(August 5, 2015 at 5:02 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 4:29 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Does your penis have treads? That's interesting.

How else is it supposed to traverse uneven terrain?

Regarding the point you've been making these last few posts, for a second there I was about to disagree with you on certain aspects of it, before I realized the issue was with me, not with what you're saying. When it comes to sex things my mind is so open it's basically a flat plain upon which almost anything can happen, so at first I was just like "wait, why not just do the BDSM anyway, even if they're not into it, if it makes their partner happy?" because even if it's not a kink I personally have (not that BDSM isn't my kink because it totally is ) I can still appreciate it on an anthropological level just by seeing what, specifically, about it turns on my partner. Even if I can find no arousing part of the act, it still has appeal as a curio, like fine art.

But not everyone is like me, in that respect, and I got that way through a pretty weird sexually formative period in my life. I can pretty much learn kinks, while other people can be stuck in theirs. With that in mind, I still can't imagine going into a sexual relationship with someone completely blind; even with my variable tastes I need to know what I'm getting into. Luckie and I had sex within like half an hour of being in the same physical space as one another, and that was great, but if it hadn't been then that would have been extremely useful information to have, and in either case it came on the back of countless long distance sexy times and extremely thorough accounts of where we were at, sexually. I can't imagine our first time in that hotel room going anywhere near as smoothly if I hadn't come in equipped with the knowledge of what turns her on and what doesn't.

Here's a hint: it's choking.  

When it comes to lovin', listening rules. But Summer Queen is right: sometimes the listener is beguiled by sweet words that aren't supported by the act.

My best sex partners have been open not only with me, but with themselves. This is why when I'm single (as I am now) I don't look for the best tits or prettiest eyes -- I look for the bearing of confidence and self-approval. Nothing's sexier than a woman comfortable with herself.

(August 5, 2015 at 6:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Here's the thing: sexual compatibility is kind of a big part of a relationship as it's growing to the point that you'd actually want to stick by him through paralysis.

I hope that doesn't sound dismissive of your point because I'm not trying to be; actually what you're saying is very relevant to my own life, as my wife is sick and often physically can't have sex for extended periods of time. What I'm saying is that you have the order of things a little backwards, in that sexual compatibility informs the relationship, it's not an appendage of it. It's one of a collection of factors that should go into the decision to spend your life with a person.

Well it is possible to love someone very much without having had sex with them though. If I love someone very very much, to the point where I am about to commit myself and my life to him, and we decided to have sex right before we got engaged, I wouldn't leave him if the sex wasn't great (especially since such a thing can be improved, but that's another point) . I already love him at that point. Likewise, I wouldn't leave my husband if he, for whatever reason, was unable to have sex anymore. I don't really see the difference between the 2 scenarios.

Could you fall in love with a man who rides a wheelchair, incapable of sex at all? I mean, enough to devote yourself to him even though you already know he's wheelchair-bound?

I don't think I have that big a heart, myself; sexual compatibility is a part of any relationship I engage in. Perhaps that makes me shallow.

(August 5, 2015 at 11:07 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 6:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well it is possible to love someone very much without having had sex with them though. If I love someone very very much, to the point where I am about to commit myself and my life to him, and we decided to have sex right before we got engaged, I wouldn't leave him if the sex wasn't great (especially since such a thing can be improved, but that's another point) . I already love him at that point. Likewise, I wouldn't leave my husband if he, for whatever reason, was unable to have sex anymore. I don't really see the difference between the 2 scenarios.

Could you fall in love with a man who rides a wheelchair, incapable of sex at all? I mean, enough to devote yourself to him even though you already know he's wheelchair-bound?

I don't think I have that big a heart, myself; sexual compatibility is a part of any relationship I engage in. Perhaps that makes me shallow.

You do know about 80-90% of wheelchair users can have sex just fine?

(August 5, 2015 at 11:07 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 6:33 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well it is possible to love someone very much without having had sex with them though. If I love someone very very much, to the point where I am about to commit myself and my life to him, and we decided to have sex right before we got engaged, I wouldn't leave him if the sex wasn't great (especially since such a thing can be improved, but that's another point) . I already love him at that point. Likewise, I wouldn't leave my husband if he, for whatever reason, was unable to have sex anymore. I don't really see the difference between the 2 scenarios.

Could you fall in love with a man who rides a wheelchair, incapable of sex at all? I mean, enough to devote yourself to him even though you already know he's wheelchair-bound?

I don't think I have that big a heart, myself; sexual compatibility is a part of any relationship I engage in. Perhaps that makes me shallow.

If we connected in every other way, I could fall in love with him. I don't think you're shallow. I can see how it may be too much baggage too early on for just anyone to be able to handle.

(August 5, 2015 at 11:14 pm)BrokenQuill92 Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 11:07 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Could you fall in love with a man who rides a wheelchair, incapable of sex at all? I mean, enough to devote yourself to him even though you already know he's wheelchair-bound?

I don't think I have that big a heart, myself; sexual compatibility is a part of any relationship I engage in. Perhaps that makes me shallow.

You do know about 80-90% of wheelchair users can have sex just fine?

Hence the subjunctive clause "incapable of sex at all." I was talking about one specific example -- why are you spouting statistics?

Goddamn, it's like people just want to fucking argue. Yes, wheelies can fuck, but not all of them, and that was the thrust of my question. Are you happy now?

(August 5, 2015 at 10:36 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 10:28 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: That link aptly shows that Christians of the sort that practice virginity pledges widely have the highest divorce rate. Much higher then that of atheists.

What about atheists that choose to remain virgins before getting married? Aren't you assuming that atheists are always sexual before marriage?

Given that 95% of the population has sex before marriage I think that they are a tiny minority.

(April 19, 2015 at 11:03 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I was reading the random slut-shaming troll thread and scrolling through it I was a little surprised at the number of people who seemed to think that it mattered at all. It doesn't. I couldn't give half a care about who I'm datings sexual past. I never even ask unless it comes up in normal conversation (which of course it normally does anyway, because sex is a pretty interesting conversation topic.) Why does anyone seem to care?

As long as his sexual past doesn't include necrophilia, bestiality, pedophilia, or assault,
and as long as he isn't concealing another family in Arkansas, while he's telling me he wants to begin a life with me,
and as long as none of his exes are psychos that will stalk him down and kill me in a jealous rage,
then no, not really.

I also despise the religious moralizing tone of slut-shaming;

However, morals aside, I do worry about practical medical considerations;
diseases like HPV and Herpes CAN potentially be communicated even when a condom is used;
and the more partners someone has had,
the higher risk they are at, to contract something, obviously.

I am not morally PASSING judgment on them for their sexual choices;

however I might EXERCISE judgment about what I choose to expose my OWN body to.

Romantic love isn't stable but that's okay. Once you're married your feelings might evolve and change over time. But the bottom line for most traditional marriage contracts is no-sex-outside of marriage. Since that seems to be the defining aspect of it, why not take care to make sure it is good, or at least good enough?

(August 6, 2015 at 1:32 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: Romantic love isn't stable but that's okay.  Once you're married your feelings might evolve and change over time.  But the bottom line for most traditional marriage contracts is no-sex-outside of marriage.  Since that seems to be the defining aspect of it, why not take care to make sure it is good, or at least good enough?

tl/dr: marry a fuckbunny.

(August 5, 2015 at 8:57 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Agreed. Marriage is a sacred union, not a socially approved opportunity to have sex.

Marriage is a contract. And it's only the religious who think there needs to be socially approved reasons to have sex. Everyone else just seems to get that it's fucking fantastic.