6 Feb 05

Anal Virginity Threats: Glory Hole
(Threat level: moderate) Warning: Sexually Explicit

This week George came on strong. Picture him - stout, soft-spoken, silver-haired, and in his late forties. Out of nowhere, in a voice reminiscent of Monty Python member impersonating a woman, George said, "Jon's too shy to get oral sex. Jon's too inhibited to get his willy played with by another man. Oh, no! What if the Queen of England were to find out that a man had been fiddling with Jon's Prince William."
"Inhibited? Shy? I'm too heterosexual, is what you mean?"
George's voice returned to normal, "You're too homophobic."
"Nonsense, I have loads of gay friends."
"Then you're confused. There's nobody that's one-hundred-percent heterosexual or homosexual. There's only varying degrees of the whole range of sexuality."
"Oh yes, how do you know that?"
"Humans are curious about sex."
"All of them, about all kinds of sex?"
"Everyone of 'em. If you took away people's inhibitions there'd be a lot of bisexuals."
"How can you be so sure?"
"Look at the Sixties, free love. One minute you're going down on a vagina and the next minute there's a penis in your face and you're just going to town on it."
"If you're going down on a vagina how can you be performing fellatio at the same time?"
"Because its an orgy. You're just rollin' around from person to person without a care in the world."
"Maybe at your house!"
"Why do you think that voyeurism is so popular?"
"You tell me."
"Because the people being watched are uninhibited."
"You just want more bisexuals to feast upon!"
"I want people to be less inhibited."
"So they'll have sex with you?"
"Surely you've been near a penis at some point of your life?"
"Not even peeing contests or circle jerks?" (Communal adolescent masturbation sessions.)
"I helped put a fire out one night by peeing on it."
"See, you have had a penis near you!"
"Putting a fire out is not a sexual act."
"Peeing on fires jointly is, okay, Jon. It's male bonding, camaraderie."
"But it wasn't sexual!"
"So you've never cruised for love?"
"Don't you think that if it didn't have social stigma you would do anything that feels good?'
"Such as letting you suck my dick? Is that where this is heading?"
"I say if it feels good, let it happen."
"Ha, ha! You are a fiend."
"Let me ask you this then: if you stick your dick into a glory hole [a hole through which fellatio is performed anonymously] and you didn't know if it was a man or a woman sucking on it, what difference would receiving the pleasure make?"
"I've never used a glory hole."
"You wouldn't know then, but in my opinion, a man would do a better job."
"No, I wouldn't know."
"But you agree that they'd both feel good right?"
"That's a tie down. You're asking me a question to solicit a yes answer?"
"You know that they would both feel good," he said, smiling slyly.
"No I don't."
"You need to toss out of the window your preconceived notions of right and wrong. Lose your inhibitions."
"It seems you've beaten me with semantics. I'll grant you that."
"Yah! I won. Now you have to drop your knickers and close your eyes."
"Not likely!"
"Think about my question again then: if you put your penis in a glory hole and you didn't know if it was a male or a female giving you satisfaction, wouldn't it be equally pleasurable?"
Refusing to answer his question directly, I replied, "I'll write about this conversation and see what my blog readers think. Then I'll find out if you're a madman or not. Perhaps there are people out there acquainted with glory holes, or maybe not."
"I'll leave it at that for now then, shall I?" he asked, looking me up and down.
"Most definitely!"
"Okay. Goodbye," he said and left.
"Ta ta," I shouted after him.

I would appreciate your comments on handling George. Does his argument make sense or not?

Email comments to writeinside@hotmail.com


Anonymous said...

In my own opinion, I believe that George does have a point, in some aspects of what he is saying. The glory hole thing....ITs the same for both male and female.....If a man were to stick his dick in a hole, where he can not see the person on the other side......and recieve oral from that person....He would enjoy himself as he always would, maybe even more.....If a female were to spread her legs and stick her vagina into a hole, where she can not see the person on the other side.....and she then would receive oral from that person...She too would enjoy herself as she always would....maybe even more.
Of course any man would enjoy oral, no matter who was the giver....I believe that a man would be able to pleasure another man, orally, better than a female would. Men know what men like and what men want. They know what feels good, so they would do what they know.....Same for a female....A female can give oral to another female way better than a man can. Females know what feels good to them, so they are gonna do what feels good.....
If you dont know who is on the other end of your "parts", gving you pleasure, your gonna enjoy yourself no matter what.
I too, have a loved one who is now incarcerated....I have told him straight out....."I know your goona be feenin for some lovin sooner or later.....If you wanna go ahead and find someone in there to satisfy that need, then go right ahead....As long as you DO NOT GIVE IT TO ANYONE UP THE BUTT....DO NOT LET ANYONE GIVE IT TO YOU UP THE BUTT....AND AS LONG AS YOU TELL ME EVERYTHING ABOUT IT....then I dont mind at all if you get some oral pleasure. ONLY ORAL....and I want all the details....." Hey, if I were a man in prison, I would be gettin some oral lovin from someone.....It dont make you gay....Go ahead Jon....take a shot at it!!! I guarantee you, you will enjoy yourself, and then you'll want to go back for seconds...and thirds...and so on and so on....(Ive been told, by a little birdie, that you have some freaky fetishes of your own.....this is nothing compared to some I have heard about!!!)

Anonymous said...

By the way.....For some females, it is quite a turn on to see her man getting oral from another man....I know that I would be extremely turned on if I were to see my man gettin his Dick Sucked by some other dude.....(a dude would pose no threat to me....as would another female....can't give him any reason to be comparing my pleasure skills, to that of another female.....)

Anonymous said...

I would tell him this-- maybe in the glory hole situation he describes where you wouldn't know if it was a man or a woman you would enjoy it as much because you could allow yourself to assume it was a woman, but in the situation he PROPOSES you would know that it wasn't a woman. And you don't want oral sex from a man-- as irrational or illogical as he may make it out to be, we don't have to reason out our preferences. Considering HIS preferences, he ought to be glad that's the case.

- M. in NC

Anonymous said...

I believe evcvery human is different whether female of male. Each human has different likes, dislikes, and turn-ons. From our life experiences we each build indiviual personalities, which help determine what we do and don't like. Just remeber Jon you know yourself better than anyone on this earth, only you can decide what you would and wouldn't participate in. You strike me as the type of bloke who wouldn't let society's morals stand in his way of pleasure! George may have cornered you in the last verbal argument, but stay strong and listen to your heart, only you know what is appropriate for your mental well being!

Anonymous said...

Surely there are some lovely ladies reading your blog who may be prepared to come and relieve your frustration?! I'm sure I've heard stories where you can somehow find somewhere intimate on visiting days... Or is this not possible? If you feel attracted to anyone in there then get a blow-job. If not, don't (Even without a woman there, I am sure there are ways to temporarily relieve yourself otherwise). I'd say it's as simple as that. Also, let your friend have his fun teasing you as long as it all stays good-natured...

Anonymous said...

The argument is fallacious (excuse the pun). The proposer is suggesting that it would make no difference if it was a man or woman behind the 'glory hole'. I would argue that this is jumping the gun somewhat, as this is only relevant were the proposee to want to do such a thing in the first place. If he didn't want to, for whatever reason, then the argument becomes an irrelevance.

Thank you so much for bringing to my attention the existence of such things as 'glory holes'. I think in the future I shall not read your blog until after I've had my lunch.


Anonymous said...

Sorry to disappoint, but I agree with George in theory if not in practice. He reflects a philosophy that will be common sense in fifty or more years from now, but at the moment is still "shocking" to current sensibilities.

Humans are all sexual creatures and for lack of a better word you can say we are all by default bisexual. From there we all make our decisions (some of which are made for us in our upbringing, the classic nature vs. nurture argument) and define our preferences, some more defined narrowly than others. Even the staid preference of "heterosexuality" has the entire spectrum of preference, as does homosexuality and bisexuality. And people are not static in their preference either, most people fluxuate quite a bit in their preferences over the years, even if they don't cross the artificial lines of homo/hetero/bi.

Now for the part I disagree with. George is rude to forcefully advance on you like this. It is one thing for him to bring up such intellectual banter and discuss it. It is quite another for him to add sexual tension to the matter. Somehow, however I presume that George is somewhat innocent in this matter much as a child is innocent of their actions, i.e. he doesn't really know any better. Most likely, he had this conversation brought upon him forcefully as well and his rude manner is merely a reflection of that.

Ultimately, give it some thought and appreciate the experience as one that challenges your preconceptions and allows you to think outside your own envelope. Personally, I would also rebuke George on his forceful and rude manner and suggest to him that such an approach only serves to discourage you from attempting any such experimentation with him.


Anonymous said...

ask if hed apply the same logic with a woman and 10 year old girl on the other side of the glory hole. good luck winning the argument.

Anonymous said...

George's argument makes sense in the one situation he mentioned, limited to
a very specific set of constraints. The problem is that this set of
constraints may not fit with a given person.

In the situation of a person using a "glory hole", while it may be true that
the level of pleasure received could be higher from a male, it doesn't
necessarily mean that it will always be so. Naturally a male may know what
feels better, but the number of mental and emotional factors involved in the
act of performing such a service could effect the person in such a way to
make this natural knowledge not applicable.

Assuming one person performing the same level of service on two different
individuals, the resulting pleasure is completely dependent on the mental
and emotional view of each person on the receiving end towards such an act.
If this person is not turned on by the act of anonymous sexual favors, or
even in fact is worried about the fact that the person on the end may not be
something he or she is attracted to, it may completely destroy any benefit
the person could gain out of such a service.

Additionally, even if the acknowledgement of the possibility that George is
correct in this case does not provide any logical reason for one to alter
their willingness to receive such an act. Even if someone in your case
closed their eyes and dropped their pants, they really know what is going on.

Anonymous said...

Hmm, not as hard a first try as I thought, Shaun, but pretty early in your term.

Anyway, to the qustion of Glory Holes.

If there were any possibility of there being a female performing I'd agree with George, but being incarcerated with nothing but men I'd have to say his arguement is moot.

Tony, Phoenix

Anonymous said...

Let me get this right Jon, a man puts his penis into a hole in a wall or partition where an anonymous person male or female is on the other side and that anonymous person will perform oral sex????
Wow, I personally could never do that! What if the other person turned out to be Lorena Bobbitt?

Anonymous said...

I agree with George that you do sound a little homophobic (I've noticed this in your previous posts, too), and my guess is that your homophobia might be your psyche's way of repressing your latent bisexuality. But I don't think that is any justification for George to pressure you into having sex. If you say no, he should back off, not argue with you!

Anonymous said...

If you do have oral sex, please please please wear a condom!!! It will diminish the sensation somewhat, but that's better than getting an Sexually Transmitted Disease many of which communicable by oral sex and are still incurable, e.g. herpes.