|
|
Talk to Me
by GirlchickJayne
I have to warn you, I think too much. I’m always reading about sex, and getting precious little of it. I back off at the last minute -- always with some good reason of course. Then I go read more books. When I do this, I’m thinking that if I can put enough of the pieces together, like about sex, before I meet someone, I’ll walk into a relationship in which the sex will be brown ’n serve heaven. I have a friend who would be laughing if he heard me say that. He doesn’t believe in books. "You know how to do it. Why read books about it?" he would say. Actually, he’d be muttering.
Other people say just jump in and do it. But when I just jump into a lukewarm situation, where I’m not head over heels for the guy, well, somewhere along the line I go cold. And the guy gets his feelings hurt.
So anyway, I was reading today about some happily married couples whose sex lives were OK, but a little lack in the luster, if you know what I mean. The idea was that one of the partners was not completely open to receive pleasure.
And it dawned on me that I’m such a person. I don’t receive very well at all. I hear a lot of talk about performance anxiety, maybe that’s men coming up against how hard women are to please (relatively speaking). I know I find it a whole lot easier to give pleasure.
And yes, men do seem pretty easy to please. But also, there’s the idea that when you’re giving pleasure to a guy, the guy’s kind of, well, preoccupied. He’s certainly not focused on your imperfections at the moment. And you’re in complete control. Receiving, on the other hand, that’s when performance anxiety sets in for me. Receiving feels like being on stage. (Or in the case of missionary with an insensitive guy, like being crushed.)
But the book’s point wasn’t about self-conscious lovemaking. The book’s point was about shutting a partner out emotionally. I think I’ve been there, especially in early relationships. It’s like you’re holding back some small part of yourself that you can run away with if he dumps you. It’s definitely a question of trust.
However, the examples from the book were long-time partners. Their sex had been great at one point, and then . . . kaplooey. My guess is that in longer relationships, the worry isn’t focused around dumping or getting dumped any more. By now, years of repeated arguments have built up, where each person’s pet peeves crash against the other’s. The couple has "that thing" that they always quarrel over. When one partner does "that thing," it pushes all the other partner’s buttons. Next, you decide that since your partner just did "that thing," which drives you crazy, s/he doesn’t care about your feelings. Maybe the scoundrel doesn’t even love you. Before you know it, "that thing" has become the symbol for your partner loving you or not. So you’re in bed, your partner is getting all up in your crotch, and you’re thinking, "this person is all up in there where it counts and what if they just go off and do ’that thing’ again?" This is the deep, heavy rejection of long-term partner sex. So people start holding back.
Anyway, about this couple in the book. The guy was saying that when they had sex -- he and his wife -- he could feel she wasn’t connecting with him and it made him feel alone. (I thought desire for "connection" was a girl thing -- am I wrong on this?)
So what about all the goodtime people who don’t get this hung up on "connection" and "holding back"? (Are there such people?) People who just enjoy the hardy in-and-out, a little "wo baby," and a final "what a great ride"? I’ve done one-night stands like that. I did it just for the jollies, that is, because it felt good. Got my rocks off and "see-ya." I was usually drunk. But these experiences have shown me that in the throes of "oh baby," no one cares all that much about "sensing connection." From the shits and giggles perspective, "connection and sharing" sounds a whole lot like therapy. And why would anyone need therapy just to have good sex?
Really, I’m of two minds on this one. The first mind says that when people think "good sex just comes naturally," they’re setting their expectations too high. Like, if you and your partner aren’t having hot, spontaneous, uncontrollable sex, then one of you isn’t being "natural" (translation: not measuring up). On the other hand, the people who say it takes a lot of work to have good sex "after the honeymoon," might just be trying to sell you a self-help book.
I’m a sucker for those. I’ve got one here: Women Who Run With the Wolves: Myths and Stories of the Wild Woman Archetype (by Clarissa Pinkola Estes).
But back to this other book, I thought it was cool that the guy in the book could sense his wife’s lack of connection. Is he the norm for guys, with this kind of perception? Or is he just one of a kind, one of those touchy feely types? Not that he didn’t have a good ole time humping and bumping because on the contrary, he said the sex was great. But he also said it wasn’t enough -- it was OK for a fast food moment, but not for a steady diet. So I guess it was nice to know that even amid all his thrills and shudders, this married guy had a sharp emotional awareness going on. I still want to know is this guy the exception or the rule.
When I browse the site, I see that some people want the afternoon quickie, no-strings, and others want the whole emotional ball of yarn complete with the kitten. Is that just different strokes for different folks? Or are some people just taking a break from one or the other -- the emotional or the purely physical, like, regrouping for round five? Is it human nature to want both emotional and physical in a perfect world? I also see tons of married guys who want the "no-strings." Lots of them say they love their wives or don’t want to mess with the marriage. And I can understand how sex is about "getting the good feelings back." So then I wonder, is it possible to get the emotional connection from one person and the "Oh-baby" feelings from another? Is "connected" sex all it’s cracked up to be -- I mean is it the best way to have better sex or is it just a stroke of damn good luck?
|
|
