Any real people around?
Norton
--
--- Norton
Spare Cycles
> Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>:
> > Subject line says it all.
Raised hand here.
-- cycles
Tom Allen
> Arctic Stone <arcticst...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>:
> > > Subject line says it all.
Not me. I'm a figment of my imagination.
Hey, Norton! Been wondering where you've been.
--
Tom Allen
sleepy
> Subject line says it all.
>
suzeeq
> Subject line says it all.
We were just waiting for you to show up sweetie!
sue
Norton
>Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>:
>> Subject line says it all.
>I'm real. Been real all week, as a matter of fact.
Glad to hear that. I thought that ssg had become a
wasteland.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>Raised hand here.
Good! My recent lurking expeditions here gave me little hope.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Lying around, getting older, having sex once in a while... You
know, the usual drill. Lost a gall bladder a while back. Of
course my pancreas got inflammed...
Free advice: do NOT, under any circumstances, get your
pancreas inflammed.
All that said, how are you? I never meant to go away, but
those things happen sometimes as newsgroups continue their
long slow decline.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Oh. Ok. I shan't respond then.. ;-)
--
--- Norton
Norton
Thank you. I need to (slowly) catch up with all of you.
But I'm glad to see that both you and Tom are still here.
--
--- Norton
Remus Shepherd
> Subject line says it all.
Depends on what you call 'people'. I find that on the internet, nobody
knows that you're a dog. :)
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
New Webcomic: Genocide Man http://www.genocideman.com/
Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass slaughter can be hilarious.
Tom Allen
> Thank you. I need to (slowly) catch up with all of you.
> But I'm glad to see that both you and Tom are still here.
I recently discovered that I can watch the group via RSS feeds with
Google Reader. My ISP gave up newsgroups access a while back, so I
switched to a free reader, but computer issues kept me from accessing
SSG (or any other group) for a while. Now it's just as easy to use
Google.
I emailed you a while back about ... something, but now I can't
remember what.
--
Tom
Lusus Naturae
>I find that on the internet, nobody
>knows that you're a dog. :)
But if you sign your posts "Shepherd" that might be a clue. :-)
--
Lusus Naturae
Lusus Naturae
>I thought that ssg had become a
>wasteland.
We've had some trolls recently, but they were such poor quality that
they didn't wake any of us up.
--
Lusus Naturae
suzeeq
Actually we did, then rolled over and ignored them.
sue
Dave
was claimed to have wrote:
>Subject line says it all.
I have always been here.
--
Kosh
Brian Gordon
in the background for "something good" to come up :-)
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Brian Gordon -->bri...@panix.com<-- brian dot gordon at cox dot net |
+ Bass: Lexington "Main Street Harmonizers" chorus +
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Sagittaria
S
suzeeq
> no.
>
> S
My where have you been lurking?
(hugs)
sue
Elizabeth
Hello old friend. I've missed you here. I've found it pretty hard
going, staying on ssg. Anyway, it's good that you've returned.
-Elizabeth
Elizabeth
Good things come up when you send them.
Norton
>Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> Subject line says it all.
> Depends on what you call 'people'. I find that on the internet, nobody
>knows that you're a dog. :)
<grin> You've just established that you *are* Remus... Good
to read you again.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Hmm. I don't recall that, but hey, I get so much spam that I
do sometimes toss real e-mail.
I'm still using my ISP. Roadrunner is a real e-mail address,
but I'm not reading SSG on it since it too doesn't carry
newsgroups any more. I have another ISP for that.
Some groups are still flourishing.
--
--- Norton
Norton
I'd noticed that while lurking.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Good. One of the few advantages of shrinking newsgroups is
that trolls and spammers don't find them so enticing any more.
Even so, spam attacks do happen.
--
--- Norton
Norton
That's relativity for you. You may have been *there*, but until
this posting, you weren't *here*...
<ducks and run>
--
--- Norton
Norton
>As responses show, there are still many of us, although we seem to be waiting
>in the background for "something good" to come up :-)
Being an old guy, sometimes I'm waiting for the same thing.
But I find that a good woman often can cure that.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Norton
Thank you. For a while I thought that only wankers were left
on the group.
--
--- Norton
suzeeq
They've had slim pickings here. The couple that have tried in the last
month or so barely got a raised eyebrow...
Norton
That's the problem, isn't it? Tastes vary. Some may be turned on
by a raised eyebrow.
On the other hand, I've known situations where a raise eyebrow
seen by one partner has indicated a serious lack of immediate
interest in more physical activities.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>:
>> Thank you. For a while I thought that only wankers were left
>> on the group.
>I thought that, pretty much, we were *all* wankers in this group. I
>mean, unless you live in some sort of pornoverse where the MOTASes are
>all the time standing by, ready to satisfy your "needs".
Well, in a parallel universe I inhabited long ago, SSG was not
filled with wankers. Indeed, many seemed to enjoy actual sex.
As for "needs", I have them and they are even often satisfied,
though not as often as I'd like. Aging does interesting things
to people.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>:
>> Arctic Stone <arcti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com>:
>> >> Thank you. For a while I thought that only wankers were left
>> >> on the group.
>>
>> >I thought that, pretty much, we were *all* wankers in this group. I
>> >mean, unless you live in some sort of pornoverse where the MOTASes are
>> >all the time standing by, ready to satisfy your "needs".
>>
>> Well, in a parallel universe I inhabited long ago, SSG was not
>> filled with wankers. Indeed, many seemed to enjoy actual sex.
>As I see it, I get some sex, and fill out the rest of the "needs" with
>handcrafted orgasms, so to say. In the best of worlds (or even a
>reasonable copy) the proportion would be different than it is now. But
>of the partner does not want it, and you do, and there is a presumtion
>of monogamy, then wanking or going without is the options. I dont't
>think I have ever been in the situation where there was no call for me
>to do things by hand every now and then. For a while when in college,
>but not since.
First, let me say that "wanker" has several meanings. I didn't
mean to imply that nobody around here back then ever masturbated.
What you've brought up brings *me* full circle. One of the first
things discussed here when I first joined back in 1642 or thereabouts
was the problem of large differences in sex drive between partners.
That has to be one of the most NON-discussed relationship problems
around. Worse, sex drive seems to change over time, for some it
increases, for others the opposite.
Mine is fairly steady and hasn't dropped off much over the years.
What *has* dropped off is the rigidity of an erection and the
length of time I can keep it up. I recall with some sadness back
when I was 16 and could just keep going through several orgasms.
That gift was mostly wasted on me back then.
>> As for "needs", I have them and they are even often satisfied,
>> though not as often as I'd like. Aging does interesting things
>> to people.
>I'm not very old (well past 40), but I feel the same, pretty much.
My guess is that there is a resonable chance that you'll not lose
the interest, even after 70.
--
--- Norton
sleepy
> Norton<nor...@nyc.rr.com>:
>> First, let me say that "wanker" has several meanings. I didn't
>> mean to imply that nobody around here back then ever masturbated.
>
>
>> What you've brought up brings *me* full circle. One of the first
>> things discussed here when I first joined back in 1642 or thereabouts
>> was the problem of large differences in sex drive between partners.
>
> (2 times a day is about right on average, age mid 40's) find that most
> partners are not interested in matching this.
>
>> That has to be one of the most NON-discussed relationship problems
>> around. Worse, sex drive seems to change over time, for some it
>> increases, for others the opposite.
>
> other side. Lived with it for a long time now.
>
>>> I'm not very old (well past 40), but I feel the same, pretty much.
>>
>> My guess is that there is a resonable chance that you'll not lose
>> the interest, even after 70.
>
>
> Arctic
>
I'm wondering if we will hear any inputs from the female side. What do
women think of their partners relaxing the man's way, secretly or
otherwise? Is this an indication of women's lack of attractive powers
or men's lack of seductive powers?
Norton
Back in 1642 a number of women did respond. They often have
similar problems with men...
But think about it. A person apt to post here is most likely
interersted in sex, so our samples are likely skewed a good bit.
Some suggested an open heart-to-heart talk with one's partner.
Others suggested that that only caused more ill-feeling. The
less sexy partner didn't choose not to have a higher sex drive.
--
--- Norton
suzeeq
Neither, maybe it's just a different way to experience sex....
I used to get upset at my longterm bf masturbating - I was available and
more than willing. It took me a while to explain that it's just
different, not better than sex with me. I think a lot of women don't
understand this, so if you guys can explain it, that would probably be
helpful.
sleepy
a solo activity in contrast to the exchange with the partner.
The other thing is whether the nature of the sexual experience is
different. I'm not clear what upset you, was your bf doing it secretly?
The way you put it, it sounds as if you were envious of his
experiencing something that you could not take part in.
AFA the solo activity, it's a fairly natural thing to do if you're
watching a porn movie. You can check your performance in terms of
shooting range and payload<g>. And you're in complete control of the
action without having to consider the partner.
suzeeq
Well everyone does it in private, don't they? What upset me was that I
was always willing to have sex so why didn't he just come to me.
> The way you put it, it sounds as if you were envious of his
> experiencing something that you could not take part in.
That may have been part of it.
> AFA the solo activity, it's a fairly natural thing to do if you're
> watching a porn movie. You can check your performance in terms of
> shooting range and payload<g>. And you're in complete control of the
> action without having to consider the partner.
The way he explained it, it was less physical effort than with a partner
and I can understand that.
suzeeq
>
>> I used to get upset at my longterm bf masturbating - I was available and
>> more than willing. It took me a while to explain that it's just
>> different, not better than sex with me. I think a lot of women don't
>> understand this, so if you guys can explain it, that would probably be
>> helpful.
>
> had for quite a while that women* and men* experience masturbation
> differently.
>
> Of course I can only speak for me. For me it is an activity
> quite separate from sex with a woman, which is mostly much
> better for a variety of reasons, especially intimacy. Once you've
> shared sex intimate with somebody you have something special.
>
> But men feel often feel horny. Masturbation gives free range to
> that most sexy of organs, the brain. And one conjures up all sorts
> of situations that are exciting -- including the story you are
> reading or the images you are watching.
>
> Sometimes there is a real physical need to have an orgasm. I
> mean one needs it NOW. There is no love, tenderness, or anything
> of the sort involved, just the orgasm. That's men.
Yeah, I think this is a lot of it. And using less effort to come to
orgasm than with a partner.
> I don't know about women. I've known women who masturbate. In
> my experience they are often more open to different activites than
> women who don't masturbate. But I've never met a woman who at times
> just *had* to have an orgasm.
>
> A related thing: I think that women can enjoy sex even if they
> don't reach orgasm. That doesn't much work for me AT ALL.
I feel somewhat unsatisfied if I don't have an orgasm. But that seldom
happens....
> So perhaps it is two different things. Men need the ejaculation,
> women need the emotions that go with it.
Probably.
> Note general disclaimer below...
>
> * Not all women and men to be sure, but many if not most.
>
> --
> ---- Norton
>
sleepy
to confess to it, it just sounds too self-centered and lazy.
Norton
Yes, I read your previous post. That's also true.
>> I don't know about women. I've known women who masturbate. In
>> my experience they are often more open to different activites than
>> women who don't masturbate. But I've never met a woman who at times
>> just *had* to have an orgasm.
>>
>> A related thing: I think that women can enjoy sex even if they
>> don't reach orgasm. That doesn't much work for me AT ALL.
>I feel somewhat unsatisfied if I don't have an orgasm. But that seldom
>happens....
That'd make two of us... ;-)
>> So perhaps it is two different things. Men need the ejaculation,
>> women need the emotions that go with it.
>Probably.
I don't know. I've only seen this discussed in cliche's before.
>> Note general disclaimer below...
>>
>> * Not all women and men to be sure, but many if not most.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>> don't reach orgasm. That doesn't much work for me AT ALL.
>I can enjoy sex without ejaculation; the activities most certainly are
>pleasurable. But I do agree that there is something missing in the
>picture.
>Perhaps the fact that I sometimes have a hard time reaching orgasm helps
>here. I it goes on too long, or if it was too long since the last time I
>had sex with someone other than Mrs Thumb and her sisters, I may reach a
>point with a partner where it is certainly nice, even *very* nice, but I
>just can't get over the "point". At that point I just settle down and
>enjoy the proceedings. If needed I can "force" an ejaculation by
>masturbating; some women are more receptive to this notion than others,
>perhaps being of assistance in some way.
Having a hard time reaching orgasm is common among older folks. It
*really* helps to have an understanding partner who is willing to
help, even if it is only helping in masturbation. Indeed, if she's
really willing to help, it sometimes doesn't even feel like masturbation.
>> So perhaps it is two different things. Men need the ejaculation,
>> women need the emotions that go with it.
>Different things for me. Masturbation is nice, but not as nice as sex
>with a partner, and has an additional dimension that solo sex does not
>(phone sex being part of both).
I agree.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Hey, sex is about pleasure, even if it is done in order to
have kids. Both parties have to understand that.
--
--- Norton
Tabula Rasa
> I don't know about women. I've known women who masturbate. In
> my experience they are often more open to different activites than
> women who don't masturbate. But I've never met a woman who at times
> just *had* to have an orgasm.
Raises hand. That happens to me fairly often. So now you have. :)
I think that this and the other main differences you raised in your post
are more cultural than biological.
Norton
That may well be. The question is nevertheless interesting.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>> *really* helps to have an understanding partner who is willing to
>> help, even if it is only helping in masturbation. Indeed, if she's
>> really willing to help, it sometimes doesn't even feel like masturbation.
>One partner found something that was really nice when we ended up there;
>she licked and sucked my testicles, while I did the handiwork. Very
>nice...
Prostate play is good too...
--
--- Norton
scarcea...@yahoo.com
I'm as "real" as the next person.
(Okay, this is pretty funny: my CAPCHA reads, "furri")
Norton
I don't make the rules around here, but for me, furri people
are real too.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>> >she licked and sucked my testicles, while I did the handiwork. Very
>> >nice...
>>
>> Prostate play is good too...
>I'd rather there was some lube available for that. Not always the
>case...
True. One should strive to follow the Boy Scout model, "be prepared"...
--
--- Norton
Hogsbelly
Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Subject line says it all.
>
I am a newbe and, I guess, a troll. What's with the ante-troll bit? I
merely want to gather info before opening my big mouth on the relevant
subject.
--
Never be afraid to ask.
suzeeq
> Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Subject line says it all.
>>
> I am a newbe and, I guess, a troll. What's with the ante-troll bit? I
> merely want to gather info before opening my big mouth on the relevant
> subject.
A newbie is not a troll. A troll will make inflammatory or controversial
posts to get other posters all riled up. Legitimate questions about
sexual behavior are fine, even though certain practices might be
considered unappetizing or distasteful by some people.