In Love and Sex

I found the following words quite interesting given the post I made yesterday:

'In my memoir I have exposed myself – not just sexually but emotionally. I've shown myself as weak, sometimes naive, and written about sexual rejection. A reviewer says she finds my emotional candour more shocking than the sex. I find this fascinating. The British are very squeamish about emotions too. Is owning up to rejection a bigger taboo than sex? I have written from the point of view of making what I thought was a colossal error: sex, I say, ruined my life. We have been given a formula for a "valid" relationship: it must combine sexual and platonic love. If a relationship isn't sexual, it isn't the real thing.

Yet love affairs come in every size and shape. Whether a person lives in passionate celibacy with another, or in a blaze of erotic desire with someone they find annoying, there are hundreds of flavours and mixtures of love. I made myself unhappy measuring my love against a given norm. The truth is, we make ourselves happy in among a wide variety of loves; all count.'

Is monogamy a dependancy to hide our inhibitions?

Talking from the perspective someone has gained in being exposed to the idea of polyamory, I have come across this article detailing the rules of monogamy, yet they consistently seem to be broken in the public eye.

'There's this sort of naive thinking that somewhere, somehow one public figure is going to prove to us that you can do [long-term monogamy], and then there's the indignation and second-guessing that happens when their infidelity is exposed.'

Whether people have affairs, open relationships, multiple loves in relationships (polyamorists) or remain monogamous; it is questionable to what makes one decide in going ahead in seeking others attention. It could be flattery, it could be lust, it could be seeking into the unknown. Sometimes people just catch the attention of another and this is fulfilled in having sex. If this is a one off or not, in my eyes, this would only seem wrong if one of the two people involved have agreed to a monogamous relationship-isn't that what the term 'boyfriend' or 'girlfriend' means these days. You make a commitment to one another by not seeing other people; though I want to examine why we feel the need to make this idea apparent. What is there to prove?

We regularly hear phrases like 'I wouldn't know what to do without them', or 'they make me feel complete'; but why?! Yes, these sentences represent ideals in proclaiming the strength of love but for what reasons do they fulfill the person involved? I believe if these words are said, at least they should be carried with known connections to another person-you know what life is like without them, of course you would survive, but wouldn't you prefer them to be in your life as they are wonderful! Not because they are fulfilling a purpose?! I do wonder myself whether how much we may rely on another person, and at what point does someone who we think we have romantic feelings for-do they become a dependency to our happiness as well?

One the one hand, you could say that before you meet somebody your life was good. Perhaps it wasn't until you met girl or boy that your life got even better. This idea I like. Though the alternative which is less of my preference; life always seem liked something was missing until girl/boy came into your life. Surely we should be completing our own goals and life ambitions before a person seems to complete our lost limb?...( I have always found this curious when young couples 'settle down', and have always felt there is a danger in assuming what you want, yet then this seems harder to change when things don't pan out as expected.)

Sometimes it seems that if there are deeper issues involved within self, this can accidentally become transferred onto another. Do we then see our other half as fixing the issue or just as a pleasant distraction towards dealing with the ultimate topic itself? I think when it comes to becoming romantically involved with someone, I find it idealistic to know more of who you are yourself before you become in risk of developing your mind and attaching it to someone elses. I prefer not to doubt self and develop a false sense of self belief in feeling more complete just because there is someone else around who is amazing, in your life. Sometimes it's personal experiences of the such which may lead to one thinking of wider ideas in our interaction with people. Just because monogamy is the norm, doesn't mean it's the only way. Most people see polygamy as something based upon religion (and also looking at divorce statistics, surely the idea of having more wives would make any person scared enough to even consider the idea!); most people forget the idea of polyamory-or at least an open relationship. I have come to establish that most individuals whether they are involved with another or not, forget to make their own rules.

I mean, polyamory stands for loving more than one. I believe if you are going to follow through with this notion, you have to make your own rules and stick to them as well. In observation it would see that with this lifestyle, making the rules and sticking to them becomes easier in experience of polyamory. You don't know what is right for you until having tried something; sometimes rules are spoken, made and broken and the wrong people get hurt...Most importantly with this concept, there needs to be no threat received from any party involved. Ones love for another doesn't affect the love for someone else; though this idea for me personally provides so many challenges in circumstances; location, it all being a balancing act e.t.c., perhaps that is more appropriate for another post...

In returning to exploring different ideas of 'relationships'; polyamory doesn't always have to flow with everyone involved. Just because one connection may have two loves, doesn't mean one of those two loves has several others as well. Loves in this case, doesn't just mean sex. Polyamory idealises romantic feelings for several people. I personally know that, well I couldn't cope too well in having strong love for one, and perhaps another person. I strongly believe in open relationships; though this too has its problems with those you may date, feeling second best to 'the one' you have made clear to them, you love. (There is a risk in it feeling like a sorting situation, in proposing this idea of openness yet it seeming like a set up to narrow people down to 'the one'.) I think that's what most people forget and where infidelity occurs. If you want to sleep with someone else, or even get to know them a little better-isn't it better to be honest with them about it instead of going behind their back. Sometimes you just don't know what reaction you may get. The 'other half' may be comfortable with this idea as well; they may have dabbled with the ideas themselves as well. This is where I think people should make their own rules, why do you think so many married couples play with the idea of swinging as well.

For me, I know that love creates priorities. All of our life experiences create priorities which in a way make love all the more harder, and sometimes our ideas of love even harder too maintain. Why do we think people divorce after 20 years of marriage? It's scary to think 20 years ago a couple were so so happy, yet all that time later both of those individuals have changed, either grown apart from each other, an affair has triggered the separation, or they mutually hate one another. Love seems all the more scary and these situations further challenge the idea of 'the one' itself. In meeting other people, feeling for other people-to what extent does this challenge the strength of ones love?

There are people out there to meet in the world, so why not go out there and meet them?! Some may look at it as an amazing opportunity, to meet, dine, date, sleep with all of those fantastic people you meet and have great life experiences. However, the other idea is that some people-well they just love someone so much that no-one else really shines through. It would seem that this is some sort of instinctual behaviour for humans and love. Sometimes are feelings are just so whole, powerful and overwhelming that the phrase 'love is blind' really does apply. So does this concept challenge polyamorists in their desires to explore with others?

I once read the quote from a famous Actor, Johnny Depp who said:

"If you love two people at the same time, choose the second one, because if you really love the first one you wouldn't have fallen for the second."

So where does feeling for others really come from? Are we just too scared in putting too much value on one?? Is this the reason why people choose to break from the rules of monogamy or is it our own natural desires to feel 'free' and wanting to explore other people as well?

You could say, it's a massive step in personal development. Perhaps one gets to a point where they realise that there is no other lifestyle for them and that experiencing life with several people is more amazing than experiencing it with one. You can't really argue with that if it's what makes them happy. I see an importance though in getting the rules right, no-one intentionally wants someone they become involved with to get hurt. However accidental pain always occurs:

'It seems like we use monogamy to protect against the possibility of our feelings, or our partner's feelings, being redirected toward another person -- in other words, falling in love with someone else.
Right, right -- that is the paradox. To the extent that we do use monogamy as a guarantee of that, we may blow the occasional infidelity out of proportion. We end up saying, "Oh my god, this is a threat to the relationship," when in fact it might not have meant anything.'

Whether it's a difference between lusting for another and feeling emotion for another, on separate occasions or at the same time; I think monogamy needs to take a little more re-education itself. Why are we fulfilling it, is it really what we want? I still believe that most people go along with that flow of life because it is what they know, forgetting their own rules and opportunities which are available to be made.

Sex and Violence In Film

This kind of article would have been good for my dissertation last year detailing a discussion between whether sex and violence in cinema should be deemed taboo. Sex columnist Tracey Clark-Flory details the scepticism between classification in America; stricter rules towards taboos against sex in film yet less stricter rules against sex and violence.

It seems like the public can't accept the visualisation of pleasure in humans. Perhaps porn is responsible for this; though porn is created in order to arouse it's audience, where as in film sex is used to represent. I made the point within my essay, why does there have to be so much control over the consequences in film? I mean we see murder scenes, drug taking, torture within film and television and only age warnings come about that (have they missed that ideas towards impending violence on others could occur?!); but when it comes to sex on our screens any element seems to be shunned just incase the audience gets any pleasure from it themselves. There seems to be a concern with self control, or even how much control such societies can have over us in order to avoid risk taking responsibility themselves for our actions. Does it all come from paranoia and issues (like the extreme procedures towards health and safety as well) caused by angry members of the public? I admire how Tracey ends her words:

'Sometimes I really have to wonder who we're most trying to protect by restricting sexual imagery.'

She is right! I do wonder whether those in control of viewing such material are more concerned about the consequences towards going against the social norm? I say lets give it a go and see what happens. Surely you would rather the audience have a larger knowledge of sexual pleasure, than sexual pain and physcial violence caused! I don't see any shame in that.

Peado Phenomenon

This I find a bit dramatic. If they ask kids to change their school uniform in risk of paedophiles; isn't this the same for adults, to avoid wearing skirts and dresses to further avoid tempting rapists?!

'Chief executive Eileen Prior said: "Creating a link between school uniform and paedophilia seems to be a dangerous and unhelpful one for everyone involved.

"It implies that young people are in some way responsible for the activities of paedophiles, which is an extremely dangerous argument and one which has echoes of the comments sometimes made around rapists and women's dress.'

Again, I find that authorities in society tend to source responsibility onto others if they possibly can. I am not saying that local authorities should take full responsibility themselves, it just seems that alternative methods in handling situations such as the above could be treated better. If there is a problem, the solution seems to be pointed towards what the victim could do, instead of finding ways in targetting the problem itself. Though perhaps, that is the local authories' way in trying to take less responsibility themselves.

Slut Rut

Ironically this topic came up in discussion recently with myself and others as to what is a slut. Is it a girl who sleeps around, though isn't that just embracing sexual freedom? Is it a girl who dresses and shows all, yet is really displaying a fabulous figure in which she has probably worked hard for? Is a slut these days, someone who is aware of their sexual being and uses this to get things for her advantage? I don't even know whether that could be considered power and intelligence itself!

The meaning of slut these days, I am massively confused to what meaning it really should take accept the classical dictionary meaning. I think the alternative still lies in what would you call a man if he were to do the same things, man whore?! How can we de-feminise the meaning of the words whore, slut, slag or tart? Maybe sexual freedom needs a large revamp within the media and society itself.

People Like You Need To Fuck People Like Me

Tracey Emin:

Blogging vulnerability

When I began this blog I felt excitement and eager to display my words for the world to see, whatever the feedback I may receive. The vulnerability in showing and not hiding in a sense with words felt quite liberating, the idea at the back of my mind felt like a challenge to the wide world web. I felt like, come on then, throw it at me-your words of critique. Over the last few months of writing my blog, moments when I have looked back and re-read sections have I noticed that, as previously mentioned, they do feel like riddles. I find what interests me the most lately about blogging is that now I want to approach it with a stronger raw existence, though a large percentage of me is doubting how exclusive to be with my words.

The following article is a great example into the world of blogging and how honest and open one can be about their lifestyle. I find myself very interested by the journey this girl has taken in beginning her blog, and also closing it too.
With me personally, I find when writing, or at least when about to write-I do wonder with the words that are about to explode, whether online on my blog is the right place for them. I mean, perhaps the words are just questions and are not directed at right source? How much are they a cry for help. Sometimes I wonder whether they would be more suitable for a personal diary instead of an online blog. My posts are shared through Facebook and there are several people on there that know me, but don't KNOW me. In all honesty as much as this comes across as insulting, the list of 'friends' I have on my facebook makes me laugh. Of course, hundreds numbered on my 'Friend' list, actually aren't friends and are more like associates. I don't want to exhaust too much of the idea of what makes a person a 'friend'; but with regards to blogging am I all too sure I want to expose myself to those who I haven't seen in years, to those that I haven't seen in years, to those that don't know me. Am I doubting everyone's levels of compassion towards someone who may not seem 100% about their life?

I feel like a hypocrite to my own desires in holding back online. When is the right time to really express how I feel? To know the people I walk by everyday see my true expression in words, which perhaps feels so raw because 95% percent of the time they see a smile, not the madness which goes inside my head. I suppose one way of looking at it is that if they aren't ready to know, don't click on the link-but there isn't exactly a sense of warning (I will not get into my classification discussion-I used my dissertation for that). At the end of the day I need to accept that I still am trying to protect myself, of course I don't want anything else to add to the situation, be that comments expressing views of, is this girl crazy? I know deep down I don't want to be treated any differently.

These words, my eyes felt hot by their own admission:

'I've simply stopped writing about the many things that continue to scare and confuse me. I've long believed that there is nothing embarrassing about admitting human frailty, but when I try to write about college nowadays, I catch myself pulling back from every little unflattering anecdote, rewriting the circumstances and characters, and wanting to put forth a more attractive version of who I am. Though I am never overtly disingenuous, I occasionally feel like I'm living a lie of omission by not owning up to being constantly plagued by the same doubts that haunted me at Harvard: that I am not merely unworthy of a school but that I am too damaged to be worthy of love.'

Sex bonus

German salesman rewarded with sex. Please tell me if I am naive in saying this, but if that is what the men wanted-is it really that wrong? There is no mention of a general consensus taken for a reward party, towards what events would take place, is it right to assume they all knew of such things to take place.

I am still surprised how often the media writes about sex, articles like this always seem surprised that people have sex-for fun! Most of the time the media features stories about affairs, women looking like sluts or men rolling around with several females (mostly in their 20s). There seems to be a natural association to sex, as it being sordid or dramatically seen as...wrong. No wonder Britain still holds the notion of 'thou shan't talk about sex'. I am getting rather bored of it.  Perhaps finance companies have shot themselves in the foot in keeping up appearances. I find it all the more amusing, considering most of the time business men are faced with attractive women everyday-men are very bad at hiding sexual interest and for a prostitute reward to be seen as something that shouldn't happen again-well the article didn't voice that some were distraught by it! Once one is seen in a social environment, a little less formal and reserved than the daily norm, worry seems to kick in. Perhaps this article and the words spoken are a sort of 'back up' to ensure the company hasn't got their priorities mixed up...

"It was a mistake but we are very sure that it was a unique event."

Though in their response, 'unique' it definitely was (I am sure they had to bite their tongues in stopping them smirking or winking at the journalist.) Prostitues, oh shame. Sex on a plate...oh dear poor them...

Sex, coffee, a stroke?

To release an article to claim such extravagances towards our favourbles, when 'a lot more research needs to be carried out', understandably there is an importance to raise awareness of such factors which can deteriorate our health but isn't it wiser to have more solid facts in research than panicking us a little too early?

I think our judgements towards the British health service become more and more sceptical when items such as the above are released-what exactly is our money being put into?

Sluts, prudes, whores, fashion...

It interests me when asked how people would summarise their thoughts towards the words 'slut', 'whore' and so forth... Most of the time it is a varied opinion separated by age. The younger say whore without realising what the true meaning instigates. We all have our ideas of inappropriate dress and behaviour, as a woman myself it does frustrate and seems endless that forever woman will be known as sluts and whores yet men have no masculine equivalent. Is there a slutty outfit for men?!

I remember when the word 'tarty' was used when I was a kid, my mum would always make sure what I wore-especially whilst growing up meant I wanted to try new styles of clothing (influenced by all sorts of media), that nothing came across as 'tarty' and not 'too grown up'. It was important to not put the wrong message across and encourage the wrong kind of attention. I find the debate lies in woman dressing to be sexy and represent their feminitity, and represent their attitude towards themself and how they feel-though however biased the following may seem as one who has (as confident as I can be in saying this) taken the short skirt and baring all approach too far-is dressing slutty a case of inhibitions put on show?

How much does bearing all become bearing our weaknesses?

Of course there are many reasons why women show more and show less. It is hard to distinguish why people feel more comfortable showing more skin and if this is down to freedom of expression or asking for some kind of attention, to make one feel good about themselves? Can the balance be knowing when each social situation is appropriate. I know full well I wouldn't want to wear (or risk!) a variably low cut top to see my grandparents yet on the walk to work I wouldn't think anything about it. There is a balance to how we present ourselves and to what we wear, perpaps the reactions of others make it seem wrong or is it instinct within ourselves to know otherwise?

Appearance does hold its importance as we tend to judge people within the first seven seconds where our first impressions are made-these also tend to stick and take time to change as well. My concern is with what people wear on occassions when there is a more serious danger in putting the wrong message across. Can a woman wear an outfit showing skin though not necessarily putting out the idea 'I am here to have sex with'? Can a woman wear a figure showing flesh flaring outfit for herself, or are there just too many messages behind our clothes? A good question to ask self when dressing is who am I wearing this for?, and why. If anything, is there something we want to achieve?

I am not saying that we should all have to cover up regardless of how we feel about ourselves, I suppose I am just curious to boundries we may build for one self. How much does personal syle reflect our sexual freedom and our sexual hold ups. Is 'slutty' the new free being?

The balance of the argument is expression of self (after all why do nudist beaches exist!) and just being with our bodies, or showing our bodies to get effect in order to establish ourselves and re-enforce any doubts we may withold. I think everyone does it slightly everyday, we become wise to everybodies reactions even if it is something as innocent as, when a friend may compliment on a dress... Next time you see them you may wear that same dress in hope of getting a positive response again. It is quiet fascinating that clothes have marvellous emotional attachments to them. Some see fashion as somethng superficial-it is a ugly ugly world considering the unfair trade that works with it. But on the other hand it is a world so beautiful as well, it is human. It is creation in so many forms.