A submissive's arousal...does it matter?

[ownedsubgal]

Rosco posts to JM in a thread he started just for that purpose.

You said you find it offensive when women who don't orgasm are characterized as dysfunctional and broken, but is there a difference between that characterization and the way you characterize feminists, for example? I'm happy to be sensitive to who you are, but I don't always get the sense that you want to do the same.

if you ever feel that i am being insensitive to someone's natural identity of any sort, please speak up and call me on it, as that's not the sort of person i wish to be. feminism however is a chosen ideal/philosophy, not something innate like sexuality. i am strongly opposed to the ideals of feminism, but i have no objection to anyone's right to believe what they wish and there are many feminists i admire very much. it is a disagreement of certain beliefs, i.e. republican v. democrat, nothing more.

 

[JMohegan]

because you have PMs turned off, it is impossible to attempt to relate with you human being to human being. but i truly wonder why you continuously read me as "passive aggressive," "manipulative," and just overall have a very negative and yes, hostile tone in your responses to me. i do not share such hostility toward you, only immense frustration at my inability to get my points across in a manner that you will actually take seriously, and at being stamped with these negative labels which i do not deserve.

I wouldn't say anything different to you, privately, than I'm saying right now.

Reread the thread. I offered an opinion on the subject at hand. You disagreed and asked me questions, which I answered politely. You disagreed and asked me more questions, which I answered politely again. You responded by declaring me hostile.

That last bit is the passive aggressive part. You don't like my opinion, so you respond by playing the victim and claiming I'm being mean. I call you on it, and you double down here. Again, not surprising.

And again, I say, if you don't like my posts, don't read them. And for god's sake quit addressing me with question after question.

 

[JMohegan]

Rosco posts to JM in a thread he started just for that purpose.

The thread was actually started by Marquis. Here's the link -

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=652775&highlight=jmohegan

Anyone's welcome to post there, for any reason, obviously. But as a heads up in advance, I'll note that I have very low tolerance for drama.

 

[Keroin]

And again, I say, if you don't like my posts, don't read them. And for god's sake quit addressing me with question after question.

And I might, delicately, suggest, JM, that you consider simply not responding to OSG or posting in any of her threads. I agree that there is certainly passive-aggressive/manipulative behaviour going on but I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

You told me once to "chill", when I was dealing with OSG, and it really pissed me off...but it was good advice.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I wouldn't say anything different to you, privately, than I'm saying right now.

Reread the thread. I offered an opinion on the subject at hand. You disagreed and asked me questions, which I answered politely. You disagreed and asked me more questions, which I answered politely again. You responded by declaring me hostile.

That last bit is the passive aggressive part. You don't like my opinion, so you respond by playing the victim and claiming I'm being mean. I call you on it, and you double down here. Again, not surprising.

And again, I say, if you don't like my posts, don't read them. And for god's sake quit addressing me with question after question.

this is not about a simple difference of opinion. for me it is very personal as (obviously as the creator of this thread) this subject is a very personal one for me. therefore your opinion, which although completely general in tone, still read to me as "you are broken and need fixing." and you have every right to own such an opinion, but i thought perhaps with the proper explanations i could get you to possibly rethink such a harsh stance, or at the very least understand why someone who is perfectly content with their sexuality would not wish to be thought of as damaged.

and i admit to being overly sensitive, when something is personal my feelings are easily hurt even when the other person may have zero intention of such or may not even be addressing me whatsoever. a lifelong weakness borne of insecurity. but i choose not to take the safe route of avoiding the outside world altogether and staying in a cozy little cocoon with just Daddy and those who like me. at least this way i am challenged to grow, and you have helped me with that. you have been mean, but in the real world people will sometimes be mean. that's something i must learn to handle.

as for addressing you with multiple questions, that is my tendency when i am upset and frustrated. not angered, just sad. i apologize for it and it won't happen again.

 

[JMohegan]

And I might, delicately, suggest, JM, that you consider simply not responding to OSG or posting in any of her threads. I agree that there is certainly passive-aggressive/manipulative behaviour going on but I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

You told me once to "chill", when I was dealing with OSG, and it really pissed me off...but it was good advice.

I actually didn't realize she was the threadstarter here until just now.

But this is good advice. And delicately delivered!

 

[Stella_Omega]

if you ever feel that i am being insensitive to someone's natural identity of any sort, please speak up and call me on it, as that's not the sort of person i wish to be. feminism however is a chosen ideal/philosophy, not something innate like sexuality. i am strongly opposed to the ideals of feminism, but i have no objection to anyone's right to believe what they wish and there are many feminists i admire very much. it is a disagreement of certain beliefs, i.e. republican v. democrat, nothing more.

I don't agree that 'feminism is a chosen philosophy." That's like saying that a black man could choose to enjoy the social inequalities he is forced to live with. To me the desire to be equal is something that I could no more separate from my 'natural identity' than I could stop breathing.

JMohegan has no right to diagnose your sex life. You are happy and fulfilled you say, and I believe you. I've known other people-- men and women-- who do not need orgasms aplenty, the way I do, to be happy. I know your sexuality works for you.

Similarly, you only have the right to oppose the ideals of feminism for yourself. You are a submissive woman. This is a rare thing; there are not many truly submissive people of either sex in this world. There are far more asexual folk! You obviously know that most people need orgasms. You would never say you were 'strongly opposed' to them. You need to accept that, for most people, autonomy and respect are equally important.

 

[intothewoods]

The thread was actually started by Marquis. Here's the link -

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=652775&highlight=jmohegan

Anyone's welcome to post there, for any reason, obviously. But as a heads up in advance, I'll note that I have very low tolerance for drama.

Oops. Duh. Rosco has just been bumping it lately.

 

[intothewoods]

That's a good way to put it, Stella. Pretty similar to how I see feminism for myself.

K's post reminds me, osg, that you were also somewhat disparaging to innately cheerful or happy people in another thread. Look, it's a free country. I just don't think you can have it both ways.

 

[00Syd]

I don't agree that 'feminism is a chosen philosophy." That's like saying that a black man could choose to enjoy the social inequalities he is forced to live with. To me the desire to be equal is something that I could no more separate from my 'natural identity' than I could stop breathing.

JMohegan has no right to diagnose your sex life. You are happy and fulfilled you say, and I believe you. I've known other people-- men and women-- who do not need orgasms aplenty, the way I do, to be happy. I know your sexuality works for you.

Similarly, you only have the right to oppose the ideals of feminism for yourself. You are a submissive woman. This is a rare thing; there are not many truly submissive people of either sex in this world. There are far more asexual folk! You obviously know that most people need orgasms. You would never say you were 'strongly opposed' to them. You need to accept that, for most people, autonomy and respect are equally important.

Great post.

 

[Netzach]

I don't feel especially threatened by osg's dislike of feminism for herself - I'm not down with the idea that it's "unnatural" but probably for many of the same reasons that osg is less than thrilled to have *disinterest in orgasm* made into a pathology.

If it's bothering the person then it's a problem. If it's not they should be left alone.

The Mayo Clinic is also there to tell me I really am an idiot if I'm not on biologics. Well I am, but it's not because I didn't try everything else under the sun, and I'm still not *happy* about it. There's a lot to question when science! goes into female sexuality. Bad track record.

 

[JMohegan]

If it's bothering the person then it's a problem. If it's not they should be left alone.

That's actually how the Mayo Clinic defines it.

"If you have persistent, recurrent problems with sexual response or desire — and if these problems are making you distressed or straining your relationship with your partner — what you're experiencing is known medically as female sexual dysfunction."


If they were pushing treatment for satisfied but non-orgasmic women in happy relationships, I agree that would be objectionable.


Netzach, is there a source on women's sexual health that you find credible? I don't mean anecdotal evidence from individual women themselves, but rather in the scientific/medical community.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Livejournal.com and dreamwidth.org host a large community of asexual fanfiction people-- many of whom are defining a sexuality based on their asexualness.
And you can find blogs like asexy beast dotting the internet.

It's kinda cool.

 

[00Syd]

Livejournal.com and dreamwidth.org host a large community of asexual fanfiction people-- many of whom are defining a sexuality based on their asexualness.
And you can find blogs like asexy beast dotting the internet.

It's kinda cool.

Yeah, word. I'll admit that asexuality still sort of mystifies me, but it seems like more recently the asexual community has been becoming louder and more prominent, and I'm really into that. I get to learn more , and the sexuality/gender conversations gain a new voice and a new perspective. Rock on.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yeah, word. I'll admit that asexuality still sort of mystifies me, but it seems like more recently the asexual community has been becoming louder and more prominent, and I'm really into that. I get to learn more , and the sexuality/gender conversations gain a new voice and a new perspective. Rock on.

Yeppers, like that.

It makes me feel much better about certain people in my past that I was unable to seduce, too. It wasn't me-- they were asexual. Although I would like to apologise to one person in particular...

I'm sure I'll run into him on facebook sooner or later.

 

[seela]

But the point of using the term "dysfunction," in the Mayo context, seems to be recognition of the fact that a normal physiological process is, in fact, malfunctioning. There are identifiable causes (hormone imbalance, history of sexual abuse, etc.), and treatments available (drugs, therapy, and so on). Society may put broader pejoratives on the condition, and I understand why that would upset you, but the Mayo discussion is no more personally accusatory than, say, a discussion of iron deficiency.

I don't find the definition upsetting really, getting me upset takes quite a bit more than that. I just wish people would be asked if they feel like they need help on that department. And I am capable of orgasming - I just rather don't - so I don't even qualify for that Mayo definition.

 

[Netzach]

That's actually how the Mayo Clinic defines it.

"If you have persistent, recurrent problems with sexual response or desire — and if these problems are making you distressed or straining your relationship with your partner — what you're experiencing is known medically as female sexual dysfunction."


If they were pushing treatment for satisfied but non-orgasmic women in happy relationships, I agree that would be objectionable.


Netzach, is there a source on women's sexual health that you find credible? I don't mean anecdotal evidence from individual women themselves, but rather in the scientific/medical community.

I don't find the Mayo clinic lacking *credibility* I find it lacking comprehensivity. I find the majority of sexual information aimed at "average people" lacking comprehensivity. I found that when I was handed pamphlets like "Crohn's and your sexuality" it was all about don't worry, people will still love you if you have an ostomy, even! No shit, I want to know how getting it ON with an ostomy goes - but no one wants to talk about sex when they talk about sex in the medical community in its gory details, just as a little missionary business in a monogamous marriage that we acknowledge these days.

I'm a fan of the old Boston Collective classic Our Bodies Ourselves in it's 9 millionth pregnancy-packed edition - the book that made me *certain* I don't want babies is a font of info. It's medical information that doesn't discount the pt's in question.

 

[JMohegan]

I don't find the Mayo clinic lacking *credibility* I find it lacking comprehensivity. I find the majority of sexual information aimed at "average people" lacking comprehensivity. I found that when I was handed pamphlets like "Crohn's and your sexuality" it was all about don't worry, people will still love you if you have an ostomy, even! No shit, I want to know how getting it ON with an ostomy goes - but no one wants to talk about sex when they talk about sex in the medical community in its gory details, just as a little missionary business in a monogamous marriage that we acknowledge these days.

I'm a fan of the old Boston Collective classic Our Bodies Ourselves in it's 9 millionth pregnancy-packed edition - the book that made me *certain* I don't want babies is a font of info. It's medical information that doesn't discount the pt's in question.

My sister had that book in the 70's! I found out about it when I overheard my sister and her friends, giggling and talking about the book's idea of using a hand mirror to check out their own intimate parts. God, that was hot. And inspirational! I used to make shy females hold up a mirror and describe themselves, touch themselves, tell me what felt good where...

*cough* Sorry for the detour. What I meant to say was, I haven't read the entire thing, but can see why any book that encourages self-awareness is on the right track.

And your comment about lack of comprehensiveness makes a lot of sense.

 

[SirLeo]

I don't find the definition upsetting really, getting me upset takes quite a bit more than that. I just wish people would be asked if they feel like they need help on that department. And I am capable of orgasming - I just rather don't - so I don't even qualify for that Mayo definition.

Bingo! If a person doesn't feel like anything is wrong or lacking in themselves and or they don't feel like they need help, then others shouldn't try to tell them or impose thier beliefs otherwise.

Now that that is settled, let's all go over to the "What makes you hot right now" thread and have an orgy! (I wish someone would create a big grin smiling devil emoticon...)

 

[seela]

Now that that is settled, let's all go over to the "What makes you hot right now" thread and have an orgy!

Dysfunctional devil, you! Luring helpless subs into casual orgies like that!

 

[SirLeo]

Dysfunctional devil, you! Luring helpless subs into casual orgies like that!

Hey, I'm a horny devil and accept who I am. If a helpless sub or 2 gets to service Me as I tread along my path, far be it from me to stand in the way of their fulfillment of their own identities.

 

[Midnitepoets]

The important thing in my opinion is that both me and my sub enjoy what we are doing, and both being aroused makes it that much better

 

[Bette_coquette]

I rarely pay any attention to the condition of my submissive's arousal. He's there to please me and if he's done a good job of that, he might get something in return. We're pretty big on orgasm control 'round here.

 

[rosco rathbone]

My sister had that book in the 70's! I found out about it when I overheard my sister and her friends, giggling and talking about the book's idea of using a hand mirror to check out their own intimate parts. God, that was hot. And inspirational! I used to make shy females hold up a mirror and describe themselves, touch themselves, tell me what felt good where...

*cough* Sorry for the detour. What I meant to say was, I haven't read the entire thing, but can see why any book that encourages self-awareness is on the right track.

And your comment about lack of comprehensiveness makes a lot of sense.

Ug. To each his own.

 

[BBW_Goddess_Anna]

I rarely pay any attention to the condition of my submissive's arousal. He's there to please me and if he's done a good job of that, he might get something in return. We're pretty big on orgasm control 'round here.

I was leaning toward the same sentiment myself.