h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I haven't been here in a while and I'm throwing this out to try to find out what's up. None of the conversation threads seem to be current.

So... who is interested in no-limits sex? As opposed to unlimited sex, no-limits sex is sex where interest in any form of kinky sex is, at least, tolerated if not actively explored.

Of course, there are sexual expressions that are flat out illegal, such as sex with minors. But, there are a lot more forms of sex that are illegal than I used to think. For example, there is "sodomy" which broadly means any intercourse other than penile penetration of a vagina. So, oral sex is illegal in many places. So, this discussion could deal with morality versus legislation. My own feeling is that morality is relative. In certain societies, in certain times, many forms of what we define as illegal and immoral sexual contact were deemed to be perfectly normal.

Then there is the well-known stipulation that covers activities "between consenting adults." Under this umbrella comes (no pun intended) forms of sex such as bondage and discipline, and sado-masochism. Many, if not most or all of these in-some-places-illegal-but-widely-tolerated-between-consenting-adults behaviors are officially classified as perversions by the American Psychiatric Association. Since I have been thinking about and exploring kinky sex, however, my own personal definition of what's normal has broadened enormously. And this is due to discovering the wide variety of sexual activities that are engaged in by otherwise apparently conservative, productive, and law abiding citizens.

And this stuff only scratches the surface. So, if you're interested in a no-holds-barred, frank, open, no-rules exchange, please let me know.

Just see my name.
I know that my definition of normal has changed a lot recently, and I am surprised that more people aren't interested in the same things I am.
Come to my message centre to chat any time you like about anything. I do try to remember this is a family site, so I am sometimes very careful about what I say.

Are you interested in an exchange of ideas or more in the discussion of whether its normal or lawful?
If its the first, I'm in. If its the second, why bother?

Way back when I was about 12 years old I read this statement, and I believe it still holds true. "The only unnatural sex act is that which cannot be performed." I think kinky is more descriptive of where people set their personal limits regarding sexual behavior, and the things that fall outside those limits, than of the variations possible in sex. As long as nobody's being damaged, where's the harm in any of it?

I have two things to say to this (for now, more may come later)

No 1: do what you think is fun. As to what I think is fun I am rather old-fashioned. I never tried any "kinky" stuff and I don't think I want to try. On the other hand, if my girlfriend would suggest it, I might...

No 2: "...which cannot performed." Well, mostly right I think. Except that I believe in darvinism. If sex didn't result in children it (a) wouldn't be necessary and thus (b) wouldn't feel good. (Footnote1)This leads out to a chicken-and-egg-thing, but here I am quite sure. Humanoids could only survive as a race because they had sex and had fun doing it. There might have been humaniods in the past that did not have fun having sex. They must have died out. As a conclusion, you all live because sex is fun. (I am not a humanoid but it's almost the same with us... different matter)
To get back to the point I was trying to make: there are enough (you probably know more than me) forms of sex which (if propperly exercised) do not result in little humanoids. According to Darvin this is not natural. This is where I take a step aside from him. I think that sex is fun because it gives you joy and stops you from getting depressed. And since giving birth is somewhat of a stress to the female humanoid, they don't want to do it every day. The giving birth part. The fun part - well opinions differ. Is twice a day too much? Is once a month enough? You judge for yourself. I know my answer. No, I am not telling. And to further this thought: there has to be some way to avoid depression without babies involved. There are many and I will not waste these bytes to write what you already know.

These are my two thoughts. Please do comment. I am very interested in humanoid thinking. (That's why I'm still here!)

-Gin
Keeper and Mixer of the Gin and Tonic
Muse of the Lemon Garden


Footnotes:
(1) Eating rotten food doesn't really make you feel good so you just don't do it. On the other hand, chocolate makes you feel good and you can't get enough.

I think that all having sex is fun for all animals that do it. But only humans do it just for fun.

And another point is, as long as nobody's being damaged that doesn't want to be, then anything goes. I quite like being damaged in the right circumstances. Two consenting adults can pretty much get up to what they want and I'd think nothing of it.

Well I do some things that I want "right now". And I know that tomorrow I could slap myself for having done it because in the long term it's better not to do it. But besides that I completely agree with you.

Before someone else trots out the old joke I thought I would.

"What's the difference between erotic and perverted"

"In erotic you use a feather, in perverted, the whole chicken"

Sorry, lapse of good taste

CH

So what about sex between MORE than two consenting adults, Mina?

And, did Darwin really say that sex for purposes other than procreation is unnatural? That doesn't make too much sense to me. Seems we humanoids engage in a number of creative activities that have nothing to do with the practical aspects of spreading our genes around, but are more for stimulation and delight. I think THAT is what differentiates the humanoids from the animals in our little chunk of the universe.

BAWWWWWWWWK bawk bawk bawk bawk!
hehehe Like I said before, it's all a matter of where you draw the lines.....

Ahem. Yes, I have been known to participate in sex between more than two consenting adults.
GinTonyx, I have a saying. I never regret what I have done, only what I haven't.

I think I draw the lines at animals. No, that's wrong. I KNOW I draw the line at animals.

Quick question, I have been wondering who to ask this for a while, and it seems I have found the right people.

In "A Man in Full", by Tom Wolfe the hero is in his 60s, and married to a woman in her 20s. At one point he is musing about their sex life, and how much more varied it is than sex with his first wife had ended up. And he thinks about (if I get the quote right) "that thing with the cup". Now is this a specific thing with a cup? Or is it a generalised phrase chosen by Wolfe to confuse those of us who are easily confused about such things?

Comments please?

I have a similar saying - "don't regret anything if you wanted to do it when you did it" this has helped me come to terms with things I have done whilst very drunk/stoned, which sober I would never have. One such event, initially appeared a bad thing but as I didn't regret it I let a similar event occur a second time, and I now realise the events have been a good thing and have made me closer to the person I shared them with.

Kadu Flyer - A different Trip In View

Nice one KF

I have no idea what was meant by the thing with the cup. If I had read it I would have assumed he was talking about something they had done together, like I might say to my bloke, the thing with the 5 one penny pieces only means something to us.
Of course, I could be wrong. Some people wee into cups and the other one drinks it. Could be anything really. I haven't read the book, so probably shouldn't be guessing.

I was going to start a new thread with this question (still am in fact) but on the BBC show CastAwy 2000 one of the sad acts read out a poem that included a line roughly saying "not to risk is a risk in itself" does anyone know the source????

Kadu

In response to the comments about Darwinism...if any sex other than procreative sex is "unnatural", that automatically deems any homosexual act as unnatural. Evolution is based on "survival of the fittest" snd that's where the idea of procreative sex being the only "natural" sex comes in...if a species does not reproduce, then of course it is going to become extinct.
Another point I'd like to verify is that the Scientific Theory of Evolution and Darwinism are 2 seperate things. Darwinism is more like a religion, whereas the Theory of Evolution is based in science.

The Theory of Evolution states the survival of the fittest. Yes. Not producing too many babies could be fitting better than producing too many of them, lowering the life expectation of all of them.

Hi Wonko! What's L:U:S:T? It sounds like something I could be interested in. To answer your question, definitely the first. My thirst for knowledge is second only to my thirst to satisfy my prurient interests. However, I didn't want to preclude a broader scope to the discussion, including objections or opposing points of view - which would seem to come from those who are self-appointed guardians of normalcy and legality.

Pete!

Hi Magnolia! You reflect my own personal feelings about sex. So, you would draw the line at damaging other people... which leaves out 'snuff sex' and extreme forms of S&M such as branding? How about toiletsex, which seems to me could lead to diseases outside of STD?

Pete