I have not tried it but I’ve entertained the idea of it with my ex (who was against it). I think for me it’ll be a one time thing just to try it. I’m open to it, but I don’t think I’d actually be into it.
I'm a weird one, in the sense that I'd probably be more comfortable with that than anal for the time being.
Never done it, but I have been curious simply to try it. There are no cons to it so its one of those "why not" type of thing for me. From what I have read, most people that first do it will be introduced to it "diluted" because most people that are into golden showers aren't into the pee itself, but more of the act. So a person can drink enough water so the pee is pretty much just water, and then pee on the partner. That way you get the act, but none of the smell which is what most people dislike. Just fyi haha
I don't understand it in any way and have no idea why someone would enjoy literally being peed on. It's also an extremely self-deprecating thing to do, since the way animals mark things as 'theirs' is by peeing on it. So by wanting someone to do that to you you're pretty much saying you want to be owned by that person as property.
To the previous comment that’s why I like golden showers. I enjoy that submissive feeling, the sense of escape but also humiliation and lowered status a very subservient feeling.
Are you seriously giving that as a reason for why it doesn't appeal to you? Humans have much higher cognitive capacity than animals that use scent marking as a display of social dominance. Not to mention that our olfactory sensitivity is far too low for scent to be a reliable indicator of anything other than scent in most cases. Our sense of smell is practically vestigial compared to animals that rely on smell as their primary or even secondary sense. Also who says it has to be one person "giving" at a time? Use your imagination.
Actually I just think it's nasty in general - you're having all the waste and toxicity the body didn't want inside of it poured onto you. As far as bodily fluids go, it's the equivalent of going dumpster diving. I don't understand how someone can be attracted to urine. Humans not using the scent part of it is irrelevant too, it's still marking dominance/ownership just like every other animal. Why do you think things like 'serial poopers' exist who secretly crap in public places like a gym shower every week for months/years straight. It's their way of displaying dominance and getting off on the power of being able to do it, just like when animals pee on things. I mean really, what other reason is there to be the giver of a golden shower other than the dominant 'I own you' feeling? Peeing on a person shouldn't be any more fun than peeing on a toilet - the ownership over someone else is the only reason it is for some people.
So why not just say that to begin with instead of some bullshit rationalisation about animal psychology and social hierarchy (which is still bullshit by the way.) I personally think anal sex is kind of nasty in general and arguably more unhygienic since urine coming from healthy individuals is practically sterile. The same can't be said for you know what coming from human beings. Having said that I think people should do what they want providing it's all consensual. To address the first part of this as was previously discussed in this thread usually there is some kind of preparation involved beforehand involving diet and fluid intake to get the urine to a point where it is almost just water. Maybe "golden" is a misnomer is such cases since it should be more or less colourless (and odorless.) As for what attracts people to urine, I don't know... Personally I have no attraction to urine in and of itself. I think urine is typically gross. But I can see how the physical sensation of release could be seen as pleasurable (as with most sex acts there is usually an element of dis-inhibition involved.) I don't think it's a fair or correct to say that everyone who engages in such acts is necessarily attracted to urine (as a substance in and of itself.) To make the blanket statement that it is about dominance/ownership and make no concessions for any other kind of motivation again just smacks of a lack of imagination. Don't you credit humans with a little more quirkiness and complexity than that? If anything that says more about your psychology than anyone else's. I'm not saying you're closed minded for not wanting to personally engage in 'water sports' at all, it's your preference. But you can't just state your personal theories like they are irrefutable watertight facts. I'm also not saying you're wrong about sado-masochist tendencies being the underlying psychological motivator for some people who engage in 'water sports' I'm saying you're wrong to assume that's the underlying motivation in every case for every individual (to whom this subject matter applies.) Unless you can provide irrefutable evidence to back up your claim. And I'm not sure how one could even make something like that testable. Even if we take your musing (that every one who engages in such acts is either a masochist or a sadist) as a given fact for arguments sake, so what? Some people are into BDSM. You may not find BDSM tasteful, I may not find it tasteful either, but (providing that everything is ultimately consensual) it's not our place to rank the validity of such sexual proclivities in comparison to more mundane/popular forms of sexuality. Now we are getting into the "but they're perverts" territory. And arguably yes you could say that people who are into 'water sports' are kinky or perverted. But in my opinion no one gets off the hook as far as being kinky or perverted goes. If you engage in any form of sexuality whatsoever someone somewhere will have something negative to say about it. There were probably once religious sects who deemed any form of sexuality as degenerate and immoral including 'standard' heterosexual sex between married couples. These sects would presumable die out pretty quickly though. So in a way anyone who is sexual in any way is somewhere on a sliding scale of perversion and kinkiness. On one side of this hypothetical scale we have sexuality that is 100% socially acceptable and on the other end we have sexuality that is 100% socially unacceptable. When you start infringing on the rights and boundaries of others is when you move onto the socially unacceptable portion of this scale. So we must ask the question: when does a person start infringing on the rights and boundaries of others? The obvious place to start would be the right to bodily autonomy, i.e. don't do anything to anyone physically without their legal consent. A less obvious point (to some people) at which a person infringes on the rights of another is violation of the publics right to sanitary and safe conditions in public spaces and communal areas accessible to the public. Which is where I think people's (legitimate) grievances with such aforementioned behaviors comes into play.
so to break up all the seriousness here.... Am I the only female on this post? As far as the golden shower, does it count if it was because of a jellyfish sting?....lol
Just for the record I've never engaged in such sex acts personally... I just don't like it when people get judgy.
I understand @fadedstar no biggiie. Oral sex is still illegal on the books in some states although as of 2003 the law is unconstitutional.
I pretty much did by saying I didn't understand it at all. The other part was an afterthought, but still makes sense to me. When most animals use the same behavior for the same thing and humans are an animal logic points to humans doing it for the same reason too. If I had any imagination I'd be an engineer not a chemist. My daily life for the last almost 3 years is following instructions and formulas someone else made in exactly the same way they did it, where any imagination or deviation ruins it, and then writing lab reports stating what happened as irrefutable watertight facts - naturally the writing style carries over to here as well. Physical science classes tend to beat any imagination out of you until the higher levels and stating everything as a fact is required even if you have no idea what it means. I do envy the experimental people who are allowed to have imaginations though.
Whatever we personally think of it (I have my own views) this is precisely why some people are into it. Some people enjoy submissive role playing. Of course, there may be deeper psychological reasons why an individual wishes to be submissive, or dominant for their sexual partner, but that's a different issue and I'm not opening it up here. There are other reasons why people are interested in watersports, besides submission/domination, including general curiosity. Also, a gentle reminder to keep the tone of conversation reasonable and civil. Whether we hate the idea or love the idea, we should be able to talk about it without getting carried away.
From what I have read in the (few) studies looking at this and other less-than-mainstream sexual practices I read some years ago, there does seem to be an element of dominance and submissiveness that comes into play with watersports. Whether or not this is emotionally healthy is a pretty controversial topic with little consensus I am aware of. Personally, it is not something I would have interest in, but I would not specifically advise against it, other than the caveat to explore what underlies the desire to participate; if it comes from a desire for dominance or submissiveness, that might be something to explore in terms of self-worth and shame. But other than that, I think the arguments that have been made about urine as a waste product are not dissimilar to arguments that some make with regard to anal sex, and I don't think there's much moral high ground to be had comparing one to the other.