RE: c: Do you believe that a cuckold should be allowed sex with his cuckoldress ?

RE: c: Do you believe that a cuckold should be allowed sex with his cuckoldress ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

LadyLupineNYC -> RE: c: Do you believe that a cuckold should be allowed sex with his cuckoldress ? (3/28/2009 3:08:09 PM)
Part of the reason the phrase 'man on man' is being used (and, yes, this is nationwide, not just in NYC...I think it is also spreading international) is b/c so many of those at increased risk for transmission of diseases like HIV through male on male sexual contact do not themselves do not consider themselves 'gay' (think 'on the downlow within the African American community). The shift in semantics comes, in part, for realizing that approaching all of those at increased risk must, policy must also consider that reaching out to the 'gay community' is not enough. No longer is it enough to just do public health work at the clubs and bars, but think outside of the well-established community. For those with in the 'forced bi' subculture, they would never normally be considered part of the larger gay culture, either by themselves or by the community.

MsDDom -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/28/2009 3:54:30 PM)
depends...is he being a good boy?

slavekal -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/28/2009 4:05:59 PM)
All those "down low" guys are gay. All the linguistic gymnastics do not change the facts. Some people might not want to admit what they are, but that does not change the fact. I guess this is turning into another subject altogether, but I just won't buy into political correctness. Guys who do sexual things with other guys are gay. Or bi if they get with women too.

LadyLupineNYC -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/28/2009 4:15:52 PM)
Oh, I see....better they just die horrible and isolating deaths, infect their girl friends after pointing out that 'a real man doesn't use condoms', rather than reach out to certain populations who would never listen if you are targeting only 'gays'. Words DO matter. If they didn't, no one would be upset at Michael Richards.

slavekal -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/28/2009 5:39:07 PM)
I never said that anyone should die. Words do matter. I see the watering down and deliberate blurring of meaning as weak, mealy mouthed, and vaguely 1984ish. A thing is what it is. We need to stop being so delicate. They even censor the word "retarded" on TV these days. When did we become such babies? If you're gay, you're gay. Man the fuck up and accept it.

beeble -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 5:00:46 AM)
quote: slavekal wrote: I still says any man on man sex is gay. And I do not engage in sexual activities with men. Period. Why the massive need to distance yourself from being gay? There was no need to even mention being gay. You could have just said that you don't engage in sexual activities with other men, which would have made the point just fine, if that was all you wanted to say. quote: slavekal wrote: I still insist man on man is gay.....not that there's anything wrong with that! slavekal wrote: If you're gay, you're gay. Man the fuck up and accept it. In other words, "I'm not homophobic but YOU'RE GAY!!! FUCKING ACCEPT IT -- YOU'RE GAY!!!!" Why would anyone need to `man the fuck up' to accept that there's nothing wrong with them? I've never found myself needing to summon any great reserve of manliness to accept that I'm normal but, hey, maybe I'm abnormal in that respect. beeble.

slavekal -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 7:42:06 AM)
It has nothing to do with that. I just see no need to use ten words when one will do. I say what I mean. I do not hate gays. I am not against them. I am for gay marriage and full civil rights. But I do not drink the PC flavored Kool-Aid. If a guy has sex with other guys, he's gay.

beeble -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 8:10:09 AM)
quote: slavekal wrote: It has nothing to do with that. I just see no need to use ten words when one will do. But you didn't need to use any words at all beyond saying that you don't engage in sexual acts with other men. There was no need to say anything at all about that being gay and therefore different from you. beeble.

slavekal -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 8:16:55 AM)
I said I don't do anything gay. Next time I will be sure to get your okay on the words and phrases I use. Maybe you can get me the Al Franken/Barney Frank seal of approval.

LadyPact -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 8:54:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavekal I never said that anyone should die. Words do matter. I see the watering down and deliberate blurring of meaning as weak, mealy mouthed, and vaguely 1984ish. A thing is what it is. We need to stop being so delicate. They even censor the word "retarded" on TV these days. When did we become such babies? If you're gay, you're gay. Man the fuck up and accept it. Not to intentionally be a prick here, and I realize the above was intended to be an Orwellian reference, but if you really want to get into why some people may not accept words...... Back around that 1984 time frame, that word "gay" had a whole different stigma to it. You're close to My age, so I'm pretty sure you can recall when "gay" wasn't always just about sex. A couple of decades back, it also meant GRID (for the younger crowd, Gay Related Immune Deficiency, which was they termed it before it was AIDS) and it meant death. It meant a new reason for hate for a lot of close minded individuals. Listen, I'm not especially a PC type of person either. I also have no problem that one of your personal hard limits is any type of m/m interaction. You have every right to express your opinion. Still, you have to accept the fact that certain people do hold on to the stigma of certain words, even if that reason isn't especially true.

LadyLupineNYC -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 9:13:07 AM)
This started b/c I took particular exception to his use of 'gay' in a pejorative manner (though he he doesn't seem to 'get' that he even did this and wants to make it some anti-'liberal' argument). My issues is that assuming that only 'gay' people have 'gay' sex completely missed the larger point that sexuality is much more complex and (and this hits close to home) has a very large public health implication. I would suspect (I don't actually have figures on hand) that the majority of people who engage in homosexual sex acts do not, in fact, consider themselves homosexual (or even bisexual). Add to a whole group of people who enjoy strap-on sex (man have also argued that this is also 'gay', though not here...at least not yet). There is a much larger issue here than just who is and who isn't gay; people are DYING b/c they aren't being reaching and/or they are infecting partners. Some demographics of Metro DC, for example, have an HIV/AIDS infection rate conservatively put at 7%. This is on level with some countries hardest hit by HIV/AIDS. This is a population that overwhelmingly does not identify male on male sex acts as being necessarily homosexual (and/or gay) due to the high level of prejudiced towards being labeled that way. The so-called 'Orwellian' phrase 'male on male sexual activity' or 'men who have sex with me' is an attempt, feeble though it may be, to address entire groups within the population who do not identify them selves has having any risk since they are 'not gay' but might be reached by new, expanded efforts. I guess it is comforting to think that one is somehow taking s 'stance' against the PC police...except this have nothing to DO with that...gay people still embrace being called 'gay' (and even queer, as in 'queer theory'. Instead this has to do with getting rid of the prejudice surrounding the idea of who is and who isn't 'gay'. sigh

ShaktiSama -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 9:13:08 AM)
shrug I don't have any problems with Kal's definition of man-on-man equalling "gay". But then, I don't particularly place a stigma on "gayness"--nor on people who reject homosexuality of any kind in their own lives. The people who have the problem, from my point of view, are those who want to have their creampie and eat it too--engage in all sorts of homosexual relations without having to accept an even partial homosexual identity. People would rather change the language than give up the stigmas attached to homosexuality, perhaps, but that is not Kal's fault. It is our own. Speaking of Orwell, he wrote a great essay on the subject of "political speech" called "Politics and the English Language". It's much shorter and much more to the point than 1984--probably the most important essay in English letters after Swift's "A Modest Proposal".

LadyLupineNYC -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 9:22:02 AM)
Again, within the kink community (and in this case I am referring SPECIFICALLY to BDSM-related activities), the idea of someone doing something gay is a tad ridiculous to me if only because there is a huge difference between wanting a same sex experience and those for whom being forced (and I mean this as more than just 'forced bi') is the kink. There are plenty of people for whom have rights and the ability to protest being taken away from them, whether this means being order to do unpleasent chores or all the way to 'servicing' another partner, is a sexual pleasure. In this case, the sexuality of the event is not focused on the actual sex act (which, on the surface, is seens as 'gay') but the sexual thrill comes from losing control have being 'total slave' to the desires of the D-type. I find it further interesting that the idea of a female slave being ordered to have sexual contact with another woman is seen as somehow less homosexual that male on male acts- to me this just shows the double standard being used to frame the argument.

ShaktiSama -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 9:31:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyLupineNYC Again, within the kink community (and in this case I am referring SPECIFICALLY to BDSM-related activities), the idea of someone doing something gay is a tad ridiculous to me if only because there is a huge difference between wanting a same sex experience and those for whom being forced (and I mean this as more than just 'forced bi') is the kink. I suppose. I think the point here, however, is that those who are genuinely unwilling to accept homosexual contact simply set this sort of thing as a hard limit. Nothing in this community is really "forced" unless it is illegal, immoral, and punishable by prison time; everything else is occurring with consent, including any and all play that includes "gayness". The real issue with this political revision of language, from my point of view, is that it actually maintains the stigma against homosexuality and attempts to reinforce the artificial boundaries between gay and straight, rather than represent human sexuality as a continuum or a sliding scale. People who want to reserve the word "gay" for a sociopolitical identity rather an act are missing the point just a tad, in my opinion. The only way to normalize the identity is to accept that the acts are committed/enjoyed by a very broad continuum of people who do not necessarily prefer same-sex partners/relationships in all cases.

LadyPact -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 9:48:27 AM)
Before this goes in completely the wrong direction (which I think it probably did before I showed up), let's all understand that I'm not attempting to link Kal's comments to be the basis of certain social stigmas. It was an attempt to point out that, in some time frames, they have existed. Do they still exist today? I can't answer that. The question is bigger than My personal opinion on the matter. I know what I'd like to think, but I've been proven wrong too many times on the subject. I'd also like to think that the health concerns of individuals would be a higher priority related to their activities than whether or not they chose to accept a term or even a part of their identity. I don't honestly think that's happening in this country and it certainly isn't in some others. So, I'm with Lady Lupine on that one. I don't care what you call yourself or the activity you are engaged in. Know the risks of what you are doing.

LadyLupineNYC -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 10:02:01 AM)
Sadly, the semantics of are preventing people from educating themselves, protecting themselves, and getting tested. Since I see first hand, this happening (though, ironically this is not actually my area of expertise) I can assure you all sorts of things you might not think are 'happening' in the US, do. I am of the mind that whatever it takes to protect and help people, than that should take a priority, even if it is deemed 'PC' by those who aren't faced with the resulting carnage.

LadyPact -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 10:36:35 AM)
Speaking of 'carnage' I just went back and read the thread. I'm guilty of not doing that when I posted to the above comment where I quoted. Great reminder to self to do so before My big mouth (or typing fingers) start flying. Which actually leads Me to the original question. In this entire thread, there have only been two 'shoulds' that I would tend to agree with. One is that the agreed arrangement of the parties involved should be acceptable to those people. The other is that sexually active people need to know their health status and that includes being tested for HIV and any other darn thing that can be transmitted sexually. I don't currently have a cuck. I've had one in a prior situation that included many of the activities listed on this thread. Yes, when I write about those particular experiences, they do tend to end up reading a lot like porn. I'll refrain from doing that here. What I will say is that it was a consensual arrangement that was discussed and found rewarding by the people involved.

slavekal -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 11:10:28 AM)
People who engage in gay activities yet do not consider themselves gay or bi are self deluding. They have every right to be that, but that is what they are.

LadyLupineNYC -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 11:21:33 AM)
Just like how people who engage in BDSM are 'sick', mentally ill, were abused, morally challenged etc etc etc? Be careful about who you call delusional.

MISTRESSKUMA -> RE: Is it normal ?????? (3/29/2009 11:47:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavekal It has nothing to do with that. I just see no need to use ten words when one will do. I say what I mean. I do not hate gays. I am not against them. I am for gay marriage and full civil rights. But I do not drink the PC flavored Kool-Aid. If a guy has sex with other guys, he's gay. Ummmmm, no, you arent a hater. Just no. Actually, hell to the no you weren't being bashing to gays and in no hella way do you sound opposed to gays. Don't let these projecting miserable worts try and spin what you said into some kinda put down against us. I am gay, err bi, and I live with 2 gays dudes and yah, one's my bro. In no way did you offend me or them. Your right, and you said it without sounding rude. If a guy wants another guy sexually he's gay alright. Same sex sexing.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125