By The Radical
Given the focused subject matters of The Birds and the Bees' blog, it only makes sense that we continually attempt to remain knowledgeable and decently read on the subject, so I found myself reading things online and came across Hot Alpha Female's (HAF) blog. Particularly, her post titled “The Irrelevance of Sexual Compatibility.” Let me state plainly, I disagree.
Having said that, I completely agree with her statement that “[t]he core things that are required to create the solid foundation of a relationship are shared values, open lines of communication, unconditional acceptance, honesty, courage, emotional maturity, and the need and desire for both people to put their relationship first.” While the amalgamation of these things are a solid foundation for a relationship, they are hardly cumulative into sexual compatibility.
To avoid a crucial mistake that allows HAF to make many of her arguments there is a need to define “sexual compatibility” as an independent concept to be discussed. Busby et al. (2010) define “sexual chemistry” as “ a 'mysterious, physical, emotional, and sexual state' that when present in a relationship creates something 'unique and explosive'” (pg 767). I will take this a step further granting this definition with finer applications of context to define the concept at hand. This undefinable “something” has certain conditions necessary for it to be present in a relationship. When these conditions are met, then sexual chemistry becomes sexual compatibility. The crux of this distinction is “compatibility.”
Compatibility is the rhetorical crux of this distinction. The primary distinguishing feature in practice is everything sexual beyond missionary position in a private room with the lights off. I do mean everything sexual. Outside of sex at its simplest, compatibility becomes a factor beyond the sexual chemistry of two people. It might fit like lock and key, but it has to unlock the door.
Where compatibility really matters is that space in time when you decide to move beyond the most basic of sexual practices. HAF indicates that the lack of sexual compatibility is actually a symptom of a breakdown of the aforementioned key components of a relationship's foundation. HAF goes on to say that “ a healthy relationship will have a healthy sex life.” This line is the clear indication of the assumption of a correlation in which a couple's sex life is the dependent variable attached to the facets of their relationship's “foundation”. Foolishness.
HAF soon expresses what she feels to be the root cause of sexual incompatibility: “the woman withholding the true expression of her femininity – and the absence of a strong masculine energy to draw it out.” This masculine and feminine dynamic becomes the base cause of relationship breakdown, which pushes sexual incompatibility to the furthest background as a symptom of other symptoms. If this doesn't make sense to you, that's okay because it doesn’t make sense to me either.
So the expression of the two partners' (in a heterosexual relationship) masculine and feminine energies is what makes for good sex? In her section titled “Understanding a woman 101,” HAF provides a fuller description of how the masculine and feminine energies interact: “You project. She Absorbs.” The feminine energy which erupts as sexual energy is controlled by the masculine energy. This is a dominant and submissive relationship in which the male partner acts as the catalyst that unlocks the “little sex kitten” in the woman, thus making sexual compatibility a matter of constant male dominance and reciprocated female submission, suggesting further that the male's dominance must be over the woman “emotionally, mentally, and intellectually” since these are the areas which HAF emphasizes as the crucial components for sexual compatibility. Although I agree that every relationship has characteristics of a dominant and submissive relationship, HAF is off base in her interpretation of how these characteristics are engaged within a relationship.
Think I have misconstrued HAF's interpretation by clearly highlighting the the aspects of dominance and submission? Read again HAF's statement that “[i]f you can continually re-establish, nourish, and protect her safety on all levels she will have no reason to withhold [sex].” HAF shows here that there is the need for the dominant masculine energy to engulf the feminine energy such that a persistent safety net secures the woman's emotional availability for sex. Even her sexual desires are muted in the face of the overwhelmingly dominant masculine energy,
“When a woman feels comfort, safety, protection, excitement, and happiness about herself in relation to a man and the relationship she will DO ANYTHING to keep that man happy. Her preferences of what she likes and does not like will go out the window.”
To state plainly HAF's meaning as read, control her emotionally and you control her pussy. Not an original theory really since Bobby and Ike suggested the same thing many years ago (and were quite successful for it).
Alright, enough with the dry literary analysis. Let's get to the point proper. Sexual compatibility is crucial in any relationship, not as an afterthought, not as a third tier symptom of borderline spousal abuse, and certainly not as a product of these obscure, ephemeral masculine and feminine energies. Two parties enter into a relationship in which they meet in a variety of areas, one of which being the shared desires for sex at a similar pace and in a similar style. The hyper-aggressive dominatrix will not do well with the hyper-masculine male with no desire to submit in the bedroom. Neither desire what is called “vanilla” sex, but neither of them play the role to submit to the other. This makes for an awkward bedroom excursion in which a fight just might break out.
Fellas, when your next random hook-up punches you in the face pre-orgasm, you will or will not like it. If this is what she needs to get off, no matter how many times you can recite to her her favorite foods, movies, and books, your fulfillment of her “emotional needs” still won't get her rocks off unless you enjoy or at least continuously allow her blunt faceshots. And here is where compatibility matters. Is she going to condemn herself to the duration of a relationship without an orgasm? Shit, I wouldnt. Then again how many girls have slept with me and I've just never done it for them? Ladies feel free to comment and let me know.
Sexual compatibility is slightly different from sexual chemistry in that it is what goes beyond the levels that HAF focuses on in her article. The sexual chemistry that one can feel during a first date across a dinner table is completely different than the sexual compatibility that one may or may not feel when you find yourself at their house later that evening walking into their bedroom finely decorated with hardcore, tentacle Hentai posters as they exhaustively describe the school girl costume they would like you to wear during sex. If gooey demonic appendages entering your orifices in the most aggressive of ways isn't your thing, then what about the pleasant dinner conversation has suddenly made it so?