posts 7/28/2006 11:38 pm
12/27/2006 8:48 pm
Did We Have Sex?
|President Clinton was playing with words when he said, “I did not have sex with that woman,” by placing a narrow definition on having sex as being penetrative. Oral sex it seemed didn’t count. Of course no one really believed that to be the case. Some people might have thought that he was doing little more than would be almost respectable in France and that a president’s sexual peccadilloes had little to do with the quality of his decision-making in matters of state. And of course there were also the legions of virtue who thought quite the reverse.|
Which got me thinking. At what point would I be having sex with someone else? Because the boundary is by no means a sharp one.
I think any activity that causes sexual arousal as a result of genital contact should count as having sex. But let’s say we liked to watch each other masturbate, so we were self-gratifying but our partner was enjoying the voyeuristic experience. Would that be having sex? Take an imaginary case of someone who was married and having a little exhibitionist/voyeur adventure, and their spouse broke in on the scene. That someone would find it pretty hard to say that they weren’t sharing a sexual experience, and I guess Hell would have no fury quite like what might happen next.
So, okay lets use the wonders of modern technology and do the same with webcams. Mutual self-gratification, but contributing to each other’s arousal with sight and sound. It’s accepted as cybersex, but can it be said that two people were cybering were having sex? Strikes me that the only change has been distance, but the behaviour is the same.
So what about only one person as the exhibitionist and the other simply as the voyeur? Each is arousing the other, but in a very different albeit related way.
And say we choose to use words rather than images to mutually arouse on IM. Is that a form of having sex? You’re surely arousing each other and even if you masturbate there is an active contribution from your cyberpartner, and it can be pretty exciting too. It’s definitely a sexual activity…..
Or is it just an extended version of flirting?
And surely flirting cannot be considered to be in any way shape or form to be having sex with someone.
So where do you draw the line? And if it’s not having sex, then what is it?
12/27/2006 11:36 am
thanks for blurring the line even more for us all!|
|warmandsexy52 replies on 12/27/2006 8:51 pm:|
All I did was ask a simple question!
Thanks for making the 4000th comment on my blog.
posts7/29/2006 9:52 am
drawing lines is dangerous - you've effectively given an ultimatum|
i don't draw lines but i do note that it is my choice to stay or leave should something my Sir does impact me in some profound way.
an open discussion leads to awareness and acceptance. drawing a line is a double dog dare that most men can't help but want to cross
You cannot conceive the many without the one.
|warmandsexy52 replies on 7/30/2006 5:01 am:|
One of the thoughts that's been crossing my mind has been that having sex is a particular form of communication. It's not a novel idea. Whoever coined the term "sexual intercourse" came up with the idea a long time ago. I therefore think that there is in fact a continuum of behaviour and that the lines are to a large degree imposed by us so we can make sense of things.
I'm struck by your comment, "drawing a line is a double dog dare that most men can't help but want to cross." Is this a feature of male sexual behaviour? I wonder.
posts7/29/2006 8:54 am
Like lusty said,|
The intent of arousal is the main factor.
If I rub a womans back because she's sore, that's not sex.
But if I givr her a back rub HOPING to arouse her, that's a form of sex.
|warmandsexy52 replies on 7/30/2006 3:56 am:|
Interesting, isn't it, that it isn't just the action but the context and motive. I'm sure you're absolutely right.
"I did not have sex with that woman. That's just where she happened to keep my cigars!"
(I was always on your side, Bill! Better to fuck an intern than fuck up the whole world! lol)
posts7/29/2006 6:24 am
I agree with Lusty...intent is what matters here...if you are intending to create a sexual intimacy or a sexual experience with someone...it is sex...|
|warmandsexy52 replies on 7/29/2006 10:54 pm:|
Interesting, moonfire. It brings to mind being on one of London's tube trains during the rush hour and being pressed by sheer force of numbers against a very attractive woman. But I was not seeking to either arouse or be aroused, and social norms and 'rules' of behaviour that guide my actions have conditioned me not to be (and rightly so). So that is definitely not sex, because although there are elements of physicality and intimacy through sheer proximity, the intention is clearly not there, nor is any arousal.
So having sex is engaging in a sexual experience in which there is an intention to arouse, be aroused or both.
7/29/2006 5:30 am
I said hello to the cute girl bagging my groceries yesterday. She then went out and lit a cigarrette. I wonder if it was good for her . . . .. |
|warmandsexy52 replies on 7/29/2006 8:08 pm:|
Cigarettes are always bad for you!
posts7/29/2006 12:14 am
I think what you were doing would depend on whether you got caught or not...|
I'm generally of the view that intent is the key. If you want to stimulate and arouse yourself or the other person, then you are engaging in a sexual act. That whole thing with Clinton was semantics and damage controll, we know that.
|warmandsexy52 replies on 7/29/2006 7:34 am:|
Thanks for a very thought-provoking comment, Lusty. It's fascinating though, isn't it Lusty? Twenty five years ago any question about "having sex" via immediate communications and the global village was hardly conceivable. Maybe Marshall McLuhan had such thoughts in his hornier moments, but who knows!
It could be argued that since no physical contact had occurred, in a traditional sense, then other interactions could be described as an extreme form of flirting, but somehow it doesn't hold true, does it?
The issue of intent is an interesting one. Sure, if you arrange to meet someone, but if you don't and all that happens is a series of interactions online then the intention defines the sexual activity. So if you are chatting to another blogger and the conversation 'drifts' into a highly erotic exchange, does that constitute a sexual activity if it was unintended? I guess it must do.
What I am suggesting is that we are playing in relatively new domains of human experience and in doing so we're redefining some aspects of what we understand by sexuality.