sex! sex! sex! you know you want it!

yes, well, that subject title should pull in throngs of forumers....albeit most likely horny and irrational ones, but forumers nonetheless....

a friend of mine asked me to post this....i hope you like it:

i think sex IS that....or it is SUPPOSED to be about "discovering one's inner nature." doesnt mean that it still is not controlled or limited by...society. obviously, sex is not as controlled in our era as in others...such as victorian england. but i think that the controls/limitations exercised on it, the remaining ones, are much more subtle and insidious. heres one example:

what is the natural place to HAVE sex? the bedroom is what society will tell you. why is this in society's interest? well...we cant have people fucking left and right on the street....
but obviously, society didnt consciously PLAN for this, the idea of bedroom as the proper place to fuck must have come from somewhere outside of modern society. (heres my feeble attempt at a genealogy, im no historian ) im sure it has something to do with the fact that christianity for the past 2000 years has looked upon sex with a disdainful eye (perhaps because its when we are 1)most OUT of control 2)most akin to our animal cousins). so, sex was given the taboo label, which HAD to be incorporated somehow into christian theology if the church was to have credibility/jurisdiction over it. somewhere along the line, the devil popped in (i dont find this too hard to believe--remember that lucifer thread a while back, wherein many..."religion enthusiasts" including yourself agreed that the devil was merely a christian construct made up of a hodgepodge of old, babylonian and mesopotamian myths of evil or powerful deities....) mix 1 part sex with 2 parts satan, and soon fucking becomes a means for temptation, which of course is a sure way to hell, which no one wanted of course. as a result, sex was "kept out of sight" so it would be harder to have, and so that the people fucking could protect their interests.... and when was it most convenient for man and woman to fuck? at night, in the privacy of the bedroom.

not that i mind, im sure it was quite comfy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

this is quite long, and condensed....but, im curious as to what you have to say about it. oh, and remind me sometime that we should discuss the arbitrary standards for "sex."

what does it mean to have "sex?" why is penetration the end-all-be-all criteria for fucking? especially since sex incorporates much more than just penetration...its a complete mind-body experience....what if the mind is there and the rest of the body is there, but youre not "penetrating." is it sex? or just cuddling?

why is it that language creates a hierarchy of what constitutes sex? we label spooning/cuddling as a certain set of intimate actions, to me, for the purpose of degrading these actions, or downplaying them, in relation to pure penetrative sex. (example, get in a room full of guys, and sexcapades only become "conquests" when you fuck a girl with your dick.) and the criteria for losing one's virginity? penetrative sex. its much more "important" than emotional attachment.

even that...look at that. "emotional attachment" has even a negative connotation now! it connotes "neediness" and "weakness," something uniquely "female." its considered lower than raw, male, penetrative fucking.

why is pleasuring the genitalia so much more....sexual, then pleasuring the body/mind? i think thats fucking ludicrous....obviously, penetrative fucking is fun for all people, especially men, but i think it limits what we as human beings can and SHOULD experience with people we love. im sorry, perhaps im being sexist, but i think its a much more "male" fantasy. im sure that women like cocks as well, but i think women are much more open to other types of intimacy. its just that in the patriarchal society we live in, we shut doors on those other types of intimacy.....

i look at what ive just written and part of me thinks, "god, youre a pansy, you fucking pussy. you crave 'emotional attachment?' " i ask myself, "what the fuck is wrong with you? grow some balls..."

what is this part of me that feels this way? its the part that hates feeling weak for another person, the part that buys into the patriarchy. conventionally, sex, from a male's point of view, is a way to express your power, your control over the body of another individual in the most intimate way possible. to control, manipulate their every move. to "flex" your raw, physical prowess, and use brute force to coerce someone into fulfilling your basest desires. none of this political/social pandering, wavering, catering, lying, stealing, cheating bullshit, or any of the other conventional ways through which people play their little games in order to "one-up" eachother or scramble farther up the ladder of success or stumble farther down the yellow brick road. none of that bullshit. enough complexity as it is. sex is the one way out. the one area in which you can eschew everything political/social/intellectual and focus on the body. the body as the ultimate force to be reckoned with, the ultimate venue for exercising one's power. we often forget this in our rich, western, capitalist nation that relies on brains and not brawn. the only irony is that in focusing on the body (in fucking) as a means for action, you are not repudiating the political/social/intellectual, but embracing hyperbolic versions of each......performative resistance i guess (judith butler)

well, that was a rant. there is so much more to say, but i think thats plenty enough to get a good discussion going. ive always wanted to discuss sex intellectually.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Precisely. I tried to explain this to The Chosen. http://www.sosuave.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Don Juan Discussion&number=1

Note the way they view themselves. "I am the dominent one in the relationship."

It's all about control. But you do not see that this is also a female urge. Women tend to dominate relationships more than sex, but they also do that.

Take the whore/madonna complex. A woman is either a good girl who is properly submissive to her man - and yet "protects her chasity" - or she is an evil slut who will sleep with any man who strikes her fancy.

Avatar and I discussed Lillith from Jewish mythology elsewhere here. Basically, Lilith was Adam's first wife. She refused to take the female role in sex, and Adam had God throw her out of Eden.

You know how Foucault mentions effemiacy as a worry of the Greeks? The Jews had that same reason, thus Leviticus 18:22 forbids a man from taking the "feminine" - i.e being penetrated - role during sex.

Eve, in spite of the business with the snake/devil (Tony1 and I never quite figured that quite out), was properly submissive. It is interesting that God commands this (Genesis 3:16) in very simple terms:

and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

In the next passage, Adam is implicitly chided for taking a subservient role to his wife by listening to her:

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;.

The male fear of the slut goes back far, at least in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Lilith herself was a seductress - kicked out of Adam's bed, she spends eternity seducing his descendents.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Such a woman is feared for several reasons, I presume. One is that no man can, if he marries her, trust that his property - children - is safe.

Remember that adultery is regarded as a property crime.

But more importantly, the slut is more or less uncontrollable. She can refuse her consent, and this gives her power.

Sample dialog from my namesake and a, er, loser who tries to chat her up (bungling most of the lines, oh, this scene is hilarious):

Stanley: "I - well, look Zev this is ridiculous. We're the only two people in this universe."
Zev: "Except for Kai"
Stanley: "Fine, the only two *living* people in this universe. And I - I just think we should get to know each other a bit better"
Zev: "You want me, don’t you Stan?"
Stanley: "Oh yeah. But, you were transformed into a loveslave..."
Zev: "The transformation was not completed. They did not get to my mind."
Stanley: "But, you do admit that your sexual needs were somewhat increased?"
Zev: "My sexual needs were not only increased Stanley Tweedle, they are beyond measurement. In fact, they have become almost uncontrollable. I am a white hot bouquet of desire. I now have an unquenchable thirst for physical fulfilment and my body needs to be touched, stroked, pleasured"
Stanley: "I’m wanting to."
Zev: "Well there’s only one thing for you to do Stanley Tweedle..... go somewhere private and erupt by yourself"

That sounds very strange without any background information. *Smiles* Living dead people, loveslaves, artificially altered libido.....only the Germans could think of such a plot.

Anyways, my purpose of this dialog was to show how such a woman as Zev, a slut, excersizes power. Of course, poor Zev is a slave to her libido....and in love with a 6000 year old animated corpse and former assasain....right....

Chosen's fellow DJs call such women "Heartless Bitches". Or as GB-Gil (I think) said once:

"A whore is a woman who will fuck anyone for money
A slut is a woman who will fuck anyone
And a bitch is a woman who will fuck anyone....but you!"

A wife does not have much of a choice who she fucks. A slut does, a courtesan does. Is it any coincidence that one of the avenues of power for a woman in the Renessance was that of the courtesan?

Anyways, my point is basically complimentary to yours.

Edit to add:

Oh yes, and the dialog I typed - I can't do Eva (Zev's) sexy little German accent justice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was thinking the other day. You know how when you get horny, your pupils dilate? I was trying hard to come up with an explanation for this. Here's what I came up with.

Earlier on in human evolution, women haven't yet evolved the female orgasm. I mean, how much does the female orgasm actually have to do with propagation of their kind? Look at our decendents. We didn't have sex. It was man raping women.

So therefore, if you're a girl, and a man is running after you at night with an erection, you're gonna run like hell. The woman doesn't want to be stabbed by the guy, because she will derive no pleasure from it. Imagine sex without pleasure. Sucks. Meanwhile, the guys' eyes are dilated, helping him see through the night, helping him catch his lover.

There are holes in this, in that it ignores why womens' eyes dilate when they're horny. Another thing I've thought of is that when you are horny, the pleasure unlocking drugs are released and like many other pleasure drugs, a side-effect is pupil dilation.

I guess the second explanation is better, but I think the first one makes good story telling. What do ya think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Xev

Tried to explain what?

Anyway, dominant as in, "I am the man in this relationship. Not the pussy."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As for the heartless bitches, yes, not all women are angels, in fact only a few of them are.

 

Chosen:

Precisely and thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Note the dichotomy created here - male/female = dominent/submissive. The woman is the one who is pursued, hunted, and eventually conquered.

Yes Chosen, you'll say that a Don Juan does not pursue women. And you're right, to a degree....but he does act a certain way in order to control and conquer them, right?

Exactly. So tell me Chosen, what do you want, a slut or a submissive woman? Eve or Lilith?

Awarnoski:

This was discussed earlier: http://www.sciforums.com/t7652/s/thread.html

The female orgasm does serve a evolutionary purpose.

As for your last sentance, care to back up with evidence?

I think the second explanation makes more sense.

 

Yes, not to mention that it is Eve's fault they got kicked out of Eden.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

btw, what's with this lame avater, Xev?

 

ndrs:

This is true. But who do you prefer?

It's the third most beautiful woman on this miserable planet and you call it lame?!

Hmm, it is a bit hard to see. I should resize some more pictures.

Edit to add:
Hmph! None of Eva that are small enough for me to resize without significant distortion.

 

Depends how I feel at a moment.
I would probably not start with Eve, since I know myself too well and I would feel guilty for leaving her after I get bored with her. I also would be slave to my conscience and indirectly a slave to her love.
Where as I could relax with someone as Lilith and not worry about her leaving me/me leaving her.

This is much better.. I meant the avatar you had on 05/08 00:00 GMT

 

ndrs:

In other words, she would be too submissive? As I thought. Power is a turn on.

Oh yes, Eva Habermann/Zev. This is Xenia Seeberg/Xev. I couldn't find any good pictures of Lilith.

Well, one, but I don't think I could use it.

I tried to find one of Ophelia - I suppose I am in a bit of a Gothic mood - but nothing really good.

 

Yes that as well.. No power=no originility=no reflection.

I like the idea of taking my own photo and photoediting - say blurring and color mapping.

 

ndrs:

You connect power with self knowledge?

I agree.

 

god, i leave this thread to let a fruitful conversation fester and what do i find?....

xev:

yes, ive been trying to figure out why women let themselves become "violated" and completely helpless during sex. ive come to 4 conclusions, one of which incorporates what you just said:

1) women really arent being violated/manipulated. over-accepting submission is a form of power.
2) women feel as if they are in control of the fuck. it gives them a sense of power to know that men are trying to fuck them and that they are "allowing" themselves to be fucked.
3) women WANT to have no control. theyre tired of trying so hard to use free will to effect change over undesirable aspects of their lives, failing even in the most insignificant endeavors. so this is their one chance to let someone else take control, to force them into enjoying life, pain, submission, the inevitable. this is very plausible i think. bc i feel this way at times.
4) women accept sex as their time for helplessness, but regain control in other areas such as the relationship. like you just said.

yes, its simultanouesly funny and yet sad how women are so inextricably connected to society's conceptions of sex. sexiness = femininity.

and more importantly, a woman can only be respected if she is sexy. any man with a decent amount of brains can be accepted. because male assets extend beyond the body. but a woman's assets are intertwined with the body. she MUST be beautiful at least, she can be so much more: strong-willed, intelligent, witty, clever....but she must AT LEAST be beautiful to earn some respect.

i think youre sex can only be free when society stops thinking about you in terms of sex.

yes, ive heard of her. quite interesting. *laughs* funny how the first feminist too used sex as rebellion. unfortunately, that established the intimate connection between the female body and sex.

of course, she is a myth. as with everything in that thing we call the bible. weve already discussed most of this. the notion of her seducing adam's descendants is probably more based on the broader notion of women as sex-mongers and comely devils....source being perhaps a combination of the existing societal stereotypes inherited from teh jews/greeks and enhanced by the church.

true, i never thought of this.

true. but more importantly i think, she can make the first move. that gives her even more power.

(youre talking about the dialog between zev and stanley) true, i have no fucking clue what is going on, but i find it very, very hilarious nonetheless.

awarnowski:

you have too much time on your hands. to play in to your theory, however, perhaps women's pupils dilated so they could see at night, and could better run from their sexual predators. of course, there's no reason to tie that with horniness. if they were truly horny, they probably wouldnt be running.

better theory i think: women and men from the start knew the best time to fuck was at night, when smilodons and such were asleep and the kids were safe in their beds. of course, there were no lights bc those would wake the kids and attract animals, so they had to focus their eyes and their pupils dilated so they could see eachother....

 

And you all realize that the woman has power in the fact that she can play on the male sex drive. If a hot girl wishes to, she can have sex with any man she wants to. On the other hand, men have to think up schemes. Part of men's fear of women might come from this.

Also, female mentality is somewhat different from men, and the female mind might be "unknown" territory, which also inspires the fear of the unknown. The fact that women can fuck multiple times at once, implying that she can go off to another man when she's tired of a guy. This shows a lack of control, which also inspires fear.

 

Oh geez...

People, the reason your pupils dilate is simply because you are viewing something pleasurable. You'd get the same thing happening if you looked at a painting you particularly liked or if you happened to be gazing at a large bowl of ice-cream.

The brain likes to allow more light in in order to see things more clearly. Anyone notice the fear reaction is similar?

 

ubermich:

All four work as explanations. Of course, it is a non sequiter to suppose that all sex involves the power relation....fuck, I certainly hope so.

But yes, one can gain power through submission. I refer not to the Buddhist "accepting the universe and thereby transcending it" sort of power. I mean that one can - avoid harm by submitting to it.

Three is quite understandable. I don't think that anyone who has felt what Neitzsche called the "will to power" can go without feeling the desire to submit completely to a much stronger force, in other words, to lose control over power completely. It might also be a way of testing one's grip on power - one never knows how precious something is until they lose it - but this is getting too perverse for open discussion.

Whether other people feel this is beyond me, though.

This is very true.

Yes, we have more or less covered this, although I should do more research on the Lilith myths and history of female sexuality.

Zero:

This is true as well. Many of the heroines of literature and history have used sex to control men - Judith seduces Holofrenes and beheads him, Cleopatra uses her beauty to control Mark Antony, Lady Keade seduces a Japanese warlord and tears his kingdom apart through him to avenge her family.....and so on.

Most women are more rational about sex and in control of their libido than most men. At least, this has been my observation.

Since we can control it better, it lends itself more readily to being a tool to gain power. Men do not have this tool, and sense that they are weak in this area.

I think this must be one of the reasons for the classical fear of female sexuality.

True, but I don't see how anyone can say men are simpler than women. If anything, women are easier to understand because they will express emotion much more readily.

Squid V: And thanks for injecting a bit of common sense into what could have become a phenomenally silly discussion.

 

Uber, Xev,

That's total BS. Sex is about personal pleasure and nothing else. Trying to place other reasons on it is just dishonesty or an indication of a confused mind.

 

Ah, Cris, are you going to justify that statement?

 

I don't think it is always a conscious process.

 

Xev,

Nuts, I wasn’t planning to but since you asked so nicely then I feel duty bound.

A4ever,

That is for sure for people who try to justify sex or rationalize sex as something other than what it is.

Sex is one of the most overrated and over-analyzed human activities ever considered. Sex is the result of a primeval and primitive evolutionary instinct. The reward for this act is intense pleasure. If the pleasure component did not exist then sex would not exist, but then we wouldn’t exist either.

People have sex because it gives personal pleasure. People do not have sex because of a desire for intimacy, love, kindness, power, etc. These things might also occur but pleasure remains the primary reason. To the young and inexperienced all these ideas are mixed and confused with each other. For those who recognize the real value of sex then the pleasure becomes optimal without the baggage of other emotions.

I agree that some men might use sex as a symbol of power but then such men are simply immature and foolish.

Sex is for pleasure. If both agree that is the objective then sex can be really good. Focus on the pleasure and forget the other gibberish.

Cris

 

I don't think so. Rationalising it would make it conscious.

I don't think so. People can be not after their own pleasure in a relationship when doing certain sex related things. You might say this also gives them pleasure, cause their mate is happy, but that is another kind of pleasure.

Humans are very capable of only going for intimacy and kindness. Many are also capable of using it to control the mate.

Aren't all men?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Since it is mostly unconscious, the man does not need to be immature or foolish, although these qualities can help to make it more obvious.

Stating this does not mean it can not be fun to think about what else sex is or can be.