that's what they [?] said: sex in the park
this morning I had brunch with michael at the celtic knot and we took a long walk by the lake and had an intellectual conversation about sex.
we talked a lot about ownership of knowledge and sex. how many people believe there is an "ideal" sex/relationship life, and we compare ourselves to it, but what is this normalization? do we see the people around us, watch porn and listen in sex education class and then assume that sex and relationships are meant to function in certain ways? of course we do. and then we treat it as cultural capital and dominate others with knowledge we've assumed control over. however, I find more and more that no one really has an "ideal" sex life, or an "ideal" relationship. sex and relationships are far more subjective than that. instead we've all got these vulnerabilities that are frequently purposefully ignored in favor of a false sense of dominance/confidence.
michael talked about how people see relationships and physicality in relationships as linear. we assume that if we've done something with someone once, they'll want it again. we assume that sex is the end game in a relationship. that a relationship exists within certain limits, and friendship as well. however, there are much healthier ways to see this, specifically non-linear ones.
I normally hate talking about any of this with people. the conversation normally has really uncomfortable power dynamics. people are using sex as a part of their identity, or a way to dominate others in conversation, or as a part of knowledge ownership, and I get extremely uncomfortable and generally don't see it as fulfilling conversation. because sex is a vulnerable topic of conversation (everyone has some vulnerability with it they really would rather not discuss, or some horrible experience, or some physical deformity they're terrified of mentioning, or insecurities they feel being good in bed counters, or, even worse, they're advertising to potential lovers) people either feel awkward or they dominate the conversation. I don't like either of these things.
It was refreshing to have a "best practice" conversation with michael. one that builds on itself. I was genuinely interested in what he had to say, and he affirmed me by being genuinely interested in what I was saying as well. we built out a lot of theories and deconstructed a few parts of the master narrative around sex in america, and I was incredibly happy talking about something without owning it.
the linear idea was really fascinating to me. specifically in terms of physicality, but also emotionally. I'll jump on drawing that on here at some point.
also. the chicken pot pie at the celtic knot: delicious.
we talked a lot about ownership of knowledge and sex. how many people believe there is an "ideal" sex/relationship life, and we compare ourselves to it, but what is this normalization? do we see the people around us, watch porn and listen in sex education class and then assume that sex and relationships are meant to function in certain ways? of course we do. and then we treat it as cultural capital and dominate others with knowledge we've assumed control over. however, I find more and more that no one really has an "ideal" sex life, or an "ideal" relationship. sex and relationships are far more subjective than that. instead we've all got these vulnerabilities that are frequently purposefully ignored in favor of a false sense of dominance/confidence.
michael talked about how people see relationships and physicality in relationships as linear. we assume that if we've done something with someone once, they'll want it again. we assume that sex is the end game in a relationship. that a relationship exists within certain limits, and friendship as well. however, there are much healthier ways to see this, specifically non-linear ones.
I normally hate talking about any of this with people. the conversation normally has really uncomfortable power dynamics. people are using sex as a part of their identity, or a way to dominate others in conversation, or as a part of knowledge ownership, and I get extremely uncomfortable and generally don't see it as fulfilling conversation. because sex is a vulnerable topic of conversation (everyone has some vulnerability with it they really would rather not discuss, or some horrible experience, or some physical deformity they're terrified of mentioning, or insecurities they feel being good in bed counters, or, even worse, they're advertising to potential lovers) people either feel awkward or they dominate the conversation. I don't like either of these things.
It was refreshing to have a "best practice" conversation with michael. one that builds on itself. I was genuinely interested in what he had to say, and he affirmed me by being genuinely interested in what I was saying as well. we built out a lot of theories and deconstructed a few parts of the master narrative around sex in america, and I was incredibly happy talking about something without owning it.
the linear idea was really fascinating to me. specifically in terms of physicality, but also emotionally. I'll jump on drawing that on here at some point.
also. the chicken pot pie at the celtic knot: delicious.