dreamlady
Posts: 737
Joined: 9/13/2007
From: Western MD
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: crumpets
it came to pass that some women. . . find that they often can't teach their man any new tricks for clam digging, simply because he muff dives using tired worn-out problem-solving skills that may have worked with someone else instead of the specific peach-eating approach that works for her ... which I likened at the time to employing the wrong mathematical approach to solving each of the variant terms of Maxwell's equation
OP, there's nothing wrong with your ruminating on this subject based upon your inspiration from the afore-referenced thread.
You have made all kinds of inferences that were not there.
This OP is, however, a stand-alone topic.
Allow me to clarify where there is a disconnect.
You personally cannot understand how this is possible, that any given man cannot be taught new tricks. You believe that such a possibility would be beyond the realm of your experience. You must admit, however, that you can only provide one side of the story wherein you prevailed until you succeeded in doing it her way. We have only your testimony to go by in giving you the benefit of the doubt.
In your suspended belief, you then interpret this to mean that the woman must not have taught "her" man how to do it right.
The basis of your (wrongful) assumptions is fourfold: (1) That it is possible for ANY woman, particularly a Dominant woman, to get ANY square-peg male to fit into a round hole. <You can stop your juvenile snickering now. *Administers hand slap*>
(2) That EVERY male at whatever age, stage of life, experience level, or lack of experience level, can be *trained* on how to do it "right", just by swapping out the interchangeable part(s) -- this variable being one woman to the next.
(3) That the woman even gives a flying fig whether she wants to give any given man more than his initial try-out, if that much. (Or that the man even gives a flip about whether he's doing it *right* for any given woman.)
(4) While there is nothing wrong with the mathematical analogy, that approaching solving a mathematical problem is analogous to *solving* the riddle of how no two women are exactly alike, or how no two women's bodies are mapped out in exactly the same manner (erogenous zones, bodily responses, degree/intensity/and turning the dials on various stimuli, etc.), the more fitting analogy would be that of learning how to play a musical instrument. And let's face it. Some men don't know how to keep their musical instruments in tune. 
The error in logic here is that you assume that ANY man has a teachable spirit. Some do, some don't. Some are better adapted to playing one kind of instrument, some can master learning how to play and move up a level into musical composition, some will never attain mastery or reach creative musical expression and can only follow or mimic the musical notes of accomplished artists.
You are assuming that all men are as pliable, flexible and adaptable as the next man is, which they aren't. (Which you should know is false, since you have often made a distinction between "P" types and "J"-type personalities.)
You also assume that technique, then varying such techniques here and there, carries equal weight and value as does innate talent and emotional attunement with one's partner (musical instrument), and it doesn't/they don't.
In other words, you make the same mistake that many other men make, presuming that technique and modifying those techniques eclipses natural talent as well as emotional connectivity.
Technique is mechanical. Mechanical sex acts are not as fulfilling to many women. Think of it as a shifting demarcation point. At some point, that point will get reached and then oversaturation sets in. Enough is enough, and there isn't enough spontaneous passion in their sex lives anymore.
For some women, they have reached a stage in their lives where NO mechanical (technique-based) sex is satisfying. It isn't our job to be just any man's sexual muse when that man is not already gifted at what he does. 
If I may take this another step further.
There are men who measure their sexual prowess in terms of the duration of their erection, their staying power. The rebuttal to this is that 15-20 minutes of quality fucking, or quality time spent doing any kind of sex act is infinitely more pleasurable than 1 hour of repetitious going through the motions. The plateau has leveled out without having cycled into an apex of climax(es) with its ensuing denouement.
There are men who measure sexual prowess in terms of orgasm count. Rebuttal: One really mind-blowing orgasm is far better than 3-5 mediocre ones.
There are men nowadays who want to measure "success" by whether they *made* their female partner squirt. Rebuttal: Some women can squirt, some don't. Some enjoy it, some are bothered by the mess. There are women do not find a squirting orgasm to feel as pleasurable as a "regular" orgasm.
Inducing orgasm in a woman is how the majority of men have come to count coup. It isn't how most women consider satisfactory sex, not by reaching an orgasm quota.
If you don't agree, stop and think about your own orgasms. Quality, intensity, and so forth.
You may have a wet dream, you may experience any number of different types of ejaculations. You may feel a different ejaculatory sensation with one sexual act than you will with another, etc.
You may have an evocative transcendent experience with one partner but never have the same feeling replicated again with another partner who does not invoke the identical or similar response.
In another thread started by ExiledTyrant, the topic of Wrong vs. not Right is being discussed. Something in and of itself may not be wrong, yet still not be right, subjectively speaking.
Sex is like that. Sexual partners are like that.
Going back to talent, cunnilingus aside, there are men who can dance. There are men who have no dance moves, or who are limited in what dance moves they can pull off. There are men (and women) who will never be able to cut the rug with certain types of dances or with certain types of partners, and that's where natural talent comes in.
Sex is like that. Sexual partners as a fit for one another are like well-matched or else mismatched dance partners.
Sure, practice can help making a couple better dance partners for one another.
A square[-peg] square dancer or ballroom-style dancer and I, nonetheless, will never make a suitable match on the dance floor with one another. Best for him to find a partner to whom he would be more ideally suited, and the same would apply to me.
DreamLady
_____________________________
Love is born with the pleasure of looking at each other, it is fed with the necessity of seeing each other, it is concluded with the impossibility of separation. ~José Marti
|
Instructions to submissives for better oral stimulation... - 
Profile
(What? I'm a work smarter, not harder person, and if delegation is a part of that, I'm all for it.) 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread