What can you live without in a relationship?
Replies
-
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.
Eyes front young lady.....i made it clear there was a difference. Comprehension fades it seems with lack of sex....;)5 -
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.
Eyes front young lady.....i made it clear there was a difference. Comprehension fades it seems with lack of sex....;)
Or perhaps a wee bit too much of it darling.
ETA: Don't blame me for those woos. I haven't wood you in at least 10 weeks.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.
Eyes front young lady.....i made it clear there was a difference. Comprehension fades it seems with lack of sex....;)
Or perhaps a wee bit too much of it darling.
ETA: Don't blame me for those woos. I haven't wood you in at least 10 weeks.
I appreciate the woos.....critical thinking most times will not be popular with the basic population
7 -
Complaining I can do with out. I find it to be a big turn off and can definitely do with out.0
-
I really need it all at least once in a while...
Probably the most important thing to me however is respect... No one will ever make me feel stupid or belittle me, it's just not going to happen.
And if I'm totally honest... I could never be subservient to someone either. I just don't think I could handle letting someone else call the shots.
Not saying I couldn't change my mind if we had a difference of opinion, but I would have to believe that you were right and see it for myself. I could never go along simply because you said so if I feel otherwise.
I also need them to believe in me, and never doubt me when I believe I can0 -
This thread is much more intense than I was expecting. I pretty much "need" all of the stereotypically important things like quality time, great conversation, shared goals, frequent physical affection and sex, monogamy, etc.
Things I can deal with...my husband doesn't care for going to the cinema and I LOVE it and go all of the time. He isn't crazy about live music, which I also enjoy. He does not have the type of personality that lends itself to social networking and being "fun" on double dates. All of that is fine with me. We have tons of other shared interests and he's super genuine with my friends/family, and fun for me to be around all of the time. 100% cool with our differences!2 -
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.
Not sure what Monks and Nuns have to do with the conversation. They deliberately choose to avoid relationships in order to pursue whatever religious ends and good that can come of it. They aren't attaching themselves to others and walking around naked with each other saying "You don't need this, you've got prayer!".
The Japanese example is very interesting, with all of the technology and over stimulation, sometimes the real thing loses appeal. There is alot more stigma around failure in that culture, so many times it is seen as much more honorable to stick it out than start over, Or if you are younger to avoid it all together.
ETA: I'll agree with you that at times sex causes more trouble than its worth. Not having a desire for it and being at peace with it is one thing. But having that desire and trying to suppress it or having no outlet for it is typically when those problems occur.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.
I'll bite @newmeadow . I believe unlike, @4legsRbetterthan2 , abstaining from intimacy following years of an active sexually pervasive lifestyle differs, from the natural progression of child into adulthood. I am wagering your challenge is directed to those of us on MFP who lived fairly active to moderately active sex lives, choosing to stop, yes?
In my case, abstaining from sex was moreso taking a pause to regroup, control mileage and heal. My god child was such a godsend here, due to his needy meter. It was virtually difficult to date, as I was constantly worried about him. He was sickly, so he almost always slept on my chest. He has only just healed enough for me to feel confident enough in his ability to look after himself, hence my openness to explore dating again, after 5 years.
I am not saying that dating is out of contention. I have dated 2 men since my god child has moved back to his family. This is where things get dicey, with reference to your definition of what constitutes as engaging in sex to you? What are your parameters? Do you consider abstinence sex, sex? If yes, then I certainly partook, and thereby am canceled from your five years challenge. For most, abstinence sex encompasses zero penetration - his drill bit isn't permitted entry into your woman bits.
I have not at all ... Lol ... Circumstantially and the lack of skill set has been the easy repellent, for me. Why ruin a good memory, with a moment of bad sex? I'm in agreement with @The_Devil_in_Miss_Jones that quality trumps quantity.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.
The only relevant monks and nuns to your challenge @newmeadow would be Anglican monks and nuns, as they were/are oftentimes previously married individuals, who commit to a vow of abstinence after they are widows/widowers ... Transferring their love for their deceased spouse to their commitment to being a bride or groom of Christ, In His Service. Contentment vs Sexual Aversion Techniques, through prayers, within Church Orders, is anecdotal in its rebuff of your stand that they don't feel the natural yearnings of the flesh.1 -
I can't follow what's going on here... Too many words lol1
-
DawnOfTheDead_Lift wrote: »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.
Not sure what Monks and Nuns have to do with the conversation. They deliberately choose to avoid relationships in order to pursue whatever religious ends and good that can come of it. They aren't attaching themselves to others and walking around naked with each other saying "You don't need this, you've got prayer!".
The Japanese example is very interesting, with all of the technology and over stimulation, sometimes the real thing loses appeal. There is alot more stigma around failure in that culture, so many times it is seen as much more honorable to stick it out than start over, Or if you are younger to avoid it all together.
ETA: I'll agree with you that at times sex causes more trouble than its worth. Not having a desire for it and being at peace with it is one thing. But having that desire and trying to suppress it or having no outlet for it is typically when those problems occur.
I studied in Japan as an exchange student in my teens and they are most certainly outliers with decisive action.
The pervasiveness of bot sex suits couples use to prevent over population isn't their lack of intimacy, rather a very Japanese side effect, their ability for complete self control. It is in itself their panacea to sexual gratification. The exchange of body fluids is perceived as lowly.3 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »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.
I'll bite @newmeadow . I believe unlike, @4legsRbetterthan2 , abstaining from intimacy following years of an active sexually pervasive lifestyle differs, from the natural progression of child into adulthood. I am wagering your challenge is directed to those of us on MFP who lived fairly active to moderately active sex lives, choosing to stop, yes?
In my case, abstaining from sex was moreso taking a pause to regroup, control mileage and heal. My god child was such a godsend here, due to his needy meter. It was virtually difficult to date, as I was constantly worried about him. He was sickly, so he almost always slept on my chest. He has only just healed enough for me to feel confident enough in his ability to look after himself, hence my openness to explore dating again, after 5 years.
I am not saying that dating is out of contention. I have dated 2 men since my god child has moved back to his family. This is where things get dicey, with reference to your definition of what constitutes as engaging in sex to you? What are your parameters? Do you consider abstinence sex, sex? If yes, then I certainly partook, and thereby am canceled from your five years challenge. For most, abstinence sex encompasses zero penetration - his drill bit isn't permitted entry into your woman bits.
I have not at all ... Lol ... Circumstantially and the lack of skill set has been the easy repellent, for me. Why ruin a good memory, with a moment of bad sex? I'm in agreement with @The_Devil_in_Miss_Jones that quality trumps quantity.
No really all I take issue with is this Oprahfied Dr. Philly mantra that has oozed into almost every superficial discussion about either laying down with whoever versus going it alone. You have to be happy with yourself first and truly love yourself and be utterly content with yourself first before blah blah blah or a member of married couple or one half of a shack up saying Oh but I'd be so much happier on my own, unattached, I really don't need anybody, if only, blah blah blah
Bullshrimp. The alternative is celibacy which means laying down with no one and facing oneself with absolutely no buffer and this is almost never committed to for longer than a few months which is nothing.1 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »DawnOfTheDead_Lift wrote: »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.
Not sure what Monks and Nuns have to do with the conversation. They deliberately choose to avoid relationships in order to pursue whatever religious ends and good that can come of it. They aren't attaching themselves to others and walking around naked with each other saying "You don't need this, you've got prayer!".
The Japanese example is very interesting, with all of the technology and over stimulation, sometimes the real thing loses appeal. There is alot more stigma around failure in that culture, so many times it is seen as much more honorable to stick it out than start over, Or if you are younger to avoid it all together.
ETA: I'll agree with you that at times sex causes more trouble than its worth. Not having a desire for it and being at peace with it is one thing. But having that desire and trying to suppress it or having no outlet for it is typically when those problems occur.
I studied in Japan as an exchange student in my teens and they are most certainly outliers with decisive action.
The pervasiveness of bot sex suits couples use to prevent over population isn't their lack of intimacy, rather a very Japanese side effect, their ability for complete self control. It is in itself their panacea to sexual gratification. The exchange of body fluids is perceived as lowly.
Wow, very interesting. Thanks for sharing. Could you expound on your first line about outliers with decisive action? I'm not sure I'm following.1 -
DawnOfTheDead_Lift wrote: »777Gemma888 wrote: »DawnOfTheDead_Lift wrote: »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.
Not sure what Monks and Nuns have to do with the conversation. They deliberately choose to avoid relationships in order to pursue whatever religious ends and good that can come of it. They aren't attaching themselves to others and walking around naked with each other saying "You don't need this, you've got prayer!".
The Japanese example is very interesting, with all of the technology and over stimulation, sometimes the real thing loses appeal. There is alot more stigma around failure in that culture, so many times it is seen as much more honorable to stick it out than start over, Or if you are younger to avoid it all together.
ETA: I'll agree with you that at times sex causes more trouble than its worth. Not having a desire for it and being at peace with it is one thing. But having that desire and trying to suppress it or having no outlet for it is typically when those problems occur.
I studied in Japan as an exchange student in my teens and they are most certainly outliers with decisive action.
The pervasiveness of bot sex suits couples use to prevent over population isn't their lack of intimacy, rather a very Japanese side effect, their ability for complete self control. It is in itself their panacea to sexual gratification. The exchange of body fluids is perceived as lowly.
Wow, very interesting. Thanks for sharing. Could you expound on your first line about outliers with decisive action? I'm not sure I'm following.
Their ability to commit with the follow through.1 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »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.
I'll bite @newmeadow . I believe unlike, @4legsRbetterthan2 , abstaining from intimacy following years of an active sexually pervasive lifestyle differs, from the natural progression of child into adulthood. I am wagering your challenge is directed to those of us on MFP who lived fairly active to moderately active sex lives, choosing to stop, yes?
In my case, abstaining from sex was moreso taking a pause to regroup, control mileage and heal. My god child was such a godsend here, due to his needy meter. It was virtually difficult to date, as I was constantly worried about him. He was sickly, so he almost always slept on my chest. He has only just healed enough for me to feel confident enough in his ability to look after himself, hence my openness to explore dating again, after 5 years.
I am not saying that dating is out of contention. I have dated 2 men since my god child has moved back to his family. This is where things get dicey, with reference to your definition of what constitutes as engaging in sex to you? What are your parameters? Do you consider abstinence sex, sex? If yes, then I certainly partook, and thereby am canceled from your five years challenge. For most, abstinence sex encompasses zero penetration - his drill bit isn't permitted entry into your woman bits.
I have not at all ... Lol ... Circumstantially and the lack of skill set has been the easy repellent, for me. Why ruin a good memory, with a moment of bad sex? I'm in agreement with @The_Devil_in_Miss_Jones that quality trumps quantity.
No really all I take issue with is this Oprahfied Dr. Philly mantra that has oozed into almost every superficial discussion about either laying down with whoever versus going it alone. You have to be happy with yourself first and truly love yourself and be utterly content with yourself first before blah blah blah or a member of married couple or one half of a shack up saying Oh but I'd be so much happier on my own, unattached, I really don't need anybody, if only, blah blah blah
Bullshrimp. The alternative is celibacy which means laying down with no one and facing oneself with absolutely no buffer and this is almost never committed to for longer than a few months which is nothing.
Why is it an either or, an all or nothing?
Why can't you be in a relationships with little/virtually no/no sex? If ever there were to be shades of gray it would be in human relationships and interactions, no?
Additionally, I don't think anyone is saying you have to see yourself as perfect before being able to maintain a healthy relationship. Again, why so all or nothing?1 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »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.
The only relevant monks and nuns to your challenge @newmeadow would be Anglican monks and nuns, as they were/are oftentimes previously married individuals, who commit to a vow of abstinence after they are widows/widowers ... Transferring their love for their deceased spouse to their commitment to being a bride or groom of Christ, In His Service. Contentment vs Sexual Aversion Techniques, through prayers, within Church Orders, is anecdotal in its rebuff of your stand that they don't feel the natural yearnings of the flesh.
What? My comments about monks and nuns was not specific to any one religion. That will get the thread shut down. As far as challenge goes, I'm going to start a chastity thread and leave the sex chat right here.1 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »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.
The only relevant monks and nuns to your challenge @newmeadow would be Anglican monks and nuns, as they were/are oftentimes previously married individuals, who commit to a vow of abstinence after they are widows/widowers ... Transferring their love for their deceased spouse to their commitment to being a bride or groom of Christ, In His Service. Contentment vs Sexual Aversion Techniques, through prayers, within Church Orders, is anecdotal in its rebuff of your stand that they don't feel the natural yearnings of the flesh.
What? My comments about monks and nuns was not specific to any one religion. That will get the thread shut down. As far as challenge goes, I'm going to start a chastity thread and leave the sex chat right here.
Not having sex is easy.....finding someone to do it with is much harder.5 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »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.
I'll bite @newmeadow . I believe unlike, @4legsRbetterthan2 , abstaining from intimacy following years of an active sexually pervasive lifestyle differs, from the natural progression of child into adulthood. I am wagering your challenge is directed to those of us on MFP who lived fairly active to moderately active sex lives, choosing to stop, yes?
In my case, abstaining from sex was moreso taking a pause to regroup, control mileage and heal. My god child was such a godsend here, due to his needy meter. It was virtually difficult to date, as I was constantly worried about him. He was sickly, so he almost always slept on my chest. He has only just healed enough for me to feel confident enough in his ability to look after himself, hence my openness to explore dating again, after 5 years.
I am not saying that dating is out of contention. I have dated 2 men since my god child has moved back to his family. This is where things get dicey, with reference to your definition of what constitutes as engaging in sex to you? What are your parameters? Do you consider abstinence sex, sex? If yes, then I certainly partook, and thereby am canceled from your five years challenge. For most, abstinence sex encompasses zero penetration - his drill bit isn't permitted entry into your woman bits.
I have not at all ... Lol ... Circumstantially and the lack of skill set has been the easy repellent, for me. Why ruin a good memory, with a moment of bad sex? I'm in agreement with @The_Devil_in_Miss_Jones that quality trumps quantity.
No really all I take issue with is this Oprahfied Dr. Philly mantra that has oozed into almost every superficial discussion about either laying down with whoever versus going it alone. You have to be happy with yourself first and truly love yourself and be utterly content with yourself first before blah blah blah or a member of married couple or one half of a shack up saying Oh but I'd be so much happier on my own, unattached, I really don't need anybody, if only, blah blah blah
Bullshrimp. The alternative is celibacy which means laying down with no one and facing oneself with absolutely no buffer and this is almost never committed to for longer than a few months which is nothing.
Why is it an either or, an all or nothing?
Why can't you be in a relationships with little/virtually no/no sex? If ever there were to be shades of gray it would be in human relationships and interactions, no?
I don't know. Do you know anybody who's up for that who doesn't live in Japan? I'm game.0 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »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.
I'll bite @newmeadow . I believe unlike, @4legsRbetterthan2 , abstaining from intimacy following years of an active sexually pervasive lifestyle differs, from the natural progression of child into adulthood. I am wagering your challenge is directed to those of us on MFP who lived fairly active to moderately active sex lives, choosing to stop, yes?
In my case, abstaining from sex was moreso taking a pause to regroup, control mileage and heal. My god child was such a godsend here, due to his needy meter. It was virtually difficult to date, as I was constantly worried about him. He was sickly, so he almost always slept on my chest. He has only just healed enough for me to feel confident enough in his ability to look after himself, hence my openness to explore dating again, after 5 years.
I am not saying that dating is out of contention. I have dated 2 men since my god child has moved back to his family. This is where things get dicey, with reference to your definition of what constitutes as engaging in sex to you? What are your parameters? Do you consider abstinence sex, sex? If yes, then I certainly partook, and thereby am canceled from your five years challenge. For most, abstinence sex encompasses zero penetration - his drill bit isn't permitted entry into your woman bits.
I have not at all ... Lol ... Circumstantially and the lack of skill set has been the easy repellent, for me. Why ruin a good memory, with a moment of bad sex? I'm in agreement with @The_Devil_in_Miss_Jones that quality trumps quantity.
No really all I take issue with is this Oprahfied Dr. Philly mantra that has oozed into almost every superficial discussion about either laying down with whoever versus going it alone. You have to be happy with yourself first and truly love yourself and be utterly content with yourself first before blah blah blah or a member of married couple or one half of a shack up saying Oh but I'd be so much happier on my own, unattached, I really don't need anybody, if only, blah blah blah
Bullshrimp. The alternative is celibacy which means laying down with no one and facing oneself with absolutely no buffer and this is almost never committed to for longer than a few months which is nothing.
It is rather confounding to read the posts stating their abilities to live without sex in their relationships, be it cohabitation or in some sort of committed relationship.
Complete celibacy isn't easy. Circumstantially, it still requires maintenance and recall to withhold and trick your body, that something unnatural is a new normal.
I cannot imagine a life, with the man I purport to love, in my bed every night and I am committing to a completely sex-less (asexual @laprimaJenny's mention ) existence.
1 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »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.
I'll bite @newmeadow . I believe unlike, @4legsRbetterthan2 , abstaining from intimacy following years of an active sexually pervasive lifestyle differs, from the natural progression of child into adulthood. I am wagering your challenge is directed to those of us on MFP who lived fairly active to moderately active sex lives, choosing to stop, yes?
In my case, abstaining from sex was moreso taking a pause to regroup, control mileage and heal. My god child was such a godsend here, due to his needy meter. It was virtually difficult to date, as I was constantly worried about him. He was sickly, so he almost always slept on my chest. He has only just healed enough for me to feel confident enough in his ability to look after himself, hence my openness to explore dating again, after 5 years.
I am not saying that dating is out of contention. I have dated 2 men since my god child has moved back to his family. This is where things get dicey, with reference to your definition of what constitutes as engaging in sex to you? What are your parameters? Do you consider abstinence sex, sex? If yes, then I certainly partook, and thereby am canceled from your five years challenge. For most, abstinence sex encompasses zero penetration - his drill bit isn't permitted entry into your woman bits.
I have not at all ... Lol ... Circumstantially and the lack of skill set has been the easy repellent, for me. Why ruin a good memory, with a moment of bad sex? I'm in agreement with @The_Devil_in_Miss_Jones that quality trumps quantity.
No really all I take issue with is this Oprahfied Dr. Philly mantra that has oozed into almost every superficial discussion about either laying down with whoever versus going it alone. You have to be happy with yourself first and truly love yourself and be utterly content with yourself first before blah blah blah or a member of married couple or one half of a shack up saying Oh but I'd be so much happier on my own, unattached, I really don't need anybody, if only, blah blah blah
Bullshrimp. The alternative is celibacy which means laying down with no one and facing oneself with absolutely no buffer and this is almost never committed to for longer than a few months which is nothing.
Why is it an either or, an all or nothing?
Why can't you be in a relationships with little/virtually no/no sex? If ever there were to be shades of gray it would be in human relationships and interactions, no?
I don't know. Do you know anybody who's up for that who doesn't live in Japan? I'm game.
I'm being trolled, right?0 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »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.
The only relevant monks and nuns to your challenge @newmeadow would be Anglican monks and nuns, as they were/are oftentimes previously married individuals, who commit to a vow of abstinence after they are widows/widowers ... Transferring their love for their deceased spouse to their commitment to being a bride or groom of Christ, In His Service. Contentment vs Sexual Aversion Techniques, through prayers, within Church Orders, is anecdotal in its rebuff of your stand that they don't feel the natural yearnings of the flesh.
What? My comments about monks and nuns was not specific to any one religion. That will get the thread shut down. As far as challenge goes, I'm going to start a chastity thread and leave the sex chat right here.
Not having sex is easy.....finding someone to do it with is much harder.
⬆⬆Yes.
Finding release is far too easy for both genders.1 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »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.
The only relevant monks and nuns to your challenge @newmeadow would be Anglican monks and nuns, as they were/are oftentimes previously married individuals, who commit to a vow of abstinence after they are widows/widowers ... Transferring their love for their deceased spouse to their commitment to being a bride or groom of Christ, In His Service. Contentment vs Sexual Aversion Techniques, through prayers, within Church Orders, is anecdotal in its rebuff of your stand that they don't feel the natural yearnings of the flesh.
What? My comments about monks and nuns was not specific to any one religion. That will get the thread shut down. As far as challenge goes, I'm going to start a chastity thread and leave the sex chat right here.
Not having sex is easy.....finding someone to do it with is much harder.
NO IT'S NOT WHEN YOU'RE RUNNING AROUND BUYING HOUSES ALL THE TIME.4 -
MistressSara wrote: »Trust, kindness, respect, dependability, sexual compatibility- clearly a relationship should have all these things.
And while a relationship can survive while missing one or more of these pieces, can it do so happily?
What if your relationship had all but one of these characteristics? What could you live without? Is wanting it all greedy? Or is settling for less...settling?
In short, can anything replace the zsa zsa zsu?
I can live without a lot. .. everything else really. I will not negotiate on sex though, as that is a requirement. It is the ONLY thing which distinguishes him from every other man ... I want him every day. A feral need to need/want this one person all the time.6 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »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.
I'll bite @newmeadow . I believe unlike, @4legsRbetterthan2 , abstaining from intimacy following years of an active sexually pervasive lifestyle differs, from the natural progression of child into adulthood. I am wagering your challenge is directed to those of us on MFP who lived fairly active to moderately active sex lives, choosing to stop, yes?
In my case, abstaining from sex was moreso taking a pause to regroup, control mileage and heal. My god child was such a godsend here, due to his needy meter. It was virtually difficult to date, as I was constantly worried about him. He was sickly, so he almost always slept on my chest. He has only just healed enough for me to feel confident enough in his ability to look after himself, hence my openness to explore dating again, after 5 years.
I am not saying that dating is out of contention. I have dated 2 men since my god child has moved back to his family. This is where things get dicey, with reference to your definition of what constitutes as engaging in sex to you? What are your parameters? Do you consider abstinence sex, sex? If yes, then I certainly partook, and thereby am canceled from your five years challenge. For most, abstinence sex encompasses zero penetration - his drill bit isn't permitted entry into your woman bits.
I have not at all ... Lol ... Circumstantially and the lack of skill set has been the easy repellent, for me. Why ruin a good memory, with a moment of bad sex? I'm in agreement with @The_Devil_in_Miss_Jones that quality trumps quantity.
No really all I take issue with is this Oprahfied Dr. Philly mantra that has oozed into almost every superficial discussion about either laying down with whoever versus going it alone. You have to be happy with yourself first and truly love yourself and be utterly content with yourself first before blah blah blah or a member of married couple or one half of a shack up saying Oh but I'd be so much happier on my own, unattached, I really don't need anybody, if only, blah blah blah
Bullshrimp. The alternative is celibacy which means laying down with no one and facing oneself with absolutely no buffer and this is almost never committed to for longer than a few months which is nothing.
Why is it an either or, an all or nothing?
Why can't you be in a relationships with little/virtually no/no sex? If ever there were to be shades of gray it would be in human relationships and interactions, no?
Additionally, I don't think anyone is saying you have to see yourself as perfect before being able to maintain a healthy relationship. Again, why so all or nothing?
all of this, you have taken what we were trying to discuss and put it to extremes which always ruins the discussion/debate
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
MistressSara wrote: »Trust, kindness, respect, dependability, sexual compatibility- clearly a relationship should have all these things.
And while a relationship can survive while missing one or more of these pieces, can it do so happily?
What if your relationship had all but one of these characteristics? What could you live without? Is wanting it all greedy? Or is settling for less...settling?
In short, can anything replace the zsa zsa zsu?
a whole lotta y'all are taking this thing off topic.
Myself included, I suppose; for pointing it out.
So what is the actual question, topic?In short, can anything replace the zsa zsa zsu?
As with most things, it depends. If it's just the physical release... yes, that's pretty easy to manage on your own. If it's a physical expression of something emotional, then that's going to be much harder to replace.
Obviously if you don't need it or it's not important to you, then the whole conversation is somewhat moot.2 -
kindalikevelma wrote: »I’ve been in a loving, fulfilling relationship without sex. I dated a man who was paralyzed from the waist down and we had more fun than most of the able bodied men I’ve known.
And are you still dating this guy?0 -
777Gemma888 wrote: »777Gemma888 wrote: »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.
I'll bite @newmeadow . I believe unlike, @4legsRbetterthan2 , abstaining from intimacy following years of an active sexually pervasive lifestyle differs, from the natural progression of child into adulthood. I am wagering your challenge is directed to those of us on MFP who lived fairly active to moderately active sex lives, choosing to stop, yes?
In my case, abstaining from sex was moreso taking a pause to regroup, control mileage and heal. My god child was such a godsend here, due to his needy meter. It was virtually difficult to date, as I was constantly worried about him. He was sickly, so he almost always slept on my chest. He has only just healed enough for me to feel confident enough in his ability to look after himself, hence my openness to explore dating again, after 5 years.
I am not saying that dating is out of contention. I have dated 2 men since my god child has moved back to his family. This is where things get dicey, with reference to your definition of what constitutes as engaging in sex to you? What are your parameters? Do you consider abstinence sex, sex? If yes, then I certainly partook, and thereby am canceled from your five years challenge. For most, abstinence sex encompasses zero penetration - his drill bit isn't permitted entry into your woman bits.
I have not at all ... Lol ... Circumstantially and the lack of skill set has been the easy repellent, for me. Why ruin a good memory, with a moment of bad sex? I'm in agreement with @The_Devil_in_Miss_Jones that quality trumps quantity.
No really all I take issue with is this Oprahfied Dr. Philly mantra that has oozed into almost every superficial discussion about either laying down with whoever versus going it alone. You have to be happy with yourself first and truly love yourself and be utterly content with yourself first before blah blah blah or a member of married couple or one half of a shack up saying Oh but I'd be so much happier on my own, unattached, I really don't need anybody, if only, blah blah blah
Bullshrimp. The alternative is celibacy which means laying down with no one and facing oneself with absolutely no buffer and this is almost never committed to for longer than a few months which is nothing.
It is rather confounding to read the posts stating their abilities to live without sex in their relationships, be it cohabitation or in some sort of committed relationship.
Complete celibacy isn't easy. Circumstantially, it still requires maintenance and recall to withhold and trick your body, that something unnatural is a new normal.
I cannot imagine a life, with the man I purport to love, in my bed every night and I am committing to a completely sex-less existence.
Talk to my ex-wife. She can tell you all about it.
yeah yeah yeah, low hanging fruit, cheap easy joke, I know. But it's true!
You're a Saint to have remained for as long as you had done before ✋👋✋👋0 -
MistressSara wrote: »Trust, kindness, respect, dependability, sexual compatibility- clearly a relationship should have all these things.
And while a relationship can survive while missing one or more of these pieces, can it do so happily?
What if your relationship had all but one of these characteristics? What could you live without? Is wanting it all greedy? Or is settling for less...settling?
In short, can anything replace the zsa zsa zsu?
a whole lotta y'all are taking this thing off topic.
Myself included, I suppose; for pointing it out.
So what is the actual question, topic?In short, can anything replace the zsa zsa zsu?
As with most things, it depends. If it's just the physical release... yes, that's pretty easy to manage on your own. If it's a physical expression of something emotional, then that's going to be much harder to replace.
Obviously if you don't need it or it's not important to you, then the whole conversation is somewhat moot.
To add...
If you need it but aren't getting it, then see my previous comments.
If you aren't interested but your SO is, there may be things you can do to spark some interest... but it depends why you aren't interested and why exactly your SO wants it.1 -
Meddling ... Every relationship has meddlers ... I'd happily do without those.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions