Enchanted Rose

Spoiler Show

and

Spoiler Show

Relatedly, get this, from The Equality Illusion:

Spoiler Show

Although my grasp on neurosciences are shaky, so I will not take this as gospel, but one does not need that fact to assert the existence of the commodification, objectification, and dehumanization of [female] bodies through sexual business apparatuses. However, on the topic of kinks, I will let Lorde, much wiser than I, to speak for me:

Spoiler Show

Perhaps not physical violence, though I'd argue there is a co-relation, perhaps not necessarily an inherent one (though not necessarily the other way either--I don't want to make blanket judgements but I remain unconvinced of the appeal beyond the erotic, and what is erotic I think is not a mental vacuum as you mentioned), but an over-lap exists that worries me. And more to it is I feel perhaps the current trend of behaviours in that regard is articulated because of pre-existing structures and not simply individual choice and desire; co-opted then, by more insidious processes. What do kinks mean in a patriarchal, misogynistic capitalism, if they are not simply revealing of individuals?

And indeed your argument about natural, biological sexuality plays into that point: penetration is necessary for reproduction, but not all sex purely. Purely PiV intercourse often ends up, whether wittingly or not, to be masturbation for the males I think and (if statistics prove true) wholly unsatisfactory for females, with oral, hands, foreplay, and all other manners of sensuality (particularly, I note, the ones involve a 'passive' male though I resist those labels as I argue they are indeed projected) are downplayed or ignored. Nor is even penetrative sex, inherently, an act in which there is the giver and receiver. I'm not going to go into details hahah but we both know, from experience I'd even say, that it can be physically a co-operative experience beyond passive positions for both sexes. Rather, the fact that notions of 'domination' and 'subordination' (and I'm interested how you define the term within the context of the bedroom and this particular line of dialogue) are superimposed into naturalistic language is more of a revelation than an argument. Do you mean as an actor/the acted on or the nature of giving/receiving pleasure? Or something else entirely? We'd both agree, I think, that these are useful models, false dichotomies, but I'd say they extend beyond some argument and in fact are false creations indicative of the realms we occupy, materially.

And I as well! Though you will admittedly find I am, regretfully, stubborn. However, as someone with an unfortunate love for philosophy--I say unfortunate because of how it is often woefully misused by people around our age, and even older, to avoid living instead of grasping with the textures of existence passionately as philosophy often espouses--I adore the dialectic, and feel I can only truly learn about and apply my beliefs through dialogue.

Geez, I feel you and wish the best for you. What are your current plans/what are you are doing professionally right now?