Poll: would you marry someone even if it meant giving up sex forever?

[notfred]

<< I was about to say, "you damn bet I would". However, I'm too scared to say it since you haven't been more forthcoming about your hypothetical situation. What if this person was some transsexual or homo. I'm not about to marry one even if I have "so much feelings" for ???. I'm sure there are some possibilities as scary as the forementioned that I have not thought about.

Anyway, so my answer now is 'inconclusive/contingent' until you respond to my implied objection. :Q >>



So you'd be perfectly willing to not have sex for you entire life, as long as the person you weren't having sex with wasn't gay or transgendered?

 

[Descartes]

<< I am not a slave to sex, nor am I addicted. Come on... if sex has that much of a grip on your life, you got problems. Yes, it's human nature, but it's not a necessity and you should be able to live without it. >>



It having a "grip on your life" and completely living without are entirely different things.

 

[Descartes]

<< Besides... sex is a way to show your love that you love them, but it isn't the only way. Why is this so hard to understand? >>



Don't be a bigot. You think your perception of love is the only correct way? I've known guys like you who felt the same way, and thought their women felt the same way until they cheated on them for a man who would take control.

 

[SithSolo1]

Does this mean no kissing?

What about touching of the cheat region?

I can live with out the second one but the first would be kinda hard.

 

[4824guy]

I don't think I can do it..

Being intimate and sexual with a partner is part of good marriage I think.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

<<

<< Besides... sex is a way to show your love that you love them, but it isn't the only way. Why is this so hard to understand? >>



Don't be a bigot. You think your perception of love is the only correct way? I've known guys like you who felt the same way, and thought their women felt the same way until they cheated on them for a man who would take control. >>

Haha! You're just bitter because you can't do it and I can.

nik (as you wish...

)

 

[yakko]

As long as I still got the fap I think I would be fine with it. If I had to give up even that then no.

 

[TheVrolok]

As hard as it would be I think if I were truly in love I would do it.

 

[Descartes]

Lets turn this around a bit...

Lets say you were the one who was physically/emotionally unable to copulate/fornicate/provide pleasure to your significant other, would you marry? How would you feel knowing that your significant other has desires that you are never able to fulfill? How would you feel knowing that your other was fantasizing about things that probably don't include you?

Anticipated FFMCobalt response:
"I know that the woman I marry would never fantasize about someone else."

Lets stick to reality here, folks. If you could never sexually pleasure your other, and they were still capable of receiving pleasure, would you feel confident enough in marrying them? I'm going to say that those who say they'd have no issue are incredibly naive...

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

I would feel badly for it, but if sex is enough to keep two people from marrying eachother, then there are bigger problems with the relationship than just a physical inability.

nik

 

[LostHiWay]

I'm a little confused. How is it possible that 2 people cannot have sex. Like someone else said even if she has no arms or legs...she still has a mouth. I can't come up with a reason why 2 people couldn't have sex.

If it's a moral/relgious thing then I'd say you SHOULD NOT get married. Both people have to give a little. If she isn't willing to give any at something this important then the marriage will never last.

 

[Descartes]

<< I'm a little confused. How is it possible that 2 people cannot have sex. Like someone else said even if she has no arms or legs...she still has a mouth. I can't come up with a reason why 2 people couldn't have sex. >>



That's why this is entirely hypothetical

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

<< I'm a little confused. How is it possible that 2 people cannot have sex. Like someone else said even if she has no arms or legs...she still has a mouth. I can't come up with a reason why 2 people couldn't have sex.

If it's a moral/relgious thing then I'd say you SHOULD NOT get married. Both people have to give a little. If she isn't willing to give any at something this important then the marriage will never last. >>

I believe the question was about being physically inpossible to have sexual relations.

nik

 

[BoberFett]

FFMCobalt, you and Viper are so naive. He used to give the same damn "icing on the cake" answer when it came to sex in marriage. Stick to your smug, elitist attitude for now, but give it time. You guys aren't even 20 yet are you? You've got some maturing to do.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Boberfett, It's nice to know that people like you have faith in the human race to the degree that someone can think and live like I do.

nik

 

[jhu]

Probably not... the only real way to keep someone from any kind of sex at all would be if they had no arms or legs, had their mouth sewed shut, and wore a chastity belt. I think even then someone might get anxious and try for some un-conventional orifices... Ears anyone?

aural sex?

as to the original question, i'd have to say no

 

[djheater]

Clearly in order to answer the hypothetical one would require a definition of sex. I don't think it's possible to be so incapacitated that you were unable to engage in sexual contact in some way. Perhaps you mean penetration in which case I would say that were a narrow definition of sexual union and I would be entirely OK with marrying someone I love that could not engage in it. There's more than one way to satisfy a djheater

 

[jhu]

one of the posters here said he'd rather marry one of his guy friends instead if that was the case. that's a pretty good point. why marry a girl then?

 

[sandorski]

Yea, this is a weird question. It seems that this is not entirely hypothetical and that it has been discussed before as a real situation. Any links to the previous thread?

Anyway, no, I couldn't marry someone if it meant giving up sex entirely. If it's frigidity, then that person has issues that need to be dealt with. If it's physical deformation of some kind, like others have said, there are other ways to have sex. If the person is comatose, well, that's just sick.

However, I do know of a woman that I grew up with, and had a crush on as a teenager, that never fully developed in that area. I don't recall exactly what happened, or didn't as the case may be, in her physical developement, but she is now happily married. Though I know her and her husband still, I have no idea if they have sex, although I'd be surprised if they didn't.

 

[phantom309]

To ask someone to do that would be incredibly selfish and manipulative.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

<< To ask someone to do that would be incredibly selfish and manipulative. >>

And if both people love eachother and wish to get married anyway?

nik

 

[Descartes]

<< Boberfett, It's nice to know that people like you have faith in the human race to the degree that someone can think and live like I do. >>



LOL! You know, you say this same type of thing so much, who are you trying to convince? Either way, I know myself, and I'm sure most others, have absolutely no desire to live, or act as childishly as you do.

[edit]I'm not going to speak for others, put reference to myself only.[/edit]

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

You guys are funny -so close minded. Either way, I would be able to marry someone without the hope of sexual relations. Whether you believe me or not, I don't care. I know myself, and that's not that big a deal for me since I'm not gripped by it.

*shrug*

nik

 

[DuneMaster]

<< You guys are funny -so close minded. >>


From your posts I gather that the only person that is close-minded is YOU.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

<<

<< You guys are funny -so close minded. >>


From your posts I gather that the only person that is close-minded is YOU. >>

bwuhaha - bring it

nik