Is it really THAT big of a deal???Follow

This is all backwards.

Would there be romance without sex?

..of course not.

The question would be better asked "is there anything wrong with sexualizing romance?"

Before I start arguing with you, can I just confirm that this is what you meant and not the opposite?

Nexa

Well, not in current times, but if you look at courtly love, it demonstrates that there can be quite passionate romances without sex.

It was highly erotic, to be sure, but in many or even most cases sex was not the goal and often didn't even occur.


edit: When I say not in current times I don't mean it doesn't occur, but that it's harder to point to something and say "there, that's it" whereas courtly love was, in it's time, easy to use as an example.

Edited, Jun 2nd 2008 10:01am by Celcio

Sure, I believe people do enjoy flirting and romance without sex. But truly, the words wouldnt' even exist if there were no sexual and/or domestic desires between men and women (or people more generally).

Truly sexless flirtation is really just bantering.


edit as I'm having a terrible time with quotes today.



Edited, Jun 2nd 2008 4:26pm by Elinda

Mm, circles. /suggestive eyebrows

I wanted to show the pretense in sex. Sex is an activity like any other. It's not intimate and it's not special. People can have sex in large groups, with horses, or even with picnic tables so it obviously lacks these magical qualities oft attributed to it.

Just because sex isn't some super awesome consummation of love does not mean it is valueless. It's just as silly to say souls must exist because human are just animals if we don't have souls.

Not to be rude, but it seems that all the value you have placed in sex you have actually placed into imaginary attributes assigned to it by you. What's more, you seem to only acknowledge the value of the qualities assigned to it by yourself, and ignore any innate worth in it just being another act.

Eating, breathing, and sleeping keep our species going as well, and I think those are pretty mundane activities.

In one part of the paragraph you are treating sex as a routine biological mechanism, and they next you glorify it as something much more than that? Animals have sex, many without any degree of intimacy or family unit. It's just another act for them. This proves that these are qualities you have added, because the act can be performed without their presence at all. If sex can be had without love, then love is not an element of sex no matter how many times sex is had in conjunction to love. If sex can be had without intimacy, then intimacy is not an element of sex no matter how many times sex is had in conjunction with intimacy. Etc.

Again, it seems like you are telling me that sex is an extremely ordinary biological process like any other, and that because of this, for some reason you have neglected to mention, it becomes special and extraordinary. I'm going to need you to fill in the blank for me here.

It is a completely failed endeavor, and will most likely be reversed, but thanks for noticing.

Edited, Jun 2nd 2008 12:51pm by Pride

I think it's because it's one of the only "ordinary biological processes" that we share with another human being.

Sex with a horse or a picnic table is not an "ordinary biological process."

But ultimately, I think you're right. The only thing special about sex is the value we place on it. The good news is, being sentient and (for the most part) intelligent creatures, we can place those values on it, or not, as we so choose.

I agree. Moderation in all things, of course. You can't depend on it, or use it as a gauge for your relationship.

My husband and I sat up for hours Friday night discussing art, starting with Jackson Pollack and ending with cave paintings and the detail (or lack thereof) found in them. It was one of those nights that we felt so close to one another.

I tried to explain to my mother what an awesome night we had and she looked at me like I was insane.

A good friend of ours (a marriage counselor) once made the observation that in terms of sex, "Sometimes you go out to eat at McDonalds and sometimes you go out to eat at Safee's East (a 5 star restaurant in Michigan)." There are no constants in a marriage and sex is no exception.

If you are living in a sexless marriage you are missing out on an important aspect of intimacy. You should look to see what is causing this, be it children, bills, low testosterone, poor sleep habits, work, whatever. Fix the cause and a sexless marriage will become a romantic and close physical relationship as well.

Totem

or it could just be that very busy lives mean that both parties would rather sit and talk/cuddle/stare exhaustedly into each others eyes/communicate in the time they have together rather than have sex.

Edited, Jun 2nd 2008 4:04pm by tarv

Hope everything is good with you and Mr. Thumb. He is a very, very lucky man.



I've gone 8 months without due to complications of pregnancy/childbirth. However, it was with the expectation of mind-blowing sex when it was over, which we had. (Oh god, we banged like teenagers again). So I think that would be a dry spell, not totally sexless. I can't really imagine being in a totally sexless marriage. Here's why:

The first thing marriage means is that I really love this person. I enjoy this person's company and I'm comfortable around her.

One of the many things marriage means (for me) is that I'm not going to, em, "wander". And my wife won't either. So then if we're not having sex with one another, we're both flying solo.

So I lived in LA and know, um, interesting people. One could try having some kind of open marriage. I've just not seen it work out - especially for the woman, who often has really low self esteem, but that shouldn't be a problem for anyone who can stand this place. Let's set this aside.

Thus let's assume each married person is going solo. Now, I love my wife a lot. I don't mind her going on a date with her vibrator. However, I really love her. I wonder if there isn't anything I can do to help out. I don't really know what it's like for a girl, but as a guy, I can always find something for my wife to do, even if it's just lie there and let me gaze at her (if she's too tired to do anything else...did I mention we've been married 8 years and have two kids?). I assume for most women, presented with a guy qualifying under the above assumptions, they could find a use for the guy (perhaps not every time, but, say, once a week or two). I'd assume something is just wrong if I couldn't help out.

Now of course we could use the narrow definition of sex, the act which, when done unprotected, could lead to kids. That, alone, a couple could probably do without. There are just so many other things to try.



As much as it pains me to agree with shadowrealm, constant average sex is probably going to make me happier. Otherwise I'd be asking and getting shot down constantly. But it's just never been a problem. If anything, my wife and I are getting better at it over time. Sure it isn't exactly like when we were falling in love, but we have expanded our vocabulary.

My only question to those who say that sex really does not involve intimacy ever, or it shouldn't, at least, is why is it when a spouse or partner goes outside the marriage bed and has sex with another person, that their partner gets all huffy about it? Why does that act hurt the person cheated on? If it really didnt mean anything to that person, and really, it's just an act but holds no intimacy, why does it cause marriages to fail, relationships to flounder, and people to move on? If having sex holds no intimacy, than to have your partner have sex with someone else other than you should mean nothing or little to you. It should mean as much as a hug or a handshake, less so than your partner going out for a beer with his/her buds.