Sexual Encounters of the Heterosexual Kind

[amicus]

Sexual Encounters of the Heterosexual Kind


On another thread about Rape and Terrorism it appeared to me that some basic notions about human sexuality were being overlooked, rejected or denied, or all of the preceding and more.

It set me to thinking while watching a movie last night, so I took a few notes…

The film I was watching was “High Road to China” with Tom Selleck and Bess Armstrong; it is kind of a ‘guy’ movie, I guess, I had seen it before.

As the main characters interacted, I began considering the truly different nature of the human male and female as portrayed in the film.

I thought again of Tom Selleck and “Quigley Down Under”, with Mariam D'Abo (I think), and the plot and the male and female lead characters and how they related to each other.

Add to those thoughts, “Random Hearts” with Harrison Ford and Kirsten Scott Thomas and then Harrison Ford again, in “Six Days, Seven Nights” with Anne Heche.

There are several things one might draw from these films and of course, they are just ‘films’, but they had screen writers and perhaps some were made from books written by ‘writers’ quite like those here on the Forum, who express their visions on the relationship of the sexes.

Now this does not directly relate to ‘rape’ as per the other thread, but it does relate to the sometimes volatile, violent courting and mating habits of modern homo sapiens.

To restate the obvious, I do not sanction, by any means, the use of force in a sexual encounter per se, however, there are many aspects of an heterosexual encounter that include deception and titillation, pretense and fraud, even degrees of violence and aggression, from both sides.

We live in a morally transitional time where religious and conventional morals and ethics are being challenged and changing even as we speak. The last half century in the Western world, has undergone huge moral upheavals in traditional sexual behavior.

There has always been the ‘fringe’ behavior, that exists outside mainstream morality, but it is not to that area that I direct my thoughts; rather to those ‘core’ beliefs in our society that are undergoing rapid change.

I try to look ahead to the future in my romantic fiction and imagine what sexual practices will be considered normative with all the advances in birth control, gene splicing and marriage practices. I try to picture life on a spaceship on a generation long voyage of light years to a distant star system with men and women and eventually children and families, and I wonder that the future will bring.

In this modern yet to be world, will all children be created in the laboratory? Will paternal and even maternal heritage even be known? Will the ‘nuclear family’ exist or will all children be raised by nannies or robots? How will they relate? What would be moral or ethical to them?

More questions than answers, as usual and I guess the underlying thought is to challenge what I took to be an assault against the basic, aggressive, dominant nature of the male on the other thread.

I rather think that aggression and competition are basic to human nature, as much as submission and acquiescence are for the opposite gender.

Anyway…had the thoughts…they had to go somewhere…

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Well...Egads and Little Fishes with bows to Popeye and Ogbashan, I think that is the first thread I have ever started that did not get a single reply!

And there were some interesting films mentioned...sighs...

Guess ya gotta strike out now and again...

(but I hate it!)

amicus...

 

[Munachi]

I rather think that aggression and competition are basic to human nature, as much as submission and acquiescence are for the opposite gender.

well actually i have no idea of what you are saying (nor have i seen any of the movies you mention or even heard of most of them - but that's normal with me, i don't tend to keep up with movies, i have a bit of my own taste there...) but i somewhat stumbled above this phrase. what opposite gender? you speak of human nature before, so that'd include all gender - so which one is the opposite one then?

 

[scheherazade_79]

In this modern yet to be world, will all children be created in the laboratory? Will paternal and even maternal heritage even be known? Will the ‘nuclear family’ exist or will all children be raised by nannies or robots? How will they relate? What would be moral or ethical to them?

After reading Brave New World, I hope it never happens.

 

[Liar]

you speak of human nature before, so that'd include all gender - so which one is the opposite one then?

The undead?



Ami, I didn't really see any very specific topic for discussion in your musing, so I didn't know what to say about it.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

This is Marion Woodman, in relation to your thoughts, Ami:

"The point of feminine consciousness is not to resolve matter into spirit, or spirit into matter. Rather it is to see spirit in matter and matter in spirit. Such a perception is quite foreign to a strictly masculine consciousness, which would consider this kind of concept a logical impossibility. In men and women who are attempting to become conscious, the difference between the feeling of a man and the feeling of a woman can create incalculable difficulties. When feeling emerges in a man, it often comes through the perception of a psychic value, less linked to the body than is the feeling of a woman. In woman, the body as the sacred dwelling place of the soul is part of her realization of herself as a woman. If she has experienced the Black Madonna in herself, or Sophia as the bridge between spirit and body, then her very knowing can put a man in touch with the bridge within himself. The natural bond may be in a shared sexuality, but more than that, a spiritual relationship can develop in which each acts as a bridge to the other's soul, providing a fleeting glimpse of an eternal reality beyond nature and sensation. When the masculine is unbound, and the feminine unveiled, then together they interact within and without." --Marion Woodman

AND I think it DOES relate to rape, actually...

The difference between "rape" and "ravishment" is love.

If you saw a video of two people having rough sex... it might look like rape to you. But what if you found out that it was completely consensual on both parts? Is it still rape? Why, because he slaps her, calls her a dirty whore, because she bites and kicks and fights him? This is what they wanted to play together...

Here's a quote from David Deida:

"If rape is a brutal severance from a previous state of being, ravishment is a restoration of that previous state on a higher plane of existence. Without psychological rape, mankind would have remained in a state of unconscious identification with the Great Mother - at one with nature. We would still be picking flowers with Persephone, blissfully unaware. When this state of unconsciousness - life in the oceanic world of the womb - remains an ideal to which we yearn to return, the intimate connection between rape and ravishment does not exist. Neurotics long to return to an unconscious vision of a sunken Atlantis. They do not want to enter the world; they want to re-enter the womb. They are traumatized by rape because they cannot find its connection to ravishment. Rape destroys a lower innocence; ravishment brings a higher innocence."

 

[cantdog]

Ami, I didn't really see any very specific topic for discussion in your musing, so I didn't know what to say about it.

Didn't discern a coherent sentence in amicus's writing? Munachi had the same problem, and so does anyone, most of the time. I don't understand your optimism, here.

 

[Pure]

Amicus and the RNC

Ever notice how an Amicus thread springs up with each Republican message of the day, courtesy of the Republican National Committee?

First Defend Rumsfeld.

Now, get set for the fall Republican campaigns "NO to gay marriage". It's hoped by them to be the key to victory, appealing to bigots, catholics, and evangelicals alike. They say,

GOD hates gay marriage.

amicus,

Reason and science are against gay marriage.

If Amicus is so opposed to homosexuality, why does he suck George Bush's dick every day?

 

[neonlyte]

Sorry Amicus

It went down like a cheese dipped todger.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

This is Marion Woodman, in relation to your thoughts, Ami:

"The point of feminine consciousness is not to resolve matter into spirit, or spirit into matter. Rather it is to see spirit in matter and matter in spirit. Such a perception is quite foreign to a strictly masculine consciousness, which would consider this kind of concept a logical impossibility. In men and women who are attempting to become conscious, the difference between the feeling of a man and the feeling of a woman can create incalculable difficulties. When feeling emerges in a man, it often comes through the perception of a psychic value, less linked to the body than is the feeling of a woman. In woman, the body as the sacred dwelling place of the soul is part of her realization of herself as a woman. If she has experienced the Black Madonna in herself, or Sophia as the bridge between spirit and body, then her very knowing can put a man in touch with the bridge within himself. The natural bond may be in a shared sexuality, but more than that, a spiritual relationship can develop in which each acts as a bridge to the other's soul, providing a fleeting glimpse of an eternal reality beyond nature and sensation. When the masculine is unbound, and the feminine unveiled, then together they interact within and without." --Marion Woodman

AND I think it DOES relate to rape, actually...

The difference between "rape" and "ravishment" is love.

If you saw a video of two people having rough sex... it might look like rape to you. But what if you found out that it was completely consensual on both parts? Is it still rape? Why, because he slaps her, calls her a dirty whore, because she bites and kicks and fights him? This is what they wanted to play together...

Here's a quote from David Deida:

"If rape is a brutal severance from a previous state of being, ravishment is a restoration of that previous state on a higher plane of existence. Without psychological rape, mankind would have remained in a state of unconscious identification with the Great Mother - at one with nature. We would still be picking flowers with Persephone, blissfully unaware. When this state of unconsciousness - life in the oceanic world of the womb - remains an ideal to which we yearn to return, the intimate connection between rape and ravishment does not exist. Neurotics long to return to an unconscious vision of a sunken Atlantis. They do not want to enter the world; they want to re-enter the womb. They are traumatized by rape because they cannot find its connection to ravishment. Rape destroys a lower innocence; ravishment brings a higher innocence."

I doubt that gender has anything to do with this. To me, matter is one form of Cosmic energy and spirit is another. They revert back and forth, so they are ultimately the same basic essence. Matter and energy are never destroyed. They are just transformed. This has been scientifically proven. So, my take on the Cosmic diversity of matter and spirit is not so far-fetched.

True spirituality does NOT reject material things or dismiss them as being inferior or less significant. True materialism doesn't denigrate spirit. True spirituality is the same as true materialism.

Now, on the various extreme ends, are pseudo-spirituality and hyper-materialism. These mindsets dismiss half of the Cosmos, or at least downplay it. These are dangerous tendencies, which should be avoided.

Dualistic philosophy and religion creates problems with its hostile relationship between spirit and matter. Instead of celebrating both, it picks a fight between the two, and the whole soul or self suffers for it.

A similar problem is created by systems of thought that pretend that one side of the Cosmos doesn't even exist. To deny the existence of matter or spirit is folly. They are as plain as the nose that used to be on the Sphinx's face.

 

[Liar]

Didn't discern a coherent sentence in amicus's writing? Munachi had the same problem, and so does anyone, most of the time. I don't understand your optimism, here.

Oh, there's often a coherent thesis in his posts. Off-the-chain assinine, perhaps, but most often specific enough to disagree with.

This time though, I haven't got the foggiest what he wants, and that's a little worrying.

 

[Recidiva]

Religion has always been in contention and changing, or else there wouldn't be so many of them.

Also, I think particularly in "High Road To China" you have two untameable people, who volunteer not for domestication, but a level of exploration only available when you have "met your match."

 

[entitled]

The difference between "rape" and "ravishment" is love.

Bullshit. And i'm calling it.

i've been trying to get things together enough to leave the RA because he raped me. Not 'ravished' - raped. Yes, there was love on both our parts.

It was still VERY non-consensual, hurt like hell, and completely fried any sort of trust i had in him. Period.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

that wasn't love, ent... even if there was love between you, that moment wasn't about love... that's the difference. You can be ravished, and it can LOOK like rape to someone on the outside, but it isn't.

You can also believe you are being loving, and really, you are being abusive. Of course it goes both ways.


and here's another Woodman quote that's pretty relevant, considering:

"If, for example, a woman is genuinely in her body so that spirit and matter are one, she cannot separate her sexuality from her love. Sexual union with a man she does not love is self-betrayal, and therefore rape. Individuals who have become conscious of certain laws within themselves, laws about food, alcohol, tobacco, etc., laws that become more refined as consciousness develops, discover that persisting in old ways leads to physical illness in which the illness mirrors the psychological problem. This body/spirit relationship is another example of the sword exactly fitting the wound. Often the wisdom of the body clarifies the despair of the spirit. Breaking the stone [rigid moral codes] does not give us license to do as we please. Rather it opens us to our own inner laws and the fulfillment of our own destiny."

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I doubt that gender has anything to do with this. To me, matter is one form of Cosmic energy and spirit is another. They revert back and forth, so they are ultimately the same basic essence. Matter and energy are never destroyed. They are just transformed. This has been scientifically proven. So, my take on the Cosmic diversity of matter and spirit is not so far-fetched.

I'm not talking about gender. I didn't say male and female. I said masculine and feminine. Which is archetypally analogous to your spirit (masculine) and matter (feminine).

 

[entitled]

that wasn't love, ent... even if there was love between you, that moment wasn't about love... that's the difference. You can be ravished, and it can LOOK like rape to someone on the outside, but it isn't.

You can also believe you are being loving, and really, you are being abusive. Of course it goes both ways.


and here's another Woodman quote that's pretty relevant, considering:

"If, for example, a woman is genuinely in her body so that spirit and matter are one, she cannot separate her sexuality from her love. Sexual union with a man she does not love is self-betrayal, and therefore rape. Individuals who have become conscious of certain laws within themselves, laws about food, alcohol, tobacco, etc., laws that become more refined as consciousness develops, discover that persisting in old ways leads to physical illness in which the illness mirrors the psychological problem. This body/spirit relationship is another example of the sword exactly fitting the wound. Often the wisdom of the body clarifies the despair of the spirit. Breaking the stone [rigid moral codes] does not give us license to do as we please. Rather it opens us to our own inner laws and the fulfillment of our own destiny."

And again... bullshit. Just not so much so.

You cannot say that a particular moment either is or is not an act of love on such a brief description. You weren't there. You don't know the circumstances. You can not make that judgement call.

And thank you for spewing more flowery worded quotes that really don't have a whole lot to do with the subject, even if it has a vague reference or two.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Not so sure that sex without love is "self-betrayal" for either sex. It may just be self-emancipation. There is plenty of Nature that favors sex without love. Love in sex is a useful combination, but it doesn't seem fundamental to human nature.

 

[Pure]

Selena quoting Deida "If rape is a brutal severance from a previous state of being, ravishment is a restoration of that previous state on a higher plane of existence. Without psychological rape, mankind would have remained in a state of unconscious identification with the Great Mother - at one with nature.

I don't know what 'psychological rape' is, and why it is supposed to be necessary to individuate from the Great Mother.

The concept of ravishment needs to be explained. Maybe it has to do with this thread. Let's see: Ravishment is forcible and/or rough sex that is, despite momentary protests, deeply desired by the female [or bottom], as indicated by her[his] feeling fulfilled afterwards (not violated or demeaned).

If that's what it is, it's not unlike what's occurring in the scenario I posted when the woman momentarily says 'no' but cooperates enthusiastically afterwards and feels afterwards glad her momentary wish was ignored.

Principle: genuine NON consent should be more than momentary and should be backed up by serious continued resistance (barring threats to life, etc.).

Enthusiastic participation and giving thanks after are indications that whatever apparent 'nonconsent' there was, the overall picture is one of consent.

 

[JackHarrison]

So, temporary non-consent isn't rape? What happened to "no means no"? Bollocks! When you PC lefties figure things out, THEN tell everyone else what you think is right and wrong!

And I have known many a lass who has gotten her knickers down for reasons other than love. She wasn't betraying herself. She was just getting in touch with her inner animal. And that made it a bloody load of fun, I say!

You seem nice and well-intentioned, ma'am. But such rules seem like "rigid moral codes" of a different sort, which have no basis in human nature or evolution, to paraphrase Sev.

 

[Munachi]

Oh, there's often a coherent thesis in his posts. Off-the-chain assinine, perhaps, but most often specific enough to disagree with.

This time though, I haven't got the foggiest what he wants, and that's a little worrying.

my problem too, i had no idea what he wanted to say. and taht while being in such a mood to argue...

what interaction between male and female? what aspects of it? and, are we talking about gender, or sex, or what here? and why particularly only in heterosexual interaction? and what, exactly?

 

[JackHarrison]

To quote a certain Mr. Phil Collins from Genesis, "I've heard it on the radio. They've gone and changed the rules again. And now we've got to do those things, that they thought before were so wrong, to be healthy and strong, and live forever, forever!"

 

[Munachi]

Not so sure that sex without love is "self-betrayal" for either sex. It may just be self-emancipation. There is plenty of Nature that favors sex without love. Love in sex is a useful combination, but it doesn't seem fundamental to human nature.

and particularly when saying this would be the case especially for women (as i interpreted the quote - but i am not a native speaker of english, so i might misunderstand it). that pretty much would make those women who do not see a necessary connection of sex and love feel like they are the weirdos and not "real women" and bring us back to a time where a woman got called names for liking to have sex.

 

[entitled]

and particularly when saying this would be the case especially for women (as i interpreted the quote - but i am not a native speaker of english, so i might misunderstand it). that pretty much would make those women who do not see a necessary connection of sex and love feel like they are the weirdos and not "real women" and bring us back to a time where a woman got called names for liking to have sex.

You interpreted correctly.

 

[JackHarrison]

and particularly when saying this would be the case especially for women (as i interpreted the quote - but i am not a native speaker of english, so i might misunderstand it). that pretty much would make those women who do not see a necessary connection of sex and love feel like they are the weirdos and not "real women" and bring us back to a time where a woman got called names for liking to have sex.

You'd be speaking of that bloody, damned double standard? That's the last fucking thing that we need! Good for you to speak up, darling!

 

[ChilledVodkaIV]

Weilding swords and containing sheaths.

Sex is power, sex is that balance of power wherein each acknowledges the other's.

One is stabbed, the other is stabbing. Being built the way we are has an enormous influence on gender roles, more so than nurture which is merely re-inforcing.