June 08, 2005
Is this the ultimate excuse for poor performance in bed? “Sorry, darling,” the man says, just before falling asleep. “It’s your genes.”
According to a study published this week, up to 45% of the differences between women in their ability to reach orgasm can be explained by their genes.
Its findings suggest there is an underlying biological basis to a woman’s ability to achieve orgasm. Whether that basis is anatomical, physiological or psychological remains uncertain, says Tim Spector of the twin research unit at St Thomas’ Hospital in London, UK, who carried out the study.
“But it is saying that it is not purely cultural, or due to peer pressure, or to differences in upbringing or religion,” he says. “There are wide differences between women and a lot of these differences are due to genes.”
Nor hers, apparently.
Update: But wait... there's more: (I'm such a tease)
Going even further the study suggests that a woman who respects her partner and feels he may be a good provider gives that woman a much stronger chance of climaxing during sex.
Well there you have it.
Spector also suggested that women who orgasm too easy [sic] are more likely to be satisfied with poor quality men. "Perhaps women who had orgasms too easily weren't very good selectors," Professor Spector said. "It paid women to be more fussy and this is one way of doing it. The simple fact is that it takes women on average 12 minutes and men two and a half minutes to reach orgasm. Adjusting to that imbalance is a test."
AP cites Dr. Virginia Sadock, director of the human sexuality program at New York University Medical Center who says, “It’ll be upsetting because some women will think, 'Oh my God, maybe I just can’t.’ On the other hand it takes away a kind of guilt or pressure.” Specialists say--don't panic--the findings don’t mean women who inherit an unfortunate gene package are doomed. It just means more work, or patience, is required to achieve climax.
And they say womens' work is never done...
Posted by Cassandra at June 8, 2005 11:31 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
I'm pretty sure J. Lo's Butt would agree that selecting the right pair of jeans for your body type makes all the difference when women go out at night looking for an orgasm.
Now see? That is just what I was talking about... you are just all about empathy, Mr. Menace. Always giving helpful little hints like that to improve the lives of your fellow human beings.
The giving just never stops with you, does it? :)
Posted by: Cassandra at June 8, 2005 12:40 PM
What can I say, I just give till it hurts.
Who it hurts, though, is completely open to debate. :-)
Wow. I had no idea I projected such good providing.
But, I'm glad that men generally have one more thing for which they can project blame onto women.
Posted by: KJ at June 8, 2005 01:07 PM
Oh Lord, here it comes... :) (pun fully intended)
Posted by: Cassandra at June 8, 2005 01:11 PM
"It just means more work, or patience, is required to achieve climax."
Umm. More work, or patience, on the part of--WHOM?
Sounds like a total crock to me. Something tells me that Masked Menace has hit the nail on the head (pun intended). Beings as there are twice the number of nerve endings in the woman's "plumbing," as there are a man's, I tend to believe that a woman's genes are about as significant, in this regard, as a woman's JEANS!
I think both parties, Janny. Seriously, I have a feeling (there's a joke here somewhere, folks) that it's a combination of factors.
From talking with friends about this for YEARS, I know that some women are just plain lucky - a man can just glance at them and they're shuddering all over the place.
Other women love men but for whatever reason aren't that easy to arouse. Most of us (from what I've been able to gather) are somewhere in between.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 8, 2005 03:44 PM
...and then there are the women who are lucky enough to be with KJ.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 8, 2005 03:44 PM
Cassandra, I acknowledge that there are definite differences among women. But are they genetic, or hormonal?...Or WHAT?! I'm of the firm belief that the wrong conclusions are often reached in these, "studies." The crux of the problem is that most things having to do with the human body are indeed, multi-factored, and the majority of the time these studies either do not, or CAN not, "factor in," everything. I'm often reminded of the old joke about the laboratory frog:
A Psychologist in the lab puts a frog on a table and yells, "Jump!" The frog jumps 10 centimeters and the Psychologist records that fact. She then cuts off the frog's right front leg and yells, "Jump!" The frog jumps 7 centimeters and the Psychologist notes the change. She cuts off the frog's left front leg and yell's "Jump!" The frog jumps 5 centimeters and the Psychologist again records the difference. Right hind leg is removed, and the Psychologist yells, "Jump! again. The frog heaves itself just 2 centimeters and the Psychologist carefully records the results. The frog's last leg is cut off, and the Psychologist yells, "Jump!" Nothing happens. The Psychologist yells "Jump!" again. Still nothing. The psychologist writes, "After removing four legs, frog becomes deaf."
I'm with you, Janny. I just think it's funny when these studies come out - I don't think they have the first clue what's going on.
One year it's this theory, then the next they throw that one out the window and conclude the exact opposite. The fact is that no one has ever understood women (including women) and no one ever will :)
And if they *do* ever figure us out, we'll probably change just to piss them off.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 8, 2005 07:39 PM
"And if they *do* ever figure us out, we'll probably change just to piss them off."
Sounds reasonable! LOL
I have given a lot of "lip service" to this subject over the years...it seems to have generally produced the desired effect.
Posted by: camojack at June 9, 2005 02:21 AM
There is a theory that states: "If anyone ever finds out what women are ultimatly about, they will disappear and be replaced by women even more bizarrely inexplicable."
There is another theory that states: "This has already happened."
- Douglas Adams
...both of you smart-alecky men *will* be dealt with...
later. I'm exhausted :)
Posted by: Cassandra at June 9, 2005 11:20 AM
Actually, Cassandra, I'm surprised that more. "smart-alecky," men haven't weighed in with their excuses...er, "comments."
Good one Camojack!
Apparantly Freud once said the only thing he thought he would never understand is ...women!
Here is a man's input as requested by Janny and Cassandra;
In the 80's I dated a woman that told me that she could not reach orgasm with a man.
She had been having sexual relations for seven years.
She had been with 3 different men , the last one even tried tying her up and doing weird stuff to her, but nothing came of it ( pun intended ).
One night we were making love ( we had been together about two months then ) and she suddenly bursted out crying.
Very worried, I asked her what was wrong.
She said "nothing, I'm just happy, I just had my first orgasm!"
She then had them almost everytime we made love for the next 2 years we were together.
In the 90's I dated another woman who told me she could not have orgasm with men despite trying almost everything imaginable for the last 20 years ( with quite a lot of men... )
I tried for the 7 years we were together and never could help her...
In the first story one might be tempted to conclude that there are no cold women , just clumsy men, and that the right man changes everything.
But what about woman number two? I was the same man, it was actually about 7 years after the previous woman, I could not have changed THAT much...
I believe that there are at least 3 types of women as far as orgasms are concerned;
1- gets them easely
2- gets them only in the right conditions
3- never gets them
I believe most women fit category 2, and in the hands of a clumsy man they are mistakenly put into category 3...And the worst thing a woman can do is fake it!
How can a clumsy man tell if what he is doing is wrong if the woman says it's good?
Hey, I never said I would be helping, it is a male point of view, that is it.
FWIW, I think you hit it right on the nose.
Pornography and literature have a lot to answer for. I continue to believe that for most women at least, sex is more mental than physical; i.e., technique is undoubtedly important but all the technique in the world will not help if there isn't love/trust/attraction present in the first place.
And it's not a boilerplate thing: you can't follow a list of instructions in some vapid magazine like Cosmo or Men's Health. There is always that intangible 'something' that either works, or doesn't between a man and a woman.
And for some women I think there may be a trust/control thing going on (this is just my theory - maybe it is whacked... I don't know). I think sex is a scarier thing for a woman than for a man; there is an element of surrender that is a bit intimidating if you're not entirely sure of yourself. Especially outside of marriage.
Posted by: Cassandra at June 11, 2005 03:37 PM
Also, FWIW, it's not always a "clumsy" man.
From talking with different women, we vary widely in what we like. What works with one woman may be anathema to another - how the heck is the poor guy supposed to read her mind if she doesn't let him know?
Posted by: Cassandra at June 11, 2005 03:47 PM
How do you get FWIW from Friend of USA?
I'm confused...What am I missing here?
Sorry - FWIW = "for what it's worth".
Posted by: Cassandra at June 11, 2005 07:02 PM