Kant is not altogether wrong, it is just not what I had been talking about. Sexual desire by itself is, in fact, exploitative, although it is possible to regard it as a harmless game, assuming that it does not spill over, just as wrestling need not affect a relationship outside of the contest.
Male sexual identity is primarily expressed through dominance and aggression. Even among "feminized" gays, there is much more promiscuity than among lesbians, presumably because of the urge to "hunt". Female sexual identity is primarily expressed in letting oneself go to be possessed.
Sometimes, of course, this is psychologically adapted to a kind of covert dominance by using feminine "wiles" to manipulate a man. Thus, one can surrender and ultimately be in control. The male sense of the irony of the situation is expressed in the notion of being "whipped", of finding a woman who so arouses and pleases him that he becomes, as it were, her "puppy dog". Thus, there is a possibility of exploitation coming from the female side, in a "ju jitzu" fashion.
Of course, the tension that subsists between self- regard and the sense of surrender makes it natural enough that there should be a bid for control on the part of the female. So, one has either the male "cocksmen" as a model, or the female "seductress", unless there is something besides raw sexuality in the relationship. Mutual respect may be enough to turn off the dynamic outside of a sexual context, and thus relegate it to "fun and games". However, it is difficult to have a relationship of any intimacy, assuming that the sexual dynamic is powerful, without going beyond mutual respect. Love is the most powerful counterweight to the exploitative elements of sex. The desire to share, to take care of one another, to be held in high esteem by one's lover, and so forth, sublimates raw sexuality and romanticizes it. It is in the context of romantic love that there can be real growth through sexual involvement......... |
