BklynMagus
It is much more complex than that Charles. It is not about whether or not I get laid, but about my relationship and expression of my desires as they occur and transform during my life.
^^^^^ CB: For me one of the wonders of my sexual experience is that it is so simple, yet so fulfilling. It's dumb but great. It doesn't get old, even though it changes very little, although there is an amazingly wide variation within the simple , dumb chocolate with cherry pie.
^^^^
> Then you want to try to vulgarize my sexual repression
as "not getting >laid" and contrast it with others' "social
repression of their sexual essence."
Having experienced both, I can tell you that the experiences are not alike. Not getting laid is not getting laid -- like going to movie theatre and finding out that the film you wanted to see was sold out.
^^^^^ CB: Here the idea was more like not fulfilling one's "sexual essence" for many months or some years; so going to the movie theater for a year every day finding the film sold out would be the analogy. "Getting laid" doesn't quite get the idea. It's too trivializing or vulgarizing. Nor does the analogy to a movie theater. This is a profound deprivation.
^^^^^^^
Having your sexual expression oppressed is far more painful for unlike the sold out movie which can be replaced with a later screening or another film, I cannot desire to eat pussy instead of sucking dick. I have no desire to eat pussy and have failed thus far to engender one.
^^^^ CB: Some people never "get laid" or never again or there is never a "later screening or another film. The theater is permanently closed.
I think you might want to differentiate by saying a gay person might have sex , but then they get dissed by their family, others or ostracized or insulted _for_ having sex. The joyous person ( "joyous" is the new term for "straight" sexuals) doesn't get dissed _for_ having sex. They might get dissed for not having any sex. But that's not the same as being dissed for doing what you want to do.
^^^^^
> Then you imply that long periods without a girlfriend are
trivial compared to repressed by a whole set of social norms.
Not trivial to you on a personal level, but my periods without a boyfriend were not nearly as painful as the period when I actively hated my desire whether I had a boyfriend or not. It may be that since you have never been through what many queers and kinksters go through, you have no measure of comparison.
^^^^^ CB: Probably not, although, come to think of it I did have experiences something similar. Christianity has a heavy element of detesting the body and carnal desires, so when I was still within that thinking somewhat ( not real heavily) I had some anxiety about my sexual desires themselves.. Our society represses all sex, not just gay sex. Now that I think about it, a lot of the time I "wasn't getting laid" was due to sexually repressing myself, fearing sex outside of marriage as sinful., or outside of love as wrong. So, actually, my experience was comparable to what you describe above.
> No, long periods without a girlfriend derive out of a whole
set of social norms , too.
How so?
^^^^^^^^ CB: See above for one set of social norms repressing sex. Then besides Christian anti-sex, there are the social norms as in partying norms, looks, smells, clothes, styles , hair styles, clever talk all the things that go into sex appeal. There are other social norms that affect getting and not getting laid, but I can't think of any more now. They are common knowledge.