Him and Her Sex Blog

We talk about sex and sexuality


Leave a comment

Him: Topic #28: Bestiality

Woof, woof.

I’ll come right out and say it, bestiality isn’t my favorite sexual fetish/philia. I am a very sex positive person, I mean I write a blog about sex and sexuality…so I kind of have to be right? Even so, there have been a few times in the last couple years where video’s have come along that really disturb me and put me off my game. One such video was the “Mr. Hands” Video, where the man perforated his colon via the penis of a very large stallion. That video bothered me to my core for a couple of reasons.

The first being that the man died, which is just horrible. The second reason that video bothered me so much was how depraved, and I don’t use this word lightly, the whole thing was. A man was so controlled by his sexual desires that he let himself be sodomized by a horse…which led to his death. If a sexual fetish leads to, or can lead to, someones death I have a major issue with that fetish. I feel the same way about Autoerotic asphyxiation, if it cannot be done safely, then it shouldn’t be done at all.

There is an entirely different aspect to this whole thing to be taken into consideration as well, what about the animals? I mean, there are people that have sex with their dogs, and I read an article about a man that tried to sleep with a cat, only to throw it out of a seventh story window when that didn’t work out so well. This is a hard one for me because with the way our society treats animals, I don’t see how having sex with them should be a big deal. We raise cattle to be slaughtered without asking for their consent. We test chemicals and other products on them without asking if they might not like that. So really, I have to wonder, how is not asking for an animal’s consent any different?

I myself am not really into the idea of fucking an animal, that just doesn’t do much for me personally. I know people who have slept with animals, and they are generally normal, decent folks. Does that mean I think that they should be doing it all the time or hurting the animals they sleep with or something? No. Do I want to hear about it every time they fuck their dog or horse or something? Of course not. Do I think it is my place to tell them that what they are doing is sick and wrong? How could I when there are people that say my own sexuality is ‘sick and wrong’?

At the end of the day, if nobody gets hurt, I guess I don’t really have a problem with animals and people having sex. When it starts getting dangerous though is when I start getting standoffish on the topic. I don’t have any political or emotional investment in this weeks topic, but I do think that people should be allowed to express themselves sexually however the fuck they want. I don’t know, this is a hard one. I’m curious to know what the readers think, Leave a comment below or email me at himandhersexblog@gmail.com

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Topic #28: Bestiality

Terminology

There are three terms that are most commonly used in regards to the subject: zoophilia, bestiality, and zoosexuality. The terms are usually relatively interchangeable. Zoosadismsodomy, zooerasty and zooerastia are other terms closely related to the subject but are less synonymous with the former terms and/or are not commonly used. “Bestiosexuality” was discussed briefly by Allen (1979), but never became established.

The term “zoophilia” was introduced into the field of research on sexuality in Psychopathia Sexualis (1886) by Krafft-Ebing, who described a number of cases of “violation of animals (bestiality)”, as well as “zoophilia erotica”, which he defined as a sexual attraction to animal skin or fur.

Zoophilia can refer to sexual activity with non-human animals (bestiality), the desire to do so, or to the paraphilia (atypical arousal) of the same name which indicates a definite preference for animals over humans as sexual partners.

Some zoophiles and researchers draw a distinction between zoophilia and bestiality, using the former to describe the desire to form sexual relationships with animals, and the latter to describe the sex acts alone.

Bestiality is frequently misspelled as “beastiality”. Even when spelled “bestiality”, the word has two common pronunciations, (/ˌbestʃiˈæləti/ or /ˌbistʃiˈæləti/), with the first syllable sounding either like “best” or “beast”, The latter is more frequently used in the United States.

Masters (1962) uses the term “bestialist” specifically in his discussion of zoosadism, which refers to deriving sexual pleasure from cruelty to animals. Stephanie LaFarge, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the New Jersey Medical School, and Director of Counseling at the ASPCA, writes that two groups can be distinguished: bestialists, who rape or abuse animals, and zoophiles, who form an emotional and sexual attachment to animals. Colin J. Williams and Martin Weinberg studied self-defined zoophiles via the internet and found they saw the term as involving concern for the animal’s welfare and pleasure, and an emphasis on believing they obtained consent, as opposed to the zoophile’s concept of bestialists, who zoophiles defined as a group who focused only on their own gratification. Williams and Weinberg also quoted a British newspaper as saying that zoophilia is the term used by “apologists” of bestiality.

Zoosexuality

The term “zoosexual” was cited by the researcher Miletski in the year 2002. It was seen as a value-neutral term which would be less susceptible to being loaded with emotion or rhetoric. Usage of the noun “zoosexual” can be applied to both a “zoosexual (person)” which is synonymous with zoophile, and a “zoosexual act”, meaning a sex act between a human and an animal. The term “zoosexuality” is often used by zoophile forums and support groups, which manifests as a person being romantically and/or sexually attracted to animals.

Zoosadism and zooerasty

Ernest Bornemann (1990, cited by Rosenbauer 1997) coined the separate term “zoosadism” for those who derive pleasure from inflicting pain on an animal, sometimes with a sexual component. Some horse-ripping incidents may have a sexual connotation.

Krafft-Ebing, the same author who introduced the term zoophilia, used the term “zooerasty” for the paraphilia of exclusive sexual attraction to animals, but the term has fallen out of use.

Extent of occurrence

The Kinsey reports rated the percentage of people who had sexual interaction with animals at some point in their lives as 8% for men and 3.6% for women, and claimed it was 40–50% in people living near farms, but some later writers dispute the figures, because the study lacked a random sample in that it included a disproportional amount of prisoners, causing sampling biasMartin Duberman has written that it is difficult to get a random sample in sexual research, and that even when Paul Gebhard, Kinsey’s research successor, removed prison samples from the figures, he found the figures were not significantly changed.

By 1974, the farm population in the USA had declined by 80 percent compared to 1940, reducing the opportunity to live with animals; Hunt’s 1974 study suggests that these demographic changes led to a significant change in reported occurrences of bestiality. The percentage of males who reported sexual interactions with animals in 1974 was 4.9% (1948: 8.3%), and in females in 1974 was 1.9% (1953: 3.6%). Miletski believes this is not due to a reduction in interest but merely a reduction in opportunity.

Nancy Friday‘s 1973 book on female sexualityMy Secret Garden, comprised around 190 fantasies from different women; of these, 23 involve zoophilic activity.

In one study, psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55 percent) of reported bestiality, both actual sexual contacts (45 percent) and sexual fantasy (30 percent) than the control groups of medical in-patients (10 percent) and psychiatric staff (15 percent). Crépault and Couture (1980) reported that 5.3 percent of the men they surveyed had fantasized about sexual activity with an animal during heterosexual intercourse. A 1982 study suggested that 7.5 percent of 186 university students had interacted sexually with an animal.

Sexual fantasies about zoophilic acts can occur in people who do not have any wish to experience them in real life. Nancy Friday notes that zoophilia as a fantasy may provide an escape from cultural expectations, restrictions, and judgements in regard to sex. A frequent interest in and sexual excitement at watching animals mate is cited as an indicator of latent zoophilia by Massen (1994). Masters (1962) says that some brothel madams used to stage exhibitions of animals mating, as they found it aroused potential clientele, and that this may have encouraged the clients to engage in bestiality.

Several studies have found that women show stronger vaginal responses to films depicting bonobo copulation than to non-sexual stimuli. Zoophiles have been described as “occupying [many] different demographic categories: white, black, Asian, Mormon, Amish, Catholic, atheist, pagan, Jewish, male and female.”. In addition, people who “grew up in the country around animals were no more likely to become zoophiles than those who grew up in the city without them.”

Perspectives on zoophilia

Psychological, psychiatric, and research perspectives

Zoophilia has been partly discussed by several sciences: Psychology (the study of the human mind), sexology (a relatively new discipline primarily studying human sexuality), ethology (the study of animal behavior), and anthrozoology (the study of human-animal interactions and bonds).

The nature of animal minds, animal mental processes and structures, and animal self-awarenessperceptionemotion in animals, and “map of the world”, are studied within animal cognition and also explored within various specialized branches of neuroscience such as neuroethology.

Zoophilia is placed in the classification “paraphilias not otherwise specified.” in the DSM-III and IV. The World Health Organization takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ICD -10 as “other disorder of sexual preference”. The DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) recommends that the individual does not receive treatment of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual.

Zoophilia may also be covered to some degree by other fields such as ethics, philosophy, law, animal rights and animal welfare. It may also be touched upon by sociology which looks both at zoosadism in examining patterns and issues related to sexual abuse and at non-sexual zoophilia in examining the role of animals as emotional support and companionship in human lives, and may fall within the scope of psychiatry if it becomes necessary to consider its significance in a clinical context. The Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine (Vol. 18, February 2011) states that sexual contact with animals is almost never a clinically significant problem by itself; it also states that there are several kinds of zoophiles:

  1. Human-animal role-players
  2. Romantic zoophiles
  3. Zoophilic fantasizers
  1. Tactile zoophiles
  2. Fetishistic zoophiles
  3. Sadistic bestials
  1. Opportunistic zoophiles
  2. Regular zoophiles
  3. Exclusive zoophiles

Additionally, zoophiles in categories 2, 3, and 8 (romantic zoophiles, zoophilic fantisizers, and regular zoophiles) are the most common, while zoophiles found in categories 6 and 7 (sadistic bestials and opportunistic zoophiles) are the least common.

Zoophilia may reflect childhood experimentation, sexual abuse or lack of other avenues of sexual expression. Exclusive desire for animals rather than humans is considered a rare paraphilia, and sufferers often have other paraphilias with which they present. Zoophiles will not usually seek help for their condition, and so do not come to the attention of psychiatrists for zoophilia itself.

The first detailed studies of zoophilia date from prior to 1910. Peer reviewed research into zoophilia in its own right started around 1960. However, a number of the most oft-quoted studies, such as Miletski, were not published in peer-reviewed journals. There have been several significant modern books, from Masters (1962) to Beetz (2002); their research arrived at the following conclusions:

  • Most zoophiles have (or have also had) long term human relationships as well or at the same time as zoosexual ones, and that zoosexual partners are usually dogs and/or horses (Masters, Miletski, Beetz)
  • Zoophiles’ emotions and care for animals can be real, relational, authentic and (within animals’ abilities) reciprocal, and not just a substitute or means of expression. Beetz believes zoophilia is not an inclination which is chosen.
  • Society in general at present is considerably misinformed about zoophilia, its stereotypes, and its meaning. The distinction between zoophilia and zoosadism is a critical one to these researchers, and is highlighted by each of these studies. Masters (1962), Miletski (1999) and Weinberg (2003) each comment significantly on the social harm caused by misunderstandings regarding zoophilia: “This destroy[s] the lives of many citizens”.

Beetz also states the following:

“The phenomenon of sexual contact with animals is starting to lose its taboo: it is appearing more often in scholarly publications, and the public are being confronted with it, too.[…] Sexual contact with animals – in the form of bestiality or zoophilia – needs to be discussed more openly and investigated in more detail by scholars working in disciplines such as animal ethics, animal behavior, anthrozoology, psychology, mental health, sociology, and the law.”

More recently, research has engaged three further directions – the speculation that at least some animals seem to enjoy a zoophilic relationship assuming sadism is not present, and can form an affectionate bond. Similar findings are also reported by Kinsey (cited by Masters), and others earlier in history. Miletski (1999) notes that information on sex with animals on the internet is often very emphatic as to what the zoophile believes gives pleasure and how to identify what is perceived as consent beforehand. For instance, Jonathan Balcombe says animals do things for pleasure. But he himself says pet owners will be unimpressed by this statement, as this is not news to them.

Beetz described the phenomenon of zoophilia/bestiality as being somewhere between crime, paraphilia and love, although she says that most research has been based on criminological reports, so the cases have frequently involved violence and psychiatric illness. She says only a few recent studies have taken data from volunteers in the community. As with all volunteer surveys and sexual ones in particular, these studies have a potential for self-selection bias.

Medical research suggests that some zoophiles only become aroused by a specific species (such as horses), some zoophiles become aroused by multiple species (which may or may not include humans), and some zoophiles are not attracted to humans at all.

Religious perspectives

Passages in Leviticus 18 (Lev 18:23: “And you shall not lie with any beast and defile yourself with it, neither shall any woman give herself to a beast to lie with it: it is a perversion.” RSV) and 20:15–16 (“If a man lies with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any beast and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.” RSV) are cited by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theologians as categorical denunciation of bestiality. However, the teachings of the New Testament has been interpreted by some as not expressly forbidding bestiality.

In Part II of his Summa Theologica, medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas ranked various “unnatural vices” (sex acts resulting in “venereal pleasure” rather than procreation) by degrees of sinfulness, concluding that “the most grievous is the sin of bestiality.” Some Christian theologians extend Matthew‘s view that even having thoughts of adultery is sinful to imply that thoughts of committing bestial acts are likewise sinful.

There are a few references in Hindu scriptures to religious figures engaging in symbolic sexual activity with animals such as explicit depictions of people having sex with animals included amongst the thousands of sculptures of “Life events” on the exterior of the temple complex at Khajuraho. The depictions are largely symbolic depictions of the sexualization of some animals and are not meant to be taken literally. In the Hindu tradition, having sex with a sacred cow is believed to bring good fortune. However, the Hindu scriptures like the Bhagavata Purana and the Devi Bhagavata Purana having sex with animals, especially the cow, leads one to Hell, where the person is tormented by rubbing their bodies on trees with razor-sharp thorns.

Historical and cultural perspectives

The phenomenon of sexual intercourse with animals is not new. Instances of this behavior have been found in the Bible. In a cave painting from at least 8000 BC in the Northern Italian Val Camonica a man is shown about to penetrate an animal. Raymond Christinger interprets that as a show of power of a tribal chief, and so we do not know if this practice was then more acceptable, and if the scene depicted was usual or unusual or whether it was symbolic or imaginary. The Cambridge Illustrated History of Prehistoric Art says the scene may be humorous, as the penetrating man seems to be waving cheerfully with his hand at the same time. Potters seem to have spent time depicting the practice, but this may be because they found the idea amusing. Dr “Jacobus X”, said to be a nom-de-plume for a French author, said this was clearly “before any known taboos against sex with animals existed.” Marc Epprecht states that authors such as Jacobus X do not deserve respect because their methodology is based on hearsay, and was designed for voyeuristic titilation of the reader. Masters said that since pre-historic man is prehistoric it goes without saying that we know little of his sexual behaviour, depictions in cave paintings may only show the artist’s subjective preoccupations or thoughts.

Masters feels that in antiquity bestiality was widespread, and believed it was often incorporated into religious ritual. He believes it to have taken place in ancient Egypt, claiming that the zoomorphic forms of Ancient Egyptian gods ensures that bestiality would have been part of their rites. There is no evidence that the presence of gods with zoomorphic attributes ensures this in itself. However, Pindar, Herodotus, and Plutarch claimed the Egyptians engaged in ritual congress with goats. Such claims about other cultures do not necessarily reflect anything about which the author had evidence, but be a form of propaganda or xenophobia, similar to blood libel.

Bestiality was accepted in some North American and Middle Eastern indigenous cultures. Sexual intercourse between humans and non-human animals was not uncommon among certain Native American indigenous peoples, including the Hopi. Voget describes the sexual lives of young Native Americans as “rather inclusive,” including bestiality. In addition, the Copper Inuit people had “no aversion to intercourse with live animals”.

Several cultures built temples (Khajuraho, India) or other structures (Sagaholmbarrow, Sweden) with zoophilic carvings on the exterior, however at Khajuraho these depictions are not on the interior, perhaps depicting that these are things that belong to the profane world rather than the spiritual world, and thus are to be left outside.

In the West, the most explicit records of sex involving humans and animals activity are associated with reports of the murderous sadism, torture and rape of the Roman games and circus, in which some authors estimate that several hundreds of thousands died. Masters believes beasts were specially trained to copulate with women: if the girls or women were unwilling then the animal would attempt rape. A surprising range of creatures was used for such purposes, and taught how to copulate vaginally or anally. Representations of scenes from the sexual lives of the gods, such as Pasiphaë and the Bull, were highly popular, often causing extreme suffering, injury or death. On occasion, the more ferocious beasts were permitted to kill and (if desired) devour their victims afterwards.

In the Church-oriented culture of the Middle Ages zoophilic activity was met with execution, typically burning, and death to the animals involved either the same way or by hanging, as “both a violation of Biblical edicts and a degradation of man as a spiritual being rather than one that is purely animal and carnal. Some witches were accused of having congress with the devil in the form of an animal. As with all accusations and confessions extracted under torture in the witch trials in Early Modern Europe, their validity cannot be ascertained.

Legal status

In many jurisdictions, all forms of zoophilic acts are prohibited; others outlaw only the mistreatment of animals, without specific mention of sexual activity. In the UK, Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (also known as the Extreme Pornography Act) outlaws images of a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive). Countries such as Belgium, Germany, and Russia are somewhere in between: they permit sexual activity with animals, but prohibit the promotion of animal-oriented pornography.

Laws on zoophilia are often triggered by specific incidents. While some laws are very specific, others employ vague terms such as “sodomy” or “bestiality,” which lack legal precision and leave it unclear exactly which acts are covered. In the past, some bestiality laws may have been made in the belief that sex with an animal could result in monstrous offspring, as well as offending the community. Current anti-cruelty laws focus more specifically on animal welfare while anti-bestiality laws are aimed only at offenses to community “standards”. Notable legal views include Sweden, where a 2005 report by the Swedish Animal Welfare Agency for the government expressed concern over the increase in reports of horse-ripping incidents. The agency believed current animal cruelty legislation was not sufficient in protecting animals from abuse and needed updating, but concluded that on balance it was not appropriate to call for a ban. In New Zealand, the 1989 Crimes Bill considered abolishing bestiality as a criminal offense, and instead viewing it as a mental health issue, but they did not, and people can still be prosecuted for it. Under Section 143 of the Crimes Act 1961, individuals can serve a sentence of seven years duration for animal sexual abuse and the offence is considered ‘complete’ in the event of ‘penetration’

Some countries once had laws against single males living with female animals, such as Alpacas. Copulating with a female alpaca is still specifically against the law in Peru.

As of 2012, having sex with animals is illegal in 37 U.S. states. Most of the individual anti-zoosexual state laws were created recently (between 1999 and 2012). Until 2005, there was a farm near Enumclaw, Washington that was described as an “animal brothel”, where people paid to have sex with animals. After an incident on 2 July 2005, when a man was pronounced dead in the emergency room of the Enumclaw community hospital after his colon ruptured due to having been sodomized by a horse, the farm garnered police attention. The state legislature of the State of Washington, which had been one of the few states in the United States without a law against bestiality, within six months passed a bill making bestiality illegal.

Joe Arpaio of Arizona, Bob Lynn of Alaska and Nan Rich of Florida were responsible for banning bestiality in their respective states. When such laws are proposed, they are never questioned or debated. Laws which prohibit non-abusive bestiality have been criticized for being discriminatory, unjust and unconstitutional.

 

Pornography

Ancient Greek sodomizing a goat, plate XVII from ‘De Figuris Veneris‘ by F.K. Forberg, illustrated by Édouard-Henri Avril.

 

 

Pornography involving sex with animals is widely illegal, even in most countries where the act itself is not explicitly outlawed.

 

In the United States, zoophilic pornography would be considered obscene if it did not meet the standards of the Miller Test and therefore is not openly sold, mailed, distributed or imported across state boundaries or within states which prohibit it. Under U.S. law, ‘distribution’ includes transmission across the Internet. Production and mere possession appear to be legal, however. U.S. prohibitions on distribution of sexual or obscene materials are as of 2005 in some doubt, having been ruled unconstitutional in United States v. Extreme Associates (a judgement which was overturned on appeal, December 2005).

 

Similar restrictions apply in Germany (see above). In New Zealand the possession, making or distribution of material promoting bestiality is illegal.

 

The potential use of media for pornographic movies was seen from the start of the era of silent filmPolissons and Galipettes (re-released 2002 as “The Good Old Naughty Days“) is a collection of early French silent films for brothel use, including some animal pornography, dating from around 1905 – 1930.

 

Material featuring sex with animals is widely available on the Internet, due to their ease of production, and because production and sale is legal in countries such as Denmark. Prior to the advent of mass-market magazines such as Playboy, so-called Tijuana Bibles were a form of pornographic tract popular in America, sold as anonymous underground publications typically comprising a small number of stapled comic-strips representing characters and celebrities. The promotion of “stars” began with the Danish Bodil Joensen, in the period of 1969–72, along with other porn actors such as the Americans Linda Lovelace (Dogarama, 1969), Chessie Moore (multiple films, c. 1994), Kerri Downs (three films, 1998) and Calina Lynx (aka Kelly G’raffe) (two films, 1998). Another early film to attain great infamy was “Animal Farm“, smuggled into Great Britain around 1980 without details as to makers or provenance. The film was later traced to a crude juxtaposition of smuggled cuts from many of Bodil Joensen’s 1970s Danish movies.

 

Into the 1980s the Dutch took the lead, creating figures like “Wilma” and the “Dutch Sisters”. In 1980s, “bestiality” was featured in Italian adult films with actresses like Denise Dior, Francesca Ray, and Marina Hedman, manifested early in the softcore flick Bestialità in 1976.

 

Today, in Hungary, where production faces no legal limitations, zoophilic materials have become a substantial industry that produces numerous films and magazines, particularly for Dutch companies such as Topscore and Book & Film International, and the genre has stars such as “Hector”, a Great Dane starring in several films. Many Hungarian mainstream performers also appeared anonymously in animal pornography in their early careers. For example, Suzy Spark.

 

In Japan, animal pornography is used to bypass censorship laws, often featuring Japanese and Russian female models performing fellatio on animals, because oral penetration of a non-human penis is not in the scope of Japanese mosaic censor. Sakura Sakurada is an AV idol known to have appeared in animal pornography, specifically in the AV The Dog Game in 2006. While primarily underground, there are a number of animal pornography actresses who specialize in bestiality movies. A box-office success of the 1980s, 24 Horas de Sexo Explícito featured zoophilia.

 

In the UK Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 criminalises possession of realistic pornographic images depicting sex with animals (see extreme pornography), including fake images and simulated acts, as well as images depicting sex with dead animals, where no crime has taken place in the production. The law provides for sentences of up to two years in prison; a sentence of 12 months was handed down in one case in 2011.

 

Pornography of this sort has become the business of certain spammers such as Jeremy Jaynes and owners of some fake TGPs, who use the promise of “extreme” material as a bid for users’ attention.

 


1 Comment

Him: Topic #25: Cuck(h)olding

Cuckolding is one of those topics that I’ve wanted to do since day one of this blog, but never really got around to actually having it be a topic. That all changed when Her decided on this weeks topic, and I did a tripple backflip. Alright, I’ll admit, that was a lie…I couldn’t do a tripple back flip if my life depended on it.

So my strategy for my post this week is to talk about some of the history and imagery associated with the term, and why I love it so much, then delve into my personal experiences with Cuckolding. I should warn you now readers, this very well might get a little…explicit. One last note before I really begin, as I seem to say often when talking about fetishes and kinks: Always talk, boldly and with no shyness, to your partner about what turns you on and gets you off. Talk to them about what scares you and what you don’t like to do or can’t do. Be open and honest and hold nothing back because this is not only about what gets you off, it’s also about your relationship as a whole. If you can’t be frank and unembarrassed with the person you’re going to fuck, then you shouldn’t be fucking that person.

Lets talk about a cuckolds horns for a little bit shall we? When I first learned about cuckolds having horns I was confused and, to be honest, had no idea what the hell was going on. The meaning behind the horns, apparently, can be traced back to Rome. In roman society, when a soldier would come home from battle he would be given bronze horns as a sign of honor and esteem. Over time though, the horns took on another meaning altogether. The adage associated with the horns was simple, it was never a good idea to leave a roman wife alone for too long. The cuckold horns came to represent a failure in the bedroom, in essence, they were a direct attack on a mans masculinity! References to cuckolding can be found all over the place in english literature, most notably in the works of Shakespeare who loved to use suspected cuckolding as a plot device.

Alight, history lesson over. Take a few breaths, slap yourself around a little, time for the fun stuff.

I’ve never been cuckolded, the thought really holds no pleasure or arousal for me at all. That being said however, I have been the other man in a cuckolded relationship. Quite recently I was asked if I would like to be the other man in yet another cuckolded relationship: Hasn’t happened yet…but something tells me it will eventually. That particular situation has some very interesting dynamics of its own, but that is for a later post.

From my personal experience there are a few ways that cuckolding can work, the basic premise is fairly straightforward. You have two individuals in a committed relationship, one of them gets to, with the permission of their partner, have sex with other men. In male-female relationships the woman is usually given most or all of the power. This, like most things we talk about on this blog, isn’t always the case of course.

The last time I was involved with a cuckolded couple, it was two men and at the time I didn’t know they were 1. in a relationship, and 2. were cuckolded. I was sleeping, fairly regularly, with one of the men and, oddly enough, it wasn’t until very recently that I found out that it was a cuckolded situation. Some people might be upset by something like that, being used or whatnot, me personally…I didn’t mind. I’ve sense spoken to both of them together and they are happy as can be. They both know the rules and follow them, as defined by their relationship.

So, apparently how it would work was as follows, I would fuck the one guy, and he would go home and tell his boyfriend all about it while his boyfriend fucked him. The cuckolded man in the relationship said to me, when I asked about it, “Hearing all of the hot, sexy things you did with him got me off like nothing else. I fuck him harder, longer, and better when being told that another man has had him. I get this need to reclaim what’s mine. You should try it sometime, you might be surprised.”

The other way it can work, so I’ve been told by others in cuckolded relationships, is that the cuckolded man will be in the room, watching their partner get fucked by someone else. This can take many different forms, most of them involving the cuckolded man being ultra submissive.

The thing that I think I would have the most trouble with is the idea of being submissive. I like being submissive sometimes in BDSM play, but in something like this…I don’t know that I could do it. I have a fairly big ego and the thought of being submissive to another man as he fucks my partner is unfathomable. Polyamory doesn’t bother me in the least, being submissive to another person who is fucking my partner though? No thanks.

As always, if you have questions or comments feel free to tell me below or shoot an email our way at himandhersexblog@gmail.com

Him


Leave a comment

Him Topic #23: Circumcision

First and foremost, lets get the obligatory cringe out of the way. If you have a penis, this cringe might be a little more dramatic and could possibly include a small sound of distress. Now everyone take a deep breath, and lets talk about this most interesting of practices.

If you read the information post, which was vast and all encompassing, then you know that there is a lot of controversy surrounding this weeks topic. I find myself of the mind that an infants parents should mind their own business concerning the foreskin of their babies penis. If there is no immediate medical issues that denote the need to remove the foreskin, then leave it alone. When the child reaches adolescence let him decide if he wants to cut off his foreskin.

I will be the first to admit that I was surprised by the statistics about HIV and AIDS prevention in Africa. I had no idea that circumcision was able to be so effective in the prevention of the spread of the virus. That being said, I wonder how that is? and how circumcision has become so prevalent in the United States. I tend to think it is a purely cosmetic phenomenon, especially since the benefits seem to be arbitrary at best.

When I think about myself, having been circumcised, I can honestly say I wish I had been given the choice. I don’t know that I would have wanted someone to cut a part of me off, especially a part that attached to a very sensitive part of my body. Something that was stated in the information post that I don’t agree with at all, and feel needs to be addressed, is the effect that circumcision can have on sexual function.

I’ve been intimate with men who were both circumcised and uncircumcised and I can tell you there was a difference. Overall I found that my partners who had been circumcised were routinely less sensitive overall than the partners who were uncircumcised. That might not seem like a very big deal, but in some cases, the differences were startling. I mean, I know men who have dedicated several years of their life to stretching the skin of the penis in order to “grow” back a new foreskin, there has to be a reason for that right?

The bottom line as far as I’m concerned is simple, I don’t like circumcision and I really do believe that there are drastic effects on the sexual function of the male’s penis. I don’t see how the proposed medical benefits, in most cases, are relevant or in any way give an excuse for the mutilation of an infants genitals. If you don’t agree with me, let me hear about it in the comments!

Him


Leave a comment

Him: Topic #18

“I wanna be intimate, but I’m not ready for penetrative sex.”

I’ve had this exact thing said to me in a previous relationship, several if we’re being totally honest. Of course, the wording was usually a little different, but the same basic idea holds true. For me, intimacy is vital to the success of a relationship. Intimacy, however, does not ever equal sex. Sex is a kind of intimacy, but it is by no means the only form of intimacy. Non-penetrative sex is a fantastic alternative to anal or vaginal intercourse. I mean, when you think abou it, you get the best of both worlds; You get to get off and deepen your bond with the other person…without committing to something as intensely personal and important as penetrative sex.

I’ve experienced most of the examples described in the informational post first hand, and all of them are great fun. There is one point of contention that I have though, Oral sex…IS PENETRATIVE. I make my case for this point in this weeks podcast, but for now I feel like I should explain why I feel so strongly about this. I don’t care if a tongue is getting shoved into a vagina, or a penis into a mouth; THAT IS PENETRATION. A part of your body is penetrating the barrier between you and the other person. I can see no way to actually argue against oral being penetrative that doesn’t address the idea of some part of one person’s body passing into the other persons, even it if is a shallow penetration (as with a tongue in a vagina).

I think it’s also a very good idea to mention that non-penetrative sex isn’t something that only couples who have no interest in penetrative sex can partake in. Sometimes it’s nice to get off with your partner…without all the hoopla involved in penetrative sex. This is especially true when speaking about anal sex, since to properly prepare takes a lot of time and patience. There have been times in my past where, to be totally honest, I really couldn’t be bothered to go through all the work needed to have penetrative sex. In those times of utter laziness, it was always nice to lay down with my partner, be intimate, and get off.

I guess what I’m really trying to say is that if you are with a partner, and you want things to stay exciting and fresh in the bedroom, don’t always jump right to penetrative intercourse. Sometimes it’s almost more intimate to get off using only your partners hand and some lube (or thighs, or ass cheeks). I like the idea of non-penetrative sex, and who knows, I might be partaking in some sooner rather than later. That’s for me to know, and you to read about in a future post though.

Until then,
Him


1 Comment

Topic #17: Safe Sex

Safe sex is sexual activity engaged in by people who have taken precautions to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as HIV/AIDS. It is also referred to as safer sex or protected sex, while unsafe or unprotected sex is sexual activity engaged in without precautions. Some sources prefer the term safer sex to more precisely reflect the fact that these practices reduce, but do not completely eliminate, the risk of disease transmission. In recent years, the term “sexually transmitted infections” (STIs) has been preferred over “STDs”, as it has a broader range of meaning; a person may be infected, and may potentially infect others, without showing signs of disease.

Safe sex practices became more prominent in the late 1980s as a result of the AIDS epidemic. Promoting safe sex is now one of the aims of sex education. Safe sex is regarded as a harm reduction strategy aimed at reducing risks. The risk reduction of safe sex is not absolute; for example the reduced risk to the receptive partner of acquiring HIV from HIV seropositive partners not wearing condoms to compared to when they wear them is estimated to be about a four- to fivefold. Although some safe sex practices can be used as contraception, most forms of contraception do not protect against all or any STIs; likewise, some safe sex practices, like partner selection and low risk sex behavior, are not effective forms of contraception.

Safe sex is effective on avoiding STDs if only both parties involved in sexual intercourse agreed on doing so and stick to it. During sexual intercourse using condoms, for example, the male might intentionally pull off the condom and continue penetrating without the female (or male receptive partner)’s consent and notice. This is a high risk behavior that betrays trust as well as spreading the disease.

Although “safe sex” is used by individuals to refer to protection against both pregnancy and HIV/AIDS or other STI transmissions, the term was primarily derived in response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It is believed that the term of “safe sex” was used in the professional literature in 1984, in the content of a paper on the psychological effect that HIV/AIDS may have on homosexual men. The term was related with the need to develop educational programs for the group considered at risk, homosexual men. A year later, the same term appeared in an article in the New York Times. This article emphasized that most specialists advised their AIDS patients to practice safe sex. The concept included limiting the number of sexual partners, using prophylactics, avoiding bodily fluid exchange, and resisting the use of drugs that reduced inhibitions for high-risk sexual behavior. Moreover, in 1985, the first safe sex guidelines were established by the ‘Coalition for Sexual Responsibilities’. According to these guidelines, safe sex was practiced by using condoms also when engaging in anal or oral sex.

Avoiding physical contact

Known as autoeroticism, solitary sexual activity is relatively safe. Masturbation, the simple act of stimulating one’s own genitalia, is safe so long as contact is not made with other people’s bodily fluids. Some activities, such as “phone sex” and “cybersex”, that allow for partners to engage in sexual activity without being in the same room, eliminate the risks involved with exchanging bodily fluids.[7]

Non-penetrative sex

A range of sex acts, sometimes called “outercourse”, can be enjoyed with significantly reduced risks of infection or pregnancy. U.S. President Bill Clinton’s surgeon general, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, tried to encourage the use of these practices among young people, but her position encountered opposition from a number of outlets, including the White House itself, and resulted in her being fired by President Clinton in December 1994.

Non-penetrative sex includes practices such as kissing, mutual masturbation, rubbing or stroking and, according to the Health Department of Western Australia, this sexual practice may prevent pregnancy and most STIs. However, non-penetrative sex may not protect against infections that can be transmitted skin-to-skin such as herpes and genital warts.

Barrier protection
Various protective devices are used to avoid contact with blood, vaginal fluid, semen or other contaminant agents (like skin, hair and shared objects) during sexual activity. Sexual activity using these devices is called protected sex.

Condoms cover the penis during sexual activity. They are most frequently made of latex, and can also be made out of synthetic materials including polyurethane.

Female condoms are inserted into the vagina prior to intercourse.

A dental dam (originally used in dentistry) is a sheet of latex used for protection when engaging in oral sex. It is typically used as a barrier between the mouth and the vulva during cunnilingus or between the mouth and the anus during anal–oral sex.

Medical gloves made out of latex, vinyl, nitrile, or polyurethane may be used as a makeshift dental dam during oral sex, or to protect the hands during sexual stimulation, such as masturbation. Hands may have invisible cuts on them that may admit pathogens or contaminate the other body part or partner.

Another way to protect against pathogen transmission is the use of protected or properly cleaned dildos and other sex toys. If a sex toy is to be used in more than one orifice or partner, a condom can be used over it and changed when the toy is moved.

When latex barriers are used, oil-based lubrication can break down the structure of the latex and remove the protection it provides.

Condoms (male or female) are used to protect against STIs, and used with other forms of contraception to improve contraceptive effectiveness. For example, simultaneously using both the male condom and spermicide (applied separately, not pre-lubricated) is believed to reduce perfect-use pregnancy rates to those seen among implant users. However, if two condoms are used simultaneously (male condom on top of male condom, or male condom inside female condom), this increases the chance of condom failure.

Proper use of barriers, such as condoms, depends on the cleanliness of surfaces of the barrier, handling can pass contamination to and from surfaces of the barrier unless care is taken.

Studies of latex condom performance during use reported breakage and slippage rates varying from 1.46% to 18.60%. Condoms must be put on before any bodily fluid could be exchanged, and they must be used also during oral sex.

Female condoms are made of two flexible polyurethane rings and a loose-fitting polyurethane sheath. According to laboratory testing, female condoms are effective in preventing the leakage of body fluids and therefore the transmission of STIs and HIV. Several studies show that between 50% and 73% of women who have used this type of condoms during intercourse find them as or more comfortable than male condoms. On the other hand, acceptability of these condoms among the male population is somewhat less, at approximately 40%. Because the cost of female condoms is higher than male condoms, there have been studies carried out with the aim of detecting whether they can be reused. Research has shown that structural integrity of polyurethane female condoms is not damaged during up to five uses if it is disinfected with water and household bleach. However, regardless of this study, specialists still recommend that female condoms are used only once and then discarded.

Source: Wikipedia


Leave a comment

Anonymous: Been in a long distance relationship with a NoCal guy (8 hrs away) for almost 4mos. First 3, he called /texted me all day everyday, we would have phone sex all the time & he was talking of us getting married! We’ve only seen each other 1x. He asked me to commit to him-I did but said if he didnt come see me in a month=no more commit. He hasnt. He calls less, hardly texts and doesnt phone sex at all. Is he ph/sexting w other? Says not dating…what up w him? Ex-BF wants me back but <3 NorCal guy

Him: Well, I’m sorry to be blunt, but are you fucking kidding me? You have been “dating” for a whopping four months…If someone started talking about marriage in one of my relationships that soon, I’d have run screaming in the opposite direction. This guy doesn’t love you, he’s obviously using you for his own gains. He liked your voice, and would get off with you on the phone, big deal. I have to wonder, did you two have sex what one time you saw each other? If you did, you’re an idiot. If you didn’t congratulations on making at least ONE good decision. This guy is a joke, and I think you know it. Long distance relationships are hard, long distance relationships with people who don’t really love each other are fucking impossible. My advice to you is this; Grow up and move on. He got what he needed from you, and now he’s looking for something substantial. There’s a reason why he hasn’t been talking to you, he’s moved on. You should too. I would almost go so far as to say that he’s already broken up with you…and you’ve been to blind to notice. One last thing, please for the love of god pay attention in English class, that was a nightmare to try and decipher.

 

Her: My advice would be to slow down a little bit. Since you have only been talking for 4 months, and have only seen each other once, I would take a step back and think about how serious this is getting. I think before you think of marriage and being committed to each other you need to get to know each other in person too. Considering you are questioning him about having phone sex/sexting other people, it seems like you two really need to communicate and get to know each other. Good luck and just try to be open with each other.