I've long held that the two most deterministic polarities (or spectra, or axes) in human sexuality are a) sexual orientation, and b) power dynamics. Regardless of the gender makeup or sexual orientation of the couple, one usually assumes the role of the "giver," and the other the role of the "receiver," and this manifests in many different ways (not just in the bedroom, though it's probably at its most raw and visceral there). And a lot of relationship problems (and eventually failures) stem from clashing polarities.
Since you're more of an expert than I am... am I on to something? I realize it's likely overly simplistic (and I'm certainly not claiming that *every* relationship issue can be traced back to misaligned power dynamics), but it does make intuitive sense to me. I also wonder what Jung made of it, since it does seem to have an archetypal quality (not to mention Jung's ideas of the Anima/Animus).
Ooo yes I think you're right, although simplistic they are two important determining factors if one is looking to determine patterns in sexuality. Id love to hear your thoughts on my erotic theory when it's released (soon!)
I like the exploration of evolutionary perspective. I our evolutionary history, men compete for power. And women choose men who have won power to reproduce with. The purpose of life is to reproduce successfully. Men must aquire power to reproduce. And women choose men with power to reproduce with.
I think this biological mechanism is the reason educated, financially independent woman find it more difficult to find a mate they are attracted to. Because, it is difficult to find men who have acquired more power then them. Im not saying woman shouldn't be independent. But biology doesn't change just because society does. I would love to hear your thoughts on this... 🤔
Yes I agree, and I think there's been research to show that women tend to prefer mates who are the same level of resources or higher. From my understanding there's also research to show that more domestic violence occurs if women choose a mate with lower resource levels than their own. I'd have to investigate this again before I stand fully behind these claims, it could be an interesting post to explore more one day.
Hmmm interesting. The domestic violence could result from the fact that men with lower social, financial power resort to physical power in order to establish a dynamic within the relationship that results in sexual attraction. This could be a subconscious choice by both parties. This is why bdsm is so interesting. Because it allows people to explore power dynamics consciously.
Yes I think that's the explanation behind it. And YES this is why BDSM is so important to understand, it really can have so many benefits in many ways if done well. I gather you have been listening to The Erotic Realm? If not you should check out my podcast, it sounds like you'd enjoy it- it explores the darker desires of BDSM one confessional style interview at at time.
The psychology of sex is so fascinating because of its nuance and many layers.
A person's sexual desires can change based on a variety of factors, including the stress they are experiencing in the moment, past experiences (good and bad), perception of self, and so on.
Looking at the pornography people consume in private is a great example of them exploring desires that maybe they never would in real life. It is fascinating (sometimes a bit shocking) at what might be going on consciously, but particularly subconsciously, when people choose their erotic content.
Going back to my original point, what someone watches or wishes to engage in could differ drastically between periods of life where they feel hopeless vs times of abundance.
Because of the intimacy, vulnerability, and physicality of the act, sex can become a physical manifestation of how an individual is processing their mental and emotional state of being.
Thanks for such a considered response, and I agree- that is definitely true for some people. However I'd still argue that I've found that for most people their desire template stays within similar themes, perhaps if the people who have felt their desires have changed were asked to break down these desires to themes or their bare minimum, they would find similarities between them that weren't as obvious at first glance?
I definitely agree that most people have some form of baseline. But traumatic experiences of moments of stress, anxiety, depression, or overwhelm can really shift things to extremes.
One example is a man who is cheated on developing a cuckolding fantasy that never existed before. Its because of the sexualization of a trauma to feel some degree of control over it. A certain sexualization of pain. Maybe the mind's odd way of trying to transmute pain into pleasure? Once the man goes to therapy and moves past the trauma, the fantasies go away.
There are two books by the same author that I highly recommend as they are entertaining and enlightening, "The Women on My Couch" and "The Men on My Couch" by Brandy Engler. There are a bunch of stories from both women and men who seek therapy for sex related issues.
Emma, there is a special pleasure when a man allows the woman to totally dictate the lovemaking. The man may lie in his back and let the woman proceed according to her desires, not his.. That’s what I mean by giving up the power.
It’s accurate but there’s a lot of potential for you to elaborate further. For instance, power is not just about resources. There are many different types of power. I’d even say most women are not drawn to men with tons of resources just because of their resources in today’s age. I’d elaborate on that. I love the Oscar Wilde quote, and the brief on how bdsm is healthy.
For me it shows up in the power dynamics around sex, especially when there's an element of D/S power exchange. It's fascinating to observe how much sex comes out in various interactions that aren't overtly about sex, but are calling sex in.
Ohhh of course! Yes it's a common idea that comes up a lot and yet I hadn't seen anyone explore the meaning behind it and I was curious about what it meant!
Did any of my explorations resonate with what you've thought about it or has it been living in your head with a different meaning?
Well, what might this mean for folks who find no pleasure in sex, or who are asexual? Are they missing out on a huge chunk of power, or (even better?) not susceptible to its wiles?
I'd also kind of argue that, at least for my own personal taste, sex is about pleasure and connection, not necessarily power--though I'm vanilla and there can be layers. Does my fiance have power over me due to attraction? Oh yes.
Oh 100%. I'm not claiming that sex is only about power in this post, more so exploring the quote from as many angles as possible as it is a quote I kept on coming across and a few people had asked my opinion on it, so here it is! Sex and sexuality is so multifaceted, id never claim to understand it fully or reduce it to something so simple- but it was fun to explore!
Yes. Sexuality influences (and is influenced by), intersects with, overlaps, can subsume (and be subsumed by) issues of power. Yes.
The *intimate* relationship between power and sex influences all of us whether we like it or not. At times, it may torture us. This relationship certainly affects our development as individual humans and as members of families. At times, for some of us, it might even come to dominate our sense of ourselves in relation to our culture — and even to “meaning itself”.
But sexuality also has exquisite links to guilt and shame, and I wonder if these are ONLY a result of sexuality’s entanglement with power? Aren’t *some* of the guilt and shame associated with sexuality just as (or more) a matter of concern about contingencies related to procreation? Wouldn’t some of us tend to try to shame and guilt others of us for not highlighting sexuality’s linkage with the possibility of conception? (Discuss in small groups and nominate a spokesperson to report your sentiments to the class…)
Such questions are both unavoidable and unavoidably troubling (and NOT just “conceptually” troubling), — and most of the time we’d rather not think about them though circumstances and emotions make such insouciance a Sisyphean (or is it Tantalizing?), and VERY RISKY challenge.
“Sexuality and Power” is surely a powerfully dynamic dyad. But what about “Sexuality and Violence”? Aren’t they also hopelessly commingled? Doesn’t it require intense and concentrated discipline to enforce delineations between the two? What about “Sexuality and Nurturance”?
Is it always the best idea to make “sexuality” the focal point between other dynamics like “violence” and “nurturance”? (I mean except for the cultural “fact” that “sex sells” and that this particular forum is ABOUT sexuality?) IF, for whatever strange reason, we wanted to focus on the TRIAD of “Violence, Nurturance and Sexuality”, couldn’t EACH of them be the generative focal point? Aren’t each of them exquisitely(?) entangled with guilt and shame at times?
But to temporarily retreat from Triads (and momentarily get back to generative Dyads), what about “Sexuality and Gender”? This brings up the concept of “fluidity” which I prefer over the notion of “spectrum” which even with all its infinite gradations of “betweenness” is still very binary. And it’s so difficult to escape binaries! “Nurturance” has links to power as well as to altruism. “Violence’ has links to protection as well as destruction and the infliction of harm. It’s so difficult to escape binaries EXCEPT that there is such an infinity of them all flowing and melting into one another (an image that can twist and lunge between being seductive or horrifying, comforting or disgusting, empowering or shameful, and validating or guilt ridden.
Is an abusive relationship merely a normal sexual power struggle? Sounds more like physics (the ability to do work) than relationship (the ability to live life together).
I've long held that the two most deterministic polarities (or spectra, or axes) in human sexuality are a) sexual orientation, and b) power dynamics. Regardless of the gender makeup or sexual orientation of the couple, one usually assumes the role of the "giver," and the other the role of the "receiver," and this manifests in many different ways (not just in the bedroom, though it's probably at its most raw and visceral there). And a lot of relationship problems (and eventually failures) stem from clashing polarities.
Since you're more of an expert than I am... am I on to something? I realize it's likely overly simplistic (and I'm certainly not claiming that *every* relationship issue can be traced back to misaligned power dynamics), but it does make intuitive sense to me. I also wonder what Jung made of it, since it does seem to have an archetypal quality (not to mention Jung's ideas of the Anima/Animus).
Ooo yes I think you're right, although simplistic they are two important determining factors if one is looking to determine patterns in sexuality. Id love to hear your thoughts on my erotic theory when it's released (soon!)
I like the exploration of evolutionary perspective. I our evolutionary history, men compete for power. And women choose men who have won power to reproduce with. The purpose of life is to reproduce successfully. Men must aquire power to reproduce. And women choose men with power to reproduce with.
me too! in my opinion it’s definitely a huge part of mating today!
I think this biological mechanism is the reason educated, financially independent woman find it more difficult to find a mate they are attracted to. Because, it is difficult to find men who have acquired more power then them. Im not saying woman shouldn't be independent. But biology doesn't change just because society does. I would love to hear your thoughts on this... 🤔
Yes I agree, and I think there's been research to show that women tend to prefer mates who are the same level of resources or higher. From my understanding there's also research to show that more domestic violence occurs if women choose a mate with lower resource levels than their own. I'd have to investigate this again before I stand fully behind these claims, it could be an interesting post to explore more one day.
Hmmm interesting. The domestic violence could result from the fact that men with lower social, financial power resort to physical power in order to establish a dynamic within the relationship that results in sexual attraction. This could be a subconscious choice by both parties. This is why bdsm is so interesting. Because it allows people to explore power dynamics consciously.
Yes I think that's the explanation behind it. And YES this is why BDSM is so important to understand, it really can have so many benefits in many ways if done well. I gather you have been listening to The Erotic Realm? If not you should check out my podcast, it sounds like you'd enjoy it- it explores the darker desires of BDSM one confessional style interview at at time.
The psychology of sex is so fascinating because of its nuance and many layers.
A person's sexual desires can change based on a variety of factors, including the stress they are experiencing in the moment, past experiences (good and bad), perception of self, and so on.
Looking at the pornography people consume in private is a great example of them exploring desires that maybe they never would in real life. It is fascinating (sometimes a bit shocking) at what might be going on consciously, but particularly subconsciously, when people choose their erotic content.
Going back to my original point, what someone watches or wishes to engage in could differ drastically between periods of life where they feel hopeless vs times of abundance.
Because of the intimacy, vulnerability, and physicality of the act, sex can become a physical manifestation of how an individual is processing their mental and emotional state of being.
Thanks for such a considered response, and I agree- that is definitely true for some people. However I'd still argue that I've found that for most people their desire template stays within similar themes, perhaps if the people who have felt their desires have changed were asked to break down these desires to themes or their bare minimum, they would find similarities between them that weren't as obvious at first glance?
I definitely agree that most people have some form of baseline. But traumatic experiences of moments of stress, anxiety, depression, or overwhelm can really shift things to extremes.
One example is a man who is cheated on developing a cuckolding fantasy that never existed before. Its because of the sexualization of a trauma to feel some degree of control over it. A certain sexualization of pain. Maybe the mind's odd way of trying to transmute pain into pleasure? Once the man goes to therapy and moves past the trauma, the fantasies go away.
There are two books by the same author that I highly recommend as they are entertaining and enlightening, "The Women on My Couch" and "The Men on My Couch" by Brandy Engler. There are a bunch of stories from both women and men who seek therapy for sex related issues.
Looks like we are in agreeance about the baseline!
And yes I also agree that at times the psyche has a form of immune system that eroticises trauma- I've experienced this myself!
Thanks for the book recommendations, I'll check them out.
You are half right. Sex often is those with power being wiling to give up that power for the mutual pleasure of both partners.
Tell me more? Why am I half right? What is power to you? And how is it given up?
Emma, there is a special pleasure when a man allows the woman to totally dictate the lovemaking. The man may lie in his back and let the woman proceed according to her desires, not his.. That’s what I mean by giving up the power.
I see! my exploration was more so looking beyond the actual sexual act itself and exploring the deeper nuances at play.
Looking forward to read your journey with your partner 🤓
It’s accurate but there’s a lot of potential for you to elaborate further. For instance, power is not just about resources. There are many different types of power. I’d even say most women are not drawn to men with tons of resources just because of their resources in today’s age. I’d elaborate on that. I love the Oscar Wilde quote, and the brief on how bdsm is healthy.
Sure I'd love to add to it! What other types of power do you think I should include?
There’s definitely a power dynamic with sex that is fascinating to observe and take part in.
I know right! how does it show up for you?
For me it shows up in the power dynamics around sex, especially when there's an element of D/S power exchange. It's fascinating to observe how much sex comes out in various interactions that aren't overtly about sex, but are calling sex in.
ooo yes! eroticism is such a huge aspect of our lives, and once you put on the lens of understanding the erotic you start to see it everywhere!
Hail Eros!
This phrase lives in my head since watching hoc 10 years ago..
What's hoc?
House of cards- this is where I heard it first.
Ohhh of course! Yes it's a common idea that comes up a lot and yet I hadn't seen anyone explore the meaning behind it and I was curious about what it meant!
Did any of my explorations resonate with what you've thought about it or has it been living in your head with a different meaning?
Well, what might this mean for folks who find no pleasure in sex, or who are asexual? Are they missing out on a huge chunk of power, or (even better?) not susceptible to its wiles?
I'd also kind of argue that, at least for my own personal taste, sex is about pleasure and connection, not necessarily power--though I'm vanilla and there can be layers. Does my fiance have power over me due to attraction? Oh yes.
Oh 100%. I'm not claiming that sex is only about power in this post, more so exploring the quote from as many angles as possible as it is a quote I kept on coming across and a few people had asked my opinion on it, so here it is! Sex and sexuality is so multifaceted, id never claim to understand it fully or reduce it to something so simple- but it was fun to explore!
Yes. Sexuality influences (and is influenced by), intersects with, overlaps, can subsume (and be subsumed by) issues of power. Yes.
The *intimate* relationship between power and sex influences all of us whether we like it or not. At times, it may torture us. This relationship certainly affects our development as individual humans and as members of families. At times, for some of us, it might even come to dominate our sense of ourselves in relation to our culture — and even to “meaning itself”.
But sexuality also has exquisite links to guilt and shame, and I wonder if these are ONLY a result of sexuality’s entanglement with power? Aren’t *some* of the guilt and shame associated with sexuality just as (or more) a matter of concern about contingencies related to procreation? Wouldn’t some of us tend to try to shame and guilt others of us for not highlighting sexuality’s linkage with the possibility of conception? (Discuss in small groups and nominate a spokesperson to report your sentiments to the class…)
Such questions are both unavoidable and unavoidably troubling (and NOT just “conceptually” troubling), — and most of the time we’d rather not think about them though circumstances and emotions make such insouciance a Sisyphean (or is it Tantalizing?), and VERY RISKY challenge.
“Sexuality and Power” is surely a powerfully dynamic dyad. But what about “Sexuality and Violence”? Aren’t they also hopelessly commingled? Doesn’t it require intense and concentrated discipline to enforce delineations between the two? What about “Sexuality and Nurturance”?
Is it always the best idea to make “sexuality” the focal point between other dynamics like “violence” and “nurturance”? (I mean except for the cultural “fact” that “sex sells” and that this particular forum is ABOUT sexuality?) IF, for whatever strange reason, we wanted to focus on the TRIAD of “Violence, Nurturance and Sexuality”, couldn’t EACH of them be the generative focal point? Aren’t each of them exquisitely(?) entangled with guilt and shame at times?
But to temporarily retreat from Triads (and momentarily get back to generative Dyads), what about “Sexuality and Gender”? This brings up the concept of “fluidity” which I prefer over the notion of “spectrum” which even with all its infinite gradations of “betweenness” is still very binary. And it’s so difficult to escape binaries! “Nurturance” has links to power as well as to altruism. “Violence’ has links to protection as well as destruction and the infliction of harm. It’s so difficult to escape binaries EXCEPT that there is such an infinity of them all flowing and melting into one another (an image that can twist and lunge between being seductive or horrifying, comforting or disgusting, empowering or shameful, and validating or guilt ridden.
Is an abusive relationship merely a normal sexual power struggle? Sounds more like physics (the ability to do work) than relationship (the ability to live life together).
Hmm I'm not sure you can say an abusive relationship is normal or something to be normalized?