From: ucda@toontown.uucp (Chris Andersen)
Subject: Re: "Cheating"
Organization: The Department For Doing Departmental Things
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:05:28 GMT

In article <725616049.AA00762@tdkt.kksys.com> Elise@p19.f341.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Elise) writes:
>   
>   Also brings up the question of what different sexual acts "mean" to different
>folks.
>...
>   There are many other examples, and they make we wonder whether there isn't
>some unexamined belief about penetration and control behind all this.  It's
>almost as if certain folks believe that "those who fuck" have a lot of power and
>control (to define their sexual identity, to control the intimacy of the
>relationship, whatever) and "those who get fucked" are somehow less able to
>decide what they want and who they are & love.

I've also noticed in some people that the type of penetration (vaginal vs. anal)
can make a world of difference.  There are people who will perform almost every
sexual act, including anal sex, but who still consider themselves as virginal
as the person whose never even kissed another simply because they haven't
actually connected the yin with the yang.

I'm sure that the suprememcy of vaginal intercourse amongst sexual acts can be
traced to cultural traditions which ultimately have their foundation in the
fact that vaginal intercourse is the only sexual act which can produce another
life.  But given that the prevention of pregnancy is a relatively easy thing
in modern society, I wonder if social relationships might be unnecessarily
burdened with a taboo which has lost any justification it may have once had.

I've had my fair share of sex, vaginal and otherwise, and I've enjoyed it.
But I've never completely understood what the big deal is.  I've understood
the problems intellectually.  But I've never had a corresponding emotional or
empathetic understanding.  It's just a totally foreign concept to me to see sex
as anything really more then a basic biological function ranking up there with
eating, sleeping, and taking a shit.

I've often thought that the world might be a better place if people just had
more sex (and enjoyed it for what it is).

>   It makes me wonder what Camille Paglia's take on it would be (then again I've
>been lying at home watching Zappa's 200 Motels after being taken through barely
>consensual hospital weirdness all day)  and I wonder if she's say that "Having a
>weenie (even a strap-on) means that you get to call the shots, and not having
>one (or being what my friend calls an "innie" instead of an "outie" -- or
>functioning as an innie in a particular encounter) means that you get "taken":
>defined, claimed and changed by the person doing the penetration, rather than
>vice versa."  

Just because one has a tool (a penis, artificial or otherwise) that allows one
to perform a certain act (penetration) that someone without that tool cannot
perform does not inherently make the person with that tool superior in that
act.  It is quite possible that the person who is penetrated can be the one
who is the active force behind the act.  For example: if one woman has a
strap-on dildo and is tied to bed and is then straddled by another woman,
then the latter woman is the one who is taking the immediate active role in
this particular act of intercourse, even thou it is she who is being penetrated.

The paradox of sexual power relationships becomes even more noticable in
a submissive/dominate relationship: does the top have the power because
they can make the bottom do what they want, or does the bottom have the
power because they are the one who originally agreed to conset to those
demands (and can always get out if they invoke their safe word).

I've never trusted people who try to deduce from such a complex issue as
sexual intercourse a general principle of sexual politics.  The power
relationship is different for every single act of intercourse.

However, I will admit that we currently live in a society the inherently
assumes a power dominance on the part of the person with the "outie".
I just think that this assumption is a pretty silly one.

>   This all comes out because I've been reading what folks post about
>limits/vetos/areas of caution in polyamory, and trying to get a different angle
>on how the mechanics of sexual interaction fit with those topics.  I haven't
>successfully defined the question yet, let alone taken a good leap at an answer.
>If anyone else can shed a bit of light on the subject, be my guest.  

The answer is that the mechanics vary with every single act of sexual congress.
It is up to the parties involved to define for themselves what limits on those
mechanics are acceptable.

When I've watched Donahue, Geraldo, etc. do shows on polyamory topics I think
the single biggest obstacle that prevents a large portion of the audience
from even understanding the topic is that they are constantly trying to
fit it into the standard power relationship which is defined by society:
man and woman as partners, man on top giving, woman on bottom receiving.

The more a relationship violates this social standard, the harder it is to
understand.  Homosexuality is at least partially understandable because it
really only violates the rule about "man and woman" (though the sexual dynamics
of who's on top can sometimes be confusing), therefore it is grudgingly
acknowledge by many people as an acceptable alternative lifestyle.

Bisexuality is a little more confusing because the bisexual doesn't seem
mature enough to make up their mind about what they want (as if the only
acceptable choices are "only men" or "only women"), so this lifestyle is
still encountering severe confusion (even amongst the homosexual community).

But polyamory?  It violates every single one of the rules of the social
standard.  Not only is it unspecific to the genders involved, it doesn't
even limit it to one-on-one interactions.  If the question of "who's on top"
is a curious one for homosexuality and a confusing one in bisexualty, then
imagine how impossible it is for polyamory!

-- 
Chris Andersen (..!uunet!sequent!toontown!chris)

"...the only thing worse than being hurt is being bored." -- Daniel Mocsny