New Revelations

 I am 53 years old this year, and I'm still learning new things about myself. Is it possible to ever know yourself completely, I sincerely doubt it. Today you are not who you were yesterday, rebirth is constantly going on even in one lifetime. The change is the only permanent thing in life: when there is movement, there is life. If you stop evolving, you are already dead. 

I'm always willing to receive new information and correct my perception, instead of stubbornly clinging to the old. My whole life is witness for that. And if you look around and keep your ears open, you will easily notice that not so many people are capable of that. 

Demisexuality

Last year I gained some valuable new insight. First of all, could it be that I am Demisexual? Wikipedia article at the time of writing this, says as follows: 

"Demisexuality is a sexual orientation in which a person feels sexually attracted to someone only after they've developed a close/strong emotional bond with them..." [...] "How much Demisexuals need to know about a person before they feel sexually attracted to them varies from person to person. There is no specific timeline on how long it takes, either. There is also no way to determine what qualifies as a close or strong bond, which can cause confusion." [...] "Many Demisexuals may choose to engage in casual sex even without experiencing sexual attraction towards their sexual partner." 

That would certainly explain a lot. Basicly, I'm very open and liberal about sexuality: I hate moralism, and in my fantasies I can be anything, but in the real world it is a different matter. I have often emphasized in various contexts the role of emotions in my life. In my experience I don't need to have a crush on person, let alone fall in love with them: it's enough that I know them even for a little while, and like them as a person. Of course good looks also help. That eliminates casual sex, and sex on the first meeting in general. (It's not impossible, though. I've had my share, long time ago, and it was very dissatisfying to me.) "Friends with benefits" sounds good to me! 

Also, plain banging is not pleasing; there has to be tenderness, kissing and fondling involved. Intimate connection between two people should never be meaningless, otherwise why have it in the first place. It has nothing to do with morals. I almost envy those who can exchange partners just like that. I just don't feel comfortable and safe in such a situation with random stranger. In my marriage I have a freedom and permission, but I have used it only twice years ago, with two different men. (And it seems my spouse is very much like myself, with respect to sexuality as well!) So one time is okay if other conditions are met, and romantic relationship or monogamy is not necessary. It's not like there have been many opportunities during these years, so it's not really my decision. There is obviously always individual variation within human sexuality, so nobody can tell me my experience is wrong, because it is not precisely like theirs! 

Self-nude from the 1990's

Demisexuality is on the Asexuality spectrum, and that first bothered me, because I felt I'm actually very sexual person, but the fact is, I've had different phases, and I know I can celibate quite easily. Also, recently when I read my old diaries from the 1990's (I was in my 20's back then), I just realized I didn't even miss or look for love or relationship at that age; all I wanted was pure and honest friendship. I had my first sexual experiences at 27, and soon after I met my partner to be: not because I really wanted to, but because of peer pressure. At the end of the day I can say that sex is not the most important thing in the world! 

It's not like I want a less known, fancy label. It's hard to accept that I'm anything but "just a regular gay", or that Demisexuality is independent sexual orientation, as it seems to be seen. I am what I am anyway. But it may summarise your individual experience of your sexuality, and it only says what I have always known. Yet I have to explain what it means to me. I have been part of that old school, wondering why all these increased self-definitions; as if people want to be categorized in ever smaller groups. But maybe you understand it when you find yourself in one of those groups, and realize that this is how some people experience - I'm not the only one. These categories did not spring out of nowhere. 

See also one of my previous posts, "I love gay sex!"

Late partner

I have another older post, "Sex, Love, Marriage", which I think is frequently read, but it is partially dated, especially regarding my late partner and our relationship. I used to underrate emotions, simply because I had never fallen in love with him! That's why I had to emphasize reason, and make up an excuse that we gradually grew to love one another... I guess I actually managed to make myself believe that, because I needed to justify our relationship... It was in my head, more than in my heart. I didn't even know what love is, so I just made up a rational concept of it - and there's nothing rational about it! I was kind of driven to relationship with him in the first place, it was very complicated; several external factors were at play, and I was vulnerable and under the influence of strong personalities. And it was also because of him that I was even homing in on Christianity - as if I forced myself to believe in that too. 

We ended up being together almost 19 years, "til death did us part". Now, spiritual-minded people often tend to believe everything happens for a reason, everything has a meaning. I guess it's more convenient than to admit that you have wasted years of your life in vain. I tried to please him, avoided conflict, got used to it, feared change, and worried for him. Obviously he had his faults too (emotional blackmail was used: no difficult stuff could be discussed, because he got depressed, and he made it clear that he would be crushed if he lost me), but I can't blame him: it was me and only me who stayed til the end, being dishonest to myself, and to him. 

It is very hard to live with someone depressed, and when you add alcoholism, you are deep in the shit. No one should blame themselves if they can't go on. It is not right to sacrifice your own life for someone else, you can't save them anyway. You can think about yourself first. Maybe we were a couple that shouldn't be, but it becomes more complicated if you think about it... without him, would I have stayed with my mother in the country, and as a member of narrow-minded cult? I was in dire straits both physically and mentally, so obviously because of my partner great liberation also came about, along with pain and conflict. I can't deny that. 

When I later converted to Buddhism, it came up as by itself, naturally, from within. Even though I first learnt the chant, Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, through Tina Turner, I still use my own voice, if you get what I mean: There is something learned, but also something of my own, that I express out loud. Something universal as well as something personal. And it is my Buddha Nature I call forth, not Savior from Heaven. I was matured enough for Buddhism, just like I was finally mature for true love, and found the love of my life only in latter age. These two things seem to go hand in hand in my life.  

Introversion

I listened to Finnish podcast about extroverts and introverts. They interviewed a personality researcher, and it was mind-blowing! I have also taken a popular conception of introversion lying down, but reading comments on Facebook group for introverts, I have often thought, "I'm not that introverted!" I couldn't identify with the group of people who consider themselves introverts either. Often their ideas appear to be too simplified: "Because I'm an introvert, I'm like this, and can't do that..." In fact, it seems that being an introvert is similar to being Aquarius, and I do recognize a lot of typical characteristics of Aquarius in myself! Following thoughts are from the podcast... 

In the world of memes, introversion has become cool. There is a rise of introversion as a cultural backlash for hyping extroverts. Many people firmly believe that we are either introverts or extroverts. Modern research does not support this idea. Most of us are something in between. In the light of scientific personality psychology, extroversion/introversion is a dimension of features, and most people are placed somewhere in the middle. There are very few real introverts and extroverts, and categorizing  people in two groups does not correspond to scientifically based conception of personality psychology. People can not be dealt as categories, but as dimensions and their combinations. 

Even the original developer of these concepts, Carl Jung, did not think that people divide in two extreme ends. He wrote that most people are ambiverts, or something in between. Already in the 1960's it was noted that features of personality and behavior in individual situation don't interrelate very much. Larger proportion of variation (approximately 70%) in sociability and extroversion takes place within a person than between persons. Each one of us, regardless of our place in extroversion/introversion dimension, behaves constantly in everyday life in really extroverted and really introverted ways, and everything in between. 

Being energetic is already part of extroversion, one of its subfeatures. Do introverts get tired of socialization more than extroverts, that has been studied, and there is no evidence. All people may get tired of socialization to some extent, there are no differences between introverts and extroverts in the light of current knowledge. 

People may explain their social withdrawal by introversion, but results of extroverted behavior are the same for both, extroverts and introverts. There is a lot of good research about extroverted behavior making us happy, and it involves everyone. According to some researches, benefits for introverts may be even greater. 

Introvert and extrovert are no longer only scientific concepts, their meaning has broadened. If people use them to explain and understand themselves, that is a good thing. They have become social identities that people adopt to explain their behavior for themselves and for others. But if you lock your identity within these categories, you can miss out many things, you can evaluate the results of various action falsely. Features of our personality don't determine our behavior! Our behavior varies a lot according to situation. 

Well-known Myers-Briggs test has no scientific basis whatsoever. If people feel that combination of letters they receive, represents them, there's nothing wrong with that, but this test should not be used in recruiting, or anything like that, when it has real consequences for people. 

I have often determined that my spouse must be an ambivert, because in different situations he can be extremely extroverted or extremely introverted, but it looks like if he is that, then so am I. Last New Year one of his Facebook friends with their partner, whom we have briefly met, invited us at their home. But my spouse was bothered by the fact that we don't know them well enough. I understand completely. Problem is, how could we ever learn to know anyone well enough, if we don't give it a chance? We are rarely invited anywhere, because we don't know many people.