# Question for males about sex



## possum (May 4, 2011)

If you met someone that you really liked, would you go out with or decide to stay in a relationship with this person if the person had a condition that meant that you and this person could not have intercourse at the moment. It will take some time to resolve the problem. Would this put you off?


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

I don't cheat. I'm not that selfish.


----------



## Hardstyler (Sep 4, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> I don't cheat. I'm not that selfish.


I'm commited when it comes to relationships. If they want to wait let them its better for you to be emotionally ready.


----------



## SullenAesir (Apr 10, 2011)

Were I to _"really"_ like this person, which is extremely rare for me to find someone that I can honestly say that about, then that may not be much of a problem at all. It depends entirely on what the condition is and how long it would limit our relationship. Worst case scenario, I still would want to remain close friends.


----------



## Doback (Mar 22, 2011)

It all depends on the condition. Typically though, I'm not going to wait around a whole lot for intercourse. If by the 3rd or 4th date we haven't had sex, it is going to become an issue.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

possum said:


> If you met someone that you really liked, would you go out with or decide to stay in a relationship with this person if the person had a condition that meant that you and this person could not have intercourse at the moment. It will take some time to resolve the problem. Would this put you off?


Personally, it would take me months to be comfortable enough with a partner to have sex anyway, so this would not be a problem for me. I can't understand anyone, male or female, who can just go off and have sex with anyone, but that's up to them.


----------



## Veeg (Jan 24, 2011)

If he doesn't wait, he doesn't _really_ like you.


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

Veeg said:


> If he doesn't wait, he doesn't _really_ like you.


It really puzzles me when people say this.
Sometimes, you just can't resist.
That in no way implies that you don't like the person...imho


----------



## Veeg (Jan 24, 2011)

Kr3m1in said:


> It really puzzles me when people say this.
> Sometimes, you just can't resist.
> That in no way implies that you don't like the person...imho


Sure, I can go with that - I mean, personally I'm very sexually driven too. Thing is, if I saw real potential in a girl - and all she asked of me was to wait, then I'd wait. Jack off after you've been with her or whatever, it doesn't get any harder than that. Pun intended.


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

Veeg said:


> Sure, I can go with that - I mean, personally I'm very sexually driven too. Thing is, if I saw real potential in a girl - and all she asked of me was to wait, then I'd wait. Jack off after you've been with her or whatever, it doesn't get any harder than that. Pun intended.


Well if she wants you to wait, that's another story, and her wishes should most definitely be respected. But if you're both ready, I don't see how the wait time says anything about how much you like each other.

I actually once tried to wait, which isn't much like me, truthfully.I mean I never force things, but there rarely is a wait, it's just how it's worked with moi so far.

But this once, I really liked this girl. Who's never been with a girl before and everything, and I was like, I will wait til she's ready to do anything.
On day 3 she starts crying, doubting if I want her, and rips her clothes off.

It was kind of hilarious, because I was just trying to be considerate, but she totally twisted it and threw a fit and literally started to doubt whether I liked her.

And it wasn't a long time either, only 3 days.


----------



## perennialurker (Oct 1, 2009)

If its THE right person, I'd wait for as long as they needed for any reason, not just sex.


----------



## mrscientist (Jul 4, 2010)

Its not a deal breaker at all.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

I don't really expect this from men at all, but somehow this isn't a problem for most guys. I have multiple conditions that can get in the way of regular intercourse (Fibromyalgia and PTSD), and I'm always amazed at how patient some guys can be about it. Of course there's always a few that get freaked out and ditch, but that's fine by me.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

hziegel said:


> I don't really expect this from men at all, but somehow this isn't a problem for most guys. I have multiple conditions that can get in the way of regular intercourse (Fibromyalgia and PTSD), and I'm always amazed at how patient some guys can be about it. Of course there's always a few that get freaked out and ditch, but that's fine by me.


A lot of men are so deep into the societal expectations of their biological sex, as well as being rather immature when it comes to adult relationships, that they are willing to sacrifice what could be a wonderful relationship simply because they don't have the patience to wait for something as trivial as sex (trivial compared to the health of their partner).


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

Ham said:


> It all depends on the condition. Typically though, I'm not going to wait around a whole lot for intercourse. If by the *3rd or 4th date* we haven't had sex, it is going to become an issue.


What is the time frame on this? It seems like a lot of pressure to put on someone. 

I would suppose that people who are mature enough, intelligent enough, and/or have self-esteem wouldn't be pressured into it. But personally, I wouldn't want to pressure anyone.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Kr3m1in said:


> Well if she wants you to wait, that's another story, and her wishes should most definitely be respected. But if you're both ready, I don't see how the wait time says anything about how much you like each other.


To be fair, that's not what the thread is asking. In the OP's situation, the person with the condition is asking their male partner to wait for sex. This means that we should assume that they are not ready or able to have sex.


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

@skycloud86 hello there, Mr. no tangents or alternative interp allowed;P
I know what the thread's asking..also, not a male, so shouldn't have even commented, right?


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

@Kr3m1in grow a penis or GTFO!!!

(or change your gender identity? I assume the OP means biological males :sad

:tongue:

I guess you could make a thread for the_ ladies_.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Kr3m1in said:


> @skycloud86 hello there, Mr. no tangents or alternative interp allowed;P
> I know what the thread's asking..also, not a male, so shouldn't have even commented, right?


I was just pointing out something, and I don't think I or the OP, or anyone else for that matter, has any problem with tangents and alternative interpretation.


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

@Fizz babeh..

per your request, I'll grow a big black one, just like you have.

lulz.

@skycloud86 you're much like my friend skycloud.and that's about all you're much like.
but to satisfy your request, I would wait.After I grow a penis and if the girl is worth it indeed.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Kr3m1in said:


> @skycloud86 you're much like my friend skycloud.and that's about all you're much like.
> but to satisfy your request, I would wait.After I grow a penis and if the girl is worth it indeed.


What request?


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> A lot of men are so deep into the societal expectations of their biological sex, as well as being rather immature when it comes to adult relationships, that they are willing to sacrifice what could be a wonderful relationship simply because they don't have the patience to wait for something as trivial as sex (trivial compared to the health of their partner).


I don't see how it's sacrificing. If he wants sex, he can go have sex with someone else and leave me to other options. If somebody wants a relationship focused around sex, then either I'm mutually interested or I'm out. Any woman who complains that her boyfriend left because she didn't have sex with him for a week is obviously pretty oblivious to the state of her own relationship, and shouldn't be complaining in the first place.


----------



## viva (Aug 13, 2010)

If a dude wanted to dump me because of a _temporary_ medical condition that got in the way of us having sex... I'd be like "K bye! Thank god I didn't invest any more time in this relationship, because you're obviously a douchebag."

Just mah two cents...


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Well due to major surgery i haven't had sex in almost 5 weeks, so don't even get me started, i could go postal. My SO wouldn't even consider leaving me or having sex outside of our relationship. Shit happens, he will wait.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Love is worth waiting for.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Arclight said:


> Love is worth waiting for.


Is sex worth waiting for too? Just wondering.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

hziegel said:


> Is sex worth waiting for too? Just wondering.


If your in a committed relationship it is. If two people claim they are in love, and one doesn't feel it's worth the wait, then apparently there is only 1 person in the relationship in love, the other is in_ lust_


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

hziegel said:


> Is sex worth waiting for too? Just wondering.


What I mean is.. If I love the person then I could wait to have sex.
I suppose I could also get a bit impatient. 
But I can make a sacrifice in the name of real love.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> I don't cheat. I'm not that selfish.


I don't even think that the OP is about cheating, but it's so hard to decipher something so horribly written....




possum said:


> If you met someone that you really liked, would you go out with or decide to stay in a relationship with this person if the person had a condition that meant that you and this person could not have intercourse at the moment. It will take some time to resolve the problem. Would this put you off?


Firstly, ignore this sentence:


> would you go out with or decide to stay in a relationship with this person


It then becomes:


> If you met someone that you really liked, if the person had a condition that meant that you and this person could not have intercourse at the moment. It will take some time to resolve the problem. Would this put you off?


So, the OP is actually asking "Would you date someone if you couldn't have sex with them?".
....In probably the most confusing way ever....






hziegel said:


> Is sex worth waiting for too? Just wondering.


http://www.asylum.com/2010/12/28/by...elaying-sex-improves-long-term-relationships/


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Arclight said:


> What I mean is.. If I love the person then I could wait to have sex.
> I suppose I could also get a bit impatient.
> But I can make a sacrifice in the name of real love.


Yeah, I know. I was wondering if you would wait for love to have sex (meaning only have sex with people you love). Kind of unrelated I guess.


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

possum said:


> If you met someone that you really liked, would you go out with or decide to stay in a relationship with this person if the person had a condition that meant that you and this person could not have intercourse at the moment. It will take some time to resolve the problem. Would this put you off?


I have little interest in sex anyway so i'm more than happy to wait


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

MisterJordan said:


> I don't even think that the OP is about cheating, but it's so hard to decipher something so horribly written....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe this person is not a native speaker of English?
Or maybe they are just not as articulate as you might be?

It's one thing to be helpful and "paraphrase" or offer an interpretation of what someone is saying.
The critical part seems unnecessary and a tad pedantic.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

hziegel said:


> Yeah, I know. I was wondering if you would wait for love to have sex (meaning only have sex with people you love). Kind of unrelated I guess.


When I was younger I was a little more open to having sex with people I just liked..
I suppose even now that might be true. But I prefer to have sex with someone I love.. Sex is always much much better the warmer the intimacy and stronger the bond. 

SO yeah.. I would say waiting to have sex with someone until it's someone you love, is not at all a bad idea.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

MisterJordan said:


> Delaying Sex Improves Long-Term Relationships - Asylum.com


This is a terribly flawed article. How many times must we forget that correlation =/= cause? Perhaps people *decided* to stay in a long-term relationship without sex *because* they were already satisfied in their relationship and thought it was worth the wait. Obviously most people are not going into a six month commitment because they're only looking for sex or a casual fling. I mean, if you're casually dating, you're not going to wait six months to have sex in a relationship. You're going to go out and party, have some good times, and then leave the guy/girl when you get bored or something comes between you. So if we factor into account all of the numerous sexual relationships that most young people have... I think it's pretty OBVIOUS that six months spent with someone you love is going to top most of the two-week flings, yeah.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Arclight said:


> The critical part seems unnecessary and a tad pedantic.


You obviously haven't been to the INTJ forums:

Pedanticism is kind of my thing.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

MisterJordan said:


> You obviously haven't been to the INTJ forums:
> 
> Pedanticism is kind of my thing.



I have _been_ there. Nuff said


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Arclight said:


> I have _been_ there. Nuff said


Today, another INTJ said that I had OCD tendencies.
Something came to mind about 'pots' and 'kettles'...


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

Ham said:


> It all depends on the condition. Typically though, I'm not going to wait around a whole lot for intercourse. If by the 3rd or 4th date we haven't had sex, it is going to become an issue.


I have trouble detecting sarcasm on the internet. Are you trolling, or are you serious?

You might as well have said, "If someone doesn't tear my clothes off within the first five minutes of my having met them, the relationship obviously isn't worth it."


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Ham said:


> It all depends on the condition. Typically though, I'm not going to wait around a whole lot for intercourse. If by the 3rd or 4th date we haven't had sex, it is going to become an issue.


So how is that working for you ? Still single perhaps ? So how well can you get to know a person in 3 or 4 dates ? Unless your the kind of girl who spills her guts out with blab blab blab, diarrhea of the mouth, in 4 dates you really wouldn't know much about a women. What if she had STD's and was waiting to tell you once she knew you better. Would you still be happy if she decided to screw your brains out without waiting ? Then again men who have issues with women not putting out with sex according to their agenda, probably deserve the consequences.


----------



## Peripheral (Jan 8, 2011)

Depends. Sex is kinda the way I display my love I guess, so it could put a strain on my end of the relationship, but I wouldn't leave just because of that. It'd be that in concert with other factors.


----------



## SullenAesir (Apr 10, 2011)

Veeg said:


> If he doesn't wait, he doesn't _really_ like you.


So say I need to "wait" the majority of the rest of *my* life to have sex again, if I do not agree to such a term then I am the "bad" person/I don't really like them? Really, this topic's terms are far too vague for anyone to rationally be making definite statements such as this.


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

SullenAesir said:


> So say I need to "wait" the majority of the rest of *my* life to have sex again, if I do not agree to such a term I am the "bad" person/I don't really like them? Really, this topic's terms are far too vague for anyone to rationally be making definite statements such as this.


Don't worry hun, you can have sex with random people all you want. They're just jelly.


----------



## Agile (Sep 27, 2010)

I am perfectly happy to wait for sex until she is comfortable. However, I don't think I could ever be in a relationship with little physical contact - so I agree with the above poster to know exactly what is fair game. The longer the wait, the more my imagination will go wild, and using this period to build up the passion is a good thing.


----------



## SullenAesir (Apr 10, 2011)

hziegel said:


> Don't worry hun, you can have sex with random people all you want. They're just jelly.


 Wait, where did I say I have sex with "random" people?


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

SullenAesir said:


> Wait, where did I say I have sex with "random" people?


Dunno. Maybe I was making a suggestion. Wink wink nudge nudge, say no more, say no more.


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

possum said:


> If you met someone that you really liked, would you go out with or decide to stay in a relationship with this person if the person had a condition that meant that you and this person could not have intercourse at the moment. It will take some time to resolve the problem. Would this put you off?


I won't answer your questions until you have a few more posts.


----------



## TaylorP (Mar 22, 2011)

As long as we can F*** each other minds intellectually then there is no problem.
Just think of it as if your single, . . . . kinda.


----------



## Dental Floss Tycoon (Apr 4, 2011)

Actually, if a girl got into this position of a relationship with me, I guess I trust, like, respect and consider her worthy enough to have a frank, straightforward talking about it. If she's insecure with something, I'll be patient, understanding and supportive. If she's inexperient, then I'll talk about sex openly, not judge her and be patient. 

So... if she's worth it, she's really worth it. If she's not, then I probably will not even start it.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Yes I would stay, no it wouldn't put me off, just make it that much better when it finally happens again. 

Also I can please myself while we are not physical.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

TaylorP said:


> As long as we can F*** each other minds intellectually then there is no problem.
> Just think of it as if your single, . . . . kinda.


Well, the OP refers to the inability to have _intercourse_.

There's still a _lot _of R-rated fun two people can have that isn't necessarily intercourse.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

hziegel said:


> I don't see how it's sacrificing. If he wants sex, he can go have sex with someone else and leave me to other options. If somebody wants a relationship focused around sex, then either I'm mutually interested or I'm out. Any woman who complains that her boyfriend left because she didn't have sex with him for a week is obviously pretty oblivious to the state of her own relationship, and shouldn't be complaining in the first place.


Firstly, the OP has given a situation where the partner (can be male or female) has asked their male partner to wait for sex because they have a condition. Are you actually saying that men should be selfish and immature and leave their partner simply so they could have sex with someone else?

There's actually a saying going around, "no means no". You may want to look that up before trying to insult women for not obeying their male partners and giving them sex all of the time as if it were their job.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

hziegel said:


> Is sex worth waiting for too? Just wondering.


Love is superior to sex in every way, so yes it is.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Love is superior to sex in every way, so yes it is.


It even has more letters. lol....


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Firstly, the OP has given a situation where the partner (can be male or female) has asked their male partner to wait for sex because they have a condition. Are you actually saying that men should be selfish and immature and leave their partner simply so they could have sex with someone else?
> 
> There's actually a saying going around, "no means no". You may want to look that up before trying to insult women for not obeying their male partners and giving them sex all of the time as if it were their job.


Excuse me, but I think you're taking this way too far. I never once suggested that women should be objectified or be *okay* with ANY of this. I implied that women should be smart enough to figure out whether or not their boyfriend is only interested in her for sex before this even comes up. What the hell does "no means no" have to do with any of this? I know many of the rather pathetic females might thank you for this post because they want to believe that it's not their fault that their relationship failed, but I personally can't stand this kind of idealism. If you think that loving a person should mean you'd go the extra mile to wait, then wouldn't you agree that if a man leaves a woman because of a temporary condition that he didn't love her very much in the first place? And wouldn't that mean that the woman got into a relationship with a man who didn't love her without bothering to make him prove anything to her?

If a man wants to leave a woman for sex, that's not her fault, and there's nothing she can do about it. There's nothing wrong with wanting something different from what your partner wants. If sex is that important to you, then you have probably already made this very clear to your partner, and she's probably aware on some level of this weakness in your relationship.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

hziegel said:


> Excuse me, but I think you're taking this way too far. I never once suggested that women should be objectified or be *okay* with ANY of this. I implied that women should be smart enough to figure out whether or not their boyfriend is only interested in her for sex before this even comes up.


Of course women should be smart enough to figure that out, as should men. Even so, if a man thought that the relationship could be a really good, long-term one, yet finishes it because he couldn't wait for sex, that's hardly the woman's fault.



> What the hell does "no means no" have to do with any of this?


"Any woman who complains that her boyfriend left because she didn't have sex with him for a week" is what you wrote. A week is not that long, and any woman, or man for that matter, who complains about their partner leaving them because they didn't get sex for a whole week is in the right. Why should someone have to potentially lose a relationship simply because their partner couldn't wait a week for sex?



> I know many of the rather pathetic females might thank you for this post because they want to believe that it's not their fault that their relationship failed, but I personally can't stand this kind of idealism. If you think that loving a person should mean you'd go the extra mile to wait, then wouldn't you agree that if a man leaves a woman because of a temporary condition that he didn't love her very much in the first place?


I agree that he wouldn't have loved her very much, but the OP's situation is taking place at the start of the relationship. It's not like they had been together for a while and had been having sex on a regular basis.



> And wouldn't that mean that the woman got into a relationship with a man who didn't love her without bothering to make him prove anything to her?


It's at the start of the relationship, so this could be a very good situation in which the woman in such a situation could make him prove something to her.



> If a man wants to leave a woman for sex, that's not her fault, and there's nothing she can do about it. There's nothing wrong with wanting something different from what your partner wants. If sex is that important to you, then you have probably already made this very clear to your partner, and she's probably aware on some level of this weakness in your relationship.


Of course, I agree, but what if he loved her yet still left her because he wanted sex?


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

@skycloud86 Where did all of this raging Fi come from? I'm not talking about morality.

"any woman, or man for that matter, who complains about their partner leaving them because they didn't get sex for a whole week is in the right." Where do you get this from? What makes them in the right? Is it a *gasp* universal truth, that all men who leave a woman for sex are wrong? I have no Fi, and I'm not going to argue absolute morality with you, which you seem to bring into every thread in this particular forum.

"Of course, I agree, but what if he loved her yet still left her because he wanted sex?"
Then he made a choice. His priority was sex over love. They are two separate and unrelated brain functions, and I see no reason why one should be valued over the other. If someone, man or woman, makes that choice to leave their partner for something else, then they clearly did not place their partner in top priority. While biblically this is looking pretty bad, rationally there is no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with a man who prioritizes sex over love, and it is in fact an evolutionary advantage.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

hziegel said:


> @skycloud86 Where did all of this raging Fi come from? I'm not talking about morality.


What do you mean by "raging Fi"?



> "any woman, or man for that matter, who complains about their partner leaving them because they didn't get sex for a whole week is in the right." Where do you get this from? What makes them in the right? Is it a *gasp* universal truth, that all men who leave a woman for sex are wrong?


Why bother starting a relationship if something like lack of sex can end it?



> I have no Fi, and I'm not going to argue absolute morality with you, which you seem to bring into every thread in this particular forum.


I'm fairly sure everyone has all eight cognitive functions, so you must have some Fi. Is it a problem if I do allegedly bring absolute morality into every thread on this forum? Also, which forum do you mean? Sex and Relationships, or PerC as a whole?



> "Of course, I agree, but what if he loved her yet still left her because he wanted sex?"
> Then he made a choice. His priority was sex over love. They are two separate and unrelated brain functions, and I see no reason why one should be valued over the other. If someone, man or woman, makes that choice to leave their partner for something else, then they clearly did not place their partner in top priority. While biblically this is looking pretty bad, rationally there is no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with a man who prioritizes sex over love, and it is in fact an evolutionary advantage.


I personally could not care less what the bible says, and I agree that it is an evolutionary advantage, but if someone is not willing to wait for sex, why are they then also willing to go into a relationship where such a situation may happen?


----------



## devoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Why don't you ask the numerous men who do this? Some of them probably aren't looking for love in a relationship, or don't value their partner very much. And yes, it bothers me that you bring absolute morality into every thread. It especially bothers me since Fi is supposed to be your weakest shadow function as an "INTP" and yet you use it in every post. I feel like you are completely unaware of how illogical your posts are, and instead try to act as if absolute ethics are something that everyone is born completely understanding. You don't say "I would never do that because I feel that it is wrong." Instead you say, "Nobody should ever do that because it is wrong." You come on these threads imposing your personal views on everyone and acting as if you have the final say on what is right and wrong. NOTHING about your posts is a sign that you have developed your personality in your time here, or that you are even aware of what that personality is. You've been here longer than any of us, and yet you're still mistyping yourself. Why?


----------



## carson (Jan 21, 2011)

possum said:


> If you met someone that you really liked, would you go out with or decide to stay in a relationship with this person if the person had a condition that meant that you and this person could not have intercourse at the moment. It will take some time to resolve the problem. Would this put you off?


what she wants + what I want + random chance issues = result/decision


----------



## Hardstyler (Sep 4, 2010)

I like how were answering a person who only posted once and hasn't decided to post again... now were all arguing with each other lol... looks like this attracted too much attention.


----------



## carson (Jan 21, 2011)

Hardstyler said:


> I like how were answering a person who only posted once and hasn't decided to post again... now were all arguing with each other lol... looks like this attracted too much attention.


I suppose so, but it's still a valid question regardless who asked it. We've all looked deep within or without our hearts, or deeper, maybe too deep... maybe into our own asses... and dug up gems of self knowledge. Tis the beauty of PerC.


----------



## Hardstyler (Sep 4, 2010)

lol. This is a interesting topic. very controversial


----------



## SullenAesir (Apr 10, 2011)

carson said:


> I suppose so, but it's still a valid question regardless who asked it.


It's too vague to really be considered valid, it lacks the proper specification for debate/statements of definites. This "condition" could last for one week, one month, or upwards of decades. Different time frames would result in vastly different views of the question from rational individuals.



Hardstyler said:


> I like how were answering a person who only posted once and hasn't decided to post again... now were all arguing with each other lol... looks like this attracted too much attention.


Yeah, but at least it offered the opportunity needed for @hziegel and @*skycloud86 *to release some of this built up sexual tension they have toward eachother.


----------



## Hardstyler (Sep 4, 2010)

SullenAesir said:


> It's too vague to really be considered valid, it lacks the proper specification for debate/statements of definites. This "condition" could last for one week, one month, or upwards of decades. Different time frames would result in vastly different views of the question from rational individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


haha lawlz 10charz


----------



## carson (Jan 21, 2011)

SullenAesir said:


> It's too vague to really be considered valid, it lacks the proper specification for debate/statements of definites. This "condition" could last for one week, one month, or upwards of decades. Different time frames would result in vastly different views of the question from rational individuals.


I thought it was quite clear: a "moment" that "takes some time". Clearly talking about life in a paralell universe, perhaps someone you meet at the black hole transfer station. I mean, we've all done it, waiting for compression into anti-matter and suddenly meeting that special someone who needs a good rogering, but your cock has just made the jump to sector 46K/345.a. Confusion ensues.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

hziegel said:


> Why don't you ask the numerous men who do this? Some of them probably aren't looking for love in a relationship, or don't value their partner very much.


Those men are usually like that because they've been brought up in a society which values men over women, masculinity over femininity, and sex over love. I admit that they aren't necessarily wrong in thinking like that, but they are not necessarily right either.



> And yes, it bothers me that you bring absolute morality into every thread. It especially bothers me since Fi is supposed to be your weakest shadow function as an "INTP" and yet you use it in every post.


It may be the weakest shadow function of an INTP, but I don't see why an INTP couldn't use Fi as much as any other function, or develop their Fi.

Here's my results from last month when I took a cognitive functions test. Would you agree with these results, and do you see them as results a typical INTP would get?

Your*Cognitive*Functions
Introverted Thinking (Ti) ||||||||||||||||||||||| 10.53
Introverted Intuition (Ni) ||||||||||||||||||| 8.6
Extroverted Thinking (Te) ||||||||||||||||||| 8.54
Extroverted Intuition (Ne) |||||||||||||||| 7.26
Introverted Sensation (Si) ||||||||| 3.64
Extroverted Feeling (Fe) |||||||| 3.34
Introverted Feeling (Fi) ||||||| 2.88
Extroverted Sensation (Se) |||| 1.37

Your Introverted Thinking (Ti) is very developed.
Your Extroverted Intuition (Ne) is moderate.
Your Introverted Intuition (Ni) is moderate.
Your Introverted Sensation (Si) is moderate.
Your Extroverted Thinking (Te) is moderate.
Your Extroverted Feeling (Fe) is moderate.
Your Introverted Feeling (Fi) is moderate.
Your Extroverted Sensation (Se) is low. 



> I feel like you are completely unaware of how illogical your posts are, and instead try to act as if absolute ethics are something that everyone is born completely understanding. You don't say "I would never do that because I feel that it is wrong." Instead you say, "Nobody should ever do that because it is wrong."


I can see what you mean, and I should probably change the way I word my posts in order to show my opinion. 



> You come on these threads imposing your personal views on everyone and acting as if you have the final say on what is right and wrong.


I don't think I do. It's not like my post suddenly has to be agreed to by everyone and ends the thread immediately. Posting my opinion, admittedly in a rather absolute way like you've pointed out, does not mean I'm forcing it on anyone.



> NOTHING about your posts is a sign that you have developed your personality in your time here, or that you are even aware of what that personality is.


How many of my 17,000 plus posts are you basing that on?



> You've been here longer than any of us, and yet you're still mistyping yourself. Why?


Probably because I'm not mistyping myself at all. What type do you believe I am, if I'm supposedly mistyping myself?


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

SullenAesir said:


> Yeah, but at least it offered the opportunity needed for @hziegel and @*skycloud86 *to release some of this built up sexual tension they have toward eachother.


I don't have any sexual tension with anyone, nor do I even known hziegel enough to have developed any sexual tension toward her.


----------



## IonOfAeons (Dec 2, 2010)

To interrupt this debate, I'll answer the question, which I don't think is that badly phrased, most people seem to be able to extrapolate 'could you wait for sex if a woman asked you to as a condition of being able to date them?' from it.

First, yes I could wait, in fact sometimes there are actually *males* who want to wait. I'm a case in point, I'm not ready yet and my girlfriend is respecting my wishes, we're 'sleeping together' in the sense that we regularly share a bed but we're not actually having sex, that's the way I want it right now and she's fine with it being that way, though we're agreed that this isn't an indefinite thing.

For some people sex is an important part of a relationship and for some people it helps them to find out if they're compatible with a person, so it's a little unfair to say it's always a shallow thing, on the other hand no person should ever be blamed for not wanting to have sex with someone immediately or soon after meeting them, we all have our boundaries that we're within our rights to make and present to potential partners.

If a person is unwilling to wait because they care more about having sex than about their partner's feelings then that person is at least somewhat immature and insensitive in my opinion, it doesn't matter to me that they have the right to feel that way, I equally have the right to believe that they should not subject another person to that kind of callous treatment.


----------



## Kr3m1in (Jan 16, 2011)

@hziegel you need to relax...here, have a popsicle *hands you one*

and @skycloud86 is a total INTP.
he can use any functions he damn well pleases.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

IonOfAeons said:


> First, yes I could wait, in fact sometimes there are actually *males* who want to wait. I'm a case in point, I'm not ready yet and my girlfriend is respecting my wishes, we're 'sleeping together' in the sense that we regularly share a bed but we're not actually having sex, that's the way I want it right now and she's fine with it being that way, though we're agreed that this isn't an indefinite thing.


I would hope there were men other than myself who would wait in such a situation. 



> For some people sex is an important part of a relationship and for some people it helps them to find out if they're compatible with a person, so it's a little unfair to say it's always a shallow thing, on the other hand no person should ever be blamed for not wanting to have sex with someone immediately or soon after meeting them, we all have our boundaries that we're within our rights to make and present to potential partners.


I agree fully. Personally, I would have to be months into a relationship before I felt fully comfortable having sex.



> If a person is unwilling to wait because they care more about having sex than about their partner's feelings then that person is at least somewhat immature and insensitive in my opinion, it doesn't matter to me that they have the right to feel that way, I equally have the right to believe that they should not subject another person to that kind of callous treatment.


Again, I agree.


----------



## angularvelocity (Jun 15, 2009)

possum said:


> If you met someone that you really liked, would you go out with or decide to stay in a relationship with this person if the person had a condition that meant that you and this person could not have intercourse at the moment. It will take some time to resolve the problem. Would this put you off?


Uhhh, totally stay. If I was going to date someone, that probably means I've liked them A LOT for some time. Something like sex can be put off for whatever reasons. Even if it was years I'd be okay with it. There are other things that can be shared intimately, cuddling, kissing, etc. Oh yeah - plus she'd have hands and a mouth, LOL.


----------



## UserFriendly (Apr 10, 2011)

If I really liked her, I'd stay. As long as the situation can be rectified, that's good enough for me.

It's not like you can't be intimate without sex...get creative.


----------



## Christina Breann (May 8, 2011)

perennialurker said:


> If its THE right person, I'd wait for as long as they needed for any reason, not just sex.


i.e.: getting out of the shower/bathroom, walking out the door while you're waiting in the car, shopping...? 


: D



> If I really liked her, I'd stay. As long as the situation can be rectified, that's good enough for me.
> 
> It's not like you can't be intimate without sex...get creative.


*flashbacks of this movie 



 *


----------



## Mithrandir (May 10, 2011)

Totally stay, intercourse is one option among numerous fun and satisfying 'passtimes', and besides, waiting will make it that much better when it's time!


----------



## Kriash (May 5, 2011)

I could most definitely wait.
But I guess I'm slightly bias because I would want someone to wait for me if it came to that.
I am not a sexual person, I am attracted to men, but I'm pretty much asexual. Of course, with the right person I would be happy to have sex, because I love them, and it may even become something enjoyable. But at this point, I've never met anyone I have felt like that with, and to be honest, sex at this point with anyone is bad for the both of us, I'm not into it, they feel that, and it just doesn't go anywhere.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

possum said:


> If you met someone that you really liked, would you go out with or decide to stay in a relationship with this person if the person had a condition that meant that you and this person could not have intercourse at the moment. It will take some time to resolve the problem. Would this put you off?


It depends. Depends on how much I like them. Whether I saw the relationship going anywhere, whether she did. I'd stick it out for as long as it felt "right." But if i thought it was going south, I'd leave instead of cheat.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

It wouldn't put me off. I've never had sex, so what am I missing? Also, there is outercourse with things such as hands, braests, thighs, and so on.


----------



## Catenaccio (May 2, 2011)

I'm kind of in this position at the moment have been for about a month. Got a lot of built-up tension. Though for now I haven't strayed from the course. But at least I know that we'll have sex by the end of the month. Otherwise who knows if I would have stayed with it.


----------



## NekoNinja (Apr 18, 2010)

The way I see it, there are three ways in which sex is important to people. 
1. pleasure
2. closer intimacy with SO
3. reproduction

A guy who leaves someone because they aren't having sex is most obviously not doing it for the second reason, they just left their SO. And according to the context of the question they probably aren't doing it for the third reason either. So this means that the guy finds his sexual pleasure to be more important than the SO. In my opinion, someone who finds pleasure more important than a relationship is not worth being with. If someone leaves me because of a stupid reason like that, Id be glad they left. It was most likely inevitable anyways.


----------



## Shemp (Mar 29, 2011)

If I was in a relationship with a girl who I really clicked with but she didn't want to have sex for various reasons that's okay. Sex is fun, sex is the most intense physical expression of love and passion but I can do without it for awhile I'm not going to cheat.


----------



## Azelll (Jan 19, 2011)

Nope, i can/could wait a millions years if it was for the girl I loved!


----------



## Paeter (May 18, 2011)

It depends on how long it will take. If I had other options then a month or two would be OK, three months is pushing it, more than that is really pushing it. A year would be too hard. I'd have to _really, really, really_ like the girl. Sex is all important for most men. Otherwise, there's no point. Although, personally, I don't have many options so I'd probably do the lame thing and wait. I'm assuming he does have options though.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

Would I wait for that reason? Yes. 

Would I stick around to wait just because they want me to wait? Probably not. Most people who have wanted me to wait have been sexually or emotionally inexperienced. I'm not looking for that at this point. It seems to always end in the woman suddenly hitting that limbo between 20 and 25 of "oh my god, I can do whatever I want PARTYYYYY". 

Bottom line is that a complete relationship includes sex. I can do without intercourse for a while, especially if there's a reason for it, but I'm not going to get into something where I'm predetermined for an arbitrary reason to go without. Intercourse is only one type of sexual contact.


----------



## DefLeppardTShirt (Oct 22, 2010)

possum said:


> if the person had a condition that meant that you and this person could not have intercourse at the moment.


there would have to be handjobs, oral, or something, otherwise it's a friendship and I'd be pursuing someone else romantically


----------



## 69waystolove (Jun 5, 2011)

possum said:


> If you met someone that you really liked, would you go out with or decide to stay in a relationship with this person if the person had a condition that meant that you and this person could not have intercourse at the moment. It will take some time to resolve the problem. Would this put you off?


No though I love sex, sex for me is just a benefit of a relationship not the foundation. If she wanted to wait for whatever reason I would support her.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

I'd do it. Women have hands, thighs, and breasts that you can rub against.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

possum said:


> If you met someone that you really liked, would you go out with or decide to stay in a relationship with this person if the person had a condition that meant that you and this person could not have intercourse at the moment. It will take some time to resolve the problem. Would this put you off?


Why is it a problem? I'd like for you to expand a bit before I respond. Welcome to the forums.


----------



## 7rr7s (Jun 6, 2011)

I wouldn't wait around too long. 3 dates max. I'm not going to wait around a month, 6 months, a year to find out that she's bad in bed, inexperienced, frigid ect. Why waste your time like that? Having a nice personality and having a real connection is good and all, but you can't have sex with a personality.


----------



## William I am (May 20, 2011)

KindOfBlue06 said:


> I wouldn't wait around too long. 3 dates max. I'm not going to wait around a month, 6 months, a year to find out that she's bad in bed, inexperienced, frigid ect. Why waste your time like that? Having a nice personality and having a real connection is good and all, but you can't have sex with a personality.


3 dates?? Damn. I usually don't want to have sex with anyone until a month or so in at the earliest. Unless I'm realllly into them. Even then 3 dates is way too short for me to decide to show them how AWESOME I am in bed (inside ENTP joke about AWESOME being in every post)

The truth behind the joke is that we ENTPs are slow to trust someone and sex takes trust for me.
Did you see the "sex: physical or emotional?" thread? Is it more physical for you? How/why so fast?


----------



## 69waystolove (Jun 5, 2011)

Cheveyo said:


> I don't cheat. I'm not that selfish.


I'm with Cheveyo...I don't cheat and am loyal till the end. I also generally don't break up with people especially to be with someone else.


----------



## xxjamaleexx (Feb 5, 2011)

Real talk. I don't date girls expecting to have sex. I date them because I'm truly attracted to them and I love being around them. My sex drive isn't really that strong. If it happens then it happens if not, at least I got to spend time with her. And if she wants to wait, then that's fine.


----------

