female flesh before us to get our attention? and is it not done for women because traditionally we are the ones with the cash?
Posted by chipshot | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:00 PM
171 gets it exactly right. 170 makes me want to come up with some clever play on "bread and circuses" but substituting "pornography" for "circuses". But I am not clever so the statement of intent will have to do.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:01 PM
Would I, could I, should I? To elaborate on my comment in 54, the mental categories are: maybe tending yes, no tending maybe, and no tending no.
A drop-dead gorgeous former roommate of mine went through a male-model phase. The ones she brought home were cripplingly stupid. These I'd categorize for myself as maybe tending hell no. I couldn't even create a sexual fantasy involving someone so limitingly self-involved as these men were.
156: Sexual thoughts, per se, without stimulating factors, are not particularly frequent for me. I've had a few startlingly erotic dreams in my life, a few poorly thought-through sexual misadventures, but these have been relatively uncommon. Still: I'm no sociological median.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:02 PM
156: What counts as "external stimuli"? If I reflect on some past sexual experience I've had, or think on some possible future sexual experience with a particular person (who is not present), is that per se? Or are you talking about, like penes floating through my mental vision? Or thoughts of sex with a random and imagined person, but one with particular characteristics?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:07 PM
166: Well, the question is, sounding like Bridget Jones or something, is it a date-date (which can certainly be ambiguous, it's just that the man in question has socially acceptable ways of making it unambiguous.) If you're already buddies, you can't be sure; if he approached you with someting along the lines of "I don't know if you you remember me, but I've seen you in [context] and wondered if you want to hang out sometime," that's a clear 7 out of 10 that he has some interest in knocking boots with you.
I don't mean to be saying anything that isn't perfectly obvious, just that there's a lot of social code for a man to indicate that he's making a romantic, and therefore implicitly sexual, approach, and that that code doesn't, mostly, work as well for women.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:09 PM
i think the non verbal cues have always been code enough for me to get if a woman wants to "knock boots": the extended eye contact, the smile, the hips slanted forward. you sort of know when its happening. A woman usually doesn't have to come out and say it because a guys's antennae are usually always up.
Posted by ch | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:14 PM
154, 167, ...
a study in the NY Times a few months ago supposedly proved that a)men respond far more to visual stimuli than women, who respond to other things, and
b)when shown suggestive photos, straight men are aroused by pictures of hott women, but not usually by pictures of other men, whereas women get aroused by pictures of men, women, gay women, gay men, you name it.
i wonder if this is a biological thing, or if we all in this society including women have been conditioned to think: female body, hott.
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:14 PM
It could always be a case of ogged's dilemma (too lazy to look it up) of wanting to hang out with someone but not wanting her to think he wants to date her, and thus deliberately ambiguous.
Or it could be a case of 11.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:14 PM
LB -- What I meant in 137 was, any time in my adolescence that I approached a gurl with such a subtle way of expressing my desire to sleep with her as, "would you like to go to the movies", it was always interpreted as a friendly invitation and never got me anywhere near where I was looking for it to. And when I was more direct, like "would you sleep with me", well that didn't seem to get me anywhere either though at least it wasn't misinterpreted. Clearly I was doing something wrong but to this day I don't know what. (In the first instance that is -- I'm pretty sure I understand what I was doing wrong in the second.)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:17 PM
Sexualized images of men have been on the rise since the late 1970s, because of advertising aimed at gay men. This had effects on the female gaze, giving a kind of permission to look at men in a more objectified/less romantic way.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:19 PM
This is not the first time this has happened to me! In college, this guy who I sort-of knew (we were both TAs in the math dept.) asked me if I wanted to hang out and "watch a movie or something." I totally thought it was a date-date, and psyched, because he was hott. I went over there, we watched a movie (with his roomates) had a few drinks, and... then I left. I hung out with him a couple more times (at least one of my initiation), with nothing happening, and then the last time I went over to his house, there was some other chick over there who I had seen around flirting with him. WTF? So it wasn't a date-date after all? Maybe it was, and he changed his mind about wanting to knock boots.
I've come to the conclusion that men my age are too intimidated by me to make some kind of sexual move.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:20 PM
Couldn't rightly tell you, Jeremy. What happened when you shyly attempted to hold her hand in the movie theater?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:21 PM
182 to 167/170. And I'm not sure, thinking about it, if the gay spillover effect supports or contradicts the thought in 170.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:24 PM
Sexualized images of men have been on the rise since the late 1970s, because of advertising aimed at gay men. This had effects on the female gaze, giving a kind of permission to look at men in a more objectified/less romantic way.
One of my best friends (a gay male) told me that gay men have completely changed what (straight) women view as attractive these days. He said that because of the gay influence, there's a much greater emphasis on boyish, "twinkier" guys, making sex symbols out of everyone from Leonardo DiCaprio to Michael Pitt to Jake Gyllenhall.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:26 PM
Part of me has very little patience about arguments that certain biological properties must be intrinsic when those properties also have obvious social influences. As if saying something is 'intrinsic' makes the problem go away (or creates the problem).
Men may very well be hornier than women on some back-in-the-veldt sort of level; the smartest male mathematicians may be better than the smartest female mathematicians; and pound for pound, men may be stronger.
But generally, who the hell cares? I am stronger than a lot of men because they don't work out and I do; and it bothers me that intrinsic gendered differences are supposed to determine things for me.
That said, I don't find the possibility that my sex drive might be wired differently than my boyfriend's all that threatening. So what if it is? All that means is the same arousal/whatever strategies don't work in the same way on us.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:27 PM
I get at least one email a month from confused female friends with the subject line "Is this a date or not?!" asking for help to determine if an upcoming event is a date-date or a hanging-out-as-friends invitation. Obviously, many guys' intentions are not being conveyed as clearly as they think.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:28 PM
Actually I'm thinking now it was an ice-cream parlor. But didn't get to the point of hand holding -- I could not figure out how to get it there and she didn't seem to think (as I recall) that that was what we were there for, she was just having her ice cream and chatting and not making an opening for me to work my magic. Similar things happened on at least two other occasions, but I don't remember exactly what the venues were, I think one was a walk together. Had some nice friendships with gurls in HS and college but no satisfaction.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:29 PM
Hrm. Looking back at this, I don't seem to have successfully made the point that I meant to make. I don't mean that any approach from a guy is going to be unambiguous (silvana: that all sounds like my dreadful college dating career), or that guys necessarilly have dating easier in any way, just (a) that guys have more available social code to unambiguously convey sexual/romantic interest (by behaving in a conventionialized date-like manner) and (b) that they have more social leeway for making an unambiguous sexual approach in a manner that forces either acceptance or rejection without looking deviant than women do.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:31 PM
176: For me, "no external stimuli" could mean something such as sitting in the cubicle at work, with no other people in your field of vision, and gradually becoming aware of the fact that you are not devoting your full attention to what you are working on (which, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to do with sex) because your thoughts have drifted to thinking about how wonderful it would be to be engaging in a given sex act, without really giving much thought to the identity of the other person involved beyond the fact that they are of the desired gender.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:35 PM
183: Silvana, it would have been a date-date if you'd jumped him. I'm actually pretty serious about that, and I think we've talked about this before: given all the "don't force yourself on women" stuff that men hear, many of them are reluctant to make the first move, but if a woman just plants a kiss on a guy, fruit will be borne.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:37 PM
I don't 'failure to convey intentions' is the relevant standard here, though; and it's harder now that men and women can hang out in non-date contexts. (My mother assumes every one-on-one encounter with a male friend must be a date.) It's whether, failed conveyance or not, it creeps out the other person because one is acting outside the proscribed social roles.
There probably is some overlap; maybe the reason some men are creeped out by aggressive women is that the women haven't had a whole lot of practice at it and hence are uncomfortable and creepy. But I suspect that's a smaller part of it.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:37 PM
many of them are reluctant to make the first move, but if a woman just plants a kiss on a guy, fruit will be borne
Yes. Wet, sexy fruit.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:39 PM
more available social code to unambiguously convey sexual/romantic interest
And this is what I was saying back in 137, I had missed the class on.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:41 PM
Joe Drymala is a moistt sexx godd.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:44 PM
186- I mentioned the influence of gay ideas of beauty before, when we were talking about actors. I'm reluctant to link to my previous comment, however, because it's so similar to what I said in 182. Repeating myself here.
170- My first thought was that women probably had more romantic notions of sex when all they were allowed to have were romantic notions of sex. But perhaps that's too easy.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:45 PM
many of them are reluctant to make the first move, but if a woman just plants a kiss on a guy, fruit will be borne.
This would avoid most of the date-rape risks, but I don't think it would be a magic anti-awkwardness cure. I'm pretty sure it's the same situation for men as it is for women--there are fewer women I would like to date than women I would like to hang out with. So yes, this technique has a certain value in situations where the guy is excessively holding back, but do be warned that fruit will not be universally borne.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:46 PM
because your thoughts have drifted to thinking about how wonderful it would be to be engaging in a given sex act, without really giving much thought to the identity of the other person involved beyond the fact that they are of the desired gender.
I don't recall ever having thoughts along those lines; my fantasies are always person-specific.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:46 PM
Speaking as a woman who has always asked guys out (in fact, I think that most of my relationships were initiated by me), the problem of asking someone out and then having them "not get it" isn't just a problem men have. Or maybe it's as LB says, that women asking guys out just reads differently. My experience is that no one ever said "no"--I didn't have to worry about rejection per se--but that more than one person clearly said "yes" when they didn't really want to, and that the ensuing date was therefore really awkward and weird. My hypothesis is that perhaps men are so unused to the idea of being *asked* that they don't know what to do when it happens or how to say no gracefully.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:48 PM
I think that "fruit will be borne" advice is just terrible. I don't think anyone, man or woman, should kiss anyone they don't feel a decent signal from. There are lots of situations in which men want to hang out with women but do not, in fact, want to have sex.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:50 PM
There are lots of situations in which men want to hang out with women but do not, in fact, want to have sex.
I worry about this younger generation.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:52 PM
I think that "fruit will be borne" advice is just terrible.
God damn it, people, I'm trying to get the women to jump guys more frequently, and most guys will at least go along the once.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:53 PM
#192: Oh, please.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:53 PM
My hypothesis is that perhaps men are so unused to the idea of being *asked* that they don't know what to do when it happens or how to say no gracefully.
A woman asked me out once and I asked if I could bring a friend along. So B is wrong.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:54 PM
I think that "fruit will be borne" advice is just terrible. I don't think anyone, man or woman, should kiss anyone they don't feel a decent signal from.
I think Ogged was saying that women who are into men, and who seem to be getting signals, needn't wait for men to make the move. Ogged only wants to empower!
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:55 PM
A woman asked me out once and I asked if I could bring a friend along.
Woman? IIRC, this was when you were 14-ish. Pervert.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:58 PM
206: yeah, more seriously, what I'm saying is that if you could have sworn it was a date, but the guy isn't making a move, probably he'll be receptive to you making a move. But don't sue me if you're charged with rape.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:59 PM
205-
A woman asked my best friend out once, and he didn't know how to say "no" so he asked if he could bring a friend. She realized then that he didn't want to go out with her, but didn't know how to back out either at that point, so she brought a friend too. My friend brought me; she brought the woman who is now my wife. (That's how we met.) My friend and that other girl never went out again.
I realize this is not on topic.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 2:59 PM
IIRC, this was when you were 14-ish.
I thought I might have told that one before; yeah, this was high school and she was close to my own age.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:00 PM
Urple's life is a Nora Ephron screenplay.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:00 PM
Urple, that's a great story.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:02 PM
I have been on dates, and, over the course of the date, determined that he was just not that into me. It takes signals, man, signals.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:02 PM
I'm still recovering from an attempt to follow fruit-will-be-borne advice, eight years later.
Posted by ming | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:02 PM
Urple is in, fact, Carl Bernstein. So, what's up with that Woodward dude?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:02 PM
Jump or don't jump; there is no signal.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:02 PM
I'm still recovering from an attempt to follow fruit-will-be-borne advice, eight years later.
Wow, he married you, didn't he?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:03 PM
If Urple and wife's friends later got married, that would be my mom and dad's story.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:08 PM
#210: So did you ask to bring a friend along b/c you were trying to communicate "I like you, but not in that way" or just b/c you were being clumsy? B/c the difference is what determines my wrongness (or not; Urple's #209 shows that I'm wrong, which is good).
#216: Again, I say "oh please." There are so totally signals. Admittedly, learning to read/send them is, well, a learned skill; and reacting to them (appropriately) takes courage. But (though I know you're joking) encouraging people to "jump or not; there is no signal" really *is* an invitation to harassment or rape.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:09 PM
On the contrary, your mustache has notes of cherry, blackcurrant, and old leather.
Are you related, by any chance, to Sancho Panza?
And pace Drymala above, I would guess the same rules apply regardless the amount of emoness.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:11 PM
219: I'm joking on all counts. I can't imagine a much clumsier response than "can Kitty Darfur come?" And of course there are signals (but women should still jump guys more often).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:12 PM
And pace Drymala above, I would guess the same rules apply regardless the amount of emoness.
Maybe, but fair warning: the greater the emo, the more necessary to heed 192.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:14 PM
#221: In which case I am, as always, in complete agreement with you.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:17 PM
Are you related, by any chance, to Sancho Panza?
No—why? I regret to say that most of my knowledge of Don Quixote comes by way of Robert Goulet.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:29 PM
Hey, hey, hey, doodle all the day.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:31 PM
I also know that I do make an immediate first-impression judgment of whether I find the person physically attractive, even if doing so doesn't mean that I immediately leap to imaginging them naked.
Suddenly tonight becomes more fraught.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:43 PM
but that more than one person clearly said "yes" when they didn't really want to, and that the ensuing date was therefore really awkward and weird.
I have totally had this happen. My impression was that the thought process, if spelled out, was along the lines of "Hey, a presentable woman is making a romantic approach. As a red-blooded male, I must be gagging for it at all times, how can I say no?" followed by a long unpleasant process of figuring out, during the date, that he had no actual interest. Grim.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:54 PM
No worries, Chopper, I've already imagined you naked.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 3:59 PM
And posed on your eponymous mode of transportation.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 4:02 PM
With sombrero.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 4:04 PM
[cough]
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 4:04 PM
And wielding your eponymous instrument.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 4:05 PM
One of these days, I will figure out what a geofmobile is.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 4:12 PM
I'm not exactly sure, but I think it turns the other way from a hawofmobile. For forward motion, you want to stick with the mushmobile.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 4:16 PM
Talk of the mushmobile brings back happy memories...
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 5:38 PM
SB, Panza had two kinsmen, renowned for their wine connoisseurship, who once tasted some from at some village, and declared its flavor flawed, as they detected notes of leather and iron. Everyone scoffed, but when the barrel was emptied, an old key on a leather thong was discovered.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:21 PM
Leather is one of my favorite flavors in wine. You get it a lot in big Italian reds. Iron would be nasty, though.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:29 PM
Are there any good-tasting metals?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:33 PM
Goldwasser isn't horrible.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:36 PM
You don't taste the gold, though.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:39 PM
How does Goldwasser avoid being poisonous? I thought heavy metals all were bad for you. Is it just that it's so little metal in the small amount of liquer you drink?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:42 PM
Gold is a heavy metal?
People have gold teeth.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:46 PM
You don't taste the gold, though.
Much like hot sauce, you taste it on the way out.
"Dude, I just pinched a gold-flecked grogan!"
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 7:59 PM
People have gold teeth.
Huh. Didn't think of that. Guess I'm going to have to rethink this whole theory.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:03 PM
244 was me.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 8:15 PM
Whenever we get into discussions here about how men and women think, I have to wonder how representative the views of the female commenters here are of women in general. Considering the number of grade-skippers revealed in the previous thread, one has to wonder what other traits are disproportionately represented here. The trend in the comments of this thread seems to be that women think about sex as much as men but does that really mean that women in general think about sex as much as men or that women who think about sex as much as men are drawn to Unfogged?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:37 PM
Or that once women start commenting at Unfogged, they start thinking about sex more?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:46 PM
247: True for me - I've been thinking about sex today every 12 minutes, since that's the refresh frequency on my feed reader.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 9:48 PM
Thinking about thinking about sex, on the other hand, is just frustrating. Also frustrating: thinking about jury duty.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:03 PM
Thinking about (sex during jury duty), though?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:05 PM
(Thinking about jury duty) during sex: bad.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:06 PM
So where does that leave thinking about (jury duty during sex)?
Posted by pdf23ds | Link to this comment | 01- 4-06 10:11 PM
One hopes it doesn't involve 12 angry men.
Posted by