Thread: sex questions
View Single Post
  #26  
Old 09-19-2011, 05:39 AM
MeeraReed MeeraReed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East Coast, U.S.
Posts: 348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
I guess I could answer my own questions...

So, the differences to me seem to be that there are those that think sex with others is a way communicate and have fun. There is a level of excitement to it that comes from getting naked and seeing what their talents are and how they do things. It seems to me that it is playful, sexy and can be shared with everyone as a way to get to know each other and have a good time.

Another way is that it is immediately a soul connection that brings a person to another level of depth and commitment to them in the form of giving themselves entirely. This happens regardless of the situation and regardless of whether they want to or not... It is a spiritual bonding that is the biggest display of love and respect for another and their respect and love back.
RP, I don't want to pick on you while you are already (you say) feeling marginalized and struggling with issues related to this.

BUT the dichotomy (above) is completely wrong.

Yes, of course sex can either be playful and fun, or serious and emotionally deep. And it can be various things in between, or a combination.

Which you do admit, but here's where your assumptions are wrong:

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
I guess I could answer my own questions...

it is playful, sexy and can be shared with everyone

Especially when one person is more of the deep, loving bonding type and their partner the weeee... lets fuck anyone type.
So one type is emotionally deep...and the other type is "let's fuck anyone"??? One type is spiritual, and the other type can be shared with "everyone"??? One type is special, and the other type is just "playing around"?

No no no.

I am definitely a "whee...let's fuck" person. I am NOT a "whee...let's fuck anyone" person.

Why do people assume that if someone prefers the less-emotionally-deep kind of sex (the fun kind of sex, that is!), they must want to fuck anyone and everyone?

And isn't there also an implication that if they fuck anyone, they must not be a particularly caring or loving person?

For some reason, I don't particularly like sex for emotional bonding. I've spent years arriving at this conclusion. I'm still struggling to understand why exactly I feel this way. "Intimacy issues" is the obvious answer, but I don't think that's it.

I guess I feel that sex is false way of bonding. Good sex can make you feel like you have a deep emotional bond, when in fact you simply have good sex.

In my case, it happens that I have had a strong sexual connection with some partners, and a strong emotional connection with others, but never both at the same time. And while it would be NICE to have both at the same time, it also seems to me that it will be a very rare thing for me.

Sure, I've never had whatever profound/spiritual/bonding sex RP is talking about. But, frankly, I don't want to. It doesn't sound appealing at all. I would not be remotely comfortable with a partner who wanted that kind of thing.

I certainly feel that other aspects of my life include profound emotions, spirituality, and bonding with people I am close to.

But sex...darn it, I just like fucking! I like to fuck people I care about, respect, and regard as friends. Lovers, not necessarily loves.

However, I am VERY selective about choosing lovers. Partly because sexual attraction is pretty rare for me. Mostly because I don't want to hurt anyone or end up with someone whose views are totally different from mine.

This quote touched a bunch of nerves for me because of my own experiences:

Quote:
Originally Posted by redpepper View Post
I guess I could answer my own questions...

I have noticed that sometimes people get together with people that don't have the same values and nature as they do sexually and struggle from day one with that. This is why I thought it might be a good discussion. Especially when one person is more of the deep, loving bonding type and their partner the weeee... lets fuck anyone type. It seems to me that the one with the emotional connection to sex suffers every time in this. Whereas the one who wants to play around with everyone somehow has to come out on top, because they are the ones that are suppose to be suffering more. Why is it that the one with the emotions around sex seems to have to suck it up and take it more often than not? Is it me, or does that seem to be the case?
.
I guess the biggest problem I have with this statement is that people usually don't KNOW what their values and nature are, in regards to sex and relationships, until they have experienced a lot and experimented a bit. So people might end up with people who aren't suited to them, but only the course of the relationship will teach them that.

The other issue is that I have had completely different experiences from what you describe above. (My experiences have also been very limited, abnormal, and dysfunctional, though, so perhaps they are not helpful examples).

My first (and only) poly boyfriend (Techie--yes, him again!) insisted that he was deeply emotional about sex, and that sex was all about closeness and bonding. He insisted that he wanted to have a deep, profound connection to EVERYONE (including random girls on the bus, etc) because deep love was supposed to be shared with the world.

He was also (I realized later) very uncomfortable with sex (and probably traumatized by a dysfunctional childhood which he refused to discuss with me). He did not like looking at any part of my body except deeply into my eyes. He refused to try sexual positions that did not involve us staring into each other's eyes (and believe me, I felt like a pervert for longing to be fucked from behind!) He seemed to get sad and mopey after coming. He refused to go with me to some sort of therapist.

Obviously, that's not an example of someone who believes in ACTUAL deep emotional bonding through sex. But it HAS taught to be wary of people who espouse such beliefs.

When I was with someone who viewed sex as playful, fun, relaxing, and casual...I found fulfillment and liberation.

This playful-sex guy was WAY more promiscuous than me, but he was also kind, open-minded, confident, well-adjusted, honest, and happy. He helped me become in tune with my sexuality and to value myself more and to articulate my needs better. He taught me that sex could be dirty and delightful. He also had almost nothing in common with me aside from a sexual connection. Yet, he turned out to be a pretty good friend.

And finally--this is what really touched a nerve when I read your post, RP. With my most recent ex (Editor), I guess I was the one who wanted to play around, and he was the one who needed emotional bonding. I didn't know that about him, though, because he only told me LONG afterwards, when he was with someone else and wanted absolutely nothing to do with me.

I don't think he actually knew that about himself when he was with me--after all, we had based our relationship on experimentation and dealing with his impotence. But he sure felt fine blaming his sexual problems on me being too uncaring and sex-driven.

I would have an easier time getting over that if his friends (formerly, my friends too) didn't share his opinion. (Not that they knew about his sexual problems, but they think I wasn't a very good girlfriend to him, and told me so.)

Anyway, I guess my relationship with Editor doesn't really count as the situation you describe--where one person wants to sleep around and the other wants more emotional sex. I really thought we both wanted to "date around" to learn more about ourselves (we were both very inexperienced and struggling to overcoming past negative experiences), and that we were going to stay best friends whether or not we decided to still date each other.

Well, never mind. Different story.

But my point is, negative assumptions about the person who wants to play around aren't helpful.
__________________
Single, straight, female, solo, non-monogamous.
Reply With Quote