Recently I saw an episode of LAW & ORDER in which the detectives were questioning a young woman who was the lover of a rich politician. For some reason birth control was relevant to the investigation, and the detectives asked the witness what sort she and the politician used. After some hemming and hawing, the witness said none, because what her lover liked her to do for him could not possibly get her pregnant – implying, to me at least, that despite having a relationship of some years, their only sexual contact was oral (though I’ll admit manual and anal were possibilities). Moreover, her phrasing suggested that even their oral activities were one-sided: her giving, not him.
This struck me as very odd. Had not this woman needs of her own? Respect for herself? Why would she tolerate this?
Which is brings us to the thread questions. Straight women of the Dope: assuming my interpretation of the scene is correct, can you imagine putting up with that crap for ANY man, no matter how attractive, charming, or brilliant? If you knew a woman who did, would you think less of her?
Let’s discuss this with a minimum of prurience, please. No details about anybody’s … technique … is necessary.
No, I would not be making any repeat visits to a man who didn’t even attempt to please me - why would I?
However, I’m sure these women exist. Maybe they get off on being submissive to the point where being ordered to act as, essentially, a sex toy for a powerful man gets them off. Or at least allows them to make a mental deposit in the spank bank for later.
If you continue to be interested, google “Submissive orgasm denial.”
It’s possible that she was involved with him for money, status, and/or connections instead of mutual sexual interest. In which case, she’s doing some (sexual) things for him and getting a benefit in return, she’s not expecting or needing to get sexual or emotional satisfaction from him. Would you be surprised at a prostitute who did non-reciprocated sexual favors for a simple cash on the spot? This would be the same thing, just making the transaction a little less direct and more socially acceptable. I don’t think there’s any reason to assume that the ‘lover of a wealthy politician’ is in a standard, mutual romantic relationship.
There are also people who get off on getting their partner off. For example lesbians who identify as ‘stone butch’ don’t like to be touched sexually at all by their partner. Some people who identify as asexual don’t like having sex themselves but are fine doing stuff that their partner enjoys. I think this is a less likely explanation (especially since this is a TV script), but it is the way some people work.
I think you’re all missing the “lover of a rich politician” part. I’m sure there’s some quid pro quo going on, even if she isn’t getting orgasms out of the deal.
I thought we had s deal. You would not use that phrase in my threads, and in return bi would not send anyone back in time to murder Princess Grace while making it look like a car accident. Ah well, it’s on your head now.
Whatever works for other people isn’t my business, but I couldn’t stand a relationship like that. Giving, receiving, oral, anal, vaginal, it’s all part of the lovely, erotic, emotional package.
Isn’t Clinton still maintaining that the Lewinsky affair was nothing but oral sex? I think that’s probably the show’s inspiration.
I’m a guy, but if I was looking at it myself… If the relationship is a fling or something not exclusive, then I could see limiting one relationship to oral and still having other needs fulfilled elsewhere. That’s not my style, but I could imagine it.
Nope. Not even if it was mutual. The only exception would be if I was committed to the guy and he became unable to penetrate for some reason. I’m a hetero girl. I like the D.
As long as both [all] participants are of age and doing whatever voluntarily, I really don’t care how someone else gets their jollies. If the boots aren’t under my bed, not my business.
I could be in an oral only relationship for the right reasons [love, physical impairment, even lots of money if I weren’t already married to someone - marriage is similar to prostitution, services for money just with a social acceptance and a wedding ring.] I would prefer to get my rocks off as well as the guy/gal - I like mutual satisfaction.
And lack of birth control could be the guy only likes anal. Just saying, it doesn’t have to be just oral or manual. Properly done, anal can be quite fun even for women.
If I were already deeply involved in a relationship and an accident or illness made this kind of specialization necessary, that would be one thing. But someone who is all taker and never a giver would most likely be flawed in all sorts of other ways, as well. So that would be a ‘no’ for me, in a sort of roundabout way.
Marriage is not similar to prostitution. Let me repeat that with all caps:
MARRIAGE IS NOT A FORM OF PROSTITUTION.
If my wife became unable to have sex, I would remain with her and support her financially. I am confident that she would do likewise if I became unable to work. If you think marriage is in any way like the whore-john relationship, you are either unmarried or not doing it right.
