"re suggestion: Well, I've spent half my adult life in university sciences, so I can't suggest any "book". I suggest getting multiple university degrees... that are NOT job focused, but for the sheer passion of getting educated :)…"
"He he :)I've lived a very very promiscuous life, which statistically sets me apart from 95% of females. Quality sex is a fascination of mine and I have "studied" myself and my reactions, and have gone through a few theories. The chart…"
"Hi there. Thanks for the friend request and note. And welcome to A|N.I prefer to only "friend" people I've had several exchanges with. As per your question...I grew up a strong 3rd generation atheist-apatheist, in a highly Catholic…"
re suggestion: Well, I've spent half my adult life in university sciences, so I can't suggest any "book". I suggest getting multiple university degrees... that are NOT job focused, but for the sheer passion of getting educated :) There is not a single book to be found at a bookstore where someone can get scientific learning. I agree about Google. I used to use the "+" operator to ensure specific search results, but they killed it, so Google searches now suck. As for polyamory... I have have multiple lovers at overlapping, I guess one might call that polyamory... except when the 1st found out about the 2nd... he wanted more exclusivity from me... nah. Since I won't ever be a breeder, I really see no advantage to committing to any long-term relationship.
re female anatomy, as you stated, the vagina is a stretchy organ, it can accommodate a baby. There are limits however... my uterus hangs slightly low... which means long skinny don't work for me, at all, very painful. But long phat... seems to decrease sensitivity and the extra length is ok. However for girth, that chart stands quite true. The more tension created by girth, the more sensation, and that stays true for those claiming the Gspot is actually a clitoral extension.
re coupling. in the mammalian world, procreation is a dual function, there is chromosomal exchange and there is parenting. Monogamy is a religious belief, most mammalian species only exhibit partial monogamy. Offspring usually has various paternity.
In a "natural" world without religion and stupid purity moral codes, only a few females would be breeders, these females would carry the offspring of various males, and the infants would be raised not by nuclear families but by entire tribes... that is... after the 3-5 years of breastfeeding which was common to Homo sapiens before stupid missionaries taught people that breastfeeding past a couple of months was sinful. :(
re Intellectual vs physical... yes, that is my biggest quandary. Good sex almost never partners with good intellect. But then again, what has good intellect brought the world? Wall Street and the nuclear bomb, pollution, loss of all other mammalian species, and more than that evern And though I occasionally find intellectualism to be sexy, and those are my best male friends, they are not my lovers. The only community of people where I as able to find physicality and intellect in the same male was in university sports. That is a very small community... and I'm older now ;)
So... you haven't told me what is this site of yours...
He he :) I've lived a very very promiscuous life, which statistically sets me apart from 95% of females. Quality sex is a fascination of mine and I have "studied" myself and my reactions, and have gone through a few theories. The chart was from a condom study several years ago, not mine, but fits well. Apes do not normally practice monogamy nor do many mammals. Homo sapiens males have a body:penis size ratio more compatible with mammalian species where the female is promiscuous. Alpha males and alpha females are the breeders, there is some satellite breeding, but a large percentage of individuals do not breed. Alas, patriarchal religions have successfully changed those rules, by ensuring nearly every male gets assigned their own exclusive female by contract, ensuring that all males, no matter their biological fitness, get to breed. This is a wonderfully successful tool of patriarchy, which contributed to a vastly increased reproductive success of the H.sapiens species. Pre-patriarchal H.sapiens societies do not display such massive breeding effort as we see in modern civilisation. Breeding was reserved for the select few. Breeding is not a right, marriage is not a right. I have saliently disobeyed those rules :) As most females, my orgasms were (past tense) rare. The males whom I had the most pleasure with were the ones with a larger penis. But after a few years of further study, I found there was a confounding factor to my sexual experience. I found that an additional factor to my orgasmability was intactness of foreskin. The foreskin offers a ball-bearing system with facilitates penetration many-many-fold. Intactness even permits penetration without foreplay. Contrary to most females (who mostly have undiversified experience of copulation) I found that foreplay eventually improves the odd of orgasm, eventually... hm... but that the quick surprise of easy-peesy large penetration offered a "shock" that nearly guaranteed my orgasm every time. Less thinking, more action. (most females in bed are constrained by moral over thinking and propriety). This last part is not published anywhere material, only my (ahem) vast experience (ahem) allows me to draw such conclusions. I may write a book about that someday ;p Religious morality and marriage have forced females to be CONTENT with the male they are married to, limiting most females to a handful of sexual partners in their life. They just don't know what they're missing. The heterosexual female class has accepted that orgasms are rare, and so be it... sex is not everything right? sex is overrated? love is more important? ... or so the bible teaches. Marriage is social contract designed to increase breeding, I am against marriage and for experimentation. Biologically speaking, H.sapiens' obsession with each and everyone of us having the "god-given right" to breed has had dire consequences on our population. Most of the environmental movement blames a great many modern ailments (since last 5 centuries) on living conditions and pollutants (medieval merchants sold crap food and crap medicines) but it is my biological perception that the slew of diseases which afflict a majority of humanity are in fact a large consequence of breeding of unfit individuals. Am I a eugenist, no... but do I want to greatly restrict breeding, while increasing sexual experimentation, absolutely!!!
Hi there. Thanks for the friend request and note. And welcome to A|N. I prefer to only "friend" people I've had several exchanges with. As per your question... I grew up a strong 3rd generation atheist-apatheist, in a highly Catholic place and time. I was habituated in holding my end since a tender age. My parents failed to teach me faith or stereotypes (specially gender stereotypes) or arbitrary morals, I was raised on nature and questioning. My parents' mantra was: "just because the others throw themselves off the roof don't mean you should". Which makes me an outcast and iconoclast and slightly anti-social. There is a hefty price to pay in society to hold on to rationality against all faiths and spiritualities. You are entitled to be intrigued, I am most certainly a female oddity. Most atheists you'll meet here have been indoctrinated for a not insignificant portion of their life, I'm not like that. I don't buy into any cultural essentialisms. All is negotiable, nothing is absolute, and though I'm a scientist, my opinion is that science does nothing to inform us on our moral code. I look forward to reading your comments on the Nexus. Cheers. :)