Sex. Before or after?

Technophile:

You're making it sound like two people meet, Person A says "Let's fuck," Person B says, "Okay." and that's that.

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

And yes, you can figure out if someone is right for you within 2 hours or however long you're talking.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

Quote:

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.

And then you listed a bunch of things all relationships can come afoul of, none of which are intrinsically based on how you two met.

Actually, looking back on your posts, I didn't see any admission that I was right, unless you're counting the "I guess it could happen, maybe..." that you put in the first post. I'm hard pressed to see why this thread was even created if you admit you are wrong in the very first post.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your 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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

There are a lot of men who picture every woman they meet naked and only think about having sex with them. I dunno if that's a disease or something like that, but it's a matter of fact.
I don't think that women are that malfunctioning.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Technophile

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.

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?

FELIPE NO

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.

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

Sufferers of unrequited love everywhere would probably disagree with you. Not to say that neither are a bunch of retards.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Me and my girlfriend first had sex 3 hours after we met. We've now been going out for over a year and a half.

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

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by Technophile

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.

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.

Quote:

Only when they apply such conditions to casual sex.

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.

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Technophile

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.

Wait.

Have you been talking about the whole sex/love confusion thing? That sex and love are interchangeable?

Here's a lesson for those who may not know--Sex is the response of the body--Love is the response of the heart, the mind, and the soul. You don't have to love someone to respond to them physically.

Most amazing jew boots

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 Technophile

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.

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.

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

Quote:

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

Heaven forfend. Do you honestly think that sex requires no practice? 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? Humans, unlike animals who act basically on instinct, have sex for pleasure. And learning how to give pleasure takes skill, not instinct. I guarentee you that learning how to get a girl to orgasm takes alot more "honing" than figuring out which way the wind is blowing.

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

Quote:

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?

"Mount." Brilliant.

Quote:

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. =/

No, honey. What I was saying is that there's no point in having a "discussion" with a stone wall. You refuse to accept anything any of us say as valid. If your stance on the matter was so immovable, you shouldn't have created the thread to begin with, because no one wants to listen to the boy who thinks he's always right.

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

Originally Posted by Technophile

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.

Wait, what, no. We're discussing people of sexual maturity making sexually mature decisions while knowing the range of consequences they're suffering. At no time did anyone before you suggest that the people who have sex before making a relationship with that person were virgins, and for god's sake why do you keep bringing up the Manipulative Dick, I thought I told you to stop entertaining the straw men.

Originally Posted by Technophile

Only when they apply such conditions to casual sex.

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

Why do people keep bringing up virginity when discussing sex? It's like, they won't even leave you alone about that.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Technophile

First of all, when and how?

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.

Quote:

Actually, those statements don't contradict eachother and I still stand by both of them.

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

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

Originally Posted by Technophile

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'.

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

Quote:

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

Tough luck, bucko, take what you can get. Hey, I wanted a lambroghini but I got an eclipse. What good's a stupid sports car if I can't have my lambroghini, I should start a thread pissing and moaning about it.

But I don't expect you to get that, metaphor slides off you like mercury.

Quote:

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.

Too bad that at best your relationships with other emotionally stunted men (are you furry, by any chance?) will only make you bitter and lead to future threads about how relationships are all shit, people are shit, and causual sex is the only way to live. Go chase the bug, at least you'll live outside of fantasy land a bit.

Quote:

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

Quote:

Actually, those statements don't contradict eachother and I still stand by both of them.

I think Jethro Tull wrote an album about you once.

This thread gets the 9-tail stamp of approval.

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Technophile

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.

I'm sure you'll give excellent blowjobs, having given yourself so many in the past.

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

Originally Posted by Technophile

Oh, right that. All you did was say "EITHER YOU AGREE WITH YOUR FRIEND'S METHODS OR THEY'RE ALL IDIOTS".

No, I said with considerably more restraint and tact that either you agree that your friends' methods exist or that they were all emotionally manipulated like you kept suggesting. Why do you try to rewrite history when the entire thread is readily available to viewing? We can all read the first page, sir.

Quote:

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.

It is so to laugh.

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

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Virgin counts for relationships too. You profess that you've never had sex, never been in a relationship, but you've got the pope's authority on the topic because your friends bragged about doing it. And since your authority contradicts the only second-hand reports you have, what do you base it on? Livejournals?

You've got gumption, I'll give you that.

There's nowhere I can't reach.