Getting sex versus getting sexual needs met

[denise_xo]

 

Thanks. I think I'll study this more. It's a markedly different style than my style of interaction. What I'm trying to determine are the factors which allow a person with this style to be a compatible partner in a marriage, when they make the choice to change it to a more LTR perspective, with someone who does not have the style to begin with. TBH, I've never been able to 'love' situationally, like 'I love you tonight but you're nothing in the morning'. It's just not a feature of my psychology in any form, even with friends. With strangers, I can enjoy conversation and shake hands and say goodbye, but can't imagine being sexually intimate with them, shaking hands and saying goodbye. 'Hey thanks, nice load. Hope it was good for you'. Hard to wrap my head around that, but I'll work on it.

 

Well, just to try to add some nuance: To me it's not a matter of 'stop loving in the morning'. I can love someone or have feelings for someone but I may accept that this person and I might not be best suited for each other in an LTR. That doesn't negate or make sharply temporal any feelings that may be there, IMO. Also, my take would not be 'Hey thanks, nice load. Hope it was good for you'. It would be more along the lines of 'I feel grateful for the affection and intimacy that we were able to share.' But that's just me, and I'm not advocating that others should feel the same or seek out that mode of interaction. I also don't consider it a particular 'style', in that this is the main or only type of interaction I seek out with men. I am currently married and had one other LTR prior to this relationship, and in both cases obviously my objective was and has been to make it a long term commitment - that's what an LTR is for.

[LittleTiger]

Well, just to try to add some nuance: To me it's not a matter of 'stop loving in the morning'. I can love someone or have feelings for someone but I may accept that this person and I might not be best suited for each other in an LTR. That doesn't negate or make sharply temporal any feelings that may be there, IMO. Also, my take would not be 'Hey thanks, nice load. Hope it was good for you'. It would be more along the lines of 'I feel grateful for the affection and intimacy that we were able to share.' But that's just me, and I'm not advocating that others should feel the same or seek out that mode of interaction. I also don't consider it a particular 'style', in that this is the main or only type of interaction I seek out with men. I am currently married and had one other LTR prior to this relationship, and in both cases obviously my objective was and has been to make it a long term commitment - that's what an LTR is for.

 

I agree denise and I wonder if this misconception about 'styles' is what brings men to the conclusion that women who are capable of casual sex or FWB must therefore be a 'bad bet' in terms of a LT faithful relationship. This idea still remains rather one sided in gender terms unless the men who think this have only one 'style' themselves. In my opinion men like yourself, Carhill, are in the minority. Do most men engaging in casual sex find it more difficult to remain faithful and therefore project that same standard onto women? Likewise, do most men who do not engage in casual sex see this as a particular 'style' which translates to promiscuity in their eyes?

 

If such a thing as 'style' exists then I believe, for most people, it is fluid rather than fixed and we are all capable of a mixture of styles throughout our lives. I also believe that the vast majority of people engaging in sex outside committed relationships do experience some emotional connection with the other person - except in cases where the sex is paid for (and even then perhaps?)

 

Personally I don't think it's possible to disengage emotions entirely from a sexual encounter. I did, just once in my twenties, choose to engage in sex with someone I barely knew and had no expectation of ever seeing again. However, that encounter was not devoid of emotion. We knew each other for only two days, spent time talking and having fun. The physical attraction was there and it led to sex - just once. There was some feeling of connection or it would never have happened and the connection was strengthened by what we did but, there was certainly no expectation of more on either side.

 

The same with my one and only FB. We connected as 'friends' first and then agreed on the arrangement. I went into it with my eyes fully open, with no desire to have a relationship with this man (for a long list of reasons) and came out of our first time together very emotionally confused. I rationalised those feelings and carried on because the needs that drove me into the arrangement in the first place were more important than any other feelings I had at that time.

 

I believe that the intimacy of sex creates emotions, even those that weren't there beforehand. My feelings regarding a LTR with my FB hadn't changed but something else had and I have no doubt that it changed for him to. Although he would never admit it in a million years, I was very aware of his changing behaviours as our friendship continued - small though they were - but had either of us wanted to change the rules the other would have run a mile. For both of us it was a trade off. I wanted to be desired in the way he desired me (and I wanted sex), he wanted validation of a different kind (whatever that was).

 

I have yet to meet a man who can, hand on heart, say that he has had sex with a woman (other than a prostitute or in the case of rape) who he used like a blow up doll. Which is what 'devoid of emotion' implies. In my mind, men or women engaging in regular casual sex are doing so to avoid the intimacy that is naturally created by sex. It's a deliberate 'style', if you want to call it that, which minimises the risk of attachment resulting from continued sex with the same person.

 

I believe this is true for both genders. In my mind, it explains why it is easy for some people to change 'styles' so readily as different needs are prioritised at different times in their lives.

Edited November 3, 2010 by LittleTiger

[TheMENemy]

You know you're in love when your concern is satisfying your partner's needs, not your own.

[denise_xo]

If such a thing as 'style' exists then I believe, for most people, it is fluid rather than fixed and we are all capable of a mixture of styles throughout our lives.

 

I strongly second this. Our identities are very fluid in so many ways, yet we have a natural tendency to categorise people and stick them into boxes, at times with very harsh results. We need to un-learn some of our neurological inclinations to reify identities and see people for the wide range of dimensions and possibilities that they really represent.

[GoodOnPaper]

Likewise, do most men who do not engage in casual sex see this as a particular 'style' which translates to promiscuity in their eyes?

 

I wouldn't view it as automatically translating into promiscuity but it would increase my discomfort about the woman always having options that she could exercise at any given time while I wouldn't have similar options available. I wonder if viewpoints from men who didn't engage in casual sex as an intentional decision would be different.

 

I do agree that emotions can't be completely disengaged in any sexual relationship, but for me, it seems that sex reflects intimacy (or lack of it) rather than generates it. Ideally, I wouldn't care that I was never able to attract anyone for casual sex, yet I feel that I missed out on a lot.

[Floridaman]

WARNING LONG POST

 

If he wouldn't have shown me the attention on the sexual level without being a total jerk or just some predator we wouldn't have progressed forward. (He was willing to put the time in and have fun). A lot of guys figure that if they don't get it on the first try to quit and try someone else. A lot of guys won't get to know the girl first, a lot of guys end up in the friendzone because they can't show the girl that they are hot for her. A lot more guys can show the girl that they like sex (duh!) but not that they are after that girl specifically. You have to make it fun and easy for the girl. Like you want her, but not like you are going to stalk her if she doesn't give it up. You also don't want to give her the impression that she is only one in a lineup of girls the make the cut.

Good points here, dreaming. You're very insightful.

[carhill]

Perhaps the same reason I have a hard time understanding casual sex is why I never understood why men paid prostitutes, and I used to literally work amongst them (street hookers) at the shop I worked at in my past life. Cleaned the condoms up in the parking lot and looked the other way when they hookers ducked in the door to escape vice. Never ever once did I consider 'using' one, and I was a virgin during all those years. It just didn't make sense to my psychology.

 

So, when a man uses a hooker for sex, he has no 'feelings', but he is getting sex and presumably, for the moment, getting his sexual needs met. What would the female readers say is the 'difference' for them with casual sex, outside of the payment part? We can spruce up the hooker and make her Julia Roberts, I guess, if necessary, to make the comparison respectable. I'm just curious about that.

 

I'm asking these questions fully aware that I have attracted women as potential casual sex partners and have chosen, so far, not to participate because the dynamic doesn't meet my sexual needs, and wish to understand other perspectives more fully.

 

Perhaps, and I will have to more fully reflect on it, past use as an emotional 'hole' by women has affected what might otherwise be a healthy boundary between 'sharing' and 'abusing' or 'using' people. If so, that's work I'll need to do on my own. Everything in its own time.

[Titania22]

 

So, when a man uses a hooker for sex, he has no 'feelings', but he is getting sex and presumably, for the moment, getting his sexual needs met. What would the female readers say is the 'difference' for them with casual sex, outside of the payment part? We can spruce up the hooker and make her Julia Roberts, I guess, if necessary, to make the comparison respectable. I'm just curious about that.

 

I think the difference is if a girl engages in the activity, because she will get something out of it (i.e. enjoyment) vs doing it because she thinks it's expected or is too wasted to be making a good choice (in which case worse then a prostitute, because at least the prostitute is being paid).

 

I'm asking these questions fully aware that I have attracted women as potential casual sex partners and have chosen, so far, not to participate because the dynamic doesn't meet my sexual needs, and wish to understand other perspectives more fully.

 

 

Absolutely, I never engage in sex, unless I feel there is a good chance it will satisfy my own needs. Actually earlier this year I went on an intellectual quest to try an understand why i describe some sexual encounters as awesome and others as crap, specifically because I don't want to have sex unless it's good for me. What I found was that although I proportion of it is to all the physical stuff and connection with the other person, a reasonable percentage is due to my own state of mind, my own willingness to surrender to the moment. If even a tiny part of me doesn't want to be doing it, that will impact my enjoyment. So perhaps 70% of the experience is due to all the other stuff and 30% is due to my mental willingness.

[dreamingoftigers]

I think the difference is if a girl engages in the activity, because she will get something out of it (i.e. enjoyment) vs doing it because she thinks it's expected or is too wasted to be making a good choice (in which case worse then a prostitute, because at least the prostitute is being paid).

.

 

It would also be a boost to know that you are attractive enough to get paid for it. There is actually a feeling of power, esp when one feels powerless over the rest of one's life. (One of my close friends is a former prostitute).

[LittleTiger]

I wouldn't view it as automatically translating into promiscuity but it would increase my discomfort about the woman always having options that she could exercise at any given time while I wouldn't have similar options available. I wonder if viewpoints from men who didn't engage in casual sex as an intentional decision would be different.

 

I do agree that emotions can't be completely disengaged in any sexual relationship, but for me, it seems that sex reflects intimacy (or lack of it) rather than generates it. Ideally, I wouldn't care that I was never able to attract anyone for casual sex, yet I feel that I missed out on a lot.

 

I don't think it's a question of having options to exercise at any given time. If someone is in a monogamous relationship, that, in theory, should be fulfilling all the sexual needs of both individuals. Therefore, why would either one of those people seek casual sex outside the relationship? I personally believe that if someone has a need for multiple partners then they have no right committing themselves to a LTR or marriage. I think casual sex is something most people engage in because they don't have a full time partner but they still want sex ie it's a substitute, rather than a preference.

 

I also believe that, where people have affairs, it is because their relationship is no longer fulfilling their needs. Whilst the affair itself is the sole responsibility of the WS, both partners are responsible for allowing the relationship to reach the point where an affair is considered an option. If both partners are sexually and emotionally fulfilled they are highly unlikely to look elsewhere.

 

I agree that the ideal scenario for a sexual relationship is one where sex is a natural extension of the intimacy and connection between two people. I can think of nothing more beautiful than expressing love for a partner through physical intimacy. However, I think you are mistaken if you don't believe that sex also creates intimacy.

 

There are many examples on the marriage and divorce forums of people who find themselves in a sexless marriage (most often because of a low libido spouse, rather than a breakdown in the relationship) and, as a result, find that the emotional intimacy of their relationship detriorates over the years. In my opinion it isn't possible to maintain a LTR or a deep emotional bond without sex.

[dreamingoftigers]

I don't think it's a question of having options to exercise at any given time. If someone is in a monogamous relationship, that, in theory, should be fulfilling all the sexual needs of both individuals. Therefore, why would either one of those people seek casual sex outside the relationship? I personally believe that if someone has a need for multiple partners then they have no right committing themselves to a LTR or marriage. I think casual sex is something most people engage in because they don't have a full time partner but they still want sex ie it's a substitute, rather than a preference.

 

I also believe that, where people have affairs, it is because their relationship is no longer fulfilling their needs. Whilst the affair itself is the sole responsibility of the WS, both partners are responsible for allowing the relationship to reach the point where an affair is considered an option. If both partners are sexually and emotionally fulfilled they are highly unlikely to look elsewhere.

 

I agree that the ideal scenario for a sexual relationship is one where sex is a natural extension of the intimacy and connection between two people. I can think of nothing more beautiful than expressing love for a partner through physical intimacy. However, I think you are mistaken if you don't believe that sex also creates intimacy.

 

There are many examples on the marriage and divorce forums of people who find themselves in a sexless marriage (most often because of a low libido spouse, rather than a breakdown in the relationship) and, as a result, find that the emotional intimacy of their relationship detriorates over the years. In my opinion it isn't possible to maintain a LTR or a deep emotional bond without sex.

 

Agree. However if one partner is unable to "go at it" anymore, then meeting the others partner's needs should still be able to happen. I do not understand why someone with ED could not still please his wife while his wife remained affectionate and inspiring of confidence with him.