Either or both. My own experience has been that the latter has more chance of success. But casual sex has its uses, and will always have a fond place in my heart. Because that's the only place I can put it now that I'm married.
2006-09-21 08:31:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You can't have sex without intimacy (a close relationship) but you can have intimacy without sex. But you're leaving out the whole question of emotional connection which can certainly be absent from a sexual realtionship or intimacy.
2006-09-21 15:41:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by DelK 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
An already established intimacy brings about a sexual relationship, for sure.
For example, one doesn't necessarily have an understanding, "intimate" relationship with a prostitute, 'cos he or she is only in it for the sex. But, when you are, genuinely, in love with someone, it makes you wanna have a sexual relationship with that person.
2006-09-21 15:31:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Idealy the intimacy should come first. As the "act" is a sharing of the most intimate nature. A giving, literaly, of ones self to another, I have always felt that I wanted to know as much as possable of the intimate nature of the one I was concidering shareing myself with.... this is not a foolproof aproach to the mateing game...but dose eliminate some of the more negative side affects.
2006-09-21 15:31:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by IdahoMike 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Intimacy begets intimacy.
Sexual relationships don't neccesarily move beyond physical intimacy.
I'm quite intimate with many friends I've never or probably will never have sex with.
2006-09-21 15:26:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Both can happen, depending upon the conditions.
2006-09-21 15:25:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by dragon77 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
It can go both ways.
2006-09-21 15:49:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by jasondne 2
·
0⤊
0⤋