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.
Sexuality WL Table
Re: Sexuality WL Table
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.
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.
Re: Sexuality WL Table
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.zbigi wrote: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.
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.
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.zbigi wrote: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.
Re: Sexuality WL Table
There have been multiple studies conducted in which attractive strangers approached men and women and politely suggested a casual sexual encounter. In the study conducted on Florida college campus in 1989, 0 of the 100 women approached said "Yes" whereas 75 out of the 100 men approached said "Yes." Similar studies were conducted in environments believed to be more sexually liberal, such as France and Denmark. In France, 3% of the women approached agreed to have sex with stranger, if he was extremely attractive, and 0% agreed if he was average looking, whereas 83% of the French men agreed to have sex with attractive stranger and 60% agreed to have sex with average looking stranger. Results were similar in Denmark.Jin+Guice wrote:I think having sex with strangers can be a good thing.
However, although willingness to engage in sex shows a fairly huge variation between men and women in any given time interval, even up to as much as 6 months of acquaintance, any degree of acquaintance beyond "total stranger approaching and suggesting sex" will render the average female increasingly more willing. It's also the case that a lot of casual sex takes place between individuals who may be only recently acquainted with each other, but have some level of shared social context or shared relationships. Super obvious Rom-Com example being previously unacquainted groomsman and bridesmaid hitting it after the reception.
Relationships can be a slog, so women often fantasize about having a "zipless fuck" with a stranger in an elevator or along a hiking trail, but they only very rarely do it in real life. However, although I am also in the zero-percent likely to agree to sex if approached by total stranger cohort, one thing I have enjoyed about occasionally having sex with somebody I only recently met (this degree of acquaintance described as "having met" making a great deal of difference) is the instant degree of access this affords. I mean, by contrast, you could work in the cubicle next to somebody for 20 years and you still have no access to information such as the contents of their bathroom cabinet, but you might gain that level of access in just a few hours with a sexual partner. Waking up in a strange bed can definitely be disorienting, but it can also be the flavor of disorientation that shakes things up a bit for you; helps you remember that the planet is vast and full of humans and all sorts of possibilities abound.
In conclusion, if you are the sort of human who sometimes wonders about the lives of all the other humans when night comes and lighted windows offer brief glimpses as you walk past, then you might also enjoy the occasional casual romp.
Re: Sexuality WL Table
https://integralrelationship.com/compatibility-matrix/
Happened upon the above and decided that it belonged here due to developmental matrix inclusive of sexual dichotomy and difference of level of development between partners. Of course, this is a matrix reflecting sexual relationships as a whole as opposed to sex within sexual relationships, which is where I intended to be going with this thread.
Anyways, as usual, I was simultaneously amused and annoyed to reflect upon how predictable some of my own behaviors and relationships have been based on this matrix. For example, my Lentil Baby lifestyle design is found neatly tucked into the box where a Level Green female may likely be offered financial support by Level Orange male. The interesting thing is that this is by far the most likely outcome if a Level Green female (especially of my age) dates in the general college-educated population, because there are so many Level Orange men. This is also a frequent theme in the more literary end of chick-lit.
I also find it sort of amusing/annoying that the matrix indicates that when a Level Yellow female partners with a Level Green man she supposedly inspires him to Level Yellow, but when Level Yellow man partners with a Level Green female, she is capable of challenging/emasculating him. However, I am now kind of grokking this due to my own recent "tear-down" by a female Level Green (with streak of Red) peer. I can now grok that it is easier to sexually deal with a football-player size Level Green male showing you the tiny animals he felted and suggesting strict egalitarian distribution of bondage play then it would be to deal with a tiny gymnast-pilates size Level Green female screaming at you for vibing like Yellow/Teal.
The article also mentions that polyamory at Level Green may also involve the attraction Level Green often has for Level Red (inclusive of raw sexuality), but in my experience, it also simply has to do with the lack of appropriate partners. For example, the Support/Friendship/Lovers description of relationships between those at Integral (male or female) and those at Rational (male or female) can also form a collection of polyamorous relationships. It is also odd how it can almost be a matter of developing the vocabulary. For example, when I used to (in my mid-40s) have the vague thought that I sexually preferred men who were "Natural Dominants", that was likely my Level Green playing with Level Red phase, but now that my vocabulary is more precise, the behavior is no longer as appealing (sigh.) It's also no longer as appealing to allow Level Orange men to semi-financially support my Level Green towards Yellow avocations of permaculture/disadvantaged-youth-tutoring (sigh.)
Happened upon the above and decided that it belonged here due to developmental matrix inclusive of sexual dichotomy and difference of level of development between partners. Of course, this is a matrix reflecting sexual relationships as a whole as opposed to sex within sexual relationships, which is where I intended to be going with this thread.
Anyways, as usual, I was simultaneously amused and annoyed to reflect upon how predictable some of my own behaviors and relationships have been based on this matrix. For example, my Lentil Baby lifestyle design is found neatly tucked into the box where a Level Green female may likely be offered financial support by Level Orange male. The interesting thing is that this is by far the most likely outcome if a Level Green female (especially of my age) dates in the general college-educated population, because there are so many Level Orange men. This is also a frequent theme in the more literary end of chick-lit.
I also find it sort of amusing/annoying that the matrix indicates that when a Level Yellow female partners with a Level Green man she supposedly inspires him to Level Yellow, but when Level Yellow man partners with a Level Green female, she is capable of challenging/emasculating him. However, I am now kind of grokking this due to my own recent "tear-down" by a female Level Green (with streak of Red) peer. I can now grok that it is easier to sexually deal with a football-player size Level Green male showing you the tiny animals he felted and suggesting strict egalitarian distribution of bondage play then it would be to deal with a tiny gymnast-pilates size Level Green female screaming at you for vibing like Yellow/Teal.
Yup. Kind of ironic that if that one at all seeks validation for having arrived at "second-tier", being informed in no uncertain terms that you are projecting many of the above qualities is the means by which "gold star" may be aggressively delivered.Unfortunately, teal can become quickly frustrated and isolated, as it no longer resonates with the singular worldviews of people in first-tier consciousness, who may perceive them as arrogant, manipulative, condescending, passive-aggressive, or cynical—and sometimes for good reasons.
The article also mentions that polyamory at Level Green may also involve the attraction Level Green often has for Level Red (inclusive of raw sexuality), but in my experience, it also simply has to do with the lack of appropriate partners. For example, the Support/Friendship/Lovers description of relationships between those at Integral (male or female) and those at Rational (male or female) can also form a collection of polyamorous relationships. It is also odd how it can almost be a matter of developing the vocabulary. For example, when I used to (in my mid-40s) have the vague thought that I sexually preferred men who were "Natural Dominants", that was likely my Level Green playing with Level Red phase, but now that my vocabulary is more precise, the behavior is no longer as appealing (sigh.) It's also no longer as appealing to allow Level Orange men to semi-financially support my Level Green towards Yellow avocations of permaculture/disadvantaged-youth-tutoring (sigh.)