In the vulnerability department

… Sex Geek expresses what I was trying to express with the Story of O post, about vulnerability, only much better. I don’t think I agree about the equation of romance and dominance, but about the need for vulnerability, definitely. My favorite bit:

Better yet, in my opinion at least, mind-bending sex has nothing to do with a lover’s years of experience, list of conquests, or achievements in technical prowess. For me, it has everything to do with whether or not a lover is able to truly open and be vulnerable to me, and boldly step inside when I open to them. Good sex is dependent on connection, and connection is dependent on trust – on the other person allowing me to get inside them in places far deeper than an orifice or two.

The body is a convenient route to the inner world, and whether I want to stay there with someone for an hour or a lifetime, that’s what I’m after. The superficial experience of sex on its own somehow feels like a paltry substitute, an empty shell of what it could be. It feels like knocking on the restaurant door and being refused a table. I’m not interested in hanging out on the front step, no matter how pretty it is; I’m not interested in the burger joint down the street. I’d rather go home to my own place and make my own dinner solo.

For me personally, when someone’s willing to open, that connection and that trust generally play out in one of two ways: love (in its broadest definition) or power. In other words, either it’s romantic or it’s sadomasochistic. All the better if it’s both at once. This is not to say that every time I screw, I end up in a long-term relationship of either romance or dominance; there are a lot of places between “don’t call me, I’ll call you” and a U-Haul or a collar, and many of those places don’t involve repeatedly getting nekkid. The point is not to make an experience into something it’s not, but rather to enjoy it to the deepest degree of what it is.

Of course, this is just my own way of doing things. Trust is an individual thing, and the point is not for connection to look the same to everyone, but rather that everyone deserves to feel it in the way that works best for them. Regardless of how it plays out, I think gourmet sex is a physical manifestation of trust, plain and simple – whether it’s someone taking a chance with a compelling stranger or opening for the ten thousandth time to their lifelong lover, whether it’s played out through a cane and a pair of restraints or a gentle coaxing tongue on tender flesh. No trust = no connection = no intensity = no fun. “Ya want fries with that?” instead of “Allow me to recommend an appropriate apéritif, sir.”

Share


One Response to “In the vulnerability department”

  1. Uncommon Priors » Sexual morality is no different from morality. Says:

    [...] because sexual interaction is essentially about the conscious interplay of free wills (see my old posts about intentional vulnerability and so [...]

Leave a Comment