Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
I think you are on the wrong track Sextus. Women meaning no when they say no is not a cliche. It is a line in the sand between the sexes; and the reason you are seeing millions of women protest in India over sexual violence; and the reason Julia Gillard won so many plaudits for her misogyny speech. Both are emphatically saying that there is are absolutes in gender interactions that, for the sake of civil society, must not be breached. There is a very clear distinction between the playfulness of love making and the communication between two people involved in a commercial transaction.

I agree with you that cmk_76's review is a brilliant piece of writing. He is describing intimacy from a long-standing relationship. I, myself, have written on this forum about how easy it is to get sex from massage girls once you establish a rapport. Once a woman is working in the sex industry then it seems there is not much difference between tugging a bloke and fucking him. But, and it is very important but, she is in control of the situation. She has the power to set all the boundaries. That is the contract when you a pay a woman for sex. It is not the consensual form of an interaction as when two people meet and agree to have sex. It is a very specific buying of a specific service. If you ask and she says no then that is the end of the matter. If, however, you find there is some spark and return to see her on multiple occasions then maybe she will offer you something different.
(This thread seems to be mainly about ml's. Sorry but I've never been to an ml, just fs, so I am relating the thread topic to my experience as they both do apply and cross over. So my remarks are only applying to fs, as I lack any experience with ml's, but your words are probably true regarding ml's as their boundaries are much more overt.)

I agree with your last remarks that, as with cmk_76, it is more about feeling your way through a (fs) session.

But the iron clad rules as implied in your " emphatic absolutes in gender relations," "specific buying of a specific service" and "the communication of two people involved in a commercial transaction" remarks all sound really cold, shiveringly cold, and that has rarely been my experience, and I know that it hasn't been your experience either.

And I've read many a review on this forum where such arctic commercial and gender coldness is JUST NOT THERE. I don't think the warmth of the majority of my encounters is all in my mind either, because I'm not that credulous. Maybe just a little bit credulous, but not too much!

In the heat of mating with a hot girl, what I am suggesting, as a devils's advocate, is that the boundaries are much more flexible and pliable and looser. A verbal "no" I would certainly obey, but a half-hearted restraining hand? That is another matter to be considered in the context in which it happens.

In that situation if the restraining hand is another form of "no means no' well, it not only sounds like a simplistic advertising slogan - it actually is one! (There is no subtlety possible when you are trying to communicate a message to the masses, and I agree with the slogan's use to all those dumb fucks out there.)

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 it apply to sensitive and aware - if mildly (or otherwise) - sexually experimental people like myself, cmk_76 and KickAss?

Look, we don't go into politics on his forum, but Gillard's speech does have a relevance here, so I'll say a truth or two about it. It was the most contrived example of manufactured offence ever uttered in parliament. That is saying something! It was given as a deflecting defence to prevent Peter Slipper being removed as speaker for his SMS sexual harrassment of his gay staffer. So she cites soft examples of how "offended" she has been at so-called misogeny by Abbot to support a sexual harasser in the speaker's chair! Examples like the c**t (Abbot) standing in front of a 'ditch the witch" sign that he didn't even know was there! It was brought into place behind him after he started his speech to Australia's version of the Tea Party. I saw it happen.

And I read Slipper's harrassing and filthy texts to his gay staffer too. Never before has hypocrisy soared so high in parliament as when she gave that speech. It is a wonder the soaring ceilings there were capable of holding it in.

In fact, this was a "gender" card, played as a last resort that she has been keeping in reserve to pull out ever since the polls went so far south. I've never been a lib supporter, and not much of a labor supporter these days either. But it was just obscene to see her use a real - if humourless, beloved of humourless people - issue in such a contrived and hypocritical way.