Category: Dating and Relationships
As blind people and such we do lots of online dating. Several questions often come up, and I felt like asking the Zone for your responses.
When should the couple be intimate, or how soon after they actually meet in person?
What should be the plan, should you travel to your person to settle down with them, or should the first meeting be for a short time, then plans made to live together?
If the couple doesn’t live together, how long should the relationship continue, providing it is doing well, before someone moves?
Who should move and why?
Should a couple find a place they both like, start fresh, instead of moving to the other person’s city?
What is a reasonable time limit a couple should spend on the relationship before the actual face to face meeting after they have declared they are dating or serious?
These seems to be questions that can make or break a relationship. I will answer them all from my prospective if this topic takes off.
I will start with the first question in my next post.
I am currently in what I would consider a serious relationship, mostly conducted over the phone and the internet. My partner and I have met several times, but since he lives a good distance away, we don’t see each other very often. So far, we’re going strong after nearly a year and a half together. Though many of these questions are subjective and I don’t think there are any “shoulds” involved, here’s my personal opinion. Keep in mind that it’s just that: an opinion.
1. Intimacy is very dependent upon both partners and their level of comfort with each other. My partner and I met after six months and were very comfortable with each other, but not everyone is going to feel quite so secure physically. Go at the pace of the more unsure partner.
2. I think couples might be better served by meeting a few times before actually settling down together. Travel back and forth if possible; meet the families of both partners, become somewhat acquainted with the environment they are in every day. Then, when you feel comfortable, you can make plans to settle down.
3. As for the moving issue…another tricky one, dependent on the couple in question. If circumstances make it so that either partner moving is impossible at present—as is the case with my own relationship—waiting is really the only way to go. If the relationship is strong enough waiting will be possible; however, if the relationship can’t handle the strain both parties must be willing to admit this and not prolong painful relationships unnecessarily.
4. Who moves is, again, dependent on the relationship in question. My chosen field is better suited to my current location, whereas my partner’s field travels more easily. However, when the time comes we will make the decision based on who is more able to move and cope with the changes. Remember: a move doesn’t have to be permanent. You can always try somewhere else with your partner if things aren’t working out. Be willing to compromise and be flexible
5. Move wherever it makes sense to go. I would advise moving to one of the cities you already know, as the one who lives there will be able to help the other one adjust.
6. Again, whatever works. Meet as soon as possible, perhaps, in order to establish that there is physical chemistry and suchlike. But do as you like.
Just my two cents.
Wayne, meglet's answer is very fair. I think that your questions, though thoughtful ones, can only be answered according to the individual relationship. The answers are definitely subject to change from circumstance to circumstance.
I don't personally think it's wise to call a long distance connection an actual relationship before the two parties meet at least once, spend some time together, etc. You never know what the other person is really like in person.
As someone who's relationship transitioned from meeting online and evolved into a serious relationship with a child, etc., I think online long distance relationships are highly circumstancial in every instance.
My current partner and I couldn't meet in person for eighteen months after we started talking online, and this wasn't by choice. We both wanted it, but circumstances kept us from that first meeting. This seems like an awfully long time, and indeed it was, so that was a major test in itself for us. Wether we could hold each other's interest for as long as we had to before we actually met.
Now, given that my partner and I had corresponded on a daily basis for a year and a half and we had gotten each other through some very rough times, I felt very close to him by the time we met, and being physically and emotionally intimate felt as natural as could be for us. He moved soon after to my neck of the woods, simply because he was planning to do so anyway, and he had a job prospect lined up.
Now, here are some interesting points I wanted to bring to the discussion based on my experiences.
I'd said that in my opinion, there is no actual relationshipto be had before the two partners physically meet, and my partner and I had not had the opportunity to meet for over a year. That being said, I was aware that he had one or several FWB arrangements during that time, because he had natural needs, and we weren't officially together. He didnt' expressly come out and say that to me, but it snuck in here and there during conversations, and he had asked me at one point if I was ok with that. We were planning on imbarking on a relationship when we met, provided that we still wanted to, but the way I saw it, we weren't in a relationship yet, and who was I to place restrictions and exclusivity on him, right? So I was ok with the FWB thing, even though I am not personally into them, and I didn't consider that any kind of cheating. Now, had he done that once we wre in an actual relationship after having met, I'd have had an issue with that.
So what do you guys think? Is being exclusive ok before two people meet physically, and if not, is it permissible in your views to have an active sex life while you wait to be with that person. Furthermore, who thinks it's ok for partners to have fuck buddies or friends with benefits while in a long distance relationship where neither partner can move anytime soon, and frequent visits are impossible?
As I stated, I think FWB's are ok before the relationship truly begins, but they're a huge no-no for me once they're in gear and your waiting.
I agree with the last poster. That's actually why I'm extremely war of entering into another long-distance relationship. I've tried it many times before and so far it's never worked. This is not to say that if a woman came along, whether on here or somewhere else (BlinkNation before it got hacked), with whom I really seemed to feel a connection, I wouldn't change my mind. But I'm trying not to hold my breath. LOL.
I thank all for the responses so far.
I personally have not done this but once, so thought it be interesting to see what others think.
When should the couple be intimate, or how soon after they actually meet in person?
For me this is an interesting question. Because we talk on the phone, send messages, messenger, and general date, if I have to travel I expect intimacy.
This is depending on if the person has been honest with me. When I say this, I mean, is she physically as she says she is, is her situation, living arrangements, and such, as she says they are.
When I arrive at her place, or she arrives at mine if all is as it should be I feel I already know her, we’ve just not touched.
I’m going to be wanting her in this way and that is just honest for me.
Because we can not send pictures and other things, what a person tells us is the picture we have of them.
I personally start to feel that person as she is described.
We have talked about our physical needs honestly, hopefully, so I see no reason not to be intimate on the first day
If she is not ready for some reason, this should be respected of course, and the reason worked out soon.
Now to the question of having someone local and FWB. I see this as practical if either person has needs.
Needs, or sex to me don’t always add up to complete togetherness, so if you’ve never met a woman, but she is totally interesting to you, until you actual meet, I’d also say you aren’t really dating.
It can be serious, sure, but I don’t think is realistic to have a one on one with someone you’ve not met.
The actual meeting could be much different then you expect.
Being intimate with someone else won’t necessarily keep me from wanting them as in the case of poster 3.
Once we have met, we should try to do it as often as possible, and that can be worked out.
I have a few things to say on this.
First and foremost, I agree almost entirely with Meglet's viewpoint on this. I'm in my second long-distance relationship and I know a thing or two of what works for me, at least. That said, however, here's a little more to add.
As far as I'm concerned, if you commit enough to someone online that you intend to be with them the moment you can confirm it physically, then unless you want to be polyamorous by nature you need to get exclusivity right away. Needs of this nature...aren't really needs, and even if you'd classify them as such, what do you think military spouses do when their partner is away for awhile? One's "needs" do not change simply because one is dating somebody; the body itself doesn't generally recognize one's marital or relationship status and decide to tone down one's libido. That said, for me at least, a fuck-buddy sort of thing isn't going to fly. If I'm into a woman and she's into me, then that's fairly exclusive, and we're going to try like hell to meet up to see what sort of cchmistry there is. But then, I suppose this all depends on the throw-away nature of the feelings of a person you've never touched, woken up next to or held while they cried. If you're putting some sort of barrier in the way of a relationship because you've never touched someone, then it's kind of self-imposed, and on those grounds I guess I can see where something like friends with benefits seems fairly germain. Doesn't work for me though.
As far as when intimacy should come into the picture? Again, depends on the couple, but since your first meeting probably isn't going to be weeks and weeks, you have to find a balance-point between testing limits and being comfortable. Go too slow and you won't learn anything; go too fast and one or both of you might regret what happened. In my current relationship, I'm glad to say that, while things might have been a touch quicker than I ultimately expected, I wasn't displeased in the slightest, and the chemistry was, and still is, excellent.
One last thing regarding the overall questions. The first question to ask yourself and your partner (however indirectly) is where you're going with the relationship, and how serious it's going to be. If you just want a fling, then much of this won't apply. If you don't really care about where it goes but are open to asmething long-term blooming, then you have to at least leave your options open. And if, like me and my current partner, you have an awfully good impression of where things could lead, then you have to get practical and ask yourselves right away if you're willing and capable, as far as waiting, sacrifices and the like are concerned. If you aren't, then it's like Meglet said...get out early and spare yourselves both the heartbreak. Some people simply can't up and move, or can't wait three years till they can have their partner next to them each night, while others, myself among them, can justify the wait, however painful it is, because of what it promises at its end. Delayed gratification, of a sort, though it's not a self-imposed delay. I'd be there with her in a heartbeat if I could be.
What should be the plan, should you travel to your person to settle down with them, or should the first meeting be for a short time, then plans made to live together?
On this I say as soon as you decide this person is good for you, you and the other person should plan to meet.
That meeting should take place as soon as possible, not years, but a short time. That planning should involve both persons as far as how much, how to travel there, and much research in to meeting should be done just like anything else you are planning to do or buy.
I personally would pay for my person to travel if she could not afford it, or I’d go visit her, but I don’t think more they 6 months should pass.
If money needs to be saved, both parties should pitch in to make that happen.
The person that has the most comfortable living situation should host. In this I mean, you shouldn’t travel to see your lover and live in her or his mother’s house. If you both live with family, not roommates, hotel arrangements should be made.
The only reason you should visit someone that lives with a parent is if it is actually their home, not the parents’ home, and they have complete say.
Work schedules, or whatever are easy to work out.
What should be the plan, should you travel to your person to settle down with them, or should the first meeting be for a short time, then plans made to live together?
On this I think the first meeting should just be to see if you work, and how it feels. The only way a person should move in is if it is easy to move out if things don’t work. How many meetings before they decide it is a go depends.
If the couple doesn’t live together, how long should the relationship continue, providing it is doing well, before someone moves?
This depends on if the couple really want to live together. If it is made up in both persons mind that this is the person they want, I think all plans should be made.
The person with the most stable situation again is the place you should move to. Struggling when a relationship is new is difficult.
Who’s family is the most supportive, who’s living conditions are the best. That is where you should settle.
Yes, you might have to give up your job and such things, but if you really want to live with this person you have to move if they are better situated to care for both of you. Again, planning is a necessity.
You might say why should a person give up their job to move? Well, if you never give up, then you will never get together. If that is okay, then you’ll never do it. In order to get together someone has to give.
Look in to the best place to be and move there.
What is a reasonable time limit a couple should spend on the relationship before the actual face to face meeting after they have declared they are dating or serious?
I think I’ve covered all, but I’d like to say after about a year you are not planning to move you really aren’t interested. Sure, it might take longer to get there, but if you’re not working on it is not as serious as you think.
People get married and divorced in less time. Smile.
Of course all I said is subjective. I posted this topic to learn what others think.
I'd just like to comment that I really like what ShepherdWolf said. His viewpoint is very levelheaded, and I think long distance relationships would be a piece of cake if more men shared his outlook.
On the friends with benefits thing, I personally think the same thing. As I mentioned before, I was comfortable not being with anyone while I waited to be with my future (current) partner, but I wasn't going to rip his head off over something he was doing. I dont' own him, and I made no official statement, mutual or otherwise, to be exclusive before meeting. Though I would have liked for him to harbor my own point of view regarding the situation, I thought it would not have been my place not to offer him some leeway on the matter before we met.
I guess I made the right choice, seeing as we are together for over four years now and definitely in a serious involvement.
Still, as I said before, a girl's time in a long distance relationship would be so much easier if ShepherdWolf's viewpoint was adopted by the majority of men. Hmmm. wishful thinking. lol
This is a realy interesting topic I think a meeting first should be established before you consider moving together, because, there are things you never know about a person till you meet them. Also, an important aspect of any relationship is the discovery of your partner's ticks, bad or good habits, ya know, the little things, and deciding whether those bad habits are deal breakers or things that aren't really that big of a deal. As for the friends with benifits thing, I don't think I could do it, but that's to each their own. In fact, I know I couldn't do it. If I'm waiting to see how things go because I haven't met a partner yet, I'm not going to risk that with someone who could just be a local fling and nothing more. I want commitment and that's what I'll have.
I'm right with you on that one, Sam.
In my view, you simply cannot be in a dating relationship with someone you have never met. That said, meeting online is a very good thing. A friendship and definite suspicions of more can develop. Then it is a good idea to meet and see how things progress. I would say the first meeting should be for a relatively short period, a few days if it involves travel. There is of course the chance that it may be awkward, that there may in fact be little to no chemistry when the keyboards stop clicking, so better to be safe than sorry. Once this is established and assuming all goes well and both parties want to start a relationship, then whatever works best for them in terms of relocation is the way to go. Just my thoughts.
In my view, you simply cannot be in a dating relationship with someone you have never met. That said, meeting online is a very good thing. A friendship and definite suspicions of more can develop. Then it is a good idea to meet and see how things progress. I would say the first meeting should be for a relatively short period, a few days if it involves travel. There is of course the chance that it may be awkward, that there may in fact be little to no chemistry when the keyboards stop clicking, so better to be safe than sorry. Once this is established and assuming all goes well and both parties want to start a relationship, then whatever works best for them in terms of relocation is the way to go. Just my thoughts.
Agree with the last poster. That's also why I'm wary of the distance thing. Too often I've met women online and we seemed to have chemistry, but then when we met in person there was nothing.
The pace of things is hard to match up, because everyone moves at different paces. Some people are more willing to jump in to something quickly while maybe, that other person isn't sure yet. I think online relationships have their similarities and differences to relationships you might have with someone who lives close to you. Both involve commitment from both people, if that is what is being looked for by both. I wouldn't say that an online one involves more commitment, and those who believe that probably put more effort in to the relationship and end up getting disappointed if things don't work out. I can all ready see people disagreeing with me on that thought, but I believe they both involve the same amount of effort, but people try harder with online relationships to try and keep it together, which becomes a strain. The one good thing about an online relationship is that it forces the both of you to have some space between yourselves, which is just as important as spending time talking on the phone or on the computer with each other. If you don't spend time apart, it ends up being too much.
Here's what I've always wondered. If you live with family and you choose to travel out of state meet someone you met online, do you tell your family the truth of where you're going, or do you just say you're going to see a friend? If I ever did that while I lived with my parents, they'd honestly flip shit probably, even though I am an adult and can make my own decisions. Lol. I guess they'll always see me as a baby, even in 20 years when I have my own kids lol. So, how would you go about something like that? I guess it all depends on the person and their situation.
Family will probably always be uneasy about you travelling to meet someone far away. Society and the media always speaks of these horror stories about people doing that and end up going missing or killed. From experience, I can tell you that the more you say about your interraction with the person, the more comfortable they will be. What I mean is telling them how long you've spoken with them, the good characteristics you like about them, and what makes you comfortable with that person. They don't need to know the conversations you have with the person, because that is your business. But some reassurance on your part will help in most situations. They will always worry, so stay in contact with the family and let them know you are ok at the least. I guess there will always be the parent who tries to be more strict, but if you are an adult they need to understand that.
Right? They need to, and I am constantly reminding my father of the fact that I am an adult, but the man is a control freak and now that I'm living with him, I really need to fight hard.
I know what that's like. I had to live with one for 11 years and I felt pretty helpless. I understand you may need his help to keep going without putting yourself in debt, or without getting yourself in a situation you can't handle, but when it comes down to it the best thing to do is keep yourself out of having to deal with it all together. I recently chose to block out my ex stepfather from my life which is hard because two of my siblings are his kids, but I'm trying to work around that to see them anyway. Let me know if you need to talk.
Relating that to the topic though, a good partner would realize the situation as you explain it to them, and would also work around that. Some things can't be helped, but depending on the relationship and how it goes, you and the other would have much to look forward to once you get going. He has control of you under his roof, but there's not much he can do to control you when you leave.
Thanks Trouble. Yseah, since my mom's moving, I have to live with him till I go to the center.
Having done the long-distance thing twice now, I can fairly safely say that I disagree with the person saying that a long-distance relationship requires the same amount of commitment as one where you're seeing someone all the time. For one thing, you are not having your physical desires met most of the time, and neither is your partner; this probably isn't a deal-breaker, but it's there, while it would be far less an issue, perhaps not one at all, if you saw your partner on a regular basis. For another thing, a long-distance relationship requires, of some people at least, a greater naked commitment of time; it's a mindset thing, knowing that you've got to set aside time to interact with this person who's not in the room with you. It has the potential to interrupt real-life social situations or otherwise limit their scope. If it's healthy, this won't matter much, but there's no doubting that while you're talking to your long-distance partner, you're probably not hanging out with friends, visiting with family or engaging in your favourite people-related hobby. A boyfriend or girlfriend who's close by will monopolize your time too, but not always in the same way.
Let me be clear on one thing. I don't think the differences are huge, and I don't think they're worth killing a long-distance partnership for. I'm just outlining the fact that I believe different levels of commitment are required for two different types of social arrangement.
Shepherdwolf: Completely agreed.
Latino Heat, I know what you're saying; I'm there right now, in some ways. I extend a similar invitation, should you need to talk about anything.
Yeah, I guess they do, and it also depends on how serious you are taking the relationship though. Unless you or the other person is able to find a way to get the two of you closer to each other, it's one of those things where you still have to live your life, as does the other person. You have to question before you make any sudden decisions, is it worth persuing and perhaps making some big sacrifices? Let's face it, it's not healthy to start off all relationships as serious ones. And if so, and things don't work out well, then you've just devoted yourself to something that wasn't worth it, and lost everything else you had going for you.
Every relationship comes with that sort of quandary, but it is rarely so stark as in a long-distance relationship because you don't necessarily have to get uprooted and live in a scary new place for awhile before you learn that it's not going to work.
Rushing into a long-distance relationship, hurrying to move in with your partner or have them move in with you, would probably be a mistake unless circumstances specifically catered to it. Say your partner was going to be coming in your general direction anyway, regardless of their relationship status; then it might not be so bad, because if the relationship is busted, they still have a pretty good life to live. Also, if it takes a long time to fall apart, the person who travelled to make it work may still have a life to live, having carved out a niche of their own in a new place.
I think the ideal is to take every relationship seriously, but to begin every relationship with the full understanding that it's a trial, and must strengthen with time. If and when it doesn't, be prepared to let go of it before it traps you and makes you both miserable.
Definitely agree with the last poster, whichis another reason I'mhesitant to enter into a long distance relationship. I'm reluctant to move just for a woman and I wouldn't want her to move just for me.
Agree completely. Every relationship, like most things, changes over time. Hence why people should take a relationship, especially an ldr one, slowly. That can be hard to do sometimes, as you may feel you have a connection that can be unrivaled with someone, and when you fall, sometimes you fall hard and fast, but if that's the case, if it is real and worth it, most will know that when they meet face to face.
Latino heat
, here is an angle that might work. It is odd, but here goes.
You want to meet someone and in your case you are a daughter living with your dad, so dad's are over protective, or control freaks.
Suppose you ask your "friend" to travel to your city if they are free to travel.
Next, tell your dad you want to spend some time with your friend aways from hom in a hotel, being that you are an adult.
If money is an issue, ask him to help, and as posted say why you like this person and whould like to try things with them.
This way your dad only has to let go of a few things, but can have the fear of you being to far away gone, because he'll know where you are, and can check on you.
That's always been my problem. WhenI fall for someone I really fall for them. So lately I've been trying not to do that LOL.
Wayne. No dad in their right mind will let his little girl go visit a male friend in his hotel room. I dont' care how honest she is with him or how nice the guy is. Come on, get real, 4real. lol
Lmfao Bernadetta, my thoughts exactly.
I'm among the few who feel you can't say you're in a relationship with someone you've never met in personally.
also, if you're interested in someone you've not yet met, it's perfectly natural and healthy to have FWB relationships. if it's decided upon meeting that you both want exclusivity, fine. till then, though, I don't think it's fair to deny needs we may have.
I meant to say that I don't think you can say you're in a relationship with someone you've never met in person.
I also think every question posed by Wayne, is highly individualized, so will vary from person to person, couple to couple.
Yes. I just pose the questions to get responses.
Now Bernadetta, , I did say dad would have to get use to a few things?
What is the greater evil, letting his little girl go to a local hotel, or having his little girl go to the airport? hahaha
Hell! No! but still?
A few things here.
First, most dads are probably going to want the older guy to come to them. No hotel, no travel for their young daughter. Some will deny outright of course, but if anything's going to work, experience tells me that if you're an older guy dating a younger girl and you're trying to meet, the strong likelihood is that you'll have to come to her.
Chelslicious, I guess you're entitled to your own opinion on this subject, but it raises a few questions for me which, given that I've now engaged in two long-distance relationships (one past, one current) that haven't exactly imploded for the expected reasons, make me rather curious. If you're among those who feel that a relationship is not official until you've met someone, why is that? Are you reducing a relationship to an indication of its physical benefits and, if so, would you then declare a relationship over if, later in life, you or your partner were no longer able for some reason to satisfy one another? Say you and your spouse were both in your sixties and you had a massive stroke; if you argue that a relationship is only validated by its physicality, then surely once you've had that stroke, your partner has every right to drop you and take up with someone who can satisfy his needs? If this assumption is wrong, and you have a different reason for saying what you do, I'd like to hear it. I wonder a lot, though, because you also say that until you've met, an FWB arrangement is permissible and healthy; I strongly disagree with this, because again, it reduces a partnership to its physicality. Chemistry is important, and I suppose for some it may be integral, but I think long-term I'd say that the couples who remain happy are those who connect emotionally rather than physically (often they have both, of course, but it's the emotional bonds that hold up against the strain of potential decades of hardship, not the good sex). If you can get to know a person who doesn't live near you, and you haven't met them yet, I fully agree that you're ignorant of at least one fairly important facet of each other...and if you are going o date, I believe that it is in your best interest to meet as soon as you can. However, I wouldn't say that friends with benefits makes a whole lot of sense. Do military wives have the right to screw around on their husbands if they're overseas for six months? They have needs that aren't being met. If you end up with a guy who's going to be on the road a lot because of his job, who won't see you for weeks on end, how would you feel if it turned out he was satisfying his so-called needs elsewhere? Perhaps you'd feel different because you'd already established this relationship, but I'm left wondering why it is that two mature adults cannot essentially agree to be exclusive, and in so doing cement their status as a couple, at long distance. Are they unfit to judge? Is their perspective lacking, and if so, why? Because as far as I see it, having had some experience, I believe myself capable of either dealing with my own needs, as it were, or waiting for a good thing a little. If you're never going to meet, I believe a long-distance relationship becomes harder and harder to justify, but if the intent is to meet, and if you believe you know your partner intimately enough to want to commit to them, I personally can't see a reason why two level-headed people with an eye toward the future can't start something meaningful.
It's like I said earlier. You are an adult, and what you decide to do is your business. A parent's job isn't to control his child until they die, though I do realize not every parent has the same philosophy about parenting as I do. If you decide to set up a meeting with that person that's on you to make sure you will be safe. Don't give the control back to a person who has a history of being controlling, take control of your life.
Shepherdwolf, I'm not Chelsea, but I'd like to answer one of your questions and speak on another one.
If I had a massive stroke or for some reason became unable to give my lover sexual pleasure I'd want her to find a friend that could. I'd not feel it was fair to cut off her sexual life just because we had a relationship.
We could easily have the rest of it, and love doesn't stop just because you can't have sex, but love continues when you give a partner the rights to have a full and good life, not cut their life off because of your issues. That is true love to me.
Now as far as military couples. If my wife had needs while I was away for a year or so and I could not bring her with me, I'd also suggest she get them met.
I personally wouldn't marry until I could travel with a family, but if things happened, again, because I love her, I'd want her to have a full life.
It is possible to love someone and have sex with another person for pleasure.
In this case, I've not met the lady, so if she wanted to continue her life until we met, I'd not have any hold on her. Again, she was perfectly free to have sex before we met online, and she became interested in me, so her having sex until we meet won't make much difference will it?
I dunno...to me, that seems a little arbitrary. I know that if my partner had a stroke, I wouldn't go off and get laid by someone else. That seems a little like betrayal to me, even if I have needs; like I say, most people can handle said needs on their own. Is it unfortunate as hell? Sure it is. But it's one of the things you accept when you decide to actually be monogamous. I have nothing against people doing as you suggest, it's their kettle of fish...but it's not mine. I know how I'd feel if I had the opportunity to do a friends-with-benefits thing before eeting a woman I fully intended to hook up with, and knowing that, I couldn't in good conscience be with someone who felt differently and thought it was okay to mess around till I showed up. Once you commit to wanting to date someone, it's as good as sealing a deal; everything after that is just...clearance. And, I daresay that this opinion is more common than not; if you were in a relationship that wasn't long-distance, or rather, were thinking of starting one...if your potential partner and you were in the thinking-about-it stage, you'd probably smash things to hell if you went and screwed around with someone else. Kinda gives mixed messages.
Well, everything has to be agreed on. When you are monogamous, you also are excepting that you will share your life with a person, and give that person what they require to be happy.
If a person is not happy your monogamous relationship will crash anyway.
Because love takes time, committing yourself to someone you've never met seems silly to me. Now after you meet, and you have true love, true love is giving. I don't want my partner to suffer, or want something I can easily give.
Seems selfish to say, if I can't have it you can't either. Love is giving, I'll say that again.
These are all very interesting posts. Yeah, my dad would go berserk if I was lile, "Hey, going to a hotel, to visit a guy friend, see ya." Lol. Yeah, I'd be a little put out if my partner was fucking some other woman while I was laid up in bed with some life threatening condition or even if I was ill. Lol.
If the illness doesn't keep you from giving him pleasure, you are right. Also if it is tempary, but if it is for life it is selfish.
I personally could love a women more and she'd be my world if she gave me true love.
The other person would also have to live with the fact I was not leaving my lover unless she passes.
Most monogamous people would agree that true love kind of implies that one doesn't cheat, needs aside, and that includes the part at the beginning of a long-distance relationship where two monogamous people have decided they want to give it a really good try. Monogamy is only cruel if it's enforced against someone's will, and that's...sort of hard to do. I don't see it as cruel or unusual if I'm with someone and I can't give them what they need, physically; it sucks, but we both signed up for it. If you don't want to do that, that's fine, but you'll be passing up the chance on your own behalf and not your partner's.
I have no problem with people deciding they want to be monogamous . That is a sweet thing, but here is what I think happens many times, and why we have people mad about cheating.
People that get in to lon distance relationships that were monogamous alone won't have any issues with staying that way, but a person that has lots of opertunity, but doesn't or hasn't found the person he or she wants to settle down with will have a problem if they have a high drive.
In my view, honesty is simply the best.
What happens to the person that has opertunity, is it is Friday night, the long distance person is busy, or not available for some reason. They have a good friend, and they need company, so they go out for a night of dancing, dinner, or something with this person.
One thing leads to another and they end up in bed.
The other person learns they went out, so calls it. The person that promised monogamous cheated in this case.
They break up something that might have been good if they both were simply honest.
Now supposing the person that went out didn't do anything but have a good time and went home alone. The other person still wants to call it cheating, because she or he had a good time without the other person with someone.
If you are a loner, or not social much you probably won't have a problem with monogamous long distances with someone you've never met, but if you are social, you will meet someone maybe, and people like companionship. It is the reason you are trying to find the serious person.
Same goes for married couples. Things change in our lives, and we simply have no control over them. I just don't see sacrificing something that is easy to give love. Seems I should do the sacrificing of my feelings and allow my healthier partner to continue.
I'm odd, I understand, but I'd also wish someone that wanted someone else for any reason, money, looks, whatever, to have what they feel they need. I've already enjoyed them, and I sincerely believe you can not hold a person to you with guilt, promises, and such things if they don't want to stay.
Because I love them I want them to have what they feel they need.
Ok. Shepherdwolf and Wayne are actually talking about two different aspects, Wayne from the standpoint of the one letting go, and Shepherdwolf talking from the point of view of the potentially-let-go.
But I dare any of you, especially sexual traditionalists like myself and Shepherdwolf who constrain ourselfvesto long-term monogamy, to consider the following, purely as an exercise of looking from the outside in.
So, in the interest of free thought, let's pretend you never heard of culturally prescribed norms we have about sex, that to you, sex was like any other need you fulfill for your partner, like the way I cook food for the wife, for instance, or listen to her after a hard day of heart-tugging effort in the social services field.
I say this, because all of us are trapped by culturally constrained modalities with this stuff: I as well as anyone else. I've been married 20 years, haven't strayed and won't stray, and am inclined to be like Shepherdwolf in terms of if she got sick or out of commission I would live like a priest until she died. We call it love, sure.
But let's say for sake of argument, that I was too emotionally damaged by some traumatic event, to be able to meet the wife's needs in the area of her needing to talk out all this heart-tugging stuff she has to deal with on a daily basis. Is it really selfish of her, then, for her to go seek out another source that she can talk to, in order to get that very real need met? We all acknowledge the need she has, emotional let-down is not controlled by religion, as is sex.
Or what if I had no hands? Got them cut off in some accident? Now she comes home physically tired as usual, but since I now have no hands, I cannot help her get food or do other things. So, is she selfish if she needed some other help for that? Sure she can get it all herself, but it's not the same as having someone do it for you, that actually fills a need greater than just the need to eat.
Again, it's not controlled by religion, though, so she could do it and nobody would care.
But it's easy to see how an alien society, one with all the same sexual drives as us, but without the made-up cultural taboos on it, would look at us as silly. Especially people like Shepherwold and I who are basically sexual Puritans, monogamous types who "didn't fuck around," took it all very seriously when it came to sex in relationships.
But we wouldn't be the only ones who seemed silly.
Imagine for sake of mental exercise, that in this alien society, nobody "vented," or "talked out their emotions," outside of a monogamous relationship. You waited for just that right one, or at least someone you wanted to commit to, before you started divulging all your emotions, letting it all out, getting your emotional needs met. They have a religion and a Puritanical form that shames people as sluts and horn dogs for talking openly about emotions to someone you're not committed to. What we would call a listening ear, they would call a friend with benefits, unless you're committed to that person. What we would call a counselor, they would call a prostitute, the way many do the sex workers in our society.
In fact, some of their claims we could understand: If you have been monogamous, you do know how very deep and bonding it is when she feels that she can let down about events in her day, cry, let it all out. It's really not that much of a stretch to see how the two movements in their society, which mirror our Puritanical fundamentalism and our femitheism, would both claim that that emotional bond is for one person, if not one person only, then at least one person at a time. And only in the context of a committed relationship.
Now if that person cannot meet your needs for some reason, you cannot talk about these things with anybody.
Not only that, this alien society would view sex the way we view talking about things: That you just need to be able to do it with someone. That it's unhealthy for you to keep it bottled up. And maybe they even have done some physical research to demonstrate this, just as we have about emotions in the last 50 years.
And this alien society would have all sorts of made-up stories about the adverse effects of talking about your emotions outside a committed relationship. In fact, they would claim you become emotionally scarred because the intense bonding only available by sharing your heart, is treated callously by open relationships.
Just like the sexually open in our society, the emotionally open would be labeled, categorized, picked on. And when the scars from being labeled, categorized and picked on started to show, everyone would claim those scars were caused by being emotional "sluts" or "horn dogs," if you will.
Now earlier in this thread someone pointed out it's us men that are the problem, or men that won't see it your way the way your religion wants them to, the culturally-prescribed way with all our funny books and made-up stories.
In this alien society, they would claim it was women, who just wouldn't restrain themselves from satisfying their needs -- their needs to be emotional and talk things out. And they too would have the religion and funny books and ideas to back it that you and I have, only it would be quite the case of trading places.
Both groups, the alien society and the posts who talk about men's sexual needs here as though that is some sort of base or inferior situation, both are stereotypes, and neither are more than just a broad brush.
Now to complete this exercise, and really hold the mirror to Puritan-style monogamists like me and Shepherdwolf, let us say a mating occurs: one from our society and one from theirs. They're serious about each other, doesn't matter if we're talking gay, straight or what have you. Since both societies carry the same types of prohibitions in all relationship types like this.
Now the person from the alien society has to work a lot of hours, and so cannot always be there to fulfill the other partner's emotional needs. Is it cheating when the person from ours phones a friend, gets together, and just lets it all out about their day? If not, why not? After all, in the alien society, they call people like that home-wreckers. And they claim people like that are causing all sorts of social upheaval, they even have a true mélange of psychology and pseudo-science to make a lot of claims about how the human race just won't survive with this boorish behavior!
And, to complete the circle, the person from our society at some point becomes unable to fulfill any sexual needs of the other partner. Now, is that partner cheating if they go out to "get some," as it were? After all, theirs would claim it's unhealthy to keep this need all bottled up.
Now this exercise makes no real difference in how any of us live. I'll admit openly and unashamedly that if the wife became ill or some other situation came up, I would live the amish existence sexually until she got better or died, and then I would probably feel guilty afterwards about seeking out another partner too soon. Hell, I'd probably feel guilty for any auto-sexual activities since I've been acculturated in a society where Woman is superior for her perceived less need in that area.
The sorts of femitheism or Christian fundamentalism that some of you earlier parroted when talking about men and their needs.
And in the alien society? There would be a similar mascutheism and version of some fundamentalist dichotomy to pretend to oppose it, both putting down women and their supposed greater emotional needs. And there'd be plenty of respectable reasonable women who would buy right into that and go amish from an emotional stamdpoint if for some reason their partner could no longer meet their emotional needs.
Wow, Sir Lio! concise, and to the point, you made a lot of scence, it's a great mental exercise! :)
Oh, Leo, that is so clever! I can see how this can be parallel to the ebate ShepherdWorlf and 4Real have been having. However, I think it all boils down to loyalty.
It really depends on what each partner thinks as disloyal.
If the dying person who is lying in a hospital and not able to perform sexually would have considered their partner a cheater if they went out and got it on with someone else, than yes, the partner is a cheater if he does that. If the dying person thought that finding an emotional relationship with someone was a sign of betrayal, and there may be some out there who might feel this way, then it is, if both partners agreed to uphold that rule in the relationship.But see, leo, sex is so much more to many of us than just a sharing of emotions. For many of us, it symbolizes not only self-expression, but also loyalty, and so on. I don't think that someone like yourself or shepherdwolf are puritan-like. You can be incredibly sexual and incredibly open about it, but if sexual loyalty means a lot to yourself and yrou partner, then you'll uphold it. and that's that.
That's the perspective I share.
I dont' know wayne: your last scenario paints you as an incredibly opportunistic human being. But I'd like to think that we, as humans, are more than that. We are also a very possessive species. So just because you may feel that honesty cures a relationship of the possibility of cheating, it may not be so in the end. I dont' know: there's just something that makes many people, mena dn women included, feel like trash when their partner seeks out sexual gratification elsewhere. It's just the reality of this, no matter how some of us may advocate so-called free love.
And who the hell wants to feel like trash, right?
I dont' think anyone, especially if he or she is ill, wants to feel like their being unceremoniously thrust aside for someone else who can provide sexual pleasure. I'd hate to feel I've been so easily replaced. I may provide further thoughts on this later, but for now, that's that.
if I should ever be with someone who became ill, I, too, would hope that they'd love me enough to realize that I have needs, and allow me to have them met elsewhere. if I were the ill one, the same would hold true. I'd also want them to realize they'd be free to get them met somewhere else, if I couldn't give of myself.
I seriously don't see why some are making that out to be a harsh or selfish act. to me, at least, it's truly loving to not only realize when you're unable to meet a partner's needs, but, to in turn, allow them to seek out the freedom and physicality they likely crave and deserve.
this does not mean, as some seem to think it does, that these relationships are any less valid than those whose partners choose to forego their sexual needs, when something like this happens. it's simply another perspective, not a slam on anyone who thinks differently.
I think Bernadetta's point about not wanting to feel replaced is valid.
And, since I very much understand why my wife needs the emotional let-down after a very heart-tugging hard day at her job, well, if I for some reason could no longer meet those needs, I would not feel replaced by her getting those met elsewhere. I would, however, probably feel bad that she was forced to forego.
But again, the connection we have between sex and commitment is no more and no less than a religion, basically, because it's not actual or real. Sure, it served an evolutionary purpose at one point in order to keep otherwise polygamous males with the mother to help raise the young.
I guess the only reason that I wouldn't feel replaced by her getting her emotional need met somewhere else when I couldn't provide it, is that emotional needs are not what is tantamount to a leash, like sex often is. It's the way you prove to otherwise very insecure humans, all of us, I daresay, that you are committed. You may work hard all day, bring home the bacon, be a great parent for the kids, and do any number of other things. None of that really matters though; if the other person cannot meet your sexual needs, and you go elsewhere, then you are betraying because of that very tenuous little leash that we so focus upon and prohibit against and make laws about. And because of that little leash, we all will assume that you don't love your partner as much anymore, or are replacing that partner, when we don't make that assumption about any other form of intimate needs and desires.
Tell me that making food for your partner, when she's tired, bringing it to her and serving her, isn't intimate. Or any number of otherwise mundane physical things. I dare say the hardest so-called stereotypical man, if he was to tell us the truth that is, would say all of this is in fact intimate and emotions-laden.
But because of that little string, that little leash that eons ago was used to reel in the potentially-polygamous male, if you had sex outside the relationship you have committed a most grievous act that, face it, most of us don't. Want proof that most of us don't? Your reaction, and my reaction. If it were the norm, it wouldn't make the news.
So, without discounting the feelings of the partner, is the partner really replaced? After all you still care for her emotionally and physically. Again, if you've helped your partner during and after birth, or after surgeerty, you know it's very intimate; getting her clothes, helping her into them, lifting her up so she can sit up, laying her back down, bringing her food, just sitting with her. Any of you who've cared for your lover, if you're telling us the truth, know very well you've just sat by her maybe even for hours. Maybe even against the advice of the medical people.
So in all practicality you haven't replaced her, you can't replace another human being. That's impossible.
I think really this discussion proves none of us are atheists, or as irreligious as some of us would like to think.
Nobody's getting replaced, just like nobody's getting replaced when the carer in the relationship needs to talk to someone else and just let out, even the frustrations of caring for the partner, fears about what will happen to the partner, stuff like that.
And as open as some might like to think they are? You wouldn't step out. Sure, it's easier to say, "if my partner needs it, I'l be glad to let her go at least get some solace, some of her needs met, in a troubling time." I actually think it. But the double standard is, I wouldn't do it myself. And I bet, even for the sexually most open, you wouldn't either. Not if it came down to it, because you've got millennia of that little leash there, designed to keep potentially-polygamous males in check. We've dressed it up with pretty words, but it's no more no less than a means to insure mothers against the perils of single motherhood in the wild.
In areas where they have tried to do that with emotional intimacy, the male partner is called controlling, because that is technically what it is. Unless you're in Afghanistan or some backwater location in the middle east, that form of control is not okay. And it technically serves no real evolutionary purpose.
And I still say, even those who think themselves the most sexually open, if push came to shove, you would probably allow your partner to step out if you were ill, yes. But would you step out? No, I'm betting not, not without the accompanying guilt provided by millennia of stories and dogmas.
We have people who don't want sex, refuse their partner sex, and would be devastated if their partner stepped outside the relationship to get sex. But that person didn't want any sex.
In actuality, the types like Eleanor Roosavelt, if the who legend has it, told her husband she didn't care what he did or who he did it with, she just didn't want him coming to her sexually. If that's true, that is an honest approach, none can argue outside of religion and the base evolution of monogamy.
But in many cases, the partner may not care for sex, doesn't want it anymore, and yet would still feel devastated if he went somewhere else, for just the sex.
Fifty years ago, when men couldn't cook, if she couldn't cook anymore, nobody thought it scandalous for him to go somewhere else for food instead of just making sandwiches, or performing a bit of what a culinary prude would have to call culinary masturbation, cooking for himself.
And in those days, meals were quite an intimate affair many times, unlike what we've had now for at least a couple generations. But nobody would call him disloyal or opportunistic, because food has not been used as a leash by evolution to keep partners together.
We're a funny lot of creatures, no doubt an interesting study for any future civilizations who appeared to want to study us.
leo, I believe you're wrong on one count. speaking for me, personally, at least. if it ever came to it, I'd definitely step out of a relationship if my partner were unable to meet my sexual needs.
as you yourself said, though, this doesn't mean that I, or others who share my view, care for our partner any less. rather, we care about him or her enough to be honest about where we stand.
I've given this issue serious thought, and I know that I wouldn't want someone to stay with me if I became ill, based on what they've been taught by society, or perceived guilt they may feel.
I realize I'm in the minority, in being okay with the fact that someone may actually have those feelings towards me, someday. however, this isn't a conclusion I came to lightly. I have personal experience as a caretaker, which is what forced me to think about this sort of thing in the first place.
As do I. My brother had muscular dystrophe, and as a teenager most of his care fell to me. As a young adult I joked that I was walking talking proof that teenagers should not have kids, because of the mistakes I made when a teenager caring for my brother.
For those that would say stepping outside the relationship sexually is the be all end all, caring for someone in any capacity is life-taxing:
Turning them over several times during the night, lack of sleep, wondering if you will wake up to find them dead, watching them decline. In all honesty, had I not been in that situation, I would have had no idea how difficult it is.
Light work is the puke, pee and pooh of your baby, if you have cleaned up after an adult. Of course looking after a brother as a minor, and, as I pointed to earlier, helping a partner, are very two different things.
But it's not romantic any way you slice it. It's exhausting, emotionally draining, lots of pee and pooh and puke to clean up, sometimes quite a bit of blood, very physically demanding, and not a lot of outside assistance. Well now there apparently is, but still. With that as a backdrop, people's hangup about sex seem really really petty to me.
So there ya go, another side of Leo just came out, the part that did the long-term looking-after-someone part.
I hope my wife never has to do that for me, there ya go I'm doing the double standard again: I'd prefer it if a paramilitary or militia friend finished the job for me if I couldn't myself. Having done it for someone else, I can't really stomach the thought of someone being tasked with doing it for me.
And that, boys and girls, is more acceptable as a philosophy than being willing or desirous to step outside the relationship for sexual needs. At least in today's society, and even with the other mythology about any form of being alive as being sacred. Who actually knows? But again, we're pretty funny creatures to look upon from the outside in, I expect, if there are others out there to stare at us.
Leo, I've read what you wrote very carefully, and I think you're right about the leash thing. Pure and simple. I have no real comeback to it. It's...sort of humbling, honestly.
I can see your viewpoint, Chelsea, but you're setting a bit of a double standard here.
I know you believe sex is a paramount aspect of a relationship. I agree with you there. But then, if your partner is in no physical state to perform sexualy and you seek sex out elsewhere, you're essentially designating that part of yoru relationship, a major part, to a different relationship. It may be friends with benefits, but it's still a relationship, no?
So then, now that this major part of your relationship is over, sex, as it may be, your not truly committed anymore, because your getting your needs met elsewhere.
Sure, you stick around, you chit chat with them, you clean up their shit, but then, when they're hanging out alone in their miserable sickness your getting your needs met in someone elses bed. How's that fair.
You say it's not selfish, but how is it not selfish if you can't honor yoru partner by obstaining at least for a period of time, just because they can't meet your sexual needs. I dont' know.. I just find it a very callous outlook. A very self-important outlook. Because you're basically saying you can't forego a bit of sex here and there in order to uphold a commitment you made to someone who is, at that point, in a bad way. Someone who's less fortunate than yourself, someone who you claim to love. I agree with you on most points, and I'm not attacking you personally for your stance, but this one is one I can't quite fathom.
I, personally, would find myself feeling disrespectful toward my partner, and I don't really think it has to do with societal pressures.
Just my opinion.
as I said, Bernadetta, I wouldn't care for my partner any less, nor did I say anywhere that stepping out of a relationship and getting into a sexual one with someone else wouldn't be considered a relationship.
it's a relationship, sure. a sexual relationship, but a relationship nonetheless.
as was said by Wayne many times, though, honesty is crucial in everything. I'd never go behind anyone's back, and if my partner wasn't okay with the fact I'd wanna get my needs met elsewhere, then, that'd be a deal breaker.
I'll also back up what leo said about caretaking. it's more emotionally taxing than most people would probably think, hence why I feel as strongly as I do about this issue. that's also the same reason that, if I were ever in a vegetative state, I wouldn't wanna be kept alive. if I can't think/speak for myself, I don't wanna be here, periiod.
Leo, I liked your thoughts and have done exactly that, a mental exercise to get to the place I am now.
Mine was different, but yours was on target.
I’d like to add a couple things to this discussion. This first will be personal.
There is a couple that had been married for years, and one of them became sick. During the last days of the one’s life doctors wanted to do an operation that may or may not have kept the other person alive, but it would mean the person might die on the table not peacefully.
The other person really didn’t want to be alone, because this had been strong, giving love and it was forever and the person didn’t know what they’d do without the other.
The person decided to let the lover go peacefully, but in the other view that person should have gotten the operation, because they needed their lover?
Another thing was a couple was together. The man worked hard, built a new home, provided all the things he could his wife wanted to the best of his ability, but she still was not happy. She told the man one day that she just needed more, and because he was a disabled person he was not going to be able to provide her more.
She had found another man that promised to give her the Benz, even though she had a luxury car, a bigger house, even thought she had a new one, and other things.
Because the man loved her he gave her 6 months to try it. He wanted her to have the things she felt she needed in life.
Should the man have held on to her tightly, doing everything he could emotionally, and all, laying on the guilt trip, or should he have allowed her to go?
I say let her go easy and don’t stand in her way or try to make her feel less. In this case the woman never got her wants, but the man is happy he didn’t try to keep her from them. After the 6 months she left for good and the man was better because of it emotionally.
That is also a true story.
I am not an opportunist and I love hard. I also feel sex, giving, ties, family, and all that goes with a relationship are sacred and my promise is my word.
The sex binds me to a person to a point just like the rest if we have agreed we are going to be a life team, but, if she or I became unable to give it, it just seems selfish of me to make her wait around.
I personally would do the sitting with her in her condition. I’d clean her up, feed her, keep her company, but on her part she would also understand I was still living and I needed outings, fresh air, some pleasures.
If I were the person in the bed I’d tell my wife after a while to leave and come back tomorrow. I understand she loves me, and that be precious to me, but I also love her, and if she’d do anything for me I in turn would do the exact same for her, and that means letting her live.
As I write this it is emotional, but I’ve done some thinking about this, and I just feel love is total.
If she choose to spend all her time with me that be her choice, but I don’t want her there if she feels she has to be. Loyalty goes both ways.
Some people spouses die. They never remarry or have another relationship. Not because they can’t, they refuse to let themselves and wallow in misery or the past, so the waste their lives. I feel that is a shame.
Wow, Leo. Thanks for making me think. Doesn't change how I feel, at least for my current relationship, but that was, as Shepherdwolf said, humbling.
Yes, he hit it good.
As writer says, we as humans are possessive creatures, and I don’t think that will change.
I have learned this attitude serves me no good purpose, so I dropped it.
The glue that keeps my lover with me is her heart, willingness, and happiness with our relationship. I honestly don’t want a person with me that is there because she feels she is obligated, I want her to want me.
I think lack of want is why many couples end up in relationships that aren’t working, and they are basically separate, but living together.
The women over eat, and the men over drink, or both find vices to make them feel better.
When I come home or my lover comes home, I want to be, or her to be, just like the family dog; excited to see the lover. I want to sniff her, touch her, just like the dog, and I want to get petted, cooed over, spoken to in that loving childish voice, because she loves me.
I don’t want her kicking me so she can head to the fridge and get the gallon box of ice cream, turn on her afternoon reality programs, ignoring me until bed time when she has to lay next to me, or even sleeping in a separate room or bed.
I want to talk, go out, date, and enjoy her fully. If that is dead it is no good.
amen to Wayne's last post.
also, I forgot to add earlier that outlooks like mine and Wayne's are far from selfish. what would be selfish, would be to let one's partner go without sexually, cause you'd consider them doing so to be disloyal, or any number of other things that, in my belief, are totally untrue.
Exactly Wayne. I actually love your last post.
But see, this is exactly what I mean. If your not satisfied in the relationship, sexually or otherwise, leave. Let go. but don't try to hold two birds by one feather, so to speak.
I agree that to want your partner to be happy is the ultimate expression of love. it serves no one well to be possessive of someone who does not want to be held, so to speak. But it is equally noble for one to sacrifice their own needs for the sake of their partner in tough times.
So either way, one person is selfish in the end, if both can't see the issue eye to eye.
If you say you'd want to step out and create a sexual relationship, as Chelsea says she'd do if her partner cant' meet her needs sexually, then as she said, her partner would have to be willing to let her go do that. But in that case, isnt' that couple basically saying, well honey, I'm committed to you, but not totally. Not if the going gets tough. I have to have my needs met.
And then the other scenario: Where one person is so devoted to the other that, if it came to it, he wouldn't seek to satisfy his sexual needs with someone else, but would stick around despite the fact his partner wasnt' able to perform. If the ill partner would prefer the healthy partner to remain sexually faithful, then he or she is a little selfish in that respect.
So here's the ultimate lover's scenario: The sick partner is willing to let the healthy partner seek some sexual gratification elsewhere, but the healthy partner wishes to remain totally loyal to the one who cannot perform as before. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the ultimate scenario of love and devotion. Each partner is sacrificing just enough, and is giving back just enough to the other person to make it noble, selfless and beautiful.
I still think that two people who agree to step out of their relationship for sexual gratification if something should happen where one couldn't perform is not totally committed to each other. Sure, you care about your partner. Sure, your willing to hang out and do all the things a nursemaid could just as easily do. But you're basically saying, well hey, but I care about my sexual needs, and I care about them so much that the fact you cannot have any sexual pleasure yourself anymore is less important to me than the fact that I need to get mine.
I'm sorry, but I stand by my opinion: There's just something so cold about the following scenario:
Lady sits by her husband's side for a couple hours, husband had a stroke a month ago, then lady says,
"Well honey, I'll see you later. I have a date tonight. Wish me luck. I hope you can manage without me for a couple of hours, can't you?" And then lady leaves to go on her date, while her husband hangs out alone in his post-stroke misery.
Here's how I see it. It's much less cruel to let go completely if you know you can't handle some aspects of a relationship or lack there of after an unfortunate illness or something to that effect. This bullshit about sticking around and caring for the person's medical needs while sleeping in someone else's bed at night is, well, frankly bullshit. I would imagine it can be emotionally torturous to the sick person, no matter how he may have felt about the issue in theory, before he experienced it upon his own skin.
If you can't handle the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen, I say. Again, I agree with Wayne's last post. if a couple cant' satisfy each other, whether sexually or otherwise, it's time to call it quits. It takes one person to stop trying, and the relationship is over, whether the couple acknowledges it or not. There's no point in being semiloyal. All or nothing, in my opinion. If you try to do it any other way, you're kidding yourself if you think it's enough. I'm not a fan of half-assed relationships. Just my thoughts.
One thing Chelsea said that I do agree with though: honesty is key in a relationship. Only thing is, honesty doesn't make everything ok. I mean, if you're breaking your partner's heart by going on a rendezvous with someone else, but your honest about where you'll be, aren't you still breaking your partners heart? Yes, you are, but your doing it openly. Doesn't make it ok.
Admittedly, leash or not, I think I can do that (or most of it, anyway), and reciprocate it without giving up anything I don't want to give up. Even if social norms were different, I know myself to be capable of resisting my so-called needs. Pretty much all of us are, when you come down to it; these days, a person who absolutely cannot resist their sexual urges is either in need of therapy or has been guilty of rape or other forms of sexual assault. Everything in moderation, I suppose.
Leo's point is an excellent one, but unfortunately it's very theoretical. What if we had four legs instead of two? What if we all had black skin? What if our evolution had actually tended toward a religious view that really held human sacrifice above all other holy acts? Thing is, even if our system is flawed - which Leo drove home admirably - we're stuck with it. Being stuck with it, and -not being that society he mentioned which has taboos against sharing emotionally, I'm happy enough with my leash, because man or woman, the majority tends to wear it without realizing that they're shackled. We no more care that we're bound this way than we care that we do not have wings to fly with.
WriteAway, very well said. You and Chelslicious were posting as I was, I think. Couldn't agree with you more. Honesty is key. Sacrifice on both sides would be ideal, though it rarely happens that way. I definitely agree, too, that wanting to make your partner happy above yourself is a fairly strong expression of devotion.
In any case, this is wandering sorta far afield, since the original topic at hand was how couples handle long-distance relationships. Drawing a conclusion from what's being said here, it seems to me that this type of relationship is really only feasible either if both people are wide open and anything goes with them, or if both are monogamous even before they meet, deciding to forego their pleasures for awhile in order to achieve the greater good, as it were. It matters very little that this greater good mentality is self-imposed, because we're sorta stuck with it. Thousands of years of inculcating will do that to a society.
Brilliantly put, shepherdwolf. couldn't have said it better myself. And in my opinion, that's very admirable.
I mean, come on. you can't live without water. You can't live without food. You can't live when you aren't breathing. But you can live without fucking someone for the pure pleasure of it. I promise you. You can. It's a sacrifice you're willing to make if you enter into a true commitment. Maybe you may not like it, but you can do without getting it on with someone else while your partner is, say, dying.
You may say, well, what's the point. they're dying anyway, and I have to move on eventually. Well, what about making their last moments, or even months, a little happier by devoting yourself to them. Why not make them feel like they're worth that kind of devotion if you really do care about them? Why not? You can start spreading your legs again when they're gone, and no longer have the earthly emotions that give them the capacity to feel hurt.
Why can't you let off steam by reading a good book. Why can't you go bowling or take up karate to let out your pent up frustration.
Because sex is a sort of leash, as Leo and Shepherdwolf stated. It affects most people like nothing else, and it can be powerful, whether as a weapon or a sign of love. Why be such an animal an care about your sexual gratification before
your partner's emotions.
Look at this example: I love my son. I don't love to change his poopy diapers, I dont' love to clean his puke and I don't love to calm him down from a tantrum, but I do it. Because if I didn't, I'd be neglectful. If I hired a nanny to do all the things I should do for my son and only concentrated on having fun and disciplining him, I might as well have given him up for adoption.
The point of commitment, in my opinion, is to be willing to sacrifice some of yourself to ensure your loved one is just a little happier. It's ideal when a commitment between a couple is fully reciprocated. But you honestly cant' say your committed to someone if you can't stand to bare some sexual frustration for the sake of loyalty.
I love that but what if your partner's not dying, just can't perform? Smile.
This doesn't often happen to women, because even if they don't have desire, the parts pretty much work unless they have pain.
Now a man however? You have a stroke and you might even out live your partner, you just can't fuck. Smile.
I would stick around and be devoted to them, and I'd not say, well honey, I have a date. You don't have to rub it in, just do it quietly.
The other person shouldn't ask either.
Yes, honesty is good, but it hurts too. I guess there is no perfect solution unless we as humans give up greed so to speak.
thank you, Wayne.
Bernadetta, if you recall, I did say that if my partner weren't okay with me getting sex elsewhere if he or she was unable/unwilling to perform, that'd be a deal breaker. that means that I'd completely leave the relationship, both for their sake and mine.
also, I feel like people are assuming that I and Wayne wouldn't discuss this sort of thing with our partners early on, which is not the case, for me, at least.
part of honesty is talking about uncomfortable subjects, and things that, perhaps, some people have yet to even ponder. what we're talking about here, would certainly fall under that category.
Wayne, if your partner isn't dying and just simply can't perform, then all the more reason not to go elsewhere for sex. Come on. How heartless does it make you if your partner is fully capacitated but just can't get it up, as you may say. It already makes him feel bad enough, as a man, gathering from your example, that he can't perform. So what you're saying is, you should go and get your sexual gratification elsewhere, but do it quietly, because maybe it will hurt less. Who are you kidding. Sweeping something like that under the rug just makes it all the more hurtful. At least if you're going to be cruel, take Chelsea's idea and be honest about it. That's the lesser of the two evils, in my opinion. I mean, what are you going to do otherwise.
Sit there, talk to them about your work day, play with the kids, or play with the grandkids as it may be, then say: Ok, hunny. I'm going out for pizza with a friend." And then your partner, who very well knows what pizza stands for, consents quietly and that's that? Really? goodness. Both of you know what all of it means, and not addressing it directly will not mame it hurt less. It'll just fester and get bottled up, and cause more damage. don't you think?
Look. There's no tactful way of doing it, which is why I feel it's cold. Each person reserves the right to their own opinion and to their actions. But from an emotional standpoint, it's just taxing and, frankly kind of shallow. Which returns me to the fact that your not really able to fully commit to someone with that viewpoint. that's the only point I'm trying to make here. I'm not trying to discount your opinion, I'm just trying to show you what it looks like to someone on the other side.
And Chelsea, hate to say this, but no matter how much you talk things like this over with a partner, once you're actually in the situation, oppinions and ideals often change very quickly.
I speak from experience: my partner and I didnt' want children. We always said we'd abort if we became pregnant. Obviously, our minds changed since we have a fifteen month old now and we're very happy with the choice.
Now, to be fair, your being honest about your viewpoint is a great thing. But your partner reserves the right to change his mind about being ok with your sexual needs being met elsewhere in the case of his lacking the ability to satisfy you. So I guess it's fair for you to end the relationship if he changes his mind. After all, you told him your viewpoint from the start. However, doesnt' it make you a shallow partner if you'd decidedly leave a relationship, a longterm so-called commitment just on the basis of your partner being sexually incapable? I'm just throwing that out there. If you recall, I did agree that leaving the relationship is better than sticking around in that instance. Still, again, what kind of commitment is it in the first place if you're willing to up and leave because of one aspect of the relationship.
I'd feel pretty shitty if I were the person to be dumped because I was lacking sexually. If I'm in a commitment and the person I'm with agrees to be in it with me, I imagine I'd feel like a sexual commodity after all. Damn. what a way to bring down the lacking partner's self esteem. What a way to make someone you supposedly love feel like a cheap, useless load of crap. lol Yep, greediness is the demise of human relationships. That's the conclusion I came to.
And if I may further prove my point, let's speculate for a minute on this one little difference between those of us who say we wouldn't stray sexually from the relationship in those circumstances, and those who say they would have to.
I'm sorry, and correct me if I'm wrong, but those who say they wouldn't stray seem like they're currently in successful, serious relationships: Leo, Meglet, Shepherdwolf, myself.. On the other hand, those who would readily step out... Wayne, Chelsea, are not in serious, long term relationships. Perhaps you once were in a serious relationship. Wayne, I think I recall ou saying you were once married. But the point is, you aren't in a long term relationship, are you?
I'm just pointing out an interesting factor: Perhaps those who are more readily able to submit to sexual loyalty can more easily find success in a long term relationship than those who can't? Just a thought.
What do you think.
I don't know Wayne or Chelsey or anyone else who might share those feelings well enough to know whether or not your surmise has weight. It's food for thought, though.
Ok Bernadetta, you brought up some good points.
We can all live without sex. We can also live without a good cry when we need it, a good laugh, a good emotional let-down. All those things release chemicals in the brain that help us be better caregivers, but of course we can live without those things. Sex also releases chemicals that help us.
In fact, now, they tell caregivers to take time for themselves. If we speak of a caregiver taking time for him or herself, we don't do it like you spoke of sex, we don't assume they're leaving the partner all alone. That is because our myths and funny books don't have anything about emotional let-downs, just sex. Outing the religious nut job in all of us.
Oh, and I'm oh so guilty and then some. Here's an example. Women feel free to laugh, but men, tell the truth, you know you would do as I did:
The wife was in labor and I was the partner with her. Now a wise midwife came in and took me aside saying I needed a break. Because of this fierce primitive nature, or animal nature as Bernadetta described Chelsea's idea, I was upset. After all, if she wasn't taking a break, why should I step out on her like that? Guys, you know damn well you would think this too, if you're being honest. They got me food which I refused to eat, just like a dog who's master is sick.
So the wife's doctor, an older brusque woman, took me rather firmly by the arm and led me away. She asked, "Do you want to help your wife?" "Well, yeah, that's what I'm doing," I answered. "You won't be if you don't eat some food and rest awhile, and do what she says."
She, being one of the midwife people. She The doctor went back to the wife, and the midwife started telling me this what I thought of as funny business about centering and breathing and all this, not the birth breathing other stuff.
When I got back, was I ever shocked at how refreshed I was. The food wasn't the half of it. You've gone for longer without food, trust me. I had only been without food for 12 hours. It was all that her talking to me and me resting a bit. I wasn't physically tired, even though I'd been standing the whole time. I was young and reasonably fit.
I could have lived without that stepping out, as it were, and continued to support her. It is possible. If there were some funny books about it, and society supported that, I certainly could have. Apparently, I didn't nead any funny books, it was near animal my desire to stay there with her, very much the way people have described a dog unwilling to leave its human companion who was ailing.
I may say I learned from that, but when she had surgeries, I did it again, and again, and probably would again in the future. And yet, they tell us that taking these breaks emotionally as well as physically actually makes for a better caregiver.
Now in the sex example, we have something right out of a religious book or a gospel tract or a feminist paper, the poor partner lays up in a room alone, no responsibility taken to leave them with someone they know and trust, and the other partner is out gallivanting around.
I simply posit perhaps some sex would result in a better caregiver, though I don't believe any of you, or I for that matter, would ever do it. The animal nature is me, not Chelsea. It was about as animal and illogical as you can get. And they, not I, were right: I'm glad I was made to step away because I was technically far better as a partner when I came back. Since this isn't a story from the funny literature, we don't have a partner left all alone. Because in the real world, the partner is only left with someone they know and trust, be it when they're sick, or giving birth, or ailing in older years.
Hell I encourage older relatives to take breaks from caregiving, to meet their emotional needs. I'm a hypocrite clear and simple, because although I know it would make me a better caregiver, I'd probably do as I've always done and not take the breaks. Again, it's the chemicals that get released in the brain. Sex does this also, and I bet it would actually improve the state of the cared-for, not devalue it.
Not in a birth situation of course, we're talking a long-term problem.
And I should know better than to do as I would otherwise do: I had no such breaks as a teenager, save school and getting out where and when I could. Never an emotional break or an outlet. I was the emotional equivalent of a sexual prude, if you will. And just as you will survive without getting your sexual needs met, I'm a testament to the fact you will survive without getting your sleep needs met, without getting your emotional needs met, without resolving fears or dread of potential hazards like waking up to a dead body in the room. You will survive, and can use your religion, or, like I did as a teenager, some form of "I-can-do-anything" mentality to make it work for yourself. Both mentalities are about logically equal.
And honestly, I regretted mistakes I'd made as a caregiver, mistakes that now people need not make. Caregivers who don't get their proper needs met often accidentally abuse the cared-for, sometimes I will tell you, in a half-awake state they will strike or otherwise do things. They will survive without gettings needs met, yes. But let us not pretend that this is noble or enlightened. Sure, we'll coddle the funny books and carry it forward, but it's not for the partner we're doing this, it's for the idea of being loyal to the partner.
Had I really been thinking of the wife's need during the birth, I would have gone quietly at the instruction of obviously experienced midwives and medical people, and taken that break. But I fought it because of the idea of being a supportive partner. The idea of being one, and actually being one, are two different things. So, sure, we're all going to do things, and forego things, and survive without things, perhaps not for the partner so much as for the idea of being loyal to that partner.
After all, if it were for the other person we were doing it, we would maintain ourselves as psychologically and physically fit for the job of not only physically caring for them but psychologically, emotionally being there, actually involved. How many cases there are when the sick one feels like the other partner is becoming just a robot. And they are, for an idea, spending all their energy giving everything up, and thereby unable to emotionally even be present. All for an idea. And even though I've written this, I'd do it again too.
But I'm not kidding myself: giving up my partner's best care and best well-being all for the sake of an idea is not noble. Keeping myself fit and ready, really up for the task, not denying so much I have turned into a robot or done worse as I did as a teenager, that would actually *be* noble, rather than just a fairy story funny book idea of nobility. I admire anyone with the courage to actually go through with that, and their partner would be the better for it, emotionally and physically.
My only objection to the previous post is kind of nitpicky, but here goes anyway.
Going away to eat when your wife is in labour is not the sort of betrayal that having sex with someone else would be, if only because that's what we've kind of drilled into one another over the centuries. By and large, the left-behind wife in labour won't begrudge you your meal and rest, whereas that self-same wife might, depending on the situation, be quietly hurt (or loudly outraged, depending on who she is) if she was sick, unable to deliver sexually, and you went off and filled your sexual agenda elsewhere. I take the point about such things maybe making us good caregivers, but that would be in a world where people could be more objective, and that's not likely to happen anytime soon.
Oh and Bernadetta, your surmises based on who is in a relationship now? About those of us who are more ready to submit to a monogamous relationship?
Evolutionary theory would bear that out, at least for males. And submit it is, you are adroit to use that term. I'm not sure what the evolutionary benefit for females to remain monogamous is, except perhaps to show the male why it is so important. The extreme examples of this submission are the so-called pw'ed guys who you know aren't getting any, but they work long hours, take the kids to practices, and she stays with until tenure sets in. In alimony states like California, that means ten years. Then she leaves with half the income plus child support plus the house, and when he gets the loser apartment taking home a quarter of his income, she refuses him custody of the kids because she doesn't like where he's living.
I've seen that scenario more times than I care to count, but you need to be in an alimony state to find this. And of course not all and maybe not even half women do this, but we have built systems based on monogamy to support this.
In primitive times like the 1950s it was the opposite, where she got nothing if she left. Now we have simply reversed it, not really enlightened any by coming to some kind of a equitable settlement.
So while the non-monogamous and out-of-relationship people may look sometimes like Chelsea and Wayne, those in relationships sometimes,and quite frequently in some quarters, look like what I described.
I don't know which is colder, frankly. I've been in neither situation, neither the one described by Chelsea and Wayne, or the other extreme I just described.
I'll freely admit that while she didn't object, I felt guilty for it. Even though logically I saw the whole difference. But I felt guilty for taking the time to do their breathing thing, to go eat, to do their centering thing, while she was struggling there. I know, I'm a man, I have no perspective on a woman's labor, but it looked like she was fighting for her and the baby's life, even though both she and they claimed it to be a easy delivery.
She had no resentment, but I'll readily admit I had guilt, I felt like a traitor actually. And since it wasn't sex, others who found out I felt that way thought I was silly and laughed. But guys, tell the truth, you'd feel the same way. You've got the woman standing there, laboring through her contractions, striving and struggling, and here I was doing their centering thing or whatever all of that was, and getting food. It makes no logical sense, but truth be told I felt like a traitor, and I sincerely believe any man who's honest would admit feeling like it too, even if people say it's silly.
I've never been there, but...well, yeah, I think I'd feel like a traitor, at least for awhile. And this is coming from a guy who can sometimes be downright logical, even when a more emotional and irrational response might be expected. I'd get over it, but...yeah, I'm pretty sure I'd feel traitorous.
Ok, leo. Nice try, and almost brilliant. I give you that much, but I will respectfully strike your idea right down. Ready?
For almost the same reason as Shepherdwolf said: Sex is much more complicated than laughter, than crying, even than having a heart-to-heart with a best friend. Simply because sex is not only emotionally intimate, but also physically. Simply because your partner is counting on that sexual loyalty from you, presumably. Simply because, like shepherdwolf said, you would never be begrudged food. and as I said, food is actually something you can't function without.
And I'll counter another thing you braught up. Sex does release endorphins, it is a great emotional reliever. But guess what? it's not the act of sex itself that does this. Science proves that the act of achieving orgasm does this by itself. sure, the sexual excitement between two people can elevate it, but you get it just from having an orgasm. So my solution for the sexually deprived partner:
Go buy yourself a variety of dildos and vibes. Go buy some fleshlights if your a guy. Go stock up on erotic and porn, and fuck your penis to death if you like, just dont' involve another person. That's the problem here, people. It's the involvement of a third party in the sexual act that's the issue.
It's silly to deprive yourself of masturbation, no matter how many people might look upon it as a dirty deed, if they're religious and such. But you're not hurting anyone if you're going to masturbate, now are you. You won't really be betraying anyone by building another sexual relationship, because you're using objects and visuals to stimulate you, not people with whom you will build a connection. You'll argue that porn and erotica can be viewed as a form of betrayal too, but no. Because your not actively interacting with the subjects of that media. They're there for your entertainment. They're not an actual person who would otherwise be there to intimately touch you and interact with you as your partner would if he were able to perform. So, no. I'm sorry. struck down. Try again if you wish, but... lol
And leo, your instinct wasn't an animalistic one. it was a human one. You were looking to be loyal to your partner though it lacked logic, but if your instinct was animalistic, you'd be looking out for yourself first and foremost.
Also, in referencing animal instinct, I was talking more about sexual lust as opposed to anything else.
Look. When I was in labor with my baby, my fiancé zoned out. he was so nervous and worried that he sat there with his IPhone and listened to the comedy channel on TuneIn radio to distress. He'd burst out laughing once in a great while, and sometimes even during a contraction. But I didn't begrudge him that. I didn't get pissed, though I do tease him about it from time to time now. But if he had gone and distressed by getting his rocks off with a pretty nurse from the ward or something, you'd better bet I'd feel betrayed, sad, hurt and angry. and I'm not ashamed of that. And it has nothing to do with societal pressures in my case. Had society condoned free love in stressful times, I'd still have felt hurt by that sort of gesture.
I am all for being of sound mind and heart, and of being physically fit in order to take care of your loved ones. But potentially hurting someone you claim to love by betraying them with another is too high a price to pay. Go and do whatever you need to do as long as you wont' be hurting the one you're supposedly going to be taking care of. If you can't do that, then dont' claim to take care of them at all. There are certainly ways to get around it without being emotionally destructive, if you catch my drift. So my point still stands.
I feel your point is sorely misguided, Bernadetta. sex is sex. people make it complicated, placing emotions in it that are there based on how they feel towards the partner they're with. the sex itself isn't what makes things special.
oh, and, another misguided thing. it's ignorant to say that just cause Wayne or myself aren't in a committed relationship, at the moment, we therefore don't know what we're talking about.
I realize opinions change when you're in given situations, and I freely admit some of my opinions have, and will, continue to do so throughout life, as will those of others I'm involved with.
as I've said before, though, and will say again, this is something I feel strongly about.
sex is really important to me, which is why, if I had a terminally ill partner, or if I were the terminally ill person myself, I'd want them to be able to get their needs met elsewhere. cause, as leo said, if we did that sort of thing, we'd be better caretakers, and overall people, even.
oh, and, one other thing. I'm not saying I'd up and leave someone who suddenly became temporarily sick. if that was the reason they couldn't perform, for a time, I wouldn't seek sexual gratification elsewhere. however, I'd make sure to bring up what should be done, if their sickness became permanent.
there's no tactful way to have such a conversation, but just as I wouldn't want them to suffer physically if the roles were reversed, I also wouldn't wanna suffer.
let me tell you all a story. I have a friend who's grandpa was married for several years, and eventually found out that his wife was uninterested in having sex with him. so, he told her, "look, I need to take care of myself, so I'm gonna meet other women who will satisfy my needs." his wife's response, "fine. do what you need to do."
cause of the choice he made to be honest with himself, as well as the woman he was committed to, they continued to love each other, talk to each other, and help each other out in all other ways when need be. it was just that, sexually, they weren't compatible.
in my opinion, that's respectable, not disrespectful.
Chelsea, I feel as if you're sending a mixed message here. On one hand you're saying "it's just sex, you're attaching too much to it", and yet, on the other hand, you're saying it's potentially worth busting a long-time partnership over. I'm not really sure how you can have it both ways.
You're right, of course. The act of sex, by itself, is not a huge deal. Animals do it all the time. However, as far as society sees it, sex has a whole lot of hooks buried in it; for some people it's a weapon, for others it's the penultimate expression of physical appreciation, for many others it's the ultimate act of both surrender and acceptance. Perhaps it could even be said that we, as humans, make too big a deal of sex, and that's a whole new can of worms. It ultimately ends up being up to the people involved.
I'll put it just as succinctly as this. If you can find and be happy with someone who truly doesn't mind your outlook, then power to you. I think you may have an awfully tough skate, though, because personally I haven't met anyone who'd be okay with that. They'd either feel hurt, realizing their hands were tied, or they'd get outraged, or they'd feel that a person willing to wreck a relationship over sex was being selfish in the first place and not want to commit. It's personal choice, but for many, that caveat is going to lock you out of what might otherwise be very fulfilling human interaction. Best of luck. I hope your philosophy continues to work for you, but practically speaking I'm not sure how well it'll hold up. I also want to say, better late than never, that I mean you absolutely no harm with any of this; I'm doubting your viewpoint in an academic way, not doubting or casting dirt on you as a person. If I have in any way given offense, I apologize here and now for doing so.
Interesting points Bernadetta.
I've known a lot of nonreligious people to also treat male masturbation as traitorous, again I think it's the idea of the power and control over other people. So your not treating it that way is to be commended. Again these were not religious backwater provincials, they were university academic women's rights types, no doubt pretty high up the intelligence food chain.
The animal instinctive behavior I was speaking of?
I have raised birds. Male canaries will burn themselves out, literally work themselves to death fathering young. It's so true, in fact, that unscrupulous bird breeders take advantage of this by having male canaries in the presence of chicks of other broods, so their instinct for loyalty will take effect, and they will father the young while the mother recuperates and prepares to lay a new batch of eggs.
Wolves will sit and die by their mate's side.
If you shoot a goose out of the sky when they're flying in formation, you won't see one fall, but at least two: at least one companion will come down and join with the fallen.
Often dolphins and whales will not die in unison but a mate will drown with them, refusing to even surface for air if their mate could not. I bet there's some humans, on this site, including some who would deny it, who would do all of these things and then some, and not even think about it.
The truth about evolution is it is not the evolution of one but of the society in question. Survival of the fittest has to do with the animal societies, not just individuals. All the time, animals in the wild put themselves at risk for the sake of their young, mothers going without food, fathers going without food, both endangering themselves to point of death in many species.
And, you hear of humans whose dog stayed with them after they died, refusing to leave. This is strictly wolf behavior.
And no, I doubt anyone would simply leave a birth situation to get sex. I think the sex situation was mainly for a long and protracted situation. And most of us are a lot like the animals, like wolves, canaries, penguins, who would stay with the partner until they died. Maybe our whole funeral arrangements is to help ensure we won't try and stay with the partner *after* they died. For most of human history, there have been very strict rules prohibiting any form of relations after the partner's death for a period of years. We may call it irrational now, but it had all the same strictures we now live under.
I agree sex is complicated, and I also agree with Chelsea, it's probably because we have made it complicated. It's complicated for cultural reasons, just like many other things we do are complicated for no other reason than we have simply made them that way. I also think that no matter how much someone has contemplated this, or thinks they might in an agreeable situation, get sexual needs met elsewhere, you actually wouldn't when push came to shove. That animalistic loyalty we all have, the one that makes a dog run across broken glass to a human, that one that makes a canary work itself literally to death fathering young, that one that makes a wolf freeze to death sitting still beside its mate, that one that makes a dolphin refuse to surface for air because it mate couldn't? That instinct is stronger than you may imagine. We've just dressed it all up with pretty colors, And we think we invented it.
The main way that sex is different is that we talk about someone doing something sexually different as though they're always irresponsible. This is true whether it's the discussion on here, talking about a sexual stepping out as though the partner was left with no responsible care, or people talking about my Lesbian friend who is now married, as though she was only thinking about herself and what about the children. And it's true for the free love crowd of the sixties: according to them, if you didn't do sexually exactly like them, you were automatically repressing and putting people at risk.
I'm not sending mixed messages, at all, shepherdwolf. as you've seen, others who have posted, see both sides as they are, and have even said something similar to what I have about this sort of outlook being healthy.
in fact, it's those who say they love their partner, and would never do this sort of thing, that are sending mixed messages. how can you love your partner, yet, not care how they may feel if you should ever become unable to perform sexually?
some here have said that caring for their partner is exactly why they feel as they do, but it's my perception that such people likely haven't even asked their partner how they'd feel if something like this should arise.
I'm basing this statement on comments I've seen, where people are so willing to attack this unpopular view I share with a few here, without trying to see the other side. they think that, since they'd see it as a betrayal, the rest of the world couldn't possibly feel any differently.
believe it or not, shepherdwolf, people find my outlook quite refreshing. if any of my friends was dating me and was terminally ill, they'd have nothing but respect for my honesty, and willingness to love them enough to let them go. all my friends understand my perspective on this issue, and one of them is a relative of the old man who was in the story I presented in my last post. how do I know these things? cause I've discussed this with those close to me, and they express relief and happiness upon finding out that someone is honest enough to talk about these things openly and from the heart.
so, shepherdwolf, contrary to your belief that I'll have a harder time finding/totally commiting to someone (you're assuming I even want to, right now, which is rather silly, considering not everyone wants the same things in life). however, based on the experience I've had thus far, combined with the fact that, as I've stated before, these issues will be discussed early on so that I do the best I can to prevent future hurt of anyone, I know that where I stand is a place more people should at least give consideration to, or, at the very least, accept that not everyone feels as they do.
yes, leo, the sex situation, as I've been trying to get across, is strictly about a longterm illness, or flat out unwillingness to give one's partner sex based on his or her uninterest in it.
oh, and one more thing. I don't get this attitude of, "when it comes down to it, I bet you wouldn't actually follow through with what you're claiming you would." that's absolutely ridiculous, to me, as my feelings aren't one sided.
I'm not saying I wouldn't want someone to leave me for the reasons stated above. I'm saying that we both should have the freedom to do so, in life altering circumstances such as terminal illness, and not be afraid, made to feel guilty, or what have you, for feeling we'd carry it out in actuality, simply cause others wouldn't do that themselves, or don't think we're right to have the view we do.
Nobody's judging you, Chelsea, at least I am not.
But that very primal urge that drives us when we are with an ailing partner? That urge that causes the caregiver to sit disheveled next to a sedated partner who won't miss it if they get up and take care of themselves for a few hours? That urge is very very strong.
And there are no real social pressures and religions to provide any sort of social controls on it. We are all beasts that way, every one of us, even to the detriment of the ailing partner. Those advocating sexual control have billion dollar industries, the Westboro Baptists, the Femitheists, the Muslim Extremists, every single book on relationships, and millennia of power and control on their side. We are social creatures. To overcome such a primeval drive like the one we have for protecting the ailing partner, the one wolves have when they die in the snow next to their already-dead mate, we would need at least that level of interference if not more.
I've said this to survivalists, too, by the way. People who claim they would eat the flesh of a companion who died in order for they themselves to survive and maybe even to survive and help other peple.
However, the evidence doesn't bear that one out. While there are instances of people doing that to survive, most of us are a lot more animal and primitive than that, and would rather lay down, starve and die next to a already-dead companion than to eat some of the flesh, get up, get back to society and maybe bring help to other survivors. That protective caring instinct is way too powerful to let us do anything but lay down and die in that situation.
It would be different if there were religions, billion-dollar industries, femitheists, and Comstock laws controlling our banal urge to protect in that situation. And were that the case, many of us would be honest and call it the animal drive that it is.
Perhaps you may be one of the few, one of those who could step outside the relationship to take care of yourself emotionally, physically, get some exercise, feed yourself *properly*, sleep, and yes, get your sexual needs met as well. You may be one of the very few who does that on their own in a situation like that. Just like there are technically a very few people who will eat the flesh of a dead companion rather than sit down, starve, and abandon other survivors to their death in the name of being decent or something. But the vast majority of people won't, because as social creatures we have no controls on that protector drive like we do on sex. No billion-dollar industries, no religions, and no people fooling themselves into thinking they came up with their controls all by themselves. We have all of that for sex, but not for the protector / caregiver drive, which I submit is at least as powerful, and often overwhelming, as the sex drive itself.
I guess Chelsea is one in a million. I wouldn't be able to go out and have sex with someone else without feeling as though I betrayed my primary spouse. It's not a matter of fitting in with the norm of society. But who knows, like many situations you might think and say what you believe will be your reaction, and yet when it happens you have it in the back of your mind, and react simply on instinct. Commitment is a two way street. And in my opinion, sex is a wanted desire, not a need for survival. Happiness is more important. So I guess if sex makes you happier than anything else, so be it. Personally I would be happier when my spouse would be happy, and if she was to die I would spend every last minute I could trying to make her happy rather than going out and getting fucked. That's just me though, and everyone is different.
(I can’t have it, or don’t want it, so my lover shouldn’t want or have it either, because they love me.)
I’ll start there and try to explain what I think Chelsea and I think.
Bernadetta, I was married for a long time, and I was faithful for a long time as well, and I had no problem with this.
I had plenty of opportunity to stray, but had no problem not straying, because I had it at home.
No, I am currently not in a serious relationship, but can, and have been able to have successful ones. Bernadetta, if we are talking success records, mine is actually stronger than yours as a single person. I use that record, because it is comparable to yours due to me being single since about 2007. I have had a relationship longer with one person, then you’ve been married.
In my case, I have not remarried in a hurry, due to nothing sexual, or sex guided, but things that have to do with life outside of bed and sex. If good sexual stimulation was my driving force, I’d be remarried, and it be successful, but it is not.
Experience is a wonderful teacher, but experience is different for each of us. I want to drop that angle and talk about the powerful four letter word.
(Love)
We are talking long term here. Marriage or committed relationships, so that means you have said I love you.
Now what I meant by quietly getting your needs met is after you have talked about it and agreed, you are still there for your lover, because you love them. Whatever the situation is, you stay, are loyal, committed to them.
You go out and don’t come back bragging.
I’ll put myself on the sick/ unwilling side now.
I love this woman right? I love her so much I want her to stay in my life forever. If that is so, why would I want to be selfish and keep her from having something that brings her pleasure in the name of loyalty, commitment?
I know sex is emotional, it is powerful, and for some a want or need, but it is wrong to demand your lover cut off their life.
You may as well tell her, I can’t have it or I don’t want it, so you can’t have it either.
When I die take an over dose, because you’ll be living, and you might meet another man and have sex with him. In fact, I don’t even want you to see the next sunrise after I die, so let’s agree that you’ll die with me.
If you want your lover to stay with you, you are selfish for not giving them full access to their life. ?
You promised to love, honor, and cherish them, but you want them to suffer because you must? Why?
The only reason why is you hate the fact they are getting physical pleasure, it has nothing what so ever to do with loyalty at all.
I personally would not want my women suffering with me or self-suffering, I want my lover to have the best she can have.
Ideal, she’d bring her lover home and we’d work as a team if I was still able to go about, but just wasn’t able or interested in sex anymore, or if I’m unable they would take good care of me and make my last days as comfortable as possible.
I am a human animal, so can think past the birds and such as Leo posted.
All my conditions are if she decided to stay with me, if not, then we’d not have this problem, but I’d hope she’d stay, because I love her and I’d miss her. If I don’t have to miss her and all it took was giving her an okay to have some sex, it be worth it to me.
As posted, we make things more difficult than they have to be, and for the most part the reason is selfishness.
In Egypt, when the King died, they’d lock all his pets, and women in the tomb with him alive. That is what this is like to me if you refuse your lover a full life.
I forgot to say.
Bernadetta,you and others here think like most, and Chelsea and I are the minority.
My friends and even lovers have a difficult time with my concepts. Because I am not in a committed relationship, I have no problem with a trusted partner seeing someone else if they feel the need.
Now, if they are out with just anyone and everyone for the sake of sex they are not trusted, but if it is one person and they come to me and tell me I approve. Until we say we are committed we are dating.
This doesn't mean I am out cheasing skirts either. It also doesn't mean I don't like or care about them, it just means I want them to have what they feel is the best for them. If that best is me in a one on one relationship and we agree, then I know she really had made her choice.
I was that man that give his wife 6 months with her proposed lover to learn if it was what she really wanted, and even she couldn't understand it. Shouldn't have told me. Smile. She knew exactly what I thought.
I can't say my and Chelsea's thinking is the best from my side not speaking for her, but I can say our thinking is sound.
Where we are open other would prefer to sneak about, and I just don't like living like that.
People sit around thinking their lovers are for them until something happens and they walk, so what was that anyway? Was it love?
In my opinion no. Love to me is understanding, not making someone do without.
Interesting point Wayne. And there are societies where the wife was burned alive on the funeral pyre with the husband, again all for love.
So, I am blind, and my wife is sighted. What if I took it into my head that since I cannot enjoy the sunsets, she should not either? Or because I cannot enjoy colors, she should live in a grey nondescript environment?
After all, using earlier examples, you won't die without a good fuck. Okay, she wouldn't die without colors and enjoyable visual experiences. In fact, though many of the sighted people claim it is only visual or call it only decoration rather than functional, it really is functional: they are healthier when they are in a visually rich environment.
On the "I can't have it, so you can't either," theme: We who have no sight love to be able to listen to things. So what if the partner lost his or her hearing? Would that be fair then for them to say we could not enjoy music anymore? What if it was something you and the partner had done together, very intimate, very personal? So could you or I as the partner say, "Well, I can't have this, so you can't either."
Interesting question, Wayne. I've got the double standard. I know I could never say that to my partner. But I'll also admit I'd go along with it if she said that to me, and I could end up having quite a difficult time of it perhaps.
But here is where we are different than Chelsea perhaps, and different than the other women on this post. We men, even in a postmodern society, are not the decision-makers in the relationships. Case in point, when was the last time you ever heard a woman say, "Let me check in with headquarters?" A woman will check with her husband for availability of scheduling perhaps, but not approval from the home front for activities. In fact, if a woman must seek approval for activities from her husband, we rightly consider it to be a controlling and dangerous relationship. But we men do it all the time with our female partners. I don't know if or how this all works with the gays.
Guys, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
And whose furniture typically goes to Goodwill when a couple moves in together? There are always exceptions, of course, but the norm still is that she's the one who ultimately decides how far you're gonna go on dates, where you're going to spend vacation, etc. Sure, we usually now dress it up in one of those discussions, the we talked about this types of scenarios.
But guys, putting ourselves in their shoes for a minute, allowing the partner to step out in a situation like this, that is a hell of a lot of power and control to let go of. It's easy for us guys to say we'd let her step out, after all we don't really hold the cards anyway. And the scales are different still between the genders, even now. If a woman goes out and gets an affair of some kind, it is assumed the reason must be the guy's fault. I've seen this a lot. Oh, he must not be sensitive enough for her, she is being liberated and getting her needs met, maybe he was working too much.
Now that isn't to say any particular woman would even consider stepping out let alone doing it, but still, if they wanted to do it, power is on their side. So I don't think we can really appreciate as guys how difficult it would be for many women to let the guy do this in a long-term situation like we're talking about. Maybe a guy in a truly misogynistic culture could, one where men had this same type of power over women. But not us. Because on the home front, we don't really hold the cards, not societally. And if we're married to a partner who doesn't abuse that power, we consider ourselves as guys to be the very fortunate and lucky minority.
But we men aren't the ones who impose most relationship restrictions, if any, unless you're considered a psychotic or control freak. So we men perhaps can't really understand what for them letting go of that kind of power would be like, for the simple reason that we don't have that kind of power. This isn't to say all women use that power, many do not. But it's by choice that they do not, not by societal stricture like it is for us.
Power and control, though, is always dressed up with emotion, for the greater good, for some ideal, or what have you. Hell, some parents hit their kids even, and call it love. I still hold out my original thought: Who really knows? we're just fooling ourselves most of the time, I think.
I see many of your points Leo all the time. It is one reason I think as I do.
A man goes out, he's a pig, a dog, just a man, and doing that woman wrong.
Not picking, but even Writter posted she made her current boyfriend wait until she got ready. I can't remember where she talks about that, but he wanted her, and she kept him at arms length so to speak until she decided he could.
Now, me, and as I think, and have sense I was around 21 or so, if a woman did that to me I'd move on and when she was ready if I was available she'd get me interested, if not she'd have to keep looking.
I'm a man that refuses to check in unless I want to, and I refuse to wait until she decides.
You want me say so, don't fool around.
But, Leo, it is conditioning I guess. I've heard mothers rteach these lessons to their daughters. Make him drool some first so to speak, and my mother in laws favorite, some times you have to go over a man's head. Smile.
Even if the decision was ass wrong, she felt if was the thing to do.
Wayne said in his last post exactly what I was going to. if someone told me to wait till they were ready to date me, I wouldn't do so. if I'm still available should they later change their mind, I'll certainly consider it. however, I refuse to wait around for anyone, cause I don't want anyone to wait around for me.
as I've stated before, I realize my way of thinking is unpopular, and clearly ruffles feathers with most people, but that's the way life is.
it's important to discuss these sorts of things, as I've also said, to share perspectives, encourage thinking differently, and perhaps even learn a little.
Ryan, you're clearly taking what you want out of my posts. I never once said that I'd forgo the happiness of the person I'm with, but rather, that we'd discuss what was to be done honestly and openly, and that, if we were unable to come to an agreement about how things should be handled, our relationship would be off completely.
No one seems to care if the lover over eats and gets fat.
We don’t care if our lover once took care of themselves, but stops, because they has no one that appreciates it anymore.
We don’t care about them smoking too much, replacing one need for another.
We don’t even care that they might be depressed, because they don’t get out.
Now, if she decides to do something for herself, like get some sex? Oh lord!
Just masturbate, that will do it right?
If that were so, why do we even bother to have sex with others? Why do we even need to have someone live in, someone to touch, to sleep next to, and to feel in this manner? All we really need is some rechargeable batteries, and good friends. Our friends do have to be attractive. We could marry for status only, not because we really like the people physically.
Sex, for me anyway, is more then getting to an orgasm. No, it doesn’t require love, but I do say it is much better with a person then a masturbation sleeve.
Just another thought.
right on, Wayne.
also, I forgot to address something that you said earlier, about yours and my outlook possibly not being the best one to have. speaking for myself only, I can say with absolute confidence that if I didn't think something out clearly and as thoughtfully as possible, I wouldn't articulate it anywhere in real life, much less on online forums, for people to freely digest.
so, yes, I believe that my view is not only sound, but one that needs to be heard, regardless of whether people think I'm right, dislike me for saying these things, flat out can't stand me as a person, or are moved by my thoughts, and able to see where I'm coming from.
Dammit. I wrote this long post and spent too much time idling and it logged me out. Ok let's try recreating this bitch of a post. This topic certainly has taken a turn hasn't it? Anyhow,if my partner wanted to stray from me if I couldn't perform, I'd let them go, sex, emotional connection and all. I know that if I still wanted sex that badly, I'd want my partner to do the same for me, let me go completely, because I think sex is an integral part of any relationship. I doubt, if my partner was, the one, I don't think I would stray from them if they needed me and couldn't perform, but if I did seriously want it, I'd be honest with them and I would try to take care of those needs by myself. I do not condemn openness, of course not, in fact, I respect the hell out of it, I just don't think I'd do it.
Furthermore, my reasoning behind it is this... Sex is important to me that I share with my partner and if both of us have needs, it's important to have those needs met, but here's the catch, I don't think it's fair. It's not fair to that partner who can perform to not get those needs met, so they should go, but don't just go some of the way, go all of the way, to save your partner from worrying about special things that you may be giving to someone else, that say, you and that partner shared for years, in the bedroom, something that the unperforming partner felt was special and just between you two, because I know if I couldn't perform, that'd be my worry if I knew my partner was having sex with someone else, hence why I'd let them go if they wanted to go, but it'd be fucking all or nothing. That's just my two cents.
Ok, I'll add my own two sence here, and I won't argue with anyone. I see Leo, Greg and Bernadetta's points. In fact, all points are valid, neither right or wrong, to each their own. If you don't agree with someone's point, it doesn't make it wrong, if you agree it doesn't make it right, sorry. And, there're all kinds that make up this world, selfish, caring, giving, careless and cruel people and so on, so it's ok. So, with that said, here's what I think. First, If my partner doesn't wait for me, then why do
Ok, I appologize, Continuation in the next post.
Ok, I'll add my own two sence here, and I won't argue with anyone. I see Leo, Greg and Bernadetta's points. In fact, all points are valid, neither right or wrong, to each their own. If you don't agree with someone's point, it doesn't make it wrong, if you agree it doesn't make it right, sorry. And, there're all kinds that make up this world, selfish, caring, giving, careless and cruel people and so on, so it's ok. So, with that said, here's what I think. First, If my partner doesn't wait for me, then why does he want to be with me, apart from the sexual needs? Why, Else! It also applys for me too. And, as has been pointed out, Part of monogamy is accepting that the other person, like us is human, and an unforseen event may change one's life and may affect the capability of meting one's sexual needs, and of course, the other's. Heck, if my partner is monogamous he'd understand. So, yeah, if I get ill, he can go do what he wants, but he sure as hell won't have me again when I get better, because he's pretty darn lucky if I got with him in the first place. Same goes for me! If one of us dies, well then of course, that's no question. Because it's not only about being romantic and such, it's also taking care of one another when needed, including being sick. I wouldn't like to feel like a sexual object to my partner, just as I wouldn't treat him as such, hence I would be taking care of him instead of going out and seeking sex elsewhere. Emmotionally, that's no question either! He can have friends, just as I have friends and if I'm simpley not up to hearing about his long, bad day at the job, he can talk to others about it, I don't see that as a replacement. But while we're in a romantic relationship, I'm his sexually, and he's mine sexually, and respecting each other is respecting that part also! I expect as I'd do, if you don't, so be it, it's not my business, but it isn't yours either to judge my thinking as is not my place either. Part of love, is also knowing that while I can't suit my partner's sexual needs, he'd gladly help me get better, and applying to him also, it'd make us feel good about each other, about how we've made it in our relationship. It's not easy, but heck, it's not all about sex and how much sex you can have and give. I'd feel satisfied knowing I've contributed lots of my love, time and energy in helping him get better, because it would enhance our relationship, sexually too! And if he was paralysed or something, well, I'm not just going to step aside just because he can't have sex with me, because there are other ways of having sex, you know. How many couples that are paralysed have there own way of having tlc? While everyone deserves to be happy, part of it also, is feeling happy and greatful to have someone to be with, to take care of and who'd do the same. Not all times are happy, and you can make them even unhappier if you set your mind to it. Call it exclusive, call it conditioning, I don't care! Because, wherever we are there are rules and conditions one must follow in order to be in good or equal terms with people and ourselves. If you don't like them, or you're not up to following rules, you can leave, or step back! Noone's telling you what or what not to do, but what is expected of you from various people in different places, some are more tolerant than others. Not all minn and women are opportunistic as has been laid out, sorry! Now speaking of taking care of oneself? If I want us to be together for a long time, I'll make sure to take care of ourselves for the sake of our health and our happiness. I'm not going to do something he doesn't like, just the way he's not going to do something I don't like, because we want to make each other happy don't we? Weather online or nearby, I don't think one should be pressured by the other partner, if he and I are not ready to have sex, well, if we're really interested in each other for who we are, we'll wait till we both feel it's right, isn't that fair? Because we'd both enjoy it, not just the other person who couldn't wait, because it's about what the other person wants too, not what I want and when I want. Isn't it about we, and us, now? If not than what are we, really? So, compromising too, is escential. Why would I hurt my partner by seeking sex elsewhere just because he can't perform, if we enjoyed ourselves fully previously, why would he do that to me? I might as well call it off, step back and leave!, isn't that fair in a way? Yeah, and no, but I'll not get into that now. I won't repete myself. And please don't throw in the friends with benifits, for that is a totally different topic, one which I don't disagree unless it's someone I truly care about and respect, and who feels the same too. And I wouldn't have two at a time, for goodness sake! If one's only looking for sex, you might as well go to a nearby hotel, you'll find all kinds looking for the same thing too! We're speaking of serious relationships, after all, aren't we? And in a serious relationship you don't fool around while you're with the other person because then it's called playing with one's feelings and it's not a game! I'm not judging, I'm just freely and unashamedly expressing my thoughts, feel free to disagree.
Damn right I did, and no matter how you try and justify it, when it comes down to the topic on hand, I will still view it the same way. You and I obviously have different opinions about what a serious relationship is, so let's just leave it at that.
Ryan, that's where you're wrong. as I've stated repeatedly, commitment isn't an issue for me. I have no problem being faithful to one person, and unless you do, then, contrary to your belief, we're on the same page. the only place we differ in opinion, is in reference to the fact you feel it would be seen as betrayal to get someone's physical needs met elsewhere if longterm sickness arises, whereas I don't feel that way myself.
yes, humans can survive without sex, but why make oneself suffer, if both parties agree that shouldn't be the case? that's the point I and others are trying to make, here.
If I was in a serious relationship where I truly loved and cared about my partner, there's no way in hell I would go out seeking sex elsewhere just because he/she couldn't perform
if we're just friends with benefits, that's a totally different story, but in a committed relationship, no way
and I would expect the same from him or her, if he/she wants to screw around just because Im ill or can't perform for some reason, I would end the relationship with them period.
There's a heck of a lot more to life than screwing around and getting screwed, come on! and while sex is enjoyable it won't necessarily bring you happiness. do you think prostetutes are happy and enjoy what they do? I doubt it.
and if I was in a serious relationship with someone who was terminally ill and only had a few months to live, I doubt sex would be on mind anyway.. I would do my best to make them comfortable and smile and enjoy the time we had left together. just my thoughts
Actually, believe it or not, some prostitutes really enjoy their work. They enjoy the sex.
Some can be even partially committed to the person they work for, like a mistress situation, but that is a different subject.
So far from all that have posted anything else can be given, such as, him talking to other people because you don’t want to hear about his hard day, or pretty much anything else, but sex can’t be a gift of love in the case that you either do not want it, or can not provide it at all.
The person should leave you period, in which case, you’d be alone totally, or cut of the sexual part of their life so that you, the party that can not provide, can be happy.
It is even felt, that sacrificing our sexual needs is a sing of true love or giving, but sacrificing our feelings is never done for any reason. We’d choose to be completely alone instead of having someone that loved us near if it came down to a choice of feelings over physical.
I did know this was the general thoughts, but it is interesting to learn how people see it.
I believe in love. I believe that love is total and unrestricted giving.
I believe that talking about your hard day is just as important as giving you a drink or water when you are thirsty and can not get it for yourself.
I believe that just sitting near, touching you, and letting you know I love you is more important then my needing some time.
Your hard day is my hard day, and I want it and want to share it. The only reason you’ll ever need to go talk to someone else about your hard day is because it is impossible for me to do it for you.
When that time comes, I want you to get the best person you can to listen to your hard day, because you need to discuss it.
I see your hard day just as important as I see my sexual needs.
Yes, strange folks, but my lovers well being is total, not partial.
I sincerely believe when you love you understand, and this understanding goes both ways.
I guess I’ve stated my case as best I can, so I’ll go back to watching. Smile.
thank you, Wayne. very well said.
I'd like to add, that because I care about my partner, and not only myself, if he counted on me not seeking sex elsewhere, and I couldn't do that, yes, Iad leave him. Call it selfish, we're both being selfish here, him for expecting me to be faithful, and me for not being able to suppress my urges! But who loses in the end? My partner for not being willing to understand my demanding sexual needs, or me for getting them met while he was sick for a while? I say both of us, because, it all comes down to commitment, since we're talking about a serious relationship, and it includes physical too! I believe there's no excuse for anything, even if I don't want to hear about his hard day at the job, I wouldn't do that to him. Now if I couldn't, it'd be another story, but, we're not the only ones in each other's lives, we have friends and family who can give us a loving hug and an ear when we need it, it's called giving each other space. Yet it doesn't, by any means, give way to sexual space, for those are things I'd share with my partner, and he'd only share with me, if he wants to be with me, period. Friends don't have the same privileges as partners, and vise versa. Now if he were sick, I don't think I'd have in mind, hmmm, Who shall I look for to get a good fuck, since I haven't gotten any in months? Or in weeks? OR since yesterday? It's ok, I'll come back to him, I may feel guilty, but heck, I need sex! I would believe that, only if you thought with your mind from under more than your partner, but then it brings forth the question of, why am I with him? I believe everything is important in a relationship, and if I need to make some changes for it wo work, even if it takes time, I'd make them, for the sake of our love, to not throw it out the window!
Very true Wayne and Millie, I think that's how a lot of people feel. Well said.
For the sake of debate.
First you are talking about a temporary illness, when Chelsea and I are talking permanently.
Next you are seeing this sex thing happening in days or even weeks, when Chelsea and I are talking about Months, or even a years’ time.
Because we were in the relationship, and yes committed, first we’d have to know the illness was permanent. Next we’d have to know it was impossible for our lover to give us anything at all. Next we’d have to settle in to this life, and yes, get needy.
This won’t all be happening today, and will be something we’d have to choose to live with forever, not just for a short time.
Now that we know this is our life, we’d need to develop some sort of close friendship with someone that could provide sexual pleasure. This also would take some time, because, believe it or not, being a sexual person, excepting this fact, doesn’t make us whores.
Now that we’ve met the person, we’d have to make sure that person understood what he or she was getting in to.
So you see, we’re not advocating dropping our panties at the first drop of trouble soon as we can run to the hospital door, or grab the next physical person that we see, we are talking making a decision to live forever with our loved ones with some previsions.
Just needed to state this.
Did you read my posts correctly, Sire? I also refered to longterm, maybe I should've been specific. But both of you mentioned temporary too, so please, for goodness sake, come on, avoid sillyness, will you forereel? If it were longterm, like I said before, no, I would not leave him, unless I wasn't fully committed to him, which would be both your cases. Because, what's forever? I also mentioned months, if you read correctly. So, first, you'd have to think of how long the person would be ill, for one thing, then, you'd have to see if you'd prefer to spend the last months or days with that longterm partner, or get fucked because you can't live without it, then, you'd have to see how your partner would feel about that, you know? But I wonder if that would cross your mind if it really breaks your heart witnessing your partner deteriorating and falling apart? I don't think, and I hope with every heartbeat of mine, not to even have that in mind, for I wish to spend quality time with him in his last moments of life, because he's spending them with me, counting on me, every bit of each second! I hope the same for him too, because, I'd feel bad enough not being able to perform sexually too, or do you think the sick person feels good about it? Do you think she'd feel better knowing that while knowing how bad it is for her, you're getting fucked by someone else while she's sick because she can't in that moment? I don't think so! Love is not sex, and sex is not love, it's respect, because love is respect too! Not only for her, but for yourself. I mean, would you forget about everything, about her, about her feelings, about her hardships and everything she's going through while fooling around? Or would it make things better for you? What about her? Why don't I leave him, instead of making him feel even worst by worrying him, of having him think that I can easally replace him in bed? Why!
Oh, and, If we're speaking of serious longterm relationships, I don't see myself with anyone else while being with my man, no matter how he was. Because while we're committed all the way, we're both each other's, and no one else but ourselves alone! That meaning one will take care of the other with love, no matter how tiresome it is, it is, I think, one of the best manifistations of one's true love and commitment. Think about it, being that you'd respect her, and I'd respect him, we'd not feel guilt, we wouldn't call it off, we'd feel in peace with each other, weather he/she moves on or dies, we won't make that more complecated than what is to come with the consequential effects of the other's illness. It's complecated enough, why make it harder on oneself and the other? Bottom line: To my man. "if you want to get fucked while I'm sick and trying to get better, when I need you the most, fuck you! I don't need you to cause more pain in my life, if I already feel bad enough for not being able to satisfy you sexually, while you go replace me in bed, I'm not doing it, so won't have it! It'd hurt me to know that you'd easally go share something that was so special between us, just because I'm dieing sick and can't come anymore! I prefer that you fuck off and leave me, because you're not coming back to me after I get better, knowing that you got laid after I've been faithful to you for so long! I prefer a nerse, in that case! And if I'm dieing, I prefer not doing so by your side, especially after coming back from fucking your other mistress!" I think, that being with someone for fear of being alone, is one of the biggest mistakes one can make in life. If one can decide to not suppress their urges, then it can also be decided weather to be with you or not. You're either with me, or not, but not a quarter ways, b8t half way just like I'm with you, period!
I guess were I get lost is when you say his last days, or months. You say you want to spend all your time at his last days.
That is why I keep getting confused.
I am not talking last days. I'm talking about a person that might outlive you, or a perfefctly healthy person in all other respects, but he's not able or doesn't want physical intimacy anymore.
Sure, you say leave, and I respect that, but what if you really love the person? Why leave?
Next I've tried to think about the other persons feelings completely. I have even put myself on the down side where it be me, not her, that was unable.
I'm odd, I do confess, but I just don't see sex as the sacrifice one should need to give me to prove they love me.
I also see it as a sign of love to understand my lover has needs I can no longer provide, so if she wants to stick around with me and love me in every other way I'd truly respect that and could give her something back.
Yes, this is extremely a difficult subject for many to understand, but it is really easy to do if we let go of our selfishness and see our lover, not as mine, but as a person that is first your best friend, then your lover. A person that is with you not out of obligation, but because they want to be.
You would not deprive yourself of anything you could give yourself right, so if your lover is suppose to be your right hand, soul mate, life partner, and best friend, how can you allow them anything almost in the whole world, but sex?
Why is it okay for your lover to get other needs met from another source, like having that conversation about the hard day, for example, but not sex when you can't or do not want to provide it?
Suppose while talking to that other person they get close, and because you won't talk to him he leaves you, not over sex, but because he needs that conversation?
Just an interesting concept, and Leo summed it up nicer than I could.
This debate could go on FOREVER. What it all boils down to is prioritization, and not everyone has the same priorities. To Wayne and Chelsea sex is more important than it is to other people. Back where I said it is a want, well, it must be more than that to some people. What I don't understand is how you can say you must let go of your selfishness when the main topic is sticking it out WITH the partner who is unable to perform sexually. To me that is the opposite of being selfish. We all have selfish tendencies but that is not one of them. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something though.
right on, Wayne.
dolce, you, Wayne, and I, are clearly thinking differently. he and I are not talking about temporary sickness, but about longterm sickness, which means months, likely even years.
I'm not willing to go without sex for the rest of my life, simply cause the one I'm with is unwilling or unable to perform.
what people are clearly missing here, though, is that this does not mean I'd become heartless and no longer care about the person I'm with. there has to be a mutual understanding of how things will be, and as I'll reiterate again, if there isn't, I'd leave the relationship altogether.
sure, humans can survive without sex, but why make oneself suffer, knowing it's a natural and fulfilling part of life? we can survive without many things, but if they make us happy, and harm no one, why should we?
I'd just like to say, we're getting really off the main topic. Not a bad thing, just an observation. Lol. Millie, I agree with you, I would have to leave if that were the case, i can't just give some things to some person and some things to another, don't work like that for me. You either get all of my love, or none of my love, not my love but someone else gets my sex.
I think it's all in one's head. You can make an issue more complecated than they really are. I mean, come on, unless you were so hurney and got a boner and couldn't help it, or unless the boiler was so hot it needed to explode, then, yeah, you'd suffer. But it's not like you were having sex with your partner 365 days of the year, sometimes you or she wanted it or not! If he left me for having a conversation with a close friend? He can! You know, not everything has to lead or be about sex, people! Second, If I knew he wasn't of the idea of having sex elsewhere why stay with him? And, Because I love him, I'd leave him for the simple reason that if I'm not willing to compromise sexually, and he didn't accept that, why hurt him? In that case I love and think of myself more than him, it's not about us, but me, huh? If I love him, I'd be willing to make compromises, just as he {ould for me.
While I agree that this has gotten way off topic, It really is an interesting study of how people have been conditioned to hold some things sacred, and some things not. Its proof if anything is that we are all victims of cultural conditioning. Its interesting how some cultures see sex as just another piece of the puzzle that makes up happiness, and others see it as this extremely sacred thing that can't be used in particular ways. Just as some cultures in our worlds past and present see expression of emotion as something that is just not done unless you're around those closest to you... take the japanese, chinese, and to an extent Vietnamese cultures for example. they all value keeping emotions close to the chest, as well as personal feelings and opinions, unless they're around someone who they are extremely close to. Freedom of expression and thought isn't valued as highly as the desire for piece and tranquility among the population...
In addition, looking back threw history, much of the norse and keltic culture considered sex to be nothing more than sex.
So, I guess my question here is, are most peoples stances based on the culture and values they were conditioned to hold, or are they individualized perceptions, considered fully, and with out preferential treatment to the "This is how I've always been told to look at it" point of view.
I don't think its wrong people on both sides of this issue think the way they do, but I do think its important they know why. I also think its important people think for themselves about these kinds of issues, rather than allowing culture and custom to shape these choices for them.
Yes Stormwing
, I like that point.
I was not culturally the way I am. I became so, due to watching people suffer unduly over sex and its use or porposes.
Due to people not understanding that it is a force, it gets hidden, and for example, it is why women learn their spouses they thought were loyal all these years, and going by the rules, were not.
Now not only are they mad, they are sick as well, because their partner took unnessary risk with people so that his true, or her true forces could be taken care of.
It is truly an interesting study from my side, and I'm not saying others are wrong, I am trying to point out why their could be a different way of thinking and why.
Ryan, sticking it out is not selfish, the point you are missing it that the sick person demand that you do. That is what I am saying is selfish.
They can't give this pleasure to you, so demand you do with out. I can't have it, so you can't and should not either.
That is the point you are missing.
We are saying that if love is suppose to be so strong, why can't this be given?
Again, I have all the respect in the world for people who can remain open about such things. I just don't think I can do it.
I don't disrespect anyone who thinks the opposite either, but I know why I think and feel the way I do, and I express it, period.
Wow,
We all got to remember, no-one is right or wrong in what they think. It all comes down to how we as individuals value sex, and as I've stated in other topics, sex to me is only done in a committed relationship and nothing or no-one is going to change my mind on that, and neither they should.
I respect all opinions and points of view even though I may not be able to make sense of them in my own head.
Therefore, there's no way known that I'd go and seek sex elsewhere should my partner not be able to perform; as others have said, it's not his fault he can't perform. And obviously it is well known that ones who do go elsewhere are cheating, that is of course, if it's not discussed with the partner - just before you minorities jump down my throat. :) I know some partners are cool with it, just like the whole open relationship thing.
Now I personally wouldn't be cool with my partner doing it; again, that is me so no use arguing the point cos you're not gunna change my mind.
As Chelsea feels strongly about her point of view, I feel strongly about mine. If my partner wasn't happy with me just because I couldn't perform, it's their right to go.
I honestly didn't express an opinion one way or the other, just pointed out how in some cases, its likely that culture shaped the foundation of some of these views, at least as they apply to society as a hole... though, in all seriousness, this topic is getting a little out of hand.
I think I see a few ways to bring it back on track, or get it moving down another one that won't bog this hole thing down, but I need some time to write out my thoughts.
Oy vey, children. We're talking in circles now, and frankly, it's getting to be a bit tiresome. It's as if each person believes taht by restating his or her oppinion, they might somehow invallidate the other side or win them over. But here's my last post on the topic because it's just my nature to respond to misunderstandings someone may have had about my thoughts, or acknowledge something some one might have said that I liked.
James, AKA stormwing, I like your perspective. For me, my standpoint is not derived from culture, but rather because of my personal beliefs and reasoning. I personally am much more interested in having sex within a committed relationship rather than casually, and I outlined my reasons for this in depth on another board some months ago.
So perhaps that is why I wouldn't want to seek sexual sollace elsewhere. Make no mistake: sex is very important to me as well, but to me, complicating things would be to seek sex elsewhere, and I would willingly submit to my own devices, literally and otherwise, to fulfill my sexual need rather than risk entangling myself in some sort of love/sexual triangle.
I guess for me, sex equates to love, at least to some degree, and regardless of whether it may be a complicated position or not, Chelsea, my point is not misguided. Just as you are content in separating sex from all other emotions, I am happy to merge the two. That's what I do naturally, and I would never change that. That's what makes us different. You think me ignorant and overly complicated on the matter, I think your approach is unnecessarily cruel and clinical, and therefore, we'll never see eye to eye in this case..
In explaining this, I think my emotions for the other person I'd be sleeping would deepen with time, and so in the end, I might be inadvertently betraying my partner in some way, even if he had consented to my external sex life.
Chelsea, you had stated that I was ignorant in suggesting that you and Wayne dont' know what your talking about because you're not in a committed relationship. Well, firstly, that's not what I said at all. I am fully confident that you do know what you're talking about. I'm also fully confident that you'll never change your mind on this topic. I merely pointed out that there was an interesting correlation between the posters' oppinions and their relationship status currently. I was not incorrect in that. I also suggested that it might be harder for you to find congruent partners than it is for those of us who subscribe to the opposing opinion. Simply because, as you said yourself, your in the minority. And no matter how many friends you have who might agree with you and admire you for your... um, selfless and interesting perspective, I wonder how many of them would applaud you for it as their longterm girlfriend, wife, or what have you.
Now, admittedly, I dont' know your friends, and I can't predict what they would or wouldnt' agree with you on. But heres an interesting thing:
My fiance and I talked about this exact predicament back when we were just friends. We also talked about it again when we were less involved. Both times he said he was adamant that he couldn't live without sex, and that if I, or anyone else he was with should be so debilitated that we couldnt' satisfy his needs, he'd be inclined to go and get them taken care of elsewhere. Guess what my response was? I said, fine. you do that. I was ok with that, but I had said I wouldnt' do that myself. Now, when I told him about this little debate we have going on, he said he'd rather hang out with a fleshlight and a dozen porno flicks, and that he wouldnt' have it any other way. And mind you, I don't judge any of his viewpoints so he's free to be perfectly honest with me about his oppinions. My view, as you know, hasn't changed. But his has, and he said that he's of the belief that oppinions like that, are subject to change with a relationship status. We had gone through some really tough times as a couple, illness, an unexpected pregnancy, and other crazy mishaps or obstacles we hadn't gone through with each other. Perhaps his stance changed due to our deepened bond, I don't know. Either way, Just a view from an outsider.
So my theory, albeit just a fun, speculative one, wasn't entirely invalid.
And by the way, since I believe that a true commitment is based on sticking it out when the going gets tough, and that includes sexually, while you'd decidedly get your sexual needs met elsewhere if it came to it, in my eyes, you aren't capable of engaging in a true commitment. Now, keep in mind, this is by my definition, by my opinion, and certainly not your own. You and I define commitment differently, obviously, so where you think you're fully capable of commitment, it's on your own terms. Neither of us are right. This is all purely subject to personal opinion. And anyway, neither you nor I should care what the other think, because we wouldnt' be involved in each other's situations if this scenario came to be. We wouldn't be engaging in a mutual relationship, so your views don't concern me, and mine dont' concern you in the end.
Wayne, I happen to see your viewpoint and understand it, even though I don't fully agree with it as you know. If you'd seen what I wrote before, I believe it is an act of love toward your partner to allow them to be happy, and letting them do their thing, whether sexually or otherwise is noble. I don't believe I personally would step out on my partner sexually if given the opportunity, and that, in my eyes, is a sign of loyalty to my partner. I actually find your individual stance to be somewhat loving and endearing. Maybe it's the way you present it.
But anyway, I've said my part on this topic. and now I can say my day is done. lol.
see ya guys.
PS:
Leo, thanks for explaining what you meant regarding animal instinct. That makes sense to me now.
Ok, we've talked and talked and talked in circles about getting sex on the side if a partner can't fill this roll long enough. Its time to dam this river up and set it flowing on a new, and hopefully more productive corse.
Getting back to the initial questions asked here, I'm left thinking there are no really truly definitive answers. As humans we are all different, and there for the way we interact with others will be different to one degree or another in every relationship. Sometimes the differences will be more drastic, sometimes they will be more subtle.
Can you truly commit to the relationship before meeting? I think this question is really a yes and no. On some level, you can commit to the person emotionally, as a friend, and even as something and someone more, but on another level, you just can't. with out seeing how they really function in the real world environment, all you can completely and accurately commit to is the idea to commit to the ideal of the person you think you've found... Seeing them on camera helps to make these things more real in my mind, though i've honestly got the vision to take advantage of that to a point... Because then, I can at least confirm they are who they say they are, and that they haven't given me a completely inaccurate physical description. while someones looks is not the end all be all for me, seeing an honest representation even of a friend makes them more real in my mind. You get a sense of their mannerisms., and the opportunity to connect a face with a name. I know for most much of what i've written above doesn't matter much, but it is something that does matter to me, at least to a point. Apart from that, you can learn a lot about your potential partner based on their interests, conversational skills, written/verbal communication you engage in, and the public image they display to the world via board posts, live chat room messages, skype/team talk communication with your/their friends and social circle, and lets not forget the twitter/facebook profiles.
Even so, until you meet, you still probably can only expect to learn something like between 20 and 60 percent of who, what and how someone is who they are. and as such, you really can only make the choice to become exclusive until such time as you guys meet to test the waters...
I think of this stage as something more than friends, but something slightly less than full on physical commitment. Lets call it online commitment..
How long online commitment lasts can depend on a lot of different things, financial ability of both parties, comfort level of both parties, plans and obligations both parties have, and for this reason, I can't really nail down a specific time that is the norm...
Most I know of seem to be between 1 month, and 1.5 years.
this aside, I would say if the two people in question have no immediate plans made to meet in the next 6 months after the 14 ish month mark, its really just going to end there. I didn't take in to account extreme cases, simply because most are not truly that unable to meet In the majority of situations. two partners find a way to meet up in the first 2 years, from what i've seen, or the relationship dies.
As to where to meet, and when. I do think that the person with the best living situation should host, or the two people should meet on neutral ground. If both have the money and confidence, meeting at a place like a convention, or at a neutral hotel is best for the following reasons.
1. both parties are in a place they've never been before. As such, both people are being exposed to new sights, sounds, smells and opportunities to try new things. No one is put out for not having home field advantage, so to speak.
2. A neutral environment is an excellent opportunity to try new things. You're both in a place you've never been before, and like as not never will again. thus, you've really got no reason to care about what could happen as a result of your adventurous activities. If things don't work out, both of you guys leave, and you need not deal with family, friends, people at your favorite local places, or anyone else who knows you well asking questions after the fact, pressuring you to introduce them to your partner/spend time with them, or anything else for that matter.
while its unlikely you'll be with someone who has social issues, habits you're uncomfortable with, or any other quirks that make them unsuitable for you or your friends, lifting that social pressure to bring home the best will make you both feel more comfortable. Plus, if that person really does have some bad social quirk you never knew about, you won't need to deal with justifying your online dating horror stories after the fact.
As bad as this sounds, i've met a fare few people at blind related conventions and other social events that display habits I would be ridiculed for introducing to friends. Both of the sighted and blind variation. considering you've never met this person before, you really have no idea how they may act in the real world, other than the clues you've gained by getting to know them. Anyone who as met a fare representation of their internet friends off the internet can tell you that many of them are slightly to extremely different off the web.
. 3. Neutral environments are an excellent place to see how your potential long term partner deals with a plethora of social situations, experiences, and stress. how do they deal with new things? How do they adapt to stress in the real world? Can they communicate with you effectively under pressure? All questions better known earlier rather than later. We all have things we can and can't tolerate in those we choose to commit to, and some of those characteristics don't appear online, ever.
4. If anything should go wrong, getting in to a public place where you can get help is a lot easier in a hotel. Most hotels worth the money you pay them have some form of security that can help you out of a tight spot, and many of them threw experience have a better relationship with the authorities than you do. Be realistic, the world has its share of psychos, and if you're not very strong,or lack defensive skills you need to give yourself every edge you can. I know that sounds like worry mongering, but you can never be to careful.
while you're with your partner, use that time to enjoy each others company, and get out and about. You've got the nights to stay in your room, or at home, but dedicating a few of those days to getting out and about in the community around you at least sometimes will go a long way in connecting you two together, giving your new bond some much needed strengthening, and dating. Lets face it online dating doesn't give you the same experience as a first date does, and you can learn a lot about a person of critical importance while doing so.
As to how long the first hook up should last...
this again depends on the two partners. the more money both have, and the closer they both are, the easier it is to commit to more trips, thus, your first adventure need not be more than a weekend, because you can just drop in again next month, or a few weeks down the line if you both are so inclined. the less money both partners have, and the further away they are, the longer they probably should consider spending with one another, but... In my opinion, this should be no longer than 10 days.
If things go well, you will have plenty more time down the line. If things don't, you're stuck with a guest, somewhere far from home, or both, until the trip expires.
In the case of those from other countries, I could potentially see this lasting up to one month. though if this path is taken, i'd sure get flexible tickets... Spending time with someone you hate could cost you a lot more than trying to save money.
My next major post on this topic will be about what comes next, and why long distance relationships fail. May hold it back for a day or 4.
Right on, James! I feel your post was one of the most concise and to the point, explanitory, and, nothing that didn't belong there. Thank you! :)
James, I think you summed it up nicely.
I'd just like to state one thing regarding long distance relationships:
You're correct when you say that we dont' know our prospective partner very well until we meed physically. But also, we dont' really know them as well as we may think we do until the long distance phase is over. For some, this may mean they've moved in with the partner, simply because they've had to relocate and maybe this made the most sense. But I think that in most cases, transitioning from a long distance relationship right to moving in together can be a recipe for disaster. First, because you know your partner as a long distance one, you only see him or her on occasion. So you are familiar with their physical look, you probably picked up on a lot of their habbits, but you've been spending most of your time together having fun. You don't usually get together with a long distance partner to do mundane things, although some obviously come into play if you are staying together somewhere.
My point is, dating someone locally while living separately first, gives you a way to explore your partner from a much closer perspective on a frequent basis. It takes the pressure off, because though you're not living together yet, you have more of a chance to hang out together in social situations, get introduced to your respective families, spend some time doing some low key dates. And that's definitely different than the feel of: well, I'm just in town for a few days, weeks or even a month so...
Living with a partner presents new obstacles and adjustments, and I think that can present a high-pressure situation that can make both partners more stressed out than they need to be. First, the person who has relocated to the other person's turf, so to speak, has left behind friends, possibly a family and familiar surroundings. Second, both partners need to adjust to sharing each other's space affectively, tolerating the not-so-good habits (because let's face it, we all have them), and dealing with expenses, family members, and possibly kids belonging to one or both partners.
I don't know, but I personally think that the local dating phase is necessary as a transition from a long distance involvement to a live-in relationship. That's how I conducted my relationship, and the approach was successful. I'm genuinely curious, though, to here other's perspectives on the matter, since I know that a lot of the time, financial and logistical circumstances dictate that the partners need to move in together if they want to end the long distance phase and become local sweethearts.
What do you all think?
James, I think you summed it up nicely.
I'd just like to state one thing regarding long distance relationships:
You're correct when you say that we dont' know our prospective partner very well until we meed physically. But also, we dont' really know them as well as we may think we do until the long distance phase is over. For some, this may mean they've moved in with the partner, simply because they've had to relocate and maybe this made the most sense. But I think that in most cases, transitioning from a long distance relationship right to moving in together can be a recipe for disaster. First, because you know your partner as a long distance one, you only see him or her on occasion. So you are familiar with their physical look, you probably picked up on a lot of their habbits, but you've been spending most of your time together having fun. You don't usually get together with a long distance partner to do mundane things, although some obviously come into play if you are staying together somewhere.
My point is, dating someone locally while living separately first, gives you a way to explore your partner from a much closer perspective on a frequent basis. It takes the pressure off, because though you're not living together yet, you have more of a chance to hang out together in social situations, get introduced to your respective families, spend some time doing some low key dates. And that's definitely different than the feel of: well, I'm just in town for a few days, weeks or even a month so...
Living with a partner presents new obstacles and adjustments, and I think that can present a high-pressure situation that can make both partners more stressed out than they need to be. First, the person who has relocated to the other person's turf, so to speak, has left behind friends, possibly a family and familiar surroundings. Second, both partners need to adjust to sharing each other's space affectively, tolerating the not-so-good habits (because let's face it, we all have them), and dealing with expenses, family members, and possibly kids belonging to one or both partners.
I don't know, but I personally think that the local dating phase is necessary as a transition from a long distance involvement to a live-in relationship. That's how I conducted my relationship, and the approach was successful. I'm genuinely curious, though, to here other's perspectives on the matter, since I know that a lot of the time, financial and logistical circumstances dictate that the partners need to move in together if they want to end the long distance phase and become local sweethearts.
What do you all think?
James, I think you summed it up nicely.
I'd just like to state one thing regarding long distance relationships:
You're correct when you say that we dont' know our prospective partner very well until we meed physically. But also, we dont' really know them as well as we may think we do until the long distance phase is over. For some, this may mean they've moved in with the partner, simply because they've had to relocate and maybe this made the most sense. But I think that in most cases, transitioning from a long distance relationship right to moving in together can be a recipe for disaster. First, because you know your partner as a long distance one, you only see him or her on occasion. So you are familiar with their physical look, you probably picked up on a lot of their habbits, but you've been spending most of your time together having fun. You don't usually get together with a long distance partner to do mundane things, although some obviously come into play if you are staying together somewhere.
My point is, dating someone locally while living separately first, gives you a way to explore your partner from a much closer perspective on a frequent basis. It takes the pressure off, because though you're not living together yet, you have more of a chance to hang out together in social situations, get introduced to your respective families, spend some time doing some low key dates. And that's definitely different than the feel of: well, I'm just in town for a few days, weeks or even a month so...
Living with a partner presents new obstacles and adjustments, and I think that can present a high-pressure situation that can make both partners more stressed out than they need to be. First, the person who has relocated to the other person's turf, so to speak, has left behind friends, possibly a family and familiar surroundings. Second, both partners need to adjust to sharing each other's space affectively, tolerating the not-so-good habits (because let's face it, we all have them), and dealing with expenses, family members, and possibly kids belonging to one or both partners.
I don't know, but I personally think that the local dating phase is necessary as a transition from a long distance involvement to a live-in relationship. That's how I conducted my relationship, and the approach was successful. I'm genuinely curious, though, to here other's perspectives on the matter, since I know that a lot of the time, financial and logistical circumstances dictate that the partners need to move in together if they want to end the long distance phase and become local sweethearts.
What do you all think?
Bernadetta, while yours and my personal situations don't affect each other, that's no reason for either of us to refuse to speak our mind on any given topic.
I hear what you're saying about your fiance's viewpoint changing, which others have also said is likely to happen, but I'm a firm believer that, as has been said, things like this really depend on the individuals involved.
and, yes, I do believe that, should I ever find someone I wanted to settle down with, they'd accept my stance as the loving, honest, selfless view that it is.
to answer the question James posed about whether people were conditioned to think this way, or came into it through what they've experienced and thought about, I certainly wasn't raised to have such views as I've presented on this topic, or elsewhere, for that matter.
I was raised, like most here seem to have been, to believe sex and commitment go hand in hand, and that leaving someone for one's sexual needs was not only unheard of, but also unthinkable.
We're all products of our conditioning, whether we're talking a Conservative Baptist viewpoint like Dolce, or a so-called open viewpoint like Chelsea. The truth to James's query? I'm open to say that I'm conditioned. Part of my conditioning as an American is to imagine that I came up with my beliefs all by myself.
And as to Bernadetta's point about her partner changing his tune? happens all the time in relationships. We're neuroplastic creatures, and that is what made us survive the savannahs, Ice Age, and the post-Ice-Age cruel flooding / global climate change.
The most adaptable are the ones who survive drastic changes big and small. The most ideological, "I'll-never-chagne?" have the most trouble.
I can't help thinking this Chelsea: I'm glad you're in the 21st century. Had you been alive in the 15th or 16th century, people with what we now know as the Bible Belt opinions on this topic, straw-man arguments like sex is not everything, would not be arguing with you. They'd be burning you at the stake. The reason? New ideology is always a severe threat to the ideologically hidebound. Some may see this topic as having gone in circles, I more see it as a microcosm illustration of what happens when the seat of power is threatened. Notice who makes who wait, and who owns the store. Chelsea and wayne present an egalitarian scenario and egalitarian scenarios are always despised the most by those who hold the most power now. Stands to reason: you stand the most to lose.
Two things I'm still not changed on though: I don't think I could do an online relationship. And, most of you while you talk about getting a need met or not getting a need met, when the truth came out and your partner was ailing, we'd be hard pressed to peel you away from them to nearly force feed you a sandwich or get you to take a walk. And when you were taking that walk, you couldn't get your mind off the other person: you'd be full of anxiety about is the person you left your partner with treating them right? Did they die while you were away? Any number of thoughts you think now that you wouldn't be thinking. That's the reality of how you would react, what takes over you when that situation hits.
To address your question, Bernadetta, I am of the opinion that everything takes time, for some more than others. Some move in within days after meeting in person and talking for months, and others let the relationship gradually turn into something more. One could argue that moving with someone within days, or even a couple months after meeting can be too short, but, for some it has worked, and have been successfull ever since. We're speaking online here, just to be specific. I don't think there's any deffinitte answer, it depends on both individuals, distance, purpose, beliefs and such. Because, moving in with someone obviously implies a sacrifice for one of them, and that as a start, is a huge transition. I think the question would be, why would I want to move with someone if I haven't interacted with him other than online or on the phone? I'm not saying there are no feelings involved, it's a matter of knowing what causes such feelings. By knowing I mean not just doing something for the sake of it, just because one may feel lust, because, one may have really high expectations of a person based on what the other has made known. Yet, it may turn out as a major disappointment, deception and so on and so on. But personally, me, I think that I need to have time for both of us to get to know each other well enough, to have a relationship that can seriously give way to moving in with each other. One step at a time, I say.
I don't believe there is a textbook answer, as to how long you should wait before you both decide it is time to move closer or in with each other. Sometimes you have to take chances. I agree with James, and to address what Leo said, online relationships don't work for everyone. If you want to see how things go though, meeting up for a day or a couple is a good way to start things off. Then if things continue going well and you feel the bond is strong, then it is time to take living arrangements in to consideration. This will depend on the couple and other factors, but if it's meant to work out it will.
Bernadetta, that was one thing I was going to address in part 2. Once I collect all those thoughts. You made some very good points about making that transition.
Thank you for helping me consider this Bernadetta. My best friend is now engaged and moved in with her fiance last week after living ldr for a year and a, no, two years. They didn't start out online but I wonder if the same thing applies. I guess, as stated above, it all depends on the person and their current situations. While it's probably safer to do the local dating thing then move in together, after that partner has established some things in the area first, but it's probably more cost effective to move in together as a unit. I definitely do not think anyone should go straight into the moving in together stage upon first visit. That, is fucking wreckless and a sure cause for immanent disaster. Even after meeting once is bad.
honestly, I wish more of society thought like Wayne and I. I think a lot of the pressure that people often place on relationships would be iliminated, then, as people would have more of a true sense of freedom, in every aspect.
I'm not, by any means, advocating that people should have sex with whoever they want, but that they should at least know that, if a situation arises that causes them to realize they, or the person they're with, can't or won't be sexual, they shouldn't feel trapped, nor should they feel they have to stay cause society will likely tell them, "you obviously don't love the person, or yourself, if you want sex."
leo, I never said my opinion wouldn't change. I'm simply saying that, given the experiences I've had in life, this is how I've come to view this particular issue.
if I should ever get into a longterm relationship, which is something I never see happening, maybe things will change. however, one thing I know will remain true, is the fact I'll always be honest with whoever I'm with, about where I stand. there will be no sneaking about, whatsoever.
sa hbsadAn I wld sy hat I mor mendale than th iealistswolter ,neakabot jus sayin'.med t
would you clear up your last post, leo?
I forgot to add earlier, that another thing that won't ever change, is that I'll never give up sex, for any reason.
that's exactly what Wayne and I meant, in saying that we aren't willing to forego something that is not only a natural part of life, but a need that, if not fulfilled, would leave those who share my view, quite unhappy, physically, as well as the lack of companionship.
While my view (emotionally speaking anyway) currently echoes that expressed by Shepherdwolf and Write Away, I really don't see what would be wrong with the alternative viewpoint, so long as both partners had discussed it and found that it was something they could live with. It wouldn't be cheating then. Cheating implies sneaking around, and as Chelsea just said, sneaking isn't a part of what she'd do if in that particular situation. I certainly see the logic behind her belief, and while it's not for me I see nothing morally wrong with it. I mean hell, all kinds of things we now consider okay and healthy were unheard of if you go back far enough. Divorce, sex before marriage, having kids out of wedlock, the list goes on. I think it's all a matter of preference and the importance you place upon sex, intimacy, and how they go together.
I also agree with Stormwing in that this board has gone off topic quite a bit. Personally I think that couples should definitely be very sure of themselves and their commitment before expecting to be able to move in together after a long-distance relationship and have it work longterm. There are a ton of things you can't learn about a person until you live with them.
I find a lot of this interesting. Those who vehemently react against what Chelsea and Wayne describe?
In the 1980s, these types vehemently reacted against artists like Samantha Fox for open and forward sexuality, like this video. Jokingly, although they were usually of a strict religious persuasion, we referred to them as the Junior Anti-Sex League, but you have to have read George Orwell's 1984 to get that reference.
I agree. As long as both partners have discussed it and agreed I don't really see anything wrong with it. Because whacking the weasel as I like to call it doesn't do it for everybody.
I will never think of it as masturbation again. Lmfao. Sorry had to say that. So, here's a question that may've already been brought up, but I am unsure, as it's late and I'm tired. Lol. Who should move to what partner, especially if the relationship is long distant? The more financiallly sound one, or what? I feel it's important to consider these facts because someone will be leaving behind friends, family, and a life to go start a new one. Or, if possible, should both partners move if they can? To start a new life together as it were.
I may be facing this quandary myself in a little while, so here are my thoughts on it.
Financial stability and job prospects are big, but not the only important thing. I'm in school for computer programming, basically, so my job will travel and isn't really location-specific. Oh sure, I might have a particularly good offer from my home province before I leave, which will have to be tossed into the equation, but in general I'll work just as well pretty much anywhere, city preferred, that has computers. That being said, I think it's the sort of thing to really talk with your partner about, and neither person in the relationship should be absolutely unwilling to move without a damned good reason. "I don't want to learn a new city" by itself is not a damned good reason, though I know it will definitely make people hesitate. The idea is to cause the lowest amount of overall ripple that you can, in the move. Be practical above all else.
I think it's not smart for both partners to move away and start a new life without the support of family and friends, at least of one partner.
Why should both people feel lonely together? why not find the accomodations that will most embrace you, from one partner's side or the other.
Now, for me, things wer a bit different. My partner moved to where I went to college, and we moved in together after I finished school. So we were both a while away from family. But that being said, his relatives were a six and a half hour drive away while mine were about an hour and a half, and we saw my family often before we moved back to my hometown. familial support is crucial, assuming you have a supportive family. a supportive family is what can get you through the rough spots of a transition from being LDR mates to being housemates. Because, let's face it. moving in together is a serious relationship step, no matter the circumstances. And if the family of the partner supports and embraces the newcomer, all the better for the relationship. Happy couples thrive on good, sound support systems. Not everyone has them, of course, but when they do, it's unwise to up and leave just to be with a partner who's up and left his or her own support system as well.
Sorry for such a vague answer, but it depends on the situation. Generally speaking though, the last two posters nailed it. If you have some sort of support, take it. It would be silly to make yourself struggle unnecessarily, and that is something I've learned myself recently. Family is always there and it is up to you to decide and recognize if you will benefit from their support, or if it will put you at more of a disadvantage, and what is best for both you and your spouse. This isn't black and white, there is a lot of gray areas but I hope I was able to make a good general response.
I agree that family support is extremely important.
If there is a question of where to go, because you have both sides of the family being totally supportive, I say go to the city where the female’s family lives.
I say that, because I think females are closer to family then males, and are less able to adapt to the males mother.
This seems especially true, if you are having kids. It is probably why the law says, if both parents die, the first person asked to take the children is the female’s mother.
Now if we’ve got the family out of the way, next is security. Where is the better place to live and earn? The person with the best security, place, and such, should be the place you settle. Any city can be lived in, but living in any city unsecured is hard. That can and will put a strain on the relationship.
If it is a question over family and security, security should come first.
I don’t think you should start out in a strange place though. One or the other should locate, so that they can learn from one partner how things work. It is hard, and we are talking blind persons, to settle in a place you don’t know. Sure, it can be done, and is easy depending on the person’s skill level, but it is better to settle were you have someone that knows things.
I agree that family support is extremely important.
If there is a question of where to go, because you have both sides of the family being totally supportive, I say go to the city where the female’s family lives.
I say that, because I think females are closer to family then males, and are less able to adapt to the males mother.
This seems especially true, if you are having kids. It is probably why the law says, if both parents die, the first person asked to take the children is the female’s mother.
Now if we’ve got the family out of the way, next is security. Where is the better place to live and earn? The person with the best security, place, and such, should be the place you settle. Any city can be lived in, but living in any city unsecured is hard. That can and will put a strain on the relationship.
If it is a question over family and security, security should come first.
I don’t think you should start out in a strange place though. One or the other should locate, so that they can learn from one partner how things work. It is hard, and we are talking blind persons, to settle in a place you don’t know. Sure, it can be done, and is easy depending on the person’s skill level, but it is better to settle were you have someone that knows things.
That definitely makes sense.
These last few posts show that people have given this a lot of thought. Further proving that humans will adapt to any situation, and that the online relationships are no different than the offline, and people will create the considerations they need to make it work.
Always remember, in the words of Charles Darwin, it is not the strongest species who survive, nor is it the most intelligent, but the most responsive to change. This has always been true. The hidebound don't usually make it very well through tumultuous times.
Yes, I'd agree.