166 replies to this topic

[Trimix2dive]

Oh come on now?  Where are the Mods? 

We are here...just make sure you don't go into much detail

as a small droplet of impassioned sweat slowly glided down her glistening body, and over....................... I .............................

wait wait wait sorry thats what your trying to moderate.

my bad

Edited by Trimix2dive, 14 August 2005 - 05:01 PM.

[Funewgy]

I am like a professional golfer that has his amateur status reinstated after a long period of inactivity/inability as a pro. Basically, my virginity has been reinstated. Sorry I cannot contribute to this thread.

[ScubaPunk]

As for the "gentleman never tell" theory... what would happen if they really never did tell? What if we never heard the story of Anthony and Cleopatra... Love Story... Romeo and Juliet... The Phantom of the Opera?

I thought these were love stories, are we talking Wild Sex or Love? Are they one and the same in a man's eyes? What constitutes "Wild Sex"? Spontaneity? Is it just having sex anywhere other than the bedroom? In a pool, in a lake, in a hot tub, under a waterfall, in a car, on a car, on a beach, on a rooftop, driving down highway 69? Yeah, all those things are great fun, but is that what makes it wild? I'm probably taking the original question way to literally, I tend to do that sometimes.

I've also been trying to figure out why I don't want to share my stories, and I think the answer may be that "wild sex" means something different to me, than what your post intended. For me, wild sex is something that is over the top. It's the kind of sex where the world disappears outside the edges of your bed, (or car, or wherever) where you are temporarily completely and totally out of control, it's passionate, mind blowing, life altering ecstasy that you dream about for weeks after it takes place, and it doesn't matter where I'm at when it happens. It's the kind of sex that usually only happens when you are in love with someone, because you have to know each others bodies extremely well and you have to trust each other completely. I don't think it's all that common for single people, at least not for the women. If you are in a relationship with someone or married, than hopefully it is very common. Anyway, that's why I can't share.

As for the cars and hot tubs, etc. Yeah, yeah, been there, done that!

[annasea]

I thought these were love stories, are we talking Wild Sex or Love?  Are they one and the same in a man's eyes?  What constitutes "Wild Sex"?  Spontaneity?  Is it just having sex anywhere other than the bedroom?  In a pool, in a lake, in a hot tub, under a waterfall, in a car, on a car, on a beach, on a rooftop, driving down highway 69?  Yeah, all those things are great fun, but is that what makes it wild?

Great questions, Sandy! It will be most interesting to see if any of the men decide to answer these for us women!

Based on the subtitle, "Where have you sewn your wildest oats?", I reckon the initial intention of the thread was where -- but as Henry first pointed out, who matters more than where.

I've also been trying to figure out why I don't want to share my stories, and I think the answer may be that "wild sex" means something different to me, than what your post intended.  For me, wild sex is something that is over the top.  It's the kind of sex where the world disappears outside the edges of your bed, (or car, or wherever)  where you are temporarily completely and totally out of control, it's passionate, mind blowing, life altering ecstasy that you dream about for weeks after it takes place, and it doesn't matter where I'm at when it happens.  It's the kind of sex that usually only happens when you are in love with someone, because you have to know each others bodies extremely well and you have to trust each other completely.  I don't think it's all that common for single people, at least not for the women.  If you are in a relationship with someone or married, than hopefully it is very common.  Anyway, that's why I can't share.

Extremely well said! Thx for sharing this!

[kevininpo]

punkie is my goddess

[drbill]

I have had some incredible sex with people I didn't "love" but liked very much. It is possible to have an incredible physical experience even without the added appeal of deep love. Of course I always prefer sex with someone I care for very much, with someone I love. It means a lot more emotionally.

However it is quite possible to have incredible physical sex with someone for whom you don't feel the intense emotional attachment to. Then again, I've had lousy rotten sex with women I did care for.

At least that's what I can conjur up from the depths of my memory. Nothing recently to verify all this.

[ScubaPunk]

However it is quite possible to have incredible physical sex with someone for whom you don't feel the intense emotional attachment to.

Possible, yes of course, but not common place, especially for women. A man who is not emotionally invested in her will not usually take the time to make it great sex for her. And just being in a romantic location ain't gonna make it great!

Then again, I've had lousy rotten sex with women I did care for.

There is usually something outside of the sex that causes something like that to happen when you're with someone you care for.

[Neptuner]

Hmmmm... this may be risky on a Monday morning, but I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you to some extent Miss ScubaPunk. While I would agree that location alone will not make the sexual experience particularly better, I do believe that there are some men who will take the time to make the experience memorable whether or not they have a deep emotional attachment or not. Again, I'm not saying all, or even most, but some men will go the extra distance (no pun intended here). For some men, believe it or not, the most erotic and satisfying aspect of a sexual encounter is making certain that the woman achieves a more than adequate level of satisfaction. Yes, achieving that level does require a great deal of trust, assurance and cooperation from both parties, but if both people are truly open right from the beginning, I think it can be achieved even in the first encounter. It's not often that way, but it is possible... and of course it will likely get better as they feel more and more comfortable with each other, that only stands to reason.

I would agree with drbill, however, I've had encounters that involved "friends with benefits" (isn't that the term nowadays?) that were absolutely amazing. Were we in love? No, but there were still feelings involved. I too have also had encounters with women I was madly in love with only to find out that their capacity for passion was not nearly as intense as mine (IMHO), so it was not nearly as satisfying. I don't beleve that there were "other issues" involved at all, it just wasn't an area of life that they were completely comfortable with and it showed. That's not to say that it might not change over time, but in the immediate situation it was nothing spectacular, no matter how much I was in love with them.

From a guy's perspective, if we actually are smart enough and open enough to stop and ask for directions, please, by all means, let us know when we're getting to the right destination. Just as some guys aren't comfortable asking what your preferences are, many women aren't comfortable enough to vocally report back when things are going well. And of course we all know about the "faking" that supposedly goes on. Male ego or not, I can't imagine anything worse than being lied to about that. I would like to think that I could tell the difference... but who knows for certain, right? LOL! I just think it's silly to even have to consider it. My motto is to say what's on your mind and in your heart and I will always do the same.

As for the original intent of the thread, I guess it's whatever people want to share, but I was thinking more along the lines of a meaningful encounter with someone who you have serious feelings for. I used the title because I knew it would catch people's eye, but it could have just as easily been called, "Couples: How do you keep the spice in your life?" or something like that. I thought that perhaps a discussion about romantic encounters that people have shared might spawn new ideas for others as well. A perfect example would be when someone previously said in this thread (I'm paraphrasing of course) "don't ever do it on the beach because the sand gets everywhere you don't want it" and later on someone else mentioned that they grabbed the hotel sheet and THEN headed for the beach. To me personally, that was useful information and something I would remember in the future.

P.S. Kamala, does the hotel in Grenada have a policy about sheets vacating the hotel?

[drbill]

However it is quite possible to have incredible physical sex with someone for whom you don't feel the intense emotional attachment to.

Possible, yes of course, but not common place, especially for women. A man who is not emotionally invested in her will not usually take the time to make it great sex for her. And just being in a romantic location ain't gonna make it great!

If I actually go to bed with a woman (versus just being platonic), it means that there is enough of a connection between us that I respect her and care that she has an enjoyable experience. That is why I do not simply bed a woman for the physical experience.

Three of the four women I've been with "recently" (that covers a number of years by the way) were women I didn't love, but did care for. My interaction with them was incredible... for them. Why? Because I cared enough to ask what they desired. For two of them (both formerly married), it was the first time they'd been asked such a question. It led to experiences that opened their eyes to their potential. Of course the three were "in love" with me, I just couldn't reciprocate.

The other woman was a woman I loved and was with for nearly 8 years. We were great friends and respect one another to this day (after 6 years apart). Our physical relationship was probably "average" from my perspective, but there were so many other things that kept us together. Surprisingly, after we broke up, she said it had been good.

No question that loving someone makes for a much more enjoyable experience. However, I believe that love is something that evolves over time between two people... and question the concept of "love at first sight" (at least for me). Caring for your partner and being sensitive to and communicative about their needs (as well as your own) is often equally productive.

I've tried to express this in language that will not be offensive to anyone. It is strange how we can discuss certain things with candor and some like this one, one of the two basic interactions of any species, has to be couched in certain language to be acceptable.

[drbill]

However it is quite possible to have incredible physical sex with someone for whom you don't feel the intense emotional attachment to.

Possible, yes of course, but not common place, especially for women. A man who is not emotionally invested in her will not usually take the time to make it great sex for her. And just being in a romantic location ain't gonna make it great!

If I actually go to bed with a woman (versus just being platonic), it means that there is enough of a connection between us that I respect her and care that she has an enjoyable experience. That is why I do not simply bed a woman for the physical experience.

Three of the four women I've been with "recently" (that covers a number of years by the way) were women I didn't love, but did care for. My interaction with them was incredible... for them. Why? Because I cared enough to ask what they desired. For two of them (both formerly married), it was the first time they'd been asked such a question. It led to experiences that opened their eyes to their potential. Of course the three were "in love" with me, I just couldn't reciprocate.

The other woman was a woman I loved and was with for nearly 8 years. We were great friends and respect one another to this day (after 6 years apart). Our physical relationship was probably "average" from my perspective, but there were so many other things that kept us together. Surprisingly, after we broke up, she said it had been good.

No question that loving someone makes for a much more enjoyable experience. However, I believe that love is something that evolves over time between two people... and question the concept of "love at first sight" (at least for me). Caring for your partner and being sensitive to and communicative about their needs (as well as your own) is often equally productive.

I've tried to express this in language that will not be offensive to anyone. It is strange how we can discuss certain things with candor and some like this one, one of the two basic interactions of any species, has to be couched in certain language to be acceptable.

[David Evans]

For me, wild sex is something that is over the top. It's the kind of sex where the world disappears outside the edges of your bed, (or car, or wherever) where you are temporarily completely and totally out of control, it's passionate, mind blowing, life altering ecstasy that you dream about for weeks after it takes place, and it doesn't matter where I'm at when it happens. It's the kind of sex that usually only happens when you are in love with someone, because you have to know each others bodies extremely well and you have to trust each other completely. I don't think it's all that common for single people

Nicely said, Sandy. I agree completely with your assessment. My most memorable encounters haven't been defined by place or position or technique, but by experiencing a very deep emotional connection and trust with the party involved. For me, to describe the situational detail to others would seem perhaps even unremarkable, because what made the event remarkable was the way I felt about the other person.

Yes, technique and atmosphere matter, but those things - for me anyway - are secondary to the joy experienced when two souls (rather than two bodies) manage to connect.

-d

[freedivers]

Treating each other with respect and dignity is key to the success of any encounter. Add to the mix a good bottle of Pinot Noir, good food and live jazz makes for a great evening.

Where it progresses from there is the dance of two people who agree to share the leading and following...

[Basslet]

I have had some incredible sex with people I didn't "love" but liked very much. It is possible to have an incredible physical experience even without the added appeal of deep love. Of course I always prefer sex with someone I care for very much, with someone I love. It means a lot more emotionally.

However it is quite possible to have incredible physical sex with someone for whom you don't feel the intense emotional attachment to. Then again, I've had lousy rotten sex with women I did care for.

At least that's what I can conjur up from the depths of my memory. Nothing recently to verify all this.

I have to agree here. Even being a woman, I've had great sex with guys I didn't love.

[ScubaPunk]

If I actually go to bed with a woman (versus just being platonic), it means that there is enough of a connection between us that I respect her and care that she has an enjoyable experience. That is why I do not simply bed a woman for the physical experience.

You are one of the few Drbill.

No question that loving someone makes for a much more enjoyable experience. However, I believe that love is something that evolves over time between two people... and question the concept of "love at first sight" (at least for me). Caring for your partner and being sensitive to and communicative about their needs (as well as your own) is often equally productive.

Yes, love makes the experience that much more sweet. That being said, I have had wonderful sex when I was not in love. But, I'm not talking about simply good sex. This topic is titled "Wild Sex". Which I have incorrectly interpreted as meaning something "better" than good sex, and for me, that bar has been raised mighty high. So just so ya'll know, I am not saying that you cannot have good sex with someone you are not in love with.

[ScubaPunk]

Hmmmm... this may be risky on a Monday morning, but I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you to some extent Miss ScubaPunk. While I would agree that location alone will not make the sexual experience particularly better, I do believe that there are some men who will take the time to make the experience memorable whether or not they have a deep emotional attachment or not. Again, I'm not saying all, or even most, but some men will go the extra distance (no pun intended here). For some men, believe it or not, the most erotic and satisfying aspect of a sexual encounter is making certain that the woman achieves a more than adequate level of satisfaction. Yes, achieving that level does require a great deal of trust, assurance and cooperation from both parties, but if both people are truly open right from the beginning, I think it can be achieved even in the first encounter. It's not often that way, but it is possible... and of course it will likely get better as they feel more and more comfortable with each other, that only stands to reason.

I don't think we disagree at all. I said "usually", you said "some men". "Some men" understand that it is not all about them. If more men understood this, they would be having sex a lot more often.