poll just for guys

[surewhynot]

Like someone else said, have the perfect relationship but never to have sex, or have the perfect relationship and have sex? It's an easy choice for most the population.

With that logic you should never settle for someone who doesn't want to give oral because you could be with someone who does. You should never settle with someone who's not gorgeous because you could be with someone who is.

I disagree with this mentality. Such things as sex and looks are pleasant and I do want them, but I wouldn't break up with someone I love for them.

The most important thing to me is to be with someone who I care for and who cares for me in the same way. That's enough for me. I wouldn't break up with someone just because there's better out there, anything more is nice but it's not what truly matters in the end.

Many would say that I have low standards, but I don't view it that way. I simply don't value the same as many of you. The thirst that I'm after cannot be quenched by physical interaction. That's just your animal instincts talking, but we're much more than wild hormones pushing us to procreation by releasing chemicals in our brains.

If I had something truly precious to me I wouldn't be seeking the next best thing.

 

[BlackPuma]

With that logic you should never settle for someone who doesn't want to give oral because you could be with someone who does. You should never settle with someone who's not gorgeous because you could be with someone who is.

I disagree with this mentality. Such things as sex and looks are pleasant and I do want them, but I wouldn't break up with someone I love for them.

I'm not sure I agree with this. While I share the view of sacrificing it for someone that I find particularly uplifting, it's not entirely fair to insinuate that not giving up sexual needs are on par with shallow judgement of aesthetics.

Sex is less of a singular act and more an expression of primal desires/feelings shared directly with another person. It's a form of communication that can make people feel very connected, and that many would feel empty without.

If someone can sacrifice this for someone else, that's an admirable thing, but it shouldn't be expected. If needs don't align, that means nothing more than that the two people in question are incompatible as a couple.

 

[Odo]

Many would say that I have low standards, but I don't view it that way. I simply don't value the same as many of you. The thirst that I'm after cannot be quenched by physical interaction. That's just your animal instincts talking, but we're much more than wild hormones pushing us to procreation by releasing chemicals in our brains.

If I had something truly precious to me I wouldn't be seeking the next best thing.

I don't think people with healthy attitudes towards sex consider 'animal instincts' or 'wild hormones pushing us to procreation by releasing chemicals in our brains' to be bad or 'lower' things. Sex isn't dirty or bad or wrong. I don't know how not having sex is somehow 'more'-- it seems like a lot LESS to me.

Actually, it sounds like the issue here is whether or not you would want to enter a relationship where a crucial piece of that relationship will be forever missing.

Maybe in your head where time isn't really a factor and you can pretty much convince yourself you're capable of anything, you can tell yourself you'll be okay with it. But after a real-life year of not having sex with your SO, I really have to wonder if you would be saying the same thing.

 

[Opaline]

we're much more than wild hormones pushing us to procreation by releasing chemicals in our brains.

Actually no, not really. Sure we can reason but at the end of the day we are animals, and we are driven by primal urges more often than not.

 

[surewhynot]

Actually no, not really. Sure we can reason but at the end of the day we are animals, and we are driven by primal urges more often than not.

Reason, passion, ethics, love, art, philosophy, beliefs, etc. We are indeed animals, but we are unique in many ways. Reducing human beings to mere animals seems quite simplistic to my eyes. We are indeed capable of much more intricate relationships than other animal species are.

I don't think people with healthy attitudes towards sex consider 'animal instincts' or 'wild hormones pushing us to procreation by releasing chemicals in our brains' to be bad or 'lower' things. Sex isn't dirty or bad or wrong. I don't know how not having sex is somehow 'more'-- it seems like a lot LESS to me.

Please reread what I said carefully. I don't view sex as bad, I specified that I actually do want it. I just said that it's not what truly matters to me, that it comes secondary, the cherry on top.

Maybe in your head where time isn't really a factor and you can pretty much convince yourself you're capable of anything, you can tell yourself you'll be okay with it. But after a real-life year of not having sex with your SO, I really have to wonder if you would be saying the same thing.

Sounds like you're projecting your feelings onto me. You do not know me so I doubt that you could have any insight into what burdens I can carry.

If someone can sacrifice this for someone else, that's an admirable thing, but it shouldn't be expected. If needs don't align, that means nothing more than that the two people in question are incompatible as a couple.

It wasn't my intention of insinuating that other paths are any less "honorable", which is silly. I am merely attempting to express my feelings on this matter. Everyone is different and there is no right or wrong answer. I apologize if I came off the wrong way.

 

[gummybear22]

this thread is going downhill... i consent to it being closed.

 

[DeadSummer]

I agree here with Surewhynot. It seems like for most people here a human being is something like a (faulty) product to be replaced if it is not working.

 

[Bronson99]

I agree here with Surewhynot. It seems like for most people here a human being is something like a (faulty) product to be replaced if it is not working.

First of all, you are misinterpreting the point someone made about having a relationship with sex vs. one without sex. That is not really a question of honor/morality and such.

Second of all, your point applies to society as a whole. America is a corporate culture. Success in anything, in the first-world, is about marketing. Ever been on a dating site? It's the perfect example of this. Now THIS I agree is sickening. Join one of those sites if you want to see just how little humans have evolved. "People as products," and such. It's all that and more.

 

[nodejesque]

I don't think people with healthy attitudes towards sex consider 'animal instincts' or 'wild hormones pushing us to procreation by releasing chemicals in our brains' to be bad or 'lower' things. Sex isn't dirty or bad or wrong. I don't know how not having sex is somehow 'more'-- it seems like a lot LESS to me.

Actually, it sounds like the issue here is whether or not you would want to enter a relationship where a crucial piece of that relationship will be forever missing.

Maybe in your head where time isn't really a factor and you can pretty much convince yourself you're capable of anything, you can tell yourself you'll be okay with it. But after a real-life year of not having sex with your SO, I really have to wonder if you would be saying the same thing.

This. I completely agree with Odo.