[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 circumstance[reason]fixed typo in subject[/reason]

[wolf]

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

[xtremegeek]

	Originally Posted by wolf
	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.)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rwyatt365]

	Originally Posted by wolf
	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]

	Originally Posted by 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.) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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]

Originally Posted by Rohsiph

Originally Posted by 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.) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 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]

	Originally Posted by 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).

	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]

	Originally Posted by l30
	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]

Originally Posted by Rohsiph

Originally Posted by 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]

	Originally Posted by l30
	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]

	Originally Posted by 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!

I think this expresses it well.

[rwyatt365]

Originally Posted by xtremegeek

Originally Posted by Rohsiph   Originally Posted by 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.) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 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 (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
) 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.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[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]

	Originally Posted by xtremegeek
	Well gosh darn it rwyatt365! *Why didn't you just say that in the first place. *:-? It was still a fun thread. * To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Where's the fun in revealing everything?!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Rohsiph]

	Originally Posted by xtremegeek
	OK...I'll give you that one...my bad, sorry.

No worries
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by rwyatt365
	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
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Evalind]

	Originally Posted by rwyatt365
	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 circumstance[reason]fixed typo in subject[/reason]

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]

	Originally Posted by xtremegeek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	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.) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

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.