|
04 Jul 13 - 08:39 PM (#3533927) Subject: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Ed T I guess it is kibnda research? Though age may be a factor some day, I have not yet confused a hug with sex (with a pertner, that is), though I they do go hand in hand. How about you? Has oxytocin made a hug better than sex? |
|
04 Jul 13 - 10:18 PM (#3533934) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Elmore Not cuddling with an orangutan or a tiger, and especially not with Ed T. |
|
05 Jul 13 - 12:06 AM (#3533944) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity What's worse, is that some morons think sex replaces love!!! GfS |
|
05 Jul 13 - 12:07 AM (#3533945) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Little Hawk "But according to new research, the frequency of cuddling is a far better indicator of the strength of a relationship than how often you're swinging from the chandeliers." (having hot sex) I think that article is dead right. Sex is great, but showing affection is far more crucial in the long run for holding a relationship together and building intimacy than are the highs of sex. |
|
05 Jul 13 - 03:39 AM (#3533968) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Richard Bridge Twaddle probably inspired by women who don't like sex and are looking for excuses to avoid it while still getting the other benefits of a "relationship" (although how anybody can call it a "relationship" if there is no sex beats me). Sex is good. Orgasms tend to inspire fondness and emotional involvement. Cuddling is nice - but frustrating if there is no sex. Cuddling and sex are better. Cuddling and sex and emotional involvement are better still. If your sex partner goes off sex for a while you can put up with it. If, persistently, one partner wants sex but the other does not, it is fatal to the relationship. And I have heard women (women whom I trust to have been being honest at the time) say the same. What the study should have tried to measure and appears not to have done is to compare oxytocin levels between (a) cuddlers and (b) fuckers - all other things being equal. I propose the hypothesis that levels would rank as follows Lowest - neither cuddles nor sex Next lowest - cuddles but no sex Higher - sex but no cuddles Highest - sex and cuddles. The other variable to be considered is general support - task sharing, listening, social support, even money support. |
|
05 Jul 13 - 07:12 AM (#3533990) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Ed T "cuddling with an orgasmotang, male or female, sounds potentially dangerous to me :) |
|
05 Jul 13 - 09:56 AM (#3534034) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Little Hawk I wasn't suggesting NO sex by any means, Richard. ;-) I was suggesting that affection is a surer bond to an intimate relationship than the thrills of sex and orgasm are. To prove this, I suggest that people can have orgasms and have sex with NO love and NO affection for the other person whatsoever...and with no real sense of intimacy...just a physical thrill (or sense of conquest)...but they can't have genuine affection without a real sense of intimacy, and that sense of intimacy is what makes a real relationship. To quote a line about a non-intimate but sexual relationship in a well-known John Prine song: "they made love from 10 miles away" No intimacy there. Just sex. Yes, to withhold sex from a romantic partner who desires it will eventually kill the relationship. To withhold affection also will kill the relationship. Without genuine affection, however, there IS no intimate relationship. Without sex there are all kinds of intimate relationships in life, such as the relationships between parents and children, between siblings, between friends, and with a beloved pet such as a dog, cat, etc... Intimacy grows out of love. Sex...is just sex...it might indicate love, it might indicate nothing of the sort. It can even indicate the most negative of emotions, such as hatred, revenge, domination, desire to humiliate...depending on who is doing it to whom, how, and with what kind of intentions. |
|
05 Jul 13 - 10:02 AM (#3534038) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish I'm with Gfs on this one, for when *did* sex replace Love....? Bring back Making Love, with hugs and cuddles too... We need to cuddle FAR more, as a Species... I love hugs... Make of that what you will, Richard :0) |
|
05 Jul 13 - 01:49 PM (#3534092) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Rapparee "Love is what is left in a relationship after all the selfishness has been removed." --Cullen Hightower |
|
05 Jul 13 - 02:40 PM (#3534110) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: GUEST And then the greatest piece of horseshit ever foisted on people: Love means never having to say you're sorry! |
|
05 Jul 13 - 03:36 PM (#3534124) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Ed T It has been stated before that compassion and sex fit together, kinda like pizza with all the toppings. Pizza dough is an essential of the pizza, but surely is not as enjoyable without the toppings - while the variations are quite broad, to suit the many tastes (aka desires). I will stay out of the side discussion of "love" (versus compassion and a hug-cuddle), as there may be almost as many interpretations of this as there are people. |
|
05 Jul 13 - 07:31 PM (#3534187) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: kendall I'm with the women on this one. A dear friend of mine once said about his wife, "She would rather knit than fuck." I told him, "So would I." |
|
06 Jul 13 - 03:01 AM (#3534252) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: GUEST I hadn't recognized the importance of this thread until now. MY GAWD, it is an article written by FLIC EVERETT who also wrote 'Peroxide brightened up my whole life! How hair dye CAN change your personality'. Mind blowing. |
|
06 Jul 13 - 03:12 AM (#3534256) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: michaelr And then the greatest piece of horseshit ever foisted on people: Love means never having to say you're sorry! Hear hear, hallelujah and amen. |
|
06 Jul 13 - 03:19 AM (#3534259) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Megan L For many women there is no choice when the man they love through ill health or medication is no longer capable of continuing the sexual side of their marriage they do without. |
|
06 Jul 13 - 06:31 AM (#3534297) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Steve Shaw Whether or not a hug has replaced sex depends entirely on the amount of frottage involved in the hug. |
|
06 Jul 13 - 07:30 AM (#3534301) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: jacqui.c I am in total agreement with you Megan. A good relationship is so much more than the sexual side and can, if necessary, exist without sex. |
|
06 Jul 13 - 09:00 AM (#3534327) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: catspaw49 I agree Jacqui......Karen and I married a bit later in life and our love and togetherness was by far the most important part of us. We became best friends and would rather be with each other than anywhere else or with anyone else. It wasn't that we had no oats left but we never seemed to need them anymore. I can never adequately explain the love we share and the relationship we have. Interesting fact.......The kids of several close friends have told their parents as they contemplated marriage that they "wanted a marriage like Karen and Pat have." 5 kids from 3 different families with happily married parents and yet they mention ours as what they want..................Something must be right about this. Spaw |
|
06 Jul 13 - 10:46 AM (#3534358) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: kendall What's good for the Goose can be rough on a Woodpecker. |
|
06 Jul 13 - 11:40 AM (#3534384) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: akenaton Not yet!! Well, not completely...:0( |
|
06 Jul 13 - 01:32 PM (#3534427) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: GUEST,Eliza My dear auntie and uncle were married fifty years. He had a very dodgy heart problem and was often in hospital. He was frail but always cheerful and sweet-natured. My auntie told my mother (her sister) that they had never ever had sex, but that it didn't matter. Auntie was a strong lady who worked as a tutor in a technical college. She adored her husband and they were very affectionate and cuddled a lot. They died within six months of eachother. I don't think their love suffered for lack of sex. But that's not to say everyone could make such a sacrifice. |
|
06 Jul 13 - 01:52 PM (#3534432) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: GUEST,Musket again The bit about hand in hand. There you go. Sorted. Sex is fine but poor substitute for the real thing. (I used to see that as graffiti near where lived. Never worked out whether it was just healthily depraved or not...) And for those worrying about the future, Viagra is now available as a generic. |
|
06 Jul 13 - 02:10 PM (#3534440) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: GUEST,SJL Aww Spaw, that was so heartwarming to read about how much you love your wife. Many years! |
|
06 Jul 13 - 03:48 PM (#3534463) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Rapparee It depends, I think, on where you are. I'd rather people hugged in a restaurant or church, for example. Someone said once, "Love is what's left when the sex is done." |
|
06 Jul 13 - 05:22 PM (#3534484) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: GUEST,SJL Exactly right. |
|
06 Jul 13 - 05:37 PM (#3534485) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: GUEST,SJL For Spaw and his lady: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otXGqU4LBEI&sns=em |
|
07 Jul 13 - 06:54 AM (#3534635) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Ed T A few years ago I saw a TV story about a loving couple in Holland. Though they were in love, the woman had no interest any more in sex. However, as hormones often will, the man still had a significant sex drive. They discussed their differences, and relationship, and it was mutually decided that the solution was for the male to seek sexual relief through a paid sex worker. It worked, and the loving relationship continued for years. The husband had a regular "sex appointment" with the same sex worker each week for many years. (Note that the story was clear to explain that measures were taken to minimize the possibility of the husband getting a std. I believe the health side was less of an issue because the sex industry is government managed in Holland). While many say that the sexual side of a relationship is not the most important, (or, that it is even unimportant to them) it is interesting to see just how important it becomes if their partner wishes to relieve their natural sexual desires outside the loving part of the relationship. |
|
07 Jul 13 - 08:32 AM (#3534647) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: catspaw49 Thank you SJL...... Spaw |
|
08 Jul 13 - 06:20 AM (#3534979) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Mr Red not enough hugs in Rouge Towers, and they are a poor substitute for the other - IMNSHO. |
|
08 Jul 13 - 06:38 AM (#3534984) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Ed T "Not enough hugs in Rouge Towers, and they are a poor substitute for the other" There is no suggestion that "red lights" offers a substitute for compassion-love. I suspect it would be a folly to look for love in those places. However, some folks have stronger needs beyond hugs and kisses than others. In many cases these desires lead to affairs that are often confused with people seeking alternative sources of love (the "affair" statistics are high). This frequently puts a strain on many traditional relationships. In the case I mentioned, the couple looked beyond the normal confines of a relationship and found that having the needs of both partners met actually strengthened their "love-compassion" relationship. Surely not for everyone, but one of the many options available for consideration in "life's tool box". |
|
08 Jul 13 - 07:43 AM (#3535001) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Michael I assumed Rouge Towers to be Mr Red's residence. |
|
08 Jul 13 - 08:22 AM (#3535007) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: GUEST prefer the pizza analogy having been left with only the base |
|
08 Jul 13 - 12:09 PM (#3535112) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Richard Bridge I am tempted to make a bad joke about pizza ingredients. |
|
09 Jul 13 - 07:53 AM (#3535397) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: kendall I'm reminded of Lord Chesterfield's letter to his son on the subject of sex. |
|
09 Jul 13 - 08:06 AM (#3535404) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Little Hawk Which was? |
|
09 Jul 13 - 09:00 AM (#3535425) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: Ed T Is that where the term "playing chesterfield checkers" came from? |
|
09 Jul 13 - 10:36 AM (#3535469) Subject: RE: BS: Has a hug replaced sex? From: treewind I guess he means this one: "the pleasure is momentary, the position ridiculous, and the expense damnable" |