Trialbyfire Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 wtf??? I was being sarcastic! As in... "not relevant," "who cares," etc. I guess it is something to think about, but who knows why that guy broke up with her or cheated on her or whatever he did. I don't know them personally. What you quoted was a comment directed at me by Ariadne, as you well knew...
Author Taramere Posted May 26, 2008 Author Posted May 26, 2008 When did I say not to laugh about it? Your story seemed more over-the-top sarcastic if anything. I didn't think it was funny at all, but okay. Go ahead and laugh (?) Thank God for that. I was holding it in until I got the go ahead from someone.
dpr Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 I can't speak for Nemo here, but I think the reason you're getting into debates that you're not equipped to handle stem from your intense defensiveness and anger here. Yes very unequipped. I have no idea what you intelligent minds are getting at. I should really be taking notes. My concern, given the level of defensiveness that's coming out of your posts, is that there's some doubt in your mind about whether or not your partners are really into this. No way I can make you believe this, but my girlfriend (who is in the room at this very moment) has been making fun of you guys as I read her these posts. There's no way for me to make you believe she's kinky (since it's such a RARE thing these days... kinky girls? wow!) unless you actually meet her and ask her, so what's the point in even suggesting that my partner is really not into it? The reason I seem angry is because I *am* angry from reading the previous posts on this thread accusing me and my gf (indirectly of course) of being ****ed up for what turns us on, or that I somehow secretly hate her or something because I want to degrade her in the bedroom. That I must be some controlling *******s who FORCES her to do these things, because there's no way any woman in her right mind would ever want to. It's very insulting to the both of us! And the funny thing is, I am not "facial-obsessed" or whatever you want to call it. I am not a "face fetishist," and for the record the first time I ever came on someone's face, she ASKED ME TO! Maybe that's why I got to like it and incorporate it into sex. Who knows? But it's not like giving a girl a facial is some wild, amazing thing with us. We like what you guys would consider "normal," also, and maybe some other things you wouldn't consider normal, but why should we be ridiculed or second-guessed because of that? The only reason I ridiculed all of you is because of all the "It's just disrespectful" posts. How would it make you feel if someone discussed one of your sexual acts you engage in regularly and then conclude with some holier-than-thou attitude that anyone who does this must hate their partner, even though they don't know jack **** about what they're talking about because their whole lives they've been too afraid to try anything new in bed. then that increases the possibility that some partners won't genuinely have been into certain things, but will have felt pressured to pretend they were. Again, it is apparently hard for you to imagine that some women develop their kinky pleasures with their own brains, instead of being forced into it. I still have nothing to say to this. What can I say to assure you that my partner likes it? Her telling me she likes it? The fact that we've been together for years? Do you want us to make you a movie or something? What? Despite your repeated exhortations that various people here grow up, you yourself sound pretty young. Maybe you're too young to have learned that there are ways and means of encouraging people to experiment. Ways that don't involve ridiculing them as unadventurous or giving them the do or die "this is a vital part of my repertoire and if you're not into it then you and I won't work." message. It's called creating a setting of trust and acceptance in which people decide it might actually be fun (rather than a means of avoiding ridicule) to try out certain things. Given the way you've spoken to other posters on this board, it's hard to imagine how you personally would go about creating that setting. I have never called any of my partners unadventurous or threatened them into doing anything they didn't want to, because that would be ****ing psychotic. But even if I was psychotic and wanted to do that, I wouldn't have had to because they were all open-minded, mature people. I guess I saw this reflect in various aspects of their personalities, which is why I chose to sleep with them in the first place. But yeah I guess I'm too young. Because age defines maturity, and as we all know, older people have way better sex than younger people.
dpr Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 What you quoted was a comment directed at me by Ariadne, as you well knew... What in the hell are you talking about??? I just joined this forum like a month ago? I don't know who Adriane is and I don't know who you are, much less anything about your personal relationships?!
Nemo Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Thank God for that. I was holding it in until I got the go ahead from someone. :lmao: I can't speak for Nemo here, but I think the reason you're getting into debates that you're not equipped to handle stem from your intense defensiveness and anger here. Thanks for not overstepping the mark. Personally, I think the reason dpr is getting into debates that he's not equipped to handle stems from his intense defensiveness and anger towards posters in this thread. But maybe that's just me. Still, I'll reiterate what I said: someone setting boundaries is taking care of their own needs, not rejecting you. Well put.
Trialbyfire Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 What in the hell are you talking about??? I just joined this forum like a month ago? I don't know who Adriane is and I don't know who you are, much less anything about your personal relationships?! The screen names of the members who post in each post is captured in this thread. Previous relationships have nothing to do with this.
dpr Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Ah. So now we start getting to the root of your anger. Don't worry, we're broad minded here, and always willing to help. lol... okay that was good WILLINGLY! WILLINGLY ****ed in the ass, I should have said
dpr Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 The screen names of the members who post in each post is captured in this thread. Previous relationships have nothing to do with this. yeah... and i said "INteresting!" as in "who gives a ****?" Is there some sarcastic font I should have been using? I didn't give a "virtual high-five" as they say to some dude for cheating on this person. Why would I?
marlena Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 I think what dpr is saying is that sexual compatability is important in a relationship. If I were not sexually in tune with my partner, yes, I would leave the relationship as well. For example, if I were adventurous and liked to explore in bed and he were just a "missionary" style of man, I know that relationship would not work out for me so I would bow out with grace. Also, yes, if something I wasn't particularly fond of was a turn on for my partner, I would go along with it unless it were something really over the top-like threesomes or whatever. Then again, if he were into something like that and I wasn't,then, we wouldn't be compatible to begin with and so the relationship would be destined to end.
dpr Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 No, it wasn't you. If you have zero sexual boundaries, I can see how you wouldn't be sympathetic to a person who does have them. Still, I'll reiterate what I said: someone setting boundaries is taking care of their own needs, not rejecting you. Yes I understand that. But you can also see how two people like this may not be sexually compatible, which could possibly lead to them going their separate ways, yes? Not because "zero boundaries" partner feels he/she is being rejected, but because he/she has certain needs that are not being fulfilled?
Nemo Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 , I would go along with it unless it were something really over the top- And that's precisely the point. It's not up to us to decide where other people draw the line. We either respect those boundaries, or try to control them. Preferences are not hang-ups. It's only a hang-up if you want to do something, but it makes you uncomfortable. If a woman communicates a preference for not being slimed with semen on her face, then it is controlling to suggest that she's got a problem. It's clearly the controlling slimer that has the problem!
dpr Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 I think what dpr is saying is that sexual compatability is important in a relationship. If I were not sexually in tune with my partner, yes, I would leave the relationship as well. For example, if I were adventurous and liked to explore in bed and he were just a "missionary" style of man, I know that relationship would not work out for me so I would bow out with grace. Also, yes, if something I wasn't particularly fond of was a turn on for my partner, I would go along with it unless it were something really over the top-like threesomes or whatever. Then again, if he were into something like that and I wasn't,then, we wouldn't be compatible to begin with and so the relationship would be destined to end. Thank you. I'd also like to add that leaving someone because you're not sexually compatible is not a "punishment" directed at your partner. Like "You didn't go down on me, so I found another girl/guy who will! Later, prude!" It's just something the sexually unfulfilled partner would have to eventually come to terms with. Unless he/she wants to trade a good sex life for companionship.
Trialbyfire Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 yeah... and i said "INteresting!" as in "who gives a ****?" Is there some sarcastic font I should have been using? I didn't give a "virtual high-five" as they say to some dude for cheating on this person. Why would I? Okay, I'll accept that interpretation. Sexual compatibility is very important in a relationship. To bring up my past marriage once again, we were incredibly compatible, in both drive and preferences. Having said that, there were other issues, which I won't get into within this thread. I guess you could say that it's an example how sex isn't the most important element in a relationship, although it's also a priority. It's just not the sole priority to define whether you leave or remain in a relationship, especially if it's been reduced to participating or not participating in particular sexual acts.
marlena Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 It's only controlling if you force it onto the other person. From what I gather from his posts, he is talking about mutual consent. When two partners are in tune, they want to gratify eachother even if does mean crossing one's own boundaries at times. Its called unselfish love-making. If, however, two people are not on the same page sexually, it's just best to exit.
marlena Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 I'd also like to add that leaving someone because you're not sexually compatible is not a "punishment" directed at your partner. Like "You didn't go down on me, so I found another girl/guy who will! Later, prude!" It's just something the sexually unfulfilled partner would have to eventually come to terms with. Unless he/she wants to trade a good sex life for companionship. I didn't read it as a threat or punishment at all. Just pure incompatibility. Like you say, there are two alternatives. You either move on to a more suitable partner or you just accept a life of unfullfiling sex.
nittygritty Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Not one person has said they won't try. What they've expressed is that they don't like it. There is one thing I won't try and that's anal. I have my reasons of which the vast majority is hygiene based. Nothing goes up, where poop comes down. I like the idea of retaining the ability to use my sphincter muscles for the job they were created for, which is to hold in the poop so I don't have to worry about tire tracks in my underwear. It's proven that anal can do permanent damage to this area. So true, I stopped going to my old hairdresser because he flatulated uncontrollably. His two hour foil and haircuts just weren't worth suffering through the smell and "excuse me's".
dpr Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 And that's precisely the point. It's not up to us to decide where other people draw the line. We either respect those boundaries, or try to control them. Preferences are not hang-ups. It's only a hang-up if you want to do something, but it makes you uncomfortable. If a woman communicates a preference for not being slimed with semen on her face, then it is controlling to suggest that she's got a problem. It's clearly the controlling slimer that has the problem! "hang-up" (noun): An exaggerated concern I like how you constantly refer to this topic in a "disgusted" tone. "Slimed with semen." That's poetic really, and it totally conveys how disgusting it is, and how disgusting we should ALL THINK it is. I'll ask it again. What should a woman do if her man "prefers" not to go down on her? How should the woman handle that? How would you handle that if you were a woman and that was your man's "preference?" And... AGAIN... I am not advocating forcing people to do what they don't want to. I am suggesting that people should try their best to please their partners and that maybe their aversion to certain sexual acts is because of all the overanalyzing that they do in their heads about what is "proper" and "improper" or "respectful" and "disrespectful." It just seems very silly to me.
marlena Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 I guess you could say that it's an example how sex isn't the most important element in a relationship, although it's also a priority. Speaking only for myslef, sex is as an important element as all other elements in a relationship.
Trialbyfire Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 So true, I stopped going to my old hairdresser because he flatulated uncontrollably. His two hour foil and haircuts just weren't worth suffering through the smell and "excuse me's". I can't decide whether to kill myself laughing or be completely grossed out. I sit on both sides of this fence but will keep the fence behind me for protection.
marlena Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Dpr's example of a man going down on his partner is befitting I think. Many men don't like it but a apssionate,thoughful,unselfish lover will do it anyway just to gratify his partner. It works both ways.
Trialbyfire Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Thank you. I'd also like to add that leaving someone because you're not sexually compatible is not a "punishment" directed at your partner. Like "You didn't go down on me, so I found another girl/guy who will! Later, prude!" It's just something the sexually unfulfilled partner would have to eventually come to terms with. Unless he/she wants to trade a good sex life for companionship. Imagine it this way. "While you satisfy me in every other sexual way, I'm leaving you because you won't let me cum on your face."
Ariadne Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Dpr's example of a man going down on his partner is befitting I think. Many men don't like it but a apssionate,thoughful,unselfish lover will do it anyway just to gratify his partner. It works both ways. I found it that most men love it.
Nemo Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 It's only controlling if you force it onto the other person. Emotional pressure applied by someone is also controlling behaviour. "If you really cared for me, then you would do it!" Being controlling doesn't only fall under the category of physical abuse. Far, far from it. Emotionally blackmailing semen slimers of the facial variety are definitely controlling.
marlena Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 "While you satisfy me in every other sexual way, I'm leaving you because you won't let me cum on your face." Well, yes, if it THAT important to him. I think we are looking at the tree and missing the forest in this discussion.
Trialbyfire Posted May 26, 2008 Posted May 26, 2008 Well, yes, if it THAT important to him. I think we are looking at the tree and missing the forest in this discussion. No, I feel this is obsessive behaviour to focus on only one aspect of sexuality to define a good relationship. This singular act is the tree.
Recommended Posts