I wonder what exactly gets packed into the box of "giving oneself to another," sexually. I think that this implies not only that one is an object to be given or taken away, but also that one is separate from the self that one gives, that one can manufacture a thing which is givable and so one orders and organizes that which is given over.
One of the most uses of this is what I have heard from someone was as she was justifying getting into some sexual acts that were more "extreme" as constructed by the general and ambient. She said that she wanted to do these things because it would show that she was "giving herself to [me] even more completely," that she was entirely given to me. Her unacknowledged self-objectification seemed to me to be concomitant with the imagined denigration associated with these acts - that it was not that these acts were not denigrating, but that, at the sacrifice of turning her self into an objects at hand (that could be, as it were, given) and for which the sign of giving would be these sexual acts, she would transmogrify the denigration of the acts into a symbol of...perhaps an abasement?...at my hands.
So, what do we mean when we figure sexual acts as giving - and, separately, and perhaps more problematically, as gifts? Over and over, in Playboy and Penthouse letters to the editor, in popular magazines' and books' romantic/sexual scenes, and in our own rhetoric is the (I feel) pornographic suggestion that the masculine partner in a sex act "gives" another an orgasm or some physical sensation while (at the same time but always in different text loci) that other "gives" his or her feminized self to the masculine other. Does anyone have examples of this or counterexamples?