The topic seems to come up once a week. “My wife or girlfriend doesn’t like sex” or “My sig isn’t putting out so I started cheating” or any of a host of other ways to ask the same thing.
How many of you actually require sex in a relationship? I have a friend who broke up with his girlfriend, one of his reasons was she was planning to wait for marriage and he didn't want to wait that long (a few years at least)
Would you date a woman who was not planning to have sex with you until after the vows are taken? What about someone who won't until the relationship is 'serious' and 'long term'?
Back when I was a whelp, I used to have a 4-date rule: No sex after 4 dates and it was over. I modified that rule with a little experience, but I still feel that sex is absolutely vital to a relationship. I’ve never had a problem with that aspect of the relationship, but perhaps that’s just because I never let myself get into a relationship with someone if I felt that might be a problem.
Irrespective, from a male point of view, sex is definitely a vital part of a relationship – and that does not mean vital once every other week or so. To be so presumptious as to speak for men generally, we need sex often, and we don’t have to be in any particular mood in order to feel that need, or to satisfy it.
To answer your particular query, I would not consider now (if it were an option), nor would I have considered since I was 18 or so, dating “seriously” someone who would not be willing to have sex with me.
But that’s me. As I said in a previous post, I think that people actually look for partners who have similar levels of experience and similar expectations. It’s important to find the right fit, so to speak. Out.
I wouldn’t wait to long personally. In my experience, there are very few people that wait for marriage due to very serious religous pricipals.
In any relationship that went long term, the sex happened pretty early. I could see it taking time if a person was very SERIOUS about their beliefs, but I don’t see many people with that kind of conviction. Even women that say they have that kind of conviction, often don’t wink, wink.
michelle, this is a great post. maybe its because im a college kid and think with my dick, but i believe that sex is a healthy party of a relationship. if both members of the relationship say they want to abstain, then they should, but if only one does i dont really think that is healthy. maybe its just the way i was brought up, but i doubt i would stay with a girl for to long if she wanted to wait years. yeah sometimes you gotta get laid so you dont go crazy, but in a relationship its a great way to express your feelings.
Sure I’d wait. If all I wanted in a relationship was sexual gratification, i’d date my hand. haha. But i’m serious, i would wait. But the problem is that most girls i’ve talked to seem to think ‘if we have sex, he loves me’ or ‘he’s committed to me’ or whatever. It should be the other way around… the committment should come first.
I’ve done both Michelle… had a girlfriend for 3 years who wanted to wait for marriage. Right now I have a girlfriend who’s hornier than me (if that’s possible). I don’t think this relationship has the stuff of marriage in it, and we’re probably going to break up relatively soon. In retrospect, I can definitely say (and it’s very hard for me to) that waiting is the better option. Not for any religious reasons in particular, but rather because it makes it that much more incredible when you do. There is something to be said for “saving” it until you find that one person. I know that sounds pretty weak and pathetic, but that’s my two cents.
I wouldn’t wait until we got married because I would never marry a girl that I didn’t already have a great sex life with to begin with. On the other hand, as long as it wasn’t months upon months, I wouldn’t mind waiting a fair amount of time and would also respect her more in the long run (I’ve dumped a few girls for being what I consider raging whores in their past).
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “sex.” If you mean that she won’t at the very least give oral sex or jerk me off here and there, then no way. If she’s to the brink of “giving in” every time we are in the mood, and instead gives a blowjob, then I could keep the relationship going, but if it’s a case where she constantly shuts me down with, “I want to…but” then that’s where it ends. I’m human and I need some sexual gratification.
In fact, I have a perfect example. About a month ago, I was dating a girl who was in her last few weeks of med school (match day was the 14th I believe) and she was a great girl. Very nice, cute, intelligent, etc. Now, this was somewhat of a unique situation, but the main principle still applies. The reason being was that wherever she matched at, it would have been far away (Boston, Phoenix, New York) and that of course would mean that we’d have to have some sort of long-distance relationship, but one that had a base. I believe we dated for around 4-5 weeks and in that time she would constantly feel on me, kiss on me, all of that. But as soon as it came to anything sexual, she’d stop what she had originally initiated. Her explanation was that she didn’t want to get hurt. My interpretation of that however, was more along the lines of “you’re not special enough to me.” Now keep in mind this was after she’d said things like, “I’ve never felt this way, you’re so perfect, etc.” All the usual bullshit. lol Then again, I think she may have caught wind of my reputation so that may have brought about the worry of getting hurt. Anyhow, being as she was leaving soon and I knew she wasn’t going to do anything sexual…I stopped talking to her. I know this makes me sounds like an asshole but had she done something with me, I may have kept things up with her. Even so, being as she’d be in another state…I doubt I could commit to just her. Just being honest.
I wouldn’t buy a car, a short term commitment, without driving it a bit. A longer term commitment should be looked at even more thoroughly. Sex is important to me. I would never get in a relationship with someone that didn’t think it was important too. Talking is one thing but walking the walk is the only way to know for sure. I don’t care about a woman’s past history as long as I think she’s ready to be monogamous (if that’s the kind of relationship you want). People do change over time, discussing attitudes about married life are important too. Some people assume that your sex life has to go to shit, you have to gain weight, and you have to get dull and serious when you are married…especially after kids show up. Well, none of that has to happen if you don’t want it to. She has to want it that way too. So far it’s worked for me. Maybe I’m just lucky. My oldest kid is in college and she’s my best friend besides my wife. My wife and I are still in love, not just love each other but the stuff you first feel…a lot of the time anyway. It’s going on 21 years together. We still have wild sex, we still laugh a lot, and we are anything but dull. You choose how to live your life every day, choose wisely, and don’t settle.
Not being a guy, perhaps I have no business answering this thread, but I thought I would anyways. See, girls are in a real predicament with this sex thing in relationships, usually because they take it as a sure sign of committment. Guys, on the other hand (and I’m getting this idea from reading some of the responses) tend to take sex as a given and necessary thing, not necessarily indicative of their long-term plans with any particular girl. So, what should a girl do? Wait and lose the guy because he doesn’t want to wait? Have sex and then perhaps lose the guy anyway and then regret that she didn’t wait? Have sex and enjoy it and then wonder why the guy she really wants isn’t interested in a girl who has been with soooooo many guys? Or have sex with as many guys as she wants and then not tell her future partner exactly how many there really were before him? It really is a predicament when guys want to have sex often, but want girls with little experience. Who exactly are these guys having the experience with? Do you guys want your sisters to have as much experience as you are willing to have?
Yes, sex is very important in a relationship, but it should not be taken lightly either. I am married and no, my husband was not my first and only, but I will say that he is the only man who ever REALLY satisfied me sexually. And I think that is because he is the one I am truly most comfortable with, so I can be open and tell him what I want and when.
maybe if I was more naive I would wait till marriage if asked too by a woman that I thought loved me and whom I loved, but now… come on with Copsfan’s story how could I freakin risk that? I’m sorry to say this… Copsfan… but if you had sex with your current wife before and if she exhibited the behavior she currently does, you probably wouldn’t have married her right? sure you would probably try to fix the problem, together. And if you did then great. My opinion is that a woman should enjoy sex, should enjoy being with a man and want both. That is what I and I think most men want in a relationship, how can you find this out without sex before marriage?
Nice Post
I am a big T-dude, but guess what, I haven’t taken the full out plunge either, for various reasons, but I have done everything else, and do appreciate it…I think its individual–for me at 24, yes indeed i do need sexual “play” in relationships, but, I think the act of sex needs to be made a little more sacred than what it currently is seen as …sure, we need it for gratification, but shit, if we acted on all our other instincts, we’d be pretty fucked…committment should indeed come first, and if you truly appreciate somebody, whether or not they want to wait to have sex should not matter worth a tinker’s damn–So much of the problems in current day society can be linked to the problem of instant gratification of getting some.
Doug–nothing pathetic there. Surveys show that the most sexually active and most sexually satisfied group in America is married evangelicals, and they believe sex should only be had in marriage.
I find it ironic that people who practice incredible physical and emotional sacrifices in pounding out final reps and maintaining strict diets find sexual self-denial so difficult and alien. This is undoubtedly a reflection of culture rather than physiology or even innate psychological drives.
Personally, I wouldn’t even contemplate a relationship with a woman who expected sex before marriage. (Moot point; I’m married.) That conviction is ultimately religious in origin, but there is plenty of evidence that it works better. Divorce rates went up after the sexual revolution and I would argue this was a result of the sexual revolution. That relationships do not last today is largely a cosequence of seeing sex as an appetite to be satisfied rather than a sacred activity within a monogamous lifelong union.
As for “needing” sex, there is an element of truth in this, but “desiring” sex is more accurate. There is no physiological harm done by abstinence and plenty of evidence that sex outside of marriage ultimately damages society and individuals. Probably too grand a claim to defend in this setting, but I think the social decay of the last forty years should speak for itself. (It is worth noting that the one person who has tried both abstinence and non-abstinence concluded that the former works better without invoking religion.)I heard about a study that found that civilizations tend to be very strict in their sexual ethics before and during their asendency, but at their peaks declining sexual standards contributed to the social chaos that brought them down. (The study looked at several hundred societies if I remember correctly.) Those conducting the study argued that the sexual drive is sublimated by the strict sexual ethic into social dynamism and this dynamism is dissapated by a looser sexual ethic.
As for Cy’s date, her conduct is deplorable but to be expected given our current views of sex. She wants all the emotional gratification of a relationship and engages in physical activities that arouse a man, but then pulls away. We snicker at the Victorians and other more sexually strict societies, but their ethic did reduce this sort of teasing. (Spooning does have me scratching my head, though! And the colonists did put up strangers in their daughters’ beds–with a board between them–but this was no impediment at times.)I’m not insinuating this lady is deliberately frustrating Cy, but the fact that she engages in this conduct without considering this issue is one of the negative consequences of our society’s sexual ethos. She worries about getting “hurt” but sees no imposition on a man by arousing him and then declining to gratifying him. So much for the sexual revolution. Sartre anyone?
Michelle, this is a good question and one long overdue.
I'd just like to say that my perspective is probably a little more international than most (having lived on three different continents and visted about 25 countries), and having seen a little more of the world, I can confidently say that there are very few places that are more screwed up with regards to sex in relationships than America in particular and English-speaking countries in general. (I haven't been to the Middle East, but from what I hear they're probably more screwed up than we are.) Look, sex is a natural biological function. A woman who doesn't feel ready to have sex shouldn't - but that "woman" is in some way not truly an adult as far as I'm concerned. Same way, a guy who worries about how many people his girlfriend has slept with in the past needs to get a different hobby. Sleeping with a lot of people doesn't mean anything other than - you've slept with a lot of people. Woopie.
To answer the original question, no, I wouldn't, as a policy, go out long-term with someone who I wasn't sleeping with any more than I would go out with someone who slept with me but wouldn't, I don't know, talk to me or something. As has been pointed out above, sex is a large and integral part of any adult relationship. If it's not there, then something's missing.
To look at it another way, I could go out with (a) a woman who's smart, funny, great looking, etc. but who won't sleep with me, or I could go out with (b) a woman who's smart, funny, great looking, etc. and will sleep with me. All of a sudden, it seems like a no-brainer, huh?
I have another question for women on the board. Would you date a man who would not want to have sex until you are married? Buahahaha…see how things change…
