06-25-2023, 03:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-25-2023, 03:31 PM by gayprojectforum.)
Sex is not performance, it's not about giving a show or giving demonstrations of various kinds. Real sex is not a porn movie. Sex, and I'm talking about gay sex in particular, that is, a sexual dimension that has nothing to do with procreation, is essentially shared intimacy. Such concept of sexuality is very broad and includes many things that are not sex in the strict sense, but have or can have many sexual implications. True sexual intimacy is achieved when a guy is not conditioned by his partner, in the sense that he feels neither forced nor artificially induced to have sex, but does it freely, when asking for sexual contact from his partner does not create embarrassment and does not can under no circumstances elicit perplexed or embarrassed responses, when the request for sexual contact by one's partner is welcomed as a positive thing and of great emotional significance, when being naked together does not create anxiety or embarrassment, when physical contact is unreserved and without taboos. The only real problem in gay sex is represented by the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, but beyond this risk, which is objective and which must ALWAYS be adequately prevented, there are practically no other real problems.
Sex, all sex, is absolutely incompatible with the idea of domination, oppression or exploitation of the other. In gay sexual relations the rule of equality of partners is absolutely fundamental. Anyone who tries to use sex as a means of domination and control of another person or simply behaves by inducing forms of subordination or fear in the other, even unconsciously, should understand that those purposes and those behaviors are the denial of sexuality, which is a profound participation in the life of the other, in his anxieties and problems, that is, in the life of the other as a whole, because the entire personality of an individual is reflected in sex. And this is why living sexuality well brings enormous benefits not only to the tone of mood,but to the person's overall balance and general state of health.
Sharing sexuality, when it is authentic and reciprocal, lowers anxiety levels and helps to face the problems of ordinary life together, because it creates a solid bond, a relationship of trust and esteem between two people who support each other and can participate in each other's decisions by also expressing a different point of view, which never hurts.
Accepting the idea that compromises must be reached and that peaceful coexistence is basically the art of compromise is an indication of maturity, but if it is easy to accept compromises on questions of objectively very relative weight, the more a choice implies profound levels of a person's affectivity, the more difficult it becomes to accept compromises. We can easily accept the idea of going on a Sunday with a friend to see a film even if we are not interested in the film, but it is morally reprehensible to accept marrying one woman instead of another in order to obtain economic or career advantages. By morally reprehensible, I mean that such a choice is not only theoretically immoral but ends up negatively affecting all of life. In essence, immoral choices seem to bring advantages, or perhaps they objectively bring immediate benefits, but in the long run they are paid for and often very heavily. Mixing sexual interest with interests of another nature, that is, with interests linked to the search for economic or social advantages, means subordinating a fundamental emotional choice to the achievement of purposes that appear fundamental but are not at all. Those who devalue sexuality by subordinating it to non-affective ends deny an essential part of themselves in the name of ephemeral interests, that is, they subordinate the essential to the marginal.
Sexuality should not be mythologized or decontextualized, precisely because it is relational, it does not exist in the abstract but only in specific situations. Experiences related to sexuality are lived in a strictly personal way and depend on the relationship with another specific individual. What we lived with Titius has nothing to do with what we can or could live with Caius. It is precisely for this reason that defining rules of sexual behavior has essentially no meaning. There is no manual of sexuality beyond the one fundamental rule that sexuality must be a form of love. The only true rules of sexual behavior are in fact only corollaries of that fundamental rule.
Abstract rules, such as strict monogamy, the at least tendential definitiveness of the bond and therefore its irrevocability or its difficult revocability, the need for coexistence, the socialization of the relationship, etc. etc., are merely attempts to pigeonhole an affective relationship within categories similar to those that are taken for granted, although not always, in the context of marriage. That those rules may have no use and may even be an obstacle in the sphere of marriage, obviously heterosexual, has already been recognized on a social level, through the introduction of divorce, which among other things is an institution as old as the world, at least in countries where the law has retained its substantial secularity, that is, it was seen as an organization of the existing and not as a form of indirect imposition of behaviors deemed right a priori. In the heterosexual field there is the objective problem of protecting the interests of the children and a regulation of marriage has a motivation in any case. Basically, the real problem in that area is the definition of the limits within which the legislator can operate. In the context of homosexual relationships, if we refer to the protection of children, where there are any, we can only refer to the same discipline that regulates heterosexual relationships, because the interest to be protected is that of minors and not that of adults, but when there are no children, as still happens today in the vast majority of cases, in a secular state no restrictive intrusion by the legislator is admissible, while any intervention aimed at guaranteeing equal treatment with heterosexual couples for partners in homosexual unions who intend to legally formalize their relationship is a duty.
Obviously one thing is the substance of the couple relationship and another thing is its legal formalization, which is not an obligation but a right that must be the object of a shared choice by the two partners, but, it must be emphasized, it must only be the formalization of something that already exists. The couple relationship is not established with marriage or with any other legal instrument and, indeed, it can be said that the formalization of the relationship does not in any case constitute a prop to keep a shaky union standing or to create an emotional bond. In a gay couple sharing sexual intimacy is an absolutely primary and free fact, it is not a rational choice or decision that takes into account predictable advantages and disadvantages. The sharing of sexual intimacy, if it is not absolutely spontaneous and instinctive, is the result of a more or less violent forcing or self-forcing and for this very reason it is born spoiled by a lack of spontaneity and is destined not to produce positive effects.
Experience teaches that just as a straight guy is not attracted to all women, so a gay guy is not attracted to all men and, indeed, the vast majority of men are completely indifferent to him, because sexual attraction only arises towards a few or very few people. It is only with those people that one experiences a true form of sexual involvement, only with those people, if one gets to know them better, is it possible to experience forms of true sexual excitement. If the attraction is mutual then the idea of sharing sexuality becomes a real possibility.
It should be emphasized that the traditional formula according to which well-matched couples, which would be better defined as stable couples, must be formed by individuals who are very similar to each other, is a classic preconception that has no correspondence in reality. There are no a priori parameters that allow predicting the greater or lesser stability of a hypothetical couple based on the mere observation of the two hypothetical partners separately from each other. Sexuality is relational and stable couples often find "their motivation" in things that seen from the outside have very little or no meaning at all. The reasons why a couple lasts over time are inherent to that single couple and cannot be generalized.
However, one element is recorded almost constantly when a new and true couple bond is formed: when a guy feels attracted to another and realizes that the other shares the same feelings, the involvement is total and both feel the feeling of starting a "new life" a life together. It is not said that these sensations are destined to last over time, because instinctive interest often arises on the basis not of serious reciprocal knowledge but of projections of what one desires, projections which one sometimes risks confusing with reality. The guy who sexually attracts me is beautiful, very serious, very good, very spontaneous, very much in love with me, etc. etc. Naturally these assumptions of principle will then have to deal with reality, but, if, even redimensioned, they will basically remain standing, perhaps leading to a conclusion like: "He has his flaws, but I wouldn't trade him for anyone else!" and similar assessments will also have been made by the other partner, one can only acknowledge that a couple has in fact formed.
Couple means mutual freedom, mutual esteem, mutual knowledge without taboos and sharing of sexuality, this is where the difficult part begins, because, I stress, in this case sharing means sharing without reservations, without gray areas, without omissions. There is no real esteem for your partner if you don't consider him capable of fully understanding your point of view and your experience, I am talking about understanding, not necessarily sharing, but, mind you, to understand behaviors of an individual, you must not adopt a judgmental attitude and at least you must have respect for what youe dom't share. Not sharing does not mean judging negatively but only not experiencing the same things firsthand.
Sharing sexuality is a form of mutual trust. Each partner confides very private aspects of his person to the other, which is possible only when there is deep mutual esteem. Obviously this entrusting presupposes absolute confidentiality on the part of the partner. The violation of confidentiality is always an irresponsible behavior, but when it comes to sexuality it is particularly unpleasant for the partner and if the violation of confidentiality is fully conscious and wanted, it represents a hateful form of aggression that makes the continuation of the relationship unthinkable. What is known in the context of a couple relationship, and not a generic relationship of a social nature, must remain strictly within the context of that couple relationship. The violation of this principle of confidentiality, even towards parents or siblings, is intolerable and does not admit of any justification. Similarly, couple problems must be resolved within the couple, other people can also be called upon to intervene but only if both partners agree, otherwise the privacy of the couple would be violated and one of the two partners would see the trust placed in the partner heavily betrayed.
Sharing sexuality means finding a balance, i.e. a compromise between different ways of experiencing sexuality. The less the two partners' visions of sexuality are compatible, the more complex the search for balance will be. I emphasize that I did not speak of identity or similarity but of compatibility. Two people can have distinct views on sexuality that are, however, perfectly compatible. Maintaining balance is not always easy and moments of crisis exist. A solid couple is not a couple immune to moments of crisis, but a couple that manages to find sufficient motivation within themselves to overcome the crisis and proceed further.