[Samantha Rogers]

Scotti - Your comments are very much in the ballpark of what I was considering when I started this thread. I quite realize that for many men, and as you say, some GG's as well, there is an ability to have pure sexual gratification with another without love being involved. But here is where I was going... with rare exceptions, I was never able to do that. Yes, I had a lot of relationships before I married. But almost never were they purely sexual and devoid of emotional investment. On the other hand, emotional investment in another person, whether comforting, supporting, flirting, whatever... almost always led me to a desire to push that relationship into something sexual, even if that was unintentional in the beginning. It was the fact of being wanted and emotionally charged that led to the sexual dynamic. Whereas, even when presented with attractive (sometimes extremely attractive) options which were totally random and devoid of emotion, I was uninterested to the point of occasionally being unable to perform (I would have made a terrible gigolo...tee hee). The emotion led to the sex, almost always.
I expect this says more about my personal psychology than anything else. But I believe it is in some way connected to the GID... still working on understanding that. But with the sexual aspects virtually removed,and my GID recognized, I find myself now in a unique position to offer the same kind of empathetic emotional response to others as before, but now with absolutely no strings attached. I am liking myself better this way.
And Kari - I did not mean to ignore your very thoughtful, considerate and heartfelt post. I am so continually impressed with your courage in suppressing your own desires in order to honor your commitments to your wife and family. I also quite clearly recognize in you what Flame has quite accurately described as a female personality.
This part...
<<<....but much of it is that I NEED to know I'm loved by her and hearing her say it is very reassuring. I guess the girl in me probably wants to hear it ???...>>>
resonated with me a lot. As did this...
<<<>>>
I believe there is truth in that but I would condition it slightly. As true as it is that our ability to love unconditionally must be learned from someone, I also believe we can only give as much love to others as we are able to first give to ourselves.
But, keep in mind that I may have a different definition of love than many people do. To me, love is a verb more so than a feeling. It is an action and in its purest form it is selfless. We love someone by actively trying to support them and by helping them and by wanting for them what is best and brightest for them. Love, for me, is not just a feeling of love. If it were, then there would be no difference between the love I have for my car or my scotch, and the love I have for my wife and children. The toughest part is when the love you feel and show for someone runs directly contrary to your own personal best interests. That is the real test. Now that the sexual demon is no longer part of the entire equation for me, it has liberated me to practice what I believe far more bravely. At my best, I think I come close. I find it humorously ironic that a weed from Thailand has helped me so much in this. And, no dear, I am not a follower of Jesus, but I do believe his words hold a lot of wisdom for those who seek it, when freed from the manipulations of centuries of manipulative humans. Not that it hurts, mind you, but I just don't believe one needs to find God, to see that wisdom. In truth, Kari, you and I very well may have a lot more in common than you might have believed.
Hugs