A comment that deserves its own post
Over in the current prostitution thread, the conversation has turned to the nature of male and female sexuality (see comments 94, 96, and 100). Rather than derail the prostitution debate, I think Cicely’s hypothesis is worth treating on its own:
“Heterosexual relationships as structured and accepted in our society may be oppressive to many men, who have natural sexual appetites that can’t be satisfied within them.”
She further clarified that she was…
“…using the gay male sex scene to explore what unconstrained (by societal heterosexual ‘norms’) male sexual behaviour looks like. The male on male sex scene is different from in some ways, and the same as in other ways, the straight sex scene. Speaking generally, the level of promiscuity is much higher. Over a lifetime, gay men have more sexual partners, on average, than any other group. Polyamorous relationships are much more common, anonymous sex and group sex are much more common and sexual preferences and styles are much more openly advertised (as in personal ads) and discussed. Gay males do appear to objectify male bodies as much as heterosexual males objectify female bodies, but without the patriarchal context as that impacts on women. (because they’re sex equals and ‘not’ the sex class.) Gay men also pay other males for sexual services (eg rent boys). The female on female i.e. lesbian sex scene looks very different to that of gay males. Some women tried to run ‘one’ lesbian sex sauna in a city I lived in at one time – it never got off the ground for lack of interest. All the above is not to say that gay men don’t also have loving and long term committed relationships as well – because of course they do.
“What I am saying is that if you take all this into consideration, male sexuality and female sexuality seem likely to be, generally speaking, a mismatch. What do you think? And, yes, what follows from that is that straight males, generally speaking, would probably prefer to be free to have sexual relations with more women over their lifetime than our social arrangements permit. This is part of the reason they purchase sexual services from prostitutes. I’m saying that it’s not all about ‘entitlement’ or having the power to buy a woman’s body, to uphold patriarchy etc, etc. There’s a mixture of things going on, and it is all going on in a patriarchal context, of which I am fully and painfully aware. I just think we need to be honest about the whole picture, and not just parts of it.”
A few points of my own:
First of all, I agree with Cicely’s observations about gay male sex vs. lesbian sex. You don’t have to be a sociologist to note that the gay scene is almost a cartoon of masculine sexuality, and vice-versa for the lesbian scene. (For the record, I’m straight but have lived much of my life with gay friends, roommates, and colleagues.) When men are unconstrained by female expectations, you get Castro Street; when women are unconstrained by male expectations, you get hairy legs and Birkenstocks. Okay, okay — stupid stereotypes, but you know what I mean.
Nevertheless, I don’t think it follows that monogamous hetero relationships are particularly oppressive to men. To some extent they are oppressive to both men and women, but I believe that on balance men profit from the arrangement and women suffer.
Monogamous marriage has historically been structured by men to ensure sexual access to women. Globally, the situation of monogamous heterosexual men is that a) they get their wives’ sexual services, virtually guaranteed; b) they get their wives’ domestic labor; c) they also get access to other women — prostitutes or mistresses — with relative impunity compared to how their wives’ transgressions are viewed. Note that even in the relatively gender-equal, monogamous West, men’s infidelity is more accepted than women’s.
And even where male infidelity is completely frowned upon, does that really make monogamous heterosexual men oppressed? Studies show that married men have more sex than single men; the myth of the swinging bachelor is just that — a myth. A monogamous relationship is the best guarantor of regular sexual activity for men.
Monogamous men may yearn for partners outside the marriage bed, but so do monogamous women. Find me a married woman who hasn’t wished she had Johnny Depp or some other hottie in her bed instead of her fat old husband! Find me a married woman who hasn’t grown bored with her husband’s sexual technique (or lack thereof) and fantasized about a new guy! If women act on these desires less often than men, it is because of socialization. Throughout history — and still today in most parts of the world — the adulteress is a pariah, a marked woman. Even in modern Western society the double standard still prevails, though its impact is lessening.
I also don’t think women are less eager than men. In long-term monogamous relationships, you’ll find just as many women whose desires outpace their mates’ as the other way around. And when wives do grow uninterested in sex, it’s often because their husbands are inattentive or inept lovers.
It’s difficult, maybe impossible, to disentangle monogamy from patriarchy, since so much of what drives marriage is economic. But we can look at the Moso of western China, a matrilineal society where economic power is in the hands of mothers rather than fathers. The Moso have jettisoned marriage entirely. Men and women belong to their mothers’ families for life. Heterosexual union is not an economic arrangement at all, but purely a matter of love. Polyamory is the norm, with both men and women enjoying many partners. Sometimes couples fall in love and choose to be faithful to each other for a time; when the love dies, the couple breaks up. Note that monogamy, when it arises, is a spontaneous result of emotional attachment — a forsaking of all others because of love for the one. It also doesn’t seem to last very long.
The bottom line is, whenever we talk about what’s “natural,” we’re almost always talking about what society has taught us to think is natural. The old trope that women long for marriage while men long to plow a thousand fields — well, that’s the patriarchy talking. We could just as easily say that men long for the security of a guaranteed bedmate and women yearn for the freedom to entertain as many lovers as they want.
32 Responses to “A comment that deserves its own post”
-
Vinnie Vespisti says:
Bah. Monogamous relationships were invented by women to require the man to support his primary wife and children under penalty of excommunication. It was and continues to be a huge matriarchal plot in which both parties can whore around, but the man is virtually sold into servitude to the woman. All the woman has to do is convince the man that the children are his (they rarely are) and throw some slop on the table twice a day. Historically, women have either turned a blind eye or actually procured sex partners for their men so the chance of pregnancy is passed around without the danger of losing the man’s income, and everyone knows that women, near ovulation, search out a better set of genes to mate with and then go home to the better provider.
We all know it’s true. Why try to put a patriarchal spin onto an obvious feminist plot? Women are like black-widow spiders.
March 26th, 2006 at 6:38 pm EST -
CR says:
I do not know about the historical beginnings of monogamy. However men and womean are the same in feeling the heartbreak of adultary. That includes gay men.
-
will says:
So what does this mean for American society?
And now that women and girls are taught that it is ok for females to openly want sex, will our conceptions change?
-
gordo says:
I think you’re right to blame socialization for much of the difference in sexual behavior. Whether is accounts for ALL of the difference is another matter, and it’s a bit beside the point.
We wouldn’t argue that male teachers who have sex with their students should get lighter sentences than female teachers who did the same, due to the mitigating circumstance of the males’ uncontrollable libidos.
The question of the extent to which sexual behavior is guided by society rather than physique, and how the social structures that help determine behavior come about is worth exploring, but when we talk about legal issues like legalization of prostitution, I think we have to set aside nature vs nurture debates and look at the effects that the laws have on the individuals who are affected.
-
CR says:
The reason that there are laws against prostition is because prostition is very damaging emotionally to all who are involved. The protitutes and also the johns. Even in places where it is perfectly legal it is still a nasty business mentally. I am not enough of a pyschologist to understand why it is so damaging- but that is the effect. I have heard that it is only becuase of the stigma attached by sociaty. I do not believe this. There is something deep and fundemently hurtful in the activity. Maybe it is becuase human beings are so complex. or maybe it is becuase they are really so simple.
-
CR says:
Excuse me- I know I can spellit if I relly try. …prostitution…. Oh to hell with it.
-
Violet says:
Gordo and CR, I agree with both of you on prostitution. But aside from that angle, what about the deeper proposition that heterosexual monogamy is fundamentally oppressive to men? Is monogamy a burden to men, more so than women? I don’t think so.
Will, as for your question: since you’re the one who’s had 600 Biblical visitors, you might be in a better position than I to comment on the future of sex in America…
-
CR says:
I am not a man so I don’t know if monogamy is oppressive to men. but I know that men are not so very far away from women in thier need to be loved, have a home, people who care whether they live or die. A special dear freind of the opposite gender who thinks whey are wonderful, who they matter deeply to. I also think that many men- maybe most, are just fine with monogamy. They like it. It’s safe in a sometimes frightening world. Something they are happy to call theirs. And they love their wives. Really and truelly love them.
but I’m not a guy so I wouldn’t know. Just going by the guys I know as far as I’ve observed. -
cicely says:
It’s almost work time, Monday morning for me, so no time to respond in depth, but to begin…thankyou Violet, for putting this up for discussion on its own. I’m very interested in hearing what people think.
I do find the Western China situation interesting and will give it some thought. I agree that the elements that are impossible to extricate from each other make it very difficult to impossible to say what’s ‘natural’, but we can at least talk about what’s ‘possible’, in human sexual and love arrangements. Although it’s a different conversation, do you happen to know anything about the prevalence of prostitution among the Moso of Western China?
On a personal note, I was once in a long term lesbian relationship which I guess would be called poyamorous in that my partner had other sexual partners while I didn’t, because I could (can?) only be sexually attracted to one woman at a time. I did not experience jealousy or insecurity about the ‘primaryness’ of our relationship for my partner. I actually believe the polyamoury aspect enhanced the sexual pleasure between the two of us. I ultimately left the relationship for toatally un-related reasons while she went on to have another similar relationship that is now over 15 years old and still intact.I think this demonstrates that polyamoury can work for people with different kinds of sexualities, provided that jealousy and insecurity aren’t big issues, or issues at all, with either one of the partners.
And I agree, Violet, that the dynamics could be varied in heterosexual relationships so that sometimes it might be the woman who has other lovers at all or more often than the man. It’s the issue of sexual ‘ownership’ in general, across the sexes, that makes the idea of polyamoury so challenging perhaps… -
Violet says:
Cicely, I believe that prostitution among the Moso is unknown. What has happened in recent years is that on the outskirts of Moso country, tourist traps have arisen with prostitutes acting the part of Moso girls for the benefit of Chinese men: Chinese Men Threaten “Lake of Free Love” Where Women Rule. Real Moso women don’t want to have anything to do with it. The Moso have a very strong cultural ethic that love and sexuality must be kept separate from economic matters.
-
belledame222 says:
See, I don’t agree that women naturally go to the nesting/U-Haul thing because going outside the hetero box means we’re free of patriarchal assumptions (or that men do the backroom and alley thing because they’re free from same, for that matter). Rather, it’s just as often a new way of expressing old expectations, or maybe reacting to them by doing one’s best to do the exact opposite (but, in doing this, one still isn’t “free.”) The whole “Sex Wars” business, among lesbians, at least, had largely to do with some women freaking out because if enough *other* women were in fact eager to go do it in alleys and express nasty aggressive/power impulses in bed or still identify with and/or are turned on by butch-femme or whatnot, poof! there goes the whole notion of gentle sisterly egalitarian oceanic love that will inevitably result from the work we’ve been doing–and we’ve been WORKING SO HARD. SO VERY HARD. So of course the only logical response is that the renegade dykes are “male-identified” and brainwashed by the patriarchy and yadda yadda yadda.
Ironically, of course, the whole notion of women as the “gentler” and more sexless sex comes straight from patriarchy, Victorian style. What to do, what to *do.*
-
Vinnie Vespisti says:
Vinnie may be getting this wrong, but most of the ‘feminism’ you gals talk about involves being as promiscuous as you want. I haven’t seen anyone here who wants to go to Iraq as a riflewoman. Oh, there will be a lot of talk about your willingness, but I was a Marine and none of you could keep up in combat. Even Russian women in WW2 were tank commanders and pilots because they couldn’t keep up with the infantry. Those who went into the lines did so as snipers.
The simple fact is that women are NOT equal to men in all respects. Evidence every post in this thread, all soap-opera stuff about ‘relationships’, love, the oppression of monogamy, the emotional damage of prostitution. Humbug. You are all a bunch of women. You can’t be men. Sorry. OK, having said that would anyone like to pay for a date with Vinnie? You buy dinner, wine, tickets to the football game and you might get lucky.
-
Alon Levy says:
I’m not sure that monogamy is a patriarchal institution. Homo sapiens happens to be a monogamous, patriarchal animal. Canis lupus happens to be a monogamous, gender-egalitarian animal. And within human societies, traditional Christianity is patriarchal and monogamous, whereas traditional Mormonism is patriarchal and polygynous.
-
Violet says:
Monogamy across the animal world isn’t necessarily male-dominated, of course. And I don’t think it has to be among humans. I think it can arise spontaneously as part of the pair bond — which is what seems to happen with the Moso — and it can be institutional but non-patriarchal, as with the handful of matrilineal societies that are known.
But in the modern human world, almost everything is saturated with patriarchy, including heterosexual monogamy. That’s why it’s difficult sort out how humans might behave without that social pressure.
And do you really mean to say that humans are inherently patriarchal? Even if that is the most common form of human society, it’s obviously not the only form. My own guess* is that matriliny is the most ancient form of human society, with males on the periphery and competing for admittance to the female group.
*I should say, that’s my guess today. Tomorrow it’ll probably be different. Who the fuck really knows? There is that whole pair-bond instinct to explain…
-
Alon Levy says:
And do you really mean to say that humans are inherently patriarchal?
I mean that premodern societies – as in 30,000 years ago, not 6,000 – were patriarchal. Though you should bear in mind I only know this for a fact about Neanderthals; I’m just assuming Cro-Magnons were the same. Just like wolf packs are led by an alpha male and an alpha female, so were Neanderthal packs led by a dominant male.
-
Violet says:
Nobody knows for sure what Neanderthal social structure was like, but the evidence definitely doesn’t lean towards packs led by alpha males. Mousterian sites are usually sparse and isolated; sexual dimorphism in skeletons is fairly low. Lewis Binford’s classic theory is that Neanderthal men and women led largely separate lives, but even if you reject that hypothesis, the best bet is still a matrilineal, exogamous social structure. But really we don’t know. Heavens, paleoanthropologists can’t even agree on whether Neanderthals could talk.
As for the assumption that Cro-Magnons would have been the same, there’s no basis for that. Neanderthals were probably a completely different species and did not contribute to the modern sapiens gene pool (that’s controversial, but I’m citing the majority view). Also, we can tell from the archaelogical sites that there were definite differences in behavior between the two groups — in the size and permanence of settlements, in long-distance trading, in tool innovation, etc.
-
cicely says:
Violet Socks wrote:
The Moso have a very strong cultural ethic that love and sexuality must be kept separate from economic matters.
How very appealing and wise, it seems to me. How do we get to Moso land from here? Do you have any good internet references about the Moso, btw, Victoria? Moso – Bonobo – at least a couple of current female centred/dominated societies we can trawl for possibilities – even if one isn’t human.
I believe that prostitution among the Moso is unknown. What has happened in recent years is that on the outskirts of Moso country, tourist traps have arisen with prostitutes acting the part of Moso girls for the benefit of Chinese men: Chinese Men Threaten “Lake of Free Love” Where Women Rule.
How very predictable – and sad.
Belledame222 wrote:
See, I don’t agree that women naturally go to the nesting/U-Haul thing because going outside the hetero box means we’re free of patriarchal assumptions (or that men do the backroom and alley thing because they’re free from same, for that matter). Rather, it’s just as often a new way of expressing old expectations, or maybe reacting to them by doing one’s best to do the exact opposite (but, in doing this, one still isn’t “free.”)
You have a point but maybe we shouldn’t skip too lightly over these differences? Lesbians and gay men are no doubt not free of assumptions, but *are* free of actual hetero-societal constraints around actual sexual behaviour. Are gay men ‘assumption’ or ‘peer’ pressured to have as much sex, with as many different partners as they do? (those that do) Are lesbians so pressured to not have so much or at least with so many?( those that don’t) Surely arousal and desire or lack thereof have *something* to do with it… Amber Hollibaugh’s and Joan Nestle’s books in opposition to the feminist anti-butch-femme/ds dynamic stance are called respectively ‘My Dangerous Desires’ and ‘The Persistent Desire’. We do fight for what we ‘do’ want, even with other women who are also doing battle with the patriarchy.
Violet Socks wrote:
When men are unconstrained by female expectations, you get Castro Street; when women are unconstrained by male expectations, you get hairy legs and Birkenstocks. Okay, okay — stupid stereotypes, but you know what I mean.
Nevertheless, I don’t think it follows that monogamous hetero relationships are particularly oppressive to men. To some extent they are oppressive to both men and women, but I believe that on balance men profit from the arrangement and women suffer.
Yes, maybe not *particularly* oppressive to men, and women suffer more in the arrangement overall, so let’s just say oppressive in this particular way. Maybe access to sex with one woman is secured for men by marriage, and their extra-marital sexual activities are less frowned upon than those of women when they do have them – but we all must have heard a zillion times on tv and in movies when a guy is caught out in the middle of criminal circumstances unrelated to the dalliance, ‘Does my wife need to find out about this?’ Isn’t it the main reason male characters tell lies about where they were ‘on the night of the crime’? Maybe heterosexual married women are doing it much more often than is represented in tv/movieland though – I don’t know. I guess that’s why I’m using the gay male and lesbian cultures for a comparison. The differences between men and women stand out seemingly more obviously.
-
Violet says:
Cicely, I agree that men on average probably have the greater compulsion to maximize their number of partners and that they are less choosy about who those partners are. That’s in line with male reproductive fitness. What I’m taking issue with is any and all of the following (and I’m not implying that these are your opinions):
a) the notion that hetero monogamy is more oppressive to men than to women,
b) the implication that women aren’t also compromising their needs and desires in the monogamous union, and
c) the identification of any modern human behavior with what is natural or primordial.Monogamy is a trade-off for both parties, and on balance I think (as I’ve said) that men get the better bargain. I guess what I’m interested in here is tearing down the notion — which is so widespread in popular culture — that marriage is some kind of prison for men and a haven for women. I do believe it might be the reverse.
As for our deep sexual natures, it is fascinating to puzzle out the beast in us all, but I really think — and I can’t emphasize this enough — that social conditioning plays an enormous, impossible-to-overstate role in how these issues are lived in the modern world.
How many men seek extramarital affairs or go to prostitutes because in some way they know they can get away with it? How many women repress their own desires for extramarital sex because of an internalized double standard, because they are economically dependent on their husbands, because they fear violence from the men they might hook up with…? Sexual activity is fraught with dangers and complications for women that just don’t affect men.
For that matter, how much do the expectations of the promiscuous gay club scene contribute to the behavior of the habitues? What happens when two gay men get married and settle down? I wouldn’t be surprised at all if their rate of sexual activity becomes similar to any hetero couple. (Is there any data on this?)
Re the Moso: no detailed internet references I know of, unfortunately, but I’ll look.
-
CR says:
Vinnie, I will address you becuase you are just as dumb as I am- and leave Mr. Levi and Miss Violet and Miss Cicely to have their intelligent conversations.
I don’t think woman are equal to men in every respect. That is just plain obvious. Neither physically nor mentally. Men are also not equal to women. Feminism just means that the ladies would like a fair shake in the world. I don’t know of one single fellow who has an issue with this. I bet you don’t either.
As for Love- is that too sappy for you? I bet it isn’t either. I bet you’re a real romantic at heart who values the same things we all do. Simple things like loyalty, sincerity, honesty, kindness, true freindship and result of it all- Love. Humans are at their very best when they are in love with someone or something. Those are the things that makes the world go round. Much of the rest of it is complicated and confusing and messy.
I think Mr. Vinnie has been deeply hurt by someone somewhere ( a woman perhaps) along the line- someone broke one of those values and caused you to be disallusioned. Sorry, don’t know how to spell that word.
I have been too. Maybe everyone has. It hurts like crazy. I have been raped (repeatedly), sold (repeatedly and literally), bartered for, beaten(42 times). It’s a hell of a thing. It made me very mistrustful of both males and females. People are crazy and they are driven so by grief. It is not easy to relearn what one has learned. To learn to love and trust. But it’s a good thing to try to do with all your heart. The rewards are too many.
Many women don’t want to be like men( that’s not what feminism is) and vice versa. I don’t want to be like a man. We have strengths and weaknesses and values that sometimes overlap. We help each other- and sometimes annoy each other. And sometimes hurt each other.
Someone loves you out there Vinnie. Even if that is very sappy. It’s a true thing.About pornagraphy and S and Ms and things like that. It is too far away from my thinking and understanding. It seems to me that people are working out some of their childhood issues in a sexualized manner. It is not neccessary nor healthy to indulge every blasted fantasy or desire that comes into one’s mind. Pornography and prostition is a nasty business for most involved. They can say want they want about it- men ,femisinists- hookers, intellectuals. I’m not buying it. From the inside- mostly- it’s not good. And if folks are saying it is- they are not honest with themselves or not fully aware, or… something. There’s no Honor in it. None at all.
-
Alon Levy says:
Uh, CR, Vinnie’s with the Landover Baptist Church. His problem is the belief that pretending to be an especially outrageous and fascistic godbag is anything but an annoyance to non-godbags.
By the way, my family name is Levy, not Levi (at least you didn’t call me Alan, so I probably shouldn’t complain…).
-
Violet says:
CR, for someone who calls herself dumb, I think you have a very wise heart. I don’t know if I could be as willing to learn and love as you are after a lifetime of abuse like that.
And personally, I think your instincts about S&M and that stuff are exactly right. Childhood issues in a sexualized manner! Yep.
But Alon’s correct about Vinnie — he’s a joker. I think he’s just somebody pretending to be a jerk. Though the world is certainly full of jerks just like that…
-
CR says:
Sorry for misspelling your name Mr.Levy. I didn’t mean to be disrespectful. I hope you will pardon me on that. You’re such a smart and amazing fellow when I read your postings. As for Mr. Vinnie. Don’t know. I’m new. It’ll take some time for me to get to know things. He’ll correct me and straighten me out quite plenty, I’m sure. If he likes to talk scripture. I’d be more than happy to oblige. But I’m not a godbag. I just find some things comforting and useful. Although when I pray, i can’t help but believe I’m talking to myself. As long as I’m not answering myself, I’m told I’ll be alright.
-
CR says:
Voilet,
I have not had a lifteime of abuse. I’ve met alot of very nice people too. And had lots of happy things have happened.
As for the abuse… stuff happens to everyone. Not a big thing- unless we make it so. It is just educational when it happens. -
Txfeminist says:
I have a feeling that in any type of society, patriarchal or no, you’d probably see about the same tendencies and distribution towards monogamy , polyamory, etc.
You might see a lot less state-controlled marriage, though.
People mate and un-mate for all sorts of reasons. I don’t think patriarchy vs non-patriarchy would change that.
-
foilwoman says:
The lack of open and unbiased acknowledgement of female desire is so universal. Most women I know who have been married any length of time are either bored out of their skulls sexually or having affairs. One or the other.
-
cicely says:
What I’m taking issue with is any and all of the following (and I’m not implying that these are your opinions):
a) the notion that hetero monogamy is more oppressive to men than to women,
b) the implication that women aren’t also compromising their needs and desires in the monogamous union, and
c) the identification of any modern human behavior with what is natural or primordial.We’re not in disagreement at all then, Violet. The phrases ‘Assume nothing’ and ‘It can all be otherwise’ live in my head. Oh, and ‘I wish’.
foilwoman wrote:
The lack of open and unbiased acknowledgement of female desire is so universal.
I agree with you about that, foilwoman. And the same could be said about the varied nature of female desire. A world of silence and ignorance there.
-
foilwoman says:
Cicely: I think women are socialized to think that the important thing is to be desire, not to figure out what they desire. Delving into that really opens a whole can of worms. A woman saying “I want that . . .” Maybe in some alternate universe.
-
cicely says:
foilwoman, I have to say that parts of the lesbian community have emerged from the weight and longevity of 70′s political correctness and begun to create a language around our sexuality -desires, boundaries etc. This is a very welcome and overdue development in my view.
-
Violet says:
I think women are socialized to think that the important thing is to be desired, not to figure out what they desire.
I remember an episode of Absolutely Fabulous where Eddy and Patsy hired a couple of gigolos for the evening. They got themselves all dolled up and tried to look as sexy and seductive as possible, and of course Eddy was frantic about being overweight and whether the guy would find her appealing enough to be able to perform. It was hilarious but just so true. For many (most?) women I suspect the idea of hiring a prostitute is almost impossible psychologically because we can’t get past the thorougly internalized belief that we’re supposed to be the desirable sex objects.
How many johns do you suppose worry about whether they’re sexy enough for the prostitutes they hire?
-
foilwoman says:
Cicely, that’s good news. Unfortunately, I like the guys, and expressions of desire can still be used against women . . . .
Violet, that sums it up. And I have to go find that episode of AbFab.
-
belledame222 says:
I think *all* of our sexualities are shaped in some way by our formative experiences; it’s not just BDSM=abused/vanilla=healthy. And while there are a number of people who *were* abused and *do* practice BDSM, there are a number of people who weren’t, especially, (there is also a good argument to be made that we’ve *all* experienced abuse of one sort or another, or nearly, at some point in our lives), and still find a good time within the kink and/or leather communities (which are a lot broader, more diverse, and quirkier than I think a lot of people realize.
Finally, while it’s true that BDSM is no substitute for therapy, and that some people–completely understandably imo–with abusive pasts want absolutely no truck with it, there are also some people who have consciously used BDSM sex play as a sort of erotic psychodrama, and find it not only *not* harmful, but healing.
-
Paul Tergeist says:
from 31: there are also some people who have consciously used BDSM sex play as a sort of erotic psychodrama, and find it not only not harmful, but healing.
-bdOh. So women secretly WANT to be tied up and raped?
Somehow I cannot picture it. Except with Violet.
