From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Jul 05 1999 - 16:27:00 MDT
> From: Sunah Caroline Cherwin <slippery@pobox.com> said:
> > I said:
> >
> >This is a "good friend", not a good "sex partner". Some woman may
> >argue that the two cannot be disconnected.
>
> I hardly think that needs to be argued. I can't think of a way a person
> could be a good sex partner without being a good friend.
The question is whether or not a woman can adopt (or even *perceive*)
things from the male "genetic orientation". At this time I have a lover
who is a wonderful "sex partner". I would question whether or not
we are "good friends", because our interests and histories are simply
too different. That does not mean that we do not care about each
other, it may mean that we are realistic about our differences.
Thus, one relates to people on 3 levels: sexual, emotional and
intellectual (which seems to make sense). As a man (who has
grown tired of seeking the right combination of these things in
a single individual), I am sometimes willing to compromise and
fullfill these various needs from different sources.
The question is -- are women who are able to achieve
this "disassociation" or must they always be united?
*And*, if they must always be united, how do you justify
"holding out" for the perfect one? Or do you simply compromise
(taking a 5 in each catagory, rather than an 8 or 10 in two or one).
>
> I believe that some women do this, even that is is common, but I can't
> believe it is any more or less pleasant for the people involved depending
> on one person's skills.
How can you say that?!? Why would sex be any different from tennis
or chess? In a situation where someone makes a masterful move or
demonstrates significant skill, one watches (or experiences!)
with admiration. In a situation where someone is terribly inept
making uncomfortable mistakes, one can feel pity or empathy but
seldom admiration. Those situations are unpleasant in my opinion.
> Clearly in such a situation the parties would say what they wanted and
> satisfaction would depend on the level of cooperation and so forth.
Well for some people being an "actor" in a movie is much less
satisfying than rafting down a river and experiencing the
random twists that reality throws at you. Few people like
to be excessively "directed" because it is hard to "directed"
without it turning into being "controled". While the desire to
please or satisfy or produce a mutually satisfactory result
counteracts this to some degree I suspect it has its limits.
> Therefore I can't imagine anyone would find a use for the
> findings of an independent panel or a way to serve on such a panel.
The panel is a "indicator of a level of competence", similar to the
way an "Underwriters Laboratory seal of approval", a high school diploma
or a university degree is (in a very limited sense). Perhaps you
are wise or intuitive enough that you have only had "competent" lovers.
If women are able to "excise" the natural genetic "pickyness"
(wealth, intelligence, similarity to a women's way of thinking, being
verbal rather than visual, having a dis/similar immune system, etc.),
then presumably one would want to substitute generic "expertise" or
"competence" as a selection criteria.
Can you honestly tell me that on a night when you had more than enough
caring "friends", had finished your reproductive agenda and your
hormones were making you simply "hot-to-trot", you would want to
go out and pick up a terrible lover?
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:23 MST