Social Sexual Dichotomy

When I was younger, my friends and I posited a theory that people in their social lives tend to serve the opposite role when it comes to their sex lives. That is to say, if you are extroverted in your social life you tend to be submissive and introverted sexually, whilst those who tend to be introverted in their social lives often turned out to be dominant and extroverted sexually, there will of course always be exceptions to the rule but this generally held true based on our observations.

If you've been following this blog for a while you'll know that I've been going through a journey of self-discovery as of late, or rather a journey of rediscovery as I have taken to re-evaluating the beliefs that I've been holding onto and trying to figure out if they still serve me, whilst also examining my own personality and trying to figure out how much of that is my authentic self and how much of it is simply routine, repetition, habit, and in some cases expectation.

This theory of social and sexual dichotomy came about as the result of frustration more than anything. My friends and I had an idea of the kinds of guys we wanted to be with and pursued interest in guys based on our expectations. We initially went with parity or plurality as our guide, the assumption that introverted socially would be introverted sexually, and extroverted socially would be extroverted sexually.

You might be asking what that actually means in terms of sex and the answer is quite simple, introversion tends to focus on your own needs first, and extroversion focuses on others' needs first. Someone who is extroverted socially is driven by group dynamics whilst someone who is introverted socially is driven by one-on-one dynamics. In terms of sex this translates to the idea of introverted sex being driven by your own pleasure and extroverted sex being driven by pleasing the other person or people.

The idea of plurality quickly fell apart though as through my own experience and that of my friends it more often turned out to be the case that people who were extroverted and outgoing in social settings wanted the exact opposite sexually. The same held true for introverts, where those who were reserved in social settings tended to like being in charge and taking control in a sexual setting.

The result of this theory was a recipe for sexual frustration because the consequence was that if you wanted to meet someone sexually compatible it meant being with someone who was socially incompatible and vice versa. I know the old adage says that opposites attract but while sex can provide a foundation for a relationship it needs to have more to hold it together than just that, if you aren't socially compatible then you won't last long after the sex-phase wears off.

Looking back on this theory now with many more years of experience, there's still some truth to it but I wouldn't say it's as absolute as I first thought it was. What turns people on and what they enjoy sexually is a lot more complicated and whilst this can serve as a guide, it doesn't serve you well to dismiss people based on perception and expectation without getting to know them first.

I should also point out this theory isn't just the ramblings of an elder Millennial, there have been several dissertations written on this topic and an entire field of Psychology called Sociosexuality that is dedicated to studying this and many other aspects of the intersectionality of sexuality and social interaction.

There is of course another element to this, when you abandon the dichotomy of opposing roles, the kind of guys you meet who conform to plurality tend to carry a lot more red flags it has to be said. When someone is dominant both socially and sexually, it tends to go hand-in-hand with a controlling mentality which while it might not be impossible to embody in a healthy way, the expectation is that it won't end up being healthy. Likewise when someone is submissive both socially and sexually, unless you are comfortable being the one making decisions all the time you will probably be met with a lot of frustration.

I don't really know what to think of this idea anymore, in a perfect world I'd find a guy who was extroverted socially, and dominant sexually, without being controlling and manipulative, who is also comfortable being with someone who is introverted socially, and submissive sexually, who wants a healthy balance in control but that seems too much to ask, it's like saying you want to fuck a unicorn.

I don't think younger generations have it any easier than I did, if anything they probably find this a lot more difficult to navigate than we did. I'm only 36 and I don't mean that to sound patronising or condescending in any way, but I am aware that it does read that way. I make this distinction for the simple reason that a lot has changed in the last 15 years; a 21 year old today lives in a different world to the one that I did at 21.

When I was 21, dating apps were still a novelty and hadn't taken off to the level that they have today, even social networks more broadly still had a sense of novelty and a naissance the lent itself to ignorance. There wasn't such an elevated awareness that online personas don't match the reality of the person when you meet them offline. We still knew that people online lie, and not to take everything at face value, I don't want to say we were naive because we weren't, we took precautions and knew the risks, but the extent to which people curated their online presence didn't exist yet. I graduated in 2009 and I remember a few years later around 2012 there was a movement where people en masse started purging their online content. Every embarrassing photo disappeared and they essentially began airbrushing their lives, both metaphorically and in some cases literally.

If you're 21 today you grew up in that reality, it wasn't something you experienced the transition into, it's something that has always been there, the only thing that has changed with age is your awareness of it growing. When the place you meet someone first is online, and everything you learn about that person is from a feed that you're aware they've curated to give an impression that they think makes them look more desirable, it doesn't really tell you anything about the person, it tells you what they think other people want, it's not even a mirror or a reflection, it's the caricature of themselves they've drawn and presented you with.

The truth is, to get to know anyone online you have to know them long enough to see the cracks appear and see the moments when they share what they really think and feel, it's the posts you see them make and then delete that tell you the most about the person posting them, you see their insecurities, you see their uncensored opinions, you see the things you normally only see and hear when people are in the same room and let their guard down.