Low Testosterone... It's not a joke, it's not hard to fix, and if you don't, it might kill you.

Since yet another friend has had this become a major health issue recently... And unfortunately, so many men still don't have good information about low testosterone, what causes it, and the impact it has...

Just a little primer for those who aren't familiar... It's a bit long, but it's the minimum to explain the problem... And it's important for all mens health.

After ages 18-24, 27, and particularly after age 35, and 45, there are substantial changes in average natural testosterone production levels, with lower shorter peaks in T levels, and longer lower troughs.

There are also changes in the bodies efficiency and effectiveness at taking up and using T in the bloodstream.

At the same time, the body tends to naturally convert more T into undesirable amounts of estrogens and other anti-androgens; as well as producing changing levels of Leutenizing Hormone, Human Growth Hormone, Follicular Simtulating Hormone, DHEA, and other hormones and , which impact general mental wellbeing, energy, focus, motivation and drive, muscle mass and tone, fat creation and retention...

...basically everything about your body, and a hell of a lot about your personality.

The higher your bodyfat is above around 14% (possibly as broad a neutral range as 12%-18%, but it appears that for most, the negative effects begin worsening at around 14%) the more testosterone production and uptake are suppressed, the less effective the body is at using the T it uptakes, and the more T is aromatized into estrogens and other anti-androgens (as well as all the other "good" hormones being reduced, and the "bad" hormones being increased).

Other illnesses such as diabetes and other insulin related issues can dramatically worsen this. As can thyroid issues, pituitary issues, excess cortisol, and other adrenal issues... Pretty much every endocrine disorder.

Also, if you have naturally higher levels of estrogens, for example if you are gynocomastic naturally (as a significant portion of men are, including me), this worsens DRAMATICALLY.

One issue that most don't understand, is that even a small thyroid deficiency... "Within normal range", but on the low end of the range, can HUGELY impact testosterone (and all of the rest of the endocrine system, your health, your energy drive and focus, and your wellbeing... "sub-clinical thyroid deficiency, should be eliminated from doctors vocabularies, because there is no such thing).

Also, what doctors regard as "low normal" levels of Testosterone, are essentially the same as 75 year old men. They are paranoid of the DEA penalizing them for over prescribing Testosterone, and are very reluctant to supplement someone unless they are persistently under 300ng/dl peak, and under 100ng/dl trough.

Testosterone levels this low, subject men to substantial negative health consequences, including dramatic muscle loss, fat gain, cardiac health problems, mental focus and acuity problems, depression (often severe), anxiety, personality changes, sexual dysfunction, sleep pattern disruption, developing or worsening other endocrine linked health problems such as diabetes, and substantially increased risks and severity of several forms of cancer.

These include a 50% or greater increase in the chance of developing aggressive prostate cancer, and several times the chance of developing male breast cancer. In general, low testosterone correlates with at least a 50% increase in risk of a lifespan reduced by at least 10%.

However, that isn't the whole story, by a long shot. One need not be nearly so severely deficient in testosterone to suffer significant negative health impact.

Testosterone levels under 700ng/dl peak, and under 300ng/dl trough, are not considered "low testosterone" by most doctors. In fact, they are considered "normal to high normal" for men over the age of 35.

However, at any age, testosterone levels persistently below 700/300, are low enough to make men depressed and anxious, lethargic and sluggish, lose muscle mass and tone, gain more fat, retain water, gain weight, have significant negative health impacts and complicate and worsen other health issues (as above), and generally feel like crap. This is aside from the common issues of loss of sex drive and desire, and intermittent or persistent sexual dysfunction.

You'll note, these effects are also those that suppress testosterone even further, driving it ever lower, in a vicious spiral.

By the time many doctors are willing to supplement, they have to work 3 or 4 times as hard, to get even above 300/100, never mind 700/300... And then, most are not willing to supplement enough, for most men to stay consistently above 300/100.

You have to insist on enough testosterone, frequently enough, to get your peaks above 700, and lasting at least a few days, and your troughs above 300, and lasting no more than a few days. You can force the issue with testing if necessary.

For most people, after the initial 3 months of supplementation (which may be at a higher level more frequently) that means injecting at least every 3 weeks, and may mean injecting every two weeks, every week, or even more often (though more than once a week after the initial period is rare).

It is also important to note, that once one has actually reached such a low level of testosterone that one is experiencing significant symptoms, or when one has bodyfat above 18% to 20% or so (and particularly above 24% to 28%); transdermal patches and gels are substantially less effective (in fact, they are essentially ineffective unless you have almost no testosterone at all) at raising available testosterone in the blood stream.

Even worse, they generally result in greater aromatization of testosterone into estrogens... Which actually suppress the action of testosterone even further.

If this is happening, raising your dosage actually makes the aromatization worse, but may show "sufficient testosterone in the bloodstream", on tests.

So you're counteracting the "sufficient" testosterone you have, and in fact making your symptoms of low testosterone and excess estrogens MUCH worse (especially the depression, muscle loss, fat gain, water retention, gynocomastia, sexual dysfunction, and increased cancer risks).

And yet, these treatments are also several times the cost of injectable T.

Unless you're skinny, with low bodyfat, and you aren't really very low on testosterone, you really need deep intramuscular injection.

Even with IM injection, many men on supplementary testosterone need aromatase inhibitors, to prevent the same issues with excess conversion to estrogens.

This is particularly true if you inject more than 1ml at 100mg/ml every 3 weeks, and almost without question if you have high bodyfat, gynocomastia, high estrogens in general, high cortisol, diabetes, or inject more than 2ml every two weeks.

Unfortunately, as with prescribing enough testosterone in the first place, many doctors are reluctant to prescribe aromatase inhibitors... Again, because they are worried about the DEA penalizing them, for prescribing "performance enhancing substances".

As far as the DEA is concerned, every man wanting to have their heatlh, sex life, drive, motivation, energy, and focus back to near what used to be... Is just another steroid abuser.

You have to advocate for your own health here. If your doctor isn't willing to do what is necessary, find a sports medicine specialist, or a mens endocrine health, or mens sexual health specialist, and they will.

You might not think it's worth the time, or the cost, or the pain of injections, or that it won't have a significant impact anyway... and it's just because you're getting older, or getting fat or... whatever justification you may have...

You're wrong.

I guarantee you, keeping your testosterone above 700/300, is worth every bit of trouble it takes to do so... and a lot more besides

When is an addiction not an addiction?

Whenever anyone says so, because no-one can agree on what an addiction actually is...

Recently, it was reported that a sex research study from UCLA has reported that sex addiction isn't really an addiction.

Sweeping aside the normal misreporting, misunderstanding, and misconstrual of scientific methodology and wording endemic to popular science and health reporting, this study has some major fundamental flaws.

As close to a consensus as exists on what constitutes addiction (as opposed to habituation, compulsion, or dependency), comes down to this:

1. Is it habituating or compulsive
2. Is there physical or emotional dependency (or both)
3. Does it require escalating input to reach the desired output
4. When deprived of it, is there withdrawal and craving
5. Is pursuing and fulfilling this thing harmful or destructive to the person or those around them

Now... read the study linked above...

This study is entirely flawed, because it is incorrect in it's basic premise.

They're measuring the wrong thing, in the wrong way, because they don't seem to understand what sex addiction really is (a lack which, unfortunately, they seem to share with most people).

The premise of this study, is that sex addicts brains should respond to sexual imagery, in the same way that substance addicts respond to imagery of, or the presence of, the substance they are addicted to.

This premise shows a complete lack of understanding as to what sex addiction (which is an expression of clinical hypersexuality, but not the only expression, as misstated in the article) is... and more importantly WHY it is, how it is expressed, and what expressing it does for the addict.

Physically, no, it isn't an addiction to the actual sex... but emotionally it every much is an addiction. Not only that, but without doubt, the brain chemistry associated with it IS an addiction. It causes physical habituation with an escalating need for stimulus to achieve the same high, it crashes after an initial high, it has a strong compulsion and craving associated with it, and it has withdrawal symptoms (which can be dramatic).

And of course, the final element that separates habituation from addiction; sex addiction can be very destructive to the addict, and those around them (in fact, that can be part of the point of it).

Sex addiction isn't about sex, it's about self medication, self punishment, self harm, and self destruction; through novelty, risk, control, pushing the edge of control; and some times, for some people, losing control.

Sex addicts binge and purge... clean up, and fall off the wagon... just like any substance abuser. The behavior is the same, the emotional landscape that drives it is the same, the feelings it engenders and the psychological responses to it are the same... the only difference is the stimulus.

It's just substituting "sex"... but more importantly those things associated with risky sex... seduction, control, risk, and release... for the needle.

It didnt...

...Except to gay men who care more about how the clothes look, than the women.

The mere fact that someone made this movie makes me happy

It's Prison Rape, or Swishy Camp, and nothing in Between

Isn't it kinda screwed up, that probably the best depiction of masculine homosexuals, and romantic love between men, ever put on a major network (I don't count gay specific media like Logo etc...); is "Oz", an extremely brutal prison drama?

Now, you may hate homosexuality, think it's an abomination before god... degeneracy and deviancy whatever... but it IS a part of our culture. In fact it's a part of our culture that might involve as much as 10% of the population.

One would think, even with American attitudes towards sex, and towards homosexuality; that there would have been a more mainstream, REALISTIC, and forthright depiction of masculine gays, and romantic love between men.

Or maybe if it's more acceptable to society as a whole, of NORMAL looking lesbians, who aren't models or porn stars?

There have been plenty of depictions of swish gays, and a lot of "never see them be affectionate" stuff (not just kissing, you'll never see two men even HUG romantically on network TV), usually with ONE character or very rarely ONE couple in a large ensemble cast. Or the special "stunt casting" drop in characters (the lesbian stunt on "Roseanne" kinda thing).

Yeah I know, most of America doesn't want to see it blah blah blah... Most of us don't want to see MOST of what they put on TV, it hasn't stopped the networks. They put hypersexualized straight folks up there, they put swishy gays, and lipstick lesbians up there... Is it too much to ask for an honest depiction of just plain normal looking lesbians, and masculine gay men?

I mean, I don't feel like seeing guys making out on TV any more than most of y'all do... but then again I don't feel like seeing girls making out, or guys AND girls making out... I don't want sexual titillation from my television set. I want humor, and drama, and a semi-realistic depiction of the world around us, just turned up to 11... and that depiction should include realistic depiction of gays and lesbians.

Anyway, just a random thought (and not even an original one, since gays have been making this same complaint for years), occaisoned by the fact that the complete series of "OZ" (an EXCELLENT show that I highly recommend by the way. Almsot certainly the best performances ever pulled from Christopher Meloni, Lee Turgeson, J.K. Simmons, Dean Winters, Terry Kinney, Kirk Acevedo... well, basically the majority of the cast of "Law and Order" "Dexter", and a half dozen other shows) is on Amazons gold box deals today.

Hmm... Tarantino is into Breath Play.. SO not shocked

First things first, Conan is ON lately, now that he's canceled and Friday is his last show, hes letting it all hang out.

But what I'm really interested in here, is that Tarantino basically just outed himself as into kink... Not exactly surprising when you think about it; but it's pretty rare for anyone in the mainstream to talk about kink in public.

And yeah, look at his face when he's talking about it, he KNOWS that which of he speaks.

I used to be able to start a Hulu video at a specific minute, but apparently they'ved stripped that ability. The relevant segment starts at minute 24 (after the second commercial break) and goes through minutes 27.

Actually, just watch the show, it's pretty good this night... Paul Bettany is hilarious too.

He may be a dirty old man...

...And he's turned into a political hack in the last few years, for which I can fault him greatly. I once watched Letterman nightly, but that stopped more than ten years ago; and he has become unwatchable over the past few years.

...but Letterman handled that with what I thought was good grace, and as much class as could be attached to such a tawdry and frankly ridiculous situation.

He was honest, and forthright, didn't try to pretend it didn't happen; and I think that's really important. I think it counts for something with the American people, and it certainly counts for something with me.

On the air tonight, Letterman said that yes, he had sex with people who worked for him, and (not in so many words, but it was clear) that it's nobody elses business but his, his family, and the people he had those relationships with. That it's up to them if they want to go public, but he wasn't going to talk about it.

So long as his relationships were consensual, and not sexual harassment (though in any power relationship that can be a hard determination); I agree it's none of anyone's damn business, excepting his wife (who was his girlfriend at the time. They only married a few months ago, but they were together for 23 years before that, and they have a six year old son).

I think it's clear that the audience agreed, and I'm willing to bet that America agrees.

Growth as a Man?

This one is going to be a little strange, and very personal; but I think it strongly illustrates a point I want to explore....

I just woke up from a nap, wherein I had an odd dream:

I was someone else (extremely unusual in my dreams); a very rich, single man, throwing a party in a luxury hotel suite, for a number of friends and acquaintances from his old neighborhood; while on a trip back there for business.

In the course of this party, several people went off to rooms to have sex. I was tired, and went to MY room, telling everyone to continue enjoying the party; and some time later, an acquaintance who I knew to be a "player", came into my room with a beautiful pair of women, obviously sisters.

He suggested a foursome; and I pleaded tiredness, but the three climbed into bed with me anyway. I could tell on of the sisters was "up for anything", so to speak; but the other just seemed... resigned I suppose? While of course my Lothario friend was quite eager.

I took the reluctant one in my arms (I was on my back with her over me), and said "do you really want to do this?", she replied "they always want this.. I'm used to it, it's OK".

I continued to hold her, but I was struck by how sad, and empty that was. Presently, "the player" finished with her sister, and positioned himself behind the girl in my arms, and moved her hips to where he could penetrate her. I told her "Well, I don't want this. I want you to look me in the eyes, and kiss me".

She did, and while she was being taken roughly from behind, we looked in each other eyes, held, each other, and kissed. She soon achieved orgasm; which was clearly irrelevant to my "friend", excepting that it hastened his.

While he... finished his business, she just looked at me and said "thank you, that was wonderful. You're awfully good at this". Meanwhile "the player" ... well, it was clear to him that the woman didn't really exist, except as a receptacle for his penis. He was triumphantly strutting about, looking to fist bump and high five, hooting like a fratboy, while the women quietly dressed themselves, and slunk away.

I was never so disgusted to be a man in my life, as watching this little boy, with a grown up body, and a shrunken soul... nor was I more ashamed for women, watching these two accept... or even actively encourage... their own reduction to that objectified status.

I love sex. I think it is a beautiful, wonderful, amazing thing. I don't believe that sex must always be linked with love, or for that matter anything more than just good hard rocking sex... but it shouldn't be cheap. It shouldn't be hollow and empty.

Let me tell you something else... I watch an 18 year old girl, half naked (as what passes for street clothes these days), and obviously completely empty headed; strutting through a mall, and I feel... sad? Maybe that's not right.

A few years ago I might have said "I'm not interested, because she's WAAAAY too young (in mind, if not in body); but at least I can appreciate the equipment"... Today though I don't even have that level of interest.

Of course I am faithful to my wife; but we all know the old principle of "I'm married, not blind or dead". One would think I could enjoy the view so to speak. Honestly though, I don't think I could even get it up, without the mental and spiritual engagement. She'd open her mouth and vapid, stupid, immature idiocy would pour forth; and she could be as much a goddess as Bridgit Bardot in "and God created woman" and I'd be saying "why don't you go home little girl".

.. except that Bardot WASN'T a vapid empty headed little girl; or she wouldn't have been the goddess that she was...

I suppose people have been saying the same thing as they get older, since people first managed to break the age of 30; and the breed or die imperative first slowed enough to allow the appreciation of the finer points of each other. Certainly, I can remember hearing similar things said through the years by all sorts of folks... or the lamentations of women who noted its lack...

Honestly though, how can a man, a REAL MAN not an overgrown boy; look at one of the desperate, sad little girls; so convinced they have it all because they can wiggle their hips and make adolescent boys cry... how can he look at them, and feel anything other than disappointment, or pity, or shame for them?

How could he respect himself, if had sex with one of them; just because of her lovely body?

How is it that we cheapen ourselves so?

EVERYTHING is economics

I've said this many times before: economics isn't the study of money; it's the study of incentives, choices, and consequences.

In this video from the TED conference, economist Emily Oster performs an economic analysis of the spread of AIDS in Africa and shows once again, it's about the economics (which means it's about peoples choices and incentives):

What is abundantly clear here, is that government aid does little or nothing to combat AIDS; but choice, and incentives do a hell of a lot.

This is one of the fundamental principles of libertarianism in action. Rational actors, making rational, self interested choices.

Now, here's another TED conference video, but this one you may have heard of before; it's Andrew Mwendas speech about how foreign aid has actually HURT Africa.

Mwendas central point (though the language he uses may be a little to the left of the way I would put it) is that foreign aid has hurt Africa, because it has isolated the people from market driven incentives and consequences; and has in fact created perverse incentives towards greater poverty, and policies which HURT the people (and the ceonomies) of Africa. This is because more poverty means more aid, which means less attempts (and less success) at breaking out of poverty, ad infinitum.

Everything is economics, really.

The NEW Rules of Dating

Today both Kim and the Mrs expounded upon the issues that come up in the dating world today, from men who don't understand that no means "no" and women who allow this kind of behavior to continue.

So in response to Kim's list of rules for men to follow, I will list my own set of rules for BOTH sexes to follow. These rules are gleaned from years of experience in dating and the continual bitching of my single friends.

1. Talk about where you stand.
Everyone has different beliefs regarding what is appropriate. If on the first date you decide you want to continue, these things need to be discussed before things progress past casual, non-commital dating.

• What you want out of a relationship right now. This includes sex, companionship, marriage prospects, everything. If you want something major, and the other person just wants a fuck buddy, you need to work that out.
• Sex: is it a possibility? Will it be a possibility sometime down the road? If it is, you need to discuss levels of protection, expectations of fidelity, etc.
  
• Religious beliefs, or lack thereof: this is really important if you have an eye towards the long-term. If you're only looking for "the One" this is of vital importance.
• Where you want to go in life: once again, if you're looking at the long term you need to know the basics.
• Politics: I know that politics are a traditionally taboo subject, but the fact is, these days the political divide is so acrimonious, that you don't want to invest yourself into a potential relationship with someone whose politics make your skin crawl.
  
• Passions: What are the passions in your life, and can your prospective partner stand them; and stand the time you give to them.
  
• Splitting of the check (or not). In one relationship I had we agreed to a simple system since we both made the same amount of money: whoever proposed the date, paid for it. This way we could choose things we could afford, and nobody had any nasty surprises when the check arrived.

As a sidenote, all of these things help you get to know the other person, so should come up anyway somewhere along the line. If you can't come to an understanding or a basic knowledge of what the other person wants, assume nothing until they TELL you what they want. On the flip side, make sure the other person knows where you stand on things that affect them.

2. Comfort level wins
If one of you is ready for sex, or ready for physical contact, and the other is NOT, the wishes of the person who is NOT ready must be respected. If you can't handle waiting, or if the other person can't and tries to pressure you, it's OVER. Any name-calling, guilting, or other juvenile behavior on their part just means you leave faster.

3. On protection: the most paranoid person gets to decide
If sex becomes a possibility, protection must be discussed. If one person is happy with just birth control, and the other wants birth control and a barrier, the latter person's wishes stand. Once again, if you can't handle that or the other person can't handle that, it's game over. Ditto on the juvenile behavior.

4. There are no expectations of physical contact or sex; ask permission
Just because you paid for dinner, or you know that your prospect "put out" for someone else doesn't mean that you get to expect ANYTHING. If you want to kiss on the first date, ask. If you want sex, ask. Don't assume that you're entitled to anything.

5. Just because you've gone somewhere before, doesn't mean you have to again
But do be considerate and let the other person know that although you've kissed/petted/had sex you aren't comfortable with it now. If they can't respect that, kick them to the curb.

6. Keep your perspective
Infatuation can be fun, but it can also be all-consuming. Remember that no matter how good a new relationship feels you have friends and family who need your attention as well. If your relationship ends, you will need to have other people in your life. If your prospect has a problem with you spending reasonable amounts of time with friends and family, RUN.

7. If your prospect wants you to meet their friends or family, indulge them.
You can learn a lot about a person from their friends and family. Conversely, once your prospect's friends and family meet you and you get their approval, the likelihood of your relationship lasting increases tenfold. If they don't like you, don't expect the relationship to last.

(Note: if upon meeting your new girlfriend's friends you find that the males tend to be protective of her AND well-armed, this is your warning that any ungentlemanly behavior will not be tolerated. Behave accordingly)

8. The ex is the ex for a reason
If you are meeting the ex, chances are they managed to stay friends. This is most likely because:

• They were friends to begin with
• They broke up in an amiable manner
• They followed the aforementioned rules and therefore can still stand each other as human beings

Do not assume that because the ex is around, he "wants her back" or "they're still seeing each other". If you think such things your relationship will go downhill fast. Instead, think of it as reassurance that your prospect is a nice, considerate person who, when things don't work out, handles it like an adult.

9. If you've decided to break up, there is only one way to do it
Face to face. No phone calls, no standing them up, no emails, and NO HAVING THE POLICE DO IT FOR YOU. And do it as soon as you decide you need to so you don't string them along. Arrange to do the deed face to face, and hold your ground. If they're being an ass on an issue, leave them right there.

There are only three exceptions to the face-to-face rule: long-distance dating, people you're breaking up with because you can't ever reach them or because they have a tendency to stand you up, and those you have determined to be dangerous. But still, for god's sake, find some way to tell them.

10. There is only one way to handle being dumped
Accept it, and move on. Stay friends if you want to, or don't. Either way, it's obviously not going to work out and you should get on with your life.

Under no circumstances should you:

• Beg, plead, guilt, strip, or resort to any other kind of demeaning behavior.
• If there is another person involved, make reference to "fighting" for them, or anything resembling "let the best man win". That's incredibly insulting to both you and them.
• Stalk. This is especially important if the friends were the well-armed men described above.

If both parties can follow these rules (summed up nicely as ACT LIKE ADULTS) dating doesn't have to be a scary, landmine ridden undertaking filled with misunderstandings and misuse of police resources. If you can't find another adult to date, keep looking. There are more of us out there than you think.

Mel

Further Proof that People are F@*%ed Up

So I'm looking through my various logs, and I notice there are a lot of patterns in my traffic. All sorts of things, like for example about 1/3 my hits are from search engines and link aggregators, about 1/3 are from bookmarks or RSS feeds, and about1/3 are links from other content providers (blogs and other web pages), with a small percentage coming from emailed links.

Good stuff to know really.

What gets me though, are the search words. Some of them make sense. My top three search terms (not actually including my name or the word Anarchangel) are

1. Battle Rifle
2. Bullpup Rifle
3. Infidel

OK, I get that; I've written a fair bit about those topics.

My fourth most popular search term however is the one that bugs me.

"Young boys penis"

See, a couple years ago I did a post which featured a reductio ad absurdium of gun control called "Sensible Penis Control" wherein I used the example of a pedophile who couldn't stop touching young boys, because his penis compelled him to.

Sometimes I get over 100 hits per day from people looking for young boys penises; and it's never less than 20 or so.

Of course this post is just going to increase that number, considering the number of times I've mentioned young boys penises... and that it's likely a lot of my fellow bloggers with a similar sense of right and wrong as mine will widely link this one.

Now, for all of you who have come here from a Google search for young boys penises, I have a message:

I've got your IP addresses, access times, and technical data about your computers that you can't easily fake or change.

The net CAN be "anonymous" if you know what you're doing, and re-route things round in circles etc... but those "evidence eliminator" programs ,most of y'all use thinking they'll protect you? Yeah those don't work. Hell, using google earth, I can sometimes even find pictures of your houses.

I also have friends in the FBIs anti-child porn taskforce, and the center for missing and exploited children. See, I actively hunt down child pornographers, collect evidence on them, and report them to the FBI; and have for years.

Have fun in prison. They just LOVE shorteyes in Lewisburg.

The "Tramp" continuum

I've noticed lately, that there appears to be a continuum of indicators for "loose" women; starting with the relatively benign and ending up at the "I wouldn't do her with someone else's dick" stage.

Please note, I am not using these terms to denigrate freaks or sluts. I LOVE freaks and sluts (I'm very happily married now, my love is therefore in a theoretical and entirely non-physical sense); and think the world would be better off with more of them. Tramps on the other hand are a cancer on all mankind.

Now, these indicators are not universal; there are perfectly great women who posses them; however it is the imitation of these indicators by stupid, worthless (and I use that term advisedly. They have neither self worth, nor redeeming value), tramps that give them a bad name.

It's also important to note that individually, some of these characteristics are not necessarily "tramp related". For example, there are plenty of people in the body modification subculture who are into such things. Look for a combination of these indicators, without other body modification cues; and generally speaking bleached blonde hair, and frosted or metallic makeup, just to be sure.

I've conveniently color coded the subtitles to indicate degree of danger.

The continuum looks like this:

1. Large number of ear piercings - Ehh, maybe: At this stage, the female in question may just like a lot of earrings; but it's the first step down the road 2. Wearing inappropriate clothing in public - Baby tramp or tramp wannabe: I'm not thinking about short skirts and tight tops... hell everyone wears those now. I'm talking about clothes that say "slut", "porn star", "fuck me like a bitch" "I give good head" etc... in public. Oh, and wearing pajamas or underwear as outerclothes, or extremely age/situationally inappropriate clothing is in there as well. At one time, this might have been a solid indicator, but these days it's just a fashion trend 3. Belly button piercing - Tramp curious : This one marks them as either into piercing in general, or imitative of the general tramp fashion. Either one is a decent indicator of proto-freaky status (for good or ill). These ones may be salvageable, if steered into slutitude or freakitude, and away from tramphood. 4. The "tramp stamp" - Tramp in training : The small of the back tatoo, often shaped like the thong panties inevitably visible underneath it. This used to be an indicator of the inked subculture, but now every tramp has to have one (thus the moniker). 5. The prominently visible tongue piercing - Trampilicious : There are only two reasons for tongue piercings to be noticable; either because you are just into piercing (again, a good indicator of freakiness), or because you want to advertise that you perform oral sex well. It is perfectly possible to have a tongue piercing without showing it off (I did at one point, but my body didn't care for it); but not for a tramp. The sad part is, most of the tramps who DO show it off, actually aren't any good at giving head. 6. Nipple piercings - Lookout, this ones trouble : This was once the province of only the piercing fetishists (and pirates and 19t century sailors); but in the last 15 years it has become a mark of extreme tramphood as well. If she isn't a total piercing nut, and she's got her nipples pierced, you can bet she's a tramp. Oh and extra points if any of her piercings are connected by a chain. 7. The clit piercing - Amateur porn here I come : I really think the subheading says it all; if you find a girl who isn't a piercing freak, and she's got her clit pierced... well the lyrics of Buck Cherrys recent hit come to mind "Oh, she's a crazy bitch but she fucks so good I'm on top of it". The clit piercing has become de-rigeur for both porn stars, and the tramps who want to be just like them.

So fellows, heed my warning signs; and involve ye not with the tramps, unless you have multiple layers of latex, and a convenient fake phone number; for they are fraught with stupidity and peril.

I used to be, but I'm not anymore

Not fr the last couple years; but most of the questions were about the past, not the present:




HT: Gadfly

Dishonesty, and Dishonor

Top US General Calls Homosexuality Immoral By Al Pessin Pentagon 13 March 2007 The top U.S. military officer has said homosexuality is immoral, sparking renewed controversy about the status of homosexuals in the U.S. military. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, told the Chicago Tribune newspaper the military ban on homosexuals should continue, because homosexuality is immoral. The newspaper posted audio from the interview on its Web site. PACE: "I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts." General Pace told the Tribune that to officially allow homosexuals to serve in the military would be an endorsement of immoral activity. He said the military should not endorse any immoral acts, mentioning specifically homosexuality and extra-marital affairs, which are also against military regulations. General Pace endorsed the current policy, under which homosexuals serve by keeping their sexual orientation a secret.

Okay now, first off, I'm saying this as a man who is both Catholic, and a veteran; Don't Ask Don't Tell is offensive, insulting to all men and women who wear the uniform, gay or straight, and it should be ended one way or another.

The military is no place for mealy mouthing and careful parsing of statements for political correctness... or rather it shouldn't be, but all too often it is.

Whatever you think of homosexuality, you can't deny that DADT is a moral, social, and disciplinary disgrace of epic proportions.

Now, again as both a Catholic and a veteran, the idea that someone should be banned from serving their country because a general believes their private sexual behavior is immoral, is ludicrous. If his morality is coming from his Christianity he should know he is in no position to judge, that's Gods job.

We ban adultery in the military, not because it is immoral, but because it is dishonorable. It is the betrayal of a sacred oath, and if a man will betray his marriage vows, might he not betray his service oath as well?

There is nothing inherently dishonorable about homosexuality; but we force gay men and women into being dishonorable, ever day that they serve in silence.

Hell, I'm willing to bet MY private sexual behavior would GREATLY disturb Gen. Pace as well; and I'm a happily married man with two kids, who honorably served my country.

The fact of the matter is, there are thousands upon thousands of gay men and women serving honorably in the armed forces today; there always have been and there always will be. To tacitly accept their honorable service, and then insist that they dishonor themselves by being closeted is a shameful stain on OUR honor, as service members, as veterans, and as a nation.

Freedom of conscience is among our highest freedoms, and forced denial of self is an abuse of that freedom.

Hell, I knew for a fact that I was serving with gay service members; and was friends with several serving gays and lesbians who were quite candid about their sexual orientation, with friends only. It didn't effect their job, and it didn't make them poor service members; but it very definitely effected their souls.

It made me ashamed to have to accept this policy. IT IS WRONG.

Now, as to whether gays SHOULD be allowed to openly serve, I am of mixed mind on that.

The priary official concern, and logic behind the offical ban, is that gays serving with straights will result in inapprorpiate sexual behavior.

To my mind, so long as we set and enforce appropriate standards of behavior and discipline, and severely punish anyone who does not abide by those standards, be they gay or straight, I don't care who my buddy wants to have sex with (even if it's me).

Implicit in the banning of gays, while we allow men and women to serve together; is the assumption that gay men, and lesbian women will be less able to control themselves around other service members they are attracted to than straight service members. I find this implied assertion to be quite offensive; and disrespectful to ALL service members not just gays and lesbians.

The fact of the matter is, the rules say keep it in your pants (or if you don’t for gods sakes don't let it screw up the job). If we can expect straight folks to do it, we can expect gay folks to do it.

I'm not saying there aren't issues here. There will always be elements of anti-gay sentiment in the military; especially in the hypermasculine culture that pervades most of the military (and I don't necessarily think that culture is inappropriate much of the time); but so what, there are idiots currently serving who also hate women, Muslims, Jews, Hispanics, Blacks, Arabs, and every other identity group out there (note the caps).

Then there's the people who say "What about AIDS and other STDs that homosexuals are at higher risk for? In the barracks environment, in training, and in combat, there is a lot of close contact, potentially with with bodily fluids, as well as transfusions and the like".

Well, yes that's true, but the fact is that every service member can be required to have an AIDS test every six months, and probably SHOULD be, straight or gay. As I was getting out I beleive they were instituting regular screening for many STDs, and they have been testing for Gonorrhea, Syphillis, and Hpeatitis with every physical, for as long as such test have existed.

Hell, you can’t even say that gay men are at a much greater risk here, because soldiers, sailors, and airmen as a class, are about the most promiscuous people on the planet (I know, I was one of them), as well as frequent patrons of prostitutes, who are the highest risk group for sexually transmitted diseases by far.

After over a decade of exclusion, we now allow gay men with clear AIDs tests to give blood in the civvy world (presuming they don't have other risk factors like a high number of partners etc...); and we require a standard of behavior in or service members higher than society requires for gay men as a whole, so I reject this argument as speciaous.

All that said, I think this whole thing is one gigantic social mess. Hell, we’ve screwed up the military trying to integrate women, and still haven't managed to do so successfully for over 60 years of trying (since the inception of the Womens Army Corps nurses serving near the front in WW2).

And I'm not saying women shouldn't be allowed to serve either. I’m of the opinion that anyone who can meet the standards of a combat soldier should be allowed to serve in combat. That those standards be the same for all genders, sexual preferences, races, creeds or any other thing. Everybody has to pass the same test no matter what, and that test is predicated on what makes a good soldier, not what the average of the lowest performing group can pass (which is how womens PFT standards were developed by the by).

My point is however, that even given the position of women in our society, as the now dominant cultural force (and if you don’t think that’s true, you haven't watched much network TV or been on a universtiy campus recently - lucky you); we STILL can’t get integrating them into our military forces right. Integrating open homosexuality is a lot more controversial and difficult socially than women.

Then there's the fact that the service environment engenders a lot of very unguarded and intimate social contact, with communal quarters, showers etc... Some raise the entirely valid point that you wouldn't force a woman to shower with a man, nor should you force straight men to shower with gay men who might have sexual interest in them

I don't agree with that point in it's entirety, but I do see the issue; and I don't think the solution is separate accommodation for gay and straight (That would be just ridiculous, and nearly impossible to do in a combat zone anyway). Hell, I don't even think we should have separate accommodation for men and women out in the field. If women want to play with the boys they should shower with the boys... but that's neither here nor their.

The armed forces are not the place for social experimentation, and forcing such a change in the middle of a war is beyond stupidity.

My thought is that “don't ask don't tell” is insulting and shameful to all concerned; that anyone currently serving who is gay should be allowed to come out of the closet should they choose to do so, but we should avoid at all costs treating gays as a protected class etc… etc…

I just don't know how to do it.

Honestly, I don’t think we can do it right now. I don’t think it’s far off, but I don’t think it’s this year, or next year.

UPDATE:

WASHINGTON — Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed mild regret Tuesday for voicing his belief that homosexual acts are “immoral,” but he stopped short of an apology as gay rights groups and a powerful Republican senator rebuked the general for the comments he made to the Chicago Tribune. As critics fired rhetorical volleys, Pace issued a statement expressing regret that he had put so much stress on the morality issue when he defended the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military during a Monday interview with the Tribune’s editorial board. “In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct,” Pace said in his statement. “I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views.”

Well, although I disagree with him, Ill say I respect the man all the more for saying this, in this way. He didn’t cave to pressure to apologize for his personal views; but he acknowledged that it was entirely inappropriate for him to have expressed his personal views in the context of military policy.

Only 81%

Master/Mistress You scored 81% Kinkiness!

Whether you are a top or bottom, you have Mastered the kink. Maybe a bit too much for most people. You know about everything I covered and much, much more. If you have a critique or would like to talk to me more about Fetish/BDSM/taboos, please feel free. Congratulations, you've peaked my interest.

My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 96% on Kinkiness

Link: The How Kinky Are You Really Test written by monkeyqueen9 on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test

Only 81%? I'm dissapointed... well the test was a bit biased towards subs and women, and since I am the opposite of those two things I guess that skewed it.

More on "Double Standard and Magic Numbers"

There have been a couple of comments on the original post, both here and on the NoR that I wantes to talk about.

"I think there is and SHOULD be a double-standard. Girls are much more vulnerable sexually. As for age of consent, for girls (sans marriage) I’d suggest 25 Removing the parents ability to charge statutory rape would be a HUGE mistake."

...

"So, if you would have fathered a child @ 13, what is your responsibility? Who would have paid the child support? You can't assume an abortion.

Is it reasonable to saddle someone who cannot legally work and cannot contract with the financial responsibility of raising a child? Or are the grandparents saddled with that financial burden?

I'm glad that you personally didn't get into this situation. That's very lucky and good for you. It's a poor guide for policy."
...

"It’s only in western society that sex has become set as being something which is age restricted (some others in Asia are starting to follow suit) and only relatively recently.

The best (physically) age range for a woman to bear children is between roughly age 15 and 30, for men that’s I think a few years later.

So physiologically there’s nothing wrong with it at all, and it’s only our societies which have somehow decided that someone isn’t able to decide for themselves until they’re 18 (or 21 in the US) (and getting ever older) that determine that it’s “wrong”.
Instead we use all kinds of medical techniques to ensure that people who are well over the age where they can normally get children do indeed get pregnant and have somewhat healthy offspring (I think it was this year that a 70+ year old woman delivered a baby).

What I have a problem with in this instance is not the fact that the boy was 14, or the woman 25, but the fact that the woman was in a position of trust and power over the boy and may have abused that trust and power."

...

Here's the thing... I have no problem with the age difference issue, so long as there is absolutely no co-ercion or a power relationship.

The problem I have with the situation, and I mentioned it but only for a second in my original post; is entirely the abuse of authority issue. I didn’t address that because I think the main question here is about the age difference issue, but let me clarify:

Coercion is NEVER acceptable, whether it is physical or because of a power relationship. Someone placed in a non-sexual power relationship over someone else should NEVER have sexual relations with that person.

You dont have sex with your employees or your employer, and you dont have sex with people in your chain of command; unless one of those factors is going to change immediately.

Now as to the “25 for girls”... when do we stop? Why do we expect parental authority, or parental responsiblity, or individual irresponsibility to extend for so long? Why do we ALLOW IT?

I believe that everyone is, and should be, responsible for themselves, as soon as they are capable of being so. I was on my own at 16, living in my own apartment, paying my own bills, and making my own decisions. The only reason why at least 50% and more like 80% of all 16 year olds “can’t” do the same thing, is because we don’t make them.

“But what about the innocence of childhood? Why can’t we just let kids be kids?”

Do you really think that a 14 year old is a kid anymore? We don’t let them be Kids, we turn them into confused adults with adult bodies and concerns and issues, but no adult responsibilities or accountabilities… and we expect them to end up healthy and well adjusted afterwards?

We have developed into a society that keeps everyone morally and practically children for as long as possible (well into their 30’s if one works the system right); and yet makes them sexually adults as EARLY as possible.

...and it’s entirely arbitrary and capricious.

Doesnt anyone else find this not only absurd, but in fact harmful and disgusting?

Double Standards, and Magic Numbers

A friend of mine on the NoR asks the question:

"There is a very pretty young teacher who has been brought up on rape charges for having sex with a 14 year old male student.

We’ve kidded about this at home saying something like, “there is only one word to describe the boy in this case.... LUCKY.”

Some have argued (not necessary here) that if we don’t prosecute the woman in this story that we’re giving the appearance of a double-standard, ie, one set of rules that pertains to young men and sex with an adult female and one for girls with an adult male.

What’s your take?"

Actually I think this is a very important question, that touches on some aspects of our society that are in conflict: Liberty, Responsibility, and Protection

Remember, when our average lifespan was 40, people were frequently married off by 13 or 14. Even as recently as the 1930s it was common to be married by 16. It was only with the era of victorian morality, followed soon after by the rise of compulsory schooling ending at 18, that teenagers became viewed as unable to marry or to be sexually active.

I have had a student teacher physical relationship. I was 16 she was a 23 year old student music teacher; and I was in no way used, abused, taken advantage of or pressured. It was a very satisfying relationship both physically and emotionally, on both our parts; and I am very glad it happened.

That said, I have known 16 year olds who did not have the emotional maturity for such an experience; and clearly Susan Smith’s chosen victim did not for example. Hell, I've known 30 year olds who aren't mature enough for sex.

Additionally there is the matter of abuse of trust of the parents, and the potential for coercion in a power relationship.

Most folks in this country would probably agree that a 14, or at least a 16 year old boy who was in this situation was indeed lucky; but most of those same folks would want to string up a male teacher who had the same experiences with a 16 year old girl... and CERTAINLY a 14 year old.

Why is that?

Why is there a double standard there, and why is 16, or 18, or any other age OK?

I have a real issue with what Fran Poretto calls “Magic Numbers” in our society. At 18 (or 16, or 14) it is magically OK to have sex, while at 17 and 364 days it isnt? At 18 it is ok to sign a contract, but at 17.99 it isnt? At 21 it is OK to drink, but at 20.99 it isn’t?

I became sexually active at 13, and I don’t regret it. I was ready to do so, and I appreciated it, and the risks and rewards of it. I don’t regret becoming sexually active so early at all, but I do regret my sexual morality during the follwing five years, which was somewhat indescriminate. The thing is, I needed to make those mistakes on my own; and I'm glad I made them when I was young.

I also know folks who had a similar age experience, who believe it severely damaged them emotionally, and in their sexual/mental health and approach to relationships.

Every person is different. To my mind, it’s not something we can just say hard and fast “this is ok, and this isn’t”.

Of course the problem then becomes subjectivity of standards, and the unequal application of law. The law can be neither arbitrary nor capricious; and still be fair and constitutional.

So here’s what I think from a real world standpoint:

1. Under 13 is always child abuse no matter what. You have to draw a bottom line and this is where I put mine.

2. 13-15 should be evaluated on a case by case basis; but complaints of statutory rape or abuse must either arise from a judgement that the minor wasn’t competent to make the decision to have sex, or from a direct complaint by the minor themselves. Parents should not be able to make claims of statutory rape or abuse without the co-operation of the minor. I believe this should be the case even though there may be the suspicion of co-ercion. Now if there is clear proof of co-ercion that is another matter entirely, and is a case for rape, not statutory rape.

3. 16 and over should never be considered statutory rape or abuse unless the minor has been judged incompetent to make the decision to have sex.

Yes I realize that leaves many who are not ready for those decisions unprotected by the law; but I do not believe it is the laws job to protect everyone from everything. At 16 you should be able to make most of your own decisions; even if they are stupid ones.

Dominance and Submission

Okay, this is another weird personal one guys, so if you don't want to know these things about me, stop reading now.

I've spoken before about dominance and submission, and the relationship dynamics, and it came up today on the NoR forums in relation to dating. IN particular a submissive man is having trouble finding a dominant woman to date who isn't psycho.

This is a ctually a pretty common problem for "sceners", but usually a lifer will find someone eventually; they jsut have to be serious about it.

Anyway, there was certainly some misunderatanding on the board about the nature of dominant and submissive dynamics, one commenter saying:

Quite frankly, I don’t feel a need to dominate someone or be someone’s slave. Actually this whole domanite/submite master/slave thing sounds like a load of bullshit.

To which another responded:

There are people out there, both male and female, who have submissive personalities. People who are, quite honestly, weak. They will naturally be attracted to people who can lead them, and those that want to lead them will find them. In the end it usually makes for balanced and happy relationships. Opposites attract and whatnot.

Which is partially correct, but again, misunderstands the fundamental nature of the relationships. It's most definitely not about strength or weakness, of mind, will, character, emotion, or spirit.

Dominance and submission are not about sex, or kinkiness; though they can be. Natural dominance and submission relationships (as opposed to “scene” D&S) are about three things… or rather about seven things broken into three categories.

1. Power, control and responsiblity: Some people are unable to balance these things in their lives. THey feel lost with or without these things, intimidated by them or their lack, stressed by them or their lack, frightened by them or their lack, angered by them or their lack, whatever…

2. Trust and loyalty: The relationship between those with dominant personalities and submissive personalities is entirely best on two way trust, and two way loyalty. This applies whether it is a sexual relationship or not. If there is trust and loyalty, there is strenght, and there is the next element…

3. Freedom and safety: Some naturally must be in control to be free, some cannot be free if they are in control. Some naturally must be in controll to feel safe, some cannot feel safe if they are in control.

Let me go into detail further here...

I am a naturally dominant person. I lead naturally, and others follow me naturally. That doesn't necessarily mean I’m a control freak, though sometimes I can be; it means that I am comfortable with power, control, and responsiblity; and that I prefer to not be in a situation where I don’t have them (yes, the AF was far more of an emotional challenge to me than physical).

This also applies in personal relationships. I am impatient with the incompetent, and I am agressive in aserting myself. If somethign is wrong, I will act to correct it. If something is right, I will act to praise the responsible party and emulate it.

These are all natural personality tendencies, that are as inbuilt to me as my soul.

My girlfriend is naturally submissive. She was not aware of this until I made it clear to her, and she’s still not entirely comfortable with this, but it’s the way she is. This isn’t to say she is weak, or has a weak will, she doesn’t. She simply prefers and feels naturally better, and safer when others WHO SHE TRUSTS have the responsiblity. That said, if she is right about something, she fights for it. If she see something wrong, she goes after it. She will not agree to somethign jsut because thats what a dominant person thinks. She is independent minded, and very spirited, and jsut a bit nutty (but in a cute and endearing way)

What she feels with me is love, comfort, warmth, safety, and freedom. In fact when I'm not dominant enough, she starts to think I don't care enough about her. She's constantly testing me. Oh and don't get me started on the whole "passive agressive" thing. That's at the very CORE of overtly submissive behavior, and it can be the bane of every tops existence.

Though some dominants do see submissives as weak, those people will most likely never uderstand what is below the surface of the relationships; only seing the “scene” as it were. Some dominants also DESIRE the weak partners, but that extends into an entirely different level often involving debasement and humiliation, voluntary slavery, or human toys and human pets.

Has anyone ever said to you “I jsut want to let go”, or “I jsut wish it were all someone else proble”, in a serious way? If so, they are expressing the desires of the submissive.

Most people are neither naturally dominant, nor naturally submissive. Most folks, have a hard time dealing with responsiblity, power, and control all the time, and they sometimes want someone else to take care of it for them. They sometimes just want to be free of that burden.

That is the expression of a submissive desire.

Many people who have these desires are also very insecure about them, because they believe it makes them weak; or they are afraid of being taken advantage of.

Many people feel that they enjoy power, control, and responsiblity sometimes, but that often it is jsut too much hassle.

These are all normal things, and most folks have a balance of dominant and submissive tendencies in their personalities; though they will often lean slightly or strongly towards one or the other. True natural dominants are almsot vanishingly rare, and natural submissives are quite uncommon (though there are probably 10 times as many natural subs as there are natural doms).

Now, a moment on terminology to describe what I just talked about. Dominants are often referred to as “Tops”, submissives as “bottoms”, and if you go both ways you’re a “switch” (though these terms have more extensive connotations to do with play and scenes). Most people are really a switch to some degree or another; or may be a top with some folks, and a bottom with others. As I said above, true dominants who will naturally top, and true submissives who will naturally bottom are very rare.

In a dominant sumbissive relationship, while on the surface it appears that the submissive is sacrificing themselves to the dominant, actually the reverse is true. The top is in fact assuming responsiblity for the bottom, which allows the bottom to be freer, and more comfortable, more in tune with their nature. This can be a very heavy burden on the top, mentally and emotionally (and sometimes physically and financially). It is far more draining in every sense to top someone.

This is actually why I brought up the top and bottom terminology; because it illustrates one of my points. In play, the top is doing what the bottom wants; not the other way around. The top is recieving instructions; or is acting according to the known desires of the bottom.

The purpose of dominant and submissive games and gestures, is to enhance the feelings that these power relationships engender in the participants; the top feeling more responsible for the bottoms safety, and having more of a duty to live up to their trust and loyalty; and the bottom feeling freer, and more able to express themselves as they wish, without worrying about the cares or dangers that the top is protecting them from.

Trust me on this one, topping someone is hard work. Hell even being the dominant partner in every day situations is hard work, because YOU are responsible for EVERYTHING.

But we like it that way...

Do you think the dominant partner is really in control in this situation? Not if they care for the person they are topping they aren’t. The real control, and certainly the real freedom, lies with the submissive, because by making the dominant responsible for them; if their top cares for them and is loyal to them; their safety, protection, and satisfaction has become a central concern; as in an almost parental relationship.

This get’s even MORE complicated when you move beyond simple submission relationships and into the area of slaves, toys, pets, etc…

So it’s a lot more complicated than most folks think, and in general it has very litttle to do with sex, and very much to do with the three sets of factors I describe above.

Oh and the real lifers talk about “power and control” or “power exchange” relationships not dominance and submission, but that’s an even more complicated subject.

Who'da Thunk it?

Too bad the only truely increadible, mind blowing oral sex I recieved was from a girl who turned out to be a slut. Whooda thunk it? --Dustin

Dustin is a friend of mine who's been through some rough family shit, and some rough women shit, in the last couple months; but I've heard this "complaint" often.

I hate to do this to you man, but you're full of shit on this one. The girls you have been dealing with werent sluts; they were tramps, and theres an important difference.

What's wrong with sluts? Absolutely nothing; unless you are one of those prissy moralists who think that sex is wrong outside of marriage (leaving aside religious faith); or one of those women who feel that sluts are a threat to them (and arent you little miss insecure).

Now I make a distinction between a woman who likes sex, and has similar sexual morals as a man does (a slut); and a woman who fucks around because shes trying to get revenge on something (her family, her father, herself), or because she has no self esteem (a tramp).

The first is a great thing, the others are something you want to stay as far away from as possible.

But let's get back to that first one. So long as you know that's what you're getting in to, and she doesnt lie about it to you, or her other partners, sluts are great.

You both get to have great sex, and so long as neither of you give a shit about what the other is doing, it can go on as long as you want.

Friends with benefits, fuckbuddies, whatever you want to call it. Throughout most of my life I've generally had a couple around, who would just call me up some time "Hey Chris, you busy, can I come over", and we'd have amazing sex, and talk for a while, have some fun, probably some more amazing sex, and then she'd leave (or vice versa).

That's fucking great; and there is no reason anyone should feel guilt or shame over that.

Of course this assumes you are both being smart, using protection, and assuming she has relatively good judgement. And guess what, if shes the good slut, rahter than the crazy tramp type; she will almsot certainly take good care of herself, and choose her partners better than YOU have.

Sluts are the ones who will do interesting, wild, crazy things with you; like wear a schoolgirl uniform with stockings and heels for you, then bend over the hood and take it from behind in the stadium parking lot while the football game is going on... "HE... COULD... GO... ALL... THE... WAAAAAYYYY!!!!!!!"

My girlfriend will kill me for writing this, but she's a slut. The GOOD kind. She loves sex, she's good at it, she doesn't feel guilty about it. For most of the almost year we've been off and on together we werent exclusive, and we could, and would have sex with others. It's only recently that we've stopped that and are just seeing each other now. I don't know how that will work out, but I feel no pressure to try and force things to work. If they do, great, if not, then we still love each other and care about each other, and are friends, and may even keep having great sex with each other.

Can someone tell me how this is a bad thing?

And guess what again; sluts make good marriage prospects. No seriously. Drop that moralistic bullshit and think about it. Sluts don't cheat, because they don't have to. They know they have all the other options, and they've chosen this one. If she's a good slut, you've both been completely honest with each other; you aren't settling down for the sex; you KNOW this is the time, this is the one, and this is the way.

Not only that, but they are far less likely to have that semi-pathological drive towards marriage some women seem to get upon hitting 27 or so years old (it doubles at 30, and doubles again at 35). I have never seen a good slut say to the man she loves "You have to marry me or I'm leaving you".

All in all, I love sluts; and I wish there were more of them. No matter what people seem to think, there are a hell of a lot more tramps than most will ever know or admit to (some just hide it well), and a hell of a lot fewer sluts.

Addiction and Manipulation

Ok, this one is even more personal, and will be somewhat crude, and more than somewhat sexual.

What I'm going to talk about is a painful subject. It's about addiction, it's explicit, and its brutal.
If you are thinking "too much information", stop reading now.

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

I should confess, I am a diagnosed as sex addict, for whatever that's worth (I think psychiatrists and psychologists are mostly full of shit); but I'm generally very careful,and I'm prepared to accept the consequences of my actions, whatever they may be.

I have had a lot of sexual partners. I honestly don't remember anymore, but the last time I counted up it was about 200 total partners, and that was just the ones I could actually remember, I know there were more; since then I've had ... I don't know at least 20, maybe more... no it's definitely been more, because just counting in my head, I had at least 15 different partners last year. Actually thinking about it more, at least 20, because when I was in NYC at the beginning of the year I was with a lot of girls. Most of them were one night things, or maybe a couple of nights (or days) with only four girlfriends for more than a few weeks.

Of course I've also lied about the number of partners I've had, in order to get more partners, so you dont really know if I'm telling the truth or not. Hell I don't even know if I'm telling the truth or not, because there really have been so many that I honestly don't remember.

I used to joke that I remembered every single one, but I was lying. I can remember faces for most, but names... names are just gone. I remember them by the act, or how I picked them up, or who I was with, or what I was doing when it happened, but I don't remember their names.

This year, I had four partners from January to February 6th, but I have, by choice, not been with anyone since then. The opportunities have presented themselves, but I haven't chosen to pursue them.

There are times where I'll go by choice quite a while without sex, and then I'll generally be with one partner for a few months, and then when that relationship splits I'll have a few casual fucks, or maybe more than a few depending on my emotional and physical state. The day after I split with my wife I picked up two different women (one in the afternoon, and another late that night), and then the next two days three more.

Late last year, I met, and fell in love with a much younger woman (as in 9 years). We had a pretty good relationship for about three months, and then in January, we split over various things. I was with one of my neighbors, and with the on again off again girl the very next day (yes, both of them in the same day, actually the neighbor in the morning, the other girl in the late afternoon, and the neighbor again that night), and then the neighbor, and a different girl the next day.

I have had sex in my offices, in cars, boats, planes, helicopters, trains, in closets, elevators, in public, in the mall, in rooms full of people... I've done just about everything that hasn't involved children, close relatives, animals, mutiliation, or excrement.

The longest I've gone without sex since I was 13 years old, is 1 year, and that was by choice. The longest I've gone involuntarily is about 6 months, and it's pretty rare for me to go more than a month or so. When I start to feel like I need it, I'll jsut go find someone to fuck... and yes, it really is that easy if all you are looking to do is jsut fuck, and you dont care about ever seeing them again.

It's finding the ones you actually want to be with, and stay with that's hard.

If you substitute alcohol or drugs for sex in the paragraphs above, you might notice these are classic addictive behaviors. A period of absitinence, followed by a controlled period, and then a binge, followed by another period of abstinence.

Gettign laid is easy. Sometimes so easy that it can be boring. Thats what happened to me when I met my first fiance; I had become bored with the game, and tha'ts what it was to me; a game.

In my family I learned from a very young age, how to use my observational skills, and my deductive capabilities to predict how people would react and behave, and how to manipulate them using those skills, reactions, and behaviors. It was a survival skill, and believe me it was very necessary.

I learned early on that these same skills could be turned to my advantage sexually. I lost my virginity to a 17 year old welsh girl, on vacation with her parents in Disneyworld, two months before my 13th birthday.

Linda H. , I'll never forget you.

We met in the video arcade, and six hours later we were in the lake behind the hotel, having sex. We had sex three times that night, and I never saw her again.

I did this quite easily, by noticing things about her, listening, talking, .. I was using her own reactions against her, manipulating her to feel closer to me, at the same time making her thoughts turn more and more to the physical, the sensual, the erotic. Making her think about her fantasies, and her fears at the same time, heightening her excitement, and her insecurity, making her feel a need for both danger and safety... I'm not going to explain farther except to say that by the time I was done, she was literally touching herself almost unconsciously, pulling me to her, and rubbing my crotch right there in the arcade without even noticing it.

It sounds crass, or like bullshit to those who don't know, but it's easy if you know what you are doing. It doesn't matter what you look like, so long as you are clean, dont smell bad, and have the intelligence, and confidence to make people let their minds do what their bodies want to do anyway.

I spend the next five years having sex with other guys girlfriends in my high school, with college freshmen new into Boston, with european Au Pairs new to the U.S. , with dissatisfied housewives, with my mothers friends... The biggest age difference was when I was 17, I was with a 41 year old, gorgeous, and very unhappy wife of a much older man. She liked it rough, and she liked to be humiliated, and she liked to be able to cry...

During this time I was with well over 100 women, and every one of them thought they were coming off better in the deal; but I knew what I was doing.

I was, for all intents and purposes a predator. I was having sex, not because I wanted to have sex, but because I wanted to win. Getting women to have sex with me, while making them think it was all their idea the whole time, and I was just the right guy at the right time. Getting them to let their minds do what their bodies wanted to do anyway. That was the game.

Until I got tired of keeping score.

One day I just realized that I hated it. I didn't like the sex, I didn't like who I was having sex with, hell I wasn't even getting off. I would give women multiple orgasms, but I would have to jerk off for an hour, alone, to cum.

You see I'm a VERY controlled person. I have always kept a very tight rein on my emotions, because if you exposed weakness where I grew up, you were attacked, quickly, and viciously. The few times I let my emotions out, bad things happened. Sometimes very bad things happened... So I pretty much learned how not to have any emotions...

But you can't walk around living life every day without showing emotion, because people will be afraid of you; so I learned how to read people, and to adjust my apparent emotions and reactions to suit the emotions and reactions of others.

The thing is, it's not actually sex I'm addicted to. I'm addicted to the risk, and the control. The two greatest feeling of risk and control, are when you are fighting for your life, or skating right on the edge of death; and when you are seducing someone.

When you jump out of an airplane, and freefall into a situation you can't even describe... and you know that you are in control, you are master of life and death... in that moment you are the closest to seeing the mind of god you will ever be. "Real life" just doesn't compare to it in any way.

The seduction is a pale imitation of it, because you can't die, but the emotional impact, the risk; it feels almost the same. It's so much less, but that feeling is the same... It's very hard to describe.

Those of you with any psychiatric background, or much exposure to it, know exactly where this is going. I was a classic dissociative sociopath, with an extremely elevated response threshold. Before you get all profiler on me, yes I liked to burn things as a kid (who doesn't), but I never tortured animals, I was never physically abused nor have I ever abused anyone (though there was considerable emotional abuse in my family. I LOATHE abuse with every fiber of my being in ways that some people find frightening for me to describe), and I do HAVE empathy, and a conscience, I just have the ability to turn them off when needed.

I am generally an extremely stable personality, and as I said very controlled. Not in the "so tight he's going to pop way", I just have the ability to... neutralize.. my emotions, and control my reactions, as away of dealing with stress. Is it healthy? No; but it's better than some ways I can think of, and it allows me to accomplish things when others are falling apart.

When I was a teenager, I wasn't in as good a shape. I compartmentalized my emotions and reactions so thoroughly and seamlessly that not even I knew what was real, and what was the mask. I had three different sets of friends (other than my true friends, of which there are less than 10, and I would kill or die for any of them without question), none of whom knew each other, and none of whom knew the same man, who just happened to share my body and my name; because I was three entirely different people, at least from their perspective. It was unconscious, automatic.. seamless.

I can't begin to describe to you how empty this is.

I lived like this for years, from the time I was a small child until my late teens.

One day I realized that I hadn't experienced a genuine emotion in several years; that I was just going through the motions. I had no pleasure, no fear, no lust, no anger... just loneliness, emptiness, frustration, and pain.

Literally the only time I felt anything was when I was with one of my best friends, when I had just "made the kill", or when I was flying.

I changed my life that day. I decided that I was going to loosen my control a little bit. That I was going to allow real emotions in my life. That I was going to stop treating the people around me as objects to be manipulated, and start treating them as people.

I was also in that phase of my life where I was regularly RISKING my life, jumping out of airplanes and helicopters, etc... which helped me to open myself up, and helped me to deal with stress in other ways.

A few weeks later I met the girl who I would get engaged to. A few months after that she killed herself.

I wasn't with anyone for a year, though lord knows the temptations were there. It would have been very easy to go back to the way I was before, to shut out the pain, and to start eating women like candy again. I didn't. I controlled myself, becaue I didnt want to be that person.

Then I met the woman I would marry. We were together four years, married for two of them, and I admit, during the hard times I would cheat. I would go out, and pick someone up, have sex with them, and then go back to my wife. It kept me sane, and let me stay with her when honestly I really shouldnt have. I should have never married her, but I literally went out, picked up this portugese girl, banged her to within an inch of her life, and went back and asked Drea to marry me; like it would solve all of our problems.

Of course getting married just made them worse, and as her mental illness progressed, I would deal with it; or rather, NOT deal with it by cheating more and more. There were times when she was physically and emotionally unable to have sex for a couple of months at a time; and after a week or two, I would be out having sex with a co-worker, or a neighbor, or jsut some girl I picked up in a book store or a coffee shop (two of the three best places to pick up women, the third being at some public event, gathering, or even public transport. The baset places are where people are thrown together in simultaneously intimate and isolating surroundings, where you have a good chance of finding a conversational clue to start with, and where people arent expecting a personal interaction).

Sex became how I dealt with stress after I got out of the Air Force. Before, I could shoot stuff, and jump out of airplanes, but after I moved to California, I didnt have a healthy outlet. I was working so damned much, and home was bad...

It was exactly like an alcoholic crawling into the bottle, or a junkie after the fix. The excitement was back, and the only time I really felt alive, whas when I was out there hunting for it.

Then my wife and I split, and I went a little crazy. I was in an environemnt where there were lots of good looking young women, who were easy pickings; and I picked.. with a new girl every day, sometimes a couple a day.. someitmes orgies or groups, or kink... I went wild for a few months.

Then I met Lisa.

Lisa was everything I needed. Lisa was my salvation. Once lisa and I were together, I wasnt with anyone else. That was it, cold turkey... until she and I were forcibly split up by her family, and there I was, crawling back into it again; five girls in five days, groups, whatever.

Then I met Antje, and I was faithful for a year. It was hard because a couple months into that year she moved from Ireland to Germany (where she was from originally), and I moved from Ireland back to the U.S. We only got to see each other four times after I moved, and it was months between each visit.

But I was faithful for a year. Finally I just couldnt stay faithful any more. I still loved her, but things were not going well at work, and my mother was not going well... I need to FUCK damnit, and so I did. I binged, and I was with maybe 5 girls in two weeks.

My binges usually go in threes, and fives... I don't know why.

I visited her about two months later, and all was well, but she wasnt going to move back to the US, and I wasnt going to move back to germany. We never actually broke up, we jsut sort of stopped talking one day...

And I binged again.

Then I met Sarah, and we were together a few months, lots of great sex, but she and I split up because she "feel like I just can't keep up with you. It's Like every word you say, you're just leaving me behind. You're great, you make me feel great when youre with me, and you try not to, and I try to keep up, but I jsut can't. You're just too much, too fast".

And I binged again

Then I met the on-again-off again, and I didnt really binge or purge for a few months, but she was kind of a substitute for that. Our relationship was pretty much just sexual; we cared about each other, but we didnt get along well enough to have a real long term relationship. We would get close for a few weeks, or a month or two at a time, then not talk with each other for a few weeks, maybe see someone else for a few weeks or a month etc...

Basically I used her like a maintenance valve; and she used me the same way; and we were both cool with that.

But then I met Amanda, and she was my own little binge. We dove in together, and it was incredible, and amazing, and intense and... she was a very damaged girl, and couldnt deal with a relationship.

And I binged...

I want to be with someone who loves, me, and who needs me, and who I love and I need. I want someone who I can be an equal partner with. I want someone who is both strong, and vulnerable. I want someone who needs me to take care of them a little bit; not a hell of a lot, but I'm a caregiver by nature, I need to be that way. I want someone who's affectionate. I want someone who has a libido like mine. I want someone who understands the pain, and the loss, and who I can share it with, and heal with. I want someone who's a litle crazy, but not too crazy.

I think maybe that might be too much to ask; It's so much easier just to find someone to fuck.

It's been a couple months, and I've been feeling that urge build up again. I knew this morning that in the next few days I was going to go out there and find someone to relieve the tension with.

Then this happened, and man, it's got me thrown.

I honestly don't know what this is going to do to me emotionally, I havent even begun to process it. I'm jsut so fucked up right now...

The worst thing I could do is go fuck somebody, but going from past history that's exactly what I'm going to do. I have a neighbor, who any time I can literally jsut walk into her apartment, throw her down, and fuck her brains out. She always acts like she doesnt want me to fuck her, until I've got my hands on her, and then she wants it sooo bad... She wants me to almost rape her; to take the decision out of her hands so she can surrender to being fucked without guilt or shame...

God that's so exciting when she's fighting with herself.. you can see that she wants it, you can smell it. Bring your hand up, and she moves her face to it. You touch her and she makes a sigh she doesnt even notice. Her hips thrust towards you without her control, but she cant make herself do it, and you take her, and you thrust inside her, and she screams and bites your shoulder and pulls you into her , and GOD DAMN!!!

That moment, you are everything to her, you have total control over her, and she's completely fallen free, into you. Total trust, total fear, release and exultation, all in that moment.

You don't know how much I want to go down there right now and fuck the hell out of her.

I choose not to right now, and my will can be very strong, but I AM an addict, and I break sometimes...

There are people who dont believe in sex addiction, or think this is bullshit. Have you ever known an addict? Take what I'm feeling, and what I've described, and put whiskey or heroin in place of sex, it's the exact same thing.

I dont want to excuse myself, I feel like shit about it, I just know what my reaction to things in the past has been.

I'm not gonna do it. I promise myself I'm not going to do it this time. I'm going to keep things together in other ways. I have things I need to do, and energy I can focus on other things, and thats what I'm going to do.

I can control this, and I have controlled it, it was always just easier before to eventually lose my control, and let it control me, and I wont let that happen this time.

I won't.