Sexually Compatible VS Compatible Sexuality

MonoVCPHG

New member
I recently spoke to Redpepper about the concept that people could be sexually compatible but not compatible in their sexuality. In essence - they can have great sex together, enjoy a wide variety of things in one environment or situation but have very different interests in sexuality as a whole.

I will take an attempt at an analogy. Take a person who loves to play catch. They spend lots of fun time playing catch with a good friend in the back yard and then their friend says "hey, why don't you come out and play a game with me sometime" The reply is "no thanks, I just like playing catch".

So now we might have a case where one person can't understand why someone who loves playing catch doesn't want to involve themselves in a game. The other person can't understand the need to add all the other aspects to what is an otherwise enjoyable and fulfilling experience.

Their "catch compatible" but not "game compatible"

Think of catch as sexually compatible and the game as sexuality as a whole.

Obviously there is only a problem if one person says "if you don't play a game I won't play catch with you" or "I don't want to play catch with you if you play games".

I'm wondering what others thoughts are on this? Does the concept of sexually compatible and compatible sexuality make sense?

Peace and Love
Mono


No need to read into this post LOL - Many of the ideas I have come from discussions with Redpepper and Polynerdist which make me look deeply inward. We don't tend to ride the surface with our chat so I am grateful for their inspiration to learn and share. I can almost draw all of my internal concepts with respect to how I experience love and relationships in general....I have spent a year internalizing.....my schedule is way too light apparently :)
 
I think that if you have the time and energy to devote to topics such as this one, then you have one heck of an easy, carefree, charmed life.
 
Hmmmmm

Hey Mon,

I'm not sure I'm completely getting where you are going here. Dense moment ? (I have those)

But trying to use your analogy - would it be correct to substitute the word "interest" instead of "compatibility" ? Or is that changing what you're trying to say too much ? Something about the word 'compatibility' - to me - implies too much of a go/no go imperative.

Because if we can do the substitution - where is the conflict or concern ?

Different people have different likes, tastes etc, some we share with others, some we don't. No inherent conflict there is there ?
We cum together on the things we do share and out of common courtesy & respect, allow the space for each other to indulge in the things we don't separately.

So except for examples like you offered where one or the other starts to exert some form of control drama or the different 'likes' are so adverse to one or the other to actually diminish respect - and therefore any shared connection, I think we have to respect each individual's right to seek their own happiness & fulfillment.

Is that maybe a big part of the definition of 'open mind' and even 'love' ? Embracing both our similarities as well as our 'differences' ?

Hope I guessed at what you were trying to get at ?

GS
 
So except for examples like you offered where one or the other starts to exert some form of control drama or the different 'likes' are so adverse to one or the other to actually diminish respect - and therefore any shared connection, I think we have to respect each individual's right to seek their own happiness & fulfillment.


GS

Bang on, GS. Although I would exchange the word "respect" for ability to share sexually because of differences. I am wondering if people experience this.
 
I view any sexual connections I make with a person as a manifestation of my sexuality. I can't really see a difference. If I'm sexually compatible with someone, then it fits that they are compatible with my sexuality. Simply because they may not share in ALL aspects of my sexual expression doesn't mean that they are not somehow part of my sexuality as a whole.
 
I view any sexual connections I make with a person as a manifestation of my sexuality. I can't really see a difference. If I'm sexually compatible with someone, then it fits that they are compatible with my sexuality. Simply because they may not share in ALL aspects of my sexual expression doesn't mean that they are not somehow part of my sexuality as a whole.

Cool! This type of personal perspectives is what I was looking for. Thanks for sharing Ceoli :)
 
I recently spoke to Redpepper about the concept that people could be sexually compatible but not compatible in their sexuality. In essence - they can have great sex together, enjoy a wide variety of things in one environment or situation but have very different interests in sexuality as a whole.

I will take an attempt at an analogy. Take a person who loves to play catch. They spend lots of fun time playing catch with a good friend in the back yard and then their friend says "hey, why don't you come out and play a game with me sometime" The reply is "no thanks, I just like playing catch".

So now we might have a case where one person can't understand why someone who loves playing catch doesn't want to involve themselves in a game. The other person can't understand the need to add all the other aspects to what is an otherwise enjoyable and fulfilling experience.

Their "catch compatible" but not "game compatible"

Think of catch as sexually compatible and the game as sexuality as a whole.

Obviously there is only a problem if one person says "if you don't play a game I won't play catch with you" or "I don't want to play catch with you if you play games".

I'm wondering what others thoughts are on this? Does the concept of sexually compatible and compatible sexuality make sense?

Peace and Love
Mono


No need to read into this post LOL - Many of the ideas I have come from discussions with Redpepper and Polynerdist which make me look deeply inward. We don't tend to ride the surface with our chat so I am grateful for their inspiration to learn and share. I can almost draw all of my internal concepts with respect to how I experience love and relationships in general....I have spent a year internalizing.....my schedule is way too light apparently :)

I see where you are coming from. I would take things a little slower. In your analogy you went from playing catch to playing a game. You could simply start by playin catch at the field and then people would join in with you and your partners over time with permission from the both of you of course. or you could play catch with more people.

You understand what the game has to offer your partner doesn't so why play the game when playing catch is perfect? You have to show your partner that more of a good thing is out there but not bombard them with it.
 
See for me, I have a broad spectrum of things I like to do when it comes to sexual things. I certainly don't expect any partner of mine to want to do all of them. It's definitely not an all-or-nothing thing.

To me, we are compatible when there are enough things that we have in common to make it interesting and to fulfill that feeling of intimacy and fun that represents sexuality for me.
 
You understand what the game has to offer your partner doesn't so why play the game when playing catch is perfect? You have to show your partner that more of a good thing is out there but not bombard them with it.

Sorry my friend, I think you might have missed my initial intent of my comment. It certainly wasn't about how to get someone to open up to playing a game LOL! I don't adhere to the "more of a good thing is out there" theory so to speak haha, but I do think if some one was looking to try to change thier partners outlook on this matter your advice is great.
 
I like the analogy you came up with Mono. I wonder if some peoples fear about the game aspect would be that their partner would be drawn into the game and that they may not want to go back to playing catch... the two are very different, yet similar... each has it's place and each can be fun.
 
I like the analogy you came up with Mono. I wonder if some peoples fear about the game aspect would be that their partner would be drawn into the game and that they may not want to go back to playing catch... the two are very different, yet similar... each has it's place and each can be fun.


I could see why fear might be a factor to someone in this. For me it is a much more defined case of simply determining if the person who plays catch wants to share that with someone who plays the game or would rather stick with others who just play catch. …(I actually don't like baseball so my analogy is almost laughable LOL)

I think some people could and others couldn't. So I feel some people can be sexually compatible in that they can enjoy sex together but the knowledge of other activities in sexuality may simply make them not want to share that part of themselves with the other person. Therefore they are sexually compatible but do not have a compatible sexuality.

I think this situation would be a death nail to monogamous couplings (who are actually monogamous) but is a much more manageable situation in multi-partner open relationships where there is no expectations to have all activities met by one partner.
 
Sorry my friend, I think you might have missed my initial intent of my comment. It certainly wasn't about how to get someone to open up to playing a game LOL! I don't adhere to the "more of a good thing is out there" theory so to speak haha, but I do think if some one was looking to try to change thier partners outlook on this matter your advice is great.

Laughing out loud I must have missed you intent....

I could see why fear might be a factor to someone in this. For me it is a much more defined case of simply determining if the person who plays catch wants to share that with someone who plays the game or would rather stick with others who just play catch. …(I actually don't like baseball so my analogy is almost laughable LOL)

I think some people could and others couldn't. So I feel some people can be sexually compatible in that they can enjoy sex together but the knowledge of other activities in sexuality may simply make them not want to share that part of themselves with the other person. Therefore they are sexually compatible but do not have a compatible sexuality.

I think this situation would be a death nail to monogamous couplings (who are actually monogamous) but is a much more manageable situation in multi-partner open relationships where there is no expectations to have all activities met by one partner.

I thought you was talking about football...:D
 
Actually, the baseball analogy doesn't work well for me. Playing catch and playing the game access the same parts of me, just in different ways. I don't see one as a more complete version of the other. They are both different ways to express playing with a ball. I see playing catch and playing the game two smaller aspects of something larger. Both of them are ways to access that larger idea.

My sexuality is accessed and expressed in many ways. None of what I do sexually is exclusive to that.
 
For me I experience this daily.

I am MUCH MUCH more..... hmmm how to put it.

I have a lot of different things I like sexually, for your ball analogy, I like to play catch one on one, I like to play catch in a group, I like to watch the game played by people who aren't professional and I like to watch the game played by people who are professional, I like to play the game as well and by a variety of rules. sometimes I like to play the game with "the" rules, sometimes I like to play the game with "made up rules" to fit the circumstances....

On the other hand, Maca and GG both enjoy playing catch one on one, but NOT in a group. They both enjoy watching the game played, Maca enjoys watching professionals or amateurs, but GG PREFERS to watch amateurs play the game, GG prefers to play by the rules, Maca prefers to make up rules to fit the circumstances...

IF either of them insisted that they "wouldn't play catch with me" unless I ONLY participated in the parts THEY found interesting-I wouldn't get all of my needs met.

On the other hand, there is no need for EITHER of them to play ALL the ways I like to play.. we can each play the ways we want to and when one of them is playing a way I enjoy-we can play together....

;)
 
Ceoli said:
I see playing catch and playing the game two smaller aspects of something larger.

Yes ! excellent. Small pieces of something larger.

On the other hand, there is no need for EITHER of them to play ALL the ways I like to play.. we can each play the ways we want to and when one of them is playing a way I enjoy-we can play together....

;)

There !
See - isn't that simple ! All in how you choose to look at it.
I like simple...........

Can I play too ? :)

GS
 
Last edited:
I recently spoke to Redpepper about the concept that people could be sexually compatible but not compatible in their sexuality. In essence - they can have great sex together, enjoy a wide variety of things in one environment or situation but have very different interests in sexuality as a whole.

I will take an attempt at an analogy. Take a person who loves to play catch. They spend lots of fun time playing catch with a good friend in the back yard and then their friend says "hey, why don't you come out and play a game with me sometime" The reply is "no thanks, I just like playing catch".

So now we might have a case where one person can't understand why someone who loves playing catch doesn't want to involve themselves in a game. The other person can't understand the need to add all the other aspects to what is an otherwise enjoyable and fulfilling experience.

Their "catch compatible" but not "game compatible"

Think of catch as sexually compatible and the game as sexuality as a whole.

Obviously there is only a problem if one person says "if you don't play a game I won't play catch with you" or "I don't want to play catch with you if you play games".

I'm wondering what others thoughts are on this? Does the concept of sexually compatible and compatible sexuality make sense?

I'm actually curious at to how you are defining "sexuality". And then looking at your analogy, I'm thinking that compatible sexuality would be playing catch while sexually compatible would be the game as a couple may like the same activities or have the same drive, but they do not have the chemstry required to be sexually compatible.

This analogy also holds true for the basic idea of sex and relationships. Some people like sex and want sex, but are not interested in relationships beyond sex.

Ok, my brain is everywhere right now...but those are the thoughts that came to mind when I read through the topic. Take what you will fro it and leave the rest. ;)
 
I'm actually curious at to how you are defining "sexuality".

Yes, this is something that I was thinking about in this post as well.

I talked a bit in this post on another thread about how I've been defining sexuality in the context of sex education. The program I work with uses a model called "Circles of Sexuality". It describes five interlinked circles in which each circle represents an aspect of our sexuality, but each circle is connected to each other circle. So while they are separate aspects, they are still closely inter-connected.

They are:

Sensuality- Awareness, acceptance of, and comfort with one's own body; physiological and psychological enjoyment of ones own body and the bodies of others. This includes but is not limited to:
  • Body image
  • Human sexual response cycle
  • Skin hunger
  • Fantasy
Intimacy- The ability and need to experience emotional closeness to another human being and have it returned. This includes but is not limited to:
  • Caring
  • Sharing
  • Loving/Liking
  • Risk taking
  • Vulnerability
  • Self-disclosure
  • Trust
Sexual Identity-The devlopment of a sense of who one is sexually, including a sense of maleness or femaleness. Including but not limited to:
  • Gender identity
  • Gender role
  • Sexual orientation
  • Biological sex
Sexual Health and Reproduction- Attitudes and behaviors related to producing children, care and maintenance of the sex and reproductive organs and health consequences of sexual behavior. Including but not limited to:
  • Factual information
  • Feelings and attitudes
  • Sexual/reproductive systems
  • Physiology an anatomy of reproductive organs
  • Intercourse
Sexualization- The use of sexuality to influence, control or manipulate others. Including but not limited to:
  • Rape
  • Incest
  • Sexual Harassment
  • Withholding sex
  • Seduction/flirting
 
Back
Top