Re: Sexuality in Communities
@indi And to bring @literorrery back into this discussion (in part to help save my hands from the typing, if you'll forgive me ^^;), that is where I feel this script helps to illustrate a problem.
Steps 1-3 are common knowledge, but asexuals and those not interested in sex have no place in this 3 step program to deepening relationships. Without a well established Step 4b to fall back on, non-sexual relationships fall into limbo.
Re: Sexuality in Communities
@mawr @indi And I guess that's where my confusion happens, because for me when somebody declines at step 3, the answer is "okay" and we go back to step 2. For me, wanting more and better sex in the world requires recognizing when "more" doesn't mean "better," and being at step 2 with somebody is no less inherently meaningful or intimate than being at step 3. It's another kind of intimacy, but not necessarily another _level_ of intimacy.
Re: Sexuality in Communities
@literorrery This is a legit response for sure, but it's not one that we can always trust is universal; I can easily think of pairwise interactions in this community where it didn't work out that way, and I'm not even privy to the stuff that @mawr has talked about. I believe this is the case for you, but I'm never sure it's the case with arbitrary others.
Re: Sexuality in Communities
@indi @mawr I'm absolutely aware it's not universal; I'm stating it for myself as a level-setting exercise because it does sound like many of us are coming to this from a very diverse set of positions. I know it doesn't always work out that way; I've observed it. And again, I know I don't live up to my ideals, but I know where I'm aiming, and I would rather own my own shortcomings than ask people to try to work around them.