|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 56 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 17 of 56:
| 
Jan 27 19:38 UTC 2002 |
#13> Social effects don't just have an effect on one gender. So, yes,
"patrairchy" as far as that.
The underreporting of F>M violence is part of the same problem as the
prevalence of M>F violence: Violence is seen as a solution because it proves
who the stronger person is, and "might makes right."
|
jazz
|
|
response 18 of 56:
|
Jan 28 18:59 UTC 2002 |
I was talking about this issue with a woman who's studied extensively
under a therapist who specializes in the issue, and it came to me that the
average battering case I've heard of, if what I've heard is accurate, isn't
as simple as a power struggle. The average case includes an abuser who has
issues dealing with their emotions in one case or another (quite often it's
a "control issue", but that in and of itself is an oversimplification) and
when they lose control of their emotions they behave as most people do under
stress; following a pattern that has worked well for them in the past under
another context.
|
morwen
|
|
response 19 of 56:
|
Feb 6 06:01 UTC 2002 |
I think you could go too far by manipulating your partner into trying
something he/she isn't interesting in. Anything from anal to BDSM is
too far if you have to manipulate your partner into doing it with you.
That's what I think.
|
phenix
|
|
response 20 of 56:
|
Feb 6 17:14 UTC 2002 |
where's manipulation stop and simple experinimentatoin begin
|
morwen
|
|
response 21 of 56:
|
Feb 6 18:04 UTC 2002 |
Experimentation is okey if both partners are willing. if you have to
bring your partner around to your way of thinking, then you are
treading the knife's edge, so to speak, of manipulation.
|
jazz
|
|
response 22 of 56:
|
Feb 6 18:58 UTC 2002 |
Experimentation is never simple, Greg. You know this!
I'm not so clear on the line you're drawing here, Julie, either. There
are a lot of things that people might initially have an aversion to that, as
long as it's not a strict aversion, they might well enjoy if they try it.
As long as there's no threatening, if one person talks another person into
something, or simply experiments with the understanding that in a healthy
relationship you can always ask your partner to stop, then what's the harm?
Where is the line you're drawing?
Personally, I've found that riding in between what a person knows that
they like, and what they've fantasized about, but perhaps never really
confronted, is the best place to be. You do have to be careful not to go into
really offensive or disturbing territory, but most of that has to do with
fetishism anyways, and assuming neither partner is a fetishist, you're
generally safe.
|
phenix
|
|
response 23 of 56:
|
Feb 6 20:46 UTC 2002 |
i know it' snot simple, mostly it was just a knee jerk reaction against
julie's statments.
i apologise, mostly because i currently have a prof who does nothing but
tell us what not to be, but never shows us what is an ideal.
if that makes sens
e
and i konw experimentation isn't easy, but let's face it, too many of us
would spend our nights watching a movie we've already seen instead of
going out and trying something new, and it can be quite a challenge
to pull someone from a rutt.
|
morwen
|
|
response 24 of 56:
|
Feb 7 02:58 UTC 2002 |
I am assuming, of course, that the people will discuss the possibility
first, especially in the realm of fantasy. The couple would have to
agree that it was alright to say "no" or on a safe word so that if one
partner began to feel uncomfortable they would both stop. All I'm
saying is, just assuming that the person is just shy and trying to talk
them over when they've already said no is, IMO, crossing the line. Jon
and I have had this same discussion with regards to his occasional
desires to have me be his Dom. I am not really into that. Jon is a
gentleman and has not attempted to talk me around to doing it anyway.
There have been times when I have suggested it myself jsut because I
knew he liked it. So, I would think that, once the suggestion was on
the rug, the reluctant partner would have the opportunity to consider
it after having already said no and might, later, say yes.
|
i
|
|
response 25 of 56:
|
Feb 7 03:04 UTC 2002 |
Re: #19-23
If it's just "manipulating your partner into trying something he/she isn't
interested in" (implying that he/she's already your sex partner and he/she
has no stronger objection than "not interested in"), then i don't see any
harm in it. Manipulating him/her into letting you eat peanut butter &
jelly from between his/her toes is no worse than manipulating him/her into
mowing the lawn.
If you're pushing them into something that they'll regret later, then does
it really matter if it's BDSM or changing his/her last name to match yours?
|
oval
|
|
response 26 of 56:
|
Feb 7 16:32 UTC 2002 |
heh.
|
jazz
|
|
response 27 of 56:
|
Feb 7 18:08 UTC 2002 |
I concur with #25.
Moreover, in my experience, most people *don't* sit down and discuss
new things they'd like to try in bed. It's too cerebral. It's like trying
to convince someone they might like Thai food by describing how it's cooked
and what how the curries are made. Though most people don't experiment worth
a damn, those I know that have do so by ... just doing it, and generally
don't talk about it at all.
|
morwen
|
|
response 28 of 56:
|
Feb 7 19:20 UTC 2002 |
resp:25 I think that may have been what I was trying to say. Very well
put. I just don't think people should be manipulated. And that goes
for people you know as well as those you've just met, especially in the
area of sex and regardless of whether its BDSM or eating peanut butter
between their toes. You should at least talk about it and find out WHY
they don't want to. Then you can make in roads towards settling their
concerns. If that doesn't help, give up and do something else. That's
my opinion.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 29 of 56:
|
Feb 8 04:18 UTC 2002 |
Experimentation is good, but a little bit of planning can't hurt.
Unless, instead, we are talking about mastering the art of nonverbal
communication. Sex, in general, is rarely a spontaneous thing.. the
odds that two people that are together will be horny at precisely the
same time is a bit slim, and sex either needs to be planned out loud a
little bit, or the two need to learn how to accurately read and
ascertain the other's signals.
In the case of experimentation, then, I think gradually introducing
the 'kink' or whatever else you want to call it, is a good strategy,
giving enough time for the parties to respond, albeit, not with words.
Does this make sense, then, or am I spouting gibberish? I am applying
what I have read regarding spontaneity in sex therapy/self-help to be
more inclusive, and while I can't remember particular sources to cite,
I believe it to be based somewhat on other's observations.
|
jazz
|
|
response 30 of 56:
|
Feb 8 16:54 UTC 2002 |
It makes sense, but it's ... outside my personal experience. Maybe
it has something to do with the people I've been with, but then again, it's
been fairly consistent with all of them.
I don't know about the odds of two people being horny at the same time,
but the odds of two people being convincable if their partner seems to be so,
seems to be fairly high. But, in thinking about it, it's difficult to be
absolutely sure, since many people are uncomfortable expressing sexual
interest in clear terms, and it's less common for one person to really clearly
initiate things in my book. But then, perhaps I've had a long string of
nymphomaniacs. I don't know.
|
phenix
|
|
response 31 of 56:
|
Feb 8 18:53 UTC 2002 |
actually..cybersex is a usefull tool...you don't talk about the fantisy you
kind of do it
|
oval
|
|
response 32 of 56:
|
Feb 8 20:37 UTC 2002 |
my partners not always horny at the same time i am, but i know how to change
that.
|
phenix
|
|
response 33 of 56:
|
Feb 8 21:06 UTC 2002 |
well. is your partner a man.
|
oval
|
|
response 34 of 56:
|
Feb 8 23:35 UTC 2002 |
maybe.
|
phenix
|
|
response 35 of 56:
|
Feb 9 17:15 UTC 2002 |
then it shouldn't be very hard to swing him over
|
oval
|
|
response 36 of 56:
|
Feb 9 22:41 UTC 2002 |
are you callin my man a ho?!?
|
phenix
|
|
response 37 of 56:
|
Feb 10 02:26 UTC 2002 |
nope. jut a man
|
morwen
|
|
response 38 of 56:
|
Feb 10 19:12 UTC 2002 |
<laughs> Jon is fairly easy to swing over, too, oval. It has a lot to
do with the way men are wired. If men were wired the way women are
there would be lots less children and the human race would be a dying
breed.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 39 of 56:
|
Feb 11 01:01 UTC 2002 |
hmmm? I don't think that's 100% the case.. gender roles depend on the
society. If one wants to be purely observant, well, I do believe men
might behave differently if they bled out of their gential openings
and bore children, part of the time. Hermaphrodism doesn't really
count, since genetics doesn't seem to be truly split 50/50, i.e., I
haven't heard of any scientific case of a human that could impregnate
and be pregnant.
So, obviously, since there are biological differences between men and
women, it is not unreasonable that many societies often make some sort
of gender roles. American society isn't free of them, and I think,
from an anthropological/sociological point of view, that isn't
necessarily a bad thing. The rules will likely continue to grow and
evolve depending on how the society structures itself.
The society decides mores and folkways, too, which I believe, was the
original focus of this discussion.
|
jazz
|
|
response 40 of 56:
|
Feb 11 04:29 UTC 2002 |
There are some pretty noticeable biological differences; the
development of the visual cortex, the development of the corpus callosum, the
flexibility and load-bearing characteristics of the spine. Male children and
female children - long before they're capable of language - react differently
to stress.
And yet a lot of things that we associate with male or female roles
are reversed in, say, traditional Iranian culture.
Hmm.
Okay, no point there. ;)
Whatever the cause is, if you're a "pursuer" then you're used to
motivating yourself, and it usually isn't a factor. If you're "pursued", one
of the indirect choices you have is when and where, and you're used to
unmotivating yourself.
The real fun starts when people realise the game can be reversed. ;)
|
morwen
|
|
response 41 of 56:
|
Feb 11 18:31 UTC 2002 |
That's not what I was talking about, you guys. I was talking about
physical wiring. Women don't get horney, if I may be permitted to use
the term here, as often or as easily as men do. Often a woman
requires at leat a half an hour of work on the part of both partners
before she is ready. This, at times, enables her to shunt it aside to
accomplish other things. The man, on the other hand, can be ready in
just a few minutes and, often, when he is horney it is very hard to
ignore. If they were both wired like the woman, requiring several
minutes to be aroused, perhaps lovemaking would take longer. Maybe
they would both masturbate and never touch each other. You never
know. Maybe relationships would become nigh-impossible.
~something to think about~
|