What does "sexually compatible" mean?

[Guest]

 

[pplwatching]

I'm actually surprised you would recommend Lit in that setting - there's a lot of porn here...stories, Amateur Pics, Personals, the Playground...

Just imagine one of the couples trying to log into How To for the first time and ending up in AmPics!

Or getting a PM - hey, looking for couple for a threesome, wanna play?

I think anyone actively looking for frank sexual discussion is going to be able to deal with getting sidetracked. We're talking about someone who's (hypothetically) expressed an interest, after all. Not me volunteering the information out of the blue. I'd give them the URL right to the forum. Of course I'd tell them that there's a lot here, and they may find more than they're looking for.

Maybe I'm just not posting in the right places, but no one has ever PM'd me asking to play :-( It's one of those things that doesn't interest us, but it's always nice to be asked ;-)

 

[Eilan]

However, people in general have a convenient way of putting whatever tag and connotation to something in a manner that fits their needs, and therein lies my issue.

Bingo!

Here's part of the thread starter's second post:

I do have a libido and I am usually very aware of it, probably just like the rest of you. I just find other ways than sexual intercourse to "deal with" that....be it erotica, masturbation or cyber sex chat......

Some people would consider even these behaviors "sinful."

Frankly, I don't care if people want to wait until marriage to have sex. I don't care if they fuck on the first date. Hell, I don't care if they want to have a threesome with their mother and a sheep.

However, I think there's some self-righteousness and condescension coming from both sides.

 

[pplwatching]

I must say this discussion makes me wonder what percentage of Lit members first came here as a result of searching strictly for discussions regarding love and sex within committed relationships. I must admit I was looking for erotic stories.

I first came here because sex discussions intrigued me. I was (and am) in a committed relationship, but that wasn't a factor in looking for the site. I don't remember where I first found the link anymore.

I remember starting in the GB and being amazed at how fast topics and threads changed. ADD central. I sort of settled here at HT because things seemed to move at my pace and stay on topic, even tho I don't post much. Today I have a broken computer that I'm re-installing, so I have more time than usual.

 

[SweetErika]

I didn't chase it down and read it, but I recently saw a headline/precis about a reent French study that claims cohabitation before marriage increases the risk of divorce.

I've seen a few previous "studies" that presented the same conclusion, but IMHO, the ones I actually read were seriously flawed and/or deliberately biased.

Cohabitation before marriage can increase the risk of divorce, but it can also decrease it, so it's important to look at the reasons the research gives. The good, unbiased research I've read gives reasons like:
- Couples move in together too quickly, get married, and THEN find out they're not a great match
- Many move in for financial or other external reasons, and end up getting married
- Some cohabitating couples use a pregnancy as a main reason for marriage when they're actually not well suited for eachother
- People get married when they're living together, but before they're ready, because society pushes for that result

So, as long as couples aren't falling into these types of traps, cohabitation doesn't have a negative impact. Either way, it was a really, really good thing for us, and I'd make the same choice a thousand times over.

 

[flamesofdesire]

I must say this discussion makes me wonder what percentage of Lit members first came here as a result of searching strictly for discussions regarding love and sex within committed relationships. I must admit I was looking for erotic stories.

I found the Lit discussion board first, when I was doing a google search on causes of E.D. I found the erotic stories later.

A religious organization would never want their parishoners to come here because of all the other controversial subjects that you find here, along with the pics. But people can come here and pick and choose where they go and what they read, and they don't have to participate in the ares that offend them. So I don't think it is neccesarily hypocritical to have certain morals and be on this board.

 

[Norajane]

I found the Lit discussion board first, when I was doing a google search on causes of E.D. I found the erotic stories later.

A religious organization would never want their parishoners to come here because of all the other controversial subjects that you find here, along with the pics. But people can come here and pick and choose where they go and what they read, and they don't have to participate in the ares that offend them. So I don't think it is neccesarily hypocritical to have certain morals and be on this board.

Such a slippery slope, though. You come to a porn board, you're going to run into a lot more than relationship advice.

Is it hypocritical if you profess certain morals, but then ask people to cyber in threads?

 

[Eilan]

A religious organization would never want their parishoners to come here because of all the other controversial subjects that you find here, along with the pics. But people can come here and pick and choose where they go and what they read, and they don't have to participate in the ares that offend them.

Unless they want to stir up shit by judging those whose behavior they find offensive.

So I don't think it is neccesarily hypocritical to have certain morals and be on this board.

It is when people start getting into the my-kink-is-superior-to your-kink debate.

Frankly, there are a few things discussed on this board (Lit in general, not necessarily HT) that I find offensive. Because I know that I can't respond without sounding like a judgmental, self-righteous cunt, I simply avoid those threads. Most of the time.

I've found, though, that when it comes to certain topics, not all people exercise the same restraint.

Is it hypocritical if you profess certain morals, but then ask people to cyber in threads?

Nah. As long as they're not asking you to meet up for PIV sex, they're fine.

 

[pplwatching]

Either way, it was a really, really good thing for us, and I'd make the same choice a thousand times over.

You seem like the kind of person for whom the commitment is powerful motivation to work out issues with your partner and that your partner was the right man for the job, so to speak. Have you always been that way?

Obviously discovering that you're so compatible both in and out of bed is great. I wonder, Erika, if you'd say something in hindsight about your situation. Do you think that your personality, traits, life experience, etc combined with that of your partner doomed you to succeed wether or not you had lived together first? In other words, is it fair to say that you picked a winner and then just hedged your bets? Is there something in your marriage that you can point to and say, "We would not be here today if we had not lived together first"? I would also like to know if in the process of living together you made decisions or what have you based on any assumption that you would be together for the long haul? In the 'spirit of the thread', if you had discovered that this person was everything that you wanted but that the sex was lacking would you have stuck it out and worked on improving the sex or moved on to find someone who offered the whole enchilada?

I guess that I am curious about your experience because I seem like the exception, rather than the rule. I am not against sex before marriage but I think that there is such a thing as the rose colored glasses of sex. I never had sex with the first woman that I seriously dated. Not for religious reasons, but because we spent our time learning about each other, and we were both in school (university) and busy. We broke up because once the diversions of school were gone we just didn't have much emotional chemistry.

Then I swung to the other end of the pendulum. I dated a woman who was a little older, and we had great sex but she wasn't interested in kids or a family, but didn't make that clear until a ways into the relationship (and I didn't really ask). I lived with another woman, and sex really didn't play a role in our break-up. In fact, the sex was very good. We had to unravel some financial dependance as well as move, which gave me less incentive to break up and more to just coast. The relationship wasn't bad or harmful, and I think we were both content. It's hard to say exactly what went wrong in that one. We just weren't marriage material as a couple. In hindsight I knew that before we moved in together. If I really wanted to own up to it I could probably even say that I knew before we really even hit the 3 month mark, but she was a very sexually exciting woman. Very sensual and keenly aware of her sexuality and what made her tick sexually. I really enjoyed being around her, and at the time living together seemed like a great way to take our relationship to the next level and improve it. I just have to admit that I was willing to overlook some things that I didn't want to deal with when I made the decision to move in with her.

So I didn't marry a woman that I didn't have sex with, had sex with, or lived with, and married the woman whom I only dated for 6 months and didn't live with (but did have sex with). Sex and co-habitating didn't seem to have much impact on who I married, other factors did. Maybe it was just that at 28 (when I met my bride) I just had a really good wife-dar. The experiences of my past made me more inclined to look for marrying material rather than dating material, if that makes sense.

 

[TBKahuna123]

Is it hypocritical if you profess certain morals, but then ask people to cyber in threads?

Yeah I'd say so.

I just can't help but see hypocrisy in people that use their strong belief of Christian values as a foundation for their argument on a "porn" board.

I don't know dude, I think you may be generalizing a bit there. It's only those who use there christian beliefs as a basis for an argument which is condeming of others that I would personally find hypocritical. I mean I've been pretty open about my beliefs here, and that they are pretty strong, but I'm still here. I realize though that this puts me in the catch all "sinner" category so I'm not about to start throwing stones. You're right, most subjects you can't use christian beliefs as the basis for your argument, I mean who would I be to tell someone that premarital sex is a sin and then go next door and ask how I can get my wife let me fuck her sister? That's not gonna happen(either one, BTW ), but there are some instances where my responses have been shaped by my beliefs.

Hypocracy to me, lies in preaching what you don't practice. There may be instances here where I'll make an argument that is shaped by my religion, but if I do you can damn sure know that I'm following what I just said. You also won't find me condeming anyone based on religious beliefs, because that's totally counter to my beliefs. Not to mention I'm not perfect, so who am I to talk, right?

As bad a christian as I am though, it is who I am, and I'm not gonna hide it.

 

[Guest]

 

[SamhainDisciple]

I'm thinking that you meant that before sex, they are more loving and considerate because they are trying to win you over, but after they "have" you, then they change their whole approach. Which is true in some cases, but certainly not in all.

That is not at all what I meant. I simply meant that the energy between two people who have sex is different than the energy between two people who don't. Sometimes it brings you closer together, sometimes it pushes you apart...but the dynamic always shifts.

 

[flamesofdesire]

Frankly, there are a few things discussed on this board (Lit in general, not necessarily HT) that I find offensive. Because I know that I can't respond without sounding like a judgmental, self-righteous cunt, I simply avoid those threads. Most of the time.

I know what you mean, and since Lit welcomes every sort of discussion, it's not the place to come and be judgmental. There are certain things on Lit (in general )that I also find offensive, but it's my choice to come here, and so I don't respond to those things.

I personally find it odd for someone to be saving themselves for marriage,due to religous reasons, yet go on the net to have cyber sex.
But everyone has to come to their own decisions on their moral standards and I'm not going to tell someone they are wrong just because I think so.

If someone is trying to keep themselves pure in the eyes of God, then coming here would be a slippery slope indeed, but it's up to the individual on how far they are willing to go. And from what I have seen, there are many people here who have morals, so you don't need to be totally devoid of morals to be on Lit.

 

[Guest]

 

[flamesofdesire]

Yeah I'd say so.


I don't know dude, I think you may be generalizing a bit there. It's only those who use there christian beliefs as a basis for an argument which is condeming of others that I would personally find hypocritical. I mean I've been pretty open about my beliefs here, and that they are pretty strong, but I'm still here. I realize though that this puts me in the catch all "sinner" category so I'm not about to start throwing stones. You're right, most subjects you can't use christian beliefs as the basis for your argument, I mean who would I be to tell someone that premarital sex is a sin and then go next door and ask how I can get my wife let me fuck her sister? That's not gonna happen(either one, BTW ), but there are some instances where my responses have been shaped by my beliefs.

Hypocracy to me, lies in preaching what you don't practice. There may be instances here where I'll make an argument that is shaped by my religion, but if I do you can damn sure know that I'm following what I just said. You also won't find me condeming anyone based on religious beliefs, because that's totally counter to my beliefs. Not to mention I'm not perfect, so who am I to talk, right?

As bad a christian as I am though, it is who I am, and I'm not gonna hide it.

That was an exellent post, I totally agree with everything you said.

 

[Guest]

 

[Eilan]

It just bothers me that it's so damn easy for people to use religion to back up their position while at the same time tossing aside other beliefs of that same faith for their own convenience. That's what I find hypocritical.

I see exactly where you're coming from, Scaly, and I don't think you're generalizing.

 

[Guest]

 

[flamesofdesire]

That's exactly what I was commenting on when I mentioned the H-word. I wasn't commenting on whether either was morally acceptable or not, I was commenting on how one uses 'religious beliefs' to their advantage in making a point and then tossing them aside elsewhere.

I understand here what you are saying, and that is something that bothers me too sometimes, but even you said that you don't believe in everything your faith holds as collective beliefs, so I can only guess that while she believes she should save herself for marriage, she is also horny as hell and is trying to find someway as an outlet, and somehow believes these other things are okay. (Maybe her church wasn't clear enough in it's teachings. I guess they didn't read the passage in the Bible that says "no cyber sex either" ) So if that is her belief, then she doesn't see herself as being hypocritical, or using religon to make a point, she's just saying what she believes.

 

[Weird Harold]

Cohabitation before marriage can increase the risk of divorce, but it can also decrease it, so it's important to look at the reasons the research gives. The good, unbiased research I've read gives reasons like:
...

Whether co-habitation or pre-marital sex is involved or not, I think all of the reasons you listed are examples of how the reality of "Marriage" often conflicts with an idealized pre-conception of Marriage.

Society in general has pre-conceptions about what behavior is expected from a "Mistress" vs what behavior is permissible for a "Wife." I've encounterd a couple of cases where just the change of status sub-consciously changed the behavior and the change of behavior caused problems in the relationship.

That idea of preconceptions based on "status" can be expanded to include the changes from "Friend" to "Lover" -- a common theme in first time stories; "I don't want to lose you as a Friend" -- and almost any other change in relationships and not just personal relationships. Having a co-worker promoted to supervisor changes the way you relate to the person and the way the person is permitted to relate to you.

Like so many other aspects of life, sexual compatiblity and marriage are closely linked to the social conditioning of childhood and the idealized preconceptions about various roles people have in society.

I grew up in a time when societal roles, especially gender-roles, were more emore well-defined than they are today -- at least on the surface. I've since figured out that the rigid roles of my childhood were mostly for public consumption and that the lack of clear roles for public consumption hides a lot of sub-conscious assumptions that are much less liberated than the faces shown in public. I'm not sure which is the "better" way.

The one thing I do know is that the people I've known who knew themselves and knew their partners were happier than those who tried to fit themselves and partners into roles pre-defined by society. Those who let their lives be driven by peer pressure, societal expectations, and/or religious dogma tend to be unhappy people.

The classic ideal of a "Virgin Bride" is a "role" society has historically defined for "good girls" -- if that's a role that a person is comfortable with, for any reason, then that is the role they should play in life.

That last sounds like I'm advocating play-acting instead of being who you are, but it's actually the reverse -- Be who you are but understand how others see your role in society. People expect different things from a "Party girl" than they do from "Professional Virgin" and diffeerent types of personalities seek each type as dates or mates.

 

[Norajane]

I guess they didn't read the passage in the Bible that says "no cyber sex either" )

*flips frantically through Bible stories*

Is that in the New Testament?

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Reba67]

I did not expect this thread to be so long when I opened it again.

First of all, I'm not judging anyone. I started this topic because I truly wanted to hear other opinions out there. Like many of you, I don't have a real life forum for a question like this. None of you have changed my mind, but the discussion is intriguing.

I'm sure there are people around me who would be shocked/surprised/horrified/whatever if they were to learn that I come to this site. Call it sinful or hypocritical if you like, but at the end of the day, it's each one of us who are responsible for our actions. I do think that there is a definite difference between online stuff and meeting in person. Honestly, I've tried cyber sex a couple of times and I think I've decided that it's pretty lame. Was that a sin? Maybe, maybe not, depending on your stance. Am I forgiven for it? Yup. I do think that the church is pretty silent on a lot of things regarding sexuality and it tends to be broadly swept up into the "sex only for married people" area. I mean, when was the last time ANY of you (I'm specifically talking to those who consider themselves christian) asked your pastor/priest "What does the church feel about masturbation or cyber sex?" It's, at least in my experience, not really a topic that comes up all that often.

I gotta hit the hay, it's been a long day.

 

[flamesofdesire]

I do think that the church is pretty silent on a lot of things regarding sexuality and it tends to be broadly swept up into the "sex only for married people" area. I mean, when was the last time ANY of you (I'm specifically talking to those who consider themselves christian) asked your pastor/priest "What does the church feel about masturbation or cyber sex?" It's, at least in my experience, not really a topic that comes up all that often.

It is true that most traditional churchs are silent on the subject of sex, except for saying don't have it. When it comes to personal questions about sex, it would be very uncomfortable to ask someone at the church. It's alot easier to come to a site like this if you really want to learn about sex. (although I know that there are some really good christian books that do talk very explicitly about sex)

Actually I do know what my pastor thinks about masturbation, because he wrote a book. But I don't agree with him.