brighid

Believe me I know. I know too many women who have been indoctrinated to believe that a woman shouldn't enjoy sex, that orgasms are exceedingly rare and that they are dirty and disgusting "down there." It's sooooo sad! It is my personal opinion that if more people had satisfying sex lives that the world would be a MUCH better place

Brighid

luvluv

Glory:

I wasn't saying anything of the kind. I simply meant that, given that they aren't ACCUSTOMED to regular good sex, it will be easier for them to adjust to having regular, awkward sex for a period of time.

For example, I currently have had digital cable for about 2 or 3 years. If I had to go back to three channells for a significant period of time, I would have enormous difficulty adjusting (particualrly when basketball season started).

A poor young lady from Appalachia who never saw a single minute of television in her life might be very content, however, with those same three channels not forever, but LONGER RELATIVE TO MYSELF, BEING THAT I AM ACCUSTOMED TO DIGITAL CABLE.

I am simply saying that if you dropped both of us into a house with a television with 3 channels for 3 months, she would be giddy and I would be seriously pissed off.

Does that seem unreasonable?


Now, of course, eventually the girl would learn there were more channells and would want more channells, but she'd weather the initial storm much better because she did not come to view digital cable as an immediate necessity.


I was not born believing, and I was not born into a particularly Christian family. Wasn't really committed until after college.

That may be so for you, but do you think you might be overstepping your bounds to say that this applies to all people? I could very adequately explain to my wife how often I would like sex without having sex with her. I don't think how often I experience sexual desire is in any way related to what the specific experience of sex is like with my wife.

I stand by my position, though, that any relationship which cannot survive sexual incompatibility could not survive at any rate. It's an extremely solvable problem.

But as you say libidos change, regardless. I have heard from many married friends that the frequency of sex before marriage was not at all a reflection of the frequency of sex after marriage. So premarital sex wouldn't solve the problem at all, it may just create false expectations. The more I reflect on it, I know of several marriages where sexual incompatibility is a concern, and all of these couples had pre-marital sex.

Umm... because I love her?

I agree. On reflection that comment was out of line and I apologize. I'll edit it out.

Again, love is the only answer I can think of. Between mind-blowing sex with a moron I can't stand and okay sex with someone I am crazy about... well, sex only lasts about half an hour a day. What am I going to do with the moron for the rest of the 23 and a half?

brighid:

I liked what you said, but all ManM and I were trying to say is that not everyone is like you. I know of several married couples where the wife would be perfectly content to not have sex with their husband ever again. It is not just a function of them being brainwashed, inhibited, or religious (they aren't religious, actually). It may have something to do with the fact that a couple of them have children. Sex REALLY isn't that important to some people. All ManM and I have been endorsing is some live and let live. Some people are actually different from you and they are not therefore religiously indoctrinated or brainwashed or repressed. There's such a thing as a naturally occuring low sex drive.

dear livius drivus:

See my comment above. I was not remotely saying that.

Again, I apologize to you and anyone else who I might have offended with that remark. It was out of line.

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

phaedrus

Grain of salt is the order of the day alright. Anyhows, the report you are talking about did the study only in US and Britain if i remember correctly.

Daisy

No to both.

Not at all. It's because I had sex with those others that I appreciate how extraordinarily wonderful DH is; I don't wonder, I know. It's not the most exciting, but it is by far and away the most satisfying and gratifying.

Perhaps, but not in a good way.

No, not at all. I would be jealous if he had slept with anyone since.

Also, I had no idea how much sex I wanted/needed before I ever had it or before I ever had it good. And the amount does change with time and circumstance. So far, 16 years, we've managed to work it out.

dk

It seems nobody regrets premarital sex, so I’d like to know how women feel about side affects of steroids, catching an incurable STDs, past abortions, infertility, and absentee fathers?

Do you think its good for men to use women as objects for sexual gratification?

Do you think its good for women to use men as objects for sexual gratification?

Would you mind if the father of your child asked for a DNA test before signing the birth certificate?

dangin

Ladies, I will be your object anytime. Gladly, with bells on. Except cow bells, I prefer the small jingly kind.

No duh, sex can be unhealthy? Your kidding. People use other people, I never would have thought.

It's hard to be used when you are engaging in sex with your eyes open. That means with condoms, and an understanding of who it is you're being intimate with. If you are a female and you are giving it up on the first date(what's your number) no wait, what I mean is if that is your pattern, and guys who you just met don't call you again after you boff them within 200 minutes of meeting them are you really going to be surprised by that?

If you wait until you know the person at least a little, you should be able to determine if they are interested in you, or in your "goods".

Take responsibility for yourself, accept the consequences of your actions, try to understand where the gender that makes up your preferred mating partners is coming from, and enjoy your life.

tronvillain

dk:
I assume that by "side effects of steroids" you mean "side effects of hormonal birth control." I can see no reason for referring to them as "steroids" except to take advantage of the negative connotations the word has. It will be interesting to see how blocking the vas deferens works out as a male contraceptive. As for the rest of it, they are risks to be minimized.

What exactly does it mean to use someone as an object for sexual gratification? I assume it means something along the lines of "having sex with someone without being interested in them as a person", but outside of one night stands is that really a big problem? Perhaps it might include shallow relationships, as sort of the extended version of a one night stand.

That is a question about monogamy and trust, not about premarital sex, so why are you asking it?

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

lunachick

Jeez. I've been celibate for way too long. So long, in fact, that if I told you the length of time you'd think there was something wrong with me. The only reason I'm celebate is that I'm not even remotely attracted to anyone around me, live in a town I don't want to live in, and am single-handedly raising my daughter (so I don't want her to see Mum getting off with guys for the sake of it, which is what it would be as I'm not interested in a relationship right now).

BUT! I'd love to have a secret fuck-buddy. A male friend (unmarried) who doesn't need to have a 'relationship' with me, who'll simply just be on call when I want some, and will not be around during my daughters waking hours. Now I don't mean to sound vain or anything, but I'm a pretty woman and I attract attention when I can be bothered going out, so why can't I have me this ideal situation?? Grrrrrrr. I'm frustrated. Grrrrrr.

*storms off to smash some crockery*

lunachick

Ahhhh. That feels better.

So, pre-marital sex?

Yes, I think there should be more of it.

99Percent

If sex is the only thing you want from a fuck buddy why does he have to be unmarried?