Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So now saying any number is too many is automatically Puritanical?
Yes. (Again, puritanism with a small p. We're not discussing religious pilgrims from centuries ago.) This type of bizarre concern with and judgment of the sex lives of others is pretty much a textbook illustration of what is generally meant by puritanism. I'm perplexed as to why this is difficult for you to grasp, even now with several people explaining it to you in different ways.
Last edited by nearnorth; 06-23-2014 at 12:55 PM..
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
So you think one partner typically responds one way and you can learn that single response? And then you can learn how the next partner responds, and then move on to the next one, and so on, in order to become an all-around better, more experienced lover for all sexual response types? I disagree with that. I think, even one partner, has an infinite number of ever-changing responses.. And I think those responses begin in the mind, which is why communication/interpersonal experience with potential partners is often better training ground than ONS gear gratification.
I don't agree with this at all. We have a range, and probably women more than men, but it is no where near as variable within a person as it is between people.
You also seem to have the mindset that a ONS is an inherently selfish process where the person is just looking for personal sexual gratification. I won't say that doesn't occur, I'm sure it does, but the good ONS are not approached with this mindset at all.
You're making an assumption that if they are having a large number of partners, or constantly having new partners, that they're not having stability with partners. That these are mutually exclusive lifestyles. That is no where near accurate.
So you think one partner typically responds one way and you can learn that single response? And then you can learn how the next partner responds, and then move on to the next one, and so on, in order to become an all-around better, more experienced lover for all sexual response types? I disagree with that. I think, even one partner, has an infinite number of ever-changing responses.. And I think those responses begin in the mind, which is why communication/interpersonal experience with potential partners is often better training ground than ONS gear gratification.
Not exactly. You're still stuck hearing "ONS is better than communication"...and nobody is saying that. It's supplementary.
Put it this way: You have one person that knows their lover inside and out. You have another that has been with tons of people and had lots of experience. And you have a third who has had a mixture of both. All other things being equal, the third one will be the better lover IN GENERAL. The first one will be a better lover with their only partner, but that's not what I'm talking about.
I don't agree with this at all. We have a range, and probably women more than men, but it is no where near as variable within a person as it is between people.
You also seem to have the mindset that a ONS is an inherently selfish process where the person is just looking for personal sexual gratification. I won't say that doesn't occur, I'm sure it does, but the good ONS are not approached with this mindset at all.
You're making an assumption that if they are having a large number of partners, or constantly having new partners, that they're not having stability with partners. That these are mutually exclusive lifestyles. That is no where near accurate.
How could someone who is (by all standards worldwide - maybe on another planet the standards are different - somewhere on another galaxy ::::Star Trek music:::promiscuous by definition, have any sort of stability?
And I'm not speaking strictly of women. This applies to men too. Men who are shtooping every which way, and have 100 partners, need to go get themselves checked by more than just their GP - they need a shrink.
Last edited by Saritaschihuahua; 06-23-2014 at 01:16 PM..
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saritaschihuahua
How could someone who is by all standards worldwide - maybe on another planet the standards are different - somewhere on another galaxy ::::Star Trek music::promiscuous by definition, have any sort of stability?
And I'm not speaking strictly of women. This applies to men too. Men who are shtooping every which way, and have 100 partners, need to go get themselves checked by more than just their GP - they need a shrink.
It is pretty simple, really. In some cases they aren't monogamous. I was in a relationship years ago where we were lovers for 8 years, but we both had other partners that came and went. That isn't that unusual. Our relationship was stable, just not monogamous.
Other people arein open marriages where they're together for decades. Or in a fet or swinger scene where they're partnered and play with others. Or poly and their primary partner is stable, but their tertiary or secondary partners might change over time. There are lots of examples of people being in stable, loving relationships and yet having many partners during those relationships.
The simplest of course, and these are incredibly common situations, where people date/have sex a lot when single, and when they meet someone they really like they stay monogamous for the period of that relationship. A person that has a gf/bf for 2-3 years, then breaks up, and dates for a year or two sleeping with 6-12 people over that time, before meeting a new bf/gf was really the norm in my 20s from everything I saw. Do that a few times and you're in the 30s before you reach 30.
It is pretty simple, really. In some cases they aren't monogamous. I was in a relationship years ago where we were lovers for 8 years, but we both had other partners that came and went. That isn't that unusual. Our relationship was stable, just not monogamous.
Other people arein open marriages where they're together for decades. Or in a fet or swinger scene where they're partnered and play with others. Or poly and their primary partner is stable, but their tertiary or secondary partners might change over time. There are lots of examples of people being in stable, loving relationships and yet having many partners.
The simplest of course, and these are incredibly common situations, where people date/have sex a lot when single, and when they meet someone they really like they stay monogamous for the period of that relationship. A person that has a gf/bf for 2-3 years, then breaks up, and dates for a year or two sleeping with 6-12 people over that time, before meeting a new bf/gf was really the norm in my 20s from everything I saw. Do that a few times and you're in the 30s before you reach 30.
Exactly.
It isn't unusual at all, at least the areas I've lived in and the circles I am familiar with. However, I recognize that not everyone is familiar with these relationship types. They're just as valid as any other relationship type, and they're not all that uncommon. Are they spoken about in the open all the time? Of course not. But they exist, have existed, are not going to disappear, and are not indicative of character flaws or mental health issues.
Heck, one of the men who had his eyes on me for many months when I lived in So Cal and did OLD was a well-to-do mid-late 40's businessman. He was attractive, highly educated (PhD), well-to-do, intellectual, fantastic conversationalist, well-read, Jewish-atheist, and guess what, he and his wife are in a polyamorous marriage. They had been married for over 20 years, with the first half being monogamous and second half being polyamorous. They have a stable marriage, and one that allows them to pursue/date others. We talked on and off over the period of months, but I wasn't interested in dating anyone coupled up or attached again.
One of the first men I interacted with on OKC was also in a poly marriage. He and his wife had been married for seven years at the time, and he had a serious girlfriend he'd been with for two years. And there were quite a few others who fit this bill, and others who more into swinging than polyamory. Whatever suits them.
I don't agree with this at all. We have a range, and probably women more than men, but it is no where near as variable within a person as it is between people.
You also seem to have the mindset that a ONS is an inherently selfish process where the person is just looking for personal sexual gratification. I won't say that doesn't occur, I'm sure it does, but the good ONS are not approached with this mindset at all.
Never said that, nor do I believe that.... Don't put words in my mouth... My premise is that extra practice time on ONS to understand different types of "parts/physical responses" does not necessarily make a better lover... I believe an investment in overall communication, interpersonal skills, creativity, self/sexual-awareness, physical fitness, overall sensuality is more likely to improve sexual experience... So we disagree about this.
I also believe we have an infinite range because I believe the most satisfying sexual experiences start in the mind, and the human mind has infinite possibilities. I do not believe just knowing particular physical stimulation techniques for a particular partner is what makes a good lover.
If one believes that it is just a physical "range" for a person and this finite range can be satisfied with specific techniques (practiced with multiple ONS), then in a LTR, you are eventually going to exhaust your bag of physical tricks and things could get predictable/boring. Since the mind can create an infinite number of possibilities, this should not happen.
Oh, but it is asserting your personal biases and moral codes onto other people. The idea that a random person's ideology matters or should have a say in the doings and happenings of grown adults boggles my mind.
And the idea that because I'm a random person, I can't give my opinion (particularly on an internet forum designed for just that) unless of course it's in agreement with the majority, boggles mine.
"Have a say"... I'm not trying to enforce anything here! I'm not suggesting that we make something illegal. But I have a say inasmuch as I have a freedom of speech. That freedom is for people who may say something you don't like, you know...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphysique
Whose understanding of what's "practical" or sensible is right? No one's. What is practical and sensible is dependent on a host of variables and can not and should not be applied to everyone.
Sometimes the random person is right, believe it or not. How can you be sure it's always going to be "no one's"? Do you apply that reasoning to everything? Is there nothing you stand for? Surely you'd throw the book at a child molester, random and unaffected by it all as you may be...
That call itself is quite subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearnorth
Small-p puritan, not capital-p Puritan. Having strict standards regarding the lives of others, particularly when it comes to how others obtain sexual pleasure, is in fact puritanism, and is not something all of us do.
I do not accept the warping of a word to associate a group of nuts in the 16th century to people I happen to disagree with. That's underhanded and transparent. And what of "sexual repression"? Are you ready to admit at least that label does not apply here?
And how can you say it isn't something most of us do, when "strict" is very subjective. Who are you to decide that, and how is that different from me saying "Five sexual partners per year every year is too many"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
promiscuous by definition, have any sort of stability? 
