InspiredbyYou Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 However, that being said, I think it's important to realize that no matter what you may think of someone's sexual practices, it shouldn't necessarily cast doubt on other facets of someone's core values/integrity/personality/intelligence/emotional attributes/etc. Again, I could argue that anyone who enjoys blowjobs is secretly into powertripping -- we know this is not the case. Likewise, it may be unfair to generalize this woman and pigeonhole her into some derogatory category just because they happen to have a particular sexual desire you find offputting. . So what you are saying is that for example if a guy told you he was using his children's panties to jerk off, you would be accepting of that so long as he is not doing anything to the children because it is his sexual fetish and we should just accept people's differences?
Author DustySaltus Posted January 7, 2010 Author Posted January 7, 2010 So what you are saying is that for example if a guy told you he was using his children's panties to jerk off, you would be accepting of that so long as he is not doing anything to the children because it is his sexual fetish and we should just accept people's differences? This is the problem....Where do you draw the line?
Vertex Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Because no one is going to spray their bodily waste - BM or urine - on ME and I am not going to put my bodily waste in that manner on another person either. It is this idea that is so repulsive, and distinguishes it from semen, which is not part of the excretory system. I don't care about normal sexual practices as much as I care about sane ones. Alright, so you're saying one system's output is "sane" for consumption and the other is not suitable for mere contact? For what reasons? Most people would clearly be turned off/disgusted by poop for obvious reasons. But pee is sterile -- you're telling me you'd rather take an eggy gob of semen in the mouth instead of having someone pee on you? What makes you take one idea as "sane" and the other "insane"?
Malenfant Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Would anyone blame me if I ended it solely on this? no, of course not. we all have things we find unacceptable. you dont have to justify those things to people here, we're just giving our opinions. I made the mistake of asking a personal question on another forum once and boy oh boy did i get it. People telling me what i should and shouldnt do. No advice, just orders and no sympathy or empathy at all. Its your life and your relationship. you do what feels right for you.
threebyfate Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Would anyone blame me if I ended it solely on this?No, I wouldn't blame you at all. Sexuality in partners should be of a compatible nature. I suspect that this would erode on you, regardless if you participate or not. Or maybe I'm projecting, since I think this is gross and would be repulsed.
InspiredbyYou Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Would anyone blame me if I ended it solely on this? No I would not. But not because I agree or disagree with the act itself. I think you are entitled to end a relationship based on anything that just doesn't sit right with you that you feel might create negative repercussions down the line.
InspiredbyYou Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 You're comparing screwing animals and peeing on humans, here... fine I gave you an example of a guy who uses his kids panties to jerk off.
Vertex Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 So what you are saying is that for example if a guy told you he was using his children's panties to jerk off, you would be accepting of that so long as he is not doing anything to the children because it is his sexual fetish and we should just accept people's differences? Of course I'd find that unacceptable! I'm not saying "allow everything and be 100% openminded regardless of its implications." I'm saying that you should judge something on its merits. Peeing on someone is clearly a relatively harmless act that doesn't necessarily mean they're mentally warped (unless you consider anything sexually deviant to be warped). I'd find the panties example "warped" because that clearly delves into certain psychological issues, whereas peeing does not.
InspiredbyYou Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Most people would clearly be turned off/disgusted by poop for obvious reasons. But pee is sterile -- you're telling me you'd rather take an eggy gob of semen in the mouth instead of having someone pee on you? What makes you take one idea as "sane" and the other "insane"? Oh so it's up to what you deem as gross that determines whether it is acceptable? I thought that is the exact same thing Dusty is doing. He is deeming it as gross to him, so how is he not being accepting?
16thstreet Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Yes, I find it shocking that people like to get weed on. I accept the fact that it happens and everyone has their thing but I just can't understand this. If you were walking down the block and saw someone not only getting peed on but LIKING IT too, how would you react? Would you say, good for them or What the hell? and run like you have been stuck with a hot poker?? I reacted without thinking about her feelings and that was a mistake. I apologized and then she kept asking me about it so I had to shut her down and tell her that it would never happen. She equated that with me being insensitive whether I said it in a nice way or screamed at the top of my lungs. Either way I lose. I was once dancing in a gay/straight club in a trendy/young part of a large city, and a guy came up and asked me to dance. My parents taught me always to say yes to one dance, because it rewards courage and most guys are afraid to ask (especially in high school). So, of course I said yes and we proceed to dance away. Mid-way through the dance, he leaned in to me and asked me to pee on him. Bammo! Just like that. Of course, I thought that I misheard. He repeated the question. I was stunned. He went on to explain exactly how this feat could be accomplished in the ally outside of the club. I responded "Ummm...well, you know, it's cool if you're into that an all, but I'm not. So, sorry but no way." I didn't even stop dancing with him. He asked me again, which really pissed me off (haha). So, I stopped dancing and said plainly, "I. Said. No.". He reacted as if I had said something super-offensive to him. He was the one being a jerk. Now, if someone asks that is fine. If they continue to push the issue after you've set the boundary, they are the jerk. From your initial re-cap of the convo, it didn't sound like she kept asking about it, but maybe I missed something?
InspiredbyYou Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Of course I'd find that unacceptable! I'm not saying "allow everything and be 100% openminded regardless of its implications." . Right you are saying allow most things just not the things that do a number on my psyche or morals. There you go!
Vertex Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Oh so it's up to what you deem as gross that determines whether it is acceptable? I thought that is the exact same thing Dusty is doing. He is deeming it as gross to him, so how is he not being accepting? Most people would be against poop simply BECAUSE it is gross/dirty/etc. He can deem pee as something gross all he wants. But what I think is unfair is to say "oh, they like pee -- they must be insane or have power issues" or something to this extent, when there's clearly not enough information to make such a derivation. He can reject someone purely based on any one thing. It's his decision, and he is entitled to judge his compatibility with another person on any metric he wishes, and I think we'd all say this is important. If something's unacceptable to you, it's unacceptable, end of story.
Malenfant Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 So what you are saying is that for example if a guy told you he was using his children's panties to jerk off, you would be accepting of that so long as he is not doing anything to the children because it is his sexual fetish and we should just accept people's differences? ahh.. thats not fair to use an example of an allude to paedophillia in this instance. Clearly the two are very, very different. I would say most people would find paedophillia to be much more unacceptable to the point where the two cant even be compared as being disgusting on anywhere near the same level to each other.
Author DustySaltus Posted January 7, 2010 Author Posted January 7, 2010 See, I am definetly attracted to her but this just threw me for a loop. I think i'm going to take the weekend to think about it and see how I feel. It's just hard for me to believe that someone who likes this would not have some other underlying issues. It can't be as simple as "Oh, I like that". She said she never did it before either....
Vertex Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Right you are saying allow most things just not the things that do a number on my psyche or morals. There you go! Not at all, no, no. Again, it's entirely up to the person to decide where to draw the line. But you don't have to be rude to someone because you don't want to step over that line -- there are more polite ways to do it. Even if you choose to draw a line somewhere and say "I don't want to be with anyone who is across this particular line" -- that's fine. That's the essence of compatibility. Compatibility is inherently a framework of seeing how many lines need to be crossed/not crossed before it's deemed unacceptable. But the OP said "this woman is now not who I thought she was," implying that he's taking this one sexual preference and casting doubt on other facets of her persona.
Ms. Joolie Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Alright, so you're saying one system's output is "sane" for consumption and the other is not suitable for mere contact? For what reasons? The reason is that urine is part of the excretory system for WASTE. I question the sanity of dumping waste on another person. Truly it is a fetish, but is it safe? If it is NOT safe, then I question the sanity of the act. Most people would clearly be turned off/disgusted by poop for obvious reasons. But pee is sterile -- you're telling me you'd rather take an eggy gob of semen in the mouth instead of having someone pee on you? What makes you take one idea as "sane" and the other "insane"? The body is extracting wastes from the body. That means that urine/BM are WASTE FOR THE BODY. Why would I dump body waste on another person's body? That is just ridiculous, insane in my book. But it's a fetish and it doesn't have to be sane. Fetishes are abnormal by definition. I get that abnormal doesn't equal insane but in this case I do question the mentality behind this act aka sanity.
Malenfant Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 but why? a man using his kids' underwear wouldn't sit right with you, so why aren't you being more open minded? If you are going to be non-judgmental you can't draw a line. yes, a line can be drawn, between something done between consenting adults, with no prospect or encouragement to a fetish that could be harmfull to an innocent child. Really, your insistance on using paedophillia as an example is most inappropriate and not giving your argument much credibility.
Vertex Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 No they are not they are the same, my example is not OF a pedophile it is of a man who gets off on underwear that just happens to belong to children. You are now being judgmental and jumping to conclusions that are not true, this man would never do anything sexual to a child he is just into the underwear. Ironic isn't it how quick we are to make leaps when when something doesn't sit right! Getting off to children's underwear is an extreme example and misses the point. Obviously, if someone were into getting off with children's underwear (but not, say, anyone else's underwear or a clean pair or an unworn pair or whatever), the question would need to be asked: Why the children's? Clearly, this creates a sexual pleasure link between the person deriving the sexual pleasure and the children themselves, and that link is inherently a psychological unacceptability for a variety of reasons. This is DIFFERENT from a desire to pee on someone. It's a totally different ballpark.
Malenfant Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 No they are not they are the same, my example is not OF a pedophile it is of a man who gets off on underwear that just happens to belong to children. You are now being judgmental and jumping to conclusions that are not true, this man would never do anything sexual to a child he is just into the underwear. Ironic isn't it how quick we are to make leaps when when something doesn't sit right! your example is of a man who alludes to a fetish about children. Its impossible not to attach that to paedophillia. Its a cheap shot.
Vertex Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 The reason is that urine is part of the excretory system for WASTE. I question the sanity of dumping waste on another person. Truly it is a fetish, but is it safe? If it is NOT safe, then I question the sanity of the act. The body is extracting wastes from the body. That means that urine/BM are WASTE FOR THE BODY. Why would I dump body waste on another person's body? That is just ridiculous, insane in my book. But it's a fetish and it doesn't have to be sane. Fetishes are abnormal by definition. I get that abnormal doesn't equal insane but in this case I do question the mentality behind this act aka sanity. Just to be 100% clear, I am not into golden showers or poop, haha. Okay, so you're comparing waste versus reproductive material. What makes one more sane than the other? You're still dodging the fundamental question, here. Do you think that golden showers are so abnormal that they indicate insanity? I would argue not -- it's not as uncommon as you think.
Malenfant Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 A child's under garment is not a child. Can you make the distinction or are you so set in chastising the man in my example that you can't see the trees for the forest? if a man finds a garment sexually stimulating because it is a childs then that indicates a fetish for children. even if he never touched or even intended to touch a child, the sexual connection in him for children is apparent. Therefore, most would find this unacceptable.
Vertex Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 A child's under garment is not a child. Can you make the distinction or are you so set in chastising the man in my example that you can't see the trees for the forest? Again, you're taking something with obvious connotation (children) and comparing it to something that does not (peeing). I think you'd be hardpressed to find someone who was, for some strange reason, into children's underwear for the sake of the material/object itself and not the underlying associations with children. Much harder, if not impossible, than finding someone who, say, was into being peed on.
Malenfant Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 It's very much on point. In one instance you are saying people shouldn't judge and on the other you are doing precisely that given an example I gave you of someone who fetishises an inanimate object, though significantly symbolic, at the end of the day it is still just an inanimate object. but the thing here is that the hypothetical man likes it because it is a childs. the inanimacy of the object is irrelevent, its the meaning behind it that is more than questionable. the fact remains that many people are into watersports, in the privacy of their homes etc. with contenting adults i dont see what the problem is or how the two can be compared.
Ms. Joolie Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Okay, so you're comparing waste versus reproductive material. What makes one more sane than the other? You're still dodging the fundamental question, here. There is no comparison. Excretory matter does not equal reproductive matter. Two different things. One is bodily waste the other is reproductive material. Two different things. I accept reproductive material in my sex life as sane, not waste. Accepting waste in my sex life is insane to me and I DO argue the sanity of the act.
Vertex Posted January 7, 2010 Posted January 7, 2010 Ahh excuse for saying but do you not see the connotation to excrement/waste? What? Are you saying someone's into CHILDREN'S panties because of the connections to excrement and waste? Either way, such a desire is way more abnormal than a desire to simply be peed on in the shower or something. You're creating an extremely unlikely scenario as a counterargument to safe openmindedness.
Recommended Posts