Ruined Orgasms vs. Enforced Chastity
(I’m not one to argue with what people are searching Google for.)
Which is more sadistic: plain enforced chastity or ruined orgasms.
Enforced chastity simple means that you aren’t allowed to have an orgasm (which may or may not include orgasmless ejaculation via prostate massage, aka, male milking).
Or …
Ruined orgasms: a man is brought to the initial stage of orgasm but in such a way that it isn’t satisfying. I think the most common technique I’ve seen described is to remove the pressure and friction on the penis the moment the orgasm begins. So the neurological thrill is minimal.
Which is more sadistic?
Loading ...
May 11th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I’d say that a “ruined orgasm” is much more sadistic - its sort of like being allowed to do something that’s ultimately very pleasurable, but the pleasure is denied. It sucks!
May 12th, 2008 at 6:53 am
I think the sadism is in the eye of the beholder.
Personally, I’d like ‘em both.
Ah, but if it sucks, then why would so many men desire to be doing it? The obvious answer is because we don’t think it sucks, even if only some of us are willing to own up to it when it comes time to discuss things like adults.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:09 am
I don’t think the distinction between pleasure and “suckiness” is necessarily that clear in this kind of context.
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Enforced chastity does NOT usually mean no orgasms just controlled and ones seperated by the time the Womyn chooses.Total unending chastity would mean no orgasms.