Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)

- The Quiet Place (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=8)

- - The Downside of Sex (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=16173)

blue	Dec 14, 2006 12:17 PM

The Downside of Sex

Now, as someone who has never had sex before, I cannot speak with a great deal of experience. However, I got a very interesting e-mail from my dad today with a link to the article below (which can be found in its entirety here).

When I was younger, I was very much opposed to sex because of my strict religious upbringing. However, within the past couple of years, I have been "rebelling" against the legalistic environment in which I grew up, and have been engaging in all those horribly sinful pleasures (<--SEMI-SARCASM) like smoking, getting tattoos (err 1), cursing, drinking alcohol (even before I was 21! SHOCK.), and having a "friend with benefits" (not to the point of sex, clearly). So I ask myself, why haven't I broached that other vice?

This article told me why. I think I have always had a very strong and clear intuition that sex would hurt me. Do I think all women become emotionally damaged by sex without attachment? No. Do I think I would? Absolutely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpinionJournal

'Unprotected'
Sexual freedom is damaging to students. But health officials must not judge.

BY DANIELLE CRITTENDEN
Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

"My patients were hurting, they looked to me and what could I do?" So confesses an anonymous campus physician in the beginning of her startling memoir. Over the course of 200 pages, she tells story after story about suffering young women. If these women were ailing from eating disorders, or substance abuse, or almost any other medical or psychological problem, their university health departments would spring to their aid. "Cardiologists hound patients about fatty diets and insufficient exercise. Pediatricians encourage healthy snacks, helmets and discussion of drugs and alcohol. Everyone condemns smoking and tanning beds."

Unfortunately, the young women described in "Unprotected" have fallen victim to one of the few personal troubles that our caring professions refuse to treat or even acknowledge: They have been made miserable by their "sexual choices." And on that subject, few modern doctors dare express a word of judgment.

Thus the danger of sexually transmitted diseases is too often overlooked in the lifestyle choices of the young women at the unnamed college where the author works. But the dangers go far beyond the biological. A girl named Heather, for instance, has succumbed to an intense bout of depression. The doctor presses her to think of possible causes. She can't think of anything. Then she says: "Well, I can think of one thing: since Thanksgiving, I've had a 'friend with benefits.' And actually I'm kind of confused about that."
Heather continues: "I want to spend more time with him, and do stuff like go shopping or see a movie. That would make it a friendship for me. But he says no, because if we do those things, then in his opinion we'd have a relationship--and that's more than he wants. And I'm confused, because it seems like I don't get the 'friend' part, but he still gets the 'benefits.'" It finally dawns on her: "I'm really unhappy about that. It's hard to be with him and then go home and be alone."

Heather is not an unrepresentative case. The author meets patients who cannot sleep, who mutilate themselves, who exhibit every symptom of psychic distress. Often they don't even know why they feel the way they do. As these girls see it, they are acting like sensible, responsible adults: They practice "safe sex" and limit their partners to a mere two or three per year.

They are following the best advice that modern psychology can offer. They are enjoying their sexual freedom, experimenting, discovering themselves. They can't understand what might be wrong. And yet something is wrong. As the author observes, surveys have found that "sexually active teenage girls were more than three times as likely to be depressed, and nearly three times as likely to have had a suicide attempt, than girls who were not sexually active."

And should all this joyous experimentation end in externally verifiable effects--should girls find themselves afflicted with a disease or an unwanted pregnancy--then (and only then) do their campus "women's health" departments go to work for them. They will book the abortion, hand out a condom or prescribe a course of antibiotic treatment. And then they will pat their young patients on the shoulder and send them back into the world, without an admonishing word about the conduct that got them into trouble in the first place.

"Look at how different health decisions are valued," the author advises. "When Stacey avoids fatty foods she is being health conscious. . . . When she stays away from alcohol, she is being responsible and resisting her impulses. For all these she is endorsed for keeping long-term goals in mind instead of giving in to peer pressure and immediate gratification. But if she makes a conscious decision to delay sexual activity, she's simply 'not sexually active'--given no praise or endorsement."

Soluzar

Dec 14, 2006 01:18 PM

How is this article about "The Downside of Sex" exactly? It's about the downside of unprotected sex, or the downside of STDs and unwanted pregancy. I fail to see any downside to sex within a committed relationship.

I agree with everything LeHah wrote, as well. The article sounds like it was written by a hardcore conservative christian, who wants to foist their own views on everyone else. America has plenty of 'em. I notice that your own comments on the article are slightly more intelligent thatn the article itself, but the article is pure and unadulterated crap.

blue	Dec 14, 2006 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Sorry I wasn't more specific in my title selection. I suppose the article is about the downside of uncommitted sex--specifically, among college-aged women.

I would certainly not be surprised if the article was written by a conservative Christian, but I hardly see this as a reason to discredit it. I think that there can be damaging emotional side effects of sex without committment ASIDE from STDs and pregnancy. No one will argue (well, I'm sure someone will, actually) that sex is a very powerful and binding physical act. With power comes risk.

Also, as for your not seeing any downsides to sex in a committed relationship, I would have to respectfully disagree. "Committed relationships" are so frequent, it seems--a college student may have several of what they consider to be "committed relationships." But when you move on to the next one, the residue of those old ones may still remain. I cannot even begin to imagine how much harder it would have been to get over my ex-bf of 3 years if I had gone that extra step. It's hard enough as it is. I certainly think that a lot of it depends on one's sensitivity and exposure, however.

Vampiro

Dec 14, 2006 01:38 PM

There's a downside to everything. If you're not a fucking dolt, you can usually work your way around it and completely avoid said downside. Shit, of course it's not a good idea to have unprotected sex... who doesn't know that at this point? And of course there can be some emotional turbulence whenever sex is involved. But that's where not being an idiot comes into play. You're going to go through tough times in life, get over it and enjoy yourself now. If that means you have to stop whining about your asshole boyfriend, or realise sex can be fantastic if you're not a slut, then so be it.

lol life is ez

Soluzar

Dec 14, 2006 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb and spanglish

Sorry I wasn't more specific in my title selection. I suppose the article is about the downside of uncommitted sex--specifically, among college-aged women.

Well yeah. It only bothers me insofar as it might appear that this article is being used as an argument against all sexual relations, which is a concept that I find repugnant.

Quote:

I would certainly not be surprised if the article was written by a conservative Christian, but I hardly see this as a reason to discredit it.

The article discredits itself quite well without my help, and my comment about the personal beliefs of the author was not intended to assist with that process. Instead my comment was intended to address the pernicious attitude that the personal beliefs of any individual or group should be forced upon those who do not share them.

Quote:

I think that there can be damaging emotional side effects of sex without committment ASIDE from STDs and pregnancy.

I would challenge you to go for an entire day without doing something that can have damaging side-effects of one kind or another. Do you plan to give up everything which could have damaging side-effects? I'd start with alcohol if I were you, and proceed from there.

Quote:

No one will argue (well, I'm sure someone will, actually) that sex is a very powerful and binding physical act. With power comes risk.

It may well be so for you. It may well be so for me. For some people, it is not so complex. You would assume that all people fit your mold, if you make that statement without qualification.

Even if I accept your statements at face value, I must insist that you live by your stated beliefs, and give up all activities that you indulge in that have an element of risk.

Quote:

Also, as for your not seeing any downsides to sex in a committed relationship, I would have to respectfully disagree. "Committed relationships" are so frequent, it seems--a college student may have several of what they consider to be "committed relationships."

I'll be forced to respectfully disagree with you in return. It's not a committed relationship unless it fulfils the definition of such. College kids who sleep in each other's dorm rooms for three months might consider it to be a committed relationship, but that doesn't automatically make it so. Some of these pairings may develop into committed relationships, but some of them are just flings, and those involved will realise that once they have moved on.

Quote:

But when you move on to the next one, the residue of those old ones may still remain.

Residue. You make it sound so dirty. To what are you referring when you say that? If you're referring to physical 'residue' such as diseases and unwanted pregancy, then I'm going to be forced to point that protection against such things is readily available both on campus and at your corner drugstore, and has a high degree of effectiveness. One is not taking a significant risk, if all relevant precautions are taken.

If on the other hand you are referring to emotional residue, then I cannot deny this. Of course one should only have sex when one is ready to do so. That simple statement falls far short of the sentiments presented in this article, though.

Since you brought the concept up, it is my view that being "friends with benefits" tends to leave a far more toxic emotional residue than casual sex in other contexts. I'll be glad to explain why this is my view, if you wish. I do have logical arguments with which to support the assertion.

Quote:

I cannot even begin to imagine how much harder it would have been to get over my ex-bf of 3 years if I had gone that extra step. It's hard enough as it is.

You're assuming that it would have been any harder. While I can't say that the possibility doesn't exist, it's never going to be easy to break up with anyone after three years. It's not always easy to break up with someone even after a much shorter time together than that. It's possible that after three years of a loving relationship, breaking up is already as hard as it is going to get, regardless of whether the relationship was physical or not.

Don't forget that if you had decided to sleep with him, you would have probably become accustomed to sex, unless you had just begun to sleep with him at the time of the breakup. You can't imagine that your attitudes to sex would have remained the same.

Quote:

I certainly think that a lot of it depends on one's sensitivity and exposure, however.

I'm glad you do recognise this. People aren't all the same in their attitude to sex, and sex doesn't affect everyone in the same way. The attitudes contained within this article may well work for you, and if they do, then that is a good thing. Do not make the mistake of considering that it might be the right attitude for everyone.

nadienne

Dec 14, 2006 02:20 PM

LeHah, learn to express your opinions civilly, or get banned from the thread.

I poked it and it made a sad sound

Dec 14, 2006 02:36 PM

Wow. Blue, I can't believe you're considering that article as valid.

Are you a stupid girl? I really don't think you are - I think you're very intelligent. Based on that assumption, I figure you're nothing like the girls this "author" is studying.

The girls SHOULD be confused. If they can't properly assess a situation wherein they're being taken advantage of, and they get confused about it, maybe they shouldn't be sexually active. If you're not adult enough to weigh options and look at a situation, you probably shouldn't be involved in an act that could potentially make you responsible for another fucking human being.

Sex isn't just a physical activity, it's also an exercise in controlling emotions, sometimes - for those who are NOT confused and who are assured in their wants and needs, casual sex is cool.

But for poor, stupid, confused little girls like the one who was listed in the article, I say she deserves to be confused. If she's that blind as to be "confused" by what her "friend with benefits" is up to, man. She deserves worse. Girls need to learn how to assess situations. Goddamn.

But seriously, I don't see why anyone should be up in some other person's sexual business. Yea, girls aren't fucking applauded for keeping their legs shut. Should we applaud them when they successfully take a piss, too?

I'm offended, honestly, by the need to "give praise" to every person who does good. You should WANT to do good, and you should do it without expectation of fucking PRAISE. We're not dogs, people. We don't need a treat or a good word said after every good thing we do.

Girls shouldn't be applauded when they don't act like sluts. They should have been raised to know that acting like a slut MEANS, and that it's probably bad - IDENTIFY when you're acting like one.

Sir VG

Dec 14, 2006 02:43 PM

Quote:

You should WANT to do good, and you should do it without expectation of fucking PRAISE.

I don't see it as necessarily being about giving praise. Today's society seems to be that if you're not having sex, you're a very bad person. IOW, it's not about praise, it's about not slandering somebody for making a healthy choice.

I poked it and it made a sad sound

Dec 14, 2006 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir VG

They mentioned praise-giving in the last paragraph in the article:

Quote:

"When Stacey avoids fatty foods she is being health conscious. . . . When she stays away from alcohol, she is being responsible and resisting her impulses. For all these she is endorsed for keeping long-term goals in mind instead of giving in to peer pressure and immediate gratification. But if she makes a conscious decision to delay sexual activity, she's simply 'not sexually active'--given no praise or endorsement."

And who slanders a girl for not putting out? I mean, yea, there are cockteases out there (which are just as bad as sluts, I guess), but if a girl wants to stay abstinent from sex, who is to tell her it's a BAD choice? It's certainly better than getting taken advantage of, right?

Personally, I think it's a good choice. If you're unsure, don't partake in sex. Probably one of the more mature decisions a girl could make.

Sir VG

Dec 14, 2006 02:50 PM

Well, I certainly hope they don't mean that at the end of the day, you pat them on the back saying "GOOD JOB FOR NOT HAVING SEX".

Quote:

And who slanders a girl for not putting out?

You must have had a pretty good high school then if a girl who wasn't putting out didn't get talked about the wrong way.

Little Brenty Brent Brent

Dec 14, 2006 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I'm offended, honestly, by the need to "give praise" to every person who does good. You should WANT to do good, and you should do it without expectation of fucking PRAISE. We're not dogs, people. We don't need a treat or a good word said after every good thing we do.

When I was reading that, you turned into Chris Rock in my mind, and it was awesome. "I ain't never been to jail." "What you want, a cookie? You're not supposed to go to jail, low expectation-havin' mother fucker!" I agree completely.

I poked it and it made a sad sound

Dec 14, 2006 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir VG

Well, I certainly hope they don't mean that at the end of the day, you pat them on the back saying "GOOD JOB FOR NOT HAVING SEX".

Maybe it's me, but it kind of seemed that last paragraph of the article WAS chastizing us all for NOT giving praise to these girls for not sleeping around.

Quote:

You must have had a pretty good high school then if a girl who wasn't putting out didn't get talked about the wrong way.

I wouldn't know. I didn't make it a habit of going out with men who would spread ridiculous rumors because I didn't fuck them.

I went to an inner-city school. We had better things to do than spread stupid rumors about the girls of the school. We were too busy getting high and getting drunk during the school day to care. So Jenny did/didn't sleep with Bobby. WHO CARES. Pass me the bong.

But seriously, these kinds of rumors rarely affected an entire school. Hell, I didn't even know everyone I GRADUATED with. So many students, so many different cliques.

Brent, we finally agree on something. <3

Sarag

Dec 14, 2006 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb and spanglish

Sorry I wasn't more specific in my title selection. I suppose the article is about the downside of uncommitted sex--specifically, among college-aged women.

Well, that's fine then. If you feel you'd have a bad reaction to uncomitted sex, then don't do it. Problem solved.

But sex within a comitted relationship is something else.

Plainsman

Dec 15, 2006 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I disagree. We are, to a LARGE extent, creatures of positive reinforcement. For example, ask any psychologist the most successful way for overcoming unwanted behaviors -- positive reinforcement for a WANTED behavior. It's not our lack of willpower or desire to "Do good," it's the way our brains our wired.

As far as sexual relationships, I think I should let it known that I'm pretty conservative. I was a football player through grade school. I went to "Jock Parties," I dated cheerleaders. I'm not a virgin. I know what it's all about. I'm not going to say that all "casual sex," is bad. However, in my experience, most sexual encounters give people baggage they have to carry to the next relationship. This is especially true of the girls I've known, but also guys. I know a married couple, where the husband can't hold the wife a certain way because it reminds her of a drunken orgy she was involved in. It's an extreme example, but one that I hope my marriage doesn't resemble.

My current girlfriend is a virgin. I've never known a girl like her, she is so special. I'm determined to keep her pure until we marry, or she marries someone else.

FallDragon

Dec 15, 2006 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plainsman

I'm determined to keep her pure until we marry, or she marries someone else.

lol @ "pure"

Idealizing virginity much?

I poked it and it made a sad sound

Dec 15, 2006 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plainsman

So you do need a cookie every time you bathe?

The positive reinforcement humans receive is usually not in the form of a reward from another (because thats just silly), but more of an emotional satisfaction.

Quote:

As far as sexual relationships, I think I should let it known that I'm pretty conservative. I was a football player through grade school. I went to "Jock Parties," I dated cheerleaders. I'm not a virgin. I know what it's all about. I'm not going to say that all "casual sex," is bad. However, in my experience, most sexual encounters give people baggage they have to carry to the next relationship.

I'd like to hear what you think "most" sexual encounters offer up as baggage.

Seriously, no offense, but what the hell are you talking about.

Sexual relationship don't offer up baggage - fucking EMOTIONAL relationships do. They don't necessarily go hand-in-hand, I am SURE Shin or Deni could tell you. Sometimes a romp in bed is just a romp in bed - nothing more.

There's very little baggage involved in that in most cases.

Quote:

This is especially true of the girls I've known, but also guys. I know a married couple, where the husband can't hold the wife a certain way because it reminds her of a drunken orgy she was involved in. It's an extreme example, but one that I hope my marriage doesn't resemble.

Ahaha, that's hilarious. Man, that is by no means normal - I would recommend your buddies hilarious wife go talk to a therapist of being "held a certain way" upsets her after some retarded orgy she took part in.

And I'd like to point out that this example is "emotional baggage," not sexual baggage.

Quote:

My current girlfriend is a virgin. I've never known a girl like her, she is so special. I'm determined to keep her pure until we marry, or she marries someone else.

That doesn't mean it will work for everyone else, buddy.

Some of us likely don't value marriage that much - though admittedly I am probably one of the bigger advocates against marriage here.

If it works for you, it works for you. But for real - I don't see why you think your values will work for other people.

And like Devo said, I can't see how anyone doesn't see the propaganda skew in the article.

YO PITTSBURGH MIKE HERE

Dec 15, 2006 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

I went to an inner-city school. We had better things to do than spread stupid rumors about the girls of the school. We were too busy getting high and getting drunk during the school day to care. So Jenny did/didn't sleep with Bobby. WHO CARES. Pass me the bong.

But seriously, these kinds of rumors rarely affected an entire school. Hell, I didn't even know everyone I GRADUATED with. So many students, so many different cliques.

This is a bit off-topic, but Sass knows what she's talking about. This is pretty much exactly how my inner-city high school runs.

Sarag

Dec 16, 2006 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plainsman

I think I should let it known that I'm pretty conservative.

[...]

I'm not a virgin. I know what it's all about.

[...]

My current girlfriend is a virgin. I've never known a girl like her, she is so special. I'm determined to keep her pure until we marry, or she marries someone else.

lollin

I'm not sure what's more offensive, that you want to make a decision for your girlfriend that you could not even make for yourself, or that your girlfriend's wishes don't seem to matter much.

suddenly this thread got interesting.

Double Post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

Sexual relationship don't offer up baggage - fucking EMOTIONAL relationships do.

quoted for truth. After all, some people get really fucked up by bad friends and there wasn't a single blowjob between them.

Temari

Dec 16, 2006 02:44 AM

Maybe it's just me, but I didnt see it as a 'stay away from sex until marriage' or even 'avoid unprotected sex' article... I could be misinterpretting it though. To me, it seemed to focus more on the confusion women go through when it comes to sex, and the barriers they go through to get help from this confusion.

Most women, by nature, want sex to be intimate, so in their minds, sex becomes a very big thing. Guys, not so much. (Not saying this is everyone, but its very commonly seen this way.)

So if, for instance a girl starts dating a guy, has sex with him, and then 4 days later the guy breaks it off with her. The girl may be wondering what went wrong, but also, if the act so intimate for her meant NOTHING to this guy. She gets confused as to how this can be (as most women cant get into men's heads... at least, I cant), and falls into a depression because of it. The depression isnt because of the break up, but because she feels so utterly used by the guy.

And because of so many people looking down on sex without marriage, or even sex in general, where does the girl turn to without feeling judged?

Er... that was my impression at least. But it's also my experiences and interpretations involved.

Vampiro

Dec 16, 2006 02:26 PM

Quote:

How is this the downside of sex? It's the downside of becoming emotionally attached and having her hopes dashed. Sex in this instance might have elevated her emotional attachment but I fail to see how it's the fault of sex. People have this notion that sex is like a person they can blame for things, and maybe I'm one of the few who thinks people ought to look to themselves first.

Sex equals emotional attachment. Often times the act of sex brings a "relationship" to the next plateau, which is where it all goes wrong in this case. The girl becomes depressed because she felt used, physically and mentally, both due to the sex itself. So that is the downside of sex because it builds this closeness that many other things are not capable of. It's like how the downside of a cigarette is the cancer and addiction.

Sarag

Dec 16, 2006 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampiro

It's like how the downside of a cigarette is the cancer and addiction.

No, it really isn't.

Vampiro

Dec 16, 2006 02:52 PM

Quote:

Sex doesn't always equal emotional attachment. Ask anyone who has casual sex.

Notice I said "which is where it all goes wrong in this case." It's quite obvious people are capable of moving on and having sex with different partners every day of the week, but that's not the case in Temari's example. And apparently it happens to quite a few other girls too. I've experienced it first hand.

Quote:

Also it's not the fault of sex that people get into relationships just for it and then leave.

No... but it's because of the act that the emotional attachment was formed, and thus something to be shattered. If sex never occurred, chances are the break up wouldn't be quite as devastating. There, for example, probably wouldn't be the feeling of being used, which was the main issue it seems.

And shoes do get people off. lol fetishes.

Quote:

No, it really isn't.

Yes, bad analogy. My point is the addiction is the main problem and the cause of the suffering, much like the boyfriend breaking up with the girl. But the cigarette, or sex, is the root of all of it. But yeah, it's hard coming up with clever arguments when I've been up for close to 24 hours :(

Sarag

Dec 16, 2006 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampiro

No... but it's because of the act that the emotional attachment was formed,

So people have sex in order to know someone better?

Quote:

My point is the addiction is the main problem and the cause of the suffering, much like the boyfriend breaking up with the girl.

You feel that all or most bad breakups are a result of sex addiction?

Facinating.

Vampiro

Dec 16, 2006 02:57 PM

... What? Where the hell did you get that from?

Vampiro

Dec 16, 2006 03:04 PM

I completely agree, but that doesn't stop it from being a downside of sex. Assuming you're the type of people who does get emotionally attached easily. That's all I'm saying, since otherwise you're right.

Sarag

Dec 16, 2006 03:20 PM

Well, a downside of food is people getting fat. If you're the kind of person who blames food for fatness, I can only assume you too are weak of moral character.

You're just being pedantic at this point.

Monkey King

Dec 17, 2006 07:21 AM

Quote:

Posted by TemariPC31
Maybe it's just me, but I didnt see it as a 'stay away from sex until marriage' or even 'avoid unprotected sex' article... I could be misinterpretting it though. To me, it seemed to focus more on the confusion women go through when it comes to sex, and the barriers they go through to get help from this confusion.

You have to read between the lines a bit. The implication is that all women go through confusion and psychological distress, and that this is what will absolutely happen if you have pre-marital sex. There's likely a chauvinistic element to it as well, regarding the fragile psyches of women and such. Note how there's no mention at all of men anywhere in the article.

It's true that a lot of people don't exercise their freedoms responsibly. Drunk drivers, for example. Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you HAVE to, and I think there's a good point to be made that there's a certain amount of unfair social pressure on people who choose to wait until marriage. If you're not ready for sex, you shouldn't feel forced into doing it, nor that you're somehow mentally/emotionally deficient for wanting to wait.

But that's not the tack being taken by the article. Emotional issues are a potential pitfall for some people, but not all of them. Plus there's the whole fallacy of sex and emotional intimacy being inextricably linked. Yet, like most propaganda of its type, it's advocating across-the-board behavior control.

If you want to, have sex. If you don't, abstain. If people start hassling you about your choice, start bringing up the shameful skeletons in other people's closets to remind them not to be so judgemental. Simple as that.

Vampiro

Dec 17, 2006 08:31 AM

Quote:

You're just being pedantic at this point.

That doesn't even make sense.

Quote:

You feel that all or most bad breakups are a result of sex addiction?

Facinating.

Christ you're dumb. That or you didn't actually bother to read anything. This is all, once again, in terms of Temari's post. Every fucking breakup has it's own issues and each are devastating for completely different reasons. In the case of Temari, the "relationship" was built and caused by sex. That's where and when the emotional attachment seemed to form. The boyfriend was a dick and decided to get rid of her at this point. It's his fault because he led her on and devastated her. I'm not arguing that at all. But if you're the type to become emotionally involved after sex, and trust me, a lot of girls do, it can be a horrendous downside to sex. Blame or fault != downside.

lol wait, I missed the "addiction" on the end of that sentence. Just erase everything past "Christ you're dumb" from your mind, because that's all that's relevant to your post. Wow.

No. Hard Pass.

Dec 17, 2006 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampiro

Sex equals emotional attachment.

:wrong:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampiro

but it's because of the act that the emotional attachment was formed, and thus something to be shattered. If sex never occurred, chances are the break up wouldn't be quite as devastating.

No, it's because of intimacy. Sex isn't intimacy. Oftentimes the sheer acceptance that one would be willing to move to the next plateau of intimacy is enough to do the same damage as if it had actually happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampiro

That doesn't even make sense.

Couldn't have said it better myself, mate. You clearly don't have anything except personal experience as a basis for your arguments. Have you ever studied human sexuality beyond a first year course or what your friends tell you? Because I'm willing to bet with the way you generalize and manage to miss pretty much all your targets, that you haven't.

Vampiro

Dec 17, 2006 08:55 AM

Quote:

wrong

You're honestly telling me some women don't become emotionally attached when sex is first had? lol

Quote:

Yes, and some teen girls mix sex with intimacy.

Quote:

You clearly don't have anything except personal experience as a basis for your arguments. Have you ever studied human sexuality beyond a first year course or what your friends tell you? Because I'm willing to bet with the way you generalize and manage to miss pretty much all your targets, that you haven't.

I'm guessing by generalize you mean the part where I'm talking about one case and the part when I mention a small portion of females, namely a group of teens? lol sorry i don't study human sexuality and rather use first-hand experiences. silly me.

oh, and if anyone argues back, make your points short. I'm not going to read anything long.

No. Hard Pass.

Dec 17, 2006 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampiro

You're honestly telling me some women don't become emotionally attached when sex is first had? lol

Yes, I really am. I'm telling you that the concept of women becoming emotionally attached to sex is a fallacy. It's a cultural belief, and one that holds no real evidence. It's like saying women are more emotional. It isn't true, it's just that they're culturally pressured to express their emotions in a more public fashion. This is why using firsthand experience only doesn't work, mate. You're perpetuating a false stereotype because you've seen it since you were a kid. It doesn't make it true.

Quote:

Yes, and some teen girls mix sex with intimacy.

SOME.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampiro

You're honestly telling me some women don't become emotionally attached when sex is first had? lol

You aren't talking about one case, you're talking about women. You put "some" infront of it to make your point less ridiculous, but it isn't really changing anything. Are some women emotionally attached after sex? Yes. Are they emotionally attached because of sex? No. Sex is purely physical thing, mate. The emotional attachment is a conscious thing that happens through intimacy. And you know why your first-hand experiences don't hold up? Because you don't understand them. You're seeing the pictures, but you aren't understanding what exists beyond them. You're being too simplistic about it, and it's making you come off like a know-it-all 12 year old.

Vampiro

Dec 17, 2006 09:22 AM

Quote:

I'm more willing to believe what I'm told by girls and experience in my own relationships than someone on a message board. For example: I know a girl for six years who has sex with a guy who then dumps her a week later, causing her to be horrible crushed because she thought having sex with him meant something and practically formed an immediate bond. It's kind of hard to then think that it's all just a false stereotype and women don't actually believe it.

Quote:

I actually said "one case" and "a small portion." ie those I've met and known over the years. The one case being from what I've read in this thread.

Anywho, you put too much faith in some people. It would be nice to say "sex is purely physical" and be done with it, but it really isn't. It's actually a lot more, that's (partly) why emphasis is put on the subject. I have no problems separating intimacy and sex, but there's people who honestly can't do that.

But it's cute how you're apparently dissecting my past relationships based on two or three sentences on a message board made by a poster you've probably never even noticed until this thread. I know exactly what happened in my past relationships and why they failed. I know exactly why my current one has succeeded without a single hitch too. As for being an know-it-all 12 year-old, I've clearly said that I'm going on personal experiences. If I really wanted to be a know-it-all I'd search for studies and actually know the ins and outs of the subject like you apparently think you do.

No. Hard Pass.

Dec 17, 2006 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampiro

But it's cute how you're apparently dissecting my past relationships based on two or three sentences on a message board made by a poster you've probably never even noticed until this thread. I know exactly what happened in my past relationships and why they failed. I know exactly why my current one has succeeded without a single hitch too.

That would be a great point if I'd mentioned anything other than your approach to the topic of sex and intimacy. I haven't said word one about your relationships, nor do I care to know about them. I'm saying you're uninformed and using only word-of-mouth knowledge. Folk wisdom, as it were. That's it. So it's cute how you think you can read into what I've said.

Quote:

As for being an know-it-all 12 year-old, I've clearly said that I'm going on personal experiences. If I really wanted to be a know-it-all I'd search for studies and actually know the ins and outs of the subject like you apparently think you do.

The point being that the 12 year old feels he has a grasp of the subject because his friend told him about his older sister once. But if you want to use being uninformed as a defense, you go right ahead and do that. I'm sure it'll strengthen your case by leaps and bounds by stating you haven't bothered doing any research and only have personal opinion. You're embarassing yourself here, mate.

No. Hard Pass.

Dec 17, 2006 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigHairyFeet

So, just to clarify the terms involved in this debate, what type of intimacy are each of you talking about?

2.a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group.

Vampiro

Dec 17, 2006 09:51 AM

Quote:

Yeah, that one I actually read slightly wrong. Just enough to completely alter the meaning. My mistake, bby :c

Quote:

I honestly don't care enough about this debate to learn anything more than what apply to me and my life. I'm not really even arguing against you, just the fact that you think certain things don't happen or people don't think certain ways. In this case, first-hand experience is all I need, since that alone proves you wrong. If I know five people who think one way, and you're saying it's a false stereotype, I can be safe in knowing that that's not completely true. I have personal proof in this case. Research wouldn't do me any good. I know that some of your points are correct, or should be, but I also know having seen and heard otherwise, that's they aren't all quite as correct as you make them out to be.

As for embarrassing myself, oh no :( This is the internet. I don't really care.

Oh, and my defense is that I'm going on no sleep. Being uninformed is something different. :)

No. Hard Pass.

Dec 17, 2006 09:56 AM

Wait, are you saying that your entire point is just that -some- people get emotionally attached after sex, be it due to cultural pressures or otherwise? Because if that's all you're saying, I'm not arguing with you. Though, for the record, a streotype doesn't apply to everyone. Just because the stereotype is false doesn't mean there aren't people who live up to its image. I'm not saying that my points are all encompassing, I'm saying that the sterotype you put forward isn't all consuming either, in fact, quite the opposite. That it is perpetuated by the media and by people spreading it on the internet, and through mediums like literature. I don't think people like that don't exist, I just think they're a much smaller part of the market than the world makes them out to be. You never proved me wrong because I never said this applied to everyone.

Vampiro

Dec 17, 2006 10:14 AM

All I've been saying is that -some- people get emotionally attached after sex. I thought having said that at least twenty times made that clear. That's about it.

As for the other bit, I guess this: "I'm telling you that the concept of women becoming emotionally attached to sex is a fallacy." made me believe you felt otherwise. That on top of coming after a quote of mine that said "some," and well, you can see where the confusion came from :)

Also, I'm pretty sure I read that as "emotionally attached after sex is a fallacy" so that probably didn't help. I guess it's a good thing I'm using this sleep thing as a defense lewl

blue	Dec 17, 2006 12:11 PM

All right, so I'm pretty much terrified to step in at this point. I'm not as nice as people assume, I think (my friend IRL know better), but I'm so absolutely terrified of confrontation.

But for what it's worth, I think the vast majority of females form an emotional bond after having sex, whether they like it or not. We have been talking about that sort of thing in my psychology class (which isn't proof in and of itself, of course, but suggests that research has been done--I should look some up, right?). Thus "casual sex" is a very difficult thing for women. I think it is hard for many women to grasp that men don't necessarily form an emotional attachment this way.

I really think a lot of it may depend on your point of reference. I have two very different points of reference--the conservative one with which I grew up, and the not-so-conservative one that is GFF. Having two points of reference has taught me a lot these past six months, I think. Girls having grown up nearer my end of the spectrum, however, are almost guaranteed to suffer emotional scarring as a result of casual sex. As to the other end of the spectrum... I couldn't really say. It sounds like the vast majority of you are saying "no."

There are many downsides to the way I grew up, but I wouldn't have it any other way. Often people fail to see the benefits of a very conservative upbringing. But I think I'm getting off topic.

As for me, having grown up in such an environment, I think it would be absolutely devastating to me to have sex with anyone but my husband. I have been subject to emotional tumult just from casual kissing. It is not because I am dumb or naive... It is because of my point of reference.

strawberryfruit

Dec 17, 2006 03:28 PM

Yeah be who you want to be - making mistakes with sexual choices is just a way of finding yourself and moulding you as a person. Even though religion is a part of your life, it shouldn't change your actions. For example you shouldn't act/not act on the principle that it goes against your religion. Fair enough if you believe in the reason behind it... but not otherwise.

Double Post:
As in, I don't believe that not having sex before marriage because of the sole reason that one is a catholic is right - surely you should only be following that rule of the faith if you believe in the reasons behind it existing...

nadienne

Dec 17, 2006 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb and spanglish

Thus "casual sex" is a very difficult thing for women. I think it is hard for many women to grasp that men don't necessarily form an emotional attachment this way.

The problem with the whole "casual sex" thing for women, I think, is that we're still brought up to believe that for a woman who isn't a slut to have sex requires an emotional commitment (and of course, no one wants to be a slut). So when something "casual" actually does occur, it seems that there's almost an effort to justify the event with an emotional reason.

That's what I've noticed, anyway. Guys are fine saying that it was completely casual and leaving it at that, girls say things like "well, it was kinda casual, but I really like him!" as if they're ashamed to have done something without an emotional component. Which then makes them start getting attached and obsessed anyway, but kind of under false pretenses: an "I should be attached to this guy because I slept with him" as opposed to "I slept with him, and now I'm emotionally attached because of the sex."

I think it's as equally physically possible for women to have casual sex as it is for men, but societal influence kind of mucks up that tendency by sending a whole lot of mixed signals ("do what you want, just don't be a slut!"). Although it's not just women who get confused, either; I've noticed that sometimes guys who think they're just in it for the physical get completely thrown off (and emotional) when the girl appears to want nothing but the physical as well.

Quote:

I really think a lot of it may depend on your point of reference. I have two very different points of reference--the conservative one with which I grew up, and the not-so-conservative one that is GFF. Having two points of reference has taught me a lot these past six months, I think. Girls having grown up nearer my end of the spectrum, however, are almost guaranteed to suffer emotional scarring as a result of casual sex. As to the other end of the spectrum... I couldn't really say. It sounds like the vast majority of you are saying "no."

There are many downsides to the way I grew up, but I wouldn't have it any other way. Often people fail to see the benefits of a very conservative upbringing. But I think I'm getting off topic.

As for me, having grown up in such an environment, I think it would be absolutely devastating to me to have sex with anyone but my husband. I have been subject to emotional tumult just from casual kissing. It is not because I am dumb or naive... It is because of my point of reference.

There's nothing wrong with feeling that way. Your recognition of the fact that sex is, for you, something that will affect your emotional bond to someone makes you more intelligent than 90% of the girls out there. Behave accordingly. Nothing makes people feel more like shit than doing something they don't agree with just because it works out alright for other people.

Emotional and physical intimacy are both intimacy, so it's not surprising that people get them confused so often, or that people are constantly trying to figure the connection between them.

Plainsman

Dec 17, 2006 09:55 PM

PB and Spanglish, I think you're making a wise decision, and I've said the same thing to guys as well (not just girls). The reasons for having sex outside of marriage are superficial and transient compared to the damage that it can cause. When I was having sex as a youngin', even when I wanted to "please" whoever I was with, it was a selfish act that I wish I had had the self-control to refrain from.

No. Hard Pass.

Dec 18, 2006 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plainsman

And there are those of us on the faaaaar opposite side of that thar fence. There's nothing wrong with abstaining if you're not comfortabe with it, but don't be like some people and act like sex is this grand, life changing event. It really isn't.

I poked it and it made a sad sound

Dec 18, 2006 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plainsman

The reasons for having sex outside of marriage are superficial and transient compared to the damage that it can cause. When I was having sex as a youngin', even when I wanted to "please" whoever I was with, it was a selfish act that I wish I had had the self-control to refrain from.

Wow. Just.....wow.

You do know that marriage is only a legally binding contract, right? You get some tax breaks and you get a fancy certificate. Hell, in my state, if you live with a person for 7 years, you're bound by common law marriage, in which case, you know, you don't even need the fancy shit.

I mean, if you want to bring religion into the mix, it's just a commitment to one person for the rest of your life with God as a witness. A promise, bound by God.

What sex and marriage has to do with one another is beyond me, really. I have no idea how anyone can tell a person that marriage is the point at which you're officially allowed to have sex. The line is pretty invisible to me (and many others), since the line is essentially inconsequential.

But eitherway, I see absolutely nothing wrong with getting laid before you slip a ring onto some chick's finger and promise her youre hers for eternity (which is laughable anyways in today's society).

In fact, I would think that having a little sexual experience before entering into a lifetime contract (under god in your case, I suspect), you want to ensure that you're a little savvy in the bedroom.

I know that I personally would never want to enter into a lifetime contract with some bloke if he sucked in bed and I found out after the fact. No matter what anyone wants to think, sex is a factor in marriage.

I don't see how pre-marital sex is "damaging" at all. If you can't keep your emotions in check and maintain the ability to separate things in your mind, maybe you're just too young and too immature to be involved in a sexual relationship.

Some of us, however, can control ourselves.

And I am not touching the "females are more emotional than males" argument with a ten foot pole.

BurningRanger

Dec 18, 2006 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denicalis

but don't be like some people and act like sex is this grand, life changing event. It really isn't.

Whoo-whee. Could truer words ever be spoken? I doubt it.

I made the mistake of assuming my girl was one of those romantic types who would feel a great attachment to someone they had sex with. I took her virginity and gave her mine, after being on and off with her for years, because I knew that I wanted to start getting serious with her. Unfortunately, I never backed it up with the words I should have. Of course, I did back it up with the other actions that someone who was in love would do, and those are supposed to speak louder than words... however, there are some instances in which words have a frightening amount of potency. Anyway, the long and short of it is, I thought she got my message, but she did not, and therefore did not remain exclusive to me.

I went through a great deal of pain when I found this out, but of course it was not because of the sex. Fortunately, she had only had one other partner - but unfortunately, this guy couldn't have been sleazier. I'm lucky both she and I are still clean. In any case, once I found the courage to say the words to her, she has had no problem staying faithful to me. The mistake was mostly mine, and Deni couldn't have hit the nail more directly on the head.

Sarag

Dec 20, 2006 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plainsman

I don't think it's fair to basically pressure people into having sex if they don't want to. Not just saying stuff like "if you loved me you'd do it" but even stuff like "everyone's doing it" and "those horror stories are never true".

Do you think it's fair to basically pressure people into feeling guilty for having sex? I only ask because obviously you can't pressure people into not having sex; you didn't even have the mental strength to do it to yourself.

All I'm asking is, I guess, is where do you get off?

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 AM.