Darkfire's Profile

1 Jul 2006

Quote by dambuster
I would guess Darkfire would also agree, but I can't be arsed to Pm her and ask :grin:

you're a bloke lol

you know better than to enter my pm box :twisted: lol

but yes, i'll consider people's views by pm or anonymously - although I welcome open discussion in the thread too - nthat's what its there for wink

View Post

1 Jul 2006

nah, bollox, post it and be damned, right?
'personality of an ugly bird' - sounds a bit like the broad generalisation that alot of blokes like BBW fems "because they have lovely bubbly warm personalities which 'compensates' for the body and makes them attractive regardless of dress size" ???
bolt

View Post

1 Jul 2006

Quote by dambuster
I once, unknowingly, gave HLB an unintentioanl compliment when I told her she has the personality of an ugly bird :shock:

:gagged:
I could.................. but i wont

View Post

1 Jul 2006

Quote by HornyLittleBlonde
I would be interested to hear the views of those who are voting 'no, it doesnt matter' in the poll.

Me too.
If anyone's worried about being "flamed" please don't. I am genuinely interested to read a balance of opinions on this topic and whilst I might not agree with them I will try & respect them.
ditto
cross my heart and hope to die biggrin

View Post

1 Jul 2006

Quote by dambuster
Are we wandering off the main topic of this thread ????

a tad, but, as another aside, often (imo) the intensity of a 'forced' orgasm is sufficient to also 'make' me gush everywhere lol

usually that only happens because I allow it to - there's definately something to be said about feeling comfrtable enough with a partner for gushing/ squirting to happen, cos most women (again imo) can control that - we get some paraniod idea that its wee, that the bloke will think we've pissed on them, that he wont understand what's just happened etc and so are not relaxed enough to allow it (there's alot more to it, but that's another thread wink

) - but in this scenario, he can also 'make' it happen, wether you want it to or not.

View Post

1 Jul 2006

I would be interested to hear the views of those who are voting 'no, it doesnt matter' in the poll.

View Post

1 Jul 2006

Quote by dambuster
The last thing I wanted to do was cause or feed any "them and us" debate. I love the integration between the two, in person, at socials. For many reasons.

While I agree that this shouldnt be a them and us thing - like I say, it is going to be difficult to discuss without, as we have got already, a chalkline between Socials and 'chatroom socials'.
I have argued this point recently over something similar - that we are all part of the 'swinging community' regardless of whether 'home' is on the forum, the chatroom, or other sites. The only exception , imo, are the quick shag brigade who dont understand the fundamentals of what 'swinging' is.
That siad, it is primarily chatroom meets organised by people who are regulars in the chatrooms for other people who use the chatrooms that we are discussing under the banner of what is / isnt a Munch/ Social/ Party/ Meet thread and the need for correct use (and understanding, and adhereing to) of terminology to describe each, is it not?

View Post

1 Jul 2006

:shock:

View Post

1 Jul 2006

Quote by dambuster
Ah - thank you for that Darkfire.
Maybe something similar to when (and why) I sometimes like to tie a girls hands up to the top of the bed ?????
If I'm giving lots of prolonged tongue and/or finger attention to her clit, when it starts to get "too much" for her; she can't use her hands to brush me away ??????? And I can carry on until she's thrashing around and shaking and quivering like an epileptic ????

essentially yes - particularly the 'cant use hands to brush you away' bit. In principal, her hands can be tied - or, she is not 'allowed' to brush you away. She may well be writhing up the bed uncontrollably, but he persists.
Similar control could be that she's not allowed to make any noise. You have to seriously be able to exert self-control to be able to do that. (Makes it vey intense though :twisted: )
smackbottom

now look, I was staying away from this redface

View Post

1 Jul 2006

Quote by meat2pleaseu
i know i shouldn't post it without her permission, but here's a pic i got of her at the last munch, just after i told her she couldn't grease me up in goose fat and use me for pole dancing

(queue me getting a beating and the over 30's trying to remember where the pics from)

cue you getting a beating from me (a) for your cheek :kick: (b) for posting without permission duel

and (c) for fibbing :jagsatwork: . There was no mention of goose fat rolleyes

View Post

30 Jun 2006

Quote by PoloLady
Something I have noticed (whilst prowling) is the amount of 'socials' being organised through the chatrooms. They seem to be organised within a week or two - which could be a positive thing, compared to the traditional munch which you needed to get your name down 6 months in advance. However.... the worrying thing is the amount of details openly discussed in there for all and sundry to note.

:thumbup:

There is obviously wide ranging use of the term 'social' in the chatrooms - judging by the conversations that go on. I can see how sooner or later (as dammy stated) people will turn up for what they thought was one thing and find out it is something totally different. I have even observed the term 'munch' being used to describe what I would call a 'full-play party'.

( :shock: you sit quietly at the bottom of the rooms taking it all in too? I'm not on my own then! : )
:thumbup: and that, in part, I feel is what has started this. Recently I have seen Munches described as parties (its taking me a while in this thread because I am actually trawling back through posts so I can back up what I'm saying, copy and paste is a wonderful thing) , socials decscribed as Munches, people talking of snogging being the SH handshake (at munches - but was discussed in a thread where actually the event attended was a social) etc etc. Now, it may well be a simple terminology mistake siad by one person - but it only takes one 'newbie' to read that, get a bit unclear about things and that's it, damage done, seed of uncertainty sown.

Whilst I voted 'yes', to be quite frank... I am not sure some of the people organising some of these 'socials' will give a shit what forum users (or even admin) define as a 'socials' - after all, they have their motives for organising them.

:thumbup: - but this may serve as a timely reminder to those new to 'socials' to simply be aware of this issue.

View Post

30 Jun 2006

Quote by westerross
Unbelieveable on two counts. Firstly anyone with any sense ain't gonna resist coming are they??? Secondly, if you really don't wanna come you ain't going to.

Resisting is part of the role play/ situation.
And that's just it Choon, even when you really dont wanna come, he can make you. Usually we talk about orgasm as something that is 'achieved' rather than 'taken'. It s a peak reached through pleasurable stimulation over a period of time, something that builds and ebbs and then flows until ultimatley reaching the climax. But it is possible (and this is where it gets tricky so i'll do my best to try to explain) to 'make' a woman cum through stimulation (usually constant Gspot or clit stim) even if, in her head , she resists it.
I'm not talking about non consentual stuff either - you'd have to consent to this to be safe because its a mind game. A battle of wills so to speak - his 'abilities' vs your 'ability to resist' , but ultimately it's your body that will give in first.
Most of us can stop our impending orgasm - we think of something to put us off, we shift position, we tighten up, we get uncomfortable, it gets too intense, whatever. If you allow someone complete sexual power over you, they can make you cum regardless - but always in the background is the fact that you've consented to it. A similar example would be when you're not really in the mood, not particularly horny but when his fingers slip inside you and find your gspot you will get wet and you will get horny, because your body will give in to it.
(paraphrased from )

Orgasm control is a sexual practice consisting of control of a passive partner's orgasm. Typically, one partner is stimulated to a point just short of orgasm and then reduces or stops the stimulation so that the orgasm doesn't occur, so teases the other person. This is done over and over, taking them right to the brink of orgasm over and over but never quite past the point of no return The experience is so intense that eventually the passive partner will be unable to remain still, so for the most intense experience possible the passive partner is securely tied.

That's orgasm control as most people know it - now, for forced orgasm, its the opposite. Stimulation is for the sole purpose of taking your partner to orgasm.
I cant really elaborate on it further, my head hurts lol

As its not something I've done as part of the swinging scene, nor am I likley to, and realistically am unlikley to find anyone who I would give that power to again, I'm just gonna shut up and leave this thread well alone wink

View Post

30 Jun 2006

I voted Yes. It matters.

Quote by dambuster
Why does it matter ?

It matters, because an essential ethos of this lifestyle is knowing where you stand and what to expect â€“ itâ€™s about informed choice and informed consent and communication of boundaries/ expectation and â€˜agendaâ€™ between all parties.
There is an element of etiquette, an acceptable or â€˜rightâ€™ way of going about things, there are norms and values, and there is protocol â€“ just as there is in every community, swinging or vanilla, the world over.
Here, the issue is about what is a Social, and what isnt.
Dambuster wrote:

It seems to me, and Iâ€™m sure a few others, that some of the â€œsocialsâ€ being posted are more a pre-playing â€œmeetâ€ to see who wants to shag who.
Iâ€™m not knocking that, Iâ€™m just saying that there should be a difference in the terminology and postings.
In the worst case scenario (for me) I wouldnâ€™t want to go to the â€œtroubleâ€ of driving 20 or 30 miles for a social to find that after an hour, people start thinning out to go off shagging.

Worst case scenario, for me, would be to hear people here speaking of socials being â€œwhere maybe a dozen or so of us gather in a pub/eatery, take a couple of tables, or a corner for a few drink and a chat and giggleâ€œ and on thinking that 'that sounds like a nice steady introduction to some of the people I see posting'... turn up to say hello and generally natter to people who might be able to answer some questions for me, make me feel welcome, see that they donâ€™t have two heads or anything and spend a little time in the company of real people not online personalitiesâ€¦â€¦. and the night progressing discovering that there is a certain expectation of going back to someoneâ€™s house, perhaps some â€˜pairing upâ€™ and agenda toward the end of the evening :shock:
I went to my first social with the impression that Iâ€™d have a few drinks, put some faces to names and find out a bit more about both the people and the â€˜sceneâ€™ - and thatâ€™s exactly what happened. If anyone hadâ€™ve â€˜come ontoâ€™ me, indicated that there was any agenda other than purely social â€“ Iâ€™d have been out of there like a shot and probably never come back â€“ because I â€˜knewâ€™ what social meant and had that clear in my head â€“ if anyone hadâ€™ve pushed the boundaries of that, it would have affected my entire outlook of the scene, and Iâ€™d have disappeared or at least had severe reservations about getting involved further.

....I would also ask that people organising â€œchatroom style get-togethersâ€ title their threads as such. And as meetings/meets rather than â€œSocialsâ€

Many moons ago, I used a chat program with multiple rooms, one of which I moderated/ owned, before I ever discovered this and other sites. We had â€˜room meetsâ€™ â€“ nights out like our SH Munches, and also weekends in hotels where room users from all over the country would get together, socially, and if more happened, it happened. We knew that, and went with that 'expectation'. Iâ€™m in agreement here â€“ if â€˜socialsâ€™ that are primarily for chatroom users, or users of a particular room, I think it should state that, by way of being termed a â€˜room meetâ€™ â€“ not a â€˜socialâ€™.

But please - overall â€“ I am NOT wanting to have or start, a â€œThem and Usâ€ situation.

I think thatâ€™s going to be very difficult, imo, Socials and munches used to be (should be) for all site members, with a mix of both forumites and chatroomers attending. Iâ€™ve also been to a Munch where it was noticeable that â€˜chattersâ€™ sat on one side of the room with people they knew, and forumites on the other with people they knew. More recently, I've had my request to attend a 'social' geared toward chatroom users ignored.
Weâ€™ve progressed from that to a situation where some... 'socials'... are geared primarily for chatroom users by chatroom users. That in itself is very divisive, and I have to say Dammy that this thread has been needed for a while , and if you're gonna take it on the chin luv, i'll stand next to you and take it too :thumbup:

View Post

30 Jun 2006

Quote by dambuster
My main point is the penultimate section labelled SOCIALS.
The rest is padding and "scene setting"

yeah, so get back on topic you lot and stop skirting round the edges :jagsatwork:
rotflmao

View Post

30 Jun 2006

i'm trying to word it so its understandable - but I cant!!!!!!!!! I did try here:

"... usually on here we talk of being relaxed with a partner and bringing each other to orgasm as a mutually pleasurable thing, where the build up is usually slow and steady and the climax of 'events'.....
i've experimented in the past with someone who, quite literally, could 'make' me orgasm at will - even if my head said No not yet, my body gave in first. A (by consent, of course) 'you are going to cum for me wether you like it or not and I'm gonna make you do it ' type role play/ loss of control play.
Usually we can control orgasm (picturing something in your head to put you off, move slightly, 'sqeeze in' , whatever) most people (i think) usually cum if they 'allow' the build up, are ready for it, need the release etc - but its as much controlled by our heads as the physical feeling..... "

bear with me ..... lol

View Post

30 Jun 2006

Quote by goose35
Another confusion for me is some fuctions seem to be for more regular or experianced swingers and not new or lesserknown members.
Thnx

Mid-writing my rather long reply to this thread, i had to stop to answer this one Goose lol

these 'functions' (let me use that to encompass all 3 that Dammy is talking about for a sec) are not just for more regular or experienced swingers hun, they're really not. They're for everyone, and by definition are open to everyone. However ......
organisers often place 'restrictions' (not sure that's the right word) on the number of 'newbies' - and often say No to 'new newbies' (ie someone who's been registered on the site a week) purely because that 'newbie' could be anyone - journalist, author of yet another book on 'swinging' etc etc - or, as we see often on a weekly basis , someone who really just doesnt 'get' what 'swinging' is - we've all seen the quick-shag-brigade mentality .... what would happen if someone with that way of thinking, someone who thinks that 'swinging' means you're an easy lay, you're gagging for it and welcome attention "well she must do, she's a swinger and she's here at the 'function" - and decides to cop a feel, doesnt understand how things work, and that No means No ?
I'm coming back to this, someone keep my seat warm wink

View Post

30 Jun 2006

hint taken lol

(and dont tempt me :twisted: )
as you were folks :thumbup:

View Post

30 Jun 2006

the 'new breed' of 'socials' perhaps. But there's no wonder newbies get all confuddled with it all and are not sure of what is expected/ protocol rolleyes

View Post

30 Jun 2006

Its that little issue of there being 'munches' and Munches and 'socials' and Socialsagain
not that I'm a stickler for the correct use of terminology of course, but Fifemale may be talking about chatroom socials, which are not Munches.

View Post

30 Jun 2006

probably, but only cos the person we're on about is lovely wink

View Post

30 Jun 2006

Quote by de_sade
erm - who missed the bit where i just said, there is a Billie look a like on SH and I'm sure she's gonna love reading these comments :shock:

Errr...Actually, if you are referring to one half of a couple who were at the Nottingham Munch, you are wrong. She was much better looking than Billie Piper.
De_sade
damage limitation? wink

View Post