Non-Sexual Packs?

Would you be part of a pack that is totally non-sexual? Why or why not?

[box] GS:No unless it allowed for freedom of outside sexual contact. Puppy play has a significant sexual component for me.[/box]
[box] CP: I would for the community aspect. A pack is a family, regardless of the sexual aspect. But I agree with GS, would want to allow for outside sexual contact.[/box]
[box] RV: Absolutely[/box]
[box] TP: Not like you can only belong to one pack at a time… unless it’s a pack rule in which case, yeah, I’m out[/box]
[box] BT: Yeah there are many questions I have beforehand. I’m a monogamous pup with my Mistress so non sexual pack would be fine[/box]
[box] AV: I am already a part of a pack that is non sexual with each other.[/box]
[box] DL: I’d probably be more inclined to join a pack if there weren’t such heavy sexual overtones…too often I feel like the odd man out because I have the sex drive of a potato. Also, anxiety plays a big role in my loner ways…[/box]
[box] RA: I don’t act sexual at all when I’m a pup so I’d be very happy with it. For me it’s just relaxing. I don’t want to feel obligated to have sex when I just want to use the time to relax. Then again, I’m not a big sex fan in general. So it contributes to me not wanting sex involved with me being a pup. I’ve got other kinks for when I am up for sex and I want to keep them separate.[/box]
[box] NK: MA, V, and I belong to the same pack were pup brothers and our pack is not a sexual based pack we have our freedoms and our pack is filled with love we’re all kinky in our own sense but we’re a pack of 4 with a Handler so that makes 5 [/box]
[box] KM Yes for sure. My puppy side is not about sex so this would not bother me at all.[/box]
[box] PE Yes! Pup play isn’t all sexual for me. :3[/box]
[box] HC Would LOVE to be part of a non sexual pack….[/box]
[box] AR For those of us into BDSM the term ‘sexual’ can be a bit complex. I’d bet pups replying here have very different definitions of ‘sexual’…[/box]
[box] JA If pup gets off by means of someone else’s hands or intercourse occurs then it’s sex.[/box]
[box] AR The term ‘nonsexual’ though is likely understood fairly consistently…[/box]
[box] DA Sure as long as we were social and had fun.[/box]
[box] RT: Considering I get enough sex from my Sir and various play parties at events, I would be completely ok with that. It’s always more fun to do things with other people without the expectation of ” oh I have to get knotted by my alpha after the movie”.[/box]
[box] SS: As an asexual pup, yes, of course I would. I greatly appreciate platonic connections, and BDSM has given me other ways to express intimacy that are better for me.[/box]
[box] DG: Absolutely id enjoy that a pack represents family to me[/box]
[box] AB: Totally. Sex isn’t something I typically want so that would be epic.[/box]
[box] CJ: Absolutely! No sexual comune is just as important as sexual play[/box]
[box] ME: I just don’t see it working for me. I’m a very sex positive person and poly minded. For me that doesn’t mean everyone in a pack must be fucking, but if me or anyone in the pack wanted to have a sexual relationship with another in the pack that dynamic should be celebrated as beautiful and loving. With that said nobody in my pack should feel they need to be sexual either. I’m no fan of pressuring anyone to do anything they don’t like or aren’t comfortable with. On the flip side though I could never handle a pack with rules that limit me from being me.[/box]
[box] SW:Definitely! Sexual aspects don’t have to be there. Now cuddles or hugs are a must. But i definitely don’t need sexual relations to be part of a pack[/box]
[box] DC: so much this![/box]
[box] SW:Family is family even in the pack[/box]
[box] CI: If the pack was with people/friends with whom I have never had a sexual connection, yes. However, sexuality is key in my current ownership to my Sir so even though sex is important to me as a pup, it is subjective and relative to others and our ultimate chemistry with them.[/box]
[box] TF: Moshes are not a time for sex but might have some sexual humping, for me that is. This pup is social and not looking for sex as such. This boy however is a different story….[/box]
[box] MB: It couldn’t work for me, sex is another way to connect with pups.[/box]
[box] TW: Pup play to me is non sexual. I view it as a playful fun fetish[/box]
[box] AW: Yes! A low key group to actually experience the headspace and real feelings behind the fetish with is literally a dream. I don’t want to be pressured to have sex, I’m a dog, right?[/box]
[box] VI:Don’t want to have sex with a literal dog but breaking a guy down or being broken down to a pet, to shed the human mind and become a controlled primal animal is the fetish. That’s some of the hottest sex.[/box]
[box] DO: I have a lot of family members that are non-sexual actually my entire leather family is non-sexual[/box]
[box] TD: Yes cause it’s not all about sex[/box]
[box] VA: Personally I don’t see the point. BDSM, kink, fetish, leather, etc are rooted in sex. There’s plenty of play that doesn’t involve penetration but end of the day there is a basis in arousal.[/box]
[box] DP: Not in my leather family it’s all about honor and obedience and love and understanding and togetherness there is intimacy without sexual contact[/box]
[box] MS: My pack is all about integrity, trust, equality, and mutual respect. I don’t see how this fits into the equation however as the question is about sex, and Vidhra’s point is that most in this thread seem to only consider sex a penetrative act when it’s physical contact of many varieties. Petting could be one, or flogging, canning, sensory play, electro, restraint which is all too prevalent in the pup community, even putting on gear itself is a sexual act. So forgive me in calling bullshit on your without sexual contact line.[/box]
[box] AR: Exactly – questions posed like this with ‘sex’ in them bother me as they often engage people in fractured dialog that doesn’t capture the true complexity of human interactions or our full range of intimacy.[/box]
[box] MJ: How do you account for asexual kinksters here though?[/box]
[box] JJ: Of course. There are sexual aspects to being a pup, but in pack life I am non sexual while still being affectionate.[/box]
[box] BS: I am the Alpha of a completely non sexual pack. I mean what the other pups do on their own time is all them, but… As far as the pack goes it is non sexual[/box]
[box] DB: I can see it both ways. I would be open to being a part of a non-sexual leather family, but seeing as I am sexual with many of my friends IDK if that would ever happen. There are very few people who I consider friends and find good looking that I wouldn’t have sexual relations with. So I’m not necessarily sure if a totally non-sexual leather family would ever be a reality for me.[/box]
[box] MB: This question has no basis. There are far too many variables that are not accounted for in the current phrasing. The most important being how sex is defined. Without further qualifiers, there is no way to have a truly productive conversation because most people are not using the same language.[/box]
[box] MA: sex is wonderful but no necessary for the pack to function[/box]
[box] IM: Absolutely! Because my puppy side has little to nothing to do with sex.[/box]
[box] ZP: Yes and I’m currently looking for one if anyone knows of one of love to join[/box]
[box] GC: Yes. 100% yes. Being part of a pack or having an alpha or beta is NOT strictly based on sex.[/box]
[box] RJ: My dynamic with my boy was 10 years and never sexual. Who we are is different than who we love. Sometimes the same yet not necessarily so.[/box]
[box] MP: Maybe family is first but everyone has there needs[/box]
[box] MY: The question is worded in such a way that it evokes strong feelings while having an extremely contextual definition. I suspect this was on purpose because it gets us talking. At its base a pack is bonding over a fetish right? So to me that connotates an aspect of sexuality by definition. However where does that leave Ace (asexual) Kinksters?[/box]
[box] AR A fetish is sexualizing an object. Unless the pup GEAR itself is a turn on – for some it may be – but not for everyone. Think you mean a ‘pup play as a kink’. Kink in the broadest definition is ‘a non conventional act to enhance intimacy’. Under this broad definition of kink – pup play as a non conventional act to enhance intimacy – encompassing all our types of play. Whether it’s nonsexual or overtly sexual. I keep repeating this statement as it’s what really connects all pups and all our play![/box]
[box] RS: being part of a pack is like a special brotherhood it has a strong meaning a closeness a bond it is a family but pup instincts will happen even small ones like humping wanted to breed especially with young pups it is pup nature[/box]
[box] JA: Yes true. But does not have to go to the intercourse or stroking or anything like that. Myself I am a nudist and being a long time nudist I don’t just become hory pup just on sight of others. I see a pack as a family that I have been missing since I was 18 and moved away from my pack of 20. Now am starting to be part of a pack again and makes me feel I have reconnected but with new family. Sadly my husband had depression and other stuff gets into his mind as well when he thinks of me with a pack of pups. Yes pups in nature are horn dogs I have come to see in phoenix but do not require sex they just like to act as if they are lol[/box]
[box] DC: everyone, let’s remember one HUGE thing… there is no right or wrong way of doing things. We all do things differently then others, and we all do dynamic’s, leather families and so forth different then others as well. just keep that in mind lol no fighting ;-;[/box]
[box] SE:I need non-sexual play right now. It’s tough because the straight guys near me don’t want to play with guys and the gay guys just want sex.[/box]
[box] DS: Absolutely. I’d also be part of an overly sexual pack :-)[/box]
[box] JA: Non sexual pup packs are good. They are very good for pup who are married or in relationship.[/box]

Original Discussion held at the Puppy 101 facebook group