Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 97 of 97

Thread: Sex and Primal relationships page 10

  1. #91
    Winterbike's Avatar
    Winterbike is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    I agree that sex has a lot of that baggage associated with it, and it doesn't need to, and it's a shame. I agree that religion is the primary culprit for the baggage.

    I don't think that threesomes are necessarily 'better' or 'more meaningful'.

    What you are describing sounds Utopian. I'm not saying that to say it's bad, just that maybe it's impossible in an imperfect world?
    Not necessarily threesomes, but more... openness? in general might be a step in the right way. And I try to aim for ''awesome'' instead of possible/impossible, we'll see how that goes haha.

  2. #92
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,219
    Thanks for the discussion. It was interesting.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  3. #93
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    8,089
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    You're talking about being "bad" as if it's purely caused by inexperience. Trust me, there are people with plenty of experience who are just clumsy and awkward and unfulfilling to fornicate with.
    I'm mostly looking at inexperience in two ways: 1. total lack of experience; and 2. lack of experience between the two people. With enough of 2, I believe that people can develop a mutually pleasurable experience, thus making their sex life "good."

    So you're claiming you and your husband are good at sex now despite having absolutely 0 frame of reference? Or are you swingers? I'm totally cool with that lifestyle choice if that's what you're into.
    Comparison isn't necessary for frame of reference.

    Definitions are simple. Sex is largely about pleasure -- individual and mutual. If both parties are individually and mutually pleasured by the experience, then the sex is good. If they are not, then the sex is bad.

    What if he's massively well hung and you're not able to accommodate him? Is it really so terrible to find out early in the case that things aren't going to work sexually and move on to different opportunities?
    You might note that I put in the process "the level of commitment with which both people are comfortable." This already demonstrates a level of sexual compatibility.

    "Early" is a relative term. What may be "early" for you is not necessarily "early" for me. It might be "too early" for me, or it may be well within my comfort zone in terms of what level of commitment *I* am looking for.

    This is important to acknowledge because it comes down to a philosophical approach to sex. For me, a certain level of emotional intimacy is needed. That is not time bound. It may be "early" by some standards and "late" by others, and usually I just go for "right timing" based on the evidence of the relationship itself.

    And, I think it is appropriate to end something if the sex life isn't working, but I think that it is something that can be worked over time if both people are committed to making it work.

    Don't you think you'd have a better chance of proving you're eager to learn and eager to please by showing him rather than asking him to assume?
    Sure, but again, I'm not time-bounding anything. It's based more on what I need in order to feel safe enough to have the desire to be eager/etc. Right?

    [quote]No. I think you are lucky if you ended up in a sexually satisfying relationship with the first person you ever slept with. I'm happy for you. But it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't set forth the most logical way to proceed with dating.[quote]

    I wouldn't say that it's illogical either, though. It's a perfectly logical approach and it's also methodical. I mean, it is the method that I utilized in dating, because no one els ewas interested in creating the conditions for me to feel safe to ahve sex until my now-husband. So, i did'nt have sex until those conditions were met. Easy enough, right?

    And they aren't "unreasonable" conditions. A lot of this is about belief -- not logic at all. Even what you are doing isn't necessarily "logical." It's just how you evaluate vs how I choose to evaluate. What I value vs what you value.

    Some people can't dance. Some people can't draw or paint. Some people just can't screw. I'm not naming names, but trust me that such people exist.
    Sure, i believe that. But I also believe that with right effort, most people can get pretty passible with it. And many of those things are "matters of taste" not objective standards, you know?

    "can't paint" isn't an objective standard.

    I am not saying I have the best sex with anyone the first handful of times, but I know within the first handful of times if satisfying sex is in the cards or not. The fact that this saddens you isn't a real argument against it. It's an argument against wanting to believe it.
    How do you know within the first few handful of times? What things come up that demonstrate this?

    I think that would be interesting, honestly. So I ask honestly, not snarky. I know tone doesn't always come across.

  4. #94
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    8,089
    Quote Originally Posted by magicmerl View Post
    I agree that sex has a lot of that baggage associated with it, and it doesn't need to, and it's a shame. I agree that religion is the primary culprit for the baggage.

    I don't think that threesomes are necessarily 'better' or 'more meaningful'.
    I agree here.

    The argument on both sides is that their way is the 'best/more meaningful/better way.' The truly liberal approach is that people are *different* and have different interests and needs.

    Another angle on sexual compatibility isn't just how often a person wants to have sex, or the physical mechanics (but hey, those are helpful determiners), but also whether or not an individual is accepting of what might crop up as an interest for another person.

    For example, could the relationship be open? what about if the other person is finally able to act on his/her bisexuality and wants to do so (i know a lot of women who would be very upset if their husbands came to them saying they wanted a boyfriend, yk? but they are perfectly open to the idea of "polyamory is normal" unless it's gay-male polyamory, i guess.)? What about if the other person has a secret fetish, and finally feels confident in the partnership to share that and wants to bring that fetish into the relationship and/or desires to act on that fetish privately without the partner?

    Some of these things *may indicate* that there isn't sexual compatibility. It goes so much farther than basic mechanics or whether someone is "good" in bed. A lot of this is that -- if you are making a commitment to someone, it's probably a good idea to know what you're committing to and how it all works in your head so that you can design the relationship that supports whatever you are comfortable co-creating.

  5. #95
    Zanna's Avatar
    Zanna is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    737
    You might note that I put in the process "the level of commitment with which both people are comfortable." This already demonstrates a level of sexual compatibility
    This is a great point along with you've said about the level of effort both people are willing to put in. It has been a huge struggle and now gigantic elephant in the room of my relationship. I'm pretty open and flexible about sex, ie new ideas, trying what someone might like, communicating what I like. It's never been a problem in a relationship for me prior to this one. My SO was inexperienced and I knew that, but it wasn't off-putting at all. I figured we'd be able to have a great sex life at some point, because I've always been able to talk to someone I'm with ... But, he was just totally unwilling to even have an open conversation or take any initiative. So the sex never gotten any better and over time, the constant rejection to learning anything new has turned it into a pretty miserable experience for me. I wish I had figured it out that he wasn't willing to put in any effort way earlier than I did - polyamory is looking pretty good right about now.

  6. #96
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,434
    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    I'm mostly looking at inexperience in two ways: 1. total lack of experience; and 2. lack of experience between the two people. With enough of 2, I believe that people can develop a mutually pleasurable experience, thus making their sex life "good."
    But what if they can't? What if two people just like completely different things? Or, as I mentioned, if one person is just plain bad at it?

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    Comparison isn't necessary for frame of reference.

    Definitions are simple. Sex is largely about pleasure -- individual and mutual. If both parties are individually and mutually pleasured by the experience, then the sex is good. If they are not, then the sex is bad.
    Weird that a guy (me) has to tell a woman (you) this, but just being "pleasured" isn't necessarily the same as being pleasured well. There's varying levels of intensity to pleasure. Much more so for a woman than a guy, but it's not a dichotomy. And what if I'm unable to feel "pleasured" by having sex with a particular person (again, probably more a concern for women, but a concern for men as well, I assure you)? Should I spend several months of my life dating them exclusively before finding out? How awkward would that break-up be?

    Not to mention the fact that I prefer to date women who are mature and honest and in touch with their own needs. If she's going to forego a pleasure to which she's entitled by birthright over some silly ethical construct to which I don't ascribe, there's not a lot of hope anyway, but I digress...

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    You might note that I put in the process "the level of commitment with which both people are comfortable." This already demonstrates a level of sexual compatibility.
    I can't figure out how to read this sentence so as to make it intelligible. How does a level of commitment imply or demonstrate sexual compatibility?

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    "Early" is a relative term. What may be "early" for you is not necessarily "early" for me. It might be "too early" for me, or it may be well within my comfort zone in terms of what level of commitment *I* am looking for.

    This is important to acknowledge because it comes down to a philosophical approach to sex. For me, a certain level of emotional intimacy is needed. That is not time bound. It may be "early" by some standards and "late" by others, and usually I just go for "right timing" based on the evidence of the relationship itself.
    So are you a swinger? Because if you're still married to the person to whom you lost your virginity, I'm not sure what these comments even relate to.

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    And, I think it is appropriate to end something if the sex life isn't working, but I think that it is something that can be worked over time if both people are committed to making it work.
    So what if they are physically incompatible? What if the guy is too large or too small to make things pleasurable for the woman? I don't want to get really explicit, so let's go back to my furniture analogy. What if every time he's trying to round a corner, she's pushing him down the stairs with the leg of the couch?

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    Sure, but again, I'm not time-bounding anything. It's based more on what I need in order to feel safe enough to have the desire to be eager/etc. Right?
    Yeah, but if you aren't getting to the point where you're eager and where you feel safe with someone, why would you continue dating them at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    I wouldn't say that it's illogical either, though. It's a perfectly logical approach and it's also methodical. I mean, it is the method that I utilized in dating, because no one els ewas interested in creating the conditions for me to feel safe to ahve sex until my now-husband. So, i did'nt have sex until those conditions were met. Easy enough, right?
    What's logical about expecting commitment from someone in absence of the knowledge of whether you're sexually compatible? Claiming that any 2 people can choose to work at becoming sexually compatible is unfortunately wishful thinking on your part rather than fact. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the world isn't fair and it isn't always pretty. Again, I'm happy that the gamble you took worked out in a satisfying manner for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    And they aren't "unreasonable" conditions. A lot of this is about belief -- not logic at all. Even what you are doing isn't necessarily "logical." It's just how you evaluate vs how I choose to evaluate. What I value vs what you value.
    I'm not sure how you can say that my argument that finding out whether you're sexually compatible with someone by trying it out is less logical than your argument that unicorns and tooth fairies will make the sex work if you try hard enough. Or whatever it is that you're ultimately insisting will make 2 sexually incompatible people compatible.

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    Sure, i believe that. But I also believe that with right effort, most people can get pretty passible with it. And many of those things are "matters of taste" not objective standards, you know?

    "can't paint" isn't an objective standard.
    So is "can't screw." I'll bet if you saw something I drew, you'd feel I wasn't talented at it. In fact, you'd probably opine that I'm hopelessly unable to do it well. If I have relations with someone I'm dating and I feel the same about their sexual prowess, I'm going to cut my losses before making any further emotional or time investment. Does that really not make sense to you?

    Quote Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
    How do you know within the first few handful of times? What things come up that demonstrate this?

    I think that would be interesting, honestly. So I ask honestly, not snarky. I know tone doesn't always come across.
    How do I know someone isn't going to work out sexually? I think I've beaten this analogy to death, but if every time I want to lift the dresser, they're lowering it. Every time I want to slide the couch sideways, they're twisting. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes you just can't get into a rhythm with someone. You'll just have to trust me on this one.

  7. #97
    Uncephalized's Avatar
    Uncephalized is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,883
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    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.
    My wife and I are each other's "firsts". Been together 9 years, married for 2, and very happily so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by BestBetter View Post
    I highly recommend the book 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins for a really in depth analysis that includes some really interesting scientific research that illuminates this topic (and others) in both humans and animals. Someone on this forum recommended it on another thread, and I'm really glad to have read it. It's too complex of a topic to discuss on a message board, it really does require a full length book to explain.
    Seconded. (I may have been the one to recommend it to you!) The Selfish Gene is one of the best books I have ever read. It might change your whole perspective on living things.
    Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

    My Primal Journal

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •