I fell in love with my neighbors wife.
Friends welcome.
I live next to a couple of swingers (think still active) with four children, kinda insane if you ask me. Anyhow, I fell in love with these neighbors wife about 4 years ago. She's at least 20 years older than me, but I've always been more interested in older women than younger ones. I always knew women were more emotionally mature than men from a young age. Something about mature women is reassuring to me. Having someone who is more experienced in life and emotions calms me. This woman has tried contacting me and asked if I wanted to talk with her in front of my house before me leaving to community college leaving me feeling very embarrassed about that situation, Rarely when I do go on walks in the evenings I see her sometimes. Then she once called me on my phone but I didn't talk back.
What I don't understand is why is she doing this to me? She really wants to talk to me and for me to treat her as my mother. I know I'm starting to sound crazy but this is the reality of the situation. I'm not trying to blame anyone here; but, understand the psychology of the situation so that this situation doesn't arise anymore or in the future in some different form.
I knew I fell in love with her when I left to college. Almost every day I would sit in my dorm and not want to study and think about her. I don't have sexual fantasies about her; but, I just really like her as a person or rather platonic. She seems intelligent as I found out one day she was a phil major in college.
Please let me know if this is a serious problem, it's not like I'm desperate as I've never spoken to her once throughout this whole time [only sent her a text message twice letting her know who I was to see if she was serious about this situation or if this was some sort of elaborate game for her to fill her time (stays at home almost every day), she never replied for the matter].
Thanks and feel free to laugh.
I live next to a couple of swingers (think still active) with four children, kinda insane if you ask me. Anyhow, I fell in love with these neighbors wife about 4 years ago. She's at least 20 years older than me, but I've always been more interested in older women than younger ones. I always knew women were more emotionally mature than men from a young age. Something about mature women is reassuring to me. Having someone who is more experienced in life and emotions calms me. This woman has tried contacting me and asked if I wanted to talk with her in front of my house before me leaving to community college leaving me feeling very embarrassed about that situation, Rarely when I do go on walks in the evenings I see her sometimes. Then she once called me on my phone but I didn't talk back.
What I don't understand is why is she doing this to me? She really wants to talk to me and for me to treat her as my mother. I know I'm starting to sound crazy but this is the reality of the situation. I'm not trying to blame anyone here; but, understand the psychology of the situation so that this situation doesn't arise anymore or in the future in some different form.
I knew I fell in love with her when I left to college. Almost every day I would sit in my dorm and not want to study and think about her. I don't have sexual fantasies about her; but, I just really like her as a person or rather platonic. She seems intelligent as I found out one day she was a phil major in college.
Please let me know if this is a serious problem, it's not like I'm desperate as I've never spoken to her once throughout this whole time [only sent her a text message twice letting her know who I was to see if she was serious about this situation or if this was some sort of elaborate game for her to fill her time (stays at home almost every day), she never replied for the matter].
Thanks and feel free to laugh.
Comments (168)
Personally I had many fantasies about friends' mothers, sisters, etc. Nothing bad about that. The brain is assessing possibilities, and getting a better grasp of the world through these hypotheticals. It's good, it's doing its work, leave it alone, there is no serious problem :P
Quoting Question
I'm the opposite. More mature isn't better. Immature isn't good either. Innocent is the perfect match though :D
Quoting Question
For fun! Why not? In high school I had a female teacher - grandmother age actually (her husband was dead) - who used to smack me on my ass when no one was around, and even asked me to go to the movie theatre with her once (of course I didn't). Most of these fantasies are playful in nature, and not serious anyways. It's no problem if it ain't serious, and it's kinda foolish to treat a non-serious occurrence as serious
I think you hit the nail on the head. I was right about posting here, as always. *Ehem, needs to become a subscriber*
However, it is cruel and unfair that she is enjoying this whole charade, while I suffer and battle with my emotions. Mind, you it's an unrelenting battle as we live very close and anything she says outside in te backyard I can hear from my room. *Needs to buy double paned windows*
So, why is she doing this? Is this how women are?
Quoting Agustino
Oh, heaven forbid. I have avoided that lunacy. *Kisses reason*
And for the matter the worst is over. At one time her voice was literally stuck in my head. However, the sentiment and feelings persist. The neurons have fired.
Quoting Agustino
Well, it's causing distress to my reason and vanity of being a perfect stoic along with relinquishing desires as per Buddhism. In other words it's causing me suffering.
Quoting Question
Well you could enjoy it too if you were playful, instead of serious about it. In many ways you treat it as a reality instead of a fantasy. You don't treat it as something that occurs and has significance only in thought, you treat it as something that has future significance in the real world.
Quoting Question
There's many reasons why she could be doing that. Maybe she feels she's still beautiful if a much younger man is interested in her over other younger women. Maybe she has a fantasy of her own, but is more adept at managing it than you are, etc.
Quoting Question
I think it depends on the woman. Some women are more in touch with their fantasies than others. Some women are more dominating and seeking to impose their will over the will of others (this latter one I view as immoral, but alas, it exists and is actually quite frequent). Etc.
Quoting Question
Well why do you have to carry in your mind the image of you being a Stoic, or a Buddhist or whatever. Just relinquish the desires - in reality - and keep them in fantasy. That's the best of both worlds. As I previously said - some things can only be enjoyed in fantasy, and would be painful in actual reality.
Let's consider this another way:
"In high school this female student had a male teacher - grandfather age actually (his wife was dead) - who used to smack her on the ass when no one was around, and even asked her to go to the movie theatre with him once."
Is this a serious problem?
I would be called sleazy and a pervert. I could even be labeled as a public nuisance and have trouble with the authorities. You're suggesting I slide down that slippery slope.
Quoting Agustino
Don't understand you here.
Quoting Agustino
No, I am the one managing it successfully. I have not made advances or compromised my dignity and self in any way.
Quoting Agustino
I like domineering women that are supportive and nurturing. I always feel that this is the best insurance policy for all situations.
Quoting Agustino
I just don't believe in fantasies. Life taught me that the hard way. You seem very childish here and in your outlook in life.
Only if he forced her or intimidated her, obviously. However, due to the fact that men are generally physically domineering over women - or can be - simply because they are physically stronger, I would say that likelihood is that the female student WOULD feel intimidated, and thus it would always be wrong for a male teacher to smack her ass. When the grandmother smacked my ass it wasn't a problem - because I always knew in the back of my mind that worst comes to worst I can physically dominate her and prevent her from doing something I wouldn't want her to do. But obviously the same may not be the case for the female student.
It seems to me that we quite often talk about inappropriate consensual behaviour between teachers and students. Even when the student is an eager participant, it's still said to be wrong.
Is that something you disagree with? Or would you agree that when one party isn't an adult and when the other party is in a position of authority then this amounts to an abuse of power, and so still inappropriate even if there's no force or intimidation.
No, that would be to act on the fantasy in the real world - trying to bring the fantasy into reality. I haven't suggested that.
Quoting Question
A fantasy is something that occurs in thought. When you have a fantasy about, say, having sex with your neighbour's wife, you don't REALLY want to have sex with her - you only want to do it in thought. That isn't a problem. It only becomes a problem when you REALLY want to do it in reality.
Quoting Question
You are managing it successfully on the "reality" front, but not on the "fantasy" front. On the fantasy front you suffer because you don't realise that you can enjoy your fantasy as fantasy, without having to make it real.
Quoting Question
No - I don't pretend one should make their fantasy into a reality, or should expect their fantasy to come true. That would be being childish. Being a real man or woman would mean treating it as a fantasy - as a playful series of thoughts - not as something to actually do.
It depends on the age of the student obviously. In addition to that, I would consider inappropriate as actually trying to kiss the student, or trying to have sex with them, etc. other things aren't really inappropriate.
Quoting Michael
No I wouldn't say that. The distinction between adult and non-adult is fake and artificial to begin with. In addition to this, the only time when being in a position of authority matters is if this authority is used - if say, the student receives worse grades when he/she doesn't give in to the demands of the teacher.
Fantasies are the result of unfulfilled desires that inevitably influence conscious thought, would you say not? Let's go a little deeper here and talk about these unfulfilled desires, what do you think is the source of them?
Quoting Agustino
You seem to think there is a sharp divide between entertaining fantasies and behavior, that's a fantasy in of itself.
Quoting Agustino
Gobbledygook. Is there something wrong with being a realist?
Quoting Agustino
Yet, there is no way around the fact that fantasies to some rather large degree dictate behavior. Examples could be pornography, gambling, wishful thinking, etc. All could be considered vices resulting in rather negative behavior.
No, fantasies aren't unfulfilled desires at all - they are the result of desires, but they aren't themselves desires. Rather fantasies are a way of temporarily fulfilling desires. While having the fantasy of having sex with your neighbour's wife, you are actually fulfilling that desire - while the fantasy lasts - without any of the negative consequences that would actually be associated with really having sex with your neighbour's wife.
Quoting Question
No it's not a fantasy at all, only realising that what you think, doesn't necessarily have to affect how you behave. This is a big thing in the treatment of OCD - the fact you think you may have contracted germs from touching that door handle, doesn't really mean that you have contacted germs from touching it. OCD is an affection of those who cannot really separate fantasy from reality, and who blur the line between the two of them. Many mental conditions have this structure.
Quoting Question
All are vices because they involve mistaking fantasies for reality, just like a person suffering of OCD mistakes their fantasy of having contracted a disease from touching so and so with the reality of having contracted the said disease. As a mind becomes stronger and more wise - which generally happens with age - it becomes capable of distinguishing fantasy from reality, and not blurring the line between the two.
I edited that post, in saying they are the result of unfulfilled desires. You sidestepped the issue and avoided answering the question.
Quoting Question
That is the question.
Quoting Agustino
If you want a term for it, it's called reality testing and the causes for the lack (schizophrenia) or even excess of it (autism) are complex to say the least. And quite frankly most fantasies are unrealistic and detrimental to mental health.
Quoting Agustino
Funnily enough, they can then entertain some of their deepest fantasies from youth via retirement funds and they then realize (hopefully) what were the most important things in life.
It's the nature of man's mind to desire. The mind cannot stop desiring unless it stops being a mind. Fulfilment is structured such as it can never be final.
Quoting Question
Why do you think fantasies, in and of themselves, are detrimental to mental health? Someone with no fantasies is mentally ill I would claim.
Desires can be limited and restrained. You really don't like Buddhism or Stoicism...?
Quoting Agustino
Not really. Such people are called sages and such, get my drift?
In what sense? I limit desires when I don't act on them, but not acting on them doesn't mean ceasing to have them.
Quoting Question
I don't like Buddhism, but I do like Stoicism. The thing is my Stoicism is active - and not passive. Remember the Roman Stoics were all encouraged to have public lives, in the service of their communities. Seneca was the richest man in Rome. Aurelius was Emperor. Cicero was an important politician, etc. Stoicism isn't about renouncing desire, but putting desire in its proper place. For example, one still desires X, but one is conscious of whether or not X is possible at the moment, and if it's not possible, then one stops demanding it, although they don't stop desiring it.
Quoting Question
A sage isn't someone with no fantasies, but rather someone who controls their fantasies, rather than having their fantasises control them. Controlling a fantasy is keeping it as a fantasy instead of attempting to bring it into reality. Furthermore, someone without any fantasy is insane - he is mentally ill.
Usually, mental illness is put on one side of the spectrum and on the other side of the spectrum is mental health. I propose that this is an inadequate model. In truth, madness is both on the left and on the right of the spectrum. Sanity isn't the opposite of madness - it doesn't escape the mad spectrum - but it is a certain kind of insanity - the balanced position in the middle. That position is marked neither by the absence of fantasies, nor by the domination of fantasies over the person. That position is marked by the domination of the person over their fantasies.
These things happen in the real world. Sometimes we act and sometimes we do not. The strange things that happen in life might be fun, upsetting, inconvenient, a lark, unthinkable, too stupid for words, the chance of a lifetime... all sorts of possibilities. One of the strange things that could happen has happened, and you have not acted on it. Almost certainly in this case, not acting is the better thing.
"Falling in love with the wrong person and not acting on it" doesn't mean that the whole thing will just disappear like the morning mists. Oh, no. We have all these emotions, ideas, fantasies, memories... and they haunt our waking hours. But this too happens in real life.
We just have to soldier on, doing what we think is right, or covering our losses when we do what we think is wrong. Deal with it as best you can.
You have a neighbor who is a swinger. She is married to someone else. She sexually propositioned you. She followed up with phone calls. You timidly withdrew from any conversation with her. You think you love her. You think about her all the time. You like older women. She wants you to treat her like her mother yet have sex with her. You're embarrassed by the situation. You don't know what her angle is.
Here are my conclusions: (1) She wants to have sex with you. (2) Her sexual behavior is deviant. (3) You find her sexuality enticing. (4) You think you love her.
There are three ways to end this: (1) have sex with her and fulfill both of your fantasies so that you can realize that you really don't love her and you can have that empty, weird, unsatisfied feeling of regret that accompanies making a mistake, (2) go out and get a normal girlfriend and have a normal relationship so that your hormone infused brain isn't focused on what you know to be a bad idea, or (3) convincingly reject her.
If you're going to do #3, do be convincing because if she thinks it's staged, she'll just fuck with you more. A good way to make it clear is to show up at her doorstep with your mother and maybe another neighbor and lay into her.
Can you rise into love with your neighbour's wife? :-}
Oh dear... "Come"? In what way? >:)
Yup, pretty much that all. Quite a predicament. I should add though this will seem wrong to say, she's also bipolar and something else which keeps her at home cooped up most of the time. I have spoken with a neighbor who lives right next door and I confirmed most of what I said with him. I also know as a fact that while I was on vacation some time ago, they had some porn shoots or whatever at their house (in a suburban neighborhood!) and got called on by the police. They took things too far when women were walking in half naked wardrobes in front of their street. On a summer before that they had sex in their backyard while sounding drunk or high on cocaine, which my neighbor next door grunted his teeth and also 'heard' or 'witnessed' (nobody did anything unfortunately). I also figured out that her husband works in the adult entertainment industry even before that incident with the police, and that just confirmed my suspicions. He seems to have joined this game and doesn't stop his wife, which is becoming more audacious with her deviant behavior. I find them a very weird couple, almost displaying psychopathic traits with four adorable children. I worry often for their kids over what they're doing, but that's me just trying to be savior of the world. Their kids love me and often tease me about being a 'hermit' as I like to stay in my home most of the time. They called me a 'rat' at one time, which I found rather cute. Some of them even treat me as if I were their brother and their daughter, I think, likes me but she's too young for me, kinda insane but true. That's the whole spiel. So, in a way I knew they're fucking with me hard for their own reasons; but keep turning the other cheek.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, 1 has been ruled out. 2, well I have my own issues as berated here about leading an aesthetic life. 3, is almost entirely impossible. She knows I love her, I know she loves me (I seriously doubt she's wicked and twisted to torture me so, as it was really bad in the past, though I might be wrong here, who knows?), I just like hearing her voice next door. She has a rather pretty voice.
She most certainly does not love you. Most certainly. Sorry. She has a very complicated psychological profile that we'll be unable to fully decipher here without more information, but she's not just weird and quirky, but she has a personality disorder. In one paragraph you pointed out that she abuses drugs and alcohol, has a sex addiction, fails to conform to basic societal standards, and lacks a maternal instinct. You even referenced what you perceived to be psychopathic traits, and then you claimed she loved you, as if psychopaths love anybody. If she doesn't care about her kids, why would she care for you?
Quoting Question
It's likely that she's just doing whatever she feels like doing without regard for your feelings one way or the other. She's heavily medicated on drugs, alcohol, and sex, escaping whatever snakes are slithering around in her head. You're just another quick fix for her. Stop painting some normal picture of her behavior as being loving and caring. It's not.
Good Lord.
What about becoming that yourself?
Nothing to be sorry about. I needed to hear someone's else opinion on the matter and on issues like these your advice is golden. I guess I'm gullible and insulate myself too much, who cares?
Quoting Hanover
Let me deliver the coup de gras. I know that a certain man was visiting her house when the husband and kids were at school (every Thursday), and they were having sex. Now, this guy looked like the type you see in porn shoots. Bald head, shaved legs, tall and muscular, wearing khaki shorts with black glasses (funnily enough similar to the type you see from police officers but I digress). Now, here's the kicker. I wen't to my back yard and said out loud after everyone was home, "I know you sleep with men on the street!", the response was silence and their kids going on walks by themselves at night as if in shame with the mom shouting their names from the house. I can be a real asshole if I want to be...
Quoting Hanover
Yes, I don't know what the fucking issue is and have been racking my head around it for a while. She doesn't talk to other women, which is strange. She has the typical mood swings of a BPD unmedicated individual, and I'm quite sure that she was a drug addict (meth) in the past, which she and her husband satisfy when the kids are on vacation.
Quoting Hanover
This, I don't know for sure but I would most certainly would like to know as this would change my perception on the whole matter and treat her as a basket case that needs treatment. She seems to care about her kids a great deal.
Quoting Hanover
I don't think women are capable of the level of psychopathy you are referencing here, due to hormones (estrogen, oxytocin, most notably, and low testosterone levels). Please correct me if I'm wrong here, as I know I may be.
Quoting Hanover
This is not about me anymore. I feel a duty to police them and make sure my neighbors observe their behavior for the sake of their children. This is beyond personal at this point.
Time, I can't speed that up.
:-O
http://www.uncommonforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=104573&sid=d45223a1753a8231f4a016847e203b27
She was hardly a prize chicken though, she used to be a crack head as a teenager, and then alcoholic after her father died, which had her lose her daughter to her ex-, with her mother's help. She was completely clean besides cigarettes though when I was seeing her. She also didn't know anything... wasn't dumb, but just didn't live a life that was conducive to learning fuck all. Like, thought that "Christian", "catholic", "protestant" and such were all entirely different religions... and told me that her like 5'5 dad used to bench 500 lbs... maybe if he was a three hundred pound dwarf from Middle Earth.
She lied all the time though, and I hate lies, and got sick of it, and told her to stop doing that, and threatened to leave over it. She convinced me not to, and then broke up with me like three days later, lol.
I didn't love her, I definitely was attracted to her, and I really wanted to... but really I just was afraid that I couldn't do better... or maybe not even get another chance at all.
She talked constantly, just telling old stories about the glory days of the past. She originally contacted me, and asked me out. I just showed up, she talked at me for a few hours, and then went home, she said it was all the fun, and wanted to do it again right away. I wasn't really allowed to say much, she'd respond sarcasticly, or accuse me of being antagonistic for offering a different perspective about what she was talking about, and would say something like "I don't see what that has to do with what I'm saying", if I mentioned something else, or attempt to introduce a topic.
I tried to get her back too, and then insulted her a bunch with a nasty character evaluation, and then sarcastically asked if I was winning her back, to which she replied something like "I'm not a prize to be won!" or something moronic, so I decided it was better this way.
I didn't ignore her at all, I could have trivia'd that shit. I just didn't like the lies.
I often went days with literally no sleep at all, and continued a physically demanding job, just so that I could spend time with her. She thought that I always stayed up with her because I always wanted sex, which I definitely wasn't going to turn down, but that isn't why. I enjoyed her company more than anyone's, and enjoyed being seen in public with her a lot too.
She wasn't a bad person, I'm just an emotional slut, and expect people to open their inner most selves to me like right away, and act like they're immoral if they don't. It was only a couple of months in... shouldn't have probably expected so much openness so quickly, and could be been more sublt and patient...
Sounds like good times :D
Quoting Wosret
I am similar to you in this expectation, although I think it has to be largely with the way I am. I open quite easily to others. Well not immediately, but if I were to start dating a girl, within say 6 months she'd know most intimate details about me, and I wouldn't hide my vulnerabilities, etc. and I would expect her to do the same, although I've learned not to be too concerned about my expectations, because other people are different and sometimes they take much longer to be honest and open.
That's not moronic. It's right.
It's moronic because it insinuates that I'm some naive idiot, particularly when I'm being sarcastic.
Besides that, "winning someone over" is just another way to say to persuade, or endear someone to something. It carries no sexist, romantic, or sexual significance in itself whatsoever, it's just a common expression.
Even if it wasn't though, and it could have been interpreted that way, I was just insulted that she thought that I would be someone that would think that way. Clearly didn't know me at all.
Dominant women are rare. Let her have a go on you. I was toyed with by a dominant woman for a while. It was great. Didn't come to anything unfortunately. You might be luckier. :)
EDIT: I'd like to add that this was one of the most profound, formative and important experiences of my life.
Oh, please. Stop it. Haven't you read anything I have said? She is married and has four kids.
You think I'd stoop that low? Her kids would hate me and her youngest one would be devastated. He idolizes me. I don' think this is a good idea for spiritual development and advancement.
I agree, however on a not so serious note >:) , running a shagathon with her doesn't sound like a bad idea >:O >:O :-O
You people.
I am a happy person. At the very most I'd just have a phone conversation with her or send e-mails.
Some of you scare me and wonder what philosophy has taught you.
>:O >:O >:O
You weren't serious about that last post were you? I mean, that's a hideous thing to say to get me riled up over some stupid emotions about a rather old lady with issues with drugs, alcohol, and sex.
Like you're literally telling me to go down to the dirt and mud, wallow in it, and then emerge a new man?
What would Marcus Aurelius say?
Have you not read the:
Quoting Agustino
Combined with my agreement that:
Quoting Question
Quoting Agustino
? :P
Sorry, @bert1 really threw me off there. I wonder what made him say that.
Quoting Question
@bert1 enjoys running maybe? >:) >:O
I identify with you I think. But you know your situation better than I do. I suppose I partly want to give you permission to do what you want. Sometimes that's what people are looking for, even from a stranger.
One thing that philosophy has taught me is that we only start to think when we stop getting what we want.
I have no ego, or a little one so it's rather easy to identify with me.
If you want to continue the conversation I can PM you as to the what and not the that.
This is the best plan of action or non action that I have read you say in this whole thread. Hanover's guidance is priceless, listen to what he is saying. My feeling is that if dominance is something you are craving/looking for in a sexual experience, which is very normal, then hire it for yourself.
Nah, his advice isn't very good. Better not to hire if you don't need to, and not all DS relationships involve sex.
To each their own about whose advice to follow and yes, I am well aware of what a Ds relationship can look like and I said "IF" he was craving/looking for in a sexual experience not that he WAS craving/looking for a sexual experience.
Well, I'm jolly glad we understand each other. :)
Oh dear >:O
Well the thing is with prostitution, which is what I suppose you're advocating, is that it's a way to "cheat" so to speak. One of the basic things that most people need to learn is to want or desire only that which is close at hand and available - if they desire that which isn't available, then they're learning a very bad habit. For some people - for whatever reason - certain kinds of sexual experiences may be currently unavailable ~ without succumbing to prostitution or other evils which affect their dignity. In addition to breeding and encouraging an unhelpful habit, resorting to prostitution is affirming and encouraging the activity of women selling their bodies (and hence themselves) in exchange for money - the objectification of women. On top of all this, prostitution can never achieve the intimacy that is possible in a monogamous relationship, and hence falls far short of the potential of sex. The question of course becomes if it's even worth having such low expressions of sex.
That's my advice.
That is very rational advise kind Sir :P
"You take them."
"No, you!"
If they don't want them, I'll take them off their hands. They can live in my basement.
I tried Christian Mingle for a while and most girls were looking for Jesus there. I tried okcupid, and well that was a vanity fair. I might give some BDSM a try. Any tips on what to say or not to say? How should I promote myself and such?
I don't suspect that most people enter into the BDSM world on a whim after sort of casually batting around the idea, but, who knows, maybe they do. It sort of seems that the allure of it to you is that it appeals to your general laziness, as in you can sort of lay there and let someone else do the work. Not only would you not have to take any initiative, you'd be specifically forbidden to do anything, which would be right up your alley.
The way you succeed on the various online services is much the same way you succeed anywhere. You need to be engaging and nice, and maybe even funny. Maybe you have that in you, maybe you don't. What I do note is that you are able to gain considerable attention here by coming up with rather absurd problems, all of which center around your refusal to take charge and make things happen yourself. It's not that you just won't take charge due to timidness, but it seems you take great pride in doing nothing. I'm reminded of the Seinfeld episode where George told every women he met that he was unemployed and lived with his mother and that surprisingly worked wonders. I doubt that will work outside a 1990s sitcom though.
Here's what I think you really ought to do, and this I really mean. Stop selling yourself short. You're a smart guy who wants to be cared about and loved, much like everyone else. Your many self-destructive philosophies notwithstanding, you know at some level that having a girl who shares your interests and who cares about you is all you really want. So, please, stop with the nonsense of how you can find some girl willing to beat the hell out of you. Maybe those folks are all nice and healthy but only have some unusual desire to mix sex and humiliation a few hours a week, or maybe, just maybe, their sexual deviations are but the tip of the iceberg in terms of the unhealthiness that lurks deep within.
I think whether Question could just lay there and "enjoy" having a dominatrix whip him into shape (so to speak) depends on the scene he ends up in. It might very well be that the mistress dominatrix would expect her male to be a quite active slave, bucking up against the restraints, thrashing about, howling in real or fake agony, and so forth. After all, there isn't much fun standing in spike heels on somebody resembling a corpse.
My theory is that a preference for BDSM is formed as a result of dictatorial toilet training. The thing I don't like about S&M is that there is entirely too much stage business to deal with. "OK, now that we're all dressed up, tied down, and hanging from the ceiling of the dungeon, when do we get around to fucking -- which I though was the whole point of this dreary affair!"
Beware of all enterprises which require a change of costume and a trip to the basement.
I also have a bit of an imagination problem and it would make staying in character a bit difficult. If Sally were playing mistress, I think I might call her Sally instead of Mistress, well, because that's her name even if she happens to have a whip. It seems like the real game has to take place in your head, and if you can't take it all seriously in your head, then it's just Sally beating you for no good reason.
Speak for yourself.
I'm sure there's always a good reason for Sally to beat you.
I don't know where you're getting the idea of me being so lazy. Is this some way of you telling me that I ought be more lustful for money, status, power, and prestige? I laugh.
Quoting Hanover
I've decided to resign again over finding a girlfriend and all the jazz. I already went over this with my thread about "What's all the fuss over sex in the west?". I would have to say that my primary motivation for wanting to have a relationship, as pathetic as this sounds, is to have sex. If I can recognize that, and know that, then I will deny it and suffer more over not satisfying that desire.
Quoting Hanover
Nah, I think it's all about sex. I've taken care of myself for a long time on my own and think I will continue that way. By which I mean, not indulging in pornography, which is like only scratching a terrible itch.
I only wish I could chemically castrate myself and be done with it.
Quoting Hanover
Those women are like needles in a haystack. And, I have resigned already.
Quoting Hanover
This is where I will have to say thank you and be on my way. As I see it this forum (and your responses to me) have been a sort of "come to our side (Republican) we have nice cookies". If politics is your thing then so be it, I don't care much for that since I'm pretty much conservative and pragmatic.
That method is probably the most common of all methods of having sex.
The hand never fails! :’(
But, I've decided that it's enough of that. No more. Complete mastery over one-self is the goal now.
I classify genital/genital, oral/genital, oral/anal, oral/oral, and manual/genital contact as sex. While the last doesn't involve an actual partner, an imagined partner is often present, sometimes several. Sometimes those imaginary partners are present along with a quite real partner. Flirting (all gesture, no touching) may be tantamount to sex, and just sitting next to somebody and "casually" touching feet, knees, arms, etc. might be very sexual (usually not, though). Getting sexual under the table requires reciprocation of the casual "accidental" touch of knees, for instance.
People are inherently sexual whether they engage in sexual activity or fantasy, or not. The organs and hormones are there whether employed or ignored. Sometimes life events can charge one up sexually. Once I needed a job, I wanted a particular job, and I was hired. I was 'sexually on fire'. The job made me feel very puissant, potent, and grand. Sadly, the effect wore off, but it was great while it lasted.
The sex drive, the pleasures of sex, can be sublimated--transferred to some other--non-sexual--activity. The enormous productivity of well organized societies seems to involve sublimation, as people pour into their work their creative, libidinous energies. (Not that actual sex robs one of creativity; I think good sex adds to one's creative efforts.)
The absence of sexuality in the environment -- a cold, sterile corporate setting for example -- is usually felt as oppressive. Some buildings are sexual, others are sexless. Much of the built urban environment --freeways, strip malls, featureless apartment and office buildings, highway interchanges, cookie-cutter warehouses -- is damned near totally sexless.
Hmmm... but it's a different experience with a partner than without. I think most people would agree. Though there are some which seem not to find actual sex as pleasurable as masturbation ~ the real other brings both advantages and disadvantages so to speak - or at least perceived advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that intimacy become possible, but a corollary disadvantage is that you're no longer in absolute control - you have to take care of the other as well, so it's no longer just your desire driving what's happening.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I would find that quite strange - why would someone have an imaginary partner if they have a real one? When I started dating my first girlfriend she made me give up porn, and it wasn't that hard to give it up because I loved her, and so I found no need for "imaginary partners". In fact ever since then I find no need for "imaginary partners".
Quoting Bitter Crank
What defines something as being sexual?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Okay I think I agree with this but it's something complicated to explain. Even when you practice celibacy you feel sexual, but in a different way.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think the sex drive is different from the pleasures of sex. The sex drive is like an energy source, it depends how one learns to make use of it.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Enormous productivity of any kind I think entails a sublimation of the sex drive.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Agreed.
Well, in my experience at least, solo masturbation, for example, doesn't get called "sex" in common parlance, and it is commonly understood in contrast to sex. But it is obviously sexual. Likewise with flirting, but it seems even more absurd to call that sex.
I'd say that "sex" primarily means sexual intercourse, but perhaps can also include oral sex. I think that it makes sense to say things like, "We didn't have sex, I just gave him a blowjob".
[hide="Reveal"]
Of course, and I would agree; I'd also suggest sex with a partner is usually better than without. Quoting Agustino
Sure -- people in love don't need to add the internal video track. But... as you know, people aren't always in love with the people with whom they are having sex (and are often married to) so that added video track helps performance. I mean, sometimes one is expected to get it up and a woman can fake pleasure more easily than a man can fake orgasm (at least for a money shot). So, again, the mental movie in one's head helps one get it up, as per expectation.
Quoting Agustino
The person who is experiencing it.
I included flirting as sexual because when people do it, it "feels sexual". One's dog might show a lot of interest in you while you are eating, or when it wants to go for a walk. but it does not feel sexual. It''s either annoying or amusing. One's lawnmower, pencil, or refrigerator don't feel sexual (one would hope).
Quoting Agustino
Good clarification. It isn't the pleasure that is sublimated as much as it is the 'drive' or energy.
Right, people usually reference sex in the context of at least two people. As for flirting, I was thinking of fairly aggressive flirting, not the sort of flirting that a waiter or waitress does to increase the tip size. Flirting isn't "sex" so much as it is "sexual".
"We didn't have sex, I just gave him a blowjob"... not sex? It seems to me that a blow job is definitely sex, and so is a hand job performed on someone else. I think if you asked 100 people if you could perform oral sex and a hand job on them, at least 95% would think you had ask them to have sex with you, and wouldn't think you were suggesting something on the order of a scalp massage.
Yes, not sex, because "sex" in that context would just mean penile-vaginal sex or anal sex. Look, this is nothing extraordinary. For a lot of people, [I]prima facie[/I], that statement would not cause such a controversy. Whether you agree with it or disagree with it, it is a common usage where I'm from, and probably in other places too, and can also probably be found in media such as TV, film and books.
And just because oral sex is excluded from that particular meaning, that doesn't mean that it's therefore suggestive of something on the order of a scalp massage.
I think that if you asked 100 people if you could have sex with them, roughly that same percentage (95%) - if not more - would think you meant more than a blowjob or a hand job, and would assume that had you meant the latter, you would have said the latter (or said something more suggestive of it than "sex", like "foreplay" or something).
What counts as "sex" is not important in actual sexual contexts. But in discourses about sex, like public health advisories on how to avoid sexually transmitted disease, precision about what is "sex" matters a lot. For instance, quite a few teeny boppers, those teen age lovers, don't think that oral sex is actually sex. It doesn't count.
"It doesn't count" until one discovers a sore on the roof of one's mouth (primary syphilis lesion), a dripping infection from one's penis (primary gonorrhea), blistering on the lips or penis (genital herpes), or some such. One might go to a clinic and discover that one acquired a venereal infection while not having "sex".
What is "sex" also matters in discourses about sexuality and sexual identity.
BTW, Masters's and Johnson's research showed that there is no physical difference in the physiology of arousal and orgasm, whether the sex is anal, oral, vaginal, or digital, gay or straight, single or double. So, as far as the body is concerned, masturbation is indistinguishable from vaginal sex.
I think that more evidence that many people don't count oral sex as "sex" would be how many people would respond to the question of virginity. How many teenagers, for example, would say that they'd lost their virginity just because they'd had oral sex? Without specifying, I think that hardly any of them would think that they're no longer virgins for that reason alone. It was certainly like that when I was at school. I think that many adults think in this way as well, whether gay, straight, or whatever.
And I don't think that that's necessarily a problem with regards to sexual health. It wouldn't be a problem so long as you realised that sexually transmitted diseases can be picked up through sexual acts other than "sex".
Yes but you're making this into a semantic discussion about how words are used, but this isn't really what is under discussion here. I really can care less what people call sex and how they use the word.
I think the attempt is to discuss fundamental things - how things really are, not merely how people speak or think about them, whether in a majority or in a minority. For example, the concept of virginity is incoherent if it is taken to be something physical - that produces some antinomies. For example, if virginity relates only to physical interactions (now including even oral sex) - then a girl who is raped is no longer a virgin afterwards. But if she's no longer a virgin afterwards, and virginity is something good - to be prized - then it follows that she's less worthy because she has been raped. Which is clearly false - she cannot be judged negatively for something that isn't under her control. So the premise that virginity relates only to physical interactions must be rejected.
Now if a woman has never had vaginal intercourse, but she has given oral sex to 50 men, including in groups, I doubt anyone would count her as a virgin.
So then virginity has to be reconceptualised as something spiritual - a virgin is a person who is spiritually open towards sexual intimacy since they have never devoted themselves to another sexually before. So this is more than just having sex or not having sex - it's about the will - indeed, when discussing virginity it is someone's will that is under the question. So if someone willingly has sex, then they are no longer virgins. But it's not the sex, but the will to have sex that is the matter.
Quoting Sapientia
That's because their brain is the size of a squirrel's ;)
Quoting Sapientia
Yeah same, but people weren't very smart. There was this girl who had oral sex with so many guys and she claimed to be a virgin because she never had vaginal intercourse... :-}
It's actually very difficult to be a virgin in today's world, because by the time most people get a hold of themselves - by the time their mind actually develops, and they start thinking for themselves - most of them have already done lots of retarded things which they cannot undo.
Quoting Bitter Crank
From my personal and very limited experience I have found them to be different. Vaginal sex leads to a feeling of contraction in your abdominal muscles when you ejaculate which is stronger than, and lasts longer than that which you achieve by masturbation alone, even if you were to practice special masturbation techniques to enhance your orgasms, such as delayed ejaculation, etc. Vaginal sex also leads to a greater physical exhaustion than masturbation, since you're actually moving your whole body, not just your hand, and the combined effects of sweating, orgasm, and complete tiredness and exhaustion gives off a different, much more peaceful feeling, than simple masturbation after the orgasm is over. This is of course provided you take care not to ejaculate in like 5 minutes... However - masturbation seems to be able to provide more intense orgasms, but not the after-feeling of relaxation that exists in the case of vaginal intercourse with a loved one. That after-feeling is in fact not something entirely sexual - the same feeling can sometimes be achieved by just lying in bed holding a loved one.
Yes, I am. That's the only sensible take on the issue, in my view. I really [I]couldn't[/I] care less about any other approach.
Quoting Agustino
I don't share your doubt. Some might not count her as a virgin, others might. If I was one of those people, then I would not, because that what be so unreasonable as to be laughable. Going by their own reasoning, for whatever reason, oral sex doesn't count as sex. There is no number attached to that such that if you have oral sex X number of times, then that counts as sex.
Quoting Agustino
Good one. >:O
No, it does not. No one else has to think of sex in that same way. Even if I were to prefer whatever you mean by that, I would most likely reject your use of such a vague, ambiguous and potentially misleading term.
Quoting Agustino
I suppose that that's a sort of half-joke, so I'll take it half-seriously. They're just doing what comes naturally, which is to use words how they're commonly used in their community. There's nothing stupid about that in and of itself.
Quoting Agustino
She was right to say that she [was] a virgin. It seems rather redundant to criticise their semantics from the outside like you are trying to do. There's no internal inconsistency.
Indeed, but their society obscures spiritual aspects from coming under consideration in how words related to sex are used. Us individuals don't just pop into being out of nowhere - we are created and molded by our society, and hence our stupidities, more often than not, end up being the stupidities of our own society. It's just a fact - I mean you went to school right? It was popular for folks to talk about sex, probably much more popular than 1000 ago, and much more openly. Now why was it popular? Wasn't it because the surrounding culture made it "cool" - a sign of prestige? If we had been born and lived 1000 years ago, we wouldn't have encountered this, and it would a priori seem unnatural to us, just as the world 1000 years ago a priori seems unnatural to us today.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes I agree they were right, that's what I'm saying. She was wrong to claim she's a virgin despite doing all those things.
>:O
Quoting Agustino
Oops! Lol. That was a typo! I meant to say that she was right (as was anyone else who used the word in that way) to say that she [I]was[/I] a virgin.
She was right only if by right you only mean using the word as most people use it.
I mean that she was right in that sense, but also in the sense that I might agree more with their definition than yours.
As long as you are aware that there are no merit badges awarded for denying self pleasure. ;)
What does it take to lose one's virginity, then?
Depends what you mean by "sex" or "virginity". I would've thought that you of all people would agree with that, and not just in relation to sex or its absence.
OK, what do most people mean by those terms?
I'm not sure what most people mean by those terms, but I know what is commonly meant by those terms, and I've already made [i]what that is[/I] clear in previous comments.
You mean "I'd say that 'sex' primarily means sexual intercourse"? What does that involve? A penis penetrating a vagina or anus?
Yes, in at least some cases. What are you getting at? Can you cut to the chase?
I've made clear that I think that one common meaning of "sex" includes penile-vaginal sex and anal sex, but not oral sex. Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree, as it entails that women can't have sex with each other, and so that all lesbians (who haven't been penetrated by a penis) are virgins.
Call me "He who Drops the Mic-hael".
That doesn't make what I said false, which is that it is a common usage. So you don't disagree with what I said, you just disagree with its use. You've made a kind of use-mention error.
When you asked "do you disagree" I assumed you meant "do you disagree with this definition", not "do you disagree that this is the definition that many people use".
Quoting Michael
A little premature to verbally ejaculate, dontcha think?
I don't care so much about the former. That's why I said that I [i]might[/I] agree with it more than Agustino's definition. Both are faulty in some respects. I find it difficult to take someone seriously who keeps using the word "spiritual" to describe sex or who thinks that 50 blowjobs turns into sex, but since only one or two haven't reached that point, they don't count.
Nope.
Since it is the case that we haven't agreed on what might and might not constitute sex, and since it is the case that we haven't agreed on what exactly spirituality is, I don't think a spiritual interpretation of virginity is going to help much.
Virginity makes some sense in a society where either the woman has some sort of 'property value' or where women have been tasked with maintaining a sentimental notion of purity (which doesn't apply to their potential mates). Virginity does not make much sense where women are free of property value and where sentimental ideas of purity are pretty much history.
Quoting Agustino
versus
Quoting Agustino
Masters and Johnson were doing laboratory research, and the required instrumentation of measurement may have leveled off the experiences the subjects were having. No one would dispute that really great sex (whatever that might be) is better than humdrum sex (whatever that might be). What M & J were claiming is that the basic physiological response was no different. It's like, good food is better than bad food.
Psychological satisfaction is more complicated (obviously). The oral sex lady could count herself as a virgin because her psychological investment in both the act and the guy was probably minimal. The energy required to perform various sex acts varies and one will feel more or less exercised when it is completed.
So, when President William Jefferson Clinton claimed he did not have sex with that woman, he was speaking the truth as far as he was concerned. Ms. Lewinsky apparently thought they had had some sort of sex. "How else could I have a Presidential semen sample in my closet?" she cried.
:-} Why do you suppose virginity applies only to women?
Quoting Bitter Crank
I disagree.
Quoting Bitter Crank
>:O >:O
His point is that the notion of virginity was only a relevant notion when we lived in a society where women were treated as property and where "purity" was such a big thing – times when the sexual experience of men wasn't important.
LOL - I can't follow that. So what about chastity? Chastity implies virginity prior to marriage. Chastity has frequently been considered a virtue historically. Chastity was certainly not only a female virtue.
I'm pretty sure he was just being pedantic, taking the etymological root of "virgin" as the literal definition.
Well, savages do have the strangest virtues.
Actually chastity is precisely one characteristic that is specific of civilisation, not of savagery.
How do you delineate the savage from the civilised?
In terms of their social organisation, and capacity for building a prosperous, expanding civilisation, where culture, learning and virtue flourish. Savages who live in tribes aren't civilised.
Like in ancient Mesopotamia, the birth of civilisation? And yet you called them savages when I showed you that they practiced same-sex marriage.
And, also, modern societies are civilised but chastity ain't so much a virtue any more.
But the sense of accomplishment and victory over one's desires. Not many people can say that they have attained that status.
Besides, I get enough pleasure reading the posts and posting here. :_)
There's a reason why those were the beginnings of civilisation. Alas, I don't take much concern with same-sex marriage, my concern is with promiscuity. Chastity has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
However, there is ample historical evidence that early humans were promiscuous, and chastity developed along with civilisation. Even Marx and Engels recognised this.
Not many people would want to have attained that status.
And is that good or bad?
This should be obvious. 1) Men do not have a hymen which can be breached, thus providing evidence of virginity or not. 2) Women were sexual property of men, not visa versa. 3) Men were expected to have sexual experiences prior to marriage, women were not. You have heard of the double standard?
Of course, a man can be a "virgin", not that it was much of a virtue.
Quoting Agustino
I think Michael was making a joke which you didn't get.
Besides, chastity can be taken on, whereas virginity once lost can not be regained. Nuns and monks who have had sex (even a great deal of sex) can become chaste, poor, and obedient, if they have nothing better to do with their time.
Probably good, as I seem to recall psychologists saying that it's harmful to suppress sexual desire.
Then, I'm not many people then. This is funny, people are arguing that I should indulge in self pleasure. Self-pleasure is evil.
Oh dear... how does this square with what I have said that virginity isn't physical?! The hymen can break without intercourse.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Not in all societies. There were matriarchies as well.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Only in the relatively more modern period.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes that's Victorian England.
Quoting Bitter Crank
:-d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity
Right, please study this link and note how in all societies, as evidenced by their religions, chastity was recommended (as a virtue) REGARDLESS of gender.
Quoting Michael
Not having sex or masturbating isn't the same as suppressing the desire. There is suppression, expression and sublimation. I advocate that third option.
It ain't.
That's what everyone says. See, there is never any level of satisfaction achieved with self-pleasure. It's like telling a drug addict his or her habits are wrong.
Yes there is. But even if there wasn't, that wouldn't make it evil.
Their addictions are harmful, and this harm can be empirically measured. There isn't any harm in self-pleasure (unless it, too, is an addiction). Unless you want to bring in the utterly nonsense notion of "spiritual harm".
Quoting Agustino
Not necessarily retarded. Just misguided.
Most religions recognize that self-pleasure leads to the path of unhappiness. And, quite frankly my excessive (previous) indulgence in pornography has made me quite unhappy.
That doesn't make it true. I would say that religions are prone to falsehoods.
That wouldn't make it evil. And I think the key term there is excessive. Anything that's excessive is a problem, e.g. excessive eating. The key is moderation. Outright avoidance can be just as problematic as indulging too much.
They are prone to falsehoods; but, they are right in some regards. Whether they take things to excess is another matter.
Quoting Michael
No, it would not make it evil; but, it exposes oneself unnecessarily to the vices and dark elements of human nature. How do you know how much self-pleasure is enough? You don't.
You have a wife? I'm sorry but I thought you were too mad of a fool to have one. :_)
Sorry. Psychic virginity does not compute.
Quoting Agustino
Please list the extant matriarchies where men are considered property the way women are considered property under patriarchy (as if there were such a thing as matriarchy and patriarchy).
Quoting Agustino
Victorian England, he says. Double standards preceded Victoria Regina and survive into the 21st century.
Quoting Agustino
Chastity schmastity.. My guess is that chastity has been honored everywhere more in the breach than in the observance.
My take on us people is that we are much more alike than we are different, and that we tend to be unhappy a lot because we think we have failed to live up to society's high standards (and have made the unobtainable social ideals our own). A lot of us beat ourselves over the head for failing to live up to both our own, (and society's) often quite unreasonable expectations.
Everything connected with sex tends to be connected to some sort of high ideal, high standard, or religious rigamarole. It's easy to fail with sex. We either had too much; too little; were too casual about it or too serious; didn't do it the right way or didn't do it with the right people; took too long, didn't take long enough, and so on ad nauseum.
Try forgiving yourself more and do more of what makes you happy.
That's a bit pretentious of you
Quoting Bitter Crank
I recommend a change of operating system ;)
Quoting Bitter Crank
First please tell me what is the way women are considered property under patriarchy...
Quoting Bitter Crank
Nope, that's double application of a single standard, not double standards.
Quoting Bitter Crank
No no, don't laugh at it. This is a very historical point. It doesn't matter if chastity was ALWAYS broken and not observed, the historical fact, which is undeniable, regardless of what you say, is that people have thought that chastity is important. That's why they have created moral codes in which chastity was a virtue for male and female alike all over the world and independently. You obviously don't quite like this. However, your dislike of it doesn't change the historical facts.
Philosophy, as Marcus Aurelius would say to guide one's steps and path in such a torturous world full of lust, desire, and evil.
Desire is pitched much higher. We don't 'lust' after the good, we desire the good. We desire love--eros, philia, agape, storge, ludus, pragma, philautia, of which eros (sex) is but one (albeit double-edged) form.
Love in all ways:
Philia, or deep friendship
Ludus, or playful love
Agape, or love for everyone
Eros, or sexual passion
Pragma, or longstanding love
Philautia, or love of the self
Storge, or familial love
If we only aim for eros which is the easiest love -- hard wired by nature to assure our continued existence -- then we are more likely to get tripped up. But there are other forms of love that are compatible with eros which will keep us balanced.
Pfft! And your reasons for this are "most religions say so", and "I excessively watched porn and this made me unhappy"?
Wow.
@Michael, your replies to Question and Agustino are spot on. Took the words right outta my mouth.
Quoting Bitter Crank
My thoughts exactly.
As Irving Berlin says,
if you've got something that must be done
And it can only be done by one
There is nothing more to say.
But I hope whatever you've got to do
Is something that can be done by two
For she'd really like to stay glued to you
And would be so happy to be doing you, dude...
You probably didn't know Old Berlin used "dude". He was way ahead of his time.
There's probably a half-way house between Marcus Aurelius's iron self control and Bitter's permissiveness (if I can call it that - BC has been fairly conservative in his advice actually). That's to say, the likely result of fetishizing self-denial as a means to avoid the evil in oneself is a psychological magnification of this "evil" into an unjustifiable level of threat i.e. you end up in a state of underlying fear that you can never shake. On the other hand, disregarding the potential damage that following your desires can do to your mental and physical health is likely to lead to a degeneration of both. The way out probably is to exhaust most of your energy in worthwhile work and to allow yourself to funnel what's left into the satisfaction of basic desires. In other words, make it so you don't need an iron will to combat your desires because there isn't enough surplus psychic energy for them to redirect in a damaging way.
But, it's Marcus Aurelius. The philosopher king! The only that ever existed. The good emperor as his populace called him.
Please report back when you have done so! (Y) :D That will be all for today class. You are dismissed!
Oh, I've seen that 2 times already.
My Stoic skills are good, much more training needed.
Especially Part II 0:30 onwards.
Yes, I surprised the professor didn't get and give a collective heart attack for such a lecture on Stoicism.
I need to sear his passion for Stoicism into my mind again.
Not really... What does he get so wrong?
Quoting Heister Eggcart
A big mafia don 8-) - his name is Professor Michael Sugrue :D
Self-pleasure is no evil my friend. What do you find evil about self-pleasure?
Something we could all do a little bit more of. (L)
:p
Maybe it's not evil, maybe it is. But, it's not good in-of itself and doesn't lead to virtue.
Show us that we're all full of shit and hiding our desires behind a veil of rationalizations.
Let the orgy commence.
It's all too common for scholars to exaggerate the power of the Roman Emperor, especially after Domitian. To suggest that Aurelius was unprecedented is to peddle gold-leafed shit.
Not mine. I had serious crushes on my Russian teacher, on my math teacher in another high school, on my math teacher at college. I was too young at these times in high school to capitalize on the opportunities, and the college professor crush came at an age when people had already been keenly aware of the career-crushing effect of affairs with students.
So I went out into the community and sexed with women typically 20 years older than myself.
I was reluctant at first, but my psychiatrist at the time (yeah, right) advised me that I should not reject these opportunities due to the forbidding nature of some prefabricated cultural expectations. So I did not, after a point in time.
I had a ball with older, actually very good looking women (some of them were movie-star quality in looks; others were not) until my heart disease and diabetes set in due to a lifetime of smoking and being overweight; then I was forced by natural effects to abandon all sexual contact.
The thing with sexual and other love contacts is, that you hone your skills with a certain demographic, and the more skilled you are and more successful in your endeavours, the more you are stuck in having sex with people within the same demographic group. Sure I like young women's looks, sure I'd like to bone them, always have; but my social conditioning sorta kept me in the same old beaten path, dating older women.