After or before sex

[zengirl]

Honestly, I don't remember having those kinds of talks at all (about becoming exclusive). I suppose I dated and got seriously intimate with men who were like-minded with me regarding the role of sex in a relationship.

 

Admittedly, I could have been wrong, but evidently I was not.

 

Personally, I count anything that confirms status as "The Talk." I've never sat down and hashed it out, but if he says, "my girlfriend" when he introduces me and looks to me for confirmation, and I smile. Well, we just had "the talk." I think in most good relationships, the Talk is just taken as a given.

 

Having to actually sit down and hash it out would seem like a bad sign to me, actually.

[ThsAmericanLife]

I still believe men have a harder time with it. .

 

I agree, but it is only because of social conditioning...

 

I've had a good laugh with (really at) a PUA who had one of 'those' books on his table.

 

I told him that these days, it really isn't terribly difficult to get laid. Ok, Ok, I know alot of the guys here will object to that... but it really isn't!!

 

Social conventions have gone by the wayside for the most part. Which, on one hand, I'm very glad about. I'm very glad that women get to be full sexual beings in their own right.

 

I wish these guys would give up on the idea that they are 'all that' just because they get a piece of ash though. If one is willing to lie and manipulate it isn't tough at all. Is ZERO measure of one's manhood.

 

Do I think that casual leads to a LTR? I'm going to hang myself out there and say, maybe, yes. But I doubt those relationships will ever have the emotional depth that those who can and do wait will have. The casual ones have started with walls built up, and likely, lies told of one kind or another. How is that a good foundation for the future??? I'm just not seeing it...

[zengirl]

Do I think that casual leads to a LTR? I'm going to hang myself out there and say, maybe, yes. But I doubt those relationships will ever have the emotional depth that those who can and do wait will have. The casual ones have started with walls built up, and likely, lies told of one kind or another. How is that a good foundation for the future??? I'm just not seeing it...

 

I don't think casual relationships started with lies or walls. Some people are just more impulsive by nature, and as long as it's not to an extreme degree, that's not always bad. I know people who have had sex very early, and it became marriages. But in both cases, those people were BOTH escalating at the same pace, naturally, across all fields. And the folks I know in those relationships also had plenty of sex with people who didn't work out---sometimes they had drama from it, sometimes they didn't (that depended on whether they were the ones who broke it off or not).

 

I don't think it hinders emotional depth perse. The issue is. . . well, most people I go on 4 dates with won't be longterm potential forever partner material. They just won't. So, if I sleep with people that fast, odds are I'm sleeping with people who are nowhere near what I want long-term. If a person is okay with that and wants to have sex for the sake of having sex with that person, I don't think that necessarily requires lies or walls. It's just a different mindset.

 

For me, I'd rather only have sex with someone I believe I can have a real, full relationship with, so that's why I wait. But I don't think there's anything wrong with the "Let's just see what happens" crowd so long as they really are fine with ANY of the potential outcomes.

[bluenightowl]

For me, I'd rather only have sex with someone I believe I can have a real, full relationship with, so that's why I wait. But I don't think there's anything wrong with the "Let's just see what happens" crowd so long as they really are fine with ANY of the potential outcomes.

 

I would agree with that. I've been in the "let's see what happens camp" most of the time, and I've been considering switching sides! Aside from the outcome being uncertain, I think you have to go through a lot more people to find the right person, whereas with the other approach, you filter before things turn into anything too intense and avoid some of the dating drama for you and them. I suspect taking your time is also a faster way to a solid LTR.

 

However if I were 20, and not looking for a LTR, I do think its fun just seeing what happens and it can be even fun to experience some of that drama when you are younger. In general I think its easier to find sex if you want it, but not so easy to find a LTR.

[FitChick]

after a certain age it seems strange to spend whole dates engaging in nothing but foreplay; yes sex is special but it's not that special...

 

That made me laugh. I agree.

[Cypress25]

I've thought about this alot over the years... some people want to claim it is something biological... but my experience shows it really isn't.

 

Women (even if the sex meant little or nothing) are more compelled to MAKE it into something because there is social pressure to avoid being considered a slut.

 

The double standard is still very much alive and well. Men have no such pressure, so they are perfectly free to make of it whatever they want.

 

There is a biological component to it. The hormone oxytocin is released during sex. It's known as the "bonding hormone" because it causes feelings of emotional attachment. This is the same hormone that is released during childbirth, which is why women feel an instant bond to their baby. It's also why women will always love their children, even if their kids turn out to be total hellions. It's not just humans; all female mammals release oxytocin when they have babies. Even rats exhibit a maternal instinct because of it.

 

During sex, oxytocin is released in men and women. But in the presence of estrogen, oxytocin becomes much stronger and causes feelings of attachment and bonding. In the presence of testosterone, oxytocin becomes weaker. Thus, women are more vulnerable to the effects of oxytocin. This is why it's easier for men to have sex without any emotional attachment.

 

IME, it is the men I've met that become attached to ME after sex. If the sex is great, a man can/will fall in love pretty quick. I really hurt some men that way... back when I 'assumed' that all men wanted was sex...

 

Men certainly can get attached to their sexual partners. But they don't have to. Some men have higher than average levels of estrogen, which can make them more vulnerable to the effects of oxytocin, and some men just have a personality that fosters bonding and attachment (and perhaps dependence). Some men are more sensitive than others.

 

I'm perfectly capable of having sex with no attachment... and had alot in my younger years.

 

This is rare but not unheard of with women. There are also some women who drown their kids in the bathtub, despite their biological maternal instinct. Biology is not destiny. Some women have higher than average levels of testosterone, but personality plays a role too. Your personality is probably such that you can easily detach from any emotion if you want to. Some people care very deeply and some people don't care about anything. There's a whole spectrum in between those extremes (most people are somewhere in the middle).

 

Personally, I'm glad that sex is an emotional experience for me. I don't envy anyone who can separate sex and emotion. It's fine if it makes them happy, but I wouldn't want it for myself. I don't see it as a special talent or an ability, but a lot of people talk about it that way. As if being "capable" of separating sex and emotion gives them some sort of advantage. It's not something you're capable of or incapable of, it's just who you are. Another word for it is "apathy" or "indifference." It's not good or bad, it just is. I would never strive to be apathetic or indifferent though; I don't think it would give me an advantage.

[zengirl]

During sex, oxytocin is released in men and women. But in the presence of estrogen, oxytocin becomes much stronger and causes feelings of attachment and bonding. In the presence of testosterone, oxytocin becomes weaker. Thus, women are more vulnerable to the effects of oxytocin. This is why it's easier for men to have sex without any emotional attachment.

 

That may be true, but I think its effects are often overstated. Men benefit from oxytocin as well --- a great deal, studies show! Also, testosterone and oxytocin have inverse effects, but they weaken each other. There are studies that show oxytocin weakens testosterone, actually, and generally it's thought that rather than one "weakening" the other (i.e. one being "stronger"). . . it's simply an inverse reaction. The thing about women is that they REQUIRE higher levels of oxytocin to maintain chemical happiness and, in our current societies, often look for romantic partners to provide them with their boost.

 

However, oxytocin is a social chemical that is NOT limited to romance. Whenever you vent to a GF or your Mom and feel better? You probably got an oxytocin boost. Whenever you hug a kid or a dog? Total oxytocin boost. There are tons of situations where we get boosts (albeit smaller than the ones seen in sex or childbirth----childbirth gives one a HUGE boost, which is where the "maternal instinct" supposedly comes from, yet most Moms who have C-Sections still love their kids despite not getting that "bonding boost.") that aren't covered by romance. And seeking to get all of your oxytocin from your partner is a bad way to go! Women who don't do that, and have other outlets for it, may theoretically have an easier time not getting attached through sex or being needy in romance in general. Studies don't quite go to making this link, but it's mostly because it's not really studied, I think.

[Cypress25]

Men benefit from oxytocin as well --- a great deal, studies show!

 

Men definitely benefit from oxytocin, but in a different way. It makes them happy and relaxed, but doesn't necessarily cause feelings of attachment. In women, it's the bonding hormone. In men, it's more like the contentment hormone. Explains why many women like to cuddle or talk after sex.

[bluenightowl]

That may be true, but I think its effects are often overstated. Men benefit from oxytocin as well --- a great deal, studies show! Also, testosterone and oxytocin have inverse effects, but they weaken each other. There are studies that show oxytocin weakens testosterone, actually, and generally it's thought that rather than one "weakening" the other (i.e. one being "stronger"). . . it's simply an inverse reaction. The thing about women is that they REQUIRE higher levels of oxytocin to maintain chemical happiness and, in our current societies, often look for romantic partners to provide them with their boost.

 

However, oxytocin is a social chemical that is NOT limited to romance. Whenever you vent to a GF or your Mom and feel better? You probably got an oxytocin boost. Whenever you hug a kid or a dog? Total oxytocin boost. There are tons of situations where we get boosts (albeit smaller than the ones seen in sex or childbirth----childbirth gives one a HUGE boost, which is where the "maternal instinct" supposedly comes from, yet most Moms who have C-Sections still love their kids despite not getting that "bonding boost.") that aren't covered by romance. And seeking to get all of your oxytocin from your partner is a bad way to go! Women who don't do that, and have other outlets for it, may theoretically have an easier time not getting attached through sex or being needy in romance in general. Studies don't quite go to making this link, but it's mostly because it's not really studied, I think.

 

Good points. I read something as well that says men also benefit from oxytocin. I see this oxytocin point being made a lot to explain female attachment after sex, but some of new research say things similar to what Zengirl has posted and that much more research needs to be done. As well oxytocin is not the only chemical in play. There are others apparently as well. For men I know going to the gym boosts testosterone, while alcohol kills it.

[ThsAmericanLife]

I don't think casual relationships started with lies or walls. Some people are just more impulsive by nature, and as long as it's not to an extreme degree, that's not always bad. I know people who have had sex very early, and it became marriages. But in both cases, those people were BOTH escalating at the same pace, naturally, across all fields. And the folks I know in those relationships also had plenty of sex with people who didn't work out---sometimes they had drama from it, sometimes they didn't (that depended on whether they were the ones who broke it off or not).

 

I don't think it hinders emotional depth perse. The issue is. . . well, most people I go on 4 dates with won't be longterm potential forever partner material. They just won't. So, if I sleep with people that fast, odds are I'm sleeping with people who are nowhere near what I want long-term. If a person is okay with that and wants to have sex for the sake of having sex with that person, I don't think that necessarily requires lies or walls. It's just a different mindset.

 

For me, I'd rather only have sex with someone I believe I can have a real, full relationship with, so that's why I wait. But I don't think there's anything wrong with the "Let's just see what happens" crowd so long as they really are fine with ANY of the potential outcomes.

 

I respect your desire to make all choices equal.. but I really don't think they are...

 

All of the people that I've met who are doing 'casual' are having sex with and dating multiple people. I've yet to meet a single one who was totally honest with the others. They are fibbing about their whereabouts so they can keep from 'hurting' the other and/or keep the juggling going.

 

It is a fear of confrontation... which, if they actually were brave enough to do, would either bring intimacy, or bring an end to the no responsibility 'fun' that allows these situations to continue.

 

It is usually just something neither talks about... which is what I mean about lack of emotional depth...

 

I think people who can or prefer having lots of casual sex DO have bonding issues... by definition. If they routinely share their bodies with others in a casual way, then they can't bond, or are having a very difficult time of it.

 

Think about all the threads here from people who are having casual sex and say they feel nothing. Maybe they don't have to intentionally build walls... the walls are already there. And casual sex allows them to keep those walls high because the other person can be objectified and de-humanized as long as possible.

[zengirl]

I respect your desire to make all choices equal.. but I really don't think they are...

 

All of the people that I've met who are doing 'casual' are having sex with and dating multiple people. I've yet to meet a single one who was totally honest with the others. They are fibbing about their whereabouts so they can keep from 'hurting' the other and/or keep the juggling going.

 

It is a fear of confrontation... which, if they actually were brave enough to do, would either bring intimacy, or bring an end to the no responsibility 'fun' that allows these situations to continue.

 

It is usually just something neither talks about... which is what I mean about lack of emotional depth...

 

I think people who can or prefer having lots of casual sex DO have bonding issues... by definition. If they routinely share their bodies with others in a casual way, then they can't bond, or are having a very difficult time of it.

 

Think about all the threads here from people who are having casual sex and say they feel nothing. Maybe they don't have to intentionally build walls... the walls are already there. And casual sex allows them to keep those walls high because the other person can be objectified and de-humanized as long as possible.

 

I think there are more types of sex than the way I do it and casual with many, many people. Plenty of people have casual sex with one person at a time. They do all kinds of things. Some lie, and some don't. I do agree that lying or such creates poor starts, but I just don't think lying is always involved.

 

As to casual sex and emotional "numbing," I think that's true to a degree in many cases, but it depends on a variety of factors. If the sex is objectifying or dehumanizing people, I absolutely agree it's unhealthy. Not ALL casual sex is that way, from my observation. I'm certainly no expert on the issue, though.

[ThsAmericanLife]

There is a biological component to it. The hormone oxytocin is released during sex. It's known as the "bonding hormone" because it causes feelings of emotional attachment. This is the same hormone that is released during childbirth, which is why women feel an instant bond to their baby. It's also why women will always love their children, even if their kids turn out to be total hellions. It's not just humans; all female mammals release oxytocin when they have babies. Even rats exhibit a maternal instinct because of it.

 

During sex, oxytocin is released in men and women. But in the presence of estrogen, oxytocin becomes much stronger and causes feelings of attachment and bonding. In the presence of testosterone, oxytocin becomes weaker. Thus, women are more vulnerable to the effects of oxytocin. This is why it's easier for men to have sex without any emotional attachment.

 

 

 

Men certainly can get attached to their sexual partners. But they don't have to. Some men have higher than average levels of estrogen, which can make them more vulnerable to the effects of oxytocin, and some men just have a personality that fosters bonding and attachment (and perhaps dependence). Some men are more sensitive than others.

 

 

 

This is rare but not unheard of with women. There are also some women who drown their kids in the bathtub, despite their biological maternal instinct. Biology is not destiny. Some women have higher than average levels of testosterone, but personality plays a role too. Your personality is probably such that you can easily detach from any emotion if you want to. Some people care very deeply and some people don't care about anything. There's a whole spectrum in between those extremes (most people are somewhere in the middle).

 

Personally, I'm glad that sex is an emotional experience for me. I don't envy anyone who can separate sex and emotion. It's fine if it makes them happy, but I wouldn't want it for myself. I don't see it as a special talent or an ability, but a lot of people talk about it that way. As if being "capable" of separating sex and emotion gives them some sort of advantage. It's not something you're capable of or incapable of, it's just who you are. Another word for it is "apathy" or "indifference." It's not good or bad, it just is. I would never strive to be apathetic or indifferent though; I don't think it would give me an advantage.

 

I'm glad you said biology isn't destiny. Because I really get tired of the gender stereotypes.

[ThsAmericanLife]

I think there are more types of sex than the way I do it and casual with many, many people. Plenty of people have casual sex with one person at a time. They do all kinds of things. Some lie, and some don't. I do agree that lying or such creates poor starts, but I just don't think lying is always involved.

 

As to casual sex and emotional "numbing," I think that's true to a degree in many cases, but it depends on a variety of factors. If the sex is objectifying or dehumanizing people, I absolutely agree it's unhealthy. Not ALL casual sex is that way, from my observation. I'm certainly no expert on the issue, though.

 

It is kind of a chicken or egg question... does casual sex bring emotional numbing or does emotional numbing lead to a preference for casual sex?

 

I see them going hand in hand. Often, there was some trauma in their life that made it difficult for them to open up, but they are horny, so casual sex is all they can manage.

 

What is saddest is the people who truly want intimacy... and keep going down the casual sex path to get SOME kind of connection... no matter how brief.

[bluenightowl]

I respect your desire to make all choices equal.. but I really don't think they are...

 

All of the people that I've met who are doing 'casual' are having sex with and dating multiple people. I've yet to meet a single one who was totally honest with the others. They are fibbing about their whereabouts so they can keep from 'hurting' the other and/or keep the juggling going.

 

It is a fear of confrontation... which, if they actually were brave enough to do, would either bring intimacy, or bring an end to the no responsibility 'fun' that allows these situations to continue.

 

It is usually just something neither talks about... which is what I mean about lack of emotional depth...

 

I think people who can or prefer having lots of casual sex DO have bonding issues... by definition. If they routinely share their bodies with others in a casual way, then they can't bond, or are having a very difficult time of it.

 

Think about all the threads here from people who are having casual sex and say they feel nothing. Maybe they don't have to intentionally build walls... the walls are already there. And casual sex allows them to keep those walls high because the other person can be objectified and de-humanized as long as possible.

 

I've found the only woman I've come across that are into casual relationships are on the rebound or out of a LTR and have big emotional walls around them. They want casual sex as well with different men. Were they honest? No. Were they good people. I think yes, but just hurting.

[Cypress25]

I'm glad you said biology isn't destiny. Because I really get tired of the gender stereotypes.

 

So do I. I'm a woman who doesn't want kids. You can imagine the gender stereotypes that get thrown my way. Apparently, all women are biologically hardwired to want kids and I'm some sort of freak. The truth is, most women are biologically hardwired to want kids, but some women are not.

 

Most women are biologically hardwired to develop emotional attachment after sex, but some women are not. Most men are biologically hardwired to fall asleep right after sex, but some men are not. I dated one guy who talked for hours after sex! I couldn't get him to shut up and let me sleep. There are exceptions to every rule.

 

But I do think people need to stop being ashamed of their biological makeup. Like if a woman has PMS, men see it as a personality flaw. They think she must be emotional and erratic all the time, and if she wasn't so girly and irrational, then she wouldn't get PMS. Women are made to feel ashamed of it. But of course, PMS has nothing to do with your personality, and it's not an indication that you're immature or hysterical. It's just an indication that you're female. One of the unlucky ones, because not all women experience PMS either.

 

So if you do get attached to your sexual partner, it's OK. It's not a bad thing and it's nothing to be ashamed of. It doesn't mean you're needy or emotional or irrational. Your body is just doing its thing. That, and there probably is a genuine emotional connection between you and your partner. Men have emotions too and sometimes they even have strong feelings for their partner.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Men benefit from oxytocin as well --- a great deal, studies show! Also, testosterone and oxytocin have inverse effects, but they weaken each other. There are studies that show oxytocin weakens testosterone, actually, and generally it's thought that rather than one "weakening" the other (i.e. one being "stronger"). . . it's simply an inverse reaction. The thing about women is that they REQUIRE higher levels of oxytocin to maintain chemical happiness and, in our current societies, often look for romantic partners to provide them with their boost.

 

 

 

Things would be so much simpler if our bodies released oxycodone when we had sex.

[ThsAmericanLife]

So do I. I'm a woman who doesn't want kids. You can imagine the gender stereotypes that get thrown my way. Apparently, all women are biologically hardwired to want kids and I'm some sort of freak. The truth is, most women are biologically hardwired to want kids, but some women are not.

 

Most women are biologically hardwired to develop emotional attachment after sex, but some women are not. Most men are biologically hardwired to fall asleep right after sex, but some men are not. I dated one guy who talked for hours after sex! I couldn't get him to shut up and let me sleep. There are exceptions to every rule.

 

But I do think people need to stop being ashamed of their biological makeup. Like if a woman has PMS, men see it as a personality flaw. They think she must be emotional and erratic all the time, and if she wasn't so girly and irrational, then she wouldn't get PMS. Women are made to feel ashamed of it. But of course, PMS has nothing to do with your personality, and it's not an indication that you're immature or hysterical. It's just an indication that you're female. One of the unlucky ones, because not all women experience PMS either.

 

So if you do get attached to your sexual partner, it's OK. It's not a bad thing and it's nothing to be ashamed of. It doesn't mean you're needy or emotional or irrational. Your body is just doing its thing. That, and there probably is a genuine emotional connection between you and your partner. Men have emotions too and sometimes they even have strong feelings for their partner.

 

Thanks for elaborating more...

 

I lived in the Deep South for too many years, so yea, this one area hits a nerve with me. Going from SoCal to Deep So was quite the culture shock. Combined with the midwestern pragmatism provided by my dad's side of the family... and you got me and my sis.

 

In the Deep South, they have VERY strong ideas of what it is to be feminine or masculine. And I hated it.

[zengirl]

The truth is, most women are biologically hardwired to want kids, but some women are not.

 

Technically, men are actually more hardwired to want kids. The desire to have kids is actually (biologically and from an evolutionary perspective) likely much more complex in women----you have two evolutionary forces (safety of the self and propagation of the species) duking it out in the female gene code, whereas males have the straightforward propagation thing going. This is the theory behind why men theoretically are "genetically hardwired" to sleep around (actually not true, at least not in a simple way, so far as *I* can tell by studying evolution and anthropology; there are a variety of contradicting views and research studies on this). Actually, part of how female socialization towards sex --- the repression --- arose may be evolutionary and biological; there is (more was, really) a real risk with pregnancy of death. Except in modern times, childbirth was a HUGE cause of death. So, I think the issue is actually rather muddied, biologically. Clearly, all creatures are biologically hardwired to want to produce offspring to a degree, though, but that's males and females.

 

Most women are biologically hardwired to develop emotional attachment after sex, but some women are not. Most men are biologically hardwired to fall asleep right after sex, but some men are not. I dated one guy who talked for hours after sex! I couldn't get him to shut up and let me sleep. There are exceptions to every rule.

 

These two particular rules are also more complex than you're making them, due to the means of which the chemicals actually work. It's all very interesting.

 

But I do think people need to stop being ashamed of their biological makeup. Like if a woman has PMS, men see it as a personality flaw. They think she must be emotional and erratic all the time, and if she wasn't so girly and irrational, then she wouldn't get PMS. Women are made to feel ashamed of it. But of course, PMS has nothing to do with your personality, and it's not an indication that you're immature or hysterical. It's just an indication that you're female. One of the unlucky ones, because not all women experience PMS either.

 

Eh. . . depends on what you mean by PMS, but yes. There are a myriad of ways you can regulate PMS and many of them are behavioral. There are also a myriad of ways you can choose to express what you feel, whatever it is. PMS is not a mental illness or anything so extreme that you cannot control how it is expressed. If PMS triggers an actual mental illness (never heard of that), it should be medicated if the behavior cannot be managed any other way. Personally, I hold ALL people responsible for their individual behaviors.

 

So if you do get attached to your sexual partner, it's OK. It's not a bad thing and it's nothing to be ashamed of. It doesn't mean you're needy or emotional or irrational.

 

Well, I would say there's more likely to be something wrong with you if you're not attached to your sexual partner, but that's just my view of things. However, thinking of it as a biological reflex seems limiting to me. At any rate, no one is ever REALLY wrong for feeling (or not feeling) anything. "Wrong" only factors into how we express those feelings. But pretending the biological rules are so clear-cut is more the thing of Cosmopolitan magazine than reality.

[bluenightowl]

Well, I would say there's more likely to be something wrong with you if you're not attached to your sexual partner, but that's just my view of things.

 

Yes, I tend to think this as well, esp. woman. I'm not so sure about men.

 

At the most basic level getting together with someone is about reproduction and the attachments to each other are about protecting the offspring. I think people who can detach, have adapted because of their own social situations which make it preferable to them.

 

People who have these emotional walls because they have been betrayed, have rightly changed their behaviour to not to repeat the experience. Others might be trying to optimize the best candidate they can get and so reject the emotional attachments in favour of finding the bigger better deal.

 

From my own experience if you get together with someone sexually and they are detached and wanting to date other people, I would guess your chances at a solid LTR are very very low. If I was a woman dating a man and was having sex with him, and he said he needed to date other people still, to me its not only a deal breaker, but it showing he's not attached to you. I've heard all this discussion about giving people time to decide what they want. I think at some level this is true, but if you get sexual early and they are detached about it, I would not think any amount of hanging around will change the situation.