It’s an increasingly challenging time to be an adult on social media. Facebook’s new community guidelines and Tumblr’s elimination of all adult content promise to limit open discussion of common topics, sharing safety information, and building community. And these are but the most recent restrictions.
These moves aren’t a surprise. Rather, they are the logical consequence of two recently-passed laws in the U.S. Known as SESTA and FOSTA, these acts ostensibly intended to curb sex trafficking, but were accidentally or deliberately written so broadly that they appear to make normal adult conversations actionable.
Moreover, these laws make social media sites responsible for the content their users post. Because of that responsibility, the Facebooks and Verizon/Oath/Tumblrs of the world are suddenly more vulnerable to legal action — and their response is to protect themselves through the recent changes of policy. But that new legal responsibility means that petitions and other traditional pressures are unlikely to have even their usual effect.
Fortunately, someone is doing something to make a difference — to change the underlying laws that have led us to this chilling situation. The Woodhull Freedom Foundation, long an advocate for adults’ rights, is leading a group of plaintiffs suing the government to get those laws rolled back.
Of course, fighting the government isn’t easy. They’ve got some backing, but this effort promises to be long and difficult. I’m helping the good guys trying to defend and restore your rights; if you can help too, please do. The cavalry is coming, but they need our support.
Back them here: https://www.woodhullfoundation.org. And thank you.
The difference between “I want you to be mine“ and “I want to be with you” is profound, even if the latter is harder to fit on a candy heart.
This guest post comes from the soon-to-be sexual wasteland known as Tumblr. HypnoBunny is a presenter on and practitioner of erotic (and other kinds of) hypnosis. But she has written a fine disquisition on the male member that I am leery of reprinting in its entirety, but which you can read >>>here<<<. It’s an appreciation that people of any gender can enjoy. I know I do!
Just for the record, I do not have “female-presenting nipples.” I present my nipples to interested and consenting adults regardless of their gender.
Yours, making a clean breast of it,
Should your dating partners be within a certain age range?
We’ve all heard the “rule” that suggests partners be at least half your age plus seven years, and no more than your age minus seven, then doubled. (I was told there would be no math.) But this is like the rules about wearing certain color clothes after Labor Day, or acceptable dress styles for older women; somewhat dubious of provenance and based on more on managing societal perceptions than value for a particular person.
The actual optimal age range for a partner can depend on the nature of the relationship one wants; it’s probably easier to interact over a long term with someone relatively close in life stage. But not every relationship is about that.
People of very different ages may have common interests and attitudes, but in other ways — values, cultural references, outside obligations, libido — may be quite different. That’s true of any two people, of course, but a significant age difference can add to the disconnections.
But this is another of those places where the answer may be different for monogamous and polyamorous people. If you’re trying to have all your needs met by one relationship, the differences introduced by age can get in the way. But if you are able to enjoy just those parts of a relationship that you have in common, and find others to meet the remaining needs, an age difference in any one relationship becomes rather less important.
My partners span 10 years to either side of me, but age isn’t terribly relevant — well, chronological age, anyway. For basic compatibility, synchronicity of maturity and spirit matter far more than what the calendar says.
I could never consider myself God’s gift to women.
And “the Force’s gift to everyone” just sounds silly.
I don’t understand. Do locker rooms have some Magic Cloak of Disrespect that makes them places where it’s all right to say unacceptable things? Do the people in the locker rooms not interact with the rest of the world? There are no islands for intolerance or incivility – or, at least, there shouldn’t be. The fact that you’re near other people’s sweaty gym socks is no excuse for stuffing your humanity — or anyone else’s — in a locker.
And here’s a clue: if you’re having to defend it in public, or in a political debate, it’s obviously not “just locker room talk” anymore. And it never really was.
An upcoming visit with a long-distance partner left me wondering: How much do you care what your partners do when they are not with you? I mean, assuming there is basic agreement on safety practices, do you want to know details of their other encounters?
A couple of my partners are very interested in that — or, more to the point, don’t like surprises. They don’t need the blow-by-blow description, but do want to know when encounters occur, and with whom. Others want to know what other relationships are out there, but aren’t interested in details about when specific dates occur, much less details of what went on.
I am solidly in the latter camp. I hope very much that my partners have full and satisfying lives. But when they are not with me, I don’t need to know who they saw or where they went. Obviously, if they are excited about something and want to tell, I will be happy to join in their joy. But I have no need to know (nor a right to insist.)
Agreements differ; your mileage may vary. Does it, and why?
I honor and respect those who dedicate their lives to helping other people overcome their medical challenges. Healers — of whatever sort — rock.
So please don’t take it personally when I say that with several partners’ recent issues and a couple of my own, I could stand to not see a medical professional for a little while.
(Polyamory: All those things that happen in life, multiplied.)
Everyone knows that communication is essential to good polyamorous relationships. That becomes just a little harder when different partners prefer different platforms – and you have to remember which is which. There’s the partners who text, and the partner who only wants to use Facebook Messenger, and the partner who is on Signal, and the partner who wants to text an alternate number to use Google Voice… and the comet on Hangouts, and the one who sometimes likes Marco Polo or FaceTime but not Skype… and Skype but not FaceTime… and… and…
Q: My relationship just isn’t meeting my needs. But I’ve put so much time/energy/emotion into this, I hate the idea of giving up on that investment. Wouldn’t it be a waste to walk away?
Well, first, take heart that what you have already put into the relationship probably wasn’t a waste. You learned things, you likely had some good times. After all, there was something there that made you want to invest; at some point, it was worthwhile. The more apt question is whether the next piece of resource you put into this relationship will, in fact, be wasted because there’s nothing more to be gained there.
You can’t get the time back, and you can’t get the resources back no matter what you think of the relationship. What you can do is to not put anything more into it if it won’t improve anything — and especially if doing so takes away from your ability to put resources into a more rewarding relationship.
It’s like the joke about the guy who was walking back and forth, looking at the ground. A cop asks what he’s doing. “I lost my keys on 20th Street,” he says. “Why are you looking on 18th?” asks the cop. “Oh, the light’s better here.”
You don’t need to put your energy into where you are; you need to be where the love is. That’s how you keep from wasting your time. Invest in what can grow.
That next-door neighbor or person you work with.
Do you know if they still have the tonsils they were born with? Do you care?
Do you know if they still have all the teeth they were born with? Do you care?
…then why do you care if they still have the genitals they were born with?
…Pride Rest of the Year begins.
Harry’s, the razor-blades-by-mail-company, has put out a special edition shaver handle for pride month. All of the profits from the sale go to LGBTQ charities.
Yes, that’s right: It’s a fund-razor.
…just tell people you’re morenogamous.
Like this blog? Well, you can get the same combination of openness, insight, humor, and third-person self-references PLUS real interactivity!
Pour Votreplaisir is an experienced speaker, and delighted to bring his show to your event, conference, kink camp, swingers’ cruise, or Friday night bridge game. Take a look at his new presentations page: https://pourvotreplaisir.net/speaking/ — and get you some Pour!
This article, shared by my splendid local adult shop Lotus Blooms, puts into words something that’s really bothered me for a long time.
If PIV intercourse is your main event, fine. But all play is good, and the main event is whatever part you decide it is.
After all, everything else can’t be foreplay if PIV isn’t (or can’t be) your thing, hm?
Why do we form relationships?
There are many reasons, but they can be summed up by the concept of meeting needs. And how many needs you have (and their complexity) may determine what kind of relationships you choose to have.
Let’s say you have 100 need boxes to be filled. A typical primary relationship fills, say, 75. It’s then up to you whether the remaining 25 are important enough to be filled.
Monogamous people say, “Nah, 75 is enough. I can live with the empty 25, and maybe over time, my partner will fill some of the rest.” Polyamorous people find others who can fill at least some of them.
What if you don’t have a primary? Then, one partner may fill 30, another 25, etc. How many partners you take depends on how important it is to have the other boxes filled — recognizing that some will always be empty. The specific array of partners and changes in the lineup determines which boxes get filled at any specific time.
A potential partner might appeal because they fill a few high-need boxes, and so we’re willing to put up with complications like distance or some incompatibilities to get that benefit. People who have a really big need box for companionship, stability, and/or touch may be extra motivated to get a primary.
And yes, some people decide to fill some of their own boxes — or shrink some of them to make that easier. Of course, some boxes might be more resistant to shrinking than others.
But every time we take on a partner, there is a calculus of what boxes they will fill, whether we can manage what’s left — and how.
When it comes to play, I am not someone who needs to be taken out of their comfort zone; I am someone who needs to be taken *into* it.
There will be more on this when it’s fully thought through.