weirdy self strangulating orange suckers etc.

Just been reading one of Juliet OC's stories on "World Without Men" and frankly I'm surprised that so few women are actually lesbians considering the poor specimens of manhood which are around. But we've been made this way by biology, society and (dare I say it?) God. We can spread our progeny at will and don't have to go through nine months' gestation to think about whether or not we've been wise. We're turned on by the visual, the superficial, the instantly available. I don't think women have in any sense a lesser sex drive, it just seems to be linked to relationship and intimacy; my wife felt threatened by a former "penfriend" to whom I could write very openly even though this woman lives in New Zealand. Women have a great appetite for "porn", just not so much the pictorial type. And there are plenty of women into kink, though they tend to stay away from the kind of extremes you describe - but they need to be discreet to avoid predatory or deceitful males of which there are sadly rather a lot.

In evolutionary terms passing on our genes is the ultimate quest of life. So from a biological perspective it is better for males to go around and impregnate as many different females as possible and father as many children with as many females as possible. For the female mammals protecting the offspring and ensuring their survival is often the important task. Although the male plays apart in this, in mammalian child-rearing often its the female who heads the offspring rearing. So men have a higher sex drive. If you have a higher sex drive there is more sexuality present to "go wrong". just a little thought.

I was going to say that Jude, although a lot less eloquently. Blokes are programmed to shag around more than women, therefore, they’re going to be the ones getting into the troublesome areas the most. It reminded me of an argument I had with a colleague years ago about homosexuals being overly promiscuous. Gay men are very promiscuous, she said. Hmph, I said, gay men are no more promiscuous than any other men, it’s just that when you have two blokes together as a couple, you don’t necessarily have anyone at home waiting with a rolling pin. (Yes I know that sounds like a crass generalisation but you get my gist - my sister’s gay and she has a very girlie attitude to relationships.)

Sorry to bump this one back up; I just got around to reading it as the title intrigued me. I don't think it has to do with biological drive. There's always this argument that 'men have a biological need to fertilise as many women as possible' without considering the reverse: women have a need, as well, to spread their own gene pool around and indeed fertility in women is increased when there is more than one sperm 'donor' donating at the same time - the strongest sperm wins the race, gets the egg. The only thing that restricts women's spreading the love around, so to speak, are the gestational and breastfeeding 'time-outs' which reduce fertility and, indeed, sexual drive to some extent. Not to mention antiquated cultural beliefs that women are somehow less sexual than men. IMO, the tendency of men to be generally pervvier on all accounts is a societal, not biological, one. It's far too complex to make any sense of here (I could and probably should write a thesis on it), but it boils down to a few things: 1. Lack of societal support for male emotional intimacy (non-sexual based) with male friends (or even female friends, hence jealous wives) 2. Societal restrictions that dictate that one man must love one woman to the exclusion of everyone and everything else, including emotional and/or sexual intimacy with others (this is not always the case in male homo relationships, mind you, where there seems to be a greater degree of tolerance) 3. Deeply ingrained Victorian attitudes toward sexuality in general; probably at the very root of it all. 4. Men purchase sex for many reasons: power, loneliness, sexual hunger, etc.; many of these are symptoms of a deeper feeling of isolation in men, which can lead to social deviance. Sex in rubber suits is a form of titillation and, if consensual, can be a [relatively] healthy way of processing these urges. Paedophilia, like any form of rape, is less about sex and more about the underlying urge for power as well as (in some) a way to recapture something they feel they have lost in themselves. 5. Again, social attitudes toward women (the Madonna/Whore syndrome is still alive and kicking in some parts) In general (and I mean, very general) there is also a tendency for males to -externalise- their problems (hooliganism, rape, paedophilia, violent self-destruction/destruction of others) whilst women tend to -internalise-; again, this is supported by a society that says that it's okay for males to kill people in combat, but is deeply uncomfortable with the thought of women on the front lines. I could go on, and might do so again (sorry) but this is a very complex issue (good questions, though!) and can't be put into one little nutshell answer. I've studied many cultures and the things ivoryfishbone mentioned above (purchasing sex, deviance, paedophilia,etc) are NOT restricted to this culture; but I think the cultures that have the most rules about male/female or same sex relationships, and have the most restrictive mores concerning sexuality in general (including attitudes toward female sexuality) are the ones in which more deviance occurs. We're a lonely, lonely world, full of lonely, isolated, fucked up people. Alas!

Online, where the means of acquisition are less hostile to women, over a quarter of all porn in the UK is consumed by women. ---- John H

I happen to like some forms of porn. Especially male homo porn. Dunno why; don't care, either. Who says women aren't visual creatures?

I do not accept that men are more pervier than women... I just think that they are more likelier to take risks in sex and because of that, they suffer increased chances of getting caught. I would suggest that greater risk taking by men goes across the board of human behaviours which is why they are reflected at the extremes - both good and bad. In comparison, women are risk averse especially when the stakes are high.... and there is probably a bioligical basis for that.

Good point.

I don't think men are pervvier than women, nor that they are necessarily more inclined to take risks in the sexual department. Certainly not in this society. Women frequently put themselves at risk, and they also have to contend with the label 'promiscuous' being put on them for these risks, not to mention being the victim of violent or predatory behaviour; men are called players, studs, 'I have a high sex drive', whathaveyou, but seldom 'promiscuous', which has all sorts of unspoken connotations attached. The same applies to homo sex, which operates with a different system than hetero.

Arrrggghhh!! Why do you feel the need to use so many bloody unnecessary ellipses, Fish, when full stops would serve perfectly well? Even 1leg reined in his usual orgy of dotdotdots this time. Grrr... Back on topic, I was a bit surprised by the tone of the intitial posts citing all sorts of spurious pseudoscience as 'evidence' that men have higher sex drives than women. Sex drives vary between individuals, sure, but on average between the sexes they're about the same. I agree with archergirl;'s post (apart from the lonely, lonely, isn't life such a vale of tears sentiment at the end - maybe if I was a goth or something) and now I'm going to groove round the living room doing the 'isn't it great that the modern world is sexually liberated' dance.

We're not sexually liberated, rokkit. We still comply with the same old precepts we've had for yonks. Just try to have a 'polyamorous' relationship with someone/s and you'll see. It was a bit Gothy, wasn't it? But we -are- very isolated as a society and a species as a whole.

Oh, most relationships I've had have been polyamorous... albeit without the other party's knowledge. But meh - it was an ironic sexual liberation dance, anyway. I don't object to the ehtics of polyamorous relationships in general, but, if I'm searingly honest, I don't think my macho ego could cope with it. I'd be too jealous. I mean, I had a bisexual gf a few years back and she was allowed to go with other girls, but even that made me feel a bit weird. I guess this discussion feels a bit odd to me because we seem to be stripping love out of the sexual equation.

Can any man or women be truly monagamous for their whole lives? By that i mean not even want to go elsewhere? Or is monogamy just a social construct? Juliet

Good question, Juliet, and I can partly answer it by turning the question around: Can any man or woman be truly promiscuous for their whole lifes? I think the truth lies somewhere in between, meaning that despite our biological make up we've all got choices. And that's what makes it so difficult, I suppose. Men and Women have different circumstances and phases throughout their lifes where they want different things, and although what we want isn't always what we need, the bottom line is that it's good to have a choice! It's whether we can deal with the choices and make the right ones for ourselves according to what we truly need, that's the question. I think this thing about males having a higher sex drive than females is a myth. Just think about it: A man sleeping around is generally considered a stud, whereas if a female does the same thing she's inevitably branded a slut. Given this judgement which surrounds us everywhere within our society and the media, I'd be a fool if I was a woman and admit to the real scale of my sexual endeavours. After all, which eligible bachelor would want to marry me and have kids some time in the future, should I eventually decide to change direction? From what I gathered from my female friends, they all play down the number of sexual partners and the amount of sex they've had - if I was a woman and cared about my future, I'd be pushed to do exactly the same!

Is polyamorous one of those sexual deviant practices to which Fish refers? Isn't there a risk of catching avian 'flu? What's the kick in it: Do you teach it say 'Squark! Give it to me, big boy.' I guess the largest risk is that it will sell its story to the News of the World.

Hmm, the problem with analysing any culture is that there are so many confounding factors. There -are- cultures where affection and intimacy between the same sex is more 'allowed', such as most Asian cultures where men can walk hand-in-hand (and women can do the same); the problem is, most cultures also have a lot of gender politics involved which lead to other types of violence, etc. The Dinka culture is another one where gender is so divisive that men hang out with men, women with women, and the twain never shall meet except in conjugal matters. I don't know what the 'perv' rate is amongst the Dinka; I suspect there are pervs in every culture, just like there's violence toward women; I have a sneaking suspicion that -certain- forms of sexual violence are lessened, but this also has to do with the female role in sexual matters (e.g. for male pleasure only). I was thinking more of the old Polynesian cultures and certain African cultures where sexuality of any sort is more or less acceptable; you can go with whomever you choose as long as it's discreet. These tend to be more egalitarian societies (and/or hunter-gatherers, which are also more or less egalitarian). The problem again is that for much of the history of anthropology, all the studies were done by western European men, who never considered the idea of female sexuality other than as a receptive, passive role, so whatever data we have is highly, highly skewed. Studies that come out now in less technological cultures do explore the concepts of female sexuality; but often the study subjects laugh and say 'We're too busy working/raising children/farming to think much about sex.' So...rokkit, you're a great advertisement for polyamory, mate. 'Without the other parties' knowledge..!'. That's not polyamory, is it? Polyamory is open, and yes, quite difficult.

Two partners is bigamy three is triganometry one is monotony

And if you're a nun is it nonogamy?

Ha Ha.. yes! I can laugh heartily since my excommunication

I was being ironic, AG. I understand what 'genuine' polyamorous relationships are supposed to be like. Seems a bit of a prissy label, though. What's the difference between a polyamorous partner and a fuck buddy? You 'love' the former and just like the latter? I'm sorry, I just find all this labelling and hair-splitting starts to drift further and further from how people's sexuality manifests itself day to day. It's like: 'Dude, I'd go and jerk off over some Nancy Friday but our country's outdated societal sexual mores have totally killed my boner.'

>>What really interests me, is why are there so many politicians that do this?<< It's because the men are over forty (mainly over fifty), living away from their humdrum wives (who only stay with them for their place in the local community or, in the case of the more famous MPs, their place in national society); they have plenty of money and spare time and, Hey Presto! An orange loving MP who is liberal with his penis. No surprises there, then.

Bastard site! This happened to me last night. I replied to Karl's post only to see 15 mins of typing disappear into the ether. Luckily, tonight unlike last night, my click back still contained my words, so here is the rest of my post: It's because the men are over forty (mainly over fifty), living away from their humdrum wives (who only stay with them for their place in the local community or, in the case of the more famous MPs, their place in national society); they have plenty of money and spare time and, Hey Presto! An orange loving MP who is liberal with his penis. No surprises there, then.

I belive that politicians (and also members of the judiciary, higher ranking police officers) are more prone to acts of 'weirdy orange sucking', because they are precisely the type of men that seek refuge in power. Look at them (the weirdy orange suckers), do they strike you as confident, happy-with-themselves types? No they are mainly men who cannot even dress themselves and were probably beaten senseless at school for using long words and being in the chess club. They are not a microcosm of men generally. Men generally are far, far worse.

once someone is conceited enough to think they can run the country, sucking oranges and rent boys seems a rather minor perversion.

I missed the whole news item about rent boys and whatnot, so maybe someone can patiently explain to me why orange sucking is considered pervvy. I do it all the time: mandarins, clementines, satsumas, Valencias, navels, and such. With a little salt. I'm not so sure that politicians actually -do- weirdy things more than laypeople; it's just that they have to be more careful about it, what with being in the public eye and all, so when they -are- caught with their oranges out, the fall is much more spectacular. I have to say it bugs me a bit that the press and public get all moralistic about politicians and higher ranking police officers having it off in some seamy way; why should that be considered any differently (or indifferently) than my nextdoor neighbour doing it? Is it necessarily worse when a politician does it?

I think most of the outrage comes from people who realise he had a much better sex life than them. A lot of that feigned disgust at non-maintsteam sexual practices comes from people whose erotic repetoire consists entirely of flicking themselves off in front of Emmerdale.

How about this for a hypothesis: There's a pretty similar level or paraphilia across all groups of men in society. Those in positions of power are open to greater scrutiny, dirt digging etc. People are also more hungry to hear gossip, stories, evidence of their moral lapses etc. Therefore, the kinks that they do have a more likely to come to light because there are more people who have an interest in bringing them to light, to meet a demand. Here's another hypothesis: Men and women have an equal amount of kinks. The difference between men and women is that men are more likely to take risks in the satisfaction of said kink, or to be more indiscreet. This would require undertaking these sexual practices with less concern about their remaining secret / undisclosed / submerged. Therefore, based on this hypothesis, the difference is that men undertake more behaviours that they are likely to get caught at, rather than more behaviours that are 'kinky'. A possible further hypothesis: Men and women consume different cultural materials, or have different cultural materials targeted at them. These gender delineated materials give a differing impression of the morality, availability and overall conditions that can be expected of sex and sexual activities. Based upon a person being aware of their kink, they will pursue materials that provide them with a view of that kink that fits into a world view that legitimises it in a certain fashion. Based upon porn and other sexual materials being targeted at men, as many representations of sex are in cultural materials are, men consume these materials, which reinforces a certain view of the mechanics, suitability, availability and desirability of certain practices. Women draw information about sex and sexuality from different sources, which may place a very different overall understanding of where sex or a particular paraphilia fits into life in general, often drawing information or suitable materials that place such activities in a less risk taking context. Conclusion: Men understand paraphilias to exist outside of normal contexts of relationships, or believe that satisfaction of paraphilia lie outside of normal romantic relationships and are thus more likely to engage in 'risky' behaviour. This is resultant from cultural representation of sexuality. Secondary conclusion: Woman draw their understanding from sources that contextualise paraphilias. Risk minimising behaviour is undertaken, meaning that there is less opportunity for danger or discovery. Question: Are paraphilias in sexual behaviour inhibited by a real or perceived power imbalance in sexual relations between men and women? Is sexual behaviour perceived as inherently more dangerous by women, leading to less of the risk taking behaviour undertaken by men? Cheers, mark Brown, Editor (on leave), www.ABCtales.com

Hmm. I don't think men are hornier than women. Maybe it works like this: desperate men become sexual deviants. Desperate women marry rich men, complain about them for years, get divorced and feel put upon. Arf. There do seem to be more outlets for women's inclinations towards sexual deviation. They're always attending Anne Summers parties over here in the workplace. And it seems very acceptable for them to have crazy fantasies about all kinds of things. I mean, I've seen Transformers porn *drawn* by girls and proudly displayed. With men, there seems to be more of a culture of straight-up get-laid-with-real-women, roll over and go to sleep. No nonsense. I don't know why that is. It's a bit gay, to be honest (as is everything hyper-masculine). It's all about not being too poncy. So perhaps the natural inclination to deviate becomes more of an undercover thing, and grows more extreme to compensate for the constant cover-ups. "I think most of the outrage comes from people who realise he had a much better sex life than them." I think most of the outrage is manufactured, Tim. The papers always leap on deviant MP's, because they know how much we all secretly (or not so secretly) hate them.

The outrage is manufactured as a flimsy excuse to run the story, without the outrage it's just gossip. We accept it because we hate them.

Wow - isn't that, like, my last sentence rearranged?

it's a lot like it