> From: Sunah Caroline Cherwin <email@example.com> said:
> To me it seems ridiculous to think an 'independent panel' could rate a man
> as a good sex partner.
What prompted the statement was an article I read about the information women share with one another about their sex partners and the damage a man could do to his future prospects (within a circle where such information is shared (office, club, etc.)) if his "performance" was not up to par. I suspect that different women have very different criteria for what constitutes "good performance" though there may be some "common elements". The reason for an "independent panel" for evaluation is that this would allow a balanced assessment. Of course an individual could rely on an assessment by a single other person if they knew that their criteria were similar. Of course that removes the anonymity from the process. I also doubt there are many women, who once they have found a "good" man (and/or traind him well... :-)) will be exactly thrilled about recomending him to their girlfriends.
If we assume that the extropian philosophy includes "non-control", do women have to completely give up the genetic drive "to catch and keep a man" (historically, for resource utilization) in order to be a "true" extropian? [Keeping in mind the a/b/c criteria I provided which remove many of the traditional arguments for faithfullness in relationships and the fact that in environments where there is enough social or cultural support, women do not abolutely "need" a man to successfully reproduce.]
> A man is a good sex partner to a woman if they
> listen to each other and understand and appreciate each others' ideas.
This is a "good friend", not a good "sex partner". Some woman may argue that the two cannot be disconnected. My thinking was more along the lines that in many situations sex with a partner is more interesting than solitary sex. In part this is because there are more "unknown" variables, so it is inherently less boring. [To some degree it is the unknown variables that can create the possibility for "bad" sex. The reason I suggested an anonymous rating system was that presumably people with high ratings are better at recognizing, responding to and managing these "unknowns".]
In addition, physiologically, it is impossible to self-stimulate in certain ways (this is why you cannot tickle yourself). When I say a good "sex partner", I mean an individual with whom you can have sex who can stimulate and satisfy you (sexually) in ways that you are unable to satisfy yourself.
> Otherwise she wouldn't want to have sex with him (we are all generalizing
> here, of course) so it wouldn't be any good.
This may be true for you, but I suspect that there are quite a few generation X & Y women who openly "do" men. I've known a few women who would fall into the category of believing that "some sex" is better than "no sex", and in situations where a "good friend & sex partner" is unavailable will pick the friendship from one tree and the sex from another.