As I see it, sex is a very basic, primal, and instinctual thing. For me to
be attracted to a particular partner, an emotional response isn't
necessary, though it's not unwelcome in some instances. Rather, it's a
matter of chemistry and hormonal response. I don't have this
response with just anyone, but I most certainly have it quite a bit
more often than an emotional response.
I classify sex in four basic ways:
Sex with no love and no chemistry/hormonal response
Sex with love only
Sex with chemistry/hormonal response only
Sex with both love and chemistry/hormonal response
I've tried it all four ways.
Sex with no love and no chemistry/hormonal response is mechanical
and unsatisfying. I've only done this a few times and I don't do
this sort at all anymore.
Sex with love and no chemistry/hormonal response is not sexually
satisfying, either. Such instances are a matter of trying too hard
and trying to force something that isn't there. It also has the
highest probability for emotional hurt. I also avoid these types of
encounters as well.
Sex with chemistry/hormonal response only can be extremely
satisfying depending upon the context, such as one night stands and
fuckbuddy relationships. They work best for anyone who is able to compartmentalize and see thevalue of sex for its own sake. As a libertine, this type is what is most common for me, as chemical attraction is vastly more common than being in love.
Sex with both love and chemistry/hormonal response is, of course, also
highly satisfying in its proper context, which are long term
committed relationships. However, they are less desirable when one is
merely interested in a one time deal, or a fuckbuddy relationship without
other expectations. This type tends to create complications which are a hassle in those types of relationships.
So, though I am a libertine, I am not entirely indiscriminate, as there are only two of the four types that I am comfortably engaging in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment