Hakki Alacakaptan:
> Thanks for bringing this up. The answer to your questions lies in the false
> assumption that men and women are "hard wired" for mutual sexual bliss. The
> only hard wiring is for procreation. The pleasure part is just the
> honey-trap and it's only as good as it needs to be to achieve the desired
> end.
This ain't necessarily so. Obviously, sexual relationships and behavior have more effects on human beings than to get some of them pregnant. So they can affect the well-being, survival and growth of their communities. For instance, sexual behavior could enhance affection between members of a community. Given the rather aggressive character of humans, this might be useful to prevent them from killing off one another to the point where communal survival was threatened.
> Let me generalize a bit: It's a fact that womens' sexual pleasure is
> far more intense, total, and enduring than mens' is. This huge rush makes a
> woman much more energetic and active in lovemaking than a far more fit and
> athletic man. Women have to restrain themselves in order not to scare their
> partners into flaccidity. Men, OTOH, rarely enjoy a lasting pleasure and
> tension that would make protracted lovemaking worthwhile. Their pleasure is
> brief, so they have a tendency to go for it instead of waiting for their
> partner. So heterosexual lovemaking is really a compromise at best. Stuff
> I've read about Inuits, Bantus, and Trobianders suggests this ain't
> necesarily so for pre-industrial cultures, but the difference isn't purely
> cultural and has to with environmental factors such as endocrine disruptors
> as well (sperm counts falling and all that). Also, widespread use of viagra
> and similar drugs may change the picture.
>
> Anyway, the pleasure imbalance is something men and women should recognize
> and deal with, instead of calling each other names.
You're assuming here that only one-on-one sexual encounters occur. However, I've read of isolated peoples who practice (or practiced) various forms of sex in groups, which would obviate some of these problems. (_Keep_The_River_On_Your_Right_, for example.) While this sort of thing is probably too radically different from what we are accustomed to not to elicit a inhibiting plethora of negative anecdotes, it's also possible for individuals to modify their responses considerably through a certain amount of practice and training. But the contemporary social world, with its emphasis on conquest and acquisition, militates the other way.
-- Gordon