Is sex a really important part of a relationship?

[hexaemeron]

Wow all the smug moral posturing in here makes me want to heave. It's all well and good to truly believe in your opinions, mostly ladies, but seriously, can we dial down the condescension to tolerable levels, please?

 

I would love to see a reciprocal post from a guy telling women "You know, all of that emotional bonding, cuddling, quality time you crave so much... why don't you just wait on that so that I know you're serious about us. That'd be great!" He'd be burned at the stake here as a monster... yet here you all are, yanking an ingredient no less important of a successful relationship out, and it's so moral and noble -- Give me a break.

 

OP, you're well within your right not to compromise your values. They're yours and they're important to you, as they should be. But frankly, they're not terribly realistic, and in my opinion, basically setting yourself up for failure. Why on Earth would you not look at every aspect of your relationship together before deciding to forge ahead on something more serious? Does that even SOUND right?

 

If you're making a cake or a pie or ANYTHING, you include all the ingredients. You may play with the proportions and varieties, but you still put flour, eggs, milk, baking soda, baking powder and butter in just about any cake. You take any of these core ingredients out, and you don't have a cake anymore. You just have some mess of heated ingredients that may or may not even be edible.

 

See where I'm going with this? There's nothing wrong with holding true to your beliefs, but good grief, allow for the possibility you could be wrong. No matter how many other women come here and reinforce your current beliefs, they could be preventing you from true happiness. If what you're doing isn't working, try something else!

[hexaemeron]

And by the last they, I meant your values, not the other women here breaking their necks to agree with you.

[OptomisticGirl]

It's fine to wait, no problem but not every woman wants to.

[RougeKali823]

OP-What's realistic or unrealistic is relative. Don't be swayed if this is what you believe. A very wise and happily married woman (who waited and has now been married for 20 years) told me that people are only reluctant to believe that waiting may aid in the cultivation of a great relationship because they don't know a world in which sex isn't the foundation for relationships. I know at least 20 women who've waited and they are all happily married and from what they've shared with me, enjoying full sex lives (and trying all sorts of things which are new since they haven't been around). It's ironic how people will attribute a lackluster sex life post marriage to the "bait and switch" but then turn around and encourage the conditions which allow men and women to successfully exercise such a manipulative tool LOL. Right now anything that's not "alternative" cannot be fathomed as healthy. Ignore the naysayers and leave them to their world in which love cannot be achieved without sex as its basis. You're never wrong so long as you do what you believe to be correct (and know to be legal). LOL some people have a fight the system mentality which favors throwing out anything that has a moral relativity which might infringe upon their current lifestyle. I'm not in favor of throwing out waiting or not waiting. However, in this case the OP has made it clear that she intends to wait. So I question the intentions of those attempting to dissuade her.

 

 

OP-Exiting Thread (permanently) -will PM further thoughts as this is just....wow

[hexaemeron]

Right, because people can only be happy as long as they follow and obey. Awesome message.

[Glowguy]

Ignore the naysayers and leave them to their world in which love cannot be achieved without sex as its basis. You're never wrong so long as you do what you believe to be correct (and know to be legal). LOL some people have a fight the system mentality which favors throwing out anything that has a moral relativity which might infringe upon their current lifestyle.

 

You are totally missing the point of the argument. I don't think anyone has said that sex is the basis for love in this thread. It has never been in my relationships. Far from it actually. But it is a very important part of a relationship. Besides I don't think the OP has any moral argument against sex early on. In that case it is almost like she is making her partner jump through hoops so she is completely comfortable. I really don't understand why she doesn't even allow for the possibility of it to happen earlier. Perhaps you can elaborate on that. I think it is totally unnatural for two people who have a strong attraction for each other to wait that long.

[Lucidity]

You are totally missing the point of the argument. I don't think anyone has said that sex is the basis for love in this thread. It has never been in my relationships. Far from it actually. But it is a very important part of a relationship. Besides I don't think the OP has any moral argument against sex early on. In that case it is almost like she is making her partner jump through hoops so she is completely comfortable. I really don't understand why she doesn't even allow for the possibility of it to happen earlier. Perhaps you can elaborate on that. I think it is totally unnatural for two people who have a strong attraction for each other to wait that long.

 

The bolded section of your post says a lot about the current social importance that is placed upon sex, and it is unhealthy in more ways than one.

 

Being a man with a healthy sex drive, I date for more than one reason - as I have needs just like anyone else, but the key here is that I let my intentions be known up front. I'm just as capable of having a one night stand as I am with meeting someone who I am willing to wait for. The key here is RESPECT, and whether it is demanded or earned. If I meet a woman who turns my world upside down where I go home at the end of the evening with my head reeling, then I will set out on a journey of pursuing her according to the norms in which I was raised, which includes establishing the groundwork of a healthy, stable and respectful relationship where a long term commitment is being sought out and equally fostered. However, if I meet someone where the physical attraction is just so strong that neither of us can deny it, then I believe there are still proper ways where we can both act on this attraction without setting each other up for disappointment once sex occurs.

 

The main detractor here is one simple word: REGRET. If we let our views on sex set us up for regret, then we havent been completely honest with ourselves with what it is that we are out there actively seeking in the first place.

[Batya33]

If it's "unnatural" for two people attracted to each other to wait for intercourse that long then it's also "unnatural" for someone who craves junk food not to give in to the craving and so on and so on. If it's that unnatural then people who cannot have sex for long periods of time (during certain pregnancies,if there is an illness that precludes it) are behaving in an unnatural way by not expressing their attraction to each other through sex. Argument doesn't work for me.

 

I don't think the focus should be on testing the other person or making him or her jump through hoops but that's far different from waiting until you feel the relationship is on solid ground with serious long term potential (if that is the person's/couples' views of course).

[OptomisticGirl]

Exactly who is telling the Op to not wait rougekali? Last I checked every one us who is for sex also said there is nothing wrong with waiting - its just a personal choice. The only one being defensive and all knowing is you. So because we indulge in a basic instinct we like we are rampant sex addicts? Because we chose to have sex we must have w load of stds? We don't know what love is because we mix it with sex?

 

Please.

[hexaemeron]

Exactly who is telling the Op to not wait rougekali? Last I checked every one us who is for sex also said there is nothing wrong with waiting - its just a personal choice. The only one being defensive and all knowing is you. So because we indulge in a basic instinct we like we are rampant sex addicts? Because we chose to have sex we must have w load of stds? We don't know what love is because we mix it with sex?

 

Please.

 

Yeah, I was wondering this myself. I'm glad she feels so morally secure though.

[tiredofvampires]

I haven't read this whole thread, just the beginning and parts.

 

What it seems to me is that there's more ministering from the left (i.e., those who go for the fast track to the sack) than from the right (the OP et. al.)

 

Exactly who is telling the Op to not wait rougekali? Last I checked every one us who is for sex also said there is nothing wrong with waiting

 

Well actually...from what I've seen, all the people on the said "left" have told her waiting would turn a lot of great guys away and would have a negative impact on her dating life. There have been a lot of discouraging remarks here about how it's "unreasonable", "unrealistic," etc. If I'd been her, I'd take from this thread a strong message that many people are advising strongly against it, if you wanna have a robust, down-to-earth courtship and not blow it with tons of normal guys.

 

It seems to me that there's almost more of a reverse-moralizing by people who don't want to wait -- as if someone is suggesting that they are soulless horndogs for their choices, which they have to defend.

 

It just blows my mind that people think waiting for a few months for sex is the deathknell of a relationship, or some ungodly bizarre way to enter upon romance. I'm not old enough to talk about "way back when" as an oldster, when dating meant seeing someone exclusively and that was all, sans sex. But I do know this, that many of those marriages worked, even not "test driven" in the bedroom. (True, some didn't -- but many did.) Times have changed so much in the last century, it's like people can't even envision a world where people didn't say, "The sex will fall into place, that'll come in its time" and for that to be a genuine and positive feeling. (The anticipation factor has a lot to be said for it.)

 

I don't have any hard-and-fast rules around this subject...but I do think it's really interesting how lovers have fallen just as madly in love throughout the ages without premarital sex as they do today, and yet now, the sex is seen as a critical insurance policy that things will work out. I don't think dissatisfaction with marriage or relationships has decreased one iota in the last 2000 years for all the sexual liberation. There are just more options about how to proceed with your love interests.

 

I don't see any moral superiority going on in this thread with those who are inclined to want to wait. I do see a lot of people not of a like mind telling them that they're living in a compromised dream, with a relationship crippled by lack of essential ingredients. Which can become condescending.

 

As for the comment, "sex is an important part of a relationship," that is also just another belief, not a fact. It's true that many people -- most people -- feel this way and believe this. But some don't. I know of a few relationships that are not platonic -- i.e., they are more than friends, they are deep companions who share a vision and are exclusive to one another in an emotionally intimate way -- but sex is no longer part of their program, for one reason or another. I am very close to a woman (a female doctor) who said sex with her husband is "only about 1% of their relationship" -- and they are deeply in love, they're both extremely physically active and are clearly vibrant as a couple. So I don't think statements put out like that can ever cover the entire population and are therefore limiting and a bit dogmatic.

 

I also don't think that waiting means you're less sexual of a person. A few people here have said, "I don't wait because I'm just a really sexual person." I am judging that in no way whatsoever, morally. That's totally fine if that's your MO and it works for you. But it's not because you're more sexual, it's because you wish to act on that sooner is all.

[Batya33]

Yes TOV and I am not a fan of reverse moralizing either. I'm around your age and to me dating exclusively means you're not seeing others. It can include sexual intercourse but doesn't need to in order to be sexual, passionate, romantic, oodles of chemistry/sex drive.

[hexaemeron]

Miss TOV, girl you know I love you more than my luggage, but if you split that hair any more, it's gonna break. There's a difference between "It's your choice but I don't recommend it" and "NO, DON'T DO IT, YOU'LL BE UNHAPPY UNTIL YOU DIE" -- Huge difference. And for the sake of biscuits and gravy, why is there this near holy thrall all you women seem to have about waiting? I mean, I know Mommy and Daddy probably beat it in (not literally, I hope) that your vagina was very very special and important and never to let anyone in it unless you had a ring on your finger! Not, you know, if you're happy, or you want to learn and grow with someone. Just that you've gotten someone else to bankroll you so they didn't have to anymore. How romantic.

 

No one has spoken on my reverse question though. If we're just yanking things out of the relationship mix, why not have someone just say to a girl about something SHE HAPPENS TO WANT to wait to make sure it's special/he's serious. Why not do this? To me, this whole thing boils down to control. Control of the relationship, control of the man. Another tool in the arsenal to get the poor chump to sign on the dotted line. Again, how romantic.

 

 

[OptomisticGirl]

I would have to disagree TOV. You have had posters in here like RougeKali who have pretty nailed those of us who have sex to the wall as sex addicts who let STDs run rampant because we chose to have sex. Personally, if someone wants to wait that is there deicision but I'm also not going to sit back and let my side be called hound dogs when we haven't been calling the other side prude. Do I think you should have sex before marriage? Absolutely but I"m not going to tell someone they are an idiot for waiting for that.

 

For me, sex is one of the things I determine a relationship on. It's not the ONLY thing but I was with someone for 4 years and was SO uncompatable, I refuse to ever do it again.

 

My big thing is if you want to wait fine - more power to you but then DON'T DATE PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO WAIT! This is what gets me! And I know those people can trick you but if you feel so strongly about a moral don't compromise it then. If they start to presssure you leave. Would you stay with a man who hit you? No! So if you are dating someone who is a trickster and changes there tune, leave them. Don't go crying when they do and you give in.. you are an adult, you can walk away and keep your morales in take for another day.

[hexaemeron]

Just to throw a bit more logic gasoline on the fire here, what do you bet this couple waited until marriage too?

 

 

[Crazyaboutdogs]

Just to throw a bit more logic gasoline on the fire here, what do you bet this couple waited until marriage too?

 

]

 

Not necessarily. Besides..I have seen many threads from married people who had great sex while dating and then after marriage the partner lost interest in sex. Test driving someone for sexual compatibility before marriage is absolutely no guarantee that sexual compatibility will remain after marriage.

[OptomisticGirl]

^ of course not, just as not test driving doesn't mean your marriage has a greater chance of success either.

[Crazyaboutdogs]

^ of course not, just as not test driving doesn't mean your marriage has a greater chance of success either.

 

True..but most people who choose to wait don't use the argument that by waiting their marriage would have a better chance of success...whereas most people who promote sex as soon as possible do indeed use the argument that this is the ultimate barometer of sexual compatibility for marriage.

[tiredofvampires]

My dear Hex (you don't mind a little reciprocal, genuine affection do you? I know you're not sappy-happy but apparently I'm possibly eye-rollingly so ), the only thing in what you said that brought my Daddy back to life was the part about "splitting hairs" -- in that, he (angrily) charged me with that very infuriating trait often enough, I almost felt his bony, sod-caked hand rise from the grave to high five you on that one.

 

Please hear me out -- I mean, if you can, really just drop whatever beliefs you have just to hear me out this long and then I promise, I promise, if this is bull to you, you'll be free to go. Please allow me the opportunity to set a certain record straight about one particular view I think you have somehow unfairly adopted as a categorical characterization about women who start talking affirmatively about things like waiting for the sex to start happening in a relationship -- or any of a number of things vaguely in the same family (which I won't name for the sake of keeping this simple, but which I notice you've filed in the bulging, "Grow Out of Disney, Already!" folder.)

 

It's completely erroneous for you to assume that Mommy and Daddy beat any of these ideas into women who defend them, with some one-size-fits-all attribution. Yes, there are still things that society still accepts and in cases encourages in both sexes that fall along traditional lines (like marriage, for instance! the more modern trend to be calling that "just a piece of paper.") But my parents not only never uttered a word about saving myself for marriage, but themselves had rather busy sex lives, premaritally, and my dad -- who considered himself a bit of a sexual revolutionary/maverick for bucking this "prudish, Puritanical society" -- instituted such unorthodoxy (for lack of a more precise term) and non-"holy" things in our house that if I told you about them, you might actually find yourself only fervently wishing (for my sake) that my inheritance was the happy, ignorant normalcy of sighing over De Beers ads instead.

 

I use my example as illustration because it's so flagrantly NOT one of the cookies that belongs in your cookie-cutting tendency around these themes (even with my regressive views as I think you see them), and therefore hope maybe you'll consider the possibility that I'm far from being the only one whose leanings are completely independently arrived-at.

 

And along these lines, could you entertain the idea that generational ideologies are only part of our adult female motivations and affinities, depending on the family, the individuals and the history of each in their own trajectory? And that the things I need and value (which I only apply to myself, not others) may in fact reflect NO PART of what was drummed into me? My Daddy was a supremely controlling person, but for some reason, he thankfully (thank you for that, dad, seriously) left me to my own devices where it came to boyfriends who would come over to the house and stay in my room with the door shut, no questions asked, even though he found something to abhor in every one of them.

 

And who said I'd want to wait until marriage? I wouldn't and haven't -- for me, that's too far and too long. I don't know if I'll ever be married (though that'd be a wishlist item), but I've never viewed that as a time to ritualize hymenal rupture. I wanted that out of my way at 18, and have ever since seen sex as exactly what you've said: a component of wanting to know, learn and grow with someone, but it's just that I need more foundation in that emotionally first, before it intensifies physically. For some people, the sex might be the horse, for me it's the cart. But that doesn't mean that I see it as some clause in a contractual agreement, either hinging around vows or polished rocks.

 

This female instinct mystifies you because as a man...a man for one...next, a man who seeks to understand and love other men, not women...and as a man who has said emotional intercourse poses some challenges to him in general...I would not blame you one bit for being completely befuddled by these elements in a woman's psyche. (Hope you don't feel picked on there.

 

As you can see from this thread, not all women feel as I do, and it's not even an age issue. I think it's a personal wish for trust and safety around sex that some women have and others don't, and the reasons are as varied as the women. It's mistaken to lump every one of them together, call it a "thrall" and bag the lot. So maybe...start seeing women as "shades of grey" in this respect?

 

To answer your question about the control issue, in removing this piece (sex) from a relationship -- as if to use it as a bargaining chip -- I think this would be a very manipulative maneuver. That's not "a desire to wait." That's "a desire to withhold", and there's a difference. I think another poster (Batya?) said those weren’t her reasons, and they certainly aren’t mine.

 

Why do I get the feeling I've just made this worse, lol -- sorry for the frizz, Hex.

[OptomisticGirl]

That hasny been my experience. I know a few people who advocate no sex before marriage because its suppose to strengthens your emotional bonding and you aren't blinded by lust. I don't view premartial sex as a baramoter fo4 marriage because anything can happen however I like to go in knowing something of our comparability in that area even if later on in life it changes.

[tiredofvampires]

Maybe I missed the insulting part of the thread, then, because I didn't see anyone chastising those who have sex early as the cause of all manners of social and sexual problems, like sex addiction and STDs. I didn't read the ENTIRE thread, as I said, but enough to see people tell the OP that her decision was a kind of crap idea if she wanted a good selection of decent, healthy, normal red-blooded men.

 

Having been to STD clinics in my time, I can vouche for being freaked out for stuff I did even though I'm sexually cautious with no history of promiscuity, so I'd never make this argument.

 

And sure, I agree -- if you date people who start pressuring you for sex before you feel ready, absolutely -- get clear whether it's come to the point of giving it the axe.

[tiredofvampires]

Just to throw a bit more logic gasoline on the fire here, what do you bet this couple waited until marriage too?

 

]

 

Not to repeat what others have said...but I don't think there's any proof that this couple waited or not, based on these results.

 

The problem there as I see it is that they married very young and in all likelihood, the OP's wife NEVER was really attracted to him or in love with him, given the background he gave. It sounds like they just went with the path of least resistance, with no real self-awareness, and now that she's woken up to what a good marriage where she's in love with her partner is supposed to feel like (as mirrored in her friends' marriages), she feels suddenly woken from a slumber.

 

This has more to do with getting married cluelessly than virginally.

 

And my very dearest friend had plenty of pre-marital sex with her now-husband, and while it wasn't 100% aligned in the beginning, it was damn good enough, she told me before they tied the knot. Now, 12 years later, they've grown apart in ways that the sex has become nearly non-existent as she wonders if she married the right man for her.

 

Sexual incompatibility rises to the fore now, but it's everything else about their needs (and dividedness) in a partnership that propels this. And neither of them saw that coming. Pre-marital sex didn't immunize them to this and I don't think waiting until marriage would have aggravated these problems.

[Crazyaboutdogs]

That hasny been my experience. I know a few people who advocate no sex before marriage because its suppose to strengthens your emotional bonding and you aren't blinded by lust. I don't view premartial sex as a baramoter fo4 marriage because anything can happen however I like to go in knowing something of our comparability in that area even if later on in life it changes.

 

That is not the same as claiming that the marriage will be a success. As for strengthening emotional bonding when not blinded by lust...they are right. Look at how many people go into relationships with immediate sex so that the dates are really all about "I can't wait for dinner to be over so we can have sex". Then, once the sex becomes the same old same old, they take a good long look at the person and realize they have nothing in common. All the closeness and "couldn't wait to see each other" feelings were all tied in with lust, not any real emotional connection. Now, I am not saying that people should wait until marriage...but certainly when sex happens before an emotional bond has been built, sometimes it is the lust which propels the relationship until the lust burns out and there is no emotional connection which takes over. Also, that is where you get the whole "falling out of love"..because when the couple no longer want to rip each other's clothes off upon seeing each other from accross the room, they suddenly feel like they are no longer in love and it is time to move on. I agree with the other posters in this thread that there is too much emphasis on sex being the driving force in a relationship, not just the icing on the cake.

[Sim54]

Very well said! Required reading for the next generation, and perhaps with some tips on how to actually create emotional bonding (hint, be vulnerable, and share yourself and your emotions and be BRAVE)!

[OptomisticGirl]

I agree crazyaboutdogs, bit those same people have told me their emotional bond is stronger than mine - and therefore their marriage wil last vs. Mine failing because I 'gave in'. I would never advocate sex with no emotional bonding, ever. I myself will not have sex with someone unless that emotional connection is there. For L and me that was four months - probably would hace been two mornths if we weren't a ldr. I could never have a one night stand. However, there are people who view any sex before marriage as your a hound dog as I'm sure there are people who view waiting as being prudish. There shoumd always be an emotional connection before sex is entered into.