On Sexual Intimacy

I chose to title this post 'on sexual intimacy' and not 'on intimacy' because my thoughts are more focused on the sexual aspect of intimacy and not just on intimacy itself. But to be comprehensive about the broader topic of intimacy, I'll briefly lay out my thoughts on it as a prequel to the more nuanced dissemination of how I think and feel about sexual intimacy. 

As with everything, I seek to understand my life and the world around me by breaking it down to its parts. Then I create structures of understanding, detailed out into phases and steps so I can track my position in the structure. Then I use the new found structure to establish a formula of action which is based on my thoughts and values and experiences. On this note, the precursor to intimacy is familiarity. Once familiarity is established with someone new, intimacy can began to be developed.

Intimacy in my mind is an overarching concept that describes closeness between two people. There are three components to intimacy; psychological, emotional, and physical. There are also varying degrees of difficulty establishing each, particularly dependent on your past. 

The way I see psychological intimacy is the sharing of thoughts, ideas and values with your partner. The risk here is misalignment and therefore the difficulty is agreeing to that risk and still sharing, given that there may be a hidden deal breaker uncovered. In most cases there is a compromise in this territory unless either person exists psychologically at an extreme which statistically is minimal given the bell curved nature of psychological normalcy and value structure. Even small differences can typically be talked through and will not create long term misalignment if managed well. 

Emotional intimacy is second in the order of difficulty as far as I can assess. The way I would describe emotional intimacy is the sharing of histories and the feelings about those histories. The risk here is that becoming emotionally intimate requires each party to expose their truthful and honest self with potential for vulnerability, fear, and insecurity. Communicated in the wrong way by party A or taken too harshly by party B can result in potentially irreparable damage to the progress of the relationship. The perception of weakness can form, and too much weakness damages the perception or actuality of competence which in turn damages attraction. It is very difficult to be candid with someone about what you are afraid of, what sorts of emotional barriers persist in your life, or how you may have been emotionally damaged. The difficulty arises from the inherent difficulty in being honest, with others and more importantly with yourself. The key here in my mind is taking this slowly, seeing it through, piece by piece.

And finally we arrive at sexual intimacy. This is the point at which my comprehension of the subject matter becomes hazy so this will be more of a stream of consciousness than a fleshed out thought. Sexual intimacy is the simplest to explain and yet, in my mind, the hardest one to approach. Perhaps that is a personal problem, but perhaps it is a shared opinion. Let's start with the risks. The risks associated with engaging sexually with anyone, regardless of whom, are as follows: pregnancy, disease, incompatibility, unsatisfactory experience, inability, and biological changes in emotions afterwords. Sexual intimacy combines the psychological and emotional intimacy into a physiological form. When you engage sexually with someone you agree to become both literally and metaphorically naked. You choose to put down walls of defense that may have been established for good reason and take on the possibility of judgement and humiliation. And what are the rewards? A new level of closeness that cannot be achieved through pure emotional and psychological intimacy. Pleasure that is rivaled by nothing else. A state of comfort obtained through the full disclosure of one's self in the most vulnerable position possible. 

We've established at this point that sex is serious. It must be inherently because of the way it succeeds the first two components of intimacy and then escalates them into a physical act. Agreeing to engage with someone sexually is agreeing to the risks that come with it. Agreeing to the potential to be humiliated. Agreeing to the risk of embarrassment which could come in many forms. But also agreeing to the potential positives, which is as much worth considering. Agreeing to be sexually intimate means you're also agreeing to the potential upside. Agreeing to a new level of closeness. Agreeing to a new level of comfort. Agreeing to a new relationship in essence, one with new expectations, new potential futures, and new conversations that will arise of the choice to become sexually intimate.

It is interesting then to consider when it is an ideal time to engage sexually. In 99% of the formations of new relationships, attraction exists. Otherwise two people would not intermingle. Attraction is the precursor to attention. It must precede the act of giving someone attention or else there would be no desire behind that intention and therefore no reason for it. And of course I'm speaking about relations outside of a colleague or professional acquaintance for which the basis of engagement is work (although it's probably often sexual, since humans are humans in an office or a jungle). 

I'll lay out, once more, the stipulations that have been established. Sex is serious. It is the final phase in completing intimacy. A physical action of consecration so-to-speak. We've also established that there are positive and negative effects that succeed sex, both of which are agreed upon when the act occurs. And lastly, we've established that attraction will exist in 99% of relationships from the first interaction, so therefore sex is a potential from the first minute. Given those stipulations, when is it ideal to choose this path. The answer in my mind is in the form of a postulate. Sex should be agreed upon by both parties when the following conditions are met: 

1. There is a solid foundation of psychological and emotional intimacy that will serve as a safety net in case a risk associated with sex is actualized.

2. Both parties engaging in the sexual act not only accept the potential positive effects of sex, but would be comfortable and content if they were actualized. 

In other words, psychological and emotional intimacy must be achieved prior to sexual intimacy to combat the potential negative consequences of sex, and a thorough examination of the positive consequences must ensue that way when those consequences arise, neither party is subject to surprise or discontent. Otherwise, it seems, sexual intimacy must be put-off. If the two boxes cannot be checked, sexual intimacy should not occur. Either way it is difficult. Deciding to be sexually intimate is as difficult as deciding not to be.

As Jordan Peterson says, "pursue what is meaningful, not what is expedient."