Her Orgasm: His Responsibility?

[rosco rathbone]

This whole discussion has an underlying assumption that is faulty: that sex should have the goal of mutual pleasure. Sorry, but this is not a universal truth. In many relationships the dominant partner decides if or when the other party gets pleasure. In those cases the underlying assumption is not that mutual climactic fulfillment is the goal. Rather, the underlying assumption is a mutual agreement on unequal power sharing within the relationship. It's not anyone's job or role to fulfill the other unless they agree to that arrangement.

Second, while Cosmopolitan magazine and its ilk have raised awareness among many women's partners, the notion that all sexual encounters should have the goal of producing a climax in the woman is farcical at best and damaging for the most part. Not all sex is or should be about reaching climax. Sex is a valuable outlet for passion and intimacy alike but it is also not the only such outlet. When we make climax into a goal we lose the ability to communicate through intimacy. As WW said earlier, pleasuring each other is only part of the fun.

I will co-sign to this.

 

[CTYankee]

This whole discussion has an underlying assumption that is faulty: that sex should have the goal of mutual pleasure. Sorry, but this is not a universal truth. In many relationships the dominant partner decides if or when the other party gets pleasure. In those cases the underlying assumption is not that mutual climactic fulfillment is the goal. Rather, the underlying assumption is a mutual agreement on unequal power sharing within the relationship. It's not anyone's job or role to fulfill the other unless they agree to that arrangement.

OK. I'll concede that this discussion has an underlying assumption. But not that it's "faulty".

It may not be an assumption that's appropriate to *your* lifestyle. But it is appropriate to mine and to, I daresay, a majority (however slim?) of Litsters.

So for the sake of this discussion, yes please, let's confine ourselves to "non-dominant" relationships between more-or-less equal partners.

Second, while Cosmopolitan magazine and its ilk have raised awareness among many women's partners, the notion that all sexual encounters should have the goal of producing a climax in the woman is farcical at best and damaging for the most part. Not all sex is or should be about reaching climax. Sex is a valuable outlet for passion and intimacy alike but it is also not the only such outlet. When we make climax into a goal we lose the ability to communicate through intimacy. As WW said earlier, pleasuring each other is only part of the fun.

I'm not willing to totally concede that the preceding discussion has made this assumption.

I, and others, have acknowledged on several occasions that "not all sex/intimacy is, or should be, about reaching orgasm".

This discussion will never be like a Kantian treatise, minutely analyzing each and every possible permutation of behavior. Just can't do it.

But for most people, most of the time, somewhere in the back of our heads, I think most of us think it would be nice for both partners to climax.

That's another assumption I'm willing to make. It's not as universal or iron-clad as you seem to be portraying it, however. And for that reason I'm not willing to agree that it's "farcical".

Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[midwestyankee]

OK. I'll concede that this discussion has an underlying assumption. But not that it's "faulty".

It may not be an assumption that's appropriate to *your* lifestyle. But it is appropriate to mine and to, I daresay, a majority (however slim?) of Litsters.

So for the sake of this discussion, yes please, let's confine ourselves to "non-dominant" relationships between more-or-less equal partners.

An assumption is faulty when it does not apply to all possible permutations of the discussion that it underlies.

I'm not willing to totally concede that the preceding discussion has made this assumption.

I, and others, have acknowledged on several occasions that "not all sex/intimacy is, or should be, about reaching orgasm".

This discussion will never be like a Kantian treatise, minutely analyzing each and every possible permutation of behavior. Just can't do it.

But for most people, most of the time, somewhere in the back of our heads, I think most of us think it would be nice for both partners to climax.

That's another assumption I'm willing to make. It's not as universal or iron-clad as you seem to be portraying it, however. And for that reason I'm not willing to agree that it's "farcical".

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Saying that it would be "nice for both partners" is not the way you said it earlier: "I think everyone agrees that it's certainly desirable if both partners *do* come. I guess the distinction I'm trying to draw is a bit more subtle than that.

Let's take it as a given for the sake of this discussion that the man WANTS to please the woman and WANTS to see her reach orgasm."

My point was only to add to the discussion by saying that it's not always desirable for both partners to reach orgasm every time. In fact, when two people engage in sex that is strictly goal-oriented then it's quite likely that the relational value of the sex act will be diminished because of the opportunity cost of reduced intimacy. When you turn sex into a project it ceases to be a form of communication and a source for growth within the relationship.

And that's exclusive of the fact that quite a sizable part of the population does not buy into the equal-rights-to-pleasure assertion that is at the heart of your viewpoint. Of course my mileage does vary - and I'm quite happy with my mileage most of the time, thank you very much. The fact that "most people" used to believe that the world was flat did not make it so. The fact that "most people" used to believe that a woman's orgasm was incidental to relational (they would have called it marital sex in those days) sex did not make it so.

 

[CTYankee]

. . . quite a sizable part of the population does not buy into the equal-rights-to-pleasure assertion that is at the heart of your viewpoint.

Though my instinct tells me that it is a minority, I have no reliable or authoritative sense of the size/percentage of this population fraction.

What I *do* know with absolute certainty, however, is that: a) our conceptual frameworks (yours and mine) are very different, and b) I did not have this sub-population in mind when I framed the question that is the focus of this thread.

I can live with that. Can you?

Rather than trying to force this discussion into your own conceptual framework like the proverbial square peg into a round hole, maybe you'd be happier starting a new/different thread?

Peace.

 

[midwestyankee]

Though my instinct tells me that it is a minority, I have no reliable or authoritative sense of the size/percentage of this population fraction.

What I *do* know with absolute certainty, however, is that: a) our conceptual frameworks (yours and mine) are very different, and b) I did not have this sub-population in mind when I framed the question that is the focus of this thread.

I can live with that. Can you?

Rather than trying to force this discussion into your own conceptual framework like the proverbial square peg into a round hole, maybe you'd be happier starting a new/different thread?

Peace.

I've added all I intended to say here. I don't think that it's entirely healthy to make sex into a goal-oriented couples project, which is the inevitable result of focusing on always aiming for an orgasm for the female partner. That's really even more important than the sub point that not all of the population buys into the notion of mutuality as a given. By the way, estimates as to the size of the bdsm population in the U.S. tend to put it at around 10 to 13 percent, which makes it rougly equivalent to the population of African Americans in size. Not exactly an insubstantial population, wouldn't you agree?

 

[NymphGoddess]

I still think it's a mutual issue...if she's too inhibited to say what she wants she might expect him to be a mind reader...

if he's only out to satisfy himself...she looses either way...

but, either way, it's a matter of communication...if she wants his hand, tongue something else someplace else...dammit, tell him...he's not a mind reader

but if she doesn't get off every time...it's as likely to be her fault as much as his

 

[ZoFine]

If you don't communicate, neither party knows what is going on! Remember foreplay is what usually gets her there, not pounding away.

 

[Noor]

In my 35+ years of sexual awareness/activity I believe I can honestly say that every single orgasm I've ever experienced, without exception, has (in the narrowly-understood sense) been "my doing". That is, it's been the result of my action/motion during intercourse, my touches/strokes either alone or with a partner. Even the times that I've enjoyed the privilege of coming in my wife's (or a prior lover's) mouth, it has never been *FROM* the oral attention. My own hand touches/strokes have always been involved. I've never even come from a lover-administered hand job, ferchrissakes.

Someone needs to tie this man to something so he can't move and make torturous love to him.

well in Jewish law good sex is a basic right of woman, which probably explains why so many Jewish guys have gentile girlfriends

"Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). "

 

[NymphGoddess]

Someone needs to tie this man to something so he can't move and make torturous love to him.

well in Jewish law good sex is a basic right of woman, which probably explains why so many Jewish guys have gentile girlfriends

"Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and it is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce. The Talmud specifies both the quantity and quality of sex that a man must give his wife. It specifies the frequency of sexual obligation based on the husband's occupation, although this obligation can be modified in the ketubah (marriage contract). "

but traditionally women controlled the house hold...so, it would also make sense that they'd control the bedroom.

In ancient years...more than 3000 ago...family lines were matriarchal...not patriarchal. Women, if you think about it...can have sex with anyone and know the father...men cannot have sex with only one woman and be sure that he'd have been the father especially in those times

 

[Noor]

but traditionally women controlled the house hold...so, it would also make sense that they'd control the bedroom.

In ancient years...more than 3000 ago...family lines were matriarchal...not patriarchal. Women, if you think about it...can have sex with anyone and know the father...men cannot have sex with only one woman and be sure that he'd have been the father especially in those times

yeah, well , if I ever get married I am going to make sure its written into my marriage contract Jewish family lines still are matriarchal.

 

[NymphGoddess]

yeah, well , if I ever get married I am going to make sure its written into my marriage contract Jewish family lines still are matriarchal.

damn straight...women are better!!!

 

[Cathleen]

Her orgasm his responsibility? Nope, I do not believe that idea to be true.

I just don't see responsibility as a part of sex. Sex can be fun, intense, funny, silly, soft, hard, loud, quiet etc. Responsibility is about taking out the damn trash, IMHO.

If two people (2 just for the sake of the discussion) come together for sex it's about expression. What each wants matters, and should be agreeable regardless of lifestyle, overall sex itself is the communicator, it's the method used to express our wants and it brings intimacy to a relationship.

It shouldn't be too complicated, IMHO.

 

[blueyz22]

I don't go into sex thinking I'm always going to have an orgasm. I am fine with not having an orgasm. My husband is sometimes upset by this. Sometimes just sex is enough for me. I'm not able to orgasm from just sex. I have to play with myself or it won't happen. I am able to cum from oral sex but this doesn't happen everytime we're intimate.

My husband seems to think that if I don't cum, I'm not getting enough out of it. This is completely wrong!

 

[KokopelliRises]

I wouldn't say responsibility, but if he wants the relationship to run smoothly then some effort should at least be made because sexual relationships are about mutual pleasure.

 

[Hanon435]

i'm a guy. i do whatever i can to help out. that's my job.

 

[NymphGoddess]

i'm a guy. i do whatever i can to help out. that's my job.

it should be a pleasure...nothing more or less...I LOVE making sure I give him all I can because he makes sure I have the most pleasure he can give me.

 

[Cathleen]

I don't go into sex thinking I'm always going to have an orgasm. I am fine with not having an orgasm. My husband is sometimes upset by this. Sometimes just sex is enough for me. I'm not able to orgasm from just sex. I have to play with myself or it won't happen. I am able to cum from oral sex but this doesn't happen everytime we're intimate.

My husband seems to think that if I don't cum, I'm not getting enough out of it. This is completely wrong!

I completely agree that an orgasm, while great, isn't the only pleasure of sex. There's so many wonderful sensations not to be missed or misjudged as not enough.

 

[SimpleGifts]

I agree that mutual climax is not the ultimate goal of every sexual encounter...and I agree with the corollary, which is that sex doesn't have to stop when one or the other partner has a climax. I guess I've been lucky, in that most of my sexual partners have been multi-orgasmic, and I've had the chance to have some love-making sessions last long enough for me to climax two or three times as well. (I'm male.)

I do feel, still, some "responsibility" for doing all that I can to get the woman I am with to climax. I certainly don't mind if she "helps herself," especially if she's so overcome with passion that she can't help but help herself. While I do appreciate the dom/sub dynamic with sex sometimes, I also believe that the dom DOES have the "responsibility" for the sub to have pleasure, even if it's not a climax.

For me, the ultimate in love-making is where each partner does all that they can to give the other partner as much pleasure as possible. Then, you can trust that your partner will do all that he/she can to get you off and enjoy yourself...and you can let go of any worries about your own pleasure, and focus on your partner's pleasure instead. That attitude can lead to some amazing things...

SG

 

[bailadora]

For me, the ultimate in love-making is where each partner does all that they can to give the other partner as much pleasure as possible. Then, you can trust that your partner will do all that he/she can to get you off and enjoy yourself...and you can let go of any worries about your own pleasure, and focus on your partner's pleasure instead. That attitude can lead to some amazing things... SG

Beautifully stated, SG and so very, very true.

 

[Denae]

Her orgasm his responsibility? Nope, I do not believe that idea to be true.

I just don't see responsibility as a part of sex. Sex can be fun, intense, funny, silly, soft, hard, loud, quiet etc. Responsibility is about taking out the damn trash, IMHO. If two people (2 just for the sake of the discussion) come together for sex it's about expression. What each wants matters, and should be agreeable regardless of lifestyle, overall sex itself is the communicator, it's the method used to express our wants and it brings intimacy to a relationship.

It shouldn't be too complicated, IMHO.

That's my twin.

Okay. Going out on a drunken limb here. Have never had an orgasm, but have had a hell of a lot of fun trying. Have I ever blamed a man for "failing" me? Hell no. It's in my head and I know that. I have enjoyed taking him over the edge, but I've never put my orgasm on his shoulders.

 

[CTYankee]

Her orgasm his responsibility? Nope, I do not believe that idea to be true.

I just don't see responsibility as a part of sex. Sex can be fun, intense, funny, silly, soft, hard, loud, quiet etc. Responsibility is about taking out the damn trash, IMHO.

If two people (2 just for the sake of the discussion) come together for sex it's about expression. What each wants matters, and should be agreeable regardless of lifestyle, overall sex itself is the communicator, it's the method used to express our wants and it brings intimacy to a relationship.

It shouldn't be too complicated, IMHO.

That's my twin.

Okay. Going out on a drunken limb here. Have never had an orgasm, but have had a hell of a lot of fun trying. Have I ever blamed a man for "failing" me? Hell no. It's in my head and I know that. I have enjoyed taking him over the edge, but I've never put my orgasm on his shoulders.

This is one of the most thought-provoking responses to date, I think.

I would bet the rent and a small child that there are men who will read this -- men who've never met you, and who've never even *crossed virtual paths* with you here on Lit -- who will say to themselves silently: "I could change that". In effect they're taking the challenge of your orgasm onto their own shoulders, whether *you* would put it there or not.

Some men are just natural-born fixers. They see "problems" (regardless of whether you see it that way or not) and want to put their strength and skills toward "solving" them. It's one of the ways that many men express love and affection.

I think the folks who've responded here with: "Of course the man should WANT her to come; if not he's a selfish boor" (or words to that effect) have not appreciated the subtlety of the question being posed.

 

[bailadora]

This is one of the most thought-provoking responses to date, I think.

I would bet the rent and a small child that there are men who will read this -- men who've never met you, and who've never even *crossed virtual paths* with you here on Lit -- who will say to themselves silently: "I could change that". In effect they're taking the challenge of your orgasm onto their own shoulders, whether *you* would put it there or not.

Some men are just natural-born fixers. They see "problems" (regardless of whether you see it that way or not) and want to put their strength and skills toward "solving" them. It's one of the ways that many men express love and affection.

CTY - thanks for that insight. I think this explains to me the disconnect between my husband and I on those few occasions I didn't orgasm. Whereas I kept saying I had fun - it's ok (and truly meant it), he was assuming "failure". Going back to your original question then - If the man assumes all the responsibility for her orgasm (whether she wants him to or not), how then is she supposed to share any responsiblity when he takes it all on himself? I'm probably not phrasing this correctly, but it's something I'd really like to understand. If he sees a "problem" that needs to be fixed while she does not - how then does a couple resolve the two opposing views? Is that even possible?

 

[WriterDom]

Women having orgasms is a myth. I've been with tons of women and not one has orgasmed.

 

[emptynester]

OK, I am sure this is going to get me into trouble, but I would take it personally if my husband didn't have an orgasm. Why is it different for the man?

It doesn't take as much work or effort on my part to satisfy him (OK, it doesn't take much effort at all) but shouldn't it be partly his responsibility to determine what it takes for me to have an orgasm. It took us a very long time to figure that part out but I also had to be a willing participant.

In the earlier years of our marriage, I looked at sex as just meeting his needs. Once I allowed him the freedom to do anything and everything with the hopes of achieving more pleasure in it for me, it changed our relationship completely.

He took on the responsibility, but I had to allow it to happen. Maybe that is just us, but it certainly changed our sex life completely.

 

[Colton_White]

i had recently had cybersex with a selfish lady
once she orgasmed she left offline without saying a word or caring for me to cum.
funny thing is....

yesterday night she contacted me..and she acted like she wanted it again..i told her can u start ur webcam..she said no.[she does have a webcam]..then i said..can u show me ur pics..she said no...
then i said..well i can still play but u'll have to please me with ur words
and then that girl within two minutes said..i'm tired..i need to go sleep
lol

My Threads:-

Some Funny Quotes
[size=+1] Does ‘TONGUE’ size really matter? [/size][mockery of 'size related threads' in How to Section!]
[size=+1]Cum & say Hello to Colton[/size] [Playground thread]

My Humor Stories:-
[size=+1] Lady finder a.i. Chat autobot [/size]
[size=+1] A 'Fake' Dom remembers[/size]

Misc.Posts:-
Honesty on Lit.Threads
I'm Fed up with...