Egalitarian Sexual Intimacy

All interpersonal sexual acts are in one sense intimate, since they at the very least involve bodily closeness of a kind that would otherwise not be a part of interacting with others.  Whether or not emotional affection, closeness, and introspection is a part of a sexual act with a partner, much less sexual attraction derived from visually, the act is a physically intimate thing.  The strongest, most lasting, and most philosophically and personally stimulating sex with a partner, though, is always that which involves a connection of every level: physical, emotional, and, for those who feel it, visual attraction.  Sex could still be pleasurable with only some of these things present, yes, yet a couple that has the chance to bond on all levels possible will find a deeper sexual intimacy when their sexual relationship draws from the full scope of their humanity and individuality.

This both leaves no room for sexual objectification by either party--women sexually objectifying men by dismissing or denying all aspects of them but their sex appeal is no less dehumanizing or destructive than when men do this to women--and it also entails sincere commitment and a desire to bond on every level as lovers and partners.  Ideally, the members of a couple can experience mutual sexual attraction to each other's particular bodies and personalities as they share a common but independent devotion to reason and rationalism (non-rationalists cannot even understand sexuality, dating, marriage, and general relationships free of assumptions, errors, and lack of clarity on some level).  Complementarian is both logically/philosophically and Biblically false, one of its ramifications being that a couple can never mutually bond on a sexual level to this fullest extent possible.

The form of complementarianism popular in America holds that men have no emotional/relational side to their sexuality (which is already false because sexual attraction is a type of emotion) or little of it and that women have little to no visual side to their sexuality.  This can be proven false with a few seconds of looking to reason to see that the concept of having a male or female body does not entail these other characteristics or lack of them, but most complementarians think the Bible leads them to these conclusions.  Not only does the Bible not teach this and actively teach otherwise, but it would be idiotic for God to intentionally make men and women have conflicting nonphysical traits when it comes to sexuality or other things.  What would be the point of trying to bring "unity" by making men and women predisposed to misunderstand or clash with each other?  There is no benefit at all to this!

Complementarian errors hinder the deepest sexual intimacy by stereotyping men and women and then calling these assumptions the key to marital bliss.  In reality, sexual stereotypes, like all stereotypes, are demonstrably false and even the smaller consequences can severely diminish or thwart sexual and nonsexual intimacy.  Complementarianism is false with or without these destructive or unwanted consequences.  Its inherent epistemological assumptions and inherent errors that can be rationalistically disproven without assumptions make sure of that.  Still, spouses who want true sexual intimacy on a holistic level will never find it as compmementarians.  The best they can hope for calls woefully short of assumption-free self-awareness and intimacy with their partners.