Jump to content
Holmbo

Could I make myself more sexual?

Recommended Posts

Mark   
On 10/08/2017 at 10:44 AM, Eklinaar said:

 This is my greatest struggle in sexual relationships, that it is a very emotional and intimate experience for me, but it is not romantic for me.  Everyone I meet seems to want both emotional intimacy and romance, or neither.

It''s often seemed to me that many allos equote "emotional intimacy" with "romance". Effectively it's, yet another, romantic coded thing.
 

10 hours ago, NullVector said:

Although I wouldn't want to imagine it like a 'spectrum' on which 'committed romantic relationship' and 'ONS' were extremes at either 'end' (not saying that's what you were doing; but it potentially could be read that way, just from the use of 'in between'). I'd want to imagine it more like a complex multi-dimensional space of relationship possibilities, within which 'committed romantic relationship' and 'ONS' were just two particular points, with various possibilities spanning various different dimensions existing all around them.

That's a fairly good model.
Far better than either romantic/ONS or romantic/platonic friend binaries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mark said:

That's a fairly good model.
Far better than either romantic/ONS or romantic/platonic friend binaries

Harder to visualize though ;)

I wonder what the dimensions of my multi-dimensional relationship space could be? When you take a Myers-Briggs test, for example, you end up getting assigned a point/vector in a four-dimensional space. In this model, the four dimensional 'axes' of 'personality' (or, better perhaps, cognitive functions) are Introversion/Extroversion, iNtuition/Sensing,  Thinking/Feeling and Perceiving/Judging, with values scaling from 0-100 on each axis (so you might get assigned a point/vector of (0,0,0,0) if you were a super-extreme INTP, say, or (100,100,100,100) if you were a super-extreme ESFJ) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark   
2 hours ago, NullVector said:

Harder to visualize though ;)

I wonder what the dimensions of my multi-dimensional relationship space could be? When you take a Myers-Briggs test, for example, you end up getting assigned a point/vector in a four-dimensional space. In this model, the four dimensional 'axes' of 'personality' (or, better perhaps, cognitive functions) are Introversion/Extroversion, iNtuition/Sensing,  Thinking/Feeling and Perceiving/Judging, with values scaling from 0-100 on each axis (so you might get assigned a point/vector of (0,0,0,0) if you were a super-extreme INTP, say, or (100,100,100,100) if you were a super-extreme ESFJ) 

It might be better to go from (-50,-50,-50,-50) to (50,50,50,50).
Even though visualising a point inside a hypersphere is tricky.
Just about anything would be an improvement on four bit binary :)

For relationships probably rather more than four dimensions or something more exotic than real numbers as co-ordinates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Momo   
4 hours ago, Mark said:

It might be better to go from (-50,-50,-50,-50) to (50,50,50,50).

Definitely this.

 

7 hours ago, NullVector said:

I wonder what the dimensions of my multi-dimensional relationship space could be?

 

Hmm, these are the main things I can think of that could be measured at least somewhat objectively. There's some others that I thought of like Emotional Connection that would be interesting to explore but I felt that they wouldn't be so much part of the relationship itself so much as an individuals perception of the relationship which would mean that the relationship was in a different place for each person in it and I wasn't sure how deep down this particular rabbit hole I wanted to go.

 

Uncommitted (-50) <-> Committed (50)

 

Inclusive (-50)  <-> Exclusive (50)

 

Non-physical (-50) <-> Sensual (0) <-> Sexual (50)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, NullVector said:

I wonder what the dimensions of my multi-dimensional relationship space could be? When you take a Myers-Briggs test, for example, you end up getting assigned a point/vector in a four-dimensional space. In this model, the four dimensional 'axes' of 'personality' (or, better perhaps, cognitive functions) are Introversion/Extroversion, iNtuition/Sensing,  Thinking/Feeling and Perceiving/Judging, with values scaling from 0-100 on each axis (so you might get assigned a point/vector of (0,0,0,0) if you were a super-extreme INTP, say, or (100,100,100,100) if you were a super-extreme ESFJ)

I'm an ENF P/J, so I would be roughly 90,75,75,50 :D (or on the 50/-50 scale- 40,25,25,0)

 

7 hours ago, Momo said:

Hmm, these are the main things I can think of that could be measured at least somewhat objectively. There's some others that I thought of like Emotional Connection that would be interesting to explore but I felt that they wouldn't be so much part of the relationship itself so much as an individuals perception of the relationship which would mean that the relationship was in a different place for each person in it and I wasn't sure how deep down this particular rabbit hole I wanted to go.

 

Uncommitted (-50) <-> Committed (50)

 

Inclusive (-50)  <-> Exclusive (50)

 

Non-physical (-50) <-> Sensual (0) <-> Sexual (50)

Wow this is hurting my brain..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Momo   
1 minute ago, SamwiseLovesLife said:

Wow this is hurting my brain..

I came up with this after three hours sleep so I may be full of :zzz:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Momo so would the uncommited/commited be counted as monogomy or simply commitment to each other (regardless of third-party involvment?)

I assume the inclusive/exclusive is indicitive of polyamory/open-relationships?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Momo   
1 minute ago, SamwiseLovesLife said:

@Momo so would the uncommited/commited be counted as monogomy or simply commitment to each other (regardless of third-party involvment?)

I assume the inclusive/exclusive is indicitive of polyamory/open-relationships?

 

To be honest, the whole poly/mono thing didn't seem to fit into any sort of sliding scale, it's simply a different style of relationship. You can have committed or open relationships in a poly setting and similarly you can have exclusive poly relationships (say, a fixed triad of three people in a relationship with each other). Initially I did have poly on one of the scales and then I got to actually thinking about it and the more i thought about it the more it just didn't really on scale - it was just a thing that was or wasn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark   
5 minutes ago, SamwiseLovesLife said:

@Momo so would the uncommited/commited be counted as monogomy or simply commitment to each other (regardless of third-party involvment?)

I assume the inclusive/exclusive is indicitive of polyamory/open-relationships?

They'd be orthogonal concepts. as also would be serious/casual.
The issue of open/closed would be it's own axis too. Given that both open mono and closed poly exist.

7 minutes ago, Momo said:

To be honest, the whole poly/mono thing didn't seem to fit into any sort of sliding scale, it's simply a different style of relationship.

The reason it dosn't work well is that "mono" is one thing where as "poly" is several things. Some of which are far from mutually compatible.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Momo   
11 minutes ago, Mark said:

The reason it dosn't work well is that "mono" is one thing where as "poly" is several things.

Same as how monogamous relationships are all different. It would be interesting to think if there's some set of properties that describe both though. But the choice between "one other person involved" and "multiple other people involved" is just that, a fairly binary choice.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark   
3 minutes ago, Momo said:

Same as how monogamous relationships are all different. It would be interesting to think if there's some set of properties that describe both though. But the choice between "one other person involved" and "multiple other people involved" is just that, a fairly binary choice.

It's not really anything like a binary.
With two people you can only have a couple/dyad. With three three there's either a vee or a triad. Then you have equal or unequal vee. Equilateral, isosceles or scalene triad.
The more people are involved the more the number of possible relationship dynamics increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Momo   

Sure, poor choice of words, what I meant was it's really a choice between a set of discreet options rather than some sort of scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/08/2017 at 7:50 AM, Mark said:

It''s often seemed to me that many allos equote "emotional intimacy" with "romance". Effectively it's, yet another, romantic coded thing.

Ahhh you mean Alloromantics? If so then yes, I agree. I think Allo-romos tend to take everything non-sexual (that's more than basic friendship) as romantically coded, which I quite vehemently disagree with. I share many 'romantically-coded' (according to alloromos) actions with my closest friends with no romantic intent or feeling at all. Lack of sex does not make it romance imo :aropride:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×