Playful, Dirty and Free , livre ebook

Andrews UK - Peter Birch

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

40 pages

English

Vous pourrez modifier la taille du texte de cet ouvrage

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

Why do so many people seem to see only in black and white? I'm referring to relationships and sex, the way the majority take the attitude that you're either with somebody or you're not, on or off, and that if you are with someone then to do anything with somebody else is inherently wrong. Okay, if that's the way you want it then fine. That's your choice, but really, why? Is it human nature? No. Certainly there are genetic influences on human sexual behaviour but they don't ensure rigid monogamy. It's largely a social thing, but does that make it right? Societies vary and they change. Nothing is carved in stone.

Informations

Publié par	Andrews UK
Date de parution	21 décembre 2011
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9781849899390
Langue	English
Poids de l'ouvrage	1 Mo

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0150€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

Title Page

PLAYFUL, DIRTY & FREE
Peter Birch explores Uninhibited Sex

By
Peter Birch

Publisher Information

Playful, Dirty & Free
published in 2011 by Andrews UK Limited
www.andrewsuk.com

This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior written consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published, and without a similar condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

The characters and situations in this book are entirely imaginary and bear no relation to any real person or actual happening.

Copyright © Peter Birch

The right of Peter Birch to be identified as author of this book has been asserted in accordance with section 77 and 78 of the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Cover Designed by Matt Bateman

About Peter Birch

Peter Birch has been hopelessly addicted to sex his entire life but has made the best of what society at large sees as a problem. During the ‘eighties, while yuppies were sporting their filofaxes and talking into mobile phones the size of bricks, Peter and his girlfriend were experimenting with the joys of threesomes, dogging and spanking. In the caring ‘nineties he and his wife devoted their time to running sadomasochistic cabarets in London’s more specialised clubs. Finally realising that he needed to earn some money, he took to writing erotica, and has been at it ever since, becoming a prolific novelist, mainly under the Aishling Morgan name, writing guides to kinky sex and dabbling in journalism. This collection features eight of his more thoughtful essays, each one the product of years of depraved behaviour.

Let Us Play

Why do so many people seem to see only in black and white?
I’m referring to relationships and sex, the way the majority take the attitude that you’re either with somebody or you’re not, on or off, and that if you are with someone then to do anything with somebody else is inherently wrong. Okay, if that’s the way you want it then fine. That’s your choice, but really, why?
Is it human nature? No. Certainly there are genetic influences on human sexual behaviour but they don’t ensure rigid monogamy. It’s largely a social thing, but does that make it right? Societies vary and they change. Nothing is carved in stone.
I mean, what do you actually gain from promising unswerving fidelity to a single partner? Love? I’m sorry, but if you think that love is conditional on sex or sex is conditional on love, then expect a stormy ride through life. Love is, or should be, something quite separate, and something you can feel for others without sex being involved. Sex? Maybe in the days before contraception, but if somebody is sufficiently manipulative to withhold sex in an effort to get you to promise fidelity then the odds are pretty high they’re going to be equally manipulative in other ways as well. My advice? Run away, fast. Safety? Not really. Statistically you might be less likely to catch something nasty if you stick to a single sexual partner, but we all ought to take sensible precautions anyway, and tailor them to the circumstances. Security? In theory, perhaps, but not in practise. I have great respect for anybody who will make a vow and keep it regardless, but they’re a rare breed. Most people are more than willing to give up on a vow the moment it becomes inconvenient. Or is it really just the opposite? Is it really all about insecurity, the fear that if you don’t tie your lover to yourself and yourself alone he or she will go off with the first person they meet who happens to have a bigger pairs of tits, or a more reliable erection, or makes better smoked salmon blini?

I strongly suspect that’s the reason; insecurity, which in turns breeds jealousy and the need to possess, which are hardly noble emotions. Worse still, people’s need for exclusivity breeds those very emotions, so that the situation feeds on itself. After all, if Sue expects Sam to be faithful she’s going to be badly hurt when she catches Sam with Sally, but if she doesn’t then she’s probably with Simon anyway, or she can join in with Sam and Sally too. One way she ends up with her face wet with tears, the other way she ends up with her face wet with Sally’s juices, surely a better outcome? But oh dear, what a slut, what a whore!
No, what fun. That’s the way I see it anyway, and the same goes if it was Sam, Simon and Sue, or all four of them for that matter, girl on girl and boy on boy, or whatever it might be. Do you think that’s wrong? Do you think that makes me a lesser person? If so, and the reason you do comes from some ancient text written by a mad old buzzard who’d spent too long in the desert, then I despair of you. Are you really content to live your life according to the precepts of bronze age patriarchs?
To be fair, not many people still believe that having sex for pleasure is immoral, but the concept is still deeply ingrained in our society, and that is what allows those whose egos are too fragile to escape from the straightjacket of monogamy to feel superior to those who take a more relaxed attitude. And if faithful marriage was the nirvana it’s held up to be then I beg to suggest that the divorce rate wouldn’t be quite so high. Sex doesn’t have to be sanctioned by some (imaginary) deity, and it doesn’t have to be part of some grand passion that excludes all others. Why not just have some fun, for fuck’s sake!?
A lot of people do, of course, but I do think it’s a great shame when so much pleasure is lost because of pointless self-restraint. Some people even have the idea that men and women can’t be friends because sex always gets in the way. What!? It’s nonsense anyway, because not only have many, many men and women had lifelong friendships without any sex coming into the equation at all, but plenty of men and women, and women and women and men and men, have friendships that include sex.
And why not? It makes perfect sense to me. If Simon’s thirsty and turns up at Sue’s house she’ll give him a glass of water, or perhaps a can of cold beer. So if he’s horny, why can’t she toss him off, or at the very least pull up her top for him while he does it? And if Sam walks in while they’re at it, so what? No harm done. Admittedly some partners would go berserk over the glass of water or even letting him into the house, but that only reinforces my point. It’s silly to get worked up over an act that’s cost you nothing.
In fact, if Sue gives Simon the beer then Sam can’t drink it himself, but if she tosses Simon off she’s quite likely to end up horny too, which is sure to be to Sam’s advantage, so Sam gets the better deal with the sex. Of course the situation has to be reciprocal to work, because Sam has every reason to be pissed off if Simon won’t let Sally return the favour. It’s also important that there’s no emotional involvement beyond the level of friendship, or things start to break down, but that’s exactly the point I’m trying to make. That quick one off the wrist for Simon does not have to be the start of some grand affair. It’s just a friendly gesture, no more, no less.
For those of us who’re into kinky sex there’s much more to do and therefore even more reason to have plenty of people to do it with. “Just friends” to me means the occasional spanking, a little bondage, perhaps mutual masturbation if the situation is right. I suppose you can learn the intricacies of bondage or spanking from books and the experiences of ex-partners, but it’s far better done with an experienced friend or two to show you the ropes first hand. It’s sociable too, when you can round off a dinner party with dessert served from your hostess’ bare chest or perhaps a few hands of cards with sexy forfeits for the losers. Maybe you think I live in la-la land, but my wife and I have been doing exactly that sort of thing for nearly thirty years now and long ago lost count of the number of playmates we’ve had. We do have limits, but mainly for the sake of safe sex, while the only problems we’ve ever had are with people trying to come between us because they want to be exclusive.
So why be exclusive? You gain nothing, and you lose so much. Yet so many people are, and clearly think it makes them better than those who’re not. It even seems to be becoming commoner among SMers, although I hope I’m wrong and it may simply be that the internet means you hear more from those who’re not actually out on the scene. I’m not thinking of Master or Mistress and slave relationships either. It’s only to be expected that you’ll get a few people with such dominant sexualities and such vast yet painfully brittle egos that they like to pretend that they actually own their partners and won’t let anybody else play, but they’re very much the minority. Most interact very well, if within the limits of their own sexualities, but that’s only to be expected.
What does annoy me is people who come along, join in, take full advantage of the atmosphere of sexual liberality and then as soon as they form an attachment try to deny their partner to anybody else. I recall one especially irritating case with a regular switch playmate heavily into leather and corporal punishment. It was always a delight to be given a good spanking and then held to her chest with a faceful boob and soft, aromatic leather, and better still to return the favour. We’d been friends for nearly five years when a shy and insecure newbie I’d met asked me to introduce her. I obliged, and within a couple of months he was claiming that she was his sole and exclusive Mistress (ironic, yes, but all too comm