Sunday, October 10, 2010

The Dilution of the Diva

I am far from saying that building ones ego is a bad thing. Forced conceit is sometimes the only ego one may be able to muster. If you can use that as a basis for something more healthy, like a crew that holds up your timber as you secure it with a power drill, more power to you. Build a self who has self love. Share and be outward to others in your confidence. As long as it doesn't become negative, it may help you.

But don't call yourself a "Goddess" or a "Diva." You undercut the words. Diva once meant the one pinnacle star, the one true "Artiste" of female singers. It was a term, both cast in love and scorn on those striving for perfection in the Operatic scene. It comes with heaps of luggage, royal levels of self-involvement and the constant challenge to defend your greatness.

To use this word for less, is both sad and unsuccessful. Are you a Diva? Do you truly mean to cast yourself in this light? Are you proud if people consider you upon a pedestal? Woman who need to be worshiped need to ask themselves why?

Why do you need to put yourself on such a throne? Does the need for adoration really mark a healthy sense of self? Does labeling yourself a goddess, if you do sincerely, really attach more meaning to your life?

I know I seem a bit mean, but that's not my intent. As I stated earlier, I understand the need to build ones ego. My only concern lies in what you don't see. Healthy people, with well balanced egos, see the self adornment of luxurious adjectives and imaginary thrones as the weakness you think it hides. You are the naked emperor on the march through the town, and that boy who points out the truth may only be blocks away.

Femininity is a powerful thing. A strong and wonderful force that you wield. But the true Diva or Goddess does not need to self declare. With my heart open, please don't live your life on throne to protect your ego and if you do come down into the village to meet with us commoners naked, let it be with the naked glory of true love for yourself. You will impress us with your humble strength and femininity, much more than with words that have been diluted and separated from the power they once held.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

What makes us Whores or Angels?



I was reading Liz Doherty's blog here.

She asks the question :

"Would you form a relationship with a woman who’d slept with 100 men?"

Liz apparently communicates with folks over Craigslist and the blogs about the responses. I find this very interesting.

"I posed this question to those reading the Women Seeking Men board this morning, and received some provocative responses (and a bunch of stupid ones). 
As you know if you’ve read much of this blog, I have had sex with far more than 100 men, but feared the responses might be colored by my real number."


To her surprise, people were very sportive and affirming. I have been on Twitter in my second "sweet caveman" identity now for some time. I'll be honest. I created the account simply to have fun and connect to people in a completely free manor. To free myself from my name. I do see a lot of affirming communications as well, but recently I have begun to see something more disturbing. 

I see people emotionally very hurt. Wounded. Some are wrapped up in their self, juggling many partners (real or vitual) with narcissism and a lack of clarity or sense of self. 

I started to think about the fact that few people take a moderate stance on sexual freedom. The line seems drawn between prudes and perverts, angels and whores, suppression and explosion.

I began to write a comment on Liz's post and in writing it I decided to start this blog.
My comment is below:

There is a wonderful "free" aspect of sexual freedom that people experience today, but there is a deep sadness as well.

The casualness of sex allows us to explore and find our joys, but it can also allow us to separate emotions from the experience.

I guess people are wired differently or become de-sensitized. Still, many people I know who need "open relationships" or secret ones seem just as unhappy as those stifled in claustrophobic marriages.

Personally, I need my own space and time for myself, but I prefer monogamy.

Perhaps because I consider myself empathetic, I connect closely to the emotions and reactions of my lovers. It is important to me. A slight, almost tickling of a finger drawing on her body or mine is more powerful than dripping candles.

So when you ask would you consider being involved with a woman who has been with over 100 men, the question I think of is "what has that done to her?"

Has that made her desensitized to intimacy? To real connection? Has it been a great experience of life which leaves her knowing better how to express and accept another while in convergence?

Some people who have large numbers of casual sex partners tend to be looking for something other than emotional fulfillment.

A dear friend who has finally found the man she loves is desperately unhappy. He injured himself and is unable to completely fulfill her needs. He's not unable to please her, but she is used to more Olympic levels of physical pleasure and she admits that she spent her life relating sexually without cultivating sensuality. Now, when she needs it, when she needs to use her brain as a sexual organ, she can't. I am so sad for her.

I spent a part of my life devouring women with the intent of glorious climax and the joy of power. I remember few of them more fondly then I did lovely meals or nights drinking with friends.

The women that stole my heart made sex profound for me. Opened up the inner energy.. Made me feel sex as animal grunting, nature's force and yet also deep personal connection. Being inside her because it's the ultimate connection, grunting like a beast, but profoundly aware of the emotional bridge.

These relationships changed me. Some were short, some were long. All were important.

So the question I have is simple. After over a 100 different sexual partners, where is this person? Are they lost inside the desire to please themselves? Are they a generous and open lover? Are they deeply damaged? Are they deeply balanced?

The real implication of the word whore or player is the separation of sex from sensuality or emotion.  In those terms we've all been whores, but I'm glad I am no longer.

I really hope you find what you want. FWB isn't ever going to be it, at least not for me.

Be well,
-Spenser



lizdoherty
Spenser, thank you for your thoughtful response. While I have indeed slept with hundreds of men, almost all have been in my pursuit of an LTR. Not everyone will believe that, but I restrict my play to single men (just in case), to well hung men (just in case), to smart men (just in case) and to attractive men (just in case). The possibility that a hot connection could turn into more is what drives my sexual seeking. Were I to find my next life partner through a hot casual connection, I would be thrilled. Twice I have been close, and once I fell in love with a casual connection. My book will tell more about this experience.


I was married for twenty years, and am confident in my ability to maintain an intimate relationship over time. I am adamant that my next relationship have great sexual chemistry at its core. My marriage lacked that, while being satisfying in many other ways. But that is/was not enough for me.


Please feel free to comment again, or to email me at liz.doherty@hotmail.com if you’d like to chat more. I found your new blog, but didn’t see a place to become a subscriber.


Again, thank you.


Spenser
Liz,

Thanks for your response. I think you can subscribe. I moved it to the top so it’s more obvious.

I certainly am not one to judge you or anyone. I don’t think there are any rules. Some people thrive more on personal connections then pure sexual connection.. I’m probably more of that type since I have been with many different types of women. To be honest, two have been married, although one was married only in name and the spouse knew and consented and the other, didn’t tell me until after the fact. Not a good place to be regardless

I would say that what attracts me most is always intelligence and sensuality, but honestly some have been more beautiful and some less, at least outwardly. . Some have been curvaceous, some slim, some with ample breasts, some small… many shapes sizes and ethnic makeups. There is always something that draws me in, but I’m not always expecting it.

I don’t think that I could check off the criteria as easily as you have above, but perhaps men are easier to do that with. I find a lot of beauty in women and one of the wonderful things about women is that femininity is cast in so many lovely combinations.

I’ve been with just over 50 women, but I can say that 14 of those were true attempts to build something. My admittingly out of context reaction to your statement that you had 3 truly romantic connections after hundreds of intimate relationships is one of slight shock. Those don’t seem very good numbers if your goal is LTR. Do you consider those odds successful?

When I was younger and more impetuous, I saw a woman who I wanted and the magic was in the taking. The seduction, the victory of her giving herself to me and the sweet release of using her body to give myself pleasure. I know I sound like a first class wimp, but now, I truly am turned on more from the affection and connection. The ability to merge these with my animal needs and hers is a fantastic feeling. If anything I feel more animal, more primitive and more aroused by this.

I know I cum a lot harder then I used to.

I completely agree that sexual chemistry is tantamount. My only point is that sexual chemistry isn’t like blood type. You aren’t assigned a particular profile. Like all other parts of your body, sexuality is honed, directed or left to atrophy. Your mind, your emotion, sensuality all have strong connections to it, unless those connections are not practiced.

Theologists talk of modern spirituality as the “salad bar religion”, where we choose what we want to believe and then in deciding we become god for ourselves. In that decision, we limit ourselves from truly finding truth. (I’m Agnostic, but I always thought that was an interesting point).

I think that modern sexuality could be similar. We choose that which we want to believe, we select and control who we interact with from the start. In doing so, we take so much control of our intimacy, we extract ourselves from nature, from the random instinctual sexual lusts that we come from.

Could we be limiting ourselves? Could we be designing our lovers instead of finding them? I think if and when you truly want LTR, you should consider what you can do to bring your odds into a more favorable percentage than 1%.