In thinking having more than 5 sexual partners doesn't make you a raging whore bag?

[fifithefoof]

Following on from the last thread .....

Good for you.

I was being ironic.

This is like the weirdest game of chess I’ve ever played

There seem to be a couple of posters here who do not understand what irony is.

I think it’s only one poster ironically

We need a version of Godwin’s Law that’s related to Alanis Morrisette

I can’t believe anyone past the age of about 20* actually gives a shit. So long as everyone is a consenting adult, contraception is used and no one is getting hurt (because yes, I judge cheaters) then who cares?

*20 on the assumption that by then most people’s raging hormones have settled down a bit and their personalities are a bit more stable!

Dionne the word objective is the key thing. Your oh does not diminish the hurt you feel if he has sex with another women by saying it meant nothing. It's objectively an intimate physical act, there's no point in denying it.

No, the word subjective is correct. Using objective imies that all women would be hurt, when it very much depends on the person.

Implies, not imlies

Relationships and sex are completely subjective. They vary depending on the type of relationship and the individuals having them. Examples include but are not limited to monogamous, polygamous, open, FWB and ONS.

You have still not answered the question I asked. You say that you only have sex with men you love. If the next man you love isn't as good at sex as your cheating Ex, would you dump him?

I use other fora if I want to get involved in proper debates

Cool. Off you pop then. Using more than one fora does not make one a raging whorebag

Yes Dionne if he and I had no sexual connection I wouldn't be with him. If you are ranking sex by how quickly I orgasm, I don't think of sex that way.

The women who are arguing sex is subjective apart from Jacques would all be hurt by their partner having sex with another person. So even though the sex meant nothing to him, it's suddenly not subjective anymore.

The misuse of "cognitive dissonance" was a bit awkward... the misuse of "objective" is just bonkers.

Bonkers ? Is that what you think when you see medical literature e.g
talking about intimate examinations ? You are bonkers actually.

We need a version of Godwin’s Law that’s related to Alanis Morrisette

It’s like Nazi chaaaaat, on a lengthy thread
It’s the Third Reich, by the 20th Page
It’s the good advice, that posters just will not take.
Well who would have thought, it figures

I agree, no sexual connection, no romantic relationship. But that's not what I asked, the sexual connection is there, but he's just not as good as your Ex. You love him, you have a sexual connection, but he's not the best you have had. Would you dump him?

If you are happy for your partner to be physically intimate with someone else because you don't regard physical intimacy as meaningful, that is coherent.

If you would be deeply hurt at your partner being physically intimate with someone else, even though they get to decide what it means, not you - that it is subjective and they tell you it was meaningless, and you accept that physical intimacy is meaningless, your position is not coherent.

DioneTheDiabolist

“Phil from accounts” seems to be the go to term for the very situation you want an answer on

Jacques no offense,but your "advice" is to be like you and regard physical intimacy as meaningless. No thanks.

Jacques no offense,but your "advice" is to be like you and regard physical intimacy as meaningless. No thanks

No it isn’t. My advice has always been and repeated countless times, do what is right for you.

But again, please DO copy and paste my “advice” quotes.

I absolutely advised you to maybe examine why your ex has caused you such distress, which is sensible advice, no? Because to be happy in a relationship you need to work out your demons.

I have never once suggested ANYBODY on this thread do things my way. I couldn’t have been clearer that my way was right for me, nobody else.

Bonkers ? Is that what you think when you see medical literature e.g
talking about intimate examinations ? You are bonkers actually.

What does this EVEN MEAN?!

Jacques

You need to crowbar Phil from accounts into that song

Lorna my husband was frankly horrible at sex for a good while, he needed much teaching. Please don’t let it put you off a good man, some of them have just never been taught how to do it.

Or for me to have no physical difference in my relationships with people I love versus people I don't. Again, no thanks

It obviously means that having someone else put something in your vagina is an objectively intimate act ????

This is an absolutely mind boggling thread.

We are now speaking about vaginas? Why?