|Emotiona/Physicial closenessPage 2 of 10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)|
|Perhaps the bigger reason there is such a huge gap between emotional and physical closeness is because we live in a world where immediate gratification is expected. Maybe it's the fact that gap in gender 'roles' is closing and the motivation to create emotional bonds has lessened but the need for physical pleasure remains the same. There are a variety of reasons why people behave as they do. Ultimately it falls on the individual to decide if they want both-one or the other or neither. Yes, some men can't fathom that some women want sex but nothing more, and there are women who can't understand why some men can have sex with no emotional connection whatsoever. |
No one person is wired the same so the rational will vary as much as the replies on this thread. I do not think or feel the same way about love and sex now as I did twenty yrs ago. Just because I choose not to have close emotional bonds to a particular man doesn't mean I am unable to do so-I simply choose not to. Wanting companionship ( or a physical relationship only) is again, my personal choice, but just because I don't need to 'fall in love' doesn't mean I do not value the person I spend time with or care about them on some level. It becomes a question of what you want vs what you need at any given moment in your life. I want money so I need a job-but if I was wealthy I might not need money but I might still want a job-get it?? Simplistic I suppose-but to me it rings true.
Posted: 8/28/2008 5:52:41 PM
Again I am not speaking directly to you but to the existentialness of the comment, which I think many share in. Thoughts?
Yep, I don't need a man to complete me-but he damn well better compliment my life as much as I compliment his. As I mentioned in an earlier post I am a tad jaded, if not a bit cynical in my views of relationships. None the less, I still believe in love and the value people have in my life. What I did learn, was that for some, not all men, love is conditional on what suits them-but in a relationship it should be based on a partnership with balance on both sides-not just one. I have far more choices as a woman now than I did when I was younger. Perhaps the choices I make might seem harsh or unrealistic to some people, but it works for me. Again, for me, it's a comfort level I need to have with the person I'm with. I make sure I'm honest in my intentions and any expectations I have where he and I are concerned.
I want a man that loves all of me or not at all-and considering the fact I'm a pretty independant woman that tends to scare away a lot of men. I don't need a night in shining armor to rescue me, because usually it winds up that I rescue them. Just because I might want a man in my life for the long haul doesn't necessarily mean I need one. When I find the right person who compliments my life I have no doubt he'll be someone I can share both emotional and physical closeness with, but until that time I live my life with me as the priority first and foremost.
Posted: 8/29/2008 6:59:06 AM
Love and sex is viewed very differently for every man and woman. Physical and emotional intimacy is also defined differently as well. I do agree that spending quality time with a person sometimes is far more intimate and worthwhile than being naked in the sheets, because physical intimacy is more than having sex-it's the things you do with your mate or SO that is important to YOU the individual. I use to relish all forms of physical intimacy from simply holding hands, to a soft kiss, and a warm embrace. KNOWING you are loved is shown by actions-not always in words. That again varies from person to person.
Some people have issues with emotional intimacy and physical intimacy because the very nature of it is personal and can leave a person vulnerable to some form of heart ache if what they give isn't recieved. It comes down to taking risks regardless of the outcome, but that too depends on an individuals experiences being in any type of relationship. I'm not disagreeing with the basic concept of your thread, but can you honestly be shocked at how some women view emotional or physical connections with men given the fact that some men are very selfish with emotional intimacy but have no issues with the physical?
It comes down to finding a person who FITS into your life as well as you FIT into theirs, but understanding that there are no guarantees of happy endings. I enjoy the company of my manfriend-do we have a relationship-you betcha, but because it doesn't fall into an area where you might have a comfort level, it does for me. The beauty is we are all different and those differences are what either attract us to a person or not. I think it's important to know yourself well enough to know what you want and find those qualities in another person. Yes, you'll meet a lot of people who do not FIT the way you want them too but that doesn't mean you can't find someone who will.
I have a relationship that encompasses both emotional and physical closeness, but I do not have to say to the manfriend 'I love you' to feel it or express it. He shows me through his actions that I matter to him. I define my own success in our relationship not in terms of words but how well we can relate to each other. Even when the time we get to spend together has lessened due to obligations with either of us I know when we do get to see each other it's worthwhile and memorable. He knows that his friendship is equally if not more important to me than being my lover. I can tell him anything-and often do-so while the dynamics of our relationship might not seem the 'norm' we still do share intimacy that some folks never do.
Yes, I'm guarded with my heart and the manfriend clearly knows it and understands why, but that hasn't diminished what we share because we do CARE about one another. I use to need to hear 'I love you'-now I want to be shown....big difference. I suspect some people may feel as I do-maybe not. Yes, it would be nice to give and recieve love unconditionally, and know that the one you are with is with you for all the right reasons, but the reality is not everyone can unconditionally love the one their with-if that were the case no one would suffer a broken heart or home.
Posted: 8/29/2008 9:08:37 AM
I am so confused. I refuse to say I don't like post 26...... I think I like it
Well, don't worry. Spend some more time in the thread, and you'll have your mind changed by those who would twist what I'm saying until they insist it is all about disfigured and malformed people looking to get supermodels for dates.
People see what they want to see.
The biggest point I'm trying to make, is really to those people who have a string of failed relationships behind them AND seek physical attraction first and foremost. I noticed that these same people disregard and deny how physical attraction can and is manufactured daily. That is like denying the Sun in the sky. I could give countless and specific examples of this, and my words would be like a fan in a hurricane. The fact is that they don't WANT to see what is going wrong.
Even WarmBrandie, who remembers her grandparents, believes that she can attribute their success to physical attraction... even when she points out the differences in her own dating techniques with what they had when they started. Well, she was relatively sure they did NOT have premarital sex. So how did they know they would be compatible in that department? How did they last as long as they did, without knowing all that physical stuff up front?
It's clear to me... in the battle between Physical and Emotional, Physical wins. In the battle between lasting relationships and failed relationships... failure wins.
One definition of Insanity is to repeat the same actions and expect different results. It's pretty insane to keep putting physical first, and expect it to work when it keeps on failing for you. Especially when you want emotional as the end result. Get your friggin head out of your butts. If you want emotional security, why not START with building that. Why is that so hard to understand? You don't build the foundation AFTER you've painted the house.
Posted: 8/29/2008 9:17:34 AM
|^^^I don't see it as a choice between physical AND emotional or intellectual. I see it as preliminary, not something to base a life on. It can all be in one person, it's rarer, but it's possible to find.|
For me the physical has to be there, but has to be followed by something more substantial in order for it to become anything. They fade, but that's ok if they were once there for both parties and of course aging gracefully as opposed to just deciding you don't care how you look anymore.
Those who base everything on looks ONLY are gonna have problems, sure - the difference is they don't care what else is there. If you want something from someone who can't provide it - then yeah you move on. But to totally disregard and date someone you wouldn't sleep with and expect that to grow later on is just as crazy as expecting the relationship to survive physical alone.
Course if you do go with the emotional and skip the physical - good luck NOT paying attention to someone you are attracted to once you're waist deep in your emotional relationship to the point you have something to lose. Where do you think a lot of affairs come from (not all, of course)? Possibly, someone decided they could have it all if they just ignored physical attraction and went with the rest...and it didn't work for em.
Posted: 8/29/2008 1:26:49 PM
|I agree with djdj23... (lst page) but I don't think God did it as a joke, just think if everyone was in their prime at the same time... NOTHING would get done!!|
Posted: 8/29/2008 2:27:02 PM
Would you, for example, say that if a spouse becomes an alcoholic or drug addict, that it "shouldn't matter if you love someone"? Why is it, that everyone dismisses that a spouse with a "food addiction", i.e. consistently taking in more calories than one's body uses, despite knowing that it will have negative consequences on one's primary relationship, is somehow different?
In any case, I accept that everyone will say I'm wrong.
You're not wrong. You're spot-on. "Emotional" closeness, whatever that means to the parties involved, will deteriorate if both partners don't take as good care of themselves as they did when the relationship first started.
Posted: 9/1/2008 6:53:56 AM
Physical attraction can be developed, just as it can fade over time.
Physical attraction does NOT have to be there first.
I can appreciate your perspective - it is important to have the emotional closeness. However, having been married to my "best friend" and then later finding the love of my life (although the relationship ended for other reasons) There IS a difference, and that may be the missing piece.
I was never really attracted to my best friend, and after 10 years of marriage we both realized that the friendship was not enough without the passion. (we are still friends, and business partners) For years I thought I was just the girl with the low sex drive. The biggest battle in my marriage was "not enough sex". I really thought it was me, and then, well... someone walked into my life that proved me VERY wrong.
When I met the LOML - he's not an adonis, but he was MY adonis. He awakened something in me, and we were very much in love for over 2 years. (and still have a good relationship) What that relationship taught me was that the physical attraction HAS to be there. I learned it was possible to have the emotional/intellectual connection (what I was taught is the cornerstone of the relationship) AND the physical attraction/passion.
My boyfriend has trouble believing that I was in a sexless marriage for 10 years. When he and I met, there was an immediate physical attraction as well as an intellectual one. Again, I don't know how many people would think he's "gorgeous" - but he's gorgeous and sexy to me. And the emotional/intellectual connection we have is incredible.
In the end, I discovered that I can be mad at my best friend, and not sleep with him for a LONG time, I CANNOT be mad at my lover, and not want him. I will always come down on the side of lovers first, and let the friendship develop.
And Phule, having lived where you live, I have to say - I hope you are expanding your search to Wilmington and Raleigh - because well, that little town is mostly an intellectual vacuum.
Posted: 9/1/2008 8:35:03 AM
Also, If you do wait a while, you will find if that man is sincerely interested in you, or if he is just looking for sex.
Over the course of my life I have had many male friends. And I have picked their brains on this issue of "when is the right time... when will I know he's not "just looking for sex"...."
and it took me the longest time to get it to sink in.
It doesn't matter when you sleep with him. Do it when you are comfortable... because, 1st date or 5th date... if he's into you after ya'll have sex, he'll be back. No exceptions.
And that doesn't mean "make him wait..." unless you aren't sure you want to have sex with him. (and if you aren't sure, why are you hanging around anyway... we all know physical attraction is either there, or not.)
There is no logic (to my guy friends) to "waiting for the 4th date" or whatever. It doesn't matter. If a guy respects you, he respects you if you go home with him on the first date, or whenever. Sleeping with him sooner or later doesn't change that.
I will say, in my experience, when I haven't been sure, when I have waited.... the relationship was not good. And that "wait" was my instinct telling me to run, and I dove in anyway, much to my own chagrin.
Posted: 9/1/2008 12:00:49 PM
Going on four dates before sex to me is not " making them wait". Good grief. I mean really. .... I think possibly people that can be so trusting and willing to share their bodies after just a few hours, must have possibly not run into some really bad experiences .
DW, in no way was I suggesting my in my post that you, personally, "make them wait" or not wait, it was a general statement. Sorry if you misunderstood.
As to "sharing bodies after a few hours" - people have ONS on a regular basis. We all make choices, and well, as individuals, that is our right. (personally, I haven't done that in forever, its just not my thing) but back when I did, nothing "bad" came of it... my bad experiences came from my longer term dating. (from 3 months to a marriage of several years)
We encounter what we encounter, and hopefully learn from our experiences. But our experiences and lessons are as individual as ourselves, and how and when we achieve the emotional closeness and physical closeness is based entirely on our individuality.
Posted: 9/1/2008 1:22:35 PM
|I'm with you Ren.|
I was once with a group of women, 33-55, from all walks of life, and we were asked "on any given week, all things considered (responsibilities, jobs, kids, etc) ... how many times a week do you want sex?"
6 of the 7 said "every day" - the 7th said "6 days, I still want to take care of myself on occasion".
We figured she was only 33... she just needed a few years!
Posted: 9/2/2008 12:11:29 AM
|Just as you could be missing out on some hot sex by not dating someone who didn't light your fire or make you wet initially.|
But you don't see that.
Posted: 9/7/2008 5:07:50 PM
Unless a person is somehow jaded, or worn out, how can you get physically intimate with someone UNLESS you feel an emotional bond?
Animal attraction. It's pretty easy to feel that way, actually.
Posted: 9/8/2008 6:56:41 PM
|I think you are dating the wrong women. Sure, morals and values have gone astray, but if you were looking for and seeking the right kind of person I think you would find the outcome a little bit different. So, my answer to you is this, quit asking out the losers and you will find someone who will share their feelings and want something more than empty sex.|
Posted: 9/9/2008 7:24:12 PM
I know that is not what Hollywood would say, but, really, you CAN control your urges. TRUST ME.
I own all my urges. I know I can control them, but I sometimes see no point in that.
It's very easy to feel feel that animal attraction, but you don't have to do a damned thing about it. Unless... you know... you wanna.
Posted: 9/10/2008 8:08:39 PM
I'm sure you're a fine and decent woman, so no reflection meant on your character or conduct here, but it is that 'see no point in that' that more or less explains to me why so many people have become jaded with regards to the emotional/physical closeness in regards to sexuality.
I think I disagree.
Why I word it that way is because I am somewhat of a hedonist, I guess. Only way I can describe it. If it feels good and makes sense... I do it. I don't stick sex -for example- and feelings together necessarily. Granted it's wonderful when they collide, but I let that happen or not happen all on it's own.
When one looks at it as I do, it's very hard to become jaded about it. But then again... For those who attach sex and feelings.. then get their world pulled out from under them upon finding out it was a one-sided effort, I can see your point.
we reduce sexuality to little more than 'a good time' because we focus on the immedate gratification.
I don't reduce it at all. It's VERY meaningful to me... it just doesn't mean love and wedding bells to me.
But I honestly don't believe that it does you favors in the long run. Having a series of such encounters effectively reduces the value of sexuality as a whole, because it takes out the emotional component.
I disagree completely. The longer I'm alive, the less likely it seems that sexuality's "value" will ever be reduced in my eyes. I've certainly engaged in more sex where there've been powerful feelings involved (or even spawned from the sex sometimes) than sex where there have not been feelings involved, but neither feel (felt) less valuable. I really wish I could explain why, but I don't think I have the vocab to do so.
Some see this as 'liberation' from a Victorian mindset; the taking off of shackles, as it were, and allowing for a more freer expression of sexuality. But the consequences of that 'liberation' are all to apparent.
While I know that's a popular stance... I don't think it's all that valid. People all through history have indulged, they've just done it in secrecy. From what I can see... these old time "things were purer" stories.. were just that. Stories.
A person who is that honest, however, I believe must come to the sincere view that they truly CANNOT live with only the physical (or emotional) aspect of sexuality.
Oh for sure. As happy as I am to have non-meaningless, but not necessarily leading to relationship sex... it is NOT something I plan to have for all time. I do want a relationship (most days), I just see no reason -given my views- to deny myself what I enjoy.
Some argue that that is because divorce is more accessible and I agree.
This is one reason why I am not yet married. When I take the step and say I do, I don't want to divorce. If that means it's still years yet before i marry.. or that i never marry at all... FINE. I'd rather be alone, then chose hastily and be wrong.
when you do give yourself to that ONE true love, you are giving ALL OF YOURSELF, not just what is left after having slept with a dozen people.
There's plenty of me left. I may be giving something to someone when I sleep with them, but in reality.. it's just pleasure. I'm not especially "active".. not overly active anyway, but I guess I just don't give sex such reverence in that way. To me, the illogical idea that I give bits of me away when I have non-relationshippy sex is just too Movie Of the Week to not giggle at.
Posted: 9/11/2008 12:35:26 PM
|I happen to agree with El....sorry. Enjoying sex outside of a marriage/relationship does not mean:|
You have issues
You've been hurt and need to retaliate
You're stuffing emotions
You have low/no morals
etc etc etc...
I also get what El's saying - I always use the "chocolate" and "peanut butter" analogy, that being that sex and a relationship/attachment are GREAT when combined, but are also enjoyable in and of themselves.
Sorry, but I feel that people who cannot do this like to make those that can "wrong" because it makes them uncomfortable or bothers them for some reason (even tho it honestly doesn't concern them at all) when they should just get it thru their heads that those people are just different. Not better or worse, just differently wired.
Posted: 9/11/2008 3:15:03 PM
I also get what El's saying - I always use the "chocolate" and "peanut butter" analogy, that being that sex and a relationship/attachment are GREAT when combined, but are also enjoyable in and of themselves.
Hahaha.. LOVE IT. Two of my other favorite things. Alone or combined.
Reading the above quote, though, begs me to ask if this is what happened to you?
Why did something have to have "happened to me" for me to be interested in my own pleasure? Do you have any idea just how many things give me pleasure? Lots of them aren't about sex.
It's as if you're saying that only someone damaged can enjoy themsleves and that is beyond ridiculous. Maybe I'm just relatively happy? You're talking as if I am flawed because I can approach sex for the sake of sex without putting all these expectations into it.
Not for nothing, but I think that makes me far more healthy and logical than the average bear.
I know that sounds counter-intuitive in some ways, but I think it works for sex.
Actually, it sounds insulting. It routinely boggles my brain that folks are so so so keen to stick someone who approaches sex (anything applies though) more or less logically.. for lack of a better word... into this little box and go, "ahh.. you must be screwed up beyond repair".
If anything, the opposite is true. That isn't to say that I've never ever been hurt, but it is to say that not only did I recover from whatever hurt me but I eventually saw that in the big picture that is my lifespan... whatever it was really wasn't a big deal.
I'm self-repairing, I guess. I rather thought we all were, but what do I know.
I just don't see anything emotionally healthy in a wonton pursuit of pleasure for it's own sake.
I dunno where that came from because I don't do that exactly. I think things through and if I still wanna do it... I do it. Again... this applies not only to sex, but to anything. Most people like pleasure and will take it. Our consciences make us run through an internal check-list before we go for it, sure, but that's great.
As for your last comment about 'giving away bits of me' I mean that, of course, metaphysically.
I realize that, but I still think it's a scare-tactic. As if someday, the pleasure will dry up. I don't want to live my life thinking that if I enjoy myself now... the pleasure will dry up eventually.
In cases of purely sexual encounters, I think the first time you do it, it has more meaning than the 1,000th time.
Not for me. I suppose, in my world, since I already treat AND approach sex with the respect I feel it deserves, it's never missing meaning for me. The meaning just doesn't always have to do with feelings or future plans.
You can't say the same about those with whom you have a roll in the hay with and leave, or short-term relationships.
Why would I NEED to be able to say the same about people I had sex with when I went into it without an expectation to have it lead somewhere? Makes no sense.
You might get some pleasure out of it but if not accompanied by the emotional side, as some have agreed is 'better' on this thread, then you are not only losing part of yourself, but missing out on something far greater.
I don't even pretend to understand how I can be missing out on something when I'm doing exactly what I want to be doing at any given time? If I get something else out of that time spent.. like a relationship.. so be it. It's all good. But if that isn't my reason for being or doing... HOW can I miss out?
In reading your comments back to me, I have this inkling that you've read what I've typed out here and taken it to mean that ALL I ever pursue is casual sex. I used the term hedonist because I can't think of another term to actually cover it.
All I am REALLY saying is that I don't attach all these expectations and feelings to sex.
Sorry, but I feel that people who cannot do this like to make those that can "wrong" because it makes them uncomfortable or bothers them for some reason (even tho it honestly doesn't concern them at all) when they should just get it thru their heads that those people are just different.
On some level I think it's jealousy. Here's the word I've been looking for: Compartmentalize. I can do that. I think a lot of folks can't and it annoys them.
Posted: 9/11/2008 5:31:00 PM
Anyhow, the quote above is what strikes me about this debate. For you to say that leads me to believe, from my perspective, that something MUST be off kilter, to put it delicately.
I'm pretty sure that I addressed that. There is NOTHING off-kilter. It's somewhat infuriating to be told that I MUST have something wrong with me to have my views as they are. I whole-heartedly realize that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
I never said I wasn't flawed, but the fact that I can and do sometimes separate the two are in no way a flaw.
You see, I simply cannot divorce the emotional from the physical, any more than I can divorce my spirit from my body, unless the body dies.
So. That's you. Why am I expected to be/feel the same? You say it's cool that we see it differently, yet you keep insisting that something's wrong with me.
It seems rather jaded, actually, like they are not fully realizing what they are invovled in.
To me jaded is having all these expectations.
Posted: 9/12/2008 8:23:01 AM
If a woman had 'great shame' over getting pregnant out of wedlock, now they provide facilities to ensure she doesn't miss her classes.
that would be because the guy she had sex with was sitting in class, so why shouldn't she?
I can appreciate your perspective, ulysses, but please realize that because women disagree with your view, does not make us somehow morally bereft. And comments like you make above, show a worldview that does not take into account the equality of women in American society.
Men have, in modern society, been free to make sexual choices. It only appears to become a moral issue when women are also free to make those choices.
"Promiscuity and fornication"? Who, exactly, have all the boys been sleeping with all these years?
I have had my share of relationships, and the occasional ONS. And what I learned about ME was that in order to have that amazing emotional bond, I had to have amazing sexual chemistry accompany it.
The "baggage" my partner and I bring to the table isn't always the most pleasant to deal with, but it has given us a strong sense of what we both want in a relationship, and what we don't want. And that strengthens the bond between us.
I believe we all want the emotional closeness, but some people approach it from a "physical path" and others approach it from the "emotional path". For me, the physical is an indicator to me of the emotional. I HAD emotional without physical for 10 years. It was lonely.
Posted: 9/12/2008 9:12:20 AM
Hahaha.. LOVE IT. Two of my other favorite things. Alone or combined.
I know, awesome ain't they? My new thing is Lindt dark chocolate truffles and organic smooth peanut butter (trying to appear that I am watching my calories, lol). Yum!
As for Ulysses...
You are certainly entitled to your views. As far as I can tell, on this thread at least, people have been fairly (if not completely) open and honest with themselves and their thoughts. But I won't change my views, though, either, but I respect your right to your views.
I don't expect you to change your views, as they are what works FOR YOU - meaning what works for myself and those who understand my side of it is also a valid point.
I'm sure you a fine and decent sort, too. The whole point of my thread was to see how 'others' saw it and, with the great range of thought here, I have a better idea of where my views fit into the spectrum.
Ok then, sounds like you got what you wanted. But there's more....?
It's an interesting place to be, let's say, but I doubt I'm alone. A lot of people, perhaps, won't post because they are worried about being 'blasted' by others but the simple fact is that each person's views on Emotional/Physical closeness reflects, I believe, their experiences and their beliefs.
No one should fear "blasting" about what they personally do in their own lives. It's when they feel others should do differently (or others thinking they should change to conform to what they aren't comfortable with) that the trouble begins.
I do believe in moral absolutes myself, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Really? I had no idea.
But I am hardly going to be used as a cudgel to raise myself up as some kind of perfectly moral being myself. That said, having lived in a highly sexual culture, with the decline of morality as practiced by generations, SHOULD concern EVERYONE, because everyone pays the cost, whether in taxes for health care or in premiums to pay for treatments for STD', in social costs to assist unwed, single mothers, in rising crime because the once-secure nuclear family unit (in which many value were taught) are broken, and in how these all cumulatively affect our views and outlook on our society as a whole.
The nuclear family first of all is what we've been taught is the quintessential ideal. That's teaching and history...we've been taught that based on the fact that it coincided with what we used to do. None of that was right or wrong, it's just what we're most trained to think is the right thing. Doesn't make it so.
Some "family units" had alcoholic parents who abused each other/their children...while some "non-family units" had healthy role models and caretakers in them...there is no absolute, outside of the propaganda of the social era we live in. You see the world going to crap, I see it finally balancing out. We're gonna see some turmoil, but in the end the world will be better (for women, anyway) than it was. The family unit as we know it isn't feasible in this day and age without cooperation from both sides on all fronts, and I believe it should be. BUT some can choose not to have a family, or not stay in one that's not good for everyone involved. That's a positive to me.
You say values, I say scare tactics...again to each his own. As a woman what I would have most likely been taught years ago was to learn how to sew, bake, clean and balance a checkbook and wear heels while I vacuum and organize dinner parties for my future husband and his boss, then meet and marry some dude and have his children. The scare tactic would be if I didnt do this I'd be a spinster, and no one would want me nor want to be associated with me for either working, or living at home forever. Would that be right? No it just made it useful for the time it was in. It looked good on paper.
Maybe no one wants to seriously consider this, but the fact is we are each others role models. If it was once 'immoral' to have sex before marriage, it is now quite common. If a woman had 'great shame' over getting pregnant out of wedlock, now they provide facilities to ensure she doesn't miss her classes. In all this, I see a cheapening of self worth and sexuality as a whole. Because it is quite common, it is less precious and so, where once it was love that compelled partners into sexual reltionships, now it seems to come (pardon the pun) after the 'test drive' of sexual experience.
None of what's going on today first of all is THAT different from past times, the press and society chose what to make public and what to hide. This is a more realistic age...and things weren't "immoral" back then, it was pushed BY SOCIETY as such. I look at it as the typical catholic girl...if you repress and shame and guilt someone long enough it will not change who they are. Making someone feel awful about something that's natural, rather than educating her and giving her actual skills to deal with it is wrong, IMO. How many Catholic girls do you know that didn't freak out in adolescence and go against EVERYthing they've been taught? Human nature is to question that which we blindly follow from teaching, and it's a good thing. Some question and find their own beliefs, and some question and realize what they taught was good....but the old way wasn't 100% effective because what society wanted wasn't necessarily right, and their way of trying to keep people in line didn't work either - people just hid their crap more.
That's why so many "away on a trip" adoption agencies existed back then...girls got pregnant pretty frequently back then too, they just dealt with it differently.
Some call this 'liberation' and they can, if promiscuity and fornication is that. But I'd think our society, as a whole, would be better off with just a bit or a even lot less of it. That said, you make your choices and lie in the bed you choose, and with whom you choose. But don't kid yourself if you think it's 'just you and him' there. It's part of an attitude that has been perpetuated over the last 40-odd years or more and the more acceptable it is, the more it diminishes, I believe, an experience that is best shared in a whole and complete way.
Yes....FOR YOU, that's fine. Don't worry about others....live by your own model of what you want to be, find someone like you, teach your kids, and in your own corner of the world let it be the way you want it to. What those who don't concern you do, frankly needn't make you lose sleep. Learn to control what you can (you and your environment), and learn to accept what you can't (everyone else and their lifestyles).
Live and let live, dude.
Posted: 9/16/2008 7:46:25 PM
In fact, it will never make sense to me how someone, anyone, can have and be satisfied only with a f*** buddy
Long term? Indefinitely? Probably not. It probably works very very well for quite a lot of people in the short term. When they are ready to settle down.. they do.
Other people make a bigger deal out of sexuality than it needs to be. Sex can be mutually satisfying, without having to involve a "relationship".
I completely agree.
Is it also possible, though, that two people can desire the same thing simultaneously, and neither one gets hurt in the process?
I've been in that situation a time or two myself.
Posted: 9/16/2008 7:46:44 PM
|i don't have moral qualms about any of this. but for me, i prefer emotional, physical and spiritual closeness. although the latter (spiritual connection) is about how i view things and may be different for my partner. so, that will be his journey, as long as mine is not denied. |
the other two factors must be in place for the rest to ensue (emotional and physical). otherwise, it is (for me) empty. or maybe stagnant is a better word if you're into the dynamics of "energy". i am a pretty passionate person, but passion is not from the crotch down, nor does it remain there. it starts to enter our bodies at the crown, goes via the heart and slowly down, then it comes up...and down and up..... and with two in sync, it goes out, far out, out the room and down the hall and into the world at large. it even follows you for a period of time. it 's all about energy. feeding the ego and losing it into something larger.
study the chakras! you can see stagnancy in many people. there is no spark. no color. no music. you touch them and they do not touch back, even if their hand rests upon you. but again, this perspective is for me and shared by who i seek. it took a while to get to this place. so, to each, their own personal journey.....
there really is no argument. it's what/how i see and what/how you see. we need a referral service. send me who i want to meet and i'll send you the others!
Posted: 9/17/2008 12:32:03 PM
|ulysses, just to further broaden your perspective. there are many liberals and not bible thumpers who share your view about sexuality and intimacy. furthermore, it is no secret that many "bible thumpers" are doing their fair share of screwing around. as to views about children and the media they are exposed to and what is going on in middle school, i know few liberals who would agree that all is well with this world. |
how to approach it all and what we do with it, may vary, but within degrees. i, for example, believe in talking to my kids about everything and instead of banning mtv, i sat and watched it with them. why? because if i didn't, they were old enough to see the shows at a friend's. instead, i made sure to comment upon what they were seeing and make them think and talk about the values they were forming. my son, brought back a porn video that was being distributed in his middle school. he had seen it already. i watched it (w/o him) and discussed it in depth with him. what was real, what was degrading, what was it like in real life. i needed to address every toxic thing he had already absorbed into his brain and let him know that it was a way better experience than the degrading scenes he was offered as examples. he has a lot of issues, being thrown into foster care, so late in life. but, when it comes to girls, he is a romantic and a charmer. at age 20, he really does seem to care about women and i would like to think, i nurtured along that part of him. still working on the rest.
as to the current state of affairs (taken both ways) between men and women. i try to find the middle way. however, i understand the 40's rush for most women and there is scientific explanation that our biology gives us that one last big surge of mating hormone, before we go menapausal. that is the way we reproduce, but in our society, we have turned the tables around and it has become a sexual discussion. that surge for women is not unlike the surge for younger males. so, in the same way, your pastor learned from his youthful mistakes, so have/will many women as the surge becomes more manageable and we start thinking with our "big heads".
still, i have found myself faced with many questions i have never pondered before. many do not want to remarry. many want to continue to live alone. of the ones who don't, it is often not for the right reasons. i myself was in a 2 1/2 year relationship where we we did not jump right into the sack (although the sparks were always flying in preparation). so, when we finally did, it was a very passionate relationship and already deemed monogamous. sadly, he, over time, suffered a depression that was greater than i had realized at that time. in fact, i was not familiar with dealing with it in adults and he started to shut me out. ultimately, that set parameters for our relationship, that it had to end. not only could he not live with me (or anyone), but he became less and less emotionally available.
it's been a couple months now, and he does not go with other women. so this is not a moral issue and i am not about to berate myself for it. i am attempting to meet another man. but, i am realistic. what i used to dream about, may or may not exist. so, i cannot shrivel up and die over it. but, i can use my sound judgement and take educated risks. surely there must be someone around my age, with some shred of decency and still with passion, as well as peace and joy. those latter things are also important to me, given what i just went through, with a man who was unable to share the peace and the joy, despite a good friendship and some really fun times in the beginning and middle of our time spent together.
so, that is what is boils down to: current reality. despite what a person says or represents, you never really know until you try. it takes a couple years to really know someone. at my age, i am not going to wait that long to explore intimacy. but, on the other hand, damned if i am pressured into doing so that quickly. i know, from my recent relationship, that deep passion can be cultivated with a slow brew over time. for me, it is that much stronger, when i know a good deal more, about the man i am with. i might add, that never in my wildest dreams, did i think i had it in me as much as i did (nor did he). ten years of marriage to the wrong man, had pretty much deadened me, before i met my ex SO. but sadly, that is over for other reasons.
however, i draw my choices from my experiences and my values. i am liberal politically, but not with a bunch of e-dates i just met. i do have a few conservative christian friends who take the bible very literally. yet, recently i found out, that one of them who will not have "sex" until she is married, has the same definition of sex, that clinton had with monica! so, does that make her a more moral woman? oral sex with several men at once, but no intercourse?!* i'd rather see a monogamous relationship develop, even w/o marriage. i do not mean a friends with benefits arrangement. i mean one with good intentions for the future, but understanding that in reality, there are no guarantees. if there were, most of us would not be here.
so, it's not about conservative or liberal. it's way more complicated than that. and yes, i see tv nowadays and i shake my head in boredom and disgust and fear for the little ones watching it. so, i must deal with it. arguing about it, will not make it disappear. children, in many ways nowadays, must be prepared for war. child predators are everywhere. it is all so very sad.
Posted: 9/17/2008 8:36:31 PM
Do you believe that by 'controlling' your urges, you have control over the relationship?
I have control over me. Nothing to do with a relationship or controlling it.