Yesterday's orgasm count: Seven
Well, yesterday was downright epic. I've really been enjoying the opportunity to dine at the Y, and Queenie hasn't been complaining. And besides that there's been the mutual, multiple orgasms as we strive to meld our bodies into one. I'd been overseas for so long, away from her, I'd almost forgotten what it felt like to hold the person you love, have sex, cuddle and stroke and hold each other, go back for a second helping, and collapse completely exhausted and completely satisfied, then fall asleep together.
I expect to be restoring that memory many times in the near future.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Homecumming
Orgams since last entry: Two. Not self-inflicted. At long bloody last!
If there's one thing that can make an intercontinental flight bearable it's not the inflight entertainment system. It's not those nifty little navigation displays that show you which miniscule soon-to-be-wiped-out-by-rising-sealevels island you're currently flying over, and it's certainly not the food. It's the knowledge that the person you love, whom you haven't set eyes on in too many months, will be waiting at the end of your journey.
Yesterday Queenie and I were reunited. I can't begin to tell you how happy, and how whole I feel. Words just aren't adequate, so I'm not even going to bother, other than to say that I shed tears of genki joy. And besides, you probably want to hear the juicy stuff!
I'm glad to say that jetlag is no match for our combined libidos. After refamiliarising myself with my home, and Queenie's wonderful, wonderful pheromones, I gleefully got busy with my tongue and worshipped her pussy. Considering how fond she is of penetration, it was extremely satisfying to see and hear her cum as a result of my tongue efforts. And after donning an appropriate layer of protective latex, she rode me. Slowly and firmly and sweetly and hard. And we screamed, hard. I had almost forgotten how close I come to permanently losing my voice when we cum together. Sex really is better when you say "stuff the neighbours, I don't care if they know I'm having a good time". The fact that her peaks set me off, so I get to share in the multiple orgasm experience, was just icing on the cake.
Hooray! :-)
If there's one thing that can make an intercontinental flight bearable it's not the inflight entertainment system. It's not those nifty little navigation displays that show you which miniscule soon-to-be-wiped-out-by-rising-sealevels island you're currently flying over, and it's certainly not the food. It's the knowledge that the person you love, whom you haven't set eyes on in too many months, will be waiting at the end of your journey.
Yesterday Queenie and I were reunited. I can't begin to tell you how happy, and how whole I feel. Words just aren't adequate, so I'm not even going to bother, other than to say that I shed tears of genki joy. And besides, you probably want to hear the juicy stuff!
I'm glad to say that jetlag is no match for our combined libidos. After refamiliarising myself with my home, and Queenie's wonderful, wonderful pheromones, I gleefully got busy with my tongue and worshipped her pussy. Considering how fond she is of penetration, it was extremely satisfying to see and hear her cum as a result of my tongue efforts. And after donning an appropriate layer of protective latex, she rode me. Slowly and firmly and sweetly and hard. And we screamed, hard. I had almost forgotten how close I come to permanently losing my voice when we cum together. Sex really is better when you say "stuff the neighbours, I don't care if they know I'm having a good time". The fact that her peaks set me off, so I get to share in the multiple orgasm experience, was just icing on the cake.
Hooray! :-)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Anticipation
Orgasms since last entry: Five
At long last work is sending me back home for a while :-) I don't have much to say about it, except that today I climb on a plane, and soon will be in Queenie's arms again. And not a nanosecond too soon. If you feel Earth moving, it's just us!
That prospect makes me happy, beyond any words. I hope everyone reading this blog is happy too. The very best to all of you. And for the next little while, not all of the orgasms I keep track of here will be self-inflicted. So the stuff you get to read on this blog should become more interesting soon! :-)
At long last work is sending me back home for a while :-) I don't have much to say about it, except that today I climb on a plane, and soon will be in Queenie's arms again. And not a nanosecond too soon. If you feel Earth moving, it's just us!
That prospect makes me happy, beyond any words. I hope everyone reading this blog is happy too. The very best to all of you. And for the next little while, not all of the orgasms I keep track of here will be self-inflicted. So the stuff you get to read on this blog should become more interesting soon! :-)
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
I hadn't thought of that
Orgasms since last entry: Two
Just a quickie today. I stumbled across an interesting invention yesterday while browsing the web. The strap-on vagina. I have to say I'm impressed by any sex toy that makes you wonder how it works when you hear what it is, and continues to make you wonder even after you've seen explanatory pictures and a full description.
It's kinda nice to know there's still sex toys out there that can surprise me. I'm not sure that I agree with the "ultra-realistic" description, though.
Just a quickie today. I stumbled across an interesting invention yesterday while browsing the web. The strap-on vagina. I have to say I'm impressed by any sex toy that makes you wonder how it works when you hear what it is, and continues to make you wonder even after you've seen explanatory pictures and a full description.
It's kinda nice to know there's still sex toys out there that can surprise me. I'm not sure that I agree with the "ultra-realistic" description, though.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Enlightenment
Orgasms since last entry: Nine
It must be time for me to check in again, several days having slipped past since my previous post. Today seems like a good occasion to do so, since I figured out something interesting (well, interesting to me).
Al right, let me back up. Over at Todger Talk, I came across a post about the dreaded phenomenon of frienditis - that is, the tendency for well-intentioned guys to get classified as non-sexual friends by women, even though the guy wants more than just Platonic friendship. And thus he winds up being the shoulder she cries on as she bemoans all the disastrous dates she goes on, and all the lousy guys with nothing to recommend them (whom she sleeps with none-the-less), and he misses out on getting the chance to be the perfect partner she says she's looking for (a lover and a friend). The author of this post was basically wondering whether to admit that he found the lady in question sexy, and risk rejection and the loss of the friendship, or keep his mouth shut and be condemned to the status quo.
If this sounds familiar, it's because this post is turning into a sequel to my previous one, about why nice men can't get nice girls, and why girl run off with bad boys.
So here's the secret, the point of enlightenment. The reason men and women have these problems boils down, once again, to evolutionary biology. Despite the fact that women are more orgasmic than men, men can make babies a lot faster. There's no reason, in principle, that a virile man can't make anywhere from one to a dozen offspring a day. Women, on the other hand, take nine months to make a baby (or a few, in rare cases). Men need to keep an eye out for partners who look attractive (for attractive read "young and healthy", or "carrying good genes") while women need to keep an eye out for partners who will be sexually successful (so that their offspring are also sexually successful), and also for a partner who will be able to take care of the children they have invested so many months in producing. So the bottom line is this; males have one scale of attractiveness, females have two seperate scales. Let's call these the 'sexual' scale, and the 'provider' scale.
The reason for frienditis becomes clear. Everyone is unconsciously rating the members of their social circle against these scales. While the males are rating women in terms of how fuckable they are, and expecting women to treat them the same, the women are rating males against both scales and categorising them accordingly. Hence the males usually don't understand that their attempts to be polite, attentive, courteous, and so on, increase their ranking on the 'provider' scale, but not the 'sexual' scale. In fact, if you think about it, all the ideas of what consitutes polite gentlemanly behaviour arose several hundred years ago when western civilisation was declaring sex to be unseemly, and placing great emphasis on marrying and establishing a family, so it makes sense that the way men were trained to behave was the way that increased their ranking on the 'partner' scale. Likewise, women inherently expect men to segregate long-term partners and sexual interests.
As we all know, confusion and misery tend to arise when the world does not function as our mental paradigms would lead us to expect. When men rank women according to their sex appeal, women get annoyed at being treated like pieces of meat. When women classify men as friends, guys get frustrated that their efforts to be polite and courteous are not getting them any closer to the object of their devotion's bed. Women often condemn men for thinking with their genitals, but when you look at it this way it's clear that men and women are equally acting according to their reproductive desires - women's behaviour is just more difficult to see through because they're grading everyone on two scales instead of one.
So what does all this have to do with me? Well, it clears up a long-standing issue about the breakup with my previous girlfriend (prior to Queenie). For a long time I beat myself up trying to understand what I did wrong to make the relationship fall apart, how much of it was my fault, how much of it was her, and all the usual issues that crop up a surrounding such events. Well, the backstory is that we were in an open relationship. She slept with other guys, I... tried to sleep with other women. Truth be told, I didn't have much success. The motivation for this blog is to document my path from being the kind of guy who only has long-term relationships, to someone who can have just as much casual sex as my female partners seem to manage so effortlessly (yes, it really is easier for women to pick-up than for guys!). But in any case, the guys she would sleep with tended to be older than me, less good-looking than me, and fairly high-ranking at work. We often joked that her priorities were backwards - she'd chosen me, young, fit and good-looking (clearly someone with good genes) as the long-term partner, and was sleeping around with the old, senior, rich "providers". But in fact I realise now that I was the provider, I was the guy who was being nice enough to stay around for the long haul, and she was sleeping with guys who had high status (they'd proven themselves to be successful, and hence, they must have good genes). Things went sour when two things happened - I started seeing Queenie, and my career started to develop and I began to get better work than I had when we first started dating. I suspect that what these two events did was show that I was successful, and that other people considered me fuckable. This had the effect of pushing me off the 'partner' scale, and onto the 'sexual' scale, until I was dumped from the role of prospective father for her children.
In summary, it looks like humans naturally partner up, into pseudo-monogamous pairings. But we're not truly monogamous. The interesting thing is that women and men have different ways of being non-monogamous. Men tend to seek lots of casual encounters. Women tend to pick a stable long-term partner, and then "cheat" on them. Or to put it another way, women want to cuckold their husbands - men just don't want to get married. I'm a big believer in open/polyamorous relationships, and I expect this has interesting consequences for the way such relationships function.
Of course, just because a certain type of behaviour is "natural" doesn't make it right. You could argue that rape and infanticide are "natural". It's up to all of us to decide what we consider ethically acceptable, and to act accordingly.
Of course, much of what I said here is a simplification, but hey, it's a blog entry, not a psychology PhD thesis!
It must be time for me to check in again, several days having slipped past since my previous post. Today seems like a good occasion to do so, since I figured out something interesting (well, interesting to me).
Al right, let me back up. Over at Todger Talk, I came across a post about the dreaded phenomenon of frienditis - that is, the tendency for well-intentioned guys to get classified as non-sexual friends by women, even though the guy wants more than just Platonic friendship. And thus he winds up being the shoulder she cries on as she bemoans all the disastrous dates she goes on, and all the lousy guys with nothing to recommend them (whom she sleeps with none-the-less), and he misses out on getting the chance to be the perfect partner she says she's looking for (a lover and a friend). The author of this post was basically wondering whether to admit that he found the lady in question sexy, and risk rejection and the loss of the friendship, or keep his mouth shut and be condemned to the status quo.
If this sounds familiar, it's because this post is turning into a sequel to my previous one, about why nice men can't get nice girls, and why girl run off with bad boys.
So here's the secret, the point of enlightenment. The reason men and women have these problems boils down, once again, to evolutionary biology. Despite the fact that women are more orgasmic than men, men can make babies a lot faster. There's no reason, in principle, that a virile man can't make anywhere from one to a dozen offspring a day. Women, on the other hand, take nine months to make a baby (or a few, in rare cases). Men need to keep an eye out for partners who look attractive (for attractive read "young and healthy", or "carrying good genes") while women need to keep an eye out for partners who will be sexually successful (so that their offspring are also sexually successful), and also for a partner who will be able to take care of the children they have invested so many months in producing. So the bottom line is this; males have one scale of attractiveness, females have two seperate scales. Let's call these the 'sexual' scale, and the 'provider' scale.
The reason for frienditis becomes clear. Everyone is unconsciously rating the members of their social circle against these scales. While the males are rating women in terms of how fuckable they are, and expecting women to treat them the same, the women are rating males against both scales and categorising them accordingly. Hence the males usually don't understand that their attempts to be polite, attentive, courteous, and so on, increase their ranking on the 'provider' scale, but not the 'sexual' scale. In fact, if you think about it, all the ideas of what consitutes polite gentlemanly behaviour arose several hundred years ago when western civilisation was declaring sex to be unseemly, and placing great emphasis on marrying and establishing a family, so it makes sense that the way men were trained to behave was the way that increased their ranking on the 'partner' scale. Likewise, women inherently expect men to segregate long-term partners and sexual interests.
As we all know, confusion and misery tend to arise when the world does not function as our mental paradigms would lead us to expect. When men rank women according to their sex appeal, women get annoyed at being treated like pieces of meat. When women classify men as friends, guys get frustrated that their efforts to be polite and courteous are not getting them any closer to the object of their devotion's bed. Women often condemn men for thinking with their genitals, but when you look at it this way it's clear that men and women are equally acting according to their reproductive desires - women's behaviour is just more difficult to see through because they're grading everyone on two scales instead of one.
So what does all this have to do with me? Well, it clears up a long-standing issue about the breakup with my previous girlfriend (prior to Queenie). For a long time I beat myself up trying to understand what I did wrong to make the relationship fall apart, how much of it was my fault, how much of it was her, and all the usual issues that crop up a surrounding such events. Well, the backstory is that we were in an open relationship. She slept with other guys, I... tried to sleep with other women. Truth be told, I didn't have much success. The motivation for this blog is to document my path from being the kind of guy who only has long-term relationships, to someone who can have just as much casual sex as my female partners seem to manage so effortlessly (yes, it really is easier for women to pick-up than for guys!). But in any case, the guys she would sleep with tended to be older than me, less good-looking than me, and fairly high-ranking at work. We often joked that her priorities were backwards - she'd chosen me, young, fit and good-looking (clearly someone with good genes) as the long-term partner, and was sleeping around with the old, senior, rich "providers". But in fact I realise now that I was the provider, I was the guy who was being nice enough to stay around for the long haul, and she was sleeping with guys who had high status (they'd proven themselves to be successful, and hence, they must have good genes). Things went sour when two things happened - I started seeing Queenie, and my career started to develop and I began to get better work than I had when we first started dating. I suspect that what these two events did was show that I was successful, and that other people considered me fuckable. This had the effect of pushing me off the 'partner' scale, and onto the 'sexual' scale, until I was dumped from the role of prospective father for her children.
In summary, it looks like humans naturally partner up, into pseudo-monogamous pairings. But we're not truly monogamous. The interesting thing is that women and men have different ways of being non-monogamous. Men tend to seek lots of casual encounters. Women tend to pick a stable long-term partner, and then "cheat" on them. Or to put it another way, women want to cuckold their husbands - men just don't want to get married. I'm a big believer in open/polyamorous relationships, and I expect this has interesting consequences for the way such relationships function.
Of course, just because a certain type of behaviour is "natural" doesn't make it right. You could argue that rape and infanticide are "natural". It's up to all of us to decide what we consider ethically acceptable, and to act accordingly.
Of course, much of what I said here is a simplification, but hey, it's a blog entry, not a psychology PhD thesis!
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Another reason to avoid the wet spot
Orgasms since last entry: Four
Well, today I wanted to share some thoughts inspired by a website (entitled The Wet Spot) I ran across a little while ago, purporting to offer sex and relationship advice (mostly sex advice). Among various posts about how it's a good idea to not be overweight if you want to have good sex (Duh!), and so on, was this hum-dinger on the topic of why women don't date nice guys. Apparently it's all the man's fault...
Sounds reasonable, right? Except for the fact that it puts the blame for relationship problems exclusively on the man (as always), and it displays a complete and utter ignorance of the role of evolutionary biology in shaping our reproductive strategies.
Let's get this straight. Women are attracted to men of high social status. Men who act like they can provide genetic material that will make their offsping survive. Nice guys do not convey this image - especially nice guys who try not to be pushy, who back out when the girl they're talking to shows any sign of reluctance, who try to provide the girl with a comfortable environment, to show that they are a friend, who's willing to stick around and help out with housework, raising children, and so on. Nope, the reason women run off with bad boys is because they're more fun, convey a sense of high social status related to their genetic fitness (they must have high-quality genes if they can afford to display risky behaviour, and still survive), and because they won't always be around to breed with - so if you want their genes you'd better get them NOW! By contrast the nice guys create the impression that they'll hang around forever hoping to "get lucky", so girls can afford to keep them waiting - often for years, or forever.
You'd get a much better sense of how males and females choose their partners (and usually it is the female who chooses the male, not vice versa) by avoiding The Wet Spot and listening to the advice of Dr Tatiana (which in itself is thoroughly educational, and could provide enough trivia to make you the centre of attention at the next party you attend. How's that for a pickup routine?).
I really have to feel sorry for the guy who posed the question that elicited this response. The poor fellow has probably gone away not only upset that he keeps losing girls to the bad boys, but thinking that it's all his fault.
Of course, men are attracted to women who convey a sense of excitement, mystery, and risk. But women are also attracted to men with the same characteristics. Putting the blame exclusively on the man is just unfair. And there's another thing women do which makes life hard for the nice guys. I was in a nightclub the other week and started chatting to a girl dancing in the corner behind me. Before I'd managed to get out three sentences, her friend started pulling the old "We're lesbians, stop chatting up my girlfriend" routine. I can only gather that she had no idea how ineffective these things are - and in fact counterproductive, because the very first group of men who are going to be put off by any form of resistence are... you guessed it, the non-pushy, non-threatening, nice guys! The very guys women say they want to meet, are the very first set of guys their "group defence" tactics drive away, leaving the field open for the pushy, arrogant bad-boys.
Well, today I wanted to share some thoughts inspired by a website (entitled The Wet Spot) I ran across a little while ago, purporting to offer sex and relationship advice (mostly sex advice). Among various posts about how it's a good idea to not be overweight if you want to have good sex (Duh!), and so on, was this hum-dinger on the topic of why women don't date nice guys. Apparently it's all the man's fault...
Why indeed. I'm going to suggest that the problem here is not the women... You may not want to hear this my friend, but the real question here is why are you attracted to women who leave you for bad boys?
You'd get a much better sense of how males and females choose their partners (and usually it is the female who chooses the male, not vice versa) by avoiding The Wet Spot and listening to the advice of Dr Tatiana (which in itself is thoroughly educational, and could provide enough trivia to make you the centre of attention at the next party you attend. How's that for a pickup routine?).
I really have to feel sorry for the guy who posed the question that elicited this response. The poor fellow has probably gone away not only upset that he keeps losing girls to the bad boys, but thinking that it's all his fault.
Of course, men are attracted to women who convey a sense of excitement, mystery, and risk. But women are also attracted to men with the same characteristics. Putting the blame exclusively on the man is just unfair. And there's another thing women do which makes life hard for the nice guys. I was in a nightclub the other week and started chatting to a girl dancing in the corner behind me. Before I'd managed to get out three sentences, her friend started pulling the old "We're lesbians, stop chatting up my girlfriend" routine. I can only gather that she had no idea how ineffective these things are - and in fact counterproductive, because the very first group of men who are going to be put off by any form of resistence are... you guessed it, the non-pushy, non-threatening, nice guys! The very guys women say they want to meet, are the very first set of guys their "group defence" tactics drive away, leaving the field open for the pushy, arrogant bad-boys.
Monday, February 4, 2008
One for the shoe-fetishists...
Orgasm count since last entry: Three
My cold of several weeks back is reasserting itself. Urghh. Makes it difficult to get in a horny mood.
Anyway, I spotted an amusing piece of research on the BBC news website today - after all the reports of causing bad posture and ankle injuries, apparently wearing high-heels strengthens your pelvic floor muscles, ladies! Is that convenient or what? Not only does wearing high heels make you look sexier, so you get more action, it also gives you more pleasurable orgasms! Maybe it's time to change the definition of "sensible shoes" :-)
It should be noted that this result was only applicable to two-inch heels, so maybe it's not an argument in favour of racing out and grabbing a pair of thigh-high, five-inch-heeled rubber boots. But it's a start!
My cold of several weeks back is reasserting itself. Urghh. Makes it difficult to get in a horny mood.
Anyway, I spotted an amusing piece of research on the BBC news website today - after all the reports of causing bad posture and ankle injuries, apparently wearing high-heels strengthens your pelvic floor muscles, ladies! Is that convenient or what? Not only does wearing high heels make you look sexier, so you get more action, it also gives you more pleasurable orgasms! Maybe it's time to change the definition of "sensible shoes" :-)
It should be noted that this result was only applicable to two-inch heels, so maybe it's not an argument in favour of racing out and grabbing a pair of thigh-high, five-inch-heeled rubber boots. But it's a start!
Friday, February 1, 2008
Orgasm total for January, and how to exceed it next month...
Orgasms since last entry: Seven
Well, that brings us to the end of January folks. My grand orgasm total is 38 - all self-inflicted, regretably. Still, considering the whole "male=no multiple orgasms" issue that has been brought up in previous posts, perhaps exceeding one-third of my beloved's tally of wank-gasms isn't such a bad effort.
And that brings us to a nice little segue, regarding male multi-orgasmicness. As I've mentioned before, I find it disturbing that the state-of-the-art in the study of male multi-orgasmic capability is dominated by several-thousand-year-old tantric mumbo-jumbo, which seems to be focussed on teaching men how not to orgasm, and then claiming that this is superior to a normal orgasm because it conserves your spiritual energy, or whatever. Wouldn't it be much, much better if we could learn to orgasm, ejaculate, and not lose our erections and arousal? That's basically what women do when they are multi-orgasmic (minus the ejaculation bit, for the most part). Well, that's what I've been trying to figure out how to do. And I think I've discovered another piece of the puzzle...
It seems to me that one huge advantage girls have over guys is that they have a whole lot more nerve endings to play with. Not only are there twice as many nerves endings in the clitoris as there are in the entire penis, but there's all those nerves inside the vagina, too. It's true that the penis and the clitoris develop from equivalent bits of tissue in the fetus, and behave much the same way (the clitoris becomes 'erect' when sexually aroused, and withdraws after orgasm). But vaginas don't have to become erect in order to experience stimulation (they're also self-lubricating, a handy trick to have). In any case, this leads me to expect that if you can stimulate the nerves buried away beneath the penis and scrotum, you have a much better chance of achieving multiple orgasms. No great surprises there, since the prostate is often regarded as "the other white meat" of male sexual stimulation.
So yesterday I was merrily wanking away, building myself up, easing off, building up again, getting more and more worked up, when I noticed that I could make my cock harden to a greater or lesser extent by tightening a certain set of muscles. In particular it felt like I was pushing (not pulling) my testicles back into my body. After a while I allowed myself to slip over the edge and have a small, but not insignificant, orgasm, and ejaculate. But the cool thing was that when I held these muscles tight immediately afterwards, I realised that I wasn't experiencing the usual "that was nice, now I feel like a rest" sensation. I actually felt like I wanted to keep going and my cock felt the way it does when it's excited and eager to go hard. A little bit of stroking later and I knew I could get another orgasm out of him. It took another minute, but sure enough, I came - hard. Cum-flying-across-the-room hard. And afterwards, I felt really energised, rather than weary and ready for a nap. I found myself cleaning up under the shower thinking "so this is why women like multiple orgasms" - not only do you get to cum many times, but it gives you a fantastic endorphin buzz.
Now, I'll admit, the first orgasm was not a very intense one. I basically stopped stimulating myself as soon as I went over the edge, so it was almost a "ruined orgasm". But I did ejaculate. And if I have figured out how to get myself to recover rapidly and summon forth another ejaculatory orgasm, I think it was worth it. First figure out how to repeat the result. Then work on making the initial orgasm more intense without losing the second one. Then work on adding third, fourth, or more orgasms.
Has anyone out there reading this blog had experience, and particularly success, at this kind of thing already? If so, please share your experiences by posting a comment. Men the world over would surely rejoice if we could figure out how to teach any man to be truly multi-orgasmic, in the same way that women are. I suspect there's a lot of women who would be happy about it too!
Well, that brings us to the end of January folks. My grand orgasm total is 38 - all self-inflicted, regretably. Still, considering the whole "male=no multiple orgasms" issue that has been brought up in previous posts, perhaps exceeding one-third of my beloved's tally of wank-gasms isn't such a bad effort.
And that brings us to a nice little segue, regarding male multi-orgasmicness. As I've mentioned before, I find it disturbing that the state-of-the-art in the study of male multi-orgasmic capability is dominated by several-thousand-year-old tantric mumbo-jumbo, which seems to be focussed on teaching men how not to orgasm, and then claiming that this is superior to a normal orgasm because it conserves your spiritual energy, or whatever. Wouldn't it be much, much better if we could learn to orgasm, ejaculate, and not lose our erections and arousal? That's basically what women do when they are multi-orgasmic (minus the ejaculation bit, for the most part). Well, that's what I've been trying to figure out how to do. And I think I've discovered another piece of the puzzle...
It seems to me that one huge advantage girls have over guys is that they have a whole lot more nerve endings to play with. Not only are there twice as many nerves endings in the clitoris as there are in the entire penis, but there's all those nerves inside the vagina, too. It's true that the penis and the clitoris develop from equivalent bits of tissue in the fetus, and behave much the same way (the clitoris becomes 'erect' when sexually aroused, and withdraws after orgasm). But vaginas don't have to become erect in order to experience stimulation (they're also self-lubricating, a handy trick to have). In any case, this leads me to expect that if you can stimulate the nerves buried away beneath the penis and scrotum, you have a much better chance of achieving multiple orgasms. No great surprises there, since the prostate is often regarded as "the other white meat" of male sexual stimulation.
So yesterday I was merrily wanking away, building myself up, easing off, building up again, getting more and more worked up, when I noticed that I could make my cock harden to a greater or lesser extent by tightening a certain set of muscles. In particular it felt like I was pushing (not pulling) my testicles back into my body. After a while I allowed myself to slip over the edge and have a small, but not insignificant, orgasm, and ejaculate. But the cool thing was that when I held these muscles tight immediately afterwards, I realised that I wasn't experiencing the usual "that was nice, now I feel like a rest" sensation. I actually felt like I wanted to keep going and my cock felt the way it does when it's excited and eager to go hard. A little bit of stroking later and I knew I could get another orgasm out of him. It took another minute, but sure enough, I came - hard. Cum-flying-across-the-room hard. And afterwards, I felt really energised, rather than weary and ready for a nap. I found myself cleaning up under the shower thinking "so this is why women like multiple orgasms" - not only do you get to cum many times, but it gives you a fantastic endorphin buzz.
Now, I'll admit, the first orgasm was not a very intense one. I basically stopped stimulating myself as soon as I went over the edge, so it was almost a "ruined orgasm". But I did ejaculate. And if I have figured out how to get myself to recover rapidly and summon forth another ejaculatory orgasm, I think it was worth it. First figure out how to repeat the result. Then work on making the initial orgasm more intense without losing the second one. Then work on adding third, fourth, or more orgasms.
Has anyone out there reading this blog had experience, and particularly success, at this kind of thing already? If so, please share your experiences by posting a comment. Men the world over would surely rejoice if we could figure out how to teach any man to be truly multi-orgasmic, in the same way that women are. I suspect there's a lot of women who would be happy about it too!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
