Not to be all insensitive or anything, but uh, if you're both enjoying yourself and having orgasms, why does it even matter what actual acts are involved, or at what point in the sexual activity the orgasms occured? So it's not a six-hour penis-in-vagina bonefest. Who cares?
That was pretty insensitive, #1.
Some people are interested in mutual sexual experiences.
Perhaps "simultaneous" would be a better word than "mutual".
1 is an excellent question, but the "Who cares?" bit is kind of what I was getting at - why is there so much anxiety around this?
Bonefests are not necessarily "mutual", nor are they the only form of mutual encounters. Thus the little caveat about "if you're both enjoying yourself and having orgasms".
On preview: AHAHAHAHAHAHA simultaneous orgasms. So much no. I mean, I can understand a preference for a form of sex where there's full body contact, mutual holding, and face-to-face-ness, but the whole "we have an orgasm at the same time, and the woman must have one from solely from the manful thrustings of the manly man rod" is like one of the most stupidly hurtful, unrealistic, and misogynist ideals of sex ever.
4: Because it's an enjoyable sensation, and it would be good if it could be prolonged.
5: I didn't say anything about simultaneous orgasms.
This thread has already been destroyed.
Back when I was 18 and had this problem, the solution was to get good and drunk before fucking.
Take Paxil. It's a total sexual anaesthetic. Sometimes I give up before orgasm because one of us is too tired to continue.
You can also make some adjustments to your masturbation habits:
1. The Something About Mary trick of jerking off earlier in the evening to take off some of the pressure is not just a comedy conceit; it works
2. In normal, everyday masturbation, don't rush to the finish, but train yourself to hang on right at the edge of orgasm. You'll find that it helps build stamina.
This thread has already been destroyed.
Aw, don't say that. He needs our help.
manful thrustings of the manly man rod
This is going to be the title of my autobiography.
Well, based on the last thread, I don't think it's a stretch to speculate that the wife is desirous of more than lots of oral sex followed by a quick penetration/ejaculation, and further that, if the husband is a bit older, the ejaculation may be followed quite quickly by de-tumescence.
I guess one way of diagnosing things would be to skip the foreplay once or twice and see if lurker lasts any longer.
A way of solving things might be a quickie (or even masturbation) as a prelude - say, hours before - and then the Full Monty, as it were. If there's all that foreplay, getting it up again shouldn't be too difficult, and surely sensitivity would be reduced at least some.
How about trying to answer lurker's question instead of judging how he has sex?
Unfortunately, I don't have any useful knowledge on the specific question, though heebie's analysis sounds right.
It's great that you and your wife are talking a lot. You should definitely consider talking to a sex therapist -- alone or together -- who can help you figure out what's going on. Your wife's GYN may be able to suggest someone.
Occasionally Julius and I have had similar issues; have you thought about incorporating a quick orgasm for you into early foreplay, progressing through a reasonably extended period of fooling around, and then turning to the manful thrustings?
This needs to be adjusted to your personal refractory period -- like, fooling around to the point of orgasm, watching the eleven o'clock news or something, and then making with the manful thrustings would be an alternative, if two orgasms in one long session wouldn't work.
11: Yeah, if the lady in question is pro-bonefest, all to the good (and I would reccomend expirimenting with toys in addition to any sort of penis-body-building regime or experimenting with chemicals).
But there's also plenty of reason to suspect that an older gentleman in a heterosexual relationship who's the kind of person to ask for sex advice in an At The Mineshaft also might be the kind of person who makes incorrect assumptions about the desirousness or primacy of bonefests, and beats himself up over bonefest inadequacy, when there's really no reason to do so.
1. The Something About Mary trick of jerking off earlier in the evening to take off some of the pressure is not just a comedy conceit; it works
There's a fine line between reducing horniness at the "delaying ejaculation" level, and reducing horniness at the "inhibiting erection" level.
Hopefully Lunar Rockette has gone away. My sense is that the question-asker is not polymorphously perverse and does not need to have his mind opened to other people's lifestyles at this moment.
Whoops, sorry. I'll go away too to avoid flamewars.
The anesthetic recommended could be effective, if it doesn't dampen the pleasure of the friction as well.
Hopefully Lunar Rockette has gone away.
Hey! I'm hoping with an equal and opposite force that she stays.
I'll go away too to avoid flamewars.
Aw, I could hope you stay, too, if you'd like.
Hopefully Lunar Rockette has gone away. My sense is that the question-asker is not polymorphously perverse and does not need to have his mind opened to other people's lifestyles at this moment.
Go get fucked, you ridiculous troll.
15: Hopefully Lunar Rockette has gone away. My sense is that the question-asker is not polymorphously perverse and does not need to have his mind opened to other people's lifestyles at this moment.
As a straight woman, thinking about sex as incorporating more than just the bonefest is highly appreciated.
Your comment, on the other hand, seems unnecessarily unpleasant -- Rocky was giving useful advice. And the "polymorphously perverse" and "other people's lifestyles" cracks really sound off -- I'm sure you can't have meant it this way, but if you reread it, it looks as if you were trying to tell Rocky to get lost because she's gay.
L-Rock: Stamina is highly-prized among men because many women are vocal about its virtues. The "misogynist" thing would, if anything, be not to give a shit because after all you got your rocks off and who really cares if the ball-and-chain had an orgasm. This varies from case to case, of course, but don't be so bloody clueless about why the question is being asked. Christ.
(I'm beating up on L-Rock because I don't, I'm afraid, have anything useful to say about the question itself beyond what's already been ventured. But good luck, lurker.)
other people's lifestyles
Sex other than piv = a lifestyle? Huh.
I wonder how it would go if the question asker just stated his points #1 and 2 to his wife. That alone might help to lessen some of the anxiety and embarrassment. It might be nice for her to hear too (assume she hears it as a joyful thing and not as a retroactively-angry-about-the-drought thing).
And I'm wondering what the answer is to heebie's speculation in the post, about whether there is concern that the drought might return. It's hard enough to disentangle all of the baggage our society has going around sex in the best of times; if you have a not-so-distant worry that too much discussion will cause it to vanish again from your relationship, I could see how that would make a person awfully jumpy.
21: Many women genuinely are, yes. Many other women are doing so because of social pressure or because they've been raised to assume that the bonefest is the only way to have sex, and they either fake it or beat themselves up over their perceived "inadequacy". Which is exactly why the whole idea that this is about "polymorphously pervese" people and "opening yourself to others lifestyles" is complete and utter bullshit - these sorts of, um, biomechanical issues surrounding sex and orgasms are not just the province of freaky queer people, they are an issue for everyone, regardless of sexuality.
Use a condom, or two condoms if you have to at first, and then move back toward bare as you get more comfortable with the whole situation.
You have to learn to recognize the "point of no return", the point where you're going to come and can't stop it. Just before you reach that point, stop thrusting and wait (both lie still). Pratice alone -- masturbation really helps with recognizing this. Focus on the escalation of your own pleasure, realize when it's unstoppable, stop just before then
And like Heebie said, relax...you haven't been having any sex at all for years and you're still married and she still cares for you, right? So it's damn unlikely that she's going to stop caring for you because you take a little time to get back in practice. You two are still way ahead of where you were six months ago, right? I always thought the big benefit of marriage was that you can relax with each other's imperfections. You have lots of time.
Also, #1: is, if not insensitive, at least sort of unaware of how male sexual response usually works. Post-orgasm you usually lose your arousal for a while (the stereotype is wanting to cuddle up and go to sleep), and sex is much better when both people are aroused and motivated at the same time. That's what mutual means -- it's an emotional mutuality, in the same head space.
One further thought - Sputnik says that the cunnilingus is so stimulating to him that penetration brings climax. Perhaps he and his wife need to investigate less stimulating (to him) foreplay to allow him to simmer down. I think that (presuming that Sputnik is right that his wife wants a proper boning from him) entering her when he's at a lull in stimulation is the way to go - he should build towards orgasm only after entering, then perhaps he'd have time to withdraw and cool off a bit should the need/desire arise.
Also, probably better than avoiding direct stimulation during foreplay (which makes the eagerness too great), he and wife should try some firmer stimulation away from the cockhead (assuming he's highly sensitive there, as most are) - IOW, desensitize the whole thing through a bit of rougher manhandling, as opposed to highly-arousing teasing and caressing (this para is all speculative/projectional, obvs., but I suspect that part of the key is, in fact, physical, and that a changed approach would help a lot).
21: Rocky was being unnecessarily venomous in the guise of giving useful advice. The question certainly didn't look to me like a cue to start ranting about all the "stupidly hurtful, unrealistic, and misogynist ideals" the asker was subscribing to. But whatever.
Antony and I have spent a lot of time in our relationship apart, usually between a month and two months apart, with neither of us having sex in the interim. When we get back to it, usually the first few encounters are similar to yours, and the reasons we suspect are similar to your 1 and 2: excitement at getting back to it, and her excitement and getting into it feeding into your excitement and whoop, there it went.
Remember, it's probably a little different for her, too. You've both been going without for years, so her body's reacting differently, too.
Finishing quickly isn't usually associated with age or any of the usual libido-screwing medications that come to mind, but it might be worth checking that.
The anxiety thing, like heebie said, is a vicious cycle. Talk to her about it; or talk to a doctor if you think it would help reduce your worries.
But ten bucks to a donut says most of what you need is more practice. You guys are essentially teenagers scrambling at it all over again. It's only been a couple of weeks.
Revisiting the original question, and the psychological explanation - if it's only been a few weeks after a few years "off," then don't make too much of any of it. It'll take time to get back to sex as a "regular" activity, both physically and mentally.
Whatever you do, don't freak out over this - 2 more weeks, and everything may change with acclimation.
The stupidly hurtful stuff was about simultaneous orgasms, DS (even if that wasn't actually what Fatman was talking about, although I'd say the notion that PIV sex is somehow more "mutual" than any other kind of sex is just as bad), and I stand by that.
Uh, 28 to 20.
25: Many other women are doing so because of social pressure which is something you're not qualified to assumed about the unidentified wife here, right?
Sorry, by "other lifestyles" I meant people who prioritize other things in their sex lives. Is "lifestyle" understood to mean sexual orientation now?
L-Rock is definitely being condescending to people who she sees as less openminded.
31: Okay, correction noted. In which case your response to Fatman seem over-the-top to me. ("Venomous" is a bit unfair, I retract that.) Though... simultaneous orgasms are rare and not necessary, but they're pretty freaking great when they do happen. I don't see why they'd be a "stupidly hurtful" thing to want as long as you're not neurotic about it.
PIV sex is assumed among hetero couples to be more "mutual" because ideally both partners are being stimulated at the same time, and most such couples don't want to live on 69ing alone. I don't see what's so scandalous about that either.
28: While Rocky's point might perhaps have been more winsomely stated, the question treats the two questions "How can my wife and I have mutually satisfying sex" and "How can I maintain an erection without orgasming through an extended period of intercourse" as if they were necessarily synonymous. They're not -- even if the answer to the latter question were "You can't", there might still be plenty of satisfying answers to the former question -- and pointing that out was valuable, and not I think meant to be nasty.
32: I think if you'd actually read my comments, including the ones on this thread that were talking about the poster and not Fatman, I repeatedly made a point of quite vocally not doing any assuming about particulars on the part of the parties. However, bringing up the possibility that something could be an issue is not the same thing as assuming. It is, in fact, pretty much the exact opposite of assuming.
And given that this is a sex advice thread, I'd think the general wisdom of questioning assumptions would be understood, but apparently not. God, stras is 100% dead on about Unfogged.
Like I said above, mutual can just mean mutual arousal -- guys usually aren't aroused right after we come. Sex when one partner isn't aroused generally sucks, there's nothing outrageous about recognizing that.
Bess and I are pretty sexually inexperienced. There are all sorts of imbalances in desire, etc., but it's the understanding, forgiveness and love that give us the willingness to keep at it. (That, and it happens to be fun.)
Just like everyone else, it sounds like with talking and more practice, things will get better.
Has anyone actually gone to a sex therapist? Do they actually exist or is it kind of a virtual occupation, like 'Hollywood development executive'?
36: No, not assuming, just doing lots and lots of insinuating. Or so it seemed to me. But hey, if that wasn't your intent, all to the good.
ideally both partners are being stimulated at the same time, and most such couples don't want to live on 69ing alone. I don't see what's so scandalous about that either.
Assuming that it's an ideal is awfully hard on people who aren't effectively stimulated by piv sex, which is a very large percentage of women.
34: Well, yes, but I do see an awful lot of neuroses about it, not incidentally tied in with the fact that most of the mythology about "simultaneous orgasm" is about simultaneous PIV orgasm. I mean, it's a lot easier to have simultaneous orgasms through mutual masturbation, but that's not really a "thing" in the same way.
As to 69 being the only way to have mutual/simultaneous/concurrent genital stimulation during oral sex or outside of intercourse: See, that's not even close to being the case.
God, stras is 100% dead on about Unfogged.
Can we make this the new mouse-over text?
41: I mean, it's a lot easier to have simultaneous orgasms through mutual masturbation, but that's not really a "thing" in the same way.
Because it doesn't feel remotely comparable, would be one pretty glaringly obvious reason.
Advice: Try to relax about it; if you can talk to the wifey, preferably (obviously) in a NON BED situation, then do so, because probably just saying it will help you feel a little better. And hopefully she'll be able to make reassuring noises. But if she doesn't, please don't flip out--she's probably all embarrassed and nervous too. Re-starting a sex life is like that.
Commentary: Thank god Rocky's back. Fatman pisses me off, because he tends to make normative-type comments and then get huffy if someone he perceives as extreme/radical disagrees with him, and then all of a sudden *they're* the incivil ones. It really is obnoxious behavior. If you're going to come off with comments like #2 and "hopefully LR has gone away," you don't get to chastise other people for being condescending. No one appointed you traffic cop.
38: They exist, but I think the Hollywood issue is basically conflating specialist psychiatric practices that focus on people with certain disorders that have sexual manifestations, and "normal couples counselors who also know a lot about sex and are willing to discuss it frankly".
Assuming that it's an ideal is awfully hard on people who aren't effectively stimulated by piv sex, which is a very large percentage of women.
What's "effectively" mean? It can be stimulating without leading to orgasm. I've never been with a woman who wasn't stimulated at all by piv sex.
My partner and I almost always end with mutual masturbation. Not "remotely comparable" to piv, but it assures orgasm for both of us.
Several people have suggested that Harry find a way to get an orgasm earlier, which might help his stamina. But part of the problem (except it's really not one) is that Harry gets overly turned on by helping Bess orgasm (this is why it's really not a problem.) It might be helpful if Bess has an orgasm earlier, too, before the main activities, so the whole affair goes a little more smoothly (giving Harry less time to get too turned out.)
Pretty much any solution here is more sex and more orgasms.
48: Pharaonic anonymity. Now that's the way to go. I like it.
In which case your response to Fatman seem over-the-top to me.
Excuse me, Slack, but check Fatman's initial response to Rocky before you start jumping her shit. I mean, come the fuck on.
43: Well, if you're talking about positioning for holding/entwined/face-to-face, I agree, but there are various measures you can take to help with that. If you're talking about sensation-related penis stuff, well, I obviously have very little experience in this regard. Not entirely sure that's the real source of the general disdain for manual stimulation as a "real" sexual activity, though.
46: I think "effectively" is synonymous with "enough to have an orgasm from".
46: Effectively means that for somewhere around half of women (IIRC), PIV sex is unlikely to result in orgasm. Might be fun, might be dull, but is unlikely to result in orgasm. If simultaneous PIV orgasm is the unexamined holy grail of a satisfying sex life, they and their partners are SOL.
Any ideal that leaves around half of women feeling like they're broken and inadequate seems like a problem to me.
Sorry about #2. I was annoyed that in the very first post of the thread someone was questioning whether the problem was really a problem, based on the "more sexual freedom, less patriarchy" framework that is generally accurate but doesn't need to be brought into every issue right away. But I shouldn't have heightened the animosty.
Also, to actually be helpful: have you tried experimenting with positioning at all? I can say from personal experience that how you situate yourself for various object-in-vagina activities can make a big difference on how fast you come, although obviously I'm talking from the woman's perspective here. Definitely supposed to be the case for men, too; I know a lot of guys who supposedly have a very hard time coming during woman-on-top sex, so if you haven't, you might try that.
48: The Trumans are not the couple in the OP, FWIW.
53: And you seriously can't understand how in the realm of sex advice, questioning whether the problem really is a problem - or, whether, what the exact problem is, precisely - is not a way of helping with the problem?
Thank you 53 for sparing me from any more meta-debate on the issue of Fatman vs. Rocky. We all love you both.
If you're talking about sensation-related penis stuff, well, I obviously have very little experience in this regard.
Sensation-related stuff generally. Yes, the sex act does indeed feel a lot different from (and usually more intense than) masturbating. (I suspect that's true for more than just the penis side of the equation, or at any rate have been told it is, but I shan't presume to speak for the vagina.)
50: Fatman's initial response (post 2) was quite mild, actually.
51-52: what's with the mechanical demand for orgasm all of a sudden? In my experience it's very common indeed to find women who view PIV as central and highly pleasurable but also don't orgasm from PIV alone. It's easy enough to give an assist or mix with other types of sex. I also disagree with the notion that unassisted PIV orgasm is the "unexamined holy grail" of sex that makes women feel all messed-up and inadequate when they don't have it -- people generally roll with how they are.
58.1: In a holier-than-thou sort of way, sure.
58: In a thread where I've been accused by being incivil by insinuation and (fatuous) 'assumption', I'm going to disagree that 2 was 'mild'. Unless you're using mild as a synonym for smarmily dismissive.
I really disagree with 58.last. I consciously try to avoid a lot of mainstream cultural advice-giving about sex (not just Cosmo but all the other hectoringly prescriptive pop stuff) and even I have a sense of how thoroughly that idea has saturated people's thinking.
people generally roll with how they are.
I would absolutely love if this were true. In my experience, it often is not, although that may diminish with age.
59: Getting dragged back into this is a mistake, I know it, but for the love of Bob, L-Rock's initial post doesn't merit any more defending. Saying "Not to be insensitive" isn't some sort of foolproof immunization against actually being told you're insensitive, which the "who cares?" response actually is. Nevermind that the question is almost disingenuously clueless: "who cares" when the orgasms happen? Come. On.
Rocky can defend herself or not, but I reiterate that Fatman's responseS to Rocky don't really need defending either, Slack. Any more than you and PGD piling on.
Hm. Pwned any number of times, and now a red herring about mutual orgasm to boot. Nonetheless:
Lurker: I'd say heebie is right that your explanations (1) and (2) are correct. I'm doubtful that (3) -- use it or lose it forever -- even exists.
I was involved with a man who experienced a similar phenomenon (I won't call it a problem), and am convinced, as he pretty much was, that it was due to a long dry spell for him and overstimulation during foreplay. He was on a hair-trigger as soon as intercourse was involved, but this did go away.
The main difficulty with the situation for the two of us was a temptation to actually extend foreplay, since intercourse was pretty much instantly the end; but this just exacerbated matters. So you might try cutting back on that, experimentally, see what happens. The other frustration was my own: intercourse (deep penetration) nice! We solved this through other means for a while.
Don't freak out, really. There are so many things two people can do, and the overexcitement/anxiety will abate on its own.
57: I think the big difference is that women can get off from a lot of different kinds of simulation, some of which masturbation (or really, I should say something like "non-genital-to-genital, non-oral stimulation") can do really well on. Obviously, if you're the type of woman who comes from penetration of a certain scale + thrusting, masturbation probably isn't going to do it - well, unless you come from that because of an accident of anatomy and you happen to be a G-spot type disguised as a P+T type. That's not the only type of stimulation women can get off from, whereas I think most men just sort of assume that the only stimulation they'll get off from is the, err, inverse of P+T. Which is at least not true in all cases (witness the prostate!), although I really have no idea if there are other male analogs of kinds of stimulation, and what the various spread of all that is. And again, it's obvious to blame that on the whole general lack of experiences with genuine biological penises thing, although I'm not quite so sure, given how fucked up the early medical/psychological history of the study of women's orgasms were.
And further to 61: I probably mentioned this before, but a few years ago I did a pretty thorough research job on mainstream books on sexuality. It was exceptionally frustrating* how many actively dreadful (that is, judgmental, factually inaccurate, culturally tone-deaf, sexist) books have been published on this subject.
It speaks volumes that two of the better ones I eventually found were the good ol' hippy-dippy Joy of Sex [the short edition] and the modern-day-hippy Guide to Getting It On. They both have their drawbacks, but good lord are they better than most of the dreck I could find. And I am good at research.
*Ha ha.
More to the point, given that Fatman has apologized and Rocky has clarified, the rest of us really should stfu. But y'all know that the first one to let it go isn't gonna be me.
Well, my first thought was "is it actually a problem?" too, and I really don't have any agenda re sexual freedom. Obviously I blame the patriarchy, that's a given. But if both of them are getting to come, & no one's lying there frustrated afterwards, then yeah, explanations 1 and 2 are undoubtedly right and don't worry yet.
Try having sex more, if you have time? If you're still coming too quickly the 2nd or 3rd (or 4th?) time in one day, then perhaps you actually are only 13.
If I had to choose one or the other, either only penetrative sex or everything else, for the rest of my life, I'd go for everything else.
63: "Piling on"? Give me a break. Rocky is adult enough, or at least should be, to handle having more than one person disagree with her in a thread.
69: Yes, but you yourself said you shouldn't continue it, and yet. That counts as fanning the flames. Anyway, you really are wrong, so there.
62: No, really, DS, in a situation where orgasms are happening, the parties are reputedly very happy with their resurgent sexuality, but there's some on-going anxiety about what could very well be a major non-issue, you wouldn't think to ask, "why is this so important?". I'll cop to having not stated it in the most tactful and cagey terms ever, but again, I copped to that with basically the very first post I made. Where is the disengenuous cluelessness coming from?
Interesting how the Rocky v Fatman support has been entirely split female/male. (Count me in there too.)
Rocky, I wish you were on aim right now.
"Any ideal that leaves around half of women feeling like they're broken and inadequate seems like a problem to me."
Sure, but you can modify the ideal in various ways. For example, you could drop the notion that an orgasm is required for satisfying sex. Or that sex should be great every time.
And I am unsure what the 50% means anyway. Is it 50% of women don't regularly have orgasms from PIV sex or that 50% of women can't regularly have orgasms from PIV sex.
Also, I think it's fair to point out in re: all the people carping about my "politicizing" this or what have you, that this is an At The Mineshaft post, not the SFSI, alt.sex.questions, or Dan fucking Savage.
I'm just repeating a lot of what other people, said but: 1 & 2 sound extremely plausible. The solution to #1 sounds like: just keep doing it. This doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would prevent it from being mutually a lot of fun, even if it's frustrating. The solution to # 2 sounds like: ideally, she should be more excited at the beginning of PIV than you--is there a way to design foreplay accordingly? Move C to after PIV, or whatever? The other possibility would be a purely physical change like wearing a condom, or a different position--I have orgasms during sex reasonably often & do enjoy those the most, but I think they're from stimulation of the entrance & indirect stimulation of the clitoris, not any magic g-spot inside. A position that leads to somewhat shallower penetration might stimulate her more & you less.
#3 does not sound plausible--"get too turned on so its over too quickly" isn't a physical problem associated with age; this is a problem associated with not having had enough sex & overexcitement. It wouldn't be reasonable for a young guy who had his first intercourse relatively late to assume that his failure to score as a teenager meant that he'd lost all ability to ever have enough stamina for all time; it seems no more reasonable now. But, if you've had a real drought it probably heightens the anxiety & emotion around everything. Is there's some worry that she's not really enjoying herself enough/not having orgasms at all/etc. & the drought will start again? Because honestly, if not, this doesn't sound like the worst sexual problem in the world; it sounds downright blissful compared to not doing anything. But if there's no substitute for PIV for her obviously it could be more problematic.
Give me like ten minutes and I will be, B.
72: Hey, *I* wasn't gonna say it.
75: I'm pretty sure that Dan fucking Savage would have said more or less the same thing you did.
I think it's reasonable for a guy to want the whole pelvis-thrusting thing from time to time, while knowing that his partner finds oral sex most pleasurable and orgasmic. So the Lurker wanting to have thrusty thrustness for his own pleasure isn't necessarily a negative referendum on his feminism.
Someone probably already said that.
For example, you could drop the notion that an orgasm for the woman is required for satisfying sex. Or that sex should be great for the woman every time.
74 - christ, I have 6 million other things to do and I'm tired and you want me to make an effort for mediocre sex which doesn't make me come? No thanks, I want to go to sleep with a smile on my face, not wondering whether that was it.
And 67 is absolutely right. The rest of us should STFU. Which on the meta-debating front I resolve to do right now.
65: Both men and women can generally get off from many different types of stimulation. It's actually very unlikely that most men assume they can only get off from penetration, since most men's first experience of orgasm is highly unlikely to be with a partner. (And yes, there is the whole prostate thing, which suggests other options as well.) But the question isn't just whether people are getting off -- it's possibile to get off in all sorts of ways -- it's the intensity and quality of the experience. For couples inclined to PIV sex, Ye Olde Bonefest is often the pinnacle of that sensation, which would be a big part of why it's the default definition of straight sex; you can have lots else happening on the menu, but a lot of people would find absence (or brevity) of The Act to be profoundly frustrating.
68.1 makes the rather odd assumption that all orgasms are created equal, which is clearly false. Lurker seems to be describing something in the realm of premature ejaculation, which has the implication of less satisfaction and therefore seems like a problem worth trying to solve.
Also, whether or not piv sex is an (unfortunate) cultural ideal, using that to argue that one's sex life wouldn't be improved if it were at least an option seems fatuous at best.
79 is, of course, true. And many het women really do like the whole p/v fucking thing, orgasm or no. But that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to question the norm.
And really, Lurker, you shouldn't worry overmuch about it. Especially if what's getting you going is giving lots of oral sex first anyway; presumably Mrs. Lurker is having a fine old time.
72 is incorrect. For what it's worth.
For couples inclined to PIV sex, Ye Olde Bonefest is often the pinnacle of that sensation,
Okay, I am gonna *really* disagree with that. Maybe for men. And maybe for some women. But "couples"? You're assuming a lot....
which would be a big part of why it's the default definition of straight sex;
Mmmmmmmmaybe.
you can have lots else happening on the menu, but a lot of people would find absence (or brevity) of The Act to be profoundly frustrating.
This, yes.
51, 52, 81 are all surprising. I keep being told by women that it's juvenile for me to be concerned over whether she has an orgasm, because females are far more into experiencing the "journey" of the sexual experience rather than the "destination", and that if sex is good it's worthwhile even without orgasm - and that even if she is doing it with the goal of an orgasm, it's juvenile for me to view it as something I should try to "give her".
85: 72 said "has been." Which up to that point was, indeed, correct.
71: I found it clueless because the question was basically "we have good foreplay but I'm ejaculating prematurely," with no information about whether Mrs. Lurker had come by that point, and it doesn't seem to me like you should need a guidebook or something to tell you what the source of anxiety there is. Ergo "who cares?" seemed like a stupid question.
80
"... Or that sex should be great for the woman every time."
Half the sex you have is below average. Below average and great are incompatible. Doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman.
87: Okay, look. You're being told that out of tact. I mean, yes, good sex is fun without orgasm, esp. if you like the person you're having sex with and all, but that only lasts so long. Once the novelty's worn off, well.
It's probably not ideal to think of it as something to "give" her, but maybe as something to help her with. And I mean, if *you* find it hot when a lady-friend comes, then that helps a lot, b/c it removes some of the pressure the lady-friend might feel from the whole "oh, but you haven't come yet, I must keep doing stuff" dynamic. Which can be kind of awkward. A frank and sexy "so teach me how to make you come, baby" works much better. FYI.
Below average and great are incompatible.
Shearer's Paradox of Greatness.
What about if you took ten great experiences, and ranked them in order of greatness. Then the five at the bottom would no longer be great!
Then take the remaining five great experiences, and rank them in order of greatness. Then only three are still great!
Has your head exploded?
89 is how I read it as well, but guessing from the comments by the women here I'm guessing that they read it as the woman is having great orgasms, and I'm having orgasms too. The only problem is we're not fulfilling the piv sexual norm. Is this an incorrect alternative reading?
93 included an inordinate amount of guessing
Half the sex you have is below average.
Half the sex *people* have is below average. Some of us never have below average sex.
I think 89 is fair, certainly. BUT the *point* of the "women's" reading is to *take some of the pressure off* lurker, which, y'know, is probably the *thing he needs most*.
86.1: Lots of variation to be assumed, of course. I'd hazard to say it's at least reasonably common for straight couples. Of course IANAST.
86.2: Meaning it's what most people are accustomed to call the default, not necessarily that it should be so described.
82: Ye Olde Bonefest is often the pinnacle of that sensation
Again, I will not even to attempt to make statements about the penis side of the equation, but this is not even remotely close to the case for a large amount of Team Vagina, even before you get into heavy variations like fisting. Although if this becomes another "straight dudes freak out about dildos" thread, I'll cry.
85: We know, parsi, we know.
79 is right, and it occurs to me that the problem with 1, if there is one, is 'six hour bonefest', when that didn't look like the guy's problem at all, and probably came off more dismissive than it was intended. Because LR isn't usually dismissive, especially when it comes to talking of sex.
98: I'm freaky for dildoes, but never let it be said that I freaked out about a dildo.
87: I think women may vary some in how easy it is to have them. In my case--if I don't, then frankly it's not me, it's you. But they do vary tremendously in quality, and how good matters a hell of a lot more than how many, so I can see how if I had them less reliably I wouldn't want guys to get fixated on it.
FWIW, I actually disagree with 91. Look, there are 3 billion women on the planet. There is a BIG range of needs, desires, beliefs about what one "should" want, understanding of what one DOES want, literacy about one's own body, fluency in communicating this information to one's partner...the list goes on.
It's annoying to have someone think they know what you should (or do) want, and that's why it's valuable to have some counter-pressure from folks saying It's Not Always All About the Orgasm, Y'Know.
On the other hand, it is true that INAAAOYK is *sometimes* tact-speak for "You're right, I'm not enjoying this, but I think I'm supposed to reassure you, so I'm doing that."
Trial and error is the only way to go on this. Experiment! Communicate! Keeping in mind that one is only human, and so are one's partners, and human beings can and do change their minds, moods, and preferences.
If anyone else has been faced with this problem in the past, and overcame it, please respond. There haven't been many responses so far.
Shearer, I'm surprised at you. Aren't you a mathematician? Seems to me you'd be the first to know there is a technical and a colloquial definition for "average," and the two needn't necessarily overlap.
Although if this becomes another "straight dudes freak out about dildos" thread, I'll cry.
I don't think there's never actually been a "straight dudes freak out about dildos" thread. Not in my two years here, anyway.
I'd hazard to say it's at least reasonably common for straight couples
I'd hazard to say that for most straight *women*, cunnilingus is actually the most "intense" physical and emotional sensation. Which is why so many of us lie about shit like "oh, that's okay, I don't care if I come" rather than saying DUH GO DOWN ON ME and why so many of us also, dear god, are shy about or actually refuse it. Because you know, it's *selfish* and omg those are my *dirty parts* and *what if I smell* or he *doesn't really like it*?? Opening up to all that (yeah yeah) is quite a trust issue for a lot of chicks.
Believe me now or fear me later.
87: females are far more into experiencing the "journey" of the sexual experience rather than the "destination", and that if sex is good it's worthwhile even without orgasm
This is basically crap.
and that even if she is doing it with the goal of an orgasm, it's juvenile for me to view it as something I should try to "give her".
This is basically correct.
The "juvenile" thing is, I think, more an attempt at a general hint that you're annoying in how you show your concern for your partner's orgasm, it's not helping them, and they wish you'd knock it off.
There haven't been many responses so far.
If the lurker is feeling overly aroused, he should reflect carefully on whether LR was right to feel insulted that Fatman was being dismissive about the possibility that she was brusque and insensitive, or, alternatively, whether Fatman was justified in calling attention to LR's insensitivity. He should also bear in mind the possibility that whatever his beliefs are, B will find them sexist.
Detumesence will rapidly follow.
103 is right. We're not doing a very good job for lurker here. Part of the problem is that the last paragraph of Heebie's advice doesn't leave anywhere much to go. So trainwreck is, really, all her fault.
I could think of a piece of advice that would be good for recovering confidence for the sex, but I don't know that it would be very good for the marriage.
99: Actually, at the start of the thread, I got two different IMs to the effect of "you just like saying 'bonefest', don't you". Which is 100% true, so.
Look, there are 3 billion women on the planet.
That's why this thread can go all night long.
106: a weird level of generalization there. Maybe for you it's true, but many perfectly uninhibited women just plain prefer penetration to fellatio.
104
"Shearer, I'm surprised at you. Aren't you a mathematician? Seems to me you'd be the first to know there is a technical and a colloquial definition for "average," and the two needn't necessarily overlap."
I actually thought about saying median but thought it would be too pedantic. But that's what I meant of course.
101, 102: Well, look. The truth, as all men know, is that orgasms feel good. No one doesn't like feeling good. And yeah, sure, sometimes you're just not gonna get there, and that's fine, and *god* knows you don't want the guy fixating on it, because that's a lot of pressure and somehow makes things worse because then you get anxious about reassuring him and you're all MUST HAVE ORGASM NOW SO HE FEELS BETTER and that's just hellish.
But. Come on. Yes, the best route to "more orgasms for the laydeez" is "let's just relax and enjoy ourselves and not focus on MUST MAKE THE LAYDEEZ COME," which is a paradox. But if a lady is *reassuring* a guy that she doesn't care about orgasms, well, it obviously *is* an issue, or the conversation wouldn't come up.
111:That's funny, because I was thinking about how to make a joke out of the fact that the other Mineshaft thread petered out so early on, when the days of yore it would have been a 1000+ monster.
But I couldn't come up with anything clever enough. Smart alecks, help!
112 is correct, but 106 is important because the number of straight women who are bashful about their desire for intercourse is much, much smaller than the number of straight women who are bashful about their desire for cunnilingus.
I just realized that maybe someone should post something like 79, before seeing that heebie already did.
The guy never says that his wife is unhappy because of this problem. It's a testament to the weirdness of this community that most people jumped to the conclusion of "This guy is a feminist, so he thinks he needs to last longer for his wife's benefit, but he's also somewhat oblivious, because he needs to realize that she probably doesn't care about it as much as he does". Instead of the more obvious conclusion of "This guy gets gratification from intercourse and wants to last longer in order to enjoy it more."
Men can be selfish too, ladies!
98.last: Grr.
109: Everyone who's offered advice to lurker has said basically the same thing, no? He seems already to know that the extended foreplay and cunnilingus is making him really really hot, and so: try the latter later, try p-i-v sex earlier. And that this is very common after a drought.
106: I'd hazard to say that for most straight *women*, cunnilingus is actually the most "intense" physical and emotional sensation.
For some I'm quite sure it is. For "most"? I'm no sex researcher and I don't have a Wilt Chamberlain-sized sample of partners from which to generalize, so it's kind of hard for me to say. Maybe the sample of partners I do have is unusual, or maybe they weren't honest about what they prefer. (Although, with three or maybe four exceptions, I would find it hard to believe the latter.)
115 makes a very good point. "You're asking the Mineshaft? We're still in our refractory period from this morning's thread, and that one didn't exactly have stamina."
Also the idea of using (one or more) condoms seems promising to me. They decrease sensation without killing it and are easy to use, so why not give them a go?
95
"Half the sex *people* have is below average. Some of us never have below average sex."
Doesn't matter. People adjust their expectations based on experience. If you eat in a fancy restaurant rarely it can be great every time, if you eat in a fancy restaurant every night it can't.
117.2 gets it wrong. I think we all assumed that he wants to last longer to have more fun, but since the more you worry about these things the harder they are to actually pull off (ha ha), we tried the method of telling him to chill out b/c the lady doesn't care--thus he needn't, at least, be *embarrassed*--by way of, you know, being reassuring and shit. Because of how much we hate men and all.
I think for the lurker's physical problem, the advice of "relax, slow down" is great stuff, and it would be better to return to Fatman vs. Lunar Rockette: Moons over My Hammy than to complicate that advice unnecessarily.
I believe there is also an underlying question of "Holy shit! I'm actually getting my sex life back on track after what seemed like a permanent derailment! How can I not fuck this up?" To that I would say two things: one, you are very brave, and congratulations for getting this far; that evidence is very encouraging that you will make a strong recovery. Two, read Passionate Marriage by David Schnarch. It's not so much about the physical stuff, though there is some of that, as it is about what sex comes to mean in a marriage and how partners can get out of bad habits. Schnarch cautions people that intimacy often comes from giving up on your preconceptions on how connected you are to someone during sex; that you have to understand that you're having two separate experiences before you can understand what you are doing together. It's counter-intuitive, but very good stuff.
121: Even though birth control and STD prevention are very unlikely to be issues for Mr. and Mrs. Lurker (although you never know), I'd caution against double-bagging just because of how it can lead to rips and chafing and other general unpleasantness.
Also, so that I can finally cop to polymorphous perversity: cock rings! ... are those just a myth? Their continued retail prominence at Mr. S and similar stores catering mostly to gay men would suggest no, but I'm kind of curious.
117: We're surrounded by Aspies! Come on, what guy is ever "horribly embarrased, ashamed and frightened" about just not getting enough pleasure for his own sake? I've never been "embarrassed" or "frightened" that I'm not having a good enough time; those are things people generally feel about what their partner might think.
read Passionate Marriage by David Schnarch
YES YES YES DO THIS. Excellent book. Really.
Wrongshore is like the 217th person I know to recommend that book. (I haven't read it and have no opinion.)
Fatman vs. Lunar Rockette: Moons over My Hammy
So good.
Cock rings can help sustain, firm up or intensify an erection. Also, some have mounts for little vibrators, which are kinda fun once in a while.
129 comes as a relief. After 66, I was sure I was going to bring it up and Witt was going to say, "That was in my shite pile."
Oh right, cock rings might be a good idea. If Mr. and Mrs. Lurker can deal with it. But pace 127 (DS is so wrong about so many things in this thread!) people can indeed be "embarrassed, ashamed and frightened" about not getting enough pleasure, sure they can. Especially if they're coming off a long dry spell in a monogamous relationship, where all sorts of issues get bound up in the "omg we're not having sex" anxiety.
Also, for the pure physical thing, I don't think anyone has given the obvious "think about baseball standings, recite the alphabet backwards", etc. sort of advice. That works.
I said this before, but using masturbation to practice going close to the edge and stopping is helpful. Learning your own responses is key.
131: Yeah, I've been with women who used such devices, although obviously the 'staying hard' part isn't really a problem with strap-ons.
Which: why are you people furiously denying the straight dudes dildo freakout? It happened like three or four threads ago, and was mostly dsquared vs. B.
135: that was just the dsquared dildo freakout. Dsquared freaks out just to get invective practice, it doesn't mean much.
Doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman.
So Shearer's going all gender-bender-y on us? Now that's polymorphously perverse.
I've never been "embarrassed" or "frightened" that I'm not having a good enough time; those are things people generally feel about what their partner might think.
I think he's frightened about the possibility that although he used to have satisfying intercourse, he'll never be satisfied by intercourse again, as he notes in "possibility 3". I could see that being frightening.
As for being embarrassed, that can come just from the cultural pressure to be embarrassed in these situations, because you can't do something that Real Men Know How To Do.
people can indeed be "embarrassed, ashamed and frightened" about not getting enough pleasure, sure they can.
The Schnarch is good on this -- your partner can have amazing sex without you having amazing sex. Not all the time, but in the individual encounter, it's cool, it happens, and it doesn't mean you're broken.
140 is pretty insensitive. Some people are interested in mutual sexual experiences, you know.
133: people can indeed be "embarrassed, ashamed and frightened" about not getting enough pleasure, sure they can.
Okay, in general, yes. In this case: not what he's talking about.
139: Possibility 3 is "I had it, and I've lost it." "It" in context pretty clearly doesn't mean "satisfaction in intercourse," since his issue is being too (quickly) satisfied by the intercourse.
141: Damn it, B, every time I say the littlest thing you declare that every one has to have an open marriage to be happy.
125: Schnarch cautions people that intimacy often comes from giving up on your preconceptions on how connected you are to someone during sex; that you have to understand that you're having two separate experiences before you can understand what you are doing together. It's counter-intuitive, but very good stuff.
Yeah, this sounds interesting. I haven't thought of it in this way. Certainly once you've internalized this notion, asking of your partner "What can I do?", or asking for something yourself, even in the midst of passion doesn't seem awkward or distracting at all. A number of people seem to have said that talking about sex during sex is troublesome.
142: Slack, I can't believe you're this ignorant. Coming too fast does not necessarily mean orgasm. In fact, for many men, coming too fast even *with* orgasm is not satisfying.
On the one hand, this argument has gone on for too long, but, on the other, I feel the need to say that my reaction doesn't line up along the gender split either. Without commenting on anything that came further down in the thread, #1 came off to me as obnoxious, whatever its intent. It obviously occurred to LR that it might come across as insensitive, what with her saying "not to be insensitive or anything." Fatman's saying "it is insensitive" hardly seems to warrant a flame war. Again, I'm not commenting on anyone's behavior once war was declared.
I don't know if 145 is supposed to be sarcastic or not, but I would have just said "orgasm =/= satisfaction".
You know how sometimes The Ethicist follows up on his advice to see what happened? It would be cool if we could follow up with the lurker to see how he took our advice -- not so much to know whether his sex life has improved, but to see him huddled in a corner, shouting, "Make it stop! Make it stop! Good God, what horror have I unleashed upon the world?"
148 sounds suspiciously descriptive of Ogged.
This reminds me: has lurker made clear whether he has this problem *only* with intercourse, but not with other sorts of direct stimulation? (fellatio, what you all crudely call handjobs and that other thing, titty-fucking (so crude you all are))
(fellatio, what you all crudely call handjobs and that other thing, titty-fucking (so crude you all are))
The titty-fucking Yoda crudely enjoys.
What's a less crude term for handjobs? "Manual sex"?
"manual extraction"
I want to know what the uncrude phrase for titty-fucking is, myself. "Masturbating between her breasts"? "Bosom sex"?
"Breast fetishism"
The concept seems hilarious to me.
"Bosom sex" is a great phrase. Conjures up lusty milkmaids.
I wouldn't cast doubt on its existence, but I would reckon it is an act more often viewed than attempted.
Crap, heebie's better at this than I am.
Slack never comes fast. He comes and goes when and as he pleases. He tries to understand ordinary people and their little "problems", but his personal dataset is all successes of various different kinds.
To be fair, parsi could be using "crudely" in 150 in the sense of "crude, overly broad analogy"; ie, almost mathematically. Of course, she's parsi, so she's not and she has to end it with a little dig at our (lol?) collective crudity. But I happen to use "crude" in that sense an awful lot and think it's a useful term, so.
I think you mean "sausage and eggs."
"Pinocchio and the Googly Eyes"
153, meet 66. None of them are any good, it turns out.
"Polishing the baton with the pom-poms"
Heebie, I think you're winning.
Fun fact (since I can't contribute on the pun front): Cleave is one of the very few* verbs in English which has two primary meanings that directly contradict each other.
*Gosh, maybe the only.
"Shoring up the ruler with two compasses"
Or maybe "milking *with* the cows."
Or "the cows milking the goat".
Fast in "tied fast" and "run fast" are semi-opposites.
"Running the tracks between the mountains"
"Vigorously Following the Advice of the La Leche League", for a hybrid between this thread and the LOL MOAST SHAGGY thread style.
168: It was a joke. Because I was introducing the terms myself, see? Cripe's sake.
186: Thanks, but I decline the honor. It is enough for my child to be allowed to attend the kindergarten of Heebie's many spawn.
Disappointingly, in the cases of both "hew" and "cleave", the two meanings come from completely separate roots that evolved to have identical orthographies, conjugations, etc.
So much for the fun, kids. It was nice while it lasted.
191: Much experience with fake breasts there, have you?
wow. nearly uniform suckage at this sex advice thing.
194: Millstones. Hard.
195: Not everything's all about blowjobs, Soup.
145: I'm ignorant? Coming does mean orgasm of some kind, yes.
Of course, there's also the classic of nationally or ethnically-linked names for acts and social diseases. What's a country with a lot of iconic milk-maidery going on?
Maybe "The Dutch Vice".
195: Don't knock until you've tried it. All of it.
Including the millstones bit.
145: Orgasm, however, doesn't necessarily mean satisfaction. You're right about that.
I was actually serious in 150. People began to deem lurker's problem one of premature ejaculation, but if he enjoys fellatio et al. without coming immediately, such that this only happens during intercourse, the advice might be a little more specific.
OT:
Zombie Mark Penn has helpful advice for Obama.
197: Coming, if it's a p.e. problem, can *easily* mean ejaculation sans actual orgasm. Really. It's true.
So Rocky, BitchPhd:
The man spends 30 min going down on the woman. And she comes.
And then they have 3 min of "PIV". And he comes.
Is that mutual? Is that equitable? Is there some ledger in the sky in which orgasms are recorded? If he has more Then-We've-Let-the-Patriarchy-Win?
Seems to make beautiful natural act rather fraught...
No politics sex politics in the sexual politics threads, Emerson.
Slack, forgive me if I pry and I'll fuck off if I am, but aren't you in the biological or medical sciences of some sort? If it's not the case, I'm suddenly weirded out as to why I formed that impression. Also blah blah redact if I've inadvertantly violated the sanctity of off-blog whatsis.
203: LOL, ~*MOAST*~ EDGY.
205: Orgasm is partly a reference to the muscle contractions involved in sexual climax. In men, I'm pretty sure you can't have ejaculation without these muscle contractions. It's possible to have the orgasm without intense pleasure, but it's not possible to have the ejaculation without the orgasm.
206: You're right, it's fraught and unnatural for women to want orgasms. Much better we should just maintain the natural method, whereby they have 3 minutes of PIV, he comes, he rolls over and falls asleep, she goes and douches in the bathroom.
208: Oh, heavens no, not remotely. That's very funny.
209: Yeah, and I'm not a fucking mind-reader, Slack, and most people use "orgasm" to mean "the nice good feelings."
Minimal thread reading, but I'll second Paxil. I used to have horrible and brief sex, now it's variable and long. Whatever the fuck else it does, there seems little debate that it delays orgasm. I'm surprised they don't market it as such; it's therapeutic effect is nowhere near as reliable. Other SSRIs would probably also work, but who the fuck knows?
209: It's entirely possible to ejaculate with little or no physical sensation of the `orgasmic' sort at all. Muscle contractions etc. are needed, yes, but that is all.
213: I know what you meant.
Parenthetically, though, I actually don't think "the big O" is the only common usage of the word "orgasm." I remember learning How Your Parts Work Down There in the eighth grade; that happens in American schools too, doesn't it? Or does it?
Bitchphd
You really are obsessed with your grievances, aren't you?
Somehow you managed to ignore that in the scenario I outlined:
He Went Down On Her and She Came....
Or he finger-banged her to orgasm...
Or she dry humped him to orgasm...
Or whatever...
The point is: She came.
So if you can stop fighting the chauvinists in your head - your counterpart to Joe Klein's imaginary dirty hippies - maybe you can accept that the man enjoys "PIV" and would like it to last longer. More power to him.
As for whether your suffering victim douches afterward -- seems like a pretty shitty method of birth control to me :)
211: Well, to be fair, there was actually a period of about a month where I had you confused with dsquared - or, more precisely, assumed you were dsquared, but using Labs-style variations on your pseud out of... differences between work/home computers, or something. I would probably desperately benefit from Unfogged Commenter Flashcards, or a wiki, or something.
That doesn't help you so much though LR, as d^2 doesn't work their either.
You know how sometimes The Ethicist follows up on his advice to see what happened?
This drives me insane, because it suggests that his advice is not only crummy, it regularly arrives months too late to have been any help anyway, and further, that he has no shame about this fact at all.
I formed the "biological sciences in some way, shape, or form" thing after I had become clear on the Slack/dsquared distinction.
maybe you can accept that the man enjoys "PIV" and would like it to last longer. More power to him.
This also assumes facts not in evidence. Which is half the problem I guess, and from there it was mostly fumbled as far as the `advice' part goes, but seems I missed a rousing thread.
218: Sorry for the confusion. The abbreviation was originally going to be temporary, as I was planning to segue into a new nick at some point (I sort of hate the "Doctor Slack" one, it's one of those stupid things that Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time), but then it never happened.
220: He gives the advice, then holds onto the column until he can follow up.
I like Randy Cohen. He earned more good will with News Quiz than he can ever spend with bad advice.
221 ah well, and I spelled there, their, there.
God knows I cannot determine the point of the current argument, but hell, women too can have orgasms that are merely functional, small blips on the dial, not unlike blowing your nose or something. What does the fact that both men and women can experience this mean with respect to the post? Yeah, it's a sort of premature orgasm thing, in which case some of PGD's advice upthread somewhere kicks in: practice in holding back.
Also, for all Adam is so obvious a troll I almost want to suspect him of being me or B trying to make a point, this reminds me that all of you "dear god, but what about the highly sensitive, uptight, sexually clueless, normative straight people" can seriously get fucked in a non-consensual way in the non-sexual orifice of your choice.
I don't have any useful advice at all, but would like to say, first, congratulations to A lurker and his wife, because working through the stuff you have is patently impressive and great and cool, so hooray for you! Also, heebie's initial advice seems very true and that book that Wrongshore recommended sounds good, too. I am also fascinated to hear that Paxil works as a marital aid.
What does the fact that both men and women can experience this mean with respect to the post?
It's really not possible to say. One hypothetical I guess. I can't determine the point of the DS/B thing either, at least perhaps with out reading more of this terrible thread than I'm going to .
227: You want to rape clueless, normative straight people? I knew it! The Pink Triangle Gang's agenda exposed!
women too can have orgasms that are merely functional
No. All women's orgasms are text messages on vibrate from heaven.
223: No need to apologize for my failure. I'm actually really spectacularly bad at keeping track of this kind of things, it extends far afield of Unfogged and even the internets. For the record, I think 'Doctor Slack' is kind of awesome, but then again I had a friendly colleague who used the same moniker for a while.
229: It's okay. Neither of us know what it's about at this point, either, except that B is wrong wrong wrong.
Moon Rock, honey..
Try engaging the argument.
And BTW:
I've been a GBLT ally since high school (when it was neither safe or cool). And I'll be watching my best friend marry his husband next August...
So don't bullshit me, it ain't gonna work.
Can I seriously just say that using B as a communal punching bag is getting really fucking old? Especially since she's one of the few people who's actually willing to argue at length, in good faith, as opposed to the "waaaah, nice!!! civility!!!" brigades. Not that I'm like, chivalrously making this argument on behalf of poor cringing B, or anything. I just find it personally irritating as hell, especially coming from who it does most of the time.
234: WOW, YOU ARE SO OPEN-MINDED. SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE BLACK, TOO!
Unfogged, if you discuss all the ways sex can go wrong any more this week my dick is going to cry when I see my girlfriend this weekend. It's going to cry and then it's going to Ask the Mineshaft if that counts as an orgasm of sadness or just the bad feelings.
235: Can I seriously just say that using B as a communal punching bag is getting really fucking old? Especially since she's one of the few people who's actually willing to argue at length, in good faith, as opposed to the "waaaah, nice!!! civility!!!" brigades.
And here I thought I was going to be able to go the rest of this thread without having to tell you to fuck off.
Can I seriously just say that using B as a communal punching bag is getting really fucking old? Especially since she's one of the few people who's actually willing to argue at length, in good faith, as opposed to the "waaaah, nice!!! civility!!!" brigades.
I see it the opposite way. If you're going to go out of your way to take the position that there should be less civility, you can't be surprised to find yourself attacked more than other people.
Also, I don't know what you mean by "communal", unless you think Doctor Slack and this "Adam" troll are speaking for the oppressive majority here.
destroyer: ignore them. There are a vast number of ways sex can go so, so right. Find some.
Adam: 206/217 has pretty much nothing particularly to do with the original either. Why put your hypothetical all pissy like that?
On second though, scratch 239.last. There might be more context that I've missed, and I'm not going to dig for it.
239.first goes double though.
None of my best friends are black. And I think I just trimmed the few gay couples off of my wedding invite list, aside from my aunts, who can't come. Even my Latino and Japanese friends are all also Jewish and/or married to Jews.
I submit that this condition, and being embarrassed by it, are together puro swipple.
Destroyer, do you think your dick's crying will be more aptly characterized with reference to heaving, uncontrollable sobs, leaving one shaken and without energy, or to seemingly pusillanimous sniffles that last a surprisingly long time before coming to a head?
As the crying continues, and moisture is lost, what effects do you think the resulting inspissation will have?
Be the change you want to see in the world, destroyer.
237: If it helps, I know you were joking and wasn't really referring to you, and it was more a delayed reaction to the past couple of days worth of thread-reading and Emerson's few drive-bys upside. Although on the same note: it's still fucking tedious, and this thread for reasons entirely different than most of the whiners seem to think it sucks.
238: I'm speaking from my observations over about 4+ years of lurking/commenting on Unfogged. Which, unless you're a pseud change I missed after my last hiatus from letting this place drive me batshit insane (entirely possible), I'd think you're maybe a bit too new to be up on. But whatever.
I submit that no one wants to hear about what might or might not be puro swipple, so if you have thoughts in that vein, they might be best served on a bed of sustainably-harvested field greens, after having first been stuffed in your pie hole.
Rocky, no one's beating up on me any more. Except Slack, because he's such a bully. (Slack, stop being rude to Rocky. She hasn't been around in a while, and last time she was here, everyone *was* being mean to me. So there.)
maybe you can accept that the man enjoys "PIV" and would like it to last longer.
As I said at least as early in both 86 and 124! But go ahead and keep fighting the man-hating strawfeminists who wish to deny men sexual satisfaction because their heads are full of chauvinists.
Unfogged, if you discuss all the ways sex can go wrong any more this week my dick is going to cry
On the bright side I always feel better about being single after reading Unfogged sex threads.
238 isn't a dismissive 'but whatever', by the way, just acknowledging the possiblity that I could be 100% wrong.
244: This thread sucks for a multitude of reasons, Lunar Rockette. It contains multitudes.
I submit that no one wants to hear about what might or might not be puro swipple
No one wants to hear, but everyone wants to tell.
Soup, your obsession with blow jobs really is kind of unflattering.
246.1: Okay, okay. Fuck on, Rocky. Fuck on.
....aside from my aunts, who can't come.
That's on topic! Why not?
Nah, I know Slack is basically cool, I'm just having a delayed reaction to everyone coming in and declaring how bad and mean this thread is, in what sure looks complete bad faith. Particularly Emerson doing a drive-by, given the subject matter and his general Emersonian policies.
B, you really shouldn't recycle a joke that weak. At least, not so soon.
It's okay, Emerson just picks on me because he luuuuuves me.
249: Kind of like you mom. By which I mean your dad.
254: I'm not sure which comments you had in mind, and I'm sure you don't care, but my reasons for hating on the thread are in completely good faith, and have nothing to do with it being bad or mean.
Soup, suck my butthole. It'll be a nice change for you.
255: Hey, some of us didn't see the joke the first time around. B is performing an important public service.
257: sure, but not so much since the surgery
See? Even that meanie slack likes my jokes.
And see how nice a setup it was for 259! Now this thread is good again.
258: Let me compile a list! ... no, just, you know, the people who were commenting on the thread's suckiness, often in lame normative ways, while offering no advice, or being dismissive of other people's advice, and not even staying around to make cock-jokes? Yeah, to hell with that.
Except Adam. He can stay. I like him, he's sassy!
259 assumes facts not in evidence.
Is this swipple or anti-swipple? Dinner tonight is a frozen lasagna from Target.
Soup biscuit
If 206 was off topic then how did it evoke 210?
As for 234 - it just kinda pissed me off that I was being dismissed as "normative straight"? Moon Rock presumes to know me, but won't engage my argument and just makes ad homenim attacks. What am I supposed to say?
My argument is very simple: if she get off (maybe before, maybe after) - then what is wrong with him wanting to have vaginal intercourse with her for as long as he can?
The response evoked by that very simple argument: see 210, for example, tells me that something more is going on here. Normative straight? Non-consensual intercourse?
Where is this coming from?
265: Is that the problem with this thread? No one is suggesting analingus? Feel free to chime in, naysayer.
More threads like this please. not the sex, but the flame wars and hurt feelings and defendin' the vylnerable. This was fun.
I miss Tia.
Where are *you* coming from Adam?
And more importantly, what did you bring for dessert, hmm? I expect you to make up for the fact that my entree is frozen Target lasagne with something truly divine.
Wow, I read up to 110 or so when I was going to come down here and comment about how fucking annoying it is that B is playing the Oracle Of All Womankind, and here's 235 telling me that we're not allowed to complain when B is being really fucking annoying and condescending. Glad I saw that first.
Not all women have the same feelings and libido as B. Not all women have the same feelings and libido as LR. Some of us even know such women. Being told that the women we know are either lying or somehow wrong in their feelings and libido is really, really fucking annoying.
Christ.
264: bullshit. What about the general pissyness and jumping on various hobbyhorses without any attempt at a charitable reading of the OP? Or of each other?
And no, your going off into the weeds wasn't the reason the thread is a mess, but it didn't help. But that's just one of many sources, and I'm not targeting you at all. The whole thing reads more like a series of petty spats that any attempt at conversation about it. And sure, fine, that's the way it goes sometimes but that sucks for the OP who posed the whole thing on the assumption that the commenters were going to come up with something a little more than that. Got what they payed for I guess. It's an unfogged thread, it's going to wander off but there's no reason to not give it a chance, is there?
B's getting pissy at me for pointing out that this things a mess? Yeah, that's really on target too.
At the point I came in, I guess I'm assuming that `lurker' gave up on anything useful coming out of it. A shame if they didn't find the few useful comments sprinkled here and there. Maybe I'm wrong and should have offered something meant to be constructive but it felt like a waste of time.
266: Swipple with an admixture of swittle, perhaps?
Wow. I obviously cherish having an anti-civility reputation more than I cherish actual anti-civility -- hence why 237 touched such a nerve -- but something about 269 seems truly out of line. So nicely done, Bob, or something, I guess.
271: Aw, JRoth, I thought you were over hating on me. We can rumble, though, if you like.
272: My guess is that Soup's the lurker with the question. (I'm being joke-pissy at you, dummy.)
Fuck. That was way to earnest. Time to ban myself.
268: many threads would benefit from a bit of analingus B, but I'm not sure this is top of the list.
Dinner tonight is a frozen lasagna from Target.
It's deeply swipple. Especially the questioning of it.
And sure, fine, that's the way it goes sometimes but that sucks for the OP who posed the whole thing on the assumption that the commenters were going to come up with something a little more than that. Got what they payed for I guess. It's an unfogged thread, it's going to wander off but there's no reason to not give it a chance, is there?
I think usually the OP posts in the thread a few times, to sort of respond to what has been said, and clarify what he is looking for, and ask for more specificity. Without him doing that, it's hard for such a thread to become more than a series of one-shot suggestions.
As far as I know B and I are friends, but we annoy the hell out of one another from time to time. It's true that I sometimes deliberately annoy her, whereas she just annoys me without even trying. We do have frequent favorable interactions too, though.
BitchPhd
re:As I said at least as early in both 86 and 124!
I missed those and I apologize for the Joe Klein remark...
*self-flagellation*
But 210 was not exactly fair either.
And I still don't like Moon Rock. I didn't get slammed into lockers to be called normative straight. That genuinely pissed me off.
Especially the questioning of it.
That's what I figured.
Clearly what the questioner this thread needs is a good hate-fuck all round. That and some delicious pastry.
Oh fuck you JRoth, I spend like half my goddamn time in this thread pointing out repeatedly disclaiming shit up and down and pointing out the endless variation and making a point of acknowledging possibilities and never fucking assuming everything and generally trying to make my language as inclusive as possible, so go light yourself on fucking fire, there is apparently no satisfying you goddamn oversensitive assholes. Please, "being told that the women we know are either lying or somehow wrong"? Up your ass with a rusty apple corer, you disengenous whiny-ass piece of shit.
269: Happy now?
(I'm being joke-pissy at you, dummy.)
Yeah. Long, crazy day.
274.b isn't possible, fwiw
277: Luuuuuv.
I didn't get slammed into lockers to be called normative straight.
So manly of you. You can make up for it by demonstrating talent as a pastry chef.
I think this thread managed to get some decent advice in amid the ourourborean entertainments. Thread, I defend thee!
Are anyone's feelings really hurt? I can't tell.
274.b isn't possible, fwiw
How do we know? You're probably some old married guy on the internets. Like that hetero-normative "Adam" person.
283: fwiw i came in way to late and way too tired/becks style. should have just left it. i can't tell either.
and didn't i ban myself? i did. i should go.
283: I'm genuinely pissed at JRoth, because accusing me of telling him that "the women we know are either lying or somehow wrong in their feelings and libido" when I basically spent the entire thread doing exact opposite is fucking infuriating. I know he just had a baby, but I don't care, that's straight up "LEARN TO FUCKING READ" territory.
Are anyone's feelings really hurt?
If they are, that person is a total pussy. In a completely non-sexist homo-friendly way, of course.
, I spend like half my goddamn time in this thread pointing out repeatedly disclaiming shit up and down and pointing out the endless variation and making a point of acknowledging possibilities and never fucking assuming everything and generally trying to make my language as inclusive as possible
Yeah, yeah, yeah. But as soon as you see the word "simultaneous" you assume that the person who wrote it is talking about simultaneous orgasms, and then you assume that if someone is talking about simultaneous orgasms he must be saying that only the orgasms brought about by the mighty schlong are worthy of mention. AND you jump to all these conclusions in the most condescending tone possible, and at the end of the comment you throw in the fact that by talking about simultaneous orgasms someone is also being hurtful and misogynistic.
And you do all this on the 5th comment of the thread.
Use a condom, or two condoms if you have to at first
278.6: I'm told that normative straights often use violent imagery as touchstones for formative memories. Can you confirm or deny?
Up your ass with a rusty apple corer
A lurker: not advice! Not advice!
you know what would really improve this thread? A blow-by-blow re/deconstruction of who said what on the first 100 comments or so.
not advice! Not advice!
Although... it's just crazy enough to work...
@Bitchphd
Phhhhb...
I actually make a very nice empanada.
Toots.
289: I'm sorry, but what's the first association that comes up in your mind when someone brings up the word "simultaneous" in a thread about orgasms, heterosexual intersource, and what basically amounts to male performancy anxiety and performance issues? No one uses the word 'simultaneous' to talk about sex in other way than before the word 'orgasm'. Context matters and reality exists.
293: I just tried it, and it works in preview, but somehow the copy-paste recap seemed a bridge too far, anti-social-wise.
didn't i ban myself? i did. i should go.
Typical man. "Oh, I'm drunk, and this isn't fun for me, so I'm leaving."
297: But in this case the even more specific context was that I posted #3 for the sole purpose of indicating that the concept I was thinking of fell somewhere between "mutual" and "simultaneous".
When two people are doing something at once, they're doing it simultaneously. No other word pops into my head that fits. I rejected "mutual" because it doesn't imply that both people are being pleased at the same time.
299: not at all, if it's fun for anyone, i'll stay.
but you have to admit it was pretty disgustingly earnest. shameful, really.
293: I agree. That is to say, the thread can't get any worse, so we might as well try anything.
Now as for the phrase "perfectly uninhibited" in 112, I have some misgivings. And we never sorted out whether "orgasm" means the muscular contractions, the ejaculation itself, the good feeling, or what combination of the three.
intersource
Hey, what's that? Sounds fun.
More seriously: Is there a word for the kind of person who uses uninvited diminutives of other people's names? I was thinking about it this morning and it feels as if there should be. The particular example I was thinking of was a former colleague, but the example right here in this thread reminded me.
Okay, Fatman continues to be a big fat poopypants. Everything's back to normal, except for this Adam person who better make with the goddamn clafoutis, immediately.
Alright, and now I'm caught up and see there was lots of levity between 110 and 235, and so 271 was overly pissy. So, sorry for that.
But I still think B was being ridiculously imperious upthread.
Oh, and Lunar, CN in 238 is the initials of a longtime commenter who, for awhile at least, was one of the top ten (by quantity) commenters; So that's your whatever.
Ah, and on preview: Lunar Rockette, my primary objection was very explicitly to B, which, I think, is in "LEARN TO FUCKING READ" territory. Look at 271 again.
What's on your mind, wittle Wittsipants?
301: Sucked back in! With the big scary vagina dentata!
Aw, JRoth, I thought you were over hating on me
When did I ever?
Honestly, I'm sure we've argued, but I don't think of myself as someone who tends to disagree with you, much less hate on you.
I know you're being coy (or some other, more suitable, word), but just to be clear.
I core my apples with this round thing with six blades and an inner sharp cylinder...it is pretty hard to describe. I am certain it wouldn't fit, even sideways.
Happy now? Pleasured, but not satiated. A little more please.
300: Both the "simultaneous" and "mutual" uses were judgemental and obnoxious (even if you didn't intend them to be so), and you didn't start clarifying until 6, which quite obviously was posted after 5.
"Some people are interested in mutual sexual experiences" is a completely bullshit, passive-aggressive, condescending response that relies on a lot of normative crap to do it's work. That you later corrected yourself by using "simultaneous" in a confusing and non-standard way, (which, btw, I addressed, and why the fuck do we need to rehash this in such detail), does not change this, and does not in fact change my opinion of how crap 2 was. It also doesn't change the fact that I still think "who cares/why is this an issue?", and all the feminist theory stuff, is actually kind of relevant to lurker's question, unlike the parade of assholes who like to pretend that every single goddamn time B or Bitch or AWB or anyone else brings up some point that's somehow related to feminist theory, it's because of a grudge and us "destroying" the thread.
Also, 6 and 15 were complete shit, and you are an asshole and a troll, who can still go get fucked.
More seriously: Is there a word for the kind of person who uses uninvited diminutives of other people's names? I was thinking about it this morning and it feels as if there should be.
"Dubya"
"Glad-hander"
Well, geez. Who would have predicted that yet another unfogged sex thread would turn into yet another firestorm of controversy, an open minefield, more or less, of endless, if insufficiently articulated, resentments and recriminations, fraught with untold perils and pitfalls?
I propose a collective vow of celibacy, at least until the morning.
I still think B was being ridiculously imperious upthread.
Grovel when you say that.
302: Well, yes.
306: Fuck you, if you call me out by name, you call me out by fucking name. So now, I'd advise you to both LEARN TO READ and OWN YOUR SHIT.
"Not all women have the same feelings and libido as LR. Some of us even know such women. Being told that the women we know are either lying or somehow wrong in their feelings and libido is really, really fucking annoying."
303: And we never sorted out whether "orgasm" means the muscular contractions, the ejaculation itself, the good feeling, or what combination of the three.
Actually I've reflected on this, and decided that orgasm is in truth an ineffable spiritual state whose details can only be revealed to a chosen few. Namely me. So it turns out to mean Whatever I Say It Means.
Trust me, this discovery is as unexpected for me as I'm sure it is for all of you, and frankly I'm not sure it's a burden I want to bear. But the revelations are unambiguous and cannot be denied.
if you call me out by name, you call me out by fucking name
Rocky's gone Voldemort!
a confusing and non-standard way
I don't want to get mowed down in the crossfire here, but I didn't find it confusing.
314: Sorry, but plenty of the objections on my side at least have been quite lengthily 'articulated', so forgive me if I take your tut-tutting with a healthy dose of skepticism and a general 'fuck off'.
319: Well, fair enough. But I think it's at least worth pointing out that, you know, it is pretty non-standard, given the subject matter at hand and the OP and all.
Or Beetlejuice.
316: What JRoth was saying is that he was accusing B of representing her and your libidos as the norm, not that he was accusing you of having made that representation. Which, I'm not going to read back to see if that's supportable, but you may want to save the throwdown and the showdown for another day.
hell, women too can have orgasms that are merely functional, small blips on the dial, not unlike blowing your nose or something
God, those are annoying. It's like half a sneeze.
Also, simultaneous orgasm isn't that uncommon. I had one with all of Southern California just before noon today.
It's late or I'm easy or both, but 323 *and* 324 made me smile.
Oh, for sure -- when sex is the topic, and "simultaneous" gets uttered, one's mind assuredly does naturally tend to complete the cloze test with "orgasm."
And 320: I don't understand why you're getting so defensive on behalf of the thread. It's not like the whole thread is your posts.
322: What JRoth was saying is that he was accusing B of representing her and your libidos as the norm
Honestly, if that's the case, that's even more braindead, because - have I said this enough yet - we haven't, and in plenty of comments we've specifically made a point of phrasing our language such to do no such thing. Even B's "most women probably like cunnilingus best!" argument, which was as close to a blanket generalization as she's come, was hedged with some pretty careful explanations of why she thought that might be (women in general being more shy about owning up to liking cunnilingus than liking penetration for cultural reasons, etc) .
The "being told that the women I've been with are lying" part of JRoth's little tirade was also very direct, though, and it explicitly named both of us.
The OP has given up on us and has taken his question to Obsidian Wings, where they are berating the poor man for trying to prolong an adventure which should never have been undertaken in the first place, even if recent results have been promising.
Yeah, half-sneezes suck. Real sneezes are more awesome than a non-event orgasm. Shot of oxygen to the brain!
For real, DS, you really need to stop reading Cosmopolitan. Helen Gurley Brown is not your friend, and no intimate friend of my own, either. May I suggest Chatelaine (Choisissez votre langue, the magazine comes in both official languages) as an admittedly less sensationalistic substitute?
I hate 330 for not actually being true. Damn you, Wrongshore, I opened up a whole new ab and everything.
Was it just us, or did everyone else freshman year wonder what it would be like to be the most awesome dude in the world, except that when you ejaculated, you also shat, sneezed, and threw up at the same time?
The sneezegasms are particularly annoying for me, at least, because they have to lead to a bout of "oh god must pee" feeling without actually having to pee. Which is not the worst sensation ever, but I'd bet if it could be reliably induced they'd use it at Guantanmo.
313 beat me to it.
And 292 was fucking hilarious.
And, on a more serious note, LR, reread your fucking 107 before you get all high and goddamn mighty. Your 107 is imperious and presumptuous and you should fuck off with your OWN YOUR SHIT nonsense.
It's fun to say that someone else's statements and POV are "crap," and it's not unusual around here. But sometimes people will, in fact, call you on it, and pretending that you never said it doesn't do you any good.
So yeah, my 271 was mostly to B, as any plain-English reading of it will show, but it included you because you indulged in the some of the same smug behavior. Deal with it.
When I first read it, I thought that 5 was a leap (simultaneous sexual pleasure need not be simultaneous orgasm--so I guess I disagree with 297). HOWEVER, on reflection, it was obvious from the post that lurker and his spouse are having mutual, simultaneous non-orgasmic sexual experiences. For lurker, going down on his spouse is deeply exciting, and one assumes that it is for her too. So, I think Lunar Rockette was perfectly warranted in thinking that Fatman had in mind simultaneous orgasm.
329: The "being told that the women I've been with are lying" part of JRoth's little tirade was also very direct, though, and it explicitly named both of us.
It did not explicitly accuse both of you of doing the "telling," however. On the larger point, JRoth has already apologized for being "overly pissy," so maybe it's something you can let go. Up to you.
332: Weirdly enough, I remember which thread this is referring back to, but what brought it to mind for you at this particular juncture? (I know Chatelaine, as it happens. But I don't read Cosmo because I think it's good or salutary.)
337: But I didn't mean that, and your first response was to assume I didn't mean that, before you went back and figured out how I could have. And even so, Lunar Rockette didn't have to escalate the hostility a thousandfold in comment #5.
Another vote for my side!
But seriously, folks. There are a lot of ways, on the internet, that we can try to respond objectively to somebody whose words we don't entirely respect,
and screw up completely by using telltale markers of condescension. Lunar Rockette did it with the "uh", and the "Who cares?" in #1. I did it with the use of "some people" and the passive-aggressive quoting of her own word ("insensitive") in #2. And that ruined the thread. Simple as that.
Well, and there's 336. So much for letting it go.
Hey, know what's really good? The mixes on the mixtape thread. I'm listening to Sifu's right now. Highly recommended.
325 may be the most wrong thing ever said on unfogged.
which does not imply the converse is true.
336: Nope, the first part of 107 is crap. I'm sorry you're all defensive about it, but if you can't understand that even though there are some women for whom this is the case, that does not invalidate the fact that it's a widely-held belief about women's sexuality in general, which any reading of like the last thirty years of "How to have an orgasm as a woman" books would show, that it being the default assumption has hurt a lot of men and women, that because it's the default assumption it's ridiculously hard to determine whether any given woman who's claiming it applies to her is being honest, and that just because you or your girlfriends happen to line up easily within the presumed "norm", doesn't mean the norm isn't wrong for a lot of people, is crap, and should stop being promulgated as a norm.
In conclusion, shut the actual fuck up.
Hey, know what's really good?
Sneezing. Sneezing is great.
Okay, 334 is excellent funny hilarious. So much so that I can't decide. Thank you, Wrongshore.
because they have to lead to a bout of "oh god must pee" feeling without actually having to pee.
Huh. Me too.
Normativity is goddamn wonderful.
339, that may have ruined the thread, but what ruined the post-mortem on the thread?
Thanks, parsimon, Witt, JRoth, DS. It's nice to be appreciated amid the shouty.
Oh, wait, I know who CN is! Huh.
348: Hey, I may hate you for 330, but I hate based on a deep appreciation.
And, just to pick at the fight more, 329 is bullshit. LR's 107 and B's 86, 91, and 106 are all, to varying degrees, imperious. Sure, some of them include caveats, but saying "I could be wrong, but you're an asshole" doesn't qualify as a measured or qualified statement except in BS CYA terms.
And holy fucking shit, is 342 annoying.
Let's just lay this out: Freud and a bunch of assholes told the world that only vaginal orgasms count. Fucked-uppedness ensued. Some people got enlightened and clued in, and spread the word that vaginal orgasms, as such, don't exist, and many women don't orgasm at all during P/V intercourse.
Now explain to me the jump where it's now OK to say "no women prefer P/V to oral," but it's assholish to say, "Actually, some women do prefer P/V to oral."
I understand that normative statements are problematic. But when someone like CN tells us his own personal experience with his own personal fiance, and B decides to tell him that his experience is wrong, because - for socialization reasons - the non-normative story of sex must always everywhere be true, you've gotten away from politically valid and useful statements and gotten into fucking with peoples' heads.
339: I can also see how ignoring the mutuality of cunnilingus in 2 and 3 would provoke LR to think you were assuming the primacy of PIV sex.
But if a lady is *reassuring* a guy that she doesn't care about orgasms, well, it obviously *is* an issue, or the conversation wouldn't come up.
Having been in this situation, it's often an issue because he notices and is worried. And often, quite honestly, I'm fine with it. Orgasms are great, but sex without them is pretty great, too, and the last thing I would have needed for the guy to get the idea that I'm really lying to spare his feelings, because that would have lead to less sex.
Oh yeah! I like that I fooled you. I'm gonna pat myself on the back once more and go grocery shopping, then get to work. Awkward transition to freelancing. This has been very enjoyable.
OT:
But the fear of doing something, saying something that might agitate someone--the New Yorker cover [of Barack Obama] is a perfect example of my mother's sensibility. The people who go around explaining why the New Yorker cover is a bad idea and the harm it can do, you could quote my mother on it. It goes on all day, all across the board.
Shorter 350:
just because you or your girlfriends happen to line up easily within the presumed "norm", doesn't mean the norm isn't wrong for a lot of people, is crap, and should stop being promulgated as a norm.
The only norming in the part of the thread I've participated in has come from B and - to a lesser extent - LR. All norming about sex is crap, not just the bad old patriarchal norm.
Unfogged: find out what it's like to have a flamewar based on deep compatibility.
352: Cala, stop enforcing the norm. You're a bad, bad human being.
But when someone like CN tells us his own personal experience with his own personal fiance
Hey, I don't think I did that in this thread.
I did think it was amusing that when B states her (probably accurate) generalization about women in 106, the generalization she quotes starts as follows: "Lots of variation to be assumed, of course. I'd hazard to say it's at least reasonably common for straight couples." Which is qualified in four different ways and isn't a generalization at all because it only says something is "common for straight couples", not representative of most straight couples.
Jesus fucking christ. Lurker asks for help with something he wants to change. He admits he's 'horribly embarrassed/ashamed and frightened about this.' And this thread is what he gets? Maybe it could just start fresh.
I'd hazard to say that for most straight *women*, cunnilingus is actually the most "intense" physical and emotional sensation. Which is why so many of us lie about shit like "oh, that's okay, I don't care if I come"
.... sometimes it's not due to inhibitions, but overstimulation in oral can be quite painful (because it is so intense.) Nothing to do with feeling icky or smelling. Might be worth keeping in mind.
350: You utter fucking retard, did you miss the parts of this very thread where I actually copped to the fact that I, myself, me, Lunar Rockette, Starla G.D.M.F. [Last Name], actually prefer vaginal orgasms to "clitoral" ones? The several references I make to my experiences of being penetrated?
Now explain to me the jump where it's now OK to say "no women prefer P/V to oral," but it's assholish to say, "Actually, some women do prefer P/V to oral."
LEARN TO FUCKING READ, MORON:
14: if the lady in question is pro-bonefest, all to the good"
25, in response to 21: "Many women genuinely are, yes." (ie, fond of/preferential towards PIV)
With my 360 I did not mean to imply that there wasn't any good advice in the thread; that's not the case.
360: Well, there were three or four useful posts for his purposes. Which, let's be honest, is a pretty good total for an Unfogged sex thread.
I don't think of myself as someone who tends to disagree with you, much less hate on you.
Me either, but every once in a while you forget your place.
Anyway, I'm off for a while. L-Rock, when I come back I fully expect you to have challenged JRoth to a duel. Don't disappoint me.
361: but overstimulation in oral can be quite painful (because it is so intense.)
Yeah, that's actually what's behind about 80% of my dispreference for it. I'm not saying B's statement about oral was perfect or even defending it, just saying she was mostly good about doing her inclusiveness due-diligence in this thread. A lot better than most of the people arguing against her/me or that we were being 'dismissive', anyway.
360: That was my reaction earlier, but it didn't help much. Then again, I didn't try a restart.
364: I'm pretty sure this one is below average for that. But even if the raw numbers hold up, the distribution matters.
367: I'm just imagining a certain someone reading this and thinking with growing horror, 'she's really repressed and hates her body! and she hated PIV sex all that time and never told me just to spare my feelings? where is my sackcloth?'
351: I can also see how ignoring the mutuality of cunnilingus in 2 and 3 would provoke LR to think you were assuming the primacy of PIV sex.
Yeah, funny how much of the casual homophobia and dismissiveness towards the "polymorphously perverse" has gone uncommented on this thread, and yet we're all here arguing over what amounts to, basically, "DEAR GOD, WHAT ABOUT THE STRAIGHT PEOPLE?"
So my internet crapped out between 315 and finally posting 365! What'd I miss?
"DEAR GOD, WHAT ABOUT THE STRAIGHT PEOPLE?"
As long as they don't do it in the street and scare the horses.
I have to clarify something. I really *did* mean that JRoth's own particular sex partner, personally, has been lying to him. She was afraid to tell him herself, because she didn't want him to yell at her, so she asked me to do it.
Yeah, funny how much of the casual homophobia and dismissiveness towards the "polymorphously perverse" has gone uncommented on this thread, and yet we're all here arguing over what amounts to, basically, "DEAR GOD, WHAT ABOUT THE STRAIGHT PEOPLE?"
Luckily, there's one topic that'll unite both sides: furries.
374: How did people manage before the internet?
Oh, wait, I know who CN is! Huh.
I haven't figured it out, but am too embarrassed to say so. Most days, I think I am too dumb for this blog.
377: Well, to be fair, he's pretty cryptic.
Re. cunnilingus and overstimulation: you're not doing it right.
And yes, I mean you. Personally.
Okay, really leaving.
But before I go, 371: See, you go off like an H-bomb at people for not noticing how qualified and precise and wonderfully generous your arguments are, and then you pull stuff like this, which basically sort of backhandedly accuses everyone else on the thread of endorsing "casual homophobia." And the "dear God what about the straight people" taunt is misplaced, to put it politely, given that the nominal topic of the thread is a relationship between straight people. You don't help yourself with stuff like this.
Now I'm out.
polymorphously perverse
Mostly because I have no idea what the hell this means. A manifold of shapes, perverse? A sort of greenish blob? Did I wander into a Lovecraft novel and now Nyarlahotep is going to carry me off to the polymorphously perverse pyramid, where I will probably fall senseless?
368: Okay, I'll give it a shot. Obvs, some of this will be repeating what has been said earlier, but I'm not going to read through it all for editing sake.
Disclaimers: I don't have any experience with or knowledge of the physical aspect of Lurker's question, so I won't address that. Also, I am not asserting that these suggestions will help anyone and everyone.
1) Continue talking with your wife about it. No matter what ends up helping you, the increased amount of and comfort with talking about your sex life may be a general good.
2) Try not to be embarrassed/ashamed and frightened, although that probably sounds like it's easy for someone else to say. You're just getting back to being sexually active after a number of years. It might take a while to figure things out.
3) I wonder if you might be physically different now than when you were more sexually active? I ask this bc my husband and I came off a dry spell and he experienced the opposite problem. And we both thought he was kinda young for that, and who knows, maybe statistically he was on the young side. But the important thing was what he was experiencing, not the statistics. Shorter #3: See a medical doctor.
4) Try the sex therapist. And let us know how it goes (if you dare dealing w/the mineshaft again).
382: No, I go off at people like an H-bomb for repeatedly reading a huge amount of crap into my arguments into a thread where I spent a huge amount of time qualifying things, for what are pretty transparently reasons of personal defensiveness. And I'm not backhandedly accusing anyone of endorsing the "casual homophobia", but you know, I think the "polymorphously perverse" crack was completely obnoxious, and really really obviously in the category of troll/ad hominem.
Okay, how about, "dear god, what about the ridiculously oversensitive people who seem to act like no amount of qualification is enough to protect them from the horrible, horrible suggestion that everyone's sexuality is not necessarily like they assume it to be"?
But yeah, I'm done.
I should be out too, dammit.
I've had a scarily productive few weeks. Every once in a while I have to do that, just to remind myself it's possible.
It never lasts though, and usually depresses me.
Oh hey, I got a job today. And then I got offered another one which would conflict with the first one, so now I have to try to see if I can negotiate the first one so I can take 'em both.
the "polymorphously perverse" crack was completely obnoxious, and really really obviously in the category of troll/ad hominem
I believe this is why it went uncommented, to return to your original complaint in 372.2.
(I hereby take no sides in the overall argument.)
Thanks, soup! Of course, much like your bout with productivity, I'll end up bitching about work by September. Just watch.
383: It's a term that a lot of queer-but-not-otherwise-fitting-into-a-neat-label people use. Or, well, a lot of same who are also politicized about their queerness. Also a lot of flakey bisexuals* use it, as do poly/kinky people - where the perverse comes in. Personally, I think it's silly and kind of "more sexually enlightened than thou", but then, if I was in charge of the sexuality-related-epitheters committee, I would be known as a 'ladyfucker' and 'gentlewoman of leisure'.
*caveat: by certain standards, I'm a flakey bisexual; I think the stereotype and the more-queer-than-thou games suck, are misogynist/homophobic, and help no one, but they exist and I'm just trying to aknowledge that.
390: I was looking for a job, and I found a job. And heaven knows I'm miserable now.
I don't think this thread can really achieve closure until I weigh in on the whole LR versus Fatman question. The coin is in the air, so while I wait for it to come down, I have to ask? Is the purpose of this thread to destroy sex forever? The purpose of the shaggy thread was clearly to destroy humor forever. Is the hope that once we no longer have humor or sex that we'll have more time to knock on doors for Obama?
You have to take my side, Walt. Rocky wins.
The purpose of the shaggy thread was clearly to destroy humor forever.
This one came close.
"Polymorphously perverse" is Freud's term for the undirected sexuality of children. It has been adopted by the sybarites of the Bay Area as part of their larger program to eliminate righteousness from the world.
You know what I want to see? A fight between LR and Stras. I imagine by the end it would just be the word "FUCK" in 72-point type.
I've heard actual gays/bi/queer people use the phrase "polymorphously perverse". It was a freudian term, maybe the most judgmental of all Freud's terms, and it's been sort of reclaimed ironically.
In that part of the thread I was sort of trying to be playful and say "These are straight people, they don't need their minds opened now, they have one specific problem." This of course relies on my presumption that 'most everyone at Unfogged is very liberal about sexuality and likely to think most people with sexual problems need to open their minds/lose some inhibitions.
But that conflicted with Lunar Rockette's presumption that the Unfoggetariat possesses the exact opposite characteristics, and then, well, the condescension issue, of which I confess myself guilty.
393, 395: Heebie's "Pinocchio and the Googly Eyes" made me laugh. Or throw up, which is kind of the same thing.
Hey, I was pwned by both Someguy and Rockette herself on the meaning of "poly...perverse", and she completely agrees with me on at least this issue.
COMITY
I used to be liberal about sexuality, until I found out all the freaky shit conservatives got up to.
Ha! Everyone wants a piece of the Bitch, and who can blame them? I'd bid, but I'm poor. There are mornings where I just drink coffee and shower: how much fuller would my life be if I had a woman to explicate exactly how the above reinforces the patriarchy? A lot. This may be a great day in the history of [Institution Hiring B], but it is a dark one for the rest of us.
397: I actually really, really like Stras. I just find his conceptions of other humans very baffling. But I think it would be a good world if more people were like Stras, and from what I've seen of his overall reasoning for making the arguments he makes, I'd find it really hard to pick a fight with him. It'd mostly just be me going, "no, no, you're completely right, just... people aren't like that! And it sucks. Fucking people."
404: I used to know a guy who never talked and often wore a shirt that simply said, "people suck". Some days you just wanted to join him.
And it sucks. Fucking people.
Doesn't have to! Sometimes it's pretty pleasant.
'course later I wondered if he meant it more literally, but whatever.
I imagine by the end it would just be the word "FUCK" in 72-point type.
But who would type in the "YOU" and the "CLOWN"?
403: Thank you!
Coffee exploits the gente, and your shower is contributing to the depletion of the world's fresh water resources. Have a nice day.
396 and 397 made me laugh out loud.
If I do some work now I can have something other than cottage cheese for dinner. Incentive!
Congrats on the job, B. Go easy, step lightly, stay free.
406, 408: Really. Try something new. You'll thank me.
Oh hey, I got a job today.
Which porn site are you gonna be blogging for now?
412: Merci.
414: They're putting me in front of a classroom again, if you can believe it. And some actual real feminist political site wants me to liveblog the RNC, but that'll mean missing *two* weeks of classes, and I don't know if the college will *really* let me do that right out of the box. I'm going to butter them up with some sweet talk about "public intellectuals" and "good publicity for the school" and see if it'll fly.
413 again with the assumptions, B!
"Site" s/b "organization," actually.
416: Hey, I'm just saying, that word has come up a *lot* from you today. It's . . . concerning. If you've got other things going on, I'm happy for you.
415 : t-t or otherwise? On the latter, good luck buttering them up (I mean that honestly, but from what I've seen, which may not apply well to your position, doubt the practicality)
401 reminds me that there is still one pleasure left in the world that Unfogged has failed to destroy: the pleasure of pwnership. Yes, we still have pwnership. It's a simpler, more savage existence, but a more honest one.
So B, if you let me pwn you on something, then I'll take your side and agree that Rocky wins. But not just anything. It has to be something that proves that I'm a better feminist than you. Which really, I am.
I doubt it too. But they *were* impressed by my saying I was doing the DNC, so maybe.
And god no, not t-t. P/t, local c.c. I'm quite happy about it. And they loved me in the interview, which was for one class, but by the end they offered me two and told me they'll be posting f/t positions soon. And they were "really impressed." I'm so fucking awesome it's scary.
nobody can really let you pwn them, Walt. You have to come by it honestly.
You're an exemplar to the fair sex, B, and a true credit to your gender. Congrats on the job offers!
I'm totally fine with staging it. I didn't really mean it about the "more honest existence" part.
421: Hey, go for it. You'll have plenty of time, since I have to go take a shower and tuck my spoiled child into bed. Somehow I have managed to raise a little boy for whom I have to apologize to all the other adults that come into contact with him. So unfeminist.
422: yeah, from what you've discussed here, t-t would have surprised me. I guess I've just seen too many departments treat their p/t & teaching people inflexibly, if not actively like shit. But it's mostly a certain type of dept. etc. etc. so i don't want to generalize without care.
424: Thanks!
Email me your pwnage ideas, Walt, if you can't come up with something on your own while I'm away. I'm feeling in a generous mood.
427: I really like the student population at ccs. And the dean and department chair seem *awesome*. When I told them I was going to be gone for the DNC, they figured out which of them will cover my class on which days. So.
If the aforementioned Stras v/ lunar rockette bout occurs, I'm giving 15-1 that they kiss. Which of them pisses on the flag is a separate bet.( my money's on stras)
To maybe link this thread up with the earlier naming practices thread that verged on a discussion of genealogy...
Well, I dunno, but I have a number of examples in my own family tree where the man is on the other side of 35, if not over 40, when he finally marries, and he then goes on to father a good 10 or 12 children or so, even well into his sixties, and without benefit of Viagra, and it's not as though he was reading sex manuals or watching porn videos or anything.
I can't help wondering if sex was easier when it was just a matter of something that people did once the lights went out (once they were duly and lawfully married, of course), rather than an expression of personal identity and a putatively emancipatory source of deeply-felt personal meaning.
Call me crazy. No, really: go ahead!
430: To stage the pwn. Jeez. I'm gone for what, half an hour? And you haven't pwned me yet?
432: Maybe (although obviously you could just be descended from a line of fairly healthy types, plus blah blah chemicals and plastics in our food, etc.). But I'd still rather live in an age where I get to do what I like and actually enjoy it.
"I must say, the quality of discourse in this country has taken a sharp plunge of late, not only among the ruffians and ne'er-do-wells from whom one expects coarse speech, but among gentlemen of letters and esteem. I have, with my own ears, several times in the past week, heard the elder sons of prominent families introduce into mixed company subjects formerly reserved for private discussion among gentlemen. It pains me even to raise this point, but following a string of recent events, there is no question that the adage bears repeating: A gentleman ought never to disclose who sucked him off."
I had no idea W-lfs-n was writing for the Onion these days.
Apparently you people are unaware: Sifu is married in the other thread. Start your wooo!ing now, lest you be late.
Doesn't that mean I'm already too late to woo Sifu?
432: Between the ages of 40 and 60, a man has intercourse enough times to father a dozen children. This is evidence of what?
439: I think that was intended for the impotence thread, not the premature ejaculation thread.
tomorrow we are scheduled for a thread about the effect of masturbation on libido. After that we address the aesthetic appeal of circumcision.
They're putting me in front of a classroom again, if you can believe it. And some actual real feminist political site wants me to liveblog the RNC, but that'll mean missing *two* weeks of classes, and I don't know if the college will *really* let me do that right out of the box.
Class field trip to the RNC. Duh, B.
392 is one of my favorite song lyrics.
441: Dude, state budget? They don't even have the money to hire substitutes, let alone ship a whole class to Minneapolis.
Plus, supervising them would get in the way of sneaking off to snog my boyfriend.
Sounds like another field trip.
Okay, this is a total drive-by before actual sleepytimes, but I'm Asking The Mineshaft anyway: was Smokey the Bear precipitated by real incidents/epidemics of forest fires caused by neglience and people not putting out campfires properly/not extinguishing their cigarettes correctly? Or was it actually some really ingenius scheme by someone or other connected to the PSA industry to get some pork?
I was way too young at the time to be conscious of whether there was something the Smokey campaign started in response to.
(On getting off my lazy ass and Wikipedia'ing: wow, I had no idea the Smokey thing was that old. What the hell.)
I think usually the OP posts in the thread a few times
Sorry about not doing that -- I got sort of put off by the invective early on, then figured I would check back in the morning and see if anything useful was here. And hey! There are several useful suggestions. Thanks, posters of useful suggestions. And thanks especially to LR for her suggestion (amongst all the posts that I am not finding useful -- how the hell is "Who cares?" not dismissive? It't the very definition of dismissive!) about Mrs. Lurker getting on top -- we haven't done that since before the hiatus but I remember it was difficult for me to come in that position.
As far as why I am asking for help and speculations about who is getting what -- we are both currently very happy about getting back together in bed. I feel like I am getting how to do cunnilingus in a way I never did before -- like I am putting my whole self into it rather than just my tongue. She is getting some of the best orgasms she has had in our years together, so it seems to me and she confirms, which it's hugely gratifying to be in the presence of. My orgasms, well they're ok but they would feel a lot better if I had a chance to build up to them more. So I am experiencing the sex more as a journey than a destination, which is a big change for me. My hope is that I can get both the journey and the arrival.
Those of you who wrote to praise me and my wife for what we're doing, thanks -- I also asked this question in part as a way of seeking validation and I appreciate it.
To attempt to offer some advice to the OP:
Wait it out. It seems unlikely to me that you have developed a serious premature ejaculation problem in the time you weren't having sex. Many here have mentioned the slowing effect of SSRIs, and indeed, when my boyfriend was on them for about a year, he couldn't come from intercourse at all. So we would do that for however long we wanted, and then do something else. When he decided to go off them, he was having your probl, I think--so relieved to be able to have easy orgasms again that they were happening *right away*. That tapered off after the first month or two, though, and it went back to the way it was before. And for the record, I didn't mind one goddamn bit about how quick it was, because I was excited for the return of the intercourse-orgasm too.
The other advice, which I'm surprised hasn't been offered here, is to jerk off. Like, a couple hours before you think you might have sex or earlier in the day? Jerking off is fun, plus it will have the added benefit of making it harder for you to come when you have sex a few hours later. Refractory period 'n all that.
I'm surprised hasn't been offered here
Mrs. Roosevelt hasn't read the thread very carefully.
448: Smokey was a real bear cub who was found up a tree after a fire, crying. I think he was rescued and raised in captivity. The actual cause of said fire, I don't know.
That actual cause of said fire was an attention-starved pyro bear cub.
The actual cause of said fire was an attention-starved pyro bear cub.
The actual cause of said fire was an attention-starved pyro bear cub.
tomorrow we are scheduled for a thread about the effect of masturbation on libido. After that we address the aesthetic appeal of circumcision.
But today, today we have the naming of parts.
No, I go off at people like an H-bomb for repeatedly reading a huge amount of crap into my arguments...for what are pretty transparently reasons of personal defensiveness.
maybe you should just reconsider the whole H-bomb thing. Which can itself be driven by personal defensiveness.
Ooh, a Lurker, I thought of something else: get thyself some lube. If it's been years for both of you, a little extra friction/tightness during initial penetration might be overstimulating.
457: Please let's not reopen this. I don't want to get into this argument, and I'm having a hard time holding myself back.
449: amongst all the posts that I am not finding useful -- how the hell is "Who cares?" not dismissive? It't the very definition of dismissive!
My apologies, then.
457: Maybe you should just reconsider whether you're being a tedious, petty, ex-post-facto blowhard, and should fuck off.
I have to say, all these people who seem to be suggesting SRRIs and Paxil and such to be making me worry. If lurker's going to go the route of abusing perscription drugs in order to have sex longer, I'd think Viagra would be a much better choice than stuff that's definitionally psychoactive, and (if I'm remembering right about Paxil) can create chemical dependencies and has some really, really nasty side-effects.
Don't sweat it, LR. Did you get my email?
Noooo. Well, not yet, I don't think I've checked my Unfogged-Commenting-Account in months, actually. I'll go look, then.
Seriously, LR, stop it already.
Seriously, Apo, what's up with telling someone not to respond to being criticized? 457's harmless, but a response to it is out of bounds? Jeez.
Somebody has to stop, LB, and it's easier to get one person to stop than multiples. This thread long ago passed its quota of people telling each other to fuck off.
I never liked the heckler's veto.
LB, what email did you send it to? I actually forgot which one I used for commenting here.
I haven't read this thread but someone up there said that cunnilingus was common and I don't think it is; I seem to recall that even the Duchess of Devonshire was a fan.
Oh, right! Just a sec, then.
449
"... My orgasms, well they're ok but they would feel a lot better if I had a chance to build up to them more. ..."
This could be an effect of aging. Less intense orgasms occurring at a lower peak.
I'm waiting, Lunar Rockette. It's been 20 minutes.
I saw Smokey in 1965. No idea how his sex life was going.
Good luck to the Lurkers.
I seem to recall that even the Duchess of Devonshire was a fan.
But was she getting it from the Duke? More likely from the stablehand or a scullery maid, I should think.
No idea how his sex life was going.
A self-identified "bear" who wore uniform trousers, a wide-brimmed hat, and no shirt across his hairy back? One sought out contact with elementary school children and urged them to be his "friend"?
I think we can all draw our own conclusions.
457's harmless, but a response to it is out of bounds? Jeez
IMHO, LR has been antagonistic from #1. Others soon followed. Others have apologized. LR gets around to apologizing in #460 only when Mr. Lurker registers unappreciation of numerous LR comments.
maybe you should just reconsider the whole H-bomb thing. Which can itself be driven by personal defensiveness.
Not that LR gives a shit, but a robust readiness to be antagonistic, dismissive, drop H bombs, etc. comes across as defensive.
All y'all knock it the fuck off. Jesus Christ on a frakking cracker. People overreacted in fine Unfogged tradition by violently misreading each other in the first ten comments and have been acting like it's a reason to go on for 500 comments about who's better than whom, better at sex, and in the cool kids' club. Fuuuuuuck.
Come on, all together now. Fuuuuuuuuck.
Cala, I understand where you're coming from. I don't understand why unbridled and unapologetic (bc people do/say things, realize it was antagonistic and apologize, so onward then) antagonism gets a pass. It's not just this thread. It's unpleasant and I don't appreciate being unable to say so.
478: That's mighty white of you.
479: to go on for 500 comments about who's better than whom, better at sex, and in the cool kids' club
Okay, I'm trying not to get into this again, but come on, don't you think that part specifically is a little unfair? I'll cop to being an asshole, and maybe even dismissive, but not to playing those kind of games.
acting like it's a reason to go on for 500 comments about who's better than whom, better at sex, and in the cool kids' club.
If it helps, I will say that I am about exactly as good as everyone else here, probably worse at sex than most, and so not in the cool kids' club.
And I'm okay with that.
Also, it's probably too late in a really contentious thread to say it, and it's hardly useful advice or anything, but to lurker and wife, good for you guys! Hopefully you picked up some "riding tips" from the thread, but the most important thing is that y'all are back in the saddle in the first place. Yay you!
480: Except you have said so, at length, in this thread, only belatedly realizing to pretend to try and give advice as a means of covering your ass about 370 comments in. Also, do you really think coming in and making a completely pointless dig at me after Apo has said to knock at off isn't unbridled, unapologetic antagonism? You are not the one who has any legitimate reason to think that she's "unable to say anything" in this thread, at this point in time.
And the reason my apology came in at some 400 comments down the thread was because that was the first time Lurker weighed in, and he is the only person I think is owed an apology. If he'd made the same post at 1, I'd have apologized in 2.
Grr.
478: That's mighty white of you.
Like I said, I'm sure you don't give a shit and I certainly don't expect you to.
I do agree that I didn't see the things Cala saw in the thread (games, better than stuff, etc.). I think the problems had to do more with the violent misreading part.
I know some people think civility is a bunch of crap. But where did incivility get us? Why is there such a readiness (again, not just this thread, not even just this blog) to assume an uncharitable interpretation and then go all verbally apeshit on someone? Why do we so readily say, 'Well, if you believe X, you're a fucking [fill in the blank with your favorite invective]', instead of 'Did you really mean to say X?'
But where did incivility get us?
A situation where it's apparently okay to be incivil to people, in a particularly fatuous and disengenuous way, to someone because she committed the high crime of being 'incivil'. Hell, combined with 464 and 484, this is basically rapidly devolving into a game of "I'm not touching you! I'm not toooo~uching you!". Where has incivility gotten us indeed.
486: "To summarize the summary of the summary: People are a problem."
fatuous and disengenuous
But not innocuous.
Ugh. And I'm mangling my sentences, so now I'm off for real. Feel free to not-touch and tut-tut at will.
Wrt 483: I'm sorry if you think my comment is pointless and unbridled. I've been thinking about this thread and other nasty ones since last night and finally found a way, imperfect for sure), to say what I'm thinking. In my mind, I had an opinion I wanted to express. Perhaps you disagree. Again, I apologize if you consider it unbridled antagonism.
pretend to try and give advice as a means of covering your ass about 370 comments in.
I realized that I had commented on the near uselessness of the thread so far, but hadn't made any positive contribution myself, so maybe I should try and do so instead of just griping about it. If that's considered 'covering my ass', I'm fine with that. But perhaps that's not what you were referring to.
You are not the one who has any legitimate reason to think that she's "unable to say anything" in this thread, at this point in time.
I honestly don't see why this is the case.
So what does everyone think about football? Does it suck or do you rather like it?
Jesus Christ on a frakking cracker
That's in a frakking cracker, heathen.
As far as civility goes, what does not kill a blog makes it boring. Jack Nitzsche said that.
Dear FSM, can't you people get anything right??? It's "frackin' cracker. Frackin'.
492: At least you didn't link to the mutant piglet. Cutist that I am, I have to say that was one plug-ugly piggy.
Was it just us, or did everyone else freshman year wonder what it would be like to be the most awesome dude in the world, except that when you ejaculated, you also shat, sneezed, and threw up at the same time?
Poor Owen Wilson.
Speaking of crackers, who are the greater dicks, those who engaged in the PZ argument for days on end or those who engage in this pissing match for day(s?) on end?
Answer: The magnitude of dickness of all people involved in both episodes is infinite, but it remains to be seen who belongs in aleph null and who in aleph-1.
People, people: all of this can be explained by simply remembering that is house style at Unfogged never to admit that you're wrong.
Great, now Unfogged is trying to ruin pwnership. And cardinal arithmetic.
I was wrong, and I apologize. That's right, motherfuckers. I now have the moral high ground! You can only ever be, at best, the second person on Unfogged to admit that you were wrong!
drugs are the answer, as always. either take an ssri, which will make you last like a boring lecture, or take 10mg selegiline a day which will make you ready to go in another 5 mintues. the pre-sex bj is great.
yoyo -- do you take 10 mg selegiline regularly? It's supposed to be one of those miracle drugs. Do you buy that? That's a high dosage -- any side effects (ummm, negative ones).
Apparently this thread has degenerated into flamefest, but I'm still a bit surprised at those who seem to be saying that PIV isn't important to most het women. As someone with depression and SSRI induced issues with ED, that's not really my experience. Some find PIV orgasms the only form of truly satisfying sex, others can't get them and need oral or manual stimulation, but even they enjoy PIV physically and emotionally. Other than that, people generally find their partner's sexual satisfaction pretty important to their own, so if Mr. Lurker is finding this frustrating, then it presumably is also a problem for Ms. Lurker regardless of her own physical preferences.
I'm still a bit surprised at those who seem to be saying that PIV isn't important to most het women.
Huh. Reading the thread, I see Rocky saying that IF the sex is otherwise mutually satisfying (which the questioner seems to say it is, see "It's marvelous, blissful! feels kind of like the first time!") that there's no necessary reason to worry about the duration of the PIV session. Which seems both self-evidently true, and for a problem likely to be caused at least in part by tension and worry, a helpful sort of thing to think, in that if taken to heart, it would tend to take the pressure off the questioner.
I'm not clear which specific comments you're finding surprising; I don't really see anyone in the thread saying what you're reacting to.
I agree with 511, but would like to compliment Mr. Pilsudski on his pseudonym.
"I went to see a fistfight and a comment thread broke out."
Ffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccccccckkkkkk.
Which is another way of saying I think Cala was right twice, (and heebie basically headed in the right direction to start with) but I addressed nothing to the topic because it sounded like it was exhausted with the Eleanors comment.
So: "I'm horribly embarrased/ashamed and frightened about this." plus "My wife and I have been going through a rather long dry spell (years) in our physical intimacy." rather strongly suggests to me a sense of not so much confidence to start with, and then that confidence was broken by the dry spell, and thus the teenagerish feeling. Teenagerish in the sense of overly anxious, lacking in confidence and awkward, which makes an immediate contribution to the mechanical issue.
A dry spell plus the description of the relationship suggests [dry spell < - > communications issues] which in turn suggests an intimacy issue. (And my leading question would be: 'When you weren't having sex were you fighting about money a lot?') So I would suggest the shortest route to a permanant solution is actually the long way around the barn: I think you should visit a regular therapist and take to them about your insecurities and the intimacy issue underlying them. (And after each session you should go home and talk to your wife about the session!) Hopefully in short order (10-12 weeks) much of this would clear up and then the mechanical issues would then automagically sort themselves out as well. I would certainly prefer to see the above in preference to you experimenting with psychotropic medications, as that is actually risky.
Or you could just use two condoms.
max
['And because I don't want to risk offense by neglecting the primitive yet charmingly quaint customs of the original inhabitants: I HATE YOU ALL!']
511 Ok this is a pretty dead thread, but just to respond, Mr. Lurker himself is saying this is a problem. If that's the way it feels, then it is one. It doesn't mean he isn't happier than he was before - who wouldn't be after a long dry spell in what sounds like a troubled relationship, turning into tons of good physical affection and renewed intimacy. But it could be better. And there's nothing wrong with wanting better sex. We don't know what Ms. Lurker is feeling, but presumably the same factors listed above plus good orgasms make her a lot happier than before. But it doesn't mean it couldn't be better. For one thing she'd probably like Mr. Lurker to be fully satisfied. And assuming we're talking about half a minute rather than the inability to last half an hour, the odds are she'd like longer lasting PIV as well.
512 I think that's the first time you've said anything nice about me, Panie Romanie. I guess the afterlife has changed you...
