« on clowns and fear, itself | Main | a book proposed »

17 May 2008

Comments

Paul Davis

i've always thought of sex as something highly incendiary because of this precise connection: i can neither be that close to some physically without it opening a pandora's box of emotional connectivity, nor can i really imagine getting that close to someone physically about whom i don't at the very least suspect some of the same emotional fireworks. i remember when i met both my first and current wives that my initial response wasn't "wow, i want to fuck this woman", its was something much closer to "this situation is a problem because i know i am going to get rapidly, irrevisibly, and irrevocably emotionally involved with this person". i worry that this is one of the greatest omissions from what we try to pass on to children about sex: not just the physical risks, but the emotional ones ... by being that intimate with that person, you may find that you are opening a box of stuff that you might prefer to remain closed. but then i suspect that there are quite a few people out there who are much, much better at keeping these things separate from each other, and that my experience, if not an exception, may not be the rule.

Little Jezebel

Isn't the definition of a slut someone who is slightly confused? You should be paid for what you want to do, or in intimate relations with it/he/she/them.

southern

What's the appropriate term for a male slut CG?

Alexa

I’m not sure I’m not a slut, but I’m not sure I am one either

When it gets right down to it, does it really matter? You are a sexual being and you enjoy sex the way you enjoy sex. Just like many people prefer not to label their sexual orientation, I don't know that there is a need to characterize your perceived promiscuity.

Goose

Paul Davis, I agree with you on many points. We often refer to poly as "playing with live round" but really all sexual and emotional relationships are. Or a house of cards that could easily tumble down without great care.
Poly is hard, and defying cultural mandates is one piece of the hard part of it for me Chelsea, though lately I've been defying lots of them.
I also take casual sex rather seriously. I've tried to take it casually, but it doesn't work.
I don't know if we are making it work or not. All I know is that Gander and I are still in love and maintaining a strong relationship and our other partners still like us and each other.
That's good enough for me right now.

marianne

"| don't do casual sex casually". Exactly. When I come across others who seem to manage it so easily, I'm partly in awe and admire them greatly, and I partly doubt whether it's as easy for them as they pretend.

J.J.

Can't pass this up without spouting off my own two cents.

Maybe I'm a little naive, but it seems to me that "slut" in the derogatory sense is simply a label affixed to other people's opinions. If part of you is titllated by thinking of yourself as improperly sexual according to social "norms", then all power to you. I've always maintained that however we choose to conduct our physical and emotional lives is purely personal -- whatever anyone else thinks of it is their own problem.

Now as to poly versus mono... I've never been involved in a poly. I'm a definite one-on-one kind of guy. A serial monogamist, as it were. But I can definitely see that a polyamorous relationship can work. After all, we are capable of having multiple relationships of varying kinds simultaneously. Why should this not extend to the emotional and physical plane? I'd wager, though, that it it's much harder work -- to think of the complexity of a single relationship multiplied by x number of partners? "There madness lies" as far as I'm personally concerned. But I admire people who can manage to navigate that fragile path with success...

The comments to this entry are closed.