Originally Posted by nycindie
Remember, sex doesn't have meaning beyond what we will ascribe to it.
I think this (quoted) statement is partially, even largely or significantly true. However, I think it goes too far. Much too far.
What we call "meaning" (and there are various meanings to "meaning," but I'm talking about the two main ones) is often implicit in activitites and acts as well as things which are, in some sense, outside of language. Part of the "meaning" in a touch or a kiss, or whatever, is context dependent in cultural-historical terms, and so on, but then there is the animal body itself, our human bodies, and they are pulsating with meaning all their own, independent of our conceptualizations and mental-emotional habits or conditionings.
Sex, when it is not rape, when it is voluntary and mutually desired, is intrinsically intimate. There's no getting around that. One can cut themselves off, to varying degrees, to the conscious awareness of this fact, but it is still so. Some of that experience and intimacy dwells in our thoughts and ideas about it, while some of it is simply what is, independent of our language or notions. Indeed, the very apparent gap between the conditioned and the pre- or un-conditioned and the world of thought and language, is part of the pleasure and joy of sexual communion. Sex, like dancing or swimming or skating..., is a non-verbal activity. But there is meaning in any of these activities which is intrinsic ... and yet which is ever so difficult to speak, to talk about.
We do not make all meaning up, and it isn't all a cultural artifact or arbitrary rendition. This we realize when we get under langauge, into our bodies -- as (for example) when making love.