The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Health, Fitness, Food, Insurance, Longevity, Diets,...
7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Dragline: Well, "Sundown" and "Brandi" are not so bad. MIght make me reflect back to a time before the invention of bike helmets. I just can't seem to sync in with the erotic imagery of a large steely object slowly sinking into the cold, cold water. YMMV.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by BRUTE »

what if the large, steely object is roughly phallus-shaped?

Toska2
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:51 pm

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by Toska2 »

Does brute know Jason Aldean's song about water towers? ;)

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Exactly. I have some experience with dating older men, but I am not the sort of miracle worker who could bring the Edmund Fitzgerald back up to the surface. OTOH, I am now wondering if it would be copyright infringement to borrow title from Mr. Lightfoot, for one chapter of my soon (or never) to be released volume entitled "The GILF's Guide to Dating the Over 50 Man." Some of the chapters I've already mentally roughed out would be "His Back, Your Knees" ," Little Miss Direction", "Post-Mature Ejaculation" and "60 Going On 16." Perhaps "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" could be the one chapter that is lacking in optimistic outlook.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by BRUTE »

brute believes copyright expires 70 years after the author's death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright ... ted_States

@toska2: brute has not heard that song

enigmaT120
Posts: 1240
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 2:14 pm
Location: Falls City, OR

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by enigmaT120 »

I like Paranoid, by Black Sabbath. At least it helps me give a vigorous back rub. Just so my partner doesn't listen to the lyrics.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Not "Iron Man?" Respectable choice.

My current playlist includes "Post Blue" by Placebo, "Suga Suga" by Baby Bash, "Wolf Like Me" by TV On The Radio, "Curry Your Favor" by Green, "Mesmerizing" by Liz Phair, "Right On the Money" by Alan Jackson, "Can't Stop Thinking About It" by the Dirtbombs and "Western Movies" by the Olympics, but mostly I just dance to it.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Here is a grossly incomplete and oversimplified look at Deida's description of the growth and evolution of the different relationship modes of modern times:

Stage One, the 1950's Patriarchy: Men bring home the bacon, women are all, in the feminist perspective, dissatisfied housewives. everywhere, there is "dependence" on something outside yourself.
Stage Two, circa 1970's Matriarchy and Confusion: Everything gets scrambled, men are half-men, half-women, women are half-women, half-men, both are each, neither, both, and everything else. It's "independence," power-balance, or dependence on something inside yourself
Stage Three, 21st Century, Beyond Patriarchy and Matriarchy: Neither Stage One nor Stage Two, this is a stage of essentially real men being real men, and real women being real women; where both men and women become who they really are. From another, say, Covey-ian perspective, it's beyond dependence, beyond independence, to "interdependence" and beyond.

Of course, some folks are either "stuck" in 1950's mode of Stage One or the 1970's mode of Stage Two. Having a "Stage Three" relationship requires the proper work and effort.
Where are you in your strength and balance between masculine and feminine energy? Where do you want to be? How does your desired level of balance fit into your current relationship(s) or any you hope to have in the future?

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by Ego »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Of course, some folks are either "stuck" in 1950's mode of Stage One or the 1970's mode of Stage Two. Having a "Stage Three" relationship requires the proper work and effort.
Where are you in your strength and balance between masculine and feminine energy? Where do you want to be? How does your desired level of balance fit into your current relationship(s) or any you hope to have in the future?
We lived in a van in Europe for the first 14 months of our marriage, allowing us to do the stage-three work without cultural or familial meddling. When we returned we were on pretty solid ground but still, to this day, it requires work to maintain the foundation.

I like the kind of interdependence where each person is helping the other to strengthen their weak areas rather than splitting the work by strengths. We are both very cognizant of the fact that one day a terrible thing could happen and one of us might not be here. Recognizing that possibility makes us appreciate this moment, right now, and encourages us to continue improving and growing as individuals as well as a couple.

That said, my penmanship is atrocious since I broke my thumb so Christmas cards and thank-you cards are out no matter what. Then again, I have no doubt that Mrs. Ego would find a way to haunt me until I learned to write with my left hand. :shock:

EMJ
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 6:37 pm

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by EMJ »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Stage Two, circa 1970's Matriarchy
How was this "matriarchy" expressed?
Matriarchy ≠ feminism or women's rights.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Ego said: I like the kind of interdependence where each person is helping the other to strengthen their weak areas rather than splitting the work by strengths. We are both very cognizant of the fact that one day a terrible thing could happen and one of us might not be here. Recognizing that possibility makes us appreciate this moment, right now, and encourages us to continue improving and growing as individuals as well as a couple.
I should note that I am sort of on the fence myself regarding the sexual dichotomy philosophy promoted by Deida, but I will write here as though I am direct advocate.

I think it is excellent that you are self-aware about the very real possibility of race-to-the-bottom dependency in long term dyad relationship. One of the reasons I really regret not taking a strong stance sooner in my marriage is that I seriously ended up Harrison-Bergeron-ing myself for a number of years. A monogamous adult dyad can only hold together if there is not too great of a division in the powers of the individuals engaged. In fact, one theory is that in the moment you are choosing to have sex with somebody, you are necessarily at equal power level. This is what is often being conveyed with a statement like "I only had sex with that person because I was drunk." IOW, there is an essential conflict between maintaining the dyad and personal growth which will result in tension that can either be resolved in a dysfunctional manner (unconscious sink to lowest common denominator) or a functional manner (self-aware disinclination to sacrifice personal growth combined with ability to hold on through tension of temporary power disequilibrium.) Also,the dyad is "we", but sex can only occur between "you" and "I." IOW, the affectionate dyad can be maintained without individuation but the sexual dyad can not because humans are out-breeders, so sex is about difference, whereas "liking" is about similarity. This is brief summary of the basis of modern egalitarian relationship theory not necessarily inclusive of sexual dichotomy theory.

So, modern egalitarian relationship theory holds that individuation or "differentiation" is necessary to maintain sexual tension in long-term relationships. Sexual dichotomy theory states that this tension and attraction will be greatest if one partner presents in strong feminine energy and the other partner presents in strong masculine energy. IOW, if the power held by each partner is strong and equal, but different because one partner is holding open, receptive energy while the other partner is holding focused, directive energy.

The traditional division of labor along sexist lines is only remotely related to feminine vs. masculine energy. It's not what you do. It's how you do it. In fact, if you are "do"ing, you are almost certainly in your masculine energy. You are in your feminine energy when you are "be"ing. Many or most endeavors involve both masculine and feminine energy. For instance, if I am in my garden and I am measuring out rows and making notes on graph paper then I am in my masculine energy. If I am in my garden and I am hunkered down smelling flowers, feeling the sun on my back and tasting fresh strawberries, then I am in my feminine energy.

Anyways, something you might ponder would be if, for instance, you are helping Mrs. Ego to be able to hang from a gutter by herself (metaphorically as well as literally), are you imagining a future in which she will be alone because you are gone rather than a future in which she will be best able to attract a new partner with enough muscle to pull her on to the roof and vice-versa? I'm not implying that the two are mutually exclusive, but we all need to make choices about in what way we wish to improve or what direction we wish to grow. For instance, it would or could be a strong stance in alignment with individuation if a partner said to me "I am going to teach you how to weld this afternoon." (has happened-lol) and I replied "No. This afternoon I will be shopping for a pretty dress at the thrift store and getting a pedicure with my sister." and then just blew him a kiss when he starts muttering something about "useless females." I get that it's a terrible burden on one's freedom to be the only one in the room who is capable of doing a decent job of welding, but ...P.O.P. (price of pretty- get your mind out of the gutter.) This is a simple, superficial example of individuation towards or in alignment with sexual dichotomy. The highest manifestation of feminine energy would be something like being completely relaxed in trust in relationship to the universe.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Another quick note on the theory. People have layers upon layers, but simple (simplistic) test for whether you are core feminine or core masculine in your sexuality would be to ask yourself whether you would be more hurt if your lover told you that you were "useless" or "ugly." Of course, those with high innate self-esteem or in current good situation would be more likely to reflexively respond "Not true!" to either statement, so imagine situation of contextual weakness, such as just failing at your career or losing some body part to cancer, and then your lover says one or the other.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by Ego »

I think you might be overthinking it.

In my experience, people who are making it work spend their time trying to make it work. They look for ways to make it work and try not to undermine it. That's what my parents did and that's what we're doing.

So far, so good.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Ego: Well, I overthink everything, so that's nothing new. However, your response leads me to believe that you fall into the category of "got lucky." I know so very many intelligent, mature, thoughtful, responsible, well-meaning people who have worked very hard and done their very best to preserve their marriages and failed. It's not that simple. By analogy, if I had only given birth to my DD24, who was once described as "a perfect angel child" at a parent-teacher conference, then I might think that parenting was simply a matter of showing up and doing the work. However, since I was also blessed with my DS27, I know that is not the case. -lol

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by Ego »

Absolutely. I am the first to admit that I got lucky and that not all failures are the result of not working hard enough.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Well, when I woke up this morning,, I was feeling a bit tired and out of sorts. So, I started having negative thoughts about my tendencies towards "irrational exuberance" and somebody named Icarus and that maybe I don't have enough feminine energy to share with 4 partners, etc. etc. but then I put on my magic angora sweater and went to meet #4 and worked it all out.

Also, I forgot that according to sexual dichotomy theory the more orgasms a female has the better, but there is some benefit to a man having fewer relative to his overall masculine functioning. Kind of in alignment with the analogy with the Warrior Diet that BRUTE was suggesting. I am so happy that I self-identify as and phenotype-match the gender that gets to eat sweets in the morning and have unlimited orgasms. No need to delay gratification if you are the marshmallow.

Peanut
Posts: 551
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:18 pm

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by Peanut »

"'Stage Three, 21st Century, Beyond Patriarchy and Matriarchy: Neither Stage One nor Stage Two, this is a stage of essentially real men being real men, and real women being real women; where both men and women become who they really are. From another, say, Covey-ian perspective, it's beyond dependence, beyond independence, to "interdependence" and beyond.'"

I don't buy that we've reached a stage where men and women are becoming who they really are yet. Social conditioning is still very strong and people perform gender scripts unthinkingly. That being said, I don't think men and women are the same either.

Gotta say, the energy theory sounds like bunk to me, although it also kind of intrigues. Having a hard time seeing how being and doing are that distinguishable in the first place. Like in your example, isn't shopping an activity?


My feeling about marriages is that the discussion around improving them is already a non-starter. "Work harder." How does that appeal? Work is work. Marriage shouldn't be work. Have fun instead.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by Ego »

Peanut wrote: My feeling about marriages is that the discussion around improving them is already a non-starter. "Work harder." How does that appeal? Work is work. Marriage shouldn't be work. Have fun instead.
Yeah but someone's gotta wash the dishes, take the car in for service and complete the 1040 Schedule C. On the days when I feel like I'm doing all of the hard stuff, it takes work to see things from her perspective. And vise-versa. Going in thinking it is going to be all fun and no work is a recipe for disaster.

BRUTE
Posts: 3797
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:20 pm

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by BRUTE »

Peanut wrote:I don't buy that we've reached a stage where men and women are becoming who they really are yet. Social conditioning is still very strong and people perform gender scripts unthinkingly. That being said, I don't think men and women are the same either.

...

My feeling about marriages is that the discussion around improving them is already a non-starter. "Work harder." How does that appeal? Work is work. Marriage shouldn't be work. Have fun instead.
brute thinks the opposite is happening. external limits on human males and females have been lifted so far these days that there is just no reason left for them to have relationships.

females used to get married because they couldn't have jobs and being unmarried carried stigma. males used to get married because it was one of few ways to get laid, and the stigma thing. before that, they had relationships because tigers and famine struck.

with material abundance and lifting social stigmata about gender roles and sex, there's just no reason left for humans to form these traditional relationships like marriage. the only one left would be the joint raising of a human child, but arguably that's been thrown out the window before the economic considerations became fully realized, so humans don't really seem to care for that.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Ingenuity Gap of the U.S. Sexual Deficit

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Peanut said: I don't buy that we've reached a stage where men and women are becoming who they really are yet. Social conditioning is still very strong and people perform gender scripts unthinkingly. That being said, I don't think men and women are the same either.
Generally agree, but it varies. For instance, I was married to an artistic-type who grew up in a very liberal feminist environment, so he would sometimes say things to me like "You are smarter than me, so you should be the one who makes the money." (but it wasn't like he was about to change a stinky diaper either. -lol. I should note that we are actually water-under-the-bridge-weren't-we-both-stupid-kids-hug-when-we-infrequently-meet-friendly at this juncture. He could and would even do a dark humorous take on his lack of fitness for the conventional paterfamilias role, while I would be laughing until I cried recollecting the times I came home to find him with an empty 6 pack and a baby snapped into a sleeper with one leg out and one arm trapped, like some human origami project gone tragically wrong.) OTOH, acknowledging that hormones effect development and behavior is just not being a science denier, but rushing to assumption that conventional gender scripts directly reflect hormonal influence is not good science.
Gotta say, the energy theory sounds like bunk to me, although it also kind of intrigues. Having a hard time seeing how being and doing are that distinguishable in the first place. Like in your example, isn't shopping an activity?
Yeah, "shopping for pretty dress" was a weak, superficial, 3 steps removed example. Here's the science behind all the "heal your inner Goddess" stuff to the best of my understanding. The female erotic cycle is similar but not the same as the male erotic cycle. The female cycle generally goes something like interest/excitement/arousal/ growing arousal/peaking arousal/release of anxiety center in brain/orgasm (or orgasm,orgasm,orgasm), resolution, relaxation/bonding and the conventional female half of the mating dance is something like make yourself attractive/signal availability/filter. When you buy yourself a pretty dress and put on some tipsy heels, you are likely taking action towards two desired states of being prior to sexual encounter. You are making yourself feel attractive and you are rendering yourself more easily excitable by putting yourself into an anticipatory state. Natalie Wood twirling herself around singing "I feel pretty!" is going to be put over the screaming/fainting edge by "I Wanna Hold Your Hand." She doesn't need a member of the dark triad dressed in leather to show up and throw her up against the side of a locked elevator. OTOH, you also have to learn how to put yourself into the state where you can best release your own anxiety once you are excited so that you are able to orgasm rather than scream for help if/when a member of the dark triad does show up in your local elevator. Lastly, you need to know how to best handle your own emotional state post-orgasm. If you wish to emotionally bond, you need to be strong-vulnerable open to that potential. If you don't wish to bond, you need to know how to care for yourself.

My own comprehension is still a bit too dim and flickering to do a very good job of explaining, although it has been my repeated experience that to the extent I have attempted to put the theory into practice, I have been amazed at my "success." One example Deida gave that kind of clicked with me was if you imagine a man putting his hands firmly on your waist and pulling you towards him, do you instinctively respond by making the same gesture and putting your hands on his waist? Probably not. Probably, what you instinctively do is something like put your hands on his shoulders and relax a bit or swoon. If/when you can make yourself swoon without the firm hands on your waist, then you are gesturing strong in your feminine.This is still sort of just a superficial trick or wile of the feminine (I do this fairly frequently, because I am a terrible person.*), but if you can take it beyond gesture to feeling to state of being or essence and relate to the universe or all potentialities rather than some man or person in their masculine energy, or even your man whom you deeply love, then that is the nth degree.
My feeling about marriages is that the discussion around improving them is already a non-starter. "Work harder." How does that appeal? Work is work. Marriage shouldn't be work. Have fun instead.
Gotcha. I swear the next time I am ever in a situation where I feel the urge to say "We need to talk...", I am just going to shake all the pennies out of my bank, and check myself into a spa for two weeks instead.




*Another "trick" that almost always works is just imagining or pretending that you are something edible, like a bunny or a peach. However, it is better if you don't absent-mindedly verbalize as you are doing this, or you might end up terrified when your partner overtly picks up your cue. Caution!!

Post Reply