Learning How To Be Sexy
In my teenage years - mostly throughout the 60s - there was an idea
that took hold - perhaps for a decade or so - which suggested that one of
the major differences between men and women was that men did not need to
'learn sex' as much as women did.
By this, it was meant that men did not really need to experience as
much sex before they were deeply engaged in it and, also, fully excited by
it, as did women.
In other words, once men experienced sex, so it was claimed, they
quickly wanted to have much more involvement with it, and they quickly reached
their orgasmic peaks not long thereafter.
Women, however, were said to be much slower to achieve these two things.
It was also claimed that the potential orgasmic peaks for women were
much higher than were those for men.
And, of course, much nobler!
it was one of their duties to teach their women how to
Furthermore, various 'handbooks' for men (both lofty and lowly) on the
psychology of relationships often told men that it was one of their duties
to teach their women how to enjoy sex.
Without such tuition, their women would likely remain cold.
Of course, it was also in men's own best interests to give this
tuition if they wanted their relationships to go well and if they wanted
better sex lives.
Men lead and women follow, was also part of the message, I guess.
One of the main reasons for this sexual disparity, apparently, was the fact that
men's sexual organs stuck out, whereas those of women did not - the notion
being that men were more likely to notice their nether regions, and at an
Their interest in sex - and, hence, their learning of it - would
therefore start at an earlier age.
Indeed, if I recall correctly, it was said - and largely accepted -
that men reached their sexual peaks by about the age of 18, whereas women
did not reach their own peaks until they were over thirty.
Well, for what it is worth - and it might not be worth very much,
given that times have changed so much since then - my own experiences did
rather suggest that women, in those days, really did need to be taught by
their men how to enjoy sex.
Furthermore, this was true both in the mechanical sense and in the
The notion that women were often unknowledgeable when it came to the
mechanical aspects of sex might be totally incredible for many westerners
today, but I can assure you that this was very often the case.
You could even come across educated women aged 20 who had no real idea about
how their own clitorises were relevant to their own sexual experiences.
It seems so very strange now.
younger women were given the opportunities to learn
about themselves as sexual beings.
And it was really only during the late 60s and thereafter that younger
women were given the opportunities to learn about themselves as sexual
Prior to this time, sex - as a pleasurable experience, rather than as
a reproductive function - was just not something that was spoken about.
Nothing on the TV. No mainstream books about it. Not a topic covered
in women's magazines. And certainly not discussed in schools.
So where would the knowledge about such matters have come from?
Not a hope.
The last thing that parents wanted to do was to encourage sexual
activity in their offspring.
Besides which, it was not considered appropriate to talk about such things.
Even now, I doubt that many mothers say much to their daughters about
the mechanical techniques that might be useful for their own pleasuring.
And so, in many ways, youngsters growing up through the 50s and 60s
were mostly fairly clueless when it came to sex.
For the most part, they learned whatever they learned from whispered
conversations with their friends and from fumbled experiences of their
And so the notion that men advanced more quickly than women in the
sexual sense because their sexual organs stuck out was not such a stupid
Sticking out meant they could not so easily be ignored while growing
Not sticking out meant that they could.
And so with no sex anywhere to be seen, it is not difficult to see how
females could grow up being relatively non-sexual.
Furthermore, the notion that men could actually teach women about the
mechanical aspects of sex that were important for their own pleasures was
also not such a stupid idea, because the men would eventually learn about the
sexuality of women from their own experiences with other women.
In short, the only people who were really teaching our young women how
to enjoy themselves sexually were men.
Of course, this was not a particularly happy situation for either men
satisfactory sex often involved a fairly long
For experienced men, satisfactory sex often involved a fairly long
educational process as they endeavoured to teach their new partners how to
achieve satisfaction, but then, of course, such women were also fairly
clueless when it came to satisfying them.
They didn't quite know what to do and how to do it!
And so such men would also have to teach them what to do to them.
Putting it bluntly: Satisfactory sex was not something that was easy
And, of course, when it came to couples who were both sexually
inexperienced, sex for them would likely remain a fairly arduous
enterprise for some time to come.
And one main reason for this would be the fact that neither of these
inexperienced parties would actually know what satisfactory sex was!
You put it in, bounce up and down, and then you take it out when done,
was probably what both inexperienced parties thought would be enough to
lead to satisfaction.
How would they have known otherwise?
And when it didn't lead to much in the way of satisfaction - certainly
from a woman's point of view - the disappointment and, perhaps, the
resentment would certainly have dampened any enthusiasm for more sex.
And the fact that couples rarely talked to each other about sex and
satisfaction in those days, never read about it, and also didn't know what
to do to each other or what to expect, made sexual satisfaction for
inexperienced couples very hard to achieve indeed.
And so my guess is that where such couples eventually married, both
their sexual satisfaction and their expectations of sex remained fairly
But, maybe, this was not such a bad thing.
After all, sex between individuals who have been married to each other
for a long time is rarely very satisfying. And if inexperienced
individuals believe that sex is always like this then, perhaps, there are
no sexual reasons for them to seek out extra-marital affairs.
there might always be the temptation to seek out new
territory in order to get back the highs.
On the other hand, if sex is fantastic for the first few years with a
particular partner then, when its appeal finally reduces, there might
always be the temptation to seek out new territory in order to get back
Nowadays, of course, young men and women can learn a great deal about
their own bodies and about the bodies of those belonging to the opposite
gender by educating themselves via the internet.
They do not need to rely solely on direct experience in order to get a
good sense of what sex entails, and to know about some of its pitfalls and
And so, for example, youngsters are nowadays forewarned that sexual
satisfaction with one particular partner is likely to decrease over time.
In my view, all this sexual knowledge that was unavailable to my
generation is a great boon for youngsters growing up today.
But this boon is being completely soured by powerful groups that have
a vested interest in demonising sex.
And while it is men who are mostly the targets of this demonisation,
my own view is that, in general, it is women who are losing out the most
from it; sexually speaking.
It is women, far more so than men, who are being denied the
opportunities to experience sexual satisfaction because, among other
1. Men are far less likely to behave in a manner that helps women to
reach this state.
2. Men have been continually portrayed as unattractive in some way,
and unworthy of women's attention.
3. Sex, itself, has been pathologised.
Indeed, I am sure that I read a report recently wherein it was stated
that some 40% of western women are, nowadays, non-orgasmic.
I am not at all surprised by this.
However, I am not remotely suggesting that sex for women was any
better when I was growing up; because I don't think that it was.
sexual satisfaction for western women increased
throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s
My own view is that sexual satisfaction for western women increased
throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s, but then, thanks to the activities of the
feminists and the abuse industry, it started to decrease again.
But this degradation has, clearly, got nothing to do with any decrease
in knowledge about sex and sexuality; because our knowledge about such
matters has, without doubt, increased vastly over the years - most
certainly when it comes to the mechanical aspects of sex.
So, what went wrong?
Well, to me, the answer is so obvious that I am not quite sure how
anybody could think otherwise.
It is the psychology of men and women that has changed since those
And it has been changed by powerful groups that profit themselves
hugely by forever fomenting
disharmony between the two sexes.
Previously, and in my own time, it was various religious beliefs and
prevailing moral codes that mostly kept the sexes apart, sexually and
psychologically. Nowadays, it seems mostly to do with the persistent
claims that sex and intimacy are just so packed full of 'abuse' that they
are both best avoided.
The good news, however, is that many men - and, in particular, many
MRAs - are now increasingly tackling this issue head on.
Indeed, only about an hour ago, and about three-quarters of my way
through writing this most excellent piece,
a link to Brendan O'Neill's latest article for Spiked popped
into my email box. ...
Ours is an era in which intimacy is deemed dangerous and
commitment is pathologised. From popular culture to the political realm,
there’s a powerful trend for depicting closeness and intense love as
things that could damage you.