Sex. Before or after?
 

OK. So, you meet someone attractive. The two of you talk and become acquaintances. Due to good chemistry, the two of you become good friends. Eventually friendship turns into a relationship which of course, also brings into the picture, sex. At least that's how it's suppose to be according to...um...some people.

However, I have some friends that swear up and down that they've had relationships that started with a different order of events. Everything's the same in their case up to the acquaintance part. Rather than good chemistry induced friendship though, they got good chemistry induced sex instead, which led to friendship which then led to a relationship.

I guess it's possible for circumstances to unfold that way. But, my issue with the latter order of events is that you're basically applying emotional attachment to what can very easily be just a night of sex for the other person and nothing more. I suppose I just sort of think that it's a bit naive to believe that readily available sex can lead to a meaningful relationship. (Maybe that's a bit prudish and jaded of me. I dunno.)

So my question(s) to you guys is(err...are), do you think that just sex can lead to an actual and decent relationship? At what point did sex come into play in your current or past relationships? If the situation presented itself, would you engage in sexual activity with an attractive and potentially a great partner even though you don't really know much about them?

Sex factored in pretty quickly with my first girlfriend. I certainly was physically attracted to her, as she was to me. We've been going on for about a year and a half now. We certainly understand each other and have small quarells, but its nothing major. In answer to your last question, yeah I pretty much did with my current girlfriend.

I guess if you have sex with a lot of strangers, it's possible to find someone you're compatible with that way. It sounds more like it happens by accident, though.

I tend to agree with Monkey King on this one. I think it's possible, but not very likely. Especially since sex has a way of confusing things between people who don't have a very firm foundation in the first place. It's so easy to associate a person with sex instead of love if you're not careful.

I've known a few people who have started with just such a chance. My wife and I for example started with knowing each other (in school), sex, and then a long term relationship.

After, it is just what people should do, it shows how much you are willing to hold on to something that you can lose so easily with just anyone. I am surprised that people are just okay with having sex casually but then again, some people may just use it for pleasure than a sigh of love. Whatever makes you happy i guess. My opition still stays the same as; After.

My opinion would also be after, though I dunno how much mine counts as I have never had a girlfriend. :(

But yeah trying to generate a relationship off of one night is kinda hard if I am thinking correctly. I won't deny that it can happen because obviously your first response said it did, but i do agree with the others that it is rare.

Ehh, it's not like there's a sharp demarcation though. Suppose I chat up a girl in a bar for like 2 hours discover that we love each other, or maybe that's the booze talking, who cares? Point is, now we're in love, THEN we fuck. Did we do the relationship thing forwards or backwards? Where's the cut-off on how long we have to interact before we're not strangers?

It sounds like you, Nakl, are applying some sort of arbitrary standard by which you must get to know someone to a certain indeterminate degree before it is ok to have sex with them. Declaring a relationship to exist is just about as arbitrary.

I guess I'm arguing that for any given period of time, there's always going to be a differential smaller in which the same events could occur. Suppose we lock eyes, and that's all it takes. We attain some higher state of thought and directly perceive each other.

I'd say it's highly dependent upon the individual and their past experiences. Some people view sex as the epitomy of a serious relationship while others may think it's just a thing you do with someone else and it feels really good.

Look at your friends' relationships and judge for yourself.

Of course you can have a decent relationship if you fuck on the first date. What sort of question is this? Most people do not find each other repulsive after having sex, I don't understand why you would have a problem with this issue. from the sound of your post, you don't quite understand why you have this issue either.

I guess you completely blacked out during the part where I said

not at all. You must've forgotten saying this:

Which sounds about right to me. People don't stop developing relationships with someone once they have sex, and furthermore it's hella faulty to think the only interaction these two people have is sexual. They admit and you admit that they were friends before becoming an item; the only difference is that they are also fuckbuddies during the time. What's the disconnect here?

I believe it can if you have some sort of spirtual connection from it. As in, 2 souls combining and that whole deal.

The disconnect here is that not all relationships have clearly defined or drawn lines. For example, one person could genuinly have his or her heart in the relationship, while the other person just goes along for the ride just to get the sex till they get bored. Yeah, I suppose this can happen to anyone regardless of how things start out but, I'd imagine that the chances of such a thing occuring are a lot lower if both halves have put in the time to actually get to know eachother (platonicaly) first. I really don't think that a speedy and prompt friendship produced from sex can usually be a good basis for a relationship. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic.

Another thing. You previously made a comment about how most people don't find eachother replusive right after sex. That's true I guess. But once again, if all person-A wants is a sexual encounter and isn't interested in person-B's everything else, what will happen after the sex? Person-A will pretty much find no reason to hang around. (Till maybe in the future when the desire for round-2 comes back.) Now this is all well and fine. However, if person-B went into this hoping and expecting a full out relationship that's suppose to start from that one sexual encounter, then there's the problem!

Also, if you go this route you never know what the other person's sexual history is and what little, surprise gifts you may end up with.

Then B is deluding himself by thinking there is a relationship there, and if he is bothered by this, should probably stop the encounters. I know you're trying to paint A as opportunistic, but B is the one who's making something out of nothing, here.

Do you feel that your friends are all B?

B has no one to blame but himself if he doesn't use condoms.

Also letters of the alphabet should totally not be having sex. That's how we ended up with 'w'.

I mean really guys, what. ;(

I know it's possible for there to be a relationship after a couple people have had sex almost right after meeting each other, especially if they're both looking for the same thing. I have to agree with lurker on the part where, if one wants the relationship, and the other just wants the sex, there will be issues, but overall if things click so well that they screw on the first date, there is definitely the option there of a good relationship.

Personally I'm not into the whole sex at first sight thing, although had some circumstances been different a few months ago, I may have been in that situation. ;p So as much as I think it's possible, I still think it's a riskier maneuver(sp?) if you're looking for something long term.

I totally agree with you here in that B is at fault and just deluded provided that A makes it clear that sex is all he or she wants which isn't always the case. Two of my friends in this situation have semi-long term relationships where the other person is in town about 5 months outta the entire year, while my other friend's in a totally differen town with her b/f so I don't really have a clear grasp on the dynamics of their relationships.



Except that condoms somtimes do tear and break. Yeah, I know, it's kind of unlikely to happen, so it's kind of a petty concern when condoms come in the picture, but it's still a little worrisome.

Look, the point is this: do you know people who have had successful relationships that started off differently than your ideal? IF so, then you have proven that your ideal is not the be-all. It doesn't matter how much scorn you have for sluts or for relationships that aren't marriage-bound.

And you can have breaking condoms and STDs in relationships started by your model. Do you think that people who only have sex in the confines of a relationship don't have sex with many partners - what I'm trying to say is, do you think every relationship is a several-year long affair? Or that a cock-hungry slut will be granted some primitive immunity from STDs by only sleeping with her men once they've had a few dates? I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that whole STD thing, other than Bad Things Happen To Bad People. That's extremely judgemental of you, when you admit that you don't know a whole lot about other kinds of relationships in the first place.

I know people yes. But, given the circumstances, I don't know much about how good or bad their relationships are. That's why I created the thread.

Broken condoms yes. If both partners come into the relationship clean, and stay honest and monogamous though, then there's not much room for STDs.

Of course not! Look, I realize that people can change their behavior and suddenly skank it up or cool it down through different stages in their lives. The point is that if you get to know the cock hungry slut before you actually get with her, you'll at least know what you're dealing with and what risks you'll be taking on when you get with her.


All I was getting at with the STD's thing is that the sex first route, besides being emotionally risky, is riskier physically as well. Nothing more and nothing less. I don't know why you took that as me somehow thinking less of people who are more gungho when it comes to sex, or just have a more active sex life than others. It's not that I think sex is bad or that people who have lots of sex are immoral. I just think that it's a risky act. It can have a lot of extra unwated feelings attached to it or leave you wanting something that was never there if the conditions aren't clearly drawn out beforehand. It's a sensative issue. Stating that it's risky certainly does not make you some high and mighty prude who thinks lowly of the more adventurous folk.


I don't exactly feel that the "sex after" scenario is better. (If I was certain of that, I wouldn't have made this thread). I guess I have issues with both. I do feel though, that it is, at least, safer than the "sex first" scenario. (Even though you're less likely to enjoy being with as many potentially good people). I guess in that sense, some might say it evens out. Also, now that I think about it more, I'm thinking it's a strictly case by case situation. I still feel that you're more likely to be dissapointed or end up caught in something you didn't anticipate if you go with the second route. Y'know, High reward only with high risk. That whole spiel. Maybe I'm just not as bold as others.

It doesn't matter if your friends are willing to subject themselves to relationships they are not quite happy in. If they were unhappy enough to leave, they would leave; otherwise, I don't know, it must be a 'successful' relationship. Any more arguing over it is a kinda creepy attempt at rationalizing your morality with this sort of thing - it sounds kinda like you want to get into a quality of relationship pissfight. Why do you want to do that?

Depends on what you mean by "sucessful". There are lots of scenarios where someone would remain in an unfullfilling relationship. Sometimes, people will delude themselves into thinking the other person will change for the better, or love them, or that they'll grow to love them, so they stay. Some people are just afraid of being alone or single, they'll also stay. Others can fall in a sense of complacency and ,like the ones previously stated, will stay despite the unrewarding relationship. So, if by "successful" you merely mean that the relationship is still going regardless of how unrewarding it is, then I guess it is safe to call my few friends with the "sex-first relationship" relationships "successfull". Again, given the circumstances that I explained to you above, I don't really have a grasp of how happy they are with their significant others.


How is it creepy that I'm exploring the idea of an uncoventional start to a relationship by pondering and debating about it on a message board? An example of creepy would be if I tried to inject myself into my friends' relationships by impersonating their other halves and stalking them or something.:confused: Examening the general type of relationships that theirs' seems to fall under and seeing how it'd apply to me, my life and values is perfectly fine.

First I'm judgemental, and now I wanna pissfight? Sheesh, what's with you and these outta-nowhere-assumptions? I'm just curious about the topic. I want to see how most people feel about it and if there are any members that fall into this catagory (and apperantly there are) what their experience has been like. That's all.

Until your friends have broken up and told you all the ways you were absolutely right and they were absolutely wrong, it is downright condesending to tell me that they are probably victims at the mercy of their significant others. I'm sorry that you do not respect your friends' intelligence all that much.

I do like how you tell me my assumption was wrong right after having the quality of relationship pissfight. That's not how it normally works, sir.

Leave my friends out of this. It's not like you know us, so don't even attempt to come in here and try to ascertain the quality of our friendhsip based on whatever little information you've gotten. Doing so would be very hypocritical of you. After all, you're the one stating how I shouldn't "measure the quality of their relationships". What you don't seem to realize is that you keep making it a personal issue when it doesn't have to be. I mentioned my friends just to make a poin that I personaly know people who started out their relationships in this manner. That's all. You don't have to keep zooming in on them and using them as the be all and end all examples. This isn't about them. It's about relationships that start out in this manner, in general. Maybe once you realize this, the unfounded air of arrogance that you seem to be getting from me for God-knows-what-reason, will dissipate, and you won't be so judgemental yourself.

First of all, your assumptions are wrong. For some reason, you keep thinking that I think lowly of my friends, which is hardly the case. Second, examining, discussing, heck, even debating, about a certain type of relationships is not a pissfight.

You're the one who keeps bringing them up. I say, "if your very friends were able to start a relationship this way, then it is entirely possible to start a relationship this way." But you say "No, that's not good enough for me!" You mention your friends' experiences in the same breath as mentioning a dim kid who has no sense of self-preservation; you are drawing a very clear line and you can't fault me for calling you on it.

The point is, either it is entirely possible for such a relationship to start, or you feel that every single last one of your friends have retarded maturity and severe co-dependancy problems. It's your choice.

Too bad you aren't doing precisely that.

Technophile:

You're making it sound like two people meet, Person A says "Let's fuck," Person B says, "Okay." and that's that.

You DO realize people tend to talk to each other, right?

And yes, you can figure out if someone is right for you within 2 hours or however long you're talking.

Right. Clearly, that example you just provided right there was me bringing up my friends and not you. OK.


I thought we were past this already. I established in a previous post that I feel that, while a decent relationship certainly can start this way, it's just a riskier undertaking.

Agreeing with everything you have to say without looking at the issue from different points of view is not what a debate and discussion consists of sir.

It's not my conventional standard. I was just listing my issues and drawbacks of opting to have sex so soon in a relationship and weighing it against the other options. No need to get so defensive.

I know leeknat. But, sometimes people have really good sexual chemistry with strong physical attraction, but it pretty much ends there, so it's not like talking after the sex will make the relationship grow farther. In this case, if one person was infatuated by the other, then he or she pretty much had a sexual encounter in hopes of getting more only to be dissapointed.

Yes, I know that a fine relationship can grow from a hasty sexual encounter (after more pondering) but the stakes are higher.

And then you listed a bunch of things all relationships can come afoul of, none of which are intrinsically based on how you two met.

Actually, looking back on your posts, I didn't see any admission that I was right, unless you're counting the "I guess it could happen, maybe..." that you put in the first post. I'm hard pressed to see why this thread was even created if you admit you are wrong in the very first post.

That's because I didn't make one, and don't plan to. While I agree with you on some points of the issue, stating you're "right" would also mean that I do look down upon my friends. That's not the case, therefore, this admission that you've been searching for is just not gonna happen.

I don't. I wasn't completely sure where I stood on the issue in the first place. That's why I created the thread. I wanted to explore the topic a bit. After some discussion and comparisons with others (thanks to your posts in some part) and inaccurate assumptions (also thanks to your posts, but for the most part), I just have a slightly altered view.

There are a lot of men who picture every woman they meet naked and only think about having sex with them. I dunno if that's a disease or something like that, but it's a matter of fact.
I don't think that women are that malfunctioning.

Now let's go the reverse.

How many people who are friends with someone hope that could could be more--but it never happens? Isn't that as frustrating as well?

That is also frustrating. However, I think having sex with someone in the hopes of developing more (especially if you're the type who's not really into casual sex) would be a lot more emotionally taxing.

Sufferers of unrequited love everywhere would probably disagree with you. Not to say that neither are a bunch of retards.

Me and my girlfriend first had sex 3 hours after we met. We've now been going out for over a year and a half.

People who make sex out to be some amazing spiritual event or something are stupid and frankly naive.

Only till the sex lasts. I doubt they'll be filled with joy when the object of their desires ups and leaves after the sex.

Only when they apply such conditions to casual sex.

No, rote quickies are possible in the confines of long-term relationships too.

As someone who's suffered from both chaste unrequited love and sex with too many feelings involved on my end, I would definitely say that chaste unrequited love is much, much worse. If they sleep with you it means they at least find you physically attractive, and that's much better than not being attracted to you at all.

I will never cease to be amazed at the ability of virgins to make all sorts of assumptions about sex without ever having experienced any kind of sex at all. That's like me giving an entire lecture on how to sail a sailboat when I've never even ridden in one that someone else was sailing.

Why the fuck did you ask for our opinions if you didn't want to hear anything that didn't confirm that your view of things is correct? I'm tempted to close down the thread, since you keep trying to cut off any discussion that might take place.

Wait.

Have you been talking about the whole sex/love confusion thing? That sex and love are interchangeable?

Here's a lesson for those who may not know--Sex is the response of the body--Love is the response of the heart, the mind, and the soul. You don't have to love someone to respond to them physically.

Of course they are. However, Shin's comments make it seem like rote quickies are all that's possible. Regardless of the relationship's status.

You're the first person that I've encountered that was in such a situation that actually favores the dead end sex, as opposed to nothing. But hey, to each his or her own.

Save me your faulty analogies. Yeah, let's compare something mostly instinctual to a skill that requires a lot more honing and practice. =/

How is it wrong to assume that sex with someone that you actually have a full fledged relationship with can mount to more than whatever the one night stand with that hot guy/girl at the club will turn out to be?




Partly, yes.
Um, no. That's kind of the point I've been trying to make. Because they're not interchangeable, if someone who wants a full fledged relationship, granted a casual sexual encounter to the object of his or her affection in order to be with them, only to be tossed aside afterwards, they'd be sorely dissapointed. Had it been a consensually casual encounter, it'd be a different story.


Oh come on, don't give me that typcal, virgin fantasy bullshit. This isn't about making sex to be some sacred ritual that cannot be used for merely recreational purposes. Yeah, ok. Casual sex, is just casual sex. Knew it before, know it now, I get it.

Again, my point is because such grandiose festivities and wonders will not commence when cherries are popped, it'd be risky for someone who wants sex served with some sort of an emotional connection with the other person, to just give it up within the first 3 hours that he or she spent actually talking to his/her crush or attractive stranger.

I did want to hear them. That's the point. Give 'n take, throw around and compare different ideas and views!

Stimulating discussion does not exclusively entail saying things like "oh ok, you're right" or "I agree with everything you have to say without questioning anything at all!" If that's too overbearing for you then go ahead and close the thread down. You're really not doing me any favors here by keeping it open if all I'm allowed to do is just agree with everyone else. God forbid we can actually compare our differing views without attacking eachother or having the "I'm always right and you're always wrong" mentality. =/

We've already established that your experience doesn't amount to shit, I don't know why you keep bringing it up as though it were a valid resource.

Also, who said anything about dead end? It's still sex, it has value in and of itself.

Heaven forfend. Do you honestly think that sex requires no practice? The first time you jump in the sack with your one true love, you'll make her multiple and last for two hours, will you? Humans, unlike animals who act basically on instinct, have sex for pleasure. And learning how to give pleasure takes skill, not instinct. I guarentee you that learning how to get a girl to orgasm takes alot more "honing" than figuring out which way the wind is blowing.

Also, "instinctual" rather contradicts your magical making love idea, so you might want to refrain from bringing it up.

"Mount." Brilliant.

No, honey. What I was saying is that there's no point in having a "discussion" with a stone wall. You refuse to accept anything any of us say as valid. If your stance on the matter was so immovable, you shouldn't have created the thread to begin with, because no one wants to listen to the boy who thinks he's always right.

Wait, what, no. We're discussing people of sexual maturity making sexually mature decisions while knowing the range of consequences they're suffering. At no time did anyone before you suggest that the people who have sex before making a relationship with that person were virgins, and for god's sake why do you keep bringing up the Manipulative Dick, I thought I told you to stop entertaining the straw men.

CAUGHT IN YOUR OWN WEB OF LIES

Why do people keep bringing up virginity when discussing sex? It's like, they won't even leave you alone about that.

First of all, when and how? Second, it's not technicaly my experience, but rather, the individuals' who've shared it with me. Third, if personal experience is all everyone seems to be referring to, if mine doesn't amount to anything, then neither does everybody elses'.

Who cares? What good is it's value if what you really wanted was a relationship?



Stop right there. Note that I said more practice. If you openly discuss with your partner what makes him/her feel good and what doesn't (and vice versa), there should be no problem.

No I won't, and I'd really rather not. Being a gay male, I have the advantage of not having to uncover the grand mysteries of the vagina that are so elusive to most males. I already know how my partner's genitalia will work.



I never stated that making love was instinctual. Just sex.



I had a typo and wrote "mount" rather than "amount". Sue me.
_______________________


Actually, those statements don't contradict eachother and I still stand by both of them. Sex can be just sex, or can be more when you have a deep connection with someone.

________________________________



So you're attempting to tell me that sex is ALWAYS just sex, and will never have consensuall emotional attachment going with it?

Yeah, I know that. However, if you take the time to know a person first, chances are they won't be able to get away with just sleeping with you and never seeing you again. Yes it can still happen, but not as likely.

Me, after about five or so posts of "either your friends' relationships happened, or they're liars and easily manipulated". See, your lack of experience here doesn't refer to things merely sexual, although that is readily apparent; it refers to your lack of esteem for your friends' intelligence. You never trusted them to make good choices, and it's obvious now, that they've so-called 'bonded' with people after only a mere shag, where you're willing to know the total person before you bare your legs to them. As part of your lack of experience in common human decency, you'll deny this; it's typical for the flawed and the mundane to not notice anything was wrong. But if you were right, why does everyone around you say otherwise? That's some food for thought, right there.

You wouldn't know a contradiction if it had a one-night stand with your mother.

Because you're the only virgin in the room. Look, just go home before you hurt yourself on something sharp.

Tough luck, bucko, take what you can get. Hey, I wanted a lambroghini but I got an eclipse. What good's a stupid sports car if I can't have my lambroghini, I should start a thread pissing and moaning about it.

But I don't expect you to get that, metaphor slides off you like mercury.

Too bad that at best your relationships with other emotionally stunted men (are you furry, by any chance?) will only make you bitter and lead to future threads about how relationships are all shit, people are shit, and causual sex is the only way to live. Go chase the bug, at least you'll live outside of fantasy land a bit.

I think Jethro Tull wrote an album about you once.

This thread gets the 9-tail stamp of approval.

Oh, right that. All you did was say "EITHER YOU AGREE WITH YOUR FRIEND'S METHODS OR THEY'RE ALL IDIOTS". Yes, sure, ok. Cause what works for one person, has to work for everyone else! I wouldn't call that "discrediting" so much as making things black or white when there's a good chunk of grey there.

I'm sure you'll give excellent blowjobs, having given yourself so many in the past.

OH LOOK AT ME! I'VE HAD SEX, SO THAT AUTOMATICALLY MAKES ME RIGHT! Come back and try and talk to me when you drop the high and mighty attitude. Maybe then, I'll bother with that you have to ramble on about.

No, I said with considerably more restraint and tact that either you agree that your friends' methods exist or that they were all emotionally manipulated like you kept suggesting. Why do you try to rewrite history when the entire thread is readily available to viewing? We can all read the first page, sir.

It is so to laugh.

lurker-

When did I deny that their methods don't exist? I just stated my issues with it. Meaning what about them doesn't work for me.

Devo-

No, all penises are not the same. However a different penis is a lot more familiar than a vagina.


Honestly people, do I have to spell out everything here?

Virgin counts for relationships too. You profess that you've never had sex, never been in a relationship, but you've got the pope's authority on the topic because your friends bragged about doing it. And since your authority contradicts the only second-hand reports you have, what do you base it on? Livejournals?

You've got gumption, I'll give you that.

From then on to the point you submit that it's entirely possible that it can happen. No, you did not admit that the entire time, I was there and I was paying attention. Your continual mischaracterization of the conversation proves you weren't, which doesn't offend me any but doesn't do anything positive for your reputation.

Oh ok. You guys not interpreting what I have to say correctly, and me having to constantly repeat myself and explain every nit-picky detail, is me switching sides. =/

No I'm really not all that curious. My point is, despite all the different things that different men fancy, there's still some basic common denomenator between all male genitalia, that is lost when you compare one with a vag.

_____

Lurker. Questiong and wondering about something, does not = denying.

Look, I think the real question everyone here has is, where do you get off making value judgements on things you have no practical experience with? You cherrypick and use hella loaded words, for what reason? How do you benefit by looking down on situations that you just invented?

I'm gonna ignore the "invent" comment.

I'm not really sure what exactly it was that I said that makes it seem like I look down upon people who are more casual when it comes to sex. But I honestly don't. All I've done (or at least attempted to do so) was take their experience, and just apply them to me and my values in a "what if" sort of mentality, and list my issues with them. My issues, when they're applied to me. I really don't think I need to actually have sex in order to do this. I'm very happy for my friends if it's working for them. But just because it does so for them, it doesn't mean that it will for me as well.
______

Devo--

No matter how different men are, there is some common denomenator, no matter how small it is. Even if it amounts to shoving a penis in a vag, generally feels good, while attempting to shove one up a man's front hole (pee-hole), for most males, does not.

You were making it seem like two penises can be just as different as a penis and a vagina. While it's a possible scenario, I don't think it's the usual case. Even if two men have different fetishes, chances are, they're both going to enjoy, say, the sensation of having their dong stroked.

The first sin: Ignorance.

The second sin: Insincerity.

The third sin: Ego.

The fourth sin: Lust.

The fifth sin: Lack of respect.

The final sin: Lack of forsight.

The extra sin is sodomy, as in what you like (because you hate girls now) and what we like to do to you. Come, now. Become sodomy.

I was referring here to someone who has sex in hopes of having it start a relationship. Not my friends or people who have casual sex for recreation. For all I know, my friends' and their partners had consesually casual sex at first.


Again. Referring to people who have sex because they are anticipating a relationship to follow up. Why do you keep taking everything I say, as if I'm talking about my friends' cases in particular? I broght them up to make a point that I know people who started out their relationship with sex first. That's all. They're not the only defining, living, examples.

So now I'm egostistical because I think something's risky?


Humor me and connect the dots here.



Stating someone's relationship's circumstances is now disrispectful?





Care to elaborate?

Oh the agony. :rolleyes:

----------------------

I never disagreed with this. While what you say is true, there's still a common denominator. Which means a little less figuering out what you need to do, and trial and error.

Look at my edited post above.

Will you ever really, really know what having multiple orgasms feels like? Or what it'd be like to have a penis peneterated inside you and against a clitoris? No, just like any girl you're with won't really know what it's like to insert a protruding yet sensetive part of your body inside a hole. On a very petty level, it's still a sense of knowing what it's like for your partner, that's missing.

He seems to approach sex as one would approach Ikea shelf assembly instructions:

"Insert Tab A into Slot B, allowing for room to manipulate the base."


Just wait until he discovers kink!

"Using a 10" pilfer grommet, rotate the hex nut counterclockwise until the chub-ended adapter is parallel to the matrix receptor. Apply the needed industrial lubricant and gently wrap the two-pronged oscillation cable around the base until the two ends firmly lock into place."

My point is that knowing what it feels like to have your partner's similar equipment techincally work, is some sort of a head start. No matter how miniscule it is.

And Crashlandon, "He" ? I am present in this thread, y'know.

Uh, OK. What's your point? The average person isn't a dipshit, so, it's still a small head start.


I'm just stating one little perk that comes with gay sex. Don't get all defensive again, I'm sure there are lots of perks to hetero-sex that don't apply to gay sex.

Okay, now this is just dissolving into a grudge match. When people throw out the "dipshit" maneuver to gain tactical ground, the thread's pretty much over.

I'm closing this before it gets worse.