Anal Sex

Oh, the onion has many layers.

 

... I did not know that two different cultural backgrounds were involved. The differences seem quite well researched; the data seems compatible with the respectful exploration being engaged in. The big question to me would be 'to what extent is Remixer's pov influenced by his culture' ... in which case his generalisation could be 'the average Afgan male', Remixer, you would be on solid ground - your own, and the discussion could continue on those terms.

For light relief regarding pigeonholing:

Infobyte:
Pigeonholing also requires a supply of oxygen tanks up the 'coop shoot', or there is danger of assphyxiation. A variant known as Goosing involves the group approaching in a V formation a.k.a going South for the Winter.

 

I apologise, but I have no idea what you mean with that statement.

While growing up, I remained to a very large extent unaffected by, and unexposed to, Afghan culture. In fact, I despise it. In terms of culture, I don't really identify myself with any one, but if there was any culture closest to my way of thinking and set of values, it'd be the West German culture.

Regardless, the Afghanistan factor is quintessentially a non-issue when it comes to my opinions and has an extremely limited effect from which position I make my arguments. EDIT: If you were to put a geo-cultural label on the things I say, it'd be West German.

 

I mean that citing presumed cultural background need not be ad hominem, and that it can be responded to with the clarification you have just given me, which I appreciate.

When it comes to physical safety, anal sex has narrow margins for error, and is, imo, high on the list of activities which need especially mutually supportive informed consent.

Your initial post in this thread was describing the average man as a dominating sadist.
Your recent post is describing the average modern man as subdued, his 'natural' dominance repressed, and that that leads to an en masse rise of abusive men. And that that is prevalent in western cultures.
I can relate to some of the history you describe in your recent post. I am an Englishman and have lived here all my life. I remember the 'male entitlement' I was expected to operate out of when I was a child, and the way that sense of obligation has diminished through the years. I have also been present when men have expressed anger at 'women not knowing their place'. Some of my clients have been battered 'women who did not know their place'. I don't reckon that this male entitlement was natural, and might therefore have been putting more women in danger by contributing to the repression of men, who got angry and expressed their frustrated nature abusively. Neither you nor I, Remixer, want men to be nasty bastards.


Yet, I think, I believe ... I know the woman's as well as the man's 'yes' or 'no' to be their right ... not my concession to them from some natural power position.


But of course, I would think that, because of my cultural background which I believe you've accurately described. I am ignorant of what for you is a stance you've built throughout your life. Therefore, something I'd appreciate help with:

Given this all started with your thoughts on anal sex, then as you go ahead and contemplate now, doing it with? to? a specific woman, please will you describe how you specifically, go about being a 'dominating sadist'. You said 'I highly value mutual consent in all its aspects'. How do you place this within a framework in which male dominance is 'natural' state? How does that work?

This may soon deserve a thread of its own for it extends beyond anal, but for now, anal.

 

Let me start off with saying this: You have a particular way of writing, and I am sure many appreciate it. I find it somewhat confusing, as in some places it seems that bits of information were randomly put in a sentence, or the sentence structure throws me off. Just mentioning this in case I misunderstood parts of your argumentation and train of thought.

I'll proceed with your question first and will then move on to what you mentioned in the beginning of your post.

1.1)

It must be said that I am a very friendly, polite, direct and open person. While everyone says this, I have also been a great asshole in my teenage years, which I won't get into right now, and have become what I am now through a lot of internal reflection and self-actualization over the past years. It is my stringent belief that mutual consent must exist in everything involving more than one person. As I said before, I am a very dominant person and have slight sadistic tendencies. I enact my domination with my partner through the positions and acts we conduct, which are almost all degrading to her. My sadistic side comes out through spanking, gagging, choking and, as a matter of course, anal. I enjoy to inflict a limited amount of pain to her.

Where this fits with mutual consent is the fact that my fiancée is very submissive and has slight masochistic tendencies. She enjoys the degradation and pain, and drew the line of the forbidden at the beginning of our sexual relations. Had I not had her consent to go through with the acts, I would never do them and I fully respect the lines drawn.

1.2)

The natural tendencies in most men I believe to be domination. Sadism is something that, in my mind, depends on one's psychological development for the most part. The amount of sadism in each one individual varies greatly, but I believe most men to have at least slight tendencies for sadism and thus will enjoy, at the minimum, anything between spanking her to "impaling" her.

Anal, by most and also my partner's accounts, is painful in the beginning and the pain subdues over time as both her mind and the anus get used to the penetration. The initial phase I believe to be a source of sexual satisfaction for many men, as they see their partner's grimaces and groans while they are in a position of power, knowing the reason their partner's pain is in their control and are "impaling" them.

1.3)

While the strict following of the "mutual consent" principle may superficially stand at odds with natural male dominance, it doesn't. Dominance can be misconstrued to be a tool for something of a mini-dictatorship by each individual, but I believe the amount of dominance in most men to be moderate. I further believe that inherent dominance/sadism does not stand in the way for a male to enjoy his partner's sexual satisfaction to the full extent.

As with everything, there needs to be a balance. How much domination does a man apply on his partner without going against morality, but still satisfying his needs? That's where I believe mutual consent to be the factor to reach and maintain equilibrium. Doing something without consent of their partner, while in accordance with the principles of dominance and sadism, is a gross violation of the other person's sovereignty. Consented anal sex is, what I believe to be, one of the examples where dominance and pain are inflicted on the partner, both tendencies' needs satisfied and then continue on to the pleasure part for both him and her.

I should add that I believe most women to have at least slight submissive tendencies. Much of my reasoning coincides with Baraka Guru's comment a few months ago in a thread on the old forum that the biological structures of males and females cause for accompanying psychological characteristics and tendencies to be present in many of the members of each sex (I forgot what thread exactly, but his comment's main gist has remained in my memory). He may not think his argument applies to dominant and submissive tendencies, however, I do.

2)

Onto parts of your comment now. I believe the repression of men started mostly with the advent of the feminist movement in the US, but my experience and knowledge of its effects is limited to Germany and Australia. I know a bit about the effects of the movement on American society, but not enough to make wide-ranging comments. I will also leave out Australia for the most part, as its society is loony in many respects (not saying this in bad faith).

Germany is to my knowledge one of the most gender equal countries in the entire world, and has been such for much longer than one would expect (and we never did ridiculous things such as removing the sex labels from childcare institutions, either). Especially the DDR (East Germany), where women would insist on complete equality even more so than the women from West Germany. Men learned to live with it and still had tons of their dominant needs still intact.

However, German culture and society was affected by the feminist movement in the US just as much as any other country (but not as much as Australia. Seriously, their family law system is completely bonkers.). Especially while growing up, girls and boys used to be treated by parents and teachers differently, yet equal. With the feminist movement came a change in attitude by both parents and teachers. The "princess" status of girls was elevated even more and has resulted in complete and utter spoiling of their minds and behaviour in many instances. While the image of boys remained largely unaffected, the attention given and care provided to them diminished greatly.

It became fashionable to believe that boys can fend for themselves and shouldn't whine. It baffles my mind when that train of thought is applied to a boy aged 5 to 10. It also became fashionable to give girls preferential treatment, especially in schools, leaving many mentally-immature boys perplexed as to why they are excluded from such treatment. It became fashionable to give the boy as little help as possible while growing up, whereas girls have their hands held (sometimes against their will) while learning many tasks.

Most of these boys, however, do no realize it's their sex and many of them don't know this either when they're adults, partly because they took it as it is and learned to live with it, and partly because they simply forgot those instances where they were subject to double-standards during childhood.

Further, German society has increasingly become hostile towards manhood and characteristics usually attributed to men, such as routinely vilifying bravery as stupidity and courage as stubbornness. Not to mention that being dominant is often portrayed as woman-hating.

Couple the aforementioned social expectation from boys with consistent vilification of some male traits, boys often find no other way than to assimilate themselves into the more "feminine" masses and adapt similar behavioural patterns.

What do you do now? You live life, forget about your childhood experiences, be one out of two husbands to end up divorcing your wife and generally let women do and say as they please without raising your, perceived, anti-female doubts.

Now we get to the second generation of boys. Subject to the same social pressure while growing up, but with the bonus advantages to see the girlfriend that cheated on you to be portrayed as a victim and blame put on you for the disintegration of the relationship; and to see your father not only lose half his assets, the house, the car, and having to pay alimony and childcare to your mother, effectively letting her continue to live just as before, but with him having to deal with the emotional distress of losing his wife and kids, and having to work more as he has to support you and your mother financially, while having to pay the extra expenses of rent and badly selected and cooked food. Many alcoholics are born from this situation and the effect of the father's psychological and physical deterioration on the kids is nothing to brag about.

What does the second-generation of boys do? Spend much of their time confused about the situations they're exposed to, the unfairness of the entire game becoming their pet hate, and increasingly seeing women as a whole as the root of all evil. The hate grows, the repression of male traits such as dominance continues and the cycle spirals further downward.

This is basically my reasoning on why I believe many young boys of the current second-generation and of the generations to follow to eventually become abusive, uncontrolled boyfriends/husbands/fathers.

2.1)

Disclaimer to the entire thing above: While I grew up in Germany and its society, my parents (mostly due to my father) enacted a strict policy of equal attention and care to my sister and I. My parents never divorced and my father is the closest thing to a role model I had and continue to have. I am anti-feminist-movement (mostly the radical feminism section).

Apologies, if this is too long to read. In order to answer your questions in a satisfactory manner, this is the minimum amount I believe I had to write.

 

Hi Remixer

This was definitely not too long to read. I did ask you to go into details about these important matters, and you were kind enough to guide me step by step through some essential elements, and also through the foundations on which they are built. Among my responses, I felt very upset by what was happening in your schooling. It sounds like male children were suffering backlash discrimination. How could they make sense of what was going on? All they could do was quietlysuffer or get frustrated, for they certainly were not going to get understood of acknowledged. Hideous.

I have read it all carefully once, and you have given me much to think about. I shall read it at least five or six more times in the next two days.

Best wishes

 

Zen,

Let's... uh... start a new thread? Maybe? We're waaay beyond plundering the booty here.

This isn't even fun anymore. Somebody gets paid $200 an hour for this kinda couch time.

 

Like I was saying. But I believe the loop here needed to be closed.

 

No worries, Zen.

One thing though: I probably should have mentioned this in my disclaimer as well, but I have experienced very little discrimination based on my sex back then. Maybe it was the particular school I went to, I don't know. Much of what I argued was from having observed what many of my friends' little brothers are exposed to daily, other information I have read on the German schooling system as well as an in-depth article in a German magazine (FOCUS, I think) on social pressures put on boys I've read years ago; and from my own analysis of the entire thing.

You may ignore Plan9's witty comments. If you want, we can start a new thread.

 

Hi Remixer, for the record, I will not ignore Plan9's witty comments. IMO they are also wise, and were what initially prompted me to address you.

I have now thoroughly read your work, and thank you for clarifying your sources: I consider myself well briefed by you and look forward to be among those who contribute to discussion threads you may choose to open.

 

I don't disagree on the wisdom of some of Plan9's comments, though his constant ridicule distorts his messages greatly.

Thank you for reading my comment thoroughly, it is appreciated. However, I have said everything I have to say at the current point in time. Should you have any thoughts on mine, I hope you will start a new thread for us to discuss it.

 

OK, my 10¢:
I have always sought it out to give. Having given, it's no better than regular, but no worse, and certainly different. I'm with the "Not all the time" folks on that.

I became curious about receiving when I learned about the prostate. While I am not one who believes that everyone should be willing to do for their partner 100% of what they do for you, I prefer to understand to the best of my ability what they feel, and, having tried with a strap on, it turns out to be a hell of a lot of fun to catch as well as pitch.

Missus Hat has always enjoyed a bit of fingering, and rarely gets all the way off without some bum stimulation. We'd tried to do full on anal a couple of times on her, and it wasn't comfortable.

Now, a bit of a plug (no pun intended), I purchased Anal Pleasure & Health to try to improve both my experience and hers (and it turns out that working through the techniques in that book has pretty much cured both of us of recurring hemorrhoids. So a worthy purchase even without the backdoor agenda.) Eventually, she managed to work through it herself, and more importantly to adjust her expectations of how things in the anus feel. It's like a switch flipped.

Upshot is it tends to be a weekly or biweekly thing for each of us to receive.

/ Incidentally, though I have tried to find men attractive, it just doesn't work. A woman with a penis or a strap-on, however... Wow.

Turns out that it feels (and this will be no secret to women), even when it feels good and is done well and properly, radically different from Vaginal sex. The range and repertoire of vocalizations and facial expressions is different for each. Seems her feeling is more intense from anal, though it may be because good anal is a relative novelty for her. I truly enjoy the different reaction almost as much as I enjoy the actual doing of the deed. (And I'm a hell of a lot more vocal than normal when it's done to me.)

Finally, insofar as the intersection of anal and BDSM, yes, I like both. So that doesn't break the pattern noted earlier. And I enjoy giving or receiving both within and without a BDSM context (though it seems the the receiver is always the bottom. I can think of maybe two scenarios to try where that isn't the case. Saving them for down the road a bit.)

 

I think it's gross, but it makes sense becuase if there is a hole in the body, people like to have sex with it.

 

Nostrils? Never tried that one, but there is still time if I can convince him.

 

Well, unlike the colon, the nostrils and sinuses DO make their own lubricants.

Makes "flaring nostrils" take on a whole different connotation.

 

Oooh, God! Faster, baby, faster, I'm gonna SNEEZE!

 

So THAT'S what she's doing!!! Oh, my ...