Posted by Dory on September 16, 2007, at 20:38:11
In reply to Re: sigh...*sex trigger* again... » Dory, posted by Sigismund on September 16, 2007, at 18:47:41
This makes me more confused.. ? i am not being mean, or trying not to be, trying to follow your logic... but what you are saying is confusing to me. i can definitely see how intimacy is defined by love and sensitivity.. and i completely agree. What i don't understand is how it's easy. Love and sensitivity are necessities, but they don't guarantee intimacy...
it seems you are not following my question perhaps? maybe there is a mismatching of words for both of us somehow?
i am not asking what makes intimacy possible, or what is required... i am asking how that makes it "easy." A lot of people can't reach the other levels needed for intimacy, ie the love, etc, and for some intimacy still escapes them even when the other things are there.
i don't know... maybe i am being stupid. Quite likely actually. i don't see the connection... but we probably shouldn't hijack muffy's thread.. sorry Muffy.
> >how is intimacy "easy" by definition?
>
> Because love and relaxation cannot be compelled?> Because intimacy involves sensitivity, and if one person does not feel at ease and sex is persisting, sensitivity is not there?
>
> I am not using intimacy to mean sex. It doesn't mean that for me. It's a matter of feeling.
poster:Dory
thread:783265
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20070916/msgs/783342.html