|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I was struck by the following last night:- I do not want to drop to my knees and suck him off
- I would quite like him to do this to me
- I do not like the taste of semen
- I will suck him to orgasm because I like it when he is excited
- I am not particularly enamoured of an anus per se. But I will play with his and even penetrate him becauyse it turns him on so
- I love having my anus played with
- I do not find a penis particulalry beautiful
- I want him to tell me my penis is beautiful
- There is no such thing as a beautiful scrotum
I was wondering if others had these and additonal odd thoughts about sex?
For me the act of sex without at the very least being friends is a massive turnoff. Others adore no strings casual sex.
[Updated on: Sat, 02 July 2005 17:13]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Are we talking as in like a social setting.....
Or as a business commodity?
And...... are we talking in the present or according to past experiences?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
well I think where sex is approproate, rather than inappropriate. BUt otherwise, really,wherever you imagine.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) I am aware of the difference between love and lust. Love would never hurt, or injure the object of the love.
(2) Lust would do anything to satisfy the fantasies of the one lusting, even inflicting pain.
(3) The true enjoyment in an act of love is in knowing you have made the one you love happy. The happiness you receive from your lover is for him to enjoy.
(4) A truly loving relationship can result in a sexual act that strengthen the love between the lovers with the sex only being an exprssion of that love. If you feel guilty instead of fulfilled after making love, you may have been only making sex.
(5) It is possible to truly love, and have that love grow, with other acts of love, without sex. Love can exist through only holding, touching and expressing your love clearly with words. ("I love you" never loses its capacity to thrill, ask your lover, or better yet try it.)
(6) When two people are lusting over each other's body, the types of acts permitted should be discussed before the games begine. If only to keep things under control. Lust is not love, but only an animal act to fulfill a desire by the other person involved.
(7) It is a good thing to be friends, before becoming lovers, so sexual preferences, whatever they may be, can be discussed. Some sexual acts you may not be able, nor want to perform. (it can be a real shock to find that someone you have fallen madly in love with get his kicks peeing on you.) Complete knowledge about your lover can add greatly to true lovemaking, where your sole purpose is to give happiness. Your happiness will come from the love your partner returns to you.
These are my truths, and they worked for me. I'm just sharing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
These are all true ........
But..... ones perspective toward sex can change over the years.
What one sets out for when young may be very different in later years..... and for a number of reasons as well......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Who exactly determines the appropriatness of sex?
Who keeps the scorepad?
Truely, I have never thought of sex in the same sentence as appropriate...
I have used words such as fun, great, hot, incredible, magnificent, profitable and on occasion lousy but never .........
appropriate...... It just seems sooooooooo tight assed to ask your partner if sex tonight would be an appropriate measure.
shivvers......................................
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaaargh... This fascination with sex. It baffles me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Well it is not a fascination, you know. It is a set of things that struck me, almost between the eyes.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
> Aaaargh... This fascination with sex. It baffles me.
I've been thinking about this - on and off - for the past day. I think I have quite a complex set of reactions to it.
"Aaaargh." If this is related to the fact that sexual activity (of any description) considered in the abstract (or as an observer) is not aesthetically pleasing, I'd agree. But the same goes for eating and possibly other bodily functions. And these activities never do take place in the abstract, they are very concrete. And the sensory involvement of the participants over-rides abstract aesthetic considerations.
"This fascination with sex." Actually, I don't think there's an undue discussion of sex on this forum - I'd guess it's only a little more than happens during an average evening out I spend with gay friends & aquaintances. But its true that my my normal average everyday life does not feature as many discussions of sex. So why is this?
Simply, there are not that many situations (for me) where its appropriate or meaningful to discuss sex. Most of my friends are straight, and I'm very happy to discuss relationship stuff with them, but would stop short of physical detail.
Concrete example. I currently have a moderate crush on a friend. We are both gay, and both pretty-much-exclusively bottoms. So the chances of ending up in bed together are slim-to-zero. I can talk to straight friends about the crush, the impossibility of the situation, and the fact that we both take the same physical/sexual role. But I can't (or don't feel free to) say that we're both bottoms.
So, this is one of the few places that I can raise or discuss issues which include sexual details, if I feel the need to. I hope that they are not the only threads I contribute to!
And I have many other outlets - realworld and online - for the discussion of most of the other stuff in my life. I could have posted here about my worries that becoming disabled will have affected the way other people see me, and make it more difficult for me to find the kind of partner I'm looking for (and I'm sure that I would have had support - its a supportive group). But I found it easier to discuss such worries with others who have disabilities - in short, I felt it was a 'disability' issue, rather than one my sexual orientation was relevant to.
sorry - bit of a rambling reply. But it seemed a serious question, and certainly triggered some serious thinking.
Just my own points of view of course - I'm sure others will feel differently.
NW
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
NW wrote:
> Concrete example. I currently have a moderate crush on a friend. We are both gay, and both pretty-much-exclusively bottoms. So the chances of ending up in bed together are slim-to-zero. I can talk to straight friends about the crush, the impossibility of the situation, and the fact that we both take the same physical/sexual role. But I can't (or don't feel free to) say that we're both bottoms.
Now that is interesting. First the practical: Does "we're both bottoms" mean you need to be penetrated, or does itmean that, if penetrative sex is offered you each natuyrally take that role and eschew being a top?
Now the intellectual: is it that the word "bottom" is inappropriate for conversational use whereas the phrase "we both take the same physical/sexual role" allows the audience to make its own assumptions and be unspecific about penetration? And are you either yourself embarrassed about that level of detail, or feel that the audience would be embarrassed? If the latter, how is it steering clear of detail?
Then the assumptions: Does "bottom" imply in any way to you any form of femininity? And in your audience, whould it imply any form of femininity there?
I ask these questions as a natural bottom, and yet I have never understood why I am one, for I am assuredly masculine.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For me, it just isn't that abstract, or that fixed.
So, while I generally dislike oral sex, there have been specific guys that I have wanted to / have sucked off, and other specific guys that I have / or have wanted to, be sucked off by (and one guy in both categories ... maybe it was love!). And I do generally like the taste of semen ... but there have been a couple of guys that I didn't.
And I haven't yet seen a scrotum that I thought was beautiful. But each guy that I've been involved with has had some bodily part that I've found unique and attractive. Shoulderblades. Chin. Fingers. Etc. So I seen no reason why I shouldn't one day hook up with a guy whose scrotum was attractive.
Really, the only vaguely fixed thing is that I nearly always find "topping" difficult (and, since I've become disabled, probably physically impossible) ... but that tends to have ben implicit in the relationship from the start. Although I did have one relationship in the distant past where I was usually the top.
Ummm ... in short, what I enjoy doing with a guy is something that springs organically from the moment and the relationship.
This probably makes me incurably romantic and sentimental and idealist, and could explain why I've ended up not having sex for so long!
NW
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> Now that is interesting. First the practical: Does "we're both bottoms" mean you need to be penetrated, or does itmean that, if penetrative sex is offered you each natuyrally take that role and eschew being a top?
In this case, it means that face-to-face contact seems to be a massive part of my relationship with this guy, and I would feel very unhappy with any form of sexual activity that precluded face-to-face interaction (and suspect he would be the same). And my impulses tell me that kissing throughout would mean a lot. So, oral would be out, and so would doing it in the dark! And I'm fairly sure that we both feel that anal sex would represent a deeper emotional experience/committment than jerking each other off (but I'm not knocking that ... it can be great!). And I experience no desire to penetrate him (and probably, not the physical ability ... spinal problems rather than impotence). And I understand that he has never felt any desire to penetrate anyone - he defines himself as "exclusively passive" (although I personally have reservations about he use of the word "passive"!).
>
> Now the intellectual: is it that the word "bottom" is inappropriate for conversational use whereas the phrase "we both take the same physical/sexual role" allows the audience to make its own assumptions and be unspecific about penetration?
Yes
>
> And are you either yourself embarrassed about that level of detail, or feel that the audience would be embarrassed? If the latter, how is it steering clear of detail?
Bit of both ... non-gay friends (indeed, non-gay people in general) can find the actual mechanics of gay sex difficult to cope with. And that in turn would make me embarrassed. Possibly, in the same way as I'd prefer not to have the details of what sex acts straight friends do and don't actually perform when the girl involved is menstruating. Although some of them have seen fit to share that information with me ... it was relevant to the conversation at the time.
>
> Then the assumptions: Does "bottom" imply in any way to you any form of femininity? And in your audience, whould it imply any form of femininity there?
>
Not to me - certainly. But it might well to some of my male straight friends, probably not to the women.
> I ask these questions as a natural bottom, and yet I have never understood why I am one, for I am assuredly masculine.
Timmy, you have a deep impulse to give of yourself. Time. Energy. Committment. Would being a bottom a way of 'giving yourself' ? It often is for me.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
NW wrote:
> Timmy, you have a deep impulse to give of yourself. Time. Energy. Committment. Would being a bottom a way of 'giving yourself' ? It often is for me.
I took my time over that. Thinking about it, I mean. And I cannto reach a real conclusion. It is somethng I have always known deep in my makeup. Now there may be a physical reason as well, since a non retractile and sometimes painful foreskin meant that my "hope of penile pleasure" sometimes felt remote before I got cut, and I guess I transferred my physical ideas of intimacy to my anus.
And yet that makes no sense.
No, I have just always been a bottom. I am pretty much unintreested in penetrating, which makes a heterosexual marriage an interesting challenge in itself!
Do I see it as "giving"? Honestly not sure. I do see it as an active, not a passive act. Perhaps that is an unusual way to visualise it?
I know in part it was a desire to "be owned", and yet even that is incorrect. It is nothing to do with ownership. But I know very well that it is not a feminine trait.
I also know that the first time I ever said this to anyone I cried with relief, ecause I actually felt ashamed to say it, UNTIL I said it. And that is one of the reasns I am putitng it here, very plainly. You see I doubt I am unusual in being afraid of parts of myself.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
>
> (snip)
> Do I see it as "giving"? Honestly not sure. I do see it as an active, not a passive act. Perhaps that is an unusual way to visualise it?
I think it was difficult in the 60's to view being a "bottom" as active: all the books that came out either side of the (UK) 1967 Sexual Offences Act seemed to refer to 'active' (penetrator) and 'passive' (penetrated) homosexuals. Versatility seemed to be unheard-of. Not terribly helpful to me as a questioning teenager!
For me, that changed in the 70's, and was closely tied up with the feminist movement. I remember the shock I had when I first heard a liberated feminist friend say "I fucked XXX (a man) last night." That was when I personally first began to see that being penetrated did not imply passivity, but could be active.
Nowadays (well, if the situation were to occur ...) I think I would use the phrases "had sex with" "slept with" or "made love with" depending on the situation, as there is no implication of role in these phrases.
So, I think seeing "bottoming" as being "active" is no longer a particularly unusual way to visualise it (at least, among gay men, although I suspect the heterosexual men still have a way to go in understanding that!).
>
> I know in part it was a desire to "be owned", and yet even that is incorrect. It is nothing to do with ownership.
Hmmm ... like love, one can give one's body and still retain it. So it is sharing, but still giving.
But I have to confess that I don't really understand why I have related to most lovers in a way that has made me almost exclusively bottom. I know its something in the relationship, but thats all. I don't think the why is terribly important, somehow.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
NW wrote:
> I think it was difficult in the 60's to view being a "bottom" as active: all the books that came out either side of the (UK) 1967 Sexual Offences Act seemed to refer to 'active' (penetrator) and 'passive' (penetrated) homosexuals. Versatility seemed to be unheard-of. Not terribly helpful to me as a questioning teenager!
I never saw those books, nor did I read the act. All I knew in those days was that I loved one boy and lusted after many. And though almost all were younger than I was, I wanted to have them inside me.
> But I have to confess that I don't really understand why I have related to most lovers in a way that has made me almost exclusively bottom. I know its something in the relationship, but thats all. I don't think the why is terribly important, somehow.
That last sentence. That is the key.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
>
> I never saw those books, nor did I read the act.
Be thankful.
In this instance I think my exposure to such writings was part of the grooming process intrinsic to my first, abusive, relationship. Yes - it was a subject I was interested in and knew would be personally relevant once I hit puberty. But I think his gifts of adult works of psychology / sociology (that consistently affirmed the point of view that homosexuality was a normal phase that "most boys go through") to a 12/13/14 year old probably had ulterior motives. Actually, he gave such books to so many of his 'little friends' that I hope he got a bulk discount at Blackwells!
And I feel I've missed out - apparently kids today are groomed with trips to Eurodisney and such: definitely prefereable to textbooks!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
