 
Balletlover - Balletmania
written by Dep on 04.09. at 07:54:07 - as answer to: call me old-fashioned, but... by aila at >>i've never really seen how "swinging" can work without rendering a relationship awkward, since i've dealt with the indignity of unfaithfulness a few times too many. (disheartening headlines like "is monogamy a joke?" don't help much in my depressed state, lately, unfortunately.) all that aside, though, i'd do it the way a lot of guys would, since jay does it almost all the time. i'd wear a pair under my pants but make it sort of glaringly obvious that you're not wearing socks. that way you can bring up the subject of fetishism nice and easy, and since you're already in a "sexually permissive" environment, you're that further ahead to talk dirty. be bold and spill the beans when you're done.>personally if i were in a group sex encounter and i were attached, i'd make sure that at all times my partner's hands and mine were on each other. the idea of sharing someone i'm that close to and involved with is devastating anyway and i really don't know if we'd be the same afterward. yeah, change is good, but there are some things that you just want to keep the same, you know? >>>I'm hip! As I mentioned in my reply to Vic, it's more of a V-E thrill I'm looking for, and I'm sure the galpal is down with that. As for the strategy hint, excellent! I knew I could count on you for the proper modulation of audacity. Now I don't see why I couldn't wear them to the thing in the first place. If it turns out to be a supportive environment, there we are. If it doesn't, I'll be keeping my pants on anyway, no?-D (At: Altitude-can ye tell from the writin'? I mean, "modulation of audacity?" Who am I, Alan Watts?) Answers to this message: |
