All right, Cemar, I've been thinking about it and can't come up with any way that a sex life with validation is better than a sex life without validation. Help me understand your perspective in which sex without validation is inferior.
Stop WaitingFeel EverythingLove AchinglyGive ImpeccablyLet Go
Maybe I can create a simple example. Now, to have sex, I must be the instigator. We clearly are having it FOR me. NOw compare this to YEARS ago when my wife would reach over and BLOW me while I am driving down the interstate. THe first example gives 0 validation, while the second gives tons of validation. The second example is FAR more valuable to me then the first. In fact the first, is an example of sex being nothing more then MBing. IN the second, she is doing me because she WANTS to do me, in the first she is doing me because she HAS to do me.
I also think that sex is mostly a MENTAL thing, that HOW you feel or percieve your spouse to be is HUGE in kicking off the chemicals of passion. But again, is this not validation.
Sex without the need for validation is the best because you KNOW that you are desirable, f*ckable, sexy, wonderfully sexual etc. before the sex even begins and so does your partner. However, I do believe that it can be difficult to achieve a state of being highly sexually self-validating in a complete vacuum simply because you can't really have sex in a vacuum. It's sort of like trying to become self-validating about your tennis game just hitting the ball against a wall. You have to at least find somebody to play with even if you aren't looking to them for validation. However, the validation will come as your confidence and your game improves. I think you know that you are mostly self-validating if you can have a cr*ppy game or even a whole string of cr*ppy games and still remain confident of your value as a tennis partner or player. In fact, if you were super-highly self-validating you would welcome the occasional cr*p game or critical comment from your partner because you might gain knowledge that would improve your game in the long run.
The important point I am trying to make is that,IMO, self-validation is a mental state but it is one that requires method or practice maybe only because it is easy to delude yourself one way or the other when self-validating or non-self-validating.
Last edited by MJontheMend; 08/16/0706:17 PM.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
That is not necessarily a problem, so long as her response to the instigation is loving and/or validating. The fact that you have to instigate is only a problem if it is met with rejection on a frequent basis for no good reason. Frankly, I like instigating. It gives me a real rush to come on to my W and have her respond. So is your problem really not the instigation but the feeling of rejection because she is not enthusiastic?
Quote:
We clearly are having it FOR me.
How do you know? What in her actions tells you this?
Quote:
compare this to YEARS ago when my wife would reach over and BLOW me while I am driving down the interstate.
Are you sure you didn't "instigate" in some way? Isn't a blow job FOR you? Or did you know in some way that she got something out of it?
Quote:
The second example is FAR more valuable to me then the first.
Is it because your W giving you a BJ while driving is all about YOU? Is it because when you have instigate all the time, your OWN RESENTMENT is preventing you from getting the validation you need?
Quote:
the first she is doing me because she HAS to do me.
No she doesn't, just ask HD and others here whether or not their W's HAVE to do them.
Listen CeMar, I'm not trying to bust your balls. I understand where you are coming from. A W that spontaneously leans over and give you a BJ is a cool thing (never happened to me). A W that clearly wants it from you and instigates often is a cool thing (has only happened a few times for me). But I think you may be making what you have overly negative because you don't have the cool stuff. I'm not saying you shouldn't strive for the cool stuff, but not having it doesn't make everything else bad. KWIM?
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
I think MJ put her finger on it. Sex without the NEED for validation rocks, because then if something goes "wrong" or you get turned down it's not this devastating ego blow. You can have a giggle about it. (still totally working on this myself)
I truly don't see how you can have sex without validation, though. I think it's an inherently validating experience. "This person would rather roll around with me, sweat, funny noises, cellulite, imperfect technique, 'you're on my hair', and all as opposed to getting off quietly (or not) to their own rhythm with visions of opposite-sex perfection dancing in their head or on their screen." What's not to feel validated (dare I even say, "loved") by?
That is *assuming* you have a partner who will at least play. As opposed to one who just lies there and grudgingly tolerates your evil lust (unless that's what you like). That *would* feel like nothing more than masturbation (worse, actually, because at least with a blow-up doll you aren't getting the message that you're wasting their precious time), and (sorry but it's true) feels inherently DE-validating (if that's a word).
Burgbud, how do you conceive of "sex without validation", because I'm clearly having a hard time wrapping my head around it?
"Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." -- Frank Herbert
It's sort of like trying to become self-validating about your tennis game just hitting the ball against a wall. You have to at least find somebody to play with even if you aren't looking to them for validation.
This is the exact same example I used (tennis) a while ago. I think this is very clear-- validation or no validation, when you're talking about fcuking, you have to have someone to play with.
I think this is very clear-- validation or no validation, when you're talking about fcuking, you have to have someone to play with.
Which goes right back to Burgbud's question, doesn't it?
Is it any less enjoyable to play tennis if you called your friend to play tennis instead of them calling you to play tennis? Isn't the point that you are playing tennis?
I think it seems in Cemar's case he would not enjoy playing tennis unless his tennis partner was the one to ask him to play otherwise he would not have validation he seeks from his tennis partner.
But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads? ~Albert Camus
