When to disclose details of sexuality

[cronxeh]

actually I don't think anyone is turned on by a wimp... I don't think anyone even wants to be friends with a wimp... but being aggressive is like being the polar opposite of a wimp, and we all know how extremes of any kind are not good! I don't think anyone wants to be with a aggressive person neither. Basically both characteristics show fear inside, and a lack of confidence.

I think being in the middle- no fear, no aggression, just being you and being a confident person is best.

No, aggression feels good. It has nothing to do with fear, it is a pure feeling of rage that you can channel into something productive. You can be aggressive during a fight, during sex, during competition, during math exam, or during a job interview. And like I said, I am not a violent person.

 

[DanP]

No, aggression feels good. It has nothing to do with fear, it is a pure feeling of rage that you can channel into something productive. And like I said, I am not a violent person.

Behold Cronxeh (top )

[PLAIN]http://othersideoftheplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/squirrel_sith_lightning.jpg

 

[cronxeh]

Behold Cronxeh (top )

There is a difference between hostile and instrumental aggression

 

[nucleargirl]

No, aggression feels good. It has nothing to do with fear, it is a pure feeling of rage that you can channel into something productive. You can be aggressive during a fight, during sex, during competition, during math exam, or during a job interview. And like I said, I am not a violent person.

hm interesting... I don't really have this feeling that you describe...
when I feel like doing something productive I usually feel more like happy - like yeah! I'm doing this amazing thing! yay!
actually, ok I have felt aggression when I'm angry, but I wouldn't describe it as constructive- more destructive if anything... it shuts off my mind and stops me thinking, and then its not good, especially if you are arguing with someone. It just makes me feel really mad! not good feeling!
Never felt it in a job interview - more nervous and scared!

 

[cronxeh]

hm interesting... I don't really have this feeling that you describe...

No kidding. You are a girl, or a very wimpy guy. Either way, you can't know what it feels like to be a man

I have felt aggression when I'm angry, but I wouldn't describe it as constructive- more destructive if anything... it shuts off my mind and stops me thinking, and then its not good, especially if you are arguing with someone. It just makes me feel really mad! not good feeling!

Quite the opposite for me. Aggression gives me clarity, boost of energy, and numbs any pain I may feel. It is the ultimate rush, I guess if you play DnD/WoW its like the barbarian rage. ROOAAR!

 

[DanP]

No kidding. You are a girl, or a very wimpy guy. Either way, you can't know what it feels like to be a man

You want this, don't you? The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give into your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant.

His Majesty Emperor Palpatine

 

[cronxeh]

No, no. Anger leads to hostile aggression. It is an irrational fear coupled with frustration that you feel. It is just sillypants.

Instrumental aggression is awesome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2vrGK1pRL8


Hostile aggression is lame:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b9ONh4FtlI

 

[DanP]

Instrumental aggression is awesome.

Instrumental aggression:

aggression against another person in which the aggression is used as a means of securing some reward or to achieve a goal.

It's basically predatory aggression. If you say you are not a violent person, believe me, you never had used instrumental aggression.

 

[brainstorm]

No, aggression feels good. It has nothing to do with fear, it is a pure feeling of rage that you can channel into something productive. You can be aggressive during a fight, during sex, during competition, during math exam, or during a job interview. And like I said, I am not a violent person.

I once worked for an elderly guy who explained the etymology of ag-gress(ion) to me as meaning simply "going toward." Aggression is really just a feeling of invigoration in working toward a goal. Nevertheless, you should understand that many people have been taught to fear and repress aggression with the belief that there are less violent ways to pursue goals. This is somewhat indicative of the "Freudian era," if I could call it that, because the strategy is to "sublimate" aggression by channeling it into less direct expression. Imo, passive aggression is rampant in present-day culture because of the high degree of aggression-repression/sublimation, but you have to understand that people who are acting passive aggressive aren't directly choosing to express their aggression that way. All they perceive is the "active" aggression that they are avoiding. For example, they feel like punching you or screaming at you for something, but since they control themselves and avoid doing that, they are patting themselves on the back for their self-control without thinking about the fact that they are being snide or turning progressive shades of red while maintaining an artificially calm tone.

In any case, there's really not much point in arguing a case for aggression to such people, because they will always stay fixated on hyper-violent imagery of active aggression such as the picture of squirrels electrocuting each other above. In truth, aggression can be expressed in a harmless way, and even less harmfully than passive forms of aggression, but for that to happen, people have to have a sense of it being ok. As long as someone experiences any form of expressing active aggression as breaking a taboo, they will only react with their own (passive) aggression toward the breach of the taboo. So, you're just exposing yourself to reactionary aggression by expressing any legitimacy for aggression.

 

[DanP]

I once worked for an elderly guy who explained the etymology of ag-gress(ion) to me as meaning simply "going toward." Aggression is really just a feeling of invigoration in working toward a goal.

The layman definitions are pretty much remote from the definitions used in social psychology.

 

[cronxeh]

Instrumental aggression:

aggression against another person in which the aggression is used as a means of securing some reward or to achieve a goal.

It's basically predatory aggression. If you say you are not a violent person, believe me, you never had used instrumental aggression.

I have never used violence to achieve a goal. I have used aggression to achieve a goal, and trust me, I felt good while doing it. I guess for you to understand the difference, refer to Cesar Millan's show The Dog Whisperer. People are a lot alike to dogs when it comes to social attitudes.

 

[nucleargirl]

hm, yes this is all very interesting - I had no idea there were different types of aggression! but I think we are digressing from the thread so maybe we should start a new one if we are to discuss this further.

 

[DanP]

I have never used violence to achieve a goal. I have used aggression to achieve a goal, and trust me, I felt good while doing it.

I really think you confuse some terms here, or you created your own definitions for "aggression", especially for the instrumental type.Perhaps you discovered how it is to be assertive. But ok, beeit as you say. Let's talk about chicks.

 

[brainstorm]

The layman definitions are pretty much remote from the definitions used in social psychology.

Notice the difference between the denotation of root-meanings and the connotations expressed in the following definition from the online etymology dictionary:

aggression
1610s, "unprovoked attack," noun of action from verb aggress "to approach, to start an argument" (1570s), from Fr. aggresser, from L.L. aggressare, freq. of L. aggredi (pp. aggressus) "to approach, attack," from ad- "to" + gradi (pp. gressus) "to step," from gradus "a step" (see grade). Psychological sense of "hostile or destructive behavior" first recorded 1912 in A.A. Brill's translation of Freud.

gradi/gressus means "to step" and the prefix mean "toward." Whether "stepping toward" something or someone is interpreted as hostile, violent, or to what extent really has to do with the perspective of the person getting "stepped toward," right? The person doing the stepping might not intend hostility or violence. Likewise, if something directs some expression or action in your direction and you react with a great deal of fear and defensiveness, this could be out of an intense desire to control interactions with others completely.

Either way, the point is that by defining aggression at a taboo level of violence and hostility, it creates a premium to repress and control it. The question then becomes what is strong enough to repress and control aggression except another form of aggression, preferably one that doesn't bring attack on itself by appearing as aggression. In other words, passive aggression. Don't believe me? Read back through the post responses to the pro-aggression stance and analyze what tactics people used to "put aggression in its place."

 

[lisab]

I think agression without violence can be called assertiveness.

But for the OP...are you certain what you're dealing with is a true sexual addiction? I mean, was this a diagnosis from a trained counselor?

 

[Astronuc]

Actually assertiveness and aggression are to different behaviors.

Speaking up for oneself or standing one's ground is assertive, but not aggressive. Simply expression one's feelings without feeling inadequate is assertive, not aggressive.

 

[DanP]

Actually assertiveness and aggression are to different behaviors.

Speaking up for oneself or standing one's ground is assertive, but not aggressive. Simply expression one's feelings without feeling inadequate is assertive, not aggressive.

True, astronuc.

Social psych define aggression as "behavior intended to hurt another person". Instrumental agression is one of the most dangerous behavioral patterns, in that that the harmful behavior is not emotional, is planned in cold blood and with a well defined goal in mind.
This type of aggression is found in a certain sociopathic profiles. An almost "textbook" case of instrumental aggression, which was very high profile at that time, was Tonya Harding;s attack on her competitor in order to secure victory.

Id say in the vast amount of cases , ppl who believed they discovered aggression, they merely learned to take several steps out of passivity / compliance towards a more assertive behavior.

 

[cronxeh]

Hmm. Apparently the serotonin levels after actual aggression go down and make you feel bad, while assertive behavior makes you feel good. Like you said, aggression without harm (perceived, physical or emotional) is not really aggression, it is assertiveness. Then what is the deal with feeling energy boost and mental clarity? Adrenaline-induced assertiveness?

 

[brainstorm]

I think agression without violence can be called assertiveness.

But for the OP...are you certain what you're dealing with is a true sexual addiction? I mean, was this a diagnosis from a trained counselor?

This is actually just one part of a hypothetical example, but it is a valuable topic so let's address it: regardless of what a "trained counselor" assesses, you really have to come to your own understanding of what addiction generally and sexual addiction in particular refers to. Different counselors will have different approaches, and of course people go to counselors for therapy so if it makes them feel better to hear one definition of addiction instead of another, they'll choose that counselor.

Addiction, imo, is not an absolute thing where people are either totally addicted or totally free of desire. Addiction is, imo, another word for "attachment," which I point out because buddhist philosophy offers some good approaches to evaluating the meaning of attachments and ways to deal with them.

Generally, the most dangerous part of recognizing addiction is the strong potential for people to react against the label. It's a hard thing for someone to be open to the possibility that they are addicted to something and calmly consider what they could or should do to deal with it. Instead, people are afraid that if they are labeled as an addict, they will be required to give up their attachment, which either frightens or just bothers them, either because they are truly addicted to some degree or because they just don't want to give up something unnecessarily to prove they're not addicted (who would blame them?)

With sexual addiction, why would someone engage in taboo or illegal behaviors, or ones that could endanger the health of their body or relationship if there was no level of addiction? Another question is whether there is a difference between addiction and simply being "hungry" in comparison to the difference between food addictions and simply being hungry (for food thus). People have different sexual appetites, so how can you know if you have a strong appetite whether this is the result of addiction or just a "natural appetite?"

Regardless, you can't get around social taboos and judgement. Whether Tiger Woods is addicted to sex or just has a strong appetite, he's become pretty much permanently stigmatized. What's more, public examples like the one made of him send out a signal to everyone to police their sexual behavior and not to divulge their feelings and desires when these make them susceptible to stigma or social judgment.

I haven't read as much of it as I probably should have to be discussing it so much, but I didn't see anyone coming out and defending Tiger Woods or sexual freedom for this kind of behavior. Surely there are still people who long to express this kind of sexuality, but why don't the speak out? Probably for the same reason someone in a relationship hides their potentially embarrassing secrets even though doing so causes them to live somewhat fictionally on the outside.

In posting this thread, I was sort of interested in whether some people had this problem figured out and had absolutely no trouble being open about even the most taboo desires and behaviors, but I don't get the idea from the responses that anyone really is. It's always more comfortable to talk about "a friend" with regard to something ridiculously bizarre like bestiality instead of being open with your partner about something like the fact that you fantasized about sex with her sister (for example). Even as I type that hypothetical case, I have to laugh because to treat it as a serious issue would make it too uncomfortable to admit. So maybe it's just my own repression that I'm dealing with, but this seems like a general cultural thing to me, no?

 

[DanP]

Hmm. Apparently the serotonin levels after actual aggression go down and make you feel bad, while assertive behavior makes you feel good. Like you said, aggression without harm (perceived, physical or emotional) is not really aggression, it is assertiveness. Then what is the deal with feeling energy boost and mental clarity? Adrenaline-induced assertiveness?

I really can't speculate on this. Youll need to ask someone who specializes in neoruanatomy and neurochemistry. I am not familiar with the role of various serotonin receptors in aggression.

 

[brainstorm]

I've started a thread in social science to address aggression. I put a specific spin on it, but it might be a better thread to address aggression than this one in relationships about sexuality disclosure:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=423015

 

[DaveC426913]

But what if you can sense that she is holding out on telling you until she gets a sense that you will absolutely forgive and tolerate her past behavior and potential future lapses in self-control? So break it down: she could have cheated on you multiple times and kept it a secret. She wants forgiveness for that AND she wants you to give her a sense of security that you won't leave her if she does it again. At that point, you may feel like supporting her in trying to change, but how much can you take before you feel like a doormat?

In that case, should you admit to her that you would leave someone who put you in such a position, knowing that she will probably continue to keep it a secret and struggle with that? Or should you try to seduce her into opening up to you, as she longs to do, even though you know you could ultimately get upset and leave her as a result?

First things first: you can't make promises about forgiving her if she's betrayed you.

But keeping secrets because she can't bring herself to tell you will doom your relationship.

Look at it this way, whether or not she really did cheat, she is now betraying you by not coming clean. Keeping it from you doesn't 'make it didn't happen'. It has to come out in the open where it can be dealt with, good or bad.

If it doesn't, your relationship will be built upon lies and distrust.


Furthermore: She is sending you signals; she wants this out in the open. (If she didn't, you'd never know about it).

So let her tell you. If not then just admit to yourself that you are happier with your head in the sand.

 

[DanP]

Regardless, you can't get around social taboos and judgement. Whether Tiger Woods is addicted to sex or just has a strong appetite, he's become pretty much permanently stigmatized. What's more, public examples like the one made of him send out a signal to everyone to police their sexual behavior and not to divulge their feelings and desires when these make them susceptible to stigma or social judgment.

You would be surprised how easily a competent man will have his faults forgiven and forgotten, and how hard is for a mediocre man to have a less important mistake forgotten.

In a word, I would not bury Tiger just yet. If 2011 is good for him in his sport, his popularity will skyrocket.

And btw there where enough ppl who simply didnt cared about what Tiger did, let's be serious, his wife is not the first women who was cheated on. And there where enough voices to defend him. You should read more. Donad Trump was one of the first to show the finger to the Americans which believed Tiger owes them an apology. To be honest, ill do the same. What happened is between him and his wife.

 

[brainstorm]

You would be surprised how easily a competent man will have his faults forgiven and forgotten, and how hard is for a mediocre man to have a less important mistake forgotten.

In a word, I would not bury Tiger just yet. If 2011 is good for him in his sport, his popularity will skyrocket.

So forgiveness is only withheld on the basis of status? That's pretty cynical, but I bet you are right about most people. Do you suppose it just comes down to people needing an outlet for their hate, which possibly comes from self-hate for accepting the people whose behavior they wouldn't? Forgive your partner for cheating when they're the hottest you can get and use it as reason to end the relationship with a partner you are looking for a reason to dump without feeling guilty?

 

[DaveC426913]

Regardless, you can't get around social taboos and judgement. Whether Tiger Woods is addicted to sex or just has a strong appetite, he's become pretty much permanently stigmatized. What's more, public examples like the one made of him send out a signal to everyone to police their sexual behavior and not to divulge their feelings and desires when these make them susceptible to stigma or social judgment.

Well, it worked for Clinton. The public basically told the media "Look, he's doing a good job. Frankly we don't care what his sexual peccadillos are. So shut the h*ll up for once."

[EDIT] this whole celeb sexual misconduct thing is OT, but it's your call brainstorm...

 

[brainstorm]

Well, it worked for Clinton. The public basically told the media "Look, he's doing a good job. Frankly we don't care what his sexual peccadillos are. So shut the h*ll up for once."

[EDIT] this whole celeb sexual misconduct thing is OT, but it's your call brainstorm...

I only used it as an example because it illustrates typical attitudes that many people can identify with or at least recognize.

I don't know if this is even more off topic, but I wonder if the response to the negative press against Clinton didn't have more to do with the fact that the internet was a fresher medium at that time, and many people were still titillated with sexual curiosity at a new medium with less censorship and point-to-point connectivity where sexuality was concerned. By the time of the T Woods scandal, internet had/has become a tiresome oversexed medium where people get shocked or disappointed much more than titillated or gratified as they once may have. Just a hunch.

This may actually related to the thread topic because it has to do with sexual secrecy as having a titillating/seductive effect. As long as your partner is subtly suggesting that they are a wild animal inside sexually, your imagination can run wild with it. Once they fully disclose that their sexual desires and activity really are uncontrollable and they may have trouble being faithful for the rest of their lives, the allure must fade some (depending on the person of course). Again, just a hunch.

 

[Physics-Learner]

I am curious; when do people disclose all the details of their sexuality to their partner or just a friend? This includes sexual history, turn-ons and turn-offs, fantasies, "dirty secrets," and potentially embarrassing disclosures? Do people eventually disclose everything in a relationship or are some secrets best kept permanently hidden from even the most loved and trusted partner/friend?

it seems to me that this would widely vary, based on the situation.

and it will take some time for a person to get to know his partner, in terms of what and when to disclose.

i think dan mentioned something about him not caring about a girl's past number of sexual partners. but there are other guys who do. a lot can depend on what sort of emotions a man or a woman attaches to sex.

i don't think it is a wise thing to figure that if you are okay with something, that someone else would be.

as we get to know someone, we will begin to figure out some of this stuff. for sure, something needs to be disclosed if and when a person knows that his/her partner is going to be affected by it (assuming one wants to continue with the relationship).

we have all been raised in different households, with different religious viewpoints, different moral viewpoints, etc. - so again, each case can represent a unique situation.

personally, i don't get the obsession that many people have about sex. so many men spend their entire lives looking for a sex partner, if they don't currently have one. btw, i am a male.