The Downside of Sex

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.