CLOSE

Video: CLOSE

Video: CLOSE
Video: DVRST - CLOSE EYES 2024, March
CLOSE
CLOSE
Anonim

The feeling of closeness between a man and a woman can be so intolerable that a man and a woman will start having sex in order to avoid the experience of intimacy. Such is the paradox.

Sex has become so commonplace, and almost mandatory for men, that it is easier to interpret your arousal upon contact with an interesting woman as sexual than as a burst of energy that always arises where the real contact of two living souls begins. Sex is safer, since intimacy is impossible without mutual vulnerability, and sex is quite, especially if it is also limited to the idea that “a man should seek sex from a woman he likes” (is this necessary?) Or “a woman should seduce and be sexy. " Proximity is etched away, like a carrier of tension, embarrassment, excitement - a whole range of complex feelings, meaning a cautious approach of two to each other. "Banzai" and storming the barricades - somehow faster and easier …

Why is it so embarrassing after having sex between two newly met people? Where does this tension, which happened the day before, go? Yes, it went off into a beep (orgasm) when it could join the relationship. And the awkwardness - in which shame is disguised - can arise from the regret of being in a hurry. That they destroyed something very quivering and important, they did not allow him to ascend. As if the newly emerged sprout began to be flooded with tons of water, eventually eroding the soil and washing it out by the root. Water is good when it is timely and in the right amount, no more and no less. Sex too. Intimacy does not exclude sex, but it is not a condition for it. Shame and embarrassment, natural regulators of the rate of rapprochement of people, can be ignored at the moment of a sharp forcing of rapprochement, but they still catch up - a little later …

And another tendency is the desire to hang some kind of label on proximity. "Friendship", "love", "friendship" or some other designation for a form of relationship, as if intimacy can be squeezed into a frame and stop its development. Why is there so much controversy about whether friendship is possible between a man or a woman? Define the relationship and calm down: they say, we now know what is happening here, and we will play by the rules. But is it? If we designate a relationship as "friendship" - does this really cancel their development, it guarantees against further transformation of intimacy into some other quality (which can then be labeled "love")? And if we have “love”, then now we play by the rules of love (“if you love, then …”). “Friends do not have a sexual interest in each other” - where does this rule come from, for example? They can experience and do nothing about it, they can experience and do, they can do anything else … If the closeness of the two has transformed over time, acquired a different quality, does this mean that what was before this transformation did not exist or it had no value ?

There is, however, a game of friendship, when a simple sexual desire is already disguised as intimacy. But there is no life in this game, as in any imitation of reality. It is enough just to feel a little bit in order to understand.

Let intimacy develop, and not according to the rules of "friendship" or "love", but according to the natural "chaotic order" that exists between a man and a woman communicating with each other. Intimacy does not necessarily imply a transition from "friendship" to "love" or vice versa. She just is. And in “he / she is a person close to me” there is often more meaning and feeling than in “he / she is a friend / girlfriend” or “lover / loved one”. Not so definite and complete, and therefore lively and warm.

Recommended: