Is it that hard to find a virgin?

[DracoSuave]

Some may argue they want to "sample" the other person first, this only further illustrates that the prospects of sex take priority over love and commitment. People who truly care for each other don't care for each other because the sex was good. Even if it wasn't spectacular at first, the truth is it can get better as both people get good together. People who care for each other will find a way.

A common perception is that if you have a couple, where one wants has a high libido, and the other has a low libido, that the one with the high libido should simply 'go dry'. The fact is... there's no real good comprimise here. Either the low libido partner is going to suffer the emotional impact of having sex when they aren't feeling it... or the high libido partner is going to suffer the emotional impact of not having the sex their body desires.

There is going to be a sacrifice here, and it might not always lead to a happy relationship. Have you ever seen a highly sexed couple when one of them suddenly loses their libido? This stuff simply can't be brushed aside with 'love will find a way.' There's feelings of rejection involved... the highsexed partner feels undesired, and the lowsexed partner feels inadequate.

Sexual compatibility NEEDS to be considered before marriage... like a lot of other aspects of a relationship. It's not unimportant.

having slept with a virgin before I can say that it is highly overrated. But yeah not hard to find.

It's definately NOT something I'd want to save for a wedding night! Particularily if you have any illusions about it being special or magical... it's not a risk for the guy so much... but for the girl?

Some women hurt for days after. ENJOY THE MAGIC

 

[TheAceTheOne]

You're not after a virgin you're after someone responsible and faithful. You could meet a virgin and full well have glorious sex, only for her to turn around and cheat or not be a virgin at all. Surely virginity would fall behind the two afforementioned traits?

This, so very much.

Virginity shouldn't matter as long as they're responsible and faithful... Azure basically robbed my entire thoughts on this in one comment...

*dramatically flips cape* I take my leave! *bounds away*

 

[Sight Unseen]

I was a virgin until I was 21, never drink, smoke or do drugs, and I met my girlfriend at age 20, who was also a virgin and doesn't smoke or do drugs, but will occasionally have wine or other alcohol, within reason.


Then again, my girlfriend lives nearly 1000 miles and 1 country border away, so it's not exactly ideal.

 

[aei_haruko]

So I have this thing about dating where I won't date anyone who has had sex with another man or who smokes and/or does drugs. Call me old school or call me weird, but it is just part of my moral system. And today, during my sociology class, we got on the topic of sex and dating. I told the class my stand on such and they all chuckled. When I ask what was funny, someone told me that the chance of finding a girl like that now-a-days is almost impossible and that I should just give up on it. And it hit me, every person in my class, which ranged from 9th grade to 12th grade, that everyone had drank beer illegally, smoked pot and chewed, or has had sex multiple times... except me. I could not believe it and even my teacher was not shocked in the least to hear that. He was actually agreeing with it. So basically, what I am as is, are there people who didn't illegally drink, smoke or who hadn't had sex during their high school years?

Edit: Since some one asked, I am from the west coast of the U.S. in Washington.

Edit II: As Azure-Supernova stated:

You're not after a virgin you're after someone responsible and faithful. You could meet a virgin and full well have glorious sex, only for her to turn around and cheat or not be a virgin at all. Surely virginity would fall behind the two afforementioned traits?

I suppose he's definition is a little more what I am looking for. I guess I could drop the virginity issue down a little if I could find faithful and responsible girl. I am still standing strong on not doing illegal drugs and drinking but I could give more leeway on virginity.

I find it funny, how your icon is heath ledgers Joker, and you're talking about how you want morality. Thats pretty irionic. Although to that point, i agree, My girlfriend is a responsible girl, almost to a fault wherin she spends all her time studying, and very little time having fun. But i agree, sadly in todays society, sex and drugs are commonplace, and i find it disturbing

 

[SilentCom]

Some may argue they want to "sample" the other person first, this only further illustrates that the prospects of sex take priority over love and commitment. People who truly care for each other don't care for each other because the sex was good. Even if it wasn't spectacular at first, the truth is it can get better as both people get good together. People who care for each other will find a way.

A common perception is that if you have a couple, where one wants has a high libido, and the other has a low libido, that the one with the high libido should simply 'go dry'. The fact is... there's no real good comprimise here. Either the low libido partner is going to suffer the emotional impact of having sex when they aren't feeling it... or the high libido partner is going to suffer the emotional impact of not having the sex their body desires.

There is going to be a sacrifice here, and it might not always lead to a happy relationship. Have you ever seen a highly sexed couple when one of them suddenly loses their libido? This stuff simply can't be brushed aside with 'love will find a way.' There's feelings of rejection involved... the highsexed partner feels undesired, and the lowsexed partner feels inadequate.

Sexual compatibility NEEDS to be considered before marriage... like a lot of other aspects of a relationship. It's not unimportant.

There are different things people can take to alter their libido levels and frankly this isn't my point anyways. I'm going to use marriage life as an example, it is full of compromises. Ask any married couple that has been together for any significant period of time. They will likely say compromising is one of the most important things. This isn't wrong. Compromising merely shows they you are willing to put your partner's wants and needs before your own. This speaks of loyalty and care more than anything. My point is, if a couple is truly committed and loves each other, they would be willing to find a way to over-come difficulties, even in their sex life.

Also, a happy relationship isn't based on sex. While sex is a factor in the relationship, people need to consider compatibility and commitment first if they are searching for a lasting relationship. It doesn't matter if you are sexually compatible with the other person if they don't have the intention of being true to you. Fixing a libido problem is much easier than fixing a commitment problem.

 

[Jesse Billingsley]

So I have this thing about dating where I won't date anyone who has had sex with another man or who smokes and/or does drugs. Call me old school or call me weird, but it is just part of my moral system. And today, during my sociology class, we got on the topic of sex and dating. I told the class my stand on such and they all chuckled. When I ask what was funny, someone told me that the chance of finding a girl like that now-a-days is almost impossible and that I should just give up on it. And it hit me, every person in my class, which ranged from 9th grade to 12th grade, that everyone had drank beer illegally, smoked pot and chewed, or has had sex multiple times... except me. I could not believe it and even my teacher was not shocked in the least to hear that. He was actually agreeing with it. So basically, what I am as is, are there people who didn't illegally drink, smoke or who hadn't had sex during their high school years?
I suppose he's definition is a little more what I am looking for. I guess I could drop the virginity issue down a little if I could find faithful and responsible girl. I am still standing strong on not doing illegal drugs and drinking but I could give more leeway on virginity.

Number one, it sounds like you have a bunch of jerks for classmates, so don't waste your time with them.

Two, Once you get into college, that "Because everyone is doing it" mentality changes (For some). You will still have those idiots that abuse it, but most people get a little more responsible in regards with substances and sexuality.

And I had the same "dream girl" in mind when I was in high school, doesn't drink, doesn't have sex, but those kinds of girls are hard to find, their there but they are hard to find.

 

[SilentCom]

Some may argue they want to "sample" the other person first, this only further illustrates that the prospects of sex take priority over love and commitment. People who truly care for each other don't care for each other because the sex was good. Even if it wasn't spectacular at first, the truth is it can get better as both people get good together. People who care for each other will find a way.

A common perception is that if you have a couple, where one wants has a high libido, and the other has a low libido, that the one with the high libido should simply 'go dry'. The fact is... there's no real good comprimise here. Either the low libido partner is going to suffer the emotional impact of having sex when they aren't feeling it... or the high libido partner is going to suffer the emotional impact of not having the sex their body desires.

There is going to be a sacrifice here, and it might not always lead to a happy relationship. Have you ever seen a highly sexed couple when one of them suddenly loses their libido? This stuff simply can't be brushed aside with 'love will find a way.' There's feelings of rejection involved... the highsexed partner feels undesired, and the lowsexed partner feels inadequate.

Sexual compatibility NEEDS to be considered before marriage... like a lot of other aspects of a relationship. It's not unimportant.

There are different things people can take to alter their libido levels and frankly this isn't my point anyways. I'm going to use marriage life as an example, it is full of compromises. Ask any married couple that has been together for any significant period of time. They will likely say compromising is one of the most important things. This isn't wrong. Compromising merely shows they you are willing to put your partner's wants and needs before your own. This speaks of loyalty and care more than anything. My point is, if a couple is truly committed and loves each other, they would be willing to find a way to over-come difficulties, even in their sex life.

Also, a happy relationship isn't based on sex. While sex is a factor in the relationship, people need to consider compatibility and commitment first if they are searching for a lasting relationship. It doesn't matter if you are sexually compatible with the other person if they don't have the intention of being true to you. Fixing a libido problem is much easier than fixing a commitment problem.

People have killed others and themselves over sex. People lie, cheat, steal, bully, beat, abuse and enslave for sex. I am not saying sex HAS to be important, but mearly pointing out IT CAN BE important, and it can be THAT important to someone. There is some subjectivity there, and that can be a problem.

Say the husband doesnt think sex is all that important (a reversal of the common sexual stereotype) and the wife does. To the husband having his wife compromise her sexual desires should be no big deal. The wife would disaggree. For the husband to be fair he would need to understand just what such a compromise means to the wife. This will be hard for him if he insists that sex isnt and shouldnt be important to anyone...

People have killed others and themselves over pretty much anything. Also, if they are that sex crazed, then they very likely value sex more than commitment and likely have already had sex with many people. I mean, if they are willing to kill so they may have sex, then we all know what they value more in a relationship. My point is still the same. If someone (or a couple) values commitment more than sex, then that couple will find a way to fix any problems that occur in bed.

 

[Bebus]

I feel there is a lengthy point here to be made about the subjective and (mostly) hypocritical nature of morality, but it can be summed up with the following statement:

OP, grow up.

 

[Ravenbom]

If you're in high school, most of the people will be virgins, they're just afraid to admit it in front of other people.



I think you've got naive priorities though. If you're expecting someone to be faithful you should work on being a good BF/GF first and foremost.

Nobody wants to hear this but there's two people in a relationship and if one of them cheats it's almost as much the fault of the person who didn't cheat as the person who cheated. Cheaters aren't born cheaters, they're driven to it.

It's one of life's balancing acts, you can drive a girl away by smothering her with affection as much as you can drive her away by treating her like shit.

Guys really need to nut up and take some responsibility when their girl cheats.

 

[DracoSuave]

Some may argue they want to "sample" the other person first, this only further illustrates that the prospects of sex take priority over love and commitment. People who truly care for each other don't care for each other because the sex was good. Even if it wasn't spectacular at first, the truth is it can get better as both people get good together. People who care for each other will find a way.

A common perception is that if you have a couple, where one wants has a high libido, and the other has a low libido, that the one with the high libido should simply 'go dry'. The fact is... there's no real good comprimise here. Either the low libido partner is going to suffer the emotional impact of having sex when they aren't feeling it... or the high libido partner is going to suffer the emotional impact of not having the sex their body desires.

There is going to be a sacrifice here, and it might not always lead to a happy relationship. Have you ever seen a highly sexed couple when one of them suddenly loses their libido? This stuff simply can't be brushed aside with 'love will find a way.' There's feelings of rejection involved... the highsexed partner feels undesired, and the lowsexed partner feels inadequate.

Sexual compatibility NEEDS to be considered before marriage... like a lot of other aspects of a relationship. It's not unimportant.

There are different things people can take to alter their libido levels and frankly this isn't my point anyways. I'm going to use marriage life as an example, it is full of compromises. Ask any married couple that has been together for any significant period of time. They will likely say compromising is one of the most important things. This isn't wrong. Compromising merely shows they you are willing to put your partner's wants and needs before your own. This speaks of loyalty and care more than anything. My point is, if a couple is truly committed and loves each other, they would be willing to find a way to over-come difficulties, even in their sex life.

Also, a happy relationship isn't based on sex. While sex is a factor in the relationship, people need to consider compatibility and commitment first if they are searching for a lasting relationship. It doesn't matter if you are sexually compatible with the other person if they don't have the intention of being true to you. Fixing a libido problem is much easier than fixing a commitment problem.

People have killed others and themselves over sex. People lie, cheat, steal, bully, beat, abuse and enslave for sex. I am not saying sex HAS to be important, but mearly pointing out IT CAN BE important, and it can be THAT important to someone. There is some subjectivity there, and that can be a problem.

Say the husband doesnt think sex is all that important (a reversal of the common sexual stereotype) and the wife does. To the husband having his wife compromise her sexual desires should be no big deal. The wife would disaggree. For the husband to be fair he would need to understand just what such a compromise means to the wife. This will be hard for him if he insists that sex isnt and shouldnt be important to anyone...

People have killed others and themselves over pretty much anything. Also, if they are that sex crazed, then they very likely value sex more than commitment and likely have already had sex with many people. I mean, if they are willing to kill so they may have sex, then we all know what they value more in a relationship. My point is still the same. If someone (or a couple) values commitment more than sex, then that couple will find a way to fix any problems that occur in bed.

He's using an extreme to prove a point.

Here's another way of looking at it:

If sex is less important than commitment, then why would the husband feel betrayed if she went and had sex with someone else? You can't have it that sex is less important than commitment for this woman, but that sex is a part of commitment for the man. Either it is, or it is not.

The truth is, commitment includes sex in a monogamous relationship. Sex comes with feelings of intense intimacy, and yes, someone who feels sexual desire like that IS going to feel a strong loss if they cannot express it without hurting their partner.

It is a comprimise, but to say such drivel that 'sex is less important than commitment' is not comprimise. In fact, it's a refusal to understand the highly-sexed person's side of things. It's a refusal to even acknowledge the other side has a point.

If one partner is oversexed, and the other is undersexed, it is NOT a comprimise to say 'sex is less important than commitment.' That's just stating undersexed viewpoint. It is not the seeking of a workable middle ground.

If you're in high school, most of the people will be virgins, they're just afraid to admit it in front of other people.

DING!

I think you've got naive priorities though. If you're expecting someone to be faithful you should work on being a good BF/GF first and foremost.

DING!

Nobody wants to hear this but there's two people in a relationship and if one of them cheats it's almost as much the fault of the person who didn't cheat as the person who cheated. Cheaters aren't born cheaters, they're driven to it.

DING!

It's one of life's balancing acts, you can drive a girl away by smothering her with affection as much as you can drive her away by treating her like shit.

DING!

Guys really need to nut up and take some responsibility when their girl cheats.

DING!

Five points for you! That's enough to make it to the lightning round... TELL THEM WHAT THEY WON BOB!

 

[chadachada123]

I fail to see how wanting to experience a wide range of things is "disturbing."

Because you're trying to include "Sex with minors" on that wide range of things. The lowest US age of consent is 16.

I want to try everything in life out just to see what it's like, or just to say I have. Sky-diving? Hell yeah. Drugs? Why not? So long as they're safe. Dating girls from many backgrounds to try to get a better understanding of human nature? Yeah, I don't see a problem with this.

Wait, what? "From many backgrounds"? You're not talking about girls who come from different parts of the country, or have a different religion or ethnicity. You're talking about girls who are barely teens an your quest to seek out and deflower them.

On my list of things I want to accomplish in life, the sex category has a bunch of subsections. For example, I'd like to one day have sex with a fat chick just for the hell of it, but I wouldn't do it under false pretenses because I'm no longer a dick.

...wait, what? What "false pretenses" would there be when your goal is "I'd like to...have sex with a fat chick just for the hell of it"? Are you going to say outright "I want to fuck you because you're fat"?

Ditto for a particularly tall chick, just for the hell of it. It's not that I particularly "want" to, but more that, if given the chance, I would go for it to add to the number of different experiences I've had.

...there is so much wrong with that sentence when it's being used to talk about sex.

And pardon me, I should have clarified. I see no problem with freshmen dating seniors as long as their is mutual understanding, no coercion or abuse of power.

And that's the problem. My point was that the difference in age becomes less and less of an issue as you get older for you and people close to your age. If you thought an 18 year old being with a 14 year old was creepy when you were in that age range, it doesn't suddenly seem okay once you're 20 because she's still 14, and he's still 18.

I truly question your reading comprehension. I'm not talking about MYSELF having sex with freshmen here. Besides, the law has nothing to do with this, since some states have exemptions in the law making sex among minors legal if they're within several years of each other.

Regarding fat chicks, again, maybe you should learn to read before posting an attack on it. I contend that, as long as I make it clear that I'm not in it for a relationship, there is nothing wrong with casual sex, and I would like to experience said casual sex with a wide variety of people. This includes fat chicks, skinny chicks, tall chicks, black chicks, what-have-you. There is nothing wrong about wanting casual sex, nor is there anything wrong with wanting to explore and experiment with people of a diverse background.

Now, apparently I have to reiterate this since you didn't read it the first several times, but I IN NO WAY SAID THAT I WAS LOOKING TO HAVE SEX WITH A 14 YEAR OLD. I would like to, if possible, have sex with a virgin, like with the fat chick, etc.

Additionally, I AM NOT SEEKING OUT THESE PARTNERS. There is a massive difference, and if you understood the English language or at least read my other posts you would see this, between "I prefer virgins" or "I seek out virgins" and "I'd like to have sex with, among other groups, a virgin someday."

Are you ready to stop throwing ad hominems and other fallacies around?

 

[dstryfe]

The problem isn't that you had wanted merely a virgin, or someone who didn't smoke, or someone who had never gotten intoxicated...it's that you wanted all three. I knew a few virgins in high school (not so sure now), I knew a few (okay, plenty of) people who didn't smoke, and I knew a few people who had never tried drugs or alcohol. Thing is, there was never overlap.

Sure, there were virgins who didn't smoke, and there were non-smokers who hadn't touched drugs or anything, and there were even druggies/drunks who had never had sex. I can't say for certain that there was even a single person who had all three of those traits in high school, though.

Watering your search criteria down to your second edit...I'm pullin' for ya. We're all in this together.

 

[Accountfailed]

So I have this thing about dating where I won't date anyone who has had sex with another man or who smokes and/or does drugs.

Somebody is either OCD or has their standards WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too high.

just callin' it like I see it.

 

[loc978]

...hate to say it, but I would have chuckled right along with the rest of the class. As far as I'm concerned, the only morality involved in sex and drugs(yes, tobacco is a delivery system for a drug, so it's included in that) would be the responsibility to take such things in moderation. I tend to view Straightedge philosophies as being for the weak-willed... avoiding excess by avoiding everything is not a healthy reaction.

 

[Pyramid Head]

Oh it's easy to find a virgin. Just go to Gamestop.
HA! Oh wait, this is a serious topic. It's not something you should fret. Get to know a person well and don't be afraid to explore physical intimacy, now that we have contraceptives and sexual education sexual exploration is a lot more safe.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

Well the only girls I know that I can say with any certainty are virgins are around 14-15 still. Or uber-christians. Or not very attractive (hate to put it like that but its true.) So good luck with that.

I never had sex until almost legal age (which is 16 here) but I've drunk illegally since I was about 13. Would have had no qualms about smoking either but I find everything about it unappealing, so I haven't done that. I don't view whether girls I'm with are virgins or not as particularly important, and I can overlook smoking, drinking or even doing drugs (to an extent) although if I like someone I generally try to curb any particularly bad habits. Out of worry for them and also cos most people are goddamn annoying on drugs.

 

[dickywebster]

Their not hard to find, but they tend to be the less socially active people, peer preasure is the single biggest reason for losing your virginity in the various social circles im part of.

Oh and then theres always the cultures that frown on that sort of thing as well, but really it depends what your looking for beyond been a good girl.

 

[xochiquetzal]

But what it you find a girl and you fall in love and then she confesses that she loved with someone before you?

Will you leave her because of that?

Cuz if you don't, you might as well not have the rules and follow your heart.

And if you do leave your love because she's not "pure", then you'll be braking her and yours heart because of you own stupid arbitrary rules on how you want a partner to behave.

 

[Mavinchious Maximus]

Well my new cult (The cult of Cerberus) has been sacrificing the virgins of our town for about two weeks now trying to summon our leader, and we are in a low supply of them now as-well.

Do you have a cult in your town?

 

[SilentCom]

Some may argue they want to "sample" the other person first, this only further illustrates that the prospects of sex take priority over love and commitment. People who truly care for each other don't care for each other because the sex was good. Even if it wasn't spectacular at first, the truth is it can get better as both people get good together. People who care for each other will find a way.

A common perception is that if you have a couple, where one wants has a high libido, and the other has a low libido, that the one with the high libido should simply 'go dry'. The fact is... there's no real good comprimise here. Either the low libido partner is going to suffer the emotional impact of having sex when they aren't feeling it... or the high libido partner is going to suffer the emotional impact of not having the sex their body desires.

There is going to be a sacrifice here, and it might not always lead to a happy relationship. Have you ever seen a highly sexed couple when one of them suddenly loses their libido? This stuff simply can't be brushed aside with 'love will find a way.' There's feelings of rejection involved... the highsexed partner feels undesired, and the lowsexed partner feels inadequate.

Sexual compatibility NEEDS to be considered before marriage... like a lot of other aspects of a relationship. It's not unimportant.

There are different things people can take to alter their libido levels and frankly this isn't my point anyways. I'm going to use marriage life as an example, it is full of compromises. Ask any married couple that has been together for any significant period of time. They will likely say compromising is one of the most important things. This isn't wrong. Compromising merely shows they you are willing to put your partner's wants and needs before your own. This speaks of loyalty and care more than anything. My point is, if a couple is truly committed and loves each other, they would be willing to find a way to over-come difficulties, even in their sex life.

Also, a happy relationship isn't based on sex. While sex is a factor in the relationship, people need to consider compatibility and commitment first if they are searching for a lasting relationship. It doesn't matter if you are sexually compatible with the other person if they don't have the intention of being true to you. Fixing a libido problem is much easier than fixing a commitment problem.

People have killed others and themselves over sex. People lie, cheat, steal, bully, beat, abuse and enslave for sex. I am not saying sex HAS to be important, but mearly pointing out IT CAN BE important, and it can be THAT important to someone. There is some subjectivity there, and that can be a problem.

Say the husband doesnt think sex is all that important (a reversal of the common sexual stereotype) and the wife does. To the husband having his wife compromise her sexual desires should be no big deal. The wife would disaggree. For the husband to be fair he would need to understand just what such a compromise means to the wife. This will be hard for him if he insists that sex isnt and shouldnt be important to anyone...

People have killed others and themselves over pretty much anything. Also, if they are that sex crazed, then they very likely value sex more than commitment and likely have already had sex with many people. I mean, if they are willing to kill so they may have sex, then we all know what they value more in a relationship. My point is still the same. If someone (or a couple) values commitment more than sex, then that couple will find a way to fix any problems that occur in bed.

He's using an extreme to prove a point.

Here's another way of looking at it:

If sex is less important than commitment, then why would the husband feel betrayed if she went and had sex with someone else? You can't have it that sex is less important than commitment for this woman, but that sex is a part of commitment for the man. Either it is, or it is not.

The truth is, commitment includes sex in a monogamous relationship. Sex comes with feelings of intense intimacy, and yes, someone who feels sexual desire like that IS going to feel a strong loss if they cannot express it without hurting their partner.

It is a comprimise, but to say such drivel that 'sex is less important than commitment' is not comprimise. In fact, it's a refusal to understand the highly-sexed person's side of things. It's a refusal to even acknowledge the other side has a point.

If one partner is oversexed, and the other is undersexed, it is NOT a comprimise to say 'sex is less important than commitment.' That's just stating undersexed viewpoint. It is not the seeking of a workable middle ground.

I agree that sex is part of the commitment, the fact that a person would feel betrayed when their partner cheats on them has less to do with sex and more to do with them breaking that trust. However, that is not what I'm arguing against, the truth is that people will hurt each other. I mean how many perfect relationships are there out there? None. This is because no one is perfect. The difference is that if people did not mean to harm each other and care for each other in a relationship, they can fix these problems. Like I have stated before, there are different things a couple can do or use to help with their sexual levels. What I'm saying is that if a couple is not committed in the first place, then sexual difficulties in addition to other difficulties will likely break that relationship. Commitment isn't just about staying with someone. Commitment is about compromising, which including listening to their perspective. If they want more or less sex, you must be willing to work with them some kind of compromise. Just because the couple decides to be committed to each other doesn't mean they won't have sex, it just means they won't bang someone else and violate each others trust.

People have killed others and themselves over pretty much anything. Also, if they are that sex crazed, then they very likely value sex more than commitment and likely have already had sex with many people. I mean, if they are willing to kill so they may have sex, then we all know what they value more in a relationship. My point is still the same. If someone (or a couple) values commitment more than sex, then that couple will find a way to fix any problems that occur in bed.

You misunderstand, when John Smith comes home and finds his wife banging the milkman, and in a fit of rage kills the milkman. That is because of sex. You could say it was because she betrayed Mr. Smith. However, if Mrs. Smith's betrayal consisted of her lying about buying 1 dress when she really bought 2, then a murderous rage suddenly seems less justified.

So in which direction do you think the compromise should go? Should partner A just deal with having less sex, or should partner B try to overcome the hang-ups they have?

I have to say, since you are so ready to label someone as "sex crazed" I have a suspicion which side you will take, which, if true,kind of prooves my point.

If the couple was really committed to each other, then John Smith's wife wouldn't be banging the milkman in the first place. Also, if there is some kind of difficulty in their sexual relationship, they would find a way to fix it if they were really committed to each other.

Also, you don't seem to understand that compromise isn't about going one way or the other, compromise is about finding a middle ground and coming into agreement. The couple could take medication or drugs (non-illegal) to help with their libido difference and have more or less sex if they decide so. The point is, when a couple is in a relationship, it isn't about an individuals wants. Entering a relationship thinking only about what you can get out of it is a bad idea. A relationship isn't about the individual, it is about the couple.