I've got to say I'm a bit baffled by many aspects of the female orgasm issue:

(1) the claim that all women fake all orgasms all the time, or at least often enough that their male partners can't tell what's going on, seems a bit dubious to me. I've had some partners who were willing, and eager, to have repeat intercourse for, um, hours (okay, this was back in the days when I could cooperate in such a program). They, to a woman, claimed to be multi-orgasmic via penile stimulation. In many cases this was taken to a point where they suffered from obviously sore tissues; they actually verbally acknowledged that they were pushing past the pain to continue (and their body language suggested they weren't lying). I'm not that pushy a guy; if any of these girls had said, "Wow, I'm too sensitive, tired, fulfilled or bored to continue" that would absolutely have been the end of the matter and I would have gone away happy, or at least I would have gone away. So why else other than the possibility of additional pleasure would lead these women to fake not one orgasm, but many (in the case of one young lady, as many, many orgasms)? When I've brought this up in conversations over the years, however, some women have been doctrinaire in their assertion that it was all a matter of orgasm-faking, and I'm just an easily-deceived male. While I'm willing to entertain this hypothesis, they've never convincingly explained how they could claim to know such a "fact" about other people's experiences, and clearly I've privately wondered how great a role, um, envy might play in such categorical assertions.

(2) All that said, the variation in interest and orgasmic capacity from one woman to another (assuming the prima facie evidence can be believed) has always bewildered me. Whether it's a question of better neural pathways in the brain, different development of nerves in key parts of the body or whatever, does anyone have a good explanation as to why such variation would exist? I mean, the variation in, say, height or IQ or hair color is not remotely as large as what I have observed for the variation in orgasmic capacity from some women (essentially zero) to others (up to 20 orgasms per session.) I've been pondering evo-bio explanations of this, without coming up with any, for many years. Anybody got any ideas?

On the story by Michael Hirsh regarding the overlap of Wall Street and Washington, I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than regulatory capture of the government by the FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate) industries. Remember, Berkshire Hathaway, Pimco, etc. are pretty much the buy-side equivalents of Goldman Sachs and Citi on the sell-side. (I've got to ask, Michael, what the common thread between these two stories is..."getting screwed"?) The government's repeated assertions that "America needs a functioning financial system" and "we have to bail out our existing, clearly unstable financial players, no matter what the cost, and without going so far as to insist on even symbolic changes in management," strikes me as such weak logic that it simply can't be taken at face value. And Mr. Hirsch didn't even get around to pointing out that the FIRE industries are easily the biggest source of both campaign contributions and lobbying to the Federal Government. Is there ANYONE, other than people holding the debt or stock of current Wall Street players, who really believes or even pretends to believe this particular nonsense?

Even more revolting to my sensibilities, is the fact that Geithner and Bernanke keep piously giving lip service to the idea that "too big to fail" is a real problem, but refusing to take a single, tinsy step toward breakup of these institutions while encouraging B of A and Wells Fargo to get bigger and bigger via mergers with failing players. This is so blatant a gap between speech and action that I can't believe that anyone thinks they don't have a violently pro-status-quo-ante agenda. Surely the glimmer twins could make one institution - say, Citi - a test case whether wholesale management replacement and breakup is really, truly, absolutely, practically impossible.

Sometimes I wonder if these guys forget we invented the atomic bomb, went to the moon and defeated Japan after Pearl Harbor during the past century. Dismantling Citi strikes me as trivial in comparison with these tasks, yet somehow our political overlords find it so daunting that we can't even consider it.

I grant you, both the notion that (1) our government and the paychecks of all U.S. citizens have become the wholly-owned property of one industry and (2) no amount of informed commentary saying out loud that "this is as plain as the nose on your face" has derailed this all-too-cosy relationship even by a trifle is quite depressing, but there you have it. I guess it's better to know the truth than to live a life of delusion, huh?

I mean, seriously, I kid you not, it's making me wonder if I should consider taking up Canadian citizenship (my wife is Canadian and my children have dual citizenship). Things seem at least marginally better north of the border.

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on April 16, 2009 12:19 PM

lynx: I didn't say she was insensitive. Just that she might not be VERY sensitive. Which is, of course, the topic of debate.

Posted by: Pseudonym on April 16, 2009 12:47 PM

Oops. I was going to comment on the Newsweek article but see that would be a non sequitur at this point. Never mind.

Posted by: Bill on April 16, 2009 1:47 PM

Sometimes I wonder if these guys forget we invented the atomic bomb, went to the moon and defeated Japan after Pearl Harbor during the past century. Dismantling Citi strikes me as trivial in comparison with these tasks, yet somehow our political overlords find it so daunting that we can't even consider it.

The political overlords have considered it and found it too politically costly. To let these institutions fail would probably cause a massive depression which in turn would lead to an politically angry populace which would seek to punish those responsible for the depression. You see Freidrich, the average punter wants to see Geithner et al punished but their own personal 401K remain intact, they want the large corrupt banks to fail but they don't want their employer to fail(who borrows money from the same banks), furthermore the populace is quite willing for stronger action to be taken by congress against the finance industry provided they do not have to suffer the consequences, at which point regulation is off and rescues are demanded. Andrew Mellon did precisely what many in the community are demanding resulting in the Republicans getting voted out of office.

The Average Joe wants to privatise profits and socialise losses just as much as any corporate banker. In a capitalist democracy, people don't just get the government they deserve, they get the economy they deserve as well.

Posted by: slumlord on April 16, 2009 6:37 PM

"Oops. I was going to comment on the Newsweek article but see that would be a non sequitur at this point. Never mind."

Probably just as well. People like you who don't agree with everything the gov't does are probably a threat. Hope you're not a vet either. Seriously, A. Napolitano is right:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/15/napolitano_homeland_security/

Posted by: Bunkered on April 16, 2009 7:00 PM

FvB --

Lots of wise observations that I completely share. I'm remembering the time my first real gf and I went fifteen times in a single night, to the point of bloodiness on both our parts. No faking going on there.

In fact this whole poise of feminist men assuring men how many of them fake strikes me as very arrogant. I mean how would she know? A woman knows for sure about herself only. A man who's had many different women knows about the variability of women far more than a single woman does.

As you say FvB, the variation is enormous.

Posted by: dougjnn on April 16, 2009 7:50 PM

"...bloodiness on both our parts."

Wow, so you busted your own cherry! They didn't have KY back then?!

Posted by: Rugburn on April 16, 2009 10:32 PM

FvB,
I've always thought it presumptuous of certain women, self-styled experts on female sexuality by virtue of their ovaries, to judge the sexual responses of women they've never met.

Posted by: hello on April 17, 2009 12:40 AM

@hell,
I've always thought it presumptuous of certain women, self-styled experts on female sexuality by virtue of their ovaries, to judge the sexual responses of women they've never met.

My initial comment about fake orgasms is not born of presumptuousness nor arrogance. It is based upon clinical science readings, conversations with girlfriends, and a whole lot of experience in the realm of psychopathology.

I can understand men preferring to believe that they've never been duped. But a woman? Do you have any women friends?

Posted by: jz on April 17, 2009 10:52 AM

"My current girlfriend is a squirter. She only does so when she orgasms vaginally, not when she orgasms clitorally."

Watch out, Psuedo, I think this means she can get pregnant easier.

"I've always thought it presumptuous of certain women, self-styled experts on female sexuality by virtue of their ovaries, to judge the sexual responses of women they've never met." - hello

I believe there was a Playboy article from a few decades back that described women in relation to how they responded sexually; yes, there is variety but not so much that a group of guys haven't been able to classify and categorize. No doubt MB has read this article but has mostly forgotten it because he was focussed elsewhere.

Posted by: raspberryswirl on April 17, 2009 11:21 AM

jz, if she is saying that she has never faked an orgasm, and we can assume that she is not alone, then it is reasonable to say that there are men out there who have never been with a woman who has faked.

Posted by: Usually Lurking on April 17, 2009 11:53 AM

@lurking,
she didn't state she's never faked one. You read that as you preferred it to read. Interesting that none of the women responders stated they've never faked one.

Posted by: jz on April 17, 2009 12:30 PM

she didn't state she's never faked one

Yeah, I know. That wasn't the point. I was adding onto what she was saying.

You read that as you preferred it to read.

I did no such thing.

The point is this: there are over 3 billion women in the world today. What is the likelihood that ALL of them have faked an orgasm. In as much that the average guy, in America, has something like 5 (something like that...less than 10) partners in his lifetime, many will have never experienced a woman faking an orgasm.

However, with this basic logic it is still very common for some woman to say something like, "...because all women fake orgasms..." which gets this response, "I've always thought it presumptuous of certain women, self-styled experts on female sexuality by virtue of their ovaries, to judge the sexual responses of women they've never met."

Posted by: Usually Lurking on April 17, 2009 1:19 PM

The financial bailout program is a mess, no doubt about it. But it may have been necessary. The liquidity crisis was real, I think.

My evidence: the "monetary base", as measured by the Federal Reserve, doubled in the last four months of 2008. And nothing much has happened. There should have been consequences: a huge spike in inflation, perhaps. Or gold prices doubling. Or the dollar collapsing against the yen, euro, or Swiss franc. Nothing like this has happened.

This suggests very strongly that the Fed's actions in this area were offset by other forces in the financial system - and that if the Fed had not so acted, those other forces would have had major, possibly catastrophic effects.

Much of the financial activity of the last 40 years has been a house-of-cards. There were many major companies which went public, had their stock value oscillate across a huge range, without ever paying a dividend. IOW, for many years the stock had no value except what someone else would pay for it: the "bigger fool" principle. This worked as long as there was new money coming into the market. The savings of the "boomers" in the 80s and 90s (pension funds, 401(k)s, IRAs) funded the market boom. But earnings and of course dividends didn't keep pace. We're now seeing the blowout.

There was a similar boom in real estate, financed by junk lending.

One question that needs ot be answered is: who is getting "bailed out"? Not shareholders: most of these companies have had shareholder value 90% wiped out. It appears to be bondholders and depositors.

I am more worried about the proposals to "bail out" retail borrowers who are defaulting on loans they should never have received, or because they preferred consumption to debt service. This could be an enormous giveaway to the irresponsible at the expense of those who honored their obligations.

On the other topic: is it not likely that male anatomy and wiring also varies substantially? And that this could affect male preferences? I'd also suggest that the female-anatomy question should be pursued with comparative animal studies. It seems unlikely that the G-spot is unique to humans.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on April 17, 2009 1:53 PM

Rich -- "House of cards" is good -- it could be the label for the last 30 years of American policies as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone -- The females of how many other species are known to be capable of orgasm, does anyone know? I could Google it myself but I'm feeling lazy.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 17, 2009 2:53 PM

"...for men, we pretty much enjoy sex regardless of who we're with, although the degrees do fluctuate depending on the partner."

I have to disagree with this statement. The difference, for a man, between making love to the average not-all-that-thrilled-about-the-act woman, and a woman born to love, is astronomical. No way I can prove this of course. But, in my admittedly limited experience, I sure knew the difference when I finally encountered a woman who loved to love. I hope I was adequate to her but I have no illusions about where I stood on the scale of lovers she had encountered. Only a small percentage of men and women are born to love.

Posted by: ricpic on April 17, 2009 2:54 PM

jz,
I wasn't referring to you but to the type of woman that FvB described. Feminists (and I don't use the word "feminist" as a synonym for "woman") typically think that their experiences, goals, and desires are identical to all women's. I've never personally known anyone who'd admit to the level of athleticism that FvB decribed or to never faking an orgasm but I think that both are possible (the former more than the latter). I haven't researched it in depth but I guess that
A. such women are extremely rare
B. they tend to get around enough so that many, many men will encounter one
C. A lot of these dudes hold all the subsequent women they date to this astronomical standard

Posted by: hello on April 18, 2009 1:50 PM

LINK

for most men, a woman's hotness, not her athleticism, joie de vivre, or those always nebulously defined concepts "sexiness" and "shaking what she got", is the primary determinant of how pleasurable the sex will be for him.

Posted by: roissy on April 18, 2009 2:45 PM

I don't know if the women I've been with have faked it. I've heard moaning and there's has been seemingly responsive movement. None of them has ever said, "Wow. I just had an orgasm. No lie. It was great. Thanks."

That said, it's way more fun to be with someone who's enthusiastic. I could see them faking it just to be a team player so to speak. As an unmarried guy I'd speculate that that attitude turns into furious resentment after a while, that is, once they get past the new relationship point.

There was a woman who wrote a whole book - I'd Rather Eat Chocolate about her lack of interest in sex. I wonder if she's just being more honest than most women. I'll never know I guess. Interestingly she's married. Imagining myself in her husbands shoes literally makes me shudder.

Posted by: Easy E on April 18, 2009 3:55 PM

There is also a percent of women that cannot orgasm at all, according to some studies (which I'm too lazy to look up).

I've met two such women in my life. I didn't date them, though. I'm a busy guy; I don't need that mountain to climb.

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on April 19, 2009 11:37 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?