The degree between sexual pleasure and pain is so fine that we often hardly know the difference. A phenomenon in my eyes. I think when you look at people doing sexual acts, it's obvious that their ecstatic facial expressions are barely distinguishable from those that feel physical pain. Or even more, you can feel it when you yourself experience orgasmic moments of great intensity.
As enlightened and free-spirited as I wanted to be and want to be, I also realize my imprint, which is clearly Christian. It is almost impossible to arm myself against it and I had moments in my life when I clearly felt that my judgment about sexual practices came from a source that I was ambivalent about. For example, when it comes to monogamy.
Perhaps I break it down to the truth I see behind it when I say that I bring trust into a relationship. A relationship between my man and me must not be determined by emotional and financial dependence when fear is the dominant factor. I have recognised this in the course of my life, precisely because we have ethnic information from other peoples that are, for example, matrilineal. There are no spouses, but only men and women who are attracted to each other (sexually and emotionally), but where the pregnancy and raising of the children is not done by the fathers, but by the brothers or other male relatives of the women who give birth to children. This means that in case of separation of this man and this woman who conceived a child, nothing changes for the descendants because they remain in the motherhouse. A very intelligent form of being together, I think. To put it casually, it says: Everything can, nothing must. This form of society takes sexual instinct into account, just like the result of pregnancy. But it does not condemn people to remain in another sexual and emotional relationship forever. Relationships can last a lifetime or not. The men who enter into a relationship with the women are, so to speak, visitors in the mother houses, so we speak of a "visiting marriage".
I have always been opposed to monogamy because it seemed to me that this form fostered certain dependencies and had less to do with human than with sexual fidelity and vested interests.
Nevertheless, I lived predominantly in monogamous relationships, because this corresponds to my Christian heritage and the morality of my society is clearly to be found on the side of conjugal fidelity. Having affairs is considered infamous and fraudulent. I cannot completely free myself from it. But I always ask myself: What is actually hurting there and what is being hurt?
Fuck is a really emotionally charged expression. It actually violates the moral feeling because it has become so connoted.
For me, the fact that we are so ashamed of our desires has clear civilizing influences: you shouldn't devour your food greedily, you shouldn't sexually expose yourself in public, etc. Here we find a lifelong conflict between the biological possibility of fertility, sexual highlights in the life of the sexes and the meanwhile predominantly rejected sexual commercialization of sex.
When I was much younger, I was much more liberal and less moral than today. This is certainly an error in itself, in that I should not describe it as moral, but as a phase in my life when sexuality is rapidly losing its meaning and something else takes its place or should ideally take its place: Trust in oneself.
Moreover, for me the sexual desire I once felt is now so distant that I can hardly comprehend it. The phase of experimentation, adventure and carelessness lie behind me. I have often heard that women of mature age rediscover their lust. I don't necessarily belong to them. But since I am still alive and hope to continue to do so for some time to come, it is not yet evening every day.
Your approach to a topic now results in this long comment. You give valuable impulses to dedicate yourself intensively to a topic. As always, I like the background research and your food for thought.
RE: What I talk about when I talk about...