Men of Serenes Forest!

[Shoblongoo]

26 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

does it count if it's been preformed on you or do I have to do it to make it count

...still counts, but that's just damn selfish if you're recieving but not giving 

 

26 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:

does the shower have to be running?

Why would you ever do it in the shower without the water running??? The whole point of doing it in the shower is its hotter when you're wet and steamy--without the waterworks it's just an awkward closed space.

Edited April 1, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Nym]

When you learn more about sex on a public forum about a video game...

[Belisarius]

has anyone made the no pants joke yet?

[Captain Karnage]

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

...still counts, but that's just damn selfish if you're recieving but not giving 

 

Why would you ever do it in the shower without the water running??? The whole point of doing it in the shower is its hotter when you're wet and steamy--without the waterworks it's just an awkward closed space.

my fingers do a much better job

 

the water went cold, you know what happens when our boys get cold

[Excellen Browning]

6 hours ago, Rezzy said:

Where is that?  Even if they aren't visibly soiled, thousands of butts have been on there.

Western Europe in general. As for the butts thing, shouldn't you know better? 

Edited April 1, 2018 by Excellen Browning

[SullyMcGully]

2 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

Western Europe in general. As for the butts thing, shouldn't you know better? 

Rezzy is a doctor. I'll take her word when it comes to pathogens.

Also, cold showers are awesome. I heard a rumor that if you only take hot showers, you'll bald earlier. Dunno how much truth there is to that, but...

[GuiltyLove]

9 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:

YOU'D GET ALL THE ASS!!!

i know what i want to be in the next life~

[Charmeleonbrah]

On 3/29/2018 at 3:03 PM, Rezzy said:

I got 21 points.

Damn shawty ok!

[SullyMcGully]

OK, this was super weird to hear about, but I suppose ya'll would be interested in it: this guy I was talking to at church used sex to bribe his girlfriend into coming today.

Weird people at my church... 

[Interdimensional Observer]

I've read both this topic and the female equivalent in full, very funny and intriguing the both of them. Though being one who shall likely die celibate owing to a sexual agnosticism I've mentioned on a different topic (which I have not really explained in full to anyone close to me IRL- such is Internet forums as a potential priest/bartender of humanity), I have nothing to contribute at all.

However, I will mention the Icelandic Phallological Museum (which apparently is 60% female in its visitors), and of course NYC has the Museum of Sex, which I'll probably leave off my list of ones to visit.

[Charmeleonbrah]

18 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I've read both this topic and the female equivalent in full, very funny and intriguing the both of them. Though being one who shall likely die celibate owing to a sexual agnosticism I've mentioned on a different topic (which I have not really explained in full to anyone close to me IRL- such is Internet forums as a potential priest/bartender of humanity), I have nothing to contribute at all.

However, I will mention the Icelandic Phallological Museum (which apparently is 60% female in its visitors), and of course NYC has the Museum of Sex, which I'll probably leave off my list of ones to visit.

Good for you.  Vaginas are gross regardless of how many times you're exposed to them, and sex feels more or less like sticking your dick in jello.  

[Interdimensional Observer]

5 minutes ago, Charmeleonbrah said:

Good for you.  Vaginas are gross regardless of how many times you're exposed to them, and sex feels more or less like sticking your dick in jello.

But isn't erotic lust supposed to override the disgust of the act and make it a net good experience?  

Though yeah, I'm not someone who normally has physical contact with others, I'm not a germaphobe or an obsessively no-touch person, but I do like an empty seat between me and a stranger in public location. 

Another reason to stay celibate is that I'm afraid I'd delude myself into thinking what I am and then copulate, only to wake up to the realization some time later, that I'm not what I thought I was. Will that be after my first, or 100 acts down the line? I wouldn't want to make such a mistake. And I lack actual experience in relationships as well.

Thus, I stick to people who aren't real if I have the need to relieve some lust, it's safer that way, since I know the difference between reality and pure fantasy and won't act towards the real as I do the artificial. Reason to fawn over pixels instead of real flesh.

[Excellen Browning]

3 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

But isn't erotic lust supposed to override the disgust of the act and make it a net good experience?  

Though yeah, I'm not someone who normally has physical contact with others, I'm not a germaphobe or an obsessively no-touch person, but I do like an empty seat between me and a stranger in public location. 

Another reason to stay celibate is that I'm afraid I'd delude myself into thinking what I am and then copulate, only to wake up to the realization some time later, that I'm not what I thought I was. Will that be after my first, or 100 acts down the line? I wouldn't want to make such a mistake. And I lack actual experience in relationships as well.

Thus, I stick to people who aren't real if I have the need to relieve some lust, it's safer that way, since I know the difference between reality and pure fantasy and won't act towards the real as I do the artificial. Reason to fawn over pixels instead of real flesh.

wut

[SullyMcGully]

3 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

But isn't erotic lust supposed to override the disgust of the act and make it a net good experience?  

Though yeah, I'm not someone who normally has physical contact with others, I'm not a germaphobe or an obsessively no-touch person, but I do like an empty seat between me and a stranger in public location. 

Another reason to stay celibate is that I'm afraid I'd delude myself into thinking what I am and then copulate, only to wake up to the realization some time later, that I'm not what I thought I was. Will that be after my first, or 100 acts down the line? I wouldn't want to make such a mistake. And I lack actual experience in relationships as well.

Thus, I stick to people who aren't real if I have the need to relieve some lust, it's safer that way, since I know the difference between reality and pure fantasy and won't act towards the real as I do the artificial. Reason to fawn over pixels instead of real flesh.

Whoa... a sex philosopher...

[Interdimensional Observer]

13 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

Whoa... a sex philosopher...

Well to be fair, Alfred Kinsey, the famed sexologist of the US who compiled landmark surveys on American sexuality in the 1950s (and earlier- but I forget how much earlier, the female study came out after the male and in the 50s I know for sure) and probably did a lot to make it a reputable field, was himself not very sexually active. One person in a high school yearbook cited a Hamlet quote to describe him- "Man interests me not, nor woman"- so he got none and probably had no romantic talents either. He had to teach a marriage class or something in college once, and the sex-related questions of his students he could not answer, but he was intrigued by them and threw himself into finding out about American sexuality. 

I'm not saying at all I'm a Kinsey in waiting, but if I were, the Hamlet quote would have rephrased "Man interests me not, nor woman? IDK.". I do like Hamlet by the way, but he could have not driven Ophelia into a mad sorrow that breaks her mind and causes her to drown to death.

There is presently and recently invented a scientific US journal on pornography, just to bring it up. And there was a study refuting Sigmund Freud in the 60-80s (I forget when it was) concerning the female orgasm as being basically inferior to the male orgasm (Freud was a misogynist it seems to me), the last names of the two lead researchers were Masters and Johnson (no, not President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who sometimes flashed "Jumbo" to intimate some political opponents apparently).

[DisobeyedCargo]

So... I'm gonna come back whenever the conversation goes anywhere that isn't about kinky sex...

[Excellen Browning]

4 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Well to be fair, Alfred Kinsey, the famed sexologist of the US who compiled landmark surveys on American sexuality in the 1950s (and earlier- but I forget how much earlier, the female study came out after the male and in the 50s I know for sure) and probably did a lot to make it a reputable field, was himself not very sexually active. One person in a high school yearbook cited a Hamlet quote to describe him- "Man interests me not, nor woman"- so he got none and probably had no romantic talents either. He had to teach a marriage class or something in college once, and the sex-related questions of his students he could not answer, but he was intrigued by them and threw himself into finding out about American sexuality. 

I'm not saying at all I'm a Kinsey in waiting, but if I were, the Hamlet quote would have rephrased "Man interests me not, nor woman? IDK.". I do like Hamlet by the way, but he could have not driven Ophelia into a mad sorrow that breaks her mind and causes her to drown to death.

There is presently and recently invented a scientific US journal on pornography, just to bring it up. And there was a study refuting Sigmund Freud in the 60-80s (I forget when it was) concerning the female orgasm as being basically inferior to the male orgasm (Freud was a misogynist it seems to me), the last names of the two lead researchers were Masters and Johnson (no, not President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who sometimes flashed "Jumbo" to intimate some political opponents apparently).

this is all good and cool and I suppose a longwinded way to say you think you're asexual. 

I'm gonna be blunt here; are you autistic? 

[SullyMcGully]

8 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Well to be fair, Alfred Kinsey, the famed sexologist of the US who compiled landmark surveys on American sexuality in the 1950s (and earlier- but I forget how much earlier, the female study came out after the male and in the 50s I know for sure) and probably did a lot to make it a reputable field, was himself not very sexually active. One person in a high school yearbook cited a Hamlet quote to describe him- "Man interests me not, nor woman"- so he got none and probably had no romantic talents either. He had to teach a marriage class or something in college once, and the sex-related questions of his students he could not answer, but he was intrigued by them and threw himself into finding out about American sexuality. 

I'm not saying at all I'm a Kinsey in waiting, but if I were, the Hamlet quote would have rephrased "Man interests me not, nor woman? IDK.". I do like Hamlet by the way, but he could have not driven Ophelia into a mad sorrow that breaks her mind and causes her to drown to death.

There is presently and recently invented a scientific US journal on pornography, just to bring it up. And there was a study refuting Sigmund Freud in the 60-80s (I forget when it was) concerning the female orgasm as being basically inferior to the male orgasm (Freud was a misogynist it seems to me), the last names of the two lead researchers were Masters and Johnson (no, not President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who sometimes flashed "Jumbo" to intimate some political opponents apparently).

That's um... interesting. I'll be honest, you're actually speaking my language with all of that evidence and stuff.

Dumb homeschooler question: does it count as asexuality if you like, or are even obsessed with girls and everything about them, but are turned off by the concept of sex in particular?

Asking for, um, a friend of course!

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, SullyMcGully said:

does it count as asexuality if you like, or are even obsessed with girls and everything about them, but are turned off by the concept of sex in particular?

No I think that just counts as indoctrination 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Interdimensional Observer]

6 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

this is all good and cool and I suppose a longwinded way to say you think you're asexual. 

I'm gonna be blunt here; are you autistic? 

Yes I have Asperger's, diagnosed since the 2nd grade I think. 

And in practice, I would say I am asexual. But in principle, I invent the term "sexually agnostic" for myself- since I am not certain if I am actually devoid of desire for real sexual relations with other human beings. If I knew for certain, then I would be in principle asexual, but I lack sufficient rational logical empirical evidence for that.

If some of that info seemed completely random to toss in, well this is FFtF, there aren't too many rules on what I can or can't shove in to posts.

 

3 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

Dumb homeschooler question: does it count as asexuality if you like, or are even obsessed with girls and everything about them, but are turned off by the concept of sex in particular?

 

I'm not that versed in sexuality, I've never taken a class on the matter, partly for fear of upsetting my internal sexual identity dynamics.

But I did read in a history of gender and race in Al Andalus (Spain under Muslim control in the Middle Ages), and the scholar there made a divide I find worth remembering:

1. Homo-romantic: Likes intimate love relationships between people of the same sex, but which involves no sexual activity. The person may or may not participate in these relationships themselves.
2. Homo-erotic: Likes love with sexual activity between people of the same sex, but does not themselves physically participate in it if they are of the sex they are fawning over.
3. Homo-sexual: Likes love with sexual activity between people of the same sex, and participates in it.

You can replace "homo" with "hetero", and I think these categories would still be useful. So heteroromantic would be someone who likes intimate love relationships without sexual activity between people of opposite sexes, and may or may not participate in them.

Heteroerotic would be liking sexual activity between people of opposite sexes, but the person themselves not engaging in it. And heterosexual is of course one who likes sex between people of the opposite sex and themselves engages in it.

And to these three things, I would add a fourth category for people who like deep and intimate relationships between other people without romance at all- people who like really strong friendships (I guess it could be called "hetero/homo-platonic", or maybe "he/ho-amicable") and may or may not participate in them. I question whether deep down some of my fantasies are just platonic/amicable ones with the passions of youth throwing an erotic element into it, or whether they are fundamentally erotic. 

In case this is too long to read, perhaps you're just heteroromantic to sum it up? 

But do not trust me on this, I'm not a professional! 

[Shoblongoo]

16 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Thus, I stick to people who aren't real if I have the need to relieve some lust, it's safer that way, since I know the difference between reality and pure fantasy and won't act towards the real as I do the artificial. Reason to fawn over pixels instead of real flesh.

Ummmmmmmmm--on-its-face, wouldn't that seem to indicate that your hang-up is social anxiety, and a general aversion to putting yourself in the kinds of social situations + forming the kinds of relationships necessary to be sexually active? Not axesuality? 

Since an asexual in the truest sense of the word shouldn't even be interested in that much?

The fact that you freely pursue those lusts while questioning the reality of others, and that the differentiating factor for you is cartoon girls don't require actual human relationships to be sexy...

...that's pointing in an entirely different direction than "Asexual."   

Edited April 2, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Rezzy]

7 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

That's um... interesting. I'll be honest, you're actually speaking my language with all of that evidence and stuff.

Dumb homeschooler question: does it count as asexuality if you like, or are even obsessed with girls and everything about them, but are turned off by the concept of sex in particular?

Asking for, um, a friend of course!

I think you are just young and will understand when you get older.

[Interdimensional Observer]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Since an asexual in the truest sense of the word shouldn't even be interested in that much?

I thought I remember hearing asexuality includes those who have no sex drive at all, and those who have one, but do not actually vent it on real people nor would ever want to. But then again, I'm not overly familiar with actual specific definitions of sexuality terms. 

Then there is the question of whether what ended up happening with me is that I was late to develop amicable desire, which came at the same time awareness of the sexual arose in me. And that the result of this is that while most people can clearly identify the difference between the amicable desire and the sexual drive due to forming friendships in child pre-sexual awareness. Whereas in my case the two are possibly, wrongly, conflated as one.

Of course, I have in all my years of existence never acted on truly establishing a relationship. Does this mean that for what desire I have it is so little that I am asexual because I don't act on it? Or is this real desire for sexual or not relationships simply repressed or that I just for whatever sad reasons have never acted on it? (No mods, I am not looking for help here, just stating my situation which I perfectly fine with. No need to shut it down.)

But this gets to the point that I am not certain about what I am, and hence "sexually agnostic" as I think of myself. This results in a sort of sexuality in the moment, in practice being another way of saying that, be it asexuality or heteroeroticism or homoeroticism or what else have you. But the wider picture in spite of these moments is an agnosticism.

 

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

The fact that you freely pursue those lusts while questioning the reality of others, and that the differentiating factor for you is cartoon girls don't require actual human relationships to be sexy...

It is not that reality cannot be sexy, and pornography and prostitution are things that let you see real flesh and sex without having real relationships. It is that the repercussions of fantasizing it is because I know it isn't real are much smaller.

Nobody I would think fundamentally bases their sexuality upon whether they're aroused by thoughts of Eliwood or Lyn, but by whether they take 10 minutes Lighting Steps (this name I saw once in book on the history foot-binding in a section dealing with erotic stories) or Thunder Crouch, or prefer watching Lightning Steps with Thunder Crouch or with Misty Butterfly or both or Thunder Crouch with Ryainy Rectum.

Using video game characters, no matter how realistic looking a game is, are not ever going to perfectly look like or be in any deeper way real human beings, and therefore, no one I would think, would if they had a totally rational ordinary mind, would determine their IRL sexuality solely on them. Being aroused by the characters can be the fruit of their IRL sexuality, but is not sufficient for calculating what one is by itself.

Underline added to emphasize these are just internal deductions on my part without empirically collected external evidence behind them.

 

Yes, I think a lot. To think is to live, without thought, without consciousness of the moment, does one truly exist?

[Shoblongoo]

39 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Nobody I would think fundamentally bases their sexuality upon whether they're aroused by thoughts of Eliwood or Lyn

I distinctly remember at 12 years old--not yet entirely understanding what it was or having any other basis upon which to identify my sexuality--the very first thoughts of sexual desire I ever had were inspired by + directed towards:

 

...transforming Sailor Scouts, of all things...

I'll make this really simple for you.

If you're aroused by erotic thoughts of Eliwood, you're gay.
If you're aroused by erotic thoughts of Lyn, you're straight.
If you're aroused by Eliwood & Lyn, you're bisexual.
________

EDIT:  Cosplay sex is a thing. Video game characters are never going to look like perfect human beings is not so black-and-white. 

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Interdimensional Observer]

14 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...transforming Sailor Scouts, of all things...

Ah yes, I remember it from my childhood as early as age 4. Mercury was favorite. Not that I watch anime whatsoever now, and I'd hate to ruin my vague memories of them by watching the anime now. However, if I ever got an emulator, I'd play the SNES RPG they made for the series.

 

14 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

I'll make this really simple for you.

If you're aroused by erotic thoughts of Eliwood, you're gay.
If you're aroused by erotic thoughts of Lyn, you're straight.
If you're aroused by Eliwood & Lyn, you're bisexual.

And I shall care to disagree. What if person likes a little fantasies that don't align with their clear sexuality and gender? Are all of Japan's straight yaoi loving ladies secretly transgender gay men? Though I heard in the case of yaoi, it exists partly because Japanese women are frustrated in their own sex lives and male-male lets them see a person romancing and being romanced by a guy, and that person being male cannot possibly be them, so they don't think about their challenged sex lives, which they would in the case of heterosexual manga.

I don't think a female is suddenly a lesbian if they like FlorinaxLyn, or bisexual either, they can still be straight. Or 99% straight, applying a one-drop rule to sexuality instead of spectrum might be problematic. "Bisexuality" is approaching 50-50 on preferences, "straight" is approaching 100% one way and "gay" the other. Asexual is not really being on the spectrum at all or having that many acts.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Interdimensional Observer