How long before you feel comfortable talking about 'anal' and such?

[BurntPasta]

Been together about 3 and a half months. Known each other since April.
Started sleeping together two weeks into it. We have grown very close and done loads together other than sex obviously, we go out a lot and spend loads of time together. Especially lately as he's been sleeping at my house half the week.
Anyway - we've not broached the subject of anal but on a number of occasions, especially these past few weeks his hands have wandered around there but he's stopped short, once he was really drunk and went a little further than usual but I stopped him.

We've talked about loads of stuff, real personal stuff but we both seem too shy to actually bring this up!! Is that normal for just 3 months in?

I wonder if in omc's world, "If I were you" really means "you must do what I fucking say, and do it now" because that is the only way his post makes sense

I agree with the poster who says in about 75 years.

I imagine it would really hurt, and damage me so that I might not have such could control over my rectum in the future.

Where the actual fuck did you see dictatorial in AnyFucker post?

Plenty of people are debating this, quite a few of them are not too keen, people are sharing their experiences.

And AF pointed out a story from another poster and suggests the OP thinks about that side of it and that's your response.

if I were you, I would seriously think of utilising other ways to get your rocks off and quit while you are still ahead

That's friendly?
I'm really sorry for MyPinkSock but like many things I wouldn't take one instance to be prescriptive about.

I don't like anal, at all. Either way.

I think it's a bit presumptuous to think that the other 6 posters who enjoy it need warning about it. In a friendly fashion or not.

I don't think it's about picking and choosing which bits of sexual liberation you want, it's about reciprocity. Which is why comparing this to oral sex is a non-starter because as many women enjoy cunnilingus as men enjoy fellatio.

A good rule of sexual etiquette is never to expect someone to agree to you doing something that you wouldn't want done to yourself. It's a bit of a lame argument suggesting that men aren't 'engineered' to be anally penetrated while at the same time urging women others to keep up with the times. Rectums are the same whether they have a male or a female owner as are throats for that matter, so I think it's fair to question why women's rectums and throats are seen as fair game for sex and not men's. While we're at it, I wonder how many men would like their face squirted with 10cc of female secretions, because once again skin is an organ that is genderless?

I do have to laugh at all these posters saying that because they don't look at porn themselves, their anal sex lives have got nothing to do with it. As if all sorts of things in porn, such as pubic hair removal haven't infiltrated mainstream society .

Interesting thread. Exp insisted all other women than me like it. Au contraire!

OMC, it was in response to a post detailing horrific injuries caused by anal.
And this is a place where people give their opinions.

So what's the issue?

I think I might have given omc a bit of a telling-off once

maybe that's the "issue" < shrug >

If I were you
Hardly dictatorial

A fairly normal reaction to a shockingly sad post from MyPinkSock

Ah. Ok, so that makes sense AF.

I thought it was a bit of an extreme reaction to a simple comment.

ditto

@ Beth

50 years ago, I would guess women who were disgusted by fellatio were just as disgusted by cunnilingus. There's all the reciprocity you want there. If you take things to their illogical conclusion, you shouldn't allow a man to penetrate you unless he's prepared to penetrated. Good luck with that.

Until 1960 Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned in the UK as obscene because it contained passages such as:

^...softly he stroked the silky slope of her loins, down, down between her
soft warm buttocks, coming nearer and nearer to the very quick of her....She felt his penis risen against her with silent amazing force and assertion and she let herself go to him. She yielded with a quiver that was like death, she went all open to him....She quivered again at the potent inexorable entry inside her, so strange and terrible....But it came with a strange slow thrust of peace, the dark thrust of peace and a ponderous, primordial tenderness, such as made the world in the beginning....And the strange weight of the balls between his legs! What a mystery! What a strange heavy weight of mystery, that could lie soft and heavy in one's hand!^

A fairly vanilla shag described in rather purple terms, but it was obscene until 1960, and not just because he was the gamekeeper. Such is how times change. Anal sex today is as objectionable as vanilla sex was in 1960, and I speak as someone who doesn't partake.

Lady Chatterley's Lover !

< fond memories >

Apocalypto, Lady Chatterley caused offence by enjoying sex, not by doing it! Women who had orgasms were often thought mad or possessed and were routinely being subjected to exorcisms in Ireland until the early '80s.

Beth was careful to talk about reciprocity where the organs are equivalent. The vagina's purposed to accept a penis during sex. You couldn't ask a man to let you penetrate his vagina with a dildo, now, could you? But you could ask him to have a go in the throat and the bum.

No that doesn't make sense.

Vaginas and clitorises and the nerve endings within them are unique to women, just as penises and the nerve endings within them are unique to men. Correct stimulation of one by the other can produce an orgasm so there is repricocity, not withstanding that the vagina is designed to accommodate a penis safely without needing drugs, chemicals or sheathing.

A rectum, throat and face are ubiquitous to men and women. Yet heterosexual porn and the sex that people are copying in it seems to focus on women's rectums, throats and skin being the object of penile attention. Why not men's?

Vanilla sex was objectionable in 1960 you say? Have a rethink. Perhaps what you meant was reading about vanilla sex was considered to be objectionable in 1960.

And by penile attention, I mean objects of penetration and females squirting on a man's face.

I've just nearly choked on my Go Ahead biscuit! [hgrin]

@ AF

Yeah, me too.

But look how tame the sex in LCL is. It's been a long time, but if I'm not mistaken, apart from once in the margaret position, it's missionary all the way through.

Now DHL was prepared to describe 14 sexual encounters, to put variants of the word "fuck" into the book 30 times, along with "cunt" (14 times), "balls" (13 times), "cock" (4 times) and "phallos" a lot too. There was me thinking Phallos was a Greek island.

Writing in 1928 I'd say that made him a broad minded and sexually progressive person who wanted to explore and express sexuality. Yet there is of course no oral sex in LCL, and in fact, there isn't even anything as adventurous as entry from behind.

What are we to make of this??

Given what he wasn't afraid to leave in the novel, it seems clear that DHL in 1928 would have put these practices in too - unless they were simply too disgusting to include. The term "blow job" was invented by 19th century prostitutes (from "below job"), so one suspects that even among groovy liberals these were infra dig, the rather revolting anal sex of their day. Would anyone say that today? Anal sex + 50 years = same thing.

Well on that basis Beth, reciprocity consists of a bloke wanting to penetrate a woman's bum and her agreeing. Neither is equipped otherwise are they?

I'm still baffled by this idea that fellatio involves having a cock down your throat. This seems like a technical support issue.

Which is anyway beside the point - vanilla today was shocking and disgusting in the very recent past. This has been so for about, oh, 100 to 150 years I'd guess, and I can think of plenty of areas where we can get more decadent. Threesomes; in public; and so on.

LCL was considered obscene because it described sexual intercourse. It wouldn't have been considered not obscene had Lady Chatterley dutifully failed to enjoy it.

FWIW I think the Lady Chatterley trial had far more to do with normalising pornography than the internet. Porn started almost literally the next day. In the UK, hard core pornography featuring actual sex was illegal until about 1997. Very quietly, EU law made it permissible in the UK, i.e. well before the internet took hold. The difference the internet seems to have made is the women are dismissed and insulted as sluts in a way that seems to be new.

Countries like the UAE somehow manage to censor internet porn pretty effectively, which I think is interesting given their otherwise poor record on equality.

popping back in - sorry AF was just a bit surprised at your tone, was all. No issue with you at all...

I think it was the quit while you're ahead bit, when quite a lot of people seemed to be saying it was fine...

no problem, omc, thanks for coming back to it

the "quit while you're ahead" included no judgement of what had gone before, but more of a "you've got away with it so far, but look what happened to that poor woman, it could happen to you"

Was my post full of troll-trigger phrases? Should I report it?

Anal sex does not equate to violent sex.

Violence in relationships is a terrible thing, in the bedroom or anywhere else. But the fact that violent anal sex exists (and violent oral sex, and violent vaginal sex) does not condemn their consensual, passionate counterparts.

If it isn't pleasurable, don't do it. If it is, all power to you.

Thirdfrom, are you deliberately misunderstanding me? I said the practices currently popular in mainstream porn are violently anti-women. I've not equated anal sex to violent sex. Although there is evidence on this thread that rough anal sex leads to rectal injuries.