It’s psychological - The yearning to kiss her pussy.
|
Posted:Jul 10, 2018 3:13 pm
Last Updated:May 8, 2021 6:18 am
5054 Views
|
In the first of this series I established my identity: pussy eater. In this, the second in the series, I wonder why?
Freud seemed to grasp onto the Greek Oedipus complex. So seemed the Doors in their song “Break on through to the other side.” “Father I want to ill you. Mother I want to WAAAAH!”
I a product of the fifties and sixties. Both of my parents taught the boys to respect girls. We learned to stand when a woman walked into the room. We were taught to respect all people. Our parents were receptive when two out of three of us married minority non white spouses.
It was also the era of puritanical values. Sex was reserved for after marriage. Is it the forbidden fruit?
While our parents were consistent with the teaching of kindness, my mother’s was more by example. Countless times she finished the expression, “I felt so sorry for ______”. It could have been a person without a coat. It could have been a puppy left out doors. It could have been any kind of malady being experienced. By example she taught us sensitivity and kindness.
So my background is one in which I gained respect for women. Still I am left with the imposing question. Why do I have this powerful desire to kiss a woman in her pussy? Why do I wish to stay there thrilling to every positive response and delight when she gushes.
Women are beautiful to heterosexual men. Viewing a north bound woman from the south attracts me now just as it did when I was a . When she’s wearing a tight skirt is most appealing. She “sashays” and the wiggle of her ass just turns hot. I get caught looking a lot. Many men get caught looking. I bet it’s in the high ninety percent of us get stimulated by a beautiful round wiggling ass.
And some will express, “I’d like to ______”
But why do I want to please her in any way she wants for the pleasure of sucking her clit?
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
In this series I express my weakness but acceptance of identity. I AM a pussy eater.
|
Posted:Jun 17, 2018 7:52 am
Last Updated:Jun 18, 2018 9:47 am
5078 Views
|
Sexual Obsessions are a mystery. Some real. Some suspicious.
The politician who could not resist the urge to send pictures to women of him in his underwear probably has a real obsession. Some suggest that education or therapy would “treat” his disorder.
Others might be using the concept of “treatment for a sexual disorder" to shift blame away from themselves. They had power, used it to infringe on someone else sexually. Claiming a disorder diminishes his guilt?
I know some sexual obsessions are real. I have one. And I don’t understand why. After many years of life I understand my identity: I am a pussy eater.
All of my sexual fantasies have a central thought, desire… I want my face nestled between the thighs of a woman. I like the smell. When I am extremely successful her ejaculation, cum soaks my beard. I go for as long as I can wearing the scent.
Like every human being I want to be WANTED. Nothing makes me feel wanted as much as a woman’s expression of wanting me to kiss, lick, suck, slurp her pussy. The breathless groans encourage me. The sexy whispers, “Suck it.” “Oh yeah, like that.” The aggressive demands, “Come lick me!” “Suck my clit.” all make me putty in her hands. Being her pussy slave is the ultimate fulfillment of my identity.
I want to earn her nick name for me “Pussyeater”.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
|
|
Government can collect taxes without marriage.
|
Posted:Feb 15, 2011 7:14 pm
Last Updated:Apr 16, 2024 1:17 am
20731 Views
|
So what if government was not involved with marriage? The major benefit would be that no person or group could tell anyone who could or could not get married.
Marriage under the purview of religion would become voluntary. There might be pressures from within a religious group on its members to adhere to "rules" of matrimony. But freedom of religion exists. People who choose marriage could be united by a pastor, a minister, a priest, a rabbi, an imam, who ever. But not by a justice of the peace.
Absent the convention of marriage, the union would be voluntary. It would be similar to the difference between a voluntary army and a conscripted one. Marriage would be available to all. It would not be "expected" or demanded. It would be the responsibility of each party (the party in the first part and the party in the second part - like the reference goes in divorce papers) to articulate the guidelines of the union. Couples together would establish the rules of their marriage.
This is written during tax season. There would be no problem converting tax rules. There are providers and dependents. There would be single providers and joint providers. Joint providers would share dependents. Single providers could not.
Tina Turner could still ask, "What's Love Got to Do With it?" Marriage under the purview of religion would be more likely to endure in love. Currently marriage under the auspices of government is a convention of our society. The difference has everything to do with the presence of Xmatch.
Single people come to Xmatch to improve their sexual possibilities. Married people come to Xmatch because the marriage does not provide enough. People are emotional animals seeking fulfillment.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
If Government were NOT involved with Marriage
|
Posted:Jan 15, 2011 9:01 pm
Last Updated:Jan 15, 2011 9:09 pm
20769 Views
|
I am prompted to write about marriage for a number of reasons: More than just establishing that religion is the purview of marriage and the government's involvement is the usual - power and greed, marriage is a convention that is assumed. A minority of those entering marriage do so with the religious conviction that they are doing it to unite their souls for a lifetime. That's the religious position. Most enter it because it is the convention. Families assume and expect it. Mothers pressure their daughters (and sons). An industry is built around making the bride a 'queen' for the wedding day.
Some marriage is for citizenship. Some marriage is for money. Some marriage is for security. The government wants control.
There are numerous "marriage arrangements" from strict monogamism to "open marriage". Then there's wife and husband swapping.
There are various views of the individual entering marriage and various views as couples enter marriage. Often the individual's view of marriage is not the couple's view. They each have different views. Some times they recognize that some times they don't. Often times one or the other or both change their view after "signing up".
Marriage is an issue in our society. It is made an issue by individuals each insisting that all follow his or her view or concept of marriage.
That very fact precludes us from a common sense solution: Get the government totally out of marriage. Let each individual who chooses marriage get into the religion that agrees with him or her. And then let each mind his or her own business.
There is a segment of society who is marriage prescribers. They assert their version of family values and the place of marriage is paramount. Single parent families are now in the majority. The breach of monogamy is equally prevalent among the two groups. In the family values group the breach is cheating and hypocrisy. In the other group it may be either neither or both. The point is marriage is a convention. It is defined in various ways. It means different things to different people. And people don't even follow their own concept at times.
Returning marriage to the purview of religion would make it voluntary rather than expected or assumed. Removing it from the auspices of government would diminish one set of people from prescribing it for another. Importantly it would allow people to enjoy sexuality more openly and honestly.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Marriage the Purview of Religion
|
Posted:Dec 16, 2010 10:50 am
Last Updated:Nov 25, 2011 7:02 am
20623 Views
|
Marriage is the purview of religion. As men and women evolved and began to form societies it became practical to adopt rules that would facilitate harmony. These rules were designed to diminish conflict. They were more often than not also about ownership as well. Most often men were owners.
As religion and religious leaders developed, the rules of marriage became written in the religion and administered by religious leaders. The rules varied from religion to religion but usually held in common the dominance of men. Jews and Muslims alike provided that men could have more than one wife. The word 'have' implies if not defines that the woman is owned.
The notion that either partner in the marriage owns or possesses the other is born of greed and fear. Breach of the possession is felt in the emotion of jealousy. Whatever the roots of the institution of marriage were they became the purview of religion. The believers in marriage come to the belief through religion.
Then came government. Government assumed the institution of marriage from religion. At the core of government's involvement with marriage is the same motive as religion and the individuals involved - greed and control. Government has no business in the marriage of one individual to the next. It's assumption of the institution provides it with both power and wealth.
If government would relinquish its rules on marriage back to religion much would be improved. People could get into the religion that espoused the rules of marriage they liked. Any one could marry anyone else. Just join the right religion.
Of course, the impediment to making that change is the unwillingness of individuals to accept the views of others. That is, some would like everyone to follow a particular view of marriage - that of his or her own.
My rules for you - the penchant of some to insist that all people follow a certain behavior is the source of bigotry, racism, and domination. That is a future topic.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Penis Arousal and Maintenance
|
Posted:Sep 12, 2010 1:02 pm
Last Updated:Apr 16, 2024 1:17 am
20827 Views
|
One thing is certain. Natural arousal begins in the brain. Of other things I am less certain. Some things I only know because of my personal experience. For example, I can remember in my youth in high school, I would get a hard on, on the bus, on the way home every afternoon. In those instances I think it was the vibration of the bus seats that stimulated the arousal. I'd have to hold my books in front of me walking down the aisle to get off the bus.
I learned you can make a hard go down by bending forward moving your penis toward your belly. Moving it the other way, pressing down on it, pushing it away from your belly makes it stay hard. So it stays hard in your jeans because the pressure is down ward. You can reach in there slide it up against you (up toward your belly) and it will go down.
I have no experience with viagra or cialis. Nor do I know how it works. I mean, I don't know if the medicine stimulates the brain subsequently the arousal or if it does something physiological to make it fill with blood to get hard. But long before there was xmatch, the internet, or viagra, I did NOT know I was suppose to call my doctor when I experience an erection lasting longer than four hours.
Any way, I was trying to keep it up not make it go down. This is my point. With the help of the woman you can keep it up and hard until your natural desire re-ocurs. Once you experience that first release, keep going. Move your torso upwards putting downward pressure on your penis. Women. Help. Do what you can to keep pressure on the penis in the direction away from the belly.
Women can see this happen. Next time your sucking a nice one. Use your fingers (or your mouth for that matter) an press it down ward towards his legs. You will both feel it stiffen.
Don't be mean and fold it back towards his belly.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
oral - mental and emotional involvement
|
Posted:Aug 28, 2010 6:46 am
Last Updated:Jun 26, 2019 5:58 pm
21225 Views
|
When I view the profiles of women, occasionally, I read the comments of other men. Frequently those comments make references to desires to lick pussy. I am not sure if this is a universal desire or we happen to find common inspiration from that profile.
Aristotle wrote that man is a rational animal. Really, man is an emotional animal endowed the power to reason. We don't usually know why we have a feeling. We just do.
Everything begins in the brain. We sense something. We see it or feel it and experience arousal. There's fore play to fore play. Its fun to let a woman know you're going down. Then take a long time to get there. While caressing all around you can hear her breathing, gasp, and utterances. You can feel the quivers. Its stimulating.
During penetration the stimulation is physical and also mental. But your eyes, nose, mouth are right there when you have your tongue engaged. Your mind is tuned in to all her responses. Those responses are your stimulus. There is no guessing. There cannot be a fake orgasm. The more she releases the more pleasure you receive. We don't know why. We just do.
When you are fucking, you know where you are. You have an even better idea if you just came up from there. But when you have your tongue engaged, your mind is right there choosing the next place to lick to get her more stimulated. The more fun she has the more stimulated you become.
Her desire is my stimulent
The Existential Predicament of a Pussy Eater
Facesitting
long island lady looking to have pussy licked
|
|
|
1
comment
|
|
To link to this blog (lovePjuice2) use [blog lovePjuice2] in your messages.
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
41
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
