Loyal, sexy readers - serious post coming.
New, casual readers - I'm not usually serious, so read another post for something funny.
I just read some interesting thoughts about human sexuality. The source of the inspiration comes from a conversation held maybe a week ago with my dear, sweet, sexy friend Penny. We were talking about something, I forget what, and I mentioned a philosophy book that I had read as a teenager that had changed my life, called Finite And Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility. Mentioning this book caused me to search for it in my archives.
I found it today, and began reading. I jumped to the index, saw Sexuality, and decided to read those sections.
So now you know the source of this inspiration.
The central concept of this book is that life and all that it contains can be viewed as a finite game, in which there is a definite end and a definite winner, or it can be viewed as an infinite game, in which the entire purpose is to continue play. This purpose of continued play is the source of happiness and emotional freedom.
The book then sets to break down many aspects of human existance, and view them from the perspective of a finite game, and an infinite game.
Of course, Jay flips right to the sections about sexuality. The statement in this section that first captured my attention was "Pornography is exciting only so far as it reveals something forbidden, something otherwise unseeable." The implication is that pornography is, by its nature, hostile. It focuses on the violation of the principles of what is forbidden.
This topic of pornography in human sexuality could go on for hours, however I'll just leave the core concept there. My quick opinion - I love seeing naked women as much as - if not more than - the next guy. However, I find a sense of contentment in what the author calls infinite games, and the role of pornography in human sexuality does not fit in a view that precludes definite ends, such as the violation of the principles of what is forbidden.
The view of sexuality from a finite perspective can translate into a view of sexuality as a conquest. As a finite game, the lack of interest from a potential mate can be viewed as the beginning of the game. The indifference from the potential mate is not an indifference to the game, it is an indifference to the player, which makes the indifferent party part of the game. In other words, were I indifferent to your game, I would not play. If I were indifferent to you, I am, by definition, playing your game, because I have made myself your opponent in the game.
In simpler terms, and by example, if a woman takes a stance of disinterest (or apparent disinterest) in you, she is still playing the game. She is saying that she has not been conquered by you. This disinterest in you is completely separate from a disinterest in the game. She is now playing it. If she were indifferent to the game, her opinion of you would be inconsequential.
Now, in viewing human sexuality from an analogy of an infinite game, there is no conquest. Does this imply that there is no resistance from the woman? Damn, I wish! No, the implication is that a woman, if interested in you, will begin participating in a game with you that has no outcome other than to continue indefinitely. It is a shared expression of continued sexuality.
There is no resistance, per se, rather the progression is mutual and deliberate. Steps are taken to progress in a manner that ensures a sexual relationship without a particular outcome or goals, other than to continue the relationship.
So I see these things, and I understand the contentment found in pursuing life and human sexuality in terms without definite ends and outcomes. However, I feel like either understanding or agreement from others is missing.
When I had first read this book, perhaps when I was 16, it had such a profound effect on my perspective that I kept the core concepts in my mind over the years. As such, I found myself acting certain ways and seeing things from a particular perspective, all without consciously understanding why. I felt like a misfit, so to speak, since I couldn't resolve my perspective with what I perceived others doing.
In other words, if a girl is interested, I would think that she would express interest.
Perhaps most women are used to being guarded because of their experiences with men. In other words, they must feign disinterest to slow the man's progression, otherwise they'd end up tagged within half an hour by every guy they were interested in, those filthy animals.
Men, in response, learn to view disinterest from women as the beginning of the game. Turn, turn, turn.
As pointed out by the author, human sexuality is the one type of finite game in which the opponent becomes the prize. This type of approach to human sexuality is all that I have known; however, when I say that, it's with a twist, and it's also not entirely accurate.
The twist is that I have been the one typically on the defensive. Not to imply that I'm some incredible catch that the ladies are knocking down their grandmothers to get to, but I am saying that I have been receptive to playing that role. It has worked for me, and we all tend to gravitate towards the things that work for us, regardless of whether it is wise and right and good in the grand plan. I've never had a "dry spell" last more than three months in my entire life. Why change?
The challenge to the accuracy of the statement "that is all I have ever known" is that I have known something different once. I don't know how many women I've dated in my life, but maybe around 20 or so. One woman, I was not a conquest for her, and she was not a conquest for me. We were both in a phase in our lives that brought a short time together with no intended outcome other than to have that time together. She was a turning point in my understanding of human sexuality and relationships. In short, she helped me realize what I was supposed to be and how I had lost my vision.
Side note: I haven't had sex with every woman I've dated, but then I haven't necessarily dated every woman I've had sex with. Wow, that looks pretty bad when I say it.
Now, I've realized that the finite game, the pursuit and conquest, does not work for me. I have never been happy in any of those relationships. Perhaps it's foolish to decide that this is the common denominator based on a single approach with a consistent outcome, since it may just be true that I am not a good person to have a relationship with. Or maybe happiness cannot exist within a relationship. However, if I accept either of these possibilities, then I have stopped playing. I cannot accept this, since I exist solely to continue existing, so to speak.
I think that I can come to this conclusion, though, that the approach to relationships is flawed fundamentally. The one relationship in my past that I think actually had a good foundation is the one single relationship that was approached by both of us with absolutely no outcome in mind, not even on a subconscious level. She went out with me solely because I wouldn't try to create a relationship with her. I went out with her for the same reason. No planned outcome, just a mutual desire to be together.
Unrelated to the topic of this thesis, the question is probably "If that relationship was so good, why did it end?" The answer, as I've discovered, is that everything can be right except for the timing.
So I have realized that this vision of human sexuality as a continued mutual pursuit with no intended end or outcome is not a vision that is shared by many people. Some women pursue, some women wait to be pursued, but the woman who would look to me as a sexual partner, as opposed to a sexual conquest or a sexual dominator, is rare.
Yet that is what I want and need.
