The 'Psycho-Metaphysics' of Sex

[Rich Engle]

OK, no nap for me today, I got drug out on a consulting job...close enough to being asleep.

The concept of "control" in terms of sexuality. There, that should reduce mission creep. Call it the dominance vs. submission issue if you wish. Fugue in the natural greater physical strength of males thing (not that it's what it used to be, saints be praised).

"Control," in this situation is a conceived state. Or maybe a contrived one. Either way...

So, if we go against classic M/F missionary, say (which as as much to be said for it as anything else, that's where I'm going with this in case you missed), does that automatically assume control? If you want it to. If you want them to think that. If they want to think that. If you both want, for a moment, for one (or for that matter both) of you to think that.

This is a door which is always swinging two ways, like it or not. I like it.

Exploring both sides of the barrier and everywhere in between is only saying that you have a great trust in one another, and because of that great trust, you can do purt 'near anything you want. That trust is where the freedom comes from. So, go figure, you have all that freedom in an exclusive adult romantic sexual relationship. At that point you're writing your own menus, as it should be. Who would expect less?

Or, if not feeling adventurous, there's a lot to be said for however you just regularly "do it." And there's spiritual doing it and just doing it and flavors in between.

It's not like you have to pick or anything. With that trust comes freedom, with that freedom comes joyousness, and sometimes just plain fun.

rde

[John Dailey]

R-E:

~ Well, if 'trust' and 'control' are the MAIN concerns to be stressed on this subject, I have to ask (apart from a view about the psychological dynamics re "Who's on...top?")...does this make ALL 'romantic' sexual-interelatings no diff from BDSM (or is it BSDM? I get them confused ["Calling Dr. Freud. Dr. Freud, please report to the main desk.])...?

LLAP

J:D

[Mike11]

R-E:

~ Well, if 'trust' and 'control' are the MAIN concerns to be stressed on this subject, I have to ask (apart from a view about the psychological dynamics re "Who's on...top?")...does this make ALL 'romantic' sexual-interelatings no diff from BDSM (or is it BSDM? I get them confused ["Calling Dr. Freud. Dr. Freud, please report to the main desk.])...?

LLAP

J:D

I'll get back to you in a day or two with a delightfully bizarre post referencing Australian-Islamic relations, WW2, and the Star Wars Trilogy....

Well, one out of three ain't bad.

[John Dailey]

Mike:

~ Uh-h-h, STAR WARS ?

~ Oh, man; I gotta read this.

MTFBWY - (for making that movie-story relevent, you'll need it!)

J:D

[dan_edge]

Greetings,

Several months back, I wrote a 6-part draft on "The Psycho-epistemology of Sexuality." I aimed to prove this ambitious thesis:

"The psychological experience of sexuality is rooted in one's positive evaluation of his sex as an integration of individuating elements of self -- and it is experienced to the fullest through psychological visibility in the context of a romantic love relationship."

I never got around to re-editing, but in the mean time the draft can be found here.

--Dan Edge

Edited January 17, 2008 by dan_edge

[Rich Engle]

Nathaniel Branden did a heck of a lot of work in this area, and psychological visibility is a key element in how he talks about exclusive, adult love relationships. That visibility concept elegantly explains a great deal. And, it can be very appropriately brought into way many areas other than exclusive one-on-one relationships that include sex.

I mean, if you think about having that as a goal with any relationship, you get a lot of traction. You know, apply it to, say, your kids, or siblings, maybe: I don't think there's a much better gift you can give someone than making them know they are "seen." It's so very healthy.

[John Dailey]

~ My main focus re this thread I started was regarding a problem-of-'perspective' so many have about 'male-dom' and 'female-dom' (pardon any pun readable there; not intended, but clearly seeable): Aka...'dominating'-penetration (as in Karate or Chess) vs 'enveloping'-holding (as in Ju-Jitsu or Go). --- Either can be 'passive' as well as 'active;' either can be repetitive as well as merely constant. But, is either 'metaphysically' (psychologically speaking) a necessity for the other? If so, which and why? If not...?

~ I really suggest that all re-check the link I made in my 1st post here...and read the question-concerns therein as well as the responses others gave, before commenting here; elsewise, you may be bringing up fascinating ideas, but maybe, already covered ones.

LLAP

J:D

[CNA]

No doubt a very interesting thread with the whole D/s, BDSM, and I find it very interesting of Rand's interest in it and that she preferred sex in this manner and honestly does not surprise me one bit. She knew herself extremely well and knew what she wanted and desired. It really depends on the person and how open they are and comfortable they are with themselves. I personally see absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. I'll definitely read this thread all the way through when I get more time.

[Mike11]

John Dailey,

I agree, I don't want to bring up the irrelevant and trivial to the discussion but since your question seems to be, "I'm not sure about anatomy but Something must justify male sexual supremacy" and I disagree that "Male Hero and Female Worshiper" is even a valid thing to say, universally, I thought I would make those comments. Of course I'm no even sure if that is what your question refers to.

There is another thread on the Speicher forum that addresses the wider issue, specifically why men can not be "Heroine worshipers", it is the thread that gave rise to the "penetration" question originally - http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...c=2496&st=0

So, what exactly is it you wanted us to look at? The issue of whether there is a universal fact (descriptive or prescriptive) of one gender being dominant or simply what establishes said dominance?

My position on the first question is a "No" so I have nothing to say about the second part. Much to say on the first part.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greetings,

Several months back, I wrote a 6-part draft on "The Psycho-epistemology of Sexuality." I aimed to prove this ambitious thesis:

"The psychological experience of sexuality is rooted in one's positive evaluation of his sex as an integration of individuating elements of self -- and it is experienced to the fullest through psychological visibility in the context of a romantic love relationship."

I never got around to re-editing, but in the mean time the draft can be found here.

--Dan Edge

Dan,

I will comment on this later. It is on my to-do list. I expect to find and provide food for thought.

Michael

[Mindy Newton]

Greetings,

Several months back, I wrote a 6-part draft on "The Psycho-epistemology of Sexuality." I aimed to prove this ambitious thesis:

"The psychological experience of sexuality is rooted in one's positive evaluation of his sex as an integration of individuating elements of self -- and it is experienced to the fullest through psychological visibility in the context of a romantic love relationship."

I never got around to re-editing, but in the mean time the draft can be found here.

--Dan Edge

Dan,

I will comment on this later. It is on my to-do list. I expect to find and provide food for thought.

Michael

I just read this whole thread--for the first time. People came to ask me why I was laughing so much. Guys are so cute when they talk about sex. Is this thread dead in the water, so to speak?

= Mindy

[sbeaulieu]

Guys are so cute when they talk about sex.

= Mindy

Aw, man...she said guys and cute in the same sentence. This thread just went softcore! :ermm:

~ Shane

[algernonsidney]

This is an aspect of Objectivism I believe to be Rand interpreting her own psychology as philosophical truth.

That is very accurate.

1. Rand clearly had a personal thing for Bondage which spilled into her philosophy.

There are different levels of bondage. For some, bondage is just doing what the "top" person says.

3. Even if it did, women still have a fair shot as being in the dominant role.

I know plenty of men who mostly do what their wives tell them to do.

4. You can not define the ideal "Man" or "Woman" that others must measure up to without straw manning.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean here. Some complain about AS and say that John Galt is "a ghost."

5. LGBT relationships need not have the same binary power relationship.

Every relationship has a power structure. Some people experiment with these power exchanges more than others.

7. Sex is a wide open concept, no more definable in practice than something like reading or playing.

I'm kind of surprised Rand never made any comments about society's superstitions about nudity. A truly free society would inevitably a clothing optional society. Every public place would be clothing optional. There would be no prosecution of "indecent exposure" ever. As a result, a lot of porn would go out of business.

Rand was heavily interested in bondage-like (I mean bondage flat out actually, the bondage-like was a pre-emptive dodge) ideas and imagery, always with the man in the Dominant role.

It's actually best reflected in Night of January 16th.

"The chain gave her the most feminine of aspects - that of a woman Bound".

I have always wondered about that comment.

Many Objectivists and misogynists make the argument that men, on average, are stronger than women and are therefore the naturally dominant players. Assuming across the board Every male stronger than a female, sex is not the same as beating someone up. Different act, different important anatomy.

Some feminazis do see all sex as rape. It's quite obvious that Rand liked sex.

Also, take in consideration the fact that Rand never learned to drive. Actually this was not uncommon for a woman from her generation. My grandmother was born in 1900 and never learned to drive. My grandfather even told my aunt that she didn't have to learn to drive.

There's a Rand article in Objectivist in which Rand writes about a book review. Rand does not mention the title of the book being reviewed. The book is very likely The Story of O. Naturally I wonder if Rand ever read this book, which is the story of a woman taking man-worship to a very extreme conclusion. The actual author of the book didn't identify herself until the 1990's, and people naturally speculated if it had been written by a man or a woman.

Rand's hatred of homosexuality is also kind of intriguing. I kind of sense some erotic overtones between Rearden and Francisco.

Some people are wired to require pain, mind games, ropes, even balloons.

There's also fire play, electrical play, piercings, etc. Hand cuffs and rope have practically become mainstream.

Some people do this stuff because there is a "release." By completely submitting, a sub doesn't have to make any decisions or take any responsibility. Finally, many do this stuff because it builds trust.

Also, its ironic Speicher was mentioned, he banned me for bringing up "envelopment" as an alternative to "penetration", something about my being a Dirty Subjectivist.

I have no experience with them. I've only heard about them--nothing good.

[nicholasair]

The argument about women being penetrated is used to attack pornography. I think during sex the man is dominant . what do you mean by dominant?