Sexuality WL Table

[7Wannabe5]

From: Frita's journal.

zbigi wrote:

1. The idea of "ordering men from Internet" is very objectifying towards men. I get that many women actually do treat men as disposable sex objects (no different how many men treat women), but let's not promote that.

I wrote:

Hmmm...I do apologize if I offended the sensibilities of any of the more evolved men on this forum, but the reality of the internet dating/mating market is that there are waaaaay more men blatantly advertising their availability for "just sex" in a manner making it very clear that they are happy to be thoroughly objectified than there are females wanting to pick up these "freebies." I assigned zero percent probability to Frita taking me seriously in my over-the-top suggestion, but I was thinking about the time my extremely introverted middle-aged sister, who was still suffering some physiological esteem issues post-cancer treatment and not doing any kind of regular dating as a result, boldly "ordered up" a gorgeous guy in his 20s who looked like a Viking, and it really cheered her up. Also, I'm sure she offered him tea and sent a gracious bread and butter note afterwards thanking him for his service. When I sent a bread and butter note to the young man who similarly made himself available for a threesome with me and one of my poly-partners, I believe his reply was along the lines of "No problem." Followed up several months later by "Wanna do it again?" IOW, I was absolutely not suggesting that Frita take advantage of some young person whose internet profile reads along the lines of "Hopeless romantic seeking soul-mate. I've been hurt before, but putting myself out here one more time. NO PLAYERS!!! Please reply only if you long to share your heart story with someone who will always bring you flowers."

******************************************

I've actually been thinking a bit recently about the concept of "objectification" and how it applied to some of my earliest sexual encounters back in the days when I possessed an objectively very sexually attractive body. Basically, I was considering how the Sexuality Wheaton Table might reflect the reality that although one's perspective on sexuality can become much more sophisticated and abstracted, it is also the case that with age, youthful vigor and objective sexual attractiveness are bound to decline. This analogy would also somewhat similarly apply to Human Capital in terms of the ERE Wheaton Table.

On one occasion I was driving through campus with one of my older partners and he asked me if all the young female students walking around in skimpy outfits comprehended the effect they were having on many/most of the men who were viewing them. Since in was the case that I used to be a 15 year old girl who wore a black string bikini that was one size too small on the public beach, my honest answer was "Yes, and No, and No." Yes, they know they look sexy and are objectifying themselves. No, they are not thinking about ALL the men who are noticing, or they would be dressed in a burka instead. No, they have little developed empathy for how male sexuality might differ from their own or they might or might not choose to dress in a burka instead.

Anyways, one of my thoughts towards declaring this Sexuality WL Table to be maybe kind of a bullshit model was that my first three sexual partners, who were 23, 17, and 19 at the time, were actually pretty good in bed. They had some "moves" and/or innate talent that some men over the age of 40 whom I've dated were still lacking. The 17 year old, who was a typical sort of good-looking, physically graceful ESTP bad boy, objectively valued and behaved in relationship to me, almost exactly like he objectively valued and behaved in relationship to a bag of Acapulco Gold. For example, the first time he took all of my clothes off of me, he very slowly, yet skillfully put all my clothes back on me afterwards; buttoned up all the buttons on my blouse, and stepped behind me to zip up my skirt. The first time he kissed me was at a party. Another boy was also attempting to make out with me at the same time, but he was the leader of their teen gang, so he just clearly said or signaled "Mine." and the other boy withdrew.

The 23 year old who was the ski bum older brother of a friend of mine, crashed off-season back at the parental home, was the first man I actually had sex with, and he knew enough to first perform cunnilingus. That's why I was semi-appalled that Ian Kerner felt that there was a great need for a book entitled "She Comes First." In my opinion and experience, that's just baseline sexual good manners, although if this reflects the reality of the sexual skill set of the general population then it makes me understand why a lot of women don't like sex all that much.

The fairly advanced skill that my 19 year old lover already possessed was that he knew how to tease a woman. He would bring me to the point of orgasm and then just hover, saying "Mmmmmm, not yet, not yet,............now." etc. engaging me in playful verbal exchange and banter.

The early 1980s, which were still very much like the late 1970s, were a less sexually puritanical era in some respects, so that was an advantage of my youth. Also, I believe the fact that marijuana was cheaper and more readily available than alcohol contributed to the quality of my earliest encounters. My perspective might be very different if, for instance, my first encounter(s) had been with drunken, fumbling, or numbly-aggressive Frat boys in the later 80s. Fortunately, my earliest takeaway was that sex was super fun and awesome, and that I also had a sense of control in terms of ownership of my objective erotic assets and ability to engage in my own fair share of seduction.

[zbigi]

I see it a bit differently, perhaps mostly because I don't really think having sex with strangers is overall a good thing. My opinion on that is not very strong and perhaps a subject to change one day, but right now, the thought of two virtual strangers fucking does not make me think this is the highlight of humanity. It reduces sexuality to pure satisfaction of carnal desires, where both parties treat each other as an sex object - with perhaps some courtesy that goes beyond that (the guy starting with cunnilingus), but no more than e.g. pushing away a shopping trolley that's in somebody else's way in a supermarket aisle. E.g. the guy is not a psychopath and does not want to be seen as selfish, but beyond that doesn't care about you.

Under such point of view, it's still not really ok to have random sex with a person that posts an ad on the Internet advertising wanting to be used. As with other vices (alcohol, drugs etc.), it's not good for him, even if he wants it.

[7Wannabe5]

I see it a bit differently, perhaps mostly because I don't really think having sex with strangers is overall a good thing. My opinion on that is not very strong and perhaps a subject to change one day, but right now, the thought of two virtual strangers fucking does not make me think this is the highlight of humanity.

Many humans share your perspective. My current perspective (also still subject to change!) is that at some juncture on the Sexual Wheaton Level Table, it becomes more like you are never and yet always having sex with a virtual stranger. One of the reasons I am offering my own anecdotes up as examples on this thread is that my sexual experience has been quite varied. Therefore, I can inform you that it is possible to have pretty great sex with somebody whom you have maybe only known for a few days, and also to have fairly hum-drum sex with somebody who is currently madly romantically in love with you, or even pretty rude, detached sex with somebody who loves you in the deep knowing manner you love somebody you've been married to for a couple decades.

Sexual relationships in general are somewhat beyond the focus of the Sexuality WL Table. What I'm more trying to get at here is akin to the Model of Hierarchal Complexity as it pertains to math. I can even draw a direct analogy from my personal experience. When you have sex after maybe a third date with somebody who is at or around your Sexual WL, it's like having a conversation about math, or working some problems in math, with somebody who is at or around your level on the MHC. Your ability to interact fluidly is in and of itself a form of wordless intimacy. It's also the case that at this juncture in my maturity, I very seldom have sex with anybody with whom I haven't previously shared intelligent conversation at around the general level of intimacy of this forum. So, even my short term encounters have at least a sort of complex short story feel to them, especially since my older partners and I already have all these accumulated layers of living behind us. Oddly, this is even true when the sex isn't all that great. It's not like when you are young and blank slate and still yearning to be truly known even though there's not yet much to you, striving for something that you will later find become something else again, when you kick the jukebox and the pattern of play you thought had only four songs in its cycle adds a few new songs on a strange new loop. Ah-ha, you note, it's not always the case that the song denoting this level of sex plays after the song that denotes this level of intimacy, etc. etc. etc.

Also, as Erica Jong noted, for middle-aged humans with a serious, heavy, committed, long-term sexual relationship or two in their pocket, the fantasy of the "zipless fuck" often takes precedence. Actually, it occurs to me that this is likely a variety of the spiritual longing for a minimalist lifestyle. For example, if I was feeling physically healthy again, I could immerse myself once more in relationship and complications with any or all of the three men who still love me on some level, but instead I visualize walking alone along a trail in the woods and being fucked against a tree to a state of transcendence by some muscular flannel-shirt wearing intimately-knowing familiar-stranger I encounter.

There is one form of sexual transcendence that can only be achieved in deeply engaged loving relationship. There's another form of sexual transcendence that we can only really achieve alone in our nature.

Under such point of view, it's still not really ok to have random sex with a person that posts an ad on the Internet advertising wanting to be used. As with other vices (alcohol, drugs etc.), it's not good for him, even if he wants it.

Yes, I agree that it would not be okay to have this form of sex with somebody who holds this perspective on sexuality. That's one of the reasons I only play with those who signal experienced status. I have found very little upside to dating men who are younger than me and haven't processed through their sexual guilt and hang-ups. Actually, I have also found very little upside to dating men my age who haven't processed through their sexual guilt and hang-ups.