|
losttreasure -> RE: Sexual Tension (1/19/2007 11:10:33 PM)
|
From the review, I believe Esther Perel has some interesting views that are definitely worth considering. However, I do feel that there are some fundamental problems with her theories and I think you've misapplied them somewhat.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Arguably BDSM comports with the above because it operates as a polarity --- keeping lovers as others ---- top from bottom --- Dom from Sub ---- maintaining a more fresh, more easily revived sexual connection. Its also a kind of triumph of discomfort (bondage, beatings, teasing, exacting, testing, probing) that dovetails nicely into sensual union.
There's no arguing that some people are drawn to and sexually excited by things that are new or different ... but not everyone; there are those for whom comfort and familiarity are the ideal. The desire for a partnership where two are capable of operating as a single unit is not uncommon... and this includes those that are drawn to BDSM. How many times do we hear dominants express a desire for transparency? And what of those who wish their submissive to be so entuned to them that they can anticipate their owner's needs and desires?
It is simply inaccurate to claim that BDSM inherently creates distance between practitioners... that those who participate in WIIWD deliberately keep our partners distant and use detached kink as a method of keeping sensuality fresh and exciting.
It seems that your comparing top/bottom and dom/sub to the distance referred to by Ms. Perel, also fails to recognize the basic polar nature of the heterosexual male/female relationship. While not the sole makeup of those who engage in BDMS, they do comprise a large portion if not majority.
I don't disagree that there are components of Ms. Perel's theories that seem to explain the attraction of BDSM to some individuals ... but I don't believe any more or less so than what would apply to those for whom a "vanilla" relationship is the standard.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cloudboy
Anyway, this article gives one food for thought. I do agree that over familiarity is an anti-aphrodisiac, marriage can devolve into the banal, and that passion --- whose kissing cousin is "the thrill" --- spring from something unfamiliar, new, or rediscovered.
While the axiom, "familiarity breeds contempt" does have application to all relationships, I think that it applies more to those within the relationship rather than the relationship itself. In other words, it is the husband and wife themselves who make or allow their marital relationship to go stale ... not the fact that they are married.
As LA has pointed out, there are many who enjoy continued and increasing passion in their marriage. To be honest, any good relationship takes work. Some are willing to put that effort in, and some are not.
Don't misunderstand, I do think the author of the book has a valid point regarding "distance"; I just happen to feel that in relationships that suffer from "banality", it is because those within the relationship don't foster that distance. As a point in reference to another thread going on right now, I believe that romance is one of those ways to keep a relationship new and fresh.
Edited to add: One of the issues that I feel contributes to the reduction of passion in relationships is when partners stop pursuing each other. We've all heard references to the "thrill of the chase" and I'm sure most have experienced the feeling of disappointment when relationships evolve past it. But the chase refers not to something solely because it is new and different... it exists because there is distance. The chase ends when that distance is closed and we feel confident enough in our "new" relationship to stop doing those things to attract our partner. But who said we have to stop chasing?
As a side note and a whole different thread topic... I believe that often times the drama that women are accused of creating in a relationship directly relates to the desire to "shake up" the confidence in her mate. In doing so, I think they are hoping to inspire their partner to resume the chase.
Another issue that I believe is responsible for much of the lack of sexual interest in long-term heterosexual relationships deals directly with the "androgynous" roles that men and women adopt. Our difference in genders is part of that distance... part of the mystery in a relationship. I think that if, instead of trying to blend those roles, people made a point of celebrating and appreciating those differences, they might find there's excitement enough to last a lifetime. [;)]
|
|
|
|
