Erotic Hair Removal Discussions

Some weeks back, I shared a link to a blog post where Mormon women were talking about using a chastity device and generally taking it in stride. There are two discussions here where most people reacted with just enough shock. “Need to wash my eyes” and “Dirty burdies” stand out as memorable responses. I’m not providing direct links, so you’ll need to copy and paste them manually. … quest.html … axing.html Typically, you have to dig among the oddballs on Yahoo Answers to find reactions like this.

That made my afternoon. All I can picture is these women dealing with all sorts of cocks and balls throughout the day, yet being scared stiff of a plastic tube? I’d love to see some 600-pound stinky fellow go get his nuts waxed; hey, he isn’t wearing a device anyway! 8-)

Oh bother, the formatting magically turned it into a clickable link. I just didn't want them freaking out even more if anyone actually clicked through to check.

Oh well, let's assume the perverted chastity-wearing community is coming for them.

If I tire of nursing care, it seems like I could build a future career as an esthetician who doesn't mind kink.:D Some of the comments... "I just googled it! My eyes! My eyes!" Come on now. LOL. D

That really gets to me. We are such a sexually confused society...

> member_efaaeaef99 wrote: > That depresses me. > We're such a sexually screwed up society... That holds true. And one would expect that people who do intimate waxings and other personal services for a living might be a bit more open-minded about things. I am certain plenty of these waxers wouldn't want a Brazilian done on themselves, but they surely perform dozens without blinking an eye. Is having someone ask about a chastity device really such a stretch? I don’t think so. On the other hand, as we’ve discussed before, I believe it is good for adults to establish boundaries and understand what is appropriate. It’s one thing to say a person lives life 24/7 in their gear; at the same time, we need to know when to draw the line. Sending a man to his annual physical exam wearing his pink ruffled panties "because the rule in our house is that he wears them 24/7, no exceptions," feels just inappropriate, IMHO. Thumper managed to make your chaste life workable on your recent trip; you respected your need to be locked while also keeping the TSA agents from losing their minds (and potentially ruining your journey). I am becoming more conscious of my role as keyholder in setting rules and boundaries. If I were to send my husband off to see a doctor or get waxed, I would let him out of his device, but he would know the limits of what he could (or couldn’t) do while unlocked. He’d also have clear expectations regarding when he needed to be locked again—and I would hold him accountable. D

> member_0fe7c9ef96 wrote: > Made my afternoon. All I can think of is these women handle various cocks and balls all day, yet are afraid of a plastic tube? Belle, context matters here. Now, I totally agree that you shouldn’t surprise your waxer, doctor, postman, etc., by dropping your pants to show off your device. The clients who spoke up first showed proper etiquette. No matter how benign we think it is, chastity *is* a kink, and people doing their daily jobs have the right not to have it shoved in their faces. This fits into my own ethical guideline of "reasonable expectations." In other words, the woman waxing my junk expects to see my junk; she would *not* expect to see my Fort. I was more amused (and slightly saddened) by the overwhelmingly negative reaction regarding the concept itself. Only a couple of people bothered to look deeper into it, which is fine. I mean, just because I happen to explore new kinks when I stumble across them doesn’t mean everyone else should do the same. Really, I posted this mainly because I felt it offered an interesting contrast to the discussions on that Mormon blog.

After years of lurking in various corners, (thumper)’s comment about society prompted me to poke my head above the parapet. So true. Appallingly so. But what can one expect when 60% don’t believe in evolution? Or that other number I forgot regarding the Moon landings? Unreason rules.:cry:

> member_0fe7c9ef96 wrote: > Made my afternoon. All I can think of is these women handle various cocks and balls all day, yet are afraid of a plastic tube? Belle, context matters here. Now, I totally agree that you shouldn’t surprise your waxer, doctor, postman, etc., by dropping your pants to show off your device. The clients who spoke up first showed proper etiquette. No matter how benign we think it is, chastity *is* a kink, and people doing their daily jobs have the right not to have it shoved in their faces. This fits into my own ethical guideline of "reasonable expectations." In other words, the woman waxing my junk expects to see my junk; she would *not* expect to see my Fort. I was more amused (and slightly saddened) by the overwhelmingly negative reaction regarding the concept itself. Only a couple of people bothered to look deeper into it, which is fine. I mean, just because I happen to explore new kinks when I stumble across them doesn’t mean everyone else should do the same. Really, I posted this mainly because I felt it offered an interesting contrast to the discussions on that Mormon blog.

> member_ef260e9aa3 wrote: > I am becoming more aware of my role as keyholder to set rules and boundaries. If I were to send my husband off to the doctor or waxer, I'd let him out of the device but he'd know the limits of what he could (or could not) do while unlocked and would also have a clear expectation of when he was to be locked again--and I would hold him to that. > D That is where I am as well. My rules need to be followed, but I also have to be aware of the society we live and interact in. Yes, it is our thing (I refuse to call it a kink, it is much more than that) but we don't need to make others uncomfortable. That being said, I think if I were to be waxing random men daily, I would be thankful if their penis were enclosed and I did not have to touch it!

> member_568c35aa61 wrote:After years of lurking in various places, the (thumper) comment on society moved me to poke my head above the parapet. So true. So appallingly true. But what can one expect when 60% don't believe in evolution. Or (can't remember this number) the Moon landings. Unreason rules.:cry: :lol: I just read this - IIRC, it was only 39% in the US believe in evolution. That's almost half the freaking population. > On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. Source: ... ution.aspx Those not believing in the moon landing range from 6% up to 26%. Seriously, potentially *1/4 of people do not believe we landed on the moon*.

just to clarify - people who attend college to learn how to rip pubic hair out of other people's bikini lines using boiling wax have a problem understanding BDSM?

> member_34553b26f0 wrote:just to clarify - people who attend college to learn how to rip pubic hair out of other people's bikini lines using boiling wax have a problem understanding BDSM? Hahahahah! Very well put!

> Thing is though, 'kinky' people have come in for a hell of a lot of stick in this thread. I think it saddens me that some people would still refer to it as being akin to mental illness.. Meh, I guess it's easy to forget what the bulk of society think... Perhaps this should belong in a separate thread, but do you consider male chastity a perversion? And if so, do you self-identify as a pervert? What if some one stuck the "pervert" label on you just because your penis is locked up or because you locked up a penis? Inquiring minds want to know.

A 'perversion' is something that most people believe is a perversion. I had a CBT therapist explain to me that 'religion' is defined as a 'collectively acceptable insanity'. When lots of people believe that witchcraft is real and evil, witches get burned. When lots of people believe that homosexuality is an illness, they get treated (sigh of regret for Turing). I am a pervert because a lot of people would call me one (if they knew).

In thinking about this, I don't think my depression is caused by the various hair ripper outers not wanting to service a client in a CB6K. That's understandable. It's like inviting a stranger into your sex life, in a way. What depresses me is the reaction those people have to the very concept and to us "perverts" for doing it. That's depressing. Such small worlds they must live in. Sometimes I really hate people...

Great thread. However, the comments on the belief in the Theory of Evolution really caught my eye. The implication, unless I read everyone's comments incorrectly, was that if you didn't believe in Evolution you were somehow sleeping under a rock. (Don't worry, you are NOT going to get a religious rant here--and NO mentione of religion--so bear with me) The Theory of Evolution is a tautology. There is no fossil record to verify it. In other words: NO science can confirm (nor deny) the theory. "Survival of the Fittest" is the logical verbal equivilent of "Good students get A's in school". Let me give a specific example. If Evolution is the "random mutation of cells" that adapt over "millions of years" then why is this mutation showing no evidence of a continuous evolution? Put another way, if we RANDOMLY evolved from the monkey, where is the half monkey? Where is the almostbutnotquiteyethuman monkey? Where is the manbearpig? The fossil record shows discreet differences in species--not a continuous evolvement from one to the other. Remember the bell curve....random....a continuous function and not a discreet one. If Evolution REALLY was what was happening, we'd probably look a lot more like Klingons than humans. We'd have really tough, impenatrable skin, super strength, super intelligence, etc. etc.....yet we remain soft humans. And why after millions of years is the shark still too stupid to distinquish between a surfboard and a succulent seal? (try to resist the fact that surfboards haven't been around for millions of years) "The World's Greatest Predator" has to bite something before they know if it is good food or not? My own belief is that there is not a sufficient theory to explain why we are as we are and that we are here. But, please don't insult others about an unproven theory simply because our horribly biased school system indoctrinated you to believe it was true. And if this esteemed group DOES have proof, please don't waste it here because you can be a millionaire many times over by writing a peer reviewed dissertation on the topic. The world has been waiting for one for a long time. I am sure they'd rather you showed them first. Can you believe that 60% of the population believes that if I chew meat long enough I will grow fangs? Huummmmm......Does this also mean that if men stay in chastity long enough.....for enough generations.....they'll be born without the ability to have an erection? Hawt? Or Stupid? Respectfully, but disappointedly, David

> member_6881ff1b4b wrote:I had a CBT therapist explain to me Umm... you better clarify "CBT" for Thumper. He's going to want the name of this therapist. 8-)

> member_381064b05f wrote: > > member_568c35aa61 wrote:I had a CBT therapist explain to me > Umm... you better clarify "CBT" for Thumper. He's going to want the name of this therapist. 8-) Cognitive Behavior Therapy:lol:

> member_381064b05f wrote:Umm... you better clarify "CBT" for Thumper. He's going to want the name of this therapist. :o > member_0fe7c9ef96 wrote:Cognitive Behavior Therapy :x

> member_6881ff1b4b wrote:The Theory of Evolution is a tautology. There is no fossil record to verify it. In other words: NO science can confirm (nor deny) the theory. "Survival of the Fittest" is the logical verbal equivilent of "Good students get A's in school". Since what you're referencing shows that you haven't really read or understood the theory, I'm going to suggest that you might be interested in reading "The Selfish Gene," which is probably one of the better modern explanations for lay (i.e., non-sciencey) people, followed, perhaps, by "The Blind Watchmaker." I mention this only in the interest of education, should you be so inclined.

> member_381064b05f wrote: > > member_568c35aa61 wrote:I had a CBT therapist explain to me > Umm... you better clarify "CBT" for Thumper. He's going to want the name of this therapist. 8-) I was going to ask the same thing, I want one of those. -A

> member_0fe7c9ef96 wrote: > Cognitive Behavior Therapy:lol: Darn, I have one of those. Actually she is more eclectic but includes CBT in her bag of tricks. I may have a hard time getting through my next session now. -A

*Awesome* way to adjust my outlook on life...

Tom, Thank you for the references. I am familiar with both of those books--but haven't read them. I suspect that your suggestion implies your own personal belief in Darwin's book "On the Evolution of Species" (which I HAVE read) is sufficiently strong so as to categorize others as uninformed simply because they don't agree with you. Perhaps my point was missed--and your comments indicate such--I am not attempting to disprove Darwin's Theory. Instead, I am saying that it remains unproven. My hasty explanations--which caused you to comment on my scientific background--may have been too casually submitted and lack total relevance. For that I apologize. I will say in different words that I find your statements earlier about the amount of respondants who say they don't believe in Darwinism to be insulting. If you limited your condescension of the great unwashed masses to those who don't believe we landed on the moon, you'd have been more correct. David

I should have known better than to mention Evolution: apologies. Let's just say that the group (self)selected to be sadistic waxers of body hair seem to have evolved some rather odd ideas about us 'normal' people. (I *love* CelticQueen's thought about their sadistic tendencies.) A useful definition: 'belief' is 'acceptance without need of facts'. I don't know what the word is for 'non-acceptance despite facts'.

> I don't know what the word is for 'non-acceptance despite facts'. I think that falls under the general rubric of "I have made up my mind, don't bother me with the facts." D

> member_6881ff1b4b wrote:Perhaps my point was missed--and your comments indicate such--I am not attempting to disprove Darwin's Theory. Instead, I am saying that it remains unproven. Actually, there have been some fairly recent experiments that do provide what I consider to be sufficient proof. Also, while I was working on my dissertation, I had the "bloody obvious" concept explained to me. It is quite obvious from the various domesticated animals and the breeding for and against various traits that the forces of both natural and human-driven selection can result in some interesting lines. Given what we now know about genetics, including the likelihood of mutation, evolution should really be an accepted theorem.

> member_6881ff1b4b wrote: > Let me give a specific example. If Evolution is the "random mutation of cells" that adapt over "millions of years" then why is this mutation showing no evidence of a continuous evolution? Put another way, if we RANDOMLY evolved from the monkey, where is the half monkey? Where is the almostbutnotquiteyethuman monkey? Where is the manbearpig? The fossil record shows discreet differences in species--not a continuous evolvement from one to the other. Remember the bell curve....random....a continuous function and not a discreet one. If Evolution REALLY was what was happening, we'd probably look a lot more like Klingons than humans. We'd have really tough, impenatrable skin, super strength, super intelligence, etc. etc.....yet we remain soft humans. And why after millions of years is the shark still too stupid to distinquish between a surfboard and a succulent seal? (try to resist the fact that surfboards haven't been around for millions of years) "The World's Greatest Predator" has to bite something before they know if it is good food or not? > David I dont want to wade into the veracity of the theory - or indeed the rights or wrongs of teaching it as received wisdom but here's a point about continous evolution that sprang to mind..There is an assumption that evolution will optimise all components so why is this manifestly not the case? My two pennies worth is that the development isnt a linear thing at all. Infact, selection is more of a random scatter pattern so that certain environments favour features and enhance them but conversely, poor design may go uncorrected. Our own species is a great worked example of this. We are probably as evolved physically as we need to be now. We dont need to grow fur in the Northern hemisphere, we create clothes. We dont need to evolve better and faster legs - we have cars and - my own view - the whole childbirth process is so utterly flawed and badly designed that we should actually be following the path of the panda. Why not produce offspring that can walk within hours, eats solids and has a significantly smaller head that doesnt involve such damage to the mother? If we are the downtown cousin of the monkey then why are there still monkeys? If you are dipping into the works of Dawkinsby the way, the God Delusion - although a little weighty at times - is well worth reading too. Shall we now cut and paste this debate into the waxing forum for their view to show that although we may be a bunch of sick perverts, we might just have something interesting to debate rather than the optimum amount of eyelash tint needed to dye blonde eyelashes?

> Atone wrote: > > member_0fe7c9ef96 wrote: > > Cognitive Behavior Therapy:lol: > Darn, I have one of those. Actually she is more eclectic but includes CBT in her bag of tricks. I may have a hard time getting through my next session now. > -A Hardy Haberman is now available on Amazon. Cheaper than a therapy session and more of a sharing experience;-)

> member_34553b26f0 wrote: > Hardy Haberman is now available on Amazon. Cheaper than a therapy session and more of a sharing experience;-) OK, I had no idea who Hardy Haberman was until now. Thanks a lot, now there is no way I am making it through my (therapy) session tonight with any chance of focus. -A

> Hardy Haberman is now available on Amazon. Cheaper than a therapy session and more of a sharing experience And it's available for the Kindle, too. Sample sent...;)

I'm going to suggest that the side debate about evolution be dropped from this thread, as I can easily see it devolving into a discussion that will work about as well as similar discussions have done around teh interwebz. The focus of this subforum - General Chastity Chat - is the discussion, opinions, questions, and suggestions related to chastity and orgasm control. This group is quickly becoming one of the more active chastity-related forums on the web, and I think that most of us would prefer that it remain friendly and welcoming. If the Adminithumper chooses to create another subforum for off-topic discussions, then that would be one thing. But until then, we should probably keep topics like religion and politics to a minimum.

> member_381064b05f wrote:we should probably keep topics like religion and politics to a minimum. Amen -A

> Atone wrote: > Amen > -A C'mon Atone, enough religion talk.;)

> member_381064b05f wrote:...we should probably keep topics like religion and politics to a minimum. Thanks for stepping in there, Tom. I agree and, learning from personal experience, I don't think religion or politics belong in our discussions.

> member_adab360f3f wrote: > C'mon Atone, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa where is that off-topic sub forum? -A

I agree. Not only should we avoid political/religious talk, we should also be careful not inadvertantly do so with comments that may be inflammatory. And for my part, if I have done so--and I know I have that ability to be irritating sometimes--I humbly ask for forgiveness. This forum is simply too good to let it devolve into side bars that don't relate to chastity. David

> member_6881ff1b4b wrote:This forum is simply too good to let it devolve into side bars that don't relate to chastity. Unless it's pictures of naked wimmins. Or mens, I guess.

I just wanna know if CBT therapy is covered by my health plan!

Depends on how much damage is inflicted on you during the session I suppose;-)

> member_34553b26f0 wrote:Depends on how much damage is inflicted on you during the session I suppose;-) Eep!:shock:

I'm sorry, but the fantasy of a therapist using the CBT *I'm* into as part of their approach... Yeah, that's the stuff.

> member_efaaeaef99 wrote:I'm sorry, but the fantasy of a therapist using the CBT *I'm* into as part of their approach... > Yeah, that's the stuff. yeah. Last week, before we even had this discussion I saw this image on your portfolio ... 102_03.jpg and thought to myself, crap, that is my therapist when she was a little younger. I try not to think of her that way but you guys are making it difficult. -A p.s. last nights session was not affected by any of this discussion, didn't even enter my mind, thank goodness.