Dan,
David: Without the male desire to conquer his ideation of woman, sex would become mundane and uninteresting - akin to relieving one's bladder in the toilet.
Sher: For all I know, you guys could be right, and be describing things accurately from the male perspective.
Dan: There really is only the male perspective, if there is perspective at all. Women don't have "perspective" in this. You have to be able to step back, reflectively from all this to be able to have any true perspective. Most women lack that ability; most men don't use what they have.
The male perspective expressed in this thread is based only on the male experience. It says nothing about the female experience. These are different for obvious reasons, but since I’m not sure I’m being properly understood, I’ll talk about it a little more.
Nick described the penetration of a penis into a vagina as being the same thing physically as the penetration into an anus. This is complete bullshit, because at least for the female, the sensations are completely different. Leyla is a female, and she also testified that both penetrations feel different and produce different types of orgasm (if at all). Sorry that I’m paraphrasing her, but I can’t be bothered to search a thread that is already on page 6.
So, if the male perspective is that those two things are the same, and my experience and that of other women tells me they are not even similar, I should just accept the male perspective as being true, because I have no ability to have a perspective. Does that pretty much sum up your position?
Let’s go on to the text you quoted above.
David: Without the male desire to conquer his ideation of woman, sex would become mundane and uninteresting - akin to relieving one's bladder in the toilet.
David is talking about the male experience. My experience with sex could never be described as relieving a bladder, even if it was with one of Jason’s machines. Emptying my bladder is something I do with an urgent feeling. No such urge exists for me with sex. In fact, it is something I can plan, and look forward to several days before, sort of like when I make a reservation at a luxurious restaurant. I am not even hungry, let alone starved, when I make said reservation. I am then in the position where I can be very choosy about the type and quality of food experience I will have. David is not – his sexual experience can be better described as a hobo finding a container with food scraps in the trash can, flies coming out of it, and he eats it with desperation because he is starved.
Here again, your position would be that the starving hobo experience is the true perspective (on sex), and the luxurious restaurant experience is false, because it was described by me, a female, who is not capable of having a perspective. Again, confirm that I understood you correctly.
Sher: But my perspective is very different to all the text I cited above. It boils down to this: If you could give me a machine that could inflict upon me all the physical sensations (pressure, friction, thrusting, sucking, and whatever else) that the right man could, I'd go for the machine and forget about the man, if for no other reason that because the machine is cheaper, needs less maintenance and is easier to control.
Dan: Sure, but in that sense you're only speaking of the simple fact of physical stimulation. For most people this is not enough. They require all the accouterments of the psycho-sexual realm, over and above the simple act of experiencing physical pleasure.
For me the physical pleasure is enough; the psychological pleasure you talk about leaves enough baggage for me to go on a 2-month trip to Europe. Been there, done that.
For most people this is not enough.
Most people end up in abusive, non-functional relationships. All because they want psychological pleasure mixed with the physical.
Sher: Cultural conditioning has nothing to do with my choosing men over women for sex -- it is just that women, or animals, or machines (toys included) are not equipped and skilled to do what a man can do sexually.
Dan: Oh, I rather doubt that. A skilled lesbian with a strap-on wouldn't suffice? I suspect she would do a better job.
A strap-on is not going to do the job well. I’d take the machine, who won’t expect me to give it any pleasure. I am not fondling a woman, and that is final.
Sher: So it is not the ideation of man that makes the experience so different for me: it is the physical part itself.
Dan: So, if I find you a bunch of skilled Panamanian lesbians, you'll be into it?
I’m really sorry to disappoint you Dan, but no. A strap-on is not the same as a penis, and I don’t want to be touched by a woman. But I admit that you do make a valid point.
In light of your observation, it is time to restate my position. I feel sexually attracted to a man’s body in a way that I can’t feel towards a woman, an animal or a machine. You are right that it does add some excitement to sex. However, sex is still mainly about the physical sensations, and that is what I stated at first (page 2 of this thread). In my case, the machine will still beat the man, because the loss due to the machine’s physical aspect is compensated by the cheaper cost, lower maintenance, lower expectations and zero emotional baggage it produces.
