Is sex really that big of a deal?

[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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.



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).



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.

Actually I think we're agreeing more than you think.
I'm certainly not saying that people should force themselves into a relationship where they'll be unhappy. I agree that sexual interaction is important for 99% of the population. I guess I disagree that there aren't guys who are a) virgins until marriage, and/or b) willing to date a girl who is waiting until marriage. Those guys are out there you just need a larger population sample.

I think I just know a bunch of nice guys actually. I'm not saying they were all virgins but that they'd be willing to date one without the sole goal of getting her into bed.

My comments on "Appeasement" were simply in reference to the rather popular idea these days that guys have to have sex, more so than girls. It's an old idea but not gone.

We don't seem to find the idea of a girl choosing to remain a virgin surprising. Rarer than it used to be perhaps, but not shocking. However the assumption is that guys are sexually focused and a male virgin is shocking and there's probably a negative reason attached to it (loser, etc.)