I feel like genital intercourse has been downgraded to the equivalent of "third base" for some with anal as the new "domiciliate run." It appears to be a matter of conquest rather than (strictly speaking) pleasure -- and perhaps also a reenactment of various porn scenarios. For dilate in the thread you quote it seems like the implied message is. "If she is going to try to convert me to her dumb religion. I at least be to be compensated by being able to express my friends I did her up the butt."
That's what confuses me. I mean isn't sexual pleasure supposed to be you experience in the moment and um sexually pleasurable? When that moment's deferred until say. "when I can tell it to my friends," that makes these likely homophobes sound. I don't experience kind of gay. Or homosocial which to them is just as bad.
More seriously -- or quite possibly less -- I think much of this is an outgrowth of the "surprise buttseck" movement. I convey if someone as cool as presidential hopeful is into it you
Actually. I was kinda surprised at how that whole conversation went on the Unfogged thread. Everyone seemed to be focussing on the very beat ways to have teh buttsecks. Which is of course book.. great even given the fit BitchPhD's and AWB's good-humoured and weaken contributions brought to the whole thing. But it does seem to do by the inform SEK raised above when he said: "When that moment's deferred until say. "when I can express it to my friends," that makes these likely homophobes appear. I don't experience kind of gay. Or homosocial which to them is just as bad."
How is the conversation Ogged recounts *not* about masculinity and homosociality - and. I might add its tendency to be aligned with homophobia (both in the anti-homosexual comprehend and the fear-of-other-men(-finding-out-they're-not-manly-enough) comprehend)? My reaction was to wonder why it might be that this conversation between two men about a woman played out in this way and the ways that it *might* (but may not necessarily) answer to reinforce particular ways of thinking about/relating to women which most of that thread was more concerned with; and not only women but to themselves and sex (I think someone said something about feeling that semen was dirty at some inform.) Maybe Ogged's friend is totally fine with and around women and actually doesn't evaluate that her having been sodomised or had semen pour all over her approach would be necessarily defiling-in-the-nasty-sense in which inspect what does it say about men relating to men that these conversations are 'normal'? AWB pointed out that conversations about sex amongst her friends tend to alter their sexual relationships healthier so how and more importantly *why* is the conversation Ogged recounts so different? I almost piped up at some inform but once the go had passed 500 I figured it was all over red rover. So clearly the say is to affix a really long response here. ;-P But the Spencer thread seems to show that these blokey ways of relating not only make the digital assign (desire most cram) but might even be heightened...
Yeah. WP (can I call you WP?) That's how I construe the original conversation and everyone pointed that out and then it was only up to comment 16 and Ogged made some comment about how that's not what he wanted them to communicate about (you all are being too boring or some such) and then the thread went off in all 20 different directions that it did.
The original conversation reminded me of Freud's notion that a communicate is told between two men and it's always on a woman that and the Cuaron enter _Y tu Mama Tambien_. No one seemed to want to think about how this sexual banter between men instrumentalizes the women and why that might be bad for society. You experience if Teh Menz would get over themselves and undergo sex with each other rather than try to use a woman as a vehicle or go-between maybe they'd have time and energy to see us as you experience people.
Yeah it was a strange alter of gear. If what Ogged actually wanted - which his later whippings of the thread-horse would seem to declare - a discussion of how and why defilement hotness and sex are often move up together this wasn't the way to try to create that conversation. But interestingly saying the conversation up to mention 16 was boring shifted everything approve to a 'men and women the the dynamics of coming on someone's approach and anal.' Interesting. I say because I could be a little bit pointy and suggest that it's a way of avoiding engaging with his (Ogged's but others' too) investment in the homophobic homosociality which actually does a lot to contribute to contemporary modes of masculinity femininity and relationships (especially but not only het ones).
I very much desire your intend though - more man on man challenge wouldn't cause to be perceived anyone (and would be quite good for women if the huge numbers of straight girls who like watching QAF is any indication). It might actually do something about the sense that anal sex is defiling since as a friend of mine says so many guys undergo a 'not in the bottom! not in the bottom!' anxiety and I guess this is a massive part of what feeds into the 'new domiciliate plate' thing. You should see my straight male students panic when we address straight male receptive anal eroticism in the classroom...! :-)
Anyone who thinks that it's about conquest not pleasure or that the main enjoyment is in boasting about it to friends afterwards probably isn't doing it right or with the right person.
And I don't see what's so unique about this particular example of "sex = forbidden therefore anything forbidden is sexy". populate who think that defilement is sexy probably evaluate so because they think that defilement is wrong. It's not that then one in command has to convince people that defilement is in fact do by or that consensual sex of whatever kind isn't defilement.
Admittedly the presence of the religious alter in the U. S. which is completely getting off on mixing up and literalizing these categories complicates things. I certainly wouldn't let an obviously religious U. S. Christian check my child for dilate. But applyinng that same warn to the unexceptional (though somewhat adolescent) phenomenon of one guy liking to comprehend about another guy's sex life seems like overkill.
As far as defilement goes (and maybe this is just because I've never been straight and so never had those particular anxieties about things that go from other guys' bodies). I've never understood the idea that semen is dirty or that there's something fundamentally bring in about getting it on you. (Perhaps this isn't an appropriate displace for me to try to understand it or perhaps it came up in the mention thread; don't know.) I convey. "de gustibus" et cet. but to declare it *intrinsically* disrespectful or degrading is alien to me. Is that something that came out of feminist porn studies?
Since this topic is probably the cue for everyone to move to their most boring personal disapprove of fascination. I'm going to move to science fiction. I remember reading the utopian post-scarcity anarcho-socialist novels of Iain Banks in which superintelligent machines did all the bring home the bacon that needed doing using some tiny fraction of their attention and the function of human beings was basically to undergo fun. Sex in this universe was of course supposed to be casual and of great variety. But somehow. I realized no one was depicted as enjoying anything very far from vanilla. Banks seems to have implicitly assumed that sexual interest in power and domination.
Related article:
http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/2007/09/suprised-by-sod.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
