Casual Sex
gilleebee
dissected to find out how it happens. It just does.
gilleebee
Gordon
> It's not that hard to find. It's one of those things that cannot be
> dissected to find out how it happens. It just does.
>
other attractive and willing. Ah that felt good.
Gordon
> they have a hard time finding it with other women.
So woman on woman rules ok.
Men wish to engage in sex more than their bodies are capable of, women need
to select the best for their offspring.
Oh yes our genes, built from history rule.
gilleebee
"Gordon" <Gor...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:6miersF...@mid.individual.net...
don't want to procreate, but I love to have sex. I think people understand
why things happen, but also do things cos they feel good at the time.
gilleebee
-Elizabeth-
But women past childbearing age can have as much fun as they like.
Norton
>It's not that hard to find. It's one of those things that cannot be
>dissected to find out how it happens. It just does.
When I was in high school, I never knew what was going to
happen, and as a result I sometimes pushed where I should
have known to not do that.
But when I got to be a bit older, I somehow learned to read
the situation. And I'm usually right. So I not only knew
when to be forward (I suspect it is easier for most women
if the guy makes the first *overt* move) but when NOT to
be forward and, at times, when to fold my tent and go away.
--
--- Norton
Norton
gilleebee
But women past childbearing age can have as much fun as they like.
Thats what I mean, and women who take birth control - I take it so that I
can have as much sex as I want without consequences. In other words - I am
aware of the fact that people have sex to procreate, but we also just want
to have no strings sex sometimes.
gilleebee
Kat
> Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
> > I've known a few women who have signed up for internet sites like
> > adultfriendfinger specifically looking for no-strings-attached casual
> > sex. What they generally found was that a lot of guys talked with
> > bravado about it, but when it came to actually settling down the "Okay,
> > let's meet," type reality of it, they disappeared. Even for the few men
> > who got to the point of meeting, most couldn't handle that these woman
> > really wanted no-strings-attached casual sex and didn't want to date
> > them or marry them or whatnot, and that often became a big problem for
> > them. Ultimately, although they did find some interested parties, it
> > became just too much work. The conclusion they came to in the end was
> > that guys like to talk about how they wish they could get casual,
> > no-strings-attached sex, but by and large it's an act.
>
> I have had problems with situations like this, as well. I have a way to
> kind of get around this, but it isn't the best way.
Any clues or suggestions to help? I had really good luck the first two
times I tried to meet someone from craigslist but it is going downhill
fast. At this rate I'll probably just go back to real live pickups but
I guess I was just hoping to find some different types of people.
-Elizabeth-
Hear, hear!!!
Kat
> Here, here! I couldn't agree more. I can never figure out people who
> think that men have a corner on the market of lust. I LOVE sex! And I
> know I am not the only woman who enjoys it, including in a casual way.
The stereotype is that sex is something women have and men want. A lot
of people believe it and therefore act the part.
Kat
> Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
> > Any clues or suggestions to help? I had really good luck the first two
> > times I tried to meet someone from craigslist but it is going downhill
> > fast. At this rate I'll probably just go back to real live pickups but
> > I guess I was just hoping to find some different types of people.
>
> pick-ups, but if what you want is no-strings sex, with no attachments or
> pressure to form some kind of attachment you can try what I do and only
> sleep with married men.
I was hoping you found a trick for picking out the ones actually
interested up front. I don't really have problems ensuring no strings
after the fact when I want a one time thing, I just channel my inner
bitch and she usually resolves the problem.
The only time I run into big problems is when I am hunting for an
ongoing thing without any relationship to go with, those ones turn
clingy sometimes, married or not. Still working on a solution for that
one.
toramjero
> they have a hard time finding it with other women.
I'll second that. Of course, the time when I tried was 20 years ago (I
have been married for 20 years) so my informations are outdated, but
at the time I could not find it.
But, we now have 3 or 4 threads open on the subject. I might as well
respond here. People have different experiences, depending on their
surroundings, their abilities and obviously whether they are male or
female. My experiences have been generally negative. Maybe I was
looking in the wrong places, maybe I am just not very attractive,
maybe I did not know how to present myself, maybe I have been
frequenting circles were sex-negative people abound, and probably a
combination of these and other factors. However, men like me are not
rare. Just as Erica, my experience has been that ALL my male friends
found it difficult if not downright impossible. ssg is interesting in
that it allows people from very different backgrounds to share a
conversation. And because it is a sexually oriented group, it attracts
a large proportion of sex-positive people. But ssg does not reflect
the general population, for which sex, in particular casual sex but
also other forms of sex play like threesomes (discussed in another
thread at present) do NOT form part of their experience.
-Elizabeth-
And this is why, on ssg, we tend not to claim that our experiences are
those of the majority of people. We recognize our experiences as our
own and make no claims upon others.
gilleebee
"toramjero" <tora...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5f2410d0-0a8d-4d9c...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
gilleebee
Kat
> Yes, I agree. We should be raising our children to enjoy sex and see it as
> a normal, natural, and important part of our lives. I have tried to raise
> my daughter in that way.
Amen to that, and good for you! Is she old enough to see if it worked
(if you don't mind me being snoopy)?
Kat
> Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
> > I was hoping you found a trick for picking out the ones actually
> > interested up front. I don't really have problems ensuring no strings
> > after the fact when I want a one time thing, I just channel my inner
> > bitch and she usually resolves the problem.
>
> very up front with him and let him know that I am also interested. I have
> a hard time being a bitch; I end up feeling bad for the men who end up
> wanting a relationship, but if they get too clingy or pushy I have pulled
> out the "what would your wife say" card (even though I would NEVER use it).
I guess it's not as black and white as I was thinking in my previous
message but if we are clear up front and in mutual agreement about
what we are looking for and what is off limits then my empathy level
is exactly zero when someone exceeds that. I am a believer in ripping
the wax off quickly and getting it over with.
I do try to discuss ground rules up front if it looks like there is
any possibility of a repeat but for a one night thing it's not usually
worth the hassle. This creates an annoying gray area.
Once and only once have I made an exception. When he and I met he was
in the middle of a messy breakup with his wife and was emotionally
shut down, just looking for a physical outlet. Normally a rebound
thing is something I avoid as although they start and end fast they
sometimes turn too emotional for my tastes in the mean time. I've
never figured out why I didn't follow my usual rule.
When he and his wife got back together he stopped seeing me then after
she kicked him out again he managed to hunt me down. I was in a bit of
a weird place emotionally that time and for probably the only time
since I my teenage years I was completely uninterested in any form of
sex but I let him crash with me for a bit and we actually turned into
close friends without the sex. He finally came clean to his wife, who
initially blamed me for her husband's fetish and actually tried to
attack me at one point, but they managed to reconnect and she realizes
how much he loves her but that he can't turn off his need nor is she
willing to indulge him. Skip ahead a bit and he is now allowed to see
me but with some specific rules.
Oddly the current arrangement works well for me as well since we are
able to be friends and I am able to fulfill a few of his cravings but
he knows that if he gets confused and attaches any more of an
emotional connection to me then his wife-approved extra curricular
friends+benefits, it will cost him both of us. Once in a while all
three of us have dinner or do something social together.
More recently his wife approached me wanting to understand a little
more about what her husband gets out of seeing me, and I almost see
the tiniest chance that she might become a little more willing to
indulge him. I guess we'll see where it goes from here.
Norton
That's right. But by then many are hemmed in by societies induced
values and just plain habit.
Still, there is some evidence that women in that group *are*,
in fact, increasingly sexual, and not always inside their
marriage.
See a recent New York Times story at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/health/28well.html
--
--- Norton
Norton
>There are still possible consequences with birth control. Don't forget
>STDs, unintentional emotional connections (developed by you or by your
>partner), and possibly legal ramifications.
Of those three the first is probably the worst. I wish the US
would advance to the point where serious amounts of research
could be done on cures (and possibly vaccines) for STD's could
be done.
Right now many are against funding such research because they
feel that success in it would promote sex outside marriage.
In spite of that there is some research going on, but there
could be more.
Unintentional emotional consequences are interesting. Norton
has not developed any, but nevertheless there sometimes remains
an emotional connection.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Hmm. A lot of men certainly feel that way. And in my experience
there is some truth in it as judged by the way some women act.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>> > Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
>> > > I've known a few women who have signed up for internet sites like
>> > > adultfriendfinger specifically looking for no-strings-attached casual
>> > > bravado about it, but when it came to actually settling down the
>> > > the few =
>> men
>> > > who got to the point of meeting, most couldn't handle that these
>> > > woman really wanted no-strings-attached casual sex and didn't want to
>> > > date them or marry them or whatnot, and that often became a big
>> > > interested parties, it became just too much work. =A0The conclusion
>> > > they came to in the end wa=
>> s
>> > > that guys like to talk about how they wish they could get casual,
>> > > no-strings-attached sex, but by and large it's an act.
>> >
>> > t=
>> o
>> > kind of get around this, but it isn't the best way.
>>
>> Any clues or suggestions to help? I had really good luck the first two
>> times I tried to meet someone from craigslist but it is going downhill
>> fast. At this rate I'll probably just go back to real live pickups but
>> I guess I was just hoping to find some different types of people.
>I have met men through Yahoo chatrooms, internet sites, and through live
>pick-ups, but if what you want is no-strings sex, with no attachments or
>pressure to form some kind of attachment you can try what I do and only
>sleep with married men.
Married women work well for men, so why not?
--
--- Norton
Tom Allen
That's a very difficult situation. A lot of men feel guilty for having
fetishes, more so when their wives are completely dismissive of them.
And while no partner should ever be pressured to give in to something
that she (or he) considers to be weird or disgusting, they should at
least keep in mind that dissing a partner often results in their finding
some way to fill that need elsewhere. It may be wrong, of course, but a
desire to indulge in kink is often more emotionally charged than a
desire to indulge in vanilla sex.
>
> More recently his wife approached me wanting to understand a little
> more about what her husband gets out of seeing me, and I almost see
> the tiniest chance that she might become a little more willing to
> indulge him. I guess we'll see where it goes from here.
I hope that works out.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>The stereotype is that sex is something women have and men want. A lot
>of people believe it and therefore act the part.
A LOT of women treat sex that way. Fewer, percentage-wise, I suspect,
among your generation than mine, but still.
Read the early part of Heinlein's novel _Glory Road_; there's an
excellent discussion of how "dinner, a movie, maybe candy" comes to a
less-honest relationship than does prostitution.
Note also that while our parents didn't outright teach that
stereotype, society did. Rather in the same way that parents
don't/didn't teach "it's not nice to cook and eat your neighbors" but
we nevertheless learnt that cannibalism is Not Done among polite,
right-thinking folk.
(had to make sure I included 'cook' in that description--because it
*can* be very nice to eat your neighbors...<g>)
--
"Every single religion that has a monotheistic god
winds up persecuting someone else."
-Philip Pullman
-denny-
(not as curmudgeonly as I useta be)
Gordon
> Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 6:07=A0am, erica_secr...@yahoo.com (Erica Secrest) wrote:
>> > Yes, I agree. =A0We should be raising our children to enjoy sex and see
>> > i=
>> t as
>> > a normal, natural, and important part of our lives. =A0I have tried to
>> > ra=
>> ise
>> > my daughter in that way.
>>
>> Amen to that, and good for you! Is she old enough to see if it worked
>> (if you don't mind me being snoopy)?
>
> and sexuality. We talk pretty freely about things that she has been
> involved in (nothing abnormal, just typical childhood exploration -
> masturbation and a little "playing doctor" with peers). I think that so
> far she is growing up in a pretty healthy way.
>
Indeed.
However, " ... raising our children to enjoy sex and see it as normal,
natural, and important part of our lives" does suggest that ones daughter
has reached, or is near to the age of consent.
Well to me it did
Matthew Vincent
> I have met men through Yahoo chatrooms, internet sites, and through live
> pick-ups, but if what you want is no-strings sex, with no attachments or
> pressure to form some kind of attachment you can try what I do and only
> sleep with married men
I'm curious: does this include married men who have their wife's
blessing, knowledge and consent to be sexually intimate with other
partners?
As for emotional attachment resulting from sex, I'm sceptical that
it's possible to guarantee that such things won't be experienced by
either party, but perhaps I'm just projecting from my own individual
preferences. Personally, my natural instinct after attaining sexual
intimacy with a new partner is to want to cherish the connection
that's been developed. Getting into bed with someone, for me at least,
represents a deepening of intimacy to a level that you don't have with
most people you interact with socially, and so to me it feels like
squandering it to waste that opportunity for further intimacy. That
being said, there are lots of possible ways that further intimacy
could be developed, especially given that this doesn't preclude having
other partners as well.
I've been sexually intimate with a number of couples and I've never
had any problem respecting the fact that their relationship comes
first. In fact, I've been a listening ear over relationship
difficulties and been very committed to helping the relationship
without any desire to undermine it for my own selfish interests. So,
I'm not suggesting I can't maintain boundaries in terms of
relationship contracts or behaviour; but rather, it's the absence of
any emotional attachment that for me would be unrealistic. I expect
sex to lead to emotional attachment more often than not, though I see
this as no cause for alarm because I feel perfectly comfortable
feeling both sexual and emotional desires for more than one person,
and for my primary partner to likewise be connected both sexually and
emotionally to other people.
Matthew
Kat
> Kat wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 6:12 am, erica_secr...@yahoo.com (Erica Secrest) wrote:
> > Oddly the current arrangement works well for me as well since we are
> > able to be friends and I am able to fulfill a few of his cravings but
> > he knows that if he gets confused and attaches any more of an
> > emotional connection to me then his wife-approved extra curricular
> > friends+benefits, it will cost him both of us. Once in a while all
> > three of us have dinner or do something social together.
>
> That's a very difficult situation. A lot of men feel guilty for having
> fetishes, more so when their wives are completely dismissive of them.
> And while no partner should ever be pressured to give in to something
> that she (or he) considers to be weird or disgusting, they should at
> least keep in mind that dissing a partner often results in their finding
> some way to fill that need elsewhere. It may be wrong, of course, but a
> desire to indulge in kink is often more emotionally charged than a
> desire to indulge in vanilla sex.
It takes a huge emotional investment for the partner with the fetish
to even bring up the topic to their partner and when they get
dismissed or ridiculed without any consideration I believe it both
solidifies their desire while also undermining the underlying
emotional safety and trust in the relationship. I am not a
relationship expert but that seems like a bad combination.
> > More recently his wife approached me wanting to understand a little
> > more about what her husband gets out of seeing me, and I almost see
> > the tiniest chance that she might become a little more willing to
> > indulge him. I guess we'll see where it goes from here.
>
> I hope that works out.
So do I. He is a great guy and very much in love with his wife and
although I might lose a rather interesting play partner it feels right
to help that relationship work.
Kat
> I don't mind you being snoopy!!! She is 8 and is very curious about sex
> and sexuality. We talk pretty freely about things that she has been
> involved in (nothing abnormal, just typical childhood exploration -
> masturbation and a little "playing doctor" with peers). I think that so
> far she is growing up in a pretty healthy way.
She is a lucky girl.
I am still working on accepting some of the parts of my younger years
and ultimately some of that anger is what molded the strength of who I
am today and I wouldn't trade my demons away if I could but I wouldn't
wish my experiences on anyone and definitely not a child. Something
tells me just being equipped with knowledge will ensure she is better
able to cope even if circumstance are is not as fortunate as you might
hope.
Luckily a little knowledge can let help her steer away from those
unfriendly circumstances too so I am betting she'll turn out great!
With that out of the way, taking her Halloweening?
toramjero
> "toramjero" <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
No.
> gilleebee
-Elizabeth-
Why no?
toramjero
I was not thinking specifically about ssg. I about every mainstream
magazine you will find an article about "how so many people cheat /
engage in casual sex / swing / have a threesome (etc)" every other
day. One was cited on ssg this week. Frankly, since I have had none of
the action, I start to wonder whether I am particularly repulsive or
what.
Kat
> On 2008-10-30, Erica Secrest <erica_secr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't mind you being snoopy!!! She is 8 and is very curious about sex
> > and sexuality. We talk pretty freely about things that she has been
> > involved in (nothing abnormal, just typical childhood exploration -
> > masturbation and a little "playing doctor" with peers). I think that so
> > far she is growing up in a pretty healthy way.
>
> Indeed.
>
> However, " ... raising our children to enjoy sex and see it as normal,
> natural, and important part of our lives" does suggest that ones daughter
> has reached, or is near to the age of consent.
>
> Well to me it did
I don't mean to pick on you specifically here Gordon but rather
comment on society as a whole.
Like it or not children are exposed to sex nearly as soon as they are
able to understand and interpret anything in the world. This isn't a
bad thing, whether you're having any or not sex is a huge part of the
world and none of us wouldn't be here without it.
Children are curious about everything and sex is something. If you
have a traditional nuclear then it starts with seeing mommy and daddy
kissing. Almost as likely these days is seeing your single parent
dating. Those that don't see similar will wonder why as soon as they
discover adults showing affection on television, at the mall, across
the street while playing in the school yard, or wherever else. Now all
it takes is an older sibling or friend with an older sibling or to
walk in on your parent or parents and suddenly this magical mysterious
thing that makes everyone giggle and no one will talk about is very
curious indeed.
As a parent you can't hide sex unless you hide the whole world and the
more you try the more likely the child is to be curious and without
any good source of information they will pick up whatever they can
from wherever they can. Don't let Jerry Springer, car commercials and
that 18A movie they snuck be the only source of information. Take it
from me, hiding the whole world doesn't work out so well for the kid.
Raising children to enjoy sex doesn't mean having sex with children or
letting children watch or anything like that, it means presenting sex
in a positive light. It means providing truthful information about
sexuality, including representing it as a pleasurable experience, but
also an experience with emotional consequences, and risks of pregnancy
and STDs. Don't pretend that your child will never have sex,
understand that one day they WILL choose to have sex, and so try to
make sure that they prepared and able to make the decision.
The whole abstinence thing might have worked out alright if it worked
but in practice hiding facts from children and especially teenagers
tends to make them more curious not less and that is before you add
some raging hormones and social pressure. If teens decide that they're
going to have sex and have been repeatedly told that condoms don't
work and only bad slutty girls use birth control, do you think they'll
bother having sex safely?
The age of consent is another rant as it is completely meaningless
arbitrary and a borderline ignorant way to look at teaching sexuality.
For one, it's several years too late, puberty has come and gone long
before reaching the age of consent and in many cases virginity is lost
well before the legal age of consent. Second there is nothing magical
at 14 or 16 or 17 or 18 or 21 whatever number the dart landed on in
your part of this planet nor do children suddenly become mature when
they step across the made up line in the ground where the age of
consent changes from 18 to 14.
Now again this isn't targeted at you specifically Gordon, it just
seemed like a good place to get a rant off my chest.
toramjero
1: Gileebee seems to imply that I am looking for casual sex
("hopefull"). I am not.
2: I already knew that women looking for casual sex existed. I dispute
that they exist in any large numbers, and this thread has rather
confirmed that.
3: Even if I were looking for casual sex, and women looking for casual
sex existed in large numbers, my experience has been that I have not
met any (in the times when I used to look for casual sex that is). I
don't see how that could change.
Sarah
[Some wise words]
Good for you, Kat. There should be more parents like you.
--
See the ssg homepage: http://socsexualitygeneral.org/
If you want to contact me directly on SSG moderation business, please replace TwoUnderscores with... well, two underscores.
Tom Allen
There is an inherent danger in interpreting such studies. While they
might be statistically correct, it does not mean that the numbers are
evenly distributed through the population.
For example, there is an old joke:
One out of every five people has a mental illness. Take a look at your
four closest friends. If they seem okay, then *you're* the crazy one.
Obviously, this isn't the way that it works.
The other night, a group of us - all 40+ y.o. adults - were chatting,
and somebody mentioned that they'd heard that there were "key parties"
going on in our town. Out of 10 adults, 4 of them had never heard the
term, 6 of them had no idea how "swinging" worked, and 6 thought the
idea was disgusting.
Of course, then they all stared at me as I tried to explain it... I'm
sure I wont' be invited back anytime soon.
Anyway, my point is that obviously you can't apply that "1 in 3" formula
for local populations.
Kat
> Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> said:
>
> [Some wise words]
>
> Good for you, Kat. There should be more parents like you.
*blush* Thanks.
I should note that I am not a parent so I am preaching and not
practicing based on my own experience as a child.
Norton
>On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:34:55 -0700 (PDT), Kat <ki...@gothkat.com>
>wrote:
>>The stereotype is that sex is something women have and men want. A lot
>>of people believe it and therefore act the part.
>A LOT of women treat sex that way. Fewer, percentage-wise, I suspect,
>among your generation than mine, but still.
>Read the early part of Heinlein's novel _Glory Road_; there's an
>excellent discussion of how "dinner, a movie, maybe candy" comes to a
>less-honest relationship than does prostitution.
>Note also that while our parents didn't outright teach that
>stereotype, society did. Rather in the same way that parents
>don't/didn't teach "it's not nice to cook and eat your neighbors" but
>we nevertheless learnt that cannibalism is Not Done among polite,
>right-thinking folk.
>(had to make sure I included 'cook' in that description--because it
>*can* be very nice to eat your neighbors...<g>)
You've got *that* right!
--
--- Norton
Norton
>On Oct 29, 3:24 pm, erica_secr...@yahoo.com (Erica Secrest) wrote:
>> I have met men through Yahoo chatrooms, internet sites, and through live
>> pick-ups, but if what you want is no-strings sex, with no attachments or
>> pressure to form some kind of attachment you can try what I do and only
>> sleep with married men
>I'm curious: does this include married men who have their wife's
>blessing, knowledge and consent to be sexually intimate with other
>partners?
My guess is that the number of such is only a small fraction of
the total.
>As for emotional attachment resulting from sex, I'm sceptical that
>it's possible to guarantee that such things won't be experienced by
>either party, but perhaps I'm just projecting from my own individual
>preferences. Personally, my natural instinct after attaining sexual
>intimacy with a new partner is to want to cherish the connection
>that's been developed. Getting into bed with someone, for me at least,
>represents a deepening of intimacy to a level that you don't have with
>most people you interact with socially, and so to me it feels like
>squandering it to waste that opportunity for further intimacy. That
>being said, there are lots of possible ways that further intimacy
>could be developed, especially given that this doesn't preclude having
>other partners as well.
I agree. This can happen. But with a bit of care it can
be avoided.
>I've been sexually intimate with a number of couples and I've never
>had any problem respecting the fact that their relationship comes
>first. In fact, I've been a listening ear over relationship
>difficulties and been very committed to helping the relationship
>without any desire to undermine it for my own selfish interests. So,
>I'm not suggesting I can't maintain boundaries in terms of
>relationship contracts or behaviour; but rather, it's the absence of
>any emotional attachment that for me would be unrealistic. I expect
>sex to lead to emotional attachment more often than not, though I see
>this as no cause for alarm because I feel perfectly comfortable
>feeling both sexual and emotional desires for more than one person,
>and for my primary partner to likewise be connected both sexually and
>emotionally to other people.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>>
>> > I have met men through Yahoo chatrooms, internet sites, and through
>> > live pick-ups, but if what you want is no-strings sex, with no
>> > attachments or pressure to form some kind of attachment you can try
>> > what I do and only sleep with married men
>>
>> I'm curious: does this include married men who have their wife's
>> blessing, knowledge and consent to be sexually intimate with other
>> partners?
>I haven't had any experience with men who had permission, but it would.
>> As for emotional attachment resulting from sex, I'm sceptical that
>> it's possible to guarantee that such things won't be experienced by
>> either party, but perhaps I'm just projecting from my own individual
>> preferences. Personally, my natural instinct after attaining sexual
>> intimacy with a new partner is to want to cherish the connection
>> that's been developed. Getting into bed with someone, for me at least,
>> represents a deepening of intimacy to a level that you don't have with
>> most people you interact with socially, and so to me it feels like
>> squandering it to waste that opportunity for further intimacy. That
>> being said, there are lots of possible ways that further intimacy
>> could be developed, especially given that this doesn't preclude having
>> other partners as well.
>I think that there is always some emotional attachment, and that isn't a
>problem, but what I am trying to avoid is a man who becomes possessive or
>jealous. If the object is "no-strings sex" that means that there should be
>no strings on me OR them.
>> I've been sexually intimate with a number of couples and I've never
>> had any problem respecting the fact that their relationship comes
>> first. In fact, I've been a listening ear over relationship
>> difficulties and been very committed to helping the relationship
>> without any desire to undermine it for my own selfish interests. So,
>> I'm not suggesting I can't maintain boundaries in terms of
>> relationship contracts or behaviour; but rather, it's the absence of
>> any emotional attachment that for me would be unrealistic. I expect
>> sex to lead to emotional attachment more often than not, though I see
>> this as no cause for alarm because I feel perfectly comfortable
>> feeling both sexual and emotional desires for more than one person,
>> and for my primary partner to likewise be connected both sexually and
>> emotionally to other people.
>>
>> Matthew
>It isn't my ability to maintain boundaries that I am concerned with. I am
>friendly with most of the men I am intimate and I am always happy to lend
>an ear or a shoulder, but I don't need someone getting all angry because I
>am not available to them at the drop of a hat. Having sex with someone, to
>me, does not mean that they have any "right" to me or to control me.
I think that the male attitude you describe right here is
a major impediment to ridding our society of its major sexual
hangups.
Nobody "owns" anybody ever, including husbands and wives.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>Children are sexual from the day they are born. And also from the day they
>are born they are bombarded with messages that tell them that sex is either
>wrong or dirty or something to be used as a weapon. I have tried, from the
>day she was born, to teach her that sex is none of those things. I have
>always taught her that she needs to respect herself, her body, and other
>people's bodies, but that SHE has the only say as to what she does with her
>body. I don't think that that kind of education should wait until she is
>at the age of consent or even when she reaches puberty. I think that at
>those points it is far, far too late.
Good for you!
--
--- Norton
Norton
>Children are sexual from the day they are born. And also from the day they
>are born they are bombarded with messages that tell them that sex is either
>wrong or dirty or something to be used as a weapon. I have tried, from the
>day she was born, to teach her that sex is none of those things. I have
>always taught her that she needs to respect herself, her body, and other
>people's bodies, but that SHE has the only say as to what she does with her
>body. I don't think that that kind of education should wait until she is
>at the age of consent or even when she reaches puberty. I think that at
>those points it is far, far too late.
I think you are very very right.
What is also needed is tha boys be raised in a similar way and
not led to believe that once married, they control or "own"
their wives.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>On Oct 30, 6:01 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Kat wrote:
>> > On Oct 29, 6:12 am, erica_secr...@yahoo.com (Erica Secrest) wrote:
>> > Oddly the current arrangement works well for me as well since we are
>> > able to be friends and I am able to fulfill a few of his cravings but
>> > he knows that if he gets confused and attaches any more of an
>> > emotional connection to me then his wife-approved extra curricular
>> > friends+benefits, it will cost him both of us. Once in a while all
>> > three of us have dinner or do something social together.
>>
>> That's a very difficult situation. A lot of men feel guilty for having
>> fetishes, more so when their wives are completely dismissive of them.
>> And while no partner should ever be pressured to give in to something
>> that she (or he) considers to be weird or disgusting, they should at
>> least keep in mind that dissing a partner often results in their finding
>> some way to fill that need elsewhere. It may be wrong, of course, but a
>> desire to indulge in kink is often more emotionally charged than a
>> desire to indulge in vanilla sex.
>It takes a huge emotional investment for the partner with the fetish
>to even bring up the topic to their partner and when they get
>dismissed or ridiculed without any consideration I believe it both
>solidifies their desire while also undermining the underlying
>emotional safety and trust in the relationship. I am not a
>relationship expert but that seems like a bad combination.
Never mind fetishes, when the subject is sex itself, things
can get very bad quickly.
>> > More recently his wife approached me wanting to understand a little
>> > more about what her husband gets out of seeing me, and I almost see
>> > the tiniest chance that she might become a little more willing to
>> > indulge him. I guess we'll see where it goes from here.
>>
>> I hope that works out.
>So do I. He is a great guy and very much in love with his wife and
>although I might lose a rather interesting play partner it feels right
>to help that relationship work.
Good for you!
--
--- Norton
Norton
You left out the influence of the street. Kids at a very
early age start getting sex information from their friends
at school.
A parent cannot ignore this. If parents do, their kids grow
up heavily influenced by the "current community ethic" which
almost nobody in the community really follows but which everyone
claims to follow.
Often the result is one screwed up child.
So Kat is, in my opinion, right. One has to be proactive in
this.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>> > I don't mind you being snoopy!!! =A0She is 8 and is very curious about
>> > se=
>> x
>> > and sexuality. =A0We talk pretty freely about things that she has been
>> > involved in (nothing abnormal, just typical childhood exploration -
>> > s=
>> o
>> > far she is growing up in a pretty healthy way.
>>
>> She is a lucky girl.
>>
>> I am still working on accepting some of the parts of my younger years
>> and ultimately some of that anger is what molded the strength of who I
>> am today and I wouldn't trade my demons away if I could but I wouldn't
>> wish my experiences on anyone and definitely not a child. Something
>> tells me just being equipped with knowledge will ensure she is better
>> able to cope even if circumstance are is not as fortunate as you might
>> hope.
>>
>> Luckily a little knowledge can let help her steer away from those
>> unfriendly circumstances too so I am betting she'll turn out great!
>Yes, and that is what I am trying to do - make sure that she is well-armed
>with knowledge.
>> With that out of the way, taking her Halloweening?
>We just got back about 5 minutes ago. She was (for the second year in a
>row) a princess!
Nobody will take Norton Halloweening. Probably because he eats
everybody's candy.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Hmm. I think those anwsers are all suspect. Given the obvious
attitudes in the group, likely all well-known *before* the
question came up, who is going to admit they know what 'key
parties' are or how "swinging" worked.
Folks might ask questions.
I wouldn't be surprised if three of the folks there had
organized the key parties... ;-)
--
--- Norton
Pilcrow
wrote:
>Erica Secrest <erica_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>"gilleebee" <as...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> But women past childbearing age can have as much fun as they like.
>>>
>>> Thats what I mean, and women who take birth control - I take it so that I
>>> can have as much sex as I want without consequences. In other words - I
>>> am aware of the fact that people have sex to procreate, but we also just
>>> want to have no strings sex sometimes.
>>>
>>> gilleebee
>
>>There are still possible consequences with birth control. Don't forget
>>STDs, unintentional emotional connections (developed by you or by your
>>partner), and possibly legal ramifications.
>
>Of those three the first is probably the worst. I wish the US
>would advance to the point where serious amounts of research
>could be done on cures (and possibly vaccines) for STD's could
>be done.
The ex-pornstar Sharon Mitchell established an organization in The San
Fernando Valley (porn valley) to look after the health and societal
well-being of workers in porn. Look at this
<http://www.aim-med.org/library/articles/1193272129/> video. It has the
broadest, most easily available, discussion of std's and their
prevention/avoidance and treatment that I have seen.
It turns out that casual sex has decidedly un-casual consequences.
Besides AIDS/HIV there are many other nasty bugs. Knowledge is power!
>
>Right now many are against funding such research because they
>feel that success in it would promote sex outside marriage.
>
>In spite of that there is some research going on, but there
>could be more.
>
>Unintentional emotional consequences are interesting. Norton
>has not developed any, but nevertheless there sometimes remains
>an emotional connection.
--
An MD will usually think either that the patient knows all about his
condition, or that he's too stupid to understand the explanation.
Either way, no communication results.
JustGB
LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:34:55 -0700 (PDT), Kat <ki...@gothkat.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The stereotype is that sex is something women have and men want. A lot
> >of people believe it and therefore act the part.
>
> A LOT of women treat sex that way. Fewer, percentage-wise, I suspect,
> among your generation than mine, but still.
Perhaps it is because MEN treat sex that way. Please be fair. How
many boys ask girls out simply because they want to enjoy a
conversation or an activity together with her? Guys go out with their
pals for that. Girls are to get naked with, as much to tell friends
about as to actually screw.
JustGB
Jana
It's the princess constume.
Jana
JustGB
> JustGB <gettingb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 4:37=A0am, Denny Wheeler(REMOVE
> > LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:34:55 -0700 (PDT), Kat <ki...@gothkat.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >The stereotype is that sex is something women have and men want. A lot
> > > >of people believe it and therefore act the part.
>
> > > suspect, among your generation than mine, but still. =A0
>
> > Perhaps it is because MEN treat sex that way. Please be fair. How
> > many boys ask girls out simply because they want to enjoy a
> > conversation or an activity together with her? Guys go out with their
> > pals for that. Girls are to get naked with, as much to tell friends
> > about as to actually screw.
>
> > JustGB
>
> feel that way but that the stereotype is that they don't want to have girls
> as friends and that they just want to screw. People hear the stereotype
> and repeat it, over and over, even the people who think the stereotype is
> bad still end up repeating it. I don't believe that it is true that boys
> don't want to pal around with girls. Not every boy, but many boys can have
> girls as friends and never feel the need to try to get into their pants.
The stereotype is held by both males and females. Foisting it only on
the women (see Denny's comment: "A LOT of women treat sex that way"
and Norton's agreement) is not fair, as I said. There is still a
double standard, perpetuated by males, I would say (only they try to
get 'round the bases), and females *still* have to protect themselves
from that.
I think I am being descriptive and I wish with all my heart that it
were different.
JustGB
toramjero
I am not so sure. My experience has rather been that there are boys
who enjoy a conversation or an activity with girls as much as with
other boys. There are also boys you think that girls are to get naked
with. In my experience the first type of boys have been vastly more
numerous than the second type. OTOH, the second type seems to have
been vastly more successful at getting naked with the girls than the
first type, but how much of that is bragging I do not know. I noticed
however that going out with girls for conversation or similar
activities tended to exclude the possibility of sex: you become a
friend and girls do not have sex with their friends for fear of
"ruining the friendship". It looks as if a male friend is of greater
value than a sexual partner.
I am not the only one to say so. By sheer coincidence, I say an
article in a woman magazine yesterday that discussed exactly the same
thing (it was a long flight, and I had finished my newspaper...): that
-maybe- you (the reader) should consider that having sex with a male
friend is a possibility. The article implied that most women (reader)
would not consider it a possibility.
toramjero
It is not a rant, it is a very good post and I generally agree with
it. Not teaching anything about sex to your children is irresponsible.
At the very least they need information on stds and contraception.
But there is an aspect you did not mention. Just as we learn from
general knowledge that cannibalism is not done in polite society (I
love that example), children learn a great deal of the social part of
sexuality from experiences you cannot control. And I wonder if a
liberal education on sexuality is not a disservice to them, at least
partially. Note that I said "I wonder". I do not know.
For example, you seem to have a relatively tolerant view on casual
sex. If you teach to your daughter that casual sex between consenting
adults is ok (as long as reasonable precautions are taken), how is she
supposed to reconciliate that with the view she will likely get from
their school friends that sex is only supposed to be worth pursuing if
you are in romantic love? It is one thing to be right as a parent, it
is another thing to convince your children that most of the other
people are wrong. I think that sex positive people are in the
equivalent position to teach their children that the earth is round in
a society which believes in a flat world.
And there are also the social risks of being ostracized for having a
different opinion, of course.
Dave
erica_...@yahoo.com (Erica Secrest) was claimed to have wrote:
>Honestly, I think that what you said is a huge problem - not that all boys
>feel that way but that the stereotype is that they don't want to have girls
>as friends and that they just want to screw. People hear the stereotype
>and repeat it, over and over, even the people who think the stereotype is
>bad still end up repeating it. I don't believe that it is true that boys
>don't want to pal around with girls. Not every boy, but many boys can have
>girls as friends and never feel the need to try to get into their pants.
It's not even just whether boys and girls can want to be friends without
getting into each other's pants, but their respective boyfriend and
girlfriends and/or other social partners tend to get jealous too even if
nothing does happen.
A sad testimony on the lack of trust many partners have in each other I
suppose, but still true.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> For example, you seem to have a relatively tolerant view on casual
> sex. If you teach to your daughter that casual sex between consenting
> adults is ok (as long as reasonable precautions are taken), how is she
> supposed to reconciliate that with the view she will likely get from
> their school friends that sex is only supposed to be worth pursuing if
> you are in romantic love?
I don't think that this is a likely message for young people to be
receiving today. As far as I can tell, casual sex is widely accepted
among youth.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> On Nov 3, 10:47 am, JustGB <gettingb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 4:37 am, Denny Wheeler(REMOVE
>>
>> LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:34:55 -0700 (PDT), Kat <ki...@gothkat.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >The stereotype is that sex is something women have and men want. A lot
>> > >of people believe it and therefore act the part.
>>
>> > A LOT of women treat sex that way. Fewer, percentage-wise, I suspect,
>> > among your generation than mine, but still.
>>
>> Perhaps it is because MEN treat sex that way. Please be fair. How
>> many boys ask girls out simply because they want to enjoy a
>> conversation or an activity together with her? Guys go out with their
>> pals for that. Girls are to get naked with, as much to tell friends
>> about as to actually screw.
>>
>
> I am not so sure. My experience has rather been that there are boys
> who enjoy a conversation or an activity with girls as much as with
> other boys. There are also boys you think that girls are to get naked
> with. In my experience the first type of boys have been vastly more
> numerous than the second type.
That pretty much matches my experience also -- that most guys have lots
of female friends who they have no romantic or sexual designs on, but
that there is a very vocal minority of guys who think that men and women
can't be friends without an ulterior motive. (I also feel that I should
notice that this attitude seems to be as prevalent or more so among
women.)
Kat
> > More recently his wife approached me wanting to understand a little
> > more about what her husband gets out of seeing me, and I almost see
> > the tiniest chance that she might become a little more willing to
>
> I hope that works out.
I'm starting to understand that she still doesn't really have any clue
what drives his cravings or what she can do to feed it nor does she
really have any clue of her boundaries either and equally I have been
a little worried about exceeding her boundaries and causing her to
shut down entirely.
A few days ago I made a suggestion to her that is tame enough that it
can be done in public and no one would bat an eye. She seemed
apprehensive about whether he would even notice but after some
convincing I talked her into humoring me.
She called me today and is literally giddy at how his eyes just light
up at even a small step and she says it almost feels like the
honeymoon phase of their relationship all over again and she is on
board with going a little further.
I am thinking I should delay seeing her again for a few days to let
the honeymoon wear off before going any further to avoid going beyond
her tolerance in the heat of the moment. Does that make sense?
Norton
Yup. But back then there was a sort of ballet that had to
be performed. The girl could not appear to be *too* willing.
So the guy had to smooch a good bit and touch a good bit and
move slowly from (this is where we came in) from first base
to second base and so on.
At some point things either went all the way or stopped totally
for one reason or another.
For the girls it was a matter of balancing lust against
reputation, and thinking about how much she liked the guy
or whatever.
A typical "date" back then consisted of going to a movie
and then going to one of the standard "hang-outs", often
in the summer a drive-in. If it was a restaurant, you'd
go in and more often than not find friends already there.
Then you'd have a social hour or so consuming a hamburger
and possibly a cherry coke.
After a date or two one would cut out of the eatery early
and go park. If one dated more often, sometimes both the
food and the eating would vanish and one would just park.
--
--- Norton
Norton
You think that I would be more popular if I wore one?
--
--- Norton
Norton
>> LUNCH)<den...@TANSTAAFL.zipcon.net> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:34:55 -0700 (PDT), Kat <ki...@gothkat.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >The stereotype is that sex is something women have and men want. A lot
>> > >of people believe it and therefore act the part.
>> >
>> > suspect, among your generation than mine, but still. =A0
>>
>> Perhaps it is because MEN treat sex that way. Please be fair. How
>> many boys ask girls out simply because they want to enjoy a
>> conversation or an activity together with her? Guys go out with their
>> pals for that. Girls are to get naked with, as much to tell friends
>> about as to actually screw.
>>
>> JustGB
>Honestly, I think that what you said is a huge problem - not that all boys
>feel that way but that the stereotype is that they don't want to have girls
>as friends and that they just want to screw. People hear the stereotype
>and repeat it, over and over, even the people who think the stereotype is
>bad still end up repeating it. I don't believe that it is true that boys
>don't want to pal around with girls. Not every boy, but many boys can have
>girls as friends and never feel the need to try to get into their pants.
Things are, in fact, different today than they were in ancient
times when Norton was in High School.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Wait a minute. I was describing what I saw back then. I had
female friends, but not to pal around with. One did not pal
around with the opposite sex at all back then. The girls hung
out with girls and guys with guys.
The only time palling around was possible was in groups, when
one double or triple dated. Or, IIRC, when the girls came out
(in twos and threes, never singly) to watch us play football or
baseball. After the game we might pair up or we might go, as
a group, out to the local eatery.
Justy is right though. Things began to change rapidly after
that. I was in school right after World War II and the mores
of the time were those of the late 30's. After about 1950
things began to change and by the 60's they changed rapidly.
Society was still very prudish back then. Women wore white
gloves when they went out shopping and married high school
women (NOT the men) were kicked out of school as a bad
influence on the rest of us. Pregnant girls just seemed
to disappear and were talked about in hushed tones. In
reality, as I found out later, they were usually sent out
of town to a relative to have the child and put it up for
adoption or, if the family had money and connections, she
had an abortion.
That's the part of the Good Old Days nobody talks about.
--
--- Norton
toramjero
I am not so sure. It seems to me that casual sex is something that is
"acceptable", because saying otherwise would make you appear
intolerant, prude or having outdated ideas. But it is acceptable as
long as it only concerns other people, most girls still have the idea
that, as far as THEY are concerned, their partner must be "Mr Right"
and they must be in romantic love. A bit like homosexuality: nobody
admits being homophobic because that is "politically incorrect", but
try to kiss your non-homophobic neighbor and that will be another
story.
Of course, we may also simply be knowing different type of youth. It
seems that acceptance of casual sex varies a lot depending on your
social background.
toramjero
> Tom Allenhttp://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
>
> "I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
> carrier."
I know that you can't derive statistics from small numbers. OTOH, your
experience with these 10 persons is to be added to the already long
list of similar experiences I had, or which were posted on this forum.
I mean: how many similar experiences would you need to infer that,
generally speaking, most people are rather hostile to, say, sex
parties? 10, 100, 1000? It is not as if you met a group of 10 sex-
hostile people on monday and on tuesday you had the opposite
experience. It is always sex-hostile people.
Norton has a valid point however when he says that, even if some
people in that party knew what "key parties" are (btw, I had to look
it up), they were likely not to admit it in that kind of atmosphere.
But you said that 6 voiced that they found the idea disgusting. I do
not believe that someone who would be open to swinging would actively
voice that the idea is disgusting. I would rather believe that they
would stay neutral and not committed, maybe state that they read about
it or something similar.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
It's entirely possible, and we've established that your social milieu is
very different from that of most of the posters here. I think at least
in most of North America, though, casual sex will not get you ostracized
in any way among young people right now, as far as I can tell.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> I mean: how many similar experiences would you need to infer that,
> generally speaking, most people are rather hostile to, say, sex
> parties? 10, 100, 1000? It is not as if you met a group of 10 sex-
> hostile people on monday and on tuesday you had the opposite
> experience. It is always sex-hostile people.
No number of such experiences would be valid to make a general
scientific conclusion about the population as a whole, just as no number
of the opposite experiences would be valid. The plural of "anecdote" is
not "data". The problem with any such sample is that our social
experiences are not random and the people we're surveying through our
day-to-day experiences are not an accurate cross-section of society in
general.
("Key parties," are also kind of an extreme case, as well. Even a lot
of people who go to sex parties would frown on arrangements that make
everyone pair up due to a randomized distribution with no real say in
who you wind up with.)
toramjero
Pardon my question, but I do not understand what you are talking about
(I have no experience about domination). Correct me if I am wrong:
-the husband likes to be dominated (e.g. you tie him up and talk dirty
or something similar)
-you are playing the dominatrix for him
-his wife would not do that (e.g. because she finds it repulsive or
don't know how to do it).
Is this a rough approximation of the story? What motivates you in this
story, then?
toramjero
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 10:28=A0pm, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 30, 11:56=A0pm, Gordon <Gor...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
> > > > On 2008-10-30, Erica Secrest <erica_secr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > abou=
> > t sex
> > > > > and sexuality. =A0We talk pretty freely about things that she has
> > > > > bee=
> > n
> > > > > involved in (nothing abnormal, just typical childhood exploration -
> > > > > th=
> > at so
> > > > > far she is growing up in a pretty healthy way.
>
> > > > Indeed.
>
> > > > However, " ... raising our children to enjoy sex and see it as
> > > > normal, natural, and important part of our lives" does suggest that
> sex is good; for myself I am teaching my daughter that sex is a good and
> positive thing. I have also taught her that there is no need to keep
> secrets from me. If her friends or teachers start telling her that sex is
> bad I wold expect her to talk to me about it. We have already talked about
> how not everyone believes in sexual openness. I am more concerned that she
> learn to make her own decisions about sex and sexuality that wholly adopt
> what I, or anyone else, tells her is the way to do things.
I think that the real difference between current visions of sexuality
is about commitment. Some people believe that sex can only happen if a
commitment is there, whether explicit (as in getting married) or
implicit (as in you must be in love). Some people believe that sex can
be a recreational activity, without any more need than basic safety.
The two views are mutually exclusive. Either you believe commitment
MUST be there, or you don't. And the "must" group is relatively
aggressive towards the different view (active or passive). If you
teach your children the second view, they will have some problems if
they do not realize that some people are in the "must" camp despise
the other camp. Or they will side with the "must" view if it is the
majority opinion around them and then be aggressive against you.
At least this has been my experience.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> I think that the real difference between current visions of sexuality
> is about commitment. Some people believe that sex can only happen if a
> commitment is there, whether explicit (as in getting married) or
> implicit (as in you must be in love). Some people believe that sex can
> be a recreational activity, without any more need than basic safety.
>
> The two views are mutually exclusive. Either you believe commitment
> MUST be there, or you don't. And the "must" group is relatively
> aggressive towards the different view (active or passive). If you
> teach your children the second view, they will have some problems if
> they do not realize that some people are in the "must" camp despise
> the other camp. Or they will side with the "must" view if it is the
> majority opinion around them and then be aggressive against you.
>
> At least this has been my experience.
My experience has been that people who have a major issue one way or the
other -- i.e. people who would despite or be aggressive toward people
who disagree with them -- are fairly rare, and that it goes in both
directions when it does happen. That is to say that some people will
believe that casual sex is wrong and will think that people who engage
in casual sex are bad or cheap or immoral, but that other people think
that enjoying casual sex is an important and cool and empowered thing to
do and that people who don't or won't engage in casual sex are prudes or
uptight or backwards, but that both of these groups are in the minority.
Most people on either side of that fence seem to think, "Well, I'm glad
that works for you but it doesn't work for me." and get along okay.
I think that where there *is* strife, especially when younger (i.e. in
highschool), it's more frequently the people who *won't* engage in
casual sex who are getting ridiculed and put down by their peers, not
the other way around.
toramjero
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I mean: how many similar experiences would you need to infer that,
> > generally speaking, most people are rather hostile to, say, sex
> > parties? 10, 100, 1000? It is not as if you met a group of 10 sex-
> > hostile people on monday and on tuesday you had the opposite
> > experience. It is always sex-hostile people.
>
> No number of such experiences would be valid to make a general
> scientific conclusion about the population as a whole, just as no number
> of the opposite experiences would be valid. The plural of "anecdote" is
> not "data". The problem with any such sample is that our social
> experiences are not random and the people we're surveying through our
> day-to-day experiences are not an accurate cross-section of society in
> general.
>
A fair criticism. That, and I am not only a neutral observer, but I am
also part of the interaction. Even if I say nothing, people see me,
form a representation of what might offend me and act accordingly.
OK. It seems that we have established that people around me may think
that I have an umbrella stuck up in the... you know. Anyway... how do
I change that?
toramjero
> > I mean: how many similar experiences would you need to infer that,
> > generally speaking, most people are rather hostile to, say, sex
> > parties? 10, 100, 1000? It is not as if you met a group of 10 sex-
> > hostile people on monday and on tuesday you had the opposite
> > experience. It is always sex-hostile people.
>
> No number of such experiences would be valid to make a general
> scientific conclusion about the population as a whole, just as no number
> of the opposite experiences would be valid. The plural of "anecdote" is
> not "data". The problem with any such sample is that our social
> experiences are not random and the people we're surveying through our
> day-to-day experiences are not an accurate cross-section of society in
> general.
>
I thought about that overnight. If the plural of anecdote is never
data, there is no use reading about other people's anecdotes. They are
just not likely to apply to my neck of the wood. It even goes beyond
that: the same people who present a given face to me, because they
have a certain image about me, probably would present a completely
different face to you, because they would form a completely different
image about you. That was also the essence of Norton's comments about
Tom's meeting: the same people who knew about key parties would not
admit it in an hostile environment.
I experienced that in my late teens: ALL the girls I came across had a
boyfriend. It took me years to realize that these "boyfriends" were
distant and far between or even just figments of their imaginations.
In other words: a convenient excuse. But I suppose that when they
found the boy in front of them attractive, the boyfriend excuse was
quickly forgotten. A same girl, engaged and faithful to the one but
available and willing to the other.
The conclusion is not only that I know nothing, but also that I cannot
lean anything from other people's social experiences. It's only
anecdotes, and it happened to THEM, in the section of society THEY
know and people acted in this way in response to THEM. If it had
happened to ME, it would be the section of society I know and people
would act in a different way in response to ME. And a forum or
newsgroup like this one is only that: a place where one read about
other people's experiences.
Serene Vannoy
> The conclusion is not only that I know nothing, but also that I cannot
> lean anything from other people's social experiences. It's only
> anecdotes, and it happened to THEM, in the section of society THEY
> know and people acted in this way in response to THEM. If it had
> happened to ME, it would be the section of society I know and people
> would act in a different way in response to ME. And a forum or
> newsgroup like this one is only that: a place where one read about
> other people's experiences.
>
It's not just that. It's also a place where people can be involved in
conversations that make them think about how the world works for them,
which is apparently what's going on with you.
Serene
--
"I am an agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at
the bottom of the garden." -- Richard Dawkins
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> I thought about that overnight. If the plural of anecdote is never
> data, there is no use reading about other people's anecdotes.
I don't know that that's true. Anecdotes can be enjoyable to read.
They can make one think. They can highlight the possible.
No amount of anecdotes will constitute a statistical sample that can
tell you generalities about the entire population, but they can
constitute evidence that the experiences therein can and do exist.
> They are
> just not likely to apply to my neck of the wood. It even goes beyond
> that: the same people who present a given face to me, because they
> have a certain image about me, probably would present a completely
> different face to you, because they would form a completely different
> image about you. That was also the essence of Norton's comments about
> Tom's meeting: the same people who knew about key parties would not
> admit it in an hostile environment.
That's possible, but I think it's also possible to change the impression
that people have of you over time. First impressions matter a lot, but
they're never set in stone. When I met Serene in person the first time,
we both thought the other aloof, but we've become good friends since and
we discovered that that impression is just a side-effect of how we both
deal with shyness.
> I experienced that in my late teens: ALL the girls I came across had a
> boyfriend. It took me years to realize that these "boyfriends" were
> distant and far between or even just figments of their imaginations.
> In other words: a convenient excuse. But I suppose that when they
> found the boy in front of them attractive, the boyfriend excuse was
> quickly forgotten. A same girl, engaged and faithful to the one but
> available and willing to the other.
That's always going to be the case. The truth is that people just are
not sexually or romantically attracted to everyone, and for many people
in fact the number of people they feel that "click" or "spark" with is
very small indeed. Statistically, the likelihood of somebody you ask
out being "into" you is very small. Over time many people become at
least a little better at reading signals and body language so that they
can figure out who might be interested, which helps narrow the search,
but I think a lot of us have had experiences like what you describe
above early on. In highschool it was just like that for me. I'll tell
you a story:
I had a huge crush on this one girl in highschool. A friend of mine was
in her gym class and one day overheard the girl I liked talking to a
friend in the changing room. She was saying how all she wanted in the
world was to go on a date with a boy. It didn't matter who, really --
she just thought that that might never happen for her and she wanted
that experience. So my friend relayed this to me and said that I should
ask her out. I did. She replied that she was sorry but she just wasn't
interested in dating.
I think as we get older, we also hopefully become more honest and more
able to find ways to gently let people down without lying to them,
although I don't know if that's always true, but still, the point is
that that sort of thing that you talked about is normal even for the
people who talk about very sex-positive social milieus. And it's very
true that the same behaviour will be interpreted differently depending
on whether you're into the person or not in many cases.
> The conclusion is not only that I know nothing, but also that I cannot
> lean anything from other people's social experiences. It's only
> anecdotes, and it happened to THEM, in the section of society THEY
> know and people acted in this way in response to THEM. If it had
> happened to ME, it would be the section of society I know and people
> would act in a different way in response to ME. And a forum or
> newsgroup like this one is only that: a place where one read about
> other people's experiences.
And to share yours and think about them and the differences. But also,
it's not that you can't learn anything from people's experiences. It's
that you can't learn everything from them. They are limited in what you
can learn, but you can still learn from them. And sometimes just
learning what is possible can make a practical difference. As an
example, if someone came in here believing that oral sex was demeaning
and wrong and had never asked their partner for oral sex or has even
prevented them from doing it because of that feeling, and they were
feeling self-hatred for a deep-down desire for it, and a bunch of
people spoke up and said that they don't find it demeaning and that in
fact they really enjoy it, maybe the person would be more open to it and
on the one hand they could ask their partner about it and if their
partner also felt positive about it, they could have some great new
things to try, and even if their partner wasn't into it, they could at
least not hate themselves for liking the idea of it. They *couldn't*
take that data and conclude that *all* people enjoy oral sex or even
that *all* people think oral sex is not demeaning, or if, for example,
seven people commented saying they thought it wasn't and three commented
saying it was, they couldn't even conclude that 70% of people think oral
sex is not demeaning, because these aren't random samplings. But they
could conclude that *some* people don't find it demeaning or that it's
possible for it to not be demeaning as long as everyone involved agrees
that it isn't. And that's a useful and practical conclusion.
Norton
>toramjero <tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 10:28=A0pm, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
>> > On Oct 30, 11:56=A0pm, Gordon <Gor...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 2008-10-30, Erica Secrest <erica_secr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > > abou=
>> t sex
>> > > > bee=
>> n
>> > > > involved in (nothing abnormal, just typical childhood exploration -
>> > > > th=
>> at so
>> > > > far she is growing up in a pretty healthy way.
>> >
>> > > Indeed.
>> >
>> > > However, " ... raising our children to enjoy sex and see it as
>> > > normal, natural, and important part of our lives" does suggest that
>I don't know that anyone is actively teaching their children that casual
>sex is good; for myself I am teaching my daughter that sex is a good and
>positive thing. I have also taught her that there is no need to keep
>secrets from me. If her friends or teachers start telling her that sex is
>bad I wold expect her to talk to me about it. We have already talked about
>how not everyone believes in sexual openness. I am more concerned that she
>learn to make her own decisions about sex and sexuality that wholly adopt
>what I, or anyone else, tells her is the way to do things.
Again, good for you. If a problem develops, the child needs
somebody to turn to. Street information is sometimes wrong.
And wrong information can lead to life-changing decisions.
Sadly, many are afraid to tell their parents anything, mainly
out of fear of their reaction. The result is sometimes an
even greater trajedy.
--
--- Norton
Kat
> Pardon my question, but I do not understand what you are talking about
> (I have no experience about domination). Correct me if I am wrong:
> -the husband likes to be dominated (e.g. you tie him up and talk dirty
> or something similar)
> -you are playing the dominatrix for him
> -his wife would not do that (e.g. because she finds it repulsive or
> don't know how to do it).
>
> Is this a rough approximation of the story? What motivates you in this
> story, then?
Close enough although his interests are perhaps a little more exotic.
What motivates me is mainly entertainment. He is something different
then the average blowjob+missionary-position+cigarette type.
Some girls like to be pampered with a day at the spa or a pedicure or
something I'd rather have a slave. Beyond his sexual interests though
he is very much a service based slave meaning that he is quite happy
to clean my condo, wash and vacuum my car and run errands as needed
too.
Kat
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I thought about that overnight. If the plural of anecdote is never
> > data, there is no use reading about other people's anecdotes.
>
> I don't know that that's true. Anecdotes can be enjoyable to read.
> They can make one think. They can highlight the possible.
Even more important then highlighting the possible it can help an
observer to understand why people act the way they do.
Tom Allen
Kat, I read the post upthread a bit, but my newsreader and ISP have
conspired to delete it, so I'm responding here.
I'm glad that his wife is able to have a little fun with what you
suggested. My own opinion, based on nothing more than reading similar
stories around the net, is that you should give her a chance to play
with what she has for a bit before moving on with more advice. This way,
she doesn't freak out, and has a chance to gain some confidence with
what she knows.
Little public scenes can fit into the "service sub" model without being
too obvious. For example, while clothes shopping she can "direct" him to
hold her handbag while she picks things to try on, or she can direct him
to "Stand by this rack and don't move" while she's in the dressing room.
Fetching different sizes and colors can also work, if he's into the
service aspect, and if she's directive enough.
And of course, some guys get more into it if their partner plays up the
attitude a bit more. For example, "Would you please get me the red skirt
in that rack?" is more vanilla than "No, I don't like this one. Get me
the red one. Hurry up, now." However, it takes some women a bit longer
to figure out how to get into the mindset, since we tend to think of
women who do this as "bitchy," which is, under other circumstances,
generally considered to be a bad thing.
Well... I guess it is a bad thing, when it's non-consensual.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Kat
> Kat, I read the post upthread a bit, but my newsreader and ISP have
> conspired to delete it, so I'm responding here.
Works for me.
> I'm glad that his wife is able to have a little fun with what you
> suggested. My own opinion, based on nothing more than reading similar
> stories around the net, is that you should give her a chance to play
> with what she has for a bit before moving on with more advice. This way,
> she doesn't freak out, and has a chance to gain some confidence with
> what she knows.
That's my thinking. Despite the fact that she wants to move forward
more quickly I am fairly certain that she is responding to his obvious
enjoyment and not her own pleasure which means it would be easier to
exceed her limits.
> Little public scenes can fit into the "service sub" model without being
> too obvious. For example, while clothes shopping she can "direct" him to
> hold her handbag while she picks things to try on, or she can direct him
> to "Stand by this rack and don't move" while she's in the dressing room.
> Fetching different sizes and colors can also work, if he's into the
> service aspect, and if she's directive enough.
Bingo. Playing in public also helps to keep him under control at least
as far as the sexual component goes then after playing in public a
little they go home and he's a ravenous wildman.
I take it a little further when all three of us are together. She
giggles and seems to be enjoying herself so I am hopeful she may take
a small step forward on her own without specific instructions.
Tom Allen
> Tom Allen wrote:
>> Kat, I read the post upthread a bit, but my newsreader and ISP have
>> conspired to delete it, so I'm responding here.
>
> Works for me.
>
>> I'm glad that his wife is able to have a little fun with what you
>> suggested. My own opinion, based on nothing more than reading similar
>> stories around the net, is that you should give her a chance to play
>> with what she has for a bit before moving on with more advice. This way,
>> she doesn't freak out, and has a chance to gain some confidence with
>> what she knows.
>
> That's my thinking. Despite the fact that she wants to move forward
> more quickly I am fairly certain that she is responding to his obvious
> enjoyment and not her own pleasure which means it would be easier to
> exceed her limits.
At some point, you might suggest that they pick up some reading
material, like The New Topping (or New Bottoming) Book, or some of the
other light information and instruction publications. A frequent issue
is that one partner (usually the guy) has years of fantasies already
built up in his head and tends to overwhelm his partner who is trying -
as you observed - to respond to his enjoyment, rather than develop her
own. Some of these books might be helpful.
>> Little public scenes can fit into the "service sub" model without being
>> too obvious. For example, while clothes shopping she can "direct" him to
>> hold her handbag while she picks things to try on, or she can direct him
>> to "Stand by this rack and don't move" while she's in the dressing room.
>> Fetching different sizes and colors can also work, if he's into the
>> service aspect, and if she's directive enough.
>
> Bingo. Playing in public also helps to keep him under control at least
> as far as the sexual component goes then after playing in public a
> little they go home and he's a ravenous wildman.
Heh.
> I take it a little further when all three of us are together. She
> giggles and seems to be enjoying herself so I am hopeful she may take
> a small step forward on her own without specific instructions.
Umm... do you hire out?
;-)
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Kat
> At some point, you might suggest that they pick up some reading
> material, like The New Topping (or New Bottoming) Book, or some of the
> other light information and instruction publications. A frequent issue
> is that one partner (usually the guy) has years of fantasies already
> built up in his head and tends to overwhelm his partner who is trying -
> as you observed - to respond to his enjoyment, rather than develop her
> own. Some of these books might be helpful.
Worth a shot. Despite having some interest in this area I've never
really read any books and so have nothing in particular to suggest as
I had a real live teacher available to me until recently.
> > I take it a little further when all three of us are together. She
> > giggles and seems to be enjoying herself so I am hopeful she may take
> > a small step forward on her own without specific instructions.
>
> Umm... do you hire out?
> ;-)
It might not be the first time.
toramjero
Thanks for the explanations. I can understand the obvious advantages
of having someone to clean your flat and your car for free.
(I can really understand the appeal in DOING that job for free, but
then I am not attracted to submission, humiliation or that sort of
things. I can understand how blowjob+missionary-position+cigarette
could be boring, however.)
Tom Allen
> On Nov 10, 8:05 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> At some point, you might suggest that they pick up some reading
>> material, like The New Topping (or New Bottoming) Book, or some of the
>> other light information and instruction publications. A frequent issue
>> is that one partner (usually the guy) has years of fantasies already
>> built up in his head and tends to overwhelm his partner who is trying -
>> as you observed - to respond to his enjoyment, rather than develop her
>> own. Some of these books might be helpful.
>
> Worth a shot. Despite having some interest in this area I've never
> really read any books and so have nothing in particular to suggest as
> I had a real live teacher available to me until recently.
It seems silly, but there really are some excellent references on D/s
out there now. Some of the better ones discuss how to deal with one's
feelings about the change in the relationship, and how not to be topped
from the bottom.
>>> I take it a little further when all three of us are together. She
>>> giggles and seems to be enjoying herself so I am hopeful she may take
>>> a small step forward on her own without specific instructions.
>> Umm... do you hire out?
>> ;-)
>
> It might not be the first time.
I'm thinking that a professional dominatrix mentor has got to be a
mental health related job, right?
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Tom Allen
> Thanks for the explanations. I can understand the obvious advantages
> of having someone to clean your flat and your car for free.
>
> (I can really understand the appeal in DOING that job for free, but
> then I am not attracted to submission, humiliation or that sort of
> things. I can understand how blowjob+missionary-position+cigarette
> could be boring, however.)
Especially if you don't smoke.
toramjero
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > I mean: how many similar experiences would you need to infer that,
> > > > generally speaking, most people are rather hostile to, say, sex
> > > > parties? 10, 100, 1000? It is not as if you met a group of 10 sex-
> > > > hostile people on monday and on tuesday you had the opposite
> > > > experience. It is always sex-hostile people.
>
> > > No number of such experiences would be valid to make a general
> > > scientific conclusion about the population as a whole, just as no
> > > "anecdote" i=
> > s
> > > not "data". =A0The problem with any such sample is that our social
> > > experiences are not random and the people we're surveying through our
> > > day-to-day experiences are not an accurate cross-section of society in
> > > general.
>
> > I thought about that overnight. If the plural of anecdote is never
> > data, there is no use reading about other people's anecdotes. They are
> > just not likely to apply to my neck of the wood. It even goes beyond
> > that: the same people who present a given face to me, because they
> > have a certain image about me, probably would present a completely
> > different face to you, because they would form a completely different
> > image about you. That was also the essence of Norton's comments about
> > Tom's meeting: the same people who knew about key parties would not
> > admit it in an hostile environment.
>
> the beginnings of research.
>
> > I experienced that in my late teens: ALL the girls I came across had a
> > boyfriend. It took me years to realize that these "boyfriends" were
> > distant and far between or even just figments of their imaginations.
> > In other words: a convenient excuse. But I suppose that when they
> > found the boy in front of them attractive, the boyfriend excuse was
> > quickly forgotten. A same girl, engaged and faithful to the one but
> > available and willing to the other.
>
> feelings. If they aren't interested in you then why would you WANT to
> pursue them?
>
Apparently this description was not understood. What I was trying to
say is that all girls lied to me. It wasn't a conspiration, it was
just a consequence of the circumstances at the time. Yet, if everyone
is lying to you, how are you going to realize that reality is
different?
I'll take another example. Society's message is that "women are from
venus" (the book wasn't a commercial success for nothing). As a
consequence, people (women and men) start to believe it and act
accordingly. It takes observation and reflection to realize that this
message cannot be true. Yet, even if you know that this message cannot
be true, when you have everyone around you chanting it makes it very
difficult to stay on track. Cognitive dissonance is not easy to fight.
> > The conclusion is not only that I know nothing, but also that I cannot
> > lean anything from other people's social experiences. It's only
> > anecdotes, and it happened to THEM, in the section of society THEY
> > know and people acted in this way in response to THEM. If it had
> > happened to ME, it would be the section of society I know and people
> > would act in a different way in response to ME. And a forum or
> > newsgroup like this one is only that: a place where one read about
> > other people's experiences.
>
> What good would hard data do for you, then? If you are unique and other
> people's experiences could never help you then quantitative data wouldn't
> be helpful to you, either.
Good point about hard data.
> We all are human beings, we all have
> similarities. You CAN learn a lot from other people's anecdotes.
Yes and no. I can learn from other people's anecdotes, but what good
is it? Especially, what good is it if I don't apply that knowledge to
act accordingly? At best, it will only allow me to live other people's
life vicariously. At worst, it will make me frustrated.
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > Thanks for the explanations. I can understand the obvious advantages
> > of having someone to clean your flat and your car for free.
>
> > (I can really understand the appeal in DOING that job for free, but
> > then I am not attracted to submission, humiliation or that sort of
> > things. I can understand how blowjob+missionary-position+cigarette
> > could be boring, however.)
>
> Especially if you don't smoke.
>
>
I don't smoke. How did you know? ;)
(and I really wanted to write I canNOT understand the appeal of doing
that job for free. I already hate having to clean MY place, cleaning
someone else's does not appeal to me)
Tom Allen
Ah, that changes everything.
Some people - men, mainly - have a kink for feeling submissive; not in
the sense of being bound and/or whipped (not that there's anything wrong
with that), but in the sense that they want to be subservient, to be
ordered around as a menial or servant (or slave).
This is why the attitude of their partner is important - the partner
needs to be (or seem to be) demanding and imperious (yes, I'm
generalizing) rather than deferential. For example, some men really
would like their wives to *demand* that they do the dishes or wash the
clothes - not because they want to do dishes, but because doing
household chores can be seen as demeaning, and because being *ordered*
to do pretty much anything makes it all the more hawt. Ergo, my comment
earlier that "Would you please do some laundry for me, dear?" does not
carry the kinky goodness of, for example, "I'm going to the gym, and I
expect the dishes to be done and the kitchen to be *spotless* by the
time I get back in a half hour!", especially if commanded in a slightly
bitchy tone.
Personally, it's not one of my kinks, but I can understand it.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."