Reading KJ is an exercise in triple frustration. Splendid looking woman, sexy writer. That's one. Her writing about sex with her husband. That's two. Sex with her lover; that's three.
She laments about the horrible sex with her husband that is reminiscent of Dewdrop and her tribulations. Basically, sex without orgasm makes a woman not want sex at all, especially over a period of years. This is understandable.
KJ laments about men complaining about bad sex (read "duty sex") and asks "How can it be bad if a guy gets off every time?"
Now we're back at an old question, "Are all orgasms alike?" and even more, "Is there such a thing as a bad orgasm?"
I think it's useful to consider the difference between dominating men and women in D/s relationships in order to understand this dynamic. Dominating a man generally incorporates tease and denial, namely holding off his orgasm as long as possible. Over time, the use of erotic denial can make a man much more pliable, psychologically speaking. He is much more open to suggestion from the one doing the denying. But the erotic tease is key to keeping the sexual energy up and keeping him from masturbation is the key to maintaining that control. Otherwise denial just turns to resentment like so many of us guys presently endure with women who are not sexual or may be even sexually anorexic.
With women, the erotic tease also plays a big part. However, instead of denying orgasm, it is better to give her as many orgasms as she can possibly stand and then going for one more, at least in the outset. With both genders, it is about testing limits. But deny a woman's orgasm and she is probably going to respond by simply shutting her desires down. Women have an amazing and uncanny ability to put their sexuality into some sort of dormancy for extended periods only to have it reawaken, burn and disappear again. The trick is to get it burning and to feed the fire to keep it hot.
Without the consent of the woman, it is impossible to keep that fire burning. She has to be willing to give her mind over to her desires and her arousal. She has to be willing to fantasize and embrace her own arousal. Which is why masturbation, for a woman, is a productive practice when it comes to desire. Due to their multiorgasmic nature, one encounter feeds into another. Once things are hot, denial could be introduced, but a lot of erotic energy has to be invested to keep a typical woman from going into a cool-down cycle.
With men, if orgasm control is established, a lot less energy has to be devoted to keeping his arousal level high. Nature makes this increasing arousal as natural as gravity. But orgasm control is THE key. If he gets to wanking, forget it.
There are exceptions, of course. I'm think Always Aroused Girl would make a very fun subject of a study involving the sexual teasing and denial of a woman. Actually, her blog is a study of a sort along those lines, except she's sort of dominating herself the same way I do on occasion. I admire her continued enthusiasm for it.
Back to the initial question: Is bad sex worse than no sex at all? For most men, no sex at all is worse than bad sex. The reasoning is thus:
If I'm continually having bad sex, I'm going to get frustrated. "Duty sex" is bad sex, even if I happen to get an orgasm out of it. However, if I have bad sex often enough, perhaps it will eventually become better sex. There is no turning No Sex into Good Sex or even better sex. Duty sex is the begrudging acknowledgement of a need to be filled. However, because it is performed as a chore, it lacks the emotional fulfillment that sex should have. Therefore, it becomes the Twinkie of sex. Not a lot of nutritional value.
No sex seems to come about thus: I'm not interested, and I'm not interested in being interested. Why should I do something that I have no interest in doing? For some, no sex becomes preferable when sex becomes a bother or even painful. Bad sex becomes aversive, and devoting energy to getting out of it becomes a higher priority.
KJ and Dewdrop seem to prefer No Sex with their husbands. However, they do put up with bad sex and even cooperate with making it pleasurable at times. So are their husbands just ignorant? Do they not know that their wives are dissatisfied? How can they not know after so many years and so many conflicts? Are they just keeping their heads in the sand?
In my case, it has gotten to a point where No Sex has become almost on par with Bad Sex. Fans of No Sex can take note: making the experience unpleasant enough, often enough will eventually have the desired results of making No Sex look not too bad. BUT it will create a mountain of resentment and dissatisfaction. Not that Bad Sex won't do the same. However, I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a partner taking Bad Sex and making it worse! Other than trying for No Sex, how does a marriage benefit in the long run by this strategy?
I want to say one more thing about men and Bad Sex. I know men do make a big deal about orgasms. Mainly our own. One reason for this is because we usually only get one, especially as we age. Another reason is because ours are fairly small and localized compared to the Total Body experiences so many women have. I've witnessed a few of these, and I get jealous. I'm also envious of the rolling orgasms where they can have one after another.
Having said all that, it is a mistake to assume that release is all there is to a man's sexuality. The erotic build and the flirtations and the foreplay are also part and parcel of the experience. However, if a woman has the attitude of "hurry up and get this over with" what is a guy supposed to do? Feeling desired is part and parcel of the deal. Even those that pay for prostitutes will pay a premium for a "Girlfriend Experience." That means the professional goes the extra mile to make her customer feel special and desired. It may be superficial but it is a crucial component to Good Sex. So while an orgasm is necessary for men (outside tantric and chastity circles) it is not sufficient for Good Sex.
I am curious as to what women think: is an orgasm necessary for good sex? Is it sufficient? Or can you have good sex without it? I've heard women say that it isn't necessary all the time, as long as the emotional connection is there. Is this true?