Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

[Pure]

Imagine

Self-Absorbed Sex

Get yourself off; use the other as necessary. Even stimulate some of their parts, if a bit of swelling would suit you. A bit sadistic: Your orgasms are a primary goal of these acts, of the 'game.' Another is your power, exercized through eroticism.

It was called Libertinism*; now, maybe self absorbed sex (encounters) would be a good label, if you add, "avid pursuit" and "taking your 'prey.' " As practiced, it's as an activity that falls short of illegal assault. The acts needn't be practiced every hour of every day; they may be occasional. Where there's a pattern, however, an ongoing routine, even an addiction, then the person may be labeled a 'libertine.'

'Self absorbed' (sex) means, in the encounter(s) your goals of self gratification are number one. You're unconcerned about other's priorities (except as means, of course). It doesn't mean you're oblivious, unaware of the the thoughts and feelings of your 'prey.' A keen sense of them is often crucial to the enterprise.

There's no grudge, or loss of temper. You're cool, clear, and aware of the 'game' and the other isn't--until too late--. That dawning, in them, almost necessary, being an added kick.

If they love, like, or have expectations of you that you ignore, a further kick. The scrupulous libertine, while being open about the sexual goal, *lets* them flourish; but doesn't tell lies to heighten them.

The greatest kick, however, is where the 'other' has pride, self respect, and even intelligence --and so is able to put up resistance. To no avail.
-----

All of the above are pretty taboo sex acts, less often talked about in these parts than zoophilia.

Others' imaginings on the topic are welcome! Either from the 'doing' side, or the 'undergoing' side. Stories. (This isn't a 'real life' advice column.)



**Think Valmont (Malkovich) and Cecile (Thurman).
[Above slightly amended and re-worded, May 6, 2004]

{{Added 8-03-04: Think also of Mme de Meurteuil, played by Glenn Close.}}

 

[rosco rathbone]

Well, you've just described me to a "T".

That's libertinism, really?? Cool.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Well, you've just described me to a "T".

That's libertinism, really?? Cool.

I also call it "fuckpuppetry" or "human woman as mastrubation tool".

Philosophically related to the primacy of my male orgasm.

 

[Netzach]

Doesn't she wind up covered in leeches and dead and him with a sword through the armpit?


Call me pc, I like games where no one loses an eye.

 

[Pure]

Netzach, I take it you're saying that this self absorbed person is immoral; and that immoral folks come to a bad end.

This first assertion is doubtful, the second is clearly false.

For a modern example, see next posting.

----

Netzach said, "Doesn't she wind up covered in leeches and dead and him with a sword through the armpit?


Call me pc, I like games where no one loses an eye."

 

[Pure]

So as not to slight women, my descriptions have been non specific as regards gender.

{{Added 4-28 : I can't entirely be sure Catherine M is a libertine of the sort being discussed, havent' read enough. Simple avidity for sex is not enough; pursuit of, and fucking lots of partners who go along with it, is not enough.}}

I wish to assure Netzach that Ms. M has NOT lost an eye, or even got AIDS.

http://www.counterpunch.org/block0831.html

The Gangbang Asthete

The Sexual Life of Catherine M.

by Dr. Susan Block

[start quote]

In The Sexual Life of Catherine M. [an autobiography] , celebrated French intellectual Catherine Millet gives us pornography that is both high-brow and profound, as well as literature that is both exciting and filthy. Millet writes with the cool, discerning eye of the art critic that she is, examining her [real life] orgiastic adventures, fantasies, blowjobs, anal probings and orgasms, as she might a series of sculptures or paintings.

My favorite parts describe the gangbangs. One woman and thirty men sounds like good odds to me. The venues are also exciting: the Bois de Boulogne, a French Villa, various parks and parking lots. Millet is not the first woman to enjoy having sex with several men (and a few women) at once. Many ladies enjoy and excell at group action: the swinger chick, the town slut, the cheerleader that sucks off the football team, the porn starlet who wins the consensual gangbang contest. However, such women tend not to talk about their experiences much, for a variety of reasons. For one, their mouths are filled with cock.

Even though Millet maintains, in her feminine way, that she is not a feminist, her book is an eloquent celebration of women's sexual power. No man can do this. A man may have a harem with 100 women in it, but he can't fuck all of them in one night. Whereas Catherine fucks 100 men in a night with some regularity, and with little difficulty except a bit of soreness between the thighs. Then, you realize why men have guarded, enslaved and punished women for millenia. Because every woman can do this.

Not that it takes any great physical ability. And certainly no mental talent. Of course, it takes stamina. But just about any reasonably healthy young or middle-aged woman can plunk herself down on a coffee table or park bench and spread her legs for numerous men to fuck her as she strokes and sucks and plays with the various cocks that surround her.

And yet it is an achievement. Even a great achievement. Because, though every woman can do this, most women don't--for fear of being labeled a slut, or because no one asks them, or because they are so indoctrinated into the idea of one man per woman, that it doesn't even occur to them.

Thus, very few women write about it, even fewer writing about it well enough for respectable people to read. The Sexual Life of Catherine M. serves up an art critic's detailed, almost dispassionate perspective of being in the center of a gigantic gangbang. The book makes you feel that this is, in a way, what women's bodies are built for, to lie like an egg, waiting to be fertilized by millions of sperm, penetrated by dozens of cocks, fucked by dozens of men, all vying politely to get inside. Or, as Millet herself alludes, like a spider in her very sticky web.

My least favorite parts of the book are the ones about dirt. This is not just "dirty" in a spiritual sense, as in "talking dirty," although Millet covers that subject pretty well too. This is dirt in the sense of real, physical grime, crud (human and otherwise) and lack of a shower. We Americans already tend to think that the French don't bathe enough (thus, the fabulous perfumes), and Catherine M. confirms all our worst fears about this aspect of the French. She's constantly having sex in filth with dirty disgusting men with rotten teeth and foul smells. It's a wonder she hasn't picked up a lot more than just "the clap" along the way. She calls it raising herself "above prejudice." I call it yucky.

But she does seem to know what she's doing. The Sexual Life of Catherine M. solidifies a belief that Americans already have, that is, that Frenchwomen KNOW about sex, dirty and otherwise. Other Frenchwomen who wrote about sex from "the woman's point of view," shocking the cultures of their time, include Colette, whose novels of the pleasures and pains of love foreshadow Millet with their exact evocation of sounds, smells, tastes, textures, and colors, and Anais Nin who wasn't actually French, but lived in Paris when she wrote her famous Delta of Venus and House of Incest. Then there's Simone de Beauvoir, she of The Second Sex, and, Pauline Reage of The Story of O. Now we have Catherine Millet, gangbang asthete. [end excerpt]

 

[Netzach]

I was just recapping Les Liaisons Dangerueses, any moralizing isn't mine.

Read reviews of Catherine M that said it was pretty dull for something so raunchy, so never did read it.

The idea of fucking 100 people is as elusive to me as running a marathon....I just go "why?" The idea of beating 100 people is a must-do.

 

[Pure]

N: I like games where no one loses an eye.

That explains roscoe's walking stick.



PS. Yes, in the book, the male libertine, Valmont, and the female, Mme de Meurteuil both die. OTOH, Jack Kennedy became president.

 

[Pure]

N: "Read reviews of Catherine M that said it was pretty dull. "

I tend to distrust reviewers who claim dullness or boredom from graphic accounts of gang bangs. It's usually the would-be sophisticate's way of saying what Falwell does: "It's immoral and offensive."

Why 'do' a hundred people? No reason; it depends on one's appetites. Catherine's was large. It's the *quality* of the project, what some would call 'using' the partners, not their quantity, that defines an approach centered in one's own sexual (& etc.) gratification.

 

[sunfox]

I tend to distrust reviewers who claim dullness or boredom from graphic accounts of gang bangs. It's usually the would-be sophisticate's way of saying what Falwell does: "It's immoral and offensive."

I disagree. Repetitive descriptions of someone porking is boring.

And I think it can safely be said that I don't find sex immoral or offensive. But I do think that a book can be boring, whether detailing graphic gang bangs, or how to break down dressage movements.

Both are interesting in moderation. But after a while... it's just more of the same old thing.

 

[ammre]

I disagree. Repetitive descriptions of someone porking is boring.

And I think it can safely be said that I don't find sex immoral or offensive. But I do think that a book can be boring, whether detailing graphic gang bangs, or how to break down dressage movements.

Both are interesting in moderation. But after a while... it's just more of the same old thing.

which is exactly why we have so many stories on this site, so people can find the ones they don't deem "boring" (well of course after they have selected the stories that tend to fit their fantasies)

I've read a lot of boring sex stories. Maybe i just look for too much*shrug*

Pure, what you posted at the beginning, was that jsut suppossed to insight feeling or start a discussion about something? i'm not sure what i should be discussing but oddly that all sounded pretty damn good.

 

[Pure]

hi amre,

thanks for dropping by. i did intend to incite something, possibly about how some people feel about the doing or the undergoing of 'self absorbed sex' (the acts of libertines).

doing= taking and using in violation of expectations

undergoing= being taken and used in violation of expectations.

the first is clearly akin to a sadistic act. certainly Malkevich's Valmont comes across as often cruel and sadistic.



PS. Sunnie, I don't think there's any dispute that stories that mainly list sex acts, even with 'graphic (and stereotyped) detail,' get pretty boring after the first 500 or so. And 90% of Lit stories are like that for me.

all this is kinda off topic of the thread, what makes sex stories titillating or boring.

 

[rosco rathbone]

For the most part, I find the whole gangbang concept quite tedious. I can see why it has been adopted by the grrrlpower types. There is a definite female-macho, "see what I can take", diminishment of the male involved...." I can fuck the whole crew of the USS Missouri and still be unsatisfied". A Mae West thing.

It is, in fact, a triumph of the vagina over the tool unless carefully stage-managed. Let's face it, the nearest thing in the animal kingdom is the Queen Bee (or ant, or other bug), serviced by hordes of tiny, stump-winged drone boys who crawl off spent and expire soon after.

 

[s'lara]

Imagine

Self-Absorbed Sex

Get yourself off; use the other as necessary. Even stimulate some parts, if a bit of swelling would suit you. A bit sadistic: The 'game' is about your orgasms.

It was called Libertinisim*; now maybe 'self absorbed sex' would be a good label, if you add, 'avid pursuit' and 'taking your prey.' As practiced, it's as an activity that falls short of illegal assault.

There's no grudge, or loss of temper. You're cool, clear, and aware of the 'game' and the other isn't, that's an added kick.

If they love, like, or have expectations of you that you ignore, a further kick.

The greatest kick, however, is where the 'other' has pride, self respect, and even intelligence --and so is able to put up resistance. To no avail.
-----

All of the above is pretty taboo sex, less often talked about in these parts than zoophilia.

Others' imaginings on the topic are welcome! Either from the 'doing' side, or the 'undergoing' side.



**Think Valmont (Malkovich) and Cecile (Thurman).

Eh. Lends toward use. The tool you use to obtain satisfaction. No, not a toy. It's worse if the tool is human right? To treat another so callously, so insensitively is the height of self absorption yes? Sounds fine to me, but as a sub that would be just dandy. But wait. That lessens the sweetness of the game doesn't it? The more unaware the tool is, the better the fruits of the labor. Double edged sword for sub's. Consent is a tricky matter when it comes to satisfying the spontaneous sadist who revels in acts which border or are outside the parameters previously set.

Aware vs. unaware. From my POV, experiencing the unaware is keen and sharp, like a green apple; sweet and bitter. That's always cool says the masochist.

lara

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

Imagine

Self-Absorbed Sex

Get yourself off; use the other as necessary. Even stimulate some parts, if a bit of swelling would suit you. A bit sadistic: The 'game' is about your orgasms.

It was called Libertinisim*; now maybe 'self absorbed sex' would be a good label, if you add, 'avid pursuit' and 'taking your prey.' As practiced, it's as an activity that falls short of illegal assault.

There's no grudge, or loss of temper. You're cool, clear, and aware of the 'game' and the other isn't, that's an added kick.

If they love, like, or have expectations of you that you ignore, a further kick.

The greatest kick, however, is where the 'other' has pride, self respect, and even intelligence --and so is able to put up resistance. To no avail.
-----

All of the above is pretty taboo sex, less often talked about in these parts than zoophilia.

Others' imaginings on the topic are welcome! Either from the 'doing' side, or the 'undergoing' side.



**Think Valmont (Malkovich) and Cecile (Thurman).

Until I read this, I had no idea that what I had indulged in (in the past) was considered a taboo thing. My thoughts were always: "Let me do it to them before they do it to me, period."

Usually, it wasn't even about the sex...it was about being able to capture the one that I wanted, having the ability to disabuse them of the notion that they were worth anything besides a quick fuck. It was FUN!! It usually ended up with them being angry, hurt but once the game was done, I was done.

I have never been on the other side of the equation so I wouldn't know what that side of it is like. (Though to be honest, the little masochist in me would probably get a thrill from it).

pet

 

[rosco rathbone]

Re: Re: Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

Consent is a tricky matter when it comes to satisfying the spontaneous sadist who revels in acts which border or are outside the parameters previously set.

mhm

 

[ammre]

hi amre,

thanks for dropping by. i did intend to incite something, possibly about how some people feel about the doing or the undergoing of 'self absorbed sex' (the acts of libertines).

doing= taking and using in violation of expectations

undergoing= being taken and used in violation of expectations.

the first is clearly akin to a sadistic act. certainly Malkevich's Valmont comes across as often cruel and sadistic.



PS. Sunnie, I don't think there's any dispute that stories that mainly list sex acts, even with 'graphic (and stereotyped) detail,' get pretty boring after the first 500 or so. And 90% of Lit stories are like that for me.

all this is kinda off topic of the thread, what makes sex stories titillating or boring.

Undergoing sounds fun... but dangerious with the wong person. Of course i am used to sex without any gratification except the pleasure of my other. Damn those elusive orgasms.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Imagine

Self-Absorbed Sex

Get yourself off; use the other as necessary. Even stimulate some parts, if a bit of swelling would suit you. A bit sadistic: The 'game' is about your orgasms.

It was called Libertinisim*; now maybe 'self absorbed sex' would be a good label, if you add, 'avid pursuit' and 'taking your prey.' As practiced, it's as an activity that falls short of illegal assault.

There's no grudge, or loss of temper. You're cool, clear, and aware of the 'game' and the other isn't*, that's an added kick.

If they love, like, or have expectations of you that you ignore, a further kick.
-----

All of the above is pretty taboo sex, less often talked about in these parts than zoophilia.

Others' imaginings on the topic are welcome! Either from the 'doing' side, or the 'undergoing' side.



**Think Valmont (Malkovich) and Cecile (Thurman).
* until too late, that is

I dunno, most of that description sounds like a lot of typical vanilla sex to me. Ever been in a bar?

'Course frequently the unawareness is switched. (One person is doing his or her own self-absorbed thing and has no clue, or caring that the other isn't enjoying themself. That one, may be aware that the self-absorbed party is unaware or doesn't care.) Nothing diabolical about it, just boring.

And wouldn't there have to be some sort of relationship already established for this to have any meaning, other than just bad sex for one of the parties? Otherwise why would one have Any expectations?

Or is there something I'm not getting here?

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

Re: Re: Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

And wouldn't there have to be some sort of relationship already established for this to have any meaning, other than just bad sex for one of the parties? Otherwise why would one have Any expectations?

Or is there something I'm not getting here?

To be honest, I had the most fun when there was the expectation of a relationship from my chosen plaything...when they wanted it to be something more.

For me, it wasn't about sex..it was about getting what I wanted, the way I wanted it and to hell with what the other person thought. The thrill was in letting them know afterwards that they were never important to me. They were never someone I wanted to be with..that it was just a game.

The taboo involved is the deliberate misleading, the deliberate hurting of someone else. Using them (point blank) to get yourself off, without their knowledge or consent.

As I said before, that used to be the way I played. It wasn't nice, it wasn't fair..but it was FUN.


pet

 

[catalina_francisco]

I'm a bit with PS here...I find much of the thought process and useability for one's own desire only a description of what happens daily in the lives of vanilla's out there in the dating/prowling game. I also see it as fairly standard for many in S/M and M/s relationships. It still has the power to challenge me personally (sometiems more than others), but is not something which I get outraged about, stamp my foot in anger at, or gasp in horror at the supposedly taboo nature of it all....now if it weren't a part of my relationship I might react in that way.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Apet, that's a nice posting. And a Note to lara,

You really seem to 'get it'. If some others haven't it's no doubt my fault, but you're right on!

Until I read this, I had no idea that what I had indulged in (in the past) was considered a taboo thing. My thoughts were always: "Let me do it to them before they do it to me, period."

Usually, it wasn't even about the sex...it was about being able to capture the one that I wanted, having the ability to disabuse them of the notion that they were worth anything besides a quick fuck. It was FUN!! It usually ended up with them being angry, hurt but once the game was done, I was done.

Well, one way of looking at 'taboo', in a loose sense, is to look for Lit stories with it happening. I'd say there are damn few with a female figure like you describe. FAR fewer (at Lit) than Mom who fuck sons, which is pretty rare irl.

you further say,

The taboo involved is the deliberate misleading, the deliberate hurting of someone else. Using them (point blank) to get yourself off, without their knowledge or consent.

As I said before, that used to be the way I played. It wasn't nice, it wasn't fair..but it was FUN.

This is pretty close to what I described, and dead on for the classic libertine like Valmont. In practice, taking your case, I'm sure lotsa men will dream what they want, if simply uncontradicted. I don't have a problem with that in the short or medium run, though it should stop at the altar!. Further, if some thinks that "It was great fucking you" means , "I'd like to see you again," or "I want it 20 more times over the next season", that's surely their problem.

A key concept you noted was 'contest'; each is in struggle with the other; tritely, a 'law of the jungle'. Sex as an agonistic activity. (that's how certain men have always played it; or reformed sorts like our roscoe.)

Hi lara

I think you're onto something, but probably I did'n't clarify enough.

Eh. Lends toward use. The tool you use to obtain satisfaction. No, not a toy. It's worse if the tool is human right? To treat another so callously, so insensitively is the height of self absorption yes? Sounds fine to me, but as a sub that would be just dandy. But wait. That lessens the sweetness of the game doesn't it? The more unaware the tool is, the better the fruits of the labor. Double edged sword for sub's. Consent is a tricky matter when it comes to satisfying the spontaneous sadist who revels in acts which border or are outside the parameters previously set.

Aware vs. unaware. From my POV, experiencing the unaware is keen and sharp, like a green apple; sweet and bitter. That's always cool says the masochist.

As you saying the bottom find unawareness sweeter? or more 'bitter' like green apples.? Or is it (also?) the top's joy in knowing the other is unaware that's sweet? Who are we talking about?

In an earlier draft, and in a recent addition to the first posting, I noted that the bottom, ideally has *dawning* awareness, and his/her final realization (I've been had) is indeed part of the kick for the libertine.

I see the word 'self absorbed' has created some problems. It was NOT meant to connote unawareness of the other's mind and feelings. (Note Valmont). It was meant to indicate UNconcern with (protecting) them. I couldn't find a better short term for the libertines intention: self-gratification (of several sorts, as apet mentions) and exploitation (of a sort) in disregard for the the other's expectations.

As to the commonness, of this activity, that's a tricky area, but I did intend that this 'self absorbed' person be different from the person whose simply trying to get laid a lot, and finding acquiescent or enthusiastic partners. And be different from the 'frat boy' that likes to get a lotta potential partners drunk, and join the line in fucking them while they're passed out.

 

[shy slave]

This post has intriged and puzzled me.

At first i did not understand what you were asking pur, due to my ignorance about libertines.

I agree with PS and other who liken it to vanilla sex.

I had encounters like this and there was not always any form of relationship it was simply sex for sex sake.

I think i am beginning to understand it now!

Pure ~ when you say both UNconcern and explotation for the other you mean more than simply finding a willing participant?

It sounds akin to rape...or have I got that wrong?

I have, in the past, picked up men who i knew were not particularly willing but nevertheless i persuaded them to have sex.

There unwillingness was often due to guilt issues and at the time i just didn't give a damn. I felt it was their problem not mine ~ after all a man who is that unwilling won't get an erection.

Which I guess makes me wonder is it physically possible to rape a man?

Is this what you by 'self-absorbed' ?
If not, can you please explain again, so that I can try to understand what it actually is.

It is my previous behaviour and attitude to men that makes those who know me surprised that i am a sub.

Having reflected on how and why i am a sub, one of the things i have concluded is my use and 'abuse' of men in the past was my why of subconciously trying to make them dominant.
It never worked ~ the men i met were always far to nice to want to use me ~ Damn!!

shy slave

 

[m wisdom]

...
There unwillingness was often due to guilt issues and at the time i just didn't give a damn. I felt it was their problem not mine ~ after all a man who is that unwilling won't get an erection.

Which I guess makes me wonder is it physically possible to rape a man?
...

Controling an erection is as easy as making your heart stop beating.
So yes it's possible to rape a man.

Just as some women can have an orgasm when raped.

 

[Pure]

Hi Shy,

Good questions. And this isn't a thread with 'answers' of the expert(s) but of exploring a topic several persons have experience with, even if they haven't formulated the terms.

You said,

Pure ~ when you say both UNconcern and explotation for the other you mean more than simply finding a willing participant?

It sounds akin to rape...or have I got that wrong?

Akin, yes. But not enough like rape to get you jail time. This thread concentrates on what's legal.

I have, in the past, picked up men who i knew were not particularly willing but nevertheless i persuaded them to have sex.

There unwillingness was often due to guilt issues and at the time i just didn't give a damn. I felt it was their problem not mine ~

That's a 'self absorbed' or libertine view! Excellent example!

after all a man who is that unwilling won't get an erection.

I agree with M Wisdom. His body can certaily react, even ejaculate (this happens with paraplegics whose sexual areas are virtually anaesthetic.) You don't need that excuse(quoted), shy; you did something to his body for your own purposes and fun.

Which I guess makes me wonder is it physically possible to rape a man?

Is this what you by 'self-absorbed' ?

----

Generally, yes. I've added a line to the first posting of the thread. Ignoring his reluctance, getting his pecker up, being unconcerned with his guilts that may follow, that's the sort of 'taking' that's being described as 'self absorbed' or 'libertine.'

Without trying to write a handbook, you stay outside the rape area by drawing out a kind of implicit consent; seeing to it that the other appears careless, if not complicit, aware of what may happen up the road-- and acts in ways that take him up that road.

He came to your apt. He accepted drinks. He at least partially removed his own clothes. He didn't remove your hand from his pecker when you stimulated it, Eventually he ceased offering even token resistance. In short, he'd be laughed out of the courtroom, if he alleged 'rape.'

He's perhaps been ruffled in feelings, or 'used'. But that doesn't mean you've engaged in criminal behavior.

On the 'vanilla' issue, every topic of SM does not have to be unrelated to 'vanilla sex' to be of interest. But here are some possible differences.

It is not just the organs and behaviors. I'd say, for instance, Henry Miller was, iirc, a 'vanilla' who just took and made lotsa opportunities to get laid. Possibly that's true of Catherine M.
There may not be a sharp line: where does Frank Harris fit?

The 'libertine', though the act may be straight fucking, is looking to 'take'; she or he will be drawn to innocence or resistance. Valmont goes after the virtuous, married Mme de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer). The intent is definitely 'akin to' sadistic, imo.

What are your opinions on these matters?

J.

 

[sunfox]

I have to agree that I hardly see this as a province of the BDSM set.

I've indulged in self-absorbed sex, merely to entertain myself/get myself off... or gone from the other side, and handed out sex as a passive weapon of revenge for a real or imagined slight as well... letting him have what he thinks he wants, while boredly regarding the ceiling or daydreaming, which effectively ruined the pleasure in it.

But I indulged in it when I was young, a teenager, and sex was so much of a powerful tool.

Then I grew up.

There are still times that sex is self-absorbed for me, and there probably always will be. But it is no longer a malicious act, a controlling action, the way it was then. Now it's just me wanting to get some for my own sake, which my partner doesn't mind from time to time.