Women - Pretentious or Prudish?

[Monk]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but what use is it to have to start all over with new people every time? In a marriage you are training one another. What you learn each time can be applied to the next.

Huh? You might as well say you can't practice or improve your football skills by playing tonight's game since next Sunday you'll be playing another team. Surely you see how incorrect that statement would be. No, I'm not claiming sex is exactly the same as football, but obviously you'll agree a skilled lover will have the better idea of his own sexuality and that of whoever he's with, be it a one night stand or a wife for twenty years.

This is true of all couples though, the important thing is the communication. You have to be able to ask for what you want and be able to show and learn exactly how to please someone!

I agree totally, but that doesn't change the fact that some people have or will develop sexual needs or wants that the other party can't or won't satisfy simply because we basically want different things in that department. Even with perfect communication, that's not going to change, and I think you could have a divorce coming up because prior to marriage those two people never 'knew' each other in every way that's necessary.

[Monk]

This part you edited in I think - I'll just reply to that too.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As for sexuality. I agree it is a core part of what makes up a person, but it's not the be all or the end all. I also don't believe you need to have sex to have a good understanding of how a person feels on this topic. I do believe you should talk things out about expectations before hand, and be very explicit as possible. Even if you don't know if what you want is what you will like, you will at least have an idea of what you want things to be like, and can talk about that sort of thing.

Fundamentally you're right, but I still feel you're underestimating how dynamic a person's sexuality is. Disregarding very dramatic events that change people's lives from one day to the next, most aspects of your personality change quite slowly. Now in the case of somebody having lived for twenty or thirty years without personal experience of sex, this thing is going to go FAST for them, and so I wouldn't necessarily expect them at all to have knowledge of what they'll learn or appreciate or want or need a couple months down the line.

You don't need to have had sex to talk about sex, sure. But you're certainly better equipped to discuss something you've had some experience with, no matter the subject.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fundamentally you're right, but I still feel you're underestimating how dynamic a person's sexuality is. Disregarding very dramatic events that change people's lives from one day to the next, most aspects of your personality change quite slowly. Now in the case of somebody having lived for twenty or thirty years without personal experience of sex, this thing is going to go FAST for them, and so I wouldn't necessarily expect them at all to have knowledge of what they'll learn or appreciate or want or need a couple months down the line.

True, but why should it matter so much what they 'need' to know when neither of them have the experience of sex?

[Alinestra Covelia]

This may be apropos of nothing much, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Question: Do you prefer your bedpartner to be a virgin or not?

My answer: Heck no!

What is the general feeling on this?

[Monk]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


True, but why should it matter so much what they 'need' to know when neither of them have the experience of sex?

I'm not talking about what they need to know, I am talking about what they might end up with a need for.

If you have some previous experience, you should know what works for you and what doesn't. If some of that experience is with your future wife, you'll also know what works for her. And so unlike for those who usually just kissed and went to sleep there'll be no sudden surprise roughly like going from 0 to 100 in three seconds and possibly in opposite directions.

Trippy analogy, but it's late!

(Edit: Alinestra Covelia, I agree on the heck no thing. I don't care much on the number of partners, but certainly I wouldn't want a virgin unless I happened to be in love with one or something. And then obviously it wouldn't be for the 'virgin' part of it.)

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
This may be apropos of nothing much, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Question: Do you prefer your bedpartner to be a virgin or not?

My answer: Heck no!

What is the general feeling on this?

That she should have a nice ass and pretty tits?

[b etor]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
This may be apropos of nothing much, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Question: Do you prefer your bedpartner to be a virgin or not?

My answer: Heck no!

What is the general feeling on this?

not. i'd prefer that he know what he's doing. and that he's a little kinky. but not in the foot and watersport way. eww.

[Colonâ„¢]

What's the watersport way? (not entirely sure about foot either, but I think I have an idea)

[b etor]

i'd rather not say.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=water+sports

[Colonâ„¢]

I shouldn't have asked.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Monk


I'm not talking about what they need to know, I am talking about what they might end up with a need for.

If you have some previous experience, you should know what works for you and what doesn't. If some of that experience is with your future wife, you'll also know what works for her. And so unlike for those who usually just kissed and went to sleep there'll be no sudden surprise roughly like going from 0 to 100 in three seconds and possibly in opposite directions.

no kidding. Even if there is significant discussion on sex prior to the marriage (though how frank can it be if its not yet experienced, I don't know), certain things might be acceptable intellectually, but when the parties actually got down to business, post nuptials, there might be a psychological impediment (sounded good in theory). Or something that isn't contemplated pre-nuptial develops into a desire by a party. (you want me to do THAT?)

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Women are definitely into casual sex.

Let me explain my oceanic theory of women.

Women are like the ocean.
Just like every spot on the ocean is different from every other spot on the ocean, every woman is different from every other woman.
And just as any spot on the ocean can be calm one day and stormy the next, so can any one woman change radicaly from day to day.

So if you're looking for a category in which to put all women (e.g. pretentious or prudish), you're not going to find any such category. All your going to find is a vast sea of ever-changing diversity.

[Colonâ„¢]

Whereas men are ever-sturdy, like rock.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
Whereas men are ever-sturdy, like rock.

Excellent metaphor: rocks can be worn away altogether by the ocean, while the ocean doesn't even notice the presence of the rock.

[Alinestra Covelia]

It's like Mark Twain noted - men are like candles, and women are like candlestick holders.

...

The candlestick holder will still be there even after the candles have burned out.