Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Herb, of course you haven't defined what you mean by intimacy.
    
    Do you mean sharing innermost thoughts with other men?
    
    Do you mean touching/hugging other men without their being
    a sexual component involved?
    
    Do you mean the kind of intimacy as explained in the "Male Sexual
    Workshop" note in V2 and in -MN-?
    
    I find I'm able to be intimate with other men, vis-a-vis, sharing
    innermost feelings so long as the other man (men) are able to do
    the same.
    
    I also will casually touch other men on the shoulder, arm or face
    as a gesture of caring and comfort, so long as I know the other
    men are sexually straight.
    
      Alan 

I think in the context of the original discussion (whether women or men feel
more "intimacy" related to sex) my take on the def'n of intimacy was 
emotional connectedness.  I know, that doesn't help much, since it is an
equally vague term, but I think that is all you can say about it.

Sex is, by definition, physically intimate, so obviously sex is no more or
less physically intimate for men than women, or vice versa.  But there are
varying degres of emotional intimacy.  Does sex make you feel *closer* to
someone?  Or it is just a physical act with no emotional ramifications?

For me, sex is tied closely with emotional attachedness, but perhaps not
quite as closely as it is for many women.  I suspect (is this sexism?) that
it is *more* closely tied to intimacy than for most men.  I don't enjoy
sex at all with someone I don't care at all about, no matter how much I am
attracted to them.  The more I know someone, the closer I feel to them,
the more important they are to me as people, the more I enjoy being 
*physically* intimate with them.  There is a more or less direct correlation
between how close I am to the other person and how much I enjoy sex with them.
I think the correlation is tighter for most women, and looser for most men.
(Which does not mean there is *no* correlation - I believe that for everyone,
or at least the vast majority, there exists some correlation.  I just 
think it is the strength that varies.)

Relatedly, I find that being physically intimate makes me feel closer to 
someone than I did before.  This varies, but I think this ties (so to speak
;-) in too.

D!

Having never been a man, anything I can say regarding the intimacy that men 
attach to sex is based upon personal observation or what men have told me.

Having never been anywoman but me, what I know of women's take is based upon
their words as well.

I do know me.  The 'what is intimacy?' question is tricky.  I have never
attached intimacy to sex, at least not beyond the physical reality.  This being
said, I can also say that I've never had sex in a relationship where no
intimacy existed -- I do have to be comfortable with the person and I do have
to trust the person.  I would not characterise my approach to either sex _or_
intimacy as casual.

I have known both men and women who feel that sex give them the rights to 
another's soul. I have know more women than men to hold this attitude. I have 
known more men than women to express a aversion to this attitude in partners.

I think it's just a difference in socialisation.  [some 'just', huh?]

  Ann

    
>I think it's just a difference in socialisation.  [some 'just', huh?]

> Ann
    
    i'm inclined to think that there's more here than meets the eye and
    that this line is worth pursuing.
    

    I think people attach different meanings to sex at different points in
    their lives, with different partners. It matters less what sex you are,
    more where you are in your life.  Intimacy is another matter.  It seems
    to me that intimacy means pretty much the same thing to many people. 
    It's an openess, a sharing, mutual trusting, yes being vulnerable.
    
    I've known many women who have attached little to no meaning to their
    sexual adventures, indeed as well as men. One of the differences I've
    noticed is - speaking generally - for men, intimacy=sex, whereas sex
    does not = intimacy.  Sex can mean power, control, dominance, play,
    adventure, experimentation, whereas intimacy is intimacy.  I think
    women over the last few years have picked up on this and assumed the
    same attitude (again, generally speaking).  For women, traditionally
    sex may equal power, but only through intimacy.  The old "you gotta
    trap a man with sex" thing in order to gain power.
    
    It is a difference in socialization.  But it has changed, and continues
    to change.  I also think that maturity has something to do with the
    attitudes surrounding sex and intimacy.  The more mature you are
    (notice I didn't say the older you get) the more sex and intimacy
    become firmly entwined.
    
    

certainly there is more than meets the eye.  are you asking me to expand upon
my meaning or my theories?

or am I/we waiting for you to formulate a more fully-fleshed response?

  Ann

    I don't think we can talk about intimacy and sex without using the
    context of our culture. I would expect that the European members of the
    conference would have different viewpoints than the North Americans.

    I still see the double standard playing a big role in what a woman may
    express and act on in regards to sex and intimacy. We have been
    socialized into sharing intimacies as a means of "proving" friendship.
    We are still apt to look askance at a woman who sleeps around like a
    man. At the very least she is expected to "keep it quiet" or be the
    brunt of a good deal of gossip. I still think that for men to have
    multiple partners is a secret pride.

    As for emotional intimacy. I my experience men are more likely to
    confide in and trust a woman rather than another man. I've heard men
    say it's safer. They do "physical" buddy things with the guys but tell
    their female friends about their heartaches and fears. But, I'm not a
    guy so it's all just observation on my part. liesl

    My personal experience doesn't lend any support to stereotyping by sex
    when it comes to connecting physical intimacy with emotional
    commitment.  Even for a single woman or man, the relation can change
    from month to month (or hour to hour); trying to define the relation
    for a group seems impossible. 
    
    Ray

    My experience has led me to believe that a larger percentage of
    men, than women, are able to view sex as something completely separate
    from emotional intimacy.  Basically, I think that more men than
    women see sex as being no big deal.  I think that the only time
    most men think of sex as being a big deal is when they have sex
    with someone they are in love with.  Whereas, I think more women
    view the act of having sex as being a big deal, whether they are in love
    with the person or not. This *may* be due entirely to societal
    influences, but whether that's the case or not, I think it's true.

    Lorna
    

    This is being posted for a member of the community who wishes to remain
    anonymous....
    
    -Jody
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I am a woman, and I have sex with both men and women.  In my 
    experience, women usually have weaker boundaries between sex and
    emotional intimacy.  Men are more apt to look at sex as separate from
    any kind of intimacy, sexual or emotional or otherwise, whereas women
    tend to fall in love quickly (in my experience) when physical intimacy
    is shared, and the heart, as opposed to just the sexual organs, is
    opened to another human entity.
    
    Anonymous.

RE:                        <<< Note 72.5 by FDCV01::ROSS >>>
                             -< What Is Intimacy? >-

>    I also will casually touch other men on the shoulder, arm or face
>    as a gesture of caring and comfort, so long as I know the other
>    men are sexually straight.
    
Alan, why is that?  Is it an issue of things being misinterpretted?
Do you set the same limits with straight women?

Re: .21
    
> Alan, why is that?  Is it an issue of things being misinterpretted?

John, I guess it is. An anecdote around this comes to mind. 

Back in '83 or so, I was in Atlanta on DEC business. I ran out of
cigarettes, and on my way to a restaurant, I stopped in a package
store to get some.

Waiting in line at the counter was a man. He smiled at me as I asked
for my cigarettes and said "Hi". I said "Hello" back, walked out of
the store, and started to get in my car. 

Before I could get in my car, he was telling me how attractive he found
me, what a nice smile I had, and that if I followed him back to his house
he'd cook us both dinner, and then "We'll have a really nice time together."
(He then became pretty explicit as to what he meant by a really nice time.)

I didn't go (you'll be proud to know.) Jilly's Ribs had me for a dinner guest 
that night. :-)

But since then, I've become somewhat cautious as to which males I'll smile
at, say hello to, or touch. I don't want to be a c*ck tease.
  
> Do you set the same limits with straight women?

No.

  Alan

>But since then, I've become somewhat cautious as to which males I'll smile
>at, say hello to, or touch. I don't want to be a c*ck tease.

I suggest a wedding ring. At least, it seems to work well for my interactions
with straight males.
	Mez

    Women who grow up thinking they are not supposed to enjoy sex for the
    sake of sex but are supposed to participate in sex for the sake of
    love, will probably see sex primarily in terms of its intimacy.
    
    Men who grow up thinking they are supposed to enjoy sex for its own
    sake and that love/intimacy are primarily for women, will probably
    see sex just the opposite.
    
    Likewise, women and men who grow up with these expectations will see
    each other's reactions and behavior as being in keeping with this.
    
    I do not believe these characteristics (women/love-intimacy
    men/sex-for-it-sown-sake) are innate at all.  Some women have learned
    to love a toss in the hay for fun and pleasure.  Some men invest *very*
    senstive emotions into sexual intercouse.
    
    I think both genders would benefit from being able to approach sex from
    either point of view -- as a fun activity or a builder/expresser of
    love.
    
    Nancy

    
    re:.15
    sorry; i don't really know what comes next. by all means, if you
    have further thoughts along these lines i, for one, would be very
    interested. my own thoughts, unfortunately, are taking a rather
    long time to solidify. if it seems appropriate to share them when
    they have solidified, i will be sure to enter them here. until
    then, i'm keeping my mind open for new perspectives.
     

> just a matter of socialisation

I have encountered here, and elsewhere, statements and attitudes that a lack of
emotional intimacy attached to sex is somehow indicative of a 'casual' attitude.
And I was brought up to believe that 'casual' sex is not a nice thing for women
to engage in -- well, not really for men either, but they need sex you know and
intimacy is frequently hard to come by so we'll just let it slide.

I was also socialised to view women more 'at risk' in any sexual encounter and
that encouraging intimacy in my partner somehow would partially defuse the
risk:  of being pregnant and alone; of being raped; of being alone in life.

There is some lore [somewhere] that women are 'learning' to enjoy sex for its
own sake.  I rather think that the learned behaviour is to enjoy or want it
for something _other_ than itself.

Quite seriously, if I didn't enjoy sex I wouldn't engage in it -- no matter
_how_ in tune with another's soul I was.  Stripped of the pleasure derived, it 
is an invasive experience that leaves me quite untidy.

There are many intimacies in my life that do not include sex.  The most intimate
relationship in my life does not include sex.  Which is not to say that this
was always the case or always will be.

Rick, for instance, grew up in the shadow of a 'truth' that women use sex to
acquire other things.  While I would never characterise his attitude or approach
to sex as 'casual', the concept of emotional intimacy in _any_ context was
systematically drummed out of him as harmful and downright dangerous on any
but the most superficial levels.  Intimacy put a person at risk: of being hurt,
of being manipulated, of being trapped.

It was easier for me to 'break training' than for him; I think because the
suppression of the physical is more easily accomplished hence there's less to
un-learn.

Yet, my early socialisation still has some sway.  Having said things at odds
with it, I find myself almost _needing_ to tell everyone that my morals are 
considerably higher than a mink's and that I've never been indiscriminate.

What a bloody morass!

  Ann

< There is some lore [somewhere] that women are 'learning' to enjoy sex for its
< own sake. 

    It's more than "lore" - it is what some of us have experienced
    ourselves -- that it's ok to enjoy sex for its own sake, that we don't
    have to build a big romantic thing around it in order to justify the
    fact that it's pleasurable.  
    
< I rather think that the learned behaviour is to enjoy or want it
< for something _other_ than itself.
    
    I think that's *typically* what guys have to do.  But I'm sure that
    neither learning applies to all members of either gender.
    
    < Quite seriously, if I didn't enjoy sex I wouldn't engage in it -- no
    < matter _how_ in tune with another's soul I was.  Stripped of the pleasure
    < derived, it is an invasive experience that leaves me quite untidy.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Ann, I love this!  If I ever write the great American novel, can I
    please put these words into the mouth of one of my characters?????  :)
    
    Nancy

    
    it seems obvious to me that in today's world sex is far more
    dangerous for women than for men. therefore, it also seems obvious
    that a woman would be more cautious than a man before entering
    into a sexual situation. one of the prerequisites might be a
    certain amount of knowledge and trust of the person involved.
    but i'm not really sure if that's 'intimacy'. and i'm not really
    sure about what happens 'after'....
    

re.28 Nancy

First, you have my permission to use my description.  All I ask is that you
try not to put it in the mouth of some seriously repressed character, ;^).
Let me know when you publish.

Back to our regularly scheduled topic,

I don't think that women would have to learn to enjoy sex for itself if they
hadn't learned to 'build a big romantic thing around it' in the first
place.  I view it as an _un_learning process.  Learning that it's OK is another
matter entirely.

Sex, by it's physical reality is intimate.

I was trying to say that the socialisation of 'risk' in women was sex and that
in men it was intimacy.  And that both have quite a bit to _un_ learn to get
the best out of both.

[as always, no case is absolute]

  Ann

    re .30, I think part of the problem is that just because a woman
    may learn to enjoy sex just for itself, this doesn't mean she wouldn't
    still rather have the romance as well.
    
    Lorna
    

re.29 joe

sex may be more dangerous for women, but emoptional intimacy is no guarantee
of safety. of that I am living proof

in my previous note, I indicated that I require a certain comfort level to enjoy
myself -- but that's more a trust issue.

after ... it depends.  I can say that I remember every man I've ever 
had sex with [except for one] with a certain degree of fondness, but there has
been only one from whom I pursued any lasting commitment and that was more a
factor of liking the man than of liking the sex.

if you are asking if sex changed the relationship, it usually did in some way.
but it never precipitated a flurry of hopes, dreams, and confidences -- in
short it wasn't based upon an intense emotional closeness and it didn't engender
one.

  Ann

re.31 Lorna

Certainly. I agree 200%.  When both are there it's magic.  That I have both
[most of the time] makes my life very beautiful indeed.

  Ann

    
    Ann (.27) I don't know whose "voice" the underscored excerpt was written
    in, yours or society's during your upbringing - I have a feeling that
    it was the latter.  I was brought up to believe it too.
    
    .27> And I was brought up to believe that 'casual' sex is not a nice
       > thing for women to engage in -- well, not really for men either,
       > but they need sex you know
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    I wonder how many of us have bought into that idea... assuming that
    "sex" is defined as sexual intercourse with another person.  In my
    experience, about 75% of men absolutely believe this, and probably 60%
    of women.
    
    I say _people_ need intimacy, emotional investment and security
    (otherwise we'll eventually go bonkers/suicidal/homicidal), which can
    sometimes be met (but not solely) by sexual intercourse.  And I say
    men *need* a physical release every X number of time units (otherwise
    they'd explode, and a cleaning *woman* would be summoned :'D to tidy
    up!).  And I say _some_ men need a new excuse for hitting on other
    people sexually ("c'mon, you *know* I neeeeeeed it....")
    
    Leslie  

re.34 Leslie

The underscored excerpt from my .27 was completely the 'voice' of society.
I _never_ thought it made sense that men would have a greater need for sex
than women. [My social conditioning contained so much that I thought was errant
nonsense that I just bided my time until I could attain the necessary 
independence to just walk away from it.]

And as for confusing want with need, need is a strong persuasive argument for 
getting what you want.

There's never been a time I was in danger of imploding for lack of sex -- not
nearly -- but there have been numerous occasions when it seemed to be the very
best answer.

This whole sex/intimacy dichotomy has me baffled; because for me they are not
even _close_ to the same thing. 

I _need_ emotional interaction -- intimacy [just as you posited] -- in order to
survive with a whole psyche.  I enjoy sex, I want it to be a part of my life.

So, yes, I place a higher value on intimacy than on sex.

Rick could _have_ sex even if I were gone.  We spend more time talking about
deep stuff than we do having sex, always have.  He initiates a fair number of
these conversations, so I don't _think_ he's humouring me.  Can I infer that he,
too, places a higher value on intimacy?

And what about the men in my life that I have never had sex with, who know that
I will not?  The that have spent countless hours, with a woman that has put sex
with her beyond reach, engaging in empassioned disourse over world hunger,
the environment, and the Greatful Dead; quiet conversations about hopes and
ambitions and relationships; friendly arguments over whether REM sold out...?
Seems to me that they, too, place a higher value on intimacy.

  Ann

    Well, I don't think I'd be happy if I had to live without either
    sex or intimacy, so I think my need for each is just about equal.
     The only difference is that intimacy without sex can satisfy my
    need for intimacy.  But, sex without intimacy seems inferior to
    sex with intimacy.
    
    Lorna