|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
crazylemongirl
Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Location: almost there...
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
I don't think it's a function of time. I think it's a function of the number of shags you've had with the object of your desire (as well as the strength of that desire to begin with.)
|
I'm calling bollocks on that... it's the creativity in the manner of the shags. I find keeping a partner on their toes, literatively and figuratively to be the best way to increase sexual desire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
New positions/costumes/roles only add a finite number of shags per position or costume.
Edit: For example, a Ms. Mindeman costume, your elementary school music teacher, might only be good for about an extra shag and a half, whereas a Nancy costume/roleplay, the high school art teacher, might be good for, say 10-20 extra shags. All hypothetically speaking, of course.
Princess Leia (costume and role) can add anywhere from 50-several hundred extra shags depending on the geekiness of the male in question.
Of course, the fundamental premise is valid. You need to find some way to convince yourself that the person you've grown weary of shagging is not, in fact, the person you've grown weary of shagging.
Last edited by Thunndarr on Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've never been with someone for longer than two or three years, but I can say that there are two elements that have significantly affected desire:
1) Health of relationship. When I was frustrated, disappointed and used, I was uninterested in sex. If he made a promise to change and I truly believed him, at that moment he would suddenly look 18 times more attractive to me.
2) Variety. Creativity is a must. I started to get very bored with the same routine. Technique/location/timing/mood/pace can and should be changed up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazylemongirl
Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Location: almost there...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
New positions/costumes/roles only add a finite number of shags per position or costume.
|
But you've still upped your number of shags. By increasing the repoirte of your shaggable shags to your total number of shags, you have by defintion increased the length of your shaggabilty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crazylemongirl wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
New positions/costumes/roles only add a finite number of shags per position or costume.
|
But you've still upped your number of shags. By increasing the repoirte of your shaggable shags to your total number of shags, you have by defintion increased the length of your shaggabilty. |
Careful examination will reveal that I already said that in my first post on this subject. Never-the-less, the Shag Limit exists. Much like death, you can not stop it, you can only avoid it for a while. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Healthy people keep shagging into thier 70's so I think the answer is pretty clear... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zyzyfer
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: who, what, where, when, why, how?
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| crazylemongirl wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
New positions/costumes/roles only add a finite number of shags per position or costume.
|
But you've still upped your number of shags. By increasing the repoirte of your shaggable shags to your total number of shags, you have by defintion increased the length of your shaggabilty. |
Careful examination will reveal that I already said that in my first post on this subject. Never-the-less, the Shag Limit exists. Much like death, you can not stop it, you can only avoid it for a while. |
But what is the equation to determine one's Shag Limit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zyzyfer wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| crazylemongirl wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
New positions/costumes/roles only add a finite number of shags per position or costume.
|
But you've still upped your number of shags. By increasing the repoirte of your shaggable shags to your total number of shags, you have by defintion increased the length of your shaggabilty. |
Careful examination will reveal that I already said that in my first post on this subject. Never-the-less, the Shag Limit exists. Much like death, you can not stop it, you can only avoid it for a while. |
But what is the equation to determine one's Shag Limit? |
The Shag Institute is still working on the Unified Shag Theory. We need volunteers, perhaps able bodied individuals such as yourself, willing to go out there, into the wild, to perform the vigorous testing, thrusting deep into the, uh, heart of the matter. Individuals will be held to the most rigid of standards, to complete the erection of the body of work necessary to raise the the banner on the flagpole of human endeavor, to complete the final work on the Theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Van Islander
| Quote: |
| Lovemaking can get better and better, not worse over time. If it changes rather than dies with the waning of the excitement, frenzy, unsettled newness of sex with someone you don't know well (yet). |
See...I so much want this to be true!
However I'm kinda worried that Thunndarr may be right with his Shag Limit theory.
Plus I envy him of course all the fun he must have had working out that theory. Just reading about it made me ROFL 
Kermo
| Quote: |
| Variety. Creativity is a must. I started to get very bored with the same routine. |
Right...this has always been my problem as well.
| Quote: |
| Technique/location/timing/mood/pace can and should be changed up. |
but I tend to find sooner or later this has it's limits as well. 
Seoulunitarian
| Quote: |
| I think the problem is that people equate love with sex. I'm not saying you do, but most people I know do. Love is a choice. The feelings of attraction (at least 24/7 attraction) go away very quickly. However, if you really love a person, sexual attraction is not a huge issue. There are more than the two choices of being celibate and being unfaithful. There's the choice of working to make a relationship you value last. I've been with my partner almost 3 years. The constant attraction disappeared after about 6 months. But I love him, and I have made the choice to be with him. Relationships are hard work, but when I look to the future, I will be much happier with him than if I skipped around having sexual escapades all my life. |
Sometimes I wonder if it's time for a new morality. I mean for most of man's existence his life expectancy has been around forty years. Nowadays it's closer to eighty in developed countries and scientists are talking of it being extended to a hundred and twenty before the end of the century.
Our current notions of fidelity were based on an idea a man and a woman, marriage, kids and a much shorter life span. Nowadays married couples have years and years left ,long after the kids are gone. Is fidelity so important then if the couple are secure in each others love. Is it possible for them to agree on an open relationship and this being a healthy thing and not seedy?
Is this even more true in gay relationships where the imperative to be faithful to each other is not in any way predicated on the need to ensure that one partner is not literally left holding the babies with no visible means of support if the other deserts. Are the needs of these relationships different or are they a parallel to heterosexual marriage. Should they develop their own paradigm?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulunitarian
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:41 pm Post subject: re: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Van Islander
| Quote: |
| Lovemaking can get better and better, not worse over time. If it changes rather than dies with the waning of the excitement, frenzy, unsettled newness of sex with someone you don't know well (yet). |
See...I so much want this to be true!
However I'm kinda worried that Thunndarr may be right with his Shag Limit theory.
Plus I envy him of course all the fun he must have had working out that theory. Just reading about it made me ROFL
Kermo
| Quote: |
| Variety. Creativity is a must. I started to get very bored with the same routine. |
Right...this has always been my problem as well.
| Quote: |
| Technique/location/timing/mood/pace can and should be changed up. |
but I tend to find sooner or later this has it's limits as well.
Seoulunitarian
| Quote: |
| I think the problem is that people equate love with sex. I'm not saying you do, but most people I know do. Love is a choice. The feelings of attraction (at least 24/7 attraction) go away very quickly. However, if you really love a person, sexual attraction is not a huge issue. There are more than the two choices of being celibate and being unfaithful. There's the choice of working to make a relationship you value last. I've been with my partner almost 3 years. The constant attraction disappeared after about 6 months. But I love him, and I have made the choice to be with him. Relationships are hard work, but when I look to the future, I will be much happier with him than if I skipped around having sexual escapades all my life. |
Sometimes I wonder if it's time for a new morality. I mean for most of man's existence his life expectancy has been around forty years. Nowadays it's closer to eighty in developed countries and scientists are talking of it being extended to a hundred and twenty before the end of the century.
Our current notions of fidelity were based on an idea a man and a woman, marriage, kids and a much shorter life span. Nowadays married couples have years and years left ,long after the kids are gone. Is fidelity so important then if the couple are secure in each others love. Is it possible for them to agree on an open relationship and this being a healthy thing and not seedy?
Is this even more true in gay relationships where the imperative to be faithful to each other is not in any way predicated on the need to ensure that one partner is not literally left holding the babies with no visible means of support if the other deserts. Are the needs of these relationships different or are they a parallel to heterosexual marriage. Should they develop their own paradigm? |
For the record, I am gay. And I am not advocating any certain morality. I am advocating love over feelings. Most people don't recognize the difference, and nothing I can say will change that. My partner and I have included three-somes and everything in between to keep the sex good. However, we realize that our relationship is not based on feelings of attraction, and therefore have a chance of living a long life together. This is reward enough for me.
Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thebum
Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Location: North Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| How long does sexual attraction last? |
until my dick goes limp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperFly
Joined: 09 Jul 2003
Location: In the doghouse
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Met my wife in 1996...attraction still there, sex is better than ever...even though she likes to hit me with a stick and call me "bad dog". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rockstarsmooth
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Location: anyang, baybee!
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Our current notions of fidelity were based on an idea a man and a woman, marriage, kids and a much shorter life span. Nowadays married couples have years and years left ,long after the kids are gone. Is fidelity so important then if the couple are secure in each others love. Is it possible for them to agree on an open relationship and this being a healthy thing and not seedy? |
i agree that life expectancy is an important aspect of fidelity. when one can only expect to live to 40 years of age, then there's no time for things to get stale. hell, if your life expectancy is that low, then recreational sex is probably low on your list of priorities, food, procreation and general survival are likely quite a bit higher. now we can live a loooong time. who wants to bang the same old, same old for 40, 50 or 60 years? variety is important. and with birth control being what it is, there's no need to stay monogamous. love is certainly important, but there's no need to restrict oneself to one sexual partner. great sex can certainly exist outside of love, and great love can certainly exist alongside polygamous sex.
| Quote: |
| Is this even more true in gay relationships where the imperative to be faithful to each other is not in any way predicated on the need to ensure that one partner is not literally left holding the babies with no visible means of support if the other deserts. Are the needs of these relationships different or are they a parallel to heterosexual marriage. Should they develop their own paradigm? |
of all the couples i know who have successfully negotiated non-monogamous relationships, myself included, all are q.ueer. i don't know any het couples that have been able to successfully pull it off. having said that, i don't think that a biological imperative is the underlying reason; i'd venture to say that it has more to do with being comfortable with being outside the norm when it comes to sex. q.ueers are already outside the norm, we've grown up knowing that we are different in our sexuality, thus polyamoury is merely another stage in that continuum. for the most part, we've accepted the idea that by being q.ueer we are thought of as being sexually adventurous, thus sleeping with more than one person is not really all that outre. of course, when i say "we" i am not speaking for all of q.ueerdom, merely for myself and the other non-monogamous q.ueers that i know. i also know q.ueers who are vociferously monogamous and find the idea of polyamoury to be abhorrent.
btw, i choose to use the word "q.ueer" as it is much more all-encompassing of sexuality than glbt can possibly be. "q.ueer" allows for more variety, and doesn't assume that one must be locked into a box defining one as a specific sexuality. it allows for change, for fluidity.
it sucks that "q.ueer" gets censored. i guess it's a bad word...
rss 
 right now i'm listening to: violent femmes - please do not go |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
