Sex was supposed to be something that two people did when they were in love, or as a way to express their love, etc.
As it turned out, in an effort to find/create/achieve love she would use sex.
I would use sex.
No one had ever told me differently.
As far as I was concerned: couples argued as a normal part of their relationships, differed in opinions, made snarky comments to each other; but as long as the sex was still good and plentiful then the relationship was still succeeding.
Problems in the bedroom obviously meant there were massive problems in the relationship, and if that one aspect could be saved everything else would fall into place.
Makes sense, right?
Turns out, no.
The dys·func·tion of the present would love to be able to tell the dys·func·tion of the past that sex is not required for there to be love.
Does that mean that I am preaching celibacy? No. I believe that if you are ready to have sex with somebody than the time is appropriate. I am stating that it would have been nice if someone had told me that sex is not that important, especially not to the longevity or success of a relationship.
People in today's society have flings, they have one night stands, and they have friends with benefits. Why do all of these sexual contracts exist if sex is the only way to form and sustain a healthy, lasting relationship?
The answer is simple: these sexual contracts exist as a means to have sex and that is all. Sex does not equal Love.
Sex < Love
Love > Sex
Love is greater than Sex, and as such a relationship does not need sex to have love.
"dys·func·tion, does that mean that if two people have sex that they aren't in love?"
What that means is that if two people are in love that they should recognize that sex is not a pivotal point of their relationship, nor is it necessary for their relationship to exist.
For example, Boyfriend has the ability to say to me at any time "dys·func·tion, I don't want to have sex anymore," and after we had a discussion as to why (since at this point it would be a change in our existing relationship), I would concede to his wishes and we would not have sex anymore.
When I was younger, my mother bought me a promise ring. This ring was silver with a heart on it. I wore it on my wedding finger as a symbol of the promise that I made to abstain from sex until marriage.
I was 16 years old when she laughed at me for still wearing it. "I don't actually think you're going to wait until marriage." She had snickered. It hurt so bad I took off the ring and never wore it again.
Do I reasonably think that I would have waited until marriage to have sex? No, probably not. But I think that I may have waited longer, or had a different opinion of sex, if
I write because I ramble because I rant because it pops into my head.
When my girls enter highschool (or before if need be O_O) we will make a decision about a form of birth control. If they choose to never have sex until they are married (or ever) then they will have regular periods (a perk of birth control) and less acne. Better to be safe than sorry.
And when I talk to my girls about sex, it will not be a taboo thing that is not spoken about; it will be an open discussion that is grounds for questions, concerns, and discussion. And most of all, my girls will be told that the best time to have sex is when they are ready. Not their friends, not their partner, but them and them alone.
Who knows, maybe in twenty-some-odd-years they will turn to their parnter and say "Man, I really wish my mom had said ____________ to me. It would have helped me to make better decisions."