Firstly, thanks for your explanations, HaloHope.
Secondly, and just to get that out of the way once and for all: I am working from the assumption that neither of us wants to convince the other or change his attitude towards sex. You don´t come across as judgemental, and I hope neither do I.
We could easily conclude that we just feel differently - no problem.
Yet, once you have tried to give some sort of rationalizations (which on top occasionally go a bit beyond making mere statements of personal preferences) I am trying to understand this reasoning.
I can live with people having different feelings just fine, but I am frustrated when I don´t understand a supposedly reasonable/rational line of thought.
So my reason for asking all these question is primarily my wish to understand something I don´t understand (and possibly can´t even understand).
It´s not like I am unfamiliar with your approach to it - it is the predominantly held view in our societies, after all.
If you want to walk a mile in my shoes you can do that easily by reading your post, imagining someone else had written it, and replacing "sex" by, say, "playing a tennis match with someone".
If you are willing to do that I am pretty sure you find out why your answers do not help me one bit in understanding.
I couldn't sleep with someone unless I was a huge part of a persons life and new them extremely well beforehand, but again that is just the way I personally am.
I am wondering how you know that. I am also wondering what "couldn´t" practically means.
In the attempt to understand this, the closest I can come is comparing it to my heterosexuality. I never had the desire to sleep with a man, but I wouldn´t know why to replace "I don´t desire to..." by "I could not...", partcularly since I have never even tried.
I'd have to be in an exclusive relationship with someone to have sexual feelings to that extent about them.
I find the "to that extent" particularly interesting in this sentence. It implies (correct me if I am wrong) that you do have sexual thoughts/feelings/desires about men you are not in a committed partnership with; just not "to the extent" that so far motivated you to have sex with them.
My question: What do you do with other desires that you have, but only to a small extent? Say you find some food you don´t know somewhat attractive or intriguing? Do you feel "I feel like eating it, but not to the extent that I would - and therefore I can´t."?
What I am trying to get at again is my creed-question: Is it really that your feelings prevent you from trying it - or is it more the creed you have been brought up with? (I don´t know about your place, but here it is still a common idea passed on from generation to generation that women "can´t" do that.)
Don´t get me wrong: I find no fault with having creeds and convictions, I don´t even find fault with the convictions being the result of our education - I am just wondering what is at the core. It´s none of my business, but I am curious. I am often asking similar questions to myself concerning strongly held convictions or secure feelings.
I'm not sure if thats just how I naturally or due to my religious beliefs but its how I've felt about it for as long as I can remember.
Aren´t you interested in finding out?
While sex is fun (no denying that and I should have phrased it better), for me it only works souley as an expression of love and commitment in a commited monogamous relationship.
What I find intriguing about this statement is that it incorporates so many detailed conditions. To me, it doesn´t sound like the expression of a feeling, it sounds more like a creed. Just saying.
I dont feel I take sex heavy heartedly, I just see it as something thats so special and wonderful I believe it's meant to be for relationships, and ones that both parties intend to stick with.
"So special that it´s meant for relationships". This is one thing I don´t understand. It sounds like there is a scale of specialness of certain activities, and the higher they are on the scale of this specialness, the more they are meant for such relationships. Is there anything else (but sexual intimacy) that is not as high on the scale of specialness that it is only meant for such relationships, but pretty high, so that you´d almost say they are meant for such relationships, too? Like, say, talking honestly about one´s feelings, or going out for dinner, or whatever?
I'll try and explain, while I have no personal experience with casual sex, I have freinds who have it a lot, and have spent most of their lives having it. Most of them spend their time panicking over pregnancy/people liking them too much and wanting to have sex more than one time/std's and the like but when it comes down to the sex itself they seem to forget all these problems, and concerns callously then start all over again once their one night stand is over.
Well, ok. This does not really match the attitude I am thinking of, but if this is your experience with people I do understand why you arrive at this conclusion.
Again this of course boils down to my personal view, I feel it's fairly unrespectful to the act itself to reduce it to something based purely on desire with no long term involvement for either party.
Now, I really didn´t see that coming.
If memory serves I have never before heard the idea of having "respect for an act itself". I have an idea what respect for a person is, I have an idea how we can perform an action respectfully - but respect to "the act of...itself" as an abstract statement doesn´t ring any bell whatsoever with me.
Out of curiosity: Are there other acts that should be performed only with certain prerequisites and conditions that are manifestations of "respect for the act itself"? Can you give me an example, so that I understand this idea better?
Anyways, I guess what is behind all of my questions: The interest to find out whether this is primarily a "view" (as you put it here) that determines your "feelings", or rather a "feeling" (as you mostly put it) that you rationalize in your "view".
It gives an excuse to plough through lots of partners irrespective of both consequences and the feelings of others.
Well, if an act has consequences you can´t do it irrespective of those consequences. That´s the nature of consequences, after all.
When saying "irrespective of the feelings of others" - whom do you have in mind? Let´s take the scenario that A has sex with B (with both of them not being interested in sexual exclusivity), next week B has sex with C (under the same conditions), and so forth. Who would be the one who acts irrespectively of someone else´s feelings, and who would be the one irrespectively of whose feelings is acted upon? Or are you thinking of persons who are not even participants?
I apologise if I come across as judgemental at all in my post, I can respect people have different views on sex and this is down to my perception of what I feel/believe and what I perceive in the actions of those I know.
Again, no, you don´t come across as judgemental at all.
In return, I hope I don´t come across as overly investigative. No need to mention that you are of course free to ignore all of my questions.
