Anal Pleasure and Health: A Guide for Men, Women and Couples (32 page)

A large age discrepancy between two partners sometimes-but by no means always-leads to a parent-child type of interaction. The "child" feels dependent on the stability and security provided by the "parent," but also resents the loss of freedom and may express displeasure indirectly via underhanded maneuvers such as not following through on commitments, disappearing unexpectedly, or withholding sex or affection.

The "parent" admires the "child's" unjaded, free-spirited vitality but ends up resenting his or her ambivalence and lack of constancy. Secretly, the "parent" hopes that by giving the "child" sufficient love and guidance, he or she will grow up and return some of that love out of gratitude. This can happen, but more often one or both of them gets sick of their roles and terminates the relationship, with considerable pain all around. A string of similar relationships indicates, with little doubt, that this dynamic is at work.

The symbolism of age extends far beyond chronological time. Many partners who are close in age nonetheless gravitate toward parent-child, older sibling-younger sibling, or teacher-student roles, which wouldn't be nearly so prevalent if they didn't offer some clear advantages. Because each role exists only in interaction with the other, there's a built-in complementarity and often a psychological division of labor wherein one player handles practical details, for instance, while the other concentrates on intuitive possibilities and adventure; each partner has a sphere of influence.

If the chasm grows uncomfortably wide, we would logically expect the players to ease up a bit in order to restore a modicum of balance. Quite commonly, though, both partners act out increasingly extreme renditions of their roles, often to the point of parody. As the more practical partner edges toward possessiveness and condescension, the free spirit reacts becomes increasingly irresponsible, flighty, and self-absorbed-and vice versa.

Regardless of the chronological ages of the participants, people who overdo parental roles need to allow their own childlike qualities to surface, especially the ability to play and to release themselves from the crushing burden of constant obligations. Those who compulsively play the child role can free themselves by developing opposite characteristics, such as the ability to make and keep commitments, to exercise self-discipline, and to delay gratification.

In positive relationships with a significant age discrepancy-and many work out very well indeed-each partner evolves toward wholeness by observing underdeveloped aspects of the self reflected in the other and then gradually developing them internally. Over time, the psychological significance of the age gap is greatly reduced, and may even disappear completely.

RACE. Whereas we typically look for qualities and interests similar to our own when selecting non-sexual friends, contrasts are likely to be of greater sexual interest. For this reason, racial differences can act as inexhaustible fuel for high arousal. Body and facial characteristics, language, and a wide array of cultural traditions all accentuate the intriguing dissimilarities between self and other. Erotic preferences based on race are as legitimate and potentially gratifying as any others.

I see nothing inherently problematic about being attracted, even exclusively, to members of a particular race. However, racism-the assignment of overall worth based on race-can complicate or ruin a sexual relationship. One problem is that racial stereotypes can readily be projected onto some or all members of a group, a tendency that increases with mistrust and lack of familiarity. Members of disparate racial groups often perform "mass projection" on each other, thereby creating a degree of commonality in what an individual of one race will see in or expect of an individual of another.

For example, black men have told me that sexual partners customarily expect them to be super masculine, with huge penises, and always dominant in sexual interactions. Understandably, many of these men feel inadequate when they can't or don't want to live up to the stereotype, and angry about being pigeonholed. Some black men deliberately play on racial typecasting to gain a power advantage, especially over white partners whom they may simultaneously envy and resent. Needless to say, white men and women just as frequently make use of their privilege as members of the dominant group.

I'm certainly not suggesting that interracial pairings are doomed-far from it. Differing backgrounds and perceptions actually work against some of the merging, loss of individuality, and boredom that befalls so many couples. The key is to discover each other as distinct individuals, to differentiate genuine differences from projections. This process, though rich with potential conflicts and misunderstandings, can bring a singular vitality to the exchange.

MONEY. One of the most common symbols of power is money; it's also one of the most difficult to discuss. When there's a large discrepancy between the assets of two individuals, it's almost certain to create a power imbalance. And when this discrepancy is combined with other factors such as race or age, the potential complications skyrocket.

When affluence tilts the power scale toward one partner, some other aspect of the relationship-like sex or affection-usually functions as a counterbalance. For instance, a less affluent partner may withhold sex or a particular activity or, at the other extreme, may demand more sex than the wealthier partner is able to give, with the implied message, "Look at the abundance that I possess. You can't begin to satisfy me." Berating the wealthier partner, or thoughtlessly consuming his or her resources are also common strategies for indirectly expressing envy and anger and shifting the power balance.

It's not unusual for the more moneyed partner to feel used or to worry that he or she is buying affection that wouldn't be freely given. Some men and women in this situation vacillate between lavish spending and penny pinching, sometimes out of confusion, other times as a blatant strategy of control. Escalating conflict, withdrawal, and muscular tension are likely consequences for both-until unvarnished emotions are aired and mutually agreeable solutions negotiated.

SOCIAL SKILLS. The ability to socialize and form friendships relatively easily is yet another symbol of power and worth. Most likely, partners who tend to be shy or socially inept may feel simultaneously dependent, invisible, envious, jealous, and resentful-especially those with few social connections of their own. On the other hand, comfortable socializers often don't know whether to restrain themselves, coax their partners into being more outgoing, or simply be who they are and let the chips fall where they may.

There's no getting around the fact that our society places a higher value on extroverted, gregarious behavior. Introverts are rarely encouraged to develop their natural personality traits and instead are pitied or devalued. Some introverts believe that social ease is a sign of overall worth and are likely to think less of themselves. This idea is magnified when the socially confident person has a wider variety of stimulating contacts and allies which the introverted partner may both admire and fear.

Partnerships with a wide introvert-extrovert discrepancy have their work cut out for them because their desires and interests will frequently be at odds. Their greatest threat is in criticizing themselves or one another, leading to a vicious and destructive cycle. Creative pairs of this type de-emphasize the paradigm of togetherness and make a point of allowing for plenty of separateness. Milder discrepancies on the introvert-extrovert axis, although still a potential source of conflict, can also be a significant impetus for growth as each partner stretches beyond his or her comfort zone.

SEXUAL CONFIDENCE. It's not unusual for one partner to be more comfortable than the other with sex in general, or more versatile and experimental with particular sexual acts and situations. Some folks who appear to be sexually adept actually are, whereas others put on an exaggerated persona of confidence. Or else they may simply be perceived this way by a less assured partner. Whether real or contrived, sexual confidence can be a significant source of power, especially for those who define sexual competence as the ability to perform certain sexual "tasks"-such as anal intercourse-on demand and with few, if any, concerns or personal requirements. As a consequence of gender training, men are particularly prone to measuring their worth based on sexual prowess.

When sexual confidence becomes a symbol of power, the less confident partner feels enormous pressure to perform better sexually or else risk the loss of the more confident partner. I often see this dynamic played out in sex therapy when one partner is targeted for "fixing" while the other adopts the role of cheerleader, complainer, or both. Progress only begins when they both acknowledge their contributions to their problems as well as the solutions. Interestingly, in some cases where the less assured one unilaterally develops greater confidence, perhaps by becoming more assertive and less deferential, the supposedly confident partner is visibly shaken. So often in therapy, I've seen how disclosures of vulnerability in both partners helps to break the gridlock and set them both free.

Unfortunately, many more couples who once took delight in bolstering each other's sexual confidence, unwittingly slip into anti-erotic comparisons and accusations. Unfortunately, anal experimentation is sometimes the catalyst when one partner is ready to go while the other is afraid. Too often the hesitant one-typically the designated receiver-is labeled uptight or prudish, feels ashamed or angry, and retreats even further. Scenarios like this can quickly undermine sexual confidence, not to mention desire. Once undermined, sexual confidence will flourish again only insofar as performance pressures are replaced by a reciprocal commitment to pleasure and mutual validation.

SELF-ESTEEM. Enduring respect and compassion for oneself is, by far, the most substantial and versatile source of psychological and interpersonal power. If both partners are moving toward greater self-esteem, they'll naturally be drawn to honest conversation and, whenever necessary, good faith negotiations. Self-loving people have greater internal resources to draw upon and are less apt to cling doggedly to unproductive power contests that spring from insecurity.

Serious problems ensue when one partner's self-esteem is consistently on the rise while the other's is stagnant or in decline. Falling self-esteem breeds defensiveness, disengagement, self-criticism, depression, and aversion to riskqualities hardly conducive to any kind of enjoyment. And the interpersonal consequences are just as bad. Low self-esteem partners feel guilty and inferior, whereas high-esteem ones feel helpless, annoyed, and may even constrain or hide their own growth or happiness in order to maintain a semblance of equality. Those inclined toward abusiveness may even use their own or their partner's weakness as opportunities to inflict psychic harm.

Here's where the power of self-acceptance and affirmation can start to work wonders. Abusive situations must be abandoned, a wrenching experience at best. But if the relationship hasn't deteriorated that badly, and undercurrents of mutual caring still exist, change remains an option. Even small expressions of compassion toward oneself and the other open up a greater capacity to see and be seen. If both can tolerate the visibility that ensues, a renewed connection can begin.

CHASERS AND CHASEES. When potential lovers first meet and begin dating, they must grapple with crucial questions about who's more attracted, emotionally invested, hesitant, or needy. The right mixture of hopefulness and doubt raises romantic interest to a fever pitch. But if one consistently wants more than the other, their involvement will either unravel or the participants will slip into the roles of chaser or chasee. The more the chaser clings and pursues, the more the chasee distances. If the chaser lets go or gives up, sometimes the chasee will switch course and start pursuing.

While chaser-chasee dynamics are frequently feverish in early romance, they often remain a part of established relationships as well. Even committed partners fluctuate in their levels of attachment, availability, and expressiveness. Besides these inevitable fluctuations, a partner who chronically feels one-down is more inclined to pursue due to a lower sense of personal value. All by itself, the act of pursuing transfers power from the chaser to chasee.

Chaser-chasee dynamics can take a different form when one partner is pressing for anal intercourse and the other is hesitant. If the desirous one nags or pesters, thus becoming a chaser, the other will inevitably withdraw even more. More than a few couples have ruined their chances for mutual enjoyment by turning anal sexuality into a repetitive game of pursuit and escape.

Although it certainly doesn't help to deny what one does or doesn't want, I've seen many couples step away from fixed positions and embark upon a straightforward, game-free discussion. Either person can initiate these talks, but the typically avoidant partner is in an especially good position to reach out and signal a break from the old pattern. Of course, chasers can demonstrate a similar shift by inquiring about the fears and hopes of their partners rather than harping on their own desires.