Project Mailer

Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/499: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Lipton’s Journal/February 7, 1955/499 (view source)

Revision as of 07:31, 20 April 2021

1 byte added ,  20 April 2021
m
Fixed typo.
(Created page.)
 
m (Fixed typo.)
 
Line 16: Line 16:
Nonetheless, what happens to people is that particular sexual satisfactions become exhausted, sooner or later depending on an enormity of factors—some people are so slowly and amply developed—peasants say—that a lifetime is necessary to move from one sexual gear to the next. But, sooner or later, it comes—sooner for women than for men because women not only have less—I meant to write “social”—opportunity, but they have less sup capacity. They are closer to their er—they have to be—duality—the child which issues from them is basic to their understanding, just as man sees his life as isolation and loneliness. So, women, are more basic sexually, they can literally sublimate less because the idea of one which is the “magic” which permits sex duality to be expressed as unal-social-acts, is less available to them given their sex. (Which is why the folk-wisdom that men think and women feel is indeed true)—which is to say that it is partially true; women are bisexual too, the man is in them, so they are far from totally deprived of those social acts which may be substitutes for advancing into the next sexual gear).  
Nonetheless, what happens to people is that particular sexual satisfactions become exhausted, sooner or later depending on an enormity of factors—some people are so slowly and amply developed—peasants say—that a lifetime is necessary to move from one sexual gear to the next. But, sooner or later, it comes—sooner for women than for men because women not only have less—I meant to write “social”—opportunity, but they have less sup capacity. They are closer to their er—they have to be—duality—the child which issues from them is basic to their understanding, just as man sees his life as isolation and loneliness. So, women, are more basic sexually, they can literally sublimate less because the idea of one which is the “magic” which permits sex duality to be expressed as unal-social-acts, is less available to them given their sex. (Which is why the folk-wisdom that men think and women feel is indeed true)—which is to say that it is partially true; women are bisexual too, the man is in them, so they are far from totally deprived of those social acts which may be substitutes for advancing into the next sexual gear).  


But anyway one the deep decision to make an advance in sexual gear, to go from Bisexuality Minus Twenty let us say to Bisexuality Minus Nineteen—I am satirizing not the idea, but the ineptness of mechanical analogies unless they are exceptionally “cybernetic”—once this decision is made, I believe two things occur. One goes into neutral—there is a lowering of sexual desire, which if the change is made, erupts into a period of joyous exploring exciting sex.  
But anyway once the deep decision to make an advance in sexual gear, to go from Bisexuality Minus Twenty let us say to Bisexuality Minus Nineteen—I am satirizing not the idea, but the ineptness of mechanical analogies unless they are exceptionally “cybernetic”—once this decision is made, I believe two things occur. One goes into neutral—there is a lowering of sexual desire, which if the change is made, erupts into a period of joyous exploring exciting sex.  


In other words, just as it seems that fucking is losing its salt, you really tear off a great one. But just why was it great? I am willing to bet that some element in it, some sensation, some particular pleasure or gratification was ''new''. One felt something one had never felt before, either in variety or in intensity. A really great fuck of the sort that leaves one totally happy the next day or almost totally happy has had a new element, even if it be no more than that things one had done before which made one hot but left one with a hangover now leave one happy.  
In other words, just as it seems that fucking is losing its salt, you really tear off a great one. But just why was it great? I am willing to bet that some element in it, some sensation, some particular pleasure or gratification was ''new''. One felt something one had never felt before, either in variety or in intensity. A really great fuck of the sort that leaves one totally happy the next day or almost totally happy has had a new element, even if it be no more than that things one had done before which made one hot but left one with a hangover now leave one happy.  
Retrieved from "https://projectmailer.net/pm/Special:MobileDiff/14123"