Hi guys,so its another Sunday, time to add to my collection.Relax and enjoy.

Have you heard about Jeff and Ella, hmmmm they've become intimate o.If my guess is right when you hear that a couple have become "intimate"you assume they have done the "thing" but intimacy means more than just having sex,it is highly possible to become intimate with the opposite sex and yet not be involved sexually.
How do you attain intimacy then?Intimacy progresses through several stages,when you first met a person it goes from stranger to acquaintance stage afterwards you may progress to friendship, at this point it is possible to move into intimacy. An intimate relationship is one in which trust and honesty are evident in an atmosphere where both parties do not fear undue criticism of their thoughts feelings and worries. Openness is quite inherent here,each person should be comfortable with oneself without having to be coy. Independence is allowed for without accusations since honesty and openness are hallmarks of the relationship.
Once a couple prematurely begins a sexual relationship, emotional intimacy tends to level off,both parties become objects to be used instead of persons to be loved,even though they may not intend this and will hardly admit to seeing each other that way. If you need sex to express love,then you have only formed a superficial bond. It is also possible to achieve physical intimacy without ever approaching emotional intimacy, some of us have gone this route and you know exactly what I mean.You moved rapidly into a physically intimate stage too early and you concluded that a passing infatuation was genuine love.Any male and female can successful mate provided they have an opportunity to,emotional intimacy requires more of a personal investment.
So its quite clear,oh yes we can develop intimacy without sex.As much as it could be difficult to refrain from sex when you are physically attracted to your partner, it is entirely possible and greatly advantageous to develop emotional intimacy FIRST.

your point is noted but utopian.

Awesome piece! I couldn't get the smile off my face while reading through. I think the title didn't really hit the nail on the head though.


Lalasticlala

shrewd1:
your point is noted but utopian.

Utopian you say? I don't think it's quixotic and it's not. What are your reasons for your stance?

these are classic textbook stuffs the op is stating. in practical terms? Unless you want to talk bible