|
|
Post by eternaloptimism on May 29, 2017 1:51:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by merrygoround on May 29, 2017 2:15:04 GMT -5
Amen!
No chemistry, no connection, no desire, no acceptance, no romance. Yep, flagged this up so many times and if not on his terms, wasn't happening. Shitty isn't it.
|
|
|
|
Post by eternaloptimism on May 29, 2017 2:18:36 GMT -5
Amen! No chemistry, no connection, no desire, no acceptance, no romance. Yep, flagged this up so many times and if not on his terms, wasn't happening. Shitty isn't it. I tell you the weirdest feeling, absolutely being beyond desiring the roommate.... and yet lusting after strangers you drive past in a car. I've felt more sexual energy in a traffic jam than lying in bed with him. Mad!!! |
|
|
|
Post by baza on May 29, 2017 2:29:24 GMT -5
The more you read in here, the more obvious it becomes. Relationships generate about as much sex as they are capable of producing. Take two extreme examples. #1 - would be Sister WindSister relationship. By all accounts by what she writes a highly functional situation which produces a very acceptable level of sexual engagement. #2 - would be Sister darktippedrose relationship. By her writings, a totally dysfunctional situation which produces no sex at all. And in my own experience in - (a) - my ILIASM dysfunctional deal, produced as much sex as it was capable of generating - not much, and not often. (b) - my fully functional deal with Ms enna, produces - on demand - very acceptable levels of sexual engagement. There's no mystery to all this. Incompatable people don't fuck each other much, if at all. Like this Kate Rose says in the linked article, sex is a very accurate barometer of the health of the underlying relationship. PS Which is why I tend to look at posts saying - "everything is great bar the sex" - a bit skeptically. Addendum. I personally believe that a relationship between two compatible people is highly likely to generate sex. I believe that the sex thus generated is indeed a glue-ing agent that binds the compatible people closer together resulting in enhancing the relationship which in turn leads to continued sex - - - and so on. But I have grave doubts that it works the other way. Sex will not, in its' own right, make incompatible people compatible. It won't turn a dysfunctional deal into a functional deal. |
|
|
|
Post by orangepeel on May 29, 2017 2:32:40 GMT -5
Amen! No chemistry, no connection, no desire, no acceptance, no romance. Yep, flagged this up so many times and if not on his terms, wasn't happening. Shitty isn't it. I tell you the weirdest feeling, absolutely being beyond desiring the roommate.... and yet lusting after strangers you drive past in a car. I've felt more sexual energy in a traffic jam than lying in bed with him. Mad!!! That's exactly it! I read somewhere once that sex is a mystical glue which keeps a relationship together: no sex = no glue = no relationship. |
|
|
|
Post by eternaloptimism on May 29, 2017 2:35:52 GMT -5
I tell you the weirdest feeling, absolutely being beyond desiring the roommate.... and yet lusting after strangers you drive past in a car. I've felt more sexual energy in a traffic jam than lying in bed with him. Mad!!! That's exactly it! I read somewhere once that sex is a mystical glue which keeps a relationship together: no sex = no glue = no relationship. What id give for some mystical gluing right now. Sigh ..... |
|
|
|
Post by merrygoround on May 29, 2017 3:38:26 GMT -5
Mystical glueing - hmmmm I like that. A good euphemism lol or a new lube name!
|
|
|
|
Post by dinnaken on May 29, 2017 3:52:56 GMT -5
Amen! No chemistry, no connection, no desire, no acceptance, no romance. Yep, flagged this up so many times and if not on his terms, wasn't happening. Shitty isn't it. I tell you the weirdest feeling, absolutely being beyond desiring the roommate.... and yet lusting after strangers you drive past in a car. I've felt more sexual energy in a traffic jam than lying in bed with him. Mad!!! These two statements absolutely sum it up for me. As to the glue thing - if that's a euphemism for sex - I'm going for industrial strength next time |
|
|
|
Post by seabr33z3 on May 29, 2017 6:15:30 GMT -5
Mystical glueing - hmmmm I like that. A good euphemism lol or a new lube name! Could be a bit risky if you grab the wrong one after some DIY! |
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on May 29, 2017 14:23:53 GMT -5
Incompatable people don't fuck each other much, if at all. A-Fucking-Men |
|
|
|
Post by csl on May 29, 2017 15:45:18 GMT -5
I just did a Search on ILIASM, and I can't find where anyone used this analogy. I apologize if I'm wrong, but this is the best way I've heard it put:
Many refusers are wont to say that sex is the frosting on the cake. They are wrong, as sex is the egg in the batter that you mix to create the cake. Try to bake a cake without eggs and you get crumbs, like a sexless marriage.
|
|
|
|
Post by orangepeel on May 29, 2017 16:21:25 GMT -5
I just did a Search on ILIASM, and I can't find where anyone used this analogy. I apologize if I'm wrong, but this is the best way I've heard it put: Many refusers are wont to say that sex is the frosting on the cake. They are wrong, as sex is the egg in the batter that you mix to create the cake. Try to bake a cake without eggs and you get crumbs, like a sexless marriage. Very true. Or to switch the analogy, sex is a minimum entry fee to a relationship. Without fucking, you're fucked. With it, you either will make it or you won't. That's why people who aren't compatible can fuck well sometimes - they hit the low entry level, but not the higher. And that's also why people who say their relationship is thriving without the fucking are deluding themselves and/or others. The fucking always comes first. It is, to switch to Latin terminology, a sine qua non. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman12345 on May 29, 2017 18:55:45 GMT -5
That's exactly it! I read somewhere once that sex is a mystical glue which keeps a relationship together: no sex = no glue = no relationship. What id give for some mystical gluing right now. Sigh ..... What if I told you there was "mystical glue" on your chin? Hypothetically of course. |
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on May 29, 2017 20:55:45 GMT -5
I just did a Search on ILIASM, and I can't find where anyone used this analogy. I apologize if I'm wrong, but this is the best way I've heard it put: Many refusers are wont to say that sex is the frosting on the cake. They are wrong, as sex is the egg in the batter that you mix to create the cake. Try to bake a cake without eggs and you get crumbs, like a sexless marriage. Very true. Or to switch the analogy, sex is a minimum entry fee to a relationship. Without fucking, you're fucked. With it, you either will make it or you won't. That's why people who aren't compatible can fuck well sometimes - they hit the low entry level, but not the higher. And that's also why people who say their relationship is thriving without the fucking are deluding themselves and/or others. The fucking always comes first. It is, to switch to Latin terminology, a sine qua non. I would respectfully disagree. I would say that for some people a sexless marriage fits them just fine. It is only where there is a major disagreement on the level of sex in a relationship where conflict arises in this area. I need eggs in my cake mix. But if I didn't we would not have this tension, and in 28 days my wife would still be my wife and not my ex wife. |
|
|
|
Post by hopingforachange on May 29, 2017 22:00:38 GMT -5
If both people don't include sex in thier definition of love, then it is not a problem. When there is a miss match, that is when you get what we have.
|
|
