The Downside of Sex

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Vampiro

Sex equals emotional attachment.

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

wrong

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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:

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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...

FELIPE NO

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Plainsman

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Plainsman

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.

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?

I was speaking idiomatically.