Men and Sex - help :(

[Sarian]

I think if a man (or woman) has to have sex on the first date, is very telling. Control issues for one. Out for one thing as well. Respect yourself and let that one go.

I'm old school and it troubles me that people have casual sex as easily as eating a meal or changing your clothing. I could not have sex with someone I didn't love or feel something deep for...but that said, I have and it's just not for me...I thought maybe I should release my self a little bit and do just as it is these days, but wow, it's not for me at all. I felt pretty crummy. I try to instill in my daughter to NOT just do it just for the sake of doing it or hormones or a man wanting it.

But all that said, I am not so keen on marriage anymore, but if one wants to do so and maybe one day I might again but it's not that big of a deal...but sex IS a big thing...like Lorelyen mentioned, one might have a healthy, voracious sexual appetite while the other, not so much, that usually results in disaster...so if you find a man at the very least you need to talk about these issues... With my ex husband, we were so different...I don't think it had to be that way but I realized (sadly too late) that there were things he was doing that were not for me...and it's not that I'm a prude, I'm not but if he had talked to me prior about them, it would have been much better...but who knows... Now I'm in a loving relationship and we talk about everything sex related and are open to (most) anything...there are limits but wow, it's pretty fantastic but I think you absolutely must be compatible in this area ..

as for the internet...I'm kind of with clover on that one, unplug from the internet...but that said, I'm not a very trusting sort. lol

[7luminaries]

Hadarian, I think you are right to be true to you. That's the main thing.

I am not a huge fan of marriage, but I do not take a strong stand either for or against. I think the main thing is the mutual authentic love between 2 people, the commitment between them (I agree it's spiritual, emotional, and then physical) and the transparency of commitment (at least letting your world know, if not the public at large).

There are many beautiful and deeply personal ways of making a commitment to another person. Marriage is one -- and the simpler, the better IMO. Simple life partner commitments, handwritten vows stated publicly, handfasting and the like, on the other hand, are very personal and important IMO. And beautiful. If I were to actually marry again, it surely would be just the minimal civil ceremony in front of a few close friends and fam.

But I completely understand and agree that sex is for the one to whom you commit. Not just some bloke you've dated a handful of times...much less never met. A commitment may not last a lifetime, but you're right -- it's the love and the intention that count. I don't see having to marry first for myself (as I'm not sure I will) in order to have full-on intercourse, but I certainly do see waiting for that bit until there is a mutual love and some meaningful level of commitment between you. Otherwise, it would still feel more like invasive penetration (rape or coercion) rather than lovemaking.

What I find actually quite sad...tragic even...is that there are not very many gents these days who would be willing to hang around without sex, because sex has become another bodily function or sport to be engaged in pretty thoughtlessly. Sex has become just another happy ending for a lot of gents, to be had momentarily and repetitiously, without a communion of souls and hearts. But I'm also here to say that women enabling men by having sex without a man's love -- and without having love for the man on their end either -- have created this situation alongside the boatloads of gents who just want sex from most of the women they date.

Men are wired this way until and unless they evolve on their paths to a heart-centred way...but women are not wired for the sex per se...rather, we are wired for love, connection and children. So many of us (women) have rather careless and callously become a party to our own broader exploitation of women...by exploiting the vulnerabilities of men to sex and touch. We cut off men's spiritual growth at the knees when we do this and then of course women wonder why so few gents can engage meaningfully (beyond sex). It's because they've never learnt how nor had to, in the modern era (post-pill). Gents need to stretch to move into a heart-centred way of being, beyond sex and utilitarian ways. And women need to allow gents room to do that -- and they've not got that room if we stuff them full of meaningless, stupid, easy sex after they've just barely arrived on the scene and got to know us.

Very few gents can (or do) resist consistently over time if it is constantly on offer with no requirements for mutual love, respect and meaningful commitment. If women want to be loved authentically and committed to freely and with great love, then sex needs to mean something when we offer it. Right now, it means very little most of the time - and that's equally on us. We're not here to please men or ruthlessly, callously cater to their sexual needs without regard for their higher humanity or our own worth and deeper needs. We're here to evolve and come more fully into our own being. So good on you for staying centred.

Because you're right in the main that unless you already know the gent cares deeply and even loves you, then having sex will tend to ice out deeper levels of engagement and commitment from the man. It's like going on rutting autopilot for many gents...most times, the whole system has to disengage in order to re-engage in a different way, deeper and more holistically. Where there is real connection on many levels between individuals.

Hang in there...and be true to yourself. By far, you have the right of it IMO. I would only say that marriage is not the be all/end all. Rather it is a mutual authentic love and some meaningful level of commitment - which is a personal thing. I do agree however that a mutual authentic love between partners seeks the highest good of both, and that authentically loving partners will commit freely and with the highest honour and regard for one another. In whatever form that may take. Are authentically loving partnerships common...does this even exist? No and hopefully yes

Peace & blessings
7L

[A human Being]

Reading this thread it does sadden me a little, with regards to sex, that we so often seem to struggle to get the balance right between creating too much complexity around it, or else jumping into bed at the first opportunity. For me, sex is (or can be) simply the natural extension of a loving, open relationship, whether or not we've got a marriage certificate (and it seems to me that sex is far more natural than marriage, which is surely a man-made institution, no? I guess religious types would disagree, mind). That's how it's been for me; when I've been in an emotionally engaged and loving relationship, sex just happens quite naturally, without a lot of soul-searching and angst ('love is horny,' as my ex and me concluded).

Not that I don't understand why people develop hang-ups over sex - very often because they've been hurt in the past, feeling like they've been violated or exploited, or else because of unhealthy and repessive attitudes they've inherited from the world around them. And I don't want to belittle people's concerns and upsets around the subject, but intercourse itself isn't a problem, imo, it's our neuroses around it that cause issues.

[7luminaries]

HumanB ...everything you say is true within the context of authentic love and a meaningful level of commitment. Where we actively desire and seek the highest good of the other equally to ourselves. Where our time and engagement are freely given and not for sex per se, but for sharing in one another's lives and presence. In that setting, I completely agree it's natural and desirable to be intimate.

But...
Outside that context -- outside the circle of authentic love and a desire to commit and share in one another's lives in some meaningful and consistent way -- none of it is going to go down as you say, by & large.

So it's not even primarily about the neuroses. Unless we want to call having emotionally avoidant sex (sex without love and ideally w/o commitment as well) perhaps *the* obsessive neurosis of our time.

Primarily, it's simply about the lack of love. That's really what we're talking about here...the absence or presence of love in our relationships. Here, our intimate partner relationships.

In the absence of love, sex becomes unpalatable for many, particularly for many women but for many gents too I'm sure. Certainly for some. But for many women, it's paramount that sex be loving, or else it simply feels quite unappealing...and much more like coercion or rape.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Melahin]

The struggle here might be that you want something (sex/intimacy) yet is simply not ready for it. Thus draw in situations you are not ready to participate in. Might be you should see these events as something that makes you ready rather than set your heart up for something you are not ready to embrace. Take time to be kind to yourself... and move forward with patience.

[wstein]

Originally Posted by Hadarian

Well, it wasn't clear if he wanted "all-the-way" sex or just to be allowed to touch me above the waist, but at the end of the day, I couldn't tell him yes, specifically because I have never even seen a recent photo of him, let alone met him in person. Chances are I would have allowed a certain amount, but since he was unbending and unwilling to meet without having a green light before I even got to meet him in person, I just couldn't say yes.

Clearly an unsavory dynamic, good to say no.

Originally Posted by Hadarian

I've been accused of this in the past (I think I've heard all the responses by now), but what has happened is that the man, who wants sex from me, he has his own agenda with me, turns the tables around on me and accuses me of what he is actually doing. He turns sex into a bartering chip, because I don't want to give him sex and actually that's all he ultimately wanted from me. I am setting boundaries and forcing the man to meet a requirement which will force him to get to know me on a platonic level or bugger off and leave me alone, because that is precisely what I want--him to leave me alone. It is a good way to get rid of those men. Men who I would actually WANT to marry, who I would deem worthy, would not have a problem with that boundary and we could proceed with an agenda-free NORMAL conversation. The kind that I actually had with this guy for several months.

I get that you are screening out men you don't want (good idea). I was suggesting that you are possibly screening men you would want by creating this artificial boundary rather than let it be know what your actual boundary is.

Originally Posted by Hadarian

I approach sex from a completely different paradigm,... I care only about the man I do it with and I will take my sweet time to choose him...

This seems close to your actual boundary: 'in my sweet time'. This would go over much better for me (personally) as its authentic.

^^^ I start to take on the mantle of "devil's advocate" here. I can never
know exactly how true I am to my principle but I try to be fair in my dealings. It's
easy to be unfair - too slack, too demanding - but "just" can be difficult.

So I ask what man would think of this? Traditionally they make the first -move.
They are expected to attempt to initiate any prelude to physical intimacy.
They have only signs to go by that can be widely interpreted and they rely
on previous experience of acting on their interpretations.

When I read situations like this it makes me realise that it can be difficult for some men.
The growing distancing between the genders socially and spatially (on line) doesn't help.
Once there was a set of signs that would signify what was going on. It might be
a gaze that lingers a moment too long, a hint of a smile, a cautious hello, an
awareness of what of one's body was being looked at; a change in distance between the pair;
gestures....and on.
These seem to be disappearing from our repertoire so what does a man do?
What does a woman do, encountering a man she'd like to attract?


All this is no excuse for grooming that I reckon as aggressive flirting when a
person is determined to push another into sex, trying to steer with an
undertext that gradually transforms into something more blatant. Might be
quite unwitting, of course. Who does ponder on the mechanism, or work to a
deliberate script? It rests with the "victim" to say "Stop!" It can happen with
either gender.

Why people can't just say no beats me. It's possible in this case that
Hadarian is a victim of her own inexperience and didn't spot the way things
were going and/or laboured on in the hope that it wouldn't happen. In a way
i know these feelings but you get to sense when things are going off track. It
can be saddening. You start to get to know someone and like them a lot but
then it turns physical and it wasn't what you wanted. And you have to ask
yourself "Should I let this go on?"

The answer you give yourself doesn't always work out in your favour.
As they say, you win some, you lose some...which is paltry consolation
when it's happening.

....

[Hadarian]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Fact is, most people (given their orientation) are sexually compatible provided the male (or male counterpart) can be stimulated

I disagree with that statement. The woman has to be "involved" in the process too, not just the man. I have also observed that there are levels of compatibility.

If you want more details about my experiences, feel free to send me a pm. I try to censor what I write in public.

I mean, like, what if either you or your man are basically compatible but one
turns out to have a voracious appetite that the other can't cope with? Ot that the partner,
naive at the outset starts to explore experiences that the other finds objectionable?

The former can be discovered without getting involved in "all-the-way" sex. The latter... that could be a problem for people who decide that sex is the most important thing in their relationship, but in my particular case, it's not applicable, because I have managed to discover enough about myself to know the kind of dynamics I want without going all the way with a man.

The irony is that all of this obsession with sex and all of this concern people have about making sure they themselves will be sexually satisfied and the constant, underlying fear that they will not be creates a vast chasm between the two people in the relationship. Yet if you are not so obsessed with this sex concern, you eliminate that chasm and unite with the one you are with and then the two of you would logically grow in the same direction sexually. Love, which nobody talks about anymore, because only sex is important, is a union, in which the two join together, sex being an outward expression of that union.

Those are the thoughts that I am willing to write about in public.

Originally Posted by Clover

I think Lorelym poses very sound and realistic questions to contemplate (throughout the thread). She's on point for the most part.

Her points are logical for anyone thinking of sex in the way I wrote about in my previous post, but not for someone who has my view of sex.

Originally Posted by Clover

I can't phantom the idea of putting the pressure of marriage on someone, especially for sex. Marriage is a HUGE responsibility,

Yes!! Exactly my point! Sex is a huge responsibility! I mean, ... SEX is a huge responsibility, imo, much bigger than marriage. How can someone say marriage is a bigger responsibility than sex? Sex makes babies! There is no greater responsibility in the world than that--human lives are at stake! (Without even mentioning all the diseases, rape etc.) And yet I am judged wrong because I don't want the pressure of having sex put on me. Sex is much bigger than marriage, and the possible consequences of it are life-altering, literally a question of life and death, between pregnancy and HIV.

Having said that, and referring to my response to Lorelyn's argument about sexual preferences, this is what we have words for. All of the points she is bringing up are things I have discussed and would/will discuss with a man, maybe even before meeting him in person, or those things will become apparent if he brings up the topic of sex. This is how you get to know someone and find out if you are compatible. The only prerequisite is that the person be honest and self-aware, and even if he is not self-aware or being honest (as usually happens with me), I have so much experience and am so sensitive and have so much experience with human psychology, I am still able to see what is going on with him even if he is unaware of it or if he doesn't tell me/lies.

Sex is to me what marriage seems to be to you. It's not my fault if nobody takes relationships seriously anymore and people end up getting deeply involved with people they haven't taken the time to get to know--having sex at an early stage of a relationship specifically prevents getting to know the person in question and these behaviors perpetuate fears like the ones Lorelyn is voicing. I believe that the insistence and disproportionate focus on sex contributes largely to why people get mixed up in undesirable relationships and so many end up failing--and then this is used as an argument to have sex first.

It's miles and beyond sitting behind a computer with a fantasy. Forget marriage, try living with a male first, and see how it will change your entire outlook and perception on the human species(mild sarcasm,heh). There is a divorce thread going on in this section, read their stories. I can't even post my story because of how painful the memories are.

Been there, done that. I have enough of my own stories.

Originally Posted by Clover

There are a lot of really great guys out there. I am from the conservative MidWest, we have plenty of gentlemen here.. I don't think online is the best place to seek a partner unless your at a closer proximity to acutualy build a more trustworthy and stable relationship..
Or, I'd unplug from the internet all together,imo

I completely agree. I just discovered meet-ups where I live, but unfortunately I am not only introverted, but suffer some kind of social anxiety, mostly in groups nowadays, and meet-ups always seem to be in groups. I'm also not that attracted to the average types of guys where I live, so there isn't a lot of motivation for me to "get out there," not for romance anyway.

It's true--I encountered one "gentleman" in my lifetime and it was in Minneapolis...or was it St. Paul? Sadly, I was only passing through with the Swedish guy I was involved with at the time.

[A human Being]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

HumanB ...everything you say is true within the context of authentic love and a meaningful level of commitment. Where we actively desire and seek the highest good of the other equally to ourselves. Where our time and engagement are freely given and not for sex per se, but for sharing in one another's lives and presence. In that setting, I completely agree it's natural and desirable to be intimate.

But...
Outside that context -- outside the circle of authentic love and a desire to commit and share in one another's lives in some meaningful and consistent way -- none of it is going to go down as you say, by & large.

So it's not even primarily about the neuroses. Unless we want to call having emotionally avoidant sex (sex without love and ideally w/o commitment as well) perhaps *the* obsessive neurosis of our time.

Primarily, it's simply about the lack of love. That's really what we're talking about here...the absence or presence of love in our relationships. Here, our intimate partner relationships.

In the absence of love, sex becomes unpalatable for many, particularly for many women but for many gents too I'm sure. Certainly for some. But for many women, it's paramount that sex be loving, or else it simply feels quite unappealing...and much more like coercion or rape.

Peace & blessings
7L

I agree, but then I don't really understand why someone would want a relationship outside of that context? Well, I guess for many the whole pursuit of romantic love is a very self-centred endeavour, if we're being absolutely honest about it - wanting to fulfill our desires, or fill an imaginary void, 'completing' ourselves. That assumption, that I need something outside of me in order to be happy, is really, imo, at the root of most of the issues that people have in relationships. And if we really want to have a loving and fulfilling relationship with another, we first have to examine our relationship with ourselves.

Okay, bit tangential. My original point, really, was that just because someone desires to have sex with you, doesn't have to mean that they just want to use you and cast you aside - sometimes, they might just want to express their love physically. The sense I get, from what the OP has said, is that this fella really does care for her, and just because he desires to have sex with her doesn't necessarily make him a callous, self-serving user. And whilst they might not have met, it seems that they've established an emotional connection. But of course, he should respect your boundaries and wishes.

To the OP - honestly, you might not want to talk about it, and that's entirely up to you if you don't feel comfortable talking about it, but maybe you do have to examine your own assumptions and beliefs about sex.

[7luminaries]

HumanB...I think a large number of women would agree with this you said:

I agree, but then I don't really underside why someone would want a relationship outside of that context?

...with the context being that of authentic love and some meaningful level of commitment.

But we are speaking from our perspective. And many men will tell you that whilst they may have deeply cared for or authentically loved a few of the women they've been with over a lifetime, that plenty -- perhaps many if not most -- of the women they've had sex with have not been anywhere near that.

Many if not most of these women they've had sex with have had the same perspective we do...that the relationship either IS [naively] or hopefully might one day be an authentically loving one, where there is meaningful commitment to one another. However, because women have consented to the sex without the authentic love and commitment yet in place, the men have figured it was just for consensual good times and sex, nothing more necessarily...and often nothing more, ever.

Meaning, most men are not going to say there is authentic love and commitment where in fact there is not. What there is, is just two people having consensual sex. Nothing at all about love and meaningful commitment there. Whilst most women are more wired to be in that perspective that there is or should be love and meaningful commitment whenever they are having sex -- even if the reality is nowhere near that. Very broadly, many women don't live in reality regarding sex outside of authentic love and commitment...we're wired to be holistic in that regard and many of us cannot separate sex and love without great cost to ourselves....and that puts all women who are not strong enough to own their true needs at a HUGE disadvantage. Easily exploited and easily (mis)led.

There is great honesty and power in saying, "I need sex within an authentically loving and meaningfully committed context (of my choosing), where we both actively seek one another's highest good first and foremost simply as people and as beloved friends and partners." And I think nearly 100% of women would be far better off if they committed to that standard as one of their most core aspects of self-love. So as you can see, there is usually a huge gap unless both parties have taken the time to get to know and love one another as people and as friends. Then, if they partner and there is sex, it would actually mean something for both parties and it would actually be based on reality.

I'd say there is a huge gap on the spectrum between having sex and some casual affection with someone...and authentically seeking their highest good -- which might even mean not having sex until there is a mutual authentic love AND a mutual commitment to one another (of some kind) as life partners -- whether you officially marry or not. And I think most men know this very clearly. And many women do not. Many women see it as all much closer together because sex is such a huge game-changer for many women in terms of emotional commitment and emotional engagement. And because for many of us, we cannot truly separate them. But this is just not necessarily the case for men. Authentic love and deep emotional engagement is often very different and not at all a part of a lot of a man's sexual "relationships".

I will say, I think meeting someone with the conditions that imply life partnership for many if not most women (that is, intimate invasive penetration of body and soul) ... this is pretty serious stuff for many of us. It's something we'd only want to do with a committed life partner with mutual authentic love.

As such, full-on intercourse is not an appropriate demand or expectation unless a man is willing to make the same kind of commitment of his body/life and his time, and all his resources as he expects her to do with her body/life, her time, and all her resources. And particularly regarding someone you've not ever met

But it's on us (women) to be honest about our needs, to love and respect ourselves enough to honour our needs, and to share all this and to educate ourselves and men on all this, in love and peace.

Peace & blessings
7L