Man's Sexual Appetite

As a woman, I have been told for years that men think about sex every 7 seconds and that its all they want from a woman (apart from maybe darning his socks and cooking his dinner). Mens magazines (I realise that just like womens magazines do not speak the truth, only part of it), tell us that men want a woman who is a whore in the bedroom and a chef in the kitchen etc and he likes nothing more than a naughty rampant woman to date.

I would like to say that I think its total bullshit - since nearly (bar one) every man i’ve ever been in a relationship with, has been greatly enthused with sex at the honeymoon end of the relationship - but after about 2 months this wears off (sometimes doesn’t even get started), and no longer does he want marathon sex sessions OR sex all that often at all. I think that it is a myth that men are even that much into sex - and wonder why it is we are told that they are when in my experience (and most of my girlfriends too) they are bored by it when us women have only just got warmed up. I feel that they love to talk about it (apart from those gents of you here who see it as a terribly base thing far below their vast intellectual brains to possibly begin to enjoy that much), and maybe they are happier talking about it than actually doing it.

Why did nature organize it so women tend to be able to go for hours on end and men generally have no interest in doing so and are usually happy with getting to the point very fast. I find this so fascinating that when men and women are meant to ‘gel’ and obviously procreate - why make our sexual needs SO different. This makes no evolutionary sense to me.

Men often boast of their love of sex, and the love of foreplay too - but they only really bring that out at the beginning of relatoinships to trick us ladies into thinking that they are into it, but merely to keep us interested long enough to get to the more functional wham-bam sex later on.
This always made me wonder why men have several wives in some cultures - when it should be women who have several husbands to keep her sexually satisfied - HOW do these men satisfy several wives? (as they still have in some of the mormon faith’s and certainly some arab cultures). I can’t see how its possible when the biology dictates that women have the preference for more prolonged sex (although i realise that polygamy was not invented for the pleasure of females).

I think Jack Nicholson probably was right when he said “Men look at sex very differently from women. A male person has more in common with a dog than he does with a woman”. Maybe you guys would be happier if we had a season and you could get your rocks off left right and centre with any woman, and the rest of the time can get on with your deep thinking without being interrupted by the call from your loins…

So do men really receive that little pleasure from sex? Should all us girls just take female lovers instead!? Do men not enjoy the sensual side to sex - or is modern man’s enjoyment of ‘foreplay’ another ‘feminization’ that is allegedly happening to us all.

realizing most of my interactions are a result of instincts+ dumbing down of most women due to the artificial patriarchal structure of society and human relations only gives a sexual appetite and nothing more

It’s true what Grizzle is saying. Most men become disinterested in sex when they reach 30 as their tesoterone levels go into a free fall. Most men are not sex maniacs as some magazines make them out to be, maybe only those in their early 20s are into sex and when they get to 30, all the pressures of work, family make a man impotent.

As a man in his early 20s, I think about sex maybe twice a week, that’s because I masterbated alot in my earlier years so it kinda took the surprise out of porn as I have seen virtually every category. If a relationship is based on purely sex then the man get bored of the same pussy easily. A man is not a sex animal, and I can confirm what Grizzle is saying because almost all of it totally true but guys want to appear sexually active so as to boast their self-esteem when in actual fact they haven’t had sex in years, hence the rise in modern prostate cancer rate.

I think the reason why men are not having marathone sex in their 30s is because of pressure from work, pressure from society and the fact life is boring directionless for many people plus no exercise so difficult to sustain a proper erection which is VERY common among men in their 30s.

To appear sexually active is nothing more than a self-esteem booster for men. Some guys who says they haves sex with 3 different women in a night are generally liars or guys desperately needing respect. This dude I know is 38, and he is not having sex at all, the last time we went to a brothel he admitted it was his first time in over 5 years.

Men’s sexual drive go into freefall in their mid to late 30s, but they still want to appear sexually active because even us men don’t want to get old.

Very interesting.

Yeah, I think society does exhaust men (and women). I know a female friend who totally went off sex after she’d had her baby, and literally hasn’t even thought about it (i think about it alot, even more if i’m getting it LOL). I can see how kids would make females reevaluate sex and i’m sure there is programming in place to maek sure she only cares about the baby after she’s had it rather than galavanting around looking for the next man to ride.

My first boyfriend was rampant, and that was when i was alot younger - and i really havn’t met a man with that kind of appetite since. Some men surprise me (who are in their 20’s) who seem surprisingly uninterested in sex. I’ve not had children and think maybe its too late for me - just because i’d have preferred to have them earlier. Don’t fancy the idea of being an older mum.

I think what old timer says is probably right - I have always been interested in younger men as they seem more vibrant and energetic than older guys who just don’t seem to want a great good roll in the hay! But there are always exceptions of course.

Maybe I need several lovers… hmmm.

That’s an interesting theory. Looking at this from a biological/evolutionary point of view it would make sense to say that nature wants females to remain on a “ready” status for longer than males (remain sexually receptive). Of course the fertility period itself is limited (heat seasons, ovulation stage, receptivity, etc.) but once “in heat” the female is capable of accommodating several males (male sex drives). This, though, seems to put some of the emphasis of natural selection off of female choice. In an environment in which there are several males of relatively same desirability, the female may simply mate with as many as she’s “wants to” (or as long as she’s receptive), but since she’ll receive several genetic samples in one fertile period, some of the determination will rest on the quality of the sperm, itself. This theory also explains the shape and reason behind the male phallus. In other words, natural selection seems to prefer (in order to achieve genetic success), that one female mate with at least several males.

I believe it was a ladyjane that started a thread on gangbangs and rape. With regards to his/her thought about painful sex I now tend to disagree with this theory. From evolutionary point of view, it doesn’t make sense. According to his/her theory “pain-like” love moans of the female are an evolutionary remnants of pain females had experienced during sex, that is, males enjoy inflicting pain on females during sex and nature seemed to have intended it to be so (well, from evolutionary point of view). But animals in nature flee pain. If procreation (sexual one) is important to evolution, why make it painful…something that animals try to escape?
It simply doesn’t make sense. If animals (females in this instance) flee from pain, then such (painful) procreation mechanism will make the reproduction even more difficult. Why would evolution make sex painful? :-k

As for the pain factor, it should be pointed out that even in porn the men usually perform oral sex on the women. Most men wouldn’t fancy doing this in real life, at least none of the ones I know, but it goes to show that men like to please the woman; even in a fantasy scenario.
As far as evolution goes, a friend of mine told me recently that a particular group of monkeys relies in great part on the stimulation of the male through the sounds of the female and that in fact, the male finds it almost impossible to orgasm without the sexual sounds of the female. Perhaps the pain is simply making sure that this audio factor is never omitted. I speak for myself, but I’m assuming most of the guys will agree, that a woman’s sounds during sex are virtually heavenly and even porn without sound is useless.

Well, as a woman, I can tell you that at a certain point of a woman’s sexual arousal (the real one), the moans become auto-physiological responses, that is, they are not invoked by the mind but come by themselves; it is an actual auto-erotic/physiological response.

I have been thinking about it (the pain theory, that is), as well, and I have reached pretty much the same conclusion as Rouzeh. Here’s what I was thinking:
I have decided that real pain could not have been it, so the next logical guess is that it might have been part of mimicry mechanism, that is, the sounds uttered by a female are designed (by evolution) to mimic pain. As to why a female would need to mimic pain I am still not completely certain, but I am pretty certain that it ends up functioning as communication between the two in a feedback loop, that is, the male seems to be “guided/cheered on” by the sound at least on subconscious/animal level. That would support ladyjane’s idea that the male is attracted to pain, that is, the male on a certain fundamental level, enjoys “inflicting” pain – perhaps this has something to do with the male innate aggression. It is possible that female has co-evolved to play on such male drive.

One thing that is odd with this theory is that, as far as I know, such unique reproductive dynamic (feedback loop based on mimicry and response) seems to apply only to humans, because I simply could not think of any other animal with the same reproductive mechanism to compare it to. I was thinking of this element of male aggression in reproduction/sex, and it actually reminded me of a video of an unusual mating behavior in the birds that I have once seen. At the very last stage of his courtship (before actual mating) the male (the greater bird of paradise) pecks at the female head at the same time as he forcefully beats/flaps wings around her. Definitely, this is a display of an aggressive behavior on the part of the male. But I am certain that it is not intended towards the female. The female in this instance is not his enemy, that is, he is not trying to injure her or drive her off his territory. The female does not flee; in fact, quite on the contrary, such aggressive behavior seems to be encouraged (wanted) by the female. This is just my theory, but it is possible that if an aggressive behavior is crucial to the species’ survival (because of its dangerous environment, or what not), it might be the case that the female needs to test the male’s various abilities (endurance, health, strength, intelligence, ingenuity, etcetera…), including his level of aggression, and this is one of the more direct ways that a male aggressive behavior can be displayed, seen, and tested.

I was thinking about the issue from the fight-or-flight response point of view that you have presented, and in my research I accidentally stumbled onto this interesting article.
If we consider the hypothetical possibility that the moans are actually designed to function as a vocal appeasement signal (due female anatomical changes) to the male, then this would mean that a complete reversal of the fight/flight stimulus-response mechanism has happened! When an animal attacks and is given an appeasement signal from the other, he instinctively stops attacking (or wants to stop), but in this case the opposite is happening. The male is given an appeasement signal, but instead of stopping, he feels irresistible urge to continue “attacking.” This is getting quite bizarre. :-k

The answer is simple: you are under a grievious misconception about male sexual appetites.

We do want sex continually, but not with the same female. We are biochemically built for “be fruitful and multiply” … meaning we want to screw the legs off a different female every 7 - 10 seconds, not the same one repeatedly.

Understanding that if males had their desires met, we would likely die in a matter of days from sheer exhaustion and nutrient depletion. Ergo, the female prefers a more sustainable sexual relationship … which slowly bleeds the life out of the man over a due course of many years, leaving him an empty, shriveled husk lacking will, desire or motivation.

Checks/balances. Either way, the man dies before the end of the story.

Don’t take this personally, since I don’t know anything about you and so this isn’t a targeted comment but rather is a comment on a general trend that I have noticed from the women that I have been involved with: women who think that men are more sexual than women also tend to think that sex is, by default, fun for the man. That means that the man has to engaged in marathon foreplay sessions and all manner of other things and in return they get a dead fish laying there in missionary position. This is terribly boring, and doesn’t feel that great. Think of those first few months as laying the foundation for bigger and better sexual experiences, I sure do. And, yeah, if I find out they aren’t coming, sex quickly becomes a chore for me and I’ll just do a quick wham-bam because that is all I’d been getting anyway – I’m balancing out the effort put into the interaction. Women who don’t think about it in terms of more/less desire/pleasure and instead merely think of it in terms of what they and their partner want as unique sexual entities tend to do much better on that particular front.

With regards to evolution of sexual pleasure: Considering our rear-to-front change theory, it would make sense to say that pleasure came after and as a result of this change. Consider this: when a female is fully aroused she is so ecstatic about it, she is practically, you may say, paralyzed with pleasure. Why would pleasure need to have this particular effect on a female? Is it arbitrary? I don’t think that it is. It is possible that pleasure evolved to counter fear and/or pain that female had experienced previously as a result of the change in sex position. After all, reproduction must continue and it must continue with efficiency. The female had no choice now; she (and the male) had to have sex in a frontal position and she has to develop a way to cope with this. The fear and/or pain that the female had experienced as a result of the change would have certainly hindered the reproduction process of protohumans, so something (a new mechanism) had to evolve (or die out) to fix it and bring reproduction back to its most efficient level. I think female pleasure (as well as development of empathy which you have mentioned) might have been the nature’s answer to this problem. Pleasure acts as a natural inhibitor of fear/pain.

If the female felt only fear (and pain) during this new frontal sex position, then the efficiency and the speed of reproduction would still suffer. It is still an unpleasant experience for her – she still does not like it and will tend to be unreceptive to sexual advances. If, however, and despite the fear, she also felt pleasure during intercourse, then reproduction would tend to return to its previous efficiency level.

As far as the actual manifestation of this, I would say that it was, at first, a female’s bodily (hormonal) response to this new stimulus (that is, re-action to both penile and psychological/instinctual stimulation), modified and fine-tuned by the male’s behavior.
So, in short, it would make sense to say that pleasure in sex (well, in female anyway) has evolved to counter the “flight” response from the aggressive-like behavior of the partner. Well, so much for the theory of evolution of female sexual pleasure. I think it’s actually more complicated than this, but because I didn’t have time to dwell deeper into this, I’d consider this as a rough sketch.

Sidenote 1: Interestingly, this theory also seems to suggest that female physiology might have begun to change to its upright position faster than that of male. I base this on the supposition that the male had to play catch up with the female’s anatomy. The theory suggest that as the physiological change that was taking place, the position of the female genitalia had moved, but the male’s sex organ did not have enough time to change (grow), to accommodate for this change. So, meanwhile, the male had to resort to having sex with the female from the front.

Sidenote 2: It looks like our relatives, bonobos, are already at the point of evolution at which they find it pleasurable, and coincidently enough, they also engage in frontal sex. I don’t know if this has much relevance, but this is something that I’ve noticed.

Another concept that I recently came across and that got me thinking is the predator/prey instinct. By invoking pain I believe that the female is actually playing on the male’s predator instinct (I think here it would be safe to say that the predator instinct is very similar to the fight side of the fight/flight response that you introduced). I would like to explore this further. Here’s how I believe it has evolved. During this anatomical/sexual transition period I believe that the female was reluctant (or more so) to engage in sex, so basically, the male ended up chasing the female when he wanted to engage in sex. The female would likely to be intimidated and would want to flee. During this transitional period the male, via constant chasing, would have developed a predator instinct when it came to sex (his sex drive would have been incorporated into predator instinct), and would have developed the same attitude towards the female, that is, the female is also “prey” that has to be chased down. Anyhow, this has, over constant repetition and over however many eons, become a hardwired instinctual response in the male.

Now, let us suppose that it is a female that wants to engage in sex but the male (for whatever reason) does not want to. What is she to do? The female has to find a way to persuade the male to engage in sex, and playing on the male’s “predator” instinct (which by now has already fused with sex drive) would do the trick. The female would basically play “prey” or tease-lure the male via her body language. This method would be very effective because the male’s response has already been hardwired for this. (female prey=sex=arousal). Now, suppose they are having sex and the male is, for whatever reason, disinterested in it. The female must, once again, persuade the male to continue, hence the moans. By moaning (the auto-physiological response), the female would play “prey” once more and basically say “chase me” to which the male is now hardwired to respond. Anyway, this is all just an attempt to make sense of the hypothetical “pain-like” moans and the feedback loop we talked about.

Hmm, I think if a man had a row of ten women laid in front of him he’d not have the spunk or the energy to finish the job.
This still does not explain why it would be in natures interest to have men and women be THIS different. I understand totally the wanting to spread the seed - that is understandable as the man wants to get his genes out there. But he only needs to take a minute to do it. He doesn’t need to spend time. There are men out there who DO enjoy spending time and don’t want to fuck their way round a cheerleader team.

In response to the pain idea - i’m not sure that all women DO sound like they are in pain when they are orgasming. The face on a male can look like agony as well - depending on the man - but women can range from the ecstasy (without pain) to faces and moans which could sound like she is in pain. The fact is we are all inteligent enough to know that we are not inflicting pain.

This idea that men like inflicting pain i think is wrong too - it also forgets that females (all through nature) are more than capable of taking care of themselves and defending themelsves physically from males if the need arises. Its only in our twisted culture where we are brought up to believe we have no chance against a man if he attacks us (very clever work by the males in power), so keeps the female thinking she is a helpless creature with no chance of defending her body if she was physically attacked. Luckily there are women out there who are teaching real self defence (model mugging/full force self defence).

Sex is great on its own - but BOTH sexes enjoy it infinitely more when they are with someone they are very intimately close to. Sure there is the excitement of the ‘newness’ of a fleeting affair or a one night stand etc. But to really know someone and be that close to them is massively satisfying for males and females. In fact the only females and males i know who are ‘commitment phobic’ are people who have more often than not been extremely hurt in a past relationship and or another negative human experience so are determined not to let themselves be vulnerable.

I’ve gone off topic now - but hey - its my thread. I didn’t know what part of the forum this thread should be in - but mundane babble is as good as any. Maybe natural sciences could have been one.

Yes, i’ve heard about the dead fish syndrome from many men. VERY strange. I couldn’t personally lie there prostrate and not respond. How can you not get involved!? I’ve only once come across (so to speak) a male equivalent of sorts where he makes no sound whatsoever. I find that VERY very offputting and distant.

Sex would be very boring if it were a marathon session every single time - i agree. Wham bam is sometimes absolutely fantastic and essential. Variety is the spice of life as they say.