Jump to content

sweetshyquiet

Registered
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

Community Reputation

15 Good

About sweetshyquiet

  • Rank
    Contributor

Personal Info

  • Relationship Status
    M. Female
  • Location
    my navel
  1. Intuition897 nailed it. If you don't let people know up front what your playstyles are, you can't be too surprised that they aren't able to read your mind when you get in the heat of the play situation. For me, I would never accept an invitation for a playdate to someone's house until I knew them well enough to be that familiar, therefore I wouldn't at all be surprised if the other husband or wife were kissing and touching me from the minute I stepped in or out of the house. My styles are different from yours, in that regard. There were lots of comments in your posts about "why didn't he this" or "we think he should have that," but the bottom line is that you and your wife are the ones with the responsibility for communicating what you expect and will tolerate. It's not reasonable to hope that other couples can read your mind and then magically have the exact same preferences you do. Now, I do think that the guy from your 2nd couple was too pushy.... but I also wonder why, if you were having a bad vibe or if he was doing something that made her feel uncomfortable... why neither of you spoke up, and why you not only didn't stop him and clear things up right then, but allowed it continue all night long? All in all, my advice would be more communication with the other couples on the front end, before play.... and then, more assertiveness and respect for your own boundaries when you find yourselves in situations that are awkward or weird.
  2. What I have done, I don't have to go around bragging about on a swingers' message board to try and establish some sort of "cred." Walking the walk means living it every single day and calling out racism thinly veiled and masquerading as "science" or "religion" or "voting rights" or whatever. Talking the talk means deluding oneself into believing that the right to share any idea freely somehow precludes me from calling that idea chickenshit. Uomo, when you want to start citing authoritative sources to back up the statistics you keep spewing to somehow legitimize your argument, I might start paying attention to you again. Till then, you're just a racist. I don't have a problem with someone who doesn't want to have sex with someone outside his or her race, nor do I have a problem with the expression of that preference. I have a problem with someone who says that sleeping with someone outside his race is more likely to give him AIDS. Ignorance is such a turn-off.
  3. Actually, it totally, completely is. Dressing it up in fancy lawyerly words like "reasonable fear" or "risk-based assessment," and equating sleeping with any black person to sleeping with a woman who has slept with a man who has slept with another man (WOW, a bigot's double-whammy!) doesn't actually make it anything but racial prejudice. As for your attempt to sound quite official and smart with that not-really-a-statistic "AIDS in the black community" bit? Chew on this: there were MORE cases of AIDS reported among white people in America than black people, in the 2003 CDC report (the last, best data compilation by the nation's preeminent health organization). And while we're talking health facts and how they play into your sketchy logic, 1 in 5 American adults have genital herpes. 45 million people. Women are 25% more likely to get it than men. Are you going to stop sleeping with women? Uomo, I was in the camp of "good for him for sticking it out" after your conspicuous and questionable debut here. Consider that respect gone. At least the people on the profile in question had the balls to put their bigotry right up front in all caps; hiding it behind pseudo-intellectual health "facts" is just chickenshit. It's not playing the devil's advocate that's unpopular...
  4. For me, there's a vast difference between and I think the latter is fine and the former is rude. To me, there's never any excuse to not be at least polite. It's totally possible to be polite and brief. But... it occurred to me that I think the venue matters too. If this is a house party of 10 people, courtesy is even more key. If it's a nightclub of 300, it's easier to get away with shorter interaction. Regardless, I think that it's just not that hard to communicate with one's body language and tone, "No, we aren't physically attracted to you but it is actually nice to meet you, and we can take 30 seconds to politely acknowledge your existence." I also know that I am trigger-happy when it comes to nice manners though. More manners make the world a nicer place.
  5. This whole post makes me sad. It's just as wrong to assume that all pretty people have terrible personalities and that all average people all have great personalities... ...as it is to assume that older couples are all cheesy mulleted hot-tub rompers and younger couples are all drama-filled newbies who can't possibly be secure in their marriage, and single men are all just about to rape someone, and all black men have 13-inch cocks and swingers with kids must be boring and... is the point getting made yet? Stereotyping is stereotyping. Being the victim of stereotyping is not permission to start perpetrating it on others. Mr. SSQ and I are a straight-up Mr/Mrs. Average-Looking. We have played with every single type on the attractiveness spectrum. There are great people, and there are assholes, in every category. Ken and Barbie do not have the lock on arrogance, elitism, or ignorance, and I'll tell you that for free. lcjtsd, I don't mean to sound dickish, I really don't -- but this: ...is a perfect example of my statement that K&B don't have a lock on elitism. I don't see why it's acceptable to imply that your preferences (i.e. which do not include looks) are somehow better or more noble or more "important" than someone else's which happen to be based on looks. At the end of the day, this is all about sex. What turns one person on isn't always what turns on another. For me? it's a big fat brain, and confidence + charm, and that ain't nothin' you can get just by going to a gym. Work those and you can pretty much be Quasimodo, as far as I care. But I respect that other people care more for rock-hard abs and a porn-star ass. Different strokes, you know? But I don't look smugly at those who do filter for rock-hard abs and a porn-star ass. I wish them luck. Thank heavens there are enough swingers in the world that they can have what they want and I can have what I want. (end rant, sorry) Now, to change sides: The two problems I have had with Ken & Barbie types are -- 1. Having preferences is fine, snubbing is not. When beautiful people literally cannot have a conversation at a party or a club because they are actively snubbing anyone who isn't equally as beautiful, then they are ruining the atmosphere for me. It's a junior-high behavior borne out of a lack of self-esteem, which is quite unattractive... but worse, it's what turns perfectly nice venues into meat markets. edited to clarify after Spoo's cross-post: I don't presume that any K&B who aren't socializing must be snubbing. I mean, you join a group, say hi to your friends, introduce yourselves to the new couple, they both give a blatant visual onceover on your physique, and then are immediately looking to meet someone else, can barely even get out "nicetomeetyou" before their eyes are roaming for someone hotter. It's happened to us and I see it happen at parties/clubs all the time. I find it quite sad. 2. Focusing on looks to the exclusion of any other trait almost always indicates an underlying conceit that will manifest in jealousy issues, popularity contests, and materialism. That's been my experience 100% of the time. So, people who care about looks but don't care about intelligence are always going to be a no for us. But, I can freely say that it doesn't make them bad people... just not my type.
  6. Technically, adultery is defined as a married person having voluntary sex with someone who isn't their spouse. So, by that line, lots of us are committing adultery. But, intuition897, I agree with your core point -- which I'm taking to be that Uomo is trying to dress up a pig (cheating) in a prom dress (it's "special", "meaningful," it's romantic, an implied better or more evolved relationship, etc.). But after it all, it's still just a pig.
  7. Sex in the lifestyle doesn't have to be "meaningless" (but I'd suggest you start to acknowledge that what constitutes "meaning" is different for everyone). But in case you haven't figured it out yet, you're looking for the lovey-dovey romantic intimacy-type sex in the wrong place. All the labels are tricky, and it's all user-defined and there isn't a big official dictionary somewhere... but people in the lifestyle that are set up to have the sort of thing you are looking for are more likely to identify themselves as polyamorous or part of an open marriage. Whereas, healthy people who identify themselves as swingers are looking for extracurricular sex without the emotional intimacy. They get all the romance they want at home. In my experience, they prefer to play together, and the "divide and conquer" vision you seem to harbor is going to be an outright turn-off or affront, as many responses you've already received would seem to corroborate. It's not that what you are looking for doesn't exist. It's that you're going about it with too little information and in the wrong places.
  8. Uomo, I don't see where someone disagreeing with your choice of action equals a philosophical hang-up. Maybe that's just me though. I for one don't care one way or the other, and will happily offer my input. I have some thoughts about your request, though, that I suspect you won't like either. You mean, you and 99% of all men on the planet? I mean, seriously, a man looking to get laid by a hot girl with no strings attached? If you don't find what you are looking for here, there are one million other forums where men of all ages, lifestyles and experience levels are sitting around talking about this very thing. Further, I think if there were one easy answer, we'd be short about 2/3 of the sitcoms, movies and pop songs out there. Drama-free casual sex is just not as easy to come by as you seem to think. What type of woman? A woman who is interested in drama-free, casual sex. It's not about an education level, age range, marital status or beverage preference. How a woman (or a man, for that matter) is wired to want sex is unique as a fingerprint. There isn't a secret code to unlock to find the location of the easy girls who won't bug you for a relationship... and if there was, see above, re millions of other men looking for the same secret code. (so if you find it, sell it and start taking money baths) You seem to be operating under a lot of generalities and misconceptions. I think that before you decide to go out and have this affair, you should learn more about how people think about sex and love. And, here's my final tough-love offering: Before I got married, I was your dream girl: single, selective, and interested in no-strings sex with the right type of guy. (and for what it's worth, I still preferred long-term relationships within that parameter, because one-night stands and one-offs don't allow for any sort of connection to build, even if there's not a traditional dating relationship in the picture.) I had figured out that sex and love could be separate, and that "friends with special privileges" made a perfect resource to take care of my physical needs on one side, while allowing me to still make good emotional choices as I navigated the crazy world of dating. And I wouldn't have touched you with a ten-foot-pole. Ph.D., "highly-attractive" or not. Know why? Because I had the choice of not dealing with the potential drama that you had to offer, as a cheater. When I had the option of the aforementioned million single guys to choose from, I just didn't have to bother with married men -- with whom I had to be the Other Woman, or the potential cause of a divorce, or risk crazy phone calls from a furious wife, etc. In other words, you are looking for a girl who wants no strings -- but you yourself bring the biggest, most complicated, most drama-filled string to the table. You should think honestly about what you have to offer that supercedes that complication.
  9. I screen for "too big" for this very reason, because I'm a fan of that... and I'm not willing to spend time with someone that can't be full-service. And, we're also looking for a third for DP and it's the same story -- X amount of total space and Y amount of material to put in said space isn't going to compute with some monstro-wang in the picture. Not unless I want to leave on a stretcher. A large endowment is fun on occasion from a novelty perspective, but I would happily take "average" for the daily diet, because it's just so much more versatile. So, just another vote for "sure, size does matter: both ways."
  10. 610. I agree that there were a lot more questions that could have been asked that define "kinky"....
×
×
  • Create New...