On a previous thread there was robust discussion of cheating.  What I found most interesting is that some men felt sex was a simple “choice” and not a basic need men can not live without.  The context of the conversation dealt with long term relationships (marriages) that for whatever reasons were no longer sexually intimate.

What do you think, is sex optional or something that you can not live without (over the long term)?

Sex is not something you HAVE to have in order to live. You don't even need it to live a happy, productive life.

b-

I think the discussion on monogamy are complex. I personally do not believe Humans are designed to be monogamous but that is not really here or there.

IMO a long term relationship becomes 'stale' in terms of sex. Even if you are with [insert favorite model here], at some point sex becomes mundane with the same person. Sure there are ways to 'spice it up', but that often requires more work then the two people feel it is worth.

As to whether people can live with out sex, lets face it is a basic biological need - I would even argue it is the main purpose for our existence.

Is sex optional? Lets define what sex is first If you are implying that sex is between 2 people then I think the answer is that it is "optional" in the sense that one can choose not to do it. But if you include masturbation as part of sex then the answer is no.

I find that the absence of physical intimacy, while not physically harmful, is psychologically damaging.   Moreover, the rejection of physical intimacy by a spouse is even more damning to the self-esteem and can gradually poison the other parts of your life.  Maybe you can live a happy, productive life without, but I can live a much happier, much more productive life with it.

-- Modified on 12/17/2007 10:27:47 AM

-- Modified on 12/17/2007 10:28:01 AM

and I'd much, much, MUCH prefer it with my wife.  But it's not to be.  And it IS psychologically damaging to me.  Big time.    

I feel bad every time I go see a provider.  I feel awful about cheating, but my sexual urge is too unbearable.

If I could find a woman who needed what I need - I think that's called "an affair"..that would be better for me.

No one answer for all, I'm sure.

Sex is an option if you agree that all men and women have the willpower to abstain if they so choose.  But many lack the will power, or don't see the need for it. Further, both an active, satisfying sex life and the absence of it, and all points in between, powerfully influence the behavior of all of us, so it's really not an option except in the most primitive, elemental sense.

I think what many might be confusing here is sex and intimacy. I will totally agree intimacy is required for a healthy well balanced life. It is possible to have intimacy without sex (it does happen, believe it or not). The actual sex act itself is not required for phsycological well being, the intimacy is.

A very nice side effect of intimacy most of the time is a sexual act. Because of this I think there are too many people who think that sex itself is needed for personal well being.

*Disclaimer* -- The following is only my opinion based on my views of people around me.

First there is the person who goes from date to date only for sex acts with each one (civvie girls or providers). That person is still feeling alone and deprived of "something" in life.

Then the person who has a few dates with feeling and intimacy where sex is not involved with every one of the dates. I feel that person has a more well rounded life and a better "self-worth".

b-

And why are you here?   If you are not concerned with the sex act at all, what is your motivation for being here?   I will contend that physical intimacy is every bit as important as emotional intimacy.  

Are you the first person, always looking to get laid?

Are you the second person, who is looking to connect emotionally?

Or are you another person entirely, who has spent a great deal of their life unsuccessful in their physical relationships and as such needs to feel the acceptance and desire of sex along with maybe a small emotional connection?   Someone who doesn't always disconnect the two, or maybe can't?   Who doesn't believe the sex act is merely a "side effect"?

You paint a very black and white picture in a very grey world here.

It is amazing the spectrum of interesting answers given to complex questions.  I must say that I often disagree with posts made on TER.  But, with that said I also appreciate hearing the opposing view points and diversity of responses.

If one is not careful they might just learn something.

Is life worth living without it?

I hope I never have to make the choice.

Ok since you asked here it is.

I don't believe in love, I don't believe in marriage, I don't believe in LTR. If you look at the vast majority of the people around you will see none of those things "work".

Start with LTR and marriage. People who try to live with the same person every single day for the rest of their lives turn into unhappy people. You can see a lot of that right here in the posts of people who are looking outside their relationship/marriage for something to make them feel happy. Marriages and commited relationships just don't work, thus I will not get into either one.

Love is a made up emotion to cover up the feeling of being alone. There are a lot of people who are afraid of lonliness and living/being alone, thus they turn to "love" in order to get someone to stay with them. Then after some time it reverts to the LTR/marriage situation stated above. I actually prefer to be alone. I may be in the minority here, but I don't particualy want anyone around all the time.

Having said all that, there is the need for intimacy with another human being. That is part of human nature and is required to remain sane in this world. As I said before intimacy has a "side effect" most of the time in the form of a sexual act.

You asked why am I here if I am not concerned with the sex act at all, I never said I was not concerned about sex at all. I stated that sex is not REQUIRED to have a healthy well balanced life. It is a great part of life, yes, but not REQUIRED.

As for who I am. I do not go out to get laid by anyone and everyone just to try to find something missing in my life. I guess I could be looking for some connection (I will be using that word from now on as I just looked up intimacy in the dictionary and it says it is sexual relations), but not a long term one. The reason I am here is to find the great TEMPORARY connection.

I read somewhere on these posts that paying a provider is not for her time or for acts, but for her to leave (or you to leave) and not be hassled with the rest of "stuff" that comes in a LTR/marriage.

b-

Sorry mrfisher, but I have a small problem with that. For a very long time I felt that in order to have good sex (meaning not just humping but having a good time too) with someone meant being in a commited relationship. Also for a long time I have come to the conclusion that kind of relationship is not for me (see post to SLOTraveler). So for many years I did not have sex and was fine with it. Are you saying my life at that time was not worth living because I was not having sex?

Recently I came across this site and did a lot of research and finally decided to give "hobbying" a try to see what it was like. I found I could have good sex without the commited relationship. The aspect of having a connection with someone, having a good time, and then able to seperate without any kind of relationship involved has been a great find. But in no way do I feel that long part of my life without sex was not worth living at all.

Can I live the rest of my life now without sex knowing that I could actually have sex without the commitment? I sure could, and not feel sad or "worthless" at all, but what fun would it be. Sex is fun, but doesn't define who I am or how I live my life.

b-

...that you are an exception and therefore your experiences could be far different from the norm.

I do not think a flat statement that I do not believing in love, marriage, or long term relationships because they don't work is true.  Clearly they work for some people in fact most people.  Are there difficulties, of course.  However, never committing to anyone also brings its own myriad of difficulties.

I can not imagine a life without love either.  You have made a huge sacrifice because of your fear of failure (or evidence of other peoples failures).  Haven't you ever heard, "Better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all."

I was reading U.G. Krishnamurti, came across this and wanted to share. I'm not sure what to think, but I'm thinking
The line that reads  "The peak of the sex experience is the one thing in life you have that comes close to being a first-hand experience, all the rest of your experiences are second-hand, somebody else's."
Something in that resonates within me. Is it true that we can experience our "selves" at the peak of the sex experience???
Like everyone else, I question myself about why I am here...


xoxo
Gina Marie


"The natural needs of a human being are basic: food, clothing and shelter. You must either work for them or be given them by somebody. If these are your only needs, they are not very difficult to fulfill. To deny yourself the basic needs is not a sign of spirituality; but to require more than food, clothing and shelter is a neurotic state of mind."

"Is not sex a basic human requirement? Sex is dependent upon thought; the body itself has no sex. Only the genitals and perhaps the hormone balances differ between male and female. It is thought that says "I am a man, and that is a woman, an attractive woman." It is thought that translates sex feelings in the body and says "These are sexual feelings." And it is thought that provides the build-up without which no sex is possible: "It would be more pleasurable to hold that woman's hand than just to look at her. It would be more pleasurable to kiss her than just to embrace her," and so on. In the "natural" state there is no build-up of thought. Without that build-up, sex is impossible. And sex is tremendously violent to the body. The body normally is a very peaceful organism, and then you subject it to this tremendous tension and release, which feels pleasurable to you. Actually it is painful to the body."

"But through suppression or attempts at sublimation of sex you will never come into this state. As long as you think of God, you will have thoughts of sex. Ask any religious seeker you may know who practices celibacy, whether he doesn't dream of women at night. The peak of the sex experience is the one thing in life you have that comes close to being a first-hand experience; all of the rest of your experiences are second-hand, somebody else's. Why do you weave so many taboos and ideas around this? Why do you destroy the joy of sex? Not that I am advocating indulgence or promiscuity; but through abstinence and continence you will never achieve a thing."

www.well.com/user/jct/

I most definitely believe in love, and I think a lot of the gentlemen here believe the same.  You are coming from a way different perspective than most people IMO.  

As for me, I am not paying them to leave per se.  I also am searching for a connection of some kind.  We're all searching for something we don't have.  For you, it's a great temporary thing without all the nastiness associated with relationships.  For some of us, it's the missing piece to our relationships.  

For me, I'd much rather have at least tried to love and be loved than to stand here and say that it doesn't work.

To each their own.

After reading the above post I would like to make several points.

1. Sex is listed in most Biological textbooks as a basic need. We are biological creatures who have our sexual hardware, software and apperatus in a part of our brain, which we have in common with reptiles (the brain stem, or what is often called the reptilian center).

2. But we have evolved brain and bodywise beyond the reptile, and evolutionary biologists tell us that the drive for intimacy is a key factor in our survival as a species. That sex alone is not enough. Our need for intimacy begins with our need to feel bonded to another, and these bonds can help develop the strategies of "safety in numbers," and procreation.

3. Intimacy is not just intimacy. There is positive and negative intimacy (loving vs. fighting). There is physical intimacy vs. just the sex act. There is emotional intimacy (that which we often equate as intimacy). There is cognitive intimacy (the meeting of the minds). Intimacy is not just emotional. Intimacy is pretty much, "I'll show you mine, if you show me your's." I'll show you my sex member or what I find physically pleasureable if you show me yours, or what you find pleasureable. I'll reveal my true and deepest feelings if you show me yours. I'll reveal my deepest darkest thoughts, or how my mind tends to think if you reveal yours.

Sharing ourselves with another is not always so terribly satisfying, but it must be more often pleasureble than painful or disappointing, since we, as a human race, continue to do it.

Oh! By the way, for me sex is a very, very, basic need.

but it isn't too far from the truth.

Of course, I am only speaking for myself.

There are not a few people in this world for whom sex holds little if any alure.

I'm told that there are people who couldn't care less if they ate cardboard for dinner every day or ever heard a symphony

With sex, as with every aesthetic endeavor, it's to each their own.

If one has difficulty in believing that loves exists and is needed read "Love at Goon Park," by Deborah Blum, or read about the infants in orphanages that "fail to thrive," and die due to too little human contact.

There is a growing body of data that indicates that sex with another person lengthens life, improves long term heath, and reduces the risk of various diseases. Obviously these studies are controlled for the risk of STDs.

  Ok Thats a brief distillation of a number of recent studies. What follows is my opinion based on personal observation.

  Clarity of terms: For the purpose of this post I define intimacy between adults  as requiring intimate physical contact, ie: sex. I realize that one does not need to be emotionally intimate with a sexual partner, but I wish to confine these comments to that situation.

  Based on various posts I'm reasonably certain that I am one of the older participants here. That is only meaningful, because I have lived and been in a monogamous relationship long enough to experience the long term effect of being denied physical intimacy for more than a decade. From that experience I can tell you that I am certain that an active intimate sexual relationship is a requirement for my long term survival. Not having that in my life caused both physical and emotional damage. It took a long time, but it happened. This statement is supported by the various doctors that I have seen.

  Ok presuming for the moment that my claim is true, why doesn't everyone react to the lack of intimacy as I did? I have a theory. This is purely based on my life experience so I offer it to you for whatever value you may find in it.

 I believe that in my case I was conditioned as a child to the notion that physical contact was part of all kinds of intimate interaction (not just sex). For example I grew up in a home where hugs and whacks and wrestling were the norm. We yelled and poked and got spanked. My emotional environment was earthy and rich. In my world as a child love was both emotional and physical. My wife's childhood was austere. Children were to be seen not heard. They were not to run and play and whack each other. They didn't get hugged much. The didn't get held much. etc. Physical displays of affection made her parents uncomfortable. Did my wife's parents love her? Yes absolutely. But their love was conditional. Or at least she understood it to be that way. She had to find her own comfort. Comforting others in a physical way was difficult for her. Eventually it became a burden to her.

  So eventually physical contact between us pretty much died. Sex stopped. So did hugs, touching, any gesture requiring physical contact. She did pretty well with it. I believe because she never had that when young. I withered, more so because she had become uncomfortable with my attempts to touch her. In a sense I could not demonstrate my love for her. Basically I was cut off from human contact with the single most important person in my life.

  So I have learned that at least in my case, all levels of physical contact are required with my intimate partner. Is sex more important than the others? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I don't intend to find out. Life is to short. Sex is part of the mandatory package in my life.

-J


-- Modified on 12/17/2007 6:39:00 PM

Just - thanks for sharing your personal experience with us.  That's a powerful testimony discussing a great deal more than just the importance of sex for men but quality of life for everyone.  

I also agree with your conclusion.  Life is far too short.  There is no sane reason to live without physical contact, especially sex.