Sexual Relationships

[kannibus]

I can't imagine being with anyone other than my Jai, emotionally, sexually or romantically. But I do understand where you're coming from. So long as your partners are cool with it, no prob. Of course it's when they aren't okay with it that things get messy and episodes of CSI are drafted. Of course, you can't fault them for having their own opinions on the nature of intimate relations.

Personally I hate to share, so Jai is mine all mine and no one else's!

 

[cleverlymadeup]

you're confusing the two. your applying a simple reason or explanation to a complex system and saying it can't have a simple explanation behind it.

so you're mixing up your words and applying the reason/explanation to the system or the action.

No, I don't think simplicity exists at all. If something is complex, it is by definition not simple. They are antonyms. And everything is complex. You may think your explanation of a given phenomenon is simple but it's not, it's just a simplification because you're not looking at the larger context.

oh how you're wrong, take the stomach for instance. simply it digests the food you eat and there's an even more complex explanation of how it actually accomplishes it. but really you can break it down into something very simple that it does.

to use a paraphrase

"complex things don't need complex explanations"

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I'm going to put this in short understandable terms, and a colored word if you get the referance; it's fun and it serves a pourpose.

George Carlin?

 

[dantheman931]

I havent had sex yet. being 14 that actually seems like an acheivement.. I prefer to wait for my future husband. But being the kink that I am, I know already that we are going to have many fun nights togeather.. <3

That sounded weird.

Just a bit, considering I have a niece almost your age. *barfs* But in all seriousness, congrats for deciding you're gonna wait; you're right, it is an achievement, and trust me, that's baggage you don't need until way later. (Also, before anyone else says it: 0MG T3H 14YR-OLD GRRL 0N T3H 1NT4RW3BZ OMG!!!!11!!H4X0RZ)

I can't imagine being with anyone other than my Jai, emotionally, sexually or romantically. But I do understand where you're coming from. So long as your partners are cool with it, no prob. Of course it's when they aren't okay with it that things get messy and episodes of CSI are drafted. Of course, you can't fault them for having their own opinions on the nature of intimate relations.

Personally I hate to share, so Jai is mine all mine and no one else's!

*claps and cookies* This is pretty much what I believe. I don't think it's a good idea to be polyamorous, but I also don't think it's my right to tell anyone they can't do it if that's what they really want. My ex once floated the idea of our relationship being open, and mostly it just baffled me that she could (1) want to betray me like that, and (2) think I would want to betray her like that. (You can put away El Pollo de Muerte now, killer.)

 

[kannibus]

Personally I hate to share, so Jai is mine all mine and no one else's!

*claps and cookies* This is pretty much what I believe. I don't think it's a good idea to be polyamorous, but I also don't think it's my right to tell anyone they can't do it if that's what they really want. My ex once floated the idea of our relationship being open, and mostly it just baffled me that she could (1) want to betray me like that, and (2) think I would want to betray her like that. (You can put away El Pollo de Muerte now, killer.)

NEVER! Also, I ate it already.

Though it's nice to see someone else that doesn't believe in polyamorousness. Have some chicken, if you're not a vegetarian that is...

(No hate intended to those that do believe in polyamorousness, most of my hate is reserved for THE TERRORISTS)

 

[Tears of Blood]

Maybe I am just... you know... old-fashioned or something. But, I think sex is not very important. It's fun, sure. And it can be fulfilling if with the right person, but... I dunno'. For me, there is a lot more to relationships, let alone life, than getting your rocks off with someone else.

Just my two cents.

And, for Pete's sake, OP is really asking for an STD.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

If sex with the same person gets boring try another hole.

Ok, serious answer, There's a good amount of people (the term is swingers) who go into relationships where both they and their partner are allowed to fuck around. It's not the social norm, but it's not extremely uncommon either. Though where the hell you find a girl who's a swinger is beyond me. If I find a place I'll tell you... though if you find a place before I do, hook me up broski.

 

[Kurokami]

do what i do 1 night stands

a very simple solution

But where's the emotional satisfaction?

if you want emotional satisfaction get a puppy (i love puppies) if you want sex go for the gold (1 night stands)

Wait... I think I mixed those up...

but most times you'll either be with a prude or find it too offensive or strange to ask

Et voilá. Your issue. Need I say more?


As for your question, I personally know people who are in open relationships and it works for them. I'm not against them personally, but I don't want one with my girl.

My issue is that I'm too uncomfortable letting people in in order to have an emotional relationship. But if I was in one I don't know how comfortable I'd be saying 'I feel I need more out of the physical aspect of our relationship as you're just not satisfying me sexually'. I've got a whole lot of problems, but this isn't one of them. Its not even really an issue, I was wondering though because it seems relationships are shown in a very dim light when it comes to either sexual openness or the frequency of fidelity. So hearing the communities opinions was nice.

I agree that there are many people out there capable of meeting your sexual needs, and anyone who says that just because ur in a relationship or married you stop finding other women/men more or as attractive as your partner and want to mate with them sexually (sex!) is very naive. However I do believe that the whole point of marriage and proving your love and commitment to people is having the power to resist such temptation as adultery or cheating on your partner - think of it like, people feel if you share your body with someone else other than your partner your saying "I don't find you perfect" and that's ok but it still hurts - my view on relationships is there are lots of ppl suited to us and that its a good thing if you can stay in a healthy relationship and not cheat on one another

I guess my reasoning was rather that sexual openness can perhaps alleviate some of the strain on a relationship, supposing both parties trust each other. I know its often done in humor or entertainment, but successful marriages are generally shown to succeed through endurance rather then 'everlasting love'. I have no doubt that most people could resist cheating on a spouse but if they didn't have to? To be frank what initiated this was the idea that most women I know expect to be the only woman that men can look at in a relationship which I find somewhat unfair considering I keep my libido and emotions fairly far apart.

 

[Kurokami]

I'm pretty sure every man has the sexual temptation programmed into him, no matter how much he loves his 'other'. Perhaps being allowed to indulge in such sexual exploits can alleviate some strain on a relationship too.

Speak for yourself. I have never had any interest in anything other than a single, monogamous long-term relationship. Anything else (including "hooking up" or whatever dumb shit kids do today) is meaningless and not worth considering.

Your opinion, your case, and I am talking about my experience and my perception of the topic. I don't preach it as undeniable truth as you seem to do with your opinion. And you seem to be confusing looking at another woman who is sexually attractive as cheating in itself. You don't have to check her out to consider her attractive, many women simply are.

And what happens if you get a girl pregnant and she decides to keep it? You can't force her to have an abortion;

I think that's a massive inequality of the whole topic. Girls can decide if they are ready to be a parent, yet for boys there's no choice its just "Suck it up" if she decides to keep it.

But there is a choice for guys: If you're not ready to accept the consequences, don't have sex. It's the same choice for women, except that biology saw fit to give them a bit more leverage in this instance. Fair or not, until medical science finds away to allow men to bear children, there's nothing you can do to change it.

It's nothing but an unfair double standard that can easily be fixed through legislation. If the woman can decide to abort, then so, too, should the man be able to "abort" by having no legal obligation to support the child or its mother.

Having to carry a parasite for 9 months, only to have it painfully excreted and then being obliged to care for it isn't what I call leverage, but you're right that the guys did have a choice. Are the males actually legally obliged to stick with the child and mother?

People have this strange notion that loyalty means only sleeping with one person.

*claps, then gives cookie*
sex is sex. an act nothing more. if someone is offended by their partner having sex with others, then good for them.

Betrayal usually is considered offensive.

Doesn't have to be considered betrayal.

 

[Sad Robot]

you're confusing the two. your applying a simple reason or explanation to a complex system and saying it can't have a simple explanation behind it.

so you're mixing up your words and applying the reason/explanation to the system or the action.

No, I don't think simplicity exists at all. If something is complex, it is by definition not simple. They are antonyms. And everything is complex. You may think your explanation of a given phenomenon is simple but it's not, it's just a simplification because you're not looking at the larger context.

oh how you're wrong, take the stomach for instance. simply it digests the food you eat and there's an even more complex explanation of how it actually accomplishes it. but really you can break it down into something very simple that it does.

to use a paraphrase

"complex things don't need complex explanations"

There's nothing simple about how the stomach digests food. An explanation of it may seem simple, but that's because it's a simplification. Explanations are, by definition, simplifications. If you don't understand what I mean by this, then there is no point continuing this discussion.

There is nothing simple about the "existence" of a single atom, let alone a molecular structure.

 

[Altorin]

I watched the whole clip. Here's my problem: I don't care what the lower primates do, because if that's the yardstick against which we're going to measure ourselves, we might as well toss out the use of any tools other than sticks and rocks. You can't cherry-pick which traits you want to share with the chimps and just ignore the rest; we are fundamentally different animals, and saying that the behavior of lower primates is any indication of the ideal to which we should hold ourselves is fucking retarded. (Case in point: Chimpanzees are known to engage in cannibalism. It's rare, but it happens, and a hell of a lot more than it does among humans. Also, I'm using the editorial you; I don't know the degree to which you personally hold with what P&T have to say.) Besides, P&T keep making it seem like the only reasonable opposition to the "traditional man-and-woman marriage" argument is polyamory, which it isn't; there are plenty of gay couples who remain faithful to each other. I'm a card-carrying (literally) Democrat, and I think gays ought to be able to marry, but I don't think arguing in favor of polyamory is any way to support that.

the rest of the episode includes a lesbian couple raising 2 children.. and I'm fairly sure there is another example of an unconventional family in the episode, but I don't remember off the top of my head.

The idea of the episode is just to help take some wind out of the idea that the ONLY situation that works is a monogamous male-female couple, for reasons of childrearing and happiness. They were fighting against that presumption, and not instituting a "You HAVE to be polyamorous", which, of course would be a stupid thing to say.

yes, P&T aren't perfect, and their biased as all hell, but I really think you missed the point.

On Topic, I think, if it works for you, then it works for you, but if you hurt people to get what you want, then you deserve the pain and drama that is bound to come from such a relationship.

 

[bjj hero]

sex with the one person often gets dull. (yes there are ways to 'spice things up', but most times you'll either be with a prude or find it too offensive or strange to ask)...

If I could go back to talk to my self when I was 16 I'd say: "Don't be shy, just ask." Most women are far filthier than anything your twisted little mind can come up with, they are just quiet about it. I had far more fun once I worked this out.

I'm sure it's a song lyric somewhere but screw looking for Miss right, go with Miss right now. Life is too short, enjoy it.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

@lizards : You do realise your entire emotional outlook is rather pathetic, and, instead of being rightfully ashamed, you are actually proud of that? Pray excuse me for being bemused, but I wasn't aware that people were wont to be proud of their failures, particularly in so base an area.

Oh, and it's a documented fact that one-night stands invariably produce bad sex. It's awkward, there's no care or attention given or recieved, and in the end you're lucky is either of you gets an orgasm before the whole thing comes to a messy, cold-sweaty and extremely ugly end. Wheras in a relationship, the sex might start out bad, but it invariably gets better. You learn what she likes, you experiment, try new things, but above all, that level of emotional connection, and comfortable, easy intimacy will make things better. So, yes, lizard, you are rather pathetic.


@Maxthereaper : You know, you can be frighteningly perceptive at times.


On-topic: Look, it's simple. Monogamous relationships are, probably, the way to go. I don't care about the genetic link, and I don't care about 'open' relationships - the reason humans developed the monogamous relationship was because it is the most stable form of long-term relationship.

 

[Caliostro]

My issue is that I'm too uncomfortable letting people in in order to have an emotional relationship.

And this honestly doesn't seem like an issue you should look into to you?

But if I was in one I don't know how comfortable I'd be saying 'I feel I need more out of the physical aspect of our relationship as you're just not satisfying me sexually'. I've got a whole lot of problems, but this isn't one of them. Its not even really an issue, I was wondering though because it seems relationships are shown in a very dim light when it comes to either sexual openness or the frequency of fidelity. So hearing the communities opinions was nice.

The issue here is selection. Imagine you have the money for ONE pair of shoes, just one... You're not going to buy the first you see that look nice on you. You're going to look for those that look perfect and feel perfect. It's amazing how few of us take up that philosophy in something so much more important, like a partner.

To a person to whom sex, fetishisms or sexual openness are important, I think it's silly to not look for that in a partner from the getgo. Can you imagine a relationship between someone who's a complete race car fanatic and someone that doesn't even tolerate them? No. It's ridiculous. Not saying the other person would also have to be a race car fanatic, but they'd have to tolerate race cars at least. The same applies here. If someone loves sex, and different variations of it, I think it's silly to look for a relationship in someone who isn't very open minded about it, so to speak.

That said, open relationships are just a variation of the above. and they work so long as people trust each other, and there's common ground.

 

[Seanchaidh]

No offense, but this is what I think is a problem with modern culture: sex is nothing more than entertainment to us.

Way I see it, sex is supposed to be something enjoyed by two people in a committed, loving relationship. If only people actually did this, a lot of problems would be avoided, and in this case, you wouldn't need to worry about never seeing yourself with only one person because that person would be the only one you would care to have sex with.

The problem I see in modern culture is obsessing over the way things are "supposed" to be. Sex just is, it is only different people who suppose it to be anything other than it actually is, or best if restricted or managed in some way. But there is no "supposed to be" beyond the mere fact that someone supposes something, but such suppositions carry no special value over any other suppositions. What you mention is a supposition I simply do not see the value in. You're saying, essentially, that if people were completely different then they'd be happy to behave completely differently, that is, how you think they should behave. I could just as well say that people should behave like frogs, and they would be very happy to behave like frogs if they were frogs.

Anyway, if I suppose relationships to be a certain way, I'll try it and see if I continue to suppose the same or suppose something different. Purpose exists insofar as individuals create it with regard to people and things. It's an inherently malleable concept. If you suppose a monogamous relationship to be the best sort of relationship, find someone who agrees and try it. If it is good, you'll be a positive example. If it isn't, your experience will serve as a warning to others. Either way, you've served a useful function, and your suppositions may change.

 

[xDarc]

There's nothing to discuss. It's all about whatever works for the individual. Some people can't have successful relationships, some people can have open relationships, some people marry the first person they ever lay and stay together until one of em' dies. There's others who never have any idea what they want and others still who's wants change. People have seen and done it all. People are more than their instincts or bio-chemistry. There's nothing black and white about it.

The discussion should be that society propagates monogamy, marriage and/or children as a one size fits all deal when it clearly isn't.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

There's nothing simple about how the stomach digests food. An explanation of it may seem simple, but that's because it's a simplification. Explanations are, by definition, simplifications. If you don't understand what I mean by this, then there is no point continuing this discussion.

There is nothing simple about the "existence" of a single atom, let alone a molecular structure.

you have NO clue what i'm saying or talking about

go read what i originally wrote and at that point maybe you'll get a clue of what i was saying because at this point you have NO clue what i was saying