Well, it’s a HUGE part of a relationship for you. For some people, it’s a big part but not a huge part, and for others it’s not even a big part. It all depends on your personal priorities.
-
-
- All I can say is, this thread should have been named the “Strategic Limitation Of Blowjobs” talks, or the SLOB talks.
…
- All I can say is, this thread should have been named the “Strategic Limitation Of Blowjobs” talks, or the SLOB talks.
-
- Well, that, and I gotta have blowjobs. I can return favors and any girl I date would know that long before marriage, but it’s a required part of the deal. …Much like sex is a required part of the deal. I can practice monogomy, but I refuse to practice 'none-ogamy".
~
:eek: You chipped your partner’s tooth???
Braggart. 
Maybe to the first. Yes to the second. And you still might need to take the bus once in a while while the car is in the shop.
Maybe to the first…celibacy before marriage isn’t my thing, but it is for others. If you aren’t going to “test drive” it might be at least worth reading Consumer Reports with your soon to be passion poodle. Or in this case, Joy of Sex or something. “Wow, blowjobs sound gross” might be something you both agree on, or it might be his wet dream and her shocking realization that he expects it. That might be difficult to work through while romping on the beach in Jamaica on your honeymoon. But three months before the wedding, she might get worked up to it.
Pressure is bad. A little convincing is fine. But a girl who says no to oral, says yes to bondage, and ends up giving a blow job against her will while tied down (which she was willing to do) is being sexual taken advantage of at least - and I’m not sure how far away the abuse line is - or the rape line.
On the other hand, you usually have to buy a house before you can live in it.
Whatever position you want to take, there’s an analogy somewhere to support it. 
Or maybe the Strategic Limitation of Oral Pleasure Talks (SLOPT).
After all: The proliferation, or limitation, of oral pleasure (OP) should be negotiated and implemented bilaterally, with commensurate changes in OP deployment based on the actions of one, or more, parties engaged in the discussions.
I don’t know what I was thinking. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks are usually a great source of comedy, but this time… Damn shame.
Blow me.
Meant tongue-in-cheek, of course.
But the starting out part IS clear cut. Especially if you communicate, communicate, communicate.
Of course “life gets in the way” later on. But if the people are evenly matched to begin with, IMHO, they’ve got more of a basis with which to come to compromises and solutions than those who start out already on uneven footing. Two people who have a high sex drive are going to be more “driven” to keep it that way, or to find acceptable alternatives once the kids come along, or illness or whatever.
Hell, I managed to get it on with my SO, even right after surgery on a severely shattered leg, on pain killers and with a rather clumsy "Darth Vadar’ boot on my leg.
Whereas, on the otherhand, if one person misrepresented their willingness, or lack thereof (in either direction on the sexual drive scale), in order to “get” the person they wanted. That’s just going to cause trouble down the line when their true self comes out.
But this risk is greatly reduced if the two at least start out evenly matched.
But, sometimes, even then, you’re right, one person’s earlier drive may not last, or may change that drastically. Sometimes, that is an end to the relationship, and sometimes, the two manage to work it out I’ve heard it said, that in a relationship where the sex part is working, it counts for only about 10% of the importance of the relationship, but if it’s not, it jumps up to 90% of the importance.
But then, I guess this is likely true of any serious conflict within a relationship, be it money, how to raise the children, where to live (what broke my parents up) or whatever. If a conflict can’t be resolved, it’s likely to end in the break up of the relationship, in this case, it’s sex.
I don’t know if pressure is so much “wrong” as ineffective. That is, if each person has already decided their stance. For instance “she” has decided that X number of times a week is acceptable and “he” has decided that it’s out of line, then both sides are going to see the other as either “pressure” or 'unreasonable withholding".
Again, I think this would be the case regarding any serious relationship conflict, unless both agree upon a compromise.
I guess we just sum it up to “Buyer beware”
For me, this would almost definitely be a dealbreaker, barring some crazy circumstances. I could not live a lifetime without blowjobs. It would be a sad sad world indeed.
That said, this doesn’t seem to be a problem with girls these days, or at least with the girls I meet. They all seem to enjoy the deed with great glee and gusto. And I’m more than happy to return the favor.
Oral sex is just one of life’s little pleasures that I would not consciously choose to live without. And I don’t believe that whole wives stop giving BJs bullshit, either.
Reading back over the thread, it is blowjob biased.
Where are the girls stating that no “Colonel Angus” would be a dealbreaker? Or guys saying that when they get married, no more oral pleasure?
Aaah! I must have more information. The only logical explanation I can think of would be a cock ring or something.
How did this happen?
I wouldn’t marry a guy who didn’t give head any more than I would expect a guy to marry me if I weren’t into giving head and he liked oral. I was engaged to someone who didn’t go down and it was just bad-not that the physical stuff was always bad but that his attitude towards not giving women oral sex because the vagina is disgusting and dirty made me feel like crap, turned me off and built-up long-term resentment because he loved head and I would always oblige him. So yes, I’ve learned my lesson-I wouldn’t long-term date, let alone marry someone who didn’t go down and I am a girl. Thank god that didn’t work out because we would definitely have headed towards divorceville long-term (not just because of that but because of his attitude towards women altogether…which was so perfectly encapsulated in his aversion towards going down) .
My guess is the guy already had a chipped tooth, not that it got chipped during the act.
Enjoy,
Steven
And I counter with dentureless.
I think he meant that the giver of the blowjob had a chipped tooth with a sharp edge and it was felt.
The main thing to remember is that you should always marry someone with a higher sex drive than yours. You will always get as much sex as you want and he/she will get …oh well bad luck.
OK, this is interesting. Imagine you are with a guy who has told you he is not going to ever let you give him a BJ because he is philosophically opposed to them. Hypothetically, you really love giving BJs. He’ll happily go down on you, though, and he is good at that. Otherwise, the guy is perfect for you and the sex is great. Would you marry him?