I know no more physics than philately, but I do know that physicists treat simultaneity as relative: two events are simultaneous only relative to specified observers. Two accurate observers who are differently situated may differ in their judgments of simultaneity; no sense attaches to the claim that one is right and the other wrong. They are both right.
Nevertheless, simultaneous orgasms happen. The clearest cases are with women who are multiply orgasmic - women such as Q, B, D. Each of these women can come many times; each can come two or three times in the space of a minute. The level of arousal to which each returns after one peak leaves them ready to rise to the next peak with ease. With D, for example, it is often enough to trigger another orgasm merely to pinch a nipple, or go down on an armpit, sniffing and licking and biting. Q can supply the trigger entirely from within, I believe by the sheer power of desire itself. B typically needs to clamp down on my cock for a short while, hauling herself the last few feet to the summit in a fury of 'Yes! Yes! Yes!'. Each of them, if I announce that I shall come too, and propose that we come together, falls in step with me, so that we climb alongside each other, and arrive at the top together. When that happens there is no room for doubt, or disagreement: observers who denied that these orgasms are simultaneous would be wrong, no matter where they were situated. This judgment of simultaneity is not relative but absolute.
Sexual union does not erase the boundaries between one person and another, but with simultaneous orgasm it is odd, and misleading, to speak of two events at all. There is one, joint orgasm experienced by two people. 'Coming together', with all that is packed into that phrase, is a better expression than 'simultaneous orgasm'. For even if we separate 'my orgasm' from 'D's orgasm', still the orgasm that D experiences is not one that she could have experienced without my orgasm occurring alongside: the cock D comes around is my cock, and my cock is coming inside D's cunt; the cunt I am coming in is D's cunt, and that cunt is coming around my cock. We do not here have two events that might occur at the same time but might not. Each has to occur for the other to occur, so they cannot come apart.
An obvious point, once thought about: two people who come at the same time do not thereby come together (and may not even be together, if they come at the same time during 'phone sex) but those who come together do thereby come at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
i hadn't given much thought to the simultaneous orgasm. it's been i've only had it happen with my current girlfriend, but you're right, they can't be truly separated b/c they are intrinsically linked and would differ in the absence of one another. love the blog, as always.
ReplyDeleteWhen i was younger, simultaneous orgasm was an ordinary occurence. My partner's increasing arousal and orgasm would take me over the edge. By now it no longer happens. I don't miss it much, though. I love focussing on my lover's orgasm, fully experiencing that- before or after focussing on my own. Sex is where i can lose myself in another's pleasure. There is merger and surrender in it, regardless of whether i come at the same time or not.
ReplyDeleteDo you think, LCA, that simultaneous orgasms are preferable to others?
I think coming together is wonderful, and I think coming apart is wonderful. Is coming together better, worse, much the same? I don't think this way.
ReplyDeleteI can focus on D's orgasm during my own - orgasm does not obliterate consciousness or the directed character of attention, even if it attenuates it. But if I could not focus on D's orgasm during my own, still I could not focus on that orgasm before or after my own either, for that orgasm is the one that she has while I am coming inside her, not some other orgasm. I love to focus on the orgasms that she has while I am not coming, and I love to focus on the orgasms that she has while I am coming. Would I wish them all to be the same? Of course not.