Once again a question from Silvia-Mckenzie elicits a long response from me (meanwhile @Poohbear98188 summed things up rather succinctly). Silvia asked, "What is 'straight'"? I've thought about this a fair amount over the years, initially triggered when a big burly manly lumberjack-like (although he was a computer programmer) friend of mine introduced me to his gay lover. While completely ok with me, I didn't "get it" from a chemistry standpoint. I tried imagining them having sex and it was kind of like trying to imagine your parents having sex. My brain just would not go there (and I finally watched gay porn just to see what my mind refused to conjure up images of). And so, as I've explored my own sexuality and observed the many variations on sexuality (thank you WWW!), I've had numerous thoughts about the topic. Today was a perfect day for Silvia to have posed this question, because today an acquaintance let me know that he was transgendered and working his, or rather her, way to GRS. More on this later.
I know how my body and brain react (from the subtle to the more obvious that @Poohbear98188 mentions) when I see a beautiful woman, smell her, interact with her, etc. Indeed, my body even reacts that way (though perhaps more on the subtle side) with an unattractive woman. My body and brain have no such reactions to any man. To take @Poohbear98188's point a little further, I can't even tell a good looking man from a not very good looking man. (And on a side note, when some "I'd never have sex with anyone other than my husband" woman tells me she'd violate that rule to have sex with Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Denzel Washington, or some other hunk of the moment, I am indeed baffled about why that particular male elicited such a reaction). I'm just not programmed to react sexually to men. And thus "straight" to me is not about what acts one does or does not participate in, it is about what chemical reaction occurs. Opposite Sex only reaction = Straight. Same Sex only reaction = Gay. Both Sex reaction = Bi (to varying degrees, just to complicate things).
Of course life can never be that simple, and so for many years I have been struggling with a conundrum (triggered by a particular movie whose name I forget). Let's say I meet a woman who is beautiful and sexy. She seduces me and we retire to someplace private for sex. We kiss passionately and I am super turned on. I remove her bra and bury my face in her gorgeous breasts, kissing them and sucking on her nipples. I kiss down to her navel and slip off her panties. And out springs a penis. Do I recoil in horror and run for the hills? Or, do I live in the moment and pop it into my mouth? And if I did the latter, would it be a sign of some latent "gay" tendencies or just an acknowledgment that a "chic with a dick" is first and foremost a chic? I don't think I want to know the answer, just in case it is different from what I think it is. Note that I will likely never face this sexual "kobayashi maru" because it requires that I not know (nor suspect) that the chic has a dick until after I am super turned on and in the midst of foreplay. But certainly this scenario throws a monkey wrench into my otherwise simple answer for "What is 'straight'?"
Of course there are other complicating scenarios. What if you are a submissive with no interest in men whatsoever, and your mistress orders you to suck another man's cock? Perhaps she is doing it precisely because she knows you find the idea revolting and the only reason you will do this is to demonstrate your deep submission to her. And you do it, because the alternative is to acknowledge you can't submit to her at the level she (and probably you, before reality struck) desires. Sorry, you forgot to mention to her that was a hard limit. So you suck. By my chemical reaction theory you are still straight. However, if you actually tell a femdom you want a "forced bi" scene then it isn't so clear. Perhaps you find it degrading and you are into degradation. Or perhaps you are bi-curious but could never bring yourself to do something about it, so you abdicate responsibility to the dominant but still get to try it out. Ah the complications of sex!
Which brings me back to an interesting complication I never would have thought about had Silvia not posed her question, the TG acquaintance. As expected I have never had any sexual reaction to this person when he was living as a male and I can't imagine having any reaction to her now that she is wearing women's clothing, taking hormones, etc. Now fast forward a few years to Post-Op and a well faded memory that she was once a he. Plus make the assumption that he turns out to be a fairly attractive she (which thinking about his build, facial structure, etc. is actually not a bad assumption). He will be a she in every externally detectable (to everyone except a forensic anthropologist) way, but it is the same person. Why is it that having a sexual reaction to that person two weeks ago would have been classified as "gay", while having a sexual reaction to that person two years from now will be classified as "straight"? It is enough to make your head really hurt.
So what does this all mean? Well, not much. Except maybe we should all stop worrying so much about labels and just enjoy ourselves.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Everything a man does he does to get laid
This topic was sparked by Silvia-Mckenzie's Tweets about a debate on Everything a man does he does to get laid. I responded on Twitter, but the topic deserves a deeper response.
Humans are animals, and as such everything we do is tied to a continuation of our species. Everything. Or at least, everything we do is the result of our biological imperative to continue the species. For non-humans the link is always obvious, for example when puppies and kittens "play" they are practicing hunting skills. For humans the link may be more circuitous, but it is there. Sports, for example, are linked to our practice of hunting and survival (e.g., defense of self and the group) skills. Even baseball. Does anyone think that the ability to hit a target the size of an animal with a 95 MPH fastball might be related to our ability to take down game with a rock? I sure do. Any wonder that men are more into sports then women? Playing with dolls is about preparing to raise children. Any wonder that girls are more into dolls than boys? Those very same boys who, having never seen a war movie or been allowed to own GI Joe can be found in the back yard playing soldier?
The thing about humans is, our brains let us channel biological imperatives far beyond the obvious and break "the rules". Take music. I have no idea how music ties in to our biological imperatives, except perhaps for one word: Groupies. Ok, so that is a special case. But it appears to be a generalization...music helps encourage reproduction ("sex") and thus humans have developed it into a high art form. Music may have other continuation of the species benefits, but do any of us really care? Certainly not the guys (and gals) who make the music. You join a rock band to get laid. You are a roadie to get laid. You put on a Barry White 8-track (sorry, MP3) when a woman is visiting in order to get laid. Got it?
Of course the biggest example is S-E-X. We are programmed to have sex to reproduce. And that means intercourse. But humans took this drive and turned it into every imaginable sexual activity. And some unimaginable ones. The rest of the animal kingdom pretty much sticks with intercourse, because they are just following the reproduction programming. Well then, how much other human male activity is tied to "getting laid".
We do things for three reasons:
1) To maintain our own personal survival
2) To maintain the survival of our group (and thus offspring)
3) To create offspring
There are no other reasons. Obviously #3 is directly tied to getting laid. Men were designed to impregnate as many women as possible. There is no real need to discuss this, just look at how men's genitals work. What about #2? What really motivates a man to want to protect and provide for the group? Why not just look our for ourselves? Well, women are attracted to men who provide for and protect them and their offspring. And even in this day and age, when women can largely provide for themselves, a man who doesn't take care of his family is widely looked down upon (by both women and other men alike). So, unless you can protect and provide for the group you are unlikely to get laid. Thus, men are driven by their desire to have sex to provide for and protect the group. Further, women seem biologically driven to seek out the men who can best provide for them and their offspring. They may say "money doesn't matter", but in reality their genetics encourages them to have sex with wealthy men over poor men. And thus, men are driven to success.
That leaves us with #1. Well, you can't reproduce if you aren't alive and reasonably healthy. Men keep themselves alive in order to reproduce. So yes, that sip of coffee you just had was really just part of getting you ready to get laid.
What does this all mean? Does it really matter? Humans are at the core animals with all of the animal kingdom's biological imperatives. Our brains let us reach far beyond those imperatives, and do things without clear links to those imperatives. But if you drill down deep enough, everything is motivated by the need continue the species. Which means reproduce. Which means getting laid.
Humans are animals, and as such everything we do is tied to a continuation of our species. Everything. Or at least, everything we do is the result of our biological imperative to continue the species. For non-humans the link is always obvious, for example when puppies and kittens "play" they are practicing hunting skills. For humans the link may be more circuitous, but it is there. Sports, for example, are linked to our practice of hunting and survival (e.g., defense of self and the group) skills. Even baseball. Does anyone think that the ability to hit a target the size of an animal with a 95 MPH fastball might be related to our ability to take down game with a rock? I sure do. Any wonder that men are more into sports then women? Playing with dolls is about preparing to raise children. Any wonder that girls are more into dolls than boys? Those very same boys who, having never seen a war movie or been allowed to own GI Joe can be found in the back yard playing soldier?
The thing about humans is, our brains let us channel biological imperatives far beyond the obvious and break "the rules". Take music. I have no idea how music ties in to our biological imperatives, except perhaps for one word: Groupies. Ok, so that is a special case. But it appears to be a generalization...music helps encourage reproduction ("sex") and thus humans have developed it into a high art form. Music may have other continuation of the species benefits, but do any of us really care? Certainly not the guys (and gals) who make the music. You join a rock band to get laid. You are a roadie to get laid. You put on a Barry White 8-track (sorry, MP3) when a woman is visiting in order to get laid. Got it?
Of course the biggest example is S-E-X. We are programmed to have sex to reproduce. And that means intercourse. But humans took this drive and turned it into every imaginable sexual activity. And some unimaginable ones. The rest of the animal kingdom pretty much sticks with intercourse, because they are just following the reproduction programming. Well then, how much other human male activity is tied to "getting laid".
We do things for three reasons:
1) To maintain our own personal survival
2) To maintain the survival of our group (and thus offspring)
3) To create offspring
There are no other reasons. Obviously #3 is directly tied to getting laid. Men were designed to impregnate as many women as possible. There is no real need to discuss this, just look at how men's genitals work. What about #2? What really motivates a man to want to protect and provide for the group? Why not just look our for ourselves? Well, women are attracted to men who provide for and protect them and their offspring. And even in this day and age, when women can largely provide for themselves, a man who doesn't take care of his family is widely looked down upon (by both women and other men alike). So, unless you can protect and provide for the group you are unlikely to get laid. Thus, men are driven by their desire to have sex to provide for and protect the group. Further, women seem biologically driven to seek out the men who can best provide for them and their offspring. They may say "money doesn't matter", but in reality their genetics encourages them to have sex with wealthy men over poor men. And thus, men are driven to success.
That leaves us with #1. Well, you can't reproduce if you aren't alive and reasonably healthy. Men keep themselves alive in order to reproduce. So yes, that sip of coffee you just had was really just part of getting you ready to get laid.
What does this all mean? Does it really matter? Humans are at the core animals with all of the animal kingdom's biological imperatives. Our brains let us reach far beyond those imperatives, and do things without clear links to those imperatives. But if you drill down deep enough, everything is motivated by the need continue the species. Which means reproduce. Which means getting laid.
Why I haven't been posting...
I know I haven't been posting much here. I do have a backlog of topics, but beyond having time constraints I've been concentrating my activity on Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/paramour425). But I really should start posting here again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)