Tater Salad
Dolphins are the only animals besides humans that will have sex solely for pleasure, not just for mating.

I said 'The begining of humankind.' And yeah, I know the little factoid about dolphins (although I think there was more research there that said certain kind of monkeys also had sex for pleasure). In any case, I'll rephrase that. It's one of the oldest urges anyway.

Anyways, we don't know enough about how the brain works yet to know if maybe different animals enjoy sex in other parts of their brain. Or to a lesser degree.

Oh God, the bonobo/dolphin thing will never die.

Tater Salad
I like:

lesbianism (obviously)

Aww, there go my dreams.

jude_boi
Personally, i don't think animals have the same capacity to enjoy sex as humans do.

Humans are animals as well, and most animals really actually enjoy it to some extent. All those pleasure responses in the nerve endings around your genitals didn't just pop into existence for the benifit of the first human.

ozoneocean

jude_boi
Personally, i don't think animals have the same capacity to enjoy sex as humans do.

Humans are animals as well, and most animals really actually enjoy it to some extent. All those pleasure responses in the nerve endings around your genitals didn't just pop into existence for the benifit of the first human.

agreed. and animals don't just have sex to preproudce. otherwise how do you explain the gay ducks and the gay pegugins recorded by sciencists?

heck, there's even gay deers... and in the white tailed deer speicies, that breed of deer is known for it's homophobia (okay, maybe not that wellknown), but they've been recorded to attack another male if that male even made the slightest indicator of coming on to the male that had homophobia.

and how do one know if that other deer was coming on to the male deer? it's because they did that "ritual" thingy where they ask for sex and such.

so if animals have sex solely only to have children and what not, why do they ask other animals of the same sex to mate with them and become life parthers in some cases? they can tell which is an female and which is an male...

in fact, being gay and having sex for pleasure isn't an invention of humans only.

Aurora Moon

ozoneocean

jude_boi
Personally, i don't think animals have the same capacity to enjoy sex as humans do.

Humans are animals as well, and most animals really actually enjoy it to some extent. All those pleasure responses in the nerve endings around your genitals didn't just pop into existence for the benifit of the first human.

agreed. and animals don't just have sex to preproudce. otherwise how do you explain the gay ducks and the gay pegugins recorded by sciencists?

heck, there's even gay deers... and in the white tailed deer speicies, that breed of deer is known for it's homophobia (okay, maybe not that wellknown), but they've been recorded to attack another male if that male even made the slightest indicator of coming on to the male that had homophobia.

and how do one know if that other deer was coming on to the male deer? it's because they did that "ritual" thingy where they ask for sex and such.

so if animals have sex solely only to have children and what not, why do they ask other animals of the same sex to mate with them and become life parthers in some cases? they can tell which is an female and which is an male...

in fact, being gay and having sex for pleasure isn't an invention of humans only.

I said they don't have the same capacity that we have.

And what makes them think that SOMETIMES (note the emphasis on sometimes so you don't get confused) the male animals aren't just trying to exert dominance?

Speaking of gay animals, has anyone ever winessed lesbian animals?

Though my friend has cat who he thinks masturbates.

ozoneocean

jude_boi
Personally, i don't think animals have the same capacity to enjoy sex as humans do.

Humans are animals as well, and most animals really actually enjoy it to some extent. All those pleasure responses in the nerve endings around your genitals didn't just pop into existence for the benifit of the first human.

I didn't say they had no enjoyment. Just, is an animal's first thought enjoyment, or is it reproduction and dominance?

I'm not too comfortable with this ongoing trend of comparing animals to humans.

And i swear, Mr. Ozoneocean, you are going around searching for my posts, trying to make me look ignorant and foolish. Please reassure me that you're not and that my paranoia is just kicking in right now.

By the by, can we get back to HUMAN sex, not animal. Sweet Jebus Christmas!

jude_boi

Aurora Moon

ozoneocean

jude_boi
Personally, i don't think animals have the same capacity to enjoy sex as humans do.

Humans are animals as well, and most animals really actually enjoy it to some extent. All those pleasure responses in the nerve endings around your genitals didn't just pop into existence for the benefit of the first human.

agreed. and animals don't just have sex to reproduce. otherwise how do you explain the gay ducks and the gay penguins recorded by scientists?

heck, there's even gay deers... and in the white tailed deer species, that breed of deer is known for it's homophobia (Okay, maybe not that well known), but they've been recorded to attack another male if that male even made the slightest indicator of coming on to the male that had homophobia.

and how do one know if that other deer was coming on to the male deer? it's because they did that "ritual" thing where they ask for sex and such.

so if animals have sex solely only to have children and what not, why do they ask other animals of the same sex to mate with them and become life partners in some cases? they can tell which is an female and which is an male...

in fact, being gay and having sex for pleasure isn't an invention of humans only.

I said they don't have the same capacity that we have.

And what makes them think that SOMETIMES (note the emphasis on sometimes so you don't get confused) the male animals aren't just trying to exert dominance?

Speaking of gay animals, has anyone ever witnessed lesbian animals?

Though my friend has cat who he thinks masturbates.

yes, there have been lesbian animals too.

and yeah, in some cases it's a case of dominance. however, there's plenty of cases where the animals that was the one who got ... well, mounted, was often seen to give the other same-sex mate an sign of affection.. whenever it be grooming the other, rubbing beaks, etc. so I doubt the majority of them is just something forced on them as an sign of dominance. otherwise they wouldn't lavnish such signs of affection upon the one who forced them into something like that.
in fact the only species of animal where I know of, using gay sex as an sign of dominance often, is the wolf. they will often mount each other as to say "who's the boss, bitch?"
but that's only if the aphla wolf finds that one of the males in his group is acting out of line. it's then the aphla wolf has two choices: attack the male in an bloody show down. or the more tamer alterative... mount him and show him who's boss.

but yeah. this is getting off topic...

Wow, the juxtaposition of science facts to people mentioning they like to get tied up is pretty... surreal.

I had a pair of lesbian rabbits. It was really hot.

Actually, I didn't mean that, it just seems to be the natural follow up to any sentence that has the words "I had" "a pair of lesbians" and "rabbits" in it.

I have a fetish, but it's one of those ones that can conceivably get you locked up and ostracised from society, so there's no way in heck I'll be talking about it here. I would say it's definitely sick and twisted and wrong, though, although I'm unsure which point I'd be proving.

I don't think fetishes are wrong or sick, but liking butter bagels for breakfast is not a fetish. Unless you are using that butter for lube and inserting you genitals, or inserting it into your genitals for sexual pleasure. Fetishes are not just about being aroused by something like a shoe, but becoming so obsessed about it you can't climax without thinking or touching it. That is a fetish.

I don't think fetishes are normal either. If you have one, you need to read Freud; you have an issue that stemmed from some part of your life (probably childhood) that causes this fixation.

I don’t have a fetish myself. I obsess about my boyfriend, but then all people in love do, so I don’t really worry about that. :-p

Here’s something to show you a fetish, though for what, I don’t know,……

This link is not safe for work!

http://www.ping-net.com/digi/onazuri/200112.html

jude_boi
And i swear, Mr. Ozoneocean, you are going around searching for my posts, trying to make me look ignorant and foolish. Please reassure me that you're not and that my paranoia is just kicking in right now.

It's paranoia man. This just happened to be a thread I was participating in and your remarks were along the same lines as what I was talking about...
So don't worry! :-D

I don't think fetishes are normal either. If you have one, you need to read Freud; you have an issue that stemmed from some part of your life (probably childhood) that causes this fixation.

Freud was a product of his environment. :D
Damn sexually repressed Victorian era Austrian weirdo...
I don't dismiss him totally, but surely a lot of his ideas and theories don't have the same weight in this day and age as they once did?

Yes, fetishes like those you describe are of a different class. Definitely a subversion of normal sexuality.

The images in the link seem to have more to do with creative methods of masturbation then a fetish per se.

Fetishes are a concentrated preference to a certain thing. Just some are disgusting and shouldn't even be considered healthy. Like pedophilia. It's not healthy to crave sex from presexual people. Animals, interspecies is gross. THere is jsut something fundementally wrong. And necrophylia,...yeah, dead people, nuff said.

Yeah. Throw in my two cents! woot!

Fetishes are not always sick. Sure you have the occasional, "I'll do a dog", "I like fruit in my vagina", and "I love being kicked in the balls". But there are other sexual fetishes that aren't as bit extreme as that. Some examples include, light biting, red high heels in bed, nipple stimulation. Not everything that is a sexual fetish has to be complete and utterly gross. A simple thing as liking to be kissed while having sex could be a fetish. Basically, if it gets you off, have at it.

and those are my two cents. Thank you.

Frae
Yeah. Throw in my two cents! woot!

Fetishes are not always sick. Sure you have the occasional, "I'll do a dog", "I like fruit in my vagina", and "I love being kicked in the balls". But there are other sexual fetishes that aren't as bit extreme as that. Some examples include, light biting, red high heels in bed, nipple stimulation. Not everything that is a sexual fetish has to be complete and utterly gross. A simple thing as liking to be kissed while having sex could be a fetish. Basically, if it gets you off, have at it.

and those are my two cents. Thank you.

I didn't say that all fetishes are bad, just some of the extreme ones are pretty bad.

And if people should do what gets them off, then apparently, according to you, it would be all right to deficate on someone, despite the fact that it's unhealthy, just because it gives them gratification?

???

I've got a nice broad cure-all phrase that will hopefully cover all bases here - and forgive my tendancy to vomit LaVey all over the place - but how about going with, "If you enjoy it, and it hurts no one including yourself, go right ahead and do it."

Of course this may leave the pooping-person in the clear - I don't know exactly how unhealthy poop is, to be honest.

It depends on the defacaters diet.

And if people should do what gets them off, then apparently, according to you, it would be all right to deficate on someone, despite the fact that it's unhealthy, just because it gives them gratification?

If the other person is into being shat on, then why the hell not?

So in other words,gets me off is okay? This is way too much.
This is jsut inane. Sex is about passion, not orgasms. Call me a romantic, but I think sex is better off the old fashioned way.

Fetishes are okay. Sexual devaitions aren't. People weren't meant to be hit with objects, or pooed on, or put through simulated rape fantasies, to orgasm. People were meant to be turned on by diferent nationalities, certain articles of clothing, even porn.
But this stuff, it's just wrong!

BTW, some of these extreme fetishes are due to early childhood trauma. It's calls for psychological help, not indulgence.

and how would you know? have you have any link to proof that they are?

look, people have different beliefs in what is right or wrong..

for example, if people wanted to get tied up and lives aren't at risk, and it's consental on both sides then let them!

some people just can't be passionate with their loved ones unless the sex is rough. doesn't mean that they're not just using the fetish to get off on their own.. it may be actually a form of lovemaking between two consensual, loving people.

and plus, when you think about it, Bondage and such, it's actually the sign of the absolute trust... that you'd actually willingly become so helpless in that way for your lover, that sort of thing. that you could surrender all the "power" to your lover and trust him/her fully that they wouldn't do anything you wouldn't like, or endanger your life.

and isn't an relationship not only about love, but trust too as well?

the same thing with rough sex that simluates "rape"....

they all actually have an "safe" word for this sort of thing, so that the other person knows when to stop when the bound one has had enough of it. they go to great lengths to ensure that everything they do will be safe for the other person, and the other person will fully enjoy it.

I know a lot of people who are into that really rough stuff, and none of them ever had an tramatic event in the past as an child. in fact, most of them actually had pretty conservate and dull childhoods growing up....

so I have to say you're pretty much wrong, and that you're pretty much making all sorts of assumations about things you know nothing about.

face it, sometimes people doesn't like the tradational stuff, and finds it way too boring. in fact, so boring they can't even bring themselves to make love passionately with each other. and they'd rather go for something that's a little bit different.

after all, people who really loves each other needs to keep the interst and the passion in thier relationship, right? so they gonna do whatever it takes to keep thier marriages and relationship alive, when the tradational sex fails them.

it's still two people loving each other, and consenting.... so what's the problem, huh?

in fact the only few stuff I can't really understand or even like the idea of, is Scat. poop and pee is just gross, no matter how I look at it.
so really, it's not immoral, it's just VERY DISGUSTING.

and having sex with pre-pubecent children.. no consent there at all, so to me that's legally wrong and just plain disturbing.

the same for using dead corpses. just too gross not to metion the dieases and stuff that one might get from it.

So in other words,gets me off is okay? This is way too much.
This is jsut inane. Sex is about passion, not orgasms. Call me a romantic, but I think sex is better off the old fashioned way.

Fetishes are okay. Sexual devaitions aren't. People weren't meant to be hit with objects, or pooed on, or put through simulated rape fantasies, to orgasm. People were meant to be turned on by diferent nationalities, certain articles of clothing, even porn.
But this stuff, it's just wrong!

BTW, some of these extreme fetishes are due to early childhood trauma. It's calls for psychological help, not indulgence.

But think about this - how weird is it to get turned on by... silk stockings or leather gloves? It's pretty weird. They are articles of clothing.

Any fetish is a deviation from the norm. Sexual deviants, however, let these fetishes - whatever they may be - consume them.

Besides, to get technical, sex is about reproduction. It feels good so we reproduce.

Sex sans orgasms? You must have a pretty sad sex life.

Also, those people who should get psychological help because of their extreme fetishes? Would these fetishes be something like, tying a woman up, with a rope, her left hand tied to her right ankle, her left ankle tied to the best post, and her right arm tied to her side, while wearing white udnerwear? Because that's a very specific fetish, and most probably comes from a trauma in early life.

I speak for myself, having had no trauma in life that things like bondage, BDSM, even 3somes do not neccessaarily have to come from severe childhood traumas. We're all hardwired differently. Hell, you might just not have found your kink yet.

yeah. and to be sure that you are actually knowledgeable about some of the stuff out there, be sure to read on them.

here's a few links to educate you. (don't worry, nothing graphic. just basic FAQs and some intetersting information. also details on the how to keep your lover safe and secture pyshically and emitionally, so there's also talk on the pyslogical aspect of it too).

http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/faq.htm
they even got intersting questions such as:
Is SM degrading or abusive? Were most SM people abused?
Why is SM taboo, and is SM criminal, unnatural, immoral, unethical, or unhealthy?

so it's not endsoring all the rough sex, it's basically an laid out education to all those people out there who aren't familar with all asepects of the really rough sex, and allowing the people to make thier own thoughts and feelings on it with an full education.

I'll however, take an part from the site for those who doesn't want to click on some link:

Often people approach SM with nothing but negative stereotypes in their mind. The will-less slave dominated by the overbearing thoughtless master. The pervert who enjoys being hit because he thinks he deserves no better. These images, negatively charged with connotations of abuse, do not reflect the reality of consensual SM.

First, were SM people abused as children? This is a common stereotype. Straw polls of people on s.s.b-b seem to indicate no particular pattern of abuse, and there have been very few, if any, scientific studies of the question. Some people see an increased correlation, but there is little actual evidence.

This stereotype is usually just _assumed_ to be true, as an expression of SM-negativity--"Oh, anyone who likes that must have been really damaged as a kid." Similar claims were once widely made about homosexuals and homosexuality. (As one data point, I personally wasn't abused as a child, for which I'm grateful. And I'm very into various aspects of SM, for which I'm also grateful.) In general, in fact, no one seems to have any idea of why some people enjoy SM behaviors or fantasies, and others don't. Rather like no one really knows what determines sexual orientation, or preferred body type, or much of anything else where human sexuality is concerned. The notion of a "normal" sexuality is widely overrated... the range of variations is incredible.

Once you actually look at people who are involved in SM, and at what they do, you realize that what is actually happening is a powerful expression of love, which expands into sensual realms outside the ordinary. True SM is consensual, strengthening, and sustaining; true degradation is _not_. Therein lies the difference, and it is truly an all-important difference.

Occasional debates on s.s.b-b revolve around the (relatively few) people who practice full-time dominant/submissive relationships. Such relationships require lots of self-inquiry and self-examination to see that both partners are benefiting and growing. Sometimes the claim is made that such BDSM relationships are just ways for the dominant to break down their submissive's will, and to accept abuse because the submissive (according to the dominant, and perhaps also in the submissive's own opinion) deserves no better. (This is essentially what a wife-battering husband does: he takes control of his wife's self-perception, and convinces her that the abuse is the necessary price to be paid for her to remain with him; it is no more than her due. And moreover, she is not to complain.)

This kind of relationship is _not_ a consensual BDSM relationship; the dominant in a consensual relationship listens to and respects the limits of their bottom, and does not seek to break down the bottom's personality, but rather to build it up through the kind of relationship that both enjoy and desire. Such relationships almost always contain an "escape clause," such that if the bottom is truly feeling deprived or abused, the bottom can ask to set the roles aside and talk with the top as equals. (In other words, a relationship safeword.) Such concern for clear communication when things don't go well (as well as when they do) is the hallmark of a healthy BDSM relationship. And every text I have read about long-term BDSM relationships stresses the importance of emotional safety issues. (As I mentioned previously, people who have issues around their sense of self should be aware that SM is potentially risky in that area. Of course, _any_ relationship is potentially risky for such people....)

jude_boi
I didn't say that all fetishes are bad, just some of the extreme ones are pretty bad.And if people should do what gets them off, then apparently, according to you, it would be all right to deficate on someone, despite the fact that it's unhealthy, just because it gives them gratification?
???

Smoking is unhealthy. Does that mean people are going to stop? No. If someone poops on you, that is a two person act there. One to do it and the other to be allowing themselves to be pooped on. Either way, it is their personal lifestyle and choice.

jude_boi
So in other words,gets me off is okay? This is way too much.
Sex is about passion, not orgasms. Call me a romantic, but I think sex is better off the old fashioned way.

We live in a world where sex doesn't have as much meaning as it use to have. While some people view it the romantic portion of sex, many others just use it to post their ego. I'm happy I'm not the only one who believes sex still has meaning. :)

About the whole sex is not meant for hitting and pooping and all that jazz, that may be true, but you got to understand that all of these acts include two parties consent (maybe even three or many more). Goin back to my smoking example, it may not be good for you, but people enjoy it, right? The same goes for these extreme sexual fetishes. they may not be good, but they are enjoyable to the parties involved. Therefore, whatever gets you off, go for it. Just because people think its gross doesn't mean its going to change anything. If people enjoy it, they'll do it.

Hmmm... I don't know about you guys, but I think that doing sex is more fun than talking about it.
So I'm with the pro-fetish camp here: If it gets you off, just do it. Don't hurt anyone unless they want it, and I don't even want to know you if you're into poo, necrophilia, animals, children, or all four in some freakishly twisted fucking sick mess of weird icky pervyness!!!!!!!!!

I don’t understand why sex with vanilla is considered normal though… It’d smell nice, but I don’t think it’s very sexy. It is a highly underrated and misunderstood flavour though! You know, I once bought a vanilla flavoured frozen yogurt from a street vendor and it had no fucking taste what so ever!!! Can you believe it? The vendor was SO pig stupidly MORONIC that he didn’t realise that “vanilla” is NOT a code word for “no flavour’, that it is in fact a delicious, yummy, scrummy, subtle and delicate exercise in deliciousness, and had therefore failed to grasp that in order for the stuff to be called “vanilla flavoured” you actually have to ADD vanilla flavour TO it!

Yeah, so, vanilla is damn good, ok?

:lol:

Vanilla is awesome! :)

LOL!!@oceanozone

for those who don't know what "Vanilla sex" is...

it's basically a term for traditional Missionary Sex, without even doing anything "different"....

so basically, it's an derogative term that reffers to an couple doing the "prudish thing" to the point where they would rather have Missionary sex only without any changes to thier sex route at all, every time they make love.

they don't do oral, they don't masturbate together, they don't even do anal sex.

personally, I kinda feel sorry for those people, as seeing a lot of them that's only into Vanilla doesn't seem to be very happy with thier sex life. (I mean, duh... doing the same exact thing every time would definely get boring!)

I happen to know an woman online on a different messageboard whose husband seems to be only in vanilla sex, and he doesn't seem to do a good job at it. he just pretty much does that "wham, thank you ma'am" thing and then falls sleep when she isn't still sasfitied and wants more. and she doesn't seem to be very happy in that relationship, and the fact the only reason why she seems to be staying together with him is because of the children they have together and stuff.
and as she told people in the 18+ section of the fourms about getting oragasms, she didn't even get any... it's usually her husband that gets that before he goes to bed.

So it seems that Vanilla sex seems designed to please solely only the male, while the female doesn't get much out of it.

"Vanilla sex" can be good for the woman too, the partner just needs to be sensative towards her and realize that it's (hopefully) a person he cares about underneath him, and not just a blow up dall.

Jillers
"Vanilla sex" can be good for the woman too, the partner just needs to be sensative towards her and realize that it's (hopefully) a person he cares about underneath him, and not just a blow up dall.

yeah. but I've noticed that after a while of being married the male tends to take her for granted, etc...
that's when things goes downhill I think.

I thought my whole vanilla flavour analogy was pretty good. Basically, so-called “ordinary” sex is just as valid and can be just as great as any other. If you’re not able to appreciate it, you might be doing it wrong…
The Fault is probably in “you” not the sex.

eh, and what if the woman was doing all she could, espeically when it comes to pleasuring the man but herself as well. but the male in palicuiar wasn't doing as much work other than grinding her?

how can an woman tell the male that she loves, that he basically pretty much sucks in bed? that's gonna be a serious blow to an male's ego, espeically if it's coming from an woman that he's been married for years. :lol: or even from an girlfriend of say, 2 years.

and then there's the question of whenever the certain guys would even be willing to get help in learning how to please an woman...

I don't know about males elsewhere, but I've noticed that the local men around this area seems like the sort that won't even ask for directions when lost. you know the whole: "Real men don't need to ask for directions or help!"

so even going to an sex theperaist or even looking up tips on the net on how to please women would be out of the question.

so how would one manage to get that sort of guy to realize that he's doing something wrong?

granted, it goes both ways too... I've heard of women who did nothing but lie there while he did all the work, and I find that a little bit odd too.

Aurora, I meant for both parties to do things right of course :D
The situation could be exactly the same no matter what kind of sex they practised if one partner wasn't really getting the most out of it, having their needs met, or participating fully and voluntarily. It could perhaps be much, much worse in the case of rougher kinds of sex…