MightyPen

It all depends on a lot of factors, including: is the roleplaying whimsical, or part of a deep-seated fantasy? In that second case, staying in the role for an extended period is key to making the encounter work well. Roleplaying has a lot in common with, say, fetishes for particular clothes. Whether it's "be person X" or "wear object X", it's about X having some particular pull on the undercurrents of someone's sexuality. Other times, mind you, it's just a brief dalliance as you describe and the scene just happens to tug at an everyday conceptual string tied to a sexual idea. I really love how many "X"es there are out there for different people, and exploring what exactly gives these Xes the power they have.

Hey! Thanks for the replies all. Schoolgirl and Maid: yup, classic. The schoolgirl role breaks down further into to versions: "naughty" (highly experienced) and "nice" (total innocent). These both play up men's power and flatter our egos. Neither one of these fantasy women is going to challenge you; the schoolgirl 'cause she's young, and the maid because she's subservient. The guy gets to Be In Charge. And they're both forbidden fruit; the schoolgirl for her age and presumed innocence, and the maid because she's your employee. And the maid is a constant temptations because she's always right there, inside your home...

Yeah. I guess mom/daughter stuff has some fantasy value on the odd day (transgressing taboos! yay!). But on a practical level... I suppose it's a little easier to grasp if they're both just approaching it as a job, the sex part is a simple chore, and they're also looking out for each other. And they have a super-open, very comfortable relationship. Contrast that with a mom and daughter both dating the same guy and they were all in bed at the same time. That would be... more complicated. EDIT: Yeah, reading the article I see "the money was good" twice in the first paragraph of the interview. On the other hand, the daughter mentions that she and her mom once shared a guy in real life. Maybe that's true or maybe she's posturing for the interview and their... uh.. fans. I can't say she sounds deeply reflective about all this, but neither does she sound messed up. On the other hand, that last story about one film they did: "No, we weren't fucked, we were just killed. It was weird, you know?" ... leaps out to me as a case of the women not fully understanding the situations they're getting involved in. Same with the "yeah, they were supposed to take [a rule-breaking] scene out" -- but they didn't. That's a power problem, and a suggests a degree of exploitation. These last parts make me sad for the mom and daughter.

Yup, dirty talk and taboo words are super-sexy in the right circumstances. In addition to sudden exclamations, I sometimes build up to it on purpose... During peaceful lulls in our play, I'll sometimes start telling my partner a little story whose language and subject matter grow steadily more explicit. It usually starts out a little over a whisper. If I've done it right, crafting and nudging the story based on what she respond to the most, I need to raise my voice toward the end so she can hear me over the other noises. :) Words and images are powerful sexual triggers.

Hee hee... well, that went nowhere fast. Ah, well. A little background: I was talking with a woman who had a friend in her 50s who still thought "sexy" consisted exclusively of tiny skirts and towering heels. We talked about the different sexual images and roles available to women, some of which they had to grow into as they matured. And we tried out hand at describing them in enough detail that someone who started out with no awareness or understanding of the role whatsoever, might be able to grasp what the image was about and why it was sexy. Sort of a "guide to successful role-playing": what would a woman unfamiliar with a fantasy female role need to know, in order to play the role successfully? We covered a lot of bases and some common, and uncommon, roles and images. Fascinating stuff.

I think Miss Jane was clear in her other thread that this is actually her point. She knows of people who do think acts are categorical and can refute a person's otherwise-held identity when the two conflict, and she's prompting a discussion of why people feel one way or another on the issue. One of the byproducts of this conversation is to present an alternative view to those who are hung up on the labels and categories. So I think it's a useful discussion to have. So far it looks widely believed here that simple acts don't by themselves automatically imprison people in little identity boxes. We're a bit of a skewed sample here on CERB, but for me it's nice to see.

It really is the same question as the previous one, though I'll grant you this one's asked less often. We could continue seamlessly into non-sexual realms too: - can you visit Mexico and still be Canadian? - if you once ate Chicken Parmesan, can you still be vegan? (1) The general form for all of these is "what does it mean when an act contradicts a conventional identity"; or more simply, "is identity absolute?" Identities are over-rated and we contradict ourselves all the time. Don't think in boxes. One of my favourite sayings: "Life is a collection of short stories pretending to be a novel." We're all different people at different times and points in our lives. Everything human is complicated. Don't be absolute and categorical, because it will make you recoil needlessly from some of the best adventures. (1) Yes, that's right, I just re-watched Scott Pilgrim vs the World on the weekend. Those Vegan Police are seriously absolute.

Another vote here for A Christmas Carol with Alastair Sim. I've watch this every.singe.Christmas.eve for the last 20 years. If somehow you've missed it: Scrooge My own personal favourite little beats in the movie: Scrooge in a restaurant: "Waiter! More bread." Waiter: "It's a ha'penny more, sir." (Scrooge weighs his options; then, brusquely: ) "No more bread." Marley's ghost at 18:49: (slowly with theatrical sorrow: ) "Look to see me... no more." (limps slowly away to the window. Pauses. Then, turns and shrieks completely over the top: ) "BUT LOOK HERE!!!!!" (points to sad scene out the window) Crew member visible in a mirror as Reformed Scrooge looks into it. Reformed Scrooge rummages in a drawer: "label-label-label-label" And others. I'm chuckling as I write. I also watch "It's a Wonderful Life" most years, but not as obsessively for some reason.

After a conversation with a lady on Friday night on this subject, I'd like to pursue a topic with the CERB community: What are some classic sexual images/roles for women and men, and what is it about them exactly that makes them intriguing? I'll approach it from a guy's point of view first, but the floor is open. Some of these are tired clichés at first glance, but while most of us will recognize them, it can tricky to put their allure into words. I'm curious about how both men and women perceive the sexual allure associated with these roles and their nature, and also from those who find their appeal completely mystifying. I'll start with a couple of my recurring favourites: a) Sexy Librarian So we have: classy appearance, brainy, and repressed. She's a woman of "quality" -- smart and capable, a worthy "conquest" -- but the guy gets to be her pathway to sexual fulfillment, where she'll demonstrate a whole new level of diligence and enthusiasm. The allure for the guy is "she's virginal" and along with that, "I get to be the powerful key to her fulfillment". Anything else? b) Lady of the Manor Okay, little secret, this has always been my personal favourite. These days "sexy business woman" has most of these qualities too, but I'm still a sucker for the old traditional version. :) She's the mature, well-appointed, perfectly-groomed lady of a country estate. Impeccably dressed, her clothes are feminine and tastefully sexual, though there might be something quite naughty underneath when the first layers come off. She is in charge (but not necessarily domineering), and when she chooses to reveal it intensely sexual. She's a lot like the librarian after she's come into her full powers -- a woman of great quality, adorned in all the trappings of success (wealth, great taste, fully aware of her sexual power). The allure for the guy is "she's the pinnacle of society-favoured womanhood without being confined by it", so she's worthy in every way of the man's attention and efforts; in fact, if she'll deign to "play" with him, it's a mark of great male success. She'll be an enthusiastic and experienced equal for everything he had in mind. These are fun roles to play with. As grown-ups most guys know better than to confine women to these roles, but at the same time these roles still embody some of those genuine and mysterious things that make the other gender uniquely sexually potent and appealing. And I think that makes them recurring candidates for sexy role-playing in some client/SP sessions. Anyone care to comment or continue the list? Women who prefer can contribute matching guy cliché roles (sweaty construction worker! business magnate! guy in uniform!) and comment on what specific aspects of male appeal they embody for you.

Whoops - I got caught by surprise by the character display limit. My full comment was: "Completely agree. The client is expected to know that your slightest refusal is an unquestionable verdict. This was ALL on him." I don't agree at all with the idea that "you weren't clear or stern enough". You used your best judgement at the time and in the midst of the real situation.

Arrrgh, I hate this on so many levels. Because it's saying: a) "How was I to know you were serious when you said "no"? I mean sure you said "no", but I didn't know I was actually required to listen to you." b) "It's one thing when your will is the issue; but when it's my money at stake then whoa, that's serious! You should have warned me it could affect my money." I could go on. Grrrr. So yeah, two problems here. First one is guys whispering "hey, she'll do X!" and the second is guys who pursue their desire for X without reference to your stated position about it. This is one of the fundamental and scariest risks whose threat is always hanging over these transactions, and it's every client's absolute first duty to be very, very careful not to step over that line. So sorry you had to go through this.

Hey there many-xes. :) A few points: (1) Labels. I really do see that you want to apply these labels not to inflict stigma or judgement, but because you simply feel they're accurate. I don't fault your motives, but do be careful; human experience is more complicated than dictionaries allow for. Plus, dictionaries are inherently limited, and the definitions they provide brief and superficial. I promise that if you consult professional sex researchers, they'll provide a much more complicated and nuanced set of definitions than the everyman's dictionary does. (2) Asexuality. Asexuality really is how quite a number of human beings are wired and live their lives. They're not sexually attracted to EITHER gender (but this doesn't preclude their full enjoyment of familiar, non-sexual intimacy). This has left them confused and sometimes ashamed, but more recently there's been some awareness and understanding emerging. Here's just one link on the subject from the excellent column of Andrew Sullivan (whose The Dish is awesome and I read every day): The Dish: Asexuality (one of many) (3) Complicated gender. I don't think you have accounted for the case I presented: a beautiful TG woman who still has male equipment. The genes say "male", so does the equipment. But everything else -- appearance, dress, mannerism, other body parts and proportions -- say female. Which is it? And why did you choose your answer? I'd have no trouble declaring myself gay if I thought that was the case. Whatever my nature is, I'll embrace it, revel in it (responsibly), and be proud. But for me, a cock attached to someone masculine has no sexual appeal at all; in fact, the idea is kind of repellent. (I actually consider that an unfortunate limitation on my part, but it's there and undeniable.) On the other hand, a cock on a pretty TG woman is a lot like a strapon worn by a sexy woman, but far far better because it actually works and the owner can feel what I'm doing to it. So how do we address these cases? Cock-equipped TG? Strapon-wearing woman? Which is male and which is female? And why? Last point: if you prefer to resort to genetics for the answer to those questions, then what if a guy receives awesome oral sex from a beautiful TG woman, and never finds out that she was genetically male? Was it still gay if I didn't know my partner was (in some respects) male? Why, or why not? If only genes and the fact that the partner had a cock made my sex with that partner "gay", then how can my knowledge, or lack of it, change that status? And yet, how can it NOT matter? See, it's what we perceive that defines us and our actions. Not what other people say, or a genetic test, or a dictionary. The disconnect in the latter case isn't on the part of the actors; it's the fault of the dictionary.

Very cool! I'm jumping on board (ha, ha) the book club this time. I'll be cheating a bit because I just saw the movie, but I've got the book at my bedside and I'm now well-motivated to read and consider the original text.

I'll have to respectfully disagree here. The lessons I've taken from my own experience are that sexuality is much, much more complicated than this. Most importantly: although a genetic test could certainly produce an objective, scientific verdict on someone's gender, that's a vastly different thing than that person's functional, sexual identity. Who's male and who's female? And break this down further to: a) what makes a person perceive themselves to be male or female, and b) what makes other people perceive that person to be male or female? And the answers to all of these questions is fluid, because it really is these --perceptions-- that matter most to us and affect our behaviour, and like all perceptions they're totally subjective. Our human minds aren't objectivity machines; our day to day existence is largely subjective, based on how we experience and interpret the world, and this includes our sexual identity and behaviour. There are experts far better versed on this subject than I am, so I won't presume to go into more detail. But to answer the OP's question: a cock is not a guy, and a guy is not a cock. Those things are often bound together into a single joint concept, but sometimes they're not. If I'm playing with the cock of a beautiful transgendered woman, I personally, subjectively, don't perceive that as a gay act; instead, I'm pleasing a wonderful woman who happens to have some fun, different sexual equipment. That said: I have to echo the comments of others by saying "what the hell would it matter?". Who really cares if my acts are gay or straight? They're just mine, and I'm quite happy with me. The pursuit of labels and categories seems designed to facilitate judgement, and that's not something we need any more of when it comes to sex between consenting adults.

Absolutely giving oral is #1 for me, with foreplay second. I've always thought of oral as being closer to the category of main event than off in the periphery of "mere" foreplay. Maybe because it can often lead its winding path all the way to full-on orgasm, whereas I think of foreplay as just those things that help you find your footing on the path in the first place. Giving oral is gentler than intercourse, I have more control and can stay at it a lot longer, and I just love the huge range of reactions from my partner and how they vary in waves from start to finish. And, it's always fun to see where her hands go in various stages of arousal; it's taught me a lot about my partners' unspoken "likes", and I remember those places so I can visit them later. Full-on intercourse has its place for sure, and has its own unique character. But usually for me it just sort of punctuates other, more longer-lasting activities. And maybe half the time that's where things end up for my own "finish". But it's not my favourite part of the play, just the most energetic and intense one, and that's not what occupies most of my time or the part I usually remember the best later on. ;)

Yeah, I remember seeing a documentary a couple of years ago which interviewed a seemingly well-educated, cheerful Israeli woman in her 40s who was pushing a proposal to have Palestine subsumed into a kind of Greater Israel. This would raise the living standard and general prospects of the Palestinians and encourage peaceful interaction, much as I've been describing. Soon they'd be integrated into Israeli society and the problem would disappear. When the interviewer asked her "but what happens when the Palestinians start to assert themselves politically and help shape Israel in ways present-day Israelis might not anticipate?" she looked at him with an uncomprehending half-smile, cocked her head, and said "oh, but of course they wouldn't get to vote." A really chilling moment.

Yeah, as others have pointed out, it's not really productive to base policy today on where populations happened to live in the bronze age. The real-world borders of Israel and Palestine are the result of law and conflicts from the 20th century, so that's where we should start from. You can't trace the responsibilities of governments to ancient eras before their respective modern states were founded. You raise a good point about Canada. We're only on this land on the basis of treaties (which the original inhabitants signed at the point of someone's rifle, ours or someone else's; but signed nonetheless). That too is a sketchy legitimacy, but it's not about to change so we all try to make things work together in the 21st century, rather than re-fighting the battles of the 18th. We also suffered our own bit of second-rate terrorism back in the days of the FLQ, but that ugly seed didn't find welcoming soil even in the politicized Quebec of the 60s. That struggle turned political instead, and after its heyday in the 70s and 80s the pulse of separatism is at a low ebb. There's nationalism, but I don't think anyone is taking Quebec separatism seriously going forward. Mostly, young Québequois just want jobs and they really don't really care, or trust, whoever happens to be in charge. It's much the same with the Irish; their tech boom of the 90s and 00s (now sadly vanished) really helped stabilize things. We need to engineer the same circumstances in the Middle East. But now I think I've just said kind of the same thing three times, only rearranging the words a bit. :)

I think even these old hatreds can be discarded, if the industry of fanning the flames for power and profit can be overcome. At some point every conflict becomes too exhausting for its participants, or at least their descendents. If the Irish could overcome the whole Protestant/Catholic English/Irish divide, so can these people. But particularly on the part of the Palestinians they need an alternative into which they can pour their energies -- come kind of economic improvement, which current conditions preclude. The truly hateful minorities on both sides will always make a lot of noise, but over time they can be marginalized just like homophobes are being in the cultural revolution currently underway in the U.S. Hatred is exhausting, and eventually one generation will decide their ancestors' conflicts don't have to bind them. Education is important here, plus the 'net for open communication and to get past the propaganda wall. But yeah... there are practical hurdles even once there's popular political will to end the conflict. There are some old borders that could be the foundation for coexistence at least. But really, they need some promise of a real economy to give people genuine stake in peace that goes beyond bare subsistence.

Yeah. It hasn't really been about religion for a long time; that's just a cloak for maneuvering by entrenched powers. Both sides have people who make money and secure political power only when the conflict continues. So terrible though the situation is for civilians on both sides, there are power-brokers and fortune-seekers who will keep it going. The ceasefire that almost happened, then didn't, was a perfect example. Each side had a faction that wanted the violence to stop, and a faction that didn't. Only when outside powers entered the stage and made their own backroom maneuvers and applied new pressure, did the two sides agree to stop shooting. Both sides also have wacky fundamentalist factions in their general populations; everyone's got some of those guys. Useful idiots whose irrational hatreds are fanned and exploited by those who want to keep the conflict going. It'll take a deep cultural shift on both sides to finally trump the machinations of their leaders; in particular, young people tiring of their parents' and grandparents' feuds enough to make a change. Strangely I take hope from not just things like the Arab Spring, but the U.S. election and the electorate's embrace of gay marriage and legalized pot. Young people really do outgrow their parent's silly obsessions. The 'net helps by democratizing communication among the rational. Let's hope that can happen more, and soon.

Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!

Hey, thanks very much BR! Though this is a particularly delicate and complicated issue, so I'd lay no claim to being "right", just "convinced". Exactly this. My next piece of advice was going to be to turn the same attention to what exactly she is expecting from the experience of being a parent, and whether those expectations are realistic and likely to bring her joy, or a bit distorted and likely to disappoint her in the end. What does this act really mean to her, and why is she choosing to be a parent, and why in this "me vs the world" way? But I see you're already there, and that's great. I read something the other day along the lines of "there's no greater harm you can do to a child than burdening it with being the sole focus of your existence". The poor thing is a human being who needs to be raised and released to its own independent life, not a flesh-and-bone band-aid for someone's existential crisis. She might have perfectly good reasons, but there are some yellow flags there for me. And you would be inviting them into your own life, and ultimately your own hopes about offspring will be subject to them. This thing might not be what you think it is, and it might not go at all as you'd hoped. And once done, it's there for the rest of your life.

Good on you for asking the question and trying to examine a complicated issue from more than one side. I don't think that asking advice from others implies an insurmountable uncertainty or a clue by itself that you shouldn't proceed; instead it's evidence that you want as much information as possible before deciding. Here's my honest opinion. Your premise is fundamentally flawed. Offspring don't give you immortality; you're going to die just as certainly once your time comes, whether you have kids or not. And even if you do simply thrust your genes into the next generation, the minimal contact in the arrangement you describe means you won't be able to mould the clay you've created into a person that even resembles you in temperament or philosophy. It will be a distant and incomprehensible stranger. On "immortality" and the genetic view: remember that the child will have obtained only half its genes from you. And if the child has offspring those genes will swiftly be watered down repeatedly with each new generation until there's no more of you in the result than there is from the general population of all the rest of humanity. Whatever you try to do here, you are going to die and everything you are will be utterly, irretrievably lost when you do. Having this child will not change that. Humanity will carry on just the same whether you do this thing or not, utterly unaware of, and indifferent to, your genetic contribution. Plus, the whole enterprise will be in the hands of this other person, not you. Regardless of what she says today, her plans and priorities for the future need have nothing to do with yours; once the deed is done, your dream may turn to bitter ashes once she ventures ahead into her own separate life, as does the child with her, both having virtually nothing to do with you. I don't think you'll get what you seek from this arrangement. I think the most important and deeply human thing you've expressed is your strong desire to continue beyond your death, and some regret that you haven't had the children that seemed to hold that promise for you. Rather than enter into this dubious and radical arrangement, I encourage you in the gentlest and most understanding terms, to see a therapist and examine that issue more closely. Achieving that understanding of yourself will give more tangible rewards than hail-mary tossing your genes into the already over-full pool.

No, I don't believe at all in destiny. Stuff just happens, and the stuff we try to make happen sometimes goes well and sometimes goes badly. But I know that "meanings" are the stock-in-trade of our minds, and we're all strongly predisposed to believe that the things that happen to us (or don't) are Meaningful. That's totally cool, and useful, because when you feel strongly that something was Fate that's a source of clues to how your own subconscious really works. Pick up the threads, follow why you feel so strongly that there's meaning behind the event, and you'll learn something about yourself.

Were there ever such days? After age 4, I mean? (And even then there was an agenda -- we just couldn't possibly be aware of it.) I knew very few people who are completely honest, and very few people who are out for themselves and screw everybody else. Just about everyone I know falls somewhere in the middle, and I try to spend time with the more-honest people among them.

Funny, I always thought cock-blocking referred not so much to "he won instead of me!", but other indirect defeats like "her girlfriend interceded and I lost my chance" or "my buddy was an idiot and she walked away from us". But I'm often terrible at knowing this stuff. Yeah, the drives of breaking a taboo and winning a competition are pretty strong and basic. Sex draws so much power from basic psychological undercurrents... I always imagine it like hurricanes, gathering strength over warm, wet air masses at sea. But the sea is your subconscious mind, secret desires, and fundamental beliefs about you, other people, and how the two relate. The weirdest and least-likely stuff can feed our sexual impulses and make them overwhelming. Re. SPs fulfilling the role just fine despite the obvious differences: I don't think our subconscious is terribly bright or discriminating. It deals in symbols and meanings, not facts and logic. The SP is close enough, even if you haven't really seduced her and her husband is okay with what's going on. She's --somebody's wife-- and that's all that matters. We could make a long, long, LONG list of all the things that SPs aren't in real life, but do a very good job of approximating. Our subconscious minds eager co-conspirators in this. I mentioned "treacherous" partly because, yeah, we're talking about adultery and that can be a hot-button issue. But also we're talking analytically about deep motives that drive us sexually. Some folks are turned off sharply by that, like analyzing someone's religion or some other important, fundamental conviction. You never know what response that's going to get. Other people just find it tedious and stop reading. :) Me, I could spend hours and hours on the subject, it intrigues me deeply (and I have plenty of little kinks and yearnings of my own that warrant some deep thought). Also... just to point out... not every client here is married. ;) So visiting an SP isn't always an adulterous act.