|
|
|
|
|
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/24/2008 5:19:43 PM | Just because I may consider love the main course and sex the dessert doesn't mean that it isn't important to me...... I could get references from my ex if I had to! We had a great sex life even with four kids running around because we always made sure that we made time for each other.
But it was the emotional part, the love, that kept it great. I know that I've heard that sex diminishes in other couples but it didn't with us........
The reason I see it as dessert now is because I've had to deal with a situation where the person I loved was impotent..........and the love between us was more important then sex. It's fine if people can stay sexually active into their 80's........I'm in my late 50's and I still have a strong desire for it but to me, I've learned that the love between a man and a woman is more important then if he can still do it........ And with each passing year as we age, things happen (mostly to men not women!) that can create problems ........... diabetes, heart problems, strokes.........I wouldn't stop loving someone just because we couldn't have sex anymore. Get my drift?  | |
|
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/24/2008 5:28:21 PM | If there are men out there who think the majority of women don't like or want sex, then they must not be doing it very well. Most the women I talk to want a great sex life, and no not all of them want it within a marriage, they just want a good relationship, some only want casual sex, but they all want sex with a man that is good sex for both of them. I realize there are women out there that don't like sex, as well as men who don't like sex, and there are those of both genders who like to use sex so they can have control, but that is not the majority of the people and I really really have to wonder what kind of bad sex is going on to make someone think that most people don't want it. I mean if every man or woman you are with hates having sex with you, you are the common thread.  | |
|
| |
| |
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/24/2008 6:06:30 PM | Yeah well, there's a lot of talk from women in the Over 45 forum that don't want to link up with someone for a quick roll in the hay, but this hardly means that they don't like sex. It just means that they don't want to be used for sex -- which sounds fairly sensible to me. But I can't remember ever dating, meeting, talking to, getting intimate with any woman that didn't like sex -- at least, not since I was a little boy and sex was all about me. Then it was much different. And I think if I married someone that didn't like sex, I'd look at what I was doing before I thought that I'd married the one woman on the planet that didn't have normal sexual urges. Seems like a bit of a 'no brainer' to me -- but, of course ... just my opinion.
cdn guy | |
|
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/24/2008 6:48:07 PM |
(Msg 102) The reason I see it as dessert now is because I've had to deal with a situation where the person I loved was impotent..........and the love between us was more important then sex...............
I wouldn't stop loving someone just because we couldn't have sex anymore. Get my drift?
As another poster explained there are a number of ways to enjoy sex beside the "regular" way and that's really the point I was trying to get across. There are very few reasons a person can not participate in or, at the very least, satisfy their partner.
From reading the forums the major complaint is ones partner simply is not interested or "in the mood". This goes for both men and women. My point is considering all the things we do for our partner, from cooking dinner to cleaning the house to cutting the lawn to shovelling snow, having sex takes the least amount of time or effort.
Usually, not always, when someone says sex is not important or necessary what they mean is they intend to dictate the sexual frequency. They do not mean sex is not important. They mean it is they who will determine the importance of it.
As I mentioned earlier if ones spouse decided to have sex with someone else the importance of sex would become readily apparent.
(Msg 106) And I think if I married someone that didn't like sex, I'd look at what I was doing before I thought that I'd married the one woman on the planet that didn't have normal sexual urges. Seems like a bit of a 'no brainer' to me -- but, of course ... just my opinion.
I was married to such a person. After we divorced she remarried a couple of years later. A little over year after that she phoned complaining about problems with her new husband. Her exact words were, "You know me. I never cared for sex."
Yes, I knew that all too well. That was why I made it clear to my present partner the importance I placed on sex. She fully agreed and her reply was, "That's why some men have mistresses."
We're married and have been together 12 years and, yes, sex is very important. Mere words can not accurately explain the difference between my first wife and my current wife except to say some people like sex and some couldn't care less. | |
|
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/24/2008 6:50:21 PM | It's obvious that women like sex. But they aren't looking for it, nor do they want anything to do with men who are, and those are the men they complain about. I get that the favorite explanation for why you're single is that men are no good, but if you try looking at it differently you can see other reasons. It need not be that one sex or the other is bad. It might just be that men and women are looking for different things.
Having a piss poor idea about men is a great way to blunder every chance of meeting one, dating, and starting that great relationship. The low expectations warp the experience and incorrectly account misunderstandings and cross purposes as being evil behaviors.
It may be the case that sitting on your hands preaching the gospel of great relationships from your own perspective suits your fancy, but does it get the mission accomplished? I like something that men and women used to do to encourage mutual interest. It was called flirting. It was playful and teased with the obvious goodies waiting up ahead for the right time. Somehow it got replaced with obnoxious and condescending preaching about relationships, based on the model of enlightened and admirable women beset by dullard horn-dog men. There is no "come hither", there is this: Mention sex and you are a pig.
A couple of points to consider. There is no monopoly on smarts or modern ideas. Men and women alike see things pretty much the same in terms of dating propriety. For every straw man miscreant man you lambaste I can put forward some psycho fatal attraction chick. It's a wash. And, that great relationship you want would have to also suit the man, whose approach will be different; trying to impose your entire suite of relationship preferences intact won't cut it. In other words, unless you like how men see things, stick with women. The ideal man can't be one who sees life through a woman's eyes full time and in all things.
There are some women who don't see why sex matters. And some men are that way. The reason why sex or no sex is a deal breaker for many is simply because a sexual response is a normal part of being together. We have that in common. What will prevent a relationship of any kind is when one half owns the high ground and treats their partner like a lesser being. The attitude about sex and dating that some of these women broadcast is entirely insulting to men. The thing I look for is not a willingness to have sex right off. I can wait. I prefer to build up to it. The thing I look for is any sign that the woman is not walking around with a big chip on her shoulder that has her being obnoxious towards men at every opportunity, which means, any mention of sex and every attempt to flirt.
It is a small minority of women whose line is drawn in the sand and whose shoulder bears a chip over sexual interest. But it is a vocal minority and it gathers online as a gaggle to hiss and honk nightly. | |
|
| |
shimbo
|
Joined: 6/15/2008
Msg: 109 | |
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/24/2008 7:10:41 PM |
It's obvious that women like sex. But they aren't looking for it, nor do they want anything to do with men who are
That would be just about all men, you know.
I think what you meant was...
"They don't want anything to do with men who state upfront that they want sex".
I could easily lie and play the game.
But do I want a woman that I have to trick?
It's far easier to let them weed themselves out. | |
|
| |
| |
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:32:28 AM | Speaking from my own personal experience only, I know for a fact that sex has NOTHING to do with the durability or the quality of a relationship.
Not to mention that it also has nothing to do with the respect or the love you may or may not feel for the partner you may or may not be having sex with.
Fact no.1: For many reasons I do not wish to get into here, the last 10 years of my 20 year relationship were practically sexless.
And people may say or think what they want, but only my ex and I need to know and understand all the reasons why this happened. Suffice to say that it wasn't because we didn't love and respect each other. Or that one of us was a bad or a selfish lover.
And had it not been for a series of unfortunate circumstances that I also don't wish to get into, I believe that we could have eventually worked it out since everything else about our relationship was so good.
To put it simply, I believe that our marriage failed because of human error and NOT because of a lack of sex.
Fact no. 2: On the other hand, the next relationship I was in was highly sexual. And I mean...wow. And because I hadn't felt this sexual energy within me in a very long time, I mistook that "stirring" for love.
It's not easy to admit that one can't tell the difference between lust and love at the ripe old age of 47, but there it is.
And until the end when the relationship was not only deader than a doornail but actually getting destructive, the sex was excellent.
Why? Because sex is ALL we ever had in common to begin with that's why.
But outside the bedroom we had nothing, and once I was able to shake my head and see the reality of my situation for what it was, I was finally able to get this parasi...er...person...out of my life for good. All the sex did in this instance was delay the inevitable and help cloud the underlying issues.
So in MY opinion, sex in a relationship (or the lack of) is not this black and white thing that comes with a strict set of rules that applies to everyone like some poeple would have us believe.
Every person, every situation, and every relationship is unique with it's own set of circumstances that makes it different than the next.
And it is wrong....*very wrong in fact*...to try and convince others that there's something WRONG with them if they don't place the same value on sex as they do.
And perhaps ( just perhaps) if I hadn't listen to such drivel in the first place, I wouldn't be here today. Lesson learned. And to each their own.
Love and peace to everyone 
JMHO
Edit @ post below: Our relationship lasted ten more years DESPITE the lack of sex so there must have been something there huh?
And if all one can do is snicker and make degrading remarks and add nothing of value to a post that was honest and straight from the heart, I have nothing else to say. Some things are simply not worth the trouble.
| |
|
shimbo
|
Joined: 6/15/2008
Msg: 113 | |
| |
| |
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:53:07 AM | Oldsoul? What a wonderful post that was and one that I could most definately relate to.
Do NOT pay attention to the poster above me. His immaturity/mental capabilities are out here for all to see!
I was much like your second relationship with my ex husband. Exactly the same to be honest. Sex is not , like some of the tards here like to insist, the be all and end all darlin. If there is nothing else, the relationship will in fact disolve. I for one would like to thank you for your honesty and thoughts in your post. It was much appreciated darlin! | |
|
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:52:09 AM | Oldsoul, I concur with your statements. If sex was the be all and end all, then most of the planet would be in unhappy relationships. If I thought for a minute that the only glue in my relationships was sex, I would not be there at all.
That said, I think there is a difference between what happens in an established relationship, and what happens at the beginning of a relationship. In the early times people explore all aspects of the other, and sexual exploration is something that I think has to happen before any long term decisions are taken. There are, of course, lots of people who are in relationships that do not involve sex, even in the early stages, but to me these are unusual cases in one way or another. Your basic boy meets girl situation, in most cases where it is possible, should lead to sex. | |
|
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:12:11 AM | It’s not the sex that’s the requirement. It’s the things that lead up to a natural conclusion of making love to another individual (a.k.a. ‘sex’) that are the requirement. When I meet someone and there is some ‘chemistry’ developing, I have a natural urge to touch them. It’s not usually sexual at first, more like touching the shoulder, the upper chest below the chin, the hand, upper arm, fingers run along the jaw line – that kind of thing. Often I can tell (oh horribly naïve one that I am) if I am feeling some chemistry happening by noticing that I wish to touch the woman when I look at her. And with this ‘touching’ comes more intimate touching if the relationship between us grows. Intimacy sets in and the touching becomes closer and eventually leads to wanting to make love to this woman – the ultimate ‘touching’, as I view it.
It’s not the sex that’s the requirement, but the parts of the relationship that develop and lead up to sex that’s a requirement. And yes, for me, it is definitely a requirement in any intimacy that I share with a woman.
cdn guy | |
|
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:31:43 AM | Ok, being very new at this single thing...after being married 21 years...my perspective is this. Sex is a huge part of a relationship, and enhances the quality of the relationship, even if it isn't always mind-blowing.
My theory has always been that even if you're in a huge fight with your partner...the best way to calm down and start talking rationally again is to fool around! It just sort of takes the edge off... I would hate to be involved in a relationship and not have that ability to get things back on track! So...for me...it would be a requirement!
 | |
|
| |
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/25/2008 2:00:53 PM | since I am divorced...what do I know lol...
I think sex is a barometer...
I cannot even begin to imagine being in an intimate relationship where the sexual connection is not present.
It is such a trusting vulnerable position...you really know me and love me and accept me! | |
|
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/25/2008 4:22:16 PM | I dont think its as the top of the list at least not for everyone, but if it is something one wants then they should have it.
Sex to me is just that, sex. Now lovemaking is a different thing I would want it in a solid relationship, but I could live without it if it wasnt feasible for some reason.
I think sex should be a bonus not a requirement. A bonus is something you normally get after doing something well and good for a period of time, hence I think sex should be categorized the same. A requirement is a rule for something and something about that just doesnt sit well with me. I dont have a problem with anyone who says they have to have it, but at the same time I dont think its bad for those who dont have to have it either. | |
|
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/25/2008 5:25:57 PM | Could I live without sex? Yes, because I am and I can continue to and I probably could forever, if I were to remain on my own. Could I live with out intimacy, I guess so because I am currently living without that as well. Do I want to? Absolutely not. When a man and a woman have a loving relationship one of the requirements is rarely sex. For me, there is the requirement of intimacy which includes making love, intriguing one another, exciting one another and all that goes with maintaining intimacy along with living everyday life together.
I have a very broad description of intimacy. It includes talking, sharing your day, he holds my hand because without it, something is missing. I sweetly kiss his cheeks after he shaves taking in his scent, I rub his back, he washes my hair, calling him during the day to intrigue him and yes making love. But one day, either he or I may become sick or incapacitated, what would happen if we had built our entire relationship on sex? I don’t think the outcome would be good. However, when you build your relationship on a true intimacy, where you can finish each other’s sentences, she wears his shirt just to remember his smell and feel close to him and at night lying next to one another, there is a quiet peace, a warmth, a closeness. That is what I want. Sex is nothing; it is intimacy I cannot do without. | |
|
shimbo
|
Joined: 6/15/2008
Msg: 123 | |
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/25/2008 7:03:12 PM |
I think sex should be a bonus not a requirement.
When a man and a woman have a loving relationship one of the requirements is rarely sex
I rest my case.
Sex is more important than communication.
I can have sex with a gagged woman, but can a talking woman give me head?
I think not. | |
|
| |
| You've been THIS long without sex, why is it still a solid requirement?
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:59:27 PM | | rather simple answer i would imagine, having sex is giving oneself to the other completely two become as one, as for me , if i were in a relationship, sex would definitely be a requirement, an emotional bond if you will. if i wanted to be a monk i wouldnt be on a dating site, i imagine for the ladies which i wouldnt attempt to speak for, would be the equivelant to becoming a nun, | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
