So it's been in the offing for a while now, and frankly I was surprised they lasted this long. But that's getting ahead of myself.
I have been very busy the past few weeks. Busy and stressed. But Kate has been up my ass about coming over, said she'd cook me dinner, I could get some cock, she'd do whatever I wanted, just please come over. So one night, later than I thought was going to work, I called and said, "Hey, you guys still up?"
It's summer vacation, Kate didn't work the next day, so yes, they were up. Which was both exciting and annoying. Exciting because I was sort of happy to go get some, but annoying because I had been secretly hoping that they wouldn't be available and then at least it wouldn't have always been on me when we couldn't get together.
But I was already on the hook, and tired or not, I wasn't really expecting to get to sleep at that point, so I headed over. Kate was well into a bottle of wine when I got there, and God help me, Liam had a glass of it as well, and seemed like he was a little tipsy. He's not my kid. I wouldn't do it this way.
And then I noticed that Kevin had a glass too. It wasn't a huge glass. "Hey, what's up? Just having a nice wine night?"
Kate looked abashed. "I couldn't keep them from trying," she said. And so it all came out. Kevin was desperate to get some cock in his ass, by hook or by crook, and they were having me over to supervise. Not what I signed up for. But I couldn't say no because it was pretty clear that it was going to happen whether I helped or not.
"I've gotten the biggest plug all the way in, and Liam fucked my ass with it," Kevin said. He was tipsy too. Not at all the way I wanted this to go down. Kids, just because something isn't a good idea when you're sober doesn't magically make it a good idea when you're drunk.
But when Kevin showed off his skills with the biggest plug, I figured he was probably ready. Liam's cock isn't huge, and it would be slow and careful. And really, I've seen way less preparation. I guess I just didn't want to take responsibility, particularly if something went really wrong.
I let Kate lube Kevin's ass up. She really got into it, and even though he's not interested in girls, I hope the two of them can maybe share some anal play in the future to bond. It's not really fair that Liam gets all her loving. Not that she doesn't love Kevin, but just not physically.
Meanwhile, I didn't have to do much work to get Liam hard, but I wanted to get him off so he wouldn't be on a hair trigger and could concentrate a little. I told him, "If you promise to be slow and careful, I'll let you fuck my throat," which was the carrot, the stick being that if he hurt his brother he'd be in all kinds of shit, figurative and possibly literal. I didn't say that part though. Better to encourage good behavior than preemptively punish bad.
Liam enjoyed holding my hair and proving I have no gag reflex to speak of anymore, and then he pulled back and came on my tongue. I knew what he wanted, so I gave him the snowball, which was enjoyable and made me realize, as he pawed at my tits, that I was still dressed and everyone else was naked. I fixed that, then worked on Liam while his mom and brother waited expectantly until I got him hard again. I swear, youthful vigor is a wonderful thing. He has a refractory period, but it's minutes.
Then, after lubing him up so much he was practically dripping it onto the floor, Kevin got and hands and knees and I helped guide Liam's cock into his brother's ass, and it really was simpler than I expected. It started slow, Liam just working his cock in until he was balls-deep, and then moving in and out as Kevin adjusted and then demanded more. Kevin enjoyed it tremendously, and I credit preparation as much as predilection there, but Kevin was definitely happy to be full of cock.
They worked up a rhythm, and when Kate started stroking Kevin's cock lightly, he begged her to keep going. Like I said, he's not into girls, but a hand is a hand. He came hard, the cum splashing all over the floor without much warning, but Liam just kept fucking, and God bless the young, Kevin got hard again before Liam came in his ass. "I wanna fuck you now," he said, hungrily.
And that was how Kate and I wound up basically on our own and I didn't get any cock for a very long time. Kate is fun to eat out, but she's not great at giving rather than receiving, and we just did a lot of groping and kissing and then I ate several orgasms out of her while the boys went through several permutations, oral and anal on both sides, before Kevin said, "Okay, I'm running out of steam," after he pumped what was probably load number three into his brother's bowels.
"Mom, Lexi, can someone please finish me off?" asked Liam, who was hard and hungry for more. And so I finally got cock, and didn't care that it had already been in someone's ass. Didn't even clean it off. Well, actually, Kevin had sucked it clean, but there was nothing untoward about it, no mess, just some cum. I think I'm getting less squeamish about ass-to-pussy, at least until I get an infection for my trouble, which hasn't happened in a while.
Liam and his mother worked in tandem, him in my pussy, her with her finger up my ass and her lips around my nipples, and while they failed to get me off, it was relaxing not to have to do much work. When he came, I didn't really feel it, but his balls were probably empty by that point, so it was nice to just feel him press deep and then shudder inside me. There is something to be said for not cumming at the same time as your partner: you can concentrate on the sensations of their orgasm much more clearly, and sometimes those sensations are very pleasant.
Kate and Liam both wanted me to stay, but I couldn't, so it really was a visit of a few hours, not a whole day. Kate couldn't thank me enough for helping out. I'm still a little annoyed that she couldn't just have told me what was going on rather than springing it on me. I mean, I had said I was ready to help. I would have liked a bit more notice. But whatever. I'm told that the boys, now that they can truly share everything, have given Kate a breather, but Liam still wants his mom daily, so she's not getting left out. I worry a bit that they're all going to get some entangled that bad things will happen, but I can't really do anything about it, so I guess all I can do is get while the getting's good.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
TMI Tuesday
Because the last one wasn't terribly sexy, here's lots of sexy questions from the archives which I will answer in a profoundly un-sexy manner because no one ever asks me questions. Take that!
1. How often do you sext?
Never? Maybe once or twice in my life have I sent a text which could have been interpreted as a sext. Booty call texts, sure. But actually going back and forth? I don't even sex chat anymore.
2. How many dick pics have you sent in the last 3 months? 6 months? Year?
I have never sent a dick pic. Don't sound so surprised. If we're going to interpret this broadly as possible, I have sent pictures of myself in various states of undress maybe 5 times in the past year. I don't do it much. Occasionally I'll send someone something but it's usually not something I took right then. I'm shy and I know too many horror stories.
3. Do you prefer to send pics of your boobs or your vajayjay (aka pussy, in case you didn’t know)?
Probably boobs. I'm topless a lot, and the pussy seems more intimate. Which is strange, coming from me. I'm very nudity-positive. But I still guard the flower garden a bit more than the melon patch. It's a shame, in a way, because my tits aren't all that spectacular but I think my pussy is cute as hell.
4. Do you prefer to receive pics of boobs or a woman’s genitals?
Depends. I also like ass pictures, if anyone wants to send me some. I think I might prefer a holistic pic of the whole body to any specific body part. But if the pussy is pretty, I enjoy a pretty pussy. Boobs are great and more universally appealing, maybe. I don't know. I'm not terribly picky when it comes to ladies sending me sexy pictures.
5. Dick pics, do you really think they are sexy?
Unsolicited, not at all. Don't send unsolicited dick pics to anyone. You're not impressive, you're not sexy, you're just a douche. And even if your dick might otherwise be sexy, it won't be in context.
However, if I'm talking with someone and they send me a pic of their D in a nice way, that can be sexy, particularly if it's a sexy D. It's not going to make me cream my panties or anything, but I might enjoy it and compliment you on it.
I also, strangely, do appreciate a "tribute" (which is, for those like me who didn't know, a picture of a girl which a guy has ejaculated upon) to me, although it doesn't have to be on a picture of me. Knowing that I made you cum is sexy. Again, solicited: don't send me random pics of spooge. But if you read something I wrote and it makes you cum buckets and you decide to share that fact with me with pics for proof, I love that. Ladies, you can tell me all about how I made you cum too, although I understand that the pictorial evidence might be less photogenic. But guys and gals, if I write something sexy and you wank to it, I do not mind hearing about it. I'm not writing chaste poetry. Wank away, and if it makes you cum, I take that as a compliment.
6. Do you send unsolicited pics of your genitals?
No. Never. Why would I? It's unpleasant and it doesn't work and it's giving away the goods for free. Seriously guys (sorry, it's usually guys) don't do this. It's counterproductive. I honestly, given the current state of the world, would advise against sending too many solicited pics of your genitals. No one is as secure as they think they are.
7. Are you more impressed and willing to get to know, meet-up with, date, or have sex with someone who presents a “good dick pic” or “nice tits” pic?
Probably not. I don't know what a "good" one of those would be anyway. Sure, if you send me a pic of your naughty bits and they're nice, it might make me want to experience them in person, but it can be any pic. It's certainly not going to make me want to fuck you if I wouldn't have before.
Bonus: Just how sexy are you?
Magenta? What scale are we using here? I like to think that I'm reasonably sexy in certain circumstances. In day-to-day life, I'm probably a lot less sexy than you think I am. And in the bedroom, I'm a sex machine.
1. How often do you sext?
Never? Maybe once or twice in my life have I sent a text which could have been interpreted as a sext. Booty call texts, sure. But actually going back and forth? I don't even sex chat anymore.
2. How many dick pics have you sent in the last 3 months? 6 months? Year?
I have never sent a dick pic. Don't sound so surprised. If we're going to interpret this broadly as possible, I have sent pictures of myself in various states of undress maybe 5 times in the past year. I don't do it much. Occasionally I'll send someone something but it's usually not something I took right then. I'm shy and I know too many horror stories.
3. Do you prefer to send pics of your boobs or your vajayjay (aka pussy, in case you didn’t know)?
Probably boobs. I'm topless a lot, and the pussy seems more intimate. Which is strange, coming from me. I'm very nudity-positive. But I still guard the flower garden a bit more than the melon patch. It's a shame, in a way, because my tits aren't all that spectacular but I think my pussy is cute as hell.
4. Do you prefer to receive pics of boobs or a woman’s genitals?
Depends. I also like ass pictures, if anyone wants to send me some. I think I might prefer a holistic pic of the whole body to any specific body part. But if the pussy is pretty, I enjoy a pretty pussy. Boobs are great and more universally appealing, maybe. I don't know. I'm not terribly picky when it comes to ladies sending me sexy pictures.
5. Dick pics, do you really think they are sexy?
Unsolicited, not at all. Don't send unsolicited dick pics to anyone. You're not impressive, you're not sexy, you're just a douche. And even if your dick might otherwise be sexy, it won't be in context.
However, if I'm talking with someone and they send me a pic of their D in a nice way, that can be sexy, particularly if it's a sexy D. It's not going to make me cream my panties or anything, but I might enjoy it and compliment you on it.
I also, strangely, do appreciate a "tribute" (which is, for those like me who didn't know, a picture of a girl which a guy has ejaculated upon) to me, although it doesn't have to be on a picture of me. Knowing that I made you cum is sexy. Again, solicited: don't send me random pics of spooge. But if you read something I wrote and it makes you cum buckets and you decide to share that fact with me with pics for proof, I love that. Ladies, you can tell me all about how I made you cum too, although I understand that the pictorial evidence might be less photogenic. But guys and gals, if I write something sexy and you wank to it, I do not mind hearing about it. I'm not writing chaste poetry. Wank away, and if it makes you cum, I take that as a compliment.
6. Do you send unsolicited pics of your genitals?
No. Never. Why would I? It's unpleasant and it doesn't work and it's giving away the goods for free. Seriously guys (sorry, it's usually guys) don't do this. It's counterproductive. I honestly, given the current state of the world, would advise against sending too many solicited pics of your genitals. No one is as secure as they think they are.
7. Are you more impressed and willing to get to know, meet-up with, date, or have sex with someone who presents a “good dick pic” or “nice tits” pic?
Probably not. I don't know what a "good" one of those would be anyway. Sure, if you send me a pic of your naughty bits and they're nice, it might make me want to experience them in person, but it can be any pic. It's certainly not going to make me want to fuck you if I wouldn't have before.
Bonus: Just how sexy are you?
Magenta? What scale are we using here? I like to think that I'm reasonably sexy in certain circumstances. In day-to-day life, I'm probably a lot less sexy than you think I am. And in the bedroom, I'm a sex machine.
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Incest vs. Rape
An anonymous reader was kind enough to pose the following question/comment:
The issue, as I see it, is that many people don't have a meaningful understanding of consent. Our sexual morality is largely informed by the idea that sex can only be moral under certain circumstances, and usually those circumstances don't have anything to do with consent. People say that sex outside of marriage is immoral, or between two partners of the same gender (and my apologies to any trans people out there; I'm not implying anything, merely stating what other people seem to think), or between two people of different races (look up when the last anti-miscegenation law was repealed in this country; it may surprise you), or between more than two people, or between two people who are in relationships with other people, or between two people of different faiths, or any number of other permutations.
I believe one necessary precondition for moral sex is that the participants are consenting (it isn't the only precondition, but it is the first and most important). I won't go into consent here too much (for instance, consent isn't something which is given once, but must be continually given), but consent is something that must be present in order for a sex act to be moral. Anything without consent is rape. I don't care if you're married. I don't care if you've had sex a thousand times before. If you have sex with someone who isn't consenting for any reason, that's rape. There are things which are immoral even with consent, such as cheating, but sex without consent can never be moral.
So this book is a chronicle of rape and abuse to me, and in many ways it affects me more because of that than because of any incest. And that the sex was also incest affects me too, because it makes me sad that we live in a world where the only way people see incest is as rape, however justified that perception may be.
There are other aspects of the story (as presented by the review) that are troublesome as well. For one, her age. For another, the incest. But if she had been whatever legal age was for her situation and had her rapist been a total stranger, it still would have been rape and that still, for me, is the main issue.
As far as the age factor... it's complicated. I am not interested in joining NAMbLA, but I think the way we talk about and treat pedophilia is broken in this country. I could go on, but if you think talking about incest is difficult, try talking reasonably about pedophilia without offending someone. Let me just say that I don't think all child-rapists are pedophiles: they're rapists and they've found the perfect power imbalance to allow them to rape. There are plenty of pedophiles who never act on their attraction. Power, abuse, and exploitation know no age restrictions. And the fact that we can't talk about it because even talking about it seems like tacit support means that predators will continue to prey and we won't be able to figure out a solution.
And above all that a line-in-the-sand age of consent gives children no agency and ignores differences between people to the point where it's just a convenient fiction. Because we attach so much baggage to sex, we view sexual activity as something which destroys innocence and so by drawing that line, we protect children. But if we saw it as just another thing you do, and parents could make responsible decisions (which is asking a lot, I know), then perhaps children would grow up with the same permissions for sex as they have for crossing the street or staying out to a certain hour, determined by their individual readiness rather than a set rule. This is not to say that children should be able to seek out older strangers whenever their parents think they're ready and make all the pedophiles of the world very happy, but it does mean that sex, like all other aspects of life, would be something you'd grow into. I'm also not calling on all families to embrace incest. Maybe sexual play could be just another form of play, with children of the same age experimenting sexually as they experiment with other things (and if you don't think this already happens without adults knowing about it, you are very wrong). This will never happen, but it does have some historical precedent. And education about sex and consent would go a long way toward making sure that children were safe, even without strict prohibitions.
Plenty of people view those parents who let their kids experiment with alcohol or drugs or other things with parental supervision as fools. I don't think the argument that "they're going to do it anyway" is good enough. Simply letting kids do things they were going to do anyway isn't education, it's enabling. Which is why education is so important. It's not enough to say, "Well, kids, you're going to drink behind my back anyway, so here's a fifth of gin and stay in the house please." You've got to teach them that drinking an entire fifth of gin, whether or not your parents know about it, is not a good idea. And you can't spring it on them suddenly. In the same way, saying, "Well, I bet if I don't give you condoms and tell you and your friends to go up to your room and be safe while you fuck, you'll just go do it on the streetcorner without protection," isn't enough. Do all the kids even want to fuck? Do they have any idea what they're doing? Do they know what condoms are beyond "things you ought to wear during sex?" Do they understand consent beyond, "They said yes so I'm going to do whatever I want?" Parental supervision isn't just making sure they have a safe place to do unsafe things.
And here, I think my parents wish they could have done better. Because while we had a very good sexual education, we still did plenty of things behind their backs they wouldn't have approved of. Because nothing is perfect. I doubt very highly that there's any way to make sex perfect, any more than there's any way to make children or parents perfect. I just think that there's a different way to do things which would make it better. You may disagree and I'll listen. It's just my opinion, and I don't claim the moral high ground other than to say that if you think consent isn't a precondition for moral sex, I'm going to have a very hard time with any of the conclusions you draw.
Can incest be anything other than rape? I would argue that it can. There certainly is a power dynamic involved which could give one the belief that parents and children having sex cannot be fully consensual under any circumstances, and I appreciate that and don't believe that people who hold that view are bad people. For one thing, the way incest is typically portrayed in the popular consciousness only reinforces that belief. For another, sex between people of different power levels (boss-subordinate for example) is troublesome precisely because consent is in question when the subordinate cannot give consent because they are in a power imbalance. It's all very well to say that a lower-status individual can give informed consent, but can they? And is the status of parent sufficient to create that imbalance? These are difficult questions with no easy answers, and most of what is presented is cases where the high-power partner was in fact taking advantage of the power imbalance.
People have a visceral response to incest, and I acknowledge that. It's a taboo. People have a similar response to underage (whatever age we're under) sex as well. Both of these reactions are probably justified in society, and both are understandable. And if the story includes both, as well as abuse, then it's hard not to have those reactions.
But for me, the most important part was the rape. The author was repeatedly and systematically raped by a man, and those around her supported this by allowing it. Whether she was underage or his daughter matters less to me than that he abused and raped her.
More than that, I can't really say about the book. But you're probably not here for a book review or a discussion of consent.
My father has never raped me. By various legal definitions, he certainly has, and one could argue that I was of an age where I couldn't give informed consent, that I was groomed and thus never needed to be abused physically or forced, but that it was rape all the same because of consent issues. But legal definitions are hard and fast (no, get your mind out of the gutter, we're being serious) precisely because they cannot allow for exceptions or they fail. There's a reason why we have judges to determine the spirit of laws, both at the highest levels and the lowest. There's a reason why trials are about more than determining guilt or innocence before the letter of the law. We acknowledge that the letter of the law is absolute but cannot appropriately define the vastness of human experience.
You may believe that some things are in fact written in stone, no leeway, no allowances, 100% right or wrong. If so, I would agree, although we'd probably disagree about what those things are. And being so close to the case, as it were, I'm not really in a good position to judge dispassionately, and so I'm probably not a good person to decide.
But I have been raped by a man other than my father. And I have said no to my father, and my sisters, and my brother, and been respected. Mari has, for years, said no to sex with both my father and my brother, albeit not in so many words. She has withdrawn consent, and that has been respected. My father has never used sex to punish me, and if he enjoys our sex life, I would hate to think he didn't. I certainly enjoy it. And I didn't stop enjoying it at a certain point, nor did I initially not enjoy it and later come around to enjoying it. Am I a reliable witness? No, of course not. You could claim that my perceptions of the situation are colored by all sorts of things: I was pressured into it by my father's power over me; or I was abused but have repressed it in the same way that the author of this book clearly came to enjoy her abuse; or while I may now be able to give consent, I wasn't capable when I was younger and now the damage is done. I know these arguments. I live them.
At the end of the day, all I can say is that I was raised in a very sex-positive way, which happened to include incest, but I think I would have turned out similarly sex-positive had incest not occurred; I just would have had a lot of sex with non-family-members. Is raising a child sex-positive wrong? I don't think so, but that's my opinion.
Have I turned out messed up? Do I have an unhealthy relationship with sex? What is an unhealthy relationship with sex? I know that I don't have the same relationship with sex that most people have, but I know plenty of people who are as sex-positive as I am, if not more so, and they weren't abused as children and came to it later in life. But many people who police the morals of sex would lump us all into the same group, and maybe they're right. Maybe sex really should be a horrible, shameful thing that we only do for procreation and no one enjoys. I don't think so, and thus I don't think my attitude toward sex is immoral or unhealthy.
I am not a healthy person. I am not a paragon of perfection. If you expect that from anyone who holds different ideas about morality, you'll be waiting a long time. But I have introspected and thought and examined and I can't find anything wrong with my upbringing in general. Things happened when I was a kid which I acknowledge are probably not good things, and I've made plenty of bad decisions, but does that invalidate my childhood completely? I would argue no.
So, to return to the beginning, I feel sorry for this woman because she was raped by someone who should have loved her. I feel that way about people who are raped by anyone they trusted or should have been able to trust. And I feel sorry for her because if she had lived in a different world, maybe her father wouldn't have needed to rape her to get his jollies. Maybe he would have, because unfortunately there are people in the world who don't need to transgress taboos to take advantage of power. Many rapists don't want willing sex partners. They want to have control. And there are healthy ways of expressing that desire which are shut off for most people (D/s for one), but even with those available, there are still people who can't have any limits on power. There are people who never physically abuse anyone who still abuse their power and cause damage because they can and they enjoy it. Power, abuse, and exploitation don't desire permission.
As I said, I have been raped. It didn't affect me in the same way it affects some people because I don't have the same relationship with sex as many people. But it was still rape, and it still hurt (not really physically, but definitely mentally). And I have never felt that hurt with my family, not even at the worst of times, not even when we've been angry at each other (which, by the way, never involved sex; my family are passionate people and we yell a lot, but sex has never been about anger or power). And while I could be lying to you and myself, I don't believe I am. And at the end of the day, that's all I've got. I know a lot about myself, I know my flaws and broken places, and my family is not one of them. I don't know what else to say other than that.
That got long and wasn't sexy and probably pissed some people off, but you asked.
I saw this in the NY Times yesterday and thought of you. I haven't read the book, only the review. A penny for your thoughts?First off, I haven't read the book either, nor am I likely to for various reasons not having much to do with the book itself. So I can only speak to the review. But I'm happy to offer thoughts on the subject.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/books/review-anonymous-incest-diary.html
The issue, as I see it, is that many people don't have a meaningful understanding of consent. Our sexual morality is largely informed by the idea that sex can only be moral under certain circumstances, and usually those circumstances don't have anything to do with consent. People say that sex outside of marriage is immoral, or between two partners of the same gender (and my apologies to any trans people out there; I'm not implying anything, merely stating what other people seem to think), or between two people of different races (look up when the last anti-miscegenation law was repealed in this country; it may surprise you), or between more than two people, or between two people who are in relationships with other people, or between two people of different faiths, or any number of other permutations.
I believe one necessary precondition for moral sex is that the participants are consenting (it isn't the only precondition, but it is the first and most important). I won't go into consent here too much (for instance, consent isn't something which is given once, but must be continually given), but consent is something that must be present in order for a sex act to be moral. Anything without consent is rape. I don't care if you're married. I don't care if you've had sex a thousand times before. If you have sex with someone who isn't consenting for any reason, that's rape. There are things which are immoral even with consent, such as cheating, but sex without consent can never be moral.
So this book is a chronicle of rape and abuse to me, and in many ways it affects me more because of that than because of any incest. And that the sex was also incest affects me too, because it makes me sad that we live in a world where the only way people see incest is as rape, however justified that perception may be.
There are other aspects of the story (as presented by the review) that are troublesome as well. For one, her age. For another, the incest. But if she had been whatever legal age was for her situation and had her rapist been a total stranger, it still would have been rape and that still, for me, is the main issue.
As far as the age factor... it's complicated. I am not interested in joining NAMbLA, but I think the way we talk about and treat pedophilia is broken in this country. I could go on, but if you think talking about incest is difficult, try talking reasonably about pedophilia without offending someone. Let me just say that I don't think all child-rapists are pedophiles: they're rapists and they've found the perfect power imbalance to allow them to rape. There are plenty of pedophiles who never act on their attraction. Power, abuse, and exploitation know no age restrictions. And the fact that we can't talk about it because even talking about it seems like tacit support means that predators will continue to prey and we won't be able to figure out a solution.
And above all that a line-in-the-sand age of consent gives children no agency and ignores differences between people to the point where it's just a convenient fiction. Because we attach so much baggage to sex, we view sexual activity as something which destroys innocence and so by drawing that line, we protect children. But if we saw it as just another thing you do, and parents could make responsible decisions (which is asking a lot, I know), then perhaps children would grow up with the same permissions for sex as they have for crossing the street or staying out to a certain hour, determined by their individual readiness rather than a set rule. This is not to say that children should be able to seek out older strangers whenever their parents think they're ready and make all the pedophiles of the world very happy, but it does mean that sex, like all other aspects of life, would be something you'd grow into. I'm also not calling on all families to embrace incest. Maybe sexual play could be just another form of play, with children of the same age experimenting sexually as they experiment with other things (and if you don't think this already happens without adults knowing about it, you are very wrong). This will never happen, but it does have some historical precedent. And education about sex and consent would go a long way toward making sure that children were safe, even without strict prohibitions.
Plenty of people view those parents who let their kids experiment with alcohol or drugs or other things with parental supervision as fools. I don't think the argument that "they're going to do it anyway" is good enough. Simply letting kids do things they were going to do anyway isn't education, it's enabling. Which is why education is so important. It's not enough to say, "Well, kids, you're going to drink behind my back anyway, so here's a fifth of gin and stay in the house please." You've got to teach them that drinking an entire fifth of gin, whether or not your parents know about it, is not a good idea. And you can't spring it on them suddenly. In the same way, saying, "Well, I bet if I don't give you condoms and tell you and your friends to go up to your room and be safe while you fuck, you'll just go do it on the streetcorner without protection," isn't enough. Do all the kids even want to fuck? Do they have any idea what they're doing? Do they know what condoms are beyond "things you ought to wear during sex?" Do they understand consent beyond, "They said yes so I'm going to do whatever I want?" Parental supervision isn't just making sure they have a safe place to do unsafe things.
And here, I think my parents wish they could have done better. Because while we had a very good sexual education, we still did plenty of things behind their backs they wouldn't have approved of. Because nothing is perfect. I doubt very highly that there's any way to make sex perfect, any more than there's any way to make children or parents perfect. I just think that there's a different way to do things which would make it better. You may disagree and I'll listen. It's just my opinion, and I don't claim the moral high ground other than to say that if you think consent isn't a precondition for moral sex, I'm going to have a very hard time with any of the conclusions you draw.
Can incest be anything other than rape? I would argue that it can. There certainly is a power dynamic involved which could give one the belief that parents and children having sex cannot be fully consensual under any circumstances, and I appreciate that and don't believe that people who hold that view are bad people. For one thing, the way incest is typically portrayed in the popular consciousness only reinforces that belief. For another, sex between people of different power levels (boss-subordinate for example) is troublesome precisely because consent is in question when the subordinate cannot give consent because they are in a power imbalance. It's all very well to say that a lower-status individual can give informed consent, but can they? And is the status of parent sufficient to create that imbalance? These are difficult questions with no easy answers, and most of what is presented is cases where the high-power partner was in fact taking advantage of the power imbalance.
People have a visceral response to incest, and I acknowledge that. It's a taboo. People have a similar response to underage (whatever age we're under) sex as well. Both of these reactions are probably justified in society, and both are understandable. And if the story includes both, as well as abuse, then it's hard not to have those reactions.
But for me, the most important part was the rape. The author was repeatedly and systematically raped by a man, and those around her supported this by allowing it. Whether she was underage or his daughter matters less to me than that he abused and raped her.
More than that, I can't really say about the book. But you're probably not here for a book review or a discussion of consent.
My father has never raped me. By various legal definitions, he certainly has, and one could argue that I was of an age where I couldn't give informed consent, that I was groomed and thus never needed to be abused physically or forced, but that it was rape all the same because of consent issues. But legal definitions are hard and fast (no, get your mind out of the gutter, we're being serious) precisely because they cannot allow for exceptions or they fail. There's a reason why we have judges to determine the spirit of laws, both at the highest levels and the lowest. There's a reason why trials are about more than determining guilt or innocence before the letter of the law. We acknowledge that the letter of the law is absolute but cannot appropriately define the vastness of human experience.
You may believe that some things are in fact written in stone, no leeway, no allowances, 100% right or wrong. If so, I would agree, although we'd probably disagree about what those things are. And being so close to the case, as it were, I'm not really in a good position to judge dispassionately, and so I'm probably not a good person to decide.
But I have been raped by a man other than my father. And I have said no to my father, and my sisters, and my brother, and been respected. Mari has, for years, said no to sex with both my father and my brother, albeit not in so many words. She has withdrawn consent, and that has been respected. My father has never used sex to punish me, and if he enjoys our sex life, I would hate to think he didn't. I certainly enjoy it. And I didn't stop enjoying it at a certain point, nor did I initially not enjoy it and later come around to enjoying it. Am I a reliable witness? No, of course not. You could claim that my perceptions of the situation are colored by all sorts of things: I was pressured into it by my father's power over me; or I was abused but have repressed it in the same way that the author of this book clearly came to enjoy her abuse; or while I may now be able to give consent, I wasn't capable when I was younger and now the damage is done. I know these arguments. I live them.
At the end of the day, all I can say is that I was raised in a very sex-positive way, which happened to include incest, but I think I would have turned out similarly sex-positive had incest not occurred; I just would have had a lot of sex with non-family-members. Is raising a child sex-positive wrong? I don't think so, but that's my opinion.
Have I turned out messed up? Do I have an unhealthy relationship with sex? What is an unhealthy relationship with sex? I know that I don't have the same relationship with sex that most people have, but I know plenty of people who are as sex-positive as I am, if not more so, and they weren't abused as children and came to it later in life. But many people who police the morals of sex would lump us all into the same group, and maybe they're right. Maybe sex really should be a horrible, shameful thing that we only do for procreation and no one enjoys. I don't think so, and thus I don't think my attitude toward sex is immoral or unhealthy.
I am not a healthy person. I am not a paragon of perfection. If you expect that from anyone who holds different ideas about morality, you'll be waiting a long time. But I have introspected and thought and examined and I can't find anything wrong with my upbringing in general. Things happened when I was a kid which I acknowledge are probably not good things, and I've made plenty of bad decisions, but does that invalidate my childhood completely? I would argue no.
So, to return to the beginning, I feel sorry for this woman because she was raped by someone who should have loved her. I feel that way about people who are raped by anyone they trusted or should have been able to trust. And I feel sorry for her because if she had lived in a different world, maybe her father wouldn't have needed to rape her to get his jollies. Maybe he would have, because unfortunately there are people in the world who don't need to transgress taboos to take advantage of power. Many rapists don't want willing sex partners. They want to have control. And there are healthy ways of expressing that desire which are shut off for most people (D/s for one), but even with those available, there are still people who can't have any limits on power. There are people who never physically abuse anyone who still abuse their power and cause damage because they can and they enjoy it. Power, abuse, and exploitation don't desire permission.
As I said, I have been raped. It didn't affect me in the same way it affects some people because I don't have the same relationship with sex as many people. But it was still rape, and it still hurt (not really physically, but definitely mentally). And I have never felt that hurt with my family, not even at the worst of times, not even when we've been angry at each other (which, by the way, never involved sex; my family are passionate people and we yell a lot, but sex has never been about anger or power). And while I could be lying to you and myself, I don't believe I am. And at the end of the day, that's all I've got. I know a lot about myself, I know my flaws and broken places, and my family is not one of them. I don't know what else to say other than that.
That got long and wasn't sexy and probably pissed some people off, but you asked.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
TMI Tuesday
From the archives because no one ever asks me questions which you totally can do. I'm very nice. Email me. Comment. Tweet. If it's a question worth answering on the blog I will, and if not, or you just want to say, "Hi," I'm fine with that too. Read this. You'll notice how pretty much unsexy it is. You can fix that by asking good sexy questions for me to answer.
1. What would you do to leave a great impression with a person on your first date?
Fuck? I mean, that usually works for me if that's the kind of impression I'm trying to leave. But if we're talking on a more interpersonal level as opposed to merely guaranteeing that they remember me, it depends. I make pretty decent conversation about a lot of things. I might dress up if that seems like the kind of thing which is called for. I don't know, really; I haven't been on so many dates that I have a set playlist or anything. Unless it's the sort of date where we fuck, in which case my answer is, "Fuck their brains out."
2. Do you usually follow your heart or your head?
My heart is pretty stupid. My head is too. My head also overthinks things, so it usually gets the last word in. If I can make it seem like the smart thing to do to follow my heart, then I'll do that, but I'd say it's probably my head most times. That's not a ringing endorsement of my choices, by the way.
3. If your significant other told you to jump off a tall cliff and told you that you’ll land safely because there’s a net you can’t see yet, would you blindly trust your s.o. and jump?
Hell no, not because I don't trust her, but because I would need more than just, "Oh, it'll be fine," to get me to jump off a cliff. I would only do it if it were for some purpose, like saving someone's life or something. And then I wouldn't require assurances that I would be okay. If I were going to do it, I'd care more about why than whether I would survive, in terms of the mental calculus. I don't view cliff-jumping as a fun-time activity
4. How do you support your significant other?
Emotionally, sexually, as financially as I can. I'm there for Sveta when she needs me. I try my best. It kills me when I have to say no to her. It really does. And I don't do it lightly. But sometimes we can't afford it, or I can't do it, or whatever. And she understands, but it still kills me.
I would say the emotional support is where I'm best. Sveta needs sexual support too, because she, unlike me, doesn't have as much extracurricular fun. Partially because she's still quite shy about sex in a lot of ways, partially because she isn't comfortable with it like I am. So I fulfill her needs as best I can, or seek out help if I can't. But she'd be okay if the sexual stuff wasn't as supportive. Emotionally, I think I help the most.
5. What types of things or gestures/acts make you feel loved?
I'm a simple gal. I don't care about flowers or gifts, really. I'd rather get a handmade card which says, "I love you," than something expensive which doesn't. Not that I don't like gifts, but I don't need them to feel loved. When I come to bed and Sveta curls around me in her sleep, that's wonderful. That makes me feel loved. When she says, "I love you," randomly. When she smiles at me.
I'm bad about saying, "I love you," not because I don't feel it or think that it's a big deal. Just that I don't think of it. I've been in too many relationships where it either wasn't true or it was unstated for whatever reason. So I try hard to tell Sveta I love her.
But it's more than saying it. Love isn't a feeling or a thing you say, it's a thing you do. Love is action. You show love. And simply saying, "I love you," isn't her showing love. But she doesn't, "simply" say it. She says it and I know she means it because of all the stuff which doesn't register as a gesture, but which is. That's what's important: saying it because you mean it because you've done it. I think you can love someone without ever saying it, but you should say it too. Just don't think that simply saying it is enough. It isn't. That's not love, that's something you say. "Good afternoon" used to mean we were wishing that someone would have a good afternoon, but it's just something you say now. Love can't be something you just say, but you should say it.
6. What types of things or gestures/acts make you feel respected?
Listening to me. Including me in a discussion which affects me or something I care about. Not lying. Treating me like a human. I don't even need "equal" because sometimes it's a boss or someone who is not your equal. But treating me like we're both humans goes a long way.
I bristle at hierarchies. And I hate working for people who don't respect me. But I will be loyal as fuck if you give me cause for it. If you treat me properly.
That's all about working. As far as personal relationships go, listening and remembering the important stuff. I don't care if you forget we talked about something unimportant, but if it's important to me and you disregard that, then I don't feel respected. I get that people don't have great memories (mine is awful) so I also accept apologies when people forget. But you have to get that it's a reason to apologize. I shouldn't have to tell you that it is.
7. Can you have emotional intimacy without physical intimacy? Explain.
Good lord yes. I know that sounds strange coming from me, but I believe you can have physical intimacy without emotional, so why wouldn't it work the other way? Sex is just a thing we do, people. If it helps you be more connected, that's great, but it's not a prerequisite any more than jumping off a cliff together or going through a war or something. It builds emotional intimacy when that's what you're doing, but fucking someone doesn't forge an emotional connection with them. We need to stop thinking that because it's screwing with our collective heads.
I am extremely emotionally intimate with my mother, and we've never had sex. I have dear, dear friends with whom I've never had sex. Of all genders and persuasions. Some of them I would have sex with if it ever came up, but some I wouldn't. Some wouldn't have sex with me. And that's fine. I don't need to fuck everyone I love because why would I?
Bonus: In 2016, what was your most conflicted emotional moment?
Lord, I don't know. I don't even know that I know what "conflicted" means. It's a word people use when they don't want to get specific, or when they just want to use some buzzword. It's like "fraught" which now seems to mean "unpleasant" when it used to mean "filled with." You couldn't be "fraught" you had to be "fraught with peril" or "fraught with..." well, peril is the one everyone used to use, so I guess since "peril" now means "mild unpleasantness" they just shortened it so we wouldn't notice that they also devalued "peril."
Conflicted? Between what and what? If it's a conflict, it has to have sides. But that's not true any more.
Anyway, enough linguistics. Deciding what to do about Kate and Liam was a pretty big decision, although I kind of glossed that over in talking about it. In the end, it didn't have giant emotional stakes for me though.
I had to make several job-related decisions which were tough, but again, not really emotionally risky. I've hooked up with some people where maybe I had to think about it for a bit, but it wasn't like I was fighting my emotions.
We had to make a big decision financially about the health of one of our cats which was pretty difficult. On the one hand, a lot of money, even if we'd had enough money. Which we didn't. So putting a pricetag on love is tough. In the end, we found a way to get the money, even though there was a decent chance that it would be a waste. It wasn't; he survived and is still with us, and it was worth it even if we'd only gotten a few more months with him. I know some people don't understand spending money on animals, and I respectfully disagree. Maybe less than respectfully. Basically, if you feel that way, you're entitled to your opinion and please keep quite about it around me.
But I also wasn't super happy about what we had to do to get the money, which was a bit emotional for us as well. No, we didn't sell ourselves on the street. But borrowing money makes me incredibly squirmy. So there were emotions there too.
I'm sorry, you probably were hoping there would be a sexy story here. There isn't. That's basically what I could think of, "conflicted" wise.
1. What would you do to leave a great impression with a person on your first date?
Fuck? I mean, that usually works for me if that's the kind of impression I'm trying to leave. But if we're talking on a more interpersonal level as opposed to merely guaranteeing that they remember me, it depends. I make pretty decent conversation about a lot of things. I might dress up if that seems like the kind of thing which is called for. I don't know, really; I haven't been on so many dates that I have a set playlist or anything. Unless it's the sort of date where we fuck, in which case my answer is, "Fuck their brains out."
2. Do you usually follow your heart or your head?
My heart is pretty stupid. My head is too. My head also overthinks things, so it usually gets the last word in. If I can make it seem like the smart thing to do to follow my heart, then I'll do that, but I'd say it's probably my head most times. That's not a ringing endorsement of my choices, by the way.
3. If your significant other told you to jump off a tall cliff and told you that you’ll land safely because there’s a net you can’t see yet, would you blindly trust your s.o. and jump?
Hell no, not because I don't trust her, but because I would need more than just, "Oh, it'll be fine," to get me to jump off a cliff. I would only do it if it were for some purpose, like saving someone's life or something. And then I wouldn't require assurances that I would be okay. If I were going to do it, I'd care more about why than whether I would survive, in terms of the mental calculus. I don't view cliff-jumping as a fun-time activity
4. How do you support your significant other?
Emotionally, sexually, as financially as I can. I'm there for Sveta when she needs me. I try my best. It kills me when I have to say no to her. It really does. And I don't do it lightly. But sometimes we can't afford it, or I can't do it, or whatever. And she understands, but it still kills me.
I would say the emotional support is where I'm best. Sveta needs sexual support too, because she, unlike me, doesn't have as much extracurricular fun. Partially because she's still quite shy about sex in a lot of ways, partially because she isn't comfortable with it like I am. So I fulfill her needs as best I can, or seek out help if I can't. But she'd be okay if the sexual stuff wasn't as supportive. Emotionally, I think I help the most.
5. What types of things or gestures/acts make you feel loved?
I'm a simple gal. I don't care about flowers or gifts, really. I'd rather get a handmade card which says, "I love you," than something expensive which doesn't. Not that I don't like gifts, but I don't need them to feel loved. When I come to bed and Sveta curls around me in her sleep, that's wonderful. That makes me feel loved. When she says, "I love you," randomly. When she smiles at me.
I'm bad about saying, "I love you," not because I don't feel it or think that it's a big deal. Just that I don't think of it. I've been in too many relationships where it either wasn't true or it was unstated for whatever reason. So I try hard to tell Sveta I love her.
But it's more than saying it. Love isn't a feeling or a thing you say, it's a thing you do. Love is action. You show love. And simply saying, "I love you," isn't her showing love. But she doesn't, "simply" say it. She says it and I know she means it because of all the stuff which doesn't register as a gesture, but which is. That's what's important: saying it because you mean it because you've done it. I think you can love someone without ever saying it, but you should say it too. Just don't think that simply saying it is enough. It isn't. That's not love, that's something you say. "Good afternoon" used to mean we were wishing that someone would have a good afternoon, but it's just something you say now. Love can't be something you just say, but you should say it.
6. What types of things or gestures/acts make you feel respected?
Listening to me. Including me in a discussion which affects me or something I care about. Not lying. Treating me like a human. I don't even need "equal" because sometimes it's a boss or someone who is not your equal. But treating me like we're both humans goes a long way.
I bristle at hierarchies. And I hate working for people who don't respect me. But I will be loyal as fuck if you give me cause for it. If you treat me properly.
That's all about working. As far as personal relationships go, listening and remembering the important stuff. I don't care if you forget we talked about something unimportant, but if it's important to me and you disregard that, then I don't feel respected. I get that people don't have great memories (mine is awful) so I also accept apologies when people forget. But you have to get that it's a reason to apologize. I shouldn't have to tell you that it is.
7. Can you have emotional intimacy without physical intimacy? Explain.
Good lord yes. I know that sounds strange coming from me, but I believe you can have physical intimacy without emotional, so why wouldn't it work the other way? Sex is just a thing we do, people. If it helps you be more connected, that's great, but it's not a prerequisite any more than jumping off a cliff together or going through a war or something. It builds emotional intimacy when that's what you're doing, but fucking someone doesn't forge an emotional connection with them. We need to stop thinking that because it's screwing with our collective heads.
I am extremely emotionally intimate with my mother, and we've never had sex. I have dear, dear friends with whom I've never had sex. Of all genders and persuasions. Some of them I would have sex with if it ever came up, but some I wouldn't. Some wouldn't have sex with me. And that's fine. I don't need to fuck everyone I love because why would I?
Bonus: In 2016, what was your most conflicted emotional moment?
Lord, I don't know. I don't even know that I know what "conflicted" means. It's a word people use when they don't want to get specific, or when they just want to use some buzzword. It's like "fraught" which now seems to mean "unpleasant" when it used to mean "filled with." You couldn't be "fraught" you had to be "fraught with peril" or "fraught with..." well, peril is the one everyone used to use, so I guess since "peril" now means "mild unpleasantness" they just shortened it so we wouldn't notice that they also devalued "peril."
Conflicted? Between what and what? If it's a conflict, it has to have sides. But that's not true any more.
Anyway, enough linguistics. Deciding what to do about Kate and Liam was a pretty big decision, although I kind of glossed that over in talking about it. In the end, it didn't have giant emotional stakes for me though.
I had to make several job-related decisions which were tough, but again, not really emotionally risky. I've hooked up with some people where maybe I had to think about it for a bit, but it wasn't like I was fighting my emotions.
We had to make a big decision financially about the health of one of our cats which was pretty difficult. On the one hand, a lot of money, even if we'd had enough money. Which we didn't. So putting a pricetag on love is tough. In the end, we found a way to get the money, even though there was a decent chance that it would be a waste. It wasn't; he survived and is still with us, and it was worth it even if we'd only gotten a few more months with him. I know some people don't understand spending money on animals, and I respectfully disagree. Maybe less than respectfully. Basically, if you feel that way, you're entitled to your opinion and please keep quite about it around me.
But I also wasn't super happy about what we had to do to get the money, which was a bit emotional for us as well. No, we didn't sell ourselves on the street. But borrowing money makes me incredibly squirmy. So there were emotions there too.
I'm sorry, you probably were hoping there would be a sexy story here. There isn't. That's basically what I could think of, "conflicted" wise.
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
TMI Tuesday
From the archives:
1. Have you ever tested someone’s love for you? What did you do? Did things turn out as you expected or hoped?
I don't think so. I mean, I've probably tested someone's love in a "you're testing my patience" kind of way, but never intentionally, as in "I'm going to try to figure out whether this person really loves me." That seems a little unhealthy to me. And while I am unhealthy in plenty of ways, that's not one of them.
It may also be because I haven't had a tremendous amount of love to test. I mean, I've loved some people, but for the most part the people who I would test, I never really expected them to pass. That's terrible to say, but I get that there are limits on love most of the time.
I've tested someone's intentions before. Like if I was pretty sure that a guy was only going out with me because he thought he could get into my skirt, I might react badly to that. I mean, I'm totally okay with only being in it for sex, but I don't like pretense. If you're straightforward and you make it clear that this is just about sex, I will put out like a rabbit sailor on shoreleave. But I've twisted the knife a little, made guys do things I knew they didn't want to do, just to see if they'd either come out with it and admit that they were only looking to fuck, or to see if they were worth fucking. But that wasn't love. That was affection or attraction, maybe.
I did test one guy's respect for me by flirting with another guy while he was around. He didn't pass. And it wasn't like he didn't know what was up; I told him that we were not exclusive and he said he was okay with that. But then he got very jealous over nothing. We discussed it, he claimed he had overreacted and he was still fine with the arrangement, but I was pretty sure he wasn't, so I laid it on a little thick and he flew off the handle, so I told him that was it. But again, that wasn't love. That was boundaries, respect, communication, whatever. I was doing him a favor; he would have gone crazy if I'd actually done what I said I was going to do and been non-exclusive in a sexual way.
I don't blame him, really; most people can't handle it, no matter how much they say they can. But I think he saw it as free license for him to "cheat" on me (and I didn't give a shit) but that I had to be at his beck and call. And frankly, even if I weren't who I am, that wasn't going to happen. I'm not a beck-and-call kind of girl.
2. Select the answer that best fits your experience. I have dated:
a. all the wrong people
b. romantic companions that were mostly a good fit for me.
c. people that were perfect fits–loves at first sight
d. not all that much, I mainly have had a lot of long term relationships
Lord, I haven't dated that many people. I know it seems like it, but I don't call it a "date" when it's basically nothing but sex and there's no real plan for anything else. Of the people I've actually dated, Probably (b) with a smattering of (a) for spice. Lord knows one of my longest relationships was all wrong. Sveta definitely is a good fit for me. I've had other decent fits as well. And a few others who were wrong for me but weren't bad people, per se. But I can't say (d) because I've dated enough people that it wouldn't be true. It doesn't seem like these answers are mutually exclusive.
And what about (c)? Seems like a pretty dim lookout if you've dated a bunch of people, more than enough that (d) doesn't apply, who were all perfect and love and first sight. Seems like either you've got a very low bar for that, or you're fooling yourself.
These options aren't very good. I would say that I've dated less than you'd think, I've had a few long-term relationships, some with the right people, and my dating tends to be short-term and sexually-oriented, if you can even call that dating.
3. Online dating: What is your success rate? What do you consider success?
Never done it. Never cared to. It's not that I have anything against it, but I've never been looking for love in that way. I suppose if I were looking for other things, I could seek them online as well, but until I get desperate enough for that, I'll probably do it the old-fashioned way.
4. What sexual thing do you do most often that you could commit to doing everyday?
Masturbation? Eating a pussy? I could do either of those every day, and do them most days.
5. What are your thoughts on love and lust?
I think you can have both. But I don't know that I believe that love requires lust. Love is more of a holistic thing, but lust is genitals. I lust after all kinds of people, some of whom I get express my lust with. Love is harder. It's not a feeling as much as it is a way of being. If you love someone, it's not necessarily going to make you cream your shorts.
I also think lust is overrated. I fuck all kinds of people for whom I don't feel that much lust. I don't need sheer animal attraction to enjoy a romp with someone. And lust makes you stupid. Better to be attracted to someone and want to fuck them, but not be blind with animal lust. Lust I usually reserve these days for things I will never have, and it's probably better that way.
Bonus: Are you searching for love or are you searching for attention?
I don't know that I'm searching for either. I'm not going to lie: attention of the right sort is very nice. And I've got love and feel no deficit there, so I guess attention? But only of certain kinds. Random catcalls and hooting aren't my thing, nor do I want to be the center of attention in a group. I don't know.
1. Have you ever tested someone’s love for you? What did you do? Did things turn out as you expected or hoped?
I don't think so. I mean, I've probably tested someone's love in a "you're testing my patience" kind of way, but never intentionally, as in "I'm going to try to figure out whether this person really loves me." That seems a little unhealthy to me. And while I am unhealthy in plenty of ways, that's not one of them.
It may also be because I haven't had a tremendous amount of love to test. I mean, I've loved some people, but for the most part the people who I would test, I never really expected them to pass. That's terrible to say, but I get that there are limits on love most of the time.
I've tested someone's intentions before. Like if I was pretty sure that a guy was only going out with me because he thought he could get into my skirt, I might react badly to that. I mean, I'm totally okay with only being in it for sex, but I don't like pretense. If you're straightforward and you make it clear that this is just about sex, I will put out like a rabbit sailor on shoreleave. But I've twisted the knife a little, made guys do things I knew they didn't want to do, just to see if they'd either come out with it and admit that they were only looking to fuck, or to see if they were worth fucking. But that wasn't love. That was affection or attraction, maybe.
I did test one guy's respect for me by flirting with another guy while he was around. He didn't pass. And it wasn't like he didn't know what was up; I told him that we were not exclusive and he said he was okay with that. But then he got very jealous over nothing. We discussed it, he claimed he had overreacted and he was still fine with the arrangement, but I was pretty sure he wasn't, so I laid it on a little thick and he flew off the handle, so I told him that was it. But again, that wasn't love. That was boundaries, respect, communication, whatever. I was doing him a favor; he would have gone crazy if I'd actually done what I said I was going to do and been non-exclusive in a sexual way.
I don't blame him, really; most people can't handle it, no matter how much they say they can. But I think he saw it as free license for him to "cheat" on me (and I didn't give a shit) but that I had to be at his beck and call. And frankly, even if I weren't who I am, that wasn't going to happen. I'm not a beck-and-call kind of girl.
2. Select the answer that best fits your experience. I have dated:
a. all the wrong people
b. romantic companions that were mostly a good fit for me.
c. people that were perfect fits–loves at first sight
d. not all that much, I mainly have had a lot of long term relationships
Lord, I haven't dated that many people. I know it seems like it, but I don't call it a "date" when it's basically nothing but sex and there's no real plan for anything else. Of the people I've actually dated, Probably (b) with a smattering of (a) for spice. Lord knows one of my longest relationships was all wrong. Sveta definitely is a good fit for me. I've had other decent fits as well. And a few others who were wrong for me but weren't bad people, per se. But I can't say (d) because I've dated enough people that it wouldn't be true. It doesn't seem like these answers are mutually exclusive.
And what about (c)? Seems like a pretty dim lookout if you've dated a bunch of people, more than enough that (d) doesn't apply, who were all perfect and love and first sight. Seems like either you've got a very low bar for that, or you're fooling yourself.
These options aren't very good. I would say that I've dated less than you'd think, I've had a few long-term relationships, some with the right people, and my dating tends to be short-term and sexually-oriented, if you can even call that dating.
3. Online dating: What is your success rate? What do you consider success?
Never done it. Never cared to. It's not that I have anything against it, but I've never been looking for love in that way. I suppose if I were looking for other things, I could seek them online as well, but until I get desperate enough for that, I'll probably do it the old-fashioned way.
4. What sexual thing do you do most often that you could commit to doing everyday?
Masturbation? Eating a pussy? I could do either of those every day, and do them most days.
5. What are your thoughts on love and lust?
I think you can have both. But I don't know that I believe that love requires lust. Love is more of a holistic thing, but lust is genitals. I lust after all kinds of people, some of whom I get express my lust with. Love is harder. It's not a feeling as much as it is a way of being. If you love someone, it's not necessarily going to make you cream your shorts.
I also think lust is overrated. I fuck all kinds of people for whom I don't feel that much lust. I don't need sheer animal attraction to enjoy a romp with someone. And lust makes you stupid. Better to be attracted to someone and want to fuck them, but not be blind with animal lust. Lust I usually reserve these days for things I will never have, and it's probably better that way.
Bonus: Are you searching for love or are you searching for attention?
I don't know that I'm searching for either. I'm not going to lie: attention of the right sort is very nice. And I've got love and feel no deficit there, so I guess attention? But only of certain kinds. Random catcalls and hooting aren't my thing, nor do I want to be the center of attention in a group. I don't know.
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
TMI Tuesday
I know, it's July 4th. Maybe I'll have some fireworks in another post. For now, this is what you get. And it's not sexy at all (unless you like the idea of me as a muppet fucking Elmo, in which case you should keep that quiet because there are watchlists and so forth and I would never encourage that kind of thinking). Boo.
From the archives:
1. If you were forced to wear a warning label, what would yours say?
"Warning: Flammable." I don't know. "Sexy when wet?" "Plays a little too well with others?" "May become naked at any time?" Those don't seem like warnings, more like advertisements. I think "Flammable" sums up a good warning for me. Take it any way you like.
2. If you were a Sesame Street character, which one would you be?
Is there a sexy muppet? Probably not on Sesame Street. I never watched it as a kid so I'm really not that familiar with the cast of characters. Oscar the Grouch seems like a fit for me sometimes, personality-wise, but he's not really sexy. Maybe that girl muppet with the fairy wand whose name I don't know, but I'd wind up fucking Elmo or something and that would be awkward in so many ways. Can I be a sexy vampire version of The Count? I've always liked him.
3. If you could have an endless supply of a candy or baked good, what would you get?
Brownies. I love brownies, and if I had to pick one baked good for the rest of my life, that would probably be it. Or you can just keep me supplied with good dark chocolate. I'm really easy to bake for: instead of putting in any work, buy me a bag of chocolate chips.
4. Who is your favorite villain? Why?
So many to choose from. If we're going Batman, Mr. Freeze (and don't even talk to me about Arnold). I think he's one of the most interesting villains, good backstory, pathos, the whole deal. I don't know many other comic books. I guess in X-Men, Magneto, but only because I love me some Ian McKellen. The comic version is less interesting to me. Bond villains... I actually think the duo in The World is Not Enough are underappreciated, but I also want to fuck Sophie Marceau until the balls I don't have explode. The gay hitmen from Diamonds Are Forever deserve their own spinoff (and if you want a podcast recommendation, I Was There Too talks to the guy who played one of them; he's a jazz musician and has interesting things to say, plus the whole podcast is chock full of interesting stuff if you're into behind-the-scenes things). Baron Samedi from Live and Let Die is great, but he's not really that developed as a character.
There are plenty of villains I enjoy but mostly because of what they're in. I mean, I love Star Wars, and Darth Vader wrote the book on being a villain in Star Wars, but I don't know that he would be my favorite villain. I love LoTR (books and movies) but again, while Sauron is frightening and Gollum is pathetic, they're not my favorite villains in and of themselves. I'm not that into Disney; I like the movies, but I'm not obsessed. I don't have a favorite Disney villain at all. There are some great choices, but they're not someone I want to put on my wall.
I think my favorite villain is a character I wouldn't even consider a villain: Wile E. Coyote. He's a Sophoclean anti-hero. I root for him, and yet I love to see him fail. A metaphor for life? I don't know. But I would watch that damn coyote over any other villain.
5. Are you more in tune with sunrise, daytime, sunset or nighttime?
These days, who knows? But I think nighttime is probably where I'm most in tune, if I can be said to be in tune with anything. Sunrise can eat my ass. I see it too often and it's never a good thing.
Bonus: If you took a job out of your current career path, what job would you take?
Something either artsy or craftsy. I would love to either become a blacksmith or glassblower. Or make sculptures. Or do woodworking.
Why am I not doing these things? Well, I don't know how to do some of them, and others I don't have the money to start, and all of them I don't have the energy. I'm very enervated, guys. Being an artist takes passion which I lack. I would love to try them, but I don't feel passion about them or much of anything else, so I have to do what I can to survive rather than following dreams which I only vaguely have.
From the archives:
1. If you were forced to wear a warning label, what would yours say?
"Warning: Flammable." I don't know. "Sexy when wet?" "Plays a little too well with others?" "May become naked at any time?" Those don't seem like warnings, more like advertisements. I think "Flammable" sums up a good warning for me. Take it any way you like.
2. If you were a Sesame Street character, which one would you be?
Is there a sexy muppet? Probably not on Sesame Street. I never watched it as a kid so I'm really not that familiar with the cast of characters. Oscar the Grouch seems like a fit for me sometimes, personality-wise, but he's not really sexy. Maybe that girl muppet with the fairy wand whose name I don't know, but I'd wind up fucking Elmo or something and that would be awkward in so many ways. Can I be a sexy vampire version of The Count? I've always liked him.
3. If you could have an endless supply of a candy or baked good, what would you get?
Brownies. I love brownies, and if I had to pick one baked good for the rest of my life, that would probably be it. Or you can just keep me supplied with good dark chocolate. I'm really easy to bake for: instead of putting in any work, buy me a bag of chocolate chips.
4. Who is your favorite villain? Why?
So many to choose from. If we're going Batman, Mr. Freeze (and don't even talk to me about Arnold). I think he's one of the most interesting villains, good backstory, pathos, the whole deal. I don't know many other comic books. I guess in X-Men, Magneto, but only because I love me some Ian McKellen. The comic version is less interesting to me. Bond villains... I actually think the duo in The World is Not Enough are underappreciated, but I also want to fuck Sophie Marceau until the balls I don't have explode. The gay hitmen from Diamonds Are Forever deserve their own spinoff (and if you want a podcast recommendation, I Was There Too talks to the guy who played one of them; he's a jazz musician and has interesting things to say, plus the whole podcast is chock full of interesting stuff if you're into behind-the-scenes things). Baron Samedi from Live and Let Die is great, but he's not really that developed as a character.
There are plenty of villains I enjoy but mostly because of what they're in. I mean, I love Star Wars, and Darth Vader wrote the book on being a villain in Star Wars, but I don't know that he would be my favorite villain. I love LoTR (books and movies) but again, while Sauron is frightening and Gollum is pathetic, they're not my favorite villains in and of themselves. I'm not that into Disney; I like the movies, but I'm not obsessed. I don't have a favorite Disney villain at all. There are some great choices, but they're not someone I want to put on my wall.
I think my favorite villain is a character I wouldn't even consider a villain: Wile E. Coyote. He's a Sophoclean anti-hero. I root for him, and yet I love to see him fail. A metaphor for life? I don't know. But I would watch that damn coyote over any other villain.
5. Are you more in tune with sunrise, daytime, sunset or nighttime?
These days, who knows? But I think nighttime is probably where I'm most in tune, if I can be said to be in tune with anything. Sunrise can eat my ass. I see it too often and it's never a good thing.
Bonus: If you took a job out of your current career path, what job would you take?
Something either artsy or craftsy. I would love to either become a blacksmith or glassblower. Or make sculptures. Or do woodworking.
Why am I not doing these things? Well, I don't know how to do some of them, and others I don't have the money to start, and all of them I don't have the energy. I'm very enervated, guys. Being an artist takes passion which I lack. I would love to try them, but I don't feel passion about them or much of anything else, so I have to do what I can to survive rather than following dreams which I only vaguely have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)