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.

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."

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Soluzar

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

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

Originally Posted by Sir VG

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Plainsman

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

lol @ "pure"

Idealizing virginity much?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Plainsman

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.

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.

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

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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:

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Vampiro

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

No, it really isn't.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

Most amazing jew boots

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.

FELIPE NO

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

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.