166 replies to this topic

[drbill]

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.

Thanks! Now I know why I've been failing miserably the last two years... I drink merlot! I guess I'd better develop a taste for pinot noir.

[cmt489]

Don't listen to them Dr Bill - merlot is much better than pinot noir!

[drbill]

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.

There are times (like now) when I wish I could just bed someone and not worry about any connectedness... but it just isn't in my emotional make-up. Now friends with benefits (especially dive buddies) would be nice as long as the relationship was fully understood by both parties. And who is to say it couldn't evolve into the "real thing" with time. For me that's how almost all of my deep relationships began.

Would you consider 43 orgasms in a single night "wild sex?" Not... not me, her.

[drbill]

Don't listen to them Dr Bill - merlot is much better than pinot noir!

Whew! I don't need to change. Too bad you're taken or I'd invite you down for a glass of wine (and lots of diving)!

[freedivers]

ROFL

[annasea]

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.

Very interesting ... here's where a rather simple question arises with not so simple answer(s) -- at least for me.

How nice it is that a man is willing to go the whole nine yards to make a sexual experience *great* for a woman that he doesn't really care about. My question is, "Why?" Is it really for the woman or for his ego?

He's happy making her happy, but ultimately, to my way of thinking, it's more about him than her. Anyone care to dispute this?


As for the term *wild sex*, Sandy, I reckon that's open for interpretation -- based on the individual, of course -- but so far, I think David wrote it best:

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.

Edited by annasea, 15 August 2005 - 12:05 PM.

[Basslet]

Would you consider 43 orgasms in a single night "wild sex?" Not... not me, her.

That would be a killer night for sure. Somehow, I just don't believe it though.

[freedivers]

There are times (like now) when I wish I could just bed someone and not worry about any connectedness... but it just isn't in my emotional make-up. Now friends with benefits (especially dive buddies) would be nice as long as the relationship was fully understood by both parties. And who is to say it couldn't evolve into the "real thing" with time. For me that's how almost all of my deep relationships began.

I COMPLETELY understand where you are coming from on this drbill - going thru that in my own life right now..

Coming to a palce of acceptence in one life about their path and whom they cross paths with I think is key along with the openness of seeing what evolves.

No matter what people say, we are all looking for deep connectedness and many times we deny that and keep ourselves living in a state of FEAR - False Evidence Appearing Real - as a self protective mechanism. Instead of being open o the possibilities, many go around wounded and wounding in a Catch-22 cycle.

Only through self-awareness and internal checking can that cycle be stopped - or at least minimized.. I know I've made my fair share of blunders in that process..

[freedivers]

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.

Very interesting ... here's where a rather simple question arises with not so simple answer(s) -- at least for me.

How nice it is that a man is willing to go the whole nine yards to make a sexual experience *great* for a woman that he doesn't really care about. My question is, "Why?" Is it really for the woman or for his ego?

He's happy making her happy, but ultimately, to my way of thinking, it's more about him than her. Anyone care to dispute this?


As for the term *wild sex*, Sandy, I reckon that's open for interpretation -- based on the individual, of course -- but so far, I think David wrote it best:

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.

If a man is willing to be "NICE" in order to fulfill his agenda, then I say piss off.

Only when someone can meet with no expectations of any kind can the encounter be truly enjoyed - for with no expectations, there can be no disappointments.

Having read a book called "The Power Of Now", it elaborates on how the ego works, and once a killing off of the ego begins, you become free from feeling the need to feed your ego. Throughout my own process of that, each encounter I have had, has progressively gotten better and better for I no longer go in with expectations of any kind. Either it is what it is or it isn't - either way - it just "IS"

[annasea]

How nice it is that a man is willing to go the whole nine yards to make a sexual experience *great* for a woman that he doesn't really care about. My question is, "Why?"  Is it really for the woman or for his ego?

He's happy making her happy, but ultimately, to my way of thinking, it's more about him than her. Anyone care to dispute this?


As for the term *wild sex*, Sandy, I reckon that's open for interpretation -- based on the individual, of course -- but so far, I think David wrote it best:

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.

If a man is willing to be "NICE" in order to fulfill his agenda, then I say piss off.

Only when someone can meet with no expectations of any kind can the encounter be truly enjoyed - for with no expectations, there can be no disappointments.

Having read a book called "The Power Of Now", it elaborates on how the ego works, and once a killing off of the ego begins, you become free from feeling the need to feed your ego. Throughout my own process of that, each encounter I have had, has progressively gotten better and better for I no longer go in with expectations of any kind. Either it is what it is or it isn't - either way - it just "IS"

"The Power of Now" -- Eckhart Toller (sp?), right? I read that, too! Please to meet your acquaintance, Freedivers!

No matter what people say, we are all looking for deep connectedness and many times we deny that and keep ourselves living in a state of FEAR - False Evidence Appearing Real - as a self protective mechanism. Instead of being open to the possibilities, many go around wounded and wounding in a Catch-22 cycle.

While I definitely agree with your second statement, I'm a bit skeptical of the first. I wonder if some people are so shallow and self-involved that "deep connectedness" is not something they're looking for -- just instant gratification instead. Mind you, perhaps the reason they are so superficial is because their state of FEAR is so incredibly deep. Either way, thx for the thought!

[freedivers]

Don't listen to them Dr Bill - merlot is much better than pinot noir!

ROFL - I beg to differ - you evidently haven't had good Pinot Noir..

[freedivers]

While I definitely agree with your second statement, I'm a bit skeptical of the first. I wonder if some people are so shallow and self-involved that "deep connectedness" is not something they're looking for -- just instant gratification instead. Mind you, perhaps the reason they are so superficial is because their state of FEAR is so incredibly deep. Either way, thx for the thought!

I can see your point about people being shallow and self involved - but if you understand Tolle's description of the Ego, you would see that by killing it off, you remove the very things that prevent people from deep connectedness.

Remove the very thing that controls us, and we become free to explore and feel deeply - without the egoic drive that so permeates our society. Mind you - I am still on that path, so I am no where near where I want to be, but the Road Less Traveled has been an adventure none the less..

And please to meet yours as well Annasea.. Not too far away actually - I'm in Oregon...

[cmt489]

Don't listen to them Dr Bill - merlot is much better than pinot noir!

ROFL - I beg to differ - you evidently haven't had good Pinot Noir..

Nope - I've had allegedly great Pinot Noir but I simply don't like the Pinot grape. I find it much too light and lacking character. Myself, I love a robust Cab and also like some Shiraz. Merlot would definitely be a distant pick but well above Pinot.

[Neptuner]

How nice it is that a man is willing to go the whole nine yards to make a sexual experience *great* for a woman that he doesn't really care about. My question is, "Why?"  Is it really for the woman or for his ego?

He's happy making her happy, but ultimately, to my way of thinking, it's more about him than her. Anyone care to dispute this?

My dear Miss annasea, I didn't say that he didn't care about her, I said even if he doesn't have a deep emotional attachment (ie: he's not necessarily in love with her or her with him for that matter).

However, I would also dispute that's it's all about him. There are times when it is simply about two people and the magic of the moment. Not my standard type of encounter, but it is possible. Like drbill said, if an encounter is even an option for me personally, then I've already established some type of connection with the woman or we wouldn't be at the point where it is an option. So there already is some sort of interest/feelins/connection or whatever one prefers to call it. Much like I would not simply converse with anyone that happens to be human and speak a similar language, I would not share intimacy with someone simply because they possess the appropriate anatomy.

I really think this is where us guys do sometimes get a bum rap. While it may be true of many (unfortunately), not all of us simply wait around for any woman who we find slightly attractive to give us the go ahead sign so that we can jump in the sack with her. Men and women are wired very differently, women are more emotionally charged than we are... not saying it's good or bad, just stating the obvious. As a result, they tend to get more emotionally attached faster, hence there typically mist be more of an emotional connection before they would consent in the first place. However, I don't think it's fair to assume that he's only having sex for his ego or his own agenda simply because he's not in love with the woman. I think that is often the assumption, but I personally don't agree with it... at least not as a blanket statement. Woman enjoy sex just as much as men... in fact, once they're past thirty I personally think they crave it more than most men do. They may be more selective than most men (thank goodness) about how or when it transpires, but I still think they're benefiting equally from the situation, assuming that both parties know where their level of connection lies.

[David Evans]

Would you consider 43 orgasms in a single night "wild sex?" Not... not me, her.

That would be a killer night for sure. Somehow, I just don't believe it though.

Not to question the veracity of DrBill's account of the evening in question, but I do have this funny visual in my head of a sheet of scratch paper on the nightstand with tally marks on it... "Yup, there goes another one! Check!"



I'm confident enough in my own senility to know that I would have long since lost count during such an encounter (not that I think I've ever managed to get close to such a feat).

43 is a number I'd be pleased with for a month's effort... nevermind a single evening! Perhaps I've set my sights entirely too low!!

-d