Ok, thanks Janice, this settles it. Women are addicted to their own victimhood. Maybe a 12 step program for this? "Hi, my name is Mary and I am addicted to victimhood." Yup, I can see that and the rest of the meeting being very therapeutic.
Janice said: (don’t even think about all the obvious evolutionary reasons why this might be so!).
This kept going through my mind. How can the biological/evolutionary be so ignored? Only by feminists! Oh yeah, feminists addicted to victimhood. lol
Great stuff Janice and thanks so much for the data on lesbian relationships diminishing interest in sex. Very interesting.
Looking back into articles that were commonly published in the Women's Magazines that delved into relationships, with questionnaires about the status of the relationship a very strong pattern of subtle propaganda emerges.
A mate once comment that his wife would be unhappy after reading these magazines, his simple reply was "She should stop reading them!"
The Dartmouth "Facial Scar experiment" adds more context to this;
quote<Before they left the room, the make-up artist told the participants that the scar needed some final touch-ups. But, what the make-up artist actually did next was to wipe off the make-up of the scar.
Participants left the room thinking they still wore a make-up scar.
They overwhelmingly reported back that people stared at their scars, and were mean and rude to them. > Unquote
That's the kind of unsubstantiated and retrograde statement I would expect from a social justice warrior. Feminists may be addicted to victimhood, but that does not implicate all of the four billion women on Earth.
Jul 2, 2023·edited Jul 2, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
The article doesn't note (of course) that there is an inherent biological inequality around orgasm. Male orgasm is synchronous with ejaculation, which is required for conception. Female orgasm appears to play no role in conception, it is merely a pleasurable sensation. Biologically, and evolutionarily, this presents an obvious reason for prioritizing male orgasm over female.
Feminists needn’t be upset. If their agenda is successful, there will be nary a man left who is interested in sexual relations with a woman by the end of this century. Then they can focus on the other part of their agenda: belittling and berating men for ignoring women who want sex from them.
Janice, I'm so glad to see you taking on the male-blaming re the orgasm gap. My research on sexual desire showed the distractibility issue is key. One woman writing about this said, "I feel I am catering a party. I’m not a doormat; I’m a welcome mat. In hostess mode I can’t enjoy
the party: I’m too worried about how the guests are doing." That's why she takes longer with her partner than on her own - she's always worrying about how the guests are doing! Wondering if her partner will feel bad if she doesn't come, worrying he'll get bored, or think she is frigid. These are real issues deliberately downplayed by feminists always keen to blame men for all problems women experience.
And worrying about whether he'll call her the next day because she picked him up at a bar, worrying about how to ask him what his name is, worrying how to get his phone number or does she even want it, worrying about the condom breaking or worrying that she didn't insist on a condom and might get pregnant....
Maybe if women worry over sex so much, they should admit they really aren't capable of wielding the sexual autonomy they claim to possess. Maybe women should accept their male relatives having more wisdom than themselves.
Yes, there's no man quite as macho as Billy Crystal. LOL
When I saw the movie, I'd heard how realistic Ryan's imitation of orgasm was. So I was astonished to see how obviously fake it was. I'd have picked off that as bogus long before she stopped. It was just very over-the-top and I was amazed that people didn't see it or claimed not to.
Finally, let's see if I understand this. Supposedly two things are simultaneously true - that women are really good at faking orgasm and men are at fault for not providing enough orgasms. If the first is true, then, uh, how are we to know? If women convincingly fake it, it seems they're the ones at fault for the shortage of their own orgasms. Either that or orgasms aren't important enough to them to do what's necessary. That latter has certainly been true of me when I've faked one.
The article has a convoluted section in which it talks about the reasons why women allegedly fake orgasms, most of them being men's fault in some way. It's interesting that the authors don't even gesture towards the need to study men who sometimes/frequently don't orgasm, or to learn why men would fake orgasms. The entitlement, the entitlement! They even at one point recommend that women read feminist literature on sexual satisfaction. Yeah, that'll improve everything.
Ha! Indeed. Feminism is such a tonic for what ails us.
I've seldom faked orgasm, but when I have, it's been because I was tired or a little drunker than was helpful. Funnily enough, when my wife doesn't quite feel the magic, she just lets me know and says she's "saving it for later," which I always find amusing.
Jul 2, 2023·edited Jul 2, 2023Liked by Janice Fiamengo
Circumcision.
What's even more insulting that American men and others don't even have ownership of their own penises.
Genital mutilation does reduce sexual pleasure and increase uncomfortable friction in sexual intercourse which is why women in the USA report more vaginal pain.
To have women complain about how they are not sexually satisfied and then to realize that most men in the USA don't know what authentic sex or masturbation is like...is even more demeaning and degrading.
Men's issues are invisible to feminists, but also to men, too - the men that unwittingly male jokes about circumcision that we see in so much of American films and tv shows.
It's barbaric and degrading.
The majority of the world doesn't do this.
It's funny how Americans pretend to have invented liberty and freedom and then proceed to call Europe all sorts of epithets when Americans proceed to mutilate their sons, treating them like the family dog to neuter, a cattle to brand or a slave to mark.
Foregen is a biotech company that is regenerating foreskins, the primary erogenous zone of the penis. Most mutilated men might describe their penis as a "clitoris on a stick"...it's not supposed to be like that at all. There are more nerve endings and pleasure receptors in the foreskin than any other part of the penis.
This company is nearly done with phase 2 of 3 animal trials, have received well over $1 Million in donations, and is based out of Italy, with a charity status in the USA.
Their aim is 100% circumcision reversal. All of the fine touch receptors, Meissner's corpuscles, musculature, dartos muscle, inner mucosal lining (which has the same cell types as the inner vagina which keep the penis head lubricated, moist and sensitive, and make sex less rough for the woman - American men tend to aggressively jackhammer).
I'm tired of men's issues being invisible.
In fact, I'd say most men have been primarily worried about making sure their woman is pleased...the pressure to perform is a real issue.
Furthermore, there are sex therapists like Kim Anami who claim that men can be multi orgasmic without having to ejaculate.
Non ejaculatory orgasms.
Mantak Chia makes this claim too, in his book, The Multi Orgasmic Man.
Nate Eliason does, too.
Dave Asprey has mentioned that has had a 20 minute orgasm, yes, 20 minute.
The daoist texts mention you should not have an orgasm for over 30 minutes. Seriously.
Jonathon Roseland mentions being multi orgasmic, another biohacker blogger.
Men can be multi orgasmic and have orgasms without ejaculating and have WHOL BODY ORGASMS.
Men and women can learn to expand their sexual capacities.
Notice this: tantric and daoist...those cultures have never practiced genital cutting.
Kim Anami knows it is garbage and has had Brendon Marotta, the creator of the American Circumcision film, on her podcast.
This sexual trauma, which it is sexual trauma according to any Somatic Experiencing practitioner or anyone who knows about survival stress physiology - you only need a nervous system for the body to store trauma - need ing to consciously remember is not necessary.
Irene Lyon, a Somatic Experiencing practitioner I work with, understands that circumcision is preverbal somatic trauma.
So many practitioners know this, but the American Psychological Association refuses to acknowledge this adverse childhood event.
It violated the United Nations human rights codes...
So much hypocrisy, it's sickening.
Dr. Ronald Goldman knows too, author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma.
Somes resources, that are not exhaustive, these are just the links that are pinned to the clipboard on my Android smartphone. There are way more books, papers, websites, organizations than this:
I have an entire Google Drive and a template email of resources and links I send via email that is far more expansive.
I'd also look at the presentation on YouTube: "Circumcision: The Elephant in the Room".
Circumced men are 20% more likely to get divorced (source, the book, Circumcision The Hidden Trauma) - it disrupts pair bonding. Primates with more nerve endings in the foreskin versus their penis head/glans are more monogamous and they have longer durations of coitus. Primates with less nerve endings and pleasure receptors in their foreskin versus penis head finish sex quickly and are not as monogamous, they don't stick around.
I can provide much, much more.
Europe, Japan, the rest of the world knows this is wrong.
Over a 3rd of all males in the world are cicumsized (33.3% = 1.3 Billion males), compared with a WHO claim that there are approximately 2 Million (0.0005%) women who have been circumcised. (World population 8 Billion +)
At various times UN Women Australia has popped up on my FB feed shrilling outrage that the government(s) are not doing enough to stop FGM, so I'd throw in "What about MGM"? and that would trigger "It's only about women" militants.
Thanks for making this important observation. Circumcision has always existed to ensure that male sexuality remain the dominion of the state and the culture, not a source of personal pleasure. It’s intended to exert a control over the place of sex in male consciousness from the male baby’s earliest memory on. I’ve heard the grievance that the state must “keep its hands off women’s bodies “ thousands of times, but no one seems concerned that boys are subjected genital mutilation against their will and without their consent.
Please excuse the typos, I already see a few. I hastily typed this on my smartphone and fat fingered things a bit.
** Men MAKE jokes (not men MALE jokes) - oops
Men can achieve great sexual capacity but need to learn how a bit more than a woman might, sort of, in a way.
In order to be good at intimacy you need to be present and feel your body. Trauma forces you to not be present and to avoid feeling your body.
Dr Peter Levine, founder of Somatic Experiencing says this to a tee. Trauma is the inability to be present.
If you experienced great pain and trauma and couldn't escape it, even as a baby, your nervous system went into hibernation/preservation, like we see other mammals in the wild do. That response stays with you for life unless you know how to release it - somatic experiencing, with orienting and neurosensory exercises, achieves this releasing of stored trauma responses in the body that never got to be performed because we were immobilized or it wasn't safe to.
This is genital sexual trauma and damage to men, which prevents them from being present and introduces physical damage to the penis and reduces sexual pleasure.
Trauma, being type A, shallow breathing and muscle tensing, all leads to inability to be present, to feel the body, and also leads to premature ejaculation.
Kim Anami and all the names I mentioned prove that men can experience whole body, non ejaculatory orgasms multiple times in a row. Even circumcised men. Her podcast highlights many men that have achieved this. She helps women too.
She can be a bit crass and goofy, not really my style, but it's who she is.
The sexual trauma and American assumptions are so entrenched in the medical system and in culture - it's terrible.
Genital mutilation subtracts the amount of cock you have.
Less cock equals less pleasure.
Period.
It's not nonsense, you're in denial.
If you're okay with circumcision you simply have no self respect or respect for others her boys.
It's emasculation.
You can deny it all you want to and it doesn't change reality.
If you've been affected and/or did this to your son(s), I understand that this would strike a nerve - try to see it for what it is. Wrong.
Look at the links, look at the history. Look at the lost function and sensation.
Foregen is a biotech firm dedicated to reversing circumcision, this a a 200 Billion dollar opportunity based on surveys of interested men that want to experience having their whole penis.
Imagine being able to talk about men's issues without having to hear the "what about the women" gynocentric response.
0.2% of women are circumcised globally, some of them it is just a pin prick and doesn't actually remove any tissue, far less severe than the modern male circumcision. Whereas 33% of men globally are circumcised.
In 2022, the USA mutilated over 1.4 million baby boys.
The USA mutilates over a million a year.
80.5% of all USA men are circumcised.
Source: Intact America
The UN and the WHO are against female genital mutilation but they actively promote male genital mutilation as something that is "good" with their horribly twisted and fallacious "studies" with severe design flaws and statistical manipulations.
Your comment just seems to try to detract the much needed attention of this human rights violation.
Why do you even read Fiamengo's work if you cannot discuss male issues without making a "the women have it much worse" response?
It should be illegal to perform non life saving procedures on ALL MINORS regardless of their gender, race, religion of the parents, etc.
I'm not replying to this comment and will be turning off notifications.
This is a waste of my time.
Don't take it personally.
Fighting in the trenches like this is just not a good usage of my time.
Don't be offended - I have no hatred for you - but, your response is such a common, gynocentric, apathetic one which lacks compassion for boys and men - the compassion that women are given in boatloads.
It needs a federal ban. No negotiations. It's child torture and sexual abuse.
If I open up an animal shelter for dogs, will you assume I hate cats? Will you tell me of had bad cats have it? Or other animals?
Do you see what I mean? When someone speaks up about men's issues - your response is the standard one - which aims to remove any attention or thought given to what men and boys go through.
You may not have intended that, but that is the result of your response.
I will not be replying any further, nor will I have notifications enabled. It's far better/more effective for me to donate to those that make it their life purpose to speak on men's issues.
Good day.
P.S. - to better understand your own response - see this website - men literally get less empathy from women and other men. There is a bias toward women when it comes to passion.
The only time a boy or man will have a difficult time keeping himself clean, like your father, is if his foreskin was forcibly retracted before it naturally defuses (usually occurs during puberty). The prepuce (foreskin/clitoral hood) needs to remain fused to the (penile/clitoral) glans until puberty. Retracting the prepuce before puberty causes very painful defusion and creates scar tissue and pH imbalances. For boys, the scar tissue leads to inelasticity and eventual phimosis while the pH imbalance leads to hygeine problems and eventual smegma – issues that usually last a lifetime because the foreskin was repeatedly wounded from defusion several times a week for 'cleaning' and therefore unable to develop properly. It needs to be defined as a form of child sexual abuse and genital mutilation since the latter includes any kind of scarring, by definition. A populace will, of course, then use these foreskin issues that they created through mass male child sexual abuse (which they magically knew better than to inflict on girls, but not boys) to justify preemptive circumcision of baby boys (i.e. male child sexual torture and permanent genital mutilation).
Also, the words 'uncircumcised' and 'uncut' shouldn't even be words to describe sexually intact men. It unconsciously suggests that a man's natural state is to be mutilated and then that state is somehow undone. We don't refer to girls and women as uncircumcised or uncut. And a person that has all their body parts is never referred to as unamputated... they are just normal... intact... non-mutilated.
On the other hand, I've heard of the majority of intact men say it's no problem to stay clean at all. Smegma is an innocuous substance that the vagina produces as well.
By the way, it is super common for parents to make excuses like that. My father conveniently forgets about times he he got angry at me and said that he would "bust my lip". When I bring up things in the past, uncomfortable memories, my father would act like it never happened only to admit it a week later when I bring it up again.
Parents who have had their sons circumcised must see it in a good way. They have to. Look at how offended parents get if their parenting gets critiqued.
my father is usually very calm, but if I bring up any of the stuff that either my dad or mom did to me which was unkind, forceful, or hurtful - they're the ones that get offended.
I don't believe that intact men are any dirtier than intact women.
Smegma is just a sloughing off of cells that occurs during the self cleaning process of the natural penis and vagina. A little water is all that's needed - it also takes more than a week or two even to start seeing visible smegma - a British urologist said that for his whole 50+ year career he had never seen smegma. You have to try and avoid cleaning for it to get to this point.
I believe that the majority of parents just make excuses about this crap to justify their actions, to justify that they got fooled by some quack doctor.
Over 6500+ species of mammal have foreskins, they clean themselves, they live in the wild, they don't have plumbing or live in suburbia. Animals can do it...humans don't have an excuse. If foreskin was such a problem and you have an evolutionary worldview, explain how selective forces retained the foreskin in over 6500+ species of mammals if it were so problematic? Nature does not make a mistake or waste time, energy, and resources on problematic structures.
People aren't circumcising their dogs because they have to "suffer with a foreskin" - dogs lick themselves to clean themselves. They don't make soap....they don't even need running water. They use saliva. They have no problem.
Anyone saying that foreskin is problematic is either cut or they cut their sons or both. It's a massive cope. Everyone is avoiding something. And it is the men that are most adamant their sons get cut if they were cut, and in places where it is FGM, female genital mutilation, the women are most adamant the daughters get cut. Since it happened to them they fully believe the "health and behavior benefits" of female circumcision, and they are adamant about doing it to their daughters. The women do it to the girls. It's all a way to to cope with what happened to them and to deprive someone else of their sexuality in a socially acceptable way.
No human has the right to violate someone's body like that.
Human beings lie to stay comfortable, they lie to themselves and then to other people. My own family and friends engage in wishful thinking.
No one wants to realize that what they did to their son was not only unnecessary, but also - immoral, unethical, and sexually damaging.
No parent's "preference" (it is sick to a have a preference for men that have had their rights violated and have a mutilated member) should have a bearing upon a boys' own body.
It's barbaric.
Women have an entire grocery store aisle dedicated to their "feminine hygiene".
Women get antimicrobials, but boys get told they need barbaric medieval amputation.
It's such a double standard.
Yes, those gay porn websites, but also straight people - engage in "circumfetishism". Where they fetishize male genital mutilation.
I saw a comment once on a porn site, and you can deliberately find these comments by typing in keywords like "circumcision" or "foreskin / uncut"....etc. - I saw a woman comment that she loves guess whether or not the man she is dating or looking at has a mutilated penis and whether or not the doctor was sadistic enough to carve out his frenulum as a baby, too - reducing his pleasure even further! No joke, these people exist. They are either men that are coping and engaging in this circumfetishism to feel better, or they are women who just straight up hate men.
As for the money, yeah it's a big money maker.
Did you know that cosmetic companies test their cosmetics on foreskin cells obtained from baby boys? GUESS WHAT - they can say they are CRUELTY FREE! Because they didn't test on an animal! They are also "ETHICALLY SOURCED".
Men and boys are treated as less than animals.
Even animals have rights in some states where dogs or cats can't be declawed or ears snipped back or tail snipped, etc. Animals are protected from cosmetic tampering, but not human boys.
Foregen is close to a full reversal of circumcision using regenerative medicine.
Many men are awaiting their success, donating, and keeping track of their progress. They are prepping for final phase of human trials, now.
Also, as for the Bible - biblical circumcision still retained the majority of the foreskin. Look up Brit Milah vs Brit Periah. I saw some Jewish guy that came to Christ and he said he was circumcised like Christ....no you are not. In 250AD Brit Periah came about and it denudes and degloves the penis entirely. Brit Milah, the Biblical version, just barely cuts any of the overhanging tip off that is not fused to the head of the penis at birth, just the tip - since most of the foreskin is fused to the head of the penis, adhered to it, at birth - to protect the penis from urine and feces. Imagine mutilating a boys' genitals, then having him in a diaper where his urine and feces is getting into his genital wounds? We're idiots. Cruel idiots.
This is one big mass psychosis. 90% of cut fathers will cut their boys, 20% of intact fathers will cut their boys. It's all just a coping mechanism, a way to avoid thinking about it. And there are real sadists in medicine that work with children or the elderly. Most of them are numbed out and will do what they are told, no questions asked - some of them are actively sadistic.
Anyways, I've said enough.
None of this animosity I have is pointed at you - just want to make that clear.
I really ought to do a better job of being more diplomatic and tactful when speaking of these things.
You're not the first to recommend I write about this. It's not like I have performed my own original research, but I have synthesized information form various sources in a way I haven't seen before.
The article by Unbekoming which he worked on, with some input from me comes across as what it is you request.
Maybe we could repost his post?
Apologies that I came off with much piss and vinegar - you use the word "passionate", which is kind of you.
I am increasing my financial support of organizations that speak out about this, and organizations looking to reverse this physically, namely, Foregen.
Thank you for your encouragement.
I'm improving every day, and will definitely work my way up to it.
Parents do the best they can, nothing personal against anyone's parents.
I'll not count PUAs or MGTOWs here (two new terms I learned here last week and I've also learned that they really DON'T care) in this statement. Men in loving and monogamous relationships generally care more about their woman's pleasure than their own. Ours is almost guaranteed anyway. So we beat ourselves up over any inadequacies we perceive (or they remind us of, or society's studies tell us of) in our performance. Why do men drink so much? Because women are constantly telling us we're failures. Yet we keep trying because women are just such freakin awesome creatures.
I'm not sure about the PUAs or MGTOWs. Quite a few PUAs want techniques to meet and woo women because they like them; and MGTOW are not necessarily hostile or indifferent, just aware of societal dangers and determined not to make women the central value & purpose for their lives. It's hard to find the misogynistic men feminists are always talking about; all too easy to find women hostile to men, alas.
I think Chuck was teasing too. I suspect that the vast majority of men since at least the 1980s (and probably going much further back than that) got the message that not caring about his woman's pleasure made him a cad. There were marital advice books in the 19th century telling men that they should never force themselves on their wives and should ideally wait for her to initiate sex, etc.
In my cohort, when the birth control pill was new and women could finally act on their own sexual urges without having to fear getting pregnant and especially when they went out of town to college or university, the generalized un spoken rule was that everyone was responsible for their own orgasm…getting off as the term was widely known as. Still, if you were in a loving or even liking relationship you still ‘cared’ if your partner ‘got off’.
There's a hilarious moment in one of my other favorite movies, Tootsie, in which Sandy goes into a feminist rant that includes the words "I read The Second Sex! I'm responsible for my orgasms! ...". I can't remember the rest of it, or even the context, but I remember wondering what it meant. I guess the researchers were born too late to have learned that particular bit of wisdom.
in the Jewish faith, the husband is required to be so in tune with his wife that he isn't really even permitted to ask, he is not to put her in the position of having to say, "not tonight, I have a headache", nor is he permitted to have a headache himself.
I recall using the term, "bribing the gate keeper". I say this in all loving kindness and joy in the marvelous union of mind, body and tenderness, as far as my memory serves.
Thanks for the tip about all of this, Dean. I would never even have found this article if you hadn't mentioned your marvelous exchange with our friend Michael Flood about the orgasm gap. I saw that he had tweeted this article a few years back, berating any man who questioned its findings. I could hardly believe how facile the arguments were.
Any casual observation of coitus might reveal a gap of a different kind as well. I don't mean to speak openly but the situation arises and one must respond. I suggest what the Rocky horror Picture Show dance move called the pelvic thrust, this may well be a gender gap which tops the big O gap. I might have to run some tests myself, purely in the name of science, of course. (!)
Thanks for detailing the Bonos article’s many casual derogations of men. Such derogations have been part of the culture for many decades, yet are often not identified as such - which is part of wat unfortunately makes them so powerful.
The article about orgasm equality, seems worth debunking explicitly, if only because it pretends to be science. However, I did not read it beyond the summary, as that was enough for me to convince me that this was not science.
It's incredible. And it cites many, many papers to make its claims. This is how the feminist magic is done. Groups of advocacy researchers take over a discipline, then begin feverishly citing one another's papers such that it requires hours of digging to find all the sleights of hand and misrepresentations that have gone into the ridiculous--and yet suddenly 'legitimate'--claims being made. I did the real work in my previous piece, "How to Do Things with Numbers, Feminist-Style." I didn't do it here.
What sort of man would want to have sex with a woman who thought in such terms? Only a man whose motives did not include much regard for the woman. By these means the feminists create the monster of their imaginings, because contempt breeds contempt. At the same time they distance themselves ever more from decent men who could have been their salvation. Thus, they forge their own personal Hell. The lesson for the rest of us is to bond ever more tightly in genuine affection, and to attempt, hard though it is, to have compassion for those who have chosen the path of ressentiment, that curdled envy which poisons its host.
The other day I was watching a YouTube video about how to improve a couples sex life. The sex therapist imparted her amazing wisdom with glee. The secret sauce is for men to just overcome their desire for penis/vaginal intercourse. A represention of toxic masculinity and a throw back to the old patriarchal perspectives.
According to her, the road to true sexual bliss will come by listening to the women. Let her guide you. If I had only known this all these years. 🙂
When the video was done, I realized that the only thing missing is any consideration for the man's pleasure. I never cease to be amazed at the shameless gynocentric & narcissism sense of entitlement these feminist promote to young women. Its poisoning male/female relationships. Will it ever end? Thank you Janice for speaking out.
Good lord, these knuckleheads are still at it - "“a world of orgasm equality.”
Groan. Another billion dollar government research grant in the works here?
Here's a study idea for ya - "Why Does It Take So Damn Long?"
Or, "The Inverse Relation Between Feminist Complaining and Orgasm".
Look, if normal stuff like hanging up-side down swinging from a trapeze, or jumping out of an airplane just isn't cutting it for you - how about putting in a little effort now and again.
Curious that the topic of women having multiple orgasms during intercourse is ignored. I do hope I can be forgiven for suggesting that the thrust of this pointed feminist research is rather obvious.
Ok, thanks Janice, this settles it. Women are addicted to their own victimhood. Maybe a 12 step program for this? "Hi, my name is Mary and I am addicted to victimhood." Yup, I can see that and the rest of the meeting being very therapeutic.
Janice said: (don’t even think about all the obvious evolutionary reasons why this might be so!).
This kept going through my mind. How can the biological/evolutionary be so ignored? Only by feminists! Oh yeah, feminists addicted to victimhood. lol
Great stuff Janice and thanks so much for the data on lesbian relationships diminishing interest in sex. Very interesting.
Hey Tom. That sounds like a good niche market for you.
Go for it Tom. I think Victims Anonymous Group would provide a fitting acronym.
In their case its Victims Unanimous!
Great acronym! lol
Would anyone come?
lol! Thanks Jamie. I was tempted to spell it with a U but sissied out and used O instead. lol.
Looking back into articles that were commonly published in the Women's Magazines that delved into relationships, with questionnaires about the status of the relationship a very strong pattern of subtle propaganda emerges.
A mate once comment that his wife would be unhappy after reading these magazines, his simple reply was "She should stop reading them!"
The Dartmouth "Facial Scar experiment" adds more context to this;
quote<Before they left the room, the make-up artist told the participants that the scar needed some final touch-ups. But, what the make-up artist actually did next was to wipe off the make-up of the scar.
Participants left the room thinking they still wore a make-up scar.
They overwhelmingly reported back that people stared at their scars, and were mean and rude to them. > Unquote
https://www.aknowbrainer.com/dartmouth-scar-experiment
"Women are addicted to their own victimhood. "
That's the kind of unsubstantiated and retrograde statement I would expect from a social justice warrior. Feminists may be addicted to victimhood, but that does not implicate all of the four billion women on Earth.
The poster who made this comment has been severely reprimanded. He apparently forgot that it is illegal to make fun of women. And so it goes.
It is a womanly thing to be addicted ti victimhood.
Most women are this way
The article doesn't note (of course) that there is an inherent biological inequality around orgasm. Male orgasm is synchronous with ejaculation, which is required for conception. Female orgasm appears to play no role in conception, it is merely a pleasurable sensation. Biologically, and evolutionarily, this presents an obvious reason for prioritizing male orgasm over female.
Indeed! Thank you for putting it so well and forcefully.
Also, female orgasm means women enjoy sex and want to do it, too...is that not an evolutionary reason?
Furthermore vaginal contractions during orgasm can facilitate the movement of sperm to successfully fertilize.
This. Nothing in the service of Nature is without reason or purpose.
DS for President!
" Biologically and evolutionarily" humans aren't the only species that engages in recreational sex
Please see my comment below.
Men can learn to have non ejaculatory orgasms multiple times involving their whole bodies.
Having you're entire penis, foreskin included, helps a lot, too. More pleasure.
The ejaculation comes after the orgasm, they're not the same
Men can learn this.
Look up Kim Anami, Mantak Chia, Nate Eliason, Jonathon Roseland Multi orgasmic man.
It is possible, the comment I already posted on this article gives more detail.
Ejaculation does massively increase chance of conception but conception can happen without it.
I don't know about faking orgasms, but they sure now how to fake a problem.
Feminists needn’t be upset. If their agenda is successful, there will be nary a man left who is interested in sexual relations with a woman by the end of this century. Then they can focus on the other part of their agenda: belittling and berating men for ignoring women who want sex from them.
Janice, I'm so glad to see you taking on the male-blaming re the orgasm gap. My research on sexual desire showed the distractibility issue is key. One woman writing about this said, "I feel I am catering a party. I’m not a doormat; I’m a welcome mat. In hostess mode I can’t enjoy
the party: I’m too worried about how the guests are doing." That's why she takes longer with her partner than on her own - she's always worrying about how the guests are doing! Wondering if her partner will feel bad if she doesn't come, worrying he'll get bored, or think she is frigid. These are real issues deliberately downplayed by feminists always keen to blame men for all problems women experience.
Exactly, Tina. I know what she means. But I'd far rather try at sex than cater a party!
... with my hubby, I meant!
And worrying about whether he'll call her the next day because she picked him up at a bar, worrying about how to ask him what his name is, worrying how to get his phone number or does she even want it, worrying about the condom breaking or worrying that she didn't insist on a condom and might get pregnant....
Maybe if women worry over sex so much, they should admit they really aren't capable of wielding the sexual autonomy they claim to possess. Maybe women should accept their male relatives having more wisdom than themselves.
Yes, there's no man quite as macho as Billy Crystal. LOL
When I saw the movie, I'd heard how realistic Ryan's imitation of orgasm was. So I was astonished to see how obviously fake it was. I'd have picked off that as bogus long before she stopped. It was just very over-the-top and I was amazed that people didn't see it or claimed not to.
Finally, let's see if I understand this. Supposedly two things are simultaneously true - that women are really good at faking orgasm and men are at fault for not providing enough orgasms. If the first is true, then, uh, how are we to know? If women convincingly fake it, it seems they're the ones at fault for the shortage of their own orgasms. Either that or orgasms aren't important enough to them to do what's necessary. That latter has certainly been true of me when I've faked one.
The article has a convoluted section in which it talks about the reasons why women allegedly fake orgasms, most of them being men's fault in some way. It's interesting that the authors don't even gesture towards the need to study men who sometimes/frequently don't orgasm, or to learn why men would fake orgasms. The entitlement, the entitlement! They even at one point recommend that women read feminist literature on sexual satisfaction. Yeah, that'll improve everything.
Ha! Indeed. Feminism is such a tonic for what ails us.
I've seldom faked orgasm, but when I have, it's been because I was tired or a little drunker than was helpful. Funnily enough, when my wife doesn't quite feel the magic, she just lets me know and says she's "saving it for later," which I always find amusing.
A perfect way of putting it!
Circumcision.
What's even more insulting that American men and others don't even have ownership of their own penises.
Genital mutilation does reduce sexual pleasure and increase uncomfortable friction in sexual intercourse which is why women in the USA report more vaginal pain.
To have women complain about how they are not sexually satisfied and then to realize that most men in the USA don't know what authentic sex or masturbation is like...is even more demeaning and degrading.
Men's issues are invisible to feminists, but also to men, too - the men that unwittingly male jokes about circumcision that we see in so much of American films and tv shows.
It's barbaric and degrading.
The majority of the world doesn't do this.
It's funny how Americans pretend to have invented liberty and freedom and then proceed to call Europe all sorts of epithets when Americans proceed to mutilate their sons, treating them like the family dog to neuter, a cattle to brand or a slave to mark.
Foregen is a biotech company that is regenerating foreskins, the primary erogenous zone of the penis. Most mutilated men might describe their penis as a "clitoris on a stick"...it's not supposed to be like that at all. There are more nerve endings and pleasure receptors in the foreskin than any other part of the penis.
This company is nearly done with phase 2 of 3 animal trials, have received well over $1 Million in donations, and is based out of Italy, with a charity status in the USA.
Their aim is 100% circumcision reversal. All of the fine touch receptors, Meissner's corpuscles, musculature, dartos muscle, inner mucosal lining (which has the same cell types as the inner vagina which keep the penis head lubricated, moist and sensitive, and make sex less rough for the woman - American men tend to aggressively jackhammer).
I'm tired of men's issues being invisible.
In fact, I'd say most men have been primarily worried about making sure their woman is pleased...the pressure to perform is a real issue.
Furthermore, there are sex therapists like Kim Anami who claim that men can be multi orgasmic without having to ejaculate.
Non ejaculatory orgasms.
Mantak Chia makes this claim too, in his book, The Multi Orgasmic Man.
Nate Eliason does, too.
Dave Asprey has mentioned that has had a 20 minute orgasm, yes, 20 minute.
The daoist texts mention you should not have an orgasm for over 30 minutes. Seriously.
Jonathon Roseland mentions being multi orgasmic, another biohacker blogger.
Men can be multi orgasmic and have orgasms without ejaculating and have WHOL BODY ORGASMS.
Men and women can learn to expand their sexual capacities.
Notice this: tantric and daoist...those cultures have never practiced genital cutting.
Kim Anami knows it is garbage and has had Brendon Marotta, the creator of the American Circumcision film, on her podcast.
This sexual trauma, which it is sexual trauma according to any Somatic Experiencing practitioner or anyone who knows about survival stress physiology - you only need a nervous system for the body to store trauma - need ing to consciously remember is not necessary.
Irene Lyon, a Somatic Experiencing practitioner I work with, understands that circumcision is preverbal somatic trauma.
So many practitioners know this, but the American Psychological Association refuses to acknowledge this adverse childhood event.
It violated the United Nations human rights codes...
So much hypocrisy, it's sickening.
Dr. Ronald Goldman knows too, author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma.
Somes resources, that are not exhaustive, these are just the links that are pinned to the clipboard on my Android smartphone. There are way more books, papers, websites, organizations than this:
1. https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
2. https://intactamerica.org/
3. https://www.foregen.org/
4. https://www.circumcisionisafraud.com/
5. https://kindredmedia.org/2023/02/adverse-childhood-experiences-dysfunctional-households-and-circumcision/
6. https://www.littleimages.org/circumcision-is-unchristian/
8. https://irenelyon.com/healing-trauma-freeresources/
9. https://irenelyon.com/
13. http://empathygap.uk/
This is by no means an exhaustive list.
I have an entire Google Drive and a template email of resources and links I send via email that is far more expansive.
I'd also look at the presentation on YouTube: "Circumcision: The Elephant in the Room".
Circumced men are 20% more likely to get divorced (source, the book, Circumcision The Hidden Trauma) - it disrupts pair bonding. Primates with more nerve endings in the foreskin versus their penis head/glans are more monogamous and they have longer durations of coitus. Primates with less nerve endings and pleasure receptors in their foreskin versus penis head finish sex quickly and are not as monogamous, they don't stick around.
I can provide much, much more.
Europe, Japan, the rest of the world knows this is wrong.
Over a 3rd of all males in the world are cicumsized (33.3% = 1.3 Billion males), compared with a WHO claim that there are approximately 2 Million (0.0005%) women who have been circumcised. (World population 8 Billion +)
At various times UN Women Australia has popped up on my FB feed shrilling outrage that the government(s) are not doing enough to stop FGM, so I'd throw in "What about MGM"? and that would trigger "It's only about women" militants.
Thanks for making this important observation. Circumcision has always existed to ensure that male sexuality remain the dominion of the state and the culture, not a source of personal pleasure. It’s intended to exert a control over the place of sex in male consciousness from the male baby’s earliest memory on. I’ve heard the grievance that the state must “keep its hands off women’s bodies “ thousands of times, but no one seems concerned that boys are subjected genital mutilation against their will and without their consent.
Please excuse the typos, I already see a few. I hastily typed this on my smartphone and fat fingered things a bit.
** Men MAKE jokes (not men MALE jokes) - oops
Men can achieve great sexual capacity but need to learn how a bit more than a woman might, sort of, in a way.
In order to be good at intimacy you need to be present and feel your body. Trauma forces you to not be present and to avoid feeling your body.
Dr Peter Levine, founder of Somatic Experiencing says this to a tee. Trauma is the inability to be present.
If you experienced great pain and trauma and couldn't escape it, even as a baby, your nervous system went into hibernation/preservation, like we see other mammals in the wild do. That response stays with you for life unless you know how to release it - somatic experiencing, with orienting and neurosensory exercises, achieves this releasing of stored trauma responses in the body that never got to be performed because we were immobilized or it wasn't safe to.
This is genital sexual trauma and damage to men, which prevents them from being present and introduces physical damage to the penis and reduces sexual pleasure.
Trauma, being type A, shallow breathing and muscle tensing, all leads to inability to be present, to feel the body, and also leads to premature ejaculation.
Kim Anami and all the names I mentioned prove that men can experience whole body, non ejaculatory orgasms multiple times in a row. Even circumcised men. Her podcast highlights many men that have achieved this. She helps women too.
She can be a bit crass and goofy, not really my style, but it's who she is.
The sexual trauma and American assumptions are so entrenched in the medical system and in culture - it's terrible.
Nonsense.
Nonsense based on what?
There is tons of evidence.
Genital mutilation subtracts the amount of cock you have.
Less cock equals less pleasure.
Period.
It's not nonsense, you're in denial.
If you're okay with circumcision you simply have no self respect or respect for others her boys.
It's emasculation.
You can deny it all you want to and it doesn't change reality.
If you've been affected and/or did this to your son(s), I understand that this would strike a nerve - try to see it for what it is. Wrong.
Look at the links, look at the history. Look at the lost function and sensation.
Foregen is a biotech firm dedicated to reversing circumcision, this a a 200 Billion dollar opportunity based on surveys of interested men that want to experience having their whole penis.
https://sciencenordic.com/denmark-gender-hiv/male-circumcision-leads-to-a-bad-sex-life/1371590
https://kindredmedia.org/2015/08/infant-circumcision-and-trauma-with-dr-dean-edell/
1. https://intactamerica.org/
2. https://www.circumcisionisafraud.com/
3. https://www.littleimages.org/circumcision-is-unchristian/
4. https://kindredmedia.org/2023/02/adverse-childhood-experiences-dysfunctional-households-and-circumcision/
5. https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
6. https://www.foregen.org/
7. http://empathygap.uk/
Imagine being able to talk about men's issues without having to hear the "what about the women" gynocentric response.
0.2% of women are circumcised globally, some of them it is just a pin prick and doesn't actually remove any tissue, far less severe than the modern male circumcision. Whereas 33% of men globally are circumcised.
In 2022, the USA mutilated over 1.4 million baby boys.
The USA mutilates over a million a year.
80.5% of all USA men are circumcised.
Source: Intact America
The UN and the WHO are against female genital mutilation but they actively promote male genital mutilation as something that is "good" with their horribly twisted and fallacious "studies" with severe design flaws and statistical manipulations.
Your comment just seems to try to detract the much needed attention of this human rights violation.
Why do you even read Fiamengo's work if you cannot discuss male issues without making a "the women have it much worse" response?
It should be illegal to perform non life saving procedures on ALL MINORS regardless of their gender, race, religion of the parents, etc.
I'm not replying to this comment and will be turning off notifications.
This is a waste of my time.
Don't take it personally.
Fighting in the trenches like this is just not a good usage of my time.
Don't be offended - I have no hatred for you - but, your response is such a common, gynocentric, apathetic one which lacks compassion for boys and men - the compassion that women are given in boatloads.
It needs a federal ban. No negotiations. It's child torture and sexual abuse.
If I open up an animal shelter for dogs, will you assume I hate cats? Will you tell me of had bad cats have it? Or other animals?
Do you see what I mean? When someone speaks up about men's issues - your response is the standard one - which aims to remove any attention or thought given to what men and boys go through.
You may not have intended that, but that is the result of your response.
I will not be replying any further, nor will I have notifications enabled. It's far better/more effective for me to donate to those that make it their life purpose to speak on men's issues.
Good day.
P.S. - to better understand your own response - see this website - men literally get less empathy from women and other men. There is a bias toward women when it comes to passion.
http://empathygap.uk/
Also see:
https://gynocentrism.com/
The only time a boy or man will have a difficult time keeping himself clean, like your father, is if his foreskin was forcibly retracted before it naturally defuses (usually occurs during puberty). The prepuce (foreskin/clitoral hood) needs to remain fused to the (penile/clitoral) glans until puberty. Retracting the prepuce before puberty causes very painful defusion and creates scar tissue and pH imbalances. For boys, the scar tissue leads to inelasticity and eventual phimosis while the pH imbalance leads to hygeine problems and eventual smegma – issues that usually last a lifetime because the foreskin was repeatedly wounded from defusion several times a week for 'cleaning' and therefore unable to develop properly. It needs to be defined as a form of child sexual abuse and genital mutilation since the latter includes any kind of scarring, by definition. A populace will, of course, then use these foreskin issues that they created through mass male child sexual abuse (which they magically knew better than to inflict on girls, but not boys) to justify preemptive circumcision of baby boys (i.e. male child sexual torture and permanent genital mutilation).
Also, the words 'uncircumcised' and 'uncut' shouldn't even be words to describe sexually intact men. It unconsciously suggests that a man's natural state is to be mutilated and then that state is somehow undone. We don't refer to girls and women as uncircumcised or uncut. And a person that has all their body parts is never referred to as unamputated... they are just normal... intact... non-mutilated.
On the other hand, I've heard of the majority of intact men say it's no problem to stay clean at all. Smegma is an innocuous substance that the vagina produces as well.
By the way, it is super common for parents to make excuses like that. My father conveniently forgets about times he he got angry at me and said that he would "bust my lip". When I bring up things in the past, uncomfortable memories, my father would act like it never happened only to admit it a week later when I bring it up again.
Parents who have had their sons circumcised must see it in a good way. They have to. Look at how offended parents get if their parenting gets critiqued.
my father is usually very calm, but if I bring up any of the stuff that either my dad or mom did to me which was unkind, forceful, or hurtful - they're the ones that get offended.
I don't believe that intact men are any dirtier than intact women.
Smegma is just a sloughing off of cells that occurs during the self cleaning process of the natural penis and vagina. A little water is all that's needed - it also takes more than a week or two even to start seeing visible smegma - a British urologist said that for his whole 50+ year career he had never seen smegma. You have to try and avoid cleaning for it to get to this point.
I believe that the majority of parents just make excuses about this crap to justify their actions, to justify that they got fooled by some quack doctor.
Over 6500+ species of mammal have foreskins, they clean themselves, they live in the wild, they don't have plumbing or live in suburbia. Animals can do it...humans don't have an excuse. If foreskin was such a problem and you have an evolutionary worldview, explain how selective forces retained the foreskin in over 6500+ species of mammals if it were so problematic? Nature does not make a mistake or waste time, energy, and resources on problematic structures.
People aren't circumcising their dogs because they have to "suffer with a foreskin" - dogs lick themselves to clean themselves. They don't make soap....they don't even need running water. They use saliva. They have no problem.
Anyone saying that foreskin is problematic is either cut or they cut their sons or both. It's a massive cope. Everyone is avoiding something. And it is the men that are most adamant their sons get cut if they were cut, and in places where it is FGM, female genital mutilation, the women are most adamant the daughters get cut. Since it happened to them they fully believe the "health and behavior benefits" of female circumcision, and they are adamant about doing it to their daughters. The women do it to the girls. It's all a way to to cope with what happened to them and to deprive someone else of their sexuality in a socially acceptable way.
No human has the right to violate someone's body like that.
Human beings lie to stay comfortable, they lie to themselves and then to other people. My own family and friends engage in wishful thinking.
No one wants to realize that what they did to their son was not only unnecessary, but also - immoral, unethical, and sexually damaging.
No parent's "preference" (it is sick to a have a preference for men that have had their rights violated and have a mutilated member) should have a bearing upon a boys' own body.
It's barbaric.
Women have an entire grocery store aisle dedicated to their "feminine hygiene".
Women get antimicrobials, but boys get told they need barbaric medieval amputation.
It's such a double standard.
Yes, those gay porn websites, but also straight people - engage in "circumfetishism". Where they fetishize male genital mutilation.
I saw a comment once on a porn site, and you can deliberately find these comments by typing in keywords like "circumcision" or "foreskin / uncut"....etc. - I saw a woman comment that she loves guess whether or not the man she is dating or looking at has a mutilated penis and whether or not the doctor was sadistic enough to carve out his frenulum as a baby, too - reducing his pleasure even further! No joke, these people exist. They are either men that are coping and engaging in this circumfetishism to feel better, or they are women who just straight up hate men.
As for the money, yeah it's a big money maker.
Did you know that cosmetic companies test their cosmetics on foreskin cells obtained from baby boys? GUESS WHAT - they can say they are CRUELTY FREE! Because they didn't test on an animal! They are also "ETHICALLY SOURCED".
Men and boys are treated as less than animals.
Even animals have rights in some states where dogs or cats can't be declawed or ears snipped back or tail snipped, etc. Animals are protected from cosmetic tampering, but not human boys.
Foregen is close to a full reversal of circumcision using regenerative medicine.
Many men are awaiting their success, donating, and keeping track of their progress. They are prepping for final phase of human trials, now.
Also, as for the Bible - biblical circumcision still retained the majority of the foreskin. Look up Brit Milah vs Brit Periah. I saw some Jewish guy that came to Christ and he said he was circumcised like Christ....no you are not. In 250AD Brit Periah came about and it denudes and degloves the penis entirely. Brit Milah, the Biblical version, just barely cuts any of the overhanging tip off that is not fused to the head of the penis at birth, just the tip - since most of the foreskin is fused to the head of the penis, adhered to it, at birth - to protect the penis from urine and feces. Imagine mutilating a boys' genitals, then having him in a diaper where his urine and feces is getting into his genital wounds? We're idiots. Cruel idiots.
This is one big mass psychosis. 90% of cut fathers will cut their boys, 20% of intact fathers will cut their boys. It's all just a coping mechanism, a way to avoid thinking about it. And there are real sadists in medicine that work with children or the elderly. Most of them are numbed out and will do what they are told, no questions asked - some of them are actively sadistic.
Anyways, I've said enough.
None of this animosity I have is pointed at you - just want to make that clear.
Thank you for your comment.
Hello.
You make a good point about posting substacks articles because things get lost in the comments.
Another substack writer, Unbekoming, asked me to do the same thing - and instead, he posted his own substack from the sources I sent him via email.
Here is a link to this article.
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/circumcision
I really ought to do a better job of being more diplomatic and tactful when speaking of these things.
You're not the first to recommend I write about this. It's not like I have performed my own original research, but I have synthesized information form various sources in a way I haven't seen before.
The article by Unbekoming which he worked on, with some input from me comes across as what it is you request.
Maybe we could repost his post?
Apologies that I came off with much piss and vinegar - you use the word "passionate", which is kind of you.
I am increasing my financial support of organizations that speak out about this, and organizations looking to reverse this physically, namely, Foregen.
Thank you for your encouragement.
I'm improving every day, and will definitely work my way up to it.
Parents do the best they can, nothing personal against anyone's parents.
May The Wind Be at Your Back.
Janice seems to have forgotten (or has never heard) the old joke told among men: How do you give a woman an orgasm? Who cares.
Ha! It's the only reasonable response to this precious article.
Or the old, "Why do women fake orgasms?" "Because they think we care. "
I'll not count PUAs or MGTOWs here (two new terms I learned here last week and I've also learned that they really DON'T care) in this statement. Men in loving and monogamous relationships generally care more about their woman's pleasure than their own. Ours is almost guaranteed anyway. So we beat ourselves up over any inadequacies we perceive (or they remind us of, or society's studies tell us of) in our performance. Why do men drink so much? Because women are constantly telling us we're failures. Yet we keep trying because women are just such freakin awesome creatures.
I'm not sure about the PUAs or MGTOWs. Quite a few PUAs want techniques to meet and woo women because they like them; and MGTOW are not necessarily hostile or indifferent, just aware of societal dangers and determined not to make women the central value & purpose for their lives. It's hard to find the misogynistic men feminists are always talking about; all too easy to find women hostile to men, alas.
And I learn some more.
Ah, you saw what I did there.
What’s wrong with you!
Just a joke. I always please my women.
I think Chuck was teasing too. I suspect that the vast majority of men since at least the 1980s (and probably going much further back than that) got the message that not caring about his woman's pleasure made him a cad. There were marital advice books in the 19th century telling men that they should never force themselves on their wives and should ideally wait for her to initiate sex, etc.
In my cohort, when the birth control pill was new and women could finally act on their own sexual urges without having to fear getting pregnant and especially when they went out of town to college or university, the generalized un spoken rule was that everyone was responsible for their own orgasm…getting off as the term was widely known as. Still, if you were in a loving or even liking relationship you still ‘cared’ if your partner ‘got off’.
There's a hilarious moment in one of my other favorite movies, Tootsie, in which Sandy goes into a feminist rant that includes the words "I read The Second Sex! I'm responsible for my orgasms! ...". I can't remember the rest of it, or even the context, but I remember wondering what it meant. I guess the researchers were born too late to have learned that particular bit of wisdom.
For all intents and purposes History began when the ‘Sociology Department’ took over the planet!
in the Jewish faith, the husband is required to be so in tune with his wife that he isn't really even permitted to ask, he is not to put her in the position of having to say, "not tonight, I have a headache", nor is he permitted to have a headache himself.
there is a word for it, I'll go find it and add here...
Onah, that is the word.
I recall using the term, "bribing the gate keeper". I say this in all loving kindness and joy in the marvelous union of mind, body and tenderness, as far as my memory serves.
Thanks for the tip about all of this, Dean. I would never even have found this article if you hadn't mentioned your marvelous exchange with our friend Michael Flood about the orgasm gap. I saw that he had tweeted this article a few years back, berating any man who questioned its findings. I could hardly believe how facile the arguments were.
Flood is always facile.
Any casual observation of coitus might reveal a gap of a different kind as well. I don't mean to speak openly but the situation arises and one must respond. I suggest what the Rocky horror Picture Show dance move called the pelvic thrust, this may well be a gender gap which tops the big O gap. I might have to run some tests myself, purely in the name of science, of course. (!)
Feminist commentary sounds to me like the patter of decadent aristocrats.
Thanks for detailing the Bonos article’s many casual derogations of men. Such derogations have been part of the culture for many decades, yet are often not identified as such - which is part of wat unfortunately makes them so powerful.
The article about orgasm equality, seems worth debunking explicitly, if only because it pretends to be science. However, I did not read it beyond the summary, as that was enough for me to convince me that this was not science.
It's incredible. And it cites many, many papers to make its claims. This is how the feminist magic is done. Groups of advocacy researchers take over a discipline, then begin feverishly citing one another's papers such that it requires hours of digging to find all the sleights of hand and misrepresentations that have gone into the ridiculous--and yet suddenly 'legitimate'--claims being made. I did the real work in my previous piece, "How to Do Things with Numbers, Feminist-Style." I didn't do it here.
It is great that you do that sort of work, helping me and others see through the tangled web.
God I’m glad I went to High School and University in the late 60’s and early 70’s! Who needs this BS!
What sort of man would want to have sex with a woman who thought in such terms? Only a man whose motives did not include much regard for the woman. By these means the feminists create the monster of their imaginings, because contempt breeds contempt. At the same time they distance themselves ever more from decent men who could have been their salvation. Thus, they forge their own personal Hell. The lesson for the rest of us is to bond ever more tightly in genuine affection, and to attempt, hard though it is, to have compassion for those who have chosen the path of ressentiment, that curdled envy which poisons its host.
The other day I was watching a YouTube video about how to improve a couples sex life. The sex therapist imparted her amazing wisdom with glee. The secret sauce is for men to just overcome their desire for penis/vaginal intercourse. A represention of toxic masculinity and a throw back to the old patriarchal perspectives.
According to her, the road to true sexual bliss will come by listening to the women. Let her guide you. If I had only known this all these years. 🙂
When the video was done, I realized that the only thing missing is any consideration for the man's pleasure. I never cease to be amazed at the shameless gynocentric & narcissism sense of entitlement these feminist promote to young women. Its poisoning male/female relationships. Will it ever end? Thank you Janice for speaking out.
One can be sure of one thing with a feminist paper: It's ALWAYS the man's fault.
Good lord, these knuckleheads are still at it - "“a world of orgasm equality.”
Groan. Another billion dollar government research grant in the works here?
Here's a study idea for ya - "Why Does It Take So Damn Long?"
Or, "The Inverse Relation Between Feminist Complaining and Orgasm".
Look, if normal stuff like hanging up-side down swinging from a trapeze, or jumping out of an airplane just isn't cutting it for you - how about putting in a little effort now and again.
Curious that the topic of women having multiple orgasms during intercourse is ignored. I do hope I can be forgiven for suggesting that the thrust of this pointed feminist research is rather obvious.