My first time and the second time (with the same woman), and I was stupid? Wow, you guys must have been experts at sex the first time then. FWIW, I was 16 (and that was 14 years ago).
Well, Ned’s character was probably just getting himself wet in the wrong area. 
I was certainly no expert the first time, but I had somehow acquired the information that the whole procedure was supposed to feel good to all involved, and that any blood involved would be from either menstruation or the broken hymen. Knowing those things didn’t make me a genius. Not knowing them? You decide. As for the second time, to me it speaks for itself. Failures and fiascoes have always sent me off in search of a better way, not charging back in doing the same thing expecting different results.
Yes, but without writing a book full of TMI, I shortened it down to “I bled because she wasn’t wet.” You jump to conclusions, probably because it makes you feel good to put down people on the internet or something, and comment that I am stupid because it happened twice. Uh, so if it happened once, I was supposed to give up sex all together because It MIGHT happen again? It’s called trying to get it right, dipshit. My first was older woman (19), and she was pretty experienced, I was not. I didn’t know anything about oral sex or anything, I WAS A VIRGIN, dumbass. I tried the second time, but it lasted longer because I nervous about the first time, and it made it worse on me. The first time we were drinking anyway, so combine that with a lack of knowledge and experience, and there you have it. It is pretty obvious too that I knew it was “supposed” to feel good too.
Everytime after the second time was just fine. Take that as you will.
That was not Jessie.
That was State Rep. Henry Aldridge (R-Pitt County) during a state house debate in 1995. He was arguing against abortion funding in rape cases because, “the juices don’t flow, the body functions don’t work, and… they don’t get pregnant.”
Rep. Aldridge was a dentist.
Difficult to keep the camera steady and hold her down?
Wouldn’t answer his question though.
I read it as, ‘‘Is ‘‘rape’’ real?’’ Meaning, **VCO3 **suspected his understanding of rape was lacking, and he wanted to know if that was the case. He was not challenging the commonly accepted definition of rape, he was challenging his own definition. It seems innocent enough to me.
Not only is it possible to have sex without vaginal lubrication, it’s considered desirable by some people. The practice of “dry sex” is a significant contributor to the spread of HIV among heterosexuals in some parts of Africa.
I think it’s just VCO3’s posting style. I believe his questions are sincere at the core, but he doesn’t bother phrasing them with anything approaching tact, and perhaps even purposely states them in an inflammatory manner. I can’t imagine anybody with any social skills would think a question stated in the manner of the pitted OP would not be construed as offensive, or at least intentionally provocative.
Every time I start to sort of appreciate and defend VCO3 (as in IndyGrrl’s pitting of him), he posts another stupidly worded thread.
Exactly - hence the quotes around “rape.” Thanks!
No, but clicking on the link in my post would explain why I asked it.
From his OP:
His last sentence defines rape as most people would define it: forced vaginal sex. He then asks quite plainly if such a thing really happens. In the preceding sentence, he put forth “his” proposed definition, which does not include penetration. I think you’re reading him too kindly.
Read what comes after the word “rape.”
Is “rape” - my defintion of a man attacking a woman and, as she struggles, engaging in penetrative vaginal sex against her will - a real thing? How is that different from the standard definition? How is asking if it is a real thing *not *asking if it actually happens?
Bolding mine. His questions in the OP seem to be entirely directed toward the physics and physiological realities of the matter, which he can’t wrap his mind around. VC03’s definition of a man attacking and penetrating a woman could be very different than someone else’s. It seems to me that this is what he is inquiring about.
Maybe. But I don’t really have any reason to assume he intended the question maliciously. I seem to recall his question about rape videos, too–and I didn’t take that as offensive either, at the time. Asking questions about something controversial and emotionally charged is not the same thing as endorsing it.
If you think that is being a “bitch” and a “total dickhead” then I can only think that you don’t open the Pit very much! I wasn’t intending to be bitchy about it, just a little bit…firm, I guess, pun unintended. Neither did I say I was “surprised”, just a little bit frightened, and neither did I get any of those facts from a book, necessarily, just from my own experiences and from other women. I just think it’s a very good thing to know if you’re involved in any kind of sexual relationship with a woman - that she can be dry and aroused, and wet and unaroused.
All that being said, I certainly didn’t mean to come off as a bitch, and I’m sorry about that. I’ve got nothing against you as a poster and I don’t like being rude. My apologies.
That wasn’t him. I think it was a miniature entrepreneur who owned a store, somewhere in the UK, since banned.
Again, in what way is that different from the standard definition?