I also hear that its easier to stray than to make the woman you love feel inadequate for a physical desire she is unwilling to fulfill.

The past does matter. There's plenty of skanks on here to bang. The woman you want to spend you life with won't have 20 sex partners and 2somes or moresomes. From my experience on this site, most women don't have good morals.

Kids do not usually keep track of their parent’s love life. Little Johnny, at 8 years old, is not going to understand Daddy is doing something wrong by staying at the office late unless Mommy let’s the cat out of the bag. The same applies to teenage Mary if Mommy disappears for a few hours in the afternoon. As far as Mary is concerned Mommy is shopping. Besides, teenagers have their “own life”.

If one partner is withdrawn, withholding affection, they are denying a basic, human need

I guess my point here is that there are very creative things that guys can do for the “bachelor party” that is a total blast for the guys.
Hopefully, someday my friends will throw a great bachelor party for me.
I’ll leave the stripping and wild sex up to my bride on the wedding night!

Faking everything? Now who is being unrealistic? Even if you wished to "fake everything" you wouldn't be able to. Even actors have a problem pulling it off. And of course, I don't think women fake everything.

Neven been curious? Never wanted to find out? Never had an intellectual discussion/quest for it's own sake?

Which is more important to women, monogamy or a relationship?

Okay, so it's perfectly acceptable for a woman to say "I'll wear them 'cause they're comfortable", but if a man said the same thing, he suddenly requires a makeover?

let’s suppose the other alternative, namely that women fake orgasms because they don't or can't enjoy sex. My question here would be why don't women say anything about it? (Again rhetorical) I know the answer... social suicide. Women know that guys like sex. Women also know that sex is the "greatest bait". So, admitting dislike of sex is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot...so to speak. Of course the next logical question is why do such women enter relationships knowing that guys like sex and they will be "asked" for it?

Cant say Ive ever tried to "make over" a man. As long as the show up at the door clean , tidy, and dressed appropriately for the occassion, Im ok with it.

Ok, as a natural man he looks at them walk past his car and then on down to their house.

Saturday evening rolls around and you go to his place. You attempt to make conversation but you can see he's not interested. You ask if there is something bothering him and he says, "No". Little conversation is exchanged over dinner and less when you sit in the living room. He responds to questions with a one-word answer.

Half an hour or so passes and you ask him again, "Is there something wrong? You're hardly talking."

He replies, "No, I just don't feel like talking."

here Dave ... you just got it. SEX colours their view of their partner and accepts things that go against their values and beliefs.

That is what splits couple up ... different values and beliefs. THAT reason IS the reason that for all of us poster here are saying they want to get to know someone FIST before giving in to physical and emotional connection. THAT is the reason that people discontinue sex with their partner ... 'cause they can't stand them anymore ...

The things they ignored by dawning on their rose coloured glasses in the moment of the lust .... that one comes back and slaps you in the face ... ALWAYS.

If most people feel that sex is special and the ultimate bond and is the ultimate expression of love between two adults then why wouldn't sex be the motivating factor? Don't we all want that ultimate bond?

If a person tells you they enjoy skiing but each time you suggest a different ski resort they come up with some reason they don't like that particular resort what would you think? If a person claims they like dining out but every time you suggest a different place they come up with some reason they don't like the restaurant what would you think?

I'll just toddle on down to my local bar tonight, slam back a few shots of tequila, grab a hunky guy, quiz him a bit about his ideas about sex and relationships, and if he seems non-demented, bring him home and shag him silly, thus FACILITATING a relationship with him! WOO HOO

It's not about lust. It's much more than that. It's about wanting to be together. It's not about "getting ones rocks off" as I've noted many times. Sex is much more than the physical act. It's about wanting to be as physically close to the other person as possible. It's about wanting to touch the other person. To sense then. To smell them. To taste them. To explore their entire body. To be one with them.

Yes, I do state my situation and clearly, I hope. Sex is vital to a healthy relationship and it's time to put an end to all the lies that it isn't nomal or good or desired by most.

Why would you think that little of yourself? If a guy wants to have sex with you, you feel he's not too picky? What are you saying about yourself; that most guys wouldn't be interested in having a relationship with you? That's not a healthy attitude.

More assumptions.

Some of the many reasons I have sex (if we're both on the same page) early is because it's fun, exciting, a great indicator (unlike no other) of honesty and congruent sexual attitude, an immediate way (in many cases) of finding out about sexual chemistry, an immediate way of discovering her capacity for joy, generosity, creativity, humor, strength of character, compassion, grace under -- at times -- intimate pressure or vulnerability, and to sum up, to the importance of the "thrust" of the courtship and (if it gets to that point) developing relationship. In other words, we have sex strictly for positive reasons and desires.

There is an absence of fear; the fear I see on this and similar threads is: "I was burned in the past, and so I don't want to go there again" or "I don't want to appear easy" or "I want to let it build so that it's special, otherwise it might not mean anything" or "I might not be respected afterwards" or "I don't know him yet" or "I'm not comfortable" or "I don't feel close to him".

How is sex finally introduced later on? It's inevitable that any long(ish) sexless initial period takes the form of "friendship only", however "sexual" the vibes may be. Without sex, the proof of physical union, the initial surge of electricity is rerouted if not snuffed. Any energetic force has to go somewhere. And that energy, even if it's "positive", has to go into a compensatory emotional and/or intellectual or spiritual development. The danger here is obvious: you're becoming (if it continues) good friends. And after some time (it doesn't take long), an "ewwww, I can't fukk you, you're like my brother!" (or sister, as the case may be) may come about.

For others who find it hard to discriminate, and who get fooled numerous times because of it, then, yes, I WOULD advise going slow. But I would first hope that any residual UNMERITED distrust be absent, and in that case, a somewhat prolonged period of non-dating may be in order for any bitterness or "cold feet" syndrome to dissipate.

It sets up very justified suspicions about just how strong the sex drive of the one who especially insists on waiting (usually, it's one, with the other at least somewhat reluctantly agreeing to it -- man OR woman), and about their interest in it at all. Finding out that one's partner has little drive or positive attitude for sex, after having been emotionally and spiritually bonded, is tragic. That's another reason why sex, for me, should be proclaimed as a priority: we all automatically bond as a natural course of dating in an emotional and spiritual manner, but sexual bonding is unknown until sex occurs.

I agree that it's not possible to know all I need to about someone by speaking online and a short coffee date. Does this mean my expectations are that we should quickly proceed to 'horizontal conversation'? No ... but I do hope to discover whether or not my potential partner speaks the same unspoken language as me sooner rather than later. Nothing is less fun than finding out later that you're speaking to someone who can't hear you.

Really, this is a boring correction to have to make. Again, context and perspective are important.

Many women are emotional users; many men are sexual manipulators. Where is the shocking "news" in making those two statements? I simply objected to your use of the former statement as if it was an application to yourself. That is your assumption, again, wrongly so. I don't know you at all.

No. It means that the dynamics of courtship progression, in the real-world scenario I've outlined, lends itself to exacerbating the problems regarding the separation of sexuality from emotional/spiritual/intellectual bonding. We're ALL susceptible to that problem when sex is put on the backburner.

You, yourself, have already mentioned the distrust of immmediate lust as an illusion. Lust, sexual desire, can be enhanced and given meaning, but it is an immediate and powerful surge which takes no development throughout the course of dating to manifest.

Please be accurate in your wrongfully assumptive generalizations. I'm not "you guys", I'm not "yours and daves" , and I haven't, directly nor by implication, called anybody I don't agree with a "liar" or "asexual". You're taking an exchange of forum ideas in a personal manner. It's not all about you.

All four components (sex, spirit, intellect, emotion) are needed, but the primacy of sexual desire is what sets the union apart from a possible friendship/acquaintanceship

It’s got nothing to do with “fear” and everything to do with a logical approach. If the person does not want me, if I don’t ring their bell, then what are the chances of a lasting relationship? That is my concern and, logically, it should be anyone else’s if they are interested in a LTR.

The problem isn’t in the fact you need that connection. The problem is you don’t have that connection. That’s the “wrongness” of it in terms of a relationship. The chemistry isn’t there. To reiterate, it’s not that sex, per sé, is important at a specific point. What’s important is why one does not want sex.

just don't life that box lid, you might find a feral cat in there.

If I randomly walk up to people and ask them what romance is to them they will probably mention something out of a movie. While this may be able to happen I think most people forget that such events are backed by multi million dollar budgets and elaborate planing by several individuals over the period of months to years. But like I said it is possible... for millionaires.

more than a few women are drawn that stereotypical "bad boy" because of that intangible "chemistry" of danger, and passion... but in the end 99% of the women are going to be used, abused, and discarded by those same bad boys because in reality its all just a fantasy with an unpleasant reality underneath.

And for any women that want to reply..do you think it is fair to say we are looking for romance and passion as part of chemistry?