Friday, 28 September 2012

What's with the lack of penetration?

A dear friend of mine has recently posted a couple of blogs - they are intelligent, feisty and well thoughts out - worth a read if you have a mo. 

They got me thinking back to a joke I used in my show Get Laid or Die Trying, which went along the lines of "what I really can't stand are those women who take guys home and then don't have sex with them. They're giving the rest of us a really bad name."

It was a joke admittedly, but it's a point I've argued time and time again. How is penetration more intimate than oral sex? Why get into bed with someone and do everything but penetration? Obviously, not all sex involves penetration, and there are times when it's not feasible - periods, lack of condoms, you haven't had a shower. I'm kidding. Or just when you want some variety.

But what I'm talking about it, is going home with someone and then witholding the penetration, or even in some cases, the removal of pants. If you speak to those who do it, they will say it's about waiting, or that they only do "that" once they're serious. Some don't offer any explanation. I once took a man home, more than once, who my friends and I named Strokey. He liked to stroke, he'd bring me to orgasm, but he wouldn't take off his pants or let me touch down there. Baffling. We even made up a song:

'Strokey, Strokey... Didn't want no Pokey, Pokey". I won't subject you to the verses...

I've had plenty of male friends of mine talk about getting a woman home, whose behaviour up until the point when they were on the sofa back at hers, had lead them to think they were in for a long night of supreme shagging. Only for them to discover said woman would steadfastly refuse to take off her pants, though she would give them a handjob or a blowjob....

Call me old fashioned, but isn't it all rather high school? And conversely, isn't it rather anti-feminist? Why do the boys get all the fun, whilst the women don't get to get off? In secondary school the boys were getting blowjobs and the girls the odd finger, but primarily, the sexual activity was centred around the males. Shouldn't we have progressed by the time we hit adulthood?

I genuinely don't understand the point in taking someone into bed and then not going the whole hog out of a sense of preserving chastity, or for religious beliefs - I really don't see how those hold up if you're going to do everything bar penetration. 

I guess I'm a bit all or nothing. I also think I would have probably lacked the willpower to keep my underwear on, even if I had set out intending to do so.

But at a more serious level, I think there's also an element of women being a little more transparent and up front about their intentions. Of course, we've all had nights when we might have changed our mind on the route home, or even when we've got home. I'm not suggesting that a woman has an obligation to have sex with a guy at any stage of the courtship process - be it 15mins in, or 15 weeks in.

What I am suggesting, is that as women, we have a responsibility to ourselves to treat others as we wish to be treated. To be adult - with the ownership that that brings. Say if you like someone, say if you don't, say if you just want sex, say if you want something more. It's terrifying, and you will get knocked back some of the time, but there is something liberating in being transparent about it all. Don't spend all evening flirting with someone you've got no real interest in - it's a waste of their time and yours, and it suggests that you're really just using that situation for your own issues.

Similarly, if you like someone and you want to have sex with them, then do it. Don't embark on some mission to get them to earn the right to penetrate you, whilst letting them go down on you. It's a mixed message and it doesn't really ring true. Pun intended. If you want to hold out, hold out fully, and for the right reasons and explain why, should the conversation arise. I could be wrong, but I think they'll respect that more.


  1. The thing is though, you can come at this from the opposite angle - why *do* we think that POV sex is the ultimate in sexual experience? It's completely heteronormative and belies the truth of a lot of people's likes and dislikes about sex, and it hugely reinforces the notion that (hetero, cisgendered, able-bodied) men MUST rate penetrative sex into a vagina as their favourite sexual act. And that just...isn't true for a lot of people. I've been out with men who've liked POV sex but preferred blow jobs, to give the most obvious example. Likewise for me, I love POV sex, but it's pretty unlikely to make me come - to do that I need fingers and/or tongue (preferably both). If we're striving towards having good, honest sex, then we have to be honest about what we actually want (here I agree with you), but what if that genuinely isn't POV sex? I think a lot of women who 'withhold' penetration might be doing it because they know it's never gonna get them off - so why bother - especially if it is a one-night stand? Not wanting to be penetrated doesn't necessarily translate into prudishness, or not liking sex. It can be just another sexual preference, and if you're with a partner with whom you've got mutual respect, he or she will understand that.

  2. Totally agree with you on the above. For me, it's the people who are withholding - not because they prefer non penetrative, but for other reasons. And that's the bit I never get x

  3. yup, an old female colleague of mine had a phase of about two years, where she would go out every Saturday night, get drunk, and take a man back to hers. by the time she got back to her flat though, she sobered a bit and thought "well i'll just give them a blowjob", and never have full sex with them.

    this came to light when we all the "How many?" conversation, and when she said "7", we all screamed "Liar!", and she explained the above story. "ok, so INCLUDING the ones you only ever gave blowjobs too, how many .. ". "oh, i dunno. About 200?" Uh huu....
    A few seconds ago · Like