Recently I posted about a hierarchy of sexual behavior. I did so because I keep reading posts (mostly by men) that make no sense to me. The basic flavor of those posts is this: Our sex life is weak (crawling) but I want my wife to do XYZ (running). How do I make that happen? Obviously - it never happens. And it reminds me of that highschool joke where a boy asks a girl to go for a 'lite' date like getting ice cream - and when she rejects him replies - so I guess a blowjob is entirely out of the question.
So - where sex is concerned, and in ascending order:
1. Commitment (respect for vows)
2. Desire to please (true love)
3. Passion (lust)
That said, I've been thnking a bit more on this topic and have constructed a related, but different pyramid. It is also in ascending order:
1. Social chemistry (your spouse craves your company and finds your presence both comforting (soothing) and exciting (fun, exciting - they like your sense of humor)
2. Physical chemistry - they crave your touch, hugs, love to sit next to you watching tv / movies
3. Sexual chemistry
I'm thinking that a lot of men don't seem to grasp that - without (1 and 2) three is not sustainable.
Perhaps it's better said that: without 1 amd 2, it's not realistic to expect 3.
I admit that the catalyst for this type of thinking is my own marriage. Because for M2, 1 and 2 drive most of 3. Maybe it's more simply stated this way: M2's sexual chemistry - for me - is modest. But she's sexually keen because of (1 and 2).
Are we an anomaly?
So - where sex is concerned, and in ascending order:
1. Commitment (respect for vows)
2. Desire to please (true love)
3. Passion (lust)
That said, I've been thnking a bit more on this topic and have constructed a related, but different pyramid. It is also in ascending order:
1. Social chemistry (your spouse craves your company and finds your presence both comforting (soothing) and exciting (fun, exciting - they like your sense of humor)
2. Physical chemistry - they crave your touch, hugs, love to sit next to you watching tv / movies
3. Sexual chemistry
I'm thinking that a lot of men don't seem to grasp that - without (1 and 2) three is not sustainable.
Perhaps it's better said that: without 1 amd 2, it's not realistic to expect 3.
I admit that the catalyst for this type of thinking is my own marriage. Because for M2, 1 and 2 drive most of 3. Maybe it's more simply stated this way: M2's sexual chemistry - for me - is modest. But she's sexually keen because of (1 and 2).
Are we an anomaly?
Put the internet to work for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment