Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

[Phoenix Stone]

Re: Re: Re: Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

To be honest, I had the most fun when there was the expectation of a relationship from my chosen plaything...when they wanted it to be something more.

For me, it wasn't about sex..it was about getting what I wanted, the way I wanted it and to hell with what the other person thought. The thrill was in letting them know afterwards that they were never important to me. They were never someone I wanted to be with..that it was just a game.

The taboo involved is the deliberate misleading, the deliberate hurting of someone else. Using them (point blank) to get yourself off, without their knowledge or consent.

As I said before, that used to be the way I played. It wasn't nice, it wasn't fair..but it was FUN.


pet

Hmm, I would only be able or want to do that if I was angry, and Pure said anger was out. "no grudge or loss of temper."

How did you react to their reaction?

How about this -- does it qualify or no? I guy I was living with said, calmly, 'what would you say if I told you I was only with you for your sweet young body?'
I didn't have the words, so I overturned my beer on his head. He got mad. Hardly seemed fair. I felt he should have taken it calmly.

So pet and pure, is (or was) dishing it out but not being able to take it part of the equation?

(edited to add paragraphing)

 

[Pure]

Sun: I hardly see this as a province of the BDSM set.

One can put the point more strongly, in fact. These acts are, imo, disavowed and disapproved by a majority of the 'bdsm community'
(at least those that write articles, books, postings to the internet, and/or have websites) in particular by most of those styling themselves as dom/mes.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Pure, now that you've made this more clear, it makes me wonder if you had sex as a teenager. Not meaning to get personal here but... this is the Norm for how men act, especially as teenagers.
NOT acting this way, stood out as unusual. Guys live in a different world from women. I've only met a few women who've done this. It does seem to be an interesting taboo for women.
But for men, while it's not talked about in books, it is not just not taboo for men, it is part of their mainstream socialization from what I see hear read and have experienced.

Where did you grow up? Surely not in 18th century upper-class France? (or is it 19th.) Really not trying to be a smartass here (can't help self). Maybe mainstream, Anglo, middle and upper-middle-class American men have a taboo against doing this, or at least admitting it, but that isn't the world I grew up or dated in, and your idea of this being unusual, taboo, etcetera is so far removed from my experience that it's positively Orwellian.

Thus my boredom with the concept, not to mention the rl execution.

 

[Pure]

Hi PS, unfortunate you're bored. Oh well.

Anyone besides Apet have some rl or fictional examples, esp. female?

No, the teen male is generally not the model; no, I didn't get much then. "Oblivious' is the word i'd most use for these active, lusty, unaware young males.

Some of the active females, imo, were budding libertines, since they had the coolness and clarity, --portrayed, though not in high cinematic art, in the movie 'Cruel Intentions' (which derives from Dangerous Liaisons')*.



*Here's a link discussing several story/movie versions.
http://www.greenmanreview.com/film/film_valmont.html

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Sorry you're bored, PS.

Was gonna say I'd keep peeking in in case something unusual came up that 'needed' my comment, but thought that might be rude:>

Anyone besides Apet have some rl or fictional examples, esp. female?

Don't know if it fits the criteria exactly but my sister was pretty cold-blooded about 'losing her virginity.' Our dad was concerned she was being taken advantage of by an older guy. Nope. She picked him because he was quite attractive, seemed to have some idea what he was doing, and was dumber than a stick. Dropped him pretty quick after the deed was done. Not interested in a relationship, just wanted to control her first time sexual experience and went about it calculatedly. Have to say I admired her for it. She wasn't trying to hurt his feelings though, just didn't care.

"Oblivious' is the word i'd most use for these active, lusty, unaware young males.

That's the word You'd use because you weren't on the other end of these guys. Mostly, the unaware don't get any, unless they are quite appealing in other ways, which narrows it down. And, of the 'unaware, most wouldn't care, were they to Become aware. Seeing it as a game of 'I gotcha' or at least 'I got some' is the norm.

Anyway, sorry if you've dozed off. Other topics may be more to your taste.

Nice of you to apologize. It's not the norm. Seriously, a very nice way to tell say, 'go take a flying fuck if you don't like it.' Don't like It, but love to comment. A more interesting game to me is: aware and doing IT on purpose but occasionally relenting, or tormenting the other person with what they like, just enough to keep them there and interested but not enough to satisfy. Still, I'm a softy, and would then want to satisfy at the end. (Or be satisfied.) That would pretty much be my definition of a good tease. Yours is more like do as little as possible to satisfy, just enough to keep them in the room or from telling the police... then dump them unsatisfied. Yes, that is more of a torment. And is Exactly what I was talking about as being the norm.

Do people grow out of this? I'm more curious about why and how someone would change?

If you are only getting into this late in life -- more power to you -- and luck to your women friends who have been getting so much satisfaction out of you all these years. Maybe it is about time for you. Do you want to hurt people's feelings in rl? Non-consent-style? I suppose you can. People do it all the time. Hadn't thought about someone discussing doing it and deciding to as a turnon. Did it work for you in rl? Now I AM getting interested. Kind of a mild version of kicking a puppy? Or only a big dog you think can take care of itself? Might bite, and thus more challenge? hmmm.

 

[Netzach]

You know, part of the turn on for me, in SM is clarity of intent and negotiation and knowing that someone gives a fuck about you, and having reason to have trust or faith.

It's almost diametrically opposed to what happens in romantic and sexual liaisons outside of SM.

Listen to me, I sound like one of those SM people are more evolved assholes...we're not. But *to me* the draw was knowing where you stand. In my case, on your face, in your case under my feet, it's perfectly clear.

So I look at something like this and draw kind of a blank. Being an asshole was never that transgressive for me, just kinda made me feel blah.

And yeah, I've done that. Primaily with women because women have this amazing tendency to NOT LISTEN when you explain that you're not in it to get romantically attached, in this exceptionally emotionally suicidal, passive aggressive way.

 

[bridgeburner]

I know that the term Libertine is only an approximation here but I feel like pointing out that a Libertine is not specifically or primarily interested in getting his while denying others. That's a very specific kink. The Libertine is primarily concerned with satisfying himself and whether the other gets off or doesn't or consents or doesn't or likes it or doesn't isn't really at issue in the greater scheme of things. It might matter to any individual Libertine, but it's not inherent in the definition of the type.

Moving on to next in no particular order

Netzach said:

women have this amazing tendency to NOT LISTEN when you explain that you're not in it to get romantically attached, in this exceptionally emotionally suicidal, passive aggressive way.

Women listen but don't believe in most such cases. It's the old cliche about women wanting to change their lovers . Somehow if I'm just sexy enough or skilled enough or loving enough or whatever enough I'll win his/her lasting affections. I don't know that I necessarily agree that it's purposely masochistic, but passive aggressive is right on the money.


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

At first I thought that maybe the difference between what I mockingly refer to as "frat boy sex" and what Pure is getting at is the self awareness, but upon reading PS's posts and looking at my own experiences it's more specific than that.

As Phoenix points out plenty of guys are aware of the fact that they just want to get their rocks off without having the chick cry rape or hang around making calf's eyes at him for days or weeks on end. It's not a lack of knowledge about what a partner expects from them, it's a lack of interest in what those partners might want. They don't care and they know they don't care. No lying about motive or what their interest is. No hiding from it or denial. Clearly they are self-aware.

At the same time it's different from Rosco's fetishistic attraction to using a partner as a masturbatory tool. It seems there's an added thrill in focusing on that self-awareness of the situation.

Or perhaps there's another element.

Is it necessary to the kink that the fuckee not be gratified? I mean, if just through biology and physics if the fuckee reaches a climax is the scene blown?

If so, then this seems to be a pretty common game in BDsM practice ---- the bottom doesn't get to cum--- but this game is not about teasing the bottom to the edge and not satisfying. This isn't about the bottom at all except in the sense that whatever the Top does to get off it can't also get the bottom off.

And put that way I'm not sure that I see it as particularly taboo. I mean, unless you're one of those yoni/lingam types who wants to be both a pervert AND morally superior.


-B

 

[Phoenix Stone]

I mean, unless you're one of those yoni/lingam types who wants to be both a pervert AND morally superior.


-B

I read, understood and agreed with all of of bb's post except for that last line. I mean I LIKE the sound of it, just don't know what it means.

(Reminds me a little of being told by a guy when I was a teen that I have no Superego. Hey, insult me And make me go look it up in the dictionary! And So unfair, as I'm practically All superego.)

Guess I understood where the superior came in but not the morally. Morally, as in dubbing yourself with a high-falutin' name for it like Libertine? Or, are you assuming that one must be feeling morally superior to the bottom to do this? I love ya but I'm just confused as hell here. Not that you were talking to me.

(edited -change 'he' to 'one,' as we are speaking hypothetically and said person could be female. oops.)

 

[rosco rathbone]

I have to agree that I hardly see this as a province of the BDSM set.

It isn't----and this says volumes to me about the continuum....rather than the divide...between vanilla and perv.

 

[bridgeburner]

It isn't----and this says volumes to me about the continuum....rather than the divide...between vanilla and perv.

Yeah, yeah blur the lines! Hooray!


-B

 

[rosco rathbone]

... this is the Norm for how men act, especially as teenagers.
NOT acting this way, stood out as unusual.

This may or may not be true, but my experience was this:

I was culturally trained in the ways of post-sexual revolution love. Woman's orgasm is all important, foreplay, "the Joy Of Sex", and so on. The sexual paradigm which is taken for granted in our culture today; if you are my age or younger.

I think that a founding psychosexual experience for me...and I imagine for my peers...was the combination of this fundamentally feminist, male-denying dogma---which was drummed into us with moral force ; ie, "you are bad if you do not believe this"-----and our personal testicular reality.

 

[rosco rathbone]

At first I thought that maybe the difference between what I mockingly refer to as "frat boy sex" and what Pure is getting at is the self awareness,

*sound of nail being hit on head*

 

[bridgeburner]

Phoenix,

I was ranting again but less coherently than usual. What I meant by the yoni/lingam crowd was those folks who are so quick to decide whose perversions are legitimate and whose perversions are sick and wrong and flat out dangerous to the world at large.

To some, the idea that you would not care about your partner's climax is not only rude but morally reprehensible. It makes you a bad person.

I have a whole mindset about these kinds of people but I can't really articulate it at this moment. It's an old riff from me anyway.

And, no, I didn't mean Pure in the slightest. He may not always be into what I'm into but he'd never tell me there's something wrong with me because I'm into it. Totally not his bag.


-B

 

[Pure]

hi bb,

those are interesting thoughts. i'll respond to a couple, though i think you know the answers.

Is it necessary to the kink that the fuckee not be gratified? I mean, if just through biology and physics if the fuckee reaches a climax is the scene blown?

No. No. Indeed, as I stated in the initial post, if a degree of arousal is handy to the fucker (top), the the fuckee (bottom) may be aroused to any desired degree. Further, since the 'game' is not necessary done in a night, there may well be reasons to let the 'taken' one come gloriously and engage in a few days romantic fantasies about it.

But if the single encounter is intended to end in clear affront, the satisfaction of the other may be directed, but trivialized. Hand the other the appropriate implement, artificial vagina or penis, and say, "It would amuse me, before I leave, if you'd finish yourself off." Or simply "Take care of what business you need to, I've gotta go."

If so, then this seems to be a pretty common game in BDsM practice ---- the bottom doesn't get to cum---

that common, game 'denial-by-mutual-consent' is not what we're talking about.

but this [libertine?] game is not about teasing the bottom to the edge and not satisfying. This isn't about the bottom at all except in the sense that whatever the Top does to get off it can't also get the bottom off.

i'm not entirely clear about 'this', but the particular sadism of 'can't[=won't] also get the bottom off', is not part of the libertine game.
Again, "I'll never let you come, because we've agreed on it," is a DS (rather than libertine) game, perhaps not common, but scarcely rare.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Libertine love is the only kind of love that can fulfill me, these days.

 

[Netzach]

"yoni/lingam types"

I just spewed dayquil on my monitor.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

This may or may not be true, but my experience was this:

I was culturally trained in the ways of post-sexual revolution love. Woman's orgasm is all important, foreplay, "the Joy Of Sex", and so on. The sexual paradigm which is taken for granted in our culture today; if you are my age or younger.

I think that a founding psychosexual experience for me...and I imagine for my peers...was the combination of this fundamentally feminist, male-denying dogma---which was drummed into us with moral force ; ie, "you are bad if you do not believe this"-----and our personal testicular reality.

Lived in a lot of places but was never around roving bands of wild feminists.

(raised by wolves and thrown to the wolves -- said 'fratboys' and others from various walks of life. Most of whom Were aware. Sorry to disagree with you Rosco but one can tell how the other person feels by just looking at their face, and not being on the receiving end of such overtures, you are unlikely to be familiar. I was post Joy of Sex, babycakes. My best friend's mom had a copy, but somehow I don't think the guys I was around read it. Looked at the pictures maybe. Read it for philosophical content, no.

Btw, I don't believe that feminist fundamentalism is fundamentally male-denying. 19th century social feminism was quite utopian, inclusive, etc. Political feminism, though, is the strand that won out -- the idea being that if you get the vote, you can work on getting your utopias and being (for want of being able to think of better labels at the moment) life-affirming, family oriented, libertine, etc. later. Oh well. Social feminism sounded like much more fun.

(don't know why but 'my personal testicular reality' sounds painful.)

 

[Netzach]

Thank you for yanking those of us, and I count me heavily, ass deep in the intellectual elite back to reality for a moment, and quite well.

The common economy of male/female isn't that disposed towards feminism.

Most boys are still encouraged to play with guns and cars and get laid often and roughly. Wan indie rock hipster boys with suppressed sexual id are a subculture and a minority. They happen to be a large marketing segment because their parents still buy them lots of gadgets, so they are well represented in the media, along with "metrosexuals" who have lots of money for bath products.

 

[s'lara]

Apet, that's a nice posting. And a Note to lara,

You really seem to 'get it'. If some others haven't it's no doubt my fault, but you're right on!

Until I read this, I had no idea that what I had indulged in (in the past) was considered a taboo thing. My thoughts were always: "Let me do it to them before they do it to me, period."

Usually, it wasn't even about the sex...it was about being able to capture the one that I wanted, having the ability to disabuse them of the notion that they were worth anything besides a quick fuck. It was FUN!! It usually ended up with them being angry, hurt but once the game was done, I was done.

Well, one way of looking at 'taboo', in a loose sense, is to look for Lit stories with it happening. I'd say there are damn few with a female figure like you describe. FAR fewer (at Lit) than Mom who fuck sons, which is pretty rare irl.

you further say,

The taboo involved is the deliberate misleading, the deliberate hurting of someone else. Using them (point blank) to get yourself off, without their knowledge or consent.

As I said before, that used to be the way I played. It wasn't nice, it wasn't fair..but it was FUN.

This is pretty close to what I described, and dead on for the classic libertine like Valmont. In practice, taking your case, I'm sure lotsa men will dream what they want, if simply uncontradicted. I don't have a problem with that in the short or medium run, though it should stop at the altar!. Further, if some thinks that "It was great fucking you" means , "I'd like to see you again," or "I want it 20 more times over the next season", that's surely their problem.

A key concept you noted was 'contest'; each is in struggle with the other; tritely, a 'law of the jungle'. Sex as an agonistic activity. (that's how certain men have always played it; or reformed sorts like our roscoe.)

Hi lara

I think you're onto something, but probably I did'n't clarify enough.

Eh. Lends toward use. The tool you use to obtain satisfaction. No, not a toy. It's worse if the tool is human right? To treat another so callously, so insensitively is the height of self absorption yes? Sounds fine to me, but as a sub that would be just dandy. But wait. That lessens the sweetness of the game doesn't it? The more unaware the tool is, the better the fruits of the labor. Double edged sword for sub's. Consent is a tricky matter when it comes to satisfying the spontaneous sadist who revels in acts which border or are outside the parameters previously set.

Aware vs. unaware. From my POV, experiencing the unaware is keen and sharp, like a green apple; sweet and bitter. That's always cool says the masochist.

As you saying the bottom find unawareness sweeter? or more 'bitter' like green apples.? Or is it (also?) the top's joy in knowing the other is unaware that's sweet? Who are we talking about?

In an earlier draft, and in a recent addition to the first posting, I noted that the bottom, ideally has *dawning* awareness, and his/her final realization (I've been had) is indeed part of the kick for the libertine.

I see the word 'self absorbed' has created some problems. It was NOT meant to connote unawareness of the other's mind and feelings. (Note Valmont). It was meant to indicate UNconcern with (protecting) them. I couldn't find a better short term for the libertines intention: self-gratification (of several sorts, as apet mentions) and exploitation (of a sort) in disregard for the the other's expectations.

As to the commonness, of this activity, that's a tricky area, but I did intend that this 'self absorbed' person be different from the person whose simply trying to get laid a lot, and finding acquiescent or enthusiastic partners. And be different from the 'frat boy' that likes to get a lotta potential partners drunk, and join the line in fucking them while they're passed out.

Here's what i believe i get Pure. i've read and seen instances where a hunter (for lack of a better word) tracked, watched, boxed in and captured their prey. At all times, the prey is unaware, and it is this state of being incognizant (prey) that makes the predators pursuit so satisfying. However, the pinnacle satisfaction is the point of exposure of the game, i.e., the prey is made aware that it was fodder for the private amusement of the predator. The recognition by the prey that they were used, without regard to their care or concern, is the sweet kernel of achievement for the predator. The outrage, hurt feelings, shock are all irritating distractions from the plateau the "user" has reached by exploiting another for his/her personal satisfaction (Valmont).

Yes, the mechanics behind the pursuit are pretty close to the vanilla game of the "dating rat race." However, the cruelty behind pursuing someone and using them in an apathetic manner is often not discussed or even professed. If it is, the man/woman in question is labeled as a cold-hearted, self-serving person and not viable for long term involvement unless that kind of treatment is what the other needs.

The bitter green apple metaphor i referred to was the Valmont satisfaction in the game (the sweet). The bitter is the realization that one was thoroughly used, without imagined consent, and the bitter taste left in ones mouth once such realization sinks in (Mme de Tourvel). Your feelings of self-worth plummets and you just feel, well, used; unimportant and far from at peace. Again, not a bad thing for those looking for a different brand of cruelty, i.e., use which doesn't necessarily satisfy both parties.

 

[s'lara]

As an aside, Netzach, the av -- you might want to leave that one up for a long while.

lara

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Thank you for yanking those of us....

Who, me, yanking ? Well I aim to please, doncha know. (and my aim is getting better.)


Btw, I did one of those little quizilla quizzes to see if my dh is a metrosexual. The computer rolled over laughing he fell so far off the chart -- said he made John wayne look swishy and doesn't even know any metros.

Anway, excuse me but I got to go deliver some cookies I made for my son's nursery school potluck now.... (my own recipe -- whole wheat peanut butter and jelly. The secret ingredient is hazelnut meal.)

See ya.

 

[ethereal~minx]

Re: Re: Re: Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

...

The taboo involved is the deliberate misleading, the deliberate hurting of someone else. ...pet

this is sick. sick sick sick. deliberate. ohh that is soo grossss~~~ I almost can't even believe this is true! Only a truly injured =--deeeply injured, soul-injured person is capable of deliberately hurting another human--god that's disgusting! and to think it's fun hurting someone else ... I'm glad you're healed pet...


I pray this is not for real. I mean, I can see what's-his-face...the one th---the Green River Killer being so caught up in his belief that he is bad that he actually got enjoyment out of killing ...

butand omg this belief that it's okay has got to be where it began
oh grosss

 

[sunfox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

this is sick. sick sick sick. deliberate. ohh that is soo grossss~~~ I almost can't even believe this is true! Only a truly injured =--deeeply injured, soul-injured person is capable of deliberately hurting another human--god that's disgusting! and to think it's fun hurting someone else ... I'm glad you're healed pet...


I pray this is not for real. I mean, I can see what's-his-face...the one th---the Green River Killer being so caught up in his belief that he is bad that he actually got enjoyment out of killing ...

butand omg this belief that it's okay has got to be where it began
oh grosss

....

Never broke up with someone? Never lied to your mother about where you were when you came home late? Never fibbed about a homework assignment? Never told someone who had feelings for you that it 'wasn't going to work out'?

I envy you your universe, because mine is full of people who hurt other people on a daily basis... and I wouldn't call them deeply soul injured. Just selfish.

But hey... you're entitled to your view. Though I have to say... strikes me as a rather 'Pollyanna'-ish way of seeing things.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

this is sick. sick sick sick. deliberate. ohh that is soo grossss~~~ I almost can't even believe this is true! Only a truly injured =--deeeply injured, soul-injured person is capable of deliberately hurting another human--god that's disgusting! and to think it's fun hurting someone else ... I'm glad you're healed pet...


I pray this is not for real. I mean, I can see what's-his-face...the one th---the Green River Killer being so caught up in his belief that he is bad that he actually got enjoyment out of killing ...

butand omg this belief that it's okay has got to be where it began
oh grosss

huh??

is this a spoof? Green River Killer?