I won't deny that can be good. I had such a connection with the last girl I dated and there were many nights of very passionate, emotional sex. But it all started because I noticed her at work and thought she was smoking hot and I wanted to screw her brains out. So I approached her and started chatting and found other connections. Even so, there were times where I fantasized about nothing more than raw, physical sex without emotion. And there were times I simply threw her on the bed and had my way. She enjoyed that as well. Variety is the spice of life and sometimes throwing feelings out the window and just allowing ourselves to be the hedonistic animals we are can be every bit as fulfilling as any deep, spiritual experience. And the fact that I sometimes thought about nothing more than how physically attractive she was did not in any way inhibit my ability to love her and treat her as a human being that I cared about. The two are not mutually exclusive.
desire is an emotion ... i think you are confusing "love" as the emotion that is necessary for a connection ... passionate sex by definition is sex with emotion ...
I won't deny that can be good. I had such a connection with the last girl I dated and there were many nights of very passionate, emotional sex. But it all started because I noticed her at work and thought she was smoking hot and I wanted to screw her brains out. So I approached her and started chatting and found other connections. Even so, there were times where I fantasized about nothing more than raw, physical sex without emotion. And there were times I simply threw her on the bed and had my way. She enjoyed that as well. Variety is the spice of life and sometimes throwing feelings out the window and just allowing ourselves to be the hedonistic animals we are can be every bit as fulfilling as any deep, spiritual experience. And the fact that I sometimes thought about nothing more than how physically attractive she was did not in any way inhibit my ability to love her and treat her as a human being that I cared about. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm wondering why you keep reading things in........
why does holistic mind/body/spirit sex have to be devoid of fantasy? Or devoid of amazing varity, or of an over-riding animal component?
No one said any of these things, to my knowledge, or even implied them!
as Saturnal alluded to...one needn't have objectification to have any of these things!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
desire is an emotion ... i think you are confusing "love" as the emotion that is necessary for a connection ... passionate sex by definition is sex with emotion ...
so if one desires a prostitute, pays for the sex, it can still be considered emotional? can one have passionate sex with a prostitute?
just linking it back to the actual topic somewhat. and also, that just made me view it all a bit differently, and something to think about.
it kinda fits how many will say you cannot have fulfilling sex without love. sure, one can SAY it, can believe it...and it may be true for them, but it doesn't make it tue, period. or that one cannot love one person, have a loving/sexual relationship with them...and then engage in sex for sex's sake elsewhere....that it somehow is 'less' of a loving relationship....etc.
obviously different scenarios, but just the ideas your post conjured up in my head.
desire is an emotion ... i think you are confusing "love" as the emotion that is necessary for a connection ... passionate sex by definition is sex with emotion ...
I thought the whole argument thus far has been that desire is base and objectifying and unfulfilling without adding an emotional component.
I'm wondering why you keep reading things in........
why does holistic mind/body/spirit sex have to be devoid of fantasy? Or devoid of amazing varity, or of an over-riding animal component?
No one said any of these things, to my knowledge, or even implied them!
as Saturnal alluded to...one needn't have objectification to have any of these things!
I didn't say it couldn't have those things. I said why is it automatic that sex for the sake of physical, animal, simple pleasure is less fulfilling than sex with some emotional bond. Sometimes I want steak, sometimes I want salmon. One is not better or more fulfilling than another. It just depends on what I'm in the mood for. The same goes for sex... sometimes I want something meaningful, and sometimes i just want to feel good, like getting a massage.
I thought the whole argument thus far has been that desire is base and objectifying and unfulfilling without adding an emotional component.
i don't think anyone even knows what this whole thread is about anymore....:p
does the idea of knowing and experiencing that amazing/spiritual connection with someone in any way 'lessen' the passionate connection two people may share without that amazing/spiritual connection? i think it's all just .........different.
so if one desires a prostitute, pays for the sex, it can still be considered emotional? can one have passionate sex with a prostitute?
just linking it back to the actual topic somewhat. and also, that just made me view it all a bit differently, and something to think about.
it kinda fits how many will say you cannot have fulfilling sex without love. sure, one can SAY it, can believe it...and it may be true for them, but it doesn't make it tue, period. or that one cannot love one person, have a loving/sexual relationship with them...and then engage in sex for sex's sake elsewhere....that it somehow is 'less' of a loving relationship....etc.
obviously different scenarios, but just the ideas your post conjured up in my head.
interesting........:)
well ... whether it's passionate for both parties is subjective ... i think great sex can be born from various emotions ...
i don't think anyone even knows what this whole thread is about anymore....:p
does the idea of knowing and experiencing that amazing/spiritual connection with someone in any way 'lessen' the passionate connection two people may share without that amazing/spiritual connection? i think it's all just .........different.
I've had good one night stands that were as fulfilling as the best love-making sessions with women I cared deeply about. It all depends on my mood.
Now when you get both in the same person... that's when you get married
I'm not sure I can do this justice because any words I put to this will pale in comparison to the reality, but truthfully, though, people identify themselves in many ways, as I referred to...in vibes....or in their ability to empathize....to get into another's skin so to speak...which is a key issue of the heighened sexual states I am aware of.... Sacred Sexuality practises have a component whereupon one has orgasm upon orgasm beyond a physical level....which for men is a definite bonus, not being limited by physical limitation. The key to these practices is having a shared unification on deeper levels. So if you are able to automatically see the bigger picture--male/female needs, and to generally come from that shared Spiritual place, rather than individual wants and separation/limit, and if you tend to be oriented towards that type of sensitivity, it can be a bonus!!..........a HUGE bonus!! Again, what I've said about vibes shows on many levels. I know you are a person who walks the the walk in terms of your identification with the big picture in general, and empathy.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
well ... whether it's passionate for both parties is subjective ... i think great sex can be born from various emotions ...
well that wasn't actually my question. just that could it even exist, even for one party...if it is based within a cash transaction.
it's kinda like unrequited love. is it truly possible to love someone whith no love given in return? and if so, why not passion, desire, etc.....?
and yes, i agree. i also think 'great sex' can mean a great many different things to a great many different people. does not diminish one's own feelings of how 'great' it may be though.
well that wasn't actually my question. just that could it even exist, even for one party...if it is based within a cash transaction.
it's kinda like unrequited love. is it truly possible to love someone whith no love given in return? and if so, why not passion, desire, etc.....?
and yes, i agree. i also think 'great sex' can mean a great many different things to a great many different people. does not diminish one's own feelings of how 'great' it may be though.
sure ... i don't think a financial transaction can take away the desire one may feel ... if the john thinks the service provider is super hot ... he's going to probably enjoy himself greatly ...
I thought the whole argument thus far has been that desire is base and objectifying and unfulfilling without adding an emotional component.
no.
desire is "okay" and not inherently "wrong". objectifying is objectifying. desire with objectifying is "not okay" (for simplification purposes). desire void of objectifying -- or with real depth can be amazing!
edit: again...base attraction is what it is. Then we choose what we do with that attraction....our intentions of that choice determines the outcome.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
No one can really say what great sex is because it varies from person to person. Someone may not be able to experience great sex unless they are with someone that they have a deep emotional connection to and other can, so who is to say which one is better.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I'm not sure I can do this justice because any words I put to this will pale in comparison to the reality, but truthfully, though, people identify themselves in many ways, as I referred to...in vibes....or in their ability to empathize....to get into another's skin so to speak...which is a key issue of the heighened sexual states I am aware of.... Sacred Sexuality practises have a component whereupon one has orgasm upon orgasm beyond a physical level....which for men is a definite bonus, not being limited by physical limitation. The key to these practices is having a shared unification on deeper levels. So if you are able to automatically see the bigger picture--male/female needs, and to generally come from that shared Spiritual place, rather than individual wants and separation/limit, and if you tend to be oriented towards that type of sensitivity, it can be a bonus!!..........a HUGE bonus!! Again, what I've said about vibes shows on many levels. I know you are a person who walks the the walk in terms of your identification with the big picture in general, and empathy.
sure ... i don't think a financial transaction can take away the desire one may feel ... if the john thinks the service provider is super hot ... he's going to probably enjoy himself greatly ...
Is that bad or wrong? Some seem to think so... that it is wrong for a man to objectify a woman and use her for sex based solely on looks. I see no problem with it as long as she's a willing participant. Granted, the guy might be missing out if that's the ONLY kind of sex he goes for, but I still fail to see what's so wrong about someone doing that once in a while.
desire is "okay" and not inherently "wrong". objectifying is objectifying. desire with objectifying is "not okay" (for simplification purposes). desire void of objectifying -- or with real depth can be amazing!
edit: again...base attraction is what it is. Then we choose what we do with that attraction....our intentions of that choice determines the outcome.
What if I and my partner choose to have nothing more than a purely physical relationship based on sex. I can still respect her as a person but there is no emotional attachment there. We are basically using each other for purely physical and sexual purposes so how is this not OK.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
desire is "okay" and not inherently "wrong". objectifying is objectifying. desire with objectifying is "not okay" (for simplification purposes). desire void of objectifying -- or with real depth can be amazing!
If desire is okay, and objectifying is okay, how are the two of them together not okay?
that's the catch for sure. Part of it is knowing it's out there, so we can do things to increase that awareness, and therefore become more "conscious" of how to let go of "what is not this", and heighten our ability to tune into "what is this"....we're not really commonly taught about this stuff.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
No one can really say what great sex is because it varies from person to person. Someone may not be able to experience great sex unless they are with someone that they have a deep emotional connection to and other can, so who is to say which one is better.
agreed.
kinda the whole point. it just seems too often discussions are set up 'rating' this or that, and what *is* higher/better, etc...whereas really, it's all subjective!
and i do happen to disagree with the idea that objectification is always 'not ok'.....wrong...whatever adjective makes people comfy. of course, like most things...it's subjective and up to us as individuals to make these distinctions. someone else may well say what is right or wrong...ok or not ok......but that doesn't actually make it so.
Is that bad or wrong? Some seem to think so... that it is wrong for a man to objectify a woman and use her for sex based solely on looks. I see no problem with it as long as she's a willing participant. Granted, the guy might be missing out if that's the ONLY kind of sex he goes for, but I still fail to see what's so wrong about someone doing that once in a while.
well ... i think the problem some may have is that if one sees the sex worker as someone without substance - then that has societal implications that are bad ... i'm gonna assume tho if there is mutual respect between the participants then there is no wrong to this ...
but at the same time i think we are discussing many topics from different perspectives here as well ...
What if I and my partner choose to have nothing more than a purely physical relationship based on sex. I can still respect her as a person but there is no emotional attachment there. We are basically using each other for purely physical and sexual purposes so how is this not OK.
If you truly respect her as a person/human, that is not objectification.
There are all kinds of degrees of this stuff, and people can figure out what works for them. Again, it's not about inherent right/wrong, it's about what works, what doesn't.
The degrees of fragmentation and detachment will ultimately determine the degrees of ultimate disatisfaction with the situation. As I've said, I've acted on all kinds of behaviours/urges. Ultimately, I evolved due to finding what worked or did not. We move towards more of what works, and let what does not work fall away. for example, people generally don't seek a lifetime commitment of an empty relationship.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I didn't say it couldn't have those things. I said why is it automatic that sex for the sake of physical, animal, simple pleasure is less fulfilling than sex with some emotional bond. Sometimes I want steak, sometimes I want salmon. One is not better or more fulfilling than another. It just depends on what I'm in the mood for. The same goes for sex... sometimes I want something meaningful, and sometimes i just want to feel good, like getting a massage.
I didn't say it's automatic that it's less fulfilling. The sense of fulfullment/lack of fulfillment is subjective, and depends on variables and the evolution of the individual.
.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm pretty sure that you where on board with scb, Saturnal and VG with the idea that sexual or physical attraction is objectification. You may have said that there is nothing wrong with this level of objectification but you where definitely categorizing it as objectification.
woah. i haven't weighed in on attraction and objectification at all.
geez, if you're going to speak for me i'm going to have to start editing your posts again.
attraction is not the same thing as objectification, but the thread has progressed past this i think already. i like what polaris has going on.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
well ... i think the problem some may have is that if one sees the sex worker as someone without substance - then that has societal implications that are bad ... i'm gonna assume tho if there is mutual respect between the participants then there is no wrong to this ...
but at the same time i think we are discussing many topics from different perspectives here as well ...
absolutely, and an interesting perspective.
i do believe it is certainly possible.
Comments
desire is an emotion ... i think you are confusing "love" as the emotion that is necessary for a connection ... passionate sex by definition is sex with emotion ...
why does holistic mind/body/spirit sex have to be devoid of fantasy? Or devoid of amazing varity, or of an over-riding animal component?
No one said any of these things, to my knowledge, or even implied them!
as Saturnal alluded to...one needn't have objectification to have any of these things!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I would now like to induct this thread into the hall of fame..
so if one desires a prostitute, pays for the sex, it can still be considered emotional? can one have passionate sex with a prostitute?
just linking it back to the actual topic somewhat.
it kinda fits how many will say you cannot have fulfilling sex without love. sure, one can SAY it, can believe it...and it may be true for them, but it doesn't make it tue, period. or that one cannot love one person, have a loving/sexual relationship with them...and then engage in sex for sex's sake elsewhere....that it somehow is 'less' of a loving relationship....etc.
obviously different scenarios, but just the ideas your post conjured up in my head.
interesting........:)
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I thought the whole argument thus far has been that desire is base and objectifying and unfulfilling without adding an emotional component.
I didn't say it couldn't have those things. I said why is it automatic that sex for the sake of physical, animal, simple pleasure is less fulfilling than sex with some emotional bond. Sometimes I want steak, sometimes I want salmon. One is not better or more fulfilling than another. It just depends on what I'm in the mood for. The same goes for sex... sometimes I want something meaningful, and sometimes i just want to feel good, like getting a massage.
i don't think anyone even knows what this whole thread is about anymore....:p
does the idea of knowing and experiencing that amazing/spiritual connection with someone in any way 'lessen' the passionate connection two people may share without that amazing/spiritual connection? i think it's all just .........different.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
well ... whether it's passionate for both parties is subjective ... i think great sex can be born from various emotions ...
yeah ... i have no clue what's going on in this thread anymore ...
I've had good one night stands that were as fulfilling as the best love-making sessions with women I cared deeply about. It all depends on my mood.
Now when you get both in the same person... that's when you get married
I'm not sure I can do this justice because any words I put to this will pale in comparison to the reality, but truthfully, though, people identify themselves in many ways, as I referred to...in vibes....or in their ability to empathize....to get into another's skin so to speak...which is a key issue of the heighened sexual states I am aware of.... Sacred Sexuality practises have a component whereupon one has orgasm upon orgasm beyond a physical level....which for men is a definite bonus, not being limited by physical limitation. The key to these practices is having a shared unification on deeper levels. So if you are able to automatically see the bigger picture--male/female needs, and to generally come from that shared Spiritual place, rather than individual wants and separation/limit, and if you tend to be oriented towards that type of sensitivity, it can be a bonus!!..........a HUGE bonus!! Again, what I've said about vibes shows on many levels. I know you are a person who walks the the walk in terms of your identification with the big picture in general, and empathy.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well that wasn't actually my question. just that could it even exist, even for one party...if it is based within a cash transaction.
it's kinda like unrequited love. is it truly possible to love someone whith no love given in return? and if so, why not passion, desire, etc.....?
and yes, i agree. i also think 'great sex' can mean a great many different things to a great many different people. does not diminish one's own feelings of how 'great' it may be though.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
sure ... i don't think a financial transaction can take away the desire one may feel ... if the john thinks the service provider is super hot ... he's going to probably enjoy himself greatly ...
desire is "okay" and not inherently "wrong". objectifying is objectifying. desire with objectifying is "not okay" (for simplification purposes). desire void of objectifying -- or with real depth can be amazing!
edit: again...base attraction is what it is. Then we choose what we do with that attraction....our intentions of that choice determines the outcome.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
well ... i'm all for it ...
if you can find it ...
Is that bad or wrong? Some seem to think so... that it is wrong for a man to objectify a woman and use her for sex based solely on looks. I see no problem with it as long as she's a willing participant. Granted, the guy might be missing out if that's the ONLY kind of sex he goes for, but I still fail to see what's so wrong about someone doing that once in a while.
What if I and my partner choose to have nothing more than a purely physical relationship based on sex. I can still respect her as a person but there is no emotional attachment there. We are basically using each other for purely physical and sexual purposes so how is this not OK.
If desire is okay, and objectifying is okay, how are the two of them together not okay?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
agreed.
kinda the whole point. it just seems too often discussions are set up 'rating' this or that, and what *is* higher/better, etc...whereas really, it's all subjective!
and i do happen to disagree with the idea that objectification is always 'not ok'.....wrong...whatever adjective makes people comfy.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
well ... i think the problem some may have is that if one sees the sex worker as someone without substance - then that has societal implications that are bad ... i'm gonna assume tho if there is mutual respect between the participants then there is no wrong to this ...
but at the same time i think we are discussing many topics from different perspectives here as well ...
There are all kinds of degrees of this stuff, and people can figure out what works for them. Again, it's not about inherent right/wrong, it's about what works, what doesn't.
The degrees of fragmentation and detachment will ultimately determine the degrees of ultimate disatisfaction with the situation. As I've said, I've acted on all kinds of behaviours/urges. Ultimately, I evolved due to finding what worked or did not. We move towards more of what works, and let what does not work fall away. for example, people generally don't seek a lifetime commitment of an empty relationship.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
woah. i haven't weighed in on attraction and objectification at all.
geez, if you're going to speak for me i'm going to have to start editing your posts again.
attraction is not the same thing as objectification, but the thread has progressed past this i think already. i like what polaris has going on.
cross the river to the eastside
I don't see it as okay. At all. By any stretch of the imagination.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
absolutely, and an interesting perspective.
i do believe it is certainly possible.
and YEA....right?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I retract my statement, you where not part of that group.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Sure.