A submissive's arousal...does it matter?

[Netzach]

this issue makes me wonder about male submissives, and how a Dominant (male or female) would be likely to feel about a submissive who rarely or perhaps never displayed physical arousal. it being such a visually obvious thing in males after all. would the Dominant feel undesirable, or perhaps even doubt the submissive's sexual interest? would they really believe that the submissive was completely fulfilled simply through service and use? or, is male sexuality such that lack for either the ability or the desire to be aroused really would be a sign of sexual dysfunction (and *lightbulb*...perhaps this is a reason why most men have a difficult understanding or believing women with such a sexuality)?

things that make you go hmmmm.

Depends on the dude. If I know he's really sexually motivated and I'm not seeing the hard evidence, har de har, I wonder if it's working. If I know he's not sexually motivated at the end of the day I don't care.

One thing though, is that hard cock tells no lies. If he "hates it" but the cock says otherwise, that's good enough for me.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I agree with this. Normal sexual functions are something that should be enjoyed and treasured, and when someone doesn't have normal sexual functions, that issue should be taken up with a doctor. Unless a person is truly asexual, being anorgasmic shouldn't be something just accepted with a sigh of 'Oh, well, I guess this is just how it is."

why shouldn't those of us with "abnormal" sexual function and quite content with such, be enjoyed and treasured for our sexuality as much as those with "normal" sexual function? we all want partners who are pleased with our sexuality, who are interested in and aroused by us just the way we are. and absolutely no one wants to be viewed as a defective freak for something which is both beyond your control and integral to who you are.

 

[Netzach]

If my partner were a 60yo male who wasn't getting it up that much and didn't *care* about it no one would be urging us to chase down his orgasmic pleasure like life depended on it. Some people don't have high drive in that direction. I can't *relate* to it, but if someone's like "it's not a big deal and making it one is making me miserable" why does it have to be a pathology?

 

[JMohegan]

the use of the word "dysfunctional" connotes something broken and in need of repair, a connotation you clearly support by viewing such a female as in need of "professional help." this is a perspective which can be very offensive, not to mention hurtful, to women like myself who do not view their low physical arousal or potential for orgasms to be problems. now if one uses the term dysfunctional to signify abnormality...fine i'll give them that, as i recognize that such a sexuality is not the norm. but dysfunction also signifies that something is damaged and not working as it should. if a woman has been this way for all of her sexual life (therefore it is her personal "norm"), if this causes no harm to herself or others, and she is quite content with her sexuality as it is...what is the "problem" there? where is the brokenness in that? and why should her natural sexuality be invalidated?

Sexual dysfunction is not my term. That's a direct quote from the Mayo Clinic.

You may find the opinion of medical professionals offensive or hurtful, and that's certainly your prerogative.

The "problem" that would exist for me has already been articulated by DGE and Leo. As I've already clearly stated.

 

[JMohegan]

If my partner were a 60yo male who wasn't getting it up that much and didn't *care* about it no one would be urging us to chase down his orgasmic pleasure like life depended on it. Some people don't have high drive in that direction. I can't *relate* to it, but if someone's like "it's not a big deal and making it one is making me miserable" why does it have to be a pathology?

Two separate issues.

1 - Is it possible to do anything about it? In my view, that question is best addressed to professionals.

2 - Do you (the partner of the 60yo guy) care if the condition persists? If not, then obviously there's no problem. Though I still would recommend getting him checked out if this constituted a significant or sudden change from previous condition - since this could be a sign or symptom of something more serious from a health perspective.

 

[satindesire]

why shouldn't those of us with "abnormal" sexual function and quite content with such, be enjoyed and treasured for our sexuality as much as those with "normal" sexual function? we all want partners who are pleased with our sexuality, who are interested in and aroused by us just the way we are. and absolutely no one wants to be viewed as a defective freak for something which is both beyond your control and integral to who you are.

But it isn't beyond your control. That's the point.

Sexual dysfunction can be treated, and has been in thousands of women all over the world. That's like saying something like Diabetes can't be controlled.

I'm far from trying to make you feel like a freak or an outcast, but you should consider at least the possibility that you could be 'average', if you sought treatment.

Depends on the dude. If I know he's really sexually motivated and I'm not seeing the hard evidence, har de har, I wonder if it's working. If I know he's not sexually motivated at the end of the day I don't care.

One thing though, is that hard cock tells no lies. If he "hates it" but the cock says otherwise, that's good enough for me.

I disagree with this. Although my opinion probably warrants another thread of itself.

But men CAN be raped. And the erection is an unconscious reflex that isn't easily controlled. If a man 'hates it" (via unwilling sexual activity, or rape) he can still get an erection if stimulated. It happens.

Although really, I understand exactly what you mean in YOUR context.

 

[Bandit58]

exactly seela, and this mindset really scares me too. when your sexual partner sees you as defective and undesirable, you start to believe it yourself. and then you're left with either a lifetime of faking the funk in order to appear "normal," or a life without sex at all. this is so depressing.

My first husband called me frigid because I did not like sex (with him I've since found out). But when I told him I'd had my first orgasm through masturbating, at the ripe old age of 22, he was upset that I hadn't "waited to have sex with him if I was horny" Which only served to turn me off him more.

Over 20 years later it took me three more male partners until I found Sir. He introduced me to G spot stimulation which seems to bring me to orgasm much easier than clit stim. I find the G spot O's to be more of a "whole body" experience. I shake, my legs tremble, I find myself laughing and giggling

My first husband has a lot to answer for. It's taken years for me to be comfortable with enjoying sex. For years I thought there was something wrong with me. I could have orgasms through masturbation, but not with a partner (of either sex). Now I've learned to relax about it, sex is a lot more fun. Even if I don't reach a climax, I love the whole experience

 

[Netzach]

Two separate issues.

1 - Is it possible to do anything about it? In my view, that question is best addressed to professionals.

2 - Do you (the partner of the 60yo guy) care if the condition persists? If not, then obviously there's no problem. Though I still would recommend getting him checked out if this constituted a significant or sudden change from previous condition - since this could be a sign or symptom of something more serious from a health perspective.

I'd say, if we were in a conventional arrangement that honestly if *he* is OK with it it's OK.

I feel that way about just about all "is this crazy" or "is this pathological" stuff. If it's not making your life how you don't want it and it's not harming small children, it's OK.

But yes, checking out for other health issues makes sense in that case.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Sexual dysfunction is not my term. That's a direct quote from the Mayo Clinic.

You may find the opinion of medical professionals offensive or hurtful, and that's certainly your prerogative.

The "problem" that would exist for me has already been articulated by DGE and Leo. As I've already clearly stated.

i do not find the opinion of "medical professionals" offensive or hurtful. i recognize that the opinion of medical professionals is sometimes not based in any hard science or fact, and can sometimes be heavily influenced by the current norms and mores of a particular society. this was the case with homosexuality, which none too coincidentally was stricken from the American Psychiatric Association's DSM as a mental illness around the same time the sexual "revolution" forced our society to question old ideas on the subject.

so no, medical professionals can assign me every disorder in the book, it really means nothing. but my guess is that you quoted the Mayo Clinic's description of female sexual dysfunction because it supports your own view, and it is your personal opinion (and that of others who share your p.o.v.)...that women with low sexual arousal or ability to orgasm are broken and need fixing...which i find offensive or hurtful. not that that should mean anything to you, but perhaps you may one day come across a woman you care for who happens to be wired similarly. and if that happens, i would hope that you would not wish to make her feel like something is wrong with her.

"if a woman has been this way for all of her sexual life (therefore it is her personal "norm"), if this causes no harm to herself or others, and she is quite content with her sexuality as it is...what is the "problem" there? where is the brokenness in that? and why should her natural sexuality be invalidated?"

when i posted these questions i was not asking what would be the "problem" for you within a personal relationship. i was asking why, with the above factors (contentment, etc.), do you consider such a woman to have a "problem" at all?

 

[JMohegan]

i do not find the opinion of "medical professionals" offensive or hurtful. i recognize that the opinion of medical professionals is sometimes not based in any hard science or fact, and can sometimes be heavily influenced by the current norms and mores of a particular society. this was the case with homosexuality, which none too coincidentally was stricken from the American Psychiatric Association's DSM as a mental illness around the same time the sexual "revolution" forced our society to question old ideas on the subject.

so no, medical professionals can assign me every disorder in the book, it really means nothing. but my guess is that you quoted the Mayo Clinic's description of female sexual dysfunction because it supports your own view, and it is your personal opinion (and that of others who share your p.o.v.)...that women with low sexual arousal or ability to orgasm are broken and need fixing...which i find offensive or hurtful. not that that should mean anything to you, but perhaps you may one day come across a woman you care for who happens to be wired similarly. and if that happens, i would hope that you would not wish to make her feel like something is wrong with her.

"if a woman has been this way for all of her sexual life (therefore it is her personal "norm"), if this causes no harm to herself or others, and she is quite content with her sexuality as it is...what is the "problem" there? where is the brokenness in that? and why should her natural sexuality be invalidated?"

when i posted these questions i was not asking what would be the "problem" for you within a personal relationship. i was asking why, with the above factors (contentment, etc.), do you consider such a woman to have a "problem" at all?

I quoted the Mayo Clinic language to de-personalize the conversation, to be clear about the specific issues I was addressing in my post, and because I assume that the Mayo Clinic knows more about women's health issues than I do.

Medical professionals do not indicate that we're talking about "wiring" or anybody's "natural sexuality." That's the point. You do, fine, difference of opinion.

Regardless of what she believes to be or celebrates as her personal norm, the woman has a problem if her physical/emotional issues leave her partner sexually unsatisfied, frustrated, or unfulfilled.

 

[JMohegan]

I'd say, if we were in a conventional arrangement that honestly if *he* is OK with it it's OK.

I feel that way about just about all "is this crazy" or "is this pathological" stuff. If it's not making your life how you don't want it and it's not harming small children, it's OK.

But yes, checking out for other health issues makes sense in that case.

I remember reading an article about older women's reaction to viagra, when it first came on the market.

Some were like: oh thank god we can finally have sex again. But most were pissed that the dip in sexual activity would be reversed, saying the equivalent of: "Hello, this is NOT erectile dysfunction! He's just getting older! For god's sake, let us rest!"

 

[rida]

QFT + QFA. (Awesome )

Personally, I've found that the casual partners have been much more focused on trying to make me orgasm. In the end, I either distract them, fake it a bit, or get my fingers in there and make it happen. Mr is aware that I do sometimes fake it with strangers, he doesn't care, we've kind of incorporated it into my performance.

Thank you

Distracting them works well. And if they ask (very rare), I tell them not to worry about as I do not cum easily. And so far nobody has had a problem with that. The Sadist found it "strange" at first but never questioned my word on the fact that it does not bother me.

I'm curious as to how this works in reverse.

Do you believe that the bolded attitude puts pressure on men?

Would you date a guy who didn't find orgasm pleasurable?

If the genders had been reversed in Leo's post, would you still find it "scary"?

If the situation was reversed and he does not have a problem with his lack of orgasm, I'll accept it.

If the problem was that he cannot get hard (for a woman would be physical inability to get wet), painful ejaculation (for a woman would be painful intercourse or orgasm), I would suggest a medical check to rule out any medical issue. And if those are all ruled out, I would just accept it.

 

[rida]

Netzach comments and answering JMohegan question has made me wonder how I would view the "submissive arousal" from a Domme point of view.

I personally love watching and/or feeling a man cum inside of me. And I love PIV sex.

In my short interaction with submissive males, I found that many associate being a sub with not being allowed to orgasm or having penetrative sex with their Domme. And I'm sorry, but I do not get it.

However, if he cannot get hard, if he cannot orgasm and as in the scenario above we have excluded medical issues (it would be my prerogative as a Domme to ask him to get checked both for my entertainment and for concern for his overall health), I'll just accept it.

And making him fuck me with a strap on would be such an easy way to get some good humiliation play going

 

[ownedsubgal]

Regardless of what she believes to be or celebrates as her personal norm, the woman has a problem if her physical/emotional issues leave her partner sexually unsatisfied, frustrated, or unfulfilled.

in this scenario i would not say "she" has a problem, but the couple/relationship has a problem...most likely one of sexual incompatibility.

i also wonder JMohegan, about the hostile tone you seem to have with me here.

 

[ownedsubgal]

But it isn't beyond your control. That's the point.

Sexual dysfunction can be treated, and has been in thousands of women all over the world. That's like saying something like Diabetes can't be controlled.

I'm far from trying to make you feel like a freak or an outcast, but you should consider at least the possibility that you could be 'average', if you sought treatment.

i do not need treatment because i am not defective. i am not diseased. my sex life is very fulfilling and satisfying, i do not experience any sense of frustration or that something is lacking because i do not orgasm, or even if i do not become physically aroused at all. if i did find these things frustrating then that would be another story, but for me it is just the way i am, and i am happy with the way i am. this is also why i try to choose partners who enjoy my sexuality as is, as opposed to those who will find me damaged and unappealing.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I can't *relate* to it, but if someone's like "it's not a big deal and making it one is making me miserable" why does it have to be a pathology?

this is the question that plays over and over in my mind.

 

[Soumis]

sometimes I feel like I'm asking for trouble

In the end I think that if the consenting adults involved are satisfied than that counts for a lot.

However, to get back to the medical definitions, I think that female sexual dysfunctions are a problem that should be addressed more often. One of my college roommates found sex excruciating, but with physical therapy she now enjoys orgasms and sex. She says the difference before and after cannot be described. That she didn't understand for a looooong time what the big deal was. She would go through the pain, expense, and humiliation of treatment again in a heartbeat for what she's gained. The difference it's made in her relationship with her husband and with herself is immeasurable.

I feel like the most common train of thought is that if a woman isn't enjoying sex than it's "mental" and her fault. I wouldn't go so far to say that being unable to enjoy sex is a handicap, but I wish it was treated as a treatable medical problem more often than not.

 

[JMohegan]

in this scenario i would not say "she" has a problem, but the couple/relationship has a problem...most likely one of sexual incompatibility.

i also wonder JMohegan, about the hostile tone you seem to have with me here.

What a surprise. Another passive aggressive response when you don't like my opinion.

 

[seela]

I'm curious as to how this works in reverse.

Do you believe that the bolded attitude puts pressure on men?

Would you date a guy who didn't find orgasm pleasurable?

If the genders had been reversed in Leo's post, would you still find it "scary"?

Yes, I would have reacted the same if the genders had been reversed. What bothered me in SirLeo's post was that he deemed women who can't, don't or won't orgasm as sad. [edit: on a second read, maybe it was the fact that women can't orgasm that he deemed sad, but my opinion still stands] I get pleasure out of men's orgasms, but I don't feel like I'm in the position to either force them to orgasm or expect them to orgasm.

And I date a guy, who orgasms about every third time we have sex. So yes, that means that even a blow job or intercourse of any kind in our household just ends when he feels like it, orgasm isn't the natural happy ending for us. Granted, I had a bit of a trouble grasping the idea that a man can find sex satisfying without orgasm in the early stages of our relationship. Only because I had never met such a man before.

But I agree with the pressure part. I hate it how much this whole sex thing revorlves around orgasms in general. It seems to be the sole category that matters. For many orgasm is absolutely necessary and they can't have satisfying sex without it, and good for them, but I'll be glad the moment people stop pitying me when I said I don't orgasm during sex. I can imagine there are men who feel the same way, too.

 

[seela]

From the Mayo Clinic:

Female sexual dysfunction often is divided into the following categories, which are not mutually exclusive:

- Low sexual desire. You have diminished libido, or lack of sex drive.

- Sexual arousal disorder. Your desire for sex might be intact, but you have difficulty or are unable to become aroused or maintain arousal during sexual activity.

- Orgasmic disorder. You have persistent or recurrent difficulty in achieving orgasm after sufficient sexual arousal and ongoing stimulation.

- Sexual pain disorder. You have pain associated with sexual stimulation or vaginal contact.

Risk factors.

Treatment and drugs.

Dysfunctions. If the woman in question feels dysfunctional and suffers from these symptoms, then sure, she should be encouraged to seek help. However, I don't like the fact that female orgasm seems to be the standard that everyone must achieve and enjoy, and if you don't, you're dysfunctional. And the same goes to male orgasms, except that those are kinda necessary for reproduction. But there are ways to work around those as well, if need be.

 

[JMohegan]

For many orgasm is absolutely necessary and they can't have satisfying sex without it, and good for them, but I'll be glad the moment people stop pitying me when I said I don't orgasm during sex.

Most people don't like to be pitied. As a guy with a learning disability, I can relate to what you are saying.

However, in the 'pick your battles' department, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to stop feeling compassion for someone who can't experience something as pleasurable as orgasm.

Dysfunctions. If the woman in question feels dysfunctional and suffers from these symptoms, then sure, she should be encouraged to seek help. However, I don't like the fact that female orgasm seems to be the standard that everyone must achieve and enjoy, and if you don't, you're dysfunctional. And the same goes to male orgasms, except that those are kinda necessary for reproduction. But there are ways to work around those as well, if need be.

Again, I understand the aversion to being slapped with a pejorative label.

But the point of using the term "dysfunction," in the Mayo context, seems to be recognition of the fact that a normal physiological process is, in fact, malfunctioning. There are identifiable causes (hormone imbalance, history of sexual abuse, etc.), and treatments available (drugs, therapy, and so on). Society may put broader pejoratives on the condition, and I understand why that would upset you, but the Mayo discussion is no more personally accusatory than, say, a discussion of iron deficiency.

 

[FurryFury]

My ex husband who was not a Dom but rather an abusive asshole, could only get excited if he thought I didn't want it, it was inconvenient or whatever.

Happily all other men I've been with have given a damn.

If I had to pick, I'd rather my husband come than me but I enjoy it when we both do best.

 

[ownedsubgal]

What a surprise. Another passive aggressive response when you don't like my opinion.

because you have PMs turned off, it is impossible to attempt to relate with you human being to human being. but i truly wonder why you continuously read me as "passive aggressive," "manipulative," and just overall have a very negative and yes, hostile tone in your responses to me. i do not share such hostility toward you, only immense frustration at my inability to get my points across in a manner that you will actually take seriously, and at being stamped with these negative labels which i do not deserve.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Yes, I would have reacted the same if the genders had been reversed. What bothered me in SirLeo's post was that he deemed women who can't, don't or won't orgasm as sad. [edit: on a second read, maybe it was the fact that women can't orgasm that he deemed sad, but my opinion still stands] I get pleasure out of men's orgasms, but I don't feel like I'm in the position to either force them to orgasm or expect them to orgasm.

ditto. i very much enjoy a man's orgasm, but that's never my focus for two reasons, 1. he is ultimately the one in control of that, and 2. it's my place to give a sexual partner as much pleasure as possible, which encompasses the complete sexual experience and may have nothing to do with an orgasm.

But I agree with the pressure part. I hate it how much this whole sex thing revorlves around orgasms in general. It seems to be the sole category that matters. For many orgasm is absolutely necessary and they can't have satisfying sex without it, and good for them, but I'll be glad the moment people stop pitying me when I said I don't orgasm during sex. I can imagine there are men who feel the same way, too.

yes it sucks the big one. sex is immensely enjoyable for me, it pushes all my happy buttons, the only thing i'd change about it in my life would be to perhaps have a bit more of it...but because i do not orgasm i should be pitied? and medically "treated?" that attitude is what i find sad.

 

[intothewoods]

because you have PMs turned off, it is impossible to attempt to relate with you human being to human being. but i truly wonder why you continuously read me as "passive aggressive," "manipulative," and just overall have a very negative and yes, hostile tone in your responses to me. i do not share such hostility toward you, only immense frustration at my inability to get my points across in a manner that you will actually take seriously, and at being stamped with these negative labels which i do not deserve.

Rosco posts to JM in a thread he started just for that purpose.

You said you find it offensive when women who don't orgasm are characterized as dysfunctional and broken, but is there a difference between that characterization and the way you characterize feminists, for example? I'm happy to be sensitive to who you are, but I don't always get the sense that you want to do the same.