Is it normal for a woman not to want to hug, kiss, cuddle after sex, or be affectionate? Is that simply a preference or a psychologically disconnect in an attempt to not be vulnerable or attached to another individual? While there are degrees of affection shared among couples, Is there something wrong with a woman refusing to display affection? Women who silently or verbally express "don't touch me" until they are in bed. Is it coincidence or are they attempting to attempt to disassociate any connection in an attempt to be emotional detached?
What do you think?
Yes, it is very sad, sometimes it's because they are scarred from past relationships and haven't let go, and they feel as if they show affection or vulnarbility, they'll let their guard down and get hurt again. I happen to be different, don't know why. I was abused by men, I had a distant dad and craved affection, which I will always I guess. But now I look for it, for the right reasons.
Or it could just be absolutely normal for her. Some people are just not cuddles ra.
It could be; she was trained by her previous partner in a cold way. She needs to read some historical romance book to learn how to be romantic. Some people are afraid of germs. They are sensitive to germs including to the smell of their partner's breath. Every person needs to figure out; what is going on at the moment to be loving and near to each other.
I realize this may be difficult to fathom for those who think all people are alike but sex does not make everyone lethargic. For some it's an energy boost. One does cuddle, hug and kiss if that is what one's partner needs but barring that need of another human being I would think letting everyone be themselves is more important than attempting to psychoanalyze every move of another while assuming that if their natural reactions are different than your own it somehow makes them 'broken'.
Maybe people are using odd techniques to prevent themselves from falling in love after casual sex.
It is a real skill to "love" the one you're with and then walk away. I have heard this is one reason why prostitutes are paid: to leave.
Sex, in itself, isn't something that will make one fall in love. I don't think you are correct it would be using odd techniques not to fall in love after casual sex. It's more along the lines of the other party erroneously believed sex would make love magically appear. Sex is a physical act which is enhanced by love, but love is not created by it. Mature adults should know this. It is something that we should drill into the heads of our kids and continually remind mature adults of this fact (should they forget it).
I don't know about a skill of loving one you are with and then walking away. But, oh. You are again using the term love in place of the word sex. That is one reason we have so much of a problem with teen pregnancy, I think. It is the reason some may have toppled into prostitution. Because by the time they stopped attempting to use sex as a carrot to make someone fall in love with them and realized how ignorant and manipulative of an idea that was they felt like prostitutes and decided if the shoe fits wear it.
<"Sex is a physical act which is enhanced by love, but love is not created by it.">
I very much disagree.
The love center and the sex center are situated very close together in the human brain. Nature organized our brains in order to carry forth protection of offspring. We are not like barn yard animals. Human babies need the care and protection provided by both parents to do the job of raising a child all the way into adulthood. Nature know this. Nature designed it this way. We need to comply with nature. Sex is for the purpose of procreation. Love is for the purpose of friendship and companionship of wife, husband and raising offspring in a happy family.
You can certainly disagree all you want. It's interesting that you say we are not barnyard animals and then insist we are. We do not copulate solely to procreate. To pretend that it actually applies to humans is to think of us as barnyard animals.
Human babies need a stable and safe environment. To insist that they need both parents ignores the fact that many children grow up happy and well adjusted without that. Unless, now we have another example of where anyone with a different experience is somehow 'broken'
This is an example of how we are refusing to listen to nature.
We are suffering the consequences of not comlying with the master plan, and will continue to suffer the consequences,
… unless you believe that ripping apart tiny humans, (by way of abortions,) is not in the least painful to fetuses, embryos and their mothers, that fatherless families are happy and prosperous, and that these mothers who are married to the gov't with children from various fathers, are perfectly fine/ happy … !
We aren't refusing to listen to nature. We simply are seeing where some people may not be thinking ahead or not taking responsibility for their actions.
Think about it. When people run around stating that sex is for procreation only, those who want to give the impression that they agree aren't going to take birth control, aren't going to have real conversations with their teenagers on the subject of sex, aren't going to help their teenagers make responsible choices and in all other ways simply contribute to the problem because we have a society which glorifies sex at every turn. Our media includes gratuitous sex scenes in almost everything. Pretty much all genres of music sell sex. The fashion industry sells sex. Even the stance to stay a virgin until marriage is selling sex.
So, to be completely anti sex except for procreation ensures no one is going to take you seriously.
As to fatherless families not being happy or prosperous. I agree that one of the primary things a woman should do to ensure she remains out of poverty is not have a child out of wedlock unless she is financially able. But, pushing notions as you have done that casual sex should naturally lead to love will help drive the foolish thinking of women that if they get pregnant the father will automatically marry them. It's manipulative and we have ample evidence that not all men are so easily manipulated.
Sex leads to love in the uncorrupted. We have all corrupted each other.
That is an opinion which, unfortunately, the entirety of human history refutes.
Pie in the sky beliefs are, in my opinion, pointless. By being completely unrealistic they set people up for disappointment that their selfish desires can't be satisfied just because they want them to be. And to be honest that type of mentality drives casual sex.
I believe what I said to be true.
The younger the person is, the more capacity he or she has to love another with idealistic love.
Unfortunately, that love is usually wasted on someone (reality sets in over time) who does not know how to love back or on someone who has very bad relationship skills. That love becomes disappointed love and then self-protection tendencies predominate to avoid being hurt. Therefore showing affection becomes taboo.
Interesting. Idealistic love, in my opinion, is not love. It's infatuation. Love involves removing rose colored glasses and seeing the warts and all very clearly yet loving the warts as much, or more, than one loved the first blush of love. 'Wasting it' on what you claim to be someone ' who does not know how to love back or on someone who has very bad relationship skills' is basically saying that the person complaining was too immature to understand what love is or attempted to pretend they were in a relationship when they weren't.
Who do you love? a frog?
Some have a good time hopping about with frogs.
She had this obnoxious chihuahua. I finally got fed up and said it's me or the dog.
I move out Tuesday.
I'm sure for some women it's a way to avoid intimacy but I'm sure for most women it's probably just personality and even mood dependent. I'm down with some post-sex cuddling occasionally but I most definitely don't feel like being close and romantic every time. Sometimes you just wanna get it done and then go to sleep. Or go do something else. I don't think two people have to hold each other or physically express their love for one another after every sexual encounter for it to have been a valid, intimate experience.
As for other types of affection, I'm not much of a hand-holder or a cuddler... I like my own space most of the time. I give my husband pecks when he leaves for work or wherever but we don't have a ton of very touchy-feely moments. I don't think either of us are trying to disconnect, it's just who we are and how our relationship works. I probably wouldn't have ended up with someone who needed a bunch of physical affection because they probably would feel like I was pushing them away if it was important to them. But spooning in bed, cuddling on the couch while watching TV, holding hands in the mall... just not usually my thing .
by Debra Allen8 years ago
I just read that some christians believe that music causes pre-marital sex. Anyone else think this? What do you think causes pre-marital sex in teens?When did it become pre-marital sex? Adam and Eve...
by TheFrenchTraveler7 years ago
the age ole question answered can men and women be friends, non sexual bff's? Is it possible or will some emotional attachment and love grow?
by rhamson21 months ago
This is a quote from a Lebanese writer Karl Sharro and his one sentence explanation of why ISIS came about. It is a little long winded but I think he covers it pretty well.
by realtalk2472 years ago
What are your rules when it comes to casual sex? Do women seem to always become more attached to the man with a casual sex relationship according to your experiences?Do men become more possessive once they...
by dianne1436 years ago
by Coricet7 years ago
My wife told me I need to stay away from her during the week and we can only have intercourse on the weekends. During the week we rub, tug, and kiss on each other in the middle of the night, but no fireworks @ the end....
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.