Does "Chem Sex" include pot?

[rawTOP]

Quote

But, according to a recent study … The majority of participants reported that marijuana heightened their sensitivity to touch, increased their desire for sex, and even intensified orgasms.

https://apple.news/AWT1Nmy_IRFWBxdJEDROEdA

[Personally I've never had a particular good experience with marijuana. I've tried smoking it, I've tried edibles, etc. It's just not my thing. At the end of the day, while hardcore chem sex bothers me on many levels, I couldn't care less about guys using pot. IMHO, it's pretty harmless.]

This site has a Chem Sex section, but with pot becoming increasingly legal, I'm questioning whether discussion of pot use is necessarily "chem sex" or whether it's somewhere between smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol.

What are your thoughts?

Those of you with addiction issues - is marijuana use something you'd like to see segregated along with chem sex? (That's another driver of what goes in that section…)

[LetsPOZBreed]

Personal experience, any time a guy has asked me if I'm into "chem sex", they aren't talking about pot in 100% of those cases (though, I'm only one person and probably not a representative sample size).  Even guys I know who are into using pot wouldn't class it as such either, so I'm leaning toward it being a different category of it's own.

[sidebar:  I'm not into it either - not a bad experience, per se, just felt that it didn't do anything for me at all - sexually or otherwise.  I guess not being a smoker of even cigarettes, the thought of doing anything along those lines just doesn't get me going.]

[Rillion]

To me pot is similar to poppers and should be treated similarly.

[concerned1]

The term “Chemsex” was coined by David Stuart, who worked at 56 Dean Street in London, the largest and busiest sexual health clinic in Europe. 

He noticed a trend that started in the early 2000s (he was actually part of it at that time) where growing numbers of gay men were starting to use certain drugs in an exclusively sexual context. These drugs were crystal meth (tina or “T”), GBL/GHB (G) and mephedrone. By 2010 it had really grown into a large subculture within the gay world - guys  attending sex sessions and sex parties across London (but also many other major world cities, too) getting high on one or any combination of these three drugs (T, G and Mephedrone) staying awake for days on end just having non-stop sex. 
 

People can take other drugs in a sexual context, such as MDMA/ecstasy, cocaine, cannabis, whatever…. But these drugs being used in a sexual context don’t have a very specific subculture built around them where gay men will use these drugs only and fuck for days on end, no longer be able to have sex at all without using them after frequent use, develop very serious problems in their life as a result of this sex. “Chemsex” is the use of very specific drugs (T, G, mephedrone also known as “M-cat”) for long sex sessions. 

[concerned1]

@rawTOP I think you’ll find these interesting:

 

First link is a really great interview with David Stuart, who coined the word “chem sex”. 

Second link is a documentary, the best documentary ever made about Chemsex, I strongly recommend it. It will cost only a couple or so dollars to rent or buy via YouTube. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by concerned1

[BootmanLA]

I think the "somewhere in between" category fits best. There are a number of places in the U.S. where it's legalized completely at the state level, and (at least during the current administration) it seems like in those jurisdictions the feds are leaving things alone, for the most part. There are places where it's not exactly legalized, but it's at least decriminalized, where there's a fine but no possibility of imprisonment except for major traffickers. There are plenty of places, too, where it's still illegal and where penalties have not been reduced at all.

I don't think it needs to be behind the "backroom" wall, necessarily.

But I think about how so many places on the Net used to require porn stories to include coding at the top, like "MMF oral anal WS" or whatever that gave the potential reader an indication of what was in the story, and you could skip anything that had a trigger for you. If the new system (when it arrives) could include some sort of coding for posts that required  (not programmatically required, site rule required) users to use codes for certain topics, like "chems" or "pot" - and it should be easy enough in that new code to let people filter out any post with those tags.

Alternatively, you could maintain the "Backroom" concept where posts could freely discuss those things without issue, but allow mention (if not long discussions) of those things IF they're properly tagged so that the filters would work for those who want to filter. In such a system, the mods should be able to add a tag (like "chems") to a post if they deem it necessary, and if the new system threads responses, then the entire thread could automatically be treated as tagged if the "root" post was.

(A similar system could help segregate out things, like bisexuality or mentions of women in the fiction section, as a way of not forcing too many topics behind the "Backroom" wall. )

Personally, I find discussion of drug use - whether it's pot, coke, meth, or any other "chem" - a serious turnoff in erotic fiction, but that's me, not some edict from on high (no pun intended). I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I'm also sure there are plenty more people who aren't bothered by it in the slightest. I would not want my preferences to dictate what others can see, but a better way to filter out sensitive things that I don't want to see - so that I don't have to get halfway through a story before realizing "Oh, crap, this is about a bunch of stoners" and going back to the menu - would be much appreciated.

[drscorpio]

I live in a state that has recently legalized medical marijuana. Since it is laughably easy to get certified for medical approval, pot is practically legal here now. After a few more years of the medical pot industry making money hand over fist (the biggest issue right now is that suppliers - principally LSU Agricultural operations - cannot keep up with the demand), I suspect that even our conservative legislature will see the advantages of legalizing recreational for the revenue. 

I think pot usage belongs in the general discussion even if there is debate about whether to choose the first or second option in the poll. 

[LetsPOZBreed]

47 minutes ago, drscorpio said:

I suspect that even our conservative legislature will see the advantages of legalizing recreational for the revenue. 

Gotta love my home state....it's all pearl-clutching in their Sunday best until the state's [usually empty] coffers start getting flooded.

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, LetsPOZBreed said:

Gotta love my home state....it's all pearl-clutching in their Sunday best until the state's [usually empty] coffers start getting flooded.

FWIW, the state's coffers are not being "flooded" - at least not yet.

For FY 2020-21, for instance, the total revenue from the tax on medical marijuana was $270,000 - a little more than a quarter million dollars, or a rounding error in a budget that's north of $30 billion.

It's true that the number has grown, and is expected to continue to grow - because the legislature expanded the types of product that can be sold, as well as increasing the number of conditions for which it can be recommended (not "prescribed", as it remains a Schedule I drug for federal purposes).

But even so, it's not expected to be a major revenue producer. I think current estimates are that the medical program will still produce only a few million per year, tops.

That might change if legalization happens, but the legislature has known about this as a potential revenue source for years, ever since Washington and Colorado legalized it in 2012. If anything, the legislature has shown a serious reluctance to loosen recreational drug laws, a trend that is only increasing as the Republicans take more and more seats in the legislature

[backtails]

I'm in Canada. It's no different than alcohol or tobacco because it has the same status here.

Guys use "420" or "🍁" to say what they're into, same as everywhere else. That wouldn't be considered PnP, partying, or chemsex. It's a different category.

That said, you can't expect guys to be into it without saying. It's not like an absolutely normal session. A lot are, but if you're going to show up really high, some guys might not want that. Same thing as if he was drunk and you weren't.

[BootmanLA]

On 1/23/2023 at 6:03 PM, backtails said:

That said, you can't expect guys to be into it without saying. It's not like an absolutely normal session. A lot are, but if you're going to show up really high, some guys might not want that. Same thing as if he was drunk and you weren't.

That's the thing for me. I'm pro-legalization of just about everything, but that doesn't mean I want to be around it. I hate interacting with drunks, and I hate interacting with people tweaking, and I hate interacting with people who are high (on anything). I want the real person present, not some adulterated version. 

[bbinbpark]

Likewise, what about PNP? I've had guys ask if I party which is a big no for me, sometimes I've asked what they meant and have gotten a range from pot/poppers to meth etc.