2008 Woodie Awards
Sex versus intimacy: Can one exist without the other?
Touchy Subjects
Kelli Schlueter
Issue date: 9/8/08 Section: Features
When it comes to sexual activity, most college students would agree that a good majority of their campus population has engaged in premarital sex. In addition, a portion of those students have engaged in a particular form of premarital sex -that is the "no strings attached" variety. Rather than look down upon your peers for "hooking up" or having a "one night stand", it makes much more sense to explore why this behavior even occurs in the first place.
Each individual has their own viewpoint on the issue of premarital sex -whether it be against, for, or indifferent. The question that usually does not get answered is, "When our generation engages in essentially "meaningless" sex, what exactly is going through each party's mind?"
The first issue at hand is the idea of "intimacy". To get a general idea of what "intimacy" actually refers to, the following explanation was given on Wikipedia: "Intimacy is both the ability and the choice to be close, loving, and vulnerable. Intimacy requires identity development. You have to know yourself and your inner self in order to share yourself with another. Knowing yourself makes it possible to stand for yourself in an intimate relationship without taking over the other or losing yourself to the other. This ability to be separate and together in an intimate relationship and being okay with that is called self-differentiation."
The actual physical act of sex also factors into the full picture of romantic intimacy. One can generalize that full intimacy cannot be reached without a sexual relationship. Or can it? Some people do not believe in premarital sex; does this mean that they cannot achieve full intimacy with their significant other? Certainly not because there are different forms of intimacy, and sometimes intimacy remains in a relationship even after the "fire" dies out, so to speak.
One can then wonder, can we have sex without intimacy? While many people have proven this can be accomplished via maintaining casual sexual partners, the question still remains of whether these people have ever thought twice about their seemingly "casual encounters."
It's a safe assumption to say that women tend to critically over-think situations and events that happen to them way more than men. While this is not a steadfast rule (there are exceptions), for the most part this is the case. We over-analyze everything replaying even the smallest details over in our minds long after the encounter or action has ended. We also worry about what men think of us. If we really like a guy, we do not want to engage in sexual behavior too quick, because we do not want to be perceived as "sluts". With the double-standard issue in full-force, it's sometimes hard to articulate whether women and men perceive their casual encounters in the same way.
In turn, perhaps women do not want to admit on the surface that their "casual encounter" was anything more than that, because in doing so, they are admitting to emotional vulnerability. This also ties in with the idea of being on an equal playing field with men. If we admit to having "feelings" during sexual intercourse, where it was clearly outlined from the initiation that it was supposed to be "no strings attached" and "just for fun", we then admit to being weak, and not capable of detaching our emotions from our physical feelings. Some women want to "have sex like men," which essentially means commitment-free. Again, not all men want to have commitment-free sex all the time, just a certain percentage of them.
Another point that comes to mind is the question of whether sex can be "complete" without everything factored in together. Everything meaning: physical contact + intimacy + love = the perfect sexual encounter. Some people need that feeling of closeness and emotion to experience the full effect of sexual satisfaction. Yet others just need the physical contact to be sexually fulfilled. In the end, it's all a matter of how your conscience functions, and whether or not you can separate physical activity from emotional attachment. Most find this a very difficult task to achieve, but there are certainly many individuals out there who have successfully practiced this time and again. The only question that remains is, "How satisfying is this behavior over time?" In other words, never allowing yourself to feel emotions certainly cannot be good for your mental or emotional health in the long run. For the time being, perhaps no-strings attached sex can be quite stimulating, but like all good things -it has to come to end eventually.
Submit all of your urgent sex, relationship and dating questions to: editor@chicagoflame.com
Disclaimer: The author of this article does not claim to be an expert on sex-related topics. Most wisdom shared in the article comes from observation of real-life situations. The Chicago Flame also does not endorse unsafe sexual practices.
Each individual has their own viewpoint on the issue of premarital sex -whether it be against, for, or indifferent. The question that usually does not get answered is, "When our generation engages in essentially "meaningless" sex, what exactly is going through each party's mind?"
The first issue at hand is the idea of "intimacy". To get a general idea of what "intimacy" actually refers to, the following explanation was given on Wikipedia: "Intimacy is both the ability and the choice to be close, loving, and vulnerable. Intimacy requires identity development. You have to know yourself and your inner self in order to share yourself with another. Knowing yourself makes it possible to stand for yourself in an intimate relationship without taking over the other or losing yourself to the other. This ability to be separate and together in an intimate relationship and being okay with that is called self-differentiation."
The actual physical act of sex also factors into the full picture of romantic intimacy. One can generalize that full intimacy cannot be reached without a sexual relationship. Or can it? Some people do not believe in premarital sex; does this mean that they cannot achieve full intimacy with their significant other? Certainly not because there are different forms of intimacy, and sometimes intimacy remains in a relationship even after the "fire" dies out, so to speak.
One can then wonder, can we have sex without intimacy? While many people have proven this can be accomplished via maintaining casual sexual partners, the question still remains of whether these people have ever thought twice about their seemingly "casual encounters."
It's a safe assumption to say that women tend to critically over-think situations and events that happen to them way more than men. While this is not a steadfast rule (there are exceptions), for the most part this is the case. We over-analyze everything replaying even the smallest details over in our minds long after the encounter or action has ended. We also worry about what men think of us. If we really like a guy, we do not want to engage in sexual behavior too quick, because we do not want to be perceived as "sluts". With the double-standard issue in full-force, it's sometimes hard to articulate whether women and men perceive their casual encounters in the same way.
In turn, perhaps women do not want to admit on the surface that their "casual encounter" was anything more than that, because in doing so, they are admitting to emotional vulnerability. This also ties in with the idea of being on an equal playing field with men. If we admit to having "feelings" during sexual intercourse, where it was clearly outlined from the initiation that it was supposed to be "no strings attached" and "just for fun", we then admit to being weak, and not capable of detaching our emotions from our physical feelings. Some women want to "have sex like men," which essentially means commitment-free. Again, not all men want to have commitment-free sex all the time, just a certain percentage of them.
Another point that comes to mind is the question of whether sex can be "complete" without everything factored in together. Everything meaning: physical contact + intimacy + love = the perfect sexual encounter. Some people need that feeling of closeness and emotion to experience the full effect of sexual satisfaction. Yet others just need the physical contact to be sexually fulfilled. In the end, it's all a matter of how your conscience functions, and whether or not you can separate physical activity from emotional attachment. Most find this a very difficult task to achieve, but there are certainly many individuals out there who have successfully practiced this time and again. The only question that remains is, "How satisfying is this behavior over time?" In other words, never allowing yourself to feel emotions certainly cannot be good for your mental or emotional health in the long run. For the time being, perhaps no-strings attached sex can be quite stimulating, but like all good things -it has to come to end eventually.
Submit all of your urgent sex, relationship and dating questions to: editor@chicagoflame.com
Disclaimer: The author of this article does not claim to be an expert on sex-related topics. Most wisdom shared in the article comes from observation of real-life situations. The Chicago Flame also does not endorse unsafe sexual practices.
Be the first to comment on this story