Gay virginity?

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by u-dog

I just posted a SERIOUS post ON the topic. and it CONTINUES to be ignored in favor of SILLY FRIVOLITY. Am I invisible or something??

Did someone hear something? Perhaps it's just my imagination. Perhaps it's that still, quiet voice that's calling me to say, "Nice post, but I'm not sure what I can add. You seem to have said it quite well." Then again, perhaps it's just another one of those people who live inside my head.

[tdogg]

The first 'date' with my sweetie, started off as an office event where two people who hardly knew each other decided to go together and it ended up being very similar to an official date. It was the moment when, as we were slow dancing to a song neither of us can even remember, our souls touched - so strongly, so comfortably and so suddenly. The evening ended with us sitting in each others arms, talking, watching a little TV and then calling it a night. We resisted the urge to bring the U-Haul to our second date (a little lesbian humor...), and resisted it successfuly for some time, according to what our heads and to an extend our hearts were telling us.

Now we are together and have been nearly inseparable for over 2 years, since that first dance together. It's as strong as ever, actually it tends to get stronger as time and experience go on. We aren't married (we would have to go to Massachusetts or Canada for that), we aren't even registered as domestic partners (available to us here in CA) at this time. But our love is no less connected or validated because we don't have any papers telling us we love each other and are commited. No official documents in the file - but our souls are forever enmeshed since that first date, first dance, when our souls touched and connected in a way that no piece of paper could ever explain.

We can't say it's going to last forever, till death do us part, although it certainly feels that way. People change, they grow, they progress and the relationship doesn't always survive it. It certainly feels as though we are soul mates and meant to be together always. But, there is no guarantee and no piece of legal or religious documentation is going to ensure that either - ergo, the enormous rate of divorce in this country. To call what we have a sin is contrary to not only the definition of God as love, but to love itself. It feels right - in my mind, my heart and certainly my soul.

My thoughts driving our pets home from a routine vet appointment today - watching the red-winged blackbirds display to find a mate, the sheep in the fields, the cows and horses, it came to me - we as humans are supposedly so much more progressed and evolved than our animal friends. But we are so much more uptight about sex and intimacy than animals could ever be. Why is that? IMO, to a certain extent it's the restrictions and behavior judgments that come from zealous religious teachings, to where most people are afraid of their sexuality and of expressing their sexuality (not saying this as in sexual orientation - just as in having sexual feelings and a drive to express those feelings).

What 2 people (or even 1, or yes even 3...) do together to express their sexuality doesn't seem to be wrong. It's when they do it and bring other people into the picture that don't choose to engage - for instance, a person in a committed relationship having an outside sexual encounter brings their partner into the picture unwillingly, causes hurt and pain and fear - that's the part that is wrong. Engaging in behavior irresponsibly, subject another person unknowingly to STD, emotional hurt, physical pain and unwanted acts is wrong, not so much the actual act. It's the effects of the act that are wrong to me. Not sure if this makes sense, but wanted to definitely respond to U-dogs post (us 'dogs' gotta stay together, it's dog-eat-dog world out there!!).

[goldenbug]

Originally Posted by BenL

Sex is one of the most basic drives in the complexity called a human being. Controlling sexual activity for the good of society has been an elusive goal since way before Christianity or the modern era.

Traditionally sin has been any activity that separates a person from God. The problem becomes, who gets to decide what separates a person from God? Progressive thought distinguishes between activities that are hurtful to self or others and those that don't harm self or others. Traditional thought relies on a pre-existing code of behavior.

Intimate relationships between human beings are among the noblest of human activities when two people are united body and soul and achieve a spiritual, beyond-physcial union. The term soulmates comes to mind, although that kind of relationship need not include sexual activity.

Sexual relations that don't live up to that noble standard seem less acceptable. Two people copulating who aren't hurting each other or anyone else (like a third person who is a partner/spouse) but who aren't in love may be sinning in some sense, but to me it's not as grievous as taking someone's life or exploiting people who can't defend themselves.

Somehow, in 20th century and now 21st century America, sex has become the worst sin in the book, whether that book is the Bible or the law books. To me that is a warped view of human relationships. Marriage itself, while noble in concept, can be far less so in reality. People who abuse their spouses, physically or emotionally, are engaging in far worse behavior than unmarried people who have sex which at least satisfies some need.

So, to answer your question, I think the nature of the sexual relationship -- not the specific acts but the motivation -- is more important than whether a person is married. (Disclaimer: I'm not talking about children here, but consenting adults.) As BC said, a BJ is far less culpable than war and subjugation of a captive people. BTW, I'm not advocating for sexual impropriety in high places, just trying to put them in context.

I think these are the kinds of standards we should hold all people to, gay or straight.

Here, Here, Ben! I agree with what you write. Dsdrane, many of us here whether homosexual or heterosexual have come to the conclusion that the Word of God does not establish homosexuality as a sin. I have been a Christian for 28 years now and for almost all of that time, I believed homosexuality was a choice and that the Word of God was explicit that it was a sin. I opposed having gay school teachers in our schools, I signed the petition to not allow gays and lesbians to marry in Canada. Thankfully "our side" lost that and gays and lesbians can legally marry now in Canada.

I write this to say that perhaps much of what we believe about pre-marital sex and post-marital sex might too be flawed. The analogies I have given on this board are Old Testament analogies. However, think of Boaz and Ruth. I think that story is relatively clear that her mother in law, a devout Jew, told her to go in to Boaz and "uncover his feet". "Uncover the feet" was a Jewish euphemism for "Expose the genitals". Even the Moffatt Translations says, "Uncover his waist and lie down there." She did this and when Boaz awoke I don't think he was wondering, "I wonder what this lady wants?" LOL When he enquires about this, she then says, "spread your covering over me". Which meant "Have sex with me." It is like our saying, "Will you sleep with me?" That phrase sleep usually does not imply "Let's go to be and snooze." No, it is an offer for intercourse. It seems to me that this is just one instance in the Bible of what we would call "pre-marital sex".

What about the Song of Solomon? I have heard of many Preachers who preach through a Bible Book. I have yet to hear one on this grafic piece of sexual literature in the Bible. When I have heard sermons refering to it, it is always in context that this is a symbolic book of Christ's love for the Church. In this book as the "lovers" describe each other, it is my opinion that they are both nude. There are Hebraic references to a man's penis and a woman's vulva right there for all to read!

I could go on with Biblical illustrations such as this. It is my opinion that much of what we learn about sex we have learned through culture and through religious tradition. I want none of that! I want to know what God's Word says about it. As I travel around the country and the world, I meet many people and I now frequent bars to meet people. I have come to the conclusion that non-christians are generally more sexually "atuned" than are Christians. I can almost always talk with non-Christians more openly and honestly about sexual issues than non-believers. Why is that? God certainly inspired a pretty graphic sexual book in the Song of Solomon! God doesn't seem to mind talking about it as He created us with these desires.

So, I encourage you, search the Scriptures to see what they say. Perhaps some of what I believe and have expressed here is in error. I am so thankful that God's grace is bigger than we know!

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by u-dog

I just posted a SERIOUS post ON the topic. and it CONTINUES to be ignored in favor of SILLY FRIVOLITY. Am I invisible or something??

Oh, Hi Dave, Did you just get here?

You ought to join in on this discussion. This topic seems just right for you. In fact I'm surprised you haven't posted anything yet.

Actually I did read your original post. I think I had posted something stupid close by. I hate to say something serious right close to my idiotic posts.

I think you have made a good statement. I think that marriage is a sacrament that was intituted by God. I believe that the ideal intent of the sacrament is for two people to be committed to each other in a lifelong monogamous relationship.

However, I hate to be quite as bold as you. (To use a different example: I think that divorce is not part of God's plan, but at the same time I think divorce can be the only reasonable option in many situations.) I hate to say what relationships are more pleasing to God. We all fall short in our relationships. We all have to deal with living lives that are less than ideal. God's grace covers all.

I admire people who are in lifelong relationships and have committed themselves to share sexual intimacy only with that person. I don't want it to sound like I am saying that marriage really doesn't matter; it does, but I really hesitate to sound judgemental against anyone for whom life has directed down a different path.

In other words I am rather torn by this issue. I haven't really settled it in my mind. When in conflict, I always take the more liberal route. It is better to err on the side of being too accepting rather than too judgemental in my opinion.

I think LGBT individuals have a much harder time being in a monogamous, life-long relationships due to religious, societal and governmental forces working against us. It will be a great day when all marriages, gay and straight, will be celebrated and honored.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[u-dog]

I think that that was my point Pablo. we are INCAPABLE of pleasing God, of making perfect decisions that are free from sin. The grace of Christ means that we can give up on Trying for perfection and stop worrying about how we will be judged according to our deeds.

We can simply make the best decisions possible given the realities of our circumstances, striving to move IN THE DIRECTION of pleasing God whenever possible. I choose against rape because it moves me away from God's pleasure. I chose the most responsible, mutual, covenantal relationships I can in order to move IN THE DIRECTION of pleasing God.

[dsdrane]

Firstly (and once again...perchance once and for all?):

Originally Posted by goldenbug

Dsdrane, many of us here whether homosexual or heterosexual have come to the conclusion that the Word of God does not establish homosexuality as a sin.
So, I encourage you, search the Scriptures to see what they say. Perhaps some of what I believe and have expressed here is in error. I am so thankful that God's grace is bigger than we know!

G-Bug...I AGREE!!! (Have I not been clear on this?)

Since October 2005, when my second of two long-term relationships ended, I have been single longer than any time before I was 23. I was a gay virgin until I was 22. (There was no heterosexual virginity to lose in my case, as I am a Kinsey 6+.) My first relationship was with Will and lasted 12 years. It was completely monogamous with a painful exception on both of our parts while I was away in graduate school. Will and I were domestically-partnered, couple #67 or something on that first day of the new NYC law back in 1993 (did I get that right, Daniel...I know we were in line together!) Not being religious at the time, for all intents and purposes, I felt "married". After 12 years, I finally broke it off (for many reasons I won't bore you with here). About 6 months later, Paul and I started dating. We were together (also monogamously) just over 3 years, when he pulled the plug (thus constituting a new and final link in the chain of events that lured me to greener and sunnier pastures in South Florida).

Slightly before Will, in between Will and Paul, and since Paul, there have been other guys, but I'm pretty sure I can still count the members of this extremely exclusive club on two hands. [Note to self: we should make a list while we can still remember.]

I tell you all this to give you an idea of where I'm coming from and to illustrate both a lack of prudishness and slutishness.

At no point, from the moment I came out to myself to my last hay romp with my sort of, proto-, long-distance, German boy?friend, have I ever had the slightest thought that my sexual activities -- in and outside of relationships -- were sinful in the slightest degree (with the one exception of the grad. school infidelity). I and the others I've been with are nice people, of age, with sound minds and bodies (though some more than others...but I digress), who did what we did in private, the details of which I'm quite certain did not make Baby Jesus cry.

This is something I know intuitively; corroborative statements from other people or books are not necessary.

And as for you, Pablo...

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

Uhh... this might not be the best time to bring this up, but David, do you know how I can get in touch with this guy you're describing?

:|

(Cad.)

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

Since October 2005, when my second of two long-term relationships ended, I have been single longer than any time before I was 23. I was a gay virgin until I was 22. (There was no heterosexual virginity to lose in my case, as I am a Kinsey 6+.) My first relationship was with Will and lasted 12 years. It was completely monogamous with a painful exception on both of our parts while I was away in graduate school. Will and I were domestically-partnered, couple #67 or something on that first day of the new NYC law back in 1993 (did I get that right, Daniel...I know we were in line together!) Not being religious at the time, for all intents and purposes, I felt "married".

David- I missed this post, that is, until Squirt's thread and your link back HERE adjusted my attention accordingly.

You are right. We were in line together (though for some reason I think it was 1994?) Jonathan and I were there on the first day and were number 52 in line - just ahead of you. What I remember about that day was the press, who couldn't keep themselves from taking pictures of the two leather queens on the steps of City Hall, all dolled up from head to toe in their finery. I kept wondering: "What about the rest of us?!" But who made the front page of the NYTimes? Not the gay men who were first in line or the leathermen, but a lesbian couple who wore black and pearls. I though that was a hoot! So very East Side New York.

[dsdrane]

Ah, yes, and the photo-op with David Dinkins and Ruth Messinger.

...and with domestic partnership comes the dissolution of domestic partnership. This, I finally got around to accomplishing (ironically several months before my following domestic arrangement hit the skids) by plunking down something like $45, signing an affidavit and having a copy sent to my ex-, "notifying" him.

Silver lining: easier than divorce.

Hilariously, to me, the counter is the same at Borough Hall for shacking and busting up.

What'll it be, Folks? Too funny.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

Ah, yes, and the photo-op with David Dinkins and Ruth Messinger.

NYC really is a small town: I see Ruth Messinger all the time. She lives at the end of my block.

[dsdrane]

That it is.

My ex and I were friends with her press secretary when she was Borough President.

OK, everyone, we'll stop now.

I'm glad that you resurrected this thread, Daniel, because I just read something over at GCN about this "Side B" thing I think I've mentioned before. Perhaps we should shift focus a bit from the concept of Gay Virginity to Gay Celebacy. For those who don't know, "Side B" is what our celebate brothers and sisters over at GCN call themselves (why, I have no idea).

What do y'all think about this notion of deciding to be celibate: self-loathing or a commitment to purely platonic love?

Personally, it's a non-starter for me (my current "celebacy" is neither declared and nor desired!), but I already know how I feel...how 'bout y'all?

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

That it is.

My ex and I were friends with her press secretary when she was Borough President.

OK, everyone, we'll stop now.

I'm glad that you resurrected this thread, Daniel, because I just read something over at GCN about this "Side B" thing I think I've mentioned before. Perhaps we should shift focus a bit from the concept of Gay Virginity to Gay Celebacy. For those who don't know, "Side B" is what our celebate brothers and sisters over at GCN call themselves (why, I have no idea).

What do y'all think about this notion of deciding to be celibate: self-loathing or a commitment to purely platonic love?

Personally, it's a non-starter for me (my current "celebacy" is neither declared and nor desired!), but I already know how I feel...how 'bout y'all?

It's a simple conclusion for me: Side B believes that their orientation is not a sin, but homosexual acts are, and so it is necessary that they remain celebate. It just doesn't add up for me, and here's why: theologically I find it to be unsound. Jesus declared that if you think about sex (lusting after someone) then you've already commited the act in your head. In that teaching, Jesus says that your thought life is just as important as your actions. For someone to "know" that they are gay or lesbian, is to have thoughts that would include same-sex attraction, even lust. Having that thought, according to Jesus, is the same as commiting the action.
I also have trouble believing God would create a group of people then add unreasonable requirements to their lives, like celibacy that would deny them the full expression of being human.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by dsdrane

What do y'all think about this notion of deciding to be celibate: self-loathing or a commitment to purely platonic love?

Personally, it's a non-starter for me (my current "celebacy" is neither declared and nor desired!), but I already know how I feel...how 'bout y'all?

Neither self-loathing or platonic love. I see the promotion of celibacy on the part of those on the B side as an attempt by the ego to keep things like one's issues with intimacy and sexuality managable. It's a coping mechanism. The danger as I see it is this: it's way too easy for the ego to set itself up as God and make itself 'special' and somehow apart from everyone else. This is what happens in the psyche of the gay person anyway- we already feel separate. Should we then make that separateness somehow special? I say hell no. That's not compassion for one's self or anyone else. This goes against- as I see it- the heart of the teachings of both Jesus and the Buddha.

Likewise, it is the rare individual who goes off to a monastery or an ashram and devotes his/her life to spiritual endeavors. To demand that of all gay people is both ludicrous and just plain stupid.

[Bearnabas]

So, now that I've read all of the thread on my side started by Squirt07 and all of this thread, I'm understanding these things:

1. That the Bible seems to have places where it not only condones, but also treats as normal, sex before marriage--aka Boaz and Ruth and Song of Solomon.

2. That a loving relationship moves in the DIRECTION of God's Love and not away from it.

3. That celibacy is not demanded until you find "the one" --partly because it is so hard to find the "one" and that GLBT don't exactly have carte blanche to marry legally, thereby losing a support foundation that most other straight christians have in society at large.

4. That celibacy is driving me completely bonkers, and yet, I don't want to sleep with someone I don't know. If I make informed decisions with loving, caring people, I may not be to blame "sin-wise" for sex, but I will be held responsible for hearts and bodies as consequences as would anyone else.

So, next time I meet someone and I date them for a bit, I'm going to have sex and end my 38 year celibacy.... because I don't know if I can never have a sexual expression with another human being for my entire life...or till 45. Or heck, till 40.....

I'm tired. I want to be loved. I want to love someone. Even if they aren't the perfect person in the world and we don't sign a document saying to loveand cherish...I have this body and I really want to express myself with it in a relationship that is loving.

This doesn't mean I'm leaving this email and jumping on the first hot guy I find... but it does give me a bit more license to not hold it all in or not feel guilt when I want to do it so badly....

Is this where all this is heading?

[dsdrane]

By George, I think he's got it!

That definitely merits a cookie:

Bearnabas, if your handsome dog is any indication and I knew where you were, I swear I'd pop over and end your drought, tout de suite!

[Ooooo, I'm really gonna get it now...wait 'til Uncle Andy sees this! ]

But, I guess that's not really practical and Pablo would never forgive me, so you're just going to have to find a nice man of the homosexual persuasion and get on the bus for Funkytown.

[Years from now when you talk about this...and you will...be kind.]

[andrewlittle]

For what it is worth, I think God wants us to love. Period. If we corral some part of our love because we thinks its dirty, sinful, [fill in the blank with another judgment call], then how can we experience love as fully as possible.

I would like to say that having sex is always wrapped in love and committment - I would like to say that, but I'm not a idiot. As long as having sex is consensual, mutual, respectful and loving on some basis, how can it be negative. Much more damaging is the tendency to wrap sex in shameful concepts that create perversions of love - domination (and I'm not talking about concensual dom/sub), abuse, coersion, etc.

Live into love. I like u-dog's concept of moving towards God, as opposed to away, and what better way than through loving.

Now, David, let's have a chat. Lie down on the couch.

What's that? No! Face up is fine.

Originally Posted by dsdrane

By George, I think he's got it!

That definitely merits a cookie:

Bearnabas, if your handsome dog is any indication and I knew where you were, I swear I'd pop over and end your drought, tout de suite!

[Ooooo, I'm really gonna get it now...wait 'til Uncle Andy sees this! ]

But, I guess that's not really practical and Pablo would never forgive me, so you're just going to have to find a nice man of the homosexual persuasion and get on the bus for Funkytown.

[Years from now when you talk about this...and you will...be kind.]

A classic cry for help if I ever heard one. You did everything but put a neon sign pointing at your plea for attention.

Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Such a gorgeous young man, and you seem to be so - hmmm, desperate.

First Pablo. Now Bearnabas. Really, David, what's happening?

There are guys all over panting for your bu... Anyway, you could have any gay man you wanted simply by batting those eyes at them - hell, maybe even some straight ones. Who knows? But you seem intent on going for the ones you can't have for some reason. Are you so completely devoid of failure and rejection in your life that you have to find it wherever you can get it?

If you need that kind of rejection there are simpler, much more unfulfilling ways than trying to carry on long-distance rejections. Act like me. Talk with the voices that live in your head while in public. Go without showers for weeks on end. Go without brushing your teeth until the scrapings could provide important medical research resources. Develop your own inimitable style - wearing stripes and checks together is my sartorial statement. If all else fails, passing gas while holding your finger out is a sure winner.

I am sure, within a short period of time, you too could find the rejection and lack of fulfillment you are craving right in your own neck of the woods. Please - have you some pride - stop seeking rejection in all the distant places.

[Zerbie]

(David, you totally crack me up!! Wowsa. )

Bearnabas: (Take this with a grain of salt, as it's my observation and opinion, and not a "Christian" one at that, but here goes

Sex is a primal need. All animals experience that driving need. Only humans set "official" (actually, artificial) parameters for it's expression. That isn't to say that a lot of the social guidelines we follow aren't good - a lot of them are VERY good, or society would be chaos. But sexual expression, dear Bearnabas, is to be moderated, not snuffed out.

God knows that you have sexual needs. He created you with them. He knew you would have them. Consider this: how well are you able to devote your life to the good works God would have you do, if a large portion of your attention and energy is consumed with burning suffering feelings of unfulfilled desire? That puts too much of your attention on sex, why? Because the natural physical, emotional need is unsatisfied. Satisfy the need in a safe healthy balanced way, and you will also free up your mental attention for further growth, and for making a strong contribution to the world.

The question is what you DO with your sexuality. Are you out at the bars picking up cute strangers and doin' it in the back room, every night? Or are you sharing that most intimate part of your inmost self with a loving partner in a mutually trusting, personally growth-inspiring relationship? It is just as imbalanced to deny yourself sexual pleasure and fulfillment for a lifetime as it would be imbalanced to pick up 5 strangers a night in dark corners for quickies.

Allow yourself the human experience. Yet be wise and balanced in your choice of expression. Always, always be respectful of your body and others, of your heart and others, and always be safe.

One final thought for the record: masturbation is a healthy and safe way to experience release. It is nothing to be ashamed of. Allow yourself that, at least.

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

One final thought for the record: masturbation is a healthy and safe way to experience release. It is nothing to be ashamed of. Allow yourself that, at least.

You're preaching to the choir, Sister!

[Bearnabas]

I wish we were all in the same town, or same state, so I could give you all a big consensual, yet platonic, hug.

Zerbie, I know of that thing you call...masturbation...it is God's saving grace. "Without it, how lost I would be...." to mangle a hymn.

I want to edit my last comments--or addend them. I don't think I can just run off and have sex...my first time has to be for love. I just don't think I can throw away all my inhibitions built up like calcium deposits...(what an image!) in one triple whammy. Maybe I'm weird this way, but if I'm gonna go all the way, love is going to make it a more pleasurable and less guilt-ridden experience. I don't even know if I could do some things without really, really liking that person a lot to be that intimate--I mean sex involves a lot of vulnerability and topical creams.

So, no fears of me running off to pick someone up... (oh, wait, there's my beeper...says, man in back alley needs me.... brb)... but I will look around and really open myself up for the possibilities of complete dating... that relationship that might lead to sex at one point. I still think I'm a bit old-fashioned, but you gotta love someone a lot to be naked with them, I think.... I gotta ease myself into sex-- (which sounds like a visual metaphor, but it's not...).

At least, you guys have allowed me a different way of seeing sex. Rather than fear that I might "slip" before I find "the one"--- both of those in quotes for a purpose, I think---I think I'm going to treat people lovingly on the way to discovering a good partner, and that must include some touch, dammit.

By the way, I'm four years old as a gay man--very very very LATE blooomer in figuring things out. Anyone else think that there was a gay demon out there trying to make you "turn gay" and that this battle between innocent man and gay demon was a holy battle you had to win to save your penis for the right woman? Okay, well, maybe just me, but that's the way I thought of homosexuality--an outside force, not an inner drive--something affecting me, trying to hurt me, not something that may be inherently me, God-created part of me. So for 34 years, I battled that demon pretty well, not even realizing I could be gay--because obviously I was just a targeted, tortured straight man. LOL. Anyway, i appreciate your maps of the roads ahead as you've traveled them.

Keep the road signs a'coming...I'm moving....

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Bearnabas

I want to edit my last comments--or addend them. I don't think I can just run off and have sex...my first time has to be for love. I just don't think I can throw away all my inhibitions built up like calcium deposits...(what an image!) in one triple whammy. Maybe I'm weird this way, but if I'm gonna go all the way, love is going to make it a more pleasurable and less guilt-ridden experience. I don't even know if I could do some things without really, really liking that person a lot to be that intimate--I mean sex involves a lot of vulnerability and topical creams.

I don't think that's weird at all.

I hear you loud and clear. Through all my relationships- and I've had three long-term ones- love was first and foremost on my mind (well...maybe not all the time...but most of the time. ) Sex with love is pretty wonderful. There is nothing better. That said, I think your goal is a good one as long as it doesn't become a grand expectation- ie a demand- which in and of itself stops you in your tracks. Get my drift?

This reminds me of an observation by a friend.

"Gay men meet each other, have sex, and then decide if they like each other. Lesbians meet one another, have sex, and move in with each other."

Of course, this is a gross generalization. But it does have grain of truth.

Your aim, of course, has a good deal more in it that a simple desire to get laid. However, I wouldn't blame you (and wonder why you should blame yourself) if you did feel that way. The truth is that even gay and married folks have the hunger to make love which can border on 'I gotta have it now!' The fun part is turning that mania into play. Or even offering one's lust for that cute boy you saw on the street (yeah...it does happen to the best of us) to each other.

And there is another matter too. Lovemaking is a skill. It takes practice. Our culture has a tendency to look down on casual relationships, but having had a few (but's who's counting? ) of those myself, I believe that such experiences can have their own time and place in one's ....for lack of a better word....development. They can be a tremendous teacher. And God knows ( ) the sex itself can be incredible. Yes. It's true. It can be incredible. But one must use common sense in such matters.

No....you don't have to go run out and nail the first guy you see. Just don't drive with the brakes on all the time.

~

You know about safe sex, right? Know how to use a condom and be comfortable with it? This stuff is important. The more at ease one is with the practical aspect- the better: simply having a knowledgable partner who can introduce one to all this stuff can change one's life. It can be liberating.

[dsdrane]

Daniel...

I'm shocked. Shocked!

(You tell that hubby he'd better be nice to you. )

[Andy...don't start with me....]