Superthread LXI - No longer honouring AdamKungl for his birthday as it has now passed

[Bazal]

Because the old ideas of courtship and such were outdated tbh. Society has moved on...so, so far on...

 

[madunit]

We live in a culture doesn't have the intimate meaning it used to. Its not even a relationship thing anymore. For some people its as intimate as going for a jog

 

[Dani]

Basically everyone just wants sex?

Or is that just me?

 

[Drew-Sta]

Because the old ideas of courtship and such were outdated tbh. Society has moved on...so, so far on...

I disagree. For a relationship to succeed, there needs to be a basis of friendship prior to it. For if you can't be friends, how can you be lovers, spouses etc.

We live in a culture doesn't have the intimate meaning it used to. Its not even a relationship thing anymore. For some people its as intimate as going for a jog

I agree the level of intimacy in society is far more shallow than it has ever been. And I think that is part of the issue. What is a relationship if it is not intimate? And what is sex if it isn't a deepening of that intimacy?

But again, I believe I am in the minority for this.

Basically everyone just wants sex?

Or is that just me?

Nope, you're right. Everyone wants sex, but without the complication of a relationship.

 

[umina panther]

Sex is grea imo

 

[Dani]

Tbh. I'd take the relationship and trust over the sex. But I'm probably alone in that.

 

[Apey]

It's a primal instinct. I've always thought denying said instinct until what is essentially an arbitrary point in time (naturally speaking) is silly. I think it can satisfy both the primal urge and, for the lack of a better description, the 'religious role'.

Drew, surprisingly, I partially agree with you on one point re: beginning of a relationship. Disagree that marriage is the only commitment of a relationship which is what I assume you were implying.

Physical chemistry is a huge part of relationships. Make sure you have it before you tie the knot and find out the hard way that you don't.

 

[Bazal]

I disagree. For a relationship to succeed, there needs to be a basis of friendship prior to it. For if you can't be friends, how can you be lovers, spouses etc.

To a point, friendship helps. But a true relationship is so much more than just friendship. For a relationship to succeed you need to be comfortable with every aspect of it, and each other. A relationship between people with only friendship as the basis will never, IMO and experience, work out. You need so much more. And I'm thankful that society has moved the way it has in a lot of ways because of that

 

[Apey]

And what is sex if it isn't a deepening of that intimacy?

It's a primal instinct.

I can already guess where this is heading though and it ends with two fundamentally different opinions.

 

[Drew-Sta]

Sex is grea imo

I quite enjoy it!

Tbh. I'd take the relationship and trust over the sex. But I'm probably alone in that.

Not alone at all. But I don't think you should have to settle for two out of three; you should have the whole lot

It's a primal instinct. I've always thought denying said instinct until what is essentially an arbitrary point in time (naturally speaking) is silly. I think it can satisfy both the primal urge and, for the lack of a better description, the 'religious role'.

Technically, although the church has done a wonderful job of making it a guilt ridden act, Paul and the NT holds an extremely positive view of sex, but does claim it has the highest opinion of what it is. Paul suggests it is more than a primal instinct, but I'll continue this a little more on. Suffice to say, Paul writes that a husband and a wife should fruitfully enjoy themselves, implying that sex between two married people should be engaged in frequently for its enjoyment and deepening of the relationship, rather than 'keeping yourselves from each other' as he puts it.

We have Augustine to blame for the churchs poor view of sex.

Drew, surprisingly, I partially agree with you on one point re: beginning of a relationship. Disagree that marriage is the only commitment of a relationship which is what I assume you were implying.

Glad you do! I would argue marriage is the biggest commitment two people can make but concede this is not shared by all.

Physical chemistry is a huge part of relationships. Make sure you have it before you tie the knot and find out the hard way that you don't.

On this, I agree with you. But physical chemistry is not necessarily established through sex.

To a point, friendship helps. But a true relationship is so much more than just friendship. For a relationship to succeed you need to be comfortable with every aspect of it, and each other. A relationship between people with only friendship as the basis will never, IMO and experience, work out. You need so much more. And I'm thankful that society has moved the way it has in a lot of ways because of that

I concur that the relationship is more than just a friendship. But it is more than just sex too. It is a tapestry of interwoven elements and my suggestion is we have reduced it to simply a carnal act and some basic 'goals' you try to achieve together.

I believe it to be far more than that.

It's a primal instinct.

I can already guess where this is heading though and it ends with two fundamentally different opinions.

You got me ;-) But I have to disagree in that I think it is more than just a primal instinct. If it was simply a primal instinct, then why are so many people hurt over its use? i.e. adultery wouldn't be a problem if it was a 'primal instinct' yet it is clear that there is an emotional component to it.

 

[Misanthrope]

As in 98% have had sex? That's no surprise. We live in a culture that suggests sex is the beginnings of a relationship rather than the result of a committment to the relationship. The idea's of courtship and engagement have been lost.

I'm actually sad to say that I've never waited long for sex in a relationship. The longest was my first sexual relationship, which still only about five or six weeks.

Most have been either first night or, failing that, first week or so.

I disagree. For a relationship to succeed, there needs to be a basis of friendship prior to it. For if you can't be friends, how can you be lovers, spouses etc.

I think the aspects of friendship and sexual chemistry are both vital. I've had a wonderfully warm and supportive relationship where we just weren't nuts about one another, and ultimately we broke up.

I've had relationships where we f**ked like rabbits and liked one another, but didn't have the friendship needed to sustain us over a long time.

Still trying to find that perfect balance.

Tbh. I'd take the relationship and trust over the sex. But I'm probably alone in that.

Now that I'm a bit older, I probably would too. I remember being dissatisfied sexually in my long-term relationship, but I'd give most anything for that level of security, support, and friendship now.

 

[Dani]

Drew has such high hopes for life. Wish I could.

 

[thorson1987]

For if you can't be friends, how can you be lovers, spouses etc.

Sorry Michael.

[youtube]L0frA_0MjW8[/youtube]

 

[Scott Gourley's Lovechild]

Can we all just agree on the fact that: up the bum = no babies

 

[Bazal]

The emotional component is an invention of, and a throwback to, past attitudes towards sex IMO. I am not saying that it's not emotional, more that there are times when it is emotional and times when it's just sex. People put far too much value on sex, yes, I agree. But it's the emotional value that is overrepresented IMO. It's a base function...it can be something incredibly important, but it can also just be two people having some fun and that's not less important an experience.

 

[Twizzle]

what is this sex thing of which you all speak ?

need more information

 

[umina panther]

The emotional component is an invention of, and a throwback to, past attitudes towards sex IMO. I am not saying that it's not emotional, more that there are times when it is emotional and times when it's just sex. People put far too much value on sex, yes, I agree. But it's the emotional value that is overrepresented IMO. It's a base function...it can be something incredibly important, but it can also just be two people having some fun and that's not less important an experience.

Nailed it Baz but sometimes it's between more than 2.......arghh it'll never happen again but i'll never lose the memories!

 

[Apey]

I quite enjoy it!



Not alone at all. But I don't think you should have to settle for two out of three; you should have the whole lot



Technically, although the church has done a wonderful job of making it a guilt ridden act, Paul and the NT holds an extremely positive view of sex, but does claim it has the highest opinion of what it is. Paul suggests it is more than a primal instinct, but I'll continue this a little more on. Suffice to say, Paul writes that a husband and a wife should fruitfully enjoy themselves, implying that sex between two married people should be engaged in frequently for its enjoyment and deepening of the relationship, rather than 'keeping yourselves from each other' as he puts it.

We have Augustine to blame for the churchs poor view of sex.



Glad you do! I would argue marriage is the biggest commitment two people can make but concede this is not shared by all.



On this, I agree with you. But physical chemistry is not necessarily established through sex.



I concur that the relationship is more than just a friendship. But it is more than just sex too. It is a tapestry of interwoven elements and my suggestion is we have reduced it to simply a carnal act and some basic 'goals' you try to achieve together.

I believe it to be far more than that.



You got me ;-) But I have to disagree in that I think it is more than just a primal instinct. If it was simply a primal instinct, then why are so many people hurt over its use? i.e. adultery wouldn't be a problem if it was a 'primal instinct' yet it is clear that there is an emotional component to it.

The point about primal instinct was only intended for the 'sex before marriage' argument. i.e, I agree it can be (and generally is more) than that when you're emotionally involved with a person. However that does not mean it always has to be approached that way. We're still animals after all. I think the emotional component is overstated or over-exaggerated by some world-views I suppose.

 

[Apey]

The emotional component is an invention of, and a throwback to, past attitudes towards sex IMO. I am not saying that it's not emotional, more that there are times when it is emotional and times when it's just sex. People put far too much value on sex, yes, I agree. But it's the emotional value that is overrepresented IMO. It's a base function...it can be something incredibly important, but it can also just be two people having some fun and that's not less important an experience.

Seconded.

 

[Dani]

The emotional component is an invention of, and a throwback to, past attitudes towards sex IMO. I am not saying that it's not emotional, more that there are times when it is emotional and times when it's just sex. People put far too much value on sex, yes, I agree. But it's the emotional value that is overrepresented IMO. It's a base function...it can be something incredibly important, but it can also just be two people having some fun and that's not less important an experience.

True story. I can't...er...finish...with someone I don't have the emotional connection with.