Architecture of Desire: Simple, Complex?

[Brute_Force]

I long for erotic entanglement that is neither entirely simple nor entirely complex. I prefer the straightforward, the direct, the simple/elegant in interactions with potential and existing lovers. However, without layers of complexity, introspection, role exchanges, I can become less than stimulated.

I wonder where the balance is found between the two architectural poles? Is a balance required for sustained pleasure? Does the tipping of the scale signify lack or want? Food for thoughts?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Food for so much thoughts!

I'll be back when my thoughts are well-fed

 

[3113]

I long for erotic entanglement that is neither entirely simple nor entirely complex. I prefer the straightforward, the direct, the simple/elegant in interactions with potential and existing lovers. However, without layers of complexity, introspection, role exchanges, I can become less than stimulated.

Um...what?

Stella, could you translate for Stanley Kowalski here?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Too much literature, not enough eros?

 

[The_Fool]

Um...what?

Stella, could you translate for Stanley Kowalski here?

Translation:

I don't know what I want. Sometimes I want to fuck. Other times I want to make love.

 

[Guest]

Translation:

I don't know what I want. Sometimes I want to fuck. Other times I want to make love.

*Grin* Yup, that's waht i figured too!

 

[Brute_Force]

Laughing! Never wanting to fall prey to the habit of deliberate obfuscation, I will clarify. Ahem. I simply mean that in trying to understand what causes desire in me (and in others), is it the simple and straightforward? Or, is it the complex and the subtle?

I think it's a bit of both and all tangled up most of the time. I don't really believe in the notion of mutually exclusive conditions. Instead, I like the tapestry that weaves things together.

The concept is too philosophic perhaps. Or maybe it's just too simplistic. I dunno. (winks)

 

[jomar]

I long for erotic entanglement that is neither entirely simple nor entirely complex. I prefer the straightforward, the direct, the simple/elegant in interactions with potential and existing lovers. However, without layers of complexity, introspection, role exchanges, I can become less than stimulated.

You wouldn't be the PhD who trolled my Chase Cooder story would you?

Good, didn't think so.

 

[3113]

I simply mean that in trying to understand what causes desire in me (and in others)

Thinking someone's hot?

 

[sweetness6280]

I long for erotic entanglement that is neither entirely simple nor entirely complex. I prefer the straightforward, the direct, the simple/elegant in interactions with potential and existing lovers. However, without layers of complexity, introspection, role exchanges, I can become less than stimulated.

I wonder where the balance is found between the two architectural poles? Is a balance required for sustained pleasure? Does the tipping of the scale signify lack or want? Food for thoughts?

Laughing! Never wanting to fall prey to the habit of deliberate obfuscation, I will clarify. Ahem. I simply mean that in trying to understand what causes desire in me (and in others), is it the simple and straightforward? Or, is it the complex and the subtle?

I think it's a bit of both and all tangled up most of the time. I don't really believe in the notion of mutually exclusive conditions. Instead, I like the tapestry that weaves things together.

The concept is too philosophic perhaps. Or maybe it's just too simplistic. I dunno. (winks)

*wonders if the fact that she completely understands all of that makes her... um.. unique.

 

[slyc_willie]

You're trying to quanitify a variable there, Brute. Can't be done.

Write the way that turns you on. There's bound to be others like you out there.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Perhaps, it can be expressed in this way; In the days when we are first with a new lover, it's perfectly satisfactory to hop in bed and bounce up and down with 'em. It's all so new, that we can learn a lot from the simplest of bedgames. Sheer fucking is love-making, in those new times.
If we are intelligent and enquiring (and we are) we know that there is more to our partner. Sooner or later, we will want to taste the subtleties, we want a deeper emotional response, we want to make-- to craft-- to render-- love.

And once in a while, to fuck like demented monkeys.

 

[MagicaPractica]

I suspect, as you say, that there are points that are sublimely simple and points that are infinitely complex. I see, hear, etc. and therefore desire. What races through my brain unbeknownst to me is a myriad of details. I do know that it is more than what I see. One who I might find at first attractive can become unattractive through his actions and words. I look for people's souls shining out.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I practice Tantric sex, and I place a high value on the multiple variables involved in the 'architecture of desire,' as you put it, Brute. I understand where you're coming from. I yearn for a direct hit sometimes. But, I always like to play with the ways to arrive at this direct hit.