It's cmk_76's fault! He got me thinking. All of you are getting me thinking too much!
Printable View
It's cmk_76's fault! He got me thinking. All of you are getting me thinking too much!
I think you are right. It's not really that difficult to work out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sextus
If some more money means she will agree to do something extra then obviously she is OK with it but if she physically resists or gives a stern no then that's the end of the story - just enjoy what she is prepared to offer and see someone else next time.
I may be the opposite ...Quote:
Originally Posted by wilisno
Just to clarify that in the midst of my session (or any session for the matter) with Yumi, I have always backed off or restraint further urges, if she is not comfortable with the act. My report may depict that of a forceful nature on her, however be assured that I have never, nor do I intend to violate her in any way that has not been consented between 2 adults. (namely Yumi & I) This was after all, a 'fantasy' that was played out naturally as I was an aggressive, dominant figure and her, a 'submissive' maiden. I think you have raised an interesting point whilst reading my report, I might suggest a 'safe' word to stop any act if it gets uncomfortable. In saying that too, I would always discuss the act with her, when we are having a breather, usually when we're kissing. I respect her a lot, and would never hurt her verbally or physically, even during 'love-play'Quote:
Originally Posted by Sextus
I have been seeing her for over 2 years, and this is something that I have explored with her in the last year. I could never explore this sort of 'behaviour' with any other lady, as the rapport has been gradually built.
I didn't think that the report could bring about such debate?
Indeed moonlighter, it was a fantasy. Yumi knows me all too well that I have a passive, aggressive love making nature, but only with her.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonlighter
Hahaha... don't think too much dear sextus, this might do your head in!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sextus
This has brought up a thought provoking point. I have always had brief discussions after the act, I was never told if she did not like it, as she would return the act on me ie. fingering my anus and dragon drilling me. I have tried anal with her once, to which she could not accomodate, I have not asked or 'persuaded' since. I have wanted to come in her mouth, but she has told me that she would not like to. Again, I have dropped the subject, and respected her wishes.Quote:
Originally Posted by wilisno
However, I do agree with your comment made.
Aggressive love making nature ... is not a bad thing at all ...Quote:
Originally Posted by cmk76
I think with the 'right' lady, there is a possibility of yourself exploring that with her. You will need to build your rapport with your lady of choice and more importantly, get to know her body and 'feel' what she enjoys, as oppose to what we men 'think' ladies may enjoy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sextus
For example, I have licked 15 years worth of oysters & abalones, only to be told that I was wasting my time, with the way I was doing it! It's only in the last 3 years that I have learnt to 'listen' for the ladies' rhythm (abdomen) and 'feel' for other body movements to rate my progress of every lick.
Prior to discovering this site back in September, but finally joining in November, I was only seeing Yumi for fs every month (over 2 years) and was very fortunate at the sexual compatibility and bedroom chemistry that we share. I felt a little 'guilty' for not seeing her for the last 2 months (prior to the 27th of Dec.) since having other experiences elsewhere.
As a matter of interest, cmk76, did you try stretching her arsehole with your fingers before trying to get your dick in?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmk76
Arseholes have a lot of stretchability but you have to get there gradually, at least with a lady who hasn't done it a lot before. I use my little finger first, then my middle finger and then my middle and index fingers together, all lubed of course.
you, like the MSM lemmings, miss the point completely Sextus.
Wayne, I don't know what an "MSM" lemming is, though I do know what a lemming is supposed to do, that is, leap off a cliff in a mass suicide. No-one has ever thought me to be any less than an individual though, never part of a mass movement. My input to the forum I hope is yet more evidence of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne
But I am really interested in your point of view and am grateful to hear it. Not only for its own sake, but like wilisno, I really like to debate. I imagine all those readers out there who never join in, but for whom we all struggle on these pages for the hearts and minds of.
I'd like to know, for example, what point it is that I am missing.
Sorry wilisno, my old sparring partner - though I am sure I am not the first or the last you have had - but the above reeks of PC, a milquetoast desire not to ever offend, ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by wilisno
Me? I'm on the side of red blood, of passion, of colour, and not blandsville where everything is beige and where everyone is bored with each other.
Maybe it is because I am impossible to offend myself that I have such short patience with the multitudes who look for it and consequently find it everywhere. (Like Julia Gillard pretended to be.)
Cmk_76? Given your passionate writing in that review excerpt, I wish you hadn't taken the PC response to the above either. It's boring, equivocating, and the very opposite of the passion you write with. That is where I see your honesty, and your full expression of yourself, unguarded.
I wish some of the ladies we are endlessy discussing could have a say too. Instead, we are filling up the vacuum from them with our own prejudices or PC rotes. If anything, they are stronger and more resilient than we men are. To treat then like crystal vases is insulting and demeaning to them. Evolution decided on a fundamental level most about male / female sexual roles and behaviours. What feels natural to us to do therefore - hey! here's a revelation - also feels natural to them too. And no amount of PC overlay will ever overcome that.
PS. You lot need a **** like me to stir the pot.
Sextus you are missing every point - are you polonius? If so you are a fucking idiot, if not I apologise.
Have you ever thought that the gentle hand movement to move your hand away is just to try and keep the mood as initimate as possible? I'm mostly an ML guy and have quite a few ML's as friends (and one as more), and I can tell you it can be very awkward for them when a guy tries to feel something he is not supposed to. Should she just say "No" and maybe ruin the mood? Or just gently move the idiots hand away and continue with the sexy stuff?
It's fucked up really, I read after reports where a guy says the girl told him not to touch her boobs or pussy or something, and they always say it was a downer on the session, and I guess in full service land it's a bit more expected. But what you claim as being a "half hearted" attempt at moving your hand away from her is probably just her trying to keep the mood and keep things sexy.
Anyway, the answer is simple. No always means no, whether it's said verbally or otherwise...and sextus you are an idiot.
I have attempted with her guidance as well, but Yumi was not comfortable with it. Therefore, I did not 'coax' or pursue the act any further, simply dropped it, out of respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bracket
I agree with you AHLUNGOR that it is indeed a good indication when the lady tells you to take off all your clothes but it's not always the case you will end up getting what you desire. Only last Thursday I went to a massage clinic for the first time & the masseuse did say take off all your clothes (which made me think this could be my lucky day) yet for the whole 45min massage she showed no interest whatsoever in giving me any extras even though I tried to encourage her during the massage to do otherwise. So it just goes to show it doesn't matter if all your clothes are on or off if the lady is not interested in giving you any extras she won't. Cheers !Quote:
Originally Posted by AHLUNGOR
According to cmk_76's report, this isn't true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerph
Nerph, I am bringing up theoretical situations to gauge opinions. I am grateful to receive them.
As I said, the ML scene has more apparent boundaries than fS, re-read the comments I made about that, where I said your and other comments are probably true about that situation. I am talking about fs, where a lot more is always going on than mostly does at boring massages.
Really all I am talking about is the innocent devilish enjoyment to be had from just going a little bit further with the girl. I don't know why so many of you think this is the f**king end of the world if you do this. (KickAss, where are you when I need you?) I haven't ever done it, cmk is the one who apparently has, and yet he's the one getting all the good press, while I have just earned my first ever name call on this forum (he he... don't worry, I can take it.) But I am bringing up the theory of it, and face it, there is an obvious attraction to it. It is what I felt anyway, when I read cmk's report.
(Ps. I've heard of this Polonious guy, I take it he was sometimes controversial?)
Sextus, the reference to a lemming is to people who simply follow the leader, without contemplating the consequence. Its only the lead lemming who makes the decision to jump off the cliff; all the others mindlessly follow. My reference was to you blindly parroting the main stream media (MSM on all the all political blogs) about Gillard's misogyny speech. They, like you, focussed on the speech being in response to an Opposition motion to dismiss the Speaker of the House. An act that would have been unprecedented in the Australian parliament with all sorts of unpleasant implications to the future of debate in the house. There was no discussion about this in the following days MSM; and I mean none because I monitor these things. All the commentary was about Gillard's supposed hypocrisy. And that is the point. She was not being hypocritical. She was pointing out Abbott' hypocrisy. Listen to the speech and hear the list of on-the-record statements Abbott has made about gender roles. Gillard was not defending Slipper's confidential dialogue with his staffer (who has since been proved to have been slippery with the facts and his motivation). Gillard was defending Slipper's rights as an individual to defend himself. Abbott was the one who was using labels about sexism and Gillard called him out, brilliantly. The MSM is so concerned with the contest of the parliament, and so eager to please their partisan proprietors, that they fail to recognise when there are tidal shifts in public perception of that game. Few would contest that Gillard's speech shifted the perception of her government. She may still be behind in the polls, but nothing compared to where she was prior to the speech; and the Opposition is now scrambling. The silly coverage of Peta Credlin's IVF program is a case in point. These sorts of stunts simply reinforce the perception that Abbott sees gender issues as simply a box to be ticked. He just doesn't get it. Like you with your dismissal of my reference to the Delhi rape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sextus
Rape is the ultimate act in the objectification of women. It is a power trip by men. As is prostitution. Why do fat old codgers pay gorgeous young women to suck their dicks; and why do these women participate in this transaction; and why are they almost all Asian women with limited English speaking skills? It is all about money and power. I lived in India for years so am particularly attuned to the shocking sexism in that society. But I see the same elements here, and particularly on some of the comments on this forum. The question on this thread really got my hackles up because it just demonstrates how vigilant one must be not to descend into that nasty world where men are men and women are their toys. I know that is not your view, but I equally know that many of the working girls in Sydney are subjected to some horrible behaviour by their clients.
I think all we decent human beings should make a pledge and pack right here and now, so that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne
1. We will always pay the fair price charged for our punt.
2. Always treat the WLs and MLs with respects and diginity.
3. Be a gentleman at all times.
4. Be hygienic clean and get rid of bad breathe and BO before we visit a shop
5. Take No for an answer and respect No means No !
6. Won't take any performance enhancing sex drug for the purpose of prolonging the fuck time. (Need for V is allowed)
7. Won't get drunk or high before visiting a shop
8. Never trick a WL into a gang rape situation
9. Never take photo or video of WL/ML without their consent.
10. Never have or ask for BBFS and/or BBanal
May be this will minimize the horror and threats faced by the WLs and MLs on a daily basis.
Shall we ??
:smile:
7. "Don't get high before visiting a shop."
Just a little teensy, teensy bit high please Ahlungor? :smile:
Ahlungor: "Well....alright....I suppose so."
"My reference was to you blindly parroting the main stream media (MSM on all the all political blogs) about Gillard's misogyny speech.....all the commentary was about Gillard's supposed hypocrisy."
It wasn't that I "blindly parroted" it - perhaps I just agreed with its reasoning? That is a possibilty.
Maybe however, I was also inclined to be annoyed with Gillard for other reasons attached to her speech, and so seized on the Slipper context of her speech to include in my general annoyance. I admit to having little patience with people that are easily personally offended, because my own humour is too strongly a part of me to ever have that profound failing.
I lost patience with Gillard when she said five times, or it might have been more, using the rhetorical device of repeated sentence construction:
"I was offended when you....."
"I was offended when you......"
"I was offended when you....."
"I was offended when you....."
"I was offended when you....."
(I remember that amongst other lightweight and straw clutching examples she quoted was the faux and fallacious "ditch the witch" sign incident.)
Yeah, she was offended all right, and the degree of her offence was decided by a parliamentary committee strategy meeting that very morning. I'm willing to include Abbot's hypocrisy you identify in all this too. As I said, it is a wonder the soaring ceilings of parliament house where able to contain all of it in that day.
"Your dismissal of my reference to the Delhi rape."
I didn't "dismiss" it Wayne, I only called its use overkill in the context of this discussion. Other than that I endorsed your bringing it up. And here are my actual words:
"To use the shocking Indian incident to support an advertising slogan is overkill in the context of this discussion. The slogan sure does apply to that incident of course, but how does [a shocking murderous rape] apply to sensitive and aware - if mildly (or otherwise) - sexually experimental people like myself, cmk_76 and KickAss?"
I can form my own words thank you, rather than have them put in my mouth! :D
"Prostitution is [also] the ultimate act in the objectification of women."
I'm not qualified to discuss that, but it sounds like you are on the wrong forum and engaged yourself in the wrong activity if you truly hold that view. I commented before that you seem to have a very cold view of this activity, a view that contrasts with the many genuinely warm human moments so many of us have experienced.
I know you have experienced many of these moments yourself with the Heart of Gold Bellevue street ladies, for example. We are all people together, I don't know how many times that is brought up on this forum, and I can only speak from my own experience of this too.
You might also condemn, for example, some of the filth I sometimes talk during sex, but that is just a sexual game for me, taking place during sex, and nothing of it lasts beyond that. Afterwards I am all hugs and affection, after sex - and in life too. All my comments on this thread are in the context of sexual game.We could write encyclopaedias about the range of human sexual behaviours, and all the nuances that give us pleasure. Attempts to hammer people into strict PC behaviours lacks much of the creativity we humans are capable of, and that helps to define us.
No does mean no, if not then you'd probably be 1 of the 6 guys who raped that poor girl in New Delhi on a bus.
For some punters these wl's are just toys to do what ever, but for me my relations with wl's transcend our meeting point and we become close friends, brothers and sisters. If you heard someone forced themselves without permission on your sister what would you do???
No need to call someone out in the forum. Just spread the word to your favorite WL or shop..."hey watch out for this guy he thinks no means yes." These are the customer's who ruin it for other punters because they only see their reality where they are king and can do what ever pleases them.
It would be handy if you could think in nuances too, and not just slogans.
That sums up the whole theme of the thread in fact.
So thinking and writing fancy makes it ok to be a rapist? Getting high means you have no imagination to do it from pure thought... sad.
While your high does that make it ok to force your hand where ever it wants to go? Or does being high give you another excuse to be a rapist???
well said.........Quote:
Originally Posted by AHLUNGOR