Sex. Before or after?

OK. So, you meet someone attractive. The two of you talk and become acquaintances. Due to good chemistry, the two of you become good friends. Eventually friendship turns into a relationship which of course, also brings into the picture, sex. At least that's how it's suppose to be according to...um...some people.

However, I have some friends that swear up and down that they've had relationships that started with a different order of events. Everything's the same in their case up to the acquaintance part. Rather than good chemistry induced friendship though, they got good chemistry induced sex instead, which led to friendship which then led to a relationship.

I guess it's possible for circumstances to unfold that way. But, my issue with the latter order of events is that you're basically applying emotional attachment to what can very easily be just a night of sex for the other person and nothing more. I suppose I just sort of think that it's a bit naive to believe that readily available sex can lead to a meaningful relationship. (Maybe that's a bit prudish and jaded of me. I dunno.)

So my question(s) to you guys is(err...are), do you think that just sex can lead to an actual and decent relationship? At what point did sex come into play in your current or past relationships? If the situation presented itself, would you engage in sexual activity with an attractive and potentially a great partner even though you don't really know much about them?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Look at your friends' relationships and judge for yourself.

Of course you can have a decent relationship if you fuck on the first date. What sort of question is this? Most people do not find each other repulsive after having sex, I don't understand why you would have a problem with this issue. from the sound of your post, you don't quite understand why you have this issue either.

I guess you completely blacked out during the part where I said

Quote:

my issue with the latter order of events is that you're basically applying emotional attachment to what can very easily be just a night of sex for the other person and nothing more.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by a lurker

not at all. You must've forgotten saying this:



Which sounds about right to me. People don't stop developing relationships with someone once they have sex, and furthermore it's hella faulty to think the only interaction these two people have is sexual. They admit and you admit that they were friends before becoming an item; the only difference is that they are also fuckbuddies during the time. What's the disconnect here?

The disconnect here is that not all relationships have clearly defined or drawn lines. For example, one person could genuinly have his or her heart in the relationship, while the other person just goes along for the ride just to get the sex till they get bored. Yeah, I suppose this can happen to anyone regardless of how things start out but, I'd imagine that the chances of such a thing occuring are a lot lower if both halves have put in the time to actually get to know eachother (platonicaly) first. I really don't think that a speedy and prompt friendship produced from sex can usually be a good basis for a relationship. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic.

Another thing. You previously made a comment about how most people don't find eachother replusive right after sex. That's true I guess. But once again, if all person-A wants is a sexual encounter and isn't interested in person-B's everything else, what will happen after the sex? Person-A will pretty much find no reason to hang around. (Till maybe in the future when the desire for round-2 comes back.) Now this is all well and fine. However, if person-B went into this hoping and expecting a full out relationship that's suppose to start from that one sexual encounter, then there's the problem!

Also, if you go this route you never know what the other person's sexual history is and what little, surprise gifts you may end up with.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Then B is deluding himself by thinking there is a relationship there, and if he is bothered by this, should probably stop the encounters. I know you're trying to paint A as opportunistic, but B is the one who's making something out of nothing, here.

Do you feel that your friends are all B?

I totally agree with you here in that B is at fault and just deluded provided that A makes it clear that sex is all he or she wants which isn't always the case. Two of my friends in this situation have semi-long term relationships where the other person is in town about 5 months outta the entire year, while my other friend's in a totally differen town with her b/f so I don't really have a clear grasp on the dynamics of their relationships.

Quote:

B has no one to blame but himself if he doesn't use condoms.

Except that condoms somtimes do tear and break. Yeah, I know, it's kind of unlikely to happen, so it's kind of a petty concern when condoms come in the picture, but it's still a little worrisome.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by a lurker

Look, the point is this: do you know people who have had successful relationships that started off differently than your ideal?

I know people yes. But, given the circumstances, I don't know much about how good or bad their relationships are. That's why I created the thread.

Quote:

And you can have breaking condoms and STDs in relationships started by your model.

Broken condoms yes. If both partners come into the relationship clean, and stay honest and monogamous though, then there's not much room for STDs.

Quote:

Do you think that people who only have sex in the confines of a relationship don't have sex with many partners - what I'm trying to say is, do you think every relationship is a several-year long affair? Or that a cock-hungry slut will be granted some primitive immunity from STDs by only sleeping with her men once they've had a few dates?

Of course not! Look, I realize that people can change their behavior and suddenly skank it up or cool it down through different stages in their lives. The point is that if you get to know the cock hungry slut before you actually get with her, you'll at least know what you're dealing with and what risks you'll be taking on when you get with her.

Quote:

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that whole STD thing, other than Bad Things Happen To Bad People. That's extremely judgemental of you, when you admit that you don't know a whole lot about other kinds of relationships in the first place.

All I was getting at with the STD's thing is that the sex first route, besides being emotionally risky, is riskier physically as well. Nothing more and nothing less. I don't know why you took that as me somehow thinking less of people who are more gungho when it comes to sex, or just have a more active sex life than others. It's not that I think sex is bad or that people who have lots of sex are immoral. I just think that it's a risky act. It can have a lot of extra unwated feelings attached to it or leave you wanting something that was never there if the conditions aren't clearly drawn out beforehand. It's a sensative issue. Stating that it's risky certainly does not make you some high and mighty prude who thinks lowly of the more adventurous folk.


I don't exactly feel that the "sex after" scenario is better. (If I was certain of that, I wouldn't have made this thread). I guess I have issues with both. I do feel though, that it is, at least, safer than the "sex first" scenario. (Even though you're less likely to enjoy being with as many potentially good people). I guess in that sense, some might say it evens out. Also, now that I think about it more, I'm thinking it's a strictly case by case situation. I still feel that you're more likely to be dissapointed or end up caught in something you didn't anticipate if you go with the second route. Y'know, High reward only with high risk. That whole spiel. Maybe I'm just not as bold as others.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by a lurker

It doesn't matter if your friends are willing to subject themselves to relationships they are not quite happy in. If they were unhappy enough to leave, they would leave; otherwise, I don't know, it must be a 'successful' relationship.

Depends on what you mean by "sucessful". There are lots of scenarios where someone would remain in an unfullfilling relationship. Sometimes, people will delude themselves into thinking the other person will change for the better, or love them, or that they'll grow to love them, so they stay. Some people are just afraid of being alone or single, they'll also stay. Others can fall in a sense of complacency and ,like the ones previously stated, will stay despite the unrewarding relationship. So, if by "successful" you merely mean that the relationship is still going regardless of how unrewarding it is, then I guess it is safe to call my few friends with the "sex-first relationship" relationships "successfull". Again, given the circumstances that I explained to you above, I don't really have a grasp of how happy they are with their significant others.

Quote:

Any more arguing over it is a kinda creepy attempt at rationalizing your morality with this sort of thing

How is it creepy that I'm exploring the idea of an uncoventional start to a relationship by pondering and debating about it on a message board? An example of creepy would be if I tried to inject myself into my friends' relationships by impersonating their other halves and stalking them or something. Examening the general type of relationships that theirs' seems to fall under and seeing how it'd apply to me, my life and values is perfectly fine.

Quote:

it sounds kinda like you want to get into a quality of relationship pissfight. Why do you want to do that?

First I'm judgemental, and now I wanna pissfight? Sheesh, what's with you and these outta-nowhere-assumptions? I'm just curious about the topic. I want to see how most people feel about it and if there are any members that fall into this catagory (and apperantly there are) what their experience has been like. That's all.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by a lurker

Until your friends have broken up and told you all the ways you were absolutely right and they were absolutely wrong, it is downright condesending to tell me that they are probably victims at the mercy of their significant others. I'm sorry that you do not respect your friends' intelligence all that much.

Leave my friends out of this. It's not like you know us, so don't even attempt to come in here and try to ascertain the quality of our friendhsip based on whatever little information you've gotten. Doing so would be very hypocritical of you. After all, you're the one stating how I shouldn't "measure the quality of their relationships". What you don't seem to realize is that you keep making it a personal issue when it doesn't have to be. I mentioned my friends just to make a poin that I personaly know people who started out their relationships in this manner. That's all. You don't have to keep zooming in on them and using them as the be all and end all examples. This isn't about them. It's about relationships that start out in this manner, in general. Maybe once you realize this, the unfounded air of arrogance that you seem to be getting from me for God-knows-what-reason, will dissipate, and you won't be so judgemental yourself.

Quote:

I do like how you tell me my assumption was wrong right after having the quality of relationship pissfight. That's not how it normally works, sir.

First of all, your assumptions are wrong. For some reason, you keep thinking that I think lowly of my friends, which is hardly the case. Second, examining, discussing, heck, even debating, about a certain type of relationships is not a pissfight.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by a lurker

You're the one who keeps bringing them up. I say, "if your very friends were able to start a relationship this way...

Right. Clearly, that example you just provided right there was me bringing up my friends and not you. OK.

Quote:

The point is, either it is entirely possible for such a relationship to start, or you feel that every single last one of your friends have retarded maturity and severe co-dependancy problems. It's your choice.

I thought we were past this already. I established in a previous post that I feel that, while a decent relationship certainly can start this way, it's just a riskier undertaking.

Quote:

Too bad you aren't doing precisely that.

Agreeing with everything you have to say without looking at the issue from different points of view is not what a debate and discussion consists of sir.

Quote:

So wait, relationships must follow technophile's conventional standards or else they don't count?
Uh right.

It's not my conventional standard. I was just listing my issues and drawbacks of opting to have sex so soon in a relationship and weighing it against the other options. No need to get so defensive.

Quote:

You DO realize people tend to talk to each other, right?

I know leeknat. But, sometimes people have really good sexual chemistry with strong physical attraction, but it pretty much ends there, so it's not like talking after the sex will make the relationship grow farther. In this case, if one person was infatuated by the other, then he or she pretty much had a sexual encounter in hopes of getting more only to be dissapointed.

Yes, I know that a fine relationship can grow from a hasty sexual encounter (after more pondering) but the stakes are higher.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by a lurker

Actually, looking back on your posts, I didn't see any admission that I was right,

That's because I didn't make one, and don't plan to. While I agree with you on some points of the issue, stating you're "right" would also mean that I do look down upon my friends. That's not the case, therefore, this admission that you've been searching for is just not gonna happen.

Quote:

I'm hard pressed to see why this thread was even created if you admit you are wrong in the very first post.

I don't. I wasn't completely sure where I stood on the issue in the first place. That's why I created the thread. I wanted to explore the topic a bit. After some discussion and comparisons with others (thanks to your posts in some part) and inaccurate assumptions (also thanks to your posts, but for the most part), I just have a slightly altered view.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Leknaat

Now let's go the reverse.

How many people who are friends with someone hope that could could be more--but it never happens? Isn't that as frustrating as well?

That is also frustrating. However, I think having sex with someone in the hopes of developing more (especially if you're the type who's not really into casual sex) would be a lot more emotionally taxing.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Sufferers of unrequited love everywhere would probably disagree with you.

Only till the sex lasts. I doubt they'll be filled with joy when the object of their desires ups and leaves after the sex.

Quote:

People who make sex out to be some amazing spiritual event or something are stupid and frankly naive.

Only when they apply such conditions to casual sex.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by a lurker

No, rote quickies are possible in the confines of long-term relationships too.

Of course they are. However, Shin's comments make it seem like rote quickies are all that's possible. Regardless of the relationship's status.

Originally Posted by nadienne

As someone who's suffered from both chaste unrequited love and sex with too many feelings involved on my end, I would definitely say that chaste unrequited love is much, much worse. If they sleep with you it means they at least find you physically attractive, and that's much better than not being attracted to you at all.

You're the first person that I've encountered that was in such a situation that actually favores the dead end sex, as opposed to nothing. But hey, to each his or her own.

Originally Posted by nadienne

I will never cease to be amazed at the ability of virgins to make all sorts of assumptions about sex without ever having experienced any kind of sex at all. That's like me giving an entire lecture on how to sail a sailboat when I've never even ridden in one that someone else was sailing.

Originally Posted by Devo

Same here....

Save me your faulty analogies. Yeah, let's compare something mostly instinctual to a skill that requires a lot more honing and practice. =/

How is it wrong to assume that sex with someone that you actually have a full fledged relationship with can mount to more than whatever the one night stand with that hot guy/girl at the club will turn out to be?

Originally Posted by Leknaat

Have you been talking about the whole sex/love confusion thing?

Partly, yes.

Originally Posted by Leknnat

That sex and love are interchangeable?

Um, no. That's kind of the point I've been trying to make. Because they're not interchangeable, if someone who wants a full fledged relationship, granted a casual sexual encounter to the object of his or her affection in order to be with them, only to be tossed aside afterwards, they'd be sorely dissapointed. Had it been a consensually casual encounter, it'd be a different story.

Originally Posted by Devo

Why romanticize sex so much?

Originally Posted by Devo

...too many people act like the heavens will sing and all the secrets of the world will be exposed once their cherry is popped

Oh come on, don't give me that typcal, virgin fantasy bullshit. This isn't about making sex to be some sacred ritual that cannot be used for merely recreational purposes. Yeah, ok. Casual sex, is just casual sex. Knew it before, know it now, I get it.

Again, my point is because such grandiose festivities and wonders will not commence when cherries are popped, it'd be risky for someone who wants sex served with some sort of an emotional connection with the other person, to just give it up within the first 3 hours that he or she spent actually talking to his/her crush or attractive stranger.

Originally Posted by nadienne

Why the fuck did you ask for our opinions if you didn't want to hear anything that didn't confirm that your view of things is correct?

I did want to hear them. That's the point. Give 'n take, throw around and compare different ideas and views!

Originally Posted by nadienne

I'm tempted to close down the thread, since you keep trying to cut off any discussion that might take place.

Stimulating discussion does not exclusively entail saying things like "oh ok, you're right" or "I agree with everything you have to say without questioning anything at all!" If that's too overbearing for you then go ahead and close the thread down. You're really not doing me any favors here by keeping it open if all I'm allowed to do is just agree with everyone else. God forbid we can actually compare our differing views without attacking eachother or having the "I'm always right and you're always wrong" mentality. =/

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by nadienne

We've already established that your experience doesn't amount to shit, I don't know why you keep bringing it up as though it were a valid resource.

First of all, when and how? Second, it's not technicaly my experience, but rather, the individuals' who've shared it with me. Third, if personal experience is all everyone seems to be referring to, if mine doesn't amount to anything, then neither does everybody elses'.

Originally Posted by nadienne

Also, who said anything about dead end? It's still sex, it has value in and of itself.

Who cares? What good is it's value if what you really wanted was a relationship?

Originally Posted by nadienne

Heaven forfend. Do you honestly think that sex requires no practice?

Stop right there. Note that I said more practice. If you openly discuss with your partner what makes him/her feel good and what doesn't (and vice versa), there should be no problem.

Originally Posted by nadienne

The first time you jump in the sack with your one true love, you'll make her multiple and last for two hours, will you?

No I won't, and I'd really rather not. Being a gay male, I have the advantage of not having to uncover the grand mysteries of the vagina that are so elusive to most males. I already know how my partner's genitalia will work.

Originally Posted by nadienne

Also, "instinctual" rather contradicts your magical making love idea, so you might want to refrain from bringing it up.

I never stated that making love was instinctual. Just sex.

Originally Posted by nadienne

"Mount." Brilliant.

I had a typo and wrote "mount" rather than "amount". Sue me.
_______________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technophile
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shin
People who make sex out to be some amazing spiritual event or something are stupid and frankly naive.



Only when they apply such conditions to casual sex.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Technophile
This isn't about making sex to be some sacred ritual that cannot be used for merely recreational purposes.


CAUGHT IN YOUR OWN WEB OF LIES

Actually, those statements don't contradict eachother and I still stand by both of them. Sex can be just sex, or can be more when you have a deep connection with someone.

________________________________

Quote:

The fact that you're assuming is grounds enough to make it wrong. Also you don't know people as well as you think you do, next question.

So you're attempting to tell me that sex is ALWAYS just sex, and will never have consensuall emotional attachment going with it?

Quote:

It's risky to do anything, sometimes you wait for the right person, you have sex they break your heart. Sometimes you don't wait, have sex with a person within the first few hours/days/weeks of meeting and the relationship lasts for years.

Yeah, I know that. However, if you take the time to know a person first, chances are they won't be able to get away with just sleeping with you and never seeing you again. Yes it can still happen, but not as likely.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by a lurker

Me, after about five or so posts of "either your friends' relationships happened, or they're liars and easily manipulated". See, your lack of experience here doesn't refer to things merely sexual, although that is readily apparent; it refers to your lack of esteem for your friends' intelligence. You never trusted them to make good choices, and it's obvious now, that they've so-called 'bonded' with people after only a mere shag, where you're willing to know the total person before you bare your legs to them. As part of your lack of experience in common human decency, you'll deny this; it's typical for the flawed and the mundane to not notice anything was wrong. But if you were right, why does everyone around you say otherwise? That's some food for thought, right there.



You wouldn't know a contradiction if it had a one-night stand with your mother.

Oh, right that. All you did was say "EITHER YOU AGREE WITH YOUR FRIEND'S METHODS OR THEY'RE ALL IDIOTS". Yes, sure, ok. Cause what works for one person, has to work for everyone else! I wouldn't call that "discrediting" so much as making things black or white when there's a good chunk of grey there.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by ODOGONK

Because you're the only virgin in the room. Look, just go home before you hurt yourself on something sharp.

OH LOOK AT ME! I'VE HAD SEX, SO THAT AUTOMATICALLY MAKES ME RIGHT! Come back and try and talk to me when you drop the high and mighty attitude. Maybe then, I'll bother with that you have to ramble on about.

FELIPE NO

lurker-

When did I deny that their methods don't exist? I just stated my issues with it. Meaning what about them doesn't work for me.

Devo-

No, all penises are not the same. However a different penis is a lot more familiar than a vagina.


Honestly people, do I have to spell out everything here?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Devo

You do have to spell everything out when you switch points faster than the Queer Eyes yell "OHH MY GAWD."

Oh ok. You guys not interpreting what I have to say correctly, and me having to constantly repeat myself and explain every nit-picky detail, is me switching sides. =/

Quote:

Every boyfriend you're gonna need to relearn what tickles his fancy, it's the same with different vags, what's your point exactly? What is this "more familiar"? I'm sure Deni and Shin can give you a crash course on cunt if you really want to travel down this road.

No I'm really not all that curious. My point is, despite all the different things that different men fancy, there's still some basic common denomenator between all male genitalia, that is lost when you compare one with a vag.

_____

Lurker. Questiong and wondering about something, does not = denying.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by a lurker

Look, I think the real question everyone here has is, where do you get off making value judgements on things you have no practical experience with? You cherrypick and use hella loaded words, for what reason? How do you benefit by looking down on situations that you just invented?

I'm gonna ignore the "invent" comment.

I'm not really sure what exactly it was that I said that makes it seem like I look down upon people who are more casual when it comes to sex. But I honestly don't. All I've done (or at least attempted to do so) was take their experience, and just apply them to me and my values in a "what if" sort of mentality, and list my issues with them. My issues, when they're applied to me. I really don't think I need to actually have sex in order to do this. I'm very happy for my friends if it's working for them. But just because it does so for them, it doesn't mean that it will for me as well.
______

Devo--

No matter how different men are, there is some common denomenator, no matter how small it is. Even if it amounts to shoving a penis in a vag, generally feels good, while attempting to shove one up a man's front hole (pee-hole), for most males, does not.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Devo

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Why would you shove something up your partner's urethra? You want me and others to take your opinion seriously regardless of your lack of experience, then you post something like this.

You were making it seem like two penises can be just as different as a penis and a vagina. While it's a possible scenario, I don't think it's the usual case. Even if two men have different fetishes, chances are, they're both going to enjoy, say, the sensation of having their dong stroked.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by a lurker

"But, my issue with the latter order of events is that you're basically applying emotional attachment to what can very easily be just a night of sex for the other person and nothing more. "
The first sin: Ignorance.

I was referring here to someone who has sex in hopes of having it start a relationship. Not my friends or people who have casual sex for recreation. For all I know, my friends' and their partners had consesually casual sex at first.

Quote:

"There are lots of scenarios where someone would remain in an unfullfilling relationship. Sometimes, people will delude themselves into thinking the other person will change for the better, or love them, or that they'll grow to love them, so they stay. Some people are just afraid of being alone or single, they'll also stay. Others can fall in a sense of complacency and ,like the ones previously stated, will stay despite the unrewarding relationship. So, if by "successful" you merely mean that the relationship is still going regardless of how unrewarding it is, then I guess it is safe to call my few friends with the "sex-first relationship" relationships "successfull". "

The second sin: Insincerity.

Again. Referring to people who have sex because they are anticipating a relationship to follow up. Why do you keep taking everything I say, as if I'm talking about my friends' cases in particular? I broght them up to make a point that I know people who started out their relationship with sex first. That's all. They're not the only defining, living, examples.

Quote:

"I just think that it's a risky act. It can have a lot of extra unwated feelings attached to it or leave you wanting something that was never there if the conditions aren't clearly drawn out beforehand. "






The third sin: Ego.

So now I'm egostistical because I think something's risky?

Quote:

"Also, if you go this route you never know what the other person's sexual history is and what little, surprise gifts you may end up with. "


The fourth sin: Lust.

Humor me and connect the dots here.

Quote:

"Two of my friends in this situation have semi-long term relationships where the other person is in town about 5 months outta the entire year, while my other friend's in a totally differen town with her b/f "

The fifth sin: Lack of respect.

Stating someone's relationship's circumstances is now disrispectful?

Quote:

The final sin: Lack of forsight.

Care to elaborate?

Quote:

The extra sin is sodomy, as in what you like (because you hate girls now) and what we like to do to you. Come, now. Become sodomy.

Oh the agony.

----------------------

Quote:

regardless of common denominators when anyone starts a new relationship, they have new ground to memorize and explore. Is this so hard a concept?

I never disagreed with this. While what you say is true, there's still a common denominator. Which means a little less figuering out what you need to do, and trial and error.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Devo

How can you make this judgment given you've done neither a male nor female?

Look at my edited post above.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Devo

I think you're giving having the same equipment way too much credit, .

Will you ever really, really know what having multiple orgasms feels like? Or what it'd be like to have a penis peneterated inside you and against a clitoris? No, just like any girl you're with won't really know what it's like to insert a protruding yet sensetive part of your body inside a hole. On a very petty level, it's still a sense of knowing what it's like for your partner, that's missing.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Devo

Been there, done that.



What is your point? I talk about how each body is unique and different. And you impart to me some virginal wisdom about never knowing what it will feel like to stick a dick in a hole. Are you deliberately trying to make no sense? Cause I really don't see how a discussion of unique bodies has to do with your post.

My point is that knowing what it feels like to have your partner's similar equipment techincally work, is some sort of a head start. No matter how miniscule it is.

And Crashlandon, "He" ? I am present in this thread, y'know.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devo

Not if you're a dipshit.

Uh, OK. What's your point? The average person isn't a dipshit, so, it's still a small head start.

Quote:

Also it's like at this point you're trying to justify being gay as an advantage to sex, lol please.

I'm just stating one little perk that comes with gay sex. Don't get all defensive again, I'm sure there are lots of perks to hetero-sex that don't apply to gay sex.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?