quote:Do we say that the sex act itself brings us closer emotionally? Or that the reward for completing the act produces a chemical change in the brain that causes us to further bond with our partner?
I think there is ample evidence that the answer to both of these questions is "No".
Many people have sex with no significant emotional attachment. Whatever the chemical changes, they do not always lead to bonding between partners. (Not to mention that solo-masturbation should presumably create the same changes) Therefore I submit that while sex can be a bonding experience, strengthening emotional ties, this arises from something outside the sex act itself. Perhaps the mindset of the participants?
Agreed. Could we say that the importance of sex in a relationship is contextually based on the participants' emotional, physical and ideological requirements?
- or -
To each, his own?
Posts: 80 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the things that sex represents is what is important to a successful relationship, not necessarily the sex itself. In other words, people that are unable or unwilling to have sex with each other are still capable of having a meaningful relationship. At the most, sex is a representation of the level of intimacy that a couple already possess.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, sex itself isn't important. Physical contact is. Very much so. I need a lot of cuddling and kissing. I really need to be touched. Also, if the kissing is awkward, the rest of the relationship is usually awkward, but I don't know if that's the cause or just another indicator of incompatibility.
quote:A long-term relationship without sex or intimacy devolves into a friendship, and then desolves into nothing. We are sexual beings (well, maybe not "clod," but I'll make this assumption for the rest of us). I don't know that I'd say we're driven by the need to create offspring, but maybe that's the "male" point of view. But sex provides a release, it provides pleasure, and when coupled with intimacy, passion and compassion, it provides a strong aspect of self-worth.
A marriage or other long-term romantic relationship without sex becomes a barren thing. You sense of value and self-worth plummet, regardless of your strength of character (or so I keep telling myself). Sex (and all the activities leading up to "it") provide for an affirmation of your value as a provider, and as a caring person.
What makes you conclude either of these is true? At the very least, I know the first one is not true - because I have known people who had relationships without sex, and then became strong friends, and that friendship continued to last.
Yes, sex can probably provide pleasure, a release, and a sense of intimacy - but I don't see why it would be required for self-worth, unless we choose to value ourselves in terms of our sexual activity. Can't someone value themselves on their own merit, rather than valuing themselves for the sex they have? Consider monks or nuns or priests who choose to never have sex as part of their religious dedication - do these people lack self-worth? Are deep relationships impossible for them? I doubt it.
My suspicion is that sex is only as necessary as you choose to make it, just like anything else we may use to define ourselves and our goals. It's no more essential than becoming wealthy and successful is essential - for those who make "success" a critical goal, achieving success can be life or death, but for others a simpler life might be preferable. I presume there exists a similar spectrum of attitudes towards sex. And I do think that those who consider sex an end-all and be-all for their life probably have made it into a misplaced priority, and a real source of unhappiness, because it is not always feasible or wise to engage in it (like the gymnast who makes gymnastics the foundation of their being, and then finds themselves too old to perform, and thus without the one thing important to them).
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I so wish all of you could have heard the talk on Catholic Sexuality that I heard last night. The presented is a guy who has spent most of his life trying to heal the wounds that our messed up ideas on sex have caused. Some highlights:
Sexuality is not just sexual intercourse. It is human touch. A woman stroking the cheek of her premature infant great-grandson on the one place not covered by tubes and needles is an expression of sexuality. So is a teenage boy snuggling his beloved grandfather before he passed away. Sexuality is bigger than sex.
Sexuality has to do with learning to be hold and be held, by each other, by life, by God.
"Sexuality is the desire for intimacy, both emotionally and physically. It is the physiological and psychological grounding of our capacity to love. At is undistorted best, our sexuality is that basic eros of our humanness - urging, pulling, driving us out of loneliness into communion; out of stagnation and into creativity." James Nelson
Sexuality is a sacrament. A conduit to grace, a vehicle of the sacred. To the extent that sexuality does not function as a sacrament distortion and perversion are afoot.
Sexuality is a gift, a force to be reckoned with, a threat. In that order. For too long we have had the order reversed. There are things we can express physically that we just can't from ten feet away. There is an intrinsic relationship between how much sexuality is expressed and how much one has to "say". Go only as far as you can say - as far as you are promised, as far as you are committed. Don't have your body write checks that your spirit can't cash.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Sexuality is the desire for intimacy, both emotionally and physically. It is the physiological and psychological grounding of our capacity to love. At is undistorted best, our sexuality is that basic eros of our humanness - urging, pulling, driving us out of loneliness into communion; out of stagnation and into creativity."
...and it's quite valid for atheists, too.
Treso, I know what I said to be true, without question, from long-term personal experience. I do not (by any means) only "value myself for the sex I have." There's a lot of different aspects to who I am; the personal ones I tend to keep personal, especially on-line, especially where I know the "audience" has a wide range in age, and most especially where I know my daughter might wander in and read my posts.
kmbboots,
Except for the explicit* Christian references (sacrament/grace/sacred), I am in total agreement with you. You list a number of "spiritual" references, which I do understand, and which I do agree with. I also understand the mapping of the Christian references into a secular/human "spirit" reference. Either way: well said. You "get" it (at least from my POV, FWIW). Thanks.
* I find this very funny: I don't mind the mention of the word "intercourse," which many may find sexually explicit, but I do comment on the religious tone! Ha!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sexuality is not just sexual intercourse. It is human touch. A woman stroking the cheek of her premature infant great-grandson on the one place not covered by tubes and needles is an expression of sexuality. So is a teenage boy snuggling his beloved grandfather before he passed away. Sexuality is bigger than sex.
I don't agree with that. I think they are changing the word to mean something that people don't really mean by it, and that tends to confuse things. That is "Intimacy" they are talking about, not "Sexuality". Sexuality, I think, refers only to love in a romantic and/or physical sense - that attraction that might be normally experienced between two peers of opposite sexes. The difference is that sexuality is one type of intimacy, and I think intimacy is broadly necessary for just about everyone, while sexuality is only one particularly powerful method of fulfilling that need.
quote:Treso, I know what I said to be true, without question, from long-term personal experience.
I don't think that's the sort of thing you can know from long-term personal experience. You can know what has happened personally to you so far in your life and to people you personally know when they had relationships without sex, but that won't tell you whether those were experiences specific to you or whether those are things that always happen to everyone who tries to have a relationship of that fashion.
quote:that attraction that might be normally experienced between two peers of opposite sexes.
I was in agreement with the first paragraph of your post until right there. We gay people have sexuality, too. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:because I have known people who had relationships without sex, and then became strong friends, and that friendship continued to last.
But were they married, or just friends? I've got some great friends that I never had sex with; that's not the real issue.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I specifically wrote that in a way to include same-sex couples. Just because it might be normally experienced between two peers of opposite sexes does not mean that peers of the same sex can't experience it too. That's just a less common relationship in which to experience it.
Steve, No - not married. Just a long-term relationship.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Well, I know that it's true for me. So it is, at least, true for part of the population.
I also know from discussions with friends that it's true for others; I also know this from various books that I've read on the subject, and discussions with professional counsellors. I'm not saying that it's true for all. What is, after all, true for all in the world of emotions and relationships? And if we get sidetracked on "but you said it was true for all," then we'll be missing the point.
posted
Tres, I think if you subsitute "physical love" for sexuality in KMB's post it might work better for you... kinda like pH says... we don't need sex, per se, but we do need physical loving.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So with your "long term relationship" couples--did they not have sex at all, with anyone, or just not with each other? And were they somehow physically unable to have sex, or was it purely by choice? And was there any "sensuality" between them? Any intimacy?
I'm talking about a collapse in a relationship from lack of intimacy and sex. Intimacy without sex is still pretty nice, though...I'd take that if I could.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Hey, I specifically wrote that in a way to include same-sex couples. Just because it might be normally experienced between two peers of opposite sexes does not mean that peers of the same sex can't experience it too. That's just a less common relationship in which to experience it.
I'm assuming you mean "normally" as the part that "includes" same-sex couples. I'd argue that simply leaving out the "of the opposite sex" part would have done that more concisely. I don't see the need in your arguement to emphasize that homosexuality is less common than heterosexuality since that fact is extraneous to your point. And as far as your point goes, it holds true to the same percentage of gay couples as straight ones. [/sensitivity training 101]
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I (or rather the presenter from last night) use "sexuality" as different from intimacy because intimacy isn't necessarily physical.
ssywak, I did say it was a talk on Catholic sexuality. I do agree that it works beyond that. I am glad that you think so, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wanted to include the opposite sex part because I suspect that's why it is called SEXuality - because it is a concept coined to capture the specific feelings associated with a certain type of relationship, rather than intimate relationships in general.
quote:So with your "long term relationship" couples--did they not have sex at all, with anyone, or just not with each other? And were they somehow physically unable to have sex, or was it purely by choice? And was there any "sensuality" between them? Any intimacy?
I believe they chose not to. And yes, there was intimacy. As for a relationship with no sex AND no intimacy - I'm not sure that's even a real relationship.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then again, there is also the relationship with sex but no intimacy. I suspect that is not much better.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: I think sex is a vital part of any relationship. In fact, it's so important that I've started sleeping with all my friends, relatives, pets, and any travelling salespeople that come through.
Um, I don't think that I wanted to know that.
But I have loved how on track this thread has kept. So keep those serious responses coming (not that I don't apreciate a little humor on this thread )
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. NO fun. YOu may as well stick to toys. It's cleaner. And in the words of RAH, "you don't have to go home in the cold, but it's lonely."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
mph, it seems to me that Advent is only here to get input on general feelings. He's not asking us to write his essay for him.
No, I'm not asking you guys to write it for me. But I may use a copy of this thread to support my thesis. Seeing as how this thread has become a fairly dependable survey of various age groups across the States and Beyond.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, I really appreciated your post. It's given me some things to think about.
I agree that sex encompasses physical intimacy of a much wider scope than just intercourse. I would consider cuddling or kissing with a boyfriend to be a form of sex. However, I have trouble making this same association with cuddling with one of my sisters or even a friend. I think the act and the emotion behind the act is essentially the same. Both are physical contact with somebody I care about. However, I think there is a difference based on how we're taught to interpret things. Physical intimacy in a romantic relationship is symbolic of a commitment. If my little sister was to hold my hand while we were watching a movie, I wouldn't think twice about it. However if a potential love interest did it, it would carry a meaning much greater than the simple act.
I'm still thinking about this and would be curious as to what more people think about it. Two friends can have sex outside of a romantic relationship, and it is still considered sexual. Thus it seems sexuality is not dependent on the romantic relationship. What makes it uniquely different from other forms of physical intimacy?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: kmbboots, I really appreciated your post. It's given me some things to think about.
I agree that sex encompasses physical intimacy of a much wider scope than just intercourse. I would consider cuddling or kissing with a boyfriend to be a form of sex. However, I have trouble making this same association with cuddling with one of my sisters or even a friend. I think the act and the emotion behind the act is essentially the same. Both are physical contact with somebody I care about. However, I think there is a difference based on how we're taught to interpret things. Physical intimacy in a romantic relationship is symbolic of a commitment. If my little sister was to hold my hand while we were watching a movie, I wouldn't think twice about it. However if a potential love interest did it, it would carry a meaning much greater than the simple act.
I'm still thinking about this and would be curious as to what more people think about it. Two friends can have sex outside of a romantic relationship, and it is still considered sexual. Thus it seems sexuality is not dependent on the romantic relationship. What makes it uniquely different from other forms of physical intimacy?
But would you hold her hand if you didn't love her? Either of them?Physical intimacy is using our bodies to express our love. Many kinds of love, many kinds of physical intimacy. And sure, we interpret physical intimacy depending on the relationship. Sexual intercourse says a whole lot more than a handshake. We can misuse our bodies to say things we don't mean or that are inappropriate; that is where the distortion comes in.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's sort of asking "is a relationship necessary for sex", instead of the other way around...
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sexuality is not just sexual intercourse. It is human touch. A woman stroking the cheek of her premature infant great-grandson on the one place not covered by tubes and needles is an expression of sexuality. So is a teenage boy snuggling his beloved grandfather before he passed away. Sexuality is bigger than sex.
You're describing intimacy, not sexuality.
quote:But would you hold her hand if you didn't love her?
There are different kinds of love.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For me, for good, non-distorted, sacramental sex, yes. Even if it isn't a permanent relationship, there needs to be a relationship. Otherwise it, for me, is seldom worth the effort. And I could hurt people in the process. And it is really not worth that.
quote:Sexuality is not just sexual intercourse. It is human touch. A woman stroking the cheek of her premature infant great-grandson on the one place not covered by tubes and needles is an expression of sexuality. So is a teenage boy snuggling his beloved grandfather before he passed away. Sexuality is bigger than sex.
You're describing intimacy, not sexuality.
quote:But would you hold her hand if you didn't love her?
There are different kinds of love.
As I noted. And intimacy doesn't require a physical aspect. Shrug. Say "physical intimacy" if you prefer.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A better consideration for terms seems to be needed.
"Sex" means intercourse and dozens of other events which may or may not be classified as sex given an individual's personal opinions.
I don't think its necessary for a couple, married or not, to have intercourse.
But there seems to be some agreeance that the word "sex" as we're discussing it goes beyond the clinical definition. I like that a distinction is made between what is intimate and what is not.
I think couples who have sex should do it with some level of intimacy. The physical act of sex can happen between two strangers but to have intimate sex practically requirements that the persons have a relationship with one another.
Sex can be risky. When a couple has sex without intimacy the result can be destructive. But sex with intimacy for a couple is a great opportunity to well, bare all, to someone very important them. It builds trust, comfort, honesty, and a connection to each other's needs and feelings. This isn't to say that all sex as to be candlelight and loving. Sex is still physical at its base and the intimacy can simply be at a level where each partner lets the other know what he or she needs and then provides for each other. The intimacy isn't always the physical act. Its the eye contact, the concern for the other, the talks before and after, the cuddling, etc. The physical act becomes like a catalyst for a deeper sharing of feelings and thoughts. Intimate sex is the physical act and every other related activity which uses that closeness to build a strong emotional bond.
Personally, I think the positive potential that sex has to strengthen a relationship is being doubted because of a social preoccupation with the physical act of sex as a taboo.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I think sex is as important as the partners in a relationship make it....
quote:Tante: So, what's the difference in the relationship if you get "a piece of paper"? You get a license to have sex. Makes the whole marriage deal seem a lot more worthwhile and relevant.
I think it's the opposite. I think a license to have sex is the least important aspect of getting married. I fear for any couple whose primary reason for the piece of paper is to be able to have sex legitimately. That seems to me to cheapen both the marriage and sexual intimacy itself.
What can I say, Karl? Once again, you are right. I sometimes forget to distinguish between "what is right for me" and "what is right for everyone". For me, sex within a married relationship is the right thing to do. For other people, well, they can do what is right for them.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't you join in? Some of us are probably interested in what you, yourself, might think on the topic. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I have been trying to stay out of it so that my own views do not affect your own.
But if you want my views on the subject:
I feel that it can be an important influence on any relationship. But as it has been said time and time again since I started this thread it needs to be done only when a relationship reaches a certain point of closeness and confedience. I believe that intercourse should only be furverently done when learning how to be more in tune with your partners preferences until you are both comforterable in the act and what to do and not do. I also feel that sex should only be applied rarely after that point.I feel this because I have observed several of my friends relationships crumble because they tried to put to much presure on performing intercourse frequently. I have tried to maintain a healthy view of sex in all of my past relationships. I have seen that by doing this my relationships with my partner have been far more fulfilling because it makes the act of intercourse a very special part of our relationship.
p.s. Sorry if I have bad grammer. Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it would be difficult to have a long-term romantic relationship that didn't have a sexual aspect. And I wouldn't characterize a relationship that didn't as normal.
Sex is a normal, natural, healthy, and joyous part of human existence. Why wouldn't one want to share that with the person one loved, barring other circumstances that made it difficult or impossible?
That said, I agree that sex is far from the only part of a relationship, or even the most important part. But it's definitely important.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I have not read the second page of postings but I don't have time and would like to chip in my 2 cents.
Sex is important in a marriage as a communication of love and appreciation. Men and women respond to different kinds of communications of love. For many women, doing something around the house (doing dishes) without having to be asked is the greatest expression of love or compliments. For many men the expression they most desire is sex. I heard it refered to as different "love languages". So, if a couple cant learn to speak each other's language they will have conflict. So for the guy it is important to help around the house, give compliments, bring gifts, etc (I'm sure for some women sex is what they want too) and women need to understand that many of the preceeding acts will go unnoticed by a man but sex will be the equivilant (sp). Of course there are exceptions . . .
As for clod's comments regarding abstainance (sp), I think the discipline in a marriage comes from being monogamous.
quote:Sex is important in a marriage as a communication of love and appreciation. Men and women respond to different kinds of communications of love. For many women, doing something around the house (doing dishes) without having to be asked is the greatest expression of love or compliments. For many men the expression they most desire is sex. I heard it refered to as different "love languages". So, if a couple cant learn to speak each other's language they will have conflict. So for the guy it is important to help around the house, give compliments, bring gifts, etc (I'm sure for some women sex is what they want too) and women need to understand that many of the preceeding acts will go unnoticed by a man but sex will be the equivilant (sp). Of course there are exceptions . . .
God, no. Doing the dishes is fine. Whatever. If you're dating me, you're probably my house minion, too. But to me, the best expression of affection is physical contact. I'm a huge cuddler.
I think I'm more with kmbboots on the subject of sex.
quote: I also feel that sex should only be applied rarely after that point.I feel this because I have observed several of my friends relationships crumble because they tried to put to much presure on performing intercourse frequently.
I think it's naive, and a recipe for disaster, to try to make blanket statements like this about what would be a healthy level of sex in a relationship. People are different and appetites are different. What makes a sexual appetite unhealthy isn't how often sex is desired or performed, but to what degree it usurps other aspects of a relationship. If one partner has a stronger appetite for sex than the other, it would be more healthy for them to reach a compromise, perhaps the one trying to be more demonstrative and the other trying to be less demanding. However, to artificially declare that infrequency is best across the board seems silly. Many people have active sex lives with frequent sexual contact with their partners. If both are willing and able where is this a bad thing, in and of itself? And if one partner desires more frequency than the couple currently enjoys, why is it more healthy for the relationship for the more active partner to give up his/her desires than for the less active one to step up, so to speak? My point is demanding capitulation in any relationship inequity is unfair and unhealthy in either direction. If one partner is unwilling to compromise, the relationship has problems far deeper than how much sex they enjoy.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That only really makes a difference, Sergeant, if you find yourself in a future relationship with a different woman and assume she should be exactly like your previous experience because, after all, she's a woman.
Many sexual stereotypes may hold true as general trends across a large population, but we have relationships with individuals who rarely fit all the stereotypes (or even most of the stereotypes) of their class.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
