Question for the Guys

[Maria]

I totally agree with PP1 that "consent" is the operative idea.

Most guys would be surprised at how experimental some gals can be if they feel safe and secure within a context where sexual fantasies are played out in an atmosphere of mutual trust, and there is no mutual trust unless there is also mutual consent.

It is said that most men reach their sexual peak in their late teens and early twenties, whereas women are built differently. We get there in our late thirties and early forties. You might be surprised at how adventurous women of that age can be if you approach them with kindness and establish an atmosphere of mutual trust and consent.

That is why I have no criticism of the bdsm community. They are very sane. Only adults are allowed to take part in their social events. Men and women work out their fantasies through talk before they take the step to manifestation. A woman who visits a dominant male always keeps her cell phone on and receives a call from a female friend to ensure that the encounter is going safely.

That's what I call respect. In such contexts, anything that happens between mutually consenting adults is beautiful.

[AccidentalTourist]

I am late getting in on this discussion, and maybe am only restating what others have said, but for me, the idea of desperation is linked to the "accidental"-ness of wetting -- it's hard to imagine it's really an accident if there wasn't at least some urgency involved. And the accidentalness itself is a turn on because it's linked to control, vulnerability and to a certain extent immaturity/infantilism. The part of desperation that involves humiliation or pain is definitely a turn off; though when I was much younger (around age 10 or 11, I think), I did have a fantasy about a particular girl I had a crush on, who didn't return my affections at all, having a humiliating accident to put her in her place/punish her for not liking me.

In my fantasies, a woman is more attractive if she is vulnerable and needs to be cared for; ideally her accident would be due to circumstance (failure to plan ahead, being prevented from using a toilet by unexpected obstacles such as a traffic jam, or a train stopped on the tracks outside the station), rather than from illness, drunkenness, etc. In other words, the circumstances are not controllable by her, as opposed to her body itself being out of her control. And the infantilism comes in because accidents are associated with childhood; children are not only less neurologically mature and thus less in control; they also lack the experience necessary for what's called "executive function" -- planning ahead for contingencies, using the toilet unprompted before a long car trip, limiting the size of the soft drink they consume in case there's no toilet available later. And, to a certain extent, young children don't care as much if they wet their pants, so a woman who is equally "freethinking" is a turn on as well.

My real-life relationships with women are nothing like these fantasies. In real life, when I've witnessed genuine accidents by either women or children, I've felt nothing by sympathy and shared embarrassment/horror for them, and have wished that they hadn't happened. I've unfortunately never been in a position where a woman pretended to be desperate and have an accident, so I don't know if that would be a turn on in real life but I think it probably would.

[johnnyc82]

I just have to wonder.... Have any of you guys ever had a girlfriend or partner who LIKES desperation?

You see, I could never get the point of having a painful bladder situation. When faced with that sort of thing, I go in my pants. I always thought that desperation was the fetish for men who dislike women and prefer to see them in a state of pain, suffering, and humiliation. I usually ignore posts based on desperation because I always thought of it as a form of misogyny, dislike of women.

But are there any women who really LIKE it?

I have never met one, but as you can well imagine, my message box here is often full of stories from various guys who want to get to know me. There is one fellow, I shall him Steve, with whom I have shared many e-mails. He is in his early 30s, but lately got the courage to ask an older (mid-40s) woman out on a date. They went to an outdoor rock concert, a band more from her generation than his. She kept complaining that her bladder was bursting and she really had to pee. When they left the concert, she was nearly running, holding her crotch in such a way that other people might actually have noticed, and so on. At last she cried out that she couldn't hold it anymore, and asked him to guard her while she squatted and peed between two cars in the parking lot.

When he got her home he fucked her lights out. She said, "I guess you enjoyed my little stunt." He admitted that it was super hot and she said she had been enjoying that sort of thing for about a decade. As a Registered Nurse, she had seen all kinds of people in hospitals have all kinds of reactions to urination, sometimes blatantly erotic -- nothing like a lot of AMA dope to remove your inhibitions. So she got interested in water sports.

I can't tell what she likes best -- the actual feeling of desperation, or the naughty peeing, popping a squat where some stranger might actually catch a nice glimpse of her. (She admitted to Steve that there were a few times when guys had caught a real "hot" look at her, and that this was a big turn-on for her.)

He asked if she had ever lost the desperation battle and wet her pants and she just laughed and told him it had happened a few times. He said that would be the biggest turn-on for him. She just laughed and said that if they kept dating he was bound to get lucky eventually.

I have always known Steve to be an honest guy in his messages to me, but is it actually possible for a woman to LIKE desperation? Has anyone ever met a woman like that?

I've never met one who likes desperation but I for one like Pants/panty peeing more than desperation. A girl desperate to pee turns me on a bit but if I see her really getting desperate or in way too much pain I try to find her a bathroom as soon as possible. If I have a lady over who's into it it's better if she just go in her pants than risk getting a bladder infection for waiting too long.

[diaperpailpat]

I never have, but years ago I had a friend who dated a fairly young (19-20) girl who always seemed to end up in situations where she was about to poop her pants. She'd have him drive as fast as he could to get her home and she'd just barely make it (if she did, a few times she didn't). As often as that happened, I honestly think it must have been something she did on purpose.

[DeltaFoxtrot]

I never have, but years ago I had a friend who dated a fairly young (19-20) girl who always seemed to end up in situations where she was about to poop her pants. She'd have him drive as fast as he could to get her home and she'd just barely make it (if she did, a few times she didn't). As often as that happened, I honestly think it must have been something she did on purpose.

Some girls have a major case of can-only-poop-at-home syndrome. I've known a number of them over the years.

[wetfan]

To be honest I think the problem comes trying to oversimplify the definition or reasons behind desperation. For me when someone says they "like desperation" it's the same as saying they "like rock music". On the surface that seems to be a specific category (after all it's not rap or classical) but the reality is it's still very vague. I mean "rock" can include "classic", "alternative", "hard" not to mention various eras. Plus no one is limited to only liking one type of rock. They can like modern alternative in addition to 70's but not enjoy anything from the 90's. It's all about the individual and how they are wired up. There is no one definitive answer.

Also, as you've pointed out, desperation isn't quite neatly cut off from other forms of sexual expression. Many of those lines bleed together. You can find those that enjoy it with exhibition. Those that enjoy it from a dom/submissive standpoint. Those that like it leading up to a good wetting or those that enjoy the "pain" aspect (remember pain is completely subjective too). Heck all of the above could be a reason someone enjoys it or maybe none of them and it's something I haven't mentioned.

The point is if you ask 10 different women why they enjoy getting desperate you'll likely get 10 different answers. Everyone is unique, we aren't just cookie cutter copies of popular stereotypes. Humans just like sorting things/people into categories as a means to understanding them. However, it is my belief, that true understanding comes from time spent with that individual, learning about them specifically.

As a side note I 100% agree about what you said regarding trust and how wonderful things can be when someone feels safe and secure with another person. Sadly I've found a lot of people don't get the true value of trust and how precious and delicate it is.

[quietpr11]

Maria...

I don't think any one type of desperation fan explains the whole of desperation fandom. Just FWIW, I think that there are SOME who like to hold it til the last second because it makes them publicly vulnerable, but I've known women who have liked to hold it til the last possible second in private just because they liked how it felt. Not the full bladder by itself, but the response from their other sensitive tissues. And I've known others who like to hold to the last second because they want to know the rush of losing control...being in the moment when you can't do anything about bursting.

It's highly variable. But the older I get (now 30), the more I talk to folks with highly variable stories behind their desires, the more I realize that urophilia isn't one fetish group, but a collection of other common desires and fetishes that just happen to focus on one mode of expression.

You note the exhibitionists...and they definitely are out there. There are also voyeurs, frotteurists, partialists (people who fixate on a particular body part - in this case, either legs or genitals or bladder bulges or what have you), sadists and masochists, object fetishists (people who only like peeing in the context of a specific location, object, type of clothing, etc), and, yes...even pedophiles. Some of these interests are harmless, some are not. And the urophiles who don't express another form of paraphilia in this specific way are the ones who really shouldn't call what they like a fetish at all since urine is a natural part of human sexuality, our sex organs are naturally engaged and aroused while we're doing it, it's an intimate and personal matter, and before the middle ages, humans used their urine in sex play COMMONLY.

But the point is...women who like a full bladder may do so for the reason you identified...or ten dozen other reasons. But they're out there...and the men who enjoy such things have the same variety of reasons for enjoying it as the women have for doing it.

[Omo Rashi]

... and before the middle ages, humans used their urine in sex play COMMONLY.

Interesting. To which part of the world does this refer, and which sources do you have?

[DeltaFoxtrot]

Interesting. To which part of the world does this refer, and which sources do you have?

No kidding. Not like there is a lot of info around on fetish practices dating that far back.

[quietpr11]

Not true, actually.

I know of at least three significant ancient texts/translations which suggest that earlier generations of humans in the era before the fall of Rome used urine in sex play and it was not considered a fetish.

1) The Kama Sutra

You need the full, unabridged translation from the original text. Bearing in mind that this manual in its original form may be offensive in its treatment of women in some places, the section to which I am referring describes with rather floral and poetic language the uses of urine to arouse and keep a man hard during long sexual encounters. The author of this sections assures women that men are commonly attracted to the feel and smell of being urinated on during or before sex. They didn't realize it, but they had locked in on a huge part of the appeal for men - pheromones (urine is full of them). They even describe in great detail how best to enjoy what we now call a golden shower.

2) Roman Correspondence

Descriptions by Roman scholars on the behavior of young men in bath houses included references to urine in gay sex acts. Along with other things which those scholars described as though merely reporting the weather. There is no indication that ancient Romans found urophilia to be an aberrant sexual behavior akin to a fetish. Of course, they also didn't seem to bat an eye at orgies or...much else that could happen in such environments. If you'd like..I can try to track some of that down again - I actually researched this extensively when I took abnormal psychology, it was my final research paper.

3) Egyptian Translations from remnant temples and pyramids.

In a few different descriptions of religious ceremonies - prayers to various gods, especially fertility, love/sexuality and the moon - urine was used as a part of sexual-seeming performances. This would suggest to me that Egyptians viewed urine as a natural part of the sexual experience, rather than something wholly alien.

I assure you folks...we're not the first ones to think of this game. And I have some level of confidence that there was a time when what we like about sex might have been viewed as adventurous and kinky, but not abnormal, unlike today.

[Omo Rashi]

Great post, quietpr, thank you! Former times will have had their share of wet games, I am rather sure. But I find it surprising that there exist even descriptions. They had a different attitude towards writing in general because it was not such a simple process as in our days. As a result, they produced considerably less rubbish than our times do. They probably would not bother describing fictional sex games or sex games which practically nobody acted out. Therefore I find it plausible that they might have viewed wet games as kinky but not as abnormal. Otherwise they would have expressed disgust in their texts which seems not to be the case (?).

[quietpr11]

In Roman correspondence, they philosophers of the day seemed to have varied opinions of the decadence of the bath houses and such...some saw the highly variable sexual behaviors seen there as a sign of a loss of the desire for industry (wealthy socialites doing whatever felt good rather than working for a living) and thus expressed annoyance at the sort of "wild" conditions there - Socratic followers, for example, rejected hedonism and epicureanism. Others thought such behaviors were a sign of the success of regional democracy, even if they thought that perhaps there were excesses. Like all times in which philosophy was possible and communicated widely enough in our history, this argument has always existed. HOWEVER, I find no indication from anything I've ever read that would suggest there was great societal unease over urophilia as opposed to other fetishes which did arouse concerns (most ancient Romans didn't care for emitophilia - given the tendency for Roman food to spoil, there was an unusually large number of people at that time who used vomit in sexual exploration) - such practices were in fact mentioned with disgust by at least one account.

The Egyptians seemed reverential, rather than bothered...but keep in mind the only Egyptians doing any writing that survived to modern times would have been royals, learned courtiers and the wealthiest of businessmen of the day, so it's entirely possible that the average Egyptian, if they knew the kinds of ceremonies being done by their god-pharaoh driven elite class, might find the whole thing off-putting. There's no way to know.

BUT...we DO know that sex was widely taught in Indian and Chinese societies - it was viewed as a means of securing a life of relative comfort for women and the Kama Sutra and similar Chinese works mentioned watersports. So...that was what was actually being taught. At least to anyone who could afford to learn to read and to acquire literature.

In any event, it seems logical to me that people would, at first, view urination as a potentially sexual object since every single primate below us in the animal kingdom that is still alive today uses urine to mark territory, to claim a mate, and to ward off predators. Something so important to the survival, social order, and propagation of a species at its infancy will develop a legacy in the minds of those who can become self-aware. The only thing stopping us now would seem to be that organized civilization demands the sanitary removal of our waste because we produce so much of it and it's a great disease vector once no longer fresh. Meaning it behooves us to teach our young that said waste is dangerous/dirty/unseemly. Not to mention that if enough of us leave our pee wherever the mood strikes as they do in the wild, we won't enjoy the smell.

Society is good...it improves life, it gives us time to think and mature as a species, it makes us safer and less hungry. But...there are some undeniable costs, including the necessary drive by societal planners to remove our natural animal instincts from play entirely.

[PP1]

Because I surely would have remembered the passage of reference, I dug up my copy of the Kama Sutra (translated by Sir Richard F Burton). There is nothing in his version related to sexual peeing. Your caveat applies, but it struck me as strange that a very colorful and adventurous figure like Burton felt obliged to skip over that part. Thankfully, we don't live in Victorian England.

[quietpr11]

Original print versions of the Kamasutra (Kama Sutra...the translation seems to vary...grr) are very hard to come by. But...despite the colorful history of Richard Burton...I am not entirely surprised that he would skip over the urinary elements...it's really confined to one section...

Google Books does not have the right translation...and alas...my copy of the text is abridged...I had to read the unabridged translation in the library at my college (which, thankfully, had a HUUUUUGE antiquities and rarities section...one of the joys of going to Penn State). These things can be taken out to read in the library, but not taken out of the library. The only reason I realized such a passage existed in the Kama Sutra was that it was referenced in my human sexuality one-credit course during the big finale - a fetish slideshow hosted by our professor (yes...I was surprised she was willing to do that too)...we got to the slide about golden showers and the class gave the expected "EEEEWW!!!" reaction and the professor interrupted with the next slide, showing the text from the Kama Sutra describing rather artistically the process "Her waters may fall from that high place in her temple..." that sort of thing. She seemed determined not to let anyone assume that stuff they didn't understand was bad.

I just noticed an error in a post of mine a bit ago..I implied that Socrates and his followers were Roman - they were not...the GREEKS, however, DID have their admirers in Rome. That should have said Roman scholars who studied Socrates and his teachings rejected epicureanism and hedonism. Ugh...it's been ten years since I took abnormal psych and I'm already jumbling all of the history research! This is what happens when you get close to a masters degree in an unrelated field...the rest blows up.