Should we 'force' ourselves to be intimate

[Unog]

If you don't want to fuck at any moment, that is just cruel

So you'd indulge your partner while trying to take a shit?

 

[Clop]

I don't really get into it if the woman isn't getting into it. I'd break it off and find someone who has a sex drive, instead. If it's not mutual then what's the fucking point?

 

[NotSmiles]

If the magic isn't there anymore, it just isn't there. If you are young (say under 40) and physical intimacy appears to be permanently off the table then I'd say the relationship is over. If your partner refuses to be intimate with you anymore despite you still wanting them then they don't care about your feelings. If your partner is trying to strong-arm you into sex when they know you don't want to then they don't care about your feelings.

 

[Spooky Bones]

Very relevant I think if not exactly on-topic, but one of the reasons the modern "asexual" "movement" is dumb and/or autistic (and the more tumblresque/fringe "demisexual" is even more bonemongeringly autistic) is that it assumes that everyone ought to be sexually active/interested constantly as a sort of default state and deviating from that is a "sexual orientation" the way that homosexuality is a deviation from the default state of heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is obviously the default state because there is literally no other purpose for what's between your legs other than making babies; the reason that people enjoy it is because we're programmed to. The reason people get hangups about sex for various reasons is because procreation is so important. However, for the duration of civilized human history, sex has always been tied to either marriage (or marriage-equivalent relationships) or transactional relationships (i.e. whoring in one form or another.) "Going whoring" has been seen as a recreational activity of sorts for men but sex for recreation isn't necessarily a normal and necessary thing in one's life; in fact, most societies over history rather frown on it, for pretty obvious evolutionary-sociological reasons.

The idea that every person has a "sex life" is strictly a modern, mostly American one. Sexual intimacy is indeed a part of life, but not necessarily a thing for it's own sake. Remember that through most of European history a substantial portion of the population was celibate, and in many other societies a portion of the population was polygamous. The modern view of sex doesn't take into account that civilizationally we've always been like that and that the idea that it is deviant to not be sexually active or to be "not have gotten laid" at 21 (or even 18 or 16) is a really new one. There's the assumption that what is "natural" is to just go around fucking people because it feels good ("if it feels good, do it" being one of the major 60s counterculture slogans and when you look from a more traditional perspective at it really it's actually pretty fucking rapey) is dumb. People's sex drives vary, and societies have always made various kinds of accomodations for that, while trying to keep sex in some sort of context that keeps a bit of dignity with it. It's never been a free-for-all; only in the past 50 years or so has anyone even really had that idea and only in this century has that been taken as any kind of default. Only in such a situation could people start deriving an identity from not being promiscuous; the tumblr "demisexuals" define themselves as "wanting sex in a relationship," i.e. being normal people over the history of the world, but not wanting to sound "traditional."

As far as sex drives go, they vary, like I said; and no, it's not like the hunger drive, nor is it like the drive to get intoxicated, it's somewhere in between and yet totally different and most of all depends on the context. We don't have sex because it benefits us. It produces babies, which actually rather inconvenience us as individuals but are essential to society and to fulfilling human potential. We like sex so much to make up for that. Our society is similtaneously ridiculously hypersexualized and ridiculously hung up about sex because it's totally dissolved the intrinsic bond between sex and it's natural consequence, having babies, and made "sex" into something broader which so many fucked up fetishes/orientations/whatever are out there, and why people who are in relationships with mismatched sex drives get put in such a catch22 or in psychology-speak a "double bind." Yes, mismatched sex drives are probably not good for a relationship but a relationship should neither ride entirely on sex nor ignore it and most importantly not take it out of proper context.

Remember, and it's amazing how many people don't think about this, effective and convenient birth control is very, very new (relatively speaking as in there are plenty of people still alive today who saw it come into fruition in society) and the human psyche is very old. We haven't been able to catch up. Even in Freud's time the human psyche wasn't able to cope with modern human sexuality. Now we're totally and completely off the rails.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

Ah. Well, my position stands; until money is exchanged, no one owes anyone else sex. I haven't had a girlfriend before, though, so perhaps my reverse-incel judgement is improper.

"Owes" Is a complicated take. Its not about Owes. its about how much sex is viewed as a value in your relationship

No sex can weaken the overall cohesion

If the magic isn't there anymore, it just isn't there. If you are young (say under 40) and physical intimacy appears to be permanently off the table then I'd say the relationship is over. If your partner refuses to be intimate with you anymore despite you still wanting them then they don't care about your feelings. If your partner is trying to strong-arm you into sex when they know you don't want to then they don't care about your feelings.

But lets say your in a relationship with some one with high sex needs and you go to 0.

That also is uncaring about the other persons feelings/needs

 

[Coke Pope]

I want the government to give me a gf. Seize the means of reproduction.

 

[Daddy's Little Kitten]

No, but make sure you find someone who shares your sentiments. No point in being with someone that wants you to fuck them and you don't wanna do jack shit.

 

[Tiny Clanger]

This is a kind of black-and-white way of looking at it. Yes, sex is a drive, and a very strong one, but the correlation between psych meds (for depression) and lack of sex drive isn't direct.

They do affect your libido but not necessarily in a kills-the-drive way - what they tend to do is blunt sensation so you can't climax, but if you have a strong sex drive and are attracted to your partner, you'll have the same urges, just take longer or have no climax. Psych wards have plenty of patients shagging like bunnies, often as a misplaced route for companionship. It's very weird.

It's much more likely to be the depression itself that affects the sex drive, and the reasons for that can be myriad. But anyone performing sex acts as some kind of obligation whilst in a depressed mindset is opening the door to sexual aversion because negative correlations are real. If they subconsciously attach sexual acts with a specific person to their period of depression, you'll have a real mess to untangle. Similarly, the depressed partner performing through fear of being left otherwise is not really the greatest foundation for a relationship.


Tlr use your own hands or buy a bunny. Safest, kindest and most likely to ensure a relationship can withstand a bout of depression. Putting it bluntly, you don't want your partner being reminded of the blackest time in their lives every time they look at your nob, do you?


Bloody hell. That was Clanger's 2019 attempt at thunkfullitude. Thank god that's over.

 

[BOONES]

Wouldnt know never had it. That's no surprise though.

 

[Manwithn0n0men]

It's much more likely to be the depression itself that affects the sex drive, and the reasons for that can be myriad. But anyone performing sex acts as some kind of obligation whilst in a depressed mindset is opening the door to sexual aversion because negative correlations are real. If they subconsciously attach sexual acts with a specific person to their period of depression, you'll have a real mess to untangle. Similarly, the depressed partner performing through fear of being left otherwise is not really the greatest foundation for a relationship.

But what if its not psych meds thou

 

[Tiny Clanger]

Well, the OP was about muh depreshuns, so that's what I answered.

Doesn't really matter tho, same principle applies. Do you want your partner thinking "oh bloody hell, 'ere we go again" every time they look at your nob? If they're not into it, they're not into it and personally, I'd rather not be a chore for my partner; "put up shelf....change oil in car....do washing up...shag me bird, sigh."

it's almost a certainty that, at some point in a long-term relationship, libidos will be out of sync. It's something you have to negotiate and that negotiation may change over time - the compromise you make at 25 won't necessarily be the one you make at 55. But in general, flopping it out because muh needs is unlikely to be a working compromise for long at any age.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I've had a partner with a far higher libido and I'd sometimes have sex without really being into it. Never again. Just a recipe for resentment and revulsion.

I've never liked it when I thought my partner wasn't into it. And considering my own experiences, I'd rather not build negative experiences together either, as I'm sure it's not a recipe for anything good long term.

Duty bound sex seems like a poor choice long term and getting into a habit of that too. Maybe it's different for women as being sexually available is more important for keeping their partner. I know I accept to pretend to like going out on some dates because it's the kind of thing that keeps a relationships good for women. In that case I see it as watering the plant of love. If you don't water it, it dies. I think if you can have dutysex it from a place of love, it probably works even if you're not into it. But you have to guard you're not doing it out of insecurity or fear as that's just a recipe for relationship destruction anyways. (You'll seed your own resentment and you'll get to harvest it later).

I guess in other words, no you should never force yourself. But in some cases in can be good for relationship so if you can do it with some enthusiasm or with love for why you're doing it, it can be alright. Be careful though, it depends on the partner, but it can be pretty hurtful to admit you haven't been into it. Either be straight from the start or be prepared to act well.

Do you want your partner thinking "oh bloody hell, 'ere we go again" every time they look at your nob? If they're not into it, they're not into it and personally, I'd rather not be a chore for my partner; "put up shelf....change oil in car....do washing up...shag me bird, sigh."

Reminds me of a Louie bit where he lets a woman tearfully manipulate him into fixing a door in her house and it ends up being a montage of doing male chores around the house that seem really boring, taking out the trash, fixing a doorknob, changing a light, unplugging the toilet, plugging her holes, building a shelf.

Making that sex look like a chore was funny as fuck.

 

[Strange Looking Dog]

Why is this a thread on kiwi farms lmao

 

[Lemmingwise]

The idea that every person has a "sex life" is strictly a modern, mostly American one. Sexual intimacy is indeed a part of life, but not necessarily a thing for it's own sake. Remember that through most of European history a substantial portion of the population was celibate, and in many other societies a portion of the population was polygamous.

I have no idea where you get that idea of European history as polygamous and celibates as it certainly does not seem accurate, unless perhaps you include pre-civilizational Europe. In any case, in these days we're all living in america, coca cola, wonderbra.

We've all accepted the intellectual ideas of Kinsey, in regards to homosexuality and other types of non-progenitating sex. We've mostly all accepted birth control as a healthy part of life (I don't like it, but that's the mainstream culture). So yes, most Europeans have the idea of having a sex life too as a part of your life, besides the intellectual basis from Kinsey, we also were imprinted with hollywood movies and american tv. Sex and the city is only a very recent iterator of that message.

Romans weren't really polygamous either.

 

[Super Color Up]

Love without sex is as hollow as sex without love.

 

[Spooky Bones]

I have no idea where you get that idea of European history as polygamous and celibates as it certainly does not seem accurate, unless perhaps you include pre-civilizational Europe. In any case, in these days we're all living in america, coca cola, wonderbra.

We've all accepted the intellectual ideas of Kinsey, in regards to homosexuality and other types of non-progenitating sex. We've mostly all accepted birth control as a healthy part of life (I don't like it, but that's the mainstream culture). So yes, most Europeans have the idea of having a sex life too as a part of your life, besides the intellectual basis from Kinsey, we also were imprinted with hollywood movies and american tv. Sex and the city is only a very recent iterator of that message.

Romans weren't really polygamous either.

"in many other societies" as in "non-European" (MEA) societies where polygamy abounded. Europe has very limited history w/polygamy as such, concubinage some in the elite (priestly and monastic concubinage was a perennial issue of course but by no means ubiquitous and a substantial portion was celibate)

My whole point re: the intellectual ideas of Kinsey; sure. Emphasis on intellectual. As a society, spiritually, psychologically, socially, unconsciously, not so much. Doesn't mean their sequelae are healthy for the psyche. Only the very young lack any reservations about shit that was considered deviant 60 years ago. And God knows they are, to generize wildly, some fucked up people, including people who don't want to accept Kinsey. The disparity of our actions and social structures to both tradition and nature mess with our heads big time.

 

[queerape]

No, it isn't as fun. It won't be fun for them or yourself.

As far as sex drives go, they vary, like I said; and no, it's not like the hunger drive, nor is it like the drive to get intoxicated, it's somewhere in between and yet totally different and most of all depends on the context. We don't have sex because it benefits us. It produces babies, which actually rather inconvenience us as individuals but are essential to society and to fulfilling human potential. We like sex so much to make up for that. Our society is similtaneously ridiculously hypersexualized and ridiculously hung up about sex because it's totally dissolved the intrinsic bond between sex and it's natural consequence, having babies, and made "sex" into something broader which so many fucked up fetishes/orientations/whatever are out there, and why people who are in relationships with mismatched sex drives get put in such a catch22 or in psychology-speak a "double bind." Yes, mismatched sex drives are probably not good for a relationship but a relationship should neither ride entirely on sex nor ignore it and most importantly not take it out of proper context.

This.

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

"I'm horny" is just as valid a need as "I'm hungry", "I'm cold" or whatever. It's your partner, help them out for fuck's sake.

Just as I would never be in a relationship with a man who couldn't fix himself a fucking sandwich, I'm not going to be in a relationship with a man who can't masturbate.

 

[Archon]

Just as I would never be in a relationship with a man who couldn't fix himself a fucking sandwich, I'm not going to be in a relationship with a man who can't masturbate.

If you believe masturbation is a replacement for actual intimacy, you're never going to be in a relationship at all.

 

[MembersSchoolPizza]

If you believe masturbation is a replacement for actual intimacy, you're never going to be in a relationship at all.

I didn't say that. I said it was a solution to being horny.