# Sex in the marriage vs Single life sex



## Hortensia (Feb 1, 2013)

I was a little intrigued by the topic on a different post so thought to hear some more opinions. 
I find sex in the marriage amazing - loving, safe, comforting. How is it compared to no-string attached sex , which is wild, adventurous, maybe a little bit naughtier or kinkier ? 
I call sex in the marriage "making love", and no-string attached sex, just relief.

Another thing that got my attention is that men get bothered if their wife explored the sexual field and had several, or a lot of previous partners. Why does that bother you? Is it a territorial thing - I want nobody else to have touched what is mine, I want only me to feel this pleasure ?
Or, is it the thought that someone else "had" your wife in bed, therefore she is "used goods" ?

I'd like to say my POV on this. Sex is a consensual act between two people, whose purpose is MUTUAL pleasure. So, I find it a preconception to think a man "had" a woman in bed, like he used her, he had his way with her. Who uses who, in sex? They BOTH are willing participants. They BOTH do it for pleasure. So, it works the other way to think the woman "had" the man in bed.
Why is it if a woman had no-strings attached sex, she has been "used", or "wasted", or "given away", versus a man who slept with various women? 
There is equality between sexes nowadays, after all. In my opinion, nobody uses anybody. Nobody "had" anybody in bed. It's like two partners dancing together. They choose to, because they BOTH enjoy it and it relaxes them. I haven't heard of anyone saying they have been "had" and "used" for dance. 

So, don't you think it's time for us to broaden our views on sex? 
Love to hear your insight !


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Hortensia said:


> I was a little intrigued by the topic on a different post so thought to hear some more opinions.
> I find sex in the marriage amazing - loving, safe, comforting. How is it compared to no-string attached sex , which is wild, adventurous, maybe a little bit naughtier or kinkier ?
> I call sex in the marriage "making love", and no-string attached sex, just relief.
> 
> ...


It was just some peoples preference ( male or female ) was that their relationship partner not have a high partner count. Some assumed it meant exchanging skin to skin contact and bodily fluids on a "looser" standard than those who do not have a "high partner" count.

Also someone who is so apt to switching partners so quickly and easily, may not have enough dedication to one person and more likely to reduce the sex act to "just sex"...


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 14, 2011)

As a married couple - believe me - though we have plenty of very loving, groovy, passoinate, sometimes slow and senual - sometimes dowwn and dirty... satisfying sex - we are no strangers to the idea of a quickie - which is satisfying too in a different kind of way and can be very....uhm.... fun! 'Relief'? Yep, we got that too.

As my wifes previous lovers? Couldn't care less. (We met in college, so yes.. she had some). Frankly I would be more worried if she got to that point and was a virgin. The though of her being 18 and having crazy monkey sex doesnt bother me in the slightest. I did the same. Cripes I was having *routine* sex in highschool and through college with a few girlfriends - how could I possibly feel any differently about someone doing the same? 

Its not a referrendum on morals to me - though everyone has a line where they will say 'nope...I'll pass on that' I am certain of it. I remember what being 16-18-20 was like. Its like being a human roman candle. Glad I lived through it in one piece. 

980 Shot Roman Candle Firework (HD) - YouTube


----------



## couple (Nov 6, 2010)

Hortensia said:


> Another thing that got my attention is that men get bothered if their wife explored the sexual field and had several, or a lot of previous partners. Why does that bother you? Is it a territorial thing - I want nobody else to have touched what is mine, I want only me to feel this pleasure ?
> Or, is it the thought that someone else "had" your wife in bed, therefore she is "used goods" ?
> 
> I'd like to say my POV on this. Sex is a consensual act between two people, whose purpose is MUTUAL pleasure. So, I find it a preconception to think a man "had" a woman in bed, like he used her, he had his way with her. Who uses who, in sex? They BOTH are willing participants. They BOTH do it for pleasure. So, it works the other way to think the woman "had" the man in bed.
> ...


I'm certainly not trying to make excuses for backward views on woman's sexuality. However, I do not agree that sex is the same for a man as it is for a women. Nor do i think that it's nirvana if men and women can think and act the same way with regards to sex. Sex is different for a women for many reasons and this creates different attitudes about sex:

1. Man is deep inside a woman's body. it's invasive to her. it's an intrusion. This puts the whole act on a different footing for men vs women.
2. The 'cost' of sex is higher for a woman. the biological basis is that she is choosing a father for one of a small number of children she will have over her lifetime. Even in modern times with paternity tracing and birth control, the biological underpinnings of sex can't be ignored and they are instinctual. Some level of pain or at least extreme pressure is also a regular part of sex for many women as they accommodate the penis into their bodies. Obviously not fair is the greater reputational 'cost' that a woman bears as compared to a man (and i fully understand that part of your point is to argue that this should not be the case).
3. Women are usually physically smaller and weaker and therefore vulnerable in a sexual situation with a stranger for whom they have no basis to trust. Often women must rely on negotiation, etc to keep things within their boundaries but in the end it often comes down to the character of the man. Therefore women put themselves at more risk when they play with a stranger casually. Just a fact of life.
4. Men are generally more in control of the act. Many women like this aspect of sex and they like to feel that they are 'giving themselves' to the man or 'surrendering' to him. Sex is also often physically aggressive to the women - hard, rough sex is enjoyed by many. See thread on 'pounding'.

Again, i'm certainly not arguing for backward views on sex, nor am i arguing that women shouldn't be sexually active. I'm just pointing out that the dynamic between a man and a woman when it comes to sex should not be ignored.


----------



## Coffee Amore (Dec 15, 2011)

Sex while married is FAR better than sex I had when I was single. Hands down no comparison with the sex I had before marriage. 

At one point I was very conservative because of my Catholic school education. Like Paul Ryan conservative. Then as I thought more about things, I changed my mind. I think consenting adults who are single who care about each other should be able to have sex with each other without judgment or any aspersions cast their way. I'm not as much of a romantic as in how I view sex, but I don't particularly like the hooking up culture we have either. If I were in my 20s, I'd doubt I'd indulge in ONS or NSA. I've only had sex in a committed relationship. 

I have a problem with a woman's virtuousness being based on whether her hymen is still intact or not. Virginity is a social construct. We are virgins for so many life experiences yet for those other things, we don't attribute negative terms for those who are experienced and laudable terms for the inexperienced. Why is it "losing your virginity" anyway? What is being lost? It's as if something pure is being lost. I don't see it that way. I don't see that a girl who is a virgin is any purer than a girl who has had sex. Someone who is a virgin could easily still be a mean girl who spreads rumors about other girls, drinks on the sly, cheats on tests, etc. Yet because a man hasn't penetrated her body, she is somehow more moral? I think a woman is virtuous because of ALL the qualities she has, not just what's between her legs. In my life I've known people who are technical virgins, but aren't nice people at all. I have a hard time thinking that they show greater moral character than someone who may have had casual sex but volunteers at the local animal shelter, lives at home with her parents, and is putting herself through college. On TAM it seems the first woman who is still a virgin and saving herself is the better woman simply because she's a virgin.

In so many other areas of life, be it buying a car or taking a big test to get into college or competition or recital, we don't go into it cold. We try it out, we practice, we go through a mock run, we rehearse. However, when it comes to sex, people who advocate virginity, think that's a great practice to get married as a virgin. I'm baffled by it. Am using a general you in the following sentences....You're expected to forsake all others and get sexual pleasure from ONE person and one person alone for the rest of your married life, but you have no clue if they are bad in bed, prudish, have a strange or disturbing fetish, have an extremely low libido to your high libido...you know none of these things. That's an incredible leap of faith. If you consider how many times a married couple has sex...hundreds of thousands of times in a 30 year marriage...you're putting up all those occasions on the line. And for people who are serious about their religious beliefs, they are even more stuck in the marriage because in the great religions of the world there aren't any "outs" for bad sex or a sexless marriage. So I think taking someone out for a sexual test run isn't a bad thing.

Overall, I think TAM tends to much more conservative about this issue than other relationship forums I've visited. 

For me...I have a very skimpy sexual past compared to my husband. I have asked him very explicit details about his past. At first he was VERY reluctant to tell me. But then once I got over my jealousy and we talked openly, we could use those things to improve what we had. There is nothing he did before me that we haven't done and he has done so many more things with me. His past doesn't bother me and we can talk openly about it. But I know other people's mileage varies...


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Married sex can be as wild, adventurous and kinky as you like it to be, single life sex can be dull if you are constantly looking for a lay which I do not recommend; as it's better and much more fun when you can find/replace sufficient friends with benefits. 

But single life sex lacks the full experience of what sex can truly be about, when you love someone it can make all the difference in the world when compared to the lays that don't require emotional attachment. However, it comes at a price.

Some folk simply had enough of BS and heartbreaks and what not, and decided it's much better to have single life sex which can be just as great minus the drug that is love. It's not the full experience, but there's not much high/low to worry about

As for past partners, meh, I simply don't care as long as one is clean.


----------



## Convection (Apr 20, 2013)

Coffee Amore said:


> I have asked him very explicit details about his past. At first he was VERY reluctant to tell me. But then once I got over my jealousy and we talked openly, we could use those things to improve what we had. There is nothing he did before me that we haven't done and he has done so many more things with me. His past doesn't bother me and we can talk openly about it.


This is the crux of the matter. Couples need to be honest & open with each other and their expectations. If someone doesn't want a partner with a checkered sexual history, they need to be upfront about it. A woman has every right to not want to discuss her past and I have every right to not date her if I she is not giving me the information I want. Doesn't make either of us wrong, just not right for each other.

My wife is older than I am and was more experienced coming into the marriage. I had some jealousy issues but what's past is past; as she saw that I wasn't exploding in a rage over it, she felt safer to open up even more. For me, it wasn't about filtering out a partner but truly understanding her and knowing her. I feel very certain that I will never be blindsided by some trauma from her past (of any kind) because we have discussed it all so much, plus it is insight to why she does certain things. (This is in the bed and out.)


----------



## ScarletBegonias (Jun 26, 2012)

Hortensia said:


> I was a little intrigued by the topic on a different post so thought to hear some more opinions.
> I find sex in the marriage amazing - loving, safe, comforting. How is it compared to no-string attached sex , which is wild, adventurous, maybe a little bit naughtier or kinkier ? SO and I haven't gotten married yet but I prefer sex with the same person over and over to the single life sex.I find I'm more willing to be wild,adventurous,naughtier and kinkier when the sex is with someone I love and with whom I wish to build a life.
> I call sex in the marriage "making love", and no-string attached sex, just relief.
> 
> ...


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

Coffee Amore said:


> Sex while married is FAR better than sex I had when I was single. Hands down no comparison with the sex I had before marriage.
> 
> At one point I was very conservative because of my Catholic school education. Like Paul Ryan conservative. Then as I thought more about things, I changed my mind. I think consenting adults who are single who care about each other should be able to have sex with each other without judgment or any aspersions cast their way. I'm not as much of a romantic as in how I view sex, but I don't particularly like the hooking up culture we have either. If I were in my 20s, I'd doubt I'd indulge in ONS or NSA. I've only had sex in a committed relationship.
> 
> I have a problem with a woman's virtuousness being based on whether her hymen is still intact or not. Virginity is a social construct. We are virgins for so many life experiences yet for those other things, we don't attribute negative terms for those who are experienced and laudable terms for the inexperienced. Why is it "losing your virginity" anyway? What is being lost? It's as if something pure is being lost. I don't see it that way. I don't see that a girl who is a virgin is any purer than a girl who has had sex. Someone who is a virgin could easily still be a mean girl who spreads rumors about other girls, drinks on the sly, cheats on tests, etc. Yet because a man hasn't penetrated her body, she is somehow more moral? I think a woman is virtuous because of ALL the qualities she has, not just what's between her legs. In my life I've known people who are technical virgins, but aren't nice people at all. I have a hard time thinking that they show greater moral character than someone who may have had casual sex but volunteers at the local animal shelter, lives at home with her parents, and is putting herself through college. On TAM it seems the first woman who is still a virgin and saving herself is the better woman simply because she's a virgin.



Of course, there are people who are technically a "virgin" and/or even "christian" ontop of it, but who are nasty mean people, who like you say - maybe much less moral, forgiving and human than someone who may have been sexually active.



Coffee Amore said:


> In so many other areas of life, be it buying a car or taking a big test to get into college or competition or recital, we don't go into it cold. We try it out, we practice, we go through a mock run, we rehearse. However, when it comes to sex, people who advocate virginity, think that's a great practice to get married as a virgin. I'm baffled by it. Am using a general you in the following sentences....You're expected to forsake all others and get sexual pleasure from ONE person and one person alone for the rest of your married life, but you have no clue if they are bad in bed, prudish, have a strange or disturbing fetish, have an extremely low libido to your high libido...you know none of these things. That's an incredible leap of faith. If you consider how many times a married couple has sex...hundreds of thousands of times in a 30 year marriage...you're putting up all those occasions on the line. And for people who are serious about their religious beliefs, they are even more stuck in the marriage because in the great religions of the world there aren't any "outs" for bad sex or a sexless marriage. So I think taking someone out for a sexual test run isn't a bad thing.
> 
> Overall, I think TAM tends to much more conservative about this issue than other relationship forums I've visited.
> 
> For me...I have a very skimpy sexual past compared to my husband. I have asked him very explicit details about his past. At first he was VERY reluctant to tell me. But then once I got over my jealousy and we talked openly, we could use those things to improve what we had. There is nothing he did before me that we haven't done and he has done so many more things with me. His past doesn't bother me and we can talk openly about it. But I know other people's mileage varies...


I'm sure there must be something that you've done, that you haven't done before...


----------



## PHTlump (Jun 2, 2010)

Hortensia said:


> I call sex in the marriage "making love", and no-string attached sex, just relief.


Yes, I think sex with a partner that you love is better than sex with someone you either don't know, or don't love. I don't think it's because of the physical acts that one performs. I think it's the emotional connection, or lack thereof.



> Another thing that got my attention is that men get bothered if their wife explored the sexual field and had several, or a lot of previous partners. Why does that bother you?


There are many reasons. Yes, men are territorial with the women they love. And we live in a Judeo-Christian culture where premarital sex is proscribed. And there are academic studies correlating high premarital sexual partner counts with high risk of divorce.



> So, don't you think it's time for us to broaden our views on sex?
> Love to hear your insight !


Not necessarily. Religiously, I don't think the sinful nature of premarital sex needs to be revisited in the face of recent developments. Similarly, the hard-wired psychology that is the result of tens of thousands of years can't just be wished away in the face of a few decades of legal and cultural acceptance. That's like saying, "Isn't it time women were taller than men?"

And, of course, the higher risk of divorce, especially with the recent bias of family courts against men, can't just be ignored. And those studies are recent. They're not looking back at the way traditional marriage worked hundreds, or thousands, of years ago. They reflect today's reality.


----------



## wiigirl (Jun 14, 2012)

treyvion said:


> It was just some peoples preference ( male or female ) was that their relationship partner not have a high partner count. Some assumed it meant exchanging skin to skin contact and bodily fluids on a "looser" standard than those who do not have a "high partner" count.
> 
> Also someone who is so apt to switching partners so quickly and easily, may not have enough dedication to one person and more likely to reduce the sex act to "just sex"...


:iagree:


----------



## Terry_CO (Oct 23, 2012)

I agree that there are certain cultural double standards that aren't fair. But they are still real, and can hurt a marriage.

My very first post here was to solicit opinions. My wife had had many - perhaps a hundred - sexual partners when she was younger, before she met me. It bothered me tremendously ...I'm not sure why. Perhaps the cultural stereotype. She didn't see sex as anything other than a pleasurable physical act, like scratching an itch, or more accurately - *exercise*. She still doesn't think it is a big deal.

I asked her once: "So ...if you don't view it as anything more than exercise, you wouldn't mind me "exercising" with other women?   That caught her off-guard, and she said "You'd better not!" :rofl:

I never had any intention of cheating. I just wanted to test her resolve on the whole "Sex is just exercise" position.

BTW, I got a lot of good perspectives from my first post here. Basically, the consensus was "She loves you, she married you. Forget her past. Concentrate on your future together"  :smthumbup:


----------



## IndiaInk (Jun 13, 2012)

Hortensia said:


> I'd like to say my POV on this. Sex is a consensual act between two people, whose purpose is MUTUAL pleasure. So, I find it a preconception to think a man "had" a woman in bed, like he used her, he had his way with her. Who uses who, in sex? They BOTH are willing participants. They BOTH do it for pleasure. So, it works the other way to think the woman "had" the man in bed.
> Why is it if a woman had no-strings attached sex, she has been "used", or "wasted", or "given away", versus a man who slept with various women?
> There is equality between sexes nowadays, after all. In my opinion, nobody uses anybody. Nobody "had" anybody in bed. It's like two partners dancing together. They choose to, because they BOTH enjoy it and it relaxes them. I haven't heard of anyone saying they have been "had" and "used" for dance.
> 
> ...


_
Do I think it's time for us to broaden our views? 
_
Honestly...I think it's a moot point.

The underlying male/female dynamic as we know it has permeated through nearly every culture and every age

The Women's Rights Movement was about 'equality of personage'

It basically established that: 

Women are not innately inferior beings, their value and worth as people is equal to men's

This movement should've been unnecessary.

Nature itself declares equality of the genders by making the perpetuation of the species a 50:50 proposition. A baby doesn't get 75% of his father's DNA. 

All the Rights of Man belong equally to women...so in voting, jobs, the ability to contribute to philosophy, art and literature, Medicine, Law etc etc...no distinction should be made and no right denied.


BUT...'Equality of Personage' does not mean _'we are exactly the same'._..that's a politically correct perversion of Women's Equality. It is a lie.

And because it is a lie, it does far more harm than good in Romantic Relationships

We are absolutely NOT *exactly the same*...and while you can look to obvious anatomical differences, I think a more telling illustration of the distinction is made when considering couples who are NOT anatomically distinct (i.e. same-sex couples)

I have lots of gay and transgendered friends--someone ALWAYS assumes the more masculine and more feminine role. It's an *energy play * that is at work in all couples.. I even have one lesbian friend who was the masculine partner in one relationship...and is currently the feminine partner (even wearing skirts) because her new partner is far more masculine than she.

So...since we are talking about two different ENERGIES (Yin and Yang essentially)---it should surprise no one that the behavioral patterns of the two energies are different, and have different expectations placed upon them

And really what it all boils down to is:

Masculinity is the more aggressively sexual of the two energies

In order to be its 'equal and opposite' complementary energy--femininity must NOT be equally sexually aggressive and pursuing...or it's no longer feminine

And thus, all the lovely terms we have for _easy_ women:

_wh*res, sl*ts, sk*nks, harlots, Jezebels, Tramps, Tarts etc etc ETC---it goes ON and ON...._

and all the far more complimentary and laudatory terms we have for _easy_ men: 

_player, ladies man, Casanova, Lothario, Don Juan, womanizer, skirt chaser, lady-killer...etc_

were born.

And all are at their bones simply a reflection of the fact that *chasing sex *is considered a fitting employment of the Masculine energy...and a twisted ill-use of the Feminine.

Obviously, any woman may have sex with lots of men. She may have this sex for her own personal satisfaction. 

But regardless of whether we're talking about an "any" woman: in 1580s England, 1750s France, 1880s Russia, 1950s Japan or 2013 in the Good Ole US of A

The sentiments expressed by the aforementioned terms have ALWAYS and will ALWAYS follow a woman. But not a man.

And just like watching a Lion catch and brutally devour an antelope, I think the most accurate analysis and most helpful view to take when regarding this reality in human relationships is something along the lines of:

It's not good. It's not bad. It's just Nature. 


(and again, jobs, voting, school----different matter altogether...these do not concern (or at least, don't_ have to_ concern) the interplay of the feminine/masculine...whereas romantic/sexual relationships definitionally concern them )


----------



## Laila8 (Apr 24, 2013)

Big Dude said:


> No and no.
> 
> Some people don't like sex with a member of their own sex. Some people don't like sex with somebody significantly older or younger than themselves. I don't like to have sex without love. A woman with many sexual partners likes something I don't like. I don't like to marry or have sex with somebody whose preferences are substantially different from mine.


This is a good way of putting it.

Regarding the original post, I don't agree that married sex is comforting and safe, while no-strings sex is more kinky. I think it can actually be the opposite! Married sex is extra hot to me, and my DH and I are more kinky and experimental than we've ever been when we were single.


----------



## Hortensia (Feb 1, 2013)

Thank you everybody for replying. I'm glad there are people out there who resonate with my point of view.

To Couple: sex doesn't have to be intrusive for a woman. Unless it's rape. If a woman allows and invites a man's member inside her, it's because she wants pleasure as much as he does. It's the same as if someone invites you in their home- you are not intruding, since you have been invited, you are accepted, the host enjoys having you there. Think about a woman's vagina the same way as about an inviting host. That's how consensual sex is.
I agree, the woman has more to worry about, like getting pregnant. But with all the protection means available today, it's getting much easier to stay safe. 

So, there is no "how many men HAVE HAD my wife". She was not an object they used, and lessened her value. Why not think about it was HER who choose who to have experiences with, like a host carefully decides who to open their house to. And that she stopped at You. There will be no one else accepted in her intimacy, but her final , and most important one- her husband.

Doesn't it feel better to look at it this way?


----------



## john_lord_b3 (Jan 11, 2013)

ScarletBegonias said:


> I personally think it's time for us to place more meaning on the act of sex.Perhaps if we valued it more there wouldn't be so many sexless relationships.If we looked at it as an emotional experience rather than "oh she/he just wants to get off", we'd be better people in our relationships. Regarding the view that women are used or had if they've been sexually active with multiple people,I think that's rubbish and paints women as helpless victims of sex while painting the man as some sort of predator who takes and takes..


:smthumbup::iagree: I agree 100%

although I am sure so many people will be 100% disagree with you, because this "man are sexual predators" propaganda thing has been promoted for years and years, by many kinds of persons and institutions, both secular and religious..


----------



## treyvion (Apr 29, 2013)

The response to the subject line is "it depends".

Sex in a good and loving marriage is great, it can continue to get better like fine wine.

We all know abou the "HD/LD" scenario that happens alot of times and powerstruggles in marriages.

Being single is worth than any of these scenarios which remain unresolved. When your relationship partner is the single most source of preventing you from making REASONABLE forward progress, then there is a serious problem.


----------



## aeasty (Jun 5, 2013)

Well I can only share my experience, I am 23 and have been with my wife since 17 and a half. I have had a total of 4 sexual partners. My wife was a virgin and as far as I know I have been her only sexual partner (but with current marital problems who knows) she was religious then drifted away but is back again, and sex with her on very few occasions has been good out of my top 5 times overall. rating on everything from hotness, connection, satisfaction, she takes number 4(the first time we tried for our son) the 3 better places are to my previous partner in no way am I still "hung up on her" but sex was just better. I don't believe there is a number of times before someone is better at it or a number of people I think some people have it or are willing to try and others do not(the bed starfish aka selfish ones)


----------



## stopandmakecoffee (Jan 2, 2013)

Hortensia said:


> Sex is a consensual act between two people, whose purpose is MUTUAL pleasure...
> .. Who uses who, in sex? They BOTH are willing participants. They BOTH do it for pleasure.




Second this.
If there is one lesson my crappy marriage ever taught me, that would be this:
'Committed when taken, promiscuous when single' :rofl: 

*stay safe, use condom.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Hortensia said:


> Another thing that got my attention is that men get bothered if their wife explored the sexual field and had several, or a lot of previous partners. Why does that bother you? Is it a territorial thing - I want nobody else to have touched what is mine, I want only me to feel this pleasure ?
> Or, is it the thought that someone else "had" your wife in bed, therefore she is "used goods" ?
> 
> I'd like to say my POV on this. *Sex is a consensual act between two people, whose purpose is MUTUAL pleasure*. So, I find it a preconception to think a man "had" a woman in bed, like he used her, he had his way with her. Who uses who, in sex? *They BOTH are willing participants*. *They BOTH do it for pleasure. *So, it works the other way to think the woman "had" the man in bed.


 YOU clearly just offered the "PLAIN SEX" view of Sexuality here very nicely indeed :smthumbup:...... This IS the prevailing view of society at large ...... casual sex reigns... would you not agree? 



> *4. * *"Plain Sex" view*~ "just enjoy it for what it is".... Cultural constructs linking love & sex are outmoded: Sexual desire is an acute bodily desire for physical contact with another. Sex is an intensely pleasurable physical activity. Sex should be based on mutual consent leading to mutual sexual satisfaction, so that “noone gets hurt.”
> 
> In the 1970's, Alan Goldman , penned an article entitled “*Plain Sex*” -speaking of the times reliable & convenient birth control & undermined any link between sex & commitment.
> With the practice of “safe sex,” recreational sex began to seem appropriate between consenting adults. Throughout history...many seen sex "for pleasure alone" ... but before reliable contraception such people were widely viewed as irresponsible libertines and gigolos, if male, and for females, the word even worse.
> ...


You can read about the 5 other Sexual Lenses and what  personally means to them... in this thread I carefully put together because I sought *deeper* *insight* in dealing with this CONFUSION and irritation I see on TAM consistently... with the downing of others views.... as I've had a # of women come after me telling me I am archaic, we don't live in the 1940's anymore... and I need to get my head out of my a$$ since I didn't agree with their particular views...  freaking issue... I must say.. though I enjoy it. You can put me down, I'll still get back up. 

All I personally ask is for everyone to read this thread ... and to try to understand... RESPECT anothers view point -even if it is NOT your own....as it is valid and very real to them....as chances are - YOU are not going to change them anyway.... 

You have the freedom to teach and train your own children any which way you please.. this should make you feel a little better...as those of us who view sex in a more sacred light...will have a much harder time ...given this society & the norms.... Please allow us our minority views...and not attempt to stomp us all out. 


I personally hold the *ROMANTIC view* of sexuality... I want more than just mutual pleasure with a willing body ... I want to TIE myself to that man... claim him, be emotionally entangled in every way imaginable.. for ME, this is worth waiting for, and frankly I would NOT be compatible with a man who felt otherwise or would put me down, think there was something wrong with me....tell me I am too sensitive or whatever might come out of his mouth. Frankly, I'd tell him to F*** off.... (No, I'd be nicer than that)...but he'd be history. 

Let the Plain Sex viewers go have a wild pleasurable time, playing the field.. we simply DO NOT all think like this... 



> Why is it if a woman had no-strings attached sex, she has been "used", or "wasted", or "given away", versus a man who slept with various women?


 the *Romantic View* - sees a woman's sexuality "saved" as a GIFT to the man she loves, this holds beautiful significance to some... 

Explained here >>


> *3. ** Romantic View *~
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Originally Posted by *Hortensia*:
> There is equality between sexes nowadays, after all. In my opinion, nobody uses anybody. Nobody "had" anybody in bed. It's like two partners dancing together. They choose to, because they BOTH enjoy it and it relaxes them. I haven't heard of anyone saying they have been "had" and "used" for dance.
> 
> So, don't you think it's time for us to broaden our views on sex?
> Love to hear your insight !


 I agree with this >>>


> Originally Posted by *ScarletBegonias*
> 
> I personally think it's time for us to place more meaning on the act of sex. Perhaps if we valued it more there wouldn't be so many sexless relationships.If we looked at it as an emotional experience rather than "oh she/he just wants to get off", we'd be better people in our relationships.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Coffee Amore said:


> I have a problem with a woman's virtuousness being based on whether her hymen is still intact or not. Virginity is a social construct. We are virgins for so many life experiences yet for those other things, we don't attribute negative terms for those who are experienced and laudable terms for the inexperienced. Why is it "losing your virginity" anyway? What is being lost? It's as if something pure is being lost. I don't see it that way. I don't see that a girl who is a virgin is any purer than a girl who has had sex. *Someone who is a virgin could easily still be a mean girl who spreads rumors about other girls, drinks on the sly, cheats on tests, etc. Yet because a man hasn't penetrated her body, she is somehow more moral? * I think a woman is virtuous because of ALL the qualities she has, not just what's between her legs. In my life I've known people who are technical virgins, but aren't nice people at all. I have a hard time thinking that they show greater moral character than someone who may have had casual sex but volunteers at the local animal shelter, lives at home with her parents, and is putting herself through college. On TAM it seems the first woman who is still a virgin and saving herself is the better woman simply because she's a virgin.


 Again, it's all in what's *deeply important to a person*... it's kinda like the "wearing of Wedding rings" thread days ago... you can't understand why It's not important to me that me & him wear ours 24/7... that baffles you...knowing I'm a die hard romantic....how can it BE! 

This is very similar.... as I am baffled how something like sexual intercourse is taken so lightly (as in any stage in a person's life)...I simply can wrap MY brain around that.....the ring thing... could not even be put on the same SCALE as that (for me)... 

And of course a technical virgin can be a Bi*ch.. heck she probably wants laid badly -she may even feel she is missing out on some FUN, yet she restrains... Heck if you are a woman, you are capable of being a Bi*ch ...I haven't found an exception yet.... We all have our moments....Are any of us pure in all ways.. and frankly...who'd want to be?? 

Hymen.... no hymen, this doesn't define anyone and their value to others, there contributions to society, the legacy they leave behind, the people they have touched, or how they love.... of course not. I really don't think the majority of men who may prefer one would diss these things either...Can't see it, there is always so much MORE to every package.... we would all be fools to not look it over very very carefully. 

Any man who deeply cares for this....he will be far better off to find Young Love.....and hold on to it tightly..nurture it.... if he desires a girl who waited just for him... Problem is ....far too many men are too immature to do this in their youth...unfortunate to say. 

Ever think about this... they claim only 30% of women orgasm through Penis in Vagina sex... so therefore... the vast majority of NON-married casual "just pleasurable" sex romps is ending with the woman not even getting hers... well unless the Guy cares enough to make sure she is pleasured by oral ?? 

Or have women found the majority of men SELFISH...then when they do go on to marry.....they carry some of this baggage right into their marriages...and start thinking their husbands are the same as an Ex...just wanting to "get off"... I don't think anyone can deny our prior experiences can cloud us in future relationships.... sex is not immune. 

Risks on both sides of the aisle here....


----------

