Sex

by

Sex is everywhere. It offers its sultry smile from billboards, it beckons us with taut bodies on our TV and movie screens. It is hard to avoid from the highway to the checkout line (“27 ways to make your lover hot”). The most private act is now part of detailed public discussion.

Somehow, none of this is sexy. Sugar, salt and MSG laden fast food excites yet dulls the palette, leaving us unable to appreciate the subtle taste of unadulterated food. I wonder if this MSG version of sexuality dulls our sexual and romantic palette leaving us craving for more and more excitement while obtaining less and less joy.

The recent post on Girl Game discussing threesomes and the new procedure called vajazzling makes me wonder what is wrong with simplicity.

On the Girl Game thread, doug1 said that:

There is hardly an alpha male alive in the Western highly sexualized world, nor many betas, who hasn’t fantasized about FMF threesomes. Most real alphas, or a great many of them anyway, have done them.
[link]

Really? Have we (or at least those mythical alphas) become so jaded that one woman at a time is not enough? Curiosity aside, I have never really fantasized about a threesome. It seems more about acrobatics than pleasure. It seems like the over-salted fast food version of the real thing.

Vanilla is one of the under appreciated flavors, it can (when done well) offer richness, depth and subtlety that more “vibrant” flavors lack. Two people together can enjoy and intensity of emotion and sensation that I cannot see been improved by adding ingredients.

I understand that variety is the spice of life. I am not making any prudish or moral comment on those that want to indulge in more exotic fare. I am just asking if more is always better. If a man cannot be turned on by the women he is with (or her by him), then perhaps the problem will not be solved by adding another person. Will adding super-glued crystals (talk about pimping my ride) to her pubic area make a woman more alluring? Can two people no longer enjoy the simple pleasure of warm flesh meeting warm flesh? Can an x-rated version of Twister really better the intensity of passion of two lovers?

Perhaps I need to “get out more.” Perhaps I need to read the Internet less. Perhaps if I were more alpha, I would feel different. Whatever the reason, for now, I will stick with the simpler pleasures.

[Is the torturing of metaphors in this post a sign of sadomasochistic tendencies. I hope not. Is bad writing about sex, better than no writing about sex?]

Advertisements

95 Responses to “Sex”

  1. Bhetti Says:

    Sex is everywhere. It offers its sultry smile from billboards, it beckons us with taut bodies on our TV and movie screens. It is hard to avoid from the highway to the checkout line (“27 ways to make your lover hot”). The most private act is now part of detailed public discussion.

    This has been one of the most points of continual culture shock for me.

    Somehow, none of this is sexy. Sugar, salt and MSG laden fast food excites yet dulls the palette, leaving us unable to appreciate the subtle taste of unadulterated food. I wonder if this MSG version of sexuality dulls our sexual and romantic palette leaving us craving for more and more excitement while obtaining less and less joy.

    I don’t have salt either and have wondered to a little extent the same. Yet… yes and no.

    I think it’s always about the way sex is portrayed and the additional ways you expose yourself. There are mainly two categories of senses that I view as negative: is it portrayed as something to be feared or unpleasant or to be furtive about… (some shame and reluctance is good especially for women) or is it portrayed as something that is reduced to a mere bodily function or its enjoyability a fact of life (when its highest enjoyment has a sacred edge to it: rooted in love, big attraction, protectiveness, respect, a little drama.) The latter seems more true for males again: having sex as some basic release. I suppose that’s one of the reasons why they separate love/sex more (along with a kind of thinking that compartmentalises).

    The former ‘negative’ portrayal also leads to kinks; it doesn’t require a great amount of exposure to sexual media.

    The recent post on Girl Game discussing threesomes and the new procedure called vajazzling makes me wonder what is wrong with simplicity.

    On the Girl Game thread, doug1 said that:

    There is hardly an alpha male alive in the Western highly sexualized world, nor many betas, who hasn’t fantasized about FMF threesomes. Most real alphas, or a great many of them anyway, have done them.
    [link]

    Really? Have we (or at least those mythical alphas) become so jaded that one woman at a time is not enough? Curiosity aside, I have never really fantasized about a threesome. It seems more about acrobatics than pleasure. It seems like the over-salted fast food version of the real thing.

    You’ve got a monogamist sense of romance, which I completely understand and is normal socially. There’s also the fact that the portrayal of threesomes is almost always basic lust in the masculine domain. It is possible, though, for affection to be felt for more than one person. It’s entirely natural for ‘alphas’: remember that the affection of a woman is hard to resist and the nature of alphadom is such that they’re saturated with interest. If you have affection for femininity and have plenty of offers, it’s pretty damn hard to tell yourself you shouldn’t take advantage of it especially if there’s no ethicoreligious atmosphere to forbid or criminalise it.

    It’s also giving this mythical alpha’s ego a lot of stroking and giving him an intoxicating feeling of power, to have two women simultaneously his, under his spell.

    It isn’t a modern phenomenon. Certain men who are in a position to do it have always wanted multiple women. Maybe with lesser to no degrees of lesbianism between them.

    Vanilla is one of the under appreciated flavors, it can (when done well) offer richness, depth and subtlety that more “vibrant” flavors lack. Two people together can enjoy and intensity of emotion and sensation that I cannot see been improved by adding ingredients.

    The latter part is addressed when I say affection can be felt between two/three people.

    However, I entirely agree on the former. Well, more. I could go on for hours on the eroticism of a man’s voice for example. Especially a man you love, saying something you love, so on.

    I understand that variety is the spice of life. I am not making any prudish or moral comment on those that want to indulge in more exotic fare. I am just asking if more is always better.

    Sometimes I wonder — and I wonder if its more of a male thing again — whether certain things become a (porn-induced?) desire to try everything once as if it was a list. Lists about sex being another attitude that seems masculine to me.

    I do think men see it as their role to push a woman to her limit. Are you an exception? I’m honestly curious about this because it ain’t that common without moral issues about it.

    If a man cannot be turned on by the women he is with (or her by him), then perhaps the problem will not be solved by adding another person.

    I’ve never gotten the impression threesomes were because of being less attracted to current partner, unless it was one of those loong LTRs that you might see on an agony aunt section somewhere.

    Will adding super-glued crystals (talk about pimping my ride) to her pubic area make a woman more alluring? Can two people no longer enjoy the simple pleasure of warm flesh meeting warm flesh? Can an x-rated version of Twister really better the intensity of passion of two lovers?

    Why I keep saying I feel kinks in general are more a male thing is because sexual romance novels and indeed female sexuality all seem geared towards a ‘stop and savour’ approach (which is indeed disappearing as they gradually become oversexualised). It’s the small things. On the other hand, women have their considerable kinks as well, including mmf. As well as this, preference for dominance has become a kink modernly in some ways.

    Perhaps I need to “get out more.” Perhaps I need to read the Internet less. Perhaps if I were more alpha, I would feel different. Whatever the reason, for now, I will stick with the simpler pleasures.

    Well, no, I think I understand where you’re coming from. You love one woman at a time and enjoy one-on-one interaction where you can give it your full attention. You like the emotional intensity as well as the physical. Natural from my view.

    There’re different flavours of alpha, as you know. Reading the Internet more would be the only remedy to wanting things less simple.

    As a general point, I don’t think it’s simple media exposure that makes people long for complexity. Life influences us strangely: sometimes if we weren’t exposed to more, we wouldn’t think we enjoyed it at all. I hate vanilla: what if I thought that was the only flavour of icecream? That’s my personal experience, because my real life experiences are much more negative than what I’m exposed to. I think that’s a great thing for a partner of mine.

    On the other hand, the formation of David Alexander like fetishes is because of repeated exposure to something alternative. With time, you learn to associate pleasure only with that and limit yourself and your options unnecessarily.

    I guess variety is the spice of life. You’ve just got to remember to include vanilla frequently in there and lots of different flavours.

    [Is the torturing of metaphors in this post a sign of sadomasochistic tendencies. I hope not. Is bad writing about sex, better than no writing about sex?]

    hahaha. I don’t know.

    Sorry for my tortured, lengthy ramble 😉

  2. Default User Says:

    @Bhetti
    I don’t have time to give your reply the response it deserves. I will comment tomorrow.

    I see you have caught the new gravatar craze too. What made you choose that one? I am presuming that it is a caricature of yourself, but why the change? Sick of the pastel box?

  3. Bhetti Says:

    I couldn’t resist a bit of sp-studio myself. Thought I may as well use it as an avi if I made one 😀

  4. Bhetti Says:

    A tribute to the death of His Spikiness

  5. Default User Says:

    @Bhetti

    You’ve got a monogamist sense of romance, which I completely understand and is normal socially.

    Is that a polite way of saying “how boring and conventional?”

    It’s also giving this mythical alpha’s ego a lot of stroking and giving him an intoxicating feeling of power, to have two women simultaneously his, under his spell.

    I think that is the crux of it. It is more about “look how cool I am” rather than “look how cool this feels.” I see it as similar to the fetish for strippers that seem to run through the PUAsphere. It is more about proving something than experiencing something.

    I understand that power and dominance play a role in sexual relations. I can see that such a dominance power play would appeal to the man (look at the alpha I am) and might even appeal to the woman (submitting to the wishes of her man).

    When reading on the Internet we have to assume a certain amount of fronting. Claiming a love (or experience) of threesomes is a way of declaring themselves a super-studly alpha. Such expressions (whether true or not) are as much about status as enjoyment. I wonder if some of such desire is about locker-room boasting as much as bedroom enjoyment.

    It is possible, though, for affection to be felt for more than one person. It’s entirely natural for ‘alphas’: remember that the affection of a woman is hard to resist and the nature of alphadom is such that they’re saturated with interest.

    That could be solved with girl one on Monday and girl two on Tuesday. Such multiple affections do not necessarily need a threesome.

    I do think men see it as their role to push a woman to her limit. Are you an exception? I’m honestly curious about this because it ain’t that common without moral issues about it.

    I certainly have no moral qualms about any particular act. I guess this comes back to the power/dominance thing again. This seems more about asserting power than seeking enjoyment. That said, I see some experimentation as good but do not see pushing her limits as an end in itself.

    On the other hand, the formation of David Alexander like fetishes is because of repeated exposure to something alternative.

    Much of the sexuality we are exposed to is near pornographic in that subjects are far more attractive than average. The porn viewer is well aware of what he is watching and will realize that it does not represent reality. The subtler, but constant, forms of sexual imagery (advertisements, magazines, movies, TV) while barely less idealized may go unnoticed. They become part of our life and influence us as real life experience would.

    Both have the potential to habituate us into unreasonable (or at least very high) expectations. I am not sure that the perfectly formed bodies in an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog or Calvin Klein ad are very different in their effect from the pneumatic and energetic depictions of porn. The porn is at least explicit (you know what you are looking at), the others are implicit accepted less consciously.

    Why I keep saying I feel kinks in general are more a male thing is because sexual romance novels and indeed female sexuality all seem geared towards a ’stop and savour’ approach

    I am not so sure about that. Those that I have read (only a few, I admit) feature sex scenes that are often fast and furious (albeit after a long run up to the event).

    There’re different flavours of alpha, as you know. Reading the Internet more would be the only remedy to wanting things less simple.

    But why would I want things more complicated? If I want a puzzle I can by a crossword or Sudoku book.

    On the other hand, women have their considerable kinks as well, including mmf. As well as this, preference for dominance has become a kink modernly in some ways.

    I think the dominance theme has always existed. I suspect that many of the women of the Roissysphere are both higher in that need and more explicit about expressing it.

    I suspect that there are two types of submissive. There is the “submit to” and “surrender to”. The “submit to” wants to be taken good, hard, and fast. They need a highly dominant and aggressive mate. They will fight him all the way but want to “lose.” The “surrender to” merely needs a man that they can respect and gently surrender to. I suspect that the majority of women are “surrender to.” I suspect that many Roissysphere women are “submit to” (that probably includes yourself). The first (“submit”) type is more likely to agree to a threesome.

    I can see no appeal in MMF.

    While we are on the subject: Would you participate in a threesome. Have you fantasized about MMF? What would you feel about a man that would agree to MMF (I would be *cough* suspicious)?
    [I realize that you may prefer not to answer]

  6. Mr. Spikey Says:

    @Bhetti

    A tribute to the death of His Spikiness.

    I am glad that someone appreciated me.

  7. sdaedalus Says:

    This post and subsequent discussion is really excellent.

    Default, you make some really good points, in particular the distinction between “to submit” and “to surrender”. I have not seen this written anywhere before, but it seems pretty correct to me.

    Bhetti, one point worth considering is that it may be difficult, if other flavours are tried, to get back to the original vanilla so to speak, at least with the particular partner involved, a choice may have to be made as to whether or not it is worth taking a risk in this regard. I have to say, I think there is a lot to be said for at least starting with vanilla, if one is unsure (I will resist the temptation to describe this as the Default flavour, the ice cream analogy is brilliant, btw)

    I also think there’s a lot to be said for keeping things simple, if it works, life is complicated enough, it is actually suprisingly easy to make things messy & complicated in relationships, it is simplicity that is the hard work.

    I also agree about over-sexualisation, I think women feel they have so much to live up to in an era of airbrushing, photoshop etc. that that definitely impedes their enjoyment of sex and possibly explains why alcohol & sex is now so closely linked for women. It also I would expect has an effect on men, either making their expectations wholly unrealistic or making them completely jaded. Also, I think the element of mystery (not essential to everybody, but very important for some people) has been lost by over-sexualisation.

    The only qualification I would make is that I don’t think it’s completely possible to get rid of the power-play element in sex, everyone associates sex with power to a greater or lesser degree (for women anyway, I think a big part of the power element in sex comes from being able to turn on the man) it is really a question of striking a balance that suits both parties.

    Bhetti, I would be really interested to hear from you on the portrayal of sex as shameful resulting in what you call kinks in women, for some reason I managed to avoid this, but I can see how it would happen.

  8. Default User Says:

    @sdaedalus

    The only qualification I would make is that I don’t think it’s completely possible to get rid of the power-play element in sex, everyone associates sex with power to a greater or lesser degree

    Yes, I agree. The two are woven together (entwined like two lovers?).

    I am not sure that it is impossible to return to simple after trying the more exotic. For some it might be a (almost) new experience, seeming fresh because it is a change.

    in particular the distinction between “to submit” and “to surrender”.

    I wonder if others will have anything to say on that.

  9. sdaedalus Says:

    I am not sure that it is impossible to return to simple after trying the more exotic. For some it might be a (almost) new experience, seeming fresh because it is a change

    My point was actually that it would be difficult to return to it with the same person, I’m not sure if your reply covers that or not, let me know.

  10. Default User Says:

    @sdaedalus
    Yes, I meant even with the same person.

  11. sdaedalus Says:

    OK. thanks, you may well be right there.

  12. PA Says:

    Hey, Dafault, I wonder if you would step in to Two Blowhards and take over the now-retired Michael Blowhard. On account of your presumed young age you haven’t his sophistication and breadth, but I see a lot of his qualities of temperament and even dare-I-say charm, in you.

  13. sdaedalus Says:

    Despite his youthful air, Default User certainly has the charm, wit and intelligence for the job. Also, he is not unsophisticated.

  14. PA Says:

    He’s very sophisticated, but young and MB is ‘big shoes to fill,’ but I believe DU is a rare someone who could pick up that torch.

  15. sdaedalus Says:

    PA – I agree.

  16. Default User Says:

    @PA, sdaedalus
    Thanks. I am not sure about the “young age” thing. I quickly read through some (http://2blowhards.com/Michael.html) of his pieces. As you said big shoes to fill. He does seem to have a broad range of topics that he can expound upon (and do it well).

    One article (http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001340.html) caught my eye because it covers something I deal with (a little) in my real professional activities, that is the display of information (I have seen the term information aesthetics). In the article, he showed examples of the contents page from various magazines. As he pointed out, many are a confusing mess.
    [In case you care, my favorite (clean, simple, and instantly helpful) is the American Conservative.]

    Thank you both for such praise. I will have to read more of M. Blowhard (it has been a while since I visited 2Blowhards).

    [edit: I would need a good proofreader though]

  17. Default User Says:

    PS
    Do you know what age (or age range) Michael Blowhard was?

  18. PA Says:

    I figured you for a young guy. Maybe because of your spiky-haired gravatar? Not sure of MB’s age, but based onsome of his biographical posts, I’d put him at late 60s.

    I’d definitely encourage you to contact Donald Pittenger (the only active blogger at 2BH at this point) and see about getting a guest-post in there, and go from there.

  19. Tupac Chopra Says:

    I second PA’s suggestion. It’s a good fit, I think.

  20. Bhetti Says:

    Is that a polite way of saying “how boring and conventional?”

    No. Monogamy and its possibilities is far from boring.

    It is more about proving something than experiencing something.

    I think this is unfair in the sense that it does have an appeal to male sexuality. But I can’t say for sure, not being a man or having experienced it.

    I certainly have no moral qualms about any particular act. I guess this comes back to the power/dominance thing again. This seems more about asserting power than seeking enjoyment. That said, I see some experimentation as good but do not see pushing her limits as an end in itself.

    Isn’t it usually that a man wants to experiment more than a woman? I think I phrased it wrongly. It’s not that it’s his role, but it’s what the dynamic is: he wants to go farther than she does (because she likes what they’re doing already, she doesn’t want to be a slut, etc.)

    On the other hand, the formation of David Alexander like fetishes is because of repeated exposure to something alternative.

    Much of the sexuality we are exposed to is near pornographic in that subjects are far more attractive than average. The porn viewer is well aware of what he is watching and will realize that it does not represent reality.

    What I’m saying is that if it is abused, he will learn to associate pleasure only with porn esp if he prefers a certain style of porn. This preference increases with time if he limits the pleasure to porn. Simple behavioural conditioning.

    The subtler, but constant, forms of sexual imagery (advertisements, magazines, movies, TV) while barely less idealized may go unnoticed. They become part of our life and influence us as real life experience would.

    Both have the potential to habituate us into unreasonable (or at least very high) expectations. I am not sure that the perfectly formed bodies in an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog or Calvin Klein ad are very different in their effect from the pneumatic and energetic depictions of porn. The porn is at least explicit (you know what you are looking at), the others are implicit accepted less consciously.

    More than that, I think they can dull the pleasure in the simple things.

    Why I keep saying I feel kinks in general are more a male thing is because sexual romance novels and indeed female sexuality all seem geared towards a ’stop and savour’ approach

    I am not so sure about that. Those that I have read (only a few, I admit) feature sex scenes that are often fast and furious (albeit after a long run up to the event).

    Maybe I’m confusing my experience/imagination with the actual writing.

    But why would I want things more complicated? If I want a puzzle I can by a crossword or Sudoku book.

    I didn’t mean to imply you wanted things not simple. Just saying that reading the Internet less wasn’t going to result in changing that.

    And I’ll stop here!

    SDaedalus:

    Default, you make some really good points, in particular the distinction between “to submit” and “to surrender”. I have not seen this written anywhere before, but it seems pretty correct to me.

    That distinction was fantastic, yes.

    Bhetti, one point worth considering is that it may be difficult, if other flavours are tried, to get back to the original vanilla so to speak, at least with the particular partner involved, a choice may have to be made as to whether or not it is worth taking a risk in this regard. I have to say, I think there is a lot to be said for at least starting with vanilla, if one is unsure (I will resist the temptation to describe this as the Default flavour, the ice cream analogy is brilliant, btw)

    I also think there’s a lot to be said for keeping things simple, if it works, life is complicated enough, it is actually suprisingly easy to make things messy & complicated in relationships, it is simplicity that is the hard work.

    I agree with this in some ways, though one has to allow the depth and trust that develops as relationships go on.

    I also agree about over-sexualisation, I think women feel they have so much to live up to in an era of airbrushing, photoshop etc. that that definitely impedes their enjoyment of sex and possibly explains why alcohol & sex is now so closely linked for women. It also I would expect has an effect on men, either making their expectations wholly unrealistic or making them completely jaded. Also, I think the element of mystery (not essential to everybody, but very important for some people) has been lost by over-sexualisation.

    Exactly. Wanting way more than we need, although on one hand the good thing is that being open about sex helps a relationship.

    Bhetti, I would be really interested to hear from you on the portrayal of sex as shameful resulting in what you call kinks in women, for some reason I managed to avoid this, but I can see how it would happen.

    Sexual development is a complex interplay of environment, exposure, social attitudes and natural predispositions.

    It is important to remember that in most human beings sex and being exposed to it results in a pleasurable biological reaction, as well as any other emotions they feel accompanying it. With this in mind, let’s take examples.

    A society which shames sex is still a society that speaks about sex. Assume that all sexually alluring and sexually available women are portrayed as villainesses. There is an association between the two created for men.

    Assume that all mentions of sex are horror stories involving violence. There is an association created between violence and sexual pleasure.

    Assume that all mentions of sex are to shame it. There is an association created between shame and sexual pleasure. And on and on.

  21. Default User Says:

    @Bhetti

    I think this is unfair in the sense that it does have an appeal to male sexuality. But I can’t say for sure, not being a man or having experienced it.

    It is possible that I am an outlier. I was hoping more men would comment on this. It is not that I find it distasteful; it is just that it has never been sometime I have had a strong desire for (especially as it likely needs a lot of effort and skill to make work).

    It’s not that it’s his role, but it’s what the dynamic is: he wants to go farther than she does (because she likes what they’re doing already, she doesn’t want to be a slut, etc.)

    The man will always be expected to lead. This will be especially true in the early part of a relationship. As they become more comfortable, that dynamic will become (at least a little) less important.

    Maybe I’m confusing my experience/imagination with the actual writing.

    I am sure you have read more and thought more about romance novels than I. It is perhaps not surprising that we took different things from them.

  22. Bhetti Says:

    I was hoping more men would comment on this.

    That’s it from me then!

  23. Default User Says:

    @Bhetti

    That’s it from me then!

    Not at all, but I would be interested to see if I my outlook was held by other men. I can understand that many might not want to share such details.

    I do not consider myself prudish or unimaginative but perhaps I am (do the unimaginative and prudish consider themselves so?).

  24. Avinguda Diagonal Says:

    default,

    threesomes are no more about “status” than is the combination of two pleasurable drugs.

    (a) you must not be very visual.
    (b) you must not be terribly creative — four hands and four sets of lips can bring heights of pleasure that two of each could not hope to match. think piano duets.

    and finally there is the explicit pleasure of directing the show, which is ever greater when you have two actresses whom you can tell exactly what to do to each other.

    you probably just don’t have the high-risk high-return temperament… if dealing with one woman is x amount of drama, then two of them is x^2, not just 2x amount. for some guys on the left of the curve, it just isn’t worth it.

    on the other hand, i envy you your contentment with the basics — you are much more likely to find actual happiness than are like me, for whom there are no peaks, just stepping stones.

    women are a lot like drugs, actually — you can develop tolerance, so the analogy is apt.

  25. Default User Says:

    @Avinguda Diagonal

    you probably just don’t have the high-risk high-return temperament… if dealing with one woman is x amount of drama, then two of them is x^2, not just 2x amount. for some guys on the left of the curve, it just isn’t worth it.

    I am not sure what curve you are grading me on but the drama thing does ring true. It does seem like a lot of work to setup (convincing and organizing the women, etc.)

    As to your other points, I am not sure. Perhaps sexual adventurism is just not my thing. Perhaps the bigger the player the bigger the needed dose. As someone that is not a player perhaps one woman at a time provides all the challenge and excitement I need. As you pointed out, if I am happy with that why fight it?

  26. Bhetti Says:

    http://anoukange.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/pride-and-prejudice/#comments

  27. Default User Says:

    Thanks for the link Bhetti.

    The scene is very apt to this discussion.

    I hear they are making a sequel, called (slut) Pride & Prejudice 3(some). I hear the love scenes are hot.

  28. Bhetti Says:

    You shock me, Default Muser.

  29. brightstormyday Says:

    Sex is everywhere, Default.

    BUT IN YOUR PANTS.

    HARHARHARHARHARHAR

  30. The Biggest Loser Is Says:

    Who is a bigger loser, Arpagus or David Alexander? They are both short, poor sad sacks who can’t get real women so they masturbate frantically to porn all day long. DA is black, but Arpagus wants to rape….hmm. It’s a toss up.

  31. brightstormyday Says:

    Arpagus.

    Anyone who justifies rape and sees sex as a resource is a loser.

    DA is just an awkward fellow.

  32. Default User Says:

    Wow! I shock Bhetti and you in turn shock me!

  33. Default User Says:

    @Bhetti.
    Not very shocked I hope.

  34. Default User Says:

    @The Biggest Loser Is

    It’s a toss up.

    I think you mean it’s a toss off.
    [Urban dictionary link, so not entirely work safe]

  35. Bhetti Says:

    Shocked* again, with your urban dictionary link.

    Well, okay, I know what it means without clicking.

    *[mildly]

  36. Default User Says:

    @Bhetti
    I am not shocked that you know. I believe the phrase is a Britishism (or at least more popular there).

    At least I did issue an NSFW alert on the link.

    But doth the lady protest too much.

  37. Word Around the Campfire – First Mow of the Season edition « Hidden Leaves Says:

    […] Default User: Sex […]

  38. Linkage is Good for You: Had to Get Away Edition Says:

    […] Default User – “Sex” […]

  39. brightstormyday Says:

    lol u want toss off?

  40. Default User Says:

    @brightcheekyday

    lol u want toss off?

    I will toss you off the comments section if I hear any more of your back chat.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Just kidding.

  41. brightstormyday Says:

    Five dolla!

  42. aoefe Says:

    Awesome post and fantastic comments! I have nothing more profound to add, just praise. Later gater. 😉

  43. Default User Says:

    @aoefe
    Nothing to add? Absolutely nothing? Is that paleo eating killing your energy? Remember a paleo-buffed body is no good if you are too tired to. . . eh . . . exercise.

    A short visit, but nice to see you anyway. :/

    PS
    Glad you liked the post.

  44. Default User Says:

    @brightstormyday offered

    Five dolla!

    Normally ten, but for you. . .

  45. aoefe Says:

    Mistah De Faultah you are too smartah for meah. I am lacking energy now that you mention it….is being in bed since 1:30 am and it being 4:36 pm mean anything? Course if I had a partner in crime that would mean something entirely different…

  46. aoefe Says:

    Or to go with the theme of this post – if I had TWO partners in crime. 😉

  47. Default User Says:

    @aoefe
    Well I do hope you get your energy back and a partner(s) for your “crimes.”

    PS
    Tiredness could be related to your exercise regime (all that climbing) not diet.

  48. aoefe Says:

    I tried a new high intensity workout routine yesterday. Use a weight you can comfortably lift ( to start) and then did enough reps until positive fatigue. I did 52 butterflies with dumbells for example. It was intense. I may be worn out from that.

  49. Default User Says:

    @aoefe
    Quite likely. Your body has to recharge and re-build. I never exercise (other than walks) two days in a row. I believe that some intense routines assume several days rest in between.

  50. brightstormyday Says:

    Defaulty, you know you don’t exercise.

  51. Breeze Says:

    I know the exact problem you are talking about. I don’t know if you are familiar with the now long gone Pook who began his career at sosuave.com and later had his own blog (Pooks Mill) but he hit the nail on the head, and I’ll try and convey the essence of it:

    Sexuality is what happens between men and women. Our society is severely lacking in men and women. Previously to be a men meant a lot more than having a dick. Vice versa for women. We have moved toward an androgynous society where men and women are interchangeable. Thus, as sexuality dies, the focus becomes on the act of sex.

    http://www.wattpad.com/80749-the-book-of-pook – An online copy of the book of pook

    Also, look up Pooks Mill.

  52. Breeze Says:

    I thought he was talking about the original cartoons, not the shitty new movies.

  53. sdaedalus Says:

    Breeze

    The link was brilliant! I love the Pook, he is like a male Pupu, or Yoda, so cute.

    I look forward to reading his book in more detail later.

    Thank you.

  54. Default User Says:

    @brightcheekyday

    Defaulty, you know you don’t exercise.

    Your so cute when you are being cheeky.

  55. Default User Says:

    @Breeze
    Thanks for the link. Da Pook looks interesting.

  56. Default User Says:

    @sdaedalus

    I love the Pook, he is like a male Pupu

    The book link has 137 pages, Pupu was never so verbose.

  57. Default User Says:

    Da Pook at Pook’s Mill: http://dapook.blogspot.com/

  58. sdaedalus Says:

    Thanks Default for the link to Pook’s Mill.

    Da Pook (such a great name)
    is Pupu on truth serum
    (SP 17?)

    Talk later.

  59. brightstormyday Says:

    @Defaulty:

    You know what you do to children who are being cheeky…;)

    *pun intended*

  60. Default User Says:

    @brightnaughtyday

    @Defaulty: You know what you do to children who are being cheeky…;)

    Take away their toys and lock them in their room?

  61. brightstormyday Says:

    Hmmm….I was thinking something more…physical….

    (pssst read my X rated blog post, even though it’s a rehash of something I’ve told you before)

  62. Default User Says:

    brightspankyday

    Hmmm….I was thinking something more…physical…

    I know you were you naughty girl. Perhaps I should tie you to the bed instead of lock you in your room. And the toy rabbit I take away will not be the stuffed furry one. . .

  63. brightstormyday Says:

    Oh daddy….

  64. Doug1 Says:

    Nah, I think Michael Blowhard is younger than that.

    About 60 I think. And vital. Thin w/a thin wife. He’s now going by his real name on his own very occasional more personal diary type blog. He never was super secretive about his real name or anyway wasn’t by his last few years as MB. Anyone he emailed back for anything learned it I think. That’s how I did. But he didn’t put it out there publically for anyone that wandered by his open sometimes /often PC controversies pushing blog to see. So I don’t think I should here either.

  65. brightstormyday Says:

    Stop talking Doug. You’re interrupting something.

  66. Default User Says:

    brightstormyday

    Stop talking Doug. You’re interrupting something.

    Ah Ah! Be nice to the guests.

  67. Default User Says:

    @Doug1
    Ignore stormy, she is just being naughty. Thanks for the info

  68. brightstormyday Says:

    Don’t punish me! ;-;

  69. Bhetti Says:

    Mandy got blanked.

    Default Is Just Not Into You.

  70. brightstormyday Says:

    obvi.

  71. Default User Says:

    Bhetti tries to stir up trouble.

    Mandy got blanked.
    Default Is Just Not Into You.

    Now I have two naughty girls to punish. Will my troubles ever end?

  72. aoefe Says:

    Fine Default I’ll just have to step in and help you discipline the two chickeritas. 😉

  73. Bhetti Says:

    That girl needs to stop messing with my man or it will go beyond “naughty”.

  74. Default User Says:

    @aoefe

    Fine Default I’ll just have to step in and help you discipline the two chickeritas.

    We will make an excellent team. . .
    . . .if you don’t get too out of line.

  75. Default User Says:

    @Bhetti

    That girl needs to stop messing with my man or it will go beyond “naughty”.

    Tell me more.

  76. Bhetti Says:

    We will make an excellent team. . .
    . . .if you don’t get too out of line.

    When you said no threesomes, I totally did not think you meant only foursomes.

    Mandy is disrespectin’ mah Doug.

  77. Default User Says:

    @Bhetti

    Mandy is disrespectin’ mah Doug.

    I saw doug commented at stormy’s, I didn’t see the disrespect. Perhaps you meant tried to disrespect. She tries the same here.

    When a young chick gives back chat to an older gent should we call that Dishrespect?

  78. Bhetti Says:

    Default Daddy got Dishrespected.

    I like that word, yarr.

  79. brightstormyday Says:

    You know, my father would always say I was asking for a spanking…

  80. Default User Says:

    brightstormyday

    You know, my father would always say I was asking for a spankin

    He was right.

  81. aoefe Says:

    My dad would say cruisin’ for a bruisin’

  82. Rebekah Says:

    For some reason I think of “submitting” in a very one-dimensional context — an outward expression, a physical act… I think of surrendering as so much more. To me, surrender implies complete abandon.

  83. Default User Says:

    @Rebekah
    Would you swap the words around? Would you choose other words?

  84. Rebekah Says:

    Choose other words to define submissive?

    I was referencing your thoughts on the distinction between submit and surrender, and thinking about it in light of women and sexuality. A woman can physically submit, but if she’s not there emotionally/mentally, she’s really not participating in the exchange and will not derive pleasure from it. Perhaps not all women are this way, but I think they are more so than men. I think it requires surrender/abandon to really connect on all these levels.

    Maybe I’m reaching, but it’s what popped into my head while reading the comments.

  85. Default User Says:

    @Rebekah

    Choose other words to define submissive?

    Choose words other than “submit” and “surrender.”

    There may be better words to describe the concept.

  86. brightstormyday Says:

    GIVE IN.

    oh yeah.

  87. anoukange Says:

    Default–

    Where are yoooouuuu???

  88. Default User Says:

    @anoukange
    Don’t worry I am not dead just resting.

  89. Bhetti Says:

    Now that you’ve told us what isn’t a sexual fantasy for you, Default, you could say about what is one for you. In a brand new spankin’ poost!

    Spankin’ in the slang sense you Americanese use, not the other way.

  90. sheik it Says:

    Sir – your harem management is outstanding. Not since the demise of the Ottoman empire has such a fine diverse set of ladies been found. I offer you two camels – and an xbox 360 – for brightstormyday – when she has been spanked into the correct posture.

  91. sdaedalus Says:

    @Sheik it

    Not since the demise of the Ottoman empire has such a fine diverse set of ladies been found.

    I think the appropriate word for Default’s Place is “seraglio”, I always envision it as per the linked picture (complete with masked Default)

    http://www.orientalist-art.org.uk/gerome85.html

    In contrast, this always reminds me of Chateau Roissy

  92. Bhetti Says:

    Hahaha, official endorsement.

    I think brightstormyday is worth at least three camels, two female and one male.

  93. brightstormyday Says:

    How could I have missed this.

    this is great.

  94. brightstormyday Says:

    I love you all.

  95. Default User Says:

    @brightstormyday

    How could I have missed this.

    this is great.

    I am glad you enjoyed it.

    PS
    We love you too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: