As a person with major commitment issues - and in denial

I like to think sex is about a monagomous spiritual connection - which is great but has not been everlasting

Or is it about physical satisfaction? Which kinda blurs the idealistic theory...

Your thoughts will hopefully lead to some clarity...as it is defintely unclear to me at the moment...

Boring sex to gain a higher intimacy?

Thanks

"monagomous spiritual connection"

"blurs the idealistic theory"

"sex to gain a higher intimacy"

intimacy is the 'idealistic spiritual connection'...

monagomy is a manmade theory and only practiced

by a few in the 'wild kingdom' and monagomy

shouldn't be confused with 'love' or intimacy.

for folks that feel you can only love one person

at a time, they fail to realize that we love the world.

as for the thing about one mate, i know folks

that have multiple kids by mutiple people.

the ones who haven't been married are shunned

the ones that were married a number of times,

havin babies in each marriage, are celebrated...

the spirit doesn't follow the rules of monagomy...

THEN TOO...

i'm KING BAD!!!

i got rules of my own...

KingBAD said:

NinaB said:

Both. Even when peep are sexing on the most base level, other stuff is going on...I don't wanna get all esoteric on the org, so I'll leave it right there. "Boring sexing to gain a higher intimacy" - I'm not sure what u mean?

Esoteric – great word!

Bear with me...this may meander somewhat!

To expand…the last half of my marriage was sexually routine – and I was bored (and was for me a factor in the dissolution)

But, the emotional investment, shared lifetime and intimacy built over 15yrs had a lot of positive value that would be great to experience again.

I totally get KingBad’s observation that monogamy is a man-made ideal – although I think monogamy does provide a unique level of intimacy

So, I have been dating girl on-off for 2yrs – when she is in London, we are exclusive.

When she is not…we do our own things

That worked fine whilst I have been rebuilding life post-divorce.

Now though, I don’t know if this quasi-arrangement is what I want long-term, as I am aware of deeper intimacy and the derived virtues.

She hasn’t been in London for a while now and I met someone else some-time ago who is lovely and we have developed a deep connection.

Truth be told though – now how do I say this without being an asshole…

She is a bit pedestrian carnal wise…

I’m torn, because I do like her and miss a proper relationship and the intimacy that comes with it…and we do fit on all other levels…intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, globally

I don’t wish to repeat the previous situation and am aware that this fear is causing me to cowardly withhold commitment.

Having just attempted to write these thoughts down – I think I am a messed up asshole that she doesn’t deserve – hmmmm…

I know nobody can control the future...yet am fearful that maybe down the line…1yr, 2yrs…that I’m back to where I was…

I do know that I need sex in my life – but not on the quasi/stage 1 shagging kind without some intimacy…

Past experience has messed me up man…

So boring sex but greater intimacy long-term? or a relationship that is based on sex being the main driver? (which will probably fizzle out after a few years)

NinaB said:

KingBAD said:

"monagomous spiritual connection"

"blurs the idealistic theory"

"sex to gain a higher intimacy"

intimacy is the 'idealistic spiritual connection'...

monagomy is a manmade theory and only practiced

by a few in the 'wild kingdom' and monagomy

shouldn't be confused with 'love' or intimacy.

for folks that feel you can only love one person

at a time, they fail to realize that we love the world.

as for the thing about one mate, i know folks

that have multiple kids by mutiple people.

the ones who haven't been married are shunned

the ones that were married a number of times,

havin babies in each marriage, are celebrated...

the spirit doesn't follow the rules of monagomy...

THEN TOO...

i'm KING BAD!!!

i got rules of my own...

I've loved more than one person at a time. I've also had a decade long monogamous relationship, it was far from boring. It's all man made 2 me, everything on this blue planet floating round the milky way. Everything's man made. We co-sign the 'reality' of the time/place/culture. Or we don't. Morality, good/bad is relative. I saw a tribe of people who when the women have a boyfriend, when she becomes pregnant her brother becomes the 'father'. She can go on 2 have as many more boyfriends as she likes. Men & women don't marry or live together. I've known ole timers who've been together a lifetime & love it, worked 4 them. Different strokes. I agree, monogamy shouldn't be confused with love or intimacy. Also in my experience, love & intimacy can be expressed/experienced in casual sex & one nighters, quiet as it's kept.

What?!?! Not come across that tribe!

Remember learning about the Sambia tribe - and that is defintely different strokes from where I'm sat...

https://wiki.geneseo.edu/...d=89260716

Connected said:

Connected said:

Men are about the penis. Women are about the whole body.

NinaB said:

Connected said:

I see. Is the new lovely partner willing 2 compromise some? Are you? Meet in the middle somehow?

She is cool and would like a more structured arrangement - which is absolutely fair and reasonable.

It's just that in the boudoir...it's not as lustful as I'd like...and we ought to be in the wild "swinging from the chandelier" stage when it comes to that stuff.

In turn this has lead me to here...do I accept that sex will be physically boring but may serve as something deeper to enhance our spiritual connection leading to greater intimacy?

I have always been of the opinion that sex is something that makes a relationship unique from any other in the world (hence monogamy)...

Maybe I have to explore this opinion in light of your and King Bads alternative perspective on monogamy... hmmmm

2freaky4church1 said:

Men are about the penis. Women are about the whole body.

Yes...I get this... I guess it's the Prince paradox of "This ain't about the body it's about the mind" and "23 positions..." (only not in a one-night stand )

Connected said:

NinaB said:

Connected said:

What?!?! Not come across that tribe!

Remember learning about the Sambia tribe - and that is defintely different strokes from where I'm sat...

https://wiki.geneseo.edu/...d=89260716

Wish I could remember their name. They were an oriental people. It was a matriarchal culture with a 'government' of Grandmothers. There's so many varieties of 'reality', now & throughout human history. That's an interesting link btw.

.

It is called "Walking Marriage".

.

NinaB said:

Connected said:

She is cool and would like a more structured arrangement - which is absolutely fair and reasonable.

It's just that in the boudoir...it's not as lustful as I'd like...and we ought to be in the wild "swinging from the chandelier" stage when it comes to that stuff.

In turn this has lead me to here...do I accept that sex will be physically boring but may serve as something deeper to enhance our spiritual connection leading to greater intimacy?

I have always been of the opinion that sex is something that makes a relationship unique from any other in the world (hence monogamy)...

Maybe I have to explore this opinion in light of your and King Bads alternative perspective on monogamy... hmmmm

I meant is she willing 2 compromise with certain things sexually & are you? But when u say 'lustful', that's something else. When the chemistry is right & the sexuality is compatible it's cool. But when there's a sexual issue it can become a big deal 4 some. Re monogamy, personally, moretime I'm a one man woman, but I've had a few adventures along the way

Ooooh the stories you could tell

This is it...I think she just isn't the most sexually instinctive, animated girl in bed....kinda like someone who has no rhythm - and no matter how hard you try and how receptive they may be...they just never get "on the one"

Thanks Nina - for listening and letting me work this muddle out...

Basically it comes down to this question...

"Would you pursue/stay in a relationship where the sex is meh (because the partner has no rhythm) but everything else in it works?"

QueenofCardboard said:

Connected said:

I think the sheer fact that you are questioning this relationship, for whatever reason, this early on would suggest that long term, however interesting and attractive she may be, this might not be someone that you could tolerate for decades to come.

In order to sustain a long term monogamous relationship one has to be prepared to accept and even learn to appreciate the others foibles. It seems to me that a quirk at the beginning of a relationship either grows into a constant irritation or something accepted and even embraced.

A lack of physical exertion in the bedroom is nothing new - work commitments, stress and numerous other reasons can all be components of a lack of enthusiasm in the bedroom. What you need to ask yourself is, if your first lady was better in the bedroom and this lady more mentally stimulating, then would you be better trying to find a combination of the two?

To be slightly pessimistic. I think there are always compromises to be made in order to sustain a relationship. I'm not so sure that even the seemingly happiest of couples are happy all of the time. The question always is, do I accept the things I hate about the person and celebrate the things I love about them or am I consumed with the things I hate and struggling to see the things I love? I confess that there have been times when I have struggled to be the former and have drifted towards the latter but communication is everything. Maybe you need to have an honest and frank conversation with her, see what happens?

QueenofCardboard said:

NinaB said:

Connected said: Wish I could remember their name. They were an oriental people. It was a matriarchal culture with a 'government' of Grandmothers. There's so many varieties of 'reality', now & throughout human history. That's an interesting link btw.

.

It is called "Walking Marriage".

.

Walking Marriages - Mosuo

mosuoproject.org/walking.htm

.

The Navajos practice this type of marriage too.

.

It sounds ideal to me.

.

I wish main stream America would adopt this type of family structure.

.

Very interesting - thanks!

I can see the appeal of this - possibly where the "it takes a village to raise a child" comes from

I do feel sorry for the poor sod who never gets an invite though!

You go too far with sex, it's just about physical satisfaction most of the time, don't put much thought on it, first,first. Then of course it becomes a spritual connection, but that is afterwards, and not always, sometimes is just about physical satisfaction. But as Prince said: "In lust we will suffer, in love we will grow".

Connected said:

NinaB said:

Both. Even when peep are sexing on the most base level, other stuff is going on...I don't wanna get all esoteric on the org, so I'll leave it right there. "Boring sexing to gain a higher intimacy" - I'm not sure what u mean?

Esoteric – great word!

Bear with me...this may meander somewhat!

To expand…the last half of my marriage was sexually routine – and I was bored (and was for me a factor in the dissolution)

But, the emotional investment, shared lifetime and intimacy built over 15yrs had a lot of positive value that would be great to experience again.

I totally get KingBad’s observation that monogamy is a man-made ideal – although I think monogamy does provide a unique level of intimacy

So, I have been dating girl on-off for 2yrs – when she is in London, we are exclusive.

When she is not…we do our own things

That worked fine whilst I have been rebuilding life post-divorce.

Now though, I don’t know if this quasi-arrangement is what I want long-term, as I am aware of deeper intimacy and the derived virtues.

She hasn’t been in London for a while now and I met someone else some-time ago who is lovely and we have developed a deep connection.

Truth be told though – now how do I say this without being an asshole…

She is a bit pedestrian carnal wise…

I’m torn, because I do like her and miss a proper relationship and the intimacy that comes with it…and we do fit on all other levels…intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, globally

I don’t wish to repeat the previous situation and am aware that this fear is causing me to cowardly withhold commitment.

Having just attempted to write these thoughts down – I think I am a messed up asshole that she doesn’t deserve – hmmmm…

I know nobody can control the future...yet am fearful that maybe down the line…1yr, 2yrs…that I’m back to where I was…

I do know that I need sex in my life – but not on the quasi/stage 1 shagging kind without some intimacy…

Past experience has messed me up man…

So boring sex but greater intimacy long-term? or a relationship that is based on sex being the main driver? (which will probably fizzle out after a few years)

Well if I wasn't old and settled already and you weren't all the way across the pond I would solve all your problems for ya...

Seriously though, you sound like a great guy and nice looking too. Getting to the question of the lady who is somewhat sheltered, that isn't necessarily deal-breaker unless she is not open minded about sex. Is she prudish or just inexperienced? Because the latter situation can be remedied if she likes you enough to let you turn her out?

If you attempt to have the intimacy and there is little physical compatibility then you run the risk of going off the reservation again. I have always been strictly a one man woman, so it is crucial for my guy and me to be on the same page physically.

I would hold out for intimacy and good in the sack because I think it's possible to have both. Find out if your pedestrian lady friend is willing to work with you. There are ways to do that without it being awkward.

NinaB said:

Both. Even when peep are sexing on the most base level, other stuff is going on...I don't wanna get all esoteric on the org, so I'll leave it right there. "Boring sex to gain a higher intimacy" - I'm not sure what u mean? [Edited 10/5/16 11:57am]

Good point, an exchange of energies and essences is still taking place.

KingBAD said:

"monagomous spiritual connection"

"blurs the idealistic theory"

"sex to gain a higher intimacy"

intimacy is the 'idealistic spiritual connection'...

monagomy is a manmade theory and only practiced

by a few in the 'wild kingdom' and monagomy

shouldn't be confused with 'love' or intimacy.

for folks that feel you can only love one person

at a time, they fail to realize that we love the world.

as for the thing about one mate, i know folks

that have multiple kids by mutiple people.

the ones who haven't been married are shunned

the ones that were married a number of times,

havin babies in each marriage, are celebrated...

the spirit doesn't follow the rules of monagomy...

THEN TOO...

i'm KING BAD!!!

i got rules of my own...

I only love one person at a time.

babynoz said:

KingBAD said:

"monagomous spiritual connection"

"blurs the idealistic theory"

"sex to gain a higher intimacy"

intimacy is the 'idealistic spiritual connection'...

monagomy is a manmade theory and only practiced

by a few in the 'wild kingdom' and monagomy

shouldn't be confused with 'love' or intimacy.

for folks that feel you can only love one person

at a time, they fail to realize that we love the world.

as for the thing about one mate, i know folks

that have multiple kids by mutiple people.

the ones who haven't been married are shunned

the ones that were married a number of times,

havin babies in each marriage, are celebrated...

the spirit doesn't follow the rules of monagomy...

THEN TOO...

i'm KING BAD!!!

i got rules of my own...

I only love one person at a time.

then you don't have kids or relativesand you play favorites

if one child is slow gettin in they outta luck for love....

i unnastand what you meant.

babynoz said:

KingBAD said:

babynoz said:

I only love one person at a time.

then you don't have kids or relativesand you play favorites

if one child is slow gettin in they outta luck for love....

i unnastand what you meant.

Stoppit.....

KingBAD said:

NinaB said:

KingBAD said:

then you don't have kids or relativesand you play favorites

if one child is slow gettin in they outta luck for love....

i unnastand what you meant.

So what? I turn invisible or something? Right! That's it! I ain't your friend no more! Keep blanking me & shit!

Gurl....

babynoz said:

NinaB said:

KingBAD said:

then you don't have kids or relativesand you play favorites

if one child is slow gettin in they outta luck for love....

i unnastand what you meant.

So what? I turn invisible or something? Right! That's it! I ain't your friend no more! Keep blanking me & shit!

SEE!!!

KingBAD said: