Hm. I think we’re mostly reaching the same conclusions, just approaching it from different…
Aura Wilming

Hm. I think we’re mostly reaching the same conclusions, just approaching it from different directions.

I was thinking we kinda sorta might be maybe … but I prefer the clarity of explicit communication to the hurt feelings of assumption.

Personally, I don’t think I could appreciate the self-control it takes to keep the beast in check if I couldn’t admire the raw power of the beast itself.

I think I get where you’re coming from but I’m not sure that admiration is what I feel for the beast so much as respect — I can respect the cold logic of choosing ‘hired killer’ as a career without admiring the person who does so.

You’re right that the raw beast isn’t appealing but then, pure intellect without beast wouldn’t be very appealing either. I’ve encountered a couple of intelligent people who gave off that “would never harm a fly”energy, and they are boring as hell.


There was this young woman I knew once.

I had nothing against her … she was a perfectly nice person. In some ways she was an admirable human being: a pacifist, accepting of every creed/faith/philosophy … you name it she was open minded about it and rigorously non-judgmental.

But, because she never took offence, let alone got angry, at anyone or anything there was no fire in her … no passion — she was devoid of any semblance of personality.

It reached the stage where I contemplated having sex with her just so I could find out what it felt like to be a pervert … like fucking a replicant … or a retarded child … literally fucking the meat, not the person — because whilst the lights were on there didn’t appear to be anybody home.

Also, the mind over matter examples you bring up are very much the higher mind guiding the power of the beast.

Keeping it on a leash, so to speak, yes — although it requires rather more than a mere leash, but you take my point.

Unless you meant you were lifting the truck off the baby with a lever or something, it will be the hormone fueled fight instinct that will allow you to move the thing.

No, no lever — there are recorded instances of it actually … an Italian grandmother rescuing her grandchild from under a truck, if I recall.

If I remember correctly, there’s a recorded instance of an eighty-year-old Italian grandmother — what is with old Italian women? — defending her grandchild from a mauling by an escaped circus lion … and the lion having to be taken to the vet for surgery afterwards.

Um, “make them feel cheap”is quite a leap. There’s nothing appealing about that and using has noting to do with it.

It’s from a T-shirt I saw a louche looking guy wearing in a very louche bar in Germany a number of years ago, bearing the legend “Use me. Abuse me. Make me feel cheap.”

I got the impression he might’ve been a masochist and simultaneously advertising that fact whilst poking fun at himself and others like him.

I use it as a shorthand to run the gamut from ‘use me’ in a jokey manner through to hardcore BDSM fetishists.

There’s only one thing as unsatisfying than a lover who only takes, and that’s a lover who only gives. Give and take, and mister “that good in bed”…you know that, don’t you?

I do indeed — I did say, after all, that of course I would give myself to her as she did to me … that “I wouldn’t want her to feel that she does not have as much a hold over me and my heart as I do over her … wouldn’t want her to feel in any way inadequate or less than wholly and utterly loved and desired with every fibre of my being” (even if I have to fake it).

So, in answer to your question, yes … I’m not just that good in bed … I’m THAT good in bed too — just the way you like it ;-P

Well anytime you take, you’re using. Using with consent and using in a way your lover enjoys, but still using.

If you accept a gift from me are you taking from me or accepting from me?

The difference is subtle but significant.

If I pleasure my partner she is not using me, she is giving herself to me so that I may take pleasure in my giving her pleasure and in her giving herself over to it and me.

And the same holds true the other way around (no pun intended).

I give, she accepts and, in doing so, gives more to me than I give to her.

She gives, I accept and … well, actually, I always feel that I’m getting the better end of the deal either way around but you get the point.

So this “doesn’t appeal to me” is dishonest. Of course it does, and you’ve repeatedly said as much. You’d probably use a different word, but we’re not arguing semantics here ;)

No, it really doesn’t … I don’t use you or your body, I enjoy you and your body.

Again, the difference may be subtle but it is there.

And yes, I’m arguing semantics here (thankyou for noticing :D )… that’s the point. Each word we use means something different — if it didn’t we wouldn’t have two (or more) different words, we’d only have one.

What’s the abuse about?

See above.

Abuse should not be in any sort of relationship. When it does appear the relationship is toxic and should be brought to an end. (I’m aware that often takes much more work than it should) Abuse is never appealing.

Sadly, I’ve been in far too many such relationships myself and … to my shame … repeated, prolonged Stockholm Syndrome made me a codependent with an anxious attachment style— after a few years, I even ended up being abusive myself without even realising it.

I’ve (hopefully) weaned myself off that dynamic now but, no, you’re right … it takes a lot more work to end a toxic relationship than it should — from both sides of the equation.

And at least as much, if not more, to end the dynamic of choosing/allowing further abusive relationships subsequently.

Since we’re not-arguing-semantics,

Aren’t we?

What do you mean by semantics then?

Okay … joking aside, that is also a serious question — semantics and pragmatics are what it’s all about.

I have to disagree with you on the idea gentlemen are per definition subordinate or children.

I was focusing on the *smirk* and referring back to the inbred, English Public School bed-wetting perverts.

They are children.

And no gentlemen.

In fact I feel those who can’t or refuse to move through society by keeping to the basic rules of that society, are the children. We are social animals after all. Keeping to social scripts is a basic survival skill every individual should possess to function within that society. Being rude or antisocial isn’t sexy. That’s simply throwing a tantrum.

You won’t get any argument from me there … albeit I might quibble about which of Society’s rules I consider worthy of my attention and which I can cheerfully ignore as nonsensical at best, oppressive at worst — it’s all a matter of perspective.

Okay, so, you would in fact get argument from me there after all — whould’a thought, eh?

Wow, this has come a long way from your Choose Your Own Asylum piece!

A long way.

‘Off Topic’ is right!


One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.