11-05-2023, 09:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-06-2023, 12:05 AM by gayprojectforum.)
The very easy access to pornography at an extremely early age has contributed to spreading the idea according to which sex is a reality substantially disconnected from affectivity, that is something that can be done, or rather that is done, or worse, that must be done as a form of fun or self-gratification, if not even as a means of asserting your power. This way, in adolescence, guys end up liking better a porn video than committing themselves to building a relationship, possibly even sexual, with a real guy, and then, in more mature age, preferring very short contacts of only sex, which a priori exclude any possibility of emotional involvement.
The radical separation that seems to exist between sexuality and affectivity gives, at the beginning, an intoxicating sensation of freedom, but in the long run it ends up no longer being gratifying. Sex, while maintaining a very strong capacity for attraction, becomes or seems to become something abstract, impersonal, and "what you do" clearly prevails over "who you do it with". In practice one experiences sex, or rather one has the impression of experiencing sex without a true affective dimension, but it would be even better to say that one experiences sex as a substitute for a frustrated or, worse, radically denied affective dimension, but that affective dimension, however denied, smolders under the ashes.
The habit of denying feelings to enhance immediate sexuality leads on the one hand to an affectless sexuality and on the other to a compensatory or frustrated or highly sublimated affectivity. It is as if two distinct sides of the personality emerged in the same individual, one characterized by a sexuality substantially devoid of affectivity and the other by a basically disembodied and sublimated affectivity.
It should be underlined that what I just said shouldn't be taken too literally, I mean, for example, that sublimated sexualities do not exclude sexual relationships at all, but these relationships are often highly dissymmetrical, that is, they are strongly participated by the partner who experiences them with a true emotional involvement while they are experienced as a duty, almost a tribute to be paid for the stability of the couple, by the partner for whom the relationship is and remains sublimated not for the absence of immediate sexuality but for the absence of deep involvement in that sexuality.
It is necessary to underline that when we talk about sexual education we insist almost exclusively on the technical aspects of sexuality, on contraceptive techniques and on sexually transmitted diseases, completely neglecting education on affectivity. In essence, even institutionalized sexual education tends to confirm the distinction or rather the separation between sex and affectivity, limiting itself to dealing only with sex. For a gay boy, raised in an environment that is still strongly male chauvinist today, in which sex seems to be the door to happiness, the idea of a "sex only" relationship is the most obvious path to the search for happiness, that is, the path towards which we orient ourselves unconsciously, in other words the preference for "sex only" does not present itself as a choice but as something that appears automatic and therefore spontaneous, even if in fact it is a choice induced or at least profoundly conditioned from the outside. It is as if we were instinctively afraid of affection, as if we wanted to keep ourselves safe from the risks that an emotional relationship can entail. This is how “sex only” relationships are born.
In the rest of this article I intend to show how, by observing gay reality closely, we can realize that many, if not very many relationships classified by one of the two partners, or even by both, as "sex only" relationships, in reality they are by no means just sexual relationships but respond to deep emotional needs that lie behind immediate sexuality, which are rarely seen, but which are the basis of the relationship. It should be kept in mind that building a serious emotional relationship, even just a friendship with a guy you meet in real life, takes time and that the offer of a hit-and-run sexual encounter, typical of sexual encounters (not relationships) that can easily materialize via social media or apps, despite the related health risks, it is an alternative that is not only immediate but substantially disengaged, two characteristics that make it particularly attractive.
I would add that in cases where the influence of social media and apps remains limited and the attempt to build an emotional relationship begins, with all the burden of expectations that such an emotional investment entails, the risk of encountering disappointment is however high, because the probability of meeting a truly compatible guy on the first try is still low. Disappointments, especially if repeated, only confirm the idea that making an effort to build a serious emotional relationship is in most cases equivalent to wasting time and that the search for a bit of casual sex through an app is ultimately an acceptable alternative if not even the only acceptable alternative.
To continue the discussion in a less abstract way, let's first try to clarify what is meant by the emotional dimension of a gay relationship. The affection between two guys manifests itself in a very limited way, even when it exists and is strong, it is a feeling that we must learn to recognize even through abrupt behavior and sometimes difficult to interpret. Affection between guys is much more similar to friendship than to sexual involvement, it is made up of loyalty, respect, and generally does not manifest itself in clear expressions.
We must never lose sight of a principle: when too many words are used to express a simple concept, the concept is very weak. Serious emotional communication can also exist without words and reasoning, because it is essentially expressed through symbolic gestures and above all behaviors. It is difficult for guys to use language similar to that used between a guy and a girl and generally for a guy an affectivity that is also very masculine is much more acceptable and shareable. A gay guy instinctively avoids behaviors that may appear feminine and does not accept at all the possibility of being considered a substitute for a girl, that is, of being treated like a girl by his partner. The immediacy and sexual complicity with a guy, in many cases, is not only a form of joking or camaraderie but also has an emotional value, even if not explicit, as happens between guys.
Male affection often manifests itself in the acceptance of the other without reservations, in trusting the other, in speaking with him in a frank and explicit way, even brutal, if necessary, in asking and giving help whenever the need arises, in listening to each other, in talking with each other to have the pleasure of dealing with someone you can trust. It happens and not too rarely that the reluctance of guys to express an emotional interest in another guy is overcome through sex, which, paradoxical as it seems, is often considered by guys to be more suitable for them, that is, less feminine, than other external manifestations of affectivity.
I have known many stable gay couples for many years, if you meet them on the street they just seem like a couple of friends but they still have their own affection which for example manifests itself in the tendency to willingly give in to one's partner, that is, to willingly accept that he is right, in always finding acceptable justifications for his behavior, in giving him small signs of attention, such as resolving moments of misunderstanding lightly, never accusing one's partner, preserving the couple's privacy with the utmost care and also with absolute respect for the freedom of the other. In general, gays don't like relationships that are too close, they ask their partner and tend to guarantee them a notable level of freedom while at the same time guaranteeing the solidity of their relationship.
All the typical behaviors of a gay emotional relationship to which I have referred are apparently little correlated with sexuality and can be found to varying degrees even in couples of friends united by a particularly deep emotional relationship. In reality, both the emotional bonds of a couple and deep friendships also have at their basis a motivation related to sexual compatibility, which in friendships remains muted and in couple bonds progressively takes on a fundamental role, it is essentially a form of compatibility, more or less extended to various aspects of the personality, which determines the niceness of the other. While in friendships the other's niceness, however extensive, encounters limits, in couple relationships it is almost taken for granted that the other's niceness does not or cannot have any limits.
In deep emotional relationships, which in themselves entail notable levels of gratification for the people involved, there is a whole series of behaviors aimed at preserving the relationship and preventing moments of crisis, such as never pushing the confrontation too far if one realizes that finding a point of balance, on that specific topic and at that moment, is difficult, never resorting to ultimatums, never threatening the end of the relationship as the final sanction of a disagreement, never interrupting an evening of discussion without an explicit and clear reconciliation or sending an affectionate text message to make it clear that, despite the misunderstandings, the relationship is not in crisis.
The couple affection differs from that typical of friendship because it also manifests itself in sexuality and perhaps has its most delicate aspects here. As already mentioned, the excess of words is symptomatic of the lack of content and this is especially true in the sexual field, where words, and especially words out of place and out of context, can be seriously counterproductive, not in themselves but because they constitute a distraction. Sexuality and sexual affectivity are essentially manifested through behaviors that do not in themselves need words. A sincere hug has an emotional meaning that cannot be expressed in words. This means that the absence of words or the reduction of words to a minimum in moments of sexual contact is one of the most important symptoms of the couple's emotional cohesion. Affective sex, that is, sex that involves the deep levels of the person, is done in silence, because it requires concentration and reciprocity.
Silence does not only mean silence between the partners but also isolation from the outside, dedicating oneself to each other without external interference of any kind. I think it has happened to many couples to experience a highly disturbing situation, that is, hearing the telephone ring during sexual contact, what is already unpleasant in itself but if the partner feels he has to answer and does so, the atmosphere of sexual involvement and couple intimacy completely disappears and a reaction of disappointment arises, if the phone call is short, but the reaction becomes of rejection, if the phone call is long. Respect for the rule of silence involves turning off cell phones and disconnecting the telephone line in every situation where a true form of intimacy must be sought.
Turning off your cell phone when you meet your partner to have sex (but the rule applies in general) and doing it in front of your partner, so that the gesture is significant, is an important sign of couple sexual affection, it is a way to say: "I'm here for you, this evening will be just for us, and we'll leave everything else out!" But also things apparently external have an emotional value, such as having your partner find a well-arranged bedroom and a bed with fresh sheets and pillowcases, or a bathroom with a clean bathrobe. These small signs of attention have enormous significance because they indicate care and respect towards your partner and his needs.
The core of a couple's sexual affectivity lies in attention to the needs and emotional moments of your partner, that is, it consists in putting aside the idea of realizing your fantasies to concentrate on making your partner feel absolutely at ease, I mean that the core of a couple's sexual affection is constituted by “sexual altruism”, which must be mutual in order not to compromise the balance of the couple. There is a series of symptoms of sexual altruism that is useful to take into consideration: remembering things said by your partner, trying to find a connection between those contents, reconstructing or repeating situations that the partner found particularly engaging, responding to a playful approach maintaining a playful tone, but also apparently much more banal things, such as responding to a smile with a smile or not insisting if you realize that your partner is not enthusiastic about your behavior.
Insistence, in a moment of sexual intimacy, not only violates the rule of silence but is the clear manifestation of a selfish attitude. What happens in sexual contact must be truly shared, that is, wanted or rather desired by both partners. Unfortunately, it often happens that one of the two partners ends up accepting, or rather passively tolerating, some of the other's initiatives and this is already a symptom of strong dissymmetry and suffering within the couple. However, situations are also encountered in which the selfish behavior of one of the partners leads him to neglect not partially but completely the expectations of his partner, this is the case in which one of the partners, after having reached orgasm, feels authorized to get up and leave as if nothing had happened. In such a situation, even compliance with the minimum standards of respect is lost and the relationship can become completely intolerable for the other partner.
A particularly delicate moment is created after sexual contact, when the phase of sexual silence ends and the two partners return to words. In those moments, affectivity manifests itself through the integration of sexuality in the context of a relationship also made up of daily and ordinary life. The feeling that you're meeting your partner only to have sex with him can be depressing. If after sex you eat something together, relax, listen to some music, talk about other things, especially if you address personal topics and discuss things in a serious way, you show in facts that you are not together just to have sex and that the emotional dimension is not limited to sexuality alone.
After having given a picture of the affectivity within the gay couple, let's return to " sex-only relationships". First of all, it should be underlined that "sex-only relationships" have nothing to do with episodic and casual sexual encounters that can be achieved through apps, precisely because these are relationships that last over time and have considerable stability and therefore help partners to achieve high levels of reciprocal knowledge and intimacy. This fact alone can authorize to believe that a couple bond exists which also has a strong emotional dimension. If an apparently fragile relationship, which is subject to upheavals and difficulties of various kinds, manages to withstand the difficulties, one is entitled to believe that both partners have a serious interest in maintaining the relationship.
Looking closely at these couple relationships we realize that, despite the theoretical qualification of "single-sex relationships", many of the typical elements of gay affectivity that we examined previously are present and concretely operational within these couples. The partners deny that solidarity exists between them so as not to feel dependent, but solidarity certainly exists, attention to what the other says, to his behavior and his desires certainly exists, as does absolute sincerity and desire to show oneself and I would say to reveal oneself to one's partner without hiding anything and the desire to be accepted by him for who one really is.
Among other things, these couples lack the filler chatter and the sweet banalities with which we often try to fill our daily lives, the words are few, but they are all words that have a meaning, sometimes a certain aggressiveness manifests itself which derives by the desire to have one's say and to say it all even at the cost of being contradicted with the same tone, because ultimately one has the certainty that that relationship will not collapse in any case. It is certainly a relationship that has found or seems to have found its strong point in sex, but on closer inspection the real strong point consists in the fact that both partners have the substantial certainty that that relationship will not fail, that if one of them will need to have the partner close by he will find him close.
For these couples, the pauses between two meetings are never too long and not because of sexual reasons but because partners need to meet even if sometimes at long intervals in order to confirm that the relationship exists and will continue to exist. In many couples who are officially "sex-only", sexual fidelity, understood as exclusivity, may not exist, but anyhow emotional fidelity, understood as stability, still exists, which, beyond labels, is the substance of the relationship.