I've twice had sex with women I didn't know. I didn't know their names. I hadn't had a conversation with them. I hadn't cast my eyes on either more than 60 minutes before we had sex.
The first time, when I tried to speak, she put her fingers to my mouth to silence me. The second time, I tried that same move, and it worked.
I guess it should be obvious the attraction was about as purely physical as it could possibly get. Of course, I'll agree with those who think "purely phsyical" is an illusion. There was of course a setting - and the setting in each instance lent itself to the events. One could read volumes, too, into the clothing worn. One's choice of clothing can communicate much without a word being spoken.
The sex was particularly selfish. Nobody had an altruistic desire to please apart from how that would enhance one's own experience. That is to say it was good.
Were these cases, cases of pure lust? The lack of communication; the lack of time spent together; the lack of any kind of bond; the lack of future - all suggest that this was lust at its purest.
But again, I guess technically, there is no such thing. I was in a particularly destructive frame of mind. If these were really cases of pure lust, there should be no way to deconstruct them. But obviously, there will always be ways to deconstruct sexual couplings.
Still - I can recall the striking clarity of the desire.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
were these women "escorts" by any chance?
The plot thickens, TQM...
Dawn Coyote said...
alternative comment:
TQM feels like a whore.
Hey DC. Just so you know...you have permission to make me feel like a whore any time you want.
So, now that we’ve called each other liars…
My leading comment was a bit low, but I meant it the way I said (trust me!). I wasn’t imagining that you feel degraded (not that there’s anything wrong with that, if that’s your thing), rather it was an oblique comment on underlying drives and projections.
No disagreement with 4-7, except that “financial” is too narrow. Sex is a transaction, as every interaction is a transaction. “Financial” implies goals/benefits not endogenous to the interaction, and that’s certainly not the case with all sexual transactions.
(Disclosure: I’ve been offered money for sex. I declined.)
There's power; then there's abusive power.
I was actually thinking of power as an element of lust, but perhaps I’m projecting.
I think you are deflecting on the matter.
It’s possible. On what, specifically?
On Erica Ehm and the suppression of sexuality: I suppose that a focus on certain roles leads to a natural suppression of other roles. Perhaps this is more true for women, though I would suggest that while, as fathers and providers, men’s libidos may not decline, their perception of themselves as hot studs does.
The Yummy Mommy initiative seems to be about reclaiming some aspect of oneself that one feels has been, or is in danger of being, lost. I think this happens to men as well as women. In fact, the attempt to reclaim one’s sexual identity is a central theme of the midlife crisis.
Wild, passionate sex is a natural casualty when one’s sexual identity is sidelined in favor of other imperatives. I don’t think this is the result of intimacy. Intimacy enhances sex in profound ways. I think what you’re identifying is familiarity without intimacy, where the compelling demands of family and career reduce opportunities for intimate contact, diminish one’s perception of oneself as a sexual being, and prohibit dedicating hours of one’s day to the satisfying exchange of bodily fluids.
The kind of lust you describe is rare. How often does one catch someone’s eye from across the room and feel that intense flood of desire? And doesn’t such attraction only fulfill its promise when the pair has the capacity to be open to each other, if only briefly?
Your generalization fails because tolerance for intimacy varies with an individual’s attachment style. Lust without intimacy may be more satisfying for some and less for others. It’s not something you can universalize.
A question occurred to me tonight, TQM, when I was watching some soft-core porn, so ubiquitous on Friday nights on Canadian cable channels. Would you say, in general, that we reign in our lustful desires with the people we love, or that lust only spikes to a certain level in the absence of intimacy? Is it that we hold back, or that we can't get there?
No obligation to answer, but I'm still curious.
My opinion: Relationships are unecessarily limiting. People should get what they want.
Let it out, tiger.
Post a Comment