By the way, Aristotle probably did not think that “females can ejaculate”. Implying otherwise is an ode to Modernity, as-if calling upon the misinterpretations of the ancients, in any justifies today’s mass perversions. LOL.
Keep dreaming, hedonists.
Aussenseite wrote:
It has not been proven or disproven beyond a reasonable doubt, although one can produce medical papers for and against and this is one of the reasons I quoted Aristotle and not a medical journal, although many are available.
One does not have to be someone’s handmaiden to experience this, and a good clean whore as you put it would most probably hinder not enhance the possibilities of the experience. It is more than the intense focus on the physical body, it is also the strong emotional connection involved, that leads to the outcome.
I believe experience far outweighs theory.
There is a major difference between piss and vaginal juice.
You can taste the difference; you can smell the difference.
It’s nothing whatever to do with equality.
I’ve “know” 21 women in my life, only two of them regularly ejaculated. Some of the others had some experience of this. What was common about those two is that they were fully aware of their sexuality, comfortable with sex and confident in what they wanted. Neither of them confused the difference between piss and vaginal juice.
And Santa Clause still exists.
Morphologically all foetuses start of as female. In males the clitoris grows into a penis; the ovaries drop and become testicles, and the uterus is dissolved. Nipples remain in place. This answers the age old questions.
SO yes the genitalia between genders co-relate.
Interestingly the masculinisation of the brain happens AFTER the genitals have changed. When this does not happen you get a woman’s brain trapped in a male body - this is the most common of the trans-sexual conditions.
As a student of ancient history I can confirm this. However I think the reason is other that you say. Typically males married women 15 years their junior. It is my view that he did in fact count female teeth but did so before the emergence of her wisdom teeth, as the miscount is exactly 4 less.
Who says vaginal juice anymore, Lev. That went out in the eighties. Say fluid.
When you say ‘juice’ you cause a conceptual association with a consumable food to occur, making us think of a consumable fluid from a fruit rather than any other kind of fluid.
Vaginal juice. In little six pack metal cans like V8 juice. You’d have original vaginal juice, hot n spicy vaginal juice or low sodium vaginal juice.
Lev wrote:
There isn’t really any way to pinpoint this kind of pleasure with scientific research because as you say, it is incredibly varied from person to person for a variety of reasons, bodies vary, the experience of pleasure varies.
What is happening here for some people, is the need to minimise this experience, by saying it isn’t a credible experience, because they don’t experience it.
The body is an incredible and mysterious thing.
Well, it is something that they advocate. Who else does? I’m not sure. I think it’s a fact that most people aren’t monogamous.
Despite the emphasis placed on sexual fidelity by many Christians who defend monogamy, many men in the Bible, including David and Solomon, were far from monogamous.
Aussensite,
True. As with most things in life, the “Should” must be dropped from the mindset. It’s basically old worn beliefs which are adopted without forethought, any thought, because of fear or the lack of courage to set out on one’s own adventure. What is it they say: “Ships are safe at the dock but that’s not what ships are for.”
I wonder though if it’s a good idea that every fantasy which men and women have be brought to fruition or reality? Yes, there are wonderful healthy ones but I wonder if the ones which would appear not to be so healthy 
might actually be healthy for the human mind if only remaining as a fantasy.
But I do think that it would be beneficial for spouses/lovers/partners to talk about their fantasies with one another which might take a certain amount of trust but could be great fun, don’t you think? And such an aphrodisiac. Whatever floats their boat - together - where there is a consensus, is right and good.
Are you generally speaking here of very young people, male and female virgins?
But in a way, when you look at it, let’s say a movie for instance might give some excellent tips for virgins. Let’s not go throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But i do know what you mean.
Can a kid go asking his father what to do? I mean seriously? How many father would be open enough to that challenge? But a “real” father could admonish his son about the pros and cons.
I tend to agree with you there. Everything can serve a purpose or many things at least. I may be wrong here but I also sense that many of the wives were happy and relieved having those prostitutes for the men to go to…I daresay that even today there are some.
But the thing is, is it possible that today prostitutes can be, may be, responsible for the breakup of marriages?
Even in this, things are not so black and white. There are pros and cons to be weighed.
For instance, a man who is a sexual addict needs help, not a prostitute.
The man who falls in love with a particular female prostitute and leaves his wife? There is that.
I suppose though that a man who is truly committed to his marriage and deeply in love wouldn’t have much need to go outside the marriage looking for a sexual encounter.
Yes, everything serves a purpose.
But that begs the question: Why are the women reading those magazines (as they sit on their sofas eating chocolate? Does that say anything about the husbands of those wives or does it say more about the wives? Perhaps both would be better served if they kept the kama sutra by their bedside or wherever.
xfzgrwql
The former “begets” energy, the latter “begets” organisms, some like ourselves.
Not just young male/female virgins. In a truly progressive society (and ancient societies it turns out), the men are trained by older women or whores on what to expect, how to please a woman and how to control himself. That way, he avoids embarrassment and goes into his sexual encounters with confidence and assurance. Those same women, prepare the young girls by telling them what to expect and how to prepare and maintain themselves so they are at ease and not afraid. So they too can come to their first encounters in a healthy confident way.
There are times where a whore could fill in a need for a man so that his woman can recover from childbirth or illness in a healthy way. Or if the woman was providing for the family and did not have as much free time to attend to the mans sexual needs when his needs arose. Sex is just sex, and men do not form bonds through sex that cannot be severed unless he’s one of those “moderns” who has a need to comfort and pair bond with every female out of some sensitive (read dysfunctional) notion of connecting to all humans.
If a man leaves his wife for a whore, he doesn’t deserve his wife and lacks confidence and honor. The wife is better off without him and can use the time to self-reflect on how to avoid putting her confidence in a weak, dysfunctional man.
A sexual addict needs both a whore and help, to learn a healthy idea of sex not to try to abstain from it entirely. Though I believe that sexual addiction is one of the plagues of modernity that sees sex as some sort of taboo and therefore exhilarating beyond the normal healthy sexual relationship. If sex were normalized and not censored, less vilified and taboo and treated as a natural phenomenon that occurs instinctually between males and females of all species, I think you would find less sex addicts.
As for the man who falls in love with his whore, then both the man and the whore were lying to themselves and really had a weakness and shouldn’t have been involved to begin with if there was a marriage. It drags them both down, and will eventually end with both of them with less status in society and within themselves.
Perhaps they should spend less time looking at pictures and more time exploring each others bodies and finding new ways to pleasure each other. More time discussing what works for them and what doesn’t. Both taking turns instructing and learning. I am always learning new things from my husband as we both get older and our bodies change. I am not satisfied with just exploring the small zones that bring pleasure, but include all the senses and every inch of each other. Also, people need to learn to take care of their bodies better to bring about further sexuality. This whole modern idea of being fat and proud of it really is a disservice to both the woman who will miss out on healthy sex and the men who are unfortunate to lie with them.
Modern Sexuality
Modern “Western” Sexuality can be summed up in one word: Perverse. The average western’s sexuality is corrupt, twisted, bent, “off course”. If the average western wants to have “normal”, heterosexual relations, and conceives sex primarily as unified, being reproductive and pleasurable, then this person is said to be a “traditional christian”. As-if being normal about sex, were a religious identity. Is it? Of course not, nonsense. Claiming that christianity, just one religion in particular, has a monopoly on normalcy and naturalism, would be equivalent as saying that all other mammals and heterosexual organisms outside humanity, are also “christian” for doing what is within their instinct and reflex to do. Have reproductive sex, and necessarily associate the pleasure of sex, with its underlying function (to reproduce).
It’s only in advanced, “(D)Evolved” human civilization, and over-population, that a paradigm shift can occur. And where being a sexual “Progressive” becomes morally good, and traditionally normal heterosexual, becomes morally bad or evil. If you want to “be normal” about sex. If sex isn’t about banging random drug-laden whores, and bragging about it. Then you deserve derision, disrespect, and “being made fun of”, by the majority population of liberal-leftist “Progressives”.
Be a homosexual, a flaming faggot, otherwise you’re a bad person.
Of course, these are simple lies and deceptions. Liberals have a nasty tendency, to say one thing publicly, and defend their position vehemently, while secretly and covertly deriding and holding their victims in contempt. A liberal will goad a weaker boy, a weak male teenager, that he’s a “cock sucking faggot”, and when they bully the young boy to finally engaging homosexual sex, mock, jeer, and laugh at him. It’s a taunt. That’s what liberalism is, by and large, a long series of powerful, socially motivation taunts. Liberals make victims out of their weaker-willed colleagues. Liberalism, as a whole, is a massive lying complex. Liberals actively promote the values which they secretly hate within and among themselves.
This gives rise to the absolutist dichotomy of western sexuality, of straight-traditional-heterosexual being “morally bad or evil”, and being a fucked up pervert is “morally good”.
For liberalism, and western society as a whole, “cumming on a stupid bitch’s face is morally good”, because Hedonism is the rule of the land. The unquestionable value and modern virtue.
He who cums on the most bitches’ faces, “Wins”.
And if you disagree, in anyway, then what the fuck are you…some kind of christian?!?!
I come to this forum because I was born that most repulsive of creatures known as the Straight White Male, and it has only been through my incessantly creative, philosophically charged, itinerant ramblings through this thing we call postmodern existence that I’ve come to reach a fairly comfortable equilibrium within a state that may be called: deliberative homosexuality.
I’ve tried to find a way to reconcile my constant desires for those of the opposite sex with the demand to live the sort of lifestyle that is characterized as emotionally and financially stable, but to know avail. Which is to say that I’ve attempted to lead the good, normal, “Christian” way of life, but have found it be completely philosophically untenable… at least in practical terms.
So, in my mid-30’s, I started to experiment with clothing myself in more provocative ways, and now at the age of 40, I have been able to come to love myself as I would love the the sexiest of females. When you start presenting yourself to the world as I have in such a radically new way, it only makes sense to start playing around with your mannerisms as well as your wardrobe, and in time, it is possible to become as much of a girl as anyone with a pair of X chromosomes.
I am here on ILP to try to shamelessly transmit my warm, organic sexual radiance through this otherwise cold, electronic medium known as the internet in order to win over the hearts and minds of other kindred spirits who were much like me, in my confused, oft-semi-tortured younger days.
So all I needed was to see the title of this post – Censoring Sex – in order to think to myself: “Censor sex? Every day, and in every way: no, no, no, and once more for good measure, No!”
You are in direct contradiction.
“Perverse” Is by definition an exception to the norm. So what is ‘normal’ cannot be perverse, It can only be normal; as what is “average” is the norm.
Sex is not just about reproduction. In fact that has always been way down the list of the reason people have sex. Not only that but reproduction is the most rarely desired outcome of sex.
Ask any Bonobo.
This is too permissive. You are, in effect, arguing for hedonism.
Let me try to explain why.
Human beings are agents of reason, and so, a man cannot act purely on instinct without suffering the negative consequences of denial. He needs reasons and he does so all of the time, no exceptions.
An intelligent man refuses to “let himself go”. He needs resistance, he needs to ask “why?”
Unless you’re planning to reproduce, sex is nothing but pure instinct, which means, there is absolutely no reason to engage in it.
This is why all intelligent people strive to resist their sexual urges. They quite literally do not want to have sex, and not because they can’t have it, as hedonists would claim, but because there is absolutely no reason to have it.
Instinct, however, cannot be eliminated. The only possibility is to change its form, towards the simpler or towards the complex.
Any attempt to eliminate instinct merely conceals it by entangling it with other instincts until it becomes so vague and bizarre one can no longer make any sense out of it. The fact that it no longer exists in its original form is then (mis)interpreted as being eliminated.
Reason does not eliminate, it dissolves. It does not entangle, it disentangles. It does not complicate, it simplifies. It does not intensify, it sfotens. It makes things slower so that entangled elements can be successfully disentangled from each other. (This is done by parasympathetic nervous system, not by reason, but we can ignore that for now.)
This is why, despite what their reason tells them, intelligent people continue to have sex.
But the kind of sex they have is different from the kind of sex other people have.
This is because their instincts are expressed in a manner distinct from that of other people.
Their instincts are controlled, subordinated to/dominated by reason, as opposed to being uncontrolled, subordinating/dominating reason. Their instincts are dissolved, slowed down and simplified as opposed to muddled, sped up and complexified.
This is why their sex is gentle as opposed to rough, long as opposed to short, slow as opposed to fast, rare as opposed to frequent, unplanned as opposed to planned, and finally, less about intercourse and more about everything else.
Pure instinct leads to kinky sex.
Pure reason leads to mechanical sex (or no sex at all.)
Reason-instinct leads to gentle sex.
With that in mind, a married man who needs a whore when his wife is unavailable is a hedonist.
Not only is he having no interest in controlling his sex drive, he’s also violating his “one woman for life” rule. It’s ridiculous.
It should be noted that controlling your instincts does not mean surrendering to instincts from time to time. That’s not control. That’s just bouncing from one extreme to another. To control your instrincts means to maintain reason-instinct relation all of the time, not simply switch between pure reason and pure instinct (or reason-instinct and pure instinct.)
Satisfying your needs is not necessarily healthy. It is pleasurable, but not necessarily healthy.
Resisting to satisfy your needs is far healthier because healing occurs during inactivity, and reducing your needs does exactly that: it makes you inactive.
Now, didn’t I tell you to stop talking with that priest? 
I’m going to respond to this post at some point with such hedonistic pleasure. 
Cro Magnons do. They came long before Christians came.
Every intelligent person does.
Magnus Anderson
I wouldn’t say that "sex is just sex’ but for many men it is just that I think especially under the circumstances Aussenseite gave. Even for some women, it is the same. So, that kind of a woman could serve a purpose. I tend to agree with A.
Doesn’t that kind of affirm in a way what A said above? His purpose/his reason is to maintain the comfort of his wife and his marriage…at least to his way of thinking.
Despite the fact that we often know that we cannot act purely on instinct without suffering the consequences,
Do you really believe this? This hasn’t anything necessarily to do with intelligence but with reason and with discipline. How many highly intelligent creatures are on this forum but continually let themselves go? What’s the difference - sex or tirades? It isn’t the intelligent man who refuses that. We can have all the brains in the world but if there is no self-awareness what then?
So are you saying here that you never engage in sex? I recall you saying once in the forum that sex is only for recreational purposes.
I don’t know if sex is “nothing but pure instinct” - in some cases it might be. But what of the man and woman who are deeply in love and for them it is an expression of that love? Can that be called pure instinct? I think that perhaps our human consciousness deems sex as something much more at times between humans than simply pure instinct.
Have you forgotten about the instinct for pleasure? It doesn’t have to be hedonistic. It can be quite balanced. Didn’t I tell you to stay away from that priest, Magnus? Sex is also a good outlet. To deliberately deprive ourselves of sex, to repress or suppress the sex urge, can lead to all kinds of physical or mental illness. It also is denying our humanity. Of course, there has to be responsible behavior when it comes to sex and sure at times we do have to deny ourselves sex, but it isn’t because we don’t want it or that there is no reason for it - just that at times we have a higher purpose in life and sex might get in the way of that. But it has nothing to do with intelligence except in relation to the last.
Whatever have you been reading lately?
Well, if you mean “redirect” that instinct I agree with you here.
Yes, trying to suppress or repress our urges only make those daemons rise up in rebellion. We become more enslaved by them then - not less. It’s about harmonizing and reining them in.
.
Well, I suppose you can say that. I would say that reason enlightens.
But we’re saying the same thing. But it can be a slow process but a less complicated one as you say.
Reason and intelligence do not have to be in opposition to each other. What is going on here is more a lack of maturity - the ability to delay gratification and to be more disciplined. That comes with practice.
So perhaps you’re talking about quality and value here as opposed to quantity?
But we don’t become like animals because we enjoy and engage in sex though we are after all human animals.
Not necessarily. That would depend I think on the individuals having sex or making love, however you choose to express it, Magnus.
So, what we would appear to need here is a combination of Voltaire and Rousseau in a man or a woman when it comes to sex --one who enjoys reason but at the same time can be full of heart and emotion. Two perfect ingredients for the sex act. And one need not simply do it to procreate but for pleasure too - but not too kinky - just kinky enough in its creativeness. lol
Again, that would depend on the individual. You are leaving out the individual here.
But of course, love and commitment will deny harsh brutal sex.
Perhaps I’m wrong here but might not that depend on his true intentions? I’m not talking about a man who sleeps around. From Aussenseites scenario, would he necessarily be a hedonist or simply a man with sexual needs who really does care about his wife? I almost can’t believe i said that but I’m trying to stretch my mind and dissolve my old christian beliefs and social conditioning here.
Of course, you do also have a point here and you may also be right. A man who truly loves his wife might decide to forego his sexual pleasure because he not only loves his wife but is highly committed to her and the relationship and doesn’t wish it to come to harm. So I think you are also right here. But nothing is so black and white though I am not condoning unfaithness. From my point of view, I could never be unfaithful but then again I’m not a man - many men think differently and sometimes to them sex is just sex so they wouldn’t think in terms of being unfaithful - at least not emotionally so. See, it really isn’t so black and white. We are complicated creatures.
Who’s one woman for life rule are you speaking about here?
Really, when I think about it, I’m not so sure that human beings are by nature monogomous creatures or even meant to be. I rather think, in view of all the adultery and divorces going on, to be faithful and monogomous with one person kind of goes against the grain with us humans I think. What makes it happen is the conscious awareness that we value what we have with another human but our animal instincts make it quite difficult for us. But i also think that the rewards in struggling against that battle are wonderful and valuable.
How many animal species actually mate for life? I think the swan, maybe elephants I’ll have to look it up but i still think that it is only our consciousness/intelligence and reason which saves us from ourselves.
It’s like a dance - a harmony between instinct and reason. Not necessarily to choose one over the other but to see the advantages and disadvantages of both - to synergize them. But of course definitely at times to choose one over the other depending on the circumstances. But remember, we are not made of stone.
So when do we satisfy our sexual urges? lol You don’t have to answer that. I’m just playing with you.
I do agree with you here. It depends - discernment is necessary.
Resisting is kind of a harsh word to use, don’t you think? I also think that it could lead to more struggle and conflict than less.
How do we go about resisting that need? What does it entail?