On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, Heather Fleming wrote: > > It seems to me there may simply be biological aspects to women's > > sexuality - say slower arousal or less automatic sexual response - > > that might lead to fewer female customers in brothels despite complete > > social equality between men and women. And note that there is still > > some residual chivalry apparent in the Paarfiad - e.g., women can > > chastise servants. > > Not to get into any kind of feminist argument here, but, let's not > postulate on the "slower" arousal time or lack of "response" women have > to sex, o.k.? Because I do believe that your ideas on that matter are > either baseless or, at the very least, not thought out. I'm a bit bewildered here - we're talking about human beings, right? In this universe, the one where the sky is blue and getting from 0-60 fastest is not considered an accomplishment except among circle jerk devotees? (I should perhaps write devote's as I can't imagine the female equivalent). Where many a young man walks around with the engine running while many a young woman wishes her lover would adjust the mirrors, check the oil, squeegee the windows, and rub on a fresh coat of turtle wax before taking her out for a Sunday drive? Maybe I and my heterosexual male friends and all the sex-column writers have been misled by feminist theorists into believing men should learn to go slow and indulge in foreplay, and our observations that doing so is appreciated were colored by the aforesaid propaganda, and maybe our partners were misled into believing that they shouldn't have an orgasm- centered view of sex when in fact they should expect to come effortlessly every time. Maybe I should go rent some porn to pick up pointers.