Fascinating. And while I have NOT invented such a framework myself, I do seem to have invented a conceptual dimension that this framework maps onto: who is the sex centred on, in simple terms, is it FUNDAMENTALLY masturbatory or is it FUNDAMENTALLY a way of relating/connecting to others: it goes 2, 1, 3, with 2 being the most obviously self-centred and 3 being the most obviously about the connection with the other person, and 2 requiring another but not necessarily in their full humanity.
Another idea: the sex I am having might be different than the sex my partner is having, at least in the case of 1 and 2, and it might work very well. Probably more likely in bdsm where a "role enactment" of the top (whether submissive or dominant) might result in the bottom (whether submissive or dominant) achieving a sexual trance of bliss ("devoted submissive focused only on the pleasure of his dominant who doesn't need to worry about pleasing him at all") or an altered state known as "subspace" (most common in masochist but also reported by other bottoms, often submissive bottoms).
As to sex I am having nowadays: following a post-breavemement exploration period of (1) made more enjoyable by quite a bit of (2), I got bored of doing anything whatsoever with "people I gel with on a basic level", and now I'm passively seeking (3) type connections. In my experience it takes about a dozen people to remind oneself of the limit of the former kind of thing.
It is possible that I don't quite GET (1) beyond figuring out what gets me to optimal (2) or (3) and it seems obvious to me that (2) doesn't require presence of a partner whatsoever.
I'm also wondering about the distinction between TRANCE and FLOW, with both of them characterised by a certain ego diminishment and an extreme narrowing of focus but in very different ways, the biggest difference I experince here is between receiving sexual pleasure (kinky or not context) and topping in a BDSM scene.
Fascinating. And while I have NOT invented such a framework myself, I do seem to have invented a conceptual dimension that this framework maps onto: who is the sex centred on, in simple terms, is it FUNDAMENTALLY masturbatory or is it FUNDAMENTALLY a way of relating/connecting to others: it goes 2, 1, 3, with 2 being the most obviously self-centred and 3 being the most obviously about the connection with the other person, and 2 requiring another but not necessarily in their full humanity.
Another idea: the sex I am having might be different than the sex my partner is having, at least in the case of 1 and 2, and it might work very well. Probably more likely in bdsm where a "role enactment" of the top (whether submissive or dominant) might result in the bottom (whether submissive or dominant) achieving a sexual trance of bliss ("devoted submissive focused only on the pleasure of his dominant who doesn't need to worry about pleasing him at all") or an altered state known as "subspace" (most common in masochist but also reported by other bottoms, often submissive bottoms).
As to sex I am having nowadays: following a post-breavemement exploration period of (1) made more enjoyable by quite a bit of (2), I got bored of doing anything whatsoever with "people I gel with on a basic level", and now I'm passively seeking (3) type connections. In my experience it takes about a dozen people to remind oneself of the limit of the former kind of thing.
It is possible that I don't quite GET (1) beyond figuring out what gets me to optimal (2) or (3) and it seems obvious to me that (2) doesn't require presence of a partner whatsoever.
I'm also wondering about the distinction between TRANCE and FLOW, with both of them characterised by a certain ego diminishment and an extreme narrowing of focus but in very different ways, the biggest difference I experince here is between receiving sexual pleasure (kinky or not context) and topping in a BDSM scene.