What don't you 'get'?

I think their main purpose is to relax the muscles and make **** sex easier. We've tried it a few times. She enjoys it but finds it somewhat uncomfortable at first. It takes her a while to relax.

I don't get porn where the man often spits on the women, often in her *** before a-nal sex. Find it disgusting.

Also don't like it where a woman takes cum in her mouth and dribbles it out. That is vile, yet many people must get turned on by it otherwise they wouldn't be filming porn like that.

Me neither. I can't think of anything that's a turn on about having my whole fist in a woman's vagina.

Yes, gross indeed.

Because condoms reduce pleasure from sex considerably; often to the point where there is no sensation at all, might as well just be doing push ups.

Like who? I didn't realize there were people shocked by this.

Easy. This is because, in general, people are respected for accomplishing things that are difficult, not for accomplishing things that are easy. For men, sex is difficult to get. It takes persistence and effort. For women, sex is easy to get. It is much more difficult to consistently resist it while half the guys she meets is trying to get in her pants.

I don't have any of these but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there is a different, perhaps better sensation possible when wearing these.

I don't see anything wrong with taking it off the legs for the purpose of a bikini if a woman goes to the beach or pool often or something, but any more hair removal than that, I don't see the point of. I certainly don't see why a man would ever do it.

This is brilliant. I am not sure it is all there is to it, but enough of it is right to be brilliant.

Anyone from Teen Mom. I see so many people on advice forums saying, "Oh, we didn't use any protection but OMG how did this happen?"

I think if a man worked any harder, he'd get a f***ing medal for it, or maybe a decent girlfriend. You know what I'll do, I'll give a medal to my boyfriend after we have sex. I'll just say, "Congratualations, I know you worked so hard." Sex might be easy to get, but we have to sort through all the creepers, d-bags, and man*****s who just want a piece of meat. So yeah, a million guys want to f*** us, but there's only one guy who wants a relationship and is actually compatible with us.

I didn't say it's unreasonable to assume, I said I don't get how it's pleasurable.

I don't get why I can't get off by fingering. I've tried it myself and I've let a couple guys try it and it is uncomfortable. And if you hit a certain spot it is almost painful, like being tickled really bad.

Well with that type of attitude, you don't have to worry about many man wanting to get with you.

If you do not like that women are being called sluts, then you should refrain from calling men man*****s. Either or.

Also, in my experience, a lot of people and not only one guy would want to have all sorts of good experiences with us and might be compatible with us. There is no law that says that only one person can be compatible with you. Actually, to believe that we belong to a species in which each female is compatible with only one guy is beyond bizarre because such species would have long been removed from the face of this Earth due to the low rate of reproduction.

I'm sorry, but I do NOT submit to any man and let ANY man control me or use me, and I especially do not want any man or woman to think of me or my sex to be considered "easy".

If you do not like my posts, do not post on them.

Just your double standards of calling men man*****s, creepers and D-bags.

I wonder of the reaction if a man posted on here most women are *****s, goldiggers and *****es.

Interestingly, I was just thinking along the same lines in the context of make-up and body-hugging clothing.

When I was in high school, I had a female tutor. She had a daughter, slighly older than me. Once, she and her daughter, for fun, put make-up on my face. And, not "nude makeup" as posted by Lynn on the thread about make-up. No - the kind of make-up that you cannot miss. I did not like that, but there was no way to take it off, so I went home. I did not expect a happy reception, but the degree of unhappy reception was quite extreme.

When I arrived at home - and my extended family was visiting - they were all shocked. I was told that I looked as if trying to attract attention, which was reprehensible, and asked to never do that again, ever.

Likewise, no body-hugging clothing etc.

But, the thing is, I was not expected to be a nun - not at all.

I was expected to get lots and lots of male attention, but without trying to attract it via things like make-up or body-hugging clothing.

In essense, this meant that there was a game that I was supposed to play, and play by the rules, and the rules were "you are not allowed any attempts to attract attention, and yet you should be getting lots of attention, and if you are not getting lots of attention, then you are a loser and a disgrace to the family".

But that is exactly what you are saying - attracting attention makes getting attention easy, and accomplishing easy things is not rewarded by respect.

Same, right?

In my own marriage, I tend to be the one to do the submitting. I still have my own goals and purposes and a life of my own, of course. I'm just saying that in some ways my wife will always be more of a man than I am. It's just who we are.

Why is it okay for High Treason to say women are sluts because we're "easy" and make no effort in sex but I can't say that a man is a man***** if he treats a woman like a piece of meat?

I think High Treason made a general comment that it is more difficult to get sex from a woman than from a man. He did not say that it was "easy" - he said exactly the opposite.

When you say that you do not want to be considered easy, you are contradicting yourself. In the OP, you wondered why girls who have sex are called sluts. Apparently, despite the fact that you say that you do not "get" while girls are called sluts, you still act on the basis of the belief that girls should NOT be "easy" to get.

Say, you do not get piercings as in "do not understand them" and you do not get piercings as in "do not get your bodyparts pierced". So you are consistent.

But when you say that you do not get why girls are called sluts when they have sex, just to follow up with "I do not want anyone to think of my sex as easy", you are being inconsistent.

Just pointing it out.

Last time I checked, I asked you nicely about five times not to comment on my threads, let alone my posts.

The last time I commented on YOUR post, you decided to write a lengthy, multi-paragraph essay on why my Nazi fetishism is the most disgusting, immoral, inhumane fetish to have, how you held it in for months but couldn't hold it in any more to explain how I shouldn't have this fetish if I couldn't help it, that I am offensive to every Jewish person and a mockery and insensitivity of the Holocaust, and that I should be absolutely ashamed of having the fetish that I do.

No kind word, no meaningful advice, no well-intended profile message could ever make its way into my Nazi-loving heart to accept or appreciate any kind of post from you. Anything and everything you say on my posts of any topic or thread is considered harassment and is unappreciated. Do not reply to my posts any further.

If you do not like my posts, do not comment on them. Or perhaps you do, then I won't be replying to you either.

Did he ever say that women are sluts? Can you quote him, please, saying that? He was talking about the relationship between a task's difficulty and the respect afforded to a person who completes the task. He was not saying that women are easy; he was saying that it is much easier for women to have sex than it is for men (in his experience, and I partially disagree, but it is beyond the point).

Also, the first entry for "man*****" in the Urban Dictionary is

"The male equivalent of a slut."

So, you are saying that a man who treats a woman like a piece of meat (by the way, what does it mean? I do not think anybody has treated me that way) is a man*****. But then it follows that a slut is a woman who treats men as pieces of meat (whatever it is). But going back to the UD, we read the following on "slut":

" A derogatory term.

Refers to a sexually promiscuous person, usually female."

It does not say "treats like pieces of meat". Promiscuous means someone not particularly discriminating in her choice of sex partners. Has no relationship to pieces of meat whatsoever.

Are you joking!? Your posts are not wanted!

Whom are you speaking to? There are three people on the thread with whose posts you have taken issue in the past half hour.

"Last time I checked, I asked you nicely about five times not to comment on my threads, let alone my posts.

The last time I commented on YOUR post, you decided to write a lengthy, multi-paragraph essay on why my Nazi fetishism is the most disgusting, immoral, inhumane fetish to have, how you held it in for months but couldn't hold it in any more to explain how I shouldn't have this fetish if I couldn't help it, that I am offensive to every Jewish person and a mockery and insensitivity of the Holocaust, and that I should be absolutely ashamed of having the fetish that I do.

No kind word, no meaningful advice, no well-intended profile message could ever make its way into my Nazi-loving heart to accept or appreciate any kind of post from you. Anything and everything you say on my posts of any topic or thread is considered harassment and is unappreciated. Do not reply to my posts any further."

High Treason, I apologize for lashing out at you. I did not understand your post correctly. I thought you were objectifying women by saying they were easier to have sex with then men.

If I may venture my opinion on the main source of your difficulty, it is this:

---Quote (Originally by DrSkipper)---
I think there would be a lot of uproar if high school seniors and college kids all started paying for sex. It would damage there ability to maintain genuine relationships if given the opportunity to pay for something meaningless when sex should be meaningful.
---End Quote---

So apparently you, if legislature would ask for your input, would keep prostitution illegal or outlaw legal prostition because you think that sex should be meaningful, and you believe that you can decide for others what their experiences mean for them. So, you do not. People decide what their experiences mean for them by themselves. Further, the meaning of an experience may not become apparent until much later. But at any rate, it is not the case that sex SHOULD be meaningful. Sex is just what every individual person makes of it for himself or herself. And the meaning is not up to you to determine. And if somebody wants to have sex without meaning (as per his or her own concept of a meaning, and not determined in consultation with you), they should be able to do that. As long as their partners are consenting, why not?

Further, when you wrote that "It would damage there ability to maintain genuine relationships if given the opportunity to pay for something meaningless when sex should be meaningful.", you implied that people get into relationships in order to have sex. You said that if they can pay for sex, they won't get into genuine relationships (whatever you meant by "genuine"). In other words, in your worldview, relationships are a way to get sex that one cannot get for money. But then relationships are basically being forced onto people who cannot get sex other than via having relationships. Is there any fun in being in this kind of a relationship? I do not think so.

***

In other words, you support all sorts of unusual and advanced things such as BDSM, which is all great, no question about that, but do not support the basic human right to decide what is meaningful for ourselves.

And that is why I do not get. And I think that the double standard picked up by several people on this thread is somehow tied to (I am not sure how, at this point) your lingering concept of "sex should be meaningful" - the concept that is wrong on many levels, as described above. If you let go of the concept, maybe there won't be so many creeps and douchebags around anymore.

You should not be doing that because it is not fair. You asked me to delete the post, and I deleted within minutes. Since I respected your right to ask me to delete my post, you owe me respect back, OK?

You do not get to decide what is considered harassment. There are community guidelines that determine that. Just as you do not get to decide what sexual expriences of others mean to them or must mean to them. Any more of this kind of thing and I will report you to the moderators for violating community rules by setting your own standards of what harassment is.

It was not addressed to me, but it is a continuation of the same trend:

The community is for support and discussion. There is no rule that says that one can only comment on the posts he or she likes.

Discussion: A conversation or debate about a certain topic.