- anal penetration (and/or vaginal penetration in the case of straight sex)
- blowjobs
- mutual handjobs
- hugging in the nude
- hugging not in the nude
- hands-holding
- looking into each other's eyes
- masturbation
- fantasising
Now somewhere along this continuum these acts become sex; but where this happened is seemingly a long unanswered question, from what I have read and heard.
There are possibly three categories of people in this respect.
- only penile penetration to be sex, anything else is merely 'foreplay'.
- any form of genital contact, with any other part of the body - yours or another's - through the clothes or in the nude, is sex.
- finally at the other extreme there are those who would consider even looking into the eyes as sex. And to think about sex is also sex.
We must then conclude then, that sex is not entirely physical, ie it not merely physical acts. The motives or intentions behind such acts do matter too. So sex is not merely what you do, but also, if not entirely, why you do, ie you can apparently be having lunch with someone but because of what you both have in mind of each other, you both are actually having sex instead of lunch.
Sex is thus some sort of physical act - which may or may not involved the genitals - but more importantly, for which deliberate sexual arousal or pleasure is desired or intended.
And thus my view of sex is this: sex is the physical expression of love.
But I beg the question.
For what is love? and what if it is a physical expression of lust instead? And surely lusty sex is more sexy and sexual than merely love can ever arouse. And also what is the difference between love and lust?
Now, of course, there is love and there is love.
There is the love of your parents, your parents' love of their children, love between siblings, friends and neighbours, the love for your pets, your job, your cars, etc etc. And then there is the love between lovers.
So is the physical expression of love between parents and children, or between siblings sex? Most will, without hesitation, say no. But then there are such things as incest too.
And certainly it is also not sex when you expressed love for inanimate objects like your car and your hobbies (or your dildos), or to non-humans, like your cat or dog. It is also clear that bestiality is another topic, and is another type of 'sex' altogether.
Then what about physical expression of love between friends, such as handshakes, hugs and even kisses? Is it sex? Well things can become grey here I suppose, but to a larger extent they are non-erotic, ie does not and not intended to evoke sexual arousal and therefore not sex (but this is really a little circular argument).
So we are left with only the expression of love between lovers. Now what is this love that is different from all the other kinds of love?
And here I will introduce another concept, namely that of Eros: the love between parts of the same; the emotions, the sensations, the feelings, when two persons are made complete in each other. And Eros is that which propels people to seek their other part (or parts?) to complete each other.
Eros is the love one has for the flesh of your flesh, the bone of your bone, between one of the same soul.
Such a notion is not only implied and present in the bible - namely that between Adam and Eve, David and Jonathan, and also, some have argued, between Naomi and Ruth - but also articulated by Plato in one of his dialogue - Symposium - in which a speaker by the name of Aristophanes expounded this concept. Here Eros is the desire to regain wholeness, a wholeness that existed in the beginning, and the desire to be merged with the other to become whole.
A fresco taken from the north wall of the Tomb of the Diver
featuring an image of a symposium
featuring an image of a symposium
And thus sex is the physical expression of such a love, namely Eros.
It sounds like I am stating the obvious, but it is not, for now we can make a distinction between Love and Lust, and perhaps also between 'sinless' sex and 'sinful' sex.
Lovers' love is that arising from true Eros, ie between two people that belongs to each other.
Lust on the other hand is the desire for the physical pleasures of genital stimulation, as aroused physically by the thoughts, sight, smell, touch, taste, etc of genitalia or other parts of the body, of your own, or of others, of human or otherwise, or even of inaminate objects like shoes, shorts, socks, etc, or psychologically, such as being in a position of vulnerability or surrender, or conversely of domination and of ownership, and thus you have S&M. Such stimulation do not need Eros to be stimulating. And thus you can lust and have sex with strangers and people you don't know. But these people must be of your 'types' physically or psychologically.
'Sinless' sex is the physical expression of pure genuine Eros, and sinful sex anything else.
But Eros, like everything good, is corruptible, and you may, if you are cynical, say, thoroughly corrupted too these days. And Eros corrupted is a desire to make your own what is not yours or what you think is yours. And examples of sex arising from corrupted Eros are such as rape, incest, molest, etc.
Now, if you think about it, Eros actually is gender-neutral.
It is merely the love between parts that 'belongs' to each other. The gender of these parts is merely incidental.
And also, if you think further, in an ironic twist, Eros really has nothing to do with sex. It is the sinful corruption of the world that have associated it with everything erotic and sexual.
For Eros need not be expressed physically at all. It is merely that which is the reason for the unity and oneness of parts. Whether such a oneness is expressed or not, does not change the fact of the unity and of the Eros that exist between these parts. And Eros can be expressed in ways other than physical too. The awareness of being of one mind, of one spirit, and acting as one man with the same purpose are also expressions of Eros.
Physical expression or sex is thus not necessary. It is also inadequate for the fullest expression of this oneness we feel for another. For as long as we are in this physical body, no amount of 'physical expression' can really unite us to another, even if we are biologically made for it, as between male and female. Life as it is will not allow us to be constantly together physically. And then one day we all die. Thus the only true union, or rather reunion, is in the spiritual realm, and we can be apart in space, and even in time, and in body, and yet be of one spirit, eternally.
And finally, kissing: To me it is perhaps the most sublime physical expression of two souls being one.
2 comments:
Taken from here.
The most famous and straightforward instance of the ancient Greek belief that homosexuals are born and not made can be found in Aristophanes’ myth of human sexual origins in Plato’s Symposium
We were once perfect and self-sufficient physical beings. We had the circular form "similar in every direction" imagined by early philosophy to be the shape of the god
Now punished for our overweening attempt to make ourselves rulers of everything, we are creatures cut in half, severed from our other part and made, by a turning of our heads, to look always at the cut, jagged from side of ourselves that reminds us of our lack.
Looking at the contingent loss that cuts us off from the wishes of our imagination, itself still apparently intact, we become preoccupied with the project of returning to the wholeness of our former natures.
But to remedy one piece of luck another must happen: we must each find the unique other half from which we were severed.
The one hope of "healing" for our human nature is to unite in love with this other oneself and, indeed to become fused with that one, insofar as this is possible.
Eros is the name of this desire and pursuit of the whole.
Eros, so necessary to continued life and to "healing" from distress, comes to the cut-up creature by sheer chance, if at all
His or her other half is somewhere, but it is hard to see what reason and planning can do to make that half turn up
The creatures "search" and "come together", but it is plainly not in their power to ensure the happy reunion
It is difficult to accept that something as essential to our good as love is at the same time so much a matter of chance
Before the invention of sexual intercourse, the two halves embraced unsatisfied, until both died of hunger and other needs
The possibility of intercourse, a new ‘stratagem’ provided by the pitying god, brought the procreation of children and a temporary respite from physical tension
The satisfaction achieved in this way is incomplete. What these lovers really want is not simply a momentary physcial pleasure with its ensuing brief respite from bodily tension.
Their deep need comes from the soul. The soul cannot describe it.
We know that they wish for the impossible: they wish to become one, yet they will always remain two.
--------------------------
I respect your definition of Eros, which is taken from Plato.
Perhaps you have evolved into something better than other humans, in which you subscribe to this belief, where eros means ‘love between parts that 'belong’ to each other’ and sex is not an essential part of it.
Thus, you also believe that these individuals are incomplete and will want to ‘unite’ with their match. For you, sex is not necessary to achieve that; non-physical acts are sufficient.
Even if there is sex, pure Eros will demand that it be with your other half, the correct one. I hope that you have the patience to find him.
I respect your decision. For other people, including me, I don’t think that will do. The rest of us are human and we have needs.
On the other hand, it also begs the question of finding one’s match. I am certain I don’t need to explain the mathematical improbability of that.
"The rest of us are human and we have needs."
And these human needs are? Sex? ie merely physical intimacy and/or genital stimulation, or the sense and assurance of spiritual oneness with another?
You die if you dont eat or drink, but will you die if you do not have sex?
And I do not think I am trying to project an image of myself able to forgo sex, the carnal lusty kind, the purely physical and genital stimulation.
I certainly understand the need, especially when you are young and always horny, and I too indulge in it. And I do sex for sex's sake just for the pleasure of it, just as we indulge in other things pleasurable.
But I do it with 'two eyes wide open'. I know I am abusing it, and I know that there is a higher meaning and reason to sex.
And that just because I indulged in the corrupted version of it, does not also mean that I should disregard or ignore, what to me, the truer, higher meaning of sex.
To be able to call a spade a spade, you must know what is a spade and what's not.
So I do carnal sex, but it is not something I wanted.
I have also known the times when I have no need for sex, during the times when I was with the one who is my own. But alas he is now not with me. Such is life too.
"On the other hand, it also begs the question of finding one’s match. I am certain I don’t need to explain the mathematical improbability of that."
I have thought about this and I shall address this another time, in another post.
Post a Comment