This thing about men not climaxing without PIV

[Telecaster68]

I was thinking as much about mental arousal as physical. So not just adding in another activity but varying the build up so they're not actually starting fucking until way past the point where they'd normally start so actual PIV time is reduced but he's closer to orgasm when they start. 

[anamikanon]

Yeah, these were among the suggestions I made. Sort of the opposite of the traditional golden rule of sex - get the woman off first. They probably should try get the man closer to getting off first, the woman will get there and beyond anyway. lol

[anamikanon]

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

While I would agree with this, @anamikanon said she (the friend) can't imagine offering oral or a hand job for this kind of thing (though I'd personally have a sore wrist than a sore vaj, lol).

When we chatted, she said that she was fine stimulating him before. It is toward the end that she gets exhausted. So it is one of the things they are going to try, where they basically try to get him a lot closer to orgasm before involving her "woman bits". Edit: I think her "can't imagine offering oral/handjob was more about as a complete alternative to the PIV - because he just takes too long for her to be in charge of the action and after she is tired, it becomes too much effort.

 

Wow. Talk of having the opposite end of the problem. I didn't even know it was possible for a man to go so long that a woman is even done multiple climaxing and has had enough - at least often enough for it to be a relationship problem. Though I suspect she may not have that high a libido/fitness either. She is rather out of shape and gets plain wiped out by all the exertion. The sort to start panting if she has to take the stairs. I actually also recommended getting in some aerobic endurance so she isn't exhausted that easily.

[anamikanon]

On completely stray note, the hypersexual in me thinks wistfully of such a brilliant opportunity to get regular exercise in the most fun way - wasted. lol

 

Though I doubt I'd appreciate it to be in her position.

[Telecaster68]

It occurs to me that if he's sensing she's not that into it - not because of the length of time, but in general - it could be make it harder for him to orgasm. 

[NapoliGirl]

18 hours ago, anamikanon said:

I think it is less about stigma and more about life as you know it ending. If you are comfortable in your role otherwise, it can seem like a lot to give up because there is a sexual mismatch. Particularly if you are older and not looking forward to potentially being alone in old age, etc. It can also seem pretty cruel to divorce someone over an inability. While the equivalence is not accurate, it can seem like dumping a partner on finding out they were disabled and would be inconvenient to live with. For a sexual, asexuality inherently looks like a disability on the sexual front. Because we are able and they are not. It may be normal to them, but to us, it seems like one ability is missing. So the perception of rejecting an otherwise wonderful person because of something they can't help.... is an ethical problem.

This is so right on target for me.  This is my daily, internal struggle.  Yet each day I feel as if I am deeper into this abyss.  So unhappy, torn, tired, wrestling with the ethics of it all.  

[vega57]

5 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

I was thinking as much about mental arousal as physical. So not just adding in another activity but varying the build up so they're not actually starting fucking until way past the point where they'd normally start so actual PIV time is reduced but he's closer to orgasm when they start. 

Gee...I thought sex was not ABOUT the orgasm...

[vega57]

5 hours ago, anamikanon said:

Yeah, these were among the suggestions I made. Sort of the opposite of the traditional golden rule of sex - get the woman off first. They probably should try get the man closer to getting off first, the woman will get there and beyond anyway. lol

LIke I just  mentioned to Tele, I thought sex wasn't ABOUT the orgasm...

[Telecaster68]

On 15/03/2018 at 7:41 PM, Telecaster68 said:

Well, it would be frustrating to have that build up without the release at the end, ever, but just as bad to have sex which was just the quickest route to orgasm, with no sense of shared enjoyment of the process, teasing, playfulness, passion, experimentation, urgency, etc. 

This is from further up the thread. Sex is about more than one thing.

[vega57]

Just now, Telecaster68 said:

This is from further up the thread. Sex is about more than one thing.

O.k., then why doesn't he simply pull out after a certain amount of time passes (when he's "obviously" in tune with his partner's mind drifting off into what color the ceiling should be painted...) and take care of matters himself?  

[Telecaster68]

Because it gets to a certain point where you do need the physical release. But that doesn't mean all of all sex is just about orgasm.

 

It would be like leaving a performance of Beethoven's Ninth before the end of the last movement. You need the build of tension to climax, but that doesn't mean the music was just about the final few chords.

[vega57]

10 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Because it gets to a certain point where you do need the physical release. But that doesn't mean all of all sex is just about orgasm.

But if it gets to a point where he's thrusting and thrusting and not getting anywhere, why not pull out and take care of himself...especially if he sees that his partner has lost interest.  I mean, an attentive lover would notice that...right?  

 

 

[Telecaster68]

5 minutes ago, vega57 said:

But if it gets to a point where he's thrusting and thrusting and not getting anywhere, why not pull out and take care of himself...especially if he sees that his partner has lost interest.  I mean, an attentive lover would notice that...right?  

 

 

Yep, but it would probably be a case of 'nearly there', and pulling out would be pretty much like starting over. You'd feel more like just giving up altogether. So if your partner is being encouraging (even if it's just to try and get to finish sooner) I can understand why he doesn't do that.

 

As @anamikanon mentioned when she brought it up:
 

Quote

 

she needs something where she can simply be passive once she is done without seeming to reject him, since she does want the pleasure to be mutual.

 

... so it seems they both want him to get off like that. It's just not going very well.

[vega57]

17 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Yep, but it would probably be a case of 'nearly there', and pulling out would be pretty much like starting over. You'd feel more like just giving up altogether. So if your partner is being encouraging (even if it's just to try and get to finish sooner) I can understand why he doesn't do that.

"Nearly there" is one thing.  I was with someone who claimed he was "nearly there" for another 30 minutes.  Even 5 minutes can seem like an eternity.  

 

Plus, the guy who said the was "nearly there" for 30 more minutes told me that he had to think about Pamela Anderson to 'get off'.  

 

Where the hell was the so-called "connection"?  At what point did the "connection" stop (if there ever was one in the first place) and simply "getting off" matter?  

[Telecaster68]

Just now, vega57 said:

"Nearly there" is one thing.  I was with someone who claimed he was "nearly there" for another 30 minutes.  Even 5 minutes can seem like an eternity.  

Yeah, that sounds similar to this situation, and what @anamikanon's friend was talking about.

[vega57]

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Yeah, that sounds similar to this situation, and what @anamikanon's friend was talking about.

I edited my previous post...

[Telecaster68]

6 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Plus, the guy who said the was "nearly there" for 30 more minutes told me that he had to think about Pamela Anderson to 'get off'.  

 

Where the hell was the so-called "connection"?  At what point did the "connection" stop (if there ever was one in the first place) and simply "getting off" matter?  

I agree, that's not nice. Some sexuals are selfish and insensitive like that, and some sexual experiences aren't about the connection. That doesn't mean none are about that though.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, vega57 said:

"Nearly there" is one thing.  I was with someone who claimed he was "nearly there" for another 30 minutes.  Even 5 minutes can seem like an eternity.  

 

Plus, the guy who said the was "nearly there" for 30 more minutes told me that he had to think about Pamela Anderson to 'get off'.  

 

Where the hell was the so-called "connection"?  At what point did the "connection" stop (if there ever was one in the first place) and simply "getting off" matter?  

Yeah my ex was like that (without the Pamela Andersen bit lol) but sometimes he'd had so much sex aleady that he *couldn't cum*, that wouldn't stop him though. In those situations he'd literally just go until he fell asleep,then keep going every time he woke up a bit, literally all night Y_Y Now that I think about it, it seems like he actually liked not being able to cum so he could just keep going *sigh* 

 

Lol, Pamela Andersen looks like a lump of plastic sprayed with with fake tan, I have no idea what people see in her

[uhtred]

5 hours ago, vega57 said:

But if it gets to a point where he's thrusting and thrusting and not getting anywhere, why not pull out and take care of himself...especially if he sees that his partner has lost interest.  I mean, an attentive lover would notice that...right?  

 

 

Because masturbating really isn't the same as sex. It may have the same physical result, but the emotional effect is completely different.  It makes some sense that many people are wired this way - though in particular cases I'm sure it varies from person to person.

 

I know this doesn't "make sense"  to someone who is asexual. But then much about sex doesn't makes sense.  After all, why don't people just masturbate to get off (or get a sex toy that will do the job for them if they are lazy)?   Its because it really isn't the same thing.

 

The brain is a huge part of sexual enjoyment. Imagine a blindfolded person enjoying oral sex form their partner.  Then a after they O, they discover that a different person of the gender that they are not attracted to had changed places and had been simulating them. Despite having had an O, they would probably think the entire experience was horrible. 

 

 

[vega57]

3 minutes ago, uhtred said:

Because masturbating really isn't the same as sex. It may have the same physical result, but the emotional effect is completely different. 

 

What "emotional effect" can he be getting if he sees that his partner has lost interest in the act?

[uhtred]

6 minutes ago, vega57 said:

What "emotional effect" can he be getting if he sees that his partner has lost interest in the act?

Maybe none.  Maybe he wasn't noticing - depends on whether she tries to hide her lack of interest. I really don't know.  I have no interest in sex if my partner isn't interested, so I can't comment on people who do. 

 

 

[anamikanon]

17 hours ago, vega57 said:

Plus, the guy who said the was "nearly there" for 30 more minutes told me that he had to think about Pamela Anderson to 'get off'.  

This is tricky to explain to an ace. Many people have a lot of mental fantasies that add to sexual stimulation that are quite irrelevant to the person they are with. I compare this with my ace having sex based completely on mental concepts rather than any sexual feelings about me. It doesn't mean he doesn't love me, just like him getting a hard on does not mean he is attracted to me. With my ace, the sex happening with me itself is an act of love, given that he wouldn't bother with sex otherwise.

 

Many sexual people also have mental concepts and fantasies that are linked with their sexual drive, except that they are also able to feel attraction to their partner. Having the fantasy doesn't mean there isn't a connection with the partner. In itself, it is just one of those things that happens with sex for some people. Personally, I masturbate to fantasies, but sex usually is very here and now other than occasional stray thoughts of something to try with that person, and so on. Not to say it never happens, but it is rare. My ace partner, on the other hand pretty much can't have sex without his mental scripts. At all. Sexuals who do have fantasies during sex would be something of a blend of both. The connection as well as the additional mental stimulation from the imagination.

 

That said, a person who tells their partner they couldn't get off without fantasizing about someone else is a pure jerk. It is less an acknowledgment of the fantasy and more an insulting statement of the partner not being stimulating enough for them. It is basically being cruel to someone you just had an intimate experience with, so no wonder you didn't see any connection. Doesn't sound like there was one. An appropriate reply to something like that would be "Wow. that must be amazing. Wish the two of you a happy future" and dump them.

[GLRDT]

On 3/18/2018 at 5:48 AM, anamikanon said:

Wow. Talk of having the opposite end of the problem. I didn't even know it was possible for a man to go so long that a woman is even done multiple climaxing and has had enough - at least often enough for it to be a relationship problem. 

For some reason I've been the "lucky" gray asexual woman to run into mostly only guys who are well endowed and can last forever. I know sexually they've definitely been wasted on me. I would prefer someone with a small penis who can't last very long OR no sex at all would be just fine. Ha ha.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, GLRDT said:

For some reason I've been the "lucky" gray asexual woman to run into mostly only guys who are well endowed and can last forever. I know sexually they've definitely been wasted on me. I would prefer someone with a small penis who can't last very long OR no sex at all would be just fine. Ha ha.

Yeah the smaller and faster the better!! That's how it was for me in the past anyway. 2 inches or less and over in 30 seconds would have been so ideal that I probably could have happily maintained a sexual relationship long term because the sex would have been so easy even if I wouldn't actually be getting anything fun out of it. It took me many years to work this out, but now I know I can enjoy and even actively want sexual intimacy as long as my own genitals aren't involved, so neither the size of my partner nor the amount of time he takes is an issue as long as he doesn't need to stick it in me!! (Which fortunately, he has no interest in if I don't want it)

[DJS05]

As a formerly sexually active ace, the "PIV only to climax" sounds like total bullshit, but that's just my opinion. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

On 15.03.2018 at 8:41 PM, Telecaster68 said:

@anamikanon

 

The OP in that thread says that masturbating her partner isn't enough for him, rather than he can't get off.

A little linguistic notice: there is no such thing as "masturbating someone else". Masturbation is by definition stimulating one's own sexually sensitive areas and whether it's done with a hand, showerhead, dildo or yet something else is secondary and not part of the definition. Stimulating another person's penis with a hand is called "petting", not "masturbating someone".

That said, I generally dislike this word, I strongly prefer more descriptive and less "aggressive " ones such as "self-pleasuring", the very general word "stimulate" etc.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

A little linguistic notice: there is no such thing as "masturbating someone else". Masturbation is by definition stimulating one's own sexually sensitive areas and whether it's done with a hand, showerhead, dildo or yet something else is secondary and not part of the definition. Stimulating another person's penis with a hand is called "petting", not "masturbating someone".

That said, I generally dislike this word, I strongly prefer more descriptive and less "aggressive " ones such as "self-pleasuring", the very general word "stimulate" etc.

I've never heard of it being called 'petting', er, that's what I do to my mum's cat (pet it, lol). In a lot of dictionary definitions it says that 'masturbate' means to stimulate your own genitals, or the genitals of another, with your hand. It was apparently originally thought  that 'manus' meant 'hand' (like, from manual, like manual labour I guess?) and 'stuprere' meant 'to defile', haha! I can't paste whole defintions as I'm on my phone but here's the Collins definition https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/masturbate. This is the way I've always heard masturbate used, meaning to use your hands to get yourself or someone else off sexually

[TryingWife]

Lol.  Does this mean the ten "heavy petting" has lost all meaning?

[Telecaster68]

I guess a Pole correcting a native English speaker (and professional writer) on English usage is a variant on asexuals explaining sex to sexuals... 

 

'Masturbating someone' is common usage among native speakers, and they'd understand what I mean. As did you. 'Petting someone' doesn't mean what you think it does. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

An exact equivalent is used in Polish too. But still I think that it's incorrect - the definition of masturbation is that it means sexually stimulating oneself, and not how it's done.

OK, maybe stimulating someone else's penis is not called "petting" (still I like this word precisely because of its "gentleness"), but there is also the popular word "handjob".