Do you think sex is important in a relationship?

Person_one

Gingham_R wrote: »

I'd add though that pornography is doing less harm to young women (with the exception of the ones forced or tricked into it) than photoshopping is, but that's another issue.

Different sides of the same coin really.

Airbrushed photos and size 0 models tell young girls how to look to get a man, !!!!!! sets up expectations of how she should behave once she's got him.

Both highly problematic.

DylanO

Dunroamin wrote: »

There must be something very wrong with a person's life (or sex life) if soaps (or !!!!!!) are more entertaining than the real thing!

You could say the same of all entertainment, it wouldn't make it any more true, but you could say it.;)

Person_one

DylanO wrote: »

You could say the same of all entertainment, it wouldn't make it any more true, but you could say it.;)

Not really, I went to see The Avengers the other day. Waaay more exciting than my real life.

Eastenders? Not so much.

DylanO

Person_one wrote: »

Different sides of the same coin really.

Airbrushed photos and size 0 models tell young girls how to look to get a man, !!!!!! sets up expectations of how she should behave once she's got him.

Both highly problematic.

I find those who insult people for being any size (including size zero) are just as bad, but they're so blinded by their righteous anger that they can't see the parallels.

Gingham_R

DylanO wrote: »

I find those who insult people for being any size (including size zero) are just as bad, but they're so blinded by their righteous anger that they can't see the parallels.

No-one is doing that though. We're not being subjected to size 18 women and being told we should all want to look like them.

DylanO

Person_one wrote: »

Not really, I went to see The Avengers the other day. Waaay more exciting than my real life.

Eastenders? Not so much.

Putting aside the fact that you agreed with me without realising it (:D), no one said it was 'more exciting than your real life', but that poster did say that there must be something wrong in a person's life if they find a soap entertaining.

I don't watch any soaps, but I'm not so idiotic to suggest that those that do have something seriously wrong with them.;)

DylanO

Gingham_R wrote: »

No-one is doing that though. We're not being subjected to size 18 women and being told we should all want to look like them.

You're not being 'subjected' to anything. Buying a magazine is not mandatory you know.;)

Dunroamin

DylanO wrote: »

Putting aside the fact that you agreed with me without realising it (:D), no one said it was 'more exciting than your real life', but that poster did say that there must be something wrong in a person's life if they find a soap entertaining.

I don't watch any soaps, but I'm not so idiotic to suggest that those that do have something seriously wrong with them.;)

No, "that poster " didn't.

I said, "There must be something very wrong with a person's life (or sex life) if soaps (or !!!!!!) are more entertaining than the real thing!"

You, in fact, said that they were!

System

I think sex can be one important component of a relationship, although certainly not the most important, but it really depends on the situation and people. If my OH or I were unable to have sex for any reason, our relationship wouldn't be over. Similarly, if there were no physical problems and my OH went completely off sex for no clear reason, I would probably be concerned that it was related to a deeper issue in our relationship. More important than sex is intimacy (not necessarily sexual intimacy), in my opinion.

Personally, !!!!!! doesn't affect my relationship with my OH at all. Some people have said that they feel uncomfortable with the idea that their OH isn't satisfied by them, or that they're looking for something more/better. I don't feel that way. Firstly, my OH would masturbate whether he had !!!!!! available or not, and that says nothing about our sex life. Sometimes he just prefers masturbation over sex (and so do I on the odd occasion, although I don't watch !!!!!! as it doesn't do it for me). Secondly, it's not unusual for me to notice people that I find sexually appealing - I don't mind that he does the same when watching !!!!!!.

ETA: I agree that !!!!!! can have an influence on what boys and girls think sex is like. Having said that, my OH has been looking at !!!!!! since he was a teenager, and his view of me and our sex life doesn't seem to be coloured by that at all. I think this is really more an education issue, TBH - if children are growing up getting all their information about sex from !!!!!!, it's our responsibility to be teaching them the truth. To borrow the soap opera analogy someone else used earlier, I'd be very worried if my kids grew up thinking that's how you should actually behave, but I'd hope to bring them up understanding the difference between TV and real life.

Gingham_R

DylanO wrote: »

You're not being 'subjected' to anything. Buying a magazine is not mandatory you know.;)

It's completely mandatory. I don't buy magazines. I don't watch tv. I don't buy newspapers. Do you think I'm not exposed to these images several times a day?

And my sons, who walk into the local newsagents for their comics, the eldest of whom is not far off eye level for the row of magazines with naked women in poses with other women or with their legs open. My friends' girls who are all already talking about being 'fat' and 'ugly' are exposed to these things all the time. They're on billboards and magazine covers and newspaper covers and advert after advert after advert on the internet and they are ALL not only very, very slim but have bodies that are elongated, shrunken, deblemished, with eyes and lips that are enlarged and brightened, legs that are the same width at the top as the bottom and are all either under an age where their skin starts to sag or wrinkle or their wrinkles and sags have been either air brushed away or cut or poisoned away by 'surgeons'.

We can't just 'not look'. It's endemic.