Levels of Sexual Abstraction

Posted on November 23, 2008 by indefenseofgettingoff

Tonight I had an extremely informative and enlightening conversation on a topic, which I have thought about extensively but, apparently, not through this male-centric perspective.

Cum-shot pornography: That was the topic on hand.

 

Two things that I had never considered:

 

1) The purpose of cumming on a woman from a heterosexual-perspective on pornographic utility. Obviously, as a male, when you are watching pornography, you wish to see some type of resolutions, a culmination of sorts, for which lack to complete might connote a general failure to follow though. Sexual blue balls. When I watch porn, for serious, all I want to see is the cum. It is the reassurance, of sorts, to those who need constant sexual affirmation. It substitutes for the sex follow-up calls, asking, “We’re cool, right?”

 

But for guys, when watching cum-shot pornography, they too want to see the resolution. They, however, might not want to see a guy jizz all over himself, writhing in pleasure, so they use a girl as a vehicle through which to express their pleasure. It might not be an exact quote from the guy who made me privy to this phenomenon, but a guy does not necessarily want to see a guy elated, disoriented, and unselfconscious, jizzing all over himself. Instead, he expects to see a girl as the recipient of such pleasure. Being rewarded if you want to take it a step further. Or at least incorporated—the object of his pleasure, not a mere vehicle by which to get off. Is this cumming really the incorporation; the tying into intimacy, physical presence, continued interest and reception; wanting it, waiting for it, and anticipating; that which draws the woman back as the focal-point of the experience; that which drags the man out of the vulnerable, depleted state of getting off into the union of post-getting off revelry. In which superior and inferior, in and out, dominant and submissive are irrelevant anymore—(d)evolving into post-orgasmic bliss, grandiosity, and invincibility. 

 

2) Sexual symbolism.

Cock-smacking a girl, as opposed to cumming on her, is more ridiculous because it is more sexually symbolic. Cock-smacking someone involves content-laden physical activity, whereas cumming on someone is purely consumed in symbolic representations. If you are going to cock-smack a girl, you might as well just smack her. For degradation sake, possibly a cock is above a hand. But in terms of physical content, in terms of the physical manifestations, a hand surely yields a greater sensation. Thus, a cock fills in as a mere symbol of degradation, when sexual experiences should be looked at for what they truly are. Cumming on someone—as symbolically temping as this might be to decipher—has little physical charge. After all, we are washable. Who fucking cares? You mess on me, but do not leave me a mess. This is not like being physically hit where there is a sensation to accompany the dynamic. There is no response to meet the entreaty. This is purely cum—its pure, sexual energy distilled into its representative components. And what you do with it, in what way you choose to interpret and play with it, says more about you than it. Because cum is, quite simply, the product of arousal. It isn’t hitting put into sexually symbolic, cock form. It is cumming experienced publicly, possibly expressed in such a way so that a girl is a recipient of a guy’s orgasm, her system of secondary gains is hooked up. He is the subject and she is the object, but she is not objectified so much as she is a secondary recipient, a vicarious recipient, primed for her receptive duties, which she receives as an extension of her own pleasure, a residual of his. 

Posted in levels of sexual abstraction | 1 Comment

And Now For Some Scholarship

Posted on November 20, 2008 by indefenseofgettingoff

Garcia (1982) studied stereotypes about males and female sexuality. He exposed male and female participants to erotic slides of either a male or a female target, and gave them bogus information about how much sexual experience the target had. Participants were asked to rate the sexual arousal of the target. Females with high sexual experience were rated as being more aroused than females with low sexual experience, but sexual experience did not differentiate levels of arousal attributed to male targets. Females with high sexual experience were attributed as much arousal as male targets. These results emphasize the dichotomous conception of female sexuality: There exist sensuous and erotic females on the one hand, and virginal and sexless females, on the other. Men are not placed into such categories according to their sexuality, as male sexual experience is always attributed to arousal. Interestingly, participants who were more sex-stereotyped, were more likely to attribute arousal to targets in the pattern reflecting social norms. The fact that there was no actual difference in levels of arousal among targets—information was bogus—yet participants rated male and female targets differently, is evidence of the sexual double-standard. Furthermore, it is evidence of the fact that females may be judged based on gross social expectations, rather than on gauges that accurately reflect the factors that go into their sexual decisions (Garcia, 1982).

This is an excerpt from my thesis analyzing Luis T. Garcia’s 1982 study Sex-Role Orientation and Stereotypes about Male and Female Sexuality (1982). It relates to my previous post insofar as it delineates the differential stereotypes bestowed on male and female sexuality. More specifically, it proves that males are always attributed arousal in sexual experiences, while only certain females are attributed arousal in sexual experiences. We could only assume that those women who were not attributed arousal, would probably be attributed other things, had the subjects of the study been asked to evaluate them according to other characteristics. In other words, for men it is taken for granted that there is a direct relationship between biological needs and sexual fulfillment. On the other hand, the evaluation of the same relationship is not so straightforward for women; it involves categorizing them into sexual “types,” based on their purported motivations, rather than seeing them collectively as women who are part of the same species and, therefore, have the same physical needs, regardless of how often or with whom they express them. Men are simple and biologically predictable creatures. Women are complicated, have divergent motivations, and potentially ulterior motives. The link between male sex drive and activity is direct. The pathway from female arousal to sex has been set off track by stereotypes and now there is no insight as to why women act as they do. This study was done in controlled, laboratory condition with bogus information presented. The real world is much more complex. If people presented such unfounded attributions under these rather simplistic conditions, imagine the cognitive disconnect they must have in analyzing female sexuality in situations which are complicated by social factors and relationships. The genesis is misattribution and wild assumptions are put at the service of filling in the relevant cognitive gaps, those that need to be filled for people to make sense of their social surroundings. This is the geneology of the misinformation regarding female sexuality.  Continue reading →

Posted in now for some scholarship | Leave a comment

In Defense Of Getting Off

Posted on November 20, 2008 by indefenseofgettingoff

Getting off is the most easily defensible act ever. Yet, absurdly, on a semi-regular basis, I find myself in a position where I feel the need to explain myself, as if something as fundamentally magnificent as the desire to get off requires any explanation. It is self-explanatory—so much so that it explains away other related and undesirable behavior. But in this mad, mad world, when a girl recounts a sexual experience, people judge her intent instead of taking it for granted. It is assumed that she would not engage in sex simply for the sake of sex, so when she does something that looks very much like that, her motives are questioned and her psyche is considered fair game for prodding. People are so insistent in their belief of a hidden agenda. As if our acts are a cover for something far more sinister—a surefire sign of weakness in character or coquettish manipulation.

 

Socially deviant behavior is not understood in terms of the society in which it is enacted and its biological underpinnings. A divergence from social norms is considered the result of a personal deficiency, one that is so deeply rooted that the woman herself is assumed to be unaware of the causes and effects of her behavior—the reasons for which she makes her decisions and the social consequences that are to come. Women are not free agents in their sexual decision making processes—they do not have goals and get what they want. They are manipulated, taken advantage of. The “liberated” ones are victimize themselves under the guise of self-sufficiency and utility. Objectify themselves to appeal to men, men who have no respect for them. Women doll themselves up to give guys what they want, because what value would women have without the approval of the valued sex? We are mere instruments of the internalization of dominant ideals. In this power play, we are ultimately the losers and the joke is on us. How could a man possibly respect a woman who is in it for the same reasons he is, is on the same level, is a threat because she has needs independent of his? Men have us so tied down, that they have turned us into our own captors.

 

As if we have to dignify our behavior with more elaborate, albeit convoluted, explanations—freed from our primitive animal roots, which remind us of our mortality. This is sexual perversity at its best. Sexual women are not to be trusted. I mean, why would someone get off for the sake of getting off, anyway? What is masturbation even for? And other unanswerable questions. Do we really feel so pathetic, powerless, and insignificant as humans that we have to invent God and invent complex justifications for simple biological functions that have been working out quite nicely for all parties concerned since the beginning of human existence.

 

The point is most often missed. In reality, we girls are pretty simple creatures. As simple as the simple beauty that is simply getting off. And it is, most likely, nothing more than that—nothing more needs to be read into the situation. It can be taken for face-value.

 

And thus is the inspiration for my blog.

 

 A sexual experience that I would like to reveal, but about which people would get the wrong idea. Or rather, they would get the wrong idea about me. But they would be missing that it isn’t about me—it says nothing about me as a person. It is about the act. What gets me off. And the fact that I do what gets me off sometimes irrespective of the consequences and complications. People read the consequences as the primary reality. They use a perverted order to go about the question—reason that what I get out of it must be why I do it. Obviously. But I get something else out of it: the sex. And the getting off following the sex. Because half the point of sex is having something to get off to afterwards. I don’t even care that it’s good. I just care that it makes the guy more salient and tangible and therefore I can fantasize about the situation in a more detailed and concrete manner. See also: reasons why girls hang out with cute guys for whom they have no respect as people. The questions all lead to the same fact of the matter. The sexual utility. And this is what people seem to be missing.

 

 

 

Posted in in defense of getting off | Leave a comment