Notes On 1-2

1. Money and Sex. One women uses it for reclaiming her bodily autonomy, the man pressures, coerces, starts and finshes, as transactional weapons. They both fund the pleasure circle, presently who could stop it? That who funds it or one who pockets the cash?

In any type of introduction to this question, empathetical and/or moral justification would need to be lessened or void. Addressing the objective of Money and Sex, transactional commodification of the body would be the only present source of argument, a battling of skin to skin, a questioning of whose is worth more. As a woman, my alliance and biases are prone and left to mutilate broad phrases, yet to keep it simple, can both sides of the interaction be held at equal ground, where the availability to run, stop, or finish is equitable. If no balance can be dectected, than sexual pleasure has to be transactional, leaving deficency of equal gain, i.e ejaculation, money, emotional gratification. If one is to continue on this example, bodily autonomy for the women can only be captured if she presently overrides the opposing pleasure. If the man is not to ejaculate nor have any reactive pleasure, she is to be presumed to have won in the exchange, only if physical pleasure or profit is to occur for her. In this case, as the man initates the pleasure and only insertion can be guarenteed by his urges, the occasion in which the women functions as higher ground in the exchange, could only be executed with the man’s desire – a production that leaves consent to mirror his desire to ‘take’ and her necessary reaction to flee. As the beginning follows the man’s initation of desire, equality of ground in sexual interaction can only be percieved as wanted if consent is held by the woman, and from there a baseline of equitable interaction is driven from circumstance they both partake in. If the women was to be labeled as a prostitute by action or interaction, than her consent is already taken from her by the man when monetary exchange is present, leaving the women to presumably address her bodily atonomy not as an assertion of herself but as means of survival. Her skin, not worth less, but reconstructed for personal survival no longer continues the assertion of money v sex, but rather seen as customary means of survival which must co-exist in the flesh.

“[…] it is ultimately futile to attempt to disrupt one system without simultaneously disrupting others.” The woman in this situation will fail to undo her subbordination without acknowledgement and further dismantelting of class explotation spurred by gender hierarchies, financial instability by lack of family privilege and/or stable upbringings, etc. To address the man, one would attack his desires, his wealth, his place in relation to her, the ultimate pleasure he wishes to encounter, and, so his continual relation with sex correlates with the unconscious assertion of his ‘self.’ The man, in cases of desire where penetration is seeked, ‘taking’ in a necessary function, a metaphysical proclamation which posits him into the realm of masculinity, and further contributed to the opposing nature of the women which is forced, by correlation, to exist in the realm of ‘giving.’ Sex displays such proclaimed actions, must the breast, the vagina, the asshole, be diminshed to ‘hole’ for her, and ‘pleasure’ for him. Not to be too clincal any further, if one is to wish for an answer, where the possibility of stopping this ‘pleasure circle’ is necessary to disrupt the transactional relationship between money and sex, acceptance of what each person is to lose must be held at similar ground, even when acknowledgement toward oppressive systems favour one more feverently, and it is only then can the hierarchies and instiutions which subvert one as less equal by gender, class, or race, be forced into direct addressment and further action toward a deficiency which leaves one inequal from their counterpart.The man would have to assume the position of his masculinity to not co-exist with ‘take,’ and the women’s feminine existence can not (by social conditions) be seen as inequal nor impartial to the man’s physical assertion to his ‘self’ on grounds of overpowering and lose of assertion.

2. Money and Sex. One women uses it for reclaiming her bodily autonomy, the man pressures, coerces, starts and finshes, as transactional weapons. They both fund the pleasure circle, presently who could stop it? That who funds it or one who pockets the cash?

In any type of introduction to this question, empathetical and/or moral justification would need to be lessened or void. Addressing the objective of Money and Sex, transactional commodification of the body would be the only present source of argument, a battling of skin to skin, a questioning of whose is worth more. As a woman, my alliance and biases are prone and left to mutilate broad phrases, yet to keep it simple, can both sides of the interaction be held at equal ground, where the availability to run, stop, or finish is equitable. If no balance can be dectected, than sexual pleasure has to be transactional, leaving deficency of equal gain, i.e ejaculation, money, emotional gratification. If one is to continue on this example, bodily autonomy for the women can only be captured if she presently overrides the opposing pleasure. If the man is not to ejaculate nor have any reactive pleasure, she is to be presumed to have won in the exchange, only if physical pleasure or profit is to occur for her. In this case, as the man initates the pleasure and only insertion can be guarenteed by his urges, the occasion in which the women functions as higher ground in the exchange, could only be executed with the man’s desire – a production that leaves consent to mirror his desire to ‘take’ and her necessary reaction to flee. As the beginning follows the man’s initation of desire, equality of ground in sexual interaction can only be percieved as wanted if consent is held by the woman, and from there a baseline of equitable interaction is driven from circumstance they both partake in. If the women was to be labeled as a prostitute by action or interaction, than her consent is already taken from her by the man when monetary exchange is present, leaving the women to presumably address her bodily atonomy not as an assertion of herself but as means of survival. Her skin, not worth less, but reconstructed for personal survival no longer continues the assertion of money v sex, but rather seen as customary means of survival which must co-exist in the flesh.

“[…] it is ultimately futile to attempt to disrupt one system without simultaneously disrupting others.” The woman in this situation will fail to undo her subbordination without acknowledgement and further dismantelting of class explotation spurred by gender hierarchies, financial instability by lack of family privilege and/or stable upbringings, etc. To address the man, one would attack his desires, his wealth, his place in relation to her, the ultimate pleasure he wishes to encounter, and, so his continual relation with sex correlates with the unconscious assertion of his ‘self.’ The man, in cases of desire where penetration is seeked, ‘taking’ in a necessary function, a metaphysical proclamation which posits him into the realm of masculinity, and further contributed to the opposing nature of the women which is forced, by correlation, to exist in the realm of ‘giving.’ Sex displays such proclaimed actions, must the breast, the vagina, the asshole, be diminshed to ‘hole’ for her, and ‘pleasure’ for him. Not to be too clincal any further, if one is to wish for an answer, where the possibility of stopping this ‘pleasure circle’ is necessary to disrupt the transactional relationship between money and sex, acceptance of what each person is to lose must be held at similar ground, even when acknowledgement toward oppressive systems favour one more feverently, and it is only then can the hierarchies and instiutions which subvert one as less equal by gender, class, or race, be forced into direct addressment and further action toward a deficiency which leaves one inequal from their counterpart.The man would have to assume the position of his masculinity to not co-exist with ‘take,’ and the women’s feminine existence can not (by social conditions) be seen as inequal nor impartial to the man’s physical assertion to his ‘self’ on grounds of overpowering and lose of assertion.