masturbation as a tool for choosing a mate
David Dalton
I have a rating scale where the minimum acceptable orgasm
is a factor 1, a factor 5 is a good orgasm, a factor
ten (my usual peak) is a very good orgasm and anything
above that is an extremely good orgasm (I have had
two 12s, a 15, a 30, a 50 and a 100 above that).
I have decided that I won't court a woman unless I
have first had at least a factor 5 masturbation
orgasm thinking of her, and the higher the factor
number, the more likely it is that I will think
of her again and perhaps court her.
The problem with that is that when I get a sign
of interest from a woman I don't generally respond
right away (partly because I am slow to pick up
on such signs). Then I go home and masturbate
thinking of her and may have a high factor orgasm
but then often don't see her again, which is
unusual for a city of 100,000.
Does anyone else out there use masturbation orgasm
intensity in screening prospective mates? And
if you have had luck doing so, has the later
actual sex orgasm been as good or better than the
masturbation orgasm?
--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Travel & Music
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)
Serene Vannoy
> I find that my masturbation orgasms vary a lot in intensity.
>
> I have a rating scale where the minimum acceptable orgasm
> is a factor 1, a factor 5 is a good orgasm, a factor
> ten (my usual peak) is a very good orgasm and anything
> above that is an extremely good orgasm (I have had
> two 12s, a 15, a 30, a 50 and a 100 above that).
>
> I have decided that I won't court a woman unless I
> have first had at least a factor 5 masturbation
> orgasm thinking of her, and the higher the factor
> number, the more likely it is that I will think
> of her again and perhaps court her.
I find this really icky. I mean, you *know* your orgasms are mercurial
-- you surely post about it enough. And you're going to judge the women
in your life based on where your orgasm scales this week? Eww.
Serene
--
http://www.momfoodproject.com
David Dalton
Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
Here are some afterthoughts to my other followup to Serene, which
hasn't shown up yet so I can't follow up on it.
I misunderstood what you meant by mercurial. I thought you
meant lively but now I think you meant changeable.
Also I think you believe that my orgasm intensity depends
only on my own biorhythms and doesn't really depend on
what woman I think of or am with. I strongly disagree.
My own cycles do play a part, but I have experienced a
definite correlation of strong orgasms with certain women.
Also I thought you meant masturbation was icky but now
I think you mean my rating of the women is icky. Maybe
so, but I don't think I'm the only one doing it. It
makes sense to me that I note which women generate strong
orgasms and which women generate weak orgasms in my
masturbation and direct my thoughts more to those that
generate strong orgasms. But it may be a bit icky
for me to discuss such ratings online, even if I just
give initials and not full names. Also few readers
would be interested in such ratings. So I'll try
to stop discussing such ratings on here.
David Dalton
My orgasms are not always mercurial. The reason I've been
posting about them so much recently is that I went through a
two-year period of zero orgasms and they came back recently
with no obvious reason (e.g. I stayed on my meds).
And the orgasm intensity does correlate some with how
attractive I find a woman, so these days (maybe not when
I was 22) I am pretty sure I can say if a woman is
worth courting based just on the attraction, which
doesn't always correlate with societally defined
standards of beauty.
But note that I have not had sex in over 25 years and
there is no end in sight to that so for now I will
continue masturbating, and I have gotten in the habit
of rating how intense the masturbation orgasm is and
that influences how much I think of a woman. And I
don't think I'm the only one who does that.
Also while I do fantasize occasionally about women I
know or women I have seen about town or in the pub,
I fantasize more about celebrities and try to spread
it out so I don't get overly obsessed with one
celebrity. Even so I guess I am somewhat obsessed
with the woman I had the factor 30 orgasm thinking of,
who was also one of the women in the factor 50 and 100
fantasies of multiple women. But anyway 3 in 4 of my
masturbation orgasms are thinking of celebrities.
I still have a theory that I am compatible only with
bisexual women who have had some orgasms.
Why is it icky to post about masturbation orgasm intensity and
not icky to post about actual sex?
I have also posted to alt.sex.masturbation but that group
is pretty dead.
OK, Serene, I'll try to abstain from posting about my
masturbation orgasm intensity unless I have really
noteworthy news such as another long period of null
orgasm, or another factor 12 or above.
And if I do have real sex I will mention it on here but
won't mention the woman's (or women's) name(s) on here
without their permission.
So is anybody else out there having real sex?
Serene Vannoy
> In article<9cftcj...@mid.individual.net>,
> Serene Vannoy<ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
>
>> On 08/30/2011 07:13 PM, David Dalton wrote:
>>> I find that my masturbation orgasms vary a lot in intensity.
>>>
>>> I have a rating scale where the minimum acceptable orgasm
>>> is a factor 1, a factor 5 is a good orgasm, a factor
>>> ten (my usual peak) is a very good orgasm and anything
>>> above that is an extremely good orgasm (I have had
>>> two 12s, a 15, a 30, a 50 and a 100 above that).
>>>
>>> I have decided that I won't court a woman unless I
>>> have first had at least a factor 5 masturbation
>>> orgasm thinking of her, and the higher the factor
>>> number, the more likely it is that I will think
>>> of her again and perhaps court her.
>>
>> I find this really icky. I mean, you *know* your orgasms are mercurial
>> -- you surely post about it enough. And you're going to judge the women
>> in your life based on where your orgasm scales this week? Eww.
>
> Here are some afterthoughts to my other followup to Serene, which
> hasn't shown up yet so I can't follow up on it.
>
> I misunderstood what you meant by mercurial. I thought you
> meant lively but now I think you meant changeable.
>
> Also I think you believe that my orgasm intensity depends
> only on my own biorhythms and doesn't really depend on
> what woman I think of or am with.
> I strongly disagree.
> My own cycles do play a part, but I have experienced a
> definite correlation of strong orgasms with certain women.
>
> Also I thought you meant masturbation was icky but now
> I think you mean my rating of the women is icky.
women based merely on how hard you orgasm sounds totally objectifying to
me, but hey, people objectify people all the time, and you like what you
like, so as long as the women want to be with you, who am I to say. I
get to think it's icky, and you get to keep doing it.
> Maybe
> so, but I don't think I'm the only one doing it.
> It
> makes sense to me that I note which women generate strong
> orgasms and which women generate weak orgasms in my
> masturbation and direct my thoughts more to those that
> generate strong orgasms. But it may be a bit icky
> for me to discuss such ratings online, even if I just
> give initials and not full names.
are if they read your posts. If you must discuss them, maybe you could
use completely unrelated letters or something? Personally, I try not to
discuss my partners' sexual details without their consent, but having
the conversation where you'd get consent for a thing like this (with
women who are not your partners) would probably be even ickier.
Serene
--
http://www.momfoodproject.com
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I meant that choosing relationships with women based merely on how hard you
orgasm sounds totally objectifying to
>me, but hey, people objectify people all the time, and you like what you
>like, so as long as the women want to be with you, who am I to say. I
>get to think it's icky, and you get to keep doing it.
haven't always given my sexual partners the best orgasms of their lives and
have appreciated them staying with me despite that. I've also experienced
sexual relationships in which it took some time to establish a mutually
pleasurable groove. Then again, I've never chosen romantic partners based on
sexual experiences. If anything, I've only wanted to have sex with them after
wanting them for other complex reasons.
Orlando
David Dalton
Serene Vannoy <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote:
> No, that's not what I meant. I meant that choosing relationships with
> women based merely on how hard you orgasm sounds totally objectifying to
> me, but hey, people objectify people all the time, and you like what you
> like, so as long as the women want to be with you, who am I to say. I
> get to think it's icky, and you get to keep doing it.
Orgasm intensity is not the only factor in choosing a
mate for me but it is one factor. I won't enter into
a relationship where I have no attraction to her or
where I don't have at least a factor 5 (good) orgasm
thinking of or with her. But again that is not the
only criterion but it is one. In the past I have
had women friends attracted to me but I had little
attraction to them and didn't enter into a relationship
with them.
David Dalton
> No, that's not what I meant. I meant that choosing relationships with
> women based merely on how hard you orgasm sounds totally objectifying to
> me, but hey, people objectify people all the time, and you like what you
> like, so as long as the women want to be with you, who am I to say. I
> get to think it's icky, and you get to keep doing it.
on my orgasm intensity, of course there are other factors.
But orgasm intensity does seem to correlate with other
qualities in the women that would help us get along. Also
I think it should be fine for me to court only women
who I have a factor 5 or higher orgasm thinking of or
ideally with. If I use that as a cutoff that would probably
be over 200 women in my lifetime including lots of local
women. If I use the factor 10 as a minimum cutoff I think
there are over 50 including some local women. (And earlier
tonight I had a factor 10 thinking of a local woman I know
who was previously a factor 0.)