Is Romance Important to You or Is it All About the sex?

[Hotcoffee123]

Romance has more of an effort; it is emotional, whereas just sex, you have your primal needs met. Maybe that is simplistic.

 

[queen_keira69]

Romance has more of an effort; it is, whereas just sex, you have your primal needs met. Maybe that is simplistic.

so you‘d agree with romance as Emma and I understand it?

so true, Emma!

romance means intense, lustful and enjoying everything you do when, well, fucking

 

[Hotcoffee123]

I think so lustful and intense

 

[queen_keira69]

I think so lustful and intense

a warm welcome to the team!!!

Team SEX, lol (sorry, I‘m in a silly mood)

 

[Ratchetman1982]

I think each has its place. It is all about situational awareness.

 

[kathyisgr65]

I think everyone likes to feel pampered and special..

 

[~Elizabeth~]

Sex is great, but I need romance too.

 

[zysmith]

I much prefer to have the romance but I would be hard pressed to turn down an offer of a no strings attached night of debauchery.

 

[allegro5star]

I think romance tickles the heart and sex tickles your privates. they each enhance the other but each has their own place too.
for me, romance is more versatile because it can take on any form that makes you like your partner more, from competitive games to comforting cuddles, from stimulating conversation to silently anticipating your needs .

 

[Catepillar_glacier]

Sometimes I need one, or the other, or both.

 

[Rickslaw101]

As a general proposition, I prefer romance, but at the moment, I'll have a tall order of sex, please!

 

[fma20fma]

10% romance....90% hard sex

 

[VickyZ]

Romance is definitely important to me. I think the connection and chemistry make everything else, including sex, much more meaningful

 

[Mpm1691]

I would agree that romance adds the spark and passion to the sex. The anticipation of being together is what makes it so special.

 

[policywank]

I think that the question implies a sort of one-dimensional view of sex. As if it is an either/or type of thing which is often then used to try to draw distinctions between the male and female views of sex. In particular, men like the idea that women need romance to enjoy sex whereas men are more physically primal. That belief justifies the double standard when it comes to sexual promiscuity. It also helps assuage the insecurity some men feel when faced with the prospect that women can be just as likely to pursue purely physical experiences because those men are less able to compete on that basis in the sexual marketplace.

In my view the reality is that for a mature person of either gender who isn't constrained by what society has told us we must be, either can be the case. A woman who generally enjoys a romantic approach to intimacy is still perfectly capable of enjoying a purely physical experience with the right person. And even if she prefers the former or the latter most of the time, that doesn't mean all of the time.

To the extent that a man perceives that all women want romance it may be more accurate to say that when women are interested in him it is for romance. Those same women or different women may be equally likely to be interested in a man for primal physical sexual desire, but he isn't the one they choose when that is what they seek.

For women in particular, I think that some of these dynamics can also change over time in either direction. In certain segments of society women face a great deal of pressure to be focussed on romance and long-term relationships and may be judged harshly for exploring a more primal physical experience. Later in life, especially if they have a change in relationship status, they may be more likely to eschew those pressures and explore a more physical experience. The opposite may be true as well - a young women who does explore her physical desires then decides later to opt for more romance.

 

[mickyp123]

I think that the question implies a sort of one-dimensional view of sex. As if it is an either/or type of thing which is often then used to try to draw distinctions between the male and female views of sex. In particular, men like the idea that women need romance to enjoy sex whereas men are more physically primal. That belief justifies the double standard when it comes to sexual promiscuity. It also helps assuage the insecurity some men feel when faced with the prospect that women can be just as likely to pursue purely physical experiences because those men are less able to compete on that basis in the sexual marketplace.

In my view the reality is that for a mature person of either gender who isn't constrained by what society has told us we must be, either can be the case. A woman who generally enjoys a romantic approach to intimacy is still perfectly capable of enjoying a purely physical experience with the right person. And even if she prefers the former or the latter most of the time, that doesn't mean all of the time.

To the extent that a man perceives that all women want romance it may be more accurate to say that when women are interested in him it is for romance. Those same women or different women may be equally likely to be interested in a man for primal physical sexual desire, but he isn't the one they choose when that is what they seek.

For women in particular, I think that some of these dynamics can also change over time in either direction. In certain segments of society women face a great deal of pressure to be focussed on romance and long-term relationships and may be judged harshly for exploring a more primal physical experience. Later in life, especially if they have a change in relationship status, they may be more likely to eschew those pressures and explore a more physical experience. The opposite may be true as well - a young women who does explore her physical desires then decides later to opt for more romance.

Clearly good schools where you grew up, Eloquently Put.

 

[fma20fma]

less romance and more action would be better

 

[*Twisted*]

I've got to me mentally attracted to the person otherwise sex is just sex and not as fun. I'm not sure I'd call it romance, but a connection is required.

 

[policywank]

I've got to me mentally attracted to the person otherwise sex is just sex and not as fun. I'm not sure I'd call it romance, but a connection is required.

I think that is an important distinction. I generally prefer to have some kind of mental connection as well, but that can come in many forms and be expressed in many ways.

In my mind romance isn't even really connection per se. It is a means of expressing one's self. And it is just one of many means of expression.

I suppose it depends on how you define romance, but I find it to be a fairly limiting concept as a means of expression. Flowers and soft candlelight aren't a starting point for making a connection. I might enjoy that once we are already connected. But frankly I'd rather stimulating conversation or shared interests. And personal characteristics like being thoughtful and kind resonate more with me than performative gestures.

 

[Him15]

Personally I don't see much point in one without the other

 

[Sexy_Singer]

 

[aya_amano]

Sex.
No strings attached.

But, sex with someone you know, is often more satisfying.
Simply because you know what they like and how the react

 

[Series 6]

For me, really good sex involves sensuality. I think sensuality comes from some kind of a romantic connection.

 

[Breaking_Dawn_Fantasy]

It depends. If it's someone I love, then yes, romance is important.

If it's just lust/ fucking, then no, would rather not have the romance. Not looking to fall in love with you.

 

[Guffawlin]

It can be both, but I tend to get attached to my partners. I know I've never forgotten a single one, even if it wasn't a full-blown romance. The ones that were tho, damn, carved into my soul.