I am well aware of what a Ds relationship can look like and I said "IF" he was craving/looking for in a sexual experience not that he WAS craving/looking for a sexual experience. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, I'm jolly glad we understand each other. :)

then hire it for yourself. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Oh dear >:O

Well the thing is with prostitution, which is what I suppose you're advocating, is that it's a way to "cheat" so to speak. One of the basic things that most people need to learn is to want or desire only that which is close at hand and available - if they desire that which isn't available, then they're learning a very bad habit. For some people - for whatever reason - certain kinds of sexual experiences may be currently unavailable ~ without succumbing to prostitution or other evils which affect their dignity. In addition to breeding and encouraging an unhelpful habit, resorting to prostitution is affirming and encouraging the activity of women selling their bodies (and hence themselves) in exchange for money - the objectification of women. On top of all this, prostitution can never achieve the intimacy that is possible in a monogamous relationship, and hence falls far short of the potential of sex. The question of course becomes if it's even worth having such low expressions of sex.

Runaway together, get married, have children, argue constantly, get divorced, go to court over who gets to keep the children, die bitter and regretful.

That's my advice.

Runaway together, get married, have children, argue constantly, get divorced, go to court over who gets to keep the children, die bitter and regretful.

That's my advice. — Sapientia

That is very rational advise kind Sir :P

go to court over who gets to keep the children — Sapientia

"You take them."
"No, you!"

>:O

If they don't want them, I'll take them off their hands. They can live in my basement.

I'm not sure about the BDSM stuff.

I tried Christian Mingle for a while and most girls were looking for Jesus there. I tried okcupid, and well that was a vanity fair. I might give some BDSM a try. Any tips on what to say or not to say? How should I promote myself and such?

I'm not sure about the BDSM stuff.

I tried Christian Mingle for a while and most girls were looking for Jesus there. I tried okcupid, and well that was a vanity fair. I might give some BDSM a try. Any tips on what to say or not to say? How should I promote myself and such? — Question

I don't suspect that most people enter into the BDSM world on a whim after sort of casually batting around the idea, but, who knows, maybe they do. It sort of seems that the allure of it to you is that it appeals to your general laziness, as in you can sort of lay there and let someone else do the work. Not only would you not have to take any initiative, you'd be specifically forbidden to do anything, which would be right up your alley.

The way you succeed on the various online services is much the same way you succeed anywhere. You need to be engaging and nice, and maybe even funny. Maybe you have that in you, maybe you don't. What I do note is that you are able to gain considerable attention here by coming up with rather absurd problems, all of which center around your refusal to take charge and make things happen yourself. It's not that you just won't take charge due to timidness, but it seems you take great pride in doing nothing. I'm reminded of the Seinfeld episode where George told every women he met that he was unemployed and lived with his mother and that surprisingly worked wonders. I doubt that will work outside a 1990s sitcom though.

Here's what I think you really ought to do, and this I really mean. Stop selling yourself short. You're a smart guy who wants to be cared about and loved, much like everyone else. Your many self-destructive philosophies notwithstanding, you know at some level that having a girl who shares your interests and who cares about you is all you really want. So, please, stop with the nonsense of how you can find some girl willing to beat the hell out of you. Maybe those folks are all nice and healthy but only have some unusual desire to mix sex and humiliation a few hours a week, or maybe, just maybe, their sexual deviations are but the tip of the iceberg in terms of the unhealthiness that lurks deep within.

How did you form your maybe just maybe opinion Hanover?

It sort of seems that the allure of it to you is that it appeals to your general laziness, as in you can sort of lay there and let someone else do the work. Not only would you not have to take any initiative, you'd be specifically forbidden to do anything, which would be right up your alley. — Hanover

I think whether Question could just lay there and "enjoy" having a dominatrix whip him into shape (so to speak) depends on the scene he ends up in. It might very well be that the mistress dominatrix would expect her male to be a quite active slave, bucking up against the restraints, thrashing about, howling in real or fake agony, and so forth. After all, there isn't much fun standing in spike heels on somebody resembling a corpse.

My theory is that a preference for BDSM is formed as a result of dictatorial toilet training. The thing I don't like about S&M is that there is entirely too much stage business to deal with. "OK, now that we're all dressed up, tied down, and hanging from the ceiling of the dungeon, when do we get around to fucking -- which I though was the whole point of this dreary affair!"

Maybe those folks are all nice and healthy but... — Hanover

Beware of all enterprises which require a change of costume and a trip to the basement.

The content in this thread really makes me understand Kelso...

I've never been into S&M because it seems very unRepublican and nonsuburban. It just seems very incongruent to be getting whipped indoors while my Volvo sits outdoors next to my well manicured lawn.

I also have a bit of an imagination problem and it would make staying in character a bit difficult. If Sally were playing mistress, I think I might call her Sally instead of Mistress, well, because that's her name even if she happens to have a whip. It seems like the real game has to take place in your head, and if you can't take it all seriously in your head, then it's just Sally beating you for no good reason.

After all, there isn't much fun standing in spike heels on somebody resembling a corpse. — Bitter Crank

Speak for yourself.

if you can't take it all seriously in your head, then it's just Sally beating you for no good reason — Hanover

I'm sure there's always a good reason for Sally to beat you.

It sort of seems that the allure of it to you is that it appeals to your general laziness, as in you can sort of lay there and let someone else do the work. — Hanover

I don't know where you're getting the idea of me being so lazy. Is this some way of you telling me that I ought be more lustful for money, status, power, and prestige? I laugh.

The way you succeed on the various online services is much the same way you succeed anywhere. You need to be engaging and nice, and maybe even funny. Maybe you have that in you, maybe you don't. What I do note is that you are able to gain considerable attention here by coming up with rather absurd problems, all of which center around your refusal to take charge and make things happen yourself. It's not that you just won't take charge due to timidness, but it seems you take great pride in doing nothing. — Hanover

I've decided to resign again over finding a girlfriend and all the jazz. I already went over this with my thread about "What's all the fuss over sex in the west?". I would have to say that my primary motivation for wanting to have a relationship, as pathetic as this sounds, is to have sex. If I can recognize that, and know that, then I will deny it and suffer more over not satisfying that desire.

Here's what I think you really ought to do, and this I really mean. Stop selling yourself short. You're a smart guy who wants to be cared about and loved, much like everyone else. — Hanover

Nah, I think it's all about sex. I've taken care of myself for a long time on my own and think I will continue that way. By which I mean, not indulging in pornography, which is like only scratching a terrible itch.

I only wish I could chemically castrate myself and be done with it.

Your many self-destructive philosophies notwithstanding, you know at some level that having a girl who shares your interests and who cares about you is all you really want. — Hanover

Those women are like needles in a haystack. And, I have resigned already.

I've never been into S&M because it seems very unRepublican and nonsuburban. — Hanover

This is where I will have to say thank you and be on my way. As I see it this forum (and your responses to me) have been a sort of "come to our side (Republican) we have nice cookies". If politics is your thing then so be it, I don't care much for that since I'm pretty much conservative and pragmatic.

Well, I've taken care of myself for a long time on my own and think I will continue that way. — Question

That method is probably the most common of all methods of having sex.

What counts as sex? This is a very interesting question... Psychologically it seems that it's not only intercourse that is of significance. For example oral sex probably still counts as sex. Some would say masturbation counts as sex, others would disagree. Others would say even holding hands with a significant other is a manifestation of sexual energy... Where is the boundary between sexual activity and non-sexual activity, and how are sexual activities distinguished psychologically?

The hand never fails! :’(

But, I've decided that it's enough of that. No more. Complete mastery over one-self is the goal now.

What counts as sex? This is a very interesting question... Psychologically it seems that it's not only intercourse that is of significance. For example oral sex probably still counts as sex. Some would say masturbation counts as sex, others would disagree. Others would say even holding hands with a significant other is a manifestation of sexual energy... Where is the boundary between sexual activity and non-sexual activity, and how are sexual activities distinguished psychologically? — Agustino

I classify genital/genital, oral/genital, oral/anal, oral/oral, and manual/genital contact as sex. While the last doesn't involve an actual partner, an imagined partner is often present, sometimes several. Sometimes those imaginary partners are present along with a quite real partner. Flirting (all gesture, no touching) may be tantamount to sex, and just sitting next to somebody and "casually" touching feet, knees, arms, etc. might be very sexual (usually not, though). Getting sexual under the table requires reciprocation of the casual "accidental" touch of knees, for instance.

People are inherently sexual whether they engage in sexual activity or fantasy, or not. The organs and hormones are there whether employed or ignored. Sometimes life events can charge one up sexually. Once I needed a job, I wanted a particular job, and I was hired. I was 'sexually on fire'. The job made me feel very puissant, potent, and grand. Sadly, the effect wore off, but it was great while it lasted.

The sex drive, the pleasures of sex, can be sublimated--transferred to some other--non-sexual--activity. The enormous productivity of well organized societies seems to involve sublimation, as people pour into their work their creative, libidinous energies. (Not that actual sex robs one of creativity; I think good sex adds to one's creative efforts.)

The absence of sexuality in the environment -- a cold, sterile corporate setting for example -- is usually felt as oppressive. Some buildings are sexual, others are sexless. Much of the built urban environment --freeways, strip malls, featureless apartment and office buildings, highway interchanges, cookie-cutter warehouses -- is damned near totally sexless.

While the last doesn't involve an actual partner, an imagined partner is often present, sometimes several. — Bitter Crank

Hmmm... but it's a different experience with a partner than without. I think most people would agree. Though there are some which seem not to find actual sex as pleasurable as masturbation ~ the real other brings both advantages and disadvantages so to speak - or at least perceived advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that intimacy become possible, but a corollary disadvantage is that you're no longer in absolute control - you have to take care of the other as well, so it's no longer just your desire driving what's happening.

Sometimes those imaginary partners are present along with a quite real partner. — Bitter Crank

I would find that quite strange - why would someone have an imaginary partner if they have a real one? When I started dating my first girlfriend she made me give up porn, and it wasn't that hard to give it up because I loved her, and so I found no need for "imaginary partners". In fact ever since then I find no need for "imaginary partners".

Flirting (all gesture, no touching) may be tantamount to sex, and just sitting next to somebody and "casually" touching feet, knees, arms, etc. might be very sexual (usually not, though). — Bitter Crank

What defines something as being sexual?

People are inherently sexual whether they engage in sexual activity or fantasy, or not. The organs and hormones are there whether employed or ignored. — Bitter Crank

Okay I think I agree with this but it's something complicated to explain. Even when you practice celibacy you feel sexual, but in a different way.

The sex drive, the pleasures of sex, can be sublimated — Bitter Crank

I think the sex drive is different from the pleasures of sex. The sex drive is like an energy source, it depends how one learns to make use of it.

The enormous productivity of well organized societies seems to involve sublimation, as people pour into their work their creative, libidinous energies. (Not that actual sex robs one of creativity; I think good sex adds to one's creative efforts.) — Bitter Crank

Enormous productivity of any kind I think entails a sublimation of the sex drive.

The absence of sexuality in the environment -- a cold, sterile corporate setting for example -- is usually felt as oppressive. Some buildings are sexual, others are sexless. Much of the built urban environment --freeways, strip malls, featureless apartment and office buildings, highway interchanges, cookie-cutter warehouses -- is damned near totally sexless. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

Well, in my experience at least, solo masturbation, for example, doesn't get called "sex" in common parlance, and it is commonly understood in contrast to sex. But it is obviously sexual. Likewise with flirting, but it seems even more absurd to call that sex.

I'd say that "sex" primarily means sexual intercourse, but perhaps can also include oral sex. I think that it makes sense to say things like, "We didn't have sex, I just gave him a blowjob".

I did NOT have sexual relations with my hand.

Hmmm... but it's a different experience with a partner than without. I think most people would agree. — Agustino

Of course, and I would agree; I'd also suggest sex with a partner is usually better than without.

because I loved her, and so I found no need for "imaginary partners". — Agustino

Sure -- people in love don't need to add the internal video track. But... as you know, people aren't always in love with the people with whom they are having sex (and are often married to) so that added video track helps performance. I mean, sometimes one is expected to get it up and a woman can fake pleasure more easily than a man can fake orgasm (at least for a money shot). So, again, the mental movie in one's head helps one get it up, as per expectation.

What defines something as being sexual? — Agustino

The person who is experiencing it.

I included flirting as sexual because when people do it, it "feels sexual". One's dog might show a lot of interest in you while you are eating, or when it wants to go for a walk. but it does not feel sexual. It''s either annoying or amusing. One's lawnmower, pencil, or refrigerator don't feel sexual (one would hope).

I think the sex drive is different from the pleasures of sex. The sex drive is like an energy source, it depends how one learns to make use of it. — Agustino

Good clarification. It isn't the pleasure that is sublimated as much as it is the 'drive' or energy.

Well, in my experience at least, solo masturbation, for example, doesn't get called "sex" in common parlance, and it is commonly understood in contrast to sex. But it is obviously sexual. Likewise with flirting, but it seems even more absurd to call that sex.

I'd say that "sex" primarily means sexual intercourse, but perhaps can also include oral sex. I think that it makes sense to say things like, "We didn't have sex, I just gave him a blowjob". — Sapientia

Right, people usually reference sex in the context of at least two people. As for flirting, I was thinking of fairly aggressive flirting, not the sort of flirting that a waiter or waitress does to increase the tip size. Flirting isn't "sex" so much as it is "sexual".

"We didn't have sex, I just gave him a blowjob"... not sex? It seems to me that a blow job is definitely sex, and so is a hand job performed on someone else. I think if you asked 100 people if you could perform oral sex and a hand job on them, at least 95% would think you had ask them to have sex with you, and wouldn't think you were suggesting something on the order of a scalp massage.

"We didn't have sex, I just gave him a blowjob"... not sex? It seems to me that a blow job is definitely sex, and so is a hand job performed on someone else. I think if you asked 100 people if you could perform oral sex and a hand job on them, at least 95% would think you had ask them to have sex with you, and wouldn't think you were suggesting something on the order of a scalp massage. — Bitter Crank

Yes, not sex, because "sex" in that context would just mean penile-vaginal sex or anal sex. Look, this is nothing extraordinary. For a lot of people, prima facie, that statement would not cause such a controversy. Whether you agree with it or disagree with it, it is a common usage where I'm from, and probably in other places too, and can also probably be found in media such as TV, film and books.

And just because oral sex is excluded from that particular meaning, that doesn't mean that it's therefore suggestive of something on the order of a scalp massage.

I think that if you asked 100 people if you could have sex with them, roughly that same percentage (95%) - if not more - would think you meant more than a blowjob or a hand job, and would assume that had you meant the latter, you would have said the latter (or said something more suggestive of it than "sex", like "foreplay" or something).

Yes, I think you're right, most heterosexual people probably think that sex is first vaginal, then anal, then maybe oral, but maybe oral is counted as foreplay, and a hand job just would not count. Some gay men think that sex is first anal, then oral. But a fair number of gay guys would count oral and anal as equally "sex". A hand job is not intercourse, except in a vaguely 'digital' way, one's digits wrapped around a hard dick.

What counts as "sex" is not important in actual sexual contexts. But in discourses about sex, like public health advisories on how to avoid sexually transmitted disease, precision about what is "sex" matters a lot. For instance, quite a few teeny boppers, those teen age lovers, don't think that oral sex is actually sex. It doesn't count.

"It doesn't count" until one discovers a sore on the roof of one's mouth (primary syphilis lesion), a dripping infection from one's penis (primary gonorrhea), blistering on the lips or penis (genital herpes), or some such. One might go to a clinic and discover that one acquired a venereal infection while not having "sex".

What is "sex" also matters in discourses about sexuality and sexual identity.

BTW, Masters's and Johnson's research showed that there is no physical difference in the physiology of arousal and orgasm, whether the sex is anal, oral, vaginal, or digital, gay or straight, single or double. So, as far as the body is concerned, masturbation is indistinguishable from vaginal sex.

I agree with much of that, and that part about Masters's and Johnson's research is really interesting, because if right, it would mean that a lot of people are wrong, including some people I know outside of the forum who I've spoken to about this.

I think that more evidence that many people don't count oral sex as "sex" would be how many people would respond to the question of virginity. How many teenagers, for example, would say that they'd lost their virginity just because they'd had oral sex? Without specifying, I think that hardly any of them would think that they're no longer virgins for that reason alone. It was certainly like that when I was at school. I think that many adults think in this way as well, whether gay, straight, or whatever.

And I don't think that that's necessarily a problem with regards to sexual health. It wouldn't be a problem so long as you realised that sexually transmitted diseases can be picked up through sexual acts other than "sex".

Without specifying, I think that hardly any of them would think that they're no longer virgins for that reason alone. — Sapientia

Yes but you're making this into a semantic discussion about how words are used, but this isn't really what is under discussion here. I really can care less what people call sex and how they use the word.

I think the attempt is to discuss fundamental things - how things really are, not merely how people speak or think about them, whether in a majority or in a minority. For example, the concept of virginity is incoherent if it is taken to be something physical - that produces some antinomies. For example, if virginity relates only to physical interactions (now including even oral sex) - then a girl who is raped is no longer a virgin afterwards. But if she's no longer a virgin afterwards, and virginity is something good - to be prized - then it follows that she's less worthy because she has been raped. Which is clearly false - she cannot be judged negatively for something that isn't under her control. So the premise that virginity relates only to physical interactions must be rejected.

Now if a woman has never had vaginal intercourse, but she has given oral sex to 50 men, including in groups, I doubt anyone would count her as a virgin.

So then virginity has to be reconceptualised as something spiritual - a virgin is a person who is spiritually open towards sexual intimacy since they have never devoted themselves to another sexually before. So this is more than just having sex or not having sex - it's about the will - indeed, when discussing virginity it is someone's will that is under the question. So if someone willingly has sex, then they are no longer virgins. But it's not the sex, but the will to have sex that is the matter.

How many teenagers, for example, would say that they'd lost their virginity just because they'd had oral sex? — Sapientia

That's because their brain is the size of a squirrel's ;)

It was certainly like that when I was at school. — Sapientia

Yeah same, but people weren't very smart. There was this girl who had oral sex with so many guys and she claimed to be a virgin because she never had vaginal intercourse... :-}

It's actually very difficult to be a virgin in today's world, because by the time most people get a hold of themselves - by the time their mind actually develops, and they start thinking for themselves - most of them have already done lots of retarded things which they cannot undo.

So, as far as the body is concerned, masturbation is indistinguishable from vaginal sex. — Bitter Crank

From my personal and very limited experience I have found them to be different. Vaginal sex leads to a feeling of contraction in your abdominal muscles when you ejaculate which is stronger than, and lasts longer than that which you achieve by masturbation alone, even if you were to practice special masturbation techniques to enhance your orgasms, such as delayed ejaculation, etc. Vaginal sex also leads to a greater physical exhaustion than masturbation, since you're actually moving your whole body, not just your hand, and the combined effects of sweating, orgasm, and complete tiredness and exhaustion gives off a different, much more peaceful feeling, than simple masturbation after the orgasm is over. This is of course provided you take care not to ejaculate in like 5 minutes... However - masturbation seems to be able to provide more intense orgasms, but not the after-feeling of relaxation that exists in the case of vaginal intercourse with a loved one. That after-feeling is in fact not something entirely sexual - the same feeling can sometimes be achieved by just lying in bed holding a loved one.

Yes but you're making this into a semantic discussion about how words are used, but this isn't really what is under discussion here. I really can care less what people call sex and how they use the word. — Agustino

Yes, I am. That's the only sensible take on the issue, in my view. I really couldn't care less about any other approach.

Now if a woman has never had vaginal intercourse, but she has given oral sex to 50 men, including in groups, I doubt anyone would count her as a virgin. — Agustino

I don't share your doubt. Some might not count her as a virgin, others might. If I was one of those people, then I would not, because that what be so unreasonable as to be laughable. Going by their own reasoning, for whatever reason, oral sex doesn't count as sex. There is no number attached to that such that if you have oral sex X number of times, then that counts as sex.

So then virginity has to be reconceptualised as something spiritual... — Agustino

Good one. >:O

No, it does not. No one else has to think of sex in that same way. Even if I were to prefer whatever you mean by that, I would most likely reject your use of such a vague, ambiguous and potentially misleading term.

That's because their brain is the size of a squirrel's. ;) — Agustino

I suppose that that's a sort of half-joke, so I'll take it half-seriously. They're just doing what comes naturally, which is to use words how they're commonly used in their community. There's nothing stupid about that in and of itself.

Yeah same, but people weren't very smart. There was this girl who had oral sex with so many guys and she claimed to be a virgin because she never had vaginal intercourse... :-} — Agustino

She was right to say that she [was] a virgin. It seems rather redundant to criticise their semantics from the outside like you are trying to do. There's no internal inconsistency.