jeannie@randvax.UUCP (Jean Thomas) (09/15/86)
I've included a lot of the original posting as I believe most of it is germane, and it was difficult to cut any of it. I'd go further than the first sentence, however; I believe that until recently *most* women were (directly or indirectly) taught that sex for them wasn't *supposed* to be enjoyable. In article <2110@mtgzz.UUCP> eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) writes: >[in response to jamie I wrote] >>>...I agree that not enough women are taught how to enjoy sex. >>>Seeing has how that is the case, it behooves the more experienced >>>partner to help teach the less experienced one how to enjoy it.... >> >... My first experiences weren't very much fun. So I developed the >attitude that if my boyfriend wanted me to play with him fine, but I'd >just as soon be left alone. Well, one very patient SO spent a great deal >of time teaching/showing me that sex could be fun. (you want me to put >what where!!??? :^) Without the time and effort he spent I might still >be one of the "sex is something you have to grin and bear" women. >> >... Yes to a certain extent everyone is responsible >for their own pleasure. But to a certain extent you are also responsible >for your partner's pleasure. It can occasionally be hard to enjoy sex >with your partner's cooperation, let alone without it. Being inexperienced >makes it even harder.... >... I hadn't found a way to enjoy having someone fumbling >around in my crotch, so I decided that this obviously wasn't fun >for me so I won't do it. When I went out with someone else they >had a better idea of a way to do things without hurting me, thereby >teaching me that this could be fun. Even now it takes alot of >cooperation on the part of my partner for me to enjoy sex. If he >wasn't willing to take the time, or just wanted to "get his rocks >off" I doubt that I would be able to enjoy sex. >I don't think it unreasonable to expect the more experienced partner >to help the less experienced one. In cases where neither one is >particularly experienced, they just have to fumble along as best >they can. Wow! There is so much I want to say about all of the above, but (with great effort) I'll restrict myself to the following: I believe your experience is similar to that of many, if not most, women. I do, however, have a couple of "nits" I want to pick. (Please remember that I'm almost fanatical about semantics. I believe most of us are unaware of the implications of our words and think others understand what we mean, even if our words can be taken in more than one way.) (And yes, I, like everyone else, sometimes get screwed up in my *intent* to communicate clearly.) First, I agree with what I think is your intent, expressed above, regarding responsibility for pleasure. But I must disagree with your choice of words "you are also responsible for your partner's pleasure." I sincerely believe you are *responsible* only for your own. If you wish a mutually gratifying experience, you will probably *choose* to do a number of things that will heighten the experience for your partner, which will intensify the sharing/bonding. This is part of the synergy of a good sexual experience, much less a good sexual relationship: when you get more turned on, I get more turned on, so you get.... However, with all due respect, *I* am *not* *RESPONSIBLE* for my partner's pleasure. Second, with regard to the need for the inexperienced (or traumatized) to "fumble along." Several years ago I decided that altho I had pretty well worked thru (I thought) the aftermath of the trauma of having been abused and molested as a child (separate incidents) and violently raped when a 19-year-old virgin, there probably was a reason sex wasn't all that much fun for me most of the time. And I'm older than most in this group, so I had a lot of years invested in sex-is-OK-but-I-can-certainly-do-without-it. The single most freeing experience of my life was attending a 12-week course, the "Sexual Enrichment Experience," taught at the Center for Social and Sensory Learning in Tarzana, Calif. This is an accredited institute, with a professional (and caring) staff. The classes are small (10 max), attended primarily by professionals; my group included five therapists and two doctors. I'm not suggesting that this course is for everyone (and in fact you must "pass" an interview designed to determine whether it is appropriate); it may be too explicit for some. What I *am* suggesting is that there are alternatives (therapy, workshops, courses, etc.) to the "need to fumble." And the payoff is worth the research and follow-through.... Last, if there are any guys reading this wondering why they need to be bothered with all this (sensitivity to their partner's needs, etc.)--and I suspect, after reading this group for the last year, that there will be--I want to close with one more quote: >... frankly, if it's not fun the >majority of the time, it's going to alot harder for you to convince me >that I want to have sex. So if you want you can take the self serving >attitude of the [more] fun your partner has the more likely your partner will >want to have sex with you. -- * Choices, always choices *
johnmill@mmintl.UUCP (John Miller) (09/15/86)
In article <474@hjuxa.UUCP> akl@hjuxa.UUCP writes: >Xref: philabs net.women:13533 net.singles:17371 > > >In article <2110@mtgzz.UUCP>, eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) writes: > [ about which way to go on name-change upon marrying ] > But I don't think I should go BACK a step to >my maiden name again. I'd like to see some thoughts on this as well. > >The biggest trouble I have in accepting this name-change is that I'm >NOT a piece of property - there's no reason why I should have to be >"branded" with a name, signifying to whom I "belong." In a way going back to your maiden name might suggest that you "belong" to your parents, or at least your father's family. >Ideas?? > >AKL@DEC So -- why not pick any name you jolly well please? In some states at least the marriage ceremony carries the same weight as a court-decreed name change, and I know of one person who changed her FIRST name while she was at it. (Actually, she had always been known by her middle name and made that legally her first name.)
falk@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (09/16/86)
In article <2110@mtgzz.UUCP>, eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) writes: > > Yes, I'm getting married next May. Whether I'm changing my name > depends on which week you ask me. Obviously I must have posted > that while I had decided to change my name. This week I'm not > so sure again. Anyone care to discuss the pros and cons? Or > may be that should go in a different news group. > > -Beth ? >>Some people >>have done nice things like forming a new name out of the two names. >>Works great for short, neat names. Same thing holds true for >>hyphenation. I can't go either route, as my SO's last name is a >>10-letter Yugoslavian tongue-twister. (Say THAT fast 3 times!!) >>Ideas?? My husbands' last name is also a 10-letter Yugoslavian tongue-twister (at least for some people). I added his name to mine (not hyphenated, although that's the only way some people can handle it) and he added mine as a middle name, our daughter also has both of our names. Professionally, I go by my pre-married name alone; both names are in the phone book. So what is this name??!! Connie J. Falk Milosevich, aka, CJ Falk Milosevich, Connie Falk, hey you... I have been called Mr/Ms/Mrs Falk, Milosevich, FalkMmmm, 'oh dear', etc. One salesperson called, "Mrs. Milosevich?" (me:"yes?") "Hello, Falk. I was wonder- ing..." ?!? Oh well, what's in a name? A rose by any other name would still have thorns... Connie Falk UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!falk ARPANET: falk%uiucuxc@a.cs.uiuc.edu CSNET: falk%uiucuxc@uiuc.csnet ICBM: 40 07 N / 88 13 W US Mail: Univ of Illinois, CSO, 1304 W Springfield Ave, Urbana, IL 61801 AT&T: 217-333-8050
akl@hjuxa.UUCP (A. K. Laux) (09/17/86)
() In article <43800052@uiucuxc>, falk@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes: > ...me, in a previous article: > >>Works great for short, neat names. Same thing holds true for > >>hyphenation. I can't go either route, as my SO's last name is a > >>10-letter Yugoslavian tongue-twister. (Say THAT fast 3 times!!) > >>Ideas?? > > My husbands' last name is also a 10-letter Yugoslavian tongue-twister (at > least for some people). I added his name to mine (not hyphenated, although > that's the only way some people can handle it) and he added mine as a > middle name, our daughter also has both of our names. Professionally, I > go by my pre-married name alone; both names are in the phone book. So what > is this name??!! Connie J. Falk Milosevich, aka, CJ Falk Milosevich, > Connie Falk, hey you... > > Oh well, what's in a name? A rose by any other name would > still have thorns... > > Connie Falk Hmm...Connie Falk Milosevich...that's not too bad. Anita Laux Planenshek...I just might do it. AKL@DEC
mary@bunkerb.UUCP (Mary Shurtleff) (09/18/86)
In article <474@hjuxa.UUCP> akl@hjuxa.UUCP writes: >In article <2110@mtgzz.UUCP>, eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) writes: >> >> Yes, I'm getting married next May. Whether I'm changing my name >> depends on which week you ask me. >> Anyone care to discuss the pros and cons? >> >> -Beth ? > I'd like to see some thoughts on this as well. > >Ideas?? > >AKL@DEC I got married four years ago, and also debated whether or not to change my name. I would have hyphenated if I could have, but with two nine-letter names, I would have had a terrible time signing checks! My husband asked me to take his name, because he felt that since we were forming a new family, family members should share the same name. That seemed reasonable to me. He gave me no BS about being HIS wife so I should have HIS name, or anything like that. I did start using the first letter of my maiden name as a second middle initial, and that has worked just fine (so I never really dropped the name, I just use an abbre- viated version of it). At the time, it never occurred to me to ask him to share my name, or to come up with an entirely new one. That's because it isn't that big a deal to me. I am who I am regardless of what you call me. For example, my first and second names are Mary and Jean. I answer to Mary, Mary Jean, MJ, Mare, Marezy, and various and sundry endearments used by my other half. As long as what you wish to call me is agreeable to me and to you, it's no major issue as far as I'm concerned. So as far as what the two of you should do, I can only recommend that you do what is comfortable for you. I don't see any shame in changing one's name, if you feel you have a good reason to do so. At the same time, it's certainly not odd to keep your own name. Any of the possibilities mentioned by AKL in her article are good, but you have to decide which you feel best living with for (we hope) a long time. Cheers! -- Mary Shurtleff ....decvax!bunker!bunkerb!mary ....ittatc!bunker!bunkerb!mary <---***---> "And now for something completely different, a man with nine legs." "He ran away!" <---***--->
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (wagener) (09/24/86)
In article <485@hjuxa.UUCP> akl@hjuxa.UUCP (A. K. Laux) writes: >() >In article <43800052@uiucuxc>, falk@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU writes: >> > ...me, in a previous article: >> >>Works great for short, neat names. Same thing holds true for >> >>hyphenation. I can't go either route, as my SO's last name is a >> >>10-letter Yugoslavian tongue-twister. (Say THAT fast 3 times!!) >> >>Ideas?? >> >> My husbands' last name is also a 10-letter Yugoslavian tongue-twister (at >> least for some people). I added his name to mine (not hyphenated, although >> that's the only way some people can handle it) and he added mine as a >> middle name, our daughter also has both of our names. Professionally, I >> go by my pre-married name alone; both names are in the phone book. So what >> is this name??!! Connie J. Falk Milosevich, aka, CJ Falk Milosevich, >> Connie Falk, hey you... >> >> Oh well, what's in a name? A rose by any other name would >> still have thorns... >> >> Connie Falk > > >Hmm...Connie Falk Milosevich...that's not too bad. >Anita Laux Planenshek...I just might do it. > Actually both are rather nice. Definitely not any worse than Pamela Pincha-Wagener.