Tag: consent

Arousal as intoxication, and the infinite regress of reciprocal meta-desire; diabolical theorems

It’s time to write this shit down. I have not totally clarified these thoughts in my mind, and I doubt that I can communicate them in an optimal manner here and now, but I’ll begin my attempt anyway.

Before I begin: a warning. If you read and understand this theorem, you may never want to be involved in a sexual/romantic relationship ever (again). If the reasoning holds up, then the conclusion is that sex or romantic relationships are inherently anti-rational, unavoidably non-consensual (and therefore unethical).

Continue reading “Arousal as intoxication, and the infinite regress of reciprocal meta-desire; diabolical theorems”

Talking about sex

You can’t do it in public. Sex, that goes without saying. I mean, having a discussion about sex publicly is indecent. That’s something to talk about in private. (Some want to end that taboo, but whatever.)

That raises difficulties. Possible mismatch of expectations – does the other person really just want to talk about it, or actually do it? Possible unfortunate outcomes:

disappointment – I wanted it, turns out she didn’t.

insult – I went for it, was rebuffed. She was offended at my presumption…

If only that could be cleared up beforehand. How about, a discussion about discussing sex? Can that happen in public, that meta-level conversation?

Sex could happen with or without much talking.

The notion of expecting affirmative consent, continuously throughout sex, ‘every step of the way’ has been promoted, and ridiculed. Why resist it, if you’re not a rapist?

  • Well, why let busybodies tell us how to fuck?
  • Wordiness considered unsexy. See Kissing post.

Sex could be mindless. Or more mindful. I dunno which way is better. But if you add more talking, then you add more thinking. Increasing the possibility of unsexy thoughts coming up. Reluctance. Changing minds. Talking too much can put someone off.

But talking can precisely set up expectations, so the action could proceed in a wordless manner, if that’s preferred. Discuss ruleset X, consent to ruleset X, then you’re good to go. cf BDSM.

Ruleset X might be ‘we are married, we own each other now’.

Is this not more rational than just… go at it, hope it’s good, improvise silently?

Well, folks rationally fear that the attempt to establish exact preferable sexual behaviour in conversation will fail. And the whole thing will get called off.

But it’s not an either-or thing. On the far end of the scale is striving to linguistically program your perfect loveslave. On the other far end is engaging wordlessly. In the middle are attempts to negotiate mid-stream, or establishing ‘a few rules’ beforehand.

Ok, I’m done. Too many theory posts here. Next needs to be autobiographical again.