well, i know i'm going to get blasted for this, but i agree with jennifer. evolutionarily/biologically speaking there isn't as much need for a women to orgasm. and, sb, maybe that is like saying from an evolutionary standpoint homosexuals aren't needed. but, that is true. i mean, we are animals like anything else and one of our main goals is procreation (as out of hand and artificially large our population has become, we still have that biological drive). anyway, looking at sex as what it is: a device for procreation, makes it more understandable from the biological standpoint.
that being said, i do agree that it is also a big social issue! i am not denying that. it is just that biologically it makes sense.

From experience in high school for track one fateful day I decided to put on a pair of compression shorts.  You know in life you have those days where you feel a monumental discovery has been, this was one of those days.  One leg then the other went into the 85% nylon and 15% elastane compression shorts that expanded taking on the feeling of a second skin.  The compression shorts felt smooth against my bare skin.  Everything was secure in its place.  Although they felt comfortable to wear the real test is whether they hold up during a sprint.  Sure enough, no flapping, nothing moving anywhere.  As a hurdler I do not know why I did not why I did not adopt compression shorts earlier.  I will no longer run anywhere without my compression shorts.  I hope that answeres your question.

Think about it for a woman to run without a sports bra.  Now, that has to be extremely uncomfortable with those things bounching up and down every which way.  So, compression shorts are the male version of the sports bra.

*Side note- last weekend I did partake in some late night streaking around campus and without my compression shorts it was a very uncomfortable run, but the free, liberal, feeling of running around naked trumped the uncomfortableness from the lack of support.

Whooo!

No way am I going to further comment on this topic (whether or not homosexuals are "needed"--even if I was the one to bring it up)--a topic too hot and touchy for my blood (the "bad" troll might emerge). I totally respect your opinion, though, Hespedal. I do.

My only REAL point was that women CAN have orgasms, but many don't. Women have been and are discouraged not to explore their sexuality in the Western culture. Of course, there's the whole duality thing going on though, too. We've got women (girls!) who are exploited and/or celebrated for their open sexuality (e.g., Brittany Spears). Yet if a woman DOES explore her sexuality freely, she is condemned, villified (geez, how many rape cases are blamed on women? Horrible.), and called a whore and whatnot. So, it's no wonder many women are afraid psychologically to loosen up and explore. And it really is all about psychology isn't it? (I.e., sexuality mostly takes place in the mind.) It's not like we NEED a man to orgasm.

i agree.

This wasn't the point of the discussion...
I was just saying it was interesting that we don't HAVE to have one.
Not that we shouldn't.

I really didn't want to start a new thread about it.

i knew what you were saying. non-essential. nice, but non-essential.

This wasn't the point of the discussion...
I was just saying it was interesting that we don't HAVE to have one.
Not that we shouldn't.

I really didn't want to start a new thread about it.

i knew what you were saying. non-essential. nice, but non-essential.

I'm kind of embarrassed that this was taken out of the Diva thread... I know anyone can read the Diva thread... but I dunno it just feels silly and so NVR just laying it out on vegweb as a separate topic like this.  :-[   ;D

Thread dismissed?

YES, PLEASE!

I'm sorry if people disagree with me moving this conversation here. I love the original thread and the tangential discussion that goes on there, but that thread is huge enough as it is, so I wanted to keep it somewhat related. I'm going to delete my first post here so that no one feels uncomfortable with stuff that I quoted, but I really do think it's worth it to continue discussion, because it's an important and relevant issue. If really no one wants to carry on the conversation at all, I think we can probably close/delete this thread.

EDIT: Did I tell you yet how cute your dogs are in your profile?  ;)

Why thank you! I also think they are very cute.

I figured you were just trying to preserve the integrity of the original Diva thread.

I'm okay with keeping it, locking it, deleting it--whatever the others want is fine with me.  :)

i don't think we mods have mad thread locking skills... do we?

i think there was a LOT going on in there... and the diva thread is anymore chat about "girl stuff" and the cup, so i wasn't thinking it was out of place. but look at the bright side: foofie cleared up the whole bouncy boy stuff for us (thanks for that!).

i'll just say that i'm not going to get into this a anymore (at least try) than i already have. my understanding of sexuality is more rooted in historical change/social constructions and ideologies than pure biology, etc. i'm not saying that as "blah blah you're stupid for thinking biology" but for me, both in study and in "practice", there is a lot of complex stuff going on, exp in relation to definitions of sex/orgaism, gender and sex, masculinities/femininities, etc.

i don't know if we want to keep this going, but i totally understand where you are coming from, bp. biology is almost irrelevant now, it is so much more about our social aspects both now and through history. BUT, biology is also important to look at for an understanding of why we are how we are (if we are capable of separating what we are talking about from our social selves, which is generally very hard/impossible)...

The way I see it, biology dictates bodily functions and behavior up to a certain point. But culture (social constructions as Puppy put it) can often override (veto) biology's instructions. That goes for all animals. I think. Chimps masterbate. And have homosexual experiences, from what I remember reading. Not sure if they cross dress though.  ::)

Did that make sense, or have I commenced drinking beer a little too early today? I don't think it made sense, but I'm going to hit "Post" anyway.

In terms or a woman's orgasm, there is a new theory out there in biology. It's been found that if a woman orgasms at the same time as a man ejaculates, or right after, the sperm has a much easier time getting to the womb.

So, some researchers have proposed that a woman's orgasm was yet another way to tell which male mate was "worthy" and the best for reproduction.

In other words, what the researchers are saying is, in order for me to have a better chance of NOT getting pregnant, I need to find someone who is unworthy of me. D*mn. I just can't win. :-\