Sex: How much does physical love mean to you?

I'm capable of being with a girl without having sex, mainly because I'm more into long-term relationships then just casual relationships. I think physical attraction is important if you want a relationship to last a long time - after all, the origin of relationships stems from the idea of having a life partner to have children with - but I don't think an exceedingly active sex life is necessary. It depends on the couple, really.

 

[i[Well holy mother of jehosephat. I agree with Vaderize.[/i]


Wow!! It must be a full moon....or maybe we can get along !

That long speech on the first page was pretty good.....I like chocolate chip .

Peace,

V-03

 

Gives KnightWriter(thank you for reading it), Rebecca191, and Vaderize each a cookie. (Vaderize's is chocolate chip.)

It's nice to see some people get me. At my age it's not very common to have peers who see eye-to-eye with me. Of course, I imagine I'll be pretty odd at any age. But you guys don't have to agree with me to get cookies.

 

Teniel, that was a perfect explanation of how many of us feel. Bravo!

 

I personally would find it very difficult to be in a casual relationship
------
Comic Book Guy

 

Once again, Toby Mac writes a rap that explains how I feel.

S-E-X is a test when I'm pressed so back up off with less of that zest. Impress this brother with the life of virtue. The innocence that's spent is gonna hurt you. Safe is the way they say to play but safe ain't safe at all today, so just wait for the mate that's straight from God. Don't give it up till ya tie the knot.

 

I'd love to add this question to this thread....what are the ages of the people posting?

for the record I'm 29

 

well for starters im 25.

As much as i agree that sex with someone you love is much better, most of the time you are not in love. Should you not have sex during this time? Some people would say no, you shouldnt. Personally i need it, so i would say yes. It is a matter of personal opinion. As long as no one insults the other for their decision it is fine. Once one group starts insulting the other, thats where the fights start.

 

I'm 17.

 

26 YEAH BABY!!!!!

 

18. Freshman in college.

 

Like Rebecca191, I'm 17. What does sex mean to me? It's a fun activity, and it feels great, but it's also an extremely intimate activity, and therefore requires an intimate relationship beforehand, if it is to be enjoyed to its fullest.

I get a lot of crap from fellow students at my high school (I'm a senior) because I've never had a girlfriend, and I'm still a virgin. Now, they're not making fun of me because I'm a nerd and can't get any regardless of how hard I try... I'm seen as some sort of freak because I don't just go out and have sex, despite it being perfectly within my means. This is most shocking to people my age, because (even though I'm not a muscle-bound popular jock) I've got many, many girls who have expressed interest in me (without my knowing, ironically - I only know because a friend of mine tells me, without them knowing), ranging from girls who want to seriously date me, to those that would be happy enough just to... err... "be with me." I'm not bragging, but there's enough of them that my friends and I jokingly call them my "fan club." There are those who think I'm gay, too, merely because I don't go around nailing every girl I could.

But I choose not to be with any of them, because I'm looking for something much more serious, and long-term (although I could care less about waiting until after marriage thing, though...). I'm cool with sex, and very open when talking about it, but I just don't consider it some sort of milestone, or a "rite of passage," as so many young people do today, unfortunately.

98.2% of high-school girls are too immature and inexperienced in life to allow for serious dating, anyways.

 

I'm 16 and I agree with Emperor's Foot. Most high school girls have very little maturity and common sense, sadly. Most girls I like I realized I wouldn't really want to be with because of their maturity level. High School is not really all it is cracked up to be. *shrug* Live and let live.

 

Physical love is an expression. Its an an expression of real, true-- emotional love. And without love, sex just turns into some mindless activity such as pushing a lever or a button.

 

I never could have even considered having sex when I was in high school. Even though I was very mature for my age, I did not have the maturity required, and neither did any of the girls I knew at the time. In fact, I never even seriously tried to date then because of that. I have always approached all relationships as a search for "The One". The person I would eventually marry. That is why I have had so few relationships.

 

I'm 25 and do the same as KR. I'm always on the lookout for "The One" and one of the criteria for being "The One" is fulfilling my sexual needs and having me fill hers. There's no way to know this without sleeping with them before marriage. I have also gone down the "I just need to get laid" road and, while it's not as fulfilling as making love with someone you truly do love, it has its perks.

 

Never gone down that road myself. I've had 3 relationships, made love with two. I'm engaged to the final partner.

 

I'm 18, and though I doubt that I've found "the one" (being the cynic that I am, I don't believe it's the first person I date), I am in a meaningful relationship with a person that isn't based around sex. Shocking at my age, I know. There must be something wrong with me, I'm a male teenager who's not obsessed with sex.

 

I think just the title of this thread is a little misleading. I've always thought that sex can be looked at three different ways. It can be done for procreation, it can be done for pleasure, or it can be done because it feels incredibly good. Through the animal kingdom, there's a huge variation between species that mate for life, species that mate as often as possible, and species that mate for fun or socialization. Personally, I've had two of those kinds, and I cannot say that the one is morally better than the other. Sex with love is definitely going to feel better, but I also think that sex out of love can be a good thing too.

Honestly, I think that society for the most part has put sex up on a huge pedestal. Virginity is thought of as the best state, sex is the ultimate greatest thing that a person can do, and everyone should save themselves for that one special person that's going to make all their sexual dreams come true. Unfortunately, most of this is false.

Virginity in females is nothing more than a small membrane that can be punctured by riding a horse. Virginity in males is gone once the foreskin is pulled back. There's nothing special about it, except that there's something out there that you haven't experienced yet. This is fine for those that don't eat dessert until after supper or go spoiler-free for movies. It's not for everyone though. Some of us like to eat dessert whenever we want. Some of us love being spoiled because then we know what we're getting into. I've always thought of virginity the same way. I've been "practicing" for monogamy, in a way. That's not to say that monogamy is for everyone, either. There are people out there who are very happy with pleasing as many other humans as possible. If they're happy with it and they're not hurting anyone, I think that's a perfectly valid lifestyle.

Yes, there are risks involved. But there's risks in anything. I take a chance every day when I get out of bed, hoping that I don't fall down the stairs or get hit by a car or get raped and killed while I'm out walking. The fact that any of these might happen, though, actually makes me want to experience sex more, so I can have that experience before I die. Life is finite (IMO) and I'd like to experience sex before death instead of holding to some notion that I should preserve my little membrane for someone that may or may not be good for me.

I think that as long as everyone involved is secure with themselves, understand the decision they're making, using protection and disease-free, there's nothing wrong with sex.

 

Wow, I'm impressed by the people agreeing in this thread, some of whom sometimes vehemently disagree.

I agree with what most of you said, although I'm closer to some than to others. For the record, I will be 22 in less than a week and have never had sex. But then to me, physical love, is more than sex. So I've never even kissed anyone I didn't love or at least could love. And yes, I am female.

As Kessel Runner said in the beginning of the thread, I could never have sex without love. I also could never have any other form of "physical love" without love.


Master-Aries: Monogamy for certain people is difficult to achieve

Monogamy may be hard to achieve for some, but it will be even harder once you've had multiple partners. Or at least, it seems that way to me. It just depends on how much you value (future) monogamy.


Like Obi-Wan McCartney, I have a certain amount of admiration and respect for people who wait (until marriage). While I myself might not wait till marriage, I will wait until I am comfortable and sure that I am ready. Plus, it seems to me that once you have tasted something, it's harder to resist.

Teniel Djo, that was beautiful. I'm not going to state my reasons for waiting, since she's done such a beautiful job.

I could never "make love" in any form to anyone I didn't love. While this is my personal ideal, I do have more respect for people who treat it as something special for someone special. People may choose to behave differently, and they have that choice. However, they should always be aware of the consequences and be prepared to pay for them. But that counts in any area of life.

 

I think just the title of this thread is a little misleading. I've always thought that sex can be looked at three different ways. It can be done for procreation, it can be done for pleasure, or it can be done because it feels incredibly good.

What exactly is the difference between doing something for pleasure and doing it because it feels incredibly good? And the thread title simply asks what it means to you. I think there is nothing misleading about that.

Through the animal kingdom, there's a huge variation between species that mate for life, species that mate as often as possible, and species that mate for fun or socialization.

I am at a loss at this example. So there is a variation in species that have sex for various reasons. That seems self-evident. Is this a reason why we should feel free to have lots of sex, because animals do it?

Personally, I've had two of those kinds, and I cannot say that the one is morally better than the other.

Ok, let's not get into morality for now. However, it is possible to judge purpose when looking at two different motives for the same action. When you have sex for pleasure, the end is entirely self-serving. It feels good, so you crave it. That is the full extent of the mental processes through which you go to decide to have sex for pleasure.

Sex out of love for another, however, is not just an attempt to gratify some chemical urge of the brain, but a sincere wish to bring that pleasure to the one you love, to share it. Sex out of love is also the sharing of one's ability to create children, and is a symbolic commitment to the fact that you would want to have children with them.

Sex with love is definitely going to feel better, but I also think that sex out of love can be a good thing too.

I don't think it is. "Goodness" implies that the act of sex for pleasure serves some higher purpose than itself, that it means more than what it is. For something to be "good" it has to be something more than a natural reaction to a stimulation or instinctual urge. If something makes you feel good, that doesn't mean it is good. That just means it feels good.

Honestly, I think that society for the most part has put sex up on a huge pedestal. Virginity is thought of as the best state, sex is the ultimate greatest thing that a person can do, and everyone should save themselves for that one special person that's going to make all their sexual dreams come true.

Lets start with your contradiction in those first two sentences. If virginity is the best state, then sex can't be the best thing one can do, can it?

If your view of a soulmate is the person that is going to make all your sexual dreams come true, then I feel bad for you. Such a view implies that your mate exists to serve your sexual desire. That is very naive, from my point of view.

Unfortunately, most of this is false.

The level of your authority astounds me.

Virginity in females is nothing more than a small membrane that can be punctured by riding a horse. Virginity in males is gone once the foreskin is pulled back.

That is not a classical view of virginity, it is a technical and very narrow view of virginity. Virginity is the state of not having engaged in the consumation of a relationship through sexual intercourse. Virginity has never been limited by something so random as the accidental trauma of a membrane or something that happens to males when they are born.

There's nothing special about it, except that there's something out there that you haven't experienced yet. This is fine for those that don't eat dessert until after supper or go spoiler-free for movies. It's not for everyone though. Some of us like to eat dessert whenever we want. Some of us love being spoiled because then we know what we're getting into. I've always thought of virginity the same way.

Well, that is some philosophy. Sex is the same as dessert. I can't say much to add to that. Tastes good, that means you should eat it as much a

 

Thank you Ariana Lang and FlamingSword. Cookies for you both.

Oh, I forgot to address a few points.

1.) The idea that sex before marriage is a way to tell if you'll be physically compatiable. I don't think this argument holds up very well. How could you love someone and then decide "Well, I love them, they're wonderful, and beautiful, and perfect...except I could probably get better sex from someone else." So I guess its importance to me in a meaningful relationship is less so. However, if you've ever read about the psychology of sex(I'm fasinated by the psychology of relationships in general and all their components.) A lot of the pleasure in sex is psychological. I can't imagine caring so much about someone, getting a thrill just when I stand next to them, and then not having the physical part work out. If you're on a nice honeymoon with someone you think is beautiful, wonderful, and perfect enough to spend eternity with I think pleasure shouldn't be too hard to find. If it is maybe you're worrying about it a bit too much. In anycase it seems like that would be something people who really love each other would be able to work out. It'd be OK, of course, to discuss what your partner expected of you and what you expected of them so if they're only turned on by floppy bunny ears you can determine that before hand and not be surprised. But a discussion does not require the actual act.

2.) I, however, do not view sex as a dirty thing. I think that idea is positively ridiculous. It really bugs me when movies with sex have higher ratings than movies where ten people get shot. In my opinion that's insanity. Sex is a beautiful and meanigful thing. The abuse of it is sick but people these days don't seem to see the diffence between two people who love each other and porn which I find phenomanally sad.

Well, more cookies for all.

 

Have you ever been in love? Almost certainly you have. Most people who are in their teens or older know what being in love is like. Love and romance provide, for many of us, some of the most intense feelings we ever experience. Why do people fall in love? The answer at first sight seems obvious. Love expresses a mutual physical and personal attachment two individuals feel for one another. These days, we might be skeptical of the idea that love is "forever," but falling in love, we tend to think, is an experience arising from universal human emotions. It seems natural for a couple who fall in love to want personal and sexual fulfullment in their relationship, perhaps in the form of marriage.

Yet this situation, which seems so self-evident to us today, is in fact very unusual. Falling in love is not an experience most people across the world have -- and where it does happen, it is rarely thought of as having any connection to marriage. The idea of romantic love did not become widespread until fairly recently in our society and has never even existed in most other cultures.

Only in modern times have love and sexuality become seen as closely connected. In the Middle Ages and for centuries afterward, men and women married mainly in order to keep property in the hands of family or to raise children to work the family farm. Once married, they may have become close companions; this happened after marriage, however, rather than before. People sometimes had sexual affairs outside marriage, but these inspired few of the emotions we associate with love. Romantic love was regarded as at best a weakness and at worst a kind of sickness.

Romantic love first made its appearance in courtly circles as a characteristic of extramarital sexual adventures indulged in by members of the aristocracy. Until about two centuries ago, it was wholly confined to such circles, and kept specifically seperate from marriage. Relations between husband and wife among aristocratic groups were often cool and distant -- certainly compared to our expectations of marriage today. The wealthy lived in large houses, each spouse having his or her own bedroom and servants; they may rarely have seen each other in private. Sexual compatibility was a matter of chance and was not considered relevant to marriage. Among both rich and poor, the decision of whom to marry was made by family and kin, not by the individual concerned, who had little or no say in the matter.

This remains true in many non-Western countries today. In India, for example, the vast majority of marriages are arranged by parents or other relatives. The opinions of prospective marriage partners are quite often taken into acount, but by no means always. A study of marriage in Kerala, a state in INdia, showed that just over half the young people thought that meeting the prospective spouse before marriage was relevant to marital happiness. Among parents, only one percent were willing to let their children choose the own marriage partners. Romantic love is recognized to exist, but it is equated with temporary infatuation, or actually seen as a barrier to a happy marriage.

Neither romantic love, then, nor its association with marriage, can be understood as "given" features of human life.

From a sociology textbook.

After I read through this thread, I'll add my own thoughts.

 

Again Teniel blows me away by taking every thought I've ever had and wording it more eloquently than I ever could.

 

Discussion can only go so far. You can get the sense of what they like, what they expect, and what they will give but you can't know how it will feel for them or for yourself. It all comes down to what you expect from sex. I expect climax. Every time. If I can't get it (heh and being male, that's rare) then it is not worth doing, is it?

What about if I do everything I can and she can't climax? Is that worth it? Wouldn't she like to know that before she decides to spend her whole life with me? I know that I would. Sex is a part of the relationship and if it's not being met then the effect is the same as if we didn't have anything to talk about. It's not going to work in the end. You won't know until you actually do it.

There have also been multiple instances in my life in which I was head over heels for a girl, everything was working in every aspect of the relationship, but for some reason the sexual thing wasn't there for either of us. It didn't work out because, while sex isn't the only part of a relationship, it's a fairly large part of one.

That is how I look at it anyway.