 |
| ANTIQUE CHINESE OPIUM PIPE |
AT WHAT
POINT (IF ANY) IS SEX
NO LONGER
SEX?
 |
| ANTIQUE CHINESE OPIUM BURNER |
When we speak of sex, classical
sex, most people mean a positive physical sexual interaction between two or
more human beings. It seems that the pervading
definition falls along traditional lines, “within a sexual act at any given
time one person is the giver of pleasure and the other is the recipient”, so let
it be temporarily defined. Life is about
nothing if it is not about both defining and redefining reality and what we perceive
reality to be. Physicality, the human touch, appears to be central in our
classical understanding of sex. But the
use of sexual accessories, inanimate objects incapable of any real psychical
connection to a human being seem to break the flow of erotic energy,
interceding a new and perhaps questionable dynamic into our concept of physical
sex. If sex certainly exists between two
human beings can it also exist between a human being and an inanimate object?
 |
| ANTIQUE OPIUM BURNER |
During sex a person administering
artificial stimuli via a sex object does
not themselves feel anything. But there
may be some emotional, erotic connection that somehow replaces the negative
physicality. How can this phenomenon be
measured and more important should it be?
Is it an altogether superfluous concept?
By pondering the possibility that sex between a human and an object may
be somehow aberrant are we delving into the realm of sexual bias and prejudice
based on what we perceive as traditional sex between two people? Can we ask at
what point, if any, does human sexual desire begin to replace the human element
such that it no longer really qualifies as sex? At what point do we enter a
sexual realm that closely approaches that of the Stepford Wives?
 |
| PHOTOGRAPH OF A PRIVATE OPIUM DEN |
For as long as I have been having
sex its intensity, its vivacity, its explosiveness was always been directly
proportional to the person with which I was having sex. It was their physicality, their touch, voice,
olfaction anything and everything else was purely incidental. But my sexual understanding is certainly not
the benchmark of human sexual experience.
Who am I to attempt to define the threshold of human sexuality and its
theoretical opposite? Obviously I find
it fascinating that some people can experience fulfilling sex without any human
interaction whatsoever relying totally on a myriad of visual and
technical/mechanical aids.
 |
| ANTIQUE OPIUM TRAY |
I do realize
that in some instances due to circumstances that we cannot specifically isolate
here many people must rely on artificial means in order to achieve sexual
stimulation. Certainly it cannot be
wrong for them to be able to enjoy sex as those of us who can do with another
human being. As I remember it was while
conversing with a gentleman friend the thought occurred to me that at some
point a person who enjoyed artificial stimuli might begin to disassociate themselves
from all human interaction but still be able to achieve sexual
fulfillment. The burning question that
hovered over my consciousness thereafter and to this day has been whether or
not a 100% deviation from mutual human stimulation is sex? Again, I put myself into check mate realizing
that there is a population of humans who through some physical impairment or
other cannot have what we call “Normal” sex and have to rely on some artificial
means for fulfillment. It would be
inhumane to disqualify their experience as nonsexual! And how on earth should you or I know
anyway? It is not our place to judge
this phenomenon with such absolution.
 |
| THE STYLISED BOWL OF AN ANTIQUE OPIUM PIPE |
Certainly a person who is able to
achieve fulfilling sexual pleasure and/or orgasm completely without any human
interaction is not a model of classical sex, so is what they are having
actually sex? Are there qualifiers? A person who never, ever desires sex with
another person, a person who desires human interaction 50% of the time, 25% of
the time… what is the threshold of classical sex? Hell, what is classical sex anyway? Why would I even venture to ponder such
machinations when it is clear that sex is just sex? Perhaps it is my natural
curiosity about human sexuality that causes me to explore what appears to be
the opposite or alternate of what I envisage human sexuality to be. The reality is while I see sex as a simple equation
of flesh to flesh that is just not the way many other human beings see it. The
adjustment to reality is all mine to make!
Now, that alone forces me to realize that while I might ponder this
phenomenon with a great imagination and openness it might remain a virtue I can
never truly understand. So I accept the
possibility that I might be biting off more than I can chew or that I might be
barking up the wrong tree and that I should perhaps leave this subject alone,
but I won’t! I will not be satisfied
until I feel it has been thoroughly explicated.
 |
| ANTIQUE OPIUM PIPE |
You see there is no right or
wrong here… definitions can be applied but at the end of the day sex is always
going to be sex! If I have learnt
anything in my brief life about sex it is that it cannot be contained or fully
defined, it is as unique and diverse as humanity itself. It is none of my business if someone chooses
to achieve sexual pleasure in the absence of any human presence. Yes, there are certainly moral and ethical
concerns that would immediately make sci-fi scenarios like the Stepford Wives
absolutely inappropriate. But after we
have giggled the last scene away we realize that the Stepford Wives did have a
sexual agenda, it was selling the concept of traditional sex over what it
judged to be artificial sex. It dictated
to us that sex between two human beings is always going to be better than sex between
a human being and an inanimate object.
For the most part I agree but tell that to someone who swears to the
joys and virtues of artificial sex.
 |
| ANTIQUE OPIUM PIPE |
We don’t
have to enslave our spouses and modify them turning them into cyborgs in order
to achieve sexual bliss but we should not discount the possibility that we may
be able to appreciate sexuality with a partner other than a human being. In the future this possibility may present
itself and we as humans must be able to rise to the challenge. Mark your calendars, it has been discussed
here. Yes there is a distinct deviation
from the classical sense of human sexuality when men have sex with machines but
sex has always been about deviations from the norm. So my conclusion is that there is not a
certain point at which sex is no longer sex, even if it no longer involves two
or more human beings working together to provide one another with physical
pleasure and emotional feedback. In the classical sense it is most desirable
because that is the way humans have principally had sex for the past 100, 000
years as a species. It really comes down
to ones man’s preference being the deciding card. So if you take the human element out of the
equation, there will be no word of protest from me, I wish you all the best for
when it comes to understanding what most brings you pleasure I must leave that determination
to you… “NOBODY KNOWS BETTER WHAT TURNS YOU ON BUT YOU”!
FIN
BIGDADDY BLUES
 |
| A COMPLETE OPIUM TRAY WITH BURNER AND ACCOUTERMENTS |
 |
| ANTIQUE ORIENTAL OPIUM PIPE |
