George_Washington said:
In order to be sexually attracted to someone, you must also be physically attracted to them. I know what you're trying to say but you're not thinking about it correctly. Just having sex with someone without being physically attracted to them just implies that you like sex in general, which isn't an, "attraction" per se but just a desire to have sex. It could mean the person is good in bed but it really just implies that you like sex and not the person. So you're not attracted to them but just the sex they offer you.
Wrong, George. First of all, you are not exactly the expert here....I'm not saying that I am, but your tone is really starting to get on my nerves. Anyway, all of that is merely your opinion. You can indeed be sexually attracted to someone you're not physically attracted to, and it has nothing to do with "liking sex in general".
Actually, I read about a theory in psychology once that suggested the reason why people find certain people attractive is because they remind people of their parents, something spiritual, or vague concept of the ideal mate they've had in mind since they were very young. See, Stace. You have, how can I say? Very, "elementary" views on the psychology of sex.
Whoop de doo. Not everything in life is learned through books and classes. Try getting some real life experience.
And how DARE you say that I have "very elementary views on the pschology of sex"? You don't know me, George, and you don't know the depths of my views - on this, or anything else. Don't ever presume that you do. And do not EVER talk to me like that again. I've already lost most of my respect for you for the way you talked to another member awhile back - I'd really hate to lose the shred that's remaining. You are NOT better than me, or anyone else here, so please stop acting like you are.
That's just your opinion, it doesn't mean anything. I would say myself and others have had different experiences. :::shrugs:::
That's funny, because I know many people that have found themselves in similar situations.
And this is ALL just your opinion, too, so I guess nothing you say means anything either, huh?
And tell me, if my opinion doesn't mean anything to you, then why are you still arguing with me? I'd prefer for you to just move on if my opinion means so little to you. I'm not a fan of wasting my time, there are other people I could be debating things with.
The impudent statements really aren't neccessary, Stace.
Perhaps you need to take a page out of your own book, George.
That's kind of what I was trying to imply. But when you said you would have left your husband after getting to know him if he wasn't good in bed sounded very, "superficial," the very same thing you accused me of being.
Uh, excuse me? WHERE did I say that I would have left him? Oh, that's right, I DIDN'T. I said that IF we had not been compatible in bed, some of the spark I felt would have been lost, but that in no way implies that I would have left.
If I really cared about a woman, I wouldn't leave her just because she didn't do certain things in bed. She could develop good sexual skills over time, as a lot of people do.
And a lot of people don't.
If there was something I really wanted her to do but she refused, I would probably still stay with her, supposing I was very in love with her. Maybe though that's just the kind of person I am.
I don't know what exactly you're trying to get at, George. Once again, you are way out in left field all by yourself. We're not talking about doing specific acts or positions....we are talking about the quality of your sex life overall.
And actually, that's not the point of this thread, either. It was supposed to be about discussing individual views regarding premarital sex. So, as the person who started this thread to begin with......if you have thoughts regarding that, great. Otherwise...thanks for playing.