I think that mutual consent is better than many other options, but hardly ideal.
That in itself is probably a controversial position. A cogent analogy might be found in ownership of property. When I see people lock up the things which they feel belong to them, sometimes I ask them if they are feeling territorial. A frequent response is that it is not they who are being territorial, but rather the prospective thieves. Both are acting out of a sense of personal entitlement. So which one is right? Common sense appears to suggest that the propertarian is acting correctly and with more respect than the thief. But it seems to me that they are two sides of the same problem. Both parties are relying upon a static protocol to avoid interacting and negotiating with the other. They are both being selfish in different ways. A more optimal solution is to dispense with the notion of property - when resources flow where they are needed, there is no need to lock or hoard them.
My methodology with most things is to avoid having personal problems, and sex is no different. What this means is that consent is mainly a social rather than a personal matter. It depends upon factors such as membership, function, time & place. For example, two people might both agree to participate in a community harvest time sex ritual, but not be concerned with consent to each others as individuals. Or deciding that The Revolution is my lover, and letting myself be of service to help other participants. It is still a sort of consent, but not strictly personal. I think that this helps to avoid many possible issues of entitlement and attachment, and disentangle much of the vague instinctive “chemistry” which otherwise still couples sexual behaviors (consciously or unconsciously) with reproduction.
This sort of sexual openness also solves the problems of people being exploited for sex, because when sexual exchange ceases to be commoditized or used for status, there is no longer motivation for that sort of activity.
I am sure that it is a very communist and village-oriented outlook for many, which is not compatible with being separate atomistic individuals in a consumer culture. But I think that is a benefit rather than a disadvantage.
I’m going to guess you’ve read Stranger in a Strange Land and probably a number of Banks’ excellent Culture novels. In a broad-brush strokes sense, I think I see where you’re coming from and where you’re headed. Up front, I’m a (pretty left-leaning) lower-c capitalist and a propertarian. But I think you’re non-propertarian ideas could give rise to a thoughtful and friendly dialogue. I’ve seen you attempt to segue this dialogue into several existing threads, and either received push-back or be ignored because it’s usually pretty divergent from the main line of the thread topic.
I basically agree with the local zeitgeist that it’s a derailment, but I don’t believe you’re trolling us and I think you just want to have this discussion with your fellow Mutants. Here’s what I propose. In November/December I’ll be in Japan for work, and have a lot more free time available than I do when state-side. Thenabouts I’ll create a thread where you and I (and hopefully other interested members) can thrash this topic out with the attention it requires and without drawing attention away from other topics.
Nah, I see where you’re coming from and am pretty open to how diverse we can be as a species. Our Western culture is one of swarms and size doesn’t make it ‘better’.
You’re describing a sort of pre consent…it’s a different context and if a whole group of people is on the same page and being part of the group is an easy choice then I say embrace our diversity.
I was speaking in the context of our current dominant culture, which is plenty flawed and because of that we should be raised better to respect the consent of others rather than treating others as a ‘goal’ or ‘achievement’. I think changing that is a huge part of getting us out of this particular rut…and that’s kind of my mission…but I expect to always be on the outside enabling others…so while I recognize and appreciate the potential, I think most people are still trapped and don’t have any choice but to interact with less respectful people and those who believe it’s acceptable to be insincere about their intents and motivations. Since it’s them I serve, they’re my focus
I’ll try - I am told that I have peculiar ways of explaining things.
Most people I meet base their sexuality upon mutual personal attachments. Such as “We like each other a lot, so our relationship is now sexytime as a way of cementing our attraction”. And for those who might be called predators, it is only one-way, as in “I am obsessed with this cute morsel and am going to pounce on it no matter what”. Keeping it at a social level, like I am suggesting, treats sex as something necessary to the group, not unlike a community fire department, or a free kitchen. When a person consents to be a fire fighter, this is a duty to the community, not to select individuals. They do it because it is necessary. It is not about coming over to extinguish the fire because they “like” you. They might like you, but that’s not the point.
Beyond that, what I was getting at is that when everyday sexual behaviors are treated like a secret separate thing because they are only interpersonal, between (usually) two individuals, that this encourages people to be selfish in their motivations. Seeking their own comfort, or the acceptance of a certain person. Most social structures encourage this, because they use that attachment to make nuclear families. This is why so much sexuality is policed by religion, and why governments still side with conservative views of sex being for reproduction. Sex for pleasure is treated as somewhat taboo. And sex as public activity is treated as extremely taboo. Because community based sex creates different social structures.
I hope that clarifies what I am getting at. I am tired, so I probably can’t do much better right now!
And yeah, that’s definitely a thing that’s pretty much as potent for me (and lots of others! It seems to be more of a female gendered thing but I know of a couple of other guys with similar attitudes) as anybody else’s kink. I appreciate that there’s a bit of luck in having that rather than a fetish for people wearing horsehead masks while having sex on the backs of cars while singing La Vida Loca or something.
It also made 80s porn AWFUL. When you compare that to more recent Abbywinters type fare it was a pretty annoying quest. Nothing beats IRL, but kids these days have all the good stuff (from porn to remote control toys. fun!)
Just imagine what the next generation will be saying about us!
I have read Stranger in a Strange Land, but yet to read any Banks although I do intend to.
I certainly don’t feel that I am recycling anything from other topics here. No more than a person who believes in “working at a job and using the money to buy things” is trying to be confrontational if that status quo becomes relevant to 90% of the topics they discuss. They don’t mean for this to happen, it’s simply a pervasive background to their daily social reality, which they don’t always think about because they assume that it is to some extent a shared cultural experience. It is the same with me. My intuition is that people simply find the lack of common ground tiring. It is for me as well, but what can we do?
I’m curious as well, though my read on it is, well, I 'd think it wouldn’t even really be classified as a kink. Having your partner involuntarily convulsing is pretty damn hot though, and if that gets you off, then I suppose it’s a convenient time to wrap up activities for both involved.
Getting pleasure from giving pleasure maybe? If so, I can really get behind that. Few things hotter than deep-down knowing the other person(s) are really digging what you’re doing.
Waaaiit a minute… I think I get this. We’re talking, like, dial 1-800-BOOTY and one of our trained operatives will be there ASAP free of charge, yeah? Voluntary sex work because you have the talent, the inclination and want to serve (hehehe) the greater good. OK, I can see that bit, sure. This is still consent though. No-ones doing anything or one they don’t want to.
Not actually a bad idea in theory.
I’ll have a go at the second bit later on. It takes me a bit of a run-up to get up to your speed, but WTF, I could do with the exercise. .
Edit: Don’t feel like you need to reply to this until you’ve got some rest.
Well, having bunches of kinky friends I’ve seen quite a bit of stress when one finds somebody awesome but the sex is never going to be fully satisfying for one party or another (like when two subs get together). And that’s got to get worse the more unusual the fetish.
I’ve never really had that be an issue or even had to worry about it at all. Sure’s the occasional thing that’s past a line that I have (negative on the bathroom play) but they’re pretty rare. So generally exploring relationships is pretty stress free for me. My best friend is subbish so she’s got a whole other layer to worry about, and sometimes that sucks for her. People almost always like having orgasms.
I appreciate the fact that it’s convenience even though I’m pretty sure I can’t properly identify with the struggles other people go through on that side. The whole ‘I adore them but there’s a dealbreaker in bed’ is kind of alien to me.
I’ve been accused of taking it to fetish-levels, and I can kind of see why. It’s more of an analog scale thing, and I think it’s more obvious on the ‘anti’ side. (I struggle a bit with ‘sitting back and relaxing’ and I don’t have a typical level of interest in sex that my partner(s) not clearly into…which has gotten a little weird occasionally with really giving types).
That being said, I don’t think it’s a kink, a kink has to be unusual. Fetish is a closer fit because of the intensity…that’s where the void is filled and nothing else seems all that sexual to me (which definitely fits the pattern) but it’s not like it’s weird or socially awkward or anything, right?
So…super convenient, but not super special or anything.
