As a cis-het female, I would probably not react well to this sort of conversation topic on a first (coffee) date.
It reminds me of the time, back in college, when a mixed group of us went out for cocktails. We were two couples (kinda sorta, casual) and a fifth wheel guy. Fifth wheel guy decided it would be a good time to ask, "Have any of you ever looked at your own sperm under a microscope?" There was an awkward silence before someone else said, "Nope" and changed the subject.
Dude doesn't deserve "ensuing" (which is now going to be my euphemism for sex on a first date).
Anyone who mixes up "there" and "their" and doesn't take the time to proofread his letter doesn't deserve a first date wherein the other person gets to pay attention to the quantity and volume of his ejaculate.
Yes, I am in a picky mood.
This counts as a kink? Get over yourself, dude.
@3: I was kinda thinking that. It's only a kink if you're tied down and edged and aren't in control of your own orgasms, IMHO.
Do not talk about your load size on a first date.
My understanding is that volume varies so much between various people, she won't even know it's the result of you 'edging'.
I once went out with a girl on one of this kind of coffee date; I wish I had known about this before I went on the date because I missed out on a blowjob.
So weird how going out for coffee leads to sex; used to be a bar...
P.S. This is a true story.
Kink or not, LW, there are so many now who can keep up?, the obvious solution is don’t edge before a first date.
It’s presumptuous of you to expect sex will occur, no matter what the words between you have implied. She may not like your smell, and that will be that.
A coffee date without preempting the outcome, gives both of you room to check out the true attraction between you.
@nocute @2: I just imagined what the world would be like if there were a "no proofreading => no ejaculating" rule. And it was good.
Imagining me having sex with someone for the first time:
Me: "Wow! That's a lot of jizz! Why is there so much? Do you have some sort of kink that would account for all that semen?"
Him: "Glad you asked; yes, my kink is in edging (myself). So what you just saw is the result of at least 5 orgasms being denied over the last 3 days. Impressive, no?"
Me: "hells yeah, it's impressive . . . and a bit intimidating. I'm sure glad you told me that the reason there is so much spunk is because you work yourself up but deny yourself release on the regular. Otherwise, I'd just have thought you were Superman."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reality: he comes into a condom; I have no freaking idea how much ejaculate he produces.
@8: ciods, I used to have a line in my dating profile that said, "if you can't take the time to proofread, you don't deserve to get to fuck me."
@2 I'm with you and @ciods.
I'm not a spunk scientist, but I really doubt that stroking beforehand is going to produce a substantially larger load afterhand. It's all going to dribble away.
I once got a facial from one guy that left me looking like a bukkake porn star (it felt a little larger than a Peter North sized load). Now, I wonder if he was edging for hours. It was kind of hot at the time, but I can see how that would be weird to somebody else.
That said, unless you get to a “revealing your kicks” conversation naturally, keep it to yourself.
WOOD has another kink to disclose:
He types emails to advice columnists with one hand.
Outside fabric considerations, an unexpectedly large amount of ejaculate is never upsetting.
How would they know?
If it's in a condom, or in a vagina, or in an ass, or in a mouth - how does someone know precise load size? Does the guy routinely edge and then wank into shot glasses so he can use measuring spoons to properly gage his spunk production?
This is just ridiculous and stupid. Your partner will not know or care, and if you bring it up, it sounds obsessive and creepy, like the verbal equivalent of an unrequested dick pic.
For pete's sake WOOD, you've never even met this person, chill the fuck out! Do whatever the fuck you want before the date, but leave them the fuck out of it! WTF is wrong with you?! I hope DAVIDinKENAI@14 is correct and you're not serious about this crap because if you are you're a stark-raving lunatic.
@16 gamebird: You get a sense of quantity when it's in your mouth, seems weird that you'd think otherwise. Maybe not "precise load size", at least if it's notably large or small though.
Secretly, I’m kinda proud of my ability to produce enough come to pretty much cover girlfriend’s tummy, tits and the occasional squirt in her ear. But it’s never been anything other than a “ Wow, that was a lot! Snatch me a snorkel before I drown!” moment for any of my partners, who usually just grab an industrial-sized chamois from the dispenser by my bed and towel off. This is definitely not first date (or any kind of general) conversation. UNLESS of course, she brings it up first, like, “So, I was impressed by your ability to sculpt that tiny heron in flight out of your ice cube. And by the way, an average ejaculation is about 10cc, hence the name of the band, and also the origin of ‘The Lovin’ Spoonful’. Do you come more or less than that, and if so, why?”
Masturbating is like taking a shit. We all do it, but nobody else wants or needs to know about it. That goes for lack of masturbation, too. Would you want a first date to tell you, "By the way, I think you should know I only poop once every three days"? Don't bring this up! Like NoCute says, when sex happens you'll most likely be coming into a condom anyway. Yes, some guys produce more cum than others. No, women don't care about that anywhere near as much as you think we do.
I do note that WOOD never said his date was female. I kind of think that the answer might be different if his date is male, because men seem to have a lot more interest in this sort of thing. Queer men of the board, what say you?
Seems to me that if you're planning on getting involved in an emotional relationship, then you'd want someone who is accepting of who you are, in which case, divulging sensitive information about yourself that would help separate out the non-accepting people would be the thing to do.
On the other hand, if what you're pursuing is a purely sexual encounter, then why all the hand-wringing? Your partner will chalk up whatever happens (including the new type of body wash you're apparently about to give him/her) to the weirdnesses that can result in this type of hookup.
I hope LW comes back to let us know how it went.
@1. originalcinner. I would find that an interesting conversation. OK, not an interesting conversation, but still a good thing to know. Let's say a guy produces few, lazy sperm at age 18. I think that's a good thing for his partner's to know. (OK, an interesting conversation).
This is an astonishing letter. How has it entered into his head that he is under any obligation to tell his date, or that she has any interest in knowing? How significant does he think the variation in the volume of his ejaculate is?
I don’t know if he will get back to us Marty @23, though like you I hope he does. He was trying to be considerate and he was nervous about this date, hoping for the big win.
@14 +1. @18 if not a letter-just-to-get-off-on-writing-the-letter, maybe LW is on the spectrum.
Rubbish. He’s a guy, thinking he has gallons of come in him.. and is worried she’d choke on it. Assuming she be willing to blow him that is. So many assumptions before a first date.
If only we lived in an era where LWs had some magical way of sharing what happened.
Either LWs are selfish or simply don't think to do this.
How about Dan's tech savvy at risk-no-longer-youth add an email signature for Dan that encourages all the folks he answers to share an update in the SLLOTD, including for callers to the Lovecast - comment thread there is a deadzone and only once in a great while does Dan play the follow-up call back.
Heck, make letting us know what happened the price of admission for Dan's advice!
@Nocute, you are killing it today!
I don’t think an anticipated large amount of ejaculate is something that needs to be mentioned before a first-time encounter. If the question is when to bring it up,though, I suggest sometime in the moments after you have decided to go have sex, while you are leaving the restaurant and walking to your cars or bikes or the bus or however you are getting to wherever. If there is anything so unusual that needs to be mentioned, this is the time. “ I have a spotted dick, nothing wrong with it, just freckles.” Or, “it’s got this weird bulge in the middle, not a prob, just unusual.” If you really haven’t come in days, that might be something to warn about, not because of volume but because it will probably taste bad. But if she gets a taste of bitter pre-ejaculate, she will know that without you mentioning it. First load from a clogged system tends to be large and foul tasting... more so if the person eats meat, worse if he smokes. (Sucking tobacco smoker’s dick: something I should add to my hard limit list.)
You want to be thoughtful about these kinds of “there’s one thing you should know before we do it” statements that happen on the path but before the destination. Keep it to the minimal and necessary. It’s not the time for a long list of revelations. And of course, more significant disclosures should happen in the “public place” coffee shop phase of the conversation.... e.g. std status, parental and marital status, hard limits.
"@18 if not a letter-just-to-get-off-on-writing-the-letter, maybe LW is on the spectrum"
In that case then yes, maybe.
In any case if the LW intended the letter not to sound nutso, he would need to have some kinda issue. When I (as some commenter on the internet) called him a "stark-raving lunatic", I did so not to hurt him, I did it to clue him into that his letter was nusto in case he didn't already know, so that he could benefit appropriately from seeing that.
Of course IRL I'd have worded it infinitely more delicately, but here in the thunderdome of the internet I think a little hyperbole might help convey a point.
Ms Fan - Isn't Tinder primarily or exclusively OS?
I entirely agree with Mr Savage about whether this "qualifies" as a kink.
Is it still kink shaming if the thing isn't a kink?
Every woman going out on a date tonight who reads this is going to wonder if they’re the lucky gal!
Ms Cute/Ms Ods - If it were simply a question of frequency, then I'd rank "their/there" between #3 and #5, but I'm not sure how many extra points it should get for going both ways. I can't recall at the moment seeing "lose" when someone meant "loose" (though the reverse happens often), for instance, even though that could be a typo. What about you two?
@32. fubar. Yes.
That link to Poseidon adventure is priceless
Donny @ 20 - From what I heard in those days, the average ejaculate was meant to be 9 CC, hence the name of the band. You know, 70s macho posturing.
I say "meant to be" because, as someone who lives with the metric system, I find 9 cubic centimeters to be an awful lot more than what I'm used to seeing, and I believe it is erroneous.
BDF @ 22 - First, like Venn, I thought Tinder was primarily OS, so there's a clue.
Second, as a gay man who, in his youth, produced an inordinate amount of come every single time (it's now down to almost normal, thankfully), I can definitely say that the number of guys who found that of particular interest is roughly the same as the number of guys who were annoyed at the mess I made. There weren't that many of them in either case. The great majority were merely mildly surprised and left it at that.
That said, if some guy were to tell me about this (extremely mild) kink before sex, I, like many other gay men I believe, would be happy to find out if and how I can help.
@BiDanFan: When I first read the letter, I too, wondered if the lw might be going on a date with a man, because in general, I think men pay far more attention to things like quantity of ejaculate. The fact that this was a Tinder, not Grindr, date that made me think it was with a woman, but I guess there's no reason why two men wouldn't be using Tinder. I think; I've never used Tinder.
And I also thought of a blow job and swallowing, even as I wrote about condoms @9. But as a woman who's blown men who have come in varying quantity, I've never, /ever/ wondered why someone produces more come than someone else. I just accept that difference as one of those that makes up the rich tapestry of humanity: chalk it up to variation within the species, like the fact that one person has a bigger nose than most or that someone is especially tall.
I once had a boyfriend who produced an abnormally /small/ quantity of ejaculate, but he said that was a side effect of using Rogaine. I, being the recipient of his ejaculate, was actually thrilled with the low volume: I always swallow, but I don't like the feeling of being flooded/choking on come (or the viscosity or taste), so it made swallowing much more pleasurable for me. And less semen meant less dripping out of my vagina hours later (we were fluid bonded, so forwent condoms). I would say that the lower volume of ejaculate meant no sleeping in wet spots, but since I am a squirter, there was always a wet spot (this was pre-Liberator throw for me)!
Incidentally, and I think un-relatedly, this same guy had virtually NO refractory period and could come 4-6 times in one 2-hour session easily. But each time there was less semen, until he was orgasming without shooting at all. I'd never experienced that. I asked him if he had been the same way all his life and he said that the amount of semen had always decreased with each subsequent orgasm, but that aging (he was in his early 50s at the time) and Rogaine had meant that the starting quantity was lower to begin with and so he reached "empty" more completely than he had as a young man.
I can't speak for all women, but I'd hazard a guess that the amount of volume of semen (and the forcefulness of the shooting or the distance it can travel) is something that men both pay more attention to and value more than the majority of women--or at least my friends whom I've polled--do.
Nocute @ 38 - I would say that most men who do pay a lot of attention to the quantity of ejaculate are mostly interested in how much they themselves produce, in the same way as they play "who pisses the farthest" when they're kids: It's a measure of their insecurity about being a "real man".
nocute@38 ~ Do you have a PowerPoint distance/volume/interest-by-sex chart to share of that poll?
@4 That's hot
@39: Ricardo, I agree with you 100%. I find it interesting, because I don't think most women define masculinity or manhood by ejaculation volume or velocity. I wonder whether gay or bi men judge their partners' masculinity by those factors.
DonnyK: unfortunately, the dog ate my chart (and it had arrows was multi-colored, too). But it is seriously something I've talked about with my female friends, and not one of us particularly prizes a large or far-traveling load.
HOWEVER, I like having sex with a guy who has been denied orgasm or who has edged (or been edged?) because then his orgasm tends to be more intense and I like helping him to have that "with extra lobster" experience.
Mr. Ven @34: Actually, the clause was "we have talked about our expectations and their will likely be a physical aspect in to whatever potential relationship may ensue." So this was more than a "their/there" mixup, and something which proofreading might help (not that I, myself always proofread; when I don't, we all suffer for it).
But it brings up the issue of whether or not letters to advice columnists should be edited before being printed. I'm positive that a substantial number of letters written to Dan have spelling, punctuation, syntax, or grammatical errors in them (I base this on the papers my students write). Many people don't know and more probably don't care about the mechanics of writing. And there is definitely a snob-factor in my (and others) judgment when I read a line like the one I quoted.
So I assume that someone on "The Stranger" staff or Dan himself, edits and corrects errors in most letters before running them, both for clarity and to keep the lw from looking foolish.
Therefore, this could be a case of an error (two, really) just happening to get through--simply not being caught. Or it could be a subtle way to manipulate the readers' response. The lw already comes off as foolish: he is seriously over-thinking this issue ("On one hand, if don't divulge this information, I could see how my production of an unexpectedly large amount of ejaculate could be upsetting depending on the circumstances/activity. But on the other hand, at least some amount of come is expected, right? If I randomly had massive loads every single time through no effort of my own, would I be responsible for letting a partner know?"). He seems self-absorbed to an inordinate degree and risks coming off looking like a narcissistic boundary-less creep. So perhaps there was an (maybe subconscious) editorial misshap to allow him to look foolish.
If this was a first encounter with me, I would want to be surprised by the big load. That's hot. If he was going to cum during a blow job, though, he should give a little warning (to prevent choking), like "Get ready to swallow".
I do understand that a lot of people aren't into semen. I had a boyfriend once who was even icked out by his own semen (poor guy - he came buckets, too). But those folks shouldn't assume that their own prejudices are universal.
@ 42 - "I wonder whether gay or bi men judge their partners' masculinity by those factors"
Not generally, as far as I've been able to notice, since it has absolutely no correlation with how masculine a man acts or appears. But there are exceptions.
I would have thought this was the kind of ridiculous notion held by teenagers who've never had sex, but it appears some men never actually leave adolescence and carry these worries about their own potency far into middle age. One guy I know is like that. He worries a lot about his capacities, and always makes a point of mentioning it (over and over again) if one of his sex partners doesn't perform as well as he does in some aspect (for instance, we all got to know that is last boyfriend suffers from ED, although he himself also has ED, just not as systematically). Then again, this guy has all the hang-ups of an awkward teenager and has never really had that much sex, so it makes sense.
Heck that was only the first of two errors in just that sentence:
"their will likely be a physical aspect in to whatever potential relationship"
Maybe the 2nd one was just because he was only typing with one hand and had other things on his mind.
At first it bugged me that he wrote
"If I randomly had massive loads every single time..."
(nothing random happens every time)
But I understand one who indulges in the slang meaning of "random" wouldn't mind that.
"So perhaps there was an (maybe subconscious) editorial mishap to allow him to look foolish."
It was consistent with that he already looked looked foolish even without the errors.
Speaking generally, I'd rather see the letters unedited; that would give us more info. But I'm not so sure they are edited; why would they edit the letters and not edit Dan's responses which have certainly not been error-free? (Hey I'm not complaining, we get a letters from Dan 4 days a week, I appreciate that very much and don't want him to burden himself timewise in editing them.)
Anyone else disappointed this wasn't about some new kink involving lots of water? Like, i can only come when I'm running at least class 3 rapids?
This is worry over something imaginary: cis male reproductive biology does not work that way. One doesn't build-up stores of ejaculate fluid through sexual arousal - it's produced either continuously (prostate, semenal vescicles) or on demand (bubourethral/Cowper's glands) - and getting sexually aroused over the course of days or weeks without ejaculating will have no impact on ejaculate volume. Going days without ejaculating, whether one is sexuslly aroused during that time or not, will allow fluid stores to build up - one will likely see decreased ejaculate volume if ejaculating repeatedly within a span of hours or even a day - but there's a maximum fluid volume that the prostate and vescicles store. Fluid volume has mostly to do with testosterone levels (which impact prostate and seminal vescicle activity), a few other hormones or medications that effect endocrine function, and hydration (being properly hydrated allows the glans to work at maximum efficiency), not arousal patterns. The only way edging is going to matter at all is if one is doing so for an hour or two IMMEDIATELY before ejaculating - the volume of on-demand fluid production might be a little higher, as the fluid won't be immediately reabsorbed, and that's mostly going to impact pre-ejaculate fluid rather than ejaculate.
If you enjoy edging for its own sake, power to you, but it is not a method of increasing ejaculate volume beyond the impact that not ejaculating for several days without edging will have. Also, if you're really into semen, and especially if you're into the idea of shooting a lot of semen, you should disclose that! Not because of any mechanical aspects of dealing with semen, but because it will let your partner know that talking about your semen and the large volume of it (true or not) is sexy to you, and acting on that info will make sex better for you.
My guess about what's going on here is that LW finds anticipation very sexy (hence the edging and all the words about what they have discussed and what he'd like to discuss) and also has a bit of a semen fetish (hence all the focus on his ejaculate). This letter is part of that, going over the anticipation writing the letter and imagining all of us reading it and sharing in the anticipation qua lots of talking abour sexy, sexy semen (for him - I'm not really a fan, I mostly find it irritating to have to deal with, and I'm not really a fan of gooey or sticky). It's a wank letter without the wanking, or with wanking but no finish.
@24: "How significant does he think the variation in the volume of his ejaculate is?" To him, it's very significant, because his kink isn't edging, it's a semen fixation/fetish.
@47: I was hoping for a waterboarding fetish, and I, too, am disappointed by semen-and-anticipation.
Late to the game, but letter is fake or LW is never going on the first date because he's been talking to a dude the whole time.
Ms Cute - I suppose one could call it a snob factor. It seems, though, that, as you take pride in how you express yourself (that reminds me of Sandra Bezic's once, when Alexei Urmanov skated a programme in the role of Cagliostro, explaining that he didn't just like wearing silly costumes), it would be only natural for you to mark down someone with the habits of a slattern in that area. Perhaps it's feeling a little too much like Fanny Price for your ease.
Coincidentally, while waiting in line today at the bank, I reached the section in Mrs Woolf's memoirs that contained three essays, the last of which, "Am I a Snob?" rehashed her odd semi-friendship with the well-known hostess Sibyl Colefax.
Venn/Ricardo: Yes, we've all jumped to an OS conclusion because WOOD said Tinder, not Grindr, but I know women can look for women on Tinder, so I assume men can do the same. I agree it's overwhelmingly probable the date is female, but since he never stated such I think we can allow for either possibility.
Put me in the "more cum just means more mess" camp. I was always puzzled to receive "increase the amount of your ejaculate" e-mail spams, because why would anyone be concerned about that? Increase your staying power, hardness or size, sure, but "make sex messier!"? Why?? I also have a partner who produces little to no ejaculate, which did seem a bit odd but he is obviously coming, and yes, he can stay hard and keep fucking, so win/win there. In other words, WOOD, if your date is female, perhaps you should do her the favour of jacking off before your date.
ECarpenter @44: Good call on a pre-load warning during a blowjob being polite. Other than that, nothing needs to be said. I'm also wondering whether, due to this being the only possible relevant situation, they have discussed that oral sex will be their chosen activity, and if so, whether WOOD is planning to get her off as well. WOOD, unless specified, most women would prefer that you come during intercourse, with blowjobs-to-completion being an occasional variant and not the main dish, as it were.
John @48: Thanks for the anatomical background.
@52 used to have much more than "average" size ejaculates when younger, and when I'd ask "where would you like it," guys who had a preference for their torso would be pleasantly surprised it was like gay porn. Also would easily shoot up 3' to 4' (1m+) multiple times so maybe it was that. Oh well, those were the days, no more!
@46. curious. I agree that it's better we see the letters unedited (consistent with their being minimally intelligible).
The errors LWs make (and we all make errors) provide a lot of contextual info about them (e.g. their thoroughness, obsessiveness, impulsiveness, and level of education, and so on).
@24. John Horstman. Sure; but 'significant' there meant 'bigger or smaller in volume', not emotionally significant or morally loaded.
Your physical description is very interesting; thank you. Edging, though, is a method for increasing penile orgasmic intensity...?
@52. Bi. Not sure that oral's the only relevant situation. This will be (he hopes) first sex after a first date. Maybe he's fantasising about coming over her? Coming buckets? ('her' I'm saying as most likely--because (for some reason) I'm reading the lw as a horny, geeky young straight man).
This is a bit off topic, but... my bf and I (who are both naturally pretty vanilla but of the "I'll try most anything if you're interested" variety) were looking at going to a kink event in our area. He had heard about this place through work. I was reading off the different types of events and one mentioned "edge play". I had had to look up some of the other terms, but was like, "oh, I know that one". And he was like, "me too". I was wrong. He works with hepatitis and his organization does testing, so he went to this place for work cause edge play involves cutting/ blood. Edging/edge play...not the same.
One more thought: Edging may have another effect on WOOD, namely he could come extremely quickly if he's been frustrating himself. I'm sure his date would not be impressed by that.
"we have talked about our expectations and their will likely be a physical aspect in to whatever potential relationship may ensue"
LW, on my planet we call that a "date".
Great point! I think the odds are pretty long that this guy's date event will make it past the first sip of coffee, but I applaud you for making time for informing him on this along with everything else the poor LW needs to learn.
On consideration, "their/there/they're" probably belongs at #3.
Mr. Venn @34 I definitely see lose for loose, although it does seem more often to go the other way. My current pet peeves that seem fairly new (I don’t seem to recall ever seeing them prior to this decade) are “would of” for “would’ve” and women used as a singular. I never see a men, but a women has become distressingly common.
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.
Sign up for the latest news and to win free tickets to events
Buy tickets to events around Seattle
Comprehensive calendar of Seattle events
The easiest way to find Seattle's best events
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122