Fetishes

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

I'd say that the key would be to separate sex from love.

 

[God-King Dean]

So he likes being belittled? I don't know if I'd call it homosexual, just very sexual awkward and whacked. The fact he let's his girlfriend sleep with another guy only makes it more wrong.

The human brain is a mystery. If he's not well equipped; then maybe it's a turn on for him. Him being humiliated is a sexual (Yet wrong) attraction for him.

It's like people get sexually aroused by fire or self-harm. It's whacked, but they're out there.

Yeah, maybe, maybe not.

The way I see it, I think he gets off watching his mates, & the girl is just a conveniance, if you take my meaning.

 

[God-King Dean]

Not as good as Deanscat.

:-$
​

Not everyone knows about my perverse escapades.......​

 

[Apey]

:-$

Not everyone knows about my perverse escapades.......​

It'd be an interesting tale to share, I shit you not.

 

[Eelementary]

I used to have a similarly romantic ideal of sex. I don't know what (or who) broke me in that respect. I still see its romantic and intimate importance, but I'm also completely fine with a one night stand as long as both parties are consenting and adequately protected.

How far I've fallen :-(

Mate, there's nothing wrong with that. I probably have this view because I'm so in love, and I can't imagine sleeping with another woman unless I had strong feelings for her.

 

[Eelementary]

Personally I think your view is the simplistic one, but to each their own.

You think it's easier to say men don't like having other men sleeping with their partners because they're cavemen and see women as their property than to explore the emotions attached?

 

[BDR]

Personally I think the brain chemistry of sex is extremely base and simplistic. Putting this shroud of mysticism around a pretty ridiculous physical act and couching it in poetic terms about beauty and love is what leads to all that baggage and those hangups that hamper open communication and sexuality.

I didn't call anyone a caveman, and I'm not looking for an argument man. I said it's a caveman way of thinking in that it's a result of our primitive biological urge to compete for mates. I'm of the opinion that we should probably be looking to move past those things, or at least to understand their influence. I'm genuinely sorry if that offended you, I was just throwing stuff out there.

You should check out the book "Sex at Dawn" by Dr Chris Ryan if you're interested in human sexuality. It sorta has a viewpoint in the middle of what we're talking about here and it's incredibly fascinating.

 

[butchmcdick]

Who plays the part of dawn ?

Nah that sounds good BDR

I will read it next after I get through my current book 66 Ad

 

[sportive cupid]

Wow...thought I woke up in the wrong forum!

Good point BDR.Sex is sex.The mystical ,mating for life with "the one " ,,where a man must be everything his woman needs,is probably a religious one .In my opinion and experience it is what is responsible for the hangups that make lots of people very sad with their sex lives just as much,if not more as the porn culture.

Even the use of euphemisms for the act( sleeping with..(.who the hell is sleeping in a broom cupboard at work!or makes love using a condom) indicates ourr discomfort with it.

fetishes are really the opposite of hangups.They are simply the things that do it for us.If you try to analyse it( damn that spellcheck when I'm trying to make a joke) or standardise it you lose it.

Sex is sex.Its great when you feel great before during and after.

Relationships are much more complex thing.

that is the word of the old woman.

 

[Springs]

It's not religious. The fact that a majority of people feel so much jealousy or pain through cheating or promiscuity tells us there's something biological and human about love and the mating for life thing. It's not simply religious or indoctrinated. If sex was just purely physical then every sexual act would have no emotional connections. Sex and love are very much connected and complex emotionally.

Some people completely separate love and sex and there's nothing wrong with that. But the fact is the pain someone feels when they find out the person they love has been with another does not come from purely religious reasons. I would say love and having one mate for life influenced the religious standing on it rather than the other way round. If people at that time wanted polygamy and only polygamy then there's no way they would implement monogamy into their lifestyle.

I mostly agree with Eelementary's view. But when not connected to any one person I'm fine with one night stands as long as it is just sex and no emotions are carried out of it or anyone is taken advantage of.

 

[sportive cupid]

If all natural sex has an emotional component than how do you explain the eternal presence of prostitution in most societies?

I don't think that sex never has an emotional aspect .I think that sex can be part of expression of an emotional connection. I just think sometimes sex sits as a physically fulfilling experience without an emotional connection.
It always involves intimacy ,but it's not always emotional.

For mine there is only a problem when there is no honest communication between participants.

See I can see the guy watching his girl get all physically ecstatic in a way he isn't capable of achieving physically for her is not all that different from the guy who is a shit cook taking his girl out for a gourmet meal.

Yet who would worry about their girl leaving them for the chef,or think of it as cheating.

Sex isn't all that a trusting relationship is built on.Those who feel the pain are usually those who haven't been honest with their partner..or indeed themselves.

Not for everyone.

 

[Drew-Sta]

If all natural sex has an emotional component than how do you explain the eternal presence of prostitution in most societies?

Those who use prostitution always have an emotional element to it; its a craving for the emotional. There's also no one singular answer to 'why' as every persons decision to use a prostitute is far more complex than can be successfully pigeonholed.

Sex is never just sex. Those who consider it just a physical act do it an injustice by reducing its importance. Sex, even with a prostitute, always has a deeper element to it; whether that is recognized or not is about the honesty of the person engaging in the act and whether they can admit it to themselves. In a way, you're right - honesty is of the highest importance, especially for the one engaging.

You'll refute that, and I can understand why, but I believe it to be true.

 

[Eelementary]

Personally I think the brain chemistry of sex is extremely base and simplistic. Putting this shroud of mysticism around a pretty ridiculous physical act and couching it in poetic terms about beauty and love is what leads to all that baggage and those hangups that hamper open communication and sexuality.

I didn't call anyone a caveman, and I'm not looking for an argument man. I said it's a caveman way of thinking in that it's a result of our primitive biological urge to compete for mates. I'm of the opinion that we should probably be looking to move past those things, or at least to understand their influence. I'm genuinely sorry if that offended you, I was just throwing stuff out there.

You should check out the book "Sex at Dawn" by Dr Chris Ryan if you're interested in human sexuality. It sorta has a viewpoint in the middle of what we're talking about here and it's incredibly fascinating.

I'm not offended, mate - I hope I didn't offend you, either.

I see your point, and I definitely agree with part of it.

 

[butchmcdick]

If all natural sex has an emotional component than how do you explain the eternal presence of prostitution in most societies?

I don't think that sex never has an emotional aspect .I think that sex can be part of expression of an emotional connection. I just think sometimes sex sits as a physically fulfilling experience without an emotional connection.
It always involves intimacy ,but it's not always emotional.

For mine there is only a problem when there is no honest communication between participants.

See I can see the guy watching his girl get all physically ecstatic in a way he isn't capable of achieving physically for her is not all that different from the guy who is a shit cook taking his girl out for a gourmet meal.

Yet who would worry about their girl leaving them for the chef,or think of it as cheating.

Sex isn't all that a trusting relationship is built on.Those who feel the pain are usually those who haven't been honest with their partner..or indeed themselves.

Not for everyone.

Yeah I can't see my missus going for that when I tell her I occasionally would like my knob sucked by somebody else honest communication or not

 

[Eelementary]

Wow...thought I woke up in the wrong forum!

Good point BDR.Sex is sex.The mystical ,mating for life with "the one " ,,where a man must be everything his woman needs,is probably a religious one .In my opinion and experience it is what is responsible for the hangups that make lots of people very sad with their sex lives just as much,if not more as the porn culture.

Even the use of euphemisms for the act( sleeping with..(.who the hell is sleeping in a broom cupboard at work!or makes love using a condom) indicates ourr discomfort with it.

fetishes are really the opposite of hangups.They are simply the things that do it for us.If you try to analyse it( damn that spellcheck when I'm trying to make a joke) or standardise it you lose it.

Sex is sex.Its great when you feel great before during and after.

Relationships are much more complex thing.

that is the word of the old woman.

I'm not denying that some people have sex with anyone because they need it/feel like it.

My point was more to do with your partner having sex with someone else - many people are comfortable with that, and that's their business. I, for one, am not, and I am saying it has little to do with the sex itself of preconceived notions of old-school thinking, but with emotion. She's my girlfriend because we are emotionally bonded together - otherwise she'd just be a f**k buddy. And as my girlfriend, and with all the emotional energies invested in the relationship, I would be very uncomfortable with her having sex with another person due to the emotions involved.

But conversely to your points, using euphemisms does not indicate we are uncomfortable; rather, it shows manners. It's true that decades ago it was rude to even refer to sex, and we are much more open about it these days - but there is a certain level of abruptness when calling it "having sex" or "f**king", and especially so when it involves someone you have feelings for.

The notion that "sex is sex" can be just as destructive, and has been so - it empowers people with the belief that they can sleep around because, "Hey - it's no big deal! It's just sex!"

Now, I am not saying I am 100% right, because this is all subjective - but the probable reality must lie somewhere in between your point of view and mine.

 

[Eelementary]

Yeah I can't see my missus going for that when I tell her I occasionally would like my knob sucked by somebody else honest communication or not

:lol: Your terminology is freaking brilliant!

 

[sportive cupid]

Yeah I can't see my missus going for that when I tell her I occasionally would like my knob sucked by somebody else honest communication or not

Well who saidits always about the guys needs and actions.

 

[Eelementary]

It's not religious. The fact that a majority of people feel so much jealousy or pain through cheating or promiscuity tells us there's something biological and human about love and the mating for life thing. It's not simply religious or indoctrinated. If sex was just purely physical then every sexual act would have no emotional connections. Sex and love are very much connected and complex emotionally.

Some people completely separate love and sex and there's nothing wrong with that. But the fact is the pain someone feels when they find out the person they love has been with another does not come from purely religious reasons. I would say love and having one mate for life influenced the religious standing on it rather than the other way round. If people at that time wanted polygamy and only polygamy then there's no way they would implement monogamy into their lifestyle.

I mostly agree with Eelementary's view. But when not connected to any one person I'm fine with one night stands as long as it is just sex and no emotions are carried out of it or anyone is taken advantage of.

Personally, I'd never go for a one night stand because the idea does not appeal to me. Sex is fantastic as a purely physical thing - I can see that. But there is also so much beauty in sharing it with someone you care about.

But I am not going to criticise people for that - if two consenting adults decide they want to hook up once and never see each other again, that's their business.

 

[sportive cupid]

I'm not denying that some people have sex with anyone because they need it/feel like it.

My point was more to do with your partner having sex with someone else - many people are comfortable with that, and that's their business. I, for one, am not, and I am saying it has little to do with the sex itself of preconceived notions of old-school thinking, but with emotion. She's my girlfriend because we are emotionally bonded together - otherwise she'd just be a f**k buddy. And as my girlfriend, and with all the emotional energies invested in the relationship, I would be very uncomfortable with her having sex with another person due to the emotions involved.

But conversely to your points, using euphemisms does not indicate we are uncomfortable; rather, it shows manners. It's true that decades ago it was rude to even refer to sex, and we are much more open about it these days - but there is a certain level of abruptness when calling it "having sex" or "f**king", and especially so when it involves someone you have feelings for.

The notion that "sex is sex" can be just as destructive, and has been so - it empowers people with the belief that they can sleep around because, "Hey - it's no big deal! It's just sex!"

Now, I am not saying I am 100% right, because this is all subjective - but the probable reality must lie somewhere in between your point of view and mine.

Well there wouldn't be much sleeping. I would be more concerned if they did actually stay for the sleep and the spoon.

I'm interested about the emotional status you give the physical act of sex.What about if your girlfriend had a girlfriend who she told secrets about herself to.ones that she didn't share with you.Would that be the same deal breaker than her seeking a dick that fit her better for sexual relief sometimes? it's really about accepting,and embracing that no one person can fill all the needs a person has. that just leads to a stale ,never growing relationships and people.Most people are comfortable when their partner needs to confide in a person outside the relationship,or share work challenges with another .They can see that the new ideas enrich their relationship.

I can't really understand how people feel that they could always be everything their partner needs sexually when they acknowledge that they can't be everything in other areas.

It's not a matter of being right or wrong .Sex as sex is really only destructive when the messages are mixed between a couple.

I haven't always thought this.But I've learnt it over many years.

 

[sportive cupid]

I don't think it's no big deal either .Its a huge deal.But so is all the other stuff rat goes to make a strong relationship.

But sometimes it's just a business transaction.Not sure if prostitutes have debriefings.