Will Take On New Writer

[AsylumSeeker]

First come, first served. I'll mentor and edit for a new and struggling writer in the name of a legend on Lit that I care very much for; LadyCibelle, who is painfully absent.

 

[DickLickerII]

New Writer

I saw your message about taking on a new writer. I've been trying since I joined lit to get some help. I tried to send you a message or e-mail, but I guess I can't seem to navigate this site. So, if still interested e-mail me at: dicklickerish "at" yahoo "dot" com

 

[LadyCibelle]

First come, first served. I'll mentor and edit for a new and struggling writer in the name of a legend on Lit that I care very much for; LadyCibelle, who is painfully absent.

Awww AS, you truly are a nice man, you know.

 

[CopyCarver]

Awww AS, you truly are a nice man, you know.

A nice man in this nest of snarks and churls--say it isn't so!
Still, I think we ought to keep him anyway.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Feeling Like a Heel

LadyC, hugggsss!

CC, thanks for the kind words.

But I feel like a heel. My spouse never approved of my association with Lit, and I begrudgingly canceled the internet per her request. I have maintained my email via work, but would not dare transfer files, etc. by way of that method. However, I stumbled upon a weak unsecured wireless connection that trespasses my property, so I make extremely limited use of it.

OK, so after I disconnect from the other writers, I'm suddenly asking for more. So I feel badly. I tried to contact them and let them know I'm available again but haven't reconnected.

If I were them I'd feel betrayed. I'm saying this in hopes that they can understand I'm not a bad person. I think you see the position I'm in.

Anyway, so good to hear from you both !! I did email DLII and have been helping another that responded via PM.

 

[kandie]

Sorry to hear that your spouse does not approve of you being on literotica. It's a shame too and its one of the best sites that I have found. My hubby does not mind at all, in fact he is now my editor. Did you get my message on Lit, I sent it through your profile because your message box was full. Good-night.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

I stumbled upon a weak unsecured wireless connection that trespasses my property, so I make extremely limited use of it.

Exactly how does an RF signal trespass on your property?

 

[christabelll]

new writer

Hey All
New here... writer of shorts, novels and poetry ranging from explicit to hot for quite a few to deeply spiritual erotica...I am looking for some one to read, and judiciously critique the stuff
If you are interested in some samples please let me know. Thanks

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Exactly how does an RF signal trespass on your property?

That was my way of trying to explain that my return to Lit is precarious at best. Hence, here today, possibly gone tomorrow. Although I'm fairly confident that I'm on the fringes of the city's free wireless network anyway. I didn't want people to think I was hacking into personal networks just to get here. I can spell hacking, but beyond that I'm a complete novice.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

That was my way of trying to explain that my return to Lit is precarious at best. Hence, here today, possibly gone tomorrow. Although I'm fairly confident that I'm on the fringes of the city's free wireless network anyway. I didn't want people to think I was hacking into personal networks just to get here. I can spell hacking, but beyond that I'm a complete novice.

More than likely you are on someone's unsecured wireless network, and probably quite close as most WIFI doesn't really have much of a range...

 

[AsylumSeeker]

More than likely you are on someone's unsecured wireless network, and probably quite close as most WIFI doesn't really have much of a range...

OK, your point being ???

Do you offer any assistance (assuming you're capable of it, although that remains in great doubt) to what happens here, or is your only goal to aggravate those who do ?? Have you put forth any effort to help those who ask for it ??

I'm simply not certain what worth you're attempting to interject.

Ahh! I see it now. You've wormed your way under my skin. LOL. Enjoy.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

OK, your point being ???

Do you offer any assistance (assuming you're capable of it, although that remains in great doubt) to what happens here, or is your only goal to aggravate those who do ?? Have you put forth any effort to help those who ask for it ??

I'm simply not certain what worth you're attempting to interject.

Ahh! I see it now. You've wormed your way under my skin. LOL. Enjoy.

There was no real point, it was merely an observation. You may get an idea from the "name" of the wireless connection that you are using. For example, if it just says "Linksys" and unsecured, it is most likely someone nearby.

My biggest concern would be whether or not the connection had adequate firewall protection. You could be leaving your computer open to be hacked.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Yeah, that idea surfaced in my mind as well. Sort of like an electronic fishing lure with a big, juicy web-worm dangling temptingly on the end of a nasty hook, waiting for an innocent fish to take a bite.

I have revised my opinion of you. I thought you were getting on me because I was using a wireless network that I did not pay for.

Well, I have Vista (supposedly more secure) and the latest Norton 2007 anti-virus and firewall with daily updates (if nothing else, I am good about that, getting my money's worth - LOL).

I don't keep any financial or personal information on my system, I'm too old-fashoned and prefer the paper method. And when I'm on it's very brief, a few minutes at most at a time.

And yes, it says Linksys... cringe.

Sorry for miscontrueing your intent. In hindsight, thanks for the concern!

 

[WarLordwrites]

.

And yes, it says Linksys... cringe.

Sorry for miscontrueing your intent. In hindsight, thanks for the concern!

Greetings

I got here late, but I'd suggest finding a congenial coffee shop with free wifi...

Just my $0.02

Enjoy the journey

WarLord

 

[snooper]

... But I feel like a heel. My spouse never approved of my association with Lit, and I begrudgingly canceled the internet per her request. ...

Have you really considered what her reaction will be when (not "if", "when") she discovers this deceit?

 

[AsylumSeeker]

It may admittedly turn out to be something else I've learned to regret. But why is it okay for her to keep me from doing what inspires me? Why does she have the trump card?

Why do we assume the female is always right ??

 

[snooper]

It may admittedly turn out to be something else I've learned to regret. But why is it okay for her to keep me from doing what inspires me? Why does she have the trump card?

Why do we assume the female is always right ??

It isn't OK, and the female is not always right. Some mutual agreement is needed. Perhaps she does something you don't like and will give that up in compensation?

However, cheating is NEVER a good idea. Even open defiance is better than cheating.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

It's working for now. I HATE confrontations. It may bite me in the ass later, but tomorow is another day... And another day..

 

[nici]

It's working for now. I HATE confrontations. It may bite me in the ass later, but tomorow is another day... And another day..

Confrontation is necessary in all relationships. (Not that they have to be aggressive confrontations. Big difference. You know, like there’s more than one road leading to Rome.) In hiding thoughts, emotions, desires and feeling from your spouse, you alienate yourself too from her. It might not be sexual cheating, but it is moral cheating.

Could it be that you in avoiding confrontation with her, allow her to step into a position or attitude, she actually doesn’t like herself? Sometimes we grow into things we really don’t want to, but just because others act in certain ways, or events, small events just happen.

Unless there is some religious moral grounds for her arguments against your being on the site, propagation of knowledge, knowledge of the why and wherefore of your being on the site, is your best defense… and offense. Even though it is your interests, shared interests usually bring spouses closer together.

 

[Khukuri]

I've never understood why so many women try to discourage pornographic material within the relationship and feel that it is their duty to use sex as a means of gaining control. These are the worst things you can do in a relationship.

My husband is encouraged to not only keep his magazines, movies, and other sexual trivia, but to feel that he can ask that I participate without feeling loathsome. In this manner I get the closeness that so many females search for and my husband gets a chance to experiment with some fantasies he has. Sex is never used for disciplinary actions or to prove some ridiculous point. If I am upset about something, my husband knows on his own that sex is unlikely for the following night, but only because I'm not willing that night---not because I withheld sex from him as punishment. Often times he finds that I am just as willing as he is, and all he has to do is ask. There have been times when I've been denied because he wasn't in the mood (e.g. long day at work, injured, or just needs a break, etc.), and I respected his choice.

To deny a man a chance for sexual relief and exploration is closing yourself off from a very important aspect of a man's life. If you try to regulate when, where, why, and how a man is to have sex with you then you are just encouraging him to seek sexual freedom elsewhere. True, men do not think about sex all of the time, but when they do, they should be allowed to do so freely and without shame.

Just my two cents.

 

[cloudy]

I've never understood why so many women try to discourage pornographic material within the relationship and feel that it is their duty to use sex as a means of gaining control. These are the worst things you can do in a relationship.

My husband is encouraged to not only keep his magazines, movies, and other sexual trivia, but to feel that he can ask that I participate without feeling loathsome. In this manner I get the closeness that so many females search for and my husband gets a chance to experiment with some fantasies he has. Sex is never used for disciplinary actions or to prove some ridiculous point. If I am upset about something, my husband knows on his own that sex is unlikely for the following night, but only because I'm not willing that night---not because I withheld sex from him as punishment. Often times he finds that I am just as willing as he is, and all he has to do is ask. There have been times when I've been denied because he wasn't in the mood (e.g. long day at work, injured, or just needs a break, etc.), and I respected his choice.

To deny a man a chance for sexual relief and exploration is closing yourself off from a very important aspect of a man's life. If you try to regulate when, where, why, and how a man is to have sex with you then you are just encouraging him to seek sexual freedom elsewhere. True, men do not think about sex all of the time, but when they do, they should be allowed to do so freely and without shame.

Just my two cents.

I agree with a lot of your post, but to be honest, in tone it sounds like something out of the 1950's: "we must give a man whatever he wants, or he'll find it somewhere else."

That I object to most rigorously. Women have just as much right to expect satisfaction from their partners as men do.

C'mon, move up to the next millenium.

 

[Khukuri]

I agree with a lot of your post, but to be honest, in tone it sounds like something out of the 1950's: "we must give a man whatever he wants, or he'll find it somewhere else."

That I object to most rigorously. Women have just as much right to expect satisfaction from their partners as men do.

C'mon, move up to the next millenium.

I don't do everything for my husband and I'm not submissive. I do like to make him happy in that area. It's quite a turn-on for me. There are certain techniques that I really don't care for, and he doesn't make me do anything I don't want to do (and vice versa). For the most part, things are relatively equal. I don't have to neglect myself in order to satisfy my husband.

I realize that a man won't leave just because his mate fails to give him everything he wants. However, a person can't expect someone to stay if the relationship isn't fair.

Surely it's not outdated to want a fair and honest relationship, especially in matters of sex?

 

[cloudy]

If you try to regulate when, where, why, and how a man is to have sex with you then you are just encouraging him to seek sexual freedom elsewhere. True, men do not think about sex all of the time, but when they do, they should be allowed to do so freely and without shame.

Read what you said again.

Of course I regulate how/when/etc. a man has sex with me. I am an individual, not some man's sex toy, no matter how much I love him.

 

[Khukuri]

Read what you said again.

Of course I regulate how/when/etc. a man has sex with me. I am an individual, not some man's sex toy, no matter how much I love him.

This can be interpreted in more than one fashion. I was going at a more negative and totalitarian approach. It is not wise to give your partner a schedule of what, when, where, and how your partner is to have sex---whether or not they agree with you. You wouldn't appreciate your mate telling you that you will have sex every night at such-and-such time and do the following things only.

True, I might not be in the mood and my husband will just have to wait until next time (and vice versa). This is not intentionally denying him sex as a method of control though. It does not serve to prove some point other than I'm simply not in the mood.

He and I both have the option to explore new sexual techniques as long as the other person is willing. There really isn't any list of regulations; just a pattern that develops over time that we both can agree on. Once more, it's an attempt at compromising for the sake of keeping the relationship fair and enjoyable.

Intentionally denying sex or granting sex as a disciplinary tool is wrong in a relationship and can eventually lead to the relationship's undoing. Removing sexual paraphernalia from your mate will deprive you of the option to explore your partner's sexuality and could possibly stifle your sex lives together.

This was my point---not to belittle women or claim that one gender is better than the other.

A relationship functions better when it is balanced. This balance can only be established through fairness and compromise. That includes both mates bringing forth what they like and what they do not like in an effort to find a fair compromise that enables both parties to have some of the things they want (but not all). Assuming control over what the other can and cannot do to the point of sexual deprivation is not compromising. Threatening them with loss of sexual privileges is not compromising.

I understand not wanting to be a sex toy or lose one's individuality, but I don't believe that your mate would want to be a sex toy or give up their individuality either. By "regulating" how/when/where a man has sex with you, you are assuming control. You can ask how/when/where a man would like to have sex with you, but you cannot tell him. The same holds true that he cannot tell you how/when/where you will have sex with him. There is a level of respect needed if the relationship is to work. He asks and you decline, then he respects your decision and presses the issue no further. There wasn't any need to "tell" him. If you ask and he declines, then you must respect his decision and press no further. This was the idea I was trying to express.

I hope this clarifies things. As always, I strive for equality and fairness. If my husband is happy, then I find that I am happier too because we both get what we want without oppressing the other.

 

[cloudy]

This can be interpreted in more than one fashion. I was going at a more negative and totalitarian approach. It is not wise to give your partner a schedule of what, when, where, and how your partner is to have sex---whether or not they agree with you. You wouldn't appreciate your mate telling you that you will have sex every night at such-and-such time and do the following things only.

True, I might not be in the mood and my husband will just have to wait until next time (and vice versa). This is not intentionally denying him sex as a method of control though. It does not serve to prove some point other than I'm simply not in the mood.

He and I both have the option to explore new sexual techniques as long as the other person is willing. There really isn't any list of regulations; just a pattern that develops over time that we both can agree on. Once more, it's an attempt at compromising for the sake of keeping the relationship fair and enjoyable.

Intentionally denying sex or granting sex as a disciplinary tool is wrong in a relationship and can eventually lead to the relationship's undoing. Removing sexual paraphernalia from your mate will deprive you of the option to explore your partner's sexuality and could possibly stifle your sex lives together.

This was my point---not to belittle women or claim that one gender is better than the other.

A relationship functions better when it is balanced. This balance can only be established through fairness and compromise. That includes both mates bringing forth what they like and what they do not like in an effort to find a fair compromise that enables both parties to have some of the things they want (but not all). Assuming control over what the other can and cannot do to the point of sexual deprivation is not compromising. Threatening them with loss of sexual privileges is not compromising.

I understand not wanting to be a sex toy or lose one's individuality, but I don't believe that your mate would want to be a sex toy or give up their individuality either. By "regulating" how/when/where a man has sex with you, you are assuming control. You can ask how/when/where a man would like to have sex with you, but you cannot tell him. The same holds true that he cannot tell you how/when/where you will have sex with him. There is a level of respect needed if the relationship is to work. He asks and you decline, then he respects your decision and presses the issue no further. There wasn't any need to "tell" him. If you ask and he declines, then you must respect his decision and press no further. This was the idea I was trying to express.

I hope this clarifies things. As always, I strive for equality and fairness. If my husband is happy, then I find that I am happier too because we both get what we want without oppressing the other.

Your word choice and phrasing still leads me to interpret what you're saying as the opposite of what you're claiming. Sorry. Your language shows your feelings quite clearly. I can't believe you're too dense not to see it. If your husband is happy then you're happy? Dear god, read what you've said.

I'll just agree to disagree with you.