I don't know, but I think that maybe the idea that sex should be satisfactory for both people involved is a lot to ask. Because if that is the only sex you can have, you won't be having sex a lot. And if it has to be satisfactory AND the chick can't be drunk, then you might as well have no sex at all.
So I think the concept of mutually satisfactory hetero sex is feminist myth shit, pretty much. I mean, men and women and sex: the parts fit together right, but the thoughts sure don't.
Because evolution and survival of the species meant that men wanted to get as many chicks pregnant as they could, and that only takes two minutes, really. And women were made to want sex to last longer, so that the guy didn't finish quickly and then rush off to impregnate another chick.
That's also why chicks will sometimes make breakfast for the dude the next day: it keeps him around longer, and now that he has had sex and breakfast he is feeling pretty good with life, and would be happy now just to watch some baseball on TV. And after he stays for breakfast a few times she then says she's pregnant, and the shit goes a whole other direction, and now mutually satisfactory sex shit isn't as important as who is going to clean the damn dishes tonight.
And evolution made it harder for a woman to reach orgasm so that they weren't all going around all the time to have sex to get their rocks off, because if they had sex with a lot of dudes all the time then the dudes wouldn't know who the father of the kid would be, and then everything is fucked up because the baby's black and the dude and his wife sure aren't: you know, that kind of fucked-up shit.
And evolution doesn't want to make things more fucked up, things are supposed to get better: evolution's got reasons for not making sex mutually enjoyable, because then people would be just fucking all the time and no other shit would get done, and then we wouldn't have skyscrapers and iPhones, we'd be living in huts like fucking hippies.
So hetero sex isn't about satisfaction, it's about making babies. Really, I think the only way you can get to mutually satisfactory sex is when it is two dudes.
Because two gay dudes are both dudes, so the same shit pretty much works for the both of them. You don't need to try to find the G-spot, you just tickle the balls, it's easy, they're right there. Guys love blow-jobs, so one guy gives a dude a blow-job, then the other guy returns the favor, and now everybody got what they wanted and are happy and mutual and shit.
And neither of these dudes isn't a chick who's all worried about getting pregnant, or wanting to get pregnant, or wondering if those two glasses of wine meant she was kinda raped maybe. The gay dudes just want to get their cock sucked and everything's cool.
I mean, I guess if one of the dudes wants to fuck the other dude in the ass, and the other dude doesn't want to get fucked in the ass, then the gay dudes now have the same problems that hetero couples do. But they can always go back to blow-jobs, so the problem is manageable, and then they can get on to argue about who is going to clean the damn dishes tonight.
So I think the concept of mutually satisfactory hetero sex is feminist myth shit, pretty much. I mean, men and women and sex: the parts fit together right, but the thoughts sure don't.
Because evolution and survival of the species meant that men wanted to get as many chicks pregnant as they could, and that only takes two minutes, really. And women were made to want sex to last longer, so that the guy didn't finish quickly and then rush off to impregnate another chick.
That's also why chicks will sometimes make breakfast for the dude the next day: it keeps him around longer, and now that he has had sex and breakfast he is feeling pretty good with life, and would be happy now just to watch some baseball on TV. And after he stays for breakfast a few times she then says she's pregnant, and the shit goes a whole other direction, and now mutually satisfactory sex shit isn't as important as who is going to clean the damn dishes tonight.
And evolution made it harder for a woman to reach orgasm so that they weren't all going around all the time to have sex to get their rocks off, because if they had sex with a lot of dudes all the time then the dudes wouldn't know who the father of the kid would be, and then everything is fucked up because the baby's black and the dude and his wife sure aren't: you know, that kind of fucked-up shit.
And evolution doesn't want to make things more fucked up, things are supposed to get better: evolution's got reasons for not making sex mutually enjoyable, because then people would be just fucking all the time and no other shit would get done, and then we wouldn't have skyscrapers and iPhones, we'd be living in huts like fucking hippies.
So hetero sex isn't about satisfaction, it's about making babies. Really, I think the only way you can get to mutually satisfactory sex is when it is two dudes.
Because two gay dudes are both dudes, so the same shit pretty much works for the both of them. You don't need to try to find the G-spot, you just tickle the balls, it's easy, they're right there. Guys love blow-jobs, so one guy gives a dude a blow-job, then the other guy returns the favor, and now everybody got what they wanted and are happy and mutual and shit.
And neither of these dudes isn't a chick who's all worried about getting pregnant, or wanting to get pregnant, or wondering if those two glasses of wine meant she was kinda raped maybe. The gay dudes just want to get their cock sucked and everything's cool.
I mean, I guess if one of the dudes wants to fuck the other dude in the ass, and the other dude doesn't want to get fucked in the ass, then the gay dudes now have the same problems that hetero couples do. But they can always go back to blow-jobs, so the problem is manageable, and then they can get on to argue about who is going to clean the damn dishes tonight.
Yeah. I am pretty sure we are different species, like Lichens, where it’s part fungus and part algae to live, and now I read there is some third thing in there, a bacterium maybe.
ReplyDelete