Monday, February 23, 2004
Defining the good fuck
I don't really know how to take this but -- I'm being read by college boys. One was sweet enough to offer to fuck me. Thanks, but, uh...
What is a good fuck, anyway? Why do I hesitate with young men in their 20s? Even in their early 30s? Because there's more to a good fuck than just staying power. What the fuck, Dale doesn't even use his dick but he's the best fuck I've ever had and will probably have in this lifetime.
Size is important -- to me, at least -- but it's not the most important thing, either. Nelson is big and thick but he can't sustain it. Patrick is bigger, but can't sustain it, either. Bond was the biggest but didn't know how to please me. In fact, he was too big for me, it hurt.
So what makes a good fuck? For Mara, it's a hard dick she can sit on and ride till she comes. For me, it's a big dick, hot and hard, that can fuck me doggie-style and then, missionary style afterwards, till I come. In both instances, the dickhead's got to last long. In my case, he's got to last long enough to set off the first of several of my orgasms. But he's got to last longer if he wants to have me explode cum several times in a row. It's just the first cum that's difficult to release but once it explodes, there's no stopping it. That's what happens to me with Dale.
Charles was able to make me squirt three times that first time. He wasn't that big, but his dick was hard and curved nicely for doggie-style fucking. He didn't really last long but it worked well that first time because we spent some time getting comfortable with each other and, well, I was really horny that time.
One of the women in Nancy Friday's book, Women on Top, wrote that most men just don't take the time to please her. I agree. Most men forget all about their partner because they apparently see sex as mere individual gratification. They forget that a good fuck is mutual gratification. They don't know what mutual means. Is it so difficult to achieve, this mutuality in sex? And it seems that the younger they are, the less proficient men are in this regard.
However, this is not to say that age guarantees a higher degree of proficiency. Most men remain unskilled in mutual gratification, precisely because they don't practice it. Neither do they delve into it because, perhaps, of lack of interest or the difficulty involved or both. So it takes more than practice or interest to acquire this skill in mutual gratification. It takes a particular sensitivity to a woman's body and mind, a mindset, if you will.
Older men are more aware of women's desires and needs, not necessarily because these men are mature, or more sensitive or are more interested, but simply because they've seen more in their life compared to younger men. Not very encouraging, I agree. Can men really be so blind? Too lazy, too selfish, too scared of the difficult? Does it all boil down to ego? Hence, the macho thing? Very tempting to say, yes.
A heightened sensitivity -- to anything -- requires intelligence (here taken to encompass both intellectual and emotional intelligence) of a degree higher than average. Of course, I'm limiting the statement to those of, at least, normal intellectual and emotional capabilities. In this light, can we, therefore, say that there is a direct relationship between a man's intelligence and his sexual prowess? In the translation, therefore, a guy who's a bad fuck is not as intelligent as he thinks he is.
There is, in addition, another factor: the libido. It seems that men of higher libido tend to be more interested in pleasing women along with themselves. Intelligence, libido. Complicated? Not really. It just adds another perspective to the equation: A man who's a bad fuck is not only less intelligent than he perceives himself to be, he's also not as horny as he feels he is. Ultimately, he's not into sex, only masturbation, using the woman as a tool.
I fuck; therefore, I am. = Inaccurate.
We cum; I become. = To the point.
What is a good fuck, anyway? Why do I hesitate with young men in their 20s? Even in their early 30s? Because there's more to a good fuck than just staying power. What the fuck, Dale doesn't even use his dick but he's the best fuck I've ever had and will probably have in this lifetime.
Size is important -- to me, at least -- but it's not the most important thing, either. Nelson is big and thick but he can't sustain it. Patrick is bigger, but can't sustain it, either. Bond was the biggest but didn't know how to please me. In fact, he was too big for me, it hurt.
So what makes a good fuck? For Mara, it's a hard dick she can sit on and ride till she comes. For me, it's a big dick, hot and hard, that can fuck me doggie-style and then, missionary style afterwards, till I come. In both instances, the dickhead's got to last long. In my case, he's got to last long enough to set off the first of several of my orgasms. But he's got to last longer if he wants to have me explode cum several times in a row. It's just the first cum that's difficult to release but once it explodes, there's no stopping it. That's what happens to me with Dale.
Charles was able to make me squirt three times that first time. He wasn't that big, but his dick was hard and curved nicely for doggie-style fucking. He didn't really last long but it worked well that first time because we spent some time getting comfortable with each other and, well, I was really horny that time.
One of the women in Nancy Friday's book, Women on Top, wrote that most men just don't take the time to please her. I agree. Most men forget all about their partner because they apparently see sex as mere individual gratification. They forget that a good fuck is mutual gratification. They don't know what mutual means. Is it so difficult to achieve, this mutuality in sex? And it seems that the younger they are, the less proficient men are in this regard.
However, this is not to say that age guarantees a higher degree of proficiency. Most men remain unskilled in mutual gratification, precisely because they don't practice it. Neither do they delve into it because, perhaps, of lack of interest or the difficulty involved or both. So it takes more than practice or interest to acquire this skill in mutual gratification. It takes a particular sensitivity to a woman's body and mind, a mindset, if you will.
Older men are more aware of women's desires and needs, not necessarily because these men are mature, or more sensitive or are more interested, but simply because they've seen more in their life compared to younger men. Not very encouraging, I agree. Can men really be so blind? Too lazy, too selfish, too scared of the difficult? Does it all boil down to ego? Hence, the macho thing? Very tempting to say, yes.
A heightened sensitivity -- to anything -- requires intelligence (here taken to encompass both intellectual and emotional intelligence) of a degree higher than average. Of course, I'm limiting the statement to those of, at least, normal intellectual and emotional capabilities. In this light, can we, therefore, say that there is a direct relationship between a man's intelligence and his sexual prowess? In the translation, therefore, a guy who's a bad fuck is not as intelligent as he thinks he is.
There is, in addition, another factor: the libido. It seems that men of higher libido tend to be more interested in pleasing women along with themselves. Intelligence, libido. Complicated? Not really. It just adds another perspective to the equation: A man who's a bad fuck is not only less intelligent than he perceives himself to be, he's also not as horny as he feels he is. Ultimately, he's not into sex, only masturbation, using the woman as a tool.
I fuck; therefore, I am. = Inaccurate.
We cum; I become. = To the point.
