/baw/ General Discussion Archived Board plus4chan home [baw] [co/cog/jam/mtv] [coc/draw/diy] [pco/coq/cod] [a/mspa/op/pkmn] [Burichan/Futaba/Greygren]
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 377043)
Password  (for post and file deletion)

Currently 0 unique user posts.

  • 08/21/12 - Poll ended; /cod/ split off as a new board from /pco/.

File 13674465576.jpg - (17.79KB , 402x402 , Sigmund-Freud-9302400-1-402[1].jpg )
377043 No. 377043
We're going to give this a shot, since a vigorous discussion derailed >>375124. A (mature) discussion on sexuality, fetishes, "feelings", etc. Discuss yours, ask questions about others, advice, etc.

This is not an image dump. Examples (of legal content) are okay, but only when necessary and remember to use the NSFW image when it applies. Mark links NSFW when prudent. No need for explicit details. Global rule 1A applies heavily.
Expand all images
>> No. 377056
I have been doing self exploration/meditation for many years and have found extraordinary facts about my own mind. For example, part of the mind (I refuse to use "brain" here) that has to do with liking people and the part that has to do with sexy stuff are linked closely together for some reason. I DON'T KNOW WHY, but it is something I discovered.

Now, of course I cannot prove that, but I guess you can just explore your own mind and find out for yourself.
>> No. 377058
>people generally want to be physically intimate with people they have romantic feelings towards
No kidding?
>> No. 377064
... you had to discover that? And you can't think of why that might be? Really?

Consider me baffled.
>> No. 377069
Have you ever seen Third Rock From The Sun?
>> No. 377071
Anon from other thread. Apologies for the side-tracking, that was not my intention.

The reason I agonized over this was that I know I'm not asexual. I have a low sex drive, and more things to me are turn-offs than turn-ons, but I am interested in sleeping with someone at some point, it's just that there's been things that have guided me into being hesitant and/or making me want to push those kinds of thoughts out of my head when they do arise.

I'm hesitant to be touched in general because I've been bullied. It's been a few years, but sometimes when people get too close to me or touch me, my reaction is that they're going to hit me. Adding to that, my parents never talked about sex with me beyond "don't have sex", not knowing who online was giving good advice or not, knowing several people who are close to me who were all molested by family or family friends, and having a string of exes who broke up with me because they said "Look, we're going to have sex when I say we're going to have sex, I'm not going to wear a condom, and I'm going to decide what we do," and I wouldn't consent to that. So I'm still a virgin, although my aforementioned psychologist is giving me the "just do it, you wimp, don't be a baby" speech.
>> No. 377074
I think you need a different psychologist.
>> No. 377077
My parents pay for me to go see her, I don't have a choice in the matter, unfortunately. She's good with advice for other things, this is just one thing I don't agree with her on.

She does have a point in that me hoping for someone to have sex with who will wait for several months until we know each other well and will be willing to take it very slow and romantic may be asking too much.
>> No. 377078

tits or butts
>> No. 377080
Butts. Always butts.
>> No. 377081
I have no idea why, but I always put myself in the girl's position in porn.

I'm not even gay/bi. Or at least I don't think so.
>> No. 377082

I think you're missing the point. See, people (and men ESPECIALLY) are supposed to be perpetually horny and both willing and able to have sex with absolutely anyone who is remotely attractive at the drop of a hat. Having sex on the first date is practically expected, if not demanded; if not, then certainly by the third date. Keep in mind, this is after you've known that particular person for maybe 9-10 hours. Your conversations probably haven't progressed beyond your job and the weather.

For some people, like myself, this is just not possible. I need to grow a deep, fulfilling friendship with someone over at least several months before I would even consider starting to be sexual with them. Trying to have sex on the first date will do nothing except make me uncomfortable and not in the least bit aroused. The fact is, that person is not even attractive to me yet; I cannot be attracted to a person without developing a friendship (well, at least not adults...).

This makes "dating" impossible. I can't tell a guy that we need to "date" for four or five months before I'm even going to want to kiss him. I'd get a laugh and a wave goodbye. The ones who are particularly secure about their willpower would last a week, maybe two. Especially when most guys (especially of the homosexual variety) are firmly in the "sex first, feelings later" camp, it's not a reasonable expectation.

I'm not a flamboyant fag in any sort of way. Nobody, not even other gay men can tell I am gay unless I outright say it, and even then some people do not believe me. Nevertheless, I'm starting to realize that I am 100% like a stereotypical woman when it comes to sex. I need to develop a relationship before being attracted; love and sex are not only correlated but conflated — I can't have sex unless I'm in love, and sex results in feelings of love; I prefer cuddling to fucking; it takes me a rather long time to become aroused; it takes me an ungodly long time to reach orgasm; most guys just can't please me; I can be satisfied by sex/masturbation even if I don't have an orgasm; sometimes I'm just not "in the mood"; I loathe the idea of anything but complete monogamy; I only want sex, at most, only once or twice a week; did I mention that I'd rather just cuddle...?

Sex isn't really about pleasure for me, probably because nobody's ever been able to even come close to making me really enjoy myself. Rather, it's a form of security. It's my way of making sure someone that makes me feel loved and secure and safe doesn't go somewhere else. I don't understand romance, and I'm not subtle. If I do whatever it takes, even ignoring my own needs, to ensure that you have a mind-blowing climax, that means I love you. That means I really love you.

I don't even have a good reason for all this.
>> No. 377083
You are incorrect
>> No. 377084
"Liking" in the most general term possible. Not even talking about romance or affection.
>> No. 377087
I think that describes almost everyone, though. I damn sure find people I don't respect less attractive even if they have nice bodies or pretty faces, and find people whose body type or faces I would normally not be attracted to much more attractive once I start to respect them or enjoy their company. I thought that's just how it works.
>> No. 377088
I am not saying there is logic behind it. For example, if you play with an average dog too aggressively, it will start biting you for real. That is because the "play" and "kill" centers are closely related.

That might be one of those "imperfections" of the mind.
>> No. 377093
As someone studying behavioral science who started their career in pedophilia anything.
>> No. 377094
Do hips really move on their own?
>> No. 377096
File 136747055259.jpg - (16.39KB , 244x182 , B&R_highfive.jpg )
Oral sex is pretty great. Giving and receiving.
>> No. 377099
Like you started as a pedophile or you started in the study of pedophiles?
>> No. 377102
Ninja, I have to level with you: Pedophilia is not you how start conversations.
>> No. 377103

>they said "Look, we're going to have sex when I say we're going to have sex, I'm not going to wear a condom, and I'm going to decide what we do," and I wouldn't consent to that.

I don't know who you are, I don't really know anything about you, but I'd just like to say that I'm proud of you.

>She does have a point in that me hoping for someone to have sex with who will wait for several months until we know each other well and will be willing to take it very slow and romantic may be asking too much.
>See, people (and men ESPECIALLY) are supposed to be perpetually horny and both willing and able to have sex with absolutely anyone who is remotely attractive at the drop of a hat. Having sex on the first date is practically expected, if not demanded

...Does it kinda piss anyone else off that this is a hard thing to find? Because it pisses me right the fuck off.

I mean, you hear about how just over half a century ago everyone was super monogamous and behaving otherwise was shameful, and how it was REALLY looked down on to have sex with someone you haven't been with for a long time. And that was bad. I don't think people should get 'shamed' if they like going out and having sex. Sexual liberation is good, forced celibacy is bad. Sure, that's fine.

But it feels like we've swung too far the other way. It's weird if you don't spend your young adult life having as many one night stands as possible. It's weird to lose your virginity to the person you marry. You're considered weird if you're a virgin, and that doesn't just apply to men anymore. Why the fuck is that stuff weird? What is not perfectly okay about any of that? Why is there a fucking stigma against even the smallest modicum of abstinence? Is this just my area? Is this just college? It's probably just college.

Maybe everything I'm saying is way off, but this seems to be the way everyone who isn't a parent or devoutly religious thinks. Maybe I just think this way because I've never gotten to first base with a girl, and the resulting inferiority complex along with the huge feeling of missing out just makes me vilify sex a ton, so this all just seems magnified to me.
>> No. 377104
Most people are monogamous and don't usually hop into bed for a quick fuck with anyone willing to do it with them. People like that certainly exist and are probably more common in certain social circles, but they are far from the overwhelming majority.

If you think otherwise, that's your raging virginity talking.
>> No. 377105
I hate the attitude surrounding most people's views on the 'friend zone', or at least the attitudes I've seen on places like 4chan. It seems as if people only search out others of their preferred gender only for sexual release these days and, if you're not into that, you're going to get left in the dust. It's really quite terrible for people like >>377071 and >>377082, who need more than five minutes to become comfortable with the thought of bumping uglies.
>> No. 377106
>I hate the attitude surrounding most people's views on the 'friend zone', or at least the attitudes I've seen on places like 4chan.
>Taking 4chan seriously
Well of course they have that attitude, just look at their most trusted new source, the infamously reliable Onion, or their favorite pundit, well known conservative Stephen Colbert!

(you might be doing something wrong)
>> No. 377107
>(you might be doing something wrong)
I probably am.
>> No. 377108
PRO TIP: Everyone is doing everything wrong all day, erryday.

But seriously, I see nothing wrong with getting to know someone before jumping into bed with them, and anyone who would criticize you for that is probably not worth your time.
>> No. 377109
Now you all have me confused over how sex and relationships are supposed to work. Aren't people just supposed to talk about what they want out of a relationship and if they can come to an agreement try and make it work?
>> No. 377110
guys who would wait and show actual interest like that are rare but out there. Meeting people is always difficult; intimate relationships require knowledge and trust of a person outside the bedroom before they ever get in the bedroom. More over, to become intimate with someone for a long time means that you will become part of their lives; even fuckbuddies are somebodies, and nobody outside of a few emotionally unstable weirdos actually suck on random genitalia thrust through crude holes in bathroom fixtures.

Men, in general, seem to have higher sex drives. This is linked to testosterone, found in both men and women but mostly at accordingly lower levels. Transgender and people undergoing gender reassignment therapy provide a unique window into this; injecting testosterone is the one thing that probably will, reliably and without fail, get anyone horny. There are some women who run hot like men naturally, but not very many. This is probably what lead to the demands of your exes. The thing about sex for a lot of guys is that the sex drive becomes pretty much part of your life after puberty and damned if your fucking penis almost didn't have a mind of its' own. Some guys let their mind wander too far and they achieve erections. "Turned On" is such an apt description for most guys cause the damned thing can be like a lightswitch.

Female sex drive is much lower on average and seems to be... Wound Up? Not sure that's the best description. It stays dormant more, and is tied into emotional state. This is not to say the pure physical intersection of genitalia is not pleasurable, nor that women are over emotionally excitable. If anything, they seem more sensible about relationships; moves that are at first oblique make a kind of sense when considered from alternate perspectives, such as children, sexual disease, future contact, and the all important "can I actually stand this person when we're not fucking".

All that said sex is... kind of not that big a deal while simultaneously being kind of a big deal? I mean, you've seen the diagrams I'm sure. The actual act is really quite mechanical, even with foreplay. Kissing and fondling and rubbing and massaging and licking and climbing all over the bed and all over each other. And all this in addition to, you guessed it, lots of rhythmic, repetitive thrusting and bracing. It's an unconventional workout, and as much fun as it is, you will tire out.

I think that's the real factor that misses from a lot of media and depiction of sex; Fun. We have all these horrible and serious notions about sex, about our bodies, about pregnancy, rape, hell even periods can be just horrific to women. But the thing is, the sex I've had that I really miss was the sex that was fun. Fooling around with someone who likes you, and you like them back, and you don't really need to push each others boundaries so much as get to know one another.

But it's about trust, and while spontaneity is fun, sometimes it has to be someone special, someone who can treat it just right for it to click.
>> No. 377112
Ladies: How important is size?
Gentlemen: How important is tightness?

>If you think otherwise, that's your raging virginity talking.

Okay, I figured as much. I really need to learn to shut the fuck up about things I know nothing about.
>> No. 377113
>Female sex drive is much lower on average and seems to be... Wound Up? Not sure that's the best description. It stays dormant more, and is tied into emotional state. This is not to say the pure physical intersection of genitalia is not pleasurable, nor that women are over emotionally excitable. If anything, they seem more sensible about relationships; moves that are at first oblique make a kind of sense when considered from alternate perspectives, such as children, sexual disease, future contact, and the all important "can I actually stand this person when we're not fucking".
In my experience, this is not true. Women do tend to tie emotion a little more into sex than men do, but I haven't noticed them to be noticeably less libidinous. The thing you have to remember is this: most men are terrible at having sex with women. Even with a good partner, orgasm through vaginal intercourse is relatively uncommon. So in many cases, a woman gets a much better return on investment (in terms of energy expended versus pleasure received) through masturbation than through sex with a male partner--leaving straight women in a bad situation. Add to that the fact that women who get involved with strange men are relatively likely to be raped or killed, and that society tends to judge a woman harshly for promiscuous behavior, and you begin to understand why women are more hesitant to engage in wanton casual sex than men, completely aside from whether or not they want to have it in the first place.

It's not so much that women don't want or desire sex as much as men (or even that they don't desire sex as often as men), it's that men and women's sexual needs are different, and their strategies for getting the most out of sex differ because of that.

Think of it this way: imagine you are horny as fuck, and that you meet a girl who is clearly dying to have sex with you. She's tripping over herself to do it. She's reasonably attractive but not that attractive, and she's kind of weird and doesn't really take care of herself that well, and she has the crazy eyes, like she might try to kill you in your sleep after sex. Also, you have a rare condition where you don't orgasm as easily as most men--instead, there's about a 99% chance even if you have sex with her, you're just going to get close to orgasm, then have to fake it and take care of yourself once she's gone home. And your friends are probably going to make fun of you for having sex with her later, and other women who you actually are attracted to might not want to have sex with you because they'll think you're less valuable now that you've slept with her. Do you still want to sleep with her? Or do you go home and knock one out watching porn then fall asleep?
>> No. 377122
>In my experience, this is not true. Women do tend to tie emotion a little more into sex than men do, but I haven't noticed them to be noticeably less libidinous. The thing you have to remember is this: most men are terrible at having sex with women. Even with a good partner, orgasm through vaginal intercourse is relatively uncommon.
This has less to do with technique and more to do with physiology, penetration has never been the ideal way to get a woman to orgasm.
>> No. 377124
File 136749905030.png - (501.65KB , 500x745 , tumblr_mcyyjvcTlp1qder5oo1_500.png )
I am pretty sure I just love everything.

Though for some reason I have acquired a dyed fingers thing recently, no idea why.
>> No. 377125
Also, anybody ever play the game where you try to imagine someone who is the summation of all your and your friends fetishes?

It's pretty funny and/or horrifying depending on who you are playing with.
>> No. 377126
I'm into body horror so it's not a fair game.
>> No. 377130
That makes too much sense.
>> No. 377132
I've recently gotten a thing for hands myself. Not dyed, just in general. Kissing palms and stuff.
I dunno, it's like it's so intimate that it's hot or something.
>> No. 377134
File 136750584429.jpg - (20.91KB , 442x480 , sensory brain activity.jpg )
I mean it makes sense if you think about it, like, 90% of how we experience the world is done through our hands and heads.
>> No. 377135
I've thought about why I like the furry fetish, and I think I've figured it out. It doesn't have to do with the actual concept of anthromorphic animals, or a feeling of community, or having to defend something, or dressing up in suits or going to cons. It's the symbol of fantasy: animals walking like man. And being the symbol of fantasy, it's the glue that binds weird fetishes together.

When I roleplay with someone, on IRC or whatever, I can't bring in strange fetishes like transformation or tentacles because it feels out of place. If you're on IRC, and you're not a furry, chances are you're a normalfag looking to get off on cam or whatever. You want to actually meet people, text them pics and shit. And when you roleplay, it's always boring real world situations, and they want normal sex ASAP. They always have terrible grammar, making everything they say a boner killer, and good luck trying to find ANY girl that'll even attempt to cyber with you. I've often had to pose as girls just to simulate the experience.

With furry roleplay I don't have any of that. Not only can I bring in weird fetishes without either of us feeling uncomfortable about it, but often roleplays have these elaborate situations where we're saving the world, making up our own characters, etc. They also most of the time are excellent at writing, and don't need or want to know anything about you. We're both living in a pretend world of fantasy and our fursonas just serve to remind us of that.

I guess I don't really have a point though.
>> No. 377136
File 136751123096.jpg - (29.55KB , 355x465 , lucasandcybersix.jpg )
I'm actually not a huge fan of monster cocks, but I'm a virgin, so maybe I may not be the best person to answer.

I don't like feet either, other than maybe getting a foot massage. Hands though, I really like.

I can deal with bug girls, alien girls, monster girls, and catgirls (and guys, for all previous examples), but nothing more than anime catgirl-level of furry.

Size kinks, too. Big buff guys, especially the intelligent, gentle variety, with smaller women or guys. (See pic.) Intelligence is a massive turn-on.
>> No. 377138
Women can orgasm using just their fingers. Don't worry about size, you can't change it. Worry about foreplay.

Oh right, everyone seems to fill the need to treat sexuality and relationships as some sort of arcane nonsense. Well, I suppose you have to treat something like that.

I like you.
>> No. 377139
File 136751772255.jpg - (48.85KB , 600x867 , 136411407746.jpg )
I am on board with you on size and intelligence.
>> No. 377140
I like a little bit of cushion, but not drooping/sagging. Given a binary choice, I'd take "healthy" over "tight".
>> No. 377142
File 136753190895.png - (400.19KB , 500x496 , tumblr_mm4u59giNF1rzv8gao1_500.png )
I don't think that's the tightness he means.

Tightness isn't as important as lubrication
>> No. 377145

In that case I have no idea. ;_;
>> No. 377151
I'm going to respectfully disagree about men and womens' sex drives being more or less equal and different. They are certainly different, but they are very unequal in intensity. It wasn't a Woman who first looked at a Goat and thought "I bet I could fuck that". And in places where prostitution is legal, or where studies have been done on it, the clientele for prostitutes is always overwhelmingly male. There are a few women buying in but they're really more exceptions than rules. This is also partly the reason that men are overwhelmingly more likely to be the aggressor in domestic disputes.

I'm not saying this to necessarily disagree with you. Women's sexual needs are different, and must be considered. But I think anyone who doesn't necessarily feel that high testosterone drive doesn't really know what it's like. Walking down a beach and not popping a boner can be an exercise in raw will power. If a girl is wearing a low-cut shirt with a lot of cleavage, you can get hard without even really meaning to. There are some girls who, reportedly, can go their whole lives even having sex, and not ever really have an orgasm. The number of guys like that is so small as to be nearly mythical. For the majority of men, once you hit puberty, that shit is on and suddenly every girl looks different; every girl makes you feel a little funny in the pants, even if everything else in the world is telling you it's a horrific idea (yes, even your mother, who not an insignificant number of men apparently think about during sex, although not necessarily in a sexual way). As the old adage goes, "now that I'm out, I just spend all my time trying to get back in".

To a lot of guys, the differences in sexuality between the sexes seems sort of obvious, even if they can't put their finger on why. Through repression, society, and just plain not having the kind of sex drive that makes you eye anything with a hole with curiosity, women seem, comparatively, to feel their sex drives less or to be able to shelf them more effectively. Even amongst gay men and lesbians, gay men tend to have much larger pools of partners than lesbians do (or at least, the minority that offsets this statistic have so many partners as to effectively skew the results), and it's reflective of how many people those men feel the need to go for.

Length is not that important, but Girth is apparently much more so. I can't find it right now but there's an image macro floating around dick rating threads on /b/ talking about how you only really need about 5-6 inches, and I believe this is fairly true. Spoilered for NSFW:
The last girl I was with was about 5'4. I'm about 6'2, and my penis is ever so slightly longer than the average at 7.5 erect. I'm not sure of her exact vaginal depth, but I was able to reliably hit her cervix both times we had sex. This actually caused her to bleed both times, and I only found out later from a friend of a friend that I'm actually a little oversized and that would had likely happened was that I had impacted her cervix, which can cause bleeding, discomfort and pain. I suspect she left because I'm a giant nerd, but a significant part of that was that it was physically painful for her to fuck me.

I've heard that girth is more important to women because it can touch more of the vaginal walls, and illicit more sensation. Not sure how much the point really matters; when an organ is designed to pass a baby through it, there is only realistically so much "tightness" one can really expect. The vaginal canal does seem to loosen and tighten, mostly through childbirth and exercise, respectively, and first times can be somewhat painful especially if you've never masturbated or tried any sex toys or other objects, or even if the mood isn't right (vaginal depth can reportedly be affected by arousal, and the vagina can make a little more room if the person expects a foreign object in there). But obviously, not necessarily enough to make room for something that is already a little longer than the vagina is.

Also, just as an aside, "doggy-style" is fairly great because you can get the deepest penetration but also holding the girl up seems to angle her g-spot right into the thrusting head of your penis, maximizing mechanical pleasure while using the buttcheeks to cushion the repeated blows.

I don't think it's weird to marry the person you lost your virginity to, I think it's weird to wait until marriage to lose your virginity. That girl in the black texted story? If we had found out these things about each other 3 months into a relationship, it would be terrible because as much as we like each other, I'd have to physically restrain myself from going too hard on her and she'd have to be careful of injuring herself on me. It wouldn't really be fun for either of us, much as we liked each other (and in hindsight we didn't like each other that much).

And it's not just that, but having sex and understanding sex are incredibly important to intimacy and incredibly important to understanding a lot about why the world is the way it is. I mean, try and watch this without cringing a little at the kiss:
Virgin Couple Shares First Kis…youtube thumb

Sexual experience is important. We have this whole culture trying to turn it into a sin, but fact is, you're never going to go wrong for knowing more about yourself and trying to learn more about other people, and sex is one of the the most enjoyable ways we do that. That doesn't mean you shouldn't wait for someone you like and trust, but know that one night stands aren't necessarily as huge a deal as everyone makes them out to be. Nothing bad stems directly from an available man and woman deciding to have a little extramarital hanky-panky; if their own marriage day ever comes, their partner will probably thank them for it.

I will however say that media concentration on promiscuity does nothing to help all this.
>> No. 377152
You're looking at things through a lens of modern popular culture. Look to history, and you'll see that women were once considered the more lustful sex. It was the entire basis of the irony in the plot of Lysistrata--women refusing to have sex with men to get concessions out of them was seen by the ancient greeks to be hilarious, because the very idea that a woman could go without sex was laughable.

Even in the victorian era, it was believed that if a woman didn't have regular orgasms, it would affect her health. The whole concept of "hysteria" was built around the concept that a woman's uterus (the latin word for which is "hysterus," as in "hysterectomy," and the root word for hysteria) would wander around her body and cause physiological and psychological problems if she didn't get laid. The vibrator was actually invented as a medical device that doctors would use on female patients to prevent hysteria, so vital did they consider regular orgasm to a woman's health.

So yeah, don't base your beliefs on female sexuality on the fact that men aren't getting laid or that women don't visit prostitutes.

Incidentally, I am male, and do know what Lust Induced Brain Freeze feels like--I also know that it's overstated, and comes mostly from men feeling like they're allowed to do it. A man openly lusting after a woman suffers no judgement for his behavior, and is even encouraged to do it, so men tend to let themselves basically just be huge assholes about it.

But here's the thing--women are better multitaskers, and they have better peripheral vision than we do. It's not that women aren't constantly checking dudes out or lusting over them. It's that when they do, they are entirely capable of maintaining a perfect poker face. Which they do, because they feel it is rude and reflects badly on them when they act like animals who have no control over their own bodies.

The difference you're talking about that seems intuitive to guys is intuitive because it's fed to us by culture. Guys just accept that we are the more sexual gender, and are more or less raised to think of sex as an adversarial transaction--"men want sex, women want intimacy, so if you want sex you have to convince women to give it to you." It is an unhealthy fiction and is the source of many men's difficulty in relationships.
>> No. 377159
I'm just basing my observations on what I feel and what I have observed. I am not necessarily encouraged to lust, or allowed it (if anything, most people seem against individual displays of lust), but I feel it, and sometimes I feel it when I really don't want to feel it. Women being more lustful is at odds with just about everything I have observed in life. This is not to say that they are not libidinous, but whatever the difference is, they seem to be able to hold that sexuality back more and are far less likely to go on sexual misadventures for the sheer hell of it. You're right about the dildoes; preliminarily googling suggests that Cleopatra even had a dildo stuffed with live bees for a comfortable buzz.

But if you tell me that the sex drives between sexes are two perfect equals merely limited by society and perception, I would say that that is patently not true. These drives aren't necessarily equal even between people of the same gender. That they exist on a parity is probably one of the most damaging assumptions you can make about sexuality; none of it is all the same, and frequently that difference comes down to the people involved. There's stuff that works for mostly everybody, but in aggregate, whether women lust as much as men or not, they seem much less likely to pursue it. This is not just supposition because "men don't get laid"; this is observable in most of the places we can observe it. Men do the fucking, overwhelmingly; sex crimes, domestic disputes, sex trafficking, even in advertising, sex sells doesn't necessarily appear just because all men are stupid and horny, it appears because that's probably what the person who designed it was thinking about, if he was male. And wouldn't you know a lot of men buy into that. That example of the man and the goat is so close to reality that I'm afraid to try and find an example. And contrast with things like Donkey Shows, where most of the acts are human male on female donkey and you have to drop a lot of money to see male donkey on human female.

So yeah, there's a lot of media depicting men as the only "sexual" beings and female sexuality is swept under the rug far too much. But I wouldn't say that perception is based in 100% falsehoods, insofar as what gets people going can vary a lot. I don't want to, myself, make too many assertions about what female sexuality is and isn't, because if I knew that, I hella wouldn't be here right now.

But the media in America has really put us in kind of a sexual dark ages in a lot of ways. I was actually given a sex ed class when I was in 5th grade (too young to really appreciate it, looking back). Upon learning of the insertion of Penis into Vagina, one of the students in my class asked "do they always fit together?"

My teacher, she blushed and giggled (a bit strange on a 40 year old woman) and said, "the parts have always lined up for me".

So either my teacher was purposefully holding back information because she was embarrassed, or she simply didn't know. And that second part is what I find colors a lot of peoples sexual experiences; they don't know. They don't know that genitalia doesn't always fit together. They don't know that some women have absolutely brutal, painful, arresting demon from hell periods that are literally only helped by birth control. And for sexuality being the same, that's one of the things we don't know. Every observable model we have points to them not being 1:1, the same. Now, models seldom survive contact with reality, but I don't think this is solely media exposure influencing my opinion.
>> No. 377162
i just wanted to talk about butts
>> No. 377163
See the secret is, if you can tell where the butt ends and the forearm begins, you need to go deeper.
>> No. 377165
The more I think about, the less sense something makes.

Why are we, (And a culture, and generally) Afraid of sex so much?

Violence, Sports, Gambling, Driving, Fights, are all generally glamorized in most forms of media. Power Fantasies and Role fulfillments of this sort can be shown on screen in great detail. But people going past second base on screen? Oh how terrible!

You can show a man gutting another, with all the blood and gore spilling out before your eyes. You can show people getting into a ring and beating each other till they are covered in blood and bones are cracked. But a cumshot from a handjob between two lovers? THAT is just Horrid!

I could go on and on, but just wanted to bring it up and see other people's thoughts. Why is "slut-shaming" still a thing, and who is to blame? It is a pleasure activity that generally harms no one. I even wrote a paper on it, that my Journalism Professor read aloud before a very shocked class. (After closing all the doors and checking the hallway for any other staff) She broke out into a giggle with this summary line.

"You can show two men blowing each-other's heads off, but you can't show two men blowing each-other."
>> No. 377170
Well, I hate to open this can of worms, but the easy answer is "Christians." And in parts of the world outside the United States, also Muslims (not that they're not present in the US, too, but they have less effect on policy in the US). Shame is a baked-in feature of the Catholic faith which filtered into the Protestant faiths, and in the parts of the world where the Christians hold sway, they spread their morals over everyone, regardless of whether those people agree with them. Sex-negativity seems to be largely borne out of that.

...there's also a whole line of thought regarding how sex shame makes it possible to stack the balance of political power in favor of men, but that line of thought doesn't convince me mostly because I don't believe anyone can really manage a conspiracy of that magnitude. I can see where the power shift brought about by making sex evil and setting up the belief that "women are wicked temptresses over men, who have no control over their own actions," rewards the men who uphold those standards, but I find it very difficult to believe that there are really any men out there who actually think to themselves "This is how we'll keep women down! Bwahahaha!"
>> No. 377173
File 136757315071.jpg - (113.38KB , 600x376 , science.jpg )
>I'm just basing my observations on what I feel and what I have observed
As a man I don't think you can have a complete picture of female sexuality. Especially because of things like sexism, which you don't experience, but women do.

All your examples are basically the result of men being in control. Rape is NOT about not being able to control your libido, it is about power. Domestic violence as well. Prostitutes usually cater to men because it's safer for men to go out looking for sex, and prostitution has a very long history of being a feminine profession which makes men more reluctant than women to become sex workers even in dire straits (anything to keep some shred of dignity, which you would lose if you lower yourself to a woman's position). Advertising is usually all about sexy women because it's usually men creating the ads. They are just selling the product based on what is attractive to them.

Most differences are based in social expectations of how men and women ought to behave, and how safe it is perceived. It is not biological. When propositioned directly for sex from an attractive person guys will agree to it relatively often (but not as often as being asked to go on a date or things like that) while women will virtually never respond in any positive manner. iirc I don't think any women responded well to being propositioned in that experiment or any replication of it. This isn't because women don't want sex or if they felt they were on equal ground, they wouldn't take a sexy dude up on the offer. It's because that, when a man comes up to them and asks them if they want to fuck, that sounds a hell of a lot of rape alarm bells, and it's scary for them to a degree that is definitely not felt by guys. In other scenarios that were less sexually aggressive, men and women both accepted at about the same frequencies.

There are biological differences of course, but they have more to do with stuff like what qualities they look for in a partner and attachment than how aroused they can feel or how often. Hormones also play a role, in that women are typically thinking about boning a lot more while ovulating (obviously) and during menstruation (which is honestly really strange and I don't know why your body would do this to you, but I was glad to find out this happens with a lot of women and not just me) and less so at other times in the cycle. Men don't have that flux but that does not mean that they are constantly running at the same level or higher that women can only manage for a few days a month. That's actually ridiculous. Silly boys. Of course the level of arousal also differs from person to person and seems to be attached to personality, so you will get men and women at each end of the spectrum, with both sexes averaging somewhere in the middle, but a bit closer to nymphomaniac than 100% asexual.

I am pretty sure a lot of men just assume women are never thinking about sex because a woman does not pitch a tent whenever she imagines hot naked dudes boning. What can't be seen probably isn't real (or at least not of concern), after all.
>> No. 377174
I think it is possible that, aside from the sexism angle (which certainly plays a part, consider the obsession with virginity and how marriages worked in ancient times), sex negativity has to do with sexually transmitted diseases. If stuff like syphilis was rampant in a community, it stands to reason the authority would try to make people have less sex with less sexual partners so that the disease will not spread. And of course, without antibiotics or effective barriers that prevent infection, STIs are a big deal. This might also be a reason why homosexuality was considered a sin, since it is easier to get infections through anal sex than vaginal. (They also probably considered it a sin because it was something the Romans were okay with, and they thought Rome sucked.)

>I find it very difficult to believe that there are really any men out there who actually think to themselves "This is how we'll keep women down! Bwahahaha!"
Yeah but it isn't a calculated or conscious thought. It's just something that's evolved within the structure of our society. Things don't always happen because someone willed them into existence.
>> No. 377175
File 136757823174.png - (216.27KB , 624x426 , daydream.png )
I must say you have good taste.
>> No. 377176
Goddamn Cyber Six was so good, I actually read the comics hoping for more of the same but they are basically two different characters though sexuality gets explored much more.
>> No. 377178
File 136758305247.jpg - (393.74KB , 709x946 , tumblr_mldf9xtk9j1qcl5svo4_r1_1280.jpg )
>Size kinks, too. Big buff guys, especially the intelligent, gentle variety, with smaller women or guys.
I actually really like this too.
It worked out pretty well for me, seeing as I'm like 6' and not exactly petit, and my girlfriend is 4'11".
Good Lord she's gorgeous.
>> No. 377179
File 136758374736.jpg - (24.33KB , 300x277 , joanna_wang-the_things_we_do_for_love-cover.jpg )
Oh yeah she is, I myself am scared of hurting small women so I prefer girls a little closer to my size than most and I so when I hear bigger women being criticized I lose it because I am so self conscious about my own size.

I should mention, voice is a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE component of what I find attractive in a partner, in particular hearty feminine voices, for example somewhere between Eartha Kitt's booming and Joanna Wang's whispers.

eartha kitt, i want to be evilyoutube thumb

王若琳 Joanna Wang - Lemon Treeyoutube thumb
>> No. 377184
Ladies: are you into BDSM or some other form of domination? Giving or receiving?
>> No. 377186
Maybe it's because I'm so old and socially crippled by now, but I can honestly imagine myself not really enjoying sex should it ever happen. I do enjoy occasional porn, though.
>> No. 377198
>>men fap to lesbians and nobody bats an eye
>>women fap to gay men and supposedly that's disgusting

>> No. 377199
Wait says who
>> No. 377200
Women think men fapping to lesbians is disgusting too. Way more openly than the opposite.
>> No. 377201
Wait what?

Nothing wrong with a little man snuggles, in general even, forget anybody into it.
>> No. 377204
I said I liked shipping two dudes on a show that are very blatantly hinted at as to be gay, on a site that talks about gay pairings a lot anyways, and I got the response of "pig disgusting".
>> No. 377205
File 136762065323.jpg - (76.79KB , 463x400 , 134571897098.jpg )
That is dumb.
>> No. 377206
Probably because the paring was disgusting, not the concept of gay dudes.
>> No. 377209
>Yeah but it isn't a calculated or conscious thought. It's just something that's evolved within the structure of our society. Things don't always happen because someone willed them into existence.
Yeah, that's more or less what I meant. I don't believe in any conspiracy to make things work this way, but I can believe that people unwittingly perpetuate this thing because they are rewarded for doing so.
>> No. 377210
Razer/Hal is an awful pairing of course people would call it disgusting.
>> No. 377211
File 136762805511.jpg - (30.13KB , 400x300 , L_Light29.jpg )
Are you certain this wasn't a joke or troll attempt? What kind of site was this?
As someone who used to have a guilty pleasure for reading a lot of dirty fanfics, I can say that the amount of female-authored gay pairings compared to any lesbian pairings--or in many cases straight pairings--is often overwhelming. Though I suppose that one could argue that fanfic writing is a more female-dominated field, a lot of fandoms with fan-made content involving pairings, whether it be fiction or art, seem accepting of male-male pairings to the extent that they are almost treated as the norm, sometimes even moreso than straight or canonical pairings.

I don't mean to say that I know for sure the poster of that comment was a troll, but with a comment like that, I kind of get the impression that he was trying to get your goat.
>> No. 377217
Johnlock is a horrible pairing, you should feel bad for it.
>> No. 377224
>As a man I don't think you can have a complete picture of female sexuality
I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but being a woman, can you be sure that you have a complete picture of male sexuality?

I can tell you that, being a male raised in a somewhat bizarre environment in which my sexuality was seen as evil, I did everything humanly possible to restrain my libido, in my thoughts, speech, and behavior, but found it to be utterly impossible. This began to happen to me at a relatively young age (I suppose I was an early bloomer) an age before the world of sexuality begins to blatantly influence social behavior and my perceptions of how men and women differ in that aspect.

As much as I was brought up to detest my sexuality, and however many hours a day I spent meditating and praying and begging whatever higher power may exist for it would go away, it was impossible to ignore, and I was never able to really fully function without bringing myself to orgasm at least once a day or so.
I didn't find any of it related to social expectations, as my libido and shy personality remained a constant with and without moral pressures. It was all biological for me.

As an adult, I can say that my libido hasn't really decreased, and after some discussion about libido with some females, they conceded that it was never that difficult for them. Or perhaps these particular females just coincidentally had lower libidos.

By no means am I justifying any double-standards when it comes to male vs female sexuality, and I'm not saying that women don't have it hard in a lot ways, because you do. I just think that it's fair to say that, as a male who does everything in his power to respect women, it's still monumentally difficult to not be a complete horndog every hour of every day, to put it bluntly.

Or maybe I just fall on the nymphomaniac end of the arousal spectrum you mentioned, and my priest was right when he declared me to be a disgusting pervert.
I dunno. Probably.
>> No. 377226
I feel I have no real preference when it comes to types of women I find sexy. But I'm not sure if I like the term "no preference," because it sounds like it implies that I don't care, even though I do. It's more like I have a million preferences?... It's a bit hard to explain...

Like, if I'm shown a girl with long hair, I'll think "Oh man, long hair, that's so attractive!" And if you show me the same girl with her hair cut short, I'll think "Oh man, short hair, that's so attractive!" It's like whatever is right in front of me at the moment happens to be the greatest thing in the world. The same thought process repeats itself for other features, such as height, skin tone, race, body type, voice, etc.

Is that weird?
>> No. 377227

As people, we have a choice over how we conduct ourselves. As men, we don't have a choice conducting our libidos. Research has shown that we can be aroused on visuals alone; low cut blouses, bare legs, even blushes.

We talk about having two brains and it really is kind of like that. Male Sexuality has been championed in the media without true understanding. Nobody really wants to say "look you're gonna get a buttload of testosterone when you hit puberty and you are literally going to lose days to masturbation". And not everybody does, but for a lot of us the reality of the situation is woefully understated by any jokes about adolescent masturbation.

Female sexuality has been trampled upon and seemingly repressed wholesale. Sometimes I honestly wonder about the hate mail that prominent women in various kinds of media get; if it's not really driven by a deep down fear that, if we let them live to their full potential and blaze their own trails, then somehow we lose the ability to have sex. This is a false dichotomy; functional relationships and real people do not work like that, no matter how much media we are fed. But still, methinks they doth protest a bit much.
>> No. 377229
I dunno if they were serious or not. It might be my socially-inept nature, but I can't always tell, especially with complete strangers. The pairing was a crossover between two different fandoms, that might be why. Fandoms that tend to hint at gay romance in both, but ironically the one that hints at it far more blatantly has a fandom that's far more squicked by the idea that any of the characters could possibly be gay. Which is stupid. I think even if you don't care to see porn of them, hating the implication that the character would be any different than they are now if they came out of the closet is completely idiotic.

I do ship Johnlock (across all adaptions, not just BBC), but in a homoromantic/asexual way. Romantic, but there's no fucking going on. I can't see Sherlock fucking anyone, regardless. I do, however, think different adaptions have different levels of gay going on.
>> No. 377230
>As men, we don't have a choice conducting our libidos.
Bullshit. I'm a man, and I have no problem controlling my libido. Finding an image to be sexy and drooling like an asshole are two very different things, and men do not have to do the latter.
>> No. 377231
File 136764734677.png - (43.36KB , 345x396 , slowpokeandbreakingnews.png )
>people have differing libido levels, even among the same sex

I have a pretty high libido, but it's well within my control. If I masturbated every time I got turned on, odds are it'd be several times a day. But at the same time, I once went 10 months without it just to see if I could.
I was trying to go for a year, but by the end of 10 months without, I was so sensitive that it kind of happened by accident, went ahead and called it quits at that point.

One of my friends is so ruled by his libido that he's said he would probably break up with someone who was asexual, just because he doesn't think he'd be able to go without, and would probably end up cheating on her, so he'd cut it off before that happened.

One of my friends loves sex, but doesn't really seek it out, he just takes it as it comes along in a relationship.

All biologically male.

~everyone is different~
>> No. 377232
oh and
>Is that weird?
I dunno. I'm the same way though for the most part. There are certain traits I find especially appealing, but that doesn't mean I dislike the inverse.
It's almost like I have no standards, but that's not really true, I just find lots and lots of things attractive.
>> No. 377235
Dirty talk of all kinds completely and utterly turns me off. When I start *talking* about sex, I revert to a mechanical mindset about it and absolutely nothing will get me going.

In fact, I don't like any kind of talking at all during the act. Moaning and noises and deep breathing is fine, but words and names make me feel weird and snap me out of the zone.

Anyone else like this?
>> No. 377237
>> No. 377238
>I don't mean to play devil's advocate, but being a woman, can you be sure that you have a complete picture of male sexuality?
I certainly don't. I don't think I have a complete picture of my own sexuality, even, because I don't experience it that strongly. But I did not base anything I said on personal observation; this was just something I studied last semester and read papers on. If I did base it on myself, I'd be saying that yes absolutely, men and women are very different because women don't feel a need to masturbate and don't fantasize about themselves having sex with anyone until they're in a committed relationship. But I do not represent all women, and as it turns out, I am not a typical woman anyway.

The study of sex in psychology is still dominated very much by men, and therefore most studies that come out are from men who want to understand how their own bodies work and what makes men attractive to women (or, more recently, other men). For a very long time, men were considered the "default" and in many ways still are, so when researchers set up experiments, they often choose a straight male sample when they are not out to do gender comparisons. Then they must specify that they used a straight male sample. So the result is that the psychology of sex is really more like the psychology of the straight man. We also get misinterpretations like
>Research has shown that we can be aroused on visuals alone; low cut blouses, bare legs, even blushes
where someone assumes that because this is supported by research when referring to straight dudes, but research on the same subject is harder to find & not cited as often when referring to other genders and sexualities, that the statement probably only applies to straight dudes. This is a fallacy. For this example, humans in general rely extensively on visual cues and body language is an extremely important tool in social situations. Everyone can get aroused by a blush from the right person because it's a universal sexual signal. Low cut blouses & bare legs are more interesting because, to a degree, you're taught what is sexy and what isn't--sexy doesn't look the same across all cultures--but it's likely that bare legs alone won't make you pop a boner, it's what the lady is doing with them; how she moves, how she accents this feature with clothing, what she looks like as a whole. If you're only shown a sexy leg and don't know anything else about that person, you just imagine what kind of sexy person would own that sexy leg, and fill in the come hither body language that is missing. (Usually. I mean, there are some weirdos out there who think the very idea of a body part in isolation, separated from the whole, is hotter than a complete person, but that's... unusual.)

tl;dr: most people like sex, and statistically there is no big difference between how much men and women want it/think about it/get aroused. What we do in response to arousal has a lot to do with what our culture feels is acceptable for us to do. Women, by virtue of having no dick, can generally hide arousal in inappropriate situations a lot better, but that is no suggestion that it does not occur. The insatiable, monstrous male libido vs. the demure, mysterious female libido is largely a myth. There sure are guys like you and girls like me, but there are also girls like you and guys like me. I hate this myth and feel like it does injustice to both parties. The male stereotype is also dangerous because it allows people to excuse awful sexual behaviour and even rape as "boys will be boys." No, rapists will be rapists, and you're not just enabling and excusing criminals, you're demonising male sexuality.

There isn't actually anything wrong with having a high libido. You're not inherently disgusting.

Dirty talk is really weird.
>> No. 377239
I didn't mean to really imply that men have no choice or are complete slaves to their libido, because it can and should be controlled. For some of us, it just takes some more work to control, it seems.

I was just recounting how, in my experience, it can become somewhat debilitating on a regular basis if it's not taken care of, with or without any kind of outside input or socially constructed sexual norms.

Regardless, it can be controlled, though it may become somewhat of a hassle, and, not that you said that it does, it should never be used to excuse depraved behavior, especially any kind violent crimes against women.
>> No. 377240
>The male stereotype is also dangerous because it allows people to excuse awful sexual behaviour and even rape as "boys will be boys."
I'm not too sure that this happens that often, at least in the way you describe it.
I think when presented with the fact that most rapists are male, people seek to find an explanation of why that is, and presumably libido is one of the conclusions that they come to. Though perhaps having an explanation, however unjustified, excuses it in people's minds.
I don't often get the impression that a man's sex has excused or justified his sexual crimes either socially or in the eyes of the law.
Female rapists of males, though much, much less common, actually tend to have less negative stigma attached to them than male rapists. (I probably don't have to say this, but I by no means am saying that this is unfair, or that male rapists should be treated better. As you stated, rapists will be rapists, and rape in any form is completely inexcuseable.)

Interestingly, I recall some articles I read regarding female rape seem to support that "boys will be boys" mentality, as the male victims would receive less support and would even be congratulated under the pretense that, as males, they enjoyed the experience.

Overall, I'm not really sure about the "unequal libido" discussion, due to only being a person with a single sex, and the fact that so many social variables seem to be involved and I don't always know how to separate them from something that may be inherant.
Regardless of sex drive, as someone who believes there is no such thing as a positive stereotype, I do agree that this stereotype can do a lot of harm to both men and women.

Anyway, thanks for your insight and input! It's been a long time since I had to think.
>> No. 377250
Yes. Including someone bragging about size or acting like they're some kind of sex god. Not my thing.
>> No. 377251
>As men, we don't have a choice conducting our libidos.

Just want to revisit this, since it is both true and false.

Men are unlike women in that they have a physiological need for orgasm/ejaculation that starts out very high shortly after puberty and tapers off into old age. There is some variance among different men, of course, but nearly all young men need it at least once a week, and many at least once a day. Teenagers often need it multiple times per day.

This isn't bullshit. It's not a simple mental urge. Nobody would suggest that people could simply not pee if they controlled themselves properly — some mind over matter thing. The fact is, fluid is being built up, and bad things happen if you don't get rid of it on a regular basis. Not ejaculating regularly has all but proven to cause prostate cancer.

That being said, the pretense is also false. Some men use it as an excuse for needing SEX, but ejaculation is not sex. Going back to the urinating analogy: yes, people need to pee at least once a day, but that doesn't mean that the second you get the urge to pee you drop trousers and pee on the person next to you! There is a proper and an improper time/place to do these things. This is the same. A penis is not a complicated organ; if you rub it with a hand, a toy, or a person's genitals, it will react in virtually the same way.

Therefore, a man can effectively control his sexual urges by simply masturbating more often. He can't go saying that the reason he's cheating is because he gets boners looking at his co-workers if the truth is that he can simply rub one out in the shower before work. Or do it three times, whatever he needs. Seriously, for most men masturbating can take less than five minutes.

So the real reason that all this happens isn't because most men have an uncontrollable libido, it's because most men have an uncontrollable ego. They allow any excuse, such as a simple physiological urge, to be the deciding factor of complex behavioral actions. They feel liberated by society's view on the matter as: "men are horny, it can't be helped" and use it as their excuse. It's not an excuse.

There's is a huge jump in concentrated effort from popping a boner looking at an attractive person walking by, and then arranging an entire set of circumstances that will allow them to have sex together. Talking to them, arranging a meeting, agreeing to sex, booking a hotel room, driving there, stripping naked, and only THEN having sex. It's REALLY NOT EASY to have sex as an adult, you can't just (like the emergency room excuse for foreign objects in the rectum) simply "fall onto" someone and "oh, it just happened". It would be much, MUCH easier it go masturbate in the bathroom, trust me.

Just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on the difference, so both men and women can understand what is going on. Yes, ladies, men generally need to orgasm at least a couple times a week. No, gentlemen, that does not mean you need to have sex at least a couple times per week, or even at all. They are not the same thing.

ER Nurse: Okay, what happened?
Patient: I fell onto it and it went up my butt!
ER Nurse: You FELL onto the dildo...?
Patient: Yeah!
ER Nurse: So. You went to your bedroom, closed the door, went to the dresser and got out the dildo, went to the desk, got out the lube, put the lube on the dildo, then took off your shoes, then your socks, then your pants, then your underwear... and then you fell onto the dildo.
Patient: .................yes...

>> No. 377252
I prefer normal talk during sex. A blowjob makes telling someone about your day much more interesting.
>> No. 377256
>Not ejaculating regularly has all but proven to cause prostate cancer.

yeah, no, let's not make vague correlations into sudden biological laws.
Think about it a minute. there's no much reason for prostate to get cancer from holding sperm than there's reason to get stomach cancer by over eating. It,s about physical load, sperm itself isn't toxic.
>> No. 377257
Plus, the body has a natural mechanism for whatever hormonal balancing is necessary in the form of nocturnal emissions / wet dreams, so it's not like a man actually would actually need to masturbate for his health even if ejaculation were necessary for health.
>> No. 377262
I grew up as a pretty severely repressed male who was forbidden from fapping (I was religious at the time), and I honestly never had any nocturnal emissions. I'd always hold off as long as I possibly could, but in the end even the fear of hell couldn't keep me from seeking some release, as I'd actually be in physical pain and hormonal overload at that point. Wet dreams aren't really something that just conveniently happen whenever one wants or needs them to.
It was a pretty miserable time.
>> No. 377264
It is really pervasive and the other side of the same coin is "well she was asking for it." Men can't control themselves, it's just a state of being they can't help, thus it's up to women not to aggravate them. It's her responsibility and her fault when she "fails" to not be raped. Cue lamenting the rapist's loss of a future and harrassment of the victim. In reality, most rape has to do with power and dominance, and most victims aren't dressing provocatively or sending mixed messages. This is especially obvious in cases like prison rape.

A lot of people just don't think that women can be rapists because a) rape is synonymous with forced penetration in their minds, and since women don't usually have dicks, it is literally impossible for them to do it, and b) guys are horndogs so you can't rape them, because they always want it. I think that some male victims might rationalise it as "I was seduced, not raped" to keep some shred of dignity.

In a less extreme sense though, boys will be boys certainly applies to stuff like groping & overt propositioning, and for some people, even shit like cheating.

And jesus christ man, what sort of horrible religious cult did you grow up in? Your experience sounds terrible.

The prostate doesn't even hold sperm. It's a gland that secretes some of the fluid in semen and produces some variants of testosterone. It is notoriously shitty at cell replication for some reason leading to its enlargement and sometimes cancer, possibly because it is sensitive to dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and just doesn't know when to quit. There are also frequently plaques formed in the gland and we don't know why that is, but "not masturbating enough" proooobably isn't one of them.

More likely it is a problem with breaking down DHT/making too much DHT from testosterone that leads to prostate cancer. Not something you can prevent by jacking off.
>> No. 377265
>sperm itself isn't toxic

I don't think you really understand what cancer is. Basically, cancer is when a cell, ANY cell, loses control of its replication functions and starts making too many of itself; copies of itself that also lack proper replication regulation.

Some cancer is genetic, but most cancer is caused by environmental factors. You don't have to be exposed to something toxic for this happen, although it definitely increases the chances. Environmental factors are not limited to pollutants; cancer might be caused by things like stress, lack of physical activity, and diet. For example, apparently men that ate more meat had a tendency to develop certain digestive tract cancers more than those who had other things.

Since the causes of cancer are hard to determine, it is completely possible that neglecting a sexual release to the point of physical pain on a regular basis could induce cancer in the prostate.

>the body has a natural mechanism for whatever hormonal balancing is necessary

But not everyone's bodies have 'proper' hormonal balances to begin with.
>> No. 377266
>More likely it is a problem with breaking down DHT/making too much DHT from testosterone that leads to prostate cancer. Not something you can prevent by jacking off.

Doesn't reaching orgasm release a bunch of hormones/chemicals/what-have-you? The most noticeable ones are the ones that cause euphoria, but my point is that there might be some biological unknowns going on that cause the brain to set stuff going in the right direction to regulate all this.

I'm not an expert on any of this and I haven't had a biology class in years, so maybe I shouldn't be trying to argue this. Jacking off to prevent cancer sounds silly, but I'm one of those people that thinks anything is possible.

And I'm not a guy, so this isn't some excuse for me to justify rubbing one out all the time.
>> No. 377276
File 136772874751.jpg - (92.07KB , 320x480 , tumblr_m9k05yRXDC1r7z87no1_400.jpg )
I was talking to a girl tonight and the conversation turned this way and she mentioned that she was into spanking and I told her it's one that I never really got it.

She then told me that if properly done she can achieve orgasm from spanking, something to the effect of properly hitting so the vibration goes into the cervix? I didn't catch the full story due to the DJ being an idiot.
>> No. 377278
DHT is a sex hormone and derivative of testosterone. It seems to be released by the prostate during or after orgasm and is a main player in male sexual function. It's also thought though that it has a role in prostate enlargement, which sort of makes sense as hyperplasia of the prostate of some degree is super common in older people... possibly from frequent and repeated bouts of high levels of DHT over their lifetime. If you get my meaning. To some degree that would be adaptive because if you have sex really often you might need more of that fluid than somebody who never gets any. So, if anything, it seems like frequent orgasm puts you more at risk for hyperplasia. It might be as common as it is--like with most conditions associated with age--because we didn't often end up living to an age where it would start being a problem, and when it does rear its head, we'd already passed on our genes to the next generation.

Hyperplasia and cancer aren't exactly the same thing, although the tendency for the prostate to grow in reaction to the very hormone it produces is definitely a problem when cancer does occur.

Cancer is caused when there is damage to the genetic code of a cell in such a way that it is allowed by the body (and itself) to continually divide and degrade. Prostate cells seem to be pretty sensitive to changes and they just kind of fuck up and degrade to cause plaques as you get older for reasons nobody really understands. UTIs and STIs such as HPV (which also causes cervical cancer) and subsequent inflammation can damage prostate tissue, leading to cancer. The fact that prostate cancer is rare in younger men suggests that viral or bacterial infections might not be the main reason why it is so common. Persistent body-wide inflammation is also common in the elderly though: it's implicated with cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's, and other types of cancer. That is an immune problem whose onset has very little to do with sex, but may be partially stress-related... and orgasm decreases levels of stress. For men, orgasm also allows the prostate to flush out pathogens that would damage the tissue if they were allowed to just sit there.

According to this John Hopkins site, men who did the thing frequently had like 66% or less of a chance at developing cancer than men who never ejaculated. So there is some sort of link, we just don't really know why that is. There are also some other studies saying it's reversed. We just don't know.

I wrote a lot of words about this and I'm not sure why
>> No. 377283
I think one of my problems is that I'd accepted at some point that I'd never have a career, friends, or a love life, and then people started telling me, "y'know, you could if you tried, and on some things, you wouldn't even have to try very hard". And I was in a state of shock about that.

Being told when I was a kid that I was some ugly, dumb, massive fuck-up and embarrassment to everyone, I never bothered to experiment with sex in any way. I still can't totally wrap my head around being wanted, or being any better than anyone else looking for a date.
>> No. 377285
Is being submissive gay?
>> No. 377286
No. Fucking your own sex is gay.
>> No. 377287
What's so great about fisting anyway?
>> No. 377295
You wrote it to inform, and I appreciated it immensely.

There's only one of you, Anon. Don't let the words of cruel people from the past tarnish your self-image.
>> No. 377302
I was raised Roman Catholic. I know it's a bit strange, as it's the most widespread branch of Christianity in the world, but I did often get the impression that my particular church and priests were exceptionally strict and unforgiving. They were all about the fire and brimstone.

Sometimes I wonder if my libido, which seems to be at least somewhat abnormally high, owes a bit of its existence to how repressed I was when I was religious, but I suppose I don't really know enough to jump to any conclusions.
301 posts omitted. First 100 shown. [Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

Delete post []
Report post