Is a woman doing a man a favour when she has sex with him?

Remove all ads!

I voted no, of course.

It becomes a chore (for a man and woman alike) if the individual decides to make it so (as in, feels it is his/her duty, decides to make a living that way, et caetera). In such cases, however, this mindset becomes a consequence of a certain decision. It does not become a rule for everyone.

Still, the monoteistic religions, being not as close to nature as the pagan ones, tend to link sex with guilt - for men and women alike. In most politeisms, coupling has a place in the sphere of sacrum. In most monoteistic religions, however, certain conditions need to be met to raise the act of sex from de profundis of profanum to sacrum. It's 'approved' and sacral form can be seen as a chore. With the sole purpose of procreation serving as a justification for enjoying earthly pleasures, sex - for women - is connected with it's usual consequences: the difficulties of childbearing and the pains of labour.

I, on the contrary, find it quite interesting... besides, OP seems to like controversies.

Ah, 'tis always good to see someone not agreeing to let the stereotypes think for them. Still, I believe that the fact some individuals decide to use sex as a means of getting what they want is not enough to vote 'other'. Doing something for a purpose does not mean one cannot still derive pleasure from it, regardless of the motives.

I disagree. If anything, such knowledge would allow us to label the OP (especially in case he/she turned out to be a man). I do not believe the biological gender affects everyone's opinions so much that it should become an important point... Of course, this form of biological determinism does make everything easier, still, such simplifications rarely benefit any discussion - at least in my opinion.

Gaaaah. I am not a prude (far from it), but... seriously, people.

Should be, after Kitrax' confessions.

 

Wait, what? Of course a man can fake an orgasm. It's relatively easy to hide the fact that you haven't ejaculated if you are wearing a condom. Furthermore, the act of ejaculating does not necessarily equate to an orgasm.

 

There's some truth and some misconception to this. Not that I'm saying you're wrong in the misconceptions, just that you're describing the common perception rather than the actual teaching. In a sense, we Christians at least believe we are closer to nature than the 'nature religions', but I think that has more to do with how you define 'nature'. If it is natural for man to be above the rest of creation, isn't it closer to nature to accept that than it is to reject it and wallow in the rest of creation? A little off-topic, I know. More significantly, though, Christianity (at least) doesn't actually teach that sex is for procreation. Quite to the contrary. Throughout the Bible, sex as an act of procreation is secondary. Sex is an act of spiritual bonding, and even that bonding is a means to the end of companionship. The only reason ever given for the formation of marriage is that 'it is not good for Man to be alone'. As for the conditions on 'sacrum' sex, that's true, but again we believe it is a reflection of the joint spiritual/physical nature of our existence, and thus the natural way for things to be. It is our belief that the 'base instincts' that drive man today are the corrupted drives of a perfect nature, i.e. they all reflect something true, natural, and good, but few if any of them are still there.

All in all, my answer is that it depends. It depends on who wants it. If both want it, then no, not at all. If neither wants it, then why are you doing it? If one wants it and the other doesn't (and it can go either way, trust me), then it is a favor from the one who doesn't want it. That being said, strong, healthy relationships are founded, in some part, on favors. One doesn't keep track of any 'debts' concerning them.

 

No, it is rediculous to portrey either partner in a mutual relationship to be "doing the other a favour".

obviously at times one partner will want it while the other does not, but its not a favour to fulfil that need for your partner, any more then me making my wife a cup of tea when I dont drink tea is a favour or cooking my wife food is a favour - it is soemthing that you do.

 

Nope. That there are so many hookers proves sometimes that is not the case, Tiger, not counting. I took this topic to mean that you were only referring to "the sex act." If you are discussing intimacy, then I would have to alter my comments a bit. But come on now, have you not ever had sex with a woman just to have sex? BTW, my comment about the "O" was [in part] that men think that for women to enjoy sex they always have to have one, or two, or three. That's not "always" the case. In fact, 80 percent of the time women fake it anyway, sometimes to make the guy feel better about his "performance." That data is posted.

That's a good point; I can't argue with that.

 

That was, actually, my aim: to describe a general notion; as general as the question starting the thread. Also, by 'monoteistic religions' I meant not only Christianity - simplifications were made, so that the topic would not derail into something entirely different - as each of the religions would require a lenghty analysis. Still, thank you for the clarification: it is interesting, to say the least.

What I meant by 'close to nature' was the acceptance/afirmation of the similarities between humans and other animals. If memory serves, the antropocentric views connected with Christianity place humans above all other beings as the most perfect creation of God, made in His image. And, as such, humans should not succumb into their lower desires, sex without a spiritual bond being one of them. Correct?

I understand. Still, the meritum stays the same: certain conditions need to be met; the justification being not procreation (again: thanks for correcting me on that), but love. On a side note, am I correct in assuming that, for a Christian, 'love' itself would be something that lasts for a lifetime and beyond, while a feeling similar, yet not everlasting would qualify as a passing whim?

 

There are some sects of Christianity that claim that sex can only be for procreation and that non-sexual "love" is more pure (even in marriage) and closer to God.

 

Absolutely no.

Sure there can be times when desires aren't on the same level initially, but as long as all it takes to change the other's opinion is a bit of old-fashioned charm you ought to get to about same level of desire by the time you hit the sheets.

"Doing a favor" would be something like satisfying the other by other means when actual coitus is impossible, f.ex. due to a disease. And in such cases I don't see gender roles playing any major part. So no.

 

I kind of think that's the definition of a favor. A small favor, sure, but as I said earlier, strong relationships are built on such things.

I don't think 'perfect' is the right word. More advanced maybe? In Christian and Jewish teaching, God created all of creation perfect, from human beings to ants to algae. In that perfect state, humans were monogamous, something which is not by any means limited to humans. There are a number of animal species that mate for life. Then, all of creation fell with the fall of Man, all becoming imperfect. In fact, if anything, modern man is more imperfect than nature, if only because Man is more complicated, and thus there's more to be imperfect. Does that make any sense?

No. Love can be fleeting, even 'true love'. That being said, marriage is not about 'love' per se. Love is an important part of the marriage, but it's something that you need to work to maintain. It doesn't just come and stay. Beyond that, though, the initial highs of a romantic relationship are usually more of a chemical thing (biology) than real love. Or, rather, the chemical part is usually the driving factor. There can certainly be real love underneath it, but what most young couples call 'love' isn't really love.

And those sects don't read their Bibles enough, obviously.

I jest, but it is hard to argue with:

Oh, and on the topic of pleasing women, I only know from my own wife, but it does seem she at least gets more enjoyment from the process then me. I'm not sure I could say who get's more enjoyment from the culmination, though.

 

Well, there are some Odinists who believe that every white woman should turn into a breeding mare and give birth to at least 10 Ubermenschen, so that the Caucasians will have enough warriors for the Racial Holy War that should happen in the near future... but, when asked about my religion, I do not feel the need to mention them.

These madmen aside, the meritum, yet again, stays the same: a morally right (by Christian/other monoteistic religion's standards) motivation is needed.

I should have said it more clearly: 'most perfect', as in - closer to perfection. Thusly, in a sense, more advanced.

 

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you mean by 'closer to perfection', but if you mean 'closer to achieving perfection', then again, I think you're off a bit. Man is closer to God than any of the rest of creation, but that is only through God's favor, not any 'better'-ness of Man.

In short, Man is the most capable, most complex, and most favored of Creation, but not 'most perfect'.

 

Short and sweet reply, no. (I would have voted other, but the question was an always situation, i.e. is sex always a chore for a woman and always a favor for a man)

Sex can definitely come from lust (i.e. mass orgies where you've never met the person before your genitalia come into contact with theirs). Women can fake orgasms, just as men can. Until someone knows what the opposite sex actually having an orgasm feels like (and then you're in for a conversation if you've been faking it the whole time). But it is pretty easy to tell if a woman actually climaxed or not; at least women I've been with. Even if not with the 'special' women Kit mentioned. No matter how much moaning and groaning there is, there is also a physical response. Sometimes a shaking of the whole body, a red flush of the skin, a stiffening of various parts (clitoris, nipples, etc) but always the outer portion of her will tighten and she will have many rhythmic contractions (or few, depending on how many previous 'big' orgasms there were). Those physical responses are very hard to fake if someone knows what to be feeling for. It is harder to detect the smaller orgasms that women can have, but still very possible.

Sex can definitely be used to manipulate and as a favor. And sex can definitely be a chore for either sex. Having sex with a virgin female can be both awkward and very messy. Having sex with a virgin guy who doesn't know where to put it can be awkward (and painful if you're unfortunate!) As can having sex with someone who just doesn't know how to turn you on and can't get you to climax (as either sex). Those are situations where intercourse can be a chore. I admit that getting a woman to achieve her climax(es) is a more elongated, elegant process, but all men aren't 'minute men' who are easily finished either.

Lumping all males and females into a broad category doesn't befit the unique aspects of each group. Many times their only common factor is their genitalia. There are both males and females who will preform sex as a 'chore' to make someone happy or because they got dragged into it.

Sadly, in our society today, females seem to be preforming this act for favors/as a chore at a younger and younger age. Even in highschools; many 'kids' are having sex now. Guys saying "I won't be your friend unless you do [insert sexual act here]." Or "I'm dumping you unless you do [this]." Many young people have a hard enough time fitting in and figuring out who they are without this added innuendo and confusion. This is teaching women that sex 'is' a chore, and something that is only done to please a man. That notion is a sad one, one that many young women probably hold (though of course not all of them!). I personally believe that sex is something that should not be given out freely, and if you can find someone who understands you, knows you, actually cares about what you're feeling, they'll be much more likely to put an avid effort into pleasing you.

Women have the potential to enjoy sex just as much (if not more) than men. If she is not (and she is with a partner, not a random male), she should feel secure enough to tell him what exactly she likes and how he can further help her orgasm. I'm betting you most guys would welcome the input. Bottom line: Sex should be just as or more enjoyable for a woman as it is for a man, but both sexes preform sexual chores due to guilt, bribing or nagging.

 

mordea must either be really crap in bed, or just have a really small willy!
A girl might be doing you a favour, if you ever get it, but certainly not the rest of us!

 

Good Grief, Barmy! You have all the tact of a bull on crystal meth. Thanks to your post, I was giggling so loud it woke up my wife in the next room. Now she's pissed, and when I told her it was because of a thread about women using sex manipulatively, she informed me that that WASN'T going to be problem for the next few days because I pissed her off by waking her up! Thanx a bunch, ya jerk!

And yet I'm still laughing!

Kidding aside, perhaps mordea has met some really vicious women. When I was in the midst of my divorce, one of my exes favorite stunts was to totally undercut my sexual confidence. As I said before, that experience has really tainted my view of women in general, though I am trying to keep my intellectual objectivity and honesty, my knee jerk reactions sometimes tend to the bitter.

 

lol, everyone at SP should have the title 'Love Doctor.'


From Logjammin':

Karl Hungus: "Hello, my dispatcher says there's something wrong with your cable."

Bunny La Joya: "Yeah, come on in. I'm not really sure exactly what's really wrong with the cable."

Hungus: "That's why they sent me - I am an expert."

 

...but sometimes it just means you like pink. I wouldn't take too much stock in other peoples' purported genders, especially when it is so easy to lie about it. See?

The poll left out the most logical answer -- sometimes. Sometimes, my husband is really in the mood and I'm really not. When I have sex with him anyway, yes, I'm doing him a favor -- even if I do enjoy it. The same is true when the situation is reversed. It also remains true when I'm lying about my gender. Or when I'm not.

 

I'd hardly call proffering the argument that we're allowed to marry primarily to stop the weakest among us from fornicating -- stating in effect that marriage and by extension marital sex is better than... hell? -- a ringing endorsement of marriage, sex, or marital sex.

I'm also inclined to doubt that the idea of marriage being preferable to hell will be universally accepted.

 

First time is a favor, the second is a miracle.

 

No smaller than your brain, that's for sure.

I never implied that women were doing men a favour by having sex with them. I was trying to determine if such a belief was as prevalent among society as popular media led me to believe. Apparently it is not. This is reassuring.