« IT'S KIMMIE WEDNESDAY!: Party Boy, The Conclusion | Main | AM I OVER BOYS?--And What About You?--The SexyPrime Younger Man/Older Woman Survey »

June 17, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I was just thinking today about my lovers, who are basically unavailable to me, who have lives that can't include me in any way but on the periphery... and I laugh at myself, because I need it that way, I want it that way, and yet, when I get it the way I want, there is still the woman inside me who wants to nail him down, keep him tied to me, chain him up so he can only be mine and no one else's - and yet, if he WAS nailed, tied or chained to me, if he WAS only mine - I wouldn't want him.

And I like it like that. I LOVE that fire, that flip of my guts when I want him but can't have him. I am alive when I have to fight the wonderful, terrible urge to hunt him down when he's not with me, to stalk him like crazy, to keep me on his mind.

Of course, the way to keep me on his mind is to do none of those things. Stalking him would herd him away just as surely as having him tied to me would cause me to find the sharpest knife to cut those ties. I have no doubt he wants more of me; he's told me so. But if we had more of each other, the more would be less as time passed, and I don't even think twice about choosing the hottest fire over the slow burn.

Susan Crain Bakos

I love this!
Brilliant insights--into yourself and into the nature of desire.
And can I relate.....

David Gersten, M.D.

Dear Susan,
Very interesting comments about loving more, loving less, letting go of “relationship” as a goal. I think that means “long-term relationship.” A long time ago, someone brought to my attention that in every relationship, someone loves more than the other. I've been there, the one who loved more, and it's a painful place to be.

But, I have to bring in the notion of levels of consciousness. Dr. David Hawkins, author of “Power Vs. Force” created an arbitrary calibration of consciouness from 0 to 1000, with 700 - 1000 being varying levels of enlightenment. 200 is the cut off point. A person whose consciousness is below 200 does not live in truth and integrity. If you read Hawkins' scale, and what qualities a person has at a particular level, it's pretty easy to see where you calibrate. It's an arbitrary, but very useful scale. To illustrate this a bit: the greater one's love is, the more love is capable of giving and receiving, the higher one calibrates.

People in any kind of sexual, sensual “relationship” think about if they're compatible sexually, intellectually, emotionally. Do they share the same interests?

There is no judgment here, but I've moved beyond relationships with women whose level of consciousness was vastly lower than mine. Let's say you're a 400 and your partner is a 250. To a great degree, you are invisible to your partner. They just cannot get you. They can't see you. They can't understand you. It doesn't matter how much you have in common. If your levels of consciousness are far apart, you won't be able to connect very well. If you and your partner calibrate at 400....or 400 and 450...or 400 and 500, you start to move beyond games, beyond competition, and beyond who loves more and who loves less.

I've been fortunate/blessed to have met a number of women over the last 7 or 8 years whose level of consciousness is very high. They ARE love. They love their lovers, their clients, relatives....everyone. They even work hard to love their enemies.

With a relationship like that, whether it lasts a month, a year, or a lifetime...there is less “falling in love” and more “merging into eachother as “one love.”

Now, speaking about one's sex-life, it is important for both partners to have relatively equal sex drives. When you meet your sexual equal, who is your equal in consciousness, then we are not talking anymore about who loves more, who loves less. In reading the post I'm commenting about, I felt issues of control.

I have been involved with tantra for most of the last decade. Being into tantra does not mean that your partner's level of consciousness, or calibration, is close to yours. Saying you are spiritual only means you're interested in spirituality. So, I've had coffee (mainly coffee) with a few tantrikas whose hearts simply were not very large containers for love. I was not interested in a relationship with them. I like simplicity, honesty, integrity and a big heart.

with that said, I have been in long-term relationships (okay, maybe just one) in which we were equals in consciousness, ability to love, and sexual desire. There just never was any feeling of who loved the other more. With love-making, we simply fell into each other, the love rose and merged into one love...and we'd usually make love for about 5 hours. That felt about right. After a couple of years, due to the economy we ended up in different cities and after a year, a long-distance, commuting relationship became just too challenging. I'm quite lucky to have experienced a relationship that was profoundly and equally loving, with phenomenal sex. That sexual energy was present even when not making love.

Returning to the question of what to call “relationships.” I liked what you said about how we turn “relationships” into a goal. Or, there's a goal of wanting it to last forever, or close to it. When the long-term relationship is the goal, we're in love with an image, and not a reality. Reality is the way to live. Living in the quest for images like the “perfect relationship” is no way to live. Those folks either break up or live a life of misery. It's just not real.

Setting aside the “goal of relationship” instantly reminded me of the profound growth that tantra taught me, and I learned quickly. There is tantra technique and tantric attitude. I think the latter is more important. The attitudes are about:
1. Letting go of the goal, the big O. We stop looking at sex as a performance. Whether or not we have an orgasm stops being the goal. Being very present, taking it slow, is where it's at. Slowly exploring each other's body takes....hours,and it's that exploration in the moment that is the focus. Sex in America is a 10-minute Olympic sport. Men, being goal-oriented creatures, have 2 goals: first, make sure she has an orgasm, 2nd, make sure he/I has an orgasm.

Performance gets very old. Men start to worry about whether they can perform. They live with an unspoken fear that oneday they won't perform. At this point, I truly don't know what that means, because with tantra there is no way to “do it wrong.” This need to perform leads to huge sales of Viagra and Cialis.

Sex as performance is considered normal. It's not, but it's great for the pharmaceutical companies.

Did I imply, the way that in tantra there are no orgasms? No, hardly. Women often lose track of their orgasms as they ride wave after wave. Men learn a kind of control. They can choose to hold off orgasm for hours, can choose their time as can their partner. My first tantric experience was with a well-known tantra teacher. When we parted that evening, I had had an experience that is hard to put in words. I can only say it was 50 to 100 times better than the best sex I'd ever have.

Whether it's tantra or “slow sex” the biggest sexual and relationship problem (beyond being equals in consciousness) is that men do not understand what women need and how they're wired. Both emotionally and physically most women need about 30 minutes to start to open up. They love sensuality, and not just sex. Without the luscious, non-rushed sensual touch, women feel cheated. Most women know something is wrong and many women just accept their sex life.

Women know they don't want to bruise the male ego, so almost all women have faked orgasms, to get it over with and prop up their partner's ego.

If women were provided the sensual touch, head to toe, non-rush, lots of time...within the context that “Orgasm in not the only goal,” relationships are transformed. I am positive that if women were truly made love to, they would shower their man with far more than he can imagine. Women have a profound gratitude when they are touched and made love to the way that they are wired. that does not mean that a hot, fast quickie is no longer part of the equation. No. The more animalistic quickie just becomes part of a very delicious sexual menu.

So, it's pretty clear to me that 1) “relationships” in America are in a state of unpleasant confusion, and 2) slow-touch love-making that wakes up a woman's body in “her time” will absolutely heal relationships across the country.

In what I've said, there's no judgment about one-nighters, short-term, or long-term “partnering.” Men remain largely in the mode of cavemen. Men are hunters. Cavemen were the hunters and could focus for days on the “tail” of a deer until they killed it. I suspect that sex was pretty much the same. Modern man, in sex, is still a hunter....hunting down “woman-prey” over and over again. I have some ideas about how women handled their sexuality during caveman-woman days, but I'll save that.

Modern women are not wired to be sexual hunters, although obviously there is a lot of hunting going on. It's fun (though not my particular style), but I don't think it brings women fulfillment, either sexually or in terms of “relationship.”

Men simply need to know a lot more about how women really like to be touched and made love to. Then, men need to check their ego at the bedroom door, and see if they are willing to stop being hunters, and wander for awhile in a new sexual paradigm.

Thanks for your stimulating article that triggered this long, rambling response, which is more like a chapter in a book.
To love, David Gersten

Susan Crain Bakos

Thank you for the thought-provoking response, David. I am grateful that you read SexyPrime and took the time to write.
Yes, to love,

Sharon H

I started reading this article and could not stop and went on to read a few more. Its really thought provoking. My mom also told me to choose a man that loves me more than I do him. But from my experience the love between a man and a woman should be mutual and growing...each day you should love each other more as you grow as lovers. If its not then something is definitely wrong. Thank you for the many articles.

Susan Crain Bakos

Thank you for writing, Sharon!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Quiver Newsletter

Get SexyPrime via Email

  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner


January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31