How Discovering My Asexuality Set Me Free
I was 21 when I found out I was asexual, and it changed everything in my life – my perception of myself, my expectations for the future, my understanding of the world. In a way, it more than changed my life; nothing was ever the same after that discovery, and I often say that a new life started for me then – that the person I became once I started identifying as asexual and seeing the world through new eyes was so different from the one I had been until then that it could not be the same person at all. It was a new me – someone with a new view of the world, different hopes, and far more possibilities.
I do not believe that I was born asexual – I do not believe that our sexual orientation (or our romantic orientation, or most of our other preferences for that matter) are already set at birth. I am not a big fan of the “it's all genetic” theories. I strongly believe that our environment, and the various things we experience as we grow up and later as we grow older, are what makes us who we are, and I think I can pinpoint some of the things that made me asexual, or at least some symptoms of that change taking place, back when I was about nine or ten years old. No, it was nothing awful – I was not sexually abused, I was not exposed to sexually explicit material, I was not brought up in fear of sex. But many little things happened and combined themselves in that way and I became asexual. I have never regretted it – I may not have been born asexual, but there are many elements of my personality that make this orientation especially appropriate and, indeed, probably the most suitable for me. Maybe, in fact, these elements did contribute to making me asexual. In truth, I do not care much about how it happened; I just think about it sometimes because I want to understand such things. But I am certainly glad it happened, and even more glad that I eventually found out about it; in fact, the only negative thing about my asexuality is that for so long I was not aware of it, and that if I had not become aware of it I would certainly have been very unhappy without ever understanding why or what I could do to change that.
Before I discovered that asexuality existed, I never suspected that I was different in that way (there were other ways I knew I was different from other people, though). When I thought about sex, it was as something that would happen to me someday – I would meet the right person (at the time I thought it would be a guy), fall in love with him, and we would “make love” and it would be wonderful, like in the romance novels I had read. I never asked myself if I really wanted this; I did not know it was possible not to want it. I never asked myself if having sex would really be so wonderful, when I felt nauseous and deeply uncomfortable whenever I read more factual and realistic (but not necessarily detailed) descriptions of sex, like in biology class when we talked about human reproduction, or the couple of times I looked up sex education websites. I did not think it was possible not to want sex, so it had to mean that this discomfort would pass when I met the right person.
When I discovered that asexuality existed, I did not think it might apply to me – it was too “special” an orientation, too rare, and I was not really aware that I was not interested in sex anyway (since I expected I would only be interested with the right guy). But when I eventually (for other reasons) had to question my orientation, asexuality appeared the only possible answer – and when I decided that it had to be the right one, I felt relieved. I had never felt pressured before, but now I was liberated; I had never thought that I might not want to have sex, but suddenly I was happy to know that indeed I did not have to – and that I probably would not.
Becoming aware of my asexuality allowed me to understand that I should not take anything for granted about myself or the world. I suddenly understood that I had choices where before I had always believed I had none – that maybe I did not truly feel or want things that were supposed to be experienced and desired by everyone – and I began questioning many aspects of my life that I had never thought much about before. This led me to realize that it was possible to love people deeply without being “in love” with them, to want to be close to them without this closeness being necessarily achieved by dating them, and to have fantasies but not actually want them to become true. It allowed me to understand what I truly wanted my life to be like.
Now, three years later, I think that discovering I was asexual is probably the best thing that ever happened to me. I do not think very often about what this orientation describes – my lack of interest in sex – but I am grateful every day for the many other things my awareness of it has brought me – all the choices I discovered I could make, all the new ways I discovered I could relate to other people and love them, all the possible futures that I now see open before me. Because I know I do not conform to the one expectation that is so deeply rooted in society that it is not even really formulated anymore and that most people cannot believe exceptions are possible (“everyone is interested in sex, or if they are not, then it is because something bad happened to them and they certainly want to be fixed”), I find it easy not to conform to social expectations in other ways – like preferring to be alone or not being interested in a romantic relationship. Knowing I am asexual has given me the possibility to discover who I really am and the strength to be who I want to be.
source: The Asexual Visibility and Education Network
Showing posts with label Sexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexuality. Show all posts
Friday, June 10, 2011
Asexual Perspectives: Discovering Asexuality
A very interesting article titled, "How Discovering My Asexuality Set Me Free".
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Sexual Orientation in Relation to Gender Identity
What does it mean to say that someone is heterosexual or homosexual? Well, technically, it means that a person is either attracted to the same sex or opposite sex. This categorization has many underlying assumptions that I wish to address in this post.
From my understanding and the experiences of people in the LGBT community there are some complications that arise. Let's say a guy says: "I am heterosexual" does this mean he is attracted to girls, or does it mean he is attracted to the opposite sex?! The distinction might seem insignificant for most people, but in reality there is a difference. This difference is especially clear when we consider transgendered individuals.
Transgendered individuals are born in some biological sex, however, their biological sex does not match their gender identity, so they change their biological sex through sex-reassignment operations. So let's look at the question once again. A guy says: "I am heterosexual!", but at a later point of time he changes his biological sex to female. Would you expect this person to be attracted to men or women?! If we go by the definition, and say that person is heterosexual, this means that since now the person is a female, then she must be attracted to men.
But what if she is still attracted to women?! It is important to notice that both scenarios actually happen in real life. Some transgendered people experience a change in the gender they are attracted to, others are not affected.
Now in the case that the person remains attracted to women, it would seem that the person in question was not a heterosexual, but simply female-sexual. In other words, this person is attracted to women regardless of their own biological sex. However, there are also cases when people are heterosexuals or homosexuals, and when their biological sex changes, so does their preference for sexual attraction.
There are studies that show homosexual men inherit their attraction to men from their heterosexual mother, and that homosexual women inherit their attraction to women from their heterosexual father. Those studies imply that for some people their orientation is more of female-sexual or male-sexual rather than homo/heterosexual. And many transgendered people experienced this.
On the other hand, there are cases where a homosexual person goes under sex-reassignment operation, and the outcomes is that their preference changed to match that of their new gender!! In other words, they were attracted to the same sex before and after transitioning... And of course, there are cases where people change from monosexuals to bisexuals after the transition!!
Another complication is whether sexual orientation is defined by biological sex, or sexual expression (ie. masculinity and femininity). Is the person attracted to the sex, or the feminine/masculine "energy"?! For example, would a heterosexual man be attracted to an effeminate man or masculine woman more?! Again, people's reactions seem to vary. Some people seem to be attracted more to femininity and masculinity regardless of biological sex, while others seem more oriented toward biological sex regardless of the "energy" the person has. Others seem to be attracted to more complicated mixing of those phenomena.
For example, there are cases when guys are attracted to tom-boy girls (only?), and other cases when girls are attracted to effeminate guys (only?). So some people might experience cases where they are attracted to a sort of energy that is different from the biological sex they prefer! What would you call such individuals?! Would you go with the biological sex they prefer?! Or the sexual expression they prefer?!
And then you can look at this issue from the other way around. If a tom-boy girl is attracted to men, what does this make of her?! Homosexual or heterosexual?!
PS: monosexual means either homosexual or heterosexual (ie. attracted to one gender, but not both)
From my understanding and the experiences of people in the LGBT community there are some complications that arise. Let's say a guy says: "I am heterosexual" does this mean he is attracted to girls, or does it mean he is attracted to the opposite sex?! The distinction might seem insignificant for most people, but in reality there is a difference. This difference is especially clear when we consider transgendered individuals.
Transgendered individuals are born in some biological sex, however, their biological sex does not match their gender identity, so they change their biological sex through sex-reassignment operations. So let's look at the question once again. A guy says: "I am heterosexual!", but at a later point of time he changes his biological sex to female. Would you expect this person to be attracted to men or women?! If we go by the definition, and say that person is heterosexual, this means that since now the person is a female, then she must be attracted to men.
But what if she is still attracted to women?! It is important to notice that both scenarios actually happen in real life. Some transgendered people experience a change in the gender they are attracted to, others are not affected.
Now in the case that the person remains attracted to women, it would seem that the person in question was not a heterosexual, but simply female-sexual. In other words, this person is attracted to women regardless of their own biological sex. However, there are also cases when people are heterosexuals or homosexuals, and when their biological sex changes, so does their preference for sexual attraction.
There are studies that show homosexual men inherit their attraction to men from their heterosexual mother, and that homosexual women inherit their attraction to women from their heterosexual father. Those studies imply that for some people their orientation is more of female-sexual or male-sexual rather than homo/heterosexual. And many transgendered people experienced this.
On the other hand, there are cases where a homosexual person goes under sex-reassignment operation, and the outcomes is that their preference changed to match that of their new gender!! In other words, they were attracted to the same sex before and after transitioning... And of course, there are cases where people change from monosexuals to bisexuals after the transition!!
Another complication is whether sexual orientation is defined by biological sex, or sexual expression (ie. masculinity and femininity). Is the person attracted to the sex, or the feminine/masculine "energy"?! For example, would a heterosexual man be attracted to an effeminate man or masculine woman more?! Again, people's reactions seem to vary. Some people seem to be attracted more to femininity and masculinity regardless of biological sex, while others seem more oriented toward biological sex regardless of the "energy" the person has. Others seem to be attracted to more complicated mixing of those phenomena.
For example, there are cases when guys are attracted to tom-boy girls (only?), and other cases when girls are attracted to effeminate guys (only?). So some people might experience cases where they are attracted to a sort of energy that is different from the biological sex they prefer! What would you call such individuals?! Would you go with the biological sex they prefer?! Or the sexual expression they prefer?!
And then you can look at this issue from the other way around. If a tom-boy girl is attracted to men, what does this make of her?! Homosexual or heterosexual?!
PS: monosexual means either homosexual or heterosexual (ie. attracted to one gender, but not both)
Monday, October 20, 2008
Born Gay?
Born Gay is an article that holds preliminary findings about the homosexuality and its genetic influence. This post is mainly to support the comments on this older post that suggested that homosexuality might be in fact hereditary.
In short, in one study it was found that male homosexuality is inherited from a heterosexual mother, and that female homosexuality is inherited from a heterosexual father.
In short, in one study it was found that male homosexuality is inherited from a heterosexual mother, and that female homosexuality is inherited from a heterosexual father.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Homosexuality And Darwinism
The other day I was thinking of how homosexuality came into existence, and whether or not homosexuality might be genetically influenced. The idea is that if homosexuality was nothing more than an anomaly, you would expect it to vanish, or at least be a very rare case. But the matter of fact is that homosexuality is common, and it would be very hard to suggest that it's an anomaly.
One idea that came through my head was that social pressure was probably a very influential factor that sustained homosexuality. Thats to say, social pressure exerted upon homosexuals forced them to undergo the process of reproduction, and hence that anomaly was sustained through human generations. Following this line of thought, it seems that the easiest way to eliminate homosexuality is to allow guilt-free homosexual activity, since this would simply decrease the survival value of the homosexual "gene".
But again, saying that homosexuality is an anomaly might not be wise. Much evidence shows that many animals exhibit homosexual behavior. Those animals probably don't face the same kind of social pressure that humans exert.
This evidence has challenged Darwin's "sexual selection" theory [NOT "survival of the fittest"]. Darwin simply viewed sexuality to be motivated by reproduction. But strong evidence shows otherwise. The truth is, as humans, most sexual encounters are not reproduction related, and don't fit Darwin's description. Consider this:
In short, I think anyone who would say that homosexuality is an anomaly, or would think that homosexuality has no survival value, is shown to be incorrect by evidence from our reality. Homosexuality has gained ground in many aspects of life, including the political arena... This can't be an anomaly that we are talking about! Homosexuality should have a function in humanity that caused it to have such strong presence, and denying that is being blind to the fact of its influence...
PS: The scientific validity of the claims is NOT asserted
One idea that came through my head was that social pressure was probably a very influential factor that sustained homosexuality. Thats to say, social pressure exerted upon homosexuals forced them to undergo the process of reproduction, and hence that anomaly was sustained through human generations. Following this line of thought, it seems that the easiest way to eliminate homosexuality is to allow guilt-free homosexual activity, since this would simply decrease the survival value of the homosexual "gene".
But again, saying that homosexuality is an anomaly might not be wise. Much evidence shows that many animals exhibit homosexual behavior. Those animals probably don't face the same kind of social pressure that humans exert.
This evidence has challenged Darwin's "sexual selection" theory [NOT "survival of the fittest"]. Darwin simply viewed sexuality to be motivated by reproduction. But strong evidence shows otherwise. The truth is, as humans, most sexual encounters are not reproduction related, and don't fit Darwin's description. Consider this:
Darwin had very specific sex roles for males and females. He wrote that females are docile and dainty and always prefer mates who are attractive and vigorous. But the world doesn't work like that. A quick look at humans tells you that women don't always prefer musclebound models. It's really obvious, but women choose all kinds of men as mates, and very rarely do those choices have to do with exhibited traits, like the peacock's tail or a stag's antlers, that Darwin thought represented "good genes."
In fact, the whole good-gene idea is suspect. The idea that a female could look at a male and tell by his appearance how good his genes are and how those genes are going to play out in 20 years is extremely far-fetched. Scientists have been trying to prove this idea experimentally, and it never bears out. It doesn't bear out, because not even supercomputers can offer that kind of predictability. (source)
In short, I think anyone who would say that homosexuality is an anomaly, or would think that homosexuality has no survival value, is shown to be incorrect by evidence from our reality. Homosexuality has gained ground in many aspects of life, including the political arena... This can't be an anomaly that we are talking about! Homosexuality should have a function in humanity that caused it to have such strong presence, and denying that is being blind to the fact of its influence...
PS: The scientific validity of the claims is NOT asserted
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Sexual Misconduct: Rape And Exploitation
The Pillars of Proper Sexual Conduct:
Sexuality is an important aspect of human life. Many people seek sexual activity in several ways most of which are natural and of proper conduct. Regardless of the details of the sexual activity, consent is an important pillar of proper sexual conduct. While most of the sexual misconducts are known to many people -say, forceful rape- there are other sexual misconducts that are less obvious. As I always say, awareness is the first line of defense.
Lets first define our first pillar: Every person has the legitimate right to join any sexual activity where all parties that are directly involved in the act are consenting to that act.
Our second pillar is: Any sexual activity that includes direct participants who are not consenting to that act, would be an illegitimate act.
A good system should grantee both the first and second pillars.
Legitimate Sexual Activities:
Here we can define two types of legitimate sexual activities:
1- Positively consensual sexual activities: Where all participants are consenting to the sexual activity, and are involved for a positive will to join the sexual activity. This would include the most common scenario, where two or more people are involved in a sexual activity for any of several reasons including -among others-: Love, lust, and enjoyment.
2- Negatively consensual sexual activities: Where all participants are consenting to the sexual activity, but one or more of the participants don't necessarily want to join the sexual activity - and are involved to complete a transaction, or abide terms of a contract. The most common scenario for this is prostitution, where the prostitute is consenting to the sexual activity, but the sexual activity is not a goal, but rather a side-effect to a trade. This would also include consensual engagement in sexual activity with a partner who may not want sex at the time, but does it to satisfy their partner's needs.
Illegitimate Sexual Activities:
Having identified the two possible legitimate forms of sexual activity, lets look more closely at the illegitimate forms of sexual activity.
1- Forceful rape: The type where physical force is used to force one party into sexual activity against their consent. It includes two types:
1a- Blitz rape: Being raped by a stranger. The type of rape most people know, and is usually punishable by most legal systems.
1b- Date rape: Being raped by an acquaintance (ie. someone who is not a stranger). This type is usually less known among most people. This type is not strictly applicable to dates - Don't let the name fool you. It is not necessary whether or not this type of rape is preceded -or not preceded- by consensual sexual activity. Prior sexual activity is irrelevant. This type of rape is sometimes not reported by the victims because of its confusing nature to human emotions, especially when prior sexual activity was established. A special case of "Date rape" is "Spouse rape".
1b'- Spousal rape: Being raped by a spouse (or someone with whom the victim has established a medium-term to long-term relationship with). This type of rape is common, yet is usually not reported -especially where women are the victims-!! Two factors depreciate the act of reporting spousal rape. The first reason is that in many cases the victims don't realize that they have been raped. Some women think that just because their husband has earned their socially imposed right to sexual activity -marriage that is- that that man has the right to engage in sexual activity at all times including when she is not consenting. This is obviously a fallacy. No one should be able to force anyone into sex, even if they are their spouses. The second factor for not reporting is that law enforcement in certain countries are uncooperative in those cases. Law enforcement has at times abstained from enforcing rape laws between married couples. [X-Ref: Law enforcement abstaining from homicide laws in "honor killings"]
2- Non-forceful rape (aka sexual exploitation): Non-consenting parties are directly involved where explicit consent is not given, and physical force is not used.
This includes many types including -among others-:
2a- Drug facilitated rape: Several types of drugs are used for this technique, including -among others-: Drugs that cause unconsciousness, drugs that cause hyper sexual activity, drugs that subvert rational decision-making (eg. Alcohol). Sexual activity where the participant is unconsently unconscious is illegitimate. Also, sexual activity where the participant's consent is unconsently subverted, is also illegitimate.
2b- Imposing rape: Using psychological or social pressure to subvert consent. This is the type that is most challenging to identify or handle. Several types of psychological tricks -including reverse psychology- can be used to manipulate the victim into sexual activity. For example: "You should have sex with me, to prove that you love me.", "Don't expect me to stay around if you are not willing to satisfy my needs.", or "Well, if you don't want to have sex with me that's fine. I get the message!"... etc, are all methods to impose sexual activity to a person who otherwise would not engage in sexual activity. Sure, the wording may not be as explicit as the examples I gave, and may include implying instead of declarations. Social pressure is sometimes used to subvert the victim's consent into sexual activity. [The opposite of this may also happen, where social pressure is used to subvert consent into abstaining from sexual activity.] [X-Ref: An example of using social pressure to subvert consent (although not in a sexual context) is demonstrated in The Observer's fictional story]
2c- Blackmail rape: Using the method of blackmailing to subvert consent. This technique can be used in several ways. This method usually includes a forceful bargain of not disclosing certain information in return for sexual favors. Two versions of blackmail rape are -disturbingly- common in sexually conservative societies (like Jordan!). The first scenario goes like this: One participant of a previous socially unapproved sexual activity blackmails one or more of the other participants into sexual activity for not disclosing details of the previous sexual activity. Or in more specific terms, a guy who has slept with a girl would threaten to tell about the sexual affair if the girl does not continue the sexual relationship. The girl would have to continue the sexual activity for the fear of honor killing. A second scenario goes like this: A person witnesses a socially unapproved sexual activity, and blackmails one or more of the participants into sexual activity for not disclosing his knowledge of that sexual activity. Or in more specific terms: A guy walks into a guy and a girl participating in pre-marital sexual activity, and threatens to tell about this affair if the girl does not do him some sexual favors. The guy who witnessed the sexual activity may -or may not- do this with participation of the guy involved in the sexual activity. Sometimes a guy may try to make a favor to another guy by giving time and place details of a sexual affair, so that the other guy walk into the scene and practically force the victim to give the other guy sexual favors. Again, the victim has to comply for the fear of honor killing.
While it may not be easy to avoid most forms of rape, awareness of "imposing rape" and -to a lesser extent- of "blackmail rape" can help avoid those types of rape. Imposing rape cannot always be protected legally. That's to say, no law could exist to prevent certain patterns of imposing rape. The only tool for protection from certain patterns of imposing rape is awareness - and no other type of protection could be provided in those cases. Manipulation using psychological or social pressure does not always involve any criminal activity of any kind. On the other hand, blackmail rape does involve criminal activity, but would most probably not be reported for the fear of disclosure of the information that was used in the blackmailing procedure. For example, a woman who was intimidated by honor killing would unlikely report the blackmail rape for the fear of honor killing.
It might be argued that "blackmail rape" is a subtype of "negatively consensual sexual activity", and hence can be seen as a legitimate form of sexual activity. It might be argued that the "bargain" made in blackmail rape turns it into some form of a trade. There is an important factor that differentiates a trade from blackmailing. A trade is consensual and opt-in. Blackmailing is forceful. For example: A prostitute can at will provide sexual favors for money. She consensually makes the deal, and can refuse to make that deal. On the other hand, blackmailing includes a threat (and threatening people is a criminal activity). The victim of a blackmail rape has no choice to opt-out.
Hard-to-Classify Sexual Activities:
Finally, I wish to point out some of the "gray" sexual conducts which cannot be easily classified as legitimate or illegitimate due to subtle details of consent.
Drunk sex: Having consensual sexual activity with a drunk person. Similar to "drug facilitated rape", where "drug facilitated rape" is a purposeful act to subvert consent, while drunk sex is only taking advantage of improper decision-making ability of a person. That's to say that the other participant did not subvert the drunk person into drinking, or manipulate that drunk person to sexual activity. The drunk person is considered as not in their right mind to make the decision, and hence acting on that consent can be problematic. A good solution to this problem would be asking for consent before drinking. For example, asking: "If you get drunk and start to want to engage in sexual activity, should we proceed?"... Asking this question -or another version of the question to the same effect- would make drunk sex unambiguously legitimate.
Statutory rape (with consent): Having consensual sexual activity with a minor. Most legal systems would criminalize sexual activities with minors - regardless of consent. The argument is that a child cannot give consent. While being different from "drunk sex", it is argued that a child is not in the right mind to make the decision. There are several problems that put child abuse in the gray section. Unlike drunk sex, where it is possible to solve it by asking for consent prior to the drinking, there are no similar solutions. The second problem is that based on the first pillar of this discussion, every person has the right to participate in consensual sexual activities. Denying a child from his right to consent is dubious [X-Ref: The problem of Age Discrimination]. It is very problematic to simply rule out that a child cannot give consent, or rule out that a child is not in the right mind to make a decision. It is important that we preserve the second pillar (prohibiting non-consensual sexual activities), but it is equally important that we preserve the first pillar (every person's right to join consensual sexual activities). A good solution is hard to make, but I would suggest a combination of sexual education to minors who are willing to engage in sexual activities, and a way for case-by-case assessment, that would assess whether or not the minor understands the decision he is making. Last, but not least, parents should take better responsibility to educate their children about sexuality, so that they can make informed judgment about their choices.
Sexuality is an important aspect of human life. Many people seek sexual activity in several ways most of which are natural and of proper conduct. Regardless of the details of the sexual activity, consent is an important pillar of proper sexual conduct. While most of the sexual misconducts are known to many people -say, forceful rape- there are other sexual misconducts that are less obvious. As I always say, awareness is the first line of defense.
Lets first define our first pillar: Every person has the legitimate right to join any sexual activity where all parties that are directly involved in the act are consenting to that act.
Our second pillar is: Any sexual activity that includes direct participants who are not consenting to that act, would be an illegitimate act.
A good system should grantee both the first and second pillars.
Legitimate Sexual Activities:
Here we can define two types of legitimate sexual activities:
1- Positively consensual sexual activities: Where all participants are consenting to the sexual activity, and are involved for a positive will to join the sexual activity. This would include the most common scenario, where two or more people are involved in a sexual activity for any of several reasons including -among others-: Love, lust, and enjoyment.
2- Negatively consensual sexual activities: Where all participants are consenting to the sexual activity, but one or more of the participants don't necessarily want to join the sexual activity - and are involved to complete a transaction, or abide terms of a contract. The most common scenario for this is prostitution, where the prostitute is consenting to the sexual activity, but the sexual activity is not a goal, but rather a side-effect to a trade. This would also include consensual engagement in sexual activity with a partner who may not want sex at the time, but does it to satisfy their partner's needs.
Illegitimate Sexual Activities:
Having identified the two possible legitimate forms of sexual activity, lets look more closely at the illegitimate forms of sexual activity.
1- Forceful rape: The type where physical force is used to force one party into sexual activity against their consent. It includes two types:
1a- Blitz rape: Being raped by a stranger. The type of rape most people know, and is usually punishable by most legal systems.
1b- Date rape: Being raped by an acquaintance (ie. someone who is not a stranger). This type is usually less known among most people. This type is not strictly applicable to dates - Don't let the name fool you. It is not necessary whether or not this type of rape is preceded -or not preceded- by consensual sexual activity. Prior sexual activity is irrelevant. This type of rape is sometimes not reported by the victims because of its confusing nature to human emotions, especially when prior sexual activity was established. A special case of "Date rape" is "Spouse rape".
1b'- Spousal rape: Being raped by a spouse (or someone with whom the victim has established a medium-term to long-term relationship with). This type of rape is common, yet is usually not reported -especially where women are the victims-!! Two factors depreciate the act of reporting spousal rape. The first reason is that in many cases the victims don't realize that they have been raped. Some women think that just because their husband has earned their socially imposed right to sexual activity -marriage that is- that that man has the right to engage in sexual activity at all times including when she is not consenting. This is obviously a fallacy. No one should be able to force anyone into sex, even if they are their spouses. The second factor for not reporting is that law enforcement in certain countries are uncooperative in those cases. Law enforcement has at times abstained from enforcing rape laws between married couples. [X-Ref: Law enforcement abstaining from homicide laws in "honor killings"]
2- Non-forceful rape (aka sexual exploitation): Non-consenting parties are directly involved where explicit consent is not given, and physical force is not used.
This includes many types including -among others-:
2a- Drug facilitated rape: Several types of drugs are used for this technique, including -among others-: Drugs that cause unconsciousness, drugs that cause hyper sexual activity, drugs that subvert rational decision-making (eg. Alcohol). Sexual activity where the participant is unconsently unconscious is illegitimate. Also, sexual activity where the participant's consent is unconsently subverted, is also illegitimate.
2b- Imposing rape: Using psychological or social pressure to subvert consent. This is the type that is most challenging to identify or handle. Several types of psychological tricks -including reverse psychology- can be used to manipulate the victim into sexual activity. For example: "You should have sex with me, to prove that you love me.", "Don't expect me to stay around if you are not willing to satisfy my needs.", or "Well, if you don't want to have sex with me that's fine. I get the message!"... etc, are all methods to impose sexual activity to a person who otherwise would not engage in sexual activity. Sure, the wording may not be as explicit as the examples I gave, and may include implying instead of declarations. Social pressure is sometimes used to subvert the victim's consent into sexual activity. [The opposite of this may also happen, where social pressure is used to subvert consent into abstaining from sexual activity.] [X-Ref: An example of using social pressure to subvert consent (although not in a sexual context) is demonstrated in The Observer's fictional story]
2c- Blackmail rape: Using the method of blackmailing to subvert consent. This technique can be used in several ways. This method usually includes a forceful bargain of not disclosing certain information in return for sexual favors. Two versions of blackmail rape are -disturbingly- common in sexually conservative societies (like Jordan!). The first scenario goes like this: One participant of a previous socially unapproved sexual activity blackmails one or more of the other participants into sexual activity for not disclosing details of the previous sexual activity. Or in more specific terms, a guy who has slept with a girl would threaten to tell about the sexual affair if the girl does not continue the sexual relationship. The girl would have to continue the sexual activity for the fear of honor killing. A second scenario goes like this: A person witnesses a socially unapproved sexual activity, and blackmails one or more of the participants into sexual activity for not disclosing his knowledge of that sexual activity. Or in more specific terms: A guy walks into a guy and a girl participating in pre-marital sexual activity, and threatens to tell about this affair if the girl does not do him some sexual favors. The guy who witnessed the sexual activity may -or may not- do this with participation of the guy involved in the sexual activity. Sometimes a guy may try to make a favor to another guy by giving time and place details of a sexual affair, so that the other guy walk into the scene and practically force the victim to give the other guy sexual favors. Again, the victim has to comply for the fear of honor killing.
While it may not be easy to avoid most forms of rape, awareness of "imposing rape" and -to a lesser extent- of "blackmail rape" can help avoid those types of rape. Imposing rape cannot always be protected legally. That's to say, no law could exist to prevent certain patterns of imposing rape. The only tool for protection from certain patterns of imposing rape is awareness - and no other type of protection could be provided in those cases. Manipulation using psychological or social pressure does not always involve any criminal activity of any kind. On the other hand, blackmail rape does involve criminal activity, but would most probably not be reported for the fear of disclosure of the information that was used in the blackmailing procedure. For example, a woman who was intimidated by honor killing would unlikely report the blackmail rape for the fear of honor killing.
It might be argued that "blackmail rape" is a subtype of "negatively consensual sexual activity", and hence can be seen as a legitimate form of sexual activity. It might be argued that the "bargain" made in blackmail rape turns it into some form of a trade. There is an important factor that differentiates a trade from blackmailing. A trade is consensual and opt-in. Blackmailing is forceful. For example: A prostitute can at will provide sexual favors for money. She consensually makes the deal, and can refuse to make that deal. On the other hand, blackmailing includes a threat (and threatening people is a criminal activity). The victim of a blackmail rape has no choice to opt-out.
Hard-to-Classify Sexual Activities:
Finally, I wish to point out some of the "gray" sexual conducts which cannot be easily classified as legitimate or illegitimate due to subtle details of consent.
Drunk sex: Having consensual sexual activity with a drunk person. Similar to "drug facilitated rape", where "drug facilitated rape" is a purposeful act to subvert consent, while drunk sex is only taking advantage of improper decision-making ability of a person. That's to say that the other participant did not subvert the drunk person into drinking, or manipulate that drunk person to sexual activity. The drunk person is considered as not in their right mind to make the decision, and hence acting on that consent can be problematic. A good solution to this problem would be asking for consent before drinking. For example, asking: "If you get drunk and start to want to engage in sexual activity, should we proceed?"... Asking this question -or another version of the question to the same effect- would make drunk sex unambiguously legitimate.
Statutory rape (with consent): Having consensual sexual activity with a minor. Most legal systems would criminalize sexual activities with minors - regardless of consent. The argument is that a child cannot give consent. While being different from "drunk sex", it is argued that a child is not in the right mind to make the decision. There are several problems that put child abuse in the gray section. Unlike drunk sex, where it is possible to solve it by asking for consent prior to the drinking, there are no similar solutions. The second problem is that based on the first pillar of this discussion, every person has the right to participate in consensual sexual activities. Denying a child from his right to consent is dubious [X-Ref: The problem of Age Discrimination]. It is very problematic to simply rule out that a child cannot give consent, or rule out that a child is not in the right mind to make a decision. It is important that we preserve the second pillar (prohibiting non-consensual sexual activities), but it is equally important that we preserve the first pillar (every person's right to join consensual sexual activities). A good solution is hard to make, but I would suggest a combination of sexual education to minors who are willing to engage in sexual activities, and a way for case-by-case assessment, that would assess whether or not the minor understands the decision he is making. Last, but not least, parents should take better responsibility to educate their children about sexuality, so that they can make informed judgment about their choices.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Omnisexuality: The Unrestrained Sexual Orientation
Introduction and Basic Definition:
Omnisexuality (sometimes called Pansexuality) is a term used to describe undiscriminating choice for sexual and\or romantic partners. Most people are familiar with the term "bisexuality", which includes both "homo" and "hetero" partners for sexual and\or romantic affairs. Pansexuality extends beyond bisexuality, to include the sexes that are usually referred to as "others", including -but not limited to- transsexuals (people who undergone a sex-change operation) and intersexes (people who don't fall in either male or female profiles). Omnisexuality even expands beyond pansexuality to include sexuality with non-humans.
Personally, I like to identify myself as omnisexual, which roughly means: "I'd fuck anything that has a hole I can put my dick in!" Okay, that was an overshoot of a simplification, but guess you got the idea.
Some might think that extending sexuality to non-humans would include "zoosexuality". Technically yes... But since I consider consent to be an important precondition to sex, which pretty much excludes animals of the list. The reason I extend non-human species on the list is because [in my futuristic fantasy] I would be open to have sex with intelligent alien species - [Okay, guess Star Trek messed me up in this part]. So, I consider myself open to relationships with any species that I can have a mind-to-mind chat with.
Sensual Side of Sexuality:
Sexuality is a primary carnal drive. Sex is generally considered as a source for pleasurable sensations. Since, the primary reason for engaging in sexual activity is pleasure, then it seems unreasonable to discriminate pleasure according to its source. That's to say, if two things provide exactly the same sensual experiences, then those experiences are equal regardless of their source.
Consider this simplest act of getting a blow job, that is, using the mouth for sexual stimulation. Since a male's and female's mouths provide roughly equivalent experiences, then if you close your eyes and someone (either male or female) gives you a blow job, the sensation is the same, and the pleasure is the same!
I remember a friend once telling me about a film where the camera starts rolling with really nice feet, moving up to show nice shaved tall legs, moving further up to show a really nice ass... At that point, as that friend describes started wanking his dick... The camera kept moving up until it was revealed that the person shown was a guy - not some hot chick. As that friend describes, it totally blew the moment! He then goes on to explain that he thought about the incident for a while and later on realized that, since that nice ass was indistinguishable from a hot chick's ass, that the marginal fact that its a guy's ass shouldn't stop him from enjoying that nice ass!! And I totally agree with him, it's exactly the point I am making.
Emotional Side of Sexuality:
In my personal understanding, sexuality represents acceptance. When you can accept someone then you would not mind getting naked around them, and allowing the exchange of pleasure. In this understanding, it seems to me, the more people you accept, the wider the sexual orientation would expand.
Mutual acceptance seems that most emotionally gratifying product of sexual activity.
In that light, I consider my hypothetical acceptance of the idea of having sex with an alien, as a symbolic acceptance of what might seem weired or "alien" to us as earthlings.
Conscious Choice of Sexual Orientation:
Opposed to the popular view that sexual orientation is determined during early stages and is immutable, I disagree and think thatsexual orientation is a choice conscious choice plays an important [but NOT exclusive] role in sexual orientation. I think that anyone would naturally attain gratification from any sexual experience, and that the choice of limiting the sources of sexual gratification is a product of a psychological process biological AND psychological factors on both conscious and subconscious levels, as well as prenatal experiences.
It is known that most people have bisexual urges, but people later on focus their sexual orientation towards one of the sexes (usually the opposite sex). I don't really see why some people insist on limiting their sexual orientations to "hetero only" or "homo only"... It doesn't make perfect sense to me. Why make only 50% of people as potential sources of pleasure, when it is possible to have 100% of people as potential sources of pleasure?!
Obviously, our social constructs increase the tendency of people to pick one of the genders as potential sexual partners. These constructs usually defined stereotyped views of males, females, and the relationships between people of different genders. For example, the socially constructed views about the importance of sexuality between males and females drive most people to the opposite sex, while this social pressure might negatively affect others and drive them away from the opposite sex towards the same sex. In my opinion, in many cases [but not all] sexual orientation is an extension of gender stereotypes AND stereotyped gender rolesformulated by the society which are strongly reinforced by the society.
Edit: The last section was modified to resolve some ambious interpretations
Omnisexuality (sometimes called Pansexuality) is a term used to describe undiscriminating choice for sexual and\or romantic partners. Most people are familiar with the term "bisexuality", which includes both "homo" and "hetero" partners for sexual and\or romantic affairs. Pansexuality extends beyond bisexuality, to include the sexes that are usually referred to as "others", including -but not limited to- transsexuals (people who undergone a sex-change operation) and intersexes (people who don't fall in either male or female profiles). Omnisexuality even expands beyond pansexuality to include sexuality with non-humans.
Personally, I like to identify myself as omnisexual, which roughly means: "I'd fuck anything that has a hole I can put my dick in!" Okay, that was an overshoot of a simplification, but guess you got the idea.
Some might think that extending sexuality to non-humans would include "zoosexuality". Technically yes... But since I consider consent to be an important precondition to sex, which pretty much excludes animals of the list. The reason I extend non-human species on the list is because [in my futuristic fantasy] I would be open to have sex with intelligent alien species - [Okay, guess Star Trek messed me up in this part]. So, I consider myself open to relationships with any species that I can have a mind-to-mind chat with.
Sensual Side of Sexuality:
Sexuality is a primary carnal drive. Sex is generally considered as a source for pleasurable sensations. Since, the primary reason for engaging in sexual activity is pleasure, then it seems unreasonable to discriminate pleasure according to its source. That's to say, if two things provide exactly the same sensual experiences, then those experiences are equal regardless of their source.
Consider this simplest act of getting a blow job, that is, using the mouth for sexual stimulation. Since a male's and female's mouths provide roughly equivalent experiences, then if you close your eyes and someone (either male or female) gives you a blow job, the sensation is the same, and the pleasure is the same!
I remember a friend once telling me about a film where the camera starts rolling with really nice feet, moving up to show nice shaved tall legs, moving further up to show a really nice ass... At that point, as that friend describes started wanking his dick... The camera kept moving up until it was revealed that the person shown was a guy - not some hot chick. As that friend describes, it totally blew the moment! He then goes on to explain that he thought about the incident for a while and later on realized that, since that nice ass was indistinguishable from a hot chick's ass, that the marginal fact that its a guy's ass shouldn't stop him from enjoying that nice ass!! And I totally agree with him, it's exactly the point I am making.
Emotional Side of Sexuality:
In my personal understanding, sexuality represents acceptance. When you can accept someone then you would not mind getting naked around them, and allowing the exchange of pleasure. In this understanding, it seems to me, the more people you accept, the wider the sexual orientation would expand.
Mutual acceptance seems that most emotionally gratifying product of sexual activity.
In that light, I consider my hypothetical acceptance of the idea of having sex with an alien, as a symbolic acceptance of what might seem weired or "alien" to us as earthlings.
Conscious Choice of Sexual Orientation:
Opposed to the popular view that sexual orientation is determined during early stages and is immutable, I disagree and think that
It is known that most people have bisexual urges, but people later on focus their sexual orientation towards one of the sexes (usually the opposite sex). I don't really see why some people insist on limiting their sexual orientations to "hetero only" or "homo only"... It doesn't make perfect sense to me. Why make only 50% of people as potential sources of pleasure, when it is possible to have 100% of people as potential sources of pleasure?!
Obviously, our social constructs increase the tendency of people to pick one of the genders as potential sexual partners. These constructs usually defined stereotyped views of males, females, and the relationships between people of different genders. For example, the socially constructed views about the importance of sexuality between males and females drive most people to the opposite sex, while this social pressure might negatively affect others and drive them away from the opposite sex towards the same sex. In my opinion, in many cases [but not all] sexual orientation is an extension of gender stereotypes AND stereotyped gender roles
Edit: The last section was modified to resolve some ambious interpretations
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
The Psycological Dimension Of Sexuality
Could we really say that sex is a purely physical need?! I wouldn't entirely support that view. Asserting that, what are the main factors driving our need for sexual contact on various level. The answer isn't that simple: numerous factors come into play, and each person has their own views regarding sexuality and its role in the regular human life. Considering Freud, these sexual aspects are defined in the prenatal stage, or very early baby stage, but that's beyond the scope of the discussion. Darwinistic explanations are also beyond the scope of discussion.
The main areas -I can identify- that drive sexuality are: The ego, sociocultural values, distorted body image and related insecurities, emotional distress, tension release in relationships, and finally interpersonal acceptance. Lets try to take a glimpse at each of these.
For numerous reasons, the ego and sexuality develop a direct relation. It can be noted the widespread instinctive correlation created where even simplest forms of sexual contact can boost the self-esteem and almost instantly have a feel-good about oneself. This effect has two sides, the first is the instinctive weight of sexuality; The other side is the sociocultural weight. In almost every culture, active sexuality is equated with superiority - the best of the breed if we may say. It becomes vital that an individual being sexually active in order to be considered socially effective.
Taking the issue of the ego to more specific terms, the relationship between sexuality and the body image is generally quite evident. One of our basic needs includes coming into good terms with our physical attributes. Whether it's about being tall or short, ugly or pretty, fat or fit, even the size of the genitals... All of these physical attributes need to be feel satisfactory for the person in question. The fact that people fuck naked comes as an abhorred nightmare to anyone with problems in that area. I bet you've heard of people who would only fuck with the lights turned off! That only shows how sexuality is related to exposing your naked body allowing for the horrifying possibility of being judged. Rejection of your body by other peers come as a great nightmare, while the contrary of that generally comes as a great relief.
On a totally different note, sex has a relieving effect on emotional distress in general. Whether its a stressful job, unfortunate events, or even general frustration, a need to vent that frustration physically in one form or another where sex actually comes handy; This comes as a demonstration of the direct link between the physical effects of sex and emotional states.
The issue of sex and relationships comes as a complex one and cannot be summed up in few lines. To touch on few points, we find sex to play some role in subsiding relationship troubles. The lure of sexuality in that regard comes from that sex is a low cost, redundant act that doesn't lose interest quickly. Its like, if we have nothing to talk about, nothing new to do, no event to celebrate, and no place to go then fucking eachother comes as the answer! This attitude although healthy as a discrete event, yet would demonstrate major communication flaws if it becomes a habit and lead to an emotional rot.
Finally -and maybe most importantly- sex works as part of acceptance. The psychological background that relates sex with acceptance isn't perfectly understood, but the symbolic exposure of nakedness, combined with the acceptance of the body, and even breaking some stereotyped social views all count up as an open and accepting mind to the other side. Sex can be interpreted as a very friendly gesture that clears the air and shows readiness for understanding, and a big hint to move at an accelerated rate.
Sex is widely viewed as an expression of love in relationships. While sex actually demonstrates simple forms of interpersonal friendliness - as explained earlier, this form of expression might fail more elaborate emotional states and intimacy required for well-defined interpersonal relationships. Although relationships that are based solely on sex exist and are healthy, but misdefined relationships that don't demonstrate real values of a relationship are signs of deep rooted miscommunication.
The main areas -I can identify- that drive sexuality are: The ego, sociocultural values, distorted body image and related insecurities, emotional distress, tension release in relationships, and finally interpersonal acceptance. Lets try to take a glimpse at each of these.
For numerous reasons, the ego and sexuality develop a direct relation. It can be noted the widespread instinctive correlation created where even simplest forms of sexual contact can boost the self-esteem and almost instantly have a feel-good about oneself. This effect has two sides, the first is the instinctive weight of sexuality; The other side is the sociocultural weight. In almost every culture, active sexuality is equated with superiority - the best of the breed if we may say. It becomes vital that an individual being sexually active in order to be considered socially effective.
Taking the issue of the ego to more specific terms, the relationship between sexuality and the body image is generally quite evident. One of our basic needs includes coming into good terms with our physical attributes. Whether it's about being tall or short, ugly or pretty, fat or fit, even the size of the genitals... All of these physical attributes need to be feel satisfactory for the person in question. The fact that people fuck naked comes as an abhorred nightmare to anyone with problems in that area. I bet you've heard of people who would only fuck with the lights turned off! That only shows how sexuality is related to exposing your naked body allowing for the horrifying possibility of being judged. Rejection of your body by other peers come as a great nightmare, while the contrary of that generally comes as a great relief.
On a totally different note, sex has a relieving effect on emotional distress in general. Whether its a stressful job, unfortunate events, or even general frustration, a need to vent that frustration physically in one form or another where sex actually comes handy; This comes as a demonstration of the direct link between the physical effects of sex and emotional states.
The issue of sex and relationships comes as a complex one and cannot be summed up in few lines. To touch on few points, we find sex to play some role in subsiding relationship troubles. The lure of sexuality in that regard comes from that sex is a low cost, redundant act that doesn't lose interest quickly. Its like, if we have nothing to talk about, nothing new to do, no event to celebrate, and no place to go then fucking eachother comes as the answer! This attitude although healthy as a discrete event, yet would demonstrate major communication flaws if it becomes a habit and lead to an emotional rot.
Finally -and maybe most importantly- sex works as part of acceptance. The psychological background that relates sex with acceptance isn't perfectly understood, but the symbolic exposure of nakedness, combined with the acceptance of the body, and even breaking some stereotyped social views all count up as an open and accepting mind to the other side. Sex can be interpreted as a very friendly gesture that clears the air and shows readiness for understanding, and a big hint to move at an accelerated rate.
Sex is widely viewed as an expression of love in relationships. While sex actually demonstrates simple forms of interpersonal friendliness - as explained earlier, this form of expression might fail more elaborate emotional states and intimacy required for well-defined interpersonal relationships. Although relationships that are based solely on sex exist and are healthy, but misdefined relationships that don't demonstrate real values of a relationship are signs of deep rooted miscommunication.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
The Right To Marriage
Friday, July 28, 2006
Transsexuals And Gender Stereotypes
What drives a person to change their gender? This could be a mysterious question to ponder, and to search one's inner thoughts and feelings towards sex and genders.... Many people at one point or another fantasize about being part of the other sex, but what makes such fantasy so strong that one has to undergo a sex reassignment operation?
A classical scenario would go like: "I feel like a man trapped in a woman's body?" - Many people reason that they dont look on the outside that way they feel on the inside.... How far could this argument go? Could we really say that there is a direct relation between how one looks and what they are on the inside? Could one actually modify themselves to look superficially the same way they feel inside their own heads?
The way i see it, such claims emphasize stereotyped correlations that societies form through ruthless and unsubstantiated prejudice... Lets look at the claim again: "I feel like a man trapped in a woman's body?" - How exactly does a man feel? What a woman is not supposed to feel? How do you know that you are not from one gender but the other? Such claims assumes a clear line between whats masculine and whats feminine.... Could such segregation be unprejudiced and not stereotyped? My point is, while some think that transsexualism eliminates grounds for gender stereotypes I think in one way or another it's serving making the distinction more profound....
Gender transformation could be justified and motivated diversely among many people, but I wandered around one of the largely used arguments in that field and showed my discontent for the kind of reasoning behind it... This is not to claim that all of the justifications are necessarily flawed - and obviously the transformation remains a personal judgment call!!
PS: Partly inspired by South Park S9-Ep01
A classical scenario would go like: "I feel like a man trapped in a woman's body?" - Many people reason that they dont look on the outside that way they feel on the inside.... How far could this argument go? Could we really say that there is a direct relation between how one looks and what they are on the inside? Could one actually modify themselves to look superficially the same way they feel inside their own heads?
The way i see it, such claims emphasize stereotyped correlations that societies form through ruthless and unsubstantiated prejudice... Lets look at the claim again: "I feel like a man trapped in a woman's body?" - How exactly does a man feel? What a woman is not supposed to feel? How do you know that you are not from one gender but the other? Such claims assumes a clear line between whats masculine and whats feminine.... Could such segregation be unprejudiced and not stereotyped? My point is, while some think that transsexualism eliminates grounds for gender stereotypes I think in one way or another it's serving making the distinction more profound....
Gender transformation could be justified and motivated diversely among many people, but I wandered around one of the largely used arguments in that field and showed my discontent for the kind of reasoning behind it... This is not to claim that all of the justifications are necessarily flawed - and obviously the transformation remains a personal judgment call!!
PS: Partly inspired by South Park S9-Ep01
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Why Some Men Look For Virgins
There is an old joke that i think says it all:
There was a man who wanted to marry a real virgin; On the first night with his first bride he took off his pants, pointed at his dick and asked her: "What is that?", so she answered: "DAH! A penis!"; So he divorced her because she knew pretty much to be a virgin... He went on and on, marrying women and divorcing them untill one day, on the first night with a new bride, he took off his pants as usual and asked: "What is that?", and the girl replied: "I seriously have no clue at all!"; The man felt immensely happy that he found his lost treasure... Later on that night, after they fucked all night, he looked at her and said: "See honey, that is called a penis", the girl was shocked and replied: "Ohhh! Really??! I thought all penises were twice as big!!"
There is only one explanation: if a man is looking for a virgin then he has a small penis... The only reason i can think for a man to look for a virgin is to ensure the girl's ignorance to how 'short' he is to be a real man!
There was a man who wanted to marry a real virgin; On the first night with his first bride he took off his pants, pointed at his dick and asked her: "What is that?", so she answered: "DAH! A penis!"; So he divorced her because she knew pretty much to be a virgin... He went on and on, marrying women and divorcing them untill one day, on the first night with a new bride, he took off his pants as usual and asked: "What is that?", and the girl replied: "I seriously have no clue at all!"; The man felt immensely happy that he found his lost treasure... Later on that night, after they fucked all night, he looked at her and said: "See honey, that is called a penis", the girl was shocked and replied: "Ohhh! Really??! I thought all penises were twice as big!!"
There is only one explanation: if a man is looking for a virgin then he has a small penis... The only reason i can think for a man to look for a virgin is to ensure the girl's ignorance to how 'short' he is to be a real man!
Friday, April 21, 2006
Opinion: If I Were A Girl!
Let me put it straight-forward for all of my readers: If I were a girl, i would pop my cherry with my own fingers... If you are not sure what "cherry" i am talking about, let me rephrase it this way: If i were a girl, i'd break my own hymen on my own!!
But why would a girl want to do that?! Simple: To piss "someone" off!!
Now seriously, a girl's sexual history is no-one's god damned business; Not even her husband's god damned buisiness!!
On a more serious note: Why would she even need to provide evidence of virginity even if she was one? Its purely degrading i think!
Yeah right, its like i say: "Honey am a horny lusty virgin slut, do me wildly!", then we fuck and he ends up saying: "But... but... U didnt bleed!"; So what big jerk: cant he take my word for it?! "Screw you, fuck the hell off my face!" i would say then, but only if it would have really mattered, which i dont think it would cuz then i'd probably have only wanted to get laid!!
I mean, you know those corn oil advertisements that say: "Make sure the Aluminuim foil is intact before you open it"; Do you see any distinction? None from where i stand, its an exact match!!
No more cherries for you honey: So Fuck Off!! 00100
PS: Try at your own risk
But why would a girl want to do that?! Simple: To piss "someone" off!!
Now seriously, a girl's sexual history is no-one's god damned business; Not even her husband's god damned buisiness!!
On a more serious note: Why would she even need to provide evidence of virginity even if she was one? Its purely degrading i think!
Yeah right, its like i say: "Honey am a horny lusty virgin slut, do me wildly!", then we fuck and he ends up saying: "But... but... U didnt bleed!"; So what big jerk: cant he take my word for it?! "Screw you, fuck the hell off my face!" i would say then, but only if it would have really mattered, which i dont think it would cuz then i'd probably have only wanted to get laid!!
I mean, you know those corn oil advertisements that say: "Make sure the Aluminuim foil is intact before you open it"; Do you see any distinction? None from where i stand, its an exact match!!
No more cherries for you honey: So Fuck Off!! 00100
PS: Try at your own risk
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Intellectual Digital Stripper
Alys (EGirl): Do u mind if i take off my skirt?
Player: No, not yet. First tell me why you chose to do this job!
Alys (EGirl): Fair enough. Sometimes people wonder why i think its alright to take my clothes off in front of others. Some call me immoral, others a slut. To be forthright, i think its funny that sexuality is so shunned in almost every society and culture.
I think that in being open in my own sexuality, i am helping to bring sexuality out into the open in society, hopefully one day it will no longer be shunned, and seen for what it is: a natural and essential part of life.
This excerpt was ripped off an "interactive 3D sex game" called EGirl. The game is actually lame, but i admired the digital stripper's attitude! Maybe we need more people like her....
I had previously posted a closely related excerpt:
Check it here
Monday, April 03, 2006
Carnal love
Korn in "Liar":
Korn in "Make Me Bad":
Marilyn Manson in "Sweet Dreams":
It's not wrong to let go
And let the woman ride you
For fuck sake, don't lose touch
With the dog that's inside you
She wanted what you had
You bet she smelt the spore
Don't give up, fuck her up (Full lyrics)
Korn in "Make Me Bad":
What does it mean to you?
For me it's something I just do.
I want something.
I need to feel the sickness in you (Full lyrics)
Marilyn Manson in "Sweet Dreams":
I'm gonna use you and abuse you.
I'm gonna know what's inside.
Gonna use you and abuse you.
I'm gonna know what's inside you. (Full lyrics)
Monday, January 23, 2006
Satanic Sex Philosophy
In a previous post i have introduced the band Rockbitch and provided download links to one of their live performances: Bitchcraft.
The following is an extracted quotation of a conversation between one reporter and the members of Rockbitch band found on that video:
Amen to that!
The following is an extracted quotation of a conversation between one reporter and the members of Rockbitch band found on that video:
Reporter: You guys are extreme, you have kinda pushed the boundaries as far as u can bloody push it!
All: NOO!!
Reporter: You havent?
Vocalist: No we havent. you know, sexuality is so eclectic, its a rainbow of experiences. we have hardly taped into the kinds of things that women like.
Performer: And positions.
Reporter: What happens when say, just two people in a bedroom... is that still exciting? or is it just like.....
Vocalist: No, you dont do that babe... thats boring... any sex between just two people should be illegal... it should be a legal responibility for everybody to expand their horizons...
(kidding and light gestures)
Vocalist: We dont profess that everybody in the world would find all the different things we do appropriate for their sexuality, but if you are able to have an open mind about a fist fucking or something else extremely extreme, then you will have an open mind about somebody else's politics, their sexual politics, or the color of their skin. if you have an open mind about sex, and can look at what we do, and be happy and say "ohh yeah!", this makes the world a better, happier, and healthier place.
Amen to that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
