Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

[Pure]

In response to several postings above, let me say that this is NOT a thread devoted to this proposal:

'ethics should play no part in human life.'

nor to this:

'ethics should play no role in one's sexual life.'

nor even to this:

'if one's sexual life is one of sadomasochism, then ethics cannot play any role it it.'

The thread simply proposes that there are certain kinds of sexual acts and impulses behind them. There are also imaginings of those acts. (And these may involve being on the giving or receving end of such acts.) I've simply invited people to discuss or DEscribe such 'self-absorbed' impulses or actions or ideas.

I hope this clarifies matters.

 

[RJMasters]

p. rj, you seems to have gotten your knickers and your reading a bit twisted:

p. the possible 'dark' side of SM is the topic of another thread. this thread is about self absorption. selfish and 'dark' are not the same.

RJ: No my reading is just fine. From your SMACK thread, your topopolis ramblings, your disrespect thread, and this gem of self-absorbed sex thread, they are all the same. They have the same dark, selfhish and disrespect(towards your partner) theme. You are the king of logical fallacies. You spend 99% of your posts promoting and advocating disrespect and selfishness and then try to white wash it all with 1% disclaimer statements.

p: There are a great many threads where self-said ethical people such as yourself hold forth and socialize, unmolested. The fact is you are here, doing the bashing.

RJ: Bashing eh? Is that what I am doing? Just thought I would give you the opportunity to experieince some of this disrespectful hotness you keep going on about in all of your threads. Perhaps a bit selfish of me I know, but you seem to think that is an acceptable practice as well. Or maybe I am just following your example in bashing those who's view I don't agree with, in an effort to hold some mythical made up preceived balance(cues SciFi background music here).

You can't have it both ways p. If your gonna bash others for their views, then your gonna get it back. Nor can you advocate 99% of the time for something and then hide behind a 1% disclaimer when people press you for the truth in what you are saying. IMO you are shoveling the same romantic notion of D/s BDSM from the opposite side of the same shit pile.

As for you doing more than Yaking....here's an idea, why don't you start a thread on things you would like to see changed around here. Oh wait, you did try that...how did that go? Maybe you should try something a bit smaller like....learning how to post an image in your posts.

 

[Pure]

rj Just thought I would give you the opportunity to experieince some of this disrespectful hotness you keep going on about in all of your threads.

you've given me a raging hard-on.... now, bend over!

 

[Pure]

hi hester,

cool point!

H: as much as it can seem the bottom is the one objectified, i firmly believe it's possible for the top to be objectified. or for the objectification to be mutual. i was horrified when i first realized this possibility and had to admit to myself that i objectified men i fucked.

P: yes, i think 'objectification' is a broad concept, of great interest, as for instance the most recent instance at topopolis.

focus on a *part* of another is, of course, an obvious 'objectification', i.e breast, pussy, cock.

in a broader sense to make the person a means only, to a particular satisfaction, is to objectify; in the case you cite, your partner is viewed only as a means, a tool, if you will, to sexual satisfaction. as shakara put it, one may focus on a cock, for instance, and make only marginal acknowledgement of the person attached thereto.

reducing the other to a 'means,' and not 'treating them as an end' is of course a cardinal sin (offense) in Kantian morality. but, as i've put it elsewhere, some of our impulses do not come with moral guidelines built in, or even attached.

 

[alice_underneath]

When I was discovering my "gayness" I needed a cock, it rather pissed me off that I needed to contend with the guy attached to what I was after in order to get it. I could now go into a long statement about concern about the guy bla bla bla - but as I read this thread I am free to say that "I just wanted his cock and was willing to give it back to him once I was finished". I remember the moment it hit me, I was on my knees sucking that cock and the guy put his hands on my head and stated to move me the way he wanted - in my mind I yelled "I'm in charge here! This cock is mine till I'm done with it". I reached up, pushed his hands away and finished it off the way I wanted. Then I got up and walked away - a very happy toppy cocksucker...

Is this what you have in mind here?

In my entire life, I have never once had an experience like this - either in real life or Fantasy Land. It's just not the way I am wired. I have never pushed his hands away, or gotten up to walk away at the conclusion. I don't even have the urge to do this type of thing. In all of my intimate experiences, my primary focus has been: How can I please him?

Does this make me a selfless lover, or a person who is less self-absorbed sexually than a 'happy toppy' guy? I don't see it that way, partly because I am most aroused & satisfied when I am not in control (i.e., my sexual needs are being met) - but also because the sine qua non for being in bed with me in the first place is the package deal that I mentioned in my earlier post.

ha! i've done that before.

i've never made any bones about the fact that i fuck/engage in sexual acts for my own pleasure. the dynamics change quite a bit if we're talking about an emotionally intimate relationship, but in a purely/mostly sexual situation i'm there for my own gratification, even if that means i'm bottoming.

eta: as much as it can seem the bottom is the one objectified, i firmly believe it's possible for the top to be objectified. or for the objectification to be mutual. i was horrified when i first realized this possibility and had to admit to myself that i objectified men i fucked.

Were you horrified because your actions violated the perceived norms of social behavior, or because the guys were clearly hurt or upset by what you had done?

 

[Pure]

consider this, alice, as a *possibility*

in a footnote to my opening post, i said,

//Others' imaginings on the topic are welcome! Either from the 'doing' side, or the 'undergoing' side. Stories. (This isn't a 'real life' advice column.)//

similarly, in my of 2:11am today,

//There are also imaginings of those acts. (And these may involve being on the giving or receving end of such acts.) //

so when i read your words,

I don't even have the urge to do this type of thing. In all of my intimate experiences, my primary focus has been: How can I please him?

Does this make me a selfless lover, [or] a person who is less self-absorbed sexually than a 'happy toppy' guy?

i think, maybe she's 'wired' as a bottom/maso-person.

and the answer to that last question is, imo, yes, in the sense we are talking about. that is not a value judgement, merely a possible description.
----

PS. To Alice and anyone reading this; thoughtful contributions to the topic are welcome, regardless of your position. Alice, excellent question of yours, 'were you horrified...?'

stimulation of thought, rather than agreement, is the goal of this thread. [slightly revised and edited]

j.

 

[alice_underneath]

I do not consider your remarks addressed to me to be insulting, Pure. However, my personal code of conduct dictates that I give 'short shrift' not just to those who are insulting me, but to those who insult others as well.

My comments on this thread were made on behalf of Shankara and Hester. That's all I have to say in response to your post.

Alice

 

[Shankara20]

Posting that little story of mine has opened up a whole bunch of internal stuff for me – I find it very interesting. I am surprised at the nagging deep old guilt I am feeling, I am 58 years old yet that guilt feels about 16. Interesting. I am also feeling the desire to say “but I am a loving giving caring attentive lover” to defend what little reputation I might have, or wish I had, here in this forum. Please understand that I am not taking issue with anything anyone has said. These are just my own internal responses to actually saying out loud “I just took care of my own needs without over-focusing on needs of someone else”. You see, I am very much a giver and have given myself away to lovers and partners to the point that I hurt myself.

I also did not set up the context of the cocksucking experience. I was at bathhouse, a place that thrives on anonymous self-absorbed sex. It was all consensual – the owner of that cock could have walked away anytime he wanted. The house rules allow for that there At a BDSM play party there is no way I would touch anyone without asking, I would make sure it was ok to be naked, and only wank while watching a scene from a distance as long as house rules allowed it and other people were ok with it.

What I loved about the bathhouse is the sexual openness. There are play rooms where everyone knows the rules, where touching is allowed, where a look in an eye tells you a kiss is welcome, a no is very easy to read and instantly respected. There are suckers and suckees all over the place. Some guys building sexual heat will just walk away while getting a blow job – imagine being hot into giving a blow job only to have owner of the cock just pull out and walk away. A room full of 50 guys into self-absorbed sex, but not without care and concern and tenderness for the other person. Not once did I get or give head that were not a tender touch and look of “thank you” (well there was that once that I posted earlier). It was in those dark rooms of that bathhouse that I learned to my amazement how truly tender a man can be as a lover, how passionately we can kiss, how deeply we can care about each other, and how hot anonymous self-absorbed sex can be – for me – every now-and-then.

Thanks - and I welcome any and all feed back / responces / reactions.

 

[Pure]

nice posting shankara. i remember friends with such stories.

this is glorious freedom in orgies and free for alls (the Mineshaft). OTOH, the element of self destructiveness (and other life-destructiveness) in self absorbed sex along with a) dozens or multitudes of sex contacts (partners), b) where much of the sex was anal, and c) where the sex was without condoms was a recipe for the disaster than befell the gay community.

libertine acts, in reality, real life, require safety precautions.

 

[Shankara20]

nice posting shankara. i remember friends with such stories.

this is glorious freedom in orgies and free for alls. OTOH, the element of self destructiveness (and other life-destructiveness) in self absorbed sex along with a) dozens or multitudes of sex contacts, b) many of which were anal, and c) many of which were condomless was a recipe for the disaster than befell the gay community.

There are many problems with bathhouse sex, even more with T-room sex. IMHO self absorbed sex has many downsides, and I know the self-absorbeb does not = bathhouse/orgy

That one story I told, was for me - WOOF!

And it was when I knew for sure I could Top someone (not that Topping = self absorbed)

 

[FurryFury]

I personally believe that being able to obtain that level of freedom and focus on what you want is not a bad thing but rather something that dreams sometimes are made of.

Fury

 

[alice_underneath]

Posting that little story of mine has opened up a whole bunch of internal stuff for me – I find it very interesting. I am surprised at the nagging deep old guilt I am feeling, I am 58 years old yet that guilt feels about 16. Interesting. I am also feeling the desire to say “but I am a loving giving caring attentive lover” to defend what little reputation I might have, or wish I had, here in this forum.

Shankara,

There are two points I'd like to make in response to your 'little story".

First and foremost, my image of you remained unchanged after reading your initial post on this thread. I wasn't shocked or horrified or disillusioned in any way.

All human beings are capable of (and in fact do commit) overtly selfish acts. Some more than others, of course, but no one is exempt from this behavior - no matter how narrowly anyone defines the term 'self-absorbed'.

My second point is a more general comment about the personal responsibility of adults. Barring cases involving nonconsensual physical force or significant coercion, if an adult is being used for another's pleasure, then he is letting himself be used. The used therefore bears at least as much responsibility as the user for what transpires.

Note - I am not advocating frequent or sustained self-absorbed behavior here. For one thing, extreme forms of this behavior have a tendency to drive most other humans away.

I do, however, feel that you should cut yourself some slack.

Just my opinion,
Alice

 

[Shankara20]

I do, however, feel that you should cut yourself some slack.

Just my opinion,
Alice

Thanks Alice - I am not that good at self-slack-cutting, but I am getting better.

 

[RJMasters]

rj Just thought I would give you the opportunity to experieince some of this disrespectful hotness you keep going on about in all of your threads.

you've given me a raging hard-on.... now, bend over!

No thanks, not interested in you getting off. I know I am suppose to be self-absorbed here and inconsiderate but I just don't seem to have the hang of it yet...so here's a towel so you can wipe the spouge off your face.

*Laughs and leaves. (I guess there is something to this disrespectful-self-absorbtion shit after all, I guess I just need a partner I don't care about to get in the right head space.)

 

[FurryFury]

Thanks Alice - I am not that good at self-slack-cutting, but I am getting better.

I'm not either, so I totally understand that.

I meant to say earlier that I don't have any difference of opinion about you either. I love you!

*hugs *

Fury

 

[Shankara20]

I love you!

*hugs *

Fury

U2






.

 

[FurryFury]

U2






.

*GRINS*

back!

Fury

 

[Hester]

Were you horrified because your actions violated the perceived norms of social behavior, or because the guys were clearly hurt or upset by what you had done?

good question.

i don't even know if the guys were hurt in some of the instances. i think i was mostly horrified because i didn't realize i was capable of doing that or aware of what i was doing.

it never really bothered me to feel used. i used to put myself in situations where i would be "used" and i kind of liked the feelings from it, although it always really confused me. i never understood that, and now i do. turns out the using in those situations was mutual, not one-sided like i thought it was, or at least like i was socially indoctrinated that i should think.

 

[Hester]

 

[Pure]

fine posting, hester,

H: i don't even know if the guys were hurt in some of the instances. i think i was mostly horrified because i didn't realize i was capable of doing that or aware of what i was doing.

it never really bothered me to feel used. i used to put myself in situations where i would be "used" and i kind of liked the feelings from it, although it always really confused me. i never understood that, and now i do. turns out the using in those situations was mutual, not one-sided like i thought it was, or at least like i was socially indoctrinated that i should think.

P: your account, and alice's point to which it's related, bring up something absolutely crucial. in sketching or exploring the libertine, the 'self absorbed sex-seeker', one runs in the problem that some people are going to say, "That is a dangerous person." "You're recommending predation," and "That is a predator." Well, in the legal sense, no. The legal libertine, the one who stays on the right side of the law, is these days in search of 'prey', yes, but not kidnapped virgins; such 'prey' (in quotes), are complicit. they dynamic prevent the prey from exercizing control, that that is not to say that health and physical safety are tossed aside as issues. Now 'mental safety,' that's a big topic.... care to say anything about it?

 

[Pure]

a thought and question,

(thanks to rj)

are certain sadistic (legal) acts, topping, or imposing ones necessarily reserved for those one does NOT particularly care about?

would that mean that certain satisfactions are only to be had from those who are NOT one's loving partners?

 

[catalina_francisco]

(thanks to rj)

are certain sadistic (legal) acts, topping, or imposing ones necessarily reserved for those one does NOT particularly care about?

would that mean that certain satisfactions are only to be had from those who are NOT one's loving partners?

My answer would be not necessarily, though there are a lot of people who are at a point where they are not comfortable revealing and revelling in that part of themselves enough to share with or impose it on someone they care about and could suffer annihilation from as a result of their actions. For others, the fact it is someone you care about, adds another level which cannot be reached with someone you remain detached from emotionally.

Catalina

 

[alice_underneath]

good question.

i don't even know if the guys were hurt in some of the instances. i think i was mostly horrified because i didn't realize i was capable of doing that or aware of what i was doing.

it never really bothered me to feel used. i used to put myself in situations where i would be "used" and i kind of liked the feelings from it, although it always really confused me. i never understood that, and now i do. turns out the using in those situations was mutual, not one-sided like i thought it was, or at least like i was socially indoctrinated that i should think.

Thanks for answering my question, Hester. Your response makes a lot of sense to me - both the point about indoctrination, and the realization of mutual using.

A different and potentially more hurtful type of using is described by Luna in this post. Using the emotional vulnerability of one's partner, to enhance the "FUN" (Luna's word) involved in the using, is taking the self-absorbed sex thing to whole different level, in my opinion.

It seems as if context would be everything in determining the level of hurt caused by self-absorbed behavior. Looking at Shankara's example -

Some guys building sexual heat will just walk away while getting a blow job – imagine being hot into giving a blow job only to have owner of the cock just pull out and walk away.

- I imagine that would be embarrassing and sexually frustrating in a bathhouse or casual sex encounter. But within a committed, emotionally intimate relationship, that might be a very hurtful thing to do.

This reminds me of a quote from an old movie, Heaven Can Wait. Dyan Cannon plays a total bitch in the film, and Julie Christie plays an intelligent, kind, likeable character.

At one point, Cannon takes a nasty verbal shot at Christie, adding sarcastically: "I am sorry if I've said anything that's hurt you."

Christie responds: "I don't know you well enough for you to hurt me."

When talking about the potential sting involved with self-absorbed sex, I suspect that rationale might apply in many cases.

Alice

 

[Hester]

A different and potentially more hurtful type of using is described by Luna in this post. Using the emotional vulnerability of one's partner, to enhance the "FUN" (Luna's word) involved in the using, is taking the self-absorbed sex thing to whole different level, in my opinion.

It seems as if context would be everything in determining the level of hurt caused by self-absorbed behavior.

some people actually get off on being used like that, though.

 

[alice_underneath]

some people actually get off on being used like that, though.

True. As for the rest, I am reminded of the old adage: "Fool me once....." etc.