Let's talk about sex baby
Offline Why do we have so many problems with sex?
I know we have come a long way as a society but in many ways it's still something that has a lot of negativity attached to it, expecially from the religious. Women are looked down on if they have slept with a lot of men. Men cannot comfortably admit to masturbation. Strange turn-ons are something to be ashamed of in many cases. The existence of homosexuals still disturbs many people. Any mention of the idea that our parents might actually have had sex, and worse might still occasionally do it, makes many of us stick our fingers in our ears and go "lalala - I'm not listening". There's the very broad idea of a sex offence which in some places means that mooning someone will get you listed along side child rapists.
Is this a part of some conspiracy to make sure noone actually enjoys themselves or is there some real reason for these taboos? Evolutionarily I see no good reason for this hang up, if anything it coud impede the reproduction of the species. Theologically I don't see why god would have such a problem with us using the equipment he gave us in ways that do no harm to others. Sex is fun, necessary for the continuation of our species and - when practiced responsibly between consenting adults - doesn't hurt anyone.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline Well this kinda went back to my question or perhaps statement of societal reverbs that occur. For example, you cheat on your partner. It was consensual. Your partner never knows.
Aha! here you changed the rules on me. I specified that it was okay as long as no one is deceived. In this case, when you cheat, your partner is deceived. Even if the partner never finds out, that's still not okay by my rule.
You admit to me that your original motivation was short term. What changed it? Something profound I'm sure so it continued. In your motivation for something short term, who you are as a person revealed itself willing to adapt to her needs. That doesn't sound like someone selfish to me.
Nope, nothing profound and never did figure out why we didn't break up. I was adapting to my own needs just as much, though.
I think the selfish short term based relationships that are fundamentally wrong are the ones which one person doesn't find themselves caring towards the person or their emotions and only desires the "quick fix". A friend of mine is like this. Leaving his home town in a matter of months, he still went out to find a woman. He refuses to form an emotional bond to her all the while allowing her to form the emotional bond to him. In the end, he let her go without a second thought and keeps her in the "black book" for anytime he goes back to visit as an easy lay.
Right, this also would not be okay in my rulebook. Someone is being hurt deliberately by this guy's actions. But it's not his motives that I use as the standard, but rather the outcome of his actions. If the girl wasn't being emotionally hurt by their relationship, no problem.
By that example, was that you when you met your wife? I'd be really surprised if you came back and said it was simply by the course of your actions.
Not sure what the question is asking, but I was looking at the time for a short-term, honest, reciprocal relationship. I had just ended a relationship where it had started out that way, but it had become clear that the girl was getting much more attached than I was. So the right thing to do in that situation, as soon as you see it happening, is to break it off.
Thoughts start off with say acknowledgment of a good looking person. Where they go from there is what is in question. When I was with my last girlfriend, did I look at other women? Sure. Did I keep that thought in my mind to create a sexual fantasy? Nope. If I did, there would be an issue because thoughts like that, when they continue, can result in you wanting to take action. Remember what I said about control?
I guess people with vivid imaginations are used to making a big wall of separation between fantasy and behavior, so it's not much of a problem. If I weren't able to draw a solid line between thinking about something and actually doing it, I would have jumped off a building long ago probably.
But the danger of repressing ideas is that they have a way of accumulating force when they're repressed. For me, I find it's better to let the thoughts to what they want because they'll find a way anyway.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
- Login to post comments
Offline How? Think what are women like today? Are they under an impression that all guys want nothing but sex? Are women trusting? Are men trusting that women aren't all golddiggers or bunny boilers (haha let's see how many know that reference)? Do many men have the attitude of women as disposable objects for their desires? These questions were not as well known as they are today and there are big reasons for that. Sexual education didn't come from parents or schools but from what we saw when we were younger and it became experimental to find out what the hell. The closure of our the baby boomer generation's parents towards sex and the let it all hang out of Generation X didn't produce a happy medium for relationships that can be healthy. Now I'm not saying don't try to experience anything, but there are right and wrong ways to approach it.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this statement. I think the idea of a 'gold-digger' was around long before free love or generation X was. I thought this term came from a time when women didn't work and were therefore dependent on the man to provide for them. A woman who went after rich men were referred to as gold-diggers.
If you're going to make an argument regarding the current state of media, that would be deserving of an entirely different thread. 
Also remember that women did not have as much freedom back then as we do now (and I'm not just talking about sexual). In the early 20th century and prior women basically grew up, got married, had babies and kept the house clean. It's a very different society now. I don't think it would be fair to blame everything on too much sex or loose (excuse the pun) sexual values.
Culture makes are values and morals. Perhaps instead of looking at the current state of sexuality we should be looking into the previous state to see what has changed.
Oh, and Razor, I'm certainly not a gold-digger. Nor am I Glenn Close. 
If god takes life he's an indian giver
- Login to post comments
Offline - motivation: see this I question. If you are married but are no longer "in love" with the person first I'd have to wonder what caused the end of that. People don't just fall out of love; my personal opinion on the issue is "love" never existed in that relationship.
I think this may be getting to the heart of the problem. Someone's been watching too many chick flicks. This is such an idealised view of love that probably only exists in fiction.
True love lasting forever, if it is ever the case is clearly the exception rather than the rule. Do you really think that is is impossible to be genuinely in love with eachother but over time grow in different ways and reach a point where you are no longer in love?
I think this fairytale view of love has made so many people frustrated by relationships. Everyone is looking for mr/mrs right. they want love at first sight, they want someone who perfectly fit's their criteria because it has to be forever.
- motivation: when people claim this is healthy, well that's when I ask, do you love one more than the other? Do you love either of them like you do yourself? Can love be split?
Again, this is some idealised view of romantic love. Do you have more than one close friend? Do you care more about one than the others? Are you being selfish?
This is just another reason for me to hate the entire romantic comedy genre (as if Hugh Grant wasn't enough.)
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
Offline This is a bad argument. If we can have sex for pleasure why should we do so wanting a baby to come of it? Pleasure and procreation can be kept separate.
You might want to go back to where Kelly rang in on this thread. My response clairifies it (especially when I told her if she doesn't want kids there are options).
I'd like to see some stats on this.
Please re-read this thread. There is a link from the CDC here already.
How can you be monogamous and choose not to be? Or do you mean naturally monogamous? I think some are naturally monogamous, I certainly am. Others are not. There are men and women who will naturally want to fuck around, I see no problem with this so long as they are responsible and take precautions. I think you are concentrating too much on your own preferences and trying to make out that yours are intrinsically best. And failing.
Everyone has the ability to choose to sleep with a person or not. It's as simple as that.
You argued the wrong point here. PJ was talking about the cultural taboos about sex and you're talking about how you think sex should be. I genuinely believe that sex is an enjoyable thing that makes people happy with minimal risks if the right precautions are taken. I see no problem in people being able to express their sexuality in sexual acts with other consenting adults. It harms no one involved.
Cultural taboos exist today for many of the same reasons discussed in this thread. As to it not harming someone...well some of my most recent posts give the example not of physical but emotional harm.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
- Login to post comments
Offline Aha! here you changed the rules on me. I specified that it was okay as long as no one is deceived.
Yep you sure did...sorry about that. Misread.
Nope, nothing profound and never did figure out why we didn't break up. I was adapting to my own needs just as much, though.
Then it was something for you to discover but you were open to the idea, meaning not thinking of your own physical pleasure only.
Right, this also would not be okay in my rulebook. Someone is being hurt deliberately by this guy's actions. But it's not his motives that I use as the standard, but rather the outcome of his actions. If the girl wasn't being emotionally hurt by their relationship, no problem.
To be honest it was very obvious that she was into him and he just wasn't going to give in. I felt really bad for the girl.
But the danger of repressing ideas is that they have a way of accumulating force when they're repressed. For me, I find it's better to let the thoughts to what they want because they'll find a way anyway.
But my point here is if the ideas are there and are increasing, there are issues below the surface with the current relationship that need to be addressed.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
- Login to post comments
Offline I think the idea of a 'gold-digger' was around long before free love or generation X was. I thought this term came from a time when women didn't work and were therefore dependent on the man to provide for them. A woman who went after rich men were referred to as gold-diggers.
It still means that but it also means the girl who uses the guy to buy her stuff. Some women ask their guys to buy all kinds of crap and the guy, stupidly, does it.
Culture makes are values and morals. Perhaps instead of looking at the current state of sexuality we should be looking into the previous state to see what has changed.
Yes and no. There is still an inherited form of right and wrong that everyone understands. People understand it's not right to sleep with a bunch of people all at the same time for some reason or another and that's what I'm referring to as morals.
Oh, and Razor, I'm certainly not a gold-digger. Nor am I Glenn Close. :P
haha so stop flirtin 
j/k
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
- Login to post comments
Offline pariahjane wrote:I think the idea of a 'gold-digger' was around long before free love or generation X was. I thought this term came from a time when women didn't work and were therefore dependent on the man to provide for them. A woman who went after rich men were referred to as gold-diggers.razorphreak wrote:It still means that but it also means the girl who uses the guy to buy her stuff. Some women ask their guys to buy all kinds of crap and the guy, stupidly, does it.Bah. But back then, what choice did a woman have? She needed a man to provide for her. Think of the origin, not the current term.
I'll agree with you that yes, the current idea of a gold-digger is as you say, though I question whether the guy is stupid or not.
I still think you're blaming sex too much. This sort of behavior is glamorized these days. Whereas in the forties and such, it was a shameful thing for a woman to do this, now it's almost cool. It's not sex that changed the culture, it's the culture that changed sex.
pariahjane wrote:Culture makes are values and morals. Perhaps instead of looking at the current state of sexuality we should be looking into the previous state to see what has changed.Yes and no. There is still an inherited form of right and wrong that everyone understands. People understand it's not right to sleep with a bunch of people all at the same time for some reason or another and that's what I'm referring to as morals.
Yes, perhaps, but Razor, right and wrong is subjective. What is right in this culture is terribly wrong in others. And vice versa. Morals are subjective. They change.
I think that you have a very black and white sense of sexual morality. I don't mean that in any negative way; I have respect for you and your opinions. You're glomming relationships and sex together into a very rigid ideal. Sex isn't ideal, neither are relationships. Love ruined marriage. The institution was never about love in the first place. It was about status, money, land, etc. Marriage was a contract, nothing more, nothing less. You have to take into consideration the broad scope of it all (that was lame, can you tell I'm tired).
Oh, and Razor, I'm certainly not a gold-digger. Nor am I Glenn Close. :P
haha so stop flirtin j/k
It's just too much fun to flirt with you, Razor.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
- Login to post comments
I think the place where we're disagreeing, Razor, is that your working under a much more absolutist set of assumptions about morality than I am.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying
1. the most important factor in deciding whether an act is moral is the motivation behind it
2. any act which is motivated by selfishness or self-centeredness is automatically bad
3. any outlet for sexual desire outside of a marriage (?) is selfish, and thus bad (maybe replace "marriage" here with "serious long-term relationship with possible marriage intentions" ?)
4. true love lasts forever; if it doesn't last forever, it wasn't true love; people who are truly in love never have thoughts that stray outside the relationship
My view of relationship morality, on the other hand, is based on consequences and outcomes rather than motivations and absolute conditions. My only assumption is, as long as nobody is being deceived or injured, consenting adults can agree to do whatever they want.
My wife and I met in a bar. Both of us intended for our relationship to be something short term--maybe a few weeks of casual fun and then go our own separate ways. By your definition, our relationship was selfish, self-centered, and therefore bad. It's getting close to 11 years now and going better than ever.
It also appears that you are under the impression that women don't seek short-term as well as long-term relationships. In fact all the behavioral research confirms that women do seek short-term relationships. They use different strategies from men and have different priorities about it, but they do it. Check out, for example,the work of David M. Buss at UT Austin.
Also the research pretty clearly shows that, in relationships that last, the love transforms away from the intoxicating "in love" feeling to a much more oxytocin-based comfort/nurturing slow burn (check out the work of Lowell Getz, University of Illinois for examples of the chemistry). And every researcher since Kinsey has confirmed that everybody who has ever been in a romantic relationship, including those that last forever, sometimes has thoughts that stray.
But, come on. Clearly it is possible for people whose selfish desires coincide to both benefit from a romantic relationship. Romance is not a zero-sum game.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
1. the most important factor in deciding whether an act is moral is the motivation behind it - strictly making reference to sexual motivation, yes. Keep that in mind on my response about you and your wife. Now anything else depends a great deal with the context of the conversation and action (e.g. if I buy a burger, my motivation was I was hungry - I don't remember there being any kind of morality tied to that).
2. any act which is motivated by selfishness or self-centeredness is automatically bad - taking the example of hunger, that's concentrating on me but that's not automatically bad so I cannot say "any act". But back to the point of sexual acts...if I'm in a relationship and I ask my partner I want to try something different with only her (like doing it on top of the car), I'm expressing my (selfish) desire to have sex on a car. But it's strictly with her. If I ask my partner I want sex on a car and have another woman involved there...umm what was my motivation? Sex on a car or to have another woman?
3. any outlet for sexual desire outside of a marriage (?) is selfish, and thus bad (maybe replace "marriage" here with "serious long-term relationship with possible marriage intentions" ?) - I'm not sure what you mean here by outlet. Going to a strip club you mean? Hooters? Watching a porno?
4. true love lasts forever; if it doesn't last forever, it wasn't true love; people who are truly in love never have thoughts that stray outside the relationship - what is true love first? In that definition, is there room for thoughts that stray? I'll get back to that since you've got more below...
Well this kinda went back to my question or perhaps statement of societal reverbs that occur. For example, you cheat on your partner. It was consensual. Your partner never knows. What did that do to you? Create a sense of guilt or pride most likely. What about to the other person? Maybe nothing immediate but consider why do women not trust married men? If it was consensual at one point why would they fear marriage because they think their man will cheat?
You admit to me that your original motivation was short term. What changed it? Something profound I'm sure so it continued. In your motivation for something short term, who you are as a person revealed itself willing to adapt to her needs. That doesn't sound like someone selfish to me.
I think the selfish short term based relationships that are fundamentally wrong are the ones which one person doesn't find themselves caring towards the person or their emotions and only desires the "quick fix". A friend of mine is like this. Leaving his home town in a matter of months, he still went out to find a woman. He refuses to form an emotional bond to her all the while allowing her to form the emotional bond to him. In the end, he let her go without a second thought and keeps her in the "black book" for anytime he goes back to visit as an easy lay.
By that example, was that you when you met your wife? I'd be really surprised if you came back and said it was simply by the course of your actions.
Oh no no I know they do. Just not as often as men do.
But you are talking about two different sensations - the excitement of the new vs. the confidence in the established. Both result in the same feeling of "in love". That for at least one person, in some cases both, never changes.
Thoughts start off with say acknowledgment of a good looking person. Where they go from there is what is in question. When I was with my last girlfriend, did I look at other women? Sure. Did I keep that thought in my mind to create a sexual fantasy? Nope. If I did, there would be an issue because thoughts like that, when they continue, can result in you wanting to take action. Remember what I said about control?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Reading this and some responses made me wonder if these taboos may in fact be an evolutionary step that is a survival trait. Overpopulation is a distinct threat to the survival of a species. It could very well be that our longevity and fertility came with a psychological factor to prevent spreading too far and thickly.
This is complete conjecture.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
This is a bad argument. If we can have sex for pleasure why should we do so wanting a baby to come of it? Pleasure and procreation can be kept separate. That's what condoms and contraceptive pills are for. When I have sex with a girl, even when I'm in a relationship I don't want a baby to come of it. I'm much too young and poor. I'd accept responsibility if such an event did occur and she chose to keep it (and believe me, there have been scares).
Sex doesn't become less meaningful as a result. I agree sex is better when it is with someone you love or are in love with. But that is my subjective opinion about how I like sex. Others may like little flings, and I can certainly see the appeal of those too, but I'd much prefer the former. Either way, who are we to say what other people should and shouldn't do with their private lives with other consenting adults.
You like it to be meaningful as do I, others just want a fuck and that is totally their decision. It doesn't make our preferences better or worse than theirs.
I'd like to see some stats on this. I can certainly see the logic in that, however with greater education about contraception this can be brought down. Of course the spread of AIDS in Africa has been extremely influenced by the sexual doctrines of the last Pope, among other Christians who quite famously told African Catholics (one man and one woman) not to use condoms. I think any reasonable ethicist would call this preaching an abominable act. Only religious belief could claim it as being moral.
How can you be monogamous and choose not to be? Or do you mean naturally monogamous? I think some are naturally monogamous, I certainly am. Others are not. There are men and women who will naturally want to fuck around, I see no problem with this so long as they are responsible and take precautions. I think you are concentrating too much on your own preferences and trying to make out that yours are intrinsically best. And failing.
[quote-Razorphreak]
I don't agree with that. I think that people are the reason behind hangups and issues of sex and not steming from religious beliefs. Sex like with anything else in life isn't meant to be taken for granted and explioted for any means necessary (career advancement or power struggles come to mind) but should be respected as not mearly as an act of mating.
You argued the wrong point here. PJ was talking about the cultural taboos about sex and you're talking about how you think sex should be. I genuinely believe that sex is an enjoyable thing that makes people happy with minimal risks if the right precautions are taken. I see no problem in people being able to express their sexuality in sexual acts with other consenting adults. It harms no one involved.
Atheist Books