My last post sparked some really insightful conversation. I'd like to clarify my previous statements. Think about this: have you ever had a "friend with benefits"? If you have, id like to get a comment about how you felt and how it ended up. If you think about it, FWB is really a relationship with sex and non-intimate relation. Im gonna start at the basics and work my way up here, so follow my logic:
1.You like sex. A lot. Too much almost. (im a mind reader, i swear)
2.Sex does not initiate a relationship by its own power. I can have sex with a hooker or have a one night stand and completely enjoy myself.
3.Relationships arent always good, easy to work with, obtainable, or pleasurable.
Because of axioms 1-3 i have proven that sex feels good, even without a relationship.
can we all agree about that?
(NOTE: by "feel good" i mean aim to climax. i realize there are many wrong ways to skin a cat.)
1.Sex without a relationship is good.
-Relationships are completely unimportant to the rest of this proof-
THIS NOW GOES REVERSE (ANALYSIS)
2.Consider all the forms of non-relational sex. Masturbation. Mutual masturbation. Friends With Benefits.
3.Look at friends with benefits as a step up from mutual masturbation.
4.Look at mutual masturbation as advanced masturbation.
5.Masturbation can be done in literally an infinite number of ways, all of which feel good.
6.Mutual masturbation, like masturbation can be done an infinite number of ways. all of which feel good.
7.The partner, in terms of mutual masturbation, doesnt matter. It still has the same goal: to feel good. No matter what, it approaches its goal, and feels good.
8.FWB can be done an infinite number of ways: Boys. Girls. Trans of every variety- All of which feel good.
9.The partner, in terms of FWB, doesnt matter. It still has the same goal: to feel good. No matter who does it, it approaches its goal, and feels good.
10.Boy.Girl.Trans. in terms of FWB, all feel good.
11.Explain to me where the "disgust" comes from.
From points 1-11, we can come to understand that pleasure is separate from sex and relationship. To claim that you only want to have sex with one type of person is arrogant in its nature (not arrogant with its negative connotation, just arrogant- overstepping ones bounds in terms of power). This was my earlier point. We all like sex. Why do we limit ourselves? Frankly- media. We're told we have to choose what we like, what we want to have sex with.
Dont get me wrong. I wont say theres not preference. Preference matters- kind of. I think that two people fairly close to each other shouldnt limit their experience as two humans because of some odd ideals instilled in them. I think sex brings us together on a natural level. I would have sex with most people i know. I want to screw almost constantly, and so do the people i know. Allow me to ask the most important question: Why not?
Thanks for reading. This took me a pretty long time. I would love to hear all your opinions.
well said. lol
ReplyDeleteawwwwh... thanks buddy. <3
ReplyDeleteI could do pretty much any NHL player. Something about them in their hockey uniforms gets me going. I don't really care what their personality would be, not looking for love...just want to do em.HAHAHAH!!
ReplyDeleteYes, you can have sex with anyone. "Can" being the operative word. There are lots of reasons why we don't have sex with everyone we know.
ReplyDeleteI've had numerous friends-with-benefits kinds of situations. To me, the difference between a friend and boyfriend (or girlfriend) is in how intimacy is expressed, not its presence or absence. Most of my friends aren't psychologically capable of separating "sex" from "romance"; in fact, I'd say most people aren't. That's one reason I don't have sex with most people unless there *is* some kind of relationship; it just decreases the chance that someone's going to get hurt (almost always the other person).
Even without that, I wouldn't have sex with most of the people I know because I'm simply not attracted to them, and - to me - that matters. Why? Because I don't like the feeling of using someone. If it's just using sommeone else for friction, I can jack off much more easily and without any potential baggage. People are more than just things to be used, even when they're willing.
I don't have anonymous sex; I've done it, and frankly I found it wasn't all that enjoyable. I "get off", mostly, on interactions with people; it's the intimacy I enjoy far more than the sex. If there isn't some kind of relationship, some kind of attraction, I'm happier just masturbating. Sex isn't bad, it's just not worth the effort (and risk) to me if there isn't something else to go along with it.
It's like, yes, you can eat an unflavored popsicle, but you might as well just chew on ice. It's the flavoring that makes it fun.
We can approach sex animalistically - we are animals, after all. While it's one valid approach, it's not the only approach.
i think dave kind of captured my idea. its a... odd balance between attraction and cohesive romance. im more trying to say that we blow sex out of proportion and that there really are times we should just fuck like animals. im not even saying this is a viable method for maintatining sexual relationships. im just making the claim that there is no real grounds for disgust in terms of gender. you may not want to have sex with a certain type of person- which i respect at the very core of my being- but the difference between non or even unattraction and disgust is not one we have to walk- simply because of our animal nature. anonymous sex is a step further in this argument, for sure, but a step that need not be made. im trying to say that there is nothing wrong with sex set, instead of physical attraction, on mutual care and personal love. not romantic love, but animal and friendly/platonic love. i guess the real sum of my arguments is that attraction isnt the only basis for a loving sexual relationship, and the only way i could reach it was through the simplest route, that of animal pleasure.
ReplyDeleteTo me, physical attraction defines our sexual orientation. Non-physical attraction defines who we choose to associate with. When the two line up, we tend to end up "in love" (or some form of it). Sex isn't *necessarily* related to either.
ReplyDeleteBut any kind of relationship is going to be based on attraction of some kind, physical and/or non-physical; "caring", by definition, requires a non-physical attraction whether or not a physical one is also present.
So, I think you're agreeing with me, with the clarification (on my part) that I define sexual orientation based just on physical attraction. (I also separate "sexual orientation" from "sexuality", which is more what we do than how we're "programmed"; "types", for example, are more "sexuality" than "sexual orientation".)
That doesn't mean you can't have relationships - even successful long-term ones - outside your orientation; it's a vector, not a steadfast rule. I just think most people are more inclined to make such relationships sexual when it's within their orientation - when there's some level of physical attraction on top of whatever nonpysical attraction exists.
And you're right: absence of attraction (of either type) doesn't justify disgust. That's most likely a re-directed fear/insecurity response.
i agree completely. i need something to happen so i can blog about it. preferably involving boys. i have a feeling readership is decreasing with the length of my posts and no juicy action. everyones just like tl;dr.
ReplyDeletesorry, I'll stop the comment-novels :) part of the problem being on the asperger's spectrum is insecurity with language and, as such, a need to over-specify.
ReplyDeleteGo out and hit on someone. whatever happens, it'll be worth writing about.
lol. gotta love my fans. they expect me to be a dumb brunet. no luck. i gotta talk bout boys to get attention. lol.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about it, Austin. It's always good to explain more than less.
ReplyDeletePersonally, even though I'm completely naïve to the world of sex, I've heard that the reason why people want something more is because meaningless sex results in personal dissatisfaction and personal emptiness inside. I couldn't tell you how or why that works, but I have heard that in some cases, that's the case.
It isn't necessarily just meaningless sex; it's meaningless sex when what you really want (or need) is an emotional connection. That's the issue of expectations, and why "meaningless sex" most often isn't.
ReplyDelete