 16 May 2006, 7:54 PM
|
adastra
 
Joined on 01-13-2006
Posts 1,291
|
|
FWIW (possibly not much) here is the Wikipedia definition of "player"
Player (dating) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A player (also known as a womanizer) is a U.S. based slang term for an individual who plays the field (gets laid) and has multiple active sexual relationships simultaneously. Sometimes spelled as "playa" in the context of hip-hop culture. In practice, "player" is normally used to apply to men, but the term can just as easily be applied to women, as there are players of both genders. Females are usually known as Playettes. There are two main types of players, short and long term players, these two types are distinguished only by their goals. They practice in much the same way, using deception and romantic attachment or feelings to their advantage to get what they want. Short term players are individuals who are generally after "marking the bed post" in having as many sexual partners as possible. They often are known to brag about this number, even telling their partner what number they are after the deed. Long term players are individuals who generally sleep with the same few sexual partners for years, and use their romantic attachment for a place to stay, or other essential items. According to stereotype, a player is an individual whose seduction skills and sexual attractiveness are exceptional enough to have multiple sex partners simultaneously, or during the same time frame.
you've never seen everything
\\\\|////
( o o )
-o00o----(_)---o00o---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 May 2006, 8:23 PM
|
integralschism
Joined on 01-13-2006
Posts 278
|
|
Arthur, I totally understand the Wikipedia definition and I suppose that's how most people think of the term "player". I wonder if there is a better word for the description I gave a few posts ago. "Sexually adventurous man with morals and ideals towards ultimate growth" is kinda wordy ![[8-|]](/public/forums//emoticons/emotion-15.gif)
Besides, don't hate the player, hate the game 
Bryan
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 May 2006, 8:53 PM
|
adastra
Joined on 01-13-2006
Posts 1,291
|
|
| Arthur, I totally understand the Wikipedia definition and I suppose that's how most people think of the term "player". I wonder if there is a better word for the description I gave a few posts ago. "Sexually adventurous man with morals and ideals towards ultimate growth" is kinda wordy " /> |
|
Well...let's see...you want a mutually enjoyable encounter that benefits both people...how about..."facilitator"? 
"Hey baby, I'm a sexual facilitator, how may I serve you?"
arthur
you've never seen everything
\\\\|////
( o o )
-o00o----(_)---o00o---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 May 2006, 9:23 PM
|
elementstew
Joined on 01-13-2006
Posts 553
|
|
When I write of dick-heads and shallow bitches, I am generally refering to people with low levels of development in the affective and moral lines. Cognitive lines aint worth shit in the sexual realms.
Confusing? Oh hell yes because it is hard to be honest with oneself and even harder to meet all the prerequisites that qualifies a player. There are many dimensions to what constitutes a player. There are gender differences (typically easier for a female to be a player which creates plenty of resentment/envy/fear/etc from men). Income and notariety play significant roles and these may take a while to develop - many people dont get the opportunity to gain player status until middle-age.
I'm a social guy and have player friends, male and female. Most of what I see is a lot of low level intercourse, if ya know what I mean, but some are able to maintain integrity, even through all of the confusion. Okay, I have a real-life example.........Bill Mahuer (sp?), ya know, the pollitically incorrect guy....he's about the most flagrant display of yellow that I've ever seen. He may be a flaming liberal, but he's not buying any idiot compassion, he's ruthless...ruthlessly reasonable, most of the time. What do you think his sex life is like?
www.integralwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 May 2006, 9:37 PM
|
integralschism
Joined on 01-13-2006
Posts 278
|
|
I don't know. Maybe he does bong hits and then gets really freaky?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 May 2006, 9:38 PM
|
elementstew
Joined on 01-13-2006
Posts 553
|
|
Masters may have found himself a wonderful woman, and one good woman is worth a thousand _____s. Mahauer (sp?) hasn't seemed to find the right one, some never do. There's enough diversity in life to accomodate all ways, all shades. May we all find harmony in communion be it a solo, a duet, a trio, a quartet or a whole brass and wind section getting "blown" while the strings get tickled and the percussion bangs away.
www.integralwiki.net/index.php?title=Main_Page
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 May 2006, 11:47 AM
|
tamgoddess
Joined on 01-13-2006
Sacramento, CA
Posts 792
|
|
It's Maher, Stew. I think. I wonder about that guy. I've thought the same as you in the past, but then he just says something so clueless and hateful-I dunno.
I'm about to speak in some broad generalities. The caveat that this is not necessarily every individual's experience seems in order.
Bryan, I think you're wrong, but I'm glad you're willing to take feedback on it and not just blindly rushing forth. In addition to Stu's excellent blog on the notion of casual sex, there's a really good line from the movie Vanilla Sky.
Camerion Diaz plays the woman with whom Tom Cruise's character is having "casual" sex. She's tried to keep it that way, but she can't. Her heart gets involved, and he starts in with the "I never proimised you anything" bullshit. She says, "Your body makes promises! When you make love to me 4 times in one night, that's your body telling me something!" Or close to those words.
There's ample evidence that men are perfectly capable of casual sex and that it doesn't seem to harm them. But women do get harmed in the process, because they just aren't built that way. They've done studies on the brain activity that happens during sex, and the part of the brain that bonds to another person is very much activated for women, but not for men. It's not a matter of rational thought, nor does anything you say, no matter how honest or enlightened, change that fact.
If it were possible to do this in an enlightened way, someone would have been very successful at it by now and at the very least, written a how-to manual, don't you think? What makes you think you'll be the first guy not to hurt multiple women he sleeps with? That is a big fat package of hubris you're carrying around there, pardner.
Liz
AFGO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 May 2006, 12:14 PM
|
Jacinda
Joined on 01-13-2006
Posts 107
|
|
|
Namaste
A few contemplations(free flow)....
(mainly on the subject of sexual addiction or illness) The body is sexual...and we should listen to the body....becoming Self
However, the mind confuses the body/mind for itself...or ego
The mind can also distort the bodies needs.....
meaning if your body feels hungry...you eat...then you get full....
yet the mind may still choose to feed the body.
similarly the body may become aroused sexually...and even after the stimulus has passed...the mind can still play....and seeks the reward...attached to outcome.
and we can master these distortions...SEX then becomes the biggest demon in HELL....because what is more fun than playing with than sex? Abstinence or Indulgence in sex never seems to satisfy....unless sex becomes consecrated...sex wholy.
the same fire of pure, blissful, radiant Being
is the same fire burning the fearful, angry, hateful, lustful, contracted self.
it is a matter of what you are practicing....Fear or Love?....Surrender
Being born into the dream of the planet, domesticated...becoming auto-domesticating....I lost myself....
I grasped!!!!!!
I screamed!!!!!
injustice...hell....
but it's not mine....it was here before....a dream of the mind.
perfect justice....
the force of choice.
Gary Zukav was my first introduction to the idea of sexual addiction being very common.
you are a warrior looking for prey....
to change, stalk your own reactions...realize you are quicker than the mind…. I echo what MaryW and RAM have said in other threads on sex and relationship….
Sex is a big deal…and being in a mature love relationship means you know you are in relationship or union with SELF…and are responsible for your choices. You are conscious of your will and the mind’s deceptive qualities. “We should always ask for discipline.
One who has no self-control cannot receive grace.”-Rumi “To be suspicious and greedy
when majesty arrives is the worst arrogance.
The gates closed.”-Rumi Have you seen Alex Grey’s COPULATING from SACRED MIRRORS THE VISIONARY ART OF ALEX GREY?:
" …Astral energy vortexes stream out from the lovers, alerting souls of a possible opportunity for incarnation….” I am grateful for the discourse on this topic…
LOVE
Jacinda
Love and do what you will. -St. Augustine
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 May 2006, 12:20 PM
|
maryw
Joined on 01-13-2006
Southern California
Posts 519
|
|
Word, Liz.
| There's ample evidence that men are perfectly capable of casual sex and that it doesn't seem to harm them. But women do get harmed in the process, because they just aren't built that way. They've done studies on the brain activity that happens during sex, and the part of the brain that bonds to another person is very much activated for women, but not for men. It's not a matter of rational thought, nor does anything you say, no matter how honest or enlightened, change that fact. |
|
For a brief time in my twenties, I tried to be a "playette." I thought: if men can do this, why not me? Just have "light" relationships with casual sex?
I couldn't. What I discovered was that if a sexual relationship continued for more than a week or so, bonding would set in and I would feel I was "in love" with the guy, even if we had little in common, even if he was an asshole! Ah, oxytocin. The solution to that, I suppose, might have been to just have one-night stands, but I'm just not cut out for those.
Mary
groove is in the heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 May 2006, 12:30 PM
|
tamgoddess
Joined on 01-13-2006
Sacramento, CA
Posts 792
|
|
This next post is a continuation of the discussion that started on the thread about Marc Gafni. We decided to keep that thread all about that one situation and discuss broader stuff here. (Although, Arthur, it feels like maybe it should have its own thread. But perhaps it will get some nice cross-pollination here.)
The topic is gurus who have sex with their students.
Is this ever ok?
My position is no, not even if they break off the guru-student relationship. This relationship is already so deep, and the karma of teacher and student so intertwined, that simply breaking off the formal relationship is a cop-out. The relationship will continue to be an unbalanced one, and no amount of rationalization will fix that. The guru has far too much power and is likely rather twisted to begin with, if he's thinking that sex with a student is an ok idea.
That said, I do have some other ideas about the student/teacher relationship that I'd like to explore. This may or may not apply to the guru/student relationship. I've not had that experience.
I have had the student/teacher experience with many ,many teachers over the years, in regular classroom type settings, though never with a spiritual teacher in a formal way. One theme that has made itself very clear is that when I find a male teacher whom I really like, respect and who has some knowledge that I really want, I almost inevitably develop a crush on him. This is such a strong pattern in me that I no longer consider it distracting nor do I take it seriously. I know it will end and I never have acted on the impulse to make the relationship overtly sexual.
This got me thinking about the nature of the student/teacher relationship between male teachers and female students. Many of my friends over the years have had these kinds of crushes, and a few have even spoken of trying to improve their gradds by making it vclear to the teacher they were sexually available. In none of these cases were the women powerless or being vicitmized. In some cases, the women really did have all the power.
However, in the event of unwanted sexual advances, the man often has a great deal of power, especially the tenured faculty member. When I was a senior in college, a fellow student was harrassed by her linguistics teacher, and she had to make the difficult decision to just walk away. She had done "A" work in the class, but got a "C" persumably because she rejected his sexual advances. We subsequently found out that he had done this to several graduating senior women. He knew that since these students absolutely needed this class to graduate, they were not in a position to make waves about his behavior. They just wanted to get out.
Another point: people learn better when they are in love. It's been said that you can tell whether or not an exchange student has had a girlfriend/boyfriend by how well they have learned the language of his/her host country. The ones who've had them come back fluent in a new language, without fail.
Consider another situation: the woman who "sleeps her way to the top." Whether on the casting couch or the boardroom, enough of these women exist to have created a stereotype. The flip side is that plenty of women who've worked hard, in a thoroughly vertical position, have been accused of this.
Is this simply one very efficient way that women learn? Is it that the relationship-oriented brain finds this pattern easy to develop? Since this pattern is so common, should it become more formalized, or more strictly banned?
The irony in this is that no male teacher has ever made an advance at me. In one case, I would have readily agreed, as the sexual tension between us was palpable. But I always seem to go for the highly ethical type. Go figure. I think here's a point to made about that, too. I do think that some women give out very confusing signals in these cases, either because they are consciously trying to improve their status in the class and get better grades, or because they've been trained socially to act sexually available, even when they are not, and are not conscious of it at all.
Liz
AFGO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 May 2006, 12:44 PM
|
Tiki
Joined on 01-13-2006
Scotland
Posts 402
|
|
I think it's about boundaries. For most of us, eg immediate family would be out.
But not everyone learns that in families because that's not always what happens.
With colleagues, clients etc its also about ethics and morals. grown up choices.
At one level it's about sticking by the rules. I suspect those who think they've passed conventional morality sometimes get it wrong. In post conventional morality it's the reasoning that's different, it's about conscious choice, not about rules.
That increases the responsibility to make wise choices. I think sometimes people in power get this terribly wrong and think the rules don't apply to them (even while they advise them for everyone else).
I don't think teacher/pupil or guru/student relationships are ever right, because as Liz suggests, the balance is wrong from the start. Formally ending the other relationship doesn't change that. Relationships don't just happen, people make choices and they can choose where not to go. Sometimes they have a duty to do exactly that. And of course, sometimes people fail, screw up (sorry), get it wrong.
When it's a professional matter, or involves a spiritual organisation, it's not a private matter any more. That's because of the representational role the person carried. Also because justice and equality and using power wisely actually matter.
Liz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 May 2006, 12:48 PM
|
Balder
Joined on 01-13-2006
Posts 582
|
|
|
For some reason, even as a male, I've never been cut out for one night stands either. I have never felt comfortable with casual sex, or with having multiple partners at once. If I am with a partner, I have wanted to be with her in a committed or at least ongoing, respectful relationship. I was not raised in a strict, moralistic household -- in fact, my parents encouraged me to experiment and have fun -- so I don't regard these feelings as holdovers from oppressive patriarchal models. For me, they just feel right -- not to violate the trust of another, and not to be used by another. I think American (U.S.) culture encourages an immature and unnecessarily fearful relationship with sexuality. That is changing, as people try to shake up the old taboos and get more direct, honest, and playful with the topic. I welcome that. Honestly, though, I don't welcome what appears to be happening in American schools, with pre-teens and tweens "freak dancing" or even beginning to experiment with oral sex on an increasingly common basis. I've heard a lot of talk about enlightened sexuality, and some of it sounds great in theory. But I've very rarely seen it actualized. Oddly, even by those we might label enlightened, or "more enlightened than the common man." I've known a number of people who tried to lead sexually liberated lives, but I haven't seen much liberation. I've seen all sorts of negative consequences instead -- people getting hurt, conflicts, a sense of growing dissolution and lack of fulfillment, etc. I think we can engage in sexuality in an enlightened way, but it's such a powerful force, it often overwhelms even the wary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 May 2006, 12:55 PM
|
tamgoddess
Joined on 01-13-2006
Sacramento, CA
Posts 792
|
|
I agree, Balder. If it were a model that worked, we'd have seen it working by now. I never have.
Liz
AFGO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 May 2006, 1:22 PM
|
adastra
Joined on 01-13-2006
Posts 1,291
|
|
| There's ample evidence that men are perfectly capable of casual sex and that it doesn't seem to harm them. But women do get harmed in the process, because they just aren't built that way. They've done studies on the brain activity that happens during sex, and the part of the brain that bonds to another person is very much activated for women, but not for men. It's not a matter of rational thought, nor does anything you say, no matter how honest or enlightened, change that fact. |
|
Yeah, these are generalities all right (you said "broad" generalities - is there a pun lurking in there somewhere? ![[^o)]](/public/forums//emoticons/emotion-40.gif) ). Although I need to compile more data, do more in-depth research  etc., I have reason to believe what you say here applies to me as well. Take that non-monog woman I was involved with. It started out very casually for me; I chose her specifically because I wanted more experience and knew (from knowing her fairly well by that point) that she wouldn't be hurt by me being "casual." And it did start out very casual...but after about a month of making out with her pretty regularly, I was starting to feel really attached/bonded to her. At that point - perhaps partially because she sensed this attachment - she pulled the plug. (um, don't even go there  ). I felt kinda hurt but processed it pretty quickly and moved on.
I agree with your point that there's all kinds of stuff going on deeper than the rational mind - you can talk/con yourself into any self-serving perspective, at which point it's really easy to con somebody else. The more highly developed you are on the rational bandwidth, the easier it is to employ self-deception in service of your genitalia.
Which is not necessarily to say there may not be a way to go about this. If you are able to have truly casual encounters, and you seek out people who are really able to do the same, then sure, why not? I used to be close friends with a lesbian who, when she was in-between serious relationships with women, would often pick up a guy for a one-night stand. Why? Because she was capable of doing so, but most women weren't; so to avoid hurting people, she would step outside her normal sexual preference and fuck a guy to get her rocks off. I guess by analogy a hat guy could step outside his normal sexual preference if he wanted to get easy sex without hurting anybody. Or, as I suggested earlier, he could explore other scenes, like swinging or polyamory, where he's more likely to find women who can really relate on the same level.
Otherwise, you're likely to cause damage, both to yourself and others.
arthur
you've never seen everything
\\\\|////
( o o )
-o00o----(_)---o00o---
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 May 2006, 1:28 PM
|
DavidD
Joined on 01-13-2006
England
Posts 290
|
|
Good points, Liz and Liz...
In mental health, where I work, any professional who was found to have sexually exploited a therapeutic relationship would lose their professional licence. We sign on for the job knowing the rules. Maybe gurus should have job descriptions too! - at least their organisations should set standards. People sometimes need protecting from themselves - and that's both the guru/teacher AND the student. A therapist/client relationship, a pastoral relationship, a teacher/pupil relationship, and yes, a guru/follower relationship are all privileged. Someone has placed their trust in another. It may be that the student, say, is using the situation for their own ends, as you say, Liz - and yes, I've come across that too. But examples like that can't be allowed to change the basic rules, which must be there to prevent exploitation and abuse of trust. Its entirely normal for us to project! Its not wrong! Transference feelings are to be expected - as are counter-transference fantasies. In my world, the therapists themselves are supported by supervision, where it should be perfectly acceptable to open up in confidence about one's feelings for another. In fact, the supervisor should be vigilant in trying to detect developing attraction, not punitively but supportively and compassionately. We all need a safety valve sometimes. Maybe that's the kind of thing which can be learned from this unhappy situation.
Good wishes
David
Being is a comedian with an audience which never laughs.
~ Tony Parsons
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|