if you’ve paid much attention to my blog—hell, on some days, any attention—you will quickly learn that i happen to have a deep and abiding interest in sex. the last time i blogged about sex, i didn’t really talk about sex per se: i just talked about talking about it. i will be addressing that oversight now.



being an opinionated person comes of having a certain confidence in the accuracy and validity of one’s opinions. and this is a matter on which i possess considerable confidence.

i participate in an online forum in which sex is discussed very often. it so happens that very often, someone starts a discussion thread about the fact that the woman in the relationship cannot achieve multiple orgasms. on that forum, the mantra of choice was best expressed by one of my favorite people there, who phrased it thusly: “communicate, communicate, communicate!”

as anyone who’s ever had sex knows, there are two components to any sex act: the actual stimulus—or as i like to call it, the physics†—and the mental/psychological/emotional aspect, which i generally refer to as the chemistry.

people like to talk about sexual technique. they like to talk about it a lot. hell, magazines (cough*cosmo*cough) are filled with articles about how to add some excitement in the bedroom. i’ve always felt that this was wrongheaded and short-sighted: obviously, good sex is not substantially dependent upon simple sexual technique.

but i’m beginning now to understand why there’s such emphasis on technique: it’s b/c technique is easy. the physics of sex are easy.

it’s the chemistry that’s difficult. it isn’t hard to set the mood. it isn’t hard to know how to see if your partner is in the mood††. and it isn’t hard to know if what you’re doing is making your partner happy.

xaviera hollander (a.k.a., the happy hooker) is fond of saying that the biggest sex organ is between the ears. and she’s absolutely right.

i’ve previously blogged about what i refer to as the touchless orgasm. essentially, it’s possible to induce orgasm in someone without any physical stimulation taking place. now, contrast this w/ the fact that there are women who cannot achieve orgasm even after hours of effort by an understanding and giving lover.

QED: chemistry > physics. at least vis a vis sex, anyway.

this isn’t to say that the physics is worthless: after all, at some point, every man has the unfortunate experience of receiving oral sex and the shock and gut-wrenching anxiety of suddenly feeling teeth at an incredibly bad moment. proper technique (covering the teeth with lips) can prevent that sort of thing.

i’ve been known to say that every woman is entitled to at least three oral orgasms/encounter. this is a variation on something i used to say to my single friends when i was younger, cockier and more immature†††. i’ve previously blogged about my great love of performing cunnilingus. i revel in my partner’s pleasure, her cries of ecstasy, the subdued whimpers and gasps: it’s a sensory smorgasbord, a glimpse into my partner’s heart. and there is no greater sight than that.

this is why sex outside of some kind of relationship is just not interesting to me: every single thing i learned about sex confirms it.

measured against that, physics is nothing.

and what i’ve found is that barring psychological trauma or a physiological issue, every woman is multi-orgasmic.



so am i just being a condescending arrogant asshole or does this make any sense? or is that a false dichotomy? comment and let me know. :>

ed

†the physics of sex or of relationships vs. the chemistry of sex or of relationships.
††hell, my wife just gave me grief last night b/c i kissed her and she observed that it was the kind of kiss i use to see whether there’s going to be sex following the kissing. while i’m unsurprised i type of kiss that means this, i’m somewhat dismayed that she’s picked up on it w/out my being conscious of it existing in the first place. love is certainly educational. :>
†††i used to say that i liked to give a woman at least five orgasms the first time we have sex, just to ensure that she’ll come back at least once to see if that was an aberration. like i said: i was younger, cockier and more immature in those days.