Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 9:06:53 GMT -5
Bringing moral views into a conversation like this is the easiest way for it to become a bit of a shitstorm. I don't think morals have a thing to do with consensual sex between two adults. As soon as you start saying your morals are too high to have sex you're inferring that the morals of those who do are low, or at least lower than yours. Let's keep that out of it please. Honestly, I'm using it as a euphemism for the r-word, which is a much bigger can of worms altogether. I shouldn't have to get into that, but if my motives are being questioned, what else am I supposed to do? Lie and agree with it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 9:09:41 GMT -5
Bringing moral views into a conversation like this is the easiest way for it to become a bit of a shitstorm. I don't think morals have a thing to do with consensual sex between two adults. As soon as you start saying your morals are too high to have sex you're inferring that the morals of those who do are low, or at least lower than yours. Let's keep that out of it please. Honestly, I'm using it as a euphemism for the r-word, which is a much bigger can of worms altogether. I shouldn't have to get into that, but if my motives are being questioned, what else am I supposed to do? Lie and agree with it? I specifically said consensual sex, the conversation was about someone's lack of/wondering what the deal was when it comes to sex in general (the assumed being consensual sex). There's no need to bring morals into the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Jun 21, 2014 9:12:17 GMT -5
I distinctly remember having the feeling of, "that was it? really?" and thinking I could have been playing video games instead.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,327
|
Post by agent817 on Jun 21, 2014 9:17:59 GMT -5
I'm off point. Sex is great. Have it sooner than later if you can because it's NOT as big a deal as anyone makes it out to be. The consequence of it are yes, but the actual act isn't. It's fun and a great connection but don't worry about it. Uh, do you mean it's better to have sex at a younger age than at an "older" age? I still have yet to do the deed, but are you implying that as men approach 30, they are likely to have dysfunction?
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,993
|
Post by Sparkybob on Jun 21, 2014 9:21:39 GMT -5
I distinctly remember having the feeling of, "that was it? really?" and thinking I could have been playing video games instead. That will be the same reaction when Vince sneezes for the first time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 9:21:58 GMT -5
I'm off point. Sex is great. Have it sooner than later if you can because it's NOT as big a deal as anyone makes it out to be. The consequence of it are yes, but the actual act isn't. It's fun and a great connection but don't worry about it. Uh, do you mean it's better to have sex at a younger age than at an "older" age? I still have yet to do the deed, but are you implying that as men approach 30, they are likely to have dysfunction? I'm thinking it's more along the lines of: "oh THAT's what all the fuss was about? Why did I wait?"
|
|
|
Post by Piccolo on Jun 21, 2014 9:26:24 GMT -5
Honestly, I'm using it as a euphemism for the r-word, which is a much bigger can of worms altogether. I shouldn't have to get into that, but if my motives are being questioned, what else am I supposed to do? Lie and agree with it? I specifically said consensual sex, the conversation was about someone's lack of/wondering what the deal was when it comes to sex in general (the assumed being consensual sex). There's no need to bring morals into the conversation. Wrong "r" word. And I think you're generally misunderstanding anyway. There's not one universal set of morals, such that his morals driving him to make a decision means that you're amoral if yours drive you to make a different decision. He's explaining why he lives the way he does. His set of morals informs that lifestyle, so they're part of the explanation. It has nothing at all to do with you or the decisions you make in your life.
|
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,327
|
Post by agent817 on Jun 21, 2014 9:27:34 GMT -5
Uh, do you mean it's better to have sex at a younger age than at an "older" age? I still have yet to do the deed, but are you implying that as men approach 30, they are likely to have dysfunction? I'm thinking it's more along the lines of: "oh THAT's what all the fuss was about? Why did I wait?" Perhaps, but I have been given the type of shit by a friend before about how I "need to get laid." I wonder why it mattered to him, probably because I am not some skirt-chaser going after any hole to drill. One way of looking at my situation is that I am shy, but not shy enough that I can't talk to a woman at all. Some of the time is because I don't have much a drive to approach women. I can say "Yes, she is pretty, but I don't think I want her." Also, when I do talk to a woman, things fizzle out too quickly. This girl who I was talking to lately went through some problems with a guy and how she slept with the guy, yet we didn't have sex. She told me that I am a good guy and that I deserve someone who is an emotional wreck. Sometimes I question my attractiveness stat because she might have found this guy irresistible enough to get into bed with him and she wasn't in love with him.
|
|
|
Post by Kitty Shamrocks on Jun 21, 2014 9:30:51 GMT -5
Uh, do you mean it's better to have sex at a younger age than at an "older" age? I still have yet to do the deed, but are you implying that as men approach 30, they are likely to have dysfunction? I'm thinking it's more along the lines of: "oh THAT's what all the fuss was about? Why did I wait?" Well that's because (for the majority of people, anyway), the first time kinda sucks. So if it's just a one time thing with a person, yeah, you're gonna feel that way. If you're in a good relationship and learn what each other like etc., it's great. It's a big reason why I don't do "one-offs" (anymore). You're risking extreme awkwardness and some other, VERY serious risks for something that might not even be that good.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 21, 2014 9:49:30 GMT -5
There's a laundry list of reasons people are obsessed with sex, and many of them come from different schools/philosophies.
-The Basic School: Sex feels good. That doesn't mean it's always the best thing in the world (some partners are more exciting or more fulfilling than others), and sometimes people are downright terrible at it, but sexual release is widely considered a healthy, pleasurable biological action. Don't take this to mean all people are wired the same way concerning sex, however; some people seek it out almost to the detriment of the rest of their well-being, while others might find themselves having a very "take it or leave it" feeling afterward, for lack of a better term; most wind up somewhere in between. Some of this is tied up in psychology, as well.
-The Market School: Sex sells. Think of how young you were when you first saw a commercial that used sexual imagery to sell a product; you have been bombarded with that imagery since before you could even read, most likely. The most frequently referenced example, usually, is a beer commercial: "Drink this, and you'll get to party with insanely attractive women!" Sex is thus tied not only to physical pleasure, but to socio-economic factors, including the urge to consume (food, drinks, or just buying stuff), and a sense of overall contentment and achievement, as sex becomes tied to being a "winner" by choosing the product being peddled/partying or sleeping with the type of women in the advertisement.
Which ties into:
-The Patriarchy School: Those "sex sells" commercials? Almost universally it's women who are being sexualized. This ties into a system where masculinity and success as a man is tied almost directly to sexual "conquests", and all the undertones concerning power and control that lie therein. This is where the awful, awful terminology "alpha male" and "beta male" come in; if a guy regularly has sex, then he is somehow more successful in every way conceivable. Thus, if you're not having it, or even just not having it enough, that by default makes you a failure. Failure at what? Some of these guys would say everything, because they tie up sex into personal, social, economic, and straight-up gender identity defining success. Insanely unhealthy, to say the least, given how women apparently don't get their own say in this school.
-The Social School: This is a bit less malicious, but can still lead to unfair stereotyping and what have you. Some people see a lack of sex in a person's life as an indication that said person does not have an active/healthy social life. To be fair, there can be something to this: many people who are more socially active will wind up having sex without actively seeking it, simply because they were out in public meeting people, interacting with people, and thus at some point they made a connection with somebody else. Then when you see somebody who has hobbies or what have you that involve staying in or being on his/her own, and then hear them complaining about not having sex, it's hard not to think "Well...why don't you get out there and meet people?". Still, it's an unfortunate line of thinking; taken to its logical extreme, it comes to mean that anybody who doesn't have sex/seek out sex must be a shut-in and a social miscreant, and that they must not really get any fulfillment out of their hobbies, that they must only engage in them in a vain attempt to make up for not having sex. This removes agency from the person, because it comes off as "You're lying when you say you get fulfillment out of </insert hobby here>, since sex is the only way to achieve that feeling."
There's been a very good movement in recent years where people are encouraged to feel more freedom concerning their sexuality; repression is by and large pretty unhealthy, and the notion that people should feel shame about sex or only talk about it in whispers has been challenged. That said, there's also been an unfortunate trend toward defining a person's entire well-being, socio-economic standing, and overall "success" as a person with how frequently they have sex, and that's going to take time for society to grow beyond, if it ever truly does.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 29,023
|
Post by Sephiroth on Jun 21, 2014 10:13:03 GMT -5
To be serious: sexuality is one of the most basic human instincts, no matter your preferences. One of the most natural urges that we have as mammals is to procreate, and as males it can be moreso because like so many other creatures on this earth our natural compulsion is to want to spread our genetic material to every possible recipient. The reason that young people (teens through 20's) place such emphasis on it, as the OP clearly is putting up with, is because at that point in your life it is still something so new, exciting, and I dare say, thrilling. And for some reason of evolution and socialization, it is regarded as a status symbol for a man to have been intimate with every female possible. The truth is that once you get older you will most likely have had sex so many times that it really isn't anything special anymore, it is just a part of life. I feel no shame in admitting it has been several years since my last time, and I really don't feel like I am missing out on much of anything. Yeah, it would be nice once in a while, but overall it is just not a priority for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 10:41:54 GMT -5
I specifically said consensual sex, the conversation was about someone's lack of/wondering what the deal was when it comes to sex in general (the assumed being consensual sex). There's no need to bring morals into the conversation. Wrong "r" word. And I think you're generally misunderstanding anyway. There's not one universal set of morals, such that his morals driving him to make a decision means that you're amoral if yours drive you to make a different decision. He's explaining why he lives the way he does. His set of morals informs that lifestyle, so they're part of the explanation. It has nothing at all to do with you or the decisions you make in your life. I knew what they meant originally, that's why I initially made the post about the fact that there's no need to bring up "morals" in this conversation. The second post was just covering all the "R" words. My initial point still stands, there was no need to bring religion into this conversation (that's what they admitted to doing, just using the phrase "morals" as opposed to "the r word"). When someone asks "what's the big deal with sex? Why do people care if I have it?" the correct response is definitely not "I don't have sex because of my religion", which is what Art Ruth was saying. I'm not trying to make this a religious conversation, just the opposite. My whole point was there was no need for Art Ruth to do so, euphemism or not. A sex talk doesn't always have to become crude (lockable) or about religion (lockable). Can't we just have a conversation where we leave those out of it?
|
|
Brood Lone Wolf Funker
Ozymandius
Got fined anyway. Possibly a Moose
James Franco is the white Donald Glover
Posts: 62,404
|
Post by Brood Lone Wolf Funker on Jun 21, 2014 10:48:54 GMT -5
Or maybe there is another reason people chose not to have sex, they don't feel comfortable with it due to past trauma or bad experiences and thus don't want to rush in a new relationship
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Dave on Jun 21, 2014 10:50:42 GMT -5
I'm off point. Sex is great. Have it sooner than later if you can because it's NOT as big a deal as anyone makes it out to be. The consequence of it are yes, but the actual act isn't. It's fun and a great connection but don't worry about it. Uh, do you mean it's better to have sex at a younger age than at an "older" age? I still have yet to do the deed, but are you implying that as men approach 30, they are likely to have dysfunction? Not at all. No one needs to do anything by any timeline. By consequences I meant STDs or something. In a conversation about sex, that or pregnancy should be mentioned. Sex isn't just some activity. It has ramifications sometimes. And I only told the OP the "have it sooner than later/ not a big deal" thing because it seemed like his issue might be what mine was. For me it wasn't anything more than fear of not being "physically" up to it. Once I had, I realized my problem was all in my head. I'm nit saying not having sex is a problem, but I didn't because I did have one with myself.
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Jun 21, 2014 14:16:55 GMT -5
The very idea of "getting laid" is so misogynistic and heterocentric that it kind of offends me but that's another topic. While I agree in principle, I have more female friends who complain about "not getting laid often enough" (their exact words) than male. I realise that's the exception, not the rule, but it's not quite as black and white as you put it. I have those friends as well. I'm not coming from the false notion that women don't like sex or that women don't like intercourse in particular. I was referring more to the hetronormative idea that the only real sex is vaginal intercourse and that all sex other than doesn't count toward an ability to increase your number of partners.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 21, 2014 14:27:28 GMT -5
One of the better bits of advice I ever read for young people was to attempt to overcome social pressure to think too much about sex/relationships when you're, say, high school age, and instead focus on what makes you happy, excited, entertained, enthralled, or just curious as an individual. Read books, do some small-scale traveling (obviously teens don't tend to have the funds to go very far), study various fields and subjects, try out different foods, play a new sport, watch or read something you might not immediately feel drawn to, etc.
Doing this can lead a person to knew ways of thinking, new hobbies, and new ideas that can give him/her a sense of self, a sense of what brings him/her personal satisfaction. The sooner a person can define his/herself on things besides sexual experience, the better off that person is, and oddly enough the more likely that person will be to have sex or a solid relationship in the near future; after all, doesn't so much relationship/sex advice boil down to "confidence"? What better way to build confidence than to actually learn about who you are as a person instead of obsessing over something you're not usually very ready for?
...By the by, this doesn't mean it's necessarily bad to have sex or a relationship when you're young; every individual case is different, and it works out fine for plenty of people to start earlier. But when people define themselves by their sex lives before they've even hit 20 years of age, that's just typically problematic for most people.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 21, 2014 14:30:14 GMT -5
While I agree in principle, I have more female friends who complain about "not getting laid often enough" (their exact words) than male. I realise that's the exception, not the rule, but it's not quite as black and white as you put it. I have those friends as well. I'm not coming from the false notion that women don't like sex or that women don't like intercourse in particular. I was referring more to the hetronormative idea that the only real sex is vaginal intercourse and that all sex other than doesn't count toward an ability to increase your number of partners. Also, it's not at all uncommon for people from a more oppressed group to use language or phrases derived from the dominant group. I think one can argue that "getting laid" has evolved in meaning enough where it doesn't carry the same misogynistic weight it once did, but it's fair to say it does come from that heteronormative background, and that a phrase can potentially still be sexist/racist/etc. even if people in the more oppressed group use it themselves.
|
|
wakko
Samurai Cop
Knows This
BAAAGH!!!!
Posts: 2,212
|
Post by wakko on Jun 21, 2014 14:46:17 GMT -5
It all depends on what you find important. I myself am 33, and haven't had sex yet. Am I ashamed of this? No. Sex is something I will experience but on my terms. I'm not gonna go have sex just to have sex. Nothing against people that do, it's just not my thing. I was brought up to believe that sex is special between two people who care about each other. Just my two cents. And let the jokes about a 33 year old virgin commence.
|
|
Glitch
King Koopa
Not Going To Die; Childs, we're goin' out to give Blair the test. If he tries to make it back here and we're not with him... burn him.
Watching you.
Posts: 12,721
Member is Online
|
Post by Glitch on Jun 21, 2014 15:03:41 GMT -5
"Sure, get him a woman. That'll end his misery. Hahahaha!!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2014 15:16:36 GMT -5
It's definitely in how people were raised. Some people think of sex as an almost spiritual act, for others it's simply a pleasurable biological function. I'm in the latter.
I fully agree that making love is an absolutely soulful and special act that can't be beat, but there's a difference between making love and having sex. For those who have never had it, it seems the longer they wait the more mystifying it becomes. It's emphatically not. Sex is biological, Love is emotional. Sex with someone you love is excellent and worth *ahem* shooting for, but I don't believe there's a need to wait for that someone before you have any sex at all. All you're doing at that point is depriving yourself of pleasure.
Wait if you want, be responsible if you don't, but don't mystify sex. Take it off the pedestal. As long as you're an adult and accepting of the risks, rewards and outcomes there's zero point in waiting unless it's just what you want to do. It's your call, just don't do it (or don't don't do it) for the wrong reasons.
|
|