[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1131551]You know, I bet the same people are bad at both sex and moving furniture.
We might be on to something: If you want to know if someone's going to be good in bed, ask them to help you move one.[/QUOTE]
I was a professional mover for a while. Does that mean anything....?
[QUOTE=wiltondeportes;1131916]I was a professional mover for a while. Does that mean anything....?[/QUOTE]
No. I know plenty of people who are bad at their jobs. :p
[QUOTE=zoebird;1131264]For me the larger question is how is this compatibility determined?
I dont' think that having sex with the person is the only determination of whether or not the individuals involved are compatible.
I'd be more concerned with things like how the other perceives sex as part of the whole relationship (and/or philosophically in general), how often the person wants to have sex ideally (or, an indication of whether your sex drives match up), whether, when, and how many children a person may want and how that might impact the individual's sex life, as well as the level of commitment between partners that each partner needs to have in order to feel comfortable delving into the details of a sexual relationship all indicate "sexual compatibility."
For me, the physical aspects are really learned and designed between the two individuals over time. People who care for and about each other seek to please each other -- and as such will work to learn the sexual language and practices that creates the pleasurable, unifying experience of sex for both parties.
Thus, that can't be determined in a short time over having sex a few times to 'try things out' or determine compatibility. If there is sexual attraction, a good foundation of relationship, and a similar outlook in terms of sex. . .then there is compatibility. The physical can be co-created over time, adapted, etc.
As such, I dont' think it's necessarily a requirement that a person should have sex before the commitment level that creates comfort and safety for both individuals (which, btw, if htere is that pressure demonstrates *incompatibility* sexually) in order to define or determine compatibility.[/QUOTE]
Thanks you very much for this comment. It is very helpful.
[QUOTE=namelesswonder;1131519]Click on Reply with Quote on the individual post. Quick reply just works on the whole thread, not a single post.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1131947]No. I know plenty of people who are bad at their jobs. :p[/QUOTE]
dammit! you beat me to it
You overthink the "tribal" life and try to generalize it to anything. The truth is that it all depends on what type of males you are selecting ;)
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1131492]Good point, and I'll clarify my statement. Of course compatibility is vital in the perception of sex/role of sex each person wants it to play. In the post you quoted, I was talking about sexual compatibility in the act itself. Ever been with someone who's just bad in bed? That's what I meant I'd want to avoid: Committing to monogamy with someone only to find out that they're hopelessly and helplessly just plain bad at sex. Moving the wrong parts at the wrong rhythm along the wrong plane of motion and grossly blind to the lack of connection between the two of you on the matter.[/QUOTE]
To me, skill in bed can be learned and taught and practiced over time.
Just because a person is bad (or inexperienced) on a given day doesn't mean that it's ad infinitum or reductionist. If a person is 'bad' -- then the foundation of trust in the relationship can be a space for dialogue about what was not pleasurable about the experience and then an exploration of how to make the experience more pleasurable for both parties.
In my own relationship, my husband and I are highly specialized to each other. Over the 15 years of our relationship (and each being each other's "firsts" from our early 20s), I can say that we started out quite "bad" in bed. Over time we have explored, experimented, communicated, and ultimately created a really fun, "skilled" sex life.
But those skills may not transfer to another sexual encounter or relationship. Parts of it will -- such as the confidence, experience of my own body, and possibility the ability to communicate what I want (which I can openly do with my partner while we are progressing through orgasms! weeeee!). But other parts of it may not because I don't yet have the skills attuned specifically to him.
As such, he might think that I'm "bad in bed" and therefore we are not "sexually compatible."
But what if, instead of just making that assumption and jumping ship, he assumed that perhaps I was both eager to learn and eager to please because I wanted to continue a relationship with him? That I wanted to have all of the benefits of a great relationship over time -- including a really vibrant, specialized, pleasurable sex life?
I truly believe that a person can learn to be "good in bed" -- if both parties are invested in co-creating that.
And it's sad to me that I might be judged on one or a handful of sexual experiences to determine "compatibility" when the other aspects of the relationship may demonstrate that more, and htis particular skill can be learned.
[QUOTE=Susie;1131952]Thanks you very much for this comment. It is very helpful.[/QUOTE]
it's good to have language, huh? :) I'm glad it's helpful to you.
Sex at Dawn mostly banged on about promiscuity, and specifically the premise of women having lots of group sex, which I guess makes some sense. But then their end 'conclusion' is that women should expect men to cheat on them and that it's not even really cheating at all, and that seemed to me to be quite a jarring left turn from the rest of the book.
Plus, it completely ignores the reality of male sexual jealousy and kind of pretends we are all bonobos living in a tribal setting of small groups of people, which is a nice fantasy. But that's all it is, a fantasy.
[QUOTE=magicmerl;1132342]Sex at Dawn mostly banged on about promiscuity, and specifically the premise of women having lots of group sex, which I guess makes some sense. But then their end 'conclusion' is that women should expect men to cheat on them and that it's not even really cheating at all, and that seemed to me to be quite a jarring left turn from the rest of the book.
Plus, it completely ignores the reality of male sexual jealousy and kind of pretends we are all bonobos living in a tribal setting of small groups of people, which is a nice fantasy. But that's all it is, a fantasy.[/QUOTE]
It's to be taken as a study on human nature, not our society that we live in today.