# Ladies, important things if single today



## southbound

Ladies, if you were single today...what would you be looking for in a NEW relationship...if on a dating site..or in real life? 

Is Faithfulness/ good treatment / an honest man, but not necessarily "well to do" ....more important than a "Picket fence" lifestyle with "stuff"...in this thing called LOVE... 

Is excitement/FUN more important than contentment /simple enjoyments... with stability?


----------



## just got it 55

southbound said:


> Ladies, if you were single today...what would you be looking for in a NEW relationship...if on a dating site..or in real life?
> 
> Is Faithfulness/ good treatment / an honest man, but not necessarily "well to do" ....more important than a "Picket fence" lifestyle with "stuff"...in this thing called LOVE...
> 
> Is excitement/FUN more important than contentment /simple enjoyments... with stability?


What is important to you ??????


----------



## waiwera

What I would want on date one is different than what I would be looking for in a LT partner.

On date one I would want clean and well presented, nice manners, funny, kind and interested in getting to know me and in me getting to know him.

Pretty basic stuff really.


----------



## greenpearl

When I look for a man, he has to be confident. If he isn't, I lose my respect and interest. 

When you apply for a job, your confidence usually makes the interviewer impressed. 

When you meet a woman, your confidence will attract her attention. She respects you when you are confident. 

And be aware, confidence is different from arrogance. Some people brag about their accomplishments and try to impress others, that doesn't work, at least not for me. 

Don't be eager to talk. But be eager to listen. You will find out what she wants if you listen to her. I get tired if a man keeps on talking about himself and doesn't even bother to ask me what I am interested in.


----------



## FemBot

I wouldn't be looking honestly. I would enjoy my time with myself, work on my issues, work on building my happiness by myself. When the right man comes along he will be attracted to that and my whole being and will pursue me. I no longer believe in finding someone. I believe the right person shows up when you are ready and too engaged with life to look. When you love yourself the rest follows.


----------



## mablenc

FemBot said:


> I wouldn't be looking honestly. I would enjoy my time with myself, work on my issues, work on building my happiness by myself. When the right man comes along he will be attracted to that and my whole being and will pursue me. I no longer believe in finding someone. I believe the right person shows up when you are ready and too engaged with life to look. When you love yourself the rest follows.


Well said!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## I'mInLoveWithMyHubby

What I looked for in a future man was faithfulness, respect, loyalty, stability, honesty, and willing to compromise.

Good luck.


----------



## Mavash.

Some women want excitement and others stability.

The big question is yes what do YOU want?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Here is a nice Write up Southbound...



> 7 Things Women Expect On A First Date - AskMen
> 
> 1- Go The Extra Mile... Or Two
> 2- Be polite, not pushy
> 3- Be complimentary
> 4- Be curious about her
> 5- Be assertive, not aggressive
> 6- Always have a backup plan
> 7- Leave her impressed


IF I ever found myself single again in this life... I would be looking for another man very similar to what I have always known.... I very much enjoy being attached/ married...

My intentions in dating would be to find another who had hopes for a life partner ....not just to screw around ....

*Contentment & Stability is /has always been MORE important to me than FUN/ excitement in the moment.* For me, the greatest excitement IS wrapped up in the Contentment of a great Romance....one where we feel enraptured with each other & just love being together....the whole "best friends" thing. 

Confidence and 1st impressions seem to be very BIG for most women...I am a little different...If the guy is good looking ....and appears free of mental issues ...his being a little awkward...shy... not beaming with confidence would not dissuade me ...like...at all...I'd still want to get to know him better, dig a little deeper -to un earth any treasures lurking within...to see what he is really all about... 

I believe a lot of good hearted people might have been banged up a bit due to difficult life experiences, betrayal from one they loved, etc....I just wouldn't write them off that quickly...

I also wouldn't have a problem with a man being pretty Open on a 1st date if the communication just happend to flow there....they say this is never advisable .. I just wouldn't care.. I am kinda like this myself...I'd likely put my foot in my mouth a couple times anyway, so if he did...hopefully we'll :rofl: about it and it'd be cool ! 

If he did something corny like order Milk, use a coupon (funny threads on TAM - in my opinion)... mention an ex.. It wouldn't be an immediate black mark with me...I can be pretty tolerate -depending.. I surely have my "deal breakers" though...

I'm with I'mInLoveWithMyHubby when she says she'd be looking for >> *faithfulness*, *respect*, *loyalty,* *stability,* *honesty*, and a willingness to compromise....

I'd add - if he was a *good listener* & *enjoyed our conversations*, do we enjoy similar things in life ...so many dates in...are our * Love Language's compatible* ...and HUMOR...*are we laughing together*...freely...easily.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I think this is a GREAT write up capturing what we may have a hard time expressing >>

The Secret of What Women Want In Men 



> Let’s take some time to explore them in detail...
> 
> Ultimately, what women want in men is to have their needs and desires fulfilled. To understand what traits women look for in men, we have to understand just what those needs and desires are...
> 
> ... and then we can make the connections to these character traits, and how you can develop them in yourself.
> 
> Need #1: Security. Women want to feel safe. In today’s civilized world however, safety isn’t really that big of an issue anymore.
> 
> Need #2: Pleasure. Women want to feel pure sensual stimulation. What do men talk about? Business, sports, and women. But what do women talk about? Sex, men, sex, relationships, and sex -- did I mention sex?
> 
> Need #3: Adventure. Women want to feel excitement and anticipation. They have a strong desire to trust in someone who will lead them into emotional charged experiences that they wouldn’t have the courage to go alone.
> 
> Now, what you’ll notice is that what women want in men are traits that allow her to experience the condition that meet her needs and desires...
> 
> ... traits that give her these FEELINGS!
> 
> *The 3 Traits Women Look For in a Man’s Character*
> 
> So what traits allow women to experience these feelings? This is the key to understanding what women look for in guys.
> 
> Here’s what women want in men...
> 
> Trait #1: Loyalty. Loyalty allows a woman to feel safe. It gives her a sense of security.
> 
> Trait #2: Imagination. Imagination allows a woman to feel stimulated. It gives her a sense of pleasure.
> 
> Trait #3: Passion. Passion allows a woman to feel excitement. It gives her a sense of adventure.
> 
> Now, what you’ll notice is that guys can be categorized by which trait is most dominant in them.
> 
> Nice Guys are loyal.
> 
> Smooth Guys are imaginative.
> 
> And Bad Guys are passionate.
> 
> We’ll take a look at each man shortly, but before we do...
> 
> ... what defines a man? Why do some have loyalty as their dominant trait while others have imagination -- or passion?
> 
> *** Click here for the full article ...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> Women want to feel pure sensual stimulation. What do men talk about? Business, sports, and women. But what do women talk about? Sex, men, sex, relationships, and sex -- did I mention sex?


Is this really true? On the occasions I over heard my ex's conversations without her knowing, they were always conversations about kids, parenting and motherhood. I even poked through her phone a couple times because I used to update the OS for her (I know, tsk tsk)... and all I saw was a sea of "Oh, my kids love such and such" with her friends and a couple really mild complaints about my hobbies.

Is this just about single women? My theory is that what women want changes depending on where in the relationship cycle you are.

I theorize that things like racing, skydiving and always being on the go were part of my "dangerous and interesting" allure to my ex. As we settled in, those things went from being positives to negatives. She wanted me to be more settled and "homey" as she called it and expected it would be a natural change as I got older. I didn't change at all and her settled vs my active became a major point of contention.

Its a pattern I've seen in a few of my friends relationships too. The things that seemingly attracted their SOs, now seem to be drags... as their SOs now expect them to become something else. Anyone else experience this? Ladies, do you expect your men to change?


----------



## Anon Pink

Simply Amorous NAILED IT!

That is what I want!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

haha, "important thing": everything.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *Is this really true? *On the occasions I over heard my ex's conversations without her knowing, they were always conversations about kids, parenting and motherhood. I even poked through her phone a couple times because I used to update the OS for her (I know, tsk tsk)... and all I saw was a sea of "Oh, my kids love such and such" with her friends and a couple really mild complaints about my hobbies.


 I didn't read the whole article but I DID notice this and thought to myself --that is so NOT true of many women [email protected]#$ ...hate to say it..but Most of my GF's are B O R I N G .....talking about cooking, rearranging their living rooms, church stuff, crafts, I want to run the heck away from some of them... but it's TRUE OF ME  ..why I'm still here posting. 



> Is this just about single women? My theory is that what women want changes depending on where in the relationship cycle you are.


 True ..we can be unpredictable... . 



> I theorize that things like racing, skydiving and always being on the go were part of my "dangerous and interesting" allure to my ex. As we settled in, those things went from being positives to negatives. She wanted me to be more settled and "homey" as she called it and expected it would be a natural change as I got older. I didn't change at all and her settled vs my active became a major point of contention.


 I was never like your Ex... I knew long ago...those type men may be fun to look at... they are exciting seeing them excel in their passions...girls falling at their feet... but I never wanted those type...I KNEW it would pi$$ me off cause I'd want MORE of his personal time and attention....I always desired the "family man"...why tipped Betas will forever be what "rocks" for me. 



> Its a pattern I've seen in a few of my friends relationships too. The things that seemingly attracted their SOs, now seem to be drags... as their SOs now expect them to become something else. Anyone else experience this? Ladies, do you expect your men to change?


 Einstein said it best >>


----------



## chillymorn

FemBot said:


> I wouldn't be looking honestly. I would enjoy my time with myself, work on my issues, work on building my happiness by myself. When the right man comes along he will be attracted to that and my whole being and will pursue me. I no longer believe in finding someone. I believe the right person shows up when you are ready and too engaged with life to look. When you love yourself the rest follows.


sounds like a Disney movie.


I don't think many guys want to pursue someone so self absorbed.

men like the thrill of flirting and feeling like the feeling is mutual not so one sided.

JMHO.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

chillymorn said:


> I don't think many guys want to pursue someone so self absorbed.
> 
> men like the thrill of flirting and feeling like the feeling is mutual not so one sided.


Speaking purely from a woman's perspective here, if I heard a man talk like that (how he wasn't looking, didn't need anyone, let the women pursue me, & they no longer believe in finding someone).... I would think the same thing... (hint hint Southbound... I recall you writing similar thoughts -after your divorce)....Now a little more OPEN to dating , so this is progress. 

If one doesn't show some mutual "'give & take" - some verbal interest as a single....best to move along ..and quickly...plenty more in the sea.

It has to be difficult for single men with as much rejection as you might encounter though...How does one get used to it ???


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> Most of my GF's are B O R I N G .....talking about cooking


Hey! I can talk about cooking for an hour. I don't think of anything as inherently boring... boring is only what you're not interested in. 

Of course, I've met people who call themselves boring... so I have no idea how to fit them into my thinking. lol



SimplyAmorous said:


> I was never like your Ex... I knew long ago...those type men may be fun to look at... they are exciting seeing them excel in their passions...girls falling at their feet... but I never wanted those type...I KNEW it would pi$$ me off cause I'd want MORE of his personal time and attention....I always desired the "family man"...why tipped Betas will forever be what "rocks" for me.
> 
> Einstein said it best >>


Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I applaud you for being consistent. The most annoying thing in the world is the sense that one's target is moving erratically.

And WOW is that quote accurate. How have I not seen that before?


----------



## tracyishere

southbound said:


> Ladies, if you were single today...what would you be looking for in a NEW relationship...if on a dating site..or in real life?
> 
> Is Faithfulness/ good treatment / an honest man, but not necessarily "well to do" ....more important than a "Picket fence" lifestyle with "stuff"...in this thing called LOVE...
> 
> Is excitement/FUN more important than contentment /simple enjoyments... with stability?



UMMM I couldn't say. I never had a fairytale man in mind. Never dreamed of my wedding day, never thought of becoming a mother. I kinda just go with the flow. 

I do like certain traits more than others, but I really couldn't tell if a person is meant for me until we actually spent some time together.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *DvlsAdvc8 said*: Hey! I can talk about cooking for an hour. I don't think of anything as inherently boring... boring is only what you're not interested in.


 With a family our size, it is more a necessity...too many picky eaters, can't please 'em all ...I want to throw my hands in the air sometimes. 

I've went to cooking shows and almost fell asleep.. wanted out of there so bad..... all I could think about was what I was going to do to my husband when I got home... Good thing no one could read my mind. 



tracyishere said:


> UMMM I couldn't say. I never had a fairytale man in mind. Never dreamed of my wedding day, never thought of becoming a mother. I kinda just go with the flow.


 I was the complete opposite of this... since I started watching cartoons, was mesmerized by the romance in everything I set my eyes on...the yin & the yang danced in my head....always dreamed of *"the one"* ...even prayed for him ..(husband walked into my life 3 months later)...forever the *Romantic* was I... ....We were the 1st to have a BIG wedding in both our families.. I got off on playing "Match maker" with all our friends too - almost succeeded a couple times...

I wanted to marry young... start a family ... struggle together to accomplish every dream hand in hand.....every high, every low ....the "simple things" in life worked for us.... Taking family vacations, giving them happy childhood memories...this was our shared JOY.... I think he is a better Dad than I am a Mom , to be honest. More patient anyway.

Besides the monkey wrench of infertility for a time....this is how it all played out....it all flew by too damn fast... We did neglect ourselves for a time... but we've come full circle on that.. .



> *DvlsAdvc8 said*: Its a pattern I've seen in a few of my friends relationships too. The things that seemingly attracted their SOs, now seem to be drags... as their SOs now expect them to become something else. Anyone else experience this? *Ladies, do you expect your men to change?*


 My husband is the same guy today he was 31 yrs ago.... he makes more $$, is a proud DAD....has more confidence than those teen yrs.....

And me...I've gotten better with age.. like a fine wine.. I was a little too religious minded back then... almost too goal oriented .....we got lots accomplished anyway...maybe a little too many "honey to do lists" - but I strapped the tool belt on & picked up the shovel, tore down barns with him...... We could have taken more time for JUST US....that Romance... seems once I had it in my grasp... I neglected it a bit..... but we're good now .


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My theory is that what women want changes depending on where in the relationship cycle you are.
> 
> I theorize that things like racing, skydiving and always being on the go were part of my "dangerous and interesting" allure to my ex. As we settled in, those things went from being positives to negatives. She wanted me to be more settled and "homey" as she called it and expected it would be a natural change as I got older. I didn't change at all and her settled vs my active became a major point of contention.


Another possibility is that a lot of people aren't very authentic when dating. They mirror the interests of their prospective partner, rather than admit what they really like or want. Young women especially are notorious for this, but I've also seen it in men. They try on new personalities like they are no more significant than a change of socks. With one partner, they're all into country music, cowboy boots, and rodeos; with another they're writing letters for PETA.

Sometime after they've hooked someone into marriage, they allow themselves to express their own desires and interests -- and their partner is left wondering who on earth this stranger is.

I suspect that as people mature, this is much less common. But I haven't had much opportunity to observe the dating world in the past 15 years give or take, so what do I know?


----------



## always_alone

SimplyAmorous said:


>


Anyone who thinks they can change someone from who they are is on a fool's errand. Anyone who thinks that someone will never change has his/her head in the clouds.

We will only be disappointed if we actually maintain these delusions.


----------



## always_alone

chillymorn said:


> I don't think many guys want to pursue someone so self absorbed.


I think you might be misinterpreting Fembot's post. What I took from it is not that one should be completely self-absorbed and wait for someone to find you, but that spending too much effort bending over backwards to impress prospective mates while failing to work on yourself will just leave you feeling exhausted and alone.

Better to be the best possible you, as you will draw in a circle of like-minded individuals, which will not only give you a network of good friends, it will narrow your dating pool to people whose company you will actually enjoy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Another possibility is that a lot of people aren't very authentic when dating. They mirror the interests of their prospective partner, rather than admit what they really like or want. Young women especially are notorious for this, but I've also seen it in men. They try on new personalities like they are no more significant than a change of socks. With one partner, they're all into country music, cowboy boots, and rodeos; with another they're writing letters for PETA.
> 
> Sometime after they've hooked someone into marriage, they allow themselves to express their own desires and interests -- and their partner is left wondering who on earth this stranger is.
> 
> I suspect that as people mature, this is much less common. But I haven't had much opportunity to observe the dating world in the past 15 years give or take, so what do I know?


That's a very good point and I see that very thing among singles still - excessive catering and pleasing. Pretending to like everything someone else likes. I suspect the degree to which one might do this may vary with the desirability of the partner. Similar to the way most people are more tolerant of poor behavior and amenable to someone they consider to be a great catch for them. One of my friends said something, I think it came from a sitcom, like: "Its ok if she's crazy, as long as she's really hot." Trade-off or insecurity.

My ex may have done this with me. Others in my life have commented that they *just knew* she wanted a family and more traditional settled life, and that they were shocked when she got together with me. I recall everyone at the time saying it was a really odd match but I didn't know the person they knew and what they said never made sense. I thought she just "came out of her cage" so to speak. While she never told friends she wanted these things, they said it just seemed to fit who they knew before I came along, and her jumping all over my bandwagons/lifestyle was what didn't fit. Once married and out of college though, she sure turned into June Cleaver.

I hate being that cynical though. I prefer to think she was attracted to one thing, grew and changed and expected that the same was happening to me. It just seems less nefarious and I'm tired of being angry about it.


----------



## just got it 55

I'm gonna love this thread


----------



## Holland

southbound said:


> Ladies, if you were single today...what would you be looking for in a NEW relationship...if on a dating site..or in real life?
> 
> Is Faithfulness/ good treatment / an honest man, but not necessarily "well to do" ....more important than a "Picket fence" lifestyle with "stuff"...in this thing called LOVE...
> 
> Is excitement/FUN more important than contentment /simple enjoyments... with stability?


When I was dating just for some "fun" I didn't care much about whom they really were or their financial status. As long as they were polite, intelligent and good in bed.

But the list is much longer to actually consider a relationship, they must offer what I offer: Good parent, HD, attractive, healthy, motivated, excellent SOH, honest, loyal, intelligent, respectful, good core values, they have to be the masculine to my feminine, philanthropic, hard working, like cycling and football.
Any hint of misogyny and they are out the door. And they must be financially very secure.
A lust for life is essential and the desire to try new things and to travel. 

Lucky for me I found him and he found me


----------



## ladybird

I am so done with relationships.


----------



## Forever Me

I would look for a family man. I met my husband and married as teens. We weren't thinking about kids and houses at that point, we liked the same bands, movies, and TV shows, what else mattered? lol 

I realized a couple years after we were married that he didn't want a family. He is very spoiled and selfish with everyone but me. While he would give me the world in material possessions, he is bothered by holidays with the family, or even a dinner with just my father over. He doesn't like people in our house, or having to drive the 10 miles to see them. He is a home body. I grew up with weekend bike rides, picnics, BBQ's and us kids swimming in the pool. It's how I pictured my life. I love my husband enough to keep me here, but there are days I feel regret that I gave up all I imagined my life would be for him.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Holland said:


> When I was dating just for some "fun" I didn't care much about whom they really were or their financial status. As long as they were polite, intelligent and good in bed.


Tangent curiosity: why is it women can talk about dating "just for some fun" here, but if a man talks about it, he's roasted? (manipulative, a player etc)

Is it just that some people are uptight about sex? With the assumption that female dating for fun, doesn't mean sex, while the male version does?

I completely agree with your post Holland. My requirements for a LTR are a lot more stringent than what I'm looking for tonight. That I'm going to keep having fun while looking has gotten me skewered on here more than once. Honestly, to me that just dating. You keep having fun until you find something you want to keep.


----------



## Holland

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Tangent curiosity: why is it women can talk about dating "just for some fun" here, but if a man talks about it, he's roasted? (manipulative, a player etc)
> 
> Is it just that some people are uptight about sex? With the assumption that female dating for fun, doesn't mean sex, while the male version does?
> 
> I completely agree with your post Holland. My requirements for a LTR are a lot more stringent than what I'm looking for tonight. That I'm going to keep having fun while looking has gotten me skewered on here more than once. Honestly, to me that just dating. You keep having fun until you find something you want to keep.


I an an equal opportunity person and also not afraid to call it as it is. "Fun" means sex and when reading it on dating websites it is exactly what it means.

All for men and women getting out there and getting some non attached action. The line though is how they treat the other person.Respect all the way for me, both being respected and being respectful. I have never been with a man that was not a respectful person. Sadly i think this is why some men get called out on their dating habits, not because of the sex but because of how they treat women to get sex.

And I agree with you, keep having fun and you never know you may well meet a wonderful woman that you want a LTR with, if not just enjoy the ride in a respectful way.


----------



## scatty

Respect for me and others, loyalty, honesty, and a high moral compass. Jobs and finances can be gone in an instant, but one's strong core self can deal with it and persevere better than a weaker willed man IMO.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Tangent curiosity: why is it women can talk about dating "*just for some fun*" here, but if a man talks about it, he's roasted? (manipulative, a player etc)
> 
> *Is it just that some people are uptight about sex? *With the assumption that female dating for fun, doesn't mean sex, while the male version does?
> 
> I completely agree with your post Holland. My requirements for a LTR are a lot more stringent than what I'm looking for tonight. That I'm going to keep having fun while looking has gotten me skewered on here more than once. Honestly, to me that just dating. *You keep having fun until you find something you want to keep*.





> *Holland said*: I an an equal opportunity person and also not afraid to call it as it is.*"Fun" means sex and when reading it on dating websites it is exactly what it means.*
> 
> *All for men and women getting out there and getting some non attached action*. The line though is how they treat the other person.Respect all the way for me, both being respected and being respectful. I have never been with a man that was not a respectful person. Sadly i think this is why some men get called out on their dating habits, not because of the sex but because of how they treat women to get sex.
> 
> And I agree with you, keep having fun and you never know you may well meet a wonderful woman that you want a LTR with, if not just enjoy the ride in a respectful way.


So if a Profile uses the the word *FUN* in it's listing of potential dating partners ...this = easy free loving  then? 

I have NEVER had the desire to put myself out there and have *"non-attached" action *... This would not at all be FUN for me...(or let me clarify).....sure in the moment it would be a hell of a RUSH...(I love sex after all !)....but it'd be like a hangover the next day / the next week / month...as that heated euphoria slowed to a crawl ...and slowly fizzled...realizing yet again...that person wasn't for me/ we didn't fit ....Time for NEW !

This lifestyle would never fulfill me...I'd be pounding my head against the wall.. I believe some things are worth waiting for....

What I would call FUN ...is meeting up with another who is looking for MORE than momentary FUN lasting a night...seeks something genuine....encapsulating to the core...is willing to take THE TIME and care necessary to get to know this other person before them....this is what I believe dating is all about....sorting out what they want in life, laughing together...sharing stories...the deeper stuff...to see if a compatibility is there for something lasting & true....let some tension build...some anticipation is good... before you shed your clothes...

In my view... if I allow a man to take me, I am gonna take him...all of him...I will want to posses him calling him mine...and knowing I am his in return.... So yeah.....It wouldn't be wise for me to have sex - and take it lightly...I hold it much too high - it represents forever to someone like me. 

This is just another consideration in dating...be very careful that the person unzipping their pants has no romantic notions dancing in their heads...or someone is going to get hurt...and this is just not cool...


----------



## Holland

Yes SA "fun" is code for sex with online dating. At least where I live it is.


----------



## southbound

Holland said:


> When I was dating just for some "fun" I didn't care much about whom they really were or their financial status. As long as they were polite, intelligent and good in bed.
> 
> But the list is much longer to actually consider a relationship, they must offer what I offer: Good parent, HD, attractive, healthy, motivated, excellent SOH, honest, loyal, intelligent, respectful, good core values, they have to be the masculine to my feminine, philanthropic, hard working, like cycling and football.
> Any hint of misogyny and they are out the door. And they must be financially very secure.
> A lust for life is essential and the desire to try new things and to travel.
> 
> Lucky for me I found him and he found me


I have a few questions just to clear me up. 

You say they have to like cycling and football. What if you found a guy you clicked with otherwise, but he didn't care for these things?

You also mention being financially secure. What does that mean to you? I don't have much stuff, but I have no debt either. I have a good job and a good sized emergency account, but I couldn't go out and start buying new cars and new houses comfortably. Is that financially secure to you?


----------



## Holland

I was being a bit flippant with the cycling and footy SB, probably because I met a man that is as into these things as I am. But no it would not be a deal breaker, I guess it is more that it is important to me to be with someone that shares common interests or at the very least shows some interest in what I like.

Mr H has some interests that I don't share but I have given them a go and now see them as more opportunities to spend time together and for me to expand my sometimes closed mind.

Financially secure is a deal breaker for me but not because I want anyone's money, it is because I am very financially secure myself. I need an equal in this department and have no need to justify my feelings on it. 
Everyone's idea of financially secure would be different, some might say that it is have a few $1000 in the bank for rainy days, some might say it is have massive wealth. For me it means that he has enough to afford an equal lifestyle to me. 
My partner and I pretty much pay equally for our lifestyle, we don't keep tabs, we don't have combined money but we just seems to contribute equally.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> So if a Profile uses the the word FUN in it's listing of potential dating partners ...this = easy free loving then?


The way I would interpret it, a guy having "just fun" on a profile indicates his primary goal isn't to jump right into a heavy relationship. Its alleviating his current loneliness and having sexual opportunity. I don't think most of us have an expectation of sex, but I do think we're counting on it being a possibility if you click with her. And that doesn't require a heavy emotional relationship. Its two people compatible people having non-sexual fun, being playful and having sex in a relatively short span (To this day, I have never initiated sex on the first date... SHE has always initiated or otherwise given me very clear "go" signal and I'm happy to oblige; as a rule I don't initiate sex till date two, everything before that is word play and teasing - this usually works out for me because those who wanted me to initiate end up getting more pent up by the wait and those with rules against sex on the first date seem to like that I wasn't pushy for sex). Its kinda something I judge on the fly; there are plenty of times where several dates go by before sex... but sex alone isn't a declaration of exclusivity/relationship. It really depends on the person and how things are going at that point. There have been times I wanted it to be more serious and she was just having fun. 

Honestly, I don't want to spend a significant amount of time and invest a bunch of emotion in someone only to find out that they have a dozen sexual hangups. I kinda like to know about that, and our sexual compatibility before entering the full blown "we're serious" phase. That way should either of us decide to back out, there's none of this breakup nonsense. Having the breakup talk pretty much always sucks. When you're just having fun, and decide this person isn't a keeper, there's no breakup talk. I just let things cool down by talking less and everyone is on the same page: it was just fun.



SimplyAmorous said:


> This lifestyle would never fulfill me...I'd be pounding my head against the wall.. I believe some things are worth waiting for....


You're still waiting for the "one" and hoping this one will be it. You're just not starving yourself of sex in the meantime. I don't really see the point of that. Hooking up and having fun with someone is a lot easier to find than someone I'm potentially going to spend the rest of my life with. Imagine... if I were doing things the way you describe, I wouldn't have had sex in like two years. Screw that!  lol



SimplyAmorous said:


> What I would call FUN ...is meeting up with another who is looking for MORE than momentary FUN lasting a night...seeks something genuine....encapsulating to the core...is willing to take THE TIME and care necessary to get to know this other person before them....this is what I believe dating is all about....sorting out what they want in life, laughing together...sharing stories...the deeper stuff...to see if a compatibility is there for something lasting & true....let some tension build...some anticipation is good... before you shed your clothes...


Well, that's what fun is. You have all that... but both are aware that this is just a feeling out stage. Its sort of an upfront announcement, "hey, don't take this too seriously... lets just have fun and see where it goes. If nothing else is there, we still had fun." If I'm looking for just tonight, which I occasionally have, there is no date. My ONS have all been with women that I've met that night and one thing led to another.



SimplyAmorous said:


> In my view... if I allow a man to take me, I am gonna take him...all of him...I will want to posses him calling him mine...and knowing I am his in return.... So yeah.....It wouldn't be wise for me to have sex - and take it lightly...I hold it much too high - it represents forever to someone like me.


Gotcha. Yeah, some people hold sex on a pedestal. The way I always saw it, if someone has "just fun" on a profile, its says they don't hold sex on a pedestal. Its announcing that while sex isn't a given, its on the table, and they don't want someone who is all clingy about it if it happens. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> This is just another consideration in dating...be very careful that the person unzipping their pants has no romantic notions dancing in their heads...or someone is going to get hurt...and this is just not cool...


Meh. That's a chance even if you keep your pants on. Anytime someone feels attachment that the other does not, someone is going to get hurt. It even rubs me wrong when someone isn't interested in me anymore even if I wasn't interested in her anymore. lol "Hey!! You can't reject me! I was gonna reject you!" :rofl:


----------



## Jellybeans

Well I AM single so if I were looking for a new relationship it would definitely be someone who treats me with respect and has a job and is kind and empathetic. And is good to his mother.


----------



## Jellybeans

I'mInLoveWithMyHubby said:


> What I looked for in a future man was faithfulness, respect, loyalty, stability, honesty, and *willing to compromise.
> *


How could I forget the bolded part... absolutely important.


----------



## cloudwithleggs

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Tangent curiosity: why is it women can talk about dating "just for some fun" here, but if a man talks about it, he's roasted? (manipulative, a player etc)
> 
> Is it just that some people are uptight about sex? With the assumption that female dating for fun, doesn't mean sex, while the male version does?
> 
> I completely agree with your post Holland. My requirements for a LTR are a lot more stringent than what I'm looking for tonight. That I'm going to keep having fun while looking has gotten me skewered on here more than once. Honestly, to me that just dating. You keep having fun until you find something you want to keep.


Nice idea about having fun, but you are looking from a male perspective, as a woman it is my provocative to keep myself safe (i have 2 sml children 3 and 6), how fun is a sexually transmitted disease, i doubt it is much fun for anyone, you only have each others word, in someone you've just met that may never see again, yeah right, woah you trust alot, i don't think that is fun either, then there is the being totally vulnerable to a man that you have just met, don't sound fun, putting yourself in a position to be raped, is never fun for any woman, i suggest you'll never find your ltr because you are to busy having fun with women that are not that sort of material, the only thing you may gain on the way is std's, sorry to be so brutally honest.

And for the record i'm not uptight about sex at all, just solely selective, if that means with my hd i don't have sex so be it, **** i have a vibrator and porn :smthumbup:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> I realize you may not believe this's Advocate...but not giving myself fully to a man -would make it far easier for ME to move on... (the newness of anything...to have it fade is so expected ...it's a part of life...even necessary for growth)...so I disagree with your last point here...


I don't think you're disagreeing with me. You're holding the sexual pedestal as I described. In all honesty, "just fun" profile descriptions are intended to weed you out because you WILL get attached as a result of sex. Its more serious to you. So the profile is actually trying to do you a favor.

The problem I've seen, is that a lot of women view these and think "all he wants is sex", which I don't think is true. It wasn't true on the occasions I've looked online. I want fun. I want to connect with someone. I want sex. There's no guarantees or commitment to anything - including having sex... it if happens it happens. And if she's really the one for me, I'm going to stick with it. Not really much different from dating someone without having sex. Whether we've had sex or not, if I determine she's not long term potential, I'm going to keep looking. These needs are all concurrent. I'm not going to sacrifice one for the other and deny myself for who knows how long as it takes to find the long term winner. I'm going to enjoy life to the fullest as it unfolds.



SimplyAmorous said:


> You are not me -just as I am not you....and I would Never lower myself to be *clingy* towards the type of men who would* spit* on it. Nothing could be more demeaning to ME.... In this I feel as strongly as what sex represents to me.


Someone not being into someone who is clingy is not spitting on that person. I don't want needy. It indicates a lack of self imo... a weakness of personality that I find unattractive and will lead to my losing interest. I want an independent person with a strong sense of self who likes me for what I offer not just because they're a needy person. I know what I want, and I'm not going to lead the clingy girl on. I'm going to tell her I'm sorry, but she's too serious too quickly for me. In my experience, its not ME that is the reason she is clingy. This isn't special behavior I'm driving. These girls tend to get clingy with EVERYONE. They are not healthy choices imo. Having made enough of my own bad picks of women, I'm going to be real picky about who I commit to... but I'm still going to date and "have fun". I might die tomorrow and never meet that person. I don't see any value in waiting. Denying myself is going to make me appreciate her more? No... unless its intended that I appreciate her for sex because I denied myself for so long. I don't want to appreciate her for sex. I want to appreciate her for being her.



SimplyAmorous said:


> You are the type of man I would avoid like the plague if I was dating...and I am the type you would do the same...though I'll give you this...I LOVE your honesty...Straight shooters I do appreciate -even if we may disagree..they can be FUN to debate!
> 
> Ya know what is very very  to me... probably 90% of men today THINK just like you... "*the plain sex view*"...so I hope the hell I never find myself single cause ...well... I guess I'd be up the fvcking river without a paddle...with these dating profiles..I'd have to inform them all I am NO FUN !! Low and below, I am a stick in the mudd, up tight about sex...Ha ha ha...if some only knew!
> 
> *I could not change how deeply I feel any more -than you care to change your own way of living and loving..if only for 1 night at a time.*
> 
> *Doesn't mean I wouldn't fall into FUN (meaningless Fvking) in a moment*...yeah out of loneliness...I could see it even, we are all human after all...... but yeah...
> 
> *This is not my ideal*, nor would ever be...it would take something from me little by little....so much more than if we didn't share that part of ourselves...I consider this to be the most vulnerable act a man & a woman can share...I have no desire to compartmentalize my emotions in this....I consider that something beautiful.


I think you have a "lower" view of me than is appropriate. The only real difference between us, given what you describe above, is the degree to which you hold sex as sacred. That is your right. I don't find it to be particularly sacred. Its a fun intimate act that is shared between people. Having sex with someone doesn't mean I want to marry them. They might be cool and fun in every regard but more chaotic than I want to have in my life long term.

You shouldn't make my ONS's too over blown either. As I said, these are hard to manufacture... they generally come out of the magic and chemistry of a particular night. There has been more than one where we've continued talking afterwards only to realize... ha... this is a horrible match. But it sure was a fun night!

You're great how you are and your life has panned out exactly how you want it to. I wouldn't pursue you and I'm not interested in changing your mind. I'm just explaining that "just fun", is the way that many people politely weed out the people for whom sex is some kind of religious experience binding two souls in ever lasting this or that. Some would call that ideal; I think of that as a sexual hang up. Its all just personal preference.

The way I figure it, tomorrow isn't guaranteed. I'm going to live today.



SimplyAmorous said:


> It's funny... I had a Swinger irritated with my sexual views once on my "What I will teach my daughter" thread.....he started pming me...so we haggled for awhile...I happily listened to his side....for HIM...the sharing of his body was "NOTHING" (his words)... he went on to explain he could do that with anyone...(funny my mother said the same thing after her liaisons with a variety of studs- she lost all emotion to the act)....
> 
> But I guess this guy was able to reserve "the emotional" -which he explained was far more difficult for him.. for his wife, only she got to experience this side of him.....this was their BOND...cause again, he could share his body with anyone...easily, freely....it was rather eye opening to me...the differences some of us view the most invigorating mountain top physical act God has given us.
> 
> I give the man credit for taking the time to HEAR me out...instead of throwing me under the bus jumping to tell me something was wrong with me.... Nearing the end to our pming....he even said he would NOT change who I am...so that was pretty cool .
> 
> The world would be boring if we were all the same..


I wouldn't go as far to say that sex is nothing for me. Even is a kiss isn't nothing. If I had sex with someone, it meant I really liked them... but sex is a far cry from my coming around to thinking that they are a good life partner. I probably couldn't be a swinger... there is a level of care and attachment, but its not even close to what I consider love. I don't know. I can't say I've regretted having sex with someone because it didn't become some magical relationship. It is what it is: a pleasurable moment with someone I connected with, which I'll remember fondly, even if over the course of the next week we're both thinking, "holy smokes... this isn't the one for me."

I don't put sex on a pedestal. Love is the only thing that gets the pedestal. I don't need the latter to appreciate the former, and I don't need the former to develop the latter. They're just not that tightly coupled.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Big post, got rambling, slow day, sorry!*



cloudwithleggs said:


> Nice idea about having fun, but you are looking from a male perspective, as a woman it is my provocative to keep myself safe (i have 2 sml children 3 and 6), how fun is a sexually transmitted disease, i doubt it is much fun for anyone, you only have each others word, in someone you've just met that may never see again, yeah right, woah you trust alot, i don't think that is fun either, then there is the being totally vulnerable to a man that you have just met, don't sound fun, putting yourself in a position to be raped, is never fun for any woman, i suggest you'll never find your ltr because you are to busy having fun with women that are not that sort of material, the only thing you may gain on the way is std's, sorry to be so brutally honest.
> 
> And for the record i'm not uptight about sex at all, just solely selective, if that means with my hd i don't have sex so be it, **** i have a vibrator and porn :smthumbup:


Hate to tell you this, but the threat of STD is there even when you take it nice and slow. I'm a strong advocate of sexually active people in non-monogamous situations getting regularly tested... which I do. I also use protection unless I have a steady thing going with someone I've developed a level of trust sufficient to meet my acceptable standards of risk. This is actually the reason I'm so prone to fwb situations. You're with a person you like and hangout with, but for whatever reason don't want to date or broke up with; you're sexually monogamous... even while you're still looking. When you choose to date someone, the fwb arrangement ends. For me, this has usually occurred with ex-girlfriends where we both realize we're only good together when we're partying and the sex is good. Regular life together is a pita, but you still care about them. Everybody's happy and no disease risk. You can't do this if you pedestal sex.

Of course you have to keep yourself physically safe. That's true whether you're sexually uptight or not. As I said, my ONS's weren't matters where I arranged a date. They were more about circumstances and instant chemistry, and honestly, most of those cases ended with HER driving me back to HER place.

No matter who you see, you're trusting. From what I've gathered, most women expect a sexual move by the 3-4 dates mark - occasionally seeing someone over the course of a few weeks. Do you really think that's the difference between an STD or not? Or being raped or not? If so, you're lulling yourself into a false sense of security. You think a malicious person wearing a mask on night one, can't keep that mask on for a few dates? How do you know that man that is "waiting" for you, isn't still getting it from other women?

At some point, you're just trusting and taking the chance. I will say this: more women need to demand he use protection. No exceptions. If he misses out because he's not prepared, he won't make that mistake twice.

Assuming the guy who waits for it is any safer than the guy who doesn't is folly, and just because he's waiting, doesn't mean he has a saintly sexual history. Its more about how adherent the guy is to safety than it is how many partners he has. So even if he waited two months with you, if he's not whipping out that condom when the time comes, time to sound the alarm. He probably did the same with the last woman.

By no means am I suggesting women all go run out and have ONS stands at will. I don't even do that! lol

I'm not a woman so I may never understand it, but half of the female profiles on dating sites look like the bios of a man-hating feminist convention guest speaker, adamantly opposed to the slightest sexual thought. I mean it, a lot of these come off straight up angry. "IF ALL YOU WANT IS SEX YOU CAN KEEP LOOKING." As if having or not having that sentence dissuades a guy just looking for sex in anyway. lol I can tell you what it does do though, its a major turnoff to a regular guy. It signals, "bitter chick, probable sexual hang up". You don't want just sex, then just don't have sex with the guy until you're ready... duh!!

These sentences are really meaningless and I know first hand. If a woman has this sort of thing on her profile, goes on a date and really likes the guy, she'll still have sex on the first date. I know, I've turned them down. As I've said before, when a date is involved, I have a second date rule. I've found it amps her up more to make her wait, or if she's the more cautious type, it makes me look more patient. By date 3 or 4 though, the majority seem to expect a move.

I just don't see how 3 or 4 dates (the majority) makes any real difference in terms of safety. Its just in your head.

Now, the ones who wanna wait 3 months. Yeah, give men a clue you want to wait 3 months in your profile. For one thing, your inbox will be a lot smaller! lol, but you'll be more sure of what you're getting: A guy who wants a more sexually reserved/cautious woman.



cloudwithleggs said:


> i suggest you'll never find your ltr because you are to busy having fun with women that are not that sort of material,


Not sure why you think a woman willing to have sex after a few dates is not LTR material. This is possibly average in my experience... whether I met them in a bar, the club, or the bookstore. It usually ends up being 3-5 dates unless the sexual chemistry was just intense right off the bat (I'm a total sucker for that magnetic feeling, I admit it). I've always thought it weird that women will criticize me by criticizing the women who go out with me. What's up with that? Women who give it up in that time frame are sl*ts and wh*res so the insult to me is that I'm dredging the bottom of the barrel? lol You know you ladies don't come with numbers on your heads right? I don't know when I meet someone how long before sex will come into play. The only thing I know is "she's hot". Are you suggesting I go out with women I don't find attractive, and that will land me a LTR? haha I'm certainly not too busy. I date, I have fun, some last longer, some don't, and when I know they're not it... I move on. Is that not how you date?


----------



## TiggyBlue

I guess it would depend if I was looking for a long term or short term (if I was single again I'm not sure I would do short term again though, plus I've never really looked for relationships more stumbled across them).


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> I guess it would depend if I was looking for a long term or short term (if I was single again I'm not sure I would do short term again though, plus I've never really looked for relationships more stumbled across them).


Do women really look for short term vs long term? Like, you decide up front, "Hey, I want Mr. Right Now." As a guy, I just look. Attractive? Cool, let's see where this goes. Not it? Moving on. No long or short term agenda for the most part, I don't assume anything about what they're looking for. My plans are neither diabolical or romantic.

I do want sex though, and the length of time I'm willing to wait for it is in direct relation to how much I like the woman in comparison to other options. I won't wait forever for a cold fish. If she's like that now, I suspect that foreshadows my sexless future with her. I dated my ex-wife for 4 months and dozens and dozens of dates before we had sex. My marriage wasn't ever sexually crazy, but the last 4 years of my marriage were pretty much sexless.

Someone who holds out that long has way too much control of their sex drive, or too little sex drive for me, and I'm not going there again.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Do women really look for short term vs long term? Like, you decide up front, "Hey, I want Mr. Right Now." As a guy, I just look. Attractive? Cool, let's see where this goes. Not it? Moving on. No long or short term agenda for the most part, I don't assume anything about what they're looking for. My plans are neither diabolical or romantic.


I've never really looked for a relationship/casual, so if I've known someone for awhile depending on the person or how I felt about the person then I then casual/relationships is on the cards (I've never slept with a random person straight away, even casual I was selective).


----------



## I'mInLoveWithMyHubby

As a single woman I looked for long term. I was not a casual dater, nor looking for causal sex either.


----------



## Holland

I pretty much agree with all you have said *DvlsAdvc8*, would like to go through and reply to certain sentences but honestly am too tired. So suffice to say I think your comments are logical and very much aligned with how many wo/men think in the dating world. Sure there are plenty that find the concept of casual dating abhorrent but they would be the ones to avoid anyway so best to know upfront.

FTR I met Mr H online, we were both just looking for "fun", he was no where near ready for a LTR and I was dating other men non exclusively. But we simply clicked and fell in love. We have a wonderful relationship and both see this as a life long commitment.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

That's what I want Holland. I want the accidental click and boom between two people just enjoying life.

Sorry if I derailed discussion, but thanks for not minding me too much! Continue ladies!


----------



## cloudwithleggs

*Re: Big post, got rambling, slow day, sorry!*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Now, the ones who wanna wait 3 months. Yeah, give men a clue you want to wait 3 months in your profile. For one thing, your inbox will be a lot smaller! lol, but you'll be more sure of what you're getting: A guy who wants a more sexually reserved/cautious woman.


I'm probably worth the wait, because they'll think all their Christmas have come at once (all wrapped with a pretty rope bow) (my inbox is already small) i could do with a few less, i'm not interested in sleeping with any guy, i can pick and choose, that is up to me, if i want friendship only to start, then so be it, it is up to them if they are sleeping around, personally i wouldn't be interested in a man that sleeps around, but that is my choice. No i'm getting a guy that head rules his other head has patience and thinks i'm worth it, that i've had a real chance to get to know.




DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not sure why you think a woman willing to have sex after a few dates is not LTR material. This is possibly average in my experience... whether I met them in a bar, the club, or the bookstore. It usually ends up being 3-5 dates unless the sexual chemistry was just intense right off the bat (I'm a total sucker for that magnetic feeling, I admit it). I've always thought it weird that women will criticize me by criticizing the women who go out with me. What's up with that? Women who give it up in that time frame are sl*ts and wh*res so the insult to me is that I'm dredging the bottom of the barrel? lol You know you ladies don't come with numbers on your heads right? I don't know when I meet someone how long before sex will come into play. The only thing I know is "she's hot". Are you suggesting I go out with women I don't find attractive, and that will land me a LTR? haha I'm certainly not too busy. I date, I have fun, some last longer, some don't, and when I know they're not it... I move on. Is that not how you date?


Men and women that are like it are not ltr material you misunderstood, this is my opinion, always looking for something better that just happens to come along, i value people more than that, you are the one naming women as sl*ts and wh*res which is already very telling on your perspective on women.

you sound just like an opportunist, best to be avoided at all costs.

by the way you insulted yourself, you should never judge yourself by others opinions, but i am free to express mine just as you are, which differs from yours, that is why we gravitate to like minded people and agree to disagree.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Re: Big post, got rambling, slow day, sorry!*



cloudwithleggs said:


> I'm probably worth the wait, because they'll think all their Christmas have come at once (all wrapped with a pretty rope bow) (my inbox is already small) i could do with a few less, i'm not interested in sleeping with any guy, i can pick and choose, that is up to me, if i want friendship only to start, then so be it, it is up to them if they are sleeping around, personally i wouldn't be interested in a man that sleeps around, but that is my choice. No i'm getting a guy that head rules his other head has patience and thinks i'm worth it, that i've had a real chance to get to know.


Okay, so when exactly do you think its appropriate for a sexual relationship to begin? How do you know? (yes, I'm setting you up.) 



cloudwithleggs said:


> Men and women that are like it are not ltr material you misunderstood, this is my opinion, always looking for something better that just happens to come along, i value people more than that, you are the one naming women as sl*ts and wh*res which is already very telling on your perspective on women.


I'm having a real hard time reading this. I don't know what you're saying. Can you restate that first part?

Myself, I'm not looking for something better. I'm looking for what I want. When I find who I want, I have no desire to leave her. Do I set my LTR standards high? Damn right. How do I know someone doesn't meet what I want? By dating them... that means going out and having fun together, hanging out on the couch watching a movie, and yes... sex. Not sure there's anything revolutionary about that. Its lunacy to me to have so much up front expectation about someone you don't know, and as I said, in my opinion sex is no sacred shrine to be prayed to only when the planets align four days after a full moon on ash Wednesday.

Its not so serious. When the one I want to keep comes along, I'll keep her. Until then, I'm going to keep having good times with women I want to know.

Please comprehend that I didn't just call these women sl*ts and wh*res. The whole point to what I said is that this is the spin YOU are putting on them in your attempt to attack me based on their promiscuity. Did you note the question mark? You're saying they're not LTR material because they have sex, in a statement meant to attack me and my choices. Its the "cheap floozies" argument - attack the man by attacking his women... only you don't actually know the women. Odd to ascribe so much negativity to someone you don't know merely because they had sex on date 3. And the weirdest part about when this argument gets pulled on me, is that I'm viewed as the misogynist by those judging these women so!! wtf lol. 

Regardless, its's pretty sexually uptight if you ask me. Its just sex.



cloudwithleggs said:


> you sound just like an opportunist, best to be avoided at all costs.
> 
> by the way you insulted yourself, you should never judge yourself by others opinions, but i am free to express mine just as you are, which differs from yours, that is why we gravitate to like minded people and agree to disagree.


I'm an opportunist? Sex is a normal part of dating. How am I an opportunist? Is there a holy egg timer that goes off after which, its okay to have sex and you're not an opportunist? Seriously?

I didn't insult myself. Are you blind to question marks? (<-- oh the irony)

The insult from you, is that I'm not long term material because I enjoy sex and don't treat it like a sacred relic to be stored away forever until the chosen one appears. There's plenty of reasons one might not be marriage material, I'm certainly in no rush to get re-married :rofl:, but having sex with someone you're into isn't one of them.

Should I assume you're a wait for marriage type? Do you have some magic number of days you wait to have sex, or is it something you do whenever you're comfortable enough for it.

Some people are comfortable with sex sooner or later than others. How do you date?

Love the gaming rigs by the way.


----------



## Holland

*Re: Big post, got rambling, slow day, sorry!*



cloudwithleggs said:


> I'm probably worth the wait, because they'll think all their Christmas have come at once (all wrapped with a pretty rope bow) (my inbox is already small) i could do with a few less, i'm not interested in sleeping with any guy, i can pick and choose, that is up to me, if i want friendship only to start, then so be it, it is up to them if they are sleeping around, personally i wouldn't be interested in a man that sleeps around, but that is my choice. No i'm getting a guy that head rules his other head has patience and thinks i'm worth it, that i've had a real chance to get to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Men and women that are like it are not ltr material you misunderstood, this is my opinion, always looking for something better that just happens to come along, i value people more than that, you are the one naming women as sl*ts and wh*res which is already very telling on your perspective on women.
> 
> *you sound just like an opportunist, best to be avoided at all costs.*
> 
> by the way you insulted yourself, you should never judge yourself by others opinions, but i am free to express mine just as you are, which differs from yours, that is why we gravitate to like minded people and agree to disagree.


Wow sorry to step in here *DvlsAdvc8* but I am insulted on your behalf. 

*cloudwithleggs* not sure what you are reading but it is way different to what is on the screen. Maybe you are clouding this with your own judgments of men but there is nothing he has said that comes across as anything but open and honest, cant see any evidence of an opportunist and trust me I have met many.

If more men were open, honest and up front like this about what they want out of their dating lives then the world would tick around much more smoothly. No game playing, secure in who he is and realistic. That all sounds good to me.

He (and many others) walk a different path to you but that in no way makes him an opportunist.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Re: Big post, got rambling, slow day, sorry!*



Holland said:


> Wow sorry to step in here *DvlsAdvc8* but I am insulted on your behalf.
> 
> *cloudwithleggs* not sure what you are reading but it is way different to what is on the screen. Maybe you are clouding this with your own judgments of men but there is nothing he has said that comes across as anything but open and honest, cant see any evidence of an opportunist and trust me I have met many.
> 
> If more men were open, honest and up front like this about what they want out of their dating lives then the world would tick around much more smoothly. No game playing, secure in who he is and realistic. That all sounds good to me.
> 
> He (and many others) walk a different path to you but that in no way makes him an opportunist.


Ironically, once upon a time I played the games I thought I needed to play and avoided the uncomfortable truths. I probably was an opportunist then. I've been the overly "nice guy" and gone all the way to being a truly bad guy before finding my own comfort zone somewhere in between... and I'm now happy where I am. Funny, but many of these are only uncomfortable to be spoken. Sort of a Too Much Information scenario. Verbalize a sexual reality that I'm probably going to make a move within 4 dates if I'm feeling it, and women here object. On the other hand, make the move and the girl I moved on is thrilled by the escalation. lol Sort of one of the many wtfs of dating. I don't have an online profile anymore, but when I did, I was pretty clear that I wanted someone who wasn't overly serious, someone fun and adventurous and not too up tight. Whatever happens happens. I don't want empty hookups, but I dig passion and chemistry... and if it feels right I'm going to go for it... and I hope they do too. Waiting just to wait and meet some vague quasi-moral imperative doesn't make sense to me. Too rigid for me. I go with the flow.

One thing is certain, I'm much more happy being frank about what I'm looking for, and I don't think wanting to have sex with someone you like is in any way a bad thing, and stating the obvious shouldn't be either.


----------



## Created2Write

For me, having my emotion needs met is the most important thing, aside from having the same religious and political beliefs. My husband and I have made it through incredibly difficult financial troubles, so money isn't important. Fun can be had with most anyone. So, for me, it would be my emotional needs, as that has been the greatest issue my husband and I have faced.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Someone that is health conscious is important to me as I am very athletic and health conscious. I like a good steak on occasion but I'd appreciate it if a guy didn't turn his nose up when i make vegetarian meals a couple of times a week. I also would look for low drama; I'm not interested in your issues with your ex or your entitled kids, and if you still have anger over your ex keep on going. .Also, if you're going to play games with your female "friends" just keep on going as that is beneath my dignity. And I'd appreciate it if you had your sh$t together; you needn't be wealthy but I have I have a very good job and don't need you to bail me out, so I ask the same of you. .And a bit of sex drive would be nice..am I asking too much?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## southbound

Whew! I'm back to work this week and slacked a bit on reading the responses. Thanks for all the replies.

My reason for asking my original question was to get a read of what women want in that category, as many of you have listed.

I'm 45 years old, not 20, divorced, and to be honest, I like low drama, a laid back lifestyle, and just chilling out and down time. I'm not saying I never do anything, but I'm not "on the go" all the time nor do I have to have every moment filled with some activity. I have no desire to sail the seven seas, climb the highest mountain, or spend every waking moment on the beach. 

I am, however, a good guy. I don't mean Mr. Rogers, but I'm decent looking, have a good job, am loyal, honest, would never cheat, have a good sense of humor once you get to know me, and the list goes on.

I've looked at a few dating sites for fun, and it seems like everybody tries to show how exciting they are with their comments and pictures. I know people in real life like that as well. 

So, I'm just wondering: for single women my age, which is more appealing; fun and excitement, or stability and contentment with a decent guy? Does the excitement part carry a lot of weight?


----------



## lifeistooshort

southbound said:


> Whew! I'm back to work this week and slacked a bit on reading the responses. Thanks for all the replies.
> 
> My reason for asking my original question was to get a read of what women want in that category, as many of you have listed.
> 
> I'm 45 years old, not 20, divorced, and to be honest, I like low drama, a laid back lifestyle, and just chilling out and down time. I'm not saying I never do anything, but I'm not "on the go" all the time nor do I have to have every moment filled with some activity. I have no desire to sail the seven seas, climb the highest mountain, or spend every waking moment on the beach.
> 
> I am, however, a good guy. I don't mean Mr. Rogers, but I'm decent looking, have a good job, am loyal, honest, would never cheat, have a good sense of humor once you get to know me, and the list goes on.
> 
> I've looked at a few dating sites for fun, and it seems like everybody tries to show how exciting they are with their comments and pictures. I know people in real life like that as well.
> 
> So, I'm just wondering: for single women my age, which is more appealing; fun and excitement, or stability and contentment with a decent guy? Does the excitement part carry a lot of weight?



Well I'm 39, so close to your age. Also divorced, two boys, and I like a quiet life as my job is quite demanding and I am a distance runner (like to bike and swim too) so when I'm not doing these things i like to relax. I'd say stability carries more weight for me, though a little excitement once in a while would be nice. No excessive drinking or bars/partying until all hours, though, those days are over.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't think you're disagreeing with me. You're holding the sexual pedestal as I described. In all honesty, "just fun" profile descriptions are intended to weed you out because you WILL get attached as a result of sex. Its more serious to you. So the profile is actually trying to do you a favor.


 I don't see it as a favor...because in reality...it's under a veil..unless the dictionary wants to add a new definition of *FUN*....maybe Urban dictionary already has...

Honestly I would have more of an appreciation for this sort of upfront honesty >> 

Yrs ago, a single GF was visiting, she was browsing "Plenty of Fish"..I sat with her, computers side by side...checking out some guys for her... I came across this one... never forget it... wish I copied & pasted it - it was a [email protected]#$%)......

I started laughing...and read it to her and she started calling him names, a jerk, what an a$$hole....... but ya know... There was no BS.....he gave NO illusions, he laid out exactly what his intentions were -to weed them out ..... I even DEFENDED this profile to her..... even though this man was the epitome of everything I would run from...

He knew he was HOT...He knew he could get beautiful women, Mr Alpha inviting them to play....he didn't want to waste his time dealing with women's emotions...so he was advertising for a mutual night of pleasure...he went on about what a fantastic lover he is and had the women to prove it...

He had this long list of requirements....from mental issues to weight, to drama to cleanliness....and after each saying...."or click away"....

He made it very clear..when they part ways , do not expect a phone call/ text, do not think of showing up on his door...he wants NO relationship. 



> Originally Posted by *DvlsAdvc8*:
> The problem I've seen, is that a lot of women view these and think "all he wants is sex", which I don't think is true. It wasn't true on the occasions I've looked online. I want fun. I want to connect with someone. I want sex. There's no guarantees or commitment to anything - including having sex... it if happens it happens. And if she's really the one for me, I'm going to stick with it. Not really much different from dating someone without having sex. Whether we've had sex or not, if I determine she's not long term potential, I'm going to keep looking. These needs are all concurrent. I'm not going to sacrifice one for the other and deny myself for who knows how long as it takes to find the long term winner. I'm going to enjoy life to the fullest as it unfolds.


 I get what you are saying... the problem I have with your views...is not that you are honest and upfront about it...I think that's good... I respect that part..

It's the judgement on those of us who *Do* hold out for the emotional - being so often referred to as "uptight"- prudish (no you did not use this word this time around, but many do)...saying we have sexual hang ups... I would take this as much as an insult as You would take me calling you a Philanderer. 

Can you recognize this? 



> Originally Posted by *DvlsAdvc8 *: Someone not being into someone who is clingy is not spitting on that person. I don't want needy. It indicates a lack of self imo... a weakness of personality that I find unattractive and will lead to my losing interest. I want an independent person with a strong sense of self who likes me for what I offer not just because they're a needy person.


 I want to say something about *"clingy"* / *"needy"* /*low self esteem* and your quick association with the serious minded romantic woman...obviously these are put downs....

As a quick analogy.....Just as some people are *frugal *(and this can greatly benefit their lives)....that doesn't automatically make them *"cheap"* or a Miser...though many will JUMP to these conclusions - ("1st date using a coupon" thread for an example- got a little heated ).....people hold pre-conceived ideas....without taking the time to get to know that person. 

Can I say....this is not always true... a woman with high self esteem can easily be serious & romantically minded ..know what SHE wants ...preferring the type that has similar love languages as herself (lets say TIME is her top love language).....so she seeks another who enjoys being with her, this benefits them both...no one feels suffocated...but finds fulfillment in how they both are. She would not be a good match with someone like YOU, I agree, but there is no reason to put her down.

I won't be able to change your mind in using these derogatory terms as Clingy & needy though..cause that is how you feel. 

...Similar to your automatically speaking of those who are not causal sex users - as UPTIGHT...and having sexual hang ups... 

*QUESTION*.... IF a woman is just as much of a porn star in bed , on the kitchen table, outdoors, in the back seat (you get the drift, enthusiastic, willing to take the reigns even & show her man a thing or 2)......but only cares to BE this *within a committed relationship with the emotional strings* ...I want you to explain to me why she should get labeled "uptight"....and has hang ups...if she is doing all that the other casual sex babes are doing -that you meet in those bars every weekend ?? 



> Originally Posted by *DvlsAdvc8*:
> I know what I want, and I'm not going to lead the clingy girl on. I'm going to tell her I'm sorry, but she's too serious too quickly for me. In my experience, its not ME that is the reason she is clingy. This isn't special behavior I'm driving. *These girls tend to get clingy with EVERYONE. They are not healthy choices imo*.


 Yes, I've seen women like this... it's very unattractive ...because she has attached herself to a man where the attention is not reciprocated....that's very sad and demeaning ....she has to love herself enough to move on... I was never this girl.. I never chased a man, I believe they need to pursue, show that interest. Truth is...if I wasn't pampered emotionally I would drop the guy...

I guess this is how most of you feel sexually... my husband wouldn't call me high maintenance or clingy or needy in any way, heck he wanted me to be more so for a long time in our marriage. And, I love the fact he feels this way, I wouldn't call him clingy or needy either. He damn well should have showed more of that during those years in fact. He wouldn't demean himself to act this way either.. 



> Originally Posted by *DvlsAdvc8:*
> I think you have a "lower" view of me than is appropriate.
> *The only real difference between us, given what you describe above, is the degree to which you hold sex as sacred*. That is your right. I don't find it to be particularly sacred. Its a fun intimate act that is shared between people. *Having sex with someone doesn't mean I want to marry them.* They might be cool and fun in every regard but more chaotic than I want to have in my life long term.


 yes, this is the DIVIDE...I do hold it as near sacred... my husband wouldn't call it sacred though (I've asked).....just "very very special".... He is the type that respects a woman more for holding out. I know...it's very rare. Though you do acknowledge some feel this is ideal... thank you for that. 



> Originally Posted by *DvlsAdvc8*:
> You're great how you are and your life has panned out exactly how you want it to.


 Amazingly - it has. But I worry for our children ..in this society ... My husband has said to me, he hopes we are not setting them up for a fall....looking at our marriage/ our story ... It bothers me so few hold our views today... and those who do are faced with getting made fun of, the put downs... so I speak for them -you might say. 



> The way I figure it, tomorrow isn't guaranteed. I'm going to live today.


 My motto is more ...what I do today can greatly affect me tomorrow...











> I can't say I've regretted having sex with someone because it didn't become some magical relationship. It is what it is: a pleasurable moment with someone I connected with, which I'll remember fondly, even if over the course of the next week we're both thinking, "holy smokes... this isn't the one for me."


 Can you understand why some of us would regret this though ? It makes me want to say "Hey -wait a minute when anyone attempts to connect derogatory labels to feeling as some of us do.. 

I think this article gets to the heart of it for all of us, even in our differences of opinion. And I still feel those of us who are not jumping in bed in the 1st so many dates are capable of being FUN...damn it! .. ...


> Embrace your sexuality | Metro...
> 
> The key to enjoying our own sexuality is to remember that it’s not about what ‘people’ would think, but what we think. How great sex makes us feel, what a healing, bonding joy it is. Set the boundaries you feel comfortable with and play within them. And for the sake of love, don’t be too hard on yourself.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*A talent for being succint, I do not have. lol*



SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't see it as a favor...because in reality...it's under a veil..unless the dictionary wants to add a new definition of *FUN*....maybe Urban dictionary already has...


Some veils are necessary in life. You can't just come out with "yeah, I'm up for having sex within a couple dates if everything feels right... I'm not uptight about it". As a general rule of online profiles, guys shouldn't even mention sex (unless they're hot... hot has no rules). A guy mentioning sex in an online profile is like woman repellant - that he's only interested in getting laid, which isn't necessarily true. Similarly, a woman mentioning sex in her profile sends out a signal that she's easy and undiscerning... her inbox is going to explode with crude messages - which most women don't want. She can't mention sex because the guys will think its okay to press for sex right away. So even though she wants a sexual encounter, she doesn't want someone pushy and in all probability, that's not ALL she wants. Most of such profiles aren't even real women, they're spammers getting easy email addresses from desperate guys.

This is unfortunate, but its true. Throw in people who absolutely don't want sex until well within the confines of a relationship, and you see why there exist coded ways to express one's views that are the middle road between the "only want sexers" and the "only want relationshippers". For most people, this just goes unspoken. For others, its called "just having fun" and being adventurous, easy going and not taking life too seriously. These aren't truly sexually innocent words... there's a bit of "read between the lines" in them. You for example, should not say such in a profile... you'd be best served by having one of those profiles that say "I want something real, genuine, serious... someone patient" (patience! Code word for "we're not having sex for a very long while, so get that straight right now")

I'm know I'm over analytical, and I've slept with a couple women I met online who said they wanted patience but still ended up with me in a couple dates... so there are contradictions, but overall, I think there is a lot written between the lines. On the other hand, I think a lot of women intentionally look like prudes on profiles in order to just filter out / avoid the crude messages or the "only want sexers". Just as some of the guys probably lie about wanting anything other than sex. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Honestly I would have more of an appreciation for this sort of upfront honesty >>


It would be nice, but really, people are sensitive. Mention sex at all, and they think that's all you want. So there has to be a more subtle way of describing your comfort level. Things are different in a profile. In real life, I signal my intentions with humor and sexual innuendo, then get someone alone and become direct. In a profile, there's no interaction... so things are bit coded. Most desire to cast a wide net, but also filter out the crap they don't want.




SimplyAmorous said:


> I started laughing...and read it to her and she started calling him names, a jerk, what an a$$hole....... but ya know... There was no BS.....he gave NO illusions, he laid out exactly what his intentions were -to weed them out ..... I even DEFENDED this profile to her..... even though this man was the epitome of everything I would run from...


Most reactions are going to be "he's a jerk". If he's really good looking, then he gets praise for honesty. Average or ugly guy... not so much. lol



SimplyAmorous said:


> It's the judgement on those of us who *Do* hold out for the emotional - being so often referred to as "uptight"- prudish (no you did not use this word this time around, but many do)...saying we have sexual hang ups... I would take this as much as an insult as You would take me calling you a Philanderer.
> 
> Can you recognize this?


I do. I will revise how I present this opinion. I default to the example that's easily recognizable. I think most women try to avoid jumping into sexual encounters too quickly... but as I said, the length of time is really all about a persons comfort level with sex. Bad experiences, repressive upbringing, these usually cause hangups - declaring an arbitrary waiting period for sex long after you've already "felt it", or even having a negative view of sexual acts as being bad or dirty.

If you don't want sex until you have whatever sort of connection comfort, and it takes you a long time to build that connection, I wouldn't consider that a hangup. I've just repeatedly discovered that even the women who express such interest in delay... still go for it anyway. I've only met one that took months, and that was my ex wife, who was a virgin. But more over, everyone seems to have a different standard on what is a perfectly acceptable wait without feeling "dirty"... some, no wait at all. I've come to strongly associate this with a person's overall comfort level with sex. The less the comfort level with sex in general, the longer the delay. And that lower comfort level is usually recognizable even long after the sexual side of the relationship has begun.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I want to say something about *"clingy"* / *"needy"* /*low self esteem* and your quick association with the serious minded romantic woman...obviously these are put downs....
> 
> As a quick analogy.....Just as some people are *frugal *(and this can greatly benefit their lives)....that doesn't automatically make them *"cheap"* or a Miser...though many will JUMP to these conclusions - ("1st date using a coupon" thread for an example- got a little heated ).....people hold pre-conceived ideas....without taking the time to get to know that person.


Perhaps. In dating however, first impressions are a VERY large part of the game. I wouldn't use a coupon on a first date because "tight wad" isn't the signal I want to send. I want to show her I'm not cheap, long before I show her I'm frugal. I think there's kind of an order of operations to it... exactly because we ALL jump to these conclusions. 

That really plays to my point. You don't mention sex in a profile because people jump to conclusions. You present the things that matter most, first, because people jump to conclusions. If a long sexless courtship is a high priority for you, I'd expect that on a profile so I can bypass it, given that I want sex in my dating relationships. The women who have the anti-sex speech on their profiles to weed out the guys who just want sex, there's a good chance I'll confuse them with the above "goodies" (yes, I know my terms seem derogatory... not really intentional, they're just type depictions we all get without having to think about it much; I ask that you focus less on the negative connotation of the word and more on the picture of who I'm trying to describe) who want the long sexless courtship... even though I've learned most of these women are actually perfectly cool with a not overly serious, sexual dating relationship.



SimplyAmorous said:


> a woman with high self esteem can easily be serious & romantically minded ..know what SHE wants ...preferring the type that has similar love languages as herself (lets say TIME is her top love language).....so she seeks another who enjoys being with her, this benefits them both...no one feels suffocated...but finds fulfillment in how they both are. She would not be a good match with someone like YOU, I agree, but there is no reason to put her down.


I don't think you caught whatever I was saying that this is in reply to. Can you point to the sentence that triggered this response? There's a misinterpretation or I was unclear somewhere. I don't know how to respond to this because its not inline with something I feel I'm trying to say. Perhaps I misstated something. I don't think waiting is a sign of low self-esteem... if I said that, I chose my words poorly. Again, I'm not trying to put anyone down... words I've used are just to have a name for a type that is recognizable. I'm a geek. Not in the derogatory sense, but definitely in "ridiculous intellectual interests" sense. If my geekdom were the entire definition of who I was, holy moly I'd be boring to the majority of the population. Wanna see me get really wonky? Get me to talk about economics. It'll put most people right to sleep. lol



SimplyAmorous said:


> I won't be able to change your mind in using these derogatory terms as Clingy & needy though..cause that is how you feel.


I really do see what you're saying, but I'm really NOT using these are derogatory terms. I'm using these as a quick capture of behavior. You youself have said you like a little clingy and needy. If you like it, it can't be derogatory unless I'm intended it to hurt you, which I did not. I'm just colorful. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> *QUESTION*.... IF a woman is just as much of a porn star in bed , on the kitchen table, outdoors, in the back seat (you get the drift, enthusiastic, willing to take the reigns even & show her man a thing or 2)......but only cares to BE this *within a committed relationship with the emotional strings* ...I want you to explain to me why she should get labeled "uptight"....and has hang ups...if she is doing all that the other casual sex babes are doing -that you meet in those bars every weekend ??


(warning... I got really rambly with this paragraph... as its very subjective, based mostly on feelings and impressions and hard to put my finger on. Consider it any area of flux rather than concrete conclusion; just me spilling my mind - pardon the smell - )

First, let me say that I don't link being a pornstar and having a weird kinky sex life to being sexually liberal. They might correlate, but that's not really the concept I'm going after. Its more of an overall comfort with their sexual self and an ownership of sexual pleasure. ie - getting a massage because it feels good, not because your back is all jacked up. Sex for its own sake, because it is fun and pleasurable, and there is nothing wrong with having it regardless of circumstances. Those who think there is, even those who "feel" there is, I tend to think is a result of cultural norm/indoctrination... the history of which is largely driven by religion. That sex is bad unless between to married people in love. Gradually we've seen "married" pushed out of the cultural norm in this calculation... leaving love. More and more as this legacy of indoctrination is unwound with increased sexual liberalism... so too disappears the declaration that its "bad" outside of love.

The rest is going to be a real tough one to explain my thinking on... everyone is likely to disagree with and hate my thinking... so there's my warning haha. To me, its largely a matter of scale and only at the extremes of the scale do I feel something isn't quite right. The extensive waiting... the want of uncommonly high commitment and proof of emotional attachment... the long sexless courtship... all stem from an underlying insecurity with sex and fear of abandonment and/or discarding. Insecure in oneself, completely untrusting, damaged or jaded... and probably some negative sexual baggage on the side: fear. Everyone is probably going to jump all over my saying that, but that's the impression I've gotten from all of these types I've known - my ex wife included. Its the repression, insecurity and fear driving the need for the emotional commitment... commitment isn't running this show... purely in my analysis/opinion based on my own experiences and impressions. In the dating game, charming/confident/c*cky isn't my strongest suit. Cutting through insecurity, building connection, trust and chemistry is my strong suit - depth of conversation and a comforting but teasing humor. So I regularly see the types who say they'd never do this or that outside of a long committed relationship, and lo and behold... here they are with me without the commitment they claimed to want. So that makes me think its a shield. I think most women have them... emotional attachment, commitment, delay... all shields. These women still physically want the guy they're attracted to I think - just as much as the "bad" girl, but there is a mental block in place as a result of fear, repression, insecurity... vulnerability/rejection... whatever. They don't want to be used, which is to say, I feel like they don't seem to own their behavior and allocate responsibility appropriately. If they end up feeling used, they describe it in terms of "I was so stupid!" That doesn't make sense to me at all. Even if someone did them wrong, they played no part in making them do that wrong. Thus, they seem more like scared prey than participants. If you had sex with someone and they leave or treat you poorly, forget them. Its all on them. That's life... you take chances and ride the rollercoaster imo. The notion that someone you choose to have sex with could "use" you makes little sense to me. This isn't an equal value comparison, but still the same principle: I'm not used by someone I took to dinner, because I wanted to take her to dinner. I believed in the possibility the date might go somewhere, but I don't feel used even in the slightest if I don't get a second date. I liked providing her meal. The idea of not taking her to dinner over concern that she might be using me for a free meal is just absurd. I don't even care when a girl giving me attention IS clearly a gold digger. I can't be used without being complicit, and if I'm complicit, then is it really being used? 

I think the purpose that all these "commitment" walls some women have is ultimately to off load risk, vulnerability and responsibility by holding back. It seems like such a dreadful way to live... just as dreadful as the "bad" girl who just throws around sex to get attention and validate herself. To me, these are equally bad extremes of the scale, and the women I pursue are the ones in the middle. The ones who go for what they want without overly elaborate shields and arbitrary waiting periods and fear of perceptions. The ones comfortable with their sexuality and desires and not protecting themselves through elaborate hoops that deny them what they too want in the moment; but also not throwing their bodies at anyone who will take them. Sex without emotional attachment? There is concern/care for the other human being, but not some great depth of love. It is enjoying the moment. These girls say "God he was hot, and great in bed, but nah... I don't think I want to date him; he's really immature. I sure wouldn't mind another night though!!" or "I really like him, we connect, have all this chemistry and we've hooked up... but I think I want someone with more ambition." They're not prey. They're not so vulnerable and fearful, and they seem to own their sexuality... and lo and behold, they find romantic love too... without the self-penance of "holding out for the one" or worry about being used. They enjoy sex for physical pleasure, even if sex is better with emotional depth.

This kinda makes me wonder if sex alone simply isn't physically pleasurable to the withholding crowd - which I doubt. Does love flip a switch from "this isn't even worth doing" to "this is the best thing EVER"?? I kinda doubt that too. There's definitely a gap in my ability to understand this. The way I see it, its like saying "I like chocolate, but I'm not going to have a very yummy hersey's kiss because I want a whole hersey bar." When in truth, they're not mutually exclusive. Going for the kiss doesn't mean you won't get the bar... and not getting the bar doesn't mean you were stupid for having the kiss. It was yummy. Understand my confusion?



SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes, I've seen women like this... it's very unattractive ...because she has attached herself to a man where the attention is not reciprocated....that's very sad and demeaning ....she has to love herself enough to move on... I was never this girl.. I never chased a man, I believe they need to pursue, show that interest. Truth is...if I wasn't pampered emotionally I would drop the guy...


Ironically, I won't pamper someone emotionally. She'll never doubt my interest or confuse my level of investment, but I know my value and won't worship someone. She's my equal, not to be worshipped. She's my queen and I'm her king, she is not my goddess and I her worshipper. Most of my problems with women once upon a time stemmed from this false notion that I should treat them like goddesses and always be the gentleman - the nice guy always at your beck and call ready to do whatever you want. Turns out, its really unattractive, no matter who is doing the worshipping... and it is conducive to very poor behavior on the part of whomever has the deity role. You already know that I think the nature of your relationship is a rare exception. You're clearly a loving deity to your husbands worship. That usually comes with a cost in physical attraction as far as I'm aware, and most of us lose appreciation for that which comes too freely or cheaply.

I withdraw from women who prove to be excessively needy as I find it unattractive. Either in expecting so much pampering or otherwise expecting I prove how into them I am all the time - or even holding me up too high. That's a huge insecurity alert. I want an equal, secure in herself, not in need of constant validation and not willing to put up with me if I give no validation whatsoever. With the "worshipper", the fact that I don't have to do anything at all is the element that totally destroys my attraction to her. I think these are usually bad extremes along a scale. I don't even want mutual "worship"... I'm most attracted to someone with a significant sense of independent self remaining, and all to often the "worshippers" lack it in my experience.



SimplyAmorous said:


> my husband wouldn't call me high maintenance or clingy or needy in any way,


Again, I'm not sure your husband is like most men. :smthumbup:

"if I wasn't pampered emotionally I would drop the guy..." - pampered says needy in my perspective: In need of large levels of assurance. It works in your relationship, which I think is an interesting if atypical relationship... so please don't think I'm insulting you. You found the guy to suit your need and he found the woman to suit his. Unfortunately, I think most people like this jumble things up because their need doesn't fit what they're actually attracted to. Thus they end up with people who never meet their needs, or unattracted to those who do.




SimplyAmorous said:


> He is the type that respects a woman more for holding out.


Why? What is more respectable about holding out? To me, this is old fashioned thinking driven by a legacy false moral determination that having sex for its own sake is somehow wrong, bad or dirty. A hangup... an indoctrinated sexual shame. Why is it more respectable to be less trusting, or even self denying? This is culture. This is just what you've been brought up to believe. ie Sex is bad or sex is sacred. There is a moral imperative to have sex only with the love of your life. Dial it up a notch, and sex is only for procreation. There's nothing inherently respectable about having, or not having sex imo. Motives behind why a person does something deserve respect or not. You don't enjoy sex without love? Ever had it? If so, and subsequently deciding you don't enjoy it such that you don't have it until you're in love... that's respectable. That's saying you're not going to sell yourself out to impress someone. Withholding in spite of physically enjoying sex out of fear of being "used", or abandonment fear, or sexual insecurity... not so respect worthy. 

On the opposite scale, having sex on a first date similarly doesn't deserve respect or disrespect. Using your sexuality to bolster your sense of worth, such that you have sex on the first date to impress a guy or feel wanted - THAT is worthy of scorn. But a woman secure in herself seizing her own sexuality and going for the guy she feels it with, when she wants to BECAUSE SHE wants to... what's to disrespect simply because she had sex on a first date?

The timing of sex itself does nothing to contribute to respect imo.



SimplyAmorous said:


> It makes me want to say "Hey -wait a minute when anyone attempts to connect derogatory labels to feeling as some of us do..


I don't really intend to demean. Okay... I might have wanted a couple jabs back at clouds  Nothing serious. Generally, if I use a label, its just to capture the traits of a group - to paint a picture without writing more paragraphs, because god knows I write too much as it is. :rofl:



SimplyAmorous said:


> I think this article gets to the heart of it for all of us, even in our differences of opinion. And I still feel those of us who are not jumping in bed in the 1st so many dates are capable of being FUN...damn it! .. ...


I'm sure you're fun, just not dating profile code "fun". And usually its not JUST the word fun that triggers recognition of the "code". Its everything that contributes to a message of "I don't have my head in the romantic clouds, I'm not that serious, and I'm not afraid of sex if I want it."


----------



## Created2Write

I don't think we can say that women who want a long courtship without sex are uncomfortable sexually. Many women have many reasons for waiting to engage sexually. For some it is a game of seeing how long they can tag a man along before he leaves. For some it's insecurity and a desire to avoid sex. For some they need really do hold sex as something sacred, something to be shared between two people who love each other, and love is not always built right away. I admire women like that, and intend on raising my children to admire that as well. 

I was that way, and I am, in no way shape or form, insecure sexually. I've even gotten to where I can readily admit my attraction to other women, older men...There's very little I won't try in bed, and there are only a couple of things I'm absolutely against. It took months before my husband and I were sexual in the dating relationship. He appreciates and loves that I've never been with anyone else sexually. And he certainly wouldn't call me sexually insecure. 

There's nothing wrong with wanting to wait, even though modern society doesn't accept that lifestyle choice. I do agree that that should be stated clearly up front, so that both people know what to expect.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Big post, got rambling, slow day, sorry!*

Oh Goodness 's advocate... LOVE your honesty.... as always.. but  did you ever slaughter..I mean freaking SLAUGHTER the *Romantic view* of sexuality...

If anything.... you have given me great insight to the possible mindset of those who praisefully embrace casual sex and how they REALLY feel about those who do NOT.... 

For us Romantics...we are basically >>

*1*. Insecure
*2*. We have abandonment issues
*3*. We are completely Untrusting, damaged and Jaded 
*4. *We also have baggage & fear...
*5*. We are repressed and fear is driving the need for emotional commitment ..
*6*. And this is a dreadful way to live... 

Your quotes here >> 


> *DvlsAdvc8 said:* the long sexless courtship... all stem from an underlying insecurity with sex and fear of abandonment and/or discarding. Insecure in oneself, completely untrusting, damaged or jaded... and probably some negative sexual baggage on the side: fear*.....*
> 
> Its the repression, insecurity and fear driving the need for the emotional commitment... commitment isn't running this show*.....*
> 
> I think the purpose that all these "commitment" walls some women have is ultimately to off load risk, vulnerability and responsibility by holding back. It seems like such a dreadful way to live... just as dreadful as the "bad" girl who just throws around sex to get attention and validate herself.


But then you say this >>



> *There's definitely a gap in my ability to understand this*. The way I see it, its like saying "I like chocolate, but I'm not going to have a very yummy hersey's kiss because I want a whole hersey bar." When in truth, they're not mutually exclusive. Going for the kiss doesn't mean you won't get the bar... and not getting the bar doesn't mean you were stupid for having the kiss. It was yummy. *Understand my confusion?*


 I will agree with you, as logically minded as you are, you are surely blinded or can not grasp this world view in any way shape or form, in fact everything it represents - repulses you. This is what I see...

Because I so LOVE the subject of sexuality & genuinely seek to understand where others are coming from...I purposely searched for a book to break these things down & get to the bare roots of where these views stem from ....The book "Bringing sex into focus"....the author has taught 20 yrs of sexual ethics/ a Professor of Philosophy... I did a thread explaining these 6 lenses 
>>> HERE ... 

Can I say...when I got to the "Romantic lens" chapter... every word, every thought, idea this woman spoke resonated with me... it's always been my primary view...even more so than "the waiting till marriage" view (Covenant view).... in our defense... I can not disagree with you more that those who feel strongly in this ..we are not all emotionally damaged -for heartfully feeling as strongly as we do. 



> *3. ** Romantic View *~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "save yourself for the one, your beloved"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> Sex should be reserved for those who are deeply in love with the strings of emotional attachment/commitment. Loveless sex is not appropriate, People should be sexually faithful as long as love lasts. Those who hold the romantic view often talk in terms of sex as sacred, as a Gift to be preserved & given to someone of profound significance.
> 
> Romantic view holds that sex should be connected with a thirst for deep psychological & bodily knowledge, Mutually reciprocated gift-giving & intimacy are it's purpose.
> 
> The feeling of being in love is a feeling that one’s beloved is an irreplaceable soul mate.
> 
> Complications arise, however, when romantic feelings do not last or when someone who has made a commitment to sexual exclusivity finds himself or herself in love with someone else.
> 
> The romantic view emphasizes interpersonal intimacy, but sees the duration of commitment as contingent. Commitment lasts for as long as romantic love lasts. But commitment is a must. A one-time encounter with a stranger may be consensual -but it would not be appropriate for those who hold the Romantic view.


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: A talent for being succint, I do not have. lol*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> [BThey don't want to be used, which is to say, I feel like they don't seem to own their behavior and allocate responsibility appropriately. If they end up feeling used, they describe it in terms of "I was so stupid!" That doesn't make sense to me at all. Even if someone did them wrong, they played no part in making them do that wrong. Thus, they seem more like scared prey than participants. ]If you had sex with someone and they leave or treat you poorly, forget them. Its all on them. That's life... you take chances and ride the rollercoaster imo. The notion that someone you choose to have sex with could "use" you makes little sense to me. This isn't an equal value comparison, but still the same principle: I'm not used by someone I took to dinner, because I wanted to take her to dinner. I believed in the possibility the date might go somewhere, but I don't feel used even in the slightest if I don't get a second date. I liked providing her meal. The idea of not taking her to dinner over concern that she might be using me for a free meal is just absurd. I don't even care when a girl giving me attention IS clearly a gold digger. I can't be used without being complicit, and if I'm complicit, then is it really being used?



lol Didn't think I would say this but on that point :iagree: 100% with you, I could never properly articulate why I dislike words like 'used' so much but that was spot on imo.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> As a general rule of online profiles, guys shouldn't even mention sex (unless they're hot... hot has no rules). A guy mentioning sex in an online profile is like woman repellant - that he's only interested in getting laid, which isn't necessarily true. Similarly, *a woman mentioning sex in her profile sends out a signal that she's easy and undiscerning*... her inbox is going to explode with crude messages - which most women don't want. She can't mention sex because the guys will think its okay to press for sex right away. So even though she wants a sexual encounter, she doesn't want someone pushy and in all probability, that's not ALL she wants. Most of such profiles aren't even real women, they're spammers getting easy email addresses from desperate guys.


 Ok, I am not single & chances are I will never have to do an online profile (I pray not)... though I have contemplated how FUN that might be.... one thing about me... I am a free spirit and I don't give a care what the RULES of etiquette are... nor am I politically correct... I love "straight shooters" and I can handle anything anyone throws at me...I would not be dismayed with the CRUDE being flung my way, I would just pick their brains till they were sick of me.. And realize I didn't represent anything or veil anything in my profile. 

I would most definitely MENTION  in my profile.. I would also mention being Older fashioned minded and ROMANTIC... .what they read would represent exactly who I am... I'm surely a little ODD so maybe I'd only get a few hits... so be it.. I'd do 20 dating profiles all over the place, as I don't feel it would be easy by any stretch to find what I am looking for....most of those men are married or so damn jaded by the way women are today, they wouldn't be looking. 

Nothing wrong with being an Original. I am not mentally ill and would make a wonderful giving fulfilling partner to the right man..rare as he may be. 



> You for example, should not say such in a profile... you'd be best served by having one of those profiles that say "I want something real, genuine, serious... someone patient" (patience! Code word for "we're not having sex for a very long while, so get that straight right now")


 How about this ...it's a bit strange but ...well it captures what I want ....

I'd say something crazy like this >> Looking for a Dry Humored clingy Romantic Homebody Nice guy who loves sex, the country, could care less about sports... has a love of family... is not a drinker, smoker, Partier ...is responsible in all he sets his hands too...Time & Touch near the top of his love languages........Beta is a plus for my tastes. Don't need an excitement junky....no Work-a-holics, and absolutely no "silent treatment" holders...



> Perhaps. In dating however, first impressions are a VERY large part of the game. I wouldn't use a coupon on a first date because "tight wad" isn't the signal I want to send. I want to show her I'm not cheap, long before I show her I'm frugal. I think there's kind of an order of operations to it... exactly because we ALL jump to these conclusions.


 See, this is where I am very different than many..I would NOT jump to any conclusions that early.. I believe in digging deep to get to know someone and until those things are revealed... it is folly for me to make any assumptions like that.. I see a coupon as an "conversation piece"... a deal breaker for me is being with anyone who can't live within their means... I wouldn't care if they were a Garbage man.. social status means very little to me or the type of vehicle being driven, it's all about the heart. 



> I don't think you caught whatever I was saying that this is in reply to. Can you point to the sentence that triggered this response? There's a misinterpretation or I was unclear somewhere. I don't know how to respond to this because its not inline with something I feel I'm trying to say. Perhaps I misstated something. I don't think waiting is a sign of low self-esteem... if I said that, I chose my words poorly.


The low self esteem was in line with your needy comments >> "Someone not being into someone who is clingy is not spitting on that person. I don't want needy. It indicates a lack of self imo... a weakness of personality that I find unattractive and will lead to my losing interest. I want an independent person with a strong sense of self who likes me for what I offer not just because they're a needy person".

You said "lack of self" In my opinion, what is lack of self - you meant self esteem, correct? 



> I'm a geek. Not in the derogatory sense, but definitely in "ridiculous intellectual interests" sense. If my geekdom were the entire definition of who I was, holy moly I'd be boring to the majority of the population. Wanna see me get really wonky?


 I prefer Geeks, but they have to be Romantics. Tonight we went to a Picnic - I sat there among 4 teen boys...me & the one (Top Brain in 11th grade) was doing some debating, alot of laughs too....he was even opening up to me about some of his vulnerabilities being shy... he is an introvert...(husband right there beside me)... it was cool at the end, this kid tells me what a pleasure it was talking to me ... I just laughed.. he is GEEK.. I like GEEKS ! It was an enjoyable conversation to me. And No, I was not hitting on this young man in any way. 



> First, let me say that I don't link being a pornstar and having a weird kinky sex life to being sexually liberal. They might correlate, but that's not really the concept I'm going after. Its more of an overall comfort with their sexual self and an ownership of sexual pleasure. ie - getting a massage because it feels good, not because your back is all jacked up.


When I originally wrote that, I didn't want to use the term PORN STAR as I too didn't feel it captured what I really was trying to say -but figured it still represented enough to get the point across.. I just meant a woman who LOVES sex, feels empowered by it, is up for anything to please her man, enthusiastic, willing to try anything...Porn starts are FAKE..it's a masquerade... so they are not a good example really. My bad. 



> the long sexless courtship...


 for us , we still had our FUN... mutual masterbation... I am not for being horny as hell and leaving each other for cold showers.... my line in the sand was intercourse....

I know how stupid and mindless you feel this is.. Another example.... there was a poster here ....*Dean*... where his GF would give him all the sex he wanted... but she had a different line in the sand... She REFUSED to spend the night with him.. she felt only a committed relationship (putting a ring on it) deserved this special pleasure..... this bugged him... he got tired of waking up alone, wanted to feel her beside him... hold her in his arms....he was falling in love... and wanted MORE...so he decided to marry her...(never regretted it -it gave him INCENTIVE).... Now in MY view..she was a very smart woman... you would likely say she had hang ups... dump her..... so I suppose you feel women *who want to marry*/ walk down the aisle - should just move in with their BF's too? 

I see nothing wrong with some personal boundaries...waiting on something that represents Forever to us. 



> Everyone is probably going to jump all over my saying that, but that's the impression I've gotten from all of these types I've known - my ex wife included. Its the repression, insecurity and fear driving the need for the emotional commitment... commitment isn't running this show... purely in my analysis/opinion based on my own experiences and impressions. In the dating game, charming/confident/c*cky isn't my strongest suit. *Cutting through insecurity, building connection, trust and chemistry is my strong suit - depth of conversation and a comforting but teasing humor.*


 you know what is really funny about this.. I would say the same thing about myself - as how you described yourself... but we are worlds apart at what we are after. 



> So I regularly see the types who say they'd never do this or that outside of a long committed relationship, and lo and behold... here they are with me *without the commitment they claimed to want.* So that makes me think its a shield. I think most women have them... emotional attachment, commitment, delay... all shields.


 I would judge a man on how many women he casually slept with and know he was not the committed type ... so I would never fall for this.. unless he was a blatant liar and in that case...since I wouldn't know him from Adam... I would be making him wait to learn of his character.. meet his friends, the whole nine yards.. so yeah.. I would not be one of these women.. 



> These women still physically want the guy they're attracted to I think - just as much as the "bad" girl, but there is a mental block in place as a result of fear, repression, insecurity... vulnerability/rejection... whatever. They don't want to be used, which is to say, I feel like they don't seem to own their behavior and allocate responsibility appropriately.


 Just cause she physically wants him does not make it best for her own interests ...if she would regret it, I too agree she was not responsible for her own behavior... my Mother never blamed the men who used her, she new she had choices.. it is one thing I respected about her... I would be kicking my own a$$ if I fell into sleeping with someone who threw me away, I would not blame the man at all.. I would not see myself as a victim, but I would see it as a mistake...a regret. 



> *The notion that someone you choose to have sex with could "use" you makes little sense to me.*


 If the girl even uses the term *USED*..(which you see all the time)...then she holds some of the romantic view in her psyche... that is your answer to this dilemma.... so in this, women are clearly speaking out of 2 sides of their mouths...... as they claim casual sex is all well & good, then they play the "He used me" card... 

Just another example of how people jump into sex too soon and have regrets....this also builds *baggage* ...We are emotional creatures ...what is it that makes them feel this way ? (I know your answer is religious conditioning, I feel it is something deeper). Should we cut this out of ourselves - or does this serve a purpose so we learn from our mistakes ?? I will say...these women DO NOT KNOW THEMSELVES.... cause you are right, a true casual sex believer holds ZERO expectations... would you agree with these ... 



> The 10 Commandments of Casual Sex
> 
> Is casual sex possible for women? Absolutely…But if we want to enter the same playing field, we have to play by the same rules.
> 
> 1. Booty not Brains
> Do not choose a casual sex partner on anything other than physical attraction and sexual chemistry. If the sex is great and they’re smart, funny and sweet, the ‘casual’ will be difficult to maintain. You must be completely disposable to each other.
> 
> 2. Best friend? Don’t even think about it!
> If you’re sleeping together and you’re best friends, you’re in a relationship. It is impossible not to mix the emotional, mental and physical in this situation. The friendship will never be the same again. It will either evolve into dating or be plagued with a tension that takes a long time to shake.
> 
> 3. Know your motives
> Casual sex because you enjoy sex and want to get laid is awesome. However, indulging in some casual sex because you have something to prove is simply skanky. Unless you are having casual sex for the sake of sex, then you are going to feel bad about it and even more insecure. If you start sleeping with a guy under ‘casual’ circumstances but secretly want to date him, then while things are casual to him, they will be serious and personal to you.
> 
> 4. Orgasms only
> Should you be an ice beech and show him the door as soon as you’ve finished? No. But be careful with cuddling. There’s nothing nicer than being wrapped up in affection, but that’s the attention you get from a boyfriend. Orgasms should be the only thing you want from your casual man.
> 
> 5. Don’t introduce him to friends
> Unless he is coming to meet you at 3 am and your friends are still around, he doesn’t need to meet them or be integrated into your life in any way. You do not want your friends to like him or vice versa. It will spark those “what if” thoughts.
> 
> 6. Be naked 97 percent of the time
> This is about sex! No need to plan an outfit unless you’re getting theatrical (see commandment 8), because it should be almost immediately stripped from you. If you’re doing too many activities that require clothing, you’re entering relationship territory.
> 
> 7. Don’t be selfish
> Casual sex can only exist if both parties want the same thing. Using someone for sex who has real feelings for you makes you an *******, period. It also means that you’re probably insecure and unaware of your motives. See commandment 3.
> 
> 8. Thou shalt get freaky
> Why the hell not? You literally have nothing to lose. Send inhibitions to the wind and try out new moves and play out your naughty fantasies. Nine times out of 10, he will love it; and if he doesn’t, the he is not serving his sexual purpose. So replace him.
> 
> 9. Wrap it up
> By definition this relationship is not exclusive. He is more than likely sleeping with other people, even if he is polite enough to lie about it. Better safe than sorry.
> 
> 10. Straightforward, direct communication
> Casual relationships are designed to be temporary, so there’s really no harm in full disclosure if or when one of you meets someone else. If you follow these 10 commandments, then no one’s feelings should get hurt.





> This isn't an equal value comparison, but still the same principle: I'm not used by someone I took to dinner, because I wanted to take her to dinner. I believed in the possibility the date might go somewhere, *but I don't feel used even in the slightest if I don't get a second date*. I liked providing her meal. The idea of not taking her to dinner over concern that she might be using me for a free meal is just absurd. I don't even care when a girl giving me attention IS clearly a gold digger. I can't be used without being complicit, and if I'm complicit, then is it really being used? ....
> 
> I think the purpose that all these "commitment" walls some women have is ultimately to off load risk, vulnerability and responsibility by holding back. It seems like such a dreadful way to live...


 You know you struggle with *receiving gifts* of any kind .... without feeling tremendous obligation which you want nothing to do with, will run even leave town to avoid...you realize this is extreme.....there is some connection here...*in receiving LOVE*.......I can't articulate this right now...but you too have "walls" erected. Surely you can admit this...There is a freedom .. or a balance you seek to find as well. 



> Sex without emotional attachment? There is concern/care for the other human being, but not some great depth of love. It is enjoying the moment. These girls say "God he was hot, and great in bed, but nah... I don't think I want to date him; he's really immature. I sure wouldn't mind another night though!!" or "I really like him, we connect, have all this chemistry and we've hooked up... but I think I want someone with more ambition." They're not prey. They're not so vulnerable and fearful, and they seem to own their sexuality... and lo and behold, they find romantic love too... without the self-penance of "holding out for the one" or worry about being used. They enjoy sex for physical pleasure, even if sex is better with emotional depth.


 You have described the "*PLain Sex*" view...that's fine... just make sure your target has no romanticism in her pee brain before you crack her open and pound her... and you all will be good & kosher.. 



> This kinda makes me wonder if sex alone simply isn't physically pleasurable to the withholding crowd - which I doubt. Does love flip a switch from "this isn't even worth doing" to "this is the best thing EVER"?? I kinda doubt that too.


 I am addicted to orgasms... so Yes, no pleasure on this earth can TOP the euphoria of "making love" to me... If a girl is high drive, this is much harder for her to hold out... but if she is very stubborn & non compromising in what she wants expects out of life & love, her vision can carry her...at least so far in her walk..... I was 15 when I met HIM... I had TIME on my side in my youth...I wanted the damn fairy tale.. ..can't a young girl dream. 

Now I am very logical person (which likely saves me from being bat crazy- because I am high in the feeling as well)... if Mr Prince Charming was elusive to me...maybe by age 22...there I am still holding out for my White Knight..getting it on with my magic wand (never tried that)...still an unpenetrated virgin .... I'd have to adjust my vision, now wouldn't I...get the hell over myself -realizing that sort of Love does not exist... I am no one special, so just go out & FVck like every one else .... Yeah, I'd be dreadfully disappointed in the male population.... 

Instead, I think very highly of men (don't you think that is a little needed on this forum at times)...I am sure my perception is even skewed --due to what I have always known...not all men are dogs. 



> Ironically, I won't pamper someone emotionally. She'll never doubt my interest or confuse my level of investment, but I know my value and won't worship someone. She's my equal, not to be worshipped. She's my queen and I'm her king, she is not my goddess and I her worshipper. Most of my problems with women once upon a time stemmed from this false notion that I should treat them like goddesses and always be the gentleman - the nice guy always at your beck and call ready to do whatever you want. Turns out, its really unattractive, no matter who is doing the worshipping... and it is conducive to very poor behavior on the part of whomever has the deity role.


 I am not really sure what to say about this -other than when you love so deeply, you DO raise your spouse up to heights that you can not even put into words, *their worth to you is priceless*...you would climb any mountain to be with that special person and if they were removed from your life.. you would never be the same somehow. I have always been treated as I am the most precious gift he's ever known... makes me tear up to write about it .... and dare I say there is nothing more beautiful in this world...(well except passionate love making ) -but this is the afterglow - that carries you all day long, every day..... 

If I lacked *gratitude* for what has been given to me, how he loves.... then yes, my White Knight would be reduced to a FOOL.. but I don't --he is on a pedestal in my heart as well...and it's my joy to give..no compulsion at all. This fulfills something in me. 



> You already know that I think the nature of your relationship is a rare exception. You're clearly a loving deity to your husbands worship. That usually comes with a cost in physical attraction as far as I'm aware, and most of us lose appreciation for that which comes too freely or cheaply.


 I find it a shame if we are a rare exception. 



> I withdraw from women who prove to be excessively needy as I find it unattractive. Either in expecting so much pampering or otherwise expecting I prove how into them I am all the time - or even holding me up too high. *That's a huge insecurity alert.* I want an equal, secure in herself, not in need of constant validation and not willing to put up with me if I give no validation whatsoever. With the "worshipper", the fact that I don't have to do anything at all is the element that totally destroys my attraction to her. I think these are usually bad extremes along a scale. I don't even want mutual "worship"... I'm most attracted to someone with a significant sense of independent self remaining, and all to often the "worshippers" lack it in my experience.


 This is a nice definition of *INSECURITY* >>>


> A very flawed character trait that results from low confidence and low self-esteem, often due to rejection or a humiliating experience as a child. They feel socially inadequate, causing them to worry about what people think about them.
> 
> They want to be liked by people and will go out of their way to please others, because they don’t want people mad at them. Insecure people often compare themselves to others to see how they “stack up” against the perceived “competition.” An insecure male will often be controlling in his relationship, because he feels he is not worthy of having his woman and, therefore, fears his girlfriend will find a better man.
> 
> He gets angry and jealous if another man only looks at his woman in admiration. He will listen in on other people’s conversations to hear if people are talking bad about him, or will read his woman’s diary to see if she is betraying him. Insecure people will often insult or bully others to feel better about themselves. They will also lie about their alleged “success” to impress people. Basically, insecure people hide their real self to avoid being rejected or despised, when most of their perceptions are false.


Can I say.....me & mine, pathetic as you may view our brand of loving & expressing...we fit none of this.... We are vulnerably open..hell even to others! Your definition of insecurity appears to be some ugly disdain for the near thought of a woman saying this to you >> 

You want her sexual Passion... but you reject her emotions ...this is your wall. 

You crack me up... one thing is for sure... on that bar in the Logical & Feeling (on temperament tests...you are on the richter scale on the LOGICAL side....emotional vulnerability of any kind is pure weakness .... and a man is not allowed to show weakness or he is reduced to a mouse......this is what is Unattractive .. I've given you this link before...if you haven't taken the time...amuse yourself with the woman who has studied these things (the "Shame" researcher herself) - as ironically she FELT the same as you ..pure weakness, she wanted to destroy it ....but came out on the other side...and found the secret to Happiness..

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...r-its-pain-its-beauty-how-vulnerable-you.html
.


> Again, I'm not sure your husband is like most men. :smthumbup:


 His temperament type is less than 8% of the male population , the ISFJ .... I feel he is the best he can be for WHO He was born to be....isn't that all we can strive for. A few posters on this forum give me hope such men are alive and well in our world... *Stonewall*, *Romantic Guy*, *Arbitraitor* and *Samyeagar*....I say their wives / gf's are blessed and I hope they realize what they have and never take it for granted. 



> It works in your relationship, which I think is an interesting if atypical relationship... so please don't think I'm insulting you. You found the guy to suit your need and he found the woman to suit his. *Unfortunately, I think most people like this jumble things up because their need doesn't fit what they're actually attracted to. Thus they end up with people who never meet their needs, or unattracted to those who do.*


 This is a huge problem.. I don't feel it is being helped by sleeping with all the hot studs causally though ....before these women decide they want to settle down.... 



> Why? What is more respectable about holding out? To me, this is old fashioned thinking driven by a legacy false moral determination that having sex for its own sake is somehow wrong, bad or dirty. A hangup... an indoctrinated sexual shame. Why is it more respectable to be less trusting, or even self denying? This is culture. This is just what you've been brought up to believe. ie Sex is bad or sex is sacred. There is a moral imperative to have sex only with the love of your life.


 How can I explain to you , that for ME, it is something deeper than your arguments here...it is something ingrained in my being.. I am a sensitive woman.. OK.. I lost my religion, I didn't loose my sensitivity... Now there are PLENTY of women on this forum who was religiously indoctrinated, who may have tried to live within those constraints but something in them despised it, seen no value at all...so they embraced your way of thinking and have NO regrets .... they enjoy their lifestyle..or say they do... these women are of a different cloth than I.... that is all I can offer you. 



> There's nothing inherently respectable about having, or not having sex imo. *Motives behind why a person does something deserve respect or not*. You don't enjoy sex without love? Ever had it? If so, and subsequently deciding you don't enjoy it such that you don't have it until you're in love... that's respectable.


 I agree with you, motives ARE everything..what are your motives in dating .... Pleasure - living in the moment ? 

What are mine.. I wanted to LOVE someone, I didn't expect him to give me more than I gave him... that would be so WRONG, selfish, UGLY, entitled Princess complex written all over that ....My motives was good old fashioned LOVE and benefiting another's life, enriching it...bringing children into the world and giving them a life of happiness.. and in doing so, he would enrich MINE. Is this ugly to you?? Seriously.. 

No worries, I don't feel demeaned in any way.. It's been very interesting ... 

Southbound... ha ha ...see what you started here!


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am not really sure what to say about this -other than when you love so deeply, you DO raise your spouse up to heights that you can not even put into words, *their worth to you is priceless*...you would climb any mountain to be with that special person and if they were removed from your life.. you would never be the same somehow. I have always been treated as I am the most precious gift he's ever known... makes me tear up to write about it .... and dare I say there is nothing more beautiful in this world...(well except passionate love making ) -but this is the afterglow - that carries you all day long, every day.....
> 
> If I lacked *gratitude* for what has been given to me, how he loves.... then yes, my White Knight would be reduced to a FOOL.. but I don't --he is on a pedestal in my heart as well...and it's my joy to give..no compulsion at all. This fulfills something in me.
> 
> *I find it a shame if we are a rare exception.*
> 
> This is a nice definition of *INSECURITY* >>>
> 
> Can I say.....me & mine, pathetic as you may view our brand of loving & expressing...we fit none of this.... We are vulnerably open..hell even to others! Your definition of insecurity appears to be some ugly disdain for the near thought of a woman saying this to you >>
> 
> You want her sexual Passion... but you reject her emotions ...this is your wall.
> 
> You crack me up... one thing is for sure... on that bar in the Logical & Feeling (on temperament tests...you are on the richter scale on the LOGICAL side....emotional vulnerability of any kind is pure weakness .... and a man is not allowed to show weakness or he is reduced to a mouse......this is what is Unattractive .. I've given you this link before...if you haven't taken the time...amuse yourself with the woman who has studied these things (the "Shame" researcher herself) - as ironically she FELT the same as you ..pure weakness, she wanted to destroy it ....but came out on the other side...and found the secret to Happiness..
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...r-its-pain-its-beauty-how-vulnerable-you.html
> .
> His temperament type is less than 8% of the male population , the ISFJ .... I feel he is the best he can be for WHO He was born to be....isn't that all we can strive for. A few posters on this forum give me hope such men are alive and well in our world... *Stonewall*, *Romantic Guy*, *Arbitraitor* and *Samyeagar*....I say their wives / gf's are blessed and I hope they realize what they have and never take it for granted.


Rare yes, but EXCEPTIONAL rather than an exception


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Well, I did post a disclaimer/warning!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> For some they need really do hold sex as something sacred, something to be shared between two people who love each other, and love is not always built right away. I admire women like that, and intend on raising my children to admire that as well.


I think you'll start seeing where I'm coming from once you start examining, really closely and without bias just to prove me wrong, WHY exactly you hold sex so sacred and what it serves to do so. 

Just a little more eroding of that legacy of sexual indoctrination before you too would view sex as a totally comfortable enjoyable act we all engage in rather than a sacred pact.

I doubt many will agree with me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Re: Big post, got rambling, slow day, sorry!*



SimplyAmorous said:


> For us *Romantics*...


I don't like this choice of words to describe this group. It implies that those who aren't waiting aren't romantic, which couldn't be any further from the truth.

A new word is certainly in order.

Also, to pick a nit similar to what you have, I don't like how those who don't see the need to wait, are described as casual. This implies there's never any feeling behind sex... that its an entirely empty act, which isn't the case. It can be... although it rarely is. More often its full of emotions one would associate with infatuation - and this can be downright emotionally intense. Most often, its neither empty nor infatuated. Its simply a linear progression of interest in someone you've been dating but aren't yet in love with. There is interest, care and concern, but not quite outright love. To my thinking, sex actually promotes greater feelings of love with someone you already feel something for but wouldn't quite lay out the "love" word yet.

For people in my group, sex is a part of the process, not a carrot at the end AFTER falling in love... as if love was required for sex. Rather, I prefer the pinnacle to be falling in love itself. Sex is sex. Most of these people are just as careful with their hearts as the people who wait, in the meantime, they enjoy their bodies.


----------



## TiggyBlue

What's sacred to one person may not be sacred to the next (and vice versa), there are many things to hold sacred.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> I'd say something crazy like this >> Looking for a Dry Humored clingy Romantic Homebody Nice guy who loves sex, the country, could care less about sports... has a love of family... is not a drinker, smoker, Partier ...is responsible in all he sets his hands too...Time & Touch near the top of his love languages........Beta is a plus for my tastes. Don't need an excitement junky....no Work-a-holics, and absolutely no "silent treatment" holders...


Nowhere in that does it indicate they you're not up for sex pretty early on. Your mentioning of sex is going to get you a bunch of lazy emasculated homebodies - and I think you'll be disappointed with the sexual forwardness of the men who contact you as a result. When I read that, I read that you want a woman with a penis. Its kinda bizzare... I read it like you're a sensitive dominatrix. haha The types like that I've met are mousey in public and control freaks at home and in the sheets. The sort where nobody would ever have guessed it, but she "wears the pants" at home. She initiates sex. She likely makes most of the decisions, but considers it a partnership because she gets his input - even though she chose someone who would rarely if ever assert his own way over hers. With them, I always got the impression that this dominance of the man at home is some kind of rebound effect from feeling small outside the home. Its like having two different people. A submissive one in public and a dominant one at home (where they feel more comfortable).




SimplyAmorous said:


> The low self esteem was in line with your needy comments >> "Someone not being into someone who is clingy is not spitting on that person. I don't want needy. It indicates a lack of self imo... a weakness of personality that I find unattractive and will lead to my losing interest. I want an independent person with a strong sense of self who likes me for what I offer not just because they're a needy person".
> 
> You said "lack of self" In my opinion, what is lack of self - you meant self esteem, correct?


Not exactly. Lack of self is more like lack of independence. Needy girls always have to be with me, they hop on each and every one of my interests like it was something they've always loved, and they tend to view my doing something on my own as a rejection of them, that I need to get away from them. Truth is, I do need to get away from them. I need to retain my sense of self and independent identity. In most relationships, lose that independent identity, and I think you'll find both parties begin to lose interest in one another.

I want someone who will always be her own person - someone who will always hold my interest as a result. A lap dog might be comfortable, but she isn't very engaging.



SimplyAmorous said:


> for us , we still had our FUN... mutual masterbation... I am not for being horny as hell and leaving each other for cold showers.... my line in the sand was intercourse....


I don't think I've ever understood this. The big thing among the young holy rollers (just colorful language! Chill , but you know exactly who I'm talking about don't you? ) is abstinence, but they've had enough D's in their mouth to make a porn star blush. As far as I'm concerned, she's the same as the girl throwing her body around for attention.

A sexual act is a sexual act. If you go, you've gone... whether its a hand, a mouth, or PIV. Its not "sex category 1, 2 and 3". But that's just me... I know plenty of women who have this take... and like I said, I don't get it. "hey, I've touched yours with my hand, and you've touched mine with yours... but *gasp* whatever we do, lets not remove the middle man/hand."  I don't mean to sound dismissive, but at the same time I have to express how silly I find that notion. I'm very glad you don't take offense so easily. We're coming from such dramatically different places, I almost find this take of yours to border on the hypocritical. Its right there on the line! And holy moly I don't know how you two managed that play without completing the act. There's only so much teasing I can take.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I know how stupid and mindless you feel this is.. Another example.... there was a poster here ....*Dean*... where his GF would give him all the sex he wanted... but she had a different line in the sand... She REFUSED to spend the night with him.. she felt only a committed relationship (putting a ring on it) deserved this special pleasure..... this bugged him... he got tired of waking up alone, wanted to feel her beside him... hold her in his arms....he was falling in love... and wanted MORE...so he decided to marry her...(never regretted it -it gave him INCENTIVE).... Now in MY view..she was a very smart woman... you would likely say she had hang ups... dump her..... so I suppose you feel women *who want to marry*/ walk down the aisle - should just move in with their BF's too?


I'm saying there is no connection whatsoever. I agree with him. Her leaving every night certainly isn't going to encourage most men to put a ring on it.

This is something I think is entirely misunderstood about these sort of withholdings. Its effectively saying "you don't get x, until you give me y". In effect, its a reward, or even coercion to get the man to do Y. That's entirely wrong headed imo. You shouldn't want the man who needs reward or coercion. You want the man who wants to get married, because he wants to get married. There's nothing else in it for him other than his desire to show everyone his commitment, because he's proud of it and wants to declare it; when you boil it all down, that's all marriage is. Its not love or romance - these things can exist outside of marriage. Its a public declaration of commitment and that's it. You're not any different the day after you marry than you were the day before.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I would judge a man on how many women he casually slept with and know he was not the committed type


So the requirement for being committed, is not having sex? This logic is extremely off base to my thinking. So a guy dates and breaks up with 10 women and doesn't have sex with any of them, is somehow better than a guy who dates and breaks up with 10 women, but had sex with them? How does that make any sense at all? These are equal levels of commitment. They're only different in the sense that one put sex on a pedestal, and the other did not.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Just cause she physically wants him does not make it best for her own interests ...if she would regret it, I too agree she was not responsible for her own behavior... my Mother never blamed the men who used her, she new she had choices.. it is one thing I respected about her... I would be kicking my own a$$ if I fell into sleeping with someone who threw me away, I would not blame the man at all.. I would not see myself as a victim, but I would see it as a mistake...a regret.


What's the difference between being "thrown away", and the guy simply realizing that various characteristics of yours aren't what he wants in a wife? He's "throwing you away" by moving on that point? So unless you marry the guy, you've made a mistake? Did you date anyone other than your husband? Were they mistakes?



SimplyAmorous said:


> so in this, women are clearly speaking out of 2 sides of their mouths...... as they claim casual sex is all well & good, then they play the "He used me" card...


I'm getting used to translating woman code. The women I date would never use the term "he used me". The women I date generally did the breaking up in their previous relationships, not vice versa.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Just another example of how people jump into sex too soon and have regrets....this also builds *baggage* ...We are emotional creatures ...what is it that makes them feel this way ? (I know your answer is religious conditioning, I feel it is something deeper). Should we cut this out of ourselves - or does this serve a purpose so we learn from our mistakes ?? I will say...these women DO NOT KNOW THEMSELVES.... cause you are right, a true casual sex believer holds ZERO expectations... would you agree with these ...


You can have the exact same baggage for the person you loved, but never slept with, that didn't love you back. Sex isn't specific to this dilemma.



SimplyAmorous said:


> You know you struggle with *receiving gifts* of any kind .... without feeling tremendous obligation which you want nothing to do with, will run even leave town to avoid...you realize this is extreme.....there is some connection here...*in receiving LOVE*.......I can't articulate this right now...but you too have "walls" erected. Surely you can admit this...There is a freedom .. or a balance you seek to find as well.


Eh... I'm trying to build the association you're making but its not quite fitting right. My gift issue is more about control and dependence... maybe even some selfishness. Its not a wall in the same sense. Its ultimately about not owing anyone anything and not being a burden on anyone - not being vulnerable to any form coercion or guilt. "Oh, but I did all this for you..." I realize its entirely bizzare and crazy... it might even be a type of wall, but certainly an entirely different category of wall... and one that I desire to remove but haven't quite figured out yet.



SimplyAmorous said:


> You have described the "*PLain Sex*" view...that's fine... just make sure your target has no romanticism in her pee brain before you crack her open and pound her... and you all will be good & kosher..


They have plenty of romanticism. I have plenty of romanticism. I just don't tightly couple sex and romanticism. You can be romantic without sex, and you can have sex without being romantic. You can have both without commitment. The array of ingredients initially is astounding, and as time goes by, more things get added and eventually you decide whether you really like this recipe or not. I don't believe there is one magic sequence.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Instead, I think very highly of men (don't you think that is a little needed on this forum at times)...I am sure my perception is even skewed --due to what I have always known...not all men are dogs.


Ha... see, even I may say that all men are dogs, but you have to realize that I don't see being what you are as a bad thing. We to build intimate connections and sort out who we want to keep too. There are some who just want to play around (of both genders)... and I don't see anything wrong with that either honestly. You only get one life. For me, I regret the things I didn't do much more than the things I did. I regret cheating on my ex-wife. I regret not divorcing her many years ago a whole lot more.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Your definition of insecurity appears to be some ugly disdain for the near thought of a woman saying this to you >>
> 
> You want her sexual Passion... but you reject her emotions ...this is your wall.


Not really. I want her to love me. And maybe this is a logical nit pick and I'm just too hyper-rational, but I don't want her to need me... because in truth, she doesn't. Its just a stretch of the word into romantic nonsense. No matter how much you love someone, you don't NEED them. And there is a difference between a healthy love for someone and throwing away one's own identity for that person - and its THESE types of women I most closely associate with using the word "need". Hence, I call them "needy" or "clingy". Deep down many of these women are so insecure that they need constant affirmation of their worth... they are leaky cups always demanding proof and complaining. Ironically, they have little to know faith in the love they've felt and always think their partner is "one foot out the door emotionally". So much so that, without knowing it, they're actually pushing him out of that the door.



SimplyAmorous said:


> How can I explain to you , that for ME, it is something deeper than your arguments here


I get that a lot. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I agree with you, motives ARE everything..what are your motives in dating .... Pleasure - living in the moment ?


Just living life. I go with the flow. For me, this works best, so I'm not overanalyzing someone or trying to fit someone into some predetermined mold that I currently think I want (in case you can't tell, I'm just a little bit analytical lol - its almost obsessive). I know what I want, but I'm entirely open to the idea that there exists someone out there that can entirely change my mind.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Is this ugly to you?? Seriously..


Not at all. I can only say that I don't date with love in mind really. I feel that's unfair of me. Love comes or it doesn't, and just because I don't fall in love with someone doesn't mean dating them was a waste of my time or a mistake.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I'm an INTP.

I find the ISFJ to be flakey/soft, and they find me to be robotic/hard.


----------



## cloudwithleggs

*Re: A talent for being succint, I do not have. lol*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I do. I will revise how I present this opinion. I default to the example that's easily recognizable. I think most women try to avoid jumping into sexual encounters too quickly... but as I said, the length of time is really all about a persons *comfort level with sex. Bad experiences, repressive upbringing, these usually cause hangups - declaring an arbitrary waiting period for sex long after you've already "felt it", or even having a negative view of sexual acts as being bad or dirty.*



hahahahahahaha :lol: i can't read any more after reading that.


I'm an INFP something you would never understand.

INFP Relationships


----------



## Holland

*Re: Big post, got rambling, slow day, sorry!*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't like this choice of words to describe this group. It implies that those who aren't waiting aren't romantic, which couldn't be any further from the truth.
> 
> A new word is certainly in order.
> 
> Also, to pick a nit similar to what you have, I don't like how those who don't see the need to wait, are described as casual. This implies there's never any feeling behind sex... that its an entirely empty act, which isn't the case. It can be... although it rarely is. More often its full of emotions one would associate with infatuation - and this can be downright emotionally intense. Most often, its neither empty nor infatuated. Its simply a linear progression of interest in someone you've been dating but aren't yet in love with. There is interest, care and concern, but not quite outright love. To my thinking, sex actually promotes greater feelings of love with someone you already feel something for but wouldn't quite lay out the "love" word yet.
> 
> For people in my group, sex is a part of the process, not a carrot at the end AFTER falling in love... as if love was required for sex. Rather, I prefer the pinnacle to be falling in love itself. Sex is sex. Most of these people are just as careful with their hearts as the people who wait, in the meantime, they enjoy their bodies.


Totally agree.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nowhere in that does it indicate they you're not up for sex pretty early on. Your mentioning of sex is going to get you a bunch of lazy emasculated homebodies - and I think you'll be disappointed with the sexual forwardness of the men who contact you as a result. When I read that, I read that you want a woman with a penis. Its kinda bizzare... I read it like you're a sensitive dominatrix. haha


 You are correct, I could easily be described as a sensitive Dominatrix... He calls me his "Roller Derby woman " with a ... .. I must say it bothers me when others put down the softer men in our society like you just did here though....The ISFJ is one of the softest temperaments. Nothing wrong with it. So long as he is careful to marry a woman who wouldn't abuse it.. I'm gonna say my husband did well -with me. I've had my moments in the past, but it is against my nature to HURT someone good to me. 



> The types like that I've met are mousey in public and control freaks at home and in the sheets. The sort where nobody would ever have guessed it, but she "wears the pants" at home. She initiates sex. She likely makes most of the decisions, but considers it a partnership because she gets his input - even though she chose someone who would rarely if ever assert his own way over hers.
> 
> With them, I always got the impression that this dominance of the man at home is some kind of rebound effect from feeling small outside the home. Its like having two different people. A submissive one in public and a dominant one at home (where they feel more comfortable).


 You paint a very ugly picture here that assumes someone like myself is Mowing over my husband, like I have him leashed & he is towering in some corner taking orders off of me...and we fake it in public .... No... This is not our marriage 's advocate...Oh my goodness NO... *I respect him tremendously.*. But I will give you this.....any woman with my temperament matched with HIS could go in a bad way...without Respect...it's not our family dynamics at all....He is a GOOD MAN, he supports our large family, I could boast so many things here but will shut up. 

As far as decisions...He genuinely WANTS my input (this is just the way he IS...and I DO love that - sometimes I'll just say "Honey, this is your thing, you decide!").....I never go ahead of him .. we brain storm together... we sit down, weigh the pros & cons...I am generally the researcher ... I plan every vacation , I handle every bill.. I do my part to make his life as easy as possible... as I believe a wife should.... so when he gets home from work, his time is free ....I've helped him Build a Truck, change Transmissions, body work/ paint cars / build Playsets, dig ditches, tare off roofs, lay cement....I didn't marry no woman..... and he didn't marry no slacker either. 



> Not exactly. Lack of self is more like lack of independence. Needy girls always have to be with me, they hop on each and every one of my interests like it was something they've always loved, and they tend to view my doing something on my own as a rejection of them, that I need to get away from them. Truth is, I do need to get away from them. I need to retain my sense of self and independent identity.* In most relationships, lose that independent identity, and I think you'll find both parties begin to lose interest in one another.*


 We've never lost interest in each other being the way we are, if anything, it has grown stronger over the years, next month will be 24 yrs married/ 32 together.. I think that counts for something... and basically we are the epitome of what you believe doesn't work. So it's never a 100%..but you already know this. With 6 kids, it's not like it's all US...US...US...they keep us hopping! 



> I want someone who will always be her own person - someone who will always hold my interest as a result. A lap dog might be comfortable, but she isn't very engaging.


 I've always been my own person - very independent minded .. even if I don't have a career, even if I am more of a Romantic, even if I am just a Mom, I have a few hobbies... He's never gotten bored with me...I may not care for much external excitement -cause we create our [email protected]#.. He needs someone like me, full of pi** & vinegar and he is what I need ...(oh but I shouldn't have used the word "*NEED"* - this demeans us). 



> I don't think I've ever understood this. The big thing among the young holy rollers (just colorful language! Chill , but you know exactly who I'm talking about don't you? ) is abstinence, but they've had enough D's in their mouth to make a porn star blush. As far as I'm concerned, she's the same as the girl throwing her body around for attention.


 We didn't do oral sex before we married.. though if I could go back in time, I probably would. When others want to trample on something we felt good about...what is there to say... My way of viewing these things....back then... the FUSION makes you "*one*"... it has the awesome power to create new Life..... meeting at age 15, I was not going to have sex...I never needed birth control and we had something new, awesome & exciting to bring to our Wedding night.. 



> A sexual act is a sexual act. If you go, you've gone... whether its a hand, a mouth, or PIV. Its not "sex category 1, 2 and 3". But that's just me... I know plenty of women who have this take... and like I said, I don't get it. "hey, I've touched yours with my hand, and you've touched mine with yours... but *gasp* whatever we do, lets not remove the middle man/hand."  I don't mean to sound dismissive, but at the same time I have to express how silly I find that notion. I'm very glad you don't take offense so easily. We're coming from such dramatically different places, I almost find this take of yours to border on the hypocritical. Its right there on the line! And holy moly I don't know how you two managed that play without completing the act. There's only so much teasing I can take.


 I know how damn silly everyone thinks this is.... and take heat for it here, I took heat for it on a christian forum -they told me I needed to repent...See I open myself to attack, I've been called a hypocrite.....it's fine. 

Was I horny.... Hell yeah... when we 1st started touching... I remember thinking "OMG how in the hell are we NOT going to go t[email protected]#$%"... but we pushed through and yep...road that fence.. it kept us from going stark raving mad and our emotional connection grew .. we agreed together...it wasn't like I demanded and he was suffering.. not at all. 

I asked him not long ago, if we could go back in time and change this, had intercourse before we married, he said he'd do it all over the same. I realize you can't grasp this, he has to be a fool. We love our story. 



> This is something I think is entirely misunderstood about these sort of withholdings. Its effectively saying "you don't get x, until you give me y". In effect, its a reward, or even coercion to get the man to do Y. That's entirely wrong headed imo. *You shouldn't want the man who needs reward or coercion. You want the man who wants to get married, because he wants to get married. *


:iagree: with you....he would have married me at 18... I wasn't ready.. 



> There's nothing else in it for him other than his desire to show everyone his commitment, because he's proud of it and wants to declare it; when you boil it all down, that's all marriage is. Its not love or romance - these things can exist outside of marriage. Its a public declaration of commitment and that's it. You're not any different the day after you marry than you were the day before.


 But it was different for us.. he finally got to put it in!! 



> So the requirement for being committed, is not having sex? This logic is extremely off base to my thinking. So a guy dates and breaks up with 10 women and doesn't have sex with any of them, is somehow better than a guy who dates and breaks up with 10 women, but had sex with them? How does that make any sense at all? These are equal levels of commitment.* They're only different in the sense that one put sex on a pedestal, and the other did not*.


Can we look at it a different way...
I see those who engage in this lifestyle as viewing people as *easily Replaceable* ....more seen as hot bodies..

With Love & commitment as one's foundation/ established...the person* is irreplaceable* (not literally but in their heart)



> What's the difference between being "thrown away", and the guy simply realizing that various characteristics of yours aren't what he wants in a wife? He's "throwing you away" by moving on that point? So unless you marry the guy, you've made a mistake? Did you date anyone other than your husband? Were they mistakes?


 Before him I had some Bf's but obviously this was nothing...I only seen 1 other guy for a short time (when I broke up with him thinking if I don't date another I may regret this).. didn't take me long to realize I missed my best friend .....

I could say so much on this...the Romanticism of only being with 1 man is what I dreamed of.. and his only being with me, I wanted a virgin male. Also ..had I had other partners, I am the type that looks back...the shared memories... what IF another BF was a better Lover... I believe such things could have haunted me... I would compare.. I just didn't want that experience... you have to understand.. I wanted to get married YOUNG.. I was not one of these party girls looking to fool around & travel, go to college... I have no regrets...on never having been with another. I lived my dream.  



> You can have the exact same baggage for the person you loved, but never slept with, that didn't love you back. Sex isn't specific to this dilemma.


Ok..'s advocate...let me entertain myself for a little bit here.. 
Let's say I followed YOUR wisdom and path... I love the thrill of a passionate going all the way (was always dancing in my head anyway).... always loved the boys too...I had plenty of opportunities to shed my clothes with boys coming on to me, at parks, my neighbors, friends brothers..... 

I have an addicting personality for one, so If I experienced this RUSH and liked it too much.... I'd want to do it over & over & over again...but yeah..I know in my heart of hearts... I would have wanted more from each one of those guys... if he was good enough to share my body with... he was good enough to be a Bf with exclusivity...

Now just imaging myself thinking about our future...he is mine, I am his...we take each other... passion overload... then him starting to flirt with someone else...then he breaks up and the thoughts of HIM DOING HER.... Oh NO.. devastating... Freaking devastating... how you can not see this as a worse rejection over - NOT sleeping with that person... well that I can not relate ...

Like the words to this ANGRY song Alanis Morissette - You Oughta Know -YouTube

- the pure RAW emotion of rejection she poured out imaging him Fvcking the new girlfriend.... where that was HER at one time...HE was all hers... yeah.. I wanted no part of this drama. Call it a flaw, call it what you will...I am too damn sensitive for that ... Sure people break up and all that..and I'll live and find love again.. I wouldn't make anyone wait until marriage NOW.

But again...I was YOUNG...I had time on my side... I feel I did the best for who I was and what I wanted in this life..... plus my husband frowns on women who sleep around, it's not something he would do... so why would he want a woman like that ?? ... He has that right as well. So if I missed the type of man I deeply wanted - due to my choices.. well... it would have been very very very sad. 

I believe casual sex is eroding "empathy" in our young people - and this is not exactly good for society.. Is Casual Sex Destroying Empathy? * Hooking Up Smart



> They have plenty of romanticism. I have plenty of romanticism. I just don't tightly couple sex and romanticism. You can be romantic without sex, and you can have sex without being romantic. You can have both without commitment. The array of ingredients initially is astounding, and as time goes by, more things get added and eventually you decide whether you really like this recipe or not. I don't believe there is one magic sequence.


 Yes, they are ...and we , as individuals should be able to search our own hearts and determine what works for us.. where our personal boundaries are....if any. 

If anything is learned by these exchanges ....isn't it just to be careful who you sleep with -because the motivations, the intentions can be all over the freaking map... You are no more right than I am, and vice versa, but *we should do our best to avoid those who would belittle how we feel in this area -as it is very personal.* My husband embraced my feelings with love.. now that was a good man for me! 

I can live with all the casual sex people thinking I am a prude, ridiculous, clingy, living in the 1920's, insecure, hung up, repressed, that I like women with penis's....... oh the joy of getting others opinions... this is a bit of comedy for me. 



> Ha... see, even I may say that all men are dogs, but you have to realize that I don't see being what you are as a bad thing. We to build intimate connections and sort out who we want to keep too. There are some who just want to play around (of both genders)...


 Yep, look for the FUN & adventurous in those dating profiles.. I will stick with looking for my clingy Nice guy who wants to be my best friend and I can play his Dominatrix.  Many of my Fantasies is taking the man down....so this does rather work for me.... and my Husband is turned on by women like that! A win win. 



> Not really. I want her to love me. And maybe this is a logical nit pick and I'm just too hyper-rational, but I don't want her to need me... because in truth, she doesn't. Its just a stretch of the word into romantic nonsense. No matter how much you love someone, you don't NEED them. And there is a difference between a healthy love for someone and throwing away one's own identity for that person - and its THESE types of women I most closely associate with using the word "need". Hence, I call them "needy" or "clingy". Deep down many of these women are so insecure that they need constant affirmation of their worth... they are leaky cups always demanding proof and complaining. Ironically, they have little to know faith in the love they've felt and always think their partner is "one foot out the door emotionally". So much so that, without knowing it, they're actually pushing him out of that the door.


 I still don't think I am insecure... but I can live with that label too.. it's cool ....I like to be needed.. and my husband likes to feel needed as well... we also get mushy, gushy...and laugh at ourselves....Freaking saps here.... then I get out the whip & chains & chain him to the bed... ha ha 

Yet still...I am going to argue with you that not all couples are as pathetic as you envision this sort of thing... I'd call us both "*INTER dependent*" which is the healthy model of all thriving relationships 



> I know what I want, *but I'm entirely open to the idea that there exists someone out there that can entirely change my mind.*


 biggest surprise in this post. Carribean Man was like you..he's been on both sides... he is a man of experience ....unlike myself. 



> Not at all. I can only say that I don't date with love in mind really. I feel that's unfair of me. Love comes or it doesn't, and just because I don't fall in love with someone doesn't mean dating them was a waste of my time or a mistake.


 I hear you and there is PLENTY of women to accommodate your belief system, as your life has surely shown.. ... it is those like myself that will have a much harder time. I am sure we can agree on that [email protected]#$%


----------



## Stonewall

I always enjoy reading SA's wisdom. Mr SA is a lucky guy. We are identical twins who married identical twins. What are the chances of that occurring?


----------



## Holland

SA said 


> Can we look at it a different way...
> I see those who engage in this lifestyle as viewing people as easily Replaceable ....more seen as hot bodies..
> 
> With Love & commitment as one's foundation/ established...the person is irreplaceable (not literally but in their heart)


Yes and yes but we are talking about two different scenarios. Don't mistake the fact that just because one can engage in NSA or casual sex they they cannot also have just as loving and committed relationship as yours.

I have no problem talking about my casual dating/sex days, I enjoyed it and would do it again if I were ever back out there. It is even more fun doing it as a 40 something than when I did it in my 20's. So much more mature and self assured in my 40's.

BUT I am completely and utterly in love with my partner. I have never cheated or been disloyal to any partner and never will. Some of us are able to follow different paths to you but also different paths in our own lifetime.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> I must say it bothers me when others put down the softer men in our society like you just did here though....The ISFJ is one of the softest temperaments. Nothing wrong with it.


I'm walking a ridiculously fine line between expressing my opinion and sounding like a put down, and I don't I have the language.

I use colorful language - "woman with a penis". If you take all of the softer, nurturing or more submissive traits that are stereotypically associated with women, and put them in a man, is that not an apt description? The color just says it so snappy-like.

I don't think its wrong to be any particular way at all. People simply are who they are. A myriad of colorful, snap descriptions of me might be similarly unpalatable... some accurate, some not.

Am I wrong? Does your husband not have the more feely, emotional, nurturing nature that is more commonly associated with the feminine? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting?



SimplyAmorous said:


> You paint a very ugly picture here that assumes someone like myself is Mowing over my husband, like I have him leashed & he is towering in some corner taking orders off of me.


No. I'm not painting you as an overlord... just dominant to his submissiveness... and you purposefully sought someone somewhat submissive. Purposefully avoiding other types because they felt risky and threatening... maybe because of your mothers predicament? Someone dramatically more concerned, affectionate and pampering... predictable and... this isn't the right word... controllable? Someone more submissive.

I don't know you well enough to say, I'm just trying to paint a picture of motivations that go into the selection of a man even you describe as "softer", while most women avoid this kind of man.






SimplyAmorous said:


> we had something new, awesome & exciting to bring to our Wedding night..


Oh my goodness I couldn't have been a virgin on my wedding night. Almost every guy I know seems to share my opinion that losing his virginity was a miserable experience with the exception of the fact that he lost his virginity. lol

If I were still with the woman I lost my virginity to, the fact would be one of those inside jokes carried the rest of our lives: "Wow... we remember how astoundingly awful I was!!!" Funny for sure, but not how I'd want to remember my wedding night.

My anxiety and pressure would have been nuclear and I'm near certain I'd have felt disappointed and ashamed of my performance.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I've been called a hypocrite.....it's fine.


Do you see the incongruity? Or it just doesn't matter to you? Why is intercourse different from these acts? Just something that has been built up in your head?

Man! I imagine if you talked about that on a Christian forum they'd skewer you! Ouch!



SimplyAmorous said:


> Can we look at it a different way...
> I see those who engage in this lifestyle as viewing people as *easily Replaceable* ....more seen as hot bodies..
> 
> With Love & commitment as one's foundation/ established...the person* is irreplaceable* (not literally but in their heart)


This comes from so dramatically different a place than I'm familiar with I hardly know how to respond. People like me don't view anyone as easily replaceable... I don't know where you got that. Everyone is unique. Sex is rarely the centerpiece... its just one aspect of a person. Its trying on different people until you find the one you mesh with best.

I can't even imagine waiting until marriage to have sex, only to discover sex with this person is totally disappointing, or to discover I married a prude or cold fish. While I might screw up and miss the signs of this even in relationships with premarital sex, I'm going buying totally blind without it. It's like shopping for a shirt while only being able to see in black and white until your wedding day... then, on that day, you find out the shirt is the mustard yellow with orange stripes. Oh no no no... I want to know exactly what I'm getting. We will have had sex, we will have lived together... etc etc.

I want as much information as possible before I marry someone... because its risky even when you think you have all the information. I can't imagine going in blind. Heck, I can't imagine choosing someone without getting a better idea of what else is out there.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I could say so much on this...the Romanticism of only being with 1 man is what I dreamed of.. and his only being with me, I wanted a virgin male. Also ..had I had other partners, I am the type that looks back...the shared memories... what IF another BF was a better Lover... I believe such things could have haunted me... I would compare.. I just didn't want that experience... you have to understand.. I wanted to get married YOUNG.. I was not one of these party girls looking to fool around & travel, go to college... I have no regrets...on never having been with another.


I guess I can understand that. I think its a tradeoff either way. Go with your way, and I'm wondering what I missed. Go with my way, and sure enough, there are things about past lovers that I surely miss. What might have been is alive and well either way.

I'd rather know. Discover what I like in a person through my experience even if that means there are going to be things or people that I miss. I'll know myself better, I'll learn what I like, and have a better idea of whether someone I meet is it.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Now just imaging myself thinking about our future...he is mine, I am his...we take each other... passion overload... then him starting to flirt with someone else...then he breaks up and the thoughts of HIM DOING HER.... Oh NO.. devastating... Freaking devastating... how you can not see this as a worse rejection over - NOT sleeping with that person... well that I can not relate.


Love and loss is part of life as far I'm concerned. It does hurt, but you pick up and move on... those feelings do fade, and when someone sticks... I think it makes it all the sweeter. I learned something in boot camp that gave me perspective. During those 3 months, I was starving hungry all the time. We were always busy, didn't get much time for chow, and lo and behold... EVERYTHING tasted good. I ate food I formerly hated and loved every morsel. When I got out, I had my first coke in 3 months, and it was disgustingly sweet! I hadn't eaten a sugary food in 3 months. Deprived of familiarities of home, receiving a picture in the mail was like getting every toy you've ever gotten for Christmas all at once. It was cherished. I learned that our highs and our lows are relative to one another - lovers in a dance. Berated and burdened, even the smallest praise was tremendously motivating. Its all relative! The lower and longer the low tide lasts, the more easily we perceive even the smallest, shortest of high tides. The higher and longer the high tide lasts, the more desensitized to it we become. From then on, I saw no reason to fear the lows... for the sweeter tomorrow's high will be as a result... and life has a way of balancing out (or rather, this nature makes it appear as such).




SimplyAmorous said:


> So if I missed the type of man I deeply wanted - due to my choices.. well... it would have been very very very sad.


There's nothing that says you can't hit the target on your first shot, nor anything that says you have to move on from it and have more sex. Personally, I wouldn't know this is who I wanted without having had sex.




SimplyAmorous said:


> I believe casual sex is eroding "empathy" in our young people - and this is not exactly good for society.. Is Casual Sex Destroying Empathy? * Hooking Up Smart


I don't believe sex is causal here. Our increased connectedness is more likely the culprit. We've seen it all before. Again and again. Got dumped by your bf? Oh, so did five other people this week... sorry, I've just run out of tears. With larger connectedness everything becomes common rather than exception and we are thus desensitized. Nothing to do with sex.



SimplyAmorous said:


> If anything is learned by these exchanges ....isn't it just to be careful who you sleep with -because the motivations, the intentions can be all over the freaking map


Ha... actually, no that's not at all what I get from these exchanges. That sounds so scared and depressing! 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Yet still...I am going to argue with you that not all couples are as pathetic as you envision this sort of thing... I'd call us both "*INTER dependent*" which is the healthy model of all thriving relationships


I don't think I said I viewed it as pathetic. You found a man that works for you, and he a woman that works for him... nothing a pathetic about that.

I do still think that waiting is mostly derived from indoctrinated perceptions of sexual taboo and fear. Not the magical romantic notions you express - those are more the manifestation of the taboo - sex is bad bad bad and should ONLY be between a husband and wife. So much hinges on marriage. An institution which, if it didn't exist, changes nothing about human relations; its a wait for an artificial concept... this subjective thing. Its a script someone sold you when you were very young and you've always bought. You're happy and that's good. I don't argue with that at all or your choice of mate and loving style. 

I only object to the sacred perception of sex.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I hear you and there is PLENTY of women to accommodate your belief system, as your life has surely shown.. ... it is those like myself that will have a much harder time. I am sure we can agree on that [email protected]#$%


Ha, disagree. I'd say the number of truly sexually secure women without culturally driven sexual hoola hoops like waiting for love or marriage, or not otherwise damaged and throwing themselves at everyone for affirmation, and not jaded, bitter victims or scared "prey"... is anything but plentiful. Hundreds of years of cultural expectation tends to linger.


----------



## Stonewall

What women and men want vary depending on stage of life, relationship and surrounding circumstance. It is a moving target that is infinitely undefinable. But then again, analysis and emotions are mutually exclusive entities that cannot be juxtaposed with any degree of rationality.

There was a time when all I did was chase tail and it was a lot of fun. By my late teens it became mechanical, hollow, void of any meaning or lasting satisfaction. To each his own but for me, just banging away and dumping a load in any ole vagina would come nowhere near satisfying the greater goal I desire.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Big post, got rambling, slow day, sorry!*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't like this choice of words to describe this group. It implies that those who aren't waiting aren't romantic, which couldn't be any further from the truth.


Well I am going to disagree with you...as I feel it fits just fine.... because those who are DEEPLY romantic... I say DEEPLY.... not on the surface, not in the moment.. what drives them is wanting to share their ALL (body, mind and SOUL) with one special person...attach themselves, would live and die for each other..and surely not hesitate to say ......in fact they would probably "get off on that"...

The deepest of Romantics would not go around saying how they love their "Cave time"...and how they want an Independent person for a mate.... not in my world view. Contrast that with what my husband said to me one day..."If I had a Cave, I would want you in it". 

I agree with this write up ...it is about sensitivity, we feel things DEEPER than the average...If one can go through partners like buying new shoes...and dump them as soon as they show any signs of attachment...well , I just couldn't look upon you as the Romantic type... My 2 Romantic Threads here ...with TESTS.. test yourself then...prove me wrong.... 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...ll-these-5-examples-has-changed-over-yrs.html

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...you-enjoy-sappy-movies-your-wife-gag-run.html




> Being Romantic means being sensitive, affectionate, and spritually-inclined...
> 
> The paramount quality of a romantic person is sensitivity. The romantic is a person who FEELS deeply, and attaches a lot of meaning to those feelings. Because of this, the romantic will express him/herself through such things as affection, verbal declarations of love, and meaningful gestures, all of which come from deep within.
> 
> A romantic will perceive a richness of detail that is lost on the non-romantic type -- such things as the fleeting expression of a lover’s eyes. In a split second, the romantic has perceived a hint of sadness there, which the lover quickly tries to hide, by pretending it was never there to begin with. But the romantic saw it, and was touched by it....This takes sensitivity, depth of feeling, as well as spiritual awareness.
> 
> Romantic people LOVE to give love! Romantic types simply want to make sure that their partners feel loved, special, and appreciated. No gesture is either too big or small to show how they feel about their beloved.
> 
> Romance involves the total involvement with another person’s inner world -- their soul, their intellect, their heart. One gives all of oneself to this person, and being romantic certainly expresses how completely one is committed to this person, to being in a relationship with them.
> 
> To sum up, being a romantic entails being sensitive, expressive, and spiritual, not only in regards to one’s beloved, but in one’s life as well, through saturating it with great beauty.


Me & mine are both *HopeLess Romantics*..isn't that obvious....so yeah..we're perfect for each other..


----------



## TiggyBlue

It doesn't necessarily mean because someone has had casual sex in the past they don't feel all of those things. It a bit simplistic dividing romantic/non romantic by one aspect (with casual sex not all people are the same). 
For some sexlovefor others vulnerability=love ect.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Am I wrong? Does your husband not have the more feely, emotional, nurturing nature that is more commonly associated with the feminine? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting?


 Absolutely he does..He is very high on the FEELING - and frankly I like that... he isn't overly sensitive or jealous by any means...that would drive me insane if so...



> No. I'm not painting you as an overlord... just dominant to his submissiveness... and you purposefully sought someone somewhat submissive. Purposefully avoiding other types because they felt risky and threatening... maybe because of your mothers predicament? Someone dramatically more concerned, affectionate and pampering... predictable and... this isn't the right word... controllable? Someone more submissive.


Nothing was on purpose other than I wanted nothing to do with men who , in my view, used women & threw them away ... I sought a 1 WOMAN MAN.. .. if that = the Betas... bring them to me baby! Plus I prefer Introverts because they are generally *deep thinkers*... something I am attracted too....I enjoy the challenge of getting them to open up... My husband needs a woman like that.. as he is naturally on the passive side...being a Phlegmatic. So long as I am paying attention to his needs.. we work excellently. 



> I don't know you well enough to say, I'm just trying to paint a picture of* motivations *that go into the selection of a man even you describe as "softer", while most women avoid this kind of man.


 My motivations.. 1st & foremost I wanted a FAMILY man...the desire of my heart was for a family of my own... I was an only child...always envied my friends with their big boisterous families... it was my dream.. a faithful man, one where I felt loved, cherished and treasured.... Yes...stability, security, of course these were huge ...given my upbringing & what I witnessed. 



> Oh my goodness I couldn't have been a virgin on my wedding night. Almost every guy I know seems to share my opinion that losing his virginity was a miserable experience with the exception of the fact that he lost his virginity. lol


 read our experience and get a good chuckle out of it, bet you've never heard of this happening >> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/social-spot/48130-virginity-how-awkward-lose-5.html I definitely did the right thing waiting for him - as another man wouldn't have dealt with this in the same "very loving" way...and I have yet to hear of another couple THIS happened to.... 


> If I were still with the woman I lost my virginity to, the fact would be one of those inside jokes carried the rest of our lives: "Wow... we remember how astoundingly awful I was!!!" Funny for sure, but not how I'd want to remember my wedding night.


 Again, I just DO NOT look at this the same as you in any way, shape or form... I wanted all that sweet awkwardness, the good, the bad & the ugly with the person I Love, not someone else. I can look back on what we shared, in it's struggle for us to break through....with great fondness... it warms my heart..(pretty funny too)...where else can I share this -but a sex forum. 



> My anxiety and pressure would have been nuclear and I'm near certain I'd have felt disappointed and ashamed of my performance.


 You are looking at *performance*, I was looking at *who I was with*....it wouldn't matter if he stumbled and messed up, we can laugh about it... After he got it in....he was masterful... always managed to hold back till I got mine ...I always felt he was a great lover, so good, we never talked about sex ..



> Do you see the incongruity? Or it just doesn't matter to you? Why is intercourse different from these acts? Just something that has been built up in your head?


 NO..I attempted to explain this to you... you do not see the meaning that I hold in it.. ...I want to know why for all you casual sex adherents ...it's ALL THE WAY of you're a mindless idiot for not partaking in it...You see no value in boundaries AT ALL.. you sure have them in the emotional - when she starts "attaching"... 
For me...being a woman who can be impregnated for one ....INTERCOURSE, HIS semen filled rod near my cervix - well...has the awesome power to create new life... I DO NOT take this lightly...(birth control can fail) 

But it's still more than that to me..*It's the giving of my ALL.. it is symbolic of total vulnerability to a man in absolute trust he will care for me.* I also see the symbolic (religious if you will) notion of "*becoming one*" as the fusion of his being INSIDE of me........I get the fact this is asinine to you... I really do ...which again is why I couldn't be with someone like yourself, you would royally pi$$ me off by not being able to see what I see in this. 



> Man! I imagine if you talked about that on a Christian forum they'd skewer you! Ouch!


 I like to challenge people's minds & see how they respond... I don't mind getting beat up.. sometimes I find it :rofl:.. I got thrown off this same forum (Marraigebed.org) after a couple hours once just asking questions - hence my thread >> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/politics-religion/39855-i-just-got-thrown-off-forum.html



> This comes from so dramatically different a place than I'm familiar with I hardly know how to respond. People like me don't view anyone as easily* replaceable*... I don't know where you got that. Everyone is unique. Sex is rarely the centerpiece... its just one aspect of a person.* Its trying on different people until you find the one you mesh with best.*


 "Trying on different people".. I think you could try them on and realize they are not compatible before sex... I can't help but see it as Test driving = a revolving door of new women.. replacing is part of the experience.....

If I can admit I am clingy.... why can't you owe up to this.. How can you say these women are important to you -unless every single time you was dumped ? ....In your quest for the "THE FIT" - there a line of sexual replacements going on. 



> I can't even imagine waiting until marriage to have sex, only to discover sex with this person is totally disappointing, or to discover I married a prude or cold fish.


 He knew I wasn't those things....I orgasmed from his 1st touching me....and freaking loved it... 

This is how high my husband holds up "what we did, our way of loving " even in not going all the way..I learned 4 yrs ago...he told me - when I started to put my hands down his pants, he stopped masterbating......from then on & right into our marriage... it was 'OUR THING", it was MY place to take care of him. I had no idea cause we didn't even talk about sex.... to him that would have been "cheating", his words, not mine)... He was head over heels for me ... 

He's said even if he couldn't have intercourse with me , he still would have married me - cause he was satisfied / happy all those years before. Now is this not genuine LOVE ? He didn't marry me for what I could do in bed, and I didn't marry him for his paycheck (as I made more at the time).. 


> While I might screw up and miss the signs of this even in relationships with premarital sex, I'm going buying totally blind without it. It's like shopping for a shirt while only being able to see in black and white until your wedding day... then, on that day, you find out the shirt is the mustard yellow with orange stripes. Oh no no no... I want to know exactly what I'm getting. We will have had sex, we will have lived together... etc etc.


 Most men agree with you...he never felt he went into anything blindly ...we were together for 6+ years, I even lived with his parents...his brothers room separating his & mine....and we lived together for 8 months while I planned our big wedding and still didn't have intercourse. I know your mouth is hanging on the ground with this - and it sounds ridiculous, but I swear it it is true...and we were HAPPY! 



> *I want as much information as possible before I marry someone... because its risky even when you think you have all the information. I can't imagine going in blind.* Heck, I can't imagine choosing someone without getting a better idea of what else is out there.


 couldn't agree with you more about the knowledge before marriage .. OH YES... . we knew , shared, experienced just about everything in those 6 yrs..the emotional and trust couldn't have been any higher...he knew I longed to "make love".. he never looked upon *ME* as a risk... I told him I'd like him to post on here but not sure what he'd have left to say. 



> I guess I can understand that. I think its a tradeoff either way. Go with your way, and I'm wondering what I missed. Go with my way, and sure enough, there are things about past lovers that I surely miss. What might have been is alive and well either way.


 yes, to each their own... we need to do what is best for who we are, what is most important to us in life...what you may regret is entirely different from what I may regret....For us, it is the High Romance of togetherness.. we are in this for life.. he is mine... I am his. 



> I'd rather know. Discover what I like in a person through my experience even if that means there are going to be things or people that I miss. I'll know myself better, I'll learn what I like, and have a better idea of whether someone I meet is it.


 I am a very social creature... just cause I have only been with my husband doesn't mean I haven't gotten to know lots of boys, guys, learned enough about their lives, passions... 

My point in this is... I've never met another man YET in this life... that would *FIT* the way we do. And I do evaluate these things.. as I did while dating...I had a few other guys after me, they were smokers, check mark - it was always something..they couldn't compare with what he was -in regards to what I wanted.

The more I have read on this forum, the higher my appreciation for my husband has grown, realizing just how compatible we have always been- but never really thinking about it too much. 



> Love and loss is part of life as far I'm concerned. It does hurt, but you pick up and move on... those feelings do fade, and when someone sticks... I think it makes it all the sweeter.


 Loss is surely a part of life... nothing worries me more than if something happened to him or the kids.... but I know it won't be because he cheated on me... it would only be in death. I will never feel one should jump in bed too quickly......just as you believe it is silly not to. 




> Ha... actually, no that's not at all what I get from these exchanges. That sounds so scared and depressing!


 Who is scared and depressed ?? Don't get it... I just feel women should know themselves -what they DEEPLY want out of life and love... like the QUESTION of this thread....does she want FUN/ Excitement, is that her priority- living in the moment and seeing if the kite flies higher after they have shared sexual fluids...or getting the emotional Kite in the air first with the strings of a growing attachment BEFORE embracing intercourse ... 

I only ask that you modify your judgement on someone like myself saying our type is all hung up.. I adore the subject of sex in all ways...I never tire of it, nor doing it ... And just as equally do I feel about Love & Romance..to me they are all beautifully intertwined.. this is the ultimate experience ....I can not separate them or I would cease to be ME. 



> I do still think that waiting is mostly derived from indoctrinated perceptions of sexual taboo and fear. Not the magical romantic notions you express - those are more the manifestation of the taboo - sex is bad bad bad and should ONLY be between a husband and wife. So much hinges on marriage. An institution which, if it didn't exist, changes nothing about human relations; its a wait for an artificial concept... this subjective thing. Its a script someone sold you when you were very young and you've always bought. You're happy and that's good. I don't argue with that at all or your choice of mate and loving style.


 Ok, take away marriage and religion.. I believe something in me would be terribly fixated on ONE TARGET MALE- if he showed he was LIT up for me too..... I'd want me & him to ride off in the freaking sunset to set up house, make babies and only be with each other, and I'd want to rip his balls off he he dared share himself with another.. or I felt I was "lessor" in his eyes over another woman..... where does this come from ?? Is this not built deep inside of every one of us... if not ... there would be no such thing as ... 



> Ha, disagree. I'd say the number of truly sexually secure women without culturally driven sexual hoola hoops like waiting for love or marriage, or not otherwise damaged and throwing themselves at everyone for affirmation, and not jaded, bitter victims or scared "prey"... is anything but plentiful. Hundreds of years of cultural expectation tends to linger.


 And what is your answer.. more casual sex.. when should teens start romping ? 

I see* sexual restraint* as a *virtue* in many cases, there is a time and a place....like in mine, where I knew I would regret.. It is not wrong for me to feel that way.. we all need to know ourselves, search our own hearts on what brings us happiness & fulfillment in this life. 

You used this word > I had to look it up > *Tenet Nosce* ...



> KNOW THYSELF .... The key to finding a purpose and fulfillment in life begins with knowing and understanding yourself. We are each born with this knowledge but finding a purpose and achieving fulfillment requires the sharing of knowledge, wisdom, and support. Each individual contains specific truths that should be shared with those we meet through nothing less than fate.


 :smthumbup:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*Re: Big post, got rambling, slow day, sorry!*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't like this choice of words to describe this group. It implies that those who aren't waiting aren't romantic, which couldn't be any further from the truth.
> 
> A new word is certainly in order.
> 
> Also, to pick a nit similar to what you have, I don't like how those who don't see the need to wait, are described as casual. *This implies there's never any feeling behind sex... that its an entirely empty act, which isn't the case. It can be... although it rarely is. More often its full of emotions one would associate with infatuation *- and this can be downright emotionally intense. Most often, its neither empty nor infatuated. Its simply a linear progression of interest in someone you've been dating but aren't yet in love with. There is interest, care and concern, but not quite outright love. To my thinking, sex actually promotes greater feelings of love with someone you already feel something for but wouldn't quite lay out the "love" word yet.
> 
> For people in my group, sex is a part of the process, not a carrot at the end AFTER falling in love... as if love was required for sex. Rather, I prefer the pinnacle to be falling in love itself. Sex is sex. Most of these people are just as careful with their hearts as the people who wait, in the meantime, they enjoy their bodies.





> *TiggyBlue said*: It doesn't necessarily mean because someone has had casual sex in the past they don't feel all of those things. It a bit simplistic dividing romantic/non romantic by one aspect (with casual sex not all people are the same).
> For some sexlovefor others vulnerability=love ect.


Ok, I need to address this again...I see what you are saying NOW.. I was missing it before ...I was thinking you thought the way it described *The Romantic view* should have a different label/ name... but that is not the 2 of your arguments here...just that there CAN and often IS "feelings of Romance" in casual sex. Oh Yes...Definitely!! 

When reading the book it explains this very well.. how that plays out...

These are the 6 sexual Lenses  ...



> *1.* *Covenant View* - Best to wait until marriage
> *2*. *Procreative View* - Be fruitful & multiply
> *3*. *Romantic View* - Save yourself for your soul mate
> *4*.* "Plain Sex" view *- just enjoy it for what it is
> *5.* *Power View* - Sex wields Power
> *6*. *Expressive View* - A form of Self expression/ empowerment


This is an example in the book given (I took this picture)....it is explaining how all of us look through a PRIMARY sexual Lense ...in this example below, it is *Covenant* ..and as you can see, it has others listed on the edges...(some may not use them all)...

For instant in Arranged marriages, the Covenant view is often Primary, there could be little to no romance in these marriages (which would be horrible!)... vows being of MORE IMPORTANCE than even a near sexless marriage or one dreadfully failing.. but people will not exit it -because , to them, the Covenant is Primary....these people believe sex should not happen outside of marriage...it also addresses how different views look at pre-marital boundaries -how some think oral is ok, another view sees it all the same..it is a bit complicated but fascinating, I felt.

I could never have Covenant as Primary due to the fact, I would not stay in a miserable marriage because of VOWS.. .sorry , screw that.... We both share the ROMANTIC VIEW as Primary.... with every single other one listed here on the sides..

Now those who do not require committed strings of attachment for sex CAN NOT use the Romantic view as PRIMARY.. .you can use the others, just not this one....and the Romantic can be on the side lines... Now hopefully ...this will make more sense to you all.


----------



## samyeagar

Stonewall said:


> I always enjoy reading SA's wisdom. Mr SA is a lucky guy. We are identical twins who married identical twins. What are the chances of that occurring?


I'm the long lost triplet who found the long lost triplet


----------



## TiggyBlue

*Re: Big post, got rambling, slow day, sorry!*



SimplyAmorous said:


> Ok, I need to address this again...I see what you are saying NOW.. I was missing it before ...I was thinking you thought the way it described *The Romantic view* should have a different label/ name... but that is not the 2 of your arguments here...just that there CAN and often IS "feelings of Romance" in casual sex. Oh Yes...Definitely!!
> 
> When reading the book it explains this very well.. how that plays out...


Oh totally get what you mean now 
I thought you meant romantic view everything rather than romantic view of sex on it's own.


----------



## Stonewall

samyeagar said:


> I'm the long lost triplet who found the long lost triplet


Glad to meet another sibling Samy. I'll be expecting a better Christmas this year than you sent me and Mr. SA last year. LOL! 

I think SA is developing a cult following here. What should we call it?


----------



## always_alone

*Re: A talent for being succint, I do not have. lol*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> They don't want to be used, which is to say, I feel like they don't seem to own their behavior and allocate responsibility appropriately. If they end up feeling used, they describe it in terms of "I was so stupid!" That doesn't make sense to me at all. Even if someone did them wrong, they played no part in making them do that wrong. Thus, they seem more like scared prey than participants. If you had sex with someone and they leave or treat you poorly, forget them. Its all on them. That's life... you take chances and ride the rollercoaster imo. The notion that someone you choose to have sex with could "use" you makes little sense to me. This isn't an equal value comparison, but still the same principle: I'm not used by someone I took to dinner, because I wanted to take her to dinner. I believed in the possibility the date might go somewhere, but I don't feel used even in the slightest if I don't get a second date. I liked providing her meal. The idea of not taking her to dinner over concern that she might be using me for a free meal is just absurd. I don't even care when a girl giving me attention IS clearly a gold digger. I can't be used without being complicit, and if I'm complicit, then is it really being used?


Oh, but you can be used without being complicit. Perhaps you always have a genuine caring and connection for the people you sleep with, but this is by no means always the case. There are plenty of men and women out there who will tell you exactly what you want to hear, dangle temptations (sex, fun, presents) in front of your face and pretend to be everything you've ever dreamed of so that they can extract what they want from yoj.

Think of all the predatory young men that will flatter a girl, buy her stuff, tell her that she really is the one and how amazing she is, and then once he has cum, he's back with the boys bragging about how easy she was and dissing her for being a slvt.

Think of all the women who bat their eyes and flip their hair and tell men how big and strong they are only to get them to pay their rent, move their piano, or buy them presents. You say you don't mind if she is just using you for a free dinner, but just how many presents will you buy her before you get tired of the game? 

Being used is entering into a transactional relationship (eg sex for money) without ever actually knowing the terms.

This is not to say that casual sex is always like this or that anyone who has casual sex is usurious. But IMHO the risks are higher because it is much easier to lead people on for the short term.


----------



## always_alone

southbound said:


> So, I'm just wondering: for single women my age, which is more appealing; fun and excitement, or stability and contentment with a decent guy? Does the excitement part carry a lot of weight?


I'm having a hard time with your question because I'm not really sure what these terms mean to you. If by stability you mean white picket fence, routine suburban life, and eating roast beef every Sundays night, then yes, fun and excitement would be very important to me. I would always look for someone who was open to new experiences (travel, exotic foods, different types of activities).

However, if you mean by fun and excitement that you'd need to jump out of a plane every weekend or couldn't sit still for more than 2 seconds, then stability would seem a lot more attractive. Some of the best times I've ever had were quiet times of star-gazing or watching the water lap on the shore while forging deep connections or even just quiet contemplation.

ETA: I would take people's "exciting" profiles with a grain of salt. Much of this is just advertising, and people are notorious for trying to make themselves look that much more wonderful than they are. There's also some pretty interesting research on positive self delusion, which shows that most of us believe we are above average in a wide variety of measures.


----------



## ladybird

If i were single right now, I wouldn't be looking for a new relationship.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> ETA: I would take people's "exciting" profiles with a grain of salt. Much of this is just advertising, and people are notorious for trying to make themselves look that much more wonderful than they are. There's also some pretty interesting research on positive self delusion, which shows that most of us believe we are above average in a wide variety of measures.


:iagree: Forget Profiles for a minute... in real life this so very true... 

When I meet people, If they seem "perfect", just too good to be true...I always think to myself.. where is the dirt?... if they can't say anything bad / unbecoming about themselves...even in a light hearted manner....show some vulnerability...being humble, I always question ....are they REAL ...what are they hiding? 

IN TIME these things filter out of course.. .but profiles... it *IS* advertising...they need to sound like a catch so you'll cast your line ......it's not like we'd want to list our faults I suppose but a hint of things we don't like or couldn't put up with ...may be helpful - if it can be pulled off without sounding "too strange".. 

Where someone is on the "*self-awareness*" to "*self delusion*" bar is always what one needs to figure out , reading in between the lines, in meeting perspective dates...or so I would feel.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Hey Southbound... where did you go ? Maybe he found a match.... Me & the  side tracted your thread for a bit... forgive us... I know it was asked a couple times, but here it is again.....what do YOU WANT?? 

.... Are you looking for a little Excitement / living in the moment ...the SEX ? I would think more pressure will be on YOU to impress her and show yourself a Real charmer ....I don't know... 

Or would you prefer the women be more the type who is seeking attachment... generally more on the serious side...taking it slow, 1st impressions may be more forgivable even so long as something clicked on the 1st night..


----------



## always_alone

ladybird said:


> If i were single right now, I wouldn't be looking for a new relationship.


I hear you!! All in all way to much grief, and for what? 

To bend over backwards for someone, look after them, help them, meet their needs, only to find out you're not 18 enough, your boobs are too big (or too small), you carry an extra pound or two, your hair is too short, or your heels aren't high enough? And that these are the only qualities that could possibly matter, cuz men are visual, doncha know? 

Forget it.

I do hope better for you, though. Some people are able to find real happiness with real people who really care, so it must be possible. 

Right?


----------



## Jellybeans

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *My plans are neither diabolical or romantic.*


Love this quote so much. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I do want sex though, and the length of time I'm willing to wait for it is in direct relation to how much I like the woman in comparison to other options. I won't wait forever for a cold fish.


How long do you wait if say the chemistry is good and you like her?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> I do hope better for you, though. Some people are able to find real happiness with real people who really care, *so it must be possible. *


 I've seen the the most unlikely of people find great love... In our church... haven't went for a while... sit 2 blind people...I don't really know them but I always look over, they are always smiling, holding hands.... 

So did a woman who, lets just say, men NEVER gave her the time of day... after her husband died she was alone for many years...sweet personality , funny....She gave up on ever finding Love for herself.... then lo and behold a man - who told some friends to pray for him...that he finds a woman ....he was tired of being alone...he was a very unique fellow, a straight shooter with a rough side but a HUGE heart... 

Anyway... someone hooked them up... Magic sprang...they were together for 7 yrs , then he died of complications from Diabetes ..it was something that could have been prevented , very much a shame...he was only 58.

I was sitting in the back while she spoke of their love story, the fun times, those 7 yrs being the greatest of her life... I was balling back there, kleenex in hand... goodness, it was so touching...yet so sad what she has lost. 

So yeah.. I'm inclined to believe every one of us can find that special person... if we are open to it...but always look at the , character in a person... if they don't have this... you are more likely to get burned.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> "Trying on different people".. I think you could try them on and realize they are not compatible before sex... I can't help but see it as Test driving = a revolving door of new women.. replacing is part of the experience.....
> 
> If I can admit I am clingy.... why can't you owe up to this.. How can you say these women are important to you -unless every single time you was dumped ? ....In your quest for the "THE FIT" - there a line of sexual replacements going on.


Its a revolving door only in the sense that you don't know someone until you know them. How do you even know what you want in a person until you find out what's out there? To know them, you have to experience things with them. To me, sex is as much a part of that as a deep political discussion, or romantic picnics in the park... or lazy nights on the couch.

I don't really know where you're coming from with the disposable people angle. I'm with someone until I realize why I shouldn't be, as is the case for everyone dating. The only difference is sex. So having sex is the difference between your dating and my "revolving door"? I don't understand that at all. 


The more I have read on this forum, the higher my appreciation for my husband has grown, realizing just how compatible we have always been- but never really thinking about it too much. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I will never feel one should jump in bed too quickly......just as you believe it is silly not to.


"too quickly" is quite a subjective thing now isn't it? I would absolutely not marry someone I had not had a sexual relationship with. Its tantamount to asking me to marry someone I haven't spoken to, but have had sex with. I won't be in the dark about how well we "fit" in such an important part of our relationship.



SimplyAmorous said:


> does she want FUN/ Excitement, is that her priority- living in the moment and seeing if the kite flies higher after they have shared sexual fluids...or getting the emotional Kite in the air first with the strings of a growing attachment BEFORE embracing intercourse ...


My whole point is that these aren't mutually exclusive. Forced to guess, I'd bet the majority of relationships - yes, even enduring, loving relationships - involved sexual acts prior to full or "final" emotional commitments. Given having sex does nothing to undo potential for romantic commitment among two well-paired people... what's the point of the wait, and why commit to something you don't know anything about? We need only look at this forum to judge how important it is to be on the same page sexually. Do you honestly think you and your husband would be less in love today if you had had sex earlier?



SimplyAmorous said:


> I only ask that you modify your judgement on someone like myself saying our type is all hung up.. I adore the subject of sex in all ways...I never tire of it, nor doing it ... And just as equally do I feel about Love & Romance..to me they are all beautifully intertwined.. this is the ultimate experience ....I can not separate them or I would cease to be ME.


Question: do you think that if not for your religious background, you would have waited for marriage? I'm not even sure you can answer that question objectively, because you are who you are for what you were brought up to believe... its a box few if any of us can truly see outside of. But I can say this, I've never met someone who isn't particularly religious say they are waiting for marriage. As a result, I place less weight on the "depth of romance" justification and more weight on "religious hangup" with "depth" as a defense rationalization; else, there would be a whole lot more people waiting for "depth" without religious pre-conditioning.

But it really doesn't matter what I think and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just discussing my thinking. I've very much enjoyed reading your posts.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Ok, take away marriage and religion.. I believe something in me would be terribly fixated on ONE TARGET MALE- if he showed he was LIT up for me too..... I'd want me & him to ride off in the freaking sunset to set up house, make babies and only be with each other, and I'd want to rip his balls off he he dared share himself with another.. or I felt I was "lessor" in his eyes over another woman..... where does this come from ?? Is this not built deep inside of every one of us.


Everyone has that. That's exactly what I was referring to when I was talking about insecurity. I think that sort of extreme possessiveness and jealousy are rooted in insecurity. We may rationalize other justifications, but I think deep down its insecurity. That is why we "cling". We need to really cling on to this thing... we're so afraid of losing it, we could never find another. Now, I would say with your husband and wants, maybe that's true. But then I realize, you self-describe as somewhat clingy right? Whether that guy was like your husband or not. So that says its not about the amazing match that is you and your husband, but rather a trait of yours.

Realize I'm not attacking you in ANY way. I'm just analyzing. And you wouldn't be the first to say I over analyze. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> And what is your answer.. more casual sex.. when should teens start romping ?


My answer is in that text. My relationship material are the ones somewhere in the middle. Teens shouldn't start romping until they are comfortable with sexuality and able to do so responsibly. This varies from person to person. There is no "start here". Tenet Nosce... know thyself.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I see* sexual restraint* as a *virtue* in many cases


I see it as a virtue or a vice depending on degree and circumstance.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Re: A talent for being succint, I do not have. lol*



always_alone said:


> Oh, but you can be used without being complicit. Perhaps you always have a genuine caring and connection for the people you sleep with, but this is by no means always the case. There are plenty of men and women out there who will tell you exactly what you want to hear, dangle temptations (sex, fun, presents) in front of your face and pretend to be everything you've ever dreamed of so that they can extract what they want from yoj.
> 
> 
> 
> I've failed to be genuine on a couple occasions, as you already know. Facing certain truths and facts is hard and I came up short. Suffice to say, I'm in a much better place today. I do have genuine care for anyone I sleep with - that doesn't mean I love them and it doesn't mean I've signed over my life's commitment.
> 
> Is anything in life sure? They lied and you had sex. So what? That's all on them as the liar and you move on. You know who they are now. Maybe this is a really dramatic break between how men think and how women think. She only pretended to like me and have sex with me so I would take her to Italy?? Oh woe is me, what a horrible trip. Sucks, I really liked her... oh well, good riddance. Sure was a nice trip though.
> 
> I've had an odd tangent thought before... that if there were fewer women so restrictive with sex, there might be fewer men lying to get sex. I don't know... the only women whose sexual opinions I heard before actually seeing them, were the few I met online, and in spite of what their profiles said they weren't all that restrictive and I was pretty forward.
> 
> 
> 
> always_alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think of all the predatory young men that will flatter a girl, buy her stuff, tell her that she really is the one and how amazing she is, and then once he has cum, he's back with the boys bragging about how easy she was and dissing her for being a slvt.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that type of young man really. I don't know any guys who brag about how easy she was. I might high five a friend after learning that he got laid, but its not really commentary on her. Its more of a congratulatory "yay sex!" - and even then only with the guys who I know struggle with getting a girlfriend. And honestly, I have no friends who would call a girl a slvt after having sex with her. I don't even get that. Saying something like that would totally kill the high five even. Yay! I did something easy?
> 
> 
> 
> always_alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think of all the women who bat their eyes and flip their hair and tell men how big and strong they are only to get them to pay their rent, move their piano, or buy them presents. You say you don't mind if she is just using you for a free dinner, but just how many presents will you buy her before you get tired of the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See aforementioned trip to Italy.
> 
> 
> 
> always_alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being used is entering into a transactional relationship (eg sex for money) without ever actually knowing the terms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but if I cared that much about the money, I wouldn't have gifted it. I still got something out of the relationship regardless. I guess that's what I don't get about being "used" sexually. Versus money, you're giving sex? Are you not also receiving sex? Isn't this a problem with this as a transactional argument?
> 
> 
> 
> always_alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not to say that casual sex is always like this or that anyone who has casual sex is usurious. But IMHO the risks are higher because it is much easier to lead people on for the short term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> ETA: I would take people's "exciting" profiles with a grain of salt. Much of this is just advertising, and people are notorious for trying to make themselves look that much more wonderful than they are. There's also some pretty interesting research on positive self delusion, which shows that most of us believe we are above average in a wide variety of measures.


Even when its not advertising its not necessarily a good thing. A woman who wants a lot of my time is going to be disappointed, even if she thought my interests were exciting.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Jellybeans said:


> Love this quote so much.


Just be sure to change "or" to "nor" so I look less grammatically challenged. lol




Jellybeans said:


> How long do you wait if say the chemistry is good and you like her?


I don't really have a "waiting period". I'm always setting the table, but she usually signals when its time to eat. There's always something subtle I receive that tells me "escalate". Thats less assertive than my ego would prefer, but thats the way it plays out.


----------



## southbound

SimplyAmorous said:


> Hey Southbound... where did you go ? Maybe he found a match.... Me & the  side tracted your thread for a bit... forgive us... I know it was asked a couple times, but here it is again.....what do YOU WANT??


Oh, don't worry about that, SimplyAmorous. I'm back to work and don't get as much time on here as I have recently, and this thread has gotten waaaay ahead of me as far as keeping up. It gives me a chance, however, to read all your great advice and comments. To pick one of your statements that I could comment on, I know exactly where you are coming from with your quote below.



SimplyAmorous said:


> SimplyAmorous said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....INTERCOURSE, HIS semen filled rod near my cervix - well...has the awesome power to create new life... I DO NOT take this lightly...(birth control can fail)
> 
> 
> 
> People just don't realize the awesome power they have with creating a life. I don't see how people take this so lightly either. To think that a life was created because someone had some fun with someone they were just wanting a fling with is beyond me.
Click to expand...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Jellybeans said:


> Love this quote so much.


Just be sure to change "or" to "nor" so I look less grammatically challenged. lol




Jellybeans said:


> How long do you wait if say the chemistry is good and you like her?


I don't really have a "waiting period". I'm always setting the table, but she usually signals when its time to eat. There's always something subtle I receive that tells me "escalate". Thats less assertive than my ego would prefer, but thats the way it plays out.

I've never been told to wait or had an advance shutdown. In a rare few cases, I never seem to get a signal, even though I keep setting up sexual tension. In those cases, I eventually just jump out with a sexual move, but there wasn't a timeframe. Those are a few weeks maybe? My analytical nature always has me second guessing whether this lack of assertiveness is a problem, but at the same time, I'm just not pushy about it. If I like her and there's chemistry I'm ready. When she's ready I'll usually know... and I dont want to have sex with someone who isn't totally into having it.

No matter what kind of girl it is or where I met her, she's usually ready in less time than Id have given no thought to waiting.


----------



## always_alone

*Re: A talent for being succint, I do not have. lol*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yes, but if I cared that much about the money, I wouldn't have gifted it. I still got something out of the relationship regardless. I guess that's what I don't get about being "used" sexually. Versus money, you're giving sex? Are you not also receiving sex? Isn't this a problem with this as a transactional argument?


Maybe you're lucky enough that you've never been used. Or maybe you're just not sure what it really looks like.

Being used isn't a simple transaction, sex for sex, or sex for a trip to Italy. It's one where you don't know the terms, and you don't get something in return. Most girls that I've seen use boys, for example, don't usually give them sex at all. Just the promise of it. And the things I've seen them make men do for them were truly remarkable. Think more along the lines of sending her on a trip to Italy without you, and still not putting out. Or having you pay her rent and bills while she's giving it to another guy -- not you.

Would you not feel just a little bit stupid for falling for such manipulation? Can you not understand that it's not about hangups about sex or prudish morality, but about having someone deliberately manipulate your feelings and actions solely for their selfish whims?

Dang right I felt stupid for investing any emotion in someone who treated me badly. Sure they are the *******s ultimately, but I still fell for it, didn't I. And if I don't learn a lesson, well then shame on me. 

I'm quite sure you've met the kind of man I'm talking about. Maybe my description was too simplistic, but truth is they're as common as house flies, and I think it's pretty obnoxious to blame their bad behaviour on women who are simply trying to protect themselves from being hurt.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *I'm an INTP.*
> 
> I find the ISFJ to be flakey/soft, and they find me to be robotic/hard.


Yes, the  ISFJ will bend over backwards to nurture and offer the emotional (soft).. I was reading a bit about yours ....that appears to be what doesn't come natural to you ...I copied & pasted parts of what I read... 

 Famous INTPs  >> Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Dustin Hoffman, Charles Darwin, another site said Barack Obama ...



> Portrait of an INTP - the Thinkers
> 
> INTPs live in the world of theoretical possibilities. They see everything in terms of how it could be improved, or what it could be turned into. They live primarily inside their own minds, having the ability to analyze difficult problems, identify patterns, and come up with logical explanations. They seek clarity in everything, and are therefore driven to build knowledge. They are the "absent-minded professors", who highly value intelligence and the ability to apply logic to theories to find solutions.
> 
> The INTP may have difficulty giving the warmth and support that is sometimes necessary in intimate relationships. If the INTP doesn't realize the value of attending to other people's feelings, he or she may become overly critical and sarcastic with others.
> 
> The INTP is usually very independent, unconventional, and original. They are not likely to place much value on traditional goals such as popularity and security. They usually have complex characters, and may tend to be restless and temperamental. They are strongly ingenious, and have unconventional thought patterns which allows them to analyze ideas in new ways. Consequently, a lot of scientific breakthroughs in the world have been made by the INTP.
> 
> The largest area of potential strife in an INTP's intimate relationship is their slowness in understanding and meeting their partner's emotional needs. The INTP may be extremely dedicated to the relationship, and deeply in love with their partner, but may have no understanding of their mate's emotional life, and may not express their own feelings often or well. When the INTP does express themselves, it's likely to be in their own way at their own time, rather than in response to their partner's needs. If this is an issue which has caused serious problems in a relationship, the INTP should work on becoming more aware of their partner's feelings, and their partner should work on not requiring explicit positive affirmation to feel loved by the INTP.
> 
> *INTP Strengths*
> 
> They feel love and affection for those close to them which is almost childlike in its purity
> Generally laid-back and easy-going, willing to defer to their mates
> Approach things which interest them very enthusiastically
> Richly imaginative and creative
> Do not feel personally threatened by conflict or criticism
> Usually are not demanding, with simple daily needs
> 
> *INTP Weaknesses*
> 
> Not naturally in tune with others' feelings; slow to respond to emotional needs
> Not naturally good at expressing their own feelings and emotions
> Tend to be suspicious and distrusting of others
> Not usually good at practical matters, such as money management, unless their work involves these concerns
> They have difficulty leaving bad relationships
> Tend to "blow off" conflict situations by ignoring them, or else they "blow up" in heated anger.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its a revolving door only in the sense that you don't know someone until you know them. *How do you even know what you want in a person until you find out what's out there? To know them, you have to experience things with them*. To me, sex is as much a part of that as a deep political discussion, or romantic picnics in the park... or lazy nights on the couch.


 Well I did all that and more...the experiencing things, years full... I knew, we knew... Is it wrong for me to suggest that one can fall deeply in love and know you are with the right person before intercourse? That is my position..it IS possible. But again- we enjoyed each other in ways that the religious would frown upon. 



> I don't really know where you're coming from with the disposable people angle. I'm with someone until I realize why I shouldn't be, as is the case for everyone dating. The only difference is sex. So having sex is the difference between your dating and my "revolving door"? I don't understand that at all.


 All I can offer is this...*I* would feel disposed, replaceable and USED...because I hold the act that highly and what it represents. This is all I mean... You feel differently... I can accept that.. 

If however ... commitment WAS there, a shared exclusivity, his actions bearing this out...... I would have sex with a man...and if it fell apart, I doubt I would regret this, because in that time frame, it was meant to be "forever" ...I felt he was mine, I was his, that I could call him day or night...lean on him for everything under the sun, and he'd have my back.. Until that sort of connection was built emotionally and I trusted it...It's a boundary I felt was good, and right - FOR ME..just me...

I'd keep him PLENTY HAPPY in other ways-he'd have his pleasure & then some.....if that wasn't good enough...allowing for an emotional connection to grow, *then I am not good enough*..to this man. Period. 

You are correct when you told me I pedestalize sex... I would be crossed off the dating list for many had they knew ... I find this  . But hey, they'd be missing out -if they are looking for "wife material". If they are looking for FUN.. they got more then enough to choose from. 

I want to believe some men, though they are fewer & far between, still find this position honorable ... Our sons do - but I guess that makes sense, doesn't it. 

If this is a hang up... I'll embrace my hang up... If I felt as lax as others on this, I may have never settled down as early as I did and have the family I have today. If you didn't catch the trouble I had - having to tell the OBGYN .."Hey Doc he can't get it in"...3 months after our wedding...

Now just imagine...what if I had a BF who thought I was defective.. and dumped me - cause he didn't have the patience...after all Sex has to be good if you keep the GIRL, you gotta have that almighty "FIT" ..... that could have easily happened to me. 

I wonder how that might have affected me down the road...more insecurities would have sprang for sure... that the next guy wouldn't want me either. 



> My whole point is that these aren't mutually exclusive. Forced to guess, I'd bet the majority of relationships - yes, even enduring, loving relationships - involved sexual acts prior to full or "final" emotional commitments.


 I realize this... very much so.. the majority appear to fail also.. you disagree? I prefer to be friends (best friends) before Lovers.. that is just how my Brain works, I feel it is the better path with less regret (once again)....



> Given having sex does nothing to undo potential for romantic commitment among two well-paired people... what's the point of the wait, and why commit to something you don't know anything about? We need only look at this forum to judge how important it is to be on the same page sexually.* Do you honestly think you and your husband would be less in love today if you had had sex earlier?*


 I know we'd still be together...yes... it wouldn't have mattered for us... for other boys I liked, It would have been a mistake. I would have been used, they were after my body, NOT MY HEART. 



> Question: do you think that if not for your religious background, you would have waited for marriage? I'm not even sure you can answer that question objectively, because you are who you are for what you were brought up to believe... its a box few if any of us can truly see outside of.


 I don't want to be that person who can't see outside of any box ..I try to be honest with myself , even if it makes me look bad. 

Take away all the teachings sitting in the church pew/ the youth group I enjoyed....the books I read on the value of waiting... but still leave the institution of marriage.. I don't know... probably not. 

WITH him...I just knew it was forever..early on....he was the White Knight with "oneitis" ...I never questioned his feelings ...he was far too obvious/ heart on his sleeve..If anything I would be the heart breaker...

Yet, I would have let myself down for not holding on to what I promised myself (but of course my christian upbringing shaped that, now didn't it).... 



> But I can say this, I've never met someone who isn't particularly religious say they are waiting for marriage. As a result, I place less weight on the "depth of romance" justification and more weight on "religious hangup" with "depth" as a defense rationalization; else, there would be a whole lot more people waiting for "depth" without religious pre-conditioning.


 Fair enough.. I would say the same. Though *LovelyGirl *is not religious and waits.. she hasn't been here for a while, maybe she found someone...I do not understand her as she doesn't care if the guy has been around, so in that I can't relate at all. I wanted to be the 1st and I wanted him to be my 1st.. I wanted the Fairy Tale... a young girl can dream. 

I've always struggled with Religion... Romance my inspiration...always my favorite movies, I get off on playing Matchmaker, Love songs set me on the clouds & can bring tears of joy to my eyes.... Yet I can get out the whips & hand cuffs too, I'm not all sap.



> But it really doesn't matter what I think and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just discussing my thinking. I've very much enjoyed reading your posts.


 Same thing here 's advocate.... I too enjoy hearing what YOU have to say. 



> Everyone has that. That's exactly what I was referring to when I was talking about insecurity. *I think that sort of extreme possessiveness and jealousy are rooted in insecurity. We may rationalize other justifications, but I think deep down its insecurity.*


 Ok, the scenario I gave you was about the Man showing love to 1 woman....setting up house with her, having kids...then noticing another woman & going on to have sex with her...(if no marriage in place).....and your response is ..a nonchalant "So what".... you call this "extreme possessiveness and jealousy"... he REPLACED HER like she was nothing to him... Sure I said "I'd want to chop his balls off" or something....just hammering on how that would wound me, sear my inner being....and you are telling me this is insecurity -really. No..I'm going to call that "betrayal"... not insecurity... 



> That is why we "cling". We need to really cling on to this thing... we're so afraid of losing it, we could never find another. Now, I would say with your husband and wants, maybe that's true. But then I realize, you self-describe as somewhat clingy right? Whether that guy was like your husband or not. So that says its not about the amazing match that is you and your husband, but rather a trait of yours.


When you say trait.. my answer is my /OUR Top Love languages are TIME & TOUCH..so we naturally gravitate to each other & LOVE spending time together, this is what floats our boat.... I never had trouble with guys wanting me...nor did I cling to my husband for fear of losing him.. Oh goodness no....Yes...I say I am "clingy"... It's one of those situations where you can say it about yourself with a chuckle... but when someone else says it ABOUT YOU..the meaning = "you have issues to work out"- which is a judgement of course on me. (but that's Ok, not offended). My husband has told me many times he LOVES me being that way... and I love him for feeling that way. 

So yeah the term generally = a state of high affection & desire to be with the other .. do you feel every person with these TOP Love Languages are Insecure? I certainly do not...

In contrast... had I matched up with another who had TIME at the bottom of his Languages (likely someone like you- since you need a lot of space & enjoyment for alpha hobbies)....it's very true, you would not satisfy my cravings of time & touch.... I didn't marry that guy thankfully. It seems many on this forum Do....why..likely the sex *FIT* really well ! ....and they missed these other things... This is where what you said comes into play far too often in relationships ...


> *DvlsAdvc8 said*: Unfortunately, I think most people like this jumble things up because their need doesn't fit what they're actually attracted to. *Thus they end up with people who never meet their needs, or unattracted to those who do*.


 How true it is!

So if my husband doesn't see it as an insecurity in me but enjoys the way I naturally am geared... who is anyone else to say it is an insecurity? If I was insecure, I would be clinging to him *out of fear* ...worried he was doing something behind my back, his heart beating for another... 

For us both...our "freedom" in NOT being "fearfully" clingy -but simply because we ENJOY being wrapped up in each other / touchy feely - why would we want to hang out & do hobbies and live in a cave if we enjoy cuddling more so - Wouldn't that be stupid ? 

May I also add...we are far more open than the majority with our thoughts on the opposite sex ....I recall YOU giving me a LIKE on a post about women checking men out (?)...I gave this little story...then squeezed his a$$ saying "you're the only one for me baby".. and you felt that's the way it SHOULD be..(why - no insecurity)... how many couples can do that - and not be put in the dog house for it? 

Can I also say...his trust in me - could be tied to how I pedestalize Sex for goodness sakes! He is hardly worried about me.

Maybe you feel *ALL jealousy* is riddled with Insecurity (??)... I do not.. this is the position I take....life is never so black and white...that's why it' so fun to talk about !



> Healthy and unhealthy jealousy
> 
> 
> *Two types of jealousy*
> 
> Jealousy can be either healthy or unhealthy. Healthy jealousy is a means to guard your territory and comes from a sincere care and commitment to a relationship. On the other hand, unhealthy jealousy manifests itself through lies, threats, self-pity, and feelings of inadequacy, inferiority and *insecurity.*
> 
> *The good kind*
> 
> Healthy jealousy guards the heart of a marriage because it:
> 
> * shows your commitment to the relationship
> * protects your marriage by safeguarding the relationship against evil attacks
> * deepens your openness with each other and makes you accountable through honest communication
> * helps you confront major threats to your marriage and head them off before they become major problems
> 
> God calls you to respect your spouse’s jealousy that is a warning of danger ahead. If your spouse is a secure person and desires to protect your marriage against cracks, you need to listen. Confront the issue head-on by finding the reason for the jealousy, then making changes to keep you both out of danger.
> 
> *Wives*: Trust your husband’s instincts. He knows how men think, what they want and how they pursue it. So, it would be foolish of you not to heed his warning.
> 
> *Men*: Trust your wife’s instincts. If she suggests that another woman is behaving inappropriately, your wife is probably right. Most women have radar, an innate alertness to nonverbal communication and an ability to translate body language and tone into emotional facts. Your wife probably is able to see these things clearly, so don’t criticize or blame her warnings on insecurity.
> 
> *The bad*
> 
> Unhealthy jealousy is altogether different. It stems from comparing yourself to others and feeling inadequate, unimportant, inferior and pitiful. Some spouses have experienced a lot of loss in life – whether divorce, death or abandonment in childhood – and they may bring unresolved issues into the relationship in the form of jealousy. Yet when a person carries this jealousy to pathological extremes, it will dominate a relationship.
> 
> A chronically jealous spouse will try to control a relationship through exaggeration, self-pity, lies, threats and/or manipulation. When the other partner resists, the jealous person reacts by becoming even more controlling. Then the other partner resists further by confiding in a friend or seeking relief outside the marriage. Sometimes this can become a downward spiral.
> 
> *Here are just some of the effects of unhealthy jealousy:*
> 
> * You doubt your spouse’s honesty and wrongfully accuse him or her, pushing your spouse away.
> * You feel worthless and unimportant.
> * You become frustrated and overwhelmed.
> * You have a desire to control.
> * You have less sexual intimacy with your spouse.
> * When jealousy becomes unhealthy it is destructive and frustrating to contend with. Love is not jealous and possessive. True love enables you to aim for what is best for the other person – not what is best for you.





> My answer is in that text. My relationship material are the ones somewhere in the middle. Teens shouldn't start romping until they are comfortable with sexuality and able to do so responsibly. This varies from person to person. There is no "start here". Tenet Nosce... know thyself.


 Responsibility & knowing oneself... YES....few Teens are unfortunately. 

Your bar is interesting... I have thought about "the Bar".... I guess my bar is at the end... Pedestalizing with deep emotional entanglement ...oh yes......I guess I think no matter where one is on THAT bar...even the mid section... .. they may not have "hang ups" with sex.. but that doesn't mean they aren't FRIED somewhere else that has the power to complicate your life, or irritate you. We're all working things out , ya know. 



> I see it as a virtue or a vice depending on degree and circumstance.


I can hang with this comment... No argument.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*Re: A talent for being succint, I do not have. lol*



always_alone said:


> Maybe you're lucky enough that you've never been used. Or maybe you're just not sure what it really looks like.


I dont know, I just dont really see it the way you do. I was really interested in this one girl... we were hanging out a lot, and I'm just one of those guys who pays for everything. I'm 10 years older than her, and I'm just not worried about money. So one day I mention being forced to take a day off because I had accrued too much vacation. She proceeds to convince me that I should plan a big vacation and go somewhere... and take her. lol So she plans this beach trip, presents the plans, I pay and we go. A week together in the same bed and we didn't have sex. We had sex one time before the trip... probably a month before. But since then, there was always an excuse or we'd make out and shed say she was on the rag.

After the trip, another friend of mine told me that she had been seeing another guy for a couple days before the trip. Did it piss me off? Sure. But I still had fun on the trip... and subsequently got her out of my life.

One could say I was used. But I'm not going to let someones sh*t behavior change the way I am and what I want to do. I wanted to be with her on that trip. Used implies a victimhood that I just dont feel. She kept on trying to play that game too before I cut it off. We went to dinner one last time, and I asked for separate checks. She laughed and said she had no money on her. I said no worries, she can call xxxx to pay for it (knowing full well this guy was an unemployed bum)... and I left. I did this not because I was mad, I wasn't. It was just a fun way to let her know I knew what was up.

I enjoy giving gifts. I'm not going to let her turn me into someone too paranoid to give when he feels like it. I love seeing a girl glow when presented with a particularly thoughtful or surprising gift. So thats what mean by not being a victim. This is what I want to do, and when I discover I'm being wronged, I just move on. The gifts aren't just for her, they are for me and how it makes me feel to give them.



always_alone said:


> I think it's pretty obnoxious to blame their bad behaviour on women who are simply trying to protect themselves from being hurt.


I'm not blaming though I can see why you'd think that. Its just discussion. I often wonder if women were more sexually liberal; if sex were easier for average guys to have... would there be any guys deceiving women for sex? You'd be able to trust that a guy who claims he wants a relationship actually wants a relationship.

Otherwise I'm baffled. Its as if women are saying sex isn't enjoyable unless they have some elaborate commitment. For women I know who are really comfortable with sex, this just isn't true. They have sex for their sexual pleasure independent of commitment (their own included!). Maybe comfortable is the wrong word, but its the best I've got.


----------



## Tomara

I'm going to answer the OP's questions

TWITTER PAITED (movie Bambie)

I know I'm going to test drive alot of models! I plan on leasing but never outright buying a model again. 

Makes me sound kind of ruthless but that is what cheating did to my heart :-(


----------



## Lana

HI,,,I am thinking that I would want excitement with stability. We can have both if we are smart about what who we choose.


----------



## Created2Write

*Re: Big post, got rambling, slow day, sorry!*



SimplyAmorous said:


> Oh Goodness 's advocate... LOVE your honesty.... as always.. but  did you ever slaughter..I mean freaking SLAUGHTER the *Romantic view* of sexuality...
> 
> If anything.... you have given me great insight to the possible mindset of those who praisefully embrace casual sex and how they REALLY feel about those who do NOT....
> 
> For us Romantics...we are basically >>
> 
> *1*. Insecure
> *2*. We have abandonment issues
> *3*. We are completely Untrusting, damaged and Jaded
> *4. *We also have baggage & fear...
> *5*. We are repressed and fear is driving the need for emotional commitment ..
> *6*. And this is a dreadful way to live...
> 
> Your quotes here >>
> 
> 
> But then you say this >>
> 
> 
> 
> I will agree with you, as logically minded as you are, you are surely blinded or can not grasp this world view in any way shape or form, in fact everything it represents - repulses you. This is what I see...
> 
> Because I so LOVE the subject of sexuality & genuinely seek to understand where others are coming from...I purposely searched for a book to break these things down & get to the bare roots of where these views stem from ....The book "Bringing sex into focus"....the author has taught 20 yrs of sexual ethics/ a Professor of Philosophy... I did a thread explaining these 6 lenses
> >>> HERE ...
> 
> Can I say...when I got to the "Romantic lens" chapter... every word, every thought, idea this woman spoke resonated with me... it's always been my primary view...even more so than "the waiting till marriage" view (Covenant view).... in our defense... I can not disagree with you more that those who feel strongly in this ..we are not all emotionally damaged -for heartfully feeling as strongly as we do.


LOVE this SA!


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think you'll start seeing where I'm coming from once you start examining, really closely and without bias just to prove me wrong, WHY exactly you hold sex so sacred and what it serves to do so.
> 
> Just a little more eroding of that legacy of sexual indoctrination before you too would view sex as a totally comfortable enjoyable act we all engage in rather than a sacred pact.
> 
> I doubt many will agree with me.


But see you're acting under the assumption that there's something _wrong_ with the way I view sex, and with that I couldn't disagree more. Sure, I may not be the girl to have sex on a second date, bent over the arm of the couch; I may not be the girl to give a blow job or have sex in public with a guy I barely know; I may not be the girl who sends naughty pictures to a guy I'm not even dating yet...but I will do all of those things, and more, with a man I love. 

I happen to believe that, while sex can be fun and physically enjoyable and there are times when I have sex with my husband for those reasons alone, I also believe that sex is massively more fulfilling when it takes place between two people who are in love. I could never have sex with someone I wasn't in love with, and if a guy isn't willing to wait around until love is there, then he's not relationship material. Period. I say that because I'm not a prude, and any man who waited for me would have been more than fairly compensated for his patience. Not many good Christian girls are down for making their own porn, but this one sure is. And what's more, I actually _like_ it! 

If all you want from life is a string of short term girlfriends who are fun lays, then by all means, this lifestyle you profess will work for you. But viewing sex as nothing more than a fun, physically enjoyable act absolutely takes the meaning out of it, and _that_ will suffocate any romantic connection with sex you try and create with the girl you _do_ fall head over heals for. Viewing sex as a sacred act doesn't have to make it some vanilla-only, lights off tryst. Sex can be hot and steamy, kinky and all kinds of crazy _and_ be sacred at the same time. 

As for why I think it's sacred...I'm going to be blatantly honest: my husband and I have been doing pretty badly lately. At each other's throats from the time we wake up, and for really stupid reasons. This last week we've upped our sexual frequency. Due to stress and conflicting work schedules, our frequency had gone down. After having sex three times, our relationship has improved exponentially. To me, it's pretty obvious. There's something about sex existing between two people who are in love, so I really can't believe anything else. That doesn't mean I don't have sex just for fun with my husband. I hand and I do, and I love it. But I also love _him_, and that makes even the fun sex mean more than just an orgasm.


----------



## greenfern

Haven't read all the posts but as an (almost) 40 yr old in a post-divorce relationship, I wanted a connection - intimacy. Its hard to tell from stats whether you would have that or not, I had the right 'stats' with my x but no connection.

So for the stats though - similar level financial to myself (agree with a post from Holland - I would just like my partner to be able to pay for his way doing the things we both like to do, like travel, nice restaurants, etc). I need to respect them whether that is their career or some personal hobby or interest they have. Have to find them attractive. 

Stability itself wouldn't be so important at this point - that was more important when I was looking for 'the father of my children'. In fact my current SO would be totally wrong for that role (father) but he is fantastic as the role I need now (lover).


----------



## alte Dame

I would be attracted to someone who was intellectually curious and articulate. I don't like people who throw out thoughtless one-liners that can be debunked in even fewer words.

A man who pays attention, eyes and ears on me, not other women who happen by as we talk. Not someone who keeps glancing at his phone. Just basic attention for the length of the date. Good manners. Considerate, polite, kind.

These qualities are also good for the long term, but would definitely bode well as a start.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> But see you're acting under the assumption that there's something _wrong_ with the way I view sex, and with that I couldn't disagree more. Sure, I may not be the girl to have sex on a second date, bent over the arm of the couch; I may not be the girl to give a blow job or have sex in public with a guy I barely know; I may not be the girl who sends naughty pictures to a guy I'm not even dating yet...but I will do all of those things, and more, with a man I love.
> 
> I happen to believe that, while sex can be fun and physically enjoyable and there are times when I have sex with my husband for those reasons alone, I also believe that sex is massively more fulfilling when it takes place between two people who are in love. I could never have sex with someone I wasn't in love with, and if a guy isn't willing to wait around until love is there, then he's not relationship material. Period. I say that because I'm not a prude, and any man who waited for me would have been more than fairly compensated for his patience. Not many good Christian girls are down for making their own porn, but this one sure is. And what's more, I actually _like_ it!
> 
> If all you want from life is a string of short term girlfriends who are fun lays, then by all means, this lifestyle you profess will work for you. But viewing sex as nothing more than a fun, physically enjoyable act absolutely takes the meaning out of it, and _that_ will suffocate any romantic connection with sex you try and create with the girl you _do_ fall head over heals for. Viewing sex as a sacred act doesn't have to make it some vanilla-only, lights off tryst. Sex can be hot and steamy, kinky and all kinds of crazy _and_ be sacred at the same time.


 And I LOVE this Created2Write... ... darn we think alike ...with you on every thought here! 

Sorry to hear about being at each other's throats...for really stupid reasons....oh it happens...

We had a minor blow out the other day over ....ready for this..... "*Plums*".....he didn't get his plums at a Flea Market (Kinda my fault)... I was hot, tired & wanted to get back, have a little US time before the kids got home (mind in the gutter).....We get back...I felt his sour attitude ... I grabbed my *OO* & offered my plums, he called them cantaloupes, it was truly ridiculous...we still had a cross face with each other for another hour... he was kinda ticked...(he took a day off work for this - biggest flea market in the state)...

Here I felt he didn't assert wanting those plums bad enough, and he felt I would have given him lip if he went back for them. Oh goodness.... what can you do but ROAR about something this silly ...and we did  - after we got over ourselves!


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> And I LOVE this Created2Write... ... darn we think alike ...with you on every thought here!


:smthumbup:



> Sorry to hear about being at each other's throats...for really stupid reasons....oh it happens...


Well, you know how some couples are snappy and irritable with each other because they see too much of each other? We're snappy and irritable because we don't always get to see enough of each other. That makes this difficult because we're automatically on edge when we're around each other. But, my schedule has been better, so I think we're going to have more time together. 



> We had a minor blow out the other day over ....ready for this..... "*Plums*".....he didn't get his plums at a Flea Market (Kinda my fault)... I was hot, tired & wanted to get back, have a little US time before the kids got home (mind in the gutter).....We get back...I felt his sour attitude ... I grabbed my *OO* & offered my plums, he called them cantaloupes, it was truly ridiculous...we still had a cross face with each other for another hour... he was kinda ticked...(he took a day off work for this - biggest flea market in the state)...
> 
> Here I felt he didn't assert wanting those plums bad enough, and he felt I would have given him lip if he went back for them. Oh goodness.... what can you do but ROAR about something this silly ...and we did  - after we got over ourselves!


Exactly! If we can just get out of our own way, things would improve! Luckily, we had a lot of time together last weekend, so we were both feeling pretty fulfilled today.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> But see you're acting under the assumption that there's something _wrong_ with the way I view sex, and with that I couldn't disagree more.


I'm not saying your sexual view is wrong at all. I'm analyzing why it is the way it is - the difference in sexual views among people. You're happy and that's great. But I can't help but notice the role of religion/culture in forming this more conservative, traditional view of sex. That's really all I'm saying. If it weren't for that, I don't think there would be many if any people who have extended waits.



Created2Write said:


> I happen to believe that, while *sex can be fun and physically enjoyable and there are times when I have sex with my husband for those reasons alone*, I also believe that *sex is massively more fulfilling when it takes place between two people who are in love*. _I could never have sex with someone I wasn't in love with_, and if a guy isn't willing to wait around until love is there, then he's not relationship material.


OK... there is a logic issue here that I have been trying to take aim at. Please understand I'm not just trying to hound you. I just can't understand the reasoning.

These three sentences don't add up to me. A + B <> C

The way I read it, A and B are premises and C is your conclusion seemingly drawn from A and B... and it doesn't quite work. C is more or less forced in there.

A) Sex is enjoyable and fun on its own merit
B) Sex is better with someone you love
C) I refuse to have sex with someone I don't love

Firstly, how do you know "B" is true? I happen to agree, but I'm just making a point.

Lastly, while I know you diluted "A" a little by saying "with my husband", I interpret you as saying sex is enjoyable on its own merit. Am I wrong? Do you believe sex only fun if you're in love?

So you refuse to have fun sex when you're not in love, because sex is more than fun when you're in love.

This is the sort of denial of self-gratification I commonly associate with religion, and in this instance, I honestly don't see the point to it. If you can't have the cherry, you don't want the ice cream? Its utterly bizarre to me... unless one were to say that sex by itself isn't good/fun/enjoyable. Its all the joy or no joy at all... and I don't see why.



Created2Write said:


> If all you want from life is a string of short term girlfriends who are fun lays, then by all means, this lifestyle you profess will work for you.


*sigh*

My whole point is that there is no such link... nor any of the links being implied here. I might sleep with a several people this month, and then lo and behold meet someone I fall in love with. I might have sex with her and I might not, and neither impacts whether I fall in love with her or not.

Thus far, they have been short term girlfriends, but they would have only been short term girlfriends even if we never had sex. So what on earth does sex have to do with it at all? This "lifestyle"? As if I'm intentionally trying to have only short term girlfriends? Or are you saying I should settle and remain with someone I'm not 100% happy with?



Created2Write said:


> But viewing sex as nothing more than a fun, physically enjoyable act absolutely takes the meaning out of it, and _that_ will suffocate any romantic connection with sex you try and create with the girl you _do_ fall head over heals for. Viewing sex as a sacred act doesn't have to make it some vanilla-only, lights off tryst. Sex can be hot and steamy, kinky and all kinds of crazy _and_ be sacred at the same time.


It only has meaning because you give it meaning... and you give it the meaning you were taught to give it. I'm not saying its right or wrong or should or shouldn't be changed. I'm just saying that many people have unloaded this weight... the traditional notion of sex, which you hold, is on the way out. Its largely disappeared in much of Europe for quite some time. Sex brings two people closer no doubt, it can have some emotional value, but its not going to make you fall in love and its still fun without love. Its just sex. I'm not even saying this sacred sex was vanilla... only that I don't understand why one would not have sex simply on the basis that its better with love. Caramel Pie might be better with whip cream, but its still pretty damn good without whip cream, and you can put whip cream on it or not after the first bite... but not eating at all until you find some whip cream? lol Why?



Created2Write said:


> After having sex three times, our relationship has improved exponentially. To me, it's pretty obvious. There's something about sex existing between two people who are in love, so I really can't believe anything else.


And that's totally consistent with my experience. 

I went back and forth seeing this one girl. We'd have sex and I'd think she was amazing afterward (like a spell that lasts a day or so). Then if we didn't have sex for a few days, by the end of the week I couldn't stand her; nor her me. So much so that I broke up with her. Then one night, we went and partied together with other friends, and ended up hooking up again and boom! I thought she was awesome again and couldn't seem to remember why I ever broke up with her. The whole next week was great - we had sex every day. Then when her school/work interfered and we had less sex, we were at each other's throats every day again... and we didn't even live together!

There's something weird about sex no doubt, but I didn't love her, and I don't feel that sex and love are tightly coupled. Combined they might both be better, but I think they're fine on their own merit as well.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not saying your sexual view is wrong at all. I'm analyzing why it is the way it is - the difference in sexual views among people. You're happy and that's great. But I can't help but notice the role of religion/culture in forming this more conservative, traditional view of sex. That's really all I'm saying. If it weren't for that, I don't think there would be many if any people who have extended waits.


 I believe I would still feel very similar....I've always been very *consequence Focused* (this is more reason, not Faith of any kind)...also there would be far more children growing up in broken homes ...a plug for beliefs....a world without any "foundational rules" to aspire to.... to treat one's neighbor as oneself (and so much more),to make sure the girl you slept with wasn't attaching over your need for a release ...if you learned you had an STD, to reveal this to every partner....without such caring....the world will grow to pure CHAOS ...of Alpha eating Alpha...and everyone & his sister humping each other- cause it feels GOOD. 

Lots of things FEEL GOOD, taste GOOD... I'd love to pop chocolate kisses in my mouth all day too. 



> A) Sex is enjoyable and fun on its own merit
> B) *Sex is better with someone you love*
> C) I refuse to have sex with someone I don't love
> 
> Firstly, *how do you know "B" is true? *I happen to agree, but I'm just making a point.


 I want to answer this for myself... It would be a such an emotional let down (Probably already explained this a variety of ways)...as I would want to attach myself TO THIS MAN who took me over the edge... bask in the aftergrow , open my heart, start talking about the future.. I'd see our children playing in the yard.. I do ATTACH all these things with sex...especially intercourse (to me this only belongs with commitment and pure vulnerability)....This act is as high as it gets...it is engrossing, it touches every sense of your being with another...this is ALL the WAY... this = his accepting me, wanting me, I am safe in his arms, he will catch my every fall. 

Entertain this for a second....this may sound bad... IF I *didn't* view things as I do... I'd likely be pretty sexually "loose"... seriously.... if FUN was my barometer (the hell with the rest)...can't imagine how many guys I would have used for my own Enjoyment....I can think back to one I met on the beach as a Teenager, I think I fantasized about him for a freaking year after that walk in the sand....

I surely wouldn't have the life & family I have today.....*so if My Beliefs, my Romantic hang ups -is what was holding me back... this has been a blessing to my life.*..Otherwise, If I had a taste of that ...I might be sizing up every willing Co** from here to God knows where. Sure that would all be a RUSH...if I could just tame my nagging emotional being....but I can't -- or wouldn't want too.

I am much better off holding the view I do, to keep me restrained...and no , this is not at all difficult, I am just being Bombastic in my answering this.... So long as I got one to take care of my needs...I can bask in the deepest of Romance with this one man who wants me for life...I don't need another.

Surely you can understand...opening the Cage of something like that...taking our beliefs away, our deep feelings ...to what Sex *represents* to us... if I lost all my sensitivity along with it, emotions be gone....why would I even care if I screwed a married man. Why would it really matter..it is just sex, it's not a big deal, he can go home to his wife..and never see me again...no harm done- a condom was used. 

I am completely on the other side in this...asking ....how can sex be treated so trivial all these years before one marries... THEN WHAM...all of a sudden....you wake up & it's different....you now view it as WE have viewed it all along (or try too).... special between 2 people -for life, to honor & cherish, high emotion/ attachment flooding in ...

We all use *boundaries* every day in our lives...you do as well....we may not think about it.. but even in flirting , joking, borrowing from friends, our interactions with Co-workers, we all have boundaries... People hurt other people every day by allowing their boundaries to be let down too far.. or someone else crossing their boundaries with manipulation, seduction because they dangle something FUN.... or whatever it may be. We must stand firm, understand why we feel as we do...and live within that framework we have worked out in our psyches, our own personal ethics... Isn't this the height of wisdom? 

If we know going over a certain boundary with a man is going to HURT us-leave us wanting more/ expecting more... we would be foolish to go there too soon. Yes, I would give Bj's while dating...not early but if I felt things were progressing... if he threw me away, at least I'd not feel I gave him my ALL.... I reserved that for the man I could lay in his arms with his hanging on my every word, laughing & imagining the children we'd have someday with no worry he'd be sick of me next week after the hormone rush wore off ... this is why Love needs to be tested... if indeed we seek LOVE....over FUN. 

Examples of Boundaries with others...



> *Material boundaries* determine whether you give or lend things, such as your money, car, clothes, books, food, or toothbrush.
> 
> *Physical boundaries* pertain to your personal space, privacy, and body. Do you give a handshake or a hug – to whom and when? How do you feel about loud music, nudity, and locked doors?
> 
> *Mental boundaries* apply to your thoughts, values, and opinions. Are you easily suggestible? Do you know what you believe, and can you hold onto your opinions? Can you listen with an open mind to someone else’s opinion without becoming rigid? If you become highly emotional, argumentative, or defensive, you may have weak emotional boundaries.
> 
> *Emotional boundaries* distinguish separating your emotions and responsibility for them from someone else’s. It’s like an imaginary line or force field that separates you and others. Healthy boundaries prevent you from giving advice, blaming or accepting blame. They protect you from feeling guilty for someone else’s negative feelings or problems and taking others’ comments personally. High reactivity suggests weak emotional boundaries. Healthy emotional boundaries require clear internal boundaries – knowing your feelings and your responsibilities to yourself and others.
> 
> *Sexual boundaries* protect your comfort level with sexual touch and activity – what, where, when, and with whom.
> 
> *Spiritual boundaries *relate to your beliefs and experiences in connection with God or a higher power.





> Lastly, while I know you diluted "A" a little by saying "with my husband", I interpret you as saying sex is enjoyable on its own merit. Am I wrong? Do you believe sex only fun if you're in love?


- It would Be FUN in the moment...but it's not worth *the Price*....as the emptiness will flood in -wanting to reach out for that person again...and he is not there but in someone else's bed. 



> This is the sort of denial of self-gratification I commonly associate with religion, and in this instance, I honestly don't see the point to it. If you can't have the cherry, you don't want the ice cream? Its utterly bizarre to me... unless one were to say that sex by itself isn't good/fun/enjoyable. Its all the joy or no joy at all... and I don't see why.


 It's the after-effects ..getting drunk is FUN too (or so they say, I wouldn't know)....then comes the hang over.... 



> My whole point is that there is no such link... nor any of the links being implied here. I might sleep with a several people this month, and then lo and behold meet someone I fall in love with. I might have sex with her and I might not, and neither impacts whether I fall in love with her or not.


 You look through a "I LIVE FOR FUN " lense... We attach Love making to being in love... to give our everything to the man we are with, and have him receive all of us, not just our vajayjay for the night or week. We have to mean more to HIM than this. 

I realize I am being a Broken Record here... looking forward to hearing Created2 Writes answers. 



> It only has meaning because you give it meaning... and you give it the meaning you were taught to give it. I'm not saying its right or wrong or should or shouldn't be changed. *I'm just saying that many people have unloaded this weight... the traditional notion of sex, which you hold, is on the way out. Its largely disappeared in much of Europe for quite some time.*


 You may feel this is a good thing... but I don't... all I see is sex gets cheaper and cheaper and cheaper to where it is just a bodily function devoid of meaning... I find this very sad. No one is willing to wait for a true Romance anymore...

I found this reply here... I think like this


> The Sacredness of Sexuality … Is Sex Sacred? | Single Dating Diva
> 
> I believe that sex has lost its specialness and reduced most humans back to their animal nature of just being an act with no emotions. Pleasure is short lived and often leaves one or both parties feeling empty. Being intimate requires trust and the ability to allow oneself to be vulnerable that applies to men and women.
> 
> Whilst sex before marraige is a religious ideal, there is something to be said for waiting or as in the day of my parents ‘courting’!!! Builds anticipation, allows you to really see if you genuinely like someone or if it is just a hormonal overload, its great as a woman when a man is chasing, its great for men to pursue and as women we get to value ourselves and dare I say it, exercise some quality control. In sanskrit the term for vagina is Yoni which means sacred space – choose wisely who you allow to enter yours!!





> Sex brings two people closer no doubt, it can have some emotional value, but its not going to make you fall in love and its still fun without love. Its just sex. I'm not even saying this sacred sex was vanilla... only that I don't understand why one would not have sex simply on the basis that its better with love. Caramel Pie might be better with whip cream, but its still pretty damn good without whip cream, and you can put whip cream on it or not after the first bite... but not eating at all until you find some whip cream? lol Why?


 I definitely "get it"...the whole "Sex is just SEX".....it means nothing but a good time...living in the moment, taking it for every orgasm it can get....and who doesn't enjoy those [email protected]# Take the pie... who cares about the cream... . We don't judge you, just that if we were with you, we'd feel used by you. That's all. 

So keep going for the women who don't care & separates sex but good luck if Love springs from this well. Reminds me of Tina Turners's ......*"What's love got to do with it ".*..

... spells out the common story trying to have a relationship based purely on the physical while pushing their hearts & emotions aside to avoid getting hurt. It sounds good in theory...allows for the FUN... but so often this leaves one empty, lonely...it can be a painful approach to relationships. Some of us don't want this, we reject it...we see value in that rejecting..as again...
It ISN'T "JUST SEX" to us.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not saying your sexual view is wrong at all. I'm analyzing why it is the way it is - the difference in sexual views among people. You're happy and that's great. But I can't help but notice the role of religion/culture in forming this more conservative, traditional view of sex. That's really all I'm saying. If it weren't for that, I don't think there would be many if any people who have extended waits.


I agree and disagree. For me, my upbringing(which does include my religious preference) molded and shaped the way I have come to view sex. But it's not the only thing that has shaped it, and I have known those who didn't share my religious beliefs who also chose to wait until falling in love to have sex. So, while religion can and does influence people's view of sex, it can also be irrelevant to their sexual choices altogether. 



> OK... there is a logic issue here that I have been trying to take aim at. Please understand I'm not just trying to hound you. I just can't understand the reasoning.


I understand. I ask you, though, to keep in mind that just because you can't understand the reasoning doesn't mean the reasoning is inaccurate.



> These three sentences don't add up to me. A + B <> C
> 
> The way I read it, A and B are premises and C is your conclusion seemingly drawn from A and B... and it doesn't quite work. C is more or less forced in there.
> 
> A) Sex is enjoyable and fun on its own merit
> B) Sex is better with someone you love
> C) I refuse to have sex with someone I don't love
> 
> Firstly, how do you know "B" is true? I happen to agree, but I'm just making a point.


This question is impossible to answer. I can only answer according to myself and my personal experiences. I had a boyfriend who wanted sex, and he hounded me for it constantly. He was in the military, so the entirety of our relationship was long distance. He made remarks all the time about getting me pregnant on his pre-deployment leave, about kissing me in certain places...he didn't respect my choice to wait, and made it very obvious. As a result, I had absolutely no desire to even try oral sex. I felt rejected before I was even rejected. I didn't feel loved or desired or wanted, even though he told me he loved me all the time. 

With my husband, I couldn't control my sexual desires. He respected my desire to wait, never once pressured me or made me feel ridiculous for having the desires I did...and as a result, I fell in love with him very fast, and we went all the way very quickly and very often. So, while the first guy and I never had sex, I do know how I felt about sex with him, a man I didn't love, in comparison to how I felt sexually with a man I did love. With love I felt respected and desired, trusted and worth the wait, while without love I felt used, trampled on and rejected for who I am as a whole. 



> Lastly, while I know you diluted "A" a little by saying "with my husband", I interpret you as saying sex is enjoyable on its own merit. Am I wrong? Do you believe sex only fun if you're in love?


Not at all. If sex was _only_ fun when in love, only people who were in love would have it. I think sex can be fun and physically enjoyable whether the people doing it are in love or not. I do, however, believe that it is _more_ fun, enjoyable and fulfilling when it exists between two people who are in love. 



> So you refuse to have fun sex when you're not in love, because sex is more than fun when you're in love.


For me, yes. 



> This is the sort of denial of self-gratification I commonly associate with religion, and in this instance, I honestly don't see the point to it. If you can't have the cherry, you don't want the ice cream? Its utterly bizarre to me... unless one were to say that sex by itself isn't good/fun/enjoyable. Its all the joy or no joy at all... and I don't see why.


You don't have to see why. For me, sex without love is empty. Physically the same thing happens, but emotionally it's very different. For some people, the emotional aspect isn't as important and that's fine for them. I am, and always have been, a very emotional person, and sex makes me feel things that I couldn't possibly feel in any other way. There is no greater intimacy between two people than sex. If what I wanted was to have "fun" on a date with a guy I wasn't in love with, I'd play put-put golf with him, or go bowling, or go to a bar. Sex, for me, is reserved for intimacy with someone I love. While others may be able to separate intimacy from sex, I don't have that skill and, frankly, it isn't a skill I aspire to have. 



> *sigh*
> 
> My whole point is that there is no such link... nor any of the links being implied here. I might sleep with a several people this month, and then lo and behold meet someone I fall in love with. I might have sex with her and I might not, and neither impacts whether I fall in love with her or not.


What _you_ do has absolutely no bearing on what _I_ do. Like I said before, this lifestyle works for you. It wouldn't, ever, work for me. Sex doesn't create love, in my opinion; for me, sex is a result of love. There may be no link between sex and love for you. There is for me. Sex is the ultimate expression of love and desire, and the two can not be separated for me. 



> Thus far, they have been short term girlfriends, but they would have only been short term girlfriends even if we never had sex. So what on earth does sex have to do with it at all? This "lifestyle"? As if I'm intentionally trying to have only short term girlfriends? Or are you saying I should settle and remain with someone I'm not 100% happy with?


I absolutely don't think you should settle. I didn't either. The difference between you and I is that you're still open to having sex with the girls you're not happy with, while I wasn't open to having sex _until_ I was 100% happy. 



> It only has meaning because you give it meaning... and you give it the meaning you were taught to give it. I'm not saying its right or wrong or should or shouldn't be changed. I'm just saying that many people have unloaded this weight... the traditional notion of sex, which you hold, is on the way out. Its largely disappeared in much of Europe for quite some time. *Sex brings two people closer no doubt, it can have some emotional value, but its not going to make you fall in love and its still fun without love.*


I don't believe that sex makes people fall in love, nor do I think it would be boring without love. I do, however, believe that it brings people closer than anything will and is one of the strongest ways to maintain love in a relationship, and as such, I have, and will, associate sex with love. This doesn't mean that I don't have fun when having sex, because it's one of the funnest things my husband and I do together. However, the great thing about _our_ sex is that, while fun and physically enjoyable, it's also utterly romantic and intimate and fulfilling because we are in love. So we have the ultimate package: fun sex that is _also_ intimate and fulfilling.



> Its just sex. I'm not even saying this sacred sex was vanilla... only that I don't understand why one would not have sex simply on the basis that its better with love. Caramel Pie might be better with whip cream, but its still pretty damn good without whip cream, and you can put whip cream on it or not after the first bite... but not eating at all until you find some whip cream? lol Why?


I don't appreciate the "lol". Just because you don't get my way of thinking doesn't mean you have the right to mock and laugh at it. For me, sex _isn't_ "just sex", and comparing it to a pie is just...yeah, don't even know what to say to that. 

In response to the analogy: if sex really were "just sex", and not that big of a deal, marriages could exist without it, and it wouldn't have been that big of a deal that your wife rejected you so often. 



> And that's totally consistent with my experience.
> 
> I went back and forth seeing this one girl. We'd have sex and I'd think she was amazing afterward (like a spell that lasts a day or so). Then if we didn't have sex for a few days, by the end of the week I couldn't stand her; nor her me. So much so that I broke up with her. Then one night, we went and partied together with other friends, and ended up hooking up again and boom! I thought she was awesome again and couldn't seem to remember why I ever broke up with her. The whole next week was great - we had sex every day. Then when her school/work interfered and we had less sex, we were at each other's throats every day again... and we didn't even live together!
> 
> There's something weird about sex no doubt, but I didn't love her, and I don't feel that sex and love are tightly coupled. Combined they might both be better, but I think they're fine on their own merit as well.


I simply disagree. Others may be able to separate sex and love, but that's something I just can't do. Again, for you loveless sex may be "fine", but for me it isn't. Knowing what sex is between two people who are crazy about each other, if my husband and I ever found ourselves single, I wouldn't be able to have sex with another man unless we were in love. 

And it may sound weird to you, but that's precisely how I would want it. I have the _greatest_ memories of losing my virginity because of how strongly I loved my husband. It was intoxicating! We'd been burning hot for each other for months, and when we finally did come together sexually, it was absolutely beautiful. I wanted to wait until marriage, but the experience was so wonderful, if I could go back and do it all over, I'd do it the exact same way. And the feelings I've had with him since then each time we have sex simply couldn't exist in a sexual experience without love, so I can't imagine being fulfilled with loveless sex. Without that fulfillment, I can't see myself even wanting sex after that. So, for me, sex without love just isn't an option.


----------



## Created2Write

simplyamorous said:


> i believe i would still feel very similar....i've always been very *consequence focused* (this is more reason, not faith of any kind)...also there would be far more children growing up in broken homes ...a plug for beliefs....a world without any "foundational rules" to aspire to.... To treat one's neighbor as oneself (and so much more),to make sure the girl you slept with wasn't attaching over your need for a release ...if you learned you had an std, to reveal this to every partner....without such caring....the world will grow to pure chaos ...of alpha eating alpha...and everyone & his sister humping each other- cause it feels good.
> 
> Lots of things feel good, taste good... I'd love to pop chocolate kisses in my mouth all day too.
> 
> I want to answer this for myself... It would be a such an emotional let down (probably already explained this a variety of ways)...as i would want to attach myself to this man who took me over the edge... Bask in the aftergrow , open my heart, start talking about the future.. I'd see our children playing in the yard.. I do attach all these things with sex...especially intercourse (to me this only belongs with commitment and pure vulnerability)....this act is as high as it gets...it is engrossing, it touches every sense of your being with another...this is all the way... This = his accepting me, wanting me, i am safe in his arms, he will catch my every fall.
> 
> Entertain this for a second....this may sound bad... If i *didn't* view things as i do... I'd likely be pretty sexually "loose"... Seriously.... If fun was my barometer (the hell with the rest)...can't imagine how many guys i would have used for my own enjoyment....i can think back to one i met on the beach as a teenager, i think i fantasized about him for a freaking year after that walk in the sand....
> 
> I surely wouldn't have the life & family i have today.....*so if my beliefs, my romantic hang ups -is what was holding me back... This has been a blessing to my life.*..otherwise, if i had a taste of that ...i might be sizing up every willing co** from here to god knows where. Sure that would all be a rush...if i could just tame my nagging emotional being....but i can't -- or wouldn't want too.
> 
> I am much better off holding the view i do, to keep me restrained...and no , this is not at all difficult, i am just being bombastic in my answering this.... So long as i got one to take care of my needs...i can bask in the deepest of romance with this one man who wants me for life...i don't need another.
> 
> Surely you can understand...opening the cage of something like that...taking our beliefs away, our deep feelings ...to what sex *represents* to us... If i lost all my sensitivity along with it, emotions be gone....why would i even care if i screwed a married man. Why would it really matter..it is just sex, it's not a big deal, he can go home to his wife..and never see me again...no harm done- a condom was used.
> 
> I am completely on the other side in this...asking ....how can sex be treated so trivial all these years before one marries... Then wham...all of a sudden....you wake up & it's different....you now view it as we have viewed it all along (or try too).... Special between 2 people -for life, to honor & cherish, high emotion/ attachment flooding in ...
> 
> We all use *boundaries* every day in our lives...you do as well....we may not think about it.. But even in flirting , joking, borrowing from friends, our interactions with co-workers, we all have boundaries... People hurt other people every day by allowing their boundaries to be let down too far.. Or someone else crossing their boundaries with manipulation, seduction because they dangle something fun.... Or whatever it may be. We must stand firm, understand why we feel as we do...and live within that framework we have worked out in our psyches, our own personal ethics... Isn't this the height of wisdom?
> 
> If we know going over a certain boundary with a man is going to hurt us-leave us wanting more/ expecting more... We would be foolish to go there too soon. Yes, i would give bj's while dating...not early but if i felt things were progressing... If he threw me away, at least i'd not feel i gave him my all.... I reserved that for the man i could lay in his arms with his hanging on my every word, laughing & imagining the children we'd have someday with no worry he'd be sick of me next week after the hormone rush wore off ... This is why love needs to be tested... If indeed we seek love....over fun.
> 
> Examples of boundaries with others...
> 
> 
> 
> - it would be fun in the moment...but it's not worth *the price*....as the emptiness will flood in -wanting to reach out for that person again...and he is not there but in someone else's bed.
> 
> It's the after-effects ..getting drunk is fun too (or so they say, i wouldn't know)....then comes the hang over....
> 
> You look through a "i live for fun " lense... We attach love making to being in love... To give our everything to the man we are with, and have him receive all of us, not just our vajayjay for the night or week. We have to mean more to him than this.
> 
> I realize i am being a broken record here... Looking forward to hearing created2 writes answers.
> 
> You may feel this is a good thing... But i don't... All i see is sex gets cheaper and cheaper and cheaper to where it is just a bodily function devoid of meaning... I find this very sad. No one is willing to wait for a true romance anymore...
> 
> I found this reply here... I think like this
> 
> i definitely "get it"...the whole "sex is just sex".....it means nothing but a good time...living in the moment, taking it for every orgasm it can get....and who doesn't enjoy those [email protected]# take the pie... Who cares about the cream... . We don't judge you, just that if we were with you, we'd feel used by you. That's all.
> 
> So keep going for the women who don't care & separates sex but good luck if love springs from this well. Reminds me of tina turners's ......*"what's love got to do with it ".*..
> 
> ... Spells out the common story trying to have a relationship based purely on the physical while pushing their hearts & emotions aside to avoid getting hurt. It sounds good in theory...allows for the fun... But so often this leaves one empty, lonely...it can be a painful approach to relationships. Some of us don't want this, we reject it...we see value in that rejecting..as again...
> It isn't "just sex" to us.



exaclty!


----------



## Created2Write

And Devils, you _absolutely_ have been saying that my view is wrong. If you didn't think it was wrong, you wouldn't have called it "a weight". So, let's all be honest from this point forward, shall we? I can take it that you think I'm wrong and, probably, high maintenance. And, in fact, I'd prefer that you be honest about that.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvocate said:


> This is the sort of denial of self-gratification I commonly associate with religion, and in this instance, I honestly don't see the point to it. If you can't have the cherry, you don't want the ice cream? Its utterly bizarre to me... unless one were to say that sex by itself isn't good/fun/enjoyable. Its all the joy or no joy at all... and I don't see why.


Also, forgot to add...if "self-gratification" is the purpose of having sex without love, then you make a mistake in assuming that having sex without love would, actually, be gratifying for everyone. It wouldn't be gratifying for me, so in actuality, _not_ having sex until love exists is ensuring my sexual gratification.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> This question is impossible to answer. I can only answer according to myself and my personal experiences. I had a boyfriend who wanted sex, and he hounded me for it constantly.


This makes total sense to me, but now imagine that guy doesn't hound you and just lets what comes natural come. I've never hounded anyone for sex. In fact, I usually don't make the first overtly sexual move... I just keep setting things up with subtle touches, a quick sexual wit and sex always seems to take care of itself. More often than not, what I hear later is along the lines of "you were driving me crazy! I kept waiting for you to come after me and you kept teasing!!!" Its great.

I've said this in the game threads, but for me, everything goes better when I flip the ordinary roles... instead of trying to impress or appeal to her, I try to play the conversation such that she's trying to impress or appeal to me. For my part, all I do is work on building tension. 

Could it be that you weren't into this guy because his overly aggressive advances were a turn off rather than the fact you weren't in love with him? You're an example of the kind of girl I would try to drive nuts before I ever made a move.



Created2Write said:


> You don't have to see why.


I'm an INTP! "Why" is my whole life. lol



Created2Write said:


> For me, sex without love is empty. Physically the same thing happens, but emotionally it's very different. For some people, the emotional aspect isn't as important and that's fine for them. I am, and always have been, a very emotional person, and sex makes me feel things that I couldn't possibly feel in any other way. There is no greater intimacy between two people than sex. If what I wanted was to have "fun" on a date with a guy I wasn't in love with, I'd play put-put golf with him, or go bowling, or go to a bar. Sex, for me, is reserved for intimacy with someone I love. While others may be able to separate intimacy from sex, I don't have that skill and, frankly, it isn't a skill I aspire to have.


You've never met someone and had that magical instant chemistry that makes you begin to question whether "love at first sight" is a real thing? Where you hang on their every word, and your very blood seems to vibrate with energy when they draw near? When their physical touch is absolutely electric and you're overcome with lust? 

Everything they do and say is so full of life and charisma that all of your shields come down... they instantly disarm you and you're naked. That's what its like.

I went on an all day, daytime date with a girl and we ended up hooking up. Everything was perfect... literally storybook, movie script, novel perfect. So much so that the next day we were texting and joking about true love. I even wrote her a little prose that I still have memorized:

"Love at first sight is not so irrational seeming
when you've seen your love countless times while dreaming
it should be no surprise then that you'd recognize them
and be unable to ignore you're heart's passionate beating."

Was I really in love? No, surely not that fast... but the energy and chemistry of it all was just flat out amazing. I began to wonder. We're not together today, but we still talk and whenever we do we joke about being soul mates with issues that would never work out.



Created2Write said:


> The difference between you and I is that you're still open to having sex with the girls you're not happy with, while I wasn't open to having sex _until_ I was 100% happy.


I'm open to having sex with girls I'm attracted to. Happiness really has little to do with it. Even in marriage, people aren't generally 100% happy. You're 100% happy? 

I'll get married when I love someone. I'll have sex with someone because I'm attracted to them.



Created2Write said:


> I don't appreciate the "lol". Just because you don't get my way of thinking doesn't mean you have the right to mock and laugh at it. For me, sex _isn't_ "just sex", and comparing it to a pie is just...yeah, don't even know what to say to that.


My apologies, it wasn't my intention to mock and laugh but rather express my incredulity. It is utterly baffling to me. "I'm not going to do this thing that I think is so much fun even if you're not in love, because its better when I'm in love." I didn't compare it to pie. I used an associative analogy. Sex is to love as pie is to whip cream.



Created2Write said:


> In response to the analogy: if sex really were "just sex", and not that big of a deal, marriages could exist without it, and it wouldn't have been that big of a deal that your wife rejected you so often.


Now we're playing. 

So if your husband endures a horrible accident that leaves him unable to have sex for the rest of your life, you're out the door?

Bit more nuanced now isn't it? Many marriages do exist without sex... browse this forum.  But marriages also exist where both will have sex with other people.

The issue with sex and marriage is only one of trust and violation, not sex and love. As difficult as it may be for you to understand, I loved my wife... or rather, I loved how my wife was, even while I was cheating. Ask most who have cheated, and you'll hear the same. 



Created2Write said:


> Knowing what sex is between two people who are crazy about each other, if my husband and I ever found ourselves single, I wouldn't be able to have sex with another man unless we were in love.


How do you know you'd find sex outside of love empty anyway? You don't want sex unless you love someone; "I want to take it slow"... I hear that all the time, and yet, the body's desires generally win out.



Created2Write said:


> And it may sound weird to you, but that's precisely how I would want it. I have the _greatest_ memories of losing my virginity because of how strongly I loved my husband. It was intoxicating! We'd been burning hot for each other for months, and when we finally did come together sexually, it was absolutely beautiful. I wanted to wait until marriage, but the experience was so wonderful, if I could go back and do it all over, I'd do it the exact same way. And the feelings I've had with him since then each time we have sex simply couldn't exist in a sexual experience without love, so I can't imagine being fulfilled with loveless sex. Without that fulfillment, I can't see myself even wanting sex after that. So, for me, sex without love just isn't an option.


Were you his first?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Also, forgot to add...if "self-gratification" is the purpose of having sex without love, then you make a mistake in assuming that having sex without love would, actually, be gratifying for everyone. It wouldn't be gratifying for me, so in actuality, _not_ having sex until love exists is ensuring my sexual gratification.


This contradicts what you said earlier and you're choosing the option I gave earlier, the view that "sex isn't enjoyable without love". Enjoyment is gratifying.

But again, you've never had sex with someone you don't love, so you can't really say whether its gratifying or not. You don't imagine it would be... and that's ok.

I've never known someone who has to say that sex is just totally worthless if you're not in love. Its still pretty awesome regardless. Any contrarians?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> And Devils, you _absolutely_ have been saying that my view is wrong. If you didn't think it was wrong, you wouldn't have called it "a weight". So, let's all be honest from this point forward, shall we? I can take it that you think I'm wrong and, probably, high maintenance. And, in fact, I'd prefer that you be honest about that.


As a matter of opinion, you cannot be wrong per se. You can have whatever opinion you want. I don't sugar coat. You know that by know. As for how much credibility your opinion on the matter should be given, I would say very little. One who has never had sex with someone they don't love can't very well make a judgment about the quality of sex outside of love now can they? 

"That car handles like sh*t" ::: has never driven car :::

The fact that you have such an adamant opinion of something you haven't done, is something I would point to as evidence of what I called the "weight". The cultural pressure behind sex being sacred and only worthwhile with a loved mate. You didn't discover this. You accepted this; A burden others handed to you. There's no right or wrong about it.

An explanation of a phenomenon is not a judgment on it being right or wrong. I rarely judge such. Follow?

Don't worry babe, I have a silver tongue on occasion but I say exactly what I think. In the end, its just my opinion and I enjoy talking about stuff like this.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You've never met someone and had that magical instant chemistry that makes you begin to question whether "love at first sight" is a real thing? Where you hang on their every word, and your very blood seems to vibrate with energy when they draw near? When their physical touch is absolutely electric and you're overcome with lust?
> 
> Everything they do and say is so full of life and charisma that all of your shields come down... they instantly disarm you and you're naked. That's what its like.


 My Mother F'ed up her whole life giving in to THIS when it came to her door....she was naive enough to trust it... it was the beginning of her demise, Passion her downfall. I am so against this sort of yielding -allowing hormones to control us... because of what it stole from me...a part of my childhood.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This makes total sense to me, but now imagine that guy doesn't hound you and just lets what comes natural come. I've never hounded anyone for sex. In fact, I usually don't make the first overtly sexual move... I just keep setting things up with subtle touches, a quick sexual wit and sex always seems to take care of itself. More often than not, what I hear later is along the lines of "you were driving me crazy! I kept waiting for you to come after me and you kept teasing!!!" Its great.
> 
> I've said this in the game threads, but for me, everything goes better when I flip the ordinary roles... instead of trying to impress or appeal to her, I try to play the conversation such that she's trying to impress or appeal to me. For my part, all I do is work on building tension.
> 
> Could it be that you weren't into this guy because his overly aggressive advances were a turn off rather than the fact you weren't in love with him? You're an example of the kind of girl I would try to drive nuts before I ever made a move.


Honestly I think it was both. Initially, things were incredibly exciting. He was a major flirt, and it had been over three years since my last relationship. I had the butterflies, the random smiles that I couldn't contain, the chills when my phone would alert me of a new text message...he would call me at ungodly hours just to hear my "early morning voice". For the first...I dunno, week I felt special and though we might have something special. After that week he asked me if I was okay with oral sex and I said no, and it was like he was trying to seduce me, only his attempts had the exact opposite effect. He said things like, "Wouldn't it be funny if, after I get off the plane, you and I found a closet in the airport?" or "Wouldn't it be funny if you found out you were pregnant after I left?" or "I keep thinking about kissing your belly", etc. I'd never had a guy talk to me that way, and while it was new and different, it was also extremely uncomfortable. 

Then he'd ask me about what we were going to do when he came home, and he'd get angry that I wasn't okay with sleeping in the same bed as him, and no matter what I said he kept insisting that if I cared I would at least be open to sex. I told him that I'd lived my whole life with the idea that I would wait to have sex until marriage, and I wasn't about to drop those standards after a two week relationship with a guy who was overseas. Lo and behold, a week later he broke it off over myspace. It wasn't that I was completely closed off to sex, he just hadn't given me a reason to want sex with him. So, no I wasn't in love with him and that played a part in my unwillingness to have sex with him, but it was also his aggressive and disrespectful approach to the situation.



> I'm an INTP! "Why" is my whole life. lol


lol. Granted, but no matter how much I explain, I'm not sure that you'll ever really "get" why I hold the views that I do, just as I don't think I will ever really "get" why you hold the views that you do. I can certainly understand the appeal of sex without love, and being able to experience the sexual pleasure without the responsibility of commitment, but for a girl like me, it would actually ruin the sexual experience. 



> You've never met someone and had that magical instant chemistry that makes you begin to question whether "love at first sight" is a real thing? Where you hang on their every word, and your very blood seems to vibrate with energy when they draw near? When their physical touch is absolutely electric and you're overcome with lust?


Quite the contrary; I had that with my husband before we were even together. I was in love with him before we were actually a couple because of certain things that made me notice him in an attractive way. Just because I never had a ONS doesn't mean I never experienced these things.



> Everything they do and say is so full of life and charisma that all of your shields come down... they instantly disarm you and you're naked. That's what its like.


I had all of this, just not in one or two nights, and I'd much, much rather have it the way I did; the anticipation was sublime. I didn't even recognize my sexual attraction and arousal until we actually became sexual with each other, and it was only then that I realized how special he was to me...how very much I loved him. 



> I went on an all day, daytime date with a girl and we ended up hooking up. Everything was perfect... literally storybook, movie script, novel perfect. So much so that the next day we were texting and joking about true love. I even wrote her a little prose that I still have memorized:
> 
> "Love at first sight is not so irrational seeming
> when you've seen your love countless times while dreaming
> it should be no surprise then that you'd recognize them
> and be unable to ignore you're heart's passionate beating."
> 
> Was I really in love? No, surely not that fast... but the energy and chemistry of it all was just flat out amazing. I began to wonder. We're not together today, but we still talk and whenever we do we joke about being soul mates with issues that would never work out.


Now imagine all of that, only you're not "wondering" if it was true love, you _know for a fact_ that it is; you know that this woman you feel so passionately for _is_ special and set apart from other women and, most importantly, she has eyes for you and you alone. You are her guy. She's chosen you out of all the other guys she could have been with, and these crazy feelings you have for her just keep growing. You don't have to move on to the next kinky girl who flashes you a smile while you're at the bar, and then barely remembers you four months later. 



> I'm open to having sex with girls I'm attracted to. Happiness really has little to do with it. Even in marriage, people aren't generally 100% happy. You're 100% happy?


That wasn't my point, and I think you know that. Even with the issues we had in our dating relationship, I would say that as far as happiness goes I was as close to 100% as I ever could be. But, regardless, I chose not to have sex with a man I wasn't as happy as I could be with. I wasn't happy with the military guy...at all, really. So I didn't want sex with him. From what you say, you could care less if you were happy with the girl; as long as there's some kind of attraction, you'll have sex. That sounds like self-inflicted abuse, quite frankly. I think happiness _should_ play a part in whether or not we have sex with the people we're seeing. 



> I'll get married when I love someone. I'll have sex with someone because I'm attracted to them.


I don't even comprehend how sex can be excluded from love. I really don't. If sex were really as...unimportant or meaningless as you claim, we wouldn't have men and women divorcing their spouses over it. Unless, of course, you're implying that there's a difference between loveless-just-for-fun-cause-I-think-you're-hot sex and marital sex. Personally, I don't believe there is a difference whatsoever. 



> My apologies, it wasn't my intention to mock and laugh but rather express my incredulity. It is utterly baffling to me. "I'm not going to do this thing that I think is so much fun even if you're not in love, because its better when I'm in love." I didn't compare it to pie. I used an associative analogy. Sex is to love as pie is to whip cream.


I don't think you're seeing my stance correctly. My choosing to only have sex with a man I love isn't me choosing to deny myself something I enjoy just because the love element is missing; there wouldn't even be enjoyment in sex for me without love. I don't even think I'd be tempted. I'd have the physical urges, but only in general, and not directed at any particular person. I wouldn't enjoy or want loveless sex. 



> Now we're playing.
> 
> So if your husband endures a horrible accident that leaves him unable to have sex for the rest of your life, you're out the door?


Where did you get that from my post? We've been talking about situations where both parties are able to perform coitus. This is an entirely different subject. And for the record, no, I wouldn't be "out the door". It would be difficult, but I would stay because I love him, and the lack of sex isn't something that he's willfully putting on our relationship.



> Bit more nuanced now isn't it?


Not at all. Comparing an accident that leaves my husband unable to have sex for the rest of our lives, something he wouldn't be able to help, to your wife choosing to reject you, something she could help, isn't the same at all. While both involve a struggle, only one encompasses a situation where there is still a mutual relationship built on respect. 



> Many marriages do exist without sex... browse this forum.  But marriages also exist where both will have sex with other people.


So? That has no bearing on how _I_ view sex. To me, truly fulfilling and satisfying sex exists when the people involved love each other, and I could never desire sex with someone I wasn't in love with. 



> The issue with sex and marriage is only one of trust and violation, not sex and love.


I don't agree, but then again, I don't even get what you're talking about at this point either. It sounds like you're trying to take love out of everything that love should be able to flourish in. 



> As difficult as it may be for you to understand, I loved my wife... or rather, I loved how my wife was, even while I was cheating. Ask most who have cheated, and you'll hear the same.


I don't doubt that. 



> How do you know you'd find sex outside of love empty anyway? You don't want sex unless you love someone; "I want to take it slow"... I hear that all the time, and yet, the body's desires generally win out.


Okay, I'm trying really hard not to get frustrated here, but I need to make this clear: *I am not like the girl's you date.* I know you think you've had a lot of experience with women and that you know how they operate, and maybe that's true for the kinds of women who are attracted to you, but even with the number of women you've been with, their actions don't define _me_. So I'd really appreciate if you'd stop acting like you know me better than I know myself. You don't know me. I know that I don't want sex outside of love because I've had the chance to have sex outside of love more than once, and it felt utterly wrong. And by wrong I don't mean immoral, I mean that it felt out of place. It wasn't that I didn't feel any arousal or attraction to the guys, because there was attraction and there was arousal...emotionally it was ice cold. There's never been an ice cold moment between my husband and I.



> Were you his first?


My husband's? No, I wasn't.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This contradicts what you said earlier and you're choosing the option I gave earlier, the view that "sex isn't enjoyable without love". Enjoyment is gratifying.


I said, for others, I can see how sex would be fun and enjoyable without love. I never said it would be fun or enjoyable _for me_ without love.



> But again, you've never had sex with someone you don't love, so you can't really say whether its gratifying or not. You don't imagine it would be... and that's ok.


I know myself, Dvls. I know what does or doesn't appeal to me. 



> I've never known someone who has to say that sex is just totally worthless if you're not in love. Its still pretty awesome regardless. Any contrarians?


If all you see is an orgasm, then yeah, sex is awesome. I see it as much, much more.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> As a matter of opinion, you cannot be wrong per se. You can have whatever opinion you want. I don't sugar coat. You know that by know. As for how much credibility your opinion on the matter should be given, I would say very little. One who has never had sex with someone they don't love can't very well make a judgment about the quality of sex outside of love now can they?
> 
> "That car handles like sh*t" ::: has never driven car :::


 I absolutely _can_ judge what sex would be like without love _for myself_ because only _I_ know myself well enough to make that judgment. I'm not trying to judge what loveless sex is like for everyone. _That_ would be ridiculous. 



> The fact that you have such an adamant opinion of something you haven't done, is something I would point to as evidence of what I called the "weight". The cultural pressure behind sex being sacred and only worthwhile with a loved mate. You didn't discover this. You accepted this; A burden others handed to you. There's no right or wrong about it.


This is incredibly simplistic. If my parents had never gone to college, but raised me believing that higher education was worth the time and effort, so I chose to get a Master's in something, would I only be making that choice out of societal pressure? It's called, helping others skip the mistakes we've made ourselves. My mother lived the life you've been living, and did throughout her teen and young adult years. She has absolutely nothing good to say about it. She raised me to place a higher value on sex than she did, and I don't think my lack of experience disqualifies me from voicing my opinion. It's rare to find a girl who has only, ever, had sex with one person, and my husband has told me time and time again how lucky he feels to have been my only partner. He says it's always made him feel special. 



> An explanation of a phenomenon is not a judgment on it being right or wrong. I rarely judge such. Follow?


If all you were doing was explaining, I would agree. But you have been judging, and that changes things.



> Don't worry babe, I have a silver tongue on occasion but I say exactly what I think. In the end, its just my opinion and I enjoy talking about stuff like this.


You seem to enjoy bragging about your sexual experiences too, while belittling others lack of experience, as if having one partner is some kind of social defect.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> My Mother F'ed up her whole life giving in to THIS when it came to her door....she was naive enough to trust it... it was the beginning of her demise, Passion her downfall. I am so against this sort of yielding -allowing hormones to control us... because of what it stole from me...a part of my childhood.


Precisely. There's nothing wrong with showing constraint. Just because we "feel" something doesn't mean we have to pursue it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> I believe I would still feel very similar....I've always been very *consequence Focused* (this is more reason, not Faith of any kind).


Then I would argue its an inaccurate sense of consequences. The probability of pregnancy is unbelieveably low when a condom is used in conjuction with female birth control. Probability of an STD is extremely low when a condom is used. If I haven't been with someone a good long while, I'm wrapping up. So this is a non-issue. Are you very risk averse? What about you Created?

I have no objections to your attachment argument. An easily attached person shouldn't have casual sex. Its good that you know yourself well.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Lots of things FEEL GOOD, taste GOOD... I'd love to pop chocolate kisses in my mouth all day too.


If it didn't make you fat and rot your teeth, why wouldn't you?



SimplyAmorous said:


> Entertain this for a second....*this may sound bad*... IF I *didn't* view things as I do... *I'd likely be pretty sexually "loose"... *seriously.... if FUN was my barometer (the hell with the rest)...can't imagine how many guys I would have used for my own Enjoyment....I can think back to one I met on the beach as a Teenager, I think I fantasized about him for a freaking year after that walk in the sand....


Remember that "weight" I mentioned? This ^ is that weight. "This may sound bad, I'd likely be pretty sexually loose." In other words, you think its wrong to have sex when you want to have sex. You think that sex outside of commitment carries moral weight. At the very least, you fear the judgment of others who may think less of you if you didn't carry that weight. This is the root of doing what everyone else thinks you're supposed to... this is the core of carrying the weight... someone else's burden. The very idea that a woman who has sex is "loose" and bad.

My position is that without that weight, the extreme romantic notion begin to unravel. You start seeing that these notions are such only because they are what our culture has been conditioned us to think of as romantic. ie "You're supposed to wait"



SimplyAmorous said:


> Otherwise, If I had a taste of that ...I might be sizing up every willing Co** from here to God knows where.


You might. You'd probably have a crazy period. Then, like most of these people I know, you'd probably still find the magical one you love so much that the rest can't even compare to him.



SimplyAmorous said:


> Surely you can understand...opening the Cage of something like that...taking our beliefs away, our deep feelings ...to what Sex *represents* to us... if I lost all my sensitivity along with it, emotions be gone....why would I even care if I screwed a married man. Why would it really matter..it is just sex, it's not a big deal, he can go home to his wife..and never see me again...no harm done- a condom was used.


I rolled this around in my mind for a few minutes and came up with a few replies that didn't totally pass the no bullsh*t test, so I give you 3 points. 





SimplyAmorous said:


> You may feel this is a good thing... but I don't... all I see is sex gets cheaper and cheaper and cheaper to where it is just a bodily function devoid of meaning... I find this very sad. No one is willing to wait for a true Romance anymore...


Everyone has a different idea of what romance even is. Most don't include waiting to fall in love to have sex. I think the reason we can't seem to understand each other is that I can't relate to quick attachment. It very rarely occurs for me, and when it does, its nigh impossible to distinguish from infatuation. I fall in love by realizing one day, far down the road, that I'd be miserable without this person in my life. I fall in love with the impact of a soft breeze or the true recognition of how beautiful something is... long after you've seen it every single day for months and seemingly not really noticed. Lust on the other hand, is a sudden thunderstorm.




SimplyAmorous said:


> I definitely "get it"...the whole "Sex is just SEX".....it means nothing but a good time...living in the moment, taking it for every orgasm it can get....and who doesn't enjoy those [email protected]# Take the pie... who cares about the cream... . We don't judge you, just that if we were with you, we'd feel used by you. That's all.


You do realize that living in the moment is not exclusive to falling in love right?

Hypothetical: 

You date someone and fall in love. You have sex. Everything is wonderful and great. Then things decline as a result of some mismatch of characteristics or incompatibilities. He breaks up with you. Were you used? Let's say you break up with him. Did you use him? 



SimplyAmorous said:


> So keep going for the women who don't care & separates sex but good luck if Love springs from this well. Reminds me of Tina Turners's ......*"What's love got to do with it ".*..
> 
> ... spells out the common story trying to have a relationship based purely on the physical while pushing their hearts & emotions aside to avoid getting hurt. It sounds good in theory...allows for the FUN... but so often this leaves one empty, lonely...it can be a painful approach to relationships. Some of us don't want this, we reject it...we see value in that rejecting..as again...
> It ISN'T "JUST SEX" to us.


I don't think a relationship is based purely on the physical. But as I said, I don't see the point in not having sex with someone I want to have sex with, nor can I even fathom pushing emotions aside to avoid being hurt. You feel what you feel and that's fine. I don't feel that it changes the sexual side of things at all. Oh my goodness, I'm getting attached, dump her? What did I say that gives you this impression? There is no avoiding of attachment. It happens or it doesn't... regardless of sex. Again, this is something we can't find common ground on, I think because we are on the opposite end of tendency to attach. I don't generally attach quickly. You act like if someone has sex with you and ever leaves, they've robbed you. The way I see it, my thinking isn't the one avoiding something... its yours. If I fall in love, great. If someone leaves me, ouch... but it happens. imo, you have to know the bad to really appreciate the good... and that's just living.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> My Mother F'ed up her whole life giving in to THIS when it came to her door....she was naive enough to trust it... it was the beginning of her demise, Passion her downfall. I am so against this sort of yielding -allowing hormones to control us... because of what it stole from me...a part of my childhood.


Your mother F'd up because of sex and passion?

I'd think it was follow on decisions that did that, not sex. Perhaps you're right about one thing... if you cannot separate the rational from the emotional, then you're best off not doing it.

I'm not likely to ditch everything and move to France because I f*cked some hot French college student and got all swept away irrational emotional. 

So I understand and accept this justification of waiting. Odd that anyone would have the self-control to wait, but not the self-control to avoid doing something irrational as a result of not waiting though.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Then I would argue its an inaccurate sense of consequences. The probability of pregnancy is unbelieveably low when a condom is used in conjuction with female birth control. Probability of an STD is extremely low when a condom is used. If I haven't been with someone a good long while, I'm wrapping up. So this is a non-issue. Are you very risk averse? What about you Created?


So, for you, the only consequences of having sex without love are unplanned pregnancies and STD's? 



> I have no objections to your attachment argument. An easily attached person shouldn't have casual sex. Its good that you know yourself well.


You say this as if it's weakness to be attached easily. 



> If it didn't make you fat and rot your teeth, why wouldn't you?


But it _does_ make you fat and rot your teeth. 



> Remember that "weight" I mentioned? This ^ is that weight. "This may sound bad, I'd likely be pretty sexually loose." In other words, you think its wrong to have sex when you want to have sex. You think that sex outside of commitment carries moral weight. At the very least, you fear the judgment of others who may think less of you if you didn't carry that weight. This is the root of doing what everyone else thinks you're supposed to... this is the core of carrying the weight... someone else's burden. The very idea that a woman who has sex is "loose" and bad.


But see, for me, this really isn't the issue. I have female friends who are very loose, and I don't think less of them for it. Yet, they are constantly talking about how they wish they could find love...how much they want to settle down and get married...how they miss being a special someone to a special someone...how they crave the cuddling, the non-sexual intimacy...and yet they continue to go out and have ONS, basing all of their choices on whether or nor there's that instant spark of chemistry. Now, from my perspective, I can sympathize with their desire for romance and intimacy, but at the same time I have to shake my head because they are doing everything they can to sabotage the hope of any long term relationship by continually looking for ONS. 

If someone is only looking for a short term fling based on nothing more than instant chemistry, then by all means, go for it. If someone genuinely wants a long term relationship, they're going to have to alter their search parameters. This friend of mine finally has, and is actually in a relationship now and is happy. But it took years for her to figure out the men she was sleeping with weren't interested in a relationship. 

So, for me, it's not so much about not wanting to be seen as bad or loose; rather, I've never wanted flings. I'm not that girl. I never dated just to date, I always dated to see if a marriage could potentially come from the relationship. If there wasn't love, there wasn't the possibility for marriage, and therefore there wasn't the possibility for sex. 



> My position is that without that weight, the extreme romantic notion begin to unravel. You start seeing that these notions are such only because they are what our culture has been conditioned us to think of as romantic. ie "You're supposed to wait"


Sorry, but no. It has nothing to do with culture, and everything to do with who I am as a woman and how I see myself. 



> You might. You'd probably have a crazy period. Then, like most of these people I know, you'd probably still find the magical one you love so much that the rest can't even compare to him.
> 
> I rolled this around in my mind for a few minutes and came up with a few replies that didn't totally pass the no bullsh*t test, so I give you 3 points.
> 
> Everyone has a different idea of what romance even is. Most don't include waiting to fall in love to have sex. I think the reason we can't seem to understand each other is that I can't relate to quick attachment. It very rarely occurs for me, and when it does, its nigh impossible to distinguish from infatuation. I fall in love by realizing one day, far down the road, that I'd be miserable without this person in my life. I fall in love with the impact of a soft breeze or the true recognition of how beautiful something is... long after you've seen it every single day for months and seemingly not really noticed. Lust on the other hand, is a sudden thunderstorm.


And that's great for girls who like that kind of relationship. I'm much more...traditional, if you will. I wanted to know that the guy was willing to wait for me...that he wasn't so desperate for a piece of ass...that he was crazy enough about me to stick around for more than a month. My husband was that guy while we were dating, and it's why I couldn't keep my hands(or anything else of mine) off of him. And it's that feeling that has kind...disappeared in our relationship. He's the opposite of you, I guess; the falling love happened early, and now the passion isn't raging as much as it was. If we could get that back, I wouldn't have a single complaint about anything in my life.



> You do realize that living in the moment is not exclusive to falling in love right?
> 
> Hypothetical:
> 
> You date someone and fall in love. You have sex. Everything is wonderful and great. Then things decline as a result of some mismatch of characteristics or incompatibilities. He breaks up with you. Were you used? Let's say you break up with him. Did you use him?


If the guy only lied about his feelings to have sex, then yes. If the girl only gave sex to have some form of commitment from the guy, then yes. But if the love was true, then no, I don't think either person was used or did the using. 



> I don't think a relationship is based purely on the physical. But as I said, I don't see the point in not having sex with someone I want to have sex with, nor can I even fathom pushing emotions aside to avoid being hurt. You feel what you feel and that's fine. I don't feel that it changes the sexual side of things at all.


_For you_, this is fine then. But surely you can imagine how it would feel for someone who does attach easily when they realize the guy was never into _them_ so much as he was interested in their vagina? It *SUCKS*. It dashes a girl's self-esteem, especially when she tries really, really hard to understand where he's coming from, and she wants to give him what he's asking for, but he's making it impossible. I wanted to know that he was trying to get to know _me_, not my body. And I don't think it's all that crazy to wait until you _do_ know he's in it for you as a person, and not just your vajayjay.



> Oh my goodness, I'm getting attached, dump her? What did I say that gives you this impression? There is no avoiding of attachment. *It happens or it doesn't... regardless of sex.*


Not for girls like us. I was the girl who was naive and believed what my boyfriends told me. When they said they loved me, I believed them. Three of them proved me very, very wrong: one used me to get to the actual girl he was interested in and then cheated on me, one was the military guy who was only out to get sex, and the third professed his love for me and within 24 hours of doing so had decided we were just friends, and that he really loved someone else. Eventually you come to realize that, something that means a lot to you, may not mean so much to someone else. I was attached to all three guys, and I only ever even kissed one of them. All three were very different in personality, interests, looks and overall demeanor, and all three knew how to play girls to get what they wanted. 

And none of them actually wanted me. 



> Again, this is something we can't find common ground on, I think because we are on the opposite end of tendency to attach. I don't generally attach quickly. You act like if someone has sex with you and ever leaves, they've robbed you.


I don't think SA, or I, think of it quite that way. At least for me, looking back on the relationships I had, I don't feel robbed. I felt used to a point, but not robbed of anything I didn't freely give away. I meant it when I said that I loved them, even if they didn't, so at least I knew I'd given the relationship what I had to give. But those guys were _exactly_ why I was so careful with who I chose to have sex with. I wouldn't have felt robbed, necessarily, but I would have felt that I'd given something I saw as precious to guys entirely undeserving of it. 



> The way I see it, my thinking isn't the one avoiding something... its yours. If I fall in love, great. If someone leaves me, ouch... but it happens. imo, you have to know the bad to really appreciate the good... and that's just living.


But if you can avoid the bad, or at least some of it, why wouldn't you? I've been rejected because I wouldn't have sex, and yeah it sucked, but at least I don't have the memory of having sex with that person. I was in love with one of the three guys mentioned above and was devastated when he broke up with me, and it sucked, but at least I wasn't even more attached to him because of sex. Just because pain is a part of life doesn't mean we should intentionally put ourselves into situations that could cause us more pain.


----------



## Created2Write

Also, I apologize for any hostility or rudeness that may have come from my previous posts. I've had a horrible muscle spasm in my neck for the last few days, and my medication was wearing off. I just took some more and feel much, much better. My lips are currently numb and my keyboard is spinning in circles. And I'm about to eat Chinese food, so I am, once again, in a good mood. Thank you vicodin and muscle relaxers.


----------



## TiggyBlue

No matter who you are and what kind of background someone has it will have a impact to a certain extent but I'm not sure it will shape their entire view on sex , I've known plenty of girls who were bought up religious and went slept around on the quiet (obviously wasn't their nature to wait).
Some will be brought up in a religious background and like the views they were brought up with, not feeling repressed at all.

A lot of women say "I want to wait for sex", "I'm not that kind of girl" ect knowing full well they will have sex soon, that's just a disclaimer to not be seen as "easy" to some. On the whole they're a very different type of women to the ones who genuinely mean it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> For the first...I dunno, week I felt special and though we might have something special. After that week he asked me if I was okay with oral sex and I said no, and it was like he was trying to seduce me, only his attempts had the exact opposite effect. He said things like, "Wouldn't it be funny if, after I get off the plane, you and I found a closet in the airport?" or "Wouldn't it be funny if you found out you were pregnant after I left?" or "I keep thinking about kissing your belly", etc. I'd never had a guy talk to me that way, and while it was new and different, it was also extremely uncomfortable.
> 
> Then he'd ask me about what we were going to do when he came home, and he'd get angry that I wasn't okay with sleeping in the same bed as him, and no matter what I said he kept insisting that if I cared I would at least be open to sex. I told him that I'd lived my whole life with the idea that I would wait to have sex until marriage, and I wasn't about to drop those standards after a two week relationship with a guy who was overseas. Lo and behold, a week later he broke it off over myspace. It wasn't that I was completely closed off to sex, he just hadn't given me a reason to want sex with him. So, no I wasn't in love with him and that played a part in my unwillingness to have sex with him, but it was also his aggressive and disrespectful approach to the situation.


Did he know you were a virgin? If he did, he's an idiot. Regardless, he's not too bright. I'm going to spin you an alternate reality for a moment. You dated him, and sexual advancement doesn't involve jokes about having sex here or there or being pregnant (seriously? a two week relationship and he says this? smh). Instead, sexual advancement involves touching the small of your back as if to guide you into a room or to your chair at dinner. Playing with your hair while you lay on his chest watching a movie on the couch. A hand on your hip. A hug from behind with his body pressed up to your @ss. An ever more intimate touch.

You NEVER TALK about it. You keep upping the intimacy a notch, and the focus is never sex. As I said, sex just happens as a result. I'm out having fun and creating tension. With a virgin, you do this so slowly as to avoid triggering her "freak out" about something new. You want her to be excited nervous, not pressured nervous. I don't care who she is, enough play... enough tension, and eventually SHE will begin to play too. Eventually more intimate parts are fondled. Eventually I'll have undone a pants button in a slick move and get a playful "hey mister." The next time... not so much. Its a long drawn out process that has more to do with her discomfort with sex than anything else imo... perfectly natural... its all new and kinda scary! Each virgin I've been with has been a case of slowly escalating, reaching her limit... and pursuing it no further that day without any complaint. Tomorrow, the limit is a bit further. The biggest wrong move is for a guy to be dissatisfied with how far he got, because her frame of mind is somewhere else entirely!! She's thinking, "WOW! We went this far!!" She's happy. That happy feeling is destroyed by his dissatisfaction.

Completely in line with what simply pointed out, the green light I've gotten each time has been her hands in my crotch... and the next stage is bjs and her familiarizing with male anatomy. They move at their own pace, and oh how curious they are. All I've ever done it advance a single notch... sometimes they'd match that notch and then some.

With one, we were eventually naked together and pseudo-humping... but no penetration. A few days of that went by, with my toying at the entrance... and then one day... she can't withhold anymore and that was that.

Every virgin I've been with has been like this. Girls other guys dumped because they didn't put out. Usually they had religious backgrounds and strict parents, even if they weren't "thumpers" per se. They were all extremely naïve and sheltered.

My ex-wife was one of them.




Created2Write said:


> I can certainly understand the appeal of sex without love, and being able to experience the sexual pleasure without the responsibility of commitment, but for a girl like me, *it would actually ruin the sexual experience. *


*you think it would ruin the sexual experience. On the other hand, you might deep down go "omg that was the hottest thing I've ever done".

One thing I've noticed. The peak of sex with someone you're in love with isn't the same as the peak of someone new with whom you have that magical intensity of the moment with. Over the long term, sex and love are no doubt better and sustainable... but that immediate passion and chemistry with someone right of the bat... is like a bolt of lightning... is a whole different animal. I give love sex the nod only because it can last. The bolt of lightning fades and its hard to find another (easy to find another partner, hard to find the lightning). If I were evaluating the sexual intensity alone I'd give the nod easily to the lightning.

Its not even sexual quality per se; this is also better with someone you know well imo - you know what they like most. Its really all related to that intensity of wanting something so badly and the magic of that person in the moment.



Created2Write said:


> Quite the contrary; I had that with my husband before we were even together. I was in love with him before we were actually a couple because of certain things that made me notice him in an attractive way.


Really? :/ I think we may be applying different standards or definitions of love. So, if you loved him, how would you have reacted to him making a sexual move right off the bat?



Created2Write said:


> Now imagine all of that, only you're not "wondering" if it was true love, you _know for a fact_ that it is; you know that this woman you feel so passionately for _is_ special and set apart from other women and, most importantly, she has eyes for you and you alone. You are her guy. She's chosen you out of all the other guys she could have been with, and these crazy feelings you have for her just keep growing. You don't have to move on to the next kinky girl who flashes you a smile while you're at the bar, and then barely remembers you four months later.


I don't follow your point. I've had that feeling before having sex, and I've felt it after having sex. Either way you end up in the same place. My ex wife isn't the only woman I've ever fallen in love with.



Created2Write said:


> That wasn't my point, and I think you know that. Even with the issues we had in our dating relationship, I would say that as far as happiness goes I was as close to 100% as I ever could be. But, regardless, I chose not to have sex with a man I wasn't as happy as I could be with. I wasn't happy with the military guy...at all, really. So I didn't want sex with him. From what you say, you could care less if you were happy with the girl; as long as there's some kind of attraction, you'll have sex. That sounds like self-inflicted abuse, quite frankly. I think happiness _should_ play a part in whether or not we have sex with the people we're seeing.


This is all too ethereal for me. What are you calling happy? I just met someone, we have great chemistry... she's smart, engaging and beautiful. I'm pretty damn happy with her. We go to my place and get busy. Yep... I'm happy. She's happy. We date a couple weeks maybe... discover the chemistry wore off... all the similarities we thought we had weren't really there. We both move on. I'm happy with someone, until I'm not. Sex really isn't much a factor in that.

I don't really understand what you're saying when you say I'd have sex with someone I'm unhappy with. Uhm... if I don't like her, I'm not having sex with her. If I'm having sex with her, I think that's a good indication I'm happy with her. It doesn't mean I'm thinking about marrying her. Heck, it might be that we have a nice FWB arrangement that we're both happy with. Maybe she's a member of that "other political party" and we just can't be together for very long without arguing. Who knows? But I'm happy with her or I wouldn't be having sex with her. So you lose me somewhere there.



Created2Write said:


> I don't even comprehend how sex can be excluded from love. I really don't. If sex were really as...unimportant or meaningless as you claim, we wouldn't have men and women divorcing their spouses over it. Unless, of course, you're implying that there's a difference between loveless-just-for-fun-cause-I-think-you're-hot sex and marital sex. Personally, I don't believe there is a difference whatsoever.


Nah, sex is sex. I think you're confusing definitions though. Meaningless doesn't mean unimportant or undesirable. Next, I've admitted its not totally devoid of meaning... several times actually; Its still an affection you're giving the other person and not just a selfish pleasure. I care about the women I've had sex with, even though I say sex is just sex. I'd be less interested in the selfish pleasure honestly. I give you that sex can bring two people closer. The break is that I don't see it reserved for love. Still don't see why you would except per Simply's example... which ultimately, is about avoiding hurt. But then again I see no greater hurt in getting dumped by someone I had sex with than I do in getting dumped by someone I didn't have sex with. I may be more attached to the one I didn't have sex with... who knows? Sex isn't the elephant in the room. How I feel about the person is.




Created2Write said:


> there wouldn't even be enjoyment in sex for me without love. I don't even think I'd be tempted. I'd have the physical urges, but only in general, and not directed at any particular person. I wouldn't enjoy or want loveless sex.


I tried to demonstrate that in my ABC explanation and you seemed to accept that sex was enjoyable on its own merit. So you're really saying sex is not enjoyable on its own merit? In other words: That sex is only enjoyable if you love the other person, regardless of how attracted to them you are? This is really what you believe?



Created2Write said:


> Where did you get that from my post? We've been talking about situations where both parties are able to perform coitus. This is an entirely different subject. And for the record, no, I wouldn't be "out the door". It would be difficult, but I would stay because I love him, and the lack of sex isn't something that he's willfully putting on our relationship.


The point being that people don't all leave marriages for lack of sex. Some people won't even leave even though they aren't getting sex from an able spouse. Many will cheat and STILL not want to leave the denying spouse. Follow? Each case shows a distinct separation between sex and love... else each of these people LEAVES.

Prior to my ex wife, I would have answered if I don't get sex, I'm definitely out the door. Turns out, what you think you'll do and what you actually do when faced with a situation, aren't necessarily the same thing. If you went sexless, how long before you'd leave your husband in spite of his "token acts" to meet some bare minimum requirement that strings you along? I think you'll find that people put up with it for quite awhile before resentment finally overtakes love. Its an easy thing to imagine the ideal response... its not quite that easy in real life. Then, take all your bottled up desires, and even your love of a spouse, and present you with substantial physical temptation... that guy that just seems to "get you" and does all the things your husband seems to neglect. I think you'll find its a lot more nuanced than you want to believe and you'd understand why so many cheaters and tempted come here saying "I really do love my husband/wife".

We can say these are bad people. You can say I'm a bad person. I believe my view is more realistic, and this demonstrates pretty clearly that love and sex are less attached at the hip than you think. Do you think I ever imagined I would ever cheat under any circumstances? A guy like me putting up with sexlessness? I certainly wouldn't have imagined it.

Ultimately, I didn't leave my wife due to lack of sex anyway. I cheated because I resented the lack of sex, but she wanted me back and agreed to work on the sex issue. I left because she turned left and I kept going straight years ago. By the time anyone realized it... we were very far apart. In the end, I left because I wasn't in love with her anymore... and as such, I'd have left regardless of whether we were having sex every day or never.



Created2Write said:


> I don't agree, but then again, I don't even get what you're talking about at this point either. It sounds like you're trying to take love out of everything that love should be able to flourish in.


Not at all. Just showing that these things stand alone. Love isn't really a prerequisite for sex anymore than sex is a prerequisite for love. 



Created2Write said:


> Okay, I'm trying really hard not to get frustrated here, but I need to make this clear: *I am not like the girl's you date.*


Okay... If you only knew just how much like you several of the women I've dated were. I generally don't go after them if I know in advance, but they do tend to like me... god only knows why. C'mon, you're hostile to me today, but I know you felt the same chemistry I did in our PM conversations. My ex-wife was your type. A virgin when we met, religious background, conservative country girl, pretty sheltered upbringing. College was iffy, but she was very creative and a little girl at heart. Her longest relationship before me was 3 months, and that only because the guy was in a traveling church band or something; most didn't last a week. If I've learned anything, its that usually the same conditions exist to form people with so many similarities.

All 4 virgins I've been with have held the same "not without love" view. There is a reason they make it to that age without having lost their virginity. Yet each of them still had sex with me long before one could reasonably say "this is love". Yeah, they each saw a ton of things in me they really liked before we even dated... just like you say about your husband... but love is a much bigger word than that I think. There's still a ton of things you don't know about someone at that point. That's the definition of infatuation. That infatuation may mature into love, but that's not love. Heck, one of the 4 broke up with ME. 

My experience has been that these women, who are so similar to what I know of you its scary, were virgins not because of waiting for love or marriage as they claimed... but because of naivety, fear and the fact that nobody aggressive enough to move at all seemed to have enough patience. Many guys came along that they liked a LOT... but then guys pressured and failed. Other guys found happier hunting grounds (which they all found hurtful). Often, it was well known they were "off limits" or that "you weren't getting any there". These guys just never dated and let sex come when it comes. Of my 4, the longest wait was 3 months (my ex wife... who literally thought sex just meant putting it in... and had no idea there was movement involved). The other 3 were about a month. These girls were virgins because they were extremely naïve and sheltered, and nobody with enough patience had come along. The waiting and love? These were rationalizations as much as anything else in retrospect. These women were just more risk averse than most women... mostly because of their upbringing, which involved plenty of religion, homeschooling in 2 cases, or really strict parents.

What's funny is I knew I loved my ex-wife before that 3 month mark and one of our jokes was that before having sex, she had her emotional sh*t together... and afterward, she fell in love and got emotional all the time. I used to brag and tease her about it as if my sexual prowess did the trick. 

You're right, I don't know you... but from what I do know and all those conversations we've had, I'm just saying you fit a pattern I know. That's all I'm saying.



Created2Write said:


> My husband's? No, I wasn't.


Interesting... but now I don't remember why I asked. lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> No matter who you are and what kind of background someone has it will have a impact to a certain extent but I'm not sure it will shape their entire view on sex , I've known plenty of girls who were bought up religious and went slept around on the quiet (obviously wasn't their nature to wait).
> Some will be brought up in a religious background and like the views they were brought up with, not feeling repressed at all.
> 
> A lot of women say "I want to wait for sex", "I'm not that kind of girl" ect knowing full well they will have sex soon, that's just a disclaimer to not be seen as "easy" to some. On the whole they're a very different type of women to the ones who genuinely mean it.


There are some distinct things I see that lead me to believe someone is one type versus another. Its not all upbringing for sure... a lot of it is a persons demeanor and how that demeanor tends to respond to those conditions. A lot of girls rebel. The Catholic school girl stereo type for example? There's a LOT of truth behind it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> So, for you, the only consequences of having sex without love are unplanned pregnancies and STD's?


Is there another negative consequence of having sex? 




Created2Write said:


> You say this as if it's weakness to be attached easily.


Weakness, no. Unwise? Perhaps.



Created2Write said:


> But it _does_ make you fat and rot your teeth.


Yeah, and safe sex _doesn't_ get you pregnant or an std.




I'll have to continue later. Got a date tonight and I have to get ready! woot woot!

Its been a good conversation and I enjoy the perspectives, thanks!


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Did he know you were a virgin?


Yes he did. All of my boyfriends knew I was a virgin. 



> If he did, he's an idiot. Regardless, he's not too bright. I'm going to spin you an alternate reality for a moment. You dated him, and sexual advancement doesn't involve jokes about having sex here or there or being pregnant (seriously? a two week relationship and he says this? smh).


He'd had sex with quite a few other girls before me, one of which was a stripper, and he'd cheated on his high school sweetheart with the stripper. He was damaged.



> Instead, sexual advancement involves touching the small of your back as if to guide you into a room or to your chair at dinner. Playing with your hair while you lay on his chest watching a movie on the couch. A hand on your hip. A hug from behind with his body pressed up to your @ss. An ever more intimate touch.
> 
> You NEVER TALK about it. You keep upping the intimacy a notch, and the focus is never sex. As I said, sex just happens as a result. I'm out having fun and creating tension. With a virgin, you do this so slowly as to avoid triggering her "freak out" about something new. You want her to be excited nervous, not pressured nervous. I don't care who she is, enough play... enough tension, and eventually SHE will begin to play too. Eventually more intimate parts are fondled. Eventually I'll have undone a pants button in a slick move and get a playful "hey mister." The next time... not so much. Its a long drawn out process that has more to do with her discomfort with sex than anything else imo... perfectly natural... its all new and kinda scary! Each virgin I've been with has been a case of slowly escalating, reaching her limit... and pursuing it no further that day without any complaint. Tomorrow, the limit is a bit further. The biggest wrong move is for a guy to be dissatisfied with how far he got, because her frame of mind is somewhere else entirely!! She's thinking, "WOW! We went this far!!" She's happy. That happy feeling is destroyed by his dissatisfaction.
> 
> Completely in line with what simply pointed out, the green light I've gotten each time has been her hands in my crotch... and the next stage is bjs and her familiarizing with male anatomy. They move at their own pace, and oh how curious they are. All I've ever done it advance a single notch... sometimes they'd match that notch and then some.
> 
> With one, we were eventually naked together and pseudo-humping... but no penetration. A few days of that went by, with my toying at the entrance... and then one day... she can't withhold anymore and that was that.
> 
> Every virgin I've been with has been like this. Girls other guys dumped because they didn't put out. Usually they had religious backgrounds and strict parents, even if they weren't "thumpers" per se. They were all extremely naïve and sheltered.
> 
> My ex-wife was one of them.


....Congrats? My husband got me because he wasn't trying to get me, I guess is my point. There wasn't any of that seduction you're talking about...I wasn't some game to be played to him. To him I was the girl he wanted to keep, the long term relationship he'd been waiting for. He didn't cuddle with me so that he could get away with unbuttoning my pants; he didn't play with my hair so that I would fondle his crotch. He cuddled with me and played with my hair because he wanted to cuddle with me and play with my hair. Sex was never an end goal for him, which was precisely why I couldn't resist him. He wanted me for _me_; for my opinions; for my interests; for my laugh; for my abilities; for my intelligence; for my stubbornness. He was in love with me, and he made that clear in the way he treated me. It was _that_ that made me so dang hot for him. Would touching the small of my back, or putting a hand on my hip, or hugging me from behind have made my heart flutter and given me butterflies and made my lady parts throb? Sure. Would any of that have mattered if I wasn't madly in love with him? Nope.



> *you think it would ruin the sexual experience. On the other hand, you might deep down go "omg that was the hottest thing I've ever done".


I highly doubt it. 



> One thing I've noticed. The peak of sex with someone you're in love with isn't the same as the peak of someone new with whom you have that magical intensity of the moment with. Over the long term, sex and love are no doubt better and sustainable... but that immediate passion and chemistry with someone right of the bat... is like a bolt of lightning... is a whole different animal. I give love sex the nod only because it can last. The bolt of lightning fades and its hard to find another (easy to find another partner, hard to find the lightning). If I were evaluating the sexual intensity alone I'd give the nod easily to the lightning.


I don't want the peak with someone new, and never have. I still have that rush, that "magical intensity" with my husband each time we have sex, and it comes from knowing that he doesn't want anyone else...that he's perfectly happy and satisfied with _me_, and only me. If I thought he was fantasizing about sex with someone else, or was getting bored with me, it absolutely would kill my attraction to him. But I know he's not by the look in his intoxicating green eyes, and by how quickly and easily I arouse him, that he's as hot for me today as he was the first time we had sex. I remember the first time he orgasmed with me...his heart was pounding so hard I thought he was going to have a heart attack. Over four years later, and his heart still pounds that hard when he orgasms. I'm sure that much of that is just the orgasm, but I like to think that a great part of it is me as well.

And I highly doubt that the rush of sex with someone new could ever compare with the rush that I feel when my husband looks at me with "that look"...it's like a mixture of fear, longing, anticipation and excitement, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Each sexual experience we have is new, and wonderful, and I can't imagine wanting anything, or anyone, else. 



> Its not even sexual quality per se; this is also better with someone you know well imo - you know what they like most. *Its really all related to that intensity of wanting something so badly and the magic of that person in the moment.*


Which I have with my husband.



> Really? :/ I think we may be applying different standards or definitions of love. So, if you loved him, how would you have reacted to him making a sexual move right off the bat?


I wouldn't have reacted well, I'll be honest. I was in love, but my feelings meant little on their own. I wanted to know that he, also, felt something for me. It wouldn't have had to be as strong as what I felt(nor would I have expected it to be...I fell for him sooner than he fell for me), but I wouldn't have had sex with him if all he felt for me was lust and/or attraction. 



> I don't follow your point. I've had that feeling before having sex, and I've felt it after having sex. Either way you end up in the same place. My ex wife isn't the only woman I've ever fallen in love with.


My point was that sex isn't the only thing that creates those intense feelings. You can have those feelings without sex. 



> This is all too ethereal for me. What are you calling happy? I just met someone, we have great chemistry... she's smart, engaging and beautiful. I'm pretty damn happy with her. We go to my place and get busy. Yep... I'm happy. She's happy. We date a couple weeks maybe... discover the chemistry wore off... all the similarities we thought we had weren't really there. We both move on. I'm happy with someone, until I'm not. Sex really isn't much a factor in that.


This is so damn difficult to explain because you are completely, 100%, opposite of me in many, many ways. For you it sounds like there really isn't any emotional attachment to the women you go out with and have sex with. It sounds like you're picking up a toy, playing with it for a little bit, and then when you get bored, if you get bored, you go looking for a new one; you meet a girl you like, you romance her for a while, you have your sexual fun, and then once the chemistry wears off, you find someone new. I'm the type of girl who would be devastated by that. I'm not capable of entering my relationships with such...detachment. For me, chemistry doesn't exist all on its own...it has to be purposefully maintained and nourished. 



> I don't really understand what you're saying when you say I'd have sex with someone I'm unhappy with. Uhm... if I don't like her, I'm not having sex with her. If I'm having sex with her, I think that's a good indication I'm happy with her. It doesn't mean I'm thinking about marrying her. Heck, it might be that we have a nice FWB arrangement that we're both happy with. Maybe she's a member of that "other political party" and we just can't be together for very long without arguing. Who knows? But I'm happy with her or I wouldn't be having sex with her. So you lose me somewhere there.


You said sex doesn't play a part in your happiness, which is where I got that idea from so now I'm confused...



> Nah, sex is sex. I think you're confusing definitions though. Meaningless doesn't mean unimportant or undesirable.


It does for me.



> Next, I've admitted its not totally devoid of meaning... several times actually; Its still an affection you're giving the other person and not just a selfish pleasure. I care about the women I've had sex with, even though I say sex is just sex. I'd be less interested in the selfish pleasure honestly. I give you that sex can bring two people closer. The break is that I don't see it reserved for love. Still don't see why you would except per Simply's example... which ultimately, is about avoiding hurt. But then again I see no greater hurt in getting dumped by someone I had sex with than I do in getting dumped by someone I didn't have sex with. I may be more attached to the one I didn't have sex with... who knows? Sex isn't the elephant in the room. How I feel about the person is.


I see sex as more than just a fun activity between two people who are attracted to each other, that's the divide between us. You will never understand where I'm coming from, because for you, sex "is just sex". I could never under-value sex like that. 

Let me try a different example: a man and woman date, have sex, fall in love, get married, have kids and she suddenly isn't interested in having sex anymore. Is his response going to be, "Oh well. Sex is just sex. No biggy"? Or is he going to be hurt and disappointed? Even angry? Should he feel that way, or do you think he would be making a big deal out of nothing?



> I tried to demonstrate that in my ABC explanation and you seemed to accept that sex was enjoyable on its own merit. So you're really saying sex is not enjoyable on its own merit? In other words: That sex is only enjoyable if you love the other person, regardless of how attracted to them you are? This is really what you believe?


*FOR ME* sex would not be enjoyable without love. For others, I'm sure the exact opposite would be true. For you, I'm sure sex is quite enjoyable, whether you love the girl or not. But *for me[/i] it wouldn't be enjoyable without love. 




The point being that people don't all leave marriages for lack of sex. Some people won't even leave even though they aren't getting sex from an able spouse. Many will cheat and STILL not want to leave the denying spouse. Follow? Each case shows a distinct separation between sex and love... else each of these people LEAVES.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about people leaving, I'm talking about people feeling fulfilled emotionally. A husband or wife may choose to stay in a sexless marriage, but that doesn't mean they're fulfilled. The lack of fulfillment is, at least in part, due to the lack of sexual intimacy, indicating that sex is a vital part of the health of a marriage where both spouses are able to have sex. This means that, at least in marriage, sex is more than "just sex". 




Prior to my ex wife, I would have answered if I don't get sex, I'm definitely out the door. Turns out, what you think you'll do and what you actually do when faced with a situation, aren't necessarily the same thing. If you went sexless, how long before you'd leave your husband in spite of his "token acts" to meet some bare minimum requirement that strings you along? I think you'll find that people put up with it for quite awhile before resentment finally overtakes love.

Click to expand...

Not sure how this applies.




Its an easy thing to imagine the ideal response... its not quite that easy in real life. Then, take all your bottled up desires, and even your love of a spouse, and present you with substantial physical temptation... that guy that just seems to "get you" and does all the things your husband seems to neglect. I think you'll find its a lot more nuanced than you want to believe and you'd understand why so many cheaters and tempted come here saying "I really do love my husband/wife".

Click to expand...

Yet again, you assume that you know me better than I do, and that I'm incapable of understanding how people can love their spouse and still cheat. I can perfectly comprehend how you loved your wife and still cheated on her. Seriously, I get it. 

But that has absolutely nothing to do with my view of sex.




We can say these are bad people. You can say I'm a bad person. I believe my view is more realistic, and this demonstrates pretty clearly that love and sex are less attached at the hip than you think. Do you think I ever imagined I would ever cheat under any circumstances? A guy like me putting up with sexlessness? I certainly wouldn't have imagined it.

Click to expand...

I don't think you're a bad person at all. I think it's honorable, actually, that you wanted to make things work with your wife. I don't think anyone imagines that they would cheat. Still, your cheating on your wife has nothing to do with my view of sex, and I absolutely disagree with your view of sex and love. If you could have chosen between your wife wanting you sexually again, and having sex with a new, young girl, I'd bet you'd have chosen your wife.




Ultimately, I didn't leave my wife due to lack of sex anyway. I cheated because I resented the lack of sex, but she wanted me back and agreed to work on the sex issue. I left because she turned left and I kept going straight years ago. By the time anyone realized it... we were very far apart. In the end, I left because I wasn't in love with her anymore... and as such, I'd have left regardless of whether we were having sex every day or never.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to my point.




Not at all. Just showing that these things stand alone. Love isn't really a prerequisite for sex anymore than sex is a prerequisite for love.

Click to expand...

FOR YOU, they're not. For me, love absolutely is a prerequisite. You don't get to define my prerequisites. 




Okay... If you only knew just how much like you several of the women I've dated were.

Click to expand...

Except that you DON'T know me, Dvls. You've talked to me online, over a handful of private messages, but that's it. Some of the girls you've been with may be somewhat similar to me in personality and background, but they aren't ME. Therefore, you don't know me. Please stop assuming that I'm like ever other naive Christian girl.




I generally don't go after them if I know in advance, but they do tend to like me... god only knows why. C'mon, you're hostile to me today, but I know you felt the same chemistry I did in our PM conversations. My ex-wife was your type. A virgin when we met, religious background, conservative country girl, pretty sheltered upbringing. College was iffy, but she was very creative and a little girl at heart. Her longest relationship before me was 3 months, and that only because the guy was in a traveling church band or something; most didn't last a week. If I've learned anything, its that usually the same conditions exist to form people with so many similarities.

Click to expand...

I've had chemistry with women too, it doesn't mean they know me. All it meant was that our personalities collided and, wouldn't you know it, they reacted well. Yay for friends. 

Now you're trying to convince me that my opinions are wrong(even though you deny that's what you're doing) and that I actually want the very things I say I don't, even though you've never met me or heard my voice or seen how I act around others. It's getting to where it's insulting, and I'm about to take back the apology I posted. Seriously, it's great that you're been with a bunch of sheltered country girls, but you haven't been with me, so you absolutely can not claim to know me on any intimate level. I am not the girls you've dated. They may not have actually waited for love; I DID.




All 4 virgins I've been with have held the same "not without love" view. There is a reason they make it to that age without having lost their virginity. Yet each of them still had sex with me long before one could reasonably say "this is love". Yeah, they each saw a ton of things in me they really liked before we even dated... just like you say about your husband... but love is a much bigger word than that I think. There's still a ton of things you don't know about someone at that point. That's the definition of infatuation. That infatuation may mature into love, but that's not love. Heck, one of the 4 broke up with ME.

Click to expand...

Yay for you and them. I've known my husband since second grade. We went to the same school for years, we went to the same church for years, and we were on the same worship band for almost a year before we starting going out. We knew each other very well before we starting getting close, and it was over two months of us talking and flirting before we were actually a couple. So, yes, I was in love with him before we were actually a couple. Please stop trying to rewrite my husband's and my story to prove yourself right. 




My experience has been that these women, who are so similar to what I know of you its scary, were virgins not because of waiting for love or marriage as they claimed... but because of naivety, fear and the fact that nobody aggressive enough to move at all seemed to have enough patience.

Click to expand...

Again, I'm not THEM. I didn't wait because I was scared or naive, or because no one was aggressive enough. My husband wasn't aggressive about it at all, didn't pressure me for it, and actually we never even talked about sex. I waited because there wasn't anyone I was in love with who was also in love with me, and waited for me to be ready. He waited, he stuck around, he actually mean it when he said he loved me. 




Many guys came along that they liked a LOT... but then guys pressured and failed. Other guys found happier hunting grounds (which they all found hurtful). Often, it was well known they were "off limits" or that "you weren't getting any there". These guys just never dated and let sex come when it comes. Of my 4, the longest wait was 3 months (my ex wife... who literally thought sex just meant putting it in... and had no idea there was movement involved). The other 3 were about a month. These girls were virgins because they were extremely naïve and sheltered, and nobody with enough patience had come along. The waiting and love? These were rationalizations as much as anything else in retrospect. These women were just more risk averse than most women... mostly because of their upbringing, which involved plenty of religion, homeschooling in 2 cases, or really strict parents.

Click to expand...

So because they weren't waiting for love, I must not have been either?  The biggest mistake you can make is in thinking we're alike just because we have similar backgrounds. 




What's funny is I knew I loved my ex-wife before that 3 month mark and one of our jokes was that before having sex, she had her emotional sh*t together... and afterward, she fell in love and got emotional all the time. I used to brag and tease her about it as if my sexual prowess did the trick. 

You're right, I don't know you... but from what I do know and all those conversations we've had, I'm just saying you fit a pattern I know. That's all I'm saying.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean you're right about me at all. I've known plenty of other girls who had the same background as me, and all of them have turned out utterly different: one thought she was bisexual and has had a slew of sexual partners, both male and female; two of them have absolutely no sexual desire whatsoever; one is now married and has a crazy sexual drive, I would never have expected it of her....just because they all match your sheltered country girl pattern doesn't mean any of them are anything like the girls you've dated. I know I've been hostile, and I've tried not to be, but you're acting like you know me better than you really do, and it's getting to be highly insulting, especially as you're trying to convince me that the reasons I chose to wait to have sex aren't the actual reasons I chose to wait to have sex. You have to understand and accept that you're simply wrong with regards to me. I don't know why you're so determined to be right about me, but you're not. Yes, I was sheltered; yes, I was naive; yes, I was homeschooled; yes, I am a Christian; and yes, I was a virgin with my husband. But, other than me being a Christian, those things weren't why I chose to wait to have sex. I chose to wait because I wanted to be in love with the man I gave my virginity to, and I didn't want to sleep with more than one guy. I've never been the type of girl to have multiple partners, and if I were to find myself single again(God forbid), I would still wait to be sexual until I was in love.*


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Is there another negative consequence of having sex?


I was asking you what YOU thought.



> Weakness, no. Unwise? Perhaps.


But it can't always be helped. I know for myself there is no such thing as a mediocre relationship. I'm either all in or all out. My first relationship I wasn't ever in love with him, but I was crazy about him; the second relationship was difficult...he used me, and I was very, very young, but I'd say I was, at least, infatuated; the third relationship didn't last long enough for me to fall in love, but I gave everything I did have; the fourth was the worst of all of them...he was the one who declared his love for me and then changed the object of his affection 24 hours later; the fifth I _was_ in love with, and him breaking up with me was heart shattering; and then there was my husband. 

I wasn't in love with every guy, but I felt very strongly about each one, and took each relationship seriously. I'm a girl who dates to find a husband, so each of those guys were potential husbands for me, and I treated them as such. 



> Yeah, and safe sex _doesn't_ get you pregnant or an std.


Assuming those are the only consequences. 



> I'll have to continue later. Got a date tonight and I have to get ready! woot woot!
> 
> Its been a good conversation and I enjoy the perspectives, thanks!


Have fun.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I resonate with all of Created2Writes Answers to these same questions....of course! 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Then I would argue its an inaccurate sense of consequences. The probability of pregnancy is unbelieveably low when a condom is used in conjuction with female birth control. Probability of an STD is extremely low when a condom is used. If I haven't been with someone a good long while, I'm wrapping up. So this is a non-issue.* Are you very risk averse? *What about you Created?


 No, as you might guess I am not particularly fond of RISK... ..I like to be prepared for every endeavor I set my hands to.... I am one of these obnoxious people (husband is the same)..that if a friend came to us all excited to take on some new Adventure/ challenge... out of CONCERN for them (and just being a pain up the a$$)....We'd be the naysayers offering every imaginable foreseen shipwreck that might come upon them....we are a bit pessimistic in this way, but it ensures if we do take a risk we have our ground covered -or sure as hell try to. This gives us peace. And generally we get the desired outcome too. 

We had 6 kids... we wanted every one, probably the biggest risks we've ever taken in life ....as you never know what you might get ! I feel those who live by the seat of their pants end up taking many detours in life. I know you will find this utterly UN adventurous and boring.... yeah, different strokes for different Folks... I'm the one who would build the Ark before the rain came. And laugh at the jokers who didn't have a boat. 




> I have no objections to your attachment argument. An easily attached person shouldn't have casual sex. Its good that you know yourself well.


 



> If it didn't make you fat and rot your teeth, why wouldn't you?


Your analogy of getting fat and rotting teeth = my feeling used & thrown away....since I'd want to have his babies , imagine him walking our daughter down the aisle...& us rocking in our Rocking chairs someday surrounded by grandchildren.

Ya know my husband has said that many times over the years, how he wants to "grow old with me & be in those rocking chairs together"...

Since NO ONE Is capable of *using you*...what I'd see as a mistake is just part of "living" for you.... you'll just find another "squeze box" for the night...it's a non issue ...so keep downing the chocolate kisses. 



> Remember that "weight" I mentioned? This ^ is that weight. "This may sound bad, I'd likely be pretty sexually loose." In other words, you think its wrong to have sex when you want to have sex. You think that sex outside of commitment carries moral weight. At the very least, you fear the judgment of others who may think less of you if you didn't carry that weight. This is the root of doing what everyone else thinks you're supposed to... this is the core of carrying the weight... someone else's burden. The very idea that a woman who has sex is "loose" and bad.


 I do believe I could have allowed myself, just as my Mother to walk that road....but it would have KILLED something inside of me that I feel is a beautiful thing.

I don't care what others do.... remember I LOVE porn (different than Created2 write on this one).... rented it for a whole year .....but the lifestyle is just not for me....I think it sucks a person's sensitivity....your caring for other people, they become replaceable... I know you don't see this... but it's almost all I do see...

I don't like the idea every young person today is fed... "it's just sex ~ put on a condom" .... I also see what Created2write said about her friends who are looking for love but keep having ONS...I'd want to shake those women....Can't they see [email protected]#$

These women are screwing their chances on the good men who frown on women who live like that... My husband was one of those, if others want to judge him...have at it... he's a happy man.

And I'm thrilled he looked at ME like I was that much extra special for feeling as strongly as I did. 

I don't want to live to see the day when old fashioned Romance like that is Dead...trampled ...and made fun of. Really it already is  I'll just keep plugging away defending the virtue I feel it holds....for those who dare to be different...walking against the crowd.



> My position is that without that weight, *the extreme romantic notion begin to unravel*. You start seeing that these notions are such only because they are what our culture has been conditioned us to think of as romantic. ie "You're supposed to wait"


 Romantic love is my addiction...hence my username...... just as Passionate LUST is your cocaine....I ditched my Religion, but don't ask me to throw Romance over the cliff .....can't do it, life would suddenly be colorless... dull... un-inspiring to me. I enjoy my shades with this view. 

I couldn't be with a man who wasn't geared as I ...if he felt that was meaningless. I would find him cold and without feelings. 



> You might. You'd probably have a crazy period. Then, like most of these people I know, you'd probably still find the magical one you love so much that the rest can't even compare to him.


 I feel it would be more elusive...I would be another pebble in the sea of causal sex pleasure riders who've done & been done by so many... How does a lifestyle like that not become a HABIT....just like one gets attached to a certain Bar.. and hangs there...and here at TAM...*we are habitual creatures*, it can't be helped. 

At least when you selectively look for the attachment type seeking marriage ... you raise your odds & aren't wasting as much time... 



> I rolled this around in my mind for a few minutes and came up with a few replies that didn't totally pass the no bullsh*t test, so I give you 3 points.


 Happy to see you didn't attempt to discredit how this *mindset* would make it easier to unzip the fly of plenty of marrieds who remove the ring - walk into a bar...and walk out with God knows who & what their story is....just put a rubber on it.



> *I think the reason we can't seem to understand each other is that I can't relate to quick attachment*.


Absolutely! This doesn't mean we would attach to just anyone...."settling" behavior, with a fear of being alone.... that would be "desperate" and very foolish...attachers can be more selective than anyone else even! 




> You feel what you feel and that's fine. I don't feel that it changes the sexual side of things at all. *Oh my goodness, I'm getting attached, dump her? What did I say that gives you this impression?* There is no avoiding of attachment. It happens or it doesn't... regardless of sex.


 What YOU said was this... if SHE is getting attached and YOUR feelings weren't where hers are...you immediately dump her... well isn't that fine & dandy, if you feel the attachment, you will hang on ..but when she feels it , she gets the shaft......so fvck her again & again so long as she can hide her internal feelings..... 

Though I don't really feel all that bad for these women , they wanted it, they invited it, so if they get hurt, hopefully they will *own* their own decisions and not blame the man, I would NOT blame the man but I would sure be Pi$$ed off at myself for going there... 



> The way I see it, my thinking isn't the one avoiding something... its yours. If I fall in love, great. If someone leaves me, ouch... but it happens. imo, you have to know the bad to really appreciate the good... and that's just living.


If I am happy with my choices in the sexual...and he was happy .. then no one is/ was avoiding "living".



> *Created2Write said:* But it can't always be helped. I know for myself there is no such thing as a mediocre relationship. I'm either all in or all out. *My first relationship* I wasn't ever in love with him, but I was crazy about him; the *second relationship* was difficult...he used me, and I was very, very young, but I'd say I was, at least, infatuated; the *third relationship *didn't last long enough for me to fall in love, but I gave everything I did have; *the fourth* was the worst of all of them...he was the one who declared his love for me and then changed the object of his affection 24 hours later; *the fifth *I was in love with, and him breaking up with me was heart shattering; and then there was my husband.
> 
> I wasn't in love with every guy, but I felt very strongly about each one, and took each relationship seriously.* I'm a girl who dates to find a husband, so each of those guys were potential husbands for me, and I treated them as such. *


 Love your perspective, I didn't have the experiences you did -since I met my husband at 15 ....but I just know... with as stubborn and tenacious as I am... I would have handled mine in the same manner....and being a pathetic Romantic ....likely had the same heartbreak too.... I knew what I wanted early on... We were both "attachers" ...not desperate as I had plenty of deal breakers.....he just FIT like a glove for me... except I hated his glasses. (so shallow I know)......Long live "contacts"!


----------



## TiggyBlue

I personally don't think of casual sex as a bad thing, for some it definitely can be if it's pushed on them (if that's not their nature) but I don't see how it's anymore/less damaging then someone damaging then if someone is brought up/told to wait for sex after marriage (if it's not their nature).


----------



## Created2Write

I don't think sex is bad at all. Quite the contrary. I think sex is beautiful and sacred, and I take the sexual relationship very seriously. I simply can't see sex as "just sex". Yesterday my husband and I had sex twice, and today I'm anticipating a romantic and amazingly satisfying evening with my sexy beast. While our issues aren't necessarily resolved, I can say that I feel so much closer to him than I've felt in a while; we're flirting and playing and laughing...stuff we did when we were dating. If sex really were "just sex", then the intimacy involved wouldn't be so powerful. 

We all have our experiences, so for some I can understand how sex wouldn't be more than an enjoyable activity. For me, sex _is_ sacred and I wouldn't be intimately involved with someone I wasn't in love with, and who didn't feel at least something for me. Others may find this unrealistic or petty, but I don't give a damn.


----------



## Deejo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> One thing I've noticed. The peak of sex with someone you're in love with isn't the same as the peak of someone new with whom you have that magical intensity of the moment with. Over the long term, sex and love are no doubt better and sustainable...* but that immediate passion and chemistry with someone right of the bat... is like a bolt of lightning... is a whole different animal.*


I thought I had posted in this thread, but I guess it was in Southbound's other thread about getting the old "I'm busy ..."

I said these very words to a wonderful woman whom I have known for a very, very, short time. Our connection has been nothing short of amazing. Is it all brain chemicals, infatuation, smoke and mirrors?

I don't care. Will we live a life of winsome adventure and grow old together? I don't care.

We have a great connection, we're both adults. We acknowledge it, and we treat each other with respect, safety and admiration. What we have you can't manufacture. You just can't. Anyone that has been to more than a few rodeos knows this. 

I said, "This is lightning, if you don't grab it and try to hold on, it's just gone."

Everyone should grab the lightning in their life, at least once ... doesn't need to be regarding dating either. It's whatever IT is that makes your heart race and puts a big, fat, sh!t eating smile on your face.

I'm all for propriety, safety, respect and boundaries. I'm certainly not all about 'getting laid'.
But sometimes, just sometimes, 'getting laid' is EXACTLY what's supposed to happen.

Please keep in mind that I am only speaking in context of the thread and the question about dating.

If you're married, it's my sincere hope that you are married as a result of having grabbed the lightning and are still on the ride.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> I thought I had posted in this thread, but I guess it was in Southbound's other thread about getting the old "I'm busy ..."
> 
> I said these very words to a wonderful woman whom I have known for a very, very, short time. Our connection has been nothing short of amazing. Is it all brain chemicals, infatuation, smoke and mirrors?
> 
> I don't care. Will we live a life of winsome adventure and grow old together? I don't care.
> 
> We have a great connection, we're both adults. We acknowledge it, and we treat each other with respect, safety and admiration. What we have you can't manufacture. You just can't. Anyone that has been to more than a few rodeos knows this.
> 
> I said, "This is lightning, if you don't grab it and try to hold on, it's just gone."
> 
> Everyone should grab the lightning in their life, at least once ... doesn't need to be regarding dating either. It's whatever IT is that makes your heart race and puts a big, fat, sh!t eating smile on your face.
> 
> I'm all for propriety, safety, respect and boundaries. I'm certainly not all about 'getting laid'.
> But sometimes, just sometimes, 'getting laid' is EXACTLY what's supposed to happen.
> 
> Please keep in mind that I am only speaking in context of the thread and the question about dating.
> 
> If you're married, it's my sincere hope that you are married as a result of having grabbed the lightning and are still on the ride.


Who's to say that those who don't/didn't have casual sex didn't also feel the lightning? I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't have married my husband if there wasn't lightning between us. And it's not like we waited years before we had sex; it was, maybe, a couple of months from when we started dating, and by that time we were practically ripping each other's clothes off. 

It seems to me that some think it's impossible to have "the lightning" if people don't have causal sex. I'm sure the lightning I have with my husband isn't the same as the lightning you or Dvls have with your ladies, but it doesn't mean I haven't experienced lightning of some kind. Lately, it's felt like my husband and I are discovering a new kind of lightning in our sex life. Sunday evening was some of the most amazing sex we've had in our lives. We went at it for hours; intercourse, then oral sex, then more intercourse...multiple positions, and both of us overflowing with passion and lust, but most importantly, overflowing with love for each other as well. 

Did we have a blast? Yes we did. Did it feel fantastic? Of course. Were we trying to make it some serious and romantic experience? No. We were laughing and smiling the whole time, and were content to enjoy each other. But the experience was magnified by our affection for each other, and for that reason, was automatically romantic, and meant _so much_ to each of us. 

I'm sure it seems like I'm making a big deal out of something that isn't meant to be a big deal to most people, but I really don't care. I'm not a typical girl; I'm not a typical romantic, sheltered Christian woman. I've always been different than the other women around me, and I've never quite fit in. Guys have made that clear to me my whole life. But this, and other things, are what make me who I am. So what if I never have a ONS, or know what it's like to flirt with a stranger; I have a man that I love and respect, and who loves and respect me; he's the only guy who has ever tried to understand me, and he's the only one who hasn't tried to change me into someone I'm not. He accepts me for exactly who I am. And while that may not sound all that unique, there aren't many guys who respect a girls choice to abstain sexually until love exists between them; just look at this thread and you'll see that that's true. As a girl, it made me wonder why I wasn't worth the wait, and he's the only one who has, ever, shown me that I _was_ worth the wait, and a ONS, as mysterious as it may be, just couldn't compare with how special my man makes me feel.


----------



## Deejo

Wasn't insinuating anything about you C2W.

My point, for me ... and I had to think about my relationship to sex, became such that I decided if I meet someone and there is crazy attraction and excitement, and we both want to have sex ... then we have sex. I'm good with it and I presume via her actions that she is good with it too.

I dont judge the folks that want to have sex or those that don't. As long as people are at peace with their conduct.

I suspect that your definition of casual sex and mine are different.

If I have 'lightning' with someone and we have sex on date 1 2 or 3, I don't consider that 'casual sex'. If I'm into you and you are into me, and we feel a connection and investment, to me, there is nothing casual about it.

Our paradigms are very different. Not suggesting one is superior to the other.

My guess is if you were on the back side of 40, divorced and looking to find a new partner your attitude about sex would be very different than it is now. Or, maybe not. Just need to make sure what we believe is in alignment with the outcomes we desire.

I'm not purposefully looking for a new wife. If I meet someone and we could align our lives together, that would be great. In the meantime I have had very rewarding and rich experiences, intimate and otherwise with wonderful women.

Wasnt casual. The relationships werent failures. They either ran their course or our courses changed.

In summing up, I admire your conviction. I'm not criticizing it.


----------



## Created2Write

I totally understand. I think we all make the choices that we believe are best for us and who we are as individuals. For others, my convictions wouldn't be the right avenue, and I see that. For me, having sex without love is the wrong avenue.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> ....Congrats? *My husband got me because he wasn't trying to get me, I guess is my point*. There wasn't any of that seduction you're talking about...I wasn't some game to be played to him.


Uhm... that was my point.

:::sigh::: Whether you give some behavior a derogatory name, or insist its motivated by romantic love rather than sexual desire does not change the actual behavior. My point was also that I've had virgins (specifically the ones who last past 18) BECAUSE I WASNT TRYING. More specifically, I wasn't pushing. Thank you for confirming.



Created2Write said:


> I highly doubt it.
> 
> And I highly doubt that the rush of sex with someone new could ever compare with the rush that I feel when my husband looks at me with "that look"...it's like a mixture of fear, longing, anticipation and excitement, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Each sexual experience we have is new, and wonderful, and I can't imagine wanting anything, or anyone, else.
> 
> Which I have with my husband.


There's only one way to find out.   jk

Seriously though, you seem to be taking this conversation as if to compare and contrast being with your husband versus being with someone new; as if I'm pushing you down somehow. I don't care that you have all of the electric elements I'm describing with him... I would hope you do!! (Hell, I would expect you do... or at least did) After all, you did marry him.

My point there was that all of those electric things can occur nearly instantaneously with someone, not that you can't have them with hubby. The only difference between the two is that you have a greater sense that the one you love may be "the one". There's no difference in the pursuit, the chemistry is great both ways... all that is different is that YOU had time to get attached such that you'd really miss them if they were gone. Basically once you're confident he's not going to leave, you attach and then, only then will you have sex. Can you see why I'd lump that in with fear of abandonment?



Created2Write said:


> I wouldn't have reacted well, I'll be honest. I was in love, but my feelings meant little on their own. I wanted to know that he, also, felt something for me. It wouldn't have had to be as strong as what I felt(nor would I have expected it to be...I fell for him sooner than he fell for me), but I wouldn't have had sex with him if all he felt for me was lust and/or attraction.


AKA... its not about love, its about emotional safety. You were attracted to him, you loved him... but you still didn't have sex because you feared the possibility that he'd leave.

Hence, my view that waiting is driven by a sort of fear of abandonment or religious/cultural prescription that its better.



Created2Write said:


> My point was that sex isn't the only thing that creates those intense feelings. You can have those feelings without sex.


I never said you couldn't. The burden here is on me to show that all your prerequisites to have sex can be met save ONE... the real reason you waited: fear.

Your own words have shown it wasn't love; it wasn't attraction; it wasn't electric chemistry. You waited as a way to confirm that he wouldn't leave... which is really about fear. I mean, really... a few months attachment and wait for sex isn't going to make someone stay. Anyone can fall out of love and lose attachments just as quickly as they fell in.

You can't even guarantee that you WILL fall in love. I have regular doubts that I will. Wait until I love someone to have sex? Pssshhhh.



Created2Write said:


> This is so damn difficult to explain because you are completely, 100%, opposite of me in many, many ways. For you it sounds like there really isn't any emotional attachment to the women you go out with and have sex with. It sounds like you're picking up a toy, playing with it for a little bit, and then when you get bored, if you get bored, you go looking for a new one; you meet a girl you like, you romance her for a while, you have your sexual fun, and then once the chemistry wears off, you find someone new. I'm the type of girl who would be devastated by that. I'm not capable of entering my relationships with such...detachment. For me, chemistry doesn't exist all on its own...it has to be purposefully maintained and nourished.


We are very different no doubt, but you mischaracterize me. A woman is a toy? No. Not anymore than anyone's friends are toys. The emotional attachment is different from woman to woman. I've told you before that I have been broken up with before even though I wanted more.

Literally the only difference is that I don't need love, attachment and commitment to have sex. If she leaves, she leaves. That's life. You think there aren't women I would have loved to have kept? They didn't fall for me... the initial spell I had on them wore off, and they decided I wasn't right for them... and that's okay. I should be devastated? Why? I'm only disappointed.

If I become bored with someone, damn right I'll leave. Who wants to be with someone they're bored with? You phrase this as if its an abuse, but its not. I don't have sex with someone I find boring. That doesn't mean I won't later realize that they are. My objective isn't to have sex. My objective is to have fun... and sex is just one of many fun activities.



Created2Write said:


> You said sex doesn't play a part in your happiness, which is where I got that idea from so now I'm confused...


You've still lost me. Sex doesn't play a part in my happiness. I'm already happy before I have sex. If I'm not happy, I'm not having sex. Sex doesn't make me happy, and I'm happy with everyone until I have a reason not to be.



Created2Write said:


> I could never under-value sex like that.


I under value sex. lmao... not what you mean I'm sure, but I know people who would really get a kick out of that.



Created2Write said:


> Let me try a different example: a man and woman date, have sex, fall in love, get married, have kids and she suddenly isn't interested in having sex anymore. Is his response going to be, "Oh well. Sex is just sex. No biggy"? Or is he going to be hurt and disappointed? Even angry? Should he feel that way, or do you think he would be making a big deal out of nothing?


This doesn't make sense. Sex really is just sex. But that doesn't mean is not important. You're also confusing two very different emotional areas. My case: my ex wife lost interest in sex after having kids. Did I think she didn't love me anymore? lol, of course she did. I still loved her. Was I hurt, angry and disappointed? Sure... but not in the way you're letting on. These weren't derived from feeling unloved, but rather from my conclusions that *I* must be the reason she wasn't interested. My thinking was the equivalent of someone saying "you're a sh*t in bed". In other words, if it was good, she would want to have it... she doesn't want to have it, so I must not be doing good. Love in the sense you're referring really played no part. Notice I didn't leave once I realized I wasn't the problem and that she really just had little drive/interest in sex. I just went and found sex. 

Whether someone has sex with me or not does not make me feel that they love me. The very notion is absurd to me.

No biggy? Not quite. Sex is important. I want sex. Not because I love someone, but because sex is fun and it feels great. I will never again be monogamous for someone who never has sex with me, and love has nothing to do with it.







Created2Write said:


> *FOR ME* sex would not be enjoyable without love. For others, I'm sure the exact opposite would be true. For you, I'm sure sex is quite enjoyable, whether you love the girl or not. But *for me[/i] it wouldn't be enjoyable without love.
> *


*

Do you also not like food you've never tasted? 



Created2Write said:



I'm not talking about people leaving, I'm talking about people feeling fulfilled emotionally. A husband or wife may choose to stay in a sexless marriage, but that doesn't mean they're fulfilled. The lack of fulfillment is, at least in part, due to the lack of sexual intimacy, indicating that sex is a vital part of the health of a marriage where both spouses are able to have sex. This means that, at least in marriage, sex is more than "just sex".

Click to expand...

Bologna. My ex-wife could have given me a "free pass" and I'd have been perfectly happy with her (minus other issues). I don't need sexual intimacy to love someone... maybe you do. I wasn't feeling "unfulfilled" (not even positive what that means). I was feeling horny.*


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Uhm... that was my point.
> 
> :::sigh::: Whether you give some behavior a derogatory name, or insist its motivated by romantic love rather than sexual desire does not change the actual behavior. My point was also that I've had virgins (specifically the ones who last past 18) BECAUSE I WASNT TRYING. More specifically, I wasn't pushing. Thank you for confirming.


So you _didn't_ try to get them to have sex with you? You spent a large paragraph talking about how you would take little steps each time to try and push the boundaries, but in a way that didn't make them feel pressured. That's trying to get them to have sex. My husband didn't do _any_ of that. He didn't try and seduce me; he didn't push the boundaries, like you described as your routine for seducing virgins. 



> There's only one way to find out.   jk


No thank you.



> Seriously though, you seem to be taking this conversation as if to compare and contrast being with your husband versus being with someone new; as if I'm pushing you down somehow. I don't care that you have all of the electric elements I'm describing with him... I would hope you do!! (Hell, I would expect you do... or at least did) After all, you did marry him.
> 
> My point there was that all of those electric things can occur nearly instantaneously with someone, not that you can't have them with hubby. The only difference between the two is that you have a greater sense that the one you love may be "the one". There's no difference in the pursuit, the chemistry is great both ways... all that is different is that YOU had time to get attached such that you'd really miss them if they were gone. *Basically once you're confident he's not going to leave, you attach and then, only then will you have sex. Can you see why I'd lump that in with fear of abandonment?*


If that was what I said, then yeah. But it isn't what I said. You're determined to paint it all that way, though, so I don't know that there's any point in trying to explain everything over again. 



> AKA... its not about love, its about emotional safety. You were attracted to him, you loved him... but you still didn't have sex because you feared the possibility that he'd leave.


*sigh* I don't know why you're so determined to dumb down the importance of love. I didn't want emotional safety; love doesn't ensure a relationship will last. I was in love with one of my boyfriends, and he was in love with me, but our relationship still didn't last. Love doesn't mean emotional safety; it does mean that the two individuals are interested in more than a sexual good time. We both wanted it to be a long term relationship, but there was no guarantee that it would be. What we did know was that we loved each other and respected each other, and as such, had uncontrollable passion for each other. Love doesn't mean a relationship will last. But it meant for us that, for the time, we were equals. It meant mutual respect. _That_, I will agree, I did require. 



> Hence, my view that waiting is driven by a sort of fear of abandonment or religious/cultural prescription that its better.


You can believe that if you want. I know my motivators, and fear wasn't among them. 



> I never said you couldn't. The burden here is on me to show that all your prerequisites to have sex can be met save ONE... the real reason you waited: fear.


Here again is an example of you insisting you know better than I do. You don't know my "real reasons for waiting". Though your continual insistence that you do is amusing. You'll see it this way no matter what I say.



> Your own words have shown it wasn't love; it wasn't attraction; it wasn't electric chemistry. You waited as a way to confirm that he wouldn't leave... which is really about fear. *I mean, really... a few months attachment and wait for sex isn't going to make someone stay. Anyone can fall out of love and lose attachments just as quickly as they fell in.*


Exactly. That's why my motivations _weren't_ about fear. I'd been in love once before, and the relationship ended in heartache. Love isn't a guarantee that a relationship will last, which is why I wasn't motivated by fear. I knew that our relationship could be over at any time. We each had had bad breakups before each other, and we each knew that what we had could change. But we knew that we loved each other, and that we respected each other. It was that respect that allowed the passion to flourish. 



> You can't even guarantee that you WILL fall in love. I have regular doubts that I will. Wait until I love someone to have sex? Pssshhhh.


Scoff at it all you like. No one has said you have to wait, have they? All that I have said is that, for me, sex without love isn't an option.



> We are very different no doubt, but you mischaracterize me. A woman is a toy? No. Not anymore than anyone's friends are toys. The emotional attachment is different from woman to woman. I've told you before that I have been broken up with before even though I wanted more.
> 
> Literally the only difference is that I don't need love, attachment and commitment to have sex. If she leaves, she leaves. That's life. You think there aren't women I would have loved to have kept? They didn't fall for me... the initial spell I had on them wore off, and they decided I wasn't right for them... and that's okay. I should be devastated? Why? I'm only disappointed.


Where have I said that "you should be devastated" if a girl leaves you? I've said nothing about what you should or shouldn't feel. Only you know what is and isn't important to you, and as you said yourself, you don't need emotional attachment to have sex. _I do_. Period. 



> If I become bored with someone, damn right I'll leave. Who wants to be with someone they're bored with? You phrase this as if its an abuse, but its not. I don't have sex with someone I find boring. That doesn't mean I won't later realize that they are. My objective isn't to have sex. My objective is to have fun... and sex is just one of many fun activities.


And for you, this works. It wouldn't work for me. At all. 



> You've still lost me. Sex doesn't play a part in my happiness. I'm already happy before I have sex. If I'm not happy, I'm not having sex. Sex doesn't make me happy, and I'm happy with everyone until I have a reason not to be.


Sex is a part of what makes me happy. If I'm upset, intimacy with my husband instantly takes away my worries. If I'm sad, sex with my husband lifts my mood. That's the beauty of having sex with the man I love. The intimacy between us fulfills us both. 



> I under value sex. lmao... not what you mean I'm sure, but I know people who would really get a kick out of that.


*shrug*



> This doesn't make sense. Sex really is just sex.


To you, it is. You don't get to decide what sex is for others. 



> But that doesn't mean is not important. You're also confusing two very different emotional areas. My case: my ex wife lost interest in sex after having kids. Did I think she didn't love me anymore? lol, of course she did. I still loved her. Was I hurt, angry and disappointed? Sure... but not in the way you're letting on. These weren't derived from feeling unloved, but rather from my conclusions that *I* must be the reason she wasn't interested. My thinking was the equivalent of someone saying "you're a sh*t in bed". In other words, if it was good, she would want to have it... she doesn't want to have it, so I must not be doing good. Love in the sense you're referring really played no part. Notice I didn't leave once I realized I wasn't the problem and that she really just had little drive/interest in sex. I just went and found sex.


Just because you didn't leave because of sex, doesn't mean others haven't or shouldn't. I wasn't asking about your situation, I was asking what you thought, in general, about sex and its importance in marriage.



> Whether someone has sex with me or not does not make me feel that they love me. The very notion is absurd to me.


It's not absurd. Sex is the ultimate expression of love for me, and I'd say a great many people on this forum agree. If they didn't, then there wouldn't be so many men and women suffering from neglect because their spouse refuses to have sex with them. 



> No biggy? Not quite. Sex is important.


Why is sex important? If it's not love, then what makes sex important? You've said sex can bring two people closer...why? What causes this closeness?



> I want sex. Not because I love someone, but because sex is fun and it feels great. I will never again be monogamous for someone who never has sex with me, and love has nothing to do with it.


What _does_ have to do with it? What makes sex so important?



> Do you also not like food you've never tasted?






> Bologna. My ex-wife could have given me a "free pass" and I'd have been perfectly happy with her (minus other issues). I don't need sexual intimacy to love someone... maybe you do. I wasn't feeling "unfulfilled" (not even positive what that means). I was feeling horny.


I'd last a week if my husband was like this, and then I'd run very far away and stay there.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> FOR YOU, they're not. For me, love absolutely is a prerequisite. You don't get to define my prerequisites.
> 
> Now you're trying to convince me that my opinions are wrong(even though you deny that's what you're doing) and that I actually want the very things I say I don't, even though you've never met me or heard my voice or seen how I act around others. It's getting to where it's insulting, and I'm about to take back the apology I posted. Seriously, it's great that you're been with a bunch of sheltered country girls, but you haven't been with me, so you absolutely can not claim to know me on any intimate level. I am not the girls you've dated. They may not have actually waited for love; I DID.


Until you say something that doesn't sound like every other naïve Christian country girl, I will continue to consider you the type. Shall I wait?

Take back the apology. I'm still going to voice my opinions. Nothing I've said is an insult to you. You claim to be so unlike the type I describe, but everything you've ever said and everything you continue to say only further reinforces your membership. You know what? They're even pretty sexually wild once they get comfortable. Even THAT sounds like how you and Simply have described yourselves. I'm not sure why YOU take these observations as insults.




Created2Write said:


> So, yes, I was in love with him before we were actually a couple. Please stop trying to rewrite my husband's and my story to prove yourself right.


I did no such thing. 



Created2Write said:


> I didn't wait because I was scared or naive, or because no one was aggressive enough. My husband wasn't aggressive about it at all, didn't pressure me for it, and actually we never even talked about sex. I waited because there wasn't anyone I was in love with who was also in love with me, and waited for me to be ready. He waited, he stuck around, he actually mean it when he said he loved me.
> 
> ---
> 
> So because they weren't waiting for love, I must not have been either?  The biggest mistake you can make is in thinking we're alike just because we have similar backgrounds.


That's fine. I don't believe you, but okay. You know all about how not believing someone works right? Further, even if you were fearful or naïve, you wouldn't characterize yourself as so. Your husband didn't pressure you (might as well be in the late age virgin textbook), but yes, he was aggressive. You're misunderstanding my use of the word. If he weren't, he would never have advanced and you wouldn't have had sex when you did. 

From what I've seen, the soft churchly nice guys who never pressure have a hard time making a move at all... while the guys who would make a move, find it hard to avoid pressuring. With late-age virgins, their exposure to sexually charged situations is often extremely limited and it becomes a very fine line to walk. This is the real reason they stay virgins IMO. 

Or they all fell in love with me. Or they all violated their personal convictions.




Created2Write said:


> That doesn't mean you're right about me at all. I've known plenty of other girls who had the same background as me, and all of them have turned out utterly different: one thought she was bisexual and has had a slew of sexual partners, both male and female; two of them have absolutely no sexual desire whatsoever; one is now married and has a crazy sexual drive, I would never have expected it of her....just because they all match your sheltered country girl pattern doesn't mean any of them are anything like the girls you've dated.


Subsets of the type. I think I already said this? Some of these Catholic School girl syndrome: they rebel. You see it a lot in these sorts of women a year or two into college too. They're throwing off the oppression. A mix of discovering sexual life isn't the devil that mom and dad always said it was, poor family relationships and then you see them rebelling and running wild once they're out of the box.

Before I met my ex-wife, I was seeing this red headed girl who was even more sheltered and for lack of the better word, uptight. I didn't like her enough to wait, so I moved on. Good for her right? So a couple years later I'm married and I run across her again in a store. She's all tattoo'd up, nose and lip peircings... it was crazy. I told a friend about her and she said she knew. She fell in love with some guy at church, had a big mess with her family because she wanted to live with him out of wedlock... moved out, and within a year cheated on him and developed a strong reputation for being... as Simply put it, "loose".

The only association I've made between the two subsets (you and my ex-wife) versus catholic school girl syndromes, is the nature of their relationship with their family. Good relationships churn out girls like you, strained relationships churn out the rebels (often the strain is behind the scenes; it seems very important to keep up appearances among the churchly crowd).




Created2Write said:


> I chose to wait because I wanted to be in love with the man I gave my virginity to, and I didn't want to sleep with more than one guy.


Yes, I hear you. I understand. Its just that I've heard that so many times. Call me cynical. Call me skeptical. From my experience, I'm inclined to believe all of these sorts of women will or would have come off of that perch given the right circumstances... love or no. I even think you would have. I can have whatever opinion I want. Not sure why that bothers you so much.

Moreover, I think if not for your background, you wouldn't even have this amplified love-sex link (or at least to the same degree). There's a reason I see it all the time in the churchly country and haven't seen it at all in the coastal cities... and I don't think its because the people themselves are different. I think the primary cause is that one set of women is being raised beneath a Godly view of sex by people who often grew up beneath the outright demonization of sex, and other... not so much.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Until you say something that doesn't sound like every other naïve Christian country girl, I will continue to consider you the type. Shall I wait?


So you _do_ think all sheltered Christian girls are the same?



> Take back the apology. I'm still going to voice my opinions. Nothing I've said is an insult to you. You claim to be so unlike the type I describe, but everything you've ever said and everything you continue to say only further reinforces your membership. You know what? They're even pretty sexually wild once they get comfortable. Even THAT sounds like how you and Simply have described yourselves. I'm not sure why YOU take these observations as insults.


It's insulting that you think all Christian girls are the same.



> I did no such thing.


Sure looked like it.



> That's fine. I don't believe you, but okay.


You don't have to believe me, nor do I expect you to. 



> You know all about how not believing someone works right? Further, even if you were fearful or naïve, you wouldn't characterize yourself as so. Your husband didn't pressure you (might as well be in the late age virgin textbook), but yes, he was aggressive. You're misunderstanding my use of the word. If he weren't, he would never have advanced and you wouldn't have had sex when you did.


Right. Because you know the intimate details of every sexual relationship that exists. 



> From what I've seen, the soft churchly nice guys who never pressure have a hard time making a move at all... while the guys who would make a move, find it hard to avoid pressuring. With late-age virgins, their exposure to sexually charged situations is often extremely limited and it becomes a very fine line to walk. This is the real reason they stay virgins IMO.


_From what you've seen_...exactly. You haven't seen our relationship, nor were you involved, so that solves why you continue to be wrong about it. 



> Or they all fell in love with me. Or they all violated their personal convictions.
> 
> You fell in love with your husband and
> 
> Subsets of the type. I think I already said this? Some of these Catholic School girl syndrome: they rebel. You see it a lot in these sorts of women a year or two into college too. They're throwing off the oppression. A mix of discovering sexual life isn't the devil that mom and dad always said it was, poor family relationships and then you see them rebelling and running wild once they're out of the box.


Wrong on all counts with me. But your experience does resemble what one of my Christian friends went through. 



> Before I met my ex-wife, I was seeing this red headed girl who was even more sheltered and for lack of the better word, uptight. I didn't like her enough to wait, so I moved on. Good for her right? So a couple years later I'm married and I run across her again in a store. She's all tattoo'd up, nose and lip peircings... it was crazy. I told a friend about her and she said she knew. She fell in love with some guy at church, had a big mess with her family because she wanted to live with him out of wedlock... moved out, and within a year cheated on him and developed a strong reputation for being... as Simply put it, "loose".
> 
> The only association I've made between the two subsets (you and my ex-wife) versus catholic school girl syndromes, is the nature of their relationship with their family. Good relationships churn out girls like you, strained relationships churn out the rebels (often the strain is behind the scenes; it seems very important to keep up appearances among the churchly crowd).


Of all the people I know, in church and out of it, only one person matches the girls in these patterns you've described. 



> Yes, I hear you. I understand. Its just that I've heard that so many times. Call me cynical. Call me skeptical. From my experience, I'm inclined to believe all of these sorts of women will or would have come off of that perch given the right circumstances... love or no. I even think you would have. I can have whatever opinion I want. Not sure why that bothers you so much.


You have a lot you need to learn about women if you can't see why all of this would bother someone. 



> Moreover, I think if not for your background, you wouldn't even have this amplified love-sex link (or at least to the same degree). There's a reason I see it all the time in the churchly country and haven't seen it at all in the coastal cities... and I don't think its because the people themselves are different. I think the primary cause is that one set of women is being raised beneath a Godly view of sex by people who often grew up beneath the outright demonization of sex, and other... not so much.


I'm not arguing against your experience, I'm trying to tell you that your experience don't define the lives of every girl that exists. As long as we can agree on that, I'm good.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> So you _didn't_ try to get them to have sex with you? You spent a large paragraph talking about how you would take little steps each time to try and push the boundaries, but in a way that didn't make them feel pressured. That's trying to get them to have sex. My husband didn't do _any_ of that. He didn't try and seduce me; he didn't push the boundaries, like you described as your routine for seducing virgins.


No, I wasn't *trying* to have sex. That sort of step by step is what comes naturally to me. I'm naturally an overly nice guy. I wanted sex. Trust me, your husband wanted sex a long time before he went for it too. I think if you look back you'll see a clear line of escalation... then again, if you had caught on to it, he probably wouldn't have been successful. 

Just because its step by step doesn't mean its artificial. My biggest revelation in terms of sexual success was that I didn't need this arduously slow and passive process. That the vast majority of women are actually MORE attracted to the upfront and assertive guy once their interest has been established. It turns out that once upon a time, I was often too slow to escalate and they lost interest in me or got caught up by a more assertive guy as a result. This is the logic behind "average frustrated chump" wondering why the girl went for the jerk. I was the guy confused and thinking, "but I'm such a nice guy". Ironic that all of these guys actually tell themselves the answer to their own problem: "they're such a nice guy".



Created2Write said:


> No thank you.


It wasn't an offer.



Created2Write said:


> If that was what I said, then yeah. But it isn't what I said. You're determined to paint it all that way, though, so I don't know that there's any point in trying to explain everything over again.


That is what you said. I didn't paint anything. You were attracted to him. You knew him well. You loved him from day one. Seems all your sexual prerequisites are met are they not? You didn't have sex. Why? You wanted to make sure he loved you. Why? So you better know if he's going to stay or just wants the booty. This is fear.



Created2Write said:


> What we did know was that we loved each other and respected each other, and as such, had uncontrollable passion for each other. Love doesn't mean a relationship will last. But it meant for us that, for the time, we were equals. It meant mutual respect. _That_, I will agree, I did require.


So which of these didn't exist for you and your partner you've known since 2nd grade, from the very first day you started dating? See my point now?

Or did you keep a crush on and friends with a person who didn't respect you?

Its all window dressing babe.



Created2Write said:


> Where have I said that "you should be devastated" if a girl leaves you?


Let me rephrase... why should ANYONE be devastated? You had sex so suddenly you're devastated whereas an hour before having sex if he left you you wouldn't be devastated? C'mon!



Created2Write said:


> Sex is a part of what makes me happy. If I'm upset, intimacy with my husband instantly takes away my worries. If I'm sad, sex with my husband lifts my mood. That's the beauty of having sex with the man I love. The intimacy between us fulfills us both.


Count that as another of our differences. If I'm not happy with someone I sure as hell don't want to have sex with them - I don't care who they are. If I'm sad, I don't want sex period. Sex doesn't change my mood. I seek sex when I'm in the mood to have sex.



Created2Write said:


> I wasn't asking about your situation, I was asking what you thought, in general, about sex and its importance in marriage.


And I gave my answer, with elements from my life as the example, just as you do when you answer such questions. Sex has no importance in relation to my loving someone... in marriage or not.



Created2Write said:


> Sex is the ultimate expression of love for me, and I'd say a great many people on this forum agree. If they didn't, then there wouldn't be so many men and women suffering from neglect because their spouse refuses to have sex with them.


Do you really think they're here because they're emotionally damaged? Suffering and neglect? I don't know about the women, but I know most of the men just want to get LAID. Judging by the "I'm thinking of cheating, but I do love him" posts from women, I'd guess its not that different for women.

People want sex. I want sex. But I sure as heck have never had sex with someone I didn't love and afterwards thought "omg I love you!!!" The two are not linked. You are using sex to express your love for someone, and that use is just dandy. Its your choice to use it as you do that I've been pointing out. But sex itself is just sex. YOU glue the meaning on it because you want to... because you've been taught to.



Created2Write said:


> Why is sex important? If it's not love, then what makes sex important? You've said sex can bring two people closer...why? What causes this closeness?
> 
> What _does_ have to do with it? What makes sex so important?


It feels amazing. I want that feeling. Sex is important to me. Making good money is important to me. Advancing in my career is important to me. Enjoying life is important to me. I'm sorry, but I don't have sex because I love someone, and I don't love someone because I have sex with them. There is no real link there and I think you know it. You choose to use sex as your way of telling someone you love them and then arbitrarily decide that sex without love wouldn't be worth your while. I don't tell someone I love them with sex. That's not how I express my love.

It does bring two people closer. So does most shared activity. This one a bit more than others because its so personal and intense. I'm more likely to fall in love over a cup of coffee and good conversation than a romp in the sheets.



Created2Write said:


> I'd last a week if my husband was like this, and then I'd run very far away and stay there.


I have an in-kind reply to this I have decided to withhold, but suffice to say that we can both thank our lucky stars I'm not your husband.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

southbound said:


> Ladies, if you were single today...what would you be looking for in a NEW relationship...if on a dating site..or in real life?
> 
> Is Faithfulness/ good treatment / an honest man, but not necessarily "well to do" ....more important than a "Picket fence" lifestyle with "stuff"...in this thing called LOVE...
> 
> Is excitement/FUN more important than contentment /simple enjoyments... with stability?


The thought of being single is sad,SO is my ideal! LOL it would suck to not be with him and have to start all over knowing I'll never get another one like him.

But since it's an imaginary situation:

faithfulness,good treatment,honesty are all important for me. I don't need the money bc I make my own but I don't want a total lazy man lying around my house while I bust my buns all day either.
I've had excitement and fun with my ex.I wasn't happy with him so it's not high on my list of things that turn me on. I still have excitement and fun with SO but it's on a nice,mellow scale.It's simple and comfortable.I adore it

Sexual chemistry is really,really important for me.He also needs to be generous in the bedroom.No chemistry and a selfish lover makes me an unhappy lady.

I like a lot of quality time with my partner and I want someone who shows me I'm valued and needed.

If you'd rather spend time playing football with the boys then I'm not the girl for you.Once in a while is totally cool but some men take it overboard as though they don't really want to hang out with their partner at all.

I don't need the picket fence.I need someone to be there with me through it all loving me as I love them.Giving of themselves as much as I give of myself.Someone to be mushy with me but f**k me crazy and still be my friend for the mundane daily crap.Someone I can be gross around and not have to worry about having a ladylike filter all the time. 

ya know,just the basics.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> So you _do_ think all sheltered Christian girls are the same?


Those that those who "share characteristics" are by definition the same. When I see something different, I'll think you're different. This discussion is of the way in which different people view sex. Yes, I do think that all sheltered Christian girls view sex in a very similar manner as you do - at least, all of those I've ever met.

Its cheating in a way, given that their long virginity and strict religion plays a part in defining them as sheltered.



Created2Write said:


> It's insulting that you think all Christian girls are the same.


You should note that YOU introduced "Christian" to the mix. Oh, are we playing the persecution card now? No, that wasn't predictable at all. If you're anything like them, you're also very sensitive to anything that can remotely be perceived as an attack on being Christian. You think Christians are treated unfairly and discriminated against. You're apt to say that someone isn't a "real Christian" or otherwise figure out a way to exclude undesirable behavior from what being Christian means to you... and you have a very specific understanding of it even while you "don't judge". Honestly tell me I'm wrong. 

FYI, not everyone I consider one of these types is Christian. One is in fact an atheist with a strict Baptist upbringing. Another is Muslim.

Do I think everything about these women is the same? No. But their attitudes toward sex are remarkably similar. And that's what this conversation is about.



Created2Write said:


> You don't have to believe me, nor do I expect you to.


At least we know the feeling is mutual.



Created2Write said:


> Right. Because you know the intimate details of every sexual relationship that exists.


Nope. But I know that every one of these women says they're holding out for love and marriage, and none of the ones I've met do unless they STAYED sheltered. I'll put money down that you were still living at home under the exact same conditions that led to you remaining a virgin so long and having the view of sex you do. There's nothing wrong with it, but there is reason for it... and its not love babe.



Created2Write said:


> _From what you've seen_...exactly. You haven't seen our relationship, nor were you involved, so that solves why you continue to be wrong about it.
> 
> Wrong on all counts with me. But your experience does resemble what one of my Christian friends went through.


Yep. I'll make a new category just for you. 

I was describing the rebellious type, not you. You're decidedly not the rebellious type. I'd predict that you have pretty good family relationships.



Created2Write said:


> Of all the people I know, in church and out of it, only one person matches the girls in these patterns you've described.


Are they all the sheltered naïve type? No. The association is one way. These types are most often churchly, but churchly doesn't mean you'll be one of these types. Follow the logic?



Created2Write said:


> You have a lot you need to learn about women if you can't see why all of this would bother someone.


Perhaps I should say "why should it bother someone". Women are always bothered when its pointed out that they, like any man, can be induced into having sex when their subconscious needs are met which usually don't match up with their rational needs; or the old adage passed around men: "be careful taking everything a woman says literally". A lot of what women say is said to convince themselves. Do you have any freaking idea how often I hear variations of "Its getting really late, I [need to go | should go]". Guess what? They never go. EVER. She's really saying "Give me a good excuse. I want to do this, but I'm nervous and don't want you to think I'm easy. Reassure me."

What women say is very often a mistruth. When I get turned down, 90% of the time she's not saying "no", she's saying "make me more comfortable". When a wife laughs off her husbands advances and says "quit it, I'm busy" or throwing up roadblocks, she's really saying "work harder, show me that I'm more important than any of this".

As such, men have an interesting task of actually listening to you, while kind of disregarding much of what you say at the same time. Because much of what you say isn't for us, its for some bizzare thing going on in your head... whether its worry, making us prove something, or trying to convince yourself of something.

I know women hate when I say this. Its kind of funny the advice I give to men though... listen to her, really devote your attention when listen. Then ignore half of what she said. That half was meant for her more than it was for you.

When a women says she's waiting for love or marriage... I'm thinking "sure you are"... with very good reason.



Created2Write said:


> I'm not arguing against your experience, I'm trying to tell you that your experience don't define the lives of every girl that exists. As long as we can agree on that, I'm good.


What fun would that be? ;P


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo: "If you're married, it's my sincere hope that you are married as a result of having grabbed the lightning and are still on the ride."

I definitely grabbed the lightning and am still on the ride!

However...that doesn't mean we had sex right away.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Ladies, important things if single today*



Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo: "If you're married, it's my sincere hope that you are married as a result of having grabbed the lightning and are still on the ride."
> 
> I definitely grabbed the lightning and am still on the ride!
> 
> However...that doesn't mean we had sex right away.


Yeah, but I bet you wanted to.

I'm all for what works and what people are comfortable with.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

SO and I did it right away I guess you could say. We knew each other for a long time but not as a couple and we also lost touch for a long time.When we started talking again we were basically strangers.
We talked for a bit and had a date then I pounced on him.I wasn't thinking about love at the moment.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No, I wasn't *trying* to have sex. That sort of step by step is what comes naturally to me. I'm naturally an overly nice guy. I wanted sex. Trust me, your husband wanted sex a long time before he went for it too. I think if you look back you'll see a clear line of escalation... then again, if you had caught on to it, he probably wouldn't have been successful.


Of course he wanted sex! That doesn't mean his goal was to "get laid". I'm not surprised that you think it was. My husband isn't like any other guy I've known, and it's the main reason I was and am so attracted to him. He doesn't watch porn, he doesn't fantasize; a lot of men here have trouble believing that because they've never known a man who really, truly, aspired to avoid those things. But my husband isn't like most guys. But I can tell you, with 100% confidence, my husband's goal wasn't to have sex with me. He wanted it, of course. So did I. A quick peck on the cheek was enough to send my senses spiraling. But we both chose to wait.



> Just because its step by step doesn't mean its artificial. My biggest revelation in terms of sexual success was that I didn't need this arduously slow and passive process. That the vast majority of women are actually MORE attracted to the upfront and assertive guy once their interest has been established. It turns out that once upon a time, I was often too slow to escalate and they lost interest in me or got caught up by a more assertive guy as a result. This is the logic behind "average frustrated chump" wondering why the girl went for the jerk. I was the guy confused and thinking, "but I'm such a nice guy". Ironic that all of these guys actually tell themselves the answer to their own problem: "they're such a nice guy".


My husband is a nice guy, and he got the girl. I'm not, and never have been, attracted to aggressiveness. A lot of the guys I dated pretended to be nice guys, and that was the problem. It was fake. The one I fell in love with had been jaded by girls using him because of how nice he was, and it ruined our relationship. He couldn't trust me, no matter what I did to try and prove that I was trustworthy. Love wasn't enough for he and I. But, luckily for me, my husband wasn't jaded, despite the terrible relationship he'd come from. 



> It wasn't an offer.


I didn't think it was, nor was I responding as if it was. I only meant that I don't _want_, nor have I ever wanted, that kind of lifestyle. You keep making remarks about how can I know unless I try, and you're right; I can't know for absolute certainty. I do know that I've never wanted or been interested in having sex without love, and I'm not interested in it now. My "No thank you" was in response to being open to that kind of experience, regardless of when or who. 



> That is what you said. I didn't paint anything. You were attracted to him. You knew him well. You loved him from day one. Seems all your sexual prerequisites are met are they not? You didn't have sex. Why? You wanted to make sure he loved you. Why? So you better know if he's going to stay or just wants the booty. This is fear.


But you're acting under the assumption that I was looking for sex. I wasn't looking for sex at all. I was looking for love. I was looking for a potential husband.



> So which of these didn't exist for you and your partner you've known since 2nd grade, from the very first day you started dating? See my point now?


Yeah, and if I'd been looking for sex, or intended to have sex once I found those "prerequisites", you'd be right. But I wasn't. And neither was he. 



> Or did you keep a crush on and friends with a person who didn't respect you?


Huh?



> Its all window dressing babe.


For you, maybe. 



> Let me rephrase... why should ANYONE be devastated? You had sex so suddenly you're devastated whereas an hour before having sex if he left you you wouldn't be devastated? C'mon!


You know, it's one thing to voice your opinion. It's another to intentionally make someone feel like a fool just because they're different than you are. I've said before that I'm an emotional person. I've _always_ dated with the intention of finding a potential spouse. I've always been a romantic, and being as sheltered as I was, I was ill prepared to face the disappointments of rejection. You grew up in a different background than I did. I'd say you were probably more prepared than I to face rejection. THAT's why I would be devastated, and I don't think it makes me some nightmare. 



> Count that as another of our differences. If I'm not happy with someone I sure as hell don't want to have sex with them - I don't care who they are. If I'm sad, I don't want sex period. Sex doesn't change my mood. I seek sex when I'm in the mood to have sex.


Yup, we're very different in many ways. 



> And I gave my answer, with elements from my life as the example, just as you do when you answer such questions. Sex has no importance in relation to my loving someone... in marriage or not.


Do you think sex has importance in other people loving someone?



> Do you really think they're here because they're emotionally damaged? Suffering and neglect? I don't know about the women, but I know most of the men just want to get LAID. Judging by the "I'm thinking of cheating, but I do love him" posts from women, I'd guess its not that different for women.


So, in your mind, sex has no relation to love for anyone?



> People want sex. I want sex. But I sure as heck have never had sex with someone I didn't love and afterwards thought "omg I love you!!!" The two are not linked. You are using sex to express your love for someone, and that use is just dandy. Its your choice to use it as you do that I've been pointing out. But sex itself is just sex. YOU glue the meaning on it because you want to... because you've been taught to.


So, in your opinion, sex has no meaning whatsoever in any context? 



> It feels amazing. I want that feeling. Sex is important to me. Making good money is important to me. Advancing in my career is important to me. Enjoying life is important to me. I'm sorry, but I don't have sex because I love someone, and I don't love someone because I have sex with them. There is no real link there and I think you know it.


Why do you "think I know it"? What's so horrible about my believing sex and love are connected? 



> You choose to use sex as your way of telling someone you love them and then arbitrarily decide that sex without love wouldn't be worth your while. I don't tell someone I love them with sex. That's not how I express my love.


What's so threatening to you about my view of sex that you can't let go and accept that I just don't agree with you at all? 



> t shared activity. This one a bit more than others because its so personal and intense. I'm more likely to fall in love over a cup of coffee than a romp in the sheets.


Good for you? Love, for me, has many expressions and forms. Shared activites is massively important, as it helps maintain the romantic connection. For my husband and I it communicates that we both still _want_ to be around each other, and we make the time to do so. Sex is also massively important, as it helps to maintain the passion. For us, it communicates that we desire to be with each other; that we still can't keep our hands off of each other; that we're sexually satisfied, and that we want to sexually satisfy the other. Other non-sexual intimacy is also important, as it helps to maintain the feelings that can't be fulfilled through sex. For us, these things helps us maintain the love, trust and respect in our relationship, and are just a few examples of the many ways we show love. 



> I have an in-kind reply to this I have decided to withhold, but suffice to say that we can both thank our lucky stars I'm not your husband.


Yup.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> When a wife laughs off her husbands advances and says "quit it, I'm busy" or throwing up roadblocks, she's really saying "work harder, show me that I'm more important than any of this".


I actually agree with this and husband's do it too but with other topics.
It's too bad people can't simply come out and say it.But that wouldn't happen bc speaking plainly would mean showing too much vulnerability to another person.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Those that those who "share characteristics" are by definition the same. When I see something different, I'll think you're different. This discussion is of the way in which different people view sex. Yes, I do think that all sheltered Christian girls view sex in a very similar manner as you do - at least, all of those I've ever met.
> 
> Its cheating in a way, given that their long virginity and strict religion plays a part in defining them as sheltered.


Sure, I'll concede that my view of sex is the same as what those virgins you were with used to view sex as. The difference is that I still see sex that way, and that I _didn't_ have sex without love, unlike the girls you were with. 



> You should note that YOU introduced "Christian" to the mix. Oh, are we playing the persecution card now? No, that wasn't predictable at all. If you're anything like them, you're also very sensitive to anything that can remotely be perceived as an attack on being Christian. You think Christians are treated unfairly and discriminated against. You're apt to say that someone isn't a "real Christian" or otherwise figure out a way to exclude undesirable behavior from what being Christian means to you... and you have a very specific understanding of it even while you "don't judge". Honestly tell me I'm wrong.


Honestly, you're wrong. I don't think Christians are persecuted at all. Many Christians _do_ demonize sex, and I've known a few. I'm not one of them, nor have I ever been. I didn't even take the women I knew who demonized sex seriously. Neither was I raised that way. My parents weren't open about sex, but they made it clear to me as I grew up that sex is wonderful, for both men and women, that both men and women are born with natural sexual desires, and that men and women are meant to respond to sexual attraction. Unfortunately for both of them, I wasn't sexually curios until after I was 18, and by that time I wasn't asking them questions about sex any longer. 

The churches I went to barely even discussed sex. I went to one church where, in the five years I attended it, they talked about sex once. Even as a 14 year old girl I didn't buy the junk they were peddling. It was nothing but condemnation and guilt. The other church I attended also only mentioned sex once in the years I attended, and while it wasn't condemned, it was talked about as though it was something _men_ wanted and women only tolerated. And I didn't believe that either. 

People don't take Christians seriously, and it's not hard to understand why. They can be some of the most hateful people you'll ever meet. And as far as sex goes, it's one of the greatest issues I take with Christianity. 



> FYI, not everyone I consider one of these types is Christian. One is in fact an atheist with a strict Baptist upbringing. Another is Muslim.


I mentioned Christianity because it's the religious affiliation I claim. It doesn't mean I demonize sex, because I don't. Based on my beliefs, all of them, I see sex as an act of love. So, yeah, my beliefs effect my view of sex. But it has absolutely nothing to do with fear. I've never been afraid of how having sex will make me look, or whether I would be left by the guy after having sex. It was about sex having meaning, and that was something I _did_ desire. 



> Do I think everything about these women is the same? No. But their attitudes toward sex are remarkably similar. And that's what this conversation is about.


Yeah, the views were similar. The difference is that I actually kept to my desire to wait until love had flourished. Not that I think less of the virgins you were with. I don't. While we had similar views regarding sex, it's clear we're still very different women. Nothing wrong with that. Not all women have to be the same, or respond the same. Don't know why you want me to be like them so badly. 



> Nope. But I know that every one of these women says they're holding out for love and marriage, and none of the ones I've met do unless they STAYED sheltered. I'll put money down that you were still living at home under the exact same conditions that led to you remaining a virgin so long and having the view of sex you do. There's nothing wrong with it, but there is reason for it... and its not love babe.


So because I was living under my parents roof up until a couple months before the wedding, it means I was "staying sheltered"? And why are you so determined to take love out of it? What about love threatens you so much that you're determined to prove that I didn't have sex out of love? Cause, you can insist that I'm wrong all you like, it's not going to change how things ACTUALLY happened, and I ACTUALLY did wait to have sex for love. It's really very simply. 



> Yep. I'll make a new category just for you.
> 
> I was describing the rebellious type, not you. You're decidedly not the rebellious type. I'd predict that you have pretty good family relationships.


I'm lucky in that I do. 



> Are they all the sheltered naïve type? No. The association is one way. These types are most often churchly, but churchly doesn't mean you'll be one of these types. Follow the logic?


Not really. 



> Perhaps I should say "why should it bother someone". Women are always bothered when its pointed out that they, like any man, can be induced into having sex when their subconscious needs are met which usually don't match up with their rational needs; or the old adage passed around men: "be careful taking everything a woman says literally". A lot of what women say is said to convince themselves. Do you have any freaking idea how often I hear variations of "Its getting really late, I [need to go | should go]". Guess what? They never go. EVER. She's really saying "Give me a good excuse. I want to do this, but I'm nervous and don't want you to think I'm easy. Reassure me."
> 
> What women say is very often a mistruth. When I get turned down, 90% of the time she's not saying "no", she's saying "make me more comfortable". When a wife laughs off her husbands advances and says "quit it, I'm busy" or throwing up roadblocks, she's really saying "work harder, show me that I'm more important than any of this".
> 
> As such, men have an interesting task of actually listening to you, while kind of disregarding much of what you say at the same time. Because much of what you say isn't for us, its for some bizzare thing going on in your head... whether its worry, making us prove something, or trying to convince yourself of something.
> 
> I know women hate when I say this. Its kind of funny the advice I give to men though... listen to her, really devote your attention when listen. Then ignore half of what she said. That half was meant for her more than it was for you.
> 
> When a women says she's waiting for love or marriage... I'm thinking "sure you are"... with very good reason.


By your experiences, yeah, I'd say you have great reasons for thinking that. But, call me crazy, I don't play that game. I mean what I say, and always have. I don't lead men on, I don't toy with them. If I want my husband to try harder, I say so. I don't expect him to learn how to read through the things I say and magically decipher what I do or do not mean. I'm sure the women you know claim to be honest too, so I don't see you taking my word at face value, nor do I blame you. But I really, and honestly, don't play that game.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said: "Yeah, but I bet you wanted to."


Hmm....not really sure what this means?


----------



## Created2Write

Two questions to Dvls: do you believe _anything_ I say? Or will you insist that I don't actually mean what I say, and that there's always some underlying message that is in exact opposition to what has been said? Since women "universally" don't know what they want, ya know.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Ladies, important things if single today*



Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo said: "Yeah, but I bet you wanted to."
> 
> 
> Hmm....not really sure what this means?


Really?

You're married to a Sex God fer cripe's sake.

My personal opinion is that a woman decides if you are sex worthy on the first date. May not happen for a while. But she knows.


----------



## Created2Write

So, in sum up: if the right guy had known how to play me correctly, I would have abandoned my boundaries and had sex regardless of whether there was love in the relationship or not, and then changed the entirety of who I am as a person? That the reason I didn't have sex with any of the other guys I dated was because they were too obviously aggressive? And that the reason my husband and I waited so long wasn't for love, it was because he was too passive to make a move? And that, even when a woman says she knows what she wants, she never does, ever. And there couldn't possibly be any such thing as a man and woman who genuinely want to take things slowly, and aren't looking to have sex without affection. 

What a sad view of the world.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said: "Really?

You're married to a Sex God fer cripe's sake.

My personal opinion is that a woman decides if you are sex worthy on the first date. May not happen for a while. But she knows."



Ok, I just wasn't sure on what level you meant I "wanted to". Was I attracted enough to know I would want to? Yes.

But we dated for a couple of months without having PIV sex.

See here's the thing....part of why my husband is a Sex God is because he knows sex is the easy part of relationships (for himself anyway). He was never worried about whethere we would or wouldn't have sex, whether it would be good, whether we were compatible that way or not....all he cared about was, do I like her? Yes, he did. Do I want to keep seeing her? Yes, he did. Do I think she has the potential for a LTR? Yes, he did.

Did he want to have sex with me? Not at first. He knew if we had sex early on, I'd be hooked and then he'd have no way to evaluate my REAL behavior in relation to us as two people, not as lovers. Women tend to fall in love with good sex, and he didn't want to me to love him "for the good sex". He wanted me to love him for who he is.

This is all part of what makes him a Sex God.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo said: "Really?
> 
> You're married to a Sex God fer cripe's sake.
> 
> My personal opinion is that a woman decides if you are sex worthy on the first date. May not happen for a while. But she knows."
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I just wasn't sure on what level you meant I "wanted to". Was I attracted enough to know I would want to right away? Yes.
> 
> But we dated for a couple of months without having PIV sex.
> 
> See here's the thing....part of why my husband is a Sex God is because he knows sex is the easy part of relationships (for himself anyway). He was never worried about whethere we would or wouldn't have sex, whether it would be good, whether we were compatible that way or not....all he cared about was, do I like her? Yes, he did. Do I want to keep seeing her? Yes, he did. Do I think she has the potential for a LTR? Yes, he did.
> 
> Did he want to have sex with me? Not at first. He knew if we had sex early on, I'd be hooked and then he'd have no way to evaluate my REAL behavior in relation to us as two people, not as lovers. Women tend to fall in love with good sex, and he didn't want to me to love him "for the good sex". He wanted me to love him for who he is.
> 
> This is all part of what makes him a Sex God.


This is a lot of what I've been trying to say. The reason our intentions weren't to have sex wasn't because we didn't want it, but because having sex doesn't require anything but two consenting adults. You have that, and you can figure the rest out. We wanted to see if we would be compatible people; if we would get alone, if we had mutual interests, if we would even want to be around each other after a few months, the longest either of us had ever been in a relationship. He'd had sex before, and regretted both women. He didn't want to become sexually involved with someone again until he knew there was more than mutual attraction between them. And I didn't want to start being sexually involved with someone until I knew there was more than mutual attraction.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The only association I've made between the two subsets (you and my ex-wife) versus catholic school girl syndromes,* is the nature of their relationship with their family. Good relationships churn out girls like you, strained relationships churn out the rebels (often the strain is behind the scenes; it seems very important to keep up appearances among the churchly crowd)*.


 Just want to say, I don't fit the profile, my Mothers last husband said of her ... she could peel her clothes off like she was peeling a banana- with anyone.... and my Dad & Step Mom could care less about religion... I did go to "Youth Group" with a friend though. 

*Created2Write*...when you get a moment, please read "Our story" in the Successful Marriage Section ....(link below)  ....My upbringing was *vastly different *than yours, difficult in fact...yet we think almost identical on many of these things...I tend to feel it is because we're both a little stubborn & "strong willed" ...and very Romantic minded. 

I will agree with some of the comments by 's Advocate... none of us can depend on LOVE...people throw this word around way too easy...our emotions can be flooded like a torrential downpour...and it all dry up sometime afterwards...it can be a fleeting emotion...if not tested by TIME....

I wanted COMMITMENT - as a young girl, I needed that .. I probably DID have some *abandonment issues* since my Mother left me at age 10, and I wasn't wanted around by my Step Mother..... I can't deny this.... BUT I have zero regrets how my life has turned out...it played out for my good... I wanted a love story where me & he has only been with each other, that was MY DREAM...to me, that is the height of Romantic. 

I feel the experiences I had in my teens...and HIS...led us right into each others arms...and I treasure how it all played out.


----------



## Cosmos

I believe I might have said it earlier in this thread (too tired to go back and check), but there's no way that I want my judgment to be in _any way_ clouded in the initial stages of a relationship by becoming intimate too soon. I don't want my hormones to bond me to someone I don't really know and who could be potentially bad for me. 

This isn't about prudishness, a strict upbringing or religious beliefs. It's about the respect I have for myself and the responsibility I have to care for myself, both physically and mentally.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> Just want to say, I don't fit the profile, my Mothers last husband said of her ... she could peel her clothes off like she was peeling a banana- with anyone.... and my Dad & Step Mom could care less about religion... I did go to "Youth Group" with a friend though.
> 
> *Created2Write*...when you get a moment, please read "Our story" in the Successful Marriage Section ....(link below)  ....My upbringing was *vastly different *than yours, difficult in fact...yet we think almost identical on many of these things...I tend to feel it is because we're both a little stubborn & "strong willed" ...and very Romantic minded.
> 
> I will agree with some of the comments by 's Advocate... none of us can depend on LOVE...people throw this word around way too easy...our emotions can be flooded like a torrential downpour...and it all dry up sometime afterwards...it can be a fleeting emotion...if not tested by TIME....
> 
> I wanted COMMITMENT - as a young girl, I needed that .. I probably DID have some *abandonment issues* since my Mother left me at age 10, and I wasn't wanted around by my Step Mother..... I can't deny this.... BUT I have zero regrets how my life has turned out...it played out for my good... I wanted a love story where me & he has only been with each other, that was MY DREAM...to me, that is the height of Romantic.
> 
> I feel the experiences I had in my teens...and HIS...led us right into each others arms...and I treasure how it all played out.


I definitely want to read your story. We seem to be very similar, even though we come from different backgrounds. 

I'm happy with my life as well, even though a certain poster would say that I'm really not because women don't really know what they want. My husband and I took things slowly because we both wanted to, and had specific reasons that motivated us. We intentionally and purposefully _chose_ the route we took. I wouldn't change anything about how we did things. I love our story.


----------



## Created2Write

Cosmos said:


> I believe I might have said it earlier in this thread (too tired to go back and check), but there's no way that I want my judgment to be in _any way_ clouded in the initial stages of a relationship by becoming intimate too soon. I don't want my hormones to bond me to someone I don't really know and who could be potentially bad for me.
> 
> This isn't about prudishness, a strict upbringing or religious beliefs. It's about the respect I have for myself and the responsibility I have to care for myself, both physically and mentally.


Precisely.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Cosmos said:


> I believe I might have said it earlier in this thread (too tired to go back and check), *but there's no way that I want my judgment to be in any way clouded in the initial stages of a relationship by becoming intimate too soon. I don't want my hormones to bond me to someone I don't really know and who could be potentially bad for me. *
> 
> This isn't about prudishness, a strict upbringing or religious beliefs. *It's about the respect I have for myself and the responsibility I have to care for myself, both physically and mentally*.


 I absolutely ADORE this post Cosmos...  Of course I feel the same.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Cosmos said:


> This isn't about prudishness, a strict upbringing or religious beliefs. It's about the respect I have for myself and the responsibility I have to care for myself, both physically and mentally.


I think that's really the key, self respect is very a individual thing and different for everyone. It is something no one else needs to understand about you because it's not about or for other people's benefit.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> But I can tell you, with 100% confidence, my husband's goal wasn't to have sex with me. He wanted it, of course. So did I. A quick peck on the cheek was enough to send my senses spiraling. But we both chose to wait.


Somewhere in there, his goal was to have sex with you. That he had other goals does not supercede.

I know, I've already learned on this forum that every woman's husband "is not like other men".




Created2Write said:


> I'm not, and never have been, attracted to aggressiveness.


My use of the word aggressive is NOT the common usage... as in an aggressive combative guy. My use of the word is the opposite of passive. So when I say, "more aggressive", I am saying not so passive as to be paralyzed. Your husband was still aggressive enough to escalate at some point... or am I to understand that you escalated?



Created2Write said:


> But you're acting under the assumption that I was looking for sex. I wasn't looking for sex at all. I was looking for love. I was looking for a potential husband.


Not even remotely. I'd bet that if you're husband hadn't escalated, you'd have been happy to wait till marriage. He wasn't a virgin... and speaking as a guy, he wasn't going to wait till marriage. Sex was on his mind and probably always was... and you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. It wouldn't make him a bad person. He doesn't have to be the opposite of every other man on the planet... seeking you asexually for only romance just so he has someone to read poetry to. We're sexual beings. Your no sex without love is a constraint you rationally put on sex. I'm just pointing out its not really a necessity. I know I know... you'll repeat that for you it is. Hypothetically throw you in some situation you consider incredibly sexy and arousing... and see if your body agrees regardless of the rational excuses/restrictions put on top. I already know it doesn't.



Created2Write said:


> Yeah, and if I'd been looking for sex, or intended to have sex once I found those "prerequisites", you'd be right. But I wasn't. And neither was he.


He was intending to have sex eventually... even if you weren't (which is doubtful, but I've heard some of the same from sheltered chicks before - that they were so sheltered from sexuality that they were not even aware enough to want it). 




Created2Write said:


> Huh?


The point was that respect was already well established. So you've got it all... and you still wouldn't have sex. So what were you waiting for? You said previously that you wouldn't have gotten together quickly and implied it was about love. Then you said you loved him from day one. Then you implied it was about respect, but you've known him since 2nd grade... surely you were convinced he respected you. So exactly why wouldn't you have gone for it on the first date if everything you wanted was satisfied? You know my answer.



Created2Write said:


> You know, it's one thing to voice your opinion. It's another to intentionally make someone feel like a fool just because they're different than you are. I've said before that I'm an emotional person. I've _always_ dated with the intention of finding a potential spouse. I've always been a romantic, and being as sheltered as I was, I was ill prepared to face the disappointments of rejection. You grew up in a different background than I did. I'd say you were probably more prepared than I to face rejection. THAT's why I would be devastated, and I don't think it makes me some nightmare.


I don't think you're a fool. We don't need to continue this conversation. Rejection always sucks... I don't think fearing rejection makes you some nightmare. But I don't think its unfair to say that in your case, fear... of the unknown, of rejection, of violating taught standards of propriety, etc etc... is the reason you waited imo... love is the rational cover. That's okay! I don't see anything wrong with that.

If you only knew how much guys get rejected. We *learn* how to handle it. We HAVE to handle it, because we're expected to ask you out... at every turn, we're the ones expected to stick our neck out and risk rejection. That's just life. There's potential rejection in almost everything.



Created2Write said:


> Do you think sex has importance in other people loving someone?
> 
> So, in your mind, sex has no relation to love for anyone?
> 
> So, in your opinion, sex has no meaning whatsoever in any context?


On its own, no... sex has no meaning. You can give it meaning the same way some think a handshake signals agreement. Of course, that's not necessarily so... just as you can have sex and not necessarily be in love. Its still enjoyable.



Created2Write said:


> What's so threatening to you about my view of sex that you can't let go and accept that I just don't agree with you at all?


I'm threatened? There's nothing to let go of. I'm engaging in conversation.

I accept that you view sex as how you express your love for someone. I don't show someone I love them by having sex with them. Think about this for a minute: so many men here whose wives turn them down, and yet you think sex is really saying "I love you"? So these men should all divorce because their wives are effectively saying they don't love them? Seems odd anyone would turn down an "I love you". It would seem to me, that sex and love aren't quite as connected as we might wish to believe.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Two questions to Dvls: do you believe _anything_ I say? Or will you insist that I don't actually mean what I say, and that there's always some underlying message that is in exact opposition to what has been said? Since women "universally" don't know what they want, ya know.


Well, that depends. 

I always get sh*t for that "women don't know what they want" comment... and I'll always stand by it. A man needs to know how read into, or between the lines of everything she says. Women very rarely know what they want and they very rarely say exactly what they mean. Its one of men's greatest complaints.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I accept that you view sex as how you express your love for someone. I don't show someone I love them by having sex with them. Think about this for a minute: *so many men here whose wives turn them down, and yet you think sex is really saying "I love you"? *
> 
> So these men should all divorce because their wives are effectively saying they don't love them? Seems odd anyone would turn down an "I love you".* It would seem to me, that sex and love aren't quite as connected as we might wish to believe*.


I feel this is one of the many problems in marriage today...the fact so many people have a truck load of partners where the love is not felt... this follows one into marriage the same way some repression can follow the Catholic girl.... (they both present problems -they are just very different).....they DO separate the 2....and for this.. a myriad of hurt begins for the Husband... as this emotionally fulfills him...some feel *used* by their own husbands BECAUSE of their prior experiences....(seen a # of posts like this)

In my world.....if the sex goes, so does the marriage..I'd divorce over it.... it will always = Love for me, I make no apologies for it...I feel it was meant to be this way...


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> I feel this is one of the many problems in marriage today...the fact so many people have a truck load of partners where the love is not felt... this follows one into marriage the same way some repression can follow the Catholic girl.... (they both present problems -they are just very different).....they DO separate the 2....and for this.. a myriad of hurt begins for the Husband... as this emotionally fulfills him...some feel *used* by their own husbands BECAUSE of their prior experiences....(seen a # of posts like this)
> 
> In my world.....if the sex goes, so does the marriage..I'd divorce over it.... it will always = Love for me, I make no apologies for it...I feel it was meant to be this way...


It does get difficult to seperate a partners past when they do the same acts but say the feelings behind them are different.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> there couldn't possibly be any such thing as a man and woman who genuinely want to take things slowly, and aren't looking to have sex without affection.
> 
> What a sad view of the world.


I don't have sex without affection either. That things slowly? I go as slowly as I need to. Once both people are ready, they're ready. You describe your relationship as being one where you say every element I can possibly think of was magically in place immediately... so why the need to take your time?

You've put it in as dismissive fashion as I'd expect, but yeah, that's the gist. Your husband hit a homerun because he never caused you to rabbit. He was after the same thing as you? I doubt it. Men don't have princess dreams of frolicking through the meadow holding hands after finding our cherished love. I refuse to believe your husband had no sexual intentions with you - completely refuse. He was into you and biding his time like everyone else and you two fell in love and had sex before the timer ran out. Did you just pick an arbitrary day and go... "yeah... I've felt this way about you for 3 months... that should do". Do you ever wonder how long he would have waited? I don't even have an answer to that for myself.

He doesn't even fantasize, right? (as if he would tell you if he did, knowing your position on it - thought crime?) Would you feel jealous if he had a sexual dream about another woman?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Did he want to have sex with me? Not at first. He knew if we had sex early on, I'd be hooked and then he'd have no way to evaluate my REAL behavior in relation to us as two people, not as lovers.


Are you for real?

Forgive me for saying so, and I can't say this without sounding disrespectful... but... that just sounds like a big load of cr*p. He didn't want to have sex because if he did you'd only love him for his penis. That's what he said? Wow. Just wow.

Awesome. This is why I love this forum. Its so... colorful.

How... sweet?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Do you have any freaking idea how often I hear variations of "Its getting really late, I [need to go | should go]". Guess what? They never go. EVER. She's really saying "Give me a good excuse. I want to do this, but I'm nervous and don't want you to think I'm easy. Reassure me."
> 
> What women say is very often a mistruth. When I get turned down, 90% of the time she's not saying "no", she's saying "make me more comfortable".


Dunno, but I think you're treading a thin line here. I get the impression that you think all women are the same, and only vary in hair colour, eye colour, and cup size.

Not so. What you are describing here can have many different motivations. Maybe some women just want more "escalation". Others might be wondering if you are really into *them* or just their body parts. And if you're reassuring them that you are, when it's really just the body parts, then it's just a heap of false advertising that can lead to hurt feelings.

Yes, fear of rejection motivates many people -- but it's not the only one, and some may differ very much from you. Some people, for example, actually *want* an LTR and *want* to find someone to love because they find it fulfilling and meaningful. They find the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure empty and unsatisfying, and are willing to make the compromises necessary to make love happen.

This means they're very likely to adopt different strategies than you when dating, and doesn't necessarily mean they're all repressed, fearful, prudes.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

SimplyAmorous said:


> In my world.....if the sex goes, so does the marriage..I'd divorce over it.... it will always = Love for me, I make no apologies for it...I feel it was meant to be this way...


I'm glad to hear you say that... at least for consistency. I wish I could get the viewpoint on that from one of these wives that hold out.

The holdouts don't seem to have much presence on the forum.


----------



## Created2Write

So now you know my own husband's intentions better than he knew them himself?

I don't buy a single word. Not for a second. Your need to be right about my sex life, a girl you've never met(which is, actually, rather creepy, by the way) suggests massive insecurity. Maybe it's disarming to think that there are really are women in this world who mean what they say and don't play manipulative mind games that makes the guy have to run around in confusing circles before he realizes she's playing a game. I've known what I wanted since I was five: I wanted marriage. I wanted to fall in love and be fallen in love with. I didn't have sex on the first date _*because I didn't want to*_. Yeah, I was in love with him; I thought he would be respectful, as he had been up to that point. The simple fact was that I didn't want to have sex with him on the first date, or the second date, or the third, etc. Did my body experience arousal? Yeah, so? My body's physical reaction to a circumstance means nothing about my _inner_ desires and expectations, and I expected to wait to see if we would be a compatible couple outside of bed before examining our compatibility in bed. 

You don't believe that either of us intended to wait, and that's fine; I know that we did, and there was nothing wrong with the intention to wait til marriage. I'm not saying he didn't have any sexual desires, because I know he did. And I did too, but not everyone who feels horny acts on it. As for escalations, neither of us escalated sex. It just happened, and without saying anything or talking about it, we both knew it was right, because it was. There's nothing wrong with the way we chose for our relationship to go, and my view of sex isn't a constraint. 

And my husband _is_ special and different. He doesn't let his bodily urges direct his actions or his intentions, and he cared more about where our relationship could go than where his penis could go. I bet that now you'll tell me that all of that was just an act meant to play me out of my intentions and into his bed, and that he's been lying to me the entire time we've been together.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't have sex without affection either. That things slowly? I go as slowly as I need to. Once both people are ready, they're ready. You describe your relationship as being one where you say every element I can possibly think of was magically in place immediately... so why the need to take your time?


Because we wanted to. In your word, all the stars align and you go for it. That's fine. In ours, we _chose_ to wait. Sex was not the end goal for us, a long term relationship was, and we wanted to make sure that we could make a long term relationship last before introducing the heat of sex. It's really not that complicated.



> You've put it in as dismissive fashion as I'd expect, but yeah, that's the gist. Your husband hit a homerun because he never caused you to rabbit. He was after the same thing as you? I doubt it. Men don't have princess dreams of frolicking through the meadow holding hands after finding our cherished love.


You'd be surprised. My husband didn't date just because he wanted to; he didn't choose girls based on attraction and their interest in him alone. He dated to find a wife. He didn't want a bunch of flings that didn't mean anything, because to him, relationships weren't meant to just be fun. He's always dated to find a wife.



> I refuse to believe your husband had no sexual intentions with you - completely refuse. He was into you and biding his time like everyone else and you two fell in love and had sex before the timer ran out.


You can refuse all you want to, it won't change reality. He had sexual urges and desires, no doubt about it. But he did not intend to have sex with me before marriage. 



> Did you just pick an arbitrary day and go... "yeah... I've felt this way about you for 3 months... that should do". Do you ever wonder how long he would have waited? I don't even have an answer to that for myself.


I 100% believe he would have waited until we married if I had insisted we do so. Call me naive, but I believe the things my husband tells me. 



> He doesn't even fantasize, right? (as if he would tell you if he did, knowing your position on it - thought crime?) Would you feel jealous if he had a sexual dream about another woman?


Of course I wouldn't be jealous of he had a sexual dream about another women. Don't be absurd. We can't control our dreams. Heck, I've had dreams about having sex with some of his family members, and he's had dreams about sex with movies stars. So? And no, other than me, he doesn't fantasize. Shocking, isn't it, that a man could be completely satisfied by one woman!


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Dunno, but I think you're treading a thin line here. I get the impression that you think all women are the same, and only vary in hair colour, eye colour, and cup size.


I get the same impression. At the very least he thinks all women think the same, act the same and respond the same way. Must be comforting to think that. Takes the pressure off. 



> Not so. What you are describing here can have many different motivations. Maybe some women just want more "escalation". Others might be wondering if you are really into *them* or just their body parts. And if you're reassuring them that you are, when it's really just the body parts, then it's just a heap of false advertising that can lead to hurt feelings.
> 
> Yes, fear of rejection motivates many people -- but it's not the only one, and some may differ very much from you. Some people, for example, actually *want* an LTR and *want* to find someone to love because they find it fulfilling and meaningful. They find the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure empty and unsatisfying, and are willing to make the compromises necessary to make love happen.
> 
> This means they're very likely to adopt different strategies than you when dating, and doesn't necessarily mean they're all repressed, fearful, prudes.


I completely 100% agree. Thank you.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> I feel this is one of the many problems in marriage today...the fact so many people have a truck load of partners where the love is not felt... this follows one into marriage the same way some repression can follow the Catholic girl.... (they both present problems -they are just very different).....they DO separate the 2....and for this.. a myriad of hurt begins for the Husband... as this emotionally fulfills him...some feel *used* by their own husbands BECAUSE of their prior experiences....(seen a # of posts like this)
> 
> *In my world.....if the sex goes, so does the marriage..I'd divorce over it.... it will always = Love for me, I make no apologies for it...I feel it was meant to be this way...*


Yup. Willfully withholding sex, is absolutely a deal breaker for me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls asked me: "Are you for real?"


YOU are asking this?

YOU?

You, the one whose mistress came on the board to tell us all about how you have lied to us all, about how you are still married and living with your wife, but just cheating on her all the time? And to be very clear here, you didn't even DENY any of that. Your mistress signed off that thread calling you "TAM's biggest troll"....and as of that day, I have considered you that way only.

All of your round and round debating is just a bunch of crap. Whether you really are what you say you are or not, you're still a troll as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Cosmos

I can't believe this guy is being allowed to spew his bilious, chauvinistic opinions around this forum the way he does.

Please, mods, close this thread down!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Why close the thread? Just take out the trash.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls asked me: "Are you for real?"
> 
> 
> YOU are asking this?
> 
> YOU?
> 
> You, the one whose mistress came on the board to tell us all about how you have lied to us all, about how you are still married and living with your wife, but just cheating on her all the time? And to be very clear here, you didn't even DENY any of that. Your mistress signed off that thread calling you "TAM's biggest troll"....and as of that day, I have considered you that way only.
> 
> All of your round and round debating is just a bunch of crap. Whether you really are what you say you are or not, you're still a troll as far as I'm concerned.



I miss her 
It was like cyber Jerry Springer.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sad thing is, he probably wrote "her" posts, too. I wanted to be entertained by it all....but it just turned creepy so fast.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> You don't believe that either of us intended to wait


Damn... and he had two tries at "waiting" and still didn't do that much waiting. Yeah, I'm wrong. He's nothing like other men.

So he loved the last girl he was with? She left him? Did she make him wait too? If they waited, what value did waiting have then? 



Created2Write said:


> As for escalations, neither of us escalated sex. It just happened, and without saying anything or talking about it, we both knew it was right, because it was.


Last I checked, someone has to start taking off someone else's clothes... and yes, there is ALWAYS one person who escalates even if the other person follows the lead immediately. You don't think so, AND you were a virgin, so its a safe bet it was your husband. He probably knew he would for quite awhile.

There's really no point to this conversation anymore... you knew you loved him before you dated, you had the immaculate penetration, and all he wanted - a good looking, low-20-something - was innocent love and flower petals... we perceive the world entirely differently. The one I see doesn't look as you describe. Where are all these pure innocent souls?



Created2Write said:


> There's nothing wrong with the way we chose for our relationship to go, and my view of sex isn't a constraint.


I NEVER said there was anything wrong with it. Your view is that you should apply excessive restraint to sex in order to cope with your heightened fear rejection and abandonment. Why does my opinion matter to you so much?

Faithful talks of falling in love with good sex. I can name names here of women who preferred the man they had lesser sex with. Is that only women? I don't know any men who fell in love with good sex. I know plenty that fell stupid in love with "beautiful". I know men who have thrown away careers for it.

I have the occasional fwb arrangement with a girl I know. I've mentioned it before. We have GREAT sex... I originally wanted to have a relationship with her. She just wants sex and says I'm not her type (long story short). Why say no? Sex is fun.



Created2Write said:


> And my husband _is_ special and different. He doesn't let his bodily urges direct his actions or his intentions, and he cared more about where our relationship could go than where his penis could go. I bet that now you'll tell me that all of that was just an act meant to play me out of my intentions and into his bed, and that he's been lying to me the entire time we've been together.


Nope. Specifically in the context of our discussion, I doubt he's different other than being patient. His bodily urges direct his actions like everyone else's... its a primary reason he was dating. Was he playing you? No. This is what you don't seem to get. There's nothing wrong with physical want. It was in fact present in his courting you, and it is a MAJOR motivation. Thinking differently is utterly naïve imo. Thinking that his doing so somehow means his courting was insincere, or that he didn't ALSO genuinely want to know you or find a wife... well, that would be cynical.

My point was only that he made the right moves and had your trust. I didn't say he had bad intentions.


----------

