Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

final_identity · 05-30-2004, 06:27 PM

I didn't mean to imply that money-grubbing was going on in any situation. I meant to imply that a large number of "typical" female arguments about why to have / not have sex, have become muddled by the material-wellbeing quotient. "He's stable" and "I don't want his mom making me breakfast" might SEEM to be valid manners of assessing a potential partner, but they quite often are simply hiding the real decision-making process. Perhaps his mom was Julia Child, perhaps he was a brilliant (but poor) poet who could give her orgasms with his words. The notions about material wellbeing get HIDDEN behind a buncha excuses.

They're still perfectly reasonable notions. A human is allowed to choose whatever he or she wants, especially for sex partners. Just don't be hypocritical about it. "I need him to seem like an adult" is categorically, positively, the exact same thing as, "I am impressed (to some degree) with earning potential," it's just said nicer so you don't feel too bad about your own conniving mercenary attitude toward human relationships.

And don't give me that evo-psych stuff about a man being a provider. Only in rampantly market-based economies has that been proven to be the case. In, for example, the more "communist" (or material-scorning, I guess would be more accurate) Australian aboriginal cultures, monetary wellbeing often plays no role at all.

Fact is, human females enjoy sexuality, and enjoy it EQUALLY WELL with rich or poor partners, but have been trained by Walt Disney et al. to be in denial about those facts. "I'd be a bad girl to fuck a guy just because he was hot." Or, "I really need to feel emotionally supported and secure." Bullshit. All you need is enough background and trust to know you're physically safe, and the confidence to throw Victorian prudery out the window.

I'm personally tired of having the implications thrown at me that my interest in sex is (a) predatory (and potentially damaging to any consenting partner) or (b) inappropriate for a more "balanced" relationship, or (c) destined to be "exchanged" for something non-sexual, like a lifetime of economic support no matter how squeamish she is about blowjobs. We have, in our sexual politics, a real blind spot; that spot is lust. There's nothing wrong with it, or with acting on it. There's a lot wrong with pretending there's some kind of "right" price for acting on it.

05-30-2004, 06:27 PM	#21 (permalink)
final_identity Tilted Location: Jackson, MS	I didn't mean to imply that money-grubbing was going on in any situation. I meant to imply that a large number of "typical" female arguments about why to have / not have sex, have become muddled by the material-wellbeing quotient. "He's stable" and "I don't want his mom making me breakfast" might SEEM to be valid manners of assessing a potential partner, but they quite often are simply hiding the real decision-making process. Perhaps his mom was Julia Child, perhaps he was a brilliant (but poor) poet who could give her orgasms with his words. The notions about material wellbeing get HIDDEN behind a buncha excuses. They're still perfectly reasonable notions. A human is allowed to choose whatever he or she wants, especially for sex partners. Just don't be hypocritical about it. "I need him to seem like an adult" is categorically, positively, the exact same thing as, "I am impressed (to some degree) with earning potential," it's just said nicer so you don't feel too bad about your own conniving mercenary attitude toward human relationships. And don't give me that evo-psych stuff about a man being a provider. Only in rampantly market-based economies has that been proven to be the case. In, for example, the more "communist" (or material-scorning, I guess would be more accurate) Australian aboriginal cultures, monetary wellbeing often plays no role at all. Fact is, human females enjoy sexuality, and enjoy it EQUALLY WELL with rich or poor partners, but have been trained by Walt Disney et al. to be in denial about those facts. "I'd be a bad girl to fuck a guy just because he was hot." Or, "I really need to feel emotionally supported and secure." Bullshit. All you need is enough background and trust to know you're physically safe, and the confidence to throw Victorian prudery out the window. I'm personally tired of having the implications thrown at me that my interest in sex is (a) predatory (and potentially damaging to any consenting partner) or (b) inappropriate for a more "balanced" relationship, or (c) destined to be "exchanged" for something non-sexual, like a lifetime of economic support no matter how squeamish she is about blowjobs. We have, in our sexual politics, a real blind spot; that spot is lust. There's nothing wrong with it, or with acting on it. There's a lot wrong with pretending there's some kind of "right" price for acting on it. __________________ The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently. Friedrich Nietzsche Last edited by final_identity; 05-30-2004 at 06:30 PM..