Discussion»Questions»Health and Wellness» If medical researchers discovered that recreational sex is not healthy for ANY of us, would you stop engaging in it? Why or why not? ~
It would be hard for me to stop something I don't do... but if I were in a relationship and was told sex is unhealthy for me, I don't suppose that would change anything unless my hypothetical partner cared to stop.
NJ, you know that Carbie is really down-to-earth, she stays well grounded, and her sincerity is wall-to-wall. She is so willing to understand you better that she'd walk a mile in your shoes, but then she would be a mile away, and you wouldn't have any shoes.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.........I have a least another four/five hundred pairs........and no I'm not gonna count them and risk mixing them up in their boxes.......so there.... :(D
I found out rather quickly that recreational sex is less fun then the hype might imply unless each person's hearts, minds, and bodies reached out to one another.
So, I can see where certain types of sexual relations that are so categorized may have some overwhelming negative consequences in the long run.
What about recreational sex (rather than procreational) within a committed relationship? I had a vasectomy after my son was born, so all the thousands of times my better half and I have made love since has been of the recreational variety.
Recreational sex inside marriage is still creative, whether or not it is also procreative.
My experience is that recreational sex is is designed primarily for marriage and cannot fulfill that roll well over time when it's of the "friends with benefits" kind.
I was single from the ages of 27 to 35. During that time there were was two instances of one time sex that stand out in my mind---one was the best I ever had, one was the worst I ever had.
Well,chop my leg off and call me Stumpy.... No I wouldnt ..... I have far far better things not to do first before giving up to that.....Being little and a tiny bit Whimpy .....I tend to give up anyway....:)D
In a good marriage between a man and a woman, genital sexuality is the way we commit again to each other, forgive each other, make life worth living for one another, and believe it or not, express our love each other.
I am sorry that you apparently never experienced that.
But I am appalled that your beliefs do not allow you to see the positives possible in a sexual relationship.
Nor be appalled. It's not a disaster. No-one has come to grief through it, no one was endangered or anything, life goes on.
I DO see the positives in such a relationship but now I'm past such things I think more in the way that Sharonna suggests.
I HAVE experienced such relationships, but the last ended about 17 years ago. I was never married, but that's not really the point. The one thing I do count my blessing on is that I remain as I always wanted, "without issue" as they used to say in the best circles.
Being "without issue" is a quite acceptable choice---especially if your are not married. (I had assumed you were married based on your response to Sharonna's answer.)
But as you confirm, you have never experienced a marriage then. (How does that song go?---We're not forced to love each other, we just love each other naturally.)
But a good marriage also opens a door to the infinite; and for those of us who are married---and specifically myself---see her answer as misleading at best and "sour grapes" at worst.
I don't understand what you mean by " misleading". I expect Sharonna wrote sincerely and certainly wrote clearly; and I intended my responses to be as sincere and clear.
You did though, take your own experience and view that are true for you, to be true for everyone else. Although you then admit "specifically myself", you cannot speak for "those of us"... yes, many of the "us" will agree with you I am sure, but no-one can say all will. Any more than I claim my detached, wry view of what is now in my past, is shared by all the rest of "those of us who are unmarried" - some may hold a similar view, others not. We can only speak for ourselves - we are not clones.
I've no sour grapes at all, and I do not presume to speak for Sharonna's feelings, only for my reaction to her words as they appear on the screen - but I think she has a good point.
We are led to believe by all sorts of social and (mainly) commercial pressures that sexual intercourse is somehow utterly vital beyond its mere mating function, and that it must be "perfect" in some vague way every time.
Sharonna reduces it to mere physicality at one point, and I think I can see you might object to that, but I do so with wry amusement, not "sour grapes". There is no point in wallowing in vinegar, I just get on with enjoying what IS available to me in life. I am too old for a sexual relationship - so? Life's a series of random chances, hence why I am single. I simply accept it, I remember good times but I don't elevate my sex life to the point of risking feeling it's missing when actually, it's loving company that's missing.
In fact her words rather tie in with what I've thought for a long time - that if to the woman it's just 3 or 4 muscle contractions then to the man it's 30 or 40 minutes of rather undignified ""exercises" to induce them. It may be fun - I don't deny that - but there's more to life than a semi-instinctive, semi-voluntary bodily function.
I am sorry if she and I undermine whatever romantic or mystical associations you or anyone else give the function, but to me, what is far more important is the relationship and companionship. So whilst the physical contact is a natural part of that, I see no need to elevate sexual intercourse into something above its station. It may be - indeed should be - enjoyable for both partners and most of us are driven to want it instinctively, and I found it so years ago; but it's not the be-all and end-all of everything beyond its basic biological purpose.
My text-book on human biology starts its chapter on reproduction with the bald statement that "Biologically, our purpose in life is to reproduce" - whilst that could be said of all living organisms, I find that a bit bleak. Necessary biologically maybe, but a deeply reductionist view of human life.
Sour grapes? Why? I see no sour grapes anywhere in what Sharonna wrote - maybe a little disillusionment - but I miss the deep emotion of the company, not the sweaty ephemera of the coitus.
carbonproduct 