I am very, very dissolute and dick is abundant and low value

I am bathing in cum and cocks and quickly established rapport.  Arms entwine, I writhe and buck, I swallow jizz like it’s water from The Fountain of Youth.

Some men I’ve written about I have left behind.  Some are still orbiting.  I am in a holding pattern of desire and the knowledge that I have something they all want: Me.  A sexy, forthright, intelligent, kind woman with an insatiable appetite for men and sex and all things hedonistic.  I am of high value; dick is abundant and low value.

I wish I can say I coined that phrase, but it was Madeline Holden who did, not me, and Alana Massey wrote a detailed piece about the “Dickonomics of Tinder,” a razor-sharp look into the changes in dating economics in the 20-teens based on that idea: Dick is abundant and low value.

This is not to be confused with men as abundant and low value, because of course men have value, but their need to stick it in, to share it, to wave it in front of my face has very low value.  I walk on a ground paved in dicks and have bouquets of them on my bedside table.  I’m drowing in dick.

Dating isn’t unlike a very long afternoon spent at the mall dodging the obnoxious foreign men stumping skin care at the kiosks and occasionally climbing a broken escalator; passing the temptation of the grease-infused fare at the Food Court and relentlessly hunting for the pair of jeans that fit just right.

Unlike a day at the mall, however, dating is a lonely affair.  No girlfriend can come along to boost your sagging resolve to only buy the pair that fits  and not compromise.  You must be your own best friend and repeat Dick is abundant and low value and keep looking.

These days I have developed a three-pronged approach to dating and every man I speak with knows it before we ever agree to meet.  It goes like this:

I am looking for a kind, intelligent, and well-hung man.

It’s simple and men are blown away. Is it so rare to own such simple needs?

Of course dick size has no correlation to a man’s character, that’s not up for debate, but I refuse to bite if less than all three are in play in one male body.  Of course every man seems to think he’s well-hung, but I’m one of those who has actual measurements in mind so I have run into some disappointment there.  But because he has also been kind and intelligent I have enjoyed my time with him anyway.  It’s almost like getting the wrong order at a 4-star restaurant.  I’m still on the winning end of that shit stick.

I also say that in no way does my agreeing to meet up mean that I am meeting for a sexual encounter with a man.  The men who come at me with the attitude that I am a prize, something to be earned, will win a chance at speaking with me face to face.

Recently something interesting happened on Tinder.  A man said that the picture I had that framed my breasts as the focal point meant (meant!) that I wanted sex.

I asked him if he were serious, explained that it was actually unfortunate cropping and that the picture was really there to illustrate my figure, not my breasts.  He confirmed he was completely serious.

I wrote this in response:

Even though I say in my profile it’s not code for anything?  So are you saying that had you seen me on the trail that day [in my workout clothes] you’d have thought, “That woman wants sex [because she has breasts and she’s – gasp – not hiding them]”?  I understand that a lot of men get confused about when women want to have sex, but don’t confuse consent or intentions with the way her body looks or how you respond to it.  I’d also like to add that there’s nothing wrong with looking for sex if that’s what I wanted to do, but there sure is a lot of judgment there if I were, isn’t there?

He un-matched me, but not before I took screen shots of our chat.

I posted the conversation to my Moments (a mechanism through which I can share an image with everyone I’ve matched with for 24-hours) and the Likes began pouring in.  Seventy-one in all and I had less than 200 matches at the time, so over a third of the men got what I was saying.  In addition to the Likes, lots of thoughtful conversations were had with dozens of men over it.  A couple of men said something like, “I didn’t think you were looking for sex.  I thought ‘If she ever lets me touch them, I’d like it a lot!'” and others apologized on the man’s behalf.

I was encouraged by the number of feminist responses and the general attitude that they also believed I was allowed to express myself in a way in which might indeed be provocative (it totally was) without being an advertisement for hooking up (it really wasn’t).

Which brings me to my dissoluteness.  I am absolutely looking for sex, but not through a single image on Tinder.  I reserve the right to use my words and in-person actions to communicate that.  It’s somehow unsettling to think that a man would make such a direct connection to an image of my body, a connection that could lead to a very dangerous miscommunication.

Besides, we are all “looking for sex” on some level or another be it tender love-making with The One or a debauched night on someone else’s memory foam bed.

It’s a “wax on, wax off” approach.  You come at a sexual, sentient being in an “I will only take what you’re willing to share” kind of way and she will very likely stick around and let you touch her boobs.  You come at her like she owes you something because you have dick and she has tits and she will tell you you’re a dipshit and then post your idiocy for all to see.

It’s how we date in the 20-teens.

I’m not sure how much longer I’ll be able to sustain the level of men I have today, but one thing’s for certain: My value is much higher than any dick and I won’t settle for less than agreement in this.  I won’t work to convince you I’m worthy.  My value is much too high to waste my time.

 

[Ed. Note: I realize that this post has pockets of ambiguity; it was hastily written.  To be clear (as I’ve addressed in a comment) I’m not at all angry with men; I like to think that I understand some of them, even. This post is about finally believing my value is higher than what I valued it before, that I’m allowed to have my needs, that I’m allowed to be discriminating. It’s not me vs. men. It’s me vs. me.]

 

A 40-something single mother who writes honestly about sex, body image, D/s, relationships, her nervous tics, and how much she loves to fucking fuck. She also likes to show you her tits.

You Might Also Like

19 thoughts on “I am very, very dissolute and dick is abundant and low value
  1. I’ve always enjoyed your posts and could really relate to this one. Just for the record… it’s this way for those of us way past age 20, or 30 or 40…. Everything you said here is true for those of us in our 50’s, 60’s and 70’s too.. and yes, we are still having sex in our senior years. We aren’t baby boomers for nothing….

    1. Of course you’re still doing it! I’m not at all surprised. I don’t know why we think sex is the playground for only the young. I can’t wait to see what kind of lovin’ I’ll be having at 70!

    1. Well, yes, of course! But I’m always surprised that my idea of “hung” isn’t universally understood lol. You’ve seen pics of TN. He ruined me :(

  2. Don’t settle. If they can’t see your worth they aren’t trying and that reveals all kinds of selfishness. They need to prove their worthiness. Dicks are a dime a dozen.

    1. Elle,

      I completely understand the sentiment and the message, but some of us men will not be reduced to a specific body part. I don’t take offense at this line of thinking, but I do want it to be known that even when I was single, no (other) woman was able to convince me to cave and surrender this part of me to her. My dick was worth more than the $.083 that it is purported on this blog. ;-)

      1. I’m not devaluing a man’s penis, I’m valuing my self higher than his need to have sex with me (or mine with him). I’m sure I’ve made abundantly clear how much I value actual dick on this blog over the years.

  3. This post makes me feel uncomfortable. It comes across as taking a very antagonistic view of your relationship with potential mates. On the one hand you’re high value, on the other hand that self-affirmation comes across as linked in some way to the cocks on the other end of this sexual dynamic being necessarily “abundant and low value.”

    Leaving aside how that would sound if we flipped the genders (FWIW, I find both gender pairings of this statement potentially equally offensive), I’m curious, why does dick need to be low value in this equation?

    I also don’t really accept that by dissociating men and their penises that this statement is thereby rendered inoffensive. If you’re referring to a part of my body which I value highly as being of low value, then it’s understandable that I will feel offended by that. I can’t dissociate my dick from me and how I feel about myself, in the same way as I can’t imagine that you can about your sexual organs.

    I may have misinterpreted what you mean, but it is clearly ambiguous enough as to cause potential offence. Perhaps you mean for example that you don’t put a lot of importance on men’s desire for sex, because it is often a pretty undiscriminating, blunt urge. In which case I agree with you on that. Why should you place importance on other people’s desires (at the same time, I don’t personally see the need to denigrate it)? That’s how I might interpret this statement in the post:

    “Their need to stick it in, to share it, to wave it in front of my face has very low value.”

    But then you end with this:

    “My value is much higher than any dick”

    It feels like you really want to say that your value is higher than any bloke, but it wouldn’t be right to do so. If you’re angry with men right now that is understandable. That’s how your writing came across in this post, and while I’m a first time poster, I’ve read quite a bit of your stuff (often with dick in hand, slack-jawed at the glorious, dissolute filth that is unfolding on the page). I don’t mean to be antagonistic myself with this post, but no one seems to write a challenging comment on any of your posts and I felt like this post should be challenged.

    1. I really appreciate this comment, not least of which because it’s thoughtful, but because it highlights the weaknesses of a hastily written post.

      It is based heavily on Madeline and Alana’s articles which flesh out much better than I did the shift in dating economics from women doing whatever they can to “snag a man” to now feeling that they themselves are of higher value in general — not of more value than a man in particular. My value is separate from all the “abundance,” but it’s worth it to me to remember I’m worth working for.

      Not long ago I worked really hard for a man’s attention (his dick in particular). I wrestled with his efforts (or lack there of), made endless excuses, and gave myself away for a penny. I was left feeling confused and unsatisfied since I was being kind and respectful. Today, the shift is related to the knowledge that there are many, many fish in the sea and if this one particular fish doesn’t think I have basic value to be treated with respect then I don’t lose anything if I walk away — because “dick is abundant and low value.”

      If you thought pussy were abundant and low value I would understand this to mean that you weren’t interested in being reduced to simply what she could get out of you and that you wanted to be recognized as a person, even if it were a person who wanted sex.

      You pretty much got what I was saying with this: “Perhaps you mean for example that you don’t put a lot of importance on men’s desire for sex, because it is often a pretty undiscriminating, blunt urge.”

      I’m not at all angry with men; I like to think that I understand some of them, even. This post is about finally believing my value is higher than what I valued it before, that I’m allowed to have my needs, that I’m allowed to be discriminating. It’s not me vs. men. It’s me vs. me.

      As an aside, I spent half my waking hour this morning editing my original post and this was even before your comment. I have a feeling you’re not the only one who might read ambiguity or anger here and I’m prepared to make it as clear as I can. I hope this response is a step in the right direction and I didn’t find it at all antagonistic. I welcome disagreement and discourse and challenges.

      1. Hi,

        Thanks for responding, and so quickly! It’s nice to speak to you directly, I’ve read your blog for a while now, so it makes me feel like a big fish to get a response from the author herself!

        I understand that you’re coming from a position of pain (if not anger as you indicate in your response).

        You regularly put yourself out there in your blog so I would like to also say a bit about where I’m coming from with my initial comment. That’s only fair I think.

        I’m also coming from a position of pain. I’m struggling with the “me vs. me” that you so succinctly describe. I feel extremely undesirable for various reasons, the principal one being that I’m small in physical stature.

        One upshot of that is that I think I share some of your sentiments as a straight man, even though women might not always realise that men have this experience as well. I struggle with people’s shittiness towards me, the lack of consideration, chasing people because at least they are showing some interest. In a way I think sensitive straight men find it hard because dating, meeting someone for sex/love seems like such hard work. There’s a feeling that “well at least women get attention”. But actually the rational part of me realises that this is a flawed POV. If it’s not good quality attention then you’re not necessarily better off!

        I’m getting closer to the position that I don’t need to sell myself, that I can just be myself and be happy in that.

        But emotionally and physically healthy people have needs and desires which they want to be met and it’s difficult to feel value when you don’t have a beautifully moist, warm pussy waiting for you every night and a loving, thoughtful, caring partner to whom it belongs. I can’t extinguish that need, so I’m kind of floundering at the moment.

        I feel like there should be a humorous punchline to this sombre post….oh well!

        1. No problem! I try to respond to everyone!

          I’m sorry to hear of your pain, Bo. I don’t want to state the obvious, but that sucks! I hate that so much of our self-esteem is wrapped up in what we think we’re supposed to be. Imagine if you lived in a world, for example, that exalted smaller-statured men? If you were a world-famous jockey I doubt you’d give a fuck, though, because your perceived flaw would be your super power.

          And I should add that meeting someone for sex/love seems like hard work to all of us, myself included. Sex is only easy for me because men are more open to it in general, not because I’m special. Your need is natural and shouldn’t be extinguished. I look at it as management because I have a similar need; it won’t disappear, but I can mitigate its effects on me by telling myself I’m doing what I can reach my relationship goals (whatever they may be). I dunno… I’m just trying to say I feel ya. :) Hy

    1. Haha Well, I hope I did. I try. I’m having an odd blogger moment today… Wondering if it’s even worth it any more. Ever have those days?

      1. Yes, I’ve had some of those moments, and I haven’t been at it as long as you have!
        For what it’s worth, I think it is totally worth it, from a reader’s point of view ;-)
        But I can understand that, as a writer, you may have other priorities.
        Dawn D recently posted…SeasonsMy Profile

  4. I can see Bo’s point. It did sound loosely misandrinistic (does this word even exist in English?). And I value men very much, not just for their dicks (otherwise I’d have much more sex with many more men!).
    But as a fellow woman going through similar things, I am quite happy that you get to view yourself as a person of value who doesn’t need to settle and can simply state her needs. If you like me how I am, fine, if not… too bad :-)

    1. It does, but this isn’t about men, it’s about me valuing myself more than sex (dick) or a random man I don’t know and who doesn’t care about me.

      A friend of mine couldn’t come up with the word misandrinistic when he sent me the Tinder Dickonomics article. Well done, lady!

  5. Your post titled: “I am very, very dissolute and dick is abundant and low value” made me laugh and while concrete and apparently thoughtful commits, at least in my economic trained mind, deep distortions, although I appreciate your consideration of the markets. Your intuition is correct, it all depends on the strong forces of supply and demand. Your main rationale being there’s an abundant supply of cock and a limited demand for it (limited supply of pussy?) which of course backs up your main argument, dick is abundant and low value[d]. In order to take advantage of this market conditions, later you establish a sensible rule, a minimum set of characteristics in order to grant a man a date with you. “I am looking for a kind, intelligent, and well-hung man”. Then you finish your post with a grave sentence: “My value is much higher than any dick and I won’t settle for less than agreement in this. I won’t work to convince you I’m worthy. My value is much too high to waste my time.” I see failure in your mating future despite your relative market advantage. Here is why:
    1) Probability. Personal features tend to distribute normally, especially when approaching large numbers. Let’s start with intelligence. If you make a making a mention that is important to you, is safe to assume you mean to define intelligence as a person slightly above average in a measurable variable for cleverness, say IQ. Say the mean of IQ is 100, and we define a “intelligent person” as someone 1 standard deviation from the mean, that is, 115 or above (Madonna=140, Einstein=160). There’s only 15% of the populations that has 115 or superior IQ. That in itself limits your market share. But then you add more features, and you what them to be present at the same time in the same individual. Now consider the well-hung characteristic. Since you have ample sexual experience and dick knowledge, I’m assuming you won’t settle for less than 7 inches (even than may be too short for you, but let’s say you’re generous). With a mean of 6 inches in America, that may mean less than 10% of the population accomplish your restriction (A 9 inches guy would be in the 2% top percentile, but a 3 or less inches is equally rare). NOW, assume ALL men are kind (This of course is not true). Problem is these features do not correlate. You figured it out when you state: “Of course dick size has no correlation to a man’s character”. But neither is correlated to smartness. Therefore, they are orthogonal variables, meaning the occurring of one does not influence the chance of the occurrence of the others. In your case, you have a 1.5% chance of finding a mate that meets your requirements (actually, a lot less than that). So please appreciate a man’s a bundle. I believe you intuit it: seems to me you crave not only a big dick but a brain and a heart. But please be aware of the implications of:
    2) Bundling. Men and women come in combos. Sure, they have different features. For instance, the general knowledge that men just need pussy, any pussy, is just a myth. A big, very moist and tenting pussy is less preferred than a less so pussy, just like a small dick is less preferred than a big one. Both men and women know this and are willing establish trade offs. By focusing in the features you definitively must have, your fail to bundle (or make finding your perfect date very hard to find). Also, you seen to forget that the search process is extremely costly in emotional terms. This may be a bit controversial, and maybe is just my opinion not backed up by any scientific finding, but fucking matters. I just fail to comprehend how a person can completely detach itself from her/his emotions and consider sex just a mechanical act. The longer you seek, the more you emotionally pay. I that doesn’t happens to you, kudos for you.
    3) Demographics. Lastly, if you are on the market, you have to consider your niche. You can witness couples 20 years apart, but that age gap is rare relative to the mean gap. Whether you are aware of it or not, people mate in cohorts. Single, never married people are a big cohort. Single people with previous marriages are a smaller cohort. Children, income, age, religion, politics. People tend to marry their like. And that is a problem if your cohort is too narrow. Research have shown that women tend to prefer men smart, mature, tall and with stable and high income. Men tend to favor beauty and humor, among other less preferred characteristics. Problems arise when only a small group tend to concentrate most of the preferred features, or another cohort lacks them. Then is supply and demand again. Your general claim that “I walk on a ground paved in dicks and have bouquets of them on my bedside table” is so confounded that chills me. Of course is true, I have no doubts that there’s ample supply of dick at your disposal. Only is the wrongly cohorted kind of dick. You may have tons of dick, only you don’t have the kind of dick you crave for: the gigantic dick of a kind, smart and financially secured guy. That kind of dick is exceptionally hard to find. And one you find one, you have to convince the man who owns it to accept more that your pussy. Otherwise, you would be coupled by now. Same happens with pussy: it may be rare to find in a particular cohort, but extremely easy in another. And that easy pussy has, indeed, a very low value as well as the mare magnum of dicks you walk on.
    4) Eagerness and signaling.
    I won’t write on signaling since I have over an hours writing and must do other things. I must say, I’m finishing a PhD in economics but English is not my native language, so I hope my narrative was not too flawed. I just will say that dating is not only attractive and sexy but extremely fun, and surprisingly very studied from our discipline. In fact, several ideas in this small text have won Nobel prizes (points 2, 3 and 4), of course applied originally in other contexts. I’m sorry that my comment didn’t finished with recommendations based on economics (That would cost you a date). I appreciate all the time and effort you devote to your blog, I will continue reading it, and I hope you well. Keep having fun!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


CommentLuv badge

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.