Dropping the impersonal tone. Makes me sound like a douche.
I just recently finished a lovely affair with a lovely person who I have been flirting with for quite a while. Due to changing circumstances, the end of the affair was planned from the beginning. I was more comfortable with so and so than I have been with anyone in a good long time, and I believe that a good part of my comfort was due to the defined end of the fling. Not one moment was wasted wondering how or why or when things would end (as all good and bad things do) because we already knew. I was enabled to engage in enlightening physical contact of every sort, and unbridled musshyness, because there was no danger of giving the impression that we would be stuck together for long periods of time. I was leaving at a definite time, no matter what happened and no matter how much I wanted to stay. The relatively near end to the affair allowed me to be free within the time I had.
Who likes whom more, and maybe too much, is a moot point when the time an affair can last is limited. The end is no ones fault. It just had to happen. In this case I just had to leave.
There is an opposite situation, when there is no definite end to a relationship. In those cases I'm constantly worried that I will not show enough affection, or will show too much, or make some mistake and the whole thing will end. My worry dooms everything. Frequently I err on the side of showing too much affection. In these cases the other party starts worrying that I like them too much, and that's the one suspicion that it is almost impossible to dispel. The lack of a time limit, and the indefinite end causes nothing but trouble, cause I can never stop worrying about how it all will end, and how I will go wrong to make it end. Nothing ruins a good time more than an unhealthy dose of self consciousness. I am never comfortable with situations when I don't know when they will be over. I only feel free to act honestly when I know that I will only be able to for a short while. There's some sort of freedom of action that comes with time restriction.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Do it or have it?
Do you do sex or do you have it? In some cases one and in some the other, I think. Most of the time for me sex is a hobby, like video games. One is doing well or doing poorly. One is in control of the situation, he or she acts, and the other party responds, and then he or she responds and so on. When it's done one can review how it played out. Which moves were wise and which were unwise? Which were "totally sweet!"? In these cases one has done sex.
In a few rare instances one swept away. One is not thinking about one's next move. One is not planning strategy of attack. One is not thinking at all really, but actually feeling what is going on. When one has sex it is like having an ice cream cone. One does not do an ice cream cone, one has an ice cream cone. Sometimes, one does not do sex, one has sex.
Why is it that it is so much easier to have an ice cream cone than it is to have sex?
Maybe it's about complexity. Ice cream cones are much simpler than sex is. Sometimes one has to have a non dripping strategy, but that's all there is to think about when having an ice cream. There are more complicated factors at work during sex. Timing, pressure, intensity. Breathing and touching and all that is complicated. It may take lots of thought. The strange thing is that one has sex rather than doing it, one deals with all those factors without even considering them. Having a strategy is useful sometimes, but definitely not necessary, and sometimes gets in the way of having sex.
I think the difference is self control. When one is in conscious control of one's self one is doing sex. Without that conscious control, one is having sex. I was thinking about this distinction because a partner recently wanted me to do something and tried to reassure me by telling me it had nothing to do with control. It was then that I realized that sex may not have anything to do with control on my partner's end, but for me it is always all about control. Not control of other people over me, but of me having control over myself. That is why sex is more enjoyable than an ice cream cone when you're having it, and more fun than an ice cream cone when you're doing it. Err... I mean, I rarely feel in danger of losing myself over an ice cream cone.
In a few rare instances one swept away. One is not thinking about one's next move. One is not planning strategy of attack. One is not thinking at all really, but actually feeling what is going on. When one has sex it is like having an ice cream cone. One does not do an ice cream cone, one has an ice cream cone. Sometimes, one does not do sex, one has sex.
Why is it that it is so much easier to have an ice cream cone than it is to have sex?
Maybe it's about complexity. Ice cream cones are much simpler than sex is. Sometimes one has to have a non dripping strategy, but that's all there is to think about when having an ice cream. There are more complicated factors at work during sex. Timing, pressure, intensity. Breathing and touching and all that is complicated. It may take lots of thought. The strange thing is that one has sex rather than doing it, one deals with all those factors without even considering them. Having a strategy is useful sometimes, but definitely not necessary, and sometimes gets in the way of having sex.
I think the difference is self control. When one is in conscious control of one's self one is doing sex. Without that conscious control, one is having sex. I was thinking about this distinction because a partner recently wanted me to do something and tried to reassure me by telling me it had nothing to do with control. It was then that I realized that sex may not have anything to do with control on my partner's end, but for me it is always all about control. Not control of other people over me, but of me having control over myself. That is why sex is more enjoyable than an ice cream cone when you're having it, and more fun than an ice cream cone when you're doing it. Err... I mean, I rarely feel in danger of losing myself over an ice cream cone.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Compatibility and circumstance
How much does compatibility have to do with circumstance, specifically the presence or absence of stress? One usually thinks of personal or sexual compatibility in absolute terms. "I'm compatible with so and so." or "We're not compatible,". What if compatibility depends on the pressure either party is under. Of course there are cases when you get on best with another person if you are both calm, but I think there are more instances than one would expect of people getting along well only when they are both stressed, or only when one party is under lots of pressure and the other is not.
At the college I attended there was a specific romantic relationship which would occur between seniors and freshmen. Many freshmen are fairly relaxed, and have a good amount of free time, while seniors tend to be under a lot of pressure to complete their theses, and are generally stressed out. Freshmen contribute energy and enthusiasm to the otherwise burnt out seniors, and seniors impart their relative wisdom to the freshmen, along with making them feel needed, and helpful. These relationships rarely last beyond graduation, even when the senior will be staying in town when they are finished with college. The give and take of the stress and relief is no longer present, and in fact the rolls tend to reverse themselves, since graduated seniors tend to go out and get low stress jobs, where the former freshmen enter what is generally termed the sophomore slump. Few relationships survive this roll reversal. Compatibility deteriorates with changing stress levels, or perhaps changing life situations.
I have been in relationships that only held up under extreme stress, which fell apart immediately as soon as one or the other party was no longer under pressure. I find some people attractive when they are battling their dragons, and not at all appealing when they aren't pushed to the limit. Other people are delightful when they are not under any pressure and endlessly irritating when they are worried about the slightest thing. On the other side of the coin, I can only deal with some people when I am calm, and others when I am freaking out.
I suppose there is a person for every moment really. It is unfortunate that love or comparably deep emotions don't seem to be nearly as circumstance dependent as sexual compatibility. Whether or not I am in love with a person seems to be completely independent of our sexual compatibility. It seems too much to ask that a person should find one other person in their whole life who they both love and are compatible with most of the time. Perhaps I haven't found the one, maybe I am cynical, but permanent commitment seems like a problem to me, and always will until it somehow takes into account the changes in compatibility which are byproducts of continually changing circumstance.
At the college I attended there was a specific romantic relationship which would occur between seniors and freshmen. Many freshmen are fairly relaxed, and have a good amount of free time, while seniors tend to be under a lot of pressure to complete their theses, and are generally stressed out. Freshmen contribute energy and enthusiasm to the otherwise burnt out seniors, and seniors impart their relative wisdom to the freshmen, along with making them feel needed, and helpful. These relationships rarely last beyond graduation, even when the senior will be staying in town when they are finished with college. The give and take of the stress and relief is no longer present, and in fact the rolls tend to reverse themselves, since graduated seniors tend to go out and get low stress jobs, where the former freshmen enter what is generally termed the sophomore slump. Few relationships survive this roll reversal. Compatibility deteriorates with changing stress levels, or perhaps changing life situations.
I have been in relationships that only held up under extreme stress, which fell apart immediately as soon as one or the other party was no longer under pressure. I find some people attractive when they are battling their dragons, and not at all appealing when they aren't pushed to the limit. Other people are delightful when they are not under any pressure and endlessly irritating when they are worried about the slightest thing. On the other side of the coin, I can only deal with some people when I am calm, and others when I am freaking out.
I suppose there is a person for every moment really. It is unfortunate that love or comparably deep emotions don't seem to be nearly as circumstance dependent as sexual compatibility. Whether or not I am in love with a person seems to be completely independent of our sexual compatibility. It seems too much to ask that a person should find one other person in their whole life who they both love and are compatible with most of the time. Perhaps I haven't found the one, maybe I am cynical, but permanent commitment seems like a problem to me, and always will until it somehow takes into account the changes in compatibility which are byproducts of continually changing circumstance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
