A man who fucks two women in one day double-dips. Fucking a woman who has fucked another man already that same day, a man takes sloppy seconds. These expressions describe matters from the perspective of the man. I know of no good and equivalent expressions that describe them from the perspective of the woman. Suggestions?Some men enjoy sloppy seconds and go out of their way to take them. I am not such a man. But I have no objection in principle, and any squeamishness on my part is something to be ignored or overcome, like a fear of spiders or an unreasonable preoccupation with germs. Some women enjoy, or at any rate do not mind, a man who double-dips. Nt so long ago, Q sucked my cock clean when I arrived unwashed from fucking C. But as C is my wife, this may fall into its own distinct category.
Is there something especially wrong with fucking more than one person in a day? I do not see how there could be. Sometimes, double-dipping, I have had a few problems attaining and maintaining an erection with the later of the two women, but usually I am hard enough for long enough to fuck or be fucked for a good part of the time, and I happily put my hands and mouth to work for the rest. Each woman gets about as much pleasure as they could possibly have had, in the time allotted to them. They could have had more only by having more time, not by the time they had being better. If F is short-changed by my later being with B, so by the same token B is short-changed by my earlier being with F. This kind of short-changing is ineliminable. If D were the only women I fucked besides C, she would still be short-changed. That is the nature of adultery.
So no-one is short-changed. But people are deceived: F, D and B are all ignorant of the extent of my philandering, and none would enjoy finding out about the others. There is lying going on, obviously: I am a liar, cheat, and adulterer. And the deception, I admit, is wrong. But that is true independently of how many (or how few) women I fuck in a day, and so does nothing to ground the claim that double-dipping is doubly wrong.
In what else could the wrongness of double-dipping consist? Nothing. I suspect a transfer into the realm of adultery of values that adulterers openly repudiate. I should be faithful to my mistress, and fuck only her? I should be faithful to each lover, and fuck only one of them a day? Faithfulness is already set aside as a value, obviously: I am a liar, cheat, and adulterer.
That something is not especially wrong is not a reason to do it; I cannot explain why I fuck more than one woman in a day by saying, "It is not especially wrong". If my sole reason for doing it was that it was especially wrong, I would have no reason to do it at all. But wrongness has little to do with why I like fucking more than one woman in a day. I like doing so because it is delightful, interesting, challenging, pleasant, strange, powerful, fun.
I get great delight from comparisons and contrasts, from noticing similarities and differences. D and B, for example, are both multi-orgasmic, both come easily from fucking in several different positions, both come again rapidly. But fucking D is very different from fucking B. B comes very hard, and everything has to stop while she locks down on my cock and is racked by the spasms of orgasm. It is impossible to fuck her through these orgasms (or rather, I could keep fucking, but then she could not have the orgasm). D, on the other hand, can come around my cock as I continue to fuck her, and she enters a state of almost continuous, or anyway smeared-out orgasm, in which she is shuddering and shaking around my cock, and the walls of her cunt are fluttering at my shaft. I keep fucking, and as one orgasm fades away, the rise to the next one begins. I keep fucking, she keeps coming. Being aware of and attending to the differences between B and D is not separable from my ability to be aware of and attend to each of them individually. I notice more about D because of B, notice more about B because of D. Fucking B and then D within a short space of time allows me to notice more in each of them, and the more I notice the more closely I can attend. This is another reason to think that no-one is short-changed. The point generalizes: fucking two or three or four different women in the space of a couple of days makes possible sexual experiences that would not otherwise be possible at all.
Do I also, cock-of-the-walk, enjoy going home at the end of the day, two excellent sex-sessions with two wonderful women under my belt? Of course. I don't swagger, but I feel pretty pleased with myself. And why not? I have pleased two women, and am pleased with them; they have pleased me, and feel pleased with themselves. A lot of pleasing has gone on, and not much else. If these are not circumstances in which to feel pleased with myself, what are?
Posts
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWell, perhaps I am the loneliest and saddest fucker in the world. But that seems unlikely. I think there are many lonelier, sadder people.
ReplyDeleteNo joy, just escapism? As if something could not be joyful and escapist at the same time! Of course it is escapist! Have you not been reading the blog? Escapinginto joy doesn't seem that bad, does it?
Lies? Yes. Cruelty? I don't believe so. Do I feel little, remember little, think little about the women I fuck? I may feel little for them - I find it hard to judge, as I have no-one to compare myself to here - but I think a lot about them, and this blog is part of my attempt to remember them. Is my attention directed solely towards "the physical sensations of sex"? Here, I plead guilty. Sex is physical, the sensations that it gives rise to are physical, and to have attentive sex is to attend above all to the physical.
Dull? Well, I find American Idol dull, but many people do not. Dull to you, not dull to others. Is there anything anywhere that is not dull so someone or other. You find my posts dull, as I find your comment dull. But I work to find something in your comment to respond to, whereas you do nothing to find something in my post to respond to. Who is here the dullard?
LCA - don't let the turkeys get you down. People like anon. are only saying what they do because they are burning with jealousy over your hedonistic lifestyle. I say more power to you - and keep sharing all the juicy details with those of us who are too wrapped up in convention to join you.
ReplyDeleteDear Josh,
ReplyDeleteYou don't know LCA. So you really can't know whether anonymous is right about him (he's a sad, cruel, emotionally limited user) OR your fantasy about him is right (he's a wild, happy, bon vivant living a sexual lifestyle that the more hidebound among us can only dream about). I would suspect that, in reality, it's a bit of both. Of course i don't know, but I do know that nothing comes without a price, after all.
What's interesting to me, I guess, is that LCA, who never mentions his friendships with men, receives such support and camraderie from his male readers--all the positive comments come from people like you, and tman, and the young guy with that blog. The female readers are less supportive, apparently (i would take odds that anon is a woman).
--Candy
"In what else could the wrongness of double-dipping consist? Nothing. I suspect a transfer into the realm of adultery of values that adulterers openly repudiate. I should be faithful to my mistress, and fuck only her?"
ReplyDelete-I've had similar reactions from friends when I told them of my double dipping instances, I found it strange that they accepted my infidelity, yet found double dipping to be "too much"
I actually think that in a way anonymous at the very top may be right on target in a couple of instances:
ReplyDeleteHe/She wrote:" dull, dull, dull. you fuck lots of people, goodie for you, goodie for them. you feel little about them, remember little about them, think little about them--at least beyond the physical sensations of sex. you must be the loneliest and saddest fucker in the world. i really don't see much joy there, just escapism. and, of course, lies and cruelty."
Dull: Maybe the reference was to how repetitive the narrative becomes as there is not much creativity and after a while rearranged sentences become dull...
As per the loneliness- I imagine it refers to the fact that only a person intrinsically lonely would like to be jumping from place to place, bed to bed, cars eat to car seat, sleazy and third rate motels notwithstanding to feel the company and the sensation of primal sex in order to fulfill the emptiness
As per the cruelty....I think that double dipping is cruel to the second dip because there is now ay that the "quality"of the first dip on a same day can be replicated not physically, not emotionally no matter how many Viagras you can take and no matter how much arousal you can fake. Human creatures are just that human not machines not super beings...and some things like the libido and the excitement diminishes as a natural progression
Anyone who is attached and plays around has double-dipped sometimes. I personally have not seen a pattern as to who gets shortchanged. Sometimes the second time is better than the first.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s causing outrage here is something different. It’s that these women seem interchangeable. LCA claims to experience them as individuals, but the writing undercuts that claim. The same acts, same sensations, same descriptions, same conclusions, no matter which partner.
Clustering them gives him a sense of their differences, but no greater sense of their uniqueness. This is a kind of erasing, impersonal and futile. Add further that these women don’t know of each other or this blog, and I imagine any female reader would recoil.
I don’t think I would find much enjoyment in the company of partners I was actively lying to--but that is the sociological wonder of this blog.