Ah, the age-old debate...

[behind_these_eyes]

Relationships should not be based on sex. They should be based on a deep personal connection, and sex should be weighted less in the relationship...Right? Well that's what I thought until a few days ago...

 

One of my friends started the debate when he said that sex was more important than the deep connection. At first, I dismissed him as shallow and "macho," but after we talked about it for a bit..I wasn't so sure anymore.

 

My argument was that sex is just chemicals, and anyone can mix chemicals and get some kind of reaction. I said that intellectual connections were less common, and should be appreciated more. He argued that intellectual connections on some level are just chemicals too..and I had to admit that he had a point. Some people would get along with me by definition, but then I talk to them and we just can't relate.

 

I guess what I want to know is, what do you guys think? I know that both are very important, and I'd like to believe that emotions are the priority, but maybe I'm just influenced by our culture. He thinks that maybe people are overlooking sex as this meaningless dirty act if it's not accompanied by deep-seeded feelings. I think that maybe it is. Am I being naive?

 

Sex or Emotions - should they be balanced or should the scale be tipped to one side..and if so, which one?

 

haha thanks for reading all that, and thanks for any responses.

[7CardStud]

I would say, having a connection is way more important...

 

I have heard a lot of relationships lasting with a connection

 

Haven't heard of a lot relationships lasting with sex

[behind_these_eyes]

I said that to him! His argument to that one was, a relationship can never work if you aren't at least a little bit attracted to someone on a sexual level. Otherwise it's just a friendship.

 

This is where I'm torn because every relationship I've had that was based soley on attraction failed..and every relationship I've had that was based soley on personality has failed (to go beyond friends, that is.)

 

Maybe it needs to be the perfect balance.

 

thanks for the quick response!

[7CardStud]

I'm not going to lie... I was originally attracted to my girlfriends appearance, but not just that, she came off as being very outgoing, which for me, was a big + ....

 

So i guess you can be attracted initially, but over time, physical attraction goes on the back burner to personality...

 

I have talked to a lot of "attractive" people... Most of them are brainless it seems like, they can't hold a in depth conversation to save there life, I could never live with that....

 

I'm a person who is always thinking, and loves to discuss important issues over "did u s ee the OC last night?"

[Caldus]

As long as there is a deep connection between the two partners, then the relationship could possibly last a very long time. Without this connection, the relationship could easily die out at any point (and usually pretty quickly). I think some couples treat sex as an important aspect of that deep connection. But I personally think there still needs to be a good connection between the two partners emotionally and spiritually.

[boredguy]

I think that the connection is much more important that the sexual attraction, although the sexual attraction is also needed for a healthy relationship.

Its all about how they are balanced out, that makes for a strong relationship.

[melrich]

Well I am not sure how you are separating the two.

 

Sexual attraction is not a chemical equation. It is an emotion, regardless of the physiology that occurs because of it. In a non-platonic relationship, a deep emotional connection fuels physical and sexual attraction. They go hand in hand, they are not mutually exclusive.

 

You can of course have sexual attraction without emotional connection but that is not the substance of a relationship and is liek trying to compare apples with cheesecake.

[Amethyst]

I think that the connection is much more important that the sexual attraction, although the sexual attraction is also needed for a healthy relationship.

Its all about how they are balanced out, that makes for a strong relationship.

 

I completely agree!

 

Couples can last without great sex...ask the wife whose husband is impotent...ask the husband whose wife was raped and is now frigid.

 

However, they can't last without some connection deep down in their psyche. In fact, if you ask someone who's been unfaithful; they'll usually tell you they cheated because that 'connection' was missing. That connection is the glue that holds the relationship together.

[melrich]

Couples cannot last without the intimacy of sex. They can survive, they can live together, they can co-exist but their relationship will be the equivalent of that of close friends.

 

If you and your partner have ever been pregnant you will know what I mean. Nothing can beat the closeness and intimacy of that feeling that you have together created a life, I don't care what anyone says...you can never feel closer to someone than when you jointly conspire to create a new life and every act of sex is a celebration of your ability to do that and a rejoicing in the fact that you can share that ultimate intimacy just for the sheer fun of it.

[Amethyst]

They can survive, they can live together, they can co-exist but their relationship will be the equivalent of that of close friends.

 

I disagree. Sex does not define a couple. Love defines a couple. A commitment defines a couple.

 

According to your definition, a paralyzed person can never have a lasting relationship...*anyone* can have a lasting relationship. They just have to have it with the right person.

 

(I'm not saying sex is useless -- I'm simply saying that sex does not a relationship make.)

 

If you and your partner have ever been pregnant you will know what I mean.

 

Believe it or not, a couple can share "intimacy" without ever having a baby. Try asking the millions of couples around the world who cannot have children.

 

Sure, pregnancy breeds intimacy -- but it's not the *only* way to *have* intimacy.

 

Edit: BTW, you seem to be taking it as an "either / or" thing. (Meaning that you seem to think I see the 'answer' to the topic as either "sex" or "emotions".) However, if you'll read my last reply, I stated that I agreed it took a BALANCE of the two. It's just that I see it more as emotion = 75% and sex = 25% or so. I never said forget sex -- I just said the emotional connection was more important.

[melrich]

Hi Amethyst,

 

It is not the having the baby part. It is the emotion that the intimacy of sex provides and its possibilities.

 

It is not about a lasting relationship...I agree with you, you can have a lasting relationship without sex (I know, I was in one for 5 years) but you cannot consumate a deep emotional attachment without sex. Sex is so much a part of that emotional attachment and degree of that attachment.

 

Yes it is unfortunate that there are people that will never experience having children. I am not saying that precludes a deep emotional attachment. But by degrees, the attachment you will feel to your partner through pregnancy (in my experience) is so far beyond any relationship you will have with anyone else but your children.

 

I loved my ex (the one I was in a sexless relationship with) and what kept us together was that we stimulated each other intellectually and emotionally but ultimately we could not connect on the physical level and like you I think if there is not that balance it will not work.

 

As I said in my first post, the two are not mutually exclusive, they go hand in hand.

[Amethyst]

As I said in my first post, the two are not mutually exclusive, they go hand in hand.

 

If you'll read the "Edit" portion of my last post, you'll find I agree.

 

(That's what I find funny...we're debating, but we're on the same side.

[melrich]

Lol...cool. Interesting stuff though. cheers