How to get off
The problem of orgasm
I loved reading your WYW: Misunderstanding column, because it showed me I'm not alone in having this particular problem. I have felt guilty about it for many years, ever since I started having sex at 18. I can't give my partner the pleasure of bringing me to orgasm. I know how nice it is to do that to a woman, so it makes me sad I can't offer my partner that experience.
It can also be difficult to engage in particular sexual acts. Oral sex feels nice, but my partner could do it for three hours and I wouldn't come, so it sometimes feels pointless.
Your mention of feeling 'watched' and being distracted by guilt about how long it takes was spot on. I need 'really major and continuous clitoral stimulation' to reach orgasm. I sometimes worry if I have an actual physical problem to do with this, but I get over it after a little while.
Pretty much no-one else can do it for me, because it needs to be in exactly the right place at the right time. I can give my partner an 'assistant' role with a vibrator or something, but it's not exactly romantic, more mechanical. 'Stick it in now! More gently! Yes!... No, harder! Point it upwards!' There aren't really sexy or non-commanding ways to give those sorts of instructions, sadly.
I know I don't have to orgasm to a pre-determined schedule, or in three seconds flat like a Pornobabe, but it would be nice, just sometimes, to be able to really share my orgasm with my partner. We have enjoyable, adventurous sex quite a lot, but, well, I guess I *have* given up on the whole issue, because I just can't make anyone spend an hour in cramped, damp conditions which are immensely unlikely to do any good anyway. So I let my partners off the hook, and let them know they don't have to give me orgasms, it's really too difficult. Then, of course, sometimes I get pissed off when they don't try, or don't keep making an effort to work something out, because they think it doesn't bother me or matter any more. And since that's pretty much what I've told them, well, I only have myself to blame.
I have a few ideas to try, but they're all a bit plodding, definitely not spontaneous. Things like getting him to read me an erotic story we both enjoy, or resigning ourselves to a fairly non-erotic 'hands-on-learning' session where I don't just show him where to touch me, but allow myself to keep on correcting him over and over and over (obviously making sure in advance he is okay with that - I don't usually do it because I don't want to make him feel he's doing it wrong all the time. He's not really, but...)
It's my feeling that if more women could more easily achieve orgasm, there would be little need for this blog. But it's a fact of physiological life that for many women, it really does take extraordinary stimulation, and sometimes it simply seems to be not worth the effort.
August 13, 2003
Just to get things underway, let me suggest a methodology that I enjoy. Standard disclaimers probably apply here more than ever, since this is just a statement of personal preferences and an outline of the things that turn ME on. They not only might not apply to your wife, they might be active turn-offs for all I know. But it can't hurt for you to at least consider trying this line of approach.
Personally I've found that penetration immediately AFTER an orgasm, however that O is derived, is among the more sublime of sexual experiences. Standard pre-orgasmic intercourse is pleasant enough, of course, but it's finer by far after I've come, and my vaginal mini-orgasms during intercourse only happen after a regular, empty vagina clitoral orgasm. So what we like to do is a little foreplay (massages, breast play, experimentations, finger fun, etc., of which more later), a few minutes of full-on missionary intercourse to get us both really warmed to the task, then we pursue my orgasms (always multiple these days) and end with more (usually very enthusiastic) intercourse in a variety of positions until he lets himself go.
I consider myself lucky in that I've always had very sensitive nipples, and we've found that the most effective route to my orgasm is to stimulate my nipple(s) and clitoris at the same time. This sets up a kind of feedback loop between breasts and groin that reinforces the buildup of pleasure. However, there are many women who derive relatively little sexual excitement from their breasts or nipples, and for them attempts at stimulation can sometimes be actively off-putting. Others only like it at particular points in the process, or only appreciate particular kinds of stimulation.
For most of us who do like breast stimulation, sustained traction (sucking the nipple all the way up into your mouth and holding it there in a motionless vacuum force-field) is not particularly entrancing. Unvarying, repetitive action (rubbing the nipple monotonously back and forth in the same direction and with the same pressure, over and over, for example) is also problematic.
Nerve endings become accustomed to any repeated stimulus and essentially stop firing. So periodically sliding a moving tongue over the very tip of a nipple can bring forth shivers of delight, but doggedly "nursing" away like a starved suckling pig is not only unlikely to get her very excited but could even get annoying. Vary the rhythm, the force, the location, the movement. Rough or gentle, hard or soft, the idea is to avoid getting in even a temporary rut, so you keep the synapses humming.
August 14
Technique, Catbird Style
Reader "Catbird" responds to yesterday's post:
Yes, yes, yes to penetration after a clit orgasm. That was how I first learned what a vaginal orgasm was: that sublime throb of pleasure when he slipped in to the hilt after getting me off orally.Speaking of penetration, don't underestimate the hands as givers of sexual pleasure. Many guys confine themselves to a little diddle-diddle on the clit, followed by finger-fucking (but only one or two fingers, and not for very long) before moving on to the main event: Penis In Vagina. Or if they want to focus on her pleasure, they go down on her.
Guys, if you really want to make your woman scream with pleasure, take a tip from the dykes, and learn to fuck with your hands.
Before you go anywhere near her clit or vaginal opening, massage her mons, labia, and perineum until she is relaxed, moaning, and juicy. Use your thumbs to open her up and give her long firm slippery strokes on her inner and outer lips. Try squeezing her lips together, and jerking off her clit through her inner labia. (Did you know that the clit has a shaft like a cock?) Press her perineum with your knuckles. Knead the hollows on either side of her sex with your thumbs. Massage her lower belly and inner thighs. Cradle her pelvis in your two hands. Stroke and blow cool air down the slopes of her asscrack.
Think of her sex as a part of her body that needs loving touch, just like her shoulders and her hands. Don't focus on "making her come"; focus on making her pussy feel happy and beloved.
Let her tell you when she wants to be penetrated, and how much. Maybe one finger, maybe three. Once you're in, use the hand's unparalleled sensitivity and flexibility to explore every inch of her. Massage her inside just as patiently and attentively as you did her outside. Explore all the secret places, the little nooks and crevices. Tell her with your fingers how amazing she feels inside. Encourage her to breathe and make noise, and to use her vibrator, if she likes that.
And if she wants it, fuck her good! Unlike the penis, the fingers can change shape and size, can flex and bend, can seek out the places that love extra pressure and avoid the ones that don't. If she likes g-spot stimulation, curl your fingers on each outstroke in a little come-hither movement. Give her lots of lube and as many fingers as she wants. Don't be too shocked if your whole hand slips in there!
And *don't worry about orgasm!* Even if she doesn't have the sensations that she has previously labeled an orgasm, believe me, Good Things will happen.
Oh, and did I mention lube? For maximal pleasure, the above activities must be accompanied by copious dollops of sexual lubricant (a water- or silicone-based product designed specifically to make sex more slippery -- avoid glycerine, avoid nonoxynol-9, avoid grease or oils).
Despite what many people think, many (most?) women do not produce enough natural lubrication to make sex entirely easy and enjoyable -- no matter how aroused they are.
So take another tip from the queers, and remember, lube is your friend.
Personally I've never been a huge fan of intensive finger work. It's nice for foreplay, but in my own case a little goes a long way. Too many men seem to think women should automatically get off on a lot of interior tickling because it thrills THEM. Catbird's enthusiasm for it is a perfect illustration of how we women differ in our responses to sexual stimuli. Not only from woman to woman, but from time to time in our own lives.
For many women the G-spot does not actually become "activated" until they are really aroused (or, ideally, have actually had an orgasm), and even then for most of us it's not the magic "come switch" it's purported to be. It's more of a general area of Really, Really Good Feelings inside. So it does exist, but if you've been looking for some kind of instaneous Bingo Button without success, you might want to rethink what it is you're actually seeking.
COMMENTS ON THIS POST:
Me, I'm wary of thrill-seeking for its own sake. I've got this whacky idea that the ancients figured out, for instance, that the lower GI and mucous membranes can dance together fatally, so better keep them apart. Within this general context, I've recently had to come to, uhh, grips with a request for "fisting."
We weren't talking about anything violent or power-related -- which is good, because I'm sure as hell not interested in that. The request was for a well-lubricated whole hand. I resisted, but relented. It did nothing for me. It was much appreciated.
Confusing the issue were pleas that "It'll make me feel closer to you, like you're really inside me." Honey, you're scaring me. Turned out that I was okay with it, but I'm haunted by the possibility of what's next. "Your friends X and Y seem nice. I think it would make us even closer if you were in A while they were in B and C."
Call me a prude (I'm not, really), but in this society there's a substantial component that's seriously interested in what can only be called More. More tricks, more taboo-breaking for its own sake, more outrageousness, more holes.
"Why your wife won't have sex with you" is a great and nuanced subject, but I reserve the right to change my mind if the answer is "Because it's just not fun if there's no feces smeared around the bedclothes" or "A real man would understand that I need the Elks Club to pull a train on me or I can't truly get off."
Sorry if this is crude Julia, honestly I am. The intimacy of sex springs, I think, from its being a shared secret, a private (and, yes, experimental) voyage of paired peers. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I detect lately here an ever so faint verging into voyeurism, into fake intimacy. "Why your wife won't have sex with you," after all, only obliquely contains online mutual masturbation -- however (marginally) well-written the accounts may be. "Sex" is in there, "wife" (or husband) mostly is not, "won't" and "why" don't even figure. Indeed, the whole matter of who's "you" is up in the air.
Ah well, other people's websites and all that. Nevertheless I have learned first hand (heh) that "catbird" knew something I didn't and that it's not so weird as far as it goes. Still, "Why you should learn and encourage your wife's kinks" can lead people to places they don't want to go, can break the reliances that even sound relationships are built on in the name of unchecked openness. Most website visitors are lurkers. Care should be taken, I think, to couch these reports in language that dis-validates creeps and takers. They are reading this.
There are things [we two] haven't tried but could. Learning about them would expand our intimacy, and that's good. But some of these same things could be expressed or thought about such that they lead away from [the] intimacy [of we two]. "Anything goes" is easy. The advice given here, I think, would do well to take up the more difficult matter of shared boundaries.
Lou Quillio • 8/14/03; 10:01:42 PM |
So what are you saying, Lou?
That this blog should be honest about sex, but only to a point?
That I shouldn't publish anything that might thrill a lurking creep?
I'm a little confused. There was good stuff in that comment, but it also felt like I was being scolded. What's the story?
Julia Grey • 8/15/03; 10:18:31 AM |
Wow, Lou's comment is a splash of cold water. However, I'm afraid the whole alphabet thing left me a little lost. I'd like to think that this is not really a "lurker" site, as much as it is a forum for those who are really interested in improving their love lives (NOT necessarily their sex lives). While fisting is way far off from what I'm interested in, I've got a question that will probably reveal me as being somewhat more than clueless (like a guy), as to technique. What do I feel myself bumping into when the Xing is great and she's happy and I'm happy? Curious,
seminerd • 8/15/03; 12:22:32 PM |
So what are you saying, Lou? That this blog should be honest about sex, but only to a point? That I shouldn't publish anything that might thrill a lurking creep? I'm a little confused. There was good stuff in that comment, but it also felt like I was being scolded. What's the story?
Sorry about the tone. Guess there were two unrelated topics in there.
No, not self-censor, not at all. I only mean that 99% of one's audience is never heard from (via email or comments) and it's pretty diverse. There's a tendency to think that the audience is not only drawn to the content by interests it shares with the author, but that there are attitudes in common as well. In my experience, that's more mistaken than we suspect.
Btw, "lurker" doesn't necessarily mean anything creepy, though a provocative sitename does skew the typical metrics.
Anyhow, folks take-away from the content what they will. My thought was that "anything goes" demands a consistent proviso, to discourage true creeps from reading-in their creepy little biases. "Why your wife ..." implies intimacy between committed couples. Stray from the idea of couples and it's time for a sitename change. Detach the mechanics of sex acts from the intimate, non-sexual trust they can occur within and you're just talking about rubbing. Many awakening men and women tend in this direction, focusing on the acts at partial expense to the relationship. Learning about and more greatly appreciating sex doesn't automagically bring couples together. It can set their eyes roving. "I love our new sex life, honey. Have you ever thought about swinging?" There can be pressure to go along with all proposed innovations in the name of open experimentation.
I specifically see a shockingly large number of couples my age (42) move into organized swinging, and in a good percentage of cases it's an accommodation of only one partner's desires. Openness can become a lever, a trap, a source of resentment.
By way of example, I guess that's what I was driving at.
Lou Quillio • 8/15/03; 1:54:47 PM |
First, a big "ditto" to Catbird, with the caveat, from the male side, that once your partner is comfortable, I find it is not always unwelcome to show some initiative rather than waiting for permission all the time. I've found that as long as you are gentle and patient in your general approach, you can innovate with the details of the technique and often get a good response to the occasional "suprise" move.
As to the explicit details - hey, keep it real, babe. Maybe lurking creeps will learn something too.
Rob Salkowitz • 8/15/03; 2:00:48 PM |
What do I feel myself bumping into when the Xing is great and she's happy and I'm happy?
Hm. Her cervix? I don't know. Need more data.
Thanks for the clarification, Lou. I think I understand. I agree that it is VERY easy to inadvertently exert too much pressure on a spouse to experiment. In that case, the intimacy would indeed be ruined by a particular kind of "secret" one spouse holds away from the other, namely, how much they dislike or worry about the new sexual reality in the marriage.
I've been on the internet long enough to have stopped worrying about the opinions of lurkers, creepy or otherwise, long, long ago. The audience here is MUCH larger than the "participation" might indicate.
Julia Grey • 8/15/03; 4:32:46 PM
|
I've been on the internet long enough to have stopped worrying about the opinions of lurkers, creepy or otherwise, long, long ago. The audience here is MUCH larger than the "participation" might indicate.
Yes, everyone's is, and no, lurking is nothing to much worry about. We are all lurkers; the Web is a lurker's medium.
On this lurking score, I only mean that literati-types like ourselves tend to assume that we're being read "on message." We've internalized the themes of our websites and see each content addition as an extension of the known and understood theme. Unlike books and magazines, this medium attracts casual and uninvested readers who are clicking and multi-tasking all over the place. This creates the burden (I think, for myself only) for each piece of content to be as self-contained as practicable, to contain its own context lest it be misunderstood.
A practical metaphor is RSS syndication. I could build a site in ten minutes that does nothing more than present your (Julia's) recent posts, maybe those of a few other sites, and frame them in a wrapper of my choosing. Really. Fully automated. Now you're being read in my context.
So I wouldn't assume that everyone reading the quite valuable and interesting material here knows it's all presented under a stipulation of equality, fairness and respect. Considering the voyeur value of some of the subject matter, I would editorially embed the context in the content. If I were handed a print-out of the lengthy chatroom sex entries, I would not infer that it was intended as a exploration of sexual memes, it would just seem cheesy, cheap and indulgent. And if "Julia Deckham Grey" were printed at the top (and it might be) ... well, I don't need to finish.
Anyhow, I wouldn't mention any of this if I didn't care (sighing, lashes batting). "Let 'em draw their own conclusions" is liberating but not without risk of being misunderstood. The stuff I write is not as vulnerable, but if my name's on the masthead you can bet that I wrote it, or at least framed outside material in my clear editorial wrapper.
The Web can make us network-drunk on the power of quasi-anonymity -- but human affairs are still ruled by reputation. And we each have only one. If you, Julia, mean for everything to be prefaced by "Don't try this ay home unless your spouse agrees," it might be wiser to say so explicitly and consistently.
And I still say that shared boundaries are an overlooked and essential theme. But this is not my site, so never mind.
Lou Quillio • 8/15/03; 6:07:54 PM |
It's been interesting to read the responses to my words. What I was describing was a nice pussy massage, not a spelunking expedition in search of edgy thrills! Apparently the passing reference to fisting was what triggered all the concern about spousal boundaries and creepy lurkers. Sorry it freaked you out; I guess I just don't see a hand in the bush as all that extreme and scary. Did you actually notice the rest of what I wrote, which was (I hope) clearly situated in a context of mutual affection and enthusiastic consent on both sides?
Catbird • 8/15/03; 7:07:57 PM |
Sorry it freaked you out ...
Umm, you talkin' to me, Catbird? My stated conclusion was that a kind of fisting's not weird when requested and done in the spirit you describe, and that I'd independently learned that -- first-hand, so to speak. We're in agreement.
But I was troubled by the original request. Overcoming my objections and learning something was gratifying but didn't close a larger issue for me, which I then oddly extrapolated into remarks on a trend I'd detected at this site. From there flowed some unsolicited editorial advice to our fine hostess, centering on nuances of the Web medium.
Apparently the passing reference to fisting was what triggered all the concern about spousal boundaries and creepy lurkers.
So no, this conclusion is not apparent, almost not germane. But it bears an oblique parallel to another remark higher on this page.
We do not know who Catbird is, who Fiona is, who seminerd is. We generally do know who Julia Deckham Grey is, who Rob Salkowitz is, who Lou Quillio is. The Visible can make use of the Anonymous, anecdotally and to help scratch our journalistic itches. Nevertheless we occupy opposite Web realms: the gallery and the builders. The former may indulge fantasies of influence and whatnot, the self-identified latter have hung out a shingle.
In the end there's only modest value in showcasing anonymous commentary, and that was my advice to Julia. The Web is young; many have come to it from instant messaging and chat, even assume that's mostly what it's about. It's not, or at least eventually won't be once ordinary human attribution norms kick-in.
Or perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps big tracts of the Web will be given over to tabloid-style ruminations, enabled by the anonymity they overvalue in the first place. Wan't sure Julia realized she was headed there, hence my warning. There is an audience for it, but serious analysts use unattributed sources only sparingly and with much disclaiming, because an informed readership knows they can be faked.
In any event, anonymous trails can't be followed. The decision to attract a readership unbothered by that should be made with eyes wide open.
Lou Quillio • 8/15/03; 8:37:28 PM |
I loved the description of the pussy massage. My advice is experiment, experiment, experiment. Learn to know and love your lover's body. Find the places and touches that make her gasp in pleasure.
And Lou, don't be so worried about people swinging, or whatever they want to do. I agree that it absolutely must be mutually agreeable, but as long as that's the case, don't get hung up on it.
Gentle Maitresse • 8/21/03; 12:23:52 PM |
August 18
I've never been crazy about the idea of sex toys. To me the idea of using mechanical aids was ugly and distasteful. I was sure that the minute a man wasn't using his actual flesh to interact with mine, sex would cease to be intimate communication and turn into some kind of machine-mediated circus act with me as the star "performer."
Men's fascination with the very IDEA of vibrators felt creepy to me. "Hey, look!" I thought I could hear them thinking, "Here's a machine I can use to make a woman come in thirty seconds flat! No more muss! No more fuss! I won't have to do anything but buzz her up, and then I'm IN!"
And let's face it, that perception contains some truth. Modern men don't want to be selfish boors in bed. They want to provide an orgasm or two to please their partners AND themselves. But to provide one the old-fashioned way is sometimes difficult and uncertain. With the Original Orgasm Maker (by Ronco!) all difficulty and uncertainty are things of the past. This handy-dandy little device makes Os a breeze! It slices, it shreds, it chops, it... oops, wrong commercial.
Someone I quoted in email much earlier in the blog noted that using a vibrator might make some men lazy and complacent. They might be tempted to give up engaging in "ordinary" sexual interaction and immediately reach for the vibrator every time. It could reinforce some men's idea that simply achieving the "goal" of orgasm is more important than the process of getting there. After all, a man might reason, if the vibrator gives reliable pleasure and gets me to the Main Event sooner, why not use it?
I can understand this outlook and even sympathize with it. Because of the relative ease with which they achieve it, most men come to understand orgasm as THE reason for having sex. For the vast majority of them, sex without orgasm is pointless. Worse, when a man can't achieve orgasm the experience of sex is literally painful. Or disappointing, or enraging, or humiliating...you name the negative emotion or sensation, it's in there. So men sometimes find it hard to understand why women tend not to be interested, or are even hostile to the idea of getting Os in the speediest, most efficent way possible.
When considering the use of vibrator with my husband I was also disturbed by something more subtle. It's hard to describe, but it was very much a part of the entire sex toys debate inside my head, so I have to try. I felt that he wanted to use these devices ON me in a detached and voyeuristic way, to move away from me as a person and wife, and observe my responses to a machine the way he'd observe a woman in a porn magazine. Part of the thrill for him, I suspected, would be the ability to "make" my body respond in some kind of automatic fashion that I couldn't control. This was during our sexually distrustful phase, so I didn't want to be poked with a fake silicone penis if it would give him that kind of distanced, power-trippy, perverse thrill.
Later, I was willing to experiment, but to tell you the truth, I still don't care for vibrators. The pleasure they give is very nice in its way, but psychologically, down under the physical response, I still distrust them and the detached, gee-whiz charge they might give my husband. It's not that I don't want him to get a kick, but I worry about that kind of kick. Even for the sweetest, most honorable men in the world the buzz of using a machine on a woman to "make" her feel a sexual response might be just a hair over that very fine psychological line between exploitation and mutual enjoyment.
Yes, this is arguably a stupid and paranoid way of looking at the matter. So I guess you could say I, Julia Grey, fearless purveyor of sexual advice, have a Real Live Hangup. Mibad.
What I don't have a hangup about any more, though, is a little mechanical aid called a cock ring. I'll talk about them tomorrow.
COMMENTS ON THIS POST:
I don't use toys either, but for a completely different reason. If you listen to the women that do use them or have them used on them on a regular basis,( at least most of the ones that I have talked with), they tell you that they can't achieve an orgasm without them anymore. I am not talking the first time user here. I am talking women that have been using them for some time. So again, it begs to question if we can train our body to only react to certain stimuli. Oh, and men, before you ask to use one on a woman, or make a fuss because she says no, think about it a minute. Can you do 1900 rpms?
Lynn • 8/18/03; 2:20:58 PM |
On the one hand, I understand and appreciate your feelings about toys (and yours too, Lynn). You have your likes and dislikes, and there's no arguing with them. On the other hand, having experienced the "toys" issue from the other side, your husband also has my sympathies.
I was told throughout my puberty and adult life that men should do more than most men were currently doing to satisfy our partners. If one activity or position didn't work, try something else, and don't fixate on the idea that there is only one way to mutual satisfaction.
I can't pretend to be the greatest lover on Earth, but I do want to please my wife in bed, any way I can. So, when I found myself unable to please my wife the "usual" way, I sought advice and counsel, and was told pretty much the same thing: try different positions, don't let yourself get stuck in the rut of "penis=sex, sex=penis," and at least let your partner know you're willing to take extra time to please her.
Well, I tried all that, and guess what - my wife ruled out just about every effort I offered to make; she called every alternative to penis-vagina sex a "cop-out" and a "crutch;" and then she accused me of not doing enough to please her. Not even a perfunctory "Thanks for trying."
For your sake and your husband's, I sincerely hope you showed your husband a little more understanding than my wife showed me.
Dave • 8/19/03; 11:04:02 AM |
Actually Dave, I hope that it is the other way round. You see I have no husband, which is a good thing. But what I do have is a very active libido. My reality is that if what someone else is doing to me doesn't feel good, then I either show or tell them how to make it feel better. It is not difficult to get me to orgasm, and with me, there is a whole lot more to sex than just a penis.
Lynn • 8/19/03; 12:24:41 PM |
Your wife either had some activity or practice that she wanted that she could not or would not communicate to you, or she sensed (rightly or wrongly) that you were fixated on a "goal" that was more about YOUR gratification than hers.
Many women interpret novel suggestions as expressions of dissatisfaction with "normal" sex, and pressure to "get creative" or "try new things" scares the bejabbers out of them. They think, "Have I married a closet PERVERT who is going to want more and more crazy varieties of sex as time goes on?" Scared people do not react nicely or rationally.
None of these possibilities might be true in your case. But I do hear the harsh strains of Marital Power Struggle going on in the background. I suspect something else is going on that neither of you is entirely facing up to. You seem to be "working on" her to force a response, to validate you sexually, and she is resisting that. She doesn't want to give you the satisfaction of pleasing her in bed. That would put you On Top in the relationship. Your resentment of her "ingratitude" is another indication that this whole impasse is really about Power, not Love.
Julia Grey • 8/19/03; 12:49:54 PM |
Actually, I'm not really "working on" anything right now - we're pretty much drifting toward divorce, and I have no intention of changing course. It wasn't the "ingratitude" that hurt me, so much as her eagerness to blame me for whatever was wrong, while actively denying me any opportunity to make it right. In other words, I got none of the power and all the responsibility - both in and out of bed.
Yes, it's a power struggle all right.
Dave • 8/19/03; 1:33:29 PM |
I love the little vibrator my husband bought! It's a bullet, and he holds it in his hand while he caresses all parts of my vulva. He's very playful about it sometimes, and other times more serious. It's not the only thing we do, but it's a big part of our sex lives. We don't have penetrative sex more than once a week, but he plays with me sexually a lot more often than that.
Gentle Maitresse • 8/21/03; 12:33:22 PM |
August 19
In my earlier ignorance I thought cock rings were only sick bondage devices, unsavory fetish things made of metal or other hard, rigid material and designed to inflict pain in sado-masochistic sexual scenarios. The very thought made me shudder in disgust.
There are certainly those kinds of cock rings out there. Any search for images will produce a lot of grotesque contraptions, virtually guaranteed to make forty-something suburban women like myself turn pale with horror. So it's no wonder that the very idea of a cock ring has acquired ugly or snicker-worthy overtones in the popular imagination. I even hesitated to bring the subject up in this blog because of those jaw-dropping associations. But you need honesty on this subject, so I'm going to take a deep breath and tell you about a particular kind of cock ring that we found worthwhile.
What my husband found for us (I'm too hopelessly middle class and prissy to enjoy a visit to the sex shop myself) was a super soft, super stretchy silicone thing something like this:
Warning: the packaging of these things is inevitably ridiculous and embarrassing. There are usually pictures of pink Pornobabes and/or beige Pornostuds behaving in some peculiar manner or (worse) disembodied erect penii sporting the contents of the package, accompanied by insanely stupid glow-in-the-dark, disco-era lettering proclaiming things like "Hit Her Hot Spot!" "Clit Nudger!" and the like. It's not just the cheap leering of the copy I hate, it's the outdated, winky-winky smarm of the whole merchandising aesthetic. Ugh. Your wife probably won't like it either, so my advice is to extract the useful item and throw out the trashy packaging before you show it to her.
Notice that this particular kind of cock ring is very low tech. It doesn't have any vibrators, anal probes, buzzers, flashing lights, belt buckles, leather straps, bells, whistles or spinning mirror balls. Its sole reason for being is to provide soft, squidgy clitoral stimulation during intercourse, because many women's anatomy makes "hitting her hot spot" difficult. Although there are some techniques of position and thrust that can address the clitoris more directly during "missionary" sex, those positions/methods can also be uncomfortable for some women (putting too much stress on the perineum or rectum, for example) AND requiring strength and effort that some men find difficult to sustain. So it is very helpful to have a more direct kind of "clit nudger" at the base of your penis that will provide some extra stimulation in the more ordinary way of doing business. As a bonus, this stretchy type of cock ring can also be an aid to men who want to sustain a harder erection longer (you put it on after you're hard).
My first experience with the cock ring was amazing. Oooh, it felt so good, I could finally physically understand some women's great good luck in having a more conveniently located clitoris. I thought to myself that if it could be that good every time, I'd be much, much more interested in sex.
Alas, that particular night was a peak experience that couldn't be repeated in all its revelatory perfection (all the best experiences are unique, almost by definition), but using the cock ring regularly did make sex more pleasurable for me and increased my willingness, if only because I am always seeking a repetition of that ideal Moment.
COMMENTS ON THIS POST:
I'd suggest shopping through online stores, really. You get more selection, and in the better designed sites, you're not confronted with the packaging. Of course, it still shows up in the box....
We've had good look online, and bought quite a bit of stuff. Of course, we're a bit more open to toys for various reasons that probably aren't worth getting into....
I've been told that, as far as solo toys for women go, that you can't beat a Sybian. If you can get over the huge price tag and the, well, highly unusual nature of it. My wife wants one, but she's shy enough that it'd be a long time, if ever, before I'd be around when she used it.
Morat • 8/19/03; 10:47:48 AM
|
A few years ago, a friend suggested we check out Good Vibrations (http://www.goodvibes.com) - it's a great site, with very helpful people, and it's not trashy in the slightest. It's a bit on the tame side, but that might be just the thing for the shy folks. I highly recommend them.
kel • 8/19/03; 11:20:04 AM |
What's a Sybian? (I'm almost afraid to Google it. Heh.)
"A bit on the tame side" turns out to be plenty wild enough for this wide-eyed lady.
My goodness.
Or badness, as the case may be.
Signed,
Mrs. Totally Out of Touch
Julia Grey • 8/19/03; 12:00:45 PM |
A Sybian is, for lack of a better word, an industrial-strength sex toy. It looks like half a barrel (cut lengthwise) laying on it's side, with a dildo-looking thing sticking out. It's made so that it can be comfortably straddled, and the woman uses it in the normal woman-on-top position. What makes it so interesting (and hugely expensive) is that the dildo-looking thing vibrates, thrusts, rotates, and in generally is built to hit every possible spot in every possible way, in a fully adjustable fashion.
It's to vibrators what the space shuttle is to airplanes.
Morat • 8/19/03; 1:53:19 PM |
Just to add: It's really not to most people's tastes, I'd imagine. Not just the price tag (many people balk at spending a thousand bucks on a sex toy. *grin*), but the actual "sex machine" look and feel. A woman straddles it, and it's quite a bit like woman-on-top sex...Compared to most sex-machines (those godawful piston and gear driven things) it's pretty discrete. You don't see any movement, especially when the woman is on it. It just...hums (the new ones aren't nearly as loud as the old ones) and the dildo moves a bit.
My wife wants one. She's heard good things about them, is hugely open to that sort of thing, and I'm willing (when I can afford it) to oblige her. I won't ever be around to watch (she's shy about regular ole' hands-on masturbation, for one reason or another) but if it makes her happy, it makes me happy.
But I can tell you, right now, that a Sybian is undoubtable way to far out for you. :) Which isn't a bad thing, really. Having an open mind and trying new things is great, but so is knowing your limitations.
Morat • 8/19/03; 1:59:43 PM |
Hmm. Never heard of one of these Sybian gadgets either. I admit I might be a little reluctant to buy my wife "the greatest sex toy" she's ever had. (So to speak) But if, per chance the bots index comments as well as your regular blog, you just might be onto something...?
regards - rich
rich • 8/19/03; 6:10:49 PM |
One other thing BTW. If you ever play Scrabble with me prepare yourself to be "called" on "Penii". An "A" for creativity though - beats "clit nudger" everytime.
rich • 8/19/03; 6:16:06 PM |
prepare yourself to be "called" on "Penii"
It was meant to be funny! You mean it WASN'T?!?
Julia Grey • 8/20/03; 8:26:14 AM |
I think I took too much Latin in high school. "Penii" brought back bad memories, and caused me to start muttering declinitions under my breath.
Morat • 8/20/03; 11:08:34 AM |
Aren't they called "declensions"?
Heh.
Julia Grey • 8/20/03; 1:04:14 PM |
Probably. :) My spelling is pretty bad too, and Latin was a long, long time ago. I'm pretty sure that conjugations are for verbs, though...:)
Morat • 8/20/03; 1:08:15 PM |
Good on ya for the cock ring recommendation. We find the ones with the vibrators in 'em fun too! (As long as anything below is behind the scrotum, to me a vibrator in front of the scrotum feels like I'm getting kicked 60 times a second...).
Along with Good Vibrations, there are stores in other major metropolitan areas that sell sex toys without the gawdawful tacky packaging. Toys in Babeland up in Seattle is nicely understated, and I'm under the impression that there are similarly classy stores in Boston and more recently New York (everything comes late to Manhattan, but don't tell 'em I said that...).
And of course here in Northern California there are actually a bunch of other boutiques that make an effort to be less oriented around the "silicone enhanced oiled body" packaging.
I've never seen a Sybian in use, but on one of the many mailing lists I follow someone pointed out that while there are women who want that much stimulation, it seems that men who want women who want that much stimulation are the primary audience for the machine.
Hasn't stopped a couple of us, male and female, into robotics and mechanics from talking about possible enhancements and variations... I've got a couple of ideas that I need to borrow a friend's shop to cut some metal for, but that's not going to happen 'til after everyone's back from Burning Man... And I need to find a good source for food or medical grade platinum cure silicone...
Dan Lyke • 8/20/03; 3:39:54 PM |
it seems that men who want women who want that much stimulation are the primary audience for the machine
That thought crossed my mind, too. It's in that gray area in my mind. Since I write a blog like this I have a little exhibitionism in my soul, so that hint of voyeurism in the use of toys shouldn't bother me, but somehow it does.
When I thought about it, I realized that it was probably the machine part of it that bothered me, the thrill of watching a woman's interaction with "platinum cure silicone," and not just the zing of watching someone excite themselves sexually. The idea of a man watching a woman masturbating the old-fashioned way doesn't bother me at all (and can be downright oooh) but the idea of a man getting all excited while watching a woman ride a soulless bucking bronco sex machine makes me come up with goosebumps of Ugh.
I'm not sure why. Putting the machine in there just changes the whole dynamic somehow. Maybe because I think it is encouraging men to believe that female response is (or they believe it ideally should be) just a matter pushing the right buttons on the female anatomy.
I don't know. It's an interesting problem. I'll think some more on it.
Julia Grey• 8/21/03; 10:13:14 AM |
I have to admit, I worried about that myself. I'm not terribly voyueristic in any sense, but I don't want to be buying her something that, in my head, is really for me. Luckily, she's more or less rendered that a moot worry. And given her difficulties finding a job (damn No Child Left Behind Act), it's not like it's anything that's going to happen soon. :)
As for female response...I don't pretend to understand what gets my wife in the mood, or what turns her on. I do my best, but female excitement remains something of a mystery to me. On the other hand, I know what she likes and (according to her) do an absolutely superb job of it. (Yes, that's bragging. BRAG BRAG BRAG). It doesn't hurt that she's not shy about giving feedback (quick tip here: If it's not doing anything for you, don't fake it in an attempt to 'get it over with'. Us guys will believe you like it, and keep doing it every time).
Of course, she doesn't really understand what puts me in the mood, and often shakes her head at the wide variety of little things that can push me from disinterest to chasing her around the house....
Morat • 8/21/03; 10:29:18 AM |
(quick tip here: If it's not doing anything for you, don't fake it in an attempt to 'get it over with'. Us guys will believe you like it, and keep doing it every time).
Excellent point. Faking orgasm, in particular, is a totally no-win proposition.
But that said, you guys have to do your part on this, too. If she senses that you're going to get really bent out of shape if she doesn't come, that you might take it as a challenge and redouble your grim, workmanlike efforts to "make" it happen, that constitutes pressure on her to fake it. Sometimes it's hard to find just the right balance between a nice concern that she enjoys herself and an attempt to validate your manhood by producing Results from her flesh.
Julia Grey • 8/21/03; 11:02:16 AM |
True. Once more, I demonstrate my fascinating luck...I keep harassing my wife (well, not like daily...but every month or two) about her enjoyment of sex.With all that I've absorbed about women, women's sexuality (not to mention my first marriage and the issues there), I have a hard time honestly believing my wife thoroughly loves and enjoys sex. But, since I trust her and she's rarely shy about complaining, I'm forced to assume that she's just rather lucky, and orgasms rather easily. At least with me. And I've gotten to the point where, on the rare occasions she doesn't, I can relax about it and not feel guilty that she didn't and I did.
Morat • 8/21/03; 12:50:19 PM |
August 21
Random Technique Notes
Here are a couple more things on the technique front. Some of them are probably old hat to you, but there might be a guy or two out there who hasn't heard.
Let her breathe. Although some amount of asphyxia can be an enhancement to pleasure for some people, it probably isn't for your wife, especially when it is the involuntary variety. Keep most of your weight off her diaphragm by holding yourself up on your arms. This is really crucial for those of you who have a pot belly (or if she does), because pressure on the abdomen tends to press excess flesh upward toward the heart and lungs. You want her sex organs to become swollen and tight, not her bronchial tubes.
Unless you and she are both fairly skinny, just holding yourself up on your elbows is probably not going to be enough. One excellent trick to help with this potential problem is to put a firmish pillow under your wife's bottom, so that her sex is tilted upward toward you (this can make clitoral contact easier, too, for some physiologies) and there can be a bigger gap between your chest and hers when you hold yourself up on your arms. (One of my silly little thrills in sex is to run my hands along my husband's triceps -- the muscles on the back of his arms -- because they're rock hard when he's holding himself up that way. Very manly-man and sexy.)
Here's an interesting position you might want to try if your penis is long enough and your wife is not overendowed with ass. Start in reverse cowgirl (woman superior, facing away from the man) and then have her (very carefully and slowly, or you'll slip out!) lie back on your chest. You can then reach up and around her front to her breasts and her clit and bring her off while you're inside her. My husband tells me this is a great experience for him, and it was very nice for me, too.
If you get a crick in your neck during cunnilingus because you're lying flat between her thighs and your head is tipped back too far, try pulling her bottom to the edge of the bed and kneeling in front of her, so that you can address the job more directly and there isn't so much reverse flex tension on your neck (this is good advice for women doing fellatio, too.)
Doggy style might be more fun for her if you use a cock ring that can provide more stimulation to her labia and, directly or indirectly, the clitoris. Many women don't get as much physically out of doggie (although psychologically it can be very exciting) because their clitoris is so far away from the -- ahem -- seat of the action.
I forget whether I mentioned the comical, mood-killing noises of vaginal flatulence earlier, but one way to avoid it is to minimize the number of times you pull your penis all the way out of the vagina in a given encounter. Each time you pull all the way out and then plunge back in, you're pressing air into the vaginal cavity, and eventually it's going to have to come back out again.
You've probably heard a lot about how you're supposed to be all gentle and sensitive and everything, but for many women a little vehemence and "selfish" aggression are welcome at some point in the proceedings. Nobody likes to feel that their sexual responses are being observed dispassionately or that they are being stimulated in some remote, calculating fashion. Just as you would enjoy seeing your wife let herself go, most women prefer a man who isn't too controlled (or controlling) when he's having sex.
COMMENTS ON THIS POST:
Me, I believe that women were designed to be on top. In that position, a woman can be very active if she wants and can, with a little practice, rub herself against you - the pubic areas line up so the male pubic bone is pressing the right female area - and thus get herself off in more ways than one. She can also get all the way down to feel full.
From my point of view, being on top means I'm not using most of my body - my arms are holding me up. With her on top, I can use my hands, feel her body, massage her, etc. I have access to the curves of her side and back, which are hard to use well when I'm on top - and are the sexiest part of a woman. I also have access to breasts with hands and mouth - men on top always amused me because men are so attracted to breasts and then put them in position where the breasts are trapped under you. And breasts look better when they hang in the shape that attracts you rather than flattened out.
I find I can do it harder and faster from the bottom, so I can be in control when I need to be - but we can share control. That makes each time different and means we don't get bored. Being on the bottom, I can use my legs to change the angle, increase the drive, etc.
The only problems I have with reverse are it's not necessarily as intimate dealing with the back of her neck and that reaching around a woman to manipulate her is, well, a reach - unless she's very skinny or much smaller.
I find that being on top is also too tight, even using good lubricant. What that means I don't know.
I would also say that being in decent shape really helps. If a guy has a big gut, then he has to find a position that allows him enough penetration (doggie?). If a guy isn't in shape, then he might not be able to do it right from the bottom.
jonathank • 8/21/03; 10:16:10 AM
|
Advertise here
Porn Magazines
Porn Mags
Dildos
Vibrators |
