Songs about women not getting enough orgasms

[braces_for_impact]

For the life of me, I can't understand the mental state of someone that doesn't want to do their level best to try and bring orgasms for everyone involved. There's not anything as fun to be had in all of the human experience in my opinion.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For the life of me, I can't understand the mental state of someone that doesn't want to do their level best to try and bring orgasms for everyone involved. There's not anything as fun to be had in all of the human experience in my opinion.

Well sure, it's nice in theory, but it can potentially interfere in rolling over and going to sleep once you're done yourself.

 

[southernhybrid]

In fairness to men, evolution probably designed it this way. Orgasms should be easier to achieve for men, you certainly wouldn't want women to finish before men.

Is that a joke? Polite men always let a woman go first. As men grow older, it's much easier for them to hold off until their partner is finished. In fact, older men often have a difficult time achieving orgasm, but older men also like lots of foreplay so it's a win/win. In either case, there are many women who can only achieve orgasm by ways other than intercourse. Creative men know how to use their fingers and/or tongues to make a woman happy. If a man is a good lover, he will help his mate achieve orgasms long before he enters her. A self confident woman has no problem letting her man know just what she likes. Both individuals must work together to achieve a good sexual experience.

 

[DrZoidberg]

For the life of me, I can't understand the mental state of someone that doesn't want to do their level best to try and bring orgasms for everyone involved. There's not anything as fun to be had in all of the human experience in my opinion.

Well sure, it's nice in theory, but it can potentially interfere in rolling over and going to sleep once you're done yourself.

Thinking evolutionarily now. Wouldn't survival rates be lower for men who roll over and go to sleep after cuming? Being asleep next to an extremely frustrated woman doesn't sound safe.

 

[rousseau]

In fairness to men, evolution probably designed it this way. Orgasms should be easier to achieve for men, you certainly wouldn't want women to finish before men.

Is that a joke? Polite men always let a woman go first. As men grow older, it's much easier for them to hold off until their partner is finished. In fact, older men often have a difficult time achieving orgasm, but older men also like lots of foreplay so it's a win/win. In either case, there are many women who can only achieve orgasm by ways other than intercourse. Creative men know how to use their fingers and/or tongues to make a woman happy. If a man is a good lover, he will help his mate achieve orgasms long before he enters her. A self confident woman has no problem letting her man know just what she likes. Both individuals must work together to achieve a good sexual experience.

No, it's not a joke. I'm not talking what men should do, I'm talking how evolution has designed both men and women's bodies. By the nature of how we're built, it's going to be harder for women than men. Evolution doesn't care about how we feel, it cares about women 'leading' the men to the end, so to speak. If it were the reverse babies wouldn't get made.

I agree with your analysis, though.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is that a joke? Polite men always let a woman go first. As men grow older, it's much easier for them to hold off until their partner is finished. In fact, older men often have a difficult time achieving orgasm, but older men also like lots of foreplay so it's a win/win. In either case, there are many women who can only achieve orgasm by ways other than intercourse. Creative men know how to use their fingers and/or tongues to make a woman happy. If a man is a good lover, he will help his mate achieve orgasms long before he enters her. A self confident woman has no problem letting her man know just what she likes. Both individuals must work together to achieve a good sexual experience.

No, it's not a joke. I'm not talking what men should do, I'm talking how evolution has designed both men and women's bodies. By the nature of how we're built, it's going to be harder for women than men. Evolution doesn't care about how we feel, it cares about women 'leading' the men to the end, so to speak. If it were the reverse babies wouldn't get made.

I agree with your analysis, though.

There's a problem with your theory. It assumes that both men and women have sex until they cum, and then stop. Well... women rarely need to stop after cuming. All an orgasm does for a woman is make her like you more. There's an evolutionary advantage to be liked by the woman you're fucking. Especially since women are sneaky, and don't advertise their fertile periods.

If we're talking basic design. The human penis is shaped to create a vacuum and suck out cum from the guy who was there before. Also, only about a third of our cum can fertilise the embryo. The other 2/3's is designed to hunt down and kill other men's sperm in different ways. We're designed to cum after we've pumped enough to allow any prior cum to get sucked out. That's why we don't cum immediately upon entry. We're designed for gang-bangs. But does that mean that any sex with a woman that isn't a gang bang is doing it wrong?

Of course it doesn't. It's great to have optimal equipment for gang bangs, if that's the kind of sex we're having. If we're not having that kind of sex, having the gang-bang equipment doesn't hurt.

And since no animal is capable of having sex that isn't natural to it's species, it means that it's natural for humans to not only have gang-bangs. Since most people clearly aren't.

Gang bang equipment on a man who never has gang-bangs is just genetic drift. Useless evolutionary designs are only dropped if keeping them around has a cost.

 

[Derec]

Your petty obsession with women is really starting to turn me on. View attachment 11273

Maybe he wants to be one.

 

[Underseer]

I like hip hop. There's a huge feminist wing of hip hop, where they're constantly complaining about how they're not given enough orgasms by inconsiderate lovers. I'm also a liberal. So I read these kinds of articles and social media posts. It seems to be a huge problem. I don't know for a fact it is a huge problem. But it's enough of a problem that it resonate with the audience of these posts and songs.

I have now made a theory about this. It's not based on anything but pure speculation on my part.

Hot guys will get laid, no matter what they do, pretty much. Most women want hot guys. Hot guys have little incentive to make much effort. They can be selfish as hell. If they woman they're with now leaves them they know they'll get a constant supply of new girls. I think these guys are the target of these songs. But they won't care.

The only people who hear these songs and change their behaviour is the not-so-hot guys. Who don't really matter for the girls. Since they're primarily selected for non-sexual reasons. They either feel proud about being awesome lovers. But it's only in their head. Or they'll think girls are just whiny unappreciative bitches.

Not sure what to do with this insight. I'll just leave it here. But it does mean that these things will keep coming. Because nothing is going to change. Hot guys will continue to not give a shit.

Honestly, I think it's in part a Western culture thing.

Throughout my life, I've had women compliment my performance in bed by saying "You're so sensual!"

This frustrated me, because I didn't actually understand what they meant. If I was doing something right, I wanted to know what that something was so that I could do more of it. So I asked girlfriends to explain, and there was something my male brain just couldn't grasp in what they were saying. What they said sounded incredibly vague to me, and I couldn't actually map anything they said to anything I was doing in the bedroom.

Then every once in a while, I ran into white women or black women who would mention that they liked having sex with Asian men, and they always used the same compliment "They're so sensual in bed!" So I asked them what they meant by that because of the frustration I had with conversations with girlfriends. Unfortunately, I had the same problem with understanding their answers. Everything they said just sounded very vague to me and I couldn't map anything they said to anything I was actually doing.

So then I noticed gay men making similar compliments about Asian male lovers, so I thought to ask them. I figured that perhaps because gay men are men, they might give answers that made more sense to me. Unfortunately, I turned out to be wrong about that. As with the heterosexual women, I found their comments to be too vague to be meaningful or helpful in my understanding of what they liked.

I think I may have finally solved the puzzle, although I'm not really sure. I ran into a half-Korean half-white bisexual man who lives in Korea. He mentioned that he didn't like having sex with Western men because they think of their own pleasure first and their partner's pleasure not at all, or only as an afterthought. He speculated that if I wasn't doing the typical Western male thing, that heterosexual women might interpret that as "sensuality."

I'm honestly not sure if he's right, but his observation about Western men is probably relevant to this discussion. It's possible that Western men lack sufficient consideration of their partners for some bizarre cultural reason.

 

[TSwizzle]

Is that a joke? Polite men always let a woman go first. As men grow older, it's much easier for them to hold off until their partner is finished. In fact, older men often have a difficult time achieving orgasm, but older men also like lots of foreplay so it's a win/win. In either case, there are many women who can only achieve orgasm by ways other than intercourse. Creative men know how to use their fingers and/or tongues to make a woman happy. If a man is a good lover, he will help his mate achieve orgasms long before he enters her. A self confident woman has no problem letting her man know just what she likes. Both individuals must work together to achieve a good sexual experience.

Yeah, but that's a lot to expect from an inebriated young man banging some skank he doesn't know the name of at closing time against the wall of the club where they just met 10 minutes previous. I think that's what the whiny rapper bitches be complaining about, dog.

 

[Bronzeage]

I like hip hop. There's a huge feminist wing of hip hop, where they're constantly complaining about how they're not given enough orgasms by inconsiderate lovers. I'm also a liberal. So I read these kinds of articles and social media posts. It seems to be a huge problem. I don't know for a fact it is a huge problem. But it's enough of a problem that it resonate with the audience of these posts and songs.

I have now made a theory about this. It's not based on anything but pure speculation on my part.

Hot guys will get laid, no matter what they do, pretty much. Most women want hot guys. Hot guys have little incentive to make much effort. They can be selfish as hell. If they woman they're with now leaves them they know they'll get a constant supply of new girls. I think these guys are the target of these songs. But they won't care.

The only people who hear these songs and change their behaviour is the not-so-hot guys. Who don't really matter for the girls. Since they're primarily selected for non-sexual reasons. They either feel proud about being awesome lovers. But it's only in their head. Or they'll think girls are just whiny unappreciative bitches.

Not sure what to do with this insight. I'll just leave it here. But it does mean that these things will keep coming. Because nothing is going to change. Hot guys will continue to not give a shit.

As a former hot guy, I have to take exception to some of this post.

Hot guys do not get laid, no matter what they do. In fact, "what they do", is probably the critical factor in getting laid. There is no guy so hot, he can't fuck up every chance to get fucked. I've seen it done many times. At the monthly hot guy club meetings, there was always some hot guy whining about this woman who just walked away, or poured a drink in his lap. We all knew what the problem was, but he was never going to listen, so why bother?

As I gracefully aged into not so hot guy status, nothing really changed. I was still being selected for sexual reasons, but now, by older women.

 

[TSwizzle]

Sometime, I curse being so hawt.

 

[Toni]

I have a little bit different perspective. I think most men (hot or not) DO want to please the woman they're with but many don't have the slightest clue as to how. Unfortunately, there are many women out there (especially younger ones) that also don't have a clue how to achieve orgasm. For those that do, some have a difficult time actually 'showing' the man for fear of ridicule (being thought of as a 'hoe', rejection (man may feel self conscious), embarrassment or any other myriad of reasons. The truly best sex comes from a comfort level with the partner and good communication.

To be fair, not all men are interested in learning or are open to the idea that not all women reach orgasm by the same formula (word chosen deliberately).

 

[rousseau]

No, it's not a joke. I'm not talking what men should do, I'm talking how evolution has designed both men and women's bodies. By the nature of how we're built, it's going to be harder for women than men. Evolution doesn't care about how we feel, it cares about women 'leading' the men to the end, so to speak. If it were the reverse babies wouldn't get made.

I agree with your analysis, though.

There's a problem with your theory. It assumes that both men and women have sex until they cum, and then stop. Well... women rarely need to stop after cuming. All an orgasm does for a woman is make her like you more. There's an evolutionary advantage to be liked by the woman you're fucking. Especially since women are sneaky, and don't advertise their fertile periods.

If we're talking basic design. The human penis is shaped to create a vacuum and suck out cum from the guy who was there before. Also, only about a third of our cum can fertilise the embryo. The other 2/3's is designed to hunt down and kill other men's sperm in different ways. We're designed to cum after we've pumped enough to allow any prior cum to get sucked out. That's why we don't cum immediately upon entry. We're designed for gang-bangs. But does that mean that any sex with a woman that isn't a gang bang is doing it wrong?

Of course it doesn't. It's great to have optimal equipment for gang bangs, if that's the kind of sex we're having. If we're not having that kind of sex, having the gang-bang equipment doesn't hurt.

And since no animal is capable of having sex that isn't natural to it's species, it means that it's natural for humans to not only have gang-bangs. Since most people clearly aren't.

Gang bang equipment on a man who never has gang-bangs is just genetic drift. Useless evolutionary designs are only dropped if keeping them around has a cost.

I don't know if any of what you've said invalidates what I said, and I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but I'll continue anyway.

When a man enters a woman it's essential that the man finishes, it's not essential that the woman finishes, at least when we're talking about evolution. If a man doesn't have an orgasm, genes don't get passed on, if a woman doesn't that's not the case.

So I'd assume the exact reason it's harder for women to get off is so men get themselves off while trying to get the woman off. Best case scenario they finish at the same time, slightly less ideal situation is he finishes before her and they make a baby. The woman getting off first and passing out before the guy just makes no sense in reality.

 

[Bronzeage]

There's a problem with your theory. It assumes that both men and women have sex until they cum, and then stop. Well... women rarely need to stop after cuming. All an orgasm does for a woman is make her like you more. There's an evolutionary advantage to be liked by the woman you're fucking. Especially since women are sneaky, and don't advertise their fertile periods.

If we're talking basic design. The human penis is shaped to create a vacuum and suck out cum from the guy who was there before. Also, only about a third of our cum can fertilise the embryo. The other 2/3's is designed to hunt down and kill other men's sperm in different ways. We're designed to cum after we've pumped enough to allow any prior cum to get sucked out. That's why we don't cum immediately upon entry. We're designed for gang-bangs. But does that mean that any sex with a woman that isn't a gang bang is doing it wrong?

Of course it doesn't. It's great to have optimal equipment for gang bangs, if that's the kind of sex we're having. If we're not having that kind of sex, having the gang-bang equipment doesn't hurt.

And since no animal is capable of having sex that isn't natural to it's species, it means that it's natural for humans to not only have gang-bangs. Since most people clearly aren't.

Gang bang equipment on a man who never has gang-bangs is just genetic drift. Useless evolutionary designs are only dropped if keeping them around has a cost.

I don't know if any of what you've said invalidates what I said, and I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but I'll continue anyway.

When a man enters a woman it's essential that the man finishes, it's not essential that the woman finishes, at least when we're talking about evolution. If a man doesn't have an orgasm, genes don't get passed on, if a woman doesn't that's not the case.

So I'd assume the exact reason it's harder for women to get off is so men get themselves off while trying to get the woman off. Best case scenario they finish at the same time, slightly less ideal situation is he finishes before her and they make a baby. The woman getting off first and passing out before the guy just makes no sense in reality.

It would help to remember what happens after all these orgasms. Somebody ends up with a helpless baby, and she needs a partner. If our all year long mating season has any value at all, at the very least it creates a bond between a man and a woman, or maybe several, or whatever. A human baby is a very big investment in time and resources. It's not like puppies and kittens that hang around for a while and then all go their own way.

Think about it from the man's point of view. You're out in the woods with your buddies and you just killed a mastodon. You can butcher your catch and eat well for days or weeks, or you could carry all that meat back to a smoky cave filled with women and screaming babies. Something keeps bringing you back.

 

[rousseau]

I don't know if any of what you've said invalidates what I said, and I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but I'll continue anyway.

When a man enters a woman it's essential that the man finishes, it's not essential that the woman finishes, at least when we're talking about evolution. If a man doesn't have an orgasm, genes don't get passed on, if a woman doesn't that's not the case.

So I'd assume the exact reason it's harder for women to get off is so men get themselves off while trying to get the woman off. Best case scenario they finish at the same time, slightly less ideal situation is he finishes before her and they make a baby. The woman getting off first and passing out before the guy just makes no sense in reality.

It would help to remember what happens after all these orgasms. Somebody ends up with a helpless baby, and she needs a partner. If our all year long mating season has any value at all, at the very least it creates a bond between a man and a woman, or maybe several, or whatever. A human baby is a very big investment in time and resources. It's not like puppies and kittens that hang around for a while and then all go their own way.

Think about it from the man's point of view. You're out in the woods with your buddies and you just killed a mastodon. You can butcher your catch and eat well for days or weeks, or you could carry all that meat back to a smoky cave filled with women and screaming babies. Something keeps bringing you back.

It's because being alone is terrible for most people, and intimacy is the only genuinely rewarding thing we've got.

 

[DBT]

Orgasms for sale. On special for limited time only. A dollar a dozen....get them while they're hot.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I like hip hop. There's a huge feminist wing of hip hop, where they're constantly complaining about how they're not given enough orgasms by inconsiderate lovers. I'm also a liberal. So I read these kinds of articles and social media posts. It seems to be a huge problem. I don't know for a fact it is a huge problem. But it's enough of a problem that it resonate with the audience of these posts and songs.

I have now made a theory about this. It's not based on anything but pure speculation on my part.

Hot guys will get laid, no matter what they do, pretty much. Most women want hot guys. Hot guys have little incentive to make much effort. They can be selfish as hell. If they woman they're with now leaves them they know they'll get a constant supply of new girls. I think these guys are the target of these songs. But they won't care.

The only people who hear these songs and change their behaviour is the not-so-hot guys. Who don't really matter for the girls. Since they're primarily selected for non-sexual reasons. They either feel proud about being awesome lovers. But it's only in their head. Or they'll think girls are just whiny unappreciative bitches.

Not sure what to do with this insight. I'll just leave it here. But it does mean that these things will keep coming. Because nothing is going to change. Hot guys will continue to not give a shit.

As a former hot guy, I have to take exception to some of this post.

Hot guys do not get laid, no matter what they do. In fact, "what they do", is probably the critical factor in getting laid. There is no guy so hot, he can't fuck up every chance to get fucked. I've seen it done many times. At the monthly hot guy club meetings, there was always some hot guy whining about this woman who just walked away, or poured a drink in his lap. We all knew what the problem was, but he was never going to listen, so why bother?

As I gracefully aged into not so hot guy status, nothing really changed. I was still being selected for sexual reasons, but now, by older women.

Well... it's a theory. I remember a friend who formulated this straight pecking order for men.

1) High status. Celebrity, famous or rich. These men will get laid the most.
2) Funny guys who can make girls laugh
3) Good looking.

Below this you have to prove your worth through your actions. You get laid based on what you can do for her, rather than what you are.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't know if any of what you've said invalidates what I said, and I'm not sure if you're kidding or not, but I'll continue anyway.

When a man enters a woman it's essential that the man finishes, it's not essential that the woman finishes, at least when we're talking about evolution. If a man doesn't have an orgasm, genes don't get passed on, if a woman doesn't that's not the case.

So I'd assume the exact reason it's harder for women to get off is so men get themselves off while trying to get the woman off. Best case scenario they finish at the same time, slightly less ideal situation is he finishes before her and they make a baby. The woman getting off first and passing out before the guy just makes no sense in reality.

It would help to remember what happens after all these orgasms. Somebody ends up with a helpless baby, and she needs a partner. If our all year long mating season has any value at all, at the very least it creates a bond between a man and a woman, or maybe several, or whatever. A human baby is a very big investment in time and resources. It's not like puppies and kittens that hang around for a while and then all go their own way.

Think about it from the man's point of view. You're out in the woods with your buddies and you just killed a mastodon. You can butcher your catch and eat well for days or weeks, or you could carry all that meat back to a smoky cave filled with women and screaming babies. Something keeps bringing you back.

We've evolved for hunter/gatherer lifestyles. Not 1950'ies style nuclear families. The whole tribe would look after all the babies together. All the men would imprint on all the babies. If you've ever moved in with a woman who has kids from an earlier relationship I challenge you not to think of her kids as your own after a while. If you have a heart in your body you can't do it. The more younger and worthless the kid is the stronger the effect. We don't seem to care if it's our own. As long as it's a baby or child, we give a shit about its well being.

All this makes perfect sense evolutionary. You are likely to share most of your genes with everybody in your tribe. The chances of you raising a kid you share no genes with is virtually zero in that world. So you have an evolutionary incentive to care about all children you come across.

This whole idea that men have evolved for promiscuity because there's no cost to fuck around for men. And that women have evolved to be more picky. Makes no sense. They're all in the same tribe. The cost is the same. If anybody is put at a disadvantage all of the tribes resources will be pooled to help the weak.

Ever wondered why women's menstrual cycles sync? If we assume that all females have sex all the time, then syncing menstrual cycles means that all woman will have babies at the same time. In certain periods it's good to be highly mobile = not good to carry babies or be pregnant. In other periods they don't need to walk far between feeding spots. That's also why women who starve don't have periods. It's to prevent them getting pregnant and having babies in times when it's imperative to be highly mobile. It's quite possible that the women of the tribe communally regulate sex by how they feel. If they don't all feel safe they'll conspire to deny all the men sex.

We're not adapted for monogamous relationships that are separated from other couples. We're adapted for societies where women spend most of their time with other women, and men with men. Regardless of who is fucking who. The answer to the question whether or not it's natural for us to be monogamous, polyamorous or sexually free, the answer is yes. Because we can quite cheerfully do all of these. All are common today. We're quite clearly flexible about which forms of relationships work best.

Let's take chimpanzees for comparison. Chimpanzee females use sexual blackmail as a way to gain favours. They use sex, and holding back sex in order to rise in the status of the troupe. But they can't be too frigid or they lose status. High status females display to high status males, and the high status males approve. if they don't approve, the female loses status. And have to find a male to give her some appreciation. And that's her status. if she displays for a male above her station the other females can tear her apart. It's a constant political chess game for them. The only sex Chimpanzees has is gang-bangs. When a new alpha male takes over it's common that he murders any baby chimps he can get his hands on.

It's fucking complicated. That's my point. Any simplistic analysis of human sexuality will be as wrong as any simplistic analysis of chimpazee relationships. Because we today have nuclear monogamous families as the norm, when we know from our evolutionary history that it's not normal, it's very hard to make conclusions based on common current behaviour. It's like studying how a beaver builds a dam when it's locked up in a barren steel cage in a lab.

That was a long rant. Humans take care of the weak in the same tribe. There's no differences in cost for promiscuity between the genders.

This is a great book on sexuality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evolution_of_Human_Nature

This one is also good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_at_Dawn

 

[spikepipsqueak]

In fairness to men, evolution probably designed it this way. Orgasms should be easier to achieve for men, you certainly wouldn't want women to finish before men.

Speak for yourself, white man.

Is that a joke? Polite men always let a woman go first. As men grow older, it's much easier for them to hold off until their partner is finished. In fact, older men often have a difficult time achieving orgasm, but older men also like lots of foreplay so it's a win/win. In either case, there are many women who can only achieve orgasm by ways other than intercourse. Creative men know how to use their fingers and/or tongues to make a woman happy. If a man is a good lover, he will help his mate achieve orgasms long before he enters her. A self confident woman has no problem letting her man know just what she likes. Both individuals must work together to achieve a good sexual experience.

QFT

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I think I may have finally solved the puzzle, although I'm not really sure. I ran into a half-Korean half-white bisexual man who lives in Korea. He mentioned that he didn't like having sex with Western men because they think of their own pleasure first and their partner's pleasure not at all, or only as an afterthought. He speculated that if I wasn't doing the typical Western male thing, that heterosexual women might interpret that as "sensuality."

I'm honestly not sure if he's right, but his observation about Western men is probably relevant to this discussion. It's possible that Western men lack sufficient consideration of their partners for some bizarre cultural reason.

Some posts, and segments of posts, stay with me for years.

Years ago a young man posted here because his girlfriend was very demanding, and no matter how long he pounded her she was never satisfied and kept demanding more, in tears. At the time I wondered if she was begging him to "make love" to her and he had no awareness that what he was doing could not be described that way.

I think this might be supporting evidence for your theory.