Expression of a woman's sexuality
Elizabeth
sexual beings are doing it to taunt men. How many men actually think
this?
Speaking for myself entirely, I write only of my sexual enjoyment
because I want to share this. I have no interest at all in taunting
anybody. So, I put this question out there for comment from men or
women.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I've had it suggested to me that women who express their pleasure as
>sexual beings are doing it to taunt men. How many men actually think
>this?
I have definitely thought that in certain contexts, but it really depends on
the nature of the conversation and each person's level of sexual affluence. I
have often wondered what sexually adventurous women get out of recounting their
experiences to men with whom they never will have sex. And I wonder what men
get out of participation in these conversations.
>Speaking for myself entirely, I write only of my sexual enjoyment
>because I want to share this.
What do you get out of sharing your sexual enjoyment? I ask out of genuine
curiosity because I've never felt aroused by the act of sharing sexual
experiences or hearing about those of others. I get aroused by actually having
sex with someone who desires me.
>I have no interest at all in taunting anybody.
Usenet is an inherently difficult forum for frank discussions about sensitive
topics because you never know who's lurking or how they'll react when they
participate. It is impractical to anticipate the reactions of different lurkers
and posters. It also smacks of unwanted self censorship. However, I find it
interesting that a number of socially accepted taboos reign on SSG. A fan of
incest or bestiality would likely receive chilly receptions here.
>So, I put this question out there for comment from men or
>women.
I think a bit of sensitivity toward the less sexually affluent can go a long
way toward dissolving rage and resentment. Elizabeth's position on sexually
frank discussion displays the typical markers of affluence; she wants to be
able to discuss her sexuality without it being negatively received as taunts.
But how can the less sexually affluent be expected to react to such brazen
displays of everything we wish we had? Are we not allowed to express our
longings without incurring wrist slaps?
Orlando
Alan J Rosenthal
>I've had it suggested to me that women who express their pleasure as
>sexual beings are doing it to taunt men. How many men actually think
>this?
A depressingly-large number. More generally, a certain type of man thinks
that everything about a woman is actually about him. If a woman has sexual
feelings, they must be about him. Even if two lesbians have sex with each
other, the real reason must be about providing a sexual experience for him.
suzeeq
Unfortunately, I believe you're right about some ment.
Dave
Enrique Fiol <of...@verizon.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>However, I find it
>interesting that a number of socially accepted taboos reign on SSG. A fan of
>incest or bestiality would likely receive chilly receptions here.
I believe you would be incorrect on that, at least based on my
recollection of one rather friendly individual who occasionally drops
by.
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth <eratedr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >I've had it suggested to me that women who express their pleasure as
> >sexual beings are doing it to taunt men. How many men actually think
> >this?
>
> I have definitely thought that in certain contexts, but it really depends on
> the nature of the conversation and each person's level of sexual affluence. I
> have often wondered what sexually adventurous women get out of recounting their
> experiences to men with whom they never will have sex. And I wonder what men
> get out of participation in these conversations.
Interest. Plain and simple.
>
> >Speaking for myself entirely, I write only of my sexual enjoyment
> >because I want to share this.
>
> What do you get out of sharing your sexual enjoyment? I ask out of genuine
> curiosity because I've never felt aroused by the act of sharing sexual
> experiences or hearing about those of others. I get aroused by actually having
> sex with someone who desires me.
What I get out of sharing my sexual enjoyment is the same sort of
thing as what I get out of sharing my pleasure in a delicious meal or
a lovely painting or a fantastic concert. I do it because I like
sharing my pleasure. I do not, by the way, get aroused by sharing my
experiences nor get aroused by reading others experiences. This lack
of sexual arousal does not mean I cease to be interested in my own and
others' experiences.
>
> >I have no interest at all in taunting anybody.
>
> Usenet is an inherently difficult forum for frank discussions about sensitive
> topics because you never know who's lurking or how they'll react when they
> participate. It is impractical to anticipate the reactions of different lurkers
> and posters. It also smacks of unwanted self censorship. However, I find it
> interesting that a number of socially accepted taboos reign on SSG. A fan of
> incest or bestiality would likely receive chilly receptions here.
Nobody who is overtly sensitive about sex has to read the posts on
ssg. The web is gigantic and you are free to go anywhere you choose.
If you don't like it here, go away.
>
> >So, I put this question out there for comment from men or
> >women.
>
> I think a bit of sensitivity toward the less sexually affluent can go a long
> way toward dissolving rage and resentment. Elizabeth's position on sexually
> frank discussion displays the typical markers of affluence; she wants to be
> able to discuss her sexuality without it being negatively received as taunts.
> But how can the less sexually affluent be expected to react to such brazen
> displays of everything we wish we had? Are we not allowed to express our
> longings without incurring wrist slaps?
>
So what you're saying is that a woman cannot express anything about
her sexuality just in case someone out there in la la land thinks she
is deliberately taunting him? Get real.
Typical markers of affluence being what? Talking about sex? This is
what we do on ssg. We talk about sex. Fortunately this is the 21st
century and women are able to openly talk about sex, and thank
goodness for that. At least now there is a greater equality at work
and we can express what we like and don't like.
Sexual affluence? Maybe, but what's the problem with that? I am here
and I talk about sex. I'm not swayed by your ramblings that I am
taunting the less fortunate. After all you, who've described yourself
as impoverished sexually, only aspire to the affluence you attribute
to me. I have what you haven't. Maybe at other times, you have what I
haven't. That's life. Just because I am female and you are male
doesn't invalidate my right to free expression of my so called sexual
affluence. In fact, I suspect that it is this gender thing that riles
you. You think because I am female I have to shut up about my
sexuality because you as male are not getting any. True?
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Interest. Plain and simple.
Have you verified that tales if your sexual exploits are interesting to anyone
other than you? If so, what precise interest do they hold for others?
>What I get out of sharing my sexual enjoyment is the same sort of
>thing as what I get out of sharing my pleasure in a delicious meal or
>a lovely painting or a fantastic concert. I do it because I like
>sharing my pleasure.
There is a crucial difference. One could theoretically share with you or at
least recreate the same meals or appetites that gave you initial pleasure,
whereas you likely will not permit your male interlocutors to recreate your
past sexual experiences with you. Therefore, your pleasure in sex is laced with
deprivation.
>I do not, by the way, get aroused by sharing my
>experiences nor get aroused by reading others experiences.
What then do you vicariously get out of hearing about others' experiences?
Information? Education?
>This lack of sexual arousal does not mean I cease to be interested in my own
and others' experiences.
>
I know, for you, interest is a mere abstraction with no ensuing obligatory
behaviors.
>Nobody who is overtly sensitive about sex has to read the posts on
>ssg. The web is gigantic and you are free to go anywhere you choose.
>If you don't like it here, go away.
Of course, that is your solution. Restraint, modesty or sensitivity are never
viable options for you; all you suggest is that if I or other "sexually
sensitive" souls don't like how the mighty Elizabeth discourses on her
pleasures, we can go away.
>So what you're saying is that a woman cannot express anything about
>her sexuality just in case someone out there in la la land thinks she
>is deliberately taunting him? Get real.
I'm saying that women should select their sexual discussion company more
selectively. It might, for instance, be better for women to write frankly about
their sexuality solely in the company of other straight women.
>Typical markers of affluence being what? Talking about sex? This is
>what we do on ssg. We talk about sex. Fortunately this is the 21st
>century and women are able to openly talk about sex, and thank
>goodness for that. At least now there is a greater equality at work
>and we can express what we like and don't like.
What is the point of so much talk? Are people having more or better sex than
they did before talking so damned much? Is the world a more sex positive place
than it used to be? Are more people being sexually excluded or included?
>Sexual affluence? Maybe, but what's the problem with that?
The same problems associated with financial greed, gluttony, drug addiction and
other forms of dissipation.
>I am here and I talk about sex.
What a manifesto!
>I'm not swayed by your ramblings that I am
>taunting the less fortunate.
Of course, you would be unswayed, especially since few among the less fortunate
have the temerity to stand up and speak their minds as I have.
>After all you, who've described yourself
>as impoverished sexually, only aspire to the affluence you attribute
>to me.
Actually, I do not aspire to your kind of affluence. Were I to have a more
satisfying sex life, I'd figure out how to parley that into more inclusion for
more people. In short, I'd figure out how to get more people laid rather than
taunt them with what I have and they don't.
>I have what you haven't. Maybe at other times, you have what I
>haven't. That's life.
Besides musical talent, what do I have that you haven't? You have sight, for
Christ's sake, which I never will have.
>Just because I am female and you are male
>doesn't invalidate my right to free expression of my so called sexual
>affluence.
You care more about your free expression than the people it may hurt. I care
more about not hurting people than freedom of expression.
>In fact, I suspect that it is this gender thing that riles
>you. You think because I am female I have to shut up about my
>sexuality because you as male are not getting any. True?
Not at all. I'm suggesting that you curtail your discussions of sexual exploits
to environments where you are among equals, people who've had lots of
satisfying sex. Every other aspect of society functions this way; when it
doesn't, riots erupt because people get tired of being taunted with what they
can never hope to have.
Orlando
Dave
Enrique Fiol <of...@verizon.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>Elizabeth <erate...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>Interest. Plain and simple.
>
>Have you verified that tales if your sexual exploits are interesting to anyone
>other than you? If so, what precise interest do they hold for others?
Well I, for one, have certainly enjoyed reading about sexual experiences
that others have had. I've enjoyed sharing my own on occasion too.
Let me go on record as saying that if anyone in this newsgroup wants to
share their experiences of anything sexually related, I'll enjoy the
read even if it's not something that I would personally want to try.
Heck, I might even learn something.
So let it be know that from today, going back as far as Google Groups
goes and for ages forth until the last usenet server goes offline or my
death, I degree that she and anyone else has so verified their tales are
interesting and desired.
There, that should end the discussion, right? Orlando?
>>What I get out of sharing my sexual enjoyment is the same sort of
>>thing as what I get out of sharing my pleasure in a delicious meal or
>>a lovely painting or a fantastic concert. I do it because I like
>>sharing my pleasure.
>
>There is a crucial difference. One could theoretically share with you or at
>least recreate the same meals or appetites that gave you initial pleasure,
Uhh huh.
>whereas you likely will not permit your male interlocutors to recreate your
>past sexual experiences
You could recreate the experience she shared with your own partner, no?
>with you.
Oh there it is.
>Therefore, your pleasure in sex is laced with deprivation.
So in a cooking newsgroup all participants must be willing to cook and
serve their creations with all other participants in order to be allowed
to tell others about their experience?
>>I do not, by the way, get aroused by sharing my
>>experiences nor get aroused by reading others experiences.
>
>What then do you vicariously get out of hearing about others' experiences?
>Information? Education?
Both? How about just plain old enjoyment? One need not get aroused to
variously enjoy another's experience anymore than one need get kicked in
the balls to laugh at Bobby kicking his dad in the balls on King of The
Hill.
>>This lack of sexual arousal does not mean I cease to be interested in my own
>and others' experiences.
>>
>I know, for you, interest is a mere abstraction with no ensuing obligatory
>behaviors.
Correct. This is just like watercooler talk at the office. Our CEO
brags about his new car but yet doesn't pass around the keys. I brag
about my new laptop but buy anyone else one. One of my coworkers tells
us about his recipes, but doesn't bring samples.
Once in a while I cook one of his recipes up myself. Sometimes we
arrange to rent a sports car. Heck, I've even had sex in ways that I'd
previously only read about on usenet.
I, for one, am grateful that people share their interests, and I'm
grateful I can share mine without being obligatory behaviour both here
and in "the real world"
>>Nobody who is overtly sensitive about sex has to read the posts on
>>ssg. The web is gigantic and you are free to go anywhere you choose.
>>If you don't like it here, go away.
>
>Of course, that is your solution. Restraint, modesty or sensitivity are never
>viable options for you; all you suggest is that if I or other "sexually
>sensitive" souls don't like how the mighty Elizabeth discourses on her
>pleasures, we can go away.
You're suggesting that those who don't like the mighty Orlando's views
on what is acceptable discussion can go away. What's the difference?
>>So what you're saying is that a woman cannot express anything about
>>her sexuality just in case someone out there in la la land thinks she
>>is deliberately taunting him? Get real.
>
>I'm saying that women should select their sexual discussion company more
>selectively.
If she were posting in, say, a newsgroup devoted to cooking, then I
would agree that there might be a more appropriate time/place. As long
as she's in a group that is devoted to talking about sexuality, I'm
having trouble conjuring up a problem.
>It might, for instance, be better for women to write frankly about
>their sexuality solely in the company of other straight women.
But yet you insist on being able to share your opinions freely (and in
mixed company!)
>>Typical markers of affluence being what? Talking about sex? This is
>>what we do on ssg. We talk about sex. Fortunately this is the 21st
>>century and women are able to openly talk about sex, and thank
>>goodness for that. At least now there is a greater equality at work
>>and we can express what we like and don't like.
>
>What is the point of so much talk? Are people having more or better sex than
>they did before talking so damned much? Is the world a more sex positive place
>than it used to be? Are more people being sexually excluded or included?
Well, I'll put this on the table right now. Several years ago I had an
absolutely miserable sex life, between a combination of phimosis causing
pain, a general lack of experience and shyness, a variable-but-often-low
sex drive combined with an interest in kink.
Talking with people in this newsgroup helped me identify some of my
problems and work through them, especially with regards to a couple
issues that aren't particularly easy to get non-conflicting information
about online. This has helped me to understand that I'm not alone,
understand some of my own sexuality and work through some problems,
forming a positive approach to sex, and I've had some absolutely
fantastic fun out there in the real world that I didn't have before
dealing with my problems.
So yes, people are having better sex then they did before talking here.
Might I have ended up in the same place without this group? Sure. If
it wasn't here it might have happened somewhere else. But you just
might read there too and get just as offended that people are talking
about sex in a group designed for talking about sex over there.
Maybe you should grow up, take responsibility for what content you
expose yourself to and move on with your life?
>>After all you, who've described yourself
>>as impoverished sexually, only aspire to the affluence you attribute
>>to me.
>
>Actually, I do not aspire to your kind of affluence. Were I to have a more
>satisfying sex life, I'd figure out how to parley that into more inclusion for
>more people. In short, I'd figure out how to get more people laid rather than
>taunt them with what I have and they don't.
Well again, I'll take the time to thank this group for sharing their
experiences and helping me have a more enjoyable sex life.
I'm a little annoyed that no one took the time to taunt me back then,
but what can you do?
>>I have what you haven't. Maybe at other times, you have what I
>>haven't. That's life.
>
>Besides musical talent, what do I have that you haven't? You have sight, for
>Christ's sake, which I never will have.
Why must you constantly flaunt your musical talent in front of those of
us who are tone-deaf? Jeeze.
>You care more about your free expression than the people it may hurt. I care
>more about not hurting people than freedom of expression.
So as a musician, you never play any music unless you're certain that
the entire world will appreciate it despite the fact that only those who
choose to hear it will hear it?
How do you accommodate deaf people with your art? How about people with
different tastes?
>>In fact, I suspect that it is this gender thing that riles
>>you. You think because I am female I have to shut up about my
>>sexuality because you as male are not getting any. True?
>
>Not at all. I'm suggesting that you curtail your discussions of sexual exploits
>to environments where you are among equals, people who've had lots of
>satisfying sex. Every other aspect of society functions this way; when it
>doesn't, riots erupt because people get tired of being taunted with what they
>can never hope to have.
Yeah this is true. People never talk about movies in the company of
those that can't afford to see every new movie as it hits theatres. Or
about fast cars in front of those that take the bus. I bite my tongue
at the office and avoid talking about a certain TV show because one of
the guys has child support payments and a ton of debt and can't afford
HBO.
Oh wait.
Lusus Naturae
>I've had it suggested to me that women who express their pleasure as
>sexual beings are doing it to taunt men. How many men actually think
>this?
I can't say what the number or percentage may be. It seems to me that
any man who indulges this misconception must approach the situation with
negative feelings about female sexuality and female liberation already
in place. I see nothing, here or elsewhere, that would lead to that
conclusion, absent an established prejudice.
--
Lusus Naturae
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth <eratedr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >Interest. Plain and simple.
>
> Have you verified that tales if your sexual exploits are interesting to anyone
> other than you? If so, what precise interest do they hold for others?
Well, yes. I have had valuable conversations with people here on ssg.
That sexual discussion from a woman is deemed by you as deliberatively
provocative is not shared by every single man who reads ssg.
>
> >What I get out of sharing my sexual enjoyment is the same sort of
> >thing as what I get out of sharing my pleasure in a delicious meal or
> >a lovely painting or a fantastic concert. I do it because I like
> >sharing my pleasure.
>
> There is a crucial difference. One could theoretically share with you or at
> least recreate the same meals or appetites that gave you initial pleasure,
> whereas you likely will not permit your male interlocutors to recreate your
> past sexual experiences with you. Therefore, your pleasure in sex is laced with
> deprivation.
My, or any other women's, accounts of sexual pleasure is - again -
not posted here to titilate you, so the idea that it is "laced with
deprivation" has nothing to do with it.
>
> >I do not, by the way, get aroused by sharing my
> >experiences nor get aroused by reading others experiences.
>
> What then do you vicariously get out of hearing about others' experiences?
> Information? Education?
I am, as always, interested in other people's experiences of the
world. This allows me to start some kind of communication with them.
Interest is the starting point for discussion.
> >This lack of sexual arousal does not mean I cease to be interested in my own
>
> and others' experiences.
>
> I know, for you, interest is a mere abstraction with no ensuing obligatory
> behaviors.
Nope. You are taking my words out of context. I said I am interested
in discussion that does not inevitably lead to actual physical
encounters. {I note here, for the benefit of other ssg readers, that
Orlando and I have been running this conversation off line for awhile.
I am glad we get to speak online, because I suspect this idea of
women, on line, deliberately taunting guys who aren't getting any sex
is part of a shifting sociological phenomenon and some men like
Orlando are stuck in the dark ages and it's a good idea to say these
things communally.}
>
> >Nobody who is overtly sensitive about sex has to read the posts on
> >ssg. The web is gigantic and you are free to go anywhere you choose.
> >If you don't like it here, go away.
>
> Of course, that is your solution. Restraint, modesty or sensitivity are never
> viable options for you; all you suggest is that if I or other "sexually
> sensitive" souls don't like how the mighty Elizabeth discourses on her
> pleasures, we can go away.
Well, that solution is a bleeding obvious one. "Restraint, modesty or
sensitivity" are ridiculous concepts to hold to when discussions about
sexuality *are* happening on line. I mean to say, why stick around
when you are offended. My recommended course of action for you is not
to criticize those who continue to hold such discussions, but to go
away. If you don't like my presence, don't read my posts. I am a
small voice among many. Who really cares whether you read my posts or
not. I don't care one iota. My raison d'etre does not depend upon you.
>
> >So what you're saying is that a woman cannot express anything about
> >her sexuality just in case someone out there in la la land thinks she
> >is deliberately taunting him? Get real.
>
> I'm saying that women should select their sexual discussion company more
> selectively. It might, for instance, be better for women to write frankly about
> their sexuality solely in the company of other straight women.
So women's voices are not valuable ones, in your view? Would you
prefer us to cover our faces, ankles, and wrists as well to preserve
your propriety?
>
> >Typical markers of affluence being what? Talking about sex? This is
> >what we do on ssg. We talk about sex. Fortunately this is the 21st
> >century and women are able to openly talk about sex, and thank
> >goodness for that. At least now there is a greater equality at work
> >and we can express what we like and don't like.
>
> What is the point of so much talk? Are people having more or better sex than
> they did before talking so damned much? Is the world a more sex positive place
> than it used to be? Are more people being sexually excluded or included?
Talk is part of what us humans do. Talk is what we all do. What's the
point? A sense of community.
>
> >Sexual affluence? Maybe, but what's the problem with that?
>
> The same problems associated with financial greed, gluttony, drug addiction and
> other forms of dissipation.
So, I am sexually affluent, eh? Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I am not
depriving anybody of anything in my enjoyment of sex (unlike those who
practice financial greed). As for gluttony, well, having sex
occasionally (once or twice a week) is not an over indulgence (at
least one guy is enjoying it with me). It's not as though I am
spending all day of every day wallowing in sex.
>
> >I am here and I talk about sex.
>
> What a manifesto!
Yeah, pretty good, eh. A really simple thing, really basic. I think
you've got it, by jove.
>
> >I'm not swayed by your ramblings that I am
> >taunting the less fortunate.
>
> Of course, you would be unswayed, especially since few among the less fortunate
> have the temerity to stand up and speak their minds as I have.
You've spoken endless about it. Whinged, really, and still you go on
and on and on about it. Why?
>
> >After all you, who've described yourself
> >as impoverished sexually, only aspire to the affluence you attribute
> >to me.
>
> Actually, I do not aspire to your kind of affluence. Were I to have a more
> satisfying sex life, I'd figure out how to parley that into more inclusion for
> more people. In short, I'd figure out how to get more people laid rather than
> taunt them with what I have and they don't.
Oh gawd. The victim line again.
>
> >I have what you haven't. Maybe at other times, you have what I
> >haven't. That's life.
>
> Besides musical talent, what do I have that you haven't? You have sight, for
> Christ's sake, which I never will have.
Actually I have musical talent as well. You are accustomed to making
many assumptions, just because you choose to ignore the validity of
other people's positions.
> >Just because I am female and you are male
> >doesn't invalidate my right to free expression of my so called sexual
> >affluence.
>
> You care more about your free expression than the people it may hurt. I care
> more about not hurting people than freedom of expression.
>
Oh really? Your constant invalidation of other people's (including my
own) stance on the world negates your so called interest in other
people. The other people you are actually only interested in are those
who agree with you.
> >In fact, I suspect that it is this gender thing that riles
> >you. You think because I am female I have to shut up about my
> >sexuality because you as male are not getting any. True?
>
> Not at all. I'm suggesting that you curtail your discussions of sexual exploits
> to environments where you are among equals, people who've had lots of
> satisfying sex. Every other aspect of society functions this way; when it
> doesn't, riots erupt because people get tired of being taunted with what they
> can never hope to have.
What, and get off ssg? Ssg is the perfect environment to talk about
these things.
Lusus Naturae
>I have often wondered what sexually adventurous women get out of
>recounting their experiences to men with whom they never will have
>sex.
And it never occurs to poor Orlando (whom I do not address because he
refuses to read replies from males) that men who are not potential sex
partners are the safest and easiest for women to talk to on sexual
subjects.
> And I wonder what men get out of participation in these conversations.
Ditto. It's a non-stressful way to get the woman's point of view. I
have little doubt that most of the males reading here are quite hopeful
that Elizabeth and the rest of the women participants will express their
attitudes toward sex frankly and fully. That's a good part of what
brings us here.
>I've never felt aroused by the act of sharing sexual experiences or
>hearing about those of others. I get aroused by actually having
>sex with someone who desires me.
And for Orlando, there is no point in any of this other than sexual
arousal. He sees "Sex" in the title of the newsgroup and cannot
conceive that it can mean anything other than "here is a sexual
playground especially provided for you." Surely no one could be here
discussing sex who wasn't doing it for the sole purpose of getting laid.
>Usenet is an inherently difficult forum for frank discussions
>about sensitive topics because you never know who's lurking or how
>they'll react when they participate.
Nor do we need to concern ourselves. Usenet is the perfect place for
frank discussions of sensitive topics because it is strictly a buy-in
venue and the reactions of those who don't care to read or participate
in such topics are completely immaterial and ignorable.
> However, I find it interesting that a number of socially accepted
>taboos reign on SSG. A fan of incest or bestiality would likely
>receive chilly receptions here.
Which indicates how selective Orlando's reception and memory of SSG
content is. We very recently had a discussion with someone who was
frank about his interest in bestiality, and there was no chill in the
responses he got.
>I think a bit of sensitivity toward the less sexually affluent can
>go a long way toward dissolving rage and resentment.
This is, of course, utter nonsense. Such "sensitivity" would go a long
way toward eviscerating the group. The subject matter here is human
sexuality. This includes female sexuality. It even includes the
sexuality of females who frankly express their pleasure in their sexual
experiences. That's the way it is; that's the way it's supposed to be.
No puling call to "sensitivity" from those with inadequate interpersonal
and social boundaries should, or is likely to, change it.
--
Lusus Naturae
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Well, yes. I have had valuable conversations with people here on ssg.
>That sexual discussion from a woman is deemed by you as deliberatively
>provocative is not shared by every single man who reads ssg.
Why don't we take a vote if lurkers are willing to emerge and weigh in?
>My, or any other women's, accounts of sexual pleasure is - again -
>not posted here to titilate you, so the idea that it is "laced with
>deprivation" has nothing to do with it.
The deprivation is not aimed at me in particular; it is aimed at all the men on
SSG as being unsuitable for sexual connections outside the group.
>I am, as always, interested in other people's experiences of the
>world. This allows me to start some kind of communication with them.
>Interest is the starting point for discussion.
But if you have no real intentions of meeting these international denizens in
person, what is the purpose of all this sacrosanct discussion?
>Nope. You are taking my words out of context. I said I am interested
>in discussion that does not inevitably lead to actual physical
>encounters.
Yes, I get that. I am asking whether it has ever occurred to you that such
abstract discussion can hurt real human beings?
>{I note here, for the benefit of other ssg readers, that
>Orlando and I have been running this conversation off line for awhile.
>I am glad we get to speak online, because I suspect this idea of
>women, on line, deliberately taunting guys who aren't getting any sex
>is part of a shifting sociological phenomenon and some men like
>Orlando are stuck in the dark ages and it's a good idea to say these
>things communally.}
Your sexist slander is far beneath a woman of your scholarly sagacity. I am by
no means trapped in the dark ages. For millennia, oppressed women around the
world have been suffering at the hands of men who refused to contain their
sexual impulses and view women as more than sexual objects. But by boasting
about sexual exploits, today's women merely fuel the very objectification that
feminism's third wave sought to irradicate. You and women like you are so
intoxicated by this illusion of newfound freedom that you fail to realize that
it's a trap. The best, most humane response to centuries of patriarchal
domination is not a feminist backlash in which women wield all the sexual power
and use it for the psychological torture of men. The best solution to this age-
old conundrum is for people to start having real discussions about sexual
desire without power brokering. No one likes to feel like their feelings don't
count, whether it's an innocent young girl treated like a piece of meat or a
smart man ignored for a lifetime.
>Well, that solution is a bleeding obvious one. "Restraint, modesty or
>sensitivity" are ridiculous concepts to hold to when discussions about
>sexuality *are* happening on line. I mean to say, why stick around
>when you are offended?
Why should anyone attempt to educate or inspire people's hearts to build a
better society? Are things in optimal condition now, with nations full of
sexually frustrated men and women, each imprisoned by dichotomous dogmas that
keep them from connecting?
>My recommended course of action for you is not
>to criticize those who continue to hold such discussions, but to go
>away.
There is no chance of that, darling Elizabeth. I am entirely within my rights
to critique the tone or content of any usenet post that provokes me, so long as
I do not insult or defame.
>If you don't like my presence, don't read my posts. I am a
>small voice among many. Who really cares whether you read my posts or
>not. I don't care one iota. My raison d'etre does not depend upon you.
Yes dear, that's the way. You get so much out of life by reminding people that
they mean nothing to you. Is that what you're trying to accomplish?
>So women's voices are not valuable ones, in your view?
Of course. But any voices have to choose their contexts wisely and speak where
their contributions are of greatest value. I would likely not enrich the lives
of construction workers with lectures on neo-Riemannian transformational
analysis of nineteenth-century chromatic harmony. It's not that my insights are
globally valueless; it's that they are most valuable to musicians and music
theorists. Similarly, your cherished freedom of sexual self expression is
probably most valuable to women who need to know that they can indeed go after
their own erotic gratification without feeling sinful or dirty.
>Would you prefer us to cover our faces, ankles, and wrists as well to preserve
>your propriety?
Have you ever heard Muslim women talk about how covering empowers and protects
them against unwanted sexual advances? Women like you fail to see that if the
problem all along has been unwanted and unwelcome sexual attention from men,
boastful self expression only exacerbates it.
>Talk is part of what us humans do. Talk is what we all do. What's the
>point? A sense of community.
Abstract community that doesn't make anyone's life concretely better?
>So, I am sexually affluent, eh? Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. I am not
>depriving anybody of anything in my enjoyment of sex (unlike those who
>practice financial greed). As for gluttony, well, having sex
>occasionally (once or twice a week) is not an over indulgence (at
>least one guy is enjoying it with me). It's not as though I am
>spending all day of every day wallowing in sex.
I never accused you of depriving people of enjoying more sex. I initially
questioned the policy of most female SSG posters to categorically refuse all
attempts at sexual connection via private email outside the newsgroup. That
categorically dogmatic stance does in fact deprive some men of more enjoyable
sex that we could be having.
>You've spoken endless about it. Whinged, really, and still you go on
>and on and on about it. Why?
>
I hope that some other men lurkers will read my words and gain courage to
contribute their own opinions in safety and trust.
>Actually I have musical talent as well. You are accustomed to making
>many assumptions, just because you choose to ignore the validity of
>other people's positions.
Alright, you have some musical talent. I however doubt you've ever played music
professionally or at a high level.
>Oh really? Your constant invalidation of other people's (including my
>own) stance on the world negates your so called interest in other
>people. The other people you are actually only interested in are those
>who agree with you.
My so-called invalidation of your sexuality does not hurt you in the slightest.
You entertain yourself with my apparently ignorant reactionary writing and then
move on. It seems that you remain delightfully unscathed, which reassures me
that I am not hurting you or anyone else.
>What, and get off ssg? Ssg is the perfect environment to talk about
>these things.
Says who? Who put you in charge of the determination of a perfect environment
for sexual discussion?
Orlando
Tom Allen
> I can't say what the number or percentage may be. It seems to me that
> any man who indulges this misconception must approach the situation with
> negative feelings about female sexuality and female liberation already
> in place. I see nothing, here or elsewhere, that would lead to that
> conclusion, absent an established prejudice.
I'd have to agree with this. It's only "taunting" if you beleive that
women *should* be available (or not) according to some arbitrary
rules.
--
Tom Allen
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth <eratedr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >Well, yes. I have had valuable conversations with people here on ssg.
> >That sexual discussion from a woman is deemed by you as deliberatively
> >provocative is not shared by every single man who reads ssg.
>
> Why don't we take a vote if lurkers are willing to emerge and weigh in?
You don't read the posts from men, and haven't done for a long time,
why are you suddenly interested in what men have to say on this group?
>
> >My, or any other women's, accounts of sexual pleasure is - again -
> >not posted here to titilate you, so the idea that it is "laced with
> >deprivation" has nothing to do with it.
>
> The deprivation is not aimed at me in particular; it is aimed at all the men on
> SSG as being unsuitable for sexual connections outside the group.
So you know the mind of all men, do you?
I learned a long time ago from primarily the women in this group
(thank you, you lovely women) that my early pronouncements about what
women like were enormously inappropriate; that what I wrote about were
my individual views entirely. I could not - and none of us can - speak
for entire populations. You cannot assume the responsibility either.
What you write, you write about and for yourself. That's it.
I note that you have been writing about me bandying about my sexual
experiences/exploits (to titillate you and the legions of readers of
ssg!!!), when in fact I've hardly contributed to ssg for several
years. So, this is the high and mighty Elizabeth of which you speak so
disparangingly; she who makes grandious pronouncements and she who
taunts you with her sexuality!
>
> >I am, as always, interested in other people's experiences of the
> >world. This allows me to start some kind of communication with them.
> >Interest is the starting point for discussion.
>
> But if you have no real intentions of meeting these international denizens in
> person, what is the purpose of all this sacrosanct discussion?
Why talk at all, that's your question really, isn't it? Talk is part
of our rich cultural experience and our means of sharing ideas.
>
> >Nope. You are taking my words out of context. I said I am interested
> >in discussion that does not inevitably lead to actual physical
> >encounters.
>
> Yes, I get that. I am asking whether it has ever occurred to you that such
> abstract discussion can hurt real human beings?
Ok, you're hurt by my abstract discussion. Get over it. Realize not
everything a woman says is aimed at you. I have no sympathy for people
who take offense in such a random way.
>
> >{I note here, for the benefit of other ssg readers, that
> >Orlando and I have been running this conversation off line for awhile.
> >I am glad we get to speak online, because I suspect this idea of
> >women, on line, deliberately taunting guys who aren't getting any sex
> >is part of a shifting sociological phenomenon and some men like
> >Orlando are stuck in the dark ages and it's a good idea to say these
> >things communally.}
>
> Your sexist slander is far beneath a woman of your scholarly sagacity. I am by
> no means trapped in the dark ages. For millennia, oppressed women around the
> world have been suffering at the hands of men who refused to contain their
> sexual impulses and view women as more than sexual objects.
>But by boasting
> about sexual exploits, today's women merely fuel the very objectification that
> feminism's third wave sought to irradicate.
I have not boasted about my sexual adventures (your word "exploits"
connotes your belief that my pleasure has been gained through the
denigration and exploitation of my male partners. I can assure we have
both enjoyed ourselves).
>You and women like you are so
> intoxicated by this illusion of newfound freedom that you fail to realize that
> it's a trap.
Only a perceived trap by you.
>The best, most humane response to centuries of patriarchal
> domination is not a feminist backlash in which women wield all the sexual power
> and use it for the psychological torture of men.
This is the grandious language of a tortured soul, wracked by
internal demons. It's the language of the paranoid, where the voices
of others feel to be directed entirely at you.
>The best solution to this age-
> old conundrum is for people to start having real discussions about sexual
> desire without power brokering.
Yes!!! Quite so, and this is what we are doing, male and female, on
ssg. Real discussions about sexual desire, without power brokering. It
is you who read the contributions of women (and me in particular) as
power brokering; you cannot contend with actual discussion at all. You
read everything we say as a power exploitation of you.
>No one likes to feel like their feelings don't
> count, whether it's an innocent young girl treated like a piece of meat or a
> smart man ignored for a lifetime.
Your feelings matter, but your delusions are just that.
>
> >My recommended course of action for you is not
> >to criticize those who continue to hold such discussions, but to go
> >away.
>
> There is no chance of that, darling Elizabeth. I am entirely within my rights
> to critique the tone or content of any usenet post that provokes me, so long as
> I do not insult or defame.
Critique, critique, critique. But listen, as well.
>
> >So women's voices are not valuable ones, in your view?
>
> Of course. But any voices have to choose their contexts wisely and speak where
> their contributions are of greatest value. I would likely not enrich the lives
> of construction workers with lectures on neo-Riemannian transformational....Similarly, your cherished freedom of sexual self expression is
> probably most valuable to women who need to know that they can indeed go after
> their own erotic gratification without feeling sinful or dirty.
Yeah, good eh. Women can indeed go after their own erotic
gratification without feeling sinful or dirty. This is a most
important message for women. Women have been subjected to the most
appalling dogma and have been, until now, unable (much too often to
speak about) to enjoy even their own bodies. It's an excellent
message.
>
> >Would you prefer us to cover our faces, ankles, and wrists as well to preserve
> >your propriety?
>
> Have you ever heard Muslim women talk about how covering empowers and protects
> them against unwanted sexual advances? Women like you fail to see that if the
> problem all along has been unwanted and unwelcome sexual attention from men,
> boastful self expression only exacerbates it.
Again, your huge assumption that women who write about their own
sexuality are doing it to boast, taunt and titilate victim men.
>
> >Talk is part of what us humans do. Talk is what we all do. What's the
> >point? A sense of community.
>
> Abstract community that doesn't make anyone's life concretely better?
If you have been reading the posts from men to this current thread,
you would have discovered that Dave, for instance, has found the
discussions on ssg very helpful in his personal life. Just read the
posts from men, and then decide what's what here.
.....
> I initially
> questioned the policy of most female SSG posters to categorically refuse all
> attempts at sexual connection via private email outside the newsgroup. That
> categorically dogmatic stance does in fact deprive some men of more enjoyable
> sex that we could be having.
We women sometimes like actual discussions about things, including
sexuality, outside the newsgroup. I, for instance, have on occasion,
quite enjoyed it. I have not enjoyed being emailed repeatedly with
demands I talk privately about my sexuality, just because I have
contributed something to ssg and other forums. Openness in the
collective field is not an invitation to converse with individuals who
actually have other things going on in their lives. You do not have a
god given right to invade my, or any other woman's, personal sphere
just because we speak in a public sphere. And, Orlando, I write
generally here. This is not an arrow directed solely at you. An
analogy: a woman who wears a see-through blouse doesn't want to go to
bed with you specifically and you have no right to expect her to.
>
> >You've spoken endless about it. Whinged, really, and still you go on
> >and on and on about it. Why?
>
> I hope that some other men lurkers will read my words and gain courage to
> contribute their own opinions in safety and trust.
They may read your words, but do you read theirs? You have shown no
indication that you actually know the opinions of other men.
>
> >Actually I have musical talent as well. You are accustomed to making
> >many assumptions, just because you choose to ignore the validity of
> >other people's positions.
>
> Alright, you have some musical talent. I however doubt you've ever played music
> professionally or at a high level.
How do you know this? You don't. I was a cellist with a prominent
Australian symphony orchestra, playing professionally. I have been
described as a sometimes brilliant cellist. I no longer play publicly,
nor teach (as I used to), because I broke my hands and suffered nerve
damage to my left hand.So now I make music in other ways, and perform
sometimes as well.
>
> >Oh really? Your constant invalidation of other people's (including my
> >own) stance on the world negates your so called interest in other
> >people. The other people you are actually only interested in are those
> >who agree with you.
>
> My so-called invalidation of your sexuality does not hurt you in the slightest.
> You entertain yourself with my apparently ignorant reactionary writing and then
> move on. It seems that you remain delightfully unscathed, which reassures me
> that I am not hurting you or anyone else.
Yes, that's me in one. This does not mean, however, that your constant
verbiage indicates you are actually listening to anybody.
Communication is more that what issues from your mouth (or fingers);
it requires actually listening to other experiences from other people
and reconsidering your narrow, unfettered, views of the world. I have
attempted to listen to you; but you have not attempted to listen to
me, so ultimately we do not have a sufficient relationship for me to
actually care whether you like me or not.
>
> >What, and get off ssg? Ssg is the perfect environment to talk about
> >these things.
>
> Says who? Who put you in charge of the determination of a perfect environment
> for sexual discussion?
I don't assume the role of guardianship of ssg. I'm saying that if
you don't like what goes on here, why suffer? Why not just make your
life feel easier and go? Why do this to yourself? That's all I'm
saying.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>You don't read the posts from men, and haven't done for a long time,
>why are you suddenly interested in what men have to say on this group?
I'd simply like to know if I am alone in my view.
>I learned a long time ago from primarily the women in this group
>(thank you, you lovely women) that my early pronouncements about what
>women like were enormously inappropriate; that what I wrote about were
>my individual views entirely. I could not - and none of us can - speak
>for entire populations. You cannot assume the responsibility either.
>What you write, you write about and for yourself. That's it.
If I observe the same behaviors in scores of women, it is entirely fair to
generalize a bit.
>I note that you have been writing about me bandying about my sexual
>experiences/exploits (to titillate you and the legions of readers of
>ssg!!!), when in fact I've hardly contributed to ssg for several
>years. So, this is the high and mighty Elizabeth of which you speak so
>disparangingly; she who makes grandious pronouncements and she who
>taunts you with her sexuality!
I thought we were having an abstract discussion about sexual expression. Never
once did I request that you censor your self expression; I merely attempted to
ascertain the pleasure that posting brings you.
>Why talk at all, that's your question really, isn't it? Talk is part
>of our rich cultural experience and our means of sharing ideas.
Talk is fantastic when one also has a vividly visceral and palpable physical
life. Since too much of my life takes place within my imagination or solely
through words, I admittedly denigrate excess talk.
>Ok, you're hurt by my abstract discussion. Get over it. Realize not
>everything a woman says is aimed at you. I have no sympathy for people
>who take offense in such a random way.
My offense is not at all random; I've explained its causes and essence. I
believe that women could show much more sensitivity toward men who don't get
enough sex, perhaps talk a bit less or express themselves differently, or even
make themselves more sexually available.
>I have not boasted about my sexual adventures (your word "exploits"
>connotes your belief that my pleasure has been gained through the
>denigration and exploitation of my male partners. I can assure we have
>both enjoyed ourselves).
By exploitation, I was not referring to your male partners; I was referring to
the very objectification that arises from too much titillating talk about sex.
After a while, strangers will begin to think of you as little more than a
wanton slut, which would be an injustice to everything else you are as a
thinker.
>This is the grandious language of a tortured soul, wracked by
>internal demons. It's the language of the paranoid, where the voices
>of others feel to be directed entirely at you.
Rest assured that paranoia has never constituted part of my psychological
makeup.
>Yes!!! Quite so, and this is what we are doing, male and female, on
>ssg. Real discussions about sexual desire, without power brokering. It
>is you who read the contributions of women (and me in particular) as
>power brokering; you cannot contend with actual discussion at all. You
>read everything we say as a power exploitation of you.
You fail to see that discussion amongst unequal participants necessarily
connotes some sort of power brokering. If two people with identical
socioeconomic or educational backgrounds converse, one will not attempt to
wield power over the other. But if there is inequality between participants,
one person will lord what they have over the other, while the other will
develop envy and resentment. You cannot compare your sex life to that of an
overweight blind man. Perhaps, my situation would be ameliorated if I were
thinner, richer or sighted. But for now, I inhabit a certain body, earn a
limited income and have difficulty meeting women in the social spaces I
frequent.
>Your feelings matter, but your delusions are just that.
Show me that my feelings matter to you.
>Critique, critique, critique. But listen, as well.
We couldn't have this ongoing dialogue if I were not listening to your words
and sentiments.
>Yeah, good eh. Women can indeed go after their own erotic
>gratification without feeling sinful or dirty. This is a most
>important message for women. Women have been subjected to the most
>appalling dogma and have been, until now, unable (much too often to
>speak about) to enjoy even their own bodies. It's an excellent
>message.
I advocate female freedom in enjoying corporeal pleasures and you critique the
message as being wrong.
>Again, your huge assumption that women who write about their own
>sexuality are doing it to boast, taunt and titilate victim men.
Women who write boastfully about their sexual adventures know that men are
reading their accounts, men who may in fact be sexually frustrated and
unnecessarily triggered by these tales.
>If you have been reading the posts from men to this current thread,
>you would have discovered that Dave, for instance, has found the
>discussions on ssg very helpful in his personal life. Just read the
>posts from men, and then decide what's what here.
I'm glad for Dave's personal enrichment. I myself have derived no personal
enrichment from SSG discussions about sex with people who aren't fucking me.
>We women sometimes like actual discussions about things, including
>sexuality, outside the newsgroup. I, for instance, have on occasion,
>quite enjoyed it.
Goodness only knows how your more pleasant interlocutors approached you.
>I have not enjoyed being emailed repeatedly with
>demands I talk privately about my sexuality, just because I have
>contributed something to ssg and other forums. Openness in the
>collective field is not an invitation to converse with individuals who
>actually have other things going on in their lives. You do not have a
>god given right to invade my, or any other woman's, personal sphere
>just because we speak in a public sphere.
Email to an overtly posted address is not an invasion of any kind. Anyone who
wishes to keep her personal space entirely free from unsolicited email can post
to usenet using a scrambled or fake email address. I am not going to ask public
permission on this group to email anyone privately, as though I were a tender
child.
>And, Orlando, I write generally here. This is not an arrow directed solely at
you.
Perhaps.
>An analogy: a woman who wears a see-through blouse doesn't want to go to
>bed with you specifically and you have no right to expect her to.
Why else is she wearing the see through blouse in public? If she likes how she
looks in it, she could easily wear it at home or in the company of other women.
Therefore, if she wears it in front of male strangers, it means she wants them
to look and get at least moderately aroused. She may not want to go to bed with
her oglers, but she indeed wants them to stare.
>They may read your words, but do you read theirs? You have shown no
>indication that you actually know the opinions of other men.
This is nonsense. I have read men's SSG posts for more than a decade.
>How do you know this? You don't. I was a cellist with a prominent
>Australian symphony orchestra, playing professionally. I have been
>described as a sometimes brilliant cellist. I no longer play publicly,
>nor teach (as I used to), because I broke my hands and suffered nerve
>damage to my left hand.So now I make music in other ways, and perform
>sometimes as well.
Ah! Forgive me for assuming your amateur abilities. I tip my hat to this
brilliant cellist.
>Yes, that's me in one. This does not mean, however, that your constant
>verbiage indicates you are actually listening to anybody.
>Communication is more that what issues from your mouth (or fingers);
>it requires actually listening to other experiences from other people
>and reconsidering your narrow, unfettered, views of the world. I have
>attempted to listen to you; but you have not attempted to listen to
>me, so ultimately we do not have a sufficient relationship for me to
>actually care whether you like me or not.
What proof do you have that I've failed to listen to you? I'm participating in
this dialogue just as much as you, with as much concern for your views as you
seem to demonstrate toward mine. I may not agree with your positions, but I'm
indeed listening.
>I don't assume the role of guardianship of ssg. I'm saying that if
>you don't like what goes on here, why suffer? Why not just make your
>life feel easier and go? Why do this to yourself? That's all I'm
>saying.
Because I'd like a forum where I can talk about sex in ways that matter to me
and forge connections with interesting women as a result of public discussions.
SSG should recommend, as part of its charter, that only people in committed
relationships participate. It seems artificial to impose social boundaries upon
single people seeking social or sexual connections outside SSG. Most of the
popular online dating sites remain largely inaccessible to blind users, either
because of captcha screens, ads or constant refreshes. It is therefore not as
easy as you think for blind people to find alternate avenues to meet people.
Usenet, being text based, is a logical medium in which one would hope the blind
would operate on an equal footing to the sighted. Yet, with these reprehensible
boundaries imposed upon us, all we can do is have abstract discussions with
women who enjoin us not to "invade" their inboxes with even the most refined
and delicate email entreaties.
Orlando
suzeeq
> Elizabeth <erate...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> You don't read the posts from men, and haven't done for a long time,
> I read the portions of men's posts that women quote.
>
>> why are you suddenly interested in what men have to say on this group?
>
> I'd simply like to know if I am alone in my view.
If you'd bother to read the posts from other men, you'd know that you are.
Dave
Elizabeth
None of your private messages have been "refined and delicate email
entreaties"; they've been the wailings of an outraged individual who
tries to grab a person's attention just because she is a woman who has
previously posted to ssg and her talk publically of sex means she is
seen by him as ripe and ready for sexual talk and encounter with him.
suzeeq
Sorry, tagging onto your post because I missed this...
Oh geeze, I didn't see this BS before.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>None of your private messages have been "refined and delicate email
>entreaties"; they've been the wailings of an outraged individual who
>tries to grab a person's attention just because she is a woman who has
>previously posted to ssg and her talk publically of sex means she is
>seen by him as ripe and ready for sexual talk and encounter with him.
This again is utter nonsense. Our geographical distance and age difference
preclude sexual involvement.
Orlando
Elizabeth
Orlando, this problem of yours has been discussed many times over the
years and many women have rejected your advances and have written of
and complained about your insistent emails. I have a good memory.
Further, you tried your emailing tactic on me long before you knew my
age and geographical location.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Orlando, this problem of yours has been discussed many times over the
>years and many women have rejected your advances and have written of
>and complained about your insistent emails. I have a good memory.
Nowhere in those supposedly insistent emails did I actually insist on anything.
I never demanded sex from anyone; I merely expressed interest. If that's
insistence, I'm guilty as charged.
>Further, you tried your emailing tactic on me long before you knew my
>age and geographical location.
I knew your geographical location from your email address itself. I dare you to
produce an email from me wherein I demand that we have sex.
Orlando
Sagittaria
I have sympathy for your feelings of sexual deprivation but you are
handling it poorly. If reading about other people's affluence upsets you,
as it does me during times when I have nothing, then you need to stop
reading about it. You can choose what you expose yourself to.
I know you read music newsgroups. If someone posts a description of their
experience at a concert, do you assault them because they won't take you to
a concert too?
If they post a description of a delicious meal, do you insist that they
prepare it for you as well? After all, why would they be posting on
rec.food.chocolate-cake if they didn't intend to share chocolate cake with
the whole world? Maybe they should only write about it in the company of
others who are eating chocolate cake. But maybe, by posting in a newsgroup
with chocolate cake in the name, that's what they're doing, and you're the
one who doesn't belong there if you can't handle the content.
You are responsible for your own life. If you want better music, better
food, better sex, then get out there and get it for yourself. It is not
anyone's responsibility on usenet or the internet as a whole to provide it
for you.
To repeat, I can fully understand finding it painful to read about others'
affluence when I have none of my own. The solution is to stop reading. Stop
torturing yourself. I left the group for a long time. It is not your right
to ask others to give up their fulfulling lives simply because yours is not
as fulfilling.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I have sympathy for your feelings of sexual deprivation but you are
>handling it poorly. If reading about other people's affluence upsets you,
>as it does me during times when I have nothing, then you need to stop
>reading about it. You can choose what you expose yourself to.
I agree with that in theory and have never advocated censorship. On the
contrary, just as people should be free to express their sexuality as they see
fit, I should be free to react respectfully without being made out to be a pig.
>I know you read music newsgroups. If someone posts a description of their
>experience at a concert, do you assault them because they won't take you to
>a concert too?
I think your analogy doesn't hold because concert is a public event that I
could have attended if I were in the area and knew about it. Sex between two
people is generally not open to public viewing or participation. So even if the
music poster didn't invite me to that concert, I theoretically could have gone
if I lived in the area and knew about it. I couldn't do the same with someone's
sexual experiences.
>If they post a description of a delicious meal, do you insist that they
>prepare it for you as well? After all, why would they be posting on
>rec.food.chocolate-cake if they didn't intend to share chocolate cake with
>the whole world? Maybe they should only write about it in the company of
>others who are eating chocolate cake. But maybe, by posting in a newsgroup
>with chocolate cake in the name, that's what they're doing, and you're the
>one who doesn't belong there if you can't handle the content.
Again, someone who posts about their favorite chocolate cake presumably either
bought it somewhere or has a recipe, thereby opening the same experience to
anyone who can either prepare the recipe or purchase the same cake. People
don't generally accompany their posts about sexual experiences with recipes or
sources for others to duplicate those experiences. In this sense, the dynamic
is different from that of food or music-related newsgroups.
>You are responsible for your own life. If you want better music, better
>food, better sex, then get out there and get it for yourself. It is not
>anyone's responsibility on usenet or the internet as a whole to provide it
>for you.
Believe me, I don't sit around waiting for anyone to provide me with hot sex; I
use every avenue available to me to find partners and have even begun exploring
avenues I hadn't previously considered. I am quite proactive about my sexual
drought. It is that very proactivity that seems problematic to some women in
usenet.
>To repeat, I can fully understand finding it painful to read about others'
>affluence when I have none of my own. The solution is to stop reading. Stop
>torturing yourself.
I have done that periodically and it has helped chill me out. Still, I question
the entitlement of people who believe they should be free to do anything the
want regardless of whom it hurts. This is a broader philosophical question
regarding the limits of freedom. Granted, when it comes to usenet posts, it
could be argued that no one is intentionally hurting me and that I could easily
stop my pain by no longer reading. But that's an easy band aid solution.
>I left the group for a long time. It is not your right
>to ask others to give up their fulfulling lives simply because yours is not
>as fulfilling.
I never even suggested that people stop having sex just because I'm not getting
any. I simply request some understanding in allowing me to investigate
potential sexual connections with SSG posters after reading their posts. As
long as I do it respectfully and politely, using the email addresses with which
they post rather than tracking them down via internet searches, there should be
no problem. Just as people are free to post whatever they want, I am free to
email anyone I want; it's not against the law for anyone to email anyone else
in a noncommercial capacity. I question the artificial line of demarcation
prohibiting the formation of private connections between SSG members. No one on
food or music related newsgroups has ever explicitly prohibited me from
contacting them to discuss or exchange music or food. Yet when it comes to sex,
it is apparently forbidden for me to reach out via private email. All the
arguments that SSG is not a pickup joint pertain to public posts. The newsgroup
should not be cluttered with personal ads or sexual solicitations. However,
what transpires via private email between SSG posters falls outside the
newsgroup's purview and should be left there.
Orlando
Dave
Enrique Fiol <of...@verizon.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>Again, someone who posts about their favorite chocolate cake presumably either
>bought it somewhere or has a recipe, thereby opening the same experience to
>anyone who can either prepare the recipe or purchase the same cake. People
>don't generally accompany their posts about sexual experiences with recipes or
>sources for others to duplicate those experiences. In this sense, the dynamic
>is different from that of food or music-related newsgroups.
When people are posting about sexual experiences, they're giving you the
recipe to have the same sex yourself -- They're telling you what they
did, you can attempt to recreate it.
What you need is the ingredients -- Find yourself a willing participant
and go forth and enjoy!
Sure, it might not work out the same but then you might not be able to
bake the same chocolate cake that I made. Such is life.
Sagittaria
Sagittaria
news:MPG.278ec311e...@news.albasani.net:
> Sagittaria <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> You can choose what you expose yourself to.
>
> I agree with that in theory and have never advocated censorship.
On the contrary, you said that perhaps women should not describe their
sexual experiences here, but perhaps solely in the company of other women.
> Granted, when
> it comes to usenet posts, it could be argued that no one is
> intentionally hurting me
That is quite an admission on your part too, and I'm glad to hear you say
so.
> and that I could easily stop my pain by no
> longer reading. But that's an easy band aid solution.
It may not be the final solution (no historical reference intended), but
it's more than a band aid. It's probably a necessary first step while you
work out other issues.
> Just as
> people are free to post whatever they want, I am free to email anyone
> I want
That came out of left field. Up until now it hasn't seemed like that's what
you were arguing about. You've been saying people shouldn't post unless
they are willing to give you what they're posting about. That's unrelated
to letting you email them.
Email now and then is fine. But I think if you started emailing everyone on
a music group and asking for concert tickets, you'd soon find yourself
shunned. Think about it.
Elizabeth
Actually when you emailed me I was known under a different name and
used a non-geographical locatable email address. To you, I was an
available woman.
Dave
<no...@none.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>Exactly. (quoted for Orlando)
Thanks. :)
Oh, and btw, nice to see you around these parts again. You may also
consider this an offer for a cyber hug, if you would find it appropriate
:)
Sagittaria
news:cisai619240np9l6s...@4ax.com:
> Oh, and btw, nice to see you around these parts again. You may also
> consider this an offer for a cyber hug, if you would find it appropriate
>:)
>
>
Thank you, that would be awesome! :)
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Actually when you emailed me I was known under a different name and
>used a non-geographical locatable email address. To you, I was an
>available woman.
It's been so long ago that I don't recall the details. Perhaps, I thought you
were theoretically available when I first emailed you. But once I found out
your age and geographical location, I've never sexually propositioned you.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>On the contrary, you said that perhaps women should not describe their
>sexual experiences here, but perhaps solely in the company of other women.
The key word there being "perhaps". It was just an option that I entertained
while thinking out loud.
>It may not be the final solution (no historical reference intended), but
>it's more than a band aid. It's probably a necessary first step while you
>work out other issues.
I'll be the first to admit that I have sexual issues to work through. I'd
rather work through them with a willing, patient partner.
>That came out of left field. Up until now it hasn't seemed like that's what
>you were arguing about. You've been saying people shouldn't post unless
>they are willing to give you what they're posting about. That's unrelated
>to letting you email them.
That's because Elizabeth excerpted the self expression portion of our ongoing
conversation, which was really about possible off-group connections being
formed through SSG.
>Email now and then is fine. But I think if you started emailing everyone on
>a music group and asking for concert tickets, you'd soon find yourself
>shunned. Think about it.
You make it sound like sexual connections would only benefit me, as though my
asking for them resembles charity. I presume that every sexual partner I'd ever
have would benefit as much or more from our time together. Pity sex is not on
my agenda.
Orlando
I have no name
> Sagittaria <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>Email now and then is fine. But I think if you started emailing
>>everyone on a music group and asking for concert tickets, you'd soon
>>find yourself shunned. Think about it.
>
> You make it sound like sexual connections would only benefit me, as
> though my asking for them resembles charity. I presume that every
> sexual partner I'd ever have would benefit as much or more from our
> time together. Pity sex is not on my agenda.
I didn't mean for it to sound like that at all. I assume that attending a
concert with you would also be fun for all parties involved. But there's
still a right time and place to extend the invitation, and a wrong way.
Have you considered your local craigslist? Seems like targeting people who
are within 50 miles and have an interest in finding a sexual partner would
give better results than carpet bombing usenet, where 99.9% of posters are
neither.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Have you considered your local craigslist?
I've posted and responded to Craigslist posts for years, with little success.
I'm in a nonsexual open relationship, which decreases my appeal.
>Seems like targeting people who are within 50 miles and have an interest in
finding a sexual partner would
>give better results than carpet bombing usenet, where 99.9% of posters are
>neither.
You're probably right. But I don't carpet bomb female usenet posters,
especially on newsgroups that have nothing to do with sex. My communications
are always extremely respectful.
Orlando
Dave
<no...@none.com> was claimed to have wrote:
Well in that case **hugggs** How have you been? Where have you been?
How are ya? Take off any time for the holidays?
Sagittaria
> Sagittaria <no...@none.com> wrote:
> You make it sound like sexual connections would only benefit me, as
> though my asking for them resembles charity. I presume that every
> sexual partner I'd ever have would benefit as much or more from our
> time together.
I didn't mean for it to sound like that at all. I assume that attending a
concert with you would also be fun for all parties involved. But there's
still a right time and place to extend the invitation, and a wrong way.
Have you considered your local craigslist? Seems like targeting people who
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>I didn't mean for it to sound like that at all. I assume that attending a
>concert with you would also be fun for all parties involved. But there's
>still a right time and place to extend the invitation, and a wrong way.
Agreed. I contend that just because someone posts on SSG should not
automatically render them off limits for polite sexual invitations.
Orlando
Dave
This is true. However, just because someone posts on SSG should not
automatically render them in-bounds for sexual invitations either.
I wouldn't start soliciting every woman here any more than I'd start
soliciting every woman at the nearest coffee shop.
suzeeq
Very right, thanks Dave.
sue
Sagittaria
news:712ii65ooe4jfuljp...@4ax.com:
Exactly. Just because women in this group like sex enough to read the group
doesn't mean they are looking for partners.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Just because women in this group like sex enough to read the group
>doesn't mean they are looking for partners.
I never assumed that. But can it be that every single female poster or lurker
is not looking for sexual partners? What would be the odds of that? Also, why
is it apparently such bad form to inquire of a female poster whether in fact
she is open to a sexual relationship with me? All she has to do is say no and
we'll leave it at that.
Orlando
Dave
Enrique Fiol <of...@verizon.net> was claimed to have wrote:
Do you approach random women in coffee shops (or wherever else you go in
public) and ask for sex?
How about in food newsgroups, do you approach random women there to ask
for sex?
suzeeq
Well sex isn't being discussed that openly in coffee shops, it may be in
food groups. But just because the subject is discussed doesn't mean a
woman is open to a sexual relationship with ANYONE in that group or
elsewhere.
Dave
My point was more that it's a matter of politeness. While one may
technically be free to request sex from nearly anyone at any time, it's
generally regarded as impolite. At least to me, the fact that sex is
being discussed doesn't change anything.
Maybe that's just me?
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Well sex isn't being discussed that openly in coffee shops, it may be in
>food groups. But just because the subject is discussed doesn't mean a
>woman is open to a sexual relationship with ANYONE in that group or
>elsewhere.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around why women in satisfying sexual
relationships want to spend time discussing sex with strangers on newsgroups.
In an attempt to answer my own question, I realize that I thoroughly enjoy
discussing food and music even though I have very satisfying relationships with
both. But I think I'm not a person who inherently enjoys talking about sex for
its own sake. I enjoy talking about it only either as a prelude to it or as a
way of improving it through concrete information exchange. Some people
inherently enjoy sexual discussions for their own sake, without expecting any
concrete results.
Orlando
Tom Allen
> Orlando, stop being ridiculous, if you can.
OMG, even Sagi came out for this one! Hi Sagi!
> I have sympathy for your feelings of sexual deprivation but you are
> handling it poorly. If reading about other people's affluence upsets you,
> as it does me during times when I have nothing, then you need to stop
> reading about it. You can choose what you expose yourself to.
Not that Orlando Gloom will see this, but this is it in a nutshell.
Over the years, I've had email contact with a few people from this
group - both men and women - about mutually shared interests. It
usually goes like this:
Me: Hi, remember me from SSG? Can I ask you about herping the derp?
R1: Oh, hai Tom. Sure, that would be the derp that was herping blah
blah blah...
Me: Cool. etc., etc.
R2: Sorry, but if you don't mind, I'd prefer not to talk about my
derping.
Me: Okay, cool. Hope I didn't bother you.
Note that in the second case, I never came back, pleading my case,
accusing them of tempting me because of their openness on the group,
or insinuating that they owed me conversation. Any other reaction than
"I apologize, and will not further intrude on your privacy" is
inappropriate, period.
In fact, I'd say that this has been the pattern for most of my
interactions, both on and offline. I fail to see why this is so
difficult to understand.
--
Tom Allen
Gordon
[snip]
>
> Agreed. I contend that just because someone posts on SSG should not
> automatically render them off limits for polite sexual invitations.
>
From what I have read here, and in my view, it is rather the other
way around.
To me this ng is about SSG. Not about relationships between the posters.
This is a public area, and as such if one wishes to place ones boots under
another posters bed then ask them face to face.
The Internet has many URLs at which you can try ones luck at picking up
ones soul mate. Or a zipless fuck. (Erica Jong and Fear of Flying)
Gordon
> Sagittaria <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>Just because women in this group like sex enough to read the group
>>doesn't mean they are looking for partners.
>
> I never assumed that. But can it be that every single female poster or lurker
> is not looking for sexual partners?
Some of them, women, others, well: Orlando, you are not my type.
> What would be the odds of that? Also, why
> is it apparently such bad form to inquire of a female poster whether in fact
> she is open to a sexual relationship with me? All she has to do is say no and
> we'll leave it at that.
Bet on. You can not leave it here.
Gordon
> suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>>Well sex isn't being discussed that openly in coffee shops, it may be in
>>food groups. But just because the subject is discussed doesn't mean a
>>woman is open to a sexual relationship with ANYONE in that group or
>>elsewhere.
>
> I'm still trying to wrap my head around why women in satisfying sexual
> relationships want to spend time discussing sex with strangers on newsgroups.
> In an attempt to answer my own question, I realize that I thoroughly enjoy
> discussing food and music even though I have very satisfying relationships with
> both. But I think I'm not a person who inherently enjoys talking about sex for
> its own sake.
No, we discuss it as part of life, to spur the thought options.
> I enjoy talking about it only either as a prelude to it
It as in sex?
or as a
> way of improving it through concrete information exchange. Some people
> inherently enjoy sexual discussions for their own sake, without expecting any
> concrete results.
So be it. Enjoy flirting, for it is part of the human experience. As is sex.
Sagittaria
news:add2880c-51f2-48ba...@l24g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
> OMG, even Sagi came out for this one! Hi Sagi!
Hi Tom!
> Over the years, I've had email contact with a few people from this
> group - both men and women - about mutually shared interests. It
> usually goes like this:
>
> Me: Hi, remember me from SSG? Can I ask you about herping the derp?
> R1: Oh, hai Tom. Sure, that would be the derp that was herping blah
> blah blah...
> Me: Cool. etc., etc.
>
> R2: Sorry, but if you don't mind, I'd prefer not to talk about my
> derping.
> Me: Okay, cool. Hope I didn't bother you.
>
> Note that in the second case, I never came back, pleading my case,
> accusing them of tempting me because of their openness on the group,
> or insinuating that they owed me conversation. Any other reaction than
> "I apologize, and will not further intrude on your privacy" is
> inappropriate, period.
>
> In fact, I'd say that this has been the pattern for most of my
> interactions, both on and offline. I fail to see why this is so
> difficult to understand.
This is what I find odd. OEF has emailed me several times over the
years, with a comment on something I posted, in a similar way to what
you described. Sometimes I replied and sometimes not, and our brief
exchanges were never unpleasant. (The one time I was interested in
taking the relationship further, things quickly became unpleasant, but
that's a different story.) Still, I'm not sure what the furor is, other
than the fact that he seems to try to email every woman who posts.
Tom Allen
> Still, I'm not sure what the furor is, other
> than the fact that he seems to try to email every woman who posts.
The issues, as I understand it, is that he doesn't stop at polite
refusals; he becomes petulant, and often brings those private
discussions back to the newsgroups (this isn't the only group on which
he does this), and will reference those discussions when trying to
make a case that he can't possibly understand why women aren't
interested in sexxing him.
The thing is, he pulls this a few times a year on various groups, and
people get tired of listening to his whinging, and (more probably) his
claim that any woman discussing sex must be interested, and if
intereted, then why not with him? His comment upthread was most
enlightening:
> I'm still trying to wrap my head around why women in satisfying
> sexual relationships want to spend time discussing sex with strangers
> on newsgroups.
Come on, in 15, maybe 20 years he can't understand why women just want
to have safe, judgment-free, general discussions about sexuality in
general, in forums where they don't have to feel like every guy is
hitting on them? Puh-leeze.
--
Tom Allen
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>This is what I find odd. OEF has emailed me several times over the
>years, with a comment on something I posted, in a similar way to what
>you described. Sometimes I replied and sometimes not, and our brief
>exchanges were never unpleasant. (The one time I was interested in
>taking the relationship further, things quickly became unpleasant, but
>that's a different story.)
I've matured and would like to resume that discussion if you'll email me
privately.
>Still, I'm not sure what the furor is, other
>than the fact that he seems to try to email every woman who posts.
I don't understand the commotion either. Perhaps, there's something inherently
socially dubious about a blind man who is honest about seeking sexual partners.
So often in our society, men are supposed to pretend that we're not sexually
seeking at all, let alone scoping out multiple possibilities.
I'm in a nonsexual open relationship and therefore free to have as many
partners as I want or need. As it happens, I'm far from greedy and would be
ecstatic with one good partner. Most dating websites are extremely difficult
for me to use, either because of capcha screens without audio or Java-based
interfaces with which I'm supposed to send and receive messages. I avail myself
of my local Craigslist, but it is full of spammers, hookers and flaky game
players. In addition to all that, there are many women who evidently have a
problem with my situation, assuming they will function in my life as a mistress
or be involved in lying, cheating and deception. Of course, none of this is
true, but it's difficult to explain via email or telephone. I don't meet many
women in my graduate program or in other social situations. So forgive me for
using SSG as a possible means of striking up friendships or sexual
relationships. There are far worse sins in the world and I'm tired of being
condemned for politely and respectfully trying to solve my romantic/erotic
problems.
Orlando
Tom Allen
> Sagittaria<no...@none.com> wrote:
>> This is what I find odd. OEF has emailed me several times over the
>> years, with a comment on something I posted, in a similar way to what
>> you described. Sometimes I replied and sometimes not, and our brief
>> exchanges were never unpleasant. (The one time I was interested in
>> taking the relationship further, things quickly became unpleasant, but
>> that's a different story.)
>
> I've matured and would like to resume that discussion if you'll email me
> privately.
:eye roll:
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
Eric Troy
> Orlando Enrique Fiol <of...@verizon.net> wrote innews:MPG.278ec311e...@news.albasani.net:> > I agree with that in theory and have never advocated censorship.
>
> On the contrary, you said that perhaps women should not describe their
> sexual experiences here, but perhaps solely in the company of other women.
Hahahaha. Totally owned! :)
> > Granted, when
> > it comes to usenet posts, it could be argued that no one is
> > intentionally hurting me
>
> That is quite an admission on your part too, and I'm glad to hear you say
> so.
More importantly, I'm glad Sagittaria is back!
Orlando, meet Sagittaria, have you?
Ladies and Gentlemen, the lady who back when she was.. well, my age,
had the college graduate in me creaming my pants over her geek sex
code!!
woohoo!!
On topic: Men who _let_ themselves *feel* taunted have already
admitted defeat.
Men who feel attracted and attempt to capitalize on such are winners.
suzeeq
> On Jan 6, 1:28 pm, Sagittaria <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Orlando Enrique Fiol <of...@verizon.net> wrote innews:MPG.278ec311e...@news.albasani.net:
>>> Sagittaria <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>> You can choose what you expose yourself to.
>>> I agree with that in theory and have never advocated censorship.
>> On the contrary, you said that perhaps women should not describe their
>> sexual experiences here, but perhaps solely in the company of other women.
>
> Hahahaha. Totally owned! :)
>
>>> Granted, when
>>> it comes to usenet posts, it could be argued that no one is
>>> intentionally hurting me
>> That is quite an admission on your part too, and I'm glad to hear you say
>> so.
>
> More importantly, I'm glad Sagittaria is back!
> Orlando, meet Sagittaria, have you?
> Ladies and Gentlemen, the lady who back when she was.. well, my age,
> had the college graduate in me creaming my pants over her geek sex
> code!!
> woohoo!!
Wasn't that illecebra?
> On topic: Men who _let_ themselves *feel* taunted have already
> admitted defeat.
> Men who feel attracted and attempt to capitalize on such are winners.
Right you are.
Eric Troy
> I've had it suggested to me that women who express their pleasure as
> sexual beings are doing it to taunt men. How many men actually think
> this?
>
> Speaking for myself entirely, I write only of my sexual enjoyment
> because I want to share this. I have no interest at all in taunting
> anybody. So, I put this question out there for comment from men or
> women.
Good Lord, 53 messages in a thread on SSG nowadays.
Let me guess, it takes Orlando Magic genius to stir that up!?
R.e.s.p.e.c.t Man!
About the topic of woman taunting.. did anyone see it from this
perspective:
Some men read what the woman wrote, and they are the ones who
_let_ themselves *feel* taunted. They start endless diatribes
blablablablabla...
Other men read what the woman wrote, and they feel attracted to her,
they let her know respectfully that they find her interesting.
Some happen to hit it off with her, others don't, such is life.
Whether her initial intention had been to find one or more mates or
not is all
along really irrelevant.
Life goes on. Where's the problem?
Neil
> Elizabeth <eratedr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >I've had it suggested to me that women who express their pleasure as
> >sexual beings are doing it to taunt men. How many men actually think
> >this?
<snip>
> I think a bit of sensitivity toward the less sexually affluent can go a long
> way toward dissolving rage and resentment. Elizabeth's position on sexually
> frank discussion displays the typical markers of affluence; she wants to be
> able to discuss her sexuality without it being negatively received as taunts.
> But how can the less sexually affluent be expected to react to such brazen
> displays of everything we wish we had? Are we not allowed to express our
> longings without incurring wrist slaps?
Orlando, you seem to be saying that you'd prefer not to read about
Elizabeth's sexual experiences because you're not getting any. It
looks to me like Elizabeth is saying that I have a right to write
whatever I want, and is interpreting what you said as you attempting
to control what women can and can't do. Maybe I'm missing the long-
term context of your threads on SSG, but going only by what you've
written here, it sounds to me like you would also object to men
writing accounts of experiences that you don't believe are available
to you. Is that correct? Or is it specifically that you don't want
to read what some women choose to write, but men would be okay? It
seems like it is being assumed here that you only object to accounts
by women, but it isn't obvious to me that this is what you intended.
While I think anybody should be able to write whatever they want here,
and disagree with you on that, it's not useful if people are forming
an interpretation of your writing that isn't correct. In other
contexts I would agree with you - I do think it should be kept out of
workplaces and know that women as well as men can feel harmed or
offended by such things there.
Neil
(giong back to lurkdom, and occasional glancing here from google
groups! Yay, the spam seems to be gone!)
Neil
> Elizabeth <eratedr...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> I think a bit of sensitivity toward the less sexually affluent can go a long
> way toward dissolving rage and resentment. Elizabeth's position on sexually
> frank discussion displays the typical markers of affluence; she wants to be
> able to discuss her sexuality without it being negatively received as taunts.
> But how can the less sexually affluent be expected to react to such brazen
> displays of everything we wish we had? Are we not allowed to express our
> longings without incurring wrist slaps?
Assuming my previous message gets through moderation, I just thought
I'd add that I didn't mean any aspect of it to be demeaning to you,
I'm actually quite sympathetic to your feeling of poverty. I have
been single for a long time myself. I've also recently starting
spending time around people with various disabilities, as a volunteer,
and it has made me think about how socially isolating many
disabilities are, and how many are in a state of wanting sex, but,
realistically, could end up going through the rest of their lives
without ever being able to find anything that resembles a normal
relationship to an "able" person, or being able to attract anybody to
them that they find physically attractive. That said, I think
blindness is less disabling than, say, being bound to a wheelchair,
and with limited control of your body - your worldview and psychology
are more disabling to you than your blindness, and that's something
you share with many seeing people.
When I see your posts I often think that you have a very rigid way of
viewing the world and have a strong sense of how things _should_ be.
People often respond telling you that this isn't how it is, but you
seem to disregard that and continue to focus on how things should be.
It's probably more useful for you to accept that your model isn't
accurate and adjust to how other people actually are. If lots of
people are telling you that they don't want you to do something, don't
try and force a logical justification out of them, just recognise that
it isn't a useful thing for you to do them, and do something else.
People don't behave the way you want them to - accept it, and it
might bring you closer to your goal.
N
suzeeq
He doesn't want to read about men's experiences, only women's.
> While I think anybody should be able to write whatever they want here,
> and disagree with you on that, it's not useful if people are forming
> an interpretation of your writing that isn't correct. In other
> contexts I would agree with you - I do think it should be kept out of
> workplaces and know that women as well as men can feel harmed or
> offended by such things there.
>
> Neil
> (giong back to lurkdom, and occasional glancing here from google
> groups! Yay, the spam seems to be gone!)
Please post more often Neil, we need all the posters we can get.
sue
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Orlando, you seem to be saying that you'd prefer not to read about
>Elizabeth's sexual experiences because you're not getting any.
You might interpret it that way on the surface. I'm ultimately questioning the
value of sexual discussion, especially to people who get too little sex in
their lives.
>It looks to me like Elizabeth is saying that I have a right to write
>whatever I want, and is interpreting what you said as you attempting
>to control what women can and can't do.
I'm not trying to curtail anyone's freedom; I'm simply trying to spark a
discussion about the meaning of sexual expression, particularly to women with
satisfying sex lives. What do they get from posting here about their sexual
tastes and experiences? Is it catharsis or titillation?
>Maybe I'm missing the long-term context of your threads on SSG, but going only
by what you've written here, it sounds to me like you would also object to men
>writing accounts of experiences that you don't believe are available
>to you. Is that correct? Or is it specifically that you don't want
>to read what some women choose to write, but men would be okay?
Men would be okay for me because I don't desire men sexually. But if I were gay
or a heterosexual woman, I might have the same problems reading men's graphic
sexual posts.
>It seems like it is being assumed here that you only object to accounts
>by women, but it isn't obvious to me that this is what you intended.
I admittedly have some trouble reading explicit posts from women about their
sexuality if I'm not going to get the chance to have sex with them.
>While I think anybody should be able to write whatever they want here,
>and disagree with you on that, it's not useful if people are forming
>an interpretation of your writing that isn't correct. In other
>contexts I would agree with you - I do think it should be kept out of
>workplaces and know that women as well as men can feel harmed or
>offended by such things there.
I agree that there should be a safe space for consenting adults to discuss
anything legal. The problem with usenet is that people post selfishly without
considering how certain readers will be affected by their posts. Were this a
face-to-face discussion group, greater effort would be taken to make sure
everyone feels safe and comfortable discussing sex. It is assumed that just
because this newsgroup is sexually oriented, everyone must feel equally
comfortable discussing sex in the same ways. I'm genuinely interested in how
other sexually deprived men cope with women's sexually explicit posts. Perhaps,
my issues are unique pathologies.
Orlando
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>He doesn't want to read about men's experiences, only women's.
Thus far, I haven't found most male posters' experiences that relevant to my
life. But that doesn't mean men shouldn't post.
Orlando
suzeeq
>
> I agree that there should be a safe space for consenting adults to discuss
> anything legal. The problem with usenet is that people post selfishly without
> considering how certain readers will be affected by their posts. Were this a
> face-to-face discussion group, greater effort would be taken to make sure
> everyone feels safe and comfortable discussing sex. It is assumed that just
> because this newsgroup is sexually oriented, everyone must feel equally
> comfortable discussing sex in the same ways. I'm genuinely interested in how
> other sexually deprived men cope with women's sexually explicit posts. Perhaps,
> my issues are unique pathologies.
Selfish...? If you're not comfortable reading or discussing sex then you
shouldn't be here. Same way that a person would excuse themselves if a
real life discussion group made that person uncomfortable.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Selfish...? If you're not comfortable reading or discussing sex then you
>shouldn't be here. Same way that a person would excuse themselves if a
>real life discussion group made that person uncomfortable.
You're assuming that it's the uncomfortable person's responsibility to excuse
themselves rather than the group's responsibility to make that person feel safe
and welcome. I find that stance ironic because women on this newsgroup had
repeatedly expressed that my friendly and polite email solicitations make them
uncomfortable. According to them, it's my job to stop immediately. What would
happen if I applied your logic?
Orlando
Dave
Enrique Fiol <of...@verizon.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>>Selfish...? If you're not comfortable reading or discussing sex then you
>>shouldn't be here. Same way that a person would excuse themselves if a
>>real life discussion group made that person uncomfortable.
>
>You're assuming that it's the uncomfortable person's responsibility to excuse
>themselves rather than the group's responsibility to make that person feel safe
>and welcome.
The point of this group is to discuss sexuality, so discussions about
sexuality are by definition, appropriate and on topic. If you aren't
interested or are offended by that which is normal behaviour in this
newsgroup then you should find a place more suited to your particular
needs.
Seriously dude, you're at a scifi convention telling everyone that they
can't talk about scifi unless they someone gives you free DVDs.
Tom Allen
Apparently, you haven't found most women's posts relevant, either. Just
entertaining.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. However, I am known to be a carrier.
Tom Allen
LOL!
Neil
> Neil <neilsfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I agree that there should be a safe space for consenting adults to discuss
> anything legal. The problem with usenet is that people post selfishly without
> considering how certain readers will be affected by their posts. Were this a
> face-to-face discussion group, greater effort would be taken to make sure
> everyone feels safe and comfortable discussing sex. It is assumed that just
> because this newsgroup is sexually oriented, everyone must feel equally
> comfortable discussing sex in the same ways. I'm genuinely interested in how
> other sexually deprived men cope with women's sexually explicit posts. Perhaps,
> my issues are unique pathologies.
Yes, if this was a face-to-face group people might be more sensitive
to the state of others, and might choose to withhold things they
otherwise wouldn't. But that's not what it is, and I don't think
that's a bad thing - people feel safe to say whatever they want to
here. SSG lets people say things they might not say amongst the
mainstream culture of their neighbourhood. If everybody was required
to adjust to the comfort level of the least comfortable, then the
group would be less valuable. People are already censoring their
discussions in everyday life, so what is the benefit of the same, or
more, here? I don't think an assumption is being made that everybody
is equally comfortable discussing sex, it is just that open discussion
is valued over self-censorship. And there is no practical way to
simultaneously minimise self-censorship while maximising the comfort
of people that are uncomfortable. Furthermore, how is the group to
know who is the least comfortable person here - a recent comment of
yours suggests you are okay with discussing homosexuality - that might
have been enough to drive away some.
I'll put my hands up and say I'm sexually deprived - though not a
virgin, I'm definitely an outlier in sexual experience, given my age
and the culture I've grown up in - there are many varied reasons for
this. But I cope fine with sexually explicit posts here. Perhaps if
you are blind, then part of the problem is that your only exposure to
sexuality is through verbal communication. Without a long-range, high-
resolution, non-invasive, sense, you don't get exposed to sexuality
whenever you go out on the street. Every day I catch the bus to work
I see a couple kiss before one of them gets on the bus. Sometimes
there's a particular young couple who get on who can't seem to keep
their hands and mouths off each other. There are dozens of good-
looking women, and sometimes one may choose to sit beside me.
Occasionally somebody will deliberately make eye-contact. Sometimes
their hair is still wet from the shower they had ten minutes before.
There's a chance I'll even see a woman reading about hypercomplex
numbers in "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose - in which case I
would find her hot, whatever she looks like, and even if she didn't
brush her teeth that morning*. Walking home from the bus stop there's
sometimes a runner in short shorts that mold to her arse - she smiles
at me as she passes. These elements of life with a sexual component
are normalised so that I almost don't notice them, or more accurately
I do notice them, but my mind shifts to thinking about other things a
few seconds later - it doesn't lead to extended contemplation - it's
just common everyday experience. I would quickly become a pest if I
treated all of these things as an invitation to communication.
Perhaps that lack of everyday experience that sighted people have,
even if they are sexually deprived, helps to distort your perception
of the reasons for why people write some things here.
I would read SSG when I was a virgin though, and I think what I read
here helped me become more comfortable when I did have sex, and
afterwards the person I was with remarked on how comfortable I seemed
to be, and how "normal" I seemed, when they expected me to be more
broken. So I've found explicit writing here useful.
N
* This has never happened, and admittedly I would quite possibly try
to start a conversation with such a woman - but maybe give her a mint
to make it more comfortable for me.
Sidney Lambe
> On Jan 25, 2:58=C2=AC=E2=80=A0am, Orlando Enrique Fiol
> <of...@verizon.net> = wrote:
>
[delete]
> There's a chance I'll even see a woman reading about
> hypercomplex numbers in "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose
> - in which case I would find her hot, whatever she looks like,
> and even if she didn't brush her teeth that morning*.
[delete]
> N * This has never happened, and admittedly I would quite
> possibly try to start a conversation with such a woman - but
> maybe give her a mint to make it more comfortable for me.
>
My current girlfriend doesn't wear any makeup or chemicals, never
shaves anything, and rarely showers, I love smelling and feeling
an animal, rather than some misguided woman who is trying to
pretend she isn't at animal.
"People who think they are better than animals live worse than
animals." -Carlos Castaneda
These women who shave their crotches and legs and underarms and
shower 5 times a day and coat themselves in chemicals, leave
me cold. I'll never go back.
If you let the smell of food on some woman's breath turn you
off, then you are going to have a very rough time of it.
A sensible guy who's been doing without ignores petty things
like this. He doesn't insult the woman and try to control
her by forcing her to eat a mint.
Spoiled rotten little boys often go without for that very
reason.
--
Sidney Lambe - Evergreen
Solitaire Wiccan Priest - Spellsinger Wicca
usenet4444 (AT) gmail (DOT) com - http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb