/baw/ General Discussion Archived Board plus4chan home [baw] [co/cog/jam/mtv] [coc/draw/diy] [pco/coq/cod] [a/mspa/op/pkmn] [Burichan/Futaba/Greygren]
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 377043)
Password  (for post and file deletion)

Currently 0 unique user posts.

  • 08/21/12 - Poll ended; /cod/ split off as a new board from /pco/.

File 13674465576.jpg - (17.79KB , 402x402 , Sigmund-Freud-9302400-1-402[1].jpg )
377043 No. 377043
We're going to give this a shot, since a vigorous discussion derailed >>375124. A (mature) discussion on sexuality, fetishes, "feelings", etc. Discuss yours, ask questions about others, advice, etc.

This is not an image dump. Examples (of legal content) are okay, but only when necessary and remember to use the NSFW image when it applies. Mark links NSFW when prudent. No need for explicit details. Global rule 1A applies heavily.
Expand all images
>> No. 377056
I have been doing self exploration/meditation for many years and have found extraordinary facts about my own mind. For example, part of the mind (I refuse to use "brain" here) that has to do with liking people and the part that has to do with sexy stuff are linked closely together for some reason. I DON'T KNOW WHY, but it is something I discovered.

Now, of course I cannot prove that, but I guess you can just explore your own mind and find out for yourself.
>> No. 377058
>people generally want to be physically intimate with people they have romantic feelings towards
No kidding?
>> No. 377064
... you had to discover that? And you can't think of why that might be? Really?

Consider me baffled.
>> No. 377069
Have you ever seen Third Rock From The Sun?
>> No. 377071
Anon from other thread. Apologies for the side-tracking, that was not my intention.

The reason I agonized over this was that I know I'm not asexual. I have a low sex drive, and more things to me are turn-offs than turn-ons, but I am interested in sleeping with someone at some point, it's just that there's been things that have guided me into being hesitant and/or making me want to push those kinds of thoughts out of my head when they do arise.

I'm hesitant to be touched in general because I've been bullied. It's been a few years, but sometimes when people get too close to me or touch me, my reaction is that they're going to hit me. Adding to that, my parents never talked about sex with me beyond "don't have sex", not knowing who online was giving good advice or not, knowing several people who are close to me who were all molested by family or family friends, and having a string of exes who broke up with me because they said "Look, we're going to have sex when I say we're going to have sex, I'm not going to wear a condom, and I'm going to decide what we do," and I wouldn't consent to that. So I'm still a virgin, although my aforementioned psychologist is giving me the "just do it, you wimp, don't be a baby" speech.
>> No. 377074
I think you need a different psychologist.
>> No. 377077
My parents pay for me to go see her, I don't have a choice in the matter, unfortunately. She's good with advice for other things, this is just one thing I don't agree with her on.

She does have a point in that me hoping for someone to have sex with who will wait for several months until we know each other well and will be willing to take it very slow and romantic may be asking too much.
>> No. 377078

tits or butts
>> No. 377080
Butts. Always butts.
>> No. 377081
I have no idea why, but I always put myself in the girl's position in porn.

I'm not even gay/bi. Or at least I don't think so.
>> No. 377082

I think you're missing the point. See, people (and men ESPECIALLY) are supposed to be perpetually horny and both willing and able to have sex with absolutely anyone who is remotely attractive at the drop of a hat. Having sex on the first date is practically expected, if not demanded; if not, then certainly by the third date. Keep in mind, this is after you've known that particular person for maybe 9-10 hours. Your conversations probably haven't progressed beyond your job and the weather.

For some people, like myself, this is just not possible. I need to grow a deep, fulfilling friendship with someone over at least several months before I would even consider starting to be sexual with them. Trying to have sex on the first date will do nothing except make me uncomfortable and not in the least bit aroused. The fact is, that person is not even attractive to me yet; I cannot be attracted to a person without developing a friendship (well, at least not adults...).

This makes "dating" impossible. I can't tell a guy that we need to "date" for four or five months before I'm even going to want to kiss him. I'd get a laugh and a wave goodbye. The ones who are particularly secure about their willpower would last a week, maybe two. Especially when most guys (especially of the homosexual variety) are firmly in the "sex first, feelings later" camp, it's not a reasonable expectation.

I'm not a flamboyant fag in any sort of way. Nobody, not even other gay men can tell I am gay unless I outright say it, and even then some people do not believe me. Nevertheless, I'm starting to realize that I am 100% like a stereotypical woman when it comes to sex. I need to develop a relationship before being attracted; love and sex are not only correlated but conflated — I can't have sex unless I'm in love, and sex results in feelings of love; I prefer cuddling to fucking; it takes me a rather long time to become aroused; it takes me an ungodly long time to reach orgasm; most guys just can't please me; I can be satisfied by sex/masturbation even if I don't have an orgasm; sometimes I'm just not "in the mood"; I loathe the idea of anything but complete monogamy; I only want sex, at most, only once or twice a week; did I mention that I'd rather just cuddle...?

Sex isn't really about pleasure for me, probably because nobody's ever been able to even come close to making me really enjoy myself. Rather, it's a form of security. It's my way of making sure someone that makes me feel loved and secure and safe doesn't go somewhere else. I don't understand romance, and I'm not subtle. If I do whatever it takes, even ignoring my own needs, to ensure that you have a mind-blowing climax, that means I love you. That means I really love you.

I don't even have a good reason for all this.
>> No. 377083
You are incorrect
>> No. 377084
"Liking" in the most general term possible. Not even talking about romance or affection.
>> No. 377087
I think that describes almost everyone, though. I damn sure find people I don't respect less attractive even if they have nice bodies or pretty faces, and find people whose body type or faces I would normally not be attracted to much more attractive once I start to respect them or enjoy their company. I thought that's just how it works.
>> No. 377088
I am not saying there is logic behind it. For example, if you play with an average dog too aggressively, it will start biting you for real. That is because the "play" and "kill" centers are closely related.

That might be one of those "imperfections" of the mind.
>> No. 377093
As someone studying behavioral science who started their career in pedophilia anything.
>> No. 377094
Do hips really move on their own?
>> No. 377096
File 136747055259.jpg - (16.39KB , 244x182 , B&R_highfive.jpg )
Oral sex is pretty great. Giving and receiving.
>> No. 377099
Like you started as a pedophile or you started in the study of pedophiles?
>> No. 377102
Ninja, I have to level with you: Pedophilia is not you how start conversations.
>> No. 377103

>they said "Look, we're going to have sex when I say we're going to have sex, I'm not going to wear a condom, and I'm going to decide what we do," and I wouldn't consent to that.

I don't know who you are, I don't really know anything about you, but I'd just like to say that I'm proud of you.

>She does have a point in that me hoping for someone to have sex with who will wait for several months until we know each other well and will be willing to take it very slow and romantic may be asking too much.
>See, people (and men ESPECIALLY) are supposed to be perpetually horny and both willing and able to have sex with absolutely anyone who is remotely attractive at the drop of a hat. Having sex on the first date is practically expected, if not demanded

...Does it kinda piss anyone else off that this is a hard thing to find? Because it pisses me right the fuck off.

I mean, you hear about how just over half a century ago everyone was super monogamous and behaving otherwise was shameful, and how it was REALLY looked down on to have sex with someone you haven't been with for a long time. And that was bad. I don't think people should get 'shamed' if they like going out and having sex. Sexual liberation is good, forced celibacy is bad. Sure, that's fine.

But it feels like we've swung too far the other way. It's weird if you don't spend your young adult life having as many one night stands as possible. It's weird to lose your virginity to the person you marry. You're considered weird if you're a virgin, and that doesn't just apply to men anymore. Why the fuck is that stuff weird? What is not perfectly okay about any of that? Why is there a fucking stigma against even the smallest modicum of abstinence? Is this just my area? Is this just college? It's probably just college.

Maybe everything I'm saying is way off, but this seems to be the way everyone who isn't a parent or devoutly religious thinks. Maybe I just think this way because I've never gotten to first base with a girl, and the resulting inferiority complex along with the huge feeling of missing out just makes me vilify sex a ton, so this all just seems magnified to me.
>> No. 377104
Most people are monogamous and don't usually hop into bed for a quick fuck with anyone willing to do it with them. People like that certainly exist and are probably more common in certain social circles, but they are far from the overwhelming majority.

If you think otherwise, that's your raging virginity talking.
>> No. 377105
I hate the attitude surrounding most people's views on the 'friend zone', or at least the attitudes I've seen on places like 4chan. It seems as if people only search out others of their preferred gender only for sexual release these days and, if you're not into that, you're going to get left in the dust. It's really quite terrible for people like >>377071 and >>377082, who need more than five minutes to become comfortable with the thought of bumping uglies.
>> No. 377106
>I hate the attitude surrounding most people's views on the 'friend zone', or at least the attitudes I've seen on places like 4chan.
>Taking 4chan seriously
Well of course they have that attitude, just look at their most trusted new source, the infamously reliable Onion, or their favorite pundit, well known conservative Stephen Colbert!

(you might be doing something wrong)
>> No. 377107
>(you might be doing something wrong)
I probably am.
>> No. 377108
PRO TIP: Everyone is doing everything wrong all day, erryday.

But seriously, I see nothing wrong with getting to know someone before jumping into bed with them, and anyone who would criticize you for that is probably not worth your time.
>> No. 377109
Now you all have me confused over how sex and relationships are supposed to work. Aren't people just supposed to talk about what they want out of a relationship and if they can come to an agreement try and make it work?
>> No. 377110
guys who would wait and show actual interest like that are rare but out there. Meeting people is always difficult; intimate relationships require knowledge and trust of a person outside the bedroom before they ever get in the bedroom. More over, to become intimate with someone for a long time means that you will become part of their lives; even fuckbuddies are somebodies, and nobody outside of a few emotionally unstable weirdos actually suck on random genitalia thrust through crude holes in bathroom fixtures.

Men, in general, seem to have higher sex drives. This is linked to testosterone, found in both men and women but mostly at accordingly lower levels. Transgender and people undergoing gender reassignment therapy provide a unique window into this; injecting testosterone is the one thing that probably will, reliably and without fail, get anyone horny. There are some women who run hot like men naturally, but not very many. This is probably what lead to the demands of your exes. The thing about sex for a lot of guys is that the sex drive becomes pretty much part of your life after puberty and damned if your fucking penis almost didn't have a mind of its' own. Some guys let their mind wander too far and they achieve erections. "Turned On" is such an apt description for most guys cause the damned thing can be like a lightswitch.

Female sex drive is much lower on average and seems to be... Wound Up? Not sure that's the best description. It stays dormant more, and is tied into emotional state. This is not to say the pure physical intersection of genitalia is not pleasurable, nor that women are over emotionally excitable. If anything, they seem more sensible about relationships; moves that are at first oblique make a kind of sense when considered from alternate perspectives, such as children, sexual disease, future contact, and the all important "can I actually stand this person when we're not fucking".

All that said sex is... kind of not that big a deal while simultaneously being kind of a big deal? I mean, you've seen the diagrams I'm sure. The actual act is really quite mechanical, even with foreplay. Kissing and fondling and rubbing and massaging and licking and climbing all over the bed and all over each other. And all this in addition to, you guessed it, lots of rhythmic, repetitive thrusting and bracing. It's an unconventional workout, and as much fun as it is, you will tire out.

I think that's the real factor that misses from a lot of media and depiction of sex; Fun. We have all these horrible and serious notions about sex, about our bodies, about pregnancy, rape, hell even periods can be just horrific to women. But the thing is, the sex I've had that I really miss was the sex that was fun. Fooling around with someone who likes you, and you like them back, and you don't really need to push each others boundaries so much as get to know one another.

But it's about trust, and while spontaneity is fun, sometimes it has to be someone special, someone who can treat it just right for it to click.
>> No. 377112
Ladies: How important is size?
Gentlemen: How important is tightness?

>If you think otherwise, that's your raging virginity talking.

Okay, I figured as much. I really need to learn to shut the fuck up about things I know nothing about.
>> No. 377113
>Female sex drive is much lower on average and seems to be... Wound Up? Not sure that's the best description. It stays dormant more, and is tied into emotional state. This is not to say the pure physical intersection of genitalia is not pleasurable, nor that women are over emotionally excitable. If anything, they seem more sensible about relationships; moves that are at first oblique make a kind of sense when considered from alternate perspectives, such as children, sexual disease, future contact, and the all important "can I actually stand this person when we're not fucking".
In my experience, this is not true. Women do tend to tie emotion a little more into sex than men do, but I haven't noticed them to be noticeably less libidinous. The thing you have to remember is this: most men are terrible at having sex with women. Even with a good partner, orgasm through vaginal intercourse is relatively uncommon. So in many cases, a woman gets a much better return on investment (in terms of energy expended versus pleasure received) through masturbation than through sex with a male partner--leaving straight women in a bad situation. Add to that the fact that women who get involved with strange men are relatively likely to be raped or killed, and that society tends to judge a woman harshly for promiscuous behavior, and you begin to understand why women are more hesitant to engage in wanton casual sex than men, completely aside from whether or not they want to have it in the first place.

It's not so much that women don't want or desire sex as much as men (or even that they don't desire sex as often as men), it's that men and women's sexual needs are different, and their strategies for getting the most out of sex differ because of that.

Think of it this way: imagine you are horny as fuck, and that you meet a girl who is clearly dying to have sex with you. She's tripping over herself to do it. She's reasonably attractive but not that attractive, and she's kind of weird and doesn't really take care of herself that well, and she has the crazy eyes, like she might try to kill you in your sleep after sex. Also, you have a rare condition where you don't orgasm as easily as most men--instead, there's about a 99% chance even if you have sex with her, you're just going to get close to orgasm, then have to fake it and take care of yourself once she's gone home. And your friends are probably going to make fun of you for having sex with her later, and other women who you actually are attracted to might not want to have sex with you because they'll think you're less valuable now that you've slept with her. Do you still want to sleep with her? Or do you go home and knock one out watching porn then fall asleep?
>> No. 377122
>In my experience, this is not true. Women do tend to tie emotion a little more into sex than men do, but I haven't noticed them to be noticeably less libidinous. The thing you have to remember is this: most men are terrible at having sex with women. Even with a good partner, orgasm through vaginal intercourse is relatively uncommon.
This has less to do with technique and more to do with physiology, penetration has never been the ideal way to get a woman to orgasm.
>> No. 377124
File 136749905030.png - (501.65KB , 500x745 , tumblr_mcyyjvcTlp1qder5oo1_500.png )
I am pretty sure I just love everything.

Though for some reason I have acquired a dyed fingers thing recently, no idea why.
>> No. 377125
Also, anybody ever play the game where you try to imagine someone who is the summation of all your and your friends fetishes?

It's pretty funny and/or horrifying depending on who you are playing with.
>> No. 377126
I'm into body horror so it's not a fair game.
>> No. 377130
That makes too much sense.
>> No. 377132
I've recently gotten a thing for hands myself. Not dyed, just in general. Kissing palms and stuff.
I dunno, it's like it's so intimate that it's hot or something.
>> No. 377134
File 136750584429.jpg - (20.91KB , 442x480 , sensory brain activity.jpg )
I mean it makes sense if you think about it, like, 90% of how we experience the world is done through our hands and heads.
>> No. 377135
I've thought about why I like the furry fetish, and I think I've figured it out. It doesn't have to do with the actual concept of anthromorphic animals, or a feeling of community, or having to defend something, or dressing up in suits or going to cons. It's the symbol of fantasy: animals walking like man. And being the symbol of fantasy, it's the glue that binds weird fetishes together.

When I roleplay with someone, on IRC or whatever, I can't bring in strange fetishes like transformation or tentacles because it feels out of place. If you're on IRC, and you're not a furry, chances are you're a normalfag looking to get off on cam or whatever. You want to actually meet people, text them pics and shit. And when you roleplay, it's always boring real world situations, and they want normal sex ASAP. They always have terrible grammar, making everything they say a boner killer, and good luck trying to find ANY girl that'll even attempt to cyber with you. I've often had to pose as girls just to simulate the experience.

With furry roleplay I don't have any of that. Not only can I bring in weird fetishes without either of us feeling uncomfortable about it, but often roleplays have these elaborate situations where we're saving the world, making up our own characters, etc. They also most of the time are excellent at writing, and don't need or want to know anything about you. We're both living in a pretend world of fantasy and our fursonas just serve to remind us of that.

I guess I don't really have a point though.
>> No. 377136
File 136751123096.jpg - (29.55KB , 355x465 , lucasandcybersix.jpg )
I'm actually not a huge fan of monster cocks, but I'm a virgin, so maybe I may not be the best person to answer.

I don't like feet either, other than maybe getting a foot massage. Hands though, I really like.

I can deal with bug girls, alien girls, monster girls, and catgirls (and guys, for all previous examples), but nothing more than anime catgirl-level of furry.

Size kinks, too. Big buff guys, especially the intelligent, gentle variety, with smaller women or guys. (See pic.) Intelligence is a massive turn-on.
>> No. 377138
Women can orgasm using just their fingers. Don't worry about size, you can't change it. Worry about foreplay.

Oh right, everyone seems to fill the need to treat sexuality and relationships as some sort of arcane nonsense. Well, I suppose you have to treat something like that.

I like you.
>> No. 377139
File 136751772255.jpg - (48.85KB , 600x867 , 136411407746.jpg )
I am on board with you on size and intelligence.
>> No. 377140
I like a little bit of cushion, but not drooping/sagging. Given a binary choice, I'd take "healthy" over "tight".
>> No. 377142
File 136753190895.png - (400.19KB , 500x496 , tumblr_mm4u59giNF1rzv8gao1_500.png )
I don't think that's the tightness he means.

Tightness isn't as important as lubrication
>> No. 377145

In that case I have no idea. ;_;
>> No. 377151
I'm going to respectfully disagree about men and womens' sex drives being more or less equal and different. They are certainly different, but they are very unequal in intensity. It wasn't a Woman who first looked at a Goat and thought "I bet I could fuck that". And in places where prostitution is legal, or where studies have been done on it, the clientele for prostitutes is always overwhelmingly male. There are a few women buying in but they're really more exceptions than rules. This is also partly the reason that men are overwhelmingly more likely to be the aggressor in domestic disputes.

I'm not saying this to necessarily disagree with you. Women's sexual needs are different, and must be considered. But I think anyone who doesn't necessarily feel that high testosterone drive doesn't really know what it's like. Walking down a beach and not popping a boner can be an exercise in raw will power. If a girl is wearing a low-cut shirt with a lot of cleavage, you can get hard without even really meaning to. There are some girls who, reportedly, can go their whole lives even having sex, and not ever really have an orgasm. The number of guys like that is so small as to be nearly mythical. For the majority of men, once you hit puberty, that shit is on and suddenly every girl looks different; every girl makes you feel a little funny in the pants, even if everything else in the world is telling you it's a horrific idea (yes, even your mother, who not an insignificant number of men apparently think about during sex, although not necessarily in a sexual way). As the old adage goes, "now that I'm out, I just spend all my time trying to get back in".

To a lot of guys, the differences in sexuality between the sexes seems sort of obvious, even if they can't put their finger on why. Through repression, society, and just plain not having the kind of sex drive that makes you eye anything with a hole with curiosity, women seem, comparatively, to feel their sex drives less or to be able to shelf them more effectively. Even amongst gay men and lesbians, gay men tend to have much larger pools of partners than lesbians do (or at least, the minority that offsets this statistic have so many partners as to effectively skew the results), and it's reflective of how many people those men feel the need to go for.

Length is not that important, but Girth is apparently much more so. I can't find it right now but there's an image macro floating around dick rating threads on /b/ talking about how you only really need about 5-6 inches, and I believe this is fairly true. Spoilered for NSFW:
The last girl I was with was about 5'4. I'm about 6'2, and my penis is ever so slightly longer than the average at 7.5 erect. I'm not sure of her exact vaginal depth, but I was able to reliably hit her cervix both times we had sex. This actually caused her to bleed both times, and I only found out later from a friend of a friend that I'm actually a little oversized and that would had likely happened was that I had impacted her cervix, which can cause bleeding, discomfort and pain. I suspect she left because I'm a giant nerd, but a significant part of that was that it was physically painful for her to fuck me.

I've heard that girth is more important to women because it can touch more of the vaginal walls, and illicit more sensation. Not sure how much the point really matters; when an organ is designed to pass a baby through it, there is only realistically so much "tightness" one can really expect. The vaginal canal does seem to loosen and tighten, mostly through childbirth and exercise, respectively, and first times can be somewhat painful especially if you've never masturbated or tried any sex toys or other objects, or even if the mood isn't right (vaginal depth can reportedly be affected by arousal, and the vagina can make a little more room if the person expects a foreign object in there). But obviously, not necessarily enough to make room for something that is already a little longer than the vagina is.

Also, just as an aside, "doggy-style" is fairly great because you can get the deepest penetration but also holding the girl up seems to angle her g-spot right into the thrusting head of your penis, maximizing mechanical pleasure while using the buttcheeks to cushion the repeated blows.

I don't think it's weird to marry the person you lost your virginity to, I think it's weird to wait until marriage to lose your virginity. That girl in the black texted story? If we had found out these things about each other 3 months into a relationship, it would be terrible because as much as we like each other, I'd have to physically restrain myself from going too hard on her and she'd have to be careful of injuring herself on me. It wouldn't really be fun for either of us, much as we liked each other (and in hindsight we didn't like each other that much).

And it's not just that, but having sex and understanding sex are incredibly important to intimacy and incredibly important to understanding a lot about why the world is the way it is. I mean, try and watch this without cringing a little at the kiss:
Virgin Couple Shares First Kis…youtube thumb

Sexual experience is important. We have this whole culture trying to turn it into a sin, but fact is, you're never going to go wrong for knowing more about yourself and trying to learn more about other people, and sex is one of the the most enjoyable ways we do that. That doesn't mean you shouldn't wait for someone you like and trust, but know that one night stands aren't necessarily as huge a deal as everyone makes them out to be. Nothing bad stems directly from an available man and woman deciding to have a little extramarital hanky-panky; if their own marriage day ever comes, their partner will probably thank them for it.

I will however say that media concentration on promiscuity does nothing to help all this.
>> No. 377152
You're looking at things through a lens of modern popular culture. Look to history, and you'll see that women were once considered the more lustful sex. It was the entire basis of the irony in the plot of Lysistrata--women refusing to have sex with men to get concessions out of them was seen by the ancient greeks to be hilarious, because the very idea that a woman could go without sex was laughable.

Even in the victorian era, it was believed that if a woman didn't have regular orgasms, it would affect her health. The whole concept of "hysteria" was built around the concept that a woman's uterus (the latin word for which is "hysterus," as in "hysterectomy," and the root word for hysteria) would wander around her body and cause physiological and psychological problems if she didn't get laid. The vibrator was actually invented as a medical device that doctors would use on female patients to prevent hysteria, so vital did they consider regular orgasm to a woman's health.

So yeah, don't base your beliefs on female sexuality on the fact that men aren't getting laid or that women don't visit prostitutes.

Incidentally, I am male, and do know what Lust Induced Brain Freeze feels like--I also know that it's overstated, and comes mostly from men feeling like they're allowed to do it. A man openly lusting after a woman suffers no judgement for his behavior, and is even encouraged to do it, so men tend to let themselves basically just be huge assholes about it.

But here's the thing--women are better multitaskers, and they have better peripheral vision than we do. It's not that women aren't constantly checking dudes out or lusting over them. It's that when they do, they are entirely capable of maintaining a perfect poker face. Which they do, because they feel it is rude and reflects badly on them when they act like animals who have no control over their own bodies.

The difference you're talking about that seems intuitive to guys is intuitive because it's fed to us by culture. Guys just accept that we are the more sexual gender, and are more or less raised to think of sex as an adversarial transaction--"men want sex, women want intimacy, so if you want sex you have to convince women to give it to you." It is an unhealthy fiction and is the source of many men's difficulty in relationships.
>> No. 377159
I'm just basing my observations on what I feel and what I have observed. I am not necessarily encouraged to lust, or allowed it (if anything, most people seem against individual displays of lust), but I feel it, and sometimes I feel it when I really don't want to feel it. Women being more lustful is at odds with just about everything I have observed in life. This is not to say that they are not libidinous, but whatever the difference is, they seem to be able to hold that sexuality back more and are far less likely to go on sexual misadventures for the sheer hell of it. You're right about the dildoes; preliminarily googling suggests that Cleopatra even had a dildo stuffed with live bees for a comfortable buzz.

But if you tell me that the sex drives between sexes are two perfect equals merely limited by society and perception, I would say that that is patently not true. These drives aren't necessarily equal even between people of the same gender. That they exist on a parity is probably one of the most damaging assumptions you can make about sexuality; none of it is all the same, and frequently that difference comes down to the people involved. There's stuff that works for mostly everybody, but in aggregate, whether women lust as much as men or not, they seem much less likely to pursue it. This is not just supposition because "men don't get laid"; this is observable in most of the places we can observe it. Men do the fucking, overwhelmingly; sex crimes, domestic disputes, sex trafficking, even in advertising, sex sells doesn't necessarily appear just because all men are stupid and horny, it appears because that's probably what the person who designed it was thinking about, if he was male. And wouldn't you know a lot of men buy into that. That example of the man and the goat is so close to reality that I'm afraid to try and find an example. And contrast with things like Donkey Shows, where most of the acts are human male on female donkey and you have to drop a lot of money to see male donkey on human female.

So yeah, there's a lot of media depicting men as the only "sexual" beings and female sexuality is swept under the rug far too much. But I wouldn't say that perception is based in 100% falsehoods, insofar as what gets people going can vary a lot. I don't want to, myself, make too many assertions about what female sexuality is and isn't, because if I knew that, I hella wouldn't be here right now.

But the media in America has really put us in kind of a sexual dark ages in a lot of ways. I was actually given a sex ed class when I was in 5th grade (too young to really appreciate it, looking back). Upon learning of the insertion of Penis into Vagina, one of the students in my class asked "do they always fit together?"

My teacher, she blushed and giggled (a bit strange on a 40 year old woman) and said, "the parts have always lined up for me".

So either my teacher was purposefully holding back information because she was embarrassed, or she simply didn't know. And that second part is what I find colors a lot of peoples sexual experiences; they don't know. They don't know that genitalia doesn't always fit together. They don't know that some women have absolutely brutal, painful, arresting demon from hell periods that are literally only helped by birth control. And for sexuality being the same, that's one of the things we don't know. Every observable model we have points to them not being 1:1, the same. Now, models seldom survive contact with reality, but I don't think this is solely media exposure influencing my opinion.
>> No. 377162
i just wanted to talk about butts
>> No. 377163
See the secret is, if you can tell where the butt ends and the forearm begins, you need to go deeper.
>> No. 377165
The more I think about, the less sense something makes.

Why are we, (And a culture, and generally) Afraid of sex so much?

Violence, Sports, Gambling, Driving, Fights, are all generally glamorized in most forms of media. Power Fantasies and Role fulfillments of this sort can be shown on screen in great detail. But people going past second base on screen? Oh how terrible!

You can show a man gutting another, with all the blood and gore spilling out before your eyes. You can show people getting into a ring and beating each other till they are covered in blood and bones are cracked. But a cumshot from a handjob between two lovers? THAT is just Horrid!

I could go on and on, but just wanted to bring it up and see other people's thoughts. Why is "slut-shaming" still a thing, and who is to blame? It is a pleasure activity that generally harms no one. I even wrote a paper on it, that my Journalism Professor read aloud before a very shocked class. (After closing all the doors and checking the hallway for any other staff) She broke out into a giggle with this summary line.

"You can show two men blowing each-other's heads off, but you can't show two men blowing each-other."
>> No. 377170
Well, I hate to open this can of worms, but the easy answer is "Christians." And in parts of the world outside the United States, also Muslims (not that they're not present in the US, too, but they have less effect on policy in the US). Shame is a baked-in feature of the Catholic faith which filtered into the Protestant faiths, and in the parts of the world where the Christians hold sway, they spread their morals over everyone, regardless of whether those people agree with them. Sex-negativity seems to be largely borne out of that.

...there's also a whole line of thought regarding how sex shame makes it possible to stack the balance of political power in favor of men, but that line of thought doesn't convince me mostly because I don't believe anyone can really manage a conspiracy of that magnitude. I can see where the power shift brought about by making sex evil and setting up the belief that "women are wicked temptresses over men, who have no control over their own actions," rewards the men who uphold those standards, but I find it very difficult to believe that there are really any men out there who actually think to themselves "This is how we'll keep women down! Bwahahaha!"
>> No. 377173
File 136757315071.jpg - (113.38KB , 600x376 , science.jpg )
>I'm just basing my observations on what I feel and what I have observed
As a man I don't think you can have a complete picture of female sexuality. Especially because of things like sexism, which you don't experience, but women do.

All your examples are basically the result of men being in control. Rape is NOT about not being able to control your libido, it is about power. Domestic violence as well. Prostitutes usually cater to men because it's safer for men to go out looking for sex, and prostitution has a very long history of being a feminine profession which makes men more reluctant than women to become sex workers even in dire straits (anything to keep some shred of dignity, which you would lose if you lower yourself to a woman's position). Advertising is usually all about sexy women because it's usually men creating the ads. They are just selling the product based on what is attractive to them.

Most differences are based in social expectations of how men and women ought to behave, and how safe it is perceived. It is not biological. When propositioned directly for sex from an attractive person guys will agree to it relatively often (but not as often as being asked to go on a date or things like that) while women will virtually never respond in any positive manner. iirc I don't think any women responded well to being propositioned in that experiment or any replication of it. This isn't because women don't want sex or if they felt they were on equal ground, they wouldn't take a sexy dude up on the offer. It's because that, when a man comes up to them and asks them if they want to fuck, that sounds a hell of a lot of rape alarm bells, and it's scary for them to a degree that is definitely not felt by guys. In other scenarios that were less sexually aggressive, men and women both accepted at about the same frequencies.

There are biological differences of course, but they have more to do with stuff like what qualities they look for in a partner and attachment than how aroused they can feel or how often. Hormones also play a role, in that women are typically thinking about boning a lot more while ovulating (obviously) and during menstruation (which is honestly really strange and I don't know why your body would do this to you, but I was glad to find out this happens with a lot of women and not just me) and less so at other times in the cycle. Men don't have that flux but that does not mean that they are constantly running at the same level or higher that women can only manage for a few days a month. That's actually ridiculous. Silly boys. Of course the level of arousal also differs from person to person and seems to be attached to personality, so you will get men and women at each end of the spectrum, with both sexes averaging somewhere in the middle, but a bit closer to nymphomaniac than 100% asexual.

I am pretty sure a lot of men just assume women are never thinking about sex because a woman does not pitch a tent whenever she imagines hot naked dudes boning. What can't be seen probably isn't real (or at least not of concern), after all.
>> No. 377174
I think it is possible that, aside from the sexism angle (which certainly plays a part, consider the obsession with virginity and how marriages worked in ancient times), sex negativity has to do with sexually transmitted diseases. If stuff like syphilis was rampant in a community, it stands to reason the authority would try to make people have less sex with less sexual partners so that the disease will not spread. And of course, without antibiotics or effective barriers that prevent infection, STIs are a big deal. This might also be a reason why homosexuality was considered a sin, since it is easier to get infections through anal sex than vaginal. (They also probably considered it a sin because it was something the Romans were okay with, and they thought Rome sucked.)

>I find it very difficult to believe that there are really any men out there who actually think to themselves "This is how we'll keep women down! Bwahahaha!"
Yeah but it isn't a calculated or conscious thought. It's just something that's evolved within the structure of our society. Things don't always happen because someone willed them into existence.
>> No. 377175
File 136757823174.png - (216.27KB , 624x426 , daydream.png )
I must say you have good taste.
>> No. 377176
Goddamn Cyber Six was so good, I actually read the comics hoping for more of the same but they are basically two different characters though sexuality gets explored much more.
>> No. 377178
File 136758305247.jpg - (393.74KB , 709x946 , tumblr_mldf9xtk9j1qcl5svo4_r1_1280.jpg )
>Size kinks, too. Big buff guys, especially the intelligent, gentle variety, with smaller women or guys.
I actually really like this too.
It worked out pretty well for me, seeing as I'm like 6' and not exactly petit, and my girlfriend is 4'11".
Good Lord she's gorgeous.
>> No. 377179
File 136758374736.jpg - (24.33KB , 300x277 , joanna_wang-the_things_we_do_for_love-cover.jpg )
Oh yeah she is, I myself am scared of hurting small women so I prefer girls a little closer to my size than most and I so when I hear bigger women being criticized I lose it because I am so self conscious about my own size.

I should mention, voice is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE component of what I find attractive in a partner, in particular hearty feminine voices, for example somewhere between Eartha Kitt's booming and Joanna Wang's whispers.

eartha kitt, i want to be evilyoutube thumb

王若琳 Joanna Wang - Lemon Treeyoutube thumb
>> No. 377184
Ladies: are you into BDSM or some other form of domination? Giving or receiving?
>> No. 377186
Maybe it's because I'm so old and socially crippled by now, but I can honestly imagine myself not really enjoying sex should it ever happen. I do enjoy occasional porn, though.
>> No. 377198
>>men fap to lesbians and nobody bats an eye
>>women fap to gay men and supposedly that's disgusting

>> No. 377199
Wait says who
>> No. 377200
Women think men fapping to lesbians is disgusting too. Way more openly than the opposite.
>> No. 377201
Wait what?

Nothing wrong with a little man snuggles, in general even, forget anybody into it.
>> No. 377204
I said I liked shipping two dudes on a show that are very blatantly hinted at as to be gay, on a site that talks about gay pairings a lot anyways, and I got the response of "pig disgusting".
>> No. 377205
File 136762065323.jpg - (76.79KB , 463x400 , 134571897098.jpg )
That is dumb.
>> No. 377206
Probably because the paring was disgusting, not the concept of gay dudes.
>> No. 377209
>Yeah but it isn't a calculated or conscious thought. It's just something that's evolved within the structure of our society. Things don't always happen because someone willed them into existence.
Yeah, that's more or less what I meant. I don't believe in any conspiracy to make things work this way, but I can believe that people unwittingly perpetuate this thing because they are rewarded for doing so.
>> No. 377210
Razer/Hal is an awful pairing of course people would call it disgusting.
>> No. 377211
File 136762805511.jpg - (30.13KB , 400x300 , L_Light29.jpg )
Are you certain this wasn't a joke or troll attempt? What kind of site was this?
As someone who used to have a guilty pleasure for reading a lot of dirty fanfics, I can say that the amount of female-authored gay pairings compared to any lesbian pairings--or in many cases straight pairings--is often overwhelming. Though I suppose that one could argue that fanfic writing is a more female-dominated field, a lot of fandoms with fan-made content involving pairings, whether it be fiction or art, seem accepting of male-male pairings to the extent that they are almost treated as the norm, sometimes even moreso than straight or canonical pairings.

I don't mean to say that I know for sure the poster of that comment was a troll, but with a comment like that, I kind of get the impression that he was trying to get your goat.
>> No. 377217
Johnlock is a horrible pairing, you should feel bad for it.
>> No. 377224
>As a man I don't think you can have a complete picture of female sexuality
I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but being a woman, can you be sure that you have a complete picture of male sexuality?

I can tell you that, being a male raised in a somewhat bizarre environment in which my sexuality was seen as evil, I did everything humanly possible to restrain my libido, in my thoughts, speech, and behavior, but found it to be utterly impossible. This began to happen to me at a relatively young age (I suppose I was an early bloomer) an age before the world of sexuality begins to blatantly influence social behavior and my perceptions of how men and women differ in that aspect.

As much as I was brought up to detest my sexuality, and however many hours a day I spent meditating and praying and begging whatever higher power may exist for it would go away, it was impossible to ignore, and I was never able to really fully function without bringing myself to orgasm at least once a day or so.
I didn't find any of it related to social expectations, as my libido and shy personality remained a constant with and without moral pressures. It was all biological for me.

As an adult, I can say that my libido hasn't really decreased, and after some discussion about libido with some females, they conceded that it was never that difficult for them. Or perhaps these particular females just coincidentally had lower libidos.

By no means am I justifying any double-standards when it comes to male vs female sexuality, and I'm not saying that women don't have it hard in a lot ways, because you do. I just think that it's fair to say that, as a male who does everything in his power to respect women, it's still monumentally difficult to not be a complete horndog every hour of every day, to put it bluntly.

Or maybe I just fall on the nymphomaniac end of the arousal spectrum you mentioned, and my priest was right when he declared me to be a disgusting pervert.
I dunno. Probably.
>> No. 377226
I feel I have no real preference when it comes to types of women I find sexy. But I'm not sure if I like the term "no preference," because it sounds like it implies that I don't care, even though I do. It's more like I have a million preferences?... It's a bit hard to explain...

Like, if I'm shown a girl with long hair, I'll think "Oh man, long hair, that's so attractive!" And if you show me the same girl with her hair cut short, I'll think "Oh man, short hair, that's so attractive!" It's like whatever is right in front of me at the moment happens to be the greatest thing in the world. The same thought process repeats itself for other features, such as height, skin tone, race, body type, voice, etc.

Is that weird?
>> No. 377227

As people, we have a choice over how we conduct ourselves. As men, we don't have a choice conducting our libidos. Research has shown that we can be aroused on visuals alone; low cut blouses, bare legs, even blushes.

We talk about having two brains and it really is kind of like that. Male Sexuality has been championed in the media without true understanding. Nobody really wants to say "look you're gonna get a buttload of testosterone when you hit puberty and you are literally going to lose days to masturbation". And not everybody does, but for a lot of us the reality of the situation is woefully understated by any jokes about adolescent masturbation.

Female sexuality has been trampled upon and seemingly repressed wholesale. Sometimes I honestly wonder about the hate mail that prominent women in various kinds of media get; if it's not really driven by a deep down fear that, if we let them live to their full potential and blaze their own trails, then somehow we lose the ability to have sex. This is a false dichotomy; functional relationships and real people do not work like that, no matter how much media we are fed. But still, methinks they doth protest a bit much.
>> No. 377229
I dunno if they were serious or not. It might be my socially-inept nature, but I can't always tell, especially with complete strangers. The pairing was a crossover between two different fandoms, that might be why. Fandoms that tend to hint at gay romance in both, but ironically the one that hints at it far more blatantly has a fandom that's far more squicked by the idea that any of the characters could possibly be gay. Which is stupid. I think even if you don't care to see porn of them, hating the implication that the character would be any different than they are now if they came out of the closet is completely idiotic.

I do ship Johnlock (across all adaptions, not just BBC), but in a homoromantic/asexual way. Romantic, but there's no fucking going on. I can't see Sherlock fucking anyone, regardless. I do, however, think different adaptions have different levels of gay going on.
>> No. 377230
>As men, we don't have a choice conducting our libidos.
Bullshit. I'm a man, and I have no problem controlling my libido. Finding an image to be sexy and drooling like an asshole are two very different things, and men do not have to do the latter.
>> No. 377231
File 136764734677.png - (43.36KB , 345x396 , slowpokeandbreakingnews.png )
>people have differing libido levels, even among the same sex

I have a pretty high libido, but it's well within my control. If I masturbated every time I got turned on, odds are it'd be several times a day. But at the same time, I once went 10 months without it just to see if I could.
I was trying to go for a year, but by the end of 10 months without, I was so sensitive that it kind of happened by accident, went ahead and called it quits at that point.

One of my friends is so ruled by his libido that he's said he would probably break up with someone who was asexual, just because he doesn't think he'd be able to go without, and would probably end up cheating on her, so he'd cut it off before that happened.

One of my friends loves sex, but doesn't really seek it out, he just takes it as it comes along in a relationship.

All biologically male.

~everyone is different~
>> No. 377232
oh and
>Is that weird?
I dunno. I'm the same way though for the most part. There are certain traits I find especially appealing, but that doesn't mean I dislike the inverse.
It's almost like I have no standards, but that's not really true, I just find lots and lots of things attractive.
>> No. 377235
Dirty talk of all kinds completely and utterly turns me off. When I start *talking* about sex, I revert to a mechanical mindset about it and absolutely nothing will get me going.

In fact, I don't like any kind of talking at all during the act. Moaning and noises and deep breathing is fine, but words and names make me feel weird and snap me out of the zone.

Anyone else like this?
>> No. 377237
>> No. 377238
>I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but being a woman, can you be sure that you have a complete picture of male sexuality?
I certainly don't. I don't think I have a complete picture of my own sexuality, even, because I don't experience it that strongly. But I did not base anything I said on personal observation; this was just something I studied last semester and read papers on. If I did base it on myself, I'd be saying that yes absolutely, men and women are very different because women don't feel a need to masturbate and don't fantasize about themselves having sex with anyone until they're in a committed relationship. But I do not represent all women, and as it turns out, I am not a typical woman anyway.

The study of sex in psychology is still dominated very much by men, and therefore most studies that come out are from men who want to understand how their own bodies work and what makes men attractive to women (or, more recently, other men). For a very long time, men were considered the "default" and in many ways still are, so when researchers set up experiments, they often choose a straight male sample when they are not out to do gender comparisons. Then they must specify that they used a straight male sample. So the result is that the psychology of sex is really more like the psychology of the straight man. We also get misinterpretations like
>Research has shown that we can be aroused on visuals alone; low cut blouses, bare legs, even blushes
where someone assumes that because this is supported by research when referring to straight dudes, but research on the same subject is harder to find & not cited as often when referring to other genders and sexualities, that the statement probably only applies to straight dudes. This is a fallacy. For this example, humans in general rely extensively on visual cues and body language is an extremely important tool in social situations. Everyone can get aroused by a blush from the right person because it's a universal sexual signal. Low cut blouses & bare legs are more interesting because, to a degree, you're taught what is sexy and what isn't--sexy doesn't look the same across all cultures--but it's likely that bare legs alone won't make you pop a boner, it's what the lady is doing with them; how she moves, how she accents this feature with clothing, what she looks like as a whole. If you're only shown a sexy leg and don't know anything else about that person, you just imagine what kind of sexy person would own that sexy leg, and fill in the come hither body language that is missing. (Usually. I mean, there are some weirdos out there who think the very idea of a body part in isolation, separated from the whole, is hotter than a complete person, but that's... unusual.)

tl;dr: most people like sex, and statistically there is no big difference between how much men and women want it/think about it/get aroused. What we do in response to arousal has a lot to do with what our culture feels is acceptable for us to do. Women, by virtue of having no dick, can generally hide arousal in inappropriate situations a lot better, but that is no suggestion that it does not occur. The insatiable, monstrous male libido vs. the demure, mysterious female libido is largely a myth. There sure are guys like you and girls like me, but there are also girls like you and guys like me. I hate this myth and feel like it does injustice to both parties. The male stereotype is also dangerous because it allows people to excuse awful sexual behaviour and even rape as "boys will be boys." No, rapists will be rapists, and you're not just enabling and excusing criminals, you're demonising male sexuality.

There isn't actually anything wrong with having a high libido. You're not inherently disgusting.

Dirty talk is really weird.
>> No. 377239
I didn't mean to really imply that men have no choice or are complete slaves to their libido, because it can and should be controlled. For some of us, it just takes some more work to control, it seems.

I was just recounting how, in my experience, it can become somewhat debilitating on a regular basis if it's not taken care of, with or without any kind of outside input or socially constructed sexual norms.

Regardless, it can be controlled, though it may become somewhat of a hassle, and, not that you said that it does, it should never be used to excuse depraved behavior, especially any kind violent crimes against women.
>> No. 377240
>The male stereotype is also dangerous because it allows people to excuse awful sexual behaviour and even rape as "boys will be boys."
I'm not too sure that this happens that often, at least in the way you describe it.
I think when presented with the fact that most rapists are male, people seek to find an explanation of why that is, and presumably libido is one of the conclusions that they come to. Though perhaps having an explanation, however unjustified, excuses it in people's minds.
I don't often get the impression that a man's sex has excused or justified his sexual crimes either socially or in the eyes of the law.
Female rapists of males, though much, much less common, actually tend to have less negative stigma attached to them than male rapists. (I probably don't have to say this, but I by no means am saying that this is unfair, or that male rapists should be treated better. As you stated, rapists will be rapists, and rape in any form is completely inexcuseable.)

Interestingly, I recall some articles I read regarding female rape seem to support that "boys will be boys" mentality, as the male victims would receive less support and would even be congratulated under the pretense that, as males, they enjoyed the experience.

Overall, I'm not really sure about the "unequal libido" discussion, due to only being a person with a single sex, and the fact that so many social variables seem to be involved and I don't always know how to separate them from something that may be inherant.
Regardless of sex drive, as someone who believes there is no such thing as a positive stereotype, I do agree that this stereotype can do a lot of harm to both men and women.

Anyway, thanks for your insight and input! It's been a long time since I had to think.
>> No. 377250
Yes. Including someone bragging about size or acting like they're some kind of sex god. Not my thing.
>> No. 377251
>As men, we don't have a choice conducting our libidos.

Just want to revisit this, since it is both true and false.

Men are unlike women in that they have a physiological need for orgasm/ejaculation that starts out very high shortly after puberty and tapers off into old age. There is some variance among different men, of course, but nearly all young men need it at least once a week, and many at least once a day. Teenagers often need it multiple times per day.

This isn't bullshit. It's not a simple mental urge. Nobody would suggest that people could simply not pee if they controlled themselves properly — some mind over matter thing. The fact is, fluid is being built up, and bad things happen if you don't get rid of it on a regular basis. Not ejaculating regularly has all but proven to cause prostate cancer.

That being said, the pretense is also false. Some men use it as an excuse for needing SEX, but ejaculation is not sex. Going back to the urinating analogy: yes, people need to pee at least once a day, but that doesn't mean that the second you get the urge to pee you drop trousers and pee on the person next to you! There is a proper and an improper time/place to do these things. This is the same. A penis is not a complicated organ; if you rub it with a hand, a toy, or a person's genitals, it will react in virtually the same way.

Therefore, a man can effectively control his sexual urges by simply masturbating more often. He can't go saying that the reason he's cheating is because he gets boners looking at his co-workers if the truth is that he can simply rub one out in the shower before work. Or do it three times, whatever he needs. Seriously, for most men masturbating can take less than five minutes.

So the real reason that all this happens isn't because most men have an uncontrollable libido, it's because most men have an uncontrollable ego. They allow any excuse, such as a simple physiological urge, to be the deciding factor of complex behavioral actions. They feel liberated by society's view on the matter as: "men are horny, it can't be helped" and use it as their excuse. It's not an excuse.

There's is a huge jump in concentrated effort from popping a boner looking at an attractive person walking by, and then arranging an entire set of circumstances that will allow them to have sex together. Talking to them, arranging a meeting, agreeing to sex, booking a hotel room, driving there, stripping naked, and only THEN having sex. It's REALLY NOT EASY to have sex as an adult, you can't just (like the emergency room excuse for foreign objects in the rectum) simply "fall onto" someone and "oh, it just happened". It would be much, MUCH easier it go masturbate in the bathroom, trust me.

Just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on the difference, so both men and women can understand what is going on. Yes, ladies, men generally need to orgasm at least a couple times a week. No, gentlemen, that does not mean you need to have sex at least a couple times per week, or even at all. They are not the same thing.

ER Nurse: Okay, what happened?
Patient: I fell onto it and it went up my butt!
ER Nurse: You FELL onto the dildo...?
Patient: Yeah!
ER Nurse: So. You went to your bedroom, closed the door, went to the dresser and got out the dildo, went to the desk, got out the lube, put the lube on the dildo, then took off your shoes, then your socks, then your pants, then your underwear... and then you fell onto the dildo.
Patient: .................yes...

>> No. 377252
I prefer normal talk during sex. A blowjob makes telling someone about your day much more interesting.
>> No. 377256
>Not ejaculating regularly has all but proven to cause prostate cancer.

yeah, no, let's not make vague correlations into sudden biological laws.
Think about it a minute. there's no much reason for prostate to get cancer from holding sperm than there's reason to get stomach cancer by over eating. It,s about physical load, sperm itself isn't toxic.
>> No. 377257
Plus, the body has a natural mechanism for whatever hormonal balancing is necessary in the form of nocturnal emissions / wet dreams, so it's not like a man actually would actually need to masturbate for his health even if ejaculation were necessary for health.
>> No. 377262
I grew up as a pretty severely repressed male who was forbidden from fapping (I was religious at the time), and I honestly never had any nocturnal emissions. I'd always hold off as long as I possibly could, but in the end even the fear of hell couldn't keep me from seeking some release, as I'd actually be in physical pain and hormonal overload at that point. Wet dreams aren't really something that just conveniently happen whenever one wants or needs them to.
It was a pretty miserable time.
>> No. 377264
It is really pervasive and the other side of the same coin is "well she was asking for it." Men can't control themselves, it's just a state of being they can't help, thus it's up to women not to aggravate them. It's her responsibility and her fault when she "fails" to not be raped. Cue lamenting the rapist's loss of a future and harrassment of the victim. In reality, most rape has to do with power and dominance, and most victims aren't dressing provocatively or sending mixed messages. This is especially obvious in cases like prison rape.

A lot of people just don't think that women can be rapists because a) rape is synonymous with forced penetration in their minds, and since women don't usually have dicks, it is literally impossible for them to do it, and b) guys are horndogs so you can't rape them, because they always want it. I think that some male victims might rationalise it as "I was seduced, not raped" to keep some shred of dignity.

In a less extreme sense though, boys will be boys certainly applies to stuff like groping & overt propositioning, and for some people, even shit like cheating.

And jesus christ man, what sort of horrible religious cult did you grow up in? Your experience sounds terrible.

The prostate doesn't even hold sperm. It's a gland that secretes some of the fluid in semen and produces some variants of testosterone. It is notoriously shitty at cell replication for some reason leading to its enlargement and sometimes cancer, possibly because it is sensitive to dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and just doesn't know when to quit. There are also frequently plaques formed in the gland and we don't know why that is, but "not masturbating enough" proooobably isn't one of them.

More likely it is a problem with breaking down DHT/making too much DHT from testosterone that leads to prostate cancer. Not something you can prevent by jacking off.
>> No. 377265
>sperm itself isn't toxic

I don't think you really understand what cancer is. Basically, cancer is when a cell, ANY cell, loses control of its replication functions and starts making too many of itself; copies of itself that also lack proper replication regulation.

Some cancer is genetic, but most cancer is caused by environmental factors. You don't have to be exposed to something toxic for this happen, although it definitely increases the chances. Environmental factors are not limited to pollutants; cancer might be caused by things like stress, lack of physical activity, and diet. For example, apparently men that ate more meat had a tendency to develop certain digestive tract cancers more than those who had other things.

Since the causes of cancer are hard to determine, it is completely possible that neglecting a sexual release to the point of physical pain on a regular basis could induce cancer in the prostate.

>the body has a natural mechanism for whatever hormonal balancing is necessary

But not everyone's bodies have 'proper' hormonal balances to begin with.
>> No. 377266
>More likely it is a problem with breaking down DHT/making too much DHT from testosterone that leads to prostate cancer. Not something you can prevent by jacking off.

Doesn't reaching orgasm release a bunch of hormones/chemicals/what-have-you? The most noticeable ones are the ones that cause euphoria, but my point is that there might be some biological unknowns going on that cause the brain to set stuff going in the right direction to regulate all this.

I'm not an expert on any of this and I haven't had a biology class in years, so maybe I shouldn't be trying to argue this. Jacking off to prevent cancer sounds silly, but I'm one of those people that thinks anything is possible.

And I'm not a guy, so this isn't some excuse for me to justify rubbing one out all the time.
>> No. 377276
File 136772874751.jpg - (92.07KB , 320x480 , tumblr_m9k05yRXDC1r7z87no1_400.jpg )
I was talking to a girl tonight and the conversation turned this way and she mentioned that she was into spanking and I told her it's one that I never really got it.

She then told me that if properly done she can achieve orgasm from spanking, something to the effect of properly hitting so the vibration goes into the cervix? I didn't catch the full story due to the DJ being an idiot.
>> No. 377278
DHT is a sex hormone and derivative of testosterone. It seems to be released by the prostate during or after orgasm and is a main player in male sexual function. It's also thought though that it has a role in prostate enlargement, which sort of makes sense as hyperplasia of the prostate of some degree is super common in older people... possibly from frequent and repeated bouts of high levels of DHT over their lifetime. If you get my meaning. To some degree that would be adaptive because if you have sex really often you might need more of that fluid than somebody who never gets any. So, if anything, it seems like frequent orgasm puts you more at risk for hyperplasia. It might be as common as it is--like with most conditions associated with age--because we didn't often end up living to an age where it would start being a problem, and when it does rear its head, we'd already passed on our genes to the next generation.

Hyperplasia and cancer aren't exactly the same thing, although the tendency for the prostate to grow in reaction to the very hormone it produces is definitely a problem when cancer does occur.

Cancer is caused when there is damage to the genetic code of a cell in such a way that it is allowed by the body (and itself) to continually divide and degrade. Prostate cells seem to be pretty sensitive to changes and they just kind of fuck up and degrade to cause plaques as you get older for reasons nobody really understands. UTIs and STIs such as HPV (which also causes cervical cancer) and subsequent inflammation can damage prostate tissue, leading to cancer. The fact that prostate cancer is rare in younger men suggests that viral or bacterial infections might not be the main reason why it is so common. Persistent body-wide inflammation is also common in the elderly though: it's implicated with cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's, and other types of cancer. That is an immune problem whose onset has very little to do with sex, but may be partially stress-related... and orgasm decreases levels of stress. For men, orgasm also allows the prostate to flush out pathogens that would damage the tissue if they were allowed to just sit there.

According to this John Hopkins site, men who did the thing frequently had like 66% or less of a chance at developing cancer than men who never ejaculated. So there is some sort of link, we just don't really know why that is. There are also some other studies saying it's reversed. We just don't know.

I wrote a lot of words about this and I'm not sure why
>> No. 377283
I think one of my problems is that I'd accepted at some point that I'd never have a career, friends, or a love life, and then people started telling me, "y'know, you could if you tried, and on some things, you wouldn't even have to try very hard". And I was in a state of shock about that.

Being told when I was a kid that I was some ugly, dumb, massive fuck-up and embarrassment to everyone, I never bothered to experiment with sex in any way. I still can't totally wrap my head around being wanted, or being any better than anyone else looking for a date.
>> No. 377285
Is being submissive gay?
>> No. 377286
No. Fucking your own sex is gay.
>> No. 377287
What's so great about fisting anyway?
>> No. 377295
You wrote it to inform, and I appreciated it immensely.

There's only one of you, Anon. Don't let the words of cruel people from the past tarnish your self-image.
>> No. 377302
I was raised Roman Catholic. I know it's a bit strange, as it's the most widespread branch of Christianity in the world, but I did often get the impression that my particular church and priests were exceptionally strict and unforgiving. They were all about the fire and brimstone.

Sometimes I wonder if my libido, which seems to be at least somewhat abnormally high, owes a bit of its existence to how repressed I was when I was religious, but I suppose I don't really know enough to jump to any conclusions.
>> No. 377311
The problem is that the fire and brimstone outlook is not that uncommon in a lot of Churches, especially a lot of "Christianity". The problem with any dogma is that it creates a binary perception of the world; there's the people who Follow The Rules and everyone else. It doesn't allow room for Interpretation in a world where Interpretation is arguably every person. But to say that no one ever partakes of sexual acts is patently false in just about every regard.

So I looked into this and, it appears you are correct. I did not mean to excuse mens actions as being beyond their control.
>> No. 377314
>I did not mean to excuse mens actions as being beyond their control.
It's alright--by the sound of things, I don't think any of us here interpreted any of the arguments or input to imply that.
Regardless of where we fall on the issue of who has a more active libido, we all seem to be on the same page that regardless of libido, sexual crimes in any form are still inexcuseable.

In retrospect, my former faith confuses me.
>to say that no one ever partakes of sexual acts is patently false in just about every regard.
I'd say that's true.
I recall that my church taught that sexual activity could consist even of merely day dreaming of a girl I liked, or finding girls attractive, so I was scared pretty shitless much of the time.
For me this also raised the question of why the church was so hard on homosexuality if according to them, heterosexuality seemed to be just as bad a sin, but I guess that's a topic for a different thread.
>> No. 377316
Another former Catholic who had to deal with the same shit but came out on the other side of the spectrum. Can't ever be really sure if I'm actual asexual or internalizing some fucked up repression. vOv
>> No. 377317
HC Catholic here. Like, really religious upbringing when I was a kid.
I remember always being "made note of" by my family whenever I displayed attraction towards a girl. Ever.
>> No. 377319
Former Jew dealing with the same thing.

I know some Jews don't believe in Hell, but my parents did, or they just used "don't do that, it's slutty and bad" as a reprimand.
>> No. 377320
As the son of a Lutheran pastor who used masturbation as an escape from bullying, at some point I got really worried about it being a sin or not and e-mailed some Christian site asking if masturbation was a sin. IIRC, the response was "if you are thinking of a woman, it's lust. If you're not, you need to see a therapist." Didn't really stop me from jacking. Now I just don't give a shit.

My family's faith is tangentially related to my loneliness, though; my father moved us four or five times to change churches (I get the idea that he didn't like having congregations that wouldn't bow to his every whim), and after the third or so time I just gave up on ever trying to make friends, romantic others, do anything social, etc., and that continues to this day. Once again, I just don't give a shit.
>> No. 377325
I am in a long term relationship with someone who has a very low sex drive. We live together.

When we started going out my SO was still a virgin and we didn't have sex all the time, but still tried to fool around once every two or so weeks. (It took a very long time from when we started to try and have sex until we successfully managed to do it. My SO found it quite painful to try and it wasn't until we began using toys that we were able to go the whole way.)

Since we moved in together their sex drive has remained low and we have sex even less often. While this occasionally frustrating, I understand that it's not as easy as it is for me and often just masturbate to get rid of the arousal. But usually around a month after the last time we have sex I start to get irritable despite my best effort. My SO finds it hard to even get in the mood enough just to fool around with oral or hands.

We talk about it often and try to set up compromises, but that usually just makes them feel guilty about `not being good enough` and that makes it even less likely that they will be in the mood.

I love this person and have no plans of ever sleeping with anyone else, but this is the one area where our relationship isn`t perfect. I want to find a way to fix that. Lowering my own sex drive is something I would be willing to do.
>> No. 377347

Why did you make every effort to hide the gender of your partner? It's not important; I'm just curious.

Either way, once a month is extremely low-frequency. That is less likely to be "I am usually not in the mood for sex" and more likely to be "I never want to have sex with you, EVER, and only do it this often so you won't leave me". It sounds like a much deeper problem than a mismatched libido.

Do you at least cuddle? Is there any sort of physical affection beyond just you getting to orgasm?
>> No. 377349
>Either way, once a month is extremely low-frequency. That is less likely to be "I am usually not in the mood for sex" and more likely to be "I never want to have sex with you, EVER, and only do it this often so you won't leave me". It sounds like a much deeper problem than a mismatched libido.

Didn't we just finish going over how everyone has varying degrees of sexual need?

It's not always some plot to hide a lack of sexual attraction. People who don't need or want sex very often do exist. Stop fueling this paranoid delusion that their lack of desire means they don't actually like their partner or that there's something wrong with them.
>> No. 377350
>Why did you make every effort to hide the gender of your partner?
Maybe they don't have one.
Also, >>377349.
>> No. 377351
WOAH freakin' jesus.

Did you ever cum so hard, you put your dick in a sizeable amount of pain? Like working a muscle to the point where it's literally impossible to move it anymore?

Because that just happened. Now I feel like a seahorse after it expels a million babies at once.
>> No. 377352
File 136790735024.gif?nsfw - (1.00MB , 317x290 , 1364995016846.gif?nsfw )
I was holding off commenting in the hopes that someone more knowledgeable would chime in first but that may be a bit of a luxury here. Full disclosure: I've never really been in a relationship that has worked for any length of time, so, a lot of what I have is more book theory, and a lot of that may be subject to review as well.

First and foremost, there is nothing that replaces communication with your partner. I say this because while low libido can be an issue, more frequently sexual trauma or a life lived under sexual stigmatism, especially with a low libido, can make a person feel very ashamed of sex. This is especially possible if they've never achieved orgasm, which is technically possible for low libido people, especially virgins.

The proper way to do it, so I've heard, is sex dates. Every 2 weeks, go out to a different restaurant, have a nice dinner, then go to a show or a movie or a class or something, then go home, have a glass of wine, and as the frizz said, "take chances and get messy".

I'm assuming against odds that you are rational people holding down relatively stable lives, merely experiencing some first time difficulty in the bedroom. If this is some teenage runaway "we moved in together" bullshit then you have bigger problems than your sex life.

Everyone appreciates romantic interest. Having an evening out with some good food, a good show or something to do, followed by a night of getting frisky. There is a portion of the population that never engage in sex for one reason or another. I may be biased but, they're missing out.

The rest of the time, you forgo masturbation or any other sexual activity. Just get on with life. Save it for the after the date. And be sure to appreciate the dinner and activity beforehand. It's good to get out and enjoy different foods, interesting locales, get about your town. The idea is to relax and enjoy the relationship away from the tedium of everyday life, experience something new together. Definitely consult your partner about this, they may have places they want to go or things they want to do.

And for the love of your god, spend like an hour on foreplay. Massage, grinding, necking, kissing, rubbing through the clothes, dressing up in weird stupid costumes, eating food off each others bodies. Oral. Some people don't practice it and it's like... why. Just, remember to reciprocate. And no teeth. Never any teeth with oral.

That's pretty generic and covers most everything without getting too specifical. Every relationship is unique, and no one plan is a cure for all ailments. But a healthy sex life is good for any relationship, and regular, planned dates for going out and having sex afterwards seem to be a key factor in a lot of couples staying together. Especially in the case of a low libido person where they may not have had much chance to explore and discover any of their sexuality. The lack of focus on sex the rest of the time lets them feel relatively unpressured, and abstaining until the allotted time means the encounters will be more intense, and they will hopefully come to enjoy them over time.

Sex is one of the few realms where couples, people really get to play with each other; where you can just take another persons' body and explore it and they can explore yours. It really can bring you each closer together, especially if you both come to enjoy it.
>> No. 377354
To back you up a bit, I have heard from relationship advice people that, as unromantic as it sounds, scheduling sex ahead of time is not just a good idea for a relationship, but one of the most surefire ways to keep the passion in a relationship, and to make each partner's needs are met.
>> No. 377357
People have told me I give great relationship advice.

I have never been in a relationship before.

I wonder what that says about people.
>> No. 377369
It's a little quirk of people; your problems generally seem insurmountable because you're the one dealing with them. However, as soon as you turn your eyes to other peoples problems, the solution can be much more obvious to an unaffiliated observer. Not saying the 3rd party is always right, but they usually have perspective that the 2 involved parties lack.

But this is an observed thing that people do. You call a fresh set of eyes over to look at a problem and they will instantly jump right to the issue that your tired, overworked brain probably missed in the exhaustion of dealing with the rest of the project. The same is more or less true of relationships; it can be hard to see the path to what everyone wants if you have a bias.
>> No. 377370
So, you feel pregnant? Because, y'know...

It says they're blinded by their own emotions and close perspective to their issues whereas you, who has no bias created by past experience and is also not emotionally involved with the relationship, maintain a clearheaded and birds-eye type view that allows you to see things other people miss.

Sometimes you don't see the glasses even though they're right in front of your eyes. Emotion really does make us miss certain things; it's dangerous to mistake your ability to see other people's issues as an ability to see all issues.
>> No. 377375
File 136795881438.jpg - (19.88KB , 490x488 , 1310575978402.jpg )
>I feel like I just gave birth
>So you feel like you're pregnant?
>> No. 377376
fuck I'm stupid
>> No. 377378
Not if you impregnate that person. Then you'd be right.
>> No. 377381
If a cancerous sperm fertilizes a cancerous egg, what would the resulting child look like?
>> No. 377385
A cancer cell and cancerous egg would probably not actually ever conceive. Cancer is not so much a disease with one factor like a virus as it is the seeming breakdown of perfectly healthy cells. Cancerous cells are generally mutated, and any mutation to the sperm or egg would probably cause one of the other sperm or eggs to be used as the cancerous ones would likely have their function impaired.
>> No. 377386
So, I'm not sure what you actually strained but it is totally possibly and I've done it wanking. Basically, there's no real muscle or bone in the penis, just a collection of muscles around the anus that effect male ejaculation (not sure about contemporary structures in the vagina. Need to read up on squirting, actually). These muscles create the action that fires the semen, and in case of extreme strain the muscles can become over-strained.
>> No. 377387
>doodeedoodeedoo goin' to the bathroom. As in, walking the fuck in, not doing just yet
>huh, well that's a strange looking whatcha callit here in the bathroom counter.
>it's kind of large and has a blue case. Maybe the family bought a new flashlight.
>look at the side.
>younger brother left his fleshlight on the bathroom sink counter
Ace Ventura Cold Showeryoutube thumb

>> No. 377422
I can confirm that at least for me, it does feel sore, but I'm coming from the perspective of a female who isn't turned on very often. If I don't touch myself and something just happens and I come on my own, it doesn't hurt, but if I actually touch myself, it can get really sore, and that's why I stopped doing it.
>> No. 377428
Now that I'm two years away from being a Wizard, I don't know that I could feel even close to comfortable if I ever do have sex. Or that it would even happen. I'd be so worried about being completely useless, a disappointment, fumbling around, etc.

Not that I think I'll ever have a chance to score. If I can't cast Lightning I the day after my 30th birthday, I'll just hire a prostitute.
>> No. 377443
I'm not worried about coming out to my parents. I know they'll be cool with it. The real problem is my grandparents. Both of them worship Bill O Reilly and think he's right about everything, are devout "Christians" and hate black people.
>> No. 377446
You will be terrible until you're great. Them's the rules.

The fact that you still respect their opinions is baffling and wonderful. Maybe just not tell them until it's too late?
>> No. 377448
I don't respect their opinions on politics or whatever. But damn it if they don't love me. My grandma would probably faint and stop talking to me if I told her, and she's been spoiling me for 20 years now.
>> No. 377449
If you come out to them and they respond negatively, it means they didn't love you; they loved who they thought you were, but not you yourself.
>> No. 377475
That's rather harsh. Didn't love you, only loved the image you represented? I can't really believe that. The older someone is, the more set in their ways they are; no reason to change. Even if we legalized all the gay marriage in the world, nobody's gonna dance through their living rooms in hotpants. They may never feel the effects. They've grown up in a world that taught them they were hostile. It may involve a lot of pain and some awkward dinners, but it doesn't sound like that anon's coming out would necessarily be the end of the world them like it would be with some abusive parents or grandparents.

If I may, quite a few girls don't like direct stimulation of the clitoris. Stimulating the lips and the area around it seem to work but the whole vulva, the clitoris especially, seems really sensitive to pressure and not in a good way. I don't know if it can be easily bruised but a few of the girls I've been with just didn't want me to touch it at all. I'm not sure what you're describing is quite the same as what the other anon was describing, which was an orgasm literally so powerful that it over-strained the muscles responsible for propelling semen. Girls have a ejaculate but it doesn't sound like you experienced quite the same thing?
>> No. 377486
How do BDSM without abuse and pain?
>> No. 377499
You probably just aren't turned on enough to enjoy the direct stimulation. Speaking as a woman who also has a low libido, touching the clitoris when I'm not wet enough is uncomfortable and sometimes painful. Even when I am in the mood, too much attention can ruin everything. It's frustratingly fickle and makes it almost impossible for me to get myself off, much less have someone else involved.

To make it worth the effort, I try to keep myself on the cusp of orgasm for as long as possible and sometimes if I do this for too long, I get a strange sore-like sensation in my lower abdomen that doesn't really go away. I'm not sure if it's the same thing you're describing, though.

>That's rather harsh. Didn't love you, only loved the image you represented?

Many people judge others by what they see. If you do something or say something that ruins this conception they have of you, they call it losing respect for you.

It's bullshit, but the attitude certainly exists.

Light bondage, I'd assume?
>> No. 377500
I've heard of people liking non-physical bondage. Strict rules and stuff.
The "Too Hot" game is derived from that idea, p sure. The idea is to get your partner and kiss them, but neither of you can use your hands. The kiss escalates and gets more and more intense until one of you uses your hands, at which point they lose and have to do whatever the winner says.
Stuff like that, except more uh, explicit, I guess?
>> No. 377503
This might seem stupid but is love a Male feeling only like Honor? After reading many stories and other red pillers it seems like Women don't feel this, much less have a sexual drive for that matter.
>> No. 377504
You're right, that seems very stupid. You should probably feel bad for asking it.
>> No. 377505
Yes, only men can love. It's very astute of you to notice. They not only cannot feel true love or attachment, they do not actually feel anything at all. Most people don't know this, but the truth is, women aren't even human. There is no such thing as a truly female child, as a woman is created when a vengeful alien spirit possesses a corpse and uses magic to make itself appear human to fool men into having sex with her. She must seek out men because their bodily fluids are the only way to sustain her magic corpse body. Real men reproduce asexually, by budding, and "birth" is a myth perpetuated by the matriarchy & the Illuminati to trick men into thinking women are needed for procreation. Beware of women who are old, ill or on their periods, because it is then that they are the most desperate: if a woman has gone too long without absorbing human bodily fluids within herself, she will take them by force by growing large, curved, hollow fangs with which to pierce the neck veins of a nearby man, sucking out all his blood, marrow and semen.
>> No. 377506
You guys are funny, but the truth is that women are only valuable for their vaginas.
>> No. 377507
Honor is a male only feeling?
>> No. 377508
Yes, it's a Male only abstract. Now you know something.
>> No. 377510
I started fapping to real women when I was 12 or so. Then when I got internet access, and discovered 2D, I fapped to a mix of 2D/3D until it got to the point that I preferred 2D. Then I slowly moved back to 3D. Now I'm pretty much here in 3D land for good. So will someone please explain to me WHY I HAVE AN EXHENTAI ACCOUNT, WHY I REGULARLY CHECK THE SITE FOR UPDATES, AND SAVE EVERY PIECE OF HENTAI THAT I THINK IS WELL DRAWN.

I don't even fap to the shit anymore. Why do I find it appealing? Why am I wasting HD space on pictures of naked anime women that I never jack off to.

This shit has been driving me bonkers for the longest time. Curious if this has happened to anyone else or if there's a reason I'm doing this.
>> No. 377511
I am not sure you know what honour means. Please visit the Wikipedia page to get you up to speed on simple concepts.

Because you find it aesthetically pleasing. It's not so weird. I look at porn sometimes despite being borderline asexual because some artists just draw really nice. You said yourself:
>> No. 377513
I really want to know what culture you were raised in.
>> No. 377514

I just feel it's deeper than that. There's something weird about keeping erotic pictures for their artistic merits.

At least for me, that is. I'm a fucking pervert.
>> No. 377517
Maybe your brain was just trained by the early porn endorphin rush and you can't get out of it?
>> No. 377518
ah, but Life is pain, Pet, and Love is the most exquisite pain of all.

Bondage, Discipline, Sadomasochism and Masochism are actually a net term for a style of relationship and the various subcultures that cater to that style. These relationships are defined by an inequality of power. Whereas most nominal relationships are categorized by 2 people functioning of independent will (which can give way to dominance in the bedroom for pleasure, but not so much outside the bedroom), BDSM purposefully sets one person as Dominant and one person as Submissive.

Pain, however, is not purely necessary in such a relationship, it just works well for punishment (watching extreme BDSM videos, I am struck that the pleasure must be purely psychological at some point, as I find it difficult to imagine how any physical pleasure could arise from such bodily abuse. The pain is the point? Perhaps. I find excessive injury, even superficial, to be more detrimental to life in general than is worth the brief thrill). The meat and potatoes though is the Dominance and Submission; it gives the Dom pleasure to command the Sub, it gives the Sub pleasure to obey the Dom, and since usually that obedience is where the sexy times happen, pain-giving devices are not purely necessary.

It can be a paradoxical relationship, in some ways. The Dom can command the Sub to do embarrassing, demeaning, humiliating things to them (though not often in public, as most people wish to hide this kink from those around them). But this is only possible because the Sub puts the deepest level of trust in the Dom to keep them safe and protect them, to know what the Sub's limits are and when the Dom has pushed them too far. This sort of relationship is not one that you can enter into easily or swiftly, nor should you. I feel I can't stress enough that there is a degree of safety to be observed here, both in what you do and who you trust. I'm not saying that people are bad, I'm saying that Safewords exist for a reason, and that reason is your safety.

That said, it is possible to engage in a little bondage action without directly causing pain. Usually, it is centered around restriction; restriction of action or motion through restraints, clothing, hand-cuffs, or the command of the Dom. Hand-cuffs can be a good way to get into more bondage-y things if you have someone you're fairly steady with. That said, never agree to handcuffs at the beginning of a relationship, let alone any brief hook up. Ah, trigger warning: There's kicking a person when they're down and then there's, well, Theft, which, no amount of Litigation will make you feel better while you're lying there, tied to a bed for hours until your friends find you naked and shivering. There's no good way to dress that up. Robbery is arguably the best thing that can happen to you in that situation. I don't think a little vanilla fooling around, even on the first date, really hurts anything. Lord knows men and women, and men and men, and women and women, and everything in-between, have been going out to bars and going home with strangers since forever. Sometimes they never see each other again, sometimes something beautiful happens. This is an over-simplification; life is complex, people are weird, the situation is ever-changing. A little no-strings-attached sex between consenting strangers can generally be harmless (although the experienced will know there's always strings attached). That said, there are levels of trust, and it can be difficult to know how much to trust someone. But generally, wait a good while before attempting the handcuffs.

Even if you're only engaging in light bondage play, it's important to do it with someone you trust. And trust me when I say you should be googling other people who know way more about this because they know a lot more than I do. Also fyi Wikipedia has some pretty interesting articles on all kind of subjects on sex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BDSM

Have fun! Be safe! Try not to harm any Hamsters!
>> No. 377523
File 136818856713.jpg?nsfw - (42.54KB , 469x700 , full.jpg?nsfw )
I can't speak for you obviously, but as someone else who has enjoyed both, what I find appealing about 2D is the expression involved, as artists are capable of capturing at least quasi-geniune-looking emotion and feeling.
The 3D (or real) that I have fapped to is actually pretty tame, and does not involve anything hardcore--pic is often times the extent of how explicit it gets for me. Needless to say, the 2D I have looked at tended to be far more explicit than the 3D.
Perhaps it's because I like to leave a little for the imagination, or perhaps it's because I find the people in actual hard core porn tend to be horrible at feigning pleasure to the extent that I'm unable to take any of it the least bit seriously, and simply prefer whatever my imagination has to offer over their ridiculousness.
Or, maybe people actually do act like that when they enjoy sex--given my complete lack of experience, I suppose I can't make that call.

Anyway, an artist is capable of creating a more ideal situation that's not necessarily grounded or restricted by reality. Sometimes I've felt that if I could have taken some of the passion and emotion involved in some 2D and tranfered it to 3D, it would be the greatest porn ever, and I'd have a much greater appreciation for real porn.
But that's just me, I guess.
>> No. 377525
WTF is wrong with you people?

(NO U)
>> No. 377611
>death by snu snu.jpg

Also, it seems to be the concept of taking it up the ass is a lot hotter than the actual thing. I tried using a dildo once, it was horrible. Not only was it extremely uncomfortable and awkward, but I felt like I needed to take the absolute biggest shit afterward (even though I didn't) and I have never been able to find my g-spot. Ever.
>> No. 377612
File 136831452012.jpg?nsfw - (30.05KB , 600x600 , Lbx806-Wholesale-G-sport-prostatic-massage-font-b-.jpg?nsfw )
If you are a man (which I assume based on you trying to find your g-spot in your anus) then you shouldn't be using a regular dildo, you should be using a prostate massager combined with copious amounts of lube after a nice warm water enema. With a simple dildo it would be very difficult to find the male g-spot, once found however it becomes much easier to have anal sex.

I've met some interesting people in my life suffice to say.
>> No. 377613
I should also mention for actual anal intercourse use a silicone lube, but with toys always use water based.
>> No. 377618
The point was less I couldn't find my prostate with a dildo and more I just generally don't like having stuff up my ass, and I'm not sure that would change even if I found my prostate.
>> No. 377623
Well yeah, the deal is everyone has there own list of sexual stuff and you never know what doesn't get ya til you try it.

I met a girl one time who it was all about her nose and she would orgasm from having it nibbled but she got NOTHING from vaginal stimulation for example, it just wasn't for her.
>> No. 377632
Never, ever use silicone-based lubes with a condom though. That is overall a pretty terrible idea.
>> No. 377634
When I first got into IRC typefucking, I thought it was the hottest thing ever, and I came buckets every time. Now I can't even get a full erection.
>> No. 377641
>> No. 377642
Probably like cybering.
>> No. 377643

I think he means "cybering."
>> No. 377644
Haha, hivemind.
>> No. 377677
I had plenty of opportunities to try cybering, but it seems like it's the perfect breeding place for awkward moments so I never tried it.
>> No. 377678
The problem with cybering is that finding someone who can actually write, who's not a 12 year old in disguise, is damn near impossible.

>mmm i stik my dik in ur ass

That is not boner-inducing.
>> No. 377681
to a degree, you're inventing an identity around the other person that isn't fully the truth about them. As long as at least one person can weave a tale, then both can look at the screen and, in the heat of the moment, not really care about a mispelt word.

But it does require that one person be very able with words and even then, what gets you off is the fantasy, not the other person.
>> No. 377682
Poorly written shit like that though takes me out of the moment. I dunno.
>> No. 377686
>The problem with cybering is that finding someone who can actually write, who's not a 12 year old in disguise, is damn near impossible.

It's the same with me. I've had exactly one person who fulfilled me completely in that way, and our sessions were usually at least six hours long (sometimes literally all night long) and extremely, ridiculously detailed. We did this in "long form"; that is to say that each of us spent roughly five minutes coming up with each response, which was usually several paragraphs long. Often, it was less about actions and more about thoughts and feelings. By the end of it, we'd pretty much have typed up a cogent and well-edited short novel.

But holy shit it was good. It was the only time in my life I ever felt like an uncontrollably horny teenager, able to have three or four orgasms in a row without stopping. I've done cybering/roleplaying with other guys who were otherwise decent and clean writers, but nothing like that.


Prostate massagers are for straight men who are deathly afraid to stick something shaped like a penis in their ass because they think it will instantly transform them into a faggot. And for people who buy shit off QVC because it seems SO COOL that it can't possibly be crap. Everyone I've talked to who has used one has said that it feels weird and uncomfortable. You're just supposed to just sit on it and wait for it to work its magic instead of thrusting it wantonly in and out of your butt like some kind of poof, I suppose. Actual dildos are superior. (Then again, all the men I've talked to about this are gay. Hm. Do gay men have differently-shaped assholes than straight men?? Might be worth investigating.)

In any case, reasonably enough, a cross section of the rectum reveals that it's shaped roughly like a cock, not like some bizarre curved monstrosity that more closely resembles a raccoon penis than anything human. This means that, also reasonably enough, a penis-shaped object fits best in there. The prostate isn't a damned magic g-spot or any of that shit, anyway; the point is to rub gently against it, not poke it as hard as you can like the elevator-close button when you see the office smelly guy walking toward it. Also, the entire anus is very erogenous if you know what you're doing.

And back in my day we didn't have no fancy goddamn NASA-grade silicone $80 bullshit lubricant! Actually we were poor teenagers so we didn't have ANYTHING. We used spit and natural anal lubrication and it was fine, perfectly fine.

>> No. 377688
I've met maybe one or two people who liked it up the butt the first time. It's strange and new and awkward and actually a little unpleasent until you get used to it.

I remember spit-lubing things. It was pretty fun and great. The only problem was that after a few minutes it dries out. It's good for quickies, but not useful for long bouts of antics.
>> No. 377778
Lately I've felt like nothing turns me on anymore. I can't get an erection at porn. And no it's not erectile dysfunction, but I can't imagine what it could be.
>> No. 377779
Have you been particularly stressed or under the weather lately?
>> No. 377780
No. No emotional baggage at work whatsoever.
>> No. 377782
It could be hormonal.
Or maybe good ol' boredom?
>> No. 377783
Just wondering, how do ladies usually feel about guys who shave their pubes? Is it considered weird and unattractive, or just the opposite? I've noticed shaving definitely makes my dick look bigger, which is nice, plus it just feels better not having a bunch of hair down there.

I mean, I'm sure trimming is generally seen as fine, that's just being hygienic really. But what about full on bald?

Spit-lube was my go to masturbation tool for almost a decade.

For the past 4-6 years I haven't used any lubricant, other than like four or five times. I just use my bare hand. I don't really get why some guys see lube as such a necessity. Maybe I just like it a bit rougher than most?

You could always just lie back and enjoy the peace that comes with a lack of sex drive, or take the time you'd usually spend with porn and dedicate it towards something more productive. This doesn't have to be a bad thing. Still, it might be worth it to see a doctor if you're worried about it.
>> No. 377785
I never bothered with lube for my hand. Made too much noise.
>> No. 377799
Dear any gay dude,

Do you have that "gay lisp"? If you do, why the HELL do you guys do that? Does it just come natural?
>> No. 377801
It certainly is a 'thing' but I don't have it myself. (I have been described as sounding like a drunk brit, or a stoned scientist)

I hate to sterotype, but I've persona; seen it more common in the "Twinkish" gays. Basical short, skinny, little body hair. I also know a few straight guys who have it as well, so it leads to believe it is just something with that body type. Maybe low T Levels? And the gay ones don't force themselves out of it as much?

Accents are weird.
>> No. 377802
As far as I can tell it's because of the B-52's. Seriously, go listen to Rock Lobster or Love Shack and tell me it's not the same thing.

I hate the 'gay lisp' as much as I hate any other affected accent. Just talk like you normally do, you showboating wannabes. You heard me, Madonna.
>> No. 377803
Um, I don't think they are putting on an accent for funsies, it's just how they talk. It's not really much of a lisp either, it's just a more feminine intonation (? I think that is the word) than what most guys use.

Most languages & dialects seem to have at least two variants, one masculine and one feminine. I'm not sure what would prompt a kid to pick up one or the other but I don't think it is something as simple as the gender of the parent teaching them to talk/the parent they associate the most with. Maybe it is something to do with the brain and prenatal hormone levels? I am not sure. That's actually a pretty interesting question.
>> No. 377820
Reminds me of reading a blog post by an American who had a Japanese wife/girlfriend (can't remember). He was learning Japanese, mainly in speaking to her, and had no male Japanese friends. He went to lunch or something with his gal pal and her friends and was talking to them in Japanese, and the friends kept giggling when he talked.

After continual prodding, he learned what they found funny: his accent/pronunciation/syllable usage were all those used by females, since he learned from his girlfriend. Apparently Japanese males use different enunciation or something, which comes across in the words you use or how you say them or something.
>> No. 377821
It's mostly word choice. Women do tend to speak in a higher register as a way of seeming less threatening/imposing, as a sort of systemic sexism thing where they're trying to seem more deferential, but that probably wouldn't be picked up by someone learning to speak from a woman the way vocabulary would.

Weird thing is, most of the Japanese they teach in school is sort of feminine anyway--they teach you to use "Watashi" for "I," and to use polite forms of words even though men are prone to being more casual/familiar in their speech, mostly because politeness level is so vital in communicating in Japanese, and the feminine form is the one least likely to cause offense since it's the kind that makes the least assumption about the speaker having authority over anyone else. Which, again, goes back to the systemic sexism in Japan.
>> No. 377824
Sometimes it depends, though. I've met quite a few people (mostly online) who I confused the gender of, because mentally I thought "men speak like [x], and women speak like [y]." Heck, I've met quite a few people who were surprised, because they thought I was a dude.
>> No. 377825
One of my e-friends thought I was a girl for like 3 years once. I thought it was funny at first so I didn't want to correct them, but after like two months went by I realized it would be really weird to correct them at that point, so I just kind of
let it go on
right up until they started asking to Skype
they laughed and said they never would have guessed I was a guy from the way I type
>> No. 377842

I don't have ANY stereotypical gay mannerisms. Absolutely nobody can tell unless I say so, and it's usually a complete surprise. Most people who know me somewhat well would guess "asexual" before "homosexual". Obviously, then, no lisp.

Actually, I've never known any fags who had that lisp. None whatsoever. Some of them have more the variable intonation and flowery prose that is still identifiably gay when used by a male, but not that lisp. I think it's just going out of vogue; and yes, I am 99% sure that it's a cultural thing and not biological. No homosexuals in other parts of the world do that.
>> No. 377846
File 136868454634.jpg - (51.30KB , 500x523 , tumblr_lv0236dFYX1qhrsst.jpg )
I know people thought I was a lesbian before I figured out I liked girls myself, but it was mostly because my then-boyfriend didn't go to our school, and there's this impression even today (in the internet age!) that nobody actually has a 'boyfriend in Canada'. (Although I still have to correct people who ask, 'so, you don't like boys anymore?" or 'are you afraid of dicks?' No, last time I checked, PANSEXUALS weren't.) I never got shit about not liking boy bands or because I watched Batman or Toonami or Adult Swim, and honestly, there were girls at the school who were more 'masculine' than I was. But then again, if you bullied them, they'd probably kick your ass.

Weirdly enough, I've gotten the most shit for watching MLP. 'You're not ten or a grown man, why are you admitting to watching that'. Cause it's a good show, and I've made it no secret that I like animation in general?

Gender/sexuality stereotypes are dumb. Sure, I'll admit there's trends, but fuck anyone who thinks anything is absolutely true 100% of the time.
>> No. 377854
Well, I'm bi and I think it's annoying. But judging anyone's sexuality by what they watch is stupid.
>> No. 377876
>'You're not ten or a grown man, why are you admitting to watching that'

I think it's sort of funny that was asked. It's now socially acceptable for a grown man to like a show for ten year old girls, but not for women?

Anyway, I can relate to the lesbian thing. In middle/high school, I was asked why I wasn't trying to get a boyfriend. My response was, "I don't want one." Everyone assumed this to mean that I was a lesbian and I was a little too stupid to realize that no one understood I actually meant, "I'm not interested in pursuing any kind of relationship at this point in time with either gender because I'm too emotionally ignorant to commit to that kind of intimacy."

I kind of sucked at talking and explaining myself.
>> No. 377877
Holy jesus I know that feel.

I got called gay at every opportunity just because I never had a girlfriend and didn't really want one.
>> No. 377878
I'm pretty sure that the only reason my parents don't ask me if I'm gay is because when I was 17 they found my porn folder, which was mostly vanilla hentai but also plenty of nekkid womenz.

I don't know what they'd think if they found it now, though... futa and tentacles and monsters and pregnancy and bondage and the like, they would probably just disown me.
>> No. 377886
People who do this are just stupid/lazy. If you're hetero, you obviously must want to bone everyone of the opposite sex in sight.

You're lucky. The one time I got caught, there were tentacles. Was awkward for a while, but I learned my lesson and hide things better now. Plus it helps having my own computer and not a shared one.
>> No. 377890
>'You're not ten or a grown man, why are you admitting to watching that'
I kind of get the impression that this is somewhat of a comment on the ridiculousness of the fanbase rather than an insult--Not that I'm saying that I know for sure that was it, since I was not there after all. And I'm not sure if it can be considered more socially acceptable for guys to like it--I've oft gotten the impression that their attitude has frequently been just so infamously overbearing and defensive about it that they simply give off more vibes that they shouldn't be ashamed.
And no one should be ashamed of being part of a fanbase (provided they're not assholes about it). But I suppose this is a topic for a different discussion.

As for the whole "people calling you gay thing," I experienced a ton of it too.
However, I did actually always have a great deal of interest in the opposite sex--the reason I never expressed or openly acknowledged it was due to religion-induced shame, as my priests told me I was a filthy pervert and I'd go to hell for developing crushes or finding the opposite sex attractive. Or the same sex for that matter.
>> No. 377891
To be fair, this was back in high school, in the boonies of the Bible Belt. Most everyone's parents were divorced and abusively raised them with redneck shit like "God hates fags."
>> No. 377894
Thankfully, I live in a very liberal part of the country, so I didn't get that much flak or get hounded by religious nut-jobs for my disinterest in relationships. I'm not sure what I would've done if I had to experience some of what you guys have; hearing off-hand comments about my questionable sexuality every once in a while was enough to set me off like a bomb. Any priest probably would've claimed I was possessed by the devil if they had to deal with me back then.
>> No. 377895
> 'You're not ten or a grown man, why are you admitting to watching that'
Uh you sure that wasn't a joke?
>> No. 377912
File 136879375125.gif - (489.93KB , 240x135 , jears young.gif )
>tfw no qt3.14 submissive virgin european bf who is open to exploring sex and sexuality in its entirety
>> No. 377933
Don't give up. One day you will find that shy Belgian guy who will shit in your mouth.
>> No. 377935
I would prefer a German or a Scandinavian or a nice (true) gitano/romani mmm dem golden brown boys but a Belgian is fine too.
>> No. 377938
youre doing that on purpose arent you
>> No. 377946
How does anal with women work, since they don't have a prostate? Is it worth doing over vaginal/clitoral stimulation? And as a woman what good would anal masturbation do?
>> No. 377947

its a dominance thing
>> No. 377948
From what I've heard, anal with women is more of an "in addition to" thing instead of a "instead of" thing. Like nipple play and stuff, you still (usually) need vaginal stimulation to climax, so you generally either masturbate while having it, or have your partner play with you, or whatever.
>> No. 377957
I've met a few that claimed if the guy really pounded they could get off and that it made a nice option for not having a condom with their partner.
>> No. 377960
I knew someone (one of my exes) who claimed anal sex for women felt identical to vaginal sex because of identical nerve endings. Even as a virgin, I suspected that was bullshit.

He/one of my later exes and I had the same argument where he claimed his dick was bigger than it was, and I said I didn't care what size it was, and then he got angry and called me a liar because he said 'all women care'. Like you're gonna believe an advice magazine over my honest opinion.
>> No. 377976
I don't get the trans thing.

No, stop, stop what you are about to post and read. I said I don't "get" it. Not that I "oppose" it. You want to say you're something you're not, that doesn't mean you don't deserve the same civil rights as everyone else.

What I don't get is why you do it. Unless you are actually intersex, or are a gay person trying to make it easier to get your gender of preference, I don't get the concept of looking at your penis/vagina and saying "NAY, THIS WILL NOT DO!" And yet I know for a fact that often neither of these are the case.

So explain to me, if you will, the logic, because I'm genuinely curious/
>> No. 377977
It's simply that they are a different gender despite being biologically the wrong gender, for some they just decide to live like as a man or woman without having surgery, for others they feel the need to take it all the way.

Ever watch The Crying Game? There is a great scene in there where the main character Fergus tries to change Dil, his transexual girlfriend into a man to hide her from terrorists and he cuts her hair and dresses her like a male and despite also having a penis she is clearly female, it's her mind, her mannerism, she is female with a male body; she can't help it.

That's all it is.
>> No. 377983
Kinda facepalmed recently as somebody I know who will remain nameless, but identifies as a MtF lesbian, got pissed off when regular lesbians wouldn't validate their preference as lesbian. They were absolutely livid that the lesbians saw them as a man trying to be desirable by lesbians.
It has little bearing on the current topic, but it felt worth sharing.
>> No. 377988
Both women and men have plenty of fairly pleasurable nerve endings in and around the anus (in addition to the prostate for men). The wall between the anus and vagina is also quite thin which can obviously cause stimulation. Many women simply enjoy the feeling of being "full", the (potential) pain, the "taboo" or as anon said, the domination. Some woman can climax through anal, just as plenty of men do not feel sexual pleasure from prostate simulation.

As someone with both a vagina and an anus who uses both often, for myself and the vast majority of woman orgasming is ALL ABOUT THE CLIT. Women who can orgasm without clitoral stimulation are in the considerable minority.

NEVER EVER EVER HAVE ANAL WITHOUT A CONDOM. FUCKING NEVER. It doesn't matter what gender, virgin or not, nothing. Seriously, not only can you still get pregnant or riddled with STDs, anal sex without a condom opens the door to a world of UTIs, other infections and any bloodborne diseases. If you meet some stupid cunt (male or female) who has unprotected anal sex, don't go near them with a tenfoot barge pole other than to bitchslap some COMMON FUCKING SENSE in to them.

...doing what?
>> No. 377989
> not only can you still get pregnant
>> No. 377990
i'm not sure if you've ever been up in a lady but the ass and vaj are literally centimeters apart. sperm are tenacious wee fellas and can travel that distance...well, not easily but they still can. if you spunk in an ass and she's not on the pill/ring/implant/etc, there is a risk of pregnancy! it's the same with intercurial sex or basically any time there's sperms flying around that area with no protection! please be careful, everyone!!!
>> No. 377992
>> No. 377993

that is literally fucking it.
>> No. 377994
Generally, if you are going to have unprotected anal sex, then the person, *ahem* receiving needs a fairly thorough Enema. A progression of slightly larger objects in the anus, usually buttplugs or beads or similar, can help expand the anus. The problem with the butt is that it is generally designed to push poop out, not take repeated impacted from a hard penis. I believe that Anal actually has the highest incidence of STDs, STIs and other such maladies because any puncture or friction tear within the anus can allow feces to accumulate where it shouldn't, and those tears happen more often than not. Lube is essential regardless. just because it is shaped like a dick does not mean you should put a dick in it. I don't think it's actually shaped like a dick either.
>> No. 377997
Ooooohhh. Dribbling. I remember reading about someone concerned that sperm could somehow travel through the intestinal wall to the cervix or something a few years back in one of those "Ask X" advice columns that was quickly dismissed (because wat), which is what your comment brought to mind.

I'm 100% virgin, but I've seen my fair share of the pornos, so I have an idea about all that.
>> No. 377998
Mentioning the, like
roma thing
cos like
my mother's roma or something I dunno

idfk at this point
>> No. 377999

I wish people would stop thinking the rectum is made of goddamn tissue paper and will rip wide open at the slightest provocation unless you're using a bucket of lube and pussyfooting around the entire time. It's ridiculous. Plenty of people practically have rocks for shit and don't have any problem.

The reason why anal sex has a higher transmission rate for STDs is because the lining of the colon is literally designed to absorb liquid, which would include any infected semen deposited in there. It has absolutely nothing to do with damaging the lining or the presence of feces. Certainly, injury doesn't happen "more often that not".

As someone who has been putting objects and fingers up his rear since he was younger than six years old, I'm basically an authority on anything related to anal play. Don't listen to people who treat their sphincter like some kind of delicate cesspool that must be treated with care to avoid breakage, and cleaned out with bleach and a scrub sponge or else shit gets on everything and you'll die horribly of a dozen infections.

God, you people.
>> No. 378001
It's harder to be accepted by people as a trans person than it is to be accepted as gay. A lot of gay people hate trans people too; the T is a very marginalised part of LGBT. And if you are going to transition, it takes a lot of money and effort just to convince health professionals that you are transgender and that you ought to get on hormones and have reassignment surgery, nevermind the cost and recovery time of the actual surgeries. And yo, I don't think anyone in the world wants to take hormone injections for the rest of their lives and have scalpels cutting up their genitals unless they really, really thought that it would help them. It's not about sexuality, and it's not about gender roles--if you're simply unhappy with being female/male because you don't like the stereotypes and expectations of that gender, you aren't transgender.

Being transgender is actually an intersex condition, it's just not a readily visible one--you need to scan a person's brain and know what to look for to be able to see it. Gender is hardwired. Before you are even born, you are aware of your gender, and you come into the world with intrinsic knowledge of whether you will become a man or a woman. The problem arises when hormone levels are fucked up--which can happen for many, many reasons--and the brain becomes feminised despite the baby being a normal XY male who will physically develop into a normal man (or vice versa). This person will grow up knowing what they should be, but their body betrays the brain and takes a different path.

Imagine that, instead of feet at the ends of your legs, you had a pair of hands, and instead of hands at the ends of your arms, you had feet. You can forget while looking straight ahead that you have hand-feet, but sometimes you look down accidentally and remember that you have appendages in the wrong place. It is nonsensical to you, alien, maybe a bit grotesque. Whenever you look at your feet-hands, there is a sense of wrongness that you cannot shake, no matter how much people tell you that it's normal, that you've got very pretty hand-feet, that you should just learn to love them as they are because that's what you were born like, and that's just how it is. They're just things that shouldn't be there, looking like that; there isn't anything wrong with them, and there's nothing wrong with other people who have hand-feet, but that's just not how you were meant to be. That feeling of wrongness, when applied to sex, is called gender dysphoria, and it's why people will jump through flaming hoops for years and face a ton of discrimination in order to change their bodies.

Also to note: because gender is established so early in life it is not really a thing you can change. You can't think yourself into being a woman, and we don't have drugs or surgical techniques that can change your mind about it, either. The fact that you can see differences between male and female brains without much training means it's pretty complex and fuckign with it is probably a terrible idea no matter what. So: change the body, not the mind. And honest to god, even if we did, I think sex reassignment is still a much better, safer choice than brain surgery.

Hope this helps.
>> No. 378002
>And yo, I don't think anyone in the world wants to take hormone injections for the rest of their lives and have scalpels cutting up their genitals unless they really, really thought that it would help them. It's not about sexuality, and it's not about gender roles--if you're simply unhappy with being female/male because you don't like the stereotypes and expectations of that gender, you aren't transgender.

This, a thousand times this. I can't believe I still have to explain this shit to people who act like transpeople are nothing more than predatory dudes in dresses or butch chicks or whatever that simply change their gender on a whim. Like it's just another fetish or a way to simply freak out the straights.
>> No. 378003
File 136886828192.jpg - (14.64KB , 200x200 , happy_sperm_m.jpg )
>we're coming for you tooth
>coomiing for youuuu ♪
>hope you aren't busy for the next 16 years
>> No. 378006
...It just sounds like a teenager's identity issues to me.
>> No. 378007
Oh yeah no, that shits retarded, but I've come across it.

When they stop being a teenager it stops being a teenage issue, it's really not hard guy.
>> No. 378010
>if you are going to have unprotected anal sex, then the person, *ahem* receiving needs a fairly thorough Enema
>unprotected anal sex

NO. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. CAN YOU NOT REEEEEAD. However, if you're going to have responsible anal sex, the enema thing is actually not really necessary. The rectum, where the dick goes, shouldn't have much poop in it unless you need the bathroom or you have a terrible diet. You can just give in and around the area a thorough clean with soap and hot water. You're probably going to get a wee bit of poo on the condom regardless, unless you go for a professional enema. As for the stretching, fingers will be sufficient unless you have a mega-cock.

You're a bit young but you're a cutie, I'd probably do you.

>implying i can't just kill you off

I've done it before and I'll do it again, you sons of bitches.
>> No. 378013
I'm fine with the condom she says he period rhythm will be thrown off by the pill.

not sure what to do next.
>> No. 378016
File 136889553771.png - (91.80KB , 600x674 , erika schelmisch.png )

>hes never heard pf butt-babies
>> No. 378023
I have, but the I thought the phrase was about the mythical idea of getting pregnant in the colon or something (or, that old internet rumor that men were getting reproductive organs surgically implanted into their ass.)

This reminds me of when I spent years thinking "Pink Sock Syndrome" was referring to prolapsing.
>> No. 378024
File 136890337187.jpg - (106.17KB , 396x303 , 1368016091248.jpg )
>You will never have sex with Amy Walker while she pretends to be multiple women trapped in the same body using her mastery of English accents.
>> No. 378026
That sounds logical (not that I am a neurologist or anything).
>> No. 378027
>> No. 378035
>sticking things in ass since 6
>representative of the wider population

Yeah, you can probably put stuff in your ass without any fear of tearing or breaking the sphincter ring. But if a couple just randomly decides one day "hey let's try the ass", especially without lubricants, tearing can occur. And again, impacts from directions the anus does not normally deal with can also cause problems. Rock-hard shits do not slam against the rectal wall going the wrong direction, they get pushed in or held.

From Wikipedia:
"Unprotected penile-anal penetration, colloquially known as "barebacking",[90] carries a higher risk of passing on sexually transmitted infections (STIs/STDs) because the anal sphincter is a delicate, easily-torn tissue that can tear and provide an entry for pathogens. The high concentration of white blood cells around the rectum, together with the risk of tearing and the rectum's function to absorb fluid, places those who engage in such sexual activity at high risk of STIs. Use of condoms, ample lubrication to reduce the risk of tearing,[38][41] and other safer sex practices reduce the risk. However, a condom can break or come off during anal sex, so both sex partners must remain watchful during sex and there is still some risk if one or both partners carries a sexually transmissible infection.[91] The use of the same sex toys by more than one person increases the risk of transmitting such infections.

Unprotected receptive anal sex is considered the sex act most likely to result in HIV transmission.[92][93][94][95] Other infections that can be transmitted by unprotected anal sex are human papillomavirus (HPV) (which can increase risk of anal cancer[96] and typhoid fever),[97] amoebiasis; chlamydia; cryptosporidiosis; E. coli infections; giardiasis; gonorrhea; hepatitis A; hepatitis B; hepatitis C; herpes simplex; Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (HHV-8);[98] lymphogranuloma venereum; Mycoplasma hominis; Mycoplasma genitalium; pubic lice; salmonellosis; shigella; syphilis; tuberculosis; and Ureaplasma urealyticum.[14][99][100][101]"
>> No. 378036
>As someone who has been putting objects and fingers up his rear since he was younger than six years old, I'm basically an authority on anything related to anal play.

>> No. 378041
>As someone who has been putting objects and fingers up his rear since he was younger than six years old
You are a bad poster.
>> No. 378042
Hey it could be innocent, like some stupid kids put crayons up their nose he did it up his ass. Nothing sexual there.
>> No. 378044

That's not why I said "No."

Kids shove things in their orifices all the time. I don't question he shoved stuff up his butt. I'm calling him out because 1) his anecdotal evidence about shoving things up his ass means nothing for everyone else and 2) he is not "the buttmaster" because he (apparently) didn't hurt himself by shoving things up his ass.
>> No. 378055

>lactation - none found
>slime - none found
>choking - none found
>exibitionism - none found
>coprophilia/shit - none found
>pissing/peeing - none found
>incest - none found
>chastity - none found
>pegging - none found
>shoes/heels/boots - none found
>bestiality - none found
>interracial - none found
>latex/rubber - none found
>piercing - none found
>smoking - none found
>voyeurism - none found
>necro/dead/guro - none found
>fisting - only 1 found

>enema - 5 found
>feet - 7 found
>bondage - 7 found
>rape - 14 found
>trans - 21 found
Some amount of pride restored. You guys are pretty vanilla though, get cracking.
>> No. 378056
>lactation - none found
>chastity - none found
>pegging - none found
>shoes/heels/boots - none found
>interracial - none found
>latex/rubber - none found
>piercing - none found

>> No. 378057
>the one too illegal to openly talk about - none found
Can't really hold this against you guys, so it doesn't count against.

>> No. 378058
>choking - none found
>exibitionism - none found
>chastity - none found
>pegging - none found
>shoes/heels/boots - none found
>smoking - none found
>voyeurism - none found

Whelp, I'm a classic domfem in training so I'll go ahead and tick all these boxes and then some.
>> No. 378059
I don't really discuss my less vanilla kinks with the general public, even with this degree of anonymity. It's just embarrassing to me.
Pretty much the least vanilla thing I'm willing to admit atm is that I'm rly submissive, but I'm not a fan of violent/angry/cruel sexy stuff. I really like power-play, just the sweeter kind. Body worship and the like. It's really hard to indulge myself on this because apparently just about all femdom porn out there is insulting or painful or abusive. I just want power-play that's sweet and loving and shit, but idk if that's even a thing, like maybe it isn't even considered sub/dom if it isn't mean. ;_;
>> No. 378064
I think it just means you need to ask for a woman who is "dominant", but not necessarily a "Dom". Although I agree with you that Dom shouldn't equal angry/violent/mean all the time.
>> No. 378067
Why do you care about what makes my monster grow?
>> No. 378068
>skipping tentacles
reel disapoint
>> No. 378070
I'm interested in what causes atypical fetish development like buildings or clowns.
>> No. 378085
Not a particular fetish, but I can see it being sexy.
I could see this being sexy too, but I put a lot of fetishes into this category where I know I could never satiate them in real life.
Had a fleeting thing with it, but someone tried to choke me irl in a non-sexual way because they were upset with me and I quickly became disinterested.
Too private/prudish about my sex life. Sorry.
Definitely not. I talked about this on here before, but people close to me were...something happened between them and an older family member that they wouldn't go into with me, but it was unwanted on their end.
Like trying to tempt someone out of a chastity vow?
Definitely, but I've never had a male significant other who ever brought up that he was interested.
Only an aesthetic interest. I like the way boots look, but don't feel anything sexual towards them.
Nope. Nothing furrier than an anime catgirl.
I'd be all for dating someone of a different race, but I don't consider it a fetish. I just date whoever I feel most of an emotional attachment to.
Afraid to get caught on a partner's piercing.
Actually really allergic to it. I can see the appeal, but it's not for me.
Definitely not.
I don't actually have much experience in seeing this.
Ditto to the above.
Foot massages yes, anything beyond that, no.
Only light stuff.
Definitely not.
I've dated a transguy (great guy, we're still friends), but again, I wouldn't say I have a fetish for any particular type of person.
>> No. 378087
I feel that whether of not this can be considered a fetish is dependent on multiple factors--not that I'm saying that you implied otherwise, but for a lot of people there's more to it than being open to dating "someone from a different race."
There's a fairly large Asian population where I live, and I see more than enough white male/Asian female couples on a daily basis for it to be commonplace enough that it wouldn't occur to me to think that these guys have an Asian fetish. However, considering that I can't recall the last time I saw a white female/Asian male couple, I'd be willing to say that a girl may have an Asian fetish if I saw her with an Asian guy.

I don't mean to start an argument, and I don't claim to be an expert--I'm just going by observation and some statistics. And as someone with no racial preferences, I don't even really understand it very well, outside of considering the effects of some negative stereotyping and western ideals of masculinity. But it's apparently a thing.
>> No. 378089
I know. That's why I'm not saying it's really a fetish for me. I have known people who have said "if she's not a chubby redhead, I won't consider her", or "well-endowed blondes with glasses only", or "only skinny Asian men are attractive", but for me, as long as the person is nice and has mutual interests, I won't exclude anyone. It bugs me when people do exclude someone, because I feel like the person you click with the most may not always be the kind of person you find most attractive.
>> No. 378090
I've been on the internet so long that the relatively innocent concept of the 'interracial fetish' has gained negative connotations in my mind.
it used to just mean 'hay alright, two people, different ethnic backgrounds, one pair of sheets.'
Now the premise has been emphasized in a few different ways. It's hard for me to explain. Someone may emphasize the bodies as toys, not unlike devaluing people into different lego sets. Someone else emphasizes raceplay as a power/dominance thing and attributes a supremecy swansong to it, and that just pisses me off. An attraction to someone that just happens to have what someone personally views as 'exotic' characteristics can easily devolve into racism in the wrong person's hands.
I can't put the concepts of race and fetish together anymore and not see subconscious prejudice of some kind. It's probably just me with this hangup and neurosis, though. I just think if you're fetishizing race, you're doin' it wrong.
>> No. 378092
>Like trying to tempt someone out of a chastity vow?

It's usually keeping your partner in a chastity belt or being kept in a chastity belt. It's often used in humiliation play, but it can also be a form of total submission or dedication (which I find p hot).
>> No. 378093
My fetish is caring about other peoples fetishes. Tell me more plz... im close...

>Like trying to tempt someone out of a chastity vow?
You're sooo cute.

It's mostly one partner with the opinion of "this person is subhuman and I'm using them as a sex toy/slave". Although sometimes they won't admit to themselves how racist they have to be just to have such a fetish.

If it's just two people of different races where neither person has the fetish, it doesn't count.
>> No. 378097
>It's probably just me with this hangup and neurosis, though.
You're not really alone, as the thought has crossed my mind on more than one occasion, although I really don't feel I have enough expertise on the matter to jump to that conclusion.
Interestingly, I once had a friend who, for most of his life, found only white women attractive. After some "soul-searching" however, he now finds all women attractive, claiming that his earlier bias was due to subconcious hang-ups he had that he was able to overcome.
Again, I'm not saying this is the case for all people only capable of finding certain races attractive, but like I mentioned earlier, it did cause me to consider the possibility.

Also, as a guy who grew up with a shit-ton of racial insecurities in a place where those insecurities tended to be reinforced, I remember assuming that at least some part of me would be thrilled if a girl would like me, even if she only did so due to a fetish, but when it finally did happen, I just found it degrading, as it was made pretty clear that I wasn't really seen as a person/valued for qualities I considered important, and she wasn't willing to look past my race to get to know me.
Though to be fair, she was somewhat of an extreme case, the likes of which I had never seen before.
>> No. 378099
File 136899196247.jpg?nsfw - (12.58KB , 340x340 , 17888.jpg?nsfw )
ino rite? thinking of buying a chastity belt with an internal dildo for my gf. its kind of thin, ribbed and made of soft silicone. so she basically has to spend all day, home and at work, walking around with a dick inside her without being able to masturbate or ask someone for help. and as a bonus it has a remote control vibe. its so deliciously evil, perfect for being a cheating slut.


same company that makes fleshlights. pretty cheap too.
>> No. 378100
File 136899294134.jpg - (5.10KB , 221x228 , doghasseensomeshit.jpg )
I'm pretty sure I know exactly what you're talking about. And I'm pretty sure it's one of those things you have to see to believe.
>> No. 378101
She's going to need to be able to piss without spraying it everywhere. Internal chastity belts (ie with plugs) are not made for all day or extended wear, she will most likely not be very horny or frustrated, just sore. There is also a risk of infections from prolonged wear of internal belts (especially "Made in China"...).

I also have a remote control internal strap-on thing in a similar design and it sucked, without clit stim it just felt annoying like I was wearing a giant tampon that had slipped out of place so idk, just make sure you think about it.
>> No. 378102

welp at least i talked to you before buying it
>> No. 378103
Lo siento hombre, but even in your fantasies you gotta be safe and sane, it's too easy to get carried away if you bring it in to real life.

I wish someone had spoke to me before I got mine (well, before my bf got mine). Nearly £40, thrown away. Sigh.
>> No. 378104
File 136900071354.jpg - (48.24KB , 768x432 , queenismad.jpg )
>>You're sooo cute.


It's genuinely never come up in a conversation before. I just figured it factored into those naughty priest/nun kinks or whatever.

It's not my thing, I've seen enough people humiliated and called a slut insultingly to find it sexy.
>> No. 378107
If this is the case, then >>378087 it's not necessarily that the rare girl with the Asian guy has an Asian fetish, it's more like girls that aren't able to find them attractive have an... anti-fetish?
If a woman finds an Asian man attractive, it's possible that she finds all races attractive, and not just Asians. Therefore it would seem a bit unfair to label it as a fetish. I'm not saying it isn't rare, but as I somewhat agree with both of you, it wouldn't be a fetish if the woman is equally attracted to all races, as she wouldn't be degrading anyone by finding them equal.
I guess in that sense I kind of group people who fetishize a race with people that are incapable of finding a race attractive, in terms of possible subconscious hang-ups.
>> No. 378108
> I just figured it factored into those naughty priest/nun kinks or whatever.
>> No. 378109
technically, it's more common for chastity play to involve sexual restriction of one partner, not actively trying to break vows of chastity.
>> No. 378112
Due to childhood abuse, I can't see the BDSM community, particularly the more seedy underbelly many don't like to acknowledge exists, without wanting to chew off a few faces. Among them are fun, if weird individuals that just want to party in strange ways. And among those people are terrible monsters, the likes of which I want to tear to pieces with my mouth.

I fear having a partner that nags or tries to shoehorn BDSM into our relationship. Being asked to dom would make me depressed beyond all reasonable comprehension, and being asked to sub would even end a marriage, if not end in violence.

I wouldn't consider myself particularly romantic. I just absolutely hate power disparity and disrespect. In an era where BDSM culture is picking up speed and members.. ugh. I've seen what it does to guys who have absolutely no business lunking around thinking they're some sort of leather wearing ubermensch. You can always see it on their faces, too. Those smug, assy upstarts that think just thinking you're hot shit lets you stare down people capable of whipping your ass, and they don't deserve respect. The sort of asshole who deserve to have their jaws broken open and fed humble pie until they cut that shit out. But they never will, because they're conniving and just bratty enough to mouth off from safety.

I won't say I have a fetish for equality in the bedroom. Just a seething loathing of BDSM.
>> No. 378115
>Due to childhood abuse
Sexual or just corporal punishment?
>> No. 378117
To be fair, those guys are turdburglars from the BDSM perspective too.
>> No. 378118
I feel sorry for what happened to you, but please keep in mind that not all practitioners of BDSM are abusive assholes or helpless victims. You may want to seek help for your anger and other issues.
>> No. 378134
>most of the women in my family are subconsciously racist.
Huh, who knew?
>> No. 378135
It was never sexual abuse, but that doesn't mean people weren't getting off from doing it.
>> No. 378136
Not so bad then. My grandpa caned me and my dad took the switch to me once or twice.

They never enjoyed it though, and had very good reason for doing it, so it's probably not the same.
>> No. 378141
I don't mind some BDSM, but physical abuse has made a lot of things turn-offs for me too (spanking, calling someone "daddy"), and I don't know if I could be a dom, either. I did look it up awhile back, though, and different people dealt with the abuse in different ways through BDSM-- getting to be in control made them feel like they had the power they felt they'd lacked the first time, or something.

I think the person I was thinking of was someone who specifically wanted to date Asians, specifically Koreans, and even more specifically, a Korean pop star. I remember years back having an argument with weeaboos who thought Asians were the only attractive men in existence/superior to all men, by saying I wasn't more or less attracted to any group of people than I was anyone else. And that pissed them off.

I have no tolerance for being treated like a child. Fuck off.
>> No. 378153
I don't think this is really sexual or anything, but why does sticking a Q Tip in my ear feel really good?
>> No. 378154
>women finding only Asian men attractive
You seem to have a differemt perspective on the matter than I, as my experience has been the polar opposite side of the spectrum--or maybe it's because I haven't been hanging around weeaboos.
There are a lot Asians where I live, and I see white male/Asian female couples on a daily basis, whereas I can't even recall when I last saw a white female/Asian male couple.
Deciding to do a very small-scale sociological inquiry of sorts, I asked around as to why this was, and the women involved, even a large number of Asian women, expressed distaste at the thought of dating Asian men, making sweeping generalizations such as "they're weak, awkward, effeminate, nerdy" etc.

Regardless, I don't approve of either. Neither this heavily stereotyped viewpoint nor the irrational weeaboo behavior you described.
>> No. 378155
Chill man, they're just messing with you.

I don't claim to know what I'm talking about, but as harmful as stereotyping can be, I don't think it necessarily NEEDS to play a part in racial fetishes or "anti-fetishes," though I'm sure that it often does.
I think even some of the most racist individuals will concede that there are exceptions to every generalization, and that there are plenty of people that defy whatever negative stereotypes correspond to them.

I once knew a guy in highschool who told me that he didn't find girls of a particular race attractive, and I asked him if he were to meet a girl from said race who was pretty, intelligent, shared his interests, etc. (basically his dream girl, except for the fact that she wasn't his race of choice) if he would find her attractive, and he said no, without being able to give a valid reason why.

I suppose that would be that subconcious racism at work.
>> No. 378156
>I asked him if he were to meet a girl from said race who was pretty, intelligent, shared his interests, etc. (basically his dream girl, except for the fact that she wasn't his race of choice) if he would find her attractive, and he said no, without being able to give a valid reason why.
Because for a lot of people those things don't factor into attraction.
>> No. 378160
White female/asian male happens infrequently, and usually ends up with heartbreak/divorce. Off the top of my head, Bruce Lee and Jon Gosselin.
>> No. 378162
They did for him--by saying "his dream girl" I meant to say that she would exhibit all the qualities that he did find attractive.

This seems like some quasi-dangerous territory.
I'm not saying that it was your intent to generalize, but someone could take it to imply that they should avoid Asian males, as they make poor significant others, similarly to how some people believe they should avoid certain other races, because statistically they are more likely to have a criminal record.
I dunno. Again, I don't mean to put any words in your mouth.
I just happen to know a lot of diverse people, all of whom are great (and safe to be around) and among them are some Asian men who happen to be fantastic husbands/fathers.
>> No. 378168
I think the closest I was to your experience was my dad telling me I couldn't date a black guy because they were all bad drivers and criminals. What's weird is that he's always worked with other African-Americans, and he's developed close friendships and respects them deeply, and then comes home and makes fun of them and treats them as if they all talk with a deep Southern accent and listen to rap and act like idiots, even when that's clearly not the case. And I've called him out on it.

Sorry about that.

I knew someone like that, but it wasn't a racist incident, but rather, him pointing to his female friends and saying (like he meant it to be a compliment), "I'd date a woman just like you, but if she was taller, blonde, had a bigger rack, and was interested in Socialism". And of course his female friends were irritated.
>> No. 378176
wow no physical abuse can be extremely bad even if it was never sexual, don't ever say "it wasn't so bad then" to an abuse victim, what is wrong with you? i can't believe the levels of insensitivity in the thing you just posted.
>> No. 378179
Sometimes what I come across are people who say, "Well, my parents didn't choke me," or "I wasn't raped," so they feel they don't have the rights to complain if someone had it "worse". Which isn't true. Abuse is abuse, and it's wrong regardless.
>> No. 378180
It wasn't physical abuse for me. It was head games, narrative control, manipulation and harassment. The priority list went as followed:
#1: Always keep actions defensible.
#2: Control the narrative.

The first priority of a stealth abuser is to never do anything that couldn't have a reasonable explanation. They didn't want to be accused of physical abuse and have anything stick, and they didn't want overt verbal abuse or torture. Everything they say or do is filtered through this mentality before the machinations to abuse are ever carried out. The second is to make absolutely certain your interpretation of events is retold by the person being punished, so anyone they complain to is always getting a convenient version of the truth. If it looks and sounds like a child is just sulking because they were justifiably punished for something, people they complain to will just assume they're exaggerating or outright lying to get somebody into trouble. Repeat the lie, over and over again. Rant your interpretation of the events as much as you can.

It sounds limited and benign, but I assure you, it can pound you into little pieces over a prolonged period of time.
>> No. 378181
Hey guys--
Its okay to feel highly aroused by nudie burlesque acts, right?

Like, even if their purpose seems almost 100 percent artistic and with no actual hard pornographic or otherwise vulgar content...
Its cool right?
>> No. 378183
>is it okay to be aroused by nudity?

Are you really asking this seriously is this a thing we have to discuss?

Was gonna say, the "interracial" thing always seemed like a misnomer to me. Genetically, skin color is such a minute difference between different people as to almost literally be only skin deep. Individual physiology can vary, and has actually been found to vary somewhat by region, but people within those regions seem to adapt the same physiological differences regardless of skin color (though the last time I was given a full overview in this was a while ago so that's a litttttle outdated info). So, "Interracial" is kind of incorrect, imho; we're all human, after all. (Not to downplay race issues, if anything I would like to see that division erased)

That said, I do think there is a kind of fantasy, if not fetish, for sleeping with people of different skin color than your own. There's the traditional taboo of "race", but there's also the general artifact that someone of a different skin color can have a very different upbringing and a very different approach to love making. Not to stereotype, but I have had slightly better luck with black and latina women when I pursued them (as a white boy) than I have with white women. And I think it's because you kind of "know" about people from your parents; most Asian girls know about Asian men from their Fathers, not necessarily the hot Asian guys. So you have this idea of what it will be like to live with (if not sleep with) someone from your own "race", no matter how different every single person who has your skin tone or generic regional features actually is. When you get a chance to sleep with someone not of your skin color, there's a kind of mystery about about it, because they're just so different from anything you know or have experienced. The reality of it can be a little disappointing; it's still just sex, no matter their skin color. The person is more important.

Mental abuse is not really a factor in consenting BDSM relationships (or it shouldn't be. If you feel truly abused in any relationship than you should gtfo that shit). I don't want to downplay your pain, but it sounds like your abuser might have been abused themselves. Unless you got the distinct notion that they were achieving some form of sexual pleasure from all of it, I'd wager they were probably reliving their own demons. Doesn't make them less of an asshole for going at it full tilt, but I don't quite see the BDSM connection.
>> No. 378185
Thats not actually what I asked though.
>> No. 378186
Do you mean to imply that this justifies them not giving them a chance?
Especially given how infrequently it occurs, I'm not sure it's fair to pass that kind of judgement.

For a lot of people, I don't think predicting how good someone is in making a relationship work factors into the initial attraction, or even being capable of finding someone physically attractive regardless, so even if this is a subconcious fear that people have, there seems to be something else factoring into this other than this generalization.

Pretty much agreed.
>> No. 378187
Of course it's okay.
If you see a nude, attractive woman, you're going to register her as attractive, whether or not it's within an artistic context.
>> No. 378189
>I'm not saying that it was your intent to generalize
Totally is though. Generalization isn't bad as long as you realize it's generalization and not an absolute.

Hell no, some of the best romances ended in heartbreak. Off the top of my head, Romeo and Juliet, Rhett and Scarlett, Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam, Helen and Paris.

Not to mention that interracial couples often break apart under social stress and their own cultural differences, NOT because they don't love each other enough. Off the top of my head Bruce Lee had to struggle really hard with having a white girlfriend (later wife) especially during an extremely charged period in Americas history where they were publicly ridiculed.

So it isn't hopeless, it's just very difficult because you have so many things working against you.

I'm hoping he's being sarcastic.
>> No. 378190
File 13691475748.jpg?nsfw - (58.72KB , 500x667 , 13lWb6S.jpg?nsfw )
>> No. 378194
No, I'm really just... asking cos it just feels kinda awkward.

Like, I feel like its the equivalent to getting aroused by a greek statue.
...Like, its as if its universally agreed upon that'd be weird.
>> No. 378195
I see, I apologize for the misunderstanding; given that I assumed it to be in response to the "anti-fetish" discussion, I had taken it to mean that you found the practice of selectively excluding certain races from being attractive (which I still don't get) justifiable.
I guess I'm somewhat puzzled by equating Asian male/white female romances as tragic, but maybe I'm reading too much into it.
But I ultimately agree with you.
Thank you for clarifying.
>> No. 378198
File 136916307943.jpg - (32.53KB , 343x620 , image008_2.jpg )
You know a lot of greek statues originally had penises on them, right? The point of the statues was to showcase virility, so much so that the Catholic Church actually had almost all the statues wangs' broken off and replaced with plaster fig leaves. The Greeks celebrated sex and nudity far more than almost any other historical culture, and were known to practice homosexuality, pedophilia, and bestiality, amongst other things. The word Orgy also stems from the Greek celebrations known as Orgia, which actually acted as a kind of shadow rite to alternative religions back in the day (this celebration was different for different sects, and while it is thought that the concept of an orgy originated here, it is known that at least one sect used the Orgia to perform divine castrations, possibly under the effect of psychotropic drugs).

Nudity in art is often meant to explicitly invoke sexual arousal while juxtaposing it with something not explicitly sexual, either to evoke reaction or to highlight discrepancy. In certain cases, this is undesirable; consider the woman in the Coca-Cola ad, suggestively holding a bottle of coke. The bottle is not actually a penis, but taken with the bared back, the smile and the positioning, one could almost make that logical jump. And that is, on some level, part of the marketing; trying to push this idea that sexy, beautiful women love coke (lol) and that you may obtain sexy beautiful women if only you obtain coke. The direct intent is arousal, and the linking of arousal to the product, so that when you're in the supermarket, you may see a coke and pop a boner, but the intent is that, to satiate that boner, you should buy a coke. Or Axe body spray. Or a faster car. The art here is tied to the idea of selling products, and on that level, I'd find it reprehensible and be a little disappointed in my boner, even though its' a natural reaction.

With Burlesque dancing, I daresay arousal is the point. The dancer has very explicitly cast herself as an Agent Provocateur, and the point is to be sexy and teasing, without really selling anything other than the tease. It is not something I would act upon, as it is a public show, but the point is, in part, to illicit something like that arousal without actual pornographic material. Burlesque is less sleazy than any given strip club, and the discomfort you feel may be because you sense that the performer is a real, actual person on some level, evoking a reaction in your pants but not some throwaway piece of objectified sexuality.
>> No. 378201
Eddie Izzard - On Advertisingyoutube thumb
>> No. 378203
>Like, I feel like its the equivalent to getting aroused by a greek statue.
I masturbated to one once, on one actually so it had to be restored.

The sculptors pretty much intended that.

>...Like, its as if its universally agreed upon that'd be weird.
Universally? No.
Although you'll find a few people against it.

Hell there are people against masturbating to regular commercial porn, that doesn't mean its wrong.

Nah it's ok, no problem, props on being civil.
>> No. 378208
>Hell no, some of the best romances ended in heartbreak. Off the top of my head, Romeo and Juliet, Rhett and Scarlett, Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam, Helen and Paris.
Are you beign sarcastic by referring to these as "best romances?" These aren't just tragic romances, they're almost all completely stupid romances that are intended more as cautionary tales against idiots thinking with their dicks than as tales of heartwarming love.
>> No. 378209
loool I bet your version of "good romance" is one that ends with "happily ever after" and your mom tucking you in for the night.
>> No. 378211
>two preteens get crushes on each other over the weekend
>ends in dual suicide
>one of the best romances
>> No. 378212
File 136917677597.png - (196.74KB , 492x381 , pooh.png )
>I masturbated to one once, on one actually so it had to be restored.
>> No. 378213
Not necessarily, but it does involve people who are actually into each other for reasons beyond wanting to bone and getting off on how impossible their "romance" is would certainly be a step in the right direction. Romeo and Juliet were like thirteen, and Romeo had explicitly been just as in love with another girl a week before, who he promptly forgot for the new flavor-of-the-moment. They knew each other for like three days, and didn't know anything about one another.

Helen was abducted by Paris from her husband, and she only gave in to him because the goddess of love fucking mind-controlled her into it.

Rhett's single most iconic line, maybe one of the most iconic lines in history, was about how he no longer cared what happened to her.

Elizabeth and Fitzwilliam I don't recognize, but given the pattern, I suspect they'll have similar issues.

A better example of a tragic romance might be the Hans Christian Anderson version of the Little Mermaid. I still resist the whole "love at first sight" genre, but at least their was genuine kindness shared between the would-be lovers, and the Mermaid's sacrifice for the Prince was actually justified rather than motivated by teenage melodrama.
>> No. 378214
Some people are just superheroes.
>> No. 378215
It was a smaller statue, its not like I did it to something huge. Didn't even have a name just a serial number.

None of that is the damn point, doesn't matter who manipulated them (even if it's their own hormones) the point is they loved each other enough to die when they thought the other was dead. They couldn't imagine a world without their loved one. That's fucking devotion.

Now... lets see how your version of the story ends up
>two preteens meet and are attracted to each other
>decide rationally that their parents hatred would cause too much friction
>break it off
>nothing happens whatsoever
Hurr great romance.

>Little Mermaid
Lost it, my sides are officially in orbit.
>> No. 378218
I get the feeling you don't really know what you're talking about.
>> No. 378219
The Little Mermaid also has the advantage of being written as an allegorical version of something that was actually happening to Andersen, too, which gives it even more appeal as a personal story about love. As a gay man in love with a man who was getting married to a woman, and unable to say anything ("losing his voice") about it because of how homosexuals were treated at the time, Andersen was very much writing about himself when he told the story. Which made the whole thing much more real.

The tragic ending was predetermined because there was no way the "mermaid" (Andersen) could end up with the "prince," (the object of his affections) given the society Andersen was living in, no matter what Disney would like to tell you. Her death, and gaining a soul in the process, was pretty much the best thing she could hope for.
>> No. 378234
I feel that we've digressed to a certain degree, considering that the poster mentioned the stories to relation to a different topic--whether or not people find the comparison to be apt.
Or maybe, given the nature of these stories, we're actually on topic.
>> No. 378236
Romeo and Juliet knew each other for like two weeks at best, and they "fell in love" and got married the day the met. That is incredibly stupid teenage infatuation, not love. They might have made a good couple, but they never got the chance to because of their asshole families. The fact that it was never able to become anything at all since they were kept away from each other by irrational hatred is what makes the story tragic. Not simply because they died for "love."

You can read into Juliet and Romeo committing suicide out of pure, devoted, blind-ass love for each other, but it's not really as interesting as seeing it as an act of defiance and despair over the family rivalry in addition to the grief and guilt they felt over the numerous deaths in the story. Romeo was saddling two murders an an exile and pretty much had nothing left to live for anymore except his hope that he could be with Juliet, and was already shown to be a super dramatic guy prone to depression, so when he thought he lost her he just was like, fuck this I'm outta here. Juliet's future was less fucked (though she didn't know the man she was betrothed to was killed earlier) but it was still bad, and she knew Romeo died because of her gambit to escape. Their deaths are more complex than what most people make it out to be.

Neat, I never heard that before
>> No. 378239
Same feeling about you actually, considering your 2 posts contain no useful information. At least the anons are trying.

How is that not a tragedy though?

Can we all agree to stop focusing on unimportant parts of the story?

>the day the met
It's a play, there's a time limit. That's why they showed the absolute minimum time of the formative part of the relationship, because it isn't important to the story. The actual meat of the story (family rivalry influencing the relationship) is far more important. You're missing the point and focusing on things which don't matter.

Here I'll show you how it sounds: hurr little mermaid is shit because andersen doesnt explain how mermaids evolved
And just in case someone brings up Helen of Troy being influenced by magic again: hurr little mermaid is shit because such creatures cant exist without magic

Aprhodite in Troy and the 1 day marriage in R&J are there because they're a quick way to get rid of the part that's NOT IMPORTANT and get to the business of the actual trials and tribulations of their relationship. Romance is a story about the expression of love, not about the formation of love.

So... can we all agree to stop focusing on unimportant parts of the story as a basis for judgement?
>> No. 378243
you failed english class a couple times didn't you
>> No. 378245
Does anyone here have an actual opinion or are insults how you want to do this? Because I have some pretty good insults.
>> No. 378260
>It's a play, there's a time limit. That's why they showed the absolute minimum time of the formative part of the relationship, because it isn't important to the story. The actual meat of the story (family rivalry influencing the relationship) is far more important. You're missing the point and focusing on things which don't matter.
You really seem to be misunderstanding. We're not saying "Shakespeare was a bad writer and here are the reasons." We are saying "You misunderstood Shakespeare's point--Romeo and Juliet was a deconstruction of the already played-out star-crossed lovers genre with intentionally un-sympathetic characters." He made this even more clear when he explicitly referenced the much older prototype story, Pyramus and Thisbe, in a Midsummernight's Dream. Romeo and Juliet is not a romance, other than in the sense that Shaun of the Dead is a horror movie.
>> No. 378267
Oh. Huh.
I wouldn't say I'd act upon it either, I was just thinking of -extremes- but...

Yeah. That clears up quite alot in my mind. Thank you.
>> No. 378270
>The Little Mermaid was written as an allegorical version of a gay man in love with a man who was getting married to a woman

Well, I learned something new today. Interesting.

Regarding all the fighting over whether Romeo and Juliet is a tragic romance or just some dumb, infatuated teens killing themselves, I'd have to say it's a little bit of both. More importantly, it seems like an example of what NOT to do, like a cautionary tale. Unfortunately, most horny, dramatic teens won't read it that way.
>> No. 378277
The funny thing about Romeo and Juliet is that it's the love story we remember the most. It's quintessential; if you didn't read it in public school somewhere in the US, you probably saw the rather gaudy Leonardo DiCaprio version. It sticks rather vividly in the teenage mind; life is fleeting, even if some chick you saw is the daughter of your familys' worst enemy, you should probably go4it because by god, she made you feel funny in the pants for the first time.

By the numbers, Romeo and Juliet was fucking disaster. The final body count for the story is something like 6. The titular lovebirds knew each other for no time at all and responded with enormous clingyness. You ever have a highschool relationship where you have to spend all your time on the phone, reaffirm your love constantly? That's basically what it was like. And they kill themselves over this. They kill themselves and they get a couple of their friends killed along the way.

I don't know what your metric for a successful relationship is. Double-suicide would be considered something like a "risk factor" for couples where each person has deep-seated emotional problems. Threat of suicide in a relationship is actually a form of emotional blackmail, and can be the basis of an abusive relationship. Not being able to live without another person, well, that's simply not true or a healthy way of looking at relationships. People come into your life, people go out of your life, sometimes they really like you and stick around a lot, sometimes you have to leave, sometimes they have to leave. Life continues for each of you, and is not dependent on the other person. The thing about a lot of the great romances is that they're tragic, and inherently unstable, generally because of circumstances surrounding the relationships but also because of the unrealistic notions that each person carriers for the other.

That Romeo and Juliet are "star-crossed lovers" is perhaps the most classic unrealistic notion that every new highschool couple seems to have. And the vast majority of highschool relationships don't last (thank god). or end in death.
>> No. 378278
shakespeare pandered to both the comic folk and the elite.
that play read like a fucking CW drama.

also seconding all that stuff you said because that was no bueno
>> No. 378279
>Romeo and Juliet is not a romance
7/10, you had me going for quite awhile there.

It's not about successful relationships, that's what this whole thread of conversation is about. Even if the relationships fail they're still good romances, you don't need a happily ever after on the end for it to be a good story.

Basically this is my point.
>The thing about a lot of the great romances is that they're tragic, and inherently unstable, generally because of circumstances surrounding the relationships but also because of the unrealistic notions that each person carriers for the other.
>> No. 378288
>common folk
ftfy, me
soap opera shakespeare pulling out all the stops for maximum melodrama
>> No. 378292
If your reading comprehension skills when you're reading books is anywhere near as bad as your reading comprehension skills when reading posts on plus4chan, it's no surprise you have such terrible understanding of literary romance.
>> No. 378293
The idea of giving head is very hot to me, but is it weird that cum itself kinda turns me off? The idea of tasting it, let alone swallowing it makes me feel physically sick.
>> No. 378294
You'll never know if you'll like how something tastes until you try it.
>> No. 378295
I used to completely not mind the taste of cum at all for years but in the last year or so I've become increasingly intolerant to the taste to the point where I start retching most of the times I get some in my mouth. Just let them come on your face or tits/chest (if you let them cum on your face, point it at your chin/cheek to avoid the horror of cummy eyes).
>> No. 378296
>They couldn't imagine a world without their loved one. That's fucking devotion.
Or a lack of imagination.
>> No. 378315
anon confession time

>>have experienced grumpiness at hearing others describe a date they didn't hit it off with that seems like someone I'd totally date
>>if someone told me "I can't have sex often/don't want to" I'd be elated
>>am a tiny bisexual woman who desperately wants to date a man bear
>> No. 378316
Thats the 'owners's diet, actually.

What you've been eating changes the smell, I can only imagine (plus what I've heard) it changes the taste as well.
>> No. 378327
Honestly the hugest component of it is getting off on doing something dirty like swallowing your bf's bodily fluids. Swapping spit with the guy is probably more disgusting if you consider the mucous and bacteria found in the mouth.

Acidic fruit, nuts red wine and liquors = cum is sweeter.
Meats, beer, coffee, milk products, smoke = cum is sour and bitter.
Thickness is controlled by hydration and kidney function.

This also applies to vaginal fluids, even more so because they aren't as strictly controlled by the body as seminal fluids. Although in my experience younger women taste consistently better regardless of what they eat, and there's also a huge monthly difference...
>> No. 378329
Do you just want cuddles and no sex, or sex only once in a while?

plus4chan is certainly educational, isn't it? No, really, that's interesting.
>> No. 378331
When I say nuts I mean like walnuts, not... you know.
>> No. 378341
Dee's Nuts?
>> No. 378343
aw shut the fuck up
>> No. 378345
A lot of snuggling, then maybe very slowly leading up to something where I would feel comfortable enough to lose my virginity. And if that went well, sex only every once in awhile. So far, I haven't met a man willing to wait, and I haven't met a woman who wanted to sleep with me at all.
>> No. 378350
I've always been curious about this regarding people with little desire for frequent sex--and I realize you may not represent everyone or even the majority, but maybe you could give me some insight--when you say you're wanting sex rarely, are you talking full-on, genital-to-genital sex, or including oral or digital/manual stuff and/or heavy-petting? As you said you're bisexual, I'm guessing it's both (since my understanding is that genital-to-genital sex between two women rarely results in orgasm, so I would assume it's more or less foreplay for most lesbian relationships), but different people have different ideas of what really constitutes "sex."
>> No. 378353
I don't even know, honestly. I just know I have bad social anxiety and self-esteem, so I often ask myself if I'm deserving of having a sex life, or if anyone would be interested.
>> No. 378355
No one deserves anything. You get what you get, not what you deserve. And regardless of pretty much anything else, it is within your power to get what you want while making other people happy in the process, so that little voice inside your head can stuff it.

That being said, you might want to explore your own sexuality more before trying to get in a relationship with another person. Masturbation can help you have an understanding of what you enjoy and what you would want to share with other people. Don't ever let it be a question of what you're supposed to want--your sexuality is yours, and you have a right to share it, or not, in whatever way makes you happiest. If that doesn't include any sort of sex, then that's fine (it might be harder to find a partner if that's the case, but that doesn't make you less worthy of love or anything), but if it does, then that's fine too.
>> No. 378361
File 136936276217.jpg - (23.52KB , 400x466 , 1720587-28316724.jpg )
>> No. 378367
The flame that burns brightest also tends to burn things down, and that's only mostly metaphorical.

We don't see a lot of stable relationships in media for 2 reasons. 1 is that it's very difficult to set any kind of baseline definition for a stable relationship. If you survey couples, there's a lot of different ways that relationships can work and only a few things between them that seem to be universal; things like financial security, emotional stability, similar socioeconomic backgrounds, healthy networks of friends and varied interests for each partner. There is no real "magic bullet" for such things, only indicators after the fact of people who have managed to keep it together.

2, portraying that in a dramatic set piece makes for a boring story. We remember all these terrible, tragic, fiery romances because they're the only things in the movie gallery labeled "romance". And this is where we get our ideas about how to act. Love poetry written on a note and passed over a windowsill seems like a great idea when you're one of the best and most influential writers of all time. But everyone else kind of groans and grimaces if anyone even mentions that someone wrote them poetry, or made a mix tape, or stood on their front lawn with a guitar. Nobody holds up Zoe and Wash from Firefly as a great stable relationship because it's not fiery, it's not in your face, and it doesn't have a big label that reads "romance" above it in the video store. They're just two people of very different abilities who found each other, like each other, who trust each other and want to be together.

Infatuation is never really a good model for a relationship because, even when both parties are infatuated with each other, it can blind them to outside issues or issues innate with their partner that they just don't see coming because they're too busy idolizing their partner, in a sense. But we think of this as good relationship advice because that's all we ever really get exposed to.
>> No. 378380
>stable, healthy relationships in media are boring

I call BS. I think creators/writers are just lazy. It's what audiences come to expect because it's what writers write because it's what audiences come to expect full circle. You can put characters in an existing, strong, stable relationship if you're creative enough and don't always rely on romance cliches. Do you want angst and drama? Fine, but it doesn't have to occur between the couple themselves. There are outside factors and problems that can come into play. But instead everyone's like, well, after much dancing around their mutual attraction but never saying anything about it, the boy got the girl and they live happily ever after, the end, because whatever comes next is boring. Or once boy enters into relationship with girl, they must fight all the time and have wacky shenanigans ensue and other people keep trying to tear them apart, because otherwise it's BORING.

No. You are just lazy.

I'm sorry, this is one of my buttons.

>Nobody holds up Zoe and Wash from Firefly as a great stable relationship because it's not fiery, it's not in your face, and it doesn't have a big label that reads "romance" above it in the video store.

Actually, that was one of the few things I liked about the show. And then he was killed off, of course. Because loldrama.
>> No. 378382
that you believe this makes me so incredibly sad.
>> No. 378385
You feeling sad makes me hot, it's my fetish. Are you crying yet?
>> No. 378386
File 136940365018.png - (294.76KB , 288x499 , why.png )
>> No. 378489
>it's lazy

Well you've kind of hit upon it. In between major hits at movie studios, you need ways to pay the bills. To a staff writer pulling a paycheck for basically editing to the script? Do you really need to say anything authoritative on love? Do you have anything to say? How many people have you actually been with? Between all the writers, how many people have they actually been with? Could you you compare to the great writers who have come before, who framed love with such care and timelessness, even if nobody can understand what they were saying anymore? Is the paycheck worth trying to do that?

And then, when we do put one of those "great" romances on the screen, they're quintessential in detailing the anguish of love, how brightly it can burn, but the reality is that the fallout from most of those romances is terrible. Because that was in part the point of the stories; just how wrong something can go even though it seems so right.

On the other side of the equation, we have the RomComs, which are frequently kind of lazy cash-ins. Because it's difficult to capture what that spark between two people is all about, especially when you're making up fake characters with fake lives and then trying to say something "real" about love and romance. Mostly, it's easier to try and be funny and leave a lot of the brass tack stuff in the air.

It compartmentalizes romance and boils away a lot of the considerations of real life, and that's how we like to discuss romance, separate from reality. Your job, the car you drive, your prospects in life, none of these should matter but they all kind of do. Romance can come and go but between that, there are a lot of day to day considerations, a lot of tedium. It's great when you're with a person, but you're not with them physically all the time. People got jobs and hopefully interests.
>> No. 378543
I think one of the biggest problems with admitting that I'm bi is that after someone knows, from that point on, whenever I say that I like a male character or actor, it would carry connotations that part of WHY I like them is that I find that attractive.
>> No. 378560
It's a shame that bi people get questioned so much. You have to explain that it's possible to like both at the same time, that it's possible to settle down and be monogamous despite being attracted to males and females, that liking the same sex doesn't mean you're "afraid" of the opposite sex, or that you "just need a good [x]" to "show you the err of your ways", or you have to explain WHY the same sex even appeals to you in the first place. Pansexuals have the added frustration of having to explain that being transgender and intersex is even a thing, what the difference is, and that it's not just a "made-up special snowflake" sexuality.
>> No. 378561
What does it make a difference? They already assume that if you say you like a female actor, it's because of her tits. Why do you not give a shit about that, but you do when it's male actors?
>> No. 378562
Because now it'll be assumed that I'll judge male actors by their attractiveness and not by how good they are at their job.

I don't tend to judge women actors by their tit size, even though saying you like her implies that by default.
>> No. 378564
I think this is why, for several years, I avoided the hell out of pop stars and any film with an actor like Leonardo DiCaprio or Johnny Depp. I knew they were popular with other girls I knew for their looks, and I mistakenly assumed it was entirely for that reason. It was only after wondering what the hell the appeal was that I realized, hey, they were actually talented actors as well. DiCaprio and Depp, at least. Most pop music in general I still don't get.
>> No. 378584
Can we not have shit labels like homo or bi or pansexual anymore and just have people say "I'm ok with that" or "I'm not down with it" as each situation comes up? Because that just shoehorns us into being bits of things when we're so much more as whole people.

That's my ideal world. People being people.

Just feels like this whole tumblr sexuality thing is going to end up bad, like if you're going to advertise how you like it in bed you might as well go all the way and wear a shirt with a list of ALL your fetishes.
>comic sans font
>hi im a pansexual demisub that likes drinking pee and has a fake tit fetish
>> No. 378591
File 136960175062.png - (4.76KB , 313x346 , sexuality graph.png )
When you see that sort of thing on tumblr, they're always just kids, like 14 or 16 or whatever. A lot of them are exploring their identities, and sexuality is kind of a big thing as a teenager, and it's a big thing right now outside the internet with the whole gay marriage thing in the States. It's on the news; it's Important.

I think they'll grow out of it.

There's stuff on tumblr that might be damaging to fall into--the "multiples" shit, "demisexuality"--because that stuff is completely fucking normal but is being presented as special and they're encouraged to take it in a completely wacko direction that alienates them from everyone but a small group of fellow wackos on tumblr. Multiples as in people who have "characters living in their heads," of course, not people with serious mental issues or brain damage that literally prevents their brain from composing a complete identity out of a disorganised mess of memory and emotions. Characters talking is a completely average and benign phenomenon that anyone who daydreams or writes stories has experienced, and it used to just be called a muse until somebody decided to pathologise it and sell it as a friendly, fluffy version of a serious mental disorder. This, otherkin and other similar pseudocults popping up are bad because they suck in healthy people as well as people who ARE ill and need real professional help, and they won't get it because they've found a community that tells them they're unique and have special spiritual abilities the muggles just don't understand. There's also the problem of otherkin/multiples effectively erasing a person's actual identity and replacing it with wild fantasy during a person's formative years.

Demisexuality is not cultish, just retarded, since it's a useless term some random girl on a shitty RP forum invented in 2005 to describe people who would much rather have sex with someone they are in a relationship with than friends with benefits or strangers... which describes... the overwhelming majority of people in the world.

But just a seeming obsession with normal sexuality? Nah. That's ok.

Re: labels in general, I once joked that since sexuality can be expressed on two axes (gender preference and sex drive) you could just make a graph of it, and hopefully since it was so dry and mathematical everyone would just get so tired of identifying as (-3,-3) or (0, -6) or (4, 4) or whatever we could just drop the whole thing. Realistically though, I don't think labels for sexuality will ever go away completely as long as there's societal importance being placed on sex. And I think the current situation is better than the historical one, where we DIDN'T have those labels and everyone was "straight" and homosexuality was a thing you did.
>> No. 378608
The reason demisexuality is even a label (and I personally think it's a legit one, for the most part) is because people are told when they first start knowing what sex is that everyone either abstains from all sex or has tons of sex with everybody, and that being somewhere in the middle doesn't exist, and it does. Nobody's sex drive is identical to anyone elses'. It all factors in how busy a person is, their upbringing, past romantic/sexual experiences, whatever.
>> No. 378612

Demisexuality refers to an attraction profile, not an action. It means that the person in question is incapable of becoming physically attracted to another person until they get to know them.

Basically everyone can go into a room full of people and find someone of their choice gender that they find extremely attractive. It's a natural reaction to stare a little, undress them with your eyes, and start having naughty fantasies regarding this person. Now, it doesn't mean you are going to go right up, grab them, and start having sex right there on the floor. But if you're attracted enough, you might gather some courage and go talk to them or ask them on a date, with the expectation that some kind of physical activity might come later.

A demisexual person doesn't see people in that same way — in fact cannot do so, and that isn't common. You can spout off about how you're civilized and cultured, above your animal instincts and all that bullshit; fine, whatever. But I'm sure at some point in your life (especially if you're a male) you've watched someone walked by and stared, eyes glued on their [insert your favorite part of the body here] and thought "I want to fuck that!" It's natural and normal and virtually universal. It's your subconscious attraction profile telling you to go try and start a relationship, because it might be nice.

What being a demisexual means is that this moment does not come right away, and often does not come for a very long time. It may take months or years of developing a relationship before ANY sort of physical attraction grows. Then, suddenly, this person who wasn't sexually interesting before becomes sexually interesting.

It's understandable that this can be confusing. In much the same way, people can confuse sexual orientations (heterosexual, homosexual, pedosexual, pansexual, etc.) with sexual behaviors. They do not always have to be the same. Just because a woman is attracted to other women doesn't mean she has sex with them. Just because a predator rapes children doesn't mean he is attracted to them. Just because most people can be instantly attracted to random strangers does not mean they have sex with random strangers.

But the point is, most people are at least capable of that type of attraction; demisexuals are not.
>> No. 378613
It's not confusing, it's just useless as a descriptor. And you'll notice that, while searching for demisexuality, you will only find forum posts and user-added definitions. That's because it is not recognised by anyone outside of the internet, and a teenager on the internet made it up to feel special. That's really it. That's the actual history of demisexuality.

Don't lecture me on this like I don't know what people identifying as demisexuals function like either, because I definitely do. Probably several hundred thousand times better than you, unless you're only replying because you're offended I called this word you use to describe yourself stupid. In which case, we're on the same page. I feel nothing outside of a relationship either.

But it's still stupid.
>> No. 378631
>incapable of becoming physically attracted to another person until they get to know them
>in fact cannot do so
Then it's an actual lie. Stick them in an fMRI machine and show them porn, every single one of them will have their VTA light up. It's an instinctive reaction that even happens in sociopaths, as in people that can't have (or have very confused) emotions.

Please don't use made up biological excuses for not being able to talk to girls.
>> No. 378636
Same here. I love the hell out of RDJ, but while I admit he's a decent looking guy he literally does zero for me on the attraction front. I just find him extremely entertaining and believable in his roles. Likewise I actually consider Daniel Craig to be on the ugly side, but when I say I like him in a movie (or Jeremy Renner, or god forbid, Benedict Cumberbatch) others immediately assume it's because I think he's super sexy, when really it's quite the opposite and I just thought he did a really good job.

A lot of the Tumblr/LJ/whatever fanbase has to do with the fostering of this mindset and forms a self-perpetuating circle for it. I think I've only ever been able to find one female-run Tumblr for Game of Thrones in all of my time searching that primarily focuses on discussing the actual acting ability and writing for the cast without being primarily a fangirl blog. It's why I keep coming back to 4Chan, since in spite of all the other shittiness that goes on it's still the only real platform I have to properly discuss many of the things that I like.
>> No. 378639
It's not incorrect or made-up. You're just using a "it doesn't happen to me, so it can't happen to anyone" excuse.

I think even the fangirls do like their acting, they just might be distracted by the sexy, as it were.
>> No. 378642
>or god forbid, Benedict Cumberbatch
I really, really just cannot understand why Tumblr wants to ride his dick. He is probably one of the ugliest actors I have ever seen, and I find a lot of things, and by extension, people, attractive.
Dude looks like a particularly ugly potato.
>> No. 378643
Which ties to his charming British air.
>> No. 378644
He's better looking than Matt Smith, and they're pretty big into him, too.
>> No. 378647
>It's not incorrect or made-up.
Bring out a scientific article or stfu about this nonsense.
>> No. 378648
you're wrong on both counts lol. nothing on demisexuality exists that isn't circlejerking. that's because it's made up. it has only existed for 8 years in the recesses of the internet. people who don't normally feel attraction to anyone unless they have a strong emotional connection certainly exist but it is not a hardline category and it's meaningless to identify as such and form communities and hugboxes around it. especially because it is common.

also most people find actors sexy because of the characters they play and because of their acting ability. they aren't distracted at all, unless they find a bad actor's body attractive and are actively trying to ignore everything the actor is attempting to do onscreen to avoid a bonerkill.
>> No. 378651
You'd be surprised. Just look at the hordes of fangirls who obsess over Darren Criss. I've never actually watched a full episode of Glee so maybe he's not actually that bad, but every single scene I've seen of him has him either being so wooden or so forced it's painful. Yet if I dare to say anything to criticize his acting skills his fangirls immediately accuse me of being homophobic or a butthurt shipper.
>> No. 378652
i knew him in high school. he's a better actor than he lets on for that show, but... not that amazing either. it's his voice, confidence, and look that always made him so charming.

We went to St. Ignatius College Prep. in San Francisco. I was in the same year as his older brother.
>> No. 378653
>Everyone replying about "demisexual" being made up and useless.

Whether or not the condition, or state of being, or function exists is not the point. We are all basically in agreement that some people are like this (and some are not, even if you think it's only the Whore of Babylon or some such); some of us say that most are like this, some say that few are like this. But we all agree that the type of thoughts and/or behavior is an actual thought and behavior in real human beings. Thus, the only thing that remains is semantics.

It's very much the same as the term "muggle" from Harry Potter. Yes, someone just made up the term. Yes, it's not very useful as a categorizing term because most people happen to be non-magical. But that does not completely undo the validity of the word as a descriptive term. The entire POINT of a word is to shorten a description as a matter of convenience. The first person to coin a word such as "mountain" did it so other persons could know what he was talking about when he said: "meet me at the mountain". That way, he didn't have to say: "meet me at the huge roughly-triangular landmass that is composed of earth and rock and sticks up high into the sky". Words are shorthand, that is all.

So regardless of whether or not you believe demisexuality refers to a condition which most people are alike in does not matter. Neither does the etymology. (ALL words were once made up by a single person — don't be fucking dense. There is no governing body in the UN or collection of scientists that decides which words are valid and which words are bullshit based on their origin. Words are words and society writ large decides which ones to use and which ones to not use). The point is, as a descriptor the term has validity because it shortens an otherwise unwieldy definition. It enables other people who are the same way to identify each other and understand that they are like-minded, quickly.

Oh, and to anyone saying that it's not a valid orientation because scientists haven't given the thumbs up, recall that less than 25 years ago homosexuality was still officially classified as a mental disorder. Things change; that is the nature of science.
>> No. 378654
>We are all
who is "we"?

get a better definition that makes sense, and ill consider it

until then its doomed to fail as a term, because it makes no damn sense
>> No. 378668
The thing is that it isn't describing a valid "orientation". It isn't describing "physical attributes that turn you on", it's describing not necessarily wanting to engage in sexual relations immediately. Which is common to most people. It's a really simple question to ask yourself: "With no consequences, given the option, would you have sex with this person?". That answer is generally yes or no, but the reality is that there is never really no-strings attached sex. Some one night stands get about as close as you can, but there's always that possibility of an emotional hook, or other fallout. Generally, as an adult, you're expected to deal with the fallout but it's usually not as simple as all that.

To become sexually interested in someone after a certain amount of time getting to know them is not unusual. But you don't get to that point without first thinking to yourself that you could see yourself with them. That happens really quickly, for how much we preach about judging books by their covers, it's really the fastest and easiest way to discern the nature of someone. Similar circuitry is at work, so to speak, when you decide to give a hobo money; you are inventing notions in your head about a person based on their appearance, where they are, what they're doing, and what they're saying (in the hobo's case, what's on the cardboard). Often, you can't really discern much; most people out on the street are really, desperately hurting and need real reform to the system, not pocket change. There are some panhandlers out there that make more money a day than legit professions, and live just as comfortably as you or I (they are a statistically insignificant portion of panhandlers, though).

It's kind of the same with going out to bars and trying to meet people. You make initial assessments of other people based on their appearance, and part of that initial assessment is "could you rock my world?". And the story is always different, individual, unique, for every person.Some people do have sex almost every night, some people go most of their lives without having sex. Most people are just in the middle somewhere, the outliers being so rare and often dangerous that they aren't exactly helpful to talk about when describing most peoples' sex lives.

But wanting to wait until you know somebody is not strange and the term "demisexuality" is purposefully misleading. "Half-sex" doesn't really describe anything like most latin-based terms.
>> No. 378677
Not everyone. I go into a relationship saying "we'll see where this goes" and it may not become sexual, or I may not even consider sex at all, until (bare minimum) months later. Most people don't want to wait that long. But that just might be me and my trust issues.
>> No. 378680
if anything demisexual seems to fit in the less commonly used descriptors for romantic orientation, such as homoromantic and so on (this is a clumsy link on my part since i'm conflating emotional connection with romantic feeling but i'm sure you see where i'm coming from)

maybe not the kind of terms most of us would find useful, but if it helps some people in their communication about romantic and sexual matters then shit, who are we to stop them
>> No. 378681
I think so. Heck, the first time I heard about demisexuality was on a website about asexuality. For most people, yeah, it's not applicable-- the majority are comfortable with whichever sex they were born as, and their sexual preference lines up with whichever they're romantically inclined to go for. But there are people who are, say, homoromantic asexual, so they're interested in the same sex romantically, but aren't interested in having sex with anyone.
>> No. 378685
Yeah, demisexuality to me sounds more like an indicator of one's place on the "purely physical" versus "purely emotion" scale of romantice/sexuality which I would place perpendicular or parallel to what normal people consider as a sexual orientation.
>> No. 378687
Even that seems like it's overthinking it. To me it sounds like demisexuals just aren't into casual sex. That's not really a big enough thing to require a special label or even an axis for it. It's like coming up with a label for people who prefer a full bush or people who prefer a clean-shaven pubis. It's purely a matter of taste with no real impact on who you are or how society views you. It's not even really a significant indicator of who you can date or what your love life is going to be like.
>> No. 378693
>More made up words about fucking
>> No. 378700
>scale of romantice/sexuality
Oh look more things that don't exist.
>> No. 378703
Some people are generally all about no-hangups casual sex and friends-without-benefits relationships, others would never even conceive of doing that and would still be content with a romantic relationship that doesn't have a lot of sex in it at all, and most want a relationship with some mix of sex and emotional connection in it. Sure it doesn't need fake labels like demisexuality, but it's still a valid spectrum, just like some bisexuals like girls/boys more than the other while others like both equally.
>> No. 378705
Again, just because you don't feel this way doesn't mean others don't. It is a real thing. The rest is spot-on. Some just don't feel romantic towards anyone and want to fuck without any emotional connection, some are really romantic and have no intention of having sex. It has to be the way they're wired, because there's people who have no mental scarring or trauma related to sex, and still don't want to have sex.
>> No. 378707

If your label doesn't describe any behavior or experience except for that which already falls into the spectrum of 'normal' experience, it doesn't mean jack fucking shit. Demisexuality 'exists' but it's not noteworthy, and giving it that label is just a sad attempt to get some Queer Street Cred.
>> No. 378713
What do you call the type of sexuality where a person exclusively has sex with your mother? Because I think I have that one.
>> No. 378719
Nobody's trying to get cred from anyone, they're just trying to find a term to explain how their sex drive works. Even the people who work really well together romantically can be driven apart if one person has a hyper sex drive and their partner doesn't.
>> No. 378723
Demisexuality doesn't need to exist as a term for that though. While the boink/love scale exists there's no need for it to have a special set of vocabulary, just awareness that not everybody is equally gungho about hopping into bed with someone because they like them. It used to be the norm in the old days and didn't need any fancy nomenclature. Only with today's hypersexualized culture and media do people feel the need to get reactionary by using such terms as Demisexuality to say "sorry I don't feel like having sex with you unless we're super serious", but it's still a superfluous term because most people once they exit the phase of life that's all about SEXSEXSEX would say the same thing too.
>> No. 378724

Except for the part where the term used is clearly designed to imply queerness, and emerged out of tumblr super special snowflake culture. It's not a useful term and it is not needed.
>> No. 378725
So, what would you guys call it if a person relies on this sort of lengthy relationship-building as an actual sexual orientation? As in, this person is NEVER sexually attracted to anyone that they are not in a close relationship with; and this person is ALWAYS attracted to others once a close relationship is developed with them, regardless of that person's gender, race, age, relation, etc.

I suppose one might call this a version of pansexuality, but it's not exactly the same. A pansexual (ignoring the typical "will fuck anything, at anytime, anywhere" negative stereotype) is capable of being attracted to any sort of person, but it's still usually an immediate response. A pansexual does not have to develop a close relationship before the attraction will exist; it exists almost immediately.

Again, this has nothing to do with the person in question's behavior, only attraction.

>maybe not the kind of terms most of us would find useful, but if it helps some people in their communication about romantic and sexual matters then shit, who are we to stop them

Also this. Why are many of you so fanatically upset about the word and using what are essentially strawmen and ad hominem tactics to attack its validity? It's just a WORD. If I went in here insisting that I decided a type of pen was hereforth to be known as a frindle, I don't think everyone would be so up in arms about it.

(I think it's because defining that only certain persons are that way implies that you are not that way. This is insulting because you think demisexuality refers to people who are not easy, and you don't want to be defined-by-omission as being the type of person who has casual sex. Again, if you think the definition of demisexuality has ANYTHING TO DO with behavior, or whether or not a person prefers casual sex, you still have not understood it. How can you attack the definition of a word if you don't understand it?)
>> No. 378727
Demisexuality - A term used to describe someone unable to talk to the opposite sex without first being friendzoned, after which they develop romantic feelings.
>> No. 378734

I wouldn't call them anything. That is not a thing that needs to be distinguished from the normal spectrum of sexuality.

Also if you insisted on calling a pen a frindle, we would all laugh at you - much like we are doing at so-called 'demisexuals'
>> No. 378735
>if a person relies on this sort of lengthy relationship-building as an actual sexual orientation
UMMMMMM that is not what sexual orientation means. At all.

And here, let me lay it out for you:
- Someone who only desires sex when they are in a committed relationship is just someone who is at the extreme end of monogamy.
- Someone who easily falls in love with friends but does not desire sex with strangers is someone who just requires an emotional component in a relationship.
- Someone who is attracted to anyone regardless of gender is pansexual.
- If you find that you are only attracted to friends of the opposite sex and do not feel aroused by strangers, you are a completely fucking average straight person. You are not queer. You are not some form of asexual. You can call yourself "demisexual," resting yourself pretentiously on the borders of asexuality and queerness, but you're still a normal straight person, sorry. You're like those dumbfucks who think that because BSDM is an "alternative lifestyle," all BSDM practitioners get to call themselves queer even if they are strictly attracted to the opposite sex.
- "Demisexuality" DOES sidle itself up to the queer community, despite not having anything to do with sexual orientation or gender identity, and the vast majority of "demisexuals" are straight. That's blatantly appropriative, attention-seeking bullshit, a bid by straight kids to be seen as counter-culture special snowflakes. So fuck this.
>> No. 378736
>dated a self-described demi
>could find people aesthetically beautiful and sexy without any desire to have sex with said people
>strong emotional attachment required
>during our peak she was very interested in activities
>during the end of our relationship she had no interest in such activities
>still don't believe there was a need for the term demisexual
>likely a term that would describe a huge amount of the human population
>only emphasizes that we need a better education about our emotions and sexuality than we get from school and culture
>stop talking about bullshit as if you know things as a fact jesus christ you guys i don't think anyone here is an expert
>> No. 378737
Whatever people think about the whole "demisexual" thing, people need to stop treating it as a fucking orientation like homosexuality, bisexuality, and so on. Orientation refers to shit like gender/biological sex/whatever. "Demisexuality" has nothing to do with the junk in your pants/secondary sexual characteristics/gender roles whatsoever.
>> No. 378738
There is no reason to laugh at anyone for anything, and if you still believe that, you are a fucking asshole.

I can't speak for anyone but me, and I am only well-versed in my own sexuality. I'm pansexual, and I don't want to have sex with anyone I'm not very comfortable and in love with. If you want to call that demisexuality, fine, if you insist it doesn't exist, just don't give people hell about it just because that's not how your brain works.

This is why we need better sex education. I'm sick of explaining that different people have different sex drives or interests and that nobody's identical.
>> No. 378739

I'm not even sure who you're supposed to be talking to here.
>> No. 378740
We're all assholes on some level. Even you. One day, you will find someone so ridiculous that the only alternative is to laugh at them.
Because they will otherwise continue to think there's nothing wrong or absurd about their thoughts or actions, and actions and sentiments can be wrong.
>> No. 378742
File 136978660190.gif - (18.47KB , 349x470 , laughingwhitegirl.gif )
>There is no reason to laugh at anyone for anything
>> No. 378744
From reading this and other posts I've come to the conclusion that "Demisexuals" are what us old folks refer to when we say "romantic". ie someone who doesn't do casual sex

So we have words for your feelings already, you don't have to make up new ones. Pick up a dictionary.
>> No. 378746
They don't want to be associated with something familiar and known. They want their feelings validated in the same field that heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual are. A romantic can help being a romantic. A demisexual, to the definitions of some, are as incapable of being anything but demisexuals, as a hetero is incapable of being bi or gay.
To be a romantic is a choice, something made due to preference. They want the validation that demisexual is not a choice, it's just the way they're wired.
>> No. 378748
No. I'm sorry, I will be polite even if it kills me.

It's not like that. It's when you physically can't find someone sexually attractive, even if you want to. I've been in love with people and yet it took months, more than they wanted to wait, to be ready for sex.
>> No. 378749
>It's not like that. It's when you physically can't find someone sexually attractive, even if you want to. I've been in love with people and yet it took months, more than they wanted to wait, to be ready for sex.
Okay, but the message you're not getting here is: that's not special. It does not make you a member of an "alternative sexuality." It does not affect how society treats you, it does not affect who you can date, and it is not at all uncommon. It is not an achievement that is deserving of recognition, and it does not earn you the right to march in any parades. You are just a normal person who is less attracted to tits or ass than you are to people.
>> No. 378750
That's just being asexual (asexuals are capable of having romantic/emotional attachments, they just don't care about the sex).
>> No. 378760
Being a romantic is not a choice for a lot of people either, we just can't feel comfortable with one night stands or flighty relations.

>I've been in love with people and yet it took months, more than they wanted to wait, to be ready for sex.
That's still called a romantic, we already have this word.
Before I met my better half I've made love 8 times in my entire life, all with people I was very very close with. It took my wife a year after we started dating before we started sleeping together, and another year before she agreed to marry me.
Just because the entire media is pushing a culture in the west that's based on casual sex doesn't mean that's normal. Hell, more than 3/4 of the world DON'T live in the west, they live in places where it takes time before people decide to have sex. I see films and shows where actors bemoan going a day or two without sex (I'm looking at you Sex in the City) as if that's somehow abnormal, well it isn't. People who have sex with strangers that often are called sluts.

tl;dr being a romantic isn't special, it's normal, being otherwise is weird.
>> No. 378761
Man, you had it going right up until the end there.
>> No. 378769
That really is the definition of slut though. Somebody who doesn't care for or doesn't like emotional attachment in sexual relationships. We don't really have a positive word for it because we've historically demonised sex and people who unabashedly like having sex often. Also we hate women and especially women who like sex so most of them are coloured a bit femininely. It'd be nice if people could reclaim some of them or find some positive descriptors--like we've done for "queer" for example--but that hasn't gone too well. Probably because are culture is still pathologically afraid of sex.

Note that we tend to do this with minorities. We have a bunch of demeaning, rude words to describe them and a few neutral or positive words to describe what the majority is like, because it is automatically assumed everyone you meet is part of the majority until you're proven otherwise. We have more descriptors for things that are unusual. We have less for things that are extremely common/normal/boring. We don't need a lot of descriptors for normal.

Taking those patterns into account

"demisexuality" is honestly just another word for "normal." Why hasn't it existed before? Why don't we have a really good, natural-sounding word (as opposed to the pseudo-Latin shitheap we've got) to describe this behaviour already? Because it's something that describes a majority of human beings. Its opposite are the weird minority that we actually discriminate against, and so we call them sluts and whores and hussies and tramps and whatever. make sense?
>> No. 378770
You're buying into the madonna/whore dichotomy, which is a dangerous and parochial way of thinking. While there's no call for feeling unusual for not being into casual sex, people shouldn't be ostracized for enjoying and engaging in casual sex, either. Yes, the ones who engage in that sort of behavior and don't use protection probably deserve to be mocked for being idiots, and the ones who lead people on into thinking they're getting into a relationship when they're just going to be one-night stands deserve to be judged harshly for using people and toying with other people's emotions, the ones who take the necessary precautions and just enjoy having fun with other people who like having the same sort of fun they have aren't doing anything wrong.
>> No. 378771
Yeah I've never really been a fan of the term slut. Or rather, its application as a "everybody that has more sex than I do" insult.
>> No. 378772
I'm talking about language you nitwit. This whole discussion has been about language and whether demisexual is a useful and relevant term. (It's totally not.) I only touched vaguely on why people who prefer casual sex may be ostracised and debased, and I did not make any value judgements. I certainly did not incite the madonna/whore dichotomy, but that sure is a prevalent thing isn't it. Wow I sure did address that in the post you didn't read.

Think about things before you go on a tangent about stuff I never said next time, ok.
>> No. 378774
That's the thing, though. My ex said it wasn't normal. You have sex on a near-constant basis with him or he considers you as not loving him, and he doesn't want to speak with you anymore. This has happened to me twice with two different guys. That's why I thought I wasn't normal.
>> No. 378776
You are normal, you have just been dating jerks whose sex drive is incompatible with yours.
>> No. 378783

He was just an asshole pressuring you for sex, sad to say.
>> No. 378788
Ironically enough, the repressed, monogamous attitude toward sex and sexuality is IN NO WAY the natural human attitude. The Western attitude toward sexuality is actually closest to pure as you're going to find.

If you look at tribes of barely-civilized folks living on isolated islands and in rainforests, untainted by missionaries telling them that sex is bad and needs to be controlled, they're basically like bonobos. Everyone has sex with whomever they want to at any time, even when they're children. Having multiple orgasms a day is an expectation. They still have long-term partners and preferred partners, and only do it with friends (tough to run into strangers in such a place) so it's not a free-for-all orgy, but the point is there isn't any restriction. Given the harsh environment that humans evolved in, lots of reproduction makes sense. Given the importance of same-gender social bonding, lots of homosexuality also makes sense. All civilization is made up of is repression of natural urges. Some, like repressing murder is good; murder is a negative thing. Some, like repressing sex is not so good; sex is a positive thing.

Underneath all the bullshit, we're probably all bisexual or pansexual in a way. Most well-adjusted people, straight or gay, have joked about that one person they would "go gay" or "go straight" for, usually a popular actor or whatever. Given the chance, if there were no negative societal repercussions, wouldn't you try it at least once with the other gender than your usual preference? What are you afraid of? That it would CHANGE you...?

The only reason we feel the need to label ourselves is so we can divide into little groups where everyone knows what the rest wants, because everything sexual is repressed and concealed and not talked about in polite conversations. A guy going around wearing a label that says "I'm straight" is more comfortable than him having to rebuff advances by fags, telling them "Sorry, I don't like penis." Ideally, we would all be able to do just that. There wouldn't be any need for labels or sexual orientation, just a "yes" or "no" whenever the topic arises would suffice. Depending on your mood, you might swing for something different. Why not?

And to everyone who says they have a low sex-drive, it might be because you're compartmentalizing things too much. Most people think it's not "sex" unless it's intercourse, ie: anal/vaginal penetration. Humans are typically very sexual all the time, but it can manifest in less-obvious ways, even just with "romantic" cuddling or touching. Unless you're the type that basically never wants to be touched at all by your partner, if you want to be held and kiss and stuff like that every day (but just don't want to FUCK) then you could still have a high sex-drive, just of a different sort.

Basically, everyone is special, therefore nobody is. All labels are as meaningless as all the rest. We should just ditch the nonsense and (safely) have sex with whomever we want. If you want it today, find someone who wants it today. If you want it in three months, find someone else who is comfortable waiting that long. If you want men, get with men. If you want busty, black, leather-wearing women, find those and get to work.

Unfortunately, we do not live in a world that allows such things — at least not yet. Because of this, labels are useful because we want to be comfortable in our own little groups. The more labels the better! Myself, I am primarily a pedoandrosexual aromantic, secondarily a demisexual androromantic (well, at least when it comes to humans). And if you're like that, also, the two of us can have our own little group and say "fuck you" to the rest of the world, together.
>> No. 378791
Citation please? I am not exactly doubting that your first paragraph is true but I haven't heard of this, and I would like to know which tribes you're talking about, because the ones I know of aren't like that.

As an aside, it's a mistake to think that tribal societies are always more primitive than the western world, and a mistake to assume that humans are more derived than cousin species. They may not have the technology that we do, but their culture has not been stagnant since they were first isolated. It is extremely possible that the sexual attitudes of whatever tribe you're talking about is just as divergent--or even moreso--as the modern sexual attitudes in North America from the "original" ones.

>And to everyone who says they have a low sex-drive, it might be because you're compartmentalizing things too much. Most people think it's not "sex" unless it's intercourse, ie: anal/vaginal penetration.
No. You kind of know when you have a low sex drive. It means you don't get turned on by things very much.

As a person whose sex drive is pretty much nonexistent, I think of pretty much anything done with another participant that will give you an orgasm as sex, so.

>The more labels the better! Myself, I am primarily a pedoandrosexual aromantic, secondarily a demisexual androromantic (well, at least when it comes to humans).
help i can't tell if this is a joke or not
>> No. 378815
I think his understanding of it is a little off. High amounts of sex with random people is kind of a relatively recent thing in the history books. High amounts of sex with a single partner was the norm during the expanditive, exploratory years before the whole world was mapped. This was in part to ensure survivability; when 3 out of 4 kids died due to measles, you wanted to have 5. Regardless, pregnancy is one of the most dangerous "natural" processes a woman can go through. There are so many ways that either the baby or the woman could encounter complications and die.

Fortunately medical science has come quite a bit farther in the the past 100 or so years. Pregnancy is still dangerous but the risk factor is reduced significantly due to access to modern medical facilities and contraceptives. Records of fidelity, such as court or church records, would suggest that infidelity is probably as old as man. However, only recently, through medical advancement, has the possibility of a much higher degree of partners become possible.

That said, it is anomalous. Pure "sexual freedom", especially for women, has always carried a very high degree of risk. That risk is lessened now but still very high, and to be a "slut", to be someone who sleeps with a lot of people freely, well, that's always dangerous. Not undo-able, but there's a very large degree of risk for both male and female partners, moreso for women.

Though I will say, I was advised to be direct in my intent to avoid the period that demisexuality speaks of. The misunderstanding of intent leads to that because when someone approaches you with romantic intent, but pretends to be your friend, they set themselves up for romantic feelings that they eventually feel are unrepaid when you start going out with someone you're actually interested in. With that in mind, it is better to lay your intentions on the table and rip the bandaid off sooner rather than later, so to speak, rather than pretend a platitude you do not mean. But that timeframe seems like it would fall short of demisexualitys' needs.
>> No. 378827
> We don't really have a positive word for it
Slut isn't a negative term, it's just a word that describes someone who has sex purely for pleasure. That's their choice and no one polite should really put them down for it.
Whore also isn't a negative term, it's just describes someone who has sex for favors or material wealth.

As long as you don't use these words with malice, people will understand.

Well your ex was an immature jackknob who pushed you into sex. I don't see why you have to think you're abnormal from a test pool of 3. It's true, you'll have to try a bit harder in the West, but you can find a guy who likes you for you and not for sex.

>Ironically enough, the repressed, monogamous attitude toward sex and sexuality is IN NO WAY the natural human attitude. The Western attitude toward sexuality is actually closest to pure as you're going to find.
If by "pure" and "natural" you mean atavistic and uncivilized.

By that logic, being able to write is also not the natural human attitude.
hinthintyou best stop writing
>> No. 378832
>As long as you don't use these words with malice, people will understand.
"Slut" is as much a pejorative as "stupid" is: perhaps it could be used in a neutral fashion, but I've yet to hear it used as such and never expect it to be used as such. Certainly it's never used in a non-sarcastic positive fashion. (Also, "slut" is a term used for someone who has sex with tons of people regardless of pleasure, unless your definition is UK English or something.)

"Whore" is simply an offensive term for "prostitute" no matter which way you look at it, a sexist slur.

So, no, no one will understand when you use those terms.
>> No. 378839
Are you talking about rape? People who are forced into sex they don't want aren't sluts.

>a sexist slur.
Hold on, what? Both guys and girls can be whores.

Only one sexist here is your brain for only applying the word to one sex.
>> No. 378841
Whore is only derogatory because its illegal, if prostitution becomes legalized it'll just become a slang word for a profession.

Like cop is slang for policeman.
>> No. 378843
I'm just hiding this thread now.
>> No. 378844
Prostitution is legal here, and whore is still a derogatory term. It's rarely used to describe actual sex workers and it's never used with pleasant implications. It's more like calling a police officer a pig, not a cop.
>> No. 378850
What the fuck? No. We've been using that word for as long as it has existed to degrade women for enjoying sex. That's sexist. It's also used as a derogatory word for sex workers, who are usually female, and pretty much always part of a low class of people in society. That's also sexist. We tack on a modifier if we want to talk about a man who does the same, and we call him a manwhore or gigolo which don't carry the same degree of negative connotations and we pretty much never use them. That's sexist. Do not defend this word.

We don't have any positive words for people who just like casual sex, but they get a lot of these type of things lobbed at them, especially if they're women. Do you not see anything wrong with this?
>> No. 378851
Who the hell is we? It's certainly not me, I've never ever used that as a putdown or in any way insultingly.
>> No. 378853
Maybe you've never intended it insultingly, but I assure you you've made people feel insulted by using it. But people like you, who insist that they're allowed to use derogatory terms because their motives for using them are different from everyone else, rarely care much about how you make other people feel when you talk that way. It's about BEING right, not about doing WHAT's right.
>> No. 378854
File 136986647723.jpg - (55.83KB , 964x844 , 1366406687747.jpg )
Have you taken your pills today?
>> No. 378855
>It's about BEING right, not about doing WHAT's right.
You're slightly insane aren't you....
>> No. 378857
This has gone a bit off track. Also, auto-sage has been hit (or would have in a post or three) so I'm going to call this thread to an end. If someone wants to make a follow-up thread about the topic, go ahead--for the most part this thread worked out well, it's just the nature of threads to derail more the longer they get.

(But no more discussion about pro/con use of slut/whore/etc., because it's just one guy using a different dictionary than everyone else.)
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

Delete post []
Report post