Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
When I say, "knew how to do it" I'm not talking about knowing some special technique. I mean, "knew that the tongue goes on the clitoris". OR "could locate the clitoris."
That whole "make love not porn" is most important in this area, I think. Every guy I was with gave me head the way they do in porns. They just lick all around and up inside.
Every time I tried to tell them they were doing it wrong, they never tried again. I have Asperger's. I may have seemed mean or something.
Then I met a guy who studied kung fu and his sigung was obsessed with cunnilingus and taught him all sorts of special techniques. It was like I had spend my whole life eating brown rice and steamed veg then somebody took me to the best restaurant in Paris.
I married that guy.
QED
Is this a preference of mine?
Are there women who want this?
Perhaps instead ask "Hey honney, I LOVE your blowjobs, what kind of thing can I do for you when I'm feeling like 'servicing' you that you'd dig?"
Um, what? That's a thing? Kung fu teachers stress cunnilingus skills in class? Did they do special exercises, to strengthen their tongue muscles?
Apparently, my husband's would spend entire dinners talking about exactly how to get a woman off.
WSF: I love being eaten out, but sometimes if he springs it on me without any pretext and I'm not in the mood, I'll get really ticklish down there. Make sure your woman is in the mood, and that the rest of her body is nice and warm. It can get cold without skin-to-skin contact! It's been said, but if you gave her some intense digital stimulation she might not notice the tickle.
BBB: I have a hard time sucking to completion, but experience has taught me that some men's stamina is significantly lower after a night's sleep. I've had a 100% success rate with early morning BJ's...
@91, Masochist, huh? Ever had your clit sucked really hard? That shit hurts! Maybe gettting tied up and sucked violently might turn your crank?
@15, Agreed, strategic pandering, plain and simple. But it certainly helped our cause over here. I hope he comes out in support of cannabis reform too. Call your dogs off, Obeezy!
Isn't that kind of like saying lesbians just haven't met the right man yet?
I've had people who were excellent do the job, it just isn't my thing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-2…
"Giving head (or doing anything sexual for that matter) isn't about having a repertoire of secret tricks"
Except for the secret part, yes it is. I didn't say anything was secret or magical and it wasn't even kung fu.
I have a repertoire that I learned. I was taught what to do from female friends. I read about techniques online.
I feel like your attitude is the problem. Guys feel like they should be able to figure it out for themselves and it's a failure on their part if they don't.
An zygote is not an organism.
As for the beginning of live just ask that fiction book out of the middle east, open it to its very first section and read in Genesis 2.7:
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
So the BIBLE (yep, the very authority for some) says the living soul starts with breathing.
Last time I checked, the first breath is taken right AFTER birth when OUTside - not inside - the womb.
But again, not paying attention, this time in Bible 101, appears to be rampant among certain groups.
And congrats to all who fought for common sense and equality. Looks like Ms. Liberty won't have to step down from her pedestal in NYC harbor, yet. Close call, though.
Godspeed!
An zygote is not an organism.
(An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis.)
As for the beginning of live just ask that fiction book out of the middle east, open it to its very first section and read in Genesis 2.7:
"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
So the BIBLE (yep, the very authority for some) says the living soul starts with breathing.
Last time I checked, the first breath is taken right AFTER birth when OUTside - not inside - the womb.
But again, not paying attention, this time in Bible 101, appears to be rampant among certain groups.
And congrats to all who fought for common sense and equality. Looks like Ms. Liberty won't have to step down from her pedestal in NYC harbor, yet. Close call, though.
Godspeed!
Get on board.
@101: Lick the alphabet? Latin, Cyrillic, or Pinyin?
"Except for the secret part, yes it is. I didn't say anything was secret or magical and it wasn't even kung fu.
I have a repertoire that I learned. I was taught what to do from female friends. I read about techniques online."
Women aren't all alike though, that's the point.
The things that work with most women don't do it for me, and a lot of the things that men are also INSISTENTLY told by women to not do are just the ticket in my books (and I'm not alone).
Right, but that's more or less a (secret?) trick, isn't it? Anyway, all the stuff you listed is good, but having some ideas of things to try certainly doesn't hurt. Judging from the comments, a basic understanding of the clit isn't to be taken for granted either.
Still, it seems that with some women, you're going to get the tap no matter what you're doing down there.
Try peeing after sex. Each time.
We get it. You don't care for cunnilingus.
And no, switching teams has nothing to do with men who have no clue how to perform cunnilingus.
If men and women were more honest, maybe some progress could be made. If women felt comfortable to say what they liked (slower, more pressure, less pressure, direct, indirect, toys, fingers, etc), if men could take direction from their women graciously and gage their actions to the woman's responses, and if men could lose their assumptions (about what they saw in porn, what worked on the woman before, what they were told), maybe, just maybe, more women would enjoy cunnilingus. And even request it.
If that happens, sign me up.
My point was, 'no no, it's not that you don't like it, it's that no one's done it RIGHT for you, yet' is a lot like 'no, no, yuo're not a lesbian, you just haven't been with the right man yet'. Same attitude.
Lots of women enjoy cunnilingus from what I know, most women I've talked to LOVE it. Those of us who legitimately don't like it are in a minority. I'm 99% sure we're the same minority that gets off from penetrative sex - in other words, I beleive it's an anatomy issue, not a 'you just aren't honest and/or comfortable with your sexuality' issue.
No doubt much of Dan's success is due to his deliberately provocative approach. So, rather than urging him to be politically correct, I'd just suggest using or inventing a different pejorative for straights, one that doesn't imply that only heterosexuals can have children.
Some of us out here would simply ask if you have any blood-born diseases. :)
While biting someone like ME would only be good for loosing the teeth that did the deed (and if a lady wanted that level of pain in the first place she would be better off asking nicely while on her knees) you should be able to find people (male and female depending on what you prefer) that would be willing to bite your labia while simultaneously working fingers (or entire hand for that matter) inside you. Just keep on keeping on and you will find the right sexual sadist for you. :)
When he's finally convinced that it's not getting me anywhere, I now have to start all over- and it sometimes takes 45 min or so to get there again.
What really works is five minutes of his voice whispering hot sexy stuff into my ear. I guess I'm just naturally aural, rather than oral.
Actually, I think the term "breeder" should exclusively go to ignorant, bible thumping, rabid pro-life Republicans, especially those who insist on having truckloads of kids they can't afford to rear, and who insist that God will take care of it!
That's a weird hypothesis to make. I get off on all of it, and I'm not a minority.
Dude, can't the straight people offended by the term "breeder" just let them have this one epithet? Good for you for not having children and sneering at people who do (like I do), but that word is so much less derogatory than what LGBT people have been putting up with for decades. It's like a white person getting offended at being called a "cracker" or "gringo". I know you take your use of birth control VERY SERIOUSLY, but it's not really that offensive.
Given a choice of getting head, giving head, or masturbating, I'd blow him, get myself off, and then go to sleep. :)
Doesn't necessarily follow -- there's no law that says if you're extra responsive in one area you don't get to be in another. Life ain't fair that way. Some women can't come at all, and some can come in a bazillion different ways. How you get off best or what you find sexiest can vary over your lifetime, too. Many things that used to work for me don't any longer, and some things that never used to do a thing for me are suddenly the best ever. It's also possible to retrain neural pathways, though most people don't bother if they already have lots of stuff that works for them.
OK, will do. Looks like my next available appointment is the evening of Nov 28th. Might be able to get you in earlier if I have any cancellations. ;-)
To put it another way: ladies have you ever made out with a man with stubble? I have. And the next day, the entire lower half of your face is red and irritated? And two days after making out the irritated skin starts peeling? Not a pretty look. Now imagine the skin of your vulva is more delicate than the skin around your mouth and chin.
Gentleman, that is why we ask you to shave.
'How you get off best or what you find sexiest can vary over your lifetime, too. Many things that used to work for me don't any longer, and some things that never used to do a thing for me are suddenly the best ever. It's also possible to retrain neural pathways, though most people don't bother if they already have lots of stuff that works for them.'
This. I love this. You said it perfectly and it's so true.
@83: One of the many surprising things I've learned on SLOG - cunnilingus doesn't seem to be as popular among women as my personal experience would suggest.
I never had a strong desire to have a girlfriend shave, nor did I ever ask one to do so. Then, I finally met a woman who did and I loved it. As you said, very user-friendly. I loved not getting pubic hairs in my mouth and loved the smoothness. The next two women after her also shaved so I got kind of spoiled and now it would be hard to go back.
Your personal experience sounds like mine. I've only been with one woman who didn't like it. She was convinced she was unappealing "down there" and, try as I might, I couldn't convince her otherwise.
Um, maybe we're misunderstanding eachother but if you get off from penetrative sex you ARE a minority as a woman (Dan has often cited that 80% of women do not).
@Eirene
It's not a hard and fast rule, it's more of a trend I've noticed.
@hurrdahurr
waaaaahhh
But if you do like it and don't tell me how you like it, that's on you. Clits are like snowflakes.
;)
Personally shaving seems like a really silly option compared to waxing but to each their own. The benefits of hair removal aren't just there for men who like to go down on ladies, the fact is, hairlessness means increased sensitivity for us as well. I'd never let mine grow back.
I want to say that I still have a deep hatred of heterosexuals and homosexuals for how many of them has treated me over the years. Four weeks back I admitted to being raped in middle school and raped solely on the reason for who I am. I'm not accusing anyone outside of those who did this to. After trying to look into various LGBTA (I first thought A did mean asexual bit it really meant alley who is not asexual) only to find many of them were sexual groups only, no asexuals allowed. I find it hard for many groups I tried to join that you would treat the very majority of society as utter crap as you did to me for a populace that (claims to have) suffered intolerance at the hands of others.
But it seems when given freedom I've found you to be as horrible people as the majority of society either thinks I don't exist, faking it or think it’s a phase. I’ve been suggested in such LGBTA groups to seek the very same procedures to cure your homosexuality in the 1950’s. This leaves me with bitterness and distaste not to ever trust you guys since it really is all for you. I've come to the point that this society is not meant for me to be a part of; nor meant for me in anyway. This is a society that frets over sexuality and to the mere hilarity that you've people made a culture out of it. Then you take it a step further by worshipping it.
I've also managed to actually care for those two people that have helped me. I've also never thought I could at least "love" one of them as giving affection for.
If I haven't managed to bore anybody or turn people off from grammar issues I have; then I have a request if people aren't fuming mad from what I've said before.
I've had sex before as means to prove I wasn't actually an asexual and it just proved I was. Being a 23 year old male that just graduated from college I really have no idea about sex (I still think it's a waste of time). One of my friends who I just become their boyfriend want's to have sex with me. I've accepted the request since I like her and I actually do want to make her happy... just I have no idea how to do that.
I have a hard time understanding your generalized rage against people who aren't asexual. Most of us don't care a whit about asexual people's lack of sex life or desire for one. I think perhaps you were expecting too much from an LGBTA support group, if you were using it as your sole means to cope with the after-effects of traumatic assault.
That's not what it is supposed to or be able to be or do. You need more help from a qualified person.
As far as having sex with your new girlfriend, if you don't have any sexual feelings, I don't think that will be very successful. Does she know that you identify as asexual? Can you be her close, loving friend and take sex off the table? Can you two share fun and deep emotional closeness? Would you be willing to do that and see her with a different man as her boyfriend, one that wants to have sex with her?
Please do. I love that you are so accommodating.
Chivalry is not dead.
nocute nailed it.
I confirm that most of us on Savage Love are accepting of asexual people, and would like them to be able to identify as asexuals to their close circle and not be rejected for it.
And I don't think having sex with someone would do you any good, if you're not getting anything out of it. Being GGG is fine, but having sex when you're not interested in it, is outside of what's reasonable for "being game". Be true to yourself.
Besides, when one has suffered sexual trauma, especialy in childhood, further sex is fraught with flashbacks and bad feelings, that us sexual people have to lean to live with and manage, since we need sex to feel complete, but that never go entirely away, and are traumatising in their own right (I'm a survivor too).
So you have every reason not to have sex, the strongest being that you're asexual. If contemplating you sexual girlfriend having her needs met by someone else is too much for you, perhaps you could consider searching for an asexual girlfriend ? It would be a better match on the long run.
It provides a very nice cushion against tight clothes chafing my delicate places, and against unshaved chins. And I just love the way every feeling of touching it is radiated into the whole area.
I also find it pretty nice to look at. I wear all my body hair, no plucked eyebrows, nothing missing ; and when I'm naked, the places delicately shaded by my body hair are nicely symetrical and make me look like a feral slender animal ready for the prowl. Or for sex.
Ladies who prefer shaving, please don't feel offended by my tastes. Diversity is great.
Agreed!
I'm not offended by your tastes, I think that beauty practices (or opting out of them) is a form of personal expression like what clothes you wear.
I love the way waxing heightens every feeling and the aesthetic - no coyness or mystery without pubic hair - suits me perfectly.
But I don't think women should be shaving because of societal pressures, they should be doing it because they like the way it looks or feels. And if they don't, they should let it all stay. Or they can go somewhere in between, etc.
Like mydriasis, I prefer to be waxed (with perhaps a little topographical decoration to avoid the total plucked chicken look) because it makes everything feel more sensitized to me. Everything from masturbation to oral to penetration feels more intense to me when there's no barrier of hair. Waxing, though expensive, lasts a long time, and the hair grows back in softly, with no stubble. There's also no shaving rash or bumps, though I have once or twice had an ingrown hair.
But like sissoucat, I like the look of (nicely trimmed) natural hair. I like the way the inverted triangle focuses the eyes on the center of broad hips, and brings a sort of symmetry to the female form. I guess it is because I came of age before removing pubic hair became popular, and it's the look I associate with adult female nudity. I remember waiting to get that hair as a sign that I was turning into a woman.
I've adjusted my look for a partner, because I can be happy either way, but it would bother me if a partner was really insistent either way or could only find one look/feel attractive. In the end, I do what I do for me.
When it comes to my partner, a big, out of control, raging bush is not especially sexy-looking and guarantees lots of hair on the tongue when I give head, but unless you're going to shave EVERY SINGLE DAY, gentlemen, the stubble you end up with in your pubic region makes intercourse an uncomfortable act with days of irritation afterward--especially if I am waxed and my tissues are more vulnerable. A nice solution for me with the men I'm with who want to remove or manage hair is to neatly trim, but not shave, keeping the hair soft but short and controlled.
As far as beards go, some days I like to feel a little scraping during oral, and sometimes the slightest stubble is too scratchy. I always attribute it to my own hormone levels, which I think contribute to my sensitivity, too.
In any case, the point of all this, I guess, is just to further the thought that there's no "one size fits all" response--not even when there is only one responder!
Since when is the female(or human, for that matter) body not already symmetrical??
I suppose that makes sense! But doesn't the bellybutton do the same thing?
Look at older paintings. You'll notice female nudes from the 18th-19th centuries who have no pubic hair, which made their nudity somehow non-erotic in nature, according to the art aesthetic of the time. So the paintings were "innocent" and acceptable as art,whereas paintings that depicted nude women with pubic hair were obscene.
Perhaps the belly button draws attention to a mid point, but it's not as interesting a mid-point as that triangle between a woman's thighs. And since hair also obscures, it adds to the aura of mystery. Now I know you dislike mystery as you said in post #164, but a lot of people find it alluring.
My earlier point was to say that I appreciate for different reasons, both hairlessness and a neatly groomed small thatch of hair. One is about sensation and the other about an aesthetic ideal.
I don't think women's bodies look as beautiful, but I like the way mine feels bare, and I like to provide a clean work space. To each her own.
I'm assuming this because nobody is responding to my comments
(@133, @159). Okay then. it's official. Breeder is now a wooly mammoth
gone extinct, like the Republican and Tea Parties, which is fine with me.
Back to the currently running thread...
I agree that the triangle of pubic hair is alluring and holds mystery.
One of my favorite photographers, Carlo Mollino, shot polaroids of italian prostitutes in the 50s, 60s and 70s and they all feature full bush. And they are very sexy images:
http://mondo-blogo.blogspot.com/2010/07/…
I know lots of people find it erotic, and I definitely know that for a long enough time a lack of pubic hair was essentially equivalent to a lack of breasts.
I know lots of people are into mystery and I've come across the odd guy who was dismayed to see that it was missing. But I believe in grooming being a form of self expression and I love the completely naked look on myself. It's kind of trashy and innocent at the same time - I'm into that, it suits me. I used to hate the fact that I have a very young look but then I resolved to have a can't-beat-'em-join-'em attitude and work with the dirty lolita vibe I have going.
Yes but she has two of them, right? And two eyes? two arms? One mouth, nose, bellybutton and vagina on the midline?
Sounds pretty symmetrical to me even if her breasts were slightly different sizes.
But I guess it's all relative.
@griz
The term breeder is like the term honkey. It's a vaguely derogatory term towards the less exploited group. I wouldn't take it too seriously or think that it's a legitimate way that all gay people think about all straight people.
I think most guys could go either way on groomed or not, with any preference being a function of what the woman they are hot for is currently doing with hers. I learned to appreciate hairy armpits from one partner (animal sexy), and a hairier than average bush (sometimes shaved, sometimes not) from a another one of Greek+Jewish decent.
Two things I've never gotten used to, however:
1) Excessive pubic hair spilling out from a bikini
2) Hairy legs, especially with sheer stockings
@Breeder:
Taking offense to "breeder" is silly. The term is ultimately a joke, just like the "kill straighty!" graffiti you sometimes see on Capitol Hill. Back in the 90's, referring to oneself as a breeder was a cute/ironic way to demonstrate you were down the gays. Letters to Savage Love would often open with "I'm a breeder boy..." or "I'm a breeder chick...", right after the "Hey, Faggot" salutation. Remember Kim Deal's band? Whether or not one has any intention to actually breed is entirely besides the point.
Retiring the term suggests that Our Work Here is Done, which most definitely is not the case.
Weirdly, though, I think it would be more accurately used to describe those who have to go about the matter as if dealing with racehorses (Frankel and Goldikova, perhaps?) rather than referring to those likely to produce a pregnancy at any particular moment of intimacy.
Great band. Kim Deal's fantastic.
@Ven
"Retiring the term suggests that Our Work Here is Done, which most definitely is not the case."
My thoughts exactly.
However, the last time I recieved oral without penetration right afterward, I was still a "virgin". Maybe my post-cunnilingus expectations of penetration make it easier for me to come? My partners seem to enjoy it too, so everybody wins, we like variety. But given the choice between getting head with no penetration afterward, and using my vibrator...sorry fellas.
When I see statistics like "80% of women don't feel a thing from penetration" I wonder what the hell is in it for those women, besides making her partner feel good, or babies if she's into that kind of thing. I honestly have a hard time believing it because I hang out in environments like this. I guess that's why science is still in search of the elusive G-Spot.
There's a huge difference between "80 % of women don't feel a thing from penetration ", "80 % of women don't come from penetration ever" and "80 % of women don't come from penetration only".
Somehow, I think if one of the statements above is true, it would be the last.
Good luck with your campaign for voluntary human extinction.
"men don't manscape so much"
Haha, what.
Bingo!
I realize that "breeder" is meant as a joke. However, I try not to make generalized statements, because not everybody from any one group tends to think the same way.
Bprrowing a line from Daman Wayans: when it comes to actually "breeding", THIS "Homey" don't play that!
@179 vennominon, and @180 mydriasis: What do you mean that by retiring the word, "breeder", Our Work Here is Done?
The point is, straight/cis people still enjoy a higher social status than LGBT people and that's a shame. Complaining about the term 'breeder' is kind of like complaining about all that sexism against men and all that racism against white people.
I still don't see your argument about breeders. How was I complaining? All I said was that since many heterosexuals (including myself) have simply chosen not to have kids (for WAY too many reasons to count here!), and a lot of gays and lesbians are proudly and lovingly having children, the original concept, even as a joke, seems outdated in today's society.
I think you're kind of missing the point.
Look, where I live, gay marriage has been around for years, sodomy laws were repealed back in the swingin' 60's and I was looking forward to kindergarten when the military got over itself and allowed gay people to serve openly.
But I still don't pretend that we're at a point where the focus should shift to how straight people are stereotyped.
The point of the term was never to suggest that all straight people have children - simply that they were biologically capable of doing so - STILL not accurate across the board, but a humourous jab isn't SUPPOSED to be.
Long story short, you're reading way too much into it.
You're fortunate to live in a commendably forward-thinking region that has warmly embraced the LGBT community long before ours here in the states did. That's really cool.
I've long accepted the term breeder ever since Dan first coined the phrase for what it is---a jab at heterosexuals because we hets could end up with kids by having unprotected sex. I just don't use it because I feel it doesn't apply to me.
Other people posting to this week's column suggested the retiring of the term breeder, such as @42 alecto, and I simply agreed with them.
Exactly what am I reading way too much into?
Long story short, I think you're misreading way too much of what I said.
I am sick to death of that obtuse argument. The scenarios are not at all comparable. The people around babies and the comatose have a CHOICE about whether to feed and care for those babies and comatose. Not to mention they're not having nutrients drained directly from their bloodstream and not being subjected to the subsequent waste products, and they're also not having their system flooded with hormones that can cause fatal reactions, having their organs crushed, or being forced to push the dependent out of a small hole at great physical risk (not to mention the many other non-desirable physical results and/or dangers).
The result of a fertilized egg is a parasite, in the most plain scientific terms, just like a bacterium or virus. At best, it's comparable to a tumor - a collection of human cells that grows really quickly at the expense of the organism it inhabits. We have no qualms suggesting that a woman may rid herself of those, certainly not any that produce the exact same deleterious effects. The one difference is that a fertilized egg could potentially turn into a fully-substantiated human (and only potentially - it could also turn into a molar pregnancy, die in utero and cause septic shock, or any other number of potentially fatal outcomes). Now you can argue all you want that we should protect "potentially human" parasites over other life forms, but that's the only argument you can make. You cannot argue that it's reasonable to expect a human to harbor a parasite just because you say so. You need to argue that it's reasonable to expect a human to harbor that particular kind of parasite over another. And I'm not saying whether it is or isn't, but that is the only logical approach to the argument.
I am sick to death of that obtuse argument. The scenarios are not at all comparable. The people around babies and the comatose have a CHOICE about whether to feed and care for those babies and comatose. Not to mention they're not having nutrients drained directly from their bloodstream and not being subjected to the subsequent waste products, and they're also not having their system flooded with hormones that can cause fatal reactions, having their organs crushed, or being forced to push the dependent out of a small hole at great physical risk (not to mention the many other non-desirable physical results and/or dangers).
The result of a fertilized egg is a parasite, in the most plain scientific terms, just like a bacterium or virus. At best, it's comparable to a tumor - a collection of human cells that grows really quickly at the expense of the organism it inhabits. We have no qualms suggesting that a woman may rid herself of those, certainly not any that produce the exact same deleterious effects. The one difference is that a fertilized egg could potentially turn into a fully-substantiated human (and only potentially - it could also turn into a molar pregnancy, die in utero and cause septic shock, or any other number of potentially fatal outcomes). Now you can argue all you want that we should protect "potentially human" parasites over other life forms, but that's the only argument you can make. You cannot argue that it's reasonable to expect a human to harbor a parasite just because you say so. You need to argue that it's reasonable to expect a human to harbor that particular kind of parasite over another. And I'm not saying whether it is or isn't, but that is the only logical approach to the argument.
Absolutely, big props to all the straight folks who helped it happen!
I live in Canada (it's been legal up here for a few years now, as you know from personal experience!) - so those votes don't affect my life directly, but it sure made me sooooo happy on election night and the day after to see how those 4 state votes went. (And Tammy Baldwin, and on non-LGBT matters, Warren, McCaskill, and the gent who defeated Murdouch, and Rep. Tammy Duckworth....and on and on.. not to mention re-electing Obama!)