blather
myspace_got_me_road_head
Kigel True story.
All the while I thought myspace was just another way of showing off... 		061129
...
. And apparently you think the same of blather.

Much like the mile high club, I really don't see this as a notable human accomplishment.

This has to do with not liking when the people who perform sexual acts are erased, in recollection of the event, from the picture...or reduced to *being* their sexual acts. I think it's really dehumanizing.

Party on, or whatever. 		061129
...
Kigel Touché! An excellent comment by an excellent skite (or so I’ll assume.)

I abhor the idea of using anyone for sexual gratification. This is not to contradict my previous blathe (which, I feel obligated to make known, was typed in a mixture of drunken passion and raw egocentrism.)

I did not do anything to force this upon her, give her any substance to decrease her self-awareness, or use deception in hopes of receiving fellatio. If anything, she was more the aggressor than I.

The words were quick, simple, and to the point: “Can I give you road head?” 		061129
...
misstree i was amused.

i'll counter the sour mood of the previous 'skite with a bit of congratulations of my own. exploring new things, even as simple as an odd location, can add an extra charge to simple sex. these oppurtunities can almost never be planned, and seem to result from the strangest strings of coincidence. embrace them when they come or weep when they exit.

and while i understand the point against sex being reduced to single acts, i have two counters; one, in this case, the concept was boiled down to a very concentrated form, and so other aspects simply got evaporated. there is no implication that it was anything but road head, positive or negative, empty or meaningful. also, sex is not always wine and roses. for some people it always does or should have an element of emotion, but that is not true for all people. sometimes a blow job is just a blow job.

again with the gratz. i'm still grinning for you. 		061129
...
misstree i take that back, i didn't understand the point... darn not being able to reread previous writings while i compose...

losing the person in the sex act i understand as well, though... the spirit of my previous objections still stands... and the thought that, well, sometimes sex is a selfish act... when it's selfish for both, with no malice, no drama, what's the harm? having a lover who comes by for an hour of amazing sex then leaves, it's not the lover you're interested in, nor them you, but the sex itself. again with to each their own, and not suggesting in any way that such thoughts relate to the opening blurb, but just throwing it out there because i'm bubbly and cantankerous. 		061129
...
. I don't mean that two-person sex can't be casual, can't be just for sex in and of itself, or must be "wine and roses". Not by any means. No issue with that.

But two-person sex simply cannot, definitively, be one-person-and-a-sex-act.

Also, it is totally irrelevant to me whether the sex-acter was totally into it or not. I know many would be more than happy to be someone's "lay" or "road head" or "pussy".

But that doesn't make it okay, to me.

We had a demonstration in an art class once, back when I thought the fine arts were a good idea. I don't remember the artists names, but I promise they were well-known in postmodern circles. Photog1 took a picture. Then Photog2 took a picture of that picture, and named it after Photog1. Then Photog3 took a picture of Photog2's picture of Photog1's picture, and named it after Photog2. At this point, the professor said, "What have you realized?"

And what we realized was that the original photographer's name was lost, although the work remained identical.

I don't like thinking of the other human in the sex act being lost in translation.

All that's left is the event, blissfully unfettered from the burden of history, while the small child of reality stands on the ground, watching it blow away...

Blow away, road head. 		061129
...
stork daddy we never experience the entirety of any person or thing. every exchange is limited by the goals we take to it and the sensations employed in its achievment. in fact what we know of another's identity is largely made up of the conclusions we draw from repeated serial encounters. so sometimes a person is just a sex act, and sometimes they're an accident on the freeway, and sometimes they're a conversation. it's a sensitivity beyond most people to be aware of the entirety of the lives of each person we interact with on a daily basis, especially when most aspects of another's personality are something constantly hidden that must be inferred from the very experiences they are reduced to. there's nothing necessarily sad nor exploitative about it. it's a distance between conscious minds we can, in some ways rally against, but will in some way always remain. and some would, consensually, wish to avoid such complexity and give themselves over to the single-filed sensualization of another person. just an alternate perspective, nothing i necessarily recommend. i merely mean to say that it may not always be a matter of callousness or stupidity. 061130
...
nom myspace got me music 061201
...
concealed pearls myspace got myspace 070216
...
Ouroboros burning_man_got_me_welding_lessons 080620
...
roy von lankinmeter sometimes a blow job IS just a blow job 080621
what's it to you? blather
who go from