To me, the sharing of a any type of relationship is something that's reserved for only the most important people in one's life. Imagine a linear chart. Zero to 100%. At zero are the people who you've never met, are never likely to meet and who has no impact in your life. 100% being the most important person in your life. I'd say you call a person a friend if they're above 50%, by definition. But along that line from 50% to 100%, we each set a different limit for those with whom we would have what kind of relationship.
By kind of relationship I mean, of course, the type of interaction. People can be acquaintances, close friends, best friends and lovers. I'm sure there are a whole bunch more in between, but I think that basically illustrates the point. In any case, on my scale they appear exactly in that order. That means that before one can be a close friend, they have to first be an acquaintance. That one's pretty easy. My point is that one also must be a best friend before they can become a lover. A lover is someone with whom you share the most intimacy and thus require a high level of importance to trust them it. Intimacy can really be of any kind; it doesn't necessarily have to be sexual, though very often it is.
That's why the whole casual sex thing just doesn't fly with me. I thought, and have no problems with others who do, that a healthy sexual relationship can exist if both people are aware that's there's little more than sex. Whereas my chart-position for lovers is at 98%, theirs might be at 60%, somewhere just above acquaintance.
The importance I place to it is, as I said, because of intimacy. Sexuality is most certainly a form of intimacy. But it's by no means the most important or satisfying. Intellectual, personal and moral intimacy being a few that I hold important. People are more likely to consider the opinions of someone they hold important. When two people are sharing their opinions on an intellectual or moral topic, their opinions will be challenged such that they will be changed or they will grow stronger. When two people are personally intimate, sharing their similar pasts, their resolve in themselves is likely to change based on the relationship's other characteristics for good or for bad. Though sexual intimacy ranks below these in importance, it's still in the same category. Which means only with people who above 98% are eligible. Meaning only the very few and the very important. Casual sex, at this point, becomes a contradiction.
Which seems to be the thing that's been bothering me about Suicide Girls. Everyone says that this is a forum for the celebration of sexuality. Being that they are willing to share sexual intimacy with people who have almost zero importance as they're not likely the ever meet. Granted, it's not sex, but it's still what I consider to be the sharing, or at least the emulation of sharing sexual intimacy. Which puts me in a bit of a bind as I just explained that to me casual sexuality is an oxymoron.
At the same time, I'm a paying subscriber. So there's got to be some redeemable quality. I think it may be the possibility that I'm wrong. That intimacy can be had with people of little importance. Which is where SG extends past just being a site to see sexually explicit photography of gorgeous women. The opportunity is there, however unlikely, to find out.
By kind of relationship I mean, of course, the type of interaction. People can be acquaintances, close friends, best friends and lovers. I'm sure there are a whole bunch more in between, but I think that basically illustrates the point. In any case, on my scale they appear exactly in that order. That means that before one can be a close friend, they have to first be an acquaintance. That one's pretty easy. My point is that one also must be a best friend before they can become a lover. A lover is someone with whom you share the most intimacy and thus require a high level of importance to trust them it. Intimacy can really be of any kind; it doesn't necessarily have to be sexual, though very often it is.
That's why the whole casual sex thing just doesn't fly with me. I thought, and have no problems with others who do, that a healthy sexual relationship can exist if both people are aware that's there's little more than sex. Whereas my chart-position for lovers is at 98%, theirs might be at 60%, somewhere just above acquaintance.
The importance I place to it is, as I said, because of intimacy. Sexuality is most certainly a form of intimacy. But it's by no means the most important or satisfying. Intellectual, personal and moral intimacy being a few that I hold important. People are more likely to consider the opinions of someone they hold important. When two people are sharing their opinions on an intellectual or moral topic, their opinions will be challenged such that they will be changed or they will grow stronger. When two people are personally intimate, sharing their similar pasts, their resolve in themselves is likely to change based on the relationship's other characteristics for good or for bad. Though sexual intimacy ranks below these in importance, it's still in the same category. Which means only with people who above 98% are eligible. Meaning only the very few and the very important. Casual sex, at this point, becomes a contradiction.
Which seems to be the thing that's been bothering me about Suicide Girls. Everyone says that this is a forum for the celebration of sexuality. Being that they are willing to share sexual intimacy with people who have almost zero importance as they're not likely the ever meet. Granted, it's not sex, but it's still what I consider to be the sharing, or at least the emulation of sharing sexual intimacy. Which puts me in a bit of a bind as I just explained that to me casual sexuality is an oxymoron.
At the same time, I'm a paying subscriber. So there's got to be some redeemable quality. I think it may be the possibility that I'm wrong. That intimacy can be had with people of little importance. Which is where SG extends past just being a site to see sexually explicit photography of gorgeous women. The opportunity is there, however unlikely, to find out.