Jimbo.Info

assuming that "nice" and "kinky" aren't mutually exclusive (and look at you, you're kinky *and* nice, right?), then I would make the assumption that anyone who has specialized needs would eventually figure out that they have to utilize the marketplace specifically existing for those needs (did I tell you I was an economist?) if they consider meeting those needs as a paramount importance.

Substitute "gay" for "kink" and re-work the problem. Sure you can hang around straight clubs and meet some nice guys - and there's probably *a* chance that some of them may also be gay. But would it be worth the effort? Of course not so long as a different marketplace exists. You will go to where the market is for people with your need - the gay club - because the odds of finding someone who has all the other things you're looking for in addition to that paramount need are so much greater there because everyone else fitting that need has already congregated there. You're looking for 2 things - "kinky" and "nice" - at your choice (a), not everyone's "nice", and there's only a chance that someone may be kinky (also, would the self-identified kinky utilize this venue anyway?). At your choice (b) not everyone's nice, either, but at least the kinky part is nailed down. Under the baseline assumption above, the rational choice is clearly (b).

>>is it fair for me to pop certain issues about me after dating someone for a while? But then again, am I being fair to myself in assuming someone is not kinky?

of course it is fair for you to pop these issues once dating has commenced. That is precisely why we have "dating" as opposed to jumping right into "marriage" upon first contact. If, after dating, the guy is making a decision whether he wants to be with you for the long haul, he can make the decision whether or not your happiness is worth it for him to try something that you need (and vice versa). If he doesn't, then no harm, no foul - you're giving him the information before the commitment is made.

As for whether the assumption that someone isn't kinky is "fair" to you or not - most of the world *isn't* kinky, as far as I can tell. Question is whether or not sharing that knowledge about you will be the deal-breaker or not. If the person gets judgemental about it or isn't otherwise receptive, then you don't want to be with them for the long haul anyway. But if you utilize the kinky marketplace in the first place, you won't have this problem.

Rework the problem using your other criteria - do you also make an assumption - and is it fair to yourself to do so - in assuming that someone is or isn't nice?

Jimbo....while sexuality (and sex) can be the prime attractor upon first meeting someone, the only glue that can hold it all together is good communication, a deep trusting love, and compromise. Compromise, compromise, compromise. I don't believe the myth that there is only one perfect mate for each of us in the univese. I think we are liable to meet several suitable and potential mates in the course of our lives and only by making deliberate, responsible, and instinctual choices will we be able to chose and discover who we are compatible with. Sex and Kink ebb and flow over time within ourselves, within our relationships, within our hopes and fantasies. To expect some constancy within our own person, let alone with another, is unrealistic. The joys, comfort, and security in a relationship far outweigh sexual pleasure...though for me, they are reflexive; each fortifying and nurturing the other. You have to decide for yourself where the balance in priority lies....how much sex, sexual attraction, and kink versus the needs that someone may help you meet and fulfill. I think that unconditional love is not possible in a "human" relationship; but if someone is truly committed and caring to you AND your needs, he will do his best to support, encourage, (discourage), and explore those parts that you may not feel another could be comfortable with. My scale has been tipped in favor of compromise (and the NICE guy) and I have not lived a day to regret it in the past four years.

I am a PUTO too!

Jimbo,

I don't know. I was thinking of something Rilke said concerning relationships when I read your entry. He had said that the most sacred trust in a relationship was standing guard over the other's solitude. He then went on to criticize not only those who say that sex is a shameful desire (he was writing on the eve of Victorian values), but also young couples who flung themselves at each other too hastily, without ordering themselves, without preparing their own bodies as a gift, and without preparing to receive the gift of the other.

I'm not sure, but it seems that when you say "kinkiness," you are speaking about sex as a commodity in the relationship, instead of as a relationship itself. As such, it is something that you can want, something you can find and have, but in looking at it as a primary objective, it will tend to bend the relationship towards itself. The relationship becomes about the specialized act, and the love, if that can be said, that you have towards the other becomes entangled too readily with what he can provide you. But, on the other hand, if one approaches another for the sake of the other, compassionately, and with desire, the relationship tends towards concern for the other: desire to receive, desire to give, desire to know the other more intimately, desire to form something that is not about the exchange of commodities across the border, but a single country of mixed mutual desires and needs in the process of changing and being filled.

I know that might sound idealistic, but I am talking more about means and outcomes, and tendencies. To make a sexual act the object of a relationship is to tend the relationship towards the sexual act. On the other hand, if one makes the compassionate desire of the other the object of the relationship, then the sexual relationship that develops will tend toward expressing itself in the mutual regard, desire to satisfy, desire to be satisfied by the other, by what the other gives.

It's a terrible dilema--one can't say, "I love you, but I can't be with you because he doesn't fill my sexual desire." any more than one can say, "I love you, and you have to fill my sexual desire even if you don't feel comfortable." In both cases, the "love" that is spoken is not about the other at all, but about the speaker. It is impossible to love and only give chunks and concessions. Both have to change in regard to the building of the relationship.

Only easy to say in a blarg comment, no doubt.

So, the question is not one of "kink" and "nice", but rather, "Do I love?"--not simply as outcome ("I'm in love"), but more as process ("Am I loving this person?").

Whoa. You guys are heavy. But thanks! I'm gonna write a thesis on what you wrote.
>; )