Sex ?= Relationship

[Latrinsorm]

Not all relationships require sex. Likewise, not all sex occurs in a relationship.
Originally posted by longshot
I will refrain from colorfully illustrating my opinion of what you wrote because everyone here has been gracious enough to put a lot of thought into their posts.

So, I will only say that this should probably be its own thread.Let 'er rip, champ.

[Sean of the Thread]

I don't want to intervene but unless the bitch I'm living with is painfully wealthy.. she better be bending over for me daily.

[Miss X]

It depends on what kind of relationship we are talking about. I mean, there are of course platonic relationships. I have them with my friends and family.

If we are talking about a loving relationship, partner type stuff then I think sex has to figure in there somewhere. I know I wouldn't want a relationship with a man if there was no sexual activity at all. A relationship for me, is being with someone who is a great friend and a great lover. You need someone who excites you in both ways.


Edited to add.... :rofl: Xyelin rocks. ;)

[Edited on 30-7-05 by Miss X]

[Valthissa]

Originally posted by Xyelin
I don't want to intervene but unless the bitch I'm living with is painfully wealthy.. she better be bending over for me daily.

just a thought...

maybe if you've been married 51 years and your loving wife has alzheimers and you've had a stroke and all you have in the world is your memories and your love for one another, you might feel differently.

then again, you might never change.

C/Valth

[Skirmisher]

While you may be 100% right, I took his post to be made in a more lighthearted manner.

[CrystalTears]

We're talking about dating/marital relationships, yes? Talking about platonic relationships about sex is another issue.

To say that one will never expect or want sex in a relationship like one of marriage is kidding themselves. Sure love is important, but you want to deny that sex is not necessary or needed, and I say it is.

I'm not saying strictly intercourse, I'm talking sex of any kind... foreplay, oral sex, intercourse.. any kind of physical enjoyment that is gained with each other. Even pleasuring yourself is part of that. To say that it will never happen... well... that person is very very unique.

A friend of my family got married when she was in her mid to late 20's with a guy who is paralyzed from the waist down, I believe due to a car accident. Very great person, sweet, giving, morally sound. As great as this guy was, people asked her to consider hard her decision since he can't have intercourse. She didn't care. Being a rather morally sound and very Catholic person, we figured it would work out. A few years later they were divorced. Oh gee, why? Oh cause he couldn't satisfy her.

After a while, you just need some sort of stimulation in your life, aside from your own abilities.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Let 'er rip, champ.

Why you think this is beyond me. Other than extreme instances of illness, why the hell wouldn't you engage in this act with someone that you care about?

Maybe you're rationalizing this because of relgious dogma?

Or maybe it's because the only thing you have a chance of fucking is sitting on the top shelf of your closet in a dusty box marked "Power Glove"?

So, because I don't understand why you think that, I really can't comment further.

[Terminator X]

Sex is physically gratifying whereas relationships are physically painful.

Since these two well-known facts I have just stated always hold true, it means that both of these polar opposites cannot exist at the same time without the risk of spontaneous universe combustion.

Spontaneous universe combustion is bad.

.

I also made this deliberately corny reply because that power glove comment, although insanely hysterical to the point of unadulterated supreme awesomeness, was totally way harsh.

I hope you find what you are looking for in life.

[Tisket]

Originally posted by Terminator X


I also made this deliberately corny reply because that power glove comment, although insanely hysterical to the point of unadulterated supreme awesomeness, was totally way harsh.

Some people like to go straight for the baseball bat when a flyswatter would suffice.

(Yes, I laughed. But I felt guily immediately afterward. One hundred Hail Mary's!)

[Delirium]

At least the box is dusty.

[Warriorbird]

:sings:

"Every sperm is saaacred, every sperm is greeeeeat, if a sperm gets wasted, god gets quite iraaaate!"

Enough explanation for his viewpoint right there, longshot.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
We're talking about dating/marital relationships, yes?Yes. If platonic relationships can include sex, then I need a new dictionary.
To say that one will never expect or want sex in a relationship like one of marriage is kidding themselves.It depends on how broad that "like" is. I don't believe that every person goes on a date expecting sex, and more importantly (for the topic at hand) I don't believe all sex occurs in a relationship that consists of no more than "Nice shoes, wanna fuck?" Once we're talking marriage, or some other form of committment, I expect plenty of sex to go on (assuming healthy partners).
Sure love is important, but you want to deny that sex is not necessary or needed, and I say it is.I don't know where you got this, unless you've been talking to Warriorbird.
Originally posted by longshot
Other than extreme instances of illness, why the hell wouldn't you engage in this act with someone that you care about?Because I don't follow the philosophy that sex doesn't require any more connection than a game of ultimate frisbee and I don't think people should be treated like objects created solely for my sexual pleasure. As an aside, I'd say the areligious side is quite a bit more dogmatic when it comes to sex (and most other things).

[longshot]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
]It depends on how broad that "like" is. I don't believe that every person goes on a date expecting sex, and more importantly (for the topic at hand) I don't believe all sex occurs in a relationship that consists of no more than "Nice shoes, wanna fuck?" Once we're talking marriage, or some other form of committment, I expect plenty of sex to go on (assuming healthy partners).

You believe a lot of things for never really coming close...


http://forum.gsplayers.com/images/upload/Longshot/1361.jpg

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by longshot
Other than extreme instances of illness, why the hell wouldn't you engage in this act with someone that you care about?Because I don't follow the philosophy that sex doesn't require any more connection than a game of ultimate frisbee and I don't think people should be treated like objects created solely for my sexual pleasure. As an aside, I'd say the areligious side is quite a bit more dogmatic when it comes to sex (and most other things).

Talking about sex with someone you care about (as longshot stated) and fucking someone after a game of ultimate frisbee (as you, Latrisorm, stated) are two very different things. When longshot asks you why you WOULD NOT want to have sex with someone you care about, please do not confuse the two.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
Talking about sex with someone you care about (as longshot stated) and fucking someone after a game of ultimate frisbee (as you, Latrisorm, stated) are two very different things.I can only assume by this that it takes you a longer time to care about people than I do.

[SpunGirl]

And yet you're still not answering longshot's question - why would you NOT want to engage in this act with someone you cared about? See, in this situation, you have to assume that by saying you "care about" this person you might potentially bed, we're talking "care about" in a relationship sense. You know, attraction, trust, etc.

Of course, explaining this to someone who cannot begin to understand the intimacy of sex might be a futile attempt. The only thing worse, in this case, than a virgin who considers themselves to be an authority on the whys and why-nots of sexual relations is the guy who just lost it 2.5 seconds ago claiming the same authority.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

I did in fact answer the question, though apparently not to your satisfaction. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're asking me why I wouldn't have sex with someone I cared about to the level at which I would want to have sex with them. My answer, as I've already said, is I don't feel the level is a constant between individuals. What you (or longshot, or anyone else) might feel is enough for sex to occur isn't necessarily the same as what I feel.

I don't know why you feel I was attempting to speak from a position of authority, but I wasn't.

[Warriorbird]

Folks should know to expect rationalizations from you.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
My answer, as I've already said, is I don't feel the level is a constant between individuals.

So... does that include marriage? I mean, look at all the divorces. That feeling between individuals is hardly a constant, either. "Let's get married!" "Okay!" (bangbangbangbang) "I hate you!" "Omg I hate you too!" "L8r!"

How is this any different than a two year relationship where the parties involved were having sex, and then split up?

-K

[Latrinsorm]

The answer is that it's not different. A promise made in front of a priest (and family and stuff) isn't any different than a promise made to each other.

[SpunGirl]

So you won't have sex before marriage, but marriage is no different than a relationship where trust is had and promises have been made. :?:

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by SpunGirl
So you won't have sex before marriage, but marriage is no different than a relationship where trust is had and promises have been made. :?:Under the definitions of sex that were made in the previous thread, the first statement is incorrect. I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the topic of the thread, unless this means you agree with me?

[SpunGirl]

I was under the impression that the thread was about how sex occurs, or cannot occur, within the context of certain relationships. If you have a romantic relationship with someone and do not want to engage in intercourse with them because you are not married... then that would be sex not occuring in that relationship. The question, I believe, was why not. You said it's because those feelings between people change. I asked how it's different than a marriage that ends in divorce. You said it's not.

-K

[Atlanteax]

:popcorn2:

Meanwhile, I'm of the opinion that sex should wait till it's a relatively serious relationship... as opposed to the "casual" variety.

[DeV]

Longshot pretty much summed up my thoughts.

[Warriorbird]

"The answer is that it's not different. A promise made in front of a priest (and family and stuff) isn't any different than a promise made to each other."

So... you love your family the same as you love perspective wives?

[Xcalibur]

The "first" brain, the, paléoncortex I think, control the sexual behavior.

Anyone saying sex isn't part of their life/desir is a fucking liar or a freakshow.

[Tisket]

Originally posted by DeV
Longshot pretty much summed up my thoughts.

Yeah it was funny. Until he repeated himself with the picture rather than address Latrinsorm's points.

(the above is in no way intended to take either sides of this debate. My attention span is too short to engage in deep debate)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
So... you love your family the same as you love perspective wives?No. When I put family in the parentheses, I was referring to the other people in front of whom the promise was made.
Originally posted by SpunGirl
I was under the impression that the thread was about how sex occurs, or cannot occur, within the context of certain relationships.The original intent was whether or not the two are necessarily inseperable, but I can see how your take on it is just as valid.
You said it's because those feelings between people change.What I said was that from person to person, the level of trust/caring/etc. that warrants sexual activity is different. I thought I made that clear with the sentence immediately after the one you quoted from post#411624.

[Warriorbird]

"No. When I put family in the parentheses, I was referring to the other people in front of whom the promise was made."

I was mainly indicating your implied double standard.

I love how you're trying to vilify him because he doesn't think you have to fuck somebody to be close to them in a relationship. Its pitiful, and very representative of societies change for the worse.

[CrystalTears]

I think that Latrinsorm is complicating the issue.

And what the hell Dave? Are you saying that people don't need to be intimate in close relationships either? If you don't want to, fine, but do realize it's not the norm.

Unless you got married for convenience rather than love or intimacy, at which case you don't care enough about this person anyway.

And I'm not really sure what the length of time it takes to care about a person has to do with the question "why wouldn't you want to engage in sexual activity with someone you care about?".

Some people dont base a relationship off of sex. Is that such a bad thing.
Some people chose to wait until after marriage, i respect the them and their choice. You have people like Warriorbird there coming in screaming OMFG ITS BECAUSE YOUR RELIGIOUS YOU SUCK. Want to talk about narrow minded. He is worse than any
"religious" person on these boards.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Tisket

Originally posted by DeV
Longshot pretty much summed up my thoughts.

Yeah it was funny. Until he repeated himself with the picture rather than address Latrinsorm's points.

(the above is in no way intended to take either sides of this debate. My attention span is too short to engage in deep debate) Yes, well, I don't blame him at all.
It should be clear to an individual that "Not all love relationships require sex." <-- edited to add the word love. Likewise, not all sex occurs in a romantic relationship. <-- edited to add the word romantic.

Had I not added those words, Latrinsorm's original words exactly as they are written would still be a given, at least to me, in the context in which I'm reading them. I don't think the original post really garnered that much of a response in the first place.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Dave
Some people dont base a relationship off of sex. Is that such a bad thing.

I don't believe anyone is saying that one should base a relationship on sex. I even don't think people are saying that you should have sex before marriage. I believe what people are confused about (on my behalf, anyway) is that even though the relationship is not BASED on sex, it still INCLUDES sex somewhere along the lines. He's been dodging that like a sniper bullet.

[Warriorbird]

Sort've like a bunch of conservatives saying opposing the war is supporting terrorism, Dave?

Sensitivity suggestions from you = fucking stupid.

You missed the actual topic of this thread anyways.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

I never said that now did I warriorbird. Its about you not liberals.
You being a christian hating prick.


Originally posted by Warriorbird
:sings:

"Every sperm is saaacred, every sperm is greeeeeat, if a sperm gets wasted, god gets quite iraaaate!"

Enough explanation for his viewpoint right there, longshot.

I don't see myself posting about the topic, i see my comments geared towards stupid comments like yours in the thread.


[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Dave]

[CrystalTears]

I don't see myself posting about the topic, i see my comments geared towards stupid comments like yours in the thread.

Thanks for admitting that you came here to insult someone rather than stay on topic. Kudos for the honesty.

Okay, stop with the insulting please. Let's get back to the topic. Thanks.



[Edited on 8/1/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
:sings:

"Every sperm is saaacred, every sperm is greeeeeat, if a sperm gets wasted, god gets quite iraaaate!"

Enough explanation for his viewpoint right there, longshot.

Catholocism doesn't say that. I'm 99% sure most Christian denominations don't say that, either.

If you're going to be a whiney bitch about this shit all the time, at least try to know wtf you're talking about.

Geek.

[Warriorbird]

Funny, Dave. I actually attend church pretty regularly. I'm sorry I affect you so much.

[Warriorbird]

Alternately, you could learn how to actually spell Catholicism and then maybe you'd get the reference to Monty Python, Hulkein.

My best friend is Catholic, and drifted from the Church over the Church's anti birth control stance. Pretty clear.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Hulkein]

Oh no, I typo'd my own religion.. I'm doomed.

PS. Monty Python sucks.

[Warriorbird]

Guess you didn't have enough going on in the political thread so you had to come over here. Maybe you should listen at Mass a little more. Any GS player attempting to use "Geek" as an insult is hilarious, for the record.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Warriorbird]

[CrystalTears]

C'mon guys, knock it off. Anymore off-topic posts made after this will be removed.

[DeV]

What exactly does Catholicism say regarding birth control then? I always heard it to be sort of the way WB described. I aalso figured in part it was to keep the pews full, but I'm sure that is only touching the surface.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by DeV]

[Miss X]

Hi, please do what CT said!! We can always make another thread to discuss the religious stuff if you guys want? I can just split the thread if thats easier? :)

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I was mainly indicating your implied double standard. If you mean I wouldn't have sex with my family, then yes, you're absolutely correct. I don't know why that had to be pointed out though.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
And I'm not really sure what the length of time it takes to care about a person has to do with the question "why wouldn't you want to engage in sexual activity with someone you care about?".It doesn't. It does have something to do with the idea that not all relationships include sex.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
it still INCLUDES sex somewhere along the lines.Sure. That's not the issue at all though. The issue is that it doesn't happen instantly, at the moment the relationship begins.
Originally posted by DeV
It should be clear to an individual That's what I thought before KK's post in the other thread. Longshot requested another be thread about it, and here we are.

[Warriorbird]

Your implication was that caring was exactly the same between everyone.... that a promise was the same between everyone. I was attempting to point out how ludicrous a notion that was.

[Latrinsorm]

In that case, a clarification: In the context of the relationships SpunGirl and I were talking about, a promise made in front of a priest isn't any different than a promise made to each other.

[Warriorbird]

That's an interesting can of worms. So a promise is a promise, even a sacrament before God?

[Latrinsorm]

All that we do, say, and think is before God.

[Warriorbird]

Interesting. So would that imply a critical light on Biblical absolutism?

Some things not being more sacred than others...

[Latrinsorm]

Considering I'm more than ready to toss out the entire OT, I don't know how you reckon I'm a proponent of Biblical absolutism.

[Warriorbird]

Well, you've got one good quality at least.

:winks:

[longshot]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Considering I'm more than ready to toss out the entire OT, I don't know how you reckon I'm a proponent of Biblical absolutism.

Selective rationalization.

You're so fucking sad.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Considering I'm more than ready to toss out the entire OT,

I think Jesus thought the OT was pretty sweet. WWJD!?!?

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by longshot
Selective rationalization.

You're so fucking sad.
Originally posted by SpunGirl
I think Jesus thought the OT was pretty sweet. WWJD!?!? Jesus would say:
Originally posted by the Risen Lord
Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.The Jews by nature of being human got some stuff wrong. We don't have a record of Jesus going through each passage of the Scriptures saying "this is ok, this not so much", but we can apply simple logic. Anything that doesn't jive with unconditional, absolute love is a miscommunication/mistranslation. Anything that does is good to go.

[Warriorbird]

So you reject Paul, too?

[CrystalTears]

The Jews by nature of being human got some stuff wrong.

Jesus got stuff wrong too then? He was Jewish.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
So you reject Paul, too? Whenever he contradicts with Jesus, you betcha.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
Jesus got stuff wrong too then? He was Jewish.But he was also God. :)