love, sex & dissociation

[River]

Dissociation has a common dictionary definition and a psychological one. These two vary significantly.

The common dictionary definition goes like this.:

noun

1. an act or instance of dissociating.

2. the state of being dissociated; disjunction; separation

The psychological definition varies from place to place, and its definition partakes considerably in matters of theory (and practice in psychotherapy).

Psychology deals in two kinds of norms -- ethical and statistical. For various reasons, philosophical and otherwise, psychology as a "science" has tended to err on the side of statistics -- with "normal" being referenced in relation to
the statistical norm in any given society or culture. The problem here is -- obviously, I hope -- that a whole society can be confused, disordered, ... pathological, pathogenic. (E.g., rampant racism, sexism, etc.) This is all commonplace thinking for those with any sincere inquiry into anthropology, sociology and cultural history.

Our topic here is complex and difficult. But I'm growing increasingly convinced that a certain variety of dissociation is now commonplace in certain modern (contemporary) cultures, perhaps especially that of the people I'm most acquainted with: Americans. (Or, more precisely, USA-ians). A great many Americans seem to me to dissociate what we call "feelings" and sexual "intimacy" -- by which I mean that when they "have sex" with people they very often do not see (experience) the person as a person at all -- or even themselves. Sex, then, is over here -- dissociated (not in association with) the whole wide round of human experience and relating.

I could go on and on, but I think this is enough beginning for a conversation to ensue.

Or perhaps not? I think my observation here is not commonly recognized as meaningful or valid, which would in fact fit my hypothesis -- that contemporary American culture encourages dissociative sexuality -- which could be called "fragmenting the heart (feeling) from the erogenous zones," or some such. Even the world "feeling" here is likely to be a confused matter, sadly. So many of us are dissociated from feeling in its full natural range that what I'm saying here will seem like nonsense to perhaps even a large majority.

Just how my topic relates to the topic of polyamory is something which must be drawn out gradually, since this is a conversation and not an essay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociation_(psychology)

 

[Ravenscroft]

I'm uncertain if you mean in an exploratory or philosophic sense, or in a more extreme clinical or pathological sense.

However, I don't see where it's a "modern times" sort of thing. Didn't Kinsey find that something like one-fourth of first-time intercourse for males occurred with a prostitute? That was the 1940s.

And roughly half of men reported some degree of extramarital sex, with 26% of women doing so by their mid-40s.

(Dunno if this is directly relevant, but it popped into my head. In the "upper classes" of many eras & nations, marriage was largely a matter of succession or inheritance (note primogeniture laws), having not much to do with regulating love or sex. The plebes seem to be copying the theatrics of sociopolitical monogamy, in the belief that they thus grasp the deep mystic purpose of monogamy -- in other words, superstition, magical thinking, cargo cultism. I've contended that monogamy-as-practiced requires a drastic muting of simple logic, & this function is served by Romance.)

Is dissociation good? bad? indifferent? situational?

IME, it's possible to love someone deeply without feeling the need to pursue sex. And while I vastly prefer bilateral deep emotional attachment to my sexual partners, there've also been moments of intense connection with friends, & those friends perhaps just ships in the night. It'd be a bummer to find out those pleasant memories are somehow bad.

 

[River]

It'd be a bummer to find out those pleasant memories are somehow bad.

They seem to be neither bad nor dissociated, from what you have said, Ravenscroft. But I did see the wink in the inquiry, and so I believe you and I probably share some overlapping common perspective.

For one, I don't think what we may call "dissociated sexuality" has any crucial connection with the duration of relating / relationship. All relationships end at some point, even the longest-lasting ones, for one reason or another (including death).

Some of the least dissociated sexual communions between people have also been of the briefest duration. So duration is almost beside the point, if not entirely beside it.

"I'm uncertain if you mean in an exploratory or philosophic sense, or in a more extreme clinical or pathological sense."​

This, to me, is a tricky question. Who gets to decide what is "normal"? I'm very suspicious of what is regarded as non-pathological by so-called "experts" and professionals -- the psychology / psychiatry industry.

I'm very strongly a "sexual libertine". I just don't think the so-called "sexual revolution" ever quite happened. If it had, poor bruised and malnourished Eros would be plump and happy. But it does not require a Ph.D. to see that he is not. He's more often a Hungry Ghost (google it), a creature so voracious in apatite (starved) because he's incapable of satisfaction ("I can't get no satisfaction" -- Rolling Stones). This is why the porn industry dwarfs the automobile industry. Hungry ghosts.

My thinking is that for far too many people (too many in the sadness of their numbers) what we may call "true eros" is supplanted by "pseudo eros," which lacks real (genuine, authentic) affection and warmth -- a.k.a., love. Love has no necessary relationship to duration, by the way. It's real when it is real, regardless of duration.

I think sexual pleasure, to be whole (and even real), has got to very significantly include loving, or it will instead be a perverse and starved grasping after an impossible pleasure--the pleasure which is both groin and heart (together!). But our culture is so very confused about all of this, I think. It's a confusion about "the sacred" at bottom. We have (sadly) little knowledge or experience of "the sacred" as a people which is not rooted and grounded in organized religion, which generally is worse than useless as a guide to "the sacred". Far worse, usually, as our culture's religious "norms" are ... here we go! -- anti-erotic. Poor Eros! Poor starved Eros -- a god of love he is, but malnourished by religion and myth....

____________________________

There appear to be something akin to what are sometimes called "chakras" in the human psychic energy system. I'm not stuck on "the chakras" though. But there is something to be said about what may be called "groin energy" and "heart energy". And when these two are not associated, when they become dis-associated (dissociated) this seems to me to always result in pathology (a.k.a., suffering). And if this is true, then it's a very important truth. Because millions and millions of us live with some degree or another of dis-association between the Between Our Legs and the Center of Our Chest -- whether or not this is metaphor or ... or... or....

It is now commonplace for people to speak in terms of wanting / seeking body parts: e.g., "pussy, cock, ass".... One can go on Craigslist, for example, and find millions and millions of people advertising for pussy, cock, ass..., with no mention of personal traits, or personal anything (personal is often anathema here). And try looking at MOST of the hundred billion tons of porn on the Internet. Do you see any actual Eros there? I see mostly bodies meeting bodies -- but these are not REAL bodies, for real bodies are persons. And persons are both heart and groin.

 

[IndieSolo]

But how can you say what is real, full, genuine affection and warmth to someone else? Must someone's interactions meet your standards for such things (genuine, warm, affection, real, fullness, connection, etc.), in order to be so?

If someone enjoys expressing their sexuality in a certain way, and that way differs from yours with regard to how involved their heart/emotions seem to be, is it really fair for you to make a blanket statement that they are dissociated from the experience and/or from themselves? Are you able to climb inside everyone to determine how much of their heart is involved or how connected they are when they have sex with someone? And why isn't it okay to have sex and let it be for fun and not necessarily a deep heart connection?

I am not saying that there is no element of truth in what you say, but the grim picture you painted with such a broad stroke annoyed me for a few reasons. One, because it's yet another declaration of how fucked-up Americans are, which frequently pops up in your discussions, and two, because it seems to say that anyone who doesn't see sexual, loving relationships the way you do, has got it all wrong. Harumph.

 

[River]

But how can you say what is real, full, genuine affection and warmth to someone else? Must someone's interactions meet your standards for such things (genuine, warm, affection, real, fullness, connection, etc.), in order to be so?

When did I suggest that I'd be The One to tell everyone how they should think or feel about any of these matters? I invited a conversation, after all. I did not issue an edict from on high.

If someone enjoys expressing their sexuality in a certain way, and that way differs from yours with regard to how involved their heart/emotions seem to be, is it really fair for you to make a blanket statement that they are dissociated from the experience and/or from themselves? Are you able to climb inside everyone to determine how much of their heart is involved or how connected they are when they have sex with someone? And why isn't it okay to have sex and let it be for fun and not necessarily a deep heart connection?

This is an excellent question! (Not the part that re-focuses the matter upon me ["Are you able to climb inside everyone to determine how much of their heart is involved or how connected they are when they have sex with someone?"], personally, but the part which makes it avalid, living question for all of us). We begin to explore that living question with "And why isn't it okay to have sex and let it be for fun and not necessarily a deep heart connection?" Now that's a question with meat and substance. But it's not how I'd state it, as you seem to think I'm moralizing, when in fact I'm taking it as a profound aesthetic question firstly and foremost. This shifts it from an "on high" moralizing question to a question to our hearts, our sensibilities..., like the poet, Rilke's inquiry into questioning itself -- how we are encouraged by this poet to "live the questions".

How to keep the question alive and naked, undefended, as a living question -- an aesthetic one? Goddess knows! We are not a people who like naked questions without shielding and defensiveness. So we accuse the questioner of claiming moral high ground, delusions of grandeur, anything....

I'm brash and daring enough to state the obvious. If people eat and eat and eat ... and grow fat on chocolate cheesecake and pizza, but never satisfy their appatite ... What if we stop a moment and wonder why? Why do they cram themselves so full of this rich diet as if gasping for air, in desperation? Do they really experience this cramming as joy and satisfaction? And if not, why not? What's this gaping Hole about? What's the desperate longing really for?

" ... and two, because it seems to say that anyone who doesn't see sexual, loving relationships the way you do, has got it all wrong. Harumph.

"Seems to say" -- but why? Because I dare to ask the question that so few want to touch? I'm asking, "Has the 'sexual revolution' failed, but not because it failed to 'liberate' our sexual activity, but because it failed to liberate our hearts in our sexual relating?"

Eating chocolate cheese cake is not bad. Nor is eating pizza. But those who stay up past midnight shoving in ice cream on top of all of that may want to take a moment and just STOP and wonder why they are doing this to themselves.

Americans are gorging themselves (a lot of us) on a very rich diet of crotch energy without association with heart energy. I know, because I've talked with hundreds, perhaps thousands of them about it. They say the most marvelously fascinating things to me. Example: (a gay man): "It's much easier to get a blow job than a sincere hug, so I take the blow job from the stranger". (At least this one was honest.)

What I think is that most everyone is (usually unwittingly) longing for an erotic experience (which MUST be a loving experience) which conjoins heart and groin ... and head ... and the whole body, all of it (heart and soul). I think most of us feel the truth of this, if we will be but honest with ourselves (slowing down enough to recognize it). Such experiences are SO much more joyous and ecstatic and blissful than mere "fun". So much so that those sexual encounters which lack such ecstasy are seen -- honestly -- as Not Fun at all, but a pale facsimile like fools gold. This is not a moralizing observation, but an aesthetic one. That is, it has to do with pleasure. My concern is with how we seek pleasure in such a way which obviates it. It is not a judgement I'm speaking to. I don't blame those who lack such pleasure and want it so desperately. I want us to have such pleasure -- as if the world depended upon it. And I'm beginning to think that it does.

 

[River]

I find it interesting and ironic that some folks find me to be a bit of a prude or something, as if I were a carrier of some kind of traditionalist sexual morality. The reality is that I'm very, very far from that. It's just that sex without feeling and connection is useless to me. It simply doesn't turn me on. But traditional monogamy (sexual and emotional exclusivity) is also not my thing. And so there is a really big and rich Between for me. Between traditional monogamy and one-time casual "hook up" sex with strangers there is a world of intimate connecting which, for me, is real ... and yet mostly in my imagination as a possibliity. It's a broad spectrum of kinds and degrees which, I imagine, should not need to be rigorously mapped because it should be more intuitive than that. It would be a world of loving connections, with warmth and affection that doesn't require marriage or following some social / cultural rule book whose rules are mostly symptoms of fear and dread.

Yeah, I know, there are ample opportunities for loving connections which do not involve erotic energy (in the usual sense), and I have plenty of this in my life. I have lots of platonic friends. But I'm talking about another kind of friendship here.

Where I live, most everyone wants either an exclusive "LTR" (monogamy) or a quick romp in the hay ("no strings attached") -- and I do mean most everybody, as in 99.5% at least. The Middle Zone between these two is basically non-existent. And this seems odd to me, I must say. My lack of interest in the quick romp with a stranger hardly makes me a traditionalist prude moralizer! Sheesh.

 

[IndieSolo]

I don't know who here thinks you are a prude; I never said that you are a prude or into "traditionalist sexual morality." The thing that caught me about your initial post was this:

. . . I'm growing increasingly convinced that a certain variety of dissociation is now commonplace in certain modern (contemporary) cultures . . . A great many Americans seem to me to dissociate what we call "feelings" and sexual "intimacy" -- by which I mean that when they "have sex" with people they very often do not see (experience) the person as a person at all -- or even themselves. Sex, then, is over here -- dissociated (not in association with) the whole wide round of human experience and relating.

I could go on and on, but I think this is enough beginning for a conversation to ensue.

Or perhaps not? I think my observation here is not commonly recognized as meaningful or valid, which would in fact fit my hypothesis -- that contemporary American culture encourages dissociative sexuality -- which could be called "fragmenting the heart (feeling) from the erogenous zones," or some such.

The comments I bolded just seem like you have certain expectations regarding what sex and intimacy should be, and that from what you've observed in your corner of the world, you feel that many people either don't experience or understand that, which must mean they are dissociated from... a deeper part of themselves... connecting with their partner... or (even!) the greater human experience. You even go on to say that if your observations are not considered meaningful and valid by others, then that proves how dissociated and disconnected people are with regard to sex-heart connections. Well, there's a lot of big assumptions (or accusations, perhaps?) you are positing, don't you think?

What I'm saying in response is not that you're a prude (and I am not sure how you may have gleaned that from my earlier post, if you took it that way), but that whatever kinds of connections people have between them may not look like what you believe a deeper heart-connected physical intimacy would look like BUT how can you possibly know it is not just as meaningful and heartfelt to those people as you believe, for you, sexual intimacy should be?

And I am simply wondering how can you say that most people are dissociated from all the things you mention, if you cannot crawl into their skin and feel what they feel from their perspective? Maybe to some people, the best sexual experiences are about having fun and laughing and not worrying about deeply knowing someone, and for them, that IS a spiritual, deeply felt experience. And maybe for others, spirituality isn't important and sex is just physical pleasure. And who is to say that they are dissociated from themselves or the full range of human sexual experience if that is the case?

Again, I am not saying that your first post doesn't describe anyone. I am just saying it seemed to me to be too broad of a generalization.

 

[River]

And I am simply wondering how can you say that most people are dissociated from all the things you mention, if you cannot crawl into their skin and feel what they feel from their perspective?

If ever I said "most people," I made an error -- though it's difficult to know how much of one. What I did say is that there is something of the "commonplace" in it. I'll later go back and see if ever I said something different, such as "most people".

I thought of the phenomenon I was speaking of "sexual dissociation" as existing on a very broad spectrum of degree (perhaps also of kind). This is an important part of my point. Just because any given person is not on the far end of extremity is no reason to think they are not somewhere on this spectrum. And, for what it is worth, those on the extreme high end of the spectrum are basically sociopaths or extreme narcissists -- those with little or no empathy. True eros, I'm saying, is ALWAYS profoundly empathetic, compassionate, loving.... Pseudo eros is always narrowly self-seeking with much less (or no) empathy / love. The pleasure sought in pseudo eros is on the deeply self-centered end of the spectrum; it is taken more than given or shared.

I think all true lovers know about this stuff. It's nothing new. What seems to be new is the recent cultural condition in which what humans have always known has been ... shall we say ... become much less commonplace than it once was. This is merely my opinion, however. I may be very wrong. I dearly hope that I am, actually.

__________________

I should add that, as a bi-sexual and bi-amorous man, my experience with "gay" and "bi" men probably figures very importantly in my observations. This complicates matters quite a lot, as I want to avoid generalizing or steriotyping about men in general, and gay and bi men in particular. I think that although things have improved considerably in this respect, the culture's still pervasive homophobia and heterosexism has tended to wound gay and bi men in such a way that it is more difficult for them to open their hearts to one another in the way of eros -- or true erotic loving. Too often, gay and bi men are "split," as it is sometimes called. They can share tenderness and affection with their buddies or platonic friends, but often have trouble connecting with their "lovers" in this way. It's a form of compartmentalization.

That said, I've known plenty of straight women who have a similar dynamic in their beings.

 

[IndieSolo]

Just wanted to add something that another member, Boaz, posted elsewhere here. I wasn't looking for it, but just came across it and he states basically what I'm trying to say in a much better more eloquent way:

. . . sex is a multifaceted experience that is not kept in a static emotional or physical space. As our moods change, so do our desires. Sometimes what we crave is the sense of unity gained from slow, attentive lovemaking (grokking them in their fullness), sometimes it is a quickie, or maybe laughing playful sex, or the edginess of rough-play or one of any number of other manifestations of sex- and sometimes you just want a debauched bump-and-grind athletic fuckfest. Sometimes there is mutuality involved, sometimes one partner is the focus more than the other. But physically one-sided play that does not mean there has to be a lack of emotional intimacy. Ask anyone who gives intimate massages...

Consequently, I think its a bit unfair to try and pigeon-hole sex-as-sport as being inherently detrimental to intimate relationships. Even in one night stands, when the animal passions are possibly at their fullest flow and its all about the physical, I have had some profoundly connecting and emotionally intimate experiences.

I guess in my long-winded and rambling way I am just trying to say that you need to be careful about confusing the outer appearances (physical grunt-and-sweat sex) for the inner landscape (intimate connection). The two are related in strange and mysterious ways that are not always straight forward.

 

[Magdlyn]

If ever I said "most people," I made an error -- though it's difficult to know how much of one. What I did say is that there is something of the "commonplace"...

I thought of the phenomenon I was speaking of, "sexual dissociation," as existing on a very broad spectrum.. Just because any given person is not on the far end of extremity is no reason to think they are not somewhere on this spectrum. And, for what it is worth, those on the extreme high end of the spectrum are basically sociopaths or extreme narcissists -- those with little or no empathy.

Not necessarily. They might be people who have been raised by uncaring, neglectful or abusive parents, and have suffered damage around their ability to trust, or to hope for more.

True eros, I'm saying, is ALWAYS profoundly empathetic, compassionate, loving.... Pseudo eros is always narrowly self-seeking with much less (or no) empathy / love. The pleasure sought in pseudo eros is on the deeply self-centered end of the spectrum; it is taken more than given or shared.

Eros is romantic love. Many men aren't into romance. Straight or gay men, it seems to me, from experience and from reading, are more likely to enjoy hot sex with little or no commitment or deep emotional connection. They have been trained that being "mushy" makes them seem weak.

However, I have personally dated, and talked to quite a few bi men who seem to be all about deep loving connection.

I think all true lovers know about this stuff. It's nothing new. What seems to be new is the recent cultural condition in which what humans have always known has ...become much less commonplace than it once was.

The idea of romantic love as a cultural ideal is really rather new. Marriages, until quite recently, like the last 100-200 years, has been about clan/tribal/nation-state/political connections. The idea of a marriage commitment based on "love" is new, and the idea that a monogamous marriage should remain hot and sexual for 50+ years is unrealistic and a new, radical and ultimately unworkable idea (as shown by the divorce rate).

I should add that, as a bi-sexual and bi-amorous man, my experience with "gay" and "bi" men probably figures very importantly in my observations. This complicates matters quite a lot, as I want to avoid generalizing or stereotyping about men in general, and gay and bi men in particular. I think that although things have improved considerably in this respect, the culture's still pervasive homophobia and heterosexism has tended to wound gay and bi men in such a way that it is more difficult for them to open their hearts to one another in the way of eros -- or true erotic loving.

It is a male gay issue. But on the other hand, do gay men think it's great to be this way? Many obviously not. Obviously many gay male couples have been rushing to the altar ever since same sex marriage began to be legalized.

That said, I've known plenty of straight women who have a similar dynamic in their beings.

Women are good at connecting intimately. It's encouraged in our culture. Women are especially good at connecting with other women (platonically) or with their children. If they weren't, our culture would fall apart and die out. Children would die of neglect. On the other hand, many women are extremely frustrated trying to deeply connect with their husbands, because of men fearing to seem mushy and weak if they show emotion (other than during a sports game).

I know you, River, long for a deep love relationship with another man. From what I have observed, there ARE loving gay male couples out there, who are tender and caring to each other, and to their children.

You are having a hard time finding one. Perhaps it is because of your pedantic attitude. You are extrapolating outwards to our culture, when it might be a personal problem.

Lots of deep long-lasting relationships start out as "mere romps in the hay." We see that here every day, where people start out seeking fuck buddies. They do not have "permission" from their partner to enter into anything but a sex-only relationship, only to find themselves accidentally falling in love, against their own will. I also remember Dan Savage, the supposed guru of sex and gay issues, writing that he and his husband-to-be met in a bar, drunk, and I think they even fucked that night not knowing each others' names.

Maybe you come on too strong and needy when seeking gay male lovers. Maybe if you start more lightly, with the attitude of fun Cindie is talking about, with little to no expectations about anything more than hot sex, and respect, and laughter and some light conversation, you'd find something deeper could result from that, almost by accident.

In other words, maybe the idea you have that most people are seeking something shallow is incorrect. Since this is a polyAMOROUS board, and not a swinger board, you certainly must see that most people here are seeking "true eros." If you're not getting it, maybe it's not our culture. Maybe it's you, and an off-putting tendency to project an aura of pedantry, desperation and despair.

 

[KC43]

I fucked Hubby the night we met. Neither of us was intending to find a long-term relationship, let alone a spouse, but that's what ended up happening. The trick isn't solely having sex *only* when there are emotions involved; it's also being open to whatever develops if you have sex for sex's sake. (I ended up in my relationship with Guy, my first boyfriend after I told Hubby I was poly and he okayed exploring it, in the same way as with Hubby; a hook-up after a party which led to a 17-month relationship.)

As for the chakras... Speaking as someone who practices energy healing (i.e. working with people's chakras and energy fields to improve balance and functioning; in the terms of the methodology I learned, physical, mental/emotional, and energetic are all tied together), having sex with no loving or romantic attachment isn't inherently unbalancing to the chakras, particularly if the person has loving connections with others in their life (family, friends, even another committed partner). The imbalance between the two chakras you mention is most likely to occur if someone doesn't have deep, loving connections with ANYONE and only has impersonal sex.

One does not have to have a sexual *and* a loving connection with the *same* person or people in order to maintain balanced functioning of those chakras, which is a good thing since most, if not all, of us have people in our lives whom we love deeply but would never consider sex with. By your logic, River, having a loving connection without sex would be equally as disruptive to the energy system as having a sexual connection without love. I hope you see that loving someone without sex is not only beneficial but often entirely necessary.

*You* apparently can't see the point of sex without love, and therefore, it appears that you're looking for evidence to justify your point of view and discount the points of view of those of us who *don't* consider sex and love as necessarily mutually inclusive. Your point of view is fine for you, but not everyone sees it that way, and sometimes you seem to go a bit overboard in an attempt, conscious or not, to prove that you're right and the rest of us are wrong.

 

[River]

I know you, River, long for a deep love relationship with another man. From what I have observed, there ARE loving gay male couples out there, ....

I'm in such a relationship myself, so it isn't something I'm lacking. However, I've been with my partner for twenty years, and I think it's quite normal to want another / other experiences after such a long duration and when such a solid base is in place (so to speak). I actually don't have a preference for men, anyway. I would be just as happy to connect with a woman.

All of your guessing about me in the last part of your post is interesting, but it doesn't accord with the salient facts. There ARE facts, after all. One salient fact is that every variety of poly person (male, female, gay, bi, straight) is extraordinarily rare in my neck of the woods, as are those who are not themselves poly but are nevertheless willing to "date" poly folk who are already in long term relationships.

Another fact is that my observations about a common tendency to dissociate feeling/heart in sexual relating wasn't centered on me in the first place, but on decades of talking with people (in person, online, etc.). I'm far from alone in this observation. And, yes, it does seem to be an especially common phenomenon among gay and bi men. I suspect this has much to do with social conditioning, as you suggested yourself.

Your comment which equated "true eros" with romantic love seemed partly correct and partly incorrect to me. This is largely because almost everyone so deeply associates "romantic love" with monogamy and (ultimately) marriage that these are commonly treated as synonymous. Our culture has barely, very barely, begun to allow admittance to other notions of "romantic love" which are not monogamously oriented. And there's another crucial difference between what I was calling "true eros" and what almost everyone associates with "romantic love": duration of relationship. Romantic love, as I understand it, is a condition in which the parties really want to solidify their bond and keep it over the long haul. But one can experience what I called "true eros" in a somewhat fleeting experience -- since the difference between "pseudo eros" and "true eros" is the presence of what I call "heart connection" -- and heart connection can certainly happen in even in a brief encounter. Such encounters may not be "romantic love," per se, but they ARE loving encounters. I've experienced very potent erotic encounters with tremendous heart energy in them.

Or, to stay with the original theme in the opening post, I will say that not only was their "heart energy" but also "groin energy" and the two were deeply interconnected, woven together. It's the ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to connect "heart" and "groin" which is the topic here, fundamentally.

 

[River]

One does not have to have a sexual *and* a loving connection with the *same* person or people in order to maintain balanced functioning of those chakras, which is a good thing since most, if not all, of us have people in our lives whom we love deeply but would never consider sex with. By your logic, River, having a loving connection without sex would be equally as disruptive to the energy system as having a sexual connection without love. I hope you see that loving someone without sex is not only beneficial but often entirely necessary.

*You* apparently can't see the point of sex without love, and therefore, it appears that you're looking for evidence to justify your point of view and discount the points of view of those of us who *don't* consider sex and love as necessarily mutually inclusive. Your point of view is fine for you, but not everyone sees it that way, and sometimes you seem to go a bit overboard in an attempt, conscious or not, to prove that you're right and the rest of us are wrong.

The flaw in your reasoning here, KC43, is your apparent conflation of what I was calling "heart energy" with committed, long term "romantic" relationships.

Curiously, this conversation with yourself and the others here is drawing out in me an insight which was previously mostly out on the edge of my "peripheral vision," so to speak. It's nearly ready to burst brightly into an "aha" moment, in fact. You see, my tendency to regard "casual sex" as deficient or even unworthy is the tendency of so many who seek it to objectify their fleeting partners in such recreational activity. This, to me, takes something "sacred" (for lack of a better word) and "desacralizes" it. I'm not using the term "sacred" in any religious sense here. I'm speaking to something far more essential, real and grounded than any religious doctrines. Call it the human capacity for genuine intimate communion, perhaps. I don't know what to call it, but one of the easiest ways to encourage and support such connection / communion is to lay down with someone naked and kiss and cuddle and "make love". This is not the only way to do it, of course. One can be clothed and sitting at a distance from one's companion as well.

Anyway, I now much more fully understand that the physical act of "casual sex" in no way implies a dis-association of "heart" and "groin" (dissociation). But it very often -- probably usually -- does. And this may in part be due to the thicket of cultural shame around "casual sex" -- which needn't be there, but too often is.

I think whenever we treat ourselves or another as an object we harm ourselves, the other, or both. So it is the objectification of people I'm talking about here -- which, in sexual experience -- would seem to REQUIRE leaving what I call "heart" (affection, connection, empathy, compassion, tenderness...) out of the sexing. When this is habitual it becomes a habit of dissociation -- dis-association of feeling and sex, to put it very simply. (But there may be much better ways of giving it words.)

By the way, in my experience, not all "feeling" is emotion, per se. But what exactly is "feeling" and what "emotion" is another vast topic in itself. I know there are may qualities of feeling which don't have the named qualities of our common named emotions, e.g., sadness, anger, joy.... There are universes of feeling which, I think, most of us have little acquaintance with -- which I now know because I've been deliberately, actively seeking to discover them..., open to them. It is sometimes quite astonishing to find the hidden or suppressed feelings, as if stumbling upon a whole new color outside of the familiar color chart.

 

[Magdlyn]

I actually don't have a preference for men, anyway. I would be just as happy to connect with a woman.

All of your guessing about me in the last part of your post is interesting, but it doesn't accord with the salient facts. There ARE facts, after all. One salient fact is that every variety of poly person (male, female, gay, bi, straight) is extraordinarily rare in my neck of the woods, as are those who are not themselves poly but are nevertheless willing to "date" poly folk who are already in long term relationships.

So, all your generalizing about our culture is coming from observations on living in a conservative area. I live in a progressive state, and I find no shortage of poly, queer, and kinky friends and lovers, and single partners who are OK dating a poly person. Maybe you should move to San Francisco.

Another fact is that my observations about a common tendency to dissociate feeling/heart in sexual relating wasn't centered on me in the first place, but on decades of talking with people (in person, online, etc.). I'm far from alone in this observation. And, yes, it does seem to be an especially common phenomenon among gay and bi men. I suspect this has much to do with social conditioning, as you suggested yourself.

OK, so that takes care of the idea that most people can't do romantic poly love. You're talking about gay and bi men in a conservative area, and extrapolating it outwards into our general culture. Or you're talking about women in a conservative area, who feel the need for a lifelong committed partner to help support them as they raise children. Or who are just afraid to claim their inner slut.

Your comment which equated "true eros" with romantic love seemed partly correct and partly incorrect to me. This is largely because almost everyone so deeply associates "romantic love" with monogamy and (ultimately) marriage that these are commonly treated as synonymous. Our culture has barely, very barely, begun to allow admittance to other notions of "romantic love" which are not monogamously oriented.

And there's another crucial difference between what I was calling "true eros" and what almost everyone associates with "romantic love": duration of relationship. Romantic love, as I understand it, is a condition in which the parties really want to solidify their bond and keep it over the long haul. But one can experience what I called "true eros" in a somewhat fleeting experience -- since the difference between "pseudo eros" and "true eros" is the presence of what I call "heart connection" -- and heart connection can certainly happen in even in a brief encounter. Such encounters may not be "romantic love," per se, but they ARE loving encounters. I've experienced very potent erotic encounters with tremendous heart energy in them.

So even though you can't find another partner willing to make a lifelong commitment, you have found eros, casual fucking that yet had a heart/spiritual element to it. Well, good. That narrows the field of your complaint.

I don't go looking for people who are guaranteeing me lifelong commitment. I've been in a 30 year marriage. It was only half happy. I should have ended it much sooner. If you're seeking lifelong commitment, no wonder you're frustrated. Focusing on the relationship escalator is hazardous. Some great relationships only last a few months, or a few years, then the partners outgrow each other, or don't share enough interests after all, or get caught up in other life demands. It's not a failed relationship. It was successful, it was beneficial, pleasureable, inspiring, but it also had an expiration date. So you part ways.

I put quotes around "true love" or "true eros" because those were your words. I don't believe in "true love" or "one true poly." There are many kinds of love and poly. It's like believing Christianity is the "one true religion." And if anyone does a different religion, they are wrong and doomed. Heck, even if their Christianity is different than your Christianity, they are hellbound.

The truth of which you speak is your truth. Not as black and white or universal as you assert. And as we speak, I even see your shades of grey appearing.

Or, to stay with the original theme in the opening post, I will say that not only was their "heart energy" [present], but also "groin energy," and the two were deeply interconnected, woven together. It's the ABILITY and WILLINGNESS to connect "heart" and "groin" which is the topic here, fundamentally.

Well. All I can say is, it's a shame culture has conditioned the men you've talked to into being soulless fuckers. But it might partly be that you've got certain (perhaps) unattainable fixations or conditions in which you feel comfortable enjoying heart connection.

 

[Magdlyn]

... the human capacity for genuine intimate communion... one of the easiest ways to encourage and support such connection / communion is to lay down with someone naked and kiss and cuddle and "make love". This is not the only way to do it, of course. One can be clothed and sitting at a distance from one's companion as well.


...I think whenever we treat ourselves or another as an object we harm ourselves, the other, or both. So it is the objectification of people I'm talking about here -- which, in sexual experience -- would seem to REQUIRE leaving what I call "heart" (affection, connection, empathy, compassion, tenderness...) out of the sexing.

Again, you are talking about your own preferences and extrapolating outwards. Generalising.

Some people require a certain distance to feel comfortable enough to trust someone. Not everyone wants to live together. Not everyone wants to promise lifelong commitment on the 3rd date. Not everyone "makes love" naked and lying down in a bed. But then again I hang out with kinky people.

I am close with one kinky couple. He has Asperger's, she is a transwoman. He isn't comfortable with eye contact. He is introverted. He wants sex and human interaction but can only do it within limits. She has body dysmorphia and anxiety issues. So, they don't lie down naked and gaze into each others' eyes to have sex. He puts her into a rubber suit and hood, with her eyes covered. She gladly takes on the persona of "fucktoy." She finds the suit covers the parts of her body she finds too male, or makes her unable to see the parts, if Master exposes them for his pleasure, or to pleasure her. He doesn't have to worry about eye contact. She enjoys the tight stretchy fit of the suit and the sensory deprivation of having her eyes covered and her hearing limited. She finds it very calming. She is proud of her rising to the challenge of being in the suit. It's good for her self-esteem. She loves her Master. He hasn't said "I love you," but he treats her in a kind and respectful manner. People with Asperger's show their love differently. So. They objectify each other, yet there is eros and romance there. Love.

 

[opalescent]

I do think disassociation happens too often in sex in Western culture. (I suspect this to be true in Eastern or African cultures too but really don't know enough to say for sure.)

However, by disassociation I don't mean divorcing feelings or emotions from sex. I mean actually not being fully present, in the 'now', during sex.

Sometimes this is from trauma, but it can also be because of ordinary, everyday things, like lack of sleep, or too much stress, or boredom (the stereotype of the woman planning her grocery list while the man fucks her is an example.) When sex becomes a chore to be finished rather than a mutual pleasure, it can feel very objectifying, in harmful ways. Treating people as objects can be harmful for both people, especially where there is no other way of interacting. However, some people find being objectified - or doing the objectifying - to be hot. (Magdlyn's example above is exactly what I am talking about.) And there is the very common dynamic that too much intimacy, knowing each other too well, can kill sexual desire. For many people, a little mystery, a little objectification can jump start desire in ways that intimacy can't always.

I've learned from my relationship with Whip that people experience intimacy very differently. What I needed to develop intimacy with him was not what he could offer me in the long run - the opposite was true of me for him. He experienced intimacy only in the body, usually through sex but through touch or kink play too. I experience intimacy bodily too but I also need just plain old time spent together, talking, creating experiences together. Touch and/or sex is not the primary way I feel and build intimacy with another. They are important and I miss them horribly if I don't have them in my life but they are not sufficient for me to feel intimate with someone. And of course, intimacy is different from romantic feelings which is different from sexual connection and so on.

It's a tangled ball of stuff for sure.

 

[River]

.... Treating people as objects can be harmful for both people, especially where there is no other way of interacting. However, some people find being objectified - or doing the objectifying - to be hot. (Magdlyn's example above is exactly what I am talking about.) And there is the very common dynamic that too much intimacy, knowing each other too well, can kill sexual desire. For many people, a little mystery, a little objectification can jump start desire in ways that intimacy can't always.

This intersection of the idea and experience of intimacy with mystery reminds me of why I love truly good conversation or dialogue. Those two words and what they point to just leaps out at me in this response. And the reason is that there is a very popular, dictionary definition of "intimacy" which relates it to what we may call "the known," "the familiar". (See this set of dictionary definitions for this strong association: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intimacy)

And yet I think most of us here would agree that our most lovingly intimate moments, while there may be a certain familiarity with the other in them, were also equally ripe, pregnant or overflowing with mystery. The other is recognized both as known and unknown, with perhaps the unknown bubbling up and flowering on the surface of those moments -- with a sense of wonder.

Such wonder has a feeling of expansiveness, and such expansiveness is part of what it FEELS like to be lovingly intimate with a beloved. It is this sharing in wonder which enlivens us, if we are really open to it -- even erotically. Perhaps especially erotically, since eros does obviously involve desire. Our desire to explore the mystery is part of the aura of eros. And so eros without
wonder and mystery does tend to dry up.

Wonder and mystery enliven our senses and awken them to their true depths, I think. But all that I say come from a marginalized tradition the world over -- that of a fully erotic mysticism or spiritualiy. Notice the similarity between the words "mysticism" and "mystery" here.

Various cultural-historical "forces" or tendencies have conspired to dry up the fundamental mystery and wonder of being alive, of being human. Sometimes those "forces" are religious. Sometimes they are scientific. In both cases there is the matter of myth, or story, in the drying up. The job (or an important one) of the poets has always been to re-enliven a sensuous relation to mystery and wonder in relation to embodiment, the world, the sensuous. Poets have generally always sought to break myth open and lay it naked upon the Earth, so we can touch and be touched by sensuous wonder. A lot of the time we who appreciate the work of the poets are conspiring with them to steal back some of our stolen life-force from the myths of religion and of science -- which traditions have too often sought to box mystery and wonder in, hem it in, keep it down. For fear. As there is probably an innate human tendency to shiver in the face of the unknown.

The wind, one brilliant day, called
to my soul with an odor of jasmine.

'In return for the odor of my jasmine,
I'd like all the odor of your roses.'

'I have no roses; all the flowers
in my garden are dead.'

'Well then, I'll take the withered petals
and the yellow leaves and the waters of the fountain.'

the wind left. And I wept. And I said to myself:
'What have you done with the garden that was entrusted to you?'

Antonio Machado​

 

[River]

However, by disassociation I don't mean divorcing feelings or emotions from sex. I mean actually not being fully present, in the 'now', during sex.

When we are not in "the now" are we not always caught up in a distorting story of some kind? ... a story which obscures "the now" from our awareness and appreciation?

Present-moment feeling/emotion is just as sensual, sensuous -- of the senses, embodied, sensational -- as skin contact, the sine qua non of sex.

The point is that it is all sensation, sensuous, embodied ... these moments of being present. We seem to leave the present only when we are gripped by a story which flings us out of the sensuous present. We become captured by an idea of past or future -- a place none of us has ever visited. Nor ever will.

 

[Ravenscroft]

The idea of romantic love as a cultural ideal is really rather new. Marriages, until quite recently, like the last 100-200 years, has been about clan/tribal/nation-state/political connections. The idea of a marriage commitment based on "love" is new, and the idea that a monogamous marriage should remain hot and sexual for 50+ years is unrealistic and a new, radical and ultimately unworkable idea (as shown by the divorce rate).

Y'know, aside from me, you're like the first person in 20+ years I've seen dare state this in public? Mebbe it'll have to get its own thread...

Jo Loudin, The Hoax of Romance

Lenore Weitzman, The Marriage Contract

 

[Ravenscroft]

My intuitions continue to poke at me, saying that there's some progressive depth to be found in this topic, so I'm reluctant to see it bog down in personalization.

As others have said, I too have found great emotional depth in "one-night stands." However, I have never SOUGHT such encounters, much less sought them in the (bizarre) expectation that I would FIND emotional depth.

More than a few of my years-long relationships have begun after sex during a brief first (or second or third) chance meeting.

And let's not overlook that more than a few relationships, mutually intended from a platonic beginning, & taken cautiously every step of the way, have become relational Hindenburgs unable to survive the First Disagreement.
________________

Here's my take thus far on dissociation:

The ability to separate emotional feelings from what has the potential of providing extraordinarily deep emotional/spiritual/intellectual connexion -- that is to say SEX or even SWEATY ANIMALISTIC F*CKING -- is in no wise bad.

The inability to connect them is bad.

I would also offer that the inability to disconnect them is bad.