How many of you have experiemented with the same sex? (male, too young)

[goldengrain]

The idea that marriage is based on sex is erroneous. With both part of a couple, hormones and other influences will change this. Sex is a matter of need when nature determines that we need to reproduce. After that, it very frequently goes downhill - this happens so often that many determine that this is normal.
The idea that a woman is breaking a contract is absurd.
If you want a contract for sex, visit a woman who provides this service for money.
Sex is not a 'duty' by a man or a woman.
It is something that must be found agreeable by both partners, and if it is not agreeable it is called something else, certainly having nothing to do with love.
That we have industries that spring up about this issue means there is a huge market out there.
It means that so many people are out there being told they are dysfunctional that we can make money off of them, so long as we convince them that they are abnormal in some way.
There are enough people who have this disinterest that I am saying it is part of normal human experience.
Most couples are not perfectly matched sexually, and certainly the way we change physiologically over time precludes that we cannot guarantee sex for life to our partners.
This is just a part of nature.
Nature made maybe 13% of our population gay.
He/It made over 40% of post menopausal women disinterested in sex.
On top of this is the variety of human sexual expression which cannot be squeezed into the same mold.
Because we have social taboos there are people who may be bored in a marriage, not even knowing or admitting that it is the standard one on one, male female arrangement that society tries to push us all into - this relationship may not be correct for them.

It surprises me that people see this as a problem. It is just indicative of a society in which discussing certain things is taboo.

I would say that a lifetime of marriage to one individual would be and is boring at some time for most couples. People who cannot admit this are just lying to themselves.

Sex is not like food. You don't require it all of your life. Usually the best sex is during the first three years of a relationship. The newness is exciting. The body releases endorphins during this time that convinces you that this is it - heaven on earth. But your body gradually becomes immune to its own chemistry and after three years you no longer get this high from your beloved.
Hopefully you have built, in this time, a firmer foundation for the relationship.
This is why, even in a relationship with lots of 'good' sex, people stray. The newness is missing. The endorphins.

Sex is the very weakest reason to get married. Most women confuse this with love, which I find to be not too smart. Hollywood often addresses the early stages of a relationship because it is easier to depict and we all have those biological chemicals that prod us on to reproduce. Relationships of older people are deeper and more complex and subtle in their expression and appreciation of each other. They no longer require that flash. Relationships deepen into love over time. At least good relationships do. Love at first sight is more frequently sex at first sight.

There are often differences between men and women. I know there are also exceptions, but pedophiles are usually men. Prostitutes are usually frequented by men. Perhaps the ancients thought that only a man could understand a man's needs. Hence, the homosexuality.

Hopefully the sort of men who require this frequent sexual attention will search for woman for a permanent relationship who demonstrate a similar need. But such men are sometimes intimidated with sexually demanding women, so they search for someone who will be exclusively theirs, someone who has not demonstrated in other relationships a need similar to theirs.

These are the men who consider sex in marriage a woman's obligation.
It is important to them that society/religion back up this 'rule of life'.
Such an attitude generally leads to disappointment and multiple marriages. Certainly to a depressed wife. But such men tend to consider only their own needs and try to convince the woman that there is something wrong with her.

Few men would be so gross as to tell their prospective bride that they require sex so many times a week for life from her, or have her sign such an agreement. But maybe society should be so open as to permit such a requirement. At least people would know what they expect of each other. Maybe for that, the wife's part of the contract would be a requirement of so much of his paycheck on a regular basis. Or maybe it would be reversed and it would be the woman who required the sex.

Over and above the fact that many women and men just don't feel the need for sex as they age there are other obstructions to such activity.
People get into accidents that handicap them. Do we divorce such spouses for non performance in such cases?
People age and become diabetic, have high blood pressure, heart problems, are given drugs that affect functioning.
These are things that will hinder the sexual relationships of even very sexually active couples. They have also become normally expected occurrences in our lives.

So, no matter how careful we might be in finding a mate who can unleash that hidden bunny, there are a whole assortment of things that very well may change in the future. Most couples faced with these dilemmas do not get divorced.
Maybe some people think they should, as the contractual obligation has been broken.

I think there is a huge variety of sexual experience that humans are capable of and once we drop all sorts of taboos we will all be better off.

I have seen arranged marriages that do well and the reason is that cool heads are assessing the partners for a variety of things which the hormones of youth often overlook. I don't think a classical marriage is right for everyone. I think marriage should be looked at as a union of two people who are responsible and well matched in education and earning capability and can be relied upon to run a household and perhaps rear children into becoming good citizens. The sexual thing is the icing on the cake and can easily be gotten elsewhere if it does not work out.

I do not find that the 'crimes' of Clinton and Elliot Spitzer, politics aside, are so horrendous that they should lose jobs because of it.

It is much easier to find someone who is hot in bed than a responsible spouse.

[CountryLuvinWoman1]

Ever feel like your beating a dead horse?? I'm gonna have to rest my case on this one cause some just don't get it.

[pigeonhole]

No, he isn't "beating a dead horse", he is presenting very interesting facts, certain facts that are often taboo to speak about in our society.
I notice that the followers of this religion of sex want to force sex down the throat of almost anyone, disabled people, the elderly, the ill, ,the asexuals, even the children (under the guise of "sex education"), it's an obession of our times.

[Capt. Dan]

Originally Posted by CountryLuvinWoman1

I don't beleive Capt. DAn is homophobic just because he feels it's disgusting. Alot of people feel it's unnatural and gross to be with the same sex. I think too many gays try to shove it down people's throats. He can feel the way he wants just as you can feel the way you do. It doesn't make either of you right or wrong.

This is true. I DO NOT fear homos. I dont really give a rats A** what you guys do to each other. I just think its disgusting. Disgust does not equal fear. And by the way. As I am just a regular all American boy, I LOVES ME SOME LESBIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lucario]

[quote=goldengrain;7282252]The idea that marriage is based on sex is erroneous.

You wrote a whole lot after this sentence, all in the intention of backing your point. I could argue point for point, but why? It's simple. Sex is not important to you, whether within marriage or outside of it. I disagree strongly. I believe it is very important in marriage. If you don't think so, good for you. If the (usually female) partner didn't want sex to be a part of her marriage down the road, she shouldn't have gotten married.

Sex is not like food. You don't require it all of your life.

IYHO

Sex is the very weakest reason to get married.

I agree. In fact, this is not a reason to get married. But sex is, or should be, an integral part of a marriage once a couple decides to get married.

There are often differences between men and women.

Get outta here. Really?

Hopefully the sort of men who require this frequent sexual attention will search for woman for a permanent relationship who demonstrate a similar need.

Yes, that is the point. What I am against is that person who changes down the road.

But such men are sometimes intimidated with sexually demanding women, so they search for someone who will be exclusively theirs, someone who has not demonstrated in other relationships a need similar to theirs.

I have never been intimidated by any woman. I prefer the sexually demanding type, actually. And since I am not trying to not be exclusively available to that woman, I expect her to be exclusively available to me. That is only fair.

These are the men who consider sex in marriage a woman's obligation.

Actually, it's both the woman's obligation and the man's obligation.

Few men would be so gross as to tell their prospective bride that they require sex so many times a week for life from her, or have her sign such an agreement. But maybe society should be so open as to permit such a requirement.

Dunno. I have never had those types of thoughts.

At least people would know what they expect of each other. Maybe for that, the wife's part of the contract would be a requirement of so much of his paycheck on a regular basis.

You mean that's not how it is now already?

Or maybe it would be reversed and it would be the woman who required the sex.

That'd be great!

It is much easier to find someone who is hot in bed than a responsible spouse.

It is?

[CountryLuvinWoman1]

Capt.Dan have i told you lateley that I love you lol..
Pigeon.. i was referring to me beating a dead horse lol

[CaydenJ]

Originally Posted by CountryLuvinWoman1

I see what you are saying but I don't see how a person's race has anything to do with their sexual preference at all.
I too have gay friends, guys and girls and the thought of guys having sex together does nothing for me at all. But I feel it is their choice and isn't my business at all what they do in their bedroom.
No matter what we feel I still feel it is Capt. D's and others choice to feel as they do as long as they too keep it to themselves. Now if they went up to a gay couple and voiced their opinion then I would say they are wrong in doing so because what someone does in their life isn't anyone's business. Am I making sense at all? lol

For lack of better analogy, saying someone's cultural food is 'disgusting' shouldn't be offensive in the sense that he doesn't enjoy the taste/spices. Food is highly subjective(your point). I see what you are saying but I just take offense to the term. Saying, your food is disgusting IS offensive and that is what I was highlighting(my point).
___________
"The term homophobia is often used collectively with other terms denoting bigotry and discrimination. In a 1998 address, Coretta Scott King asserted that, "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood."[12] Likewise, George Yancey, writing in Christian Ethics Today associates "sexism, racism, class distinctions, or homophobia" with one another and views them all as "varieties of discrimination," although he argues that they are not identical."

And that is what I was trying to prove before I started getting questioned what race has anything to do with the issue. I see Capt Dan doesn't necessarily have a problem with Gays but he just doesn't see himself appreciating the act... or the thought doesn't turn him on.

[CountryLuvinWoman1]

Cayden. I see your point now. Glad we can agree on something finally lol..

[goldengrain]

[quote=Sunil's Dad;7288526]

Originally Posted by goldengrain

The idea that marriage is based on sex is erroneous.

You wrote a whole lot after this sentence, all in the intention of backing your point. I could argue point for point, but why? It's simple. Sex is not important to you, whether within marriage or outside of it. I disagree strongly. I believe it is very important in marriage. If you don't think so, good for you. If the (usually female) partner didn't want sex to be a part of her marriage down the road, she shouldn't have gotten married.




IYHO




I agree. In fact, this is not a reason to get married. But sex is, or should be, an integral part of a marriage once a couple decides to get married.




Get outta here. Really?



Yes, that is the point. What I am against is that person who changes down the road.



I have never been intimidated by any woman. I prefer the sexually demanding type, actually. And since I am not trying to not be exclusively available to that woman, I expect her to be exclusively available to me. That is only fair.



Actually, it's both the woman's obligation and the man's obligation.





Dunno. I have never had those types of thoughts.



You mean that's not how it is now already?




That'd be great!




It is?

There are couples who are married who seldom, if ever, have sex and are quite happy with the arrangement.

Are they wrong?
If this is fine, then we have to admit that sex is not necessary for a good, healthy relationship.
If that is the case, then in a marriage if one partner does not want sex, this can be for any of the reasons stated above (hormones, diabetes, high blood pressure, medications, an accident, plain boredom, better things to do with one's time), should it behoove that person to supply the other with sex?
Is it legitimate to allow a marriage to go on with no sex?

There seems to be a sort of male menopause. Men reach a certain age and a portion of them just do not require sex any longer. A smaller percentage than women.

I think everyone changes with time. You, yourself, may.
It is just as natural for some people not to want sex as it is for others to want it. The person you marry today may, by no conscious choice of their own, change in the future.
A marriage should be able to weather such things without major trauma.
It can only do that if the main appreciation that two people have for each other is not based on things that fade with time.

If the main basis for a marriage is the assurance of having a steady supply of sex, the partners should agree to that up front before entering into a legal contract.

Yes, today there are many marriages in which both parties are professional and earning good salaries. Years back some women who were poorly trained would marry for economic security. They often found they exhanged sexual servitude for this security. Men married to these women thought sex their right in a marriage. They may have not had a lot in common with these women and there was little real bonding going on, leaving him(and her) dissatisfied with the relationship often.

Things are different today. People are hopefully marrying for compatability and not for the need for household help or child sitting or bedroom services, each of which can be purchased. People share interests, have interesting conversations, can rely on each other if things get tough. I think, without the stereotypes, these real relationships have a chance to develop and last.

I have always thought that a person's sexual needs are his own business, not to be 'inflicted' on others (unless you are into that sort of thing and everyone is agreeable). It is only one point in a relationship in which people touch and as it is subject to changes out of the couples control, hopefully it is not an important aspect of the relationship.

If a relationship is built around sex it is open to a kind of biological roulette and you really do not know if and/or when nature or happenstance will shut that door. Then, I guess the decision is to trade the partner in for a new model that still functions and hope for the best again.

That seems to be much of what happens in today's marriages and I think this is the problem. We are a sex-obsessed society and, like children, feel it is the obligation of others to provide it for us. Well, nature just does not work that way. So we divorce. Pretty expensive lesson, not to mention the heartbreak and poor role model for the kids, if any.

Our needs in life are OUR problems, OUR responsibility. THey should not be considered a burden for others in our vicinity. If our partners decide to sacrifice for us for any reason - saving to pay cash for a new car for you, forgoing their joy for your education, having sex with you although it is a chore - we should realize that they are going above and beyond what is expected and that we really appreciate it.

They are in no way obligated to serve our needs.

[CountryLuvinWoman1]

My last two relationships we had a very healthy sex life. If I were to base it on sex alone I would still be with either one but that just wasn't the case. The first lasted 3 years and the second 7 years. So I don't beleive that sex can make or break a relationship. Just cause you can be compatible sexually with a person doesn't mean you can be compatible in all other areas. Don't get me wrong I think sex is very important. I couldn't be with a man I couldn't have ahealthy relationship with nor could I be with a man that i wasn't compatible with in at least some other areas as well.