Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
All I have to go on are what you post here in these forums, which I understand is a very small part of your life (I hope), but I am becoming concerned with the number of "fears" you are voicing, and the fatalistic attitude you have towards acceptance by women.I'm afraid, that if I get married, she won't want to have sex with me after five years. but fear I shouldn't live in crediblly I suppose.
In failed relationships its mostly the woman who leaves, but its the man who usually 'screws up'. ~shrug~ go fig.
I am concerned too. needless to say, I have had little luck with women. I hope thats not my fate though.
<snip>
She thought it over. "Well, I can think of one thing. Since Thanksgiving, I've had a "friend with benefits." And actually I'm kind of confused about that."
"Really? Tell me more."
"Well, I met him at a party. And I really like him. But there's this problem. I want to spend more time with him, and do stuff like go shopping or see a movie. That would make it a friendship for me. But he says no, becuase if we do those things, then in his opinion we'd have a relationship--and that's more than he wants. And I'm confused because it seems like I don't get the "friend" part, but he gets the "benefits."
The idea of casual sex is not that people who don´t want casual sex should engage in it. So I don´t hold my breath when waiting for a sound reasoning from this story to "casual sex is a problem". People not being aware of their needs is a problem. People not communicating clearly and early is a problem. People engaging in things they don´t want to engage in is a problem.
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 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 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.
Aren´t you interested in finding out?
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.
"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?
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.
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".
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?
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.
For me, commitment to someone means making a concerted effort to ensure that all my dealings with them are loving, affectionate, thoughtful, and enjoyable. It doesn't have anything to do with anyone but them.
I find the idea that sexual exclusivity = commitment very strange.
I find the idea that commitment = anything other than giving yourself 100% to another person strange too, but I guess we just come from totally different viewpoints
It's admirable that you see commitment as something that means giving love, affection etc.. to those your commited too, but for me that criteria also involves giving nearly all my spare time to an individual, enjoying their company and doing the vast majority of everyday things and special things together. If there was more than two people involved id find giving the degree of commitment a relationship needs impossible.
QFT!
I agree that there is a problem if young people feel under pressure to have casual sex when they would prefer something else. But what about people who do actually want to have casual sex and can find other people who want to have it in the same kind of context as they do? Seems to me that they're not in trouble at all!
How is hookups/free love among young singles translate to being perpetually unfaithful to someone? I was your age 34 years ago, and young singles acted pretty much exactly the same as they do now, experimenting with various partners, exploring relationships, and usually settling into serial monogamy or a long term marriage/cohabitation.
Yes, drunk people often do stupid things like having unsafe sex or driving cars or getting into fights with other drunk people. Very stupid, likely to have bad consequences - because of the drinking to excess, not because of sex.
You'll find most people as they age spend less time getting really drunk every weekend. The body rebels.
If a husband and a wife value their sexually exclusive relationship I fail to see how anything anyone else does could devalue it.
So the actual problem would be the "drinking culture".
A lot of people drink heavily and the fact stands that some of these people will risk driving drunk and causing accidents. Not a particularly strong argument against cars.
Spell out what this is supposed to tell me. We have had a lot of means to protect ourselves from a lot of infectuous diseases, yet these diseases are still around. How come I never seen to see people rallying against the immorality of "hand-shake culture" with reference to flu and other infectuous diseases? How come I don´t see public toilets rallied against as immoral with reference to infectuous diseases?
So?
Its more difficult than you can imagine; I find very special qualities in everyone I know and eveyrone I meet; would they want to share those qualities is their choice, its not mine.
Its always the woman's choice; she gets to decide if she wants to like me or not, she has the choice to say yes, and she has the choice to leave me as well. I get no choice I'd want to take.
In failed relationships its mostly the woman who leaves, but its the man who usually 'screws up'. ~shrug~ go fig.
"Well, I met him at a party. And I really like him. But there's this problem. I want to spend more time with him, and do stuff like go shopping or see a movie. That would make it a friendship for me. But he says no, becuase if we do those things, then in his opinion we'd have a relationship--and that's more than he wants. And I'm confused because it seems like I don't get the "friend" part, but he gets the "benefits."
I guess what I am trying to spot is: When you speak of conclusions, what do you start from, what are the premises, what are the points you accept as relevant on the way from the starting point and the premises to the conclusion?
"Well, I met him at a party. And I really like him. But there's this problem. I want to spend more time with him, and do stuff like go shopping or see a movie. That would make it a friendship for me. But he says no, becuase if we do those things, then in his opinion we'd have a relationship--and that's more than he wants. And I'm confused because it seems like I don't get the "friend" part, but he gets the "benefits."
You are perfectly entitled of handling the issue of the incompatibility of drinking and other activities the way you do.You are right -- it is because of the drinking that they have sex without condoms.
However, I do drink. I do get drunk. But since I do not have promiscuous sex and have simply drawn such a line and respected its boundaries I have no risk of disease.
Good. So the entire drinking thing is merely a red herring, anyways.I do not desire to have promiscuous sex so when my inhibitions are lowered I do not do it.
Could, would, might...But if they did it previously it could create weaknesses within themselves.
Then it would be better to discuss this in a thread about alcohol and its risks.It is a problem with the drinking culture, definitely, as it heightens the chance of unprotected sex.
Oh, you are perfectly entitled to believe that all you want, and you are welcome to behave accordingly.However, I still believe promiscuous sex even when very safe can have emotional and mental damage to people.
If I have heard them before, I guess I have addressed those there.I think you have heard me explain why before and we can leave it at that.
When I grew up and was a young adult, there were no STD´s that killed. Most of them were more or less harmless like a flu, others were easily curable.The flu does not kill
And others find the risk of getting HIV that comes with having protected sex (and some even with having unprotected sex) acceptable.and I would gladly get sick with the flu once every two or three years to be able to greet people in an intimate and friendly way.
Well, if people do that in mutual consent to each other who am I to oppose....But I will note: I do oppose coughing without covering your mouth.
This is such an interesting discussion! I feel like repping everyone who's contributing - I'm enjoying it so much.
HaloHope, it's perhaps important to note that several things you say in your post ring true with me. I would imagine that there are certain reasons that you have for linking sexual intimacy so closely with long-term commitment. I know that when I sleep with someone, there are certain feelings that I need to have about that person.
For a start, I have to like them, because sex for me is, just as you say, a loving act (although I suspect we think of 'loving' differently). I wouldn't want to engage in it with someone whose pleasure and happiness I didn't care about.
I also have to trust anyone I have sex with. At the risk of stereotyping, I particularly have to trust men with whom I engage in sexual intimacy, because I am inclined to be sexually shyer and more submissive with men, and I therefore need to know that they won't demand anything of me that I'm not willing to do, and that they will respect my request to stop if I feel uncomfortable. That's not to say that I need to trust women less; but for better or worse, I feel more sexually confident with women and I also feel less at risk of being pushed to do something I don't want to do, so certain factors are less of an issue with women in most cases. If I ever were to be in a situation where I might want to sleep with a woman with whom I felt inclined to be similarly submissive as I am with most men, I would probably need to feel the same things as I need to feel towards men I want to have sex with. Linked to my need to trust this person is a need to feel that they care about me and my feelings in some way.
I, like you, also need to feel that there is a strong chance that I will see and/or speak to the person I have sex with again. Sex makes me feel emotionally linked to someone, and I can't help but regard it as an investment. It makes me feel vulnerable (not necessarily in a bad way), and I would find a loss of contact with the people I have sex with, at least in the short term, very difficult. That's why I only have sex with people I know reasonably well and with whom I am friends.
But all of these things which are usually requirements for me before I will have sex with someone, though they are quite specific, do not change the fact that I am frequently in a position where there are several people with whom I would happily have sex, all else being equal!I am able to like, trust, and feel I can rely upon several people at once. Perhaps the fact that I have these requirements means I'm not really part of the hook-up culture that PassionFruit is talking about. I'm not sure. I am occasionally tempted by very casual sex, but generally speaking I think I prefer to stick to people I know I like and trust.
As a small aside, I also happen to be in a situation with my boyfriend where we occasionally are in a position to engage in sexual intimacy with someone as a couple. I tend to have the same feelings about women with whom we do that as I do about people in general with whom I would have sex.
That's fair enough! I agree with you that time can be an issue, and time is often what puts a limit on the number of partners that polyamorous people can handle. Personally I prefer a small amount of distance between my partners and I; I love doing everyday things with my boyfriend, but we both agree that we wouldn't want to live together! We value our alone-time as well, and we value our time with other friends. At the moment my arrangement with my boyfriend does not have space for me to have any additional partners apart from those whom my boyfriend and I are involved with together, so at present it's a moot point with regards to my relationship. But that being said, I believe it is perfectly possible to be in a committed relationship while being sexually intimate with more than one person. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't regard, I don't know, spending time with your family as a dent in your commitment to your partner. Similarly, I wouldn't regard spending time with one partner as detracting from my commitment to another.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?