Although I have a few problems with the approach that Schnarch uses, I still think his underlying principle is sound. I think sexual attraction and drive come directly from intimacy and EC. What I hear you saying keeps sounding like some kind of higher order rationalization to put another wall around you. The assumption that you are HD is wrong IMO. You are high drive for acceptance, which causes you to be high drive for sex. How did you feel as that girl in the white dress, walking back from a sexual encounter? Did you feel accepted, whole, loved? Isn’t that feeling what you are trying to get back to? Don’t you feel further from that when you and your H are distant and sex is lacking?
Romanticism is fine and good, but as we will see with Lord Grenville, it can also be a way of hiding. It paints the world as you would like it to be, not as it really is, and anything that creates an illusion, no matter how innocent it may seem, cannot foster real vulnerability.
Also, I agree with you about Blackfoot. I’ve started to reply to his thoughts several times, but there is a lot of good in what he says. Like anything else, taken too far it can become harmful. I see some of his ideas as being just another way of protecting himself from getting hurt, then justifying it as weakness on the part of the woman because she couldn’t pass some test. True intimacy and vulnerability require no test. They only require honesty an self knowledge without delusion. Not an easy thing to do.
