What can you live without in a relationship?
Options
Replies
-
I can live without Criticism and sarcasm
4 -
Expectation.2
-
I should say though, I could happily live without a relationship all together so I end up kind of an outlier there at times. I never needed someone to complete me, but only get interested in someone who compliments me, and inversely true.2
-
Chael2dot0 wrote: »I should say though, I could happily live without a relationship all together so I end up kind of an outlier there at times. I never needed someone to complete me, but only get interested in someone who compliments me, and inversely true.
It's interesting you consider yourself an outlier, I always thought that kind of mindset was the base of the most successful relationships.1 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »Chael2dot0 wrote: »I should say though, I could happily live without a relationship all together so I end up kind of an outlier there at times. I never needed someone to complete me, but only get interested in someone who compliments me, and inversely true.
It's interesting you consider yourself an outlier, I always thought that kind of mindset was the base of the most successful relationships.
Not in my experience.2 -
Chael2dot0 wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »Chael2dot0 wrote: »I should say though, I could happily live without a relationship all together so I end up kind of an outlier there at times. I never needed someone to complete me, but only get interested in someone who compliments me, and inversely true.
It's interesting you consider yourself an outlier, I always thought that kind of mindset was the base of the most successful relationships.
Not in my experience.
Sadly there is a whole ethos around finding "the one that completes me because I'm not whole without someone else."3 -
Chael2dot0 wrote: »4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »Chael2dot0 wrote: »I should say though, I could happily live without a relationship all together so I end up kind of an outlier there at times. I never needed someone to complete me, but only get interested in someone who compliments me, and inversely true.
It's interesting you consider yourself an outlier, I always thought that kind of mindset was the base of the most successful relationships.
Not in my experience.
Sadly there is a whole ethos around finding "the one that completes me because I'm not whole without someone else."
Yup.1 -
Sadly there is a whole ethos around finding "the one that completes me because I'm not whole without someone else."
Oh, I agree it's out there, I always just considered those the people that failed before they even got started.Chael2dot0 wrote: »
Not in my experience.
Just to clarify - in your experience its not a common mindset, or not successful in a relationship? or both?0 -
All this bravado. People spouting that it's a crutch and a sign of poor self esteem to crave intimacy and partnership and to prefer it over single life. Funny how these same people are either married or at least schtupping on the regular.
Guys/ladies, you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up for a 5 year stretch of complete chastity/celibacy.
No takers? Didn't think so.5 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »
Sadly there is a whole ethos around finding "the one that completes me because I'm not whole without someone else."
Oh, I agree it's out there, I always just considered those the people that failed before they even got started.Chael2dot0 wrote: »
Not in my experience.
Just to clarify - in your experience its not a common mindset, or not successful in a relationship? or both?
I'd say it doesn't seem to be a common mindset. I've been on dating sites and the percentage of people looking for Neo is extremely high.
Sadly Neo ate the cookies and is waiting for his next life.
All just my opinion.1 -
All this bravado. People spouting that it's a crutch and a sign of poor self esteem to crave intimacy and partnership and to prefer it over single life. Funny how these same people are either married or at least schtupping on the regular.
Guys/ladies, you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up for a 5 year stretch of complete chastity/celibacy.
No takers? Didn't think so.
Why sign up for such a thing? Saying you can live without sex if need be is far different than choosing to write it off.
With that being said, living in a total sexless relationship, extenuating physical limititations aside, is abnormal. Sure it can be done, but that doesnt mean its a healthy relationship. Lack of intimacy between two people in an otherwise loving relationship means there are issues. Sex may not be the problem, but lack of sex most certainly is the symptom of one. We as humans are also animals with an instinct to mate. We also have the ability to love. That makes it highly unlikely that being in a loving committed relationship will also be sexless. Again, physical disabilities and or limitations aside, no sex means problems.....7 -
All this bravado. People spouting that it's a crutch and a sign of poor self esteem to crave intimacy and partnership and to prefer it over single life. Funny how these same people are either married or at least schtupping on the regular.
Guys/ladies, you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up for a 5 year stretch of complete chastity/celibacy.
Interesting. I think if you can't be happy on your own its unlikely another person can make (and keep) you happy. Especially people who don't have love or respect for themselves, another person can't fulfill that for you, that's something you will have to work on. I'm not sure desiring intimacy is really a low self esteem thing, I think its natural, but there is a difference between "I am ok on my own but enjoy being with you" and "I need someone in order to be happy in life".
I am also not really sure how much society plays into it, normal people grow up, get married, have kids, blah blah. I'm thinking back on younger me. I never wanted kids, but always envisioned myself married. Not sure why that is, did it just seem more normal than a single woman to younger me, or was it because of a deeper need?
As for the last part, not sure when you would consider the 5 years valid, but I didn't date my first boyfriend until I was 21. I had better *kitten* to do than fawn over boys when I was a teen
. So if you start the clock at 15 or 16 technically I have done it. I don't remember really craving intimacy when I was younger, that actually feels like something that has increased since I met my husband and was exposed to that kind of intimacy (my first boyfriend was really more a result of a friend setting us up than we had any real connection, it was a pretty short, useless, forced "relationship"). Not sure if increased craving of intimacy is an age thing, an exposure thing, or a mish mash of lots of different reasons.
And, while I appreciate the point you are making, it's not a challenge I will take on, so points to you
3 -
All this bravado. People spouting that it's a crutch and a sign of poor self esteem to crave intimacy and partnership and to prefer it over single life. Funny how these same people are either married or at least schtupping on the regular.
Guys/ladies, you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up for a 5 year stretch of complete chastity/celibacy.
No takers? Didn't think so.
Why sign up for such a thing? Saying you can live without sex if need be is far different than choosing to write it off.
With that being said, living in a total sexless relationship, extenuating physical limititations aside, is abnormal. Sure it can be done, but that doesnt mean its a healthy relationship. Lack of intimacy between two people in an otherwise loving relationship means there are issues. Sex may not be the problem, but lack of sex most certainly is the symptom of one. We as humans are also animals with an instinct to mate. We also have the ability to love. That makes it highly unlikely that being in a loving committed relationship will also be sexless. Again, physical disabilities and or limitations aside, no sex means problems.....
Meh. Tell that to monks and nuns from the various religions who report contentment in large numbers.
Also, although tremendously animalistic, humans aren't quite animals.
Animals don't use birth control and abortion so they can have sex for pleasure alone and divorce the mating process from the procreation process.
Animals don't experience heartache/heartbreak as an inherint risk of mating.
Can no sex cause problems? Yes.
Incels who become violent are evidence of that and they've been in the news lately.
Japanese apparently aren't having enough sex to sustain their population so that's a problem. That's a fascinating and high IQ society so it would be a tragedy to see it dwindle away.
The native populations of Western Europe aren't reproducing at a sustainable replacement rate. and that's apocalyptic in my opinion. I think European civilation, with its artistic, liguistic, literary, architectural, musical, educational, legal, humanitarian, and philosophical accompliments and developments is the greatest civilation the world has ever known.
But overall, in the personal lives of individuals I've known and known of, sex causes more trouble than no sex. Have you ever read MFP's Chit Chat? Wink wink.
0 -
All this bravado. People spouting that it's a crutch and a sign of poor self esteem to crave intimacy and partnership and to prefer it over single life. Funny how these same people are either married or at least schtupping on the regular.
Guys/ladies, you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up for a 5 year stretch of complete chastity/celibacy.
No takers? Didn't think so.- It can be a crutch for some... that doesn't mean it is always for everyone.
- Be careful what you assume you know about people.
- Marriage does not necessarily = sex, so what does being married have with the sex part of this conversation?
1 -
@newmeadow
in reference to some of the animal stats:
-there are some animals that *kitten* and mate outside a specific "in heat" cycle (NHPs mostly come to mind) - so, while lacking the higher level of understanding and technology to do so, maybe other species would seperate sex from procreation for pleasure reasons if they could?
- some animals mate for life and don't take on a new partner if theirs dies, heartache or just nature, not sure.
I'm not sure if dwindling reproduction rates is a big deal or not. Human population has been growing exponentially for a long time, and since medical improvement means people stay alive more now, its probably a good thing something is slowing it down. If we were closer to extinction I would worry more.
1 -
All this bravado. People spouting that it's a crutch and a sign of poor self esteem to crave intimacy and partnership and to prefer it over single life. Funny how these same people are either married or at least schtupping on the regular.
Guys/ladies, you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up for a 5 year stretch of complete chastity/celibacy.
No takers? Didn't think so.
Why sign up for such a thing? Saying you can live without sex if need be is far different than choosing to write it off.
With that being said, living in a total sexless relationship, extenuating physical limititations aside, is abnormal. Sure it can be done, but that doesnt mean its a healthy relationship. Lack of intimacy between two people in an otherwise loving relationship means there are issues. Sex may not be the problem, but lack of sex most certainly is the symptom of one. We as humans are also animals with an instinct to mate. We also have the ability to love. That makes it highly unlikely that being in a loving committed relationship will also be sexless. Again, physical disabilities and or limitations aside, no sex means problems.....
Meh. Tell that to monks and nuns from the various religions who report contentment in large numbers.
Also, although tremendously animalistic, humans aren't quite animals.
Animals don't use birth control and abortion so they can have sex for pleasure alone and divorce the mating process from the procreation process.
Animals don't experience heartache/heartbreak as an inherint risk of mating.
Can no sex cause problems? Yes.
Incels who become violent are evidence of that and they've been in the news lately.
Japanese apparently aren't having enough sex to sustain their population so that's a problem. That's a fascinating and high IQ society so it would be a tragedy to see it dwindle away.
The native populations of Western Europe aren't reproducing at a sustainable replacement rate. and that's apocalyptic in my opinion. I think European civilation, with its artistic, liguistic, literary, architectural, musical, educational, legal, humanitarian, and philosophical accompliments and developments is the greatest civilation the world has ever known.
But overall, in the personal lives of individuals I've known and known of, sex causes more trouble than no sex. Have you ever read MFP's Chit Chat? Wink wink.
Monks and nuns.....lol......as long as you dont include catholic priests in that sect than yes there are people that do choose celibacy over sex. So.....my point is saying you can do without if need be is far different than saying you choose to do without it even if it available to you. I can tell you i can go days without food.....but if a meal is available i will eat it.
We are animals. We are different in many ways but our primal intincts still exist. That is also why i included the ability to love with the instinct to mate. Our brains make us different in many ways. But we havent been around long enough yet to evolve out our instincts.
Sex can cause problems for sure. But lack of it in a marriage or committed relationship will do the same.6 -
All this bravado. People spouting that it's a crutch and a sign of poor self esteem to crave intimacy and partnership and to prefer it over single life. Funny how these same people are either married or at least schtupping on the regular.
Guys/ladies, you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up for a 5 year stretch of complete chastity/celibacy.
No takers? Didn't think so.
Why sign up for such a thing? Saying you can live without sex if need be is far different than choosing to write it off.
With that being said, living in a total sexless relationship, extenuating physical limititations aside, is abnormal. Sure it can be done, but that doesnt mean its a healthy relationship. Lack of intimacy between two people in an otherwise loving relationship means there are issues. Sex may not be the problem, but lack of sex most certainly is the symptom of one. We as humans are also animals with an instinct to mate. We also have the ability to love. That makes it highly unlikely that being in a loving committed relationship will also be sexless. Again, physical disabilities and or limitations aside, no sex means problems.....
Meh. Tell that to monks and nuns from the various religions who report contentment in large numbers.
Also, although tremendously animalistic, humans aren't quite animals.
Animals don't use birth control and abortion so they can have sex for pleasure alone and divorce the mating process from the procreation process.
Animals don't experience heartache/heartbreak as an inherint risk of mating.
Can no sex cause problems? Yes.
Incels who become violent are evidence of that and they've been in the news lately.
Japanese apparently aren't having enough sex to sustain their population so that's a problem. That's a fascinating and high IQ society so it would be a tragedy to see it dwindle away.
The native populations of Western Europe aren't reproducing at a sustainable replacement rate. and that's apocalyptic in my opinion. I think European civilation, with its artistic, liguistic, literary, architectural, musical, educational, legal, humanitarian, and philosophical accompliments and developments is the greatest civilation the world has ever known.
But overall, in the personal lives of individuals I've known and known of, sex causes more trouble than no sex. Have you ever read MFP's Chit Chat? Wink wink.
There are some very interesting (and discussion-worthy) points here, but with virtually no context, I'm not sure what to make of them. It almost feels click-baity...2 -
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »@newmeadow
in reference to some of the animal stats:
-there are some animals that *kitten* and mate outside a specific "in heat" cycle (NHPs mostly come to mind) - so, while lacking the higher level of understanding and technology to do so, maybe other species would seperate sex from procreation for pleasure reasons if they could?
- some animals mate for life and don't take on a new partner if theirs dies, heartache or just nature, not sure.
I'm not sure if dwindling reproduction rates is a big deal or not. Human population has been growing exponentially for a long time, and since medical improvement means people stay alive more now, its probably a good thing something is slowing it down. If we were closer to extinction I would worry more.
Sad though also historically consistent. High IQ, highly accomplished and relatively less violent civilations are eventually less likely to proliferate than the inverse. So yeah, with a world population of 8 billion or so we're in no danger of disappearing as a human race. But the quality of life in various world societies is directly proportionate to the intellectual, philosophical and moral aptitude of the individuals who comprise them.1 -
All this bravado. People spouting that it's a crutch and a sign of poor self esteem to crave intimacy and partnership and to prefer it over single life. Funny how these same people are either married or at least schtupping on the regular.
Guys/ladies, you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up for a 5 year stretch of complete chastity/celibacy.
No takers? Didn't think so.
Why sign up for such a thing? Saying you can live without sex if need be is far different than choosing to write it off.
With that being said, living in a total sexless relationship, extenuating physical limititations aside, is abnormal. Sure it can be done, but that doesnt mean its a healthy relationship. Lack of intimacy between two people in an otherwise loving relationship means there are issues. Sex may not be the problem, but lack of sex most certainly is the symptom of one. We as humans are also animals with an instinct to mate. We also have the ability to love. That makes it highly unlikely that being in a loving committed relationship will also be sexless. Again, physical disabilities and or limitations aside, no sex means problems.....
Meh. Tell that to monks and nuns from the various religions who report contentment in large numbers.
Also, although tremendously animalistic, humans aren't quite animals.
Animals don't use birth control and abortion so they can have sex for pleasure alone and divorce the mating process from the procreation process.
Animals don't experience heartache/heartbreak as an inherint risk of mating.
Can no sex cause problems? Yes.
Incels who become violent are evidence of that and they've been in the news lately.
Japanese apparently aren't having enough sex to sustain their population so that's a problem. That's a fascinating and high IQ society so it would be a tragedy to see it dwindle away.
The native populations of Western Europe aren't reproducing at a sustainable replacement rate. and that's apocalyptic in my opinion. I think European civilation, with its artistic, liguistic, literary, architectural, musical, educational, legal, humanitarian, and philosophical accompliments and developments is the greatest civilation the world has ever known.
But overall, in the personal lives of individuals I've known and known of, sex causes more trouble than no sex. Have you ever read MFP's Chit Chat? Wink wink.
You hit on a number of topics here, and I'm a little confused. What point are you trying to make?
Not trying to make any ultimate point really or to build a grand case. Just freestyling it and taking it response by response.0 -
All this bravado. People spouting that it's a crutch and a sign of poor self esteem to crave intimacy and partnership and to prefer it over single life. Funny how these same people are either married or at least schtupping on the regular.
Guys/ladies, you should put your money where your mouth is and sign up for a 5 year stretch of complete chastity/celibacy.
No takers? Didn't think so.
Why sign up for such a thing? Saying you can live without sex if need be is far different than choosing to write it off.
With that being said, living in a total sexless relationship, extenuating physical limititations aside, is abnormal. Sure it can be done, but that doesnt mean its a healthy relationship. Lack of intimacy between two people in an otherwise loving relationship means there are issues. Sex may not be the problem, but lack of sex most certainly is the symptom of one. We as humans are also animals with an instinct to mate. We also have the ability to love. That makes it highly unlikely that being in a loving committed relationship will also be sexless. Again, physical disabilities and or limitations aside, no sex means problems.....
Meh. Tell that to monks and nuns from the various religions who report contentment in large numbers.
Also, although tremendously animalistic, humans aren't quite animals.
Animals don't use birth control and abortion so they can have sex for pleasure alone and divorce the mating process from the procreation process.
Animals don't experience heartache/heartbreak as an inherint risk of mating.
Can no sex cause problems? Yes.
Incels who become violent are evidence of that and they've been in the news lately.
Japanese apparently aren't having enough sex to sustain their population so that's a problem. That's a fascinating and high IQ society so it would be a tragedy to see it dwindle away.
The native populations of Western Europe aren't reproducing at a sustainable replacement rate. and that's apocalyptic in my opinion. I think European civilation, with its artistic, liguistic, literary, architectural, musical, educational, legal, humanitarian, and philosophical accompliments and developments is the greatest civilation the world has ever known.
But overall, in the personal lives of individuals I've known and known of, sex causes more trouble than no sex. Have you ever read MFP's Chit Chat? Wink wink.
Monks and nuns.....lol......as long as you dont include catholic priests in that sect than yes there are people that do choose celibacy over sex. So.....my point is saying you can do without if need be is far different than saying you choose to do without it even if it available to you. I can tell you i can go days without food.....but if a meal is available i will eat it.
We are animals. We are different in many ways but our primal intincts still exist. That is also why i included the ability to love with the instinct to mate. Our brains make us different in many ways. But we havent been around long enough yet to evolve out our instincts.
Sex can cause problems for sure. But lack of it in a marriage or committed relationship will do the same.
Catholic priests aren't Catholic monks. Their roles differ within the religion which I didn't specifically name but of course, as a self professed atheist, you felt compelled to do that. Eyeroll.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions