Me, I'm a sucker for love myself. But if some people prefer to express their selves through their sexual activities, why is that an inferior choice to your own preference for seeking expression of love? Not everyone necessarily finds herself to be dreary. And there are other things one might seek to do through sexual activity -- like experience physical pleasure. Why is that necessarily inferior to expression of love? (This was Kollontai's theory of sex under communism.)
It's silly in a sort of flower-child way to imagine that there are sexual activities that are somehow "free" and "natural" and unburderned by scripts and preconceptions. Elementary Marxism or postmodernism or pragmatism will teach you otherwise. It's uninformed about kink to suppose that it's "puritanically" constrained by a "technique or a scenario." And if it is supposed to be a thesis that free and natural sex is somehow better than other sorts. Maybe for you, I wouldn't presume to judge. But you quite clearly suggest taht it is for me, and there I beg to differ.
Firstly, "puritanical" suggests censoriousness about other people's sexual pleasure, which is hardly a kinky fault (though my bi sisster reports having encountered it among lesbians, incidentally).
Secondly, there is no one technique or scenario that constitutes kinky sex, or two or three or ten. The limits of kink are the limits of the human imagination.
Third, if some people get off from, or find satisfaction in, or express their love through enacting scenes or stories, kinky or not -- who the heck are you to say that's bad? Same with using techniques. What's wrong with that? Sex is learned behavior, and anyone can learn things taht make it better. Techniques included, many of which are not kinky.
If kink or whatever kind of sex doesn't seem "free" and "natural" to you, and "free" and "natural" is important to you, then by all means don't do it. But who asked your opinion about whether other people should do it? OK, so you don't mindful sex. If you asked me (which you didn't), mindless body-driven sex doesn't sound so good to me, I think sex is mainly in the mind, but I speak for myself here. If works for you, God bless. However, I didn't ask your advice either.
I love you, Joanne, but this is more high class ick. I hope from better from you.
jks
--- joanna bujes <jbujes at covad.net> wrote:
> I think I'm beginning to understand where our
> differences lie.
>
> What I attempt to express when I have sex with
> someone is not my self,
> but love.
>
> Is it possible to express love when you are
> encumbered from the
> beginning by a script (S/M, etc.)? specific
> expectations? specific
> roles? Or is love essentially free and open?
>
> I find my "self" and other "selves" to be dreary,
> predictable, petty,
> self-serving. The self, for me, is a door to step
> through, not a place
> to stop.
>
> You call Paul a puritan for imposing some judgemet
> on a "free"
> consensual act. But the act you describe doesn't
> sound very free to me
> at all. If it is puritannical to delimit sexual
> expression, is it not
> equally puritanical to delimit it through technique,
> through a scenario?
>
> I understand that "kinky" people flatter themselves
> with the idea that
> they are radical and free; I understand that the
> left pats itself on the back for being tolerant of
consensual kink. I spent
> a good dozen years
> experimenting with sex -- but, paradoxically, I
> think I was as limited
> by this practice as the most repressed prude. A
> difficult paradox to
> explain, to be sure. What it comes down to is that
> so long as the mind
> dictates what the body may or may not do, the body
> is not free at all
> and the mind is distinctly not radical.
>
> Joanna
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail