Getting sex versus getting sexual needs met

[carhill]

In another thread, I found an off-topic item which I wanted to explore further and seek perspective on. I'll summarize:

 

I proffered the opinion that women can more quickly and easily obtain sex than men and offered the following:

 

Perhaps some male respondents are annoyed, but IMO the greater majority, myself included, are mentioning this dynamic because it is reality, and without an emotional component attached.

A female poster, Knittress, responded, in part:

 

what I'm trying to get across is that while women have more sexual opportunities - it's not like it's any easier to get our sexual needs met

My response, in the thread:

 

Accepted, but not completely understood. I suggest that you start a thread on it so we can explore that. In the context of sex outside a relationship, something I have no cognizance of, I presumed, perhaps mistakenly, that the process of seeing someone attractive, soliciting them for sex, and having sex with them and enjoying the mutual sexual pleasures was/is the goal of the interaction. Each person focuses on their own pleasure without regard to the other person. There is no emotional attachment, no component of care nor desire for connection other than sex. I see I may have interpreted this incorrectly. You must understand that I had a pretty messed up marriage in that department and often felt that I was no more than my exW's f*ck-buddy. So, my ears are open. Start the thread and get the discussion going. Happy to learn.

 

 

 

Haha, who - ME? Like ~I~ have any idea on how to go about casual sex. Pft. That's why I hover around these boards so much.

 

My response here:

 

This is the phrase, irrespective of casual or non-casual sex, which I was unclear about:

 

what I'm trying to get across is that while women have more sexual opportunities - it's not like it's any easier to get our sexual needs met

Is this essentially saying that, while you have no problem finding a guy who will f*ck you till the cows come home, it's not easy finding a guy who gives a good god d*mn about *your* cows coming home, so to speak. Is that it? You're getting intercourse/cunnilingus, etc, but your sexual *needs* aren't being met? Do I have that right? And this with a man whom you find attractive, you've specifically selected and with whom you've agreed to have sex?

 

I'm not looking for an attack angle here. I had enough of that cr@p in my M. I'm looking to understand better. Maybe I have this casual sex thing all wrong. Do you have insight?

[Sabali]

Well, it's no argument here that women can get sex a lot easier than man. If a woman get a man alone, all she has to do is expose a boob and a lot of men would be sucked in. There just isn't a debate there.

 

What Knitress could have possibly meant is that although they can get sex easier, achieving orgams or actually getting specific acts done to satisfy women, it is much more tough. I would then say, myself, that men tend to use every trick in their repertoire when they hit it because they just don't know when the next opportunity will come. It is just the way we tend to think.

 

 

You don't hear much about women paying for sex through prostitution and there is a reason for that.

[bac]

Can you ask your question directly and independently from other posters?

What is your question?

[tami-chan]

Getting sex, implies having a partner. Having your sexual needs met, can be done without a partner(using a BOB, for example), but I think, most would rather the need be met by a partner.

 

Anyway, Carhill, I think, even if the sexual encounter is casual, a person would still want to make the other feel good as a reflection of his "talent" in that department. So while it is still "unemotional" it is not necessarily true that he would not care if the other's sexual needs are met or not. Nobody wants to be known as a "bad lay" (generalizing here ).

[somedude81]

Women know that they have a vastly easier time getting sex than men do.

 

When men bring this up, for some reason women get offended then they claim that they have other needs that are not being met.

 

It really is nothing more than a pissing contest.

[Sabali]

I mean, really... why can't we just make sweet love to each other as man and woman without all of the complaining?

[carhill]

My experiences outside of relationships, mainly with MW's, have shown me that they seek out potentials they find attractive physically, emotionally or for whatever reason, and they feel passion about that dynamic. Desire flows through them. IME, the largest sexual organ is the brain and my personal experiences indicate where and when desire and attraction looms large in the mind, great sex follows, or at least it has for me. Now, my desire and attraction happened to occur within LTR's and while married, but I'm *assuming* that similar mindsets occur when a woman chooses a man to have casual sex with. As a number of female posters have shared, women are *selective* when choosing sexual partners, and I presume they select upon criteria which meet their sexual needs. This is where I got confused by Knitress's post. Near complete control of the process *should* ensure a positive and satisfying result, but evidentally that's not the case, even without all the complexities than naturally occur within a relationship.

 

Maybe I'm dancing around the differences in brain wiring between men and women, but I thought casual sex/NSA/FWB obviated 'feelings' and 'connections' and 'love' and was purely about sex itself; stimulation of the sexual organs, including the brain, to orgasm. Nothing else. That said, I've read numerous accounts where women will have sex with someone they've selected but know the selection has no potential for anything more than casual sex. 'He's great in the sack but I know I could never have a relationship with him'. Should I assume in that case her sexual needs are being met? Is there more thought and/or feeling going on there than meets the eye? It seems to be much more than a random encounter, as she's acutally considered and then dismissed the man's value as a complete partner.

 

My inquiry here is actually derived from reading the FWB/respect thread and taking one aspect of that dynamic and exploring it. Perhaps better understanding can foster healthier and more inclusive standards.

 

 

 

Anyway, maybe someone will make some sense of it for me.

[bac]

For women, getting sex does not mean getting your sexual needs met.

Mostly, because the sexual needs are questionable and vague for many women.

Getting sex can mean anything for a woman. It could mean many different things such as making money as a prostitute, satisfying your BF/husband while feeling nothing sexually, a way to get attention and satisfy emotional needs, a way to distract yourself from depression, a way to score to find a husband, a way to make a baby, a way to kill your time if nothing better available and many other things.

[Knittress]

What Knitress could have possibly meant is that although they can get sex easier, achieving orgams or actually getting specific acts done to satisfy women, it is much more tough. I would then say, myself, that men tend to use every trick in their repertoire when they hit it because they just don't know when the next opportunity will come. It is just the way we tend to think.

 

Haha, what ~I~ think I meant is that I think I need to eat some dinner before I go near threads like this.

 

What I was saying over there was that there are a lot of pissy guys milling about LS complaining at how much easier women have it at getting laid. Which doesn't make sense to me. I said that! I was just wondering what the deal was.

 

(how can you call it off-topic? It's a thread on the internet. Have you seen the thing now? It's like a bumper car rink.)

Anyway.

 

What I was saying... I can give myself a great orgasm. I have zero need of a man for that. What I need from sex isn't the physical release that is absolutely easy for any woman to come by - but an emotional one. What I want from sex is the feeling of passion and connection, which I'm not going to be able to get from some friendly stranger off the street, but only from someone that actually GETS me. In that whole... grokking, whatever sense...

Hey, can I eat now?

 

I have no idea what this has to do with casual sex or even Carhill, really.

Nor do I think Carhill IS one of those sexually-simple type of guys who'll probably be satisfied getting off with a friend. What do I know?

I'm going to eat now.

[that girl]

I think guys often really miss the point when it comes to how often women are hit on.

 

They think of it enviously, "Wouldn't it be nice if decent looking, age appropriate women were interested in sleeping with me?"

 

They never think of an overly aggressive Roseanne Barr type hitting on them.

[sanskrit]

Getting sex, implies having a partner. Having your sexual needs met, can be done without a partner(using a BOB, for example),

 

Not BOB... Robert or Rob, but how is that not with a partner?

[carhill]

Haha, what ~I~ think I meant is that I think I need to eat some dinner before I go near threads like this.

Hey, I'm on a diet too. It's called the 'I'm poor and divorced diet'. Always hungry

 

The topic of the other thread was, paraphrasing, 'bitterness on LS'. I didn't see casual sex and getting sexual needs met as topical in that regard. You know, community guidelines and all that.

 

Thanks for the input. Your explanation tends to align with how I view sexual relations but I have been called narrow-minded in that viewpoint in the past and wanted to perhaps expand my understanding of the beneficial aspects of casual sex so as to better assess a woman as a potential partner who has casual sex in her background. So far, having dated and especially marrying such a woman, I've done lousy. I need different criteria; something beyond the mere aspect of numbers.

 

bac has a good point. I tend to 'talk in riddles', as my exW often put it. I'll work on that.

 

Here's a direct question for general consumption: For those who do enjoy casual sex, would you say that, most of the time, the encounters meet your sexual needs/desires? Overall, do you find the dynamic satisfying and positive?

[dreamingoftigers]

OKay, let me have a crack at it.

 

As a woman, I can have sex, have a an orgasm and think "that kind of sucked" or "oh, that's it?... blah."

 

Here is how it works for me: I can have an orgasm in 30 seconds flat (no kidding) and the ones I give myself can be pretty good and I get some feel-good sensations and chemicals from them.

 

I can have an orgasm with someone else but often I would have to show them how the parts work and that can be a little tedious and make me feel uncomfortable and this makes the orgasm less intense.

 

I can orgasm with someone else that knows what he is doing (this means the requisite mental stimulation as well) and knows how the parts work and that is extra-intense.

 

I can orgasm with someone that I have a strong emotional connection with and that is extra-intense.

 

For me personally, the guy being incredibly enthusiastic about f-ing me is what gets the motor running. A lot of times guys are shy and not too outgoing (not much noise or expressions) blah or the guy is just interested in having sex (note the huge difference between just having sex and just having sex with me). It is the desire for me as a sexual creature or at the very least a relational creature that gets me off the best.

 

Yeah, we can all get laid..... so what? The female sex-drive is narcissistic. If you think about it, women go for the guys that would be the most thrilled to have them in bed or at least they act like it. THIS IS THE KEY TO THE KINGDOM.

 

When a woman stays in a relationship for a long time, often her desire for her mate will go down because she feels like he is obligated to sleep with only her, not that he is passionate for her anymore.

 

Women want to be the newest, best, funnest, most arousing, most beautiful creature to the man they are with. Any guy that I have ever met that could hang off of my every word stood a much better chance of getting with me. The shy guy in the corner would stand a better chance with me then the male slut, who would get with anyone so where is the fun in that. To the male slut having sex is probably like doing the laundry, something to do every Thursday if nothing else is going on.

 

In fact the shy virgin guy would be the most wicked conquest because by default I would pretty much be the most arousing thing to him (and it would be really fun if he could last more then a minute and a half, but he probably can't).

 

Women love the chance to prove the are the best in the sack, if it looks like you really want to be there more then with any other girl, then you are in for a fun time. I love it when a guy seems absolutely taken with me, or that look of shocked arousal where he has to stop himself or risk losing his load. (This is what we really have as sexual needs, the need to be singularly desired.)

 

And those jerk guys that the girls all seem to be dating, well they would be fun and arousing for girls to prove that they are even better then the last one, sort of a "pay attention to me" competition. Because if they get the guy that can't keep his focus on anyone, then that is a huge emotional/sexual jackpot for some girls.

 

As well, guys in a lower station in life have fewer troubles getting laid because women view them as the guys who have trouble getting laid. So if a girl wants a cheap hot fling that she has low chances of rejection with when she is feeling down, so will set her sights a little lower. My H was homeless for 10 years. Girls would throw themselves at him all the time, figuring that they could be that fun time he would have.

 

Girls use their sex to gain sexual power over a guy, they want to be that girl that the guy will never, ever forget. Unfortunately they don't get that it really doesn't work that way.

 

I hope that this wasn't just nonsense. Just smatterings of my own observations.

 

We want to be the hottest to the guy that we open ourselves to sexually whether it be a marriage or a fling. That is our primary sexual need, that is why it is so difficult to fill.

[Knittress]

Thanks for the input. Your explanation tends to align with how I view sexual relations but I have been called narrow-minded in that viewpoint in the past and wanted to perhaps expand my understanding of the beneficial aspects of casual sex so as to better assess a woman as a potential partner who has casual sex in her background. So far, having dated and especially marrying such a woman, I've done lousy. I need different criteria; something beyond the mere aspect of numbers.

 

(I had a snack. It was awesome.)

I don't see having a psychological connection with a partner as necessarily absent in a casual interaction, do you?

In theory... seeing as neither of us have actually DONE this.

(yet)

Have you ever looked into polyamory? What do you think of that crowd?

Edited November 2, 2010 by Knittress

[Knittress]

Damn, DreamingofTigers, that was great. I think I need a cigarette.

[dreamingoftigers]

Damn, DreamingofTigers, that was great. I think I need a cigarette.

 

Ha ha ha

 

Really the smartest guys who know how to date have the best chances of getting with a girl if they seem emotionally interested in her and mention that they are struggling with not trying to make a sexual move on her because they respect her so much and don't want to ruin anything.

 

This tells the girl really important things: 1. He is interested in an emotional relationship 2. He is respectful (this quality is rare) 3. He wants her to be comfortable 4. He really wants to shag her super-bad (and believe it or not, this is the part that seals the relationship deal for most girls IMO).

 

If guys really wanted to know how women work with the whole sex and love thing, they would read romance novels. (I don't, I think that they would be too formulaic and a waste of time,but I digress) The novels are all based upon the same premise: guy wants girl emotionally or sexually, guy has obstacle in his way (whether it be his career, his wife, the fact that he is a vampire and might eat her, whatever) and eventually his passion overrides his logic and he pursues her anyways despite the fact that it was risky and not really in his best interest anyways. The guy is willing to sacrifice whatever it was that was so important to him to get with the girl whom he is passionate about.

 

What this means to us in bed and in relationships: if a guy is willing to sacrifice something to get with us, then he would be a good mate. If we lived in caves, he would give us the last of the boar guts, or the last piece of fruit. He would fight off the angry tribe to stick by us instead of running away. Now, what biological incentive would a woman have to recognize said mate? Perhaps a really wicked orgasm. I think so.

 

That is also why romance is so important to women, but not if it is presented like a chore. It needs to be a passionate sacrifice of time and energy, an aggressive pursuit = better orgasm or at least more of those feel-good primal chemicals.

[Smoky Day]

 

bac has a good point. I tend to 'talk in riddles', as my exW often put it. I'll work on that.

 

Here's a direct question for general consumption: For those who do enjoy casual sex, would you say that, most of the time, the encounters meet your sexual needs/desires? Overall, do you find the dynamic satisfying and positive?

 

In the past, I have engaged in casual sex to varying degree. I had some sexual-psychological needs met this way: feeling desired, human contact, etc. It was pretty lackluster, really. It was not effective as a means to stave off loneliness or to have real sexual-emotional needs met. It was also not effective at meeting plain sexual-physical needs, as I discovered I can't acheive orgasm with someone unless I know them fairly well and feel comfortable with them, feel the right kind of mental/emotional chemistry brewing between us. I don't have to love them, but there does need to be a certain threshold of trust and feeling met.

 

I don't decry casual sex in general, it works for some, but for myself it is not satisfying, it is not positive. It's empty friction with the potential for gross negative emotion. Rarely, if ever, worthwhile.

 

Not a claim, not a "pissing contest," just my own experience. Not a terribly rare experience, judging by my friends/family.

[LittleTiger]

I have no idea what this has to do with casual sex or even Carhill, really.

Nor do I think Carhill IS one of those sexually-simple type of guys who'll probably be satisfied getting off with a friend. What do I know?

 

I don't know Carhill personally but, if his posts on LS are anything to go by, I'd willingly bet my bottom dollar that he is NOT one of those guys and I think he's asking a really interesting question. He seems to be one of the few men on this site who is genuinely interested in learning about and understanding women. My kind of man.

 

(Don't worry Carhill, I'm well aware I'm not your kind of woman - way too fiesty - and I'm not single so please take my compliments as intended and nothing more - genuine admiration for the way your brain works).

 

Anyway, firstly I totally agree with dreamingoftigers, for women it's all about being desired for themselves not just for being female.

 

This is my take on it, as I understand the question (sorry if it's a bit of an essay):

 

Having followed the FWB thread (mostly) I can understand why men are confused about women's sexuality. Obviously we're all different but in one respect men and women are the same - the vast majority of us desire sex, love, emotional connection, intimacy, validation, a best friend, a partner, a lover - someone to share ourselves and our lives with. We'd all like to have everything in one person - in an ideal world.

 

Sadly, for most us, it's difficult to find one person who meets all these needs and continues to do so throughout our entire lives. So what tends to happen is that, while we look for our perfect 'soul mate', we also seek a way to fulfill our needs along the way until Mr/Ms Perfect appears.

 

For most men the priority seems to be sex - any reasonably attractive woman who is willing to sleep them will fulfill this need (before anyone jumps on me, I said MOST men). For most women it is much more complicated. If sex is a priority for men, and women make themselves look as attractive as possible, most women can get sex. It is pretty clear cut in that respect.

 

However, having sex, even with an orgasm, is not the same as 'getting sexual needs met'. Most women can give themselves an orgasm. No man required. I can't speak for other women here (although dreamingoftigers seems to agree) but for me, leaving out the emotional needs which also come with a relationship, the biggest sexual need is feeling desired/wanted/sexy. Now in theory you would think a man wanting sex with me would satisfy that need but, given how unselective men are, it doesn't (refer to dreamingoftigers post for further explanation)

 

So, getting 'sexual needs met' as opposed to 'getting sex' or even 'making love' (which obviously includes intimacy and an emotional connection and is ultimately all I am interested in these days) might mean having sex with one man who really desires me and wants to please me physically without anything deep or meaningful between us. Which, to me, is where the FWB/FB arrangement comes in.

 

Although I'm 45 I've had a very limited number of partners because I'm very choosy, but I did have a one night stand in my 20s and a FB when my marriage ended. I say FB rather than FWB because he was a 'mate' rather than someone I would consider a friend.

 

There is one, and only one, reason that I did this. My ex husband, who I'd been with for 14 years and who clearly loved me (most of that time), never appeared to really lust after me. The guy who became my FB was 'chasing' me big time. I could almost see him 'drooling' whenever he looked at me. He wasn't future partner material as far as I was concerned but he was very sexy.

 

The sex was awesome. He wasn't the most attentive partner by a long way and his needs were clearly paramount in our encounters, but our sexual preferences were well matched and his obvious raw desire to have me was, quite frankly, irresistable. I found the experience emotionally empty and, for that reason, I would never repeat it, but it definitely met my sexual needs at that time.

 

Not sure if that makes sense to anyone else but it does to me.

[denise_xo]

Maybe I'm dancing around the differences in brain wiring between men and women, but I thought casual sex/NSA/FWB obviated 'feelings' and 'connections' and 'love' and was purely about sex itself; stimulation of the sexual organs, including the brain, to orgasm. Nothing else. That said, I've read numerous accounts where women will have sex with someone they've selected but know the selection has no potential for anything more than casual sex. 'He's great in the sack but I know I could never have a relationship with him'. Should I assume in that case her sexual needs are being met? Is there more thought and/or feeling going on there than meets the eye? It seems to be much more than a random encounter, as she's acutally considered and then dismissed the man's value as a complete partner.

 

Anyway, maybe someone will make some sense of it for me.

 

There is an added layer of complexity to this thread that I'm not understanding. But from my perspective it's like this:

 

Casual sex satisfies my needs when I'm with someone who turns me on and who I have enjoyable sex with. I have to feel a sexual attraction for this person to make it work for me, i.e. it has to be something that arouses me a bit more than just a dildo. If that's not there, I might as well take care of myself. However, this is different from the kind of 'emotions' or 'connections' that imply wanting a long term relationship. In contrast, I might also enjoy casual sex where 'emotions' are present but where I would still not want to enter into a relationship with the person. I don't think casual sex and 'connections' are by definition incommensurable, if that is what you are suggesting above.

 

More generally, IMO it is a mistake to assume that love/emotions/connections have to equal or be transformed into an LTR, and that this should always be the default option of choice. As human beings I think we are too prone to become possessive about feelings of love. Sometimes acknowledging love for each other, sharing a night together, and then moving on, is the best or only option.

Edited November 2, 2010 by denise_xo

[Tim The Enchanter]

Women have always been able to get sex more easily than men. The difference in today's world is that a lot more women are actively promiscuous and want to have sex with lots of men.

 

Yes there are still women who prefer sex in a relationship, love etc, but the women in the other camp - promiscuous and unabashed by it - are growing in number by the day.

[utterer of lies]

As a woman, I can have sex, have a an orgasm and think "that kind of sucked" or "oh, that's it?... blah."

 

Why would you think this is exclusive to women?

 

Here is how it works for me: I can have an orgasm in 30 seconds flat (no kidding) and the ones I give myself can be pretty good and I get some feel-good sensations and chemicals from them.

 

I can have an orgasm with someone else but often I would have to show them how the parts work and that can be a little tedious and make me feel uncomfortable and this makes the orgasm less intense.

 

I can orgasm with someone else that knows what he is doing (this means the requisite mental stimulation as well) and knows how the parts work and that is extra-intense.

 

Again, the same. Why do you think this only applies to women?

 

 

Humans of either gender can experience a wide range of orgasms, from meh to mind-blowing. Maybe for women the range is larger, but the basic principle holds for everyone.

[LittleTiger]

Humans of either gender can experience a wide range of orgasms, from meh to mind-blowing. Maybe for women the range is larger, but the basic principle holds for everyone.

 

I don't think dreamingoftigers was suggesting otherwise. In trying to explain something for the OPs benefit she gave details of her own sexuality - within the context of the original question. Carhill is asking about women's experience in particular. Dreamingoftigers didn't mention men and this thread isn't just about orgasms.

[ascendotum]

In fact the shy virgin guy would be the most wicked conquest because by default I would pretty much be the most arousing thing to him (and it would be really fun if he could last more then a minute and a half, but he probably can't).

 

As well, guys in a lower station in life have fewer troubles getting laid because women view them as the guys who have trouble getting laid. So if a girl wants a cheap hot fling that she has low chances of rejection with when she is feeling down, so will set her sights a little lower. My H was homeless for 10 years. Girls would throw themselves at him all the time, figuring that they could be that fun time he would have.

 

Nice previous post dreamingoftigers, but for the above I am shaking my head. If you think like this you are in the minority as far as I am concerned. 9 times out of 10 a (my unaudited statistic) woman will f**k a guy above their league when they are up for it and given the chance. You did not mention the self esteem boost that will enhance the sexual experience that comes from sleeping with someone more attractive, more desirable, or with higher social proof. I am talking casual or sex short term fling here. IMO far more women would prefer to be another notch on the bed post of Mr hunky guy and have their name forgotten by tomorrow than make Mr Nervous Inexperienced Nerdy guy's year and be reminisced about for years to come. Seriously I think many woman today would be kind of creeped out as regards being the object of desire for the 2nd outcome.

[somedude81]

Really the smartest guys who know how to date have the best chances of getting with a girl if they seem emotionally interested in her and mention that they are struggling with not trying to make a sexual move on her because they respect her so much and don't want to ruin anything.

 

This tells the girl really important things: 1. He is interested in an emotional relationship 2. He is respectful (this quality is rare) 3. He wants her to be comfortable 4. He really wants to shag her super-bad (and believe it or not, this is the part that seals the relationship deal for most girls IMO).

How do I do that, tell her?

 

1-4 all apply to me with the girl that I'm completely infatuated with. But I don't know how to express them without creeping her out.

 

We are kind of friends and we get along great. But I don't know how she feels about me. She keeps flip-flopping between warm and cold.

 

Something else comes to mind.

 

Does a woman who's a virgin, have sexual needs?

 

She's 21 and I strongly suspect that she's never had a boyfriend and I wouldn't be suprised if shes a virgin.

 

How would a man get her to be sexual?

[carhill]

Hey, thanks for all the responses. I've got jobs today, but will be back later to read in detail and respond as appropriate.