Rethinking Intimate Relationships?

[David Nelson]

As we know, convention is you have sex with someone you love. At least that is seen as an ideal and what is often portrayed as 'normal'. As we also know, the world and life often doesn't work that simply.

We have all heard that most men are naturally pormiscuous and can sleep around quite easily if they want to and have the opportunity; but that women bond when they have sex, so usually seek one intimate stable realtionship for sex/imtimacy. Note here there are a small percentage of highly sexed women who are more like men, but these exceptions prove the general rule.

I have read and heard that these stereotypes may be not only inaccurate but quite limiting for many. Perhaps a new? idea would be that anyone could enter a sexual relationship without it being necessariy exclusive or even involving love between the two people. Of course I know this happens all the time, but it is nearly always seen as unusual and non-ideal.

Similarly, could it not be possible to be romantically 'in love' with someone, without wanting or needing sexual intimacy with them? I have felt this way when younger, while also having a normal sex drive. I have often felt the need for sex and romantic love as two distinct needs, which often don't coincide, which makes for a disastrous love life. Perhaps this explains famous men historically taking lovers, while lacking intimacy with their wives?

Is it possible that the assumption of these 2 needs always coinciding is actually causing a lot of misery and preventing enjoyable unions? I suspect the answer is it depends on the person(s) involved, but I thought I'd just put it out there for consideration/discussion. Do people think I may be onto something or not?

 

[Asa]

Thanks for being brave enough to break the ice on topics like these.

This is an interesting topic. I get a lot of flack for the different aspects of sexuality that arise in my creative work. As a woman, it has been a constant theme in my life since age eleven, when I was first objectified, and I can cover the topic with sophistication from all different angles... both pleasurable and horrifying to different degrees. And I do.

I was a child in the 70s and 80s. Now, it seems like we, as a society, are more uptight, prudish, and immature about sex than a few decades ago. The adult world I viewed (and expected to grow up into) was much more sophisticated and sexy than the one I live in as an adult, which seems to be a remake of the same family-friendly superhero movie for all eternity. Society is getting prudish about this topic (again) and I don't think that is healthy.

I have read and heard that these stereotypes may be not only inaccurate but quite limiting for many.

I agree that the stereotypes are inaccurate and perpetuated by social conditioning.

I do think there should be more room for sexual freedom, more openness to people's needs for intimacy or fun, and a more sophisticated and complex point of view on it in general. My ideal society lacks constraints and taboos (and also lacks the tangle from people believing nonconsensual acts of violence have anything to do with sex.) The paradox: I'd be unlikely to engage in it. I'm a sapio and demi-sexual. So, I do fit the stereotype. I think that has more to do with being an INFJ E5 than anything, though. I'm basically asexual unless a combination of their brain and our deep emotional bond flips my off switch and then it's no holds barred.

 

[aeon]

As we know, convention is you have sex with someone you love. At least that is seen as an ideal and what is often portrayed as 'normal'. As we also know, the world and life often doesn't work that simply.

There are many different normals—even within one culture—that are context-dependent. I was a child in the 1970s and 1980s, and I heard many different ideals, from my mother, from school, from fellow students, from mainstream culture, from medicine/science, from humanists, from the underground, from from the vanguards of the culture war, and I sure did observe the parents of my friends—and they differed more than they agreed. It was clear to me almost from the start that even within a “group,” natural cohort or otherwise, there were different shoulds and ought-tos expressed.

We have all heard that most men are naturally pormiscuous and can sleep around quite easily if they want to and have the opportunity; but that women bond when they have sex, so usually seek one intimate stable realtionship for sex/imtimacy. Note here there are a small percentage of highly sexed women who are more like men, but these exceptions prove the general rule.

from Promiscuous America: Smart, Secular, and Somewhat Less Happy

We like to think of America as sexually permissive. We’re bombarded with stories of rapid-fire Tinder liaisons and meaningless college hookups. The reality isn’t monastic but is more staid than most of us think. The median American woman has had three sex partners in her lifetime. The median man has had five.

These numbers have remained unchanged for decades: you have to look at people born prior to the 1940s, who came of age before the Sexual Revolution, to find lower numbers. The one exception is college-educated men, whose median tally has declined over the past couple of decades (the numbers for men who didn’t complete college have stayed the same).

But medians don’t tell the whole story. The distribution of promiscuity is skewed to the right: most people have only a few partners, but a few people have a whole lot. The data look like this:

Note: Ns = 17,252 (women) & 13,531 (men). Results are unweighted.

The yellow bars are medians, included to provide some perspective. Although most people have had only a few partners, a few have had a multitude (indeed, I capped the maximum at 100 so a single page graph would be intelligible). Five percent of women have had 16 or more partners; five percent of men have had 50 or more. One percent of American women have had over 35 partners; the comparable figure for men is 150.

-------

I have read and heard that these stereotypes may be not only inaccurate but quite limiting for many. Perhaps a new? idea would be that anyone could enter a sexual relationship without it being necessariy exclusive or even involving love between the two people. Of course I know this happens all the time, but it is nearly always seen as unusual and non-ideal.

Ultimately, people engage as they like, with consensual partner(s), as they like. To the degree they will be judged, shamed, punished, ridiculed, etc., they keep their engagements secret to the best of their ability, and this all occurs within the constraints of their situation.

In that way, it isn’t much different than the meeting of any other human need. Of course, behavior, awareness, and choice will be greatly shaped by how a given person has been socialized, among many other factors.

Similarly, could it not be possible to be romantically 'in love' with someone, without wanting or needing sexual intimacy with them?

As a demisexual demiheteroromantic, all I can say is...possible?

Is it possible that the assumption of these 2 needs always coinciding is actually causing a lot of misery and preventing enjoyable unions? I suspect the answer is it depends on the person(s) involved, but I thought I'd just put it out there for consideration/discussion. Do people think I may be onto something or not?

If you aren’t aware of your experience of attraction, whether allo-, demi-, or a-, the nature of your libido, your place on the gender spectrum, your experience of romanticism, your assumed and unquestioned values, your sex- and gender-based prescriptive role and permitted behavior assignments, all on top of your needs, extending to your desires, you are going to have a rougher time of things.

My understanding is that love and sex are independent variables for some, but I’m simply not wired that way.

I was a child in the 70s and 80s. Now, it seems like we, as a society, are more uptight, prudish, and immature about sex than a few decades ago. The adult world I viewed (and expected to grow up into) was much more sophisticated and sexy than the one I live in as an adult, which seems to be a remake of the same family-friendly superhero movie for all eternity. Society is getting prudish about this topic (again) and I don't think that is healthy.

I do think there should be more room for sexual freedom, more openness to people's needs for intimacy or fun, and a more sophisticated and complex point of view on it in general. My ideal society lacks constraints and taboos (and also lacks the tangle people believing nonconsensual acts of violence have anything to do with sex.)

-------

Go about things as you may, but when you find a suitable partner or partners, be as a Bonobo monkey, all while being smart about it, and safe about it, as would suit a Human monkey.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[David Nelson]

If you aren’t aware of your experience of attraction, whether allo-, demi-, or a-, the nature of your libido, your place on the gender spectrum, your experience of romanticism, your assumed and unquestioned values, your sex- and gender-based prescriptive role and permitted behavior assignments, all on top of your needs, extending to your desires, you are going to have a rougher time of things.

Wow thanks for the comprehensive answer Ian. I think I need to explore the nature of my sexuality based on what you said above. You use terms I’ve never heard of. Where can I find out about it?

 

[David Nelson]

Thanks for being brave enough to break the ice on topics like these.

This is an interesting topic. I get a lot of flack for the different aspects of sexuality that arise in my creative work. As a woman, it has been a constant theme in my life since age eleven, when I was first objectified, and I can cover the topic with sophistication from all different angles... both pleasurable and horrifying to different degrees. And I do.

I was a child in the 70s and 80s. Now, it seems like we, as a society, are more uptight, prudish, and immature about sex than a few decades ago. The adult world I viewed (and expected to grow up into) was much more sophisticated and sexy than the one I live in as an adult, which seems to be a remake of the same family-friendly superhero movie for all eternity. Society is getting prudish about this topic (again) and I don't think that is healthy.


I agree that the stereotypes are inaccurate and perpetuated by social conditioning.

I do think there should be more room for sexual freedom, more openness to people's needs for intimacy or fun, and a more sophisticated and complex point of view on it in general. My ideal society lacks constraints and taboos (and also lacks the tangle from people believing nonconsensual acts of violence have anything to do with sex.) The paradox: I'd be unlikely to engage in it. I'm a sapio and demi-sexual. So, I do fit the stereotype. I think that has more to do with being an INFJ E5 than anything, though. I'm basically asexual unless a combination of their brain and our deep emotional bond flips my off switch and then it's no holds barred.

Thanks for the answer Asa. Yes western societies have become increasingly prudish and illiberal sexually. Quite ironic given we have become economically liberal. It does tie in with repression of working people imo. Keep their economic and sexual lives under control. We need an economic and sexual revolution imo.

 

[Asa]

We need an economic and sexual revolution imo.

Agree.

 

[mintoots]

Similarly, could it not be possible to be romantically 'in love' with someone, without wanting or needing sexual intimacy with them?

It is possible for all genders and since the binary is at the forefront in your questioning, it is possible for both men and women.

As a numbers game, I don't know that intimacy is being spoken of less these days. I presume culture affects its evolution. From my personal worldview, I think it has simply been accepted as fact which ironically makes it a dime a dozen while being exactly rare. It is marketed and overused on several platforms while its more "realistic" forms remain more elusive.

I've personally known several people from different generations who have defied convention. From women who sought sex solely to have kids or friends who sought it for self-exploration. Or people who sought love as voraciously as fuckboys* would seek sex or love addicts to serial monogamy. At the end of each search, from whichever end of the stick the exploration begins, intimacy is apparently a journey whether with partners, a partner, or by oneself.

Personally, I'm finding that it's partly getting to know oneself and partly getting to know others in whatever facet of intimacy, physical or anything else. It is possible to be emotionally intimate with another without physical intimacy; it's called friendship. It is possible to be intellectually intimate with another without physical intimacy; it's called working together. Similarly, it is possible to execute bodily relations without either love or intellectual compatibility. In fact, all such relations only require a modicum of a certain type of compatibility.

However, like all else, all of the above are again in my personal view, best done in moderation in terms of frequency if the other is not the long term partner. Scientifically, I think the oxytocin rush from repeated physical intimacies is bound to complicate the mind and the soul. There's a symbiosis to those that humans have not successfully unraveled yet. The same is true if the exploration should begin from an emotional or intellectual standpoint. It seems, humans have a tendency to test the facets which I think is natural by virtue of hormonal releases. Thus, if the intent is to keep friendship long term and/or to keep work relationships long term, moderation is advised alongside respectful restraint and discipline. Be mindful of boundaries. With physical intimacies, it is best to step out of the as arrangement once the non-physical complications begin to surface. Again, boundaries.

To me, what differentiates a lifelong partner from individual components as sorted above is that a life-long partner would be someone to be guiltlessly intimate with on all facets with lustful intensity without dimming each other's individuality and instead, complimenting it. That said, long term partnerships are obviously pieces of work and for all that work required, could only honestly really be monogamist in nature, at least in my view. There's a reason why people say that long term partnerships are repeated choices. I believe love seeds from those choices and not necessarily from the highs of compatibility. I think the rushes of compatibility are superficial, but the hard choices are where love truly blooms. Having to make the hard choices with many different people sounds like a lot of work.

Now you could argue that economically, multiple resource sourcing would be easier because then the source is more widely available -which is logical-. It would be much easier to source all three facets of intimacy from different people or avenues, i.e. easier to just fuck different people with no feelings or source all such intimacies and choices from different people. It's possible, hence my respects to polyamorous humanity. And once again you are right that in total, it is only a matter of preference.




*Non-gender, all encompassing term.

 

[aeon]

Wow thanks for the comprehensive answer Ian. I think I need to explore the nature of my sexuality based on what you said above. You use terms I’ve never heard of. Where can I find out about it?

https://pflag.org/glossary

https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-group/gender-pronouns/

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/996319297/gender-identity-pronouns-expression-guide-lgbtq

https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms

https://www.lsu.edu/lgbtqproject/resources/vocabulary.php

Those should get you started.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

Thank you for opening this discussion. I’m all ears too.

 

[aeon]

As a numbers game, I don't know that intimacy is being spoken of less these days.

Sex is a topic of conversation as often as ever, yes. In the United States (the only nation I have data for), sexual activity peaked 1986-1991, and has been in decline since. So these days, more talk, less action.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[David Nelson]

With regard to a romantic relationship which is not sexual, I was thinking more than friendship (a wonderful thing it itself). When I was younger, I fell ‘in love’ but didn’t feel sexual attraction for the females. I could never understand this, because I was always horny. It was like when I was emotionally ‘all in’ with a girl, the sexual side disappeared. I wondered if it was because I was prudish or ashamed to be sexual with them. Maybe it has to do with the nature of me. I grew to feel the ‘falling in love’ experience was a kind of mental delusion/fantasy, and therefore not natural if that makes sense.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

I think the oxytocin rush from repeated physical intimacies is bound to complicate the mind and the soul. There's a symbiosis to those that humans have not successfully unraveled yet. The same is true if the exploration should begin from an emotional or intellectual standpoint. It seems, humans have a tendency to test the facets which I think is natural by virtue of hormonal releases.

On this note there are ways that our souls/hearts/minds seem to have a way of changing constantly with trauma or even if you would imagine marriage itself. due to the Natural responsibility we hold to ourselves and to one another. Whether from the cause or not so cause of disintegration of a marriage or break in promise. But that’s a whole other theory of bs strawman narcissism that’s occurred to me. I’d side more with trauma in that case in which intention and judgement is easy to throw around. I agree @mintoots

 

[mintoots]

Sex is a topic of conversation as often as ever, yes. In the United States (the only nation I have data for), sexual activity peaked 1986-1991, and has been in decline since. So these days, more talk, less action.

Cheers,
Ian

Several components may be playing into that. I haven't encountered one but I'm pretty certain there should be some academic attempts to correlate economic activity to sexual activity. As a general observation, tired economies tend to withdraw from intimacies i.e. the case of Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. Note that each of those are much more nuanced, truly, like respective societal expectations inevitably come to play as well as dating norms. In my part of the world, sex is much less a taboo culturally as in it is easily material for widely accepted jokes. The church has always shunned it but as far as I've observed, when the priests are away or when Catholicism is at bay, plenty of the tribes people are sexually free. There's been evidence of a wide acceptance of transgenderism from pre-colonial times too (i'm from the colonized parts of the world).

 

[mintoots]

On this note there are ways that our souls/hearts/minds seem to have a way of changing constantly with trauma or even if you would imagine marriage itself. due to the Natural responsibility we hold to ourselves and to one another. Whether from the cause or not so cause of disintegration of a marriage or break in promise. But that’s a whole other theory of bs strawman narcissism that’s occurred to me. I’d side more with trauma in that case in which intention and judgement is easy to throw around. I agree @mintoots

True. Personal trauma factors into the hard work for sure. I should joke that a partner is probably some form of customizer therapist with benefits. Ofc. It's just a joke. Maybe it should be true.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

True. Personal trauma factors into the hard work for sure. I should joke that a partner is probably some form of customizer therapist with benefits. Ofc. It's just a joke. Maybe it should be true.

Lol. For the sake of the whole other theory, I hope not. It does make me think about the whole idea of law and fulfilling it. I’d hate to ever be considered a burden to the ones I love.

 

[aeon]

I haven't encountered one but I'm pretty certain there should be some academic attempts to correlate economic activity to sexual activity.

There are, and the research does just that. Both on a national as well as personal level.

There are also many that correlate educational level with sexual activity. Go to school, have more sex and stray further from cultural norms.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[mintoots]

I’d hate to ever be considered a burden to the ones I love.

I have the same fears. This seems to be my default mode of thinking. I presume it's likely a trauma response, from which independence springs as a coping mechanism. This is a personal struggle for me. Either I am too intense and hoarding or too meh. I think though that to not be a burden, we would have to carry our own load to a certain extent. But yeah, it probably boils down to a compatibility of traumas and coping mechanisms too and then growing around each other.

 

[mintoots]

correlate educational level with sexual activity.

Wat??? Where do they find the time???

This must be why my students aren't submitting their homeworks.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

I have the same fears. This seems to be my default mode of thinking. I presume it's likely a trauma response, from which independence springs as a coping mechanism. This is a personal struggle for me. Either I am too intense and hoarding or too meh. I think though that to not be a burden, we would have to carry our own load to a certain extent.

Same. Let me know when you find this extent, because it’s killing me at this point. Lol