WARNING: This post is link-heavy. The author of each quote is attributed with a link to his/her own blog; otherwise, each link leads to posts/pages that will likely require brain power, and will possibly include additional links. So if the blue (there are boobs in that one, heh) is distracting to you…
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
Consider yourself forewarned. Or something. 😉
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
A while back, I started a conversation on this blog, in collaboration with another blogger, that eventually branched out into several directions. In revisiting the original questions (summarized here), the conversation has led (once again) to the topic of intimacy. It is a topic worth delving into, I think.
But before we {‘we’ meaning (the collective) ‘you’ and ‘me’} continue the conversation, I thought it would be helpful to summarize what has been said on the topic to this point.
SO. To review:
What Are Your Thoughts On Intimacy?
Intimacy is when you feel comfortable enough to share your feelings for a total stranger sitting next to you on a crowded form of public transportation. (See also : A Shared Moment) ~ Tiny
Intimacy? I always think back to my psychology classes and I remember on thing about how ‘they’ defined “love”. There were seven types. All consisting of some (or all) of three elements. I forget how they were defined, but “intimacy” was one of them. “Commitment” was another. And something to do with “sexual satisfaction” (aka “lust”) was the third. “True love” would have all three… “INTIMACY” was the most important to me, and still is. Someone to share “EVERYTHING” with. ~ Furbal
Intimacy, it’s personal. That pretty much sums it up for me. It doesn’t require a sexual connection at all… Intimacy defined mainly as trust. ~ Wild
Taking risks is part of establishing and maintaining trust, which goes hand-in-hand with intimacy. And we don’t always have to give our whole selves to share something intimate. There are levels to intimacy, I think. Intimacy can be anything from a shared moment with a practical stranger (as Tiny said) to soul-melding oneness. ~ Feve (Moi)
Intimacy is a connection between people. One that is real, and had depth… Intimacy one on one I feel is something you have with a lover. This is a deep kind of intimacy… An intimacy between lovers is an emotional bond, giving and receiving physical pleasures can happen here. ~ Sarah
Intimacy, closeness, bonding, soul-mates, and all that tend to enhance the positive aspects of a relationship and help smooth over the negative aspects. Intimacy makes relationships and sex much better. A lack of intimacy is a death sentence for any serious relationship. ~ Nate
The more I grow up – and the more I think with my brain, rather than just my cock – the more I believe we all have three (at least) different types of intimacy we need in our lives: physical, emotional, and mental. ~ Dave
Intimacy is so huge. Emotional intimacy, yes. Physical, yes. Intellectual, hell yes. I can desire some one because of a deep conversation alone. There are so many different types of intimacy, and I believe you can have intimacy with more than just your partner. I believe you should, even. I really think, again, that communication plays a role in intimacy. ~ Fatal
Intimacy is about sharing; it’s not something I take a narrow view on because I found you can be sexually intimate, emotionally intimate, and even intelligently intimate with someone… Intimacy has many levels of depth and it’s being able to understand and recognize this that matters – then act accordingly. ~ K Daddy
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
What comes to mind for you, where intimacy is concerned? How do you define it? Do you define it? How and when does it apply to relationships?
What else strikes you?
Currently, I find myself mulling over the concept of intimacy in terms of how it manifests in online relationship dynamics. What levels of intimacy can be achieved? Are there new/different types of intimacy inherent to Bitland interactions (emails, I.M., texts, etc) that are not otherwise consistent with 3-D interrelations? And…???
Thanks for taking the time to read.
Audience participation is encouraged and appreciated. I’d love to hear your thoughts. 🙂
Awesome summation. This will make the next steps of the conversation so much easier. 🙂
Thank you.
It was interesting, in putting this together, to see again how the commentary flowed. Generally speaking, there seem to be patterns to the way people think about the topic of intimacy. Most notably, that when people start conversing on the subject, classifications of intimacy begin to emerge.
I’m curious to see what others will have to say on the subject. 🙂
Bitland intimacy is possible since things like email, IM, etc., can initiate a closeness even if only thoughts are exchanged. And while sexual innuendo can be spread across the bandwidth – as well as expressions of passion, desire, and even love, there are some folks who might say that this isn’t being intimate even though sexual things are being shared – but it is; it’s just not exactly sex even though such communication can lend itself to acts of autoeroticism.
I agree. Bitland intimacy is most definitely possible.
I already said quite a bit about this on Monkey’s blog, but to take it a step further: I’m curious as to what other people have experienced (or rather, what others have allowed themselves to experience; intimacy does, after all, involve the sharing of vulnerability) in terms of depth and scope of intimacIES (again, there is more than one type ~ rather than repeat myself, some of my thoughts on the classification(s) of intimacy can be found here). And how are those intimacies defined when the relationship is virtual? Often, for example, physical intimacy develops in an environment of shared time and space. For 3-D interactions, that usually requires spending time together in a physical location (think: snuggling on the couch to watch a movie), but virtual space is still ‘space’. And the concepts of being *present* for one another, with one another… It’s still possible, virtually.
I’ve been ‘electronically’ intimate with quite a few people and with the exception of not being physically in their presence, well, it’s been pleasantly intimate and has often set the table for that moment of physical intimacy. If we can agree that physical intimacy develops in a environment of shared time and space, non-physical intimacy can develop in the same way, doesn’t it?
With the power of words, one can experience the whole gamut of emotions; this is also made possible because some folks are more comfortable when it comes to revealing things that lend itself to intimacy when they’re not sitting next to someone; you have time to think about what you want to say and how you want to say it and without that pressure of someone looking deeply into your eyes so some folks do find it possible to exude intimacy behind the safety of their monitor.
Sure, any physical responses are purely one-sided and unshared; then again, the whole thing behind cybersex is to use one’s words to convey whatever passion, lust, or desire they’re feeling and, hopefully, the other person’s able to pick up the meaning of the words, thereby enhancing their passion, lust, or desire.
I do wonder if people embrace the literal definition of intimacy and all the forms in which this can manifest itself… or is it a matter of people not really paying much attention to the other forms of intimacy and only focus on the intimacies of a relationship and I’m not referring to FWB, friends, or fuck buddies but the “we belong to each other” kind of relationship which includes marriage.
I know that over the years, I had to revise my understanding of the word as I learned its more broader meanings and impacts.
With the power of words, one can experience the whole gamut of emotions…..this is also made possible because some folks are more comfortable when it comes to revealing things that lend itself to intimacy when they’re not sitting next to someone…..
Exactly. And from my own experiences, I think the depth and rapidity of intimacy achieved via “cloud” interactions is astounding. For this very reason. And it is in the moment-to-moment revelations that the idea of equal investment comes into play for me. Each of these shared moments, over time, can strengthen intimacies: emotional, intellectual, physical (presence), sexual…
You say you ‘wonder if people embrace the literal definition of intimacy’. What do you see as the literal definition?
And were there specific events (or milestones) that led to your personal revision of understanding? I’m curious as to how you (and others who are reading) have come to understand the broader meanings and impacts of the concept of intimacy over the years. 🙂
I think the sapiosexuals amongst us (hello :]) would say that internet interaction and intimacy can be just at least as fulfilling as in-person interaction, perhaps, on some level, moreso. Emails and IMs and text messages have transformed that age-old communication–the love letter, into something that appeals to the instant gratification generation, but it doesn’t make it any less intimate or special. I think that I could have an open and meaningful relationship or friendship with someone without ever meeting, as long as we are each honest and communicative (if there is a chance of meeting some day, ‘cos if there isn’t, the honesty doesn’t necessarily matter, I suppose?).
Bless you for keeping up such interesting conversations on your blog, madame.
xoxo
Hello, fellow sapio. :]
I, too, believe an open and meaningful relationship is possible via non-meat-space (Vegetarian space? 😛 ) interactions, and I (like you) believe that honest communication is imperative to the success of such a relationship.
With full disclosure that I Am Human, and that as a human, I have soft spots and care for the feelings of others, and that I also have blind spots where my interpretation of self is concerned…
I communicate with honesty and consistency with all my partners; flesh-to-flesh or bit-to-bit. Actually, in some cases, I have found (as Kdaddy mentioned) it easier to open up in online friendships, partly because of the difference in style of interaction (time between responses, not having to interpret body language, etc). Is that indicative of the nature of online relationships though? Or is it a reflection on the type(s) of people I surround myself with? Both in “cloud” space, and on earth.
Hmmmmm…
The literal definition as supplied by dictionaries which, just in my opinion, just really doesn’t do the act of being intimate any justice at all. My revelations came about after I had a lot of experiences under my belt and then being able to examine those experiences objectively – I think I was like 17 or 18 when I really started to understand intimacy and its nuances, not only as it applied to myself but how and what I saw in other people. For instance, being able to open up to a girl, sharing thoughts, feelings, and just oozing lust talking to them or being with them – but getting into a relationship was not in the offing AND, because it wasn’t, it didn’t feel like a loss, if you know what I mean. You had the comfort of having a girlfriend and all the benefits except stripping her down and doing it to her good and hard and, sometimes, you just knew that you didn’t have to or that if it happened, it not only might ruin this tight friendship but would also destroy any intimacy that was built up to that point.
I recall being asked, “How can you be intimate with someone without being intimate?” meaning, how can you be close to someone without having to fuck them and the question was valid since some folks can only link intimacy with sex. And, it made me think long and deep about how to answer the question… because I just knew there had to be an answer.
And I found it by ‘simply’ looking at the experiences I had had to date and seeing where I’d been intimate with other people and sex wasn’t on the menu, like, being intellectually intimate; all the times I’d been emotionally intimate with someone – sans the sex – and how emotionally gratifying it was and, of course, all the times I had sex with someone and even in this, seeing how there were degrees of intimacy involved but not all of it purely driven by lust.
It was a lot to think about and digest and I think I didn’t really finish this ‘meal’ until I was in my late 20’s; once you’re able to see the degrees of intimacy via past experiences, you then start looking for them in the present, i.e., how something as routine as day-to-day interactions are just laced with varying degrees of intimacy.
This is some really heady and deep shit to think about so it doesn’t surprise me that some folks only really think of one aspect of it. For me, it was like an epiphany; I can’t really point to a singular moment or event – it was like it just slapped me upside the head while I was walking down the street and lost in thought.
Intimacy, not feeling the awkward intrusiveness of someone not welcome. Others have mentioned the different types of intimacy, but they haven’t talked about that awkward moment when someone walks up and you and your friend have to find a way of changing the subject to avoid sharing with someone who may be liked well, but is not in the circle of intimates. If you’re around many people it’s a daily occurrence. Defining the negative sometimes provides a bit bas relief. Some people are uncomfortable around PDAs too. I’m not one of them though. 🙂
And one’s circle of intimates may vary depending on circumstances. Thinking of your work environment, for example… Inside jokes, nicknames, shared experiences… If you have those things with person A, and you have those things with person B, but person A and person B don’t have them with each other… Awkward. (I used AB on purpose. 😉 )
You bring up a good point about recognizing when/what something is NOT. Especially when attempting to explain or define broad/nebulous ideas/subjects, it’s sometimes easier to recognize what *doesn’t* fit than what *does*.
You’ve got my thoughts about intimacy pretty in-depth in the past, Feve. 🙂
But, reading through this sparks a couple of questions related to intimacy, so I figure this is a good place to share.
One curious thing about intimacy – whether it’s physical, intellectual, emotional, or arguably even sexual – is there are definitions that can be fairly well agreed on, but what about the when of determining intimacy as been reached?
It requires two (or more) to be intimate, so how does the pairing (or more-ing) identify that they’ve become intimate? Even saying sexually intimate is easy and quantifiable, may not actually be that easy.
For one person, being sexually intimate might mean one thing – say, kissing – while for another that’s just a form of physical intimacy. That can be extended out further to oral sex or whatever. Some (many) people see performing oral sex as being intimate with someone; others that may be as casually, physically intimate as holding hands.
One example from experience comes to mind, a woman that I was intimate with was eager and willing to have sex, but the intimacy of hugging was extremely difficult due to some past issues. That led me to be aware that our types and identification of being intimate were very different – and not truly mutually agreed on.
Not that I believe intimacy is one of those things that really needs mutual discussion, but the subjective identification of intimacy can be very different and cause issues in relationships, I believe.
Perhaps there is a difference between being intimate with a person and a person being an intimate…? Adjective vs. Noun?
Your example of __________ means __________ to YOU, while the same thing means something different to your partner(s) can definitely cause problems in relationships, and not only where intimacy is concerned. Subjective identification(s) is/are a sticky wicket.
The hugging thing…
I don’t know the ins and outs of that particular situation, but in speaking for myself I can say that sharing pieces of the past builds emotional intimacy. If emotional intimacy is built first ~ and to the point where fears/concerns/past trauma is shared, accepted, and incorporated into the relationship in a positive way ~ then…
Do you see what I’m saying?
I agree with you and I see what you mean about adjective vs. noun. Expanding on my question… how to determine when that point has been reached? When someone is an intimate?
I don’t know if I’ve ever internally explored that. It just kinda comes naturally, or not. Sneaks up on you, though it’s easy to identify the current state at any point, I believe.
With that situation, it was well after emotional intimacy was built – it was just an instinctive negativity associated with it. I think.
Is there a point, that can be defined in an applicable-to-all kind of way, where a person has *identifiably* become an intimate?
It seems like there should be a clear-cut answer to that, but looking inside myself, I can’t find one. Perhaps because the type(s) and level(s) of intimacy achieved between individuals is not ~ in my experience ~ a homogenized thing? The sharing of parts of one’s self and the sharing of one’s whole self being very different things, eh. Becoming *an* intimate versus attaining a *level* of intimacy… It’s hard for me to separate the two with precise descriptive statements, but they are very different things. How do you quantify? Like you said, it sort of sneaks up on you. The reasons why are sometimes evident only after that “a-ha!” moment. But the reasons are always different depending on the relationship…
And the wheels on the bus go ’round and ’round… 😉
The only descriptor that comes immediately to mind is Unfiltered. As in, “I give you Myself; my whole, unfiltered self.” But that’s not indicative of all intimates for me. Only one, actually.
:: scratching forehead ::
My analytical self wants to solve this puzzle via categorization; identifying types of intimacy and sorting relationships accordingly, etc. Like, if I trust you with __________ (fact, secret, history, trauma, etc), it means you’ve reached _____ (1-10?) level of __________ (emotional, spiritual, physical, intellectual, etc) intimacy, and therefore *are* an *intimate*. But there are people I have experienced intellectual intimacy with that I don’t particularly consider to *be* intimates. So…
Sigh…
You know how Winnie the Pooh obsesses about honey?
This. Is. My. Honey.
Anywhoo…
Back to the hugging thing: I’m sort of weird about kissing. But my weirdness has nothing to do with kissing itself. So though my own personal weirdness isn’t act-associative, I get what you’re saying about instinct.
It’s all part of being human. 🙂
A possible answer to the question is when a level of trust has been established; for intellectual intimacy, perhaps it’s when respect is gained, even with someone who has opposing views. Intimacy, however you care to look at it, begins with trust – even if lust is the only thing on the agenda. Without a measure of trust, can there be physical/emotional intimacy? Maybe but like so many things about this, it depends on a lot of things.
How does this resonate with you?
Intimacy is definitely indicative of trust. And I agree with your observation about respect.
In determining intimacy, those two concepts are key, I think.
In determining who is an intimate…
There’s another/separate magical ingredient, I believe.
For example: I share various levels and forms of intimacy with the bloggers who take part in conversations like these. We are opening to one another, trusting one another with our thoughts on topics/concepts that are unique in their personal subjectivity. The sharing itself is a form of intimacy (primarily intellectual, in my own interpretation), but the individuals are not all intimates.
I wonder if there is a temporal factor to be considered in determining who is an intimate and when a particular individual has achieved that status? In other words, in addition to the trust and respect factors, is there a time factor to be considered as well? “Time” could be a shared moment, an intensity of interaction during time spent, an actual/precise duration of time, etc.
Hmmm…
More to ponder. 🙂
Time… good thought… but is it relative? Does mere seconds matter? Minutes? Any slice of time available? Sometimes, trust is instinctive – in the blink of an eye (that’s about 1/40th of a second, by the way) you just KNOW someone can be trusted right then and there, with further proof to be evaluated at some other time. For most of us, trust has to be earned, just like respect, and how much time that takes depends on the people involved, whether they want or need to trust, either for an hour or two or whatever takes to slake their lust…
Or forever.
You’re absolutely right. Sometimes you just KNOW.
The Magical Ingredient. 🙂
I believe there is one (relatively) universal point that comes to mind. Basically what kdaddy says – trust – but exemplified.
My internal barometer says, when something happens to self – life events, questions, conundrums, challenges, etc. – who are those people who I would either (a) seek out to discuss/notify/explain what has happened to/with me, before the public is aware of it, or (b) who comes to mind to do that – whether I’m able to interact with those people (discuss/notify/explain) or not.
Those are the people I’d click in the “intimate” checkbox.
Conversations like this I will avoid until I am free to think and feel and experience things with freedom. Right now, to discuss intimacy opens wounds that are old, and even new wounds. This is why I can never join these conversations…it makes me feel bad either way.
And his wish is intimacy,
Intimater intimacy,
And a stricter privacy;
The impossible shall yet be done,
And, being two, shall still be one.
As the wave breaks to foam on shelves,
Then runs into a wave again,
So lovers melt their sundered selves,
Yet melted would be twain.
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
Yes! Ralphie knows! To twain is pain.
And now I’m thinking of the flagpole scene in A Christmas Story. 😛
I can’t put my arms down!