I NEED cunnilingus! Your thoughts...
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 07-26-2005 - 12:25am |
I was browsing around the other boards and in one discussion a woman made a comment about how she needed that kind of stimulation to really enjoy sex. She indicated that had an orgasm from oral much more often than she did from straight intercourse. The comment was made because her b/f wasn't too interested in going down.
It got me thinking - always a dangerous thing.
What if a guy had made a comment like this? I'm not really trying to turn this into a men vs. women thing. But most of the advice around here for guys in that situation (that want but aren't getting oral) leans towards "talk first, but there is other stuff that you can do".
While for women (that need it but aren't getting it) the advice leans towards "talk first, but cut him off if he doesn't do it for you"
Is this a double standard? Or is it just acknowledging a difference between males and females?
Edited 7/26/2005 12:26 am ET ET by westridge2001

Pages
I guess we'll have to disagree on this one, Rain.
From having and raising children, as well as from my own childhood, I know that we aren't born to be naturally generous and caring, we learn to be.
Children love their parents desperately, but they're still selfish when it comes to their own needs. They have to be taught to share, to be empathetic and to care for those they love. That starts at birth.
Of course, the tendency to be more sensitive and caring may be more evident in some children than in others, but generally, we learn to be empathetic as we mature and with lessons from mom, dad and family. Some adults never learn those things though, for all kinds of reasons, and they have to be taught by a spouse or SO. I've seen evidence of this with couples I know personally.
And I also don't agree that holding back on fellatio is always manipulation. Sometimes, it takes such measures for a partner to understand what the other is complaining about. IF he's always gotten fellatio on demand, then he may not realize just how frustrating it really is.
IF a woman becomes frustrated each time she does it for her DH, with no reciprocation, then she would actually be preventing that frustration from growing into resentment and anger. Ideally, it wouldn't have to come to that point but sometimes, it does.
Relationships, even good ones, are rarely uncomplicated. And if a person's background is such that they didn't get those life lessons for some reason, then it's no guarentee that they'll know how to treat a loved one.
Yes, good communication leading to understanding is the ideal solution to most conflicts within relationships, I agree, but unfortunately, we're not always talking about people who have the background, skills or understanding to see the value of it. And those tend to respond to actions, not words.
Edited 7/27/2005 4:03 pm ET ET by katmandoo2001
So we're born savages, then? ;-)
I like to believe that once logical reasoning sets in, that compassion and empathy(which I believe is innate) sets in along with it. "I don't like it when Johnny has a toy and he won't share." "Next time I have a toy, I'm going to share it because I know how it feels." I've even seen toddlers console each other when one cries with no understanding as to why. tee hee I believe that all humans are born to love and with compassion and empathy--even the Jeffrey Dahlmers. Some just become corrupt somehow.
"And I also don't agree that holding back on fellatio is always manipulation. Sometimes, it takes such measures for a partner to understand what the other is complaining about. IF he's always gotten fellatio on demand, then he may not realize just how frustrating it really is."
Well....yes, of course, but we are talking about adults, not children and logical reasoning. Even though I have never NOT received oral, because I enjoy it so very much, I automatically, by default understand exactly what it would be like to NOT receive it. That's what I was alluding to in my prior post. A man who enjoys oral so much...I think would understand, without actually experiencing it, what it would be like to be without it. Default empathy, I guess. ;-) ...and I'm not saying that it wouldn't work; it most likely would. I just said that I couldn't enjoy receiving oral from a man who was only doing it as a prerequisite to him getting his. ;-)
"I want all of the sex I get to be given freely and out of a desire to please, not out of pity or out of duty."
But that sets up a Catch 22 type situation, don't you think? As has been pointed out here, no one is a mind reader, so if you don't tell them that you want them to do something, then they won't think to do it. Still, I understand that desire not just for them to do something, but also for then to WANT to do it. It's a dilemma, I know. There was something that I wanted the women I was with to do, but I wanted even more for them to want to do it. So, I rarely asked for it and, as a result, I rarely got what I wanted. In retrospect, I think it was a mistake, but, at the time, it seemed like the only thing to do. So, I would say that if a woman wants cunnilingus, and isn't getting it, then she needs to make her desires perfectly clear, and not just assume that the guy knows how important it is to her.
Have you ever read any of Dan Savage's 'Savage Love' columns? He's a gay man who writes a sex advice column for both gays and 'breeders', as he calls straights. Some of his stuff is really funny, as well as insightful. I remember his response to a woman who asked how she could get her new boyfriend to give her oral sex. He said she should appeal to two of the strongest motivators among young, straight men: competitiveness and homophobia. She could do this by telling him that "All the other guys do it." or by asking him "Are you gay or what?", LOL.
Another time he said that a male baby should be circumcised, because circumcised penises tasted better than uncircumcised ones, so being circumcised would increase his chances of getting BJs, whether he was straight or gay, LOL.
"I was browsing around the other boards and in one discussion a woman made a comment about how she needed that kind of stimulation to really enjoy sex. She indicated that had an orgasm from oral much more often than she did from straight intercourse. The comment was made because her b/f wasn't too interested in going down.
It got me thinking - always a dangerous thing.
What if a guy had made a comment like this? I'm not really trying to turn this into a men vs. women thing. But most of the advice around here for guys in that situation (that want but aren't getting oral) leans towards "talk first, but there is other stuff that you can do".
While for women (that need it but aren't getting it) the advice leans towards "talk first, but cut him off if he doesn't do it for you"
Is this a double standard? Or is it just acknowledging a difference between males and females?"
Yes there is a double standard.
Is that a problem? I think this explains it but yet is out of context.
"I've heard comments on the board that fellatio is a *special treat*, that the man doesn't need it to get off and they don't necessarily need it, but if it is a desire, something the man wants and enjoys, to me, sex is about pleasuring your partner."
I think the difference and a very important word left out to twist the context of “the man doesn’t need it to get off” is the issue here is a man doesn’t need it for arousal. A man desires it a man wants it and a man enjoys it but a man does not need it for arousal. A man just wants it so it is a “special treat”. But many women need it for adequate arousal. After arousal many women need it to bring themselves to a peak to be able to “get off” with intercourse either that or masturbate themselves during intercourse. A man gets off with fellatio. A man gets off with intercourse. It is all easy. The post is what does it take for a woman? Certainly it is “double standard”. It is not about equal exchange of sex act for sex act, it is about what it takes for sexual fulfillment or gratification. If a man doesn’t understand that then besides being a lousy lover, he would also think that there is a double standard. Regardless of however the act or motivation is twisted, the end result is that it is merely a desire for a man, a pleasurable desire but a desire just the same, and it is necessary for many women and if not necessary then at least the quickest way to arousal and fulfillment.
Men do not have to shave their legs either. Isn’t that a double standard? Men and women are different. How can anyone say they are the same. They are physically different. Men want to take issue with “double standards” on sexual issues, but don’t spend a lot of time contemplating the “double standards” of the glass ceiling.
>>Men do not have to shave their legs either. Isn’t that a double standard? Men and women are different. How can anyone say they are the same.<<
I don't doubt that women are different. The twist in what I was saying was that the woman in question COULD orgasm from intercourse although she found that she more frequently orgasmed from oral or intercourse after oral. I think that the question is one thing when oral is essential and the ONLY way that a woman can have an orgasm. It is another thing entirely when oral provides a more intense orgasm or an alternative to intercourse ie. when it's not "essential" and the only way. In some ways that brings it to the same level of importance as oral for a man. It's not essential but it sure is nice.
Just to restate the original question; I was curious because I'd seen conflicting advice in this situation where oral is nice (helpful even) but not absolutely essential for orgasm. In a nutshell, men were advised to "talk / she must have an issue / you'll live without it / carry on giving cunnilingus". Women were advised to "talk / he's selfish, lazy or has an issue / explore other options / stop giving fellatio".
If the situation were reversed, the men were rarely advised to "cut her off" if she didn't give fellatio, and the women were rarely considered to be lazy.
I don't doubt that there are thousands of double-standards out there, I was just intrigued by this one at the time.
Uh no, that's not what I said. I don't think being selfish occasionally makes one a "savage" though. LOL! It just makes us human and we're certainly not savages because we're human.
If every person treated an SO with natural concern and compassion, every relationship would be smooth and effortless but we know that's not the case.
As I said, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one since I'm not trying to convince any one of any thing. It's just my point of view that different approaches CAN and do work for different people and circumstances.
Edited 7/28/2005 10:31 am ET ET by katmandoo2001
Nice going West...good point(s).
I like the way Tish & aisha put it too. There really is such a thing as a double standard regarding this and even other sex acts, realizing that we're discussing equaility here regarding need to need or simply treat to treat of course.
Seems to be a matter of who the usual conversationalists are as opposed to what the equal treatment is IMO. For example, there actually men out there who think selfishly, YET, there are so many women out there who are too. Just because there are less men around here to complain about those selfish women doesn't necessarily mean the scales tip THAT far one way or the other when it comes to this, but as Mrs. Para reminded me last week, thats the pro & con we men chose to accept with a female board, just like all the females accepted with those male boards they chose to be on as well.
So long as we're allowed to continue clarification on things, I really don't see it as a big deal personally. Its just part of the atmosphere IMHO.
C H A R A C T E R
Pages