[Note: While this post will discuss sexual experience only on the assumption that all other factors met your personal criteria for a satisfactory and compatable relationship. Please insert the words “all other things being equal” where appropriate because, of course, it’s always entirely appropriate. —fl]
So September of Standing in the sun brings up an interesting point about sexual experience and sexual competence. (I’ve added italics for emphasis.)
We haven’t slept together in eight months, which is also the last time I had sex. Sex-sex, not counting fooling around with another guy a few times, which let me tell you, was NOT as good as the first time we hooked up, either. I thought he’d be better at things, being as promiscuous as he is, but he wasn’t.
This observation meshes rather nicely with an idea AAG of AlwaysArousedGirls raised yesterday.
It’s crossing my mind how dreadfully inexperienced I am. By your late 30s you should have a considerable stockpile of sexual knowledge, right?
I don’t. I’m woefully inadequate in many aspects of sex simply because I’ve not had enough of a chance to practice.
...
The enthusiasm is there, definitely. But the raw skills? Perhaps not.
Does anyone reading this feel like a Master of Sex? Or are there aspects of sex that everyone feels shaky performing? Tell me.
I’ve been brooding lately over the question “what does it mean to be jaded” for a couple of days. I haven’t been able to get a hook, a lead sentence, a unifying theme, and so there it sits, a nagging suspicion that too much of a good thing is no better than not enough and no good way to put it. But this? September and AAG’s posts point in a more managable direction.
What does it even mean to say you’re inexperienced? Or, for that matter, experienced?
I’m pretty sure we could get together and arrive at some baseline definitions of sexual competence but would such standards include numbers of partners? Numbers of encounters? Quantities of orgasms received or delivered? (I sort of hope not since orgasms are only one of a number of ways to measure enjoyment and we too often disregard all others.) Might it be number of techniques mastered? Number you’ve heard about and are willing to attempt? Would speed be a factor? Efficiency? Endurance?
Assuming one’s partner meets your personal criteria for baseline competence do you think less of them for not knowing more? Where does joyful enthusiasm fit it? How about someone who can skillfully roll your eyeballs all the way around backwards… but seems annoyingly board as he or she does so.
Andy Warhol had a number of, um, interesting issues, but I don’t think they were related to his eating the same lunch (tomato soup) every day for 32 years. And we’ve probably all been over to dinner with someone who’s never content to cook the same thing twice but also manages to cut corners on and/or scorch everything. Including the lemon wedges. We’ve also probably all experienced a little anxiety about serving meatloaf or stir fries to friends who cook for a living… and perhaps been surprised when they ask us for second helpings. Or thirds.
Me? Here’s what I want. Someone who’s had enough experience to know what she wants. Someone with enough confidence to know it’s ok to talk, to ask me what I want, to tell me what inspires her. Someone with enough experience to adapt what she might have heard is supposed to be true to fit her reality and mine. After that, additional partners, or additional positions, or additional interests are wonderful, delightful, inspiring, and — in relation to the rest — relatively unimportant.
So! Is it fun to have had lots of experience? You bet. Are you missing something if you or your partner hasn’t tried everything? Sometimes. Maybe. Usually not.
Finally, please don’t think I’m saying routine sex is better than a sexual Circ de Solei. I’m saying that once you reach baseline competence I think it’s better to be able to say “I’d like to try [that] sometime” without adding “or I’m missing out.”
Update: Ooh, ooh, extra credit to whoever produced this Flash-based music video. (Via Huneeb at Raw, unfiltered sticky sweetness.)
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-29 12:42.
Wow, no comments yet! I must say that I agree wholeheartedly, Fig, that as long as the two of you are willing to push the boundaries you have set and be open to new ideas then experience doesn't mean much. It is always fun exploring something new, or teaching something new. That said, I want a partner to know what he is doing, and that can ask for what he wants. It's all about confidence, really, more so than about experience...
[That's great. Thanks, Climbinggirl. --fl]
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-29 12:58.
***I think you might have linked the wrong post from Septmeber...***
See, I'm not after experience for the sake of experience. I'm after experience for the sake of play, of fun, of togetherness.
You try something out, have a giggle if it doesn't work, and keep going.
Things run into trouble, for me anyhow, if your list of acceptable activities narrows to include only two things. That's where I am now.
Thanks for the post and the quote. It's such a thrill to see myself quoted here.
[First of all thanks, I've corrected the link. Second, I hope I didn't sound like I was calling you on anything for your post. And yeah, it's one thing to be inexperienced and another to have your options narrowed down to two! I'm glad I could thrill you with a quote and I sincerely wish your partner could get past his issues and thrill you the right way. --fl]
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-29 13:02.
hmmmm. some people may have more sexual talent than others, actually. i'm not saying that i'm right on this one, but based on the experiences i had, the best lays of my life were 2 guys with really low body counts. for some reason, they really knew how to kiss, use their mouth, and lasted very long. this one guy who slept with 25 girls? terrible kisser, and we didn't get much farther than that. or maybe a simple explanation was that these guys were lying to me about their sexual experience, i dont know. but the 2 best lays had a body count of 3 and 6, which is extremely low in my opinion.
expereince doesn't mean much if it's just repetition of the same technique, you know? unless refining a technique and curiousity is involved, experience would be nothing more than rote memorization. i'm sure there are folks who have lots of sex, but do it the same way over and over again. just a thought.
["Experience doesn't mean much if it's just repetition of the same technique." Got that right. Well, unless you and your partners really enjoy it -- simple tastes aren't the same thing as no taste at all. Similarly, though, experience doesn't mean much if you're always trying something new just to check more marks off your "life list" and never take the time to enjoy yourself. Thanks, Laura. --fl]
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-29 13:40.
No, I don't believe experience implies excellence. For me, excellence comes from caring and connection, from that essential intimacy only depth can bring. In this state even the simplest of acts and intentions can blow your mind.
[Yup, experience just means experience. Everything else depends on connection, personality, interest. 40 years working in McDonalds doesn't make you an expert chef. Thanks, Lena. --fl]
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-29 14:09.
Experience definitely doesn't always equal excellence. Then again, there are occasions that it does. I guess it all comes down to being taught right. Even if you have a ton of experience, what good does it do if you did things wrong all those times before?
Besides, some of us are prodigies;)
[I have no doubt you contain multitudes when it comes to kissing, Camogirl. And you're right that (as my old band instructor used to say) "practice doesn't make perfect if you're doing it wrong." Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-29 14:30.
laura, I feel like in guys with low body counts, it implies that they had some long term girlfriends and figured out what they were doing, whereas with guys that have all one night stands, they never really do.
There are obvious exceptions, but that's my feeling.
[Ooh, good point. *If* you're going to have a one-night stand, or try one of the more technical kinds of sex, it's always better to have a partner with experience in that sort of thing. One of the toughest things about one-night-stands is you have to sort of wing it since you never have time to settle in and neither you nor your partner is likely to learn what works best for and with their momentary partner. Not that longer-term relationships don't have their own perils of habit, routine, but on the whole there's less common-denomination necessary if you're not thinking "well, this is my one chance...." Thanks, Camo. --fl]
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-29 20:53.
i have to agree. baseline competence added to enthusiasm, awareness of your partner, open and positive communication, nad respect are what it is really all about. once you have that you can explore to your little heart's content and enjoy the whole discovery.
[Thank you, Lime! (Glad you're back.) --fl]
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-29 22:13.
My first thought reading your post was a quote from Mary Poppins: "Enough is as good as a feast."
Great ideas as always, thanks!
[That and "The best is the enemy of the good." Which wasn't in Mary Poppins but is always good to remember. Thanks, Sweetpea. --fl]
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-03-29 23:31.
Experience does not translate into excellence. And by excellence I do not mean technique or skill. The man or woman who is preoccupied with technique is not really concerned with his/her lover as much as his/her reputation as a good lover.
There is nothing as arousing as an ardent lover. An "experienced" lover may have mastered a technique, but he or she cannot really sustain the intensity that makes lovemaking memorable and a relationship possible.
Perhaps an analogy would be the difference between kindness and politeness. With kindness you are truly concerned about another's comfort or welfare; with politeness you are only concerned about your image.
Thank you, Figleaf, for another thought provoking post.
[Ooh, kindness vs. politeness! Nice distinction, Kochanie. Same with ardent vs. experienced. Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-03-30 04:53.
I have no experience when it comes to sex. Really.
When I get to 'get to it' I want to be with someone who takes the time to talk, to try things and who wants to work towards excellence with me.
So someone I am comfortable with obviously :)
[So let me push you just a little and say it has to be someone you are *confident* with -- that's not always the same as *comfortable* though of course it's close. Comfortable sometimes implies that everything is going well. Confident implies that you can work with someone to make everything go well *or* that if it doesn't you don't have to feel as if you've made the wrong decisions, picked the wrong person, chosen the wrong time, etc. Does that make sense? It's both easier and harder than comfortable, and it gives you more ownership over who you are and what you do. (I hope that makes sense.) Thanks for dropping by, J. --fl]
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-03-30 09:09.
Wow! Thanks for the link, figleaf!
Experience is a strange thing. The more I get, the more I realize that there are a lot of people who don't know what they're doing out there. If only people could talk more frankly about sex, maybe we could all be having the sex of our dreams!
[The way to get more people talking frankly is to set examples ourselves, eh? It's hard at first but man, it's worth it. Thank you, September. --fl]
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-03-30 14:24.
Yes, I like confident better. It describes more of what I meant with comfortable.
I want to be able to be me in all my weirdness.
[Hey, and my job is to make sure you realize you're not even weird! This cool book I read, "The Blessings of a Skinned Knee" points out that while "no individual is special, every individual is unique." Which isn't as bad as we've been led to believe. It's pretty wonderful being unique, even if everyone else is too. Otherwise we'd just all be bees in a hive somewhere and utterly replacable. Instead we get you, and me, and everyone else. Definitely worth it. Not at all weird. (And don't worry, I'm not burning incense or wearing Burkenstocks and wool socks about this. That's just the way it is.) Thanks, J. --fl]
Submitted by 688 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-03-30 14:38.
ah, yes, but who gets to define what reasonably constitutes "baseline competence"?
for some it's a working grasp of basic anatomy, for others the stamina and flexibility of a competitive gymnast and the technical skill of a virtuoso (ok, maybe not that extreme)... and if there's too much of a mismatch, someone's going to wind up feeling disappointed, and someone's going to wind up feeling inadequate.
due to the same underlying problem, perhaps, as with the mismatched libido issue? we tend to assume that a baseline -- whether that's a baseline level of desire or a baseline level of skill -- is obvious and inevitable (that, after all, is what a baseline is), when in reality it's highly personal.
[I'm going to say it's got to be more than one person's standard or you're right -- some people will say "still above room temperature" and others are going to say "Brad Pitt, and only after psychotherapy, and only if he stops eating dairy, and can I have the lite Italian dressing on the side. Oh and he has to wax his balls and sign a pre-nup." But I was thinking something more along the lines of a) understands basic human anatomy, b) is interested in what pleases his or her partner, c) is aware that a new partner may have different interests that either he or she has or that a previous partner might have had, and d) is interested and willing to compromise to meet both his/hers and a partner's needs. Oh yeah, and maybe e) is stable enough to assess when he/she and a partner's needs differ enough to gracefully call things off. We can add to or modify that, but I would put the accent on "basic" and say that my list encompasses the ability to negotiate things like "prefers gymnasts." Could we get to consensus on that as a baseline, Ruth? Thanks. --fl]