Sunday, July 22, 2012

Mon Parrain's Definition of Sex

Emotional and [or] physical surrender of one or both parties of that which they identify themselves as the center of their sexuality.

In a previous post, I wrote about the difficulties of only calling penis in vagina (PIV) sexual intercourse, and sometime anal intercourse, sex. If "So did you have sex with/fuck/sleep with/get laid by him/her?" only means PIV sex, then it seems to render "less than" a good deal of the very sexual acts that I've done, as well as erasing quite a few of the partners that I did it with from the notches in my bed post. In writing that post, I was making public that what I felt was sex was much bigger than just PIV sex. 

But with new partners come new disclosures. Though I did tell a new potential partner the number he asked for, which was the number of men I have had penetrative sex with, I did also tell him that I didn't think that was my real "number," that my real number was quite a bit higher because it included much more than just penetrative sex with men. To his credit, he didn't say that those other notches didn't count generally, just that he didn't find them pertinent to what he was using the number to evaluate. 

After looking back at my little black book for the numbers, I had made some observations that I shared by texted Mon Parrain. Now, he tends to go for long periods of time and only pop his head up when he's both bored and I've texted something quite interesting to him. This seemed quite interesting to him. 

I found his thoughts on "what counts" quite interesting. Here is an excerpted bit of our conversation:

MP: Lol...No, that people with no dicks, or those who do not identify their dicks with their sexuality, are just as capable of fucking...
MP: And being fucked.
MP: Sex has nothing to do with penetration, even when there is a cock (or substitute cock)
Me: only orgasm?
MP: Nope...
Me: Then what?
MP: Emotional and physical surrender of one or both parties of that which they identify themselves as the center of their sexuality.
MP: For a masochist, it might not even involve genitals...
MP: If the surrender is there, for me its sex.
MP: There is no reason to force gender or physio normative standards.

Me: Can I put that def on my blog? I think of the bdsm play I did with [name redacted, person 1] as sex, though I'm not sure either of us orgasmed and there was rarely any penetration or "sex." He is a number for me, though I also know the PIV # and oral included # 
MP: can even attribute it to me. 
Me: I don't plagiarize. Of course I'd cite my source.
MP: A m to f transgendered person can have sex despite the fact that she has a penis without having to be penetrated herself can't she?
Me:  I totally agree.
Me: And a f to m without penetration.
MP: Exactly... Although that is his choice.
MP: His only self identification with his own sexuality may dictate that he can't surrender his own sexuality to someone until he can penetrate.

MP: So its a tricky number to calculate.
Me: I thought it bad manners to push too much on how pointless I think PIV # is with this [new partner].  
MP: You may well have had sex with someone who didn't know that he/she was having sex with you.
Me: Quite possible.
MP: Ahhh but you miss the point. 
Me: He sees that as the only way to surrender?
MP: As a sub, its vital that you embrace his identity in your sexuality, at least in the moment. 
MP: So if he is heteronormative, then that's the number that matters if he is to connect with you.
MP: It's an insult to his sexuality to deny him the opportunity to feel that way.
MP: In an ideal world, he would tacitly acknowledge the same about you.
MP: But an ideal dom is hard to find.

Me: So what about [name redacted, person 2]? He sees PIV as the only thing he will call sex. He's done the rest, but not sex to him. BUT he does think the rest counts, even kissing.
MP: I see no harm in allowing [person 2] his personal definition
MP: And that he can only choose the center of his own sexuality. 
Me: I find sleeping in the same bed as him to be sex, more intimate than other "sex" acts. 
MP: Exactly.... I agree that sex with one partner may be very different than another partner with the same sex and gender.
Me: I try not to push on him what I think is sex, but I'm not going to change it for me.
MP: It's not the act, but the state of mind that surrounds the act.
MP: Any other definition denies that one who is unwillingly raped, does not have sex.
MP: And that it is possible to be raped regardless of penetration.
MP: Rape is the forceful taking from another that which they identify as sex when given to another.

...(While he and I talk about some other stuff, this is probably a good time to interject something for the new readers out there. I'm not good with secrets, mine or anybody else's. If you've heard me tell you something private about someone, you can probably guess that I've told them something of that same level of privacy about you. If you've seen me write something about someone else on this blog, I will probably write something of the same level of privacy about you on this blog. That's another reason why I use pseudonyms, so when someone searches "Mike Smith" to find about you, what I've written about you in this blog won't pop up. If/When I write my book, I'm sure some aspect of you, good or bad, will be made a part of some character in it. I would say I'm sorry, but, if I thought I was going to be sorry about it, I wouldn't do it in the first place, now would I? Mostly, you've been warned. Now we'll resume a little later in the conversation, with a last little bit of ego stroking.)
MP: You know, maybe the world would be a better place if sexually interesting people like us took a vow.
Me: What vow would that be? 
MP: Never have sex with someone who doesn't understand the spectrum of sex and gender. MP: Hold out until the world becomes enlightened. 

So, what do you think about this definition of sex provided by MP? Do you find it too broad and not based enough in the physical, bodily realities of what we intuit sex to be? Or do my "vanilla" readers disagree with the idea that sex is about surrender, rather than specific acts? As always, please comment!

No comments: