# Good and bad lovers



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

It is often mentioned that someone is “not good in bed,” or a certain person was the “best sex” they ever had. This applies to kissing too; some people are apparently not good kissers. I’m curious, when someone is labeled as “not good,” isn’t that based on low energy and poor attitude as opposed to poor skills or abilities? Some want to act as though some people have super skills that are above and beyond, while others just don’t get it and are comical in their attempt to have sex. 

When I think of lack of skills, I imagine myself being handed some tools and told to rebuild a car engine. I’m not a mechanic, so I’d probably just have to stand there looking confused. If I was highly encouraged to at least try, it would probably be rather comical to observe. With that said, it’s difficult for me to imagine someone like that when it comes to sex. I can’t imagine someone who is energetic and enthusiastic about their partner and desires to meet their needs to fail due to lack of skills on an ongoing basis. This is considering everyone is healthy and physically capable. I also realize that everyone has different needs and must learn what their partner needs. I understand if one is the whip and chains type, and the other is vanilla, one could say the other was not good, but again, I believe it would be about attitude and what they refuse to do as opposed to skills. 

When it comes to kissing, I don’t look back on any woman I ever kissed and think, “she was a terrible kisser.” For me, the chill running up the spine depends on how much I was attracted to her or my lack of attraction as opposed to skills. I can imagine someone having poor lovemaking or kissing skills, but it would fall into the comedy category like they sometimes show in comedy movies. Surely, nobody is like that in real life. 

So, isn’t it more about attitude and communication as opposed to skills, or are some people so comedic when it comes to sex that they will be terrible lovers regardless of their partner? Personally, I have never encountered these people, so maybe I've been lucky.


----------



## TJW (Mar 20, 2012)

southbound said:


> I can’t imagine someone who is energetic and enthusiastic about their partner and desires to meet their needs to fail due to lack of skills on an ongoing basis. This is considering everyone is healthy and physically capable.


Even when people are not completely healthy, or not completely physically capable, they can have satisfactory sex. They cannot be "entitled" people. Saying that someone is "not good in bed" is a comparison which reveals the heart attitude of the person saying it. It is not a loving statement, it is a "me first" statement. 



southbound said:


> the chill running up the spine depends on how much I was attracted to her or my lack of attraction as opposed to skills.


For me, it relates to my attraction to her somewhat, but far more, upon her attraction to me. If she wants to be there with me, and is not "carrying a torch" for someone else, I will not be described as "not good in bed", and neither will she. I can feel whether she is "in to" this or not.

Being "not good in bed" is also a common "blame-shift" and "history re-write" used by adulterers.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

southbound said:


> It is often mentioned that someone is “not good in bed,” or a certain person was the “best sex” they ever had. This applies to kissing too; some people are apparently not good kissers. I’m curious, when someone is labeled as “not good,” isn’t that based on low energy and poor attitude as opposed to poor skills or abilities? Some want to act as though some people have super skills that are above and beyond, while others just don’t get it and are comical in their attempt to have sex.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes I never understood that either...
I mean monkeys are ‘good in bed’ (I heard!), it can’t be that hard.
I always suspected most of it must have to do with attraction levels: like I always said, if you are highly attracted to someone or idolise them, they will have to do something truly remarkable to actually suck in bed! And the reverse is true: if you are not attracted to someone, even the best hip movement or fastest tongue is not going to save you. There are various exceptions.
Someone with an exceptional BJ technique...will have an exceptional BJ technique but you still will probably want to put a paper bag over their head (I would guess), which would render the BJ ‘ineffective’ 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

A bad kisser... yea I've been kissed by a guy who was a bad kisser. His kiss was just all slobber. I kid you not. Yuk 

I've also had sex with men who are bad lovers. Guys who apparently saw sex as all about them. 

No foreplay or anything that is not directly for them .. it's all about them getting off (aka 'slam bam thank you ma'am')
Cannot last very long
Push my head down hard when I go down on them...

That's a few things that can make a guy a bad lover. I've heard men also complain about women who are bad lovers, such a women who just lay there and do nothing to participate.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

To me good vs bad lover is mostly about attitude, passion and desire to please, and less about skill. (since someone with the former can learn the latter).


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Idk. I mean there's lots of both men and women who think they have amazing oral skills and boast about it. In my own experience, its more likely to be a very small number of people who actually do. I had one BJ that blew my mind. Dont get me wrong most BJs are great! So I would say to the men out there that would say something like "a BJ is a BJ as long as there's no teeth scraping they all are amazing" that you really haven't experienced 'the real deal' so to speak. I'm sure there's some women here that would tell you the same about men. There was that one guy who just... "*shudders* MMMMMMM *shudders*" and you know there is a definite different between 'the real deal' and guys who are good at it. 

I would say most women fall in the average to good range. There's a small number of really bad, but probably an even smaller number of those women who could absolutely blow your everlovin mind and make you a believer in God.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

Percentage wise, IMHE men are 90% very average lovers, mostly because they are selfish and do not make an effort to understand female anatomy and sexuality on a detailed leveled.

The ones that are terrific know how to get a woman's brain involved in the foreplay and make her feel sexy and attractive sexually. There's a million ways to ramp up a woman but most guys only practice a handful of options. 

There was a lady here on TAM who described a real Don Juan of a husband she had - and her detailed description of how he carried himself throughout the day and his confidence of exuding sexuality in a variety of ways was one of the best descriptions I've seen of what I'm talking about. I'll see if I can find it again. 

One thing I had read repeatedly on the internet stories and anecdotes is that when it comes to one-night-stands, men don't care about pleasing a woman. Sad. Also, porn is so man-pleasing that I don't really understand why the porn market is so ignorant of the fact that more than half the population is women - and a large number of those, successful women with money to spend. Porn is boring to me because it's all about a guy getting off and the women being fake getting doggystyle.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

There are clearly great- and terrible - lovers, and kissers. I've experienced both. It's not just about enthusiasm, participation or even a willingness/desire/attempt to please. Skill DOES matter, and that means being able to adapt to the needs and style of the person you're with, and vice versa. Being good at sex takes practice and experimentation - the basic instinct may suffice to get the job done, but nothing more. Human sexuality is very diverse, and very nuanced. Those who are best at it pick up on the subtle clues and turn a generally good experience into an extraordinary one. Those who are truly inept (or just selfish), can ruin a potentially wonderful thing.

The most lacking skill is patience, IMO. Good sex - and orgasms - take as long as they take; they can't usually be rushed.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> There are clearly great- and terrible - lovers, and kissers. I've experienced both. It's not just about enthusiasm, participation or even a willingness/desire/attempt to please. Skill DOES matter, and that means being able to adapt to the needs and style of the person you're with, and vice versa. Being good at sex takes practice and experimentation - the basic instinct may suffice to get the job done, but nothing more. Human sexuality is very diverse, and very nuanced. Those who are best at it pick up on the subtle clues and turn a generally good experience into an extraordinary one. Those who are truly inept (or just selfish), can ruin a potentially wonderful thing.


Your description is spot on. 

I would add that it helps to be actively engaged with the live partner - that exchange that makes the experience exhilarating. I don't think a lot necessarily needs to be said but I do think that openly expressing reactions is exciting. 

I think, too, just showing appreciation to the partner is another part of the experience that makes it worthwhile. 

To me, I sort of hate it that I'm such a perceptive person because I bring one other requirement to the mix and that is: genuineness. Fakers and over actors are a turn off...just be who you are.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

happiness27 said:


> One thing I had read repeatedly on the internet stories and anecdotes is that when it comes to one-night-stands, men don't care about pleasing a woman. Sad.


Yes, everybody knows this. Why should any guy really care about a woman he can get into the sack so easily? Also, women don't need porn. If they want to get laid, at any time of day or night they can make that happen with little to no effort on their part. That's why prostitutes are almost entirely female, and the ones who are male, most of them service gay men. No woman is paying some dude to bang her.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

happiness27 said:


> Percentage wise, IMHE men are 90% very average lovers, mostly because they are selfish and do not make an effort to understand female anatomy and sexuality on a detailed leveled.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Given a number of threads (and my wife too), it seems that a lot of women actually prefer ‘selfish lovers’ sometimes. (Men who are good at ‘pretending’ to be selfish: take what they want and have a woman ‘submit’ to them sexually). Now others will find that off putting.
There is and cannot be ‘one size fits all’ because sexual preferences are so diverse.

Also I remember receiving a ‘wet kiss’ from someone I wasn’t attracted to; it was disgusting. Later I met me wife and when she opened her lips, it was very arousing.

It just depends. I’m not talking about dumb or obviously bad lovers: the assumption here is that you have a certain amount of ‘skill’/intelligence/empathy.

What a woman describes as her Don Juan lover is going to be her perception; for all we know he could be just walking around, minding his own business and his wife will be having multiple Os from just that...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ReformedHubby (Jan 9, 2013)

Interesting thread. I guess what makes someone good or bad is up to the individual. I can't say I have ever had any complaints. And honestly since reentering the dating world I can also say I haven't had a bad lover. With that said I haven't dated anyone seriously that was under the age of 39. For me women are better sexually when they get older. 

But every lover is different. IMO the sweet spot in a new relationship is about three months in. Thats when you both have figured out just enough about the other person to make things really really good.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Skill absolutely matters to me. Chemical attraction and enthusiasm can only take you so far. 

I've had guys I am so attracted to I'd get wet when they were near totally ruin it by kissing like slobbering Mastiffs.

I've had guys I couldn't wait to rip their clothes off ruin it by having absolutely no idea how to foreplay. Clumsy genital fondling, having no skill at oral, etc.

I've also had guys who had no idea how to move during PIV. 

And I've had guys try to act as my Dom that aren't innately Dom's. At best, it's like watching amateur theatre. I firmly believe a Dom is born, not made.

Would I say all of those men are irredeemable bad lovers? Nope. I'm pretty sure each of those guys was the ideal lover for someone out there. A lid for every pot and all.


----------



## Spicy (Jun 18, 2016)

The bottom line is to know your subject.
There are definitely good, bad and great. 
I aspire to be great, I want my lover to do the same.
Doesn’t always happen tho...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

uhtred said:


> To me good vs bad lover is mostly about attitude, passion and desire to please, and less about skill. (since someone with the former can learn the latter).


I feel if you haven’t experienced someone with poor skills specifically, then it’s eaiser to say something like this. Because if there is passion and desire, but really bad skills, then the passion and desire suddenly don’t matter at all. Bad or clumsy skills can be such a turn off that all the rest doesn’t even matter.

And strangely, I don’t think they can actually learn the skills. If they are just really bad at kissing for example, and they are already an adult, the way they kiss doesn’t really change or get more skilled. You can try to tell them you’d like kisses better if they did this or that, but it is kind of like a signature or fingerprint. It’s just the way their body kisses, it’s not that malleable after adulthood.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

I once had a weird experience. A former colleague came to the office of my last job and asked me to help her print her CV (resume) for her.

I reformatted it and made it look better (I actually have a qualification in CV creation) and printed 10 copies off for her.

She said: "I can't pay you, but I will give you a kiss by way of thanks."

All it was was a closed mouth kiss on my lips. And yet It felt as if I had been hit on the back of the head with an electrified sandbag, the sensation was that powerful.

It actually shocked me that it felt so strong.


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

*UO*



southbound said:


> It is often mentioned that someone is “not good in bed,” or a certain person was the “best sex” they ever had. This applies to kissing too; some people are apparently not good kissers. I’m curious, *when someone is labeled as “not good,” isn’t that based on low energy and poor attitude as opposed to poor skills or abilities?* Some want to act as though some people have super skills that are above and beyond, while others just don’t get it and are comical in their attempt to have sex.


NOPE. Some people can be energetic and positive and have ZERO skills. However, someone else can have amazing skills but a crappy attitude, and who wants to be with THAT??



southbound said:


> When I think of lack of skills, I imagine myself being handed some tools and told to rebuild a car engine. I’m not a mechanic, so I’d probably just have to stand there looking confused. If I was highly encouraged to at least try, it would probably be rather comical to observe. With that said, it’s difficult for me to imagine someone like that when it comes to sex. * I can’t imagine someone who is energetic and enthusiastic about their partner and desires to meet their needs to fail due to lack of skills on an ongoing basis. This is considering everyone is healthy and physically capable. I also realize that everyone has different needs and must learn what their partner needs. * I understand if one is the whip and chains type, and the other is vanilla, one could say the other was not good, but again, I believe it would be about attitude and what they refuse to do as opposed to skills.


Problems exist when one partner does not pay attention to what actually works for the other person. Just because you have a certain way you like to do things does NOT mean that its something that is enjoyable for your partner. If you ignore the way that they actually like having things done, then that makes you a crappy lover for that person. (and most likely for anyone!) I had an issue with my first husband's oral skills, it was HORRIBLE. I hated it. When I expressed to him how I actually like it done, he got all pissed off, refused to change how he did it, and threw it in my face that everyone else he had been with LIKED it that way. I informed him that they were faking LOL. If you aren't going to listen to and adjust for your partner, then you are a sucky lover. 



southbound said:


> When it comes to kissing, I don’t look back on any woman I ever kissed and think, “she was a terrible kisser.” For me, the chill running up the spine depends on how much I was attracted to her or my lack of attraction as opposed to skills. I can imagine someone having poor lovemaking or kissing skills, but it would fall into the comedy category like they sometimes show in comedy movies. Surely, nobody is like that in real life.


You have been lucky then, because crappy kissers are out there. Kissing is of utmost importance to me, so no matter HOW attracted I am to a man, no matter how well we seem to connect... if we kiss and his kissing skills are not good, I cannot continue any kind of relationship from there. Its just how I'm wired, evidently. 



southbound said:


> *So, isn’t it more about attitude and communication as opposed to skills, *or are some people so comedic when it comes to sex that they will be terrible lovers regardless of their partner? Personally, I have never encountered these people, so maybe I've been lucky.


NOPE. See above LOL


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> happiness27 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I had read repeatedly on the internet stories and anecdotes is that when it comes to one-night-stands, men don't care about pleasing a woman. Sad.
> ...


There are quite a few women of means who do pay professionals for sex. They don't want to deal with ONS crap sex. They want to have an attractive man who makes them feel attractive and desired with a guaranteed orgasm (or 12) at the end. In other words, guaranteed product and excellent service. It's the equivalent to the "girlfriend experience". Expensive but well worth it to those who want something like that but can't seem to find it IRL.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

@southbound I'm going to go a different route. 

I think it's all about compatibility. One person's bad kisser is another person's sugar lips. Same with sex.


----------



## CharlieParker (Aug 15, 2012)

*Re: UO*



3Xnocharm said:


> When I expressed to him how I actually like it done, he got all pissed off, refused to change how he did it


Holy crap, that's horrible. If she can and does tell me what works, or at least what doesn't, I'm listening to that and adjusting. That's so much easier than trial and error or even mind reading.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lila said:


> There are quite a few women of means who do pay professionals for sex. They don't want to deal with ONS crap sex. They want to have an attractive man who makes them feel attractive and desired with a guaranteed orgasm (or 12) at the end. In other words, guaranteed product and excellent service. It's the equivalent to the "girlfriend experience". Expensive but well worth it to those who want something like that but can't seem to find it IRL.


Yes it actually happens a lot more than men think it does. And will continue to happen more often.

Men say things like that “women don’t pay a man to bang her” because it’s really hard for them to understand there is a difference between the average dude “banging you”, and a professional who is going to send you to heaven.

One of my female friends who is in a sexless marriage found herself a “sex coach”. He’s just a sex worker basically but “coach” is how he stays legal and has a website, etc. 

He is one of many men offering their expert skills and services in her area.

She said her experiences with him have been incredible. She also described many friends she has who hire rent boys all over the world as they travel. There are ways you ask for these things at the concierge desk. Wink wink.

It’s something men don’t want to think about, but yes women do it and they do it much more often than they think we do. They are so busy calling us ****s for any sexuality we exhibit, as if we are going to tell them about our inner lives and what really happens.


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

*Re: UO*



CharlieParker said:


> Holy crap, that's horrible. If she can and does tell me what works, or at least what doesn't, I'm listening to that and adjusting. That's so much easier than trial and error or even mind reading.


Par for the course with that one. He was never wrong about anything EVER, and could not take any kind of perceived or direct criticism at all...NONE. Everything had to be his way.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

I'd have to say there can be thoughts that run through a man's mind too, that the hot woman he took home after meeting that evening at a club, isn't "starting off well" as kissing/ clothes come off.

At least it's happened to me a time or two/so 

Granted I knew these women though hot, were not going to be ltrs within a few minutes of meeting. 

Within those a couple were bad kissers but bodies like a brick house, a couple had attitudes "I just have to let you do what you want to me, my body is so hot and I know it".

So although hot and greatly entertaining the thoughts passed through my mind that wow, this would be better if she was as good at sex as x or y is, or I could relate to her mind, or vice versa, a little. 

Maybe these W and I just weren't compatible. I saw each a few times, never exclusive, (and not as bootie calls but dates plus sleepovers, not as late night calls).

Their "lack of skills" didn't keep me from multi-dipping, so in the big picture were their over all packages acceptable? That I would say yes. So some bad skill plus other components can be ok. 

It's all about having a great attitude and passion to be completely involved and in tune.

If a man, at initial hook up, the man must be in tune with the Ws type of desire at that specific time; ranging from take me like an animal hard and fast to oh let's do this tonight like we have all the time in the world, and anywhere in between. The man needs to be skillfull and intuitive to a point. 

When it's not what she wants in the moment, not the best memory she'll take with her.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Interesting. My experience base is limited. You have run into people who legitimately try to be good lovers, but can't figure out the technique? 

Maybe kissing is a good example, its so "natural" that maybe its difficult to learn to do it differently. 



Faithful Wife said:


> I feel if you haven’t experienced someone with poor skills specifically, then it’s eaiser to say something like this. Because if there is passion and desire, but really bad skills, then the passion and desire suddenly don’t matter at all. Bad or clumsy skills can be such a turn off that all the rest doesn’t even matter.
> 
> And strangely, I don’t think they can actually learn the skills. If they are just really bad at kissing for example, and they are already an adult, the way they kiss doesn’t really change or get more skilled. You can try to tell them you’d like kisses better if they did this or that, but it is kind of like a signature or fingerprint. It’s just the way their body kisses, it’s not that malleable after adulthood.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Just curious. For women providing sex for men, there are obvious searches: massage parlor, escort, etc. What are the equivalent for women looking for men?

I wonder how they choose. My impression is that it is easier for a woman to be an adequate or better lover, than for a man. If women hire male prostitutes, I would think that often they would have fairly disappointing experiences. 


BTW - I find the hotel thing very strange. I do a lot of business travel and often stay in quite high-end hotels. I've never been exposed to any offer for sex at a hotel. I'm sure there are call girls at the hotel bars, but that would presumably require my actively looking. I would have no idea what to say to a concierge to ask for a call girl. I'd assume I'd just find one online. To be clear, I've never looked for a call girl, its just that there seems to be this idea that somehow they just appear at high end hotels when single men arrive. I would expect it to be even more difficult for women. 





Faithful Wife said:


> Yes it actually happens a lot more than men think it does. And will continue to happen more often.
> 
> Men say things like that “women don’t pay a man to bang her” because it’s really hard for them to understand there is a difference between the average dude “banging you”, and a professional who is going to send you to heaven.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

uhtred said:


> Just curious. For women providing sex for men, there are obvious searches: massage parlor, escort, etc. What are the equivalent for women looking for men?
> 
> I wonder how they choose. My impression is that it is easier for a woman to be an adequate or better lover, than for a man. If women hire male prostitutes, I would think that often they would have fairly disappointing experiences.
> 
> ...


For my friend with the sex coach (ie: hired ****) she interviewed him on skype several times first. She chose from a directory and talked to a few of them before she picked this one. She said there were all kinds of different men, and that most will send you pictures and describe some of their skills and services for your or they will work with you on some scripted fantasy you may have.

For the ones who travel, rarely are they approached by a hired **** directly. It’s the kind of thing where if you are looking for this service, you know the right words to use when you talk to the concierge.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Yes, everybody knows this. Why should any guy really care about a woman he can get into the sack so easily? Also, women don't need porn. If they want to get laid, at any time of day or night they can make that happen with little to no effort on their part. That's why prostitutes are almost entirely female, and the ones who are male, most of them service gay men. No woman is paying some dude to bang her.


I think men who have one night stands are missing a huge practice opportunity - unless selfishness is something that takes practice.

"women don't need porn" - to which I would reply "Men don't need porn"


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

happiness27 said:


> I think men who have one night stands are missing a huge practice opportunity - unless selfishness is something that takes practice.
> 
> "women don't need porn" - to which I would reply "Men don't need porn"


I don't see a point in practicing with someone you really don't care about. 

Yeah, some men do need porn because that is the only release they are capable of getting. Women are always capable of getting some D if they want it. Doesn't even really matter what they look like either. D is available all day every day for free. Granted, its not quality. That's why women need sex toys like men need porn.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

uhtred said:


> Interesting. My experience base is limited. You have run into people who legitimately try to be good lovers, but can't figure out the technique?
> 
> Maybe kissing is a good example, its so "natural" that maybe its difficult to learn to do it differently.


My exH was one of those willing but unable guys. I've had others, but he's the easiest example. As willing and enthusiastic as possible, but just lacking skill and the ability to learn. He tried, but...

I think people have their sexual style and that's just who they are. Their sexual style can be tweaked, but not changed into something different.



uhtred said:


> Just curious. For women providing sex for men, there are obvious searches: massage parlor, escort, etc. What are the equivalent for women looking for men?
> 
> I wonder how they choose. My impression is that it is easier for a woman to be an adequate or better lover, than for a man. If women hire male prostitutes, I would think that often they would have fairly disappointing experiences.


In my area there are two "nail salons" and a "day spa" that provide male..ahem...companionship to female clientele. It's like the best and worst kept secret in the county next to the two male only membership "bathhouses".

I haven't partaken myself, but I do have a friend who patronized a male prostitute after her divorce. She claims it was mind blowing and that his oral skills were unmatched, lost count of orgasms, etc. etc. Apparently, the male escorts here get the vast majority of their advertising word of mouth and are invested in making sure their clients are satisfied. She found him online, though, so he wasn't through the "salon" or "spa". The only tales I've heard of the salon and spa were during a morning radio interview with women who claimed to be clients who raved about the services.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I don't see a point in practicing with someone you really don't care about.
> 
> Yeah, some men do need porn because that is the only release they are capable of getting. Women are always capable of getting some D if they want it. Doesn't even really matter what they look like either. D is available all day every day for free. *Granted, its not quality. That's why women need sex toys like men need porn.*


Thank you. I have often heard that women don't understand the struggle the way men do because we can get D whenever we want it no matter how old, young, smart, stupid, of fat we may be. Well, yeah, there's always some guy out there willing and all, but if the sex isn't quality the woman just ends up frustrated. Bad sex is often worse than no sex at all.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I don't see a point in practicing with someone you really don't care about.
> 
> Yeah, some men do need porn because that is the only release they are capable of getting. Women are always capable of getting some D if they want it. Doesn't even really matter what they look like either. D is available all day every day for free. Granted, its not quality. That's why women need sex toys like men need porn.


When you get your first car it’s rarely a top of the line model and often isn’t kept very long.First cars are used for learning to drive,perfecting techniques and maneuvers to prepare you for when you get a car that you really care for.A car that you appreciate and look after with regular maintenance and upkeep.
One that won’t let you down.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Faithful Wife said:


> For my friend with the sex coach (ie: hired ****) she interviewed him on skype several times first. She chose from a directory and talked to a few of them before she picked this one. She said there were all kinds of different men, and that most will send you pictures and describe some of their skills and services for your or they will work with you on some scripted fantasy you may have.
> 
> For the ones who travel, rarely are they approached by a hired **** directly. It’s the kind of thing where if you are looking for this service, you know the right words to use when you talk to the concierge.


If you mention to the concierge at most decent sized hotels that you would like some “company” at dinner,or to escort you somewhere else,a suitable partner of either sex can be arranged discreetly.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

MattMatt said:


> I once had a weird experience. A former colleague came to the office of my last job and asked me to help her print her CV (resume) for her.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did you unplug the printer before kissing? Always unplug. Very dangerous.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Lila said:


> @southbound I'm going to go a different route.
> 
> I think it's all about compatibility. One person's bad kisser is another person's sugar lips. Same with sex.



Yes, that. Not sure skill matters to me all that much anyway. I have to do 95% of the work usually! 
Even if my wife was a terrible kisser and just spat in my face....actually that would also be totally hot!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Lila said:


> There are quite a few women of means who do pay professionals for sex. They don't want to deal with ONS crap sex. They want to have an attractive man who makes them feel attractive and desired with a guaranteed orgasm (or 12) at the end. In other words, guaranteed product and excellent service. It's the equivalent to the "girlfriend experience". Expensive but well worth it to those who want something like that but can't seem to find it IRL.



Usually older women I would have thought. But quite rare. Just compare supply and demand: male escorts vs female.

I know a guy (he’s gay) who lives with an older woman (in her 60s) and provides her with companionship & ‘services’. All expenses paid.  
he used to do the same for an older guy. But I guess he received a pay rise and switched sides 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I don't see a point in practicing with someone you really don't care about.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, some men do need porn because that is the only release they are capable of getting. Women are always capable of getting some D if they want it. Doesn't even really matter what they look like either. D is available all day every day for free. Granted, its not quality. That's why women need sex toys like men need porn.




Yeah...call me old fashioned but women paying for sex is like men paying to go to work...
But hey, I’m not prejudiced: some work might be worth paying for!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> If you mention to the concierge at most decent sized hotels that you would like some “company” at dinner,or to escort you somewhere else,a suitable partner of either sex can be arranged discreetly.




I always found the word ‘discreetly’ hilarious: as opposed to what? Indiscreetly?
Must be a good way to make a quick buck for a concierge himself and get laid at the same time 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Andy1001 said:


> When you get your first car it’s rarely a top of the line model and often isn’t kept very long.First cars are used for learning to drive,perfecting techniques and maneuvers to prepare you for when you get a car that you really care for.A car that you appreciate and look after with regular maintenance and upkeep.
> One that won’t let you down.


"Baby, I spent countless nights with countless different floozies honing my skills just so that when I met that special someone, you, I could rock your world every night"

"Oh honey, how romantic!"


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

Everyone starts off as a bad lover relatively to people with lots of experience and an unselfish attitude. But the attitude matters as far as developing better skills and techniques. If a guy is the selfish wham bam type and never changes that attitude he will remain a bad lover. Same goes for women, if a woman has an attitude that her responsibility is to be present and willing to allow him to put his penis in her vagina she will be a bad lover. 

It also has to do with compatibility two people who are very sexually compatible will likely have very good sex, but if they were with people they weren't very compatible with they might seem to be bad. 

I think basically a person who wants to be considered a good lover should want to please their partner as much as themselves and should have a range of skills and techniques to be able to do that.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> Did you unplug the printer before kissing? Always unplug. Very dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Networked printer. It was all cool.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Andy1001 said:
> 
> 
> > When you get your first car it’s rarely a top of the line model and often isn’t kept very long.First cars are used for learning to drive,perfecting techniques and maneuvers to prepare you for when you get a car that you really care for.A car that you appreciate and look after with regular maintenance and upkeep.
> ...


You used the term countless,not me.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> "Baby, I spent countless nights with countless different floozies honing my skills just so that when I met that special someone, you, I could rock your world every night"
> 
> "Oh honey, how romantic!"


Well, yes, essentially that’s how it works. Why am I supposed to care or be jealous (as you are implying here)? Why would I care where he got his experience as long as he’s rocking my world now? Some people just aren’t hung up on who their partner had been with before. 

Personally, I wish my partners the best and funnest life before they met me. I don’t want to be with someone who never sowed any oats. I’m happy they have had prior experiences. So have I had them. It was fun. Now it’s even more fun to combine our experiences together.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> Well, yes, essentially that’s how it works. Why am I supposed to care or be jealous (as you are implying here)? Why would I care where he got his experience as long as he’s rocking my world now? Some people just aren’t hung up on who their partner had been with before.
> 
> Personally, I wish my partners the best and funnest life before they met me. I don’t want to be with someone who never sowed any oats. I’m happy they have had prior experiences. So have I had them. It was fun. Now it’s even more fun to combine our experiences together.


Its fine if you dont care. It's also fine if you do. That doesn't make it a hang up any more than your own deal breaker issues.


----------



## Ursula (Dec 2, 2016)

Well, in my experience, some men are comical in their attempts. Note that I'm a woman, and only have experience with men to go off of here. Some are lacklustre in their energy, while some just have few skills, which might be based on a couple things: little experience, or no one in their past has shown them new skills.

For myself, what constitutes someone not being good in bed is that they only know 1 or 2 moves, and 1 pace: hard and fast. They also tend to think this will get a woman off quickly, when in fact, it's them who are done in 2 minutes flat. I mean, there's a time to go hard or go home, but it's also nice to take it down a few notches and take things slow. And, the jackhammer move just isn't pleasant!

Good kissers versus not good kissers? This is almost more important to me than how a man is in bed. If I don't enjoy kissing you, that's a huge problem. Not long ago, I was seeing a man who thought that kissing involved opening his mouth as wide as it would go, engulfing my mouth, ramming his tongue in and wiggling it around. The lower half of my face got very slobbered on. It was gross, uncomfortable and really not enjoyable at all. I'm currently casually seeing someone who is a fantastic kisser. He has an easy-going, slow, gentle style that is much more akin to me. He also takes cues from me, and responds in kind. And that, I think is the ticket to being good/not good at physical affections: taking cues and responding to them. Someone who doesn't do this is just in it for themselves and their own pleasure.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Its fine if you dont care. It's also fine if you do. That doesn't make it a hang up any more than your own deal breaker issues.


Right, but then why were you mocking the way I or Andy’s experience might be? The words you used were intended to mock. I don’t see why you would mock if you actually believe we can have different deal breakers and it’s all good.

I’m not going to mock yours by saying “oh gross are you ****ing kidding me? You don’t have ANY valuable sexual experience prior to me? How boring!”

Why say things like that? It just seems you are trying to say your way is right when you mock.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

inmyprime said:


> Yeah...call me old fashioned but women paying for sex is like men paying to go to work...
> But hey, I’m not prejudiced: some work might be worth paying for!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The women I know of who've paid for sex weren't really paying for sex. They were paying in order to avoid the work of finding a suitable companion for themselves. They were paying for a guaranteed charming companion who'd been vetted, who is sexually skilled, that they could spend time with who would leave at the end with no muss, fuss, or bother. In other words, they were paying for convenience.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I don't see a point in practicing with someone you really don't care about.
> 
> Yeah, some men do need porn because that is the only release they are capable of getting. Women are always capable of getting some D if they want it. Doesn't even really matter what they look like either. D is available all day every day for free. Granted, its not quality. That's why women need sex toys like men need porn.


The point of practicing with someone you aren't emotionally attached to is that you can practice sexual techniques that would make you a better lover overall - because different people like different techniques of sexual activities. This is just me using practical logical thinking. Why waste an opportunity to do some trial and error?

Waiting to practice sexual techniques on only women you think you could care about or who you actually care about means you have narrowed your pool of people on which to apply techniques. So, again, using logic, you end up with fewer circumstances and scenarios in which to expand your knowledge and application of sexual experiences. 

Women are so incredibly varied in what turns them on and what causes them excitement that taking advantage of each and every encounter is a smart way of learning. I think it's important that men open their minds to the possibility that they aren't really the great lovers they have convinced themselves they are all the time. Some men have inherent skills but most men need to take the first step of admitting they have a lot to learn. That's NOT a bad thing, believe me. It's a GREAT thing to admit. Because the next step is to explore and begin experimenting. This leads to expanded techniques and more connected interaction with women as lovers. Women freaking treasure guys who are willing to make these kinds of efforts. These guys become the Don Juans that other guys only THINK they are.

Also, a technique that "fails" on a lover that you "don't care about" is probably easier than "failing" a technique on a lover that you do care about. 

As for your porn statements, it's interesting that you view porn as something that is more important for men but less important for women. In fact, porn activity WOULD apply just as importantly for women IF the porn industry recognized that. There are women out there who do not, just as men do not, have easy access to live partners - for a variety of reasons. We could probably list the reasons why this happens if we were so inclined. But, mainly, I think your viewpoint is interesting - and I would point out to you that your viewpoint is a belief you have that is not based in fact.

It's also interesting that you are equating porn for men with sex toys for women. Would you consider the possibility that IF more porn was available that was geared towards women - would more women be interested in gravitating towards porn (in the absence of some women's inaccessibility to live partners)? 

The reason I'm pursuing the pathway of discussion with you on your point that D is easily accessible to women is because I think you might not be aware of some of the reasons why women don't just pursue D with guys even though, as you are saying, you see D as more available to them.

In my mind, if I were single or inclined to step out of a monogamous relationship, one of the very first things on my mind would be exposure to STIs. STIs are a risk even with the supposed protection of condoms. I don't know how often guys think about this (or even women) - but that's a really big deal to me. There's no amount of bliss that is worth that risk.

Also, trust. A woman just pursuing some D is putting herself in a situation where she, as a most likely smaller and weaker human, is in a close encounter with a larger, stronger human. Safety plays a role in if a woman chooses to act on an encounter. So, if a guy goes into his own mind to formulate a story that she's not attracted to him if she doesn't have sex with him...I would ask you to consider this from a woman's point of view - safety. 

You can think all day long how safe you are for any given woman to have sex with - but SHE doesn't know that. And if she takes steps to assure herself by waiting and getting to know a guy better, attractiveness is only a small part of the equation. She has to survive the encounter.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

MJJEAN said:


> The women I know of who've paid for sex weren't really paying for sex. They were paying in order to avoid the work of finding a suitable companion for themselves. They were paying for a guaranteed charming companion who'd been vetted, who is sexually skilled, that they could spend time with who would leave at the end with no muss, fuss, or bother. In other words, they were paying for convenience.


Doesn't that description apply to a call girl?


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

happiness27 said:


> Doesn't that description apply to a call girl?


I'd hope so. I mean, I'd hate to think guys are paying for sub-par sex services.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

MJJEAN said:


> I'd hope so. I mean, I'd hate to think guys are paying for sub-par sex services.


I have no experience with what guys pay for in terms of sexual services - only what I have read in articles about prostitution. From those, I'm utterly amazed that men actually do pick up prostitutes from street corners for hand jobs and/or blowjobs. YIKES! But, yes, these women who are drug addicts on street corners do have customers. One of our local publications I recall did a very in-depth story on local prostitution that I read about...truly blew my mind that men were involved with such activity - men from all walks of life with women in very dire circumstances. 

Also, there are parts of my town that I was familiar with by chance (I was a journalist for many years who cruised areas of my city looking for what we termed "feature" photographs of random scenarios for publication). Some of the areas that I stumble upon were accidental observations of areas of town that were tourist attractions - but also attractions for both male and female prostitution. Naive as I was, I did not realize the incidental activities of some of these areas and witnessed things I did not expect. I obviously avoided cruising these areas again but I couldn't unsee what I saw by accident. Obviously, these weren't the scenarios I was looking to photograph for the happy, family publications I worked for - but, like I said, I couldn't unsee what I observed accidentally.

Sometimes I think that there is this mindset of elevation that we assume when it comes to how people behave sexually. Because of my curious nature as a journalist, I have stepped into the edges of society - either in person or through documentaries I've watched - and what I have encountered there has painted a very different picture of human sexual behavior than what I personally experienced or realized existed.

So, there's what we talk about - and then there's what we don't talk about. There's what we do in reality and what we do in fantasy - and for some people reality and fantasy meet...to varying degrees of consequence. Everybody has their own redline.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> I'd have to say there can be thoughts that run through a man's mind too, that the hot woman he took home after meeting that evening at a club, isn't "starting off well" as kissing/ clothes come off.
> 
> At least it's happened to me a time or two/so
> 
> ...


That's a lot of perception on your part. This is the kind of open-minded thinking that makes for a learned lover.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Okay, naive-man arrives on the scene.

I guess I just don't get this (either gender). I don't understand the concept of sex with another human but without emotional connection or commitment. If you're just looking to get off, there are plenty of inanimate objects that can do that, likely with greater efficiency and intensity anyway. So what's the point of bringing in another human. To me, what makes partner sex better is the emotional connection that goes with it. Without that, that other human may just as well be an inanimate object.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Okay, naive-man arrives on the scene.
> 
> I guess I just don't get this (either gender). I don't understand the concept of sex with another human but without emotional connection or commitment. If you're just looking to get off, there are plenty of inanimate objects that can do that, likely with greater efficiency and intensity anyway. So what's the point of bringing in another human. To me, what makes partner sex better is the emotional connection that goes with it. Without that, that other human may just as well be an inanimate object.


Plus, an inanimate object doesn't have an STI. 

You might just be a person who, having experienced the excellent taste of quality sex, really doesn't see a point in wasting a good hunger on McDonald's drive-through sex.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

happiness27 said:


> The point of practicing with someone you aren't emotionally attached to is that you can practice sexual techniques that would make you a better lover overall - because different people like different techniques of sexual activities. This is just me using practical logical thinking. Why waste an opportunity to do some trial and error?
> 
> Waiting to practice sexual techniques on only women you think you could care about or who you actually care about means you have narrowed your pool of people on which to apply techniques. So, again, using logic, you end up with fewer circumstances and scenarios in which to expand your knowledge and application of sexual experiences.
> 
> ...



On porn, the demand dictates the supply. If porn companies knew they could make money investing in female friendly porn or whatever, they would pursue that. Its very similar to why there's way more female strip clubs than male strip clubs. If there was a large demand for this product, it would be out there in spades. Similarly to sex toys for men vs women. There is a much larger demand for female sex toys, thus you have things like Lelo vibrators that cost as much as a used car and every sex toy website is geared towards women because that's who is buying them. There's not some conspiracy by these companies, they are investing in supplying product that meets the market demands in order to maximise profits. If the porn industry was an "old boys" network, why would the female stars make WAAAAAYY more than the men? 


The rest of what you wrote, I generally agree with.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

happiness27 said:


> In my mind, if I were single or inclined to step out of a monogamous relationship, one of the very first things on my mind would be exposure to STIs. STIs are a risk even with the supposed protection of condoms. I don't know how often guys think about this (or even women) - but that's a really big deal to me. There's no amount of bliss that is worth that risk.





happiness27 said:


> Plus, an inanimate object doesn't have an STI.


Speaking as a dude, this is something I have thought of often. STDs and unwanted pregnancies are the two things I was never willing to risk just for a quick roll in the hay (regardless of what my personal beliefs are on sex). This is also part of why I believe physical affairs are so damaging (and why it is something that if it ever happened to me the relationship would be over with unequivocally). Someone that you cared about, that supposedly loved you, was willing to either bring home to you an STD or someone else's child.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Okay, naive-man arrives on the scene.
> 
> I guess I just don't get this (either gender). I don't understand the concept of sex with another human but without emotional connection or commitment. If you're just looking to get off, there are plenty of inanimate objects that can do that, likely with greater efficiency and intensity anyway. So what's the point of bringing in another human. To me, what makes partner sex better is the emotional connection that goes with it. Without that, that other human may just as well be an inanimate object.


Personally, it isn't something I do. But I have talked to many men and women who have done it many times ("many" being relative) who really enjoyed it. Have also heard from some women who did not enjoy some of those experiences, but generally they were still open to having a ONS (apparently they had had good ones previously so one bad one didn't ruin it for her).

Now making out...that's a different story. There is a certain level I can go to in a make out session (it does not include anyone's pants coming off) and still be having fun (as long as he's good at it). It is exploratory and fun. It doesn't then turn into some kind of "oh wow I guess we are so turned on we are going to have to do it". Nope. These are adults who know we entered this moment with the intention of just making out, and we have lots of fun at that level.

I have never even made out with someone I just met that moment, there's always been at least a date first and some kind of interest in them as a person (and obviously, attraction).

So I don't shame those who seem to get good things out of ONS's. I don't know how they do, but they do.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> The women I know of who've paid for sex weren't really paying for sex. They were paying in order to avoid the work of finding a suitable companion for themselves. They were paying for a guaranteed charming companion who'd been vetted, who is sexually skilled, that they could spend time with who would leave at the end with no muss, fuss, or bother. In other words, they were paying for convenience.


“You don’t pay a prostitute for sex”
“You pay her to leave afterwards”
That line is from the movie “Pretty Woman”


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Okay, naive-man arrives on the scene.
> 
> I guess I just don't get this (either gender). I don't understand the concept of sex with another human but without emotional connection or commitment. If you're just looking to get off, there are plenty of inanimate objects that can do that, likely with greater efficiency and intensity anyway. So what's the point of bringing in another human. To me, what makes partner sex better is the emotional connection that goes with it. Without that, that other human may just as well be an inanimate object.


In my late teens to mid twenties I traveled on an almost constant basis.My record was just over four hundred consecutive nights in hotels all over Europe/Asia.
I didn’t get a chance to have long term relationships with anyone,but I still was a young man with a young mans tastes.
So according to your hypothesis I should have stayed in my room and jerked off?
Why???


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

happiness27 said:


> The point of practicing with someone you aren't emotionally attached to is that you can practice sexual techniques that would make you a better lover overall - because different people like different techniques of sexual activities. This is just me using practical logical thinking. Why waste an opportunity to do some trial and error?
> 
> Waiting to practice sexual techniques on only women you think you could care about or who you actually care about means you have narrowed your pool of people on which to apply techniques. So, again, using logic, you end up with fewer circumstances and scenarios in which to expand your knowledge and application of sexual experiences.
> 
> Women are so incredibly varied in what turns them on and what causes them excitement that taking advantage of each and every encounter is a smart way of learning. I think it's important that men open their minds to the possibility that they aren't really the great lovers they have convinced themselves they are all the time. Some men have inherent skills but most men need to take the first step of admitting they have a lot to learn. That's NOT a bad thing, believe me. It's a GREAT thing to admit. Because the next step is to explore and begin experimenting. This leads to expanded techniques and more connected interaction with women as lovers. Women freaking treasure guys who are willing to make these kinds of efforts. These guys become the Don Juans that other guys only THINK they are.



The fact that women are so varied makes me not understand wasted effort in women who could be extremely different than that of who you end up with. I have no doubt I'm not a Don Juan to most women, but I am to my wife and that is all that matters. That is where I invested my time and she invested hers. I don't see the advantage then of supposed skills learned elsewhere when my wife may not like that stuff or it might not do anything for her. If there is something she wants and likes, I'm eager to please. Past lovers have little to do with her preferences and what gets her going. 

Also, it's shown that the greater number of sex partners, the higher chance of divorce. Not to mention STD risks, unplanned pregnancies, and other dangers you are becoming susceptible to by engaging in promiscuity. If you are going to take all those risks for yourself with someone you don't really know or care about, what are the chances you are thinking of anything outside of your own pleasure at that point? Why would you?


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

EXCELLENT topic!



southbound said:


> I’m curious, when someone is labeled as “not good,” isn’t that based on low energy and poor attitude as opposed to poor skills or abilities?


I am with you here. How "good" sex is to me has to do with the partner's attitude more than anything. Most of all, how attracted/passionate toward me does he seem?

IMO, GOOD Sex = Passion - Lots of kissing and running hands all over body and saying how bad he wants me and is attracted to me, and I love being talked dirty to during sex sometimes. Intimacy - sometimes talking and giggling about things, and being comfortable to suggest anything and try things that appeal to both of us. Effort - from oral sex to a back rub, your partner is interested in pleasing you. You have their undivided attention and they are INTO YOU.

IMO, BAD sex = cluelessness or selfishness that results in no real foreplay, no kissing or gentle touching first, no talking or telling you he's attracted to you or that you're beautiful, grabs and sucks at breasts for a minute, maybe sticks his had between your legs, performs sexual intercourse until guy climaxes, rolls off, then goes back to the ball game or to sleep not even touching you. 

Don't get me wrong - if I'm getting good sex then I love quickies as a filler around the more "event" type sessions. But when quickies ARE the entire sex life? IMO, You are with a bad lover.




southbound said:


> When it comes to kissing, I don’t look back on any woman I ever kissed and think, “she was a terrible kisser.” For me, the chill running up the spine depends on how much I was attracted to her or my lack of attraction as opposed to skills.


Kissing, I think, is a different animal where some people seem to have very particular tastes in how they like to kiss and like to be kissed. For me, a really GOOD kiss is as good as or even better than a good orgasm. I've actually talked with male friends about this and googled people's opinions, because my experience has been that in the beginning of a relationship, guys kiss you and then kiss you good. And once you start having sex, it's like kissing becomes a very rare afterthought for them. 

Anyhow, the type of kissing that one person craves seems to be incredibly off putting to another person. For me, if I'm into you, there could never be too much kissing, too deep, too much tongue, too much passion, too much saliva, too much ANYTHING. To me, kissing is as intimate and passionate as you can get. I want to make out like we're both 17.

But I've heard a lot of other people say they don't like tongue, or saliva, or the other person was too aggressive, etc. I've also read that a lot of men don't really like kissing, or that they kiss a woman to get her turned on, then they're done with it, so it's a tool to them, more than something they enjoy for the experience.

I was dating a guy once who was very sexual, hands all over me all the time, but never kissed me. One day we were in the car and he leaned over, puckered his lips, and pressed them against mine for about 1.5 seconds. I was definitely left disappointed and actually remembered how worthless the one kiss I got from him was. Yet a day or two later he reminisced about that "hot, sexy kiss we shared in the car, that was SO HOT! according to him.

The way someone builds the kiss up, the way they use their tongue, if they use their tongue, how they use their lips, nibbling, sucking, maybe a moan or two - at the end of the day, screwing is screwing, but kissing definitely seems very different with different people. Definitely more satisfying with someone I find to be a "good kisser."

Though whether or not they LIKE to kiss is probably at the heart of it, and that is attitude more than skill.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> The women I know of who've paid for sex weren't really paying for sex. They were paying in order to avoid the work of finding a suitable companion for themselves. They were paying for a guaranteed charming companion who'd been vetted, who is sexually skilled, that they could spend time with who would leave at the end with no muss, fuss, or bother. In other words, they were paying for convenience.



And which agency can provide these mythical creatures that are so perfect in every way? You know about the saying that money can’t buy you love right? 
Have any women here actually used any of these? Or this only hear-say/fantasy talk? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> I'd hope so. I mean, I'd hate to think guys are paying for sub-par sex services.




I think ‘quality control’ is not that great when it comes to escorts for male customers....From what I have heard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Andy1001 said:


> In my late teens to mid twenties I traveled on an almost constant basis.My record was just over four hundred consecutive nights in hotels all over Europe/Asia.
> I didn’t get a chance to have long term relationships with anyone,but I still was a young man with a young mans tastes.
> So according to your hypothesis I should have stayed in my room and jerked off?
> Why???


Please. 

Reread the post.

I said "_*I*_ don't get..."
"_*I *_don't understand...."

My post was an honest request for information so that I could understand others' perspectives. It was the very essence of not having a "hypothesis." It was not judgment. It was not shaming. Nor did it prescribe any course of action for you or anyone else. It was merely an attempt to understand others. Simple as that. 

And clearly the situation you describe is well outside the norm, so even if I did have some moral compunctions here, they wouldn't extend to your situation.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> And which agency can provide these mythical creatures that are so perfect in every way? You know about the saying that money can’t buy you love right?
> Have any women here actually used any of these? Or this only hear-say/fantasy talk?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Going very slightly off topic have you ever heard of gfe.(Girlfriend experience)


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Please.
> 
> Reread the post.
> 
> ...


Yes,and I wrote according to YOUR hypothesis.
Maybe hypothesis isn’t the correct term but it’s still YOUR opinion.
And believe me when I tell you I wouldn’t recommend that lifestyle of always traveling to anyone.Even now I get itchy feet after a couple of months at home.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Andy1001 said:


> Yes,and I wrote according to YOUR hypothesis.
> Maybe hypothesis isn’t the correct term but it’s still YOUR opinion.
> And believe me when I tell you I wouldn’t recommend that lifestyle of always traveling to anyone.Even now I get itchy feet after a couple of months at home.


No, it's not even my opinion. It's how I lived _my life_ which does not provide an opinion as to what others should do. 

Hell, I even opened the post by calling myself "naive man" which should tell you right off that I'm admitting I don't know enough to have an opinion or that any opinion I may offer is coming from a narrow perspective and has little if any value to others.


----------



## sunsetmist (Jul 12, 2018)

Some years ago, I had the opportunity to work with someone who turned out to be what I guess one would call a lady of the evening. She came across as classy and elegant. I kept my mouth shut and what a learning experience that was. She discussed her ex-pimp, her family, her boyfriends, the undercover cop with whom she lived, etc. 

She maintained she could gently teach the skills she needed in a man and make it seem effortless. And i'm thinking she generally did too. She had a way of making the person she was with feel extraordinarily special. They wanted to please her. I wonder what happened to her?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

happiness27 said:


> The point of practicing with someone you aren't emotionally attached to is that you can practice sexual techniques that would make you a better lover overall - because different people like different techniques of sexual activities. This is just me using practical logical thinking. Why waste an opportunity to do some trial and error?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok...but what if the previous partner loved an extra finger up her exhaust pipe during oral while the next one absolutely hated it? Or if she preferred a gentle, circular tongue motion on her cherry while the next one preferred the full on, smothering ‘face rub’?
Why would it be useful for me to perfect the ‘face rubbing’ technique if the next partner would again be hating it?
Doesn’t it make more sense to keep exploring and perfecting things on the same partner rather than playing darts with eyes closed with many different ones?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> Going very slightly off topic have you ever heard of gfe.(Girlfriend experience)



No. Do you have to pay someone to nag you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> Ok...but what if the previous partner loved an extra finger up her exhaust pipe during oral while the next one absolutely hated it? Or if she preferred a gentle, circular tongue motion on her cherry while the next one preferred the full on, smothering ‘face rub’?
> Why would it be useful for me to perfect the ‘face rubbing’ technique if the next partner would again be hating it?
> Doesn’t it make more sense to keep exploring and perfecting things on the same partner rather than playing darts with eyes closed with many different ones?
> 
> ...


I guess one could say that the more tools you have in your toolbox, the more prepared you will be for the next job, whatever it may be. (this is of course out the window if already in a 'til death do us part situation)


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

southbound said:


> So, isn’t it more about attitude and communication as opposed to skills, or are some people so comedic when it comes to sex that they will be terrible lovers regardless of their partner? Personally, I have never encountered these people, so maybe I've been lucky.


Sorry to be late to the show. The truth is it is a combination. Without either it is pretty meh. Kissing is practically a language all its own. And yes, there are people my age who couldn't find a clit with a finger or a tongue with a freakin microscope. Etc.. So I vote both.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

inmyprime said:


> Given a number of threads (and my wife too), it seems that a lot of women actually prefer ‘selfish lovers’ sometimes. (Men who are good at ‘pretending’ to be selfish: take what they want and have a woman ‘submit’ to them sexually). Now others will find that off putting.


Hmmmmm.... IDK. As a woman who loves it when my man throws me down and sexually dominates me, I'd have to disagree. I find that super sexy, but if it was ALL he did - throw me down, have his way, then go on about his business - that would definitely land him in the BAD lover category.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I guess one could say that the more tools you have in your toolbox, the more prepared you will be for the next job, whatever it may be. (this is of course out the window if already in a 'til death do us part situation)



Well a tool box for plumbing is not gonna be of any use to perform a colonoscopy...I dunno. Maybe it might be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

WorkingWife said:


> Hmmmmm.... IDK. As a woman who loves it when my man throws me down and sexually dominates me, I'd have to disagree. I find that super sexy, but if it was ALL he did - throw me down, have his way, then go on about his business - that would definitely land him in the BAD lover category.



Disagree with what? Does ‘sometimes’ read like ‘always’ to you? Pfft! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> Ok...but what if the previous partner loved an extra finger up her exhaust pipe during oral while the next one absolutely hated it? Or if she preferred a gentle, circular tongue motion on her cherry while the next one preferred the full on, smothering ‘face rub’?
> Why would it be useful for me to perfect the ‘face rubbing’ technique if the next partner would again be hating it?
> Doesn’t it make more sense to keep exploring and perfecting things on the same partner rather than playing darts with eyes closed with many different ones?
> 
> ...


You are from the UK and snooker is a very popular sport over there with millions in prize money.Some frames are won by one big break,some last longer with both players contributing breaks and then some frames end up as technical battles lasting seemingly forever.
It’s a bit like sex,some women want to be taken quickly aka “wham bam,thank you ma’am”.Others like games needing specialized equipment ,extensions etc and some like a long drawn out match lasting hours.
All the best players can play all the different games.And they have no way of knowing until the game starts how it is going to develop.And that’s why the same people make the highlight reel every time.
Try and answer this without making another of your jokes.😜


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> Well a tool box for plumbing is not gonna be of any use to perform a colonoscopy...I dunno. Maybe it might be.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, we're talking about variations within the realm of sex here... a far cry more similar than plumbing vs medical treatment which are two entirely different disciplines.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> You are from the UK and snooker is a very popular sport over there with millions in prize money.Some frames are won by one big break,some last longer with both players contributing breaks and then some frames end up as technical battles lasting seemingly forever.
> 
> It’s a bit like sex,some women want to be taken quickly aka “wham bam,thank you ma’am”.Others like games needing specialized equipment ,extensions etc and some like a long drawn out match lasting hours.
> 
> ...



But...I don’t see a question here. 
Though I see your point: perhaps I’m too balls-deep  in this topic to notice any cues 



Andy1001 said:


> Try and answer this without making another of your jokes.


Sorry, no can do. You talk about sex techniques using balls, cues, extenders and holes and I’m supposed to not make jokes? Do you think I’m a robot?

Korfball is what you should be using sex to compare with:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-41749447

Snooker is too sexist, dominated by the evilz patriarchy 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Well, we're talking about variations within the realm of sex here... a far cry more similar than plumbing vs medical treatment which are two entirely different disciplines.




Both involve various types of pipes...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> Both involve various types of pipes...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah, I knew I teed that one up for you right when I hit submit.


----------



## PreRaph (Jun 13, 2017)

From this particular man's perspective, great sex with a woman is great. Great sex with a woman whom I so much want to be with because she loves me and I would literally follow her around on a leash is indescribable. Not so great sex with a woman I really want to be with and enjoy is still ok and probably good enough.

Being good in bed, well yes, there are things that do matter, but overall it is the sense of freedom and play I get from it. If that is there, then heck, the woman could be clumsy as hell at it and I'd still love it. Skill is good when its good, but I wouldn't feel right at all if a woman used every conceivable skill on me to satisfy me. I'd feel like a guinea pig in an experimental lab.

One other thing: If a woman who was really attracted to me and loved me turned out to be a bad lover, I'd never, ever tell her to hit the road because of that. Not ever.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

PreRaph said:


> From this particular man's perspective, great sex with a woman is great. Great sex with a woman whom I so much want to be with because she loves me and I would literally follow her around on a leash is indescribable. Not so great sex with a woman I really want to be with and enjoy is still ok and probably good enough.
> 
> Being good in bed, well yes, there are things that do matter, but overall it is the sense of freedom and play I get from it. If that is there, then heck, the woman could be clumsy as hell at it and I'd still love it. Skill is good when its good, but I wouldn't feel right at all if a woman used every conceivable skill on me to satisfy me. I'd feel like a guinea pig in an experimental lab.
> 
> One other thing: If a woman who was really attracted to me and loved me turned out to be a bad lover, I'd never, ever tell her to hit the road because of that. Not ever.


On the last sentence, what if she wasn’t just a bad lover, but after a couple of years together, she also didn’t want sex more than once every couple of months? Would you still keep her? Assume she does love you and is very attracted to you. She just lost her sex drive because it was only there in the beginning of the relationship (which is common for people who are naturally LD) and now you are seeing the way it will be for the rest of your relationship with her.


----------



## PreRaph (Jun 13, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> On the last sentence, what if she wasn’t just a bad lover, but after a couple of years together, she also didn’t want sex more than once every couple of months? Would you still keep her? Assume she does love you and is very attracted to you. She just lost her sex drive because it was only there in the beginning of the relationship (which is common for people who are naturally LD) and now you are seeing the way it will be for the rest of your relationship with her.


You're mixing apples and oranges. A bad lover is, as per your conversation, someone who makes loves badly, but they are still willing and interested in sex. Someone who doesn't want to make love at all and takes no pleasure in it is entirely different. That is someone who is no longer your lover.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

PreRaph said:


> You're mixing apples and oranges. A bad lover is, as per your conversation, someone who makes loves badly, but they are still willing and interested in sex. Someone who doesn't want to make love at all and takes no pleasure in it is entirely different. That is someone who is no longer your lover.



Yes that is true. I was just curious how you would answer. Having no libido makes someone a bad lover (for me), and could be the only thing present that makes them a bad lover. Like if the sex was great but it was only every three months, still a bad lover for me.


----------



## WorkingWife (May 15, 2015)

inmyprime said:


> Disagree with what? Does ‘sometimes’ read like ‘always’ to you? Pfft!


OK, but when you said this:

_Given a number of threads (and my wife too), it seems that a lot of women actually prefer ‘selfish lovers’ sometimes. (Men who are good at ‘pretending’ to be selfish: take what they want and have a woman ‘submit’ to them sexually). Now others will find that off putting._

What I heard was that some women prefer selfish lovers.

Thinking about myself again - even when my man gives me a good throw down on the bed, he's not selfish about it.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

WorkingWife said:


> Thinking about myself again - even when my man gives me a good throw down on the bed, he's not selfish about it.


Yes, I think there is a feeling in some men though, based on things they have heard as they were growing into manhood about not being a selfish lover, that they then would literally never throw you down on the bed for fear of looking selfish. So some men have had to be retrained to understand that we do want that. We want lustful displays of passion. There is a way to do this that is lustful but not selfish.

But there are also women who are sort of masochistic and want an actual (pretend) selfish lover. 

All the way up to women who want it only if it’s totally masochistic for her and he is somewhat sadistic about it.

And everything in between.

These displays of sadistic or pretend selfish or sadistic behaviors are what some women do want most of the time. But usually her man is doing these things because she likes it, so it’s still not selfish. Some guys with wives like this do it to please her, but they don’t prefer the dominant or sadistic display for themselves necessarily. They do it for her.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, I think there is a feeling in some men though, based on things they have heard as they were growing into manhood about not being a selfish lover, that they then would literally never throw you down on the bed for fear of looking selfish. So some men have had to be retrained to understand that we do want that. We want lustful displays of passion. There is a way to do this that is lustful but not selfish.
> 
> But there are also women who are sort of masochistic and want an actual (pretend) selfish lover.
> 
> ...


I would say the passion and lust one is feeling dictates the experience more than anything. Sometimes I'm the one being dominated, sometimes I'm dominating, most of the time we are equals in play. That is us though. I would think if one spouse is always the dominant one, things could get a little bland after a while. I enjoy the sub and dom role equally myself. So does my wife. So for us, it sort of depends on the wind I guess.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> I would say the passion and lust one is feeling dictates the experience more than anything. Sometimes I'm the one being dominated, sometimes I'm dominating, most of the time we are equals in play. That is us though. I would think if one spouse is always the dominant one, things could get a little bland after a while. I enjoy the sub and dom role equally myself. So does my wife. So for us, it sort of depends on the wind I guess.


I’m in that switchy camp, too. But I know some women (and there is one at least at TAM) who only sexually respond to dominance.

As a kinky person, I get it. That’s just what turns her on, and her partner accommodating her in that makes her love him all the more. It can work out very nicely for them.

But for myself, I couldn’t ever commit to just one type of sex that would turn him on, no matter what it was. I couldn’t be so selfless as to pretend I’m only this or only that. My ex h also would have never entered a relationship with me if I was only this or only that. If I needed him to always only be dominant or I couldn’t get turned on, he would have not entered a relationship with me. He can play that way, but he’s not just a one way guy. He wants more variety (basically wants to sample everything available). That’s why we matched so well.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m in that switchy camp, too. But I know some women (and there is one at least at TAM) who only sexually respond to dominance.
> 
> As a kinky person, I get it. That’s just what turns her on, and her partner accommodating her in that makes her love him all the more. It can work out very nicely for them.
> 
> But for myself, I couldn’t ever commit to just one type of sex that would turn him on, no matter what it was. I couldn’t be so selfless as to pretend I’m only this or only that. My ex h also would have never entered a relationship with me if I was only this or only that. If I needed him to always only be dominant or I couldn’t get turned on, he would have not entered a relationship with me. He can play that way, but he’s not just a one way guy. He wants more variety (basically wants to sample everything available). That’s why we matched so well.


Yeah I agree. Different stokes, but I was usually more of the Dom one in the beginning stages. One day, something just came over her and I never had such a good time being her slave. We aren't generally rough sex people, when we are working together it has more to do with time constraints, opposite schedules, kids in the backyard for who knows how long quickies, and things where we both want to get a job done for one other. We are working as a well oiled machine to get a job done. Sounds bad to some I'm sure, but it's hot to me. Plus we still do little kid stuff like quietly sneak into the next room while relatives and guests are over in the living room after like Thanksgiving dinner for example. One time we took it to the backyard under the guise of watering the garden lol. The places we've done it in stealth with people so close by where we would easily be caught. Its hot to me. She says "never again" usually after, but I'm not the one pulling down her panties when its all hot and heavy. Kudos to anyone who can show restraint when you probably should. We both have a point of no return that is very easy to reach, and once there, forget about it. 

But yeah, when its just us two, we never really know who is going to take control until it happens.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

WorkingWife said:


> OK, but when you said this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I said SOMETIMES.
To you, he isn’t selfish. To someone else, that might be selfish (because it’s about his pleasure; even though you get the pleasure out of his pleasure...if that makes sense).
I cannot personally have sex the same way more than once: every day is different for us. But the dominance thing, is a theme that reappears from time to time and is quite powerful. To other women, there might be a different theme.
It’s like someone who’s into pain: if you are into pain, a husband who tortures you, is an amazing lover. To others, a criminal. (Bit extreme, but same idea).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Okay, naive-man arrives on the scene.
> 
> I guess I just don't get this (either gender). I don't understand the concept of sex with another human but without emotional connection or commitment. If you're just looking to get off, there are plenty of inanimate objects that can do that, likely with greater efficiency and intensity anyway. So what's the point of bringing in another human. To me, what makes partner sex better is the emotional connection that goes with it. Without that, that other human may just as well be an inanimate object.


I'm going to try to explain without mucking it up too badly, but it's something that is sort of difficult to convey to someone who is wired differently.

Masturbation with hands or inanimate objects just doesn't satisfy. I think of masturbation kind of like a snack to tide you over until you can have a nice meal. It takes the edge off, but it's not really satisfying and is only a temporary solution.

There is a huge difference between partnered sex and going solo. With a partner you get build up and anticipation, the thrill of discovery, a certain shared energy, the physical sensation of hands and mouth all over the body, sounds, scents, and textures to heighten arousal, and there is always the possibility of learning some new trick. In my view, masturbation doesn't even come close to partnered sex.

Love and sex have never been mutually inclusive to me. When I was a young teen I found myself highly physically attracted to a family friend who also happened to be kind of a *********. His presence tightened my nipples and made me wet, accidentally brushing against him was like electric shock, but I didn't like him as a person at all! I realized then that romantic feelings and sexual urges could absolutely exist separately. 

A few years later, the hormones really kicked in. I've been a high libido female ever since. I wanted very much to have sex, but I was far from in love with or interested in a relationship with the young men I knew. I saw no reason to deny myself physical pleasure and sexual release just because I wasn't involved emotionally with anyone. I also saw no reason to pretend I had feelings I didn't in order to have sex in a more socially acceptable way within a relationship. I found I could have great sex with men I was attracted to regardless of how well I knew or even liked them. It's just how I'm wired.

Were the men I had casual sex with in any way equivalent to inanimate objects? No. Inanimate objects don't have that delicious musky man scent. They don't breathe faster when you stroke them the right way. They don't spontaneously do something different or new. Inanimate objects don't whisper kinky ideas in your ear or moan your name and so on. There's definitely a feedback loop between partners whether or not the sex is casual.



Andy1001 said:


> “You don’t pay a prostitute for sex”
> “You pay her to leave afterwards”
> That line is from the movie “Pretty Woman”


Truth is you pay a prostitute for the sex acts s/he performs, but included in the fee is the hassle free adieu. No false expectations, no drama, no awkwardness, no attempts later to "friend" you on social media.




TheDudeLebowski said:


> The fact that women are so varied makes me not understand wasted effort in women who could be extremely different than that of who you end up with. I have no doubt I'm not a Don Juan to most women, but I am to my wife and that is all that matters. That is where I invested my time and she invested hers. I don't see the advantage then of supposed skills learned elsewhere when my wife may not like that stuff or it might not do anything for her. If there is something she wants and likes, I'm eager to please. Past lovers have little to do with her preferences and what gets her going.
> 
> Also, it's shown that the greater number of sex partners, the higher chance of divorce. Not to mention STD risks, unplanned pregnancies, and other dangers you are becoming susceptible to by engaging in promiscuity. If you are going to take all those risks for yourself with someone you don't really know or care about, what are the chances you are thinking of anything outside of your own pleasure at that point? Why would you?


I think the advantage of skills learned elsewhere is being able to add those skills to your repertoire and use them when instinct thinks they will be well received. There are definitely things I would never have thought of DH learned from previous partners he introduced me to and vice versa. 

RE: Divorce stats, correlation isn't causation. People who aren't religious, for example, are more likely to have more sex partners than their religious counterparts. Those same people are also more likely to divorce than their religious counterparts.

STD and unplanned pregnancy risks can be lowered to an acceptable level with condoms and at least one other form of birth control. 

why would someone think of more than their own pleasure when having a casual sex encounter? Well, because sex is so much better when your partner is turned on and really into it. Also, ego and the satisfaction of leaving another human being a quivering mass of jell-o.



inmyprime said:


> And which agency can provide these mythical creatures that are so perfect in every way? You know about the saying that money can’t buy you love right?
> Have any women here actually used any of these? Or this only hear-say/fantasy talk?
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In the mid and late 90's I knew a couple of women who worked as escorts, a few strippers who provided "extra's" for a fee, a couple of folks who did porn, and a friend of mine worked as an "appointment setter" for an escort agency that provided both male and female companions. I spent a bit of time at each of their places of work. I'd give someone a ride in and end up chatting with the other staff or bring lunch and get into a nosey mood and start asking questions, that kind of thing. I learned a lot and met some very fun people.

The hiring process for both agency work and porn work included background checks, credit checks, STD test, personal and professional references, and at least one interview. Obviously, YMMV, but the agencies I know of personally are fairly thorough. 

They also require their hires to have a certain personality type. The ones I met who worked for agencies or adult entertainment clubs were all very charismatic, intelligent, and willing/eager to please. Of course, physical appearance and fitness are also required.

It's not about money buying love. It's about money buying brief companionship and sex. 




inmyprime said:


> I think ‘quality control’ is not that great when it comes to escorts for male customers....From what I have heard.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you're talking strippers who occasionally do extra if the price is right, that's what I've heard, too. If you're talking the average internet listing for a sex worker in your area, that's pretty much like patronizing any independent business. The service might be great or it might be terrible. Agencies are generally a better bet, though they do cost more, because they'll ask you questions and match you with a worker they think will mesh well with you.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

MJJEAN said:


> I'm going to try to explain without mucking it up too badly, but it's something that is sort of difficult to convey to someone who is wired differently.
> 
> Masturbation with hands or inanimate objects just doesn't satisfy. I think of masturbation kind of like a snack to tide you over until you can have a nice meal. It takes the edge off, but it's not really satisfying and is only a temporary solution.
> 
> ...


I don't think you mucked it up at all. Good job explaining to someone who is wired differently!

I certainly understand the thrill of discovery... it's just that for me, the greatest thrill comes with the intellectual/emotional discovery. Don't get me wrong; I absolutely _love _the physical sensations, all five senses, of sex. Nothing beats it. But for me, they don't fully activate/respond in a sexual context unless the other is present as well. 

So I can understand you and others like you on an intellectual level. I just have some difficulty understanding it on a visceral level these days.... not entirely though as I do remember in my younger days knowing a few women I could really see myself nailing despite not being able to tolerate engaging in conversation with them and it was just my intellectual assessment/moral underpinnings holding me back.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I don't think you mucked it up at all. Good job explaining to someone who is wired differently!
> 
> I certainly understand the thrill of discovery... it's just that for me, the greatest thrill comes with the intellectual/emotional discovery. Don't get me wrong; I absolutely _love _the physical sensations, all five senses, of sex. Nothing beats it. But for me, they don't fully activate/respond in a sexual context unless the other is present as well.
> 
> So I can understand you and others like you on an intellectual level. I just have some difficulty understanding it on a visceral level these days.... not entirely though as I do remember in my younger days knowing a few women I could really see myself nailing despite not being able to tolerate engaging in conversation with them and it was just my intellectual assessment/moral underpinnings holding me back.


I don’t think anyone is going to argue with you that sex with someone who you love and find irresistible is the best thing going.
But sometimes a **** is just a ****.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I don't think you mucked it up at all. Good job explaining to someone who is wired differently!
> 
> I certainly understand the thrill of discovery... it's just that for me, the greatest thrill comes with the intellectual/emotional discovery. Don't get me wrong; I absolutely _love _the physical sensations, all five senses, of sex. Nothing beats it. But for me, they don't fully activate/respond in a sexual context unless the other is present as well.
> 
> So I can understand you and others like you on an intellectual level. I just have some difficulty understanding it on a visceral level these days.... not entirely though as I do remember in my younger days knowing a few women I could really see myself nailing despite not being able to tolerate engaging in conversation with them and it was just my intellectual assessment/moral underpinnings holding me back.


Oh, I absolutely adore mental and intellectual discovery. I just don't get to the point where I want to go on that journey with someone unless I have had sex with them and know whether or not I want to make that time and energy investment. Not to mention, it was very easy to find a man I was attracted to physically and much more difficult to find one I wanted to know beyond casual amusing conversation.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Yeah I agree. Different stokes, but I was usually more of the Dom one in the beginning stages. One day, something just came over her and I never had such a good time being her slave.



I have experienced it a few times. But still, it feels a bit awkward and I don’t think I would be comfortable in that role for too long...
With consensual non consent it’s not even clear who is in charge at all.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

MJJEAN said:


> Oh, I absolutely adore mental and intellectual discovery. I just don't get to the point where I want to go on that journey with someone unless I have had sex with them and know whether or not I want to make that time and energy investment. Not to mention, it was very easy to find a man I was attracted to physically and much more difficult to find one I wanted to know beyond casual amusing conversation.


Your cart is my horse and vice versa.

That the physical attraction is so much more common than the intellectual and emotional attraction just means that the latter is rarer and therefore more special.

I feel like the (stereotypical) woman here. I want special _before_ I engage in physical intimacy. 

However, this is all speculative based on my pre-marital experience, the half life of which expired a couple decades ago. I can't say for sure if I would approach things similarly if I was to somehow find myself back on the market.


----------



## Handy (Jul 23, 2017)

* FW
I think there is a feeling in some men though, based on things they have heard as they were growing into manhood about not being a selfish lover, that they then would literally never throw you down on the bed for fear of looking selfish.*

I learned about this some women liking the "throw down" too late. I am/was the poster boy for the "Don't be a Selfish Lover" take it slow.

I read about some men couldn't find a woman's clit, well some much older women didn't know they had one.

What I understand is kissing is mostly dependent on the individual's preferences.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I was nearly raped once, she pushed the sex very passionately and forcefully and I reluctantly allowed it, and she was an awful kisser and so bad at sex that I was sore in a bad way afterwards and felt bad about myself as well.

She was extremely eager and passionate so I would definitely say skill, talent and ability are in different categories than enthusiasm and passion.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> On porn, the demand dictates the supply. If porn companies knew they could make money investing in female friendly porn or whatever, they would pursue that. Its very similar to why there's way more female strip clubs than male strip clubs. If there was a large demand for this product, it would be out there in spades. Similarly to sex toys for men vs women. There is a much larger demand for female sex toys, thus you have things like Lelo vibrators that cost as much as a used car and every sex toy website is geared towards women because that's who is buying them. There's not some conspiracy by these companies, they are investing in supplying product that meets the market demands in order to maximise profits. If the porn industry was an "old boys" network, why would the female stars make WAAAAAYY more than the men?
> 
> 
> The rest of what you wrote, I generally agree with.


You might be living a somewhat sheltered existence with regard to the porn industry.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

happiness27 said:


> You might be living a somewhat sheltered existence with regard to the porn industry.


Explain your point please. 

I watch loads of porn and jerk off frequently I'll have you know


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Explain your point please.
> 
> I watch loads of porn and jerk off frequently I'll have you know


lol

This is why women make better interrogators than men. 

Got a confession in 2.8


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

happiness27 said:


> lol
> 
> This is why women make better interrogators than men.
> 
> Got a confession in 2.8


Chris Hansen is the greatest interrogator of all time though so I doubt it.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> Chris Hansen is the greatest interrogator of all time though so I doubt it.


Chris Hansen is a journalist, not an interrogator.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

happiness27 said:


> Chris Hansen is a journalist, not an interrogator.


Have you seen him grilling those pedophiles? I beg to differ


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Handy said:


> * FW
> I think there is a feeling in some men though, based on things they have heard as they were growing into manhood about not being a selfish lover, that they then would literally never throw you down on the bed for fear of looking selfish.*
> 
> I learned about this some women liking the "throw down" too late. I am/was the poster boy for the "Don't be a Selfish Lover" take it slow.
> ...


For me, selfish is not a reflection on any one set of activities or vibes, like slow and or throw down, but on, well whether or not they are *being *selfish (vs. looking selfish which strikes me as rather selfish... playing a looking game). I have been with many men. There is a feeling when someone is giving solely to get. When TRYING hard to be a good lover gets in the way of actually being one. It happens to be one of the things that male doms/tops in the BDSM community can fail to get At All. It is not about the things you do, the tools you use, it's about how you lead the adventure. DH describes it as not being a lecture but a conversation, without words. When it is great, it is about playing the mind at least as much as the body. Skills are important. You can't get that feel without it. Like an artist needs to know his material before he can create a masterful work of art. But being a really good lover is a constant conversation.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

NobodySpecial said:


> For me, selfish is not a reflection on any one set of activities or vibes, like slow and or throw down, but on, well whether or not they are *being *selfish (vs. looking selfish which strikes me as rather selfish... playing a looking game). I have been with many men. There is a feeling when someone is giving solely to get. When TRYING hard to be a good lover gets in the way of actually being one. *It happens to be one of the things that male doms/tops in the BDSM community can fail to get At All.* It is not about the things you do, the tools you use, it's about how you lead the adventure. DH describes it as not being a lecture but a conversation, without words. When it is great, it is about playing the mind at least as much as the body. Skills are important. You can't get that feel without it. Like an artist needs to know his material before he can create a masterful work of art. But being a really good lover is a constant conversation.


RE: the bolded

I firmly believe Doms are born, not made. A lot of men would like to be Doms and they try real hard, but it's just not who they are wired to be.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> RE: the bolded
> 
> I firmly believe Doms are born, not made. A lot of men would like to be Doms and they try real hard, but it's just not who they are wired to be.


I know men who have learned to be more assertive but I generally agree that domination seems to be mostly an innate talent.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

MJJEAN said:


> RE: the bolded
> 
> I firmly believe Doms are born, not made. A lot of men would like to be Doms and they try real hard, but it's just not who they are wired to be.


Is it that a lot of men want to be doms, or is it that a lot of women wish their man could pull this off? Over the years, I have never read any stories of any men who were trying to be dom, unless it was at his wife’s behest. I have heard quite a few stories by men and women about the journey for him from vanilla to dom when it was HER insistence on it, not all of them ever make it. 

However, sometimes I have felt sorry for those guys because they aren’t actually into it, they are only doing it “for her” but then because they can’t do it “right” she’s not turned on anyway.

Also, some actual doms have explained to me that many subs are actually quite selfish and not good lovers. That they believe that being all helpless is all they have to do but that ends up with them being lazy lovers.

My ex h always had a dom vibe because it was just in him. But he was not into the D/s type of sex. If we did that it was just a one off silly game. He said he would not have pursued a relationship with me if I had needed or wanted him to be D/s in the bedroom, because he said that most women who lean that way can’t really do much else. He wants variety and will never settle in to just one style of sex or even just one vibe. Also he said that to pull off a good D/s scene, he’s the one doing all the work while she goes all subspace and in his words, he said he would rather be interacting with me while I was headed into ecstasy rather than just watch my eyes roll back in my head.

Just kind of sharing another side here, because sometimes it seems like men are shamed a bit if they aren’t dom, but some sexually self aware men don’t want to be dom because it’s too one sided.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

For us, it’s just a theme that comes up from time to time. 
I can imagine it can get very one sided if it’s all that a couple experiences but it’s just one aspect that sometimes creates something extraordinary for us.

It’s also a way to simply escape reality, loose inhibitions and be someone else.

The psychological aspect is difficult to navigate sometimes but I feel very much at home with it now, when we do it.

I can’t say it’s something she ‘sprang’ onto me, it just happened that way plus she enjoys many different things as well.

I believe everyone has certain sexual preferences but they won’t be exclusively performing one act or even be constraint to one theme. But it helps to know the one thing you know that can send your partner into the stratosphere because that will pave the way forward to more and different adventures. Whereas if you don’t know what turns them on the most, you will likely end up in a dead end.

I think it’s ok not to like the same stuff. There is no ‘better’ or ‘worse’ nor does it make anyone ‘lazier’ lover just because they choose to be a certain way. 

If she asked me to never dominate her again, I could not do it because I have seen what she can get like when I do do it...So there’s no going back and I have no regrets!! (So far)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Is it that a lot of men want to be doms, or is it that a lot of women wish their man could pull this off? Over the years, I have never read any stories of any men who were trying to be dom, unless it was at his wife’s behest. I have heard quite a few stories by men and women about the journey for him from vanilla to dom when it was HER insistence on it, not all of them ever make it.
> 
> However, sometimes I have felt sorry for those guys because they aren’t actually into it, they are only doing it “for her” but then because they can’t do it “right” she’s not turned on anyway.
> 
> ...


I think the "most men" and "most women" discussions are useless with regard things like this. Yes there are subs who are just lazy. And there are those that aren't. And yes, there are some men who would like to be great doms/tops and just aren't. It does not seem surprising to me.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Is it that a lot of men want to be doms, or is it that a lot of women wish their man could pull this off? Over the years, I have never read any stories of any men who were trying to be dom, unless it was at his wife’s behest. I have heard quite a few stories by men and women about the journey for him from vanilla to dom when it was HER insistence on it, not all of them ever make it.


Great observation.

I've been getting this feeling lately that young men are getting tired of having to engage in "rough sex" in order to satisfy women.

Then again, maybe younger women are asking for rough sex because they think that's what guys want? 

It gets complicated.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> I think the "most men" and "most women" discussions are useless with regard things like this. Yes there are subs who are just lazy. And there are those that aren't. And yes, there are some men who would like to be great doms/tops and just aren't. It does not seem surprising to me.


True, and he probably did not say "most", I think he more implied "I've been with several, and seen a pattern". Therefore he was speaking of his own experience. Which was quite vast.

My point was just that in his case, it actually was a dom move for him to say that he would not enter a relationship with a sub woman (even if she was awesome and GGG) because he simply would never choose just one direction to go sexually. That would apply to any "type" of sexuality a woman may have if it was too rigid. If she was into whips and chains, that's cool and good, but not if it is the majority or only thing that gets her motor revving.

Also, I hesitate to say this because I don't want to get trashed...but in other circles, a lot of submissive people tend to want to get me to dom them. This comes at me from several directions. It is rarely spoken of directly (people are not always aware). If it is in a place where they are totally aware they are submissive, then it comes out in very direct language. But sometimes it is a girl crush or a man crush. (from them to me)

Basically, I get asked to top bottoms a lot, in numerous ways. And I have a certain feel for a lot of these types. They do seem to want to "lay" something on me, which to me feels like a burden.


----------



## PigglyWiggly (May 1, 2018)

Faithful Wife said:


> True, and he probably did not say "most", I think he more implied "I've been with several, and seen a pattern". Therefore he was speaking of his own experience. Which was quite vast.
> 
> My point was just that in his case, it actually was a dom move for him to say that he would not enter a relationship with a sub woman (even if she was awesome and GGG) because he simply would never choose just one direction to go sexually. That would apply to any "type" of sexuality a woman may have if it was too rigid. If she was into whips and chains, that's cool and good, but not if it is the majority or only thing that gets her motor revving.
> 
> ...


I could really use some education in regards to the d/s stuff. I think I could elevate my game with my wife with more education on this subject. 

Ther bolded is like Chinese for me.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> RE: the bolded
> 
> I firmly believe Doms are born, not made. A lot of men would like to be Doms and they try real hard, but it's just not who they are wired to be.


It is not super important, but I don't agree with this at all. There are certainly some people (NOT restricted to men) who get it and some who don't. But it does not seem related to "wiring" at all o me.


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Buddy400 said:


> Great observation.
> 
> I've been getting this feeling lately that young men are getting tired of having to engage in "rough sex" in order to satisfy women.
> 
> ...


It is very complicated. VERY. 

A lot of young guys watch porn, I think, and they think that is the way it has to be. 

Older guys like me, can do the various "types" of sex because we have learned over time. 

But still it is complicated. My GF, likes all three, and most of the time I can tell which type she wants. 

However I am even surprised by her, sometimes. 

One night I don't know, I just went all "rough" on her for some reason. I really don't know why, actually I think I was pissed about something. And frankly, that night I really had no concern about what "she" wanted. 

I just did what I wanted, and I wanted it rough. When we, I, were done, she just said, "WOW, that was something." 

I can do all three basic types but for some reason that night, I just did what I wanted and she loved it. 

This happens a lot, both ways, but for some reason, she was through the moon over that one night. 

Even for me, women are hard to figure out sometimes. 

Usually I am able to read what she wants, for some reason that night, I just did not care what she wanted, and she loved it.

I think I should care less, more often...


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Buddy400 said:


> Then again, maybe younger women are asking for rough sex because they think that's what guys want?



Not in my experience. But rough sex will be at a premium soon, once all the men are rid of their masculinity and become androgynous. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PreRaph (Jun 13, 2017)

inmyprime said:


> Not in my experience. But rough sex will be at a premium soon, once all the men are rid of their masculinity and become androgynous.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This. The less men are into conquering a woman in bed to prove their masculinity, the more it will become a fantasy.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

inmyprime said:


> Not in my experience. But rough sex will be at a premium soon, once all the men are rid of their masculinity and become androgynous.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't mean to derail the conversation - but what is "rough sex"? Is it possible that means different things to different people?

I'm just asking because pain is a big turnoff for me. I don't like ANY pain during sex. But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy lively sex. It's just that once something physically hurts, it's over for me. There can be some dom TALK or rough TALK but not actual physical pain of any kind. It's not that it scares me - it just hurts, which, at that point, it's stupid and if it doesn't stop, the other person is going to get hurt if that's necessary for me to get away.


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

PreRaph said:


> This. The less men are into conquering a woman in bed to prove their masculinity, the more it will become a fantasy.


What does that look like "conquering a woman in bed"? - I mean, to you?

To me, I'm conquered in bed if I have a raging orgasm.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I'll take a shot at the conquering angle.

Mrs. C is all lady and likes being treated like one most of the time, with gentle kisses and caresses in strategic places that start her fires burning, followed by gentle ,(soft) sex.

Occasionally, however, she likes it when I absolutely physically dominate the sex with her, by firmly planting fiery kisses wherever I feel like it all over her body, picking her up and moving her into whatever position I want and really taking what I want from her body during sex, letting my passions control the action, treating her like an animal in mating season.

This includes holding her wrists so she can't move while I drive it home.

She loves "soft" sex but I have never seen her eyes dilate or her body erupt with so many goosebumps as when I use my greater strength to just take what I want from her and none too gently either.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

inmyprime said:


> Not in my experience. But rough sex will be at a premium soon, once all the men are rid of their masculinity and become androgynous.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In my experience, rough sex is not limited to male/female sexual encounters at all. Women play that all the time. Nor is it limited to sexual experiences that involve *traditional *male people. Rough sex can be fun. It is not going anywhere.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

PreRaph said:


> This. The less men are into conquering a woman in bed to prove their masculinity, the more it will become a fantasy.


I don't see it. I have been with men and women with absolutely nothing to prove. Rough sex is and always will be game on.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Buddy400 said:


> Great observation.
> 
> I've been getting this feeling lately that young men are getting tired of having to engage in "rough sex" in order to satisfy women.
> 
> ...


I didn't even know that there was a pattern among young people to have a particular interest in rough sex. I am curious where you hear/see/experience this pattern? Thanks.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

PigglyWiggly said:


> I could really use some education in regards to the d/s stuff. I think I could elevate my game with my wife with more education on this subject.
> 
> Ther bolded is like Chinese for me.


There is a lot on the internet. PM if you are interested in personal experience.


----------



## PigglyWiggly (May 1, 2018)

NobodySpecial said:


> There is a lot on the internet. PM if you are interested in personal experience.


Thank you for your offer and I will take you up on it.


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> I didn't even know that there was a pattern among young people to have a particular interest in rough sex. I am curious where you hear/see/experience this pattern? Thanks.


My sons, their friends, my friend's sons, their friends...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Buddy400 said:


> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't even know that there was a pattern among young people to have a particular interest in rough sex. I am curious where you hear/see/experience this pattern? Thanks.
> ...


I just always assumed young horny people all want rowdy sex? All my female friends did (or still do).

Do you mean something more specific like beating the crap out of each other?


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

MJJEAN said:


> When I was a young teen I found myself highly physically attracted to a family friend who also happened to be kind of a *********. His presence tightened my nipples and made me wet, accidentally brushing against him was like electric shock, but I didn't like him as a person at all! I realized then that romantic feelings and sexual urges could absolutely exist separately.


Do you know what about him caused this reaction? What about him separated him from the rest?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I just always assumed young horny people all want rowdy sex? All my female friends did (or still do).
> 
> Do you mean something more specific like beating the crap out of each other?


What? No. Oh, lordy, a whole tread is about to come about what constitutes rough sex!


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> What? No. Oh, lordy, a whole tread is about to come about what constitutes rough sex!


Oh, cool!

I meant @Buddy400 though. He had said his kids and their friends have expectations of (not sure if that’s the actual terms that were used) rough sex. So I was asking him (if he knows) are they just talking about the usual high level monkey sex that teens do best, or did he mean something more specific with “rough” like bruises, choking, beatings?

I don’t know what @Buddy400 classifies as “rough” so just trying to get a better idea.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think the whole dom / sub thing can get very confusing because the terms cover such a wide variety of activities. It can simply mean vigorous sex, or it can mean handcuffs, chains whips etc. It can mean verbal domination, or just physical acts. All are fine if people enjoy, but there really is a lot of range.

I think both doms and subs can be good lovers, or be selfish. 

Consent is of course a major issue, and with the modern focus on consent (which is in general a very good thing) I wouldn't be surprised if more men are being cautious. How sure do you need to be of your partner to pick them up, carry then struggling to the bed and fck them silly despite their protestations? How sure do you need to be that they are "pretend" protesting, not really?







Faithful Wife said:


> Is it that a lot of men want to be doms, or is it that a lot of women wish their man could pull this off? Over the years, I have never read any stories of any men who were trying to be dom, unless it was at his wife’s behest. I have heard quite a few stories by men and women about the journey for him from vanilla to dom when it was HER insistence on it, not all of them ever make it.
> 
> However, sometimes I have felt sorry for those guys because they aren’t actually into it, they are only doing it “for her” but then because they can’t do it “right” she’s not turned on anyway.
> 
> ...


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

J


BioFury said:


> Do you know what about him caused this reaction? What about him separated him from the rest?


I can’t answer for her, but for me when this happens it is purely chemical, and it only happens when it is mutual.

Usually chemical also includes strong mutual physical attraction. You both are so hot for each other simultaneously that some kind of mental connection happens. This person and you could lock eyes and tell each other to “meet me in the lobby” with no physical or body language that anyone else could determine (unless they also saw both of you lock eyes). There is no wondering if this person wants you. There are no words needed to know this. It’s instant and it may or may not be with someone who you actually want to be with.

If you’re both single and a bit wild, this is how two strangers end up meeting on and airplane an then going home together for the night (or just joining the mile high club).

It doesn’t happen to me often. If I’m not single and I know a person has this effect on me, I avoid them in respect for my partner.

Others who I just have a high attraction to (even if it isn’t mutual or they don’t’s see me) it is usually purely physical. A perfect male specimen (my idea of such) will give me a thump in my panties or other reactions through out my body sometimes. If I keep staring at him and not ignoring my attraction to him, my body will keep sending me arousal signals. If I don’t want to feel that way, I can shut it off (ignore the feeling of attraction).

If it’s the first type, I cannot turn it off, I can only avoid the person. If it is mutual and very strong, the other person and I will always be “feeling it” in each other’s presence.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> J
> 
> I can’t answer for her, but for me when this happens it is purely chemical, and it only happens when it is mutual.
> 
> ...


I don't know how research could be done on this subject but the find it fascinating.

I have always been interested and curious about attractions of all kinds between people.

I have experienced exactly what you described and dealt with it much the same way.

It has happened maybe 5 or 6 times that I can recall.

Once was with a woman who was a new member of our small church group that met several times a week. Talk about awkward!!! She wasn't unattractive but was overweight and not as cute, objectively, as Mrs. C who is a fitness fanatic.

I had to stop attending the groups after our second meeting because I couldn't control my bodily reactions and, given too much time around her, I'm not sure if control could be maintained.

I have actually had sex with two women I had this reaction to. The first was like being at the center of the sun. No other words.

The second was the only time I have had two climaxes during one intercouse session and she climaxed so hard, I thought she was having a seizure for a minute or two and she erupted, couldn't be referred to as squirting with that much.

The first woman was someone I liked and could have loved, the second was one of the worst ass****s you ever met.

I wonder if sex would always be cosmic with someone with a chemical attraction like that?


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

BioFury said:


> Do you know what about him caused this reaction? What about him separated him from the rest?


Chemical physical attraction.

When I was young, I realized I found some men aesthetically pleasing. I could enjoy arousal and sex with them if they were skilled. I also realized some men, with no rhyme or reason, could cause physical arousal just by being in proximity. Sex with them was much more intense. The difference between the two types of men is chemical attraction on a purely physical level.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

uhtred said:


> I think the whole dom / sub thing can get very confusing because the terms cover such a wide variety of activities. It can simply mean vigorous sex, or it can mean handcuffs, chains whips etc. It can mean verbal domination, or just physical acts. All are fine if people enjoy, but there really is a lot of range.
> 
> I think both doms and subs can be good lovers, or be selfish.
> 
> Consent is of course a major issue, and with the modern focus on consent (which is in general a very good thing) I wouldn't be surprised if more men are being cautious. How sure do you need to be of your partner to pick them up, carry then struggling to the bed and fck them silly despite their protestations? How sure do you need to be that they are "pretend" protesting, not really?


If you are aware, you know how to go about finding others who are aware and on the same page.

If you are not aware, you may stumble around in this and yes there are risks to yourself and others.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> I don't know how research could be done on this subject but the find it fascinating.
> 
> I have always been interested and curious about attractions of all kinds between people.
> 
> ...


I guess you and Mrs. C met in an unconventional way, so you didn’t really get to know if as 2 adults meeting for the first time you had that BAM effect or not, but since you do feel it now, didn’t you answer your question at the end?

My ex h and I had the mutual BAM. It was instant and visceral. And the sex stuff was like being at the center of the sun, every time, even when we were literally just making out. I can get light headed just thinking about it.

We still feel that, and when we are around each other, we can choose to “not act on it”. We can’t choose to not feel it, and we also don’t want to choose to not see each other. But we can simply just feel the attraction and not act on it. We hang out as friends. We feel it. It still feels amazing just to feel it. It does not make me want to “be with him” or have sex with him because those things have been decided on the mind level.

But on the visceral, base line animal attraction level, apparently my body wants to have 15 of his babies.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> Chemical physical attraction.
> 
> When I was young, I realized I found some men aesthetically pleasing. I could enjoy arousal and sex with them if they were skilled. I also realized some men, with no rhyme or reason, could cause physical arousal just by being in proximity. Sex with them was much more intense. The difference between the two types of men is chemical attraction on a purely physical level.


The two times I had sex with chemical attraction involved, spectacular sex ensued and it was fairly effortless on both our parts.

Is that similar to what happened with you?


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> J
> 
> I can’t answer for her, but for me when this happens it is purely chemical, and it only happens when it is mutual.
> 
> ...





MJJEAN said:


> Chemical physical attraction.
> 
> When I was young, I realized I found some men aesthetically pleasing. I could enjoy arousal and sex with them if they were skilled. I also realized some men, with no rhyme or reason, could cause physical arousal just by being in proximity. Sex with them was much more intense. The difference between the two types of men is chemical attraction on a purely physical level.


So my solution to not being friend-zoned again is to pack on enough muscle that it can't be missed, and therefore make every woman I encounter immediately want to have sex with me.

Lol. I feel ridiculous typing that.

But really, is that the game plan you guys are indirectly supporting?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I guess you and Mrs. C met in an unconventional way, so you didn’t really get to know if as 2 adults meeting for the first time you had that BAM effect or not, but since you do feel it now, didn’t you answer your question at the end?
> 
> My ex h and I had the mutual BAM. It was instant and visceral. And the sex stuff was like being at the center of the sun, every time, even when we were literally just making out. I can get light headed just thinking about it.
> 
> ...


Mrs. C was actually in a class by herself. I knew she was my mate upon seeing her after I grew into adulthood.

It was more spiritual than chemical and our first time together was pretty bad for both of us on a purely physical level.

We hit our rhythm quickly, however, and screwed like rabbits on x for the first week. After that, we only improved but it was lot of learning with each other driven by our mutual need but we never had that chemical attraction naturally.

We have had amazing sex over the years but it took some work and effort.

The two times with CA's "chemical attractions", were effortless and intense to the extreme physically.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

BioFury said:


> So my solution to not being friend-zoned again is to pack on enough muscle that it can't be missed, and therefore make every woman I encounter immediately want to have sex with me.
> 
> Lol. I feel ridiculous typing that.
> 
> But really, is that the game plan you guys are indirectly supporting?


Nope. Muscles are awesome but they are talking about something on a different level and, if someone could bottle it, it might destabilize society.

The people this can happen with don't even have to be in good physical shape.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

BioFury said:


> So my solution to not being friend-zoned again is to pack on enough muscle that it can't be missed, and therefore make every woman I encounter immediately want to have sex with me.
> 
> Lol. I feel ridiculous typing that.
> 
> But really, is that the game plan you guys are indirectly supporting?


Being as physically awesome as you possibly can is always a good way to feel attractive to the opposite sex.

But no, that won’t guarantee you anything with anyone.

You could meet someone and feel mutual BAM mad chemistry, but if the timing isn’t right for you two to get together, it still won’t happen. She may already be in a relationship, she may not be a good person (mutual BAM doesn’t care what kind of person they are), she may be uninterested for other reasons or you might be.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

ConanHub said:


> Nope. Muscles are awesome but they are talking about something on a different level and, if someone could bottle it, it might destabilize society.
> 
> The people this can happen with don't even have to be in good physical shape.





Faithful Wife said:


> Being as physically awesome as you possibly can is always a good way to feel attractive to the opposite sex.
> 
> But no, that won’t guarantee you anything with anyone.
> 
> You could meet someone and feel mutual BAM mad chemistry, but if the timing isn’t right for you two to get together, it still won’t happen. She may already be in a relationship, she may not be a good person (mutual BAM doesn’t care what kind of person they are), she may be uninterested for other reasons or you might be.


Sure, I obviously can't artificially recreate the "no rhyme or reason" type of attraction. But if memory serves, both of the ladies stated that this powerful attraction was almost always accompanied by an intense physical attraction. Am I remembering things wrongly?

If such is the case, it's obviously not guaranteed, but I would hypothesize that a woman would be far less likely to tell me she "isn't really that interested", if her primal side is wondering what it would be like to have my babies.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Faithful Wife said:


> J
> 
> I can’t answer for her, but for me when this happens it is purely chemical, and it only happens when it is mutual.
> 
> ...


You did a great job explaining! 

Also a bit rare for me. I'd say about 10-15 men throughout my life have caused this response.

My most recent experiences with the 2nd type confirmed for me "it" will always be there. Details in my reply to Conan below.



ConanHub said:


> I have actually had sex with two women I had this reaction to. The first was like being at the center of the sun. No other words.
> 
> The second was the only time I have had two climaxes during one intercouse session and she climaxed so hard, I thought she was having a seizure for a minute or two and she erupted, couldn't be referred to as squirting with that much.
> 
> ...


I've had sex with 4 of the men I've had this reaction to.

The first J. He was like an addiction. Heroin. It was intense. I knew we would never work as a couple, but kicking an addiction is freakin hard. We had a thing on and off for 6 years. Interestingly, he was the first guy I made cum twice. It happened the first time we had sex. I don't know who was more shocked, me or him.

The second was D. A family friend I'd known since I was about 8 or 10. He went away for a few years, I grew up, he came back, fireworks. Another case of intense sex and intense connection, but it just wouldn't work long term.

The third was a guy that lived next door to a friend. We had what I would describe as incredibly intense porn sex all over my friends living room, dining room, kitchen, and balcony on the day we met. We ran into each other a couple times after that and kind of pretended we didn't know each other because, seriously, we were so...opposite. He and I weren't even compatible as casual friends.

The fourth is DH. One night around a table playing cards and drinking, someone started "Whatever happened to...?" I got asked "Whatever happened to the best sex of your life?" I answered "I married it."

DH and I just celebrated 19 years together, 16 married. That attraction hasn't dimmed. I can't say the sex is cosmic every time, but I can say that it's cosmic more often than not and the worst sex I've had with DH is better than the best sex I've had with some others. Still "feelin it".

Now, I have had somewhat recent contact with J. It was a couple years ago, after not seeing him for about 14 years. Yup, it was still there. Nope, I have NOT kept in touch.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

BioFury said:


> Sure, I obviously can't artificially recreate the "no rhyme or reason" type of attraction. But if memory serves, both of the ladies stated that this powerful attraction was almost always accompanied by an intense physical attraction. Am I remembering things wrongly?
> 
> If such is the case, it's obviously not guaranteed, but I would hypothesize that a woman would be far less likely to tell me she "isn't really that interested", if her primal side is wondering what it would be like to have my babies.


Also keep in mind that we each have reported the has only happened a couple of times in our lives.

And I’m not sure MMJEAN and I have the same physical preferences.

But hey, separately from that....even when I’m just strongly attracted to a guy, I definitely can feel the wanting his babies thing! I’m a muscle fan (he he, Rocky Horror reference) so I say yes, get pumped UP.

For me I literally have to slap myself around just to keep from touching nice muscles on randos in public.

I’m pretty sure Conan has experienced that a few times.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> You did a great job explaining!
> 
> Also a bit rare for me. I'd say about 10-15 men throughout my life have caused this response.
> 
> ...


That is so interesting! I haven't seen the women I had this happen with so can't compare.

I wonder how often a man goes twice in a situation like this?

I know it happened with FW but, if I recall correctly, the sex wasn't off the charts when it happened.

This is almost like a mating imperative?


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

ConanHub said:


> The two times I had sex with chemical attraction involved, spectacular sex ensued and it was fairly effortless on both our parts.
> 
> Is that similar to what happened with you?


Oh, yeah. *sigh*



BioFury said:


> So my solution to not being friend-zoned again is to pack on enough muscle that it can't be missed, and therefore make every woman I encounter immediately want to have sex with me.
> 
> Lol. I feel ridiculous typing that.
> 
> But really, is that the game plan you guys are indirectly supporting?


Muscle has zero to do with it. It's chemical, not visual. That chemical attraction has hit me with men that were built like soccer players to men that have total dad bods. Thick blond hair, to balding red hair, to gloriously long brown hair.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

ConanHub said:


> That is so interesting! I haven't seen the women I had this happen with so can't compare.
> 
> I wonder how often a man goes twice in a situation like this?
> 
> ...



The going twice thing is certainly an odd phenomenon. It has happened to me with my ex h, and no it wasn’t because it was our best sex ever. It was perhaps more intimate than normal though. We both just thought it was odd but cool.

It also happened to a guy I was with when the sex for me was meh, and my attraction for him was only fueled by a crush. Definitely not a BAM chemistry. He may have felt a lot more attraction for me than I did him. He may have been falling in love with me around that time. It didn’t last. The two times thing was a blip for me, not sure if it is anything he ever thought about again.

But just considering when it has happened and hearing others talk about it is interesting.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> Oh, yeah. *sigh*
> 
> 
> 
> Muscle has zero to do with it. It's chemical, not visual. That chemical attraction has hit me with men that were built like soccer players to men that have total dad bods. Thick blond hair, to balding red hair, to gloriously long brown hair.


Instantaneous too.

One girl was probably 20, maybe, wearing a crazy outfit that consisted of garishly colored cowboy boots, an ill fitting blue jeans skirt and mismatched top.

She was skinny and way too young, I was early 40's, and we merely passed each other at a convenience store in the middle of nowhere while traveling.

She struck up a meaningless conversation just to get close and we both had a hard time breaking away and not finding a hiding spot.

Another one was overweight. The two I had sex with were when I was single. I can't imagine really resisting otherwise.

The first was skinny and probably not considered hot by others all though she was cute.

The second was a belly dancer who was in incredible shape. We hated each other but couldn't keep our hands off.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

Faithful Wife said:


> Being as physically awesome as you possibly can is always a good way to feel attractive to the opposite sex.
> 
> But no, that won’t guarantee you anything with anyone.
> 
> You could meet someone and feel mutual BAM mad chemistry, but if the timing isn’t right for you two to get together, it still won’t happen. She may already be in a relationship, she may not be a good person (mutual BAM doesn’t care what kind of person they are), she may be uninterested for other reasons or you might be.


Even without timing issues, the ultimate in physical attractiveness my lead to a big fat zero in physical attraction.

I recall meeting a young woman who, physically speaking, was _exactly_ my type. Height, weight, body shapr, hair color, eye color, facial bone structure, even little things like mouth shape and lip thickness, the way she carried herself, her stride, her mannerisms, even the timbre of her voice. Everything as though it was custom designed just for me.

BAM? 

Nope. Not a thing. Zero chemistry. Nada. 

I asked her out anyway because that's what I _thought_ I should do. After all, if she was that perfect, surely the BAM was coming, right?

I never got the chance to find out. Other than one clearly platonic lunch, she turned me down. I don't know if she would have wanted to date me anyway, but I am sure she as a minimum was well in tune with my lack of innate enthusiasm, no matter how much I tried to hide it.

Of course I've experienced the opposite as well... massive BAM with someone not made to spec. Sometimes, those are actually the sexiest of encounters; it's as if there's a flair of the exotic in dating outside the usual type.

To this day, I'm fascinated by how frequently there is a disconnect between chemistry and preferences.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

ConanHub said:


> That is so interesting! I haven't seen the women I had this happen with so can't compare.
> 
> I wonder how often a man goes twice in a situation like this?
> 
> ...


For me it's only happened with men I had that chemistry with. It happened more than once with each of them, but then we were young-ish. IIRC, we were all in our 20's and/or early 30's.



Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Even without timing issues, the ultimate in physical attractiveness my lead to a big fat zero in physical attraction.


Yup.

I told this story before. Met a guy at a party. He could seriously compete on the bodybuilding circuit. Nice guy. Charming. Handsome. We were chatting. Went on a walk through the property. We end up alone under the moonlight near the pool. He kissed me annnnnnnnd nothing.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

MJJEAN said:


> Muscle has zero to do with it. It's chemical, not visual. That chemical attraction has hit me with men that were built like soccer players to men that have total dad bods. Thick blond hair, to balding red hair, to gloriously long brown hair.


Unless you are saying that the men in question were all in very close proximity to you, and there was some pheromone at work, or that you talked to these men before this feeling arose, this doesn't make logical sense. My impression from your writing was that this feeling occurred on sight. An assumption, which if correct, would mean that the only aspect of them you had experienced when the feeling hit you, is the visual aspect.

Saying it's not about muscle is fair, as that is only one generally desirable trait. But saying it's not visual... I'd venture to say that it is visual, it's just not readily apparent what it is about their appearance that's so arousing.

Thoughts?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

BioFury said:


> Unless you are saying that the men in question were all in very close proximity to you, and there was some pheromone at work, or that you talked to these men before this feeling arose, this doesn't make logical sense. My impression from your writing was that this feeling occurred on sight. An assumption, which if correct, would mean that the only aspect of them you had experienced when the feeling hit you, is the visual aspect.
> 
> Saying it's not about muscle is fair, as that is only one generally desirable trait. But saying it's not visual... I'd venture to say that it is visual, it's just not readily apparent what it is about their appearance that's so arousing.
> 
> Thoughts?


It could be a pheromone thing, at least in part. 

I can say that when I’ve experienced it, I initially could not determine how much muscle the guy had. I could tell he isn’t overweight and appears to be fit enough, but nothing was bulging in front of my eyes at the moment we met.

Generally my attraction favors fit dudes with what I consider a decent amount of muscle. It could be that my preferences are so strong in that area that I simply would not register a BAM reaction with someone who is too far outside my preferred body type. I dunno.

I felt it with a random woman once, and I don’t even think she was gay. We just saw each other a restaurant. We were both with a mixed gender group of friends. I noticed her immediately and stared at her. I didn’t think of any reciprocity because that just doesn’t usually happen between me and a random woman. But then she noticed me too, and I was shocked at her reaction to me. She clearly could not take my eyes off me either, and while we ate with our separate groups of friends we kept catching each other checking the other one out. A couple of times our eyes met and locked. It was like an electrical current between us when our eyes were locked and sort of embarrassing but I could not look away if I tried. I mentioned to one of my friends that this woman seemed to be making eyes at me and at first my friend was like, ok whatever. I wasn’t going to act on it either way, so I just let it play out. We kept each other in our sights the whole time and when her party was leaving and mine was still seated, she and I locked eyes once again and the psychic conversation we had in that instant was something like...


Her: I have to go, my friends are making me

Me: I can see that and I’m bummed

Her: I don’t know what is happening between us right now and I’m confused 

Me: I’m only confused because you appear most likely to be straight, but this kind of thing never happens to me with a woman anyway so it’s still quite unusual

Her: I know I’ll never see you again (with pain, as if we had been in a long term relationship and were being ripped apart by circumstances not under our control)

Me: I’ll remember this moment for the rest of my life

Her: Me too 

My friend who had been “whatever” actually saw the eye conversation between us as the woman was going out. My friend was like “ok so yeah.....definitely making eyes at you. That was kind of weird.” I said nothing after that. And of course never saw the woman again.

Ok so...I am bisexual, and that means my body and attractions are more open to something like this, but also there was no masculine muscly presence or baby making involved in this at all.

So make of it what you will? I think the BAM effect may be based on more than heterosexual biology and pheromones. Though pheromones may still play a part even in same sex encounters.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

BioFury said:


> Unless you are saying that the men in question were all in very close proximity to you, and there was some pheromone at work, or that you talked to these men before this feeling arose, this doesn't make logical sense. My impression from your writing was that this feeling occurred on sight. An assumption, which if correct, would mean that the only aspect of them you had experienced when the feeling hit you, is the visual aspect.
> 
> Saying it's not about muscle is fair, as that is only one generally desirable trait. But saying it's not visual... I'd venture to say that it is visual, it's just not readily apparent what it is about their appearance that's so arousing.
> 
> Thoughts?


Your assumption is incorrect. I'm short. I don't generally see people in groups or at parties unless they're nearby or I jump up and down like a Tigger in an attempt to see over heads and shoulders.

J I met when I opened my door. At the time, J was dating a friend of mine and she came to convince me to go on a double date with her, J, and single friend of theirs. Their friend ended up being my exH. It's a long story, but I did meet him in proximity.

D I knew when I was young. He was a friend of my parents and 8 years or so older than me. He moved out of state for years. When he came back, I was all grown up. I saw him again for the first time as an adult when I came to my parents house for a party, he was there, and basically pounced on me for a hug the moment I walked in the door.

T I met when he opened my friends apartment door. He was hanging with her BF and we had full arms sans keys.

DH I met at a really crowded goth club while he was talking to my friend. I was seated on one side of my friend and he was seated on the other side.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

MJJEAN said:


> For me it's only happened with men I had that chemistry with. It happened more than once with each of them, but then we were young-ish. IIRC, we were all in our 20's and/or early 30's.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think this post makes it clear to me the difference between me an most others posting on this thread.
If the genders were reversed I would still have ****ed her.If I was sexually attracted to a woman,chemical attraction didn’t come into the equation.If she was hot that was all I needed.
In fact I can only think of about three times when I was single that any woman actually sparked more than a triple f in my mind and one was when I was very young,one was crazy and the other wouldn’t sleep with me anyway.
Then I went and screwed my entire life up by falling in love.😍


----------



## VladDracul (Jun 17, 2016)

When it comes to males, I've sort of figured a bad, or at least a mediocre lover is one who after a length of time with his wife or girlfriend, complains the fire has gone out, vanilla sex, et cetera. After 5+ decades of the special women who, either short, intermediate, of long term, filled my days and nights with ecstasy, I have never had that problem. Neither have I met a woman who was bad in bed, or whatever the case may be. Focus on the girl and know the real pleasure comes from pleasing her.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Andy1001 said:


> MJJEAN said:
> 
> 
> > For me it's only happened with men I had that chemistry with. It happened more than once with each of them, but then we were young-ish. IIRC, we were all in our 20's and/or early 30's.
> ...


I’m confused. Did you actually just say there was a woman who wouldn’t sleep with you? Must have been a typo! (I kid)

I have definitely had zero/flat kisses by people I was sexually attracted to. And gross kisses and confusing kisses. (Confusing like, I’m not sure what he doing with his lips right now, what am I supposed to do? I can’t really read anything). When this happens it’s game over. I’m sure in every one of the cases the guy would have still had sex with me if I was willing. That’s not a big deal. It just meant that he was willing to have sex with me. No harm in someone wanting to have sex with me even though to me the kisses were bad and I am not down for it with him now (ever). It’s not an insult to me that a guy who is attracted to me and kissing me is also wondering how soon sex is going to happen. Sometimes I’m wondering that too, sometimes I’m not, sometimes I am hoping it will happen right now.

Sometimes he is just kissing me and not planning on moving it to sex right now but hopes to soon. A lot of guys do want to get to know you better before sex, as they have their own parameters for who they feel is worthy of having sex with. Some guys also just fear sticking it in crazy, and want to at least observe you a bit on a few dates before they make that call. A lot of men have learned that one the hard way by boinking someone on a whim and then she’s on his doorstep the next evening just to “drop by” and the next thing you know there are restraining orders being filed. 

I had one boyfriend who I had the BAM chemistry with (which lasted for our entire relationship) whose first kisses were really too open mouthed and too wet for me. I figured this was an easy adjustment to make, so on our second date before we started kissing I stopped him and said “can I just show you something” and then demonstrated how I would prefer to be kissed. He adjusted immediately and always kissed me perfectly after that, but he also held it against me in a weird way. He would bring it up now and then and seem to be just razzing me about it but behind his words were something like annoyance that I had “corrected” him.

I usually laughed back at him and said well thank god you listened because those first date kisses were just too much slobber, and your kisses are so perfect now.

But he would never let it go, he would bring it up again a few months later. Eventually it annoyed the crap out of me and wasn’t funny at all. I don’t know what I was supposed to say? Anyway...

He and I had BAM but we were not a match otherwise. Like MMJEAN said it is like an addiction though, when you have such fireworks and chemistry. I have great sex when I have it, but not all partners have that BAM thing with me.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

MJJEAN said:


> Your assumption is incorrect. I'm short. I don't generally see people in groups or at parties unless they're nearby or I jump up and down like a Tigger in an attempt to see over heads and shoulders.
> 
> J I met when I opened my door. At the time, J was dating a friend of mine and she came to convince me to go on a double date with her, J, and single friend of theirs. Their friend ended up being my exH. It's a long story, but I did meet him in proximity.
> 
> ...


So, you saw J on your doorstep, and were like "Woah"? Or you were meh, that is until he stepped in and walked past you. At which point you were mysteriously overcome with the desire to tackle him to the ground?


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

BioFury said:


> So, you saw J on your doorstep, and were like "Woah"? Or you were meh, that is until he stepped in and walked past you. At which point you were mysteriously overcome with the desire to tackle him to the ground?


 We were like 2 ft apart when I opened the door. The reaction was so instant I am proud of myself for having been able to make coherent sentences when I invited everyone in and my friend introduced me to the guys. It was one of those God has a sense of humor moments. I meet a guy who I am instantly intensely attracted to, he's intelligent, has a sense of humor, is warm and fun to hang around, and he's dating my friend, so off limits. I behaved myself until he was single.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I know this might be only perception, but it seemed to me that the instant attraction was almost like radar or energy.

I guess some visual cues could be in place but a couple of the women this happened with really didn't seem anything other than normal or below average in the objective looks department.


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

MJJEAN said:


> We were like 2 ft apart when I opened the door. The reaction was so instant I am proud of myself for having been able to make coherent sentences when I invited everyone in and my friend introduced me to the guys. It was one of those God has a sense of humor moments. I meet a guy who I am instantly intensely attracted to, he's intelligent, has a sense of humor, is warm and fun to hang around, and he's dating my friend, so off limits. I behaved myself until he was single.


Ok, so it _was_ visual? I'm getting confused. You say it's not a visual thing, but then tell the story as "It was like I got hit by a truck when I saw him on my doorstep".

I get that the feeling you're describing transcends mere ordinary attraction. But if this feeling came upon you when you merely saw him on your doorstep, or on the other side of your friends' bar stool, etc., then it would have to be brought on by some type of visual stimulus. Unless we're gonna get into spirit animal vibe stuff.



ConanHub said:


> I know this might be only perception, but it seemed to me that the instant attraction was almost like radar or energy.
> 
> I guess some visual cues could be in place but a couple of the women this happened with really didn't seem anything other than normal or below average in the objective looks department.


Yes, I'm not arguing that the people in question were/are extremely attractive in an objective sense. Merely that something about their appearance is highly appealing. What "it" is, is a mystery. But given that the feeling takes up residence within you before interacting with the individual, it would have to be caused by some aspect of their physical presentation.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

BioFury said:


> Ok, so it _was_ visual? I'm getting confused. You say it's not a visual thing, but then tell the story as "It was like I got hit by a truck when I saw him on my doorstep".
> 
> I get that the feeling you're describing transcends mere ordinary attraction. But if this feeling came upon you when you merely saw him on your doorstep, or on the other side of your friends' bar stool, etc., then it would have to be brought on by some type of visual stimulus. Unless we're gonna get into spirit animal vibe stuff.
> 
> ...


Could be some hidden visual markers, possibly their math which combined with other factors like their voices and actual body chemistry, could be a cocktail for seduction. Just guessing however.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh, cool!
> 
> I meant @Buddy400 though. He had said his kids and their friends have expectations of (not sure if that’s the actual terms that were used) rough sex. So I was asking him (if he knows) are they just talking about the usual high level monkey sex that teens do best, or did he mean something more specific with “rough” like bruises, choking, beatings?
> 
> I don’t know what @Buddy400 classifies as “rough” so just trying to get a better idea.


I have gotten the exact opposite impression from my kids about the expectations in their social circles.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

uhtred said:


> I think the whole dom / sub thing can get very confusing because the terms cover such a wide variety of activities. It can simply mean vigorous sex, or it can mean handcuffs, chains whips etc. It can mean verbal domination, or just physical acts. All are fine if people enjoy, but there really is a lot of range.
> 
> I think both doms and subs can be good lovers, or be selfish.
> 
> Consent is of course a major issue, and with the modern focus on consent (which is in general a very good thing) I wouldn't be surprised if more men are being cautious. How sure do you need to be of your partner to pick them up, carry then struggling to the bed and fck them silly despite their protestations? How sure do you need to be that they are "pretend" protesting, not really?


One of the key things about BDSM activities is a definition of consent that is established beforehand. Everyone has heard of a "safe word". For many, the green, yellow, red codes are useful. No one bothers with green, game on. But yellow is slow your roll. Red is full stop, untie (or whatever). A person whose mouth is bound given a ball to hold, for example, where dropping it signals stop. THAT is how a dom, male or female, knows.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> I have gotten the exact opposite impression from my kids about the expectations in their social circles.


I’m still not sure what Buddy meant by “rough”.

Were you serious that you are going to do a whole thread on rough sex? I hope so! More fun things to talk about >

I’ve got some contributions to that.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> I’m still not sure what Buddy meant by “rough”.
> 
> Were you serious that you are going to do a whole thread on rough sex? I hope so! More fun things to talk about >
> 
> I’ve got some contributions to that.


I have no idea where and how to keep that PG-13.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

NobodySpecial said:


> One of the key things about BDSM activities is a definition of consent that is established beforehand. Everyone has heard of a "safe word". For many, the green, yellow, red codes are useful. No one bothers with green, game on. But yellow is slow your roll. Red is full stop, untie (or whatever). A person whose mouth is bound given a ball to hold, for example, where dropping it signals stop. THAT is how a dom, male or female, knows.


Completely agree. I think though that many people engage in "rough" sex outside of the normal structure of BDSM with safe words etc. That is the group that I think may be becomming more cautious due to concerns about consent. 

That concern may be fine, but there are some people who feel that the negotiation process removes the sort ferocious lust-driven feeling that they want.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

ConanHub said:


> I know this might be only perception, but it seemed to me that the instant attraction was almost like radar or energy.
> 
> I guess some visual cues could be in place but a couple of the women this happened with really didn't seem anything other than normal or below average in the objective looks department.


Yes, I think you get the gist of it. It's a vibe...an energy...a force.



BioFury said:


> Ok, so it _was_ visual? I'm getting confused. You say it's not a visual thing, but then tell the story as "It was like I got hit by a truck when I saw him on my doorstep".
> 
> I get that the feeling you're describing transcends mere ordinary attraction. But if this feeling came upon you when you merely saw him on your doorstep, or on the other side of your friends' bar stool, etc., then it would have to be brought on by some type of visual stimulus. Unless we're gonna get into spirit animal vibe stuff.
> 
> ...


This is surprisingly hard to explain. Not an aspect of their physical presentation. For example, I was friends with J's GF long before I met him. I saw photos of him and they left zero impression on me. Then I was in his presence for 2 seconds and gravity shifted.

It's this chemistry that makes the man physically appealing, not the other way around.

This is the kind of thing that makes a man or woman who may be considered unattractive, suddenly attractive. This is thing that I think answers "Why is SHE with HIM?" or vice versa. It's nothing and everything. 



ConanHub said:


> Could be some hidden visual markers, possibly their math which combined with other factors like their voices and actual body chemistry, could be a cocktail for seduction. Just guessing however.


I've thought about this for many years and I think you are correct. I suspect that the supercomputer in my head took the information gathered by my 5 senses and then intensely responded, all within a couple seconds. I have to wonder if it's purely biological. Their chemistry compatible with my chemistry producing an intense attraction so that we will mate and produce sound offspring. Who knows?


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

MJJEAN said:


> Chemical physical attraction.
> 
> When I was young, I realized I found some men aesthetically pleasing. I could enjoy arousal and sex with them if they were skilled. I also realized some men, with no rhyme or reason, could cause physical arousal just by being in proximity. Sex with them was much more intense. The difference between the two types of men is chemical attraction on a purely physical level.


I have wondered about this. I have had several girls say they got aroused when they heard my voice, but that was after I had sex with them, so I just thought, no offense to anyone, that it was kind of a Pavlov's response to previous encounters. 

So it that chemical, physical, or auditory, or what?

I mean, I have a nice, kind of deep, country voice, but nothing special about it in my opinion...


----------



## happiness27 (Nov 14, 2012)

I do think that porn has introduced some activities that people *think* they have to implement in order to have sex in a more hip, trendy way. Porn is so fake, I don't know why people can't see through that. 

I've seen some documentaries on porn production and it's, frankly, really hard on the actors and actresses who have to go through these scenes - part of the reason the porn people get burned out pretty quickly. 

To be honest, my own experience is that really good flirting and sexy talking is more of a turn on than rough, painful sex. Maybe not for a guy but for a woman, it's pretty creepy stuff. I saw a documentary on a porn guy who stuffed his entire hand down this young woman's throat until she had tears running down her face. It was horrid. I couldn't understand why she allowed him to do that.

Also, the "fishhook" technique where some guy hooks a finger in a gal's mouth and pulls on it. WhatEVER.

Then, of course, there's rough anal - which, yeah, great, now she's jacked up her anal cavity and needs medical treatment. 

I hate porn for the expectations it's set up. 

As for BluesPower, yes, a sexy voice is a huge turn-on - and if you have a sexy voice, you are genetically gifted.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Eliminate expectations from porn.

During any encounter there is plenty of body language that guides.

It's there to read. It's harder to read for some, and some have no issue. 

It can be an easy read. I've been said to be very good at it, many are. 

But one must cross check when reading anothers body language to get proof the reading is spot on.

But realize, it's not that hard. Don't be afraid. 

Maybe that's a key component.


----------



## Pac-Man (Jun 5, 2018)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> Eliminate expectations from porn.
> 
> During any encounter there is plenty of body language that guides.
> 
> ...


One advantage of learning skills is not having to think about it that much, so it frees your mind to be more aware.

It's like playing guitar: the beginner mind is 10% on the music and 90 % on his fingers. With experience, it become 90 % on the music and 10% on the fingers.

I remember the first time I did the cunnilingus on my current partner. My mind must have been 85 % on what I was doing with my mouth, 10% on her feedback and 5% on my own sensations. Now it's closer to one third each. Not only I pay more attention on her reactions, but I enjoy myself much more too!

I lot of that learning is partner specific. Going from one girlfriend to the next was like going from guitar to piano.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

A lot of persons say they have no clue to what seems to be working for both, because they think they should be getting all verbal play by play confirmation. 

Really they should be expanding there "reads" to include 90% nonverbal clues, and let the recipient provide and addl verbal feedback.....without you continuously asking "hows that, how's that" ad-nauseam.

You can do it. They will tell you quickly if something is a no go but until that comment, keep on keep'n on .


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> A lot of persons say they have no clue to what seems to be working for both, because they think they should be getting all verbal play by play confirmation.
> 
> Really they should be expanding there "reads" to include 90% nonverbal clues, and let the recipient provide and addl verbal feedback.....without you continuously asking "hows that, how's that" ad-nauseam.
> 
> You can do it. They will tell you quickly if something is a no go but until that comment, keep on keep'n on .


I have a FEELING that people who do this well don't have built up angst about it. The feel great when their partner feels great and thus read the signs. The sort of data points to my mind are my husband, who very much cares about my experience. He reads me great and plays me like a fiddle. Back a few years ago, we were with another couple. By way of comparison, my partner got a bee in his bonnet that I squirt. He would go for that like a man on a mission. It jacked HIS ego to "get" me to squirt. He would ignore my body tensing and my pushing him away until I said something sharp to him to make him stop. He was completely baffled because he thought he was doing what *I* liked.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

NobodySpecial said:


> Ragnar Ragnasson said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of persons say they have no clue to what seems to be working for both, because they think they should be getting all verbal play by play confirmation.
> ...


Yep. When you are truly all about your partner and they are truly all about you, it really isn't hard to be "good."
Sex is not C++ code or a RPG quest lol


----------



## JustTheWife (Nov 1, 2017)

I haven't read every single post and i don't really understand the original question. For me, good sex isn't a strict formula. Like a lot of things you know it when you feel it.


----------

