If the point was the orgasm, mutial masturbation would be faster, easier, cleaner, etc. Even if neither one ever cums, it’s not important. The important part of the process is that it’s them doing it, in the same way that it doesn’t matter if you spend all evening at dinner joking about inane bullshit and never getting into a deep, meaningful discussion about the meaning of life. Talking together is the point. Trying is the point. Devoting yourself to each other is the point. If you achieve that connection, you have succeeded, regardless.
And if you succeed on that level, the pleasure comes naturally. People can achieve touchless orgasm if they have the psychological/emotional investment. If she’s not cumming, I question the relationship, not the sex. (Especially with her being a comedian, a class rife with emotional trauma)
If the point was the orgasm, mutial masturbation would be faster, easier, cleaner, etc.
Isn’t this exactly what it is? “use my vibrator with a partner” either means the partner uses it or stimulates them while they do
People can achieve touchless orgasm if they have the psychological/emotional investment. If she’s not cumming, I question the relationship, not the sex.
Let’s ignore all medical and social reasons as to why someone can’t cum; it must surely be because the relationship between the two partners!
Frankly I don’t really get your comment. What I’m saying is: using a tool for sex isn’t bad as long as you’re doing it together?
Yeah, and that’s kind of crappy. People in a loving relationship won’t be treating each other the same way one treats a one night stand, just using each other to masturbate. If you can do that to someone you say you love, I don’t think you love them.
medical reasons
Not relevant. When discussing techniques for the application of hair products, those with alopecia are not relevant. Someone who is medically differentiated like that has a completely different start and goal point from the average person and has to be approached completely differently.
social reasons
Not totally certain what you mean, but I’m guessing psychological or interpersonal. If it’s psychological, that’s medical. If it’s interpersonal, that’s the exact thing I’m talking about.
Using a vibe or something isn’t ‘bad’ (morally) so much as it is a ‘bad sign.’ (red flag) If your friend came to you and said ‘I enjoy talking with my boyfriend, but only when there’s someone else in the conversation’ or ‘but only when I’ve been drinking/getting high,’ or something else where they only seem to enjoy the interaction when they have some sort of external force modifying the experience, would you think their relationship was healthy? I would not. It might not be a horror show the way some others are, but it could be better.
If you can do that to someone you say you love, I don’t think you love them.
What? You have serious problems if you believe that. I don’t get what you’re saying. I’m saying using a tool for mutual masturbation (or one at a time) is the same as classical normal masturbation of each other. Both are acceptable and normal in a relationship.
Not relevant. When discussing techniques for the application of hair products, those with alopecia are not relevant.
It does when it’s frequent. Also, you’re the one making a generalization, so if you don’t specify, that’s on you
As for your last paragraph, well I don’t see any link with what I said. Unrelated
Yes, if you treat someone who you say you love no differently from how you treat a one-night-stand, that suggests you don’t love them. That hardly seems like a bold claim.
And, no, that’s what generalization is. When speaking in general terms, it means ignoring the obvious exceptions. You don’t specify every little minority and specifically exclude them. I would not specifically call out those with alopecia in a discussion of hair products, and neither would you. That would be silly.
And the last part is what’s known as an analogy, a somewhat comparable circumstance in which elements resemble the primary concept. It serves as an example of the point, hopefully allowing the listener to see the pattern represented in the comparable and contrastable elements. In my analogy, there are two people in a relationship. This is one to one with the vibe circumstance, so should be pretty readily understandable. The part that is different, hopefully creating an analogy through which to see the pattern, is that instead of sexual intercourse, the circumstances are social intercourse. The parallel is that just as it would be regarded as a bad sign for the health of a relationship if someone only fully enjoyed social intercourse with their partner when there are pleasurable substances involved, it is a worrying sign if they reported only being able to enjoy sex with the aid of a vibe, the sexual analog to drugs.
![[Jenny Gorelick] Co-Stars](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/82526c18-e403-4b8c-86fd-80996e8e7229.webp){kind=link}
That’s a point as well, but doing it the way you want doesn’t really satisfy her, so… you need to find a middle ground
It’s much more pleasant for her to do this with you, even if it’s not without a tool. That’s the important part
If the point was the orgasm, mutial masturbation would be faster, easier, cleaner, etc. Even if neither one ever cums, it’s not important. The important part of the process is that it’s them doing it, in the same way that it doesn’t matter if you spend all evening at dinner joking about inane bullshit and never getting into a deep, meaningful discussion about the meaning of life. Talking together is the point. Trying is the point. Devoting yourself to each other is the point. If you achieve that connection, you have succeeded, regardless. And if you succeed on that level, the pleasure comes naturally. People can achieve touchless orgasm if they have the psychological/emotional investment. If she’s not cumming, I question the relationship, not the sex. (Especially with her being a comedian, a class rife with emotional trauma)
Isn’t this exactly what it is? “use my vibrator with a partner” either means the partner uses it or stimulates them while they do
Let’s ignore all medical and social reasons as to why someone can’t cum; it must surely be because the relationship between the two partners!
Frankly I don’t really get your comment. What I’m saying is: using a tool for sex isn’t bad as long as you’re doing it together?
Yeah, and that’s kind of crappy. People in a loving relationship won’t be treating each other the same way one treats a one night stand, just using each other to masturbate. If you can do that to someone you say you love, I don’t think you love them.
Not relevant. When discussing techniques for the application of hair products, those with alopecia are not relevant. Someone who is medically differentiated like that has a completely different start and goal point from the average person and has to be approached completely differently.
Not totally certain what you mean, but I’m guessing psychological or interpersonal. If it’s psychological, that’s medical. If it’s interpersonal, that’s the exact thing I’m talking about.
Using a vibe or something isn’t ‘bad’ (morally) so much as it is a ‘bad sign.’ (red flag) If your friend came to you and said ‘I enjoy talking with my boyfriend, but only when there’s someone else in the conversation’ or ‘but only when I’ve been drinking/getting high,’ or something else where they only seem to enjoy the interaction when they have some sort of external force modifying the experience, would you think their relationship was healthy? I would not. It might not be a horror show the way some others are, but it could be better.
What? You have serious problems if you believe that. I don’t get what you’re saying. I’m saying using a tool for mutual masturbation (or one at a time) is the same as classical normal masturbation of each other. Both are acceptable and normal in a relationship.
It does when it’s frequent. Also, you’re the one making a generalization, so if you don’t specify, that’s on you
As for your last paragraph, well I don’t see any link with what I said. Unrelated
Yes, if you treat someone who you say you love no differently from how you treat a one-night-stand, that suggests you don’t love them. That hardly seems like a bold claim.
And, no, that’s what generalization is. When speaking in general terms, it means ignoring the obvious exceptions. You don’t specify every little minority and specifically exclude them. I would not specifically call out those with alopecia in a discussion of hair products, and neither would you. That would be silly.
And the last part is what’s known as an analogy, a somewhat comparable circumstance in which elements resemble the primary concept. It serves as an example of the point, hopefully allowing the listener to see the pattern represented in the comparable and contrastable elements. In my analogy, there are two people in a relationship. This is one to one with the vibe circumstance, so should be pretty readily understandable. The part that is different, hopefully creating an analogy through which to see the pattern, is that instead of sexual intercourse, the circumstances are social intercourse. The parallel is that just as it would be regarded as a bad sign for the health of a relationship if someone only fully enjoyed social intercourse with their partner when there are pleasurable substances involved, it is a worrying sign if they reported only being able to enjoy sex with the aid of a vibe, the sexual analog to drugs.