Posts by Moz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Lilith __,
how ED had affected the sex lives of older couples. The conclusion was surprising – many of the couples in the study said their sex lives had improved, because they were having to find and invent new ways of pleasuring each other.
That doesn't surprise me at all. Saddens, but doesn't surprise me. Non-PIV sex is even more amazing when you're young and horny, at least in my experience. But to people who started with quick PIV-and-run sex it's a very hard habit to break. Hopefully the increasingly permissive parenting (kids sleeping with their partners) will help change that. I was sleeping with mine from a very young age (because same-sex doesn't count, y'know)
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Emma Hart,
We really need to work over the paradigm of male arousal as being really easy and instant because they’re all total horndogs all the time and ergo you never have to work out what works for a guy because everything does.
I have had brief relationships with a couple of women who were convinced that all they had to do was lie there. And one who took sayings like "rod of iron" painfully literally. It felt as though she was trying to circumsize me with her bare hand. Actually, that's the one time I have literally run away from someone. Well, hobbled.
This might feed into the whole viagra thing too - if both men and women expect that the opportunity for sex is all that should be required, then as those men age and need more foreplay, they will be likely to conclude that they are defective and need drugs to fix the problem. The cynical part of me says yes, and that's why the drug industry is opposed to sex education.
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Russell Brown,
Had an orgasm without ejaculating? That's pleasant, if a tad confusing.
Regularly. Now that I'm old and tired it's more obvious to my partner (I lose interest in more sex), but I've been doing that since I was quite young, when it was more like a "can we pause just a sec.... ok, where were we?". It's really obvious to me when I have partners who just keep coming and coming and coming (like the energizer bunny but in reverse?) and every now and then one of their orgasms sets me off (again).
Which is another discussion that causes distress to sensitive readers... there's a whole ownership of concepts barrier that most men don't notice since it never applies to them. At least once I've had what amount to multiple orgasms, and was just lying there going "ooooh touch me again". But "only women do that".
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to B Jones,
Gardasil
Are you sure? I can't see any reference to that and it would be big news. I suspect you're confusing HPV and HSV (cancer vs cold sores/herpes).
-
Up Front: It's Not Sex, and It's Not Education, in reply to Russell Brown,
You did deserve to be heard
Oh, being heard wasn't hard. That's where male privilege is handy. Being believed is a whole nother story, and bob help anyone expecting to have that stuff acted on. I mean, it is quite threatening to be told you can't make your partner orgasm (just ask many men :). Also, being told your sexual response is wrong, can't be that way and you're clearly lying is... offputting. When what I'm saying conflicts with the babble about "condoms are essential and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic who must be shunned"... it's easier just to go along with the herd and accept that orgasms come from masturbation.
On the other hand, I've heard from a lot of guys who also haven't made the connection between sometimes ejaculation is amazing and sometimes it's a bit of a let-down. It's definitely not just women who don't connect those dots.
I wonder how much this also feeds into my lack of interest in casual sex and strong preference for committed relationships. I can't imagine having an orgasm from a casual sexual encounter, because I'm not willing to go without a condom and don't expect to orgasm from it. So it all seems like a lot of fuss for no reward.
-
Could I just chime in as another "not so much a fan of condoms" man, and also deeply skeptical of the "condoms prevent STDs" meme that's been hinted at.
I've used condoms reliably for a good part of my sexual history, and they never ceased to distress me. Partly because they brought the distinction between orgasm and ejaculation into sharp relief as I rarely orgasm wearing a condom but can usually manage to ejaculate eventually. Much of my early-20's sex life consisted of repeatedly explaining that there was a difference, it is important, and refusing to discuss it while remaining in a relationship with me isn't an option. I found men much less likely to have those issues than women, despite the myths about women being better communicators. Many women operated on really narrow views of male sexuality and weren't open to learning, while most of the men I've had sex with are more "what does it for you".
My experience of STDs has been entirely of the condoms-are-irrelevant ones - scabies, HSV-1 and HSV-2. I mean, you *could* prevent scabies transfer by using condoms, but it would make the "lecture with a condom over your head" picture seem restrained. I'm told that one advantage of the femidom is that it is significantly better at blocking HSV-2 transmission (and not just by making genital contact much less likely). I escaped HSV as much by good luck as good planning.
FWIW, my school sex education was entirely about the mechanical bits and didn't mention contraception at all. But that was the early 1980's. I was bemused that the school didn't cover anything that wasn't in "Where did I come from" when I was 13.
-
Hard News: Complaint and culture, in reply to Russell Brown,
perhaps even in a weekly half-hour programme on Sundays
MediaWatch FTW! It's one of those great programs that means I never have to actually watch commercial TV to get an idea of what they're like. Surely such a program is a basic part of public interest television?
Last week's was great - Jonathan Holmes had a sly dig at himself for getting something wrong the week before. It was correction full and proper, but the intro was something like "and one of those smart-arse little ABC programs got it all wrong last week". The line could have come straight from Quadrant.
-
Legal Beagle: Asking the next question, in reply to ScottY,
"bound by something they never saw, never signed and couldn't read"
Ah, so you know about software EULA's then.
I don't see why those conditions have any bearing on whether that particular document is binding. Our modern legal system has moved beyond those constraints. We have also moved beyond needing a conviction before punishment is applied (Arie), and even requiring the involvement of the legal system is optional (copyright).
Sheesh, you retro-legalistas with all your fancy talk in a dead language need to move into the century of the fruitbat with the rest of the world.
-
giovanni: having teachers in the same tax bracket at the CEO of Telecom sounds like an excellent plan to me.
Oh, you don't mean they should get a pay rise?
Maybe not then.
-
Deborah, I don't think I'm implying anything about you other than perhaps that you're happy with your behaviour. You never mentioned that you'd stopped, only that situations had arisen when you doubted consent but chose not to explicitly ask. The implication of your post is distasteful, yet you're criticising me for making it explicit?
To me this is simple "same rules, same rights, same responsibilities" stuff. If he has an obligation to question whether he has got consent and to explicitly ask if he doubts, so do you. If you want a double standard, justify it.
But yes, I'm getting upset by this so I will disappear.