Justice44 Member 97 Posts 1/09 Posted - Dec 20 2009 : 3:38AM I would like to share with you a quote by Kimmi Lixx which perfectly explains how I feel about long term relationships, marriage and sex:
Kimi Lixx wrote:
I believe that sex is only one part of a relationship, only one path to intimacy, only one kind of physical contact, and only one kind of a lot of things - including ways to make a baby. I absolutely believe a marriage can be strong and continue with no sex at all, provided the partners agree on the subject.
Click to expand
The following questions have led me to conclude monogamy in marriage is not a moral absolute:
1.Can a sexless couple have the same quality of a relationship than a couple who does have sex? I really don’t see how one can prove that sex makes a relationship inherently better. In many ways it is like saying wealth makes a relationship better. It seems to me that there is no significant evidence that a poor couple would have a stronger relationship if they had a wealthier lifestyle and a happy but sexless couple would have a stronger relationship if they had sex. Perhaps their relationships would be enhanced, but where is the evidence of this?
2. How significant is sex in a relationship? Is the quality of a romantic relationship maximized when sex is involved? I clearly don’t see any empirical evidence that suggests that sexual desire inherently increases the value of a romantic relationship. Many Christian couples do not have sex because it violates their religious code. It seems to me that they surely exhibit all of the qualities of romantic love. This seems to me like this notion is only a belief which is not supported by evidence.
3. Can relationships be considered romantic, if it excludes sex?
I don’t understand why sexual intimacy is necessary in order for romantic relationships to exist. It seems to me that there are several ways to express love or romantic feelings besides sex. There is nothing wrong with having sex as means to express love but I just don’t see how it is necessary.
4. Why does society find it more offensive when a couple decides to have sex outside of marriage than when a couple decides not to have sex in marriage? Those who have contempt toward swingers contend that they are violating the monogamous axiom. As a result, they are guilty of cheapening the idea of marriage. When I examine this axiom carefully, I am forced to conclude that the monogamous model of marriage requires sex exclusively in marriage and forbids sex outside of marriage. Therefore, sexless marriages and swingers are equally failing to follow the monogamous model. Why is the latter viewed as cheapening marriage to a greater degree than the latter? These questions have lead me to belief that the monogamous ideal is brutally flawed in the sense that it viewed as a moral absolute rather than simply one way of having romantic relationships.
Edited by - Justice44 on Dec 20 2009
Edited by - Justice44 on Dec 20 2009
[Link] Justice44 Member 97 Posts 1/09 Posted - Dec 20 2009 : 3:49AM
duplicate message sorry[Link] Joey Starr Senior Member Still wanking after all these years. 8082 Posts 10/00 Posted - Dec 20 2009 : 5:39AM
Kimi Lixx wrote:
Why is the latter viewed as cheapening marriage to a greater degree than the latter?
Click to expand
[Link] BYOB_Kenobi Senior Member “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” - Kierkegaard 2684 Posts 8/09 Posted - Dec 20 2009 : 12:44PM
I've always wondered, if 10% of adults are asexual, what is an asexual marriage like, if one partner is asexual and the other has normal or above average sex drive? Do these couples make deals?[Link] Justice44 Member 97 Posts 1/09 Posted - Feb 1 2010 : 11:43PM
BYOB_Kenobi wrote:
I've always wondered, if 10% of adults are asexual, what is an asexual marriage like, if one partner is asexual and the other has normal or above average sex drive? Do these couples make deals?
Click to expand
[Link]
lovegeneration Deactivated User 18 Posts 1/10 Posted - Feb 2 2010 : 9:12AM
Very nice quotes![Link] Justice44 Member 97 Posts 1/09 Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 7:27PM
Joey Starr wrote:
Kimi Lixx wrote:
Why is the latter viewed as cheapening marriage to a greater degree than the latter?
Click to expand
Good question...
Click to expand
[Link] Justice44 Member 97 Posts 1/09 Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 7:42PM
Justice44 wrote:
Joey Starr wrote:
Kimi Lixx wrote:
Why is the latter viewed as cheapening marriage to a greater degree than the latter?
Click to expand
Good question...
Click to expand
Hi Joey. I just want to add another comment regarding sexless marriages. By using absolute logic, one should conclude that married couples are not sexually exclusive.
Like swingers, they deviate from the monogamous ideal within marriage. The implicit ideal of marriage in American society is monogamy. Monogamy is not merely sexually abstaining from partners whom you are not married to. A monogamous marriage requires sex between the two married partners and abstinence from partners who are not in the marriage.
Therefore, it is unfair for someone to view having a sexless marriage as a moral preference while still contending couples who agree to have sex outside are immoral. Like heterosexual and homosexual preferences, monogamy should be promoted as a preference rather than a universal moral standard.
[Link] Daineshelton New Member 3 Posts 2/10 Posted - Feb 18 2010 : 2:44AM
What's the real difference between the prescription meds like Cialis and the natural ones like Virection or Lexaryn? Do those natural herbal supplements work? I'd love to get some real feedback on that since you can't believe anything you see on these guys' websites.[Link] 
Posted - Dec 20 2009 : 3:38AM
