My pondering about what commands our sexual acting has boiled down to this hypothesis – that the base of sexuality in practice is we’re dealing with two opposite character types, the “self-oriented” personality vs the “self-forgetting” character.
If you belong to the first type your motivation for having sex is to satisfy your own sexual drive, your object is your own ego. Your primary focus is “me” and “my needs”. Sex is a clearly utilitarian activity: you have a physical need and you satisfy it. With whom or how is incidental.
If you are “the self-forgetting type” on the other hand, you only have sex with another person because you are sexually attracted to this special person and desire her or him. Your primary focus is “you” and not “me” and your desire is to possess the object for your passion. Attraction is your drive. You tell your partner “I want to make you happy”. Because that is what makes you happy.
You want romance.
This is two radically different and contrary sexual conditions – and no, they can NOT exist and work together in the same body and mind at the same time. They may seemed to cooperate in a sexual activity as the ego focused person certainly can fall in love – and the romantic person certainly have sexually urges. But the own sexual behavior over time shows a significant difference in the approach to others. It’s a difference in the brain functions in this two types.
If you in your youth have focused your sexuality to satisfy your own psychically needs, with anyone coming in your way – in practice: masturbated with another body as a tool – then you have trained your body to a sexuality that can’t provide mutuality, but is disconnected to romantic love. Love and sex are two different things in your brain. They are of antagonistic character. You have lost your sensitivity.
Later in life you may marry, but a long time relationship will not change the way you’ve trained your body and brain. You have taught your body a certain way to function and to enter into a romantic and longtime lasting relationship will not change your body’s preferences. “It’s just sex, it means nothing”, you explains it to those who not understand your sexual interests. You are a dog.
You are the kind who expects your partner to satisfy your “needs” in a relationship to stay faithful and you talk about sexuality in terms of “needs”. The expression “he don’t get what he needs at home”, illustrates this kind of sexuality. Cheating on your spouse is in this perspective “the other’s fault”.
Sex is above all to be able to communicate. And if you are not? If you are not able to communicate with your partner?
The other and opposite kind of sexual character can’t force himself or herself to have intercourse without being romantically involved in a partner. This kind of person depresses the sexual drive when being single and may live long periods in life without having sex. This person is a puritan in sexual matters. But being a puritan don’t tell any about a person’s libido. Even being a “sleeping beauty” not having a love relation, this personality can have a very vivid and strong libido when having a relationship.
The demands then on the partner is not then to fulfill “needs” but to respond with the same intense passion and all the time. This type can also be called the “moral type”.
I would not say the other is any better than the further. It’s not about that – but about how do you communicate? The problem that both this types brings into a relationship are obvious. The question I want to raise is – what happens if the immoral type – the dog – and the moral type – the puritan – becomes romantically involved with each other?
Can they build a working relationship with each other? Or are they doomed to become unhappy together? Is one doomed to please the other, in order to keep the relationship? Is one doomed to fake passion now and then, to get domestic peace?
Are any of these two capable to understand what causes disappointments and dissatisfactions with the outcome of the relationship in the other?
Ultimately, sexuality is communication. But if two brains not works the same way, how can a couple in a relationship come to a consensus?
Oh, but maybe this is simply what is called “marriage”? (I wouldn’t know having no personal experience of a long time marriage situation.) But even in marriage as in sex there must be communication, yes? For a good outcome, I mean. I would like to believe it’s more to “marriage” than to only coexist!
Well, I’m just asking questions. I have no answers.
She: Were you in love with her?
He: We were just close friends and things end to have relationship in bed.
That’s the whole story
He: I knew her for a long time.
She: That is not a reason to have sex.
He: We used to go out with groups of friends, boys and girls. We were just friends.
She: And that is what your sisters do too?
He: Come on! What’s bring my sisters to that topic!
She: So it was not just “girls and boys”, “just friends” then. Who do you want to fool? Me? Or yourself?
He: Sorry. I wish you a good night. Take care.
She: Now again you want to sleep instead of sort things out!
She: Is this you how you will always do with me when we have a conversation you don’t like?
She: Bottom-line is what you want with me.