I seem to notice two main sexual types.

I'm getting old and have yet to find relational compatibility. With each failed attempt, I learn both the red flags to look for in future and to more concisely understand what I want/need.

Sexuality plays a large roll in relationships, but not everything. Lets face it, without it, its just a platonic relationship, but if the platonic side doesn't fit, you're just FWBs.

I've always had sort of a sixth sense regarding sexual chemistry. It served me well in my younger years. I could always tell by the look in someone's eyes, or the way they moved, the tone of their voice or how they interacted with others or their environment, what they were like sexually. After many adventures with great chemistry where everything else was completely wrong, I learned that the non-sexual characteristics were not so easy to spot at first glance. They took some time getting to know the person.

Relatively recently, I've noticed that I've started getting to know women online, or women finding me attractive based on common interests, or my humor or something. But, without my physical senses being able to see the look in their eyes or here the tone in their voice, I am unable to detect the chemistry that I always picked up on relatively quickly when meeting women in person.

So, I have gotten to learn of another sexuality that I knew existed, but never had any subjective experiences with.

I now see two types and that I only fit with one, for the most part. Of course a little change up now and then is fun. I, for the most part, enjoy more healthy gourmet type foods, but the occasional junk/fast food is nice a couple times a year. I couldn't eat it every day though.

So, I see two main types, with one sub-type that has some characteristics of both, but more of one. I see types as Sport vs Art.

The sport types are more visceral and tense. There seems to be less interest in warm ups and foreplay. There seems to be a more agitated excitement element to it, with excitement coming from more aggressive actions like hair pulling, spanking or generally rough treatment. It seems more animalistic and less cerebral. If it were a drug it would be more like cocaine, speed or meth.

The art types are more relaxed and sensual. The sex is less like gulping a greasy burger over the kitchen sink and more like a multi-course meal with apéritifs, then appetizers, then salad, then soup, then main course, then dessert, etc. It is savored, it requires a lot of foreplay and mental play during. It is more subtle and euphoric. If it was a drug it would be more like pot or heroin and sort of trance like.

BDSM, is more difficult to qualify. It is also cerebral. It is playing with your mind, drags the act out more than the sport sex types, but it is aggressive and very tense like sport sex. Normally, the ones I have known that are into it, seem to appreciate sport sex more than art sex when having non-BDSM sex.

If I am missing anything, feel free to add to this. If you have any insight on the psychology or personality types that fall into these categories or what makes a person one or the other, I'd be interested in your observations or studies you have read up on regarding this.

 

This is a lot to chew on (pun), but a first-thought question to add...What is the going emotional investment by each of these types? Does it vary according to chemistry or mood?

In my personal experience, one cannot assume a sexual sport type or artist/spiritualist. I've known artist/spiritualists who have an overwhelming preference for sport in bed. I've known alpha male/female types who prefer deep-connecting, tantric sex. Certainly, I wouldn't have been able to determine their sexual bents by conversation alone. What's behind the green door?

But I sure am curious to read what others have to say about this.

 

I'm not limited to one or the other, as far as I see myself. I could head in either direction at any point. Sometimes that can change in the course of an encounter. For me, it also depends on what the other person or people want. If I'm going one direction and the other person is heading the other way, then I'm not going to enjoy myself as much. I derivr a lot of my happiness from making the other person feel good. And it feeds my ego that I'm casanunda, the second greatest lover. But I try harder. So I don't feel pigeonholed in either of those categories.

 

I think the two categories you set out are, broadly speaking, fairly descriptive, but I also think there is a lot of crossover. Sex is rarely one thing, just as people are rarely one thing. Even with the same partner, some experiences may be more action-oriented and aggressive, and some may be more relaxed and gentle. And what you said about BDSM also extends to other kinds of complex role playing as well, I think.

 

Agreed. I think it's safe to say, "Sex is like a box o' chocolates...." Further, when were those boxes shelved? (Entertaining myself a bit here. Apologies.)

I've researched kink/fetish mechanisms here and there and haven't even scratched the surface of all the material out there. I file away the info and just see how it does or does not seem to apply to the situations/people I'm exposed to.

Personally, my tastes are all over the spectrum and have as much to do with where I am in life (even for the day!) as it has to do with the person I'm with and how/who/what he brings to the table for that particular meal.

I think many people probably do have a primary sexual personas, but I also think categorizing that would be like naming crayon colors. Just my thoughts....

 

XB, I think that you're making assumptions about people's sexual likes based on their general personality. In a very general sense, yes, there's probably some truth to the "sport types' and "art types." Most likely at first.

You posted that you have a sixth sense regarding sexual chemistry and that it served you well. I'm guessing that means you had an active sex life. If so, were any of the relationships long term? I ask because early in a relationship the person might intentionally be what you expect them to be. As the relationship develops they might be more comfortable exposing other aspects of themselves, the "sport type" might reveal a softer side, the "art type" might reveal a harder side. As others have posted, their desires might go back & forth depending on the circumstances, who they're with, etc.

It's possible that there are some people who only want their sex only one way, be it "sport' or "art," and they don't change. I'd say they're the exception, not the rule.

 

Define 'getting old'.

 

Looks like we have a number of new members in this thread that are interesting to read. Thank goodness. Not sure if XB is still around, as it looks like he hasn't logged in in three weeks, but this is still an interesting discussion.

I see two ways of discussing this from the OP, but it has splintered in the discussion into slight offshoots.

Actually, I was going to go on how I'm usually perceived. But that says more about the perceiver than myself. Most men aren't nearly sexually experienced enough to read the sexual signs I give out. Which is not as insulting as it sounds, nor as arrogant. It's about distinctions, and having the experience and education to make them. And I don't mean signs of interest, I mean signs of what I would/could be like in bed.

Most men, and I've been told this by lovers, assume that I'm going to be this clinical, detached thing in bed. Mechanical and distant. The truth of which is exactly the opposite. If they stopped to watch my movements and the way I move in regards the space around me, combined with my wardrobe and choice of visual displays, they'd see otherwise. But they don't.

When we're talking about personality types and how they are linked to sexual types... eh. I mean, sure, I have a catalog of types of men in my head and have those items linked to certain standard performances. I have a rather large amount of experience and men to draw from that allows me to, somewhat comfortably, maintain this "species catalog".

But I'm also aware that some men will surprise me. Some men intentionally misrepresent themselves, making themselves sound more cocky and experienced and comfortable than they actually are. I don't blame them-- our current sexual norms in Western culture cause certain expectations that manifest themselves in this way. And some men I think should be amazing lovers and... don't live up to the grade. Not remotely. Not for the experience they have.

But then, people can graduate college and not have learned a thing other than how to meet deadlines and create bullshit.

Sex, like everything else, gives you what you put into it. I've taken each sexual experience as a learning experience, as a way to observe and enjoy and figure out what my partner of the hour likes, how his mind works, and how that affirms, denies, and/or modifies my male lexicon.

And some men are the same. Average male, average experience, average performance, mostly forgotten.

However, I recently ran into a man who fucks exactly like my ex-fiancee, who was stellar in bed. Probably in my top two partners of all time. Like, if I close my eyes, I can't tell the difference between this current guy and an ex of four years ago. It's absolutely fascinating. And they've both got that very-financially-well-off-business-man-emotionally-detached-sex-god thing going for them.

I also engage in BDSM, and have for about thirteen years now. And I do, and love, the "art sex", though that isn't remotely my term for it. And I do the "sports sex", though much more often because most of my partners go for that and, honestly, the ones who would do the "art sex" aren't nearly good enough in bed for it, so it just is slow and boring.

So, yes.

 

I had read this OP once before and was kind of dismayed by it. Two types? And not only that, but they seem to be ranked. If I had to choose one type of sexual persona, so to speak, it would be the 'sport' type. But I feel like the OP discounts the 'artfulness,' the intimacy and the psychological depth that people can experience together when they are sharing 'rough sex.' It is not the 'fast food' of sex, it is the 'hunting down and slaying your own animal, butchering, cooking and devouring' of sex. I mean, if we need a food comparison.

In my experience, I think the best sex has elements of both. And this usually occurs between two people who share three important characteristics: 1) chemistry 2) experience and 3) an in-depth understanding and acceptance (important!) of their own sexual nature.

And, this:

 

If there is one thing about sex I've learned, is that its difficult to categorize. Things I thought were 100% true 10 years ago, I've discovered were less so.

At best you can find trends, and know that there are people who won't fit them.

I think the closest to two types you can come to are givers and takers. Some seem to focus on more their own pleasure, and others in giving that pleasure. I'm a giver, my wife is a taker. That doesn't mean She doesn't give and I don't take, its just thats where the focus starts.

 

Given my wife's nonparticipation, sex to me is a solitary thing, all about fantasy. Of course the characters in my fantasies do exactly what I want, and read from scripts I have "written" for them. In many cases, the script calls for other people to have sex while I watch.

I read what others have written about "good sex" and it makes me very uneasy. I am years out of practice at developing or sustaining compatibility with anyone; I have become sexually selfish. If I should find myself single again, I doubt I would meet anyone's standards or expectations.

Part of this comes from the painful transition, over the last two decades, from sexual to sexless marriage, as we gradually went from not-enough-sex to hardly-any-sex to no-sex-at-all. Inevitably, my wife's rejection of sexual activity came through as a rejection of me and my very imperfect body. I imagined (and still imagine) that a guy more attractive, more intelligent, better endowed, etc., would re-awaken her interest in sex.

Meanwhile, the aging process has eroded what little attractiveness I might have had, while perversely leaving my raging horniness almost untouched.

In terms of the title of this thread, when I think of "two main sexual types," I think of people whose interest in sex is high and persistent across all kinds of moods and circumstances, as opposed to people whose interest in sex is low to begin with, quickly wilted by any conflicting emotion, and ultimately absent.

Given the number of complaints I see about it, from men and from women, and of course my own experience, I wonder if those two types have a tendency to marry each other.

 

Apologies for the off-topic whining. I deleted it, but since @rogue49 already replied, I put it back for context.

 

Its never to late to get in shape. I've lost some 40lbs the last two years and gained about 15 in muscle. Diet control and weight lifting. Its TREMENDOUSLY improved the opposite sexes attraction to me. I used to think I was "Ok, pretty good" to looking at pictures from a few years ago I'm thinking "Did I have a mirror?".

I'd recommend reading this. It covers exactly what you have been going through.

The Married Man Sex Life Primer 2011: Athol Kay: 9781460981733: Amazon.com: Books

TFP is still telling me I need 10 posts to post links.... I will have to edit it to put it in.

 

Mild threadjack to nitpick the OP's terminology. Let's play Satan's Lawyer with: Sex Is Not Art

...

When I was in basic training many, many moons ago my rack was across from a short, pretty-boy guy that we'll call Tim. Tim was worldly.

And by worldly I mean he was just some white guy with great facial symmetry who used his smile to pull down a lot of panties.

He talked about how many girls he'd been with, the ways he'd been with them and how it was easy if you were "honest."

I recall listening to him talking about how these months would be his longest break from fucking.

And that sportfucking is sportfucking regardless of what you call it.

I tend to agree that there are two camps in the sex perception arena. Sport vs. Art is pretty good. But I dunno about "art."

Sex is art about as much as picking your nose is art: There are techniques, there are tools, appropriate locations, proper ways to clean up.

It's easy to glamorize so many life processes. I mean, the miracle of childbirth has been performed billions of times and thus isn't. really. a. miracle.

Suppose this is why we have galleries full of pretentious paint-slopped-on-canvas from an artist's "melon ball period." And this is why Lady Gaga has fans.

You have to have a childlike imagination in order to make sex more than it is, much in the way that your need an imagination (or something) for religion to work.

Sex feels great and can be a satisfying hobby. Sex can also be something two people do because they're bored and simply in close proximity and have appropriate hormones.

I can understand why people feel it necessary to detail or justify sex under the $1000 sequined cloak of Art, but I can't really get down with it. Especially when they wax poetic about it.

...

I'm not sure if any of that hot garbage is relevant here but the OP and some of the responses reminded me of this silly "Sex Is Not Art" debate I had over a decade ago.

 

I don't claim sexual activity to be either an art or a miracle. But it's pretty fucking great, I know that.