Is sex really that big of a deal?

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

I'm pretty sure James wouldn't be dating a young woman for 3 1/2 years without having sex with her.

LOL, that's what I was thinking.

But for real, in that class I was talking about there were 100+ people and I was THE ONLY ONE who didn't feel that if 2 people weren't having sex, it still was a relationship. Everyone else said that the couple were just friends.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

LOL, that's what I was thinking.

But for real, in that class I was talking about there were 100+ people and I was THE ONLY ONE who didn't feel that if 2 people weren't having sex, it still was a relationship. Everyone else said that the couple were just friends.

Well, I agree with you. Otherwise I stayed friends with my boyfriend for a looong time before we were really "in a relationship."

Sex, and sexual behavior do not a relationship make. That's not to say there's not a sexual drive behind your emotions and feelings for each other, there is. But, if, God forbid, something happened to my boyfriend and sex was no longer an option, I'd still love him. And I know that the opposite is also true.

Love =/= Sex
Sex =/= Love

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Sex, and sexual behavior do not a relationship make. That's not to say there's not a sexual drive behind your emotions and feelings for each other, there is. But, if, God forbid, something happened to my boyfriend and sex was no longer an option, I'd still love him. And I know that the opposite is also true.

This is cute in kind of a "Hallmark/Oxygen TV/vomit" sort of way, and that's great for you guys - however, I don't want others in the thread to mistake what you're saying here (and the implications).

All healthy relationships require a strong, healthy sexual side. Do you necessarily need to have sex, per se? No - but you should be prepared to meet both your needs and your partner's in some other way. What does 'healthy' mean? Well, it's different for each individual, but it is 100% a point of compatibility - so if the female is comfortable with zero sexual contact, fine, but she'll be searching for quite some time for a sucker, errr dude who matches.

Before we start mangling our terminology further (for instance, "LOVE =/= HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP" would be the easiest addition to the tautology parade, but whatever), I think it's important to keep the inarguable points in mind - between religion, mythologizing of love and societal pressure, it's a difficult situation, but there is no getting around the fact that sexual compatibility is huge . . . and it's a huge problem for a large number of couples.

This is why I don't have trouble with the "technical virgin" mentality - while I don't really carry the same moral bases (obviously), if you feel that abstinence is solid for whatever reason, I can't fault you for pleasing your partner (and yourself). It doesn't seem super efficient, but it's your choice - and it will be quite difficult for people to have healthy relationships as an adult while remaining completely chaste.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This is cute in kind of a "Hallmark/Oxygen TV/vomit" sort of way, and that's great for you guys - however, I don't want others in the thread to mistake what you're saying here (and the implications).

All healthy relationships require a strong, healthy sexual side. Do you necessarily need to have sex, per se? No - but you should be prepared to meet both your needs and your partner's in some other way. What does 'healthy' mean? Well, it's different for each individual, but it is 100% a point of compatibility - so if the female is comfortable with zero sexual contact, fine, but she'll be searching for quite some time for a sucker, errr dude who matches.

Before we start mangling our terminology further (for instance, "LOVE =/= HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP" would be the easiest addition to the tautology parade, but whatever), I think it's important to keep the inarguable points in mind - between religion, mythologizing of love and societal pressure, it's a difficult situation, but there is no getting around the fact that sexual compatibility is huge . . . and it's a huge problem for a large number of couples.

This is why I don't have trouble with the "technical virgin" mentality - while I don't really carry the same moral bases (obviously), if you feel that abstinence is solid for whatever reason, I can't fault you for pleasing your partner (and yourself). It doesn't seem super efficient, but it's your choice - and it will be quite difficult for people to have healthy relationships as an adult while remaining completely chaste.

Yeah well the idea of a tragic crotch accident with me lying at his hospital bed protesting that I shall always love him is rather hallmark

But that's what I meant in that there is a sexual drive behind your feelings. And if you have zero sexual contact, you're both probably going to be stressed unless you were both raised that way and are comfortable with it. (I know someone who went all out and officially courted his fiancé. They were chaperoned and everything) But hugging, kissing, making out are sexual contact and can be sufficient for both parties IF they both want it to be. The idea that guys are sexual machines and MUST be appeased with sex or else is silly. Being a sexual being is not the same thing as being sexually active, guy or girl.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

But hugging, kissing, making out are sexual contact and can be sufficient for both parties IF they both want it to be.

This can be true . . . but it's less "want" than "need" - each person has a level of satisfaction. Most can't "will themselves satisfied" with any relationship element, including this one - in fact, I'd argue no one should ever try.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The idea that guys are sexual machines and MUST be appeased with sex or else is silly. Being a sexual being is not the same thing as being sexually active, guy or girl.

See, here's the problem - you're wrong, both literally and in essence, for a large percentage of the population.

[Rudey]

haha you're all virgins or gay.

-Rudey

[christiangirl]

Since I actually do fit into one of those categories, I won't even be mad.

Back to the original topic...

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

This can be true . . . but it's less "want" than "need" - each person has a level of satisfaction. Most can't "will themselves satisfied" with any relationship element, including this one - in fact, I'd argue no one should ever try.



See, here's the problem - you're wrong, both literally and in essence, for a large percentage of the population.

I'd argue that it's a strong want to a mild need. If you absolutely have to have it I think you're bordering addiction. If your significant other is away for a month for work, is that an excuse to cheat? What if it's six months while you get the family moved across country?

And I'm not sure what you're commenting on in the second part. That for most sexual being=sexually active? I wouldn't disagree but the second isn't required. If you think that the majority of the male population MUST BE APPEASED with sex, well I'd disagree with you there too. You may feel that way, but I know plenty of guys who would accept a dry spell for the right girl, or would delay their ambitions because of it. It just sounds to me like christiangirl needs a larger population to work from.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I'd argue that it's a strong want to a mild need. If you absolutely have to have it I think you're bordering addiction. If your significant other is away for a month for work, is that an excuse to cheat? What if it's six months while you get the family moved across country?

I don't mean this in a bad way, so don't take it as such - however, I think it's really telling that you basically misunderstood everything I just posted.

First - sexual interaction is the need (or at least some sexualized part of the relationship), not sex itself.

Second - an 'excuse' to cheat is not what I'm discussing here, so that's kind of irrelevant . . . but one reason why distance relationships are incredibly difficult is because of the lack of physical contact, including sexual contact.

Can they work? Sure, if both people can 'survive' and meet their particular needs (or ignore them). Again, though, I think it says a lot that you're looking at corner cases and cheating, when that's not really what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

And I'm not sure what you're commenting on in the second part. That for most sexual being=sexually active? I wouldn't disagree but the second isn't required.

This was exactly my point - it's not required, but for a large part of the population, it's preferred, desired and perhaps even expected (not of the woman, but of the relationship).

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If you think that the majority of the male population MUST BE APPEASED with sex, well I'd disagree with you there too. You may feel that way, but I know plenty of guys who would accept a dry spell for the right girl, or would delay their ambitions because of it.

You have serious sample size and selection bias issues here, but that's again not my point - taking this to "MUST BE APPEASED" is ridiculous, and again is quite telling. There is no 'appeasement' issue here - it's about personal preference and relationship needs, not some sort of perverse (or misogynistic, which is the more troubling implication) drive for "bad touch."

Your mentality on sex is very insular - that's fine, and I'm glad it works for you. But you're shutting out my earnest efforts here, for really no reason.