I’ve had this joking banter with a friend recently about being flaccid. It’s a joke really. The word has an interesting sound to it, and as it should, it sounds weak, and limp. Contrast the sound of flaccid with tumescent (swelling). Every guy would rather be tumescent, right? Isn’t every man’s dread to grow flaccid at an inappropriate time? It’s an absolute hellish experience.
Flaccid vs. Erect
In the film Alfie, Jude Law has a series of sexual encounters during which he loses his erection and slinks away, rejected in total disgrace. He lost his dignity, but even more, it seemed his identity was slipping away.
What started as a joke between me and my friend — here’s to you flaccid guy! — became for me a really big question: Is a rock-hard erect penis really better than a flaccid one? Put another way, does a guy really find his sexual identity in his erection or even more basic, in his physical sexual ability?
What it boils down to for me is a definition of the Orgasmic Guy. Is the Orgasmic Guy a guy who can raise an erection at will and keep it till he’s finished? Sounds pretty good, but really I’m wondering if what really defines an Orgasmic Guy, a fulfilled sexual male, is an attitude. I don’t think it’s what he can do, but who he is.
A guy uses his abilities to express his manhood not prove it or define it. If he can build, he builds. If he can play football, he plays football. If he can write, he writes. None of these things defines his manhood. His manhood is defined in his attitude — how he does it. I suspect the same goes for a guy’s sexuality. It doesn’t define him. He expresses himself through it.
There’s nothing like a really hard erection — especially if it comes unexpectedly — wahoo! But you know I can love flaccid, too. Really.