Wasn't there a thread about exactly this at some point in the past?
I'm not seeing how it's a different question. And did you just edit the post?
Who cares
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rFlR1qjw4E&feature=related
I don't see how it's a different question either.
Anyway, short answer: it depends on how many times you change position, switch off, start up again, significantly change rhythm.
Also, your partner hopefully lets you know when it's time.
I just find it laughable that we're still apparently at the stage of defining sex as limited not just to intercourse but only thrusting. Really, that's it?
Boy, I hope these therapists were misled about how the study was going to be spun. Otherwise it doesn't say a lot for their profession.
(Also, if you were going to edit the post, there's an apostrophe missing. I'm only mentioning it so Ben doesn't wince when he sees it, or rather, doesn't.)
Isn't this like the third or fourth time ogged has posted on this subject? What's the hang-up, big guy?
Also, your partner hopefully lets you know when it's time.
At the third tone, the time will be 3:22 and fifty seconds.
Teehee. "Peg."
9: If one is concerned 'how long', pegging it (teehee) to thrusting rather than the rest of the fun makes sense. (Like Sting, good for seven hours if we're including foreplay, dinner, and a movie.)
9.2: No fair! Witt read the linked article!
i figure people want it to last long enough that it's worth the trouble, but not so long that it seems like you're not finding your partner a significant enough of a turn-on
I also watched TLL's video clip, for all the good it did me. Boy, I really don't want to rewrite this MOU. Blog-based procrastination!
17: We could always talk about the thrusting based sexual economy.
I last whatever amount of time it takes to make me sound more desirable than Ogged or w-lfs-n.
(And before you ask, Sifu, I'm not Ir/ving Lay/ton.)
Threads like this often include a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle boasting, particularly by guys, about how long they last.
Threads about drug use, exercise and swimming also share this property.
I don't know enough about the empirical evidence on sexual activity (of which there's a decent amount -- see e.g., Ed Lau/mann and his collaborators), but I think in general the numbers are consistent with those provided here. Variation is probably associated with having the time and opportunity to become a sort of specialist at sleeping with people. Young, single people in urban settings obviously fall into this category. Often this specialization is fairly temporary.
Good thing! I'd be sad if you died in 2006.
21: dude! I can smoke a jay while getting fucked in the ass in the pool for like three hours straight. Why? Because I'm a man.
17: Speaking of vocabulary, I forgot to mention (because I haven't been here much this week) that I came across the phrase "survival sex," and it made me think of the prostitution discussion here. It was used in the context of poor women selling sex to support their families.
Intercourse should last at least until the man is inseminated and a united energy field achieved. Maybe measured in days.
When enacted as enjoined by the tantras the ritual culminates in a sublime experience of infinite awareness, by both participants. The Tantric texts specify that sex has three distinct and separate purposes -- procreation, pleasure and liberation. Those seeking liberation eschew frictional orgasm for a higher form of ecstasy, as the couple participating in the ritual, lock in a static embrace. Several sexual rituals are recommended and practised.
21: dude! I can smoke a jay while getting fucked in the ass in the pool for like three hours straight. Why? Because I'm a man.
When making presentations of the data we highlight people like you in the scatterplots.
"And here notice the crazy weirdo."
Useless query. Perspective shifts radically from partner to partner. Some people are built for the long haul, others excel at efficiency. I don't, for my own self, see a way to meaningfully compare so as to extrapolate data relevant to experience writ large.
Also, the fact that this study was conducted at Penn State Erie needs to be factored in. Erie is populated by very unattractive people.
how long is desirable
I thought we decided girth was more important.
28: besides, the perception of time is radically altered during certain experiences... laydeez.
I didn't get the point Witt was making in 9. Did anyone?
Well, here are the passages I found most relevant:
Penn State Erie researchers Eric Corty and Jenay Guardiani conducted a survey of 50 full members of the Society for Sex Therapy and Research... Thirty-four, or 68 percent, of the group responded and rated a range of time amounts for sexual intercourse, from penetration of the vagina by the penis until ejaculation, that they considered adequate, desirable, too short and too long.
Past research has found that a large percentage of men and women, who responded, wanted sex to last 30 minutes or longer.
"With this survey, we hope to dispel such fantasies and encourage men and women with realistic data about acceptable sexual intercourse, thus preventing sexual disappointments and dysfunctions."
Sooo.... You've surveyed people as a whole, and they said they wanted to screw for 30 minutes plus. Then you said "Hey, fuck that! That's just unhealthy!". You surveyed 34 people who were doctors or therapists, and decided their responses were much better than, well, the people actually having the sex.
I mean, yes, their responses sound more properly descriptive, but that doesn't mean they're properly normative. The article never gives any good reason to believe they are.
Tantric
My kid's playmate's mom had a Guide to Tantric something book lying on her kitchen counter when I stopped by to pick up.
34: Plus, they are in Erie. So they took a long hard look around them during a trip to Wegman's and decided screwing for 30 minutes plus was really out of the question.
Some people are built for the long haul, others excel at efficiency.
I agree with Mrs. Vane.
Every partner is different and wants or needs different things.
9.1: Study authors and you lot are poorly-punctuating primitives.
9.2: Study authors are attention whores (i.e., exhibitionist) or imbeciles. Possibly both.
besides, the perception of time is radically altered during certain experiences
Word. Taking a beatdown in the ring is an excellent way to learn that three minutes is an eternity.
Seriously, I don't get people. Either the "average woman" has a hair-trigger twat or the "average woman" really would rather be sleeping. It should take longer to fuck than to, like, microwave a burrito. But then, I don't own a microwave, either.
Sheesh, you people. The post is about the fact that guys don't have a sense of how long they like sex to last, which is (I have to spell everything out for you, don't I?) indicative both of the fact that sex for the American male is about performance, rather than pleasure, and also of the fact that men, in particular, are alienated from their bodies and desires. Seriously, don't make me write the posts like this.
Well, Witt is objecting to the heteronormative and procreative normative bias of the study. Again, I blame Erie for this. Alternatively, he is objecting to ogged's bit int he post about women getting sore, thus suggesting that "intercourse" consists solely of penetration.
41: Clearly. I'd like to see you try and microwave a burrito for 5 minutes. Just not in my microwave, ask LB if you can use hers.
Oh, poor, naive, romantic will. Sex, like anything else, lends itself to Taylorization. We need someone with an MBA and a business plan to apply tried-and-true management practices.
Microwaves vary in wattage, IYKWIM. And freezers vary too, so some burritos are more frozen than others.
I agree with Mrs. Vane.
I love you will, but I'm afraid we're only accepting Dr. Vane now.
Ogged, if you're going to make goofball generalizations based on the merest shreds of evidence, the full effect demands that you spell them out.
Well, I can microwave a burrito in two minutes flat. Because I'm that good.
Dude, male preference varies by partner too; possibly by subject too, I wouldn't know. Since it's a collaborative activity except in the most dismal circumstance, pleasure and performance are figure and ground.
45: well, look, it's not like you have to reinvent sex every time now, is it? The truth is, the sex industry has a vested interest in convincing you that sex is a process unlike all other industrial processes.
I love you will, but I'm afraid we're only accepting Dr. Vane now.
Did I miss an annoucement somewhere????!! Congratulations.
I should note that I dislike using the term "accepting" when discussing sex. Entirely too passive and uninterested.
Po-Mo in 34 is getting at what I was talking about in 9. When I read "men and women wanted sex to last 30 minutes," and then I read this silly study, I think:
1) People have a common-sensical definition of sex that includes a whole of of messing around that doesn't (yet, or possibly ever) involve penis-in-vagina
and/or
2) People do not have a good sense of time when they are focused on other things.
(And contra ogged, I do not think this necessarily means people are alienated from their bodies. Raise your hand, everyone who has never been surprised to look at a clock and realize that more or less time has elapsed than you would have expected, whilst you were engaged in intimate activity.)
indicative both of the fact that sex for the American male is about performance, rather than pleasure, and also of the fact that men, in particular, are alienated from their bodies and desires.
Part 2 I accept, part 1 I question (I accept in it's applicability to male discourse re: sex but not so much in practice), and together they sound like something Christina Hoff Summers would support.
49: In addition to wattage, burrito girth is a relevant parameter.
sex for the American male is about performance, rather than pleasure, and also of the fact that men, in particular, are alienated from their bodies and desires.
But that's the proper state of affairs, Ogged.
Similarly, when deciding if one has time to microwave a burrito, one needs to take into account the steps that one taks to move the burrito from the freezer to the microwave.
Raise your hand, everyone who has never been surprised to look at a clock and realize that more or less time has elapsed than you would have expected, whilst you were engaged in intimate activity.)
You need to do more interval training, Witt.
Swimmers spend a lot of time learning exactly how much time has elapsed while they swim.
Perhaps you should consider using that training in your intimate activity. Report back to Unfogged!
Americans are alienated from their burritos. Ogged, as a Mexican, understands this.
(If your burrito remains frozen for more than 4 hours, consult your electrician.)
With Unfogged, you can have the option of having a burrito now (within 3-13 minutes), or a burrito anytime in the next 36 hours.
53: I was kidding. Your point was perfectly clear.
Swimmers spend a lot of time learning exactly how much time has elapsed while they swim.
In all seriousness, is that a learnable skill? Because I've always imagined that people who are chronically terrible time-estimators just can't gauge that variable.
I love Unfogged. It gives me so much fun stuff to forward to my boyfriend. I only wish that my goddmamned schoolwork didn't cut into my Unfogged time.
But picking up on Ogged's intended point, it is an unfortunate that sex for the American male is about performance, not pleasure. My boyfriend seems to care more about my pleasure than his, which is awesome, except I keep having to brush him away when I'm trying to do something for him, which is a bit ridiculous. It's nice to give as much as take.
I wonder if there's masculinity/men's studies literature on this issue. Where do men get these norms? Pop culture makes it seem that teenage boys focus on scoring, not pleasuring. Is this from reading Maxim or some other retrograde men's publication?
It's funny if so, because there are all these women's magazines telling women what to do to service the guy. It seems as though the two discourses should talk to each other and not make it a competition, or as if they're mutually exclusive goals. Isn't sex about mutual pleasure and intimacy?
My advisor is breathing down my neck. Sigh. Anyone know how to cure workplace discrimination of caregivers?
Isn't this like the third or fourth time ogged has posted on this subject? What's the hang-up, big guy?
Everyone likes to be reassured now and then. Is that so wrong?
Erie is populated by very unattractive people.
(Due to the absence of sales tax on clothing in Pennsylvania, however, they are well-dressed unattractive people.)
64: Argh, sorry to waste bandwidth on explanation then.
66: Once you have enough of the culture saying that women can have orgasms too, the pre-existing dynamic of male competitiveness is henceforth applied to the female orgasm. Et voila.
My advisor is breathing down my neck. Sigh.
I've heard that can be a problem.
Where do men get these norms?
I don't know, but judging by my spam folder, the two most effective forms of marketing to men are their insecurities about not being able to give their girlfriends enough sexual pleasure, and their insecurities about not being able to to brutalize them sufficiently.
(OK, now I really am going to go work.)
and their insecurities about not being able to to brutalize them sufficiently
?
70: Yes. My other article is on sexual harassment. Fortunately my advisor is cool, since she also writes on sexual harassment.
71: Yep to .1 and .2. Another sigh.
69: okay, Margaret Atwood.
I'm honing in*, DS. You can't remain anonymous for long.
In other news, really, people, the idea that humans have a consistent sense of time as a general rule is a fallacy. Swimmers can do it because they swim with a rhythm and they learn how that rhythm corresponds to time. Your sense of how long something took is a post-facto justification for your own belief in consistent narrative consciousness. Dooooooooon't beeeeeeeliieeeeeeeeeveeee theeeee hyyyyyyyyyypppppeeee.
Where do men get these norms?
I don't know...
Cue everyone pretending they don't watch porn.
Due to the absence of sales tax on clothing in Pennsylvania, however, they are well-dressed unattractive people.
They are not! They are terribly dressed people! This is uncharacteristically bitchy for me, but seriously, I feel strongly. I like the Steelers as much as the next western PA-er, but a Steelers emblem is not a fashion stamp of approval for any and all articles of clothing. (and in Erie they are sometimes even sporting Browns' emblems, which is unspeakably worse)
72: Sample subject line from spam:
"F*** her til she bleeds"
I get about 200 spam messages a day in my work account, and I skim the folder a few times a week. I'm not kidding when I say that there is a whole lot of "I wanted to bring her greater pleasure" or "Your girl is the best. Make her a present" mixed in with a whole lot of really unpleasant imagery. If I didn't regularly find 1-2 non-spam messages, I'd never look at the thing again. Ugh.
78: Agreed. Ugh!
by the way Witt, what are you working on?
what are you working on?
Commenting, naturally.
(A memorandum of understanding, a brief for a funder, database specs for a consultant, and questions and answers to be translated for a media interview. Holy smokes, I really better get cracking.)
In all seriousness, is that a learnable skill? Because I've always imagined that people who are chronically terrible time-estimators just can't gauge that variable.
Absolutely. Get busy
||
While watching TV just now: "oh, yeah, it's plots and subplots -- that's what makes prison great. There's nothin' better than this."
Uh, huh. Interesting!
|>
Absolutely. Get busy
Ideally for 7-13 minutes.
Absolutely. Get busy
OK I'm done. That didn't take long. At least I think it didn't.
I get a spam report every day.
As Witt mentioned, it is pretty funny to read the subject lines.
"Pleasure her better!"
"Get bigger!"
The one that I dont understand is "Create more volume of cum!" Is that really desirable?!?!?
66, 69: Actually, Vonnegut got this one exactly right in Breakfast of Champions:
Men were supposed to pay more attention to the clitoris, and Dwayne had been paying a lot more attention to Francine's, to the point where she said he was paying too much attention to it. This did not surprise him. The things he had read about the clitoris had said this was a danger—that a man could pay too much attention to it.
So driving out to the Quality Motor Court that day, Dwayne was hoping that he would pay the right amount of attention to Francine's clitoris.
But in general there is probably no wronger place to get sexual information than from American male authors of fiction.
The post is about the fact that guys don't have a sense of how long they like sex to last, which is ... indicative both of the fact that sex for the American male is about performance, rather than pleasure, and also of the fact that men, in particular, are alienated from their bodies and desires
I'm not sure where to go with this.
Learning how long it should last, roughly, from a women's perspective, isn't going to address the problem, is it.
Many women [generalization alert] are also, of course, alienated from their bodies and desires, and probably don't know how long they like sex to last either. Put up with it for longer than they like, sadly accept it for a shorter period. Ideally, people communicate and work with their partners and are free and easy in their bodies and desires.
That news doesn't help men who are oppressed or repressed by the patriarchal society, does it? (Is that what it is? I'm not sure there's also not some pressure to be a man by not being a boy -- don't come yet, not yet, not yet -- because loss of control is childish. And women likewise can resist losing control for that reason.)
We need someone with an MBA and a business plan to apply tried-and-true management practices.
This has me thinking of the worst possible things an MBA holder could say before, during, and after sex.
"Well, we're definitely filing that one in our Best Practices file."
"Corporately, as we move forward...and backward...and forward...and backward..."
88: "Wow! That was something. But I feel like it's time for me to start thinking outside the box."
I was going to type what a linguist says before, during, and after sex, but that might be tmi.
The social engineering* of spam (and escalating war between spammers and blockers) is fascinating.
My two favorite spam subject lines:
"You left your jacket" - I opened that in full confidence that I most likely had.
and the brilliant:
"Dad?"
*Although I think the "I Love You" virus may have been the greatest single bit of effective social engineering.
89: "I'm afraid that wasn't within the scope of the deliverables for this project."
Dude, Witt. That's a hell of a lot of work. I'll stop complaining about my paper proposal and readings now. What type of industry/organization is this? (I am sorry, I don't know everyone's bios here).
This has me thinking of the worst possible things an MBA holder could say before, during, and after sex.
Aahh, now, are you going to go ahead and have those TPS reports for us this afternoon?
76 is why Sybil had to move away. We regret the loss of population, but certain beliefs are simply incompatible with our folkways.
93: Witt is an oil company executive.
I like the Steelers as much as the next western PA-er, but a Steelers emblem is not a fashion stamp of approval for any and all articles of clothing.
It's actually noticeable when one arrives at the airport. Memo to Pittsburgh: that a slightly frumpy grad student feels fashionable in your city indicates that the whole city needs a tailor.
93: Witt is an oil company executive.
No that's AWB.
Witt is an oil company executive.
Former oil company executive. Now she runs the anti-global warming non-profit.
99: AWB is short for A White Bear likes to swim.
"The post is about the fact that guys don't have a sense of how long they like sex to last, which is (I have to spell everything out for you, don't I?) indicative both of the fact that sex for the American male is about performance, rather than pleasure, and also of the fact that men, in particular, are alienated from their bodies and desires."
I think it's a signal that the male orgasm is usually what signals the end & determines the length of sex, whereas the female orgasm can happen in the middle or afterwards through other means or multiple times or what have you.
whereas the female orgasm can happen in the middle or afterwards through other means or multiple times or
on a different day of the week altogether, with someone else entirely, etc.
"Create more volume of cum!" Is that really desirable?!?!?
There's lots of dudes who think a money shot is the norm.
"Do you like my twat?"
"No, I do not like your twat/"
"Good-by!"
"Good-by!"
I understand a shot, but not the money pitcher.
ok, Cala. That made me laugh out loud.
I love that part of the exchange. I've gotten it stuck in my brain many times.
Goodbye. Goodbye
101 is true. Women might have kvetches about the duration of sex because it's not really up to us to determine how long coitus lasts. Men might be fed all kinds of neurosis-inducing advice about lasting as long as humanly possible, or not taxing the poor bored sore woman all night, but the thing tends to go until it stops, and then it's over, from a woman's perspective. (Sure, there's the possibility of fooling around afterwards, but it can be sort of a letdown.)
not the money pitcher
will's more of a money catcher, IYKWIM.
110 written with a huge generalization caveat, of course.
what parsimon?
Coitis does stop, even if at least temporarily upon the man's orgasm. At least, 95 percent of the time.
Not me, man. I come for hours at a time. It's like the gulf stream.
OK, I am still totally confused as to what Witt does. Witt, where are you? Ah, working.
Not me, man. I come for hours at a time. It's like the gulf stream.
He can even blow himself along.
Witt wakes, walks, works.
Waking, Witt works.
Working, Witt walks.
114: I mean the part about its being over from the woman's perspective once the man comes, and even if there's further fooling around afterward, it can be a letdown. That generalizes the viewpoint of women.
It also seems to continue defining sex in terms of intercourse. Sex as coitus. Of course from one perspective it is (can be), or can revolve around that.
The relative cluelessness of the query brought to mind a a very confusing and discouraging moment early in my sex "education". I was pretty sure that I had finally put together how the basics must work when an older friend remarked offhandedly, "Boy, I remember when I thought the boy and girl just dropped their pants and he put his dick into her pussy." Total confusion and internal panic.
...in fact I could barely concentrate while taking the GREs the next day.
Whether you're into post-coital whatnot or not, the point is that women do not have a great deal of direct input in the duration of coitus. This seems somewhat obvious, in response to ogged's statement that men only have anxiety about duration, as opposed to opinions.
Well, sex should be defined as oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse.
Other activities are certainly enjoyable, but they are not sex.
To what extent is this post almost exactly about this song? (which may or may not have been featured in the other thread)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGOohBytKTU
Dude, if we're timing something, it's got to be the coitus part, or else we're going to have people boasting about five hours of foreplay including the appetizers and cheese course and two bottles of wine. And I'd bet no guy is worried about his ability to have long foreplay.
AWB did say 'might', which we might note. I don't know if I'd describe it as a letdown, but post-coital activities do feel like "after", even if they're fun.
Sex should be defined as "that thing with the cup", then the world could be neurotic about the thing with the cup, and sex could go back to being a purely pleasurable activity.
This post makes an interesting juxtaposition with the billiable-hours one right after it.
Lawyers also measure their billable time in minutes.
122.2: Funny.
123: women do not have a great deal of direct input in the duration of coitus
Yes and no. You can ask; you can use a cock ring; there's a pressure point at the base of the penis. You can back off for a bit, and play. I don't consider the latter to be foreplay.
And yes, if you're going to be timing something, it's going to coitus, which is why the original article was silly in its premise. What were some of the opening lines again? "Sex therapists say satisfaction zone happens at 3 to 13 minutes." "It doesn't take long to satisfy a woman in bed."
I've always strived to be adequate in bed.
132: Don't worry, Parsimon; I have had sex before. I apologize for trying to draw a basic distinction.
There's no such thing as "Penn State Erie". It's "Penn State Behrend". Also, Penn State Scranton is Penn State Worthington, and I certainly hope the writers of "The Office" don't have characters referring to "Penn State Scranton", because seriously, people don't call it that, because we are sheep.
As for sex, when engaging in intercourse, if I was doing it purely for my own benefit I would like to come as quickly as possible in order to relieve the tension that has built up in me over the last few hours I've been spending with her. I always try to balance this against the societal requirement to last longer, but in my experience women seem to enjoy cunnilingus about thirty times as much as intercourse, at least intercourse with me, so I don't quite know why she would want it to last very long either.
The general pattern in my current relationship is to have extended foreplay, and then intercourse until I come, and then cunnilingus until she comes. Seems normal to me.
intercourse until I come, and then cunnilingus until she comes. Seems normal to me.
Don't you desperately, desperately want to sleep after you come? And, if you're not using condoms and come insider her, you'll get a mouthful of your own semen, which you might like, but some probably don't.
come insider her
Is that like, more inside her than some other state of being inside her?
Don't you desperately, desperately want to sleep after you come?
"But baby, that's the fun part!"
136: I'm still not getting it! I mean, yeah, of course, obviously if you want to be having joyous intercourse, it's going to end when the guy comes, but you both have input into when and how that happens. Not equal input, okay, no, and so there is pressure on guys to try to learn how not to come too quickly.
Somewhere upthread, this developed from the thought that guys become overly concerned with performance understood as endurance, because sex is viewed principally as coital. So. Get away from the Coitus Central, and the dudes can stop being so alienated from their bodies and desires. Yea?
Don't you desperately, desperately want to sleep after you come?
No, that isn't true of everyone. I keep expecting it to happen because of all the standup comedians, but no.
And, if you're not using condoms and come insider her, you'll get a mouthful of your own semen, which you might like, but some probably don't.
Only condoms so far. Maybe this is why I've never enjoyed intercourse all that much as anything other than a route to orgasm/ego gratification.
Only condoms so far. Maybe this is why I've never enjoyed intercourse all that much as anything other than a route to orgasm/ego gratification.
NuvaringNuvaringNuvaringNuvaringNuvaringNuvaringNuvaringNuvaringNuvaringNuvaringNuvaringNuvaring.
Continuing my pattern of dissenting points of view, I think my phimosis actually prevents me from having intercourse without either a condom or intense pain. This should probably be dealt with at some point, but not knowing what I'm missing, I feel no urgency to deal with it.
Thus making me completely not representative of what this thread is about anyway, so never mind.
138: ogged raises a point I've never considered: a mouthful of your own semen. Never heard anyone say that. And you'd really rather sleep -- but oh, it's not a duty: you, then me. Also sometimes you get her off first, and then you have intercourse, and in those cases she might really have wanted to just go to sleep after she got off too, but, you know. Make it quick.
Heh. Main thing is that it needn't be an equal exchange of orgasms every time.
it needn't be an equal exchange of orgasms every time.
"I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
My favorite pick-up line. (But yeah, I agree, parsimon.)
Also this is like the 15th time I've heard the NuvaringNuvaringNuvaring mantra on this site, so you are all not going unheard.
Of course everyone who's using anything but a condom has had STD screenings.
149: That's been an explicit conversation for every relationship I've had since going to college. And, obviously, subsequent test (Ow! Cotton swab! But worth it!). Generation Awesome, indeed.
Those nuvarings can be uncomfortable for both, I've found (but inconsistently). On the other hand, you can take them out for a bit.
I've never really had the urge to sleep after, either. Perhaps if I was really tired before we started, or after several really energetic rounds. But normally it wakes me up.
150: I didn't mean you specifically, of course. It's an explicit conversation for me for every relationship that gets to the point where we really wish we didn't have to use condoms. People are all over the board on it: some say of course; some are rather silent and don't want to talk about whether they've been tested in the past, but agree to it. Occasionally it seems it's someone's first time getting tested.
Cotton swab, is that all? Depends on where you go, maybe, whether they want to have a conversation with you as well.
Of course everyone who'susing anything but a condom having sex has had STD screenings.
Fixed that for you.
Alternatively: Once a year whether you need it or not, repeat as needed up to 1/month ish.
150: I didn't mean you specifically, of course.
I know. No offense taken. I just mean it seems to be becoming a matter of course as more and more people are educated about STDs. And I agree that people are all-over-the-map with testing histories. Get tested, folks!
Cotton swab, is that all? Depends on where you go, maybe, whether they want to have a conversation with you as well.
Perhaps you don't understand where exactly the stick the cotton swab, parsy. Ouchers. And sometimes twice (at the free clinic, because they don't have the technology to test for two things with one swab apparently, whereas my primary care doc does). And it also involves other tests of blood and (maybe?) other tests, including an extensive interview about sexual histories. My favorite:
"So why are seeking an STD screen?"
"My partner and I are moving to non-condom use and want to be safe."
"Fantastic!"
Fwiw, Stanley --- and technology used varies all over the place, but I've been told the typical swab tests aren't effective if you are asymptomatic. There are other tests for everything. Your mileage & costs, of course, may vary.
155: Uh, so, should one be asking for some other test? That wasn't the only test done. But. Um. What? I asked for an STD screen.
156: It's a little bit complicated, and I'm just going on what people who work in the area (public health, STDs in particular)
Basically, depending where you are and who you ask, you'll get different things if you ask for an STD panel. Some of the main ingredients will be the same; HIV screening for example. Some stuff is tricky (aiui you can't screen for one herpes if you've got the other one, and a ton of people have -a, so lots of places don't bother in the standard screen). Some have cheap effective versions for symptomatic patients and expensive tests for asymptomatic which you may have to arrange differently. I've more than once had an MD tell me `This one is $300 and you don't need it. The $20 one won't tell us anything'.
Don't assume what I've been told holds for your lab though, they have different tests & technology all over, and this changes with time. I just mentioned it because I was surprised to learn that a panel was not just a set thing.
Context matters too, As I understand it some colleges basically treat anything that will respond to single-dose antibiotics at the drop of the hat, because it's more reliable then getting 18 year olds to report accurately. Etc, etc.
Don't trust my info though, ask someone who does this stuff.
It's all right to be with a woman who takes responsibility for her own orgasms. (Owen Wilson once invoked Gloria Steinem on this subject to great caddish effect.) If one occasion you finish first, she's all "You're not going anywhere", and so you don't, and so she does.
Yes, Soup, clariification. My own tests have been blood tests. For HIV. I have regular female testing, via urine and swabs, which tests for other things. I'm not sure what tests for what.
If soupbiscuit is not our resident guru on these matters, we all go look it up.
If soupbiscuit is not our resident guru on these matters, we all go look it up.
I often think that about these sorts of things, and then I think, well, maybe there's some lurker reading this who's like "oh, man! I should get tested" and then I feel less bad. See, I comment for the people.
Stanley and I are on the same page. I don't have to feel less bad: get tested. Nobody's going to sleep with you without a condom if you don't. There!
159: Ok, a bit more clarification. As I understand it, and my info comes from public health (i.e. municipal STD authorities) people, but I've probably made a mess of it so take that as you will.
Of the standard ones:
You've got blood tests for HIV/Hepatitus/Syphilis (the latter assuming no symptoms, if symptoms you can diagnose that way)
You've got blood test for Herpes, but as noted is uncurable and will trigger test (afaik) from oral of either strain so may not be screened.
You've got swab and/or urine tests for ghonorrhea and chlamydia. My understanding is that swab tests may be ineffective if you are asymptomatic so you'll need urine test there. Many people are asymptomatic (like over half).
oops, 164 crossed with 161 as I thought you wanted more ... ah well, doesn't hurt.
If nothing else we've made this sex thread humorless—but importantly informational!—which seems like a win.
sex is pretty inherently funny, it'll survive
but dammit, there I go being all earnest again. I ban myself, again I'm off to bed.
Good night, soup. Thanks for the input.
Good night, soup.
Goodnight po-pos.
Goodnight fiends.
Goodnight hoppers.
Etc.
You've got swab and/or urine tests for ghonorrhea and chlamydia. My understanding is that swab tests may be ineffective if you are asymptomatic so you'll need urine test there. Many people are asymptomatic (like over half).
Curious about why they don't just do the urine test, then? Rather than the swab [which is, after all, a plastic rod with a fucking 'hook' on the end].
"Main thing is that it needn't be an equal exchange of orgasms every time."
Well, as long as no one has zero.
But you know what? The outline in 164 pretty much corresponds to my previous understanding.
Thanks, Soupbiscuit.
Raise your hand, everyone who has never been surprised to look at a clock and realize that more or less time has elapsed than you would have expected, whilst you were engaged in intimate activity.
I know exactly what you mean. The ad says $1.99 per minute, and then you get the phone bill and it's like 90 bucks.
Main thing is that it needn't be an equal exchange of orgasms every time.
What the general public doesn't understand is that, while the gains from trade may be asymetrically distributed, there is always a net positive increase in social utility. The heart-rending stories about exploitative terms of exchange ignore the fact that both participants in the trade are optimizing their choices from available alternatives. The alternative to a small gain may be no gain at all. Well-intentioned efforts to obstruct the trade or impose unrealistically high minimum standards inevitably end up reducing overall welfare and closing off opportunities for the least well-off among us.
There's noth ing more meaningless than information about the "average" of some sex-related variable.
I mean, everyone knows you should use the median, right, to eliminate errors arising from a skewed distribution?
More seriously, the problem here is treating descriptive information as if it were normative. And 66 and 69 are right.
In follow-up to last night's spam discussion, I note that this morning I have a message titled "Your Mom Naked." I'm not quite sure which category to put this one in.
I don't think the linked article is meant to be normative; the headline is, but the description of the study sounds like they asked something like 'based on your experience of thousands of patients, what's your sense of 'adequate', 'desirable', etc. The headline's normative, but the study didn't strike me as saying '13 minutes is optimal, everyone should have gotten off by then, you're a freak if you don't.'
Anyhow, the real answer is probably 'however long you and your partner think it should be.'
Get away from the Coitus Central, and the dudes can stop being so alienated from their bodies and desires.
There's more to it than just coitus, but it is the bit that usually leads to the guy's orgasm, and it's fun even when it doesn't by itself lead to an orgasm, so I think the pressure's going to be there regardless.
171: Well, as long as no one has zero.
Fight the Holllywoodization of sex. There is more to the world than happy endings.
"Your Mom Naked." I'm not quite sure which category to put this one in.
Hot or Not? of course.
The study is annoyingly intercourse-normative. And yes, ogged is right that this demonstrates that dudes are more worried about performance than pleasure. I've had intercourse with my boyfriend that lasted three minutes and intercourse that last forty minutes, the whole point is that it last about as long as you want to. Sometimes the whole affair, from first-foreplay-to-intercourse-to-going-out-to-dinner, takes twenty-five minutes, sometimes it takes three hours.
Also, what is "optimal" measuring from the guy's perspective? Presumably if you're thinking of intercourse as the way that the guy orgasms, "long enough" is "until I come." It's obviously not measuring that, or the question would be "how long does it take to orgasm?". So instead if you are asking that of a guy, it seems that you're asking "how long is long enough that you feel like you've performed well for your lady? Really fucked her good?"
And similarly, asking the "optimal?" question of women ('cause yes, this is all so very heteronormative), really the answer is "until I want him to stop." Which really could be, in any given sexual encounter, "before he even starts" or "nevereverever."
I'm not weird, right? Other people have sex sessions that might go on for hours and include no intercourse, yes? And other sessions that include almost nothing but?
Finally, it's annoying that the twenty minutes where I get fucked with a dildo after the intercourse part is over doesn't count as part of the main event.
How long before 180, taken at face value, will find its way to a shocking scoop in a reader diary on Daily Kos?
NuvaringNuvaringNuvaringNuvaringNuvaringNuvaring
Stanley is very happy with his Nuvaring.
I've had intercourse with my boyfriend that lasted three minutes and intercourse that last forty minutes
I assume that not including "with my boyfriend" after the second intercourse was intentional. Maybe he will learn to last longer that 3 minutes.
You know, I feel like there was one commenter who was vociferously defending the "sex then dinner" idea back here a while back, but thankfully I can't remember who it was.
Well, Sifu, then you would know how much to spend on dinner.
You know, I feel like there was one commenter who was vociferously defending the "sex then dinner" idea back here a while back, but thankfully I can't remember who it was.
Was it Sean Stein?
What's wrong with sex then dinner then sex?
I may have defended the sex then dinner thing in the past. But I don't think I did so vociferously.
Cue Loudon Wainwright III:
We used to be in love but now we are in hate
You used to say I came too early
But it was you who came too late
101
I think it's a signal that the male orgasm is usually what signals the end & determines the length of sex, whereas the female orgasm can happen in the middle or afterwards through other means or multiple times or what have you.
Posted by: Dolly Madison
I'm amused and bemused to see what some people use presidential pseudonyms for. I'm definitely not asking Dolly Madison to out herself, I just find it hard to imagine why someone would care about having their usual name/pseudonym associated with that or a few others in this thread.
On the other hand, maybe people just post too quickly and get caught by the autocomplete function in their Web browser. I think I've done that once or twice.
Excellent reference The Critic. All of those Wainwrights make darn good music.
187: Not a thing, soup. Not a thing.
190: maybe people just post too quickly
It's just one big fucking judgment-fest around here. Jeez.
I, sometimes, have posted too quickly.
I didn't want people to know I had orgasms, as thought it would make me appear unladylike....Actually, there was more personal info that I deleted on second thought & didn't bother un-pseudonymizing.
178: the ending isn't so much what determines how good it is, but I knew some couples where there was a very large % of the time (if not the majority) that the guy would come & the woman wouldn't & never the reverse. This seemed nuts to me, as did the idea of faking it, because I don't really have any more difficulty getting there than my partner--it might not happen during the sex itself but it's a pretty sure thing to happen (how good it is varies a lot).
180: Other people have sex sessions that might go on for hours and include no intercourse, yes?
For most people, if it includes no intercourse or is everything but, it's technically a "makeout session," not a "sex session."
Wow, I just had a moment of Nineties deja vu there.
Reflecting on 66 and 69 above, it strikes me there are a lot worse things you can channel yer competitive impulses into. This is a little like objecting to men who devote said competitive impulse to beauty or public service.
Age matters a lot to. The whole dynamic is different when the man is 21 and suffers virtually no refractory period and could have sex all night. Then it's a lot easier b/c the sex just goes on for as long as both partners like.
Then you get just a little older and you run into that problem where you can't do that anymore (especially after the first couple of times iwth a new partner). I remember some pretty disappointed partners who learned about that while I was going through that transition. They thought it was false advertising. Sorry.
I think the simple solution is: oral sex, then sex. But some women just don't enjoy it all that much. At that point you're looking at removing some of the personal pleasure from sex to extend the time or whatever, or just acknowledging that she may not always orgasm. I think this is where faking it starts to come into play (and makes a lot of sense).
You, uh, free for dinner?
She is. Just pick her up from my place and then drop her back off after dinner.
"F*** her til she bleeds"
Maybe they're saying that during a three-week sex session, the onset of menses serves as a good reminder to stop and rehydrate, brush your teeth, check your answering machine, etc.
199: it strikes me there are a lot worse things you can channel yer competitive impulses into.
Emotional oversharing, for instance.
I forgot to reply to this in 66:
It seems as though the two discourses should talk to each other and not make it a competition
Well, if we're using men's/women's magazines as the standard, they sort of do. I know a couple of dudes who collect Maxim, for instance (one of them is a connoisseur who claims to be able to tell when the
magazine was really "edgy" and "funny," I'm not sure how) and a staple feature of that rag is the male counterpart to the perennial Cosmo "[X] Sex Tricks That Will Drive Him Wild" thing. Usually it features a coterie of models talking about what they like, and I'm pretty sure there's almost always a nod to "let me do something for you once in awhile."
Of course, I kind of hope that people disregard a lot of the advice they find in those things...
I like this line so much: I didn't want people to know I had orgasms, as thought it would make me appear unladylike
Because it remains true: a lady doesn't speak of such things.
196: For most people, if it includes no intercourse or is everything but, it's technically a "makeout session," not a "sex session."
DS! Everything but is a makeout session?? Haven't you ever heard of the relationship/sex therapy suggestion to spend a month with your partner doing everything but, and see what happens?
But why do you need to call it sex if it isn't oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse? Why do you want to expand the definition?
Has unfogged had a discussion of various terms like "hooking up" and whether they mean sex?
Parsimon implictly defends Lincoln from the duplicitous Canadian. Rise up, my people, stand between the crures and be counted!
For most people, if it includes no intercourse or is everything but, it's technically a "makeout session," not a "sex session."
I beg your pardon, no it is not. A several-hour romp which includes oral sex, sex toys, possible anal play, at least one orgasm for the dude and several for the chick is a "makeout session?" Neighbor, please.
206: Careful with the term hooking up. Many view that as sex and if you describe someone as fond of random hook-ups, they may become quite offended if they view it that way, when you meant light make-out sessions. I have learned this from experience. I believe the term's meaning is very unclear.
Careful with the term hooking up. Many view that as sex
So when Stanley says he wants to hook up with BR and me, I should watch out?
I believe the term's meaning is very unclear.
Nah, you're just confused. Or archaic.
So when Stanley says he wants to hook up with BR and me, I should watch out stock up?
Also, the Emo Boy article linked in 204 is hysterical.
206: Why do you wish to restrict it? Now I can see where a divorce lawyer might have professional reasons to work with very precise definitions for this (or see Clinton, William Jefferson), but I think that definition misses the spirit of much of what many people would consider sex*. The grouping seems somewhat arbitrary and legalistic.
205, 208: Yeah, okay, I see what you mean.
214
A word should provide some accurate description to the listener.
The phrase "we had sex" should be different from "we got naked and fooled around."
216: Why? Or at least, beyond a proscriptive sense of having or not having PIV intercourse, why differentiate if there are actual sex acts going on. Beyond differentiating school-age experiments, or as noted above in a strict legal sense, why do you differentiate?
bc that is what words are supposed to do.
I guess that we could be like Humpty Dumpty, but why dont we want our words to convey precise meaning?
You've got blood test for Herpes, but as noted is uncurable and will trigger test (afaik) from oral of either strain so may not be screened.
This is not true in my experience. Having been tested within the last year, the doc assured me that the new tests can distinguish between types 1 and 2 (or A & B, or "above waist" & "below waist", etc).
She also said this is not a simple "positive" or "negative" test; it is a scale, and numbers above a certain point indicate infection, and the severity thereof. Lastly, the risk of false positives from a blood test is small, but the most failproof is a swab from an actual sore.
YMMV, o' course.
Oh, and she also did not do an HIV test. She told me to go to the Health Dept, where the results would be more private, and not associated with my insurance in any way. This scared me, and I still have not gone in for that test.
She told me to go to the Health Dept, where the results would be more private, and not associated with my insurance in any way.
Sadly, this is true. There might be other places in your area that assure privacy as well; around here there are, for example, one or two LGBT-friendly free (or sliding fee scale) clinics that protect privacy.
Sadly, this is true. There might be other places in your area that assure privacy as well; around here there are, for example, one or two LGBT-friendly free (or sliding fee scale) clinics that protect privacy.
You can also get a free AIDS test from the Red Cross (at least this used to be true, I'm not sure if it still is). They do this to stop people who think they might be HIV positive from donating blood just to get the results of the HIV screen.
I'm sort of torn on Ogged's point on male performance orientation and associated alienation. I definitely had some of this when I was younger, maybe still today at times, and I think there's something to it. But I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, I just think that that (some, not all) women just have more capacity for raw sexual pleasure than men. Or at least than me. Strings of multiple orgasms, really long and dramatic ones, all kinds of sound and special effects. It's nice. Once you experience that, there's this tendency to orient yourself around the woman's potential fireworks.
On the other hand, I think that many (not all) women are a lot less skilled in pleasuring men than they could be. Because male sexual pleasure is seen as (and in certain ways is) "automatic", there's not the cultural pressure for women to learn and practice heightening it. Plus women spend time learning their own sexuality, which is indeed more complex and less "automatic".
This is not true in my experience. Having been tested within the last year, the doc assured me that the new tests can distinguish between types 1 and 2 (or A & B, or "above waist" & "below waist", etc).
Ok, that's a new test then. You still have to be careful though, as `above the waist' ` below the waist' is not the same thing as types. They types are highly correlated to location, but you can either type in either location (which prevents you from getting it in the other location).
She also said this is not a simple "positive" or "negative" test; it is a scale, and numbers above a certain point indicate infection, and the severity thereof. Lastly, the risk of false positives from a blood test is small, but the most failproof is a swab from an actual sore.
This is a basic feature of most tests, and ties into the question someone had about `why not just do test X' then. Tests have different costs, and different false-positive and false-negative rates. In screening, FP's can be a big issue if there are associated workup costs. As you note, some of the most reliable tests are site specific and valid for symptomatic cases only. In other words, if you have a lesion there are tests that can say with great accuracy if the lesion is of type X, but if you are asymptomatic things are murkier. This has nothing particularly to do with STD/STI testing.
This scared me, and I still have not gone in for that test.
Good point, thanks for mentioning that not all testing is actually anonymous, I should have said something about that. Please don't anyone let that stop them getting an anonymous HIV test though. These are easily obtainable most places.
It was AWB who was adamant that sex should happen before dinner and not after.
Planned Parenthood also does HIV testing. They have this awesome new test where the nurse lady just collects a q-tip's worth of cells from your inside cheek and runs some sort of five-minute process with 'em. I asked about how reliable it was, and she said that a positive result would then require getting the bloodwork done.
many (not all) women are a lot less skilled in pleasuring men than they could be
True, and yet so, so many believe they have near-magical blowjob expertise. I suspect this is due to partners never wanting to discourage the behavior.
229: Then men must allow women (or men) to be shown how to do it better. It's not just blowjobs.
223: all kinds of sound and special effects. It's nice. Once you experience that, there's this tendency to orient yourself around the woman's potential fireworks.
This is quite charming, but since men are capable of fireworks too, they really have to relax and let themselves be experimented on.
Nowhere near the same luminosity, maximum altitude, colour, or volume, though...
There should be a thread on "near-magical blowjobs" and what else to do besides blowjobs, unless there already is one. But then Unfogged would become another issue of Cosmopolitan (Fun! Fierce! Female!).
232: You could sign up for Will's seminar, Sexuality 220: Magical Blowjobs and Other Topics in Advanced Oral Technique. Prerequisite for registration* is satisfactory completion (with a grade of B-minus or above) of Apo's** introductory survey course: Sexuality 101: Getting a Guy Off.
*Prerequisite may be waived at the discretion of the instructor upon presentation of evidence of comparable preparation.
**Lest you be disappointed, while Apo delivers most of the lectures, the main burden of instruction falls on his overworked T.A.'s AWB and BitchPhD.