Poll: How often do you have "sex"?

Define sex how ever you wish, how often do you get some?

My quandry is that as much as I know I'd enjoy being able to have sex, I can't just "do it" with anyone for the sake of doing it. I'm not wired that way. There has to be an emotional connection, but that just hasn't happened. I'm also afraid of getting hurt both emotionally and physically if I just go for casual sex. But then again, I'm only human...What do you guys think, is it worth the risk?

Personally? While humans have the capacity to have sex for purely pleasure reasons, I don't think casual sex is all that casual. I'm not saying that someone can't go around sleeping without an emotional bond, just that at that point it's just a physical act that brings a certain level of pleasure, like eating.

When it's done correctly with a deep emotional bond there, then it transcends the physical act and becomes "making love".

Personally, I think I'd seperate it into making love, having sex and fucking. I totally wouldn't have sex with someone that I didn't love, but with that emotional connection I still believe there's a time for sex/fucking.

Making love definately does transcend all the other categories.

But sometimes it's awful nice to just get freaky, yo ;)

By saying that are you implying that getting freaky isn't an act of love?�� 'Cause I know I don't go and get freaky with just anyone.

No, I'm saying that "getting freaky" is not "making love" in general. Making love has a, generally, more tame, sedate, intimate feel to it, whereas getting freaky is somewhere between pure sex and fucking.

I think the confusion is over "making love" versus "love". One is a physical action, the other an emotional state. They can be mutually exclusive, I suppose, although I tend to associate them, personally.

That really depends on whether my significant other is here or 1600 miles away. The answer could be either of the extremes. Ah, how I love youthful stamina... :-x

Yeah. What he said. ;)

Thirds!

Umm... whoa.

I *so* did not want to know about your 3way thing with them.

:D

lol! make that a FOUR way thing!

Five way if you count my long distance boy. ;)

Holy crap, I didn't know about our fourway thing!!!one

Thatz becuz we r sew drunk off R assez evr time we sex

OMG taht explayns y i dont evin rembemer meatig u!11!!

dood
ur so totaly gros!

omgwtflolbbq!one!!!1!

...How often do you -prefer- to have sex?

As often as possible. :)

as often as I feel like.. which varies from day to day.

Why is sex in quotes?� Do you mean sexual�intercourse or general sexual activity?�

(Trying to use scientific terms... apologies to anyone affended...)

Actually, I find the real thing much more entertaining than "sex"

As to how often I have it, I'd have to go with none of your "business"

LOL, Ellen I love you.

"*loves*"

seeing as I have never had it, I guess I don't really have a common reference point, but I guess I could say the intermingling between two attracted beings, yeah I guess that's it.

i, of course, enjoy the physical pleasure of sex. but if that was all it was, i wouldn't be a big fan.

there is a saying I have heard that goes "women give sex for love, men give love for sex"

would anyone chose sex over love if they could only have one of them?

no way.

absolutely not.

Seeing as a human's sexual drive sooner or later sharply reduces, I would prefer love rather than sex.

Of course, the drive for everything sharply reduces, past a point. (i.e. food, water, comfort, breathing, etc. ;)

considering that i am a man, i am proof of the fault in that saying.
and i would definitely give up sex if it could possibly make our love stonger.

Amen, brother.

You're hardly unique in that sentiment.

Unique enough for me. I can't envision in any realistic perspective love without sex. I wouldn't have sex without love, and I'm not sure that I could be in (romantic) love without sex.

Not to say that I'd leave someone for bad sex, that I require a certain frequency of sex to be happy, etc etc. But I don't think that a romantic relationship could work for me without that level of closeness.

Without physical love, romantic love is just friendly love. As in, you're my best friend, I'm closest to you on earth, I want to spend the rest of my life with you. But sans sex, no possibility of improvement, uhm, no I don't think that works for me.

On a related note, if sex was out of the picture entirely then I'd probably be homosexual, as frankly, I generally prefer the company of men. I love my (male) roommate. I would probably do more for him than any woman that I've ever been with or ever will be with. But the distinction between loving him as a partner and loving him as a brother is simply the sexual aspect of it. I don't want to have sex with him, ergo, I love him like my brother. I'm sure he'll outlast every romantic relationship that I ever have.

I dunno, maybe that makes me a bad person from a moralistic perspective, I don't really know. Maybe I'm just immature, sex shouldn't be such a big thing, but it is. *shrugs*

Same-sex love in the sphere of queer relationships isn't necessarily about sex. You can be gay and never have sex with a person of the same sex. Romantic love doesn't have to be sexual for everyone, nor does friendly love have to be strictly non-sexual.

I'm just sayin'.

For real. It's like all math problems, it's all about the set of assumptions that you bring to the table.

I don't define myself as gay because I don't desire or seek out same-gender sex. Otherwise in all other ways I'm gay.

It always offends people, but I make the distinction between "gay" and "fruity". Fruity doesn't mean gay, nor does gay mean fruity. Fruity means effiminate, overly de-masculine-ized, almost contemptuously being in your face. Of course, it's not used to be offensive by a lot of people (i.e. I know a guy named Garland who, upon first meeting him, gave me a half-hour talk about how he loves musical theatre and finds it FAB-ulous. He happens to be both fruity and gay but in that moment I was more amused with his fruitiness than his gay-ness). In spite of my own penchant for Aqua, Hanson and Depeche Mode (I'm lying about Depeche Mode) I would consider myself gay but not fruity.

Well, other than the desiring and having sex with women. ;)

I do definately have longer-term relationships with men, and I do tend to live with my male-friends, and additionally, in general, I tend to not feel the desire for female companionship when I'm with my guy du jour. Women seem to have a six-month lifetime; guys seem to have a 10 year lifetime.

Maybe the moral of the story is not to have sex with people, causing deeper and longer lasting relationships.

Either way, I think I have serious issues with the standard societal definitions of sexuality and what's appropriate or not. This conversation in real life would cause most people living in PG to walk off, whereas online (albeit on a very left-leaning liberal web site) it's appropriate to discuss. Funny how people are.

Unrelated note, I've never understood what it is about guys that women are attracted to. Women are better educated, better sexually equipped, traditionally more sensitive and better able to communicate, etc. If I was a woman I'd go after women, barring feeling societal pressure or wanting a child directly from my partner.

you can have a child without having a male partner.

or, really, any partner.

artificial insemination, adoption...�

Thanks for the update, silly ;)

Hence the "directly from your partner".

Of course, if I hadn't originally made the comment myself I would be the one pointing out what you just pointed out; "great minds think alike" or "fools seldom differ", depending.

sorry. I'm tired and I wasn't reading thoroughly.

maybe I'll sleep tonght.

sorry for being an Obnoxious Pedant(tm).

You weren't obnoxious at all. Pedant, well, I'll give you that. If I hadn't made the post myself I would have pointed out the same thing.

heh, I'm totally with you on the sleep thing. It's only, oh, quarter to 5 AM local time right now... not sure how many days it's been ;)

That is so species-centric. Some of my best friends reproduce through budding or fission.

some of my best friends call fork()

All you need is love.

but what's your definition of sex?

definition of sex. I don't think you can limit sex to just one definition.

I can have sex with myself: masturbation

I can have sex with myself while on the phone with someone else: phone sex

I can have sex with myself while chatting online with someone else: cyber sex

I can have sex with one person of either gender orally: oral sex

I can have sex with one person of either gender anally: anal sex

I can have sex with one person of either gender vaginally: vaginal sex

I can have sex orally, anally and/or vaginally in any combination with any number of people simultaneously: group sex

And this is only a small list. It doesn't take into account all the forms of fetish sex, or what tool is used for penetrating those listed orifices, if penetration is even involved. Sex can happen with just hands, or tongues. And sometimes, imagination is all it takes.

I'd like some more definitions please.

Yeah, I think you could totally go definition crazy with this. If you're performing the physical actions, how is cyber sex not masturbation? Or if you're on the phone and watching someone on the webcam, is that phone sex or cyber sex? Can multiple things apply, in which case, which take precedence?

I think the real point of it all is that sex, sexual activity, sexual actions all are totally subjective. i.e. what's second base compared with third base?

Alternately, to what extent does the purely mental override physical reality? Can one be gay without ever having gay sex? Is one gay by roleplaying gay online or in real life? At which point do you cross that line?

Again, it's all subjective. It's sort of like mental illness. The reason that people can be more than one thing (i.e. one doctor says major depression, one doctor says anxiety, one doctor says ADHD, one doctor says environment) is because some things are not quantifiable: they don't fit onto an easy-to-read scale. i.e. Vaginal stimulation=30, anal stimulation=10 therefore vaginal sex.

On an unrelated note, as I like to comment on unrelated things (don't ask me why; it's an artifact of my commenting style): say a man and a woman go to a bar with the plan that the man is going home with the woman and they're going to have sex. It is understood in advance that there will be drinking. The woman gets really drunk, loses the ability to make rational decisions. However, they go through the same dance regularly, they agreed they were going home together, so the man takes her home. They have sex. From the man's perspective: the man had prior consent from the woman with understanding of the situation at hand (i.e. drinking and sex). The woman's perspective: after the fact, feels used and abused because of the situation. She lacked the ability and mental ability to make rational decisions, therefore she feels that no should have applied by default, in spite of any prior arrangement.

I suspect that legally the man would be in the wrong, and at the very least morally the man was in the wrong. However, you can muddy the waters by commenting on a prior relationship, prior history, etc etc. At what point does it become wrong? Obviously there is a certain legal point at which it becomes wrong, but for day-to-day living it's more the subjective perspective that matters. i.e. the guy gets shunned as the woman wants nothing more to do with him.

(BTW, this has nothing to do with me either way and has no relationship to anything in real life. I'm just thinking out loud.)

To say that all relationships of this kind of wrong and shouldn't take place pretty much condemns the bar scene in general. To say that all relationships of this kind are right invites all sorts of negative precedence. So where's the line?

Has anyone else felt threatened when they were in a relationship and the sex is just *too good*?

If the sex is bad and the love is good, then you're inclined to make it work anyways.

If the sex is bad and the love is bad, well, the love being bad decides it, I suppose.

If the sex is great, however, I think there's a certain tendency for the love to not be as much as much of a concern. If you're getting every fetish fulfilled, every sexual itch scratched (heh, sounds like herpes), then isn't there a tendency to feel guilty about that? You know objectively that the love is there but how much do you trust your brain when you're totally sexually content?

Maybe this is more of a male-centric thing, as above in the men have love for sex, women have sex for love bit.