Does physical attraction need to be immediate? or can it develop overtime?

[poppyfields]

On 9/26/2022 at 2:02 PM, Hopeful30 said:

Two of them, and they both ended up being the most abusive and unhealthy relationships. That's why bypassing the sexual attraction part is feasible for me, because I know from experience it's not the most important quality. How MUCH to sacrifice is the question.

Bolded - this is unfortunate, because now it appears you associate sexual chemistry and passion with abuse and unhealthy which of course isn't true at all.

Not only that, but a couple could be in an abusive unhealthy relationship wherein there is NO sexual chemistry or passion, one has nothing to do with other.  This was my parent's marriage, more or less, my mother being the abuser.

For you, these might have been coincidences unless the sexual passion and attraction triggered certain emotions in you (and your boyfriends) like anger and jealousy (for example) that escalated into abuse.  That is certainly possible.

If that was the case, sexual chemistry and passion does not have be that way -- it does not have to trigger emotions like anger and jealousy.  You could learn to manage your emotions in a healthier way and enjoy the chemistry and passion and have it "add to" your relationship versus "take away from."

There is always a balance which is what I and my hubs strive for in our marriage.  There are times when our passion is so intense, we want to literally rip each other's clothes off (sorry if TMI) and other times where it's more calm and peaceful, cuddling on the couch watching a movie for example.

It ebbs and flows but we always have great communication, we don't shut each other out, withdraw in silence and distance or punish when troubled by something.

We talk, we communicate, we resolve and we have great sex!  Which bonds us, brings us closer, and builds emotional intimacy.

Honestly, I cannot imagine not having that type of intimacy bond with my husband, I don't think I would last very long in a relationship or marriage without it.

But to each their own, truly.  

The important thing is knowing your limitations, what you are capable of emotionally and physically, desirous of and able to provide to your significant other.

Doesn't matter what it is or isn't, as long as you are both on the same page and able to provide to each other what you both need.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2022 by poppyfields

[Alpacalia]

5 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

I am experiencing exactly this. I feel that being single for so long means there's something wrong with me. Somehow I feel the answer is to change myself. After all, I am the common denominator. 

There is nothing wrong with you, but if you really think that getting a boyfriend will cure you of your insecurities then there is definitely something wrong with you.

If you think that there’s something wrong with you, then you will date like there is something wrong. Take your time. No one says you have to get engaged and married within a few months. I'd say if you’re questioning if you’re “good enough“, then you should take a break from dating and cultivate self-love.

You have to always feel worthy of the best in order to attract and be attracted to the best.

 

[Lotsgoingon]

Nothing is wrong with you for being single. If you want to figure out how to connect better, get to a good therapist. 

On the passion question, my parents had a long marriage and were really good people. They did not have any real passion and as I got older, that missing element bit me and my siblings directly on our behinds. 

[Wiseman2]

13 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

 sexual chemistry and passion is not necessary for a healthy and successful marriage. 

A dead bedroom is a place to end a relationship not begin one. Are you looking for a relationship of convenience for economic or other purposes? Because if romantic love, affection and sex  are not important to you, you'll have to find someone who also wants a sexless loveless marriage.

[giotto]

13 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

I think it taught me that sexual chemistry and passion is not necessary for a healthy and successful marriage. 

Picking up on this too... so, you'd be happy to be in marriage with no sexual chemistry or passion as long as other qualities are present? Are you saying that you would be happy to have a passionless sexual relationship with your partner, because it's not important? Or that you would be happy in a sexless marriage? Just trying to understand, because it sounds a bit crazy to me...

Edited September 28, 2022 by giotto
typo

[BaileyB]

15 hours ago, Hopeful30 said:

I think it taught me that sexual chemistry and passion is not necessary for a healthy and successful marriage. 

Is that a healthy and successful marriage though? It endured. Yes. It was functional. Yes. But, I don’t think it is what the majority of people would chose for themselves - 

These kind of companionship marriages become more common as people age, when sex is less important and health issues are more of a concern. I don’t know that it’s how the majority of relationships start. I would say not, but that’s just me. 

 

[giotto]

19 minutes ago, BaileyB said:

Is that a healthy and successful marriage though? It endured. Yes. It was functional. Yes. But, I don’t think it is what the majority of people would chose for themselves - 

These kind of companionship marriages become more common as people age, when sex is less important and health issues are more of a concern. I don’t know that it’s how the majority of relationships start. I would say not, but that’s just me. 

 

I would say there are people who get married with the agreement of no sex, just companionship, but the number must be small!

[introverted1]

On 9/26/2022 at 3:27 PM, Hopeful30 said:

Is it even healthy to expect a partner to fulfill you in ALL ways?

Well, no. But sex is typically the one area where we are expected to be fulfilled at home, not by others.

You can find intellectual connection at work and emotional connection with friends and family, but it's typically expected that you'll find your sexual connection with your spouse/partner.

[BaileyB]

42 minutes ago, introverted1 said:

But sex is typically the one area where we are expected to be fulfilled at home, not by others.

Very true.

Personally, I dislike the word ‘fulfilled.’ I think it creates unrealistic expectations - nobody can fulfill another’s every need either in a relationship or sexually. People get themselves into trouble when they have this expectation - they tend to go looking elsewhere with the justification that they are seeking something because their every need is not being met by their partner. 

That said, many people share loving and mutually enjoyable sexual relationships with their spouse. 

The trick, in my humble opinion, is to find a reasonably compatible partner with whom one can share and build a life together. And then, we are each responsible for our own happiness. 

Edited September 28, 2022 by BaileyB

[ZA Dater]

I think ultimately what you want is more important, you can go out with with the most attractive person but not enjoy their company. My view is far too much emphasis its put on sexual so called chemistry because if that is all there is to that relationship then in my view it is not a relationship at all.

Equally its possible to actually really like someone and not want to sleep with them, perhaps less common but it really depends what that person brings to your life. Its easy to sit and say how things should be but who really determined that, who determined that relationships have to be sex based? 

 

[Hopeful30]

3 hours ago, Wiseman2 said:

Are you looking for a relationship of convenience for economic or other purposes?

I am looking for a husband, so I am looking for the qualities that would sustain a marriage (trust, communication, stability, father-figure, etc.).

 

3 hours ago, giotto said:

Picking up on this too... so, you'd be happy to be in marriage with no sexual chemistry or passion as long as other qualities are present? Are you saying that you would be happy to have a passionless sexual relationship with your partner, because it's not important? Or that you would be happy in a sexless marriage? Just trying to understand, because it sounds a bit crazy to me...

I am saying that sex is not the most important thing. There are other qualities that weigh heavier when it comes to sustaining a relationship. If it's true that you can meet a partner with whom you can have a great relationship AND great sex, then I am curious why I haven't met any men like this so far. In my personal experience, men who arouse me sexually are not husband material. 

 

45 minutes ago, introverted1 said:

Well, no. But sex is typically the one area where we are expected to be fulfilled at home, not by others.

You can find intellectual connection at work and emotional connection with friends and family, but it's typically expected that you'll find your sexual connection with your spouse/partner.

 Ideally, yes. 

 

1 hour ago, BaileyB said:

Is that a healthy and successful marriage though? It endured. Yes. It was functional. Yes. But, I don’t think it is what the majority of people would chose for themselves - 

These kind of companionship marriages become more common as people age, when sex is less important and health issues are more of a concern. I don’t know that it’s how the majority of relationships start. I would say not, but that’s just me. 

Just because there is no sexual chemistry or passion doesn't mean they don't have sex. They have sex regularly (even now into their 60's). That's why my main concern is can I get wet? If I can get wet, it's fine. If not, then maintenance sex won't be a possibility.

[giotto]

1 minute ago, Hopeful30 said:

In my personal experience, men who arouse me sexually are not husband material. 

 

Interesting... care to expand on this?

[Hopeful30]

2 minutes ago, giotto said:

Interesting... care to expand on this?

Not sure how? I feel that statement was pretty straight forward lol

[giotto]

3 minutes ago, Hopeful30 said:

Not sure how? I feel that statement was pretty straight forward lol

I have no idea why wouldn't marry a man who arouses you sexually. Sounds a good thing to me. If this is your attitude towards sex, with all respect, you should think twice before you get married, unless you find a man who doesn't care about sex. But be warned: they are very rare.

Edited September 28, 2022 by giotto
typo

[BaileyB]

4 minutes ago, Hopeful30 said:

Just because there is no sexual chemistry or passion doesn't mean they don't have sex. They have sex regularly (even now into their 60's). That's why my main concern is can I get wet? If I can get wet, it's fine. If not, then maintenance sex won't be a possibility.

My apology, I thought they had a sexless marriage. 

8 minutes ago, Hopeful30 said:

In my personal experience, men who arouse me sexually are not husband material. 

Also curious to learn more, as was said above I wonder if you have made the connection that sexual chemistry with a certain type of man is love and husband material means a generally companionate relationship with duty sex. If that is the case, this is a discussion to have with a counselling. 

10 minutes ago, Hopeful30 said:

If it's true that you can meet a partner with whom you can have a great relationship AND great sex, then I am curious why I haven't met any men like this so far.

While it can be difficult to find the right person for you, the world is full of wonderful men who would make a great partner (for someone) and have great sex. Perhaps the reason why you haven’t found one yet is because you are not entirely sure what you are looking for - as above, maybe you have some somewhat distorted thought patterns about relationships and marriage. 

[Hopeful30]

12 minutes ago, giotto said:

I have no idea why wouldn't marry a man who arouses you sexually. Sounds a good thing to me. If this is your attitude towards sex, with all respect, you should think twice before you get married, unless you find a man who doesn't care about sex. But be warned: they are very rare.

Perhaps if I share my experiences. First man that sexually aroused me, he was divorced with 3 kids (kids are a dealbreaker for me). Second man who I was very sexually attracted to couldn't hold down a job, had problems with the law, and anger issues (he eventually became abusive). Third man that made me throb was married (self-explanatory). 

[BaileyB]

There are only three men you have met in your life that you’ve found attractive enough to want to have sex with them? 

[Hopeful30]

2 minutes ago, BaileyB said:

There are only three men you have met in your life that you’ve found attractive enough to want to have sex with them? 

Exactly. That's why I'm trying to be more reasonable with my expectations for sexual chemistry when it comes to partners. I realize that my margin is very small/narrow, so I have to be more realistic. Otherwise I'll be single forever. 

(There is another guy, but I don't count him because I was preparing for an ayahuasca retreat so sex wasn't allowed that close to ceremony.)

[giotto]

16 minutes ago, Hopeful30 said:

Perhaps if I share my experiences. First man that sexually aroused me, he was divorced with 3 kids (kids are a dealbreaker for me). Second man who I was very sexually attracted to couldn't hold down a job, had problems with the law, and anger issues (he eventually became abusive). Third man that made me throb was married (self-explanatory). 

 

You were just unlucky or picked the wrong men... not enough to form such a strong an opinion, i.e. not wanting men that arouse you! Having a good strong sexual relationship in marriage is not a negative, on the contrary.

[Alpacalia]

Hi Hopeful30.

I think it's natural if you're equating sexual chemistry with these negative experiences that you'd want to focus less on sexual attraction and chemistry.

It seems to your brain that this is a better alternative than dating the man who makes your knees weak because that feeling has always led you to heartbreak.

There are more than two types of men in the world, and you aren't destined to stay stuck in the same cycle of lather, rinse, and repeat whenever you meet a genuine man. You may come to find that there are a lot of ways in which you can approach love differently, satisfy your heart and your brain in the same way, with someone who turns you on as well as a good long-term match for you both.

[Hopeful30]

1 minute ago, giotto said:

Having a good strong sexual relationship in marriage is not a negative, on the contrary.

I agree, sounds like such a blessing! Is it really that common? Of all the married couples I know, sexual chemistry barely makes the top 10 qualities of the relationship.

 

2 minutes ago, Alpacalia said:

There are more than two types of men in the world, and you aren't destined to stay stuck in the same cycle of lather, rinse, and repeat whenever you meet a genuine man. You may come to find that there are a lot of ways in which you can approach love differently, satisfy your heart and your brain in the same way, with someone who turns you on as well as a good long-term match for you both.

I have been praying for such a relationship for a very long time lol Any tips on how to find such a man? Should I date men who sexually attract me first, and then consider the rest? Should I date everyone in general? How can I make more effective my selection process?

[BaileyB]

My experience, for what it’s worth, when I was younger I passed on a lot of wonderful men because they didn’t create that heart pounding, melt in my knees feeling that I thought I should feel in a romantic relationship…

Like you, I had trouble finding that man. I wasted a lot of time before I finally came to the realization that maybe my expectations are a little unrealistic. I needed to change, lest I find myself single. 

I wouldn’t say that I settled, as some may. I would say that in letting go of my preconceived notions of what I ‘should’ be looking for, I actually found exactly what I wanted. 

I am now in a relationship with a man who I find attractive, but I doubt that he would meet societal standards for “handsome.” That said, when he looks into my eyes and smiles at me, I find him to be quite handsome and he has the ability to make my knees melt. Does this have anything to do with him (some), or the relationship that we share (some). But really, I would say that my attraction to the man also has a lot to do with me. I know that I am primarily responsible for my own arousal/sexual fulfillment. And some days, I have to really work to keep that attraction/connection (when we are annoying each other about the mundane things in life. That’s just the reality of a long term relationship - even the best relationships go through good and bad periods, and all take commitment and work). That said, what I find attractive has changed - physical is only one part. I am also very attracted to him because of his sense of humour. I am attracted to him because of the twinkle he gets in his eye when he teases me. I am attracted to him because of the kindness that he shows me. I am attracted to him because of the care that he offers, when we snuggle on the sofa and he runs his hand through my hair or along my low back. I am attracted to him because he is a good man, easy going, hard working, thoughtful, protective, etc…

15 minutes ago, Hopeful30 said:

Of all the married couples I know, sexual chemistry barely makes the top 10 qualities of the relationship.

That’s because long term relationships are much more complex and other things take priority at times - like children, work, etc… And, the intense sexual chemistry you feel early on in a relationship typically changes into a much more familiar, comfortable, and loving relationship (if the relationship is good). That said, you should still find your partner attractive and want to kiss/have sex with him. I personally wouldn’t want to be in a relationship without that. 

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by BaileyB

[giotto]

14 minutes ago, Hopeful30 said:

I agree, sounds like such a blessing! Is it really that common? Of all the married couples I know, sexual chemistry barely makes the top 10 qualities of the relationship.

I can only speak from my experience. I haven't had that many partners (about 6 - I met my future wife when I was 22), but with all of them I experienced a very strong sexual chemistry. All of them. I think that, yes, it's pretty common. That doesn't mean it might not fade away a bit after many years together - life happens! But I would never marry somebody with whom I'm not very compatible in bed. It's such a marvellous thing...   

Edited September 28, 2022 by giotto

[giotto]

1 minute ago, giotto said:

 

Double post!

Edited September 28, 2022 by giotto

[poppyfields]

1 hour ago, Hopeful30 said:

Perhaps if I share my experiences. First man that sexually aroused me, he was divorced with 3 kids (kids are a dealbreaker for me). Second man who I was very sexually attracted to couldn't hold down a job, had problems with the law, and anger issues (he eventually became abusive). Third man that made me throb was married (self-explanatory). 

That's interesting @hopeful.  Thank you for sharing it. 

I think what might serve you better than believing that sexual chemistry and passion are the root of all evils (exaggeration), you might consider getting some counseling to determine why on earth you find married men or deadbeat losers sexually attractive?

There are thousands of attractive, accomplished, high quality men in this world, many in your area I'm sure.

But yet the only men you've become sexually drawn to are men who are totally inappropriate or unavailable to you.

I would explore that @hopeful, on your own and with the help of a therapist, because it's not sexual chemistry or passion that's the problem, it's more about you becoming sexually drawn to inappropriate/unavailable men.

Meaning this is about you and whats happening within you.

Perhaps there are some underlying fears lurking within that prevent you from opening up and feeling sexually vulnerable with appropriate available men?

I don't know I'm speculating, but Ive heard and read about it and it seems like it might apply to you, at least on some level..

In any event, avoiding sexual chemistry and passion is NOT the answer @hopeful.

You may as well be a robot and marry a fellow robot programmed to meet your marital/ husband requirements, including sexually (no emotion or passion) because that's what you'd essentially be doing.

I am curious about your parents.  Were they ever in love and sexually attracted and it just died somewhere along the way?  

Or did they go into it knowing they would never be in love?

Obviously they had sex since they had children but did they enjoy it?

I would never be happy with "duty sex," or obligatory sex or sex just to have sex.

For me (and many women I associate with) sex is highly emotional and if there is no attraction, frankly I'd prefer to go without or do it myself.

This is not a judgment although it may sound that way.  I am genuinely curious because imo the path you're choosing doesn't sound healthy to me at all, or a path that will bring you happiness, joy and peace In the long term.  

 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2022 by poppyfields