NationStates Jolt Archive

I always like reading the Dan Savage column at the AVClub, the man who helped Senator Rick Santorum lose his seat by associating his name with something....well let's just say it was pretty messy.

So knowing NSG'ers are the fount of all knowledge, each carrying a Phd across multiple fields, I thought it would be nice to put your thoughts to providing advice to the following query...

After six months of marriage—I'm a straight male—the sex had become routine but enjoyable. To remedy this, my wife and I discussed new things we might like to try. We were both being shy, so I said the first thing that came to mind: "Anal?" My wife got quiet and the conversation ended.

A couple weeks later, she brought up the conversation and showed me an article of yours that said if a man wants anal, he should take it first. I explained I wasn't that interested and that I only brought it up to spark a discussion. That sparked an argument. She also told me that she had already spent a lot of money on a strap-on because "you wanted this so bad."

Now anytime I bring up any kind of sex, it restarts this argument. She insists that I would not have brought up anal if I didn't really want it, and says I'm being unfair by not agreeing to give it up first. I just figured most couples at least experimented with anal. And while I understand you feel differently, I feel having sex with a cock, whether it is flesh or rubber, carries a homosexual implication

Should he take it, does she have the right to demand who goes first, is it a little surprising that after a brief conversation she ran out and spent a load of money on a strap on?

What would your considered advice be?

If you're interested in the columnist's answer, you can find it here (http://www.avclub.com/content/node/84482)

I don't know what the going rate for a good strap-on is (are there brand names? is there, like, a Mercedes of strap-ons and a Corolla of strap-ons?), but it seems like she might have rushed the decision to buy one just a bit. Which probably means that she's secretly harbored a fantasy of nailing her husband with a strap-on for nigh these six months, clinging to Dan Savage's article and waiting for the day her husband brought it up.

I don't understand how people get bored of sex after six months of marriage. I was with my ex for five years, and 95% of the time it was, "OmgYAY! I get to have sex with this person again! Whoo!"

She's kinkier than he is, lol.

He should bend over and take it.

Anal sex is going to feel much the same to him as it would to her. Being worked on (tho obviously with a quite different feeling from vaginal sex) would give him some idea of what it's like for his wife.

And if that doesn't spice up the relationship, then it's probably time to go open marriage, or just call it quits.

His wife offered to do him, and he didn't even try it ONCE? What a tight-arse!

She's right to say that he has to give it up first if he expects it out of her. But it was a monumentally stupid decision on her part to rush out and buy a strap-on assuming her husband was going to be okay with being penetrated anally. I don't have my figures here presently, but I'd wager a guess that a significant majority of heterosexual males are opposed to anal penetration. That being THEIR anal penetration.

I'd tell him to bite the bullet and take it up the ass from his wife, unless she got some telephone pole of a strap-on. Because otherwise it sounds like it's going to be a recurring argument.

I hope I'll never be forced to receive buttcocks, because I'm certainly not doing it on my own.
I also wouldn't and hadn't suggested it to anyone, except joking.
Just not worth having the sphincter muscles of your Brown Ring damaged, plus it's messy.

As for dildo prices, use goodle.
I'd suggest two things:
For you - Penis Quigong
For both - Kama Sutra and more modern guides on non-missionary positions.

She's right to say that he has to give it up first if he expects it out of her. But it was a monumentally stupid decision on her part to rush out and buy a strap-on assuming her husband was going to be okay with being penetrated anally. I don't have my figures here presently, but I'd wager a guess that a significant majority of heterosexual males are opposed to anal penetration. That being THEIR anal penetration.

I'd tell him to bite the bullet and take it up the ass from his wife, unless she got some telephone pole of a strap-on. Because otherwise it sounds like it's going to be a recurring argument.

Interestingly, Dan Savage suggests that the idea of anal sex for straight males is bound up with the idea of domination, that's how they see it and that's partly why they don't entertain the idea of receiving (although I guess some might in terms of submission).

In those terms, to some extent, I can see it as an attractive proposition for women, the true test of a man's intentions might be revealed by whipping out the strap-on at the first date (probably best after dessert) and raising the eyebrows.

That sort of thing is so far outside my field of knowledge or experience that I can't even begin to understand it. It does warm my heart a bit, though, that the guy couldn't last six months until he was bored of his wife - I can't be missing much, I figure. :p Took me four years to get bored of the *bassoon* and this guy's contemplating changing "roles" after six months. Love it. :)

If he really wants anal he should be prepared to take it... however if he doesn't his wife should be willing to drop it.

Of course, if secretly she harbours fantasies of pegging, then frankly she should tell him so and the same rules apply (ie if he lets her do him, she should be willing to do anal).

I believe in equality in these things :D

Really, if your partner is all "well, if you want to do this to me, you'll have to let me do it to you first" that's not exactly the "oh, yeah, sounds good, let's try that" you want to hear when bringing up a new activity to try in bed.

She gets on my nerves. Just tell him what you think - either you don't want to have anal sex with yourself on the receiving end, period, or/and you want to have anal sex with him on the receiving end, period.

Just make up your mind and tell him and that will be that.

(He gets on my nerves, too, because the "omg stay away from my ass, I'm not a fag!!!!11!!1" is so tired and stupid and braindead that I'd have broken up with him just for that.)

Whatever the outcome, the next time she wants to talk about spicing up their sex life his answer is to be, "Ah, fuck no. We're not going through this crap again. Fucking buy a dildo and get an internet connection, I'm out."

I'm guessing this relationship is over save for the crying, really.

Really, if your partner is all "well, if you want to do this to me, you'll have to let me do it to you first" that's not exactly the "oh, yeah, sounds good, let's try that" you want to hear when bringing up a new activity to try in bed.

Agreed. Since when was sexual expression about negotiation? Is it so hard to find things that both partners enjoy that people have to come to some sort of formal agreement about what they want to do to each other? Romance really is dead.

Whatever the outcome, the next time she wants to talk about spicing up their sex life his answer is to be, "Ah, fuck no. We're not going through this crap again. Fucking buy a dildo and get an internet connection, I'm out."

I'm guessing this relationship is over save for the crying, really.

Yeah, it's almost as if they can never have sex again.

(He gets on my nerves, too, because the "omg stay away from my ass, I'm not a fag!!!!11!!1" is so tired and stupid and braindead that I'd have broken up with him just for that.)

And it's too late to deny it anyway.

he should give it a try.

well he should take a good look at the thing and make sure she didnt buy the supersized model first. (if she did they should take it back to the store and shop for a more reasonable model together)

Oh, heterosexuals. So pathetic. She just wants to fuck him. Big whoop. For him not to even try it... selfish prick, and one who doesn't know what he's missing out on.

Oh, heterosexuals. So pathetic. She just wants to fuck him. Big whoop. For him not to even try it... selfish prick, and one who doesn't know what he's missing out on.

Here's a crazy idea - how about not pestering your partner to perform a sex act they are uncomfortable with?

Here's a crazy idea - how about not pestering your partner to perform a sex act they are uncomfortable with?

Here's an idea - how about being a good partner and doing something that makes the other person happy? Or, at least trying to do? Being in a relationship is all about being GGG. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ggg) She should dump his crusty ass.

Here's an idea - how about being a good partner and doing something that makes the other person happy? Or, at least trying to do? Being in a relationship is all about being GGG. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ggg) She should dump his crusty ass.

Thnaks for that. I wasn't sure what the one-size-fits-all criteria was for being in a relationship. I thought it was more complex than that.

exactly.

he wants a bit of variety, he mentioned anal, why not give it a try? if he doesnt like it THEN he can say its not for him.

he cant expect her to loosen up if he wont.

So tempted to link the YouTube "Do you take it in the ass" video. I think he ought give it a go, worst that can happen is that he enjoys it and decides he no longer wants to top in the relationship.

exactly.

he wants a bit of variety, he mentioned anal, why not give it a try? if he doesnt like it THEN he can say its not for him.

he cant expect her to loosen up if he wont.

He doesn't seem to expect her to 'loosen up'. He has given up on the idea but its her that is persisting. There's a big difference between suggesting something new and persisting even after your partner has said no. Not trying it makes him a bit narrow minded, not taking no for an answer makes her an arsehole.

Here's an idea - how about being a good partner and doing something that makes the other person happy? Or, at least trying to do? Being in a relationship is all about being GGG. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ggg) She should dump his crusty ass.

Yeah hey, lets force someone to perform a sex act nothing wrong with that at all hey Fass.

I wonder if the people who are saying that he is selfish for not trying it would say that a teenage girl who felt she wasn't ready for sex with her boyfriend should stop being so selfish?

He doesn't seem to expect her to 'loosen up'. He has given up on the idea but its her that is persisting. There's a big difference between suggesting something new and persisting even after your partner has said no. Not trying it makes him a bit narrow minded, not taking no for an answer makes her an arsehole.

he WANTS her to.

part of improving your sex life is giving things a try. sure he doesnt HAVE to but if he wants more, he has to experiment.

I wonder if the people who are saying that he is selfish for not trying it would say that a teenage girl who felt she wasn't ready for sex with her boyfriend should stop being so selfish?
thats a silly example.

thats a silly example.

Explain why. Both are examples of someone being asked to perform a sexual act that they don't want to by their partner.

he WANTS her to.

"I explained I wasn't that interested and that I only brought it up to spark a discussion."

No, he really doesn't wasn't anal.

thats a silly example.

My favourite question on these forums why?

There are a lot of things that can be said about this subject, but I'll go for the easy response and simply give all you ladies and lads a more or less appropriate link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU).

They're both in the wrong, and both right.

She is right because:
1) I don't think it's beyond reason to want him to know what he's asking of her through personal experience, always assuming, of course, that the strap on she got isn't the size of a horse's willy.

She is wrong because:
1)She obviously went wrong by going out and buying the strap on without any discussion on the matter. It would have been better to tell him how she felt, then they could have bought it together, if he'd agreed.

He is right because:
1)There's no reason to keep rehashing the argument ad nauseam just because the much broader topic of sex is broached. One track mind, anyone?

He is wrong because:
1)Taking a strap on or dildo in the rump isn't necessarily an indicator of homosexual desires. Men have a prostate and it is pleasurable to stimulate it. I know a couple of guys who like to have their wife put her finger up his butt when they're having sex.

errr... homosexual sex does implies that participants are of the same gender, doesn't it?

errr... homosexual sex does implies that participants are of the same gender, doesn't it?

Anal sex isn't always homosexual, but it is gay.

Yeah hey, lets force someone to perform a sex act nothing wrong with that at all hey Fass.

You're illiterate, aren't you? I ask, as if it weren't apparent.

I always like reading the Dan Savage column at the AVClub, the man who helped Senator Rick Santorum lose his seat by associating his name with something....well let's just say it was pretty messy.

So knowing NSG'ers are the fount of all knowledge, each carrying a Phd across multiple fields, I thought it would be nice to put your thoughts to providing advice to the following query...



Should he take it, does she have the right to demand who goes first, is it a little surprising that after a brief conversation she ran out and spent a load of money on a strap on?

What would your considered advice be?

If you're interested in the columnist's answer, you can find it here (http://www.avclub.com/content/node/84482)

I think the fact that they discuss their sexual interests is a plus.

I think the fact these discussions get heated is a minus.

I think being willing to experiment with something that doesn't interest you to satisfy your partner is a plus.

I think going beyond your comfort level in such sexual experimentation is a minus.

That being said, he shouldn't do anything he feels so strongly negative about but discussing why he feels so netgative about it is a healthy thing.

You're illiterate, aren't you? I ask, as if it weren't apparent.

Explain yourself Fass.

Explain yourself Fass.

Allow me. Fass has a tendency to fluff up his posts with needless communication that tends to obscure the point. Fass is not saying that this guy should be held down and anally raped by his wife and her Lexington Steele replica strap-on. He is merely suggesting that perhaps the man should try something that pleases his wife in the interests of further strengthening his relationship and making the woman that he loves happy. He has no idea whether he'd enjoy it or not; he's merely assuming. Plus, if he shows the initiative to be accomodating towards her, he may find the favor returned.

Do you understand?

Allow me. Fass has a tendency to fluff up his posts with needless communication that tends to obscure the point. Fass is not saying that this guy should be held down and anally raped by his wife and her Lexington Steele replica strap-on. He is merely suggesting that perhaps the man should try something that pleases his wife in the interests of further strengthening his relationship and making the woman that he loves happy. He has no idea whether he'd enjoy it or not; he's merely assuming. Plus, if he shows the initiative to be accomodating towards her, he may find the favor returned.

Do you understand?

I understand that but if he doesn't want to do it then should be the end of it, not going on about how pathetic and selfish he is, like his first post. I certainly hope Fass has tried everything.

I understand that but if he doesn't want to do it then should be the end of it, not going on about how pathetic and selfish he is, like his first post. I certainly hope Fass has tried everything.

It is pathetic and selfish. He's deciding he doesn't like something before he's even tried it. He's like a little kid who absolutely knows he's going to hate brussel sprouts before one has even touched his lips.

Haha... straight guys can be so funny. :)

It is pathetic and selfish. He's deciding he doesn't like something before he's even tried it. He's like a little kid who absolutely knows he's going to hate brussel sprouts before one has even touched his lips.

Once again, I have to ask how this is different to a girl who doesn't want to have sex being pressured into doing so by her boyfriend.

Once again, I have to ask how this is different to a girl who doesn't want to have sex being pressured into doing so by her boyfriend.

Because she's not pressuring him?

Once again, I have to ask how this is different to a girl who doesn't want to have sex being pressured into doing so by her boyfriend.

Because in this case, the issue is sexual reciprocity.

Because she's not pressuring him?

"Now anytime I bring up any kind of sex, it restarts this argument."

Apparently she brings it up every time they talk about sex. That sounds like pressure.

Because in this case, the issue is sexual reciprocity.

If he were asking her for something, then it would be reciprocal. The article specifically mentions that he isn't.

I find the logic of "he should take it if he wnats to do it" just plain stupid. I have participated in numerous activities I have absolutely no desire to be involved in from the other perspective. It's like telling a sumissive partner that he or she should first try dominating, before being dominated. The answer you're most likely to get, if you get any at all, is "no, I don't want to".

Sex shouldn't follow some preschool mentality of "I hope you brought enough for everyone in the class" nonsense. We all have things we like. We all have things we don't. It's entirely possible that someone would enjoy having anal sex with someone but dislike the idea of receiving, just as someone might love being tied up and whipped but be utterly turned off at the thought of holding the whip.

Sure, people should experiment, but if he knows he doesn't want it, then he doesn't want it, and to say that if he's not willing to take, he shouldn't be able to give...again, utterly stupid. Either his partner wants it as well, or she doesn't. Doing this whole "I'll go if you go first!" nonsense is childish. Moreover, these suggestions that if he try it he might like it as as insulting as suggesting that if gay men only had sex with women more often, they might discover they like it, and stop being gay.

"Now anytime I bring up any kind of sex, it restarts this argument."

Apparently she brings it up every time they talk about sex. That sounds like pressure.

How so? Is she forcing him to have the anal sex? Is she physically or emotionally intimidating him?

No, she's just getting mad at him when he comes to her wanting to talk about sex when it suits him when he is totally unwilling to discuss her fetish.

It is pathetic and selfish. He's deciding he doesn't like something before he's even tried it. He's like a little kid who absolutely knows he's going to hate brussel sprouts before one has even touched his lips.

so, would you have sex with a goat?

If he were asking her for something, then it would be reciprocal.

Of course he was. He just didn't want to follow through when she added her condition.

so, would you have sex with a goat?

No, as that is illegal. I would not love someone enough to go to jail for them.

so, would you have sex with a goat?

If I were convinced that the goat was sapient enough to consent, clever enough to communicate, and respectful enough to listen (as an equal partner)? Sure. It would be an interesting change of pace.

How so? Is she forcing him to have the anal sex? Is she physically or emotionally intimidating him?

The poster didn't say she was raping him. Said she was pressuring him. If you're going to respond to a post, do us all a favor and respond to what was actually said, not what you want to pretend was said.

If she keeps bringing the topic up, and gets mad when he doesn't want to discuss it, it's pressure.

No, she's just getting mad at him when he comes to her wanting to talk about sex when it suits him when he is totally unwilling to discuss her fetish.

Actually it only seems like she's wanted to discuss her fetishes, not any of his.

No, as that is illegal. I would not love someone enough to go to jail for them.

gee, sounds like you already made up your mind about it.

No, as that is illegal. I would not love someone enough to go to jail for them.
There's a Special Edition for the goats.
It's legal, and I'm sure he'd love to have sex with that one.

gee, sounds like you already made up your mind about it.

About not breaking the law? Yeah.

Set your strawman up somewhere else. This cornfield is crow free.

How so? Is she forcing him to have the anal sex? Is she physically or emotionally intimidating him?

No, she's just getting mad at him when he comes to her wanting to talk about sex when it suits him when he is totally unwilling to discuss her fetish.

Pressure doesn't need to be intimidating, it can be coercive as well. And they did discuss her fetish - he said no but apparently that means that they can no longer talk about sex again ever until he agrees to do her thing. As Neo Art said, its a preschool mentality.

Of course he was. He just didn't want to follow through when she added her condition.

Thats certainly not what the article says. He only mentioned it once and they didn't even discuss it further.

About not breaking the law? Yeah.

Set your strawman up somewhere else. This cornfield is crow free.

What about coprophilia? Thats not illegal.

She did not discuss this with him. She did not say, "No, I don't think so," or "Yes, if you will too," or even "maybe".

She went out and bought this device and now seems to be trying to coerce him into it once he's expressed that he's not interested.

NOT COOL. And not a very good relationship, either.

About not breaking the law? Yeah.

You decided, already, that you would never break this particular law, no matter how much you love someone.

How is that any different than this man deciding that he would not receive anal sex, no matter how much he loves his wife?

It's perfectly fine and ok and not at all selfish for you to say "I won't break the law for you" but not at all ok and totally selfish for him to say "I won't let you stick a dildo up my ass"

How very revealing.

Oh, heterosexuals. So pathetic. She just wants to fuck him. Big whoop. For him not to even try it... selfish prick, and one who doesn't know what he's missing out on.

Do homosexuals never have problems with sexual experimentation?

Or is "Oh, heterosexuals" just a sort of expression now? Akin to "My goodness" or "wtf".

She did not discuss this with him. She did not say, "No, I don't think so," or "Yes, if you will too," or even "maybe".
She went out and bought this device and now seems to be trying to coerce him into it once he's expressed that he's not interested.
I think that's about as good a "How do you dare even suggest it?" as it gets.

Thats certainly not what the article says. He only mentioned it once and they didn't even discuss it further.

We're hearing his version of events, so you have to read between the lines a bit. Apparently his request was taken pretty seriously by his wife. And while he denies he meant it that way, when he notes that his wife doesn't buy this explanation, he doesn't move to support it further but instead reiterates his ridiculous homophobic aversion to being penetrated. That suggests defensiveness to me--"Yes, I wanted to have anal sex with you, but I didn't want to feel queer...."

Pressure doesn't need to be intimidating, it can be coercive as well. And they did discuss her fetish - he said no but apparently that means that they can no longer talk about sex again ever until he agrees to do her thing. As Neo Art said, its a preschool mentality.

I didn't say that she isn't being unreasonable. In fact, I said that it was monumentally stupid of her to assume he would be into it to the point of actually going out and buying a strap-on.

But his refusal to even consider it, because of some perceived homosexual implication? Childish.

As for coprophilia, I've never tried it. There once was a girl who was into urination, and after experiencing it I decided that I was very much not into defecation. Does that count?

You decided, already, that you would never break this particular law, no matter how much you love someone.

How is that any different than this man deciding that he would not receive anal sex, no matter how much he loves his wife?

It's perfectly fine and ok and not at all selfish for you to say "I won't break the law for you" but not at all ok and totally selfish for him to say "I won't let you stick a dildo up my ass"

How very revealing.

Please, doctor, psychoanalyze me more. And do so in as condescending a manner possible, to most effectively imply your intellectual superiority.

There once was a girl who was into urination, and after experiencing it I decided that I was very much not into defecation. Does that count?

I don't know, personally, I am into defecation. Just not on people.

But his refusal to even consider it, because of some perceived homosexual implication?
It's not perceived, anal sex is gay. Woman's rectum is no different from a man's one - if you like one, you'll like the other. It just takes overcoming the prejudices against doing it with a man.

We're hearing his version of events, so you have to read between the lines a bit. Apparently his request was taken pretty seriously by his wife. And while he denies he meant it that way, when he notes that his wife doesn't buy this explanation, he doesn't move to support it further but instead reiterates his ridiculous homophobic aversion to being penetrated. That suggests defensiveness to me--"Yes, I wanted to have anal sex with you, but I didn't want to feel queer...."

Given that the exact facts of how the dituation unfolded are impossible to know for certain, I am forming my argument around the basis of how I would respond should the event have taken place as described in the letter rather than some hypothetical discussion of what the wife might actually have said which is completely open to interpretation and unanswerable.

I don't know, personally, I am into defecation. Just not on people.

Har har har. Yes, I like pooping and peeing too. Just not as a sexual act.

Do homosexuals never have problems with sexual experimentation?

It's not a general aversion to sexual experimentation that's at issue here--indeed, the man's whole objective was to make things less routine, wasn't it? It's an aversion to a particular kind of sexual experimentation because it "carries a homosexual implication."

Har har har. Yes, I like pooping and peeing too. Just not as a sexual act.

I said not on people.

Animals on the other hand...

I said not on people.

Animals on the other hand...

That does sound sexy.

I didn't say that she isn't being unreasonable. In fact, I said that it was monumentally stupid of her to assume he would be into it to the point of actually going out and buying a strap-on.

But his refusal to even consider it, because of some perceived homosexual implication? Childish.

His reason for it is childish. However, I don't think that changes the fact that he really doesn't want it.

As for coprophilia, I've never tried it. There once was a girl who was into urination, and after experiencing it I decided that I was very much not into defecation. Does that count?

No, its not the same thing. I'm interested, if a girl asked you to indulge ina little fecal play, surely you wouldn't be selfish enough to refuse?

Once again, I have to ask how this is different to a girl who doesn't want to have sex being pressured into doing so by her boyfriend.
it is the same as if he were pressuring her into anal sex.

exactly the same.

i would expect her to give it a try too. if its not for her, THEN she can say shes not interested.

given that in a loving relationship you approach these things with sensitivity and go at the pace of the reluctant partner.

It's not a general aversion to sexual experimentation that's at issue here--indeed, the man's whole objective was to make things less routine, wasn't it? It's an aversion to a particular kind of sexual experimentation because it "carries a homosexual implication."

True. Well, he may have his reasons, but I object to that particular form of sexual experimentation on principle. For me it has nothing to do with some "homosexual implication", but... seriously people, crap. Shit comes outta there. Just all seems a bit odd to me.

Please, doctor, psychoanalyze me more. And do so in as condescending a manner possible, to most effectively imply your intellectual superiority.

considering your apparent inability to respond with anything other than childish babbling, I'm pretty confident I don't need to imply anything.

rather than some hypothetical discussion of what the wife might actually have said which is completely open to interpretation and unanswerable.

What are you talking about?

Edit: Read the letter again.

He brings up anal. She takes this request seriously enough that she goes out and buys a strap-on, finds this article, and makes an issue out of it. Upon being faced with her condition, he immediately "explains" that he didn't really mean it--doesn't that sound like backpedaling to you, too?

And then there's the last paragraph, where he notes his wife's continued skepticism toward his explanation, and instead of accusing her of being cruel or untrustworthy, or supporting his version of events, he defends the position she attributes to him: "I just figured most couples at least experimented with anal. And while I understand you feel differently, I feel having sex with a cock, whether it is flesh or rubber, carries a homosexual implication."

It doesn't take much "hypothetical" to see this.

considering your apparent inability to respond with anything other than childish babbling, I'm pretty confident I don't need to imply anything.

Are you implying something..? *squint*

Why is there no squinting smiley?

She did not discuss this with him. She did not say, "No, I don't think so," or "Yes, if you will too," or even "maybe".

She went out and bought this device and now seems to be trying to coerce him into it once he's expressed that he's not interested.

NOT COOL. And not a very good relationship, either.
she did make a major mistake in that regard. its out of line to go from not wanting to talk about it at all to delivering a done deal.

but people make mistakes. he should get past that part and explore the possibility.

What are you talking about?

I am saying that when you argue from a set of facts that you yourself decide upon then there is no consistency or basis for a counter argument.

considering your apparent inability to respond with anything other than childish babbling, I'm pretty confident I don't need to imply anything.

Ooh, good job. Way to hand down edicts about me based on our disagreement on one issue. Do you have any more declarations about my state of mind that you'd like to hand down from upon high?

Seriously, I say he should be willing to try something that his wife is into in the interests of their relationship, something that he has no actual basis for his dislike besides some homosexual aversions, and your response is "would you fuck a goat?" And when I say that I wouldn't because it's against the law, that makes me as selfish as him.

Your entire argument is that "Baby, would you like to try anal?" is an equivalent request to "Baby, would you kill my parents?"

I am saying that when you argue from a set of facts that you yourself decide upon then there is no consistency or basis for a counter argument.

Well, it's a good thing I'm not doing that, then. See my edit.

Ooh, good job. Way to hand down edicts about me based on our disagreement on one issue. Do you have any more declarations about my state of mind that you'd like to hand down from upon high?

No, you're doing a pretty good job of demonstrating it all by your little self.

again, at this point I don't really think you have a sufficient accumen to understand my argument, but here it goes anyway.

He has a right to refuse to do whatever he wants to do, for whatever reason he wants. He shouldn't feel pressured or coerced or manipulated in any way. Whether his reasoning is mature or not is irrelevant. They are his reasons, and when it comes to sex we should not be second guessing the reasoning that someone does not want to participate in something. It is his body, his right, and if he does not feel comfortable doing something, he does not, and we are in no place to judge him for that. Nobody should ever feel forced or coerced into doing something sexual that he or she does not want to, for whatever reason.

If he wishes to to try and overcome his aversions and try it, that's his business. If he does not, that's his business. He is no more selfish for refusing to do so, because he doesn't like the implications, than you are selfish for refusing to engage in goat sex, because you don't want to break the law.

Your entire argument is that "Baby, would you like to try anal?" is an equivalent request to "Baby, would you kill my parents?"

Killing? When did I ever mention killing? I mentioned a little man on goat action to please your lover. I asked you if you'd engage in a sex act that you didn't feel comfortable with, and you said you would not. THen you tried to make up justifications for it so you could pretend you're somehow better than this man who did the exact same thing.

I didn't say anything about killing another human being. Now who is building the strawman?

What are you talking about?

Edit: Read the letter again.

He brings up anal. She takes this request seriously enough that she goes out and buys a strap-on, finds this article, and makes an issue out of it. Upon being faced with her condition, he immediately "explains" that he didn't really mean it--doesn't that sound like backpedaling to you, too?

And then there's the last paragraph, where he notes his wife's continued skepticism toward his explanation, and instead of accusing her of being cruel or untrustworthy, or supporting his version of events, he defends the position she attributes to him: "I just figured most couples at least experimented with anal. And while I understand you feel differently, I feel having sex with a cock, whether it is flesh or rubber, carries a homosexual implication."

It doesn't take much "hypothetical" to see this.

If they had agreed to indulge in anal at the first mention of it, or even properly discussed it, then I would consider it backpedalling. However, a passing mention does not mean that you are actually interested. Maybe it was more than a passing mention, but from the facts in the article I find it unfair to assume that was the case.

Your entire argument is that "Baby, would you like to try anal?" is an equivalent request to "Baby, would you kill my parents?"

If he doesn't want to do it, he doesn't want to do it. I really don't see what the fuck the problem is, it's not like refusing to have something shoved up your ass is a really horrible and selfish thing to do. If it really does destroy the relationship then it is the wife who is at fault for being such a nut bag.

she did make a major mistake in that regard. its out of line to go from not wanting to talk about it at all to delivering a done deal.

but people make mistakes. he should get past that part and explore the possibility.
I don't know... if I mentioned, "I wonder what it would be like to make love to you and another guy at the same time" I would be seriously upset to come home and find my guy had brought in a third party who was ready, willing, able, and naked in my bed to fulfill that without any further discussion.

No, you're doing a pretty good job of demonstrating it all by your little self.

Again with the veiled barb. Are you capable of disagreeing with someone without insulting them in the process?


again, at this point I don't really think you have a sufficient accumen to understand my argument, but here it goes anyway.

Oh, two for one. Good job. Continue to imply that, because I disagree with you, I must be dumber than you. Makes you look good.


He has a right to refuse to do whatever he wants to do, for whatever reason he wants. He shouldn't feel pressured or coerced or manipulated in any way. Whether his reasoning is mature or not is irrelevant. They are his reasons, and when it comes to sex we should not be second guessing the reasoning that someone does not want to participate in something. It is his body, his right, and if he does not feel comfortable doing something, he does not, and we are in no place to judge him for that. Nobody should ever feel forced or coerced into doing something sexual that he or she does not want to, for whatever reason.

If he wishes to to try and overcome his aversions and try it, that's his business. If he does not, that's his business. He is no more selfish for refusing to do so, because he doesn't like the implications, than you are selfish for refusing to engage in goat sex, because you don't want to break the law.

He has every right to refuse to do whatever he wants, as he has done. I have every right to think it makes him a selfish prick that he's not even willing to entertain the thought of doing something that his wife his into. I have every right to think it makes him childish to decide he's 100% against something for no other reason than a backwards association with being gay.

If his reason was as simple as "I don't want to have anal because I don't think I'm comfortable having something inserted into my anus," then perhaps that would be more understandable. His reasoning of "I don't want to have anal because I think it's gay" even if it would be his naked wife behind him is backwards. I don't care if you think I don't have a right to judge him. I do. Just like you judged me to be stupid because my opinion is different than yours.

Killing? When did I ever mention killing? I mentioned a little man on goat action to please your lover. I asked you if you'd engage in a sex act that you didn't feel comfortable with, and you said you would not. THen you tried to make up justifications for it so you could pretend you're somehow better than this man who did the exact same thing.

I didn't say anything about killing another human being. Now who is building the strawman?

I am.

I stated there is a legal reason why I couldn't participate in your little strawman. If it were legal, and my significant other expressed genuine, serious interest in man-goat-woman-whatever action, I would certainly consider it. Perhaps when the goat kicked me in the balls I might reconsider, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss it cause it's "gay."

Maybe it was more than a passing mention, but from the facts in the article I find it unfair to assume that was the case.

Then why is he writing a letter to Dan Savage?

If the issue is just miscommunication... what of it?

Then why is he writing a letter to Dan Savage?

If the issue is just miscommunication... what of it?

Well, I presume he'd like to find a way to resume a normal relationship with his wife and is asking someone who is supposed to know a bit about this sort of thing.

I stated there is a legal reason why I couldn't participate in your little strawman. If it were legal, and my significant other expressed genuine, serious interest in man-goat-woman-whatever action, I would certainly consider it. Perhaps when the goat kicked me in the balls I might reconsider, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss it cause it's "gay."

The issue isn't wether you would consider it, its wether you would actually do it. To bring back my earlier question, would you engage in fecal play if your partner asked?

I don't care if you think I don't have a right to judge him. I do. Just like you judged me to be stupid because my opinion is different than yours.

No, I judge you closed minded, hypocritical and childish because of your opinion. I judge you stupid because of how you present it.

But again, I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference.

Oh, two for one. Good job. Continue to imply that, because I disagree with you, I must be dumber than you. Makes you look good.

I suggest you look up the word "imply". I'm implying nothing.

Well, I presume he'd like to find a way to resume a normal relationship with his wife and is asking someone who is supposed to know a bit about this sort of thing.

And the way to resume a normal relationship with her would be to go out and buy the most awful, painful-looking sex toy and return home with it, to properly frame just how ridiculous it was for her to run out and buy a strap-on.

Also, I wonder if there isn't massive miscommunication. If he truly said something like, "How about anal?", did she misconstrue that as he gets anal from her? Because that level of disconnect is kind of funny in a couple that's married.

The issue isn't wether you would consider it, its wether you would actually do it. To bring back my earlier question, would you engage in fecal play if your partner asked?

I already said, I have, and I didn't like it. Unless I'm not allowed to lump urination and defecation together. In which case, I'll go out and get pooped on and report back to you.

And the way to resume a normal relationship with her would be to go out and buy the most awful, painful-looking sex toy and return home with it, to properly frame just how ridiculous it was for her to run out and buy a strap-on.

Also, I wonder if there isn't massive miscommunication. If he truly said something like, "How about anal?", did she misconstrue that as he gets anal from her? Because that level of disconnect is kind of funny in a couple that's married.

I'm not sure that turning their relationship into one-upmanship is the best way for them to proceed.

No, I judge you closed minded, hypocritical and childish because of your opinion. I judge you stupid because of how you present it.

But again, I wouldn't expect you to understand the difference.



I suggest you look up the word "imply". I'm implying nothing.

Good. Glad to have that out in the open. Good to know you approach a debate with an open mind, and not arrogant, bigotted hate.

And the way to resume a normal relationship with her would be to go out and buy the most awful, painful-looking sex toy and return home with it, to properly frame just how ridiculous it was for her to run out and buy a strap-on.

I'm guessing you haven't actually ever had an adult relationship, because if you did, you'd understand why this is stupid.

In which case, I'll go out and get pooped on and report back to you.

Seriously, if your partner asked you to would you do it? Why would you make yourself such an unbelievable pushover?

I already said, I have, and I didn't like it. Unless I'm not allowed to lump urination and defecation together. In which case, I'll go out and get pooped on and report back to you.

Well, no, you can't really lump them together because they aren't the same thing. But I am correct in thinking that if a girl asked to defecate on you, you would agree to it.

Seriously, if your partner asked you to would you do it? Why would you make yourself such an unbelievable pushover?

Why does that make me a pushover? I already know that I don't like being excreted onto. But before I did, when I was approached by someone interested, I gave it a shot. No harm came from it, except to find out I find it gross and smelly.

I'm guessing you haven't actually ever had an adult relationship, because if you did, you'd understand why this is stupid.

Really? For someone who holds himself to be more intelligent than everyone else here, you seem woefully incapable of detecting sarcasm.

And since I know you can't not have the last word, whatever your next insulting, demeaning, condescending remark towards me is will go unresponded.

Good. Glad to have that out in the open. Good to know you approach a debate with an open mind, and not arrogant, bigotted hate.

oh child, a tad full of yourself are you not? I point out that your arguments are childish, immature, hypocritical and fundamentally flawed. I also point out that the method you use to express them is unsophisticated, lacking nuanced and contimplated understanding, further compounded by your inability to address the issue, instead prefering to lay some persecution complex out in the open crying about how I'm implying my superior intellect, which only further prooves that whatever you think I'm implying...is correct.

But hate you? No child, I don't hate you. That would require I actually care about you what you think or what you have to say. Believe me, I don't

I don't know... if I mentioned, "I wonder what it would be like to make love to you and another guy at the same time" I would be seriously upset to come home and find my guy had brought in a third party who was ready, willing, able, and naked in my bed to fulfill that without any further discussion.
that would indeed be a major mistake on your fiance's part.

but its more the equivalent of saying that you want a 3 some by bringing in another woman and HE sets it up with another man.

while it would be fine to say "NO not today" it would be ungracious of you to insist that a 3some can only be of one type.

Why does that make me a pushover? I already know that I don't like being excreted onto. But before I did, when I was approached by someone interested, I gave it a shot. No harm came from it, except to find out I find it gross and smelly.


Did you ever expect it to be anything other than gross and smelly? I mean come on.

oh child, a tad full of yourself are you not? I point out that your arguments are childish, immature, hypocritical and fundamentally flawed. I also point out that the method you use to express them is unsophisticated, lacking nuanced and contimplated understanding, further compounded by your inability to address the issue, instead prefering to lay some persecution complex out in the open crying about how I'm implying my superior intellect, which only further prooves that whatever you think I'm implying...is correct.

But hate you? No child, I don't hate you. That would require I actually care about you what you think or what you have to say. Believe me, I don't

He speaks like Fass, he acts like Fass... but it isn't him! :eek2:

Did you ever expect it to be anything other than gross and smelly? I mean come on.

No, I had a fairly concrete idea on what my opinion would be. But I gave it a shot anyway. I've done a great many things once that I'll probably never do again. But if you don't experience it, how can you know you don't like it?

Did you ever expect it to be anything other than gross and smelly? I mean come on.
it could have been gross and smelly and an incredible turn on.

No, I had a fairly concrete idea on what my opinion would be. But I gave it a shot anyway.

So you knew you would hate it, but you did it anyway. That's called being a pushover.

So you knew you would hate it, but you did it anyway. That's called being a pushover.

No, I didn't know I would hate it. I thought I might hate it. That's why I tried. To find out.

Really? For someone who holds himself to be more intelligent than everyone else here, you seem woefully incapable of detecting sarcasm.

Again I'm not sure that word means what you think it means. Sarcasm is a tool used to show the impossibility, impracticality, or nonsensical value of a thing, by phrasing it in exactly the opposite.

However what you actually said was this:

And the way to resume a normal relationship with her would be to go out and buy the most awful, painful-looking sex toy and return home with it, to properly frame just how ridiculous it was for her to run out and buy a strap-on.

And if you meant that to mean it was actually a bad idea, and meant to frame this as sarcasm, I'm not quite sure who that sarcasm was directed to. Because he didn't suggest this. Savage didn't suggest this. Nobody on this forum suggested this, so if it's meant to be a sarcastic comment, I'm really unsure to whom it was aimed at.

But you're right, I didn't consider it sarcasm because I gave you the benefit of the doubt in my assumption that if you were going to be sarcastic, you'd at least know how to do it right. It's an error I won't repeat.

it could have been gross and smelly and an incredible turn on.

I just realized how thankful I am that I do not find urine in any way sexually stimulating. Imagine how annoying and inconveniencing that would be, as a man.

I don't even know how I would be able to finish urinating... I would have to emtpy about half the bladder, cool down, and try to go at it again.

I just realized how thankful I am that I do not find urine in any way sexually stimulating. Imagine how annoying and inconveniencing that would be, as a man.

I don't even know how I would be able to finish urinating... I would have to emtpy about half the bladder, cool down, and try to go at it again.

I think the fetish is necessarily tied to either being peed on or peeing on someone. Though, I agree, if there are any people out there sexually aroused by the act of urination, that must be mighty inconvenient.

I just realized how thankful I am that I do not find urine in any way sexually stimulating. Imagine how annoying and inconveniencing that would be, as a man.

I don't even know how I would be able to finish urinating... I would have to emtpy about half the bladder, cool down, and try to go at it again.
aye

so many things about sex fetishes are unpleasant to think about.

"men who like to wear diapers" *shudder*

I think the fetish is necessarily tied to either being peed on or peeing on someone. Though, I agree, if there are any people out there sexually aroused by the act of urination, that must be mighty inconvenient.

Hopefully people in public bathrooms, especially at urinals, have good aim then.

No, I didn't know I would hate it. I thought I might hate it. That's why I tried. To find out.

Look, if it doesn't turn you on and you find it gross when you think about it, why the hell would it turn you on when you actually experience it?

Look, if it doesn't turn you on and you find it gross when you think about it, why the hell would it turn you on when you actually experience it?
lots of things that sound yucky "on paper" are pretty fun. lots of things that sound great "on paper" are yucky when you try doing them.

I find the logic of "he should take it if he wnats to do it" just plain stupid. I have participated in numerous activities I have absolutely no desire to be involved in from the other perspective. It's like telling a sumissive partner that he or she should first try dominating, before being dominated. The answer you're most likely to get, if you get any at all, is "no, I don't want to".

Sex shouldn't follow some preschool mentality of "I hope you brought enough for everyone in the class" nonsense. We all have things we like. We all have things we don't. It's entirely possible that someone would enjoy having anal sex with someone but dislike the idea of receiving, just as someone might love being tied up and whipped but be utterly turned off at the thought of holding the whip.

Sure, people should experiment, but if he knows he doesn't want it, then he doesn't want it, and to say that if he's not willing to take, he shouldn't be able to give...again, utterly stupid. Either his partner wants it as well, or she doesn't. Doing this whole "I'll go if you go first!" nonsense is childish. Moreover, these suggestions that if he try it he might like it as as insulting as suggesting that if gay men only had sex with women more often, they might discover they like it, and stop being gay.

I don't think this is the way some people...the sane ones anyway...are approaching it.

The guy is freaked out by it, because he associates it with homosexuality. It's threatening to him mentally to be pegged by his wife. Granted, that alone might kill any enjoyment he'd actually get from it. Then again...it might not.

If this is something the wife REALLY wants to do...the least he could do is try it. He wants to fuck her in the ass...it appears the idea isn't particularly appealing to her either. Neither of them actually know if they'll like it or not until they try.

Trust me...it won't kill either of them. Yes, it would suck if she pegged him, and he HATED it, and she never got to do it again...but that's just the way it goes sometimes. But there are plenty of things I've done for my partner that didn't do it for me but drove him or her wild.

Then again, I'm a giving sort of person. Some people are just inherently more selfish.

I don't agree, however, that someone should have something done to them FIRST before they can do it to someone else. That's just...weird.

Look, if it doesn't turn you on and you find it gross when you think about it, why the hell would it turn you on when you actually experience it?

because he's such an unselfish lover, apparently.

Look, if it doesn't turn you on and you find it gross when you think about it, why the hell would it turn you on when you actually experience it?

Does it matter to you? You've already decided I'm a pushover or whatever, does anything I say to try to justify my position change your belief any? I'm really not here to defend my sex life to you.

aye
so many things about sex fetishes are unpleasant to think about.
"men who like to wear diapers" *shudder*

Those are generally the same men who find urination and defecation arousing. It makes it easier to go to the bathroom.

lots of things that sound yucky "on paper" are pretty fun. lots of things that sound great "on paper" are yucky when you try doing them.

Sex is a different matter, it's totally arbitrary what you find arousing, it's not like food where your taste buds tell you what you like (you can't predict a lot of the time if your taste buds will re-act to stuff you haven't tried before).

If this is something the wife REALLY wants to do...the least he could do is try it. He wants to fuck her in the ass...it appears the idea isn't particularly appealing to her either. Neither of them actually know if they'll like it or not until they try.

I'll ask the same. Would you tell a gay man that he doesn't know he's gay until he tries to have sex with a woman? Who knows, he might like it.

That's not at all insulting, is it?

Trust me...it won't kill either of them. Yes, it would suck if she pegged him, and he HATED it, and she never got to do it again...but that's just the way it goes sometimes.

The thing about this in particular is that it's not going to take either of them very long at all to figure out if they like it or not. They try it, and if it's not for them, they're going to know really quickly.

Does it matter to you? You've already decided I'm a pushover or whatever, does anything I say to try to justify my position change your belief any? I'm really not here to defend my sex life to you.

no, you're just here to attack the choices someone made in his sex life. I mean, really, you're willing to question someone else's sex life but you're not willing to discuss your own? I mean, really, if you're willing to talk about someone else's sex life, shouldn't you be willing to put yours up for discussion first?

How selfish of you.

Does it matter to you? You've already decided I'm a pushover or whatever, does anything I say to try to justify my position change your belief any? I'm really not here to defend my sex life to you.

I want you to defend the idea that not having something shoved up your arse because you don't want it is selfish.

Sex is a different matter, it's totally arbitrary what you find arousing, it's not like food where your taste buds tell you what you like (you can't predict a lot of the time if your taste buds will re-act to stuff you haven't tried before).
i was talking about sex.

I'll ask the same. Would you tell a gay man that he doesn't know he's gay until he tries to have sex with a woman? Who knows, he might like it.

That's not at all insulting, is it?

Most of the gay men I know HAVE had sex with women at some point...and try as they might can't quite wipe away the horrid memory.

I don't know how many guys I've been with that were all 'no I'm not into having anything up my ass' who are then all O-faced, squirming in joy while I massage their prostate.

If someone is such a massive homophobe that they actually believe that a woman sticking something up their ass is gay...the mental issues there are such that it probably won't be enjoyable. The difference is...gay men aren't inherently fucked in the head. Guys who are this against anal because they think it'll turn them gay...are.

I want you to defend the idea that not having something shoved up your arse because you don't want it is selfish.

I have expressed my opinion. You disagree. It doesn't mean I haven't defended my position. It just means it didn't change your mind.

I believe that this man, having never experienced butt sex, does not have an accurate framework to judge his like or dislike for said butt sex. I am of the opinion that he should at the very least attempt to have butt sex before dismissing it as something he is not interested in. If the man had previously endured butt sex and it was not something of interest to him, then there would be no problem from my viewpoint. But the fact that he is willing to dismiss the idea without trying it, to me, seems close-minded. And the fact that he is unwilling to try something that his wife enjoys, while at the same time wanting her to try something that he enjoys (and that's the interpretation of the article I got), to me, is selfish of him.

And to clarify, because I'm sure you'll bring it up, I am not supporting his wife's ridiculous decision to buy the strap-on without having even a word of discussion, and I do not believe she is justified in being so pissed to the point where she refuses to even have sex with him. But that doesn't change my opinion of him as being narrow-minded and selfish.

Most of the gay men I know HAVE had sex with women at some point...and try as they might can't quite wipe away the horrid memory.

They should try again. After all, maybe this time they'll like it!

But that didn't answer my question. Would you advocate that all gay men have sex with women, because it might turn out they don't really like sex with men?

If someone is such a massive homophobe that they actually believe that a woman sticking something up their ass is gay...the mental issues there are such that it probably won't be enjoyable. The difference is...gay men aren't inherently fucked in the head. Guys who are this against anal because they think it'll turn them gay...are.

I never said his reason was good. I said it was his. And he has a right to it. His opinion on the issue is uninformed, certainly. But I won't say that he SHOULD do it. Nobody SHOULD have to do anything sexually that they don't want to, regardless of why they don't want to.

To advocate that this man should just bend over and let his wife fuck him in the ass, even though he doesn't want to, to me, is just a hair away of advocating rape.

i was talking about sex.

Let me ask you the same question, if your partner asked you if he/she could shit on you, would you accept it? Remember, according to some, not doing so is selfish.

Does it matter to you? You've already decided I'm a pushover or whatever, does anything I say to try to justify my position change your belief any? I'm really not here to defend my sex life to you.
im having a hard time figuring out why its a bad thing to be a pushover for trying odd things in a sexual relationship.

Would you advocate that all gay men have sex with women, because it might turn out they don't really like sex with men?


No.

The less competition the better my odds are. Simple math.

Look, if it doesn't turn you on and you find it gross when you think about it, why the hell would it turn you on when you actually experience it?

Because you think it's going to hurt, and feel terrible and instead it just feels so. fucking. good.

Jesus christ you people are so vanilla it's making my tongue curl up.

They should try again. After all, maybe this time they'll like it!

But that didn't answer my question. Would you advocate that all gay men have sex with women, because it might turn out they don't really like sex with men? No. I think that men who are lucky enough to be attracted to other men are to be envied...not bothered.



I never said his reason was good. I said it was his. And he has a right to it.

To advocate that this man should just bend over and let his wife fuck him in the ass, even though he doesn't want to, to me, is just a hair away of advocating rape.


I think I'm just bitter because you never let me fuck you in the ass.:eek:

Also, I no more think that asking someone to try something they believe they won't enjoy is any more 'advocating rape' than is asking someone to lay in a bathtub full of freezing-cold water. Both ultimately have the power to say no...if either DOES it despite not enjoying it, do those reasons turn it into rape?

Yeah no.

I think I'm just bitter because you never let me fuck you in the ass.:eek:

How very selfish of me.

Let me ask you the same question, if your partner asked you if he/she could shit on you, would you accept it? Remember, according to some, not doing so is selfish.
yes.

that doesnt mean i would do it AGAIN but where's the harm it giving it a try?

now that doesnt mean that there arent things that i would say NO to. thats why its best to bring up serious kinks before the wedding. some things really are deal breakers.

I
I believe that this man, having never experienced butt sex, does not have an accurate framework to judge his like or dislike for said butt sex.

Yes he does, why isn't the fact that you don't find the idea sexually arousing a very good indicator that you don't find it sexually arousing?


But the fact that he is willing to dismiss the idea without trying it, to me, seems close-minded.

I have dismissed the idea that I will find pleasurable sticking my head in a toilet whilst someone kicks me in the butt with metal boots on. I haven't actually tried it, does that make me close minded?


And the fact that he is unwilling to try something that his wife enjoys, while at the same time wanting her to try something that he enjoys (and that's the interpretation of the article I got), to me, is selfish of him.

What part of the article are you talking about?

Because you think it's going to hurt, and feel terrible and instead it just feels so. fucking. good.


But it's very likely that you wont enjoy it. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with trying it, but it's not selfish to not want to do it either.

yes.

that doesnt mean i would do it AGAIN but where's the harm it giving it a try?


There could be harm if you have a seriously bad time.

How very selfish of me.

Well that WAS sort of the point...

Also, I no more think that asking someone to try something they believe they won't enjoy is any more 'advocating rape' than is asking someone to lay in a bathtub full of freezing-cold water. Both ultimately have the power to say no...

Here's the difference. He did say no. He said no repeatedly. People here are attacking him for his decision to say no. They are saying he should not have said no.

Which is a fundamental disrespecting his right to refuse to engage in a sexual act he finds distasteful.

Asking someone to do something is not rape. Him consenting, and regreting it, is not rape. Repeatedly asking after he has said no, and attacking him, insulting him, and degrading him after he has said no comes a whole lot closer.

I agree with Dan's BS detector. I'd go further and say that some guy just wanted to read what Dan wrote about pegging. He's right, a marriage is going stale when the woman is more than happy to run out and buy a strap on? Not likely. The letter is either total BS or he's getting cold feet, something.

But it's very likely that you wont enjoy it. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with trying it, but it's not selfish to not want to do it either.

It's actually very unlikely that you won't enjoy it, but I'm just speaking from experience.

It IS selfish to not want to try it. It's not WRONG to not want to try it. There is a difference.

There could be harm if you have a seriously bad time.
what harm?

you say "YUCK that was awful" and never do it again.

now keep in mind that im not saying that he should have spread his cheeks and let her start banging away at his ass. its perfectly reasonable to start slowly and experiement with all sorts of ass play. (its also perfectly reasonable to insist that she return the thing and that they shop for one together)

if you want better sex you have to try things out that you havent tried before.

Well that WAS sort of the point...

pft, you like it.

Here's the difference. He did say no. He said no repeatedly. People here are attacking him for his decision to say no. They are saying he should not have said no.

Which is a fundamental disrespecting his right to refuse to engage in a sexual act he finds distasteful.

Asking someone to do something is not rape. Him consenting, and regreting it, is not rape. Repeatedly asking after he has said no, and attacking him, insulting him, and degrading him after he has said no comes a whole lot closer.

Yes, with this I agree.

Although the idea of her jumping out of a closet wearing a big strap on and yelling 'surprise!' amuses me greatly.

Yes he does, why isn't the fact that you don't find the idea sexually arousing a very good indicator that you don't find it sexually arousing?

I've already told you. From personal experience, I have found things that I didn't know I was into until I tried them. I have found things that I thought would be unpleasant actually were pleasurable. In sort, I didn't know.


I have dismissed the idea that I will find pleasurable sticking my head in a toilet whilst someone kicks me in the butt with metal boots on. I haven't actually tried it, does that make me close minded?

In the literal sense, yes. But you probably dismiss that idea because you have previously found one or more of those actions to be unpleasurable from experience. Personally, I've been kicked in the ass with a steel toed boot, and I know that I wouldn't find that pleasurable. I've also been arm deep in a toilet, and I've had my head submerged in less-than-sanitary water, so I can reasonably infer that I wouldn't enjoy your other part. But if I had no concept of the feelings of being kicked in the ass or having my head submerged, and my girlfriend said, "Baby, I would cum soooooooooo hard if you let me kick you in the ass with steel toed boots while I held your head in the toilet," I'd give it a go. Perhaps when I got to the no breathing part I might find I didn't enjoy it and would veto the operation, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

However, there are some people out there that are sexually aroused by asphyxiation, and might enjoy your scenario. But they certainly didn't find out about their asphyxiation fetish by avoiding all asphyxiation experimentation.

What part of the article are you talking about?

I don't know, I guess I just interpret the part where he brings up sex more of the "Hey baby, wanna fuck?" variety than the "I think it's time we had a discussion about our sex life" variety.

I agree with Dan's BS detector. I'd go further and say that some guy just wanted to read what Dan wrote about pegging. He's right, a marriage is going stale when the woman is more than happy to run out and buy a strap on? Not likely. The letter is either total BS or he's getting cold feet, something.
oh i forgot to go check dan's answer. did he think it unlikely that the woman who wouldnt even talk about it suddenly ran out to the adult store and bought a strapon?

it IS pretty unlikely but i can think of scenarios where it makes sense.

It IS selfish to not want to try it.

Why? .

Why? .

I'm more interested in why you used white text that way...

Ah, well, selfishness is the precedence of self, self-concern...putting ones needs or desires over those of another. It's a perfectly natural state of being...it does not generally mean one is a bad person. The wife is being selfish in that she desperately wants to peg a person who isn't into it, and he is selfish for not wanting to please his wife by putting her needs above his own.

So it's selfish. It's not wrong.

I've already told you. From personal experience, I have found things that I didn't know I was into until I tried them. I have found things that I thought would be unpleasant actually were pleasurable. In sort, I didn't know.


Well in my opinion, I think you were probably just repressing your sexual thoughts that you found too strange. I find the idea that you can find something arousing that, when thought about, isn't arousing absurd.


In the literal sense, yes. But you probably dismiss that idea because you have previously found one or more of those actions to be unpleasurable from experience. Personally, I've been kicked in the ass with a steel toed boot, and I know that I wouldn't find that pleasurable.

I'm sure your average person who's into S&M doesn't find being hurt in itself pleasurable unless done in a sexualised context. Again, you can't know.


I've also been arm deep in a toilet, and I've had my head submerged in less-than-sanitary water, so I can reasonably infer that I wouldn't enjoy your other part.

Same as above.


But if I had no concept of the feelings of being kicked in the ass or having my head submerged, and my girlfriend said, "Baby, I would cum soooooooooo hard if you let me kick you in the ass with steel toed boots while I held your head in the toilet," I'd give it a go.

Then I must conclude that this is not you being 'unselfish' but rather you being a pushover.


However, there are some people out there that are sexually aroused by asphyxiation, and might enjoy your scenario. But they certainly didn't find out about their asphyxiation fetish by avoiding all asphyxiation experimentation.


But I very much doubt that they spontaneously decided to asphyxiate themselves and then co-incidentally found that it was sexually arousing.

I'm more interested in why you used white text that way...


Because apparently simply posting 'Why?' is now deemed as 'too short' (damn OMAC).


It's a perfectly natural state of being...it does not generally mean one is a bad person.

Then using that word is pointless and unhelpful.

Then I must conclude that this is not you being 'unselfish' but rather you being a pushover.

It's not me being unselfish, it's me being experimental. And, gratefully, I don't care if you think I'm a pushover, so you needn't continue to refer to me as one. You've expressed your opinion of me; it is clear. Since this thread isn't "Sdaeriji's sexual tendencies", I don't see how my sex life is of any more relevance. You attempted to back me into a corner by proposing a scenario that you thought would make me betray my argument. You've failed, now carry on discussing the actual subject of the thread.

Well in my opinion, I think you were probably just repressing your sexual thoughts that you found too strange. I find the idea that you can find something arousing that, when thought about, isn't arousing absurd.

Or, I thought that I would find anal sex uncomfortable or painful, only to find out it's enjoyable.

Because apparently simply posting 'Why?' is now deemed as 'too short' (damn OMAC). Ah! I've been wondering how to get around that, thanks!



Then using that word is pointless and unhelpful.

Whatever. Bend over, bitch.

You attempted to back me into a corner by proposing a scenario that you thought would make me betray my argument. You've failed, now carry on discussing the actual subject of the thread.


I'm fairly certain your lying, however, in order to be consistent with your own argument. Since I couldn't possibly prove this however, I must withdraw from this particular debate.

I'm fairly certain your lying, however, in order to be consistent with your own argument. Since I couldn't possibly prove this however, I must withdraw from this particular debate.

To be fair, I did betray my argument in the strictest sense when I said I would not do anything that would break the law. I suppose I would probably not do anything that would get me killed because, while I have no way of knowing if I'd enjoy it or not, it's difficult to have experience in that.

I hope I'll never be forced to receive buttcocks, because I'm certainly not doing it on my own.
Well, I hope you aren't married then, because to deny your wife the right to peg you, just takes all the meaning of marriage away.

This sounds like a relationship with serious communication issues.

I don't understand why they didn't have an actual discussion of what sex acts they might like to try. I don't understand why she went out and bought a sex toy with no reason to believe he'd enjoy it. I don't understand why her justification of this was "well, I read it in a newspaper column." I don't understand why his way of dealing with this was to backtrack away from his earlier statements rather than explaining his present thoughts. I don't understand why he'd even make the argument that anal was something to try solely because "most couples do it, I think." I don't understand why, if she really wants to fuck him in the ass, she doesn't just nicely tell him so rather than arguing about what he said, and why, if she doesn't really want that, this is even an issue. I don't understand why his response to his wife's apparent desires is to whine about gayness rather than to address whether or not making her happy is worth doing something he finds uncomfortable. I don't understand why he seeks out a newspaper columnist for help instead of having a sane, adult, respectful conversation with someone who's supposed to be his best friend and companion. Altogether, the whole thing is just weird.

(For what it's worth, if I were to ignore all the above problems and just address the question of "should he let her poke him in the butt," my general answer would be that, while I find his reasoning silly, he shouldn't be pressured into doing anything he doesn't want to.)

This marriage isn't going anywhere. At least not anywhere good.

He wants to spice things up. She asks for suggestions. He blurts anal - this isn't like something he's thought about. She says, ok, you go first. He balks. This should have been the end of the anal sex talk. Instead, when the subject of spicing things up rises (excuse, please) again she takes it straight to anal sex, including the revelation that she bought a dildo just for use on him.

1. If anal sex is something he's really interested in, there's no good reason he shouldn't go first.
2. She bought a dildo. She should have waited until she knew whether he would agree or not - she's challenging him (although she could have suggested that one of them find a male partner for him for his first time, that, I imagine would have really freaked him out).
3. After the initial "no way" on his part, she should have considered the topic to be dropped unless he brought it up again, in which case her previous stipulation could be reiterated. If he doesn't bring it up again, let it go and discuss other options - buy a Kama Sutra.

His refusal to reciprocate and her refusal to drop the subject make me think these people aren't mature enough to be married to anyone yet.

Well, I hope you aren't married then, because to deny your wife the right to peg you, just takes all the meaning of marriage away.
If I wanted to take cocks up my butt, I would have joined GNAA long ago.

He speaks like Fass, he acts like Fass... but it isn't him! :eek2:

No no, I would have to say Fass > Neo Art. He may try and act like him, but there can only be one Fass!

I wouldn't say you should get to do something only if you're willing to experience it from the opposite end, but the stipulation isn't a bad one to bring up to your partner if you're not particularly enthused with your partner's suggestions.

It's not perceived, anal sex is gay. Woman's rectum is no different from a man's one - if you like one, you'll like the other. It just takes overcoming the prejudices against doing it with a man.Does this mean oral sex is gay?

True. Well, he may have his reasons, but I object to that particular form of sexual experimentation on principle. For me it has nothing to do with some "homosexual implication", but... seriously people, crap. Shit comes outta there. Just all seems a bit odd to me.Try this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap).

If I wanted to take cocks up my butt, I would have joined GNAA long ago.

um... but if your wife wants it, it's your duty to comply... even if she were to force it on you, I mean you're married, it's part of the deal.

Does this mean oral sex is gay?

yes. anything other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse in the missionary position is totally queer.

I think my biggest problem in bridging this is my impression that anal is for the receiver. Perhaps this is clouded by my notion that vagina is awesome. The only way vagina could get more awesome is if it had a tongue. And there is totally another place I can stick my penis that has a tongue, and in that particular situation I think reciprocation is only fair. And has it's own pleasures.

Maybe that's inconsistent, who knows. But for me, anal is for the person getting it. So for me, when the guy says, "Anal?" it's a question, "Would you like me to stick it in your butt?" not, "I want to stick it in your butt." That's the distinction I make and what makes the 'ultimatum' and Savage's insistence so weird to me.

To sink the subject of wanting to take it up the butt even further into juvenile territory, I've taken a, lets say, uncomfortable poop...I know what the expansion of my asshole feels like and it's uncomfortable. I don't like it. Yes, sex would be different, but it would include that and I already really don't like it. So I can TOTALLY understand how someone else wouldn't like it. And if my partner wasn't into it, that would be the end of the discussion. I would NEVER deal with a partners request to do something as, "You first!" That's childish and really isn't being receptive to your partner. In fact, it stifles experimentation and creates a situation hostile to suggestion. Not saying anything, going out and buying a strap on and then saying, "See, Dan Savage sayz you have to so you have to!" isn't being open or receptive to your partner.

um... but if your wife wants it, it's your duty to comply... even if she were to force it on you, I mean you're married, it's part of the deal.
Good point. Correct. Should I marry and my spouse want it, I have to comply, or, should I refuse, they have full right and reason to divorce.

That's why I'm going to make sure my spouse isn't into that kind of thing.


Because if you are into anal, there's no reason at all to marry a person of a different gender. Dealing with all the gender differences, equality problems, all the other issues in hetero marriages, why, when you can get a fair and equal one? Marriages without gender difference have been proven to fare better.

Because if you are into anal, there's no reason at all to marry a person of a different gender.

...

...

...

...you know, I was going to point out how totally, totally ridiculous this statement is, but I really think it speaks for itself.

...

...

...

...you know, I was going to point out how totally, totally ridiculous this statement is, but I really think it speaks for itself.

^ This.

^ This.

It's how you catch t3h ghey, you know.

Good point. Correct. Should I marry and my spouse want it, I have to comply, or, should I refuse, they have full right and reason to divorce.
But, in the rape thread you said the wife didn't have a right to refuse, that her husband can just fuck her anyway and it's not "really rape". By that logic if your wife wants to buttsex you then you also don't have a right to refuse and it's not rape. I mean you went on and on about equality in the relationship right? What's not rape for the goose is not rape for the gander.

yes. anything other than heterosexual vaginal intercourse in the missionary position is totally queer.

It's how you catch t3h ghey, you know.

I guess I should go out myself to my parents then....

But, in the rape thread you said the wife didn't have a right to refuse, that her husband can just fuck her anyway and it's not "really rape". By that logic if your wife wants to buttsex you then you also don't have a right to refuse and it's not rape. I mean you went on and on about equality in the relationship right? What's not rape for the goose is not rape for the gander.
surely no matter what he answers the offended spouse has at least the right to divorce someone who is forcing sex of any kind on them.

But, in the rape thread you said the wife didn't have a right to refuse, that her husband can just fuck her anyway and it's not "really rape".
In a system I see as fair, it's a lesser crime than "dark alley rape", but still a crime.

By that logic if your wife wants to buttsex you then you also don't have a right to refuse and it's not rape.
Yeah, the only things I can sue for are the damage dealt to my rectum if the dildo is too large, and maybe moral damage compensation.

No judge would accept a lawsuit for rape, that is if I was such a lowly vengeful bastard as to even think of trying to send my own spouse to prison.

take it - it feels great

True. Well, he may have his reasons, but I object to that particular form of sexual experimentation on principle. For me it has nothing to do with some "homosexual implication", but... seriously people, crap. Shit comes outta there. Just all seems a bit odd to me.

And mucous discharge, menstrual blood, sloughed endometrium and babies come outta vaginas! :O

Damn, I forget how truly clueless you people are...

And mucous discharge, menstrual blood, sloughed endometrium and babies come outta vaginas! :O

Damn, I forget how truly clueless you people are...

Yeah, but anal sex turns you ghey! If he's going to let his wife fuck him in the ass, he might as well let guys. It's the exact same thing after all.

And mucous discharge, menstrual blood, sloughed endometrium and babies come outta vaginas! :O

Damn, I forget how truly clueless you people are...

Fass, my love! You always add such wonderful imagery to every thread.

Yeah, but anal sex turns you ghey! If he's going to let his wife fuck him in the ass, he might as well let guys. It's the exact same thing after all.

If he gave his wife the buttcocks, and let her do the same to him, he's overcome the first prejudice, against dirty orifices.

All that's left is to overcome the social one, against lack of gender difference, and he'll be all right.

Fass, my love! You always add such wonderful imagery to every thread.

Aerou! Yay! :fluffle: *pounces* How you been?

If he gave his wife the buttcocks, and let her do the same to him, he's overcome the first prejudice, against dirty orifices.

All that's left is to overcome the social one, against lack of gender difference, and he'll be all right.

What does anal sex have to do with gender differences?

Aerou! Yay! :fluffle: *pounces* How you been?

Fantastically amazing. Though I haven't had my daily anal, so I'm a little moody. You?

No, I had a fairly concrete idea on what my opinion would be. But I gave it a shot anyway. I've done a great many things once that I'll probably never do again. But if you don't experience it, how can you know you don't like it?

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like a sledgehammer to smash my foot, even though I have not experienced it.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like a sledgehammer to smash my foot, even though I have not experienced it.
now THAT is one sexual act that i would have to refuse.

lots of things that sound great "on paper" are yucky when you try doing them.

Like communism.

:D

Fantastically amazing. Though I haven't had my daily anal, so I'm a little moody.

Tell me about it! I need at least 60 combined centimetres of cock a day (approx. 20 cm ter in die), lest I get cranky.

You?

Ugh, today was rough at work (testicular cancer diagnosis in early twenties male and declaration of death for a person who had been rotting away in their house for three months before anyone noticed and I had to wade through mounds of maggots), but things have been great lately. A couple of weeks ago I had the best date in my life, and I went to Europride and had a ball. Well, balls.

And mucous discharge, menstrual blood, sloughed endometrium and babies come outta vaginas! :O
Damn, I forget how truly clueless you people are...
I am aware of that and even though I don't know what a endometrium is specifically I'll take your word for it.

At least we can rationalize all that away by believing that is how nature and God intended it.

You forget how truly clueless you are about how clueless people are.

Tell me about it! I need at least 60 combined centimetres of cock a day (approx. 20 cm ter in die), lest I get cranky.

At least!

Ugh, today was rough at work (testicular cancer diagnosis in early twenties male and declaration of death for a person who had been rotting away in their house for three months before anyone noticed and I had to wade through mounds of maggots), but things have been great lately. A couple of weeks ago I had the best date in my life, and I went to Europride and had a ball. Well, balls.

Europride > mounds of maggots

What does anal sex have to do with gender differences?
Nothing!

That's the whole point - if you like it with a woman, you'll like it with a man. So stop blabbering and get some real anal sex.

At least we can rationalize all that away by believing that is how nature and God intended it.

God does not exist, nature is incapable of having intent. There. You just heard something adult.

You forget how truly clueless you are about how clueless people are.

One becomes so easily when one is selective about one's daily company.

Nothing!

That's the whole point - if you like it with a woman, you'll like it with a man. So stop blabbering and get some real anal sex.
if you arent attracted to men you probably wont like sex with men.

At least!

And we haven't even touched upon cc's of spunk needed for a glowing complexion.

Europride > mounds of maggots

You were always succinct. Glad to see that remains the case.

God does not exist, nature is incapable of having intent. There. You just heard something adult..
I just heard something unprovable and somewhat saddening.
One becomes so easily when one is selective about one's daily company
It will never be said that I was too selective to understand the occasional idiot.

if you arent attracted to men you probably wont like sex with men.
Preposterous!

I guess I should go out myself to my parents then....

I think most sexually active adults are then, by that definition, gay.

And we haven't even touched upon cc's of spunk needed for a glowing complexion.

A glowing complexion is a must,

You were always succinct. Glad to see that remains the case.

I wouldn't want to disappoint you!

I just heard something unprovable and somewhat saddening.

You just heard something that doesn't need proof and you confuse "sobering" with "saddening". It's easy, they're both polysyllabic and start with an "s".

It will never be said that I was too selective to understand the occasional idiot!

You do have to live with yourself, true.

I think most sexually active adults are then, by that definition, gay.

Thus the point of my post.

I think most sexually active adults are then, by that definition, gay.

I think those three words go hand in hand.

I'd be pretty darn happy if I was sexually active. Assuming I didn't catch anything bothersome and terminal. Like a spouse.

You just heard something that doesn't need proof and you confuse "sobering" with "saddening". It's easy, they're both polysyllabic and start with an "s".
True, you don't need to prove any of your statements. I rarely prove mine.
You do have to live with yourself, true.
Where did that exclamation mark come from?

A glowing complexion is a must,

Makes one's cheeks the perfect cockslap sounding board.

I wouldn't want to disappoint you!

Ah, that is one of the very few things that you are incapable of.

In a system I see as fair, it's a lesser crime than "dark alley rape", but still a crime.
...

No judge would accept a lawsuit for rape, that is if I was such a lowly vengeful bastard as to even think of trying to send my own spouse to prison.
I think you should Google before you assert that so surely.

True, you don't need to prove any of your statements. I rarely prove mine.

Meeting expectations of not meeting expectations.

Where did that exclamation mark come from?

Magic.

What does anal sex have to do with gender differences?

Well, obviously, once he has it with his wife he's going to be a slut and have it with everyone... male, female, hetero, homo, two-legged, four-legged....

Cos once you experience it you can't stop having anal intercourse at any time, in any place, and with any anus you see.

if you arent attracted to men you probably wont like sex with men.
It's just a prejudice encoded into us with upbringing. Of course, effort has to be taken to defeat something that's been shoved into your head for 18 years.



Cos once you experience it you can't stop having anal intercourse at any time, in any place, and with any anus you see.
You just need to find the perfect one for you, and chances are it's not the first one you've tried it with. And it can equally be male or female.

Nothing!

That's the whole point - if you like it with a woman, you'll like it with a man. So stop blabbering and get some real anal sex.

I'm hoping you're being sarcastic. Because to suggest that a woman's asshole is somehow different than a man's asshole, that one is designed universally for sex while the other is designed for gay sex only, is absurd.

Meeting expectations of not meeting expectations.
A liter of mediocrity is worth an ounce of overachievism.
Magic.
I believe in God, you can't expect me to believe in magic.

I'm hoping you're being sarcastic. Because to suggest that a woman's asshole is somehow different than a man's asshole, that one is designed universally for sex while the other is designed for gay sex only, is absurd.
No, no, the contrary. They aren't any different, and they both serve the same purpose.

Thus, once you get your way with it, gender shouldn't matter.

Well, obviously, once he has it with his wife he's going to be a slut and have it with everyone... male, female, hetero, homo, two-legged, four-legged....

Cos once you experience it you can't stop having anal intercourse at any time, in any place, and with any anus you see.

Oh, right. I forgot. The rectum is where the gay sex fiend switch is hidden.

No, no, the contrary. They aren't any different, and they both serve the same purpose.

Thus, once you get your way with it, gender shouldn't matter.
Right. That's why heterosexual men don't care if they get blowjobs from men or women. Same goes for homosexual men too. It really doesn't matter if it's a chick giving him a blowjob.

Right. That's why heterosexual men don't care if they get blowjobs from men or women.
Social prejudice, nothing else.

Social prejudice, nothing else.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that gay men would find women who are just into blowjobs and anal sex? I mean, they must only be anti-vaginal intercourse by this rationale (maybe anti-breast). So wouldn't it be much easier for a gay man to find a small-breasted woman that can take or leave vaginal sex, than to be in the closet and keep half his life a secret?

Social prejudice, nothing else.

So the only thing which kept us going as a species was a social prejudice? That is why opposite gender beings tend to want to have sex and reproduce? Social prejudice? There could be no possible genetic or biological urge? What kind of social prejudice do animals have?

Wouldn't it stand to reason that gay men would find women who are just into blowjobs and anal sex? I mean, they must only be anti-vaginal intercourse by this rationale (maybe anti-breast). So wouldn't it be much easier for a gay man to find a small-breasted woman that can take or leave vaginal sex, than to be in the closet and keep half his life a secret?
Actually, many gay men are in fact bisexual, either never completely shifting, or making exceptions.

This is true that same things can be had with a woman, but more often than not, it's the psychological closeness factor that keeps people with those of the same gender. Men and women are fundamentally different in their psychology and can never achieve true understanding or true equality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashmoria
if you arent attracted to men you probably wont like sex with men.

It's just a prejudice encoded into us with upbringing. Of course, effort has to be taken to defeat something that's been shoved into your head for 18 years.




Quote:
Cos once you experience it you can't stop having anal intercourse at any time, in any place, and with any anus you see.

You just need to find the perfect one for you, and chances are it's not the first one you've tried it with. And it can equally be male or female.


i find that unlikely.

Men and women are fundamentally different in their psychology and can never achieve true understanding or true equality.

I agree. Women are inferior.

/derailnewthread

Actually, many gay men are in fact bisexual, either never completely shifting, or making exceptions.
So the closeted gay men who risk their jobs, family, friends, social standing are just being stubborn by not finding a woman?

This is true that same things can be had with a woman, but more often than not, it's the psychological closeness factor that keeps people with those of the same gender. Men and women are fundamentally different in their psychology and can never achieve true understanding or true equality.
So everyone really just wants to be gay?

Oh, right. I forgot. The rectum is where the gay sex fiend switch is hidden.

That's where I'd hide it. *nod*

Because she's not pressuring him?

Er... yes. She is.

so, would you have sex with a goat?

I swear, every time you post I brace myself for a Crowning Moment of Awesome. What's the secret? Is it a lawyer thing?

Er... yes. She is.



I swear, every time you post I brace myself for a Crowning Moment of Awesome. What's the secret? Is it a lawyer thing?
you thought THAT was a good comeback?

So the closeted gay men who risk their jobs, family, friends, social standing are just being stubborn by not finding a woman?
I've said it, a gay relationship is healthier than a heterosexual one. Plus some men just have that natural inborn thing in them, the right stuff, that keeps them steering towards other men.

So everyone really just wants to be gay? No, of course. And many never realize the benefits, just suppressing their desires instead, at most sublimating them through anal sex, but being afraid to come to their true selves.


So the only thing which kept us going as a species was a social prejudice? That is why opposite gender beings tend to want to have sex and reproduce?
You're talking about stuff that has become unnecessary and redundant years ago.

You're talking about stuff that has become unnecessary and redundant years ago.

That's a good one.
By which I am being completely sarcastic.

The fact that it is now unnecessary and redundant and still happening just reinforces my point that there is clearly an attraction between a majority of men and women. Evidence of a biological urge perhaps?

You seem to say it is merely a social prejudice, but I could be interpreting your posts incorrectly.

The fact that it is now unnecessary and redundant and still happening just reinforces my point that there is clearly an attraction between a majority of men and women. Evidence of a biological urge perhaps?
You seem to say it is merely a social prejudice, but I could be interpreting your posts incorrectly.
It used to be a biological mechanism, but it has long, long been circumvented with condoms and other birth control methods. Sex is long detached from reproduction, and these days is a culture-based entertainment activity. Many straight couples don't have children, and won't, because they have vasectomy or tied tubes. Many gay couples have children, produced with the help of their lesbian friends. Just the biological function.

Until lately, that was the only way, but these days, the technology is being tested for producing a true child of two males, and artificial wombs are long known. The need for heterosexuality has exhausted itself. And some men - known as the gay men - have broken free from the old biological and cultural habits, acknowledging their true selves.

It used to be a biological mechanism, but it has long, long been circumvented with condoms and other birth control methods. Sex is long detached from reproduction, and these days is a culture-based entertainment activity. Many straight couples don't have children, and won't, because they have vasectomy or tied tubes. Many gay couples have children, produced with the help of their lesbian friends. Just the biological function.

Until lately, that was the only way, but these days, the technology is being tested for producing a true child of two males, and artificial wombs are long known. The need for heterosexuality has exhausted itself. And some men - known as the gay men - have broken free from the old biological and cultural habits, acknowledging their true selves.

Still irrelevant.

You could say that everyone in the world has been stricken infertile and it wouldn't make a difference.

There is clearly an attraction (with a lot of historical precedent) between opposite genders which you haven't managed to explain away.

There is clearly an attraction (with a lot of historical precedent) between opposite genders which you haven't managed to explain away.
There is a biological mechanism that delivers pleasure during sex, but that's it. The attraction isn't just between genders - at least 10% of people are homosexual, and there are a lot of cases where people temporarily changed their orientation. It's mostly social upbringing that keeps people from feeling sexual attraction to others of the same gender, but many still defeat it.
From all standpoints except the standard biological reproduction - which is no longer the only way, and so an obsolete point - relationships without gender difference are closer ones, healthier ones, and the only ones where equality is really possible.

It's mostly just upbringing and social pressure which keep the majority from realizing it.

There is a biological mechanism that delivers pleasure during sex, but that's it. The attraction isn't just between genders - at least 10% of people are homosexual, and there are a lot of cases where people temporarily changed their orientation. It's mostly social upbringing that keeps people from feeling sexual attraction to others of the same gender, but many still defeat it.
From all standpoints except the standard biological reproduction - which is no longer the only way, and so an obsolete point - relationships without gender difference are closer ones, healthier ones, and the only ones where equality is really possible.

It's mostly just upbringing and social pressure which keep the majority from realizing it.

I'll admit that I'm not the manliest of men. I'll even go so far as to say that Cher might have a manlier voice and more facial hair than me. However, there is one thing I can tell you I haven't been looking at lately. Gay porn. You know what I haven't thought about lately? Having sex with a man.

Now I may just be the weird product of a socially prejudiced society, but I feel fine. Normal. Like I am supposed to be this way.

Life's good-ish.

There is a biological mechanism that delivers pleasure during sex, but that's it. The attraction isn't just between genders - at least 10% of people are homosexual, and there are a lot of cases where people temporarily changed their orientation. It's mostly social upbringing that keeps people from feeling sexual attraction to others of the same gender, but many still defeat it.
From all standpoints except the standard biological reproduction - which is no longer the only way, and so an obsolete point - relationships without gender difference are closer ones, healthier ones, and the only ones where equality is really possible.

It's mostly just upbringing and social pressure which keep the majority from realizing it.

Do you have citations to back up that wild opinion? Or are you just going with the opinions of others?

Most of the public health people I've talked to maintain that there's a significant genetic factor - in other words, sexuality is born, not made. There may be a number of "undecided" or bisexual people who are pushed one way or the other by conditioning and societal bias, but sexuality is pretty much determined before birth and doesn't really manifest until the hormones kick in.

Oh, right. I forgot. The rectum is where the gay sex fiend switch is hidden.
No, Snafturi, it's the anti-discrimination switch, didn't you know that?
Just like if you tongue kiss someone, you're gonna tongue kiss EVERYONE from now on. EVEN YOUR GRANDMOTHER!!!! EVEN YOUR SIX MONTH OLD NEPHEW!!!!

Because once you've done it to one person, the discrimination switch turns off and you're gonna do it to EVERYONE.

However, there is one thing I can tell you I haven't been looking at lately. Gay porn. You know what I haven't thought about lately? Having sex with a man.
Now I may just be the weird product of a socially prejudiced society, but I feel fine. Normal. Like I am supposed to be this way.
And it's a sad, sad thing. Every democrat once in a while thinks about good points of republicans, every libertarian thinks about totalitarianism if only to know why he's against it, every atheists occasionally thinks about religion. But you're so deeply prejudiced that you refuse to even give a thought about anything homosexual. Most people do give a thought, but the social pressure is too strong, so they suppress it.

But I believe a day will come when the society will learn to accept the differences, to accept the change, the natural order of things.

I've thought a lot about it after watching this very short but thought-inspiring movie, and each time I see it again, it gives me hope that someday it will happen, we'll eliminate the gender tensions, and learn to truly accept who we are.
I hope you'll at least have more new thoughts on the matter, if not change your mind, after seeing it.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbi7ZIqDJ1I
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVr8Gw9uR6w
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUbNoEoTet0

And it's a sad, sad thing. Every democrat once in a while thinks about good points of republicans, every libertarian thinks about totalitarianism if only to know why he's against it, every atheists occasionally thinks about religion. But you're so deeply prejudiced that you refuse to even give a thought about anything homosexual. Most people do give a thought, but the social pressure is too strong, so they suppress it.

But I believe a day will come when the society will learn to accept the differences, to accept the change, the natural order of things.

I've thought a lot about it after watching this very short but inspiring movie, and each time I see it again, it gives me hope that someday it will happen, we'll eliminate the gender tensions, and learn to truly accept who we are.
I hope you'll at least have more new thoughts on the matter, if not change your mind, after seeing it.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbi7ZIqDJ1I
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVr8Gw9uR6w
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUbNoEoTet0

I can no longer.. what.. take.. you.. seriously.. eh..lolwut?

Here is something with which I refute whatever.. that was that I watched some of before almost falling asleep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWSjUe0FyxQ

The rear end is an exit only door, imo.

Right back atcha, Bann-ed. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVcmHcHIsYc&feature=related

The rear end is an exit only door, imo.

Careful with that, it's an antique.

Right back atcha, Bann-ed. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVcmHcHIsYc&feature=related

Hehehe. Hahaha. That was pretty funny. I quietly lol'ed.

--snip--

Oh dear. How immature of him. It's not just us big flamers who like it in the ass - he doesn't know, he may enjoy it. I think I may have said it before about the whole discomfort with homosexuality thing, but this guy needs to GROW UP. I can't believe how childish some people are. He should get over himself and just take it. He expects his wife to open up her ass to him, why shouldn't he do the same for her?

He expects his wife to open up her ass to him, why shouldn't he do the same for her?

Because he doesn't want to? What possible more reason does he need?

He should get over himself and just take it.

Oh, I see, I suppose I shouldn't expect rationality from someone who would advocate rape.

you thought THAT was a good comeback?

Nah, the later ones were better. And that one wasn't so much of a comeback as it was the start of the counter-argument. I chose it because IMO it was the most amusing.

"do not want!"

it's still a very valid reason not to do something.

Maybe he should try shock tactics... like trade her wife fantasy for a threesome with her wife and her sister.

Well, Vault 10, I've got to hand it to you - the "sexuality is a choice, and only bigots choose not to be gay" trolling is funnier than the earlier "getting raped by your partner is fine and dandy" trolling. I mean, admittedly, that's not really saying much, but going from "repulsive beyond words" to "really offensively stupid" is still a step up, so congratulations!

Oh, I see, I suppose I shouldn't expect rationality from someone who would advocate rape.

Oh dear, I think you misunderstand. He is being completely selfish. He expects his poor wife to open up to something completely new and different (no pun intended) whilst not being prepared to try it himself. Rape is totally and utterly wrong, and I do not advocate it at all, but at the same time, I think that as marriage is about partnership and equality, he should perhaps be more co-operative with his wife and try it before he expects her to roll over and start having anal sex. To reiterate, RAPE IS WRONG. Besides which, if he consents, it isn't rape.

Oh dear, I think you misunderstand. He is being completely selfish. He expects his poor wife to open up to something completely new and different (no pun intended) whilst not being prepared to try it himself. Rape is totally and utterly wrong, and I do not advocate it at all, but at the same time, I think that as marriage is about partnership and equality, he should perhaps be more co-operative with his wife and try it before he expects her to roll over and start having anal sex. To reiterate, RAPE IS WRONG.

But he's not expecting it. Whether he's backpedaling or not, he's not trying to push for anal sex. He brought it up, sure. But apparently he hasn't made that suggestion again since.

Besides which, if he consents, it isn't rape.

If you say "OK" because you feel like you've been pressured into it, does that actually count as consent?

But he's not expecting it. Whether he's backpedaling or not, he's not trying to push for anal sex. He brought it up, sure. But apparently he hasn't made that suggestion again since.

If you say "OK" because you feel like you've been pressured into it, does that actually count as consent?

Well in my opinion, if he wasn't serious about wanting it, he should never have made the suggestion.

From a legal point of view, if he said yes, he said yes. It counts as consent even if it was only to appease his wife. From a different point of view (the adjective for which completely escapes me at present) it is not full consent in my opinion. But to be perfectly frank, HE has sown the seeds, not her. If he is not prepared to allow her to peg him, he should not expect her to roll over to allow him to penetrate her anally. Again...marriage is about partnership and equality.

So, since wife got pregnant, first . Male should have the next baby?

So, since wife got pregnant, first . Male should have the next baby?

Why the hell not? Thomas Beattie did it. And now he has a beautiful baby daughter. Why is everybody so afraid of accepting that which is not normal to them?

Well in my opinion, if he wasn't serious about wanting it, he should never have made the suggestion.

They were brainstorming suggestions about how to spice up their sex lives, and he threw out the idea of anal. She wouldn't let it go.

HE has sown the seeds, not her. If he is not prepared to allow her to peg him, he should not expect her to roll over to allow him to penetrate her anally. Again...marriage is about partnership and equality.

He's not fucking expecting it. They were brainstorming, he made a suggestion which he either wasn't fully serious about, or backpedaled later when he decided the price wasn't worth it. Now she's bringing it up all the time. It's not about him wanting anal, it's about her wanting to peg him and him not wanting to be pegged. His alleged desire for anal sex isn't even part of the equation anymore.

Well, Vault 10, I've got to hand it to you - the "sexuality is a choice, and only bigots choose not to be gay" trolling is funnier than the earlier "getting raped by your partner is fine and dandy" trolling.

In every joke, there's a piece of truth.

For one, the truth is that homosexual relationship are better and healthier.

For the other, the biological replication mechanism isn't necessary anymore, since it's no longer the only one.

And, finally, massive heterosexual reproduction is not only unnecessary, but harmful, because we don't need to increase populace. On the contrary, overpopulation is destroying our habitat and the planet as a whole.
What we need is to rather reduce population - increase in homosexuality is just a natural regulatory mechanism. We should embrace it with open arms and promote it, not persecute like some mindless bigots.

Why the hell not? Thomas Beattie did it. And now he has a beautiful baby daughter. Why is everybody so afraid of accepting that which is not normal to them?

because its not normal. :p

Oh dear, I think you misunderstand. He is being completely selfish. He expects his poor wife to open up to something completely new and different (no pun intended) whilst not being prepared to try it himself.

Where did he EXPECT anything? He asked her if she wanted to. She refused. It seems that SHE is the one EXPECTING something of him.

Besides which, if he consents, it isn't rape.

You were the one who suggested he should do what he does not want to do. If he does it, but does not want to, then consent is not freely given.

Sounds like rape to me.

They were brainstorming suggestions about how to spice up their sex lives, and he threw out the idea of anal. She wouldn't let it go.



He's not fucking expecting it. They were brainstorming, he made a suggestion which he either wasn't fully serious about, or backpedaled later when he decided the price wasn't worth it. Now she's bringing it up all the time. It's not about him wanting anal, it's about her wanting to peg him and him not wanting to be pegged. His alleged desire for anal sex isn't even part of the equation anymore.
if what he wants is beter sex, he needs to work WITH her on these things. that means giving things a try that he isnt automatically excited about.

no he doesnt HAVE to try it but if he wants her to be game in the future he has to put the effort in now.

They were brainstorming suggestions about how to spice up their sex lives, and he threw out the idea of anal. She wouldn't let it go.

He's not fucking expecting it. They were brainstorming, he made a suggestion which he either wasn't fully serious about, or backpedaled later when he decided the price wasn't worth it. Now she's bringing it up all the time. It's not about him wanting anal, it's about her wanting to peg him and him not wanting to be pegged. His alleged desire for anal sex isn't even part of the equation anymore.

Well then, he ought to tell his wife that he is no longer interested, and cares only for the good but routine vaginal sex.

Well then, he ought to tell his wife that he is no longer interested, and cares only for the good but routine vaginal sex.

Doesn't seem to be an option. Apparently now anytime sex is brought up, she goes right to the pegging.

Why the hell not? Thomas Beattie did it.

Thomas Beattie also has the benefit of a functioning uterus. Something people born male don't.

And, finally, massive heterosexual reproduction is not only unnecessary, but harmful, because we don't need to increase populace. On the contrary, overpopulation is destroying our habitat and the planet as a whole.
What we need is to rather reduce population - increase in homosexuality is just a natural regulatory mechanism. We should embrace it with open arms and promote it, not persecute like some mindless bigots.

I agree that overpopulation is a problem. Maybe the problem facing the world today. After all, everything else becomes easier to fix when resources aren't strained and such.

But remember, just like homosexuals can have children without having sex to reproduce, heterosexuals can have sex without having children. No need to get all homophilic up in our grills.

We were both being shy, so I said the first thing that came to mind: "Anal?" My wife got quiet and the conversation ended.

A couple weeks later, she brought up the conversation and showed me an article of yours that said if a man wants anal, he should take it first. I explained I wasn't that interested and that I only brought it up to spark a discussion. That sparked an argument. She also told me that she had already spent a lot of money on a strap-on because "you wanted this so bad."

Now anytime I bring up any kind of sex, it restarts this argument. She insists that I would not have brought up anal if I didn't really want it, and says I'm being unfair by not agreeing to give it up first.

Honest to god, they've been married for six months and this is how they talk to each other about sex? Totally aside from the strap-on issue, this is a relationship between uncommunicative children; I'm not predicting a happy ending.

In every joke, there's a piece of truth.

For one, the truth is that homosexual relationship are better and healthier.

For the other, the biological replication mechanism isn't necessary anymore, since it's no longer the only one.

And, finally, massive heterosexual reproduction is not only unnecessary, but harmful, because we don't need to increase populace. On the contrary, overpopulation is destroying our habitat and the planet as a whole.
What we need is to rather reduce population - increase in homosexuality is just a natural regulatory mechanism. We should embrace it with open arms and promote it, not persecute like some mindless bigots.

are you being serious. I didn't saw a [/sarcasm] in your post. You seriously think reproduction is harmful? are you aware humans are not immortal?

You have an idea of what are the costs implied in human artificial insemination?

you seriously believe anal sex is healthier than standard sex?

Why are people still debating this?

Trying things you're not sure if you will like because it would make your partner happy = good.

Being pressured to try something after you've explicitly declined = bad.

Having a freaking honest conversation with your partner = good.

Conducting some sort of weird sexual negotiation via newspaper columns instead of having a freaking honest conversation with your partner = bad.