Thanks for the discussion. It was interesting.
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 the Perfect Health Diet a lot.
Griff's cholesterol primer
Selecting: I don't mind it too much when someone is ignorant about something and they admit it -- but to be this ignorant and so strongly opinionated is insanity.
Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
bloodorchid is always right
Comparison isn't necessary for frame of reference.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.
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.
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.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?
"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.
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?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?
[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.
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?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.
"can't paint" isn't an objective standard.
How do you know within the first few handful of times? What things come up that demonstrate this?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.
I think that would be interesting, honestly. So I ask honestly, not snarky. I know tone doesn't always come across.
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.
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.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
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...
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