Am I really the only person who finds

[AngelaSaxon]

#6 And those were more great days! LOL. Really depends on the thickness of the panty fabric. The more sexy panties tend to be made of thin fabric that's not very absorbent, so yeah, I think soaked through is not very uncommon, if a woman is quite horny.

Don't tell Ben Shapiro, it'll be a whole thing...

 

[SomaSlave]

4. Ohmygod I have, I so have. One of the genuine traumas of my life - literal flashes of memory with involuntary, publicly visible flinching, coming out of nowhere in the weeks following, maybe months. But it wasn't just the semen but also a broader hygiene issue. It's been years but my god even now attempting to describe it, it's bringing back enough of the experience to make me have to stop to avoid the risk of nausea...

Uncircumcised guys, wash under your foreskin for fuck's sake, literally. I swear this guy hadn't in months and my whole body is still capable of shuddering against my will just from the recollection.

All guys, when you bathe or shower, please use soap on your nethers, especially if you are blessed with forests of pubic hair. Musk in small doses is an aphrodisiac. Musk due to lack of hygiene is an emetic. And if you want people to swallow your semen, lay off the garlic rolls.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

This is an excerpt from Everett Yuehong Zhang's 'The Irony of Size: Male Smallness and the Rise of China', which appeared in the 2018 collection, Sexuality in China: Histories of Power and Pleasure.

 

[mirafrida]

FWIW the ancient Greeks evidently felt that a penis on the smaller side was superior in general, and more aesthetically pleasing in particular

 

[AngelaSaxon]

FWIW the ancient Greeks evidently felt that a penis on the smaller side was superior in general, and more aesthetically pleasing in particular

From Timothy J. McNiven, 'The Unheroic Penis: Otherness Exposed', in the Fall 1995 issue of Source: Notes in the History of Art:

But Athenian vase painting often presents us with an aristocratic male world from which all others seem to have been excluded. In this male world, noncitizens such as slaves, manual workers, and resident aliens are almost invisible. This seems to have been at least partly true of ancient Athens, of which the complaint was made that "citizens are no better dressed than slaves or resident foreigners." In contemporary Athenian vase painting, where "nudity is a costume," it is even harder to distinguish the center from the periphery. In rare cases, such a distinction is made by depicting certain men as marginal by showing them with a large penis.

Most nude male figures in Athenian vase painting are standard types: handsome, slim, and well muscled. With few exceptions, the penis is small. That this was associated with the ideal in ancient Athens is clear from Aristophanes' Clouds (1.1014), where the personification of Proper Learning states that from a good education a student will gain many desirable physical characteristics, including a small penis. In art, the small penis should be recognized as a convention, comparable to the carefully developed external oblique muscles at the hip.

Comparing the ideal flaccid, small penises of men in normal situations with their erect, large ones as seen in erotic encounters shows that these ideal men in Greek art had the best of both worlds tastefully "dainty" penises in public, rakishly protuberant phalluses in private.

The physiological contradiction is ignored, and this makes the uniformly small penises all the more obviously conventional.

Why was such a predominant convention ever violated? The rare exceptions, to be discussed below, demonstrate that Athenian vase painters used a large penis to designate certain male figures as less respectable.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

It's not strictly relevant, but I really want to include this excerpt from the 1977 University of California Press book, Folk Literature of the Yamana Indians,: Martin Gusinde's Collection of Yamana Narratives.

An origin story of sexual pleasure which doesn't overtly tie it to procreation but still limits it to male heterosexual vaginal penetration.

Certainly it seems like their gods weren't familiar with the video Gag Factor 15.

 

[AlinaX]

It's not strictly relevant, but I really want to include this excerpt from the 1977 University of California Press book, Folk Literature of the Yamana Indians,: Martin Gusinde's Collection of Yamana Narratives.

An origin story of sexual pleasure which doesn't overtly tie it to procreation but still limits it to male heterosexual vaginal penetration.

Certainly it seems like their gods weren't familiar with the video Gag Factor 15.

"That poor woman. One blind date with this weird guy called Yoálox, and she came home with more holes in her than Swiss cheese!"

 

[AngelaSaxon]

"That poor woman. One blind date with this weird guy called Yoálox, and she came home with more holes in her than Swiss cheese!"

"My client is now deaf in one ear, your honour! And all I can say is thankfully his claims about the size of his penis were distinctly exaggerated or no doubt we'd be adding brain damage to the list of pain and suffering for which we're demanding punitive damages... Thankfully in that sense it's only the defendant who was truly, as they say, 'fucked in the head'."

 

[SomaSlave]

"My client is now deaf in one ear, your honour! And all I can say is thankfully his claims about the size of his penis were distinctly exaggerated or no doubt we'd be adding brain damage to the list of pain and suffering for which we're demanding punitive damages... Thankfully in that sense it's only the defendant who was truly, as they say, 'fucked in the head'."

Thanks a lot: I'm flashing on Andy Warhol's Frankenstein: "To know life, you have to f*** death through the gall bladder."

 

[AngelaSaxon]

Thanks a lot: I'm flashing on Andy Warhol's Frankenstein: "To know life, you have to f*** death through the gall bladder."

If a being with godlike powers tries to fuck you in the ear, is that aural sex? (In that folklore, the aural sex comes right after his attempt at nasal sex, and right before we find out this particular tribe wasn't into mouth stuff...)

 

[SomaSlave]

If a being with godlike powers tries to fuck you in the ear, is that aural sex? (In that folklore, the aural sex comes right after his attempt at nasal sex, and right before we find out this particular tribe wasn't into mouth stuff...)

I don't know if it's aural sex, but it gives new meaning to "getting an earful."

 

[AngelaSaxon]

Continuing my theme of barely tangentially relevant oddities, this is from the 13 June 1874 issue of The British Medical Journal.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

Kristina Busse tried to in some sense address questions of realism and noncon fiction, in relation to its prevalence in fanfic, in her 2017 book, Framing Fan Fiction: Literary And Social Practices In Fan Fiction Communities:

Rape and noncon are a popular theme in fan fiction, at times part of a hurt/comfort scenario but often as a sexual fantasy in its own right. While there are occasional demands among some fans to prohibit or censor rape and noncon entirely, most fans seem to agree on not only the option to depict sexual violence but also the choice to read and write rape as a form of textual kink. What is important here is that the defense is not one that relies on a realist argument, as literary contexts tend to use it—that is, sexual violence is a part of our society and thus should not be a taboo topic in fiction.

Instead, the defense is indeed for actual rape fantasies and the eroticization of fictional rape. The argument is one of antirealism, where the appeal is directly dependent on the transgression of shared community norms and the eroticization of sexual acts that are clearly only acceptable within a fictional space. In other words, the very reason rape fiction can be eroticized safely within fan fiction spaces is that everyone agrees that rape and sexual violence are truly despicable crimes in need of punishment.

Incidentally, following on from reading Kristina Busse writing on realism and noncon writing in fanfic, I've started looking at a recent dissertation on substantially intersecting topics and thus I have found the first PhD thesis I've ever seen containing a content warning.

Cosima Kaycee Holmes' 2023 Falmouth University PhD thesis, 'I mean it’s one fictional relationship, what could it cost? — Romantic videogame fanfiction: Exploring desire and self-insertion in players' reinterpretation of player/videogame character relationships'.

If anyone is interested, so far at least I've found it an interesting read overlapping with my own concerns even if I'm not particularly either a fanfic or a videogame person.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

Thanks a lot: I'm flashing on Andy Warhol's Frankenstein: "To know life, you have to f*** death through the gall bladder."

More precisely: "To know death, you have to fuck life in the gall bladder." Said after he's cut a hole in a body and while inserting himself into said hole, apparently.

I've never seen the movie but I did see that line quoted by someone attempting to prove that Flesh For Frankenstein is one of the worst movies ever made...

 

[SomaSlave]

More precisely: "To know death, you have to fuck life in the gall bladder." Said after he's cut a hole in a body and while inserting himself into said hole, apparently.

I've never seen the movie but I did see that line quoted by someone attempting to prove that Flesh For Frankenstein is one of the worst movies ever made...

Thanks for the correction: that’ll teach me to operate from memory. It was a pretty bad movie. It was rated X and not for the sexual content. It was also in 3D, including the aforementioned gall bladder scene. It also counts as the worst date night decision I made in my early social life.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

Thanks for the correction: that’ll teach me to operate from memory. It was a pretty bad movie. It was rated X and not for the sexual content. It was also in 3D, including the aforementioned gall bladder scene. It also counts as the worst date night decision I made in my early social life.

Given that he was apparently trying to have sex with a corpse, your version of the line actually feels like it makes more sense, but...no.

 

[SomaSlave]

Given that he was apparently trying to have sex with a corpse, your version of the line actually feels like it makes more sense, but...no.

Actually, she wasn't dead when he started the penetration, but she was when he finished...and that was one of the more disturbing 3D shots I've seen in a movie. I was actually thankful for the glasses so I couldn't see how my date was responding. I can't believe she actually went out with me again after that experience.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

Actually, she wasn't dead when he started the penetration, but she was when he finished...and that was one of the more disturbing 3D shots I've seen in a movie. I was actually thankful for the glasses so I couldn't see how my date was responding. I can't believe she actually went out with me again after that experience.

I once took a guy to see A Serbian Film. We kept seeing each other for some time but for some reason the idea of going to the movies never came up again...

 

[nymphic]

There's definitely a few very specific elements of a NC/R story that are reproduced almost verbatim in a decent percentage of the works here, the most common of which might be:

(he feels her crotch) "Ah ha! She's wet! What a slut! She loves it because she's a slut and she's wet because she's a slut, what a slut!" (laughter all around if there's a bunch of people, otherwise: she hangs her head in shame/can't meet his eyes because she knows it's true, she is a slut!)

I have yet to read the rest of the discussion yet, but I wanted to chime in here as someone who has written a story which follows these beats verbatim.

I love the body betrayal trope in fiction. I eat it up. I loved reading the 'forced seduction' trope in Problematic romance novels of the '70s and '80s when I was younger.

I think there is something to be said about the role non-consent stories play in liberation from owning your own sexuality. Body betrayal and non-consent, to me, is hot because it allows me to give in to the darker aspects of my sexuality (domination/submission, degradation, and so on) without having to take responsibility for it. If I (or my self-insert character) didn't initiate, didn't consent, then it's not really me doing all these fucked up things, it was forced upon me, and I'm allowed to enjoy it free of shame. (In theory. My story -link if you are interested- is served with a heavy dollop of shame throughout.)

Perhaps my story could have been told more thoughtfully, rather than the hastily written cathartic short it was. This discussion gives me a lot to think about in terms of the gendered can of worms these tropes open.

 

[ElectricBlue]

More precisely: "To know death, you have to fuck life in the gall bladder." Said after he's cut a hole in a body and while inserting himself into said hole, apparently.

Correct.

I've never seen the movie but I did see that line quoted by someone attempting to prove that Flesh For Frankenstein is one of the worst movies ever made...

One of the best! It's a cult movie, true, but you've got to admire the director using 3D. The scene I remember is Dr Frankenstein (played by Udo Kier) coming towards the camera with a giant pair of garden shears. The next scene is the leading lady with her head attached to the buxom maid's body.

Circulated Australia as an R rated double feature with Andy Warhol's Blood for Dracula in the mid seventies. Both movies featured Joe Dallesandro as the main fuck stud.

 

[SomaSlave]

I have yet to read the rest of the discussion yet, but I wanted to chime in here as someone who has written a story which follows these beats verbatim.

I love the body betrayal trope in fiction. I eat it up. I loved reading the 'forced seduction' trope in Problematic romance novels of the '70s and '80s when I was younger.

I think there is something to be said about the role non-consent stories play in liberation from owning your own sexuality. Body betrayal and non-consent, to me, is hot because it allows me to give in to the darker aspects of my sexuality (domination/submission, degradation, and so on) without having to take responsibility for it. If I (or my self-insert character) didn't initiate, didn't consent, then it's not really me doing all these fucked up things, it was forced upon me, and I'm allowed to enjoy it free of shame. (In theory. My story -link if you are interested- is served with a heavy dollop of shame throughout.)

Perhaps my story could have been told more thoughtfully, rather than the hastily written cathartic short it was. This discussion gives me a lot to think about in terms of the gendered can of worms these tropes open.

I thought your story was very well written and erotic without being the least bit sensual (and that's a compliment). You describe a character who's not finding redemption in her shame and degradation, but only a ever deepening spiral that will not end well for her.

I agree with your assessment of the liberating power of submission. In my own forays into BDSM, I need to be bound, blindfolded and utterly helpless. In that way, I can overcome my own inhibitions and taboos: after all, I have no choice but to endure what is about to happen (there's also the frisson of putting my life into another person's hands, literally, but that's for another discussion). I first learned to enjoy many activities by being "forced" to do them.

One caveat: fiction can be cathartic and a way to explore those things one would never be able to do safely in real life. Consensual nonconsent, with the proper guardrails can be amazing. Nonconsensual non consent is rape...and rape fantasies are one of those things that should absolutely be confined to bad romance novels.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

Some people do seem a bit bewildered by my thinking that having the victim in an NC/R story being a sub or someone discovering the involuntary sexual pleasure they get from domination doesn't make such a story better, either morally or as erotica, at least for me, in either case.

I've had fictional NC kinks for a long time, and a lack of interest in pretty much any version of dom-sub stuff for at least as long.

But it's also true that I've started to react against some of these tropes much more in recent years.

I briefly tried to write about this next stuff in a post here earlier and deleted it both because I wasn't happy with how I expressed things and because I wasn't sure it was useful to mention these things at all. But nonetheless.

I have direct experience of my body reacting to unwanted sexual activity, and it not meaning any of the things it's almost always presented as meaning in these stories.

I have direct experience of having an orgasm from prolonged nonconsensual sex and it not meaning any of the things it is routinely presented as meaning in the stories here.

They're just my experiences, not universal truths, but none of the subsequent conflicts were about feeling betrayed by my body or confused thinking maybe I really liked it and what does this mean, or anything remotely like those things.

And beyond the world of BDSM, I do think those ideas only really make sense within a very specific set of ideas about the relationship of women to sex and shame.

Ideas incidentally overlapping with the parallel worlds in which the word 'slut' is taken to mean something, instead of being so far from how people in my world experience sex and relationships that it doesn't even count as an insult - it's an incomprehensible nonsense term that literally only proves that the person using it as a pejorative believes ridiculous things. Rather than putting the 'slut' in a negative category, using the term puts the person acting as if they've detected a 'slut' in the category of people to be avoided and certainly not dated. That simple fact by itself makes them virtually unfuckable.

Anyway, outside of socially reactionary contexts of generalised patriarchal domination, I don't think those imagined responses to the ways bodies respond to sexual assault make much sense - sometimes they just take a series of those assumptions and project them upon us all forever. The shame of having someone suspect a woman enjoyed being assaulted because her vagina lubricated or she had an orgasm may seem like an opening to discovering the pleasures of being a sub, but in many ways such narratives seem to make sense to people because they've internalised the kinds of assumptions that go with extremely reactionary ideas about gender and sex - or at least because playing with those ideas works for favoured ideas of erotic fiction.

I'm sure there are women who feel shame after being assaulted, and it certainly used to be a thing, and the more reactionary and patriarchal the society the more that was the case. The less reactionary and patriarchal, the less that reaction makes sense.

Certainly I didn't. I felt many things. I felt uncontrollable rage, I felt frustration at having had someone take away my control of my life, I felt a whole series of emotions that couldn't be ameliorated through real or imagined catharsis. I felt irrational anger when the hospital from which I was getting post-exposure medication referred to my attacker as my 'partner', even though they were using the term in a purely technical sense referring to the person who had exposed me to risk through sexual penetration - but in my life it was and is the term I use for those I'm significantly romantically involved with, so seeing that term in the paperwork triggered completely unreasonable rage. Lots of anger, mixed with many other things.

But shame, or thinking I'm a slut, or a sub, because of bodily response, or questioning my sexual desires because I supposedly enjoyed things because of the crappiest orgasm of my life? Not for one second.

Like being called a slut, they're all things so far from how I understand and experience the world and myself that they just don't make sense. They never made sense but now they feel like insults. That, too, might be irrational.

After all, I'm not making a demand for realism in erotic fiction. Who cares? Particular forms of unrealism only matter if they get in the way of the forms of enjoyment the fiction is aiming to produce or the reader desires to experience.

And there are many ways in which distance from realism can help make NC/R stories potentially enjoyable for someone with an NC kink, rather than grueling nightmares.

I just really really dislike how it's so very very often this specific set of tropes repeated endlessly. Ideas that feel so far from my experience and sexuality that they don't register as about the same world.

Unfortunately, I don't feel liberated by these tropes, I feel something closer to erased - I can't identify with the victim in these scenes because they're like people from another planet, so far away from both fantasy and experience that having these increasingly close to the only form in this section means I just don't fit. Well, they're not written for me anyway. They're written for men, or for women with specifically sub tastes, I guess.

Despite us being taught that cliched romantic fiction is the natural habitat of women, I don't think that's automatic or even a particularly large section of the tastes of women. But erotica is mostly determined by what some people like a lot and what other people will tolerate. Regardless, not me.

I don't think my right or ability to enjoy any kind of literary erotica goes away because I'm a rape victim, I don't think that particularly changes anything apart from how I experience certain ideas within them, and my NC kink didn't go away either, probably partly because it was never particularly about realism per se.

But yes some things did start to grate much more.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

Some people do seem a bit bewildered by my thinking that having the victim in an NC/R story being a sub or someone discovering the involuntary sexual pleasure they get from domination doesn't make such a story better, either morally or as erotica, at least for me, in either case.

I've had fictional NC kinks for a long time, and a lack of interest in pretty much any version of dom-sub stuff for at least as long.

But it's also true that I've started to react against some of these tropes much more in recent years.

I briefly tried to write about this next stuff in a post here earlier and deleted it both because I wasn't happy with how I expressed things and because I wasn't sure it was useful to mention these things at all. But nonetheless.

I have direct experience of my body reacting to unwanted sexual activity, and it not meaning any of the things it's almost always presented as meaning in these stories.

I have direct experience of having an orgasm from prolonged nonconsensual sex and it not meaning any of the things it is routinely presented as meaning in the stories here.

They're just my experiences, not universal truths, but none of the subsequent conflicts were about feeling betrayed by my body or confused thinking maybe I really liked it and what does this mean, or anything remotely like those things.

And beyond the world of BDSM, I do think those ideas only really make sense within a very specific set of ideas about the relationship of women to sex and shame.

Ideas incidentally overlapping with the parallel worlds in which the word 'slut' is taken to mean something, instead of being so far from how people in my world experience sex and relationships that it doesn't even count as an insult - it's an incomprehensible nonsense term that literally only proves that the person using it as a pejorative believes ridiculous things. Rather than putting the 'slut' in a negative category, using the term puts the person acting as if they've detected a 'slut' in the category of people to be avoided and certainly not dated. That simple fact by itself makes them virtually unfuckable.

Anyway, outside of socially reactionary contexts of generalised patriarchal domination, I don't think those imagined responses to the ways bodies respond to sexual assault make much sense - sometimes they just take a series of those assumptions and project them upon us all forever. The shame of having someone suspect a woman enjoyed being assaulted because her vagina lubricated or she had an orgasm may seem like an opening to discovering the pleasures of being a sub, but in many ways such narratives seem to make sense to people because they've internalised the kinds of assumptions that go with extremely reactionary ideas about gender and sex - or at least because playing with those ideas works for favoured ideas of erotic fiction.

I'm sure there are women who feel shame after being assaulted, and it certainly used to be a thing, and the more reactionary and patriarchal the society the more that was the case. The less reactionary and patriarchal, the less that reaction makes sense.

Certainly I didn't. I felt many things. I felt uncontrollable rage, I felt frustration at having had someone take away my control of my life, I felt a whole series of emotions that couldn't be ameliorated through real or imagined catharsis. I felt irrational anger when the hospital from which I was getting post-exposure medication referred to my attacker as my 'partner', even though they were using the term in a purely technical sense referring to the person who had exposed me to risk through sexual penetration - but in my life it was and is the term I use for those I'm significantly romantically involved with, so seeing that term in the paperwork triggered completely unreasonable rage. Lots of anger, mixed with many other things.

But shame, or thinking I'm a slut, or a sub, because of bodily response, or questioning my sexual desires because I supposedly enjoyed things because of the crappiest orgasm of my life? Not for one second.

Like being called a slut, they're all things so far from how I understand and experience the world and myself that they just don't make sense. They never made sense but now they feel like insults. That, too, might be irrational.

After all, I'm not making a demand for realism in erotic fiction. Who cares? Particular forms of unrealism only matter if they get in the way of the forms of enjoyment the fiction is aiming to produce or the reader desires to experience.

And there are many ways in which distance from realism can help make NC/R stories potentially enjoyable for someone with an NC kink, rather than grueling nightmares.

I just really really dislike how it's so very very often this specific set of tropes repeated endlessly. Ideas that feel so far from my experience and sexuality that they don't register as about the same world.

Unfortunately, I don't feel liberated by these tropes, I feel something closer to erased - I can't identify with the victim in these scenes because they're like people from another planet, so far away from both fantasy and experience that having these increasingly close to the only form in this section means I just don't fit. Well, they're not written for me anyway. They're written for men, or for women with specifically sub tastes, I guess.

Despite us being taught that cliched romantic fiction is the natural habitat of women, I don't think that's automatic or even a particularly large section of the tastes of women. But erotica is mostly determined by what some people like a lot and what other people will tolerate. Regardless, not me.

I don't think my right or ability to enjoy any kind of literary erotica goes away because I'm a rape victim, I don't think that particularly changes anything apart from how I experience certain ideas within them, and my NC kink didn't go away either, probably partly because it was never particularly about realism per se.

But yes some things did start to grate much more.

Oh, and if I didn't express myself clearly, none of this is a condemnation of anyone for having kinks that only make sense within a framework that that person doesn't actually share, and not just because that would be absurd.

I myself have always lived in a social world that from a US perspective might seem hyper-liberal. I was far from alone in not identifying with or aspiring to conventional monogamous coupledom, or in thus having a lot of distance from demands for sexual exclusivity, and not experiencing jealousy, not being invested in existing ideas of gender roles or gender distinction, or the forms of social control that helped impose them, such as slut-shaming, finding homophobia at best irrational and absurd, finding the social taboo against nudity still largely a holdover from earlier forms of social organisation and control... all of this was not universal but certainly not a particularly obscure or marginal way to live and understand the world and our lives.

But in addition to a fictional NC kink, I've also got a fictional kink entirely organised around an emotional investment in a social taboo that in real life I couldn't care about in the slightest: ENF. A ridiculous kink in a world in which the social taboo against nudity has been and is being genuinely eroded, but again a lack of realism isn't necessarily a problem, and can be an advantage, in a fictional kink - a kink that exists as a kink outside of the strictly real world.

So I hope it's at least clear that I'm not trying to just dismiss a kink because it's foundation involves something other than strict fidelity to how the world actually works...or because it takes meaning from a worldview more conservative - reactionary, misogynist - than you might personally share in that world.

 

[Melody_Lightdraft2]

Am I really the only person who finds all capacity to enjoy a story disappears the moment I get to the bit where someone writes the central female character as thinking:

"Ohmygod I'm being betrayed by my body, I'm getting wet against my will/when my ideas of my own sexuality say I shouldn't, am I a slut who wants to be dominated, who wants to obey this person growling manly instructions at me? I do! I am! I'm joyfully subservient and obedient!" etc...

I'd mention a particular story but in all honesty it feels like hundreds, and not in the BDSM section...

I know some women write broadly similar things, but I feel like the massive misinterpretation of the meaning of a vagina lubricating has to be a manifestation of something guys think or pretend to believe, surely?

I don't know, maybe it's a convenient short-hand in erotic writing, like implicitly pretending people don't have teeth whenever writing a blowjob scene.

But it feels closer to the ones that aren't just convenient for writing but convenient for fitting into particular... views.

Like some guy read that some women orgasm while being raped and ever since that's been a shorthand for whatever they wish - she loves being treated that way/discovers she's a sub, or proving a woman is a 'slut' (a creature more fictional than a futa) - and of course the orgasm forced upon a woman is always the most mind-blowing and sexuality-changing of her life. (Comparison with the actual experience of women who have had this happen would distinctly suggest otherwise but comparison would also be in bad taste. Like comparing superheroes getting powers from radiation to the actual experiences of people living around Hiroshima at the end of WW2...)

Anyway, like I say I didn't want to name a particular story for including that initial paragraph, but...am I the only one who is wrenched out of a story every time that paragraph appears?

Oh my anthropomorphic mares have teeth:

"Many males particularly liked the idea that mares like me have no gag reflex, we breathe through our noses. Some shuddered at the thought of my tombstone teeth as their cock thrust in and out."

 

[SomaSlave]

Oh my anthropomorphic mares have teeth:

"Many males particularly liked the idea that mares like me have no gag reflex, we breathe through our noses. Some shuddered at the thought of my tombstone teeth as their cock thrust in and out."

This is why I don't care for stories involving forced oral. I can't imagine a man putting his penis in the jaws of a person who didn't want it there. Actually, I can: the original Wes Craven "Last House on the Left." The mother's revenge still makes me cringe.