Faking(Open Thread)

F

Had a thought about faking orgasm recently.

In a How a Limp Dick Can Save the World I quoted a male comedian who gave lie to the idea that women give men orgasms. He described one method men give themselves orgasms while having sex with women.

I also described a man from a forum I once frequented saying:

I’m going to start doing what women do, I’m only going to have an orgasm when my partner gives me one.

Two commentators went on to remark:

This was what really struck me. I’d honestly never really thought too deeply about it until now but… damn, but it’s true. Even when being given a beej I’ve always taken care to ensure that I orgasm. I’m always pushing myself to regulate my orgasm, to control when it happens, how it happens, if it happens, etc and so on.

And:

I never thought about it that way. but, as has been pointed out already, it’s true. I always thought I was responsible for both the woman’s orgasm AND my own. I wonder how widespread this mindset is amoung men.

Seems to me that there are two types of faked orgasms: faking the actual physical response and faking that the actual physical response is a result of your partner rather then your own efforts.

A survey on orgasm faking found a majority of women faked the actual physical response and a significant minority of men did as well.

If a survey ever asked if responders fake making their partner think they’d given them an orgasm, I wonder what it would find?

My guess is that it would find upwards of ninety percent of men fake upwards of ninety percent of the time.

Right now I’m thinking of all the smug, sanctimonious rhetoric around women ‘faking orgasm’–all the ways men have been shamed for not being adequate lovers en masse–and I’m having a bit of a chuckle.

Anyway, open thread. Have at.

Alison Tieman
Follow me
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Alison Tieman

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="2896 http://www.genderratic.com/?p=1682">52 comments</span>

  • Seems to me that there are two types of faked orgasms: faking the actual physical response and faking that the actual physical response is a result of your partner rather then your own efforts.
    I have to admit I’m having a bit of difficulty in trying to separate these two into two different things.

    I think when it comes to faking an orgasm it’s pretty much presumed that the faking was done for sake of faking the partner into thinking they had brought said faker to orgasm. As in Partner A faked orgasm for the sake of wanting Partner B to think they had brought on A’s orgasm.

    Maybe I’m missing something here but seems like you are taking the why of faking an orgasm and splitting it off into a type of orgasm of it’s own and to that I wonder what makes that orgasm so special it needs to be split off into its own type?

  • Danny,

    I guess I wasn’t clear. There’s faking the fact you _had an orgasm_ and having an orgasm and _faking that your partner gave it to you_.

  • Yeah, what TB is saying reminds me of a bit someone like Chris Rock did:

    “You women fake orgasms and think we don’t know it? How many of you know we fake having sex with you?”

    Thanks SWAB. I am thinking of…um…bridging off your post. Pelle Billing has something too, as I recall.

  • I have a question about sexual ethics, I hope some of the many knowledgeable and smart readers might answer me.

    Is it ever morally acceptable to threaten somebody with any retribution (other then not having sex) for not complying with our sexual wishes?

    By threaten I don’t mean only overt threats, but also implied, when they are believable and detectable. The retribution doesn’t have to be sexual violence or firing somebody from their workplace, but more modest things like leaving your partner, being angry, shutting down, calling your partner a bad lover etc.

  • “Is it ever morally acceptable to threaten somebody with any retribution (other then not having sex) for not complying with our sexual wishes?”

    What do you think?

  • I think, no.
    But I am a Catholic male, who in general doesn’t like hugging not because he feels violated, but his body might offend.

    I wondered about this question because I once tried to find out what “sex positive feminism” means and found no good answers, but something interesting. Although I believe that sex positive feminists, overstate the danger of rape and see abuse where I see none, my sexual ethics seem to be significantly stricter then theirs.

  • Jupp: I once tried to find out what ”sex positive feminism” means.

    As near as I can figure, It means that it’s really great and wonderful when women have sex in any way that they want and that men are to put women’s sexual needs first and foremost. But men are not to ask for any kind of sexual compromises from women because of patriarchy.

    It’s just like how feminism is all about women being equal to men. So that, one day, women will get the same kind of free unicorn-pony rides that men are currently entitled to every day.

  • I read an article on the Guardian about how some actresses dare going \”without make-up\” and how it\’s subversive and original.

    Then comments from some men and women about how going without make-up is no big deal and their personal preference for themselves and/or their loved ones.

    And then the inevitable comments from some women saying that men are deluded, and don\’t REALLY want no-make-up women. They just want natural-make-up women. They would presumably hate no-make-up-women\’s look. And said commenters say they never see women without at least natural-looking make-up on.

    This one makes me go \”Gah!\”. Can\’t people REALLY like the no make up look because it\’s less maintenance, less trouble, and actually better looking? They HAVE to \”be fooled\” by skin-tint makeup?

    I personally rarely wear make-up, even natural looking one. I wore more before, because I was more insecure, and was convinced I needed it to be seen as female…but that\’s no longer the case. I grew confidence. Confidence that doesn\’t depend on face paint to exist.

  • @ Schala

    The whole ‘beauty ideal’ debate has a simple resolution.

    Women need to accept being less attractive and stop seeing their agency in terms of their attractiveness.

    The way they develop this is by developing their sense of themselves as _actors_ rather then acted upon.

  • Aych:
    “As near as I can figure, It means that it’s really great and wonderful when women have sex in any way that they want and that men are to put women’s sexual needs first and foremost.”
    Although I see how one could come to this conclusion, I doubt they see their position this way. I have kind of a definition of what “sex positive feminism” means, the problem is, that it is vague and open to interpretation. As I understand it being a”sex positive feminist” means:
    Respecting every sexual identity which
    a.) respects consent or lack thereof
    b.) is reasonably safe
    c.) emphasises reciprocity
    d.) emphasises the pleasure of every sex partner
    e.) is not exploitative or oppressive

    Now I personally would sympathise with that ideology if one would add “excludes cheating” and would not include conditions c.), d.) and e.). If you believe that adult people should have the autonomy to make their own decisions, you see e.) as already covered by a.).
    c.) and d.) not only tell people what sex they should or should not pursue, as if they wouldn’t know themselves, but they could be even used to morally coerce people to provide sex. To my initial surprise I have actually read feminists arguing with c.) and d.) that people owe them sex. This phenomenon is not exclusive to feminists though, many people don’t see harm in a woman sexually harassing or coercing her boyfriend. It is like marital duty junior.

  • Here is an article from TGMP, called \\\\\\”It\\\\\\’s Okay to Want Sex\\\\\\”: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/its-okay-to-want-sex/

    Throughout my reading of it, I had problems relating to more or less everything about the author\\\\\\’s perspective. When he then started describing Nice Guys as men who think they can earn sex by \\\\\\”earning Nice Guy tokens\\\\\\” (a sentiment I have never heard any actual Nice Guy express, only feminists and Real Men who despise them), it occurred to me exactly why I have trouble relating to so much of TGMP. And lo and behold, in the comment section, \\\\\\”PursuitAce\\\\\\” said exactly what I thought:

    \\\\\\”I don’t know why it’s taken so long for me to figure out why these articles never apply to me. These are alpha male problems…hello…now I can ignore them without feeling guilty somehow.\\\\\\”

    That is precisely why I can never relate to the GMP articles. They are directed at, and usually written by, men who are so far removed from my own perspective that they might as well have been written by Martians.

    And that perhaps also explains why I have a problem with the title of that site. Its focus only on the problems of a particular kind of man (Real Men, and approved by feminists) is essentially saying that only Real Men can be \\\\\\”good\\\\\\”.

  • I’ll probably be on hiatus for a few days. Something came up. It involves an ex girlfriend who left me for a guy who has been hitting her. It’s not a good situation since he’s made threats on me as well. I’ve only found out after one of her friends came to visit and called me to say that she was afraid of her own safety and that he confronted her physically after she tried to call me. They’re getting a car service to bring her and her stuff up to my place now… I probably shouldn’t be doing this person any favors because she was violent, lying, and cheating on me 6 months ago. But I feel like she’s made this huge mess out of everything but no one deserves to get beat up no matter how idiotic they’ve been…

    Well, wish me luck I guess. I think that this is probably going to suck.

  • @ dungone

    “Well, wish me luck I guess. I think that this is probably going to suck.”

    Why are you doing this? I disagree emphatically with Ginkgo, you’re letting someone you know is poisonous into your life.

    Are the laws where you are such that she can charge you with DV and get you kicked out of your house and seize your assets?

  • Whoa, I missed that part. Now I don’t agree with myself.

    Step back. You have responsibilities that have a better claim on you than this needy user.

    “But I feel like she’s made this huge mess out of everything but no one deserves to get beat up no matter how idiotic they’ve been…”

    “Deserves” is a useless measure for anything. “Judge ye not..” and this applies to how deserves what for what. However act badly and stupidly enough and you are indeed likely to get beaten up. She made that bed.

    You know what is a better and more reliable measure? Duty. Remember your duty and who you owe it to. And who you don’t.

  • She ended up not coming, even though she said that she was on her way. She said it was her “intuition” not to come and our mutual friend had later told me that she had left her to go out alone with the abusive man and reconcile their relationship.

    I don’t think she “deserves” to get hit, whether that’s a useful description of it or not. Perhaps what I really meant is that I don’t believe that people deserve to have a “choice” when they are self destructive. I believe it’s similar to the way a suicidal person doesn’t deserve a “choice” when a police officer is pulling them down off of the ledge. People normally don’t die from DV, but it’s something where they metaphorically keep jumping off the ledge over and over again. I am noticing that when men are a victim of it, it’s immediately men’s fault and he gets no sympathy unless he extricates himself from it (my experience with her violence has been exactly that) whereas what the same exact friend who gave me the tough love treatment, and all the DV hotlines I called, carefully explained to me that it’s her agency at stake and only she can decide for herself if she doesn’t want to put up with it anymore (total bullshit considering what the law actually is, IMO).

    I called a number of DV hotlines in the New York area and tried to figure out if there was anything that I could or should do. They all told me the same thing – that unless I have evidence of the beatings and call the cops, nobody can do anything about it if she doesn’t want to. They said that there is no way to “report” DV and would not even take down his name and business address, even if it could possibly serve as evidence in a police case later down the line. I thought it would be more along the lines of Child Protective Services where you could make a report and someone would try to investigate it.

    By the way, the plan was for them come and stay at my apartment while I went to Philly where I have her belongings in a storage locker. She abandoned it with me when she left me for this guy. After I came back, we would get her a hotel and give her all of her things until her father could drive down from upstate and take her to live with him.

    The really scary part was the friend. She had called me and told me all about the abuse because she felt endangered while staying with them this week. She warned me not to call my ex’s number or to message her or him as he had made threats to cause bodily harm to me and to them if they tried to contact me in any way. But after my ex decided to stay with that guy instead of getting out of there, I implored our friend to forget about her and come stay with me. She wouldn’t, though, and claimed that her presence was the only thing keeping my ex safe. But at the same time she said that it’s completely her choice and the only thing that she could do is “support” her in her decisions. WTF?

  • “Are the laws where you are such that she can charge you with DV and get you kicked out of your house and seize your assets?”

    I doubt it because this was only going to be a shelter for several days at most. I was going to pay for her to stay at a hotel (and hopefully her father would recompense me).

  • From my perspective the whole thing has been a huge slap in the face. I have heard so many bizarre things about me from her, that she wouldn’t be able to “flourish” in a relationship with me in spite of being a “good provider” and “always making everything okay.” She told me that she was suspicious about me and thought my real goals were to turn her into a housewife and that I didn’t really believe in her artistic career (I invested 20k into her art supplies and supported her while she looked for a job). The only thing that I really campaigned to stop her from doing was modeling work because she’s had a history of eating disorder. I don’t know, you know? So she gets with this guy who beats her, starts modelling, and calls me once a month to say she feels ugly and asks me for money. And then he really beats her badly and she quits her job and asks our friend to come stay with her to keep her safe. And after all of this, she still tells me that she won’t come to me because I would stifle her. But, suddenly she was enthusiastic about the possibility of me returning her belongings to her…

    Yup. That really sucked! Just another twist of the knife when you try to be nice to some people.

  • @ dungone

    Why are you doing this? I mean, would you offer shelter to her presumed abuser? Because it’s likely mutual abuse if you know she’s physically abusive and he probably has his sob story too.

  • Why are you doing this? I mean, would you offer shelter to her presumed abuser? Because it’s likely mutual abuse if you know she’s physically abusive and he probably has his sob story too.

    I know that it probably went both ways. But I trusted our friend who had told me that she really felt threatened because he had physically confronted her and tried to get her to stop using her cell phone. It sounded to me like they were in imminent danger, as they were about to tell him that she was leaving. I thought it would be better if they just left before he caught onto their plans.

  • @ dungone

    Let me put this simply.

    You obviously still want to be in a relationship with woman. Are you nuts?

  • I suppose that the most positive thing about this is that after I made enough phone calls to her family, her father is picking her up tomorrow instead of in one week. And, @TB, the main reason that I did anything was because if something had happened, I didn’t want to have to sleep with myself wondering if there was anything else that I could have done to prevent it.

    It seems to me that the difference between myself and the guy that she ended up with is that I had enough self control not to go ballistic on her when she was acting up. Knowing just how badly she would provoke me (a couple of times she woke up in the middle of the night and started hitting me even as I slept), I felt that it could easily lead somebody else to escalate the situation past the point of no return. So if getting her out of there would prevent that, then it had to be done.

  • @Typhonblue, I still love this person but I don’t want to be in a relationship with her. She shouldn’t be in a relationship with anyone.

  • @ dungone

    “She shouldn’t be in a relationship with anyone.”

    Well she is. She’s in a relationship with a man who gives her what she wants. Let it go.

  • In which TGMP openly comes out as ableist:

    http://goodmenproject.com/comment-of-the-day/what-does-appearance-have-to-do-with-being-a-creep-quit-being-predatory-thats-it/

    The “comment of the day” includes this wonderful bit:

    What does your appearance have to do with your being a creep? Quit creeping on people. Read body language.

    How I wish I could.

    I used to think that men like me should live in self-imposed curfews because our mere presence makes women uncomfortable, it was partly thanks to places like GE and FC that I became convinced that this was delusional and self-harming. But it seems that this character has a similar belief, at least that follows logically from the quoted passage above, given that some people are neurologically incapable of reading body language.

  • Not only that. Body language is inherently ambiguous and can be easily misinterpreted whether you’re neurotypical, autistic, or anything else. It’s a demand for mind-reading and a complete abdication of women’s responsibility to communicate. The GMP is a gynocentric, princess-complex-indulging cesspool and should just be avoided by anyone of conscience.

  • Joanna Schroeder, from the thread that wonderful comment I cited above was from:

    “I think one reason guys want to say “I have no control over [not being able to read body language]!” is because they love playing the victim and living in victim mode. Okay maybe they don’t LOVE it, but it works for them… to some degree. […] Almost anyone can learn to read signals, it’s just that some don’t want to. Because they’re stuck in victim state.”

    Classy.

  • That comment appears to have been taken down. Apparently it was too ableist even for an aggressively co-dependent enabler like Noah Brand.

  • Classy.

    She essentially just said “NO U” in an unnecessarily verbose way. Trolly McTrollerson, she is.

    As Patrick said, body language is inherently ambiguous, and that’s one of the reasons why many people can’t read it well. People like Joanna, apparently, don’t seem to understand that just because she knows what she’s doing when she moves or holds herself a certain way that not everyone else will. It’s also likely that, if she thinks she understands body language (whether she actually does or not), it should be easy for anyone else to learn to do so.

    See: Psychologist Fallacy and Mind Projection Fallacy.

  • Several people here on Genderratic (myself and John Markley at least) have mentioned how creep-shaming is often used on autistic men, even if said men have done absolutely nothing with threatening or sexual intent in the given situation – neurodivergent body language itself can be enough to earn the “creep” epithet.

    And then the GMP gives a “comment of the day” to somebody who, no shit, gives “read body language” as his advice for men who do not want to be viewed as creeps. And in the same thread his comment comes from, Joanna Schroeder basically claims that people who cannot read body language are just faking it because they love being victims.

    And the worst part for me, personally, is that sometimes, I find myself believing them. That is when I make decisions like the one I described above.

  • Well, in that case, here am my reply to Johanna, before Noah delete it:

    “I think one reason guys want to say “I have no control over this!” is because they love playing the victim and living in victim mode. Okay maybe they don’t LOVE it, but it works for them… to some degree. The same way that for me, creating and inviting chaos into my life “works”… It actually doesn’t work, but I’m good at it and have been doing it most of my life because of a very chaotic childhood.”

    Yeah you’re right. There’s no such thing as an Autistic spectrum disorder, that’s just something the patriachy made up to oppress you. I’ve been faking it my whole life, the flat affect, the difficulty with certain sounds, everything. Just so men I don’t know can get away with making you uncomfortable. That’s how deep this thing goes, because screwing you personally out of your goddess given birthright as the most important person in the world to always be comfortable at all times is totally worth wrecking my own life, you vile, ableist litlte narcisist.”

  • This is ableism we are discussing, not simply misandry.

    Its like the new-agers saying if you just think happy thoughts, cancer will evaporate. I used to just snort derisively at that stuff, until that philosophy actually took the life of a friend who put off treatment until it was too late.

    And I feel the same way about this too.

  • This is ableism we are discussing, not simply misandry.

    How often are women shamed for not being able to read body language, if at all? For that matter, isn’t it preposterous that so many women demand overt, unambiguous approaches from men – and get them? We’re not talking about ablism here, we’re talking about a sexist double standard – period.

  • Well, I think we can talk about both.

    I’ve commented about women’s “signals” before on FC. “Signals” and body language are ambiguous (there is no perceptible difference between ignoring someone in the hope they’ll go away, and ignoring them in the hope they’ll try harder, and I’ve been berated for “misreading” both on occasion), intentionally plausibly deniable, vary from one woman to another, and sometimes just consist of thinking something very hard and expecting the intended recipient to hear it.

    Our culture flatters women that they are the better communicators, but if your intended recipient doesn’t receive your communication, you haven’t effectively communicated. But ultimately, if one party in a negotiation is obliged to put their cards on the table, and the other is not, then the one who is not is the one who has the power in that negotiation. And of course, feminists like to talk about men being threatened by the prospect of losing their power – do they say anything at all that isn’t projection?

  • One last point. It is possible to give out intentionally misleading “signals”. I have been lied to with body language, in a way that it was impossible to call the liar out (hence the “plausibly deniable” bit above), too many times to completely trust it.

  • y’know this whole time, I thought the whole Nice Guy ™ thing was a way for bullies to berate men with poor social skills/emotional intelligence….

    anyways they are expecting us to be mindreaders…..

    who has the “privilege” again????

    F*ck the Good Men Project!

  • @Patrick, certainly we should talk about both, but I’ve come to conclude that the reason someone might say that body language shaming is abelist instead of sexist is because they haven’t actually compared it to how women demand to be communicated with themselves. There’s an entire category of Nice Guy(tm) shaming that the femisphere dedicates to calling out allegedly shy men who “pretend” to be nice (i.e. body language) instead of coming right out to make their sexual intentions known. You can throw in a vast portion of creep shaming into the mix. All of it has the tell-tale signs of women being unwilling to read men’s body language, right down to the point where they actually resent men who communicate through it.

    It’s just that we never talk about it from that perspective. Sure, we can talk about how women use body language poorly, inconsistently, and manipulatively, but that’s only scratching the surface. We also have to talk about how women react to men’s body language. Sometimes, it’s the same exact body language but we expect two vastly different responses from either sex. In some circumstances when a woman stares deeply into a man’s eyes, she might expect him to kiss her. But in the same exact circumstances, a man who does it might end up getting scolded for making her feel uncomfortable. In such ways, men’s body language is not only ignored, but they are conditioned out of it altogether.

  • Paul,

    I do not know to which degree this is typical of modern feminism, but among the second-wave feminists I grew up around, there was a common (although not universal) mindset that many things that disadvantaged women and girls were because of patriarchy, and many things that disadvantaged men and boys were because of biology — and that is for those of them who even acknowledged that men could be disadvantaged at all. They would often talk about boys being naturally slow learners, for instance, or how boys had a natural proclivity for violence that had to be kept in check – or how even innocent boys would grow up to be nasty men, due to the testosterone flooding their bodies when they would grow adult. I remember vividly how some of my mother’s friends sometimes remarked that I was so smart and kind one should think I was a girl. I had an intense and ever-present fear that these qualities of mine would be blunted into a grunting, violent beer-chugging ogre of some kind when I grew up.

    The argument put forth that male disadvantage was of biological character was that since we live in a male-dominated society, the aspects where men do poorly can obviously not be socially constructed, given that our social constructs are patriarchal, and thus designed to favour men.

    I think most modern feminists generally seem to lean towards a somewhat more consistent social constructivism, although that Ozy piece brings grim memories of aforementioned view.

  • So I read the comments for that Ozy piece on the life expectancy gap (http://goodmenproject.com/noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz/why-do-women-live-longer-than-men/).

    Surprisingly few people mentioned the hypocrisy of seeking out social/cultural explanations (eg. stuff we can change) for female disadvantage, but just accepting that male disadvantage is biological (eg. stuff we have to just leave be). Although given their overzealous moderation, it might be because anybody expressing such a sentiment got silenced.

    I suppose I should not be surprised. The GMP has truly become horrid.

  • Although given their overzealous moderation, it might be because anybody expressing such a sentiment got silenced.

    @RocketFrog, that would probably explain it – they were more than likely flooded by comments of that nature. Some did manage to point it out, though. Given that there are only 2 dozen comments or so, it seems like there isn’t much of a cheering section, either.

By Alison Tieman

Events

Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather

Support Hannah Wallen’s HBR Talk

Categories

Archives

Tags