# Come on... Is sex really that important?



## Marshmallow Moo (Sep 19, 2011)

Come on. I've been browsing these threads and I've come to realize see that there is a surprising amount of people who seem to think sex is actually a _necessity_ in relationships. ....Really? In my experience, sex has proved only to damage and dirty a relationship. Since most people do not wait until they are married for intercourse, sex is unlikely to be as intimiate and emotional as it could be and clouds growth between people so their interactions are consumed by lust rather than love. 

I am not a prude for saying this. Research has indicated that sex really is damaging to the emotional health of a relationship.
Want the secret to a happy marriage? Don't have sex before the wedding | Mail Online
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20101227/theres-benefits-in-delaying-sex-until-marriage

Honestly. I'm amazed at how many people think that waiting over a month in a relationship to have sex is "too long" and witholding sex for any amount of time is "selfish." Are people really so attached to their carnal desires that they aren't aware of what's good for them and what's not? 

Now to avoid sounding biased, I am quite aware that physical affection IS important in relationships. I am also in no way condemning those who have chosen to have multiple partners and have a lax view on sex. I simply think that it's time to look at what is really important in love. If you're just interested in sex, why not just have sex? If you're interested in love and looking for something substantial, then it's not sex you're looking for. Those are two different things. One can compliment the other, but they're not a packaged deal. Sex is not necessary. It is desirable. Our bodies crave it like water. But in the end it does nothing to solidify human bonds. Think about this the next time you think you deserve sex or if your partner asks it from you. Have sex because you're in love. Don't love because you have sex. 

Well, those are my two cents anyway. I now throw myself to the wolves. Tear it apart, internet.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Yeah, a piece of paper signed under god and government makes sex more sacred, and meaningful. Its only then that the whole yanno, oxytocin bonding thing happens - where human bonding hormones make two people feel closer.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Marshmallow Moo said:


> Honestly. I'm amazed at how many people think that waiting over a month in a relationship to have sex is "too long" and witholding sex for any amount of time is "selfish." Are people really so attached to their carnal desires that they aren't aware of what's good for them and what's not?


*shrug* My last relationship it was four months before my girlfriend and I first had sex, and I've been in a relationship before in which my girlfriend and I didn't have sex at all during the relationship. I also don't believe being in a relationship entitles one to sex on demand. Though I realize that I am hardly representive of "the average red-blooded male," as I've often been reminded.


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

Sex is why we have bodies.


----------



## The Grand Vizer (Aug 25, 2012)

Promethea:2915776 said:


> Yeah, a piece of paper signed under god and government makes sex more sacred, and meaningful. Its only then that the whole yanno, oxytocin bonding thing happens - where human bonding hormones make two people feel closer.


 Government has little to actually do with marriage. It's just that big brother can find use with that information. As for it's purpose I believe marriage is supposed to be a solemn vow pledging oneself to each other. I suppose it's supposed to be romantic or something. Anyways I've never believed it as necessary for a relationship, but given that I only seek relationships with cerebral stimulation I'm quite biased on this subject.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

I don't think sex is necessary in a relationship even if you're married. If you like it, have it. I suggest you be careful if you're promiscuous, though. AIDS still has no cure. If you don't want sex, and your partner is okay with that, that's also okay. Marriage doesn't make it more special, though. What makes it special is the level of commitment. Anybody can engage in sex, even with many people, but not many are willing to commit to have sex with only one person for the remainder of their lives. Commitment is what matters to me, sex or no sex.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

> Sex is not necessary. It is desirable. Our bodies crave it like water. .


Can you live without water?

How often do you drink water? (liquids that contain water)

No relationship will last without sex. And if it lasts it's because one partner is cheating. I've seen it way too many times.

Just like you need "affection/love" and whatever else you consider love, it's the same others want sex. For some reason you see sex as something dirty. I see words of affection as something stupid. Doesn't mean I'll just generalize that everyone who says words of affection is stupid....

You get what I'm saying? It's only YOUR perspective. And it's wrong because:

1. Most people love sex.
2. You're seeing sex as something bad... why?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Can you live without water?
> 
> 
> No relationship will last without sex. And if it lasts it's because one partner is cheating.


False.


----------



## Joseph (Jun 20, 2012)

Yes, it is that important. To the point where if a girl was against sexual intimacy in relationships, I probably wouldn't be interested.

Sometimes I read those stats, wish I waited, and didn't have a lot of premarital sex,. Then I remember marriage is meaningless, everyone I know is unmarried and has had sex. So meeting these elusive (and fetishized) virgins is unlikely.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

josue0098 said:


> False.


How old are you and what was your longest relationship?


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Plus how are you supposed to have babies? Would we exist if it wasn't for sex? If sex is bad then babies are bad then we shouldn't exist.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> How old are you and what was your longest relationship?


21. 10 months and counting, still no sex and there seems to be none in the foreseeable future.

Asking that is irrelevant, anyway. Your generalization just shows how YOU view a relationship. If you think you could not be in a sexless relationship, then that's your view. I know a few people that are in sexless relationships and neither is cheating. Maybe you base relationships on physical proximity, but others base theirs on what is important to them.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Plus how are you supposed to have babies? Would we exist if it wasn't for sex? If sex is bad then babies are bad then we shouldn't exist.


Was that supposed to be for me, or for the OP?


----------



## The Grand Vizer (Aug 25, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game:2915925 said:


> Plus how are you supposed to have babies? Would we exist if it wasn't for sex? If sex is bad then babies are bad then we shouldn't exist.


 And where in the OP does it say sex is bad? As far as why I find needless and shallow sex revolting, go watch the movie "idiocracy".


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

josue0098 said:


> 21. 10 months and counting, still no sex and there seems to be none in the foreseeable future.
> 
> Asking that is irrelevant, anyway. Your generalization just shows how YOU view a relationship. If you think you could not be in a sexless relationship, then that's your view. I know a few people that are in sexless relationships and neither is cheating. Maybe you base relationships on physical proximity, but others base theirs on what is important to them.


You are young. You'll change your mind when you get older, I guarantee it. I don't know how old the people are that you're talking about (in sexless relationships), but I don't know anyone (guy or girl) who is, was or will ever be in a sexless relationship. I mean I heard a few girls that don't like sex very often but their partners aren't very happy and most of them cheat.

This is not just MY view of a relationship, this is from my observations of other people. Of course I didn't meet EVERYONE in the world so it's possible that there are a few who still believe this (although i doubt it)... however, you are 21 and that is very relevant, and you will see why when you're older... I don't know any guy who is older and agrees with you, unless he has some religious belief about sex or something I dunno...


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

josue0098 said:


> Was that supposed to be for me, or for the OP?


For the OP but you can respond if you wish.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

The Grand Vizer said:


> And where in the OP does it say sex is bad? As far as why I find needless and shallow sex revolting, go watch the movie "idiocracy".





> In my experience, sex has proved only to damage and dirty a relationship


From that, and also the way the post was written... 

You find sex revolting because of a movie?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> For the OP but you can respond if you wish.
> You are young. You'll change your mind when you get older, I guarantee it. I don't know how old the people are that you're talking about (in sexless relationships), but I don't know anyone (guy or girl) who is, was or will ever be in a sexless relationship. I mean I heard a few girls that don't like sex very often but their partners aren't very happy and most of them cheat.
> 
> This is not just MY view of a relationship, this is from my observations of other people. Of course I didn't meet EVERYONE in the world so it's possible that there are a few who still believe this (although i doubt it)... however, you are 21 and that is very relevant, and you will see why when you're older... I don't know any guy who is older and agrees with you, unless he has some religious belief about sex or something I dunno...
> ...


I've felt the same way my whole life. I don't see any reason why I should leave or cheat on my partner just because we don't have sex. And it's not just because she doesn't like it, it's because we just don't feel like it. If we ever do have sex, then great, but I'm not with her just so I can get in her pants, and it's not even in my list of priorities. You know less than 1% of the human population, so your experience is really insignificant fi you're basing it on the people you've met. There are MANY people that have sexless relationships, some involuntary, but quite a few are voluntary. There are forums for people that are unable or unwilling or indifferent to sex, for people that just don't have it. I've only known one person older than me that thinks this way, and although just one person means nothing when compared to the rest of humans, it does weigh on your claim that "No relationship will last without sex", considering he had been married for 20 sexless years. AND THEY WERE HAPPY! Anyway, sexless relationships CAN last.

Also, you have babies by having sex. That has nothing to do with what most people are talking about here, which is sex for pleasure. Also, the OP never said sex was bad.


----------



## The Grand Vizer (Aug 25, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game:2915985 said:


> The Grand Vizer said:
> 
> 
> > And where in the OP does it say sex is bad? As far as why I find needless and shallow sex revolting, go watch the movie "idiocracy".
> ...


 First, the OP amends the statement when they acknowledg that it IS important. Second I did not say that I find sex revolting. I said "needless" and "shallow" sex as revolting. Primarily because in those regards you would only be having sex to satiate your animal impulses. As for the movie, I brought it up because it is a fairly humorous movie that contains what I already believed. In no way did the movie actually influence my thoughts.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

josue0098 said:


> I've felt the same way my whole life. I don't see any reason why I should leave or cheat on my partner just because we don't have sex. And it's not just because she doesn't like it, it's because we just don't feel like it. If we ever do have sex, then great, but I'm not with her just so I can get in her pants, and it's not even in my list of priorities. You know less than 1% of the human population, so your experience is really insignificant fi you're basing it on the people you've met. There are MANY people that have sexless relationships, some involuntary, but quite a few are voluntary. There are forums for people that are unable or unwilling or indifferent to sex, for people that just don't have it. I've only known one person older than me that thinks this way, and although just one person means nothing when compared to the rest of humans, it does weigh on your claim that "No relationship will last without sex", considering he had been married for 20 sexless years. AND THEY WERE HAPPY! Anyway, sexless relationships CAN last.
> 
> Also, you have babies by having sex. That has nothing to do with what most people are talking about here, which is sex for pleasure. Also, the OP never said sex was bad.


Your whole life is 21 years. When I was younger I've observed people that age that said similar things to you and the OP. 

There are forums about people complaining their partners don't want sex. You show me a forum with people in sexless relationships (people older then 21), where both partners are ok with it. 

I've met PEOPLE who believe like you yes. But not people IN RELATIONSHIPS. Not people in happy relationships anyway. The ones that I knew ended up breaking up, growing apart, cheating or divorcing. Ya I don't know all the people in the world, but I'm a very good observer and listener, and I know stories from people that told other stories, etc... I feel like I know enough people where I should know at least ONE sexless relationship that works. And I don't.

You're saying you know one relationship like that, where they're not having sex voluntarily? And they've been together for 20 years and they're happy? How old are they? Why aren't they having sex? Both partners confirmed to you that they are happy and not cheating? (both partners in the absence of each other of course)... 

Anyway, we don't have to argue about this, I only said my point of view and I feel very strongly about it. We can continue this debate if you want but I'm not sure it's necessary, you won't change my mind.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Paradox1987 said:


> Conflict Resolution - observe bonobos. They have conflicts, but rather than resolving with aggression, they resolve it with sex.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

It's subjective, even though mostly unanimous. Seems pretty _awesome_ to me, but important? That can imply a pedestal that I just don't put it on.


----------



## Laney (Feb 20, 2012)

It's pretty important to me. So much so that if my husband cut it off today my happiness would drastically decline. That would be a friendship and not a marriage.


----------



## m73m95 (Aug 25, 2012)

If you don't think sex is important to a relationship, then you might not be doing it right :happy:


A completely giving of yourself, your soul, your emotions, your spirit...your everything, to the person you love is real magic. When you lose yourself in the moment, and only you and your partner exist in the entire world.... sweaty, naked bodies rubbing together, making as much contact as possible. Its medicine for the soul. Its spiritual.

Of course you can cheapen it, and use it as a took to "get off"...but that's not sex. That's fuckin'. It has its place too. But, I would tend to agree that relationships can thrive without fuckin'.

Relationships are doomed without sex though. It is a needed thing. I would imagine the divorce rate is so high now days because people like to fuck. Real, honest, love making sex are all but gone. Its been left behind in the world of porn, and "image". Its not "cool" to make love anymore.


----------



## Hosker (Jan 19, 2011)

Waiting until marriage seems pointless and arbitrary. I don't see why the amount of time between starting the relationship and having sex matters, nor why people seem to take pride in denying their sex drives.


----------



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

saintless said:


> I was speaking more against negative connotations rather than strict denotations.
> 
> You are, for what it's worth, right. However, you can take your words and apply the same concept to hunger or thirst or the need for shelter. At the end of the day, we are only animals that eat, sleep, and fuck. However, we humans have this capacity for expressed emotions unlike any other species. Sex, first and foremost, is a reproductive mechanism, however it also has other more secondary functions such as emotional fulfillment---something that is more or less crucial to our human existence.
> 
> ...


I suppose the problem is that what you consider necessarily "negative", I don't, and perceive as the reality. The emotional bonding that comes as a result of sex is your brain dumping a bunch of hormones so you don't run off on your mate and offspring. That's not to say it isn't real, if anything it's more real than some sort of spiritual soul bonding (not trying to imply that's what you think it is, just saying that's the common perception), but every effect that comes as a result of sex really is "primitive", and isn't really different from what any mammal goes through.

As for the clothes metaphor, the same principle applies to any mammal, male peacocks have flashy feathers to attract the ladies, male mountain goats and stags have large horns to show off their "manliness". All I'm saying is that humans haven't achieved any sort of higher plane in connection when it comes to sex, it's basically the same as when man was living in caves (except it isn't as acceptable to do it in public anymore).


----------



## gammagon (Aug 8, 2012)

Marshmallow Moo said:


> Come on. I've been browsing these threads and I've come to realize see that there is a surprising amount of people who seem to think sex is actually a _necessity_ in relationships. ....Really? In my experience, sex has proved only to damage and dirty a relationship. Since most people do not wait until they are married for intercourse, sex is unlikely to be as intimiate and emotional as it could be and clouds growth between people so their interactions are consumed by lust rather than love.
> 
> I am not a prude for saying this. Research has indicated that sex really is damaging to the emotional health of a relationship.
> Want the secret to a happy marriage? Don't have sex before the wedding | Mail Online
> ...


Not important to me. I agree with you. My two friends always talk among themselves about it when we hang out, they glorify it and stuff.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

Sollertis said:


> I suppose the problem is that what you consider necessarily "negative", I don't, and perceive as the reality. The emotional bonding that comes as a result of sex is your brain dumping a bunch of hormones so you don't run off on your mate and offspring. That's not to say it isn't real, if anything it's more real than some sort of spiritual soul bonding (not trying to imply that's what you think it is, just saying that's the common perception), but every effect that comes as a result of sex really is "primitive", and isn't really different from what any mammal goes through.


Define "primitive" because I actually regard it as a bullshit term. What it's suppose to conceptually represent makes no sense to me.



> As for the clothes metaphor, the same principle applies to any mammal, male peacocks have flashy feathers to attract the ladies, male mountain goats and stags have large horns to show off their "manliness". All I'm saying is that humans haven't achieved any sort of higher plane in connection when it comes to sex, it's basically the same as when man was living in caves (except it isn't as acceptable to do it in public anymore).


You were suppose to focus on the former part of my metaphor rather than the latter. Dx

The functionality of clothing in terms of protection from the elements. Male peacock feathers do not do that, where I am concerned.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Hosker said:


> why people seem to take pride in denying their sex drives.


It's simple. They can make themselves feel better by saying they're above being human. If they could deny eating, they'd do it too. Unless you've got some form of traumatic episode from sex or a chemical imbalance which makes a sex drive impossible to have, then I can't see a real reason to deny having a sex drive.


----------



## gammagon (Aug 8, 2012)

android654 said:


> It's simple. They can make themselves feel better by saying they're about being human.


Or it's unimportant and/or fapping feels better... I suppose yours could be a reason for some. I dunno, personally I find stuff like that to be too much work.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

gammagon said:


> Or it's unimportant and/or fapping feels better... I suppose that could be a reason for some. I dunno, personally I find stuff like that to be too much work.



Masturbation is never as good as sex, at least not for men.


----------



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

saintless said:


> Define "primitive" because I actually regard it as a bullshit term. What it's suppose to conceptually represent makes no sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*prim·i·tive/ˈprimətiv/*


Adjective:
Relating to, denoting, or preserving an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.

Yeah, I think that fits, as to the metaphor I suppose you can focus on the horns instead of the peacock feathers, their primary function is protection/fighting.
@Hosker - people derive satisfaction from rising above what they feel to be their base drives, there's a whole religion devoted to this, you might have heard of it, it's called Buddhism.


----------



## gammagon (Aug 8, 2012)

android654 said:


> Masturbation is never as good as sex, at least not for men.


To each their own, I suppose. Plus the even slight chance of impregnating a her is a horrifying thought...


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

gammagon said:


> To each their own, I suppose. Plus the even slight chance of impregnating a her is a horrifying thought...


Which is why we have these.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

Sollertis said:


> _prim·i·tive_/ˈprimətiv/
> Adjective:
> Relating to, denoting, or preserving an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.
> 
> Yeah, I think that fits, as to the metaphor I suppose you can focus on the horns instead of the peacock feathers, their primary function is protection/fighting.


That was not the definition I was expecting. I was thinking more along the lines of this:

4. Anthropology . of or pertaining to a preliterate or tribal people having cultural or physical similarities with their early ancestors: no longer in technical use.
5.
unaffected or little affected by civilizing influences; uncivilized; savage: primitive passions.

Every time I hear "primitive", I always think of white imperialists spitting on African tribes. *shrugs* I have a very sociological-oriented mind.

Regardless, I still think your provided definition is bullshit because what is an "early" stage of evolution. Is that like single-celled organisms or animals without a hundred different appendages or features sticking out of them? Evolution has no stages. It has no agenda. It has no end game, and it certainly isn't creating the best of anything. It's a just a process of change in which species respond to their environment by either dying off or continuing to reproduce.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

@android654 - A friend of my sister's friend got pregnant while using both birth control and condoms.


...yes, I realize how that sounds.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Marshmallow Moo said:


> Come on. I've been browsing these threads and I've come to realize see that there is a surprising amount of people who seem to think sex is actually a _necessity_ in relationships. ....Really? *In my experience, sex has proved only to damage and dirty a relationship*.


You poor soul.



Marshmallow Moo said:


> Since most people do not wait until they are married for intercourse, *sex is unlikely to be as intimiate and emotional* as it could be and clouds growth between people so their interactions are consumed by lust rather than love.


Because marriage is the key to emotional intimacy..


Love and sex are synergistic. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.


----------



## gammagon (Aug 8, 2012)

android654 said:


> Which is why we have these.


Always the chance they'll break... Not a chance I'm willing to take.


----------



## tree83 (Sep 7, 2012)

We can all state our opinions, but I'm thinking the one whose opinion really matters is the person you have a relationship with. I wish you luck in your endeavors.


----------



## Sollertis (Aug 2, 2012)

saintless said:


> That was not the definition I was expecting. I was thinking more along the lines of this:
> 
> 4. Anthropology . of or pertaining to a preliterate or tribal people having cultural or physical similarities with their early ancestors: no longer in technical use.
> 5.
> ...


Well if you don't accept the definition, I can't help that. Regardless, if we're talking about single celled organisms it's obviously a moot point since single-celled organisms don't screw. Even going by your definition though, sex is basically the same for everyone.


----------



## To Be Determined (Sep 11, 2012)

To clarify my last point (about sex before/after marriage), I guess it's like wanting to know important deal-breakers about your spouse, before they're your spouse. Would you want to know before marrying a person if they plan on totally changing their career path very very soon? If they are desperate to have kids and you don't ever want to? If they're in a huge amount of debt? If they're actually a neat freak and you're a slob, and you'll drive each other crazy?

What about if the sex with them is just really, really bad?

You can still be completely in love with that person and have those problems. And yeah, sometimes you can work through them. But sometimes that requires a little compromise.

(Apologies if double posts are frowned on.)


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Marshmallow Moo said:


> It seems there is such a negative visceral reaction to this thread that many have seemed to have forgotten what my message was. To clarify my message, I will make a list of points I intended to make:
> 
> 1) Sex is NOT bad. Sex is very, very good.
> 2) Sex is important for intimacy in relationships.
> ...





> only approximately 17.8% (100) of 563 societies sampled in Murdock’s Atlas of World Cultures has any form of monogamy


Murdock GP (1981) Atlas of world cultures. University of Pittsburgh Press



> “genetic monogamy appears to be extremely rare in humans,” and “social monogamy is not common, … often reduc[ing] to serial polygyny in a biological sense”.


Low B.S. (2003) Ecological and social complexities in human monogamy. Monogamy: Mating Strategies and Partnerships in Birds, Humans and Other Mammals



> This means that monogamy is not now and probably never was the predominant mating system among the hominid lineage.


Allen LL, Bridges PS, Evon DL, Rosenberg KR, Russell MD, Schepartz LA, Vitzthum VJ, Wolpoff MH (1982). "Demography and Human Origins



> Herodotus noted a few societies and tribes that did not even opt for social monogamy at the time (circa 500 BC). One tribe he mentions had open relationships in the villages and then after puberty the boys were assigned their 'fathers' by who they most resembled. He mentions other socially open tribes, where mating openly in the daylight outside was observed. It is postulated that the reason he noted these was more likely as they were not the norm at the time in Ancient Greece where monogamy prevailed.


Herodotus (1987). _The History_, translated by David Grene


Monogamy is new, very new. Get over it.


----------



## To Be Determined (Sep 11, 2012)

android654 said:


> _“genetic monogamy appears to be extremely rare in humans,” and “social monogamy is not common, … often reduc[ing] to serial polygyny in a biological sense”._


A very important point - most of what we think of as monogamy is very different from the definition a biologist would use. Bringing science into a matter means needing to use the agreed-upon definitions, which is sometimes a little hard to remember with words that are so often bandied about in a casual pop-science sense.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

To Be Determined said:


> A very important point - most of what we think of as monogamy is very different from the definition a biologist would use. Bringing science into a matter means needing to use the agreed-upon definitions, which is sometimes a little hard to remember with words that are so often bandied about in a casual pop-science sense.



When exploring the science of sex, biology trump social definitions. Still, all the science shows that pairing with a single mate for life is not only the norm biologically, it's not the norm socially. We mix around during a lifetime from partner to partnet, we just mixed more frequently the further we go back.


----------



## To Be Determined (Sep 11, 2012)

I would also like to add to the general discussion (bit of a tangent from the current direction, but whatever, I am rather late to this topic) that I think it's very interesting that people have a tendency to say things along the lines of, "I think it's best to wait until love/marriage/your genitals shrivel up, but I understand that it's very hard."

Are you hungry? Well, it's okay to eat, but you should wait a little longer, maybe?

It's like waiting is somehow morally better, and failing to wait makes you weak. I'm sure most of the people who say these things don't intend this meaning, but that's essentially what it boils down to - this idea of self-restraint and indulgence, and if you're having sex, you don't have self-restraint.

That's what carnal means, amirite?


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

To Be Determined said:


> I would also like to add to the general discussion (bit of a tangent from the current direction, but whatever, I am rather late to this topic) that I think it's very interesting that people have a tendency to say things along the lines of, "I think it's best to wait until love/marriage/your genitals shrivel up, but I understand that it's very hard."
> 
> Are you hungry? Well, it's okay to eat, but you should wait a little longer, maybe?
> 
> ...


That's a good point, but sexual hunger is a lot like hunger for food. There's no benefit in waiting for it only that you hunger for it more.


----------



## To Be Determined (Sep 11, 2012)

android654 said:


> That's a good point, but sexual hunger is a lot like hunger for food. There's no benefit in waiting for it only that you hunger for it more.


Yeah, that's primarily what I meant, though I went about it in a rather facetious manner. There really is no moral high ground in putting off a need. A select group of people talk about "sexual gratification" like it's buying a new mp3 player or something, and this idea pervades a lot of the greater society's opinions, whether they recognize it or not.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

android654 said:


> That's a good point, but sexual hunger is a lot like hunger for food. There's no benefit in waiting for it only that you hunger for it more.


Well, it makes sense to wait long enough to judge that the person respects you and cares about you. And that you feel comfortable around them.

Just like you want to first see if food is rotten before you eat it.

Of course, different people will have different length "waiting periods," based on their own backgrounds and comfort levels. Which is fine. I see no reason why early-sex-havers are either inferior or superior to waiters.

Why can't we just accept that every person/couple feels differently about this issue? People who don't have sex aren't necessarily repressed. People who have lots of sex aren't necessarily sleazy, rotten, and devoid of ethics.


----------



## To Be Determined (Sep 11, 2012)

chimeric said:


> Well, it makes sense to wait long enough to judge that the person respects you and cares about you. And that you feel comfortable around them.


The idea is that, if you know you're hungry (i.e., ready for sex), then why wait? Some people have different standards for 'readiness'. That's totally okay. However, if some people don't need as much to get going, that's okay, too. If you (general you) and a partner have different levels at which readiness occurs, wait until the person who needs more is ready, or break up. Also, not everyone needs or wants love mixed in with their sex. Though I would agree that making sure there's respect beforehand is generally a good idea.



Marshmallow Moo said:


> their tolerance for oxytocin or vasopressin increases


Oh, and I'd like to add one more thing before I forget. Since my initial response, I have been searching for a source for the idea about tolerance to oxytocin (or vasopressin, for that matter), but have not found one at all. I've found a few blogs, and things of that nature, but nothing really worth citing. There were a couple unrelated scientific journals about pregnancy, but that's all. (Clearly, a nursing mother's oxytocin tolerance is not really relevant to the matter.)

Sorry for repeatedly quoting you!


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

chimeric said:


> Well, it makes sense to wait long enough to judge that the person respects you and cares about you. And that you feel comfortable around them.
> 
> Just like you want to first see if food is rotten before you eat it.


I know immediately if someone is worth my sexual interest, just like I know immediately if food is or isn't rotten.



> Of course, different people will have different length "waiting periods," based on their own backgrounds and comfort levels. Which is fine. I see no reason why early-sex-havers are either inferior or superior to waiters.
> 
> Why can't we just accept that every person/couple feels differently about this issue? People who don't have sex aren't necessarily repressed. People who have lots of sex aren't necessarily sleazy, rotten, and devoid of ethics.


I was merely elaborating on the science of sex. Scientific and anthropological evidence suggests that we are overwhelmingly not monogamous, which suggests that the norm of monogamy is the result of societal influence and cultural amalgams. 

I can see a few benefits to having a longer sexual history rather than a short non-diversified one, but I can not fathom a single benefit to waiting.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

android654 said:


> I know immediately if someone is worth my sexual interest, just like I know immediately if food is or isn't rotten.


You are not everyone.

Sex can require a great deal of trust, and sometimes it take a while to earn trust. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

chimeric said:


> You are not everyone.
> 
> Sex can require a great deal of trust, and sometimes it take a while to earn trust. There's nothing wrong with that.


Science disagrees. We usually make a subconscious decision on sexual attraction "by seeing only a glimpse of a picture for one-hundredth of a second."
_The Edmonton Journal_. Retrieved 2011-07-15. "Evolution taught us to lust ..." 

Subconsciously we make a decision as to who we'll sleep with upon seeing them. That's the simple science behind it. If you want ot talk social or psychological reasons, then that's another issue. Since the OP tried to make a case with science, it should at least be shown that she's blatantly wrong about how sex and decisions on partners are made.


----------



## Antipseudonym (Mar 3, 2012)

I was lazy to read all of your posts, guys, but those which l've seen amazed me, in a positive way. 
I think sex is important and not having sex before marriage is great, but there is a posibility of being disappointed after getting married. The point is - if somebody is a great person, if your relationship is very deep and good, it doesn't mean your sex is going to be good and that's why you should try it before getting married. 

Then, l also believe those ''one night stands'' are extremely bad, you just cannot have sex with anyone, it's something intimate. So, yes, number of sexual partners is important but for both, girls and guys. Guys who have slept with a lot of girl are same disguisting.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

If your relationship is fufilling, and neither of you desire sex, who cares if you do it? Sex is only important if both people want it.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Marshmallow Moo said:


> When a person engages in sex with multiple partners, their tolerance for oxytocin or vasopressin increases, and the bonding chemical no longer has any effect. It becomes like an overused piece of tape--losing its stickiness over time. This is why there are so many people who have infidelity in relationships--their brains are not bonded to this person like they should be.


Um no. This sounds like some fallacious tactic to scare the kiddies into not having sex. I've not experienced this. My sex drive and ability to love has only increased, regardless of how many partners I've had. I would think it would have to depend more on the person. 

My father used to be what some would call a "playboy" in his younger years. He and my mother eventually divorced. He had the freedom to have multiple partners. So he did. However, he eventually ended up bonding with one woman and is now living out the rest of his life with her. He is still madly in love and he and his wife are going on 20 years. If anything, if you were to look at a guy like my father, you'd think he just needed to either sell his wild oats for a while or eventually find the perfect woman for him. Maybe it was due to both. But I know one thing for sure- Monogamy for a man like my father in his 20s SO did not work for him. And he had absolutely no trouble bonding with his new wife in spite of his previous freedom days.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

If you don't want to have sex then don't have sex if you do then do it's a simple as that.


----------



## muhahaha (Sep 1, 2012)

I love how all the different myers briggs types have different interpretations towards sex.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

android654 said:


> Science disagrees. We usually make a subconscious decision on sexual attraction "by seeing only a glimpse of a picture for one-hundredth of a second."
> _The Edmonton Journal_. Retrieved 2011-07-15. "Evolution taught us to lust ..."
> 
> Subconsciously we make a decision as to who we'll sleep with upon seeing them. That's the simple science behind it. If you want ot talk social or psychological reasons, then that's another issue. Since the OP tried to make a case with science, it should at least be shown that she's blatantly wrong about how sex and decisions on partners are made.


First of all, your science ignores the reality of demisexuals, who may be a minority but I'll trust their word that they exist. Second, even for the rest of us, sexual attraction is but one factor of the "should we fuck?" equation. Or... I'll speak for myself. I do not sleep (or try to sleep) with every person I'm attracted to, even when I'm single. And it's not that I'm frigid/prudish/scared of sex/whatever. And if I were? That wouldn't be a crime. So it takes some people a while to feel comfortable in their bodies, or with the idea of doin' the naughty. Whatever. That's their prerogative.



muhahaha said:


> If you don't want to have sex then don't have sex if you do then do it's a simple as that.


Seriously. This is what I like about ISTPs.


----------



## KateMarie999 (Dec 20, 2011)

Sex really isn't that important. I think society has encouraged the ridiculous notion of instant gratification. I personally believe that if you feel that you "can't wait" to have sex, you should reexamine your priorities. Being taught that you shouldn't have to wait for pleasure is poisoning society. It's led to drug abuse and abortions. People who claim that it's impossible to wait for sex clearly are ignoring thousands of happy couples who DID wait.

That's not to say you can't talk about sex with someone you're interested in marrying. In fact, I'd say that's a very good idea so you know what to expect on the wedding night. Couples who don't talk about it could be in for a nasty shock. It happened to a friend of mine, unfortunately.


----------



## To Be Determined (Sep 11, 2012)

KateMarie999 said:


> That's not to say you can't talk about sex with someone you're interested in marrying. In fact, I'd say that's a very good idea so you know what to expect on the wedding night. Couples who don't talk about it could be in for a nasty shock. It happened to a friend of mine, unfortunately.


First, I agree with this, definitely. I wish more people thought this was a good thing, too. But this...



> _I think society has encouraged the ridiculous notion of instant gratification. I personally believe that if you feel that you "can't wait" to have sex, you should reexamine your priorities. Being taught that you shouldn't have to wait for pleasure is poisoning society. It's led to drug abuse and abortions. People who claim that it's impossible to wait for sex clearly are ignoring thousands of happy couples who DID wait._


Is exactly what I was talking about, here:



To Be Determined said:


> There really is no moral high ground in putting off a need. A select group of people talk about "sexual gratification" like it's buying a new mp3 player or something


I'm genuinely curious what you specifically think the benefits of waiting are, when someone knows they're ready for sex. The OP largely frames it as a before/after marriage thing, given the article cited, so I'd like to know where you're coming from, personally.

(Also, I'm not so sure dragging abortion into this is a good idea. I know it's a bit of a hot button for myself, and probably many others of both positions on that debate.)


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

KateMarie999 said:


> I think society has encouraged the ridiculous notion of instant gratification.


Honestly, nothing about sex is "instantly gratifying". If it was, then hell it would be a million times less interesting. 

However despite that last sentiment, sex sometimes isn't gratifying such as when your partner fails to truly stimulate you let alone get you to reach orgasm. That's only talking about the act of sex though. Think about what it takes to get someone into bed. While I realize there are hundres of people engaging in one night stands every night, I don't believe this is the mode for sexual intercourse and I don't believe most people have it that easy. It takes effort to actually get someone into bed, which is why I have walked away from a few guys who seemed willing because I was like, "This is so not worth the hassle," but I also lack a high sex drive and have quite the tolerance for a lack of sex. 

It is true that most of society crave instant gratification, however the pursuit of sex is nothing instant. The pursuit of sex is only the pursuit of euphoria.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

chimeric said:


> First of all, your science ignores the reality of demisexuals, who may be a minority but I'll trust their word that they exist. Second, even for the rest of us, sexual attraction is but one factor of the "should we fuck?" equation. Or... I'll speak for myself. I do not sleep (or try to sleep) with every person I'm attracted to, even when I'm single. And it's not that I'm frigid/prudish/scared of sex/whatever. And if I were? That wouldn't be a crime. So it takes some people a while to feel comfortable in their bodies, or with the idea of doin' the naughty. Whatever. That's their prerogative.


That's because there's no science behind it. As far as science is concerned, demisexuality is a social phenom and nothing more. 

I never said you were frigid, but you're acknowledging a conscious effort not to just fuck anyone you deem attractive, but applying selection. It still proves the science behind sex is evident by your own admission.

I agree that people should do as they will, but misapplying science to say monogamy is our biological norm is going to get called out for either not knowing what they're saying to be truth or are just blatantly misconstruing facts to fit their position.


----------



## KateMarie999 (Dec 20, 2011)

To Be Determined said:


> I'm genuinely curious what you specifically think the benefits of waiting are, when someone knows they're ready for sex. The OP largely frames it as a before/after marriage thing, given the article cited, so I'd like to know where you're coming from, personally.
> 
> (Also, I'm not so sure dragging abortion into this is a good idea. I know it's a bit of a hot button for myself, and probably many others of both positions on that debate.)


Okay I only added the issue of abortion because I think most people would agree that we'd like to see LESS abortions. Abortion is never a pleasant experience or an easy choice to make. It can cause long term emotional damage to the mother. Abortion is never a happy thing. That's what I meant. So PLEASE don't bring up that debate, I'm not trying to tick anyone off, no matter what side you're on.

Now what I did mean is that premarital sex can be emotionally damaging for people. I can think of lots of people I know who regret having sex outside of marriage. There's the issue of unplanned pregnancy or STDs. I'm not saying you're going to have a great marriage if you wait to have sex until then (my parents waited and they're still happily married but I know someone who waited and ultimately divorced after 4 months). I'm not saying that having premarital sex will destroy your marriage. I'm saying that waiting is a wise decision and it's generally scoffed at. Actually a lot of what the articles said pretty much proved my point for me. Adding sex to a relationship adds a lot of emotions. I'm not saying it's like that for EVERYONE. I'm saying it's like that for a lot of people.

My boyfriend and I are human beings. We have urges. We have desires. But we're not having sex. Personally, I think he and I are emotionally ready for sex. But we're not doing it because we believe that we should wait until we're married. My personal belief is that it's a gift for my future husband. By waiting for him, I'm telling him that I love and respect him and I want to give him ALL of me, not just the leftovers.

Sorry, I'm not sure all of this will make sense. I'm a little scatterbrained right now.


----------



## To Be Determined (Sep 11, 2012)

KateMarie999 said:


> Now what I did mean is that premarital sex can be emotionally damaging for people. I can think of lots of people I know who regret having sex outside of marriage. There's the issue of unplanned pregnancy or STDs. I'm not saying you're going to have a great marriage if you wait to have sex until then (my parents waited and they're still happily married but I know someone who waited and ultimately divorced after 4 months). I'm not saying that having premarital sex will destroy your marriage. I'm saying that waiting is a wise decision and it's generally scoffed at. Actually a lot of what the articles said pretty much proved my point for me. Adding sex to a relationship adds a lot of emotions. I'm not saying it's like that for EVERYONE. I'm saying it's like that for a lot of people.


Okay, so you and I seem to agree on most points, though we frame our opinions rather differently and are talking past each other. Mainly, that there's no "always" or "never" when it comes to this topic, as with most topics.

A brief clarification - when I mean ready for sex, I'm tacking on 'emotionally' just because that tends to be an issue, but I'm also grouping in any other factors. So someone can be emotionally ready, but want to wait for other, also valid, reasons, like waiting for marriage. Such as yourself, obviously.

My main concern is your equating 'not waiting' and 'instant gratification'.

Am I misunderstanding, and what you are referring to is teens who are not educated in how to go about well, people who aren't yet mature enough for the implications, this sort of group, wanting sex when they really shouldn't be freaking out about it just yet? If this is the case, then it turns out we are in agreement on this point and are just not seeing each other's positions clearly. If this is the case, then my question at the end of this post doesn't apply to you, and I'm getting caught up in semantics.

What this comes down to is that the issue of sex outside of marriage tends to be frequently conflated with irresponsible sex. Anyone can have irresponsible sex, whether it's inside, outside, before, or after marriage, casual or committed, anything really. At the current time, a lot of the people who've had irresponsible sex have done it outside of marriage, but that's mostly a confounding variable.

I guess my point is that I don't think the problem is that sex isn't important because it's instant gratification. Why is it that you think someone who feels they can't wait should reexamine their priorities?

(No apologies necessary for scatterbrained-ness - I'm feeling a bit that way at the moment, too. It took me awhile to organize this post into something readable.)


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

I think of sex as just expression of love. Two people are capable of being connected without having sex every now and then. If some people think that sex is the main part of a relationship, then I call it as BULLSHIT!


----------



## m73m95 (Aug 25, 2012)

Antipseudonym said:


> I was lazy to read all of your posts, guys, but those which l've seen amazed me, in a positive way.
> I think sex is important and not having sex before marriage is great, but there is a posibility of being disappointed after getting married. The point is - if somebody is a great person, if your relationship is very deep and good, it doesn't mean your sex is going to be good and that's why you should try it before getting married.
> 
> Then, l also believe those ''one night stands'' are extremely bad, you just cannot have sex with anyone, it's something intimate. So, yes, number of sexual partners is important but for both, girls and guys. Guys who have slept with a lot of girl are same disguisting.


I think you're contradicting yourself. You're deep and shallow at the same time.

If you are deeply in love with someone.... I don't think its possible for the sex to be bad.

If you care about how the sex will be, then I don't think you are in as much love as you think you are (Not *you* personally. "You" as in people)

I'm not debating waiting until marriage, or jumping in the sack on the second date.... I'm debating that if you and your partner agree to wait until marriage, and you date for a good while, are madly, deeply, passionately in love (Which I do believe is possible for some people to do without sex), then are you really going to be disappointed in them if they aren't fantastic in bed? Sex being a spiritual thing, I would imagine that experiencing sex with the person you are truly in love with will be the most euphoric feeling you've ever had, regardless of how either you or they "perform".


----------



## Blazy (Oct 30, 2010)

In my opinion, sex in a relationship is comparable to any type of activity: reading together, shooting hoops with each other, holding hands and walking along the river together, etc. But because society has deemed sex as one of the most private activities that people should do privately, the value of the activity (sex) is therefore higher than public activities. It is still an activity that a couple can do together, but because the level of the intimacy is so high, it tends to bring couples closer together both emotionally and physically. So, yes. Sex is important in a relationship. Or is it?

When a couple starts to bring sex into their lives, they will become bored of each other, occasionally having thoughts of cheating for their own pleasure. But if a couple decides to not have sex until marriage, they may become desperate and start seeking for affairs. It's a lose-lose situation. The answer to the original question is, YES and NO. The ultimate truth lies in the pacing of the relationship.

So if you had sex within at most 3 months after the beginning of the relationship, your partner is likely to have thoughts of adultery in the near future. If you haven't had sex for over a year then your partner is likely to also have thoughts of adultery. Both lead to arguments and breakups. Successful relationships are impossible. There is no perfect relationship.


----------



## To Be Determined (Sep 11, 2012)

m73m95 said:


> If you are deeply in love with someone.... I don't think its possible for the sex to be bad.
> 
> If you care about how the sex will be, then I don't think you are in as much love as you think you are (Not *you* personally. "You" as in people)
> 
> I'm not debating waiting until marriage, or jumping in the sack on the second date.... I'm debating that if you and your partner agree to wait until marriage, and you date for a good while, are madly, deeply, passionately in love (Which I do believe is possible for some people to do without sex), then are you really going to be disappointed in them if they aren't fantastic in bed? Sex being a spiritual thing, I would imagine that experiencing sex with the person you are truly in love with will be the most euphoric feeling you've ever had, regardless of how either you or they "perform".


Love != compatibility. They just aren't the same thing. Love is tough, and some people just aren't on the same page. I return to the example of having kids - do you agree that two people can be utterly in love, even if one of them desperately wants kids, while the other never wants to have them? Or are you just going to tell them, sorry, you must not be as in love as you think you are?


----------



## m73m95 (Aug 25, 2012)

I'm not sure what side you're on...so I'll just answer how I feel.

You are 100% correct. You have to be compatible to be in love. If one wants kids, and the other doesn't, I don't think you can truly be in love. How could one go the rest of their lives without kids, when they want them... or one have kids they don't want?


For me, the definition of "love" is = Your happiness is completely dependent on the other persons happiness. Even on a subconscious level. 


So, one partner wants kids, and the other doesn't? ... Kids are a tough argument. However, if you want to have strict rules in your statement = One NEEDS kids, and the other REFUSES to have them..... then you are not in love. Sorry. I don't think its possible to be in love when there is a major difference like that.


As for sex ... Like I said your partners happiness is directly proportional to your happiness. So, you both are giving 100% into the other person. Making each other happy. If that is truly the case, then there is no such thing as bad sex. Maybe its just me, but I don't feel as though there is much "skill" involved in sex. Its not difficult to make someone else get off. Where the magic is, is in the emotional bond.

If your main concern is how the other person will perform in bed....that seems selfish to me, and thus, your happiness is not dependent on your partners.

(JMHO)


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

INTJellectual said:


> I think of sex as just expression of love. Two people are capable of being connected without having sex every now and then. If some people think that sex is the main part of a relationship, then I call it as BULLSHIT!


It still doesen't make "sex only after marriage" right. What if I'm vanilla and she is into BDSM? People have different preferences, needs when it comes to lovemaking. Some people have a low sex drive others want it 3 times a day. I'm speaking from experience here and imo one should "fuck" before the ball and chain or the likelyhood of divorce is high.

Well...I also think one should marry only after one reaches 26+ years at least lol. Know plenty of ppl who married young and are divorced now because of sex and other stuff that didn't go so well.

o.o one of my ex gfs has a higher sex drive then me (which is kinda very very damn high). While it was flattering that she wanted me so much and so many times a day...I couldn't keep up with her needs. It got stressful after a while. See what I mean? It depends on the individual.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Rim said:


> imo one should "fuck" before the ball and chain


Unless balls and chains are how you get off :wink:


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Rim said:


> Well...I also think one shouldn't marry after one reaches 26+ years at least lol. Know plenty of ppl who married young and are divorced now* because of sex *and other stuff that didn't go so well.
> 
> o.o one of my ex gfs has a higher sex drive then me (which is kinda very very damn high). While it was flattering that she wanted me so much and so many times a day...I couldn't keep up with her needs. It got stressful after a while. See what I mean? It depends on the individual.


Just because of sex they divorced? It's so shallow! I guess they have other misunderstandings and incompatibility that's why they divorced.

LOL. I thought boys have higher sex drive than females, lol. How many times a day did she want to fuck with you?


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

INTJellectual said:


> Just because of sex they divorced? It's so shallow! I guess they have other misunderstandings and incompatibility that's why they divorced.
> 
> LOL. I thought boys have higher sex drive than females, lol. How many times a day did she want to fuck with you?


When 2 people have wildly diverging ideas on what kind of sex they want....yeah. Plus very long term relationships tend to spiral downwards, after a year things are never the same in my experience.

^^ that is a bit too private, it was more then 1 times a day...weekends more then 2 times a day, all weekend long. After I broke off the relationship for anxiety reasons on my part she discovered she was into BDSM. We started out with the whole soulmate thing and are still friends. I still love her, but its different. Honestly idk how to describe what I feel for her ^^; so fucked up...I just get along with her like with noone else. I have been "madly in love" since then, but idk why this first really long term (3 years) relationship kinda overshadows the others.  she is one of them Sx (one to one) first either type 4 or type 6 ISFx people....very intense and a wonderful person flawed in her own way.

We just aren't on the same level with sex. I got this horrid feeling in my gut that I needed to get out. Still can't exactly say why...sex was part of it thou.  is it odd to love someone and feel like escaping at the same time, like if you don't this feeling of a bottomless pit swallowing you never goes away? I still feel strongly for her and wouldn't hesitate to be there for her....the relationsip still scares me thou.

There are verious reasons people do break up for, even when they still love eachother imho, sex is just part of that.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Rim said:


> When 2 people have wildly diverging ideas on what kind of sex they want....yeah.* Plus very long term relationships tend to spiral downwards, after a year things are never the same in my experience.*


Depends with the person you're with. Maybe the romance has faded? Or the excitement has gone? And one person got bored? Then, the foundation of the relationship was not that strong imo.



Rim said:


> ^^ that is a bit too private, it was more then 1 times a day...weekends more then 2 times a day, all weekend long. After I broke off the relationship for anxiety reasons on my part she discovered she was into BDSM. We started out with the whole soulmate thing and are still friends. I still love her, but its different. Honestly idk how to describe what I feel for her ^^; so fucked up...I just get along with her like with noone else. I have been "madly in love" since then, but idk why this first really long term (3 years) relationship kinda overshadows the others.  she is one of them Sx (one to one) first either type 4 or type 6 ISFx people....very intense and a wonderful person flawed in her own way.
> 
> We just aren't on the same level with sex. I got this horrid feeling in my gut that I needed to get out. Still can't exactly say why...sex was part of it thou.  is it odd to love someone and feel like escaping at the same time, like if you don't this feeling of a bottomless pit swallowing you never goes away? I still feel strongly for her and wouldn't hesitate to be there for her....the relationsip still scares me thou.


Gosh she's so intense in sex. Do you still hook-up with her?




Rim said:


> There are verious reasons people do break up for, even when they still love eachother imho, sex is just part of that.


I think for a relationship to go smoothly, you have to be really good friends first. Or at least the two partners should respect each other, accept each other for what they are, and satisfy each other's needs.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

INTJellectual said:


> Depends with the person you're with. Maybe the romance has faded? Or the excitement has gone? And one person got bored? Then, the foundation of the relationship was not that strong imo.
> 
> 
> Gosh she's so intense in sex. Do you still hook-up with her?
> ...


^^; no, we are just friends, I can tell her anything and she can tell me anything. Fighting is still as much fun as it was back then. I guess I could say that we started out with a very solid friendship and it ended in the same way despite some hurt feelings (which we still argue about lol).

If there is anyone who could be my "soul mate" lol, its probably her.  probably why we don't hate eachother's gutts hehe.


----------



## INTJellectual (Oct 22, 2011)

Rim said:


> ^^; no, we are just friends, I can tell her anything and she can tell me anything. Fighting is still as much fun as it was back then. I guess I could say that we started out with a very solid friendship and it ended in the same way despite some hurt feelings (which we still argue about lol).
> 
> If there is anyone who could be my "soul mate" lol, its probably her.  probably why we don't hate eachother's gutts hehe.


That's better. At least you've remained friends with her after having break-up. Many relationships often have had bad break-ups.


----------



## To Be Determined (Sep 11, 2012)

m73m95 said:


> However, if you want to have strict rules in your statement = One NEEDS kids, and the other REFUSES to have them..... then you are not in love. Sorry. I don't think its possible to be in love when there is a major difference like that.


I'm not sure why one person's experiences of what 'real love' (not quoting anyone specifically here) is invalidate another person's (or couple's). Real love doesn't have to be 'stay with that person forever and ever, or at least until one of you dies'.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

This is not what you said, you cited studies that it's better to wait until being married to have sex. You questioned the necessity of it"Sex is not necessary." "I've come to realize see that there is a surprising amount of people who seem to think sex is actually a _necessity_ in relationships. ....Really? In my experience, sex has proved only to damage and dirty a relationship. Since most people do not wait until they are married for intercourse, sex is unlikely to be as intimiate and emotional as it could be and clouds growth between people so their interactions are consumed by lust rather than love." "Sex is not necessary. It is desirable. Our bodies crave it like water. But in the end it does nothing to solidify human bonds." 

These are your words, that I'm quoting. Below is a 180 on your part. The reason there is such a negative reaction is because you reacted negatively to the subject. But people here think sex is quite enjoyable and spiritual. Even the title of this thread says Negative"Come On...Is Sex Really Important?"



Marshmallow Moo said:


> It seems there is such a negative visceral reaction to this thread that many have seemed to have forgotten what my message was. To clarify my message, I will make a list of points I intended to make:
> 
> 1) Sex is NOT bad. Sex is very, very good.
> 2) Sex is important for intimacy in relationships.
> ...


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Rim said:


> Well...I also think one shouldn't marry after one reaches 26+ years at least lol. Know plenty of ppl who married young and are divorced now because of sex and other stuff that didn't go so well.


This is relative to my concern over those waiting until marriage to have sex. Many of those who believe in waiting to have sex until married, end up marrying really young and before they know themselves. I've seen it over and over again. They think they are marrying each other for love, but no- they really just want to have sex. I see it over and over again. 

How old is a large majority of the people who get married and waited to have sex until married? How old are the people who get married after they've already engaged in pre-marital sex and who have no pressure to marry for sex? 

What are the statistics in regards to age when someone marries and higher divorce rates?


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> This is relative to my concern over those waiting until marriage to have sex. Many of those who believe in waiting to have sex until married, end up marrying really young and before they know themselves. I've seen it over and over again. They think they are marrying each other for love, but no- they really just want to have sex. I see it over and over again.
> 
> How old is a large majority of the people who get married and waited to have sex until married? How old are the people who get married after they've already engaged in pre-marital sex and who have no pressure to marry for sex?
> 
> What are the statistics in regards to age when someone marries and higher divorce rates?


Good point. But, I would like to point out that as a person ages that the chances increases on whether or not they will go back on their premartial sex stance.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> This is relative to my concern over those waiting until marriage to have sex. Many of those who believe in waiting to have sex until married, end up marrying really young and before they know themselves. I've seen it over and over again. They think they are marrying each other for love, but no- they really just want to have sex. I see it over and over again.


I have known people who have gotten married in order to have sex. I mean that completely literally. They were in a relationship, they wanted to be physically intimate, but their religion forbade premarital sex. So their solution was to get married so they could have sex without guilt. :dry:

The marriage didn't last.


----------



## Sapphyreopal5 (Jun 11, 2012)

Marshmallow Moo said:


> It seems there issuch a negative visceral reaction to this thread that many have seemed to haveforgotten what my message was. To clarify my message, I will make a list ofpoints I intended to make:





Marshmallow Moo said:


> 1) Sex is NOT bad. Sex is very, very good.
> 2) Sex is important for intimacy in relationships.
> 3) Sex is NOT a necessity for a healthyrelationship and can actually damage it when it is used casually.
> 
> ...


I want to see a source for your claims stating our tolerance for oxytocin or vasopressin increases as we have more sex (since there’s so many, this shouldn’t be hard to do now should it? :happy: ).This sounds like an illogical argument for abstinence-based sex ed teachers touse on hormonal teenagers in attempts to try scaring them out of having sex. 

Interestingly enough, there’s research and such out there suggesting that humans are *not* made monogamous,although humans lean both ways naturally. In the basic essence of the research out there, some people will “be fruitful and multiply” with multiple people(being more polygamous), and others will want to more heavily invest in their offspring (being more monogamous). When I say polygamous, I mean having children with multiple partners (or having multiple sexual partners) and the said above with one partner only.

I believe that the reasons people stay in toxic relationships go beyond whetherthey have had sex or not (that’s even assuming the couple has had sex). Somepeople can’t stand on their own two feet that well and therefore feel the needto be in a relationship, even if it costs them emotionally (or evenphysically). Perhaps it is just pure infatuation (or limerance) that is keepingthem together. May be people feel compelled to stay together because theycannot afford to separate or break up and be on their own. 

As for the bolded part, this part made me very curious as to where you really stand (almost seems contradictory if you ask me). If you are such a sexual person as you have stated in the first couple sentences I bolded, why do you feel so “sick” when you are participating in sexual acts with your boyfriend? I am curious as to why you seem to have such contradictory feelings towards sex period.

I do agree with you that people don’t understand the power of sex and how it affects them if they make the wrong choices. As I said in my previous post, a lot of people are not as emotionally prepared for sex as they like to think. I just think it’s a little silly trying to tell everyone to wait until marriage(or even having sex before marriage) when everyone’s preferences and such clearly change person to person. I will also agree with you that people do put a great deal of importance on sex, even though there's much more to relationships than that.


----------



## missushoney (May 16, 2011)

Marshmallow Moo said:


> Come on. I've been browsing these threads and I've come to realize see that there is a surprising amount of people who seem to think sex is actually a _necessity_ in relationships. ....Really? In my experience, sex has proved only to damage and dirty a relationship. Since most people do not wait until they are married for intercourse, sex is unlikely to be as intimiate and emotional as it could be and clouds growth between people so their interactions are consumed by lust rather than love.
> 
> I am not a prude for saying this. Research has indicated that sex really is damaging to the emotional health of a relationship.
> Want the secret to a happy marriage? Don't have sex before the wedding | Mail Online
> ...


I actually think that not being able to wait to have sex or not being able to keep it in your pants when you've decided to be in a committed relationship with someone, is childish. People make it sound like it's so grown up and turns you into a man or woman to finally have sex but even little children have sexual urges. It's completely natural. The difference is that they can't control themselves because they are children. But when you're an adult and start whining about someone being "selfish" because they want to take the time to get to know you before they let you eat all of their goodies, that's just sad. Now when I say "wait" I mean they don't wait for the relationship to develop and actually learn if they like each other. I've done so myself a few times, probably because I didn't really think the relationship was going anywhere anyway and didn't care much how it ended. But I think that people saying it's "selfish" to wait longer than a month, need to get a life. F them. Their partner does not owe them sex. If you really like someone you're not gunna force them into doing something they don't wanna do. You care about how they feel and the impression you leave on them.

I wish we could go back to the days when men would wait as long as was necessary, traverse treacherous trails, fight epic battles and try to win a girl's heart (and eventually her V). Now it's too easy for people. They can sit around eating cheetos with nothing good to offer but expect me to fall all over myself for horribly pathetic sex with them. And when you don't want to give it to them, you're the problem. Pshh. I would have all sorts of sex with a guy who was in a mutually beneficial relationship with me, but sadly that's rarely the case.


----------



## AstralSoldier (Jun 18, 2012)

I think sex is personally important, but that's because I can find personal reasons to find it so, but for someone adverse to it for reasons of their own, I can see how it would seem less than important. But I can say, that sex is a very, VERY good thing; the best tension reliever, the best psychological catharsis, and the fastest way to looking into yourself at the most primal level of your being. But then being so personally involved in it, I take away from it what I put into it...I want it to count, and HAVE meaning, and anything you want to validate, or find meaning in will thus be that much MORE important to you.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> This is relative to my concern over those waiting until marriage to have sex. Many of those who believe in waiting to have sex until married, end up marrying really young and before they know themselves. I've seen it over and over again. They think they are marrying each other for love, but no- they really just want to have sex. I see it over and over again.
> 
> How old is a large majority of the people who get married and waited to have sex until married? How old are the people who get married after they've already engaged in pre-marital sex and who have no pressure to marry for sex?
> 
> What are the statistics in regards to age when someone marries and higher divorce rates?


x.x oh lol I made some corrections when I was editing for typos yesterday and the meaning of what i said got twisted because I changed a word: "before" to "after"...don't ask me why XD. Basically imo ppl should wait untill 28+ to early 30s to get married or at least that is how I think for myself. Before that I'm sure I lack the neccessary maturity.

....I still do at 26. I'm so flaky, self absorbed and change my mind from one day to another, there is no way I can commit atm.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Rim said:


> x.x oh lol I made some corrections when i was editing for typos yesterday and the meaning of what i said got twisted because I changed a word. Basically imo ppl should wait untill 28+ to early 30s to get married or at least that is how I think for myself. Before that I'm sure I lack the neccessary maturity.
> 
> ....I still do at 26.


Oh yeah. I saw that and understood what you meant. I was actually impressed that you felt this way. I took the opportunity to go further with it.:happy:


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

Study: Sex Can Make You Smarter « CBS Tampa


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

Sex is extremely imortant in a relationship, just ask these people...I Live In a Sexless Marriage | Group with Personal Stories, Forums and Chat

Sex doesn't seem important early on, but add responsibility, children, money troubles, health issues, and you'd be surprised how a bond can be damaged. Intimacy is one of the very crucial aspects to holding that bond together. Holding hands, looking into each others eyes, hugging, kissing, and sex...they keep you feeling intimately close, beyond a friendship. 

How much intimacy/sex a couple has (except for mutual asexuals) is an accurate measurement of the health of the relationship. Period...that is, when you are both adults engaged in a life together...not high school. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/200901/good-sex-is-good-relationships

Oh and ladies, be careful about how much sex you DON'T want to have. It seems to be a part of our culture (at least American I mean) for women to not like sex once married...lame. Yet she'll post all over FB about how awesome Fifty Shades of Grey was...gag me, never read it and don't need to  A woman who never wants to do her Husband and only does it on special occasions will wear down his self esteem. Everyone wants to feel desired by their spouse. If you act like you don't desire him, someone else who does will make him feel pretty fantastic about himself. That should come from his Wife, but sadly that's not always the case. So don't go smearing his name and crying a river when he cheats because you made him feel disgusting about himself. And the same goes for the other way around as well.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

android654 said:


> That's because there's no science behind it. As far as science is concerned, demisexuality is a social phenom and nothing more.


I haven't had the chance to read the article you mentioned, so I can't fairly dispute this point. But...science plays into everything. It doesn't quite make sense to say that something is purely a social phenomenon. Are you saying demisexuals are attracted to people instantly but don't realize it?



android654 said:


> I agree that people should do as they will, but misapplying science to say monogamy is our biological norm is going to get called out for either not knowing what they're saying to be truth or are just blatantly misconstruing facts to fit their position.


I wasn't actually arguing this point. What I was contesting was this: "There's no benefit in waiting for it only that you hunger for it more."

For some people, there is a benefit. Not for all people, but for some people.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

chimeric said:


> I haven't had the chance to read the article you mentioned, so I can't fairly dispute this point. But...science plays into everything. It doesn't quite make sense to say that something is purely a social phenomenon. Are you saying demisexuals are attracted to people instantly but don't realize it?


My personal opinion is that people are merely mistyping Asexuality. To say that sex drive is nonexistent until you meet a particular person that you connect with emotionally can not be defined by biology. Unless you're talking about triggering small amounts of neuromodulators that you produce in small amounts, like asexuality. If not, you're asking biology to address social interactions in a way that does not involve physical or subconscious cues. Biology isn't designed to do that.




> I wasn't actually arguing this point. What I was contesting was this: "There's no benefit in waiting for it only that you hunger for it more."
> 
> For some people, there is a benefit. Not for all people, but for some people.


Outside of adhering to social/religious/cultural expectations, which are the few things that really separate us, what benefits does waiting really provide?


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

android654 said:


> My personal opinion is that people are merely mistyping Asexuality. To say that sex drive is nonexistent until you meet a particular person that you connect with emotionally can not be defined by biology. Unless you're talking about triggering small amounts of neuromodulators that you produce in small amounts, like asexuality. If not, you're asking biology to address social interactions in a way that does not involve physical or subconscious cues. Biology isn't designed to do that.


I should probably take a crash course refresher in the science of love, lust, etc... however, I think it would be plausible that no sexual drive exists until a person experiences a certain release of dopamine or oxytocin or whatever other chemicals are released when a person starts to fall for that special someone. That could trigger a sexual drive that was previously non-existent. 

*throwing a random theory


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

saintless said:


> I should probably take a crash course refresher in the science of love, lust, etc... however, I think it would be plausible that no sexual drive exists until a person experiences a certain release of dopamine or oxytocin or whatever other chemicals are released when a person starts to fall for that special someone. That could trigger a sexual drive that was previously non-existent.
> 
> *throwing a random theory


If it takes an intense event to trigger neuromodulators or other hormones, then it's an indication that your body is not producing a proper amount of it. Ever had adrenaline rush from an intense argument? That's how it should be, you shouldn't have to face a pack of wolves to have a burst of energy to move.

A healthy person would begin to release hormones at the key stages of physical development. In other words, puberty should trigger proper growth hormones over several years to give you what you need to develop like the rest of the species. If you're not developing these things at certain stages in life, then it's a sign that you're not at optimal health as is the ideal for the species.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

android654 said:


> Outside of adhering to social/religious/cultural expectations, which are the few things that really separate us, what benefits does waiting really provide?


 I'd like to hear this as well. I can't think of any. It's not at all healthy to keep your sex life bottled up for so long.

I hate posting on this forum sometimes. It makes me remember how long its been since I last had sex. I always thought my libido would drop after losing it - its only made the fucking thing worse. I can't imagine what, say, 25 or 30 years would be like...


----------



## CoopV (Nov 6, 2011)

josue0098 said:


> I was trying to be friendly...
> Jokes are not friendly?


You can be my friend


----------



## StaceofBass (Jul 1, 2012)

Yes, OP

Sex really is that important.


----------



## Ed S (Jul 27, 2012)

Wow sex isn't important?! It's only the whole reason we exist. Maybe some of you need to have some better sex......no offense, but damn really?


----------



## Philosophaser Song Boy (Jan 16, 2011)

Given my current position in life, and status of my v-card... of course it is.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Marshmallow Moo said:


> Come on. I've been browsing these threads and I've come to realize see that there is a surprising amount of people who seem to think sex is actually a _necessity_ in relationships. ....Really? In my experience, sex has proved only to damage and dirty a relationship. Since most people do not wait until they are married for intercourse, sex is unlikely to be as intimiate and emotional as it could be and clouds growth between people so their interactions are consumed by lust rather than love.
> 
> I am not a prude for saying this. Research has indicated that sex really is damaging to the emotional health of a relationship.
> Want the secret to a happy marriage? Don't have sex before the wedding | Mail Online
> ...


LOL. No wolves (well maybe a stray coyote, or fox). You are contrasting the rather silly romantic notions we find in movies, TV, and trashy novels, with the realities of sex, no doubt. 

Perceptions vary. I've been monogamous for almost 17 years, and married for 13 (you do the math). I don't see sex as necessarily damaging to a relationship (unless you're bumping uglies 24/7) it's all about balance. When I was younger, the quantity was higher than the quality. Now that I'm older, it's the reverse. 

Oh, and I do think sex is a basic necessity in most intimate and loving relationships (even some that aren't so much).


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Premium G said:


> Given my current position in life, and status of my v-card... of course it is.


 If anything I would say sex is too important for you.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Ed S said:


> Wow sex isn't important?!


I look at the title of the thread, and I do not see this statement being made.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

I'm willing to wait for a fairly long period of time, I don't think a month or even two months is a long time, but if I had been dating someone for two months and we had gone one what, a date a week, spent ordinary casual time together, talked a lot on internet/phone or whatever, and then it broke off after 2 months without any sex I think I might be annoyed. Three months I certainly would be.

I think this is a fairly common thing amongst men. We don't mind waiting so long as we know there's going to be sex eventually, it's just the uncertainty that is irritating.

I can do it whenever, it doesn't really bother me. First date or tenth, that's fine. I understand & accept that people have issues with sex on the first date or whatever, it makes sense. It would be nice if people understood that I thought that sex is an important part of a relationship, though. You know, two sides of view and all.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> I'm willing to wait for a fairly long period of time, I don't think a month or even two months is a long time, but if I had been dating someone for two months and we had gone one what, a date a week, spent ordinary casual time together, talked a lot on internet/phone or whatever, and then it broke off after 2 months without any sex I think I might be annoyed. Three months I certainly would be.
> 
> *I think this is a fairly common thing amongst men. We don't mind waiting so long as we know there's going to be sex eventually, it's just the uncertainty that is irritating.
> *
> I can do it whenever, it doesn't really bother me. First date or tenth, that's fine. I understand & accept that people have issues with sex on the first date or whatever, it makes sense. It would be nice if people understood that I thought that sex is an important part of a relationship, though. You know, two sides of view and all.


:sad: Wow. You mean to tell me if you were seeing a woman for a couple of months and enjoyed her company and her you, but for whatever the reasons it wasn't gonna work (a relationship). ... you would actually hold it against her that she didn't put out? Really? .. not sure what else to say ...


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> :sad: Wow. You mean to tell me if you were seeing a woman for a couple of months and enjoyed her company and her you, but for whatever the reasons it wasn't gonna work (a relationship). ... you would actually hold it against her that she didn't put out? Really? .. not sure what else to say ...


 If I liked her that much that I wanted a long-term relationship with her but she decided that she didn't enjoy relationships then I wouldn't care about the sex (this has happened to me before) but the point is in my post that the relationship didn't work out because we didn't like each other.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> If I liked her that much that I wanted a long-term relationship with her but she decided that she didn't enjoy relationships then I wouldn't care about the sex (this has happened to me before) but the point is in my post that the relationship didn't work out because we didn't like each other.


Fair enough ... 

I think what I felt from your post was close to the emotional location of the OP. It doesn't feel very good when you feel that men(or maybe some women) associate the value of sex with the actual value of a person. I hope that made sense. I appreciate you for clarifying.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> Fair enough ...
> 
> I think what I felt from your post was close to the emotional location of the OP. It doesn't feel very good when you feel that men(or maybe some women) associate the value of sex with the actual value of a person. I hope that made sense. I appreciate you for clarifying.


 I understand what you're saying. My position is this: if I like someone emotionally, I like them physically. That is ordinary. If I want to take someone to dinner and spent alone time with them, if I sit and talk to them about serious things, or if its just shooting the shit -- and I mean if I do this in a one to one context, I also want to have sex with them. It's part of the package. I don't know if that's normal or not. 

I dunno how to say it. A sexual relationship enhances an emotional relationship. (Not in a platonic sense.)


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> _That's all subjective, and I'm a bit offended that you assume if you have sex with someone less than a month after dating that you're not looking for an actual relationship. __WHY???_ _If you sleep with a man in less than a week, how do you know him well enough to know whether you want to pursue a relationship with him? _


_
_
Again, that's your opinion....don't tell me I didn't know him well enough to know I wanted to pursue a relationship with him.

_



And I also think your idea that 1 month = 4-6 dates tops is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

_


> _WHY? You don't have a job or hobbies or other aspects of your life to enjoy?_


_
_
Yes I have a job, yes I have hobbies, yes I have friends. There are 7 days in a week - when we first started dating we had about 3-4 dates a week. Now that we're not "dating" we spend our weekends together, and depending on what's going on in the rest of our lives maybe once or twice during the week. It doesn't mean I don't also do my own thing as well, nor that I don't have other things I enjoy.

_



I think my boyfriend and I hit that number within a week or so (our first date was 20 hours long....and NO we did not have sex!!!).

Click to expand...

_


> _OKAY, so you did not have sex. Why are you on the defensive for me contributing my opinion to the discussion.
> 
> Why are you personalizing my input?
> 
> ALSO, in high school, or maybe the first couple of years after ... sure you have more time to date more often. So there is also my age to consider. Dating as an adult changes. I am not saying you are not a young adult. Just that being young should be factored in here. And if you are indeed not a young adult, than well .. I'm sorry you feel so offended. That most certainly was not my intention._


_
_
Excuse me but I'm not some 18-20 year old kid who thinks she's in love. I'm in my mid-to-late 20s, thank you very much....high school (and college) are a long time ago. I'm definitely mature enough to be having serious long-term relationships. And just because you haven't had a relationship like this doesn't mean there's something wrong or immature about it. 

I know you didn't intend to offend me, but I don't like people who judge me based on their lives and their experiences.

_



Every relationship is different, and to judge others based on that is unfair.

Click to expand...

_


> _I don't see that I judged you personally at all! Please help me understand what you were feeling that preceded this response. I would very much appreciate that._


_
_
I feel like you are/have judged me by a) saying that I had sex too soon to know that it was a serious relationship, and b) assuming that I am young and immature and don't know what I want. I'm not disagreeing that the dynamics of the relationship I am currently in are not typical...all I am saying is that even if it's not typical, even if it's not something you have personally experienced, does not mean it's wrong, and that some couples know immediately, and it doesn't mean their relationship is any less mature or serious.




> I was not judging you as a person. But yes, I think when you have sex within a month or less you are not thinking about long term relationship from a healthy perspective. This is my opinion. At every stage of life we experience and develop ourselves and our opinions. I do not feel guilty for having one no more than you should feel guilty for how you handle your emotional life. If you feel judged and slighted all I can say is that ... I'm sorry you feel that way.


You are entitled to your opinions no doubt. But perhaps in your life and in your experiences you believe that having sex within a month is not thinking about long-term, but it does not mean that in someone else's life and experiences, that having sex before that arbitrary cut-off is not healthy. After the first week of dating we were already farther along than many couples are after a month or two of dating (and definitely deeper into a serious relationship than I had been in past relationships after several months). So to me time is irrelevant. What matters is how well you know the person and how deep the emotional connection is. 

Before I met my boyfriend I never gave in to that "love at first sight" concept....but while I don't think I loved him at first sight, I knew immediately that this was different, that this was special.


----------



## Solitaire2012 (Sep 26, 2012)

Hmm, I'm not sure that chocolate or puppies or many other enjoyable parts of life, including sex, are absolute necessities, but I wouldn't want to live without them.


----------



## Sapphyreopal5 (Jun 11, 2012)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> I agree, there are a lot of people who have sex waaay to young and are not ready for it (not mature enough to handle the emotional effects or the responsibilities involved). I was 24 when I lost my virginity, mainly because when I was younger (in college) I knew I wasn't ready for it so I didn't do it....I had opportunities, I just never took the bit.
> 
> I think you misunderstood me - I was in no way saying that you should go out and have sex just to experience it before marriage. All I am saying is that saying that a relationship isn't ready for sex before marriage is ridiculous, and that premarital sex doesn't necessarily equal a doomed relationship, and that in a long-term committed relationship sex is a healthy and integral part of bonding.


My apologies. I wasn't trying to imply that I thought that's what you were saying, as I don't believe that's what you were saying at all actually! I was just talking about generally speaking that some people actually believe that, which I think is a bad way of looking at things ha ha. What I was trying to do was present the other extreme end of the spectrum you could say, where some people actually push for people to have sex before marriage because they think it's better to have it before, as opposed to those who say to wait until marriage because they think it's better to have it after marriage (and hopefully during marriage too). I should have clarified that in my previous post.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> But yes, I think when you have sex within a month or less you are not thinking about long term relationship from a healthy perspective.


My husband and I had sex within the first month because we _knew_ we wanted to be together and to eventually marry. 

I only have long-term relationships. I have had an 8 year marriage and the shortest is about 2 years. I do not believe you can put an equation to how long you need to wait equaling whether or not your are healthily thinking long-term. Some of us just work differently. Some of us can read people easily and some of us really dive deeply into relationships and into another person. But I know we don't all roll that way. 

Thank goodness life experience has taught me to spot authenticity, connection, and deepness on the onset. It's rare. As it should be.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> [/I][/COLOR] I know you didn't intend to offend me, but I don't like people who judge *me* based on their lives and their experiences.
> 
> I AM NOT JUDGING* YOU*, My OP in this thread and my opinion is my judgment on the subject matter at hand. I'm sorry if you feel judged. If you want to seek understanding my perspective ... okay. But otherwise, I have no desire to feed into your apparently angry reaction to the judgment I made regarding a thread topic.
> 
> I feel like you are/have judged me by a) saying that I had sex too soon to know that it was a serious relationship, and b) assuming that I am young and immature and don't know what I want. I'm not disagreeing that the dynamics of the relationship I am currently in are not typical...all I am saying is that *even if it's not typical, even if it's not something you have personally experienced, does not mean it's wrong*, and that some couples know immediately, and it doesn't mean their relationship is any less mature or serious .


DID I SAY IT WAS WRONG? Let me reiterate my sentiments in response to @_Radiant Truth_. 

If you don't like my opinion, that is okay. I don't mind. And if that opinion hurts you, offends you on a personal level, than I am sorry for that. I hope you can not let the opinions of others affect your emotions in the future._ (I tend to have a more difficult time not letting people's reactions to me affect my emotions. It appears our challenges to manage our emotions are quite opposite. I'm doing the best I can right now ... I do not feel I've done anything wrong. And I'm not going to allow your anger towards me upset me.) _I feel that generally speaking, it is an unhealthy mind set (in pursuit of a LTR to mix in sex too soon.) _this is not an uncommon opinion in the professional realm of social work_. It does not make opinions differing wrong. What is right for one person is not right for another, and so on ... 



Ningsta Kitty said:


> _Cultural influence is not a positive trait imo. I prefer to influence myself by being picky ooney about who and what I let influence my mind. Of course I really should have the same concept applied with food but then I wouldn't be able to eat my delicious sugary scones in the morning  _
> 
> I agree, absolutely, there are going to be situations that don't fit the bill. Just because there are generalities, does not mean they are definite. Rules of thumb are not made of concrete. People are ever changing, evolving beings and yes, there are those people with whom you might connect with on an amazing level. I have to say though from my personal experience (though limited) AND in combination of being that infamous fair weather friend (shoulder to cry/counselor for female friends) - often times, women stick out a relationship with an amazing connection(and men) with much of the attraction being need vs. want. And I am not sure if this is something that extends beyond gender and type and emotional fractures and is just part of the human growth experience all together, of ultimately learning who we are and what we want. I feel  often, much of "knowing who we are" comes with retrospection of how we reacted and us questioning ourselves (why did I do that? why did I need that? why did I want that? what do I need and want now?) ...
> 
> ...


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

pinkrasputin said:


> My husband and I had sex within the first month because we _knew_ we wanted to be together and to eventually marry.
> 
> I only have long-term relationships. I have had an 8 year marriage and the shortest is about 2 years. I do not believe you can put an equation to how long you need to wait equaling whether or not your are healthily thinking long-term. Some of us just work differently. Some of us can read people easily and some of us really dive deeply into relationships and into another person. But I know we don't all roll that way.
> 
> Thank goodness life experience has taught me to spot authenticity, connection, and deepness on the onset. It's rare. As it should be.


Indeed. And I can read people very well. Unfortunately, reading someone's emotions, does not equate to reading their "wants". Just because I know a man is in love with me, does not mean he wants a relationship with me. A lesson I've learned the hard way. So I wait ... and that is okay for me. I am sorry if the way I articulated myself insinuated that handling relationships differently was unhealthy. That most certainly was not my intention. I will have to re-read my words later to understand where I went wrong ... In being unable to articulate the meaning (message) in my post.


btw, didn't know you were married. I thought you were dating an ENFP (noticed from another thread). So to be honest, I'm a little confused at your point of reference. I don't mean to put you on the spot or anything, just confused. I'm sure it was an oversight on my part.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Ningsta Kitty, I think its in how you word it



> I don't think *anyone* who is willing to have sex so soon is really looking for an actual relationship, imo.


See how you word it implies that the possibility of then opposite is impossible in any type of context. Which is obviously wrong, you may feel that people who jump in to having sex isn't look king for a serious relationship but that's already been proven wrong because there have been people who jumped into having sex and got married to that person. Also its what you consider sex, some people don't consider sex as an important deal and can have sex with multiple of people and then find someone have sex with that person as they had sex with everyone e else but realizes they like this one person very much and would love to pursue a serious relationship with set person. There are many different possibilities which go against how you subjectively feel. Not saying how you feel is wrong, but its one sided because by the way you worded it you implied that it is impossible to have sex less than a month and be wanting an actual relationship. The good thing is you implied it's your subjective thought process that feels that way when you said "*I* don't think", that saves you from completely projecting your thoughts on to others dogmatically. The problem though is in how you worded your statement.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> Indeed. And I can read people very well. Unfortunately, reading someone's emotions, does not equate to reading their "wants". Just because I know a man is in love with me, does not mean he wants a relationship with me. A lesson I've learned the hard way. So I wait ... and that is okay for me. I am sorry if the way I articulated myself insinuated that handling relationships differently was unhealthy. That most certainly was not my intention. I will have to re-read my words later to understand where I went wrong ... In being unable to articulate the meaning (message) in my post.
> 
> 
> btw, didn't know you were married. I thought you were dating an ENFP (noticed from another thread). So to be honest, I'm a little confused at your point of reference. I don't mean to put you on the spot or anything, just confused. I'm sure it was an oversight on my part.


Oh Gross! I referred to him as my "husband" instead of "ex husband". Lol it happens. I should correct that. 

But I will mention, there is a certain type of male that I date, where it's really obvious they're only intention is to have a long-term committed relationship. This is regardless of the words they say. But they usually do articulate it.

Before my current guy and I had sex, he wanted to make sure that I was searching for a long-term, committed relationship, and that I could invest time in "nurturing" and "fostering" the relationship between us. Once that was established, we pretty much had sex by like the 4th date. We had been talking for about a month though.

To be honest, had I not known this guy was the one for me, I might have responded to him more like, "I'm not sure. Relationships take time. I still need to get to know you." Or even "I can't be tied down right now." Or maybe even, "Let's not have sex." But I assured him that I was looking for a long-term relationship, because I wanted a long-term relationship _with him,_ not just anybody. Someone else, may not have had the same response from me.

The reality is, both he and I are older. He had dated a lot of women this summer. So it was clear to him that I was meant for him from the moment he met me and we hung out. 

After he divorced he swore to himself that he would not have sex with a woman until he was absolutely certain that she was the right woman for him _and also that he was the right man for her._ When he met me, he was beyond a doubt but still needed to know how I felt, with physical attraction aside. This is why he asked me what he did _before_ we slept together.

I have no doubt in my mind that this guy is quite sprung on me. He leaves me little room to question. I'm sprung on him too. I don't need to keep dating or even keep sex out of the equation. I can't even believe how I am behaving in this relationship and how I feel. It takes me a lot to trust a man, and I know he is a very trust worthy soul. 

Lol. I haven't gone home in a week. We don't like sleeping alone anymore. :/ Our kids like each other, too. 

Yep, sex on the 4th date and within the first couple of weeks. 

In addition, I know people who have talked on-line for months. And when they met, they had sex right away.

My mother talked to a man for a year on the phone before meeting him, I happen to know they had the same experience when they met. 26 years later, they are still together even though they had sex on their "first date."


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

@Radiant Truth Absolutely understand. I still would not change my wording though. 

The problem (I feel) Is as usual (J vs. P). Big Picture vs. Finer details. Note: I tend to be attracted to P's for their ability to help pull me "into the moment" so I don't mean to offend or anything. I guess what point I was TRYING to make is that I do not think a person is apt to know (of course there are exceptions as some people wear their super man mbti capes) BUT, "Generally speaking" (NOT to a person in particular) ... I think, and I feel, that people can not know they want a long term relationship with a person within a month of knowing each other much less a week. I think If I had to choose between what you do and what you say; I want to have a decent amount of time (more than a month) to see what you do. Because what you do or don't do, communicates what you do or don't want. And actions speak louder than words ... Just My Opinion. What works for me.

I get so frustrated communicating with P mind sets with regards to relationships (abstract concepts therein) because I feel that P excels in that, "in the moment". While J is all spazzy about "In the moment / unexpected " stuff and excels moreso in knowing what they want overall (big picture). So while I am always open and loving the influence of P - to "pull me into the moment" to enjoy life ... I always tend to try and balance it (influence) and attempt to pull them "towards the bigger picture" line of thinking. Unfortunalty, P's inevitably react in this "you can't tell me what to do, who I am, or what I see, or percieve, or want or whatever!" ... and of course, my hands shake all upset ... because that never is really my intention. 
This is probably one of my last areas of communication improvement - dealing with that reaction. Ugh ...

I also think and feel, that you hit the nail on the head with regards to the value placed on sex. I tend to have a HIGH value on people (overall). I also tend to place a high value on the physical experience as well. I DO NOT associate the two. Meaning, if I were to have a high value placed on a man who sucked in bed, I would not be annoyed. The experience is a 3rd entity to share (so to speak). That is why when @Diphenhydramine said he would be irritated earlier (I misunderstood) it was felt as a very sorrowful fact that I'd have to digest. He clarified his sentiments and I felt that I understood the happy medium. 

Anyways, sorry for the TL;DR Post ... This is essentially why I stopped participating in the sex&relationship threads. Which of course kinda stinks, because I enjoy learning other perspectives (doesn't mean I'll always buy into it, or agree. but they don't make me irate or anything unless I feel it's a view that will emotionally hurt people or something). And I feel I have valuable input to throw on the table as well. Just not sure how to communicate it without getting harsh loud whiplash


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> @_Radiant Truth_ Absolutely understand. I still would not change my wording though.
> 
> *I get so frustrated communicating with P mind sets with regards to relationships (abstract concepts therein) because I feel that P excels in that, "in the moment". While J is all spazzy about "In the moment / unexpected " stuff and excels moreso in knowing what they want overall (big picture). So while I am always open and loving the influence of P - to "pull me into the moment" to enjoy life*


It's one of the things that make us ideal seducers.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

pinkrasputin said:


> In addition, I know people who have talked on-line for months. And when they met, they had sex right away. I get that. I myself would be too nervous and shy. And unfortunately had a poor experience w/ regards to something like this. Not that they were a bad person. Just I don't think they understood or knew how to handle someone like me (how to make me comfortable) or whatever. But I get that this happens.
> 
> I suppose I was referring to "HI! Nice to meet you!  You look like a mighty fine specimen of a human being. Wanna Breed?!  "
> 
> My mother talked to a man for a year on the phone before meeting him, I happen to know they had the same experience when they met. 26 years later, they are still together even though they had sex on their "first date."


 I remember you saying this on another thread. Remember my reaction?! LOL!!! 
I'm such a dork. It was all melty NFJ gooey stuff .. "Dreaaaaaamy" :tongue: 

They are very lucky 
But I am not too sure this is the norm :/


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> It's one of the things that make us ideal seducers.


 I like how you edited OUT the part of what J influence can do for P Android! :tongue: 

I guess it's all the not so fun stuff huh >.<


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> I like how you edited OUT the part of what J influence can do for P Android! :tongue:
> 
> I guess it's all the not so fun stuff huh >.<


I just felt it was important to highlight the most important parts.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

@Ningsta Kitty

You shouldn't not post in a forum because people take your views too harshly. Just make sure you ask for a clarification if someone says something you feel upset about. I think you have something to contribute but are not confident enough to do it which is a shame.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

@_Ningsta Kitty_,

I do realize this was a J vs P battle and I'm sorry I got so obstinate, I just tend to be very sensitive to being judged by people (I grew up with a very emotionally abusive ESFJ mother), and it's one of the few things that really sets me off. I couldn't quite put my finger on why it upset me so much, but @_Radiant Truth_ explained it so much better, it was really in the semantics that it came across as personally judging _*anyone*_ who had sex in the first month, so I felt attacked (albeit unjustifiably so). I don't want you to not post in this sub-forum - and I know from previous threads we agree on A LOT!! 

And the thing is, in general I agree with you - about the sex. I see far too many people that jump into it too soon. And I even said in my original post that I felt that perhaps we had sex too soon - though it did nothing to damage the relationship, it was just that in my past experiences and in my normal frame of reference/judgement, it was too soon. 

Perhaps that's why I reacted so poorly - because there was some unconscious process that we had sex too soon and what you said was salt in the wound. Actually, I'm sure this is it, because this is exactly what my mother does to me -- she points out things very judgmentally, but they are almost always things that I already see as a problem (ex: I have a habit of talking extremely loudly and animated when I am excited, and it's something I am very aware of and embarrassed by, but my mom feels it's necessary to remind me daily that it's distasteful and I need to stop) and to have it pointed out time and time again I just can't take it and I get angry. 

So yeah, I'm sorry about that. 

@_Sapphyreopal5_, aaah that makes sense - sometimes I miss subtleties like that in text. I agree, both extremes are unhealthy.


----------



## Laguna (Mar 21, 2012)

Sex is natural Sex is fun Sex is best when it's one on one. -George Michael

We are sexual beings. If we are not having it, we are dreaming of having it. 
If we are not desiring it, something is "off" hormonally, physically or psychologically.
Healthy people usually want/need sex and with a parter you are in love with- well then that much more excellent.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> I remember you saying this on another thread. Remember my reaction?! LOL!!!
> I'm such a dork. It was all melty NFJ gooey stuff .. "Dreaaaaaamy" :tongue:


 I don't remember but I believe you. Lol.

On another note, I need to convey something else. I want to be able to understand you clearly but I must say I find it a tad difficult to visually sift through your posts and figure out when your quotes end and when your replies begin. It takes me a few moments to figure it out. It might help if you keep your replies out of the quoted texts.


----------



## Cthulhu And Coffee (Mar 8, 2012)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> Sex is materialistic now?!?! I don't buy into that one bit (pun intended...). Also, how is sex NOT an emotional experience?!?! I could only possibly see that in an example of casual sex, but it sounds to me like you WANT an emotional connection, so I fail to see how you want an emotional connection yet you disregard sex as an emotional experience. It's an emotional, intimate bonding experience with another human being.


You may have a point in your own way but I believe people in general confuse having feelings while screwing with screwing in general. Casual sex is sex, in my opinion, in its rawest form - if you can have sex without feeling, I don't think it is an emotional experience in the first place. And I may want an emotional connection - that doesn't mean I would consider the two to be the same thing.

All you need to have sex is two physical bodies, and to me, physical = materialistic. I didn't say it would be any good, but believe that also depends on the individual.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

pinkrasputin said:


> I know people who have talked on-line for months. And when they met, they had sex right away.
> 
> My mother talked to a man for a year on the phone before meeting him, I happen to know they had the same experience when they met. 26 years later, they are still together even though they had sex on their "first date."


I'm at work right now, so I don't have direct access to my information to be able to directly quote anything, but I've recently been doing research on relationships that began online, and the literature shows that people actually disclose more information about themselves online than they do face-to-face, and since there are no visual cues, people have to reveal more about themselves than they would face-to-face since that the *only* way they have to get to know someone. Thus intimacy can be established online so that when a face-to-face meeting is established, they've already done the "getting to know you" phase despite just meeting face-to-face for the first time, and so they can proceed to physical intimacy. There have been couples who met online and fell in love before ever meeting in person. So in that situation one can't just go by their first face-to-face meeting as a connection has already been established.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> I just felt it was important to highlight the most important parts.


Oh I see how it is ... instant gratification in it's finest :wink::tongue:

You guys may be the ultimate "Seducers" ...
but may I remind you who the ultimate "Charmers" are? *giggling* >.<

@Diphenhydramine  thank you. I am not too sure if it's me being not confident as much as it is in managing Fe. I exert a lot of energy when I am with people. I am "In Tune" http://personalitycafe.com/members/diphenhydramine.html w/the person emotionally even if online. That's another rant for another day. In any case, for shits and grins, let me lay out a playful analogy in the wake of the most recent common miscommunication between *J* and *P*.

Note: Since this is serious foul for derailing thread (something INFJ's are notorious for apparently, you have to step on into the INFJ kingdom of silly randomness entrenched in deepful insights. I am not responsible for any tingling, warm fuzzies or yikes! you may feel from being submerged in NF overload land  http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/116675-derail-thread-thread.html


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

unctuousbutler said:


> I guess people confuse love and sex and intimacy and sex but I would rather have intimacy than sex.


None of them are mutually exclusive, and that is where people get confused.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Master Mind said:


> I'm at work right now, so I don't have direct access to my information to be able to directly quote anything, but I've recently been doing research on relationships that began online, and the literature shows that people actually disclose more information about themselves online than they do face-to-face, and since there are no visual cues, people have to reveal more about themselves than they would face-to-face since that the *only* way they have to get to know someone. Thus intimacy can be established online so that when a face-to-face meeting is established, they've already done the "getting to know you" phase despite just meeting face-to-face for the first time, and so they can proceed to physical intimacy. There have been couples who met online and fell in love before ever meeting in person. So in that situation one can't just go by their first face-to-face meeting as a connection has already been established.


yeah well. 2 things with that. 

#1) People lie. 

#2) I freak out sometimes worrying about if I said too much or how did that person take that and the responses can not be felt out at all! I could easily see if someone is lying or trying to be "Just Polite" or if they are saying whatever to get me comfortable but have other intentions ... I miss ALL OF THAT (with NO in person time). I redirect you to #1 in that quite often, I feel people do not succeed if only online interactions (if) when the romantic element is introduced without sufficient in person time. But again ... this is just me, for me and what I feel is right, for me.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> yeah well. 2 things with that.
> 
> #1) People lie.


Obviously people can lie, but they do that face-to-face as well. People have been lying long before the internet came into existence, or was even thought of. Research about online behavior shows that disinhibition occurs online (the same thing that is caused by alcohol), which can be in a positive or negative manner. Positively, people are more honest and disclose more about themselves online than they do face-to-face. I know this is true in my case, as I've disclosed more about myself here, for instance, than I would to anyone face-to-face. Negatively, people lie, pretend to be who they're not, act in ways that they wouldn't offline due to their anonymity, such as being more rude, aggressive, hostile, they flame, etc.



Ningsta Kitty said:


> #2) I freak out sometimes worrying about if I said too much or how did that person take that and the responses can not be felt out at all! I could easily see if someone is lying or trying to be "Just Polite" or if they are saying whatever to get me comfortable but have other intentions ... I miss ALL OF THAT (with NO in person time). I redirect you to #1 in that quite often, I feel people do not succeed if only online interactions (if) when the romantic element is introduced without sufficient in person time. But again ... this is just me, for me and what I feel is right, for me.


I was only commenting that relationships have successfully began online and continued offline. I was a vocal skeptic myself (and am on record doing so on this very board), but I've been reading the literature and the research, which says that they can and do work for people. Obviously it's not going to be for everyone, but, then again, neither are relationships period.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Master Mind said:


> I'm at work right now, so I don't have direct access to my information to be able to directly quote anything, but I've recently been doing research on relationships that began online, and the literature shows that people actually disclose more information about themselves online than they do face-to-face, and since there are no visual cues, people have to reveal more about themselves than they would face-to-face since that the *only* way they have to get to know someone. Thus intimacy can be established online so that when a face-to-face meeting is established, they've already done the "getting to know you" phase despite just meeting face-to-face for the first time, and so they can proceed to physical intimacy. There have been couples who met online and fell in love before ever meeting in person. So in that situation one can't just go by their first face-to-face meeting as a connection has already been established.


My mom talked to her guy for one year on the phone, without internet, and without ever seeing a photo of each other.

However, I do believe in my situation, my guy and I just knew when we met how well we'd get along. It was obvious. We only had about 1 phone conversation and a few texts back and forth before meeting. But I think there is something with age. I'm exactly the same as my mother when she met her current man she's been with for 26 years. In both my mother, my boyfriend, and my case, we both know what we wanted, recognized it when we met it, and are more than happy not playing the field anymore. Been there, done that enough to know that this person is _rare._ It's no longer about validation, we know we can have others. It is about compatibility, mutual attraction, and mutual values. That _is_ a rare find.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Master Mind said:


> Obviously people can lie, but they do that face-to-face as well. People have been lying long before the internet came into existence, or was even thought of. Research about online behavior shows that disinhibition occurs online (the same thing that is caused by alcohol), which can be in a positive or negative manner. Positively, people are more honest and disclose more about themselves online than they do face-to-face. I know this is true in my case, as I've disclosed more about myself here, for instance, than I would to anyone face-to-face. Negatively, people lie, pretend to be who they're not, act in ways that they wouldn't offline due to their anonymity, such as being more rude, aggressive, hostile, they flame, etc.


 Yeah but I guess my point was that I tend to do a decent job at reading people in person (body language). But I agree about being less inhibited. This is quite true, in my case at least.

@_pinkrasputin_ I think your moms situation was super lovely as it's so romantic. And I'm just not too sure I have much faith in that (or at least not as much as I used to). Probably because of that scenario on the ENFP question thread :frustrating: Ugh ... 

Side Note: Frustration with the P mind set vs. J is coupled by the fact that several of my family members are SP/NTP not to mention the personal relationships. It's the same patterns of miscommunication. It's super frustrating! It's to the point I barely even talk to my family much. I have one ENTP brother who I'm close with but we don't do certain subjects


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> Yeah but I guess my point was that I tend to do a decent job at reading people in person (body language). But I agree about being less inhibited. This is quite true, in my case at least.


 You just need to understand us more. Get to know a perceiver-dom better. We can ... widen your horizons 

Edit: Sorry, outrageous.
Edit2: Sorry I think I mentioned someone because I quoted the post improperly.


----------



## SublimeSerendipity (Dec 30, 2010)

boughtmeawalkman said:


> You may have a point in your own way but I believe people in general confuse having feelings while screwing with screwing in general. Casual sex is sex, in my opinion, in its rawest form - if you can have sex without feeling, I don't think it is an emotional experience in the first place. And I may want an emotional connection - that doesn't mean I would consider the two to be the same thing.
> 
> All you need to have sex is two physical bodies, and to me, physical = materialistic. I didn't say it would be any good, but believe that also depends on the individual.


Okay, I get what you mean by materialistic, but I think that people who have casual sex and claim they don't have an emotional feeling, I personally think they could be repressing their own feelings. One of my best guy friends (and INTJ) has recently had some FWB "relationships", but he also ends up getting attached to a lot of these women, and then I have to deal with him calling me on the phone in tears because he doesn't know what to do. 

I had one casual fling in my life, and it ended up a disaster, because guess what, I slept with him (we were drunk, he kissed me, I didn't refuse....) and almost instantaneously I started developing feelings for him, yet he had no intention of seeing me as anything more than a cheap fuck. 

Sex is a very intimate activity, but I think in our world of porn and over-sexed mass media, they are trying to make it something it's not. But the thing is, porn is a production, it's acting, I don't even call it sex because to me sex is natural and uninhibited - everything that porn is not. 

We are not our ape ancestors, we have developed complex thought, memory, and emotion, and with that comes the ability to respond to more than just hormonal urges. And we attached sex and its reproductive purposes with the concept of life-long mating (marriage) for the purpose of childrearing, because that strong emotional connection was what essentially keeps individuals together at an unconscious level.




Master Mind said:


> I'm at work right now, so I don't have direct access to my information to be able to directly quote anything, but I've recently been doing research on relationships that began online, and the literature shows that people actually disclose more information about themselves online than they do face-to-face, and since there are no visual cues, people have to reveal more about themselves than they would face-to-face since that the *only* way they have to get to know someone. T*hus intimacy can be established online so that when a face-to-face meeting is established, they've already done the "getting to know you" phase despite just meeting face-to-face for the first time, and so they can proceed to physical intimacy. *There have been couples who met online and fell in love before ever meeting in person. So in that situation one can't just go by their first face-to-face meeting as a connection has already been established.


EXACTLY!!!!! I know for a fact that I revealed more in texting conversation with my now-boyfriend before we even met that I had EVER revealed to guys I had dated IRL for months!! I think there is something to be said about less inhibitions as well - I know we spilled a lot of personal information late at night over text when we both should have been sleeping but were too intoxicated with each other to do so.

It's not to say that every online dating experience is like that. I went on dates with guys I met online that ended up as disasters and I completely closed off around them and felt very uncomfortable. But when it works it works!!

And I too was an online dating skeptic for many years before taking the plunge more on a "what do I have to lose" mentality since meeting people and establishing relationships IRL in NYC is almost impossible (especially as a new transplant with few friends). The funny thing is, I met my boyfriend after only being on OK Cupid for a week......


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

BuckeyeENFP said:


> Okay, I get what you mean by materialistic, but I think that people who have casual sex and claim they don't have an emotional feeling, I personally think they could be repressing their own feelings. One of my best guy friends (and INTJ) has recently had some FWB "relationships", but he also ends up getting attached to a lot of these women, and then I have to deal with him calling me on the phone in tears because he doesn't know what to do.
> 
> I had one casual fling in my life, and it ended up a disaster, because guess what, I slept with him (we were drunk, he kissed me, I didn't refuse....) and almost instantaneously I started developing feelings for him, yet he had no intention of seeing me as anything more than a cheap fuck.
> 
> ...


I have often thought this as well. I can't count the number of times people have pointed out that most animals don't pair bond for sex and some have recreational sex (yet no contraception, so it's still a natural part of procreation), yet they ignore the fact that there are plenty of species out there that do pair bond and other species that are polygamous with their bonding, meaning one male and multiple females.

Humans are pair bonding animals. To survive, humans must first be attracted to a mate, have sex, and ensure the child is safe until it is ready to fend for itself. Our brains are wired to ensure that final step takes place. The brain chemistry associated with human love is consistent to that of monogamous, pair-bonded animals. One of the important components to that, oxytocin, is provided during sex.

The advent of contraception only removed the obligations after sex. It did not remove the objective, verifiable, tested, and accepted truth that sex creates an emotional connection between the two people. To illustrate how strong this connection is, women release about the same amount of oxytocin during sex as they do during childbirth.

It isn't that I am saying that anyone who does have emotionless sex is consciously lying. I am saying that anyone who says that it's possible is arrogant enough to claim to have subverted forces beyond their control. We may be able to suppress emotions and feelings to the point where they never enter our conscious minds, but that does not mean that the event never occurred. And if the even occurred, that means the individual in question is not being honest about their feelings. If one cannot be honest about ones feelings to themselves, how can one be honest about ones feelings to another? That is a tough lesson I am learning right now.

So, anyone who claims they can have emotionless sex, to me, is arrogant.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> I have often thought this as well. I can't count the number of times people have pointed out that most animals don't pair bond for sex and some have recreational sex (yet no contraception, so it's still a natural part of procreation), yet they ignore the fact that there are plenty of species out there that do pair bond and other species that are polygamous with their bonding, meaning one male and multiple females.
> 
> Humans are pair bonding animals. To survive, humans must first be attracted to a mate, have sex, and ensure the child is safe until it is ready to fend for itself. Our brains are wired to ensure that final step takes place. The brain chemistry associated with human love is consistent to that of monogamous, pair-bonded animals. One of the important components to that, oxytocin, is provided during sex.
> 
> ...


Now that is an arrogant perspective. Neither my mind nor my emotions are located on my pelvis.


----------



## Particulate (Sep 21, 2012)

One time I didn't have sex for a week and began seriously contemplating killing myself

So sex might not be important to everyone but it's important to me.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Particulate said:


> One time I didn't have sex for a week and began seriously contemplating killing myself
> 
> So sex might not be important to everyone but it's important to me.


...

No offense, but as someone who has seriously considered suicide before, to hear someone say that they began seriously contemplating killing themselves just because they had to go a week without sex... it's incredibly trivial.


----------



## Particulate (Sep 21, 2012)

Master Mind said:


> ...
> 
> No offense, but as someone who has seriously considered suicide before, to hear someone say that they began seriously contemplating killing themselves just because they had to go a week without sex... it's incredibly trivial.


Oh I'm not saying it's not trivial. Even looking back part of me says "Really? I had it that bad?" but that's part of who I am and part of how I express myself to people I care for. Not having sex for a week for me meant that I didn't see anyone I cared about for a week, I didn't speak aloud for a week, I hardly ate or slept. The lack of interaction and release was mind numbing, I felt like I was dieing from pneumonia, slowly drowning in the air itself. But the point is that while sex might seem like a bonus to some or just icing on the cake of an otherwise good relationship for others sex is EVERYTHING. It's the medium that they communicate best through and depriving them is like taking the brushes and paints away from an artist. Without it they become depressed, manic, and eventually begin contemplating very poor choices just to escape from being locked in their own flesh and unable to enjoy anyone else's.


----------



## Bricolage (Jul 29, 2012)

Male orgasm is arguably the most important biological event going - by its existence, this forum exists. 

Is sex essential for love or intimacy? Nope. I mean, jeez, most folks love mommy, right? :crazy:


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

android654 said:


> Now that is an arrogant perspective. Neither my mind nor my emotions are located on my pelvis.


And this is a short-sighted one as if the nerve endings in your pelvis and everything else on your body just sort of stop somewhere between there and your brain. If it were true, your sexual organs wouldn't even be in a fit state to be able to have sex. Even if they could, you wouldn't feel anything. Sorry bruv, but you're like everyone else.

Like I said, this information is verified, tested, known, etc. The more research is done into love, the more what I am saying gets etched into stone. I am not just spewing a religious assertion or an ideal here. I am not even condemning casual sex either. I am saying that, scientifically, when sex occurs, one or more of the crucial components inherent in the brain chemistry for love are engaged. This is true for everyone. What I am saying is arrogant is when people say that doesn't happen to them because it is, even if they don't know it. When a repressed feeling occurs in someone who has repressed it enough, it just feels like normal.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> And this is a short-sighted one as if the nerve endings in your pelvis and everything else on your body just sort of stop somewhere between there and your brain. If it were true, your sexual organs wouldn't even be in a fit state to be able to have sex. Even if they could, you wouldn't feel anything. Sorry bruv, but you're like everyone else.


You make this grand claim to know that emotions are the sole driver of biological functions. Not only is this ridiculous, it's grossly misinformed. We know this from science, history, sociology, psychology, medicine, etc. Sex is not dependent on emotion.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

android654 said:


> You make this grand claim to know that emotions are the sole driver of biological functions. Not only is this ridiculous, it's grossly misinformed. We know this from science, history, sociology, psychology, medicine, etc. Sex is not dependent on emotion.


Not dependent, but that is the result.

EDIT: Not necessarily emotion, but feelings of closeness with the other person.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Not dependent, but that is the result.
> 
> EDIT: Not necessarily emotion, but feelings of closeness with the other person.



There's still nothing to suggest that they're anything other than a sociologically driven correlation.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

android654 said:


> There's still nothing to suggest that they're anything other than a sociologically driven correlation.


Yes there actually is. Scientists recently discovered that there are four centers of the brain that are associated with love in humans. One of those is the oxytocin emitters and receptors in the brain. Similar brain chemistry has been found in pair-bonding mammals. There is nothing sociologically driven about it. This lines up perfectly with the belief that humans originated as pair-bonding mammals.

I can't find the article, so you will have to take my word for it. If I recall correctly, one of the parts of the brain was associated with touch.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Yes there actually is. Scientists recently discovered that there are four centers of the brain that are associated with love in humans. One of those is the oxytocin emitters and receptors in the brain. Similar brain chemistry has been found in pair-bonding mammals. There is nothing sociologically driven about it. This lines up perfectly with the belief that humans originated as pair-bonding mammals.
> 
> I can't find the article, so you will have to take my word for it. If I recall correctly, one of the parts of the brain was associated with touch.



Well, if it's your good word.

You should know that oxytocin's role in sex is only soft data and doesn't suggest anything definitive. It's more likely used in pair bonding with offspring, since women generally produce most of this hormone during childbirth, pregnancy and breastfeeding and only produces a fraction of that during an orgasm. We could also get into the discussion of the average woman v.s. the average male and their frequency of orgasms as a result of sex with a partner.
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/64/1/27.long

What I do have is evidence. 

The further away we get from our selves, the less similarities we have with other apes. We do have the most amount of similarities with our cousin the Bonobo.

For example, they have highly expressive faces like we do, and respond to those expressions like we do
Bonobo

They have the second highest capacity for comprehending and learning language, second only to ourselves. They speak with a vocabulary of approximately 500 words and comprehend close to 3000.
Speaking Bonobo | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
Meet our Great Apes, Great Ape Trust, Des Moines, Iowa

They even possess the capacity for laughter and *community *bonding.
Discovery Channel :: Where Did Laughter Come From?

And just like us, our closest of cousins have sex for recreation, conflict resolution, relaxation and upkeep of health.
aggression notes, 4/26/04

Other rarities among our other cousins, they even kiss, have missionary position sex and even mimic homosexual sex like tribadism.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/xwl85258jj114088/?MUD=MP

They however do not form lasting relationships, a reationship we've invented alongside society.
http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/uploads/media/Bonobo_sex_01.pdf

So, with all these similarities in mind, there's a strong correlation in animal behavior between us and bonobos unlike any other ape. To say that we're like any other animal other than the bonobo is really going into left field. It's like saying, "My dog loves hay! He must be more like horses than wolves." Relationships and long term bonding or social, not biological in nature.


----------



## sarek (May 20, 2010)

Somewhat to my surprise, I found that for me sex is not actually that important at all. The way my gf and I loved each other was such that we could in fact still have had a perfectly good relationship if we had had to go completely without it. Physical intimacy is important for me though, but that is not nearly the same thing.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

sarek said:


> Somewhat to my surprise, I found that for me sex is not actually that important at all. The way my gf and I loved each other was such that we could in fact still have had a perfectly good relationship if we had had to go completely without it. Physical intimacy is important for me though, but that is not nearly the same thing.


Despite some who wish to make blanket statements about how important it is or should be for every single person on the planet, the fact is that it varies in importance with the individual, and the only thing that matters is that your partner is okay with it if you're in a relationship and that it works for the two of you. No one else should have anything to say.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

android654 said:


> Well, if it's your good word.
> 
> *You should know that oxytocin's role in sex is only soft data and doesn't suggest anything definitive. It's more likely used in pair bonding with offspring, since women generally produce most of this hormone during childbirth, pregnancy and breastfeeding and only produces a fraction of that during an orgasm. We could also get into the discussion of the average woman v.s. the average male and their frequency of orgasms as a result of sex with a partner.
> Sign In*
> ...


To the bolded part, what I have seen was hard data. I just can't find it.

To the rest, the only thing that you can do when examining one animal's attributes is determine that those attributes are possible and draw similarities and correlations with other species who exhibit the same trait being examined. One cannot reasonably say "humans probably aren't pair-bonding animals because Bonobos aren't, and they are our closest related species".

"So, with all these similarities in mind, there's a strong correlation in animal behavior between us and bonobos unlike any other ape. To say that we're like any other animal other than the bonobo is really going into left field. It's like saying, "My dog loves hay! He must be more like horses than wolves." Relationships and long term bonding or social, not biological in nature."

This last paragraph is simply awful. Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum fell flat on its face. The presupposition in the beginning that my argument was fallacious causes the whole thing not to work and become a fallacy itself.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> To the bolded part, what I have seen was hard data. I just can't find it.


Then produce it. I produced evidence showing it's used in maternal bonding, you have to do the same otherwise you're talking out of your ass.



> To the rest, the only thing that you can do when examining one animal's attributes is determine that those attributes are possible and draw similarities and correlations with other species who exhibit the same trait being examined. One cannot reasonably say "humans probably aren't pair-bonding animals because Bonobos aren't, and they are our closest related species".
> 
> "So, with all these similarities in mind, there's a strong correlation in animal behavior between us and bonobos unlike any other ape. To say that we're like any other animal other than the bonobo is really going into left field. It's like saying, "My dog loves hay! He must be more like horses than wolves." Relationships and long term bonding or social, not biological in nature."
> 
> This last paragraph is simply awful. Your attempt at reductio ad absurdum fell flat on its face. The presupposition in the beginning that my argument was fallacious causes the whole thing not to work and become a fallacy itself.




It was you who claimed that other mammals pair bond, so we must as well. That assertion isn't absurd or ill informed? You've still yet to produce anything to suggest we're biologically inclined to pair bonding with mates. Meanwhile I have evidence suggesting we bond in congregations and fuck with a concentration on enjoyment. Look at society as a whole, my position is supported even by a passing observation, yours still lacks anything other than your say-so.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Particulate said:


> Oh I'm not saying it's not trivial. Even looking back part of me says "Really? I had it that bad?" but that's part of who I am and part of how I express myself to people I care for. Not having sex for a week for me meant that I didn't see anyone I cared about for a week, I didn't speak aloud for a week, I hardly ate or slept. The lack of interaction and release was mind numbing, I felt like I was dieing from pneumonia, slowly drowning in the air itself. But the point is that while sex might seem like a bonus to some or just icing on the cake of an otherwise good relationship for others sex is EVERYTHING._It's the medium that they communicate best through _and depriving them is like taking the brushes and paints away from an artist. Without it they become depressed, manic, and eventually begin contemplating very poor choices just to escape from being locked in their own flesh and unable to enjoy anyone else's.


*eyebrows UP/shocked look* .. REALLY? ... Does your penis talk? You were seriously gonna jump off a cliff or slit your wrists? Or was it like on of those Evil Dead moments but with your penis instead of your hand .... LOL! I'm so sorry mate, I don't mean to be making fun of you or anything but I just, .... 

It tickled my fancy. That is all.

/ silently leaves room. Just not strong enough to be "nice" or "intellectual". 

-_- I am a weak human being. I think I will jump off a cliff now.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> It was you who claimed that other mammals pair bond, so we must as well. That assertion isn't absurd or ill informed? You've still yet to produce anything to suggest we're biologically inclined to pair bonding with mates. Meanwhile I have evidence suggesting we bond in congregations and fuck with a concentration on enjoyment. Look at society as a whole, my position is supported even by a passing observation, yours still lacks anything other than your say-so.


 you're right. But we are psychologically wired to pair bond (imo w/ what things I've read). But I don't want to debate. Humans have the cerebral frontal cortex. We are not like other mammals. It often amuses me that this is never taken into consideration when discussing the chica chica bow bow let's get jiggy wit it factors in discussion. This place is crazy >.< :tongue: Or maybe, maybe I AM?! :shocked:


----------



## Particulate (Sep 21, 2012)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> *eyebrows UP/shocked look* .. REALLY? ... Does your penis talk? You were seriously gonna jump off a cliff or slit your wrists? Or was it like on of those Evil Dead moments but with your penis instead of your hand .... LOL! I'm so sorry mate, I don't mean to be making fun of you or anything but I just, ....
> 
> It tickled my fancy. That is all.
> 
> ...


Nonverbal communication, look it up.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Particulate said:


> Nonverbal communication, look it up.


 Yeah. I know. But I don't think having sex nor communicating via pantomime can be a substitute for actual communication with words. Just my opinion. I found your position humorous. You are more than welcome to laugh at my prudish ways. I don't mind ...


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> you're right. But we are psychologically wired to pair bond (imo w/ what things I've read). But I don't want to debate. Humans have the cerebral frontal cortex. We are not like other mammals. It often amuses me that this is never taken into consideration when discussing the chica chica bow bow let's get jiggy wit it factors in discussion. This place is crazy >.< :tongue: Or maybe, maybe I AM?! :shocked:


All mammals have a neocortex, ours is just bigger. 

I agree that it's psychological, but so far there's nothing to suggest there's a biological reason for pair bonding. From a simple observation, if people are honest with themselves, no one practices true monogamy. It's quite literally impossible to have only one sexual or relationship partner for life, which is what pair bonding is and why parents often feel connected to their children despite their relationship with one another.

Going back to something more related to the topic, this author makes a very good argument for why waiting to have sex with someone is pointless in the long run.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

@android654 you are right, ours is bigger and different. So not that other mammals don't have one, just that ours is different and so I attribute our unique capabilities to alter the world around us to that. Also, I agreed that we biologically not wired to be monogamous (or at least not necessarily) there ARE some animals and avian species that pair bond for life. And dolphins also get their groove on for fun opposed to procreation only. All of this is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.

as made mention earlier in this thread, I DO NOT believe that sex or communicating pantomime is ANY substitution for verbal communication. I do not think that having sex is ANY substitution for the emotional bonding people can choose to partake in (I think there are aspects of our psychological growth that depend on this. Doesn't necessarily have to be romantic relationships. But we do need emotional fulfillment as does many other species). 

I think it all boils down to choice. I think human have a choice to be monogamous or not. I feel and think that there is an advantage to choosing that. Of course this is purely subjective and it is okay to choose otherwise so long as you are honest with the people you are with (and not leading them on etc.). 

The only area I genuinely disagree with you is the "Literally impossible" ... I think that is a subjective viewpoint in and of itself. The same if I were to assert that it is not psychologically healthy to partake in open relationships. How the hell would I know that?! Even if a surplus of psychologists wrote books asserting that, how the hell do they REALLY know that. ... as such, there is no way in hell you would know what I am or am not capable of. I assure you, I have a very flirty and fun personality, but within a relationship, I take it very seriously. I do not think it would be any problem to maintain a monogamous relationship for life. And I have never thus far had any experience to suggest that my nature is otherwise. http://personalitycafe.com/members/android654.html


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

@android654 Just watched the video. Nice ... :tongue:. So with that, are you saying "hey! if you don't have self love, don't bother holding out for 3 months because I'm just gonna leave you anyway. So you mine as well let me please you and have fun for the 3 months you got me!  " .... and then ningsta says to her female friend, "don't be naive stupid." 1. to the dude: hey! you are such a sweet guy! here is a girl who lacks self love. How about you give her crazy orgasms, so when you dump her, you feel like you did her a favor. Pshh, don't pay attn to your conscious that is letting you know that you will further psychologically and emotionally damage her. That's not your problem." ... to the girl: SURE! Get laid! It'll be a fantastic memory. And being a female, your oxytocin will surge through your veins and you'll bond more so with the guy who doesn't really love you and is just showing you a good time till the one he really wants comes around. Whatever I say to the girl. I remind her how stupid man is. because he invented the! (Oh My!) And no matter how much you get lonely, unless his .. is ... and ... and fits in my pocket ... I rest my case. There is no such thing as being desperate. Only being stupid.
http://personalitycafe.com/members/android654.html


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Ningsta Kitty said:


> @_android654_ Just watched the video. Nice ... :tongue:. So with that, are you saying "hey! if you don't have self love, don't bother holding out for 3 months because I'm just gonna leave you anyway. So you mine as well let me please you and have fun for the 3 months you got me!  " .... and then ningsta says to her female friend, "don't be naive stupid." 1. to the dude: hey! you are such a sweet guy! here is a girl who lacks self love. How about you give her crazy orgasms, so when you dump her, you feel like you did her a favor. Pshh, don't pay attn to your conscious that is letting you know that you will further psychologically and emotionally damage her. That's not your problem." ... to the girl: SURE! Get laid! It'll be a fantastic memory. And being a female, your oxytocin will surge through your veins and you'll bond more so with the guy who doesn't really love you and is just showing you a good time till the one he really wants comes around. Whatever I say to the girl. I remind her how stupid man is. because he invented the! (Oh My!) And no matter how much you get lonely, unless his .. is ... and ... and fits in my pocket ... I rest my case. There is no such thing as being desperate. Only being stupid.


What I took away from his presentation was what I think he intended to say. The act of waiting, for the sake of waiting will never fix the underlying problems. If you're a person who does not value themselves, waiting a year to have sex wont fix the problems you have and they will ultimately bleed into your relationships. If you are a person who values their self, then having sex right away won't impact anything because it's not tied to the same underlying problems people have when they feel the need to institute an embargo on sex.

Wait, don't wait, ultimately it fixes nothing on it's own.



Ningsta Kitty said:


> @_android654_ you are right, ours is bigger and different. So not that other mammals don't have one, just that ours is different and so I attribute our unique capabilities to alter the world around us to that. Also, I agreed that we biologically not wired to be monogamous (or at least not necessarily) there ARE some animals and avian species that pair bond for life. And dolphins also get their groove on for fun opposed to procreation only. All of this is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> as made mention earlier in this thread, I DO NOT believe that sex or communicating pantomime is ANY substitution for verbal communication. I do not think that having sex is ANY substitution for the emotional bonding people can choose to partake in (I think there are aspects of our psychological growth that depend on this. Doesn't necessarily have to be romantic relationships. But we do need emotional fulfillment as does many other species).
> 
> ...


When I say it's "literally impossible," I mean it's going to take extreme persons and extreme circumstances for it to last a whole life time. Even as children we dabble and play around with the idea of dating, and in our teens we're all prone to short lived romances and bouncing from one partner to the next. That's the average human experience, which is why it's inverse is impossible on a large scale and can't really be thought of in a realm of medicine like other aspects of sexuality.


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

android654 said:


> What I took away from his presentation was what I think he intended to say. The act of waiting, for the sake of waiting will never fix the underlying problems. If you're a person who does not value themselves, waiting a year to have sex wont fix the problems you have and they will ultimately bleed into your relationships. If you are a person who values their self, then having sex right away won't impact anything because it's not tied to the same underlying problems people have when they feel the need to institute an embargo on sex.
> 
> Wait, don't wait, ultimately it fixes nothing on it's own.


I know .. but I'm protective. I feel bad. I would not want to take advantage of someone who lacks self love. I would (if I had a penis, WHICH btw would be spectacular) I would like to think that I would keep it in my pants and be a good friend and encourage her to deal with that core problem. But then again, if I did have the spectacular goods ... I might not think straight  Totally Joking!  





android654 said:


> When I say it's "literally impossible," I mean it's going to take extreme persons and extreme circumstances for it to last a whole life time. Even as children we dabble and play around with the idea of dating, and in our teens we're all prone to short lived romances and bouncing from one partner to the next. That's the average human experience, which is why it's inverse is impossible on a large scale and can't really be thought of in a realm of medicine like other aspects of sexuality.


 I don't know. I think it might be way more often than you think. Or maybe it's the Dane Cook thing when he gets advice from the old man  ... in any case, I don't think two people need to be extreme personalities to love each other to commit to each other monogamously for life. 

I think there are some opinions I have (not this one, but ones I keep to myself) that are fairly rigid. and no doubt fear based. And opinions that I have not committed to as of yet. (interestingly enough they are polar opposite of your positions). Maybe ... Just a thought but .. maybe both of us are a little extreme with our assertions to the realities of the situation (being relationship dynamics today)? What do you think?


----------



## donkeybals (Jan 13, 2011)

Yes, sex is really that important. Human kind depends on it for it's existence!

Have a look at exhibit A.)










And now at B.)










Without having sex man kind and babies are doomed!


----------



## Particulate (Sep 21, 2012)

donkeybals said:


> Yes, sex is really that important. Human kind depends on it for it's existence!


I just like that your user name is Donkeybals


----------



## petite libellule (Jul 4, 2012)

Particulate said:


> I just like that your user name is Donkeybals



I concur. And I will take the foul for thread derail. Because it has often reminded me of Chef from South park and his ... so yeah. @_donkeybals_ is a silly hysterical user name! I think I will randomly post a baby picture on his wall when I feel like it another time. *inserts idea into the maybe later box behind my left ear*


----------

