Why are demands about male sexual performance quite so acceptable?

WOMAN: "Omigod his dick was tiny and he couldn't keep it up at all."
RESPONSE: "Oh what a loser, you need a real man!"

MAN: "Oh god, her pussy smelled really bad and she kept dragging her teeth on me."
REPONSE: "Dude, show some respect!"

I guess women feel it's OK to do with it with men who talk the talk or men who have hurt them as a way of cutting them down. Men are sensitive about that stuff so it's an achilles heel.

Yeah, I don't like the way that so much pressure is put on male sexual performance, though. Quite apart from jibes, it's the burden of expectation that is placed nowadays kind of detracts from the pleasure of sex. The knowledge that women discuss these things with each other, rate lovers, in a way that as Nabisco says, men don't. I guess women experience the 'was I any good?' thing too, but my feeling is not as much. It's partly just the mechanics of the situation.

Impotence: the great undiscussed topic on ILE?

Most of my male friends have been too sexually frustrated -- and even worse, tried to hide that fact really badly -- to hear about such "problems" at the time, but with others, I've had respectful but honest discussions with guys too.

Overall, I've heard more "ew, that's nasty" or "yeah, she needs to." from the female friends. So there, nabisco.. this might support your point a little more.. I think.

(Of course, in the past, I've been far too shy and embarrassed to talk about any sexual experience with close friends, etc. but that's a different story...)

I think DB is pretty much right here, though I'm just wondering what it, well, "means" for us to tend to think of sex as a male performance maybe out of proportion to how much it's that way biologically. I think saying "it's the mechanics" is a bit of an exaggeration! To wit: male and female mouths are pretty similar, and yet rhetorically speaking kissing gets cast as a male performance ("he was/wasn't a good kisser") more so than a female one (I think men think that same thing but they both place the responsibility for it on themselves and don't talk about it with others).

Kissing! That's a different thing. I know males and females who are bad at this, and I've probably said so to other people.

Okay, maybe I just hang out with too many girls? I probably do hang out with too many girls.

I'll never tell.

Really, I *hate* guys that can't keep their traps shut about this sort of thing. It makes me think of stupid sex-obsessed West Hollywood/Chelsea circuit queens. It usually ends up making the person complaining looking like an desperate, insecure ass. I always imagine they feel there was something wrong with their own performance, and they figure they ought to spill the beans before the other side gets around to it. It's very unattractive.

I have had friends talk about how they haven't had sex in months and that the spark has gone out of the relationship, blah blah blah. But they never offer details about specific failings.

(This is where much analysis of pornography breaks down, by the way -- it's so easy, but deadly simplistic, to think in terms of penetrator = active = power. There's more than one essay floating around by women who used strap-ons for the first time and found themselves completely terrified [or otherwise surprised] and with an entirely new perspective on what the [traditional] male role in [heterosexual] sex is like.)

Is this in reference to the Penthouse letters bit or the hanging out with girls bit? Because the former was intentional (and maybe part of why I asked this question) but the latter wasn't! (I thought "hangs out with too many girls" had more of a Rupert Everett gay-best-friend vibe than a "fear me" one.)

Really though, if someone isn't getting what they want, they need to speak up or its (partially) their own damn fault.

I was actually thinking on the way home about watching tonight's sitcoms and tallying jokes about male sexual inadequacy versus women's, but then I decided that (a) the even split would be "jokes about men's sexual inadequacy" versus "jokes about women's visual inadequacy" plus (b) I'd rather go see Herbert.

What does that mean? Do you mean a woman can finish without the man gettin a chance to do the same? Why do I get the feeling it's usually the other way around?

Obviously people should be able to criticize performance for either sex if necessary. Geez.

Men do seem more "polite" though. My husband even asked if it was ok to talk about my sexual prowess to his guy friends. Gee, I AM glad he wasn't asking if it was ok to be negative/critical of me to his buddies because then he would REALLY have something to complain about.

And yup, there is something to be said for QUANTITY too.

Yeah for the quantity!

yes.

Isn't this what the whole thread is ABOUT?

See, in part I think framing sex as a male performance is bad for everyone -- because (a) what Nick said, and (b) it means young men have to go in and, like, learn to perform properly, and from what I've heard of young women's early sexual experiences these first few outings are fucking disastrous for the poor girls and half the time the guy is so pleased with himself just for getting there that he doesn't even notice.

Question: would sex be better for everyone if it were normal for late-teenaged boys to hook up with older women who gently introduced them to the things they could be doing? Cause the weird thing about the male-performance paradigm is that it can sort of leave women room for low-pressure "training" (yeah, I'm sorry about that term) but leaves men to the sort of trial and error that can scar their partners for life.

Obviously I personally never worry about this because of the many awards I've received and my impressively large genitalia, but I can see how other people might.

I'm trying to imagine sex without even a hint of skank to it.

Anyway, we're still fighting to discard these stereotyped ideals, but society is still a bit behind the times. And yes, I will admit that I'd find it easier to complain about a man's sexual performance than a woman's. But, at the same time, I don't think that complaining is the right approach to take. Much better to speak to sexual partner and discuss sexual difficulties and then set about rectifying them then to go bitching to "the girls" or to "the boys" about problems in the sack. But I realize that is not the acceptable/encouraged behavior at this point in time.

I regards to thinking about the pleasure of one's partner before the pleasure of one's self - I think this is most prevalent early in relationships, as one is hoping that if they *do* please their partner, then there will be more chances to get off, themselves. (Yeah, I know that's a cynical take on things.) But, at the same time, there are people who are, by nature, more concerned with the pleasure and happiness of their partner than with their own sexual gratification - I've heard it described as "I get off knowing that you're happy."

One thing I have learned, though, is the more a person brags about their sexual performance abilities, the more likely I am to be disappointed by them in bed. I've no idea if they really think that they're great and are bragging without having any real idea of the lecel of their skills or if they are hoping that by claiming that they're great they'll delude the other person into believing them.

Discussing someone's sexual, well, short-comings (sorry for that word choice), can be very emotionally touchy. I know I'd react violently emotionally if someone "criticized" my performance. And I imagine that many of you would do the same. Most of us are unsure about sex and our sexual attractiveness and our sexual skills and so forth - and anything that is perceived as being even remotely critical can drive us back into our caves of sexual shame (wow, I like that analogy!) If I am not being satisfied by a partner, I usually try to rectify things with gentle suggestions along the lines of "Oooohhh...yeah...a little more of that" an so forth - and sometimes a guiding hand. But that doesn't always work and then a more direct approach is required. Even then I try not to phrase things as being a criticism and concentrate more on "I like it when you do this" or "I think I'd really like it if you'd do this" and so forth. It can be an uncomfortable conversation, especially if you're early into a relationship and are afraid of alienating your partner. Well, actually, it can be an uncomfortable conversation no matter where you are in the relationship.

But, really, I think it's best to keep such discussions within a relationship instead of bitching (or bragging) to our peers. However, I also know that this is not an ideal world and that we're going to continue to talk to our friends about trouble in the sack. So maybe we just need to be more aware of the societal "norms" in what is acceptable to say about men and what is acceptable to say about women, and then consciously strive to eliminate such stereotyped differences (yeah, theat means bitching about both, equally, in similarly coarse terms).

Or, conversely, resort to masturbation and then you really can't bitch about the technique.

Where do we sign up to volunteer to make this a better world?

Ned - I guess that I have had good, non-skanky sex, but it's always been that lovey-dovey cuddling type - nice every now and then but not too often. What's that saying from the man who says "my wife and I make love only once a year, on Christmas Eve, in front of the fireplace. The rest of the year we fuck." Pretty much represents my feelings on the matter - though making love does have it's valued place in my world, of course.

BurmaKitty - I am with you on this one, completely. I do think the world would be better and happier and most people would be happier with their sex lives if we were gently initiated into the joys of sex and foreplay and fooling around and such. And yep, you bet I'd join-up! Isn't this like (the only redeeming feature in my mind) those sex scenes in Auel's books - I remember a scene from - hmmm - The Valley of the Horses I think, where there's a several - page description of the deflowering of a young woman. Hell, I wish I'd lost my virginity like that! And I think that in the follow-up book there was something about women who initiated young men, too, but somehow it wasn't as big of a deal for the boys as it was for the girls. Phooey. Crap, now I gotta go dig those books out. (I stole them from my mother's bookshelves at a tender young age and used the descriptions of the sex for many happy hours of adolescent fantasy.)

The reality is a lot less flippant than it appears.

GUY ONE: SO???
GUY TWO: Yep. WE DID the DEED.
GUY THREE: SCORE! (high-fives all around)

It's very uncool to say, yep, but the sex wasn't really all that. The idea is that any sex is good sex.

And I don't think women tend to complain about their partners in bed UNTIL they've decided they don't like him anyway. And a lot of the times, those poor guys might not have been that bad in bed to begin with.

But you thought they were assholes, right?

Or else the males realize "the sex was bad" will be taken as "I was bad in bed."

Is it? Is it?

That's called BAD sex.

Joking aside…

I don't talk to my friends about sexual specifics in the first place and I would certainly never tell anyone if my partner and I were having difficulties. I have no problem discussing general wants, desires and preferences but I would never reveal things about my partner (past or present) that I thought would upset him or that I thought would change people's perception of him. I would not be embarrassed and I wouldn’t think it was necessarily a result of a weakness in my sexual technique.

I have had some partners who would be considered more technically proficient (I couldn’t think of a better way to put it) than others, just as some of my partners would be considered better looking than others. The only time I have ever had, what I consider to be, bad sex was once when I slept with a chap who thought he was Casanova and seemed to have choreographed every move from the couch to the bedroom. It was bad as he seemed to be ‘getting off on how good he was at having sex’, rather than just ‘having sex’.

To be quite honest, if the guy is physically comfortable with me and treats me tenderly I don’t care whether he’s goodin bed or not. I just want him to be in bed with me. And if he needs to bring a dildo, that’s fine.

This is all to say that demands on male sexual performance tend to be placed there by men.

It's important that we both be fulfilled sexually but not if that involves putting wither of us under emotional pressure. I can't stress this enough.

/shill

I taped a Horizon last night, did anyone watch it?

Growl growl I think my point here wasn't to do some big "how unfair waah waah double standard against men" thing, but it WAS indeed to talk about how men and women approach this issue differently and how that affects the end experience for everyone. I hate that it's impossible to talk about general gender-based differences like this without everyone thinking you're picking on one of the sexes or making some big political point about unfair treatment. I just meant that in my personal experience I do see certain differences in the way men and women approach these things, and I do see some areas where both sexes construe something as something it doesn't have to be (e.g. sex as a male performance) and I'm curious about that.

The only friends of mine who've commented one way or the other on a partner's ability or habits in bed have been female -- but the vast majority of my friends are female, as are all of the closest ones, so I don't think that says anything.

For my part, I've only discussed sex-I've-had with people-I-wasn't-having-it-with twice: once after the first time I had sex (well, the first two times, I guess), to casually/furtively ask an older friend, "So how long does it generally last, anyway?"; and once when my partner was reacting in a way that I thought was strange, which turned out to be probably the foreshadowing of her eventual nervous breakdown. In both cases, the folks I talked to were female, but again, that's just the demographics of my friends.

I tend not to discuss sexual specifics with friends because I realized a long time ago that I really don't want to know about their sex lives (partly because there's so much ... cross-pollination ... among my groups of friends that knowing X insists on Y means knowing Z did Y and therefore C is doing it now -- learn one thing about one person, and I've got a dozen people's sexual histories staring at me) -- so I figure, I won't open the window myself. This gets me a lot of teasing since I write smut for money :)

Bad sex -- there's definitely bad sex and there're definitely bad blowjobs, and I've actually gotten into short-lived arguments about this with male friends ("if you got a bad blowjob, you were doing something wrong!" -- I realize it's not entirely passive to be on the receiving end, but really, without employing props or a theme song, I'm not sure what I could do to completely ruin a blowjob).

Impotence -- am I the first to come out of the impotence closet? How swell. I can do the blustery "it's not my fault" thing, though -- it's a side effect of post-surgical nerve damage which has been slow to heal. Viagra has worked enough wonders that I haven't looked at alternatives (but feel free to suggest some, Colin.) My biggest concern was that it would ruin the spontaneity, but the guessing game of "Am I going to have sex soon? Should I take the pill?" has actually been fun.

Perhaps other girls talk about nothing else, I don't know.

Are you talking about your penis?

Well good golly, now I'm curious. I assume I'll know it when I see the ads ...

No wonder there are so many sad priests.

(Bearing flowers is the oddest impotency cure I've heard of to date, BTW.)

oh...is my husband reading this thread?

Really, Honey, I was just trying to help...

This is so wrong. Male and female mouths, from a kissing point of view, are extremely different. Women, in general, have narrower lips, narrower mouth, softer lips, smaller teeth, teeth closer to lips, less prominent chins, less prominent noses, soft skin around lips, no bristley facial hair around lips, smaller tongues, less inclination towards shoving their tongue down your throat, less likely to attempt to devour you: lips first, less inclination towards sucking your tongue so hard you want to hit them and less likely to kiss brutally at all.

In my experience it is very rare for a women to be a bad kisser and not at all uncommon for males to be.

For women, it is very common for it to take many minutes to even get to the point where sexual release is even possible, and only about 25% of women even achieve orgasm from penetration alone. If the guy doesn't take his time and help things along, then, in my mind anyway, he's going to get critiqued negatively.

In a man's eye, all a woman has to do is lay there and he can get off. Whereas, quite a bit of work is required for her to get off. That's why it is "acceptable" (for lack of a better word) for male performance to be talked about or used as a measure than it is for a female as I see it.

I'm so tired of all the world's premature ejaculators using this argument. Men's mechanisms are physiologically simpler, but that doesn't make men any less susceptible to the downsides of the emotional and mutually participatory aspects of sex (and the upsides!), not to mention simply not being "in the mood." Frankly, it can be difficult to..um... finish with a woman who's "just lying there" or some equal indication of not really being into it, like obviously faking reactions, etc.

There are plenty of lazy, selfish, unimaginative, and passionless lovers of both sexes in my opinion.

Completely OTM.

And it's even more complicated than that. Good lovers fit with each other. A good lover isn't going to be good with everyone in the world. Everyone has preferences and styles and all kinds of nearly intangible qualities and ugly baggage that they bring to bed with them, and good sex takes two. I've been a terrible lover with some women, for reasons that I like to think had to do with both of us. We weren't on each other's frequency, for whatever reason. And that's what makes good sex so good -- when everything clicks, you don't know exactly why, but it does, and it's fantastic, and it's rare and (if you'll forgive me) quite special.

My thoughts on the rest of the thread/topic are...I think they're too bound up with personal things and I can't comb them out.

I missed this before, but I think Lara's on to something here, so to speak. If it takes a woman a good deal of time to come through penetrative sex and the guy's not a heroic sexual athlete, be fucking (and I use the word advisedly here) creative.

Wrong. Bateman's Principle is a fundamental tenet of reproductive biology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateman%27s_principle

It's weird, I started this thread after I'd been dating someone for a long time, because I was in a position to start new things and kinda thinking about the logistics of it. But I don't think I've thought about this at all since then. I suppose it's the kind of thing you think about exactly once and then are more or less over. It's kind of a nice day as a man when you have an experience not go entirely well but then can be pretty sure it wasn't to do with you, and was just, you know, general no-fault non-clicking.

Haha, I like that this is being used as a serious example.

What, once every 75 years?

That's the case in the abstract, anyway, but it seems like real life isn't particularly vexed by that, so I don't know that it's a very big deal. Kind of funny, though.

I'm not, not when it happens to me. But I don't go around with a bullhorn about it, and anyway, I have to blame myself a little, too. I'm not sure of the woman Nabisco is describing, who talks a lot about what man is pleasing her or not. That's not acceptable at all by my standerds. That's just kinda bitchy.

True. Real life has too many other things to be vexed about.

I never said they were the same thing, I said that the notion that it was nothing but socially-constructed crap is wrong (ref: Bateman's Principle).

it seems like real life isn't particularly vexed by that

try if you can not to have sex with her.

the undergrad who invariably sits next to me at the cafe and talks REALLY LOUD into her cellphone about her love life

That may be solid evidence that most of us should have by outgrown this whole thread topic.

Humans form family units because we are intelligent and can pass on knowledge to our offspring, thereby increasing their overall level of genetic fitness. Animals species that don't rely on shared knowledge are better off abandoning their offspring rather than expending energy to care for them. In that case, the best way to maximize the survival of their genes is to mate as much as possible -- a quantity over quality scenario. All of this is deeply rooted in biology ... biology dictates the social structure, not the other way around.

Humans can overcome being complete slaves to Bateman's Principle, but it would be silly to claim that it has no bearing on human reproduction considering the habits of most mammals (males take on limited roles in parenting). Perhaps more importantly, women produce hundreds of eggs in their lifetime and males produce hundreds of millions of sperm per day, which is basically all the proof we need that the principle of "sperm is cheap" holds considerable biological significance for humans.

Sorry if all this is obvious to everyone, but I do think that the influence of biology is understated in discussions such as these.

For example, if we posit that women have a nurturing instinct, and this is why they nurture, then the circularity and non-explanatory trickery is all too clear. If we twiddle our thumbs, it's because we have a thumb-twiddling instinct. If we don't, it's because we have a not-thumb-twiddling instinct. Buses arrive in threes because they have a herding instinct. If they arrive separately, it's because they have a separation instinct.

Reading back through the thread, there's plenty of this kind of reasoning. No offense to anyone - it's really hard to avoid in the absence of biological structures we can see and give a name not immediately referrable to the effect we are trying to explain.

Reading back through the thread, there's plenty of this kind of reasoning. No offense to anyone - it's really hard to avoid in the absence of biological structures we can see and give a name not immediately referrable to the effect we are trying to explain.

er...come again.

A woman can mainly (but not only) come through oral sex. Not my words, but some sex expert's words.

I also think it would be just fine for a man to say, "I certainly wouldn't put up with any woman who just lies there" or "I couldn't date someone who wouldn't do [sexual act I really like]." Regardless of gender, people should seek out partners that meet their needs, and what's wrong with that?

I have to go to church now.

It's worse than that. Women are born with all the eggs they'll ever have.

That is, in fact, one of the primary reasons that the "abstinence only" programs fail as a sex ed curriculum in HS. People are driven by the basic biological need to reproduce, and that will take precedence over anything you tell them. Abstinence only works fine the day you tell them to say no, but when the hormones kick in, that goes out the window in a lot of cases. The human drive to reproduce mimics most other mammals in that the male is programmed to do exactly what I suggested. It is not hard to overcome, of course, but you have to make the effort to do it.

Unless and until you provide me with something that proves or suggests otherwise, I stand by my original statement.

That is, in fact, one of the primary reasons that the "abstinence only" programs fail as a sex ed curriculum in HS. People are driven by the basic biological need to reproduce, and that will take precedence over anything you tell them.

Your first statement refers to "individual" sexual equations. You then try to relate it to statistical reacions to a population at large. It might be true that "people" are driven by the basic biological need to reproduce, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any "individual" (even with that set of "people") is so driven.

OTfuckingM. It's really enough to put you off of having sex with that partner at all.

Isn't that overthinking? I mean, isn't it possible that the guy just wants you to get something out of the experience and is turned on by your arousal? "Affirmation of his sexual prowess," really? I mean, what if there's guilt on the part of the guy when the woman isn't enjoying it as much? Acting like every guy is all egocentric is part of the stereotype!

I get that, but it's kind of the difference between wanting you to have a good time, and needing you to have a good time.

It's worse than that. Women are born with all the eggs they'll ever have.

I did know that, but I guess I could have worded that sentence in a way that didn't suggest my possible ignorance about the reproductive system.

Your first statement refers to "individual" sexual equations. You then try to relate it to statistical reacions to a population at large. It might be true that "people" are driven by the basic biological need to reproduce, but that doesn't necessarily mean that any "individual" (even with that set of "people") is so driven.

This is self-evident, no? It doesn't affect alma's argument.

This happens in the other gender direction, too! Except less about attention and more about presumption. Like women who think getting with them is the awesomest thing ever, but in reality they're kinda hurting you.

Granted, the descrip of Uptown Girls shrilling into their cell phones about deficient partners sounds like a different kind of...over-entitlement, but I suspect the phenomenon as a whole has several root causes.

When a midwife told us this, I completely freaked out. Worrying even more about the baby in my belly. *sigh*

Er, not to be confused with taking an *active role* since as discussed this is about expecting MEN to perform...just that if you're worried about being taken advantage of in some sense, it's easy to wind up being over-demanding/critical. Because equality/math/life is hard.

i suffer from a bit of performance anxiety. simply cos i havent um performed in almost a year lol. someone give me a tip to combat these nerves.

Practice! Find a nice girl who'll have a bit a bit of patience with and explain the situation to her. Worked for me recently, and I was in a similar position. I know, easier said than done etc. Also if down there isn't behaving quite as it should, make sure you use every other means at your disposal to give her satisfaction - this'll help you get your confidence back.

ta. got a facebook buddy who has intimated that she would be up for it but im a bit worried she has quite high expectations cos of the nature of our phone/msn conversations. i dont think im bad in bed or anything, its just that after so long you become less sure.

Dear Mr x do you read? never mind, I suggest gay awful no good, horrible,very bad house music for all the confidence in the world. trust me it works! best wishes!

the nature of our phone/msn conversations

http://www.df.lth.se/~ola/Starwars/Empire/thumbs/thumb0.jpg

Just go for it, I say. If she's a halfway decent person it won't really matter if you don't live up to her expectations, which you may have blown out of proportion anyway.

"I suggest gay awful no good, horrible,very bad house music"

er.... thanks?

jordan s, im more of a return of the jedi guy myself.

Chap OTM. I think most people would understand that you're not necessarily up for you're best performance when you're doing it for the first time with a new person. With most couples it takes a while to get used to each other's needs and likes. It'd be different if she was just looking for a good one-night lay, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

ok, thing is, im just a bit worried if i tell her ive not been in action for a while, she might not be as enthusiastic. i have met her once, and part of the thing there was i was a bit nervous about the idea of us going back to mine for the reasons ive mentioned above. im not sure if she wants a relationship or just a shagging buddy, and TBH ive only slept with the girls ive been in relationships with, by and large, or at least dated a bit (not a huge number as ive been in relationships most of the time), so this isnt home turf for me.

I thought "mr x" was max and was like "oh no max"

I still say go for it. A 'good one night lay' is a relatively rare thing, I think, the (very few) one-night stands I've had have been crap, and there hasn't ever been any noticeable hard feelings. Also, you may well surprise yourself. Also, it bears repeating, there's more than one method of pleasing a woman.

i kinda feel like i need to tell her about taking an er, respite from the shagging frontlines, anyway, so prob will. hopefully things will proceed as they have been after that.

wait this isn't the same as the hpv genital warts girl, is it???

who?!

oh nm i guess that was another troll

Performances are for actors or trained animals. If you can't be open, honest and 'vulnerable' with your sexual partner, you've jumped the tracks already.

P.S. This opinion will almost certainly earn me flack. Lalalalalala! I'm not listening!

I seem to remember an interesting dialogue about this from 'Chasing Amy'.
-- Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, February 14, 2003 12:31 AM (5 years ago) Bookmark Link

I don't mean this in one of those "such a double standard" sort of ways, because even as a double standard it's not one I'd have a terrible problem with. But Lara on the hat thread jokes about getting angry with anyone she dated who underperformed, a sort of sentiment that's actually really common. Conversely I doubt many men could get away with saying "I certainly wouldn't put up with any woman who couldn't" ... well, I dunno, you fill in, because apart from visible physical characteristics it's considered unfunny and impolite and just bad to criticize women's sexual performance. In my experience guys don't even do this in one another's company! I've heard maybe the barest hint of it, and that very rarely.
I'm not sure what my question is but I find this interesting.

-- nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:29 PM (5 years ago) Bookmark Link

BRAGGIN [nabisco]!

Yeah wow I can't believe I started this thread, even by back-in-the-day standards.

I can't remember why, either (did I get with someone who was really bad, and then realized I felt guilty thinking so?), but for the purposes of all ILX, past present and future, let's pretend I am a eunuch, or the brain of a eunuch which has been preserved in a jar and connected to the internet, like the thing from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

That's sort of how I've always thought of you, actually. And his name KRANG.

I dont want girls to think I suck dick at fuckin' pussy

NO SEX IN DIMENSION X

Ian ZierZING

its just something we say when we're mad

a dude i dated not too long ago said that all girls are the same in bed. i wonder if thats true?

no

he needs to sleep with more women

doppelbangers

I thought "mr x" was max and was like "oh no max"

-- Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Monday, April 7, 2008 7:02 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Link

nooooooo

krang otm

http://filebox.vt.edu/users/mhemsteg/tmntnet2.mov

krang otm

Isn't the female equivalent to be called "frigid"? I don't think it's got quite the currency it used to have, but ... yeah.

I think "frigid" means "don't much care for sex" rather than "wants sex, but nervous about it".

Mandee, that guy you dated was crazy. In my opinion, everyone is different in bed. That's exactly why it's unlikely to have a perfect "performance" the first time you have sex with someone. It takes a while to learn what short of invidual your partner is in bed.

doing this new thing where i howl right before cave diving

thread revive of the century

Hope your cert. agency was NSS-CDS or GUE.

finished std-hiv negative magnum cum louder

omg! was this the thread where nabisco was not otm? my reality is shattered

holy shit yessssssssssss

^ that's what she said

uhhhhnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

why are demands about nabisco's otmness quite so acceptable

trust nabisco to turn this into a v.sly boast
― mark s (mark s)

i was wondering what we called them before harris wittels popularized "humblebrag"!