Polyamory.com Forum  

Go Back   Polyamory.com Forum > Polyamory > Fireplace

Notices

View Poll Results: Is there any crossover between Sex work, Swinging and Polyamory?
Yes, there is some crossover between all 3 categories 8 38.10%
There is only crossover between sex work and swinging 2 9.52%
There is only crossover between sex work and polyamory 0 0%
Sex work stands alone; there is no crossover 11 52.38%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-05-2012, 03:19 AM
feelyunicorn feelyunicorn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Brazil
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott View Post
Very interesting points. An article in the blog of an ex sex worker said something quite similar:
marriage v prostitution..good girl-bad girl!



I've heard something similar from a sex worker; that 80% of clients are cheating on someone. This is a field where anecdotal evidence is king, so few studies have been done on this, but she seemed to be someone who knew more then many on the subject, and even provided me with some good online material to look at.



Very good point.



Aye.



Agreed. That being said, I think I understand why there are many more female sex workers then male sex workers and why women are generally more interested in the marriage game then men (it would seem to me that the fact that she generally walks off with a fair amount of money the man generally had if things don't go well is probably a part of it); Sex at Dawn, a book that many poly people I've met have highly recommended (and that I've now read a part of myself) put it this way:

****
we argue that women’s seemingly
consistent preference for men with access to wealth is not a
result of innate evolutionary programming, as the standard
model asserts, but simply a behavioral adaptation to a world
in which men control a disproportionate share of the world’s
resources. As we’ll explore in detail, before the advent of
agriculture a hundred centuries ago, women typically had as
much access to food, protection, and social support as did
men. We’ll see that upheavals in human societies resulting
from the shift to settled living in agricultural communities
brought radical changes to women’s ability to survive.
Suddenly, women lived in a world where they had to barter
their reproductive capacity for access to the resources and
protection they needed to survive. But these conditions are
very different from those in which our species had been
evolving previously.
****



Again, Sex at Dawn says that it's the reverse. Here's another excerpt that I found to be quite intriguing:

****************************
If you spend time with the primates closest to human beings,
you’ll see female chimps having intercourse dozens of times
per day, with most or all of the willing males, and rampant
bonobo group sex that leaves everyone relaxed and maintains
intricate social networks. Explore contemporary human
beings’ lust for particular kinds of pornography or our
notorious difficulties with long-term sexual monogamy and
you’ll soon stumble over relics of our hypersexual ancestors.

Our bodies echo the same story. The human male has testicles
far larger than any monogamous primate would ever need,
hanging vulnerably outside the body where cooler
temperatures help preserve stand-by sperm cells for multiple
ejaculations. He also sports the longest, thickest penis found
on any primate on the planet, as well as an embarrassing
tendency to reach orgasm too quickly. Women’s pendulous
breasts (utterly unnecessary for breastfeeding children),
impossible-to-ignore cries of delight (female copulatory
vocalization to the clipboard-carrying crowd), and capacity
for orgasm after orgasm all support this vision of prehistoric
promiscuity. Each of these points is a major snag in the
standard narrative.

Once people were farming the same land season after season,
private property quickly replaced communal ownership as the
modus operandi in most societies. For nomadic foragers,
personal property—anything needing to be carried—is kept to
a minimum, for obvious reasons. There is little thought given
to who owns the land, or the fish in the river, or the clouds in
the sky. Men (and often, women) confront danger together.
An individual male’s parental investment, in other
words—the core element of the standard narrative—tends to
be diffuse in societies like those in which we evolved, not
directed toward one particular woman and her children, as the
conventional model insists.
****************************

The authors of Sex at Dawn argue that it was this transference from public to private property that created the desire for private, monogamous relationships as well.



Um, I wouldn't say that about this particular polyamory forum, although atleast they didn't delete the thread or worse yet, remove me from the forum (it happened to me in another poly forum); this thread was moved from the general discussion forum because the thread was deemed to not have anything to do with polyamory -.-



Aye :-)



Nope. You?
Yes, I am familiar with the title and the back-to-nature argument, and I can see how it`d be popular with most polyamorists.

If you haven`t seen it already, here`s a different perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzdqy...feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ckin...feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlKJc...feature=relmfu

No, I do not have partners at the moment.

As for prostitution, I would expect some prejudice there from sex-negative polyamorists.

Sorry, for taking so long to respond.
__________________
Independent, sex-positive, bi-curious, private, atheist, elitist, athletic dude.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-05-2012, 05:27 AM
redpepper's Avatar
redpepper redpepper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
As for prostitution, I would expect some prejudice there from sex-negative polyamorists.
What is the definition of "sex-negative" please? Who is this person in the videos? Thanks.
__________________
Anyone want to be friends on Facebook?
Send me your name via PM
My blog

Last edited by redpepper; 03-05-2012 at 05:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-05-2012, 09:29 AM
Scott's Avatar
Scott Scott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: near Toronto, Canada -.-
Posts: 237
Default

Response to Post#11, Part 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
Yes, I am familiar with the title and the back-to-nature argument, and I can see how it`d be popular with most polyamorists.

If you haven`t seen it already, here`s a different perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzdqy...feature=relmfu
I only saw the first 3 minutes of that (gruesome stuff), I think I get the picture. But Sex at Dawn doesn't argue that we've evolved (or rather devolved) into some rather brutal practices at times; he's saying that in hunter gatherer tribal societies, it didn't work like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
He brings up Jane Goodall, a subject which Sex at Dawn brings up. From Sex at Dawn's Chapter 13:
*******************************
The Mysterious Disappearance of Margaret Power

Even apart from doubts raised by bonobos [which are just as close to us as chimpanzees and have never been known to be violent, with only one alleged exception I know of that Sex at Dawn gets into later and I quote below], there are serious questions worth asking about the nature of chimp “warfare.” In the 1970s, Richard Wrangham was a graduate student studying the relation between food supply and chimp behavior at Jane Goodall’s research center at Gombe, Tanzania. In 1991, five years before Wrangham and Peterson’s Demonic Males came out, Margaret Power published a carefully researched book, The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee, that asked important questions concerning some of Goodall’s research on chimpanzees (without, it must be said, ever expressing anything but admiration for Goodall’s scientific integrity and intentions). But Power’s name and her doubts are nowhere to be found in Demonic Males.

Power noticed that data Goodall collected in her first years at Gombe (from 1961 to 1965) painted a different picture of chimpanzee social interaction than the accounts of chimpanzee warfare she and her colleagues published to global acclaim a few years later. Observations from those first four years at Gombe had left Goodall with the impression that the chimps were “far more peaceable than humans.” She saw no evidence of “war” between groups and only sporadic outbreaks of violence between individuals.

These initial impressions of overall primate peace mesh with research published four decades later, in 2002, by primatologists Robert Sussman and Paul Garber, who conducted a comprehensive review of the scientific literature
on social behavior in primates. After reviewing more than eighty studies of how various primates spend their waking hours, they found that “in almost all species across the board, from diurnal lemurs—the most primitive primates—to apes ... usually less than 5 percent of their day is spent in any active social behavior whatsoever.” Sussman and Garber found that “usually less than 1 percent of their day is spent fighting or competing, and it’s unusually much less than 1 percent.” They found cooperative, affiliative behavior like playing and grooming to be ten to twenty times more common than conflict in all primate species.15

But Goodall’s impression of relative harmony was to change—not coincidentally, argues Power—precisely when she and her students began giving the chimps hundreds of bananas every day, to entice them to hang around the camp so they could be observed more easily.

In the wild, chimps spread out to search for food individually or in small groups. Because the food is scattered throughout the jungle, competition is unusual. But, as Frans de Waal explains, “as soon as humans start providing food, even in the jungle, the peace is quickly disturbed.”16

The mounds of deliciously smelly fruit locked in reinforced concrete boxes opened only for timed, regular feedings altered the chimps’ behavior dramatically. Goodall’s assistants had to keep rebuilding the boxes, as the frustrated apes found endless ways of prying or smashing them open. Ripe fruit that could not be eaten immediately was a new experience for them—one that left the chimps confused and enraged. Imagine telling a room of unruly three-year-olds on Christmas morning (each with the strength of four adult men)
that they’ll have to wait an unspecified amount of time to open the piles of presents they can see right there, under the tree.

Recalling this period a few years later, Goodall wrote, “The constant feeding was having a marked effect upon the behaviour of the chimps. They were beginning to move about in large groups more often than they had ever done in the old days. They were sleeping near camp and arriving in noisy hordes early in the morning. Worst of all, the adult males were becoming increasingly aggressive. ... Not only was there a great deal more fighting than ever before, but many of the chimps were hanging around camp for hours and hours every day [emphasis added].”17

Margaret Power’s doubts concerning Goodall’s provisioning of the chimps have been largely left unaddressed by most primatologists, not just Wrangham.18 Michael Ghiglieri, for example, went to study the chimps in Kibale Forest in nearby Uganda specifically in response to the notion that the intergroup conflict Goodall’s team had witnessed might have been due to the distorting effects of those banana boxes. Ghiglieri writes, “My mission ... [was] to find out whether these warlike killings were normal or an artifact of the researchers having provisioned the chimps with food to observe them.”19 But somehow Margaret Power’s name doesn’t even appear in the index of Ghiglieri’s book, published eight years after hers.

We lack the space to adequately explore the questions Power raised, or to address subsequent reports of intergroup conflict among some (but not all) unprovisioned chimps in other study areas.20 While we’ve got our doubts about the motivations of
Pinker and Chagnon (see below), like Margaret Power, we have none about Jane Goodall’s intentions or scientific integrity. Still, with all due respect to Goodall, Power’s questions deserve consideration by anyone seriously interested in the debate over the possible primate origins of warfare.
*******************************

The book also continues by getting into the benefits of war when wealth is concentrated as well as some rather unflattering points regarding Napolean Chagnon's study of the Yanomamö; it provides compelling evidence that he instigated much of the violence that occurred during the time he spent with Yanomamö.

Now, for the one alleged exception to the peaceful Bonobos that I'd mentioned before:
*******************************
The Desperate Search for Hippie Hypocrisy and Bonobo Brutality

For a certain kind of journalist (or evolutionary psychologist), nothing is more satisfying than exposing hippie hypocrisy. A recent headline from Reuters reads, “Hippie Apes Make War as Well as Love, Study Finds.”35 The article states, “Despite their reputation as lovers, not fighters, of the primate world, bonobos actually hunt and kill monkeys....” Another assures us that “Despite ‘Peacenik’ Reputation, Bonobos Hunt and Eat Other Primates Too.” A third, under the headline “Sex Crazed Apes Feast on Killing, Too,” opens with an audible sneer: “As hippies had Altamont [where Hell’s Angels killed a concert-goer], so bonobos have Salonga National Park, where scientists have witnessed the supposedly peace-loving primate hunting and eating monkey children.” “Sex crazed”? “Supposedly peace-loving”? “Eating monkey children”? Do monkeys have “children”?

If both chimps and bonobos make war, maybe we are “dazed survivors”of a “5-million-year habit of lethal aggression” after all. But a closer look reveals that it’s the journalists who are a bit dazed. Researchers witnessed ten attempts to hunt monkeys over five years of observing the bonobos in question. The bonobos were successful three times, sharing the monkey meat among the hunters—mixed groups of males and females.

A brief reality check for science journalists:

• Researchers have long known and reported that bonobos regularly hunt and eat meat, generally small
jungle antelopes known as duikers—as well as squirrels, insects, and grubs.

• The evolutionary line leading to humans, chimps, and bonobos split from that leading to monkeys about thirty million years ago. Chimps and bonobos, in other words, are as closely related to monkeys as we are.

• Young monkeys are not “children.”

• Monkey meat is on the menu at fancy Chinese restaurants and jungle barbecues in many parts of the world.

• Tens of thousands of monkeys, young and old, are sacrificed in research laboratories throughout the world annually.

So, are humans also “at war” with monkeys?

Nothing sells newspapers like headlines of “WAR!,” and no doubt “CANNIBALISTIC HIPPIE ORGY WAR!” sells even more, but one species hunting and eating another species is hardly “war”; it’s lunch. That bonobos and monkeys may look similar to untrained eyes is irrelevant. When a pack of wolves or coyotes attacks a stray dog, is that “war”? We’ve seen hawks pluck pigeons out of the sky. War?

Asking whether our species is naturally peaceful or warlike, generous or possessive, free-loving or jealous, is like asking whether H2O is naturally a solid, liquid, or gas. The only meaningful answer to such a question is: It depends. On a nearly empty planet, with food and shelter distributed widely, avoiding conflict would have been an easy, attractive option. Under the conditions typical of ancestral environments, human beings would have had much more to lose than to gain from warring against one another. The evidence—both physical and circumstantial—points to a human prehistory in which our ancestors made far more love than war.
*******************************

Last edited by Scott; 03-05-2012 at 09:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-05-2012, 09:38 AM
Scott's Avatar
Scott Scott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: near Toronto, Canada -.-
Posts: 237
Default

Response to post #11, Part 2 (last part)

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
No, I do not have partners at the moment.
Ok. I'm curious, why did you ask me if I had a partner?

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
As for prostitution, I would expect some prejudice there from sex-negative polyamorists.
Mm. Well, I think the best argument against prostitution is the idea that it's not about love, simply about sex. I think, however, that it's a false argument, for reasons outlined in the paper in the OP, as well as a simple question: if the issue is just getting off, why not just masturbate to porn? Why pay the exorbitantly higher cost of hiring a sex worker?

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
Sorry, for taking so long to respond.
Np :-)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-05-2012, 09:42 AM
Scott's Avatar
Scott Scott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: near Toronto, Canada -.-
Posts: 237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
What is the definition of "sex-negative" please?
A good question. As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't think that was the best way of putting it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
Who is this person in the videos? Thanks.
Another good question, laugh :-). He seems to be lecturing at Yale, quite possibly a Yale professor judging by his anecdotes concerning Yale students.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-05-2012, 11:19 AM
Scott's Avatar
Scott Scott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: near Toronto, Canada -.-
Posts: 237
Default

I thought I'd mention that I've actually brought this subject up in a forum that caters to sex workers and their clients. I actually made a poll asking whether people thought there was crossover. Here's the results so far:

1- Yes, there is some crossover between all 3 categories: 12 / 40.00%
2- There is only crossover between sex work and swinging 5 / 16.67%
3- Sex work stands alone; there is no crossover. 13 / 43.33%

I decided that I should put a poll in this thread as well and have just done so for anyone interested in seeing the results/voting in it.

There has also been some discussion as well:
http://terb.ca/vbulletin/showthread....g-and-Sex-work

Last edited by Scott; 03-05-2012 at 11:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-05-2012, 01:31 PM
feelyunicorn feelyunicorn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Brazil
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
What is the definition of "sex-negative" please? Who is this person in the videos? Thanks.
I`m surprised you would ask, since "sex-negative" is in this site`s terms and definitions thread you helped compile.

I would go further than the definition there, however, to say that sex-negativity includes a hierarchy between "love" and sex, which usually extends itself to "mind/spirit" vs. body.

In other words, it is derived from Platonic/Christian tradition in which spirit is superior and separate from the body.

The implication being that casual sex, or sex for sex's sake is inferior (or, downright morally reprehensible) to "love"; or, to put it into other words, that sex is only justifiable when "love" is present.

In which case, most prostitution would be reprehensible by definition. I think it would be wishy-washy to pretend that prostitution is "about love", but I have fallen in love with prostitutes and prostitutes have fallen in love with me. So, it does happen on rare occasions.

It took me a long time, and probably over 80 prostitutes, to realize that almost every (if not all) prostitutes have their "special client(s)", who eventually does not pay. It also took me some painful experiences in the track to realize that my ultimate desire when out looking for prostitutes is to be loved. And, how inadequate a way of going about it it is. I am nowadays much more careful about seeing prostitutes repeated times, precisely to protect my feelings against being unrequited.

Much has been said about the vulnerability of prostitutes and their feelings, but I feel a lot more has to be said about the vulnerability of johns. Yet, I do not wish to make it a pity party. Both prostitutes and johns consent to what they do, so if it hurts them, it`s up to them to stop it. I am definitely in favor of full legalization wherever it occurs. And, it does not always hurt. It can and is fun to both parties most of the time.

I would rather say that prostitution can be a precarious substitute for love in the event that one cannot find it in non-pay situations.
__________________
Independent, sex-positive, bi-curious, private, atheist, elitist, athletic dude.

Last edited by feelyunicorn; 03-05-2012 at 01:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-05-2012, 01:36 PM
feelyunicorn feelyunicorn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Brazil
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott View Post
Response to Post#11, Part 1



I only saw the first 3 minutes of that (gruesome stuff), I think I get the picture. But Sex at Dawn doesn't argue that we've evolved (or rather devolved) into some rather brutal practices at times; he's saying that in hunter gatherer tribal societies, it didn't work like this.
Yes, I would guess that would be the argument in Sex at Dawn.

I just wanted to offer the counter-argument, but you would have to go further than the first 3 minutes to see it explicitly made. I think we`ve reached an impasse here.

To be quite honest, I will probably never read Sex at Dawn because I am, for now at least, satisfied with what I've got in explaining my experience. You seem to be in a similar position. *high five*

I am also more focused on actual personal experience and feelings (in myself and others), than the theoretical stuff behind polyamory.

Hence, the reason why I asked you if you had partners. I would love to discuss your actual experiences and feelings, rather than theory. But, I also understand people process their feelings differently, and some choose to do it through books.
__________________
Independent, sex-positive, bi-curious, private, atheist, elitist, athletic dude.

Last edited by feelyunicorn; 03-05-2012 at 01:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-05-2012, 08:29 PM
Scott's Avatar
Scott Scott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: near Toronto, Canada -.-
Posts: 237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
What is the definition of "sex-negative" please? Who is this person in the videos? Thanks.
I`m surprised you would ask, since "sex-negative" is in this site`s terms and definitions thread you helped compile.
Could you or someone else link to that thread? Would like to take a look at the definition myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
I would go further than the definition there, however, to say that sex-negativity includes a hierarchy between "love" and sex, which usually extends itself to "mind/spirit" vs. body.

In other words, it is derived from Platonic/Christian tradition in which spirit is superior and separate from the body.

The implication being that casual sex, or sex for sex's sake is inferior (or, downright morally reprehensible) to "love"; or, to put it into other words, that sex is only justifiable when "love" is present.

In which case, most prostitution would be reprehensible by definition. I think it would be wishy-washy to pretend that prostitution is "about love", but I have fallen in love with prostitutes and prostitutes have fallen in love with me. So, it does happen on rare occasions.

It took me a long time, and probably over 80 prostitutes, to realize that almost every (if not all) prostitutes have their "special client(s)", who eventually does not pay. It also took me some painful experiences in the track to realize that my ultimate desire when out looking for prostitutes is to be loved. And, how inadequate a way of going about it it is. I am nowadays much more careful about seeing prostitutes repeated times, precisely to protect my feelings against being unrequited.

Much has been said about the vulnerability of prostitutes and their feelings, but I feel a lot more has to be said about the vulnerability of johns. Yet, I do not wish to make it a pity party. Both prostitutes and johns consent to what they do, so if it hurts them, it`s up to them to stop it. I am definitely in favor of full legalization wherever it occurs. And, it does not always hurt. It can and is fun to both parties most of the time.

I would rather say that prostitution can be a precarious substitute for love in the event that one cannot find it in non-pay situations.
Interesting points. Since I haven't yet seen the sex negative definition on here, I will for now assume that you are correct in your understanding of its definition here. I recognize that you also added a bit to this site's definition. I think the real question here is, what is love? Put another way, can you love someone at first site? Do you need to know someone's story to love them? Or can simply looking at a picture of someone, or even a touch from said person get you to feel love? In the past, I've talked about one being able to define different levels of love, as well as the fact that just because you love someone doesn't mean you'll be able to maintain a relationship with them; unrequited love happens often. I think that there may be a meta state where if you love something or someone, it loves you back, but this goes beyond anything on the conscious level, so it's not really all that practical.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that I'd much rather pay a woman for sex (which I did do for my first time) then pay for drugs for recreational purposes (something I've never done, unless you count chocolate :-p) because a woman is so much more interesting to me then any drug could ever be. That being said, the reason that I've only done it once is because ultimately, for me, if you're going to get to the point of actually being with a woman, I want there to be relationship material. Put another way, I'd rather have a woman friend then a woman I have sex with, and it's hard to have a relationship with someone who you're paying to make you happy. That and the fact that I don't have much money, laugh :-p.

There is, however, something that doesn't require much money where woman are still paid to do things; porn. It is, ofcourse, a very indirect type of relationship, especially if you're generally not one for the cam thing (which tends to cost much more then simply clicking on porn links, which is free). Porn, like sex work, is a very controversial subject; I think the last post I wrote in a poly board I was removed from had to do with porn. So I think I'll leave it at that for now.

Last edited by Scott; 03-05-2012 at 08:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-05-2012, 08:36 PM
Scott's Avatar
Scott Scott is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: near Toronto, Canada -.-
Posts: 237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott View Post
I only saw the first 3 minutes of that (gruesome stuff), I think I get the picture. But Sex at Dawn doesn't argue that we've evolved (or rather devolved) into some rather brutal practices at times; he's saying that in hunter gatherer tribal societies, it didn't work like this.
Yes, I would guess that would be the argument in Sex at Dawn.
He presents evidence, which I have presented to you as well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
I just wanted to offer the counter-argument, but you would have to go further than the first 3 minutes to see it explicitly made. I think we`ve reached an impasse here.
Could you not summarize this alleged counter-argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
To be quite honest, I will probably never read Sex at Dawn because I am, for now at least, satisfied with what I've got in explaining my experience. You seem to be in a similar position. *high five*
I just don't want to hear any more of the gruesome acts some cultures now pass off as "normal". To reiterate, Sex at Dawn doesn't argue that these acts are now considered normal in certain cultures, only that it's not what human society considered normal for most of its past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
I am also more focused on actual personal experience and feelings (in myself and others), than the theoretical stuff behind polyamory.
I'm fine with sharing personal experience and feelings. I just think that studies and experiences should both be shared.

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
Hence, the reason why I asked you if you had partners.
I don't currently, but I have had girlfriends in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by feelyunicorn View Post
I would love to discuss your actual experiences and feelings, rather than theory. But, I also understand people process their feelings differently, and some choose to do it through books.
I read books to learn from the experiences and/or studies of others, but that doesn't mean that I'm not affected by my own personal experiences or that I don't like hearing about the personal experiences of others.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
mental illness, obsessive fantasies, pedantic, polyamory, polyfuckery, prostitute, prostitutes, prostitution, sex negative, sex positive, sex work, sex workers, sex-negative, sex-positive, swinging

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:19 AM.