posted
I don't think it's so much the reality of the situation, or her acceptance of it -- but more the telling-everybody. :0)
I think sexual compatibility *can* be make-or-break, depending on the couple, because I see sexual compatibility as having a lot to do with being generous, thoughtful, listening to your partner, and learning from them.
When sex is consistently bad it often-times is the result of one or both partners not listening to the other, or not honing in on what makes the other happy. So in that sense, yes, sexual compatibility CAN determine your relationship's future, because it's an aspect that shows personal compatibility in a very black and white light.
How much a guy respects you, how much a woman cares about how you feel, both these characteristics and others can be gathered from how a lover responds to you.
Bad "relations" can be indicative of deeper problems in your relationship, ones that might not always come to the surface.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
For me (and this is a big for me) the quality of sex I have had has been directly proportional to how much I love that person and how good our relationship is.
That's not to say the technical aspects are the best. Tony may not be the best at xyz or whatever. But the overall experience is so much more than just all the technical aspects *because* I love him - and that does translate directly into how good the sex is.
More love = more mindblowing in my experience. Not necessarily more proficient, or more... accomplished (really struggling for polite ways to put this here ) but overall definately better.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: How much a guy respects you, how much a woman cares about how you feel, both these characteristics and others can be gathered from how a lover responds to you.
Indeedy. If someone really cares about you they will care about how *you* feel in bed. And if both partners are fully committed to making the other feel good, chances are sexual compatibility won't be too much of an issue.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bad "relations" can be indicative of deeper problems in your relationship, ones that might not always come to the surface.
Would you say this about cooking or cleaning with as much surety? That if a woman simply refuses to make shrimp gumbo as spicy as her husband wants it, that refusal -- perhaps based on her own sensitivity and/or aversion to spicy foods -- might be indicative of a deeper problem in the relationship?
(Again, no euphemisms were harmed in the making of that sentence.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. It might be. More so if it’s something that becomes a reoccurring argument, rather than the couple discussing it and reaching an agreement that neither of them hold any resentment over – say, placing a bottle of hot sauce on the table so that the one who likes his food spicy can season as needed.
(No euphemism here either.)
Edit: To elaborate – the shrimp gumbo might not be the best he’s ever had, but by respectful discussion and a little experimentation the couple ought to be able to find a way that they can both enjoy their dinner. If they can’t – then yes, it’s probably indicative of deeper problems in their relationship.
posted
*nod* And I think that's where the analogy breaks down, unfortunately, because there really ISN'T an equivalent to optional, self-applied hot sauce in a sexual relationship, unless we're going to permit the existence of personal porn collections and/or swinging. So let's not go there.
So for most people in most marriages, in which hot sauce is not an option, it boils down to this: is having spicy food important enough to the husband that he would insist his wife make herself ill now and then to fulfill his desires? Does her desire to make him happy include a willingness to sit on a toilet with stomach cramps for four hours once a week?
To bring us back from the shores of metaphor for a second, I want to clarify that I'm not just talking about unusual kinks, here -- although of course those would be included. If a woman enjoys, more than anything else, wearing a diaper and binding her breasts and calling a guy "daddy," is it reasonable to expect a man disgusted by the thought to indulge her in this now and then? And if not, should they not even START dating, even if everything else is wonderful, just because she'll never have what she needs to have really, really fulfilling sex? On a more basic level, what if the guy just doesn't want sex as often, or the girl doesn't moan as erotically as the women of his dreams, and neither is able to wholeheartedly pick up this habit due to their own preferences? Ten years down the road, are they still going to be approaching sex like a performance? Should they break up and find other people who better fill this need?
My answer to that question is "of course not." Sex is a tiny part of a relationship that has been inflated beyond all rationality. People are convinced that they should be having better sex than they are, and sensitive people are convinced -- and take a look at most magazine covers for this one -- that they should be giving better sex than they are. The correlation of quality sex with quality emotion is so strong that people find themselves wondering, "Hm. The sex with X wasn't as good this time out. Does he not love me as much anymore?" And that approach inevitably -- and I say inevitably because sex WILL get worse, in some ways, over the length of any marriage, no matter how patient or loving both partners are -- leads to philandering and quiet desperation.
Sex is something you do for fun, like renting a video. No one says "Hm. I didn't like Thunderball as much as I liked Octopussy. There must be something wrong with our marriage."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>Sex is something you do for fun, like renting a video.
Mmm. . . I'd say "Sex is something you do for fun, like having sex."
But I'm perverse. . .
Anyway, I think that sex between a husband and wife is (and should be) a little weightier than renting a video. But I get Tom's meaning.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods back at Tom* But then the problem is still indicative of a deeper issue – one or both members of the couple placing too much importance on sexual performance at the expense of other aspects of the relationship.
Note that I haven't and don't disagree with the substance of anything you've said. I was just pointing out that sexual problems and cooking problems can indeed be symptoms of deeper relationship issues.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can be, but one of the points he's making, I think, is that sometimes sexual problems and cooking problems are merely symptoms of sexual or culinary incompatability, and the couple needs to decide fairly early on if they're dealbreakers. His argument seems to be that they shouldn't be, but that there may indeed be situations where it's simply too big a difference.
Accomodations can and should be sought, but I think there are people, for a variety of reasons, who shouldn't be together due to one (from the outside) minor incompatability. I also think it's a bit disingenuous to flatly say "anything can be overcome if you love each other enough" if you're not inside that situation. When I was a teenager I once smoked a pack of cigarettes to see what the big deal was. Didn't get it then, don't get it now, and never felt the slightest urge to try it again in all these years.
But I wouldn't dream of telling a 30-year smoker they should just give it up, it's easy, I did it with no problem so you should be able to too. I can advise they give it up (and I do), but they have an addiction I don't share or understand and I have to realize that. General advice only goes so far.
[ July 05, 2005, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what it all comes down to is how far a couple is willing to bend to make their relationship work, without feeling like they're breaking.
Good relationships, ones where the couple (for reasons besides great sex and shrimp gumbo) are more willing to bend and twist and finagle, are always going to be more willing to deal with the hot sauce now and again. Or conversely, not ask for the hot sauce all the time. Or ever! And be perfectly fine with that.
Bad relationships, or relationships in which personal sacrifice is a foreign concept (and i mean little sacrifices too, not just the doozies) will inevitably balk at being asked not to have hot sauce this time around. And I think a pairing where one or the other is offended/hurt/bothered by the hot sauce or lack thereof and can't get over it for the sake of the other person, is liable to fail.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate the way my husband cooks eggs. He overcooks them, every time. He also overcooks bacon.
But, because I care much more that he was thoughtful enough to want to cook breakfast for me and our kids (as opposed to my normal solution which is give 'em a bowl of cereal) I never complain, haven't for thirteen years. If the quality of my eggs and bacon were more important to me than my appreciation and love for my husband, I'd cook them myself.
Likewise, if my husband were not the "best sex I've ever had" I'd never tell him. Because sex is much, much more than renting a video, it's a physical expression of the love we have for each other, and it's a sacred, God-given gift meant only for husband and wife.
Talking about sex as something so casual, and even typing in a public forum "My wife is not the best sex I've ever had" seems so disrespectful and demeaning.
Of course, I'm not Tom's wife, and if she doesn't mind then it's none of my business. I'm just saying how it would feel to ME.
I guess it just boils down to me seeing sex in a completely different light than other people do.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if sex is less of a big deal for Tom in part because he has had so many varied experiences? That sex has been casual to him at least at some point in his life? Might it tend to be a bigger deal for someone who has leaned towards abstinence until mating with one partner for life? Or at least only kept sex with in committed relationships, never casual with a stranger?
Whether or not you think this is a good or a bad thing probably varies greatly from person to person.
I guess it's like kissing. For some people, kissing means commitment (I am one of those. If I kiss, I am choosing exclusivity.) But for another, it "isn't a big deal", and so it doesn't carry the weight of commitment with it. Just because they kiss you doesn't mean they won't be kissing another person next weekend. They may choose for other reasons to exclusively kiss only one person, but it isn't because kissing is a big deal to them, it's because they value the commitment with that person.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I wonder if sex is less of a big deal for Tom in part because he has had so many varied experiences? That sex has been casual to him at least at some point in his life?"
That's likely a part of it, I'd imagine. I certainly don't believe, as Belle expressed, that sex is merely "a physical expression of the love we have for each other, and ... a sacred, God-given gift meant only for husband and wife." If I did, I wouldn't've had sex with other people.
But if I DID believe that, I'd be horrified if the sex ever went less than perfectly (and, honestly, it occasionally has, with Christy and others, for reasons ranging from the rare miscommunication to unexpected, climate-related chafing). Because if it WERE a physical expression of our love for each other, I'd be bothered by the implications.
Another part of it, I think, is that I'd like to believe that Christy does not need to believe that my expectations of her are unrealistically inflated to understand that I adore her above every other human being on the planet. She knows I find her beautiful, witty, charming, wise, and understanding. She knows I like some of her quirks, and dislikes others. And if she were kind enough to make me breakfast multiple times, I'd've found a way by now to ask for french toast instead.
I'm not a perfect person. And I don't have to pretend -- in public or in private -- that my WIFE is a perfect person to think she's a better person than I am, or to express to her how ridiculously lucky I believe I am. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive my contrarian view, but sex seems to be to be nothing but the most animalistic side of humans, a side that reveals our most primal nature. The controlling of it is what makes us human, aye, and when done within personal moral bonds, it gains a mildly spiritual side.
But I do not think one can ever escape what it is, a reduction of people into animals, the horrible and delightful urges to do what nature wishes, which is to "pru irevu" -- be fruitful and multiply.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if I DID believe that, I'd be horrified if the sex ever went less than perfectly (and, honestly, it occasionally has, with Christy and others, for reasons ranging from the rare miscommunication to unexpected, climate-related chafing). Because if it WERE a physical expression of our love for each other, I'd be bothered by the implications.
You think so? Do you think that's just you, or do you think a lot of people with that belief would reach similar conclusions?
I certainly hold Belle's belief. But that in no way means I expect sex to be perfect. I believe that marriage is a sacred gift from God that can be shared by man and woman eternally, yet it doesn't surprise me when things aren't perfect in our marriage.
In both cases, I realize it is up to us to make it the best we can. And I believe that in both cases we can appeal to God's help, counsel, and guidance. In fact, I believe where our marriage relationship is concerned, we have received many direct blessings from the Lord in specific response to our asking for them. I don't recall asking God specifically for help with our sex-life, though. (It's possible that I have and don't now remember.) I just believe that help would be available if I needed it.
Every aspect of our marriage is what we make it. We are responsible. There are some things that get in the way that are just part of who we are and we can't do much about it. So in those cases, we smile, forgive, love, and don't dwell on it. Or, at least we know that is what we *should* do.
Whether you look at sex as a "big deal" or casual, there is a *wide* range of how you can respond to that. It just so happens that Tom and I reach similar ends (committed monogamous sex) through very different means. But I think both of us greatly prefer the means we have chosen for ourselves.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The comparisons between sex and cooking remind me of the movie "Woman on Top" (not porn, honestly) starring Penelope Cruz.
The comments about sex with a spouse being or not being the best sex ever remind me of one of the best scenes from "In the Company of Men" (also not porn).
--Enigmatic (condensing all debate into recommending movies)
Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: Forgive my contrarian view, but sex seems to be to be nothing but the most animalistic side of humans, a side that reveals our most primal nature. The controlling of it is what makes us human, aye, and when done within personal moral bonds, it gains a mildly spiritual side.
But I do not think one can ever escape what it is, a reduction of people into animals, the horrible and delightful urges to do what nature wishes, which is to "pru irevu" -- be fruitful and multiply.
And yet . . . pru u'revu is one of the first mitzvos in the Torah.
And the Gemara says that the Shechina (God's Presence) is present when man and wife are together as one.
Certainly sex can be animalistic; but it need not be.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Animalistic sex can be quite fun... so can sacred sex... and the sacred things are best when you bear in mind that they are all in fun, like Christmas.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You think so? Do you think that's just you, or do you think a lot of people with that belief would reach similar conclusions?"
Yeah, I do. I think a lot of people DO reach similar conclusions; I think many, many people out there confuse good sex with genuine emotion, and form attachments to people based on gymnastics.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:and form attachments to people based on gymnastics.
This actually reminds me of the phenomenon amongst LDS, at least, and perhaps other religions, of "feeling the Spirit" and mistaking it for an emotional bond with someone of the opposite sex.
It was the weirdest thing. With one guy I dated, when we would attend a church function where I was feeling the Spirit very strongly, I would feel incredibly "attracted" to him. But once out of that situation, the feeling mostly went away, replaced by annoyance with him for the ways we were not compatable. Take of that what you will. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're reading more into my comment than was meant to be there, Tom. Just because something is a gift from God doesn't mean it's perfect. Children are a blessing and gift from God but by no means are they perfect and no parent expects that parenting will always be a joy. Sometimes it's trying, frustrating, and heartbreaking, but children are still a gift and blessing from God.
Sex is a gift, meant to be enjoyed by married couples but of course it's not always perfect. It is, though, always a sacred way of expressing our love towards each other. It doesn't mean we approach sex like we do a religious ceremony. You can have fun with it, you can laugh and be playful or you can be deeply sensual, there are many different aspects to sex. But we understand it to be something important, something more than just physical gymnastics, the love and emotion and the bonding it creates between married couples is always at the root of it, rather than pure enjoyment.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really see much difference between "animalistic sex" and "sacred sex". To me whether or not it is sacred depends on how casual you are about it. Do you sleep with any number of people casually at any given time? Or do you reserve it for a special person you are committed to?
So if they are different, than "animalistic sex" is sex without regard to commitment rather than sex that you really get into and tap into your most primal desires. Primal sex can still be "sacred sex" to me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
that was kind of my point beverly... that the most sacred things needn't be spiritualized -- that in fact the most sacred things are the sacramental ones. It was an accident, but Christmas really was an excellent choice-- The Incarnation is certainly a sacred point of Christianity.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been reading this forum and know for a fact i am a minority of a minority!
I waned my spouse to be the first one and the only one to ever be sexual with me in any way.
I choose to wait until I was engaged before my first kiss.
Why? --To be COMPLETELY pure and new for the one I married
--To have no past sexual romances to hamper our relationship with thoughts of jealousy or regret So my spouse can know; "No one's lips have touched these but mine."
--To know someone waited and choose you makes one feel special and wonderful. It makes a relationship strong and solid, something that is based on things deeper than love itself.
Sex is in a way, like a very special new gift. If you had the choice of getting smelly used shoes, or clean new shoes which would you choose?
I do agree with a comment near the beginning of this forum. My spouse was a virgin when we married, but had tried a few things. Those things did make me sad--sad because my spouse hadn't let me open the whole physical sexual package, but only saved the last bit of wrapping for me to take off.
But, the fact that my spouse waited to have sex before marriage was wonderful and helped me deal with the other things easier.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Those things did make me sad--sad because my spouse hadn't let me open the whole physical sexual package, but only saved the last bit of wrapping for me to take off."
I really hope you don't take this the wrong way, but this attitude strikes me as being astoundingly self-absorbed -- but, then, I don't conflate physical attraction with emotional attachment.
Had Christy slept with a hundred men before meeting me, I have trouble imagining that I'd think of her as a smelly, used shoe. Should I assume that she somehow loved me less in that situation than if I were, for example, her first and only kiss?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand what she was saying though, although I am not in complete agreement with it.
Things have value because we assign a value to them. I think in a lot of ways that no matter what you choose, you miss out on something. I think that if someone values themselves and their virginity so highly that they want to share it only with their life mate, it is a good thing. A lot of sexual things can be learned by almost anyone who cares enough to learn them, so I don't buy the "cold fish" theory, saying that only by sleeping around can you be sure you know what you like. There is plenty of time to experiment during a marriage, and God knows there is plenty of motivation to do so...
However, I don't think that waiting until you are engaged to kiss someone is something I would have wanted to do, either. A lot of people in the past had little or no motivation to please their partners, in part because everyone was so uptight about sex. No one discussed it, it was taboo to talk about it even with your spouse sometimes.....so people in general DIDN'T learn to please their partners. They didn't even care to find out what their desires were at all...
Also, just like other things, not all physical contact is created equal. A kiss isn't sex, and there is a lot that you miss out on by cutting yourself off from a lot of normal dating situations. I am not saying that it was wrong for her to do so...she seems really happy about how it worked out, so it was the right choice for her, I guess....but I see something wrong with the attitude that says he "only saved the last bit of wrapping for me to take off.". He had a life before you, like it or not, and that life made him who he was when he met you..kisses and other "experiments " and all. If this is "all" he left for you, to me that seems like you aren't placing value where I would...but you aren't me, so that is ok.
You do say the fact that he was a virgin "made it easier" to accept the rest...and that just seems a little odd as well.
One way or another you miss out on SOMETHING, and there is something good to be had with the moderate view I think. I didn't sleep around but I did date other women before I met my wife, and my experiences with the women I dated before meeting my wife made me a more confident, sensitive, and caring person...and I wouldn't trade those experiences for anything, because I wouldn't have been the man my wife fell for without them. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: --To know someone waited and choose you makes one feel special and wonderful. It makes a relationship strong and solid, something that is based on things deeper than love itself.
To know that someone's dated plenty of other people, explored their different options, and then chooses you makes you feel special and wonderful, too.
I'm not saying one is any better than the other, just that there is more than one way to look at it.
Better imagery than reading "animalistic" as "animal", to be sure.
quote:To know that someone's dated plenty of other people, explored their different options, and then chooses you makes you feel special and wonderful, too.
quote:And I think that's where the analogy breaks down, unfortunately, because there really ISN'T an equivalent to optional, self-applied hot sauce in a sexual relationship, unless we're going to permit the existence of personal porn collections and/or swinging. So let's not go there.
Well, actually...
*WARNING: PERSONAL INFORMATION AHEAD. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.*
* * * * * * * * I tend to like fantasy a lot of the time. I'm talking characters, settings, a whole little plot that enhances the sex for me. My husband is not into this, mostly because he feels he's not good at it (and I have to admit, it loses something when I have to feed him his lines.) So we've come to an agreement: occasionally, we play one of my little "games". Most of the time, we just do what we normally do (since "normal" for us means neither of us minds if the other does something unexpected and changes things up, and he prefers to express his emotions physically, not verbally while I tend to do a fair amount of talking in addition to physicalities.) If I have a desire for fantasy on a night when he's not in the mood, we have agreed that I am always welcome to close my eyes and imagine whatever I want, while he stays silent. It works quite well, and ends up fulfilling both our needs better.
It also helps that we're both really comitted to telling the other when something's not working for us, or when we need more of something.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Tom, Kwea, and Enigmatic for making some nice responses there...
To save yourself up for your partner as a complete gift is a wonderful thing...
To expect it of your partner is to have great self-respect and look out for your own needs in an entirely appropriate way.
Edit: I think I may have misread the post a little... I'll shorten this to "I hope, lightpaths, I correctly infer that you have dealt with the situation from your use of words like 'did make me sad' as opposed to 'does'."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomD - for some reason your comments earlier really bothered me and I couldn't quite place why. I agree, more or less, with your opinions here, but for some reason reading about how Christy knows and understands she's not the best sex you ever had grated on me.
I think it's because you said it. Whenever I hear one person say another person doesn't mind something that many people would, my first reaction is to look at the other person to see if there's honest agreement or a hooded glance away...
Had Christy come in and said the exact same thing, I would have been impressed at her honesty and strength of character. Still am, frankly, but hearing it from you (though I've no reason to doubt it) comes off too much like "Oh, she loves it, don't you honey? See, she loves it!"
Only reason I mention it now is because impressions like that might result in more argument than you'd get otherwise, and for different reasons than simple disagreement.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: --To know someone waited and choose you makes one feel special and wonderful. It makes a relationship strong and solid, something that is based on things deeper than love itself.
In addition to what Enigmatic said (which is true for me personally, as well), I feel compelled to mention that if someone is looking to their partner's purity (or any of their other qualities) as the source of their specialness or wonderfulness, they might want to reevaluate, or else prepare to feel non-special and unextraordinary. In my personal experience, other people are ultimately inadequate to provide that for you, no matter how wonderful they may be. So, they're choosing to have sex with you. So, they've either had sex or not had it before. Is that your measure of your self worth? Their choices have peripheral association at best with your personal value. Define your own personal value, don't allow someone else's decisions to define it.
Posts: 186 | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I have a desire for fantasy on a night when he's not in the mood, we have agreed that I am always welcome to close my eyes and imagine whatever I want, while he stays silent.
If you didn't have his permission to do this, how would that change things?
--------
quote: To save yourself up for your partner as a complete gift is a wonderful thing...
That's only if you think of sex as a gift to be handed over to someone else. I don't barter with my body parts in that fashion; it smacks too much of prostitution.
quote: To expect it of your partner is to have great self-respect and look out for your own needs in an entirely appropriate way.
I'm not sure that these two things are even correlated, much less causated.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody who advocates waiting until marriage is focused on the physical aspect of saving their body, Tom and comparing it to prostitution is deliberately insulting.
We're focusing on the emotional aspect, that someone cared enough about their future spouse to wait for them. It is not all about the body parts or the physical nature of sex, it's about emotional commitment and love.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We're focusing on the emotional aspect, that someone cared enough about their future spouse to wait for them."
I cared enough about my future spouse to not marry anyone else first. Isn't that considerably more important?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) but overall definately better.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
