Re: Once upon a time, there was a Hero...

[robs]

Salty Lust,
That could be my story, all the way to the point of discovering Cock Hero Evolution... Mine was Blue Magic Challenge - even though I'd found Cock Hero 8 first, and then avidly followed them all up until BMC, that was the one that really blew my mind.

I just about threw the mouse through the monitor when I got to the end of part 1. It had taken me dozens of tries, but I kept edging out on the last part of Pressure.

And then SuperMokkori came out with Stroker Ace 3, and the Stroker Edge Babes Challenge...

My very boring and very Christian wife (now ex) could not come close to competing.

I am now free to enjoy this medium to its utmost, and have even done a little work with DPL writing tease lines, and beta testing.

[book_guy]

Since the first post is (or seems to be) missing now, I'd appreciate some clarification. What'choo talkin' bout?

[Pseudonym]

Since the first post is (or seems to be) missing now, I'd appreciate some clarification. What'choo talkin' bout?

As far as I remember, in general, OP shared his story about discovering CH videos, societal norms + expectations, porn vs real women (perhaps toxic relationshp in his past? Just speculating here) and his struggle with religious repression vs porn. The post made it sound like he overcome this and embraced the enjoyment of porn. I hope I'm not misrepresenting his words.

I don't know why he removed the post, but it might suggest that his internal struggle continues.
I luckily never experienced any kind of sexual repression, but I imagine it has to be very hard for some people.

Imo, thing is bad only if it results in bad outcomes. Not because the thing is a certain thing or someone just declare it to be so. I don't think watching porn is inherently good or bad. It can be both or just neutral.
Also, I believe that sometimes things are good or bad for us only because we believe they are. The hard part is to recognize when we are being lied to and when we lie to ourselves.

I hope OP is doing good and if he reads this - thank you for sharing your story. If only for a short time.

[robs]

Since the first post is (or seems to be) missing now, I'd appreciate some clarification. What'choo talkin' bout?

As far as I remember, in general, OP shared his story about discovering CH videos, societal norms + expectations, porn vs real women (perhaps toxic relationship in his past? Just speculating here) and his struggle with religious repression vs porn. The post made it sound like he overcome this and embraced the enjoyment of porn. I hope I'm not misrepresenting his words.

I don't know why he removed the post, but it might suggest that his internal struggle continues.
I luckily never experienced any kind of sexual repression, but I imagine it has to be very hard for some people.

Imo, thing is bad only if it results in bad outcomes. Not because the thing is a certain thing or someone just declare it to be so. I don't think watching porn is inherently good or bad. It can be both or just neutral.
Also, I believe that sometimes things are good or bad for us only because we believe they are. The hard part is to recognize when we are being lied to and when we lie to ourselves.

I hope OP is doing good and if he reads this - thank you for sharing your story. If only for a short time.

That's pretty much it.
I particularly liked the way OP framed it as a fairy tale/origin story.

I also identified with it because he spoke about his religious and familial guilt, and when he overcame it, he felt free and was able to pursue Cock Hero the way he wanted.

I hope he's doing well, and I'm glad to have been able to partake of his story.
It inspired me.

[book_guy]

Sorry I missed the original story. Another possible interpretation, maybe he removed it because it contained some potentially identifying information and he didn't want his story to get him outed?

Spoiler: show

Time for an aside on our cultural norms ...

As far as porn versus real women goes, I'm honestly getting to the point that I believe materialism in North America has all but ruined the potential for decent heterosexual relationships. I don't entirely blame the women alone, because I see that several factors have led to the creation of the problem as it currently stands. But I do feel that the only group which has any real power to ameliorate the problem is also exactly that group which most benefits from perpetuating the status quo instead of ameliorating the problem, so I do see some degree of culpability for women. The Zeitgeist is painful to half the species, but the other half continues to exhibit a willingness to extort that pain anyway, and even to moralize that somehow it would be "wrong" not to.

Generally, I'm whining here about the typical Western materialist relationship that lacks a sense of bond, in which the female is free to denigrate her male partner and considers any act of being deliberately pleasing toward that partner to be demeaning, or to be somehow letting down the sisterhood. So, you end up with one-way relationships, in which a male is rendered unto servitude and is damn well expected to perform that servitude with glad acceptance, while the female does not reciprocate anywhere near that level of service toward her partner, but only grudgingly and in a limited sense. These are stereotypical situations, and the analysis is grossly generalized, but it's something that I feel is a fair and accurate view of the overall picture these days, at least among the Western cultures. I see it in particular among those cultures which have some degree of debt to the British Empire's Victorian-era expansion. Especially, I see it as a product of the broken counter-productive version of the Protestant Work Ethic culture that the colonialist Empire spread and mandated for all its territories. This warped moralism was imposed on all and sundry more as a means of extending mercantilism's permanent sway than as a means to actual moral character-building among the subjugated populaces. The mercantilism needed its slave classes to exact further profit at a time when exploitation of natural resources was beginning to find limits to that abundance, and at a time when leadership felt that actual overt human slavery in itself was morally wrong, so instead the Empire managed to create myths by which the working classes were expected to remain subjugated.

As a proof of this mercantilism-and-slavery part of the hypothesis, note that generaly the only Western individuals who engage in extra-marital affairs for which they may be lauded or at least not pilloried publicly, are also people who run large companies or otherwise have that degree of maldistributed wealth secured for themselves. Being rich means sleeping around? Silly concept, of course. Money doesn't make tits nicer or dicks bigger or people hornier. In fact, in many non-Western and non-modern cultures, being POOR means sleeping around. The only time in human history that I can find, in which there's a direct relationship between "sexiness" and cash, is under post-Industrial Western European and North American mercantilism. So, if we have this weird connection between licentiousness, male sexual opportunity, and rare (generally unattainable) levels of material wealth, I'd conclude, that the weirdness would be due not to "natural" sexual appealingness, but rather to the broken way in which we propagate that wealth. We connected excess wealth with value, and then our citizenry wrongly associated sexual desirability with that which was otherwise valued, viz., excess wealth. The association is the other way around -- that which is wealthy must be valuable and therefore must be sexy, so say the indoctrinated among us; whereas the initiation of this idea was just the opposite, that which is valuable must be excessively wealthy. How did sexiness get into the equation? How many women actually fuck a guy because he has a nice car and will take her to an expensive restaurant? Very few, though it remains the dominant myth that this is what is "supposed" to make them biologically interested in him. Generally they're BORED by good providers, and we lack the cultural language to discuss why. They're bored by people who spend all their time figuring out how to amass excess wealth because, duh, excess of anything is inherently boring. But somehow we've located sexiness in that nexus.

This is a back-formation, a backwards association that does nobody any good, except those few who propagated it in the first place. To the contrary, in most non-Industrialist historical cultures, the wealthy set were viewed as unassailable, sexless, and not related to the fucking going on among the masses. The rich only fucked among one another (avoidance of diseases being one good reason; cf. Marie Antoinette), often to the hazard of inbreeding, which by definition is exactly the opposite of sexiness. The poor fucked rampantly, raised babies communally, encouraged youthful rather than older-age-mother pregnancies (which of course requires encouraging males to fuck; and does not involve the restriction of male access to orgasm), and lauded rather denigrating female sexuality. The aristocrats were always free to go get a good ol' horny fuck among the peasants. See, peasant girls were up for it, weren't they? When you remember to think of it that way -- a buncha slatternly country serving wenches and cowherds' daughters who'd all gamely raise their skirts for any well-dressed city slicker no matter how inherently undesirable his actual character and body might be to them -- you start to understand human sexuality the way most members of most human cultures have understood it. The girls in the taverns are easy. But we've all lived our entire lives under the opposite, weird connection, between money and power on the one hand, and sexiness, on the other. It seems anathema nowadays to dissociate them. Yet it's not a natural human connection, but rather an invention of the professional capitalists. It served their aims, though it limits yours.

If we need to discuss religious persecution, I find the connection pretty obvious. Because our current religious structures bear almost no relation to the moral order, and in no way are concerned with the actual salvation of souls or creation of positive and socially productive mental attitudes, it's pretty clear, the religion is designed to do something else. It's designed to help the fat-cats stay rich. Sure, there CAN be positive moral leaders within any given current religion's governance structures (I'm pretty much a fan of Pope Frank, for instance, he really set the Vatican's curia class on their asses, didn't he!? ), but mostly the overall function of religion currently is to make sure we all adopt a proper attitude for cubicle-slavery in the conformity-pen. Don't make waves. Don't think for yourself. Make sure you don't want too much sex, because if you do, then you are going to be less helpful to the mercantile male leadership who wants to fuck your wife (before she gets fat).

It's a false generalization currently, that "religion is always that way" with its moralizing against sex and that, therefore, this analysis isn't characteristic of our time and place at all. But I counter: usually, religion is the other way. It's not uncommon in the rest of human history, to find religious teaching to be much more at odds with the ruling (wealthy, capitalist) elite's needs. Eleusinian Mysteries, Hindu sutras, Roman orgies, but Christian and Moslem adulation of virginity and blood. Our "moral order" as propagated by the allowable modern religions serves the Protestant Work Ethic, not as the Ethic would best be implemented, but rather as its warped cousin is currently being implemented, in favor of the boys of Milovana not getting laid as much as we ought. In a world with condoms and birth control pills, where abstinence-teaching serves no aim except that of controlling in favor of abstinence, religion sure is doing a great job of convincing hot young girls that they should GET PAID for sex and that they should NOT WANT IT. If there's an expectation of monetary gain, then, isn't that related NOT to morality but rather to money? Our religion is more about money than about good works.

Not that I would belittle the original posters negative experiences at the hands of religion. If he did go through that, I'm sorry he did. The act of just understanding that it's a nefarious and self-interested influence, as I've outlined (to my satisfaction, perhaps to yours and his) here, isn't the same as managing to dig oneself out from under that influence to lead a less restricted life. And even when you do manage to convince yourself to crawl out from under the clergy's heavy weight of indoctrination, you haven't in any way also convinced any other member of the rest of the world to do the same, which means you're still no more likely to find hot young game women who are as grown-up as you are. You can't just snap your fingers and have the rest of society comply with your own enlightenment.

Similar to the "religion is always anti-sexual" generalization, there's also a false current generalization, that women want sex less than men. But I counter: usually women are the other way. Just get a decent background in comparative cultural studies, for example through the widespread study of historical non-Western literary or visual artistic creation. You'll instantly see that the trope of female licentiousness and pleasure-seeking, often at the expense of the well-being of a callow young male, is just as common as vice-versa. I know that the supposed scientists of that speculative branch of archaeology that they falsely name "Evolutionary Psychology" would counter otherwise, what with the "selfish gene" argument and the notion that females must protect against unwanted pregnancies and seek a good provider etc.. Bullshit. The Chinese roaming prostitutes who had to be convinced to remember to charge their clients a fee, else they would just fuck themselves to death, beg to differ with Desmond Morris's fabricated and unscientific claims, those claims founded as they all are in Western post-Industrial assumptions about family-rearing and repeating as they do the unspoken myths of the only right way to pair-bond. Does Mr. Morris look to you like a guy who knows how to get laid? I'd suggest that most published authors in Evo-Psych are the products of bad undergraduate educations -- their works are full of lots of logic and scrupulously entangled reasoning, but very little awareness of the author's own assumptions. The very idea that it's a rigorous "science", even though there can be neither (a) experiments nor (b) any scientific method for most of the claims made, is roughly offensive. Sure, you can make accurate generalizations on the scant historical evidence that they have. But they aren't even doing that. Ignore the assumption that women are less horny than men, and you can instantly realize, hey, how the hell do we have those thousands upon millions of human babies, if women really don't like sex all that much? And have you ever been underneath one of them when they start thrashing about for like four minutes at a stretch screaming a thousand obscenities? Do you thrash for four minutes about anything, ever? Sex is better, not worse, as a woman, so sayeth Teirisias.

Yadda yadda long story short TLDR what I mean is, I want blowjobs and I'll be a good partner if the hot chick that's giving me blowjobs doesn't demand that I pay her anything more in exchange than, obviously, the same level of service, that being, my own act of being hot and giving her cunnilingus. But I can't find that kind of partnership because I live in North America where the women resent the very idea of reciprocating, and anyway the women are getting larger and larger and therefore less and less hot to me, so umm yeah porn.

[book_guy]

i can´t stay quiet when someone came and tell religion is only to make people rich. No. Just no.

This mis-quote bears literally zero relation to anything that I said. It is quite exactly the opposite of what I intended. I value "legitimate" religion, in the sense that it can bond societies together and aid in moral education and help to reduce societal ills, and so forth. As I say,

usually, religion is the other way. It's not uncommon in the rest of human history, to find religious teaching to be much more at odds with the ruling (wealthy, capitalist) elite's needs

My text is full of specific examples of religions that are NOT profit-centered; in fact, you can simply search for the word "Hindu" to find three of them, and you won't even need to understand English grammar to find them. I claim, further, that currently misappropriated religious teachings are merely false cousins of "legitimate" religion.

So, we probably agree very much. You have utterly misunderstood and then, in order to speak strongly, you have evaded my actual statements to discuss, instead, straw-men of your own making. The straw-men are related to the supposed surprise of finding religion on Milovana, a surprise which is moot to your point and absent in mine but which serves as a nice distraction from your lack of reasoning.

You are misunderstanding and evading partly because I am flying against the prevailing wind, partly because I'm overly long-winded so it's difficult to find the air in my sails, partly because you read cursorily, but mostly because you're defensive. Think again, why would you need to respond vigorously, emotionally, and without any reasoning or evidence, merely stating "just no" as the near-entire substance of your argument? Next time you find yourself responding to a novel assertion with a blunt rejection and almost no reasoning or evidence behind your rejection, perhaps you would like to notice how it has hit your own hot-buttons. Your response is rejection, but not reasoning. It convinces nobody of anything; except perhaps, that those who reject, have very little good reason for doing so.

And this, the hot-button fact of it all, is central to my claims. It's hard to tell a fish that he's been swimming in water his whole life.

[RedLighter]

Religion per se isn't bad. Institutional, meaning organised, governed, regulated, structured, and therefore, influential on the sociocultural level from the childhood, simply is. For over a decade I define myself as non-religious and still have quite a lot of shame and remorse regarding my sexuality encoded in my allegedly atheist mind. Obviously, as a rational person I know i shouldn't care and in general I don't - but I'm sure it's religion that encoded a lot of restrictions and made me feel guilty for my needs. Christianity probably encoded more than that, like be nice to others and help those who need help and so on, but I guess one could get there without going through a brainwashing catholic moral education since 8 (the earliest memories of me being interested in porn date back to first communion, when children were required to analyze their immoral thoughts). So believe whatever you want to believe, but don't make kids feel guilty for having genitals, por favor.

Book_guy, as always it's pleasure to read a wholesome essay from you. I try not to see myself as a product of general culture and I believe in partnership models, where you establish how deeply emotionally and physically you want to be involved and, although it was never verbalized in my relationship, I know that if I want, I can always have that blowjob. Thing is that porn and me-time is something I can't really share and for a long time I have treated those two areas of my life separated. I can't achieve some things in sex (edging, gooning, perfectly personalized orgasm that really feels good) and at the same time there are things I won't be able to achieve masturbating (emotional bond, but also feeling of dominance and extreme satisfaction of providing pleasure to another person). For me it was never porn because I don't have sex - it's porn because it's porn and I know how to use it. I don't talk about it with my friends though (thank you, catholic morality), so I can't say if it's only my luck to have this kind of satysfing balance in my life or is it something natural for people from my generation, from my part of world, but I guess this kind of model where you are able to recognize your needs and your partner needs and make a deal that satisfies both sides is a very natural one in my bubble.

[book_guy]

I tend not to see myself as a product of general culture and I believe in partnership models, where you establish how deeply emotionally and physically you want to be involved and, although it was never verbalized in my relationship, I know that if I want, I can always have that blowjob

Keeper!

Seriously, if you're aware of these indoctrination-sequences, and you're ably living outside of them (or at least doing your best to do so) then you're well ahead of most of us. I assert them loquaciously partly to remind myself of them, since I'm as much a victim as is anyone else; but also partly to inform the many of us who haven't ever encountered any countervailing reasoning or conclusion. I hope it's a bit of enlightenment (I use the word in a traditional sense -- shedding some light where otherwise there would be darkness) for a few new readers.

Usually the hot-button response at a website like Milovana comes up because I take issue with Desmond Morris. Seems religion took top billing this time.