Reply With Quote
Not for the guy...
If it's a sex only relationship then, yes, I've ended it-----but I don't do those any more. In an emotional relationship I've never had bad sex, because it's, well, emotional.
Not for the guy...
well, damn! apparently i dont know a damn thing 'bout the love or sex
can great oral subs ute for bad sex???
Great oral --- is --- great sex...
Its all about how well you toss her salad...........
I define bad sex, as bad oral. As I do everything else. I am very aggressive sexually. I am not the sort of guy who has expectations of a woman "getting on top", or "putting on a show". I prefer to create the show, so that removes issues of complacency. I feed off genuine positive sexual reaction (and in generating those reactions), and in that way, there is no bad sex unless I have no motivation.
Certainly in the process of sex they are compelled through genuine enjoyment to be more active, but I do not judge that action. But to answer your question in the sense that you are asking, yes. I have a much better orgasm by way of great oral sex in comparison to standard penetration.
Could be 'cause you're not letting the girl do anything during sex.
Certainly in the process of sex they are compelled through genuine enjoyment to be more active, but I do not judge that action. In these times I have ejaculated. Also, there have been times when I have done absolutely nothing but lay there and let her ride way to bliss. But whenever I have ejaculated due to action of my partner outside of oral, it has not been superior to the physical reaction to oral. It is not due to me restricting their ability. Perhaps I haven't encountered someone who was good enough to generate that sort of physical reaction. I have not ruled that out.
I don't think that's necessarily true all the time. I'm not talking about separating sex and love----I'm perfectly capable of doing that. What I mean is that I need just a little more than the possibility of sex to make me want to be with someone; they need to have some qualities that attract me (smile, sense of humor, intelligence, attentiveness to me). That is what I consider "emotional". I have to at least already like someone before I have sex with them and I think many guys feel the same way.
I'm married so my brain is now wired to believe this way. HOWEVER, before the Hustle got married... there were only a few qualities that I had to have. Is the ass nice? Does she have a nice rack? Is she purty? Does she want my junk? You know, just the meaningful qualities.
I have to genuinely like, respect, trust, feel comfortable, and be physically attracted to someone before I sleep with them. I do not have to be in love with them.
I do, however, have to enjoy sleeping with someone in order to be truly in love with them. I can love people and care for them deeply without there being physical chemistry. I cannot be in love with someone or commit myself to a relationship if it's lacking.
So you agree that guys are the opposite...now I ain't saying guys are correct in doing this - nor am I saying that this is something that guys should be proud of -
but just look at the post after yours- by Hustle -
this is what I'm saying - for a guy - we can look at sex and enjoy it - even if there is no love and other emotional baggage - it is ONLY sex. If the woman gets all wrapped up in these "emotional" demands...guys will tell her whatever she wants to hear...but it is only to get what they want.
I will go as far as to say - a guy will have sex with a woman he HATES -- if she is hot enough - and I doubt seriously that a woman would do the same.
Just to clarify - I am talking about men here - not these e -gang metrosexuals that hang out here and pretend to speak for men - those are another "caliber" of men.
Very true post here.
in all honesty I don't need to sleep with you..I just wanna
In all honesty, neither is going to happen. So you might as well move on to a new fixation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
