I’m seeing someone new. I don’t love him, in fact, he’s a bit annoying. If it wasn’t for this one thing, I’d probably be thinking of a nice way to give him the heave-ho. But the one thing is that we are totally awesome in bed. I mean, the best best best I’ve ever had. Yowser. My previous relationship was so different. I was deeply, disgustingly in love with him, and had a major crush on him for ages before I made a move, but the sex was always very disappointing. I always felt like I cared more for him than he did for me. So now I’m having a hard time reconciling the difference, here. Sex with someone you love is supposed to be heaps better, isn’t it? Or is that just something we tell adolescents to get them to keep their pants on?
If you’re enjoying it, enjoy it. If all you have is heat between the sheets, it probably won’t last, but damn, what a ride while it does! In other words, sex is what it is. We’re attracted to who we’re attracted to.
Nope. We tell teenagers they won’t get acne after their teen years too. Ha! We lie.
Loving the person you love just gets sweeter with time. Sex? Eh, maybe, maybe not.
Every sexual experience I have ever had has been different. They are like snowflakes, no two identical. And at least half of the experience depends on my partner. Some people are more fun, some are more imaginative, some are more physical, some quicker, some slower, some bossy, some submissive. And all have different physical and mental attributes and skills.
I have only had sex with people I like or love and some of the ones I never got beyond liking were better sex partners than the women I married. Some were better cooks too.
You certainly come to enjoy sex in different ways when you are in a long happy relationship but why should they be a perfect sexual match. Come to think of it my wife used to go dancing with other men because they could dance and I can’t. And she loves dancing.
Maybe not exactly what you tell adolescents to keep their pants on but definitely one of those things that are promoted in movies and other popular media. One of those things you find is maybe not so true when you get a little older. Congratulations! You’ve just become a little older.
Sex CAN be best with someone you love but not inherently so. Having spent many of my young-adult years in Thailand before I even met my wife let alone married her, I think I probably had more sex than many of my Western counterparts back home, and there’s one or two ladies whose memory continues to bring a wicked little smile to my face even at this advanced day. I did not love them, but Man! What they could do.
You’re young. Enjoy it now!
Love doesn’t necessarily lead to good sex, but good sex with someone you love is exponentially better than good sex with someone you don’t love.
Do not confuse sex and love. Sometimes love makes the sex heaps better, but loving somebody who’s bad in bed doesn’t make the sex magically better. I’ve been in both situations, also. IMHO, it’s much easier to like somebody great in bed than to love somebody who’s a stiff. YMMV.
I’ve never had sex without love, it’s like pancakes without the syrup, a fluffy stack of blah.
Here’s the thing: you might have better sex with your present fuckbuddy because you can honestly express your sexual needs without worrying about hurting his feelings. Since he doesn’t really mean anything to you, his feelings don’t either, and you are less self-conscious about your own needs. Hey, you can bark out orders if you want to. Sound about right?
Next serious bf, try to be more honest (without being abusive…unless he goes for that ). As for the present bf, ride him like a rented mule. Repeat as necessary.
How do you know pancakes without syrup are blah if you’ve never had them?
All I know is if I’d never had sex without love I’d have had sex about 100 less times.
Here’s another way to look at it. Friends-with-benefits situations often turn awkward (at least) because one person starts to develop serious feelings for the other (or already did before they started). With this situation, where it sounds like you might not even be friends if it weren’t for the benefits, you may not have to worry about that, right?
BTW, I definitely agree with this:
And I would go one further and say that any generalization about sex is bound to be wrong some or most of the time, including this one. Enjoy yourself and try not to think it to death.
Oh. “A” stiff.
I agree, not that it is any of my business if people decide they don’t want to ever, ever eat pancakes without syrup.
Also, I prefer pancakes with peanut butter, grenadine, or jam. Screw the syrup. So to speak.
Umm, DevilsKnew said he never had sex without love (me too), not that he never had pancakes without syrup. I once tried an experiment, where I set out to see if I could have sex without falling in love. We’ve been together five years now. :smack:
Ahhh, these tattered shirtcuffs, where I used to wear my heart.
Right. And the same criticism of the statement applies. If he’s (she’s?) never had sex without love, how can he authoritatively say it’s “Fool’s Gold”?
Assuming you’re female, yeah, I think women hear so much about how hard it is to have good sex without an emotional connection, candlelit bath, flower petals, etc. that it comes as a surprise when they get it from a jerk (part of the ‘Why do women like jerks?’ mystery solved right there. Some are good in bed.)
Funny. I’ve had sex without love and it was solid gold all the way. Hot damn. Pancakes, syrup, whipped cream, blueberries, and a sparkly stick-thingy.
Then again, I’ve also had sex *with *love, and it was also solid gold. I think just sex in general is solid gold for me.
I’ve had it both ways, and you don’t need love to make sex good. Just a good helping of lust, and a cooperative and skilled partner.
The only reason I can come up with is that it (likely) makes him feel better to think so. Why else say something so patently and obviously untrue? If sex without love were so blah, there wouldn’t be so many people trying to get it.
Good sex is good sex. I second what auRa said.