Mediocre man-sex is not a permanent state of affairs. It’s something the men of Yale can fix with a little effort. But, at least right now, it’s an epidemic with a simple cause: Men at Yale are bad in bed because they are bad at listening to women.

So, men, here’s the secret. It’s really, really simple. Step one: Listen to your partner. Step two: Act on that. That’s it. That’s the whole secret. If you’re good at responding to your partner in and out of the bedroom, you’ll be good at having sex. If you don’t, you won’t. Simple as that.

Mediocre man-sex is, at first blush, surprising to anyone familiar with the common Yale desire to excel. It seems incongruous, doesn’t it? That so many men are performing at a barely satisfactory level in bed? I cannot understand how an entire population of people who believe that hard work, determination and focus are key to success in every other part of life go for a “wing it until I get sleepy” approach in bed. Where does that focus on performance go?

One possibility is that the men of Yale truly do not know how sexually mediocre they are. This is plausible — overconfident mediocrity from Yale men is ubiquitous. The other possibility is that they know but just don’t care. Once they start having sex, they stop trying to have better sex and are shockingly lazy about learning how to be good at it.

This is, in part, a result of unconfident and incoherent feedback. Many women I know have performed enjoyment for their partners, faking an orgasm because they’re searching for language to criticize constructively. This is not their fault. Instead, men should be more conscious of how gender dynamics impact conversations about sex, in and out of the bedroom. Without a habit of constructive criticism in nonsexual interactions around Yale, men need to ask questions and be curious about pleasure. To have constructive conversations about sex, men have to encourage real constructive criticism.

Most men at Yale don’t think to ask for advice because they are practiced in believing their own exceptionality. As a result, mediocre man-sex manifests in silly, sad ways. Yale is full of men who enthusiastically recommend Kurt Vonnegut, pontificate about debt policy or tell you about their successful startup. These are the men who do not reciprocate oral sex because they “don’t like the taste” or think “it’s complicated.” They are the men who react to an orgasm in jaw-dropping amazement because they never cared enough to ask their previous partners how the experience had been for them. Somehow, none of these men have ever bothered to read the “find the G-spot” wikiHow, or — even more easily — ask their partners if something feels good.

What I’m describing is consensual. It’s just really, really mediocre.

Nights of half-hearted hip thrusts are a symptom of a larger problem, one also found in club meetings, classrooms and coffee shops. Men talk over women in meetings, men willingly unload emotional problems onto women friends and — yes — men orgasm while their partners repeatedly do not. In the same way that men at Yale are “softboys” in their friendships, they’re even more flaccid with their sexual partners.

And yet, there are easy fixes. Oral sex should be reciprocated. Enthusiastically. If it’s dry, it won’t feel good. But if it’s dry, assume you need more foreplay unless told otherwise. If you orgasm before your partner, make sure she is satisfied. Shower together afterward. Tell a joke afterward. Stick around afterward. Minor improvements make a world of difference.

That being said, women are not just things that men must learn how to pleasure. Men at Yale absolutely need to learn how to pleasure women — there’s no denying that. Orgasm is far from the goal of sex, and far from the marker of whether or not sex was “good.” But a shared interest in a woman’s orgasm is a good first step toward that goal. Mutual pleasure is a prerequisite to a much broader conception of the constitutive parts of good sex — that’s about sensuality, learning and love.

It doesn’t matter if you’re a “nice guy,” or if you “really love your mom.” If you’re bad in bed, you aren’t paying attention to women. It’s as simple as that.

Amelia Nierenberg is a senior in Timothy Dwight College. Her column runs on alternate Thursdays. Contact her at amelia.nierenberg@yale.edu .

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/10/12/nierenberg-mediocre-man-sex/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3762853&forum_id=2#34432036)

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/884391912014270464/LK6Ppl54.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3762853&forum_id=2#34432096)

Those days are gone. Even women who look like this show up to freshman orientation having already taken at least 2-3 chadcocks-- for him, maybe it was an offday, maybe he has a fetish for bigger girls, maybe he got off on her youth, whatever. By the time an averagebro has his first sexual experience, he will be compared against her previous experience with guys who have fucked hundreds of girls.

XO realized too late that TCR was to just marry our college sweethearts, but that knowledge is already obsolete. There are no more college sweethearts any more, just tinderwhores who will settle for you between chads.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3762853&forum_id=2#34432469)

First, each of us naturally clicks more sexually with a certain percentage of the population. So if I, for example, fuck 20 girls, perhaps 2-3 will REALLY click with me sexually. Now of course I may not click with those girls in other ways, and they may even be less attractive than I would normally date (as an example, the girl I clicked with sexually the most was at least 2 points in looks below what I'd normally date, which was incredibly sad, and she was also quite chaste too, we just worked well together in bed).

Second, people can grow to click with each other sexually, but that of course takes time and effort, and you're not gonna get that from a ONS or a short-term fling, and given how impulsive and hedonistic most college girls are today, girls like the one who wrote the article are more likely to just bitch about it and move on rather than focusing on finding a guy they really like and then growing together sexually.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3762853&forum_id=2#34432545)

The obvious (and correct) explanation for her problems is contrary to the current orthodoxy, so she invents this half-assed justification instead.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3762853&forum_id=2#34432644)

Well, anything goes all of the time

Everything you dream of

Is right in front of you

And everything is a lie

Look me in the eye

And tell me that I'm satisfied

Look me in the eye

Unsatisfied

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3762853&forum_id=2#34432690)

This creates immense cognitive dissonance for many XO poasters, who look for ways to explain this away like a pirate looking for his buried treasure. But to no avail.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3762853&forum_id=2#34433962)

A serious counter-argument: women are turned off by men who don't just "take it," and while they don't want to be raped, they also don't want "touch you here?," "and here?," and "is your clit stimming here?"

Total fucking flame and take it from me, my lil 4 incher has stimmed at least 3 womyn in my time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3762853&forum_id=2#34432706)

we need another shoa asap.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3762853&forum_id=2#36622746)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3762853&forum_id=2#36622859)