Attitudes towards sexual perversions

Wibbs · 08-01-2013 11:43AM

Madam_X wrote: »

Are you sure?

+1 one of the issues I have with the whole sexual revolution was while we gained the freedom(mostly) to do what we wanted, those who didn't want to be gimped up nipple clamped to the light fittings with french ticklers up our bottoms are often looked down at as prudes or vanilla types. Not so much in "real life" but moreso online and in the meeedja.

I'm apparently boring in such things by some standards. I'm straight, like nekkid women, lingerie, corsets and all that guff does nada for me, neither do women's shoes*, I don't want to be tied up, or role play, or get into slapping or being slapped** or want two women in the bed and I certainly don't want to pee or be peed upon(and yes I would think those that do are odd). I doubt I'm alone in that either.

That said if you find something that revs your engine that may be seen as odd by others. Feck em, so long as you're not harming anyone or yourself the best of luck to ya.

*TBH most of the time high heels look ridic to me.

** Tried it once and could barely stifle the laughter at how silly it all was.

awec · 08-01-2013 11:48AM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course you and I do. That's not discriminatory in any way, shape or form. Homosexuals are also allowed to be disgusted by heterosexuals, again that's not discriminatory.

Penn · 08-01-2013 11:53AM

So long as it's consensual between adults and each adult knows what they're getting in to, go for it.

smash · 08-01-2013 11:54AM

Penn wrote: »

So long as it's consensual between adults and each adult knows what they're getting in to, go for it.

Or know what's getting into them!

Dodge · 08-01-2013 11:57AM

Madam_X wrote: »

Are you sure those who call people with x fetish sick/freaks/weirdos have themselves a "sick/weird" fetish? Surely you realise it's possible for them not to?

TBH Madam X, your username kinda gives your fetishistic concerns away, and I appreciate that you told him off sternly too!

kneemos · 08-01-2013 11:57AM

smash wrote: »

Or know what's getting into them!

Or coming out.

TwoShedsJackson · 08-01-2013 12:09PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I don't want ... two women in the bed

Weirdo.

Wibbs · 08-01-2013 12:16PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Weirdo.

Been there, kinda boring and confusing in an odd way.

smash · 08-01-2013 12:24PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Been there, kinda boring and confusing in an odd way.

Sounds like you did it wrong :pac:

Czarcasm · 08-01-2013 12:26PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Been there, kinda boring and confusing in an odd way.

Same here, I get it hard enough to keep ONE woman happy, never mind two!

It's alright in porn when they can take breaks between takes and cuts, but real life you'd need to be as fit as usain bolt sometimes to keep up!

Feck that craic! :pac:

starlings · 08-01-2013 12:30PM

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 one of the issues I have with the whole sexual revolution was while we gained the freedom(mostly) to do what we wanted, those who didn't want to be gimped up nipple clamped to the light fittings with french ticklers up our bottoms are often looked down at as prudes or vanilla types. Not so much in "real life" but moreso online and in the meeedja.

Exactly, and without the media, how would we even know about desires we have not felt or been propositioned with ourselves? There's urban mythology and indiscreet conversations, but how many of you actually know someone (platonically) in real life with a fetish? And how much should we know anyway? Tbh, I find sexuality the least interesting thing about a person - unless of course I want to sleep with them.

I also find it difficult enough to work up the courage to just kiss someone, so I can't imagine what it would be like to broach less vanilla ideas. Here's where the internet helps people with fetishes to find each other, but an unfortunate side effect is the wider world's definition of a person by his/her private desires - which is the opposite of erotic.

sbsquarepants · 08-01-2013 12:36PM

smash wrote: »

am I the only one guessing that she was friends with her now husband when she was a kid?

This would have been a great answer.....but alas it wasn't

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm apparently boring in such things by some standards. I'm straight, like nekkid women, lingerie, corsets and all that guff does nada for me, neither do women's shoes*, I don't want to be tied up, or role play, or get into slapping or being slapped** or want two women in the bed and I certainly don't want to pee or be peed upon(and yes I would think those that do are odd). I doubt I'm alone in that either.
.

Same here - I'm heading for 40, so in the 20 or so years i've been sexually active i've tried a lot of wierd shít, i'm very curious by nature! But very little of it really done anything for me, most of it actually distracted from it to be perfectly honest. Even like you mention, lingere and so on - doesn't do a god damn thing for me.
But you see some things online etc and you just can't help but think, i don't care what they say they are NOT enjoying that! I'm thinking things like domination etc, i just can't wrap my head around how anyone would like it - either doing the dominating or especially being dominated- i just can't fathom it at all.
Maybe i'm just a prude:eek:

08-01-2013 12:37PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's alright in porn when they can take breaks between takes and cuts, but real life you'd need to be as fit as usain bolt sometimes to keep up!

That also depends on whether the two women in question are also together or not. Clearly it is harder to please two women if you are the only one doing it - than it is if they are engaged in things together too and are therefore helping you out with matters.

Pretty much all my experiences where two women were involved at the same time have been of the latter type.

Czarcasm · 08-01-2013 01:00PM

taxAHcruel wrote: »

That also depends on whether the two women in question are also together or not. Clearly it is harder to please two women if you are the only one doing it - than it is if they are engaged in things together too and are therefore helping you out with matters.

Pretty much all my experiences where two women were involved at the same time have been of the latter type.

I'll be honest THC, while I wouldn't say your domestic circumstances were unique, they're certainly not all that common, and neither for that matter are people who are completely unselfish.

It just happens that based on my experiences, I've found it more common for most people to be more interested in their own sexual gratification that the sexual gratification of the other parties involved.

Therefore it's been my experience that threes and foursomes and groups has done nothing for me, and many times I've tried to say to myself "go in without expectations", but really that can't be helped as it's human nature to imagine multiple scenarios!

Therefore for me at least, there's a cost/benefit analysis involved, if you will- "knowing what I know, based on my experiences, how likely is it that I would enjoy myself?", and I have to weigh that against the amount of effort involved on my part.

I'd sooner just head down to the shop for a pack of smokes and leave them at it tbh!

And the whole swordfighting and spit roasting thing just isn't my bag at all at all... *shudders* :pac:

Mr Benevolent · 08-01-2013 01:02PM

IM0 wrote: »

As long as its consensual for everyone involved then knock yourself one out

FYP

floggg · 08-01-2013 01:13PM

starlings wrote: »

Exactly, and without the media, how would we even know about desires we have not felt or been propositioned with ourselves? There's urban mythology and indiscreet conversations, but how many of you actually know someone (platonically) in real life with a fetish? And how much should we know anyway? Tbh, I find sexuality the least interesting thing about a person - unless of course I want to sleep with them. I also find it difficult enough to work up the courage to just kiss someone, so I can't imagine what it would be like to broach less vanilla ideas. Here's where the internet helps people with fetishes to find each other, but an unfortunate side effect is the wider world's definition of a person by his/her private desires - which is the opposite of erotic.

It's quite easy. You just have an open honest discussion with your partner about your likes and dislikes in the bedroom.

It's not that hard and if you are unable to bring yourself to talk about sex with a sexual partner then (to me) there would be serious intimacy and trust issues.

Not all fetishes are wild or extreme, and even for the ones that might be seen that way you can introduce them slowly to get them used to the idea.

If the run a mile at the first mention of your sexual interests, then you were never really sexually compatible with them and your best being on your way anyway.

hatrickpatrick · 08-01-2013 01:15PM

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but as long as everyone consents I honestly have no problem with ay sort of sexual "perversion" whatsoever.
Don't know where this idea came from that the only kind of sex which is "ok" is the boring variety... How is it any less odd than any other way of having sex?

StormWarrior · 08-01-2013 01:18PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but as long as everyone consents I honestly have no problem with ay sort of sexual "perversion" whatsoever.
Don't know where this idea came from that the only kind of sex which is "ok" is the boring variety... How is it any less odd than any other way of having sex?

I suppose "boring sex" is less odd, in that it's more natural, as far as you don't see animals f*king each other with bondage gear or nappies.

Madam_X · 08-01-2013 01:19PM

The disingenuousness in order to look "liberated" and "enlightened" is funny. :pac:

Yes of course, scat and missionary sex are really just the same thing.

As for straightforward hetero intercourse between just two people being "boring"... speak for yourself!

Dodge wrote: »

TBH Madam X, your username kinda gives your fetishistic concerns away, and I appreciate that you told him off sternly too!

I'd piss myself (laughing, not literally :pac:) if I tried to be a dominatrix! :pac:

I do love the clothes though. But if anything I'd actually prefer to be the subjugated than the subjugater!

Marcusm · 08-01-2013 01:25PM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about people who gather together to ritualistically eat flesh and blood in public on Sundays; should that be allowed?

Dodge · 08-01-2013 01:25PM

Madam_X wrote: »

if anything I'd actually prefer to be the subjugated than the subjugater!

Well you have the dirty lingo down anyway

floggg · 08-01-2013 01:28PM

StormWarrior wrote: »

I suppose "boring sex" is less odd, in that it's more natural, as far as you don't see animals f*king each other with bondage gear or nappies.

Apparently you don't know much about the kinky world of cat sex.

Mutiple partners are not uncommon (swingers), and the male cat bites the female while mounting her with his barbed penis (BDSM).

Don't even get me started on the kinky stuff the mantis gets up to!

smash · 08-01-2013 01:29PM

Madam_X wrote: »

But if anything I'd actually prefer to be the subjugated than the subjugater!

I would have thought you were the opposite. You always sound like your cracking the whip... Then again, maybe it's the username that makes your posts feel like that

awec · 08-01-2013 01:34PM

2 women with 1 guy is hardly a sexual perversion.

In this day and age I'd say there's nothing spectacular, strange or impressive about 2 women with 1 guy - it won't result in the same reaction it would have resulted in 10 or 15 years ago.

starlings · 08-01-2013 01:42PM

floggg wrote: »

It's quite easy. You just have an open honest discussion with your partner about your likes and dislikes in the bedroom.

It's not that hard and if you are unable to bring yourself to talk about sex with a sexual partner then (to me) there would be serious intimacy and trust issues.

Not all fetishes are wild or extreme, and even for the ones that might be seen that way you can introduce them slowly to get them used to the idea.

If the run a mile at the first mention of your sexual interests, then you were never really sexually compatible with them and your best being on your way anyway.

I'm not sure desire lends itself to rational discussion without fizzling itself out. Open and honest discussion is grand for public policy, for example, but in a sexual context it'd bore the pants back on me. It's a physical activity, so surely there should be hints and nuzzles and murmurs, with clear verbal communication to resolve a problem rather than to seduce in the first place.
Unless you really really really go for the discussion format, I suppose.

floggg · 08-01-2013 01:53PM

starlings wrote: »

I'm not sure desire lends itself to rational discussion without fizzling itself out. Open and honest discussion is grand for public policy, for example, but in a sexual context it'd bore the pants back on me. It's a physical activity, so surely there should be hints and nuzzles and murmurs, with clear verbal communication to resolve a problem rather than to seduce in the first place.
Unless you really really really go for the discussion format, I suppose.

Not really, unless you take out a manual showing him/her in detail how to operate the sex swing in your basement in accordance with health and safety guidelines.

Do it after sex and its hardly gonna kill your sex drive. It doesn't have to be an in depth convo - just throw out some feelers.

And how do you hint and nudge somebody to tying you up in a basement and putting a ball gag on you? Some things you just have to explain?

starlings · 08-01-2013 01:58PM

floggg wrote: »

Do it after sex and its hardly gonna kill your sex drive. It doesn't have to be an in depth convo - just throw out some feelers.

And how do you hint and nudge somebody to tying you up in a basement and putting a ball gag on you? Some things you just have to explain?

understood, and agreed. Feelers, indeed.

i57dwun4yb1pt8 · 08-01-2013 02:22PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A79N8HfaQV8

ArtyM · 08-01-2013 02:27PM

Duggy747 wrote: »

I do find the more bizarre stuff to be disguistingly hilarious, like urinal cake sucking, dildo go-karting, fart smelling, "farming" (stealing poo from public jacks), as in how far one would degrade themselves for sexual pleasure.

:eek:
I repeat, :eek:

--Kaiser-- · 08-01-2013 02:37PM

Marcusm wrote: »

What about people who gather together to ritualistically eat flesh and blood in public on Sundays; should that be allowed?

Nope and it's not. You are probably referring to transubstantiation which clearly just a silly (and odd) belief

Attitudes towards sexual perversions

Comments