To summarize (and feel free to correct this if I have it wrong) you have no problem thinking of your partner as a thing — “meat” to be specific — but then you can’t bring yourself to use this meat.

Jein.

It’s not that there’s no objectification at all on my part — as you rightly observe.

But it’s really less an objectification of her than of my own animal side by giving voice to my lust as a caricature. In doing so, I take ownership of, and responsibility for, my animal urges and thereby reign them in.

It lets her know that yes … purely objectively … I find her physically attractive and would do even if we had never had any contact with one another — albeit that it would be remote, intellectual observation that “if I liked her then I would definitely” as I said … with no actual arousal on my part.

But by caricaturing it, it lets her know that I don’t really objectify her to the extent that she is ‘just meat’ … informs her that the only reason I am even regarding her as an object of desire right now is because there is a relationship between us — no-one who actually wanted to get into a stranger’s knickers would attempt to do so with the phrase “You’re meat” after all — that there is more to this than just sex … that I desire her, the woman, not just the body in which she resides … because otherwise I couldn’t make a joke about something that is deadly serious … because we wouldn’t have the necessary degree of intimacy.

So, yes, I desire her … lust after her … but, like I said, I don’t use her, I enjoy her — perhaps it would help to consider the French use of the verb jouir to describe the process of achieving orgasm as opposed to the English to come/cum.

Does that make more sense?

I have no problems using a partner at times — with the understanding I will be used at times in return — but can’t bring myself to think of him as anything but a person.

Indeed … and I can never lose sight of that fact.

But it can be more to the fore or rear of my mind in any given sexual encounter: sex, for me at least, is an expression of profound love … when words no longer suffice and all there is left to do is to show her (actions speak louder than words) … but sometimes it has nothing to do with romantic sentiment and everything to do with animal urges … desire … lust — albeit that what I am lusting after is the person rather than her body specifically.

Again we seem to be agreeing on a clear line, but are approaching it from different sides. And to be honest, I’m seeing some social conditioning in our attitudes.

My playful “You’re meat” acknowledges that.

As I said, no-one who actually wanted to get into a stranger’s knickers would attempt to do so with that phrase — it’d be a guaranteed slap in the face moment, if not an actual “Help! Police!” one.

By caricaturing the unacceptable, I give what drives it room to be in the room with us … acknowledging it if not necessarily giving it more significance, more power, than it should have — it allows an otherwise inhibited partner to explore that aspect of our relationship without the intimidation or (self) reproach that would normally go hand-in-hand with such inhibition.

Perhaps part of my sexual … ‘style’ if you will … stems from having had to help some very inhibited women overcome their hangups about sex and their own sexuality and an aspect of the approach is the ‘overpowering’ masculine element. If she gave in to me … was overwhelmed by me … then she does not bear responsibility — which gives her time to get used to the idea of the physical act itself taking place. With time, she can abandon herself to the process because it is out of her hands, so to speak. She can then take pleasure in it because if it’s going to happen anyway, she might as well, right? Then she can come to terms with her own sexuality and, eventually, urges because it’s safe to do so, because it’s not her fault: I overwhelmed … overpowered … her and drove her beyond her senses.

At the end of the day my saying “You’re meat” is as much intellectual as it is animal — it is a conscious acknowledgment of the subconscious within us.

But just social conditioning is probably too simple.

Possibly but, as I explained above, it is … or may be … an element — especially when people have hang-ups as a result.

I know my own attitude has been reinforced by the dynamic of my previous toxic relationship. He always got upset if my thoughts and opinions didn’t match his. I stopped sharing my opinions. I felt a loss of me. But I never felt used (in the negative sense of the word).

Obviously, I wasn’t there and can’t comment.

For my own part … as I previously indicated, I became abusive myself without even realising it.

I’m pretty robust in my opinions anyway — no, shit, eh?

And even more so in defence of them — I expect scalpel sharp critique, not wishy washy emoting if you want me to change my opinion … to convince me your conclusions are more valid … and even then it could well take some time before I realise I‘ve been misunderstanding your point all this time and, therefore, shit, sorry, yes, I see now and you were right all along … mea culpa.

Yeah, I can be pretty forthright about my opinions and if yours don’t match, you’d better be ready, able and willing to explain yourself … and soundly, without recourse to emotion [1].

And you’d better be sure to have noted that there are always certain aspects to any discussion/debate/difference of opinion that I will focus on …

1. are your a priori assumptions sound — are you factually correct?
2. is your reasoning sound — if I set off from where you claim to be starting and follow the path you are treading will I end up in Jamaica … or will I find myself in Outer Mongolia and horribly underdressed?
3. pragmatics — why are you saying what you are saying … in the way you are saying it … what’s your agenda (conscious or otherwise) here?
4. morality — what is the moral angle on what you are suggesting?

And as for defending my right to be me … well I’m sure you don’t need me to draw you a picture — or video myself in full-on angry rant mode.

So, years of having to stand up for myself against a constant drip-to-flow of put-downs, snide critique in the form of “I’m only trying to help you”, passive-aggression, emotional blackmail, gaslighting …

Yeah, I ended up on a hair trigger … ready to more than robustly defend anything and everything that came out of my mouth … anything and everything I felt or did … ready to see any disagreement as yet another assault on my very being … on everything that made me me and not “just a little bit different” (what … someone else, you mean?).

I should’a just ended things and walked away … but, instead, tried to patch things up … make things work.

But they never do.

Because the other person doesn’t want them to work.

They want them to fail.

They want things to be so bad you can’t take it any more and end it.

So that you will be the bad guy … the one who couldn’t hack it … the one who failed … so that they can feel good about themselves.

Well, you know what … hanging on under those circumstances is abusive: if they so clearly don’t want it and every day is yet another battle in Hell, why force them to live through it with you? If they’re so weak they can’t do the right thing then do it for them. Don’t try to force your own (identical) agenda on them. Don’t try to change them. Don’t try to encourage them … to draw the best out of them … help them be who they once promised to be … once were … or at least wanted … pretended … to be.

Just leave them alone.

…

And as for the ones who were simply clinically diagnosable ‘Cluster B’ personality disorders …

Jesus!

A few years with one, never mind two or three, of them and you’re a basket case spoiling for a fight with the whole World you’re so on edge all the time — of course you’re constantly fighting with your partner … they’re constantly picking a fight! :(

It did take me a lot of work to get to, or perhaps get back to, the place where I can just freely express my opinions.

You seem to be doing okay to me — obviously online is different … safe .. but you seem pretty able to state an opinion without needing to get all defensive to me :)

Which include my opinions on sex.

Which is only healthy … and adult.

If those then get me the label “disturbed”, okay, I’ll own that.

Heh … that’s not why I say it though …

I say it to …

1. see what happens when I poke you with a stick — how do you dance?
2. see how often I can get away with it
3. remind you that what seems normal to each of us isn’t necessarily so just because everyone we know does it … or at least everyone we spend any time with, with any frequency worth mentioning … isn’t necessarily harmless, insignificant, nothing to get hung about … isn’t necessarily healthy (psychoemotionally or otherwise) … that in fact most people don’t do it — never lose sight of the fact that you and your friends are a minority … not if you value your life and liberty.
4. raise a laugh
5. get you riled up, excitable and ready for a little sparring — a bit of banter keeps our brains and minds exercised and in healthy condition.
6. see 2.

And I’ll be still proud of it.

<sigh>

Yes … but that’s because you’re a degenerate — how many times do I have to remind you?

;D

But no matter how you want to turn it, we still got here via a Carpe Jugulum reference where Granny states the root of all sin is thinking of people as things.

Indeed.

The other one that always stuck with me was Vimes’ observation that all crime boils down to theft: murderers steal your life, rapists steal your agency, charlatans steal your innocence …

It could have turned into a discussion of the nature of sin in general, but we went for lust specifically.

Lust is the ideal vehicle for this kind of discussion, I find — it is the most obviously animal urge there is that we cannot dismiss on the grounds of necessity, like hunger for instance … or validity, like anger, say.

Yes, eating can be a source of pleasure but it is not inherently so.

Sex, on the other hand, whilst serving a practical purpose (reproduction) is not necessary and, most singularly, driven by the urge to experience pleasure: as I said previously, the debate about the purpose of orgasm (especially female orgasm) just cracks me up. Really? The concept of “That was good — I’d do that again!” never crossed any of the researchers’ minds?

Also, as German speaker, it has connotations for me that go beyond the merely sexual — that are, in fact, truer to the English sense than most English speakers themselves realise.

Part of that is on you and I’ll keep reminding you of it :P

If that’s the excuse you need to keep talking to me about sex … the thing that helps you over your inhibitions … allows you to indulge … because it was all his fault …

;P

It’s been fun though.

It has, yes.

Thanks for being such a good conversation partner. :)

—

[1] You know what gets me all hot under the collar and emotional when I’m talking to someone?

When they get all hot under the collar and emotional about it.

It isn’t an emotional issue, you fucking retard … What is your fucking problem!?!