Sex: What is 'Normal'?

[rgraham666]

That depends.

Um, where do you plan on wearing the bells?

That's for me to know and you to find out.

I'll try to hold still.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That depends.

Um, where do you plan on wearing the bells?

Where would you like them?

 

[Guest]

That's for me to know and you to find out.

I'll try to hold still.

Where would you like them?

Laughing -

Jingle bells, jingle bells,
Jingle all the wayyyyyyyy!

Click to see lovely image -

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=G

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Laughing -

Jingle bells, jingle bells,
Jingle all the wayyyyyyyy!

Click to see lovely image -

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=G

How about under my kilt?

 

[Guest]

How about under my kilt?

Talk about leading someone around by their cock.

 

[where]

Laughing -

Jingle bells, jingle bells,
Jingle all the wayyyyyyyy!

Click to see lovely image -

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=G

what a cool site! I want one!

 

[neonlyte]

what a cool site! I want one!

bad site my sanctimonious prick refuses to be chained

 

[voluptuary_manque]

what a cool site! I want one!

I'm not sure I do. A nice warm hand is much more appealing.

 

[Guest]

bad site my sanctimonious prick refuses to be chained

I like to lead men around by their pricks.

But not with chains.

 

[rgraham666]

You can do it with just a smile and a shake of that lovely ass of yours. No need to touch them at all.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I like to lead men around by their pricks.

But not with chains.

Boy am I glad to hear that! Like I said, "nice warm hands". My favorite.

 

[where]

bad site my sanctimonious prick refuses to be chained

I'm not sure I do. A nice warm hand is much more appealing.

I like to lead men around by their pricks.

But not with chains.

I was thinking about how they would feel actually sliding into me, I would imagine it's rather wonderful, and I like the clit dangles as well.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

You can do it with just a smile and a shake of that lovely ass of yours. No need to touch them at all.

True, but if the offer of the touch is there, I accept!

 

[rgraham666]

I was thinking about how they would feel actually sliding into me, I would imagine it's rather wonderful, and I like the clit dangles as well.

Hmm. Hadn't considered that. I might just make an exception to my personal rule of not wearing jewelry in that case.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Hmm. Hadn't considered that. I might just make an exception to my personal rule of not wearing jewelry in that case.

I suppose so long as all the edges are well rounded and you use plenty of lube it would work. I'd be a bit worried, me.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I suppose so long as all the edges are well rounded and you use plenty of lube it would work. I'd be a bit worried, me.

Yeah-- I would worry about chafing, in the clinch. But they are pretty! I'd wear them-- especially for Sarahh, who has some good ideas on what to do with them

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Yeah-- I would worry about chafing, in the clinch. But they are pretty! I'd wear them-- especially for Sarahh, who has some good ideas on what to do with them

It would take me a lot of rum, I think.

 

[CharleyH]

What's ‘normal’ sex? Shrinks seek definition
Controversy erupts over creation of psychiatric rule book's new edition

By Brian Alexander
MSNBC contributor

As a sex writer, I, for one, am fascinated to find out what is concluded and written. I'm equally thankful they're revamping the outmoded DSM-IV-TR. It's long overdue. Personally, they should revamp it yearly, but obviously they can't because research isn't an overnight process. Still, each new edition is like the bible for many clinicians, and times 'they are a changing' so rapidly that it's really almost impossible for most clinicians to keep up.

I think it's a mistake to ask 'what is normal', CD. MSNBC comes up with catchy headlines, but most of their news reporters aren't really that reliable. Truly, the DSM has always been a manual about what is "abnormal". The unfortunate repercussion of this is what to measure abnormality by and I would not call societal acceptance of particular sexual practices a standard for the norm. I am pretty damn 100% sure that those who create the DSM don't measure it so simplistically either, but there must be a qualitative and quantitative norm by which to measure the inquiry.

"Are sadomasochism or pedophilia mental disorders? Are dysfunctions like female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (low sex drive) psychiatric issues, or hormonal issues?" These are very valid questions for the DSM in my opinion and if anyone here bothered to ask themselves the same questions, then I think we'd mostly agree that pedophilia remains on the list. However, what of sexual sadism and masochism? Sane and consensual is one thing, but what about a case like Armin Meiwes and Jürgen Brandes or the more recent Austrian case. Examples of normal sadomasochism? I would hope not and that's why the DMV is there.

I can understand the transgender activists bash on Zucker. Ontario (at least) used to provide OHIP covered operations for transgendered peoples, which simplistically meant a 'necessary operation'. I think (don't quote me) they delisted transgender operations as necessary in or around 1998 and relegated them to elective/cosmetic surgery. It pissed a lot of people off, but take it from me … I am certain it wasn't the CAHM's decision alone, or even at all. But let's think a minute. A person I knew got her final operation in 2004. She was finally a he, and a year later he killed himself. This is not atypical of transgendered transformations. Of course, straight people in their own gender probably commit suicide more often.

In this day and age, having sex for procreative purposes only is abnormal. Consider then, how difficult the DMV research is.

 

[CharleyH]

Bump for mismused and ... STELLA!

 

[Boxlicker101]

Any penile insertion into a vagina for sexual gratification is normal. Position and regularity doesn't matter . Abnormal would be when something else is added into the mix, like anal, another partner, or toys.

There are some who would require that the man and woman would have to be married, and that the insertion would have to be for the purpose of producing offspring. I'm not one of them, but there are some persons who believe that fucking is somehow abnormal unless it is done for the purpose of procreation.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

There are some who would require that the man and woman would have to be married, and that the insertion would have to be for the purpose of producing offspring. I'm not one of them, but there are some persons who believe that fucking is somehow abnormal unless it is done for the purpose of procreation.

Even the Vatican has dropped that position, thank goodness. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone has gotten the word, yet . . .

 

[The_Fractal_King]

What's ‘normal’ sex? Shrinks seek definition
Controversy erupts over creation of psychiatric rule book's new edition

By Brian Alexander
MSNBC contributor

This month the American Psychiatric Association announced the names of “working group” members who will guide the development of the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM, the codex of American psychiatry.

Not surprisingly, given the DSM’s colorful history, particularly when it comes to sex, controversy erupted within days of the announcement, especially over membership of the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders working group, which will wrestle with questions such as: Are sadomasochism or pedophilia mental disorders? Are dysfunctions like female hypoactive sexual desire psychiatric issues, or hormonal issues? Perhaps the most important question is whether, when it comes to many sexual interests and issues, it’s even possible or desirable to create diagnostic criteria.

Full Article

~~~~~~~~~~

So what is 'Normal'? Does it exist or is it different for everyone?

There is no universal normality. Cultural condition has long since seen to that. The real problem with the DSM is that it only really works in the USA. Outside of that laws and cultural norms are different and can often render diagnosis and symptoms meaningless.



The DSM-IV-TR only counts Sexual and Gender Disorders (and basically everything else) as meaningful if it causes stress to the individual or leads to behavior that is destructive/ dangerous.

People who simply have a fetish don't qualify but people who break into candy stores so they can swim in gummy bears in order to get off would.
Most people who are into BDSM would not qualify but some serial killers would as would anyone who was seriously distressed by their fantasies.
As far pedophilia goes it is explicitly noted as requiring an act of child molestation or serious distress in order to qualify as a disorder.

Obviously one could claim that it's a slippery slope but having the diagnoses in there really does help certain people and they are extremely useful for psychologists. Ideally cultures should change so that people don't feel bad about being different but I just don't see that as practical in the short term.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

As a sex writer, I, for one, am fascinated to find out what is concluded and written. I'm equally thankful they're revamping the outmoded DSM-IV-TR. It's long overdue. Personally, they should revamp it yearly, but obviously they can't because research isn't an overnight process. Still, each new edition is like the bible for many clinicians, and times 'they are a changing' so rapidly that it's really almost impossible for most clinicians to keep up.

I think it's a mistake to ask 'what is normal', CD. MSNBC comes up with catchy headlines, but most of their news reporters aren't really that reliable. Truly, the DSM has always been a manual about what is "abnormal". The unfortunate repercussion of this is what to measure abnormality by and I would not call societal acceptance of particular sexual practices a standard for the norm. I am pretty damn 100% sure that those who create the DSM don't measure it so simplistically either, but there must be a qualitative and quantitative norm by which to measure the inquiry.

"Are sadomasochism or pedophilia mental disorders? Are dysfunctions like female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (low sex drive) psychiatric issues, or hormonal issues?" These are very valid questions for the DSM in my opinion and if anyone here bothered to ask themselves the same questions, then I think we'd mostly agree that pedophilia remains on the list. However, what of sexual sadism and masochism? Sane and consensual is one thing, but what about a case like Armin Meiwes and Jürgen Brandes or the more recent Austrian case. Examples of normal sadomasochism? I would hope not and that's why the DMV is there.

I can understand the transgender activists bash on Zucker. Ontario (at least) used to provide OHIP covered operations for transgendered peoples, which simplistically meant a 'necessary operation'. I think (don't quote me) they delisted transgender operations as necessary in or around 1998 and relegated them to elective/cosmetic surgery. It pissed a lot of people off, but take it from me … I am certain it wasn't the CAHM's decision alone, or even at all. But let's think a minute. A person I knew got her final operation in 2004. She was finally a he, and a year later he killed himself. This is not atypical of transgendered transformations. Of course, straight people in their own gender probably commit suicide more often.

In this day and age, having sex for procreative purposes only is abnormal. Consider then, how difficult the DMV research is.

You are of course correct that NBC (like all the major news wires) does marginal research at best and prefers a good catchphrase to real story any day, but it worked to get the topic going.

So I suppose my next question(s) would be, where do we draw the line on normal or abnormal, and who exactly is drawing the line? As you said, times are changing very rapidly in recent years, so how can that be taken into account? And where/how does politics enter into this? Will this new idea fo the 'norm' be used as a baseline for regulations?

Taking pedophilia for example. At what point does it become abnormal? Is an 18yo male going after a 16yo girl abnormal? According to the law it's a no-no so apparently abnormal. But a 70yo male going after a 19yo girl is a-ok according to big brother so it's normal... right?

My point is, who is deciding and how will the decisions be applied. And if we do draw a line on what is normal, how hard or fuzzy is the line?

 

[glynndah]

"Normal" is everything I like, but that does seem a wee bit subjective.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

As in "I'm perfectly normal, you're a bit kinky, dear and he's a dirty pervert"?