Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I'm not sure what I'd define as intimacy, nor exactly what it means
    to me. 
    
    One thing I do know, though -- it is not defined as sexual
    exclusiveness.  
    
    Nor is it defined as sexual contact.  I am capable of non-intimate
    sex and non-sexual intimacy.
    
    Beyond that . . . I don't know.  Let me think about it for a while.
    
    --bonnie

    If I already like a man a lot as a person and then have sex with
    him, I do feel a closer bond afterwards.  But, if I don't have any
    special feelings for him anyway, and for whatever reason wind up
    having sex, I don't think just the sex alone makes me feel any bond
    with the person, or any more intimate afterwards.  I think that
    the times when the fact of sex having taken place means more to
    one person than the other just means that the feelings (the real
    feelings of caring) are not mutual.
    
    Lorna
    

    Many women tell me that when they decide to have sex with someone,
    "That's it".  I assume that to mean - "I am his and he is mine and
    we will pursue no others."
    
    Now we can assume that the woman has "bonded" BEFORE she decides
    to have sex so you can't really say that the sex itself made her
    feel bonded.
    
    But I do believe some women use their bodies as sort of currency
    in the intimacy market.  Younger ones seem particularly romantic
    and starry-eyed about that and virgins, of course, the worst.
    
    I don't believe men are affected one way or the other by sex per
    se, but that their degree of intimacy is usually controlled by the
    out-of-bed factors, i.e. how much he really likes this woman he's sleeping
    with.  I think most often they see sex as sex and expect that it will
    be included in any romantic relationship and therefore isn't
    considered a "special" factor of any particular one.  The quality of
    that sex may make it more special than the others, (they never forget
    the good ones!), but not just the fact of having had sex.  And
    frankly, I believe more often sex works in the reverse.  Once bedded,
    a man often has LESS interest in the woman he's been chasing.  The
    sex which binds the woman and begins her unfolding into love is
    often the culmination of the chase for the man.
    
    That leaves an awful lot of room for crossed signals and trouble.
    
    I think most women still tend to see sex as creating "specialness"
    and that's ok, but too often they just assume men feel the same
    way.  Occasionally they're lucky and right.  More often than not,
    they're eventually surprised by the casual attitudes of their lovers.

    Those are my beliefs and I have a right to state them!
    
    Sorry all, but usually we get sidetracked right about here with
    some guy demanding to know what right I have to say these things!
     ;-)
    
    

"Now we can assume that the woman has "bonded" BEFORE she decides to have sex so
you can't really say that the sex itself made her feel bonded."

"I don't believe men are affected one way or the other by sex per se, but that
their degree of intimacy is usually controlled by the out-of-bed factors"

What's the difference?  I sounds decidedly double-standardish to me. 

Oddly enough, I've experienced the same sort of attitude you complain about in
men, in women.  You don't think it's something in us, ourselves do you? Then
again, maybe everybody sees it in the 'other' sex.  Or maybe men tend not
to notice it as much. 

JMB 

    	Odd, what many cultures have made of sex!  Are there any more
    natural acts?
    
    	I have been fortunate in meeting women for whom sex was not
    something to be cloaked in magic, hidden within commitment.  Only
    one woman I ever dated used sex as a weapon or 'held' it from us
    in anticipation of 'understanding the ultimate reality of our
    relationship.'  
    
    	I sometimes wonder about the jokes which have one or the other
    partner complaining of a 'headache,' or about the statitics I've
    read which indicate the average married couple (I am married) engage
    in sex less frequently than once in ten days.
    
    	Why has 'make love' become a euphemism for engage in sex?  Most
    animals engage in sex in order to maintain their species (I read
    somewhere).  Human's, so said the same book or TV program, are somewhat
    unique in that we engage in sex for the sake of the act more often
    than to precreate.
    
    	My favorite date used to be flying to New York (from Boston)
    to take in a show, etc.  As my finances improved, my favorite date
    became flying to Paris for a week-end (not as expensive as a week-end
    in Disneyworld or Bermuda).  Deciding to invite a friend to join
    me in a special week-end date was less than easy.  There were many
    woman with whom I would engage in sex but there were few with whom I
    would share as intimate an experience as a special week-end in New
    York or Paris.  Both these cities are very special for me, too special
    to share with any but the right people.  (My most special places
    are a small village in Switzerland, a city in Italy and a remote
    village in India.  I have visited the village in Switzerland with
    only two people, the city in Italy with but one person and the village
    in India with no one.  These places are too important a part of
    my inner being to be shared easily.  My sexual apendages are not
    a part of my inner being.
                                                          
    Douglas

	Just out of curiosity I looked up the word intimacy. What a surprize.

	The first meaning is 1) close or confidential friendship

	The second meaning is the kicker 2) Illicit sexual intercourse

	It's the word ILLICIT that gets me. I suppose in the context of this
	note that's a correct usage if we are going to assume that any sex
	outside of marriage is somehow *wrong*. I certainly don't hold that
	view of it. 

	liesl

"Why has 'make love' become a euphemism for engage in sex?"

Because the ?majority? of people do have love as a prerequisite sex, and for
many people sex strengthens love between people.

JMB 

    More likely, it's because alternative expressions are considered
    by many people to be either too clinical-sounding or profane.
    
    --- jerry

    The term, `make love', used to refer to the flirtatious behavior
    (generally in public) of beaux towards belles.  Since the late
    eighteenth century, when this term was in vogue with this meaning,
    the, ah, implications of this term have declined; i.e., moved
    towards the gutter.  This is the fate of the vast majority of slang
    terms, and of even single words.
    
    							Ann B.

    To me, to have/engage in sex means to have/engage in intercourse,
    which may or may not involve love.
    
    To make love means to express your love in a physical manner, which
    may or may not include intercourse.
    
    

    Jim, I wasn't compaining.  I don't have any problem with what
    I believe to be the way men perceive sex.  They have a right to
    perceive it any way they like.  Perhaps you're the one seeing a
    problem?
    
    And it sounds like the noter who takes special dates to Europe kind
    of corroborated what I was saying.  To many men, sex is just sex and 
    intimacy is something else entirely.  Nothing wrong with that. 
    No complaints here.   I can live with it.  It's AOK!

    re: .12
    
    I feel bound to point out that "intercourse" used to mean
    "intimate conversation" . . .  
    
    There's a town in PA named Intercourse.  It was a compliment at
    the time -- the idea was that here was a place where people could
    truly communicate and understand each other at an emotional and
    spiritual level.
    
    I think one of the reasons why so many formerly innocuous words
    became euphemisms for balling is the rise of romantic love -- in
    the 18th and 19th centuries, making love was one thing and having
    sex was another.  Only when the two activities began to overlap
    did the meanings merge.
    
    --bonnie

    I always thought bonding and intimacy meant nearly the same
    thing.  But intimacy for me doesn't mean sex; I feel "bonded
    to" my parents, my sister, my SO, and my two-year-old neice.
    In all of these relationships intimacy is important and
    present; sex is present in only one.  Intimacy to me means
    learning what's important to another person, and caring about
    them and their interests, and watching them grow and change
    (whether at age 2 or 50), and knowing they value me and my
    interests...and more besides, I expect. 

    In an already intimate relationship, sex furthers that
    intimacy.  But sex without intimacy doesn't cause bonding for
    me.  It can be fun, but I'd about as soon go dancing.  :)

    -- Linda

"I don't have any problem with what I believe to be the way men perceive sex.
...  Perhaps you're the one seeing a problem? ... To many men, sex is just sex
and intimacy is something else entirely.  ... No complaints here.   I can live
with it."

I have a problem with the way you believe men perceive sex.  I prefer to have
sex be a proper subset of intimacy. 

JMB                               

    Re .16, Jim, she said "many men", and I agree that many and even
    most men don't consider intimacy to be a requirement of sex.  
    
    Maybe you're one of the few men who feel differently, but that doesn't
    mean you should have a problem with the way she (and I) "believe
    men perceive sex."
    
    Lorna
    

    re:.16
    
    The shoe's on the other foot now. Do you feel that you can speak
    for all men?  Personally, I agree with you that sex is a subset
    of intimacy, not a generator of intimacy. But I have no complaint
    with what Sandy said, because I agree with her that "many men"
    feel just what she suggests they feel.
    
    --- jerry

"The shoe's on the other foot now. Do you feel that you can speak for all men?"

I don't believe that I did speak for all men.  To quote myself...

"I have a problem with the way you believe men perceive sex.  I prefer to have
sex be a proper subset of intimacy."

I am speaking of my feelings and what I prefer.  I am not speaking of what "all
men" feel or prefer.

JMB 

    I fall to the side of opinions that says that being intimate with
    a person does not necessarily mean having sex with a person.
    
    I believe that sex with a person can be another expression of intimacy,
    it can also be just sex...lust/attraction for another person.
    "I've had love without sex, and sex without love..." from some song
    from a long time ago.  And I do not believe in monogamy, I don't
    'own' anyone else body and they don't own mine.
    
    

    Re .20, to me, monogamy does not mean that I own the other person's
    body or they mine.  It means that because of the special feeling
    I have for that person and that that person has for me, we have
    *chosen* not have sex with other people - because we feel our
    relationship is more special that way.
    
    Lorna
    

    I don't see why we are dividing how Men and Women feel about sex
    and intamacy.  Doesn't it all root from how the individual has been
    brought up and the morals that they follow?  Some women feel that
    casual sex with a partner without love is all right,  while there
    are guys out there who couldn't bring themselves to have sex without
    love.  To classify women or men either way can't be very accurate,
    because there are so many different opinions on the subject.
    
    Bill