Men and Women and Porn and Strip Clubs

[Scottdmw]

I'm not saying they do. My original point that led to our exchange was to point out that women (or men for that matter) who routinely use terms such as gross, disgusting, or perverted to describe pretty mainstream sexual behaviors have a baseline issue with sexuality in general, nothing more.

 

But, what source does your concept of mainstream sexual behaviors come from? What is the source of your values? Is it defined as things that, say, 50% of the population do? But, which population? The US of right now? Big cities or out in the country? The US of 150 years ago? Saudi Arabia (not that I'm trying to defend them or agree with them)?

 

If someone waved a magic wand and suddenly 95% of the population of the US adopted, say, the sexual values of Islam, would you then agree that those values were "mainstream" and follow them as correct? Or do you only refer to mainstream values if you agree with them?

 

Would you disagree if I said that for thousands of years, since the fall of Rome anyway, most of Western European civilization has had a concept of mainstream sexual behavior that is pretty different from yours? So now in America for about the last 40 years there is a new concept of mainstream sexual behavior which is called “healthy”. Anyone who disagrees with it is labelled “unhealthy”. Isn't that just as much of a value judgment as calling something “gross” or “perverted”? What all these words mean is someone else has a concept of mainstream sexual behavior that is quite different than yours.

 

Some cultures, such as the US in the past (and still with some people today including myself), place a very high value on true monogamy. They do this because they believe it promotes overall happiness to have a more stable family structure. They are willing to sacrifice the thrills and pleasures of casual sex in return for these other goods. They believe that other goods in life are more important than sex. To cultures that have made this choice, a threesome is indeed perverted, or “unhealthy” if you prefer, because to them it attacks the stable family structure and societal structure that these cultures wish to promote. It is a sub-optimal decision to them if you want to get really technical with words.

 

My point is, I don't think it's really fair of you to say that someone has “issues” with sexuality because they have different values than you. I would wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that people have conservative sexual values because they are stupid, ignorant, close-minded, non-adventurous, et cetera, though of course there are always individuals that are. Most people do think through their decisions on this, and cultures originally come to these kind of values because a lot of people decide that they are the right way to go. I don’t think it’s just a few old men handing down the law and forcing everyone to go along with their whims. To casually dismiss such cultural choices as “unhealthy” or as people having “issues” grossly oversimplifies the question.

 

Scott

[sally4sara]

A single incident does not a trend make. And lets face it, sometimes when one is at a time of great stress or pressure, just being able to rub one out, while possibly selfish, can help deal with the situation. When it becomes a regular occurrence, then you have a problem.

 

A single incident does not make a trend FOR YOU and that is how you work. I understand what you're saying. I too have been too stressed to have the energy or patience required to attend to, not just my own urge, but the urges and satisfaction of said urges of my partner.

I can still understand that to others, the guy lied about his motives for not being amorous with his partner leading to that partner feeling betrayed. I can see how feeling lied to and betrayed by the one person who tells you the love and desire you above others can deal a big blow to the ego.

 

I don't think you need to be like they are or that you're wrong for not being so. I'm just saying that you being one way doesn't mean that way is THE WAY. It doesn't make them completely effed up.

[sxyNYCcpl]

But, what source does your concept of mainstream sexual behaviors come from? What is the source of your values? Is it defined as things that, say, 50% of the population do?

 

Mainstream: Belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc.

 

Society as a whole defines what is and is not mainstream. That doesn't mean that everyone agrees, nor does it mean there aren't behaviors that, while common, are not mainstream. Swinging, for example, is fairly common, but is not yet mainstream. I don't think there's any "line in the sand" such as your 50% number that defines it, if for no other reason than it's simply not that scientific.

 

But, which population? The US of right now? Big cities or out in the country? The US of 150 years ago? Saudi Arabia (not that I'm trying to defend them or agree with them)?

 

In this case, 21st Century USA. Seems like silly questions so far, because words do have meanings.

 

If someone waved a magic wand and suddenly 95% of the population of the US adopted, say, the sexual values of Islam, would you then agree that those values were "mainstream" and follow them as correct? Or do you only refer to mainstream values if you agree with them?

 

As I said, words have meanings. In your outlandish scenario, "mainstream sexuality" would come to mean something drastically different than what it does now. I would never voluntarily participate in such a society, however, even if it meant fighting to my death, but that has little if anything to do with sexuality.

 

Would you disagree if I said that for thousands of years, since the fall of Rome anyway, most of Western European civilization has had a concept of mainstream sexual behavior that is pretty different from yours?

 

Would you disagree if I said that for thousands of years, since the fall of Rome anyway, most of Western European civilization has had a concept of technology that is pretty different from yours?

 

Times change, deal with it.

 

So now in America for about the last 40 years there is a new concept of mainstream sexual behavior which is called “healthy”. Anyone who disagrees with it is labelled “unhealthy”. Isn't that just as much of a value judgment as calling something “gross” or “perverted”? What all these words mean is someone else has a concept of mainstream sexual behavior that is quite different than yours.

 

Mainstream is not a matter of individual opinion, it is based on societal norms. It seems you and I have very different desires on how we wish to express our sexuality, but that doesn't change what is, or is not, mainstream.

 

You are trying to play semantic games. If I tell you "I love sushi", and your response is "That's gross!", it's pretty clear you have baseline issues with either raw food, seafood, or possibly both. As for healthy vs. non-healthy sexual behavior, what's changed in the last 40 years is that we've collectively decided that the rules that you can't do this, and you mustn't do that were silly. Because, in fact, they were.

 

To wish to stick to an old, discredited standard just because is the definition of unhealthy.

 

Some cultures, such as the US in the past (and still with some people today including myself), place a very high value on true monogamy.

 

You are deluding yourself. At best, our society places a high value on the appearance of monogamy. Most data I've seen on the topic shows that upwards of 50-60% of married folk have had one or more affairs, and even amongst those who are chaste within their marriage, individuals who have never had sex with someone other than their current spouse are exceedingly rare.

 

And before you try to pin this on the sexual permissiveness of the last 40 years, read some history. Mistresses have been common throughout it, the biggest change in the last 40 years is that women have decided they want to play too.

 

They do this because they believe it promotes overall happiness to have a more stable family structure. They are willing to sacrifice the thrills and pleasures of casual sex in return for these other goods. They believe that other goods in life are more important than sex.

 

Your point is?

 

To cultures that have made this choice, a threesome is indeed perverted, or “unhealthy” if you prefer, because to them it attacks the stable family structure and societal structure that these cultures wish to promote.

 

Really? Please do explain exactly how 3 people engaging in consensual sexual activity amongst themselves manages to "attack" the stable family structure?

 

This'll be interesting.

 

My point is, I don't think it's really fair of you to say that someone has “issues” with sexuality because they have different values than you.

 

I didn't say that. I fully recognize that my values are outside the norm. My original point, which you still seem to have a hard time grasping, has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Anyone who would categorize run of the mill, vanilla sexual activites as "gross" or "nasty" or "perverted" has issues with sex in general. Period.

 

And to at least make a token effort to relate back to the original topic, woman whose real problem lies with sex in general need to address that before they can reasonably expect anyone to even consider their opinion when it comes to porn within a relationship. Of course, I believe were they to manage to acquire a healthy relationship with their own sexuality in the first place, whatever objections they have to porn would cease to exist, as they would recognize it for the silliness that it is.

 

I would wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that people have conservative sexual values because they are stupid, ignorant, close-minded, non-adventurous, et cetera, though of course there are always individuals that are. Most people do think through their decisions on this, and cultures originally come to these kind of values because a lot of people decide that they are the right way to go. I don’t think it’s just a few old men handing down the law and forcing everyone to go along with their whims. To casually dismiss such cultural choices as “unhealthy” or as people having “issues” grossly oversimplifies the question.

 

Here's the problem. Many (maybe most, probably not all) who subscribe to such "conservative sexual values" have the expectation that everyone else should live by them as well, to the point that they would, and indeed have, codified it into law. In many states it is STILL TODAY technically a felony to have oral sex with your spouse! In others "sex toys" are verboten. In many places, swing clubs are explicitly forbidden by law! You yourself went so far to say that engaging an a threesome is somehow a threat to society itself!

 

I don't question anybodies individual choices on how they wish to express their sexuality. That's their choice to make. I do, however, wonder how many have made a genuine, thought inspired choice vs. merely accepting what they've been told is the only proper way. But the simple fact of the matter is that in many cases, it absolutely DOES come down to "a few old men handing down the law and forcing everyone to go along with their whims". Many go along without even considering alternatives. For those who go along with that school of thought after carefully considering their options, as you apparently have, more power to you.

[sxyNYCcpl]

I can still understand that to others, the guy lied about his motives for not being amorous with his partner leading to that partner feeling betrayed. I can see how feeling lied to and betrayed by the one person who tells you the love and desire you above others can deal a big blow to the ego.

 

If the guy truly lied, that's a problem all by itself regardless of what it was about (with certain exceptions such as surprise parties, etc.)

 

The problem with debating the merits of your example is that there are too many variables.

 

Did the guy intentionally lie to her, planning the whole time to wank to porn, or did he spontaneously decide to take a 5 minute break to relieve some stress? Was it reasonable to assume that waking her up at 3am for some hanky panky would be received negatively? Was it reasonable to assume she was asleep in the first place?

 

I understand you're trying to come up with an example that shows that sometimes it's reasonable to have a negative reaction. And if, in fact, in your example, he intentionally lied to her intending the whole time to wank to porn when she was asleep, that is such a time. But to jump to that conclusion with no evidence pointing to it whatsoever is akin to assuming that merely for the fact that your husbands cell phone is ringing, it must be a mistress calling, despite the fact there is not any reason to believe he even has one in the first place.

[Scottdmw]

Mainstream: Belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc.

 

Society as a whole defines what is and is not mainstream. That doesn't mean that everyone agrees, nor does it mean there aren't behaviors that, while common, are not mainstream. Swinging, for example, is fairly common, but is not yet mainstream. I don't think there's any "line in the sand" such as your 50% number that defines it, if for no other reason than it's simply not that scientific.

 

In this case, 21st Century USA. Seems like silly questions so far, because words do have meanings.

 

Would you disagree if I said that for thousands of years, since the fall of Rome anyway, most of Western European civilization has had a concept of technology that is pretty different from yours?

 

Times change, deal with it.

 

Mainstream is not a matter of individual opinion, it is based on societal norms. It seems you and I have very different desires on how we wish to express our sexuality, but that doesn't change what is, or is not, mainstream.

 

You are trying to play semantic games. If I tell you "I love sushi", and your response is "That's gross!", it's pretty clear you have baseline issues with either raw food, seafood, or possibly both. As for healthy vs. non-healthy sexual behavior, what's changed in the last 40 years is that we've collectively decided that the rules that you can't do this, and you mustn't do that were silly. Because, in fact, they were.

 

To wish to stick to an old, discredited standard just because is the definition of unhealthy..

 

You seem to be trying to claim a privleged reference point for your values simply because they agree with a large number of people in modern day America, that certain values are correct because they are followed by a large number of people in this current age. You want to say that values in previous times were unhealthy or silly, though you give no evidence for that except that currently they are out of the mainstream.

 

Let's take a simple example. Would you say that it is healthy to have sex with a person before marriage? You can make that claim as a matter of opinion, or as a claim that it is widely practiced, but to make it as a matter of fact you are going to need to present evidence that people who do so really do end up being more healthy than people who don't. Do they have a longer life expectancy? Greater immunity to certain diseases? Are you sure that when you say "healthy" you don't really mean "agrees with the values of the majority" or "mainstream"?

 

Can you even demonstrate correlation between pre-marital sex and any objective standard of health or well-being?

 

You describe my standard as old and discredited. What does old have to do with anything? Is it true that as time goes forward everything always improves? Do societies never get worse rather than better? Saying something is bad because it is old is arguing by the calendar and is a logical fallacy.

 

Discredited is your opinion. It has yet to be seen that the sexual values of modern America are going to last for the long term.

 

If in the next 40 years the pendulum swings the other way and mainstream America adopts more conservative sexual values again, will you then say that the values it has now are "silly" and "outdated"? If swinging becomes much less popular, something that only say 5% do, would you say that you are the one that has "issues" because you are out of the mainstream?

 

That is what I'm trying to get at with my semantics and questions.

 

 

You are deluding yourself. At best, our society places a high value on the appearance of monogamy. Most data I've seen on the topic shows that upwards of 50-60% of married folk have had one or more affairs, and even amongst those who are chaste within their marriage, individuals who have never had sex with someone other than their current spouse are exceedingly rare.

 

And before you try to pin this on the sexual permissiveness of the last 40 years, read some history. Mistresses have been common throughout it, the biggest change in the last 40 years is that women have decided they want to play too..

 

I didn't say our society values true monogamy, obviously it doesn't. I said that some people do. I think that number was significantly higher in the past.

 

Mistresses may have been common among the privileged classes but I don't think so much among the vast majority of the population.

 

 

Really? Please do explain exactly how 3 people engaging in consensual sexual activity amongst themselves manages to "attack" the stable family structure?

 

This'll be interesting...

 

Remember, this was specifically in the context of a culture that values true monogamy. The value in such a culture has always been that everyone knows who their parents are and who their children are, and parents are married to each other and raise the children together. Not in all cases but much more on average. A threesome attacks this by promoting sex outside of marriage, where children may be born in situations where they cannot be raised by their genetic parents, unless you do polygamy where some spouses get the short end of the stick. It causes the formation of sexual bonding between multiple people who can't all be really happy in the situation, in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

I didn't say that. I fully recognize that my values are outside the norm. My original point, which you still seem to have a hard time grasping, has nothing whatsoever to do with me. Anyone who would categorize run of the mill, vanilla sexual activites as "gross" or "nasty" or "perverted" has issues with sex in general. Period

 

What you are saying is that anyone who disagrees with the majority about sexual practices has issues. That's what I mean when I say you are claiming a privileged reference frame for your values based on what some number of other people do.

 

 

And to at least make a token effort to relate back to the original topic, woman whose real problem lies with sex in general need to address that before they can reasonably expect anyone to even consider their opinion when it comes to porn within a relationship. Of course, I believe were they to manage to acquire a healthy relationship with their own sexuality in the first place, whatever objections they have to porn would cease to exist, as they would recognize it for the silliness that it is.

 

It seems like you are claiming that a woman has a problem with sex if she disagrees with the values of the majority. Or, what else do you mean?

 

 

 

Here's the problem. Many (maybe most, probably not all) who subscribe to such "conservative sexual values" have the expectation that everyone else should live by them as well, to the point that they would, and indeed have, codified it into law. In many states it is STILL TODAY technically a felony to have oral sex with your spouse! In others "sex toys" are verboten. In many places, swing clubs are explicitly forbidden by law! You yourself went so far to say that engaging an a threesome is somehow a threat to society itself!

 

I don't question anybodies individual choices on how they wish to express their sexuality. That's their choice to make. I do, however, wonder how many have made a genuine, thought inspired choice vs. merely accepting what they've been told is the only proper way. But the simple fact of the matter is that in many cases, it absolutely DOES come down to "a few old men handing down the law and forcing everyone to go along with their whims". Many go along without even considering alternatives. For those who go along with that school of thought after carefully considering their options, as you apparently have, more power to you.

 

I did say a threesome might be a threat to society, though keep in mind there are levels of threats and it's not like I believe this is extremely serious by itself. I believe it is a sub-optimal decision, that it brings more bad than good for individuals and for others who observe the individuals. I might put it on a level with, for example, the obesity epidemic in the US right now.

 

When you say a few old men have handed down the law to create sexual values in some society, on what do you base that claim? Are you sure the old men didn't just codify what most people already believed? Give an example, preferably one that is not from some extreme case.

 

It sounds like you are worried that society will impose its sexual values on you, by outlawing swinging, sex toys, etc., even though these laws are never enforced and it doesn't seem like much of a threat right now. Perhaps you could then empathize with the position of someone like myself, or a woman with tradtional values, who feels like society is trying to force them to accept different values through pressure rather than laws, by calling them "unhealthy", "having issues", and "out of the mainstream" etc. if they disagree with majority practice. How do you imagine it feels to be a woman who _feels_ deeply that porn is bad, but is being told that she is just going to have to go along with it because it is mainstream?

 

Scott

[a4a]

interesting.

 

I have not yet to hear of anyone trying to force people by law to have premarital sex.

 

(Note I do think it is highly important that two people are sure they are sexually compatiable before committing to a R of any kind)

 

Too many times people are matched without similar sex drives or desires...... just look at the threads here. So yes I would say premarital sex is healthier for LTRs/Ms than bedding down as virgins after commitments have been made.

 

Premarital sex between consenting adults using the proper protection is likely much healthier for M's in the long run. You know what you are buying.

 

And it is not like all the little dirty sex things just cropped up in the last 50 years... orgies, lesbians, gays, swingers, mistresses and even porn has been around for a very very long time. Just now it is not hidden in the back of the closet.

 

I doubt 50 years ago you would have even been chatting about sex so openly yourself.

[sally4sara]

If the guy truly lied, that's a problem all by itself regardless of what it was about (with certain exceptions such as surprise parties, etc.)

 

Oh I agree totally. The couple times I've stopped in on a topic about how porn is a problem in some girl's relationship, I find myself thinking:

 

No, the problem is your guy misleads you and too often decides to be sexually selfish; he just happens to use porn in these moments. He doesn't care as much for your feelings or pleasure as he has allowed you to think he does for the sake of having sex on tap when he DOES feel like sharing. Ditch him.

 

These same threads contain pages and pages of telling this girl she is out of line and insecure. Does not compute.

She has a problem but she happens to love the problem (her BF hubby whatnot) so she is more comfortable saying porn is the problem than she is with recognizing it is the character of the man she is with.

 

"Things would be fine if not for that nasty porn!"

 

That isn't the advise she most gets though. She gets told he is being normal and she is being a stifling, insecure prude. He isn't being normal, he is being a selfish pr!*k. But suddenly all these guys who glance at porn now and then while in a relationship throw reason out the window and start defending their own actions as though she is complaining about them personally and not her own partner. She is left feeling like she cannot take issue with him else be a controlling hag.

 

You're right though about too many variables. Sometimes it is prudery, other times its a big damn problem. That's the only reason why I jumped on your sweeping statement.

[sxyNYCcpl]

You seem to be trying to claim a privleged reference point for your values simply because they agree with a large number of people in modern day America, that certain values are correct because they are followed by a large number of people in this current age. You want to say that values in previous times were unhealthy or silly, though you give no evidence for that except that currently they are out of the mainstream.

 

Certainly not. I do not believe in "mob rule" on any topic, nor have I formed my own personal sexual morality based upon any influence except my own self examination.

 

At my core, I am a very libertarian type of person. That means many things, but one thing that it means, to me at least, is that EVERYTHING should be legal EXCEPT that which is proven detrimental to individual people.

 

As two extreme examples of that, murder clearly damages an individual ergo even in the most extreme libertine society would still be banned, whereas to the extent that pot has the capability of damaging anybody at all, it is confined to the person who voluntarily chooses to use it, ergo no good reason to ban it.

 

How does that apply to my sexual philosophy? Simple. Sex is fun! It can be damaging insofar as it has the capability of creating unwanted pregnancies, and unwanted diseases. However, by taking appropriate steps those risks can be mitigated to negligible levels, and like my pot example, should they occur anyway, they only affect people who have knowingly taken on that risk.

 

Ergo, the "old ways" that sex was to be between married people ONLY, and indeed some go so far as to say "and even then, only when procreation is being attempted" seems like a senseless restriction.

 

Sex is as viable a recreational activity as is golf, or tennis, or scrabble.

 

Let's take a simple example. Would you say that it is healthy to have sex with a person before marriage? You can make that claim as a matter of opinion, or as a claim that it is widely practiced, but to make it as a matter of fact you are going to need to present evidence that people who do so really do end up being more healthy than people who don't. Do they have a longer life expectancy? Greater immunity to certain diseases? Are you sure that when you say "healthy" you don't really mean "agrees with the values of the majority" or "mainstream"?

 

I would take it a step farther and say that it's bordering on insane NOT to have sex before marriage. Why? Very simple, actually.

 

Assuming we're talking about a couple that intends to be monogamous and married "until death they do part" then waiting until after you've said "I do" to learn whether or not you are sexually compatible is taking a really, really big gamble, with really bad consequences if it turns out you are not. And that has NOTHING to do with what is or isn't "widely practiced" or "mainstream". It's a bit cliche, but I wouldn't buy a car without test driving it.

 

Can you even demonstrate correlation between pre-marital sex and any objective standard of health or well-being?

 

You are putting the cart in front of the horse, and presuming guilt where the presumption should be innocence. I do not need to defend pre-marital sex (at least according to my libertarian philosophy), because unless it can be shown to cause harm it must be allowed.

 

I need not show that pre-marital sex affects positively any standard of health, you need to show that it causes harm to non-participants. Ditto any sex act you wish to demonize, and most CERTAINLY for any sex act you would see criminalized.

 

You describe my standard as old and discredited. What does old have to do with anything? Is it true that as time goes forward everything always improves? Do societies never get worse rather than better? Saying something is bad because it is old is arguing by the calendar and is a logical fallacy.

 

It's not discredited BECAUSE it's old, it's discredited because we were taught for generations that there was only one acceptable way to express your sexuality, and we've learned through experience that that lesson was wrong.

 

That lesson being that sex is only ok for a married couple, behind closed doors, with the curtains drawn, the lights off, the covers pulled, in the missionary position, and while trying to make a baby. Can't do it just for fun, can't do it before you're married, can't do it with your mouth or a toy, can't masturbate, can't watch other people do it, or let others watch you, and above all, you most certainly can't do it in a group!

 

But then some folks came along who actually had the audacity to challenge the status quo, and ask themselves, "Why exactly do we have all these rules and restrictions?" You know the conclusion many, if not most came to? That there is no good reason to have them! That, and not the calendar, is why they've been discredited.

 

It has yet to be seen that the sexual values of modern America are going to last for the long term.

 

Do you seriously believe the horse is going back into the barn? That people are going to wake up and go "Whoa, I'm having way too much fun, I have to put a stop to this!"?

 

I call them "silly" because there need to be REASONS to restrict an activity that in and of itself is fun and pleasurable.

 

If swinging becomes much less popular, something that only say 5% do, would you say that you are the one that has "issues" because you are out of the mainstream?

 

I have never said that swinging is mainstream in the first place, it is not. It may or may not eventually become so, and it is growing rapidly from my casual observations, but it certainly isn't there yet. I do not participate, or refuse to participate, in any given activity merely due to whether or not it is mainstream.

 

I didn't say our society values true monogamy, obviously it doesn't. I said that some people do. I think that number was significantly higher in the past.

 

On this, we agree. Yet, it seems you feel like we've lost something, whereas I feel we've gained something. What is it that you feel is lost?

 

Mistresses may have been common among the privileged classes but I don't think so much among the vast majority of the population.

 

That may or may not be the case, all I can tell you is that it's well known family lore that both my grandfather as well as his father before him had quite the thing for the ladies. I can't say if that is true, nor do I condone cheating of any kind, but it is at least somewhat germane to this point as neither of them were amongst the "privileged classes".

 

Remember, this was specifically in the context of a culture that values true monogamy. The value in such a culture has always been that everyone knows who their parents are and who their children are, and parents are married to each other and raise the children together. Not in all cases but much more on average. A threesome attacks this by promoting sex outside of marriage, where children may be born in situations where they cannot be raised by their genetic parents, unless you do polygamy where some spouses get the short end of the stick. It causes the formation of sexual bonding between multiple people who can't all be really happy in the situation, in my opinion.

 

The problem with your analysis here is you are presuming that a threesome will frequently result in a pregnancy, which is certainly not the case. Ironically, I've never been in a three-way, but I've been in plenty of 4-, 6-, 8-, and more-way's and I can tell you that not one of them resulted in a pregnancy, nor did any of them result in inappropriate sexual bonding outside of the core couples. It really does not require that much effort to ensure that pregnancies occur only when welcomed. Can't quite get to 100%, but can get damn close.

 

What you are saying is that anyone who disagrees with the majority about sexual practices has issues. That's what I mean when I say you are claiming a privileged reference frame for your values based on what some number of other people do.

 

That is NOT what I said. I said anybody who lables plain-jane, ordinary, vanilla, sexual things that even those of "conservative sexual values" routinely do as "sick", "disgusting", "gross", "perverted" or any of 100 other pejoratives I could come up with clearly have issues. I further hypothesized that many, though certainly not all, of those who object to porn use by their SO's "just because" may just fall into this category.

 

I did say a threesome might be a threat to society, though keep in mind there are levels of threats and it's not like I believe this is extremely serious by itself. I believe it is a sub-optimal decision, that it brings more bad than good for individuals and for others who observe the individuals. I might put it on a level with, for example, the obesity epidemic in the US right now.

 

So participating in, or observing others participating in a threesome is the societal and individual health equivalent of obesity? Obesity directly causes diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, and a host of other deadly diseases. Threesomes do not, at best they increase the risk of spreading some STI's, and even to do that requires that one or more of the three are previously infected, and that the participants are not taking sufficient preventative measures. That you find it distasteful, and that you neither wish to participate nor observe is your choice, but don't read into it bad things that don't exist merely to attempt to justify your position.

 

When you say a few old men have handed down the law to create sexual values in some society, on what do you base that claim? Are you sure the old men didn't just codify what most people already believed? Give an example, preferably one that is not from some extreme case.

 

That very well may be the case. But it's also a fact that people used to believe that the earth was flat, and that it was the center of the universe. It wasn't until people came along who had the audacity to question what they had been taught (some of whom paid for such audacity with their lives) did the truth come out. Am I saying that my way is "the truth"? Not at all. However, in general, as you've noted, sexual permissiveness in our society has been on the increase and I don't see that trend slowing down any time soon.

 

It sounds like you are worried that society will impose its sexual values on you, by outlawing swinging, sex toys, etc., even though these laws are never enforced and it doesn't seem like much of a threat right now.

 

You are right, the chances of my being arrested because I violated a technically active, yet nearly universally unenforced law is slim. However, the existence of those laws offends me for a number of reasons.

 

First, a free society has no place restricting such activities, even if only "on paper", and they are likely unconstitutional on their face.

 

Second, the fact that they're generally unenforced doesn't mean they CAN'T be, should you (the generic you) piss off the wrong person. Just recently, a swing-club in Brooklyn was shut down due to some obscure "health-code" violation, despite the fact that there are at least half a dozen other clubs within a few miles of here. I have from insider information been informed that the real issue was that the owner of the club pissed off the wrong person. Who that was, or what transpired, I don't know, but laws that allow for selective enforcement regardless of category are fundamentally dangerous.

 

Third, it's simply nobodies business what consenting adults do behind closed doors, whether it's a husband and wife, or a husband and wife and 35 of their closest friends.

 

Perhaps you could then empathize with the position of someone like myself, or a woman with tradtional values, who feels like society is trying to force them to accept different values through pressure rather than laws, by calling them "unhealthy", "having issues", and "out of the mainstream" etc. if they disagree with majority practice.

 

The problem with your position is that you consider "allowing" those of us who wish to partake in our "different values" as the equivalent to actually forcing you to participate. Just like with gay marriage, what we do in our homes does not affect what you do in yours. For the record, I do not consider a couple who desires marital monogamy as "unhealthy" or any of that other stuff. For that matter, I don't consider a couple who desires complete asexuality as unhealthy, so long as they're BOTH on the same wavelength. But, no disrespect intended, if you think sex is "gross" than you have issues.

 

While I do not think desiring a lifetime of monogamy with your spouse and only after marriage as unhealthy, I do see it as silly. You are needlessly and pointlessly depriving yourself of some amazing experiences.

 

How do you imagine it feels to be a woman who _feels_ deeply that porn is bad, but is being told that she is just going to have to go along with it because it is mainstream?

 

I'll tell you the same thing I've told others. If you are a woman who goes into a relationship with a man, you should assume he uses porn from time to time, because statistically speaking, most men do. If it is an absolute deal breaker to you, then you should strive to find someone who shares your values, because you are not going to cause someone who does not to see the light. Further, if this describes you, I wish you luck because I am of the belief that men who truly hold those beliefs are rare, and sadly, many men will lie about it. I would also challenge you to attempt to ascertain why it is that you "feel" so deeply that porn is "bad", and to examine if the fundamental assumption that leads to such a belief may be flawed.

 

That's why I challenge JS so strongly, as her fundamental assumption is that "if my SO looks at porn, ever, it means he wants the women in the porn more than me" which is asinine. Were she to tell me she was devoutly, orthodoxically Catholic, and her religion categorically prohibits such things, I might challenge her a bit about that, because I do not believe a loving God is going to send a soul to eternal damnation for viewing other humans nude, but I'd be much less likely to push as hard because if that's truly what you believe, there's no arguing the case.

[Scottdmw]

Certainly not. I do not believe in "mob rule" on any topic, nor have I formed my own personal sexual morality based upon any influence except my own self examination.

 

Okay, so you say that you don't believe something becomes right depending on how many people believe it's right.

 

But, you make a claim that women who for example say that a three some is “gross” have issues. Just to clarify, is that a statement of your opinion or do you believe that you can say she is wrong by some objective standard? That is what I'm trying to get it.

 

 

I would take it a step farther and say that it's bordering on insane NOT to have sex before marriage. Why? Very simple, actually.

 

Assuming we're talking about a couple that intends to be monogamous and married "until death they do part" then waiting until after you've said "I do" to learn whether or not you are sexually compatible is taking a really, really big gamble, with really bad consequences if it turns out you are not. And that has NOTHING to do with what is or isn't "widely practiced" or "mainstream". It's a bit cliche, but I wouldn't buy a car without test driving it.

 

This has been the widespread argument for the last 40 years. The idea is, as you say you wouldn't buy a car without testing it. On the face of it seems like a reasonable argument. But, has it really agreed with what's happened in practice? In the last 40 years we've had an awful lot more test driving, but the rate of divorces has shot up rather than going down. This is correlation not causation, but it certainly seems to me to suggest that for some reason test driving is not actually helping make better marriages.

 

Before I came to my present opinions on sex, I had various levels of sexual relationships with several women. I've never had anything even vaguely approaching an incompatibility. I think that when people complain about sexual incompatibilities in their relationship, it's nothing but a symptom of a deeper problem in their relationship. I can't imagine two people who really love each other and were on good terms with each other otherwise not being able to make the sex thing work too. That's my opinion anyway.

 

 

You are putting the cart in front of the horse, and presuming guilt where the presumption should be innocence. I do not need to defend pre-marital sex (at least according to my libertarian philosophy), because unless it can be shown to cause harm it must be allowed.

 

I need not show that pre-marital sex affects positively any standard of health, you need to show that it causes harm to non-participants. Ditto any sex act you wish to demonize, and most CERTAINLY for any sex act you would see criminalized.

 

Well, you were the one that originally said that conservative sexual values are “unhealthy”, or I thought that's what you meant. I was asking if you had any basis for that claim.

 

Let me be absolutely clear about one thing, because it seems like a lot of people keep misunderstanding this. I'm not trying to outlaw anything. I don't believe that passing laws is a useful way to address sexual practices.

 

 

That lesson being that sex is only ok for a married couple, behind closed doors, with the curtains drawn, the lights off, the covers pulled, in the missionary position, and while trying to make a baby. Can't do it just for fun, can't do it before you're married, can't do it with your mouth or a toy, can't masturbate, can't watch other people do it, or let others watch you, and above all, you most certainly can't do it in a group!

 

I hear this sort of thing a lot. Now, I'm 36 years old. I will admit I wasn't around 50 years ago, as maybe others were. But I've never heard anyone, anyone at all, come anywhere close to this level of restriction either verbally or in writing. Even the Catholic Church, which people love to mischaracterize, says that sex has both the purpose of procreation and bonding between the husband and wife, fun if you prefer so long as it's between a married couple. I don't think anyone has ever seriously espoused restricting positions, or covers either. These are exaggerations. Seriously, can you point me to any authority source (not just individuals who may say anything) that try to make these restrictions?

 

I'm not saying this about all the things you mention, obviously for example premarital sex has been discouraged by a great many people and institutions. I do think that many people exaggerate these things as a strawman though, as I think you have here.

 

 

Do you seriously believe the horse is going back into the barn? That people are going to wake up and go "Whoa, I'm having way too much fun, I have to put a stop to this!"?

 

Actually, I think it is possible, but not in the way you suggest. Here's the thing. There have been a number of studies showing that people with “conservative” values tend to have more children than those with “liberal” values. That's not surprising maybe, surely people who think that for example sex is supposed to have something to do with babies might have more babies. Now it may be that in each generation the children will always end up rebelling and becoming more sexually liberal, but I think you see my point.

 

I'm not saying this is definitely going to happen, or at any given time. You do have to admit though that historically speaking things were very sexually loose during the Roman Empire and not so much for about a thousand years afterwards.

 

 

The problem with your analysis here is you are presuming that a threesome will frequently result in a pregnancy, which is certainly not the case. Ironically, I've never been in a three-way, but I've been in plenty of 4-, 6-, 8-, and more-way's and I can tell you that not one of them resulted in a pregnancy, nor did any of them result in inappropriate sexual bonding outside of the core couples. It really does not require that much effort to ensure that pregnancies occur only when welcomed. Can't quite get to 100%, but can get damn close.

 

I think we've had this discussion before. You can't really be certain that none of the women you've ever been with got pregnant and had a quiet abortion without telling you. I'm not saying they did, but given the abortion rate in this country there are certainly a lot of them happening.

 

Same thing applies to the inappropriate sexual bonding. You can be sure of your own feelings, but can you really be sure that no one else had feelings that they had to suppress in order to keep going in the lifestyle they wanted to?

 

 

That is NOT what I said. I said anybody who lables plain-jane, ordinary, vanilla, sexual things that even those of "conservative sexual values" routinely do as "sick", "disgusting", "gross", "perverted" or any of 100 other pejoratives I could come up with clearly have issues. I further hypothesized that many, though certainly not all, of those who object to porn use by their SO's "just because" may just fall into this category.

 

We just get back to the fact that there are two people here, you and this woman with different ideas. You say that certain sexual practices are normal, she says they are perverted. By what objective standard do you say that you are right and she is wrong?

 

Now to be fair here, I'm not sure myself that pejoratives are useful. They tend to make people defensive and they aren't very descriptive or explanatory. Consider, though, that many women are not as skilled as you and I in logical and verbal analysis. They don't really know how to describe their feelings accurately, nor their reasons for feeling that way, but they are darned sure of how they feel. That's where the pejoratives come in.

 

 

So participating in, or observing others participating in a threesome is the societal and individual health equivalent of obesity? Obesity directly causes diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, and a host of other deadly diseases. Threesomes do not, at best they increase the risk of spreading some STI's, and even to do that requires that one or more of the three are previously infected, and that the participants are not taking sufficient preventative measures. That you find it distasteful, and that you neither wish to participate nor observe is your choice, but don't read into it bad things that don't exist merely to attempt to justify your position.

 

And, in my opinion, threesomes and overly promiscuous sex in general causes a lot of heartbreak, makes it more difficult for people to strongly bond with their spouse if they ever do get married, makes it more difficult for spouses to trust each other, and yes it may also produce some unintended pregnancies and STIs here and there.

 

You’ve said that you haven't experienced these negative consequences. I'm not really sure of the rest of your life situation, but I wonder, are you married? Have you had children of your own? If you are married with children and you really feel that the swinger lifestyle is not impacting that, and perhaps in your case you're right. If you've chosen not to get married and have children, then from my point of view that is the harm that you've suffered.

 

 

That's why I challenge JS so strongly, as her fundamental assumption is that "if my SO looks at porn, ever, it means he wants the women in the porn more than me" which is asinine. Were she to tell me she was devoutly, orthodoxically Catholic, and her religion categorically prohibits such things, I might challenge her a bit about that, because I do not believe a loving God is going to send a soul to eternal damnation for viewing other humans nude, but I'd be much less likely to push as hard because if that's truly what you believe, there's no arguing the case.

 

I am devoutly, orthodoxically Catholic, and I think you're mischaracterizing the Catholic teaching here somewhat. Note I'm speaking about the official church teaching, not what you may have heard from any given person who may or may not be well-informed. In such a large body there is substantial disagreement even between individual priests and bishops with the official teaching, so you can't take as gospel what any given priest says, pardon the pun. I don't think the church would say God is going to send a person to hell for looking at porn. The church would say rather that looking at porn tends to be harmful to a person, tending to encourage a person to become centered on their own pleasure and desires rather than making connections with other real people. If an individual person takes this to its logical conclusion (according to the Church's teaching) that person is in danger of essentially condemning themselves to hell because they prefer it in a sense to heaven. That's quite another topic, but if you want I guess I can expand further.

[IrishCarBomb]

Post

 

Post

 

Holy internet posting novellas Batman!

[sxyNYCcpl]

But, you make a claim that women who for example say that a three some is “gross” have issues. Just to clarify, is that a statement of your opinion or do you believe that you can say she is wrong by some objective standard?

 

It depends on exactly what is meant by the statement. If she means "I've given the matter some thought, and concluded that it's not for me" that's fine, if she's being judgmental that's an entirely different matter.

 

But, has it really agreed with what's happened in practice? In the last 40 years we've had an awful lot more test driving, but the rate of divorces has shot up rather than going down.

 

As you said, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. We have also seen a great many other peripherally related changes in the last 4 decades which, IMO, have more to do with the increasing divorce rate. 40 years ago, a woman who wanted a divorce faced the scorn of society, the shame of her family, likely the inability to gain reasonable employment, and a host of other factors. They were almost expected to put up with their husbands dalliances. We're also living longer. You also have to remember that while sex is a part of (most) marriages, it is ONLY a part, and though I am quite sure that sexual problems are on the list of problems for many divorces, it's not universal.

 

I can't imagine two people who really love each other and were on good terms with each other otherwise not being able to make the sex thing work too. That's my opinion anyway.

 

You need only read this board long enough to find out how wrong you are.

 

Well, you were the one that originally said that conservative sexual values are “unhealthy”, or I thought that's what you meant. I was asking if you had any basis for that claim.

 

You keep putting words in my mouth. What I said was the people who are squeamish about vanilla sex, who find it gross, or sick, or whatever, have issues. I stand by that, and seriously, seriously doubt there is anything you could say that would change my mind.

 

Let me be absolutely clear about one thing, because it seems like a lot of people keep misunderstanding this. I'm not trying to outlaw anything. I don't believe that passing laws is a useful way to address sexual practices.

 

Good. Unfortunately, many who believe in the same highly restrictive standards that you do disagree with you on this point.

 

Even the Catholic Church, which people love to mischaracterize, says that sex has both the purpose of procreation and bonding between the husband and wife, fun if you prefer so long as it's between a married couple. I don't think anyone has ever seriously espoused restricting positions, or covers either. These are exaggerations.

 

OK, perhaps I was a bit over the top, but ONLY a bit. Perhaps they don't restrict covers, but explain exactly what the churches position is on condoms, or bc pills? Why exactly is that their position? How about sexual toys, or oral sex?

 

That's not surprising maybe, surely people who think that for example sex is supposed to have something to do with babies might have more babies.

 

Even assuming your assumptions are correct, how does this eventually create a critical mass of people disavowing previously promiscuous, hedonistic lifestyles? Like I said, nobody is going to decide they've been having just too much fun.

 

You do have to admit though that historically speaking things were very sexually loose during the Roman Empire and not so much for about a thousand years afterwards.

 

Ah, yes, the old "sexual permissiveness destroyed the Roman Empire" argument. In fairness, I don't know enough about Roman history to challenge that position from an intellectually honest perspective, but I do find it extremely hard to buy, if for no other reason than sexual activities, whether excessively permissive or not, just simply don't take enough time for them to cause the fall of an empire.

 

I think we've had this discussion before. You can't really be certain that none of the women you've ever been with got pregnant and had a quiet abortion without telling you.

 

No, I don't think you and I have discussed this before, perhaps you have me confused with someone else. Regardless, and at the risk of being a bit too graphic, throughout all of my sexual proclivities I have ejaculated inside a woman who wasn't married to me exactly once, and that was the result of a broken condom. I know for a fact that she was on BC so pregnancy is not really a concern. They are ongoing friends, so while I'll concede an unannounced abortion is not impossible, I can assure you no child resulted.

 

Same thing applies to the inappropriate sexual bonding. You can be sure of your own feelings, but can you really be sure that no one else had feelings that they had to suppress in order to keep going in the lifestyle they wanted to?

 

Of course not, but I can tell you that many of the people we "play" with are long term friends, and in my experience humans who develop feelings for other humans rarely are successful at keeping that to themselves, so I don't think I'm going too far out on a limb to say that it doesn't seem to be the case. For those who aren't ongoing friends, well, many of them never even bothered exchanging names so I think it's unlikely that unreasonable attachments were unlikely. You see, some people are able to have recreational sex purely for the joy of recreational sex.

 

We just get back to the fact that there are two people here, you and this woman with different ideas. You say that certain sexual practices are normal, she says they are perverted. By what objective standard do you say that you are right and she is wrong?

 

You keep going to a great effort to get me to admit that it's reasonable for people to have negative reactions to normal human sexual behavior. You'll get no such concession from me. You see, I don't really believe in perversion, if it's fun, it's all good!

 

They don't really know how to describe their feelings accurately, nor their reasons for feeling that way, but they are darned sure of how they feel. That's where the pejoratives come in.

 

When it comes to sexuality, too many women, and men for that matter, merely accept what they've been taught, and for no really good reason. They've bought into the idea that "good girls don't", they naturally want to be seen as a "good girl", ergo they don't, won't, and consider anybody who will to be an evil slut. It's really that simple.

 

And, in my opinion, threesomes and overly promiscuous sex in general causes a lot of heartbreak, makes it more difficult for people to strongly bond with their spouse if they ever do get married, makes it more difficult for spouses to trust each other, and yes it may also produce some unintended pregnancies and STIs here and there.

 

And in my actual EXPERIENCE having what you would call "overly promiscuous sex" as a significant part of my life, your opinion couldn't be farther from the truth. Of unfounded opinion and actual experience, which do you think should carry more weight?

 

You’ve said that you haven't experienced these negative consequences. I'm not really sure of the rest of your life situation, but I wonder, are you married? Have you had children of your own? If you are married with children and you really feel that the swinger lifestyle is not impacting that, and perhaps in your case you're right. If you've chosen not to get married and have children, then from my point of view that is the harm that you've suffered.

 

I am indeed married, hence the nick. My wife is the most wonderful woman who has ever graced the face of the earth with her presence, and our relationship is amazing. As I type these words, her feet are in my lap and I stop from time to time to rub the back of her legs or share a kiss with her. Truth is, it's unusual for us to be home at this time on a Saturday night, usually we're out at some swing party somewhere, but we're both half sick, and tomorrow is mothers day anyway so not much going on.

 

I am the most blessed man to ever live.

 

I am devoutly, orthodoxically Catholic, and I think you're mischaracterizing the Catholic teaching here somewhat.

 

The church tells married couples they can't use condoms or BC pills, and I don't know, but I'm guessing they either discourage or prohibit the use of oral sex or sex toys, so how do they expect people to have recreational sex without worrying about pregnancy?? Not to mention it's a bit hypocritical for an organization who's leaders routinely sexually assault children to think they have much credibility on how others should deal with their sexuality.

 

If an individual person takes this to its logical conclusion (according to the Church's teaching) that person is in danger of essentially condemning themselves to hell because they prefer it in a sense to heaven. That's quite another topic, but if you want I guess I can expand further.

 

Well, that would be a very interesting conversation that I would welcome, as I have my own ideas and theories. You see, I am not a Godless heathen, I simply believe that God's true nature is vastly different from anything we could even begin to comprehend. We're way to primitive, and way too mortal.

[D-Lish]

Would you want your woman hanging out a bathhouse?

 

Lol, I laughed at this one. It would be 100% okay if his gf hung out at a bath house. Bath houses are for gay men... or maybe a baseball game if we're talking lesbians.

 

I don't have an issue with my guy watching porn or seeing stripper's once and a while. Moderation is the key.

 

Anything in excess indicates a problem. I watch porn sometimes- and I like watching porn with a guy when I am in a relationship. I have been to strip clubs with male friends and ex-bf's in the past.

[Scottdmw]

You keep going to a great effort to get me to admit that it's reasonable for people to have negative reactions to normal human sexual behavior. You'll get no such concession from me. You see, I don't really believe in perversion, if it's fun, it's all good!

 

And, you will not be able to get me, I don't think, to grant you the right to define “normal human sexual behavior”. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

 

I am indeed married, hence the nick. My wife is the most wonderful woman who has ever graced the face of the earth with her presence, and our relationship is amazing. As I type these words, her feet are in my lap and I stop from time to time to rub the back of her legs or share a kiss with her. Truth is, it's unusual for us to be home at this time on a Saturday night, usually we're out at some swing party somewhere, but we're both half sick, and tomorrow is mothers day anyway so not much going on.

 

I am the most blessed man to ever live.

 

Well, I won't dispute your personal experience.

 

My personal experience has been that sexual activity makes me bond pretty quickly with a person, and experience a lot of heartbreak if we break up. I wonder which one of us has the more common experience?

 

 

When it comes to sexuality, too many women, and men for that matter, merely accept what they've been taught, and for no really good reason. They've bought into the idea that "good girls don't", they naturally want to be seen as a "good girl", ergo they don't, won't, and consider anybody who will to be an evil slut. It's really that simple.

 

A lot of people do just accept what they're taught, I agree. But, this swings both ways. Right now there is a lot of “teaching” going on in our culture which promotes your position, that casual sex is harmless and indeed to be highly encouraged. This teaching occurs through movies, TV, music, etc. From my point of view, many people simply accept this is true without really thinking it through. They try it at a young age and basically get hooked, to the point where they couldn't imagine life without it.

 

 

And in my actual EXPERIENCE having what you would call "overly promiscuous sex" as a significant part of my life, your opinion couldn't be farther from the truth. Of unfounded opinion and actual experience, which do you think should carry more weight?

 

Well, again, I've certainly had the experience of heartbreak from sexual relationships, so my opinion is no more unfounded than yours. Certainly different.

 

 

 

 

OK, perhaps I was a bit over the top, but ONLY a bit. Perhaps they don't restrict covers, but explain exactly what the churches position is on condoms, or bc pills? Why exactly is that their position? How about sexual toys, or oral sex?

 

The church tells married couples they can't use condoms or BC pills, and I don't know, but I'm guessing they either discourage or prohibit the use of oral sex or sex toys, so how do they expect people to have recreational sex without worrying about pregnancy?? Not to mention it's a bit hypocritical for an organization who's leaders routinely sexually assault children to think they have much credibility on how others should deal with their sexuality.

 

Saying the church's leaders “routinely” sexually assault children is only true if you also say that public school teachers routinely sexually assault children.

 

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Teacher_sexual_misconduct_rampant_in_American_schools,_says_AP

 

The stats I've heard are that something like 0.5% of Catholic priests has ever been accused of one of these crimes. These heinous crimes will happen in any situation where authorities exists, heck even parents abuse their children sometimes. Is it really fair to single out Catholic priests because some of them fail too?

 

The big problem with BC pills and other hormonal contraceptives for the church is that sometimes they act as abortifacients, that is, they may prevent a fertilized egg from properly implanting in some cases. Perhaps you don't believe that an eternal soul is present from conception on, but you see how such an effect would be a problem for people that do.

 

As far as condoms and other types of contraception that don't work as abortifacients, in a nutshell the Church's teaching is that contraceptive sex, while pleasurable in the moment, is not conducive to long-term marital happiness, at least in most people. It sounds like you might dispute this with your experience, but many people say the opposite.

 

The Church does allow and promote the use of Natural Family Planning. Let me emphasize this is not the same as the so-called Rhythm method which has an abysmally bad effectiveness. Physical signs in the woman's body such as temperature and cervical mucus are used to predict ovulation with a high degree of accuracy. Recreational sex with virtually zero chance of pregnancy is possible for a good part of the month. There are statistics that couples who use this method have a divorce rate less than 3%, so there is some reason to believe that it really is more healthy for marriages.

 

http://www.familyplanning.net/CSSRPublishCOLOR.pdf

 

Regarding sex toys and oral sex, as I understand it the basic idea is any sexual act has to be open to the potential to create life, which basically translates as ejaculation has to occur in the vagina. What happens leading up to that is not an issue, I believe. Again the idea here is that people are made to want babies, even if they think they don't! Having children is potentially very important for a person’s long-term happiness, as a friend of mine said, “it satisfies a deep human need”. If you believe in the theory of evolution (which BTW the church does not disallow) this shouldn't be too surprising.

 

Contraception, according to the church, is somewhat akin to eating a delicious meal in order to enjoy the pleasurable tastes and then forcing yourself to throw up so that you can enjoy the tastes again. It is an essentially unnatural act separating the pleasure of the act from its natural end. We humans try to do this all the time, in the extreme form this is what a drug like crack does.

 

 

 

Well, that would be a very interesting conversation that I would welcome, as I have my own ideas and theories. You see, I am not a Godless heathen, I simply believe that God's true nature is vastly different from anything we could even begin to comprehend. We're way to primitive, and way too mortal.

 

I believe God's true nature is vastly beyond comprehension too, but I also believe that He has gone to extremely great lengths to help us understand as much as it is possible for our limited means to do so.

[a4a]

Having children is potentially very important for a person’s long-term happiness, as a friend of mine said, “it satisfies a deep human need”.

 

Contraception, according to the church, is somewhat akin to eating a delicious meal in order to enjoy the pleasurable tastes and then forcing yourself to throw up so that you can enjoy the tastes again. It is an essentially unnatural act separating the pleasure of the act from its natural end. We humans try to do this all the time, in the extreme form this is what a drug like crack does.

.

 

 

Do you really believe this?

 

I got news there are plenty of us that do not want, desire, need, dream about, having babies. Some of us cringe at the thought of how it would destroy our dreams, goals and life to have one.

 

So for you porn is bad based more on religious belief than on the belief that it is demeaning to women or damages a relationship.

 

Sex is for procreation only. Every sperm is sacred.

[sxyNYCcpl]

I don't think, to grant you the right to define “normal human sexual behavior”. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

Are you being obtuse or am I doing a poor job of explaining myself??

 

I am not defining anything. I am merely observing and reporting. What constitutes "normal human sexual behavior" is not defined by you, or by me, but by the masses. Neither you nor I fit within "normal" though we are both on separate ends of the bell curve.

 

My personal experience has been that sexual activity makes me bond pretty quickly with a person, and experience a lot of heartbreak if we break up. I wonder which one of us has the more common experience?

 

We're talking about two different things, even though to a casual observer they appear the same. You are talking about sexual contact within the confines of a (at least somewhat) committed emotional relationship. I am talking about casual sexual encounters never intended by the participants to be more than a recreational activity. Hard to fall in love with someone if you don't even know their name. Not to say that's the norm, quite the opposite, it happens, but it's unusual.

 

This teaching occurs through movies, TV, music, etc. From my point of view, many people simply accept this is true without really thinking it through. They try it at a young age and basically get hooked, to the point where they couldn't imagine life without it.

 

Get hooked? Are you suggesting that sex is like a drug, be careful or you'll wake up addicted one day? As far as imagining life without it, why would they? To what benefit is it to them to deprive themselves?

 

As to what we see on the TV and movies, is life imitating art or the other way around?

 

Well, again, I've certainly had the experience of heartbreak from sexual relationships, so my opinion is no more unfounded than yours. Certainly different.

 

Once again, you're confusing relationship sex from casual encounters. Which is to say that f--king and making love, while visually indistinguishable from one another to the observer are two very different acts.

 

The stats I've heard are that something like 0.5% of Catholic priests has ever been accused of one of these crimes.

 

The fact remains that people who are chaste, asexual, and in many cases, go to the grave as virgins are the ones telling the rest of us that they are such experts on all things sexual that we should do as they tell us. Isn't that a bit like me trying to convince NASA I know more about launching shuttles than they do?

 

Perhaps you don't believe that an eternal soul is present from conception on, but you see how such an effect would be a problem for people that do.

 

Yeah, OK, the soul enters the "body" when it's but a microscopic 8-celled zygote. OK... Care to share some of whatever you've been smokin'?

 

in a nutshell the Church's teaching is that contraceptive sex, while pleasurable in the moment, is not conducive to long-term marital happiness, at least in most people. It sounds like you might dispute this with your experience, but many people say the opposite.

 

:lmao: What people?? Sure, most people would prefer condom free sex, but that risks disease except with your long-term primary partner (assuming you are both known or realistically believed to be disease free) and unwanted pregnancy regardless of who you're with. You are killing me. Condoms are inconducive to long term marital happiness?!? Stop, I need to breathe!

 

Regarding sex toys and oral sex, as I understand it the basic idea is any sexual act has to be open to the potential to create life, which basically translates as ejaculation has to occur in the vagina.

 

OMG, are you for real??? A bunch of men who wouldn't know what to do if the business end of a vagina slapped them upside the head are now telling us proper ejaculatory techniques, and issuing us instructions??? You're killing me, you really are.

 

Earth to Scott: Humans sometimes have sex for FUN! They do it for giggles, and often at times where they most indubitably do NOT want to create a child. Wishing it away won't make it so.

 

Again the idea here is that people are made to want babies, even if they think they don't! Having children is potentially very important for a person’s long-term happiness, as a friend of mine said, “it satisfies a deep human need”.

 

What is this, a new federal program? No Sperm Left Behind?? Of course most people want children. Not all, but most. Still, considering most couples average sex, oh lets be conservative and say 3-5 times a month. That's 48x a year. Let's further assume they have 3 children on average and remain sexually active for 30 years. That's 30x48=1,440 sexual encounters producing 3 children, so 99.78% of sex does not create a thing except a good time!

 

Imagine that...

 

Contraception, according to the church, is somewhat akin to eating a delicious meal in order to enjoy the pleasurable tastes and then forcing yourself to throw up so that you can enjoy the tastes again.

 

Interesting analogy. To me, I'd say contraception was more like a pill that made the delicious meal calorie and fat free so that we could indulge to our hearts content and not worry about damaging our health and well being.

 

It is an essentially unnatural act separating the pleasure of the act from its natural end. We humans try to do this all the time, in the extreme form this is what a drug like crack does.

 

"Natural End"!!! You're too much, ever thought about going into comedy? And now sex is like crack???

 

I believe God's true nature is vastly beyond comprehension too, but I also believe that He has gone to extremely great lengths to help us understand as much as it is possible for our limited means to do so.

 

You remember when you were in second grade, and the teacher lined up the whole class in a row, and then whispered something to one student, who continued passing it down to the end? And how the original message was "The weather is very nice today" and by the end it came out "Bean sprouts are growing on mars!"

 

That's about how much he's gone to great lengths.

[sally4sara]

Again the idea here is that people are made to want babies, even if they think they don't! Having children is potentially very important for a person’s long-term happiness, as a friend of mine said, “it satisfies a deep human need”. If you believe in the theory of evolution (which BTW the church does not disallow) this shouldn't be too surprising.

 

Is it possible that Scottdmw is just trying to point out that all initial attraction is fueled by our desire to replicate ourselves?

Scott,

Do you just mean our basic biological drive is what makes us have and desire to have sex? And that if not for our biological drive to procreate, we would not feel compelled to seek out sex partners at all?

 

I'm just trying to see his meaning with out all the religious dogma fogging it up.

[AAlike]

to further try and pinpoint this issue, am I correct in assuming that most guys would not particularly care if their GF watched porn, watched a male dancer, or admittedly masturbated to a guy other than them? I know that I wouldn't. Yet I bet a bunch of the same guys who would have no problems with their girl rubbing one out to a picture of a random guy would get ultra-defensive and jealous at the mere sight of that same guy innocently making friendly conversation with their GF, even if there was no romantic intent!

 

I raise this point, jersey, because I think that it further illustrates what I am saying, that the innate nature of male sexuality draws a huge line in the sand between the visualization of sex versus the pursuit of actual sex. I'm not saying that females are incapable of making a similar distinction (I've seen your porno thread, a4a - haha), but I think for women it is learned behavior and hence not as strong as for men, for whom it just IS. my GF could tell me that she fantasized about 100 different men in a day and I wouldn't care, so long as she was with me when it counted.

 

for us men, who generally HAVE fantasized about 100 women in a day regularly in our lives, porn is a logical extension of that finger-snap sexuality and can exist in a completely different realm from our attraction to our SO's. I don't know how else to put it to you. I completely can understand why this does not compute with you, but I also feel like you are unwilling to listen as to why it holds true for us.

[Scottdmw]

I am not defining anything. I am merely observing and reporting. What constitutes "normal human sexual behavior" is not defined by you, or by me, but by the masses. Neither you nor I fit within "normal" though we are both on separate ends of the bell curve.

 

If when you say normal you mean “mainstream in the present age” then I will grant your definition. What I mean is that what is considered normal today has not been considered normal through an awful lot of other cultures and periods of history. If you're going to define normal human sexual behavior based on what a lot of people do, you can't really restrict your sample to the US in the last 40 years.

 

 

The fact remains that people who are chaste, asexual, and in many cases, go to the grave as virgins are the ones telling the rest of us that they are such experts on all things sexual that we should do as they tell us. Isn't that a bit like me trying to convince NASA I know more about launching shuttles than they do?

 

The advantage that chaste, asexual people who go to the grave as virgins have is _perspective_. They don't have a vested interest in deciding a question a certain way, because it's a moot issue for them. They can look from the outside at a question like “is a given sexual practice emotionally healthy” and give an answer that is not going to impact what they do themselves since they've given it all up anyway. Usually when people want a difficult decision made, they call it a conflict of interests if the person making the decision has something to gain one way or the other.

 

Don't underestimate the amount of information they get from the confessional, either. Priests spend a fair amount of their time listening to other people tell them about their deepest issues and guilts. Once again it's information the rest of us don't have as much of.

 

 

Yeah, OK, the soul enters the "body" when it's but a microscopic 8-celled zygote. OK... Care to share some of whatever you've been smokin'?

 

I'm not sure whether you yourself believe in the soul, but given its existence if you don't think it appears at conception, when do you think it does appear? No other point seems as logical to me anyway. Hard to imagine it would show up as the baby is on the way out so to speak. Still hard to imagine that there is some threshold line where at 1,537,210 cells it's just a blob of flesh and at 1,537,211 cells it gets a soul.

 

 

What people?? Sure, most people would prefer condom free sex, but that risks disease except with your long-term primary partner (assuming you are both known or realistically believed to be disease free) and unwanted pregnancy regardless of who you're with. You are killing me. Condoms are inconducive to long term marital happiness?!? Stop, I need to breathe!

 

Better be careful, they say when you mock something you're halfway to being convinced!

 

Here's a personal story from one couple that felt artificial contraception had a negative impact on their marriage:

 

http://ccli.org/nfp/marriage/almostcost.php

 

 

OMG, are you for real??? A bunch of men who wouldn't know what to do if the business end of a vagina slapped them upside the head are now telling us proper ejaculatory techniques, and issuing us instructions??? You're killing me, you really are.

 

Earth to Scott: Humans sometimes have sex for FUN! They do it for giggles, and often at times where they most indubitably do NOT want to create a child. Wishing it away won't make it so.

 

I think I did point out that neither I nor the church have a problem with people having sex for fun, so long as they’re married. I hope you will believe me when I say I'm not trying to “wish away” anything.

 

Your conscious reason for having sex may be to have fun, but I think if you spoke to any geneticist they would tell you that the reason sex is fun is that it tends to spread your genes to the next generation. Funny how both the Catholic Church and biology agree that way, isn't it?

 

 

What is this, a new federal program? No Sperm Left Behind?? Of course most people want children. Not all, but most. Still, considering most couples average sex, oh lets be conservative and say 3-5 times a month. That's 48x a year. Let's further assume they have 3 children on average and remain sexually active for 30 years. That's 30x48=1,440 sexual encounters producing 3 children, so 99.78% of sex does not create a thing except a good time!

 

I don't dispute any of this.

 

 

Interesting analogy. To me, I'd say contraception was more like a pill that made the delicious meal calorie and fat free so that we could indulge to our hearts content and not worry about damaging our health and well being.

 

Ah yes, the miracle pill. Is birth control really this harmless? Here are some of the side effects of the pill: stroke, heart attack, blood clots, liver tumors. Changes in sexual desire, including in some cases which men a woman is attracted to:

 

http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=5395

 

 

"Natural End"!!! You're too much, ever thought about going into comedy? And now sex is like crack???

 

_ Contraceptive_ sex is like crack, in the sense that it gives you the pleasure for free outside the natural connection of pleasure to activity. In the natural world all pleasures are connected to some end. Food tastes good because it's nourishing. Sleep feels good because it restores the body. Nature never gives pleasures for free.

 

 

You remember when you were in second grade, and the teacher lined up the whole class in a row, and then whispered something to one student, who continued passing it down to the end? And how the original message was "The weather is very nice today" and by the end it came out "Bean sprouts are growing on mars!"

 

That's about how much he's gone to great lengths.

 

Well, the basic idea of Christianity is that God became human and died a death by torture to try to help us. You can disbelieve it, but if it's true it's hard for me to imagine how God could have done much more.

 

As a statement of my personal belief, I don't think God handed a message to someone and then let it get garbled as you suggest. I think God is there every step of the way making sure the message does get transmitted correctly.

[Scottdmw]

Is it possible that Scottdmw is just trying to point out that all initial attraction is fueled by our desire to replicate ourselves?

Scott,

Do you just mean our basic biological drive is what makes us have and desire to have sex? And that if not for our biological drive to procreate, we would not feel compelled to seek out sex partners at all?

 

I'm just trying to see his meaning with out all the religious dogma fogging it up.

 

Yes, that is part of what I'm getting at.

 

Biologists will tell you that sex is pleasurable because it tends to reproduce the species. The Catholic Church describes the same concept as saying one of the two purposes of sex is procreation (the other being bonding between spouses).

 

Scott

[sxyNYCcpl]

If you're going to define normal human sexual behavior based on what a lot of people do, you can't really restrict your sample to the US in the last 40 years.

 

Why not? In fact, I'd really say, as it applies to the societal definition of "normal" that the last 40 years is irrelevant as well, what's relevant is the here and now.

 

The advantage that chaste, asexual people who go to the grave as virgins have is _perspective_. They don't have a vested interest in deciding a question a certain way, because it's a moot issue for them.

 

Seems to me relying on such people for advice on how to express your sexuality is akin to relying on someone who's never driven a car for advice on how to handle rain while driving. Probably not the best source of information or knowledge.

 

I'm not sure whether you yourself believe in the soul, but given its existence if you don't think it appears at conception, when do you think it does appear? No other point seems as logical to me anyway.

 

That's absurd, of course there are better choices. We define death as the cessation of brain and heart activity, is in not reasonable to conclude that the initiation of said activity is when life begins? When a human zygote has but 8 cells, it doesn't even have the hypothetical capability of being self-aware, so it seems to me there is nothing there for a soul to latch onto.

 

Better be careful, they say when you mock something you're halfway to being convinced!

 

And sometimes mockery is just mockery.

 

Here's a personal story from one couple that felt artificial contraception had a negative impact on their marriage:

 

FROM THE ARTICLE: We started out with Gerri taking the Pill. Both of us found it far more challenging to remain chaste during this period of our marriage because the Pill eliminated openness to new life; Gerri couldn't get pregnant. There was a great temptation to forego honest communication with one another and forfeit our chastity for sexual pleasure.

OK, so these people expected chastity WITHIN their own marriage? Whackjobs.

 

AGAIN, FROM THE ARTICLE: It is a concept of fertility awareness that allows the married couple to understand the biological signs of the wife and then determine if they have sufficient reason to avoid a pregnancy that month in accordance with the teachings of our Church. If sufficient reasons exist, then the couple abstains from sexual intercourse but continues to show their love in non-genital ways.

"Sufficient reason to avoid pregnancy" sounds a bit like saying "Get pregnant unless you have a good justification not too" and seems to me is the opposite of what should be happening, which is to say the default should be DON'T get pregnant unless there is good reason to.

 

"Show their love in non-genital ways."????? Guess a hummer is out of the question for these folks, huh.

 

Like I said, whackjobs.

 

 

Your conscious reason for having sex may be to have fun, but I think if you spoke to any geneticist they would tell you that the reason sex is fun is that it tends to spread your genes to the next generation. Funny how both the Catholic Church and biology agree that way, isn't it?

 

So what?

 

 

Here are some of the side effects of the pill: stroke, heart attack, blood clots, liver tumors. Changes in sexual desire, including in some cases which men a woman is attracted to:

 

First, the topic was contraception in general, not just the pill. Second, all drugs have some side effects, and may not work for all users, but there are other alternatives. Third, so what?

 

 

_ Contraceptive_ sex is like crack, in the sense that it gives you the pleasure for free outside the natural connection of pleasure to activity. In the natural world all pleasures are connected to some end.

 

You know, to be frank, your talking points are getting ever more and more desperate and shrilly sounding. You fail to acknowledge that some people want to have sex for the sake of having sex. It's not intended (in fact, quite the opposite) to produce children, it's not part of or intended to contribute to the furtherance of an emotional connection, and it's not some grand religious experience. It's pure entertainment, like playing golf or collecting baseball cards. But you see it as primarily a tool for procreating, which it certainly is, but that's not it's primary use, so for you to acknowledge that it can be done purely for entertainment would require you to question the foundation of your sexual belief system. That you do not wish to do so is understandable, but I go back to a point I've made before: You are missing out on some amazing experiences and interactions for no good reason.

 

 

Well, the basic idea of Christianity is that God became human and died a death by torture to try to help us. You can disbelieve it, but if it's true it's hard for me to imagine how God could have done much more.

 

You know what, I believe that is probably true. However, stories that have been handed down over millenia, originally by word of mouth, eventually transcribed to paper by who knows who, that have been translated, retranslated, time and time again, possibly had their meanings intentionally altered by those with an agenda, well you have to take them with a grain of salt.

[Jersey Shortie]

That's why I challenge JS so strongly, as her fundamental assumption is that "if my SO looks at porn, ever, it means he wants the women in the porn more than me" which is asinine. Were she to tell me she was devoutly, orthodoxically Catholic, and her religion categorically prohibits such things, I might challenge her a bit about that, because I do not believe a loving God is going to send a soul to eternal damnation for viewing other humans nude, but I'd be much less likely to push as hard because if that's truly what you believe, there's no arguing the case.

 

Actually SxyNY, that couldn't be further from the truth about what my fundamental issue is with men viewing pornography.

 

Realistically that is one normal and logical conclusion a woman can draw based on her partern's porn use, that he does infact get something from viewing those women that he obviously can't get from her and on some level, he does want to be with those women. But that is never and never has beeen my deep, one big fundemental message and issue with porn use with men. Telling a woman she is assinine or fundementally "wrong" for logicallly coming to the conclusion that her man likes the women he sees in porn that he is sexually finishing off to and defending your desire to view porn as being fundementally "right", is truly what comes off as assinine.

[Scottdmw]

Why not? In fact, I'd really say, as it applies to the societal definition of "normal" that the last 40 years is irrelevant as well, what's relevant is the here and now.

 

Well, if what you mean by normal human sexual behavior is what is mainstream in the United States today, then I grant your definition. Your original point was that people who were not “normal” by this definition should get no say in discussions about pornography. So you are basically saying that anyone who is out of the mainstream of the US today gets no voice.

 

I still think we should agree to disagree on this one. We have pretty much gone around in circles for a while.

 

 

OK, so these people expected chastity WITHIN their own marriage? Whackjobs.

 

Weren't you just complaining about people using pejoratives a few messages ago? I think I remember you saying that you didn't like it when people used words like perverted to describe others.

 

The word chastity does not mean what you think it means, at least not to these people quoted and others who believe similarly. It is not defined as an absence of sex. Chastity is defined as keeping sexual relations within appropriate bounds. Stated another way, it means using sex in a healthy way. In the context of this couple's example, outside of marriage chastity would equate to abstinence. Within marriage it largely means not using artificial contraception.

 

You obviously have a very different idea of what healthy is, but why attack people? You asked me to give an example of people who found contraception to be unhealthy to their marriage, and I gave you one.

 

 

You know, to be frank, your talking points are getting ever more and more desperate and shrilly sounding. You fail to acknowledge that some people want to have sex for the sake of having sex. It's not intended (in fact, quite the opposite) to produce children, it's not part of or intended to contribute to the furtherance of an emotional connection, and it's not some grand religious experience. It's pure entertainment, like playing golf or collecting baseball cards. But you see it as primarily a tool for procreating, which it certainly is, but that's not it's primary use, so for you to acknowledge that it can be done purely for entertainment would require you to question the foundation of your sexual belief system. That you do not wish to do so is understandable, but I go back to a point I've made before: You are missing out on some amazing experiences and interactions for no good reason.

 

I guess you're entitled to your opinion if you think my remarks sound shrill or desperate.

 

I never denied that some people want to have sex for the sake of having sex. I also never said that the _primary_ purpose for sex is procreation, I said I believed it had both that purpose and fun/bonding and didn't put one more important than the other.

 

It is true that if I were to acknowledge that sex is intended for entertainment, I would have to question my belief system. I could then if I wished go on to dive into the pleasures of casual sex, which I am familiar with. I would basically be going back to a belief system that I held for a number of years, and would get to _add_ physical pleasures to my life.

 

It is equally true that if you were to acknowledge that my view of sex is correct, you would have to question your belief system. You would then have to consider major and significant changes to your lifestyle. You would have to give up powerful pleasures, which you have described as amazing experiences.

 

If you really want to argue that one of us is not being intellectually honest because we have something to lose, ask yourself which of us has more to lose.

[Jersey Shortie]

AAlike, I have a few things I would like to say in response to some of your posts so bare with me.

 

 

AALike:

..and I have a feeling that if your guy is choosing porn over you then your bad sex life was the cause and porn is simply the effect, but I could be totally off base here. if you'd had experiences like this, shortie, methinks your problem was the men, not the porn.

 

I personally think men choose porn over their partners anytime they view it, regardless of their partner's availability to him or not. I don't think the availability of your partner should be dependent or excusable for what actions the other partner takes. It's like saying we have absolutely no control over ourselves. "Oh well she wasn't home. She wasn't here to provide me what I needed the second I needed it so it's okay if I tugged one out. Because it's about me and my needs." When did we get to this point in our culture where we decided denying us anything or making us wait a little longer for something was bad? I am sure you will greatly disagree with that and that's fine. But men have choices beyond their own sexual whims. Just as a woman has choices beyond her own emotional whims. What does it say about a man that the second he can't get his sexual needs fullfilled, if his partner is fullfilling them MOST of the time, that he needs to use the remaining 10% of the time to satisfy himself with something that is overall pretty demeaning to the female gender. He is acting on his sexual whim of fancy to do anything in his power to get off. Is that the kind of man most women really want? One that is more fueld by his seuxal whims of fancy then one that prides himself on self-control?

How would a man feel if a woman did the same with her emotional whims of fancey.

 

AALike:

as for getting 'techniques' from porn - I don't really see what the problem is with that, or how it's any different from getting techniques from talking with friends, reading Cosmo or the sex forum on this site. as for men getting their perception of women from porn - I'm sorry, but I just don't really buy it. I think that most men understand that it is scripted and is simply tailored towards our visual sexuality....

 

Why would you get "techniques" from porn to begin with? Is porn a fair repensentation of what really turns a woman on and what women really want??? Do you really think the men in porn are truly really turning on those women more times or not? If porn is truly fantasy, and men see it as the scripted over the top production it is, what techniques could you possibly learn from a porno that would be something you would actually want to use on your woman?

 

I have see porn before and I hate to tell you but the times I saw a man performing oral on the female I inwardly cringed and the roughness and over the top oral performance he used on her while she whithered around in pleasure like it was the greatest thing she ever got. Again, hate to break it to you but just because the porn star moans in pleasure doesn't really mean it's pleasurable.

 

Men claim they know it's fantasy yet still want their real life partner to enjoy the things in the porn and react the same as the women in porn. Even though men admit that it's fantasy and that the overall setup of porn is pretty demeaning to women. I have heard many men say their own partners acted like a pornstar in bed like it was some badage of honor for her to act like an over the top actress instead of being able to be just herself.

 

Lastly here, you make the obvious statement that porn is tailored to men's visual sexuality. What message do you think women get from that? Since most porn is filled with a limited stereotypical ideal about what women should look like that most women just plain don't. But lets turn around and critize women for naturally worrying about how they look and not feeling up to par when you clearly state that porn obviously fullfills a man's visual desires about what he *really *wants. The message is clear to enough women. But why should men care about that right? It's the man's visual needs that matter most.

 

AALike:

Look, you don't have to convince me that the world is amazingly sexist and racist - it is...and the more that I dabble in the business world, the more that it astounds and sickens me. but women have been subjugated and discriminated against long before Vivid Video became popular. I'm not saying that porn is this thing that's "worth fighting for" - I'm saying that you're attributing all of this importance to it that I really don't think is there.

 

Of course women have been subjugated and discriminted against since the dawn of time. How does that make it okay to do in porn? Do you know what it's like as a woman to see most men, the gender you wish would want to stand up for you and protect you, love a medium that is all about sbujugating women and treating them like they are nothing. Nothing. That's how women in porn are treated. They don't matter and they don't have any worth beyond their tits and ass but it's okay for men with women in their lives that love them to use women like that in video form right? It's okay to subjugate other women as long as it's not your woman by default of her invovlement with you. So the real question is do men really even respect women or do they only respect women that are connected to *him* because the respect has more to do with *him* as a man then it does her as a woman. I don't understnad this idea that it's okay to subjugate and use women for your own benefit visually or otherwise but somehow that means men really do respect women. It's apparently okay to use women indirectly in video forms or pictures because at the end of the night a person can still close their eyes at night and pretend that they didn't just support an industry that subjugates and uses women, even while claiming they respect their own woman so much. Why make it more difficult for us as women? Why not try and understand what it's like and not support an industry that most men are pretty aware of it's demeaning aspect? I certainly don't think porn started subjugation of women but I certainly think it's taken it to new levels that no one would have imagined. And now we live in a world where young boys will grow up on it. Because we don't live in a world where a boy might just be seeing a booby.

 

 

 

AALike:

it's difficult to "debate" with you when anytime anyone disagrees with you you slander them as cold-hearted and sexist.

 

That comment was to SxyNY in regards to his comment. Time and time again, the overall message is that a man's sexual needs/desires/whims dictate all and is justifiable by all and what a woman could need matters very little because *he* needs a certain level of *visual* fullfillment and everything else that comes into play is mote because his sexual needs matter most.

 

AALike:

I don't think anyone is saying that the woman's feelings "don't matter" -

 

Clearly they don't. Time and time again you make the justification that men are visual and that's why it's okay if men do this or that. How would you feel if every time your gf had an emotional whim she took it and ran with it? I don't think men would be all too happy about that. As a woman, I do control my emotions and try to control them. It's not easy. But I don't go looking for emotional fullfillment the second my partner is on the road and not there for me to get it from him. Why are men unable to do the same? Do you think a woman's emotional needs are any less strong then a man's sexual? They aren't.

 

AALike:

Those of you who question man's ability to be monogamous because "anyone can turn them on" are completely and utterly missing the point. I am monogamous because sex with my GF, as well as everything else with my GF, is unlike sex with anyone else - and although plenty of other women could "give me a boner," they won't give me everything else that she gives me, sexually or otherwise.

 

You get the best of both worlds. The loving GF that fullfills many of your needs and the girls that "give you a boner" to use during those times when she isn't there the second you need it. You'll get older, you might even have a family and get married and the women in porn you view will still be the same age because after all..it's your visual sexuality that matters here right.

 

AALike:

...rather they have just tried to explain that it shouldn't be so threatening to you.

 

Says who? I mean come on. Be realistic. At least I can understand why porn does turn men on and why its not threatening to men since most of it caters to men. I can't believe that men don't get why porn can easily be very threatening to a woman. Especially since porn is pretty much everything real women obviously aren't. Men have both a physical and emotional response to porn. And when you sit through these threads and see the amount of men that are willing to defend porn use over the real woman in their life, I can't even questoin how you don't understand why it is very realistically threatening to a real life women. Just as it's very realistically, a turn on for men.

 

AALike:

The ability to be easily visually stimulated, however, IS a fundamental part of male sexuaility - and I feel as if this threatens you and that is why that I implied that your issues are issues with fundamental parts of the male sexuality.

 

Wrong. It's not the visual stimulation that is bad. It's the way men exploit it for their advantage and use it as a justification to do this or that while in a relationship. If you don't understand how a fundemental part or woman's sexuality is knowing the man she picked is being loyal to her, then you have issues. Just as that porn, is a visual simulation for you, it can also be an emtional simulation for a woman. You want to defend male fundamental needs and not really examine a woman's fundamental needs. If a man needs something visual why not look at pictures of his girlfriend?

 

 

 

to further try and pinpoint this issue, am I correct in assuming that most guys would not particularly care if their GF watched porn, watched a male dancer, or admittedly masturbated to a guy other than them? I know that I wouldn't. Yet I bet a bunch of the same guys who would have no problems with their girl rubbing one out to a picture of a random guy would get ultra-defensive and jealous at the mere sight of that same guy innocently making friendly conversation with their GF, even if there was no romantic intent! I raise this point, jersey, because I think that it further illustrates what I am saying, that the innate nature of male sexuality draws a huge line in the sand between the visualization of sex versus the pursuit of actual sex.

 

Or perhaps it's because men are not threatened by women getting off in more stereotypical male ways. Now ask these same men how they would feel if their woman wanted to dance on stage because she got excited from it but never let any of the men touch her..just look at her..and see how many that owuld fly with. I think men are A-Okay with women being turned on in ways that are more stereotypically male. When it comes to women being turned on in more stereotypical female ways, I think men als have the same issues and concerns and insecurities.

 

AALike:

..my GF could tell me that she fantasized about 100 different men in a day and I wouldn't care, so long as she was with me when it counted.

 

 

You would be fine with it because it in terms of how your sexuality is as a man, not how hers truly is as a woman. How would you feel if instead of her wanting to think about 100 different men, she just wnated 100 different men to stare at her body and giver her compliments..would you still be okay with this? Maybe you could look at all the woman you wanted and masturbated to them and she could prnace around displaying her assets letting 100 men compliment her and gush over her. Would that be okay with you?

 

 

for us men, who generally HAVE fantasized about 100 women in a day regularly in our lives, porn is a logical extension of that finger-snap sexuality and can exist in a completely different realm from our attraction to our SO's

 

Sounds to me that it's all about having your cake and eating it too. YOu get the wonderful girlfriend and you get to have all the visuals and fantasies to over indulge in with little regard to real commitment. If men go through their lives thinking about 100 women a day, why do you even bother pretending you care about one woman in your life and care about respecting her when what you really want is that one woman to meet your needs and the rest to also meet your needs? Apparently, we are all just here to meet a man's needs and not have any of ours met in return. You go on an on about what you need as a man and have never once really expressed any interest or information on what a woman needs as a woman and what you can do to meet those needs.

 

I don't know how else to put it to you. I completely can understand why this does not compute with you, but I also feel like you are unwilling to listen as to why it holds true for us.

 

Because you seem to be saying that it's okay to do what you will because your visual. I don't think it's okay to do what I will because I am emotional. Jsut because I feel cranky doesn't mean it's right to bust it on my guy. Just beccause your horny, doesnt mean it's okay to put on a porno and fulfill your whim. I don't go off and look for other men to meet my emotional needs the second my partner isn' there to do it. My issue is with the lack of control, accountiblity and respect it seems most men have for themselves and their partners end of being the ones that have to deal with the reprocusions for it.

[mr.dream merchant]

Because you seem to be saying that it's okay to do what you will because your visual. I don't think it's okay to do what I will because I am emotional. Jsut because I feel cranky doesn't mean it's right to bust it on my guy. Just beccause your horny, doesnt mean it's okay to put on a porno and fulfill your whim. I don't go off and look for other men to meet my emotional needs the second my partner isn' there to do it. My issue is with the lack of control, accountiblity and respect it seems most men have for themselves and their partners end of being the ones that have to deal with the reprocusions for it.

 

Lmao....this comparison is terrible. :lmao:

[Jersey Shortie]

Why? We always say men are "visual" and women are "emotional". If it's not okay for a woman to act on her emotional whim why is oaky if men act on their visual sexual whims?