I don't think we're in conflict at all. Sex can be sacred. My point is that in and of itself, it's an act -- an inimate one that requires a certain level of vulnerability to really go bonkers -- but it is not an act that carries an inherent sacredness. Those who argue that it does, I say, are not only missing the boat but putting rape and child molestation victims in a tough position of asking whether their horrible experience is a perverted sacred act. Rape is about power. It's also about sex, too; if it weren't, rapists would just beat their victims into a pulp.
So it seems like we're in agreement, since you mention 'sacred sex' and 'fun sex'; those who conflate the sex-act with 'an entire sacred event that begins before we take our clothes off and ends way after we've stopped panting' wouldn't get this notion that there can be sacred sex and sex that's just, well, for toe-curling fun. (Kinda like the contrast between 'sex for procreation' -- would that be 'sex for business'? versus 'sex for fun'?)
Sex for business. Okay, that raises some chilling tangents.
no subject
Date: 3 Dec 2005 04:16 pm (UTC)So it seems like we're in agreement, since you mention 'sacred sex' and 'fun sex'; those who conflate the sex-act with 'an entire sacred event that begins before we take our clothes off and ends way after we've stopped panting' wouldn't get this notion that there can be sacred sex and sex that's just, well, for toe-curling fun. (Kinda like the contrast between 'sex for procreation' -- would that be 'sex for business'? versus 'sex for fun'?)
Sex for business. Okay, that raises some chilling tangents.