Personally, I like it. I used to have phonesex a lot, and I would just enjoy hearing the guy breathe while he pleasured himself… don’t ask me why, though.
Maybe not moans as much, but just noises, breathing, etc.

Hmmm. No.
I guess for no other reason except that I wouldn’t be used to… an exceptionally vocal guy. The occasional grunt or guttural sound is nice, but, to be really vocal might weird me out.

I would personally prefer a guy to make some kind of sounds to let me know he enjoys what’s going on, instead of him being completely silent the whole time.

I myself am not a screamer, or a moaner.
No woman has ever asked me to make noise, so I have to assume most women don’t want that.
But I could be wrong.

There is a story in Hollywood about a woman that Leonardo de Caprio bedded.
They went to his hotel room, and in the middle of lovemaking, she said “Do you mind if I scream?”
He replied that he didn’t mind.
She immediately screamed “I AM BEING FUCKED BY LEONARDO DE CAPRIO!!!”

It’s thought that women moan during sex as a primordial throwback to humanity’s hunter-gatherer days. Basically, to encourage genetic variety, women instinctively would have sex with as many men as possible. When a woman was having sex with someone on a jungle or savannah floor, that distinct noise would alert other males that a female was ready to copulate. Other males would then line up and copulate successively with the female.* If you’re male yourself, you’ve probably observed that just hearing that sound at the very least makes you very alert to the possibility of depositing an ejaculation.

So, the answer is that women may or may not “like it,” but it’s unlikely to have the same physiological effect that a woman moaning has on men.

* This also explains why men finish so quickly, while women often want a lot of sex before they’re satisfied!

@bolwerk That sounds like a very suspicious explanation, and one at odds with what I’ve read about things like this. Do you have a source?

I think that whatever sounds naturally come out of one’s mouth are sexy. Whatever happens, happens. Total silence is kind of creepy, though.

Yes. I’m very auditory (also love phone sex) and in addition to that, my partner’s arousal and excitement is integral to my own. I can’t stand it when someone doesn’t make noise.. I mean, it’s about as exciting as sex with my vibrator, really. No noise is a big turn-off and can make a night-or-day difference to how into it I am. No noise will leave me yawning, quick to get myself off, and probably not come back.

Also, guys.. if you want a bangin’ blowjob, you best make some noise. No way I’m giving my all for someone who is as interactive/appreciative as a corpse.

@SavoirFaire: Given how well it fits the general circumstances of human sexuality, I have no idea why it would be suspicious, but it’s mentioned perhaps most prominently in the book Sex at Dawn. I’ve seen it elsewhere too.

I love feedback of any kind. :) Moaning is just one way for it.

Shorter, more clever answer: Yes, I’m not into necrophilia.

I like some noise to be made, yes.

@bolwerk It’s the lining up successively that sounds suspicious. That sounds more like chimpanzee behavior than human behavior. We tend to be serial monogamists, and human females tend to be more selective than human males about their sexual partners. This suggests that human females wouldn’t evolve signals to alert all the men around to come have sex with them at will. Human females are much more in control of their sexuality than that (at least in natural circumstances).

Furthermore, anthropological investigations and the evidence we get from sexual dimorphism in humans both suggest that polygyny is typically limited to a subset of the men in societies that engage in it. I haven’t read Sex at Dawn yet, but I have read about it. It has gotten mixed reviews from what I’ve seen, with the less flattering reviews coming from scientists. I don’t doubt there are interesting things in the book, but what you present sounds like the worst kind of “just so” story. This isn’t to say it is incorrect, but only that I’d want to see strong evidence before accepting it.

Well YES!

How else am I going to know if he’s having a good time too?

I don’t want a dead man in my bed. lol

YES PLEASE YES YES YES YES YES YES YES. Yes. I hate when he’s quiet. Hate it. Despise it. My boyfriend is loud and I think it’s the hottest thing ever. I cannot get enough of it.

@SavoirFaire: well, if those premises are true, I guess they would suggest that women wouldn’t evolve such signals. But, lo and behold, very many women, and very few men, emit a loud auditory signal informing everyone nearby exactly what they’re doing – that they do so needs some explaining that’s better than “gee, women wouldn’t do that because they’re supposed to be monogamous.” And I doubt many men would dispute, given their “lack of control,” that upon hearing that sound, they at least prepare to have sex themselves. Besides all that, going by your account, evolution ought to have encouraged silent sex, not the raucous variety humans have. That human sexual behavior resembles that of chimpanzees ought not to surprise anyone – the chimpanzee is the closest human relative. In the case of making noise to alert other partners, it resembles many mammals including housecats.

Human beings in agricultural and industrial society are indeed very often serial monogamists, with a remarkable capacity for “cheating” on spouses, which suggests that such serial monogamy is an adaptation to such social pressures in post-hunter-gatherer society (part of the premise of the book, but probably not very disputed), or perhaps some other condition (STDs?). Polygyny probably isn’t very common in pre-agricultural societies – what is surprising that polyandry might be (or might have been, as the case may be). Polygyny, on the other hand, seems common in pastoral societies, or successor societies to pastoral ones (e.g., certain places where there are many oil magnates).

I might agree that female sexuality is more adaptable, but I’m not sure I can agree that women have more control over their sexuality than men in general under “natural” circumstances. There are hordes of problems with this idea. The most obvious is, the only places where women might be close to natural in the way you’re presumably imagining, pre-agricultural societies, are the very places where women have a lot more say about how they have sex – and maybe can pursue they’re own sexual partners in a manner similar to contemporary western men.* The next is that human males in agricultural and industrial societies are skewed towards seeing a childrearing wife as part of his estate, an idea hardly abandoned even in the most socially progressive 21st century societies. It also sounds like it assumes that women for some reason have a lesser urge to have sex than men – that sounds dubious to me. I suspect it’s a generalization based on largely on the behavior of sexually charged, and often sexually deprived, young males who haven’t discovered how to be patient, charming, seductive, or witty yet.

I don’t expect “scientists” to give automatic blanket endorsements of controversial new works, but Sex at Dawn didn’t do much original research at all. It simply synthesizes previous research and theories, and I wasn’t really addressing the book’s conclusions – though the matter I mentioned was used to defend their claims.

* You find this as a trope in literature sometimes, where a subsistence woman in a colonized society comically pursues an explorer sexually. It certainly came up even in relatively recent Hollywood films, like Ace Ventura 2.

@bolwerk

I have always been vocally demonstrative, sometimes my partners have had to ‘shush’ me.

Like in a silent campground in the middle of the night in a tent. haha

Your response ignores the fact that humans, unlike most other animals, have sex in private and have long done so. An auditory signal can still exist given the premises I noted once this is understood.

You’ve also garishly misrepresented virtually everything I said. My point about serial monogamy, for instance, concerns both males and females and is not some prudish statement that women prefer strict monogamy. Similarly, my comment about women being in control of their sexuality refers to their ability to select their partners and not just wait around on their backs for men to come have sex with them. Finally, you didn’t say anything contrary to what I said about polygyny. It occurs in societies where there is a small group of powerful men who can get away with it (while the rest of the men “settle” for having but one partner at a time). This is all standard anthropology.

@SavoirFaire

Who are you addressing?

Well, I guess if I had existed a million years ago the Sabre toothed tigers would have had an audio to follow to their next kill. lol

@SavoirFaire: I responded to what you wrote. If something was misrepresented, you need to be more clear. There are plenty of examples of public sex, sex in group settings, sex for show, and – today – people who can’t help the urge to watch sexual acts committed on a screen when they can’t have sex with someone. That modern social conditioning makes sex in private the predominant, historical practice doesn’t mean it was the predominant pre-historic practice. I assumed you’d be aware of such things, and didn’t see much need to address them.

Your claims about serial monogamy are simply as much imperfect ideals for men as they are for women – my response concerning them applies to both sexes, maybe to varying extents, maybe not. Both sexes cheat, even in circumstances where it’s critically disadvantageous. Presumably there are people who stay faithful, but it’s also very likely that monogamy is, uh, over-reported. Men have exactly the same ability to select partners as women do – arguably, they use less discretion at times, but, for obvious socioeconomic reasons, women clearly have more to lose from a bad selection. Nothing in what I said implied that women didn’t choose to, under some circumstances, publicly have group sex with others in their tribe/band, just as they exercise the choice to have many kinds of sexual couplings today.

I don’t really disagree with your proposition about polygyny. Actually, from what I can tell, I agree entirely, and it supports most points I’ve made splendidly. Heck, I’d go further: polgyny tends to be impractical, probably for deliberate reasons, in societies that permit it – except for those who aren’t extremely wealthy. Meanwhile, monogamy and polygyny are almost certainly both outcomes of patriarchy, whether horticultural, pastoral, or industrial.

Yes it’s motivation to keep on doing what I’m doing or even better!

@Coloma I was responding to @bolwerk.

@bolwerk I think I was rather clear, and the principle of charity should cover the rest for any honest conversant. As it seems not to have done so, however, I’ll try to be more explicit.

First, nothing I have said entails that there are not instances of public sex. I was quite clearly talking about the predominant practice. But my understanding is that the evidence suggests this practice is not just historical, but also pre-historical (thus why I said sex has been a private affair for a long time). So the lack of entailment between the two is irrelevant.

My claims about serial monogamy, similarly, are not claims about ideals at all, but rather about historical facts. I don’t care one way or another how many partners one has and whether or not one has them all at once. You are attempting to read my as a prude at the same time that others on this site are accusing me of being a wild hedonist. It’s really quite amusing.

Nor did I say that men and women have differing abilities to choose their partners. What I noted was that your story—as written, at least—suggests that women are passive vessels. In reality, women are more selective and do not just lie back and wait for the line of men to finish with them. Perhaps you need to clarify your meaning.

As for polygyny, thank you for confirming that you were agreeing with me. But agreeing with me doesn’t support anything other than the points on which we already agree. This is especially true since your story of the woman just waiting for the line of men is not an example of polygyny, but rather polyandry (if anything). And that is an extremely rare behavior in humans that has always required extreme conditions.

@SavoirFaire: I didn’t say you’re being an idealist, or a prude, but the claims you’re making are based on assumptions propagated certainly by the former and arguably by the later. I more or less agreed with you about current predominant practice – although I would keep in mind the fact that the prevailing behavior doesn’t happen nearly, and the possibility that it doesn’t neatly fit predominant preference.

However, prevailing practice a pretty misleading piece of information because it doesn’t address past predominant practice. Except for what we can reconstruct through evolutionary psychology (largely theoretical) and biological analogy (largely empirical, based on extant primates and primitive societies), pretty much all assumptions, particularly anthropological ones, about prehistoric human sexual practices are worse than conjecture – they’re just assumptions based on the behavior of modern humans and how they socialize. That’s not to say behavioral psychology and biological analogy are perfect reconstructions either, of course, nor does it mean anthropology is a completely discredited field – but when it comes to almost any conclusion about prehistoric, much less pre-agricultural, behavior, much of orthodox anthropology doesn’t do much better than saying “x is happening now, so x always happened.”

Likewise, serial monogamy is a very hard historical “fact” to defend. I can see it maybe as a likelihood in post-antiquity, but even then it’s not very well supported except in the purely legal sense. For the behavior of peasants before the high middle ages in Europe, we can make almost no judgments because there are virtually no records to draw on. We know marriage was pretty widespread, but the term was so loose it might almost not have meant much before the 12th century. Looking at the sexual habits of the people who left records allows for some wildly varied conclusions, from clearly lecherous popes, kings, nobles, aristocrats, and politicians to relatively staid and chaste bourgeois town culture – these representing the classes with resources and political power. Looking abroad, and at lateral cultures, almost none come close to meeting an ideal of extinguishing non-monogamous behavior.

And no, I did not mean to imply women were “passive vessels” when they had sex with successive partners. In fact, I find it unlikely. I suspect the only times this “passive vessel” thing happens is when they have to resign themselves to prevailing social conditions under monogamous and polygynous regimes, and even then that level of resignation is only achieved when women are deprived of nearly every resource at the disposal of patriarchal men. However, in a tight-knit community with an absence of STDs, there’s little reason to suspect women shouldn’t want to encourage multiple inseminations to encourage genetic diversity in their offspring – and little reason to think men wouldn’t want to take a shot at inseminating, if they have the opportunity.

Polyandry may very well be rare today because the kinds of societies that probably had it are disappearing. Where it does happen is in societies most resembling pre-agricultural, hunter-gatherer societies. We have only a glimpse of what these are like based on extant fleeting examples, but the kicker is it’s a safe bet that women got shafted badly after agriculture came along and allowed patriarchy to prevail.

@bolwerk The claims I am making are based on anthropology, and the man who taught me anthropology is routinely attacked by idealists and prudes. He is also attacked by other anthropologists for being unorthodox. Trust me, my claims are not what you seem to have assumed they are.

Also, your claim about reconstructions being almost purely conjecture, it cuts both ways. Anthropology incorporates behavioral psychology and biology. I was taught by an evolutionary anthropologist who was adept in both of the fields you are lauding, for instance. So it seems you have an antiquated understanding of the field of anthropology.

And as for polyandry, it has always been rare. And the societies in which it does exist do not resemble pre-agricultural societies. Modern polyandry exists in places where there is extreme oppression and/or poverty, and is loathed by almost everyone who participates in it. People escape from it at the first opportunity, and the murder of co-husbands is common.

Anyway, my original request was merely for sources of evidence and not a statement of disagreement. Indeed, I explicitly stated that I was not disagreeing. I’ll see if I can cut through the bluster for clues as to future research.

@SavoirFaire: I don’t mean to demean the entire field of anthropology, but the assumption that any kind of monogamy is the norm in human sexual coupling is a pretty old one, and it was scarcely challenged until the 1970s. It even seemed assumed into the 1990s and 2000s when I was studying the subject. That’s not to say it’s irrefutably untrue, but it’s not exactly on anything close to solid ground.

Except for the matter of how modern societies and extant primates that most closely resemble hunter-gatherer societies behave, almost everything is conjecture here. That’s undeniable. The obvious strength biological analogy and evolutionary psychology have in the face of the classical anthropological account is that they’re actually based on at least some observed data (data that I’m sure many more recent anthropologists draw on). Sadly, it’s data that can mostly only be corroborated by a different species, or by narrow surviving biological circumstances in modern humans, or the last fleeting examples of pre-agricultural society. Classic anthropological conjecture was based on exclusively on social analogy to modern human societies, a point that any introductory anthro class will probably endlessly drive home.

You can’t possibly make a credible claim that polyandry in the sense that women could pick and maintain relationships with multiple partners has always been rare. That it’s common, today, in many societies for women to couple with multiple partners I don’t think is even in widespread dispute anymore. It’s only rare in the modern contexts scientists have studied human sexuality – and here we see the same problem with almost any stupid of animal sexuality: nobody likes to be observed by what it perceives as a possible through. But keep in mind, I’m using the term polyandry to refer to a social norm, not to legal precepts or circumstantial impoverishment. It sounds to me like you’re pointing to examples of patriarchal societies (China?) forced to accept it by circumstance, and then generalizing based on that. It’s not surprising that such societies would involve jealous men murdering their competitors – that’s practically the core of patriarchy!

Now, I would also mention that I caution against comparing modern pre-agricultural society to primordial ones. Nearly 10,000 years of evolution separates us from them, and the few left are unlikely to be untouched by modernity – and there’s little data on what happened to them inbetween.

@bolwerk Polyandry is not merely having relationships with multiple men. If it were, no one would say that it wasn’t common. It’s having multiple male partners at one time where all partners are aware, and more specifically a marriage arrangement (not necessarily a norm) in which multiple men are married to a single woman. This is extremely rare. If you are going to use words in such strange ways, it would be best to announce that when introducing them.

And again, none of my remarks are based on classical anthropology.

@SavoirFaire: it’s not strange in this context at all. AFAIK I used the term how biologists generally use the term (e.g., polyandrous bees). In any tight-knit human community it would be known that this behavior is going is going on, which is actually why the multitude of societies tolerating such polyamorous, if you prefer the term, arrangements so surprise westerners. Marriage, as we know it anyway, is a trait of legalistic, hierarchical societies. To say that any coupling in a pre-agricultural society directly resembles marriage is probably kind of silly. Polyandrous marriages, of course, are rare because virtually every hierarchical society is more or less a patriarchal. Meanwhile, polygynous marriages are kind of rare but more common simply for socioeconomic reasons.

If your claims about serial monogamy as a universal aren’t an assumption based on classical anthropology, I’m just at a loss for a source. There doesn’t seem to be anything close to supporting it in the recent decades from a cursory EBSCO search. (Though a few sources seem to treat monogamy as normative, at least. Ironically, some of these seem to come from fields such as economics.)

@bolwerk Is there a reason you assume I’m a westerner?

That aside, I did not say that any coupling in a pre-agricultural society directly resembles marriage. As for serial monogamy, I’ve not said anything about its presence in the pre-historical past. I don’t need to do any sort of extrapolating for them.

@SavoirFaire: I didn’t say you were a westerner, though a French name might hint at it. That’s kind of irrelevant. I pointed out that all the examples of polyandry in pre-agricultural and even some pastoral societies (e.g., the Na in China) surprise westerners – the people who fund most anthropological research, and who no doubt at least by accident inject their biases into it. Many people, western and otherwise, cling to the myth of monogamy (biological or marital) as a universal even today, in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

If by saying, “We tend to be serial monogamists…,” a difficult claim to support as anything close to universal norm in modern times, what were you referring to in my point then? I specifically made reference to a form of primordial behavior that is generally believed to explain the reason mammals from primates to felines are often noisy during sex. Since it’s not likely that human beings are ever to go back to subsisting on the forest floor, the trait I mentioned is probably almost certainly vestigial, regardless of the prevailing norms of mating behavior.

@bolwerk I mentioned serial monogamy only as reason for being suspicious about your claim that women were letting men line up and have sex with them one after another. It was not meant as proof of anything, but only a source of doubt in the absence of evidence. You say your claim is “generally believed,” but I have never come across it. That is another reason to be suspicious, and thus why I asked for a source. The rest of the discussion has been a series of fixes to your misinterpretations.

You guts all wrote great answers!! thank you! now it is crystal clear that 90% of women at least, like it when men make noise during sexual intercourse

as for bolwerk and the others having the long intellectual debate, you guys should probably discuss that in messages or something because this question was directed to girls who either like it when men make noise or not, you guys are going way of the richter scale

@SavoirFaire: why would something as suspicious as the universality or even present tendency towards “serial monogamy” cast meaningful suspicion on something that isn’t especially suspicious to begin with? My general take on it is serial monogamy prevails today for socioeconomic reasons, but it’s demonstrably far from universal even in 21st century industrial and postindustrial society.

You haven’t pointed to any misinterpretations on my part that didn’t result from lack of clarity (or, without that principle of charity thing, bait and switches) on your part. You in fact said in your first message, without any further contextualization, “We tend to be serial monogamists,” in response to my comment concerning pre-agricultural human conditions. That it later came out (“I’ve not said anything about its presence in the pre-historical past”) that this comment was said entirely in a vacuum and had nothing to do with anything I said is a pretty understandable misinterpretation!

@bolwerk I do find it suspicious to begin with, that’s the problem. Plus, facts about how we are today are cause for questioning why we might have shifted so far away from where your claim says we started. That is the relevance of a comment about recent facts in response to a comment about the distant past. I was asking for information in the form of sources, and you felt the need to start an argument.

As for the principle of charity, it is a basic principle of honest conversation. I can see now that you are not interested in that, which is too bad since I found the discussion interesting. C’est la vie.

(Yes, another French phrase, French being a dominant language in at least 50 countries around the world.)

@SavoirFaire: I actually find nearly everything suspicious. I don’t dispute that the two general possibilities put forward (serial monogamy and dual/multiple mating) could both have reasons to be suspect. We even discussed why we shifted away from it, though I think it is kind of interesting that maybe we didn’t shift quite so far as we like to pretend.

I don’t know where you get off telling me I’m not interested in honest conversation. I’ve answered your inquiries honestly, and only pointed out your probable bait and switch after you at least once made insinuations about my character and accused me of, I assume deliberately (“garishly”), misinterpreting what you must admit are vague and somewhat misdirected generalizations. Come to think of it, none of these misinterpretations have even been documented. If anyone has been avoiding honest discussion by injecting unnecessary inferences (e.g., polygyny and women just taking it), it’s you. I suppose the “honest” thing to do would be to ignore the non-sequitur about French? Oops!

[mod says] Please take this fascinating debate to a more appropriate thread. Let’s get back to answering the original question, here. Thanks!

Yes please:) It turns me on even more. lol.

YES. Out loud & softly in my ear..

I hope my wife likes it, because I grunt like a bull, as well as moan, like I’m hurtin’.

I think its hot when a guy does it. Turns me on ;)