A discussion of this sort might almost arouse suspicion of a Clintonian equivocation. Essentially, "play" may involve any amount of activity which includes sexual content, while "sex" clearly refers to some sort mutual involvement, whether coital, oral, anal, or otherwise (or any combination thereof).
Where does one draw the line? Through such techniques as hypnosis and hyperempiria, many people become more open to suggestions (assuming these suggestions are agreeable). There are many documented cases -- to say nothing of videos circulating along the Internet! -- which establish that a small group of women can actually have orgasms just from the verbal instructions (i. e., the suggestions) of the voice delivering them. Now, if a practitioner, using hypnosis or hyperempiria, begins talking to a woman (who is fully clothed and stretched out on a reclining chair), and she has an orgasm, is it not somewhat unreasonable to claim that the two have been "sexually involved"? Presumably, most people would agree that such a completely verbal exchange does not constitute "sex."
We may now extrapolate. The fact that a woman -- or, we may similarly infer, a man -- has an orgasm does not mean that she (or he) has necessarily "had sex." In that case, if there is no orgasm, it should be even less likely that "sex" has been enjoyed.
What, then, is meant by "play." Pure play may involve a fetish (e. g., breast-play, medical-play, even water-play) between two people who are not otherwise sexually engaged. I respectfully submit that situations of the sort described below are indeed "play," rather than "sex":
(1) A woman with a urine fetish expressed a desire that a man with some interest in water-play accompany her to a park. By arrangement, they sat facing each other across a short distance on park benches. The woman wore a very short skirt and white underwear. The man could easily be able to watch her urinate; the wet garment revealed precisely what was happening as she slowly released some fluid from her bladder. The mission accomplished, the two returned to their automobiles and drove back to their respective homes, highly aroused.
(2) A woman wanted to be spanked on her bare bottom. An accomplished spanker obliged this request most thoroughly, and afterward rubbed some salve into the buttocks. She got dressed, they chatted for a while, shared lunch at a nearby eatery, and went their separate ways.
(3) This next activity simply takes the matter a little further. The couple engaged in medical-fetish, with the male "doctor" providing a very thorough "examination" to the female "patient." The latter became so highly aroused that she easily climaxed during the "internal" portion of the exam. Perhaps -- in a variant of the same hypothetical story -- she enjoyed several orgasms. Thereafter, she got dressed, and the "play" was over.
The last example above is essentially no different than the others, save that nudity is introduced into the equation, along with one or more orgasms. However, we can scarcely argue that nudity equates to sex; nude beaches and camps all over the world provide ample testimony to the contrary. Why, then, maintain that the third scene is "sexual," when the only support for this position is the orgasm -- something which might also have occurred simply from the spoken word (i. e., a form of conversation)? And, if one orgasm leaves us within the realm of "play," we have surely opened the floodgates; two, or three, or four orgasms ought not change the equation.
Of course, one might insist that anything "sexual" in nature constitutes sex. Nevertheless, I prefer to believe that there is a clear line of differentiation here. I also believe that one may remain honestly monogamous -- i. e., have sex with only one person -- while nevertheless enjoying "play" with one or more other people.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
American Politics: D/s or S/M??
This is certainly a rather tricky issue, but one worthy of reflection. Based on the definitions established earlier within this blog, I should prefer to suggest that there is something quite different at play here. In other words, if asked whether the political realities we confront today suggest D/s or S/M, I should simply answer as though this were a "yes/no" question: No!
I believe that there are some rather cruel, mean-spirited people in power at present -- both Democrats and Republicans (not that there is really terribly much difference). The real "power," of course, is manifested by the financial elites and the "big" corporations (e. g., "big" oil, pharmaceuticals, etc.). Clearly, these people are intoxicated by their "power," and by the "control" it enables them to exert. To this extent, the situation suggests D/s. No less certainly, they show a callous disregard for the pain they inflict; indeed, it seems to arouse them. To this extent, they seem "sadistic." However, the issue of "consent" is lost in the descriptions above, and thus I feel that while a label like "control-freak" or even an adjective like "sadistic" may apply, we are dealing with a completely different "relationship."
I recall hearing rumors of how certain politicians would amuse themselves by watching films of the Vietnam war -- i. e., they would observe the effects of napalm bombs dropped on civilians. I wondered whether the sight of the poor Vietnamese running for their lives with their skins on fire stiffened the pricks of these individuals, and if so, what sort of psychopaths were running the country at the time. If the accounts were indeed true, one might argue that these were vile, sadistic people, but here we must not confuse such behavior with a consensual relationship. Worse still, of course, was the cruelty of the Roman Emperor, Nero -- but again, he simply tortured and murdered victims.
On the other hand, perhaps the American people have voluntarily given up control. Perhaps we are simply -- and consensually -- permitting our representatives and senators to sell out our nation to the "banksters," or giving control of our destiny to criminals, frauds, liars, and selfish thieves. In this case, one might argue for the D/s relationship. However, the analogy is once again hopelessly far-fetched. We may indeed have given up "control" (assuming we actually had any!), but most people are completely ignorant of the long-range consequences of contemporary policies. Most are similarly unaware of the implications of these obscene debts, and equally ignorant of many of the behind-the-scenes machinations.
In sum, then, while one might argue that control has been voluntarily surrendered, the perception proves an illusion; while one might suggest titillation (sexual or otherwise) by the infliction of pain, the analogy is flawed. In a true D/s relationship, it is imperative that both parties fully understand the dynamic between them. Any pain inflicted in an S/M relationship must be arousing and fulfilling for the Bottom as well as the Top. Thus, I must politely maintain that such adjectives "cruel" and "sadistic" are not completely synonymous, and that for the purposes of this forum, our political leaders neither Dom us nor Top us; they merely abuse us!
I believe that there are some rather cruel, mean-spirited people in power at present -- both Democrats and Republicans (not that there is really terribly much difference). The real "power," of course, is manifested by the financial elites and the "big" corporations (e. g., "big" oil, pharmaceuticals, etc.). Clearly, these people are intoxicated by their "power," and by the "control" it enables them to exert. To this extent, the situation suggests D/s. No less certainly, they show a callous disregard for the pain they inflict; indeed, it seems to arouse them. To this extent, they seem "sadistic." However, the issue of "consent" is lost in the descriptions above, and thus I feel that while a label like "control-freak" or even an adjective like "sadistic" may apply, we are dealing with a completely different "relationship."
I recall hearing rumors of how certain politicians would amuse themselves by watching films of the Vietnam war -- i. e., they would observe the effects of napalm bombs dropped on civilians. I wondered whether the sight of the poor Vietnamese running for their lives with their skins on fire stiffened the pricks of these individuals, and if so, what sort of psychopaths were running the country at the time. If the accounts were indeed true, one might argue that these were vile, sadistic people, but here we must not confuse such behavior with a consensual relationship. Worse still, of course, was the cruelty of the Roman Emperor, Nero -- but again, he simply tortured and murdered victims.
On the other hand, perhaps the American people have voluntarily given up control. Perhaps we are simply -- and consensually -- permitting our representatives and senators to sell out our nation to the "banksters," or giving control of our destiny to criminals, frauds, liars, and selfish thieves. In this case, one might argue for the D/s relationship. However, the analogy is once again hopelessly far-fetched. We may indeed have given up "control" (assuming we actually had any!), but most people are completely ignorant of the long-range consequences of contemporary policies. Most are similarly unaware of the implications of these obscene debts, and equally ignorant of many of the behind-the-scenes machinations.
In sum, then, while one might argue that control has been voluntarily surrendered, the perception proves an illusion; while one might suggest titillation (sexual or otherwise) by the infliction of pain, the analogy is flawed. In a true D/s relationship, it is imperative that both parties fully understand the dynamic between them. Any pain inflicted in an S/M relationship must be arousing and fulfilling for the Bottom as well as the Top. Thus, I must politely maintain that such adjectives "cruel" and "sadistic" are not completely synonymous, and that for the purposes of this forum, our political leaders neither Dom us nor Top us; they merely abuse us!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)