# How "biological" and/or "natural" is sex?



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

We talk about sex and that it's a "biological need" and/or how it's "natural".

Yet, so many things about it seem to have nothing to do with _biology_, but _psychology_, AND, that the "nature" about it varies not only from person to person, but from moment to moment.

Is it possible that we think about sex in 'wrong' terms? 

It's as if we want to fit sex into a "constant". But so much of life isn't "constant". 

Why is sex any different?

Since when is "nature" "constant"?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

I would argue about it being a need.

An urge, certainly and a drive as well but you can, and many people apparently do, live without it.

I believe sex is like a body.

You can develop it, train it, discipline it or waste it, let it atrophy, not work it or let it get unhealthy or out of shape.

I believe psychology is absolutely directly linked to sex.

I believe in any healthy human, a solid sex drive, an urge exists to copulate.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Yes........Any specific examples?
Some of it is biology, some of it is psychology. And it does vary from couple to couple. A lot, it seems.
Who said nature is "constant"?
Are you thinking about the cosmological constant?
"the value of the energy density of the vacuum of space."
I can see how it could be transferred to sex 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

We exist to sexually reproduce, so sex is definitely a natural biological urge for the vast majority of the human population. Since we take so long to mature and leave the the care of our parents, sex also serves to create pair bonds (the psychological component) so that the offspring will have the best chance at survival. We're wired to seek out sexual partners and bond with them via sexual activity.

Nothing is constant. Everything changes.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

In my opinion humans overrate sex so much that it unnaturally becomes a psychological issue rather than a natural one. Because our brains are so complex, we struggle to make any sense of urges within us that are instinctual and driven by hormones.

An example would be two great friends that decide to get married but that have never had any physical attraction to one another. They simply believe that they will be able to work through that and overcome it. The reason for that is that we definitely do NOT want to spend much time thinking that our bodies are in control of our minds just as much if not more than we are. 
@Vega* I would describe sex as a never ending struggle between biology and psychology.* *The result of that struggle is something that more often than not becomes very unnatural.* Some people live in harmony with themselves while others try to control it and live dissonantly. 

Historically society viewed sex as something that should be muted. Today we try to amplify it. We are never good at moderation as a society, as we go from one extreme to the other.

Badsanta


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> I would argue about it being a need.
> 
> An urge, certainly and a drive as well but you can, and many people apparently do, live without it.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if "sex" is the urge or if _orgasm_ is the urge. After all, we can have orgasms without sex and sex without orgasms. 

But I don't believe for a moment that whatever we feel_ physically_, means that we "biologically" "need" sex. That is, biologically "needing" one person to fulfill us sexually. WANTING, maybe...but "needing"?....


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

inmyprime said:


> Yes........Any specific examples?
> Some of it is biology, some of it is psychology. And it does vary from couple to couple. A lot, it seems.
> Who said nature is "constant"?
> Are you thinking about the cosmological constant?
> ...


It doesn't just vary from couple to couple. It varies from person to person AND, from the same person, from day to day, if not moment to moment. 

As for "who said it is 'constant'", hearing both some men and women say that they "need" it "X" amount of times per week/month tells me that there's SOME consistency that they want it/"need" it


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Vega said:


> I'm not sure if "sex" is the urge or if _orgasm_ is the urge. After all, we can have orgasms without sex and sex without orgasms.
> 
> But I don't believe for a moment that whatever we feel_ physically_, means that we "biologically" "need" sex. That is, biologically "needing" one person to fulfill us sexually. WANTING, maybe...but "needing"?....


No argument here but being inside a woman sure beats the hell out of handling things myself.

An urge and a want, yes.

A need, no.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> In my opinion humans overrate sex so much that it unnaturally becomes a psychological issue rather than a natural one. Because our brains are so complex, we struggle to make any sense of urges within us that are instinctual and driven by hormones.


Partially agree. Partially don't. 

I agree that as humans, we DO overrate sex, and that the overrating is psychological and not biological.

We may have the physical(thereby) 'urge' to have an orgasm, but I think that HOW we have an orgasm--either through sex or masturbation is psychological. 

Having sex is a _choice_. There is no "beeper" on a man's penis or a woman's vagina that says, "Must-have-more-stimulation-to-orgasm-with-the-aid-of-another-person-or-else-..." Our body parts won't fall off or wither into nothing if we don't use them. 

Having said that, I believe that many of us have heard that sex is SO important, that we will even try to FORCE ourselves to have sex, even though our bodies "naturally" tell use NOT to...



> An example would be two great friends that decide to get married but that have never had any physical attraction to one another. *They simply believe that they will be able to work through that and overcome it. The reason for that is that we definitely do NOT want to spend much time thinking that our bodies are in control of our minds just as much if not more than we are*.


We do the same thing whether we're sexually attracted to someone or not. We don't THINK about WHAT we think about, nor do we spent any amount of quality time on whether or not our beliefs are actually TRUTHS. We just 'assume' they are....which is a BAD thing...

@Vega* I would describe sex as a never ending struggle between biology and psychology.

Absolutely agree with this! But it doesn't end there. It's a struggle between right and wrong...good an bad...good 'angel' and 'bad angel' on our shoulder at all times. Would it SHOCK you to learn that sex isn't supposed to be done 'x' amount of times a week? 

The result of that struggle is something that more often than not becomes very unnatural. Some people live in harmony with themselves while others try to control it and live dissonantly. 

Yes, I think a lot of people try to 'force' the issue. But in all honest Badsanta, are we having sex the "right" way? 

There are so many complaints about how MOST women (statistically) do not orgasm through PIV alone. I know that my own late husband said that women have a "design flaw" that causes women NOT to orgasm during PIV. 

But isn't it possible that we're (men and women) not having sex...."right"?*


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> *No argument here but being inside a woman sure beats the hell out of handling things myself.
> *
> An urge and a want, yes.
> 
> A need, no.


*WHEW* Thanks, Conan. If only more people would ADMIT to that...! Big difference between my husband telling me he WANTED me than he NEEDED me, when he really didn't NEED me. 

Had he told me he WANTED me, I would have been a whole lot more receptive....


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Vega said:


> *WHEW* Thanks, Conan. If only more people would ADMIT to that...! Big difference between my husband telling me he WANTED me than he NEEDED me, when he really didn't NEED me.
> 
> Had he told me he WANTED me, I would have been a whole lot more receptive....


Did he never tell you he WANTED you?

Was it like, he just expected that since he was horny you would know it meant he wanted you?

Or did he just say crude things like "let's f*ck, baby" and expect you to know from this?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm going to say that sex is a need. Without this biological imperative, the species would die out. So, there is want and desire - *driven by need*. It's a matter of interpretation of how much sex is necessary - obviously, that varies tremendously from person to person. If you have reproduced and have surviving children, perhaps it's not "necessary," but how many children are enough to be successful at passing along your genes. The body does not know - only the mind can make decisions about this, and then you're in the realm of psychology and philosophy.

As for orgasm - that's the motivation for sex. Without it, or strong instincts to mate that would replace it, then the species is at risk. Orgasm isn't a need - but it is the consequence of the need to reproduce.


----------



## Hellomynameis (Dec 16, 2016)

I think that sex is needed by the species. However, it is wanted (or not wanted) by each individual. If it were a biological need by the individual, there shouldn't be so many people out there who can go for years without it. The "need" for sex should over-ride the desire to remain faithful in an HD/LD relationship.

I've been celibate by choice since my husband walked out over 13 years ago now. Do I miss sex? Sure. Would I like to be having sex? Sure. Do I NEED sex? No, I don't, not enough to violate my still intact marriage vows.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

I don't think humans "over rate" sex at all, we do "over complicate" it though.

Sex to me has never been about a biological drive, I never wanted kids (but have given rise to 3 of the world's best humans). I am post menopause now and having the best sex of my life so no biological urge there.

I need and want sex. Have had all sorts of encounters from ONS, FWB, casual short term men right up to being married twice. First time was 20 years with a LD man who enjoyed sex but was a bit f.ed up in the head. Second time is with a HD man that wants me on a daily basis, we are partners in and out of the bedroom. It's not complicated, sex is fun, bonding and when it is in a committed LTR can be a very powerful force driving and holding you together.


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

*How &quot;biological&quot; and/or &quot;natural&quot; is sex?*

If we're going to break it down that way, then let's assume we don't have societal or social influences either - then absolutely sex is a biological imperative. Further I believe the "urges" men have are the same as the "urges" to eat. And since the male of many species is generally about a third bigger than the female, I believe this evolution ensured that men can just take what they feel they need.

But we HAVE evolved societies and religions and constraints and conventions. I believe those all serve to suppress these biological needs and ensure that conversations like this exist to question such basic facts. 

Without those restrictions we'd probably Fvck what we can get and would die or be killed before our testosterone had the time to wain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheTruthHurts (Oct 1, 2015)

And if we're having this discussion, why is the clitoris completely out of the line of fire? What's that all about? Give females a joy button not align it for sex? Maybe males were designed to catch and fvck females, and females were designed to hide in the bushes and masturbate. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wild jade (Jun 21, 2016)

Vega said:


> I'm not sure if "sex" is the urge or if _orgasm_ is the urge. After all, we can have orgasms without sex and sex without orgasms.
> 
> But I don't believe for a moment that whatever we feel_ physically_, means that we "biologically" "need" sex. That is, biologically "needing" one person to fulfill us sexually. WANTING, maybe...but "needing"?....


I think the "need" part of it is at the species level. Like all other species, humans need a way to reproduce -- or the species will die out. Our method of reproduction is sex.

On the individual level, we have urges. And I think those urges can just be for orgasm, but also can be genuinely for sex. Pair bonding is also an urge.

And intimacy (of some form) is a real need.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> Having sex is a _choice_. There is no "beeper" on a man's penis or a woman's vagina that says, "Must-have-more-stimulation-to-orgasm-with-the-aid-of-another-person-or-else-..." Our body parts won't fall off or wither into nothing if we don't use them.


*NOT TRUE!!!! * @Vega what would happen to your body parts in the event your parents made the choice to NOT have sex the day you were conceived? Unfortunately as humans we have now conditioned ourselves that sex is primarily recreational and celebratory of our relationships. We tend to want to forget or ignore the our reproductive instincts are primarily for reproduction. Not until after menopause does this dynamic officially change.



> Yes, I think a lot of people try to 'force' the issue. But in all honest Badsanta, are we having sex the "right" way?


When you observe sex as it occurs naturally among other mammals. For the most part it seems to be a combination of violence and competition among males for which the winner takes all. It is only because our offspring take eighteen years (or more) to rear at an average cost or $250,000 that we partner due to the needs of the child. Each child individually needs a dedicated mom and dad for most of his/her life in order to grow up and be competitive in society. 

Meanwhile the reproductive organs of mammals evolved so that one male is capable of getting an entire community of females pregnant, and females are driven to reproduce primarily only when fertile. 

So the needs of the child alongside the evolution of our own reproductive organs naturally create something rather unnatural. 

Badsanta


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Vega said:


> Yes, I think a lot of people try to 'force' the issue. But in all honest Badsanta, are we having sex the "right" way?
> 
> There are so many complaints about how MOST women (statistically) do not orgasm through PIV alone. I know that my own late husband said that women have a "design flaw" that causes women NOT to orgasm during PIV.
> 
> But isn't it possible that we're (men and women) not having sex...."right"?


I think there is something to this.

Mrs. Conan has never climaxed from PIV. She has however come very close with me and continues to get closer to that edge as our trust, communication and her confidence increases. We have been experimenting and she is becoming far more open and aggressive in the sex department.

She nearly blasted off last night. Her body started reacting in very similar ways to women that had piv's with me in the past.

I think with effort openness and confidence, PIV orgasms can be achieved.

It is all nervous stimulation related to arousal in brain activity.

I have climaxed before after hours of being turned on and worked up with no touching of my genitals.

Same with wet dreams. Do women have wet dreams?


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Vega said:


> We talk about sex and that it's a "biological need" and/or how it's "natural".
> 
> Yet, so many things about it seem to have nothing to do with _biology_, but _psychology_, AND, that the "nature" about it varies not only from person to person, but from moment to moment.
> 
> ...


Well no one dies from lack of sex like we would from lack of food, water, oxygen, sleep, etc so it's not that kind of need. I don't think that sex it's self is a need but it sure seems like happy long term couples have compatible sex drives. Whether that's once a day, once a week, or once.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

If the animal kingdom treats sex/mating as instinctive, and we evolved from the animal kingdom...why wouldn't it also be somewhat instinctive for humans, as well?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> I think there is something to this.
> 
> Mrs. Conan has never climaxed from PIV. She has however come very close with me and continues to get closer to that edge as our trust, communication and her confidence increases. We have been experimenting and she is becoming far more open and aggressive in the sex department.
> 
> ...


When a man has intercourse with a woman, there is a _usual_ mechanical 'pattern'. Erection followed by penetration followed by (male) thrusting followed by (male) orgasm. In order for comfortable penetration to occur, a certain amount of 'wetness' is needed. And, in order for (male) orgasm to occur, the man must continue thrusting _for as long as it takes_, and the woman must 'cooperate' by 'allowing' him the time he needs. In other words, for a man to have an orgasm, he needs the 'right' amount of moisture combined with the 'right' amount of thrusting (a.k.a. constant stimulation) for the 'right' amount of time. 

When it comes to a woman having an orgasm through PIV, she also needs the same thing: The 'right' amount of moisture, the 'right' amount of _constant stimulation _for the 'right' amount of time. But thrusting doesn't accomplish any of this. 

The clitoris is the major organ through which most women achieve orgasm. But the location of the clitoris is (usually) outside of the vagina. When a man penetrates a woman's vagina, her vagina envelopes his penis, while her clitoris is literally left out in the cold. 

Instead of thrusting, a man can insert his penis _deeply_ inside of a woman and begin to move to the point where his body remains in constant contact with her clitoris. Some people utilize a more gentle 'rocking' motion, whereas others have learned how to do short thrusts (thrusting only an inch or so, while his body remains in constant contact with her clitoris). It may take some experimentation, but it _can_ be done. 

Oh...and don't forget about moisture. Moisture is essential to her achieving an orgasm. Once again, too much moisture will cause her to lose the sensation, where as too little will cause her pain. Better let HER determine how much is needed.

As for wet dreams, well, I've had orgasms in my sleep (that have woken me up, lol!) Does that count? :wink2:


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

*Deidre* said:


> If the animal kingdom treats sex/mating as instinctive, and we evolved from the animal kingdom...why wouldn't it also be somewhat instinctive for humans, as well?


I don't believe the evolution theory but I absolutely believe sex has a very instinctual link.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Vega said:


> When a man has intercourse with a woman, there is a _usual_ mechanical 'pattern'. Erection followed by penetration followed by (male) thrusting followed by (male) orgasm. In order for comfortable penetration to occur, a certain amount of 'wetness' is needed. And, in order for (male) orgasm to occur, the man must continue thrusting _for as long as it takes_, and the woman must 'cooperate' by 'allowing' him the time he needs. In other words, for a man to have an orgasm, he needs the 'right' amount of moisture combined with the 'right' amount of thrusting (a.k.a. constant stimulation) for the 'right' amount of time.
> 
> When it comes to a woman having an orgasm through PIV, she also needs the same thing: The 'right' amount of moisture, the 'right' amount of _constant stimulation _for the 'right' amount of time. But thrusting doesn't accomplish any of this.
> 
> ...


Yup. That counts as a wet dream.

Actually, she nearly came last night from doggy style with very long, slow strokes. No clitoral stimulation at all.

The most explosive PIV orgasm I gave a woman was in missionary with long, steady and hard thrusts.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> I don't believe the evolution theory but I absolutely believe sex has a very instinctual link.


But if sex is so "instinctual" then why do we have to _LEARN_ how to do it? 

If we didn't see other people doing it, or didn't hear about it from our friends or didn't see it in magazines, etc., would we automatically KNOW what to do? 

I don't think so.

ETA: I read about an experiment that was done a while ago with apes. A male ape was taken from its mother at birth and raised in a community with only male apes. Even the human caretakers were only male. When the ape was 'of age', he was 'introduced' to a female ape. 

The male ape ran away. He had no idea what to do!


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Vega said:


> But if sex is so "instinctual" then why do we have to _LEARN_ how to do it?
> 
> If we didn't see other people doing it, or didn't hear about it from our friends or didn't see it in magazines, etc., would we automatically KNOW what to do?
> 
> I don't think so.


Education, communication, talking about sex absolutely helps us improve but the basics are instinctual at least they were for me.

I figured out what went where and why at a very young age.

When I was 3 I didn't ask my mom where babies came from but how they got there, (Inside a woman.)

By the time I was 4 I knew. Learning about clitoral stimulation was as easy as talking to a partner or two but kissing, rubbing stimulating touches were automatic for me. Intercourse was basic, oral sex and extras were learned later but foreplay was instinctual for me.

I think most people would figure some basics out if they didn't get told.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> But if sex is so "instinctual" then why do we have to _LEARN_ how to do it?
> 
> If we didn't see other people doing it, or didn't hear about it from our friends or didn't see it in magazines, etc., would we automatically KNOW what to do?
> 
> I don't think so.


Much like inexperienced dogs that randomly hump anything and even nothing, eventually the persistence of trial and error _WILL_ prevail.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Vega said:


> But if sex is so "instinctual" then why do we have to _LEARN_ how to do it?
> 
> If we didn't see other people doing it, or didn't hear about it from our friends or didn't see it in magazines, etc., would we automatically KNOW what to do?
> 
> I don't think so.


We would and do know what to do, then we have the rest of our lives to perfect it, learn and grow. The urge to desire sex is natural and instinctual, the level of skill grows over time.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> Much like inexperienced dogs that randomly hump anything and even nothing, eventually the persistence of trial and error _WILL_ prevail.


Well, science does believe that many animals masturbate. I mean, I masturbated at 9 years old, and I even had an orgasm. But I wasn't even THINKING about a boy or sex (didn't know what it was!) or kissing, etc. Had I not learned about sex, I wouldn't have even THOUGHT about doing it.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> Education, communication, talking about sex absolutely helps us improve but the basics are instinctual at least they were for me.
> 
> I figured out what went where and why at a very young age.
> 
> When I was 3 I didn't ask my mom where babies came from but how they got there, (Inside a woman.)


Is it possible that something inspired you to ask that question? I mean, could it have been that you saw a pregnant woman? Did someone already tell you WHERE babies came from? 



> By the time I was 4 I knew. Learning about clitoral stimulation was as easy as talking to a partner or two but kissing, rubbing stimulating touches were automatic for me. Intercourse was basic, oral sex and extras were learned later but foreplay was instinctual for me.
> 
> *I think most people would figure some basics out if they didn't get told
> *


I'm not to sure about that, which is what prompted me to post in the first place. I just think that there are too many influences around for it to be "instinctual".


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Vega said:


> Is it possible that something inspired you to ask that question? I mean, could it have been that you saw a pregnant woman? Did someone already tell you WHERE babies came from?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not to sure about that, which is what prompted me to post in the first place. I just think that there are too many influences around for it to be "instinctual".


Observation is certainly a contributing factor.

Maybe people wouldn't find it by instinct. It would be a fantastic, if unethical, experiment to see what happens with a group of infants raised without any teaching or observation of sex.

Now as for figuring it out? I absolutely believe people could figure out sex basics with no instruction or observation.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> Observation is certainly a contributing factor.
> 
> Maybe people wouldn't find it by instinct. *It would be a fantastic, if unethical, experiment to see what happens with a group of infants raised without any teaching or observation of sex.
> *
> .


Yes, I've thought of the same thing. Take a child away from its mother at birth. Shield his/her eyes so he/she can't see his/her mother, and raise the child with a group of same sex people without any influences regarding sex. Hugging would be o.k. only because of the need for human touch. At around 18 years old, introduce him/her to a group of people of the opposite sex. How would the child react? 



> Now as for figuring it out? I absolutely believe people could figure out sex basics with no instruction or observation


Although I know that you figured things out at an early age, but is figuring something out the same thing as "instinct"?


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Vega said:


> *WHEW* Thanks, Conan. If only more people would ADMIT to that...! Big difference between my husband telling me he WANTED me than he NEEDED me, when he really didn't NEED me.
> 
> 
> 
> Had he told me he WANTED me, I would have been a whole lot more receptive....




I'm not sure I get what the conversation is about. When I matured sexually, i got sexual urges. When i found a partner, my hormones "bonded" me to that partner and so my urges were always directed primarily at my wife. I would masturbate if I couldn't have her for whatever reason but I would still be very dissatisfied if I couldn't have sex with her.
I can technically survive not having sex with her yes, but I would be extremely dissatisfied and perhaps become hurt to the point where I would unintentionally start looking for a new partner. 
Seems pretty simple to me? (While the actual mechanics might be complex).
I both want and need her. What's the question? 
It's not the kind of need that is associated with needing food (as you'd die) but not being able to have sex with my wife would be like cutting out something essential from my diet and just eating rice for the rest of my life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Vega said:


> Yes, I've thought of the same thing. Take a child away from its mother at birth. Shield his/her eyes so he/she can't see his/her mother, and raise the child with a group of same sex people without any influences regarding sex. Hugging would be o.k. only because of the need for human touch. At around 18 years old, introduce him/her to a group of people of the opposite sex. How would the child react?
> 
> 
> 
> Although I know that you figured things out at an early age, but is figuring something out the same thing as "instinct"?


No. Figuring it out is reasoning your way through it and making attempts with trial and error.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Vega said:


> Partially agree. Partially don't.
> 
> I agree that as humans, we DO overrate sex, and that the overrating is psychological and not biological.
> 
> ...


*

What's the specific issue for you? I am not sure it is possible to talk in such general terms because variation is quite great. Whatever will be said, will be from that person's subjective perception of the issue and cannot really be applied to the whole. My wife didn't use to orgasm easily from PIV alone when younger but now at 35 and after 3 kids she is able to climax from either, independently and fairly easily. So I don't notice the "design flaw" if there ever was one. Everyone is different.
I think she became more confident and comfortable with herself and I also spent a lot of time of "trial and error" to find out the things that turn her on the most and try to augment them for her. I was often surprised by the things that did end up turning her on and that was an amazing journey.

I also don't think that there is such a clear distinction between what's psychological and what's physiological as the two become too intertwined for all the practical purposes. Is homosexuality psychological too then? (judging by the way some of the arguments were posed). Clearly it's not so simple. How we want sex and who we are attracted to is both physiological, with constant psychological feedback, some of which is hardwired, some of it is acquired.*


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

ConanHub said:


> Observation is certainly a contributing factor.
> 
> Maybe people wouldn't find it by instinct. It would be a fantastic, if unethical, experiment to see what happens with a group of infants raised without any teaching or observation of sex.


The implication here might be putting cart before the horse. Most will still have sex when they grow up. Most infants grow up not knowing or observing what sex is. When they get into puberty, they start noticing it, as they get their own urges.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Interesting question, have humans evolved rapidly physically (maybe for walking) in a way that makes sex not usually produce an orgasm in women? Do other female animals orgasm, or is that uniquely human?

Humans have developed techniques other than PIV to allow women to orgasm during sexual activity even if not during PIV. This may have been going on long enough that PIV orgasm wasn't important. 



Vega said:


> snip
> There are so many complaints about how MOST women (statistically) do not orgasm through PIV alone. I know that my own late husband said that women have a "design flaw" that causes women NOT to orgasm during PIV.
> 
> But isn't it possible that we're (men and women) not having sex...."right"?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

If the woman is on top, she can control all that. I don't know how often that position results in orgasms for women, but I don't think its anywhere near universal.






Vega said:


> When a man has intercourse with a woman, there is a _usual_ mechanical 'pattern'. Erection followed by penetration followed by (male) thrusting followed by (male) orgasm. In order for comfortable penetration to occur, a certain amount of 'wetness' is needed. And, in order for (male) orgasm to occur, the man must continue thrusting _for as long as it takes_, and the woman must 'cooperate' by 'allowing' him the time he needs. In other words, for a man to have an orgasm, he needs the 'right' amount of moisture combined with the 'right' amount of thrusting (a.k.a. constant stimulation) for the 'right' amount of time.
> 
> When it comes to a woman having an orgasm through PIV, she also needs the same thing: The 'right' amount of moisture, the 'right' amount of _constant stimulation _for the 'right' amount of time. But thrusting doesn't accomplish any of this.
> 
> ...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Needs and wants are fuzzier than people think. 

In some physical sense, a person needs air, food water, shelter. But put someone in isolation in a pitch black room with those things and they will probably go insane after a while.

Is light, exercise, contact with other humans a need?

Clearly sex is "needed" to propogate the species, but most people engage in all sorts of sexual activities that are not directly intended to produce children. I think its likely that human sexual activity evolved to help pair bonding - and for many it seems to do that very well.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Vega said:


> I'm not sure if "sex" is the urge or if _orgasm_ is the urge. After all, we can have orgasms without sex and sex without orgasms.
> 
> But I don't believe for a moment that whatever we feel_ physically_, means that we "biologically" "need" sex. That is, biologically "needing" one person to fulfill us sexually. WANTING, maybe...but "needing"?....


Yeah sure, but is anyone really going to accept it as such? It depends if I have a gun to my head.

#1. I WANT to live in a home with air conditioning, heating, and shop at my local supermarket.

#2. All I really NEED is a dry tent, some blankets, a knife, a fire and a bow and arrow.

Technically #1 is not a NEED, but in the year 2017 (where I'm from) it's pretty freekin close to one.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

I think it is more like: I want us to continue to have a mutually satisfying relationship. I need this is we are to continue to have a mutually satisfying relationship. If you want us to continue to have a mutually satisfying relationship, then you too need to want me to be satisfied sexually. If you want us to continue to have a relationship but me NOT to be sexually satisfied, then we have a problem.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

inmyprime said:


> What's the specific issue for you?


I think @Vega was traumatized by a hypersexual husband that passed away.

*In my opinion* she struggles to find a model relationship where the meaning of it all is clearly defined, so that she can look back and say that either her husband was crazy in love with her or just plain crazy. Perhaps she can let go of him a little easier and move on in her life if she convinces herself that the relationship was just an awkward anomaly of nature & nurture and that there was not really any malice or love in the trauma she experienced. 

She describes herself as LD, and she would have been ecstatically happy to have had a husband that only wanted sex in very small amounts such as two-three times a week.

Now put that in context with her question, and I would say she is also struggling to move forwards. Perhaps she needs a clear roadmap of what to expect next and how to deal with a man's incessant carnal lust that she feels is disguised as men only pretending to care about her. 

Of course I could have everything wrong, so don't take my word for it....

Badsanta


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

badsanta said:


> I think @Vega was traumatized by a hypersexual husband that passed away.
> 
> *In my opinion* she struggles to find a model relationship where the meaning of it all is clearly defined, so that she can look back and say that either her husband was crazy in love with her or just plain crazy. Perhaps she can let go of him a little easier and move on in her life if she convinces herself that the relationship was just an awkward anomaly of nature & nurture and that there was not really any malice or love in the trauma she experienced.
> 
> ...


I am really sorry to hear about the loss. I think my mother is trying to come to terms with something similar. My father was very HD. I think she felt that he loved her very much but also realised that she was his obsession as well. I remember noticing that she also had this conflict of it not being quite "normal" but also proud of how passionate their love was for each other. He passed away in his early 40s. I think I must have inherited some of his HD..
These things are difficult to deal with.

"Perhaps she needs a clear roadmap of what to expect next and how to deal with a man's incessant carnal lust that she feels is disguised as men only pretending to care about her."

I used to be quite paranoid at times that I was only needed and cared about, as long I was providing (materially) but this was irrational on my part. I felt this the most after my wife's pregnancies, where her sex drive was close to 0 and I couldn't deal with her rejection well at all. It's normal to call these things into question during times of strain but as always, it's about balance: I think you can tell if someone genuinely cares for you, whether they want to sleep with you frequently or not, once the relationship is well underway. At the beginning, it's more difficult to tell, I agree. But men also sometimes feel that the woman is trying to trick them into something so on some level, it's even steven...


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

badsanta said:


> I think @Vega was traumatized by a hypersexual husband that passed away.


Traumatized? Well, maybe at first. The more I learned the more my jaw dropped to the floor. I didn't know the extent of his disorder until shortly before I left him. He passed away several years after I left. We weren't divorced so legally we were still married when he died. Took me a few years of therapy to deal with it, but I emerged with a new backbone. 



> *In my opinion* she struggles to find a model relationship where the meaning of it all is clearly defined, so that she can look back and say that either her husband was crazy in love with her or just plain crazy.


After being married to him for several years, he confessed that he "didn't even know what love was". He was not "crazy in love" with me. Wasn't "crazy" either, but definitely narcissistic. 



> Perhaps she can let go of him a little easier and move on in her life if she convinces herself that the relationship was just an awkward anomaly of nature & nurture and that there was not really any malice or love in the trauma she experienced.


I have "let go" of him. He was, by far, the WORST of all my other relationships. But as I reflected on all of them, I realized most of the men I had been with ALL had something in common: They all lied about something significant within the first 3 months of the relationship.

And I forgave them. By doing so, I became and easy 'mark'. Kinda sucks, ya' know?



> She describes herself as LD, and she would have been ecstatically happy to have had a husband that only wanted sex in very small amounts such as two-three times a week.


I've been both HD and LD, Badsanta. The difference it seems was, even though I was HD, I wasn't "frantic" if I was with someone LD. I had no problem taking care of my own 'urges'. I didn't harbor resentment or even "secretly" harbor resentment if they weren't interested in love making. I KNEW that sometimes, you JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE IT, and those times can be for any number of reasons, which have nothing to do with ME. 



> Now put that in context with her question, and I would say she is also struggling to move forwards.


Not struggling to move forward, but struggling to find the TRUTH in all of this. 

Zat clear things up a bit?


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

ConanHub said:


> I would argue about it being a *need*.
> 
> An urge, certainly and a drive as well but you can, and many people apparently do, live without it.
> 
> ...


Depends on the person and where you place the word need. Do I need it to live/exist...no. Do I need to it have a fullfiling life yes. Do I absolutely need it for a happy and successful relationship ship 100% yes.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Wolf1974 said:


> Depends on the person and where you place the word need. Do I need it to live/exist...no. Do I need to it have a fullfiling life yes. Do I absolutely need it for a happy and successful relationship ship 100% yes.


I was using the live/exist definition. Like food, shelter, air... etc..

I personally don't need it for fulfillment unless I'm in a relationship with someone.

Since I am, I'm a stinking horn dog!


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

uhtred said:


> Needs and wants are fuzzier than people think.
> 
> In some physical sense, a person needs air, food water, shelter. But put someone in isolation in a pitch black room with those things and they will probably go insane after a while.
> 
> ...


Wow yes. My thoughts as well. I didn't quite know how to articulate it so I'm glad you did uhtred.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

inmyprime said:


> I think she felt that he loved her very much but also realised that she was his obsession as well. .


And THAT'S the part I realized as well. *I* was not his 'obsession'; SEX was his 'obsession'. Wouldn't have mattered WHO he was with, he would NEVER have been able to get enough sex. While with me, he was heavily into porn. We talked about this BEFORE we "got involved". He told me that he had a "couple of magazines floating around". Turned out to be much, much more than a "couple" of magazines, even into having cybersex...

Once I left, I heard from reliable source that he was getting blow jobs in the parking lot. 

It wasn't *ME* he was 'obsessed" with. It was SEX that he was obsessed with.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Vega said:


> And THAT'S the part I realized as well. *I* was not his 'obsession'; SEX was his 'obsession'. Wouldn't have mattered WHO he was with, he would NEVER have been able to get enough sex. While with me, he was heavily into porn. We talked about this BEFORE we "got involved". He told me that he had a "couple of magazines floating around". Turned out to be much, much more than a "couple" of magazines, even into having cybersex...
> 
> Once I left, I heard from *reliable source* that he was getting blow jobs in the parking lot.
> 
> It wasn't *ME* he was 'obsessed" with. It was SEX that he was obsessed with.


Really? Is that possible? :surprise: (having a reliable source for that sort of thing...)

I can't speak for all men (obviously) but I fear there is a widespread misunderstanding of what role porn plays for men, around these boards.
I am fairly HD and the more I am around my wife, the higher my drive seems to be. It is entirely directed at her (and amplified by her). That's not to say that I would have none if she wasn't around. But I do travel a lot and I notice my drive goes down away from home. (However the need for emotional connection goes up, but that's a different story..).
But we argue about it sometimes because women have a hard time understanding how the male biology works. It's not black or white.
If my wife is not available (at home or abroad), I sometimes turn to porn. So it's not like I would "hump anything that moves" when it's been a while and need to "unload", it's just that I would by far prefer my wife and porn helps me through dry spells. My wife used to often say that "it probably doesn't matter whose mouth I shove it in" (or whatever the activity of the day...). But it simply isn't true at all. I know it's hard not to project your own perception of things onto other individuals, but male and female physiology just works slightly differently, and it's in degrees, rather than absolutes.
That's not to say there are no addictive and obsessive porn junkies either.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Vega said:


> And THAT'S the part I realized as well. *I* was not his 'obsession'; SEX was his 'obsession'. Wouldn't have mattered WHO he was with, he would NEVER have been able to get enough sex. While with me, he was heavily into porn. We talked about this BEFORE we "got involved". He told me that he had a "couple of magazines floating around". Turned out to be much, much more than a "couple" of magazines, even into having cybersex...
> 
> Once I left, I heard from reliable source that he was getting blow jobs in the parking lot.
> 
> It wasn't *ME* he was 'obsessed" with. It was SEX that he was obsessed with.


Wow. Would you say he was an addict?


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> Not struggling to move forward, but struggling to find the TRUTH in all of this.


 @Vega sex is a combination of biological and psychological motivations. You say that men have lied to you in all your relationships, and I'll assume that it was for the purpose of trying to establish a sexual relationship with you. Why would men do this? 

Did I lie to my own wife in this manner? While I did not lie to my own wife as our relationship developed, there were many aspects of my personality and behaviors that I hid from her for many years. I did this because I honestly thought that they were immature parts of me that I would outgrow once becoming married and that would change me into a better person. As time passed I realized that these behaviors of mine were simply part of who I am and that I should not feel ashamed or hide things from my own wife.

So Vega, I will share something with you that you may find helpful. It can take many years to get to know someone for exactly who they are. It can take many years for someone to understand who they are as an individual compared to who they think they want to be for their partner. At the end of the day we all have to just be ourselves, but society teaches us that it is shameful and lazy to stop dreaming to be the absolute possible best person that you could ever be. 

More often than not, when our hopes and dreams become reconciled with reality, we completely loose faith in who we are and what we have become. We forget that there are so many things to be thankful for and discredit many struggles that have made us into a better person. We redefine our past with regrets instead of seeing that life has perhaps taught us some valuable lessons that would not be possible any other way. We stop moving forwards and dwell on the past.

What is the TRUTH is all of this? I personally believe that life is imperfect and that we are challenged to find the gifts in those imperfections and learn to accept and love them as opposed to just discarding everything in search of perfection. It is easy to love something or someone that it easy to love. But it is more worthwhile to love something and someone specifically for the imperfections that make us all real.


----------



## UMP (Dec 23, 2014)

Vega said:


> I've been both HD and LD, Badsanta. The difference it seems was, even though I was HD, I wasn't "frantic" if I was with someone LD. I had no problem taking care of my own 'urges'. I didn't harbor resentment or even "secretly" harbor resentment if they weren't interested in love making. I KNEW that sometimes, you JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE IT, and those times can be for any number of reasons, which have nothing to do with ME.


I think "frantic" is a good word. I do not consider myself a sex addict for the simple fact that I have never cheated on my wife in 25 years, rarely masturbate and only have sex twice a week. However, during my "180" days I vividly remember pacing the floor for an hour at a time in my man cave lamenting my wifes lack of desire for sex.

As you have stated it certainly is not a need in the classic sense but it's darn close.

What I was really upset about was my perception that my wife no longer desired me physically. To a husband, that's about as low as you can get. IMHO

Sorry about your husband. I did not know this.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

jld said:


> Wow. Would you say he was an addict?


Well...

Porn channels on t.v. in living room
Porn magazines in the closet in the dining room
Porn calendar in the kitchen (which I insisted he remove because of my 2 daughters)
Porn channels on t.v. in the bedroom as well as magazines in his nightstand drawer
Porn magazines in the drawer in the bathroom
Porn on his computer
Used his computer to engage in cybersex.
Porn magazines downstairs in a drawer near his workbench in the basement
Porn magazines/story books underneath his seat cushion in his car
Porn magazines and story books in his briefcase.
Porn magazines in several desk drawers at his job (we both went to his office to clean out his desk when he was layed-off)

Wanted sex several times a day.
Wanted sex 'out in the open' (public pool with children around...front steps...unfenced back yard, Yankee stadium)

Insisted I change out of my work clothes into something "sexy"

Would wake me up in the middle of the night to have sex, knowing that *I* had to work, and HE didn't. 

When I first moved in with him, I found a job as a waitress within the first week I was looking for a job as a paralegal, and I had just started to put out resumes for that, but as a waitress, at least I had SOME income coming in). The first weekend, I had to work the late shift on a Friday and Saturday. We didn't have sex on Friday and Saturday because of our schedules, but I DID give him oral sex on Friday. I came home Sunday morning about 2 a.m. and found him in a tearful RAGE because we "hadn't had sex in *2* days! Before I took the job, I TOLD him that our sex 'habits' would have to change a little. He was all for it. 

And all of what I wrote isn't even EVERYTHING .

What do YOU think, JLD? Would you say he was 'addicted'?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Vega said:


> Well...
> 
> Porn channels on t.v. in living room
> Porn magazines in the closet in the dining room
> ...


Looks like it to me, Vega.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

ConanHub said:


> I was using the live/exist definition. Like food, shelter, air... etc..
> 
> I personally don't need it for fulfillment unless I'm in a relationship with someone.
> 
> Since I am, I'm a stinking horn dog!


So, _how much _sex do you 'need' to be 'fulfilled' if you're in a relationship AND, why do you 'need' that amount AND, does that amount have to be consistent or can it be an 'average'?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

It varies a lot with people, and from what you have posted your ex was far enough off typical that I would consider him a sex addict. I say that because he wanted an amount of sex that would significantly interfere with everyday life, and he became upset when he didn't get that amount. 

Personally, I think an ideal amount of sex for me would be something relatively quick (but with O's for both) every other day and a longer session on weekend evenings. I would be very happy with sex as frequently as every day, and as infrequently as twice a week. 

The above are averages. I don't get unhappy / frustrated unless its been a couple of weeks or more. Even then I don't get unhappy if it is due to illness or crazy work schedules as long as the overall frequency (over months average) is fine. 

I want sex to be higher priority than miscellaneous entertainment like going to movies or concerts, but it is lower priority than work and critical chores. So I get unhappy when my wife has turned me down for sex for a month because she is "too busy" or "too tired" but she has time and energy to go to an evening jazz concert an hour drive from home. 





Vega said:


> So, _how much _sex do you 'need' to be 'fulfilled' if you're in a relationship AND, why do you 'need' that amount AND, does that amount have to be consistent or can it be an 'average'?


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

Vega said:


> Well...
> 
> Porn channels on t.v. in living room
> Porn magazines in the closet in the dining room
> ...


 @Vega Sorry to break it to you, but even your collection of Golden Girls Seasons 1-5 set of VHS tapes are overdubbed with porn!


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> It varies a lot with people, and from what you have posted your ex was far enough off typical that I would consider him a sex addict. I say that because he wanted an amount of sex that would significantly interfere with everyday life, and he became upset when he didn't get that amount.


I agree. 



> Personally, I think an ideal amount of sex for me would be something relatively quick (but with O's for both) *every other day *and a longer session on weekend evenings. I would be very happy with sex as frequently as *every day, and as infrequently as twice a week*.


Why those frequencies?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I can't really answer that, its just what feels comfortable for me. Its not something that I consciously control.

Chemical? Psychological? All I know is that having sex puts me in a good mood for a day or two, and going without for several days makes me less happy.






Vega said:


> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Why those frequencies?


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

Vega said:


> Well...
> 
> Porn channels on t.v. in living room
> Porn magazines in the closet in the dining room
> ...


So why did you marry him?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MrsHolland said:


> So why did you marry him?


This was hidden from me until after we were married. When I first came to visit him (months before I moved in with him), he had an issue of Playboy on the coffee table underneath some other magazines. I asked him about it and whether it was something that he was "into". He said that he had a "couple of magazines lying around" but he downplayed the extent of his 'interest'.

The calendar in the kitchen was pretty obvious. But the rest of the stuff I didn't find out about until after we were married. For example...he had a computer before I moved in, but I didn't know how to use it. It would take me 2 years (6 months after we were married) before I stumbled across his porn pics on the computer, and another month or two before I discovered he had been having cybersex. Our first Christmas as an unmarried couple, he received a card from a woman who he claimed was a "friend from work". Inside the card, she wrote, "I've enjoyed our 'visits'". I asked him what she meant (I wasn't not a jealous person; just curious) and he said that he would sometimes poke his head over her cubicle and tell her a joke. I knew about his propensity to joke, so I wasn't suspicious. 

He had a stack of porn magazines in a drawer in the bathroom, but he also had a stack of other magazines that looked 'innocent', such as a Sear's catalogue, auto parts catalogue and other magazines like that. I knew he was a 'telephone shopper', and he used to get about 30 catalogues each month. The porn catalogues were sent to his WORK address, and he would bring them home in his briefcase (which I had no reason to go into). So, I never SAW the porn coming into the home. 

I didn't know about the porn channels on t.v. for a while. Since I don't watch porn, it didn't even occur to me that HE did. He paid the bills so I didn't know what kind of cable package we had, plus, I discovered later on that he had a friend who 'rigged' the t.v. so he could get the porn channels for free. 

All of the discoveries occurred over the spread of about 5 (married) years.


----------



## MrsHolland (Jun 18, 2016)

But he had a tearful rage about not having sex for 2 days and that was pre marriage. Did this not clue you in to the type of man he is?


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

uhtred said:


> I can't really answer that, its just what feels comfortable for me. Its not something that I consciously control.
> 
> Chemical? Psychological? All I know is that having sex puts me in a good mood for a day or two, and going without for several days makes me less happy.


Yet, if *I* don't have sex, I'm not "less happy". If I have MORE sex, I'm not "_more_ happy". 

Guess my overall 'happiness' isn't sex-centric.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

MrsHolland said:


> But he had a tearful rage about not having sex for 2 days and that was pre marriage. Did this not clue you in to the type of man he is?


Not really, especially since he apologized the next day. Said that he 'overreacted'. Asked for forgiveness.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Vega said:


> Well...
> 
> Porn channels on t.v. in living room
> Porn magazines in the closet in the dining room
> ...


This is just insane. I mean who on earth still collects porn mags!...

To me, it seems the problem was that he didn't have a job (if I understood you correctly) and nothing else to focus on, except masturbation/sex. I mean if you stay at home all day long, what else is there to do!
I can only have sex several times a day when I am on holiday or extremely bored. But obviously he does seem to have had an addictive personality with little self-control, from your description.
May I ask why it is still an issue for you? Is it easier to let go of someone if there is a lot of negativity in the memory? Were there no positive things in your relationship?


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Vega said:


> So, _how much _sex do you 'need' to be 'fulfilled' if you're in a relationship AND, why do you 'need' that amount AND, does that amount have to be consistent or can it be an 'average'?


With the understanding that I don't need it the live but to be fulfilled in my marriage,

I am extremely HD. I can easily go 3 or 4 times a day and that is after a full workload.

I have gone 5 times to completion in an hour, don't know if I could go past 3 or 4 these days, but I also understand that my wife can't physically accommodate intercourse as often as I desire it.

We will often have sex 3 or 4 times a week, sometimes twice in a day and I take care of myself the rest of the time.

She actually pursues me sexually every day now but gets too sore if I had sex with her as often as I had the itch.

I am very satisfied and not the least put out to take care of myself the rest of the time.


----------



## _anonymous_ (Apr 18, 2016)

Sex is a biological state of being. It's a physical connectivity. It's a chemical impulse. Psychologically, it's a need and want at the same time.

Humans, by nature, need and want sex. None of us had to experience an orgasm in order to want and need sex for the first time. The drive was automatic, a part of being human.

It is healthy for humans to want and need sex, and this will happen on its own (again, naturally) when there isn't anything blocking along physical, chemical, or psychological dimensions. Examples would be pain during sex, a chemical imbalance that lowers libido, the emotional scars of previous sexual abuse, etc.

I expect sex often in my marriage, and I believe it is desired for the right reasons, such as the psychological benefits it provides of feeling accepted by one's spouse, e.g. he or she wants me, values my needs, etc. I would argue that these are absolute needs, and one's spouse should do their best to fulfill such needs. I don't believe wanting sex for self gratification is necessarily abnormal either. If someone really loves you, and I stress "really", your needs will matter to them and most times, when you're in the mood, they'll be in the mood.

I can understand the question of "are we thinking about sex in the right way" being tied to target frequencies (e.g. sex should happen 4-5 times/week). The whole notion of a target seems preconceived and unnatural, but at the same time, this is convenient given our busy lives in a modern society. To me, a target represents an ideal level of sex that satisfies periodic wants and needs, that's all.

Porn, cheating, and divorce and frequent themes in relationships were one partner's sexual needs are being dismissed. However, it seems like the OP is dealing with an addict here, and that addiction is blocking a healthy sex life. 

By the way, is this scenario the basis for the initial questions? Was somewhat surprised to happen upon this. You two might consider sex therapy, and open discussions about his *skewed* expectations.


----------



## Vega (Jan 8, 2013)

inmyprime said:


> This is just insane. I mean who on earth still collects porn mags!...


LOL! Well, obviously HE did! They seem to come in handy when a computer isn't available (such as, while eating lunch in your in a park)



> To me, it seems the problem was that he didn't have a job (if I understood you correctly) and nothing else to focus on, except masturbation/sex.


He had a job for 18 years. He was laid off about 4 months after we got together. He was unemployed (and not looking very hard) for 6 months after that.



> I mean if you stay at home all day long, what else is there to do!


Gee, I dunno. How about actually LOOK FOR WORK??? 



> I can only have sex several times a day when I am on holiday or extremely bored. But obviously he does seem to have had an addictive personality with little self-control, from your description.
> 
> May I ask why it is still an issue for you? Is it easier to let go of someone if there is a lot of negativity in the memory? Were there no positive things in your relationship


Oh, there were positive things. We met in our first year in college. He ended up at the same school as his best friend in high school, and I ended up at the same school as one of my good friends in high school. The four of us met the first week in school, and stayed friends throughout. We would go out as four friends, even though we all had boyfriends/girlfriends. We were kind of a sub-set of a larger group we hung out with, so everyone knew everyone else. 

Yet, we never dated each other. My friend was one of the first one's to move away. I was next, moving from NY to CA. 

Of course there were SOME positive things about the relationship, but can you really built a marriage on the love of eating ethnic foods?


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

It matters to some people, not to others. As long as a couple is compatible, its fine, if they are not compatible its not fine. 




Vega said:


> Yet, if *I* don't have sex, I'm not "less happy". If I have MORE sex, I'm not "_more_ happy".
> 
> Guess my overall 'happiness' isn't sex-centric.


----------



## Olorin (Jun 5, 2016)

Vega said:


> When a man has intercourse with a woman, there is a _usual_ mechanical 'pattern'. Erection followed by penetration followed by (male) thrusting followed by (male) orgasm. In order for comfortable penetration to occur, a certain amount of 'wetness' is needed. And, in order for (male) orgasm to occur, the man must continue thrusting _for as long as it takes_, and the woman must 'cooperate' by 'allowing' him the time he needs. In other words, for a man to have an orgasm, he needs the 'right' amount of moisture combined with the 'right' amount of thrusting (a.k.a. constant stimulation) for the 'right' amount of time.
> 
> When it comes to a woman having an orgasm through PIV, she also needs the same thing: The 'right' amount of moisture, the 'right' amount of _constant stimulation _for the 'right' amount of time. But thrusting doesn't accomplish any of this.
> 
> ...


I thought that there was an 'internal' clitoris. The legs extend down the sides of the vagina, so even if the tip of the clitoris is not being directly stimulated, the legs can be stimulated. There are pictures of this all over the internet. Look up 'internal clitoris'. I don't know how effective PIV is at stimulating the internal clitoris.


----------

