If you want the answer in general, presumably pubmed or something similar has it.
Since the waning years could begin at any old age in particular cases; I'm sure there are some people for whom they began in their twenties (countdown to the obvious jokes at my expense begins now) and some for whom they don't begin until quite late.
Your mom gives me all the assistance I need.
So what you're saying is that uncontrollable erections in public places are abnormal for someone who is, for example, 28.
It depends on local leash laws, Adam.
I'm 25 and so far haven't noticed any decline in the ability to achieve/maintain an erection, but what I have noticed in the past four years or so is a steep, steep escalation of my refractory period. In my youthier days, 10-15 minutes was all that was necessary for me to be ready to get at it again; now, if I expect to maintain the erection and reach a second orgasm, I need more like forty-five minutes. These and other minor indications of onsetting mortality are setting the stage for my humorless, untimely death from cholera at 53.
Actually, the post title contains the answer to the post's question, albeit obliquely.
I dunno, James, that sounds kind of funny.
4 made me laugh h- oh never mind, I'm going to sleep.
7: I'm 25 and so far haven't noticed any decline in the ability to achieve/maintain an erection
That's not what my Mom says.
I have researched this problem as thoroughly as I can and find that age may have something to do with it in individuals, but it's unpredictable as a function of age. One much older dude seemed to have an erectile problem, but then he got off the psych meds and all was well.
Always happy to practice my PubMedding. Not that I hope this stems the flow of presidential revelations.
Erectile dysfunction is defined as the consistent inability to attain or maintain a penile erection of sufficient quality to permit satisfactory sexual intercourse. The prevalence of this condition increases with age. In a large cross-sectional, community-based study, among men between the ages of 40 and 49 years, the prevalence of complete or severe erectile dysfunction was 5%, and the prevalence of moderate erectile dysfunction was 17%; among men between the ages of 70 and 79 years, these rates were 15% and 34%, respectively.Note that the MMAS study, from which these numbers were taken, was conducted only on males age 40-70, so looking deeper there won't tell you what to expect in your 30s (though of course it's reasonable to extrapolate back and conclude that even moderate ED is probably pretty rare in thirtysomethings).
Since that 2007 NEJM article is still citing the MMAS study, I'm going to guess it's still considered the best data on ED prevalence out there, and thus I won't search any further.
One more thing: These folks report that the MMAS study found that "ED is highly correlated with such vascular diseases as hypertension, heart disease and diabetes."
Adam's Dad is well over 50. Some times he can be slow to the start, but once the hand cuffs and ladies panties are on him,
he does very well for himself. Of course, it took us weeks to figure out the panties part.
14: A self-administered sexual activity questionnaire was used to characterize erectile potency
Holy fracking christ in a cracker, Science!
My query regards the conversation that led to this question: If I have never engaged with my fellow dudes in a frank discussion of my erection, is that a sign of horrible repression?
.... equals the angle of the refractory period.
If I have never engaged with my fellow dudes in a frank discussion of my erection
That's not what my Dad says.
I try to figure this out constantly. Basically, I never have reliable erections if sex is a special occasion that I've been looking forward to for a while. This makes it frustrating to be in a long-distance relationship, because it means that sex is always a special occasion that I've been looking forward to for a while.
On the other hand, I find it hard to convince myself that intercourse is preferable to cunnilingus in any way from the woman's point of view, and the obligatory condom makes the experience suboptimal from my point of view as well, so I don't try my hardest to get an erection anyway. If it appears, it appears. If it doesn't, it doesn't. She never seems very disappointed. If I was with a different woman, the situation would be different.
As for when they appear unbidden during the day...I think age 17 was roughly the high point. It's probably been decreasing ever since then (now age 25). Certain situations bring it on (sitting in a car for a long time...sitting in a classroom without moving), and I don't do either of those things much anymore, making the decrease in spontaneous erections even more striking. I prefer to think that it's because for the last two years there's been no woman around to use it on 98% of the time, and if at some point in the near future that changes, I'll be back to how I was 5 years ago.
What was the question again?
8: Actually, the post title contains the answer to the post's question, albeit obliquely. How? at the arcsin of the ratio of the refractive indices times the sin of the angle of transmission?
Also, I found that erections became a lot more reliable when I started doing at least 30 minutes of cardio at least once a week, instead of none at all.
21: so I don't try my hardest to get an erection anyway
No comment.
getting and keeping it up without assistance?
Define assistance. Encouraging partner? Imagination? Visual aids?
Define keeping it up for that matter? Long enough to achieve orgasm? Long enough for the partner to achieve orgasm? Ron Jeremy?
I've had it go down to take a piss, and back up in less than 5 minutes in the course of a 3 hour session.
19 is what I was referring to in 8. Thanks for ruining it, Cala.
And if bob can go 3 hours, Obama can go 7 hours!
30:Well that also depends on the amount and kind of stimulation. I am not Ron Jeremy.
"Not tonight, I have my refractory period."
I have a refractory exclamation point.
If I'm the only person who's going to be serious in this thread, can someone delete the whole thing?
Hey, I was serious about the long distance 'party dick' thing. But to Becks' question, I have no idea, not possessing the necessary bits.
(I really want to make another joke, but I will stop.)
One much older dude seemed to have an erectile problem, but then he got off the psych meds and all was well.
According to a friend, psych meds are the obliteration of the little death, so to speak.
39: I took it to mean "whiskey dick", which, yeah, happens.
OK. Am I the only lady in here who prefers intercourse to cunnilingus? Maybe this should be its own thread. I think I've had an orgasm maybe once or twice in my life from oral sex, and those times, fingers were also involved. There's just not enough friction from a tongue, sez I.
To be fair to the meds, I imagine the sexual situation was somewhat stressful for him, since I was his first new partner after his wife of ten years. After a month, he dropped the meds, stopped drinking as much, was in better shape generally, and wasn't nervous anymore.
I have noticed that older guys don't rush into the fucking the way a man in his 20's will, but that seems to be a combination of things, including patience, interest in pleasing, and possibly a less priapic state.
39: Because your little CN, so to speak, is really, really happy, like he's going to a party and instead of cake, there will be a girlfriend!
Perhaps you're using the wrong kind of tongue?
41: Most of the time, I share that preference.
41: I thought fingers were standard. Why not?
41: different, ah, strokes, and all that
I suppose there's no need to go presidential with this: Could any Ladies of Unfogged talk about anti-depression/anti-anxiety medications' effect on sex? I've heard, from the party in question, that it means no orgasms, but she was unable (having been on them as long as she's been sexually active) to answer whether it decreases sexual pleasure generally, or just makes orgasms impossible.
Upon preview, 38 prompts rather than pwns my question.
Before someone else can do it I will provide doris with the obligatory link.
Mostly, I consider cunnilingus a nice gesture, but it's largely non-orgasmic for me, too. I've been with a few guys who were really into it for their own stimulation, which makes it more likely to be pleasurable for me.
41: I've met several ladies who claimed to find intercourse more satisfying, but it could be that, like JP Stormcrow's mom, they were only saying it to make me feel better.
After a month, he dropped the meds, stopped drinking as much, was in better shape generally, and wasn't nervous anymore.
Getting back out there after ten years with the now ex, I can confirm that backing off the alcohol makes a huge difference.
41: to be less flip about it, as far as I can see it seem to vary huge amounts person to person and even time to time. There are some real outliers too, but the sort of thing you're talking about seems a pretty common variant.
for their own stimulation, which makes it more likely to be pleasurable for me
I think this makes a huge difference to lots of sexual activities.
41: It's not intercourse in the traditional sense that I prefer to cunnilingus, but nope, not at all uncommon.
48: Could any Ladies of Unfogged talk about anti-depression/anti-anxiety medications' effect on sex? Varies widely based on the person and the medication in question, but widely reported to basically destroy it for an awful lot of people. I have personal-but-not-personal experience, and basically: it sucks, and if there aren't other grounds for trying to find a better medication/dosage/etc, it is not even close to worth it to try and fuck around with things. Although, if you're not entirely sure it's the meds, it could also very well be some kind of birth control. Or both.
48: Most of my knowledge is from guy friends on meds, but they either had difficulty getting aroused or difficulty finishing. Which was very frustrating. Women have mentioned that it makes getting interested harder. But in general I suspect it depends a lot on the person.
54: Yeah, birth control made it difficult. I could have orgasms, but I didn't really get stimulated beforehand.
What Rockette said about the pill, too.
Thanks for the validation, all. Now I just have to get the BF to read this so he'll stop asking me if he's "letting me down." No end of explaining that it's perfectly nice for foreplay but isn't going to get the job done for me seems to have worked so far.
(I really want to make another joke, but I will stop.)
Why?
55-57: Many's the couple who've been excited about dropping the condoms in favor of the pill .... until it turned out to suck
I've been with women who only come from oral sex and women who don't like oral sex and would rather have vaginal intercourse and women that want to receive oral sex until they orgasm and then want to be immediately mounted and women who orgasm and that's it, show's over.
Women; they come in different makes and models and there's no owner's manual. You'll have to do your own research. Keep an open mind and remember; reproducible results!
One long term relationship of mine went on meds for her bipolar midway through our relationship and it killed her (previously substantial) libido deader than the dinosaurs. Neither of us was very happy about it.
Tell him that the best thing he can do for your orgasms is not to get all LOL PERSONALLY INVESTED in whether they happen or not.
If my gf came from intercourse and not cunnilingus (instead of the other way around) I would be a lot more annoyed by my situation. Just realized that.
I don't really get much physically from intercourse anyway. The orgasms are painful.
I'd say that, IME, cunnilingus is orgasmic with about 50% of laydeez. It's a small n, but suggestive that you can't assume either way. I strongly suspect that it also varies greatly by partner - not just equipment or even technique, but also emotional attachment. The desire for face-to-face sexy time will depend in part on how much you want to spend face-to-face non-sexy time with Partner X.
... and 61.1 doesn't even begin to cover the range
Speaking in my role as A Guy, I'm on Prozac and Welbutrin and it hasn't really affected my libido. Thank the Goddess.
My gf is on Buspar. She's never blamed it for any libido issues. That's all I know.
If it indeed reduces her libido, anecdotal evidence suggests that marijuana abrogates that inhibition.
as 63 points out that unsurprisingly there is lots of variability for men, too.
On the original query, I'm 35 with no steep decline in prevalence or availability - certainly less than when I was 20, but not notably less so than 30.
Morning wood is no longer every single morning, but given that I'm awakened many mornings by the calling of my preschool daughter, I say, Thanks, penis, for settling down a bit.
I was on an antidepressant for about a year, and there was a slight but noticeable increase in the difficulty of erections. After going off it recently, there's not much change. But I was 23 at the beginning; it might have happened anyway.
47, 65 & 68: 41: different, ah, strokes, and all that
Agreed. Not a knock on the anecdata, but reading these type of threads on Unfogged always make me think that everyone should at least go read the Kinsey Reports. YMMV for everything.
Now I just have to get the BF to read this so he'll stop asking me if he's "letting me down."
For a long time, thoughts like this made me very anxious even thinking about giving oral sex. A little helpful feedback goes a long way -- "No, no honey. It's fine. I really... [yawn]... really like that," is less helpful.
68: Well, it's not like I'm happy with that.
71: besides, varying your mileage is fun.
73: The point isn't being happy/unhappy with it so much as figuring out what works for you and them and doing that.
72: For a long time, thoughts like this made me very anxious
For a while I sort of assumed that these types of things just went away with youth and inexperience. Sex with a new partner is so much easier to dial in when you can just talk frankly about it. But I'm often surprised to find that people don't.
In my experience, it's hard to talk about it during moments of passion, because it kills the mood. And it's hard to talk about it during moments of non-passion, because there's no way to illustrate what we're talking about.
So the best time to talk about it is directly after moments of passion. This can mean that sex is inevitably followed by a sort of post-mortem roundtable with the goal being to brainstorm suggestions for how things can be improved in the future. Which seems very...swpl.
So the best time to talk about it is directly after moments of passion.
The cameras are still rolling at this point?
Wellbutrin's supposed to be less libido-killing than the SSRIs--if anything it's supposed to have the opposite effect (though doing its job for depression would presumably also be helpful there). And, I don't know, it seems like a pretty damned serious side effect, and there are more SSRIs than there used to be & it might vary from drug to drug. But obviously, whether it's worth the risk of switching depends, & I'm no professional. I've never used any of them myself, nor had a partner use them. This is just secondhand from friends and so forth.
I don't know what Buspar is, but I don't think it's an SSRI.
41: cunni-what now? Oh, right, that. Haven't done that in years. Yeah, intercourse is far preferable. I'm not sure I've even had an orgasm that way (and it is really, really easy to make me have one in general; basically if you bother trying it'll happen, though quality varies a great deal). It may be less the lack of friction than some silly "but someone's face is down there! that's weird!" hangup, but I think if I enjoyed it as much as many women seem to I'd have long since gotten past that.
it kills the mood
I've been consistently amazed by the resilience of the Mood; with the right person and the right style, suggestions and criticisms can be amusing rather than awkward. (I am thinking here of the time I called a then-ongoing hand-job "interesting," which would have killed the mood until it was parlayed into some mutual laughs at equivocation and the evasion of awkwardness.) This necessitates some good feelings, but I assume advice and criticisms are only being offered if the sex is going to keep on coming; upon preview, I suppose this advice is Be Charming, and worthless.
Anyway, look at me, not giving any more advice in a sex thread.
I guess it's been so long since I could rely on having an erection for the duration of such a discussion that I don't remember what it was like to have any sort of discussion at a time when my suggestions could actualyl be acted upon.
Can someone else besides me do some complaining here? kthx
I suppose "Angle of Incidence" is a better subtitle for this thread than "Angle of Repose".
Beginning in my early thirties, I could not count on an erection, but this had a lot to do with the fact that my wife and I had just begun to dismantle our marriage by means of fucking other people.
I wrote a song about it.
I think that the priapism of youth can overcome this effect, but at my age ones emotions have more say in matters of the fuck.
I had an uncontrollable erection just this morning, and I'm 35. And I haven't really noticed any difference from my younger years yet, except for a slightly longer refractory period.
Morning wood is no longer every single morning
I've found that an orgasm (or two) a day, keeps the morning wood away. Ok, sometimes three or four. By whatever methods.
How much exertion was involved in the first orgasm seems to define how quickly the second erection shows up. 30-60 minutes of screwing seems to need 15 minutes of rest. This is unlike when I was say, 16 (or 13, actually) when five orgasms in an hour (with basically no rest breaks) ... seemed like the thing to do. (As in: 'Damn! I'm still horny!')
I did notice when it became more or less impossible to have an orgasm with a condom on, since my knees would crap out after an hour.
A little helpful feedback goes a long way -- "No, no honey. It's fine. I really... [yawn]... really like that," is less helpful.
Setting: me, after being in bed entire day with flulike sickness. Ex- comes in after day at work; not ex- at that point. Various greetings.
Ex-: "So have you got everything you need?"
Me: "Yeah.... [woozy mumble] yeah, I'm fine. I got everything earlier."
Ex-: "So there's nothing I can get you?"
Me: "Well, I know you wanted to go out, so I don't want to keep you, but there is one thing..."
Ex-: "What?"
Me: "Um, [brightly] you could fuck me."
Ex-: "What?!?"
Me: "Well, I mean..."
Ex-: "You have THE FLU!"
Me: "You could sit on my face instead. In fact, that would be even better. I'm kinda tired."
Ex-: "You're ILL."
Me: "It's not contagious that way! And it would make me feel lots better!"
Ex-: "Sweetie, YOU HAVE THE FLU!"
Me: "Well...[woozy] I mean, yeah, I'm sick... but I'm not DEAD."
Ex-: "NO!"
Me: "[whingy] No tasty pussy?"
Ex-: "NO! It might make you sicker."
Me: "I might die, and then what? My last day on earth and I can't get my girlfriend to sit on my face?"
Ex-: "That's ridiculous. You're not going to die."
Me: [woozy pause] "But it would make me feel better."
Ex-: "You're CRAZY!"
Me: "Am not."
Ex-: "You're sick, you have the flu."
Me: [full whine] "But... but... I love it when you sit on my face!"
Ex-: "I am not going to do that."
Me: "{sigh} Life really sucks, man."
Ex-: "Well, suck it up."
Me: "I bet you say that to all the ill people."
max
['exeunt stage right, probably chased by bears']
I've found that an orgasm (or two) a day, keeps the morning wood away
I remain of the impression that morning wood is induced by a need to pee.
85: That would be perverse, and probably disprove evolution. The hard-on piss is a delicate maneuver. Some of us have to install ceiling mounts, but do our HMOs reimburse us for it? No, they do not.
I'm 29 going on 30, and IME, so far no problems with ED except when I was on Zoloft. And my main problem with the Zoloft was not with the quality of the erection, but with begin able to come, as it delayed orgasm considerably, sometimes so much that I would simply go without. I'd get started quickly enough, but would never be able to finish. Luckily, reducing my dose seems to have helped with that.
Like a few others have mentioned, the real issue is that my refractory period has gone from 5 minutes to 30 minutes since my teenage years. That's the real depressing part for me - of course, Mrs. Jackson is happy that it takes a while for me to recover before starting again. She likes the rest.
That would be perverse, and probably disprove evolution.
Back on the veldt, the mourning wood was a biological response to the need to reproduce, for one of the tribesmen had fallen.
A few months out from 40, and I'll agree with several folks above: no problem getting or maintaining erections, but the down time required to get an additional one has increased.
88: Yeah, I get this with Paxil. On the one hand, I can fuck for an hour. On the other, I have to fuck for an hour. I figure I'm eating male karma, so I hope you all appreciate it.
In honor of this thread, I'll once again link to the greatest sports headline of all time.
90: That was pretty much the pattern until I hit 60* or so. Then I'd get an erection okay but any distraction at all softened it. Viagra took care of that.
I was doing reasonably okay until the docs prescribed some new anti-hypertension meds last year. Those killed desire, performance, interest in living, and even the energy to kill myself. Bad stuff. Getting off the worst one was hell too, a few times I actually thought I was going to die.
I'm going to try getting off the second Rx as soon as I find out the proper taper technique for that shit. Living longer with those side effects simply isn't worth it.
* after about 45 years of a pack/day and a bacon cheeseburger with fries diet.
I remain of the impression that morning wood is induced by a need to pee.
Is it? Well, it went away it did. Perhaps that is prostrate-related.
On the one hand, I can fuck for an hour. On the other, I have to fuck for an hour.
One wonders if, in the end, the sweetspot between 'unable to get off' and 'way too fast' even exists.
max
['Blah.']
92: Better than "Keegan Fills Schmiechel's Gap with Seaman"? Unlikely.
One wonders if, in the end, the sweetspot between 'unable to get off' and 'way too fast' even exists.
Sure. It lasts about 18 months. Enjoy.
Perhaps that is prostrate-related.
Lying prostrate with an erection is not advised.
Morning wood indicates only the desire to pee?! Does that mean I can't/shouldn't initiate morning sex through fellatio with my next boyfriend?!
This thread is depressing me for many reasons. I really squandered my youthful peak with teenage chastity and then long term, long-distance monogamy. I also recall some Unfogged threads in which some men complained about women with greater sex drives than their own. It just gets worse as you get older, doesn't it. And I'm only 27!
Sigh. Right now, not much desire for sex/dating b/c of lingering achey breaky heart feelings, but apparently this is not the thread to go to for the comforting thought that the minute I'm ready I'll have hott sex with an awesome and interesting dude.
Does that mean I can't/shouldn't initiate morning sex through fellatio with my next boyfriend?!
It most certainly does not mean that.
That is comforting to hear inasmuch as it does not allow me to idealize and miss inconsolably the former Mr. X. I find that as I get older, it's not who comes/how many times/how long (all that performance stuff) that matters, but compatibility w/r/t frequency of sex, openness to spontaneity and your partner's desire, and that your partner won't refuse your advances, consider your appetite too much/too little or get mad at you for waking him up.
Dang, I hope that W-lfs-n doesn't pick on me for all of those comma splices. Sorry!
Ok, I'm off to bed to snuggle up with a book. I hope that this thread triples and is chock full of presidential confesions by the time I return to it tomorrow morning.
compatibility w/r/t frequency of sex, openness to spontaneity and your partner's desire, and that your partner won't refuse your advances, consider your appetite too much/too little or get mad at you for waking him up.
Yup. And it's not like anyone would warn you about these things when you first start going out, either, so you learn the hard way.
Yup. And it's not like anyone would warn you about these things when you first start going out, either, so you learn the hard way.
Well, and it can change as times goes by.
compatibility w/r/t frequency of sex, openness to spontaneity and your partner's desire, and that your partner won't refuse your advances, consider your appetite too much/too little or get mad at you for waking him up.
Sigh. I hate the above phrasing suggests that it's not okay to refuse your partner's advances. (Yes, I do recognize that this is my own personal issue and that most likely the comment is referring to the sort of situation where your partner is never open to your advances rather than suggesting an obligation to be always ready, willing and able.)
Also, I have no problem warning any potential suitors in advance that I will get mad at you if you wake me up for sex before, say, 5 a.m. I'm really kind of a bitch if I don't get my sleep.
65 is a goddamn lie. I drew the Venn diagram and everything.
98: Lack of experience can be quickly made up by sleeping with men two at a time. Plus, it has many of the positive features of comparison shopping.
Lack of experience can be quickly made up by sleeping with men two at a time. Plus, it has many of the positive features of comparison shopping.
Too difficult to control for synergistic effects. You need to isolate the variables, or else use much more advanced statistical techniques to get reliable results. Sleeping with two men in succession (while altering the sequence through multiple trials) would produce cleaner data.
I hate the above phrasing suggests that it's not okay to refuse your partner's advances.
I thought it just suggested that one wants compatibility about those things, rather than that one thing is "better" than another. Sure, even people in LTRs can reject sexual advances. But it's a sign of a major incompatibility, not character failure, if one person does all the rejecting and the other does all the initiating.
And, of course, severe incompatibility in that area can be a sign that one is in an abusive relationship.
Sleeping with two men at a time is more of an art than a science.
That is, it makes one hate oneself to be either the always-rejected or the always-rejecting.
There was a rumour over here that there was a game show on American TV where they got some woman to screw two men, separately, off camera, and then she explained to the viewers which one was better at it. It's a commentary on the global repuation of American TV, that this was widely believed.
Please tell me it wasn't true.
111: I'm pretty sure that happens on I Love New York. I could be wrong. All the VH1 reality shows seem to allow for this possibility. But as the point of the show? No, I can't think of one.
112. Thank god.
108. Frequent rejection can be down to something as simple as circadian rhythms. If a morning person pairs up with an evening person, then after the first fine flush there can be a lot of frustration and resentment on both sides, even when both people are still massively attracted to each other. I recommend after work and before dinner in this example.
Please tell me it wasn't true.
Of course, the English have to answer for Denise van Outen, who had female contestants viewing the penises of a group of men and attempting to match a list of penis nicknames to the corresponding members.
108, 110: Um, yeah... I think it's something along those lines that makes me cringe at the word "refuse." The request/refuse framing sets the idea up in my head as a competitive (for lack of a better word), one versus the other. As opposed to saying something like "a partner whose interest/desire is in sync." But I'm quibbling. 'Cause I got issues.
And for reference on the morning wood subject, for me not masturbating at night is the exception rather than the rule, and I only get a soldier in a tent when I've been unable to for a day or two (due to privacy issues).
If a morning person pairs up with an evening person, then after the first fine flush there can be a lot of frustration and resentment on both sides, even when both people are still massively attracted to each other.
This was Mrs. President's experience with her longtime SO - soon after we started having sex, she commented to me how glad she was that I wasn't a morning person like he was.
The punchline is that, over the years, we've probably had more morning sex than nighttime, but that's a function of children and end-of-day exhaustion (mostly hers, but I'm not complaining).
Well you know, I never charted these things, so I can't swear to how it relates to other activities and so forth; all I know is that morning wood occurred 99% of the time through my 20s, and now probably less than half the time.
The need to urinate is definitely a factor, and, due to kids, I'm more likely to be awakened in the middle of the night and, while up, go pee, so that's definitely there. But relatively rarely has the need to pee been so great that I interrupted sexy wakeup sex to make a toilet run. So fellate away, Abigail.
This thread, like so many others here, makes me marvel and rich rainbow tapestry of diverse penises represented at Unfogged.
At 33, no noticeable decline in on-demand availability, but markedly fewer spontaneous/unwanted.
To add an anecdata point to the morning discussion, both me and the missus have been known to push pause on morning-time activities for a quick pee, without a discernible impact on "teh mood."
Well, fuck. Can we all pretend that instead of "and" in the first sentence I'd typed "at the"?
I'm reminded of the joke about the penis being designed by a civil engineer -- having, as it does, a waste pipe running through a playground. (No offense to civil engineers intended.)
||
Hasbro's legal department just disappeared Scrabulous, and now I have no real use for Facebook. The last time I had any dealings with Hasbro was when they bought the game company my (now ex) wife worked for, then laid everybody off in time for Christmas.
I do not have good feelings for Hasbro.
|>
I do not have good feelings for HasbroFacebook. It's a bloody spambot, as far as I can see.
123: Dude, did your wife work for Microprose or Avalon Hill? That would be awesome in the sense that, given either, I would definitely tap that. (WOTC joke).
So, so awesome. Darklands was a thing of beauty, and the Hasbro buyout was one of history's great crimes.
My personal experience of "morning" wood is that it generally seems to be associated with REM sleep/dreams (not necessarily with erotic content) as well as the need to pee, also have them when awakeining from a nap or a dream in the middle of the night if I have been dreaming. Mine also do not feel particularly sensitive/"sexual", if sexual activity follows there is some detumescence before a more standard erection gets going.
Also, I have no problem warning any potential suitors in advance that I will get mad at you if you wake me up for sex before, say, 5 a.m. I'm really kind of a bitch if I don't get my sleep.
Before 5 a.m. Eastern standard time?
At what point does it change from late evening sex to morning sex?
Is it ok to wake you up at 1 am so that you can have a little rest after your hard day?
Worse than morning or evening: midafternoon.
I think late morning is my favorite, like 10am, but midafternoon is great.
65 is a goddamn lie. I drew the Venn diagram and everything.
It really, really isn't.
midafternoon is great
I think so too, but the people in HR are *such dicks* about it.
133: I suspect it's always best policy not to screw with the people in HR.
134: or if you do take them to dinner first.
This thread is depressing me for many reasons. I really squandered my youthful peak with teenage chastity and then long term, long-distance monogamy. I also recall some Unfogged threads in which some men complained about women with greater sex drives than their own. It just gets worse as you get older, doesn't it. And I'm only 27!
I thought men had the youthful peak and women had the 30-something peak.
I thought men had the youthful peak and women had the 30-something peak.
IMHO YMMV.
It just gets worse as you get older, doesn't it. And I'm only 27!
No sense crying over spilt milk. Or, in this case, not spilt. Concentrate on quality, not quantity...
128: Relevant, Dick Cavett once pointed out that "Spiro Agnew" anagrams to "Grow A Penis".
I should have clarified: worse in terms of trying to time sex with peak horniness is mid-afternoon.
Cala:
Slacker. Millions of teenagers find a way to do it midafternoon while the parents are away.
mid-afternoon sex breaks are excellent though. There should be more corporate support for the idea. Probably do wonders for productivity.
Probably do wonders for productivity.
Morale, certainly, but not productivity. AB & I both work from home, so I speak from experience.
mid-afternoon sex breaks are excellent though. There should be more corporate support for the idea. Probably do wonders for productivity.
I hear the really hip employers already offer desk chair massage, so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to throw in a happy end.
"You have THE FLU!"
I find generally that stuff that makes you feel weak and faint but not too nauseated can improve sex. The flu for sure, opiate-related drugs, early morning tiredness, etc. It makes things more sensual somehow; the orgasms are fantastic.
As for the post question, I shall dare to answer it without presidential anonymity. If you define having trouble as no longer having happy spontaneous erections half the day long, no longer being instantly iron hard every time your partner vaguely hints about sex, etc. then things start declining in your early 20s; it's all just a gradual downhill slide from there. The only question is when you really start noticing it and whether you choose to define it as "a problem".
But that's the wrong way to define trouble, it's adolescent-o-centric. As you get older, the emotional dependence of sex comes more to the foreground. But that was always there, it was just buried under your testosterone overdose. You start to pay more attention to the whole-body arousal instead of being extremely gential-centric. But that helps you cultivate the long makeout sessions that are one of the best parts of sex anyway. Erections aren't always there instantly on demand (that starts early), but if you relax and go with the flow they will be there. And if you're uncomfortable with the unpredictability of that then there are a wide variety of helpful drugs with no harmful side effects; fuck judgementalism on that. (Although I find a little bit of those things goes a long way).
All of this is probably dependent on staying in decent physical shape generally. But isn't that true of everything in life past 35 or 40?
Now, the *real* annoyance is the refractory period. Past 30 men have to ration their orgasms in a way women just don't. I'm jealous of women for that.
It just gets worse as you get older, doesn't it.
shorter 146: no, absolutely not, unless you define "better/worse" in Stakhanovite terms.
Now, the *real* annoyance is the refractory period. Past 30 men have to ration their orgasms in a way women just don't. I'm jealous of women for that.
Only one data point and all, and maybe I'm just really in touch with my masculine side, but I have always had a refractory period myself. Is that really uncommon for women or just myth?
Hi, Di. I think women's sexuality varies a lot more than men's, just physically -- there's a sense in which nothing is all that uncommon or unusual for women. A refractory period is common enough, but it's also pretty common to be able to go for multiple orgasms in a night with a fairly short refractory period (say, 20-30 minutes), and then there's that subset who can set it off like strings of fireworks. That last inspiring envy and awe.
with experience, women sometimes end up moving from one box to another.
that subset who can set it off like strings of fireworks
Envy and awe indeed.
with experience, women sometimes end up moving from one box to another.
I suppose there's really only one way to test that proposition...
women sometimes end up moving from one box to another
That doesn't excite PMP, though.
In my experience, immediately after having an orgasm both women and men become completely uninteresed in sex for at least three or four hours. This seems to be unrepresentative, though.
Midafternoon or early evening sex is the best. I was trying for a while to get it in before dinner, once the cooking, dishes-doing, post-dinner tv-watching, post-tv-watching cigarette, post-cigarette ice cream, post-ice cream chat routine sets in, the likelihood of sex dwindles quickly.
lemme put in another post for dopaminergics. these rediculous refractory periods that pops needs are avoidable by drugsssss
refractory periods are from tooo much prolactin
still, do'nt get rid of it (refractory periods) entirely. there is a really great peace that comes from not wanting sex. its a singular feeling.
To answer the original question, in my case things started going awry sometime early-to-mid-40-ish, as far as I can remember. Though it's hard to say how much of that was physiological vs. a psychological reaction to the other sexual frustrations going on in the relationship. I think it's at least partly physiological, since it does seem to respond to medication, but it's hard to sort out those two potential causes much further while staying within the boundaries of a single monogamous relationship.