(Insert title here)
Shorty 37 said:
If me and 15ofthe19 posed the same question at almost the exact same time how is that being naive on my part?
If you look up to #62, that post was originally going to open with a question about what if Orleander's partner had just flipped her over and pounded her in the ass. But then I realized she had answered that part of the issue herself, and there was no need for me to repeat that particular point.
Additionally, notice that I used the phrase "kept on with her naivete". Looking to 15ofthe19 for justification speaks nothing of the earlier part, when you gave a thumbs up to the suggestion that Orleander was not "decent". Perhaps I'm simply being sexist here, but I do operate with the general belief that women are more aware of how women can be sexually violated than men tend to be. Maybe you've been blessedly free of sexual impropriety against your person. Or maybe it's because it was Orleander that you didn't stop to think about this before exploiting Mikenostic in order to swipe after your nemesis. Additionally, in #42, you made the point about impotence and "erectile dysfunction".
At no point did you acknowledge the
possibility that Orleander was not the purveyor of cruelty, but rather the object of it.
And that
does fit with the terms of whatever the disagreement is between you two.
Btw: I would have asked the same questions be it any other member who said the same thing.
Does that mean you need it laid out that someone felt violated, exploited, or subject to demands beyond their boundaries?
Look, being bad in bed does not simply mean being overanxious and spilling before you get the key in the door. It also can mean accidentally making sex painful even while one has the best of intentions. And it can also mean asking too much of a partner.
And perhaps I'm naive, but I generally don't expect to be reminding a sexually-experienced woman of such notions.
Oh ... I
have done longer posts. I'm just tired of people's half-assed justifications that depend on misrepresentation of events. On those occasions, a play-by-play becomes necessary because, while I'm willing at some point to accept those justifications as genuine, I would like to know how to reconcile them with what appears to be the reality of the situation. Most, I find, simply decide their behavior isn't so important as to attempt the longer justification. Besides, this is Sciforums, so they can just pretend they were never challenged and go on behaving the same way in other discussions.
Also, to make a note about the question, not every kink a guy has is proactive. Not every pervert is just going to flip you over and plant it in your backside, or cram it down your throat until you vomit. And Orleander did a fine job of making the point: Clive Barker, for instance, wrote an elaborate necrophilia scene in
Galilee; it's not exactly the easiest thing to ask a woman to paint herself the colors of death and lie perfectly still on a block of ice long enough to steal the heat from her vaginal capacity and then play dead-weight while pussy, ass, and throat are violated. Even simpler things are delicate matters. Shit-eating? Hell, when she said, "Imagine the most vile sex act you can think of," I thought,
He wanted her to stuff her twat with angry raccoons? And I couldn't help it; even I go for the joke in the face of something like that.
Hell, I've been through it with a lover for whom pretty much anything made me a pervert.
Fine, she doesn't like my standards? I'll ask her to do something she
likes. What? She says even that makes her feel degraded? I actually tried to end the relationship because she didn't seem to like me, and she sure as hell didn't seem to like the sex, and, frankly, nobody should have to feel degraded just to get an orgasm. But, no, she insisted that I was wrong. Wept. Pled. And when I gave over, we ended up having years' worth of ridiculously boring sex. My joke is that masturbation was more gratifying, except it wasn't a joke. Seriously, between foreplay (lick it 'til she's ready) and intercourse (too fast ... too slow ... too deep ... too shallow ...), the whole thing was supposed to take about five minutes tops. So I'm aware that it's horribly perverse, by at least one person's standards, to want a lover to fuck to mutual exhaustion. Life goes on.
But, shit, do you really think it's wise to ask about the kinky stuff at that point? Absolutely not.
So in a scenario like Orleander's, involving that kind of upbringing and adherence to such morals, I don't find it remotely surprising that it took two years to figure out. As Orleander noted, she's glad she figured it out
before marriage. Many people in her position aren't so lucky.
And one last thing:
I don't know why you are being singled out here either. Most of the posters were all on the same page as you.
Oh, right. See Bells' response on this point. And as to why Mike was singled out? Because
he made the point about judgment:
"Hey, thanks for giving us, up until now, virtually NO information on why it was so bad, to base our judgement on, but whatever."
Point being that judgment is not necessary.