Joanna
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>You don't need an excuse not to participate in certain
>sexual practices, but what you say here is just
>another backhanded way of criticizing as inferior to
>yours, and indeed selfish and unworthy, the choices of
>people who choose practices you don't choose. Why on
>earth can't love be expressed though kink or gay sex
>or anything (voluntary and adult) you please?
>
>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
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>
>