View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Yorick

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 12258 Location: Lagrangia
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well, it was just an example. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Brain.Damage

Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Posts: 1336
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
A loving relationship without sexual intimacy is like the love between a mother and son.
But as Freud says even that isn't without its sexual undertones.
That's if you choose to believe a word that dude said.
Anyways the whole point of having a "relationship" and I mean the type of relationship in which people get married and buy a house and live together is all about sexual intimacy, the simple fact that they can touch each other like that.
If the relationship didn't have that side of it then isn't it just the same as the relationship between two close friends? _________________ B.D. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mouse

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 21163 Location: under the bed
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
well, that would be my take on it.
if you aren't going to have sex, why bother getting married? _________________ aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Green_Finn

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Posts: 700
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
for the health insurance? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Yorick

Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 12258 Location: Lagrangia
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
citizenship! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bun bun Guest
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Companionship? Friendship?
I was always of the opinion that I would end up marrying someone I know I'd have fun with and quarrel happily with, i.e. a best friend rather than a lover. We'd both have lovers without commitment, and commitment without love. Combining both satisfactorily is just too rare. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Brain.Damage

Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Posts: 1336
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bun bun wrote: | Companionship? Friendship?
I was always of the opinion that I would end up marrying someone I know I'd have fun with and quarrel happily with, i.e. a best friend rather than a lover. We'd both have lovers without commitment, and commitment without love. Combining both satisfactorily is just too rare. |
You've obviously never tried having a lover where the deal was that you guys would never be serious.
It never works. Someone always gets jealous or too emotional and then it breaks down and you guys rarely speak again.
Imagine what you want though, dreams are healthy for the soul. _________________ B.D. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dro

Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 3911
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That is probably why she said loverS. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Lasairfiona

Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 9718 Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sojobo wrote: | Lasairfiona wrote: | You shouldn't look down your nose at people who want and need sex in a relationship. |
I didn't see him doing this. |
I did.
Kitbate wrote: | If a couple breaks up because they can't touch each other, ever, then it's not even a relationship for me, just a "free" way of having pleasure. |
Sex is a need. A romantic relationship can exist without it but it is difficult. I would argue that most grandparent seperate bedroom relationships are past the romantic stage.
And if you really want, I can find sources for sex being important in a relationship but it might take me a while. It is generally common knowlege that sex is part of a balanced relationship. I don't mean to imply that communication isn't important or that holding off on the sex for a while is a bad idea. I was just railing against the idea that sex wasn't important. _________________ Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Brain.Damage

Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Posts: 1336
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dro wrote: | That is probably why she said loverS. |
It's the same deal with any person being hooked up with.
And her "friend" had better be of the same gender and fiercely straight. _________________ B.D. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
reasonablymad
Joined: 02 Apr 2007 Posts: 6815
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
that's an awesome idea. married straight couples! _________________ http://moonlitstarcars.com |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bun bun Guest
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why's that? I did say "companionship", right? So two straight women would be fine. That is to say, if our friendship were high enough calibre. I doubt it; I've always found steadier friends in men than in women. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
andrew
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 4495
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Brain.Damage wrote: | You've obviously never tried having a lover where the deal was that you guys would never be serious.
It never works. Someone always gets jealous or too emotional and then it breaks down and you guys rarely speak again. |
*snort* Just because you've never been able to make it work doesn't mean it isn't possible. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Lasairfiona

Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 9718 Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kudos to those who can make it work.
Number of people I have met who can: 0
Possible though. Damn you Heinlein for making me so optimistic and still dashing my dreams!! _________________ Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
andrew
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 4495
|
Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Number of people you've met who can and have: 1. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|