Nsfw? Should a man have to work to please a woman before he takes his own pleasure?

Well, it’s not like there’s a law or something, so it comes down to personal preference.

I mean, he doesn’t have to, but it would be pretty cool of him.

It doesn’t matter who goes first, as long as both get their orgasm.

He doesn’t have to.. but probably should if he’s interested in being a repeat customer.

And if any of you ever meet the guy who follows this law, send him my contact info.

@nikipedia What if he does this without actually following a law?

Would you like my contact info? ;-)

I mean, if he does it 100% of the time, isn’t it effectively a “law?” In the sense that there’s a “law” of gravity? Now I’m just getting pedantic, maybe.

Not at all. When we start to think we have to “work” to please someone else first, then that takes the fun out of it.

My hubby does because he wants to. Which is one of the many reasons I love him. No games necessary.

@MRSHINYSHOES Seems like there’s a fine line between voluntary (and perhaps irregular) quid pro quo, and the expectation that it will always be thus—something that might happen in long term relationships.

If you have to work at it, you’re doing it wrong.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking, @wundayatta. In the first paragraph of your details, you’re talking about sexual pleasure. Then in the next 2 paragraphs, you seem to be talking about the man doing something like buying dinner for the lady in order to gain sexual favors.

In any event, when I’m with a man on a date, I do my best to make sure that he has a good time before bed and in it. That’s natural courtesy, or maybe it’s unnatural. That’s what I was taught anyway.

If I make sure the other partner is going to have a good time, I’m sure to enjoy myself along the ride.

Nobody has to do anything. However, if you generally always come and your partner doesn’t generally come from the same process, you then need to ensure that they come through another process. It’s a matter of fairness. Generally speaking, nobody’s ever not gotten this point with me. I assume I will get an orgasm first since an orgasm by the guy is guaranteed, to an extent. With women, I make sure she comes as well.

Have to, always? No. Have to, if he’s going to pass out 30 seconds after he’s gotten his, leaving her unsatisfied? Yes.

@wundayatta I just don’t believe that anyone should have to “work” to please someone else before pleasing himself. Chivalry is fine when it comes to other things, but when a man engages in sex, that’s his perogative. It’s one of the few things that men shouldn’t have to sacrifice their pleasure for the other’s sake.

@MRSHINYSHOES how about just postponing your pleasure?

He shouldn’t have to if she’s tired. Then I can see where a woman may not mind just getting it over with. Short of that, than I would think he should take pride in being a lover and do what he can to make sure she is just as satisfied.

My problem with your question is you put the word “work” in it.
It should never be work unless it really is your line of work.

There also should be no “have to” involved. If you are part of any of what was explained, there is a bigger issue.

@tranquilsea Delayed gratification? Sure, but for oneself.

@blueiiznh Well said. (“It should never be work, unless it’s your line of work”. LOL.)

This is the norm in my life. My husband always “warms me up” first. Great for me. Even better for him.

Neither of us look at it as chivalrous. It works best and allows us both the pleasure we desire.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy…

I personally like to please her first before I’m taken care of. Just seems like a nice way to be intimate and it works out well for both of us.

Anyone who is busy working at making love is a very sad person. I have been married for 26 years and making love is a mutual thing. We do want to please our partners because that pleases us. So both parties are busy pleasing the other and in turn being pleased. It is fun all around and no work involved.

All I know is if we’re both getting to orgasm, it’s more exciting for both of us, it’s a feedback loop. Few things as exciting as having a woman orgasm with my help, it makes my orgasm that much better.

And guys that come without regard to the woman are generally alone the next Saturday night.

@Hawaii_Jake It’s just that I heard a woman say, “you have to make sure he gets you off before you do it for him.” I was wondering how others would feel about that idea. It bothered me a lot, but I don’t know if there are many women who do feel that way. To me, it is establishing a market in sexual favors. My attitude is that if you don’t want to please your partner, then you’re with the wrong partner. If your partner doesn’t want to please you, then you’re with the wrong partner.

However, perhaps women can’t afford to be choosy about partners. Maybe a large number of men are selfish this way and won’t please the woman unless the woman refuses to put out until he has pleased her. Do you see? In that case, perhaps there are many women who feel this way, and they see this as a reasonable tactic to assure they are taken care of sexually.

@wundayatta, perhaps I feel like I don’t understand because I have sex with men. There’s no doubt for me that men and women look at sex in different ways. Why? I have no idea. What are those differences? Aieyh! There are books about that. It’s too much to write here.

@wundayatta I’ve been part of those conversations, and it’s been specifically in reference to guys who went first, and then were like “babe, I’m just not feeling it anymore” and the woman was left going “you know, I can get myself off via fingers/vibe anytime, so if you aren’t going to be there for me, why are you here?” Guys who can cum and then still be there for you, either via intercourse or oral, those aren’t the guys we’re talking about in those conversations.

I think two people should time one another at inception… and when they know who takes longer on average, the other one get’s to be stimulated first and as long as it may take for the two to climax together. *Which should always be the point…

@GabrielsLamb I disagree. Climaxing together isn’t really that big a deal. I know it’s a big deal in romance novels, but in real life, I can count on one hand the number of times we climaxed within 30 seconds of each other, and there’ve been no times where it was actually at the same time.

@Aethelflaed maybe you need to do it more… For me, it’s like the ultimate quest and it does rock… and it is personal. I love the feeling of knowing two people climaxed together… Although when I do first… It’s better for him umm… Tension wise *Sorry to be graphic. WHen he does first, for me, it makes me take longer, he’s done, and I have to resort to other things… So… no fun!

@Aethelflaed And for the record… I have NEVER read one single solitary romance novel… and I don’t watch porn either.

@GabrielsLamb Yeah, they just weren’t really that much better. I didn’t feel any closer to my partner because we came at the same time, I didn’t feel like we were somehow destined to be together any more. Actually, the give-and-take of not coming at the same time is much more romantic and enticing to me; I like the realism of it, and both parties commitment to the other person, not running away after they’re done. I mean, if it’s good for you, then good for you, I just don’t know that climaxing together should be the point in general.

I’m going to drop some Flight of the Conchords knowledge on all you suckahz out there. “When it’s with me, you only need two minutes, girl
‘Cause I’m so intense
Two minutes in heaven is better than one minute in heaven
You turn to me and say something sexy like, “Is that it?”
I know what you’re trying to say, girl
You’re trying to say, “Aw yeah, that’s it”
And then you tell me you want some more
Well, uh…
I’m not surprised
But I am quite sleepy
Mmm”

business time

As long as both experience what they’re looking to get out of it, cool by me. The fact that they want this for each other signifies quality, imho. But I think the issue with @wundayatta‘s question is this: many men (correct me if I’m wrong) tend to lose a bit of interest in the task at hand, once they’ve reached climax. It’s a bit like eating dessert before dinner – you’re just not that hungry anymore for more “boring” food. Making sure that a woman experiences hers first is a way to make sure that she gets any at all, before he falls asleep.

I’ve always found it most enjoyable if everyone involved makes it about the others pleasure rather than their own, “have to” really never enters into it.

@Aethelflaed I suppose you got me on that one word… “Always” was a poor word choice. You’re right, I concede on that one. POINTS!

@laureth Yes, that is kind of the basis behind the question. The point, however, is more about a woman’s response to that trend. If men lose interest after they climax, and if they often climax before their partner, what do you think about the strategy of forcing the man to bring you satisfaction before you attend to him? Is that a reasonable response? Are there any drawbacks to that response? Would you do that if your man was like that, or is that grounds for dissolving the relationship or would you not care if you ever were satisfied?

I say “satisfied” because there are women who can be satisfied without having an orgasm. Some women want to feel loved and cared for, and it is not necessary to have an orgasm to feel that way. Some women have great difficulty orgasming and can be very satisfied without an orgasm.

I don’t think a lot of men get that because either they don’t seem to care about a woman’s pleasure very much at all, or they think they have failed if they don’t “give” her an orgasm. This could be because for men, orgasm is so sharp and distinct and overwhelming, at least to judge by most reports. For women, the overwhelmingness and suddenness is not as universal as it is for men and my impression is that that is not seen as a bad thing. Women’s expectations can and often are different from men’s expectations.

@Hawaii_Jake I think that gay male sex differs quite a bit from heterosexual sex. You’ve experienced both, so you’re probably in a better position to talk about it. However, since men seem to have an easier time orgasming, it seems like this issue of making sure the slower person is taken care of first is not really an issue. In addition, I think that there are gay men who don’t really care that much if they orgasm. They are more into their partner’s pleasure, and some even prefer to give blow jobs rather than to receive.

In any case, it seems like men have an easier time understanding each other, sexually, then they do understanding female sexuality. It makes a huge difference having the same morphology. Still, the partners may have different sexual response, and where that response is fairly different, discussing how that is handled would certainly be relevant. If their sexual response is very similar, then the issue doesn’t arise.

If a lover or possible lover tallked about who puts up when and where and why and how much, I would be anorgasmic. And they would be ex-lovers or ex-possible lovers.

In a good relationship, there are times when each partner will be happy to acommodate the other’s needs without factoring in his or her own.

One for me in the morning, perhaps, and one for you at bedtime.

If I had to think about that at all while with someone I’m going to have sex with then I can’t imagine being able to have an orgasm- those thoughts are arousal killers, to me anyway.

The best sex is when I’m thinking about what I want to do with them/to them and whatever happens, happens. Arousing another person usually heightens my own and so it just kind of rolls around and makes happy orgasms for both. Thing is, I think you have to start with a person you know for sure is sexually into you.

To me, there is no place for shoulds in sex (in theory that is…., in my head there are, and have been, some shoulds, but those are/were due to insecurity from my part).

@Never “Force” Unless that’s part of the play… “Force” is bad… THat’s why I made a science of it *Like I tend to do with everything.

@wundayatta—

“Would you do that if your man was like that, or is that grounds for dissolving the relationship or would you not care if you ever were satisfied?”—This is a Very Good Reason why people have premarital sex. It is important to know if the two people can get along in this way. If my man were not at least interested in making sure I got out of sex what I wanted to get, we probably wouldn’t have a relationship to dissolve, because I wouldn’t have stayed with that person in the first place, at least not long term. You can look at that as, “Laureth, you would reject him because of that one small thing?” – but I look at it like, “Clearly we are not right for each other, as lovers.”

“If men lose interest after they climax, and if they often climax before their partner, what do you think about the strategy of forcing the man to bring you satisfaction before you attend to him?”—As @GabrielsLamb said, “forcing” is not a good strategy with a lover or potential lover, unless they are specifically asking for that sort of game. And if I had to, at the very least, “insist” that he please me, again, clearly we are not meant to be lovers, so we wouldn’t have formed a relationship. It is important to me that a man be interested in providing me with whatever pleasure is important to me, as a matter of course. If he is not interested, and must be cajoled or guilted into it, he is not the man for me.

“Are there any drawbacks to that response?” Yes, there are drawbacks to making a man do something he doesn’t want to do. What a silly thing to ponder! Have you ever tried to make a kid eat something he or she doesn’t want to eat? And you beg and plead, but that doesn’t make the food any more appetizing, and all you do is end up grumpy at each other, and the food is still on the plate? Same idea. Nobody ends up happy from this.

“I say ‘satisfied’ because there are women who can be satisfied without having an orgasm.”—It sounds like a woman who doesn’t particularly need or want that is the perfect sort of woman for a man who is uninterested in providing this. Again, that is not me, so whatever floats her boat, she should get (or not get) that.

“I don’t think a lot of men get that because either they don’t seem to care about a woman’s pleasure very much at all…”—This is true. I’ve dated guys like that. I didn’t marry one. The fact that my husband is very pleased to help me out like this, nay, is sad if I don’t manage to experience this, is one of the many charming reasons I accepted his marriage proposal. ;)

“For women, the overwhelmingness and suddenness is not as universal as it is for men and my impression is that that is not seen as a bad thing.”—There are all kinds of women, just as there are all kinds of men. The ones who want the same sort of thing should partner up together, and leave the ones who don’t want the same sort of thing to find a better match, and not take up a mate that would better suit someone else, too.

I think a woman who is “satisfied” to never have an orgasm is one who has never had one