[iknowexactly]

http://www.xojane.com/sex/ive-never-had-...oesnt-care

Some chicks def can't come, it's just now they feel free to sort of brag about it.

I can't imagine feeling sex was satisfying with a girl who can't come.

[kosko]

Lets take note that she is 27 and single. A women whom is defective like her would be wise to seriously try to latch onto a quality man whom was cool and comfortable with her situation.

You can see where I am getting at.

If her parts are not physically defective she has wiring issues in her brain and soul. Women more do then men are dependent on lining up he starts mentally, internally to fully enjoy sex. The act of a women ejaculating for example is dependent on how well she can relax herself and "remove herself" to freely let it flow. So if a female is telling me she can climax and does not have a physical condition she clearly has lingering mental complex's that she needs to settle. She loosely talks about how shrinks did piss poor jobs but she never went as far to get a literal brain map or signal test done. I am sure they are pricy but any college would jump at the chance to run tests on her due to her unique condition.

She is full of it. Her hamster is in denial. She has something in the closet she is not telling. Maybe sexual abuse as a child, who knows, but something is there.

[kosko]

...

[scorpion]

Right. She doesn't care.

That's why she spent thousands of dollars on doctors and shrinks, told all her friends about her problem, then wrote this article about it.

This is just like the fat cows who write articles about how they've accepted their bodies. It's a form of therapy for them, I think. Some kind of proactive self-delusion where they try to convince themselves they don't have a problem by publicly stating they don't care.

[Hades]

Has she tried dvda?

[iknowexactly]

(05-12-2013 10:22 PM)Hades Wrote:  

Has she tried dvda?

she said she tried a huge guy..and couldn't walk after.

The mind-body divide is not so simple, one could say she has "issues" but iif she is, say too tense, but too proud to go get meds or whatever she needs, she can't be FORCED to do what will make her cum.

So in effect, she is frigid, even if theoretically she could be helped, she doesn't want to.

The end result is the same. I wish her well, but unless SOMETHING changes, she's probably won't be squeezing out sparks for anyone soon.

[Hotwheels]

As far as meds go, oftentimes anti depression drugs can make it nearly impossible for a woman to have an orgasm.

[kosko]

(05-13-2013 07:46 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

As far as meds go, oftentimes anti depression drugs can make it nearly impossible for a woman to have an orgasm.

Same with men also.

Way way back when I was young, dumb, and full of Jamaican rum I thought I was "depressed" and let the Doctor put me a year-long round of SSRI's. I can't even describe how messed up I felt sexually. I could not get hard for shit and if then I could not really get any positive feelings from sex.

Women outtake SSRI's than men by a wide margin. These things completely fry your brain, they turned me into a zombie and I could only imagine what it does to a female whom is on SSRI's AND birth control which males a complete mess of their hormones. Only the Diary Cow is drugged more than the American female, that should tell people a lot. No other animal on earth ingests more toxic chemicals and drugs then the Dairy Cow and the American female.

[Hotwheels]

Yep. I was on on Lexapro briefly and it took me three hours of pounding the bejeezus out of broads to get a nut raw.

Was good for my cardio anyway....

[cardguy]

If you want to fuck a girl in the ass - fuck her in the pussy.

There nerve endings that stimulate the prostate in the ass. These get stimulated in gay sex. But in women - those nerve endings are found in the vagina. This is where the 'G spot' is found in men and women.

So - as with gay sex - women will only be able to come from vaginal intercourse if she is submissive to the one doing the fucking. With the rise of feminism - and 'equality' - women are losing the ability to let themselves be dominated. Which will mean the dying out of orgasms from vaginal penetrations.

Clittoral orgasms should be fine (which are weaker - but much longer - than male orgasms by the way). But due to the psychological element. A women will only have a 'G spot' orgasm from a man who is dominating her. No 'nice guy' or sex toy will ever get her to achieve one.

Personally - I sense most men were fucked in the ass thousands of years ago as a way of keeping them submissive and in line. Alot like with prison rape today. The methods of discipline used in armies were pretty brutal back then.

And things like femdom are a hangover from those days. Since there will have being an evolutionary pressure - which meant the most successful armies were the ones who were most submissive to their commanders. Which will have led to an increase in pleasure due to anal sex passing through the generations. And such traits will have being passed down from the beta males of thousands of years ago to the beta males of today.

Sorry - for all the above. It is a bit gross. I am just trying to make make some guesses as to what went on in ancient history. Some of the most startling things about history are unknown to us today. Which can lead us to unknowingly perpetuating myths.

A recent example of this is the myth of the eight-hour sleep:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16964783

[Icarus]

(05-13-2013 11:55 AM)cardguy Wrote:  

Personally - I sense most men were fucked in the ass thousands of years ago as a way of keeping them submissive and in line. Alot like with prison rape today. The methods of discipline used in armies were pretty brutal back then.

What? Are you now doing homosexualist propaganda? So, there's no way to discipline men other than fucking them in the ass? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!!

The Romans used decimation. Yes, they killed 10% of their mutinous men. Better lose 10% of your mutinous men, than to have 100% of your army (mutinous and otherwise) with STDs that may affect combat readiness. Moreover, when Romans marched to battle in square formations, if a legionnaire chickened out, the man next to him had the obligation to kill the coward with his sword. If he failed to do so, the man next to him would have the obligation to kill the reluctant executioner. Brutal, but efficient. No ass-fucking required.

The fact that men may derive pleasure from being fucked in the ass is nothing more than a biological accident. It serves absolutely no biological purpose, just like the female orgasm serves no biological purpose.

[polymath]

(05-13-2013 11:55 AM)cardguy Wrote:  

Personally - I sense most men were fucked in the ass thousands of years ago as a way of keeping them submissive and in line. Alot like with prison rape today. The methods of discipline used in armies were pretty brutal back then.

For an army, nothing says 'morale' quite like a good fuck in the ass.

[kosko]

(05-13-2013 12:22 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 11:55 AM)cardguy Wrote:  

Personally - I sense most men were fucked in the ass thousands of years ago as a way of keeping them submissive and in line. Alot like with prison rape today. The methods of discipline used in armies were pretty brutal back then.

What? Are you now doing homosexualist propaganda? So, there's no way to discipline men other than fucking them in the ass? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!!

The Romans used decimation. Yes, they killed 10% of their mutinous men. Better lose 10% of your mutinous men, than to have 100% of your army (mutinous and otherwise) with STDs that may affect combat readiness. Moreover, when Romans marched to battle in square formations, if a legionnaire chickened out, the man next to him had the obligation to kill the coward with his sword. If he failed to do so, the man next to him would have the obligation to kill the reluctant executioner. Brutal, but efficient. No ass-fucking required.

The fact that men may derive pleasure from being fucked in the ass is nothing more than a biological accident. It serves absolutely no biological purpose, just like the female orgasm serves no biological purpose.

It goes both ways. You have to have an incentive to mate.

Its not like taking a dump which we can't control. We can control whom we select and pursue to mate with but the incentive has to be there on both sides to make it happen.

As far as anal goes I do not know the history for either side on the subject. As a means of degradation or control I would not doubt. Many fuked up royals would prefer to use young boys as sex slaves due to the fact there was no risk of impregnation. They would get castrated after they we're used by the royals, fucked up shit.

[Icarus]

(05-13-2013 12:43 PM)kosko Wrote:  

It goes both ways. You have to have an incentive to mate.

Women already have it: they get fucked, then they get pregnant. Once pregnant, they are entitled to a provider and protector, since the man has an enormous incentive to care for the well-being of the mother of his children.

[cardguy]

Hey I may be wrong here. I am just trying to extrapolate from gangs in prison and prison rape. To what went on in armies thousands of years ago.

Anyway - quick search on wikipedia:

Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece

Here is the first paragraph of the article:

Quote:

Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece was regarded as contributing to morale.[1] Although the primary example is the Sacred Band of Thebes, a unit said to have been formed of same-sex couples, the Spartan tradition of military heroism has also been explained in light of strong emotional bonds resulting from homosexual relationships.[2] Various ancient Greek sources record incidents of courage in battle and interpret them as motivated by homoerotic bonds.

Also - it seems as if the Ancient Greeks didn't think in terms of gay and straight. Instead they thought in terms of dominance and submission. Whether it was a chick or a young guy, being dominated by an older and more powerful male, made no difference to them.

Homosexuality in ancient Greece

[Surreyman]

(05-13-2013 01:07 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Hey I may be wrong here. I am just trying to extrapolate from gangs in prison and prison rape. To what went on in armies thousands of years ago.

Anyway - quick search on wikipedia:

Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece

Here is the first paragraph of the article:

Quote:

Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece was regarded as contributing to morale.[1] Although the primary example is the Sacred Band of Thebes, a unit said to have been formed of same-sex couples, the Spartan tradition of military heroism has also been explained in light of strong emotional bonds resulting from homosexual relationships.[2] Various ancient Greek sources record incidents of courage in battle and interpret them as motivated by homoerotic bonds.

Also - it seems as if the Ancient Greeks didn't think in terms of gay and straight. Instead they thought in terms of dominance and submission. Whether it was a chick or a young guy, being dominated by an older and more powerful male, made no difference to them.

Homosexuality in ancient Greece

Not the same thing as bumming for punishment, though. There was bumming, but I've never seen evidence of it as a punishment.

[cardguy]

Okay - I'm wrong on that one.

Although - don't some animals do this to other animals in 'the pack' as a form of control?

Maybe this is something which goes back millions of years into our evolutionary past?

I really don't know...

[Surreyman]

On topic:

I've noticed the more feminine girls I've been with have come easier. Somebody else mentioned it, girls who are submitting will have better sex.

[Icarus]

(05-13-2013 04:37 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

Although - don't some animals do this to other animals in 'the pack' as a form of control? Maybe this is something which goes back millions of years into our evolutionary past? I really don't know...

Yes, there is homosexuality in the animal world. Yes, there was homosexuality in Ancient Greece, and yes the Ancient Greeks viewed homosexual sex in a different way.

The problem is that the Zeitgeist is homosexualist. Gays are celebrated as heroes these days. They are the new astronauts. No one is doing truly serious research on homosexuality. No one REALLY wants to know the truth. What if homosexuality is not genetic? What if homosexuality is caused by toxoplasmosis or some other pathogen? Then, it would be a disease. Would you allow diseased people to adopt children? So they can spread the "gay germ" to their adopted children? Ooops, this would make "progressives" look like creationists. Would be lots of fun.

[MrXY]

(05-13-2013 04:38 PM)Surreyman Wrote:  

On topic:

I've noticed the more feminine girls I've been with have come easier. Somebody else mentioned it, girls who are submitting will have better sex.

Girls orgasm more easily and often with a dominant man. They also are more vocal when having sex with a dominant man

[MidniteSpecial]

Yup. I've also come across a few girls who claimed they never had an orgasm.

One was a Xanax popper so that made sense to me.

The others had few previous sexual partners.

A lot of times it's in there head. I got a girl to cum who never had before by telling her (while I was fucking her) "it's okay if you don't come. It's okay if you don't. It's not a big deal. There's no pressure on you to cum right now." Etc. basically I was reverse mind fucking her while fucking her. Worth a shot if your girl is the type who can't cum.

Also if you care about this kind of thing keep in mind girls take longer to cum than dudes and rely on more mental stimulation sometimes rather than physical.

[Nascimento]

What are some signs she is being submissive/sees you as dominant in sex?

I know it seems obvious. But I'm looking to hear some specifics. Surely some women have sex with men they don't submit to/see as dominant?

I want to be able to maximize my dominance and her submission. I know all girls love this, but it might take different strokes for each one. Wondering what are the sure signs/feedback you are expressing dominance properly.

[cardguy]

A good one is to pull on her hair.

It works.

[Timoteo]

I wonder if she's really had a pro go to work on her. Has she only tried to orgasm from intercourse (some can't just from dick, but need strong clitoral stimulation), or has she had a dude try to eat/finger her off? Has she had a dude to get in there with two fingers and get at that G-spot?

[iknowexactly]

(05-13-2013 05:22 PM)Nascimento Wrote:  

What are some signs she is being submissive/sees you as dominant in sex?

I've had different experiences. One girl who was about 20 remarked that she had fantasized about being tied up ever since she was a young child and saw people tied up on TV! (Which would have been about 35 years ago) She had a lot of trouble orgasming, and said she'd only come once while tied up by a guy.

Another didn't realize she was a submissive until she was about 40. i was fucking her when she was 50.

She said she realized she was a sub when her boyfriend was fucking her up the ass, she decided she didn't like it and asked him to stop. He wouldn't stop, and she said it turned her on hugely being quasi-raped.

All this was pre pervasive internet porn. It was a lot more fun to treat a girl filthy because it really was something new to the participants.