Sex as a control

[SeaCat]

Oh me oh my, what a concept.

Sex is a control?

Yep it sure can be, just think about it.

Hey ya'll can't have sex unless you is married, and even then it's just to have children.

Sex, now why would I want to have sex with you? You can't provide me with enough financial security to raise children and still have the lifestyle I'm used to.

Not now dear, I have a headache.

I'm going to fuck you till your mind melts, then you'll do what I want.

You fucking bitch, you think you're too good for the likes of me. I'll show you.

Yes sex is a control, sex is power. Why have we preverted something so wonderful, so incredibly sensate, something so enjoyable into something so perverted.

No it is not just here in the United States, it is all over. You can see this by the laws in Europe, the Manga in Japan, the little things in China, the Taboos in Africa.

Why have we, the human race done this? Is it our drive to power? Our drive to control other people? Or is it our fear that we may just not measure up to others?

Think on this my friends, and yes many of you here are my friends. Think on this and wonder. Why do we as a race, the human race, why do we pervert something so wonderful into something we can even think of as evil?

Cat

 

[BlackShanglan]

Because sex, like many other elements of human society, involves people having things other people want. Why are there controls around sex? I'd argue for the same reason there are controls around money, with the added complication that if two people want to give each other money, they aren't going to accidentally generate a third person in the process. Both processes involve two people, either of whom may or may not be willing. When everyone is willing and all consequences are exactly as planned with no unforseen complications, everything goes well. But - as anyone who's every seen two ex-friends warring about lent money will attest - when anything happens to disrupt expectations or the social connection between the two, then things get ugly.

Why would sex be any different? It's inherently more risky and more open to life-changing unforseen consequences; common sense would dictate more cautious behaviors, especially in the very recent pre-semi-reliable-birth-control past that has shaped most of our social institutions.

Shanglan

 

[The_Fool]

Because sex, like many other elements of human society, involves people having things other people want. Why are there controls around sex? I'd argue for the same reason there are controls around money, with the added complication that if two people want to give each other money, they aren't going to accidentally generate a third person in the process. Both processes involve two people, either of whom may or may not be willing. When everyone is willing and all consequences are exactly as planned with no unforseen complications, everything goes well. But - as anyone who's every seen two ex-friends warring about lent money will attest - when anything happens to disrupt expectations or the social connection between the two, then things get ugly.

Why would sex be any different? It's inherently more risky and more open to life-changing unforseen consequences; common sense would dictate more cautious behaviors, especially in the very recent pre-semi-reliable-birth-control past that has shaped most of our social institutions.

Shanglan

Not to mention the economic value of the properly selected marriage

 

[SeaCat]

Ahhhh Shang, you run into a common trap.

Sex unlike money can be given without a need for a return. Sex has no limit, sex has no concept of control.

The control of sex is an imposed thing. It is imposed on us to control us. Look at it historicly and see how sex is used to control people.

Why should we, as an advanced civilized people still retain this control? Why should we, as an advanced civilization want to have this control?

Do you, as an adult want others to tell you who you can have sex with? Do you as a person who thinks you control your destiny want others to tell you who you can love and who you can't? Yes I do admit there should be limits imposed, limits to protect the innocent. (The children.) Outside of this though why do we as a society allow ourselves to be directed by the very few in who we can love, in who we can enjoy ourselves with? Why do you, as an adult individual submit to these peoples rules? Why do we, as adult individuals bow before these people and allow them to have power and control over our lives?

Cat

 

[BlackShanglan]

Ahhhh Shang, you run into a common trap.

Sex unlike money can be given without a need for a return. Sex has no limit, sex has no concept of control.

To the contrary, there's little more controlling than having another human being suddenly arise within one's body and make one's actions both evident to all the world and a very heavy and lengthy addition to one's responsibilities. There is an undeniable economic and physical ramification of sexuality, or rather there was for millenia. We have only had seriously reliable birth control methods that lacked major health drawbacks for about a hundred years. Social institutions do not move that quickly; those limits are still with us. One might also add that physical sexual contact does require a return. It requires trust, exposure to potential disease, exposure to potential attack, possible emotional vulnerability, and of course simple energy and time. None of those things comes free.

As for the theory that sex has no concept of control, I think this is a theory wholly at odds with empirical evidence. That sex *can* exist without ramifications I can accept in theory; that it often *does* is a considerably more tenuous proposition. Those ramifications can be emotional, financial, social, or what have you, but to state categorically that they don't exist is, I think, highly wishful thinking.

The control of sex is an imposed thing. It is imposed on us to control us. Look at it historicly and see how sex is used to control people.

And people are used to control sex - which, I would argue, is really more the root of it. There's a basic evolutionary imperative to ensure the production of one's own offspring. To do that means limiting access to the female. You can do that like some herd species do, by defending territories or harems; you can do it like some fish do, by attaching to the female in a parasitic relationship; you can do it like many pack animals do, by killing the offspring of non-alpha breeders. Human enactions of this urge are hardly "imposed"; they're innate. It's an act of conscious resistance to defy them.

Why should we, as an advanced civilized people still retain this control? Why should we, as an advanced civilization want to have this control?

This I think the more pertinent question - although also, I would argue, inherently contradicting your previous statement that this was an imposed mechanism. At the moment, I would say that we still have those controls because of sexuality's longstanding connection to childbirth. Most of our social institutions reflect that connection by attempting both to limit sexual access to the female and to ensure financial and social stability for child-raising. The degree to which we can change this and the speed with which that change can happen are topics open to debate; some of it, I imagine, will have to do with what we learn about how much of control is innate or instinctive and how much is socially constructed - a question that has interesting evidence on both sides.

Do you, as an adult want others to tell you who you can have sex with? Do you as a person who thinks you control your destiny want others to tell you who you can love and who you can't? Yes I do admit there should be limits imposed, limits to protect the innocent. (The children.) Outside of this though why do we as a society allow ourselves to be directed by the very few in who we can love, in who we can enjoy ourselves with? Why do you, as an adult individual submit to these peoples rules? Why do we, as adult individuals bow before these people and allow them to have power and control over our lives?

Cat

This is a question, essentially, about one's personal feelings about authority and rule structures. Some people assume that most rules are probably good ideas handed down by people who have learned, over the eons, what works and what doesn't, and they tend to be loathe to change them. Others asusme that most rules are more or less unsupportable impositions upon the free will of the individual, something always to be challenged and to be fought back whenever possible in order to preserve individual liberties. The former, I think, tend to be conservatives, and the latter liberal. What's interesting to me is recent studies suggesting that while party allegiance can be changed, most adults strongly resist changing their inherent approach to the concept of rules and authority. You can change from Republican to Democrat or vice versa, in other words, but your thoughts about authority are unlikely to significantly change.

Shanglan

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think maybe Cat is talking about society's control of sex rather than our own personal contol of what we do with our bodies. They're two entirely different issues.

Society's control of our sexuality--that's a very complex subject. The knee jerk reaction is that they should just butt out, but we're all prisoners of our culture, and things get dicey when people start advocating things like incest or pedophilia or exploitative behaviors. The view that society should condone taboo behaviors can be seen as just as controlling as supporting their prohibition, so whether you like it or not, society's going to influence what we do and don't do.

As far as exercising power through sex, the two are inevitably welded together. I don't think I've ever written a story here that didn't have a very strong subtheme of control either through sex, with sex, by sex, or for sex. The very act of going to bed with someone involves power issues and negotiations, both passive and aggressive. Loving someone involves huge power issues as well, as we all know.

In fact, the only kind of sex that might not involve power is sex of the most casual kind, where you really just don't care abut the other person

 

[English Lady]

As to society controling sex -isn't society us?

In the broad sense of the word anyway.


As to taboo -would the activities be so exciting if they weren't taboo?


Actually, my NaNo novel is all about control via sex, so I'm thinking about it alot right now, but it seems natural. I think alot of sex is control and the loss of it to.


I don't know if any of that made much sense, I apologise if it didn't!

 

[Recidiva]

I do it in reverse, I'm afraid.

It's a total head game.

Men are so used to women using sex as a control I say "Nah, do anything you want."

They say "Marry me."

Weird.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think I know where Cat's coming from talking about society and control. I had the same reaction when I read about some people opposing the use of a new anti-cervical cancer drug because that they thought its use would promote promiscuity. My first reaction to that (well,second, after "What a bunch of assholes!") was: just what the hell is so terrifying to these people about the idea of people having sex?

I'd still like an answer. What makes some people so vehemently opposed to sex for pleasure, or money, or anything you want to use it for?

The only thing I can come up with is that it's some visceral, learned combination of shame and disgust. Kind of the same reaction we might have to people who want to eat worms.

 

[Recidiva]

I think I know where Cat's coming from talking about society and control. I had the same reaction when I read about some people opposing the use of a new anti-cervical cancer drug because that they thought its use would promote promiscuity. My first reaction to that (well,second, after "What a bunch of assholes!") was: just what the hell is so terrifying to these people about the idea of people having sex?

I'd still like an answer. What makes some people so vehemently opposed to sex for pleasure, or money, or anything you want to use it for?

The only thing I can come up with is that it's some visceral, learned combination of shame and disgust. Kind of the same reaction we might have to people who want to eat worms.

It's true.

I've had to consciously go the way of examining and growing out of thought patterns that involve controlling someone's pleasure.

Church, state, mommy, daddy.

A lot of sexual pleasure has to do with "dirty" and "bad" breaking someone else's rules.

Re-establishing what your body likes because your brain likes it that way means there's freedom to be who you are because you were born that way.

That's what freedom means to me.

So if I were to compare it to food, most people say "I eat a meal that is balanced because that's what I was taught"

I say "What do you like to eat, we're going to the store and going to travel and you're going to taste everything until you find what you like, we'll cook it every way possible, buy every cook book and make every meal and eat in every restaurant and cook at home and eat off the floor."

"But that's wrong. I can't taste everything, what if I'm allergic, what if some foods are bad for me, what if...what if...what if..."

But some people say..."That is the coolest idea ever, when do we start."

 

[Recidiva]

I think people need to get over the idea that a transaction of time means the person themselves is bought or sold.

I'm all for legalizing prostitution globally. It's desperately needed because the market is flooded with cheap sex and its value needs to equalize.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think people need to get over the idea that a transaction of time means the person themselves is bought or sold.

I'm all for legalizing prostitution globally. It's desperately needed because the market is flooded with cheap sex and its value needs to equalize.

Just think, if prostitution were legalized, big business would get into it, and you'd have designer lines of prostitutes (Bill Blass, Martha Stewart, P. Diddy, Emeril Lagase, Krusty the Clown.) GM would open show rooms featuring the latest models, and there'd be whore expo's (or "Exp-Ho's").

Niche markets would appear. There'd be advertising and home delivery ("Answer the door! It's Dommin' Ho's!") You could get a McBlowJob for $2.19 at various "fast fuck" places, and even drive-throughs.

Possibilities are endless.

 

[Recidiva]

Just think, if prostitution were legalized, big business would get into it, and you'd have designer lines of prostitutes (Bill Blass, Martha Stewart, P. Diddy, Emeril Lagase, Krusty the Clown.) GM would open show rooms featuring the latest models, and there'd be whore expo's (or "Exp-Ho's").

Niche markets would appear. There'd be advertising and home delivery ("Answer the door! It's Dommin' Ho's!") You could get a McBlowJob for $2.19 at various "fast fuck" places, and even drive-throughs.

Possibilities are endless.

That is fabulous.

Just think of what Avon could do with this.