MidnightWriter
Posts: 131
Joined: 2/8/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika quote:
ORIGINAL: MidnightWriter quote:
ORIGINAL: Gemeni But how many women really NEED to be taught how to have sex better? Um... almost all of 'em. Almost all of the men, as well. Hell, I've been studying this for a tad over 30 years now, and I could learn to live with some improvement. I think it's about discovering our own sexuality. I've had amazing partners who've helped me do this. Techniques are cool but you learn with time that everyone is different and what works for one won't for another. It's about learning to harness our own sexual power, to use our intuition with lovers, learning to read body language, responses, understanding how to tease, how to take one's time and yet keep the other's interest... how to keep them on that edge... That is, of course, a part of it - and for quite a few dominants, that's what they'll want. However, techniques do have thier place, as does training in mindset if so desired. There is a distinct difference between lovers making love and lovers having sex; likewise, there's a difference between egalitarian lovers having sex and an owner/dom using their property/sub sexually. They are all, of course, good - but us perverts have a wider selection on our menus. For the dom - have you ever had a professional massage? Okay, how about a massage from an untrained lover? Perhaps a massage from an untrained submissive? (I'm using the term "untrained" here to denote people who have not been formally trained in massage.) There is sex with an enthusiastic lover, sex with a skilled and motivated sex worker, and sex with a submissive. Sex with a submissive who loves you, is determined to give pleasure and considers thier own sexual release secondary, and has been trained in a variety of techniques is... well, extraordinary. Certainly not something I'd want on a consistent basis, but very satisfying when the mood is upon you. For the subs - there's making love to one's dom, there's having sex with one's dom, and there's using oneself to sexually please your dom as an expression of your submission - all are different, all are good. Besides, every once in a while, you get to turn the dom into a puddle of bliss, as they so often do to you - and turning the tables in this fashion has its own appeal. Of course, this is not for everyone - but then, damn few things are. (Aside to LadyAngelika - yup - that's the type of definition I've seen before - a listing of judgements about behaviors, without any mention of the behaviors themselves. Anywhere else in the DSM, a psychological condition will have a list of associated behaviors, but not codependency. When asking professionals for a list of behaviors, what I get in response frustrates *them* - because they're indistinguishable from identical, healthy behaviors. It seems to be an intuitive type of diagnosis - "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". Not, IMO, appropriate or useful in a field that's supposed to be a science. I'd be happy to discuss this further, but don't want to hijack this thread more than I already have - perhaps the Lounge?)
_____________________________
Power corrupts. Absolute power ... is really pretty nifty.
|