Which is worse- bad sex or no sex?

[LaLaLilly]

Well let me throw you a rope then and see what you do next.

I'll answer that later in private

 

[3113]

I'm guessing that, as Liar pointed out, most guys (I say most, not all) will vote bad sex over no sex, because most gents will have a different idea of what bad sex means--and it will probably not mean anything that bad unless the girl brought out a knife in the middle and of things and said, "Let's have some real fun!"

But when a lady thinks "bad sex"...it could have been really bad. I mean painfully, uncomfortably "What-the-fuck-am-I-doing-under-this-man" bad. Women honestly do have a lot of emotional hormones invested in sex that men do not have. The "Sex in the City" girls aside (who seem to have all kinds of bad sexual experiences, some of which would turn me into a nun, but keep going back for more) bad sex can not only physically feel bad, but really stick with a woman.

No sex rather than bad sex.

 

[Tarakin]

Both is real bad. One partner being "ready" and stopping everything is what I don't like. But no sex I can't stand for long either...

 

[jimmy_love_fl]

I'll answer that later in private

I eagerly anticipate it!

 

[where]

I used to think bad sex was worse than no sex when I was getting sex. When I wasn't getting sex I thought bad sex was better than no sex.

And for me, not coming doesn't make it bad sex. If it did, my whole life would have been continuous bad sex with small oasis of good

 

[Guest]

I'd have to vote bad sex.

At least with no sex you can ache and yearn for the act. With bad sex or terrible sex it is sometimes possible to go completely off the act.

And that's just tragic darn it