Milovana.com

Some may remember the ruckus in http://www.milovana.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7465

I found the following part in http://purrversatility.blogspot.com/201 ... -male.html touching

I have had men come to me terrified of the things they fantasize about. Actually shaking. We weren't exchanging negotiations, they confessed. And it was heartbreaking to hear them say things like, "I know this is crazy but" or "I'm really fucked up aren't I?" because they wanted to be submissive.
...
I feel for these men. They're told their entire lives that to be anything but an alpha, every second of every day, is to be useless. They're told that their value is in wielding power, and these men are often not entirely sure if they want to release that power- or even if they can let go. It's a delicate process to untangle that mess of protective layering, to gently tug at the bindings of social constraints and stigma to get to the male submissive heart hiding, trembling, in the middle. It's a vulnerable place, and vulnerability is terrifying.

If they come to me ashamed, I hope I help them learn to be proud of their submissive instincts, that they are beautiful and deserve recognition.
...
My work is about cultivating the beauty of the male submissive, often against many odds, teaching them to love that part of themselves and to succeed in a world that tells them their desires are stupid. I arm them for the battle. I show them that they deserve love. With any luck, I give them hope.

The natural state of gender relationship is that men take the stronger side. It's the way it worked for ages, for thousands of years.
Today it all is a bit screwed up, seeing emo-boys, guys who roll hysterics in front of their girls, guys who make girls run for them (not the opposite)... Submissive men are here too. I would probably say that the way world moves now is WRONG in a lot of ways, including this one. But I won't call that entirely wrong. It's upsetting when a normal women gets a boyfriend who's acting like a little emotional crybaby. Same with a normal guy getting a dominant and bitchy girl who acts as if she had balls in her pants. It's upsetting just because a lot of normal people are suffering with those minoritary individuals.

There are quite a lot of them. But that is really a minority, and quite new trend actually in a human behaviour. That's why it's NORMAL and NATURAL to the guy to be dominant, and it's quite weird and unnatural to be submissive, although I wish them luck.

Tlots of kinks are weird and unnatural. I like BDSM and I fully understand that it's a perversion. Doesn't make it worse for me any bit. Refusing to call things as they are - is just silly. Calling submissive men absolutely normal and saying there's nothing to be ashamed of - is wrong, because there actually IS and it's not normal in the view of the majority of the people.

All that fuss is due to over-liberal views you all have. As an example - Damn, you can't actually call a black guy black in US - that's damn stupid. Who is he if not black? I'm not ashamed I'm white, so why should he? It all went so wrong there that instead of protecting black's rights - it actually gives them a lot of rights to violate white community - that's sick.
Same with this topic. People are not equal, and they shouldn't be. Why are you so insistent on making weird things viewed as "normal"? Gays and lesbi were granted that right, now they run fucking parades in front of the children - is this OK? What do you actually WANT? For all people to go teach their children that weak men are OK and it's OK if they burden a girl with harder tasks? Come on, that's sick.

Nezhul wrote:The natural state of gender relationship is that men take the stronger side. It's the way it worked for ages, for thousands of years.

I've heard this many, many times...and every single time, it's a statement born out of confusion. Maybe it's not "natural" - but so what? You're posting on an internet forum. I dare you do find a broadband connection arising naturally. We built the internet, and we "built" relationships in which women are dominant. Why? Because we want to. If they make us happy, why is it bad?

Oh, and do you know what else we did for thousands of years? We hunted and gathered. Do you have any idea how many people died because they couldn't get enough food? What if someone thousands of years ago went up to his friends with the crazy idea of farming, and they said "The natural state of survival is that we hunt and gather. It's the way it's worked for ages. Get your farming out of our culture!"?

Today it all is a bit screwed up, seeing emo-boys, guys who roll hysterics in front of their girls, guys who make girls run for them (not the opposite)... Submissive men are here too. I would probably say that the way world moves now is WRONG in a lot of ways, including this one. But I won't call that entirely wrong. It's upsetting when a normal women gets a boyfriend who's acting like a little emotional crybaby. Same with a normal guy getting a dominant and bitchy girl who acts as if she had balls in her pants. It's upsetting just because a lot of normal people are suffering with those minoritary individuals.

"Emo boys" and "bitchy girls" are not good examples of dominants and submissives at all. You seem to be assuming that people who enjoy a D/s lifestyle have emotional/personality problems of some sort; this is not true at all.

I am a submissive. I am also a mentally healthy individual. I don't whine, cry, or anything like that; and I face my problems head on. There are some amazing people on this site, perhaps you should talk to them; you might realize that they are also mentally healthy.

Tlots of kinks are weird and unnatural. I like BDSM and I fully understand that it's a perversion. Doesn't make it worse for me any bit. Refusing to call things as they are - is just silly. Calling submissive men absolutely normal and saying there's nothing to be ashamed of - is wrong, because there actually IS and it's not normal in the view of the majority of the people.

No, submissive men are not normal - but so what? "Normal" just means "pertaining to a significant majority of society". You know what else isn't normal? Eating saurkraut. The vast majority of people think saurkraut is a vile, disgusting food, but I love it. Should I be ashamed? Of course not, that's silly. What you should be asking is not whether submissive men are normal, but whether they are healthy and functioning members of society - which many of them are.

All that fuss is due to over-liberal views you all have. As an example - Damn, you can't actually call a black guy black in US - that's damn stupid. Who is he if not black? I'm not ashamed I'm white, so why should he? It all went so wrong there that instead of protecting black's rights - it actually gives them a lot of rights to violate white community - that's sick.

Now you're assuming that our views go too far. What if I'm right, and my views are just liberal enough? How would you even gauge such a thing?

And, you're also misunderstanding sociology. I call black people "black" all the time. The terms that are acceptable to use to describe other people are determined by which social "level" pertains to the conversation. Terms like "african-american" or "person of color" are usually used when you're making a comment about someone you do not know personally at all, not to avoid offending someone, but to avoid unwarranted intimacy. In most cases, it's perfectly acceptable to use "black" to refer to an acquaintance or friend, and it's even acceptable to use such a bold term as "nigga" to refer to a very close friend.

A good analogy is how you would refer to a woman - "Miss" or "Mrs" if you have just met, by her first name if you are an acquaintance, "babe" or "honey" if you are dating.

Same with this topic. People are not equal, and they shouldn't be. Why are you so insistent on making weird things viewed as "normal"? Gays and lesbi were granted that right, now they run fucking parades in front of the children - is this OK? What do you actually WANT? For all people to go teach their children that weak men are OK and it's OK if they burden a girl with harder tasks? Come on, that's sick.

Not all people are equal, but the vast majority deserve equal respect, at least until they've provided a reason to do otherwise. And yes, pride parades are ok, and children SHOULD see them, if they are done tastefully (i.e. no nudity or sexual situations). Maybe they'll teach the children that it's ok if someone is different from them. Or do you have a problem with rainbows too?

Spoiler: show

Alliteration wrote:

Nezhul wrote:The natural state of gender relationship is that men take the stronger side. It's the way it worked for ages, for thousands of years.

I've heard this many, many times...and every single time, it's a statement born out of confusion. Maybe it's not "natural" - but so what? You're posting on an internet forum. I dare you do find a broadband connection arising naturally. We built the internet, and we "built" relationships in which women are dominant. Why? Because we want to. If they make us happy, why is it bad?

Oh, and do you know what else we did for thousands of years? We hunted and gathered. Do you have any idea how many people died because they couldn't get enough food? What if someone thousands of years ago went up to his friends with the crazy idea of farming, and they said "The natural state of survival is that we hunt and gather. It's the way it's worked for ages. Get your farming out of our culture!"?

Today it all is a bit screwed up, seeing emo-boys, guys who roll hysterics in front of their girls, guys who make girls run for them (not the opposite)... Submissive men are here too. I would probably say that the way world moves now is WRONG in a lot of ways, including this one. But I won't call that entirely wrong. It's upsetting when a normal women gets a boyfriend who's acting like a little emotional crybaby. Same with a normal guy getting a dominant and bitchy girl who acts as if she had balls in her pants. It's upsetting just because a lot of normal people are suffering with those minoritary individuals.

"Emo boys" and "bitchy girls" are not good examples of dominants and submissives at all. You seem to be assuming that people who enjoy a D/s lifestyle have emotional/personality problems of some sort; this is not true at all.

I am a submissive. I am also a mentally healthy individual. I don't whine, cry, or anything like that; and I face my problems head on. There are some amazing people on this site, perhaps you should talk to them; you might realize that they are also mentally healthy.

Tlots of kinks are weird and unnatural. I like BDSM and I fully understand that it's a perversion. Doesn't make it worse for me any bit. Refusing to call things as they are - is just silly. Calling submissive men absolutely normal and saying there's nothing to be ashamed of - is wrong, because there actually IS and it's not normal in the view of the majority of the people.

No, submissive men are not normal - but so what? "Normal" just means "pertaining to a significant majority of society". You know what else isn't normal? Eating saurkraut. The vast majority of people think saurkraut is a vile, disgusting food, but I love it. Should I be ashamed? Of course not, that's silly. What you should be asking is not whether submissive men are normal, but whether they are healthy and functioning members of society - which many of them are.

All that fuss is due to over-liberal views you all have. As an example - Damn, you can't actually call a black guy black in US - that's damn stupid. Who is he if not black? I'm not ashamed I'm white, so why should he? It all went so wrong there that instead of protecting black's rights - it actually gives them a lot of rights to violate white community - that's sick.

Now you're assuming that our views go too far. What if I'm right, and my views are just liberal enough? How would you even gauge such a thing?

And, you're also misunderstanding sociology. I call black people "black" all the time. The terms that are acceptable to use to describe other people are determined by which social "level" pertains to the conversation. Terms like "african-american" or "person of color" are usually used when you're making a comment about someone you do not know personally at all, not to avoid offending someone, but to avoid unwarranted intimacy. In most cases, it's perfectly acceptable to use "black" to refer to an acquaintance or friend, and it's even acceptable to use such a bold term as "nigga" to refer to a very close friend.

A good analogy is how you would refer to a woman - "Miss" or "Mrs" if you have just met, by her first name if you are an acquaintance, "babe" or "honey" if you are dating.

Same with this topic. People are not equal, and they shouldn't be. Why are you so insistent on making weird things viewed as "normal"? Gays and lesbi were granted that right, now they run fucking parades in front of the children - is this OK? What do you actually WANT? For all people to go teach their children that weak men are OK and it's OK if they burden a girl with harder tasks? Come on, that's sick.

Not all people are equal, but the vast majority deserve equal respect, at least until they've provided a reason to do otherwise. And yes, pride parades are ok, and children SHOULD see them, if they are done tastefully (i.e. no nudity or sexual situations). Maybe they'll teach the children that it's ok if someone is different from them. Or do you have a problem with rainbows too?

I can't remember the last time I've seen such a through smackdown laid on the internet. Brings me back to when /b/ used to be good. Good Times.

We built the internet, and we "built" relationships in which women are dominant. Why? Because we want to. If they make us happy, why is it bad?

There are quite a few things that would make lots of people happy, yet we don't do them. Also there are lots of things that make someone happy, but noone asks to consider it a norma. Why gays should be considered a norma? I'm not against them - I simply don't care, what they do and who they fuck with, but it is not a norma no matter how you look at it. They shouldn't be opressed as much, but it is STILL not normal behaviour and never would be. Same for submissive men. Yes, you may enjoy it, yes, I daresay you have a right to do it and noone can criticize you BUT you can't ask everyone to acknowledge this as an entirely normal way of doing things. It's the part of freedom you know. You may do whatever you want, but you shouldn't expect, let alone INSIST that everyone likes it.

Oh, and do you know what else we did for thousands of years? We hunted and gathered. Do you have any idea how many people died because they couldn't get enough food? What if someone thousands of years ago went up to his friends with the crazy idea of farming, and they said "The natural state of survival is that we hunt and gather. It's the way it's worked for ages. Get your farming out of our culture!"?

Dont be silly. That's weird logics and comparison you have there, it can be an argument only to some dumb half-brained idiots. One thing is using our advanced brain and body to improve our life by creating new methods of gathering resources. The other - is shifting our natural roles. Thousends of years of evolution made us do "farming" - made us create new technologies and methods. Thats not an argument. Thousends of years we build our society as a species the way, that men are dominant. Hundreds of cultures developed separatly that way, because it's our natural roles. It can be seen even in how our bodies grow. Men get more muscle, women don't. Men get more rational minds.

If I follow your logic, then I can go to the point where statements of orthodontic sects would be true and good and so on.

You seem to be assuming that people who enjoy a D/s lifestyle have emotional/personality problems of some sort; this is not true at all.
you might realize that they are also mentally healthy.

To start debating on this you'll need a definition of mental health, which no doctors of psychology managed to figure out just yet. I say that yes, you are of course not a madmen, but still have some weird twist in the head, that doesn't make you bad, but different.

Emo boys" and "bitchy girls" are not good examples of dominants and submissives at all.

Yes I know. I may have written it mixed up. I was just pointing that gender relationships twisted very badly in the past century, and it's often quite strange and unnatural twists. If you think of it our life in general is strange and unnatural now, and I probably could write a book on that theme, but here's not the place. Submissive men are just one of the branches of the tree where emo-boys, bitchy girls and emotionally unstable people are.

No, submissive men are not normal - but so what?

Never told I was against them. I just pointed that it's wrong from a basic natural gender roles. A lot of kinks are wrong, if not all.

What you should be asking is not whether submissive men are normal, but whether they are healthy and functioning members of society - which many of them are.

It's another topic, but so true.
Still in this topic (and the fuss in the link above) the whole point was that one guy was offended by the view of a girl who said that normal men are dominant. and that IS TRUE. And it IS TRUE that submissive men are not normal. BUT, in case someone misunderstood me, that doesn't make submissive men - bad people. Kinky society are not normal people, including me, we are actually a bunch of weirdoes. BUT it doesn't make anyone bad. Einstein was a weirdo (in his own way), who gives a damn?! I'm only against mixing kinks as norma. I totally against accepting gays and lesbi as normal people, HOVEWER I'm not against of accepting them as good individuals.

didnt reply to two last paragraphs because it'll take too much writing. In short, a few thesises...
1) calling black black should be OK in any situation, although it's considered offensive if you are not friends. "Black" is not a bad word, yet it actually became one in the US. That's just stupidity on the large. What I'm saying that black community actually can do a lot of things towards white community, that white can't do towards them, and it's sick.
2) Gay parades are a disgrace. Not because it's gays there, mind me. It's just that if they want to be treated equally, why do they need to DEMONSTRATE their difference? Why don't straight people do parades, but gays just go out every year. And by the way it IS looking very sexual and sick and nude, most of the times. I'd say someone out to shoot them right on the street, so as anti-gay demonstrations should be shot as well. If we are for equal rights, let's at least have equal rites AS WELL, and don't bother our neighbours demonstrating our orientation.

Nezhul wrote: didnt reply to two last paragraphs because it'll take too much writing. In short, a few thesises...
1) calling black black should be OK in any situation, although it's considered offensive if you are not friends. "Black" is not a bad word, yet it actually became one in the US. That's just stupidity on the large. What I'm saying that black community actually can do a lot of things towards white community, that white can't do towards them, and it's sick.
2) Gay parades are a disgrace. Not because it's gays there, mind me. It's just that if they want to be treated equally, why do they need to DEMONSTRATE their difference? Why don't straight people do parades, but gays just go out every year. And by the way it IS looking very sexual and sick and nude, most of the times. I'd say someone out to shoot them right on the street, so as anti-gay demonstrations should be shot as well. If we are for equal rights, let's at least have equal rites AS WELL, and don't bother our neighbours demonstrating our orientation.

I'm not going to discuss everything here as I have better things to do, but Nezhul, you're getting many things wrong here.

1) is an issue foremost of "political correctness" and one may think of that whatever one wants, but despite your claim that the black community can do many things whites can't (towards each other).. well, black people by and large are still far, far worse off than whites are and the same goes for hispanics and many other communities as well. That is not because blacks are more stupid than whites. The proportion of black people in prison is not bigger than that of whites because being black makes you a worse person more likely to commit crimes. The black community is hindered by a long history of slavery and racism, some of which is only still present, some of which is due to the aftereffects of many historical development. Back in the 50's, 60's etc, segregated housing was normal, many white people didn't want to be around blacks and fled to the suburbs, taking tax base away from the inner cities, leaving the black people (many of whom couldn't afford moving to the suburbs for again, many reasons going back to slavery and racism) in the inner cities that couldn't afford good schools. It's an absolute disgrace to a modern society. (just as an example for the problems still existing today, in germany, a study has shown that it is extremely difficult to even get a job interview when your surname sounds turkish.. basically they sent out lots of applications that were 100% the same except for the surname.. applications with a german name were far, far more likely to be invited for an interview)

2) They need to demonstrate their difference because they are being discriminated against. They are, by and large, not saying "hey, look at us, we are gay and we are better than you!" but what they are saying is pretty much (at least that is my impression, i don't claim to be speaking for them) "if you are going to discriminate us, then f*ck you, we are proud of what we are and not ashamed". If people would accept gays, transsexuals and whatever else there might be for what they are, there would be no need for parades. And even if there still would be parades, who the f*ck cares? You are on a forum about tease and denial, you write teases, you are (if i remember correctly) experimenting with a device that measures excite in one's penis for automated edging, why do you seem to have such a problem with sexuality and nudity? Wouldn't it be great if people could talk about their kinks, interests etc openly instead of having to resort to anonymous online forums because they are afraid of the repercussions their perfectly legal interests might have in the so-called real world?

I guess it really comes down to world view, philosophy or whatever. I consider myself to be rather towards the left and liberal side of things (although i don't agree with most leftist or liberal parties by any means) and you seem rather conservative and authoritarian, so we'll probably have to agree to disagree.


btw, Alliteration, great post! really well written.

I don't post very often at all, but I felt this was a good time.

How are all men supposedly being "The Marlboro Man", and all women supposedly being "The Damsel in Distress", "natural?"

You are saying that because of evolution the men have become the dominant and that is nature's way. Well let's look back in history.

Before the 1900's women were seen as property that were used for making babies, and raising them. Women were not allowed jobs, be part of politics, vote, or talk back to their husbands for any reason.

In the early 1900's women were finally allowed to vote, and start getting jobs, beating your wife was perfectly legal as long as it was with a stick no wider than the width of the husband's thumb.

Now then, let's jump to today's world. Women can be in politics, and run for president of the free world, can be the boss of men in the work place, and can have as much say as men in any situation. And as for your comment about men having more muscle, I am 19 years old, roughly 240 lbs., 6 foot 2, and can bench 285 lbs. Yes I am strong, but I personally know women who are stronger, and can probably kick my ass if they weren't so cool.

There was no "evolution" to make men dominant, some arrogant prick decided that since he was bigger than a woman she was his property, and for thousands of years, that's the way the human race lived. That does not make it right, and certainly does not make it "natural". Over the past century man has finally opened his eyes and realized that this behavior is wrong, and is now fixing it to break down racial and gender walls, and make all men and women what they should have been in the first place. Equal.

SissyNicole wrote: I personally know women who are stronger,

Russian shot putters come to mind

Nezhul wrote:There are quite a few things that would make lots of people happy, yet we don't do them.

Yes, that's true. You've fallen into my trap. The fact that an action or behavior makes someone happy is not good grounds to accept it as a society, at least not by itself. There are other factors - such as whether someone is being hurt. Murder makes a serial killer unhappy, but we don't accept it because it also hurts others. Utilitarian criteria are pretty popular, so let's go with them - who is hurt by D/s relationships? When you answer this, keep in mind that offensiveness doesn't count as harm. If it did, we would not be accepting of ANY behavior. So, show me some emotional or physical harm factors in society, and explain the causal link between them and D/s.

Why gays should be considered a norma?

I've already explained what "normal" means. At about 10% of the population, they should not be considered "normal", but they should be considered healthy, and we should be accepting of them.

I simply don't care,

Then why the posts?

Yes, you may enjoy it, yes, I daresay you have a right to do it and noone can criticize you BUT you can't ask everyone to acknowledge this as an entirely normal way of doing things. It's the part of freedom you know. You may do whatever you want, but you shouldn't expect, let alone INSIST that everyone likes it.

I'm not even sure what you're saying here...I've never heard anyone say that everyone should partake in homosexuality. If you're saying that not everyone enjoys homosexuality, but those that do should be allowed to practice it without being spit on, shunned, etc...what exactly is your quarrel?

Dont be silly. That's weird logics and comparison you have there, it can be an argument only to some dumb half-brained idiots.

It's not an argument, it's an analogy. Nice insult, though.

Thousends of years we build our society as a species the way, that men are dominant. Hundreds of cultures developed separatly that way, because it's our natural roles.

Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,
Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?
And who has the right, as master of the house,
To have the final word at home?

The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
-Fiddler on the Roof

Do you actually think "we've always done it this way" is a good reason to continue doing something? If so, you're in a bit of trouble. See, there's LOTS of old ways of doing all kinds of things, and some of them are mutually exclusive. How can you possibly do everything the way we've always done it? Society would never advance.

It can be seen even in how our bodies grow. Men get more muscle, women don't. Men get more rational minds.

No, *some* men get more muscle, and *some* men get more rational minds. Have you ever heard of Grace Hopper? She (yes, SHE) was the inventor of the COBOL programming language, and was on the team that built UNIVAC. If it weren't for this rational woman, you probably wouldn't have that computer you're using to type up all this nonsense.

Then there's Alan Turing, an effeminate homosexual man. If it weren't for him, we would have lost World War II.

To start debating on this you'll need a definition of mental health, which no doctors of psychology managed to figure out just yet.

To be mentally healthy means that you have no conditions which are described in a psychology diagnostics manual, such as the DSM-5. Wow, that was easy.

Submissive men are just one of the branches of the tree where emo-boys, bitchy girls and emotionally unstable people are.

See what I said above about the DSM-5? Let's do this - go grab a copy, and start flipping through the mental disorders. Ask me some questions to determine whether I meet the criteria for ANYTHING.

Never told I was against them. I just pointed that it's wrong from a basic natural gender roles. A lot of kinks are wrong, if not all.

BUT, in case someone misunderstood me, that doesn't make submissive men - bad people. Kinky society are not normal people, including me, we are actually a bunch of weirdoes. BUT it doesn't make anyone bad.

Wrong? Are you making a moral judgment here? If it's wrong, I should stop - but you've also said here that you're ok with it. I think you're a bit confused.

calling black black should be OK in any situation, although it's considered offensive if you are not friends. "Black" is not a bad word, yet it actually became one in the US. That's just stupidity on the large.

Did you even read what I said before about social circles and unwarranted intimacy. You can't just restate your points ad nauseum, you have to address my counterpoints.

It's just that if they want to be treated equally, why do they need to DEMONSTRATE their difference?

For the same reason that Rosa Parks didn't move to the back of the bus. Sometimes you have to make a scene to get fair treatment.

I'd say someone out to shoot them right on the street, so as anti-gay demonstrations should be shot as well.

Good idea - let's shoot EVERYONE! No humans = no problems. Violence is surely the answer!

*watches quietly from the sidelines*

Alliteration wrote: Then there's Alan Turing, an effeminate homosexual man. If it weren't for him, we would have lost World War II.

Well, if i recall correctly, Nezhul is from Russia, so that argument may not help ;)

Incidentally Turing committed suicide most likely due to effects he got from treatment he was pretty much forced to undergo because of his homosexuality. So, yeah, the old ways are obviously best.

Nezhul wrote: If we are for equal rights, let's at least have equal rites AS WELL, and don't bother our neighbours demonstrating our orientation.

The whole society parades hetero behavior. Love stories. Movies. Posters, TV. Music. Magazines. High school dances

Nezhul wrote:Still in this topic (and the fuss in the link above) the whole point was that one guy was offended by the view of a girl who said that normal men are dominant.

There is an issue of semantics, someone can be reasonably far away from the average and still be normal..anyhoo..your statement was not the one made in the ruckus thread. The precise statement was:

"my concept of men is they should be the strong ones"

The implication being that the person does not consider submissive males to be men.

Good god, you just cant let it go!!

We sorted this human yet you choose to drag it all back up again.


What i said my *MY PERSONAL OPINION*. I am a submissive female, I seek out the dominant side in a male as an attractive quality because it is my my nature, as i am sure you find the attractiveness in the Dominant side of woman, yet you make it sounds like I think there is some fundamental problem with submissive males, which is total absurd. I believe that *everyone* is free to enjoy life as is in there nature and they have the right to enjoyment with any partner they choose.

In the context of the post....you asked what turned girls on, what the masturbate and edge to, and as a submissive female I told the truth and gave my perspective of what i find attractive and what i don't. Just because i personally don't enjoy something, doesn't make it bad or wrong, I just don't like it, like i don't like bananas, great fruit, excellent source of potassium but i just don't like them just a sub males can be wonderful, funny, charming men, but as a sexual preference there are not my attraction.

As has been pointed out, who is to say what is right and what is normal, but the way i see it if it makes you happy do it!

so once again I, it was my opinion, there was really no need for any fuss, or any further fuss....