|
Post by voltage on Apr 26, 2007 23:54:44 GMT -5
Exactly! ;D
I think its more than sex, and before you add sex to the equation you should look for the companionship and change that goes along with making a relationship work. The ultimate relationship is a lifelong commitment, and with it goes the ultimate bond: a sexual relationship.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 27, 2007 8:10:36 GMT -5
I'm still in favor of sex before marraige though...
|
|
|
Post by thatguy on Apr 27, 2007 13:04:14 GMT -5
Sigh, Yes there is certainly more to a long term relationship or marrage than just sex. I personally divide it into thirds approximately. One third love for each other, one third friendship, and one third sexual compatability. You have to have all of them to succeed in a long term relationship. If you don't love each other what is the point, if you are not best friends then all those years will be very long ones, and if you are not sexually compatable then you will stray. You may love the person so much that you would give your life, you may be such good friends that you could never imagine being without them, but if they only want to be intimate once a month and then just lay there and you want it 2-3 times a week you will have some serious problems reconciling it. Never mind the various kinks that people can have. Like say she only gets off with oral sex but you hate it. Do you condem yourself to doing something that disgusts you or condem her to never having an orgasm? The no sex before marrage method leaves the sex third as an unkown and at a point in the relationship that is difficult to change. Not knowning your sexual compatability can turn a a great relationship into a very long prison sentence with a cell mate you like alot. That is more my point in a not so shocking way.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Apr 27, 2007 13:34:58 GMT -5
How about sacrifices? Thats what marraige is all about. In my opinion, your view of "I need to get off but she wants to do weird things." is displaying a rather selfish and shallow point of view on sex and relationships. And may I ask what you think compatibility is?
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Apr 27, 2007 16:30:43 GMT -5
The idea of compatibility is that both parties enjoy the same things. How is this not obvious?
|
|
|
Post by thatguy on Apr 27, 2007 21:58:12 GMT -5
I suppose that the meaning of compatibility was obvious and I meant it in the classic definition of "Capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with another or others". Now if you are looking for some other paraphrase of this definition I guess I can give you one. Let's say you think it is super sexy and hot to wear diapers, suck on a Binky, and get spanked by a woman (your mate, partner, wife, whatever) dressed in a white latex nurse uniform, you had better hope that your (mate, partner, wife, whatever) has a compatible idea as to what is hot and sexy. Thus having a harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination of sexual experiences with another or others.
Now on another note, being with someone you care about in a sexual way can be a wonderful, expanding, loving experience that is almost magical and brings you closer together. Then other times you both or singly just want a down and dirty rogering. It really depends on the mood.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Apr 27, 2007 21:59:17 GMT -5
Do you believe people are unique, or shall I paraphrase to help you understand. ;D
|
|
|
Post by thatguy on Apr 27, 2007 22:11:52 GMT -5
I suppose that would be based on what scale you are dealing with. If you are looking at it on a small or philosophical level then yes I guess they would be unique. Now if you are looking at people on a much larger scale like attitude toward or about something it would probably (like many things) fall into some sort of bell curve with the majority (or normal) being the top of the curve. I am still not sure I understand what you are asking. What the hell give me a paraphrase.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Apr 27, 2007 22:59:31 GMT -5
Minor differences aren't the main issue here, we're talking about pretty major ones. If you can't get the kind of sex you want in a marriage, you're more likely to look for it elsewhere, quite possibly ruining the marriage, wasting time and money, and if you have kids, giving them a hard as hell time.
So lets say you try sex with your fiance first. You learn that your interests don't mesh, and part ways before you make a huge commitment, hopefully to find someone who can commit to you, be a good friend, and help you satisfy your fetishes, or lack thereof.
Not everyone likes to have sex the same way. I doubt any of you enjoy BDSM, or really understand the role of a sub and a dom in one of those relationships. A lot of people think of sub/dom relationships as unhealthy, and finding out a few years into a marriage that your spouse wants to be tied up and given a whipping, or the other way around, could put incredible pressure on both partners that wouldn't be there before marriage.
|
|
beniceyouguys
Awakened
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
Posts: 2
|
Post by beniceyouguys on May 8, 2007 22:48:27 GMT -5
I personally do not think they are unhealthy, not at all. Which is why I feel damn lucky to have met you. .... Sir.
I think of a Purity Ball the same way I think of CONFORMation classes, or 6th grade babtism 101. I know at age 11 if my parents had told me to do something like pledge abstinence or become a member of the church I would have, and did in fact. At the time I was highly skeptical about the whole schtick, but I did it anyway. At that age it had no affect on my decisions and was mostly done out of respect for my parents and the desire to avoid confrontations. Very little actual thought went into it.
Since then I have made a virtual 180, and not out of rebellion, I try to avoid being the 'rebelious type'. The lifestyle my parents intended for me simply seemed too fearful and closed and superstitious.
I know that the girls I knew at that age agreed with me, the pledges were more of a 'hey why not' than a religious experience. About a fifth of the girls I grew up with turned out to put any stock in the abstinence pledges for a moral reason.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on May 14, 2007 21:29:54 GMT -5
Now hold on Gents, and lets look at how each of you view compatibility.
Paragon: You strongly believed that a marriage will die or erupt in a ruinous mess if the partners aren't fulfilling sexual fantasies. Thus your view of compatibility is limited to sexuality. If I can't get off with her, I don't want to be with her. In my view a 7th grader would say the same thing. And you are assuming that everyone maintains, dwells on, and acts on sexual fantasies.
Thatguy: You have thought through and come to a very good answer. There is a "normal curve" which everyone is measured by. You believe that compatibility is surface things, and that on a deeper level we are all different. I wouldn't doubt this, if it weren't for the connection I make between the surface level, and the deeper level. Your philosophies effect your surface, and your drive in life will lead you to an entirely different combination of influences in this world that nobody can ever duplicate or accidentally repeat. Deeper we are different. Therefore a person attempting to live another persons life wouldn't have the same thoughts or reactions at the same moments as that person. Thus we are the same, yet entirely different. Confusing? Yes, thats why human beings have to accept each other in order to get along.
Now I think of compatibility on that level which I just described, your inner identity (I call it your spirit, or soul) makes you unique, and no person ever created is going to be like you. Thus marriage is essentially a mutual agreement to be united with one person for your entire life and to accept and stick together because you love them, and want to be with them. If you want to look at marriage as a way to fulfill your fantasies, then your not going to get very far. Having sex before marriage to figure out if they like BDSM is selfish if you change your view on marriage to this perspective.
I heard this once, and I enjoyed the saying because it shows if your really understand what marriage (essentially companionship) is about. Your not in love with someone if your not willing to grow old together. Now you know what happens when you get old right Paragon? Your parts stop uh...working. You lose your young vibrant sex drive, and what will you have left? Where are your sexual fantasies to strengthen the relationship? sex is an enjoyable thing, which produces children. You have the two switched around. You think that sex is to feel good, and kids are the side effect. Truth is sex makes human beings, and the fact that it feels good is a side effect of sex. You shouldn't have sex if your not willing to take care of a child, or grow old with that person. If you have sex and are unwilling to do either, then I would say your looking to get a climax, not a commitment.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 15, 2007 0:05:12 GMT -5
I suppose then we could start debating over marraige but that would require a whole new thread...
|
|
|
Post by voltage on May 15, 2007 12:30:38 GMT -5
Most Likely...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 19, 2007 1:47:02 GMT -5
Do you believe people are unique, or shall I paraphrase to help you understand. ;D If your question is confined strictly to Earth then I would say that we are. However, if not, I would say that we are not.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on May 20, 2007 22:24:08 GMT -5
If your too open minded...your brains will fall out.... Are you avoiding the compatibility post deliberately? Or shall we fly out into space and start talking about Alien compatibility...
|
|