Not a member? Sign up now
April 8, 2011
Yet, I considered allowing Danny to become the exception to my rule. I had recently broken up with someone I loved because he wouldn’t commit, had an ill-begotten fling with an alcoholic actor, and had undergone yet another series of invasive medical tests. (I have CFIDS, an illness akin in many ways to MS.) It was an emotional perfect storm; I was worn out and I was lonely.
So I ignored the visceral response telling me dating Danny was as wise as gargling Drano, and listed the reasons I should: he had a Master’s degree from a prestigious university. Despite his parents’ millions, he’d opted to teach. He had a cyclist’s physique and eyes the color of blue raspberry Sno-cones. How many of our grandmothers spent their lives with men who gave them more children than orgasms? They might have been miserable, but economic reality and social mores forced them to stay put. Did I think I was better than our grandmothers? I could endure some horrific sex, at least until I taught Danny where the bits were and what they did. I would view it as a project, like the Panama Canal. Our grandmothers’ suffering wouldn’t be in vain.
How many of our grandmothers spent their lives with men who gave them more children than orgasms?
On our next date, Danny and I saw Peter Greenaway’s The Pillow Book, which featured Ewan McGregor’s penis in a supporting role. For me, at least, the evening was off to a fine start. And I liked that Danny wasn’t threatened by the sight of a penis not his own. At dessert afterward, we cracked silly jokes over our Ephemere sundaes. I started to hope our first night in bed had been the sexual equivalent of the old theater adage, bad preview, good premiere. Maybe I should view the hapless ineptitude and misdirected ejaculation as the preview and tonight as opening night. I’d playfully direct him and our performance would merit a standing ovation. Or an “ O” of some kind.
Back at my place, Danny began hurriedly kissing me on the bed.
“Slow down,” I whispered and pulled my black scoop neck tee over my head.
“Hey, that’s the same red bra you wore at the Fourth of July party,” he said, his eyes flashing. He pays attention to detail, I thought. We can make this work. His kissing accelerated and still I tried to pace us. I wanted him to melt with me, not on me. He unbuttoned his Levi’s, practically swatting me away. When we were both naked, I guided his hand between my legs.
“What do you want me to do?” he asked with a trace of annoyance, the first he’d ever displayed toward me. I showed him and he opened and contracted his palm with mechanical rapidity. To Danny, the clitoris was not unlike a Rubik's Cube.
As my irritation grew, he said, “Now I want you to do something
for me."
Ignoring that he hadn’t done anything for me, I asked, “What?”
“I want to wear your red bra,” he replied urgently.
“But you’ ll stretch it!” I blurted. Cross-dressing had never aroused me, but it obviously did it for my new boyfriend. It was easy enough to try and, ultimately, harmless. If it fulfilled his need, I’d give it a shot. It was another thing entirely, though, to let him distend one of my favorite pieces of lingerie. I’m a DD but only 34” around, and my garnet lace underwire didn’t stand a chance against his 6’ 2” frame.
“Would you like to wear one of my skirts?” I asked, trying to accommodate him. “My favorite vintage has a wrap waistline so it’s adjustable.” His bulge grew; I felt I was back at my college retail job, describing the spring inventory.
Swathed in my cotton poplin A-line festooned with bumblebees and dahlias, Danny came with the intensity of a fire hose. I wondered if he’ d pay for my dry-cleaning bill.
Commentarium (70 Comments)
you are terrible human being and an even worse writer.
She's a bad person for not staying in a relationship that didn't satisfy her emotionally or sexually? Yeah, it would have been so much better for them to stay together and be miserable. Please go back under your bridge now.
Danny, is that you?
hahahaha I don't even think she ascends to those heights. She is a mediocre writer who failed to achieve sexual agency and would rather cast off a man than level with him. From what I gather, she's a lot like her grandmother.
What the fuck is wrong with you? Level with whom, Danny? I'd like to see you level with him. That would be rich.
Sounds like Danny is in the building.
I thought the writing was terrific. One of the most engaging and best-written pieces on Nerve in a long time!
I think it could be seen as poorly written based on, for instance, the ? after I've never been single on pg 1. It reads a lot like amature erotic short fiction (not that there's anything wrong with that).
In two and a half lines, you have five errors in punctuation, spelling, and syntax. Thanks for reading, though.
I apply the grammatical rigor of a txt msg to this sort of post and that came off rather mean, which I regret.
It's not an objective flaw, but rather I find some of the cadence disagreeable, some words could have been more carefully selected, and I hadn't, until now, thought of the aforementioned phrase as interrogative. On second thought, I think it is.
Don’t get me wrong; I like the story! There are some very clever lines, such as the penis in the supporting role bit, reminiscent of Jong.
The guy's def. a prick. He's likely one of the many who learn sexual etiquette on porn sites. I agree that his past lovers were probably faking it. Half a minute of the Rubik’s Cube treatment & faking becomes an attractive option. Good for the author for following the camp site rule.
Terrible writer?? But didn't you read this part: "His eyes were the color of blue raspberry Sno-cones" - I mean, come ON! That's literary GENIUS!! You can't explain that.
You are a good storyteller, and a good human being. Anyone who can't see that needs to have their balls placed in a vise. Fuck Danny; he sounded like a retarded motherfucker.
Loved it. Thanks for bringing Litsa back.
there seems to be a little bit of a disconnect between the writer's thesis and the feelings she describes: the tag line for the article and the conclusion both imply that it was danny's closet weirdness/craziness/strangeness that was problematic, but then the author states that the 'strange' part (the cross-dressing) didn't bother her. she tries to pass it off as though it's no big deal and the real problem is that the dude is bad at sex. but normal-looking dudes are frequently bad at sex; it's nothing exotic. the dude's problem is not weirdness, it's selfishness. however, 'i broke up with a guy who couldn't get me off' has somewhat less inherent drama then 'i broke up with a crossdresser'. you can't have it both ways: either you trade on the fetish for shock value or you accept it as part of the natural range of sexuality.
Hmm...See, I think that she mentions the cross-dressing as a measure of her tolerance to weirdness..."I found Danny's mathematical view of women really weird, and yet I didn't even find the cross-dressing weird!"...Also, I think the point of the story is not that she broke up with him because of the bad sex alone; but that the sex revealed the hidden 'weirdness' inside Danny. His clincal, inhuman, unemotional attitude to sex exposed the hidden aspects of his personality, and showed how he viewed the reader as his girlfriend. Hence the closing gambit of "But I like my craziness as I used to like my bra strap: exposed where everyone can see it."
Well-said.
Everybody has quirks; the trick is finding someone whose quirks mesh well with your own. Obviously Danny's and Litsa's quirks didn't mesh. So she broke it off. How is that awful? It's much better than stringing the relationship along and enduring horrible, mechanical, unemotional sex for an infinite amount of time. Personally I loved the story, AND the way it was written.
Agreed
ditto
I loved it, and I loved the concluding paragraph, I completely agree!
Good stuff. I like that you told your mother the truth.
I liked this one.
Fortunately, you only sacrificed lingerie elastic and not your standards. For some, we'd tolerate the freak flag being flown if other attributes outweighed. Good call!
You had me at DD.
You have a great mom! And as a slightly crazy writer myself, I totally agree with you.
Great story, I enjoyed it.
Regarding never being single, some of us are just sought after more than others.
and will hop into bed/relationship with anyone who seeks you, regardless of whether you actually like them or are healthy enough to be in a relationship at that time.
snide, yes, but sorry, no whiplash there.
Who said that? You can be sought after and choosey. Also, there are two types of female orgasms, perhaps the writer should become better acquainted with the second kind, if she's capable, that is.
Female orgasm is a particularly fuzzy science; some say there are 7, 10, or even more varieties, but limiting the discussion to vaginal-specific orgasms, there's clitoral, G-spot, U-spot (U for the tissue above and to the sides of the urethra), and A-spot (A for the anterior fornix, located just above the cervix), which have all produced powerful erotic response when stimulated under clinical observation.
If you are never, ever single, you are not being choosy, even if every single person you meet seeks you. As far as orgasms go, there are more than two areas that can be stimulated for some women to have an orgasm (hell some women have orgasms every time they brush their teeth.) but the biological response is the same in all orgasms. Strictly vaginal orgasms are rare, the generally accepted figure is that 30% are capable of vaginal orgasm, but that may actually be lower as many women could be experiencing an orgasm that comes from stimulation of the internal crura of the clitoris that surround the vagina on either side, close to the surface, or traction on the clitoral hood. It is exceptionally rare to experience an orgasm from someone furiously humping your leg for a few seconds. I really hope you don't talk to people in real life the same way you word the above comments, but if you do, try not to. It suggests inadequacy issues if you feel the need to suggest to other women that not being "capable" of vaginal orgasm (or furious leg humping orgasm) is a sexual inadequacy.
I don't know that I'd call a woman who can't orgasm through penetration "sexually inadequate". But I do know that -- other things being equal -- sex is more fun with someone who can orgasm relatively easily, and in a variety of different ways, than with someone who needs everything to be "just so" before they can get off. Having said that, it's bizarre to me that anyone would object to adding fingers to the mix.
BTW, if vaginal orgasm = "can get off from just cock alone without fingers or vibrators at the same time, as long as the guy knows what he's doing and can last more than two minutes", then my experience is that the number's way more than 30%, and is definitely over 50%. Sometimes it takes a couple months of getting to know each other and developing mutual trust, but more often than not it happens eventually. Like many claims about sexuality, I wonder if the 30% number has its origins more in politics than in science: just like Freud had an agenda when he deprecated clitoral orgasms in favor of vaginal ones, the feminist authors of the 1970s had an agenda when they argued that the external clitoral body was the only game in town, and that cock was essentially irrelevant to women.
Who said cock is essentially irrelevant? There are plenty of women who love being penetrated by cock, touching cock, sucking cock, etc, even if it doesn't in and of itself make them come. Also, no one said that the "external clitoral body" (actually, the head of the clitoris) was the "only game in town," as you will notice, I made reference to the internal clitoral body as well (and there are many, many other places). and again, plenty of orgasms that come from cock alone may also come from clitoral contact with the base of cock, etc. The 30% figure comes from many, many well sampled, well conducted studies over many years. You are one guy. The cause for your figures may be anything from simply not having had sex with enough people to have a good "sample size" or women, unfortunately, faking it ( or just not knowing their own bodies) If you think that the feminist authors of the 1970s had that much of an effect on the average person's thinking, and if you think that their agenda was to deem cock "essentially irrelevant to women," then, well, you are very mistaken.
Whoa, LM, I wasn't accusing you of these things, so no need for the defensive tone. I should have expected, I suppose, that I'd get the "they were just faking it" cheapo reply, but for reasons I don't care to get into, that seems extremely unlikely to me. Sure, my sample size could be bigger.
Growing up the books I had available to me about sex were "Our Bodies, Ourselves" and other women-oriented tracts at the local library, which were very much in favor of the clit-is-everything school of thought, and which collectively leave the impression that penetration is something that a good feminist might tolerate, even occasionally enjoy, but only as a side dish (so to speak). I don't think there's any question that there were plenty of feminist authors through the 1970s who thought womankind would be better off if men (and their inherently-rapey phalluses) were eradicated, or at least made irrelevant -- see Mary Daly, for instance. Part of advancing that program is getting women to believe that the sexual pleasure they receive from penetration is either a product of false consciousness, or in any event a distant second to direct clitoral stimulation. Most substantive writing about sex is undertaken by people who embrace the ideas (and ideals) of second-wave feminism to varying degrees, so the opinion of the "average person" is irrelevant: serious discourse about sexuality isn't undertaken by the average person, it's dominated by a cadre of upper-middle-class people, mostly white and almost exclusively liberal. Since I'm also white and liberal (though not upper-middle-class) that doesn't trouble me per se, but there's still this lingering sense that men collectively should have a penitential attitude in all their dealings with womankind, and have so much apologizing to do that their own interests should come a distant second. (See the current Miss Information on Nerve for an example of that outlook.)
Also, it really baffles me that people are accusing the writer of things from intolerance to "not having sexual agency." It's just not that complicated , people. She dumped him because he sucked in bed and when she tried to show him how to be better in bed he became mean, selfish, and condescending.
I agree with you. I don't see her as selfish at all. I wouldn't want to put up with someone like him. It's one thing to be clueless, but to be completely unwilling to learn what pleases your partner smacks of self-absorption.
LM, your comments here and in the previous thread indicate you're one of the most insightful persons to use a keyboard ever. Really appreciate your views. And, JS, thanks for weighing in, too. Cheers to both of you!
That was hysterical!
I don't think she is selfish at all. The guy, however, was a complete douche in the bedroom, putting his wants first and foremost and barely even considering how she's doing. When someone is being selfish and controlling in the bedroom, that transfers into potential issues outside the bedroom later down the road. So, not only was she making the best decision for herself, she was being smart about what would happen long-term if she stuck through with this relationship with Danny.
I think the guy was more clueless than selfish... to be selfish you have to at some level know that you're not sharing or giving.....this guy seemed to believe that other women were satisfied with him and that this writer had some kind of problem..... the sad part is that he obviously dares to ask to wear her bra so he's not shy about getting what he needs...... anyway .... great story...
I don't think Danny was a douche, I think he wasn't attracted to her, for whatever reason (if I was the writer's friend, after hearing the first page I would have sat her down to have the "He's gay, honey" talk). They were both doing their best to fake the sex part of their relationship.
I'd think he's either gay or possibly on the asperger's/autism spectrum on some level.
Great story! Yeah...I think I'd probably be turned off too if my man was a cross dresser...and also Danny seemed so selfish too especially when you were trying to teach him how to make you come and he completely dismissed you. Haha I like the rubix cube reference.
Totally agree. He really didn't care whether you were having a good time, which seems at odds with the rest of the date. That I found confusing.
However, the author does need to be responsible for helping the guy out. I always find it confusing as to what a woman wants or whether what I do is nice or annoying,we aren't mind readers. Women are generally bad at saying what they want.
Um, except she specifically instructed him as to what to do for her, only to have him act completely dismissive and belittling. Did you miss that part? Why not try basing your opinions on what THIS woman did, as opposed to what you you think "Women" do. We're not all the same, you know.
Interesting story. You made the right decision. I agree with what mARKn said though, you may need to help the guy out. Easier said than done I'm sure. It may not have changed the ending anyway.
Maybe this was a case of enormous social pressure you were talking about. Both you and him fell into the loop. But it is better to try (imho) than not to... thanks for the story.
I can vouch for the fact that not all math teachers are this bad. I'm sure not all cross-dressers are this bad, either. But cross-dressing math teachers from wealthy families? That I can't vouch for.
I loved the part of this story where she breaks the news to her mom. Classic.
Cross-dressers don't necessarily pretend that they have female anatomy, that's the main difference between transgenders (pre-op) and cross-dressers. Since you don't mention Danny talking about wanting to be a woman it sounds like you're making some pretty big assumptions ... try to be a bit more open-minded.
virgin
This piece was well-executed and had me in stitches. I enjoy Litsa's work and appreciate her tone and atyle.
I don't see what the big deal is about having your partner get you off. I found it was very difficult for another person to bring me to orgasm. So I just do it myself. It really helps me enjoy sex a lot more because I don't feel pressure to have an orgasm when the other person touches me, I can just relax and enjoy it and know I can myself off when I need to.
I enjoyed the story. You just have to know that a few statements are for the sake of comedy, like generalizing about the quiet ones and mathematicians. In the end, the guy was obviously very selfish. I don't blame you for dumping him. Having said that, I also agree with another commenter who wrote about people finding people with compatible issues. Your ex will have to find one of those ultra-orgasmic women who get off from the slightest touch. They do exist. She will also have to enjoy the cross-dressing though.
It's a wonderful essay. I very rarely find this kind of frank sexuality from a woman. I think all men can sort-of identify with the math teacher when we were 17 or 18. I am eternally grateful for my wonderfully patient high school girlfriend. I remember those awful days when I would go off at the drop of my shorts. Of course, that was when my refractory period was about ten seconds...
Pure fiction, pllleeeeease
Excellent story and wittingly told by a talented writer who is frank about sex. Keep them coming, Litsa.
love the story. Love the last line especially, about having your craziness where everyone can see it! :)
Story rings true. And she did the totally right thing to break up with him. A guy who isn't interested in satisfying a woman sexually is a total douche.
While dumping the guy for his cross dressing is a valid reason for those uncomfortable with this...
In order for a guy who has not had much sexual experience to be a Casanova in bed... he would have to sleep with women he is not attracted to [and break their hearts immediately afterwards].
In order to do so, one must kill their own sense of empathy [ie: become a JERK]. One also is more likely to have STDs to transmit to other women, and without this empathy they won't care.
If a guy has a good heart and has nothing else [ie: cross dressing or whatever] that bothers you, don't be so quick to shut him out for lack of kissing and sexual experience.. if he seems the type that is open to learning from experience.
If you do shut those guys out, don't complain with the words, "Why are guys such jerks?" when you find them everywhere. What else do you expect them to do when this is how things are?
So, you think women either have to pick the "Jerk" who's good in bed, or the "Nice Guy" who's not? Let me guess: You consider yourself in the second category. There is a third category- Nice Guys who don't suck in bed. They're capable of having sex with women without treating them like crap (even if the relationships don't work out), thus accruing sexual experience. And, because they're nice guys, they realize that sex involves two participants, not just one participant and one recipient, so sex is better. Think about it.
I really don't understand what everything you wrote means, so I'm hoping you are not a native english speaker (in which case, fair enough). But from what I could get, are you saying that in order to be good in bed, you need to have lots of one night stands with women you are not attracted to? and then break their hearts? (because of course, a woman's heart would be broken after a one night stand with a guy who kinda sucked in bed and clearly wasn't attracted to her) This actually sounds like the worst possible way to improve your bedroom skills. Also, are you saying that if a woman is not in the mood to teach someone how to be good in bed, then it is her fault if she meets a lot of jerks, because that last guy will inevitably have chosen to have sex with lots of women he's not attracted to and then "break their hearts?" I guess it wasn't just the language that was difficult to understand...
I was laughing as I read this, because I have had almost this exact same sex. That guy didn't have a cross-dressing fetish though. He had a different fetish. He seemed mostly normal in every other aspect, but when we finally had sex it was so freakish that afterward I was sitting in bed wondering what in the hell what we just did was even supposed to be. He was so consumed with getting his fetish "fix" that I seemed more like a prop in the fantasy than an actual person whose body and feelings mattered. He had absolutely no idea where anything on my body was or what to do with it if I pointed it out. Most importantly, he seemed to have no idea why he should care about getting me off at all. First there was some fumbling impotence, then there was a clumsy, bizzare, and highly-unstimulating sixty second "acting out of the fetish," and then he was asleep. It seemed very clear to me that his sex life had primarily taken place alone and in front of a computer and not with another person. If you look at it that way, the cross-dressing is the reason she rejected him. Not because cross-dressing bothers her, but because his obsession with it--to the point where he prioritized it above pleasuring her in any way--was something that she couldn't live with.
GI, if there'd been leftovers from the Thai restaurant, I would have split them w/ you. Maybe there's a bad sex equivalent of Fight Club somewhere and both guys met in a subterranean dimly lit room and, instead of pummeling each other, swapped tips on how not to get your partner off. All the best!
I don't deserve the Thai food. I dated my inept fetishist, in an extremely non-monogamous manner, for a long time. After many years of seeing me with other men he finally decided to learn how to fuck. Once he got good at it, I married him. I don't mind the fetish, but bad sex I absolutely can't tolerate, especially not if it's going to end up being bad sex that I have to have for the rest of my life!
But you didn't settle and now you're sexually compatible and it sounds like you're happy. Which is great on all counts and definitely merits Thai leftovers.
how many trolls bashing this piece have ever known a woman who is unskilled at sucking dick and doesnt care to learn? its awful, let me tell you. so it is likely the inverse is true as well.
Awesome story :)
Personally.... I dont think the man was a prick or a douche bag or any of the other things that the comments above said. The problem was apparent, all his other girlfriends faked it. When you fake it, the person thinks it feels good. They LEARN what they THINK people like. So in bed, be honest. dont be rude, just be honest. Danny knew what he liked, even if it was wearing womens clothes. He waited till AFTER he touched her to ask her to do something for him. He thought he pleased her first. So no, he wasnt an asshole. He was just a sad man who learned the wrong way. and I suppored the writers choice to leave him. She tried to teach him, but some things take time to relearn, and she didnt want to put in that time, especially when all the other strange things came into play.
Grazi for mankig it nice and EZ.
zZVCTd bklqbggmbirk