There are topics which are kept hidden even in a century where there aren’t enough limitations, where the well-beloved super-io seems to be becoming a mere puppet in the hands-on ignorance.
One of the topics I want to treat here is the conception of masturbation as a substitute for sex, in particular, the role of the (sex) toy as a substitute for human presence.
For the majority of people, sexuality is desire and this one is understood merely like coitus. In reality, sexuality is just a concept, nothing more. When we say “sex” we go over centuries of narrative where scientists and medics were standardizing humankind’s understanding of pleasure.
In a few words, desire is yourself.
Generalizing a bit, people experience desire through mutual manipulation, stimulation and, in rare cases, ecstatic multi-senses relationships, with other humans; though, humans get pleasure by projecting desire through and by bodies.
In the capitalistic view of desire, even the most powerful sensory experience is reduced to an object. This situation contributed to mixing up the conceptualization of masturbation as a substitute for coitus. It is well known that in the past centuries people were happy to enjoy their pleasure with several mechanisms, situations and even with the help of toys; however, eroticism as “masturbation” was not a mere product of pleasure or sublimation of the wild instinct of copulation, rather was an experience without limitations nor related psychosis.
Coming back to our days, it is interesting how the sex toy is taking over the mere body presence of the others. The strongest pleasure experienced during toy masturbation (because of the high technology behind the sex item)/ is obscuring the need for the presence.
What are we missing here?
There is no miss. This is the nowadays reality, made by non-presence connections, high-tech sensory experiences always more close to the actual reality. Perhaps we are missing just one thing: we are missing the “self”, the consciousness. It is not whether you use a plastic toy or a penis or vagina attached to a body… Even those could be a “toy”. What we are missing is the understanding of ourselves, our being. Once the self is fully aware of itself in space and time we can experience the others’ selves in full harmony.
The multi-senses experience is strongly linked to self-awareness.
Put the case that a woman/man buys a toy capable not only to stimulate the vagina-clitoris-penis but also “simulating” in a way never experienced before (humans to humans) Here we have a miss. We are missing the senses, the warm feelings, the natural smoothness, fragrance, the taste and the “mutual agreements”. Yes, when two or more selves are together they can create the experience itself.
In absence of conscience, technology arises. In absence of self-consciousness, masturbation is the sublimation of coitus and not multi-sensorial-self-referential-experience.
It is evident how the self-gratification by an external “being that it is not self” (ontological difference?) is not reducible to a mere pleasure but a various dynamics rooted in our cultural order. The so-called object, that is mine, is the new projection of perfection. Thus, the human body becomes a commodity, commodifying itself for the sake of the moment. In that particular moment, just the deep breath, the heart rating and the veracious flux of dopamine give the Self its satisfaction.
Neither the object nor the act itself (called masturbation) can replace the coitus. Perhaps, what “we” have experienced was the real love that we cannot find with others.
There is no link between self-experience-of-pleasure and shared-feral-titillating of coitus.
The two experiences are two different worlds that should not be mixed up nor devalued against the sacred-that-is-not coitus.
Finally, the plastic toy can’t replace the human’s flesh as the human’s genital exercise can’t be replaced by the self-hypnotic-titillation.
The experience of pleasure is a unique way to reach the awareness of the self and the world around us.
For further elucubrations: