Comments on: I'm not a tease, I promise. :-(

Question: I'm not a tease, I promise. :-(

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:22:00 -0800

SexualFrustrationFilter: Please help me deal with my boyfriend's sexual frustration.

My boyfriend and I are both members of a very strict religion. This religion puts strict limits on what we can do with eachother physically before marriage. Besides making out/fully body contact through clothes, we really aren't allowed to go much further. I know it sounds ridiculous, but we were both raised (indocrinated?) this way and would feel really guilty about pushing it further. Also, due to very strict parents on both sides who are helping us both through college, it could also entail very serious real world consequences.

I am able to orgasm (quite easily in fact) from making out with him if he is on top, hands free too. This is relevant because I don't really experience the same sexual frustration that he does. He claims that he loves making out with me and initiates it everytime he sees me, but seems to grow slightly more resentful when he leaves with a case of blueballs. I know on some level he resents that I come everytime and he never has.

What should I do about this situation? Is there any way I can help him deal? Should I stop myself from coming to make it fair?

By: onalark

onalark — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:29:23 -0800

Tell him to stop masterbating. This should improve his performance :).

By: xmutex

xmutex — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:30:33 -0800

Why can't you just make him come too and, err, not tell your parents? I don't see why they have to know what you are doing.

By: furtive

furtive — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:30:40 -0800

Buy him a pair of silk boxers.

By: luriete

luriete — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:34:02 -0800

By: Uncle Glendinning

Uncle Glendinning — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:36:10 -0800

Is phone sex allowed? If so, this seems like it would work: you'd both get to orgasm, you wouln't see each other naked, or even touch each other. Then, when you do see each other and make out, he won't need to orgasm as badly.

Of course, this might require talking dirty, which you (or he) may or may not be comfortable with.

By: craniac

craniac — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:40:42 -0800

Ah, I miss byu. Hey, if you quit making out so much he might simmer down a little.

By: 23skidoo

23skidoo — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:41:07 -0800

Sounds like dealing with your guilt might be more useful than dealing with his sexual frustration. That'll solve a lot of problems right there - getting to the root of the problem, if you will, and not simply dealing with the symptom.

Different religions have different levels of guilt sewn into them. For some, the only way to not feel guilty would be to decide to not be religious anymore, and it doesn't sound like anonymous wants to do that at all.

By: trevyn

trevyn — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:43:16 -0800

What exactly are the limits as far as him being pantless anywhere near you? Boiled down, the problem is that you can get off while wearing clothes, but he can't, right? So at one extreme is you two fooling around, and then he runs to the bathroom and jerks off right away--this should be quick and fun if he's already pretty worked up. How much better than this can you do? Could he masturbate in front of you, no contact? Or what? I mean, no outright sex is one thing, but maybe at some point you'll both see just how ridiculous you're being. ;)

By: xmutex

xmutex — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:47:40 -0800

Okay, I'm not understanding the logistics. Is it that anon simply cannot touch his skin? Which is weird, because I'm sure they've held hands. So, certain parts of skin. Okay, entirely logical that God on high has sectioned off parts of the human body as VERBOTEN. Going on that notion, I still don't see why anon cannot make her boyfriend come through clothing. I think you guys need to sit down and hash this over. Try some stuff out. Can you grab his wooly mammoth through his boxer shorts and give him a handjob? Or would that land you in eternal damnation and suffering? You can touch him with boxers, on right? That's clothing. You wouldn't actually be touching his wantonly naked member and so maybe then, you know, under the rules delivered from on high, you'd be covered. And he'd come. So you, him, God, everyone, would be happy, and much relieved.

By: kcm

kcm — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:48:29 -0800

either shit or get off the pot, seriously. if he's going to be a stickler for the religion, he gets blue balls at best. if you're so eager to get around the letter of the law, don't you really think you're better off just giving him a handjob anyway?

I second that if he doesn't like it, he can do without. That'll learn 'im.

By: zerolives

zerolives — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:55:02 -0800

For fucksake, either stop pretending to have sex with your clothes on, or just do it.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:55:40 -0800

I'm going to spin this the opposite way as everyone else and say: Stop. Stop getting off if you're boyfriend can't. Stop making out all together. Stop taking things so far. It's obviously causing a rift in your relationship, and I would bet you feel guilty about even going as far as you are (because technically what you're doing isn't allowed, right?). If you truly value your beliefs, you need to act accordingly- you'll feel a lot freer once you do. And listen, not many people here are going to understand that, but fuck 'em. They're not living in your head- you're the one who has to deal with the consequences of your actions. All this talk of Can You Do This and Can You Try That isn't really the answer to your problem, because soon, This and That will get boring and you'll want more. You need to make a decision regarding your religious beliefs, and act accordingly.

So, basically, ditto zerolives.

By: zerolives

zerolives — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:57:33 -0800

And it's not called making out if someone's on top, it's call dry humping. There's a reason for that particular verbage.

By: lorrer

lorrer — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:59:23 -0800

I wonder if he's holding back to prevent himself from coming in his pants and making a mess? If so maybe putting on an unlubed condom (to be clear: keeping his pants/underwear on) beforehand would allow him to let loose. It also might cut down on any abrasion he may be getting from his clothes.

If he really can't get off from essentially "dry humping" then he should masterbate. If you can help him with this, more's the better, but if religion precludes you from helping, then at least you can be his living, breathing visual aid.

In any event, I'd go with increasing his pleasure, rather than decreasing yours.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:59:51 -0800

Does this sorta-kinda-lets-mimic-sex-with-our-clothes-on thing really happen past the age of like 13?

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:02:26 -0800

Obviously, xmutex.

By: brautigan

brautigan — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:03:36 -0800

Oh God, just do it. It's the most beautiful, fun, glorious, tender, loving, natural, happy, oh sweet Allah, Jesus, Vishnu that's feels so right thing to do. I hope the two of get it on properly eventually because if you can orgasm through dry-humping the two of you are gonna just explode when it happens for real. Good luck!

By: fenriq

fenriq — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:03:52 -0800

Yep, best thing to do is either run off to Vegas and get married this weekend so you can have real grown up sex or stop what you're doing until you do get married.

You don't feel guilty about having pre-marriage dry-hump orgasms but yet you would feel guilty if it went any further? Is he allowed to masturbate?

Yep, stop all of it. ditto zerolives.

By: shepd

shepd — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:06:14 -0800

The whole point of your religion appears to be around the old saw of no sex before marriage. So either break the religion (do it now) or don't.

Don't involves not doing anything sexual before marriage, not bending the rules set out for you by your God (or gods, or just minister, whatever is your case). You could consider his blueballs your religion's "punishment" for trying to overstep the line. Horrible, but I am willing to bet the minister of your religion would probably agree.

So, be religious and wait for sex. Or don't be. I think you're learning that sitting on the fence means someone might end up with a fencepost in the ass.

Myself, I gave up the whole religion thing a long time ago and feel great about it. It was a lot better than sitting on the fence. On the other side of the coin, I can see how someone on the fence would rather devote themselves to the religion and feel great about that. So you could try that and see how it works for you.

Shit or get off the pot, so to speak.

By: lorrer

lorrer — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:09:53 -0800

I'm shocked at the responses here. Anonymous has clearly stated that her religion allows them to have full body contact while clothed, and no more. She's not trying to get around the rules of it, she's within them whilst trying to satisfy some basic needs at the same time. What's with all of this "stop everything" and "go all the way" talk? Neither one of those answers Anonymous's question.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:14:57 -0800

What should I do about this situation? Is there any way I can help him deal? Should I stop myself from coming to make it fair?

There's the question, lorrer. So all the "stop everything" and "go all the way" talk is perfectly within bounds.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:15:14 -0800

She's not trying to get around the rules of it, she's within them whilst trying to satisfy some basic needs at the same time. What's with all of this "stop everything" and "go all the way" talk? Neither one of those answers Anonymous's question.

You're familiar with "the letter of the law" versus "the spirit of the law," yeah? Which do you think Jah is concerned with? Especially considering that he didn't dictate those rules in English.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:16:09 -0800

lorrer: But not really. Anon's post says Besides making out/fully body contact through clothes, we really aren't allowed to go much further. The aren't really bit pretty much implies that, as it goes, anon doesn't really know what the line is (because there likely isn't one) but is just consumed by guilt.

Since there isn't really a line that's crossable (and likely, if there were, anon's crossed it- I mean- you can have an orgasm as long as it's not intercourse? What?) the only way to alleviate guilt is to stop entirely what they are doing or go all the way and choose not to accept these vague, ambiguous declarations of her religion/minister/cult/whatever.

It's the best advice in this situation.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:17:01 -0800

You can't cheat God; he knows if you're sinning or not. So decide.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:19:04 -0800

indocrinated?

Certainly , indoctrination is part of any religion and of education as well. By Merriam Webster dictionary definition

to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

what has been inserted in the process is the concept of "sin" or wrongdoing. You're supposed to feel bad about doing something that is assumed to be wrong : that's ok if the thing is actually dangerous or damaging, but what if they're wrong ?

Actually the prohibition of sex before marriage may have made some sense before the invention of contraceptives like condom and the pill ; obviously without these methods casual sex (as dictated by natural instinct of procreation) would have increased the pregnancies..which necessarily leads to more mouths asking for food. That was a big problem and still is a big problem in many countries..too many people, too little food.

Also fathers could have legitimately refused to recognize the children as their own children, leaving the mother and the children with little help but from families (which were not always present). Obviously without a social and legal network supporting single mothers, that would have created a number of serious problems. Even today we still have problems with singles parents.

At some point in time the concept that having sex was, generally speaking, something to be ashamed of or afraid of was introduced...repression of this instinct with twisted concepts like "going to hell" and "suffering unspeakable horrors" and alike did , in my opinion, more damage to mankind then the atomic bomb.

Even that could have made some sense, considering that there are a number of sexually transmitted disease that may lead to death or to serious illness.

NONE of these make any sense today with contraception and with condoms. Even if there still is a chance of becoming pregnant because of condom defects ..condom combined with other contraception devices like the pill offer very good protection against diseases and unplanned pregnancies.

---

Now about your boyfriend : I personally doubt that he'll find anything less then masturbation to be enough to relieve himself. I also guess (my guess) that he already has shown that he respects your will not to have sex before marriage..and that he shares the idea with you...and that he would never do anything with you without your consent.

His becoming slightly more resentful is , as far as I know, caused by the increasing frustration he fells from being teased ; it is not your having an orgasm that bothers him, it's most probably his NOT having an orgasm that's consuming him inside...obviously what you two are doing is a simulation of sex and that's going to arouse any men..such arousal is estinguished in man only by ejaculation..and this going on and on with you without ejaculation is literally making him feel sick inside.

That's actually natural, because the arousal is caused by the sexual simulation , his anticipation of sexual pleasure isn't met by sexual release..this can be extremely frustrating for a man.

It something you two could solve togheter..whatever happens and if full sex happens you MUST MUST use at LEAST a condom...prayers can't stop pregnancy.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:19:24 -0800

You're probably already bending/breaking the moral codes of conduct established by your religious organization - especially if you're LDS. (I'm ex-LDS, born and raised. Multigenerational. Odd religion, really.)

While skirting the issue and bending these rules can be fun and interesting, even titillating, you're not really following the intent and nature of the rules.

If you're young adults, just enjoy it. Some of my fondest sexual memories are just this sort of initial "Almost but not quite having sex" experiments and experiences. Everything was so new and forbidden. There isn't really any good reason to rush things, religious moral imperitive or no. There are thousands and thousands of ways to achieve various levels of satisfaction. But again, most of these bend/break the rules completely.

If you're grown adults, maybe it's time to do some deep introspection about the nature of religion, guilt, and dogma - and the role it plays in your life, your personal happiness and fulfillment.

The fact of the matter is that you're already having sex. Sex isn't simply penetration, intercourse, and procreation. You're already taking risks. You're already experiencing what it is like to be sexual beings.

It's better to be open, honest and forthright about what you're doing rather than living in a self-deluded state that you're not actually having sex.

By: oddman

oddman — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:29:14 -0800

I assume that you are ok with the idea of causing each other's orgasms as long as it's done indirectly. Have you considered closing your eyes while he masturbates? He gets to do it with you present, which is nice, and you get to avoid feeling like you've stepped over the line.

Now, if masturbating is itself forbidden, you are pretty much completely out of luck.

By: smartypanties

smartypanties — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:42:49 -0800

Yes, giive him privacy to masturbate, without commenting about it. If you have been sleeping in the bed together, I would DEFINITELY stop doing that. It may create a pattern of sexlessness that could hurt your sex relationship in the future. (This happened to 2 friends of mine. Also, many former prisoners complain of losing their lust for lust after having to withhold their sexual urges for so many years.)

By: matildaben

matildaben — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:43:38 -0800

Clothed lap dance? With a condom on under his (silk) undies if he doesn't want to get messy.

By: wryly

wryly — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:48:13 -0800

I'm starting from your saying, "[He] seems to grow slightly more resentful when he leaves with a case of blueballs. I know on some level he resents that I come everytime and he never has."

Has he said he's resentful, and if he is resentful, are his feelings directed at you? If he hasn't said so, you don't want to assume you know what he's thinking.

And it's best if you don't assume that feelings of guilt mean you're doing something wrong. I'm talking about as a general rule, not just in this matter.

You two have to talk about it. Think about what you'd prefer to do, and what you're willing to try, while he considers the same for himself. That is, how do you feel about making out without having an orgasm yourself? If that's okay with you, ask if that would somehow make things better for him.

Would you be willing not to make out at all? And if the two of you abstained, how would that be for him? Etc.

I guess I'm saying that you can approach this in a way you would approach a much less person kind of issue. What are the actual problems, and what are their effects on both of you? What options do you have? And, if you are both sincerely interested in acting from the best part of yourselves, what solution are you going to try first?

Talking about and making decisions about sex can be a LOT harder than dealing with, say, financlial issues. But the process is essentially the same.

And the other thing... this is just my experience: Assuming I know what my guy thinks and wants and needs; trying to do the right thing for him when I assume I know what the right thing is -- that used to cause very serious problems in our relationship, because neither of us ended up acting in our own interests. Nobody ever got what they wanted. It led to a lot of resentment. And it was even worse, because he was doing the same thing "for me" all the time as well. It's a hard habit to break, but well worth it.

By: ambrosia

ambrosia — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:53:03 -0800

Well said, loquacious.

By: pornucopia

pornucopia — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:11:55 -0800

What loquacious said.

I used to do this all the time. I suggest: As soon as you come, your boyfriend should go into the bathroom and masturbate. Maybe you could even kiss him while he masturbates, who knows?

Or the silk boxer shorts.

By: nearlife

nearlife — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:12:13 -0800

So get married! Duh.

Seriously, quit your religion. You're probably going to Hell (or Fresno, or whatever) already for all this inapproriate touching..

By: nearlife

nearlife — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:13:27 -0800

Wait a second, does your religion explictly forbid the back door?

By: Justinian

Justinian — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:19:31 -0800

She says that it allows little more than fully clothed body contact and you're asking if a little backdoor booty is okay?

By: pornucopia

pornucopia — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:21:56 -0800

I'd like to point out to the other posters that the following were NOT asked:

- Am I stupid?
- Should I quit my religion?
- Should I just have sex?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:24:25 -0800

I'm with those who say you should either shit or get off the pot.

The spirit of your religion is obviously against these sex-simulating behaviours of yours. You are only fooling yourselves if you think that dry-humping is a-ok with your church while a blow-job is not.

Quit playing yourself for a fool.

Either have the guts to uphold the spirit of your religion, or have the guts to break with it completely. No god is going to like a fence-sitter.

By: cmonkey

cmonkey — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:27:07 -0800

Should I stop myself from coming to make it fair?

Why would you do that? You're already a college kid, with strict parents and a major guilt problem. You deserve to have some fun.

Your boyfriend needs to take things into his own hands. He probably already jerks off three or four times a day, occasionally thinking about you, and occasionally thinking about the girl who usually sits in the next row. Or maybe about that guy who's in his wrestling class. Or maybe he thinks about Happycat, I dunno. Since your all seeing, all knowing deity already knows about this behaviour, your boyfriend might as well just tug the captain while making out with you.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:32:11 -0800

Seriously, Substrata. This is too-good-to-be-true territory. Even Dan Savage'd laugh this one off.

On the off chance that this is for real, take note, Anonymous: I'm generally someone who defends religion around here. However, you can't play lawyer with God. Your choices are either remain chaste or have hot, hot, irreligious sex.
Think of it as the inverse of Pascal's wager: if God does exist, and you do this and regret it, He'll forgive you. If there's no God, you just rubbed yourself all over your boyfriend while his balls swole up and his face got red, torturing him unnecessarily.

By: LionIndex

LionIndex — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:47:08 -0800

The fact is, he's already masturbating you, and you know it will get you off, and you're allowing him to do it. So, if it's okay with your religion for him to masturbate you, why aren't you doing the same for him? How can this behavior not be construed as extremely selfish?

By: crabintheocean

crabintheocean — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:49:27 -0800

If your religion is that big a deal to you, maybe pray to god and ask him how to get your boyfriend to blow his load without getting in trouble?

Ask your priest/pastor/whatever if condoms count as clothes? If you're trying to get him off on a technicality (sorry), why not?

By: slapshot57

slapshot57 — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:58:05 -0800

since it's known as a jimmy hat, doesn't that automatically make it clothes?

problem solved

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:12:11 -0800

Anonymous is definitely a troll. This is ridiculous.

Why wasn't religion specified? I'm not familiar with any major religions where dry fucking (let's not split hairs, that's what this is) is OK but other activities are not. The premise of the question is that the couple are devout, and to violate the tenets of the mystery religion would make them feel sad.

This being said, I'll take the bait and submit the answer to the question on the terms specified:

Stop fornicating. You are sinning, and the "serious real world consequences" apply to dry fucking as much as they would to real, sweaty, mutually satisfying lovemaking. You're making [insert invisble, all-seeing and morally conservative deity here] very upset with your rule-bending.

If you're going to subscribe to a belief system, dammit, believe in it. It's utter folly to follow a set of made up rules, only to go to great lengths to bend them as far as possible.

By: callmejay

callmejay — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:19:20 -0800

A man can come through dry-humping. Just let him know it's okay. If your religion says that it's okay for you to come but not him, then I say your religion is stupid. Sorry.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:26:15 -0800

Well, no, callmejay. Some men can come through dry-humping and some men can.. some men can't even come through oral sex, odd as that may sound.

Bottom line: anonymous, if you're okay with your boyfriend masturbating you to orgasm - and that is exactly what is happening, make no mistake - then you should be okay with doing the same for your boyfriend. If you're not okay with masturbating your boyfriend, you need to stop letting him get you off like this.

Yes, it is selfish.

By: phredhead

phredhead — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:37:46 -0800

Anon-

ya know, God created sex, intercourse, love, handjobs, etc.etc

What religion has done is created a control mindset, that frankly is a joke in our current times.

Use protection and make mad God-blessed love to each other !!!!!!

By: muddgirl

muddgirl — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:47:09 -0800

As someone who has been in sexual relationships without penetration before (intentionally, I may add) for reasons both religious and personal, I will try to be more helpful than some of these commenters.

If one or both of you already masturbates, then finishing off in the bathroom should also be perfectly acceptable. Have you tried different positions - perhaps with you on top, straddling him? Or he could try masturbating less, which should bring him off quicker without as much stimulation.

Or, if he isn't allowed to ejaculate at all while you are allowed to orgasm(which I think is a ridiculous misinterpretation of a pretty straightforward biblical passage), then perhaps full-on body rubbing simply isn't appropriate contact for this stage in your relationship. Or, perhaps you and he could explore spiritual tantric contact, which involves sexual climax without the physicality of orgasms. If you'd like to talk further with someone who won't judge you for your moral and personal beliefs, whatever they may be, my contact info is in my profile.

By: dagnyscott

dagnyscott — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 18:51:50 -0800

I don't know of a religion that specifically says you can dry-hump and no more. If you're having an orgasm from physical interaction, you're already violating the stricter no-sex rules. Either you want to back down on the level of contact you're having, or you can consider manual stimulation (handjobs) or oral sex, neither of which will get you pregnant, and you'll still be saving the really crucial aspects of sex until marriage.

By: nixerman

nixerman — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:04:37 -0800

You need to turn your boyfriend on. Sometimes, less can be a lot more. It's very difficult with guys but it can be done. Talk dirty to him. Kiss him all over but keep his pants on. Go slowly. Let him take his time feeling you up. Do some serious petting. More dry humping. You get the picture. Focus on his body and his brain. You can get him hot enough to the point where he can finish himself off quickly. And you should be with him for the grand finale. That makes it much more special.

Talk to your boyfriend and be very blunt. Tell him that you want to make him come and ask him how you can do that. Most guys, when confronted with such a question, will have a few ideas. It might help if you dress up in a costume or you wear a lot of make up. Who knows. You never know until you ask.

Don't stop. Ignore the comments above. Many of them were made in bad faith, I suspect. Life is too short to give up such pleasure. You take what you can get. You have your whole traditions and upbringing to respect and uphold and that's great. Do your best to honor your parents etc etc. But physical pleasure with somebody special is one of those things that make life worth living. You have an obstacle--you can't have full on sex--so you need to find a way around that obstacle. Other couples have done it, you can do it too. It'll be hard, but it'll be worth it. Keep at it. Communicate and together you two can find a way to make you both delirously happy.

By: gsteff

gsteff — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:06:57 -0800

I don't have an answer for anonymous, but just want to apologize, to the extent that a 3rd party can, for the answers hinting that she should quit her religion. Mefi just isn't the best place to go for advice on adhering to your faith (that's not criticism, just a fact). The only advice I can offer is to not feel guilty. Discuss it with your boyfriend. He's a guy; if your problem is trying to find ways to arouse him, I promise there are an infinite # of solutions.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:27:32 -0800

She doesn't need to quit her religion.

But if she actually takes it as seriously as she's claiming to, she should stop grinding her crotch on her boyfriend and actually be chaste.

If she actually means to be as devout as she claims, she shouldn't be doing anything with her boyfriend that she wouldn't be willing to do in front of her parents, her minister, and her Lord.

If nothing else, she should stop getting her boyfriend all hot and bothered just to leave him hanging. It's nice that she can come so easily, but she can do that alone without using anyone else as a sex toy. If it is not satisfying to both parties, then she is using her boyfriend as a tool to give her an orgasm, and using other people as tools denies that they are ends in themselves, made in the image of God.

By: nanojath

nanojath — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:30:43 -0800

A couple of considerations in this sort of sexual arrangement (and despite the scoffing, come on: for one reason or another, a whole lot of relationships in the high-school to college age arena go through a dry-humping phase).

A serious danger of this kind of behavior is, in a passion-inflamed moment, going ahead to full coitus without planning ahead or preparing reliable birth control. Seriously: this happens ALL the time. Frustrated lust is very capable of impairing judgment. That's why I'd say either dial it back or accept (and plan for) the possibility of intercourse.

Second, I saw a few times in my own college/religion experience people get married very young and early on where I had strong suspicions that religion-frustrated unbearable coital urges played a strong unstated role in accelerating the courtship.

By: Medieval Maven

Medieval Maven — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:34:07 -0800

If she actually means to be as devout as she claims, she shouldn't be doing anything with her boyfriend that she wouldn't be willing to do in front of her parents, her minister, and her Lord.

I'm afraid I have to agree. If you would feel guilty enough to confess to your parents/minister/whomever if you had sex, well, as has been said, you're already breaking the spirit of the rule. You have to decide if you are going to follow your religion, or if you are not. In the case that you determine that you do not wish to actually follow the spirit of your religion's strictures against sexual contact, then you need to do that safely. That's pretty much it.

On the other hand, if you really think that your religion says "Dry humping is a-okay, but save the penetration for after the blessing of your union," then you need to find a way to help your boyfriend get off (excellent advice on those lines already given), or if you're not willing to do that, in the spirit of fairness, you need to stop letting him get you off.

Let's be honest here -- this is about the same as the idea that oral sex isn't really sex and so "doesn't count."

By: Count Ziggurat

Count Ziggurat — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:42:59 -0800

I get the impression that anonymous isn't personally all that devout a believer in the religion she's a "member" of.

I would do some serious thinking about how much you really value and believe in your religion. Talk it over with your boyfriend.

If you decide you truly believe in it, well, that's pretty much it. You could look for loopholes and tricks to get around it, but this is a silly way to live. You would probably be violating the spirit and letter of your faith. There's nothing you can do about it, except get married.

If you realise, as I hope you do, that religion is one enormous lie and that there just is no such thing as a God, then go for it in private, and just don't tell your parents. Provided he agrees with you.

By: nanojath

nanojath — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:52:50 -0800

If she actually means to be as devout as she claims, she shouldn't be doing anything with her boyfriend that she wouldn't be willing to do in front of her parents, her minister, and her Lord

Well in fairness, ROU_Xenophobe, even the properly married, however devout and orthodox, would generally not be comfortable having sex or even making out in front of their parents or minister. Which is perhaps another point - the other side of your (very reasonable) comment is that if they are indeed that serious about it, maybe what they need to do is start thinking for themselves and deciding what their beliefs mean to them, not to their parents or religious leaders.

So, let's sum up the options!

1. Back to just kissing, you scamps.
2. Silk boxers and a hand-job through the pants.
3. Keep dry-humping, but at least keep a condom on hand just in case.
4. Abandon the faith and just have sex
5. Come to some new understanding of the faith that allows them to just have sex.

By: nanojath

nanojath — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:56:13 -0800

(Suggesting, Count Z, that coming to conclusion that either the LORD shall not countenance unlawful sexual intercourse or "that religion is one enormous lie and that there just is no such thing as a God" are not the only options).

By: Count Ziggurat

Count Ziggurat — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:06:06 -0800

I wasn't presuming that her religion involves "the LORD", nanojath. And as I see it, those are her best, ethical options.

By: nanojath

nanojath — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:12:43 -0800

I think I delineated a third ethical and reasonable option, but that discussion doesn't belong here. With respect to "the LORD," that was just a manner of speaking. I don't presume a particular belief set either.

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:19:54 -0800

even the properly married, however devout and orthodox, would generally not be comfortable having sex or even making out in front of their parents or minister.

The difference is that if my mother, or Jesus, or the whole freakin' trinity walked in on me and my bride getting it on, it would be embarrassing but not shameful. Same as if God walked in on me taking a shit.

But I think that anonymous would be not just embarrassed but ashamed to have her parents, minister, or God see that she was dry-humping her boyfriend.

By: nadawi

nadawi — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:20:17 -0800

If she is a member of the LDS church (which I don't know why it's the automatic suggestion, but seems spot on), then masturbation is straight out for either party. The church is very clear on that point. Then again, so is this bump and grind action she's got going on presently, unless, of course, she's a Utah Mormon. They seem to have a whole different rule set.

*ex mormon here as well, and snarky to boot*

By: 23skidoo

23skidoo — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:34:47 -0800

In all seriousness, what are these religions where grinding against someone while completely clothed is seen as the same thing as having intercourse? What larger rule do both of these behaviors fall under? "Thou shalt not have premarital orgasms because of the movements of another person?"

I was really under the impression that for lots of religions, premarital sex was forbidden, and that some people try and skirt that by just having anal or oral sex. But grinding against someone? There's no way that's sex. No way.

What rule are these two breaking by doing what they are already doing?

By: kindall

kindall — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:59:40 -0800

Well, you know, the one where if you lust after someone in your heart it's the same as having sex with them. That rule.

And of course dry humping is sex. If it wasn't sex, she wouldn't be having an orgasm. Not that every orgasm is caused by sex, or that sex always causes orgasm, but it's one of your best indicators that what you are engaging in is, in fact, sex.

By: 23skidoo

23skidoo — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:06:27 -0800

If it wasn't sex, she wouldn't be having an orgasm. Not that every orgasm is caused by sex

If you're trying to make the case that of course dry humping is sex, then you've just undone your own argument by saying "If you have an orgasm, then it must have been from having sex" followed by "Other things than sex cause orgasms".

By: Goofyy

Goofyy — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:23:07 -0800

Dear anonymous
Be sweet to him. Guys sometimes can be difficult. This is contrary to a lot of what one hears, but it's true.

Help him relax. Rub his shoulders, kiss him. Go very slow. Make him the center of attention. When he's on top of you, in some ways, you become the center of attention. He's sweet to make you feel so good, now you just need to learn how to return the pleasure.

By: Lockeownzj00

Lockeownzj00 — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:57:17 -0800

The longer you postpone, the more embarrassing it might be when you both realise you have no idea what you're doing (in terms of sex)?

Just my two cents. I could go on a tirade about "escape now," but I'm not sure how worth it it would be.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:36:22 -0800

I'd say goofyy has about the best answer so far. For what it's worth, I doubt what's bothering your boyfriend is the fact that you're coming—it's the fact that he's not. Work on that, in whatever way the two of you can feel OK about. And good luck.

Boy, some of you really do love having yet another venue to show off how stupid you think religion is.

By: phearlez

phearlez — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:41:56 -0800

Boy, some of you really do love having yet another venue to show off how stupid you think religion is.

Personally I don't think religion itself is stupid, but sometimes the things people do in the name of it or the hypocrisy they engage in while 'following' it is pretty dumb. And really, if you're going to post a question asking how do I stay within the rules while breaking them you need to be prepared to catch some flack.

I have to throw down with the "stop it" crowd. You're already in the weeds when it comes to the spirit of the law with grinding to orgasm. There's no magic method anyone here can share (aside from the silk boxers kind of tips) to help you stay at the 'misdemeanor' level of violation rather than moving on to 'felony.' You need to reconcile your desires with your faith's constraints.

So your choices are

Stop having physical contact like this
Expand the limits of your physical contact

Some people have suggested you just go ahead and screw. I'd say if you want to go that route you walk before you crawl and start with the mutual masturbation - you can even just snake your hand down his pants if the whole nekkedness thing. It's much easier to ease yourself into sin like an overly-hot bath rather than leap in.

If you're not going to do that, you need to knock it off and honor the faith you say you want to stick to. The current practice isn't going to get more gratifying.

By: kindall

kindall — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:46:33 -0800

If you're trying to make the case that of course dry humping is sex, then you've just undone your own argument

You do have to read the whole sentence you know. I'm not exactly trying to make an iron-clad logically-irrefutable case that dry humping is sex. Since I already said what I meant, I'll just repeat it here: an orgasm "is one of your best indicators that what you are engaging in is, in fact, sex."

By: nixerman

nixerman — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:54:18 -0800

kindall, you're stupid and nobody cares what you think is sex and what isn't sex. Anon has already decided it's not. Really, just shut up. It's sad that, yet again, AskMe has failed to rise to the occassion and most posters have decided once again to judge the poster instead of helping her.

Anyways, anon, Goofy has a good point. Putting yourself on top and taking charge might help a lot.

By: kindall

kindall — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:19:42 -0800

kindall, you're stupid

It's sad that, yet again, AskMe has failed to rise to the occassion etc etc

By: kindall

kindall — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:35:29 -0800

And excuse me for thinking I know anything about how strict religions look upon people who search for ways to violate the spirit of the law while keeping their letter. I mean, I only grew up in a church that judged dancing as sinful, I'm sure I don't know aaaaaaaanything about what anon's religion would have to say on the subject.

Personally if my premises were entirely incorrect, I'd want someone to correct them. And if anon is going to stay in that religion she needs to stick to the spirit as well as the letter of the law. The idea here is not to walk up as close as you can to the pit of hell and dip your toes in but to stay as far away as possible.

Or else ditch the religion. That's what I did. But you can't have it both ways.

Next up on AskMetaFilter:

Q: I heard it's not murder as long as I don't actually pull the trigger, so how do I dispose of the body?

Q: I'm going to shoplift an iPod. What's the best way to avoid getting caught? Note I'm not asking for opinions on whether I should, I've already decided that it's okay.

By: Numenorian

Numenorian — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:37:17 -0800

I'm inclined to agree with the stop or go for more crowd. If you can already justify getting off and wanting to get him off as being "ok" with your belief system, then I think you should consider which is will cause you less guilt: You getting off and him not or the further bending the "rules" to achieve some sort of mutual pleasure.

Religions try to draw up these lines that say "go only this far" and people will try to find their way around them. There needs to be an explination of why you should only go that far and let people decide where the line should be. The problem with this is that people will have to think for themselves and most folks want to have the line drawn for them.

My advice is this. You both really care for each other and also care enough to wait on the full blown sex. I appluad you both for wanting to stick with this. I think it is time for the two of you to examine your beliefs and set down some groundrules as to how far a make out session should go. I would suggest that the letter of the law vs the spirt has already been crossed, so consider bending it a bit more. He can have all of his clothing on for a hand or blow job the same way you can have all of your clothes on when you get off (consider allowing some access here as well). Remember that this could be taken a bit too far as I suppose you could have all of your clothes on and engage in sex or enough to actually get pregnant so again with the ground rules.

Bottom line is I suggest reflecting on what you both believe the limit is and not what the technical letter of the "law" is. If you believe that you can both do a bit more than you should consider making that next step safely and not go too far as to cause additional guilt. After all, I doubt that parents or pastors supervise these make out sessions, so you have to deal with how to balance your guilt with your desire for pleasure.

By: beagle

beagle — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:15:31 -0800

I heard it's not murder as long as I don't actually pull the trigger, so how do I dispose of the body

We already answered that one.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:50:44 -0800

"Boy, some of you really do love having yet another venue to show off how stupid you think religion is."

Sorry, Hat, but on this one (assuming it's not a troll) the answer really is: How much authority do you put in your interpretation of your religion? Because believing that God allows dry humping but not handjobs is like believing that you can't step on a crack or your mother will go to Hell. At a certain point, people have to decide what the central tenents of their religion are, and whether or not they're going to respect them. But the rules are made by God, and YOU CAN'T PLAY LAWYER WITH GOD. If you're accepting that the rules set down come from God's authority, then you're defying God. And dry-humping is certainly going against the spirit of the rules about celibacy before marriage. If, on the other hand, you believe that the rules are set down by a culture that had certain social goals in mind, then you're free to question whether those rules apply to your situation, and there's not a particularly strong case to be made for staying in a religion that doesn't match up with your personal determination with regard to your faith in the omnibenevolence of God.
In that context, you should re-evaluate all of the religion's rules, and in this context it doesn't seem like the rules make any damned sense.
As I mentioned above, usually I'm someone who defends religion. But in this case, the religion is fundamentally opposed to the activity occurring, and from a modern view irrationally so. Especially when many other religions allow the sexual activity that this one forbids. And while there may be practical considerations to be made regarding the revealing of this crisis of faith, faith must always be a personal thing. You either believe it or you don't.
And if it's anonymous's boyfriend who believes it while she doesn't, then she should either decide to dump him or to tell him to drop the religious pretense if he wants to get off. If he doesn't, well, I guess that's the situtation in which anonymous should feel no guilt about getting off (but should, again, look to get out of this relationship).

By: nixerman

nixerman — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:09:47 -0800

klangklangston, you're wrong and you should apologize to anon. Read the question very carefully. Nowhere does anon ask: can I play lawyer with god? She has already decided that playing lawyer with good is just fine and dandy and it's not your place to judge her on this. To be blunt: nobody, most of anonymous, gives a flying fuck whether you think dry-humping is ok when the religion forbids premarital sex. Nobody cares. Keep your private opinion about whether anon is breaking the "spirit" or "letter" or whatever of her religious laws to your fucking self. Anon's problem is very simple and clear. She wants to know, very simply, how to get her boyfriend off and, if not, whether it's right to keep making out with him when he's becoming resentful. An intelligent person would completely ignore the religious aspect of the question and focus on these immediate issues. But you, and so many other Mefis, couldn't resist the urge to indulge in the suffering of somebody different from you. It's disgusting. You, and many of the other posters in this thread, should be ashamed. If this is your idea of "helping" people with their problems then I can I only hope not many people come to you for help.

Anyways, I only make this big sphiel to apologize to anon and make it clear that the problem isn't with her, it's with the many posters in this thread. For more help on your problem, anon, I recommend you look elsewhere.

By: Justinian

Justinian — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:31:21 -0800

Nixerman, wouldn't these sorts of rants be more appropriate for MetaTalk?

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:48:42 -0800

She wants to know, very simply, how to get her boyfriend off

No, she doesn't.

What she asks is:
What should I do about this situation? Is there any way I can help him deal? Should I stop myself from coming to make it fair?

I read "How can I help him deal?" as "How can I help him deal with being left randy and unsatisfied time after time until we are married?"

The bit about preventing herself from coming to be "fair" makes it clear (to me anyway) that she wants no part of her boyfriend's orgasms, at least not now.

And the answer to "Is there any way I can help him deal?" is: Yes. Stop dryfucking him. She should tell him clearly and distinctly that she's not going to let it go any further until they are married, and it seems to be making him miserable now, so she's not going to do it anymore.

By: ikkyu2

ikkyu2 — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:10:31 -0800

I think that fooling around with clothes on is OK - especially if the clothes are made completely of cling-film.

If it's good enough for Roy Orbison's peculiar pleasure, it's good enough for you.

By: springload

springload — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:24:41 -0800

I don't think the issue is so much what God himself said they are allowed to do. They want to do as much as possible without feeling guilty. If they can dry hump and still feel good in the morning, fine. If they could ditch the religion or decide to be the reformers of its sexual law, even better, but neither of those seem like real options. I'm sure Anon and her boy see the silliness of the situation just as well as the rest of us, but the guilt will be there unless their actions have some formal religious authorization, such as the "do what you like with your clothes on" rule. To me, the best way of quenching such guilt would be:

Find the most progressive priest in the country that still has credibility within your religious community. Make sure he has made a vow of silence and tell him the whole story.

It seems you want to go with the lowest acceptable standard of prudency of your religion. If the priest is aghasted by your current actions, stop it, or decide that since you will break the rules anyways, you might as well do it properly.

There is a fair chance, however, that he'll say "I know it's difficult, but rules are rules. However, as long as you're wearing rubber gloves, you can do what you like with your hands". If that's the rule - well go get a pair of rubber gloves! Anything that makes you feel ok. I'm sure there are pragmatic priests even within the strict religions, who can tell you what you need to hear.