Sexy Sundays | The Ins & Outs of Anal Sex (Part 1) (NSFW)

MellissaY

We're introducing a new feature -- Sexy Sundays!  In this feature (which we hope to post every week) we will discuss topics related to everyone's favorite activity. We're always looking for ideas and contributions, so get those e-mails to us!

This, the first Sexy Sundays post, is an overview of anal sex written by a couple who want to share their experiences with same.  The next Sexy Sundays post will address the nuts-and-bolts and techniques of the topic with lots of information for beginners! 

“Love is an Attacker in the Dark”

One of my work spouses (in this sense I am polygamous) recently made this statement to me openly, in front of other co-workers. He simply walked up to us and said that, without apparent provocation “love is like an attacker in the dark”.

“Tell me more,” I said.

He went on to tell me that, when you’re walking down a dark alley, trying to get from here to there, just going along your merry way . . . BAM! Around the corner it swoops . . . An attacker in the dark . . . A blur of motion and limbs and shock that overtakes you before you can blink, before you can register the occurrence . . . Knocking you down and taking control of you.

“Are you seriously equating romantic love with a high-speed mugging?” I asked.

Ode to Rubenesque Women



Het Pelsken
Sir Peter Paul Rubens

Thin is in? I disagree. I've always been an admirer of full-figured women. Thanks to the baroque artist Sir Peter Paul Rubens (example works), we now have the term "Rubenesque" to describe the type of amply-endowed women he painted. Over time, “Rubenesque” has evolved into modern terms such as full-figured or BBW (Big Beautiful Women). History or terminology lessons aside, my admiration (which borders on adoration) of Rubenesque women makes me feel like I am squarely in the minority, thanks to modern advertising. And what stuns me is how people are swayed by models (who look they actually only eat one full meal a week) because of that simple phrase "Thin is in". 


Sine Cerere 1
Sir Peter Paul Rubens

Though I am a male who will be age 50 in 2011, my admiration of full-figured women goes back as long as I can remember. An ample bosom or a full-figured curvaceous body has always set my heart racing far more than any beautiful, thin woman could. Deep down, a Rubenesque woman exudes a warmth and comfort that a firm, athletic (or fit) woman could never offer. Soft, supple hips versus sharp angular ones. A body that is full and inviting compared to a body that is hard and unyielding. Even the term "Rubenesque" sounds softer than the term "Anorexia".


A Joe’s Take on Treating Child Sexual Abusers

I was a boy, and I was sexually abused in my family from the age of 11 or 12 to nearly 20. As a result, I might have a different perspective on how we should deal with abusers.

Zero tolerance, as expressed in most law, is an attempt by well-meaning legislators to capture that rarity which is the full-on pedophile. In that sense I say go for it and get those people into some kind of treatment.

The problem arises in that as disgusting as kiddy porn is, it's an after-the-fact response, sometimes years or decades after. By then it's far too late to help the child in question.

Then, of course, there's nations like Thailand who nod and wink as organized child abuse is traded on to increase tourist traffic. I don't buy for an instant that authorities in Thailand don't know who is running and controlling this appalling business or are completely unable to do anything about it. Mind you, it does draw true pedophiles as well as those who have fantasies. (And no, I don't understand what might cause those fantasies but as long as they aren't acted on I see no need to hunt those people down.)

The problem, as I said, with kiddie porn is that a response to it is after-the-fact rather than preventative.

As I said in my previous post, most abusers were abused themselves as children and come from within the circle of trusted adults and then, most often, from parents. To attack this head-on means exploding the myth of the nuclear family as some sort of perfect construction for the making and raising of children. In the United States and, to a lesser degree in Canada and Europe, this is well-ingrained and very well-defended.

Of course, there are professions that DO attract pedophiles and those who are in danger of repeating what happened to them. In no particular order they tend to be caring professions such as medicine, teaching, the clergy, therapists, police, coaching and, well, I'll let the reader complete the list. Any profession or trade that brings the pedophile in to near-constant contact with children where they can establish a trusted and trusting relationship with the child and its parents.

Each profession closes ranks around offenders, or has a history of that. The most obvious, for now, being the Roman Catholic Church. They're far from the only ones, though.

And each of these professions is surrounded by a mythology all their own, created by Hollywood or by themselves as wonderful, caring people who genuinely want to help their young charges and in the vast majority of cases they are. But amongst the angels there are devils.

So it means attacking the unattackable symbols of our society/civilization and I don't know of a single politician willing to take that one on.

Sending someone with a few pictures of child porn on their hard drive to jail for 10 years is akin to sending someone to the same jail for 10 years because they have an ounce or two of pot in their possession. In the former you aren't, in all likelihood, busting a true pedophile just as much as in the latter you haven't busted a dealer.

What abusers like my father needed and still need, and this is potential and actual abusers of both genders, is caring, non-judgmental treatment for exactly the reason I stated. They are very likely to be victims of abuse themselves and know no other way of expressing great affection. Jail isn't the place for that.

The true pedophile, on the other hand, really ought to be locked away in the same place we put psychopaths and sociopaths because they're another chip off of that self same block.

And then, we ourselves, need to look on those at the lower ends of society's rungs as what they most often are the outer grown up shell of shattered children who never, ever chose the life they now lead.

~TtfnJohn

A Joe’s Child Sexual Abuse Story

Children cannot protect themselves from sexual abuse, and civil liability won’t heal them. How do I know?
I was a boy, and I was sexually abused in my family from the age of 11 or 12 to nearly 20. As this began, in-family, in the 1960s, who was I supposed to tell even in the faint hope I'd be believed? There was no faint hope of belief in those days.

“Stranger abuse” is rare in the extreme for most of those of us who survived childhood sexual abuse, and to us it’s actually an interesting word for the occurrence. It's nearly always a known and trusted (even loved) adult rather than a total stranger, so right then and there the option, to the child, of screaming, yelling, and making a scene is pretty much erased.

Dammit, we love and trust this person! Get it? And the first approach is always in an empty house/apartment so even if that thought was to occur to a child what the hell is the point of trying?

The first response is, after the shock of it all, that we've done something awfully wrong and bad to find ourselves in this situation. Not true, of course, but this is a child’s mind we're dealing with, as I was, so this adult must be punishing us for something we've done.

After that, not too surprisingly comes the overwhelming shame.

As the abuse is repeated, we become convinced that our value, little as it is, is defined by the sex act and little else. The hell we live in makes any other assumption all but impossible.

Some people believe that children are capable of protecting themselves from undesired sexual activity with adults. I'm not at all surprised when I see/hear this because that's the excuse used to excuse this abuse and almost always has been. The thing that saddens me is that people actually seem to believe it. I'd hoped and prayed we, as a culture, were beyond that.

People who believe that children can protect themselves from sexual abuse need to understand how broken we are from that first encounter until we are, should we be lucky and incredibly fortunate, able to come to terms with what happened, with the reality that we did nothing to bring this on and cause it, and that we are people with value for things other than the sex act.

I said understand because others will never know the life we lead after this has happened or the self-blaming, self-accusing, self-loathing world we find ourselves in.

Most of us don't survive long as adults, which may please some as both male and female victims are the vast majority of prostitutes out there. And no, I don't mean high priced call girl types, but street types. The ones you drive by and scowl at and write nasty letters about. If we're men we're often the street hooker's customers.

We're a significant portion of alcoholics and addicts out there self-medicating just to feel "normal". Of course, we have no idea what normal is but we reach for it anyway.

Some of us grow up to be fairly functional in society¸ at least from the outside. We don't behave well and we can't form stable relationships, but we function. Some of us are very successful if you measure success by money and possessions.

Should we form a bond, we then find ourselves back in a family situation again, swearing to God that we won't pass on what happened to us. Until . . . until . . . The day we do. Because we were taught the only way to express the deepest of love is in the sex act and nothing else by the parent or trusted adult that started us down this road taught us anything else.

Not that all of you will believe this, nor do I much care if you do. I'm relating first-hand experience as a victim and survivor just by the miracle of living as long as I have.

I'm 57 and research indicates that most of us die, by our own hands or the hands of others, by our late 20s or early 30s.

I'm incredibly fortunate. I started to deal with this around people that, even though they didn't understand, walked through it with me and didn't judge me. Even in the 1980s when it was felt that this sort of thing NEVER happened to boys.

I know better now, though it hasn't been easy. Recovering from alcoholism and then met face to face with this again. The 12 steps were invaluable as were members of the program. Two women were invaluable to me, the associate priest at my church and the priest in training there.

Two others have been almost as invaluable. One, the first real bond as an equal and well beyond merely the sexual aspect of a relationship taught me that breaking up isn't the end of the world or a reason to go into mourning but a reason to celebrate that relationship and the time we had together. The other is my partner who forbids me from taking myself too seriously and helps me see the value and joy found in a simple snuggle.

The therapeutic "community" has, for the most part, been more an impediment than it has been a help. There are a number of reasons for that but while they've been largely kind and supportive they've also been largely useless to me. For the most part they still are.

If I knew someone had picture of me taken during the abuse and wouldn't get rid of it, I'm not sure if I'd be angry or sad but for a small period of time I'd feel victimized all over again. If I won a lawsuit about said picture? I also know, deep in my being, that if someone had showered me in money I'd be dead by now. Probably from over drinking or a drug overdose. It really is that simple. I wasn't ready for it. I'm not sure I really am now.

It's not that I want to forget it happened, it's that last thing I want to forget. It's formed such a major part of my life, for better and for worse that it's in my cells. A part of my being.

That's why I question the nascent movement to provide civil liability for these sorts of things. It strikes me that some feel that money is sufficient recompense for a life destroyed and may inhibit a life rebuilt. Sadly, that is far too often the result of one of us suddenly having a boxcar full of cash.

I may sound emotional at times, but I know no other way of dealing with this than emotionally. Humans are emotional creatures not logical ones. Pretending to be logical and rational at all times almost killed me. Justice can and ought to have an emotional edge to it as long as it doesn't degenerate in to revenge.

Next time anyone passes a hooker on the street remember that is someone's daughter or son. They no more chose that life that I chose my alcoholism or chose what happened to me. They just weren't lucky enough to find a way to be functional in life as I've been.

My abuser?

My father. Who was abused by his favorite uncle, who was abused by his father, who was abused by his mother and so it goes deep into the family tree. As does alcoholism.

And I don't hate any of them any longer any more that I hate alcohol, though I fear it.

As far as I'm able to, I've forgiven my now deceased father. Maybe he's finally found the peace he never knew in life.

That doesn't change the damage he did to me, it doesn't excuse it, but it somewhat explains it.

Over-legalizing such things accomplishes nothing but turning us back into helpless pawns in someone else's game yet again.

There's no amount of money in the world that can give one of us our childhood back again.

All we can do is build on the shattered remains, and claim our birthright of a healthy and happy adult life where we can love and accept ourselves for who and what we are as whole persons, flaws, warts and all.

There isn't a court judgment in the world that can give that to us.

I wish that people stopped pretending there is.

~TtfnJohn

You're Good for Me

Quarter past 9am and working hard when I receive a text from my girlfriend Angela —“I miss u bad.”   I respond, “Me too, blue eyes.” 

Later, I find myself looking at pictures of her on my Blackberry.  As I scroll from one picture to another, with the earphones in my ears playing our song “You’re Good For Me,” I feel it!  There it goes again!!  A tingle here, a tingle there, and soon it becomes a repeated pattern occurring  from my heart to my soul. 

Each picture I scrolled, I smiled, and with every smile I felt her inside me…   After I finished looking at all the pictures, I text her:

Each day that goes by, my love for you grows
heavier and intoxicating…when I see your picture,
it makes me want to be with you more and when I hear
your voice it tickles my heart.  Oh my love, you’re good for me.

Song Lyrics:  “Good For Me”

 To be with you is easy
 I know you’re good for me
 This feeling inside me
 Oh it sends me sky high

 To feel for you is easy
 Oh baby…
 I know you’re good for me
 This feeling inside me
 Oh it sends me sky high

 You’re good for me, my baby
 So good for me, my love
 You’re good for me, my baby
 So good for me, oh love

~Anonymous

Why Shoot Looters?

Why shoot looters?

After reading an article about the "shoot to kill" order that cops may or may not have gotten in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, I began wondering: Is it necessary to shoot looters?

First, we have to distinguish amongst armed gangs, random people with guns, and looters.

I'm referring to people that, during a disaster, go into stores and take food, water, shoes, TVs (not a good idea), and such.  I'm referring to people that are taking merchandise.

Now, in New Orleans, there is footage of people taking stuff they needed from WalMart, but they weren't violent or armed. The cops in the stores just made sure people don't start fighting and hurting each other. In this clip, the cops were doing just that:

This seems the proper way to handle the situation to me.

How would turning that scene into a killing field help me, or make me safer?

At what point is the "shoot looters on sight" order legitimate? How can someone stealing, DURING A DISASTER, become such a threat to others that they need to die . . . and die right then?

What if someone had taken a loaf of bread . . .  literally. He couldn't get out of the city, found a bakery, and took a loaf of bread. How is that punishable by death?

And just to be snarky, isn't that what insurance is for? Stolen merchandise?

How is stealing water-soaked property worth someone's life?

Now, I'm not talking about people breaking into your house while you're there. I'm talking about people taking things they need to survive from abandoned businesses. How is killing the bread thief protecting me?  Or you?

Hell, how is killing some idiot taking a TV protecting anyone from violence?

The energy that goes into killing looters should be used to load trucks with food and water and hand it out to people in the street. That energy should be used to find people in the street, place them into vehicles, and take them out of the city.

By all means, the police should fight armed people hurting others. But explain how the bread-stealing guy had to die? And, while you're at it, explain how a woman stealing food deserves death at that point.

That is my question.

Explain that one to me.

~Above-Average.Joe