Ann Hedonia And Her Weapon Of Relationship Destruction

It makes no evolutionary sense for the female orgasm to be a thing of difficulty. The things that genes manufacture in order to perpetuate themselves – known to biologists as “phenotypes” and to laymen as “people” – require rewarding for the performance of the reproductive act. Given that the suffering involved in reproduction is greater for the female than for the male, she ought to require a concomitantly greater reward. And indeed, men are astonished at and jealous of many women’s capacity for orgasmic pleasure, so much greater than their own in both intensity and frequency. Many if not most cultures have considered women the insatiable sex, and all the talk of “stereotyping”, fear and projection does not necessarily make it untrue.

How, then, does it come about that so many women of the Northern societies report anorgasmia, or even refuse to believe in the phenomenon of heterosexual orgasm at all? The finger has been pointed at Christian men, who are said to have propagandised women into frigidity in order to keep them faithful and subordinate. This theory needs to explain not only how such a difficult feat was achieved, but also why Jews and Muslims see no link between fidelity and public morals on the one hand and female horniness on the other; their ideal is as much sexual pleasure as possible for both parties, but only in the private sphere. Where, then, did the notion of creating female frigidity originate?

As for me, what inspired me to begin questioning the orthodoxy that every frigid woman was made that way by bad experiences in bed with clueless men was my encounter with a woman who failed to achieve orgasm even through masturbation but nevertheless blamed her partners for this.

When men consider the occasions on which they have been unable to climax, however, it does not come naturally to them to blame the phenomenon on their partner or on the whole race of women. Men know perfectly well that the causes usually lie in themselves, whether physiological or psychological. Alcohol has a different effect on them than on women, for example. Some men find that climaxing is a kind of surrender, and surrenders cannot be made to just anybody. If what is said about women, or most women, requiring greater trust and intimacy to achieve orgasm is true, then we would expect even more women to feel surrender as problematic. From this it might follow that the whole Sixties free-love schtick was always going to be a disappointment to at least a substantial proportion of the superior sex, in that they were simply not personally wired for satisfactory orgasms with dubious strangers at parties. Since, however, women were forbidden to believe in innate differences between the sexes (except when it ran in their own favour), the most natural course was to blame the men.

In all this time, it never seems to have occurred to anyone that taking calculation of momentary advantage, personal rage or ideological contempt to bed with you is not actually conducive to good sex, not even for males. It may be suggested that in far too many women the desire to have good sex collides with the Prime Directive, learned at their mother’s knees, namely to suck as many lemons as possible. That is, to build their whole personalities around miserly self-withholding and stern condemnation of perceived moral inferiors. Now, having your mind permanently bent into an attitude of censorious disapproval – the main means whereby a woman traditionally both competes in the intra-female hierarchy and controls her man – is not a very good basis on which to have thumping great orgasms. How can you possibly have good sex while at the same time planning to punish your partner by demonstratively withholding your climaxes, or controlling him by carefully doling them out in return for his obedience?

To put it another way, human beings are most regrettably wired so as to have trouble climaxing in the middle of preparing a shrill curtain lecture, however righteous and ideologically sound that lecture may be. Expecting a curtain lecture after sex is not particularly conducive to a man taking the time to do it right, either; in fact, being “selfish” and then legging it immediately afterwards then becomes the most rational male strategy.

A sufficiently courageous researcher might therefore discover that the women who complain the most bitterly about anorgasmia are also the relentlessly negative personalities, or at least relentlessly negative about men. Whereas such politically incorrect women as actually like male company have more orgasms. She might then usefully enquire which was cause and which was effect.

Moreover, if men hate women even half as much as the radical feminists claim, it becomes a mystery how women can so readily punish men by not coming. For such a strategy can only work if the predominant male desire is in fact for the woman to have a good time. Women’s sabotage of their own orgasms in order to claim the moral high ground and put men in their place suggests that all the hatred and despite is actually on the female side.

Posted on July 23, 2012 at 11:07 by Hugo Grinebiter · Permalink
In: WHAT WOMEN WANT, The Nature Of Frigidity

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by The Ghost In the Machine
    on July 23, 2012 at 17:40
    Permalink

    “…Muslims see no link between fidelity and public morals on the one hand and female horniness on the other…”

    Tell that to the tens of thousands of African girls who are forced to undergo “female circumcision” in Muslim countries every year. Although the Koran makes no such demands, their elders and imams push perpetuation of this barbaric act precisely to reduce female horniness and to make the girls more moral.

  2. Written by The Ghost In the Machine
    on July 23, 2012 at 18:03
    Permalink

    Also, I suppose much could be written about the Madonna/Whore Complex that has tainted much of European sexuality. The degree of guilting centred around sexuality — most of it aimed at women — is truly astonishing. I would not be surprised that this is a huge factor in the dysfunctionality that you’re addressing.

  3. Written by Hugo Grinebiter
    on July 23, 2012 at 19:06
    Permalink

    In the first place, Ghost, female circumcision is not a Muslim practice, but a practice of a geographical area that is mostly but not entirely Muslim; the Christians in the area do it too. In the second place it is perpetuated by the mothers as much as the fathers. The less drastic modes are also perpetuated by the subjects themselves: a West African friend of mine regards protruding labia as inherently disgusting.

  4. Written by The Ghost In the Machine
    on July 23, 2012 at 20:04
    Permalink

    Oh, I am well aware of that. Female circumcision is, as you say, geographic — and in fact predates Islam. Although not Islamic, religious arguments are often used, as clearly documented in recordings using hidden video cameras of North African imams residing in Norway a few years ago.

    Let me also underscore that by “Elders” I also meant older women of authority, who probably play a stronger role than men when it comes to perpetuating the practice.

    Allow me to add one more key point: I am not disagreeing with you over-arching thesis, which is likely spot on. I only take issue with your one statement, which I quoted in part.

  5. Written by Hugo Grinebiter
    on July 23, 2012 at 20:33
    Permalink

    OK, then, we’re on the same page. Let me just note, before drawing a line under this side-issue, that an imam is not an ‘alim, any more than a churchwarden is a professor of theology. The essential job description is to lead the formal ritual prayers, which just means mastery of some behavioural rules plus being of good character. And then they get tapped for, or arrogate unto themselves, the job of schoolteacher. But they are not necessarily qualified in fiqh. And telling people that circumcision is mandated by religion is the job of a faqih, of which there is a shortage in obscure little towns like Oslo…..

  6. Written by urban
    on July 25, 2012 at 01:50
    Permalink

    Since I do know that you know a lot more about Islam than I do I’m surprised to be writing this, Hugo, but what one means by “Imam” changes dramatically depending what branch of Islam one practices.

    Your explanation is spot-on throughout the Sunni world. But being an Imam is a much bigger deal for the Shia. The African example at hand would surely be Sunni so my point doesn’t change the significance of yours, but how many chances am I likely to get to catch you like that?

  7. Written by urban
    on July 25, 2012 at 02:03
    Permalink

    I have a good friend who was dating a Palestinian man some years back, and when they would socialize with his friends and family the men and the women would separate. My friend was initially shocked at how freely and explicitly the women talked about their sex lives behind closed doors, trading tips about techniques and positions, offering advice on getting what you want from your man, even stripping down to share the belly dance moves that drive their husbands wild. Confined to marriage, let there be no doubt, but there is no conflict inherent in being an observant Muslim and having an active and robust sex life.

  8. Written by Hugo Grinebiter
    on July 25, 2012 at 10:39
    Permalink

    You got me less than you think, Urban, since Ghost was using “imam” in the context of Oslo mosques, which clearly points to a half-educated guy rather than a mystical teacher in the lineage of ‘Ali, and anyway they are almost all Sunnis here. 🙂

    There was a Tunisian film a while ago, about a young boy’s coming of age, and I can never forget a scene where the women are talking dirty as they prepare the dinner. All those courgettes!

  9. Written by urban
    on July 26, 2012 at 03:51
    Permalink

    I am appalled at the casual attitude with which American Christianity accepts male genital mutilation as a matter for the parents to decide, no more than a preference. I get the mark of covenant with the God of Abraham schtick, and I think that’s bizarre enough, but for gentiles to be routinely mutilated shortly after birth–as I was–and that the disfigurement is rationalized as a health benefit is beyond bizarre. I think we should cauterize the ears of every infant to spare them the agony of earaches.

    I have no intention of going the whole hog ala Ruth Benedict with cultural relativism here, but I’d call it a double standard when Christians who think of infant male genital mutilation as perfectly acceptable and normal get outraged about something some Muslims do. It’s not just a symptom of indoctrination into Islamophobia, it’s also the first time in any of these people’s lives they’ve shed a tear for the plight of women anywhere.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply