Non-marital sex

[Divine_Wind]

So that means it doesn't usually have any symptoms? In that case, why care about catching it?

The symptoms are there but not always present when having sex meaning don't really on your eyes to determine if a person has an STD. Google "Herpes Genital Symptoms" then click "images". As the saying goes, "Love can be temporary, but Herpes is Forever!" Best to be careful and proactive.

Reading up on STDs and preventative measures is always a good refresher before dating....especially that Third Date.

 

[justabubba]

I have been wondering what is "normal" for people who are single later in life, because of death or divorce, or whatever. What is the average length of time people see each other before getting intimate?

I realize there isn't one definite number, and it depends on the person, etc., etc. I am just looking for very general vague indications.

I only had 2 romantic relationships in my life, the most recent one lasted over 30 years, and he died a couple of years ago. So now I am not at all sure what is normal when you're single.

I have been told that after 4 months of seeing each other it would be very strange to not have sex. I think people naturally want to test drive a car before buying it. But I want to know if the car is safe before test driving it.

your clinical approach to this causes me to question if you are actually interested in engaging in sex because you want to be sexual or because your current romantic prospect expects it

if it is the latter, consider a continued platonic relationship - if he is amenable. if you have no actual passion for sex with this person, then your sexual participation will likely be lacking

alternatively, if you want to resume experiencing the joy of sex, then by all means do ... after you have both been examined to assure each is not a medical liability to the other

 

[TheGoverness]

I have been wondering what is "normal" for people who are single later in life, because of death or divorce, or whatever. What is the average length of time people see each other before getting intimate?

I realize there isn't one definite number, and it depends on the person, etc., etc. I am just looking for very general vague indications.

I only had 2 romantic relationships in my life, the most recent one lasted over 30 years, and he died a couple of years ago. So now I am not at all sure what is normal when you're single.

I have been told that after 4 months of seeing each other it would be very strange to not have sex. I think people naturally want to test drive a car before buying it. But I want to know if the car is safe before test driving it.

I'm sorry about that.

I've only been in one relationship my entire life, and I'm still in it. I struck gold in middle school! Like you, I haven't had to traverse the dating scene (thank goodness). I hope I never do, honestly. I had sex at 16, but my situation is a complicated one, 'cause I was going through confusion with my sexuality, and lots of other difficult crap at the time. Not exactly the best indicator.

I'd say it really depends upon your personality, and what jives with you. Hypothetically, if I was single, I'd definitely want to have sex with whatever girl I'm dating before I married them. Sexual compatibility is very important in a relationship, and I'd need to know if we click. Would I have sex with a girl I was dating in a 4-month timespan? I probably would. Seems a decent enough time for me. But if you aren't comfortable with that, that's not a problem! It's up to you whether or not that would work for you.

 

[Good4Nothin]

your clinical approach to this causes me to question if you are actually interested in engaging in sex because you want to be sexual or because your current romantic prospect expects it

if it is the latter, consider a continued platonic relationship - if he is amenable. if you have no actual passion for sex with this person, then your sexual participation will likely be lacking

alternatively, if you want to resume experiencing the joy of sex, then by all means do ... after you have both been examined to assure each is not a medical liability to the other

All the worries I have outweigh any desire. My real desire is to continue the nice, affectionate, nonsexual relationship we have been having. But it's making him very unhappy not doing the thing that he, and most men, loves more than anything. He was talking about it almost from the beginning.

The thought of having a conversation about STDs is really stressful to me. I feel like it would be so much easier to forget about sex. Truthfully, it is not my top priority anymore. But I love hugging and kissing and being affectionate.

 

[TheGoverness]

If he just tells me no he doesn't have any STDs, I wonder if I should believe it. He seems honest and considerate.

If you are hesitant about it (and I completely understand that), get tested together! Seriously, it'll be much better in the end, especially if you're worried about contracting an STD.

 

[btthegreat]

Well that brings up the other unpleasant question I had -- is there any way to say, politely, that I never caught an STD and I never want to?

Politeness on this point is another rule of society you best ignore, just say it.

 

[justabubba]

All the worries I have outweigh any desire. My real desire is to continue the nice, affectionate, nonsexual relationship we have been having. But it's making him very unhappy not doing the thing that he, and most men, loves more than anything. He was talking about it almost from the beginning.

The thought of having a conversation about STDs is really stressful to me. I feel like it would be so much easier to forget about sex. Truthfully, it is not my top priority anymore. But I love hugging and kissing and being affectionate.

now, does this person understand your lack of personal desire to 'do the deed'?
this could soon become an incompatibility issue

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Wow, third date?? I kept this poor guy waiting 4 months. He is very frustrated and disappointed.

Whoa, hold the phone there Nellie...
Please describe what you mean by "frustrated and disappointed".
That's a bigger "tell" than just about anything, and I say that as a 62 year old divorcee who married the girl he SHOULD have married, and we've now been together for twenty-two years.

But prior to my first marriage (this is now my second) I was cutting a wide swath through just about every city and town I lived in.
I grew up and matured and so did my expectations as I learned to appreciate settling down instead of getting a constant supply of fresh nook-nook. I got that "out of my system" right around the time I reached my thirties.

If you guys are trying for a settled long term relationship, screw the frustration and disappointment nonsense because this is a lifetime commitment or at least a very serious long term thing, I can tell by the way you're talking about it.

If you don't mind, allow me to ask if you consider yourself to be (A) a wild girl in the sack or (B) a devoted partner who sees this as a wifely duty....or (C) somewhere in the middle.
You say you've only had two relationships in your whole life, and again much respect and sympathy on your 30 year marriage.
But I am looking for some frame of reference because if this is a huge bugaboo, maybe get all that worked out on your side so that you don't feel so worried about it.

I assume you are actually fairly normal, and just feeling a bit like a fish out of water.
I don't blame you, it's a lot different than it was thirty years ago.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

All the worries I have outweigh any desire. My real desire is to continue the nice, affectionate, nonsexual relationship we have been having. But it's making him very unhappy not doing the thing that he, and most men, loves more than anything. He was talking about it almost from the beginning.

Oh, there it is.
"the thing that he, and most men, love more than anything."

You are not ready, not nearly ready, not for anything but a platonic friendship.

This vaguely reminds me of Miss Aurora Greenway before she met "the astronaut" and you are going to need to be ready to meet your "astronaut" and if you're ready, he will come along in due time.
Aurora was ready for something more long term but Garrett Breedlove (the astronaut) was not, but along the way he helped her appreciate what a warm and loving sexual relationship could mean, and in the end even though he could not commit, he turned out to be the nice guy anyway.

Maybe your "astronaut" will be the one who actually sticks around.





But if you view this whole thing as strictly "something most MEN love more than anything" then it sounds like you are an ATM and men are just taking something out of you, and you don't view it as something women want and enjoy just as much.

It is never too late to figure out why your view is what's holding you back.
Sex is not some transaction that men take and women give, not really...not even remotely.
It is a life-giving force and something of a quasi-religious or quasi-spiritual gift two people give to each other, it is healthy and utterly necessary as a physical and emotional salve against the ravages of the human condition.

It is an ecstatic and intimate expression of joy between two people, and while you are above ground you owe it to yourself to offer your heart and soul in such ecstasy with another, even if it ultimately ends before you are ready for it to.
We must all break our hearts on love and then heal them with even more love.

May you be so lucky as to experience such mutual fulfillment with the right person someday.

 

[Good4Nothin]

now, does this person understand your lack of personal desire to 'do the deed'?
this could soon become an incompatibility issue

Yes. He said we can just love each other and be friends. But then he could wind up with someone else.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Whoa, hold the phone there Nellie...
Please describe what you mean by "frustrated and disappointed".
That's a bigger "tell" than just about anything, and I say that as a 62 year old divorcee who married the girl he SHOULD have married, and we've now been together for twenty-two years.

But prior to my first marriage (this is now my second) I was cutting a wide swath through just about every city and town I lived in.
I grew up and matured and so did my expectations as I learned to appreciate settling down instead of getting a constant supply of fresh nook-nook. I got that "out of my system" right around the time I reached my thirties.

If you guys are trying for a settled long term relationship, screw the frustration and disappointment nonsense because this is a lifetime commitment or at least a very serious long term thing, I can tell by the way you're talking about it.

If you don't mind, allow me to ask if you consider yourself to be (A) a wild girl in the sack or (B) a devoted partner who sees this as a wifely duty....or (C) somewhere in the middle.
You say you've only had two relationships in your whole life, and again much respect and sympathy on your 30 year marriage.
But I am looking for some frame of reference because if this is a huge bugaboo, maybe get all that worked out on your side so that you don't feel so worried about it.

I assume you are actually fairly normal, and just feeling a bit like a fish out of water.
I don't blame you, it's a lot different than it was thirty years ago.

I am still grieving, and it's had to imagine sex with anyone else. I never was wild at all. Like a lot of other women, the best orgasms were always DIY. Sex is for expressing love and making a man happy. I can live without sex, but I like having a close relationship with a man. Although I can live without that also.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Oh, there it is.
"the thing that he, and most men, love more than anything."

You are not ready, not nearly ready, not for anything but a platonic friendship.

This vaguely reminds me of Miss Aurora Greenway before she met "the astronaut" and you are going to need to be ready to meet your "astronaut" and if you're ready, he will come along in due time.
Aurora was ready for something more long term but Garrett Breedlove (the astronaut) was not, but along the way he helped her appreciate what a warm and loving sexual relationship could mean, and in the end even though he could not commit, he turned out to be the nice guy anyway.

Maybe your "astronaut" will be the one who actually sticks around.

But if you view this whole thing as strictly "something most MEN love more than anything" then it sounds like you are an ATM and men are just taking something out of you, and you don't view it as something women want and enjoy just as much.

It is never too late to figure out why your view is what's holding you back.
Sex is not some transaction that men take and women give, not really...not even remotely.
It is a life-giving force and something of a quasi-religious or quasi-spiritual gift two people give to each other, it is healthy and utterly necessary as a physical and emotional salve against the ravages of the human condition.

It is an ecstatic and intimate expression of joy between two people, and while you are above ground you owe it to yourself to offer your heart and soul in such ecstasy with another, even if it ultimately ends before you are ready for it to.
We must all break our hearts on love and then heal them with even more love.

May you be so lucky as to experience such mutual fulfillment with the right person someday.

That's how he feels about sex, like it's healthy and joyful, and necessary, etc., like you said. But I feel really good without it. My departed bf always needed me to have an orgasm, so I always had to worry about that. I had better orgasms alone. I loved the physical contact, but it was stressful.

I definitely don't need sex for my mental or physical health. I think it's more likely men who feel that way. I feel calmer and more joyful without it. I might be the only person in the world who feels this way. But maybe other widows would agree. We aren't nearly as miserable as you would think we are. I am not.

If I had sex with him, it would be a serious committed relationship. I wouldn't have the chance to date other men, and I might want to. He also has many problems in his life -- children to take care of, expenses, health, etc. While I don't really have any problems right now.

Having sex would cross the line from carefree loving friendship to serious problem-ridden commitment.

 

[justabubba]

Yes. He said we can just love each other and be friends. But then he could wind up with someone else.

if you are not into it and he is an active sexual animal, there WILL be someone else
who satisfies that urge for/with him
whether you are in a relationship or not
being coldly intimate will likely not seal the deal


bottom line is he is very fond of something you are not

 

[ALiberalModerate]

But, as I said, I think he wants a test drive.

Sex is a very important component of a romantic relationship. There is nothing wrong with the two of you ensuring you are sexually compatible before you think about marriage.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

That's how he feels about sex, like it's healthy and joyful, and necessary, etc., like you said. But I feel really good without it. My departed bf always needed me to have an orgasm, so I always had to worry about that. I had better orgasms alone. I loved the physical contact, but it was stressful.

I definitely don't need sex for my mental or physical health. I think it's more likely men who feel that way. I feel calmer and more joyful without it. I might be the only person in the world who feels this way. But maybe other widows would agree. We aren't nearly as miserable as you would think we are. I am not.

If I had sex with him, it would be a serious committed relationship. I wouldn't have the chance to date other men, and I might want to. He also has many problems in his life -- children to take care of, expenses, health, etc. While I don't really have any problems right now.

Having sex would cross the line from carefree loving friendship to serious problem-ridden commitment.

Just because you did not have that good of sex with someone you loved in the past, does not mean that you would not have good sex with anyone. It is quite possible your previous boyfriend, though you had a very good relationship with him, was not really doing it for your sexually.

Also, sex does not mean a commitment. It can just mean sex.

 

[Moonglow]

Do what you feel is right and don't be pushed. If the urge is there try it.

 

[American]

The flaw in that notion is that it doesn't demonstrate that you're low maintenance. If you do decide to give a test drive, make it as expensive as hell. Anything less than a $100 meal would mean that you're getting short changed.

Sounds like prostitution, what are you talking about?

 

[Good4Nothin]

if you are not into it and he is an active sexual animal, there WILL be someone else
who satisfies that urge for/with him
whether you are in a relationship or not
being coldly intimate will likely not seal the deal


bottom line is he is very fond of something you are not

And even if I had sex with him, he probably wouldn't think it was enough. So there would be the constant pressure to have more. And I have a lot of other things I want to spend time on.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Just because you did not have that good of sex with someone you loved in the past, does not mean that you would not have good sex with anyone. It is quite possible your previous boyfriend, though you had a very good relationship with him, was not really doing it for your sexually.

Also, sex does not mean a commitment. It can just mean sex.

No, I never had casual sex. I don't believe in it.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Maybe I could tell him I am still grieving. That wouldn't exactly be a lie. And I wouldn't have to bring up the STD thing. Maybe he would find another girlfriend soon, and that would make me sad. I am curious about how sex would be with him. But I don't even know if I want a committed relationship with someone with so many problems. I don't think we are equals financially, for one thing, and that could lead to big troubles later on.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

No, I never had casual sex. I don't believe in it.

Why do you not believe in it? Do you think it is morally wrong, or just something you are personally not interested in?

 

[Peter King]

There should be no problem with people having non-marital sex. I think it normally can create an even healthy sex life and committed relationship.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Why do you not believe in it? Do you think it is morally wrong, or just something you are personally not interested in?

No, I do NOT think it's morally wrong. But I think it defies human nature. We are naturally jealous and possessive of someone we love enough to have sex with. Many human societies have been monogamous.

HOWEVER, going back to our primate ancestors, males usually had multiple females. And in human societies, kings and rich men usually had multiple females.

So for men, it's probably different. Women are usually jealous and monogamous. It's a problem that men and women are so different about sex.

Of course SOME women like casual sex. I never did.

 

[danielpalos]

i can't seem to find women who are into love, honor, and obedience while alleging to want a really really serious relationship with me.

 

[justabubba]

i can't seem to find women who are into love, honor, and obedience while alleging to want a really really serious relationship with me.

it may well be they find those to be contradictory values