I would have to take the George Bush approach to this topic as it wouldn't be prudent at this conjure to talk about sex especially on first emails. Or at-least that has been the case for me most of the times.

I completely understand what you are saying and you're right, kinda ..."Some" of the best relationships start slow and build, some happen fast...both can work, both can be the best...
Mark was not talking about any "kindsa" relationship, he was talking about romantic relationships...I totally agree with him...For me, a romantic relationship without sexual intimacy (love making) would not be a romantic relationship...If Mark had qualified, would you still consider his remark dumb?...

LOL....that was great. I had a reply, but this was better :)

no in such a case I would agree with both of you completely. we have had several threads on here in the past asking the very question you raise as to whether sex is necessary for a romance to survive, I think absoultely it is.

I was simply coming from a place that places value on many different kindsa relationships :). Thanks Leigh for the input and the chance to clarify :)

I wasn't looking for love when I met my husband and he wasn't looking for a mate either. So we were happy just being friends with no push or pressure for "more."...He was busy "finding himself" after being married for 20 years. (The first time around.)...I was working and taking 12 units in college each semester and playing "mom" to my growing sons...We were just happy and grateful that we "clicked" so well (as friends) and enjoyed the time we spent together with no thought about falling in love...But 2 years later we did fall in love. (It was unexpected but nice!)...Since I can't see myself "formally dating" for years (or ever) I might run into a man someday and we'll just become friends. (Like I was friends with my husband at first.) And maybe love will enter the picture down the road. (Or not!) But I always enjoy having close friends.

So, isn't it childish to call someone a prude?
The fact that there is no law or rule against using the word doesn't change the nature of the word.

Also, isn't it childish to resort to calling a person a prude because that person expressed an opinion that is contrary to what one believes?

My late wife and I didn't have sexual intercourse with each other until after our wedding, and she and I definitely had a relationship before the wedding.

Also, I have known plenty of happily-married couples who did not have sexual intercourse with each other until they were married.

I have no objection to people having sexual intercourse without marriage. However, it is an error to claim that a premarital relationship cannot survive without sexual intercourse.

Dodo, these things are subjective. No one here is making blanket statements about the importance of sex at this or that point in a relationship. They're saying what works or doesn't for them.

Please try to understand this. Also, please try to understand that using the word prude doesn't necessarily mean you're calling a specific person that, especially to their face, nor that you mean it as an insult. I might say someone is too quiet or shy or short or whatever for me, and none of that would be intended as an insult either... it's just a matter of what doesn't work for me.

I don't think so. You would be challenging their opinion by saying that by expressing it they were being a prude. They could deny that they were being a prude of course but then they would have to say why they were not being a prude. If it is a slur and they recognise that then why would it really bother them unless they thought that being a prude isn't a good thing to be?

Calling homosexuals "queer" used to be just a slur but they embraced the word. Why can't prudes do the same?

Dodo, you have to realize what works for you may not work for others. For many, sex is an important part of a relationship before marriage. For you, it isn't.

Suppose that my critics are correct when they say that the word prude isn't a slur.

If that is the case, then what does the word actually mean?

Well, prude is the feminine form of the Old French word prud, which means virtuous.

So, what does the word virtuous mean?

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition) defines virtuous as "Having or showing virtue, especially moral excellence."

Collins English Dictionary© defines virtuous as "characterized by or possessing virtue or moral excellence; righteous; upright."

Collins Thesaurus of the English Language(Second Edition)© says that an antonym of virtuous is immoral.

So, what is the OP saying with the use of the word prude?

Do you realize that if something works for others, then it is an error to claim that it never works?

I was responding to the claim that a premarital relationship must include sexual intercourse in order for the relationship to be real. Such a claim may be true for the person making the claim, but the claim isn't necessarily true for everyone.

I don't remember seeing others saying it never works. Again, what works for you may not work for others and what works for others may not work for you. Why get upset about what works for others? No one is telling you that you cannot have a relationship without sex. I see people talking about themselves and what they're looking for.

For example, if a guy expressed interest in me, but informed me he wanted to remain celibate until marriage, I would not be interested, as that's not something that I want. I'm not saying it never works at all, but I'm saying it would never work for me. My guess is the person you were replying to was talking about how it wouldn't be a relationship without sex for them. Who knows, though, maybe I'm wrong. But, I know that I cannot say what constitutes a relationship for others, just for myself.

Hasn't he already explained what he meant?

No, not that I can see. He and others have insisted that the word isn't a slur.

Here is what was said:



That above-quoted statement is a generalization, and I challenged its accuracy.

If you feel that saying someone is proper, modest, uncomfortable around nudity and sexuality and things like that is a slur, then no one will be able to change your mind about it.

I'm guessing they were speaking for themselves. But, again, maybe I'm wrong about that. They'll have to speak up and clarify what they meant.

If the person had prefaced his remark by saying "Speaking for myself," then I wouldn't have commented on the remark.

People shouldn't have to put in their post that they're speaking for themselves. I do sometimes, just because people like you, Dodo, assume we're speaking for everyone. Do you assume that everyone is speaking for everyone else unless they specify that they're speaking for themselves?