Nonchristians are not damned in the Bible

There is a common but Biblically unsupported idea that all non-Christians go to hell. As far as I have been able to find out it has rarely or never been an official doctrine. It isn't addressed by theologians very often that I know of, and it doesn't have such an easily tracked history as the major doctrines do, such as those that are part of the Creeds. I've found resources that say Calvin believed that all non-Christians go to hell, while other resources indicate Wesley, Zwingli, C. S. Lewis, and the medieval Catholic Church all believe non-Christians may sometimes be saved; I've further heard indications that the official doctrine of the modern Roman Catholic Church (generally radically different that what your Catholic neighbor will tell you) indicates non-Christians may be saved.

So what does the Bible actually say? The verses which are quoted to support the idea that all non-Christians are always damned are John 14:6

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (NIV)

and Acts 4:12

“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (NIV)

For either to imply that all non-Christians are unsaved, we must assume that Jesus is unable or unwilling to work except in those who identify themselves as Christians; that He is kept out by any kind of ignorance on this topic, or that He has no power where there are no Christians. This is assumption is clearly unacceptable to a Christian when squarely looked at, but it rarely is so examined. These verses do say that Jesus's way is the right way and Mohammed's or Buddha's way the wrong way, but that does not imply that therefore Jesus is incapable of saving any Muslims or Buddhists without help from Christians. The Bible doesn't get that specific in terms of what happens to those who don't hear the message from us, but there are hints :

I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. (John 10:16, NIV)

The Bible is clear that those who have faith in Jesus are saved and those who reject Him are damned, but it does not say much about those who haven't heard His name at all or those whose idea of Him is grossly incorrect. In fact every example I can think of discussing people's eternal disposition divides everyone into categories based on accept or rejecting Him, and they picture that as happening at the Judgement not before death.

All this is not to say that there isn't value in spreading the Word; the Bible makes that clear, and we are unequivocally commanded to do it. It is only to say that failure to do so is not an automatic sentence of damnation.

I think there are several contributing factors making idea that non-Christians are all unsaved so common.

1) A Christian backlash against two unbiblical doctrines; that of Universalism that states everyone without exception is saved, and the warm, fuzzy, but anti-rational concept that all paths lead equally. The first (Universalism) assumes a God that takes you whether you want him or not; to borrow a phrase from Hank Hanegraaff, not the lover of your soul, but a supernatural rapist. The second (all paths are equal) makes as much sense as saying Aristotelean, Newtonian, and Einsteinean physics are all equally good for calculating an orbit. Both are extensively refuted in Scripture.

2) A meme. I'm not fond of the term because it's commonly used as a substitute for debating an idea on it's merits, but we addressed those already and "meme" applies well. The idea is simple and very motivating in terms of evangelism; those who have it pass it on to others efficiently.

3) Human desire to be in control. All religions are constantly fighting the human tendency to turn them into magic in order to put the religious practitioner in control. Religion is about describing supernatural forces, and also requesting their help; the decision and most of the initiative remain with the supernatural. Magic is about ways to effectively control the supernatural forces; do X and they will respond in Y way. The initiative moves to the human.

In evangelical churches the world tends to be viewed as divided into the saved and the unsaved, and they are divided by participation in what's very like a magic ritual; the recitation of the Sinner's Prayer. (There isn't actually any Sinner's Prayer in the Bible, but it's one of a whole class of prayers made up with reference to Biblical principles.) The distinction I'm making between magic and religion can get pretty fuzzy in the case that the supernatural side takes the initiative to make a promise, which God does in this case. Jesus does in fact say that he will save us if we believe:

I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (John 5:24, NIV)

We tend to make it a magic ritual rather than the true worship of God when we imagine it all depends on us; we reach the lost, we convince them to recite the prayer; it's like we saved them.

TMI: Sex Drive Relief

I've found, during both divorce processes, when I'm no longer living with my wife my sex drive gradually drops off to something bearable. A tendency to look around for possible mates increases, along with a sensitivity to hints of attraction; interest in porn and relief through masturbation gradually drops. For the first few months I was alone I masturbated 3-4 times a week; at this point I'm down to once every week or two, and if experience is a guide it'll eventually fall off to about once a month.

Preferences

I am attracted physically to a fairly broad range of women; about 30-55 years old or so, weighing about 100-200% of recommended BMI-based weight as long as they're active, any race, tall, short, or medium. I'm not too picky about looks in general, though I like large boobs on heavier women and small on thinner women. I am often attracted to women who have trouble with their looks, e.g. online dating contacts disappear when they exchange pictures. (For comparison I'm 41, tall, a fairly burly 150% of recommended BMI, and one of my friends, who is extraordinarily generous with compliments, keeps telling me I should be on the cover of bodice-ripper romance novels.) Finding a woman I'm physically attracted to is not going to be much of a problem for me when it comes time to find someone new. And this is fortunate; as a kinky Christian who wants a Christian with matching kinks I'd better not be picky about looks.

Not being picky about looks is something I feel kind of good about. The question is, should I feel blessed, proud, or some of both? How much can we shape our own preferences? I try; as I identify things I don't like I try to shape myself to see them as beautiful too. (Next project is small boobs on heavy women; after that, believe it or not, large boobs on thin women; especially when they're visibly fake.)

I have a friend who is a bit older than me. His skeleton was visibly deformed by childhood autoimmune disease and he has several major skin problems also resulting from the same condition. He only seems to react to high-school-age beauty queens. He's also extremely picky about food; where I eat most things cheerfully. (I don't like shellfish, but if you have me over for dinner and serve me shellfish I think you won't know it.)

If he tried to look forwards to trying new foods, as I do, could he change that? How about if he tried to admire more women? Could he see beauty in them like I do? It seems like it worked for me; certainly my range now includes lots of things it previously didn't, and it absolutely appears to have followed my efforts.

But in some places I've lost ground. Big movie or porn stars no longer attract me as much as more ordinary women; if I haven't worked in an office with someone who looked like her, she doesn't look right to me. I never set out to shape myself that way, but it happened; probably as a result of constantly thinking that looks like that mean she wouldn't be interested in me.

In food, I've lost some of my taste for sweets; I rarely get dessert, and find ordinary soda sweeter than I like.

In both of these areas, I don't see a lot of value in striving to include what has been excluded; I don't see candy or movie stars being good for me.

But I wonder, did I really broaden my range, or just shift it? I think I broadened it, but it's hard to measure objectively.

Cunnilingus: Don't Be Shy

One of the more valuable features of talking about sex on the web, I think, is that you can become less embarrassed to ask for what you want because you find out there are people who'd love to do it for you. In that spirit I'd like to go over what I said in a comment I left at Quizzical Pussy's when she explained that she had a difficult time feeling comfortable receiving cunnilingus.

Not every man likes cunnilingus, but some men, like me, absolutely love it; when I had a partner I did it a lot, despite mostly no reciprocation. It's really one of my favorite things to do. I don't ask for washing first, still less for shaving or douching. To me, there is nothing as hot as a faceful of a woman's scent; it gets me harder than anything else. Sometimes I've felt on the verge of orgasm while doing it. Cunnilingus feels more intimately giving than anything else I can do. I love the opportunity to totally concentrate and focus on my partner. I love the opportunity to explore her with my mouth, and that never gets old no matter how many times I've done that with the same partner. I make little "mmm" noises as I lick so she knows I love it. I love to go slow to draw the experience out, and I love to go fast and hard to get her off. I love to hold her and lick slowly and gently in the afterglow. Often if I'm not going out in public, I won't wash my face so I can keep her scent.

True, not every man likes it, and of the ones that do not all of them like it as much as I, but some men enjoy it enormously, sometimes more than almost anything else.

First story published on Literotica

My first story has been published on Literotica.com, with help from volunteer editor Bella_Mariposa and the suggestions of perversecowgirl and Holly that greatly improved it over the first draft. New title: "Learning To Love Her Feet". Thanks all!

Sexual fantasy as mental preparation

In firearms self-defense training, one of the points made over and over again is to have a plan. Go over possible scenarios in your head, figure out how you could react, figure out what points are salient and what are irrelevant. When you're presented with a situation, you can have a reaction preplanned which is just always going to be better than what you can come up with on the spur of a nightmare moment.

Long before I was exposed to that, I was a D&D player and a Christian. I decided early on that I'd never play an evil character because no one ever needs mental practice in being evil.

I apply this same thing in sexual fantasies. I do not want to permit myself to mentally prepare the wrong actions, no matter whether the scenario seems outlandish. A few times a temptation has come up that I would have considered radically unlikely; and frankly I don't think I would have been able to handle it if I had mentally trained for giving in.

This distinction is coming up a lot now as I try to reconnect with my dominant side. I enjoy this game, but I enjoy it with the idea that it is play: she is also enjoying it and we have an agreed safeword. I don't like games where this idea is hard to apply.

I know this isn't going to be a popular idea. It seems ridiculous; the fantasy is about a fantasy. It'll seem too tame for some people on both sides of the fantasy; people who have trouble getting off without a fantasy about real abuse, real rape. But I know if I ever find myself in a position to take advantage of someone, that taking advantage was never my fantasy. There will be no part of my mind that says "here it is at last". I can have confidence in myself that isn't based on the flimsy reed of me thinking I'm such a great guy, but on preparation like anyone can do.

Though I hadn't thought of it the same way before, the same kind of preparation can apply to submissive fantasy. As a rejected, lonely, horny guy with submissive kinks, I've recently discovered there are professional dommes out there who'd be glad to make a quick buck off reinforcing my self-image problems. But their hard sell strikes no chord; even when I was only in touch with my submissive kinks, I always wanted a real relationship with submissive play.

You don't get to redefine my virtues.

I just found something massively offensive. A blog about the "Male Chastity Lifestyle", along with book sales and moneymaking schemes. I find the name incredibly offensive, because it's a parody of chastity. Chastity is when you only have sex inside marriage. This thing they are calling "Male Chastity Lifestyle" is when the woman makes all decisions about orgasms, often including denial play and the man wearing some kind of "chastity belt" device to which the woman holds the key. OK, see, there's a perfectly good name for that, sex denial, and you do NOT get to appropriate the name of a Christian virtue for your kink. I practice chastity, and if you like the idea of cockblocking you are the opposite of what I'll be looking for.

You know, I really don't like this "Male Chastity Lifestyle" thing. I'm kind of wary of saying this because I'm skeeved by a lot of kinks that perfectly decent people enjoy. But I have a really bad feeling about this one. Let's take a look at the list of reasons offered to practice it:

In this male chastity guide you will discover:

* How you'll know if the male chastity life­style is right for you... or if it'll cause more prob­lems than it fixes.
* Why 90% or more of everything you read about male chastity is noth­ing more than a made-up fantasy writ­ten by wan­nabe "mis­tresses" and sad, lonely men.
* How to ensure his energy and affec­tion is all focused on YOU... and no-one BUT you... just like it was when you were court­ing!
* Why he will NOT be able to keep his hands off you... but he's NOT a pest (and the minute you tell him "No!" he hap­pily obeys... and with a smile on his face!).
* Exactly how his libido sud­denly increases by 1000% or more... yet there is abso­lutely NO chance of him EVER stray­ing, no mat­ter how long you make him wait (and he'll LOVE you for this, too).
* Why he'll prac­tic­ally beg you to let him help you with the house­work, (even the stuff he really hates like iron­ing) but he's NOT a weedy spine­less and sub­missive "slave". Unlike most, this male chastity guide is writ­ten with REALITY in mind, not silly unreal­istic fantasies.
* How to guar­an­tee he'll have the energy and "stay­ing power" of a man 20 years younger... and will be will­ing to spend hours tak­ing you to heights of ecstasy you barely dared even dream of (Warn­ing: if you've never had Earth shat­ter­ing mul­tiple orgasms lit­er­ally "on tap" before, then this male chastity guide might be too much for you).
* Why his orgasms (when and if you allow them... and that's a BIG if) lit­er­ally send him into uncon­trol­lable, gasp­ing ecstasy... and he's a total slave to his desire (I guar­an­tee he's NEVER had orgasms like this before... they're so power­ful they're addict­ive, and you're the only one who can give them to him)
* And much, much more!

The whole list is there, I didn't leave anything out. Notice anything about it? Maybe that all of it is from the point of view of one side of this completely asymmetrical kink. Notice anything else? It's not the "chastity lifestyle", it's the "male chastity lifestyle."

We don't want to judge people's kinks. But lust for power over your fellow humans is a pretty universally recognized sin, flaw, or bad behavior. So is selfishness. I'm not really worried about readers who don't share my faith disagreeing with me on that. Sometimes people take things that are just plain vices and dress them up as lifestyle or kink. Making cockteasing the method in selfish lust for power doesn't magically fix the fact it's selfish lust for power.

It's particularly abhorrent from a Christian viewpoint. First, the practice is specifically unbiblical:

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:3-5, NIV)

Notice something about that? It's gender-equal. And further, neither may deprive the other. And THAT is part of Christian chastity.

Second, my chastity is my virtue; it's not my wife's. If someone else is making your decisions, then the virtue is gone; you have no chastity, you are left only with obedience.

Via Rouge Bambi.

UPDATE: I want to make it clear that this post is not an objection to kinks like Orgasm Denial or Tease & Denial; those I don't share, but if you're into that, fine. This post is an objection to the idea that this is chastity, and also an objection to the manipulative, sexist and predatory aspects presented in the quoted material.

Ray Bradbury has some serious fans

As this music video will demonstrate, Ray Bradbury has some serious, serious fans.

I can't say I echo the sentiment, but I certainly understand it in Bradbury's case. Shoot, if it wasn't for the abstinent thing I'd give Connie Willis head for To Say Nothing of the Dog alone.

via Roberta X.

Zombies in the treeline and trying without trying

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Zombieland gender roles

Zombieland was a really fun movie. I recommend it. However, here I'm going to talk about something I didn't like.

I found the gender roles to be cringeworthy in an exemplary way; sure to offend feminists and MRAs at the same time, if they stop to give them some thought. The female characters, Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), seem only to be competent at preying on men; usually through manipulating trust or sympathy. Before the zombie apocalypse, they were professional confidence tricksters. They are just not good people. Their establishing screentime is divided between preying on men and insulting them. But the implication is that all that's fine, 'cause they are of the type that produces large instead of small gametes; and because Wichita is attractive (Little Rock is 12 and doesn't count).

And that's the whole reason the male characters, Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson) and Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), put up with them and rescue them. Tallahassee is sympathetic to Columbus's attraction to Wichita, which is based on her looks and her treating him like dirt. That's it, that's what women bring to the table. It's offensive to feminists (or at least me, inasmuch as I count) because the woman and girl offer little but abuse and apparently have little to offer but one of-age pussy. It's offensive to MRAs (or at least me, inasmuch as I count) because that's good enough for the men. Maybe Columbus's reaction to Wichita can be excused a bit because she's possibly the last woman on earth his age. But that goes the other way too; there's nobody but Columbus for Wichita, either. Basically she treats him with contempt while he makes himself a doormat, warms to him slightly apparently due to successful doormatism, but he really means nothing to her until he risks his life rescuing her from certain death. Seems to me that this setup is really common, at least in action movies.

It reminds me of one of the points made in The Action Movie Fairy Tale I linked before. One of his points is that a man doesn't feel that a woman's love can be real if the man hasn't accomplished astonishing action movie things. He links it to narcissism, his favorite diagnosis. I think he missed it. I think a more accurate hyperbole would be that a man doesn't feel that a woman's love can be deserved, or real, if the man hasn't risked his life rescuing the woman from certain death. That's the way we see real love happen in action movies. I mean, she is attractive with large gametes! That's all she needs to be worthy of risking his life! Not character or anything.

Only attractive women appear in this venue; unattractive women do not exist. If a man is attracted, the woman is in this mental category. No need for movie-star beauty. If a man isn't attracted to a woman, then in movie terms she isn't a woman in any real sense, she's an extra.

Someone Else's Rules

The really strange thing about Christianity is living by Someone Else's rules. As a Christian, I have to accept Someone Else's moral code, rather than making up my own. Most people make up their own, based extensively on what they've been taught and adjusted by their own observations and conclusions. Once in a while I hear someone talk about how arrogant religious people are, claiming their own moral code is the correct one. Religious people don't do that if we're doing it right, we replace our own with Someone Else's. That's actually less arrogant than making up your own. Making up your own is actually a really difficult thing, it's nearly impossible to see all the implications when you start out. Early in the sexual revolution, consent was the new rule; and there were people who gave drugs to children and called the result "consent". In the 20th century there were some examples of new moral systems applied and enforced at national levels, and they collectively resulted in hundreds of millions dead.

Very often I see Christians who fail at adopting Someone Else's rules. They basically make up their own rules and then claim divine sanction; the worst of both worlds. All the arrogance of making up your own, plus the enormously greater arrogance of identifying your own with divinity. If you think you're following the rules of a perfectly wise and perfectly good being and those rules happen to match all your own thoughts, you're definitely fooling yourself.

If you take Someone Else's rules seriously, it mostly helps you accept people who disagree. After all, it's not what you'd come up with either. In my own example, if I were making up my own rules, I'd be looking for hookups right now and an open marriage when I found the right person. Why on earth would I look down on people who just do what I'd be doing? That also restrains me from making up my own rules against things that I dislike or that skeeve me, like smoking or rape play. If I were making up my own rules, it would be my job to come up with rulings on things I don't like; as it is, it's not my job. One of the clearest examples of the way that plays out with people making up their own rules is the way feminists fight over porn or looking pretty.

Often, it is my job to come up with rulings for myself; if the Bible is unspecific, I need to make the best decision I can. It's not my job to decide for anyone else, though, and it's not the job of some megachurch pastor or TV evangelist to decide for people outside his church or following.

Wanting to be wanted

The single most important thing to me in the attractiveness of a woman is whether she shows herself to be attracted to me too. It's definitely not the only thing, but it's the biggest thing; bigger than looks or any one personality trait. If you're, um, well, how do I put this, not so great looking and you have an odor problem despite frequent washing and you've told me I'm good-looking, you are ahead of a movie star or supermodel in my book. Lots of people start great relationships by doggedly pursuing someone else; that's not me. "Hard-to-get" means "No interest in trying." Not that prudent reserve and caution are a turn-off, but if I don't get hints then I have no interest. And even affirming the value of prudent reserve and caution, I admit I'm likely to end up with someone more open about that than I am.

This is a problem in keeping myself open to reconciliation. That's my Christian duty, but it would be hard at this point. When she adopted kittens (to whom I am violently, debilitatingly allergic), I pretty much knew it was over. After that, the feeling of rejection took over. She knew me better than anyone, and without me doing anything drastic, she rejected me and refused to give me any further chance. (I had my chances before I knew there was such a serious problem. Such as they were, without knowing that.) So I feel totally unwanted, totally unattractive to her, and therefore she no longer attracts me.

Now my Christian duty of being open to reconciliation is to be open to work hard at it, not to simply let her back into my life anytime she wants back. It's not like "Oh, you're tired of paying rent? I'll get your name put back on the deed." It's like "Let's set up some appointments with a marriage counsellor." But now, to me it would be seriously difficult to be properly enthusiastic. I ought to want reconciliation, and I don't anymore.

Reconciliation is totally hypothetical, by the way, there are no hints on that front. Being ready for it is actual.

Waiting For My Real Life

This really illuminates a problem in myself; I'd seen it but never defined it so well, never faced it so head-on. The little telling details he picks are wrong for me. But the point, the gist, is right. I DO know kung-fu (10 years Shandon Shaolin). I was thinking, and to some extent acting, as if my REAL life would begin when that mattered.

UPDATE: So this can better stand alone, me not wanting sex with her was never any kind of problem. That problem went the other way.

Male orgasm

Busy and fun day today; hung out with friends and watched Zombieland, which I hadn't seen yet. Here's another post that's basically lifted straight from one of my comments somewhere else.

This is my attempt to describe orgasm; at least one man's version.

The actual physical sensations of orgasm are for me mostly the sensations of ejaculation; but with orgasm they are magnified and feel wonderful, whereas without they feel uncomfortable and kinda icky. It's very much like a welcome vs. unwelcome touch; nerves report the same thing but it feels totally different.

Like any man, the head of my cock is the most sensitive part, sometimes too sensitive. (I was circumcised as an infant and mildly regret it). As I approach and anticipate orgasm I prefer a different touch; I want firm pressure as far down the shaft as possible, even behind my balls if that can be arranged. I feel as if my ejaculate is going to stretch out my penis like how in a cartoon firehose, a lump of water travels along creating a wide spot as it goes, and I want the outside enveloped, contained, not allowing that to happen. This is more evocative than accurate; it's really hard to describe, and that firehose image never occurred to my conscious mind until I tried to describe the feeling. Touch on the head doesn't matter to me one way or the other at that point.

As it arrives, I thrust with my hips, clench my ass cheeks, and push with constant pressure to get and stay as deep as possible. That's instinctive: I always do that even if it doesn't make a difference, e.g. handjob, unless I'm consciously trying not to, e.g. blowjob. I feel a feeling of heat and pressure deep inside my loins, in what I guess is my prostate, and that shoots out through my loins out along the length of my cock. I feel it most in the deeper parts, the base of the shaft behind my balls and inside. It feels incredibly good. It feels like the cartoon firehose, except it isn't a discrete lump of water but an expansion with the farthest point travelling along; the pressure inside stays high when the first semen is past that point. As I said the more it's contained the better it feels, matching pressure from inside and outside. (But note that a real blockage is awful; while masturbating as a child I once tried pinching the head to ease cleanup and that was painful and miserable.)

At the same time, I arch my back and neck, rolling my head back, close my eyes, and I make noises like a shouting moan or a groaning shout, and I tend to briefly clench my jaws. I make faces that I've been told are sexy, but I don't know what they look like.

As the orgasm passes, I stop enjoying touch on the head but I kind of need touch on the shaft; not too active. In a handjob, at that time, being let go seems like the worst fate imaginable; even after the orgasm is totally gone I like being held.

Afterwards, I feel warm, relaxed, tired, and very touchy and clingy. Assuming she's also orgasmed and isn't actively looking for more, I especially like to touch my partner in sexual but not too intense ways; spooning her and cupping her breasts but not playing with a nipple, for example. I love to stroke her; shoulders, back, thighs, hair. I don't like it if she starts to talk about something else right away; talking about sex or love is great, talking about her coworkers or her schedule for the week or how she'd like to remodel the living room is not.

I have the impression that it's less intense than a female orgasm. For me, the orgasm is the climax of the story, and the story is no good without a climax, but the story is the point, and a longer story is almost always better. I've gotten the impression from women that their orgasm is more a goal, the point of all the other activity. Could be those are reactions to popular stereotypes or just individual differences.

EDIT: With my wife, I almost always made sure she orgasmed first if it wasn't going to be simultaneous; and some hangups discussed in this TMI post meant it was rarely simultaneous. If, for a woman, the orgasm is really the point of the exercise, basically it was over for her then she had some work to do to produce an orgasm for me. That might explain a lot. I wish she would have been willing to discuss things with me the way I'm discussing them with the Web. Looking back I'm seeing a number of problems I likely created with the best of intentions and a lack of input and feedback.

More horrified by rape than murder

Adapted from comments I left over at Quizzical Pussy's.

Why are people, generally men, sometimes more horrified by rape than murder? Doesn't that imply the rape victim would be better off dead, that their life is no longer worth living? Well, here's my take on why some men (including me) are more horrified and angered on a visceral level, and it doesn't imply that at all.

First, there's the impact on society. The existence of murder doesn't shape human interactions the way the existence of rape does. Everyone in society is impacted by it in ways they have to keep in front of them all the time, in almost every interaction between genders. In the case of men that impact shapes our interactions in ways I think we resent even more than women. The reason it produces such seething hatred for rapists in some men is that men are suspected in everything they do, as a class. The suspicion is unfortunately the only prudent course, which leaves all women paying the price by being suspicious and all men paying the price by being suspected. Men are also blamed as a class. All too frequently a rape victim is blamed and that's very bad and very stupid; I've yet to hear women as a class blamed (which would be even worse and stupider). However, men do get blamed as a class; here's a few examples I've seen recently:

Yes, there should be more "blame" placed on men. While not every man is a "potential perp", there are a LOT of ways "non-perps" condone and encourage the offenders. source here in comments

The key to preventing rape is, you know, for dudes to stop raping. source here in comments

So, part of reacting to rape worse than murder is probably just a way for men to distance themselves from it more emphatically. But mostly, it's a reaction to someone who caused all that social attitude. It amounts to "I'VE SPENT MY ENTIRE LIFE BEING SUSPECTED AND BLAMED BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU DID, YOU SICK EVIL BASTARD!" Not usually on a conscious level.

Second, there's a philosophy or psychology of crime reason. The horror of a crime is not determined solely by the harm to the victim. If a perp kills someone, or if he kills someone then rapes the corpse, the victim is not more harmed in the second case, but there's a lot more horror. Also motive comes into it. People find it less horrifying when someone poisons their rival to the inheritance of a fortune in an Agatha Christie mystery than when someone clubs someone over the back of the head to steal their sneakers. Some people have a particular horror of rape because so much is being taken for so little. Another reason is that in some cases the victim's real psychological agony is stimulating to the perpetrator; some of us find that unspeakably revolting.

Third, there's a failure of imagination, especially in men; and I think for this part we have to think about the boys they used to be. Boys think they can imagine death, sometimes the hero dies, but they have the impression that rape is worse than they can imagine. Therefore it must be worse than death. It's reinforced by what they learn about sexuality, such as the value of female virginity and the idea that sex is more that touching some body parts with some other body parts. Boys are taught that sex acts are really an enormously big deal, even though the boy's involvement seems only cool and greatly desirable. So since it's not the boy that makes it a big deal, it must be that girls are incredibly, incomprehensibly, special. So how can they imagine how bad rape must be, except in terms of being much worse than they can imagine?

So yeah, there are reasons (not actually good reasons, but reasons) that some of us are more horrified or infuriated by a crime that objectively at least leaves the victims alive. And they don't come with an implication that life as a victim is no longer worth living.

Offer not accepted.

I think people put a lot of thought into how a man feels when he makes a sexual offer and it gets rejected. Quite fairly. After all, it happens a lot. An experienced man trying to hook up isn't too bothered, it's just the way it goes. There are a host of reasons a woman might not want to hook up, and it's to be expected. An inexperienced man basically has the way this is presented in the media to go on. Media tends to show two possibilities: 1) he keeps chasing her and "wins" her by the end of the movie, 2) he is a LOSER. So that makes it tough to get started. But, we talk about this, and that helps get people past what they see on TV.

I think people put pretty much no thought at all into how a woman feels in the same case. Quite unfairly. In the entertainment media at least, this doesn't really happen. Turning her down because he doesn't want a relationship? Sure, happens all the time, not a big deal. Turning her down for no-strings-attached sex? In the media this barely ever happens. At least in the kind of media my separated wife and I watched (which ran heavily to explosions, according to both our tastes).

At one point when I asked her to initiate more, this came up. She pointed out that the cultural image of the woman who is rejected is even worse than the loser man. A woman who is rejected tends to be a villain who was using sex for manipulation to begin with. (Sometimes there are cameos where a female character who only appears for a few seconds is rejected just to show the hero's devotion to another woman, and there's no judgement there, but it doesn't have much of an impact.) The most gentle treatment of women being turned down I've seen was The House Bunny, because in that case they were only losers. Maybe I'd have seen other reasonably gentle treatments if I had watched something else?

Anyway I think there is actually lots more cultural baggage heaped on a woman initiating and being rejected than a man, even though there's an awful lot on a man. I'm pretty sure men get rejected a lot more than women, but the rejection is even more wounding to the woman.

For a man, marriage makes rejection by his wife much more wounding than being turned down by anyone else. The way he sees it, in a conventional marriage, he's already given her everything conventional wisdom claims she's waiting for; the commitment, the shared home and income, the most drastic things he can do to provide the security he's been told she wanted. And then she still turns him down, after she's already got everything he had to give.

It makes rejection of a wife by her husband more painful too. Men are supposed to want sex all the time. The way she sees it, if he doesn't want sex from her, how can he want anything from her? That's supposed to be the LAST thing he'd stop caring about; if he doesn't care about that, he doesn't care about anything.

Up

Things look better after digging out a Trance[]Control CD (some of my favorite techno I haven't listened to in a long time), and a good Aikido class. The depression that follows each of these little divorce milestones gets shorter and easier to struggle out of each time. When I first found out that she wasn't just putting off counselling but actually had no intention of going, I was pretty useless for a week.

Down

Just picked up the divorce complaint at the post office. Now it's 90 days wait, then some more paperwork and a month and a half or so more waiting, and then it'll be over.

I wish I had a clearer understanding of what I did wrong. If I had done something I shouldn't, it would be easier to correct than not having done stuff I should.

Not A Submissive

I've been thinking a lot about whether I am a submissive recently. With my kinks it seemed a no-brainer, but most of what I see in internet dommes tends to turn me right off to put it mildly. I suspect many of the dominants on the web, especially financial dominants, are selecting for and taking advantage of serious self-image problems, rather like an extreme version of a PUA that adds financial parasitism. I think that shows all the personal integrity of an intestinal worm. There also seems to be a sexist "men worms women goddesses" overtone going on that I don't think is expressed with male dominant/female submissive.

But the source of the confusion was this; some people use submissive to indicate personality, and some to indicate kinks. I enjoy submissive play, but I am not even a slightly submissive person. I save the politics for a different name and blog that my friends know about, but I'm defiantly independent by temperament and a great fan of the Founding Fathers.

Also, I'm realizing that the submissive kinks that have gradually taken over my fantasy life aren't really representative; they are my kinks, but I always used to be a lot more varied in my interest, and I will be again. Before I explain this further, I need to say my separated wife is really a good person and put up with a lot. I wish she would have tried counseling with me. The thing under discussion now, though, is that I was much more interested in sex than she was. I knew that, and the less I felt like I was asking, the better I felt. The submissive sex felt like I was offering more and asking less. So it kind of took over. Everything else felt like asking too much, especially me being dominant. Fantasies along any other lines became uncomfortable. I only approved of my fantasy self when it was "undemanding". The whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense because male sub/female domme isn't really so undemanding of the woman, and she liked the other styles at least as much. But it felt undemanding at some unreasoning level. I very gradually went from wanting a 50/50 mix dominant/submissive and enjoying the dominant slightly more to being uncomfortable with anything but submissive.

Probably I'll naturally head back to the 50/50 preference. I hope I don't stop enjoying the submissive play; if I did it'd be because it was a reminder of the problems, and that would be sad.

Scared to be scary

I don't like the idea of frightening anyone. It's kind of easy for me to do accidentally just because of my size. Back in the phase where I dressed like a biker, there were several occasions where women actually screamed when suddenly faced by me, e.g. trying to go through the same door from opposite sides. I've also had my permit to carry a concealed firearm for a long time, since back in the day when people got really upset if they knew you had a gun. It was best to be super careful lest friends be worried if they found out.

It's one of the contributors to my submissive kinks. Begging for footjobs seems about as nonthreatening as you can get.

I posted anonymously once and somebody replied addressing me as Mousie. I thought that was kinda funny and certainly not very threatening so I went with it. As Mousie, my big fear is making someone think I'm a cyberstalker. I'm a Christian, which means I fit the profile of a villain from the Law & Order franchise. I'm separated from my wife, lonely, and my programming job was outsourced to India in this recession so I have a lot of time on my hands. I'm super aware that that perfectly fits the profile of stalker. Or, it just means a lot of time to hang around reading and commenting on people's blogs.

So I try consciously not to say anything that could create the impression of romantic or sexual interest, and I try to occasionally work in lack of interest hints, without it being a PUA-style challenging "neg" or an insult. E.g., X would be totally bored by my sexual preferences. I'd like to say more nice things to the people who are lightening up my day, but don't dare.

Actual predators have a whole series of tricks that are intended to look inoffensive on the surface, but aren't. "Give me a smile, baby." I don't know many of those, but the people reading me do. Which is really worrisome; since it looks inoffensive, will I do it by accident? I'm walking on eggshells. I blame it on the predators, and I have unchristian hate for them, and if I express that I sound scary for unfortunately much more true and accurate reasons (at least if you're a predator). EDIT: Not genuinely true and accurate, but definitely closer.

I like this sexblogging thing

I really like this writing stuff out for the Web thing. It does help me look at things squarely, in case there is a reader. I lose some potential readers because I'm a Christian, some because it's a sex blog, lots because it's a sex blog by a man, some more because I'm straight, and most of who's left because I'm abstinent. Not really customer-focused here. But there COULD be a reader, and that's all I need.

My most illustrative experience on strength, threat, and sexual interaction

As far as I know I've never given a woman cause for concern for her safety; I've sure tried hard not to. I was raised to be polite and chivalrous, and though chivalry may provoke some feminism concerns it's not a source of physical threat.

When times change, it can become necessary to alter politeness and feel out a new scale for it. When people are trying to do that, they tend to try to treat other people the way they'd like to be treated, which is of course an excellent general tactic. (Luke 6:31) But if you don't apply enough reflection and empathy, you can miss nuances. Like, as PerverseCowgirl mentions here, the fact that guys are typically much stronger unbalances the scales quite a bit. Many years ago, I had an experience that if I had been weaker would have been pretty skeevy; and thinking "what would that have been like if the tables were turned" really illustrated the concept of the need for reflection for me. Even with the roles as they were, it wasn't quite right.

It was during my first divorce. (And I never wanted even one!) I was pretty good looking. It was a bit before I developed knee problems, and I was really active in martial arts and in excellent shape. I'm 6'3", broad-shouldered and deep-chested, and was about 205 pounds, and I could outlift a 250 pound amateur powerlifter.

I was taking a massage therapy course for the sake of human contact. The students were encouraged to go to each other's homes and have practice sessions. A hot 120 pound blonde invited me to her place. (This is sounding like the beginning of a Penthouse Forum story.) I had talked about how my wife had left me, that I was not yet divorced, and that I didn't want to start anything new at the time. I had explained how I was taking the massage course as a safe way to get human physical contact. I specifically mentioned nonsexual.

She was a classmate that I had often chatted with. I'd been to her place for a practice session or two before. This time she scheduled it after dinner, which she prepared. That gave me a slight date vibe, so I found a way to to bring up the whole still married thing and flashed my wedding ring around. Otherwise, we just had a pleasant conversation. I was on the table first so as usual I stripped and arranged the towel over me with her out of the room. We had all the normal components of relaxing therapeutic massage, or, admittedly, a hot shagging session: soft lights, dreamy music, scented oil. Everything was normal while she did my back, and I was zoned-out relaxed and nearly asleep, as is the goal. After I flipped over, she started out with the normal stuff done from the front (We included feet and fronts of legs, upper pecs and abdomen, face, ears, neck, and scalp). I'm not sure whether I was almost totally asleep or actually asleep, also normal during a massage session, but suddenly I started back to awareness realizing that at some point she had moved from proper pectoral massage to running her flat, oiled hands over my nipples, which is not a legitimate therapeutic massage technique, and I had an erection tenting the towel. I sat up very suddenly and made an excuse that I had to go to the bathroom, then used cold water to eventually get rid of the unwanted erection. The long disappearance into the bathroom was embarrassing, though not nearly as much as the erection which she must have seen.

I didn't come to grips at first with the idea that she was ignoring my stated boundaries and attempting to initiate sex. On coming out of the bathroom, I explained that in the future, she should stay away from the nipples, as that could be misinterpreted as sexual, etc. She thanked me for the information. She finished the massage but I didn't close my eyes again. I brought it up again before I left. After I left and had time to think it over I stopped thinking it was some kind of mistake.

Now, much as I'd prefer things to be gender-blind, this was an entirely different experience for me than it would have been for her were the roles reversed. Well I wouldn't have DONE it, but setting that aside for now. I had 85 pounds of muscle on her. I did not feel threatened at all. At no point did it enter my mind that I might have trouble stopping her if she chose to keep going. I was only the tiniest bit disturbed by her actions, but I was quite a bit flattered. Thinking about it at the time, I realized that fundamental difference. If the roles had been reversed, and I had made some kind of sexual move on her during a session, and she had asked me to stop, and I hadn't, she would have been in real trouble. It'd be a really scary thought, even if in that scenario I had stopped. After all, it occurred after I'd already made my nonconsent clear in general terms.

Since the roles were the way they were, we stayed massage buddies throughout the class. I never relaxed the same way, though.

I don't think this woman intended any disrespect to me at all; our other interactions showed that. And I don't know exactly where she was going with this. Perhaps she intended to give me a "release" and thought that didn't really count as sex. Perhaps she had picked up that I didn't want a relationship but the idea of a guy who would turn down no-strings sex was so outlandish to her that she didn't get me saying it. Besides failing to come to grips with it immediately, some of my other reactions were typical. Self-doubt; maybe I had misremembered being explicit about nonsexual massage and only talked about relationships. And guilt; I felt a bit bad that I had apparently misled and disappointed her.

I wonder if it ever occurs that guys raised with no notions of chivalry imagine how they would feel flattered in such a scenario and while legitimately trying to understand a girl's feelings commit such an offense? When I've read such accounts, and the offense is forgiven, the guy always turns out to have been a real creep using it to push her boundaries. Is that because the published accounts are warnings, or does every guy pick up enough genuine politeness to know better in that way? This is important because if every guy doesn't know better, some education efforts are misaimed; if they only talk about respecting women, and some men are trying and failing to put themselves in women's shoes and genuinely think their offense is a respectful compliment, those men are being missed.

UPDATE: What happens if the woman is a lot stronger than the man? That does happen. Presumably both of them are used to the social norms requiring men to be more careful of such an offense. Is she just as guilty as a man would be, or partially excused because she's never analysed the reasons?

Giving and Mutuality

This reads a bit like a "poor me, give me sympathy" post. I don't mean it that way. Writing my problems down for the Web forces me to face them head-on; I can't be sloppy in my thinking or gloss over things. And conceivably, it could provide insight to someone else.

I am extremely giving sexually. I would absolutely prefer to give cunnilingus and get nothing than get a blowjob and give nothing, and I'm not saying I THINK I'd like that, I gave unreciprocated cunnilingus about twice a week for eight years. The chain of thought was started by Holly mentioning her fetish for serving fetishes, something I share. And to some extent that fetish increases when the service is more pronounced. For example, the idea of being penetrated in the ass is very unappealing in and of itself, but I have a never-realized fantasy to be fucked up the ass with a strap-on by a woman for whom that is a big fetish.

The good points of that are obvious. I care enormously about my partner's orgasm and overall experience. In me, though, there are a lot of bad points stemming from the same root. Like a tree with bad and good fruit.

One of the reasons I'm so giving sexually is that my version of the masculine self-image requires giving sexual pleasure. If she doesn't have a good time and a good orgasm, then I am a failure as a man. And it's pretty much always a bad thing to attach self-image to other's reactions. No one is actually in control of their partner's pleasure. That can make me feel bad about myself due to factors totally beyond my control; she isn't feeling well, she had a bad week, something I said that was perfectly fine in general brought up a bad memory specific to her, etc. Instead I should take pride in trying hard and honestly and intelligently to make it good for her, not whether it worked; when it doesn't work it's an opportunity to learn, not a failure.

As well as trying to correct that my self-image depends on her pleasure, I try not to show that it so depends. But a long-time partner picks up on those things. It puts pressure on her to enjoy it, which is a very bad thing for enjoying it. I don't think it's too serious a problem in my case, I think if it doesn't work out I hide my sense of failure well. And I'm not too proud to do something different, e.g. switch to a vibrator if today my tongue only got her hot and isn't getting her all the way off.

What is serious is that my hangup results in trouble appreciating any kind of normal, mutual sex. I like an exchange, one at a time; handjob then fingering, cunnilingus then blowjob. When it's mutual and simultaneous, like in penis-in-vagina or a 69, my own pleasure and sensation is an annoying obstacle interfering with the goal of getting her off. I fight it and resent it. And this forms a vicious cycle with two positive feedback mechanisms ("positive feedback" means "ever-increasing" not "good" here):

1) I avoid penis-in-vagina sex. One of my favorite kinks is footjobs for related but not so problematic giving reasons (which I think I explained pretty well in this erotic story). But if you've effectively trained yourself to get off when handled by the rough skin on the balls of normal, unpedicured, unlubed feet, then rarely-encountered hot, wet pussy feels dramatically different. It means a premature ejaculation problem. Which makes me avoid it more. Which increases the problem.

2) Subconsciously the resentment of the pleasure seems to exacerbate the PE problem. Somewhere down in my brain where things no longer answer to my conscious mind, something says "Let's get this OVER WITH and just CUM." Did you know an orgasm can be a bad thing that you dislike? It's hard to see it on my face or hear it in my breathing when I cum before she does. I just feel like my body's betraying me. I might as well be peeing my pants a little bit. (In contrast to other orgasms, where I make it as clear as possible how happy she's made me). Again, the PE increases the resentment, which increases the problem.

The problem is exaggerated in my head; with fingers or a vibrator, PE is not that disastrous. Or cunnilingus: though the right condom would be required. Spermicidal lube tastes revolting and I've had a vasectomy anyway so no spermicide is needed. Before I mention the next bit I should point out that every time I say "partner" I really mean "wife intended to be the only one forever", so people don't think I'm talking unsafe sex: eating creampie is one of those service fetish things where I'm grossed out for it's own sake and she'd have to get off on it for me to get off on doing it.

Similar psychology might not produce any problems for a woman; getting a guy off using p-in-v is not exactly known for trickiness, and if she orgasms before he does, it's not necessarily a problem at all.

I tried desensitizing condoms and I love them because I can't feel a thing, as in, my cock was so numb I couldn't feel pinching the skin with my nails at all. Great! It's like having an inanimate, unfeeling, plastic dildo attached to my hips! Score! Except a dildo is mostly supposed to be a substitute for a penis, not the other way around. A solution based on making my penis act like a dildo is not a real solution.

I think a kink that enables me to enjoy more things is generally wonderful, and one that enables me to enjoy things just because my partner does is even better. One that prevents me from enjoying normal things is not. My challenge is to keep the good aspects while losing the bad; alter the root of the tree so it only bears good fruit. And to do that I have to understand the root. So part of the root is another two-faced issue; I learn easily, but tend to take hyperbolic lessons literally and too far. While learning to solder pipe I was told that you can't overheat it; they said that because the most common problem is underheating it. I overheated it every time and the solder would bead and run off instead of coating the pipe and being sucked into the joint as it should.

One of the most common problems in sex is that the woman doesn't get to orgasm. See where this is going? Everything in an instructional vein except Cosmo talks about how to make it better for the woman, and Cosmo tells you to take the man's penis in both hands and give it Indian burn so Cosmo doesn't count anyway. (That's not actually true, there's lots of "how to give a blowjob" lessons, etc., but I didn't read them because I don't have much interest in knowing so they're irrelevant here.) Earlier in the process of writing this and figuring things out, I recited to myself the sentence, "My pleasure is as important as hers," and reacted to it like someone external was talking to me in a crazy moon language.

So, I think my first steps are these: While not forgetting that her pleasure is no LESS important, work on accepting that it's no MORE important. Incorporate that consciously into my fantasies. Try to add penis-in-vagina back into my fantasies. And on more physical terms, use a warmed, lubricated Fleshlight.

Absence of Mind

A friend of mine came over to cut my hair today. It's really easy to cut because I wear it in a ponytail; just cut the bottom off straight and you're done. We were chatting afterwards and during a long and pleasant chat I got a call from my mother wondering why I wasn't at the important family party that was taking place right then, an hour and a half away. Urg, and I thought about that a dozen times this week.

However, correct me once about insect's breathing apparatus being "spiracles" not "spicules" and I'll never make that mistake again. My mind works interestingly but very inconveniently.

My formerly impeccable spelling has been falling off though. I think I'm reading too much on the internet and not enough Tolkien and Lovecraft and C.S. Lewis.

Sexual assault illustrated for the less empathetic? Or not?

Popular Guy is a good friend of Unpopular Guy. At a fairly wild party, Popular Guy convinces A Girl to have sex with him. They do it in the same room as Unpopular Guy. With A Girl drunk and not clear on what's happening, Popular Guy convinces Unpopular Guy that it'll be fine if he takes a turn. Unpopular Guy knows penis-in-vagina is wrong but handles her genitals.

A Girl has been sexually assaulted by Unpopular Guy with Popular Guy as an accessory. A Girl is likely not to say anything out of embarrassment. Popular and Unpopular Guy probably don't see this as having been a crime, and may even brag about it.

Now what's weird is that I just read a similar story, claimed to be true, on Literotica. Popular Guy tells the story, and is amused by the horrified expression on A Girl's face when she notices what happened.

Except A Girl (Aaron) is a man, Popular Guy (Venus) is a girl, and Unpopular Guy (Jay) is unattractive to A Girl (Aaron) because Jay's a gay man.

The story is here.

Reading this I wasn't as horrified for Aaron as I might be, because it's a story bragging about sex, which proclaims itself true, on the Internet. I don't have all that much fear that it is true. Instead I read this and thought, "what a perfect illustration of a sexual assault scenario with the genders twisted around." The perps who don't realize they did anything wrong, stretching the victim's boundaries before the attack, the horrified victim too ashamed to speak up. If men didn't get it when a woman was the victim, I thought, this story would make it clear.

Except the commenters don't seem to notice anything wrong with the story, they are all approving. I don't know what to think. Am I seeing this all wrong somehow?

First post: first draft of a story

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.