Comment on Tea Time with Lenfried… by Anonymous:

The birth canal is not the be all and end all of a female (or attraction to thereof).

Emotionally speaking, there’s the matter of the intimacy necessary. It’s a more embarrassing action for a woman to produce and offer you that fluid than to sleep with you, thus it’s a more exciting experience for the recipient. (There’s also the novelty value.)

Physically speaking, kissing is a good example of something which is in theory relatively the same for males and females, but is thought of completely differently depending on whether a hetero male’s partner is male or female. For a more crude example, there’s the defecation hole, with people enthusiastic if with a female and not if with a male.

Incidentally, I don’t share these fetishes, but I have a different basket/bundle of fetishes which deviate from vanilla intercourse.

Granted, though I have no interest in the ingestion of urine, I am capable of holding interest in a person’s self-consciousness at excreting such _while knowing_ someone is watching. (Or it could alternatively be after the fact… hmm.)

Back to the core point: it’s not the chemical composition of the substance itself, but rather who/what it came from. The same for (androgynous) worn clothes. –Ah, I think Hen Zemi had a section on this, how the masters of this form of arousal could become aroused just by passing through a volume of air that a female had stood in or walked through; a less extreme version was being aroused by body heat left by a female (on a couch for instance), but not that left by a male.

Ahh, the breadth and depth of Eros…


Anonymous made other comments on this post:

Recent comments by Anonymous:


Popular

Recent Articles