Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bad in the sack is a definite deal-breaker. But so is not having sex in 2 years despite being engaged!
Not all sex is equal. Like the person above related, some women just lay there like a dead fish. No sense of adventure, won't try anything new or just plain don't know what they're doing. I'm sure there are men who are pathetic at sex also. You never know until you actually experience it with that person! Thus why I'm aredently against marrying someone with whom you've never had sex.
I am really nervous because my fiance and I havent slept together. We have been together for 2 years. We have been engaged for a year. Anyway We were close on MANY MANY MANY numerous occasions but I backed off. We slept naked many times together. But we havent done the deed. He hasnt pressured me but he has been asking me about it. I want to but because of my lack of experience. I keep putting it off.
But is that a deal breaker if you suck in sack??? My husband to be is pretty experienced in the sack... So I am just little nervous that my lack of my skills will be a deal breaker??
It's never a deal breaker with me. I've been with women who just 'lie there'...at first. But it sometimes takes a few times to develop chemistry with someone.
I'd say the pressure is more on the guy, since women are more, um, complicated. Fortunately, I've developed a set of moves that work...or so I like to think!
In all seriousness, it sounds like you guys have been intimate without having sex and have good chemistry. Again, it may take a few times, but I think ya'll will be just fine
If a woman not being "good in bed" is a dealbreaker (or even a big deal) for any man, that fact alone should be a dealbreaker (or a big deal) for the WOMAN. This type of guy quite literally cares more about the sex than the woman he's supposed to love. And I won't say if they stay together it's a guarantee that such a man will cheat or something along those lines, but I will say that if he does, the woman shouldn't be surprised at all.
If a woman not being "good in bed" is a dealbreaker (or even a big deal) for any man, that fact alone should be a dealbreaker (or a big deal) for the WOMAN. This type of guy quite literally cares more about the sex than the woman he's supposed to love. And I won't say if they stay together it's a guarantee that such a man will cheat or something along those lines, but I will say that if he does, the woman shouldn't be surprised at all.
Why??
If he was bad in bed she would be out the door in a heartbeat.
If he was bad in bed she would be out the door in a heartbeat.
Naturally, my suggestion would go both ways. A woman who would be out the door in a heartbeat over this, should be helped out the door with a swift kick
Some guys are always contradicting themselves.
So it seems you want a woman to be a ***** AND sleep around. That's what you call experience. Sorry thats not me. OR either you want a woman who hasnt slept with everyone. I havent slept around. And I would be bothered if my husband was like a man *****. But he is not.
If a woman not being "good in bed" is a dealbreaker (or even a big deal) for any man, that fact alone should be a dealbreaker (or a big deal) for the WOMAN. This type of guy quite literally cares more about the sex than the woman he's supposed to love. And I won't say if they stay together it's a guarantee that such a man will cheat or something along those lines, but I will say that if he does, the woman shouldn't be surprised at all.
Oh stuff it. Sexual chemistry is very important to a lot of people. It's important to me, and I wouldn't want to be with someone who also does not find it important. Unless you've been in relationships at both ends of the sexual chemistry spectrum, you'll never know how much it can contribute to -- or lack of can detract from -- all the other things you think should be "more important" in a relationship.
Oh stuff it. Sexual chemistry is very important to a lot of people. It's important to me, and I wouldn't want to be with someone who also does not find it important. Unless you've been in relationships at both ends of the sexual chemistry spectrum, you'll never know how much it can contribute to -- or lack of can detract from -- all the other things you think should be "more important" in a relationship.
So what part of what I said are you arguing with? If someone is thinking about leaving you because you're not "experienced" enough in bed, you should leave them and be happy you did. You don't want to be with someone like that. You want to be with someone who cares more about you as a person than the sex you can provide.
"Sexual chemistry"? Now, I'm wondering: Are we talking about skill or passion? I should think the passion and willingness to please fit more into "chemistry" than skill, and that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about people who don't have the experience in the sexual realm to please their partner as well as some others might be able to do. And it's also about those who value sexual skill so much that they would leave their current partner over it. Say what you want, call it what you want. "Inexperienced" people would be better off without 'em.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
