(August 5, 2015 at 1:24 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Whoever he is, he should cut broccoli out of his diet.

(August 5, 2015 at 1:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 1:24 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Whoever he is, he should cut broccoli out of his diet.

Uh I don't get it...

lol

(August 5, 2015 at 1:35 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 1:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Uh I don't get it...

lol

It is a stretch and a typical hoe thing for me to say.  (Apparently what you eat affects the chemistry of bodily fluids.)

I'm lucky I have an affinity for pineapple juice.

(August 5, 2015 at 2:11 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: So I'm going to skip a few pages and address a particular point that no one seems to have gotten to up till that point:

Catholic_Lady - I'd like to say that in a perfect world, you CAN tell a lot about a person through open communication and kissing, but you just can't. Why? Because if that's all you're engaging in physically, you're not actually exploring you or your partner's fantasies. And while what I'm about to say may not apply to you personally, it definitely does for a significant portion of the population. Your fantasies may or may not always be applicable in real life, and the only way you're going to find that out is if you try them together.

Speaking from a place of experience, there are a lot of guys who will say they're into one thing or another to get you to be in a committed relationship with them (god you'd be surprised how many guys AREN'T up for open, casual relationships instead of monogamy) and then the truth comes out in the following months that they aren't actually sexually interested in the same things you are, or sometimes even in the things that they claimed they were.

Personal example: I'm pretty upfront about the fact that I am into BDSM. Just in the bedroom, mind, and maybe in private living space occasionally, but it's important enough to me to be a requirement for a committed partner. In fact, I almost never agree to sex with anyone without that caveat, even casual encounters, because it's my preferred kind of sex.

I have had so many guys start out by saying they're "into it" or "interested in it." There is time and discussion before sex ever happens, because the nature of what I do requires trust, but even after investing the time and energy prior to sex, guys sneak in who actually AREN'T into BDSM and there was no way to know without actually getting in the sack, either because they were lying in order to get sex OR, and this is the tricky part, THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY KNOW.

See, the human brain is ridiculous, and people can have rape fantasies without actually wanting to get raped, and people can dream about dominating someone without actually feeling the urge to dominate, and people can dream about being abducted and impregnated by aliens or fucked by some tentacle monster without actually wanting any of those things to actually happen. And that's perfectly fine - it's part of a rich fantasy life. But suppose you're one of those people who just thought you were into something and you get married to someone who IS? One or both of you is going to end up very unhappy sexually.

If that many people you know don't regret waiting, I'd posit that they simply don't know exactly what they're missing or they're lying to save face. If you think they aren't, ask a group of people around you (if you have the guts) how many of them masturbate, and watch how many of them lie.

If you and your husband are happy, then mazel tov, I'm happy for you. I just don't believe that "waiting" is a good principle to promote. I know just as many people as you claim "don't regret" waiting who also "don't regret" having sexed up their partners before committing, because they found egregious incompatibilities that made a committed romantic relationship impossible. Not that there was love lacking. They just couldn't get the romantic part fixed. Love, contrary to what a lot of people think, doesn't solve anything. It only makes you *potentially* more willing to attempt problem-solving with your partner, and even that is iffy.

I'm right there with you and for many of the same reasons.  It's not that sex without BDSM is bad.  It's just that like color TV it's much better than black and white.  Unlike TV choice though, not everyone agrees about the beauty of BDSM or which or all of BDSM roles they would like to take.

(August 5, 2015 at 2:26 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 11:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't see how it would make a difference... at least to me, personally. Let's rewind to 6 years ago at a time when my now husband and I were about to get engaged. But before we did, lets say we had sex as some sort of little "test." Even if the sex wasn't great, I wouldn't dump someone I loved so much over something that we had our whole lives to improve on. That's what I just don't get about folks saying they have to "test drive" other people. But I guess it's just not my way of thinking.

So you are saying that sex is not very important to you.  Just because you can "work on it" does not mean that it will actually get better.

I can certainly see waiting if sex is not that important to one.  There is no need for a test drive if one does not care how a new car feels or handles.

Nope! No straw, please.

I meant only exactly what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

(August 5, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 2:26 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: So you are saying that sex is not very important to you.  Just because you can "work on it" does not mean that it will actually get better.

I can certainly see waiting if sex is not that important to one.  There is no need for a test drive if one does not care how a new car feels or handles.

Nope! No straw, please.

I meant only exactly what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here is your post:

(August 4, 2015 at 11:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 4, 2015 at 9:52 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Actually, I did not say what I have done.  I have no intention of saying what I have done.  I am simply engaged in a conversation about various ideas.

Also, I am more sympathetic to your ideas than some here.  But I do not quite agree with you.  It can work out fine, doing as you have done.  Or not.  And it is the "or not" that is at issue.  I am suggesting that, as a practical matter, it would be a good idea to make sure about the sex before marriage.  Of course, if the sex is good, then it would have been fine to wait.  It is only after the sex, though, that one will know one way or the other.

I don't see how it would make a difference... at least to me, personally. Let's rewind to 6 years ago at a time when my now husband and I were about to get engaged. But before we did, lets say we had sex as some sort of little "test." Even if the sex wasn't great, I wouldn't dump someone I loved so much over something that we had our whole lives to improve on. That's what I just don't get about folks saying they have to "test drive" other people. But I guess it's just not my way of thinking.

Now, if sex is important to you, why would it not make a difference if the sex is bad?  Working on it may or may not improve it, so it may be that the bad sex is all you would ever get in such a case.

Are you saying that you care about sex, but do not care if it is bad?

Let us imagine a situation that, happily, is contrary to what has actually happened.  Suppose you had decided to try him out first.  Suppose he was totally inept and terrible at sex.  Suppose that practice did not make perfect, and he was always horrible, no matter what either of you tried.  Now, would you want to be married to him anyway?  If yes, then obviously good sex is not that important to you, as you would never have good sex with him.  If no, then it would make a difference, contrary to what you claim about it not making a difference.

(August 5, 2015 at 3:43 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(August 5, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Nope! No straw, please.

I meant only exactly what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here is your post:

(August 4, 2015 at 11:09 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't see how it would make a difference... at least to me, personally. Let's rewind to 6 years ago at a time when my now husband and I were about to get engaged. But before we did, lets say we had sex as some sort of little "test." Even if the sex wasn't great, I wouldn't dump someone I loved so much over something that we had our whole lives to improve on. That's what I just don't get about folks saying they have to "test drive" other people. But I guess it's just not my way of thinking.

Now, if sex is important to you, why would it not make a difference if the sex is bad?  Working on it may or may not improve it, so it may be that the bad sex is all you would ever get in such a case.

Are you saying that you care about sex, but do not care if it is bad?

Let us imagine a situation that, happily, is contrary to what has actually happened.  Suppose you had decided to try him out first.  Suppose he was totally inept and terrible at sex.  Suppose that practice did not make perfect, and he was always horrible, no matter what either of you tried.  Now, would you want to be married to him anyway?  If yes, then obviously good sex is not that important to you, as you would never have good sex with him.  If no, then it would make a difference, contrary to what you claim about it not making a difference.

(My bold. Answers below.)

1. I don't think being naked with/on someone I love as much as I love Brian could ever be "bad."
2. If it wasn't fireworks, or I didn't orgasm, we would still have the rest of our lives to work on it... and since I know he loves me and wants nothing more than to please me and make me happy, I know that he would continue to do everything he could to improve for me.
3. Yes, I like sex and it is important to me. But I love my husband more than I love sex. If he got into a bad accident, got paralyzed, and was physically unable to perform ever again, I would still not leave him.

That is why I would not have dumped my husband if our initial sexual encounters pre engagement were not great. Not because "I don't care about sex."

Hope that clears it up!

No one asked me, but sex certainly isn't a make or break factor for me in a relationship. I'd happily be with someone I loved for the rest of my life even if I knew sex was actually impossible.

(August 5, 2015 at 3:02 pm)Jenny A Wrote: I'm right there with you and for many of the same reasons.  It's not that sex without BDSM is bad.  It's just that like color TV it's much better than black and white.  Unlike TV choice though, not everyone agrees about the beauty of BDSM or which or all of BDSM roles they would like to take.

I think it's less of a difference between "color" and "black and white" and more like different genres. BDSM frequently involves many of the same mechanisms that make people enjoy horror or actions movies: adrenaline, controlled fear, etc. Some people might prefer romance or dramas. Some might like quirky indie films. No worries. I never bitch at people who like really spicy food just because I don't - but I will use that analogy for why I like pain.

The point is, I think Catholic_Lady might have a less than nuanced view of exactly how strongly sexuality and sexual urges affect people - particularly fetishes and fantasy. Love isn't a cure-all. There's no reason to feel ashamed about trying things with people other than the person you end up committed to. Your love and your sex aren't commodities that diminish or lose value simply for having shared them with other people.

But don't you lose tread?

(August 5, 2015 at 4:23 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: But don't you lose tread?

Does your penis have treads? That's interesting.

(August 5, 2015 at 3:43 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Now, if sex is important to you, why would it not make a difference if the sex is bad?  Working on it may or may not improve it, so it may be that the bad sex is all you would ever get in such a case.

Are you saying that you care about sex, but do not care if it is bad?

It's not a matter of not caring about the quality of the sex. It's about not making it a relationship-killer. Working on it can and does work, and there's no reason to not go that route first if you truly love her, right?

It's a subtle point, but it's valid, I think. When I love a woman, we talk about what does and doesn't work in the bedroom so that both of us may enjoy it. If after time she shows no desire to accommodate my desires as I try to accommodate hers, then sure, there will be problems. But in that case the problem is not only sexual, for me; it's about being in an unequal partnership, where one partner's wishes get more attention than the other's.