[QUOTE=Derpamix;1130673]I don't know anyone who has commit to the person they lost their virginity to, I think it's a romanticism view that's been long lost, unfortunately.[/QUOTE]
I took my husband's virginity and we're still together after 17 years, 16 of those married. My niece lost her virginity with her husband. It does happen.
You guys should read Sex at dawn by Christopher Ryan. It makes this whole thread moot, and it's an awesome eye-opening read.
I despise children, so I got neutered.
Now I can point it at anyone, and no one cares.
(My wife does get final say at WHOM I am pointing it at, to be clear)
[QUOTE=Winterbike;1131174]You guys should read Sex at dawn by Christopher Ryan. It makes this whole thread moot, and it's an awesome eye-opening read.[/QUOTE]
Except it's basically rubbish.
[QUOTE=Susie;1130366]I have recently been thinking over sex in the context of primitive survival. A female, especially with a child, without a male protector, would not survive.[/QUOTE]
That's correct. Watch "Quest for Fire", classic film on the topic. Women make themselves useful with cooking/healing/sex so they don't get kicked out of the village.
[QUOTE=Susie;1130366]Why is it so hard to find a guy who will not require sex in order to decide if he wants a realtionship? [/QUOTE]
This part is confusing, we just established there needs to be a trade. Men like [I]physical [/I]communication.
[QUOTE=Susie;1130366]So why then, does it seem that so many males want to spread their seed far and wide? [/QUOTE]
Survival of mankind. Men like having sex with as many healthy (attractive) females as possible.
[QUOTE=RichMahogany;1130525]I can't fathom committing to being with someone with whom I might not be sexually compatible. I don't think it's immoral or unfair to consider the sexual aspect of a relationship important, and I personally resent any implication to that effect.[/QUOTE]
For me the larger question is how is this compatibility determined?
I dont' think that having sex with the person is the only determination of whether or not the individuals involved are compatible.
I'd be more concerned with things like how the other perceives sex as part of the whole relationship (and/or philosophically in general), how often the person wants to have sex ideally (or, an indication of whether your sex drives match up), whether, when, and how many children a person may want and how that might impact the individual's sex life, as well as the level of commitment between partners that each partner needs to have in order to feel comfortable delving into the details of a sexual relationship all indicate "sexual compatibility."
For me, the physical aspects are really learned and designed between the two individuals over time. People who care for and about each other seek to please each other -- and as such will work to learn the sexual language and practices that creates the pleasurable, unifying experience of sex for both parties.
Thus, that can't be determined in a short time over having sex a few times to 'try things out' or determine compatibility. If there is sexual attraction, a good foundation of relationship, and a similar outlook in terms of sex. . .then there is compatibility. The physical can be co-created over time, adapted, etc.
As such, I dont' think it's necessarily a requirement that a person should have sex before the commitment level that creates comfort and safety for both individuals (which, btw, if htere is that pressure demonstrates *incompatibility* sexually) in order to define or determine compatibility.
From women's perspective, yes resources and protection are essential for women who are pregnant or with a small child due to a variety of added constraints. However, a relationship is about a two people and (only talking about heterosexual relationships at this point) what is the best strategy for a woman may not be the best strategy for a man, and strategies are largely dependent on the environment a particular individual is in. There is a lot of literature out there that aims to untangle all of this from an evolutionary angle. There is some empirical evidence to support the idea that monogamy is a compromise that benefits both individuals (e.g. risky environments coupled with lengthy juvenile periods require biparental care). However, just because there is a pattern that psychologists have uncovered, it does not mean that life or a relationship has to work that way because every relationship is different. What works for some people, may not work for others. And again, environment (including socio-cultural) matters.
On a more personal note, if you choose to have sex on the first date, on your wedding night, or at some other time point - all that matters is that whomever you are trying to build the relationship with is on the same page.
[QUOTE=Susie;1130366]I have recently been thinking over sex in the context of primitive survival. A female, especially with a child, without a male protector, would not survive. Females would have needed to make sure that they had a partner who was going to stick around before mating. Fathers and uncles and brothers would know this and beat to a pulp anyone who tried to do otherwise. So why then, does it seem that so many males want to spread their seed far and wide? Why is it so hard to find a guy who will not require sex in order to decide if he wants a realtionship?[/QUOTE]
Go to the Primal attraction thread.
Primeval living was not constantly dictated by survival; there was a steady way of life. Males didn't really leave any females because they never were 'with' them in the first place like a marriage. Children are raised by the tribe, not the nuclear family. Males spread their seed because their genes are selfish, and sex is a form of competition for the genes' reproduction. Guys want to spread their seed and do so by gaining power. Women want to get various kinds of seeds, and they especially want men of power.
Women, in monogamy, must battle between getting the seed of the powerful who will surely leave her and the help of the reliable, nice guy who she may be forced to take the seed from. Women, in primeval living, got the powerful seeds and had all the help needed from the tribe's people.
In feminism, women want to get the best of both worlds again. They want sexual freedom to get that powerful seed, and they want government assistance and alimony to get support when they raise the child from that powerful seed. Powerful men win, subordinate men lose. Women win. Humanity's genetics win.
I don't know anyone who has commit to the person they lost their virginity to, I think it's a romanticism view that's been long lost, unfortunately.
Sentimental, yes. Romantic, no.