Yes. Do you have a different opinion?
I don't know, because I am not a 'relatively physically unappealing woman' who is 'wiling' to have sex with a sexual partner who is physically attractive. Since you are a man you are a better judge of what a man would be willing to accept as a sexual partner.
If a man wants sex that much all he has to do is marry me and he can have sex whenever he wants sex, except when I am working or sleeping.
Of course, we would have to be compatible in other ways since I am not desperate to get married, and if I was going to have sex I would have to be physically attracted to the man.
OK. Then I guess I don't know what your potential suitor was referring to implying that it wouldn't work out with you if not looks or your rejection of premarital sex.
I don't know either sice the discussion never got that far, but I was not physically attracted to him anyway so it ever would have gone any further.
OK. We use the word aversion differently. You seem to limit it to repulsion. I include all deliberate avoidance. Your usage might be more common.
It is really not a deliberate avoidance since sex would not even a consideration unless I got married again. I cannot say how I would feel if I got married again.
My point was that according to a local acquaintance, many men she meets are looking for what she called a nurse or a purse. I'm surer that most also want sex and companionship, but that's not enough and not what they want or need most in a live-in relationship.
That's good to know. I will be sure any men I meet know that I am not the nurse type, and I don't do much cooking or cleaning, although I am willing to share my money and hire people to do cleaning.
Many women my age who are widowed say they don't want to have to take care of a man so many and perhaps most widows choose to remain single. I don't want to marry a man who is much older than me again or a man who is not in good health, since I don't want to take care of a man and I don't want to be widowed again. I would prefer to marry a younger man who is in good health if I ever marry again.
That's unexpected, but you have a limited experience of men and the dating scene after decades of a monogamous marriage that ended recently. Those men are out there. I know of a few where I live. They're broke and living from one Social Security check to the next. Finding sex isn't their problem.
I am sure those types of men are out there, even if they don't divulge their income status on dating sites. Thus far I have only encountered one man who did not own his own home. He lived in an apartment and was on social security although he supplemented his income by doing handyman work. I would have been okay with his financial status but sex was the problem. He was a Catholic and willing to wait for sex in marriage but he wanted the marriage to center around sex and I didn't want that.
That's going to depend on their libidos, not your preferences for them.
That's true, their libidos and their interests.
OK, but so what? It's not about survival. It's about quality of life. I'm all for "going against the normal process of aging" when doing so improves life. Isn't that what taking life-saving cardiopulmonary medications does? Isn't wearing a hearing aid also "going against the normal process of aging"?
Taking hormones for libido or medications for erectile dysfunction is not the same as taking life-saving cardiopulmonary medications since you need thoose medications in order to live whereas nobody needs sex to live. Wearing a hearing aid is not linked to any health risks so it is not comparable to cialis or viagra.
This sounds like your argument against homosexuality. The antiabortion people do the same - saving the mother from herself with references to metal health consequences of abortion. But these are all insincere arguments, like a suitor who doesn't like cats telling you about toxoplasmosis. It's not what informs or motivates his position, and it's too small a risk for you to care about when deciding whether to have cats.
This has noting to do with homosexuality. Unabated and uncontained sexual desire can cause many problems. Adulterous affairs often lead to broken marriages even if both people are married. Most abortions are performed on unmarried women which tells us that if nobody had sex out of wedlock there would be very few abortions.
Getting toxoplasmosis from a cat would be a very rare occurrence but abortions are common occurrences.
You seem to have reversed yourself. Weren't you just lamenting such men who won't settle for a sexless marriage, who might say that they aren't giving up sex for any woman?
I am not giving up the cats for any man and I would never expect a man to settle for a sexless marriage if they want sex and are still able to have it. I understand that most men want sex if they can still have it, and I would be willing to have sex with a man if I was in love with him and married.
Yes, you're a hopeless romantic. If I outlive my wife, I probably won't be remarrying, but I might live with a woman. I might fall in love with her eventually, but that wouldn't be necessary for a successful and constructive relationship.
You probably represent the majority of men who are widowed. They are looking for a long-term relationship rather than marriage.
There are men out there who are like me who are hopeless romantics, although I don't know if they would be willing to wait until marriage to have sex. Only if I dated a Baha'i man would that be understood, but finding a Baha'i man to marry is not looking good for me. I got lucky once but I don't expect to get lucky again unless it is God's will.
That was in response to, "Maybe all she wants is protection or somebody to call an ambulance if necessary and all he wants is regular sex and to be in the company of a woman." Now it seems you're reversing your opinion about a loveless relationship of mutual convenience. I just described a transactional relationship - quid pro quo.
I said
"I see nothing wrong with that as long as it is mutually agreed upon" but I would not agree to that. I do not want a loveless relationship of mutual convenience. I want a loving relationship of mutual convenience as well as an emotional connection and a physical attraction if I ever get married again. Those are more important to me than common religious beliefs. I could marry an atheist or an agnostic or even a Christian as long as they accepted me as being a Baha'i.
