first night sex - terrible bikini wax rash

[racetobed]

shit oh shit - have namechanged
heterosexual men - pls tell me the truth

tonight's the night, have overnight childcare and am free to spend night at new man's house. was feeling sexy and confident, had splashed on new underwear BUT AM SPORTING AWFUL BIKINI WAX RASH.

Is there any chance this will be overlooked in the heat of the moment? Or do I have shuffle off at midnight pledging another overnight encounter another time?

I like this guy, we've been dating a month. I wouldn't say we're in a relationship, but there's definite chemistry and I'd like to explore the possibility of one.

Is this going to be a serious put off?

Honesty pls.

@ TLD and 'extremely close'

I know what you mean AF but I usually manage to protest just enough .

ok, prism, I believe ya

thousands wouldn't

To be honest I can't really imagine being put off once you get to that point- I mean, you've decided you fancy this woman enough to want to shag her, she apparently wants to shag you; you're definitely in the starting gate- at this point your crotch would simply not allow you to back out, and would enable you to see bikini rash as the most desirable bodily feature imaginable.

I do know that women worry about the appearance of their nether regions sometimes but it's a terrible shame as it really will not matter- even men are capable of knowing it's the person that you're shagging, not the bikini rash/strange labia/whatever.

Prism, are you me?

Well, Gay40, if I was, would you really be asking?

Gay40 are you a heterosexual man?

Nooooooooo an extremely gay woman

oh.

in that case prism is most probably not you.

Hang on a sec. I've checked with a couple of people who ought to know and, yes, indeed, Gay40, I am you.

I can't say I'm surprised. For reasons well known to you and me, it would have implausible, not to say impossible, for all of that (since 1992) to have been done without what, at the very least, might be called an accomplice. It was at times hard to believe I was working alone- now I know that I was not.

So it is refreshing, if somewhat surprising in these annals, to meet my alter ego after all this time, and I must admit that it is something of a relief to know that I shall not have to pay that debt to womankind singlehandedly, so to speak.

Mum's the word.

I do love a happy ending...

That would account for the volume

Volumes?

Pedants, please advise

volumes ?

I don't get it

Don't worry about it.

I thought I'd embroider another post into this thread, to see if Gay40 and I are still snogging from the same hymn sheet:

One of the more disappointing aspects of being a bloke is the fact that from time to time you are invited, or rather obliged, to listen to other blokes telling you why they would not shag various women, either individual ones or whole classes of them. This is usually said to be on account of various supposed anatomical oddities or deficiencies.

This conversational strategy has the effect (the tellers think) of implying a great knowledge and experience of the female form, and hence by this get-my-rejection-in-first strategy, they try to imply that no woman, especially the ones in question, would be good enough for them, and they should know.

Of course nothing could be further from the truth- this putative rejection will never be tested, because they would never be offered a shag by any of these women, or indeed anyone else, but the policy of pre-emptive rejection can safely be hinged on something that will never be known- ie., what such women (or indeed any women) look like with their clothes off, from the inspection pit.

Now, this is all fairly pathetic, and can safely be done only in a group of feckless (I am using the Irish definition here) group of men, but I do think that this banter, however barmy, somehow gets into the received wisdom, and so women start thinking that men actually think (even ones who can think) like this, and start worrying about aspects of their bodies that will probably never be noticed, and certainly not in some way considered to be an impediment to lurve.

So don't!

erm, ok then

Agreed. So all you women out there, who are worrying NEEDLESSLY about sagging, flapping, scarring, PLEASE STOP IT.

We do not give a flying toss about your stretchmarks, your natural tits, your love of a proper dinner, etc etc etc. They are not an impediment to love, sex or relationships, apart from in your mind, and anyone who thinks it matters is a goddamn fool and unworthy of a minute more of your time.
The only thing that makes you unsexy is your own negative self-image, which over the years has been reinforced by a series of shit husbands/boyfriends, the media and other cock-happy blokes (see Prism's rant).

Well this is mighty curious. Bikini rash is one thing, but are you telling me, Gay40, that there are women out there going round thinking "If only I didn't love a proper dinner"?

Nothing will put me off faster than a woman who can't enjoy a proper dinner.
By this I mean the people who, when you invite them out for dinner, eat a lettuce leaf and claim to be full.
Or, "If I was thinner, a man would love me." Bollocks would they.
See also "If I had a boob job/If I hadn't had a few kids/If my legs were better shaped" etc.

Or only have sex in certain postions so that their belly looks flat.

That is also totally ridiculous ^

Agree - have been guilty of it myself in the past Ironically when I had a fantastic figure Now I couldn't care less.

I prefer the couldn't care less people. They are generally better in bed.

Well I don't like to boast