-
Content Count
964 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Member Map
Posts posted by greedyneedygirl
-
-
A response from a very dear old American Friend:
Masturbation and Pornography
What is the relationship between masturbating and pornography? Are they each a necessary component of the other?
Someone once said that sex is a matter of two elements, fantasy and friction. In the case of masturbatory sex, the friction is applied by my hand or by humping, rubbing my penis against something. The fantasy can come from my mind, a mental state I can self create from my innate horniness or it can come from images I collect from the world of pornography. I have, over a lifetime of masturbating, used both sources for my fantasies, especially in my youth when I had little choice and pornography was not accessible to me. Now, in the age of the internet and personal computer we are all aware of the vast array and volume of pornographic imagery that is available and so much of it is absolutely free. As a life long, chronic, committed, addicted masturbator I find this to be an unmitigated blessing. On a daily basis I consume huge quantities of porn and this computer is filled with it to the point where I have to delete on a regular basis I need to delete to make room for new material. I am as addicted to pornography as I am to my masturbating. Would I still masturbate as much if I did not have pornographic material to arouse myself with. I am sure I would try but I am also sure it would be much more difficult to muster the fantasies that I need to satisfy the longings of my penis.
So what particular types of pornography to I focus on and why. I refer you to my next journal entry entitled:“WHAT TYPE OF PORNOGRAPHY DO I MASTURBATE OVER?” -
It seems that almost 90% of respondents are of an age that are tech savvy, the printed analogue image as stimulant long before their time. So with that in mind, here's a confession from an older chap who answered my question on another forum:
'My parents owned a newsagent, much to my Mother's protestations we sold what would be regarded now as soft-core porn magazines on the top shelf. At the end of the week, invariably many titles remained unsold, so my Father piled them up ready for collection. As you can imagine, I was like a kid in the candy shop, spoilt for choice. I remember one magazine called 'Girl Illustrated', with lots of artfully posed females, the first time that I had seen pubic hair on a woman. Every month I would take an issue and select a favourite image to masturbate to.'
- 3
-
3 hours ago, Sweets said:
I like to read more than watch porn. I have a very Vivid imagination. Reading still allows you to use your an imagination
Have to agree with that, although I have a crafty look at porn too, which I guess is why I love this forum. In my view, women like to read and use their imaginations more than men...cue, controversial statement!
- 1
-
I think it depends on the clothing, event and urges, but tights and knickers can be restrictive! I also try not to sit fully on a public toilet seat.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Thank you for your brief and/or more thorough replies. I have tested the question on other forums. I guess I'm also trying to ascertain whether the ease of access to pornography on the internet has increased the desire for masturbation. Printed material, 8mm film, VHS cassettes, DVD are so called older or analog formats, requiring a purchase and one to one interaction, presenting problems, embarrassment and a furtive exchange of sorts. It also seems that the combination of the imagination, stimulated by an image, or previous experience can aid masturbation. One man told me that he became a member of an Adult Cinema Club, he said that he stimulated his penis beneath his clothing without releasing it and by not having a full climax, (edging as Theo describes it) to the films on the screen. He said that he liked to watch other men masturbate, (although he was not gay...and would not entertain the idea of any physical interaction with another guy). Clearly pornography provided the stimulus in that case. One of the most interesting replies I had from another forum, was from someone who enjoyed the whole ritual of wedding ceremonies (obviously sorely missed due to this awful pandemic). He said that he found what the female guests, (from bride to bridesmaids to the friends and families in attendance) intensely erotic because of the range of tight, often revealing clothing on display; "I just love seeing a curvaceous bottom through the material, silk for instance, the way that it clings to the flesh". The chap sent me some illustrative evidence of the type of dress that stimulated his masturbation after the wedding. I suppose this tallies with the comment about seeing someone fully clothed, but then imagining what lies beneath, fuelling the imagination. If you have been following my contributions to this forum you will know that I often contribute to the 'celebrities that you would like to see pee' theme. Again, it is obviously to do with fantasy and imagination...but also knowing that EVERYONE has to pee, it's then down to the how and where they do it! Also, the memory plays an important role, it can be the most fleeting sight of something or someone, it could be the first pornography encountered, the first furtive grope or the best fuck you ever had! Your first girlfriend/boyfriend...here's another example: "My wife and I don't have sex anymore, yet I masturbate thinking back to the time when we were at it like rabbits going for our first child"
I'll leave you with the Wedding image that was sent to me, I'm sure that you will see the point and I look forward to further replies, thanks for those that have contributed so far. BTW this is also meant for any female members! I'm quite prepared to contribute my own take on the initial question.
- 1
- 3
- 1
-
Q. Is Pornography a necessary prerequisite to masturbation?I will look forward to your reply, feel free to illustrate it as you wish. In fact I will add your answer to the many that I have received already and to those who have yet to answer. (All answers will be treated anonymously and without prejudice). I shall publish the findings once collated.
- 3
-
3 hours ago, Bigpiss89 said:
Wow that’s really cool to hear.. did she ever find it ok or was she always annoyed at him? Did you say anything to him?
We were young and so annoyed and disgusted in what he did, he was one of those boys who always up to dirty things, he used to rob porn mags for my brother. However, it wasn't until much later that I realised what a cathartic experience it was. The last time I saw her was at her Father's funeral, I hasten to add that we didn't discuss the incident, but did wonder whether she remembered it.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Like many of my friends, I have been enthralled by the BBC Series, 'The Serpent'. It's dark, and steeped in nostalgia, set in Bangkok and Paris in the early 70's, an era that I have become fascinated in. There are two actors, Jemma Coleman and Stacey Martin who have caught my eye. Stacey Martin was also in an explicit film called 'Nymphomaniac' (Parts 1 and 2), directed by Lars Von Trier, worth a watch...it's very explicit and there's a pee scene in Part 2, not involving Stacey Martin, who reveals herself in other ways during the film.
- 3
- 2
-
- Popular Post
I may have written about my early experience on this forum before, but at the risk of repeating myself I'll briefly discuss it again. I was about 10, on the cusp of moving from Primary to Senior School. We used to play in a yard surrounded by garages, and some derelict cars. We managed to break into a small van that had been abandoned and me and my friend Sandra sat in the driver's and passenger seat, pretending to drive. My older Brother, (three years my senior) and his friend were also with us, messing about on the roof of the van. Suddenly I became aware of warm water cascading down upon us, I looked up and saw my brother's friends circumcised penis poking through an air vent. The warm water that we were being soaked with was urine, he was literally pissing all over us. My friend's T-shirt was soaking, as we quickly got out of the van, she was crying. My brother and his friend found it highly amusing. Luckily I was able to get my friend home so that we could throw our clothes into the washing machine. I just remember the sight of of that long cock through the vent, peeing. I think it was the first time that I had a tingle about 'tinkle!'
- 2
- 1
- 5
-
Perhaps it's safer to gargle and spit it out?
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
Has anyone seen the film 'Fish Tank', Directed by Andrea Arnold (2009)? There's a scene in which Mia, (played by Katy Jarvis) breaks into the home of her mother's boyfriend, and pees on the carpet, the shot lingers a bit, and you can clearly see her 'double' stream. Whether it was shot for real or not, is hard to see...but it looks very convincing.
- 4
-
Haven't posted in a while, but still enjoy viewing BBC Presenters first thing in the morning, when curiously it's the time of day that I feel horny! I've been watching the Sports presenter Katherine Downes. Lately she has been standing to deliver her sports news so sometimes there's a view from behind, that gives the viewer a delicious view of her curvy bottom. I couldn't find any on-line pics of her bum, so here's some anyway that will give you a sense of her undoubting sexiness...'pee' for us Katherine!
- 2
- 1
-
Liking the new look of PF, interesting layout and font...(what is it BTW?) Change is good! Love to all ❤️
- 1
- 1
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Perverts weren’t always the libidinous bogeymen we imagine when we think of the term today. Sexual mores have certainly shifted dramatically over the course of history and across societies, but the very word ‘pervert’ once literally meant something else entirely to what it does now. For example, the peculiar discovery that some peasant during the reign of Charles II used conch shells for anal gratification or inhaled a stolen batch of ladies’ corsets while touching himself in the town square would have been merely coincidental to any accusations of his being perverted (though it wouldn’t have helped his case). Seventeenth-century terms such as ‘skellum’ (scoundrel) or reference to his ‘mundungus’ (smelly entrails) might have applied but calling this man a ‘pervert’ for his peccadilloes would have made little sense at the time.
Linguistically, the sexual connotation feels natural. The ring of it — purrrvert — is at once melodious and cloying, producing a noticeable snarl on the speaker’s face, while the image of a lecherous child molester, a trench-coated flasher in a park, a drooling pornographer, or perhaps a serial rapist pops into one’s head. Yet as Shakespeare might remind us, a pervert by any other name would smell as foul. For the longest time, in fact, to be a pervert wasn’t to be a sexual deviant; it was to be an atheist.
In 1656, the British lexicographer Thomas Blount included the following entry for the verb ‘pervert’ in his Glossographia (a book also known by the more cumbersome title A Dictionary Interpreting the Hard Words of Whatsoever Language Now Used in Our Refined English Tongue): ‘to turn upside down, to debauch, or seduce’. No doubt all of these activities occur in your typical suburban bedroom today. But it’s only by dint of our post-Victorian minds that we perceive these types of naughty winks in the definition of a term that was floating around the old English countryside. In Blount’s time, and for several hundred years after he was dead and buried, a pervert was simply a headstrong apostate who had turned his or her back on the draconian morality of the medieval Church, thereby ‘seducing’ others into a godless lifestyle.
If we applied this original definition to the present iconoclastic world of science, one of the most recognisable perverts in the world today would be the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. As the author of The God Delusion (2006) and an active proselytiser of atheism, Dawkins encourages his fellow rationalists to ‘turn away from’ canonical religious teachings. As I’ve written my own scientific atheistic screed, I’m not casting stones. I’m proudly in possession of a perverted nature that fits both the archaic use of the term, due to my atheism, and its more recent pejorative use, due to my Bi-Sexuality.Only at the tail end of the 19th century did the word ‘pervert’ first leap from the histrionic sermons of fiery preachers into the heady, clinical discourses of stuffy European sexologists. Today, the term is more likely to be used less as a diagnosis and more as an insult, hurled at the likes of sex offenders. This gradual semantic migration of perverts, from the church pews to the psychiatric clinic to the online comments section of this site, hasn’t occurred without the clattering bones of medieval religious morality dragging behind. Notice that the suffix -vert means, generally, ‘to turn’: hence ‘to convert’ (to turn to another), ‘to revert’ (to return to a previous state), ‘to invert’ (to turn inside out), ‘to pervert’ (to turn away from the right course), and so on. Of those, ‘pervert’ alone has that devilishly malicious core ¬— ‘a distinctive quality of obstinacy’, as the Australian psychoanalyst Jon Jureidini has called it in the paper ‘Perversion: An Erotic Form of Hatred or Exciting Avoidance of Reality?’ (2001). He goes on: ‘petulance, peevishness … self-willed in a way that distinguishes it from more “innocent” deviations’.
A judge accusing someone of ‘perverting the course of justice’ is referring to a deliberate effort to thwart moral fairness. Similarly, since the modern noun form of ‘pervert’ is synonymous with ‘sex deviant’, the presumption is that the person thus described is a deviant by his (or her) own malicious design. In other words, he is presumed to have wilfully chosen to be sexually aberrant — that’s to say, to go against what is right.
It’s striking how such an emotionally loaded word, one that undergoes almost no change at all for the first 1,000 years of its use, can almost overnight come to mean something so very different, entirely eclipsing its original intent. Exactly how did this word ‘pervert’ go from being a perennial term for the ‘immoral religious heretic’ to referring to the ‘immoral sexual deviant’?
One key reason for this shift can be found in the work of the British scholar Havelock Ellis, who back in 1897 popularised the term ‘pervert’ in his descriptions of patients with atypical sexual desires. Earlier scholars, among them Richard von Krafft-Ebing, the Austro-German psychiatrist regarded by many as the father of studies in deviant sexuality, had already sexualised the term, but Ellis’s accessible writing found a wider general audience and ultimately led to this meaning of ‘pervert’ becoming solidified in the common vernacular.
The provenance of the term in Ellis’s work is still a little hard to follow, because he initially uses ‘perverts’ and ‘perversions’ in the sense of sexual deviancy in a book confusingly titled Sexual Inversion (1897). Co-authored with the gay literary critic John Addington Symonds and published after Symonds’s death, the book was a landmark treatise on the psychological basis of homosexuality. In the authors’ view, ‘sexual inversion’ reflected homosexuality as an inside-out form of the standard erotic pattern. That part is easy enough to understand. Where the language of Ellis and Symonds gets tricky, however, is in their broader use of ‘sexual perversions’ to refer to socially prohibited sexual behaviours, of which ‘sexual inversion’ (or homosexuality) was just one. Other classic types of perversions included polygamy, bestiality, and prostitution. The authors adopted this religious language not because they personally believed homosexuality to be abnormal and therefore wrong (quite the opposite, since their naturalistic approach was among the first to identify such behaviours in other animals) but only to note that it was salient among the categories of sexuality frequently depicted as ‘against what is right’ or sinful. Theirs was merely an observation about how gays and lesbians (‘inverts’) were seen by most of society.
Curiously enough, Ellis, the scientist of the pair, and the one usually credited with christening homosexuals as sex ‘perverts’, had his own unique predilection. Ellis’s urophilia — a strong sexual attraction to urine, or to people who are in the process of urinating — is documented in his various notes and letters. In correspondence with a close female acquaintance, Ellis chided the woman for forgetting her purse at his house, adding saucily: ‘I’ve no objection to your leaving liquid gold behind.’ He gave in to these desires openly and even fancied himself a connoisseur of pisseuses, writing in his autobiography: ‘I may be regarded as a pioneer in the recognition of the beauty of the natural act in women when carried out in the erect attitude.’ In his later years, this ‘divine stream’, as he called it, proved the cure for Ellis’s impotence: the image of an upright, urinating woman was the only thing that could turn him on. And he was entirely unashamed of this sexual quirk: ‘It was never to me vulgar, but, rather, an ideal interest, a part of the yet unrecognised loveliness of the world.’ On attempting to analyse his own case (he was a sexologist, after all), Ellis concluded: ‘[It’s] not extremely uncommon … it has been noted of men of high intellectual distinction.’ He was also convinced that men with high-pitched voices were generally more intelligent than baritones. That Ellis himself was a rare high tenor might have had something to do with that curious hypothesis as well.
Ellis was among a handful of pioneering sexologists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who had set out to tease apart the complicated strands of human sexuality. Other scholars, among them Krafft-Ebing and Sigmund Freud, as well as Freud’s early follower, the Austrian psychologist Wilhelm Stekel, were similarly committed to this newly objective, amoral empirical approach to sexual deviance. Their writings might seem tainted with bias to us today (and in fact they are) but they also display a genuine concern for those who found themselves, through no doing or choice of their own, feeling aroused in ways that posed major problems in the social conditions under which they lived.
The early sexologists found themselves confronted by angry purists who believed that their novel scientific endeavours would bring about the collapse of cherished institutions such as marriage, religion, and ‘the family’. Anxieties over such a ‘slippery slope effect’ have been around for a very long time and, in the eyes of these moralists, an objective approach to sexuality threatened all that was good and holy. Conservative scholars saw any neutral evaluation of sex deviants as dangerous, for it legitimised wicked things as ‘natural’ variants of behaviour and lead ‘normal’ people to embrace the unethical lifestyles of the degenerate. Merely giving ‘horrific’ tendencies such as same sex desires, their own proper scientific names made them that much more real to these moralists, and therefore much more threatening. To them, this was the reification of sexual evil. For instance, in 1897 William Noyes, a psychiatrist at the Boston Lunatic Hospital, wrote a scathing review of Ellis and Symonds’s Sexual Inversion in which he chastised the authors for ‘adding 300 more pages to a literature already too flourishing … Apart from its influence on the perverts [homosexuals] themselves no healthy person can read this literature without a lower opinion of human nature, and this result in itself should bid any writer pause.’
Looking back, it’s evident that Ellis and Symonds’s careful distinction between homosexual behaviour and homosexual orientation was an important step in the history of gay rights. It might seem like common sense today, but these authors disentangled the two elements, which in turn informed our modern understanding of homosexuality as a psychosexual trait (or orientation), not just something that one ‘did’ with the same sex. Their contribution to the way psychiatrists’ thinks about homosexuality had long-lasting implications for gays and lesbians. On the positive side, homosexuals were no longer perceived (at least by experts) as fallen people who were simply so immoral and licentious that they’d even resort to doing that; instead, they were seen as having a psychological ‘nature’ that made them ‘naturally’ attracted to the same sex rather than to the opposite sex.
On the negative side, this newly recognised nature was also regarded as inherently abnormal or flawed. With their inverted pattern of attraction, homosexuals became perverts in essence, not just louses dabbling in transgressive sex. Whether or not they ever had homosexual sex, such individuals were now one of ‘those people’. Also, once homosexuality was understood to be an orientation and not just a criminal behaviour, it could be medicalised as a psychiatric condition. For almost a century afterwards, physicians saw gays and lesbians as quite obviously mentally ill. And just as one would treat the pathological symptoms of patients suffering from any mental illness, most clinicians believed that homosexuals should be treated for their unfortunate disorder. Needless to say, such ‘conversion’ treatments, in all their shameful forms, didn’t involve encouraging gays and lesbians to be themselves.
The die had also been cast for the disparaging term pervert and its enduring association with homosexuality. Not so long ago, some Neo-Freudian scholars were still interpreting anal sex among gay men as an unconscious desire in the recipient (or the ‘bottom’) to nip off the other’s penis with his tightened sphincter. ‘In this way, which is so characteristic of the pervert,’ mused the influential South African-born psychoanalyst Mervin Glasser in the paper ‘Identification and its Vicissitudes as Observed in the Perversions’ (1986), ‘he [is] trying to establish his father as an internal object with whom to identify, as an inner ally and bulwark against his powerful mother’. That might sound as scientific to us today as astrology or tarot cards but considering that Glasser wrote this 13 years after the American Psychiatric Association formally removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, it shows how long the religious moral connotations stuck around, even in clinical circles. Glasser’s bizarre analysis of ‘perverts’ was the type of thing a gay man could expect to hear if he ever sought counselling for his inevitable woes from living in a world that couldn’t decide if he was sick or immoral, so simply saw him as both.
Today, the word pervert just sounds silly, or at least provincial, when used to refer to gays and lesbians. In a growing number of societies, homosexuals are slowly, begrudgingly, being allowed entry into the ranks of the culturally tolerated. But plenty of other sexual minorities remain firmly entrenched in the orientation blacklist. Although, happily, we’re increasingly using science to defend gays and lesbians, deep down most of us (religious or not) still appear to be suffering from the illusion of a creator who set moral limits on the acceptable sexual orientations. Our knee-jerk perception of individuals who similarly have no choice whatsoever over what arouses them sexually (be they paedophiles, exhibitionists, transvestites, or fetishists, to name but a few) is that they’ve wilfully, deliberately, and arrogantly strayed from the right course. In other words, we see them as ‘true perverts. Whereas gays and lesbians are perceived by more and more people as ‘like normal heterosexuals’ because they didn’t choose to be the way they are, we assume that these others somehow did.
As a society we’ve become so focused on the question of whether a given sexual behaviour is ‘natural’ or ‘unnatural’ that we’ve lost sight of the more important question: Is it harmful? In many ways, it’s an even more challenging question, because although naturalness can be assessed by relatively straightforward queries about statistical averages — for example, ‘How frequently does it appear in other species?’ and ‘In what percentage of the human population does it occur?’ — the experience of harm is largely subjective. As such, it defies direct analysis and requires definitions that resonate with people in vastly different ways.
When it comes to sexual harm in particular, what’s harmful to one person could be not only completely harmless to another but might even, believe it or not, be helpful or positive. And it’s not just overtly physical sexual acts that can be experienced differently in terms of harm but also entirely ethereal sexual desires. For the religiously devout, this whole conversation is a lost cause. Yet once one abandons the notion that one can ‘commit’ a sin by thinking a thought, it becomes quite clear that sexual desires — no matter how deviant — are intrinsically harmless to the subject of a person’s lust, at least in the physical sense. Mental states are ‘a mere breath on the air’ as the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre once wrote. Sexual desires can, of course, be thought bubbles with thorns and wreak havoc on a person’s own well-being (especially when they occur in the heads of those convinced such thoughts come from the devil and yet they just can’t stop having them).
Still, it’s only when this ‘mere breath on the air’ is manifested in behaviour that harm to another person might or might not occur. Treating an individual as a pervert in essence, and hence with a purposefully immoral mind, because his or her brain conjures up atypical erotic ideas or responds sexually to stimuli that others have deemed inappropriate objects of desire, then becomes medieval in both its stupidity and its cruelty. It’s also entirely counterproductive. For example, research in the 1980s on the ‘white bear effect’ by the social psychologist Daniel Wegner and colleagues at Trinity University in Texas has shown that forcing a person to suppress specific thoughts leads to those very thoughts invading the subject’s consciousness even more than they otherwise would. (Whatever you do, don’t — I repeat, do not — think about a white bear during the next 30 seconds.)
Our critical evaluations should fall upon harmful sexual actions with the heaviest of thuds, but not upon a pituitary excretion that happens to morph into an ethereal image in the private movie theatre of someone’s mind. Morally, all that matters are whether a person’s sexual deviancy is demonstrably harmful. If it’s not, and we reject the person anyway, then we’re not the good people in this scenario: we’re the bad people.
- 3
- 2
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
On a River Bank, in a secluded spot during a 'Lockdown' run!
- 4
-
What an interesting thread. I always look for descriptive prose on the subject of urine...'a fine tang of faintly scented urine'. What a lovely word 'Tang' is...associated with the olfactory senses, but also of taste. How would one describe the scent of pee once it has dried on a pair of panties?
- 1
-
My daughter is about to make a journey to London from Devon, does anyone know whether public conveniences are open in Motorway Service Stations?
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
-
Eurovision. Due to the present pandemic the Eurovision Song Contest was cancelled, but last night on UK TV, viewers voted for their best Eurovision Song, no surprise that it was 'Waterloo' by Abba. It got me thinking about the period of time they came to fame, in the 1970's when Sweden and Denmark were going through a Hard Core Porn revolution, so here's a few pics of Abba, which one would you like to see in 'Sex Bizarre' peeing!
- 3
- 1
-
My question to members is, I hope quite a simple one. Do women achieve sexual gratification from urolagnia, or are they performing before the camera for commercial gain and under instruction from a man? If the former, how can we determine sexual arousal? Given that men are unable to fake an orgasm, (by that, I mean ejaculation). I wish to illustrate my point with the following video:
https://thisvid.com/videos/submissive-amateur-girl-pees-on-herself-and-fucks-her-asshole/
Q. Why is she doing it? It's obviously self-filmed with the latest technology to allow you to do it. She's alone in her bathroom, commercial gain. or true and genuine young woman who enjoys sharing her submissiveness?
Masturbation: A Questionnaire
in Sex and Porn
Posted
The follow up from American Friend:
“WHAT TYPE OF PORNOGRAPHY DO I MASTURBATE OVER?”
I devour pornography. I pour through it every day of my life. What is the purpose of this obsessive consumption of pornography?
There are two purposes.
First of all I use it to masturbate. I arouse myself with it and use it to prolong the pleasures of masturbating my penis and make myself feel good. Ultimately, I use it to make myself cum, to orgasm and bring on the climactic rush and ejaculation that I crave and need.
But secondly I am endlessly curious about sex and how humans, both men and women, engage in it. I have explored all of the variants of human sexual expression that can be found in the pornographic literature ….. and there are surely an awful lot of them. Some of them I find repugnant and I turn away from them pretty much immediately. In this category I would include sexual mutilation castration and the like. Some of them I just find weird and un erotic such as sex with animals, bestiality. Some I avoid for legal reasons and I thank God that child pornography, subjects with immature sexual attributes do not interest me. Some subjects do pique my interest to the point of experimenting a bit but ending up not really hooked. Scatology is one of these things. Shit really is just too smelly for me. On the other hand urination and pissing on myself does appeal. Go figure! One thing I have no real interest in and hardly ever look at is what I would call commercial pornography, huge breasted women, men with gigantic penises trying to act seductive, cavorting and fucking and sucking their way through some trite scenario.
So what do I like?
Most of all I like what the porn world calls “amateur” participants. I like ordinary every-day people, the kinds you might meet at your church, or parent/teacher meeting or at the library who seem very “vanilla” to use the term of choice in the world of sex addiction. I like these people who seem indifferent to sex to actually be deeply sexual and into intense sexual practices. I like to see them expose themselves and perform sexually mostly by masturbating themselves or with others. I do not so much wish to see them engage in penetrative sex such as fucking or oral versions such as blow jobs but rather I want to see them engage in sex where their genitals are fully on display as they bring themselves to heightened states of arousal and ultimately to orgasms. I like to see men ejaculate and women shudder in their climaxes.
I like to see all types of bodies, not just youthful idealised ones with perfect physiques. I like women who are older and on the skinny side. I like small or saggy or empty breasts and genitalia that are complicated and hairy. The same goes for the men especially older and slender types with penises that are erect in spite of their advanced age. I like to see people undressing themselves and exposing their sex parts but not vamping or doing stripteases that are thought to be seductive. Just ordinary people, like myself, who are undressing to show me their cocks and pussies or penises and vaginas in my preferred terminology.
I like a certain amount of kink too. I like images of submissive men and women. The men kneel before a woman who is directing them to masturbate. The women are made to undress and offer themselves up to men who grope them. masturbate on them and use their undergarments to masturbate with. I like people wetting themselves with urine although I have no strong oral fixation so I don’t get anything from seeing people with mouths open being pissed on or n=being made to drink piss. Eating cum and having men cum in women’s mouths doesn’t do as much for me as seeing ejaculations from penises and vaginas end up on other penises and vaginas. As I said a certain amount of this sort of kink can get me masturbating quite contentedly.
……. And I like to look at genitals, particularly female genitals. What lies between a woman’s legs was for so long a great mystery to me. Now the world of pornography offers a total range of female sex openings to look at and lust after and masturbate over. Some women have tight little pink creases and others have great openings with multiple layers of labia and folds of flesh with tremendous variations of coloration from the apex of spread legs to the innermost depths of their vaginas. I study the whole range of types with my penis dripping and content as I stroke and stroke away. I also look at penises, especially erect ones. I love erections because they signal arousal and the probable onset of masturbating.
So I am a pornography lover, grateful that the types that I masturbate to are free, legal and available to me whenever I feel my sexual juices begin to flow……. which is often.
Am I a pervert? That is the next question I will reflect upon.