 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sex and Intimacy I believe, and I would like to make a case for those who do not believe it, that intimacy does not always involve sex or sexual intercourse; that sexual intercourse does not always involve (emotional) intimacy. And further, contrary to some views, even intimacy that is (primarily) sexual can be achieved without intercourse. Now there is one use and dictionary meaning of intimate denoting sexual intercourse specifically, as when someone asks whether a dating couple has "been intimate" yet, but that is different from the sense of intimacy involving emotional closeness, psychological openness, and the comfortable voluntary sharing of one's most personal and private or secret thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. with another. And it is this latter kind of intimacy, let me call it emotional intimacy, that I am particularly concerned with because I believe it is this kind of intimacy that people generally mean when they discuss seeking intimacy in a relationship, though I also want to discuss what I think is a related point involving intimacy that is primarily or strictly sexual. The reason I discuss this is two-fold. First, I have heard a number of comments that imply that somehow if people do not have intercourse they have not shared real intimacy, even if they have had mutually orgasmic sex via, say, petting to climax. Phil Donahue, one morning, as just one example, discussing with prostitutes how they try to protect against getting AIDS, was informed that hand manipulation of the client was frequently used instead of vaginal intercourse. His response was something like "So in some cases then there is no real intimacy?" However, that sounded like it was generally really intimate to me, at least sexually intimate. It may not have been emotionally intimate; but having sex with a prostitute, even when it involves intercourse, may not be particularly emotionally intimate either. And if, as some reports indicate, many men often pay prostitutes primarily to listen to them talk, the conversation may have more to do with whether emotional intimacy is achieved than the kind of sex, if there is any sex at all. I would think someone needs to spell out just what they mean when they talk about "real" intimacy with a prostitute. Second, though I am not certain whether this involves intimacy or something
else, I have heard a number of both men and women say that the only possibly
satisfying or meaningful or real sex is that which involves intercourse, and
often by that, some even further mean intercourse that is "unobstructed" by
something like a condom. And these people seem to mean or imply that this is
not (just) because they think a condom makes intercourse physically unsatisfying
or orgasm impossible for them, but because there is something more emotionally
or metaphysically basic involved. If a condom were perfectly undetectable in
feeling, these people seem to imply or say that it would still be unacceptable,
even though they are not trying to risk or cause pregnancy. Further, even if
these people can have orgasm or physically satisfying sex without intercourse,
they still seem to think that is not "real" sex or is not as emotionally
satisfying or important. If these people are wrong, as I think they are, that (unprotected) intercourse is necessary for (sexual) intimacy or even sexual satisfaction, then in today's society, they sometimes are unwisely and unnecessarily risking pregnancy, VD, and AIDS, and advocating others do the same, when they have sex, particularly when it is with a new partner or partner who may have acquired a sexually transmitted disease. They are unnecessarily and unwisely risking these things to achieve an intimacy that may result from intercourse but does not really require it to occur. Those teenagers and other sexual novices in particular, who feel more compelled to have sex than they do to abstain from sex in spite of the risk of pregnancy, disease, and the emotional heartbreaks, disappointments, and crises that sex in a relationship sometimes intensifies, may be well advised to try (to learn) safely petting each other to orgasm to see whether that does not provide sufficient pleasure and intimacy instead of having intercourse, even with a condom. Such sex may at least prevent risk of pregnancy and disease. I think there are positions and techniques for petting that can be very pleasurable, satisfying, and intimate. Further, petting to climax may even require or result in more intimacy because it generally takes a bit more experimentation, exploration, and more communication, and is in some ways more difficult than intercourse is. It is generally worth the time and "trouble" to learn, and it can be very pleasurable to do so if one, and one's partner, are patient and understanding. Sexually and emotionally mutually satisfying intercourse also actually frequently tends to require patience and understanding, but that point escapes some people, particularly some novices (both male and female -- males because they do not know how or care enough to bring a woman to orgasm, females because they do not know how to help the male help them, and both because they mistakenly think getting themselves or each other to climax is all that is ever emotionally, or even physically important about sex). I suspect learning to pet someone to climax generally will require more of a commitment, more understanding, greater sensitivity, more tenderness and concern than just having intercourse. The mutual exercise and demonstration of these traits to each other can help produce emotional intimacy and appreciation with each other, over and above that produced by the physical pleasure alone. In some cases it will even be more fun. Novices in particular need to remember that touching can be very pleasurable, that pleasure is much of the point of sex, and that in sex, the "journey" can be half (or more) of the thrill and enjoyment. Finally in this regard, it may be that the presupposition one has about how sex ought to be to be physically and/or emotionally satisfying determines what actually will satisfy a person. People who think they have to have intercourse (protected or not) to be satisfied, may indeed need that generally. People who do not presuppose that may be satisfied by such things as petting (to climax, or even sometimes not to climax, which for some people may be unwarranted or frightening). The latter presupposition may be a safer and happier one; and if all it takes to be true is an early introduction to it --an introduction to it before one gets the idea that only intercourse is the point or thrill of sex-- then perhaps such early introduction is an important thing to attempt. Now some people claim they cannot reach a state of emotional intimacy in some cases with another person until and unless they have had satisfying sex (however achieved) that removes all the emotional barriers, defenses, anxieties, and tensions that prevent intimacy (in the sense of closeness, openness, honest communication, and sharing of private and personal feelings and ideas)-- barriers that nothing else seems to eliminate in the way that satisfying sex does. These people seem to think that sexual intimacy is (psychologically) easier to attempt or achieve than other kinds of intimacy. For some people, perhaps it is easier. But even when this is true, the sex itself is still not the emotional intimacy; it is just a method of attaining it. Even for these people, if they are right about themselves (as opposed to just unaware of other methods that might work just as well), sex leads to emotional intimacy, and may even be a part of it, but it is not the emotional or "real" intimacy itself, or is not the most important part of it. I claimed earlier that there can be intercourse without emotional intimacy. (Rape, of course, is an obvious example; but more relevant to this discussion are cases involving mutual willingness for sex.) One example is that portrayed in the movie Klute by Jane Fonda who plays a prostitute who, while she is moaning and talking passionately during intercourse with a client, is looking behind his back at her watch to see how much longer his session has. She is acting passionately and doing something that is physically intimate, but her heart and her mind are not in it. She is not passionate, just pretending to be. She is just doing her job. One does not have to be a prostitute to have intercourse one's heart or mind are not really involved in. One might have anxiety about finances, family, health, the problems of a friend or loved one, fear of discovery, pregnancy, or whatever, that sex at the time cannot override. One might not feel particularly romantic, loving, or sexually interested at the time, and may only be obliging a partner one cares about. One might not be in love with one's partner, but only in heat --that is, only sexually or physically aroused-- and that may cause a certain emotional distance even though the sex is physically satisfying, or may cause that distance as soon as the sex is physically satisfying. One might only be experimenting to see what sex is like (or is like with this person) and may find it physically good (or not) and yet not very emotionally satisfying or overcoming of alienation, loneliness, or emotional distance. One might feel some sort of peer or other kind of social pressure to have intercourse with someone, or at a time, one really would rather not, but is afraid to refuse or does not know how to refuse without causing problems (like on a date with someone really special or important, or even on one's wedding night if one is really too tired or too emotionally exhausted to be really interested but feels that may not be a good time to voice such disinterest). The above cases are perhaps only one step removed from a kind of physical intimacy that is certainly not generally emotionally intimate or even sexually intimate --going to the doctor for something like a pelvic exam, breast exam, testicle or prostate exam, proctoscopic or urinary tract exam. One might let a doctor examine one's most intimate or private anatomy without thereby feeling emotionally close to, or psychologically and confidentially comfortable with, that doctor. Oppositely, I think it is quite possible for at least some people to feel very close, open, loving, and able to be sharing with each other, or with many people, without having to have any sort of physical or sexual intimacy with them. A shared lovely walk, beautiful sunset, experience with children, emotionally powerful movie or play, stimulating, enlightening, revealing, or personally compatible conversation, great chess game or tennis match or football season with one's teammates, the completion of writing a book together or the completion of any sort of worthwhile and arduous chore together, attending the funeral of a mutual friend and sharing grief or reflections on the meaning of (the friend's) life, surviving a harrowing experience together, or doing any of a number of things might make people feel very close and very comfortable with each other and cause or make possible emotional intimacy. Given that these other experiences can cause or lead to intimacy, and given that sexual intercourse is not always intimate, I now wish to return to the issue of actual and/or unprotected intercourse as somehow being the only (even sexually) intimate behavior. The examples mentioned above on behalf of both propositions make me really unable to understand anyone's contention that only intercourse without a condom or some other form of protection is (sexually) intimate. I certainly, for example, think it is very sexually intimate generally for a couple to be willingly and/or lovingly caressing each other's genitals in a way that brings pleasure to each. I am not sure that any sort of intercourse makes it more intimate, even if it makes it feel somehow different or makes it even more pleasurable, or just easier, and even if it is the only way one might be able to cause or achieve orgasm, which generally it is not. Most people, at most times, do not let just anyone play with their private parts to give them pleasure (nor do they play with just anyone else's). That is a very physically or sexually intimate thing to do --a very personal and generally private thing to do. And if two people can pet or otherwise stroke each other to orgasm, they may choose to do so, rather than have intercourse, because that is more physically satisfying at the time, more interesting at the time, less risking of pregnancy, less risking of disease, more pleasurable at the time, more exhilarating at the time (like surreptitiously when at the table of a dinner party), or because of whatever reason. And all that seems pretty (sexually, if not otherwise) intimate to me. Further, as many poorer X-rated movies demonstrate, there are plenty of positions and motions of intercourse that seem purely mechanical and not very emotionally intimate or personal, and sometimes not even physically pleasurable at all. Participants prolong orgasm long past any pleasurable reason for doing so; they even seem to get into and remain in positions guaranteed to prevent any kind of pleasure (that might encourage orgasm). And this seems to be a rather senseless or purposeless, pointless activity --seeing how long two people can have sex by having sex without any particular pleasure for either partner. People in real life sometimes experiment or try such positions. Sometimes a position will be good for one partner but not the other; sometimes it will not be particularly good for either. Pleasureless positions of intercourse (or positions of pleasureless intercourse) are hardly more intimate, and probably a good deal less intimate, than mutually pleasurable petting or kissing. There is certainly nothing emotionally intimate about such intercourse (other than the satisfaction, if any, of willingly making a sacrifice for someone else's pleasure, if they are having any). When massage parlors first operated in the metropolitan area where I lived, I went to a few, not to have sex or even a massage (sex or a massage in places that looked like the ones in that city were not even remotely enticing to me; and the idea of having sex of any sort with someone who had sex with you only because you paid them to do it has never interested me at all), but to find out by asking questions what it was that I would be missing. I was interested in the price and what you got for that price, what the women were like, and what kinds of men would frequent such places (besides police looking for evidence to make arrests). Talking with the women revealed some very interesting attitudes toward sex. (One group was watching a soap opera in the "lobby" and was really upset at one of the characters because on the soap she was having an affair with a married man. They thought that was terrible. They didn't consider what they were doing as being anything like that.) But the most intriguing comment to me was by the girl who told me their price for a "massage" was $45 (this was around 1974) for a half hour. I asked why it was so much more expensive there when some other places just down the street were only charging around $10. She said, "Those places only give you 'a hand job' (for that)". She meant to disparage such places, of course. I didn't say anything, but it seemed to me the $10 place then would be the better deal. If I wanted to pay for sex with someone I did not care about, who did not care about me, who I probably would not be interested in even asking out, in a place that was at best unromantic (and at worst sleazy and repulsive), I think I would rather have it for the least amount of money, the least amount of physical contact, and the least chance of catching anything or risking one of those people being the mother of a child of mine. To me, it was not that you got more sexual intimacy for more money; just more risk for more money. And all the places seemed to me to offer too much sexual or physical "intimacy" for the price --even if it had been free. |
|
|
Presented by Apni Company Copyright 2007 www.WeLoved.com all Rights Reserved |