Tell Me How I Feel About It, Doc
Echidne of Echidne of the Snakes reviews a review of a 50's-era instructional called On Becoming a Woman: A Book for Teenage Girls that, um, makes a strong case for the theory of women as the "no-sex" class.
A girl's reasons for petting are not so much for the physical pleasures she receives, as is true in the case of a boy. Her reasons are somewhat secondhand in that she derives her satisfactions from bringing pleasure to her boyfriend. It is not that a girl is repulsed by petting, but rather that her greater pleasure comes form assuming that by petting she is endearing herself to her friend and thus improving her social status. It is natural for a girl to enjoy expressions of affection and to feel complimented when her friend tells her that he wants to be close to her because he loves her.
It may be said, then, that a boy's principal reason for petting is physical; a girl's, emotional.
Now Echnine adds two pithy points to the obvious problems of the book being, um, wrong.
The writer, one Harold Shryock, M.A, M.D, obviously had lots of first-hand experience on the trials and tribulations of womanhood. Fascinating that becoming a woman seemed to require a handbook, because everything the book suggests is pretty much assumed to be automatic by today's conservatives and anti-feminists, whether of the religious type or the evolutionary psychology type.
Actually if Shryock's experience was anything like my grandfathers (a pediatrician/author who also wrote a 50's-era sex-ed book for girls and another for boys) the actual author may have been *Mrs.* Shryock. (My grandfather's book is pretty schlocky too but family lore has it that my grandmother rewrote and sometimes outright wrote a lot of his work.) As for the need for a handbook to spell out what you claim comes naturally? Doc, logic much? (I think Germaine Greer's "The Female Eunuch" is a wonderful extended demolition of *that* particular fantasy.)
But anyway, if it ever comes to pass that we should find ourselves petting I think I'd sort of hope we each got a little bit of both sides out of it -- the physical pleasure of arms around necks, mouths exploring mouths, each partner's breath growing short in the other's ears or against each other's necks, hands exploring breasts and cocks, asses and vulvas, lips and tongues finding friction in frictionlessness... as well as the emotional satisfaction of each partner bringing satisfaction to the other and endearing ourselves to each other. Because, hey, why should anyone have to, let alone *want to* settle for halves when everyone could instead have, and give, as much as each desired?
RenegadeEvolution having declared this "female desire week" based on Laura's concern about too many women and not enough men in erotic photography, after the "continue reading" break I've posted the three most frequently viewed photos from my Flickr photostream.
A girl's reasons for petting are not so much for the physical pleasures she receives, as is true in the case of a boy. Her reasons are somewhat secondhand in that she derives her satisfactions from bringing pleasure to her boyfriend.
Which, of course, has the "convenient" effect of making "petting" totally about him.
This reminds me of some of the videos from the Prelinger Archives (thanks, MST3K!), particularly the one called How Much Affection? but pretty much any of the "social guidance" videos.
And countless young women who read that repressive screed wondered if there was something wrong with them, not only if they derived sexual pleasure from petting, but if they derived not-particularly-sexual cuddle/touch pleasure from it. Now, that's obscene.
I had to work hard to concentrate on composing that; photo #3 is possibly the most OMFGHOT!!! pic I've seen from you yet. Breathtakingly beautiful and erotic (and an excellent accompaniment to your second-last paragraph, which is also beautiful and erotic and affects my breathing). I can't speak for anyone else, but it sure does push all the right buttons for this female's desire.
Sunflower
Her reasons are somewhat secondhand in that she derives her satisfactions from bringing pleasure to her boyfriend.
This keys heavily into a theme that I've heard mentioned by submissives, especially women submissives, about the key source of pleasure (I've been told several times by subs that their preferred form of sex is fellatio, because "there's no direct pleasure for me; it's all about him"). Which leads to the disconcerting conclusion that the book being quoted also believes that women are "naturally submissive".
Incidentally, I found a couple of years ago at a jumble sale, a book called "The Sexual Side of Marriage" written by an American health organisation in the 1920s, that was almost hippy-ish in its attitude to sexuality, and was very keen that men (i.e. husbands, in their topic) should regard women as being capable of enjoying sex physically and taking the time to make that enjoyment happen. However, it did also have the same meme of women being naturally monogamous, while men's libido tends to be more "diffuse" (their term).
(reCaptcha: "popular sabotaged")
The 1920s was when female pleasure was really "discovered" on that level of expert advice, both in the U.S. and Europe. Unfortunately it took several decades more before it stopped being a contested idea ...
My reply to this comment was long and incoherent, and thus wound up posted at my place.
OMG I *read* that book when I was a teenager! Gah!
I had a wonderful comment regarding the text of this post, but I am dumbfounded by the accompanying photos. Wow. All three are fabulous, but the first one is especially sexy to me. Ironic, since it shows the least skin. I guess it is the anticipation, the mystery of what lies beneath.