10-16-2023, 01:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2023, 06:13 PM by gayprojectforum.)
Sexual attraction is a complex psycho-physiological mechanism which, in response to certain stimuli, causes a reaction of interest and psycho-sexual involvement, which manifests itself both on a psycho-emotional level, as a state of excitement, and on a physiological level, through erection and in some cases even ejaculation.
The most common stimuli that trigger the psycho-physiological mechanisms of sexual attraction are above all visual, auditory and tactile, but also the perception of the heat emanating from the other's body and even thinking about the other guy can be a stimulus capable of producing sexual physiological reactions. The forms of involvement can range from the highest levels of sublimation, in the absence of any perceptible physiological sexual reaction, to a real sexual addiction.
Daily experience teaches that sexual attraction is always highly selective and this obviously also applies in the homosexual field. The people who exert a real sexual attraction on us are decidedly few, all the other people are completely or almost completely sexually neutral for us. When sexual attraction appears generalized towards all male individuals, simply because they are male, the suspicion that sexuality is strongly conditioned by obsessive and compulsive mechanisms is justified. The selectivity of sexual attraction is linked to the fact that starting from adolescence, through masturbation, the sexual archetypes of each individual are defined and strengthened, i.e. the characteristics, first of all physical but also emotional, behavioral and mental of the archetype (model) of person we consider sexually attractive.
It is not said that for each individual there must be only one sexual archetype, but individual sexual archetypes are generally a very limited number. The sexual life of an adult is strongly oriented by the sexual archetypes created in adolescence. It is a well-known fact that users of pornography (and here I am referring to gay pornography) generally do not choose videos for the type of action that takes place but for the actors who act in that video. It is also known that users of gay pornography mainly choose videos with actors who have very similar physical characteristics or who belong to very similar ethnic groups, because for those subjects, those videos are particularly exciting. The mechanism of selecting the porn video to watch is similar to that which directs sexual interest towards this or that real person.
Sexual attraction, in normal conditions, is, or should be in any case, a substantially automatic spontaneous mechanism, that is, which is triggered by itself, in the presence of the right stimuli. However, it happens that in some (rare) situations, the mechanism is inhibited at the root by hesitations, conditioning and complexes of various origins which brake the sexual response so much as to actually make it so problematic and anxiety-provoking that the suppressive mechanisms are able to repress it before it can manifest itself; however, even when the mechanism of sexual attraction is not inhibited, it does not operate mechanically and primary sexual attraction can fade very quickly when the expectations it arouses do not find any response or, worse, find dissonant or disinterested responses. The classic example of this mechanism is summarized in this email fragment.
“I liked him a lot and after a bit of back and forth I decided to invite him to have a coffee together at the eleven o'clock break, but he replied that today he couldn't and it could have been done maybe another day, but it was It was clear that he didn't really care."
The most immediate response and indicative of a serious willingness to maintain contact consists precisely in not letting an opportunity for contact fall by the wayside and in immediately and unconditionally accepting any proposal that presupposes the maintenance or strengthening of contact. In some cases, primary sexual attraction does not encounter any form of refusal or any manifestation of availability because, for environmental or opportunity reasons, the opportunity for even minimal interpersonal contact that could manifest that refusal or availability is lacking; in these cases, I mean when the sexual attraction lacks any possible confirmation, the completely one-sided mental constructions increase without any possibility of verification and the expectations projected onto a de facto non-existent relationship also increase which, when tested by the facts, could also turn out to be radically disappointing.
Unmanifested disinterest, perhaps for reasons of courtesy, or in any case not underlined by the hypothetical partner is generally seen as a positive element that would hide shyness but behind which we tend to see a potentially positive response.
Overly explicit signs of sexual availability are generally not appreciated, whereas more nuanced signs of availability are preferred such as the tendency to respond with a smile, not shying away from dialogue, giving a lot of time to listening to the other guy, the tendency to create a more intimate conversation and to trust the other. Generally, politely expressing your availability is very welcome, while asking your partner for clear and binding answers is considered dominant and aggressive behavior. In summary: “availability can or must be offered but cannot be demanded!”
When mutual interest is now established, the most difficult steps still remain to be taken, namely those linked to the first physical contacts. Going from the level of words and dialogue, even very serious ones, to the level of physical contact, even limited only to holding hands, caresses and what are commonly called cuddles, is usually very difficult. It should be underlined that if two guys have a form of dialogue between them characterized by absolute sincerity and absence of taboos, even on intimate topics, it is by no means certain that physical contact can be created between those two guys, because physical contact, even minimal, such as holding hands, has much deeper emotional implications than verbal contact. A serious dialogue can also be built on the phone or in chat, without knowing each other in person, while physical contact in any case requires the actual presence of two people and mutual availability for physical contact.
It can be said that when we talk to a guy we don't know, and try to get to know who he is, we use the few elements we have available to get a general idea and we complete the picture by defining all the elements of which we have no knowledge through projective mechanisms, that is projecting our desires on that guy. For example, behind a beautiful voice (i.e. a voice that we like) we take for granted that there is a beautiful person (beautiful in the sense of conforming to our desires), it is evident that this mechanism can lead to projections very far from reality. It is common for many serious friendships born on the Internet to push partners to meet in person, in the belief that friendship can transform into a sexual relationship, but experience teaches that this possibility remains unrealized in the majority of cases, because at the time of the first meeting in person, the typical mechanisms of sexual attraction - which are not mental but immediately physiological - may not be triggered. This means that in order to talk of a couple sexual relationship, i.e. something involving mutual sexual attraction, it is essential that the two partners know each other in person for a sufficient amount of time to understand if the sexual interest actually exists and above all if it is mutual, because no unilateral sexual attraction, however strong it is, can build a relationship between a couple, which necessarily requires the reciprocity of sexual attraction.
It should be underlined that in relationships in which there is a lack of personal knowledge between the partners and everything remains at the level of telephone conversation or chat, we often witness the phenomenon of "love language drift": the partners indulge in an affective language typical of couples who are truly in love, almost taking it for granted that the relationship will evolve to that level, then, however, at the moment of meeting in person, an unexpected cold shower can arrive, either because the mechanisms of sexual attraction intervene only unilaterally or because they do not intervene at all.
In male homosexual couples, the moment of transition to the first physical contacts can encounter a particular problem, the so-called "refusal of cuddles", because one of the two partners is used to considering cuddles something for women or in any case unmanly, which must be put aside without hesitation to move on to sex in the most immediate sense of the word. It is clear that if one of the partners believes that cuddling is important precisely as a manifestation of affection which then opens the way to a highly affective sexuality, while the other evaluates things in a radically different way, the risk of a couple crisis, even before the realization of the couple itself, becomes quite concrete. It is difficult in these cases to find a point of conciliation.
As in all issues relating to sexuality and interpersonal relationships in general, difficult does not mean impossible, because the personal element, in these cases, is more decisive than the external objectivity of the situation, and here the fundamental character of the life of the couple can enter the field. If the difficulties are overcome and are archived thanks to the good will of both partners, then a couple really exists or at least is in gestation, if instead the positions remain rigid, that is, if the idea of being right or insisting on one's opinion in order to prevail is not overcome in the name of the needs of superior couple harmony, then the couple is truly in crisis.
“Cuddling” is by no means a trivial thing and should not be seen as a necessary step to conquer your partner, but a step which you would gladly do without in order to achieve immediate sexual contact. The idea that sexuality has as its objective the realization of a sexual intercourse and moreover following well established ways, in a gay dimension makes no sense at all. In the heterosexual world, if it was taken for granted that sex serves only the purposes of reproduction or that it is practiced or must be practiced only for reproductive purposes (an idea very far from reality) it would make sense to think of a sexuality that must necessarily be heterosexual and fertile, that is, it would make sense to think that every sexual contact has reproduction as its purpose. Among gays, for whom sex has nothing to do with reproduction, the idea that sexuality is aimed at reproduction is absolutely inconceivable and even more so is the idea that there is a particular modality of sexual intercourse that must be privileged. Gay sex has only the well-being of the partners as its aim and the choice of methods for pursuing this well-being can only depend on the partners themselves. In this sense, the cuddling phase cannot be considered as a phase destined to be overcome, because in an emotional-sexual relationship cuddling is an essentially unavoidable component. If there is resistance towards cuddling on the part of one of the partners, the other partner will have to use the utmost delicacy to avoid being imposing, even if only by attempting to promote or in any case prolong over time a phase of cuddling that is not really appreciated, or not yet really appreciated.
Friendship relationships between gays and even between a gay and a straight are common things, but generally they are not accompanied by forms of sexual attraction on either side. There are exceptions, obviously, but for a relationship to arise not only emotional but also sexual, it is essential that a mutual sexual attraction manifests itself. And here the first problems arise. Every guy is aware of the levels of his own sexual involvement but only has an approximate idea of the levels of involvement of his possible partner, he would like to know them, but an explicit discussion on these topics is generally far from easy. It must be underlined that if very different ways of seeing things can manifest when it comes to cuddling, when it comes to sexuality in the strict sense of the term, one can easily realize that the most varied meanings are connected to this word and therefore there is very little point in talking about a sexual relationship if it is not clear what the contents of this relationship are, i.e. what is meant by sexuality and what sexual behaviors each of the two partners believes should be part of the relationship. But beyond behaviors, understanding the partner's motivations and clarifying one's own motivations is essential for both partners to have a concrete idea of their partner's expectations.
Only if the expectations are compatible and each of the two partners believes he can correspond to the other's expectations, will it be possible to start a relationship that also involves sexuality with a minimum of security. If there is in fact a lack of serious knowledge of the partner's sexuality, either because a preliminary phase of discussion and dialogue was missing or because in that phase due honesty was lacking on one side or the other and there are contents that have remained unexpressed or which have been underestimated, the start of the sexual phase of the relationship rests on very fragile foundations and the risk of a couple crisis can materialize in an unexpected and disruptive way.
Speaking clearly to your partner about your sexuality is very difficult because, consciously or unconsciously, you generally try to show the best possible image of yourself and you tend to omit all the contradictory, problematic or even embarrassing aspects of your sexuality and of your in general of your personality. There are very few people who manage to have a dialogue without taboos with their partner, that is, who manage to talk to him about their sexuality without reservations. In this field two substantially opposite tendencies collide:
1) "I don't want to know anything about his past"
2) "I would like him to feel free to talk to me and for this I must set a good example".
The trend summarized by sentence no. 1 could be defined as "ostrich politics", because it is said that in conditions of danger the ostrich prefers to put its head in the sand and pretend that the danger does not exist. Those who prefer not to know to avoid going into crisis and having to face moments of uncertainty or anxiety prefer to walk in the dark rather than in daylight and behave as if what they don't know doesn't actually exist. A guy who follows this path is afraid and prefers not to know, not only he fears that the other partner may demonstrate problematic or even pathological aspects that are unacceptable, but he trys to avoid being forced to show aspects of himself that could be not acceptable for his partner and therefore such a guy bases his concept of couple stability on the mutual "not knowing".
The trend summarized in sentence no. 2 is that of the good example: "if you want sincerity you must be the first to offer sincerity without reservations". Clearly, those who follow this path have trust in their partner and trust that within the couple there can be full mutual understanding and acceptance, that is, a shared sexuality can be built together, beyond the previous individual sexual history and current individual sexuality of the two partners.
We often hear that sexuality is immediate and instinctive and that when it comes to sex, any couple quickly finds its balance, but this statement is more denied than confirmed in the facts. Couple sexuality is often very problematic not so much at the level of sexual practices, i.e. what is done, but at the level of motivations and emotional interpretations of mutual behavior. It happens several times that a gesture made by one of the two partners with a relaxing purpose is interpreted by the other partner as aggressive or even as a form of disinterested response.
Actual sexual contacts, when they are not framed in a consolidated scheme in which the succession of events is taken for granted, must be triggered by a more or less explicit request from one of the partners and by acceptance, which is also more or less explicit on the part of the other partner, this is the so-called initiative phase which is often complicated by a complex psychological game which often creates embarrassment, because it happens that one of the partners may fear that the proposal of sexual contact is not, at that moment and in that situation, really appreciated by the other partner. The fear of being inappropriate or appearing too interested in sex slows down explicit requests and freezes one partner while waiting for the other to take the initiative. The other partner, who expects a request for sexual contact which in fact does not arrive, enters an anxious state and begins to wonder why the request was not made; he would like to take the initiative himself but finds himself blocked by the (erroneous) presumption that his partner might not like it. This creates a stalemate and the embarrassment grows. These situations are the consequence of a lack of mutual knowledge and can be overcome by simply accepting the risk of being inappropriate.
In the very first sexual encounters of a couple it may happen that one of the partners feels a little too heavily the presence of a code of behavior derived from pornography, that is, that in practice he realizes that the other partner tends to build sexual contact on models of pornography. In this sense the first alarm bell may ring "before sexual contact" in the undressing phase. I'll try to clarify the matter through a concrete example, taken from an email."
“We decided to take a week's holiday to dedicate a bit to ourselves, after all it was our first time, and we went to a campsite where we got a bungalow. Upon arrival you have to get set up, then you go to the seaside, then there's lunch, then back to the seaside in the afternoon, then a light dinner and then, finally, the moment arrives. We were both very excited, we went into the bedroom (with two separate beds) and I started to undress just like I do to go to sleep, but he stopped me, turned the lights down to minimum, put on a sexy piece of music on his phone (or that seemed sexy to him) and he began to undress me with certain cinematic attitudes that you can't even imagine. I thought he was joking but no! I waited a few minutes, then I said to him: Are you kidding me? And he replied: No! It's so beautiful! Whereupon I rejected him and told him: No! I think you misunderstood! And I started to get dressed. He looked at me as if I had abruptly gone crazy , but he didn't change his tone and tried to insist on his script. Luckily we had gone there with two cars and had paid 50% of everything. I took my car and went home. I really don't want to feel like a porn actor!”
Another situation of embarrassment that is very heavy and conditioning to the point that it can lead to the unsustainability of a couple's relationship, can derive from the different attitude of the partners towards the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. There are people who absolutely do not take the problem seriously, they do not agree to take the test, they claim not to use any protection and even refuse to accept limiting themselves to low-risk sexual practices. On these elements, absolute clarity should be the rule and instead prevention is among the most neglected topics.
The individual tendency to assume a dominant role also manifests itself in sexuality and it often happens that one of the two partners tends more or less consciously to impose certain sexual behaviors on the other, or simply tries, but with forms of heavy and harassing insistence capable to undermine the harmony and balance that should characterize every sexual contact. If a wrong or inappropriate attitude of this kind occurs episodically, it creates a contained alarm that can be easily overcome but, if it is repeated, it is quickly considered as a cause of possible couple incompatibility.
In couples' sexuality there are also, obviously, behaviors considered very gratifying, such as playfulness, that is, not considering sex as a duty to be performed following a precise code, or also dedicating a lot of time to sex, diluting sexual activities on long periods of time with breaks and intervals or, first of all, making your partner feel comfortable. The first element that makes pleasant every sexual couple activity is the spontaneous participation of the partner and his satisfaction.
A very important meaning must be attributed to the phase that follows the sexual encounter. The partner's spontaneity and ease in that phase indicates that sex was experienced in a positive and rewarding way, while the haste to leave, silence or formal reactions indicate that participation in sex was minimal, disappointing or was perceived as an obligation or a banal thing to do.