I've been reading a few posts here and there's a recurring theme, that is also widely found elsewhere, that I really dislike. It's a turnoff.
I am totally familiar with conceptualizing my lover as a goddess during sex. Well, beyond that, she is a goddess to me. That's the only effective sort of "conceptualization". That is, where it becomes indistinguishable from the experience itself.
Anyway, the theme is that in a gangbang a woman is a goddess or the one to be pleased and men are "drones", or walking dildos. This is really limited. There's a lot more potential energy to drum up. When I'm with a woman, we are both divine. If being some lucky schmuck fucking a goddess is great for orgasm, being a god with goddess, and further, converging with that goddess into one divine entity is much more of a trip and offers greater rewards in terms of sexual energy and "orgastic potential".
Maybe that all sounds woo-woo and froofy, but bear with me. In a gangbang, or a threesome, or any sexual experience, it's most intense to hold on to everyone's "divinity". Honestly, if I personally don't like the guy next to me, there is sexual potential which has been lost. If it's a turn on to see a group of men with a woman, and further, a group of men with a goddess, it is even more potentially rewarding to see the whole experience and every player involved as sacred. It's understandable, perhaps, that such games of consciousness can be hard to sustain. Perhaps the reduction of men to drones is necessary for some to gain the ascension of the woman to a goddess.
It is, nonetheless, distatsteful to me. Just as the reduction of the woman to a slut is distasteful to me. It is short-sighted. It may be easier to acheive conceptually, but it brings with it diminishing returns.
Bringing this back down to earth, so to speak, the more investment into the experience the greater the possible payback. Yes, there's also the potential for disappointment. Of course! But the potential rewards should galvanize one seek the right sort of people to enjoy and create the experience with. Meeting up with any old group of horny men diminishes us and them. And It also takes away from the woman who is ostensibly deserving all our worship.
We need to be worshipping eachother and rejoicing in the experience itself--not just from the woman's perspective, or one man's perspective, but from that of the whole group.
I am totally familiar with conceptualizing my lover as a goddess during sex. Well, beyond that, she is a goddess to me. That's the only effective sort of "conceptualization". That is, where it becomes indistinguishable from the experience itself.
Anyway, the theme is that in a gangbang a woman is a goddess or the one to be pleased and men are "drones", or walking dildos. This is really limited. There's a lot more potential energy to drum up. When I'm with a woman, we are both divine. If being some lucky schmuck fucking a goddess is great for orgasm, being a god with goddess, and further, converging with that goddess into one divine entity is much more of a trip and offers greater rewards in terms of sexual energy and "orgastic potential".
Maybe that all sounds woo-woo and froofy, but bear with me. In a gangbang, or a threesome, or any sexual experience, it's most intense to hold on to everyone's "divinity". Honestly, if I personally don't like the guy next to me, there is sexual potential which has been lost. If it's a turn on to see a group of men with a woman, and further, a group of men with a goddess, it is even more potentially rewarding to see the whole experience and every player involved as sacred. It's understandable, perhaps, that such games of consciousness can be hard to sustain. Perhaps the reduction of men to drones is necessary for some to gain the ascension of the woman to a goddess.
It is, nonetheless, distatsteful to me. Just as the reduction of the woman to a slut is distasteful to me. It is short-sighted. It may be easier to acheive conceptually, but it brings with it diminishing returns.
Bringing this back down to earth, so to speak, the more investment into the experience the greater the possible payback. Yes, there's also the potential for disappointment. Of course! But the potential rewards should galvanize one seek the right sort of people to enjoy and create the experience with. Meeting up with any old group of horny men diminishes us and them. And It also takes away from the woman who is ostensibly deserving all our worship.
We need to be worshipping eachother and rejoicing in the experience itself--not just from the woman's perspective, or one man's perspective, but from that of the whole group.
-
I get what you are saying...
Mon, December 18, 2006 - 1:26 PMand I do believe that the sort of gang-bang you are talking about would be a beautiful and profound experience. Unfortunately not everyone is ready or interested in taking a gang-bang to that level. For some gang-bangs are about power exchange, loosing control, or objectification and it's those things, not spiritual connection that make the experience erotic for them. Personally I think the reason there are not more gang-bangs of the type you are describing it that it's very difficult to find people who can successfully incorporate spirituality into sex, or at least that's been my experience. -
-
Re: I get what you are saying...
Mon, December 18, 2006 - 3:15 PMI imagine the word "gangbang" itself is conducive to a conceptual framework of objectification. What can I say ... that's a turnoff for me. It's not that I *can't* fantasize within that framework ... I can and I have and I do. It is, however, troubling to me to embody that objectification and promote it. Oh well. I've learned by now that I have to be careful who I invite into my bed (and whose invitations I accept) because I simply don't enjoy reducing the experience to accomodate my ego.
I think it impossible not to incorporate spirituality into sex. The sex we have is reflective of our spirituality.
But you know, I don't mean to speak strictly as a spiritualist. I simply can't help, with regards to what I'm trying to communicate, hijacking spiritualist language. What I'm talking about is also very practical. It is also magickal in the Crowleyian sense: magic as in manipulation of consciousness. I'm talking about picking and choosing what games we play (in life as much as in sex), and that those choices have consequences. And some of those consequences are more intense orgasms and more fulfilling sexuality. -
-
Re: I get what you are saying...
Mon, December 18, 2006 - 9:12 PM"I think it impossible not to incorporate spirituality into sex. The sex we have is reflective of our spirituality. "
You bring up some valid points, yet you also counter those points with the first word in the sentence above - 'I'. For you, the word gangbang is a turnoff. And for you, there is no enjoyment reducing the experience to accomodate your ego. For others, those things do work.
I personally have been able to separate sex from love for some time now. There's sex, and there's love. When I was younger, it was the same thing. Then it went back and forth. Now, there can be sex without love, and even sometimes love without sex, but they do not have to be the same. Sometimes it's just raw physical-ness, and there can even be psychological plays involved. A gangbang is a good example. For example - do you see a single woman, multi man gb as the woman being pleased or being the pleaser? Is she being dominant, where she has multiple men pleasuring her, or is she being submissive and is there to please multiple men? Psychological questions abound . And in what I described, either the woman or the men are being objectified.
I have been up for way too long, so I don't know if I'm making sense. I hope I was able to get some of my perceptions across.
Thanks -
-
Re: I get what you are saying...
Tue, December 19, 2006 - 8:28 AMYou're making perfect sense. But I don't think I've contradicted myself in the way described. I never meant to say that an objectified sexual experience is not pleasurable. I have only meant to say that there are other experiences available that lend themselves to more intense pleasure. That is to say, objectification is a short-cut to a certain level of intensity, but by its nature offers diminishing returns.
It's not that I cannot enjoy such an "objectified sexual experience". I can and I have, though it's true I try to avoid such experiences now.
I would also say, any relationship of objectification distorts both sides. No one escapes deformation in such a case. The master is deformed and objectified along with hir slave. Submission and domination also function differently in real life than their conceptualizations infer, i.e. to dominate is to submit is to dominate, etc.
-
-
-