The Watchtower of Destruction: The Ferrett's Journal - A Word On Sex From A Guy Who’s Had A Bit Of It
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
|
09:57 am
[Link] |
A Word On Sex From A Guy Who’s Had A Bit Of It
Over the past few days, I’ve seen posts from “inexperienced” women lamenting that their scant handful of partners makes them nervous about sex. Will they be able to please their next partner? What if they’re bad in bed? What if they need more sex to be “skilled”?
I’m here to tell you that sexual experience doesn’t matter.
Having slept with roughly a hundred different women in my time, I’ve had enough of a sample size to know that sex boils down to three things: enthusiasm, chemistry, and experience. And the last is the least important.
I’ve slept with women who’ve had four partners total, yet had hands that reduced me to jelly. I’ve slept with women who’ve been around as much as I have and walked away with that slightly outraged feeling you get when all of your friends raved about how this movie was totally awesome, and it actually wasn’t very good at all.
You can be a novice and be very good in bed. All you need to be is enthusiastic, by which I mean “wanting your partner with a cheerful willingness, and eager to learn.” If you pay attention to what s/he responds positively to, and are expressing a happiness to be there, then chances are you’re pretty decent in bed already.
Now, you may have had a bad experience or two – and that comes down to this elusive “chemistry” element. I had a friend of mine boast that he could be the best partner for any woman, ever. He’d just adapt his style to hers, the chameleon of love, and then wham. He’d be #1.
That may have been the silliest thing I’ve ever read on LiveJournal.
Sometimes, you get together with someone, and for whatever reason you just don’t sync up. If you’ve been around you can sometimes cobble it together into a pretty decent evening… But bodies are strange things. They crave some people and don’t crave others. Sometimes, two people just don’t work particularly well with each other even if everything else works great, and in rare cases they require enough work that you might as well find someone else whose key does fit your lock.
Chemistry’s not a static thing, of course. Some evenings are better than others, which is why sometimes you try things twice. But I’ve hit it off with quote-unquote “inexperienced” girls whose every touch hit something that turned me on. You do not need a big catalog of lovers to be good.
Why does experience count for so little? Mainly because the skillset that allows you to charm your way into people’s boudoirs is not the same skillset as actually being good in bed. I have slept with a fair number of women, but none of that happened because I am a wonderful lover. How could they tell? It happened because I’m good with words, and can make clever conversation, and am open about my desire for sex without necessarily demanding it.
None of those skills help me once the pants are off.
Do not confuse “effective flirting” with “being good in bed.” I know a lot of guys who charmed their way into women’s pants, and turned out to be three-minute wonders. I know a lot of women who claimed to satisfy a lot of men, and were mechanical and cold under the sheets. Sleeping around a lot means you’re good at closing the deal, but not necessarily great at the act itself.
(Plus, most people who talk openly about their sexual skills, exaggerate them. I’ve rarely heard a guy telling a girl, “Yeah, I’ve never gotten the hang of this whole ‘cunnilingus’ thing.”)
Then there’s the learning factor. If merely cooking a lot made someone a chef, I know several McDonald’s fry cooks who would own five-star restaurants by now. You can worm your way into people’s beds only to be a selfish git, and you can stall after you’ve determined that your home-brewed “bed-breaker” technique is so good that you don’t need to learn any other.
What experience can give you is a certain baseline level of success. As noted, I’ve been with some women where I had awful chemistry – not many, maybe one out of twenty-five, but enough that it would have been awkward without it. I had enough techniques to fall back on that I think I scraped by with a gentleman’s C… And for that, I’ll take it.
The failure state of experience, though, is something cold and clinical, where he’s pleasuring you distantly, which is always a turnoff. Which brings us back to the core level of “enthusiasm.”
This is why, if you’re worried, I implore you: don’t worry about it. Seriously. It will just make you more awkward and hesitating in bed, and that’s rarely a turn-on. You are fine the way you are, and you can be good for anyone.
Just be turned on, and ready to experiment, and pay attention to what your lover reacts to. The rest is dross.
Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.
This entry has also been posted at http://theferrett.dreamwidth.org/161780.html. You can comment here, or comment there; makes no never-mind by me.
Tags: sex
|
|
| | I discovered your blog when I visited Shimmer's editorial page, and since then I've been thoroughly entertained by several your posts, sex-related and otherwise.
This one was very heartening to read and makes good sense. Whether it's sex or other aspects of relationships, I think a *big* part of it is paying attention to your partner. As you said in one of your other posts, we're all the stars of our own lives, and, similarly, other people are the stars of theirs, and a surefire way to make a person favorably disposed to you is to pay attention to them, and their stories, and their interests, and their desires (sexual or otherwise). ... Which sounds like I'm advocating being some kind of self-abnegating doormat, but I don't mean doing these things to the exclusion of pleasing yourself, just that if you want other people to be into you and to enjoy your company, in bed or out of it, it helps if you show interest in them and their company. Reciprocity and all.
Are people worried about their own absolute inexperience, or about their relative inexperience?
If you're thinking absolute, then maybe your partner also has little experience, in which case they don't have much to compare you against, so don't worry about it.
If you're thinking relative, consider that the fear you have because your partner is more experienced than you is the same fear they could have if you had more experience. If you think relative, then any increase in your experience comes with a corresponding decrease in your partner's confidence. Which way is it better to go on that scale? I don't think there is really a better way, so best not to worry about it. You seem to be mixing two types of "experience" here--experience with multiple people, and experience with sex itself. You do not need to be experienced with many many people to be good at sex. It does help to have more than two lovers under your belt though--just so you have some first-hand knowledge of how people's bodies vary and the different things they may enjoy or respond to. Experience with sex itself is pretty key, however. This doesn't mean that people who haven't had much sex can't turn out to be wonderful lovers--especially if there's chemistry--but overall, IF you've only slept with one other person and IF they didn't like being very creative in bed, you will probably have a lot to learn.
But there's no reason to look down on that, and you can certainly have a very enjoyable session even with someone who's just learning.
That said, my worst sexual experience was with someone who slept around a lot. I wasn't that surprised, though. He mostly had one night stands. If you have sex with a woman for one night and move on, you don't have much impetus to improve anything. That said, my worst sexual experience was with someone who slept around a lot. I wasn't that surprised, though. He mostly had one night stands. If you have sex with a woman for one night and move on, you don't have much impetus to improve anything.
Or much feedback on what you need to improve, unless you're really a go-getter for asking about that sort of thing.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/7448451/1366673) | | From: |  anivair |
|---|
| Date: | October 25th, 2011 04:30 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
I've heard this sort of thing a lot (in regards to someone I know who thankfully is not me). The long and short of it (heh) seems to me that a lazy and uncaring lover is almost always bad. All it really takes to be good in bed, I think, is a desire to please, the ability to pay attention to your partner (and react to them appropriately) and for you not to be too self conscious to do what you and they want.
For crying out loud, you're already naked and mashing genitals. I wouldn't worry about embarrassing yourself. ![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/99678820/208448) | | From: | aiela |
|---|
| Date: | October 25th, 2011 05:22 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
This was my problem for a long time - I had been with so many partners that were so eager to tell me how good I was at this or that, that I started doubting myself - were they just telling me that? Was my world view that I was good at Act A or Activity B just partners fluffing my ego?
(Eventually I got older and had partners with enough experience and communication skills to actually TELL ME what I was doing right or wrong, and I trust their input a heck of a lot more than I do the guys I was with in my early 20's. Heh.) It's hard to ask for that. Though I'd have every one of my lovers fill out an after-sex feedback form if I could. | | From: | aiela |
|---|
| Date: | October 25th, 2011 06:57 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
I'm still mentally writing your Yelp! review. Because I'm a nerd. Oh, no doubt. So would I. But getting honest answers is also difficult, because most people don't want to bluntly say "actually when you did X that was kind of lousy for me", or even the soft-pedalling version of that. ![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/45905278/5530010) | | From: | weirman |
|---|
| Date: | October 25th, 2011 04:45 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
(Plus, most people who talk openly about their sexual skills, exaggerate them. I’ve rarely heard a guy telling a girl, “Yeah, I’ve never gotten the hang of this whole ‘cunnilingus’ thing.”)
This cracked me up. Very true. It's also one of the things that seems to be equal between the genders. Without fail every woman I've slept with has proudly told me of her incredible blow job skills and the only one who got that right was also the only one who said so after proving it.
Having said that, however, I do believe that confidence goes a long way and one of the hardest things to overcome in sex is doubt. Huh... whereas I tend to announce fairly early in that I'm bad at giving head, and ok at cunnilingus but only for a little while. My partners generally agree with my assessment, but it's not a big deal because there are lots of other things to do... Interesting.
As a sales technique, this "I'm terrible at it" actually winds up intriguing me more. :) ![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/92976633/2357039) | | From: | ccr1138 |
|---|
| Date: | October 25th, 2011 08:45 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
Yeah, my impulse might be to offer a tutorial. :D Heh. For me it ain't so much a sales technique as a disclaimer. | | From: | weirman |
|---|
| Date: | October 26th, 2011 03:27 am (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
Admittedly, I haven't been around all that much so my survey pool, so to speak, isn't all that broad. I think it's a good idea to be upfront about your shortcomings, if only so that there's room for pleasant surprises. Or, if nothing else, you can get right to the other things there are to do. A-yup.
That's why I never claim I'm good in bed. I claim I've done a lot of it. I claim I have certain baseline skills. But that doesn't mean I'm good. | | From: | weirman |
|---|
| Date: | October 26th, 2011 03:23 am (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
I like to say I'm a quick study. In my opinion, blow job skills are not readily transferable from one man to the next. Each fellow has different things he finds exciting and satisfying as well as annoying or uncomfortable or turn-offy. One of my BFs loves a lot of teeth, another one doesn't want any at all, for example.
Anyhow. . . . I am a big fan of giving blow jobs, so I think my enthusiasm goes a long way. (heh heh Everything sounds naughty all of a sudden) I'd let my partners be the ones to say whether I'm especially good or not.
*grins* Hooray for TMI! | | From: | weirman |
|---|
| Date: | October 26th, 2011 03:22 am (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
I agree that everyone has different preferences but I think the key to true greatness comes not from getting it right the first time as much as learning to adjust one's techniques according to experience quickly. The key is knowing how to recognize the signals or, failing that, knowing how to ask and listen to the answers.
I do think there's a lot to be said for enthusiasm. I'm certainly going to enjoy a sexual experience (either as the giver or the receiver) a lot more if there's enthusiasm on both sides. ![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/107860898/1279911) | | From: | kilbia |
|---|
| Date: | October 26th, 2011 10:24 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
I mostly agree with this. Although I'm paranoid enough that I have sometimes explicitly started things with "so okay, is there anything I need to know right now NOT to do while I'm down there, 'cause it's going to terrify you or give you awful flashbacks or anything?". | | From: | weirman |
|---|
| Date: | October 26th, 2011 11:14 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
One of the things I've managed to do almost every time I entered a sexual relationship was talk about what's liked and what's not before the clothes even come off.
It's particularly important for me to have that discussion when it comes to oral sex. In part because I'm not particularly interested in receiving it but love giving it. The nice thing is, if I find out that my potential partner feels the same way, we can come to a compromise in advance and there's no need for someone to pretend they like something when they really don't.
Good point about the potential for bad flashbacks. It's really sad how often that exists and it can be really traumatizing for both people when it happens. I honestly dont give a sgit if the woman's "good" or not. As long as she's in the room and willing, its good enough for me. Maybe im not picky enough, i dunno. Excellent advice. As a woman who's had at least 3x your number of lovers, and lots of bad sex with those who have reputations as being experienced I totally concur with your analysis.
I think many of the same thoughts apply to people who are worried about size (whether women or men)... it's not about the size of the equipment, but whether you're willing to use it in a way that pleasures both you and your partners. Selfishness in bed does not make for a good lover, nor does being 'good at that one thing X likes' but not adjusting for what your other lovers need/want. I worry about size. But that's me watching too much porno, and having my scale adjusted overmuch. You can't compare yourself to Ron Jeremy all day dickwise and not think of yourself as underhung. | | From: | kilbia |
|---|
| Date: | October 26th, 2011 10:30 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
OMG that was amazing! I do believe if I smoked I would need a cigarette. "Do not confuse 'effective flirting' with 'being good in bed.' I know a lot of guys who charmed their way into women’s pants, and turned out to be three-minute wonders."
It might even be that three-minute wonders (he said condescendingly) are, at least for some women, better in bed than half-hour marathoners, because they A) have adapted to their penetrative limitation by developing excellent foreplay and non-penetrative skills; and B) don't leave extensive internal rugburns.
I mean, yeah, obviously a woman who needs 20 minutes of vaginal pounding to reach climax won't be happy with a three-minuter. On the other hand, a woman who doesn't need a lot to achieve orgasm might prefer someone who finishes more quickly.
So, if you're a guy who doesn't have a lot of erectile stamina, look for a woman who likes sprints more than marathons. And vice versa, of course. Thus the whole "look for the partner who's right for you" thing. You have a good point. However, three-minute wonders are not the same as efficient quickies, and context is everything. No, they're not the same—but still, there are likely to be people for whom low-stamina partners are more fun/sexy/satisfying than endurance champs. They just need to find each other. Re: quickies, some of us are also *really* into our partner's pleasure and are excited for him to orgasm. A passionate, throw me down quickie in which he has a fierce orgasm is wildly satisfying for me, even though I'd never come in that situation myself.
People like different things! Do you only count the time from the start of actual intercourse, rather than from the start of foreplay?
I don't actually have a lot of sex myself because I'm primarily asexual (with very very few rare exceptions there's nobody I particularly want to have sex with, and it's never based on physical attractiveness). But I have enjoyed the act, and given enough foreplay I don't actually care how long the other bit takes (provided it doesn't get into the 'sore and boring' stage). The thing that experience provides is the understanding that Every New Partner is learning all over again. So you're less nervous-- you know this is all new-- and are more intrigued and delighted by that newness, and finding out what they like, specifically.
Which is what I told my Boy, who has had... well, let's just say one or two fewer partners than I have had, and who has (surprisingly to him, less to me) turned out to be the no-holds barred best sex of my life. You know, as someone with very little experience, I think this is the most helpful comment I've read in a while. Realizing that a new partner is going to be learning me the same way I'm learning them may just help me get rid of a good bit of my nerves. Thanks! For any beautiful woman out there worried about her low experience level, I would be happy to provide my services. ![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/11865030/2357039) | | From: | ccr1138 |
|---|
| Date: | October 25th, 2011 08:44 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
How about the not-so-beautiful ones, eh? | | From: | aiela |
|---|
| Date: | October 26th, 2011 02:11 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
You beat me to it. Luckily, there are people willing to sleep with me and my non-beautiful 'sisters'. ;) ![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/109082541/810751) | | From: | jfargo |
|---|
| Date: | November 1st, 2011 12:36 am (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
*pauses, blinks a few times, and shakes his head*
Non-beautiful? Really?
*hugs*
You're silly. | | From: | aiela |
|---|
| Date: | November 1st, 2011 02:20 am (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
Thanks, sweetie. I'll cop to "cute" on a good day, but beautiful? It's nice of you to think so, though. :) | | From: | ccr1138 |
|---|
| Date: | October 25th, 2011 08:43 pm (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
Yep, right on. You touch on this: I think a subset of "enthusiasm" is a willingness to listen without being defensive, then giving the other person what they want, or stopping what they don't want. In other words, treating the other person like a human being, not a toy or a machine. There's nothing that turns me off more than a guy who thinks of me as an object to be manipulated according to his "technique," regardless of my stated desires. I mean, I'm sorry if a fellow has this grand fantasy of tying me up and making me scream, because I've tried it, and trust me when I say I don't like to be dominated. I am not here solely for a partner's wish-fulfillment, nor do I desire to be a star in his own personal porn movie. I want to be desired for *me*, not just used as a convenient orifice.
What's sad is that I have a friend who's been married for more than 20 years whose husband obviously uses her as a stand-in for whatever porn-star chick is in his head. This is the opposite of intimacy, and it's devastating to a relationship. He keeps wanting to try new things, to spice it up, because she's clearly not interested. He doesn't get that she'd be grateful for the missionary position if only she thought he was actually seeing her and thinking about her while they're together. Thanks for cheering me up with happy thoughts of sex!
*Grins* Not quite the extreme of three minutes, but I did have a partner who wanted every sexual encounter to last hours (3+), and a good 45 minutes+ of that hard vaginal pounding - that shit HURT after a while, did jack shit for me, and after the third or fourth time I gave up because occasionally, sure, endurance is fun, but I was getting bored and sore. But he wouldn't listen to me when I said, actually, after Hour 2 I'm not into this any more - because hey, don't all women want marathon sex? Who has that kind of TIME????? To be sure, lack of chemistry was probably why my first experience with sex was so bleh. I knew it probably would be going in, though, because there was a part of me that was thinking "just sleep with this guy, he's nice and will try to please you and at least you'll get the whole virgin thing over with". And he was very nice and he did try to please me, but the end result was that there was no chemistry at all. Not surprisingly, sex with him didn't do anything at all for me. XD
I'm a nervous person, especially when entering a situation where I feel I have to please someone else. The trick for me, I think, is trying to shut my brain off enough to allow myself to become swept up in the moment, once I find someone I do have chemistry with and we get to the point where sex could happen. | | From: | jfargo |
|---|
| Date: | November 1st, 2011 12:31 am (UTC) |
|---|
| | | (Link) |
|
Okay, I don't often talk about this side of my life in a public forum but I just have to say that I laughed so hard I almost ruptured something at the line "“Yeah, I’ve never gotten the hang of this whole ‘cunnilingus’ thing.”" Because I used that line and got laid because of it.
Okay, look, you know I don't feel that I'm good with women but I'd known this girl for a long time, we liked each other, but timing was always bad for any kind of possibilities. Then one night timing wasn't bad. We started just talking about what might happen and what it might mean. Experience came up, what we liked came up.
Up-front and honest conversation ensued. I followed the line with the truthful and enthusiastic (as you said, an important bit) "but I'm more than willing to learn!"
And, well, we kind of stopped talking at that point. |
|
