Search Results
7/5/2025, 8:08:59 AM
>>24510313
This is a hard read, but nothing that you've said is necessarily wrong. Though, I believe what you're missing is the ability, nay, the tendency for some people to build an emotional bond with someone through sexual acts - to solidify an existing intimate relationship, even. What is painful for me about your statements is how they fundamentally don't apply to me. I'm gay, and I have no intention, nor have ever had any intention of being a "tramp" or sleeping around. I'm wholly monogamous, and I dream of a man who feels the way that I do, that we can share and foster a lifelong relationship with sexual acts as something that both fulfills us physically and emotionally, but not being the basis for our relationship. Sex is wholly practical. It's the act that births society and continues on humanity. This is sex sanctified. But, I believe if it's anything other than that, it should be an enjoyable, intimate utility of an already joyful union of people. A union that could exist and fruitfully be sustained without such a utility.
It's a sad, terribly lonely thing to me that I cannot find anyone else in the world who thinks this way. Perhaps Mishima, to more or less an extent. The issue with my school of thought is that I've drawn a line within sodomy, a sort of border in an abyss of chaos, that two men could love each other. And I mean truly, truly love each other, only using physical relations as an emotionally-driven expression of love to one another - again, not the whole basis for why they are together, because that wouldn't be love.
And I should like to say that, without an intended microcosm of irony in the world, that, OP is a massive fucking faggot. So are a great number of "people" (I'm looking at you, promptfags) in this thread. The notion that any man would even CONSIDER betraying the contract of his marriage on the grounds that he isn't "fulfilled" due to a lack of satisfying his carnal desires is utterly abhorrent, and it indicates that the man in question has no real understanding of what marriage encompasses. It encompasses many things, but it is contractual, meaning that there is an innate level of discipline needed to uphold the contract - a sort of asceticism wherein your servitude is to the marriage itself, and you have to set aside your carnality for the sake of it.
This is a hard read, but nothing that you've said is necessarily wrong. Though, I believe what you're missing is the ability, nay, the tendency for some people to build an emotional bond with someone through sexual acts - to solidify an existing intimate relationship, even. What is painful for me about your statements is how they fundamentally don't apply to me. I'm gay, and I have no intention, nor have ever had any intention of being a "tramp" or sleeping around. I'm wholly monogamous, and I dream of a man who feels the way that I do, that we can share and foster a lifelong relationship with sexual acts as something that both fulfills us physically and emotionally, but not being the basis for our relationship. Sex is wholly practical. It's the act that births society and continues on humanity. This is sex sanctified. But, I believe if it's anything other than that, it should be an enjoyable, intimate utility of an already joyful union of people. A union that could exist and fruitfully be sustained without such a utility.
It's a sad, terribly lonely thing to me that I cannot find anyone else in the world who thinks this way. Perhaps Mishima, to more or less an extent. The issue with my school of thought is that I've drawn a line within sodomy, a sort of border in an abyss of chaos, that two men could love each other. And I mean truly, truly love each other, only using physical relations as an emotionally-driven expression of love to one another - again, not the whole basis for why they are together, because that wouldn't be love.
And I should like to say that, without an intended microcosm of irony in the world, that, OP is a massive fucking faggot. So are a great number of "people" (I'm looking at you, promptfags) in this thread. The notion that any man would even CONSIDER betraying the contract of his marriage on the grounds that he isn't "fulfilled" due to a lack of satisfying his carnal desires is utterly abhorrent, and it indicates that the man in question has no real understanding of what marriage encompasses. It encompasses many things, but it is contractual, meaning that there is an innate level of discipline needed to uphold the contract - a sort of asceticism wherein your servitude is to the marriage itself, and you have to set aside your carnality for the sake of it.
Page 1