There are certain times in life when you can release a very satisfied sigh of relief.
Monday was one such day when I felt affinity to a world that I did not fully believe existed.
To be able to read an article in a newspaper and to be able to nod in agreement and scream positive delights of affirmation is rare indeed, especially when you hold views around sexuality that some people seem to think is anarchistic or even immoral.
The article in question was written by Anushka Asthana, entitled “Sam Roddick: We have only had a kind of lipstick liberation. Women still have big battles to fight”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/23/sam-roddick-coco-de-mer
Judging by some of the comments left on the page, it appears that Ms. Roddick is absolutely correct in this statement. Women clearly do have big battles to fight.
To summarise the article, this was an interview with Sam Roddick, daughter of the famous Anita Roddick, founder of the Body Shop. Anita was renowned for her philanthropic work in relation to ecology and human rights and her business reflected her ethical views. Now Sam, having learned so much from her mother, has established a business of her own, based principally on some very strong forthright views that she holds.
Her business, some might say, is in sex.
She’s not a porn magnate. She’s not a whore, though there are some who seem to think she is. What she has developed is a rather state of the art, cultured and sophisticated range of sex toys and lingerie that are probably geared to the more costly end of the market.
Why did she develop this range of sexiness? – mainly because she wants women to find or rediscover their sexuality. In a glorious cycle, she can sell her wares to women who can afford these luxuries in life to assist those that cannot, all in the name of supporting women of all ages to acknowledge and appreciate the glorious gift of their own unique sexuality.
As Ms. Roddick so succinctly puts it, “to be a whole woman we had to reclaim our sexuality”.
Yes, yes, yes. This is precisely what I have been saying through these blogs over the last couple of years but the feminist brigade is not listening. They would proverbially hope the likes of Ms. Roddick and I be excommunicated for even suggesting that our cause is relating to feminism.
In their responses to the article, where Sam Roddick explains how she is working with young people on quality sex and relationship education, where she accounts for her work with prostitutes and where she states that sexual liberation comes with consent, some people still suggest that “sexual self worth is a male construct”.
They go on to question her stance as a feminist when she is “promoting” prostitution and promiscuity. They even suggest that she might be in favour of abuse by not making a stand against naughty things such as bondage.
They just don’t get it.
Let’s just take this idea that sexuality or female self-worth in sexual terms is the domain of men. Let us assume that it is something that men have conjured up so that they can satisfy their hungry little cocks. If feminists believe that then I am beginning to understand why they might be reticent to have sex. If the only thing that was going through my mind during sex was that I was merely there for the purpose of the man or woman between my legs then I might get a little pissed off at the prospect as well.
But I don’t think that and although I cannot speak for her, I am sure that Ms. Roddick does not think that either.
How, as a feminist, can you sit back and allow this “male construct” to continue? If you believe that the admiration of women and their perfectly wonderful bodies is there just for the satisfaction of men, then you have three options.
1. You accept it and get on with trying to enjoy sex pretending that orgasms and satisfaction for women does not exist.
2. You accept it and fight against this patriarchal existence, denying your sexuality at the same time, raging without action.
3. You do something about it. You recapture sexuality for yourself. You take this male construct and throw it back in their faces. You empower yourself with your sexuality.
If sex is all about a male construct then surely as a feminist you should be fighting hard to ensure that it is NOT a male construct.
It’s all very well going on about past lives where the man has dominated the woman, often using her sexiness as a tool for domination. We are all agreed. That is abhorrent. It is without consent. It is encouraging subservience by the woman. It is demeaning and devaluing female sexuality.
What is worse is that this is not all in the past. Some men are still doing this. They are still thinking that sex is just about them, and the women that they choose to fuck are there purely for their service. That is the male construct of sexuality that some feminists quite rightly fight against.
However, there is a far better, more exciting and proactive way to challenge this. Let sexual self-worth be a female construct. It is that simple!
Let women find out about their sexuality for themselves. Let them embrace the fact that we are the ones who are sexually gorgeous. We are the ones who have the wonderful bodies and the juicy pussies. We are the ones who have the right to female orgasms and ejaculations. We are the ones who can actually help men to understand our bodies more, ensuring that both parties get greater satisfaction from their sexual activities.
Sam Roddick goes on within the article to provide us with this statement.
"Feminism as a word is desexualised. If one claims to be a feminist, one is almost sacrificing her sexuality or her sexiness, right? Because it's not really permissible to be powerful, self-determined, challenging of society and be sexy. So it's very interesting how many women refuse to state they are a feminist. They fear that they are not going to be desired. I think it's something that we've got to tackle."
There are two points to raise in this statement.
Firstly, she is correct in one sense. People do not want to be seen as a feminist because it suggests that they are therefore not sexy. What I am suggesting is that there is a perfectly sensible and forthright way of putting the sexiness right back into the word “feminist”. What I am suggesting is that you cannot possibly BE a feminist if you haven’t embraced sexuality and the significance of this as an integral part of being a woman.
This moves completely into my second point. If we do see feminism as a desexualised, then we have to change this. I do not want to choose between being a feminist and being a sexual person. I do not want to feel guilty about something that I have no reason to feel guilty about.
It has taken me years to find my sexuality and I’m damn sure I do not want to lose it again.
My freedom, my liberation has come from seeing myself as a sexual being. I still loathe oppressive behaviour. I still hate over sexualisation of our young people in society. I still abhor sexual violence. I still rage at sexual exploitation but that does not stop me wanting to enjoy sex and wanting to have sex with rather gorgeous people who satisfy my sexual needs and in return in wonderful equality, satisfy theirs.
And guess what? My liberation came with a considerable helping hand – from a man; from a liberated man who respects women’s sexuality far more than some feminists seem to do so.
Furthermore, like Ms. Roddick. I want to see every woman reach their sexual peak. I want women to be able to stand proudly with their delightful bodily parts protruding because they are proud to be a woman and not because it suits some bloke to have a good look.
In order to move on, to progress we are not going to chop our boobs off. We are going to flaunt them knowing that we have these wonderful appendages that men desire.
What could be more empowering than to gain some equilibrium in this forthcoming sexual revolution?
That is what Sam Roddick seems to be thinking about and likewise I do the same.
It is time to become a whole woman through reclaiming our sexuality. In doing so, we will rid the world of exploitation and we will choose when to be sexual thus eradicating any unnecessary sensationalism of sexuality in return.
It is up to us; feminists and free thinkers, men and women and I am eternally grateful that there are people out there like Sam Roddick who are doing precisely that.
Wednesday 26 May 2010
Sunday 23 May 2010
Power is THE Aphrodisiac
“The Labour Peer and I – Power is the definitely the ultimate aphrodisiac” (sic).
As Victoria Cohen said in her column in the Observer this morning, “Fellow pedants will understand why I couldn’t bear to read on after that”, and that was without the additional “the”.
However, I decided I could read on to listen to Melissa Jacob’s account of why power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, ever doubting that this could be so.
For those who are not in the know, well done! However, to enlighten you Melissa Jacobs is the one-time mistress of Lord Triesman who was quoted in the Mail on Sunday last week prompting all sorts of angst about the 2018 World Cup bid for England. Until last week he was chair of the FA but as is delightfully traditional, football and sex appear to be inseparable and ‘scandal’ after ‘scandal’ come to the forefront.
So I read on to find out what is so attractive about power.
Clearly there is something that is attractive about power. Look at some of the more attractive or pretty women on the arms of some diabolically ugly men in politics. With the greatest of respect, they are not with their men for their looks, and neither should they be but how did they get together in the first place?
Sven, for all his cool Swedishness, is not an attractive man. Now either he is extremely well-endowed or there is something about him that us mere plebs cannot see. Let’s face it, he was a sexual smash when he had the power of football management.
As the ever so clever Mrs. Merton pointed out to a surprised and naive Ms. Debbie McGhee, “ So what attracted you to the multi-millionaire Paul Daniels?” Power and money; apparently similar in the aphrodisiac status.
Blimey, even the ever pot bellied John Prescott had his moments and although it is clear that he had a twinkle in his eye that has always been present, I suspect it was the power of office that drew most admired glances from the women who have been involved with him.
So Melissa tells it all. She explains that it was the power of the man rather than anything else that attracted him to her. She even says that physically she was not attracted to him at all.
“I must be honest and admit that he was an extremely good kisser”, she states. Is that enough?
“I didn’t even find him physically attractive, yet there was something drawing me to him so strongly” .... and I could be wrong but I suspect it wasn’t a magnetic cock.
Here is the link but I will save you from the boredom of reading it and let you know that she did not explain the power aphrodisiac at all.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xPvEDk70ew4J:sex-love-and-ocd.blogspot.com/+site:sex-love-and-ocd.blogspot.com&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Now I do not know this Melissa character and I would certainly not want to grossly generalise people who have affairs with married men, or anyone who has sexual relationships outside their primary one but I was genuinely fascinated by her seeming lack of sexual enlightenment.
“He also insisted on pleasuring me orally. I have never understood the attraction of this particular activity, but guys seem to be obsessed with it. Giving it, I mean......... I did allow him to partake. And I didn’t regret it. He was very adept down there. I didn’t repay the favour however. Not with my mouth anyway. Enough said I think”.
Indeed!
She doesn’t exactly come across as a goer, does she? I mean, poor woman being apparently too English or too shy to want cunnilingus. Oh do shut up! I’m shy and English and I love a tongue fuck.
And what about Poor Lord T; risking all for a bit on the side who isn’t prepared to go down on him!
Anyway, I digress. There is nothing in here that explains this incredible attraction of power, for some.
It is clearly something that is quite egotistical. I am sure that some of these women feel a certain pride in catching the main man. There has to be something in it. Otherwise, how would Bernie Ecclestone ever get where he has sexually?
Before I get sued, by the way, I think all these powerful people are marvellous young men and quite frankly, I am in complete favour of anyone using anything of purpose to ensure they get the sexual pleasure that they deserve as long as it is not in any way exploitive.
If a small, fat, balding man has an urgent desire for a fuck and he just so happens to hold a CEO placement in a large company, then he is likely to get the fuck that he wants just from the position that he maintains. It’s just one of those mad facts in life. It explains the very odd pairings you sometimes see.
Power brings fucks.
And there is also the possibility that some people are completely honest about this. There are some people who are quite clear that they are interested only in the powerful.
Take someone like Jerry Hall. She wanted fame. She got there with her glamorous and striking figure. A man without power was not going to satisfy her. She enjoyed the power, the dominance, the profile and when Bryan Ferry wasn’t big enough, she went for the main man from Dartford instead.
Take Carla Bruni, and talking of the Jagger man, she had her share of prominent lovers including the Rolling Stones lead singer and Eric Clapton to name but a couple. Clearly this woman likes power and money, hence her choice in husband.
I call upon Mrs. Merton to ask the question once more, “So Madmoiselle Carla Bruni, what attracted you to the ever so small ever so powerful Monsieur Sarkozy who is about to become President of La France?”
I’m not there. I’m not party to their relationship and there is every possibility that these two got together to satisfy two pairs of egos or that they are genuine soul mates who love one another profusely. I don’t know and therefore it is unfair of me to comment but it does make you think that the power aphrodisiac came into play, as it has done throughout history and across continents for many a year.
I do wonder whether, for example, Monica Lewinsky would have been as attracted to Bill had he not been President of the USA. Now I will grant that Clinton has his own appeal anyway but would it been as prevalent to a woman thirty years his junior if the glamour of the office had not been there, or would he just have seemed like a dirty old man?
The thing is sexual attraction can come from a variety of places and this is fine. I do wonder, though, whether the attraction of power is something that is not sustainable. Once the power has gone the attraction might go to. Once the acceptance of power has happened, then eventually one might wonder what on earth there is in common.
Hopefully, those who want meaningful relationships might think a little more carefully about what they actually want in life before being taken in by the power aphrodisiac from the likes of David Mellor, for heaven’s sake!
Returning to Carla and Nickolas, I was intrigued to read reports earlier this year of the state of their relationship and the fact that it appears that they both have lovers. To be honest, I am surprised that this even made the press. I’d almost, and perhaps with an unhealthy dose of racial generalisation, assumed that they were fucking elsewhere too. They both struck me as people that were definitely fulfilled by horny and even illicit sex. However, I was struck by the comment in the paper that they were both cheating on one another.
Says who?
Just because they are having sex with other people, why should that automatically mean that they are cheating on one another?
Maybe this couple are exceedingly enlightened and acknowledged in the very first instance that they were not going to have an exclusive relationship. Maybe when Carla met her younger man, it was her husband that she first approached with the exciting news that she had found a really attractive man to fuck.
We do not know other people’s relationships and we cannot really comment from the outside but it does disappoint me that we still have the narrow mindedness to not even consider the possibility that the President of France and his wife had an agreement that this is how they want to live their lives, and if they did, then good luck to them, especially if they can be free from the burden of envy and enjoy sex, companionship and desire with one another too.
So to the power of sex! For me the important aphrodisiac is firmly linked with attraction and affection. It is strongly linked with someone knowing my needs and responding to them. It is strongly linked with someone enjoying what I can give to them. It is linked with a shared enjoyment and an honesty about one another’s sexuality, which seems to me is exactly what Mr and Mrs Sarkozy might be doing.
Good luck to those who find power the main aphrodisiac but I feel they have a lot to learn and quite frankly, there is a lot more to decent sex than that!
As Victoria Cohen said in her column in the Observer this morning, “Fellow pedants will understand why I couldn’t bear to read on after that”, and that was without the additional “the”.
However, I decided I could read on to listen to Melissa Jacob’s account of why power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, ever doubting that this could be so.
For those who are not in the know, well done! However, to enlighten you Melissa Jacobs is the one-time mistress of Lord Triesman who was quoted in the Mail on Sunday last week prompting all sorts of angst about the 2018 World Cup bid for England. Until last week he was chair of the FA but as is delightfully traditional, football and sex appear to be inseparable and ‘scandal’ after ‘scandal’ come to the forefront.
So I read on to find out what is so attractive about power.
Clearly there is something that is attractive about power. Look at some of the more attractive or pretty women on the arms of some diabolically ugly men in politics. With the greatest of respect, they are not with their men for their looks, and neither should they be but how did they get together in the first place?
Sven, for all his cool Swedishness, is not an attractive man. Now either he is extremely well-endowed or there is something about him that us mere plebs cannot see. Let’s face it, he was a sexual smash when he had the power of football management.
As the ever so clever Mrs. Merton pointed out to a surprised and naive Ms. Debbie McGhee, “ So what attracted you to the multi-millionaire Paul Daniels?” Power and money; apparently similar in the aphrodisiac status.
Blimey, even the ever pot bellied John Prescott had his moments and although it is clear that he had a twinkle in his eye that has always been present, I suspect it was the power of office that drew most admired glances from the women who have been involved with him.
So Melissa tells it all. She explains that it was the power of the man rather than anything else that attracted him to her. She even says that physically she was not attracted to him at all.
“I must be honest and admit that he was an extremely good kisser”, she states. Is that enough?
“I didn’t even find him physically attractive, yet there was something drawing me to him so strongly” .... and I could be wrong but I suspect it wasn’t a magnetic cock.
Here is the link but I will save you from the boredom of reading it and let you know that she did not explain the power aphrodisiac at all.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xPvEDk70ew4J:sex-love-and-ocd.blogspot.com/+site:sex-love-and-ocd.blogspot.com&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Now I do not know this Melissa character and I would certainly not want to grossly generalise people who have affairs with married men, or anyone who has sexual relationships outside their primary one but I was genuinely fascinated by her seeming lack of sexual enlightenment.
“He also insisted on pleasuring me orally. I have never understood the attraction of this particular activity, but guys seem to be obsessed with it. Giving it, I mean......... I did allow him to partake. And I didn’t regret it. He was very adept down there. I didn’t repay the favour however. Not with my mouth anyway. Enough said I think”.
Indeed!
She doesn’t exactly come across as a goer, does she? I mean, poor woman being apparently too English or too shy to want cunnilingus. Oh do shut up! I’m shy and English and I love a tongue fuck.
And what about Poor Lord T; risking all for a bit on the side who isn’t prepared to go down on him!
Anyway, I digress. There is nothing in here that explains this incredible attraction of power, for some.
It is clearly something that is quite egotistical. I am sure that some of these women feel a certain pride in catching the main man. There has to be something in it. Otherwise, how would Bernie Ecclestone ever get where he has sexually?
Before I get sued, by the way, I think all these powerful people are marvellous young men and quite frankly, I am in complete favour of anyone using anything of purpose to ensure they get the sexual pleasure that they deserve as long as it is not in any way exploitive.
If a small, fat, balding man has an urgent desire for a fuck and he just so happens to hold a CEO placement in a large company, then he is likely to get the fuck that he wants just from the position that he maintains. It’s just one of those mad facts in life. It explains the very odd pairings you sometimes see.
Power brings fucks.
And there is also the possibility that some people are completely honest about this. There are some people who are quite clear that they are interested only in the powerful.
Take someone like Jerry Hall. She wanted fame. She got there with her glamorous and striking figure. A man without power was not going to satisfy her. She enjoyed the power, the dominance, the profile and when Bryan Ferry wasn’t big enough, she went for the main man from Dartford instead.
Take Carla Bruni, and talking of the Jagger man, she had her share of prominent lovers including the Rolling Stones lead singer and Eric Clapton to name but a couple. Clearly this woman likes power and money, hence her choice in husband.
I call upon Mrs. Merton to ask the question once more, “So Madmoiselle Carla Bruni, what attracted you to the ever so small ever so powerful Monsieur Sarkozy who is about to become President of La France?”
I’m not there. I’m not party to their relationship and there is every possibility that these two got together to satisfy two pairs of egos or that they are genuine soul mates who love one another profusely. I don’t know and therefore it is unfair of me to comment but it does make you think that the power aphrodisiac came into play, as it has done throughout history and across continents for many a year.
I do wonder whether, for example, Monica Lewinsky would have been as attracted to Bill had he not been President of the USA. Now I will grant that Clinton has his own appeal anyway but would it been as prevalent to a woman thirty years his junior if the glamour of the office had not been there, or would he just have seemed like a dirty old man?
The thing is sexual attraction can come from a variety of places and this is fine. I do wonder, though, whether the attraction of power is something that is not sustainable. Once the power has gone the attraction might go to. Once the acceptance of power has happened, then eventually one might wonder what on earth there is in common.
Hopefully, those who want meaningful relationships might think a little more carefully about what they actually want in life before being taken in by the power aphrodisiac from the likes of David Mellor, for heaven’s sake!
Returning to Carla and Nickolas, I was intrigued to read reports earlier this year of the state of their relationship and the fact that it appears that they both have lovers. To be honest, I am surprised that this even made the press. I’d almost, and perhaps with an unhealthy dose of racial generalisation, assumed that they were fucking elsewhere too. They both struck me as people that were definitely fulfilled by horny and even illicit sex. However, I was struck by the comment in the paper that they were both cheating on one another.
Says who?
Just because they are having sex with other people, why should that automatically mean that they are cheating on one another?
Maybe this couple are exceedingly enlightened and acknowledged in the very first instance that they were not going to have an exclusive relationship. Maybe when Carla met her younger man, it was her husband that she first approached with the exciting news that she had found a really attractive man to fuck.
We do not know other people’s relationships and we cannot really comment from the outside but it does disappoint me that we still have the narrow mindedness to not even consider the possibility that the President of France and his wife had an agreement that this is how they want to live their lives, and if they did, then good luck to them, especially if they can be free from the burden of envy and enjoy sex, companionship and desire with one another too.
So to the power of sex! For me the important aphrodisiac is firmly linked with attraction and affection. It is strongly linked with someone knowing my needs and responding to them. It is strongly linked with someone enjoying what I can give to them. It is linked with a shared enjoyment and an honesty about one another’s sexuality, which seems to me is exactly what Mr and Mrs Sarkozy might be doing.
Good luck to those who find power the main aphrodisiac but I feel they have a lot to learn and quite frankly, there is a lot more to decent sex than that!
Relationships
NB: This blog was started on Friday 21st May and should have been posted yesterday.
Why are relationships so bloody complicated? Or should I rephrase that?
Do relationships have to be so bloody complicated?
Two completely different questions really because the answer to the first is, “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure they are complicated other than in the mind of the individual” or “they are complicated by a multitude of conflicting reasons” or – well, the list of responses is endless as with all questions that start with “why?”.
In response to the second question, the answer should be a resolute no. Of course relationships should not be complicated if there is mutual respect, if there is complete honesty and understanding, if there is compassion and empathy, if there is love and affection, if there is fellowship and interest, if there is passion and pleasure.
But look at that small and incomplete list: respect, honesty, understanding, compassion, empathy, love, affection, fellowship, interest, passion, pleasure. It’s a tall order for one single relationship to embrace all of these attributes all of the time, for eternity, ad infinitum, for ever and ever, happy ever after.
Those who have cracked it and have managed to fully embrace all of this into their relationship should be shouting from the mountaintops, telling the rest of the world that it is achievable, that you can have an uncomplicated relationship that works for you and for your partner.
Of course, there would be conflict in opinion from these mountain shouters. Some would say that harmony and trust comes out of total immersion in one another. Others would say that their survival is dependent on a healthy dose of absenteeism. Others would profess to monogamy, others would embrace polyandrous existences. Just as no two people are the same, then also by default surely no two relationships can be the same. Why can people not understand that?
You do still tend to hear that stupid phrase “he couldn’t change” when someone is explaining the end of a relationship. My response to that is why the hell should he? Or she, if it is the other way round.
Relationships are not bloody competitions but we do sometimes stand on the precipice by playing games, sometimes even unaware that we are doing so. Relationships should not be competitions or mind manipulation games. They should be straight forward and honest. You should not feel that you need to hold back because of the behaviour or response of your partner. Honesty really is the best policy, or is it? I’ll return to this later.
But why do people feel that they have a need to change their man or their woman? Why do they feel that they need to influence their decisions to the point of making them do something that is against their will, against their choice? What long term purpose or positivity could come from such actions? What sort of resentment are you building up in the long term?
Let’s take an example that has been a problem for many women over the years: men and their sport. I could have chosen others like men and their work or men and their motors or men and their porn. There always seems to be something that us women are determined to alter in our men and for those feminists who are about to bounce up and down on me for being politically insensitive, it happens the other way round too. There are men who want to change their women; men who don’t want their women to go out with their girlfriends, men who want their women to be domestic goddesses, men who want their women to be bedroom goddesses.
I think the difference is that women are probably more conscious of what they want to change in a man, and again, I am sure that some people will think that this is a gross over generalisation that is anti-feminist in stance.
There are some women who pop down to their local rugby club because they are particularly turned on by dirty hunks with odd shaped balls. They actually intend to bed one of these blokes. They like their physical prowess and their manly determination. Look at the WAG brigade. Like it or not, there are some women out there whose ambition is to have a relationship with a sportsman.
So they get their man, they enjoy his company, they adore the sex and they even go and watch the game, shouting in freezing conditions from the sidelines, proudly receiving the gratification from the crowd at their partner’s glory.
Time goes on and their bloke is constantly at games and if he’s not playing the game, he is practising for the next one, and if he is doing neither of these things, he is down the pub with his fellow players talking about Johnny Wilkinson’s infamous drop goal that still fills his heart with a passion that no amount of fellatio could muster.
His woman is beginning to feel resentful. She feels as though she is second in importance. She wishes that he would give more time to her. She is beginning to think that a non life-threatening injury might be a good idea to take him away and break the cycle (Not a good idea girls. If you think the obsessiveness is bad when they are playing, quadruple it for an injury).
You get the picture. She wants him to change. She wants him to give up the thing that he loves most in the world in order to love her more.
Now let’s look at that rationally. She thinks that her man is too preoccupied with his passion and that by eradicating that passion, it will free up more passion for her.
The reality is a hundred million miles from this. He feels pressurised to tone down his passion, even give it up altogether. In turn his passion for her diminishes rather than increases and he has nowhere to go now to release his angst so he takes it out on her, either distancing himself from her or getting aggressive.
It’s a no brainer folks. These relationships are not going to work in the long run because the sharing is not there. Also, there has probably been no discussion about this set up; no feelings shared, no compromises considered.
If you fancy a hunk, if you are determined to have a sports obsessed man in your bed, if you are definite that you want a monogamous relationship with this man, then you have to take the baggage too and the simple fact of the matter is that you are probably never going to be Number One in his life so why do you egotistically struggle the attempt to be so? It is not worth it. You could simply accept that you are not and just enjoy the wondrous times that you do have together.
Fact: you should never try and change a person.
You might encourage a change from within but ultimately the change has to be the choice of the person not the choice of someone who is trying to inflict change upon another human being.
Now don’t I sound the smug one! Surely, I would never fall into this trap of game-playing, of trying to change my man?
Been there and done that, just like all women who are finding their feet in the world. We get this vision; this ideal and we are almost desperate to fulfil it, only we are reliant on another soul to do so.
What we all tend to forget is that nobody has the right to another’s soul. The mere thought is quite abhorrent.
The simple fact is that if our man will not comply with this irrational and sometimes unachievable ideal then they are probably not the man for you. End of. Sad but true.
Relationships are hard for one main reason. A partnership of any sort is two people coming together, sharing, caring, considering. But in each of the caring, the sharing and the consideration are a multitude of variants. One person’s idea on what is sharing and caring is going to be either dramatically different or slightly amended from another person’s view. Even those who consider themselves to have the most fortuitous similarities are different human beings, with different backgrounds and different reasons and origins of their thoughts and feelings and ideals.
Relationships can work but it is here where a total honesty is required. Without this, there is no hope whatsoever of maintaining a workable existence with one another.
If you are concerned that your partner has lost interest in you, perhaps you ought to tell him. If you think your partner is indifferent, then maybe it is a discussion that needs to take place.
Of course it isn’t quite as easy as that. There may be other considerations that mean you do not want to rock the boat. If that is the case, then you should take the repercussions of your inaction and just accept things as they are.
The point I am trying to make is that it is fundamentally immoral to try and change a person and that if you feel there is something standing in the way of your compatibility then you should simply explain this to your partner, decide whether it is something that can be compromised and if it isn’t then for your longer term equilibrium it is probably time to walk away.
And so I return to the honesty thing. Is it always best to be honest? The real answer to this in a fully operational and contented relationship is yes.
If the relationship is secure, if the people within the relationship are assured and confident of the longevity of the relationship and the stability of the companionship, then it should be able to withstand complete honesty.
One of the tricky things about relationships is that as you get to know someone more intensely, you are often aware of tiny changes in their behaviour that the other person neither knows they are showing nor are they even subconsciously thinking. A passing kiss on the cheek instead of a bear hug, a silence that for a split second is awkward rather than peaceful, a lack of a single word when one was needed, a touch of empathy that appeared more contrived than you felt it should; all of these could be signs or they could be nothing of the sort. If you don’t have those conversations, if you are not honest about your thoughts on such matters then you are slip sliding into the games territory that is not a pleasant place to be.
However, difficult the response may be, honesty has to be the way forward.
If however, you have something to hide (not that you are ashamed of) then probably honesty is not such a good idea. For someone who is living a dual existence, there are different responses to different situations but ultimately it honesty that leads to a freedom and I would argue an enlightenment that so few are prepared to embrace.
Relationships need work. Why are they so complicated? Because it is two people coming together with a range of tangled feelings and emotions, a web of thoughts and ideas. If one imagines that a single person is complex and forever changing then a relationship between two of these people is doubly complex and more likely to change in a diversity of different directions. Honesty has to be an integral part of a positive and enduring relationship.
Do relationships need to be complicated? No they don’t. If there is that sort of honesty in a relationship then it does not need to be complicated at all. If there are complications from the honesty, then they can be worked out. If they cannot be worked out, then the relationship may have to change or be severed completely.
I am a most fortunate woman. I feel that I have a pretty honest relationship with someone but I accept that even then, there may be some subconscious holding back that is not dishonest but is not completely honest either. In many ways, this is exactly as it should be. Immersing ourselves into one another completely would not be good, and I am talking generally here rather than my own particular case. Everyone should retain themselves in whatever they do.
Recently, I said to my lover that as a woman who was looking for herself emotionally, intellectually, sexually, spiritually, I was very grateful that he was accompanying me on my path. He agreed and said he was glad that I was on his path too. That sort of honesty and understanding of what one another was trying to say about the importance of the relationship was greater than any outpourings of the ‘L’ word.
Why was this so? Surely there is nothing as significant as saying “I love you” to the one person that you really do love in its excruciating complexity?
But the reason why this statement was so important was that it was an honest recognition that whilst we accompanied one another from time to time on our chosen and desired paths, we acknowledged the fact that ultimately, we were on different paths. Sometimes, those paths would mesh together. Sometimes, they would divert onto other courses. Looking back in history, the paths crossed without us even realising. Sometimes our paths are divided and however much we want them to conjoin once more, they cannot intertwine.
It is about the respect of another human being. It is respecting their right to be individual whilst embracing their right to be part of a positive honest and loving relationship.
In this way, relationships do not have to be complex. In this way, relationships can be extremely harmonious. In this way, relationships can be honest.
Don’t try and change your partner. Don’t try too much in a relationship that has overridden its sell-by date. Don’t hurt yourself in doing so.
Respect yourself and your partners as individual beings. Respect the strength of the relationship when things aren’t quite as good as they could be.
Understand that relationships don’t have to be complex but they are and in that complexity there is a huge amount of wonderment and beauty and be grateful for what you have and what you give.
Why are relationships so bloody complicated? Or should I rephrase that?
Do relationships have to be so bloody complicated?
Two completely different questions really because the answer to the first is, “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure they are complicated other than in the mind of the individual” or “they are complicated by a multitude of conflicting reasons” or – well, the list of responses is endless as with all questions that start with “why?”.
In response to the second question, the answer should be a resolute no. Of course relationships should not be complicated if there is mutual respect, if there is complete honesty and understanding, if there is compassion and empathy, if there is love and affection, if there is fellowship and interest, if there is passion and pleasure.
But look at that small and incomplete list: respect, honesty, understanding, compassion, empathy, love, affection, fellowship, interest, passion, pleasure. It’s a tall order for one single relationship to embrace all of these attributes all of the time, for eternity, ad infinitum, for ever and ever, happy ever after.
Those who have cracked it and have managed to fully embrace all of this into their relationship should be shouting from the mountaintops, telling the rest of the world that it is achievable, that you can have an uncomplicated relationship that works for you and for your partner.
Of course, there would be conflict in opinion from these mountain shouters. Some would say that harmony and trust comes out of total immersion in one another. Others would say that their survival is dependent on a healthy dose of absenteeism. Others would profess to monogamy, others would embrace polyandrous existences. Just as no two people are the same, then also by default surely no two relationships can be the same. Why can people not understand that?
You do still tend to hear that stupid phrase “he couldn’t change” when someone is explaining the end of a relationship. My response to that is why the hell should he? Or she, if it is the other way round.
Relationships are not bloody competitions but we do sometimes stand on the precipice by playing games, sometimes even unaware that we are doing so. Relationships should not be competitions or mind manipulation games. They should be straight forward and honest. You should not feel that you need to hold back because of the behaviour or response of your partner. Honesty really is the best policy, or is it? I’ll return to this later.
But why do people feel that they have a need to change their man or their woman? Why do they feel that they need to influence their decisions to the point of making them do something that is against their will, against their choice? What long term purpose or positivity could come from such actions? What sort of resentment are you building up in the long term?
Let’s take an example that has been a problem for many women over the years: men and their sport. I could have chosen others like men and their work or men and their motors or men and their porn. There always seems to be something that us women are determined to alter in our men and for those feminists who are about to bounce up and down on me for being politically insensitive, it happens the other way round too. There are men who want to change their women; men who don’t want their women to go out with their girlfriends, men who want their women to be domestic goddesses, men who want their women to be bedroom goddesses.
I think the difference is that women are probably more conscious of what they want to change in a man, and again, I am sure that some people will think that this is a gross over generalisation that is anti-feminist in stance.
There are some women who pop down to their local rugby club because they are particularly turned on by dirty hunks with odd shaped balls. They actually intend to bed one of these blokes. They like their physical prowess and their manly determination. Look at the WAG brigade. Like it or not, there are some women out there whose ambition is to have a relationship with a sportsman.
So they get their man, they enjoy his company, they adore the sex and they even go and watch the game, shouting in freezing conditions from the sidelines, proudly receiving the gratification from the crowd at their partner’s glory.
Time goes on and their bloke is constantly at games and if he’s not playing the game, he is practising for the next one, and if he is doing neither of these things, he is down the pub with his fellow players talking about Johnny Wilkinson’s infamous drop goal that still fills his heart with a passion that no amount of fellatio could muster.
His woman is beginning to feel resentful. She feels as though she is second in importance. She wishes that he would give more time to her. She is beginning to think that a non life-threatening injury might be a good idea to take him away and break the cycle (Not a good idea girls. If you think the obsessiveness is bad when they are playing, quadruple it for an injury).
You get the picture. She wants him to change. She wants him to give up the thing that he loves most in the world in order to love her more.
Now let’s look at that rationally. She thinks that her man is too preoccupied with his passion and that by eradicating that passion, it will free up more passion for her.
The reality is a hundred million miles from this. He feels pressurised to tone down his passion, even give it up altogether. In turn his passion for her diminishes rather than increases and he has nowhere to go now to release his angst so he takes it out on her, either distancing himself from her or getting aggressive.
It’s a no brainer folks. These relationships are not going to work in the long run because the sharing is not there. Also, there has probably been no discussion about this set up; no feelings shared, no compromises considered.
If you fancy a hunk, if you are determined to have a sports obsessed man in your bed, if you are definite that you want a monogamous relationship with this man, then you have to take the baggage too and the simple fact of the matter is that you are probably never going to be Number One in his life so why do you egotistically struggle the attempt to be so? It is not worth it. You could simply accept that you are not and just enjoy the wondrous times that you do have together.
Fact: you should never try and change a person.
You might encourage a change from within but ultimately the change has to be the choice of the person not the choice of someone who is trying to inflict change upon another human being.
Now don’t I sound the smug one! Surely, I would never fall into this trap of game-playing, of trying to change my man?
Been there and done that, just like all women who are finding their feet in the world. We get this vision; this ideal and we are almost desperate to fulfil it, only we are reliant on another soul to do so.
What we all tend to forget is that nobody has the right to another’s soul. The mere thought is quite abhorrent.
The simple fact is that if our man will not comply with this irrational and sometimes unachievable ideal then they are probably not the man for you. End of. Sad but true.
Relationships are hard for one main reason. A partnership of any sort is two people coming together, sharing, caring, considering. But in each of the caring, the sharing and the consideration are a multitude of variants. One person’s idea on what is sharing and caring is going to be either dramatically different or slightly amended from another person’s view. Even those who consider themselves to have the most fortuitous similarities are different human beings, with different backgrounds and different reasons and origins of their thoughts and feelings and ideals.
Relationships can work but it is here where a total honesty is required. Without this, there is no hope whatsoever of maintaining a workable existence with one another.
If you are concerned that your partner has lost interest in you, perhaps you ought to tell him. If you think your partner is indifferent, then maybe it is a discussion that needs to take place.
Of course it isn’t quite as easy as that. There may be other considerations that mean you do not want to rock the boat. If that is the case, then you should take the repercussions of your inaction and just accept things as they are.
The point I am trying to make is that it is fundamentally immoral to try and change a person and that if you feel there is something standing in the way of your compatibility then you should simply explain this to your partner, decide whether it is something that can be compromised and if it isn’t then for your longer term equilibrium it is probably time to walk away.
And so I return to the honesty thing. Is it always best to be honest? The real answer to this in a fully operational and contented relationship is yes.
If the relationship is secure, if the people within the relationship are assured and confident of the longevity of the relationship and the stability of the companionship, then it should be able to withstand complete honesty.
One of the tricky things about relationships is that as you get to know someone more intensely, you are often aware of tiny changes in their behaviour that the other person neither knows they are showing nor are they even subconsciously thinking. A passing kiss on the cheek instead of a bear hug, a silence that for a split second is awkward rather than peaceful, a lack of a single word when one was needed, a touch of empathy that appeared more contrived than you felt it should; all of these could be signs or they could be nothing of the sort. If you don’t have those conversations, if you are not honest about your thoughts on such matters then you are slip sliding into the games territory that is not a pleasant place to be.
However, difficult the response may be, honesty has to be the way forward.
If however, you have something to hide (not that you are ashamed of) then probably honesty is not such a good idea. For someone who is living a dual existence, there are different responses to different situations but ultimately it honesty that leads to a freedom and I would argue an enlightenment that so few are prepared to embrace.
Relationships need work. Why are they so complicated? Because it is two people coming together with a range of tangled feelings and emotions, a web of thoughts and ideas. If one imagines that a single person is complex and forever changing then a relationship between two of these people is doubly complex and more likely to change in a diversity of different directions. Honesty has to be an integral part of a positive and enduring relationship.
Do relationships need to be complicated? No they don’t. If there is that sort of honesty in a relationship then it does not need to be complicated at all. If there are complications from the honesty, then they can be worked out. If they cannot be worked out, then the relationship may have to change or be severed completely.
I am a most fortunate woman. I feel that I have a pretty honest relationship with someone but I accept that even then, there may be some subconscious holding back that is not dishonest but is not completely honest either. In many ways, this is exactly as it should be. Immersing ourselves into one another completely would not be good, and I am talking generally here rather than my own particular case. Everyone should retain themselves in whatever they do.
Recently, I said to my lover that as a woman who was looking for herself emotionally, intellectually, sexually, spiritually, I was very grateful that he was accompanying me on my path. He agreed and said he was glad that I was on his path too. That sort of honesty and understanding of what one another was trying to say about the importance of the relationship was greater than any outpourings of the ‘L’ word.
Why was this so? Surely there is nothing as significant as saying “I love you” to the one person that you really do love in its excruciating complexity?
But the reason why this statement was so important was that it was an honest recognition that whilst we accompanied one another from time to time on our chosen and desired paths, we acknowledged the fact that ultimately, we were on different paths. Sometimes, those paths would mesh together. Sometimes, they would divert onto other courses. Looking back in history, the paths crossed without us even realising. Sometimes our paths are divided and however much we want them to conjoin once more, they cannot intertwine.
It is about the respect of another human being. It is respecting their right to be individual whilst embracing their right to be part of a positive honest and loving relationship.
In this way, relationships do not have to be complex. In this way, relationships can be extremely harmonious. In this way, relationships can be honest.
Don’t try and change your partner. Don’t try too much in a relationship that has overridden its sell-by date. Don’t hurt yourself in doing so.
Respect yourself and your partners as individual beings. Respect the strength of the relationship when things aren’t quite as good as they could be.
Understand that relationships don’t have to be complex but they are and in that complexity there is a huge amount of wonderment and beauty and be grateful for what you have and what you give.
Monday 17 May 2010
Tits are Getting Bigger
Good news for all men and women who are fond of the voluptuous. Boobs are getting bigger. Yes, a 34B is no longer the mainstay of the British boob. In fact the cup size has increased dramatically over the last few years and it cannot simply be explained away by the obesity epidemic.
This is indeed good news and for me is an interesting piece of synchronicity. Yesterday, I was writing about cocks as a response to the Zeitgeist section on the Guardian website. I mentioned that there was a piece about boobs on there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/14/breast-size-evolution
More from Carole later but lo and behold, as I was trawling through the paper yesterday there was a complementary article from Alice Fisher explaining why women’s breasts were getting bigger.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/may/16/womens-breasts-are-getting-bigger
So what was going to be a scientific discussion about the purpose of the human breast is now going to be broadened into a celebration of the healthy, “more than a handful” great British tit.
Carole Jahme, incidentally, is the woman who has responded so informatively to the questions posed in the science section of the newspaper. She has a master’s degree in evolutionary psychology and has appeared on the comedy circuit with a show called “Carole Jahme is Sexually Selected” where she answers some seriously interesting questions about sexuality, attraction, alpha people and our link with our primate cousins. Isn’t it annoying when you see a show on the internet like this that you missed and have no immediate prospect of seeing?
Along with the cock question, this week Carole was asked why the human female breasts were so big in comparison with other primates. The questioner was an animal science student who was clearly interested in why apes developed a full breast during lactation but disappeared completely once the milking days were over. Clearly this is not so with human females as breasts develop before child birth and remain long after the functionary purpose of feeding the young.
Carole explained that indeed human breasts are anomalies. They grow and remain irrespective of the purpose of breast feeding. Carole also goes on to state that the size of the boob is not necessarily proportionate to the amount of milk produced. Essentially she offers no evolutionary purpose for such an anomaly. However, Zenpuss would argue that boobs clearly have another purpose i.e. that of attraction and it is this that has maintained their position in a similar way to the size of a cock as explained and commented on in the previous blog.
Carole mentions in her responses that not only are continual female boobs unique to humans but the traditional hour-glass figure of voluptuousness is also something that is known only to humans. She explains that the female rump is not found on other primates. Neither is the smaller waist. In fact, like human males, primates store fat on the abdomen rather than the derriere. Hey, maybe I have more connection with the apes than I thought! But no, I have a healthy amount of boob and bum that fits in with this notion of the female form.
Carole continues to say that if man had not preferred this “mutation” then we would all be flat-chested.
So it looks as though I am correct. Our ancestors liked the big boobed, wide hipped, heartily bummed (!) women and so we evolved to ensure that their descendents got a healthy handful. Likewise, women like decent sized cocks and so it has emerged that the biggest cock with the greatest likelihood of fertilising a woman is the preferred option. It’s a simple case of survival of the fittest.
Therefore we have semi-established why females have boobs; either it is a completely inexplicable anomaly or it is an evolvement to pleasure the male onlookers but how come women’s boobs are getting bigger? Is this a direct evolutionary response to men wanting more of a good thing? Are the poor women of the 22nd century going to be able to stand up with the weight of their mighty ones?
According to the article hyperlinked above, the average British bra size has recently gone from a 34B to a 36D. Shops across the nation have stocked up on the larger bra and only a couple of years ago, Marks and Spencer made the ever so sensible and equitable decision to stop charging more for a larger bra, which was a blessing to those of us who bitterly resented paying more for a fulsome boob.
But this is not the whole story. Apparently, there is a massive increase in the cup size even of those who manage to retain their 34 circumference measurement or back measurement as it is known. This implies that the cup size seems to have increased even if you take away the excuse of larger figures through increased obesity. John Lewis, for instance, suggests that they used to sell more 34B bras but now their best seller is a tiny and large 32D.
So why has this happened? There is, quite frankly, very little evidence and lots of assumptions as to why bra sizes have increased. Some do put it down to the fact that we are healthy, have a higher protein diet and are therefore bigger all over than our ancestors, even a couple of generations away. Others are concerned about the levels of xenoestrogens that slip into our lives unnaturally through food preservatives and make-up. Anecdotal information on this is aplenty but conclusive research is incomplete. Others suggest that our boobs are bigger these days because we menstruate earlier and remain fertile for longer but that argument doesn’t really fit with Carole Jahme’s comment about the link evolutionarily with other primates.
The proper response is that nobody really knows why bigger boobs have occurred but throughout this second article, nobody has suggested that it could be because men and women like bigger boobs, although there is acknowledgement that this is the case.
I think this sentence from the piece says it all: “But breasts are sexy and thrilling – most of us want to have or hold a perfect pair of boobs”.
Some of us want to have AND hold a perfect pair of boobs!
Breasts are sexy and thrilling. Breasts are the greatest sign of womanhood and it is a joy to me that the larger breast is highly fashionable these days. I like to see women feeling comfortable with and proud of their cleavage. I love the confidence that this gives them. Their flaunting of it is far more to do with their comfort than to attract men, though of course, this could always be a subliminal purpose too.
I love to look at really wonderful and beautiful boobs. Personally, I don’t like unnaturally large but perfectly structured, full boobs are extremely attractive. I get an immense pleasure from looking at really good tits.
I love having tits that are slightly bigger than average. I love the fact that they are malleable, inviting a tactile response. I adore having my boobs felt and jiggled around. I like the fact that my tits can be handled and fondled whenever I am feeling frisky, or indeed when my lover is.
The article continues to give almost a full history of the making of bras. It once more states that women do not know the size of their boobs. If this is the case there is a strong possibility that the average boob size is significantly bigger than the average size of the best-selling bra.
As women become more aware of their own bodies and as individualism increases, then hopefully people will be less intimidated by the fact that they have a significantly larger cup size than they assumed. Each individual should feel confident in shopping in the DD-K section of their local bra shop rather than hiding and slouching in a desperate attempt to hide their size.
Personally, I think the loss of the word brassiere is a big step in the right direction!
All the evidence from a range of studies suggests that men frequently choose photographs of women that are larger than the ones that women suggest are the most attractive. A man chooses a size 14 model whereas women still think there is something in the “Perfect 10”.
Let’s hope that this awakening and acceptance of bigger boobs is the start of a more rational approach to the female form by women themselves.
I’d suggest giving our men something that they want which in the main means a satisfying handful of tit, a curvy figure, voluptuous thighs that appear as though they can anchor a man in position between your legs and a lovely juicy cunt.
And on that note, I am going to the gym to tone my bits and ensure that I do not lose my big boobs when I lose the fatty deposits that need shifting because what I really want seems to be very much in line with what men want. I want to be a sexy, shapely woman who celebrates their sexuality through a voluptuous and exciting body that needs handling on a daily basis. I want to “give” my body in the form that it should be. I want big tits, a reasonably sized waist and a pussy that is attractive to those I want to attract. And in return, I want that big cock! All seems perfectly equitable to me.
This is indeed good news and for me is an interesting piece of synchronicity. Yesterday, I was writing about cocks as a response to the Zeitgeist section on the Guardian website. I mentioned that there was a piece about boobs on there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/14/breast-size-evolution
More from Carole later but lo and behold, as I was trawling through the paper yesterday there was a complementary article from Alice Fisher explaining why women’s breasts were getting bigger.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/may/16/womens-breasts-are-getting-bigger
So what was going to be a scientific discussion about the purpose of the human breast is now going to be broadened into a celebration of the healthy, “more than a handful” great British tit.
Carole Jahme, incidentally, is the woman who has responded so informatively to the questions posed in the science section of the newspaper. She has a master’s degree in evolutionary psychology and has appeared on the comedy circuit with a show called “Carole Jahme is Sexually Selected” where she answers some seriously interesting questions about sexuality, attraction, alpha people and our link with our primate cousins. Isn’t it annoying when you see a show on the internet like this that you missed and have no immediate prospect of seeing?
Along with the cock question, this week Carole was asked why the human female breasts were so big in comparison with other primates. The questioner was an animal science student who was clearly interested in why apes developed a full breast during lactation but disappeared completely once the milking days were over. Clearly this is not so with human females as breasts develop before child birth and remain long after the functionary purpose of feeding the young.
Carole explained that indeed human breasts are anomalies. They grow and remain irrespective of the purpose of breast feeding. Carole also goes on to state that the size of the boob is not necessarily proportionate to the amount of milk produced. Essentially she offers no evolutionary purpose for such an anomaly. However, Zenpuss would argue that boobs clearly have another purpose i.e. that of attraction and it is this that has maintained their position in a similar way to the size of a cock as explained and commented on in the previous blog.
Carole mentions in her responses that not only are continual female boobs unique to humans but the traditional hour-glass figure of voluptuousness is also something that is known only to humans. She explains that the female rump is not found on other primates. Neither is the smaller waist. In fact, like human males, primates store fat on the abdomen rather than the derriere. Hey, maybe I have more connection with the apes than I thought! But no, I have a healthy amount of boob and bum that fits in with this notion of the female form.
Carole continues to say that if man had not preferred this “mutation” then we would all be flat-chested.
So it looks as though I am correct. Our ancestors liked the big boobed, wide hipped, heartily bummed (!) women and so we evolved to ensure that their descendents got a healthy handful. Likewise, women like decent sized cocks and so it has emerged that the biggest cock with the greatest likelihood of fertilising a woman is the preferred option. It’s a simple case of survival of the fittest.
Therefore we have semi-established why females have boobs; either it is a completely inexplicable anomaly or it is an evolvement to pleasure the male onlookers but how come women’s boobs are getting bigger? Is this a direct evolutionary response to men wanting more of a good thing? Are the poor women of the 22nd century going to be able to stand up with the weight of their mighty ones?
According to the article hyperlinked above, the average British bra size has recently gone from a 34B to a 36D. Shops across the nation have stocked up on the larger bra and only a couple of years ago, Marks and Spencer made the ever so sensible and equitable decision to stop charging more for a larger bra, which was a blessing to those of us who bitterly resented paying more for a fulsome boob.
But this is not the whole story. Apparently, there is a massive increase in the cup size even of those who manage to retain their 34 circumference measurement or back measurement as it is known. This implies that the cup size seems to have increased even if you take away the excuse of larger figures through increased obesity. John Lewis, for instance, suggests that they used to sell more 34B bras but now their best seller is a tiny and large 32D.
So why has this happened? There is, quite frankly, very little evidence and lots of assumptions as to why bra sizes have increased. Some do put it down to the fact that we are healthy, have a higher protein diet and are therefore bigger all over than our ancestors, even a couple of generations away. Others are concerned about the levels of xenoestrogens that slip into our lives unnaturally through food preservatives and make-up. Anecdotal information on this is aplenty but conclusive research is incomplete. Others suggest that our boobs are bigger these days because we menstruate earlier and remain fertile for longer but that argument doesn’t really fit with Carole Jahme’s comment about the link evolutionarily with other primates.
The proper response is that nobody really knows why bigger boobs have occurred but throughout this second article, nobody has suggested that it could be because men and women like bigger boobs, although there is acknowledgement that this is the case.
I think this sentence from the piece says it all: “But breasts are sexy and thrilling – most of us want to have or hold a perfect pair of boobs”.
Some of us want to have AND hold a perfect pair of boobs!
Breasts are sexy and thrilling. Breasts are the greatest sign of womanhood and it is a joy to me that the larger breast is highly fashionable these days. I like to see women feeling comfortable with and proud of their cleavage. I love the confidence that this gives them. Their flaunting of it is far more to do with their comfort than to attract men, though of course, this could always be a subliminal purpose too.
I love to look at really wonderful and beautiful boobs. Personally, I don’t like unnaturally large but perfectly structured, full boobs are extremely attractive. I get an immense pleasure from looking at really good tits.
I love having tits that are slightly bigger than average. I love the fact that they are malleable, inviting a tactile response. I adore having my boobs felt and jiggled around. I like the fact that my tits can be handled and fondled whenever I am feeling frisky, or indeed when my lover is.
The article continues to give almost a full history of the making of bras. It once more states that women do not know the size of their boobs. If this is the case there is a strong possibility that the average boob size is significantly bigger than the average size of the best-selling bra.
As women become more aware of their own bodies and as individualism increases, then hopefully people will be less intimidated by the fact that they have a significantly larger cup size than they assumed. Each individual should feel confident in shopping in the DD-K section of their local bra shop rather than hiding and slouching in a desperate attempt to hide their size.
Personally, I think the loss of the word brassiere is a big step in the right direction!
All the evidence from a range of studies suggests that men frequently choose photographs of women that are larger than the ones that women suggest are the most attractive. A man chooses a size 14 model whereas women still think there is something in the “Perfect 10”.
Let’s hope that this awakening and acceptance of bigger boobs is the start of a more rational approach to the female form by women themselves.
I’d suggest giving our men something that they want which in the main means a satisfying handful of tit, a curvy figure, voluptuous thighs that appear as though they can anchor a man in position between your legs and a lovely juicy cunt.
And on that note, I am going to the gym to tone my bits and ensure that I do not lose my big boobs when I lose the fatty deposits that need shifting because what I really want seems to be very much in line with what men want. I want to be a sexy, shapely woman who celebrates their sexuality through a voluptuous and exciting body that needs handling on a daily basis. I want to “give” my body in the form that it should be. I want big tits, a reasonably sized waist and a pussy that is attractive to those I want to attract. And in return, I want that big cock! All seems perfectly equitable to me.
Sunday 16 May 2010
Evolving Cocks
Me likes cock. Me especially likes big cock that reaches inside and hits my G-Spot. Me likes the feel of big cock in my hands. Me likes trying to choke on a massive juicy one as my sucking makes it even bigger.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/06/women-penis-size
Does size matter? Some might say that it doesn’t really matter at all. If you have a deep affinity and affection for your lover, the size of his appendage shouldn’t really matter at all, and quite frankly, if it is isn’t hitting the spot then you should take a walk down to the local sex shop and buy a rabbit that you can play with. After all, no woman should be without her orgasms however lovely her little man might be.
In praise of the Guardian newspaper, not only is it an excellent newspaper but the website is as good. It is well constructed and you can look at articles within the “newspaper” in any way that you desire. Recently, I have been looking at the “Zeitgeist” section more frequently, which, I assume, is the place where they put a collective of hot topics and photographs. There’s some interesting stuff here and the lazy can use this to see the eclectic nature of articles without having to search through a paper copy of the newspaper.
Yesterday, I noticed that the Zeitgeist had two sections relating to sexuality (I am always on the lookout for something to report here). The first one was about the size of women’s boobs which I will do a small blog on in a short while. The other was about the size of a man’s cock.
Do you know, I get excited and needy just at the mention of the word “cock”. I instantly recollect a particular cock standing rigid in front of me, waiting to dive into my ever moist cunt. It’s a glorious image to have constantly in your mind, backed up by some very precious photographs.
The article came in the form of a question to “Carole” – the science guru who will apparently attempt to answer anything relating to science from the Guardian readers.
The question posed was as follows.
Dear Carole,
Why are women so obsessed with the size of a man’s cock – wanting ones 6 inches and over and kicking others aside when they really should be concentrating on the emotional connection and love being shared, putting the size of the man’s cock right out of her mind?
Anonymous, age and sex unspecified
Oh dear! Has someone been told that they have a little willy? Has someone looked down the line at urinals and suddenly realised he is not as well endowed as he once thought? Or is this from a woman who is perfectly happy with her little prick but is fed up of people (ex girlfriends who have remained friends) commenting on the size of her man’s bits?
I think it is more likely to be the former and whoever wrote this is right to an extent in that the emotional connection should be as important as the size of the cock, if not more so. But let’s face facts a bigger cock reaches into better places and all the technique of the Karma Sutra cannot get away from the scientific fact that longer cocks with wider girths do the trick!
I do contest the assumption that women are “obsessed” with the size of a man’s cock. To be perfectly truthful an enormous hefty cock seems a little unnatural to me; you know the ones – the equivalent of a Jordan’s boobs before they were diminished. Just as big tits can look a little weird on a small framed woman, so can a big cock on a thin or small man. Not that I have ever seen such a thing in real life but you see plenty of enormous dongers on porn sites and the ridiculously large ones just don’t look right. I think I’d actually be put off.
No, I don’t think women are obsessed with cock sizes. It certainly isn’t the first thing that comes to mind when I am attracted to a bloke. Apart from anything else, you can’t see it when the flirtation or the instant attraction happens. When you finally get to unzip the trousers to feel what is inside, it’s just a wonderful and pleasant surprise to find a big one there, unfurling and awaiting your grasp.
Yummy!
If it isn’t as big as one would have hoped, then you still carry on if the emotional attachment is now tightly secured, and as I said, if the emotional attachment and empathy is in place, then surely a less-endowed man would be happy to accompany his woman to buy a sex toy to add to the pleasure, assuming that the woman wasn’t so unsubtle as to say something like “Your cock isn’t big enough. You need to buy me a rogering tool or else it’s curtains!”
And returning to the question posed for Carole – six inches and over? Oh dear, this bloke does have a “little” problem after all. I’m not entirely sure that I could cope with a mere six inches any longer, not when a healthy twelve does the very best for me. Ooh, how I would welcome my beautiful twelve inches right now, and to be able to feel the generous proportions of healthy balls as well.
So what does Carole have to say in return?
Carole replies, and those who struggled with Biology at school, bear with us because this is interesting and important.
The origins of the primate sex drive go back more than 60 million years to the late Mesozoic era when the first primate evolved. A lot of sex has taken place since then, and a significant proportion has been motivated by female choice between male rivals. Female primates can experience multiple orgasms, and it has been theorised that ancestral hominid females sought out males who would sexually satisfy them. Through the mechanism of sexual selection, this will have increased penis six and altered structure.
(A thought has suddenly entered my mind. Maybe one of the reasons that a serious study of female sexuality and the development of female sexual empowerment have never taken place is because there is one obvious fear that stands in the way. If one empowers women to have choice in their sexuality and their sexual partners, there could or would be a complete shift in society from a patriarchal society to a matriarchal society. From what Carole says, this clearly happened in the days of our predecessors. The female of the species directed the sexual behaviour of the male in a seemingly dominant way. Still, it’s not all bad boys. Apparently, if we returned to this matriarchy your cocks might get bigger!
Another comment here that needs to be made is about the female orgasm. See it, read it again and weep. “Female primates can experience multiple orgasms”. So why the hell are the majority of women in this world stating the fact that they rarely achieve orgasms and we are still allowing the ignorant to tell us that vaginal orgasms are a figment of our fertile imaginations? If our predecessors could experience sexual fulfilment, then what they hell happened? Sisters, it’s time to act!)
Carol continues:
Today, the average erect gorilla penis is 3 cm (1.25 inches) long, the average chimp or bonobo penis comes in at around 8cm and the average human penis stands at around 13 cm. Most primates, including chimpanzees have a penis bone and achieve erections through muscle contraction. The human penis has evolved the unusual system of vasocongestion to achieve erection, making the erect organ far more flexible than that of other primate species.
(Now go to the zoo once more and feel even sorrier for the poor female gorilla who is banging on the glass to escape. I’m not surprised, poor girl! In responding to the poor bloke with the less than six inch penis, there is hope though. The bonobos love sex and love one another. The harmony within these troops is renowned and clearly their cocks aren’t huge but then again, neither are the bonobos huge so 8 cm might not be a bad number and proportionally better than an average 13 cm for humans. Sorry, dear letter writer; let’s face it boy. You’ve just got to come to terms with the fact that your cock is a little on the small side. Vasocongestion is blood flow for fellow failed Biology students.)
This unique adaptation is thought to have been selected through female mate choice, and by the time Homo erectus arrived on the scene, the hominid penis was significantly longer, fatter and more bendy than our ape cousins. It has even been theorised that bipedalism evolved in humans to allow the fashionably new, larger, flexible penis to be displayed to discerning females.
(That’s an interesting theory about how the cock developed in line with us standing on two legs. For the life of me, I cannot think why other than the fact that standing up naked would peacock display the size of your cock rather than hiding it under an all fours stance. Therefore, with evolvement and natural selection, the cock grew. I’m glad we decided to stand up then!)
Interestingly, while the human penis is the biggest of all the ape species in length and girth, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of body size, the human testes are not. As a proportion of overall body size, chimp and bonobo testes are twice as large as human testes, whereas gorilla testes are half the size. Why?
(I’m intrigued once more! Why are testes so big and so what? Why are gorillas so small? Will Carole tell me? A handful of testicles are always pleasurable and looking at a full sac that is eager to spill its contents is a huge turn on but as far as hitting the G-Spot, they are merely an added bonus as far as sexual penetration is concerned but clearly the size of testes is an important attraction in the ape world; again, similar to the enticement of the mammary glands in humans. Isn’t this all slightly fascinating – the correlation between the evolvement of the human form and the changes to sexual dominance?)
Correlations can be found between primate mating systems and male genital anatomy. In multi-male/multi-female groups, males must compete to reproduce and frequently the competition takes place inside the female reproductive tract. The more sperm a male produces and ejaculates inside a female the greater probability that one of his will fertilise the ovum. Female chimps and bonobos in oestrus often mate with several different individuals, so males must reproductively compete in this way and larger testes will therefore confer greater reproductive fitness.
(Confer, you notice, not quite factual then. So although a big sac of balls would suggest that there is more sperm waiting to fertilise eggs, it may not actually be the case. I am afraid the size of the bollocks has not been fully explained.
If ever there was a reason for polyandry, polygamy, polyamory etc then this could be it. One could argue that it is the natural way, and it could keep your cock and balls delightfully large too. The fittest bloke procreates with many and in doing so increases the size of his bits in the longer term. The polyamorous way of life is so infrequently discussed and it certainly appears that this is the way that the bonobos live harmoniously as opposed to polyandry or polygamy. There is a mutual sharing and we really should look at this as a societal option irrespective of the biological issues).
By contrast, female gorillas live in harems and don’t often get a chance to exercise a choice between mates, though occasionally a female and a male from outside the group may risk it. The impressive 200kg (400lb) silverback gorilla does have the smallest penis and testes of all male apes, but his massive canines and biceps and his controlling, jealous temper allow him to intimidate and fight off potential competitors.
(Ah, there we have it. An uber patriarchal society not only suppresses female sexuality but also decreases the size of your cock! To get the best of both worlds, hand over to the women. You’ll get more sex by empowering women and your cock will be bigger -well, future generations will have bigger cocks. Look what you will be doing for your great, great, great grandchildren.
Choice for women brings choice for all. It’s a no brainer. If we educate women now to understand the overwhelming brilliance of their sexual potential we could have a completely different world, and the Neolithic silver-back type man could be extinct. The “New Man” of the 1990s probably never really existed except in small pockets of society. Putting on washing up gloves does not equate to true equality when their women are still so unsure of their sexuality).
Human testis size indicates that males evolved under conditions in which their sperm competed inside females, but perhaps not to the same extent as chimp sperm. But the larger human penis suggests that hominids needed to keep females with choice sexually satisfied. Ancestral females would have experienced a sexual freedom denied from Western cultures today and it has been suggested that our ancestors went through a period of matriarchy and enhanced female choice.
(More to suggest that polyamory is the way to be! The human testis grew, literally, out of the fact that monogamy was not a societal expectation. You fucked more than one person and if your sperm was the strongest, it would make its way to fertilisation and ultimately to creating another human being. Read and weep once more. “Ancestral females would have experienced a sexual freedom denied from Western cultures today”. AND they probably had multiple orgasms too. Female sexual choice gives everybody choice. It is backed up here through science. It is reiterated through a range of anthropological studies. It is evidenced in history. It works. One could argue that if it was so brilliant, why did it disappear? Maybe people, as they were evolving just lost sight of balance. The Age of Aquarius is upon us. Maybe it is a return to either a matriarchal society or one that truly embraces sexual equality).
When compared with patriarchal chimps, the matriarchal bonobo is a far more sex-oriented ape. Enthusiastic females initiate both hetero and homosexual activity, particularly when aggression begins to surface, resulting in satisfied, contented and peaceful bonobos. Patriarchy, on the other hand, correlates with a lack of openly displayed female choice.
(I don’t know who “Carole” is but she is talking a great deal of sense in her response and it is so wonderful to hear the scientific logic to what some of us have instinctively understood and hoped is a valued reason for empowering women sexually. Look at the bonobos now. They offer a genuine way forward to a peaceful, non-aggressive, even non-attached way of living. The female sexuality is at the heart of “societal” contentment. Female choice brings harmony. It is fact and it should be realised in human form too. The reason that people are not willing to accept this potential change in society is because it is too threatening to the current state of play. Blimey, if the Tories can be infiltrated by Liberalism then surely the odd society around the world can lean further towards female choice. And don’t forget that cock-growing part as well. 8 cm on a bonobo probably equates to more than 13 cm on a human!).
Women with choice are not all “obsessed with the size of a man’s cock”. Women are as aware as men that to build a stable relationship you need trust, shared interests and the ability to keep each other amused. But a woman is not going to “put the size of a man’s cock right out of her mind”, because she can’t. Females have an evolved interest in the size of a man’s penis, which has been sexually selected for its size and shape. But humans are also selected for creativity – we are highly innovative, imaginative apes. Accordingly, women’s minds can be aroused by creativity and being sexually imaginative can be physically arousing, adding satisfying metaphorical inches to one’s love life.
(I think Carole must have been listening to my initial response. Creativity could easily include sex toys. It could also involve looking at porn together, exciting one another into a frenzied arousal where the size of the penis is less important. There are ways around having a small dick!
But for all the scientific information, we should not lose sight of the other valuable organs that us humans have. We should not lose sight of the capabilities of the brain and the ability to empathise and spiritualise the entire sexual experience. Creativity, thought and understanding passion are as important as the physical entity of sexuality. The irony is that with all of these additional functions, we are yet to emulate the perfection and harmony that we see in our ape-like friends such as the bonobos. We are a million years behind their evolvement in some ways.)
I’m feeling rather positive. All of my life, I have feared that I am a little bit backward in my thinking but maybe I am streets ahead after all. Over recent years, I have been slightly anxious that my evolving thoughts on female sexuality are too outlandish to ever make their way into a societal norm and that my idealism is just too far-fetched. According to this article, it seems that my thoughts are far more insightful than that and that women who have realised a small amount of choice should be leading others by the hand to embrace it.
So returning to the original letter, it seems that cock size is important and ironically, you can blame your ancestors for not fucking around if yours is a wee bit on the small side. The answer to bigger cocks and more enjoyable sex seems to lie with the empowerment of female choice. Polyamory breeds sexual delight. Humans have the potential to evolve more, and cock size IS important.
Just let women know about their sexual potential before concerning yourselves with the size of your dicks.
And whilst you wait for this realisation to hit you in the gonads, I am afraid that those women who choose to be liberated and exercise their given right to choose will, by instinct, intelligence and desire, choose the healthiest, longest most loveable cock that suits their very extensive sexual needs.
Yum! Yum!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/06/women-penis-size
Does size matter? Some might say that it doesn’t really matter at all. If you have a deep affinity and affection for your lover, the size of his appendage shouldn’t really matter at all, and quite frankly, if it is isn’t hitting the spot then you should take a walk down to the local sex shop and buy a rabbit that you can play with. After all, no woman should be without her orgasms however lovely her little man might be.
In praise of the Guardian newspaper, not only is it an excellent newspaper but the website is as good. It is well constructed and you can look at articles within the “newspaper” in any way that you desire. Recently, I have been looking at the “Zeitgeist” section more frequently, which, I assume, is the place where they put a collective of hot topics and photographs. There’s some interesting stuff here and the lazy can use this to see the eclectic nature of articles without having to search through a paper copy of the newspaper.
Yesterday, I noticed that the Zeitgeist had two sections relating to sexuality (I am always on the lookout for something to report here). The first one was about the size of women’s boobs which I will do a small blog on in a short while. The other was about the size of a man’s cock.
Do you know, I get excited and needy just at the mention of the word “cock”. I instantly recollect a particular cock standing rigid in front of me, waiting to dive into my ever moist cunt. It’s a glorious image to have constantly in your mind, backed up by some very precious photographs.
The article came in the form of a question to “Carole” – the science guru who will apparently attempt to answer anything relating to science from the Guardian readers.
The question posed was as follows.
Dear Carole,
Why are women so obsessed with the size of a man’s cock – wanting ones 6 inches and over and kicking others aside when they really should be concentrating on the emotional connection and love being shared, putting the size of the man’s cock right out of her mind?
Anonymous, age and sex unspecified
Oh dear! Has someone been told that they have a little willy? Has someone looked down the line at urinals and suddenly realised he is not as well endowed as he once thought? Or is this from a woman who is perfectly happy with her little prick but is fed up of people (ex girlfriends who have remained friends) commenting on the size of her man’s bits?
I think it is more likely to be the former and whoever wrote this is right to an extent in that the emotional connection should be as important as the size of the cock, if not more so. But let’s face facts a bigger cock reaches into better places and all the technique of the Karma Sutra cannot get away from the scientific fact that longer cocks with wider girths do the trick!
I do contest the assumption that women are “obsessed” with the size of a man’s cock. To be perfectly truthful an enormous hefty cock seems a little unnatural to me; you know the ones – the equivalent of a Jordan’s boobs before they were diminished. Just as big tits can look a little weird on a small framed woman, so can a big cock on a thin or small man. Not that I have ever seen such a thing in real life but you see plenty of enormous dongers on porn sites and the ridiculously large ones just don’t look right. I think I’d actually be put off.
No, I don’t think women are obsessed with cock sizes. It certainly isn’t the first thing that comes to mind when I am attracted to a bloke. Apart from anything else, you can’t see it when the flirtation or the instant attraction happens. When you finally get to unzip the trousers to feel what is inside, it’s just a wonderful and pleasant surprise to find a big one there, unfurling and awaiting your grasp.
Yummy!
If it isn’t as big as one would have hoped, then you still carry on if the emotional attachment is now tightly secured, and as I said, if the emotional attachment and empathy is in place, then surely a less-endowed man would be happy to accompany his woman to buy a sex toy to add to the pleasure, assuming that the woman wasn’t so unsubtle as to say something like “Your cock isn’t big enough. You need to buy me a rogering tool or else it’s curtains!”
And returning to the question posed for Carole – six inches and over? Oh dear, this bloke does have a “little” problem after all. I’m not entirely sure that I could cope with a mere six inches any longer, not when a healthy twelve does the very best for me. Ooh, how I would welcome my beautiful twelve inches right now, and to be able to feel the generous proportions of healthy balls as well.
So what does Carole have to say in return?
Carole replies, and those who struggled with Biology at school, bear with us because this is interesting and important.
The origins of the primate sex drive go back more than 60 million years to the late Mesozoic era when the first primate evolved. A lot of sex has taken place since then, and a significant proportion has been motivated by female choice between male rivals. Female primates can experience multiple orgasms, and it has been theorised that ancestral hominid females sought out males who would sexually satisfy them. Through the mechanism of sexual selection, this will have increased penis six and altered structure.
(A thought has suddenly entered my mind. Maybe one of the reasons that a serious study of female sexuality and the development of female sexual empowerment have never taken place is because there is one obvious fear that stands in the way. If one empowers women to have choice in their sexuality and their sexual partners, there could or would be a complete shift in society from a patriarchal society to a matriarchal society. From what Carole says, this clearly happened in the days of our predecessors. The female of the species directed the sexual behaviour of the male in a seemingly dominant way. Still, it’s not all bad boys. Apparently, if we returned to this matriarchy your cocks might get bigger!
Another comment here that needs to be made is about the female orgasm. See it, read it again and weep. “Female primates can experience multiple orgasms”. So why the hell are the majority of women in this world stating the fact that they rarely achieve orgasms and we are still allowing the ignorant to tell us that vaginal orgasms are a figment of our fertile imaginations? If our predecessors could experience sexual fulfilment, then what they hell happened? Sisters, it’s time to act!)
Carol continues:
Today, the average erect gorilla penis is 3 cm (1.25 inches) long, the average chimp or bonobo penis comes in at around 8cm and the average human penis stands at around 13 cm. Most primates, including chimpanzees have a penis bone and achieve erections through muscle contraction. The human penis has evolved the unusual system of vasocongestion to achieve erection, making the erect organ far more flexible than that of other primate species.
(Now go to the zoo once more and feel even sorrier for the poor female gorilla who is banging on the glass to escape. I’m not surprised, poor girl! In responding to the poor bloke with the less than six inch penis, there is hope though. The bonobos love sex and love one another. The harmony within these troops is renowned and clearly their cocks aren’t huge but then again, neither are the bonobos huge so 8 cm might not be a bad number and proportionally better than an average 13 cm for humans. Sorry, dear letter writer; let’s face it boy. You’ve just got to come to terms with the fact that your cock is a little on the small side. Vasocongestion is blood flow for fellow failed Biology students.)
This unique adaptation is thought to have been selected through female mate choice, and by the time Homo erectus arrived on the scene, the hominid penis was significantly longer, fatter and more bendy than our ape cousins. It has even been theorised that bipedalism evolved in humans to allow the fashionably new, larger, flexible penis to be displayed to discerning females.
(That’s an interesting theory about how the cock developed in line with us standing on two legs. For the life of me, I cannot think why other than the fact that standing up naked would peacock display the size of your cock rather than hiding it under an all fours stance. Therefore, with evolvement and natural selection, the cock grew. I’m glad we decided to stand up then!)
Interestingly, while the human penis is the biggest of all the ape species in length and girth, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of body size, the human testes are not. As a proportion of overall body size, chimp and bonobo testes are twice as large as human testes, whereas gorilla testes are half the size. Why?
(I’m intrigued once more! Why are testes so big and so what? Why are gorillas so small? Will Carole tell me? A handful of testicles are always pleasurable and looking at a full sac that is eager to spill its contents is a huge turn on but as far as hitting the G-Spot, they are merely an added bonus as far as sexual penetration is concerned but clearly the size of testes is an important attraction in the ape world; again, similar to the enticement of the mammary glands in humans. Isn’t this all slightly fascinating – the correlation between the evolvement of the human form and the changes to sexual dominance?)
Correlations can be found between primate mating systems and male genital anatomy. In multi-male/multi-female groups, males must compete to reproduce and frequently the competition takes place inside the female reproductive tract. The more sperm a male produces and ejaculates inside a female the greater probability that one of his will fertilise the ovum. Female chimps and bonobos in oestrus often mate with several different individuals, so males must reproductively compete in this way and larger testes will therefore confer greater reproductive fitness.
(Confer, you notice, not quite factual then. So although a big sac of balls would suggest that there is more sperm waiting to fertilise eggs, it may not actually be the case. I am afraid the size of the bollocks has not been fully explained.
If ever there was a reason for polyandry, polygamy, polyamory etc then this could be it. One could argue that it is the natural way, and it could keep your cock and balls delightfully large too. The fittest bloke procreates with many and in doing so increases the size of his bits in the longer term. The polyamorous way of life is so infrequently discussed and it certainly appears that this is the way that the bonobos live harmoniously as opposed to polyandry or polygamy. There is a mutual sharing and we really should look at this as a societal option irrespective of the biological issues).
By contrast, female gorillas live in harems and don’t often get a chance to exercise a choice between mates, though occasionally a female and a male from outside the group may risk it. The impressive 200kg (400lb) silverback gorilla does have the smallest penis and testes of all male apes, but his massive canines and biceps and his controlling, jealous temper allow him to intimidate and fight off potential competitors.
(Ah, there we have it. An uber patriarchal society not only suppresses female sexuality but also decreases the size of your cock! To get the best of both worlds, hand over to the women. You’ll get more sex by empowering women and your cock will be bigger -well, future generations will have bigger cocks. Look what you will be doing for your great, great, great grandchildren.
Choice for women brings choice for all. It’s a no brainer. If we educate women now to understand the overwhelming brilliance of their sexual potential we could have a completely different world, and the Neolithic silver-back type man could be extinct. The “New Man” of the 1990s probably never really existed except in small pockets of society. Putting on washing up gloves does not equate to true equality when their women are still so unsure of their sexuality).
Human testis size indicates that males evolved under conditions in which their sperm competed inside females, but perhaps not to the same extent as chimp sperm. But the larger human penis suggests that hominids needed to keep females with choice sexually satisfied. Ancestral females would have experienced a sexual freedom denied from Western cultures today and it has been suggested that our ancestors went through a period of matriarchy and enhanced female choice.
(More to suggest that polyamory is the way to be! The human testis grew, literally, out of the fact that monogamy was not a societal expectation. You fucked more than one person and if your sperm was the strongest, it would make its way to fertilisation and ultimately to creating another human being. Read and weep once more. “Ancestral females would have experienced a sexual freedom denied from Western cultures today”. AND they probably had multiple orgasms too. Female sexual choice gives everybody choice. It is backed up here through science. It is reiterated through a range of anthropological studies. It is evidenced in history. It works. One could argue that if it was so brilliant, why did it disappear? Maybe people, as they were evolving just lost sight of balance. The Age of Aquarius is upon us. Maybe it is a return to either a matriarchal society or one that truly embraces sexual equality).
When compared with patriarchal chimps, the matriarchal bonobo is a far more sex-oriented ape. Enthusiastic females initiate both hetero and homosexual activity, particularly when aggression begins to surface, resulting in satisfied, contented and peaceful bonobos. Patriarchy, on the other hand, correlates with a lack of openly displayed female choice.
(I don’t know who “Carole” is but she is talking a great deal of sense in her response and it is so wonderful to hear the scientific logic to what some of us have instinctively understood and hoped is a valued reason for empowering women sexually. Look at the bonobos now. They offer a genuine way forward to a peaceful, non-aggressive, even non-attached way of living. The female sexuality is at the heart of “societal” contentment. Female choice brings harmony. It is fact and it should be realised in human form too. The reason that people are not willing to accept this potential change in society is because it is too threatening to the current state of play. Blimey, if the Tories can be infiltrated by Liberalism then surely the odd society around the world can lean further towards female choice. And don’t forget that cock-growing part as well. 8 cm on a bonobo probably equates to more than 13 cm on a human!).
Women with choice are not all “obsessed with the size of a man’s cock”. Women are as aware as men that to build a stable relationship you need trust, shared interests and the ability to keep each other amused. But a woman is not going to “put the size of a man’s cock right out of her mind”, because she can’t. Females have an evolved interest in the size of a man’s penis, which has been sexually selected for its size and shape. But humans are also selected for creativity – we are highly innovative, imaginative apes. Accordingly, women’s minds can be aroused by creativity and being sexually imaginative can be physically arousing, adding satisfying metaphorical inches to one’s love life.
(I think Carole must have been listening to my initial response. Creativity could easily include sex toys. It could also involve looking at porn together, exciting one another into a frenzied arousal where the size of the penis is less important. There are ways around having a small dick!
But for all the scientific information, we should not lose sight of the other valuable organs that us humans have. We should not lose sight of the capabilities of the brain and the ability to empathise and spiritualise the entire sexual experience. Creativity, thought and understanding passion are as important as the physical entity of sexuality. The irony is that with all of these additional functions, we are yet to emulate the perfection and harmony that we see in our ape-like friends such as the bonobos. We are a million years behind their evolvement in some ways.)
I’m feeling rather positive. All of my life, I have feared that I am a little bit backward in my thinking but maybe I am streets ahead after all. Over recent years, I have been slightly anxious that my evolving thoughts on female sexuality are too outlandish to ever make their way into a societal norm and that my idealism is just too far-fetched. According to this article, it seems that my thoughts are far more insightful than that and that women who have realised a small amount of choice should be leading others by the hand to embrace it.
So returning to the original letter, it seems that cock size is important and ironically, you can blame your ancestors for not fucking around if yours is a wee bit on the small side. The answer to bigger cocks and more enjoyable sex seems to lie with the empowerment of female choice. Polyamory breeds sexual delight. Humans have the potential to evolve more, and cock size IS important.
Just let women know about their sexual potential before concerning yourselves with the size of your dicks.
And whilst you wait for this realisation to hit you in the gonads, I am afraid that those women who choose to be liberated and exercise their given right to choose will, by instinct, intelligence and desire, choose the healthiest, longest most loveable cock that suits their very extensive sexual needs.
Yum! Yum!
Saturday 15 May 2010
The Pill
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1277929/New-study-shows-Pill-affects-womens-libido.html
Time to whinge again I am afraid. Another essay on the demise of female sexuality which I am not going to let pass by without comment! Seriously, it’s not that bad but I do worry about the way issues such as this as portrayed in the press.
This week, the Daily Mail reported once more on the fact that the female contraceptive pill apparently causes a decrease in libido. It states that this is a new study but when you Google the subject it appears that there is very little that is new in this piece of research. Scientists have acknowledged for some time that there are significant side effects of using the contraceptive pill and that a decrease in sexual drive can be one of them.
The female contraceptive pill is fifty years old this week, hence the fact that it is back in the news.
The first thing that I am going to have to say now is that within this writing, I know I am going to appear to contradict myself. Firstly, I question the findings of this research mainly because I know that there has been insufficient research in the entirety of female sexuality. I suspect that there are hidden causal factors to decreased libido that may be blamed on the pill yet may be not caused by it. That is for starters. However, having said that, there is certainly some truth in the side effects of taking the pill and it never ceases to amaze me that a male counterpart has never been developed successfully. The cynic, the conspiracist and the feminist in me might go as far as to say that men produced the pill in the first instance and know all too well about the potential side effects which is why they do not want to produce one for themselves but that could be being a trifle unfair.
But let us start with the headline of this piece. “Why the pill is a passion killer: It may have sparked a sexual revolution, but a new study says the Pill has ironic side effects”.
Ho, ho, ho! How funny that a pill introduced to empower and protect women could potentially take away their very desire for sex? Isn’t that hysterical?
NO! If it is true, then it is far from hysterical. IF it is true, then why the hell are scientists not out there trying to do something about it, and whilst they are at it, perhaps they could look in greater detail at a much required complete study of female sexuality as a whole. If it is true, then why is the feminist movement prepared to sit there are let such a “new study” go by without so much as a whiff of objection or comment?
If it is true that women’s sexual desire is extremely diminished by taking the Pill then this needs to be looked at AND resolved as a matter of urgency. If a male Pill brought about flaccidness, believe me, it would soon be withdrawn, if you excuse the pun.
Women deserve more than this. Women deserve to know that the chemicals that they are placing in their bodies are not going to have a detrimental effect on their libido.
The Pill did mark a sexual revolution. Women were liberated. They were free to express their sexuality, especially at a time before the threat of illnesses such as HIV. They had choice; about their bodies, about the men that they chose to have sex with. It was the most wonderful and liberating thing. To think that it also robbed some women of their sexual drive is abhorrent.
So let’s think about this a little more carefully.
Clearly and stating the bleeding obvious, women use the pill during their child-bearing time. They may use it first when they are students, living life to the full, sleeping too infrequently, working hard (!) for A-levels or degrees. They may be using it first when they start a job at sixteen or eighteen once their days at school have finished. Both scenarios are hardly the most relaxing of times. Life changes such as these can be thoroughly exhausting. Life changes such as these decrease not only libido but all forms of energy.
Some women decide that they will stop using the Pill when they want to conceive. They only return to it once their ‘families’ are complete or in between a series of conceptions.
Now I don’t think I am abnormal in stating that the thought of sex a few weeks after childbirth was not actually the priority of the moment. Thought of conception at that time is pretty abhorrent even though many of us go for seconds, dismissing the horrendous pain of childbirth.
This is a time in life when, quite frankly, you are knackered, and that tiredness has little to do with sex. The libido is almost non-existent because you are simply too exhausted to breathe let alone invite a desperate cock inside you.
At a time when women start using the Pill again, they probably have young babies or toddlers to contend with.
And so women meander through to the last years of menstruation. Often periods at this time are heavy and unbearable. Sometimes, women at this time of their lives are pretty unattracted or unattractive to their partners so the sexual urgency of previous years, if indeed it existed then, is not present. But simultaneously, this could also be the time when women are about to come into their sexual prime, just at the time they might also be giving up on the pill.
The point I am making albeit clumsily and unscientifically is that there could be a multitude of reasons why a woman’s libido decreases at certain times in their lives and that it is a mere coincidence that they happen to be on the Pill at the time.
If you take this argument a logical step forward, it could appear that the Pill has become a sort of scapegoat rather than addressing the real reasons why a woman’s libido might have decreased and what is even worse is that if we can apportion blame to a medical intervention then we can by default solve it with one!
This excuse also leads to inertia. There could be a mere acceptance that the Pill is the reason for the low libido but it is simply a price to pay.
None of the above is acceptable.
Women should not accept reduced sexual desire at any cost, not even for all of the benefits that the Pill brought along. It is too easy to dismiss this with a laugh and a whim and a “oh well, never mind” because what that is actually saying is that women’s libido is not that important. We can live without it. We can still have sex without it – we just don’t enjoy it as much.
No, none of this is acceptable. It is time to make it very clear to men and to women that everyone has a right to a fully operational libido and if the contraception pill is doing something to suppress this then it needs looking into.
However (and I said I might be contradictory) is it really the pill that is responsible for this or is it just another instance of women not really knowing their sexuality and not having an opportunity to explore it? Just a thought.
The rest of the article had a couple of interesting statements.
Here’s the first.
“Other hormonal methods, such as implants, had the same effect. Yet the researchers found that condoms and other barrier methods boosted users' levels of arousal more than those who used no contraception at all - perhaps, the scientists speculated, because of the comforting knowledge that they are protected from getting pregnant.”
Well, this is interesting. Really it is. I’m not sure that protection from pregnancy is the biggest turn on that I have ever had. Personally, condoms do not suit my needs whatsoever. I want my cock next to my skin. I want total nakedness thank you very much and all I can ever think about when a man is wearing a condom is how annoying it must be for him. That can hardly be a turn on!
I cannot imagine why barrier methods are hornier than the thrill of the skin on skin feel of cock and pussy that the oral contraceptive allows. Then again, you get that with a coil too. All this leads to the argument that it is the pill that is causing this problem.
“The researchers believe that in preventing ovulation, the Pill also lowers testosterone - the hormone responsible for sex drive.”
I’m sorry but isn’t this stating the bleeding obvious as well? Surely people know this. But once more, if this is known to be an issue, surely in the fifty years since the Pill was first launched some sort of changes might have been feasible to ensure that there are changes to ensure the estrogens and testosterone levels are balanced to give protection but ensure that motivation is not lost.
The other thing that needs to be noted is that each individual case needs to be considered.
If the pill is responsible for a lowering of libido then I must be the archetypal antidote. My libido has gone through the roof since I returned to the Pill as my main form of contraception. This seems to comply with the argument that protection against pregnancy is an arousal in itself but contradicts this idea that the pill is a passion killer.
Isn’t some of this about mind over matter? If you have a sensible attitude to sex, if you have a real affection and desire for your sexual partner surely this will be enough to counteract the negative effects of the pill.
If my libido has been slightly suppressed by going on the pill, then I am almost relieved. The disappointment of unfulfilled pussy might be too much for me to bear. Perhaps being on the pill enables me to cope with the lack of sex on a daily basis. I’d be willing to test that one out and contradict it.
...........................................................................................................................................
Synchronicity? Irony? Who knows but I started writing this piece on Friday and then discovered that a far more capable writer was responding as I would wish.
Switch to the Guardian and Libby Brooks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/14/pill-50-years-freedom-from-conception
This article is much more celebratory of the oral contraception whilst recognising its pitfalls. It is not sensationalist or scare-inducing. It is a good, reasoned account of the Pill and the criticism it received but ultimately concludes that the freedom it provides is sacrosanct.
I couldn’t agree more because ultimately if we are truly to embrace female sexuality, this liberty has to be a central theme as well as a decent dose of knowledge about the sexual capabilities of the female body.
One of the things that has enabled me to reach towards my sexual peak has been the removal of the very many shackles that were standing in my way and preventing the enlightenment that I so clearly needed and wanted. The Pill has helped, especially since I am such a cock-loving woman and want to feel my man between my legs, uncovered in rubber accessories, but the real freedom has come with the constant reminder that I am a sexual being and that what my body is doing, what it is discovering about itself is perfectly normal and that my desire is perfectly normal too.
Not only that, but the real freedom has come from allowing myself to be free, recognising that nobody has the right to suppress my sexuality, not man, not pill, not expectation from society or family.
And still I keep some shackles on but they will be removed one day. After all, this is a journey.
So to conclude, the Pill has been a great liberation for women despite its flaws. Funnily enough, the first time I plucked up enough courage to get to the clinic to join the sexually free women, I did so with great excitement only to be dumped by my boyfriend two days later; before I’d even had time to test the damn things out!
The pill could possibly have some problems and there may be some women who have suppressed libido because of it but we should not hide behind this. There is every possibility that their lack of sexual drive comes from some other causal factor and to place the blame at the feet of the pill alone means that once more we will not tackle the other significant issues. Neither will we be able to begin to open these women’s minds to the sort of sex that every woman should be entitled to – the sort of sex that I am lucky enough to have, and that is with the pill to douse me too!
Once more, there needs to be more work done on raising women’s awareness of what their bodies are capable of and secondly enabling them to be sexually liberated with or without the pill, and that means opening minds as well as bodies.
The pill was a great invention. It liberated and has done so for 50 years but let us not settle for this as the final liberation. There is still so much more to be done in the name of sexual liberty and female sexuality.
Time to whinge again I am afraid. Another essay on the demise of female sexuality which I am not going to let pass by without comment! Seriously, it’s not that bad but I do worry about the way issues such as this as portrayed in the press.
This week, the Daily Mail reported once more on the fact that the female contraceptive pill apparently causes a decrease in libido. It states that this is a new study but when you Google the subject it appears that there is very little that is new in this piece of research. Scientists have acknowledged for some time that there are significant side effects of using the contraceptive pill and that a decrease in sexual drive can be one of them.
The female contraceptive pill is fifty years old this week, hence the fact that it is back in the news.
The first thing that I am going to have to say now is that within this writing, I know I am going to appear to contradict myself. Firstly, I question the findings of this research mainly because I know that there has been insufficient research in the entirety of female sexuality. I suspect that there are hidden causal factors to decreased libido that may be blamed on the pill yet may be not caused by it. That is for starters. However, having said that, there is certainly some truth in the side effects of taking the pill and it never ceases to amaze me that a male counterpart has never been developed successfully. The cynic, the conspiracist and the feminist in me might go as far as to say that men produced the pill in the first instance and know all too well about the potential side effects which is why they do not want to produce one for themselves but that could be being a trifle unfair.
But let us start with the headline of this piece. “Why the pill is a passion killer: It may have sparked a sexual revolution, but a new study says the Pill has ironic side effects”.
Ho, ho, ho! How funny that a pill introduced to empower and protect women could potentially take away their very desire for sex? Isn’t that hysterical?
NO! If it is true, then it is far from hysterical. IF it is true, then why the hell are scientists not out there trying to do something about it, and whilst they are at it, perhaps they could look in greater detail at a much required complete study of female sexuality as a whole. If it is true, then why is the feminist movement prepared to sit there are let such a “new study” go by without so much as a whiff of objection or comment?
If it is true that women’s sexual desire is extremely diminished by taking the Pill then this needs to be looked at AND resolved as a matter of urgency. If a male Pill brought about flaccidness, believe me, it would soon be withdrawn, if you excuse the pun.
Women deserve more than this. Women deserve to know that the chemicals that they are placing in their bodies are not going to have a detrimental effect on their libido.
The Pill did mark a sexual revolution. Women were liberated. They were free to express their sexuality, especially at a time before the threat of illnesses such as HIV. They had choice; about their bodies, about the men that they chose to have sex with. It was the most wonderful and liberating thing. To think that it also robbed some women of their sexual drive is abhorrent.
So let’s think about this a little more carefully.
Clearly and stating the bleeding obvious, women use the pill during their child-bearing time. They may use it first when they are students, living life to the full, sleeping too infrequently, working hard (!) for A-levels or degrees. They may be using it first when they start a job at sixteen or eighteen once their days at school have finished. Both scenarios are hardly the most relaxing of times. Life changes such as these can be thoroughly exhausting. Life changes such as these decrease not only libido but all forms of energy.
Some women decide that they will stop using the Pill when they want to conceive. They only return to it once their ‘families’ are complete or in between a series of conceptions.
Now I don’t think I am abnormal in stating that the thought of sex a few weeks after childbirth was not actually the priority of the moment. Thought of conception at that time is pretty abhorrent even though many of us go for seconds, dismissing the horrendous pain of childbirth.
This is a time in life when, quite frankly, you are knackered, and that tiredness has little to do with sex. The libido is almost non-existent because you are simply too exhausted to breathe let alone invite a desperate cock inside you.
At a time when women start using the Pill again, they probably have young babies or toddlers to contend with.
And so women meander through to the last years of menstruation. Often periods at this time are heavy and unbearable. Sometimes, women at this time of their lives are pretty unattracted or unattractive to their partners so the sexual urgency of previous years, if indeed it existed then, is not present. But simultaneously, this could also be the time when women are about to come into their sexual prime, just at the time they might also be giving up on the pill.
The point I am making albeit clumsily and unscientifically is that there could be a multitude of reasons why a woman’s libido decreases at certain times in their lives and that it is a mere coincidence that they happen to be on the Pill at the time.
If you take this argument a logical step forward, it could appear that the Pill has become a sort of scapegoat rather than addressing the real reasons why a woman’s libido might have decreased and what is even worse is that if we can apportion blame to a medical intervention then we can by default solve it with one!
This excuse also leads to inertia. There could be a mere acceptance that the Pill is the reason for the low libido but it is simply a price to pay.
None of the above is acceptable.
Women should not accept reduced sexual desire at any cost, not even for all of the benefits that the Pill brought along. It is too easy to dismiss this with a laugh and a whim and a “oh well, never mind” because what that is actually saying is that women’s libido is not that important. We can live without it. We can still have sex without it – we just don’t enjoy it as much.
No, none of this is acceptable. It is time to make it very clear to men and to women that everyone has a right to a fully operational libido and if the contraception pill is doing something to suppress this then it needs looking into.
However (and I said I might be contradictory) is it really the pill that is responsible for this or is it just another instance of women not really knowing their sexuality and not having an opportunity to explore it? Just a thought.
The rest of the article had a couple of interesting statements.
Here’s the first.
“Other hormonal methods, such as implants, had the same effect. Yet the researchers found that condoms and other barrier methods boosted users' levels of arousal more than those who used no contraception at all - perhaps, the scientists speculated, because of the comforting knowledge that they are protected from getting pregnant.”
Well, this is interesting. Really it is. I’m not sure that protection from pregnancy is the biggest turn on that I have ever had. Personally, condoms do not suit my needs whatsoever. I want my cock next to my skin. I want total nakedness thank you very much and all I can ever think about when a man is wearing a condom is how annoying it must be for him. That can hardly be a turn on!
I cannot imagine why barrier methods are hornier than the thrill of the skin on skin feel of cock and pussy that the oral contraceptive allows. Then again, you get that with a coil too. All this leads to the argument that it is the pill that is causing this problem.
“The researchers believe that in preventing ovulation, the Pill also lowers testosterone - the hormone responsible for sex drive.”
I’m sorry but isn’t this stating the bleeding obvious as well? Surely people know this. But once more, if this is known to be an issue, surely in the fifty years since the Pill was first launched some sort of changes might have been feasible to ensure that there are changes to ensure the estrogens and testosterone levels are balanced to give protection but ensure that motivation is not lost.
The other thing that needs to be noted is that each individual case needs to be considered.
If the pill is responsible for a lowering of libido then I must be the archetypal antidote. My libido has gone through the roof since I returned to the Pill as my main form of contraception. This seems to comply with the argument that protection against pregnancy is an arousal in itself but contradicts this idea that the pill is a passion killer.
Isn’t some of this about mind over matter? If you have a sensible attitude to sex, if you have a real affection and desire for your sexual partner surely this will be enough to counteract the negative effects of the pill.
If my libido has been slightly suppressed by going on the pill, then I am almost relieved. The disappointment of unfulfilled pussy might be too much for me to bear. Perhaps being on the pill enables me to cope with the lack of sex on a daily basis. I’d be willing to test that one out and contradict it.
...........................................................................................................................................
Synchronicity? Irony? Who knows but I started writing this piece on Friday and then discovered that a far more capable writer was responding as I would wish.
Switch to the Guardian and Libby Brooks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/14/pill-50-years-freedom-from-conception
This article is much more celebratory of the oral contraception whilst recognising its pitfalls. It is not sensationalist or scare-inducing. It is a good, reasoned account of the Pill and the criticism it received but ultimately concludes that the freedom it provides is sacrosanct.
I couldn’t agree more because ultimately if we are truly to embrace female sexuality, this liberty has to be a central theme as well as a decent dose of knowledge about the sexual capabilities of the female body.
One of the things that has enabled me to reach towards my sexual peak has been the removal of the very many shackles that were standing in my way and preventing the enlightenment that I so clearly needed and wanted. The Pill has helped, especially since I am such a cock-loving woman and want to feel my man between my legs, uncovered in rubber accessories, but the real freedom has come with the constant reminder that I am a sexual being and that what my body is doing, what it is discovering about itself is perfectly normal and that my desire is perfectly normal too.
Not only that, but the real freedom has come from allowing myself to be free, recognising that nobody has the right to suppress my sexuality, not man, not pill, not expectation from society or family.
And still I keep some shackles on but they will be removed one day. After all, this is a journey.
So to conclude, the Pill has been a great liberation for women despite its flaws. Funnily enough, the first time I plucked up enough courage to get to the clinic to join the sexually free women, I did so with great excitement only to be dumped by my boyfriend two days later; before I’d even had time to test the damn things out!
The pill could possibly have some problems and there may be some women who have suppressed libido because of it but we should not hide behind this. There is every possibility that their lack of sexual drive comes from some other causal factor and to place the blame at the feet of the pill alone means that once more we will not tackle the other significant issues. Neither will we be able to begin to open these women’s minds to the sort of sex that every woman should be entitled to – the sort of sex that I am lucky enough to have, and that is with the pill to douse me too!
Once more, there needs to be more work done on raising women’s awareness of what their bodies are capable of and secondly enabling them to be sexually liberated with or without the pill, and that means opening minds as well as bodies.
The pill was a great invention. It liberated and has done so for 50 years but let us not settle for this as the final liberation. There is still so much more to be done in the name of sexual liberty and female sexuality.
Sunday 9 May 2010
Cajole Me
Cajole Me
To cajole: to persuade by flattery, to inveigle, to wheedle or coax.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/may/08/miss-cagole-2010-contest-paris
A cagole: a girl from the south of France, around Marseilles who is confident, dresses with elegance but not necessarily sophistication, can take care of herself and is never lost for words. So says Pascal Petiot, sponsor of the 2010 Miss Cagole competition in Paris; an article of which featured in the Guardian this week.
Essentially these girls are from the south with all its colour, glory and sunshine. They dress somewhat provocatively with short skirts and bling. Some might even call their costume tarty but they do not feel so. They just see their dress as one way of expressing their confidence in life. The English equivalent might be a ladette, but sexier and less manly. They are sexually precocious but not necessarily promiscuous but you could probably guarantee that these girls carry a condom around just in case.
The cagoles, according to the article, are a new breed of feminism in France and they have taken their particular brand right to the sacred streets of the Champs Elysee. The extremes of haute couture sophistication is not for them and does not represent the type of liberty that these young women epitomise. They find such Parisienne women aloof and snooty. There is a coldness in them that the Cagoles find unbecoming.
These cagoles are vibrant; embracing life, embracing sexuality, winning back a positive interpretation of the word by equating it with empowerment and freedom for women to express themselves how they want and not according to the diktat of society or men.
There is another interpretation of these women; that they are hussies, tarts, slags, slappers, prostitutes even. Their overt sexuality means that they are game for anything and that their confidence is flawed with a lack of finesse. Furthermore, they are the epitome of anti-feminism, in so far that they are dressed to please men rather than for themselves. Even worse, they cannot even see that this is the case.
According to the article, one commentator said a woman can only become a cagole through the eyes of men. Ergo, it is men that makes them the women that they are.
So what does Zenpuss think about all of this? What does Zenpuss think about these women?
I’ve seen them. I’ve looked at them as the ooze horniness from every pore of their self-assured bodies. I love their sexuality and their vibrancy. I love the fact that they don’t give a damn. I’d love to emulate such confidence. I’d love to sit amongst them, chatting, laughing, knowing that I amongst like-minded folk who can celebrate their sexuality without inhibition, without condemnation. I’d love to see how keen they are to explore their sexuality with me, with my lover, with other men that I may introduce them to. I’d love them to embrace me into their pack though I suspect I have probably passed the age of Cagolism and would be in grave danger of looking like mutton!
I delight in the fact that they are rescuing the word “cagole” from those who choose to use it as a form of abuse. This is an extremely empowering act and is akin to what I have suggested before about certain other words. Perhaps I should start a real campaign once and for all to rescue the word “cunt” for instance. If there were women around the country who refused to use this word as a term of abuse but simultaneously used it without pejorative undertones to describe their beautiful pussies, then this would be a marvellous step in the right sexual direction.
Here’s how it could go.
Woman goes for a smear test and the nurse sits her down. She does the pre discussion and then says, “Okay dear, it’s time to pop the speculum into your cunt.”
A female friend talks to another female friend and says “My partner says I have the most perfect cunt. I wonder what it is that he particularly likes about it. I’ve had a little feel around inside and I think he likes my cunt because there are so many layers of bulging skin that wrap around his cock when he enters me”. (Actually with or without the word cunt, I would suggest even talking about our pussies wouldn’t be a bad thing to do. It might remind women that there is actually something between their legs that is worth further exploration).
Woman picks up the phone to a poor saddo who is breathing heavily at the other end of the phone.
Man: I’d love to see you big hairy cunt
Woman: Yes, I bet you would love to see my cunt. It is rather spectacular.
Man and woman in a fight.
Man: You’re a fucking disgrace. You are a total cunt.
Woman: That is the highest compliment you have ever given me, darling.
Or
Woman: You’re a fucking cunt
Man: I’m glad you think so highly of me
No, the cagoles are doing a good job making the rest of the world realise that feminism is not one congealed blob of sameness. Feminism can have many different types amongst their movement. It is NOT a feminist act to turn your back on your sexuality. It IS a feminist act to realise once and for all that you are a sexual being and women have the most fantastic and prized possessions in the world; juicy cunts and voluptuous tits. It is a feminist act to realise that by embracing your own sexuality, you are satisfying yourself and are not just there for the joy of manhood when you have penetrative sex.
Sex is a domain for all genders and all sexual persuasions. It is not for the gratification of heterosexual men only.
Feminism is about the right to wear what you want, say what you want, do what you want without fear of provoking unwanted attention from men, both positive and negative. Feminism is about the right to wear what you want, say what you want, do what you want with the aim of provoking or cajoling attention from someone who you quite fancy being a sexual partner; for the night or for a longer period of time. Feminism is liberty and equality. It may not be fraternity but it is certainly sorority, and surely by now the French have embraced that word within their statement of intent about what they want from their society.
However, I do have some slight reservations too.
I am fed up with the fact that some people equate sexual confidence to tartiness. I am fed up with the fact that it sometimes appears that the only way you can express sexual confidence is by being loud and obnoxious. I am fed up with people associating sexual confidence with a crudeness and coarseness. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was a lack of assumptions, that I myself am guilty of too, about a woman’s sexuality and the way that they dress?
I am a woman who does sometimes lack confidence. I would not, for instance, have the confidence to dress like a cagole even if I was young enough to do so. I have similar thoughts and feelings regarding feminism, according to what I have read about cagoles but I would hate people to make assumptions about me just because I looked like a cagole. Furthermore, I do not like the idea that this is potentially the only way that I can express my sexuality.
Of course this is not really true. Of course there are plenty of ways to express your sexuality that do not require bling, bright red lipstick and tight fitting garment but I think the cagoles have to be careful that they do not fall into the trap of this being the only way to express their confidence and sexuality.
What I am trying to say is that I am frightened that the cagoles could become a parody of themselves; a cliché that reverses and reverses back so that instead of reclaiming the word cagole, they merely reinforce it with the notion that sexual gratification is left firmly with the men, with the idea that cagoles are only cagoles for the sake of the French men who wonder at their charm.
I am worried that despite their attempts at liberating the word, cagoles are still seen as tarty women who have no prowess, are not cultured or refined and are simply coarse.
I hasten to add I don’t think they are – I love their energy and determination.
So today, I maintain positivism. I embrace this wonderful new and exciting wave of French feminism. In some ways, as a hopelessly bland Brit, I am rather envious of this wave of their triumphant naughtiness and less intimidated by it than the beauty, elegance and sophistication of the Parisienne beauty.
Feminism, as I said, can come in many forms and the Parisienne lady with her perfect body and her fuck me shoes is as self-assured as can be. They have sexual confidence and are not afraid to use it but there is still a place for a more down-to-earth French feminism that does not rely on the old cliché of the French woman dressed in tight pin striped pencil skirt, with stockings suspenders, low cut blouse and gloriously colourful bras peeping out.
Zenpuss essentially delights at any woman or group of women who get up there and almost announce their sexuality to the world. Zenpuss essentially wants every woman to be free to celebrate and announce their sexuality in whatever way they want but simultaneously Zenpuss doesn’t want such overt sexuality to be restricted to the very groomed or the delightfully flaunty.
The ability to express one’s sexuality should be the domain of all women, and within that all French women, be it well-tailored capital dwellers or the less culturally refined from the urban capital of the south.
Just as a footnote, despite everything that I might have said about the concern I may have for these women falling into a cliché, I’d love to be young enough to catch their eye. I really do fancy a bit of a threesome with some of these women. I love their unrefined state, even the cagoles who dress up in a slightly more established French way to flaunt their beautifully tanned bodies.
I’d quite like to get an eyeful of their cunts, if they were indeed on offer. I’d love to see certain men enjoying these women’s delight at their own sexuality. I’d like to watch these women enjoying sex. I think I could happily get off on that, if indeed that is what they want and I am not falling into the cliché already of assuming that they are sexually overt young beings.
I mean, in all honesty, is there anything that is hornier than a person who has sexual confidence and is uninhibited in demonstrating it?
I love horny people and I simply wish that everyone could get to know their sexual being in order to break down sexual barriers once and for all.
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.20minutes.fr/article/402903/France-Sur-la-trace-des-cagoles-le-long-des-Champs-Elysees.php&ei=7RLnS5WFFIOKnQO5p62CBg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCMQ7gEwATgK&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcagoles%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26prmd%3Dvi
As for me, I'd be a Cagole any day. I don't know whether the word is entirely synonymous with our word "cajole" but given half the chance I'd like to use my sexuality to coax someone to fuck me. Now that has to be a positive skill to have in life.
And as the winner of Miss Cagole 2010 said "I am proud of who I am and all my friends". Good on her.
To cajole: to persuade by flattery, to inveigle, to wheedle or coax.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/may/08/miss-cagole-2010-contest-paris
A cagole: a girl from the south of France, around Marseilles who is confident, dresses with elegance but not necessarily sophistication, can take care of herself and is never lost for words. So says Pascal Petiot, sponsor of the 2010 Miss Cagole competition in Paris; an article of which featured in the Guardian this week.
Essentially these girls are from the south with all its colour, glory and sunshine. They dress somewhat provocatively with short skirts and bling. Some might even call their costume tarty but they do not feel so. They just see their dress as one way of expressing their confidence in life. The English equivalent might be a ladette, but sexier and less manly. They are sexually precocious but not necessarily promiscuous but you could probably guarantee that these girls carry a condom around just in case.
The cagoles, according to the article, are a new breed of feminism in France and they have taken their particular brand right to the sacred streets of the Champs Elysee. The extremes of haute couture sophistication is not for them and does not represent the type of liberty that these young women epitomise. They find such Parisienne women aloof and snooty. There is a coldness in them that the Cagoles find unbecoming.
These cagoles are vibrant; embracing life, embracing sexuality, winning back a positive interpretation of the word by equating it with empowerment and freedom for women to express themselves how they want and not according to the diktat of society or men.
There is another interpretation of these women; that they are hussies, tarts, slags, slappers, prostitutes even. Their overt sexuality means that they are game for anything and that their confidence is flawed with a lack of finesse. Furthermore, they are the epitome of anti-feminism, in so far that they are dressed to please men rather than for themselves. Even worse, they cannot even see that this is the case.
According to the article, one commentator said a woman can only become a cagole through the eyes of men. Ergo, it is men that makes them the women that they are.
So what does Zenpuss think about all of this? What does Zenpuss think about these women?
I’ve seen them. I’ve looked at them as the ooze horniness from every pore of their self-assured bodies. I love their sexuality and their vibrancy. I love the fact that they don’t give a damn. I’d love to emulate such confidence. I’d love to sit amongst them, chatting, laughing, knowing that I amongst like-minded folk who can celebrate their sexuality without inhibition, without condemnation. I’d love to see how keen they are to explore their sexuality with me, with my lover, with other men that I may introduce them to. I’d love them to embrace me into their pack though I suspect I have probably passed the age of Cagolism and would be in grave danger of looking like mutton!
I delight in the fact that they are rescuing the word “cagole” from those who choose to use it as a form of abuse. This is an extremely empowering act and is akin to what I have suggested before about certain other words. Perhaps I should start a real campaign once and for all to rescue the word “cunt” for instance. If there were women around the country who refused to use this word as a term of abuse but simultaneously used it without pejorative undertones to describe their beautiful pussies, then this would be a marvellous step in the right sexual direction.
Here’s how it could go.
Woman goes for a smear test and the nurse sits her down. She does the pre discussion and then says, “Okay dear, it’s time to pop the speculum into your cunt.”
A female friend talks to another female friend and says “My partner says I have the most perfect cunt. I wonder what it is that he particularly likes about it. I’ve had a little feel around inside and I think he likes my cunt because there are so many layers of bulging skin that wrap around his cock when he enters me”. (Actually with or without the word cunt, I would suggest even talking about our pussies wouldn’t be a bad thing to do. It might remind women that there is actually something between their legs that is worth further exploration).
Woman picks up the phone to a poor saddo who is breathing heavily at the other end of the phone.
Man: I’d love to see you big hairy cunt
Woman: Yes, I bet you would love to see my cunt. It is rather spectacular.
Man and woman in a fight.
Man: You’re a fucking disgrace. You are a total cunt.
Woman: That is the highest compliment you have ever given me, darling.
Or
Woman: You’re a fucking cunt
Man: I’m glad you think so highly of me
No, the cagoles are doing a good job making the rest of the world realise that feminism is not one congealed blob of sameness. Feminism can have many different types amongst their movement. It is NOT a feminist act to turn your back on your sexuality. It IS a feminist act to realise once and for all that you are a sexual being and women have the most fantastic and prized possessions in the world; juicy cunts and voluptuous tits. It is a feminist act to realise that by embracing your own sexuality, you are satisfying yourself and are not just there for the joy of manhood when you have penetrative sex.
Sex is a domain for all genders and all sexual persuasions. It is not for the gratification of heterosexual men only.
Feminism is about the right to wear what you want, say what you want, do what you want without fear of provoking unwanted attention from men, both positive and negative. Feminism is about the right to wear what you want, say what you want, do what you want with the aim of provoking or cajoling attention from someone who you quite fancy being a sexual partner; for the night or for a longer period of time. Feminism is liberty and equality. It may not be fraternity but it is certainly sorority, and surely by now the French have embraced that word within their statement of intent about what they want from their society.
However, I do have some slight reservations too.
I am fed up with the fact that some people equate sexual confidence to tartiness. I am fed up with the fact that it sometimes appears that the only way you can express sexual confidence is by being loud and obnoxious. I am fed up with people associating sexual confidence with a crudeness and coarseness. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if there was a lack of assumptions, that I myself am guilty of too, about a woman’s sexuality and the way that they dress?
I am a woman who does sometimes lack confidence. I would not, for instance, have the confidence to dress like a cagole even if I was young enough to do so. I have similar thoughts and feelings regarding feminism, according to what I have read about cagoles but I would hate people to make assumptions about me just because I looked like a cagole. Furthermore, I do not like the idea that this is potentially the only way that I can express my sexuality.
Of course this is not really true. Of course there are plenty of ways to express your sexuality that do not require bling, bright red lipstick and tight fitting garment but I think the cagoles have to be careful that they do not fall into the trap of this being the only way to express their confidence and sexuality.
What I am trying to say is that I am frightened that the cagoles could become a parody of themselves; a cliché that reverses and reverses back so that instead of reclaiming the word cagole, they merely reinforce it with the notion that sexual gratification is left firmly with the men, with the idea that cagoles are only cagoles for the sake of the French men who wonder at their charm.
I am worried that despite their attempts at liberating the word, cagoles are still seen as tarty women who have no prowess, are not cultured or refined and are simply coarse.
I hasten to add I don’t think they are – I love their energy and determination.
So today, I maintain positivism. I embrace this wonderful new and exciting wave of French feminism. In some ways, as a hopelessly bland Brit, I am rather envious of this wave of their triumphant naughtiness and less intimidated by it than the beauty, elegance and sophistication of the Parisienne beauty.
Feminism, as I said, can come in many forms and the Parisienne lady with her perfect body and her fuck me shoes is as self-assured as can be. They have sexual confidence and are not afraid to use it but there is still a place for a more down-to-earth French feminism that does not rely on the old cliché of the French woman dressed in tight pin striped pencil skirt, with stockings suspenders, low cut blouse and gloriously colourful bras peeping out.
Zenpuss essentially delights at any woman or group of women who get up there and almost announce their sexuality to the world. Zenpuss essentially wants every woman to be free to celebrate and announce their sexuality in whatever way they want but simultaneously Zenpuss doesn’t want such overt sexuality to be restricted to the very groomed or the delightfully flaunty.
The ability to express one’s sexuality should be the domain of all women, and within that all French women, be it well-tailored capital dwellers or the less culturally refined from the urban capital of the south.
Just as a footnote, despite everything that I might have said about the concern I may have for these women falling into a cliché, I’d love to be young enough to catch their eye. I really do fancy a bit of a threesome with some of these women. I love their unrefined state, even the cagoles who dress up in a slightly more established French way to flaunt their beautifully tanned bodies.
I’d quite like to get an eyeful of their cunts, if they were indeed on offer. I’d love to see certain men enjoying these women’s delight at their own sexuality. I’d like to watch these women enjoying sex. I think I could happily get off on that, if indeed that is what they want and I am not falling into the cliché already of assuming that they are sexually overt young beings.
I mean, in all honesty, is there anything that is hornier than a person who has sexual confidence and is uninhibited in demonstrating it?
I love horny people and I simply wish that everyone could get to know their sexual being in order to break down sexual barriers once and for all.
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.20minutes.fr/article/402903/France-Sur-la-trace-des-cagoles-le-long-des-Champs-Elysees.php&ei=7RLnS5WFFIOKnQO5p62CBg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCMQ7gEwATgK&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcagoles%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26prmd%3Dvi
As for me, I'd be a Cagole any day. I don't know whether the word is entirely synonymous with our word "cajole" but given half the chance I'd like to use my sexuality to coax someone to fuck me. Now that has to be a positive skill to have in life.
And as the winner of Miss Cagole 2010 said "I am proud of who I am and all my friends". Good on her.
Friday 7 May 2010
A Day In The Life Of A Forty Something Woman
If anyone had told me a few years ago that I would know myself so well sexually I would have dismissed them as fanciful. I did!
If anyone had told me a few years ago that I would enjoy sex as much as I do I would have doubted that it was possible. I doubt no more.
If anyone had told me a few years ago that my desire for sex would be so intense I would have laughed at the prospect. I laugh at such a prospect no more.
Women in their forties, women at the prime of their lives should be enjoying sex, valuing their sexuality, celebrating their heightened libido.
Women in their forties should recognise the need and the desire for sex. They should know themselves well enough to appreciate when they are at their sexual peak and when their sexual urges are most prevalent, and they should not be alarmed if this sometimes feels that the button is pushed to constant.
I know I sound like a broken record but I really want women of my age to know what they are capable of enjoying sexually. I want women to know how utterly wonderful this regenerated sexuality can be. I want women who are currently in their thirties, who feel that their libido has disappeared, to know that there is a sexual future for them, and that it is totally exciting and invigorating; nothing like they have experienced before.
It all sounds so perfectly wonderful; ongoing orgasms, juicy ejaculations, increased libido.
Only it’s not that simple. There is a flip side to this delightful, perpetual state of sexuality. Sometimes the need and desire are not practical. Sometimes the need and desire cannot be fulfilled. That can be immensely frustrating.
I love wanking. I am really quite fond of doing things to myself that enriches my sexuality. I have adored learning about my own body; looking through a camera lens or a mirror at the complexities of my pussy. I have amazed myself at how turned on I am by my own sexuality; like a circle of sexual wellbeing – I masturbate, I look at how my cunt is aroused and this in itself exacerbates my arousal, and so it goes on. I feel particularly fortunate that I can bring myself to climax but I would hate to be reliant on this as my only form of sexual expression.
Sometimes though, that is what I have to rely on, and that can be exasperating. As I said, masturbation is fine and I would be the first to advocate it. I probably don’t do it enough but there is often a reason for this. If I wank, then this increases my desire for a fuck. It also releases a huge energetic climax but these days, I’m a multiple orgasm gal and one wank leads to a desire for another, and cock. That is why I like to wank in front of my lover because I know that it is arousing both of us and that after I have had a flourishing cum, he can whip his already aroused cock deep inside me and I can have a lot of what really turns me on.
But sometimes wanking on your own is not enough. Sometimes those with high libidos just want sex, penetrative sex. Sometimes, you just want to open your legs and await a huge erect cock and nothing else will do.
I count myself as very fortunate. I probably have sex more frequently than most. I definitely have wonderful sex more frequently than most but what I don’t have is the prospect of penetrative sex whenever I or my lover wants it.
That is frustrating too.
It’s also interesting that sometimes I can cope with it and there are other times when the need for sex is almost overwhelming, the desire so palpable that I feel as though I am going to go slightly insane if I cannot get what I want.
Part of that is an inherent impatience but part of it is a healthy respect for my increased libido, if that makes sense. I respect and acknowledge the extent of my sexuality even if this leads to a certain disappointment that I cannot have sex.
Recently, I haven’t had to wait that long for sex. I’ve had to wait for much longer periods of time in the past but this time the waiting has seemed so very long.
I’ve asked myself over and over again whether it is just the sex. But it’s not.
I’ve been wanking daily, with the exception of one day, so I’ve had my fair share of orgasms. I’ve done some fantasising and kept my mind alert to sexual thoughts. So sex in itself has been present in my days of not having penetrative sex.
And when I had the chance to have a gorgeous cock inside me, I didn’t feel so desperate that I needed to have him inside me immediately.
What I realised that I wanted more than anything was a hug. I needed and wanted human touch. I wanted the warmth of intimacy that is there on the telephone, in every communication, but feels so much more vital when it is accompanied by the immediacy of togetherness. I wanted the closeness of simply sitting in a room and occasionally reaching out to one another.
I think what I am trying to say is that every woman in her forties should recognise that they are sexual beings and that they should explore all aspects of their sexuality but they should also realise that if they are to get the best out of their sexuality, it should, if possible, be accompanied by plenty of meaningful hugs!
That is stating it too simply.
What I am really saying, once more, that sex is not just about the physical. Sex is far more complex than that.
I am responsible for my own happiness. I’m responsible for my own sexuality. Sometimes though, I am humbled by the love and affection of another that contributes so much to my wellbeing and to my sexuality.
Rightly or wrongly I feel like a different person today having had a healthy dose of consideration and conversation.
And a healthy dose of cock too!
It is so vital for me - all of it.
Today, I have had a completeness of everything even if there wasn’t quite time to embrace the fullness of our sexuality with one another. We had sex and we both needed it. It was utterly wonderful but there’s never enough time and it was the togetherness and the physical closeness that was as needed as the sex.
So, bringing this rambling to a needy conclusion I am suggesting that this particular forty something woman needs something extra for mind blowing, satisfied and stimulating sex, and she is forever humbled by what she has.
Maybe it isn’t just the age that is important for a woman’s sexuality to be at its peak. Maybe the only reason that I, like other women of my age, can have a complete and fulfilled sexual life is more to do with my outlook on life, more to do with the maturity and development of the mind, the understanding of oneself than the fact that I am in my forties.
Clearly maturity comes with chronology but not always.
It’s time to open minds as well as legs. Enjoy the latter now but nurture the former too.
I'm still committed to the notion that women in their forties are at their sexual peak. I'm still committed to the idea of spreading the word about this and enlightening people on their own sexual potential. I still advocate that women should be exploring their sexuality without the constraints that currently contain some women and that if women want to fuck around (safely) enjoying multiple partners with no desire for intimacy, then that is fine too, if that is what gets them off.
For me though, however much I adore sex, it would never be enough on its own.
I want sex with intimacy because that excites me more than anything else.
And yes, sex can be done alone, and it's fucking good, but I need and want so much more.
I really do think that I need penetrative sex with my lover on a daily basis but I want the hugs too. But then I am a greedy girl who is more of an idealist than a realist, and I would never be so selfish as to thrust myself on him, oblivious to his needs jsut to satsify my ruthlessly huge libido.
And now I am off to bed where I am going to tickle my labia with my fingers and then I am going to have a feel around for the remnants of sperm from a very satisfied cock that so recently spunked in me.
Oh, and before that I will take my panties off which are currently inside out and back to front such was the appalling rush that I reclothed myself earlier.
Mmmmmm - love being so fucked that I cannot remember how to dress myself afterwards.
If anyone had told me a few years ago that I would enjoy sex as much as I do I would have doubted that it was possible. I doubt no more.
If anyone had told me a few years ago that my desire for sex would be so intense I would have laughed at the prospect. I laugh at such a prospect no more.
Women in their forties, women at the prime of their lives should be enjoying sex, valuing their sexuality, celebrating their heightened libido.
Women in their forties should recognise the need and the desire for sex. They should know themselves well enough to appreciate when they are at their sexual peak and when their sexual urges are most prevalent, and they should not be alarmed if this sometimes feels that the button is pushed to constant.
I know I sound like a broken record but I really want women of my age to know what they are capable of enjoying sexually. I want women to know how utterly wonderful this regenerated sexuality can be. I want women who are currently in their thirties, who feel that their libido has disappeared, to know that there is a sexual future for them, and that it is totally exciting and invigorating; nothing like they have experienced before.
It all sounds so perfectly wonderful; ongoing orgasms, juicy ejaculations, increased libido.
Only it’s not that simple. There is a flip side to this delightful, perpetual state of sexuality. Sometimes the need and desire are not practical. Sometimes the need and desire cannot be fulfilled. That can be immensely frustrating.
I love wanking. I am really quite fond of doing things to myself that enriches my sexuality. I have adored learning about my own body; looking through a camera lens or a mirror at the complexities of my pussy. I have amazed myself at how turned on I am by my own sexuality; like a circle of sexual wellbeing – I masturbate, I look at how my cunt is aroused and this in itself exacerbates my arousal, and so it goes on. I feel particularly fortunate that I can bring myself to climax but I would hate to be reliant on this as my only form of sexual expression.
Sometimes though, that is what I have to rely on, and that can be exasperating. As I said, masturbation is fine and I would be the first to advocate it. I probably don’t do it enough but there is often a reason for this. If I wank, then this increases my desire for a fuck. It also releases a huge energetic climax but these days, I’m a multiple orgasm gal and one wank leads to a desire for another, and cock. That is why I like to wank in front of my lover because I know that it is arousing both of us and that after I have had a flourishing cum, he can whip his already aroused cock deep inside me and I can have a lot of what really turns me on.
But sometimes wanking on your own is not enough. Sometimes those with high libidos just want sex, penetrative sex. Sometimes, you just want to open your legs and await a huge erect cock and nothing else will do.
I count myself as very fortunate. I probably have sex more frequently than most. I definitely have wonderful sex more frequently than most but what I don’t have is the prospect of penetrative sex whenever I or my lover wants it.
That is frustrating too.
It’s also interesting that sometimes I can cope with it and there are other times when the need for sex is almost overwhelming, the desire so palpable that I feel as though I am going to go slightly insane if I cannot get what I want.
Part of that is an inherent impatience but part of it is a healthy respect for my increased libido, if that makes sense. I respect and acknowledge the extent of my sexuality even if this leads to a certain disappointment that I cannot have sex.
Recently, I haven’t had to wait that long for sex. I’ve had to wait for much longer periods of time in the past but this time the waiting has seemed so very long.
I’ve asked myself over and over again whether it is just the sex. But it’s not.
I’ve been wanking daily, with the exception of one day, so I’ve had my fair share of orgasms. I’ve done some fantasising and kept my mind alert to sexual thoughts. So sex in itself has been present in my days of not having penetrative sex.
And when I had the chance to have a gorgeous cock inside me, I didn’t feel so desperate that I needed to have him inside me immediately.
What I realised that I wanted more than anything was a hug. I needed and wanted human touch. I wanted the warmth of intimacy that is there on the telephone, in every communication, but feels so much more vital when it is accompanied by the immediacy of togetherness. I wanted the closeness of simply sitting in a room and occasionally reaching out to one another.
I think what I am trying to say is that every woman in her forties should recognise that they are sexual beings and that they should explore all aspects of their sexuality but they should also realise that if they are to get the best out of their sexuality, it should, if possible, be accompanied by plenty of meaningful hugs!
That is stating it too simply.
What I am really saying, once more, that sex is not just about the physical. Sex is far more complex than that.
I am responsible for my own happiness. I’m responsible for my own sexuality. Sometimes though, I am humbled by the love and affection of another that contributes so much to my wellbeing and to my sexuality.
Rightly or wrongly I feel like a different person today having had a healthy dose of consideration and conversation.
And a healthy dose of cock too!
It is so vital for me - all of it.
Today, I have had a completeness of everything even if there wasn’t quite time to embrace the fullness of our sexuality with one another. We had sex and we both needed it. It was utterly wonderful but there’s never enough time and it was the togetherness and the physical closeness that was as needed as the sex.
So, bringing this rambling to a needy conclusion I am suggesting that this particular forty something woman needs something extra for mind blowing, satisfied and stimulating sex, and she is forever humbled by what she has.
Maybe it isn’t just the age that is important for a woman’s sexuality to be at its peak. Maybe the only reason that I, like other women of my age, can have a complete and fulfilled sexual life is more to do with my outlook on life, more to do with the maturity and development of the mind, the understanding of oneself than the fact that I am in my forties.
Clearly maturity comes with chronology but not always.
It’s time to open minds as well as legs. Enjoy the latter now but nurture the former too.
I'm still committed to the notion that women in their forties are at their sexual peak. I'm still committed to the idea of spreading the word about this and enlightening people on their own sexual potential. I still advocate that women should be exploring their sexuality without the constraints that currently contain some women and that if women want to fuck around (safely) enjoying multiple partners with no desire for intimacy, then that is fine too, if that is what gets them off.
For me though, however much I adore sex, it would never be enough on its own.
I want sex with intimacy because that excites me more than anything else.
And yes, sex can be done alone, and it's fucking good, but I need and want so much more.
I really do think that I need penetrative sex with my lover on a daily basis but I want the hugs too. But then I am a greedy girl who is more of an idealist than a realist, and I would never be so selfish as to thrust myself on him, oblivious to his needs jsut to satsify my ruthlessly huge libido.
And now I am off to bed where I am going to tickle my labia with my fingers and then I am going to have a feel around for the remnants of sperm from a very satisfied cock that so recently spunked in me.
Oh, and before that I will take my panties off which are currently inside out and back to front such was the appalling rush that I reclothed myself earlier.
Mmmmmm - love being so fucked that I cannot remember how to dress myself afterwards.
Sunday 2 May 2010
Sexual Biorhythms
Sexual Biorhythms
For those who do not know anything about biorhythms, here is a quick reference site for you.
http://www.facade.com/biorhythm/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biorhythm
Biorhythms essentially plot an oscillating pattern relating to an individual’s intellectual, physical and emotional cycle.
At certain points in a given month, you can be on a high point for intellect but simultaneously you could have a lower physical strength. Sometimes, all three lines appear at the top of the scale whilst other times, they may be at their lowest peak. So you could be intellectually, physically and emotionally high altogether.
Zenpuss suggests that this might be a glorious time to get fucking!
Seriously though, it makes sense to have a look at these biorhythms from time to time.
Just as it is with horoscopes, they don’t have to be interpreted completely literally but more of a guidance.
If, for instance, you were about to partake in a raunchy weekend of a sex and you noticed that your biorhythms suggested that you were low on the physical side, it shouldn’t stop you going ahead for your shag-fest at all. Instead, you should consider that you probably need to conserve all of your physical energy for this rather than having additional physical strength for other activities.
It’s a question of priorities, and there is none greater than sex.
I recently looked at my biorhythms and they were looking fairly healthy. They were all reaching a high peak during the last week. Retrospectively, this seemed to comply with my general sense of being and it certainly matched the rather gorgeous sex that I had last week which ranged from the naughtily daring, with a potential of being caught with my panties around my ankles, to the perfect love making when heart, mind and soul are working simultaneously for the very best sex.
Looking further on, all three lines, intellectual, emotional and physical, are descending, culminating in their lowest point next weekend. So does this mean that I shouldn’t have sex this week?
Does it bollocks?
Clearly, this is a classic example of where biorhythms shouldn’t dictate your behaviour but you should be mindful of potential pitfalls along the way. Clearly, the science of biorhythms has not catered for my ever increasing libido, which remains high but also remains needy on a daily basis (and that is not because of a lack of good sex; it is because of a lack of good sex twice daily!)
Looking after oneself sexually is extremely important. Whilst I acknowledge that I may have a higher libido than some or more feasibly that I am more aware of my libido than some, it is still important for everyone to be mindful of their sexuality and take notice when it is crying out for attention.
This week my lover almost reprimanded me for not being honest about my needs and desires. He suggested that I wasn’t always as up front about my need for a fuck. Instead I tended to veil my needs according to his desires. The truth of this is that I am not veiling anything of the kind but I don’t just want sex. I want whoever I am having sex with to want it as much as me, which thankfully is the case. I really wouldn’t want to have sex with this man if he wasn’t getting anything from it. That just wouldn’t do either of us any good.
However, I will take note and be more assertive in the future. He’d better check under my skirt immediately next time I arrive at his house because there will be direct access to a juicy pussy; no flicking knickers out of the way. Dive right in there boy!
But he also had a point.
Looking at my biorhythms it was clear that I was at a peak and therefore, being the libidinous person that I am, I probably had a heightened need and desire for sex (as if I need to rely on biorhythms for this).
At the start of the week, my intellectual line was particularly high.
To have such a discussion about sex is intellectually stimulating. It is so intellectually stimulating that it creates an emotional bond and with that comes the inevitable physical state of sexuality in dual erections and lubrication of pussy and cock.
There was no time to whip into another room to do something about both of our sexual desire during that conversation. Kneeling down in front of a very erect cock was stimulating enough. I responded according to what my then blindly unacknowledged biorhythms were telling me.
Later on in the week, my biorhythms indicated that I was at an emotional high. I needed interaction and a sexual interaction at that. I needed sex but more importantly or as importantly, I needed to be held, to be embraced, to feel that the sex was an emotional as well as physical attachment. Luckily this was feasible and without too much protestation (well, none actually) we whisked off to the bedroom and enjoyed a very sloppy session of much gushing, much fellatio and plenty of hugs through glorious penetration.
And the week went on, and my physical peak was at the forefront. Physical equates to sex as far as I am concerned and you cannot let a physical peak go without having some serious energy used up during a sex-fest.
Perhaps if women are at their highest level on the biorhythm chart for the physical, they should take this as a sign to ride some cock rather than proceeding with a missionary position.
Like a horse rearing at the bit, I duly complied and rode my beauty with as much physical energy as the passion I felt from doing so. Squirts galore ensued. How I love to soak his balls with his cock firmly directed right up my cunt.
But it was also at this time in the week where the three lines were in close proximity. The intellectual, the emotional and the physical were all high. This cock riding was merely one element. There was talk; sexual talk, thinking, minds coming together. There was a deep intimacy in thought. There was gentle consideration and there was delightfully urgent fucking.
It all fitted perfectly with my biorhythm for the day.
Of course, sex is about two people and if you are going to be guided by your biorhythms then it might be worth looking at your sexual partner’s biorhythms too (if you now their birthdate).
Looking at my lover’s for last week, it seems that his emotional line was at its peak just at the time I was riding his cock to orgasm, which is nice!
Looking to next week, it looks as though his physical high is hitting its peak about Tuesday, so I think I ought to nip over for a quickie whilst the cock is riding high!
And, as I said, the biorhythms should be a guide and should never be used as an excuse to resist sex. “Sorry darling, I’ve got a low biorhythm!” won’t wash too well with me. “Tough titties, mine’s going through the roof. Oblige, s’il tu plait” might be my new assertive response!
Like so many things in life, sex should be about intellect, emotion and the physical. If there is something out there that can guide us in maximising these things then we should seriously consider them for all aspects of life. As for sex, well this should definitely be the case.
Have a look at your biorhythms now, and happy fucking!
For those who do not know anything about biorhythms, here is a quick reference site for you.
http://www.facade.com/biorhythm/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biorhythm
Biorhythms essentially plot an oscillating pattern relating to an individual’s intellectual, physical and emotional cycle.
At certain points in a given month, you can be on a high point for intellect but simultaneously you could have a lower physical strength. Sometimes, all three lines appear at the top of the scale whilst other times, they may be at their lowest peak. So you could be intellectually, physically and emotionally high altogether.
Zenpuss suggests that this might be a glorious time to get fucking!
Seriously though, it makes sense to have a look at these biorhythms from time to time.
Just as it is with horoscopes, they don’t have to be interpreted completely literally but more of a guidance.
If, for instance, you were about to partake in a raunchy weekend of a sex and you noticed that your biorhythms suggested that you were low on the physical side, it shouldn’t stop you going ahead for your shag-fest at all. Instead, you should consider that you probably need to conserve all of your physical energy for this rather than having additional physical strength for other activities.
It’s a question of priorities, and there is none greater than sex.
I recently looked at my biorhythms and they were looking fairly healthy. They were all reaching a high peak during the last week. Retrospectively, this seemed to comply with my general sense of being and it certainly matched the rather gorgeous sex that I had last week which ranged from the naughtily daring, with a potential of being caught with my panties around my ankles, to the perfect love making when heart, mind and soul are working simultaneously for the very best sex.
Looking further on, all three lines, intellectual, emotional and physical, are descending, culminating in their lowest point next weekend. So does this mean that I shouldn’t have sex this week?
Does it bollocks?
Clearly, this is a classic example of where biorhythms shouldn’t dictate your behaviour but you should be mindful of potential pitfalls along the way. Clearly, the science of biorhythms has not catered for my ever increasing libido, which remains high but also remains needy on a daily basis (and that is not because of a lack of good sex; it is because of a lack of good sex twice daily!)
Looking after oneself sexually is extremely important. Whilst I acknowledge that I may have a higher libido than some or more feasibly that I am more aware of my libido than some, it is still important for everyone to be mindful of their sexuality and take notice when it is crying out for attention.
This week my lover almost reprimanded me for not being honest about my needs and desires. He suggested that I wasn’t always as up front about my need for a fuck. Instead I tended to veil my needs according to his desires. The truth of this is that I am not veiling anything of the kind but I don’t just want sex. I want whoever I am having sex with to want it as much as me, which thankfully is the case. I really wouldn’t want to have sex with this man if he wasn’t getting anything from it. That just wouldn’t do either of us any good.
However, I will take note and be more assertive in the future. He’d better check under my skirt immediately next time I arrive at his house because there will be direct access to a juicy pussy; no flicking knickers out of the way. Dive right in there boy!
But he also had a point.
Looking at my biorhythms it was clear that I was at a peak and therefore, being the libidinous person that I am, I probably had a heightened need and desire for sex (as if I need to rely on biorhythms for this).
At the start of the week, my intellectual line was particularly high.
To have such a discussion about sex is intellectually stimulating. It is so intellectually stimulating that it creates an emotional bond and with that comes the inevitable physical state of sexuality in dual erections and lubrication of pussy and cock.
There was no time to whip into another room to do something about both of our sexual desire during that conversation. Kneeling down in front of a very erect cock was stimulating enough. I responded according to what my then blindly unacknowledged biorhythms were telling me.
Later on in the week, my biorhythms indicated that I was at an emotional high. I needed interaction and a sexual interaction at that. I needed sex but more importantly or as importantly, I needed to be held, to be embraced, to feel that the sex was an emotional as well as physical attachment. Luckily this was feasible and without too much protestation (well, none actually) we whisked off to the bedroom and enjoyed a very sloppy session of much gushing, much fellatio and plenty of hugs through glorious penetration.
And the week went on, and my physical peak was at the forefront. Physical equates to sex as far as I am concerned and you cannot let a physical peak go without having some serious energy used up during a sex-fest.
Perhaps if women are at their highest level on the biorhythm chart for the physical, they should take this as a sign to ride some cock rather than proceeding with a missionary position.
Like a horse rearing at the bit, I duly complied and rode my beauty with as much physical energy as the passion I felt from doing so. Squirts galore ensued. How I love to soak his balls with his cock firmly directed right up my cunt.
But it was also at this time in the week where the three lines were in close proximity. The intellectual, the emotional and the physical were all high. This cock riding was merely one element. There was talk; sexual talk, thinking, minds coming together. There was a deep intimacy in thought. There was gentle consideration and there was delightfully urgent fucking.
It all fitted perfectly with my biorhythm for the day.
Of course, sex is about two people and if you are going to be guided by your biorhythms then it might be worth looking at your sexual partner’s biorhythms too (if you now their birthdate).
Looking at my lover’s for last week, it seems that his emotional line was at its peak just at the time I was riding his cock to orgasm, which is nice!
Looking to next week, it looks as though his physical high is hitting its peak about Tuesday, so I think I ought to nip over for a quickie whilst the cock is riding high!
And, as I said, the biorhythms should be a guide and should never be used as an excuse to resist sex. “Sorry darling, I’ve got a low biorhythm!” won’t wash too well with me. “Tough titties, mine’s going through the roof. Oblige, s’il tu plait” might be my new assertive response!
Like so many things in life, sex should be about intellect, emotion and the physical. If there is something out there that can guide us in maximising these things then we should seriously consider them for all aspects of life. As for sex, well this should definitely be the case.
Have a look at your biorhythms now, and happy fucking!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)