Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno  EXCELLENT POINT! Which is why I am so lax regarding my definitions of 'lover' and 'sex'. |
Okay, that's reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno Whereas a man will accept ANYTHING which resembles a sexual act as "We had sex" for reasons of external validation, or ego comfort, women tend to go to extremes in the opposite directions, discounting as sex ANYTHING which could remotely be disqualified.
"Oh, he didn't have any condoms, and I'm not on 'The Pill', so we just stuck to oral and anal - We didn't have sex." |
Please excuse me for a moment while I try desperately to keep my stint upon the soapbox brief:
IN WHAT DELUSIONAL WORLD ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN WHERE THEY THINK HAVING SOMEONE'S GENITALIA INSIDE
ANY ORIFICE OF THEIR BODY
ISN'T SEX?!??!?!?!? GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!
*deep breaths* Sorry, I understand having differing definitions of "sex." My husband and I differ in agreement on how to count number of historical partners. He thinks manual stimulation counts. I think it's foreplay. Huh... actually. No I don't. Interesting. In the couple of years since we last had that conversation I've changed my mind on that one. But HOW on earth do people mistake "oral sex" and "anal sex" for "not sex"?? THE WORD SEX IS
IN THE TERM!!!
Sorry. I think we just tripped over the category of what I tend to refer to as "wussy girly sh*t." I have no patience for girls who sit by the phone dithering and say "oh no, I could never call the man." Oh puh-leeze! It's nice when someone else makes the first move but if you want something and make no effort to get it and then COMPLAIN, that's just ridiculous.
And of course the answer to my rant is in your original comment & half your philosophy - that women have been put into an absolutely awful position by a culture that historically considers them to be lower than dirt by having the slightest hint of independent sexual desire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno So for purposes of this (and in general) I publicly define "sex" as any activity involving two or more individuals where the INTENT is understood by both (or all) of getting AT LEAST ONE OF THEM off. |
Sounds good. I'll buy that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno Where I specify 'Lover', I do not require that sex (even as laxly described as above) take place.
{snip}
You imagine that this is sampled much more frequently than I would ever insist upon; I don't require that anyone EVER has sex to suit me - just that they be open to the opportunity, and never consider me as their only option. |
Ah! Okay, that does put a different light on it. It about the paradigm and about establishing that your lover has an independant sexuality and NOT being dependent on you. *nods* Nice. It's designed so that it forces her to own her own sexuality.
(Gotta tell you, it's really interesting reconciling your work with my background of exposure to women's studies classes back at a liberal arts college, with personal development literature espousing total responsibility, and with the sex-positive community concepts I've encountered. Your work adds another background color to the other ideas/paradigms I've encountered. And yes, still interesting in a good way.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Soporno Stop! Grammar time  |
*rofl!* Now that gave me a good giggle!