Sex in long-term relationships

[rwyatt365]

OK boys and girls!

Here's one for you that I don't think has been already covered; expressed as a percentage, what part of a long-term relationship (SO, spouse, etc…) does sex play? Is it 100% (all about the sex), 50% (a pretty big chunk, but other stuff is important too), 1% (I've got better things to do besides sex)?

Edited to put in some ground rules;
- the percentage is mutually agreed upon
- the SO is willing and compliant to the mutual decision
- this is 'ideal case' and not necessarily your current circumstancefixed typo in subject

[wolf]

What about those of us that have never been in one and can't therefore vote?

[xtremegeek]

What about those of us that have never been in one and can't therefore vote?

Tell yourself that 'zero' is not an option, therefore, there must be a minimum standard of 10%, anything more is determined by the couple, and not by one individual (much to a man's chagrin.) ;D

[rwyatt365]

What about those of us that have never been in one and can't therefore vote?
Just put in what you would like it to be if you were.

[Rohsiph]

Tell yourself that 'zero' is not an option

Why not?

therefore, there must be a minimum standard of 10%, anything more is determined by the couple, and not by one individual (much to a man's chagrin.) ;D

I have a problem with your "is" in the above statement: it may not be particularly pleasant to consider, but I don't see any immediate benefit in ignoring the existence of abusive relationships--additionally, I question the appropriateness of actively delineating that it would be to the "man's chagrin" rather than to "one's chagrin."

Both of my statements here are rooted more broadly in wondering how one can effectively--and, more importantly, meaningfully--attribute a numerical percentage to a more subjective valuation.

I would recommend a recategorization here: instead of using numbers, it would be more appropriate to say "not very important," "of mild importance," "I thought sex was long-term relationships," etc.

edit: Of course, re-reading the first post it seems this is suggested . . . yet, the context of the poll still pulls things more immediately toward colder deductions of something necessarily subjective. :-/

[xtremegeek]

Tell yourself that 'zero' is not an option

Why not?

therefore, there must be a minimum standard of 10%, anything more is determined by the couple, and not by one individual (much to a man's chagrin.) ;D

I have a problem with your "is" in the above statement: it may not be particularly pleasant to consider, but I don't see any immediate benefit in ignoring the existence of abusive relationships--additionally, I question the appropriateness of actively delineating that it would be to the "man's chagrin" rather than to "one's chagrin."

Both of my statements here are rooted more broadly in wondering how one can effectively--and, more importantly, meaningfully--attribute a numerical percentage to a more subjective valuation.

I would recommend a recategorization here: instead of using numbers, it would be more appropriate to say "not very important," "of mild importance," "I thought sex was long-term relationships," etc.

edit: Of course, re-reading the first post it seems this is suggested . . . yet, the context of the poll still pulls things more immediately toward colder deductions of something necessarily subjective. *:-/

I think the post was created with a 'light-hearted' intention. Your response seems to be that of someone guilty of thinking too much and too seriously, thus, missing the overall jovial intent of the post. But, if you wish to change the tone of the original post:
1. If someone is being abused, they are not in a relationship, they are in danger.
2. Statistics can never achieve 100%, therefore, responses such as you suggested, "not very important," of mild importance," etc, would ultimately be converted into percentages, which is frequently done with "subjective" data. The poster, in this case, has simply skipped a step to get to the end result, which is a trait of an INTJ.

[Rohsiph]

I think the post was created with a 'light-hearted' intention. Your response seems to be that of someone guilty of thinking too much and too seriously, thus, missing the overall jovial intent of the post.

Witness the difficulty of evoking actual intent/forcefulness through the Internet--yourself just as guilty of missing my own slights, seemingly cutting your teeth (not my intention).
But, if you wish to change the tone of the original post:
Why would I wish that?
1. If someone is being abused, they are not in a relationship, they are in danger.
From the outside perspective, certainly--and, indeed, this discussion seems to at least include the outside perspective.
2. Statistics can never achieve 100%, therefore, responses such as you suggested, "not very important," of mild importance," etc, would ultimately be converted into percentages, which is frequently done with "subjective" data. The poster, in this case, has simply skipped a step to get to the end result, which is a trait of an INTJ.

I grant this in regards to the technology of an Internet message board poll--however, my problem is with the bigger problem of statistical analyses of subjective data in general, from a philosophical position.

I appreciate the response--I'm not exactly sure why, but my last response here, and this one, have been very fun for me to write. It's been a while since exercising my logic on Internet boards, perhaps.

[L30]

Sex IS the relationship. It's both the engine and the measure.

[qwerty]

Sex IS the relationship. It's both the engine and the measure.

I'm basically the same.
The only way I could bare to be around some of my ex's was basically because of the sex. I get bored with most people mentally extremely fast.

[maai]

Sex IS the relationship. It's both the engine and the measure.

I see it as more of the starter on the engine. Nice to have to start the engine, but not essential to keep the engine running.

[gwalchma]

It's been said that if the relationship is going great, sex is not important...if it's going badly, then sex seems to be a top priority. I can see that.
It's pretty important to me. Since I hardly ever express my affections verbally to a companion; I use it to actually show my affection and/or love. Not to mention it's a great stress reliever!

[xtremegeek]

I think the post was created with a 'light-hearted' intention. *Your response seems to be that of someone guilty of thinking too much and too seriously, thus, missing the overall jovial intent of the post.

Witness the difficulty of evoking actual intent/forcefulness through the Internet--yourself just as guilty of missing my own slights, seemingly cutting your teeth (not my intention).

OK...I'll give you that one...my bad, sorry.

Edited to fix quotes

[aelan]

Sex IS the relationship. It's both the engine and the measure.
If sex were all I did with someone I'd get bored with them really fast. I'd have to have a really strong emotional and mental connection to put up with someone that long.

[PhoenixRising]

Where I think that sex is important in any long term relationship, For me it's just part of an overall equation. If I had a wonderful partner intellectually and emotionally that was just average in bedroom I would most likely be Ok with that situation likewise I would be Ok with someone who was a little lacking in some other area if they were great in bed. So for me there's a more general satisfaction factor that has fair amount of flexibility in most areas when it comes down to it. I will say that my lower limit of tolerance for sexual performance is Higher than for many other areas primarily because I do not believe in "cheating", so if the sex is lackluster I could not bring that area up to a more satisfactory level with another partner unike some other areas.

[chocky]

It's been said that if the relationship is going great, sex is not important...if it's going badly, then sex seems to be a top priority. I can see that.
It's pretty important to me. Since I hardly ever express my affections verbally to a companion; I use it to actually show my affection and/or love. Not to mention it's a great stress reliever!

I think this expresses it well.

[rwyatt365]

Tell yourself that 'zero' is not an option

Why not?

therefore, there must be a minimum standard of 10%, anything more is determined by the couple, and not by one individual (much to a man's chagrin.) ;D

I have a problem with your "is" in the above statement: it may not be particularly pleasant to consider, but I don't see any immediate benefit in ignoring the existence of abusive relationships--additionally, I question the appropriateness of actively delineating that it would be to the "man's chagrin" rather than to "one's chagrin."

Both of my statements here are rooted more broadly in wondering how one can effectively--and, more importantly, meaningfully--attribute a numerical percentage to a more subjective valuation.

I would recommend a recategorization here: instead of using numbers, it would be more appropriate to say "not very important," "of mild importance," "I thought sex was long-term relationships," etc.

edit: Of course, re-reading the first post it seems this is suggested . . . yet, the context of the poll still pulls things more immediately toward colder deductions of something necessarily subjective. *:-/

I think the post was created with a 'light-hearted' intention. *Your response seems to be that of someone guilty of thinking too much and too seriously, thus, missing the overall jovial intent of the post. *But, if you wish to change the tone of the original post:
1. *If someone is being abused, they are not in a relationship, they are in danger.
2. *Statistics can never achieve 100%, therefore, responses such as you suggested, "not very important," of mild importance," etc, would ultimately be converted into percentages, which is frequently done with "subjective" data. *The poster, in this case, has simply skipped a step to get to the end result, which is a trait of an INTJ.
Just to clarify, I put up the poll using numbers because I thought it would appeal to the INTJ penchant for numbers and calculations, instead of the (IMO) "touchy-feely" more/less important. Better to do numbers than to get into a debate on "what is more", "what is less", ("what is the meaning of life"). Little did I know that we would analyze my analysis!! *:o

The intent of the thread was to generate conversation, share ideas, sit around the Internet "coffe pot" and shoot the shit!

An ulterior motive was to see if I was weird (again) for my feelings ( :scared: ) about the place and importance of sex in a long-term relationship (marriage, in my case). You see, I am a sexual person but I'm not very sex-minded.

To explain...I like sex (I really like sex). I'm no sexual-sensei (although some friends and I discussed the possiblity of campaigning to establish screwing as an olympic sport - think of it, the US Intercourse Team; USIT - but that's another story) but I can manage to hold my own. However, sex does not dominate my thinking. I can manage several hours of contiguous thought without sex being involved (of course that is dependant on the female density gradient of the environment and the corresponding body mass/curvature ratio). Thus sexual, not sex-minded. So I would tend to rate myself in the 25-50% range.

[xtremegeek]

Well gosh darn it rwyatt365! Why didn't you just say that in the first place. :-?

It was still a fun thread. :thumbsup:

[maai]

I've noticed Hugh Hefner seems to have a smile on his face, until one of his eye candy starts talking. Then he gets an irritated look.

[rwyatt365]

Well gosh darn it rwyatt365! *Why didn't you just say that in the first place. *:-?

It was still a fun thread. * :thumbsup:
Where's the fun in revealing everything?! ;)

[Rohsiph]

OK...I'll give you that one...my bad, sorry.

No worries :)

Just to clarify, (etc . . .)

I figured as much, but I guess I wanted to flex my argument skills yesterday. I've developed a mistrust of numbers--particularly regarding subjective functions--due, in part, to studying Philosophy as an undergrad. It's very possible that most INTJs indeed prefer numerical answers to help when categorizing information before engaging in Te responses.

This is extending beyond the focus of the conversation again, but I wonder how an intention of testing the waters of individual weirdness can benefit someone. I avoid relativistic statements, but coming up with one's own values based on one's own reasoning is an important part of being a conscientious human--reliance on societal standards almost always disappoints me. Now, this is reading into your statement beyond what you said, so I want to clarify that I say "disappointment" in a generalized sense . . .

To finally respond to the actual topic: I think I probably consider my sex-drive similar to what you describe, rwyatt--even though I'm a virgin. I avoided sex for a long time, but started opening myself up to the possibility a few years ago. I value companionate terms far above the sexual/passionate for a relationship, and it has proved impossible (to this point) for me to achieve such a relationship, but I'm still fairly sexual without being sex-minded--I'm at least a lot more sexual than any of my friends/family would give me credit for ;)

[Evalind]

Edited to put in some ground rules;
- the percentage is mutually agreed upon
- the SO is willing and compliant to the mutual decision
- this is 'ideal case' and not necessarily your current circumstancefixed typo in subject
I think I voted before this was added. My husband would certainly disagree with my 0-10%, heh.

[NephilimAzrael]

28.2%, I regard it highly but it is an emotionally communicate method. My partner is not chosen on the basis of sexual appeal but rather their ingenuity, intellect and dexterity (pun intended)

[Nighthawk]

I've been married 17 years and the importance of sex is at about 15% at present. We could be working on it a bit harder though.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

This is always interesting to me. Since adult couple relationships are based on sex it stands to reason that sex should play an important role within these relationships. However, as I see it, sex is alot like eating or other bodily functions in that it is pleasurable if done in moderation, but loses it's appeal when we overeat. Too much of a good thing.

I suspect that there will be individuals who disagree with this viewpoint and see themselves as marathon sexperts. Indeed, many people take great pride in their ability to overindulge in this particular activity. These people aside, I think that many of us tend to enjoy the pleasurable things in life more when we don't get to have them all the time. To that end, I think sex is better and richer when it is not a priority or a counting game between two people, but a fun, relaxing, shared experience that is somewhat spontaneous and desired by both.

[MostlyHarmless]

Tell yourself that 'zero' is not an option, therefore, there must be a minimum standard of 10%, anything more is determined by the couple, and not by one individual (much to a man's chagrin.) ;D

My current girlfriend has a sex drive a lot more active than mine... to say that a man is necessarily more needy sexually than a woman is just wrong. I see this "myth" (IMHO) about men having to beg for sex in quite a skeptic way, if I indicate it's "game on" she almost RUNS for the bed.... On weekends, I like to do things other than be in bed the ENTIRE day. This female however, prefers morning, noon, and night. We've come to a compromise.

As for how much "of a relationship" should consist of sex depends entirely on the couple, and what they consider important in a combined capacity and as individuals. I'd go for 30%.

As for intj's being average at sex... I approached it like a science project at first. I studied, read, etc, and generally applied my perfectionism and quick learning ability to the bedroom. I suspect it helped worsen the above predicament, but I'm not convinced.

[ScurvyRose]

25% Sex combined with physical intimacy
25% "we are on the same team" - communication, and efforts, and goals
25% Work and play together, as couple or with groups, each taking turns to lead
25% outside world, interests, solo (sans partner) social/alone activity

edit:
Factors excluded from percentages are work/job and sleeping type activities (though sleeping together is a requirement)

[le Duc]

25% Sex combined with physical intimacy
25% "we are on the same team" - communication, and efforts, and goals
25% Work and play together, as couple or with groups, each taking turns to lead
25% outside world, interests, solo (sans partner) social/alone activity

Just saw this thread and was reading from the beginning... was going to post almost exactly this same breakdown.

[ScurvyRose]

One factor is not enough alone. They work together, or not at all. Thank you le Duc!

[Sean O]

This is always interesting to me. Since adult couple relationships are based on sex it stands to reason that sex should play an important role within these relationships. However, as I see it, sex is alot like eating or other bodily functions in that it is pleasurable if done in moderation, but loses it's appeal when we overeat. Too much of a good thing.

I suspect that there will be individuals who disagree with this viewpoint and see themselves as marathon sexperts. Indeed, many people take great pride in their ability to overindulge in this particular activity. These people aside, I think that many of us tend to enjoy the pleasurable things in life more when we don't get to have them all the time. To that end, I think sex is better and richer when it is not a priority or a counting game between two people, but a fun, relaxing, shared experience that is somewhat spontaneous and desired by both.Once again we find ourselves as two of the very few with a proper understanding of sex and relationships, eh vaguely?

Here's a question for anyone who posted a proposed percentage for sex in a relationship, and wasn't just joking: since when are relationships supposed to be quantified by percentages and such? That defeats the entire purpose of being in one! Besides, spontaneous sex is a hell of a lot more enjoyable than "calculated" sex.

In spite of our preference for understanding things coldly and logically, there are some areas of life where that just doesn't work (and is often harmful), one important example of which is romantic/sexual relationships. If you're trying to meet a "quota" for how much sex you and your partner have, or if you're assigning numerical values to different aspects of your relationship and evaluating it based on that, then chances are your relationship will fail.

In my opinion, the best way for us INTJs to handle relationships is to "forget" that you're a TJ and just go with the feeling and the flow. Paralysis by analysis with your girlfriend/spouse/etc. definitely sucks.

[NephilimAzrael]

In spite of our preference for understanding things coldly and logically, there are some areas of life where that just doesn't work (and is often harmful), one important example of which is romantic/sexual relationships. If you're trying to meet a "quota" for how much sex you and your partner have, or if you're assigning numerical values to different aspects of your relationship and evaluating it based on that, then chances are your relationship will fail.

In my opinion, the best way for us INTJs to handle relationships is to "forget" that you're a TJ and just go with the feeling and the flow. Paralysis by analysis with your girlfriend/spouse/etc. definitely sucks.

I agree, although I did place a percentage on it. The fact is that I estimated it on the grounds that without that particular level of intimate physicality I would be more inclined to be isolated or distant from my partner. It is also based that on the recurrence of my taste in woman (namely affectionate ones), I would rarely go without that percentage of sex in a long-term relationship.

[127001]

Sex IS the relationship. It's both the engine and the measure.

I see it as more of the starter on the engine. Nice to have to start the engine, but not essential to keep the engine running.



This dichotomy here answers the question.

It depends on the people in the relationship. Sex drives differ greatly from person to person.

[Seppuku Savant]

25% Sex combined with physical intimacy
25% "we are on the same team" - communication, and efforts, and goals
25% Work and play together, as couple or with groups, each taking turns to lead
25% outside world, interests, solo (sans partner) social/alone activity

Spot on Scurvy. As someone else mentioned, this was almost verbatim what I was going to add.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Once again we find ourselves as two of the very few with a proper understanding of sex and relationships, eh vaguely?

Here's a question for anyone who posted a proposed percentage for sex in a relationship, and wasn't just joking: since when are relationships supposed to be quantified by percentages and such? That defeats the entire purpose of being in one! Besides, spontaneous sex is a hell of a lot more enjoyable than "calculated" sex.

In spite of our preference for understanding things coldly and logically, there are some areas of life where that just doesn't work (and is often harmful), one important example of which is romantic/sexual relationships. If you're trying to meet a "quota" for how much sex you and your partner have, or if you're assigning numerical values to different aspects of your relationship and evaluating it based on that, then chances are your relationship will fail.

In my opinion, the best way for us INTJs to handle relationships is to "forget" that you're a TJ and just go with the feeling and the flow. Paralysis by analysis with your girlfriend/spouse/etc. definitely sucks.
I agree. I think that the media has put alot of ideas into peoples heads about how their sex-life is supposed to be or what an 'ideal' couple does with regards to sex. It's just another aspect of keeping up with the Joneses. But, then again, the media has really brainwashed us in alot of aspects of our lives.

If you look at the myriad reasons why people decide to live with another individual and limit themselves to having sex with just this one person, you can see that the actual act of having sex is really only one aspect of this coupling.

[hope]

It’s an interesting question. However it should be more than just quantity/percentage. I thought quality should also be included in the question. It can be only 10% as long as it is great. Also the percentage may increase or decrease as the need/desire varies during the period of relationship, since it is long term (i.e. more at the beginning, less later?). Considering all these, I found it hard to just give a number.

But if I have to, since I am a new member and I am trying to be polite, I would say 25% at the beginning then see how it goes, if it’s good, maybe I/we would want more, otherwise, less.

[cncracer]

I think it changes with time together.
In the first years the sex would be in the higher ranges 70 to 80% would be my guess, after the children come it drops to 40% due to all the stress of children, and when they fly the nest it will go back to the 50 to 60% range (I hope LOL).
I am looking at a long term relationship lasting decades not years which may buck the trend these days.

[energy]

If I may expand beyond the numerical quantification aspect of the discussion, exactly how are we defining 'sex'? Given that the various forms of adult entertainment comprise a multi-billion dollar industry, sexuality must play a rather large role in the lives of many people.

Thoughts?

[MichaelH]

I agree. I think that the media has put alot of ideas into peoples heads about how their sex-life is supposed to be or what an 'ideal' couple does with regards to sex. It's just another aspect of keeping up with the Joneses. But, then again, the media has really brainwashed us in alot of aspects of our lives.

If you look at the myriad reasons why people decide to live with another individual and limit themselves to having sex with just this one person, you can see that the actual act of having sex is really only one aspect of this coupling.

Very well put, and Rose's post about 25%s put it well also.

A LTR is much more of a business arrangement than I expected. There's love and companionship, absolutely. But you also have to live together long-term. That means communication and (some) compromise over living arrangements, what stuff gets kept or discarded, agreement on long-term goals, finances, etc. I'd put sex around 10%. It's important and should ideally be done well. But there's so much more to a successful LTR...

Having said that, sex (or at least agreement about it) is crucial to keeping things stable long-term. When my spouse and I are having issues in the bedroom, the rest of the relationship gets shaken hard.

[acyckowski]

Edited to put in some ground rules;
- the percentage is mutually agreed upon
- the SO is willing and compliant to the mutual decision
[/reason]

If these two assumptions are not true, sex quickly becomes 100% important to one partner.

Very interesting question...I would throw out for general consumption the idea that sex is both an output from and input to the relationship. Think of it as a feedback loop...if the sex life goes askew, the relationship suffers...which leads to further suffering in the sex life.

[iuniperus]

Hm, interesting question. I can't really give the answer unless I break down all the components of a relationship.

Mutual respect and genuine affection for each other (as in you actually like the person you're with)- 50%
Communication- 25%
Sex- 25%

Those are my rough numbers.

[Autoptic]

It’s an interesting question. However it should be more than just quantity/percentage. I thought quality should also be included in the question. It can be only 10% as long as it is great.

Wouldn't males tend toward quantity at least to some sufficient limit?

[hope]

Ha, how I wish I knew the answer! Unfortunately, I am neither male nor male expert. In fact, I have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE about man, absolutely no clue at all!! Maybe someone can enlighten me about “man” – And yes, I am bitter about my poor knowledge of man – there is no doubt about that.

[Lingam]

My thoughts are, what is a long term relationship between partners without sex? I would postulate that if you are in a long term relationship and sex is non-exsistant then you are simply friends. Sex and romance are the differentiation between a friend and a partner as it has to do with relationships. I would say that early in a relationship (especially with INTJ's) sex is the most important part. Many of us express our emotions during or after sex. We let our very guarded selfs out to play a bit. Many other types of persons don't realize that and so when sex becomes lacking then we close off, which drives others away, leading to less sex.......

So I would think that if sex isn't 25-30% of your relationship (in my case closer to 50%) then you and your partner might not connect enough to keep the relationship "emotionally connected" for both of you.

Just my thoughts.

[Ian]

Long term interest in sex with the same partner probably fits an exponential decay curve with a half of 4 years, a state that is reached by mutual contempt!

Never reaches zero, just feels like it........ .... . ... . . . . . etc.

[JustMel]

An old lady once told me that sex is like eating out when you are in a relationship-- in the beginning it's a long, drawn out affair with several courses where you linger on each one. As the relationship progresses and you have been together longer you may get the full course meal once in a while like on your anniversary but the rest of the time sex is more like the McDonald's Value Menu: quick, cheap and filling.

and to steal a line from Jeff Foxworthy: when you first get together you have to work at it and find what turns each other on, after you've been together a few years--you know the combination---right, 32--left, 12-- right---6---and you're welcome.





JustMel added to this post, 3 minutes and 52 seconds later...

and let's not forget procreations cosmic joke: men hit sexual peak at 18-25--they want sex all the time (mostly---big generalization) to biologically reproduce. Women don't hit their sexual peak until 35-45---when they are usually done with child bearing and can relax and enjoy it.

Serious generalizations but all of these have proven true for me except I had a hysterectomy at 25 and hit mine early.

[Autoptic]

There supposedly was a four year thing (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) on the female side but not the male. There's a priority mismatch that just gets worse.

[punkyplatypus]

I think for any serious, long-term relationship sex is very important. The basic differences between a friendship and a relationship are the sex, marriage, and kids. However not all relationships are equal; some lack kids, others marriage and even others occur on without sex.

But on average, I'd say the role sex plays in a long-term relationship is about 50%. I think for the more intense "soul mate" couples who click mentally/emotionally/spiritually it might run a little lower (40%), and for the raunchy nymphomaniac couples who click physically it's a little higher (60%).

Other factors that might skew the percentage: amount of free time, other more important responsibilities (like kids), stress, cultural habits, sexual experience, sexual pleasure, illness/disorders/injuries, distance from each other (is one in jail or constantly travelling for work), wealth, age, etc.